3.1. The text(s)

In most of Capdeville’s works, the composer uses texts in a seemingly random way or without a specific order. The texts, phrases or words are often deconstructed, but these choices are essentially due to her interest in the sound of the words or the phonetics. Through the performance, these fragments are interrupted, overlapped, repeated and deconstructed; subtexts are created offering various readings.

In Double, the following phrases or text fragments are used: ^{Footnote 12}

• 1935 Picasso Manifesto (fragment)

• ‘Voi ch’entrate (lasciate ogni speranza)’ and ‘Et facta est (lux)’, extracted from Inferno by Dante Alighieri (Capdeville uses passages of both texts)

• Si La Rivoluzione Paranoico Criticizes L’arcangelismo Scientifico by Salvador Dalí (fragment extracted from the painter’s book)

• Something is happening, but you don’t know what it is, do you know Mr. Jones? (phrase used)Footnote ¹³

• Crucifixus (fragments of the poem, with the word being deconstructed or disintegrating, e.g., see following text)

• Fik

• Sik

• Fixus Cixus

• Cifixus

• Cificixus

• Crucifixus

• Rex Absconditur or Wo bist du (single sentences)

3.2. Sources on tape

As this study progressed, a tape recording was found at the Gulbenkian Archives that corresponded to Double’s debut in 1982 (which I call the FCG Tape) that proved to be essential to understanding the articulation between the different layers of material and the distinction between acoustic and recorded sounds. However, in addition to the FCG Tape, the location of the score belonging to Augusto, who collaborated with Capdeville in recording the tapes used in the performance and in operating the magnetophone during the performance in 1982, was essential for this study, as it contained specific instructions about tape inputs. Thus, the FCG Tape (the tape recording of the live performance in 1982) and Augusto’s score enabled the process of recreating Double’s aural structure (see Figure 3). Moreover, the interviews with artists involved in the performance proved key to this study, helping to locate the various actors and allowing the production of new documentation regarding the work. For the analysis of tape recordings, the methodology adopted is grounded in the act of active listening, advocated by Alain Bonardi, based on the set of interactions between listeners and musical documents (Bonardi Reference Bonardi2000: 12). The FCG Tape and the original Tape 5 and Tape 6 (used in Double’s performance in 1982) were compared with additional documentation such as the scores and scripts (sound, light and mute choir). Active listening promoted an articulation between the various elements, except for the scenic part, as there was no chance to access videos from this unique performance. Through complementary information (e.g., composer’s notes explaining aspects of the movement and gestures specifically linked to the mute choir, the singer, the cellist and the pianist), it was possible to understand, albeit incompletely, the scenic elements. However, there is much more to explore in this regard; for a more detailed analysis of the work, it would be crucial to access the scores of the singer, the pianist and the cellist, since particular notes were written for the musicians, in the same way as the score belonging to Augusto (the sound technician) included specific notes about the entrances of the recordings that do not appear elsewhere.

Figure 1.

Dança Grupo. Courtesy of Luísa Vendrell.

Figure 2.

Location of musicians on stage in Double (1982). With permission from BNP.

Figure 3.

Double’s aural structure

3.3. The mute choir

With regard to the mute choir, the information was initially scarce. However, the choreographer Elisa Worm, who did not remember in detail the performance of Dança Grupo in Double, suggested contacting the dancer Luís Carolino, who confirmed that the mute choir had indeed participated in Double’s debut. Carolino recommended getting in contact with other members of Dança Grupo, and after talking with dancers such as Luísa Vendrell, she provided a photo (Figure 1). Also Luís Carraça, another of the dancers contacted, provided information about their performance on stage. At the time, the members of Dança Grupo were Carlos Piçarra, Helena Vaz, Luís Carraça, Luís Carolino, Luísa Vendrell, Luísa Palha and Rosalina Santos. Elisa Worm also recalled the importance of the collaboration with choreographer Paula Massano (1949–2012), as they worked together to conceive the choreography. ^{Footnote 14}

Carlos Piçarra remembered that the mute choir was not at the level of the stage – they performed on a higher platform and made gestures with their hands, composing figures (e.g., goddess Kâli). The dancer also recalled that the group was lit with an effect that gave the impression of hidden figures, and broken lighting that was designed to show they were acting as open and ephemeral syllables. The mute choir did not emit any sound, the sound of their voices was previously recorded, and during the performance Tape 6 reproduced all the mute choir’s sounds, while the performers made movements and opened their mouths as if the sound that came from the magnetic tape was coming from the dancers. At Double’s debut, there was a chess game between two percussion players who also did not emit any sound; the two performers were seated in high chairs and used timpani as a table. They were also raised on a platform (Figure 2) and their only action was to play the game. The percussion part (as it was referred to by Capdeville) of the chess players was accompanied by the second movement of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony (Funeral March).

4.1. Analysing excerpts of Double using iAnalyse

The iAnalyse software developed by Pierre Couprie allows musicologists to access a set of different files (images, sound, markers, among others), helping to interpret a work. ^{Footnote 15} I chose iAnalyse to analyse some excerpts of Double, mainly because the software helps in carrying out analytical schemes that make it easier to visually understand the composer’s collaborative creative processes. It was particularly useful for the musical analyses and listening guide. Double is a music theatre work that includes electroacoustics (sounds recorded on tape), and the way it is represented goes beyond the traditional score. Capdeville wrote a full score, not in conventional notation, but using graphic marks and instructions. The individual scores for each performer are like the full score but with the addition of specific instructions written for that part. For example, in the pianist’s score, Capdeville drew screws to highlight a certain section in which the pianist would play the piano by pulling on the strings with a screw; she created her own symbol to represent the sound of the gong (which could be recorded or played live); she drew a kind of dotted cloud to indicate wind chime sounds (once again recorded or live); she made drawings of crotales and drumsticks to specify that the player should use them at a certain moment. Thus, to communicate her ideas, the composer represented gestures or recorded sounds with visual symbols that are not characteristic of conventional musical notation. In the existing documentation, there are also scripts (for sound/the electronic part, lighting and mute choir) that explain some aspects of the performance that are not included in either the composer’s score or the individual performers’ scores. Consequently, this poses a question: how can we analyse a work that is not linear in a traditional sense? The iAnalyse software was particularly important for the analysis of Double because on the FCG Tape, and we can hear several elements of the performance that are not written in the score. As iAnalyse allows the identification of elements that are not mentioned in the score, it serves as a listening guide. ^{Footnote 16} For this article, I opted to analyse the following interventions: Prologue and Intervention 1, Intervention 4 and Intervention 5. ^{Footnote 17}

In Video Example 1, the Prologue and Intervention 1 are linked together, and audibly it is difficult to perceive the moment when the Prologue switches to Intervention 1. The Prologue begins with a sequence of recorded maracas, followed by a monologue including Picasso’s Manifest, vocal effects, a continuous background sound and wood sounds. Then the sound of a gong occurs. Capdeville called the gong sound generic and it appears occasionally throughout the monologue, then the sound of screws are introduced, in which the pianist plays the piano by pulling on the strings with a screw and the same effect is reproduced by the tape recording. Intervention 1 starts with this sequence of screws, then the recorded voice enters with ‘Voi ch’entrate’ (on Tape 6); after this the singer slaps their mouth and intones live the expression ‘Et facta’ (Video Example 1). In the video representations, the blue and purple markers on the score correspond to recorded sounds; live sounds are marked in red. Occasionally, the colours of the markers change when voices appear. Video Example 2 corresponds to Intervention 4 entitled ‘Rex Absconditur’. In this intervention recorded voices are combined with live spoken voice. The piano and the cello interact by playing a chord with space between each note. The intervention ends with the live expression ‘Nha-Cque’ spoken by the voice and accompanied by Barrica Indiana and cello (Video Example 2). Finally, Video Example 3 represents Intervention 5, in which several elements are combined. There is live voice, live cello, flexatone (played by the pianist), Tape 5, with a recorded solo of temple blocks, and Tape 6, which reproduces recorded interjections ‘Ah!… Hey! and so on…’ representing the sounds of the mute choir which, in turn makes expressions and gestures that do not emit any sound. At the end of Intervention 5 a recorded gong (from Tape 5) is heard; this sound is not mentioned in the documentation available, and this is discussed in section 4.2 (Video Example 3). The systematic study of recordings and the comparison between recordings, scores and other documentation is crucial to recovering works involving audio components. For example, when the recording merges with the live sound, the analysis of the waveform allows us to distinguish between recorded or live sounds, as shown in Figures 6 and 9.

Figure 4.

Double score: end of Intervention 2. Indication of tacet in the recording part. With permission from Carlos Alberto Augusto.

Figure 5.

Double score: end of the Prologue and sequence of screws on the piano, which is the beginning of Intervention 1. With permission from Carlos Alberto Augusto.

Figure 6.

Waveform representation of the screws effect: live (FCG Tape) and recorded piano

Figure 7.

Double score: end of Intervention 1. With permission from Carlos Alberto Augusto.

Figure 8.

Double’s Intervention 5. With permission from Carlos Alberto Augusto.

Figure 9.

Representation of the waveforms of the recordings used in Intervention 5: FCG Tape, Tape 5 and Tape 6, respectively.

4.2. Tapes (sources) vs tapes (electronic part)

The graph in Figure 3 represents the aural structure of Double as conceived from the systematic analysis of the three existing tape recordings. The lack of a video recording of the performance means there is limited information on the lighting and scenic gestures or movements, so I opted to examine the sound elements, both recorded and live, in more depth in order to characterise the sound and observe the interactions between the tape recordings and their doubles (the performers who played live). However, as the composer gave the same importance to all elements of the work, and as the interaction between elements is central to its identity, whenever possible, scenic and lighting components have been indicated based on the remaining documentation (e.g., score, scripts, figures, images and composer’s suggestions).

The recordings combine manipulated sounds, especially through games with the doubles in which recorded and live sounds are heard and result in overlapping effects on the voice or instruments, which are often difficult to distinguish aurally. For this reason, when analysing the three recordings (FCG Tape, Tape 5 and Tape 6), it was necessary to compare the full score, the sound script and the score belonging to Augusto. Aural analysis was facilitated by Sonic Visualiser, which allowed the observation of the waveforms from the recorded sounds and the comparison of sounds that occasionally raised doubts (e.g., recorded gong). The software also served to determine the duration of each intervention and each sound. The sounds in the original tape recordings (Tape 5 and Tape 6) are prepared sequentially without overlapping elements. Both tapes were recorded at Capdeville’s house, in cooperation with Augusto, therefore without a ‘studio’ and without time constraints, as he himself says. ^{Footnote 18} Augusto noted that in Double the tapes acted as a musical instrument, and his role, as a technician, was to materialise the composer’s ideas in technical terms. At the time, the recording of these tapes required several meetings with the various actors at Capdeville’s home. There, the performers recorded their doubles. For example, the baritone Wagner Diniz recorded the excerpt of Picasso’s Manifesto and texts ‘Voi ch’entrate’ and ‘Et facta est’ from Dante Alighieri’s Inferno. The cellist recorded the continuous solos, which were then mimicked during the performance, as well as pizzicato effects and attacks. The pianist recorded effects on the prepared piano. Often when these recordings were played back on tape during the performance, the pianist did not play the piano and performed other tasks, such as mimicking playing the gong (a gesture frequently used in Double); at other moments, the pianist interacted with his double (the recording or the mirror), with both performing the same effects, making it difficult to distinguish the pianist from his double. The mute choir recorded ironic vocal expressions, such as laughs, whispers, breaths, ‘ahs’ or ‘heys’; however, this was a scenic-visual part, as the choir just pretended to emit these sounds while performing certain movements.

Double’s aural structure (Figure 3) has a timeline (the FCG Tape) divided into 10 sections, showing the duration of each intervention in minutes and seconds, as well as the remaining elements of the recordings (Tape 5, Tape 6 and the FCG Tape – the live sound heard throughout). The timeline also indicates that the work lasted around 21′03″, with the longest sections being the Prologue and Epilogue, lasting 3′18″ and 3′, respectively. The duration of the other interventions varies from 1′ to 3′. Figure 3 shows the sounds from Tape 5, Tape 6 and live sounds, which may have been intertwined with the recordings, therefore they are inaccurate in terms of duration. This structure helped to determine the relationships between the various recordings, allowing an understanding of their interaction; one can see how the sounds would have been played live and recognise, albeit with some difficulty, the duality of the recordings and live sounds, and see whether the recordings are simultaneous or asynchronous and identify their durations, including the silence. The restored structure also gives an overview of how the recordings are introduced during the performance. It would be very difficult to grasp the whole sequence from the score alone. As Tape 5 and Tape 6 were recorded sequentially, this organisation is maintained for the complete structure (Figure 3). Tape 5 comprises mostly instrumental sounds; and Tape 6 essentially includes the sounds of voices, although some sound effects from percussion, woodwind, cello and marbles (as an effect on the piano strings) are also heard. Turning now to the inputs and outputs of Tape 5, Tape 6 and FCG Tape, the Prologue and Intervention 1 are linked and it is difficult to hear when the Prologue moves into Intervention 1. Some interventions are divided by moments of silence. This could also serve to indicate changes in the different instrumental layers. In scores, silence is generally indicated as tacet (see Figure 4). In the score shown in Figure 5, the symbol of a gong appears with fortissimo (ff) in the circle, meaning that the recording of the gong should enter at that moment. Capdeville called the gong sound a generic moment; sounds of recorded wood are simultaneously heard, which end shortly afterwards, as if announcing a change. This generic moment links with the recorded sequence of screws (see square and ellipse in Figure 5), an effect recorded on Tape 5 (in which the pianist slowly drags screws across the piano strings).

In the sequence using screws, the pianist starts interacting with his double (Tape 5), performing the same effect but live, a moment in which live sound mixes with the recording. This moment is also the switch to Intervention 1. In the sound script, the Prologue and Intervention 1 are written on the same page: there is no exact division. The Prologue starts with a sequence of recorded maracas and then live maracas are heard, next both recorded and live sounds start to blend, then it turns into live maracas only. The pianist João Paulo Santos described how the composer recorded the sound of maracas saying that Capdeville used sugar packets (Magalhães Reference Magalhães2020: 261) as she was not satisfied with the real sound of the maracas and decided the sugar packets gave a better result for the recording. The amalgamation of recorded and live sounds happens quite frequently throughout Double – the effect of the screws is another example. Figure 6 shows the waveforms of the FCG Tape and Tape 5. The visualisation of the sonograms allows us to understand in which moments the performer plays live and how the interaction between the player and their double occurs (Tape 5). In the same figure, we can see that after the attack on the piano, the performer pulls the strings with a screw at least twice but, as expected, these sounds do not appear on Tape 5. At the beginning of the FCG Tape the line of the waveform is fuller, which is normal because this waveform resulted from the capture of the remaining frequencies emitted in the concert hall. The line of Tape 5 is smoother because only the sound of the piano is captured in the recording.

On Tape 6, the sound of crotales is produced by striking them against the beam of the piano or inside the piano box and wind chimes are struck with a drumstick. In Augusto’s score it is indicated that Tape 5 gives the input (*1). However this information is wrong because the sound relating to the crotales is recorded on Tape 6 (it should be indicated in the score as *2), and it was possible to confirm this by listening to the recordings, as well as through the sound script when it refers to Tape 6 (see Figure 7).

Intervention 5, entitled ‘Do you know Mr. Jones?’ (Figure 8), is paradigmatic since consideration of the score is not enough to understand the complete collaborative creative process. Turning to the tapes as a source of listening for a section that has so much hidden information plays an even more significant role in this part of the analysis.

In Intervention 5 several elements are combined simultaneously: live voice; live cello; flexatone, played by the pianist; Tape 5, including recorded solo temple blocks; and finally, interjections ‘Ah!’, ‘Hey!’ by the mute choir, which are recorded on Tape 6. This intervention ends with the sound of a recorded gong (which appears in both Tape 5 and Tape 6). This gong sound is not mentioned in any document in Capdeville’s collection, nor the score, nor the sound script. However, the sound is heard in the FCG Tape, Tape 5 and Tape 6: it is only made obvious through the recordings. The sonogram shown in Figure 9 highlights the three waveforms of the FCG Tape, Tape 5 and Tape 6. The top waveform shows the FCG Tape (performance from 1982), the middle waveform corresponds to Tape 5, and the bottom waveform relates to Tape 6. Figure 9 shows the last two waveforms arranged with the FCG Tape in order to highlight the inputs and outputs of each tape during the performance, also making it possible to see the interactions.

On the FCG Tape and Tape 5, the sound of the gong is heard but it is not described in the score. These data show the importance of studying the recordings systematically to extract details about the work’s performance. This confirms that the application of methodologies such as musicological archeology, the use of tapes as sources or the use of iAnalyse software to represent some parts (even those that are missing) of the work revealed appropriate practices for restoring the auditory structure of Double, demonstrating that the use of technology is essential to understanding and recovering collaborative creation processes in a composition and/or performance of this kind. This study is also important for framing the historical compositional practices of the time, while discussing issues in the taxonomy of analysis/composition in Capdeville’s music and how we can analyze her music, collaboration and performance. The aforementioned methodologies can be useful for future findings, especially in the context of electroacoustic music studies that face similar analytical problems.