Tanja Orning

bar 92 are examples of moments when the composer wanted something more
specific than he had experienced. These are among the moments that deviate
the most from the original, which is evident when listening to recordings and
concerts, so this points to a wish on the part of the composer for a more “valid
reproduction,” to borrow Ferneyhough’s term that I discussed earlier.
The renotation of a few central places is probably due to the development of
notational techniques in the course of Pression’s existence. Symbols for pressed
bowings (crush), col legno, and more, together with the now widespread per-
formance practice of these techniques, have been largely standardised in the
contemporary music community.
We can, however, trace a movement towards a more normative and con-
servative notational practice in the revised score. This is apparent in the
added bar lines, notated rhythms, and additional systems, notated in a
more traditional manner, that replace or are added to the more graphic sec-
tions. It is a movement towards a more accurate and standardised notation,
towards something that is more steady and verifiable than it was. For dec-
ades, Lachenmann has been in the forefront when it comes to developing
notational technique, so the changes in the score reflect the development of
notational potential in his earlier works as well as a more general develop-
ment and common understanding of this kind of notation. The score now
meets contemporary standards for notation, and thus it has the advantage
of conveying more information about the composer’s intentions. This makes
it more accessible for performers who do not have the advantage of close
knowledge of the performance practice associated with Lachenmann’s work
to interpret the score. The changes can also be seen as a natural reaction to
the general improvement in performance practice in contemporary music, in
that performers are now able to execute complex scores and thus want more
detailed instructions to enable them to penetrate more deeply into the work
and the composer’s intentions.
In my opinion, the first edition was somehow more crude and primitive
than the new one. In the very beginning of the new edition, for instance, the
instruction to hold the bow in the fist is omitted; one might ask why it was
there in the first place? It did not facilitate playing; it must have been more
of a visual element, emphasising the primitive aspect of the mechanics of the
cello as sound production tool, grabbing the bow as one would a saw. The
new edition is more mature and nuanced; some of the initial edge has worn
off. In this way, the revision takes advantage of improvements in performance
practice, as well as Lachenmann’s maturing as a composer.
Being a pioneer in these new instrumental techniques, Lachenmann has
travelled worldwide with his works for years, willingly demonstrating his
modus operandi for orchestral musicians. He has an increasing number of ded-
icated and influential performers, soloists and ensembles happy to perform
his works, operating as “agents” to spread the knowledge of his aesthetics.
Key performances, recordings and festivals have established a strong perfor-
mance practice associated with Lachenmann’s music. The recognition of him
as a central European post-war composer, coupled with his extensive travel-

106