25

Boulez: Structures Recomposed

In [19], Pierre Boulez describes a compositional strategy called analyse créatri-

ce, creative analysis, which is opposed to what he calls “sterile academic” anal-
ysis in that the analytical results are used as germs to create new compositions.
Before discussing Boulez’s ideas in detail, we should stress that his procedure
transcends the purely analytical or compositional activities: He proposes a co-
herent double activity that includes both analysis and composition. This means
that our own discourse in this chapter will deal with both, analysis and com-
position, the latter more specifically realized by use of the music composition
software RUBATO! [75].

25.1 Boulez’s Idea of a Creative Analysis

Let us explain the practical consequences of Boulez’s strategy for the analyt-
ical and compositional efforts1 . Anne Boissière [15] has given a concise sum-
mary of Boulez’s ideas on creative analysis, which comprise these core items:
The analysis focuses more on the limits of the given composition than on the
historical adequacy. These limits open up what has not been said, what was
omitted or overlooked by that composer. This hermeneutic work is not driven
to deduce a new composition as a special case of what has been recognized
(deduction), nor is it meant to help build the new composition by a passage
from the particular to the general (induction). Referring to Gilbert Simondon’s
philosophical reflections [106], the creative movement consists of the opening
of a topological neighborhood of the given analysis within a space of analytical
parameters. In such a space, analytical structures similar to the given one are
selected and eventually used as germs for the construction of new compositions.
This ‘horizontal’ movement is called “transduction” by Simondon.
In this transduction process, what Boulez calls the composer’s gesture, is
the movement toward the creation of new compositions, which share precisely
1
For a more philosophical discussion of this approach, we refer to [82, ch. 7].

G. Mazzola et al., Musical Creativity, 279

Computational Music Science, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24517-6 25,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
280 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

those analytical structures reflecting the given analysis. More concretely, we

take the analysis of the given work and make a number of “small” value changes
to the analytical parameters. For example, if we have exhibited a set of pitch
inversion symmetries that govern the given work, we may extend that set and
include also time inversion symmetries (retrograde). Or if we have recognized
that the voices of the different instruments are derived by some systematic
procedure, e.g. time expansions (dilations) plus transpositions from a leading
voice, then we may add more instruments and apply the same procedure, e.g.
further time expansions (dilations) plus transpositions to define these added
voices.
This creative gesture—building new works from the transgression of the
analytical structure discovered in the given work—is what Boissière calls a
detonation. It is precisely this act of breaking the given structures and stepping
into unknown neighborhoods that characterizes Boulez’s concept of an open
work.
Boulez’s approach is visibly akin to our concept of creativity. Boulez’s
creative analysis takes the given work as the critical concept in our theory and
then inspects its walls with the analytical efforts. The open work is exactly this
analytical search for walls where the given work might be limited. The creative
act then would consist in the action of opening those walls and stepping to new
compositional paths.
To our knowledge, these ambitious claims have not been backed by con-
crete examples: How should and would such a strategy work in detail? This is
what we have accomplished in a formal (mathematical) setup and on the level
of computer-aided composition and what we want to discuss in this chapter. In
view of Boulez’s poetical text, such an enterprise cannot be more than a first
proposal. But we believe that it could open a fruitful discourse on the role of
creativity in the dialectic between analysis and composition. In this sense, our
approach is not a thesis but a detailed experiment following Boulez’s ideas. It
is, therefore, completely logical to pursue the trajectory to its completion: to
the construction of a full-fledged composition2 .
Our choice of Boulez’s Structures is not random; it relates to the promi-
nent role that this composition has played in the development of serialism. This
is also confirmed by the fact that György Ligeti has published a very careful
analysis of Structures, part Ia. Ligeti’s investigation [67] is neutral and pre-
cise, but it abounds with strong judgments on the work’s compositional and
aesthetic qualities. Therefore, our experimental application of creative anal-
ysis to Structures is not by chance. The very success (or failure) of the se-
rial method has been related to this composition, which was not only one of
Boulez’s sucesses, but also a turning point in his compositional development.
2
It should however be noted that such a creative analysis had been applied in the
case of Beethoven’s op. 106 [71] before we knew about Boulez’s idea. The present
approach is somewhat more dramatic, since we shall now apply Boulez’s idea to
two of his own works, namely Structures [17, 18].
 25.1 Boulez’s Idea of a Creative Analysis 281

In view of Boulez’s principle of creative analysis, when applied to his composi-

tional turning point in the Structures, one is immediately led to the question:
Would it be possible to write a world of new music on the principle of serialism
or was it just a radical experiment without much long-range effect? This is
an important question when taking seriously the idea of creative analysis, and
not only as a recipe for fabricating yet another work. And it is also an impor-
tant question relating to a more systematic and demystifying understanding of
musical creativity using analytical activity.
In our case, the Structures, the Boulezian gesture of opening a work’s
limits is a doubly critical and difficult one: On the one hand, it should help
determine whether the huge calculations that led to the composition are worth
being reused with aesthetic success. On the other hand, the method of seri-
alism also marks the computational limits of humans to compose music. This
latter fact will lead to the question of using music technology and in particular
computers in a creative context.
We must understand here how to integrate computational power into cre-
ative works of music, and on what level of creation this can or should be done.
Boulez’s Structures is an excellent testbed to learn this lesson. It teaches us
that the control of laborious computational processes cannot be systematically
delegated to very limited human calculation power and that there is a life be-
yond strictly human composition. To paraphrase Schoenberg, “Somebody had
to be Boulez.”
Of course, computers are widely used by modern composers, but it is a
common belief that creativity is separated from such procedures; it terminates
when the big ideas are set. And computers are just doing the mean calculations.
Apart from being classically wrong, we shall see that this is not realistic. In
fact, no composer would contest the creative contribution of trying out a new
composition on the piano—playing it on the keys and listening to its acoustical
realization, which may give a strong feedback for the creative dynamics, even on
the gestural level of one’s hands, as is testified by Ligeti and other composers,
see [68]. We have to contradict Marshall McLuhan: The medium is not always
the message. But it gives the message’s germ the necessary mold and resonance
to grow into a full-fledged composition.
Before delving into the technical details, we should address the question
of whether not only computational computer power is necessary or advanta-
geous for modern compositions, but also conceptual mathematical power. Isn’t
musical composition anyway sufficiently controlled by plain combinatorial de-
vices: permutations, recombinations, enumerations, and the like? The question
is in some sense parallel to the question of whether it is sufficient to control a
computer’s behavior on the level of binary chains, or machine language. Or else
the question of whether it is not completely sufficient to perform a composition
for piano by simply controlling the mechanical finger movements and forgetting
about all those psycho-physicological ‘illusions’ such as gestures.
The parallelism lies in the fact that all of these activities are shaped by
high-level concepts that create the coherence of low-level tokens in order to
282 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

express thoughts and not just juxtapose myriad atomic units. Of course can
one write a computer program in machine language, but only after having un-
derstood the high-level architecture of one’s ideas. The artistic performance of
a complex composition only succeeds when it is shaped on the high mental
level of powerful gestures. And the composition of computationally complex
musical works needs comprehensive and structurally powerful concepts. Com-
binatorics is just a machine language of mathematical thinking. We shall see
in the following analysis that it was precisely Ligeti’s combinatorial limitation
that hindered his understanding of the real yoga of Boulez’s creative construc-
tions. You can do combinatorics, but only if you know what is the steering
idea—much as you can write the single notes of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier
Sonata if you know the high-level ideas. The mathematics deployed in the mod-
ern mathematical music theory is precisely the tool for such an enterprise. It
is not by chance that traditional music analysis is so poor for the composition
of advanced music: Its conceptual power is far too weak for precise complex
constructions, let alone for their computer-aided implementation.
This lesson is interesting in the creativity process when it comes to suc-
cessfully inspecting those walls. The critical point in wall inspection is to
recognize walls, but this might be very difficult for many reasons. One rea-
son is that one might stand too close to a wall and not be able to see that
there is a wall exactly where one stands. One then needs tools to recognize
the bigger architecture of the critical concept, to conceive entire walls instead
of staring at an unrecognized surface detail. Higher-level languages are exactly
what is needed to conceive higher architectures of critical concepts in the cre-
ative process. Why is this needed? Because the abstraction provided by higher
languages reduces phenomena to their essential characteristics. Modern math-
ematics are such higher languages; they enable insights into what is essential.
The great mathematician Alexander Grothendieck had exactly this ingenious
capability to construct those powerful abstractions that gave access to solutions
of difficult problems (such as the Weil conjectures or Fermat’s conjecture). If
you want to open a wall, you have to understand where it is fixed and how
it is connected to other parts of that critical concept. We shall now see that
Boulez had exactly this capability to understand the higher architecture of
serial approaches to musical composition to solve some of its basic problems.

25.2 Ligeti’s Analysis

Ligeti’s analysis [67] of Structures Ia exhibits the totality of rows appearing
in this section of the composition. It starts from the given serial rows SP for
pitch classes and SD for durations (the primary parameters), as well as SL for
loudness and SA for attack (the secondary parameters). It then presents and
investigates that central 12 × 12-matrix3 Q = (Qi,j ) which gives rise to all row
3
Ligeti names it R, but we change the symbol since R is reserved for retrograde in
our notation.
 25.3 A First Creative Analysis of Structure Ia from Ligeti’s Perspective 283

permutations for all four parameters. Whereas the construction of Q is rela-

tively natural, the subsequent permutations thereof for the primary parameters
seem to be completely combinatorial, and even more radically those for the sec-
ondary parameters. Ligeti attributes to these constructions the qualification of
combinatorial fetishism4 . This is even worse when it comes to the secondary
parameters, where Boulez applies what Ligeti calls chessboard knight paths,
a procedure that in Ligeti’s understanding qualifies as purely numerical game
without any musical signification.
This (dis)qualification remains valid in Ligeti’s final remarks on the new
ways of hearing, which are enforced by this new compositional technique. He
compares the result to the flashing neon lights of a big city, which, although
being driven by precise machines, generate an overall effect of statistical sound
swarms. He concludes that with this radical elimination of expressivity, still
present in Webern’s compositions, the composition finds its beauty in the
opening of pure structures. And Boulez—we follow Ligeti’s wording—in such
a “nearly obsessive-compulsive neurosis, strains himself at the leash and will
only be freed by his colored sensual feline world of ‘Marteau.’ ”
Ligeti’s main objection to Boulez’s approach is that he makes abstrac-
tion from the parameters and plays an empty game of numbers instead. We
now want to contradict this verdict and show that in the language of modern
mathematics—topos theory to be precise—Boulez’s strategy is perfectly nat-
ural, and in fact, only reasonable when dealing with such diverse parameters
as pitch classes, durations, loudnesses, and attacks. When we say “natural,”
we mean mathematically natural, but the fact that a musical construction
is only understood by advanced mathematical conceptualization, and not by
naive combinatorial music theory, proves that mathematical naturality effec-
tively hits the musical point. This fact will be confirmed later in this chapter
by our ability to implement our findings in the music software Rubato in order
to comply with the creative part of Boulez’s principle. Music theorists have to
learn that from time to time, conceptual innovations may even enlighten their
ossified domains. It is not the music’s fault if they are “dark to themselves”5 .

25.3 A First Creative Analysis of Structure Ia from

Ligeti’s Perspective

We observe right from the beginning that there is no intrinsic reason to transfer
the twelve-pitch-class framework to the other parameters. If the number twelve
is natural in pitch classes, its transfer to other parameters is a tricky business.
How can this be performed without artificial constructs?
4
“. . . schliesslich die Tabellen fetischartig als Mass für Dauernqualitäten angewandt
...”
5
Title of a Cecil Taylor LP.
284 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

To understand Boulez’s procedure, let us first analyze the matrix Q con-

struction. It yields one pitch class row for every row. The ideas run as fol-
lows. We start with a modern interpretation of what is a dodecaphonic pitch
class series SP . Naively speaking, SP is a sequence of twelve pitch classes:
SP = (SP,1 , SP,2 , . . . SP,12 ). More mathematically speaking, it is an affine mor-
phism6 SP : Z11 → Z12 , whose values are determined by the twelve values on
e1 = 0 and the eleven basis vectors ei = (0, . . . 1, . . . 0), i = 2, 3, . . . 12, where
the single 1 stands on position i − 1 of that sequence. This reinterpretation
yields SP,i = SP (ei ). The condition that a series hits all twelve pitch classes
means that the images SP (ei ), SP (ej ) are different for i $= j.
This reinterpretation of a dodecaphonic series means that it is viewed as
a Z -addressed point of the pitch class space Z12 in the language of topos
11

theory of music [78]. This language views the series as a point in the space
Z12 , but just from the perspective of a particular domain, or address, namely
Z11 . In topos theory of music, a space Z12 is replaced by its functor @Z12 ,
which at any given address B, i.e. module over a specific ring, evaluates to
the set B@Z12 of affine module morphisms f : B → Z12 . This means that the
address B is a variable and that our dodecaphonic series is just a point at a
specific address among all possible addresses. In other words, the change of
address is completely natural in this context. What does this mean? Suppose
that we have a module morphism g : C → B between address modules. Then
we obtain a natural map B@Z12 → C@Z12 that maps f : B → Z12 to the
composed arrow f · g : C → Z12 . For example, if we take B = C = Z11 , and if
g(ei ) = e12−i+1 , then the new series SP · g is the retrograde R(SP ) of the
original series.
Our claim is that all of Boulez’s constructions are simply address change
maps and as such follow a very systematic construction. So the combinatoriality
is viewed as a particular technique from topos theory. Of course, Boulez did not
know this, since topos theory was not even invented at that time, and Yoneda’s
lemma, which is the password to all these mathematical constructions, was only
published in 1954, one year after the publication of Structure I. But this makes
his approach even more remarkable; one could even state that in view of this
temporal coincidence, Boulez’s Structures are the Yoneda lemma in music.

25.3.1 Address Change Instead of Parameter Transformations

The trick that enables Boulez to get rid of the unnatural association of different
parameters with the serial setup stemming from pitch classes is this: For any
(invertible) transformation T : Z12 → Z12 , we have a new pitch class series,
namely the composition T · SP . For a transposition T = T n , we get the n-fold
6
An affine morphism f : M → N between modules M, N over a commutative ring R
is by definition the composition f = T t · g of a R-linear homomorphism g : M → N
and a translation T t : N → N : n "→ t + n. Affine morphisms are well known in
music theory, see [78].
 25.3 A First Creative Analysis of Structure Ia from Ligeti’s Perspective 285

transposed series. For an inversion U (x) = u−x, we get the inverted series, etc.
Now, it is evident that one can also obtain this effect by an address change,
more precisely, if T : Z12 → Z12 is any affine transformation, then there is
precisely one address change C(T ) : Z11 → Z11 by a base vector permutation
such that the diagram
C(T )
Z11 −−−−→ Z11
 

SP "
S (25.1)
" P
T
Z12 −−−−→ Z12
commutes. Instead of performing a parameter transformation on the codomain
of the pitch class row, we may perform an address change on the domain Z11 .
Note, however, that the address change C(T ) is also a function of the underlying
series SP .
What is the advantage of such a restatement of transformations? We now
have simulated the parameter-specific transformation on the level of the univer-
sal domain Z11 , which is common to all parameter-specific series. This enables
a transfer of the transformation actions on one parameter space (the pitch
classes in the above case) to all other parameter spaces, just by prepending
for any series the corresponding address change. So we take the transformation
T on Z12 , replace it with the address change C(T ) on Z11 , and then apply
this one to all other series, i.e. building SD · C(T ), SL · C(T ), SA · C(T ). This
means that we now have a completely natural understanding of the derivation
of parameter series from address changes, which act as mediators between pitch
class transformations and transformations on other parameter spaces. This is
the only natural way of carrying over these operations between intrinsically in-
compatible parameter spaces. We replace the spaces by their functors and act
on the common addresses. This is quite the opposite of purely combinatorial
gaming. It is functoriality at its best. For a deeper understanding of Boulez’s
selection of his duration series, referring to Webern’s compositions, please see
[35].

25.3.2 The System of Address Changes for the Primary Parameters

Now, nearly everything in Boulez’s construction of part Ia is canonical. The

most important address change is the matrix Q. It is constructed as follows. Its
ith row Q(i, −) is the base change C(T SP (i)−SP (1) ) associated with the transpo-
sition by the difference of the pitch class series at position i and 1. The natural7
number Q(i, j) in the matrix is therefore Q(i, j) = SP (i) + SP (j) − SP (1), a
symmetrical expression in i and j. Moreover, we now see immediately from the
definition of the operator C in the above commutative diagram that the compo-
sition of two permutations (rows) of the matrix is again such a permutation row;
in fact, the transpositions they represent are the group of all transpositions.
7
We represent elements x ∈ Z12 by natural numbers 0 ≤ x ≤ 11.
286 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

We may now view Q as an address change Q : Z11 ! Z11 → Z11 on the affine
tensor product Z11 ! Z11 , see [78, E.3.3], defined on the affine basis (ei ! ej )
by Q(ei ! ej ) = eQ(i,j) . For any such address change X : Z11 ! Z11 → Z11 , and
any parameter Z series SZ → P aramSpace with values in parameter space
P aramSpace, we obtain twelve series in that space by address change SZ · X of
the series, and then restricted to the ith rows of X, or equivalently, prepending
the address change (!) rowi : Z11 → Z11 ! Z11 defined by rowi (ej ) = ei ! ej .
Given any such address change matrix X : Z11 ! Z11 → Z11 , we therefore
get twelve series in every given parameter space. So we are now dealing with
the construction of specific matrix address changes, and the entire procedure
is settled. The general idea is this: One gives two address changes g, h : Z11 →
Z11 with g(ei ) = eg(i) , h(ei ) = eh(i) and then deduces a canonical address
change g !h : Z11 !Z11 → Z11 !Z11 by the formula g !h(ei !ej ) = eg(i) !eh(j) .
So, when X is given, we obtain a new address change of the same type by
building the composed address change X · g ! h. For example, the retrograde
matrix in Ligeti’s terminology is just the matrix Q · Id ! R deduced from Q
by the address change Id ! R. And Ligeti’s U -matrix is deduced from Q by
U ! U , where U is the address change associated with the inversion at e! , i.e.
it is the composite Q · U ! U .
Now everything is easy: For the first piano, for the primary parameters
pitch class P and duration D, and for parts A and B, Boulez creates one matrix
Q1P,A , Q1D,A , Q1P,B , Q1D,B address change each, all deduced from Q by the above
composition with product address changes TP,A 1
= U ! Id, TD,A
1
=U ·R!U ·
R, TP,B = U · R ! U · R, TD,B = R ! U via
1 1

Q1P,A = Q · TP,A
1
, Q1D,A = Q · TD,A
1
, Q1P,B = Q · TP,B
1
, Q1D,B = Q · TD,B
1
. (25.2)

This is quite systematic, but the second piano is now completely straight-
forward, in fact the product address changes of this instrument differ just by
one single product address change, namely U ! U :
2
TP,A = U ! U · TP,A
1
, (25.3)
2
TD,A = U ! U · TD,A
1
, (25.4)
2
TP,B = U ! U · TP,B
1
, (25.5)
2
TD,B =U !U · 1
TD,B . (25.6)

25.3.3 The System of Address Changes for the Secondary

Parameters

For the secondary parameters, loudness and attack, Boulez takes one such
value per series—deduced from the given series SL , SA —that was derived for
the primary parameters. Intuitively, for each row in one of the above matrixes,
we want to get one loudness and one attack value.
 25.3 A First Creative Analysis of Structure Ia from Ligeti’s Perspective 287

For loudness, we start with the Q matrix address change for piano 1 and
with the U matrix for piano 2. We then take an address change a : Z11 →
Z11 ! Z11 for part A, and another c : Z11 → Z11 ! Z11 for part B. These
address changes are very natural paths in the given matrix. Path a is just the
codiagonal of the matrix, i.e. a(ei ) = e12−i ! ei , while path c is the path shown
in Figure 25.1.

Fig. 25.1. The two paths a, c for loudness, part A and part B, in Ligeti’s Q matrix
for piano 1; same paths in the U matrix for piano 2.

Contradicting Ligeti’s verdict, these paths are by no means arbitrary.

They are both closed paths if one identifies the boundaries of the matrix. Path
a is a closed path on the torus deduced from Q by identifying the horizontal
and vertical boundary lines, respectively. And path c is closed on the sphere
obtained by identifying the adjacent left and upper, and right and lower bound-
ary lines, respectively. The torus structure is completely natural, if one recalls
that pitch classes are identified exactly like the horizontal torus construction,
while the vertical one is a periodicity in time, also a canonical identification.
The sphere construction is obtained by the parameter exchange (diagonal re-
flection!) and the identification of boundary lines induced by this exchange.
For the attack paths, one has a similar construction, only that the paths
a and c are rotated by 90 degrees clockwise and yield paths α and γ. Again,
piano 1 takes its values on Q, while piano 2 takes its values on the U matrix.
So apart from that rotation, everything is the same as for loudness.
Summarizing, we need just one product address change given by the U
transformation for the primary parameters in order to go from piano 1 to
piano 2, while one rotation 90 degrees suffices to switch between the secondary
parameter paths. Observe that this rotation is just the address change on the
matrix space Z11 ! Z11 induced by a retrograde on each factor! It could not be
simpler, and barely more beautiful.
288 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

25.3.4 The First Creative Analysis

A first transduction is now immediate. Of course, there are many ways to shift
from the given analytical data to neighboring data in the space of analyti-
cal data. A first way is obvious, and it is also the one in which we urgently
need to remedy the evident imperfection of the given construction, namely the
number of instruments. Why only two instruments? In order to obtain a more
intrinsically serialist construction, one should not work with two, but with
twelve instruments. This is achieved in the most obvious way: We had seen
that the second piano is derived from the first by taking the U matrix instead
of the Q matrix. This suggests that we may now take twelve address changes
Ui : Z11 → Z11 , starting with the identity Id, and generate one instrumental
variant for each such address change, starting with the structure for the first
piano and then adding variants for each successive instrument.
This yields a total of twelve instruments and for each a succession of
twelve series for part A and twelve series for part B, according to the twelve
rows of the matrix address changes as discussed above. For the ith series, this
gives us twelve instruments playing their row simultaneously. Boulez has, of
course, not realized such a military arrangement of series. We hence propose a
completion of the serial idea in the selection of the numbers of simultaneously
playing series. Observe that the series SP of pitch classes has a unique inner
symmetry that exchanges the first and second hexachord, namely the inversion
I = T 7 .−1 between e and e! , i.e. the series defines the strong dichotomy No. 71
in the sense of mathematical counterpoint theory [78, chapter 30]. In part A, we
now select the instrument SP (i) from below and then take I(SP (i)) successive
instruments in ascending order (and using the circle identification for excessive
instrument numbers). For part B we take the I-transformed sequence of initial
instrumental numbers and attach the original serial numbers as successively
ascending occupancies of instruments. Figure 25.2 shows the result.
The next step will be to transform this scheme into a computer program
in order to realize such compositions and to test their quality. It is now evident
that such a calculation cannot be executed by a human without excessive efforts
and a high risk of making errors. Moreover, it is also not clear whether such
creative reconstructions will yield interesting results, or perhaps only for special
transformational sequences U1 , U2 , . . . U12 . We come back to this issue after the
analytical discussion of the second part of Structures.

25.4 Implementing Creative Analysis on RUBATO!

As already mentioned in the introduction, the concrete realization of a variety

of creative analyses in terms of notes is beyond human calculation power, or
at least beyond the patience of the artistic creator. Therefore, we have imple-
mented the above mathematical procedure on the music software RUBATO!
[75]. This involves seven new rubettes (Rubato PlugIns), specifically pro-
grammed for our procedure (see also Figure 25.3): BoulezInput, BoulezMartix,
 25.4 Implementing Creative Analysis on RUBATO! 289

Fig. 25.2. The instrumental occupancies in part A, B, following the autocomplemen-

tarity symmetry I = T 7 . − 1 of the original pitch class series. The lowest instruments
are taken according to the series, while the occupancies are chosen according to the
I-transformed values. For example for the first column, we have the serial value 3,
and its I transformed is 4, so we add 4 increasingly positioned instruments.

Transformation, BaseChange, Chess, SerialSystem, and Boulez2Macro. We call

them boulettes to distinguish them from general-purpose rubettes.
In order to understand the data flow of this network of rubettes, we need
to briefly sketch the data format that is used; details are found in the docu-
mentation [75]. Rubettes communicate exclusively via transfer of denotators.
These are instances of forms, a type of generalized mathematical space com-
prising universal constructions, such as powersets, limits, and colimits, that are
derived from mathematical modules.
The outputs A and B of boulette Boulez2Macro create one zero-addressed
denotator for each part A, B of Boulez’s score. These two denotators, MA , MB ,
are not just sets of notes, but are more refined in that they include hierarchies
of notes. This is the form where MA , MB live: It is a circular form, namely

M acroScore:.Power(N ode)
N ode:.Limit(N ote, M acroScore)
N ote:.Simple(Onset, P itch, Loudness, Duration, V oice)
Onset:.Simple(R), P itch:.Simple(Z), Loudness:.Simple(Q)
Duration:.Simple(R), V oice:.Simple(Z)
290 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

So the formal notation of these denotators is

MA :0@M acroScore(MA,0 , MA,1 , . . . MA,m ),

MB :0@M acroScore(MB,0 , MB,1 , . . . MB,n )

with the nodes MA,i , MB,j , respectively. Each node has a note, its anchor note,
and satellites, its MacroScore set denotator. Observe that the concept of an
anchor with satellites is grano cum salis also the approach taken by Boulez in
his multiplication of chords, where the anchor is the distinguished note, and
where the satellites are represented by the intervals of the other notes with
respect to the anchor. This output A, B is then united in the Set rubette and
its output C is sent to the AllFlatten rubette, which recursively “opens” all
the nodes’ satellite MacroScore. How is this performed? Given a node with
empty satellite set, one just cuts off the set. Else, one supposes that its satellite
MacroScore has already recursively performed the flattening process, resulting
in a set of notes. Then one adds these notes (coordinate-wise) to the node’s
anchor note. This means that the satellites are given a relative position with
respect to their anchor note. A trill is a typical example of such a structure: The
trill’s main note is the anchor, while the trill notes are the satellites, denoted
by their relative position with respect to the anchor note.
The output from the Boulez2Macro boulette is given as a MacroScore
denotator for strong reasons: We want to work on the output and take it
as primary material for further creative processing in the spirit of Boulez, a
processing that, as we shall see, requires a hierarchical representation. The
multiplication of chords used in Structure II implicitly also uses a hierarchical
construction of the above type. Therefore, the chosen M acroScore form acts
as a unifier of conceptual architectures in parts I and II of this composition.

25.4.1 The System of Boulettes

But let us se first how the Boulez composition is calculated. We are given the
following input data:
Outlet 1 in the BoulezInput boulette contains the series for all param-
eters as a denotator Series:@Z11 BoulezSeries(SP , SD , SL , SA ) of the form
BoulezSeries:. lim(P, L, D, A) with the factor forms

P :.Simple(Z12 ), D:.Simple(R), L:.Simple(Z), A:.Simple(R3 ).

The attack form A has values in the real 3-space, where the first coordinate
measures the fraction of increase of nominal loudness, the second the articula-
tory fraction of increase in nominal duration, and the third the fraction of shift
in onset defined by the attack type. For example, a sforzato attack (sfz) would
increase nominal loudness by factor 1.3, shorten duration to a staccato by 0.6,
and add to the nominal onset a delay of −0.2 × nominal duration. As discussed
in section 25.2, the address Z11 yields the parametrization by the twelve indices
 25.4 Implementing Creative Analysis on RUBATO! 291

Fig. 25.3. The Rubato network generating MIDI files (played by the ScorePlay ru-
bette) with arbitrary input from the creative analysis that is encoded in the Boulez-
Input rubette.

required for a serial sequence of parameters. For example, the pitch class series
is the factor denotator SP :Z11 @P (3, 2, 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, 1, 0, 10, 5, 11).
Outlet 2 contains the two address changes for retrograde R and inversion
U . They are encoded as denotators
R:Z11 @Index(R1 , R2 , . . . R12 ), U :Z11 @Index(U1 , U2 , . . . U12 )
in the simple form Index:.Simple(Z), which indicates the indices Ri of the
affine basis vectors, which are the images of the basis vectors ei C(R) and
inversion C(U ).
Outlet 3 encodes the above sequence U. = (Ui ) of address changes for
the instrumental sequence, i.e. a denotator U.:Z11 @Sequ(U1 , U2 , . . . U12 ) with
Ui :Z11 @Index(Ui,1 , Ui,2 , . . . Ui,12 ), and the list type form Sequ:.List(Index).
(This, in fact, also works for any number of instruments, but we restrict our
example to twelve instruments as chosen above.)
Outlet 4 encodes the registers, which must be defined in order to transform
the pitch classes into real pitches. We give this information in the same form
as the address change sequence, where the coordinates for the ith sequence are
the octave numbers where the pitches of the respective pitch class series in the
corresponding instrument are positioned. Octaves are numbered starting from
octave 0 at pitch 60 in MIDI format. This information is also used to position
the pitches according to an instrumental range.
The Split rubette takes the input series Series and sends its pitch class
factor SP to outlet 5. This denotator is taken as input of the BoulezMatrix
292 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

boulette and yields the famous matrix Q at outlet 6, which we interpret as a

denotator Q:Z11 ! Z11 @Index(Qi,j , i, j = 1, 2, . . . 12).
The boulette BaseChange is devoted to the calculation of the address
changes on outlet 8 for the primary parameters described in the four formula
groups 25.2 and 25.3 ff. for the primary parameters of the twelve instruments
and takes as input the matrix Q from outlet 6 and the sequence U. of instru-
mental address changes.
The boulette Chess is devoted to the calculation of the corresponding
address changes on outlet 9 for the secondary parameters loudness and attack,
as described by the chessboard paths.
Given the address change systems on input 8 and 9 of the SerialSystem
boulette, and taking as a third input the total series from outlet 1, the total
system of series is calculated according to our formulas described in sections
25.3.2 and 25.3.3. This yields outlet 10, which is finally added as input, to-
gether with the input 4 of octaves to calculate the effective parameters. The
pitches, nominal durations, and loudnesses are now given, and the nominal
onsets are calculated to produce the rectangular scheme shown in Figure 25.2.
The attack data is used to transform the nominal values into the attack-specific
deformations, and we obtain the outputs A and B as required.
This output is a denotator of form M acroScore. Its nodes in part A and
B are 144 series each. The anchor note of each serial node is taken to be the
first note in the series. The satellites of this node are the remaining 11 notes
with their relative positions with respect to the anchor note. Moreover, the
output denotators at A and B have one instrumental voice number for each
instrument. Taking the union of these parts in outlet C, we obtain a large
M acroScore denotator MC = MA ∪ MB . Selecting from this system, the series
as shown in Figure 25.2 yields the final “raw” material, which will now be used
to generate more involved creative constructions in section 25.5. The system as
calculated by Rubato is shown in Figure 25.4. The graphical representation is
realized on the BigBang rubette for geometric composition. The input to this
rubette is the denotator MC , while the selection of the instruments according
to the selection shown in Figure 25.2 is made by direct graphically interactive
editing. The functionality of the BigBang rubette is discussed in section 25.5.2.

25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and

Reconstruction
One of the most creative extensions of techniques in musical composition is
the opening of the transformational concept. This was already a crucial argu-
ment in Boulez’s own construction of derived Q matrixes, where he invented
that ingenious tool of address change in order to extend pitch class transforma-
tions to parameters where such operations would not apply in a natural way.
Our extension of Boulez’s approach was presented above and implemented in
Rubato’s boulettes, yielding the denotator MC :0@M acroScore().
 25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and Reconstruction 293

Fig. 25.4. The final “raw” material for twelve instruments. Instruments are distin-
guished by colors. Satellites pertaining to a given anchor note are connected by rays
to that note.

In this section, we shall add other extensions of the given transforma-

tions and apply them to the construction of huge extensions starting from the
present “raw material” MC . There are two threads of extensions: The first is
the conceptual extension, i.e. conceiving new types of transformations, while
the second deals with the associated concrete manipulation of compositions on
the level of graphically interactive gestures.
The background of this double strategy is the following general idea: The
formulaic rendition of compositional tools, when implemented in software, per-
tains to what is somewhat vaguely called algorithmic composition. This is what
happens in Rubato’s boulettes. The drawback of such an implementation is
that the result is “precooked” in the cuisine of the code and cannot be in-
spected but as a res facta. A composer would prefer to be able to influence
his/her processes in the making, not only when it is (too) late.
This is why we have now realized a different strategy: The transforma-
tions, which are enabled by the the BigBang rubette8 , are immediately visible
when being defined and can be heard without delay. The general idea behind
this approach is that any algorithm should be transmuted into a graphically
interactive gestural interface, where its processes would be managed on the
fly, gesturally, and while they happen (!). Why should I wait until rotation of
musical parameters is calculated? I want to generate it, and while I actually
rotate the system by increasing angles, I would like to see the resulting rotated
set of note events and also hear how that sounds, and then decide upon the
success or failure of that rotation.
8
The BigBang rubette is Florian Thalmann’s work.
294 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

25.5.1 The Conceptual Extensions

The conceptual extension of transformations has two components: the exten-

sion of the transformations as such and the application of such transformations
as a function of the hierarchical structure of the M acroScore form. The se-
rial transformations on the note parameters of a composition usually comprise
the affine transformations generated by inversion (pitch reflection), retrograde
(onset reflection), transposition (pitch translation), and time shift (onset trans-
lation). But they also include the construction of assemblies of iterated trans-
formations, and not just one transformed note set but the union of successively
applied transformations. The latter is typically realized by regular patterns in
time, where rhythmical structures are constructed. So we have these two con-
structions: Given a set of notes M and a transformation
# f , one either considers
one transformed set f (M ) or else the union i=0,1,...k f i (M ). The latter is well
known as a rhythmical frieze construction if f is a translation in time. If we
generalize frieze constructions to two
# dimensions, using two translations f, g in
the plane, we obtain a wallpaper i=0,1,...k,j=0,1,...l f g (M ).
i j

25.5.1.1 Extensions of Single Transformations

The natural generalization of such transformational constructions is to include

not only those very special transformations, but also any n-dimensional non-
−→
singular affine transformation f in the group GLn (R), whose elements are all
functions of shape f = T t · h, where h is an element of the group GLn (R)
and where T t (x) = t + x is the translation by t ∈ Rn . It is well known from
mathematical music theory that any such transformation can be decomposed
as a concatenation of musical standard transformations, which each involve
only one or two of the n dimensions. In view of this result, we have chosen the
generalization of the above transformations to these special cases in 2-space:
(1) translations T t , (2) reflections RefL at a line L, (3) rotations Rotα by angle
α, (4) dilation DilL,λ vertical to the line L by factor λ > 0, (5) shearing ShL,α
along the line L and by angle α. These are operations on real vector spaces,
while we have mixed coefficients in the M acroScore form. The present (and
quite brute) solution of this problem consists of first embedding all coefficents
in the real numbers, performing the transformations, and then recasting the
results to the subdomains, respectively.
−→
Given the group GLn (R) of transformations (generated by the above two-
dimensional prototypes), we now have to deal with the hierarchical structure
of denotators in the M acroScore form. How can transformations be applied
to such objects? To this end, recall that a M acroScore denotator is9 a set
M of nodes N = (AN , SN ), which have two components: an anchor note AN
from the (essentially) five-dimensional form N ote and a M acroScore-formed
satellite set SN . Common notes are represented by nodes having empty satellite
9
All denotators in this discussion will be zero-addressed.
 25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and Reconstruction 295
−→
sets. Given a transformation f ∈ GLn (R) and a M acroScore denotator M , a
first operation of f upon M is defined by anchor note action:

f · M = {(f · AN , SN )|N ∈ M } (25.7)

This type of action is very useful if we want to transform just the anchors
and leave the relative positions of the satellite notes invariant. For example,
if the satellites encode an embellishment, such as a trill, then this is the right
operation in order to transform a trill into another trill.
This operation is easily generalized to any set S of nodes in the tree of
M acroScore denotator M , such that no two of them are hierarchically related
(one being in the satellite tree of the other). The above situation of formula
(25.7) referred to the top-level anchors. Suppose that S consists of nodes N .
For non-satellite nodes, we have the above function. Suppose now that such a
node N is a satellite pertaining to a well-defined anchor note A(N ). Thinking
of that anchor note as a local coordinate origin, we may now apply a trans-
−→
formation f ∈ GLn (R) to all selected satellite nodes of A(N ) by the above
formula (25.7), yielding a transformed set of satellites of the same anchor note.
We may apply this operation to each set of satellites of given anchors occur-
ring in S. Since there are no hierarchical dependencies, no contradiction or
ambiguity appears, i.e., no note will be transformed together with one of its
direct or iterated satellite notes. This means that we are simultaneously ap-
plying$ f to all satellite sets of S. In other words, we take the disjoint union
S = Sk of satellite sets Sk pertaining to specific anchor notes Ak and then
apply a simultaneous transformation f to each of these Sk . We denote this
operation by f ' S.
There is another operation that we may apply to a set S with the above
properties. This one takes not the relative positions of S-elements, but their
flattened position and then applies the transformation f to these flattened
notes. It is the operation one would apply in a hierarchical context, such
as a Schenker-type grouping, but without further signification of the hierar-
chy for the transformational actions. After the transformation, each of these
transformed flattened notes is taken back to its original anchor note. For ex-
ample, if s = 1, and if N = (AN , SN ) is a satellite of level zero anchor
note A(N ), then we first flatten the note (once), which means that we take
N " = (A(N ) + AN , SN ), we then apply f to its new anchor A(N ) + AN , yield-
ing N "" = (f (A(N ) + AN ), SN ), and we finally subtract the original anchor,
yielding the new satellite N """ = (f (A(N ) + AN ) − A(N ), SN ) of A(N ). This
operation is denoted similar to the above operation, i.e., by f · S.

25.5.1.2 Extensions of Wallpapers

Let us now review the construction of wallpapers in view of a possible creative

extension. Mathematically speaking, a wallpaper is a structure that is produced
by repeated application of a sequence of translations T . = (T t1 , T t2 , . . . , T tr )
296 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

acting on a given motif M of notes. Each T ti of these translations is repeatedly

performed in the interval numbers of the sequence I. = (Ii = [ai , bi ]), ai ≤ bi ,
of integers, what means that the total wallpaper is defined by
%
W (T . , I.)(M ) = T λ1 t1 T λ2 t2 . . . T λr tr (M ) (25.8)
ai ≤λi ≤bi

This formula has nothing particular regarding the special nature of the
different powers of translations. This means that the formula could be gener-
alized without restrictions to describe grids of any sequence of transformations
−→
f. = (f1 , f2 , . . . , fr ) for fi ∈ GLn (R), thus yielding the generalized wallpaper
formula
%
W (f., I.)(M ) = f1λ1 ◦ f2λ2 ◦ . . . frλr (M ) (25.9)
ai ≤λi ≤bi

which also works for negative powers of the transformations, since these are all
invertible. In our context, the motif M will no longer be a set of common notes,
but a denotator of M acroScore form. Therefore, we may replace the naive
application of transformations to a set of notes by the action of transformations
on such denotators as discussed above. This means that—mutatis mutandis—
we have two transformation wallpapers for a set S of nodes of a M acroScore
denotator with the above hierarchical independency property: the relative one
%
W (f., I.) ' S = f1λ1 ◦ f2λ2 ◦ . . . frλr ' S (25.10)
ai ≤λi ≤bi

or the absolute one

%
W (f., I.) · S = f1λ1 ◦ f2λ2 ◦ . . . frλr · S (25.11)
ai ≤λi ≤bi

This generalizes the transformations and the motives in question. A last

generalization is evident when looking at the range of powers of the intervening
transformations.
& Until now, these powers are taken within the hypercube D =
i Ii of sequences of exponents. However, nothing changes if we admit more
generally any finite “domain” set D ⊂ Zr and make the union according to the
sequences of exponents appearing in D:

%
W (f., D) ' S = f1λ1 ◦ f2λ2 ◦ . . . frλr ' S (25.12)
(λ1 ,λ2 ,...λr )∈D

or else the absolute one:

%
W (f., D) · S = f1λ1 ◦ f2λ2 ◦ . . . frλr · S (25.13)
(λ1 ,λ2 ,...λr )∈D
 25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and Reconstruction 297

These are the generalizations that we need to describe the transformations

in Structures in a uniform way. The situation in Structures I has been described
above. The nature of the multiplication relating to Structures II can also be
controlled by the above constructions; we omit this here and refer to [69].

25.5.2 The BigBang Rubette for Computational Composition

The BigBang rubette was implemented during a research visit of one of the
authors (Florian Thalmann) at the School of Music of the University of Min-
nesota. It allows for graphically interactive gestural actions for transformations
and wallpapers on ScoreF orm denotators. We shall not describe all transfor-
mations in detail, but show the typical gestural action to be taken for a rotation
of a denotator (see Figures 25.5 and 25.6).

Fig. 25.5. Rotation (right) of the first bars of Beethoven’s op. 106, Allegro (left).
The rotation circle shows the mouse movement on its periphery; the original is also
shown.

The user loads (or draws) a composition (a denotator in M acroScore

form) M . This is shown in the left half of Figure 25.5; the example is the
first bars of Beethoven’s op. 106, Allegro. This composition is shown in the
plane of onset (abscissa) and pitch (ordinate), but the user may choose any
two of the five axes corresponding to the note parameters and perform all
transformations on the corresponding plane. After having selected with the
mouse (drawn rectangles around the critical note groups) the notes from this
298 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

Fig. 25.6. Here, a relative rotation is performed on the two satellite sets, with their
two anchor notes at the rays’ centers. The original positions are also shown.

composition to be transformed, the user next chooses a rotation center by

clicking anywhere on the window, i.e. the center of the circle on top of Figure
25.5. Then pressing and holding the mouse button apart from the selected
center, a rotation tool appears, showing the current angle in gray. As long as
the mouse is not released, the rotation simultaneously acts on the selected note
group. The rotated music is also immediately played when the user holds the
mouse still. The user may hold on and redo his rotational movement on the
circle. The visual result in our example is shown to the right of Figure 25.5.
As to the relative rotation, Figure 25.6 shows the result of such an action,
together with the original composition. To achieve this operation, the user
chooses a set of satellites throughout the given composition. We have chosen
two satellite groups derived from the composition in Figure 25.5. Then the
user chooses one anchor note and defines the center of rotation relative to that
anchor. Here, our center was chosen near the anchor of the right satellite group.
Then the same gestures are performed as in the previous rotation. The circle
is shown in Figure 25.6, and all chosen satellite notes are rotated relative to
their respective centers. Here, we see two rotated groups: the left one stemming
from the initial chords of the composition (red), the right one is overlapping
with the original selection. Again, the user may hold on (without releasing the
mouse) and redo the rotation after having listened to the result.
The selected notes will remain selected, and the user may then add a
next transformation, and so forth. This enables a completely spontaneous and
delay-less transformational gesture in musical composition.
 25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and Reconstruction 299

A similar procedure realizes wallpapers as defined in equations (25.12)

and (25.13). Let us illustrate the wallpaper construction for a motif of top-level
nodes, as shown by the darkened set on Figure 25.7. The user selects this motif
and then switches to wallpaper mode. Now, whenever a transformation (and
also a composed transformation, such as a translation followed by a rotation,
much like with single transformations) is defined by the previous gestural ac-
tion, the union of all iterated transformations of the motif is simultaneously
shown (and heard). The range of iteration (the powers of that transformation)
can be set at will. For a second transformation, the wallpaper mode is clicked
again and allows the user to perform a second transformation, and a third,
fourth, etc. The user can also switch to another parameter plane when adding
new transformations, and thereby create wallpaper structures in less evident,
but musically precious parameters, such as loudness and voice. The example in
Figure 25.7 has two transformations, each of them being a translation followed
by a rotation and then a dilation.
The BigBang rubette also allows for multidimensional alterations and
morphing. These are deformation operations, which alter given notes (on spec-
ified levels of the Macroscore hierarchy) in the direction of another composition,
which might be anything, or just a single point of attraction. We do not discuss
this technique further here and refer to [117] for details.

Fig. 25.7. A wallpaper is built from a motif (darkened). Two transformations are
used—both are translations followed by rotation and shrinking dilation.

25.5.3 A Composition Using the BigBang Rubette and the

Boulettes

Here is a composition, logically named restructures, which Guerino Maz-

zola and Schuyler Tsuda co-composed using of the above techniques, start-
300 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

ing from the raw material MC shown in Figure 25.4. We also applied the
alteration techniques implemented in the BigBang rubette but will not dis-
cuss this technique further here. The composition can be downloaded from
http://www.encyclospace.org/special/restructures.mp3.
This composition has four movements. Each movement is transformed
according to a specific geometric BigBang rubette technique, which we describe
in the following paragraphs. After executing these operations, the twelve voices
of each movement, which are avaliable as twelve separate MIDI files, were
elaborated by adequate orchestrations. This was realized by Tsuda, who is
an expert in sound design. He orchestrated and attributed the MIDI files to
specific sounds in order to transform the abstract events into an expressive
body of sound.
The first movement (Expansion/Compression) takes a copy of MC , then
“pinches” the satellites (but not the anchors!) of part A in the sense that the
first (in onset) satellites are alterated 100 percent in pitch direction only to
a defined pitch, whereas the last satellites are left as they were (0 percent
alteration). The satellites inbetween are pinched by linear interpolation. The
same procedure is applied to part B; however, this time the pinching is 100
percent at the end and 0 percent at the start. This is shown in Figure 25.8.
Instrumentation 1: Voice 1 = grand piano, voice 2 = scraped, bowed,
rolled, and struck suspended cymbals, voice 3 = electronic mallets, voice 4 =
solo cello, voice 5 = pizzicato strings, voice 6 = electronic space strings, voice 7
= plucked e-bass, voice 8 = grand piano, voice 9 = electronic percussion, voice
10 = timpany, voice 11 = electronic toms, voice 12 = electronic bells.

Fig. 25.8. First movement: variable pinching the satellite onsets—100 percent pinch-
ing at start and end onsets, no pinching in the meeting of end of part A and start of
part B.
 25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and Reconstruction 301

Fig. 25.9. Fourth movement: sucking down the anchors, expanding their durations,
lifting the satellites in part A, then progressive pinching of notes in part B.

For the second movement (Space-Time), we took another copy of MC and

expanded the onsets and the durations of the anchors of the second appearance
to the double, which yielded the situation shown in Figure 25.10.
Instrumentation 2: Voice 1 = strings, voice 2 = flute and horn, voice 3 =
grand piano, voice 4 = sine waves, voice 5 = electronic voice, voice 6 = grand
piano, voice 7 = trombone and tuba, voice 8 = electronic strings, voice 9 =
triangle and finger cymbals, voice 10 = bowed piano, voice 11 = clarinetes,
voice 12 = electronic bells.

Fig. 25.10. Second movement: expanding onsets and durations.

For the third movement (Rotations), taking again a copy of MC , and

focusing first on part A, we apply a retrograde inversion to the anchors, and
then in a second operation also to all satellites relative to their anchors. We
then take part B and apply a rotation of all satellites, relative to their anchors,
by 45 degrees in the counterclockwise direction. The result shown in Figure
25.11.
302 25 Boulez: Structures Recomposed

Instrumentation 3: Voice 1 = sine waves, voice 2 = oboe and bassoon,

voice 3 = pizzicato strings, voice 4 = marimba, voice 5 = horns, voice 6 =
electronic mallets, voice 7 = temple blocks and tam-tam, voice 8 = grand piano,
voice 9 = electronic percussion, voice 10 = sine waves, voice 11 = trombones,
voice 12 = electronic bells.

Fig. 25.11. Third movement: retrograde inversion of anchors and satellites in part
A, rotation of satellites in part B.

Finally, for the fourth movement (Coherence/Opposition), taking again a

copy of MC , we take part A and pinch to low pitches the anchors and dilate
their durations, whereas the satellites are pinched to high pitches. In part B,
we also operate such separation of pitch of satellites from anchors, but we also
execute a progressive pinching of the pitches toward a fixed pitch toward the
end of the composition. The result is shown in Figure 25.9.
Instrumentation 4: Voice 1 = glockenspiel and electronic noise, voice 2 =
glockenspiel and electronic noise, voice 3 = grand piano and electronic noise,
voice 4 = harp, electronic noise, and pizzicato strings, voice 5 = sine waves,
voice 6 = finger cymbals and timpani rolls, voice 7 = electronic bells, voice 8
= grand piano, voice 9 = Chinese opera gong and low and high gongs, voice 10
= bowed cymbals, voice 11 = triangle and bass drum rolls, voice 12 = triangle
and bass drum rolls.

25.5.4 Was This “Creative Analysis” a Creative Success?

Let us summarize the efforts we have described above in a computer-aided

recomposition of Boulez’s Structures. In a first step, we have opened the
walls of Boulez’s serial approach by a mathematical restatement of his critical
structures. Here the technique to open those walls was the usage of modern
mathematics—more precisely, Yoneda’s lemma.
This conceptual extension is set up starting from the formally very naive
approach of music theorists or composers and then using universal theories
set forth by advanced insights that are driven by the most abstract and pre-
cise style of (mathematical) thought: topos theory. This style of extension can
be criticized as being “overdressed” with respect to the technical level of our
 25.5 A Second More Creative Analysis and Reconstruction 303

conceptual reconstruction. But it is clear that such extensions would never be

possible when sticking to the naive style of musical set theory. We definitely
needed the topos-theoretical perspective to find those extensions that enabled
our recomposition.
We then applied the conceptual extensions to an implementation in the
composite software RUBATO! . This was not a creative action per se, but it
was the embodiment of those theoretical concept extensions, which is necessary
to eventually make music. This implementation is mandatory when we speak
about the instrumental reality of music. And it also shows the role of computer
programs in music. They are not creative per se but mediate between com-
plex thoughts and instrumental realization. In our case, the complexity of the
recomposition was far beyond human score writing, and we could achieve the
control of a variety of system parameters in Boulez’s compositional experiment.
In this sense, the program was not only an embodiment of abstract ideas
but also a creative environment for inventing new variants of the thoughtful
creative analysis. We hope that the concrete results of our efforts have given
some suggestions of how to work effectively in Boulez’s spirit for future creative
analyses.