Nicolae Brânduş

National University of Music Bucharest

Several Considerations of the Freies Zusammenspiel  Practice


          In 1969 when I attended Karlheinz Stockhausen’s experiments in the Sports Hall of Darmstadt, I seemed to discover an imaginary Vienna of one century and half ago. I followed a strange track of ideas and musical moments among a moving audience, some of it sitting on benches and mattresses, an itinerary which, according to peculiar laws of trajectories, reminded me Schubert vis-à-vis a latent milieu of a music without age, without history, compressed in a similar imaginary way.
          Moments of unique invention emerged, according to unwritten laws, from the mass of conventional, often tedious verbiage which neither specialization nor selective exclusion operated from the switchboard could supplant. Coming and going out the public found a necessary remedy against boredom.
          Then I made the acquaintance of a remarkable group of musicians – which later became the New Phonic Art Ensemble – and of a phenomenon that would interest me after that.
          The musicians had a “score”, a literary text which comprised a series of more or less metaphorical allusions to certain musical activity and to relations which were to be established among them during the performance. The first uncertainty: irrespective of semiography, the musical text should provide – according to a conventional type of symbols – a certain musical object, identical with itself, different from its contrary, independent if its identity is being considered at the final concrete level or not (by the subordination of the modal object-type aspects of a more comprehensive domain, to a bivalent logic). It is a sine qua non condition distinguishing a musical text from anything else that would pretend to be a musical text, without being one. Endowed with a central mixer and with four amplifiers placed in the corners of the hall – therefore having the possibility to select the sound sources – Stockhausen was operated on the whole context: he threw into relief, attenuated or eliminated the impulses he received, moulding the whole musical matter according to his inspiration. Vinko Globokar called it a “criminal” procedure (!): quite understandable, from a musician’s point of view. Indeed, the essential thing for the latter is the entire action of performing, in which is engaged with his instrument, with his breath, in a direct, genuine, unambiguous communication.
          But a closer analysis will prove both attitudes to be inconvenient: we have been far from the testimony of a musical work, since nothing – either actual or virtual – can guarantee and certify the sense of a consciously controlled action over a given material.
          In his selection and transformation of the impulses received, Stockhausen operated by an analogous lack of criteria: something out of anything. In that respect, he had no privilege over any listener handling the same machine.
          Essential features were lacking from the entire process, to be able to define it as a personal or a collective work.
          Globokar said about the Freies Zusammenspiel practice: it is meant for performers endowed with creative imagination. Unpredictable, changing relations are being established among them during their performance, due to the respective moment or to the general sound environment. They can engage in the musical discourse, or not. Being a special kind of phenomenon, free music seems to be analyzable from the standpoint of its own process of information, from inside and not conformably to general criteria of musical analysis – criteria of a typically intellectual sort, concerning another type of musical work, which implies a long compositional process before its being developed in time. Free music consists entirely in playing together. It always appears in simple “forms”, being made up as a practice of pure invention, unrestricted by any rule: the hope in that whatever has not yet been created, uttered, heard, and able to be revealed to the word, in the process of speech. This kind of musical practice supposes a long time of common activity of the group, a perfect human and stylistic accord, a permanent appeal to creative imagination.
          Globokar proposes a widely open synthetic experience to that effect, which I am going to consider, starting from certain linguistic premises, and especially from several facts.
          If we generally refer to the question of collective improvisation – and a number of folklore and cultivated practices can substantially illustrate it – we will not fall to notice that we have to do, in all cases, with fixed mental structures, due to a more or less long-lasting practice. Improvisation is a typical example of creation at the level of speech (when “the subject invents his language and rediscovers it in each of his statements” – in N. Chomsky’s sense). The sense of primary (deep) structure grants the communicable order to the syntagmatic development. In any improvisation of the folkloric type a vital dialectic of withdrawal from and re-joining the archetype becomes quite evident: it seems to be a salient feature of oral communication at large.
          In the case of Freies Zusammenspiel we can single put several points worth considering: first of all, the fact that it originated in the general musical environment of the Darmstadt school in the 1955-1965 period. In a certain sense, that practice would rather be an attempt at “folklorizing” the structuralist language developed there at that time. Folklorization should be understood as integration into a “linguistic” time, proper to the speakers of the idiomatic experiences we have referred to. Still, their nature should be made clear: the structuralist language excludes, by definition, any intervention from outside its functional system, its integral interplay of parameters.
          It is a rather automatic type of language, entirely codified, having strict implications – absolute quantitative determinations – in the sound aspect (structuration) of the final musical object (a work identic with itself in any hypostasis and assuming the unique existence of an ideal model). The compositional choice – within this language – is typically stylistic, in the sense of systematic construction. The musical work, subject to structuralist language exists only at the level of the non-intuitive rigour of its first axiomatized principles, whose correct application distinguishes it from the false one.
          Therefore, a strong reaction against the figurative, a strong tendency to eliminate rhetoric, the severe instauration of a nude, fleshless kind of poetics of the essences. The sense of the structuralist work identifies itself with the impeccability of composition of the matter subject to a constructive (stylistic) aim.
          The problem of the sound construction, within the respective context, arises at the irreversible given level of the concrete final object, being both a premise and a resultant of the whole elaboration.
          Non figurative, non-intuitive: facts which radically distinguish this type of work from everything connected to the improvisational practice, the incompatibility of the “folklorization” of an automatic-type language, or the semantic incompetence of an oral communication starting from an idiomatic reality of this kind.
          We shall, therefore, ask ourselves, to what extent improvisional practice does or does not suppose problems of structure – and, especially, how? – and under what circumstances can such a practice develop coherently? (Taking into account similar processes in folklore, or in cultivated modal practices, e.g. in the Far East and in the Byzantines music).
          If we accept the idea of an improvisational process structuring a musical work, its formative model is obviously of a generative- grammatical type. Every hypostasis of the definite, concrete musical work obeys the same system of performing rules (of the play); it is the result of the creative choice operated by the performer in time, in each articulated point of the musical discourse (bivalent laws of selection).
          The unique existence of an ideal process is admitted as an absolute model of grammaticalness, endowed with an obvious class-character and resulting from the dialectic interpenetration between liberty and necessity in each point of the syntagmatic point of the discourse; we will permanently be in the presence of two axes of reference – characteristic of any linguistic communication. Hence the problem of getting up, conveying and recognizing the significant phrases of the musical discourse: the question of assimilating the archetypal structure of the play (performance).
          We observe to what extent a musical idiom contains evident analogies with the spoken language. From the viewpoint of the theory of generative grammars, any language having semantic structure owns a deep structure – which implies various degrees of abstractions – and a superficial structure, which appears irreversibly on the time axis, at the level of the discourse.
          Let us note with V= vocabulary the set of disjunctive elements two by two, - which we would conventionally name words – that make up the discourse. Let us consider another set S of elements called significances. Any finite sentence of elements (two by two, either different or not) belonging to V is called a phrase on the vocabulary taken over. We call L = language on the vocabulary V, any collection of phrases out of vocabulary V and note it with < L(V) >.
          The triplet < L (V) S > makes up a biplane support.
Any binary relation φ defined in V and having values in S constitutes, by definition, a semantic structure on the biplane support < L (V) S >. Therefore, φ is part of the Cartesian product L ´ S.
          In Chomsky’s sense, the axiom of grammar does not belong to the vocabulary of the generated language.
          What result from the above? Two distinct levels present in any linguistic communication, namely: the level of the word (in the most general sense) and that of the structural meaning of the language employed: two independent orders of facts placed – conventionally or not – in a bi-univocal relation, therefore a clear distinction between two opposite modalities: correct – incorrect, false – true, grammatical – non-grammatical: the starting point in view of conveying an information of a certain type.
          In this sense, namely in that of an axiomatized field (which we would call, in linguistics, a phenomenon of language owning a deep structure, wholly formalized), we will be able to consider the problem of collective improvisation as a phenomenon of language. The syntagmatic structure of the discourse in collective improvisation cannot be arbitrary: it will be archetypically oriented in the sense of the deep structures of the language according to which it evolves, in phrases endowed with axiomatically-based significances practiced in that sense.
          Considering the problem in general, anything (since nothing stands proof of the beginnings!) can become a linguistic archetype in certain conditions: when the number of homogeneous irreducible, simple elements of vocabulary is limited and, generally, low enough (I refer to certain modal scales, or to the phonetic alphabet), and when – following a conveniently oriented practice – the syntagmatic annunciations significant from the structural standpoint are going to be established at the same time – according to analogies of various kinds – with the valences of an indefinite composability of elements of the vocabulary in the sense of field axiom) . It is known that every language, every semiotic system in general supposes various semantic levels, the last one – using another phrase from Chomsky – concerning the “operations of the mind”.
          From that point of view, it would be of lesser interest to know what was settled conventionally, axiomatically, and what has crystallized progressively – in the sense of a hoped for past and present improvisational practices.
          But we can state, with full certainty, that any practice of this kind is wholly signified by the existence of the (linguistic) archetype which it joins structurally. What seems important is the observation that, from this standpoint, articulate speech appears to be a particular idiom among others of the same kind, which contain a given deep structure and significant relation – of a conventional, or “arbitrary” type (in F. de Saussure’s sense ) – among the irreducible elements of vocabulary.
          It seems easy to understand why the existence of a priority idiom could not be demonstrated: any communication strictly belongs to the concrete experience of language – beyond which there is no real point of reference – and the idioms are irreducible among themselves.
          Free music differs from free jazz from the following points of view: first of all, any jazz music could be (imaginarily or not) reduced to an improvisational practice of a beat-metric (popular) kind.
          The regular metric pulsation is a unifying element of the common activity. Free jazz has given up a number of conventions of the classical jazz (melodic-harmonic structures, simple periodicity between theme and improvisation a.s.o.) but not also others, such as: repetition (of motifs and rhythms), the division into sequences, typical rudiments of structuralized improvisation directly derived from the classical practice; but all of them applied in a more complex way, broadening to its limit the inner dialectic of the discourse: between the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic aspect. The paradigmatic structure – apparently assimilated – subsists and reinforces the evolution of the musical events in their succession in a sophisticated way. It is the question of relations developed among the internal durations available for the paradigmatic transformations at the syntagmatic level – unequal, complex, unforeseeable relations. These changes at the same time preserve their explicit character, the structure assimilated in the practice of the phenomenon in general. That stresses particularly the difference between free jazz and free music: the later is – at any level of its inner statement – irreducible to a coherent paradigmatic structure able to coordinate – in a simple or complex way – the syntagmatic development of the process.
          Unlike the Oriental maqam, or certain free ritual forms that can be distinguished in the Balkan folklore, where the structuralization of the whole discourse occurs in other temporal typologies (Pierre Boulez, would call them “temps lisse”) excluding equal meter, identical periodicity, typical regular alternances in duration, the paradigmatic structure – constituted during a long practice developed and conveyed by oral transmission operating archetypally in time – (canonically) establishing the laws of  evolution of the whole process. Free music – which usually develops in identical zones of “temps lisse”, and which neither starts from an existing musical pre-eminence (I would call it “natural”), from a “language world” formed in the process of exchange, nor from the “word”, but intends to create the word, being situated at this point zero on paradigmatic axis of the discourse, gets self annihilated as a phenomenon of language. The syntagmatic development occurs at random.
          Starting from a simulated appearance, the respective practice inadequately distorts the experience of the language implied in the structuralist music of the preceding years. The concrete material loses its significance, the musical discourse confines itself to commonplaces laid at once on the syntagmatic axis. The phenomenon as such – essentially non-evolutive – cannot join a superior significant entity. No inner law of structuring certifies the building up of the sound matter (at the micro- or at the macro-level).
          The “musical” action is fundamentally devoid of aim and memory.
          Unlike any improvisational process of a folkloric type, the practice thus founded becomes inadequate for achieving a wide linguistic communication for the conveyance of the phenomenon (either directly or mediately – by teaching –), for its evolution in time and space. The phenomenon begins and ends with its own beginning and end, creation at the level of speech appears illusory – like the hope in a “pure” invention places in the zone of confluence between the subject and nothingness… The elements of vocabulary are indifferent: there is no basic determined structure.
          And even if, theoretically the sound matter would be framed by the construction of the performing instrument (by its “physical” possibilities of sound emission – including the whole material body of the source), no other law settles, the internal composition – in the most general sense – of a phrase on the existing vocabulary, a definite collection of coherent entities, able to be conveyed, recognized and freely re-composed (analogically or antinomically) by the performer. From a semantic point of view, evolutive – in a grammatical sense, the music thus produced betrays obvious phenomena of degeneracy.
          Nevertheless, the question of free music seems to us interesting from the point of view of a mediaeval-type musician, a type which the development of Occidental music has steadily annihilated. The Mediaeval musical practice links to a certain range of problems of a semiographical order, and to a certain outlook on musical reading.
          Several observations concerning the musical text: any text correctly drawn up closes the musical work at the level of language, establishing the grammar of its process of formation. The musical text appears, in its correct form, as a complex of symbols of a conventional type, between the signified and the significant existing a precisely established relation, devoid of ambiguity.
          We understand by reading the convergence, in time, of the significances comprised in a text, the complex process of actualizing the musical work, a process that irreversible achieves, on a single axis of reference, the incidence between event and discourse. Reading, in music, is a typical process of speech, of semantic behaviour (communication) in time. The text as memory of the musical work closes the generative grammar of this process, its genetic code. From the point of view of the process of reading, each text appears as an irreducible prototype of language endowed with semantic structure. The effort to assimilate it is oriented in the sense of a progressive grammaticalization of the performing process. It is a specific effort of signification, of revealing the deep structures. We make a clear distinction between the reading carried on in the conscience of the primary certainties and without them: in that sense, the idea of degrees of grammaticalness included in the process of the work’s elaboration in time appears to us more relevant, as to the significant hierarchies comprised in any creation of language (at its syntactic and semantic levels). Each level corresponds to a definite generic operationality of its own in time, in the process of the performance. The text closes the musical work at the language level: it is a creation of language. But the musical work is finite only in its creative, stylized reading process, in its temporal contiguity.
          I shall appeal to a symbolic analysis, in order to specify these ideas:
          I. Consider:
           i    =  sound pitch (ex. fa1 = n Hz)
           it   = intensity (amplitude of the sound’s frequency measured in decibels)
           tb  = timbre (the synthetic oscillatory form of the sound)
           r   = strictly noted rhythm, reducible to the metric value set up (strictly determined proportion between rhythm and meter)
           l     = place of the sound source in space.

The musical domain defines by the above parameters can be symbolically represented as a sextuplet of the kind.

  • < I, T, IT, TB, R, L >

           I  = set of the pitches of type i
           T  = set of the metric units (tempi) of type t
           IT  = set of intensity of type it
           TB  = set of the timbres of type tb
           R  = set of the rhythms of the type r
           L  = set of the places in space of type l

We note that is the field of electronic music, of the magnetic tape and of the automatic reading.
           II. Consider:
           [i]     = a definite class of pitches (scale)
           [t]  = a definite class of tempi (metric values) or the conventional indication of tempo (Allegro, Andante, Adagio a.o.), without the specification:
           [it]  = a definite class of intensities or the conventional indication of nuance, e.g.: p, f, mf a.o. (each nuance acquires several concrete values, depending on the context).
           [tb]  = a definite class of timbres, e.g.: [ fl, ob, cl, trb, contrab, a.s.o.]
           [r]   = a definite class of rhythmic structures made up of values reducible to the basic meter
           [l]  = several determined places from where the sound can be emitted (indication of the order number of the stereophonic groups, e.g.: 1, 3, 4 etc.)
           Let us imagine a musical field defined by the following sets of parameters:

  •     < I, T, [IT], TB, R, L >

We notice that we are either in the presence of a magnetic tape with electronic music – in which the limits of amplitude variability for each element have been specified – or of a musical text drawn up in a linear notation, in which the nuance and the place of the sound source in space are mentioned; the other specifications details obviously result from the whole context.

Other domains:

  •   < [I], [IT], T, TB, R, L >

The text provides for the metric and rhythmic value, the place of the sound source, the timbre, nuance and a complex of pitches whence the performer will make his choice.
             < I, [IT], [T], R, TB, L >
           The text specifies pitch, nuance, tempo, place of the sound source, rhythm and timbre.
             < I, [R], T, TB, L, [IT], I >
           The text specifies the order of pitches, the metric value, tb, group, nuance and a number of rhythms out of which the performer will choose:


An attentive consideration of the above parameters would lead us to a series of interesting observations.
           a) [i] – in case of a complex determined pitches has been specifies, the subject, in the discourse will provide his own organization of a modal kind. In the folkloric practices we always discover – behind the complex structures of intonational order made up of typical figures – an archetype-scale of this kind: [i].
           b) the doublet < t, r > or < [t], r > or < [t], [r] > or < t, [r] > defines the reducibility to an equal meter, the integral quantitative control in time of the individual rhythmic values (durations).
           c) the doublet < tb, [l] > signifies the intervention in the context, namely: the instrument is indicated which is going to perform a certain score, and the number of performers, while the actual intervention in the performance is to be at the choice of the instrumentalists of the n stereophonic groups. The others tacet all along the respectice duration.
           d) the doublet < [tb], l > means the same thing within a group.

           (An instrument from those specified, of group l, will play)
           e) the doublet < [tb], [l] > means the following:

           The score will be played by 2 instruments from the specified ones, from any of groups 3,4,5; there may be only one instrument from a group.
           The indication n instruments means the density of intervention in the sense of number of performers who are to play the given score for a sequence of the text.
           Let us analyze a limit case, viz. the musical field defined by the following sextuplet:
            –  < [I], [T], [IT], [R], [TB], [L] >
           We will have a score of the following type:


The following three observations should be made: the selection operated by the performers is the variant type: the text is a prototype integrally containing its variants The conductor, together with the musicians, will be able to establish at their rehearsals – starting from the stated prototype – the actual plan of development of the discourse in time: a definite variant written down in parameters of rank I. Any variant of the prototype is wholly reducible to a musical domain defined by parameters of rank I. The score does not specify whether the process of selection is going to take place at rehearsals or during the performance:
           III. Consider:
            – [ĩ]  = a generic sound archetype of the following kind:

  •  = an oriented semitone (± n8ve)
  •  = an oriented tone (± n8ve)
  •  = an oriented minor third (± n8ve)

 n    = free variable
           img  = union, or non exclusive, logical sum

  • signifies ascending or descending minor second, ascending or descending major seventh, ascending or descending minor ninth, and the same intervals, with any number of octaves added in both senses.

In an equal temperament system we will have to do with 6 generative intervals of this kind, which we will note from (a) to (f); (f) = oriented major fourth (± n8ve).
           The above archetype [ĩ] shows the following: the respective general intervals will be applied in the invention n times in any order, starting from any basic sound: every interval can be repeated n times and free by associated with any other from the given ones.
           The invention is structured in a complex manner according to the principle of the relations among pitches; the intervallic evolution is continuous. The pause could be considered an application of  n = 0 of a general interval in the invention (in time).
           The score could also comprise general indications on the register: A = high-pitch reg., M = medium reg., G = low reg. – indefinitely applicable as concerns the generic scale of frequencies to the ambitus of the various instruments which participate in the context.
           [t̃] = rubato continuo (indefinitely variable unequal meter)
           In the score, the duration of every “time” is indicated generically, in relation with the previous and with the subsequent time. In time, every metric duration is to acquire different concrete values from one performance to another. In fact, we have to do with a division of a big global duration (which can be measured in seconds) into underlain global durations, every one implying a certain partial or general change in state. The time shows the moment of that change, the occurrence of a new complex of events.
           [r̃]  = a rhythmic archetype of a generic kind, establishing within a global sequence the generic relation among the rhythmic values which is going to be applied in the continuous invention as to a metric unit of reference, taken over freely (the question is either that of a metric unit common for a group of instruments having a leader, or of every instrument taken separately).
           We can distinguish three typologies [r̃] :

  • Synchronism

           v(s) = a rhythmic value in simple figuration (relation) as to the metric unit of reference.
           n  = natural number
           q  = prime number
           V(s)  = the set of rhythmic values in simple figuration (relation) with the metric unit of reference.
           There will be:
           when 3 ≥ n ≥ 1
           and    3 ≥ q ≥ 1
           That is:
            – any value v(s) belonging to the set V(s) is defined by the ratio nimg  when n and q acquire values from 1 to 3.
           Consider :
           The formula (l) defines a general rhythmic archetype of synchronic type as a union of all sets of rhythmic values generally defined cf. (b).
           u  = K (MM) (= constant)
           n  = 2 and q = 3 and n
           n` = 1 and q` = 2
           there will be the following rhythmic archetype:

  •  Polyrhythmics

           V(p)  = rhythmic value in complex figuration (relation) as to the metric unit of reference
           n  = natural number
           q  = prime number
           V(p)  = set of rhythmic values in complex figuration (relation) as to the metric u of reference.
           There will be:
           n  = 4 and q  = 7 and
           n` = 2 and q` = 5 and
           n`` = 5 and q`` = 2 and
           u = K (MM) ( = constant)
           the following general archetype will be obtained:
           The formulas (D) and (y) indicate the application of the specified values in the invention, freely, in any order.
           The metric unit is individual; it is being formulated in time, and varies unpredictable from one performance to another. The relation between rhythm and meter is followed mentally along the entire sequence generally defined by the parameter (r̃).

  •  In the case of Free durations, a complex of rhythmic values of the type a), b), c), d), e) etc. (see below) are enunciated within a given global duration. The following manners of notation can be adopted:

           An observation would arise, concerning the doublet:
           (f) < [t̃], [r̃] >
           It defines a temporal musical reality, in continuous transformation, unforeseeable dilatation and contraction. Either in the case of metric pluralism within the same duration (synchronism and polyrhythmics), or in the case of various durations granted to the same value in various performances (free durations), the metric unit we are offered is in a continuous and unpredictable transformation in time. (The conductor who settles the big global duration, the division of the whole discourse, is subjected to the same law of the concrete relations he established among the big durations: a process of macro-structural order.
           The doublet (f) defines the continuous metric transformations both in coexisting zones (on the “vertical” – in the sense of the position in the score of the instruments or groups of instruments), and in typified succession (of a complex agogic type – in the case of synchronism and polyrhythmics – or of the free durations).
           The doublet < [t], [r](d.1.) > defines what Pierre Boulez (Penser la musique d’aujourd’hui) called temps lisse, in fact resorting to certain primary idea of processual-intuitive nature: a musical sort of time lacking metric pulsation, regular, uniform division into sequences (which does not exclude the possibility that any collective  musical activity be analytically reducible to complex polyrhythmics underlain by an imaginary equal meter). The three typologies – synchronism, polyrhythmics and “free durations” are only distinct from the point of view of the musical process of formation in time, from the point of view of the invention discipline set up and provided for the development of the invention
           [it̃]  = a continuous variation of nuance indicated generally

  • ex.:      


  • continuous variation in intensity


Let us analyze the doublet: (g) < [t̃̃b̃], [l̃̃] >
           [t̃̃b̃]  = a class of sonorous emission and
           [l̃̃]    = a group of instruments from the existing stereophonic groups.
           Suppose we have a number K of instruments ensembles (which would comprise all instrumentalists from the n stereophonic groups) and K classes of sound emissions – which could be the following, for instance:
           A – fundamental sounds, con gliss.
           B – fundamental sounds, senza gliss.
           C – harmonic sounds
           D – special effects resulting from beating the instrument’s body
           E – mute emission
           – a.s.o. –
           Let us suppose the following rule for the development of the reading (enunciation in time): ensemble 1 of instruments, taking over a class of emission, will intervene the first: the members (who are not indicated by the text) of this ensemble (when the density is not specified) will have the kth share of the total number of instrumentalists.
           Ensemble 2 will intervene in another class of sonorous emissions; then ensemble 3 still in another class of emissions a.s.o., until the intervention of ensemble K with the last class of emissions.
           The text prescribes the totality of the classes of emissions, the density and, in certain cases (cf. parameter [t]), the moment of intervention.
           The doublet (g) indicates – in the sense of the above – the intervention within the classes of emission which have not yet been enunciated up to the respective moment.
           From the analysis of a definite field of parameters of rank III:
            – < (Ĩ), (T̃), (IT̃), (TB̃), (R̃), (L̃) >
           We can deduce the following:
           We have to do with a continuous and complex formation of the musical discourse in time. The text prescribes the structure of the discourse development under the form of a class of general parameters, enunciating the relations of the same kind among the elements of vocabulary that are going to be applied in the invention: the generative grammar of this continuous process of actualization.
           Domain (7), characterized by the complex notion if relation and continuity is not reducible to those defined by the parameters of rank II and I: the selection and the enunciation of the significant phrases (in relation with the metastructure defined axiomatically) are wholly produced in time: we have to do with a structural continuity of the formative process which cannot be closed in parameters of an inferior type.
           There is no relation of the variant type established between one performance and the other (as in the case of the domain defined by the parameters of rank II); the process of selection takes place entirely in time; the selection is active, the process is affirmative integrally, involving, creative from the first to the last principles included in the enunciation. The problems differ substantially from one performance to another: the identity of the work is the complex identity of the process closed in point of the paradigmatic structure, a process identic with itself in any evolution in time. Not a selection from what is given, but an active, coherent application of general elements of language endowed whit a semantic structure, a continuous, open formative process, evolutive in a grammatical sense, creative in a linguistic sense.
           Therefore, we can observe to what extent the parameters of rank III and II differ structurally and functionally.

Ex.: (2 groups of instruments with a leader)
           The macrostructure operates with the divisions of the class of general parameters of rank III.
           IV. Consider:
           ĩ  = any pitch
           t̃ = any tempo (metric value)
           it̃ = any intensity
           r̃  = any rhythmic value
           tb̃  = any timbre
           l̃  = any place in space
           The domain
            –  < Ĩ, T̃, IT̃, R̃, TB̃, L̃ >
           defined by the above parameters is devoid of what we called above paradigmatic structure: whatever has an immediate sonorous value can be inserted into the discourse. There is not any so-called indifference towards the sonorous material, but indifference as concerns its structural significance.
           Domain (8), which is that of free music, can be thus described. Any sound frequency, of any content, duration or amplitude can appear anywhere, at any moment. The performer’s part is to emit sounds in an unpredictable manner: in that sense, he can be replaced at any time with any other type of complex aleatory sound generator. Contrary to all appearances, the performer in the above practice is entirely annihilated in point of creativity.
           Any creation exists as of a language creation. A creative process develops in time in defined dialectic between structure and reading. The relations between the two domains of creativity (of a stylistic order) arise from the semiographic system of the text. The “score” of a (8)-type domain could only comprise “indications” of a metaphorical-intuitive order with no significances from a structural standpoint.
           The parameters of rank IV become interesting in relation with the inferior parameters which define certain particular domains.
           For example:
           (9)           < I, [IT], [T], R, TB, L̃ >
           (10)         < I, [IT], T, R, T, L̃ >
           Domains of the classical Occidental music noted in a linear system – with or without specification of the metronome – and which exclude stereophony.
           (11)        < [I], IT̃, TB̃, [R], T, L̃ >
           - a folkloric practice of the type of motivic invention based on a complex intonational structure, a number of melodic-rhythmic pattern reducible to a regular meter, variedly ordered in time, irregular periodicities: they are some forms of dances from the Romanian folklore of the Oaş region. The doublet (h) < tb, l > shows the unpredictability of the interventions (hand clapping, whistling, strong treads, shouts) from the group of the participants, all of them involved in the process alike.
           (12)        < (I), (T), R̃, IT̃, TB, L >
           - another practice of a ritual type (Funeral Song), where we can distinguish the same intonational structure reducible to a scale, a given rhythmic formula developing in a continuo rubato time (whence a permanently unpredictable fluctuation of the internal durations); the group of women lamenters established in a certain place; a woman soloist; the rest of the participants are silent; any intensity… etc.
           We can notice to what extent the above domains – amply used – appear to us as non-homogeneous from a structural standpoint, being defined by sets of parameters of a different rank.
           We only know about the genesis of folkloric archetypes hypothetically. But we can propose ourselves to set up – in an analogous manner – structures governing the development of an improvisational type of practice, respectively the axiomatic definition of certain domain of musical practices in the sense of the above typologies (homogeneous or non-homogeneous). The text establishes the memory, the ever present virtuality of the work in time and over time: the common stage of the rigour preceding decisive intuitions, determining the recognizability of the process, its stylistic transmission, information, acceptation and amplification. It is all one can say about a musical text.

See Solomon  Marcus, Poetica matemati (Mathematical Poetics), Ed. Academiei, Bucharest, 1970,  p. 112.

What Chomsky calls “assimilation of the genetic code”.