György Ligeti’s Pour Irina is a piece for solo piano composed between the years 1996 and 1997 as part of his Third Book of Etudes (a collection of 18 etudes for solo piano). While observing the suggestive manuscript wrote by Ligeti himself it is possible to notice how the composer disregarded what could be defined as standardized “idiomatic writing” since the beginning of the piece. In comparison to other composers from the 20th Century who did conform to the conventional notation of their time (such as Igor Stravinsky, Arnold Schoenberg, Aaron Copland, etc.) Ligeti’s approach towards composing and notating, as well as the visual presentation of his scores, is rather unique.
The intentionally unorthodox employment of specific musical elements (such as the absence of a time signature and traditional bar-lines, the excessively stretched length of each musical phrase, the prominently static rhythmic figures which prevail during the entire piece as well as a key signature which, interestingly, does not seem to be related to any key in particular) establishes a peculiar and distinct sense of dissent towards the canons of the composer’s time; nonetheless Ligeti’s own aesthetic peculiarity and musical outcome are not completely detached from both his predecessors and his contemporaries.
Ligeti’s “revolutionary” non-idiomatic notation in Pour Irina is also rather meaningful, for instance the strategic placement of bar-lines seems to clearly indicate the macro-sections within the piece itself (which are two and could be identified as A and B).
This etude’s structure is quite similar to the first etude of the Third Book named “White on White” (similarly both have two macro-sections of contrasting character, A and B, in which A introduces the listener to the main thematic elements within the piece in a slower tempo and B is characterized by more complex rhythmic and melodic developments of such elements which are usually presented in a faster tempo). It is possible to draw a comparison between Pour Irina’s hybrid form and the “theme and variations” form as both seem to have similar functions, furthermore the first one gained particular popularity amongst modernist and post-modernist composers during the 20th Century (for instance Aaron Copland’s Piano Variations or Oliver Knussen’s Variations for piano are pieces which follow a similar development in their macro-structure but certainly differ in terms of content) and therefore it is possible to assume that Ligeti could have been influenced, to a certain degree, by such musical form when composing some of his etudes.
Pour Irina's opening theme is a small melodic cell containing 6 descending pitches [either (1, 0, 10, 6, 5, 3) or (1, 0, -2, -6, -7, -9)], all of which are constantly present throughout the piece. This pattern is partially relatable to and rather reminiscent of the Japanese scale [0, 1, 5, 7, 8, 12] beginning on F {for practical purposes the pitch collection [0, 1, 5, 7, 8, 12] will be referred to as "Japanese Scale" (set class) given its prominent implications with Japanese traditional music. In the Japanese traditional music realm this set class is also known as the In scaleor Miyako-bushi scale}, with the exception of Eb (10), the minor 7th, which does not belong to the scale but it is employed by Ligeti regardless.
The only pitch avoided by Ligeti until the very end of the A sectionis A natural (4) which, if employed since the beginning, would have made the melodic fabric of the piece more immediately relatable to the F Jewish scale [0, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12] {for practical purposes the pitch collection [0, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12] will be referred to as "Jewish Scale" (set class) given its prominent implications with Jewish traditional music. In the Jewish traditional music realm this set class is also known as the Ahavah Rabbah or Freygish (Phrygian dominant) scale} and also reminiscent of Jewish and Western sonorities (given the importance of the 3rd in establishing any sort of secure tonal center within the Jewish and Western musical traditions). This musical unit in its complete state (as a defined set class), despite being subject to countless and subtle transformations throughout the course of the piece’s development, seems to represent both the essence of this piece and also, supposedly, a statement of Ligeti’s own cultural identity as he himself was part of the Hungarian Jewish community. Furthermore it contains the same quasi-octatonic (Superlocrian double-flat 7th) material as Aaron Copland’s Piano Variations.
Interestingly enough the appearance of A natural at the end of the A section seems to be the defining element which leads into the B section, in which both A natural and A flat are employed. This creates a temporarily ambiguous scenario in which the components of both Bb minor and the F Jewish scale coexists, sharing the same musical space.
The key signature at the beginning of the B section seems to suggest Bb minor, although in the end it is but a non-functional key signature (achieving a similar role as the key signature in the A section) which is disregarded by the composer right after (when the “Allegro con moto, legato ma leggiero” turns into “Più mosso”) and then omitted (when “Più mosso” becomes “Ancora più mosso”). Interestingly enough the final tempo of Pour Irina seems to be the same as the beginning of its consecutive etude named À bout de souffle. Such phenomenon, which is a product of the relationship of tempi between those two pieces, creates a false sense of continuity and when listening to both pieces without a score it can deceptively lead the listener to believe that both pieces are in fact one.
In developing the harmonic material of Pour Irina (certainly through using an approach which is not necessarily related to standard tonal practices) György Ligeti seems to utilize a wide palette of contrasting sonorities, in which intervals such as seconds and sevenths as well as fourths and fifths are rather prominent and all of which are directly relatable to each other by inversion. Thirds appear only at the end of the A section where they seem to contribute towards the overall development of a temporary resolution alongside with a slower tempo (suggested by the tempo marking “pochissimo allargando”) and further established by the few progressively larger note values presented right before the first encounter with a bar-line, the only one in the entire A section.
Regarding the piece’s rhythmic content and the general structure of the given musical phrases both main sections, previously identified as A and B, present distinct characters: the predominantly legato/slurred phrases, the quasi-perpetual mono-rhythmic motions (almost reminiscent of a slow moto perpetuo of some sort) uniquely combined with what could be considered to be the absolute absence of a steady rhythmic pulse of any kind (except for the effect produced by certain interpretative choices often taken by the performer, as if there were agogic accents of some sort in that first section, which are further supported and, perhaps, justified by the given indication/marking dictated by the composer himself at the beginning of the piece which states “Andante con espressione, rubato, molto legato”) as well as the lack of rhythmic accents seem to be the most prominent and relevant rhythmic and melodic features of the A section while the underlying, principal characteristics in the B section are rather contrasting to the ones previously listed. In fact the B section presents a much faster tempo (in comparison to the first half of the piece), a series of heavily accented notes (often either an entire dyad, triad or chord), an extremely varied dynamic range (characterized by multiple dynamic changes, a series of crescendi and one last “diminuendo al niente” right at the end of the piece) which also reaches its climax towards the end of the piece through maintaining the same speed and without slowing down (senza rallentando).
Furthermore the rhythmic ideas within this entire section (B) seem to be the starting point from which Ligeti developed his following piece in the Third Book of Etudes, as in such a piece (the title of which is À bout de souffle) Ligeti himself further explored the effects produced by the displacement of rhythmic accents (both in terms of rhythmic variety and sonic implications when employing a certain interplay between different rhythmically-accented notes within two different registers, as if he was trying to reproduce a binaural effect of some sort throughout the displacement of rhythmic accents and, at the same time, taking advantage of the distance between different “pitch altitudes” across the keyboard and their acoustic differences).
Both contrast and dualism are recurrent thematics in Ligeti’s own musical writing although most of his pieces do not share the same characteristics and compositional techniques of other etude-like piano pieces from other composers who lived during his time, for instance two amongst the most common compositional techniques employed by composers of his time (such as Aaron Copland or Arnold Schoenberg) were the octave displacement and the rhythmic displacement of the melodic material, both of which have not been employed during the development of Pour Irina. Arguably one of the very few composers whose work can be somehow directly related to Ligeti’s own work, either through the use of similar compositional techniques, through the employment of similar musical concepts or the development of both relatable patterns and soundscapes, is the American composer Conlon Nancarrow and his collection of Studies for Player Piano.
Admittedly Ligeti himself publicly declared his admiration for Nancarrow’s own accomplishments which were achieved within the American composer’s works and therefore it is not to exclude the possibility that Ligeti’s Etudes were directly influenced by Nancarrow’s Studies,although the main difference between those two set of Etudes is their purpose and actual playability since most of Ligeti’s Etudes, despite of the variety of challenges they present and regardless of being technically demanding, have been performed and are perfectly playable while Nancarrow’s Studies were written to be performed exclusively by a machine, a Player Piano, and to be sonically and conceptually stimulating.
In conclusion what Ligeti achieved with his Etude Pour Irina through favoring relative simplicity (thanks to the mostly mono-rhythmic writing, as a result of the effective and subtle melodic developments, throughout the use of determinate intervals relatable by inversion and also due to the absence of common and predictable compositional techniques, employed by most modernist and post-modernist composers, such as octave displacement or rhythmic displacement), which is also included in its composed form, (containing only two main sections A and B,both of which are rich in contrast and can be related to the theme and variation form) together with an elegant demonstration of how non-idiomatic writing can be employed to serve the composer, the performer and the music as functionally as the commonly “standardized” idiomatic writing is still both an inspiration for the contemporary composers and a clear example of how Ligeti’s original and unconventional idiosyncratic approaches and compositional framework can be relevant to the contemporary music composition field.
Copyright © 2018 Riccardo Maira. All Rights Reserved.
No part of the content of this publication or any publication published by Riccardo Maira shall be stored, copied, recreated, republished, or transported. Prior written permission by Riccardo Maira is required for any use of this publication. The name of Riccardo Maira as the author must therefore be stated in association with any use of the publication or any part of it. Any derogatory treatment of this publication is illegal. No arrangement or adaptation of this publication may be made without the prior written permission of the author.