Music for Solo Performer by Alvin Lucier in an Investigation of

Current Trends in Brainwave Sonification

Professor Michael Gardner, Analysis

University of Pittsburgh, 30th of April, 2011

The sonification of brainwaves produced by analog electrical and

acoustical sounds in Music for Solo Performer by Alvin Lucier, was both an

attempt to bypass the acculturated frame of sound (“I think that acoustical

phenomena are universal, not cultural, so I decided…to explore the natural

characteristics of sound waves”1) and also a door through which we might hear

the sound of the mind in process (and incidentally to experience our own music-

reactions to it,) to the extent to which it is possible through the amplification of

alpha waves. Music for Solo Performer poses an audacious challenge to

conventional musical analysis; while normally a main goal of musical analysis is

to address the mind of the composer, performer and/or audience, Lucier makes

us listen to the rhythm of waves formed in the performerʼs mind itself, the minute

specifics of which are, by nature, involuntary. How do we analyze the sonic

projection of a natural waveform occurring in the electrical pattern of the brain?

Although the piece would seem to be angled specifically to transcend normal

“musical meaning” and address ʻstate of mindʼ itself, Alvin Lucier says, “I found

1 Matthew Rogalsky, “’Nature’ as an Organising Principle: Approaches to chance and the natural in the work of John Cage, David Tudor and Alvin Lucier,” in Organised Sound Vol. 15 No. 2, 136.

the alphaʼs quiet thunder extremely beautiful.”2 We can explicate that beauty

through sonic and musical analysis. By looking at the sound of this natural

phenomenon as projected onto electrically triggered percussion ensembles,

Lucier has provided us with a way to evaluate aesthetic judgment in its most raw

state.

In many performance and design aspects, Music for Solo Performer is not

free of musical intention however. There is a hidden performer who is capable of

changing essential parameters of the piece both in the form of the person who

decides on, and builds the percussion set-up and the person who attenuates

them live. In most cases this person also changes the instrumentation as the

piece progresses. There is the performerʼs ability to open and close the eyes,

which trigger major changes in alpha wave amplitude. In addition, there is the

possibility of biofeedback, wherein the performer is able to control the strength of

their alpha waves. And there are the theatrical aspects of the act itself and itʼs

situation. From the structural and surface differences between various versions of

MFSP and itʼs relation to other ʻbrainwave musicʼ we can ask the question, which

criteria can we use to assemble the most meaningful “translation” of brainwaves?

First I will examine and compare the available recordings of MFSP to each other.

Thereafter I will discuss recent neurological research in the realm of sonification,

2 Alvin Lucier, “Music for Solo Performer” recorded on December 8 and 9, 2007, Lovely Music LCD 5013, Liner notes.

both medical and aesthetic and see how a close reading of Music for Solo

Performer enlivens and informs the current discussion.

Various other composers, some of whom have gathered experience in the

field of neurology, (most notably David Rosenboom) have been engaged with

making music with interactive brainwaves for some time. But there has been a

definite revival of interest in the attempt to make brainwaves into sound since

around the turn of the 21st century. One reason for this is the utilization of the

new, more powerful digital means at our disposal. Another is the continuing rise

of cross-disciplinary study, including the acknowledgement on the part of the

scientific community, as well as in the liberal arts, of the limitations of positivistic

methods in scholarship. Neurologists regularly work with and consult experts in

other fields in order to aim their experiments for maximum relevancy. The

sciences and the arts have not been closer together for centuries than they are

now.

Nearly 50 years after Alvin Lucier composed and performed Music for Solo

Performer, the new focus on sonifying brainwaves is being brought to bear by

neurologists (not just composers) not only for pathology and even potential

treatment purposes, but also for artistic experimentation, in order to open

possible doors to new ways of thinking, and perceiving, that could provide

neurological insights. On both sides, utilitarian and aesthetic, they are faced with

the same questions which composers face in their work. In the case of sound for

diagnostic and treatment purposes, a host of specific practical criteria come into

play for the utilization of the sonification of brainwaves that place limits on

creativity. How do these developments change the perspective on Music for Solo

Performer? How can the different sound settings of various performances of

MFSP inform the renewed engagement with brainwave sound today? A majority

of the articles dealt with in this paper cite MFSP, but none of them go any farther

than merely mentioning it, as if by just knowing about the piece their scholarship

is significantly enriched. Lucier and otherʼs various extant recordings from 1965,

1976, 1982, 2007 and other realizations not by Oliveros or Lucier in the last 2

years all have valuable software under the hood into which researchers could

profitably delve.

The local rhythms in MFSP, as portrayed through percussion surfaces

excited by amplification are, due to their source, similar in all the recordings. In all

of them we hear dense clusters of attacks. Rolls are separated by short

asymmetrical sporadic silences. The rolls accomplished by speakers are super-

humanly fast, and therefore often have a distorted quality. As the hyper-rolls

increase or decrease in intensity, various pitches are elicited from the

drumheads. (We see the most exaggerated example of this effect in the version

from 1982.) The pauseʼs rhythms are reminiscent of Morse code signal. The

rhythms are tantalizingly speech-like. We form phrasal closure in connection with

the pauses between bursts. But the constant, fast-paced, (mostly)

undifferentiated string of the thousands of closures presented overloads our

cognitive system. The unrelenting stream of such rhythms without clear larger

boundaries forces our imagination to create ʻarbitraryʼ larger formal downbeats in

their stead. These ʻarbitraryʼ downbeats are often the markers of our own state of

consciousness going in and out of focused attention as we deal with the

overload. Music for Solo Performer creates a performative, interpretive role for

the listener by leaving the local rhythmic structures up to the indeterminate

actions of the performerʼs alpha waves. Figures ʻLucier1ʼ and ʻLucier 2ʼ detail

some of the local alpha rhythms, taken from the 2007 version of Music for Solo

Performer minute 29:56 to 30:16. ʻLucier1ʼ is at speed and ʻLucier 2ʼ is more

than twice as slow.

The overall form of the piece is to some degree dependent on flux in the

performerʼs “alpha state” from one minute to the next, but rests even more on the

“hidden” performer who decides how sensitive the amplifiers triggering the drums

should be set initially, and who runs the mixer in the performance, improvising

how the amplified alpha waves are dispersed through the ensemble over the

course of the work. This person, the unnamed duo partner in Music for Solo

Performer, is actually responsible for improvising the form of the piece. By

looking at different performances of the piece we can trace very different

priorities for generating large-scale form in each and also similarities. Especially

significant are the comparatively very low level of intensity at the beginning and

the end of all of the versions of Music for Solo Performer.

We know that on the premier of Music for Solo Performer on May 5th,

1965, Lucierʼs amplified alpha wave output was routed to “16 loudspeaker-

percussion pairs deployed around the museum.” Lucier further explains that,

“During the course of the 40-minute performance Cage randomly raised and

lowered the stereo amplifiersʼ volume controls, channeling the alpha signal to

various instruments around the room.” (This is, by the way, the first time where I

have ever read that Cage did something “randomly.”) This instrumental

distribution would seem to imply that the sound was spatialized and also

sectionalized into parts where various instruments came to the fore or receded.

It would also seem to imply that various different volume levels were employed.3

The diagram for the piece of 1965 lists a piano as one of the instruments, a

feature excised from future versions of the piece.

It is this version from 1965 that the video of 1976 seems to closely

emulate. The sparseness of the reduced activity in the beginning of this version is

the most dramatic of all the versions, taking up the about whole first 4 minutes.

The large-scale form is periodic, with 5 main areas of high activity separated by

moments of very reduced

3 Ibid.

amplitude in which the low rumbling of the timpani stops and smaller less

impactful single instrument solos come out (see figure 1.) Some of these quieter

moments reach near-stillness. Over the course of the piece we visit various solos

and groupings of all the available instruments. The third and forth periods of high

activity are marked by having parts where the high frequency cymbals and

garbage can drop out. Instead the bass drum, timpani and cardboard box are

featured. The fourth period of high activity is much quieter than the others,

recalling the sparse first 4 minutes. The last 15 seconds trail off and are reduced

down to being only a quieter solo for the snare with chain off. This version

possesses a silent ending: in the video even once the sound is turned off, Alvin

Lucier keeps his eyes closed for a good 10 seconds before finally opening them

to aknowledge that the piece is over.

The surface placement and angle of the amplifiers on the surface of the

drums would have allowed for a range of different roll speeds and sounds. It

sounds in the 1976 video as if they aimed for a maximum diversity of these

various electroacoustic excitation techniques. An example of this is the presence

of one snare with the chain off and one with it on. Various instruments are

panned 75% left and right to preserve the sound of the spatialization of the

instruments throughout the room. Occasionally there is an ethereal constant mid-

range electronic ambient sound: this is the “tape” part of the composition –

recordings of alpha waves sped up in to the audible range. Here their

deployment is very sparse.

In the vinyl version from 1982 we see a “ramp” form where it gains in

intensity roughly from the beginning through to the end. It is vastly different from

the video recording of 1976. The recording of 1982 is the most unrelenting of all

the recordings. In the beginning the tape of the alpha rhythms continues over the

sporadic silences in the low bass drum strata. It is apparent that the bass drum

articulates particular spikes of the alpha waves while the alpha wave tape is a

more continual sound with micro fluctuations. The alpha wave signals coming

from the performer seem to get higher however from about the middle of the

piece on. The pauses stop and instead we get only a steady surging and

receding of the loud rolls in the low drums. About 30 seconds after the pauses in

the rolls disappear, the tape sound re-enters but at a higher amplitude with more

mid-range to the sound, continuing until almost the end. About a minute after the

tape starts, the snare drum entrance begins to articulate high points in the signal

more audibly. About 4 minutes before the end, cymbals start to be triggered. The

“ramp” form escalates at a higher rate at this point just under discussion, shortly

before the midpoint of the piece and continuing until the end, where there are no

more spaces between low drum attacks. This point of escalation heightens the

“ramp” impression that a listener receives of the piece overall. (See figure 2.) At

the very end there is a major dip in intensity however, which is foretold by a slight

decrescendo of the higher frequency sounds, that returns to the texture of the

beginning where pauses once again return between clusters of low drum attacks.

The “thunder” of the alpha waves is in the 1982 Lucier setting is the most

striking aspect of the piece. Although there are layers of higher sounds above, it

seems like there was a production decision to make the low (bass) drums be, far

and away, the most predominant sound. It sounds as if there were even contact

mics placed on the drumheads to get the “hottest” most overdriven sound

possible. Since the cymbals and snare are so far back in the mix, the overall

impression is that the low drums are so loud that the high sounds can hardly get

through. The unrelenting rumble of the timpani and bass drum in the 1982

version represents a total re-vamping of the concept of the piece. The tape of the

alpha rhythms also figure far more prominently than in the 1976 version. This

new approach may have been spurred by the fact that a stereo audio recording,

lacking the ability to convey the sound and the drama inherent in a spatial

placement of the various instruments might have stimulated a different, more

frontal and aggressive confrontation with the alpha rhythms by and for

themselves. This approach is also evidenced and supported by the “ramp” form.

By looking at the spectrogram of the whole of Pauline Oliverosʼ version

(figure 3) of MFSP on the B-side of the vinyl disc from 1982 we can see that the

form is very different, where the densest most energetic clusters of events occur

in the first fifth of the whole piece. It then generally gradually thins out, becoming

less and less dense until a short reoccurrence of heightened density towards the

very tail end of the structure occurs. A lapse in density that begins in the last

third of the piece confirms the impression of dissipation. Here the attack points

are more sporadic than ever. The reoccurrence of heightened density at the tail

end, at about minute 13:25 – 14:25 is split into two parts: one strong and one

weaker, echoing the overall thinning out structure of the whole recording. All the

more surprising, coming as it does, after the most sporadic section, the first thirty

seconds of the high-density reoccurrence also has a high degree of regularity in

respect to other sections of the piece. The second half is more diffuse and is

marked by a slight decrescendo of the higher gong sounds in relation to the rest

of the piece. From 14:26 – 14:50 we have a return to the texture of the beginning

of the piece; the attacks here are the sparsest besides the opening, and the low

drums drop out entirely. This occurrence at the end is the first time where there

is any significant change in the instruments that are playing; otherwise there are

no shifts or layering of instrumental groupings (as in the second half of the Lucier

on the A-side described previously.)

The timbres of Pauline Oliverosʼ version are more weighted on the high

frequency spectrum, dominated as it is by a shaker, cymbals and gongs, using a

“world music percussion orchestra: Indian, West African, Chinese, Japanese and

Korean.”4 The low drum sounds do not inhabit such a wide resonant spectrum

and are quite dry, with a quick decay; it is, rather, a muffled thumping. This, the

high metallic almost wind-chime like sounds and the lack of a snare drum

characterize the sound of Oliverosʼ version.

The spectrogram from the 2007 version of Music for Solo Performer

demonstrates the most complex layering and overlapping through various distinct

frequency areas of all the versions. Aside from the opening, which is also quiet

like in the other versions, there are 4 “breaks” - clear periods where the activity is

markedly decreased, two of which are only very short, but complete, silences

(See figure 4.) There is a build-up progression of sound in the beginning: first we

have a timpani, then another timpani enters a fourth below it. Soon a bass drum

is added and finally after a short time a tam-tam comes in. After the short

introduction-buildup of this combination of instruments we encounter the first

silence, which lasts for 4 or 5 seconds. Then those same instruments start up

again and after about 10 seconds a snare drum is added. After about minute

8:30 we get the second period of reduced activity, wherein the low drums drop

out leaving only tambourine and triangle. At about 10:30 the triangle is elided with

the start of another build-up, which is essentially the same as the beginning – 2

timpani solo, which is then doubled by bass drum, followed by tam-tam entrance

and again with the snare drum added last. Soon after this quasi-recapitulation,

about a third of the way into the piece, we get the first instance of the tape part. 4 Alvin Lucier, Music for Solo Performer, Lovely Music VR 1014. Liner notes.

The third “break” is preceded by a fairly quiet section, which includes tam-tam

and a very dry tapping surface only. This time the silence lasts a strikingly long

12 seconds. This is even a sort of “fake ending,” which, coming at the eighteenth

minute denotes the average length of the other versions; the Music for Solo

Performer of 2007 is twice as long, 39 minutes. The fourth “break” is much more

extended, about 4 and a half minutes long. Here there is a solo for both timpani,

which is then reduced further to a solo for only one of the timpani. The tape part

comes in and the other timpani joins in again. It sounds very much like the

version from 1982 here but not overdriven. The dying away at the end is very

short in this version, only about 20 seconds long. Here the timpani continue but

now quieter, with the tambourine above played sparsely, sputtering out very

quietly. Overall there are 4 high points, each time with the triangle and/or

tambourine forming the apex of the buildup and triangle or tambourine also

overlapping with the following quiet section.

The 2007 version includes some new instruments, like the tambourine and

triangle, which redress the balance of the domination of low rumbling sounds of

timpani and bass drum found in older Lucier versions. Tambourine and triangle

also further highlight well the rapid-fire capabilities of the electric stimulation of

the acoustic percussion. The unison attacks of bass drum, timpani and snare

drum are also somehow sharper than in other versions, making the alpha

rhythms generally stronger.

The 3 versions from the different years and the Oliveros version all follow

an implied score of performance aesthetic: the alpha waves are introduced in a

quiet section, which is restated at the very end. A build-up and withdrawal from

the “alpha state” is dramatized by this framing mechanism in all of the versions.

The performer in each case starts the piece with the eyes open and when he/she

closes them, the ocular linked boosting of the alpha waves are demonstrated to

the audience and the piece begins in earnest – as in the video from 1976. The

two versions from 1982 stay mostly in a steady state, while the other

performances from 1965, 1976 and 2007 go through various ensemble

groupings.

All spikes in brainwave activity are the observation of synchronized neuron

movement in the cortex. One theory is that an increase in activity in the central

(command center) part of the brain causes the ceasing of activity on the surface

(cortex area.) Hence, the increase of waves signals a resting state of certain

command processes. The reduction of Alpha waves have been linked to ocular

activity. There is also speculation in line with the aforementioned theory of

cortical activity that alpha waves are boosted during moments of “alert immobility”

like the moment just before the archer lets go of the arrow.5 Many experiments

5 Reference is to Dr. Tom Mulholland’s theory of “behavioral stillness.” See: Shaw, John Crosley, “Chapter 14: Mulholland’s Alpha Feedback Paradigm and ‘behavioral stillness’ model,” in The Brain’s Alpha Rhythms and the Mind, (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 2003)

conclude that it is possible to control alpha rhythms to varying degrees, but the

significance of this fact and of the waves themselves, apropos related tasks

beyond certain observed phenomenon and a specific group of mental processes

is the subject of ongoing inquiry. Therefore the conclusion that boosted alpha

waves (or any other waves for that matter) yield a “meditative state” of wellbeing

is premature. In 1965, however, the matter would have been a subject for

greater debate and speculation than it is now after several decades more of

experimentation. The fact remains, however, that still no one has conclusively

disproven that biofeedback, meditation and hypnosis lead to heightened alpha

waves.6

A compelling and widespread finding is that EEG can predict a subjectʼs

listening states in terms of active vs. passive forms. Eduardo Reck Miranda goes

further, claiming that mental focusing on left vs. right audio channels can also be

predicted.7 David Rosenboom has been making use of this ability of EEG since

before 1990 to enable a performer to structure computer generated musical

forms.8 Especially recent scholarship in musicology that take passive forms of

listening as an equally qualitative musical activity in society could possibly shed

light on possible further avenues of research and experimentation in this realm.

6 Ibid., 214-215. 7 Eduardo Reck Miranda, “On Harnessing the Electroencephalogram for the Musical Braincap,” in Computer Music Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2003. 8 David Rosenboom, “Propositional Music from Extended Musical Interface with the Human Nervous System,” in Annual New York Academy of the Sciences Vol. 999, 2003, 263-271.

In any case the fact that this detection has been proven to be fairly reliable would

tend to lend confirmation to Oliverosʼ instinct to use biofeedback in her version of

MFSP, as it says in the liner notes, “the performers listened through headphones

to their previously recorded performances, which reinforced and influenced their

alpha.” If the excessive phrasal closures characteristic of the alpha rhythms do

succeed in ʻoverloadingʼ and therefore shutting down the closure mechanism of

active listening reflexes, it would hypothetically provide an event related potential

(neurology: ERP) for strengthening brainwaves associated with passive, i.e.

“meditative” (or in any case not expectation heightened) listening, alpha among

them.

An agreed-upon basis for work in EEG sonification among a segment of

neurologists is the superior ability of the auditory, as opposed to the visual

apparatus, to pick out and interpret simultaneous stimuli (as in counterpoint, or in

discerning variable layers of speech vs. noise etc.) Gerald Baier, et al. have

demonstrated audio models to identify pathologies more distinctly than with

graphic representations, for instance.9 Since this is irrefutably the case, it seems

that it would be an even greater aid in perception to have a spatialized and/or

acoustic array of instruments to allow the diagnostician even greater ease of

discernment of various layers. One most pronounced feature of our experience of

9 Gerold Baier, Thomas Hermann and Ulrich Stephani, “Even-based Sonification of EEG Rhythms in Real Time,” in Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 118, 2007, 1377-1386.

listening to MFSP is, as previously observed, our simultaneous awareness and

discernment of multiple layers of instrumental strata and their differences.

Several recent articles attempt a sonification by mapping EEG wave

amplitude to pitch. All of them use standard MIDI notes and tunings. Tuning is a

one of the most highly sensitive mechanisms of human hearing and it would be

worth applying microtonal parameters to EEG for the purposes of complex data

assessment. Also the rich world of affect associations and musical imagery that

microtonal inflection carry could open whole new vistas in the realm of

biofeedback, cognitive emotional processes and other areas of research if

harnessed in EEG sound experimentation. Aside from this, microtonality is a

more fitting correlate in the domain of pitch to the complex resultant brainwave

rhythms.

MFSP is exceptional for Lucierʼs work in that it mostly focuses on rhythmic

activity rather than the fine sine waves, spectral resonances and discreet beating

found in the great majority of his output. Another major piece of Lucierʼs dealing

with the body and its nervous system, Clocker, is also atypically preoccupied with

rhythm. Baier, Hermann and Stephani, enrich and complicate rhythmic projection

of the brainwaves by linking EEG with MIDI velocity rather than pitch, unlike most

of their colleagues experimenting in EEG sound. Their resultant sonification is

reminiscent of MFSP and has a highly satisfying aesthetic and utilitarian design.

Thilo Hinterberger and Gerald Baier make an astute observation about the role of

rhythm in cognition:

“researchers generally believe that brains work as pattern-recognition devices that

first encode all sensory information into multiple streams of neural rhythms and then

use rhythmic reorganization of their ongoing activity to process the input.”10

This says something directly relevant to the whole attempt of brain rhythm

mapping and specifically to the ʻMorse codeʼ rhythm sound of MFSP. Rhythms

are the most germane factor in neurological patterning and are thus probably the

paramount aspect for aesthetic and medical contemplation and exploration of

brainwaves turned into sound. The raw rhythms heard in Lucierʼs MFSP could be

used as a starting point for various types of rhythmic transformation, perhaps by

modeling the same type of flows represented in larger scale tendencies of

brainwave potentials. The types of multiple streams of encoding that

Hinterberger and Baier refer to provide excellent inspiration for the modeling of

analogous rhythmic processes and transformations in the acoustic realm.

One main difference between Lucierʼs MFSP and current

sonification attempts by the neurology community is that by allowing the

aforementioned ʻhiddenʼ performer of the piece free reign over aspects of

10 Thilo Hinterberger and Gerold Baier, “Parametric Orchestral Sonification of EEG in Real Time,” in IEEE Computer Society, April-June, 2005

amplitude and instrumentation, the surface is in most recorded versions of MFSP

highly variegated on the large scale. Most new attempts by neurologists however,

seem to try to extract rules that are meant to stay in place for the entirety of that

particular sonification attempt. In trying to find the right formula for optimal

auditory presentation, the possibility to modulate the rules of sonification over

time is ignored in all cases in the medical sources used in this paper. Most

composers who attempt sonification of brainwaves today, who aim to add to the

neurological literature, are mostly as inflexible in their approach, only with more

sophisticated musical goals. This attitude represents a lost opportunity for the

scientific as well as for the artistic community. In Reflexionen, Lucier expounds

on the significance of hiding the performer who changes the instrumental

groupings and amplifier attenuation:

“You see, one of the inaccuracies of the title is that itʼs not really for solo

performer. You need someone to run the amplifiers, to pan the sounds around, to

turn on one loudspeaker and then turn on another, and Iʼve always…done it with

another player, an assistant. In the score that I wrote, I stipulated that someday,

when electronics became what itʼs now become, you could have an automatic

switching arrangement, such that so many bursts of alpha would be a code to a

switching device, and the alpha could control itself without an assistant.”11

11 Alvin Lucier, Reflexionen: Interviews Notation Texte (Cologne: MusikTexte, 1995)

To this day no one, musician or neurologist has implemented such a self-

switching system, and it is time that they did.

Another significant lost opportunity is the hemming in of all recent attempts

at sonic brainwave ʻtranscriptionʼ into the digital realm. Acoustic sounds have an

organic richness that yields more sonic information than speakers alone do. The

diffraction of sound into various organic materials, (metal, wood, skins etc.) gives

our ears various and differentiated points of contact and resonance on which to

test, and modulate our focus. Perhaps it would be possible to build physical

acoustic structures that mimic and map various regions of the brain along with an

acoustic analog to their differences in structure to test certain hypotheses.

Figure 1 – Music for Solo Performer, 1976

Figure 2 – Music for Solo Performer, 1982 (Lucier version)

Figure 3 – Music for Solo Performer, 1982 (Oliveros version)

Figure 4 – Music for Solo Performer, 2007

Lucier 1 (local alpha wave rhythms at speed)

& 44m4soloperf2007ex3 .œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ œ œ œ .œ .œ œ5

œ .œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ7

&3

.œ œ .œ œ œ œ .œ .œ .œ œ œ œ .œ œ7

œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ œ .œ œ7 5

&5

.œ œ œ jœ œ .œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ3

œ œ . .œ œ .œ œ œ œ

&7

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ jœ œ rœ7

œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ œ œ œ5

&9

œ œ œ .œ œ .œ œ .œ œ5 5

œ œ .œ rœ œ rœ œ .œ œ6

& 44m4soloperf2007ex3slow œ . .œ œ .œ œ œ œ œ7

œ jœ œ œ œ rœ3 5

&3

.œ œ .œ œ . .œ œ œ œ jœ œ rœ jœ œ rœ jœ œ7 7 3

&5 jœ œ jœ .œ œ œ rœ

5 5

.œ rœ œ rœ œ rœ7 6

&7

œ jœ rœ œ rœ jœ œ rœ3 6 7

œ jœ ˙3

&9

œ jœ œ .œ œ œ œ œ3 5 6

œ œ .jœ œ . .œ œ7

Lucier 2 (local alpha rhythms slowed down)

&11

œ œ .œ jœ .œ jœ œ . .jœ œ œ jœ3 3

&13

œ rœ œ œ jœ5 3 jœ œ œ .œ .jœ œ

3 7

&15

œ œ .œ .œ œ œ œ . .œ œ .œ œ jœ . .œ œ5 3

&17

œ jœ œ jœ œ3 3

œ œ œ œ œ .œ

&19

œ œ œ rœ5

.œ œ .œ rœ œ5 7

2