Home 1. Introduction 2. Markers 3. Archive 4. Audible Markers 5. Visible Markers 6. Notational Markers 7. Conclusion
2.1. Introduction 2.2. Markers 2.3. Framing 2.4 Eloquence 2.5. Dimensions
Markers are essential to the performance of silences, and every rest is somehow surrounded by markers. However, it is the performer’s responsibility to make choices about which rests are more communicative, and which rests are more functional. In performance, some rests are just not treated as interpretive or creative spaces; they are gestural or technical necessities, allowing the pianist’s hand to get from A to B, permitting the flutist to breathe, or enabling the cellist to change bowing direction. That is, not all rests, not all silences are necessarily “eloquent.” In situations where eloquence is not a desired outcome, the notational system is amply sufficient. Although this dissertation mainly deals with eloquent silences, it is important here to digress and propose some situations in which silence has less eloquence. Thus here are three common examples of pianistic rests that do not indicate silence, nor have an emotional dimension.
As a first example, a rest can be placed to indicate that other events are happening, including notes from other performers, leftover sounds from prior events, or even notes in the same hand.
In this example, the rest does not indicate performed silence or no-sound, as the keyboard player’s right hand continues to perform notes, continues to create sounds. The rest rather serves an explanatory function to clarify the separation between the upper and lower voice. A performer who desires to bring out the independence of the fugal voices will annunciate this rest and make it audible as part of the lower voice’s activity. The performer might thus guess that this rest is placed here by Bach or his publisher to encourage the player to modify the sound of the printed notes rather than to express a silence. The actual notation does not give concrete information beyond that of duration. This rest is not about silence per se.
In this second example, from Anton Webern’s Variationen für Klavier, the first rest has no rhythmic equivalent on the lower stave. But on the third beat, the composer introduces a rest on the upper stave while a G# is played in the lower stave (left hand).
By means of this notation (the absence of a rest in the first beat, the presence of an extra one on the third beat), Webern communicates to the pianist that one voice is expanding to two voices. The outward expansion of the musical lines is thus made apparent to the performer. The audience may not directly experience this effect, but the composer uses the rest notation to communicate emergent structural information to the performer.
A third example suggests that sometimes, the functionality of rests is solely about the manual technique and praxis of performing. In order for the performer to safely leap down four octaves in tempo, composer John Adams has inserted rests in this example, creating a margin of safety for the leap of the hand.
The audience does not hear these rests as silences, as the pedal is held down throughout, and there is a full wash of sound from the piano and a continual pulsation of notes from the right hand. Although the rests are unheard, they serve the purpose of helping the pianist keep the steady and calm wash of sound needed for this minimalist composition.
The three examples above demonstrate simple rest notation, which has simple results. In these examples, the notation is precise and direct. These are examples of functional rests. They are not “eloquent,” as they do not serve to communicate to the audience.
When Does a Rest Become Eloquent Silence?
The simple notational system in the examples above might seem to imply either that silence is non-communicative, suggesting that there is nothing to describe, that rests are merely negative space; or the opposite: that musical silence is completely ineffable, thus incapable of being described. Yet, silence, as interpreted by performers, is anything but ineffable. Most rests are not just functional; most silences are indeed eloquent. Performed silence communicates temporality, function, and emotion. Moreover, after years of practice, each performer has their own unique tools for interpreting silence: gestural markers, breath, timing, and pedal. Further, external and environmental factors such as the hall, the audience, and the instrument can shape the performance of silence. Thus, there is a complexity of performative options for eloquent silence, and an array of possible affects to be perceived by the audience.
Recognizing the complexity of eloquent silence, some composers such as Luigi Nono and George Crumb incorporated additional parameters in their silence markings, via texts or modifications of existing notation:
The examples above give a broader idea of the functional and performed implications of standard silence notations, as well as newer experimental notations. Yet these notational experiments are exceptions that have not been widely adopted. Most composers continue to use the standard and straightforward set of duration-based rests. Much like the rhetorical silences of public speaking in ancient Greece, the eloquent silences of musical performance engender creativity and imagination. These performed silences are found everywhere, across periods and genres: from the keyboard works of J.S. Bach to William Bolcom’s experimental ragtime pieces. Despite the neutrality and non-specificity of classical silence notation, the performative reality of musical silence is richly complicated, offering musicians many opportunities for exploring the borders of sound.
The traditional performer may decide on the eloquence for each rest based on the following:
-
pre- and post- context (for example, the notes seem to become more frantic and more grasping),
-
phrasing (for example, the pedal and arched phrase marks imply a similarity to be achieved),
-
reference performances by pianists of note (for example, “That is how it was played by Emil Gilels”).
The dimensionality of the silences is not fixed, even in the relatively traditional context of the 19th-century romantic piano repertoire as it is now performed.1 These rests offer a freedom of interpretation that can be adapted to the audience, to the hall’s acoustic, or to the mood of the performer. The multiple possible interpretations illuminate the key interpretive role of the performer. That interpretation depends not only on the score but also on the way each rest is embedded in musical language.2