The relationship between Study 49 and the Concerto

Study 49 is in 3 movements, a, b, and c and is based on tempo ratios derived from a Major triad C-E-G (4-5-6). From looking at the punching scores, and taking the nature of the music into consideration, I would guess that a and b are contemporaneous and that c was written considerably earlier. Study 49c is rhythmically much more inflexible than a and b, written in the ‘grid’ style common to the earlier studies before Nancarrow’s punching machine was modified to permit continuous gradations of measurement.

Like many composers Nancarrow appears not to have wanted to waste anything that he had written and when he became better known during the 1980s and had requests for more pieces than he had time to write it would be likely that he rummaged through his workshop for old unused pieces – ones that could conceivably be played by humans – to be used as the basis of new pieces.

To my mind 49c is a less subtle piece than the other two although it does have something of the character of a cadenza, and perhaps, although this is pure speculation, this is what attracted Nancarrow to it for use in the Concerto.

Whether Nancarrow attempted to use this material for the Concerto and then adapted it to make another study, or wrote the Study and then tried to use it in the Concerto – we don’t know. However, this practice is not unknown in his output (for instance Study 50/Piece for Small Orchestra No. 2). It seems to me that Nancarrow wrote the Study first and then made some attempts to use it as the basis of the Concerto.

Kyle Gann describes Study 49 a, b, &c as ‘inner movements’ of a projected piece for which the outer movements were never written [see interview with Charles Amirkhanian]– it would be a very strange piece if this were the case. It is also quite hard to imagine Study 49a or c as the final Pianola part of accompanied movements also, though others may disagree.