It is difficult to write comparatively about Pauline Oliveros’ music. Typically, when listening to new music, the ear begins to chart differences and repetitions, and the way these are structured with dynamics, pitch, and texture. As a work unfolds, you start to be able to tell whether this composer can build large structures, or whether the work will amount to no more than a series of disconnected twists and turns. And when evaluating a new work, the criteria for success (or mine, anyway) have almost always to do with what is called a composer’s control over her materials, meaning how much sense each part of the work makes in relation to every part; whether something surprising or new has taken place; and, of course, whether the work is moving.
I cannot say that what my ear automatically goes to when listening to Oliveros’ music – at least not the semi-improvised, entirely acoustic music that was performed on this night, a celebration of her 80th birthday – are matters such as pitch, texture, rhythm, and so on. Nor is it true that these pieces seem interested in being moving. Oliveros is not interested in handling musical materials, but rather in creating situations in which musical materials – musical sounds – are allowed to appear. Pitch, rhythm, and texture are hugely important, but this is because Oliveros has found ways for a chord or a duration to be heard in all its strangeness and newness, as if inviting us to marvel at the very existence of organized sound.
She achieves this remarkable feat by liberating her performers from the usual social laws of musical banter and efficiency. Thirteen Changes: For Malcolm Goldstein is a work that is built on a series of impulses sent around a small ensemble. The arc is typically an entropic one: a violent outburst in the horn or the violin will be parrotted, passed around, until the energy fades, and one or two instrumentalists are left pondering the husk of the idea, turning it over a few times in their hands before silence takes over and the next impulse is sent around. Because there is presumably no set length for each impulse’s life, my experience in listening to the work was that of hearing the unfolding of time directly or viscerally, as if I were myself part of the piece’s rhythm. This is in contrast to the usual compositional dictum that a good composer manipulates time, that is, creates effects by distorting the neutral flow. Oliveros’s achievement is not writing music that flows (of which there is plenty), but rather setting the conditions under which we again become conscious of the flow, making the flow feel alive and real and perhaps somewhat dangerous.