i. Scoring, Number and Identity of Voices

Within the Machaut manuscripts, much variety is on offer when considering differences in both the large-scale planning and the execution of musical song-settings. Once some technical aspects of the various manuscripts are considered, clear patterns emerge. A more or less stable tradition can be found in MSS Vg, B, A and G, which differentiate itself from both the early MS C and the later MS E.

The early MS C shows a number of features that distinguish it from the other sources. It presents a number of works that are scored for fewer voices than in later version, although its planners anticipated further voices to be added (these never were, even though space was left). This source has two layers of copying, the majority of the work having been executed by 1349, with the remainder completed in the mid 1350s. The empty spaces for voices which were appended to songs copied in the early layer were kept in later versions in the other MSS. For those songs copied into the later layer that had such additional space, this space was not transmitted to later MSS. Either new voices were added to them, or the space left for such potential additions removed (and with it, the doubt concerning the intended size of setting). Some later sources show continued circulation of materials in versions close to Machaut’s own, but many others demonstrate the variety of copies in circulation, with apparently both expanded and reduced settings available to scribes for transcription. This is most clearly shown in MS E, which seems to present both early versions and up-to-date reworkings (in some cases evidently having more than one exemplar for each song), hinting at various modes of circulation and performance-practice. To trace these patterns, I begin with a source overview, presenting the transmission of extant works either exhibiting competing versions, or with some tension between the space planned for them and the eventual execution of their copying. This is followed by an example of the transition of one work from the early tradition of MS C towards a more established tradition in the main group of manuscripts. Finally, I consider the changing characteristics of some of the many voice-additions found in MS E.

In our printed edition, this variety was deemed too important and potentially too informative to consign to mere verbal description. In order not to obscure the shape of the oeuvre in the main part of the edition, the variant readings are placed separately with the critical apparatus. However, all versions deemed different enough or independent enough from the main tradition that is represented by our base source (MS A) are transcribed there in full.

Uri Smilansky

1. Source Overview

In a discussion of scoring and the appearance of competing voices within any tradition, three possibilities arise. Some songs follow a process of amplification, with new voices added to older settings. Some are simplified, losing voices in later transmission. Others have alternative voices, with parts of the early setting removed and replaced by new material. When tracing these developments within Machaut’s output, one has to be aware of both the chronology of and relationships between the sources. These are, perhaps, most easily articulated for the extant manuscripts of the the central tradition produced during Machaut’s lifetime and, most likely, with input from the author: MSS CVg and A, with F-G tentatively appended to this group on account of the lack of clarity concerning the date of the copying of its contents (as separate from its decoration) and its apparent use of similar exemplar materials to the main group. There are other sources from within this timeframe, each left out for different reasons. MS W has lost nearly all its musical section over the centuries. The music in MS B is entirely derived from that of VgMS K was copied during Machaut’s lifetime, but contains only two musically notated works, and relied on different source materials for its copying. The contents of La134 and the lost Maggs rotulus do not offer versions substantially different from the main tradition.

The sources that post-date the author can be separated from this main tradition, but they do not together constitute a separate tradition. These include the complete-works source MS E, which is not far removed from the author and his time, but nonetheless offers glimpses of a different transmission tradition, and will be discussed separately. Of musical relevance are also Pm, a fifteenth-century selective copy of MS A that omits the vast majority of the older source’s music, and another later source – Pe – which contains the Remède de Fortune with musical interpolations. Machaut’s music is found also in many of the anthology manuscripts from around 1400, but these versions will only be considered as part of a discussion of his reception.

Following, is a list of large-scale, structural variants within the manuscripts discussed above, separated according to their affiliation to the main groups identified. Sources not specified do not have this kind of variant to report. It is worth noting that both works included in K appear in this table, thus indicating a different circulation pattern. Pm contains four musical settings, two of which mirror the main tradition (B31 and R7), and two do not (B23 and R9), making its direct link with MS A even more intriguing. Unless otherwise indicated (using ‘-’), all the other sources contain all the listed works. Other shortenings include ‘c’ for cantus, ‘t’ for tenor, ‘ct’ for contratenor, and ‘tr’ for triplum.

Work Majority setting MSS C, Vg(B), A, F-G MSS E, K, Pm
B3 c+t   E: adds ct
B4 c+t   E: adds ct
B19 tr+c+t   E: appears twice. 1: omits tr; 2: tr+c+t
B20 c+t   E: adds ct
B21 tr+c+ct+t A: omits tr  
B22 tr+c+ct+t C: c only  
B23 tr+c+t   E: adds ct; Pm: omits tr (c+t)
B27 c+t C: - E: adds ct
B31 c+ct+t C: - E: adds tr
B41 tr+c+ct+t   K: omits tr
B42 tr+c+ct+t C: c+t K: c+t
L1 c   E: has twice as much music (necessary)
R1 tr+c+t A: omits tr  
R7 c+t   E: adds ct
R9 tr+c+ct+t A: appears twice. 1: tr+c+ct+t; 2: c+t Pm: c+t
R10 tr+c+ct+t C: omits tr; adds alternative (later) ct  
R17 c+ct+t C: - E: omits ct
R18 c+ct+t C, Vg(B): - E: different ct
R21 - C, Vg(B), A: -  F-G: c+ct+t E: c+t
V26/29 c+t C: omits t  

Before looking into the patterns emerging from this table and highlighting a few specific cases, it is worth mentioning a relevant side-issue, namely, the presence of prepared space for additional voices which was subsequently left unused. The following table summarises these locations. It does not include instances where space was prepared for an entire song but no music entered at all. 

Work Position of prepared space Manuscripts where it is found
B3 tr C, Vg(B), A
B5 tr C, Vg(B)
B7 tr C, Vg(B), A
B10 ct C
B11 tr C, Vg(B), A
B12 tr C, Vg(B)
B22 t+ct C
B41 tr K
R7 tr C
R10 tr C
V22/27 t E
V24/27 tr Vg(B) [song not in C]
V27/30 t E

Both tables include items which can be explained by means of discrete phenomena. In the first table, all extraneous spaces in MS A were a result of lay-out problems encountered by the scribes or simple mistakes, and, therefore, do not seem to suggest circulation of alternative versions of the three songs in question. The added contratenor mentioned for R10 in MS C is a late addition, apparently unrelated to the initial creation of this source. In the second table, the empty staves added to B10 in MS C may well be an afterthought, filling up space that had been left for the expected - yet never written - strophes 2 and 3. As no voice-names or visual separation was incorporated into the tenor and contratenor of B41 in MS K, it is hard to judge whether the remaining empty staves were intended to house a triplum or not. Furthermore, three of the four mentions of MS C in table one (B22, R10, V26/29) and three of the eight (not counting B10) in table two (B22, R7, R10) refer to works found in its second layer of copying, which was less careful in its planning and execution.

Looking at the two tables with these caveats in mind, a number of patterns begin to emerge. Within the main group of manuscripts, a clear separation can be found between the early MS C and the other sources. Four songs which are later transmitted in a stable fashion gained voices after being copied into this source (B22, B42, R10 and V26/29). Otherwise, large-scale characteristics of the transmission are stable throughout the group, and no simplification process is in evidence. For a group of five older Ballades (B3, B5, B7, B11 and B12) the space left for a triplum generated an expectation that lasted for a number of years, since these Ballades continued to be copied with the additional space throughout the central tradition (except in the case of MS F-G, which decided to dispense with the empty spaces altogether, and, to some extent, in the case of MS A, which did so sporadically). It seems that the final shape of those songs copied late into MS C was revised before they got to be copied into the later sources. An example for this is discussed here.

The sources of the latter Machaut manuscript tradition present a more complex picture. Pm and MS K show a clear tendency towards simplification as both have fewer voice-parts for a number of their musical settings. This tendency is not found in Pe. As each of these three sources contains very few works, it is impossible to use them to delineate coherent trends. MS E presents a more complicated and interesting case. As a complete and impressive presentation manuscript, which was created not long after Machaut’s death and which belonged to an important patron with personal links to the author, it is rightly considered as a valuable Machaut source. As far as numbers of voice-parts is concerned, it presents amplified settings for seven works, in each instance with one new voice added to the more common setting (B3, B4, B20, B23, B27, B31 and R7). It also presents three pieces with a reduced number of voices, again, with one fewer voice each time (B19, R17 and R21, this last work has a concordance only with MS F-G). Additionally, L1 remains monophonic in MS E’s version but, uniquely, it received twice the amount of music than in the other sources. This is due to the structure of the text, where the first half of each strophe uses a masculine rhyme while the second half a feminine rhyme. While not affecting the syllable count, in practice an additional syllable is added to each line in the second half of each strophe, an addition that requires an adjustment in the musical setting. All other sources ignore this problem, leaving the substantial alterations required to the whim of the performer. Finally, the version of R18 in MS E has the same number of voice parts as in MSS A and F-G, but with a different contratenor than the one found in those other sources. A number of these cases are detailed further here. Commentators have identified two factors that may explain the variety in scoring.  Comparisons have been drawn between the MS E readings and those of the early MS C. Due to MS E's links with the author and keeping in mind the discussion of MS C above, it is possible that the ‘simplified’ versions may exemplify the early circulation of some works, rather than a choice to omit later additions. On the other hand, it was suggested that the compilers of MS E privileged the most current available version in circulation, most likely drawn from the world of performance. The differences between MS E’s versions and the ones in the older sources were argued to hint at the mostly lost habits of practical musicianship in the later decades of the century.


Uri Smilansky

2. Towards an Established Tradition

The most extreme case of both voice-addition and planned but unused space is B22, which transited from a minimal (but with space left for two more voices) to a maximal setting.

MS C:     Sound and Score     ¦      Facsimile

MS A:     Sound and Score     ¦      Facsimile

As can clearly be heard in the recordings, the two settings give rise to strikingly different results. The four-part version changes the expressive quality of the original melody: it gives the line a different harmonic colour, as can be seen in the very beginning where the cantus is harmonized as the fifth of the chord. Onther example is the beginning of the B-part. Here, the monophonic version highlights the importnace of the shortened line of the poem which opens this form-part by introducing the new sound E-flat in the setting of the important word of the line. It is made to inhabit a strong mensural point and fit with the natural stresses of the words. All this comes together to suggest it as an important contrasting sonority to the C and F of the first part. The polyphonic versions, though, undermines this reading through the use of F-sharp in the tenor and triplum, B-natural in the contratenor and E-natural in the triplum in the immediate surrounding of the cantus' E-flat. It does no longer feel like a shift in the  modal centre of the passage, but as demarkation through the use of dissonance and diminished intervals. The polyphonic version also emphasises different locations through the creation or avoidance of harmonic cadences, or the positioning of perfect and imperfect sonorities. In addition to the many points of emphasis suggested by the cantus melody, cadential progressions of different strengths (often combined with perfect sonorities) direct the ear towards bb. 5, 7, 12, 34, 36, 40, and 48. Some moments when the cantus line might by itself raise a cadential expectation are weakened through the avoidance of standard cadential counterpoint (for this, see here) or the insertion of imperfect sonorities. This occurs at bb. 13, 35, 38 and 46, as well as both ouvert and clos endings. Taken together, the musical moments of emphasis or de-emphasis created by the polyphonic structure work directly against the clear sentence structure of the monophonic version. This has the effect of an unresolved oscillation of emphasis between the polyphonic structure and the textual structure, making it impossible for both performer and listener to reach a resting point throughout the duration of any given strophe. There is one full cadence that matches the poetic line structure, appearing at the end of the B-part and before the refrain. While this cadence highlights the expected architecture of the ballade, the sonority arrived at is so clearly an ouvert sound that it cannot be taken as a resting point either. Finally, by highlighting, pre-empting or echoing rhythmic and melodic patterns, the new voices, which were added to create the four-part version, elevate such motifs from generic devices into structuring elements that characterise the song. Thus the basic melodic gesture of the cantus in b. 23 is used to open both the A- and B-parts of the triplum (b. 1 and 32), and appears also in b. 9, 10, 28, 37, 41, 48 and 49, thus pervading and unifying the whole song. The motif heralding the musical rhyme in the cantus (b. 29, 50) has its structural importance bolstered by opening both the start and refrain section of the contratenor (b. 1, 43).


Uri Smilansky

3. The Contratenors of MS E

Some of the new contratenors to be found in MS E are simple expansions of the materials already present to the point of being formulaic. As such, they join in with the harmonic, melodic and expressive gestures already embodied by the older voices. It is indeed easy to imagine such cases arising from a specific performance context, where a performing group adjusted a pre-given work to fit its members and working context. Such additions could be created and circulated orally, and would only have been written down when oral transmission was not adequate or possible. Luckily, the creation of MS E seems to have been just such a unique case.

An example of such a voice addition is the triplum to B31:

MS Vg:     Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

MS E:     Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

The added triplum joins in with the repetition and exchange of melodic gestures and rhythmic ideas. As an example of the former, see the movement of the cantus presented once and echoed once in the A-part of this song (cantus b. 13, contratenor, b. 20), then reworked and repeated in accelerating speed to become a unifying motif in the B-part (cantus bb. 39, 44 and 55, contratenor bb. 48, 49, 53 and 59). Like in the example of B22 above, the new triplum opens all three sections of the music with this motif (sometimes with slight variation) highlighting its importance, and proceeds to repeat it in three other places, including in third-parallels with the cantus to amplify the motif’s original first appearance (bb. 1, 10, 13, 37, 52 and 54). A similar pattern can be seen in the triplum’s rhythmic behaviour: throughout the piece, the original setting sporadically introduces some syncopations, most commonly a short rhythmic pattern including an eighth-note rest followed by a quarter-note and an eighth note. These are expanded and elaborated into a recognisable characteristic of the song both at the end of the A-part and in the musical rhyme (bb. 23-36, 62-69). Thus, the shorter motif appears in bb. 4, 11, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 40, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, and longer syncopations occur in bb. 1-3, 11-12, 14-15, 19-20, 25-27, 26-28, 28-29, 31-33, 32-34, 34-35, 45-46, 55-56, 64-66, 65-67, 67-68. The new triplum joins in, inserting the short rhythmic motif also into bb. 3, 7, and 18 and longer syncopations in bb. 20-21 and 46-47. Most instances of these occur within a short musical distance to the employment of these elements in other voices. The new voice closely follows the harmonic structure of the original, amplifying (but not pre-empting) all existing cadences. While unavoidably adding some harmonic friction, it does not introduce external sonorities which would change the overall colour.

The addition of a contratenor (as a third rather than a fourth voice) has a larger potential for changing the harmonic character of a given piece of music. Even a voice that remains very close to the old tenor, foreshadowing it both rhythmically and harmonically nearly always alters the emphasis and local direction. Here I will take R7 as an example:

MS A:     Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

MS E:     Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

In this song, for example, the progression towards octave-leap cadences (even if at times only partially realised) in bb. 5-6, 16-17 and 26-28 can be read as either a modernizing sonority, bringing the song to conform with more modern tastes, or as a subversive pitch, directing the ear towards an unfulfilled C tonal centre. Other places which can be said to introduce a new sound to the setting include the A in b. 10, the progression to a D sonority in b. 15, the destabilising imperfect sonority at the end of the A-part, and perhaps most strikingly, the weakening of the final cadence through the more likely use of B-flat and G (for this, and cadential progressions as a whole, see here). Also noteworthy is the contratenor bridge bb. 8-9, an effect common to a number of the MS E contratenors. The new contratenor composed for this song by Matteo da Perugia is discussed elsewhere. As it is set in a very low range, it changes the modal and harmonic character of large swathes of this song, even suggesting the possibility of a change to the final sonority by settling a fifth below the tenor cadence note.

A more interesting and perhaps more successful addition is the new contratenor of B4. In its two-part version, this song is already noteworthy as the only chanson employing red notation. In MS E, however, this is transformed into a rare case of notated mensural change. By itself, the cantus melody does not suggest the change.

Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

The sequence in bb. 9-14 can be read in the manner of a hemiolia (reading the section in 2/4) starting at the beginning of b. 9. The tenor of the two-part version found in MSS C, Vg, B, A, and F-G indeed creates the 2/4 effect by transitioning to red notation here, but places a crotchet rest at the beginning of this bar, causing its rhythmic pattern to contradict that of the cantus, whichever way it is read. This, of course, matches and attracts attention to the word ‘estrange’ which sets the first appearance of this central rhythmic combination.

Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

The tenor also propels the song forward by inserting a quick-moving ‘up-beat’ rhythmic figure every time a rest longer than a quaver appears in the cantus (as well as in b. 15, which has a rest in the repetition of the musical rhyme). It also strengthens the role played by the ‘short-long’ division of the bar prevalent in the texted parts of the melody. This rhythmic feel is generated not only through note-values, but also by the positioning of the underlay (b. 1, 5, 6, 8, 25, 27, 30 and 38). The positioning of stressed and unstressed syllables in the underlay can also perform a subversive rhythmical role. Following word stresses (matched by parallel movement leading to a unison), one can read the beginning of the B-part in 2/4, alluding to the effect that is so central to the setting of this song as a whole.

The version in MS E refines this further.

Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

The underlay of b. 22-26 in MS E is adjusted so that the second note of the bar more or less consistently carries a stressed syllable, matching the pattern of bar 1 (‘biau-TÉ’, ‘dou-COUR’). This creates the sense of a temporary shift in the beat. In the same manner as the new voice added to R7, the contratenor here uses the octave progression in cadential and pseudo-cadential progressions (b. 6-7, 13-14, 15-16, 35-36 and 37-38); it also contributes to the propulsion of the work, with quick rhythmic movement supporting the tenor bridge in b. 7, and before the final arrivals of each of the three form parts.

The rest of the contratenor part tends towards long lines of stepwise motion, often placed in pitch underneath the tenor for relatively long stretches, giving it a melodic smoothness and harmonic importance that allows it to compete with the tenor rather than simply support and amplify it. The beginning of the B-part is most striking in this regard, with its slow stepwise descent covering a ninth, at the end of which it usurps the tenor role in the cadence to B-flat (b. 19-24). This makes the contratenor’s treatment of the rhythmic friction between cantus and tenor more interesting. While the rhythms of the last 9 bars of the A section match those at the end of the song in both the old voices, they do not share the length of the musical rhyme. The tenor repeats only the last four and two-thirds bars compared to the cantus’ nine, allowing the new contratenor more freedom of choice in its treatment of the sections in question. Interestingly, the new voice shadows the progression of the tenor in the first iteration of this rhythmic pattern (b. 9-12), but highlights the cantus grouping in the repetition (b. 31-6). This serves to underline the rhythmic tension on which the song seems to be based.

B23 offers a different perspective on the MS E contratenors.  Here, there appears not to have been a straightforward act of addition, or if there was, its results are rather questionable, and demand further explanation.

MS A:     Sound and Score (MS A)     ¦      Facsimile

MS E:     Sound and Score (MS E)     ¦      Facsimile

When looking at the new setting as a whole, the clashes between the old triplum and new contratenor can be hard to swallow: particularly the cadence at b. 11, as well as those of the A-part ouvert and before the refrain. In the first case, the old setting has a perfection which is destabilised by the new voice. The latter two had an imperfect sonority already in the original setting, with the new contratenor adding a normal perfect interval in relation to the cantus and tenor. In all three cases, one of these voices settles on the fifth degree of the sonority and the other on the sixth, resulting in a protracted second or seventh between them - precisely where a perfect point of arrival may have been expected. One must decide whether to maintain this four-part version, with these inherent problems, or to reject it and find another solution for the piece.

In defence of the four-voiced version, one can argue that this is given in the manuscript. And, even if we imagine an original user of this source having had the opportunity to hear the setting in MS A performed, he or she may not think this performed version more authoritative than that written in MS E. On the contrary: if the listener were aware of the kinds of practical adjustments music undergoes for performance, and, furthermore, had seen the MS E version written as it is as part of an impressive presentation manuscript, such a listener might surmise that the larger setting was closer to the composer’s intention. Indeed, the clashes appear between voices lower down the voice hierarchically. Even if not usually to this extent, four-part settings often include clashes as well as parallel progressions between contratenor and triplum. While such an experiment may teach us more about our sensibilities than on Medieval aesthetics, I would suggest that after some repeated listening, the ear gets used to the oddities of this version, and a return to a three-part setting can feel empty. Choice of instrumentation can also make a significant difference to how one experiences the piece. Playing the triplum and contratenor voices on plucked stringed instruments with a relatively quick decay allows the clashes to feel like a colouring in of the sustained sound of the structural cantus-tenor duet.

An alternative reading is to see this version in MS E as an amalgamation of two three-voiced renderings. There is evidence that other works in this source were a result of more than one exemplar, making such an assumption more likely. If this was the case, the second setting would have circulated more or less as in the example below. (No alterations were made to the cantus and tenor, even though it is likely that a two-version scenario would have lead to variants between these voices, too.)

Sound and Score     ¦     Facsimile

As with other settings of the time, it seems that the new contratenor of MS E was generated with reference to the tenor alone, applying a number of standard formulae regardless of the behaviour of the texted melody. These include prevalent use of stepwise sequencing (b. 9-10, 27-29, 38-40, 60-63); repetition (b.54-55); rhythmic ‘harmonic-filler’ motifs based on repetitive fifth leaps over a static tenor (b. 2-4, 7-8, 43-44, 49-50), and more direct rhythmic and / or melodic paralleling of the tenor (b. 1-2, 14, 23-24, 30-31, 33-34, 51-52 and 65-66). Together, these formulae cover half of the new voice. Such habits may hint at performance practice, by which an initially improvised contratenor was performed while reading – or having memorised – the tenor voice. Most of the time, this leads to perfectly satisfactory results, with some of the sounding dissonances being dismissed as accidental rather than essential (i.e., involving ficta, which are anyway not part of the basic harmonic system rather than with the combination of pitch-names and their behaviour). Examples for such sounding but non-structural problems are found in b. 15-16 and 19. At other times, harmonic problems may have been a result of a ‘wrong call’ by the contratenorista – harmonizing well with the tenor, but not with the cantus. This happens when the distance between the tenor and contratenor reaches a fifth, as in b. 3-4, 42, and 49, but is not overly problematic for the setting as a whole. Yet other dissonances clash with both original voices. At times it is possible to argue that a melodic gesture is the cause of such behaviour (as in the octave leap leading to b. 17, or the stepwise descent b. 45-47), while at others there seems no reason for a particular gesture (for example, at the beginning of b. 48). Instead of using bridges, this contratenor propels points of traditional arrival by inserting at times surprising imperfect consonances in relation to the tenor (see b. 7-8, 11-12, 15-16, 33, 36 and 58).

If the new contratenor was indeed the outcome of improvisatory practice using the tenor as an anchor, the same procedure and results were likely to have arrived at regardless of whether it was an added fourth voice or a replacement third voice.

The three-voiced setting still has its problems, but as we have seen, they are all relatively easy to explain and do not make the version unusable. While the amalgamation theory provides audibly more satisfactory outcomes, it does necessitate explaning why a four-voiced score occurs in MS E and how the materials upon which the scribes drew may have circulated. The source presentation may be due to a simple misunderstanding, or even a lack of interest in the audible problems of the four-voice version. Still, for a three-voice version to arise, either a two-voice version of this song had to be in circulation, or a process of reduction must have taken place. The little evidence we have on this issue is not conclusive. The circulation of Machaut works outside of his dedicated manuscript is discussed separately, but it does suggest that his attempts to control his materials did not prevent the circulation of conflicting versions.

Even within his set of dedicated manuscripts, the two-part version of R21 in MS E is very close to the cantus-tenor duo of this song’s one other copy in MS F-G, even though this version sports three voices. While some small variants do occur (most notably in the text placement and the repetition of one line in MS E), it is still possible for one version to have been a reduction of the other. MS E presents two versions of R17, a three-voice setting in the music section and a two-voice one integrated into the Voir dit. The smaller setting in the Voir dit has substantial enough differences from the transmission of this song elsewhere to suggest this is a separate, independent version, and not a simplification of the three-voice scoring.

The only case of conflicting settings of the same size, R18, suggests larger reworking and independent circulation rather than the simple act of substituting one contratenor for another.

MS A:     Sound and Score (MS A)     ¦     Facsimile

MS E:     Sound and Score (MS E)     ¦     Facsimile

While the cantus remains stable (the lengths of its long notes starting b. 4 and at the cadences of the two form-parts are contextual - for more on this and the question of Modus, see here), both tenor and contratenor change between the versions. The general contours of the voices remain the same, but both lower voices diverge substantially in b. 4-9, and then to a lesser extent towards the end of the piece. While the version of MS A maintains a sense of mirroring between the form-parts and projects large-scale rhythmic stability, the MS E version increases voice-independence and inserts additional syncopations which serve to project irregularity and disjuncture.


Uri Smilansky