Final Phase: Domain Part

I began work on the D part after the materials of the computer images had been prepared, but not yet spatialized and assembled. Given the very considerable differences between the objective designs for S and for D, it was important to maintain a continuing awareness of the already completed S part to ensure that the parallel traversal intended in D was actually fulfilled. It occurred to me that proceeding with D on the basis of precisely the same metrical and page layout as had been used in S would be convenient, challenging, and, from the perspective of psychologists and analysts, potentially useful. Developing the overall plan in which the asymmetrical "wings" spreading out on either side of each theme's core element revealed that some elements in the S version would not be required in D. In effect, the extended and overlapping realizations of the Domain themes obviated the need for the TR1?3 element composed for the Sectional part. But the Combination ideal (COMB2/4) remained intact.

An examination of Ex. 50 reveals that Theme 1 is necessarily asymmetric, with only one 23.5-second subsection preceding the almost literal repetition of the core (now in solo piano), but four that follow it in expanding size: 15, 23, 32.5, and 67 seconds. T1a is derived from the materials of the first two S subsections, recast so as to have a more fluid, less motivically driven character. (The musical purposes here are to begin the part and to economically prepare for and seamlessly flow into the first core element.) Those subsections that follow the core, gradually lengthening and lessening the influence, the assertive character, of Theme 1 are derived, successively from T1.6, T1.7, T1.8, and T1.9, so that all aspects of the second half of the S version of Theme 1 are in some way represented. The core element of Theme 2 is bracketed by two preceding and three following subsections, again altering in size according to custom-determined logarithmic proportions.

Whereas, in S, the gesturally dramatic close of Theme 1 occurred just before being suddenly replaced by the second theme (at m. 36), in D, the influence of Theme 1's concluding gestures is not heard until m. 83. It is not evident to the ear, in fact, that m. 36 marks a division of any sort, since the character of both the first and second themes has been muted by trills, iterations, and the ostinatic extension of harmonic entities. There is no musical need for a transition because an interweaving of aspects of these two themes is already a necessary outcome of the winged design in D. Of course, Theme 3 will not arrive with delimited freshness as it did at m. 93 of S. Its character has been in play over four associated subsections of the third core element beginning only shortly after Theme 2's core, just at the point where, in S, the strongly characterized Theme 2 ends, giving way to TR1 to 3.

The diagrams in Ex. 50 show the pattern of referencing used as the materials of the Sectional versions of the themes were recast for D. They are always referenced serially (that is, in the same order they originally appeared), but sometimes not all the original S materials are included, and, occasionally, the same source-segment is referenced (differently) for more than one new Domain subsection¹⁵.

The inner temporal organization of COMB2/4 is symmetrical: the T2 layer has sections 28.5 seconds in length flanking a central one that is 14.5 seconds long, and the T4 layer reads, from beginning to end, 21.5, 11, 5.5, 5.5, 11. 21.5.) the referenced content is still chronological with T2.1, T2.4, and T2.7 in the leading layer and T4.1, T4.2, T4.3, T4.5, and T4.7 in the trailing layer. Although an effort is made to use each Domain subsection only as a guide to material referencing — avoiding striking texture changes as boundaries are passed — there is always a significant change (frequently more harmonic than textural). The influence, the palpable presence of an S thematic musical idea does, indeed, lessen as one gets further out from the cores. This is, in part due to the fact that an inevitable augmentation occurs, either true in the sense that a given idea will be exposed over a longer period of time, or circumstantial in the sense that rhythmic relationships themselves will become more broadly paced.

If one examines boundary points, one sees immediately the different spirit of D as compared with S. At the last beat of measure 87, in S, COMB2/4 enters suddenly, and assertively with 11 members of the ensemble participating, whereas the identical moment in D features a very slightly emphasized descending scalar passage from Theme 4 in the piano layer. One notices this entrance as a result of its character differences from the music that preceded it, but it does not at all interrupt the flow of the music. Also, the fluid, tremulous nature of the passages on either side of the Theme 3 core element (at m. 96) guarantee that this element (shared between S and D) has a slightly heightened focus in the fabric of a music that flows through it unbroken.

The first moment in D to receive unambiguous structural emphasis is the 11-second silence preceding the onset of Other. Because of the edge-oriented nature of S, COMB2/4 ends with an intense, iterative barrage from the percussion in this half of the piece. There is no question that something has ended. The parallel passage in D is dominated by a recasting of the cadential subsection of S's Theme 3 (in D's final Theme 3 subsection of 27.5 second length). The D passage is also cadential, but in a different, milder spirit. In both versions, the listener is prepared both for the silence and the contrast Other will represent to what has preceded. Appropriately for the Domain ideal, however, the spirit of Other follows on after the end of COMB2/4 with a less dramatic contrast.

Further adaptations were made in the design of the post-Other music for D as a result of the exchange of roles, and the fact, noted above, that the solo piano carries the burden of TR2 to 4 (cf. the ensemble "support" between 432.5 and 484.5 [see also Ex 50]). A more dramatic exploration of D's version of Theme 5 occurs because the entry into its core element is made by the solo piano. The exit (its last 9-second subsection in D) is assumed by the full ensemble. Otherwise, the patterns already indicated continue, and the referencing utilized can be traced on the basis of Ex. 50.

Naturally, there was continuing thought about how the now extant computer images would interact with the new versions of thematic material and other elements in the overall plan for the Domain ideal. As a general rule, the computer materials' coexistence with S was more problematic because of its more articulate nature. The spirit of D already included a sense of organic integration, and seemed more accepting of a collaborative factor. The primary thing to be noted about the computer's presence was the possibility that it would be disruptive to the altered character of the music in D. This was, in the event, handled primarily by adjustments in the playback levels of the computer part during performance¹⁶.

When I had completed the adaptation of Theme 5 into Domain terms, I decided that, because of the strong and extended linear arrival manifested in TR2 to 4 (intensified because it is realized as an integrated passage for solo piano), I did not then want to venture into a necessarily murky passage (the interweaving of three of the five themes). I decided not to prepare for the extended final theme with a COMB1/2/3 element. The evident solution, admittedly at odds with the Domain ideal and, in fact the whole enterprise of the intended psychological testing, was to rescore the cyclical, ostinatic passage ("Repetitive Strata") already decided upon at the same point in the Sectional part. This compounded compromise ensures that the Domain ideal is less fully realized than the Sectional one, partly because it was done second, partially because of its inherent character, and partially because of the dramaturgical considerations already cited in the discussion of the composition of the Sectional part. By and large, however, it appears to me that the initial boundary conditions, resources, and strategic planning were both fundamental to the realization of this piece, and followed closely. It is not surprising that the majority of the adaptations and compromises came in the latter portions of the S realizations — the D part, and its later phases. It is often remarked by composers that, once well under way, a musical composition begins to "tell you what it wants". Less melodramatically, the series of decisions that one has made lead more and more to the establishment of instantiated normatives that one resists disturbing. It is less that the work tells you what it needs, than that it stands as a record of commitment to which one needs to pay heed.