1. Naomi Cumming, "The Horrors of Identification: Reich's Different Trains," Perspectives of New Music 35/1 (1997): 129-152; and "The Subjectivities of Erbarme Dich," Music Analysis 16/1 (March 1997): 4�44.
2. David Lidov, "Mind and Body in Music," Semiotica 66/1-3 (1987): 69-97.
3. Richard Middleton, "'Lost in Music'? Pleasure, Value and Ideology in Popular Music," in Studying Popular Music (Open University Press, 1990).
4. Leonard B. Meyer, Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 209. I am also reminded of Kevin Korsyn's writings in which he has described the musical foreground as an "embodiment" of the subject and the Ursatz as the correlate of "consciousness." See Korsyn, "Schenker and Kantian Epistemology," Theoria 3 (1988): 44-50.
5. David Schwarz, Listening Subjects: Music, Psychoanalysis, Culture (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1997).
6. P�rt is, of course, referencing the techniques of organum purum. The deep structural cantus firmus can be understood as "generating" the surface oscillation of musemes throughout the piece. Yet while a listener can comprehend an underlying syntax, a kind of motivating agent in the work, it is not one that is necessarily available for subjective identification. Rather, it acts more as a remote, ineffable agent--for P�rt, representative of a "higher power," perhaps, or even something like "atavistic memories."
7. In a performance of Coming Together, slower moving layers of the texture are improvised, based on elongated, rhythmically erratic doublings of the notated figures. Players are instructed to gradually transform these improvised lines into octave duplications of the notated music. One by one, the accompanying layers are thus absorbed into an undifferentiated unisoni foreground pattern. See performance instructions in Soundings 3/4 (July-October 1972), 44.
End of footnotes