[ Page 2 of 2 ]

AR: What then did you use as your inspiration, or starting point?

PG: Rhythm. Rhythm has within it the idea of structure. Rhythm is structure. It’s an articulated structure. And that’s why I called it Dancissimo. It means that this piece is about dance.

AR: Was it intended to be performed with dancers?

PG: It wasn’t, though I think that it might be. It occurred to me that some places might want to do that, but it wasn’t part of this deal. But rhythm is an articulated musical movement in the same way, and it’s often a repeated movement, and it corresponds well to the idea of contemporary sculpture. Don’t we even talk about structure in terms of the rhythm of the structure?

AR: Very often, including in the case of Calatrava and the Milwaukee Art Museum.

PG: This was my sense, that rhythm was the way to go.

AR: have you seen the building since its completion?

PG: They haven’t sent me the pictures. (Laughs) It’s funny how people do things. They’ll commission a piece, and then the things that you want to see, you don’t get to see. They’re busy, they’re doing other things, and I’m not going to make a big deal out of it. I’m not annoyed with them, I don’t mean to put it that way, but they didn’t. But it seemed to me that a piece about architecture should be a piece about rhythm, and that’s how I did it. And it should be a piece about ten minutes long. And they told me what it would be, and what the instruments would be, and that’s how I addressed it.

AR: Were you working closely with the Milwaukee Symphony?

PG: I know the conductor. I know the symphony. Apart from that, I wouldn’t say I worked closely with them. I spoke with the conductor about it. We talked about the instrumentation and the special needs that I had and what would be available. But those are technical things that musicians talk about.

AR: You mentioned movement and rhythm. Were you aware that this building actually does move?

PG: No, but that sounds good to me. I’m told that the piece was very warmly received, and I know that the conductor went on to perform it in Seattle a few weeks later.

AR: Do you have any other thoughts about composing for architecture in general? It’s obviously something you’ve thought about.

PG: It’s something that could be done more. The trouble is, by the time they think of the composer, the work is done. The only times I’ve been able to collaborate have been with artists in an earlier stage, like I’ve done with Richard Serra. Now I’m in this funny position where with Frank Gehry. I know Frank well, and with his turn towards designing concert halls, I’m going to be playing in halls that he built, and I knew him 20 years ago. It’ll be interesting. I know him and we could talk about it. The trouble is that real collaboration has to begin very early and by the time they think of the composer, it’s very late. So the opportunity hasn’t arisen. But I do think it could be done. It’s not a project that I’ve been able to achieve yet, but as I say, I’ve had close connections with architects.

I’ve kept up with architecture in a sort of amateurish way. Even the early modernists like Sullivan and Mies van der Rohe. And there are people who live in Chicago, which is where I first became aware of architects like Frank Lloyd Wright, whose buildings are what you saw there. It’s an interest of mine, and architects like music, but to put them together hasn’t really happened for me yet. Unless you want to talk about theaters and installations, but there you’re talking about theater designers.

AR: Is a collaboration with an architect something you’d like to do?

PG: Absolutely. I would do it with Frank in a second, if he wanted to do it, or with almost anyone. All these things are interesting. These are all doors that can be opened.