Dialogues Fragiles

The main idea behind the piece is the creation of dialectic situations within the mon­o­phon­ic limitations of solo music. Dif­fer­ent pairs of timbral elements on a prepared vi­o­lin enter into continuous dialogues, which may be perceived as frag­ile. Five sound materials are arranged in the or­der from continuous, sus­tained to dis­con­tin­u­ous, per­cus­sive sounds: 1.    Twittering: High fast downwards ricochet notes and high upwards glissandi with harmonic fin­gering. 2.    Yowling: Low (dirty) single notes and downwards glissandi with normal fingering. 3.    Whistling: Fingernail pizzicato (left hand) together with high (harmonic) “screw fingering”. 4.    Pecking: Screw, plug and rapid fingertip pizzicato with low fingernail fingering. 5.    Dabbing: Legno battuto gettato alongside the fingerboard, partly with dampened strings.The piece undergoes a clear formal development starting with material 1 in a high den­sity with low dynamics. Soon ma­te­ri­al 2 enters in a low density with high dy­nam­ics, creating an inequal, imbalanced dialogue. Both materials develop in op­po­site di­rec­tions: whilst material 1 reaches a low density and high dynamics before dis­ap­pear­ing, material 2 moves towards high den­si­ty and low dynamics.?Now material 3 enters into a similar dialogue with material 2, the same procedure is then repeated between materials 3 and 4 as well as 4 and 5. When material 5 dis­ap­pears, the fragile dialogues have come to an end.
Commission: violinist Peter Shep­­pard Skærved (Gbr).