Almost two years ago I started working on my senior thesis, “Sociopolitical Communication in the 20th Century Western Art Music Tradition.” One of the many parts of the final product was an analysis of Frederic Rzewski’s “Coming Together”, a 20-minute structured improvisation about the death of Sam Melville in the Attica Prison Riots. As difficult as it was to perform, perhaps more difficult was discovering the mathematical formulas and processes that Rzewski utilized to compose the bass, the only composed line which dictates the improvisations of all other performers. It was a huge a-ha moment for me, and to this day I have yet to see anyone post it online. I don’t really foresee it going through the peer-review process any time soon, so I thought I would share it here for any aspiring theoreticians trying to crack Fred’s code, or performers looking for another way of approaching the piece (it helps a ton!) Enjoy:
P.S. Would have nitpicked the formatting, but you’ll live! I’ll fix it another time.
Frederic Rzewski’s Coming Together is a setting of an excerpt from the personal
correspondence of Sam Melville, an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica,
New York. Melville was one of the leaders of the infamous Attica Prison riot which
occurred earlier in 1971.43 Rzewski’s composition attempts to portray the graduak
unification of the inmates around a common goal within the confines of the prison. In
order to convey the stasis of the penitentiary environment, Rzewski restricts himself to a
mere seven notes (G1, Bb1, C2, D2, F2, G2, and Bb2), arranged in a continuous stream of
16th notes in common time. This gamut is then subjected to a series of algorithmic
processes which create a heavily syncopated melody in the bass register, echoing the
ordered chaos of prison life. This melody represents the common goal of the performers
acting as the inmates, who must then follow a series of instructions which actualize a
coming together around the bass melody. The instructions are generally improvisatory in
nature, directing performers to select notes from the bass melody to be played at the same
Nied 43
43 Leslie James Pickering, Mad Bomber Melville: Part One, Artvoice, 6 June 2007, <http://artvoice.com/
issues/v6n23/mad_bomber_melville_part_one>, accessed March 2012.
time as they occur in the instrument realizing said melody. These selections increase in
frequency and intensity, culminating with all performers playing every note of the original
melody in unison. The overall aural effect of the performance is one of a melody
composed of constantly shifting timbres, initially individualized but increasingly blended.
Rzewski’s additive processes are most easily comprehended if ordinal positions are
assigned to the notes of the gamut, from low to high: G1 = [1], Bb1 = [2], C2 = [3], D2 =
[4], F2 = [5], G2 = [6], and Bb2 = [7] (ordinal positions are placed within brackets to
avoid confusion). Each section has a target melody consisting of a series of rising or falling
lines which move sequentially through the gamut; the direction and sequential size of
these lines vary from section to section, although every melody is 28 notes total. Rzewski
then creates phrases which grow consecutively longer by adding notes toward the target
melody of the given section. For example, section A’s target melody is the sequence [1|12|
123|1234|12345|123456|1234567], where bars indicate rising or falling lines (fragments)
and brackets indicate phrases. Rzewski then creates phrases of increasing length by adding
notes from the sequence one by one: [1] [1|1] [1|12] [1|12|1] [1|12|12] [1|12|123] etc.
Section B’s target melody is [1234567|123456|12345|1234|123|12|1], and is constructed
in the same manner – [1] [12] [123] [1234] [12345] [123456] [1234567] [1234567|1] etc.
One could explain sections C-H in a similar manner by finding their target melodies and
the sequencing thereof, but there is an additional layer of complex rationality to Rzewski’s
composition:
C is a retrograde of B,
D is an inversion of B,
E is an inversion of C and the retrograde inversion of B,
Nied 44
F is a retrograde inversion of A,
G is an inversion of A,
H is a retrograde of A.
Thus sections C-H are a mirror image of process, which helps the piece feel organic
and creates development. Starting with A and B as the original themes, they are both
treated to increasing levels of variation before gradually returning. The piece ends exactly
how it started, but in reverse – perhaps a very potent metaphor for the life of Sam Melville
and the other participants in the Attica riots.
Since the algorithmic procedure of each section takes place at the same point of
melodic construction or destruction – the last note for the additive processes, the first note
for the subtractive – there are many ways to interpret the sections’ relationship to one
another. For instance, one interpretation might relate every section to A. If the order of
melodic fragments is considered, section B is a fragment retrograde of section A. In this
context,
C is a retrograde of the retrograde of the fragment order of A,
D is an inversion of the fragment order of A,
E is an inversion of C and the retrograde inversion of the fragment order of A,
F is a retrograde inversion of A,
G is an inversion of A,
H is a retrograde of A.
Each section consists, at its most basic level, of all consecutive constructions of a sevennote
gamut at a constant rhythmic value. All ordinal intervals (meaning the distance from
one note to the next within a fragment as a measurement of position in the scale rather
Nied 45
than intervallic relationships) are static at 1 within fragments, and each pair of fragments
will have equivalent ordinal intervals in every other section (leaps of every real number
0-7). Because of these mathematical consistencies between sections, how one decides to
analyze Coming Together is relative. At the most abstract, sections do not need to be
considered relative to each other, since each operates as one permutation of the system
described above. This in itself might be Rzewski’s ultimate message: each section, each
note, and each performer is ultimately one permutation of a collective process, either
musically or in a broadly human sense. The intertwining of its individual parts affects a
greater whole operating in harmony, each member of which plays an equally important
part. No one note or performer has more importance than another in the composition and
performance of the work.
An aside: because the additive and subtractive process are themselves essentially
mirror images, with the additive affecting the last note of the phrase and the subtractive the
first, any inversion or retrograde of any section can be considered as an independent
function and written out like section A is above. From experience performing the piece,
this is actually recommended so that the performer can pick up the pattern instead of
trying to remember the retrograde inversion of a previous section. Being able to see the
pattern unfolding is invaluable in the improvisational sections and is immeasurably useful
when approaching a page turn or finding one’s place. Contextualizing C-H against
sections A and B allows for a discussion that is at once detailed and succinct without overcomplicating
or over-simplifying Rzewski’s constructions.
The text itself – eight lines from one of Sam Melville’s letters to his brother written
during the riot – is incarcerated into fragments seven units in length, mirroring the number
Nied 46
of pitches in the gamut.44 The sentences are then subjected to a simplified version of the
additive process selecting the order of pitches: the first sentence is sounded, then the first
and second, followed by the first, second, and third, and so on until all eight sentences
have been heard. Once that goal has been reached, the first sentence is removed so that
the text starts on the second and continues to the eighth fragment. The second sentence is
then removed as the remainder are recited, then the third, and so on. Rzewski also
employs word painting techniques throughout the piece to further the unification process
and musically express the emotionality involved in the procedure. As section B comes to a
close, the text “there are doubtless subtle surprises ahead, but I feel secure and ready” is
recited. As the corresponding measures pass, Rzewski increases the overall dynamic level
by saturating the melody with accent marks. When section C begins, the dynamic
indication drops to subito piano – a subtle musical surprise to echo the textual one. The
first appearance of the fragments “as lovers / will contrast” accompanies this softening of
texture. As section F nears and the performers diminish in volume, the speaker tells the
audience that he is “feeling for the inevitable direction of my life.” The musicians then
offer direction playing subito forte, as if inspired with a new sense of purpose. Then, as F
nears completion, the final reprise of the phrase “there are doubtless subtle surprises
ahead, but I feel secure and ready” is recited. This time, instead of presenting a surprise,
Rzewski’s ensemble realizes security and readiness, crescendoing triple forte into the now
confident “as lovers” fragment. As the piece ends, the speaker once more repeats that s/he
is “feeling for the inevitable direction of my life.” The direction comes in the form of a
musical gunshot. The piece ends abruptly as every member of the ensemble plays five low
Nied 47
44 For full correspondences from Mr. Melville, see: Samuel Melville, Letters From Attica, Morrow, (New York,
1972). See appendix A for the full text, sentence order, and fragmentation.
Gs as loudly as possible before cutting off without any ritardando or diminuendo as a
warning. This can be interpreted as the moment of Melville’s death from the bullet of a
National Guard sniper as Melville was walking through the courtyard of the penitentiary
after the armed forces had seized the building by force.
Part two, “Attica,” follows, floating on a constant Bb major triad, the relative major
of “Coming Together.” The melody is again additive and performers are instructed to either
drone on a Bb major tonality, play the melody, harmonize the melody at the third or sixth,
or improvise freely around the melody. The vocalist repeats the text, “Attica is in front of
me,” a quote spoken by Melville’s fellow inmate Richard X. Clark when asked how it felt
to put Attica behind him.45 This text is also additive, this time being constructed word by
word rather than sentence by sentence. The choice of this quote highlights the peculiar
duality pervasive throughout both parts of Coming Together. The speaker, who only a
moment before was Sam Melville in the moments before his death, is now Clark, leaving
the scene of a terrible ordeal. If “Coming Together” is representative of Melville’s role in
the riot itself, “Attica” may be the musical sonification of the aftermath of his death.
Christian Apslund makes several other insightful observations about the duality of the
work: “Attica, seen in this light has been a laboratory, a monastery and a school; a
preparing ground for a greater struggle in the world outside Attica.”
Coming Together was initially met with a mixed initial critical response. Some
questioned Rzewski’s use of a relatively simplistic G minor pentatonic scale in a time
where experimentalism and serialism had sidelined tonality. Others questioned the
incessant rhythm of the bass line. However, the sociopolitical messaging in Coming
Nied 48
45 Christian Apslund, “Frederic Rzewski and Spontaneous Political Music,” Perspectives of New Music, 33,
(Winter/Summer, 1995), 418.
Together combined with the test of time has many who initially dismissed the work to
acknowledge its artistry. As critic John Rockwell commented, “everything considered, he
raises so many issues that the fact that his actual music is only intermittently interesting
becomes almost secondary.”46
