Berio's Sequenzas
Essays on Performance, Composition and Analysis. Ed. by Janet K. Halfyard
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10654262 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Arnold Whittall (King's College London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 89 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 677-679 |
| Publication date | 2008-11-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Music and Letters (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0027-4224 • E-ISSN: 1477-4631 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/ml/gcn031 |
| OpenAlex | W1607725764 |
| Language | EN |
Between 1958 and 2002, Berio wrote fourteen relatively short works, each called Sequenza. As a collection of pieces for single instruments, or single instruments in combination with other sound sources, they provide a temptingly concise repertory of materials for musicologists eager to pin down the essence of Berio's compositional thought, as it evolved over time, and which is so dauntingly complex and elusive in his major orchestral and dramatic works. So it is no surprise that the first major English-language publication on Berio since his death in 2003 should focus on the sequence of Sequenze. It might be thought appropriate that the diverse nature of the pieces should be reflected in the book's multi-author format, as well as in the varied if not actually contradictory approaches they adopt. The symposium format has familiar, endemic drawbacks, especially when contributors are not given the chance to study the other essays before finalizing their own. Impractical though such interaction is for publishers, raising as it does the prospect of an infinitely regressing series of cross-references and amendments, they might expect the volume's editor to mediate, pointing out clashes and anomalies to authors, and ensuring that duplication between the different essays is kept down to what seems unavoidable and constructive. It's not possible to be sure whether or not Janet Halfyard saw her role in this light—there could have been more overlapping repetitions than remain—and her comment in the Foreword that discussion of certain Sequenze is missing because of ‘the simple fact that no proposals were made regarding these pieces’ (p. xxi) doesn't make clear whether she actively solicited such contributions or not. But completeness for its own sake is not an inevitable virtue in any case: better to have wide-ranging coverage of a representative cross-section than a superficial survey of all fourteen.
Art · Composition (language) · Constructive · Creativity · Epistemology · Focus (optics) · Literature · Originality · Simple (philosophy) · Surprise · Visual arts · Communication · Computer Science · History · Musicology and Musical Analysis · Philosophy · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|