Muzikološki zbornik    Musicological Annual XIX, Ljubljana 1983
UDK 78 Lebič
Niall OrLoughlin Loughborough
THE MUSIC OF LOJZE LEBIČ
Lojze Lebič (b   1934} belongs to the same generation of composers as Srebotnjak, Stibilj, Petrić, štuhec and Božič. His output in a traditional idiom is slight compared to that of the others, notably Petrić, whose pre-1961 works are substantial arrd numerous. Lebič's studies in archaeology, just as Stibilj's in psychology, tended to hold back his firm commitment to music. However, like Petrić and Jež, Lebič was very   impressed by the activities of avant-garde composers, especially those in Poland. Happily, like both Petrić and Jež, he made no ill-considered or slavish adoption of Polish textural techniques.
Lebič has never been a prolific composer. In addition, he revises his works frequently and also used to spend a great deal of time performing music. His music shows considerable care over sonority, balance and detail, but not at the expense of structure. His early traditional music includes two sonatas, the first for violin and piano, and the second for clarinet and piano. His later works fall into three main categories: small-scale chamber works (one to four players), larger ensemble works (both works discussed here require nine players) and orchestral pieces, one with voices. The present study takes representative works to illustrate the techniques involved.
The Sonata for violin and piano of 1959 is a lively and well written work that today would be considered unexceptional. The layout of the three movements, Allegro, Adagio, Presto, even with their free internal plans, is traditional enough. The melodic lines are generally based on conjunct movement. The harmonic idiom owes a debt to tonality without following traditional tonal progressions: there are some triadic formations, but also much use of parallel chords, often in fourths. Rhythmically the work is full of varied, alert and vigorous writing that avoids the worst of unimaginative ostinato repetitions. The Sonata indicates a firm grasp of compositional procedures, without showing much originality. The Sonata for clarinet and piano of the following year presents much the same picture.
During the next few years, the composer's style underwent a considerable change. Like his colleagues, Lebič came under the influence of the new music that he had heard from all over
71
Europe of exp a va i la T with t for vi extens occasi part i two pi viola and ac passag others second not sh no tra passag note-f but do melodi reorde mi crot Harmon produc chords focus
, es p eri me ble, he fi radi t ola a i vely onal n sho ayers 1 eads compa es in
wi th
move ow an d i t i o es th ormat
some c sna; ri ngs ones, leali ed by
(wi t rathe
ecially from Poland. The period up nt for Lebič, but no works from th apart from those mentioned above. rst of his chamber works that shows his ion is Meditacije   za   dva   ('Meditations f nd   cello, which dates from 196 5 9 but was in 1972. Much of the work is restrained dramatic outbursts. The work is written rt melodic phrases. The relationship bet varies considerably. In the first movem for much of the time with occasional in nying figures from the cello. There are which the notes of each part alternate exact synchronization of beats (Ex.1b). ment9 this synchronization, although exa y metrical correspondence (Ex.2). Althou nal ostinato as such, there are a few sh at repeat certain figures ad  lib   (see Ex ions are not serially conceived in any s times use certain fixed note patterns (s pes of Exx.2 and 3, where repetitions an are common)*¦There• i s-considerable use especially in association with gl i s sand y the work varies from the inexact relat freely coordinated lines to precisely n h no tonal associations), which act as p r than as indications of harmonic moverne
to 1965 was one is time are
break or two!)
revi sed
but has for the most ween the ent the terjections occasional (Ex.la) and
In the ct, does gh there is ort
3). The trict sense, e e the d
of os.
i o n s h i p s otated oints of nt.
Ex.] (OSS 468,p.5line1;p.7line 1)
b)
ü
im   -   m.
n ^i „ j?B
t*? lVMj n?*
j-T rrrr^^j
X
yassai
72
Ex.2 j OSS h%, p. 8 line 2}
Ex.3 (OSS (.66, p. 9 line 1)

f           stringendo play   in any sequence
ca 10"
jfljTi«'"¦i*-*J^'||. ' , Jmp , "J
whi ch
conce
i n Me
phras
betwe
i n th
ri tar
it re
pi aye
mai n
compi
elbow
of de
betwe
mater
first
the t
three
1 a ter
cours
the f
phras
compo
playe
other
by th
('Exp 1968.
In 1967
he a dde rn for f ditaci je es with en the v e first dando th appears d accele materi al exity wi s and fo velopmen en the m ial and
piece a hird whi Impromp fourth e that e irst Imp e, there ser ). Le d: e.g
point t
e perfor
Leb i č f s
r e s s i o n s
He revi
Lebič d a fo orm th
za dv freque a r i o u s Improm e firs in the rando
wi th th the rearms t of t a t e r i a its de nd the eh pre tus. T Improm vents rompt u
are e bič no ABxC D han A; mer. next s ') for sed i t
compo urth a t mi a  the nt pa
mate ptu, t tim
mi dd when whi eh
gréa . Thu he ma Is th vel op
next sents his c ptu. folio
(cal i g h t tes e xE Fx
or i
mal 1 viol in 1
sed t in 19 g ht' n
musi uses rial s the f e it le of it fo
i t i ter u s the t e r i a emsel ment
two,
i n c o 11 a g Its t w aro led ....'. mai n e rta i GH; t n an
h ree Imp 74. The ot be ex c i s usu between
is alwa irst fra appears
the fou rms part s contra se of cl
contras Is is as ves. The takes pi
e s pec i a ol1 age f e tech ni i ti e 'Ci u n d a ce x ' he re ) materi al n orders he same order de
romptu p i e e e s pected ally e them ys imp gment and in rth ph
of th sted i u s t e r s t betw
i m por
same ace in lly th a s h i o n que is rei e '-ntral . Ina s (cal
in wh order c i d e d
s for show from ompos The r ortan is pi the rase, e six ncrea prod een t tant kind the e lat , mate "also refer phras dditi led A ich t but s upon
piano, t a clear the ti ti ed in sho e 1 a t i o n s h t. For ex ayed wi th same way
bu t t h e n th phrase ses in u ced wi th he two Ti a s t h a t of contra rest of t ter part rials fro
u s ed in s to the e taken f on to th i - H by t he piece tarting a and pract
e. As rt i p ampi e ,
a when
it is . The
the nes
st of . he of
m al 1 the
rom s
he
may be t any i sed
chamber work,'Ekspresije
in, cello and piano, was composed in
972, when among other things he reduced
73
the num from th of Medi for pia 1ines, use of conside Ex. 4b, in pass two mov 1 iterai
ber of e i nst taci je no. Ek both s meiody rable with i ages i ements recap
moverne rumenta
za dva spre si j olo and
and ac increas ts ad l n which
are pl i tuiati
nts f tion,
for e   i s
in c compa e in ib   CO
melo anned ons a
rom thr the wo two str mostly ounterp ni ment non-mei mbi nati die imp in a f nd repe
ee to rk dr ing i based o i nt as in od i c ons o ortan ree f t i t i o
two. aws on nstrum
on di (Ex.4a
Medit textur f vari ce is ormai ns fou
Äs one m the tec ents and sjointed ). There aeije an al writi ous form greatly way wi th nd in th
ight expect hniques both
Impromptus
meiodic
is as much da
ng (see ulae), and reduced. The
none of the e Impromptus.
BUIDSS 465,p.5line2;p.8Iine3)
Vn
b.)
pizz. ^______orco


fe^§
Vn.
f
butt. cop.
----- repeat th® formulas
L
zjoaac
i
Pf.
IM       strike Iff® backs of th® instruments /jf— P irregyiorly
1
TBZ
&
calO"
piZZ.
In Atelier  of 1973 for violin and piano, Lebič again used many of the techniques of his previous works, with a particularly vivid use of fragmentary materials on the violin. The relationship between the violin and piano is not normally evenly balanced. Both instruments play on their own for quite long durations. There is little use of the dialogue found in
74
tacije,   although the composer attempted one the violinist with himself playing closely s at widely differing dynamic levels. osed two works for a large chamber ensemble, a   kons   (a)   of 1970, for the Slavko Osterc ializes in such pieces. Both works are scored ons   (b)   for three clarinets, string quartet, , and kons   (a)   for flaute, clarinet, horn, o, harp, piano and percussion. They show techniques found in the works for smaller
Ekspresije and Medi form of dialogue by juxtaposed fragment
Lebič has comp kons (b) of 1968 an Ensemble which spec for nine players, k harp and percussion violin, viola, cell an extension of the combi nati ons.
Like those of the Impromptus for piano, the kons (b) are clearly differentiated. For example predominantly harmonic, another is based on free ostinatos, still another on repeated notes. in a distinguished these materials by instrumentation different groups of instruments separate for muc The harmonic aspect is important at the beginnin of overlapping held notes played by the clarinet that here the long notes and the grace notes tha are all within a yery narrow range. This is cont overlapping ostinatos on the strings, mostly usi chromatic movement. The harmonic material of Ex. to include rapidly repeated notes with a general (Ex.5b), while the ostinato patterns of the stri elaborated in a series of irregular patterns whi textures of detailed activity but little harmoni Trills and tremolos and fast irregular flourishe strings infiltrate the music. These kinds of dev the main interest in the work. Later alterations material include the addition to the long notes noises, free choice of notes, and very wide vibr little question of the composer producing effect sake, kons (b) is not a major work, but one whic attention to detail and unorthodox formal cohere
materi , the f ly coor d d i t i o n , keepi h of th gina s (Ex. t prece rasted ng desc 5a is d
upward ngs are eh crea c momen s from elopmen
to the of Ex.5 ato. Th s for e h shows nee.
als of i r s t is di nated Lebič ng the e work. seri es 5a). Note de them wi th ending eveloped
movement
freely te
tum. the ts form
original a key ere i s ffect's
great
Ex.5(DSS 464-HG 975,p. 5 b. 1-p6 b.2;p.l3b.6-9) a)                                 5'1                           «"
75
b)										L,
				3~rt3"		Sffi			-——Jfffl	
P-    *   •		•		^3^:	•           e    •     «>   »   •	M-^	ii..^yiîiitty—«			| •
										
1              pr '   •     '		.    .	^m »*"	Tir	T-p^iF			fzz^z^tt*^-		
										
		L i       m	11X1+-—^ é	yp*i		» J?iF				
P
kons   (a)   of   1970, while again players, has the notable addition o drawn from the poetry of the Sloven phonetic sounds are spoken by the p also required to intone the poetry indicated by the composer. instrume to those of kons   (h). The first sec relies on long notes, from the horn interjections from the rest of the passage in which the strings exploi combinations prepare the listener f phonetic sounds. These are combined melody or long notes from the instr vocal sounds are reasonably audible the textures. Lebič then produced a pp.14-20) that is the most complex two kons  pieces. While the details (chords, short flourishes or more e audible as separate entities, the t important. Unlike Petrić, Lebič was distinction between background and result in a certain lack of directi section there is considerable act i v parts around single focal notes, a pieces, but little exact coordinati of parts. The second half of the wo formal divisions) has rhythmically fragmentary but notably melodic flu texturai tutti. The latter is inter elements, most obviously a regular which the other players 'fight1. Th poetry, in varied and exaggerated i wind players, adds another element situation. Suddenly the passage is fashion, by the conductor blowing a Lento coda /score, pp.31-7) again e including microtones, with occasion return to some of the techniques of handled, with no sense of an artifi
Lebič's orchestral output cons and Nio-ina  for full orchestra, Sent pianos, Glasovi   ('Voices1) for pere plucked string instruments and the orchestra Vozgana  trava   ('Burnt Gra
being written for nine f poems and phonetic material e, Srečko Kosovel. These layers themselves, who are at approximate pitches as ntal techniques are similar tion of the work again
and cello, with occasional ensemble. This and another t numerous gl i ssando or the first entry of the
with small fragments of uments. In all cases the , but they never dominate n extended passage (score, and extended in either of the of each of the parts xtended melody) are normally otal textural result is also
less concerned to make any foreground, and this does on in this passage. In this ity in the string and wind characteristic of both kons on between and synchronization rk (there are no specified free elements, including a te cadenza and an extended rupted by strict rhythmic metronome beat, against e appearance of Kosovel's ntonation from the string and to this already complex stopped, in theatrical
referee's whistle. The xploits small intervals, al short texts added. The
the opening is convincingly cially constructed plan. ists of five works: Korant eneo for orchestra and two ussion, strings and other cantata for mezzosoprano and ss!). Of these, Korant,
76
Pozgana   trava  and Glasovi, which have been published, are examined here.
Pozgana  trava  of 1965 was the composer's first major work. It is a setting, in four parts, of the bizarre and impressionistic poem of the same title by the Slovene, Dane Zajc. The composer's response to the words was twofold. He produced a fairly straightforward and singable vocal line that only occasionally uses speaking or Sprechstimme, and in his orchestral writing he used a wide variety of techniques to match this response. This variety did, however, produce some stylistic probi ems .
The vocal line of the opening (Ex.6a) has typically smooth movement, with mostly small intervals. Even in later passages where the part is more rhythmically animated (Ex.6b), large leaps are exceptional and used with obvious deliberation. Lebič's music does not use any strict serial procedures here, but the melodic lines tend to keep all the twelve notes in use in most passages. Note-repetition is encountered fairly often, a feature particularly noticeable in recitative-like passages.
Ex.6 (OSS 338,p.l;p.9b.3-p.l0b.3)
a)             p                    s— 3
tempo      pp
$' J> J^/ü^jyji 7 j|y J—Ji ]bf
Tvoj    glas
bo
sa   - mo - ten
ka
kor   po! - no   —
^n   r
^^^^^^^^
m
^^
^
ko
m
za   - drh —   ti      —       jo
-t—3-
tra   -   ve
U J» J      ^ J' v \n p 7 ]|j
glas
tvih
bo
lo - vrl
$\j> * * jo Tîi$j i* r p *j^^jjf^
-3   -----!    »—3-
s ko      —     šče-ni-mi        ro   -  ka   - mi      tvoj hrepene-a   klic
There are some stylistic inconsistencies. Lebič notated most of the work with normal barring, often in crotchet beats. However, in some passages he tried to break away from a metrical rigidity by introducing some parts in free rhythms which contradict the barring. In the last pages there are unambiguous references to chords in the key of E major, but equally Lebič used harmonic progressions that are so complex that any harmonic analysis in traditional terms is pointless. This is yery   clear in the string chorale which appears at the beginning of the third movement 'Ujeti volk1 (pp. 30-33 in the published score).
Even if Pozgana  trava  does have some stylistic inconsistencies, it is vividly and imaginatively written. The stylistic consistency and formal discipline that are the marks of his mature work are much more in evidence in Korant   of 1969. Korant   is a single-movement work of about ten minutes' duration for a large orchestra which includes a full array of percussion.
77
The title refers to an odd and mysterious mask from Prekmurje (Slovenia). Under this mask man changes, to live out his nature, unknown and unrecognizable, in ritual gestures and jumps.
The score is prefaced by lines by the poet Edvard Kocbek on the same theme. In an earlier work based on the same subject, Matija Bravničar allowed folk elements to dominate his musical thinking. In his Korant,   Lebič made only two moves in this direction: he has some passages of fairly regular metrical accents (these sound like ritualistic drumming) and some melodic groups of notes derived from a Slovenian folksong. In other respects Korant   uses new compositional and instrumental techniques. The great advance on Pozgana  trava   is the convincing adaptation of the possibly anachronistic elements to new techniques, and the strong formal plan that has some similarity to that of kons   (b)   of 1968.
The formal plan of Korant   is straightforward: a slow atmospheric introduction (score pp. 5-9), a vigorous and strongly rhythmic section of great power and vitality (pp.9-24), a slow section of mainly harmonic interest (pp..25-32), a fast scherzo-like section, again strongly rhythmic (pp.33-42), and a slow coda that combines a number of slow-moving permutations of a Slovenian folksong (pp.43-51). The regular rhythmic patterns referred to earlier are found in the fast sections. In the first they appear briefly in combination with irregular rhythms, but in the second fast section they are used in an extended passage mostly for percussion (pp. 39-41). Here a regular crotchet beat, subdivided into two, three or four, is written in bars of two, three, four or five beats. The Slovenian folk-song that Lebič derived his motives from is not identified in the score, but at the slow tempo used, its rhythmic identity is completely lost and its melodic form is only vaguely discernible. The complex textures employed further militate against recognition.
This lack of melodic interest is a characteristic of the whole work, whose effect is mainly harmonic, rhythmic and formal Lebič often, as in kons   (a)  and kons   (b)9   builds up his chords from notes within a narrow pitch range (see Ex.5). In Korant there is little sense of chord progression-, instead Lebič favoured the use of repetitions of the same chord. Forward movement is created more by rhythmic means, including changing mul ti-1ayered ostinato patterns frequently (of course, this could almost be considered a form of harmonic progression).
The most striking feature of Glasovi   (' Voices! ) of 1973-74 is the orchestration. Instead of the full orchestra of Korant9   Lebič used a large string orchestra, together with a group of other stringed instruments, harp, piano, harpsichord, guitar and mandolin, and a large battery of percussion. This proved no limitation to the composer who handled this unusual orchestration with considerable subtlety and variety. The music is again predominantly non-melodic, even more so than Korant,   but on the other hand does not make a great feature of textures whose details are not di scernible as such. The work plays continuously, as does Korant,   but the various sections are not distinguished so much by tempo as by certain technical features which predominate at any one time.
The opening sections present the materials. The first section (score pp. 1-5) features short-lived groupings of sounds that consist of little flourishes, rapid repetitions of notes, trills and wider-spaced alternations of two notes. These
78
are normally based around plucked chords. The change in the manner of bowed string playing from short tremolos to long sustained notes as part of a cluster built up from the bass marks the first main contrast. The other instruments introduce little arpeggio-like flourishes around the beginnings of notes and chords. The appearance of short, sharp sounds (drums and plucked strings) to a string texture of gl issandos moving at different times and in different directions brings in two more elements. The final element that Lebič introduced to Glasovi was the only really melodic one of the whole work: fast, scurrying figures from a group of solo strings, accompanied by glissando string textures. The rest of the work blends, contrasts, juxtaposes and develops these elements in an imaginative way that is tedious to describe but straightforward to understand. The processes have an exemplary formal clarity.
The music that Lebič composed during the years 1976 to 1979 is no less accomplished. Five published works date from these years. Three solo instrumental works, Sonet   for piano (1976), Chalumeau   for clar i net (1977 ) and Okus   po   času,   ki   beži ('A Taste of Times Fleeting Away') for organ ( 1978 ), explore some of the new instrumental techniques. On a broader canvas the Quartet for percussion (1979) has similar aims for a wider range of instruments, but also includes spoken parts. The most substantial work, the 15-minute Tangam  for chamber orchestra of 1977, is a richly varied piece which, although having a firm structural basis, allows much flexibility in the order and choice of certain materials. Indeed, what characterises the works as a group is the flexibility allowed in performance.
The exposition of contrasting materials in Sonet   is typical of the composer. Single notes are sometimes built up into sustained chords. These are contrasted with faster moving successions of chords, usually changing around a pivotal note, and various flourishes. A short interlude with obvious thematic connections leads into two 'Commentaries1, the second of which is interrupted by three 'Interpolations', which act as a form of development. At this point the performer is given the choice of completing the work as notated or of improvising on material of Commentary II in the manner of the interpolations.
The freedom offerred to the performer of Chalumeau   is of a different order. The piece is almost entirely spatially notated and designed to be played in strict chronological sequence. Like many similar works for solo instrument, e.g. the Sequenza   pieces by Luciano Berio and the solo items from Vinko Globokar's Laboratorium,      it employs such new techniques as multiple sonorities, various tonguing methods, and the use of quasi-musi cal noises. In a cadenza-like passage towards the end the player is instructed to explore 'all possibilities of the instrument in all resgisters, aggressively'. This is a brief passage of improvisation within limits defined by graphic notation, a, common enough procedure in new music, though not commonly found in Lebič's music.
Traditional and graphic notations are much more liberally combined in the organ piece Okus  po  času,   ki  hezi.   Detailed recordering or improvisation within microstructures is expected of the performer, although as in Chalumeau  this does not affect the overall large-scale structure. The use of graphic notation is greatly expanded to indicate the playing of 'tiny, transparent, inarticulate sounds/clusters', 'whistle--sounds', and other variations of tone quality. The
79
improvisations at the end of the piece, including fragments of pia insong, a passage in the style of Pero t in, and another in the
key of D minor, clash of styl es as the organist volume on three by two loud but
introduce a new dimension to Lebič's music. The provides a vividly bizarre ending, especially is instructed to play the flexatone at full short phrases before the music is suddenly cut short organ chords. The parodistic and ironic juxtapositions of the coda of the organ work do something to prepare us for the imaginative writing of the Quartet for percussion. A precedent for this work could be sought in Milan Stibi1 j ' s Epervier  de   ta  faiblesse, Domine   of 1964 and some passages have a passing resemblance to parts of Stockhausen! s Kreuzspiel.   Yet neither of these works can be usefully compared to the tour-de-force   that is Lebič's Quartet. In it the four players use a wide variety of instruments, and are treated equally, having a broadly similar collection of instruments. This allows 'tutti1 passages in which all or most of the players perform exactly the same music and other passages with separate parts but of uniform tone-colour. This is by no means a rigid formula, as Lebič explores numerous solo and accompanimental relationships throughout the piece. At numerous points in the score the players are also given spoken or whispered  parts. These are integrated into the musical structure In much the same way as phonetic sounds appear in Lebič's kons   (a)   of 1970. The notation sometimes requires exact pitches. This is particularly notable in a passage (pp.8-11 in the published score),in which the' ¦marimbaphone and vibraphone are pitted against two quartets of approximately tuned flower pots (already used two years earlier with great subtlety in Tangram). On the other hand Lebič extended his use of the free choice of pitches within defined visual contours, as well as improvisations of various types. The greatest freedom for the performers is exercised in a passage (fig.18 on p.14), in which the players interpret four shapes, independently of each other, in hushed speech accompanied by drumheads being scratched and hit with the nails.
The idea of freedom in performance is interpreted differently in the most substantial work of this group, Tangram for chamber orchestra. A tangram is a puzzle of Chinese origin in which the player makes different configurations using all of the seven geometric shapes. This idea is treated with great freedom by Lebič. While the composer cast most of his work in his normal, freely developing but strictly notated manner, he introduced a long passage (pp.21-28 in the published score), in which the musical shapes (the tangrams) are 'fitted together1 in performance. These, designated TAN I, ÎÎ, III 'represent independent structures to be compiled at the conductor's will1 (score, p.21). The composer provided the materials, but the coordination, synchronization and, to a certain extent, the dynamics are left to be determined by the conductor. Most of the remainder of the score is carefully designed to contrast various parameters, either simultaneously or successively. The final pages of Tangram,   however, provide another opportunity for flexibility. Lebič notated all the materials, including a piece of Mozartian parody, but allowed much free coordination. This irregularity and rhythmic freedom is contrasted directly with the regular rhythmic structures played by the three sets of four tuned flower pots. The work as a
80
whole gives evidence not only of the composer's fertile imagination, but also his ability to give his performers some scope for creativity while still retaining his firm but subtle structural grasp.
Lebič has not been a prolific composer, but has worked carefully with his resources in a meticulous way, revising his work on a number of occasions. He has never used new techniques just to be in fashion, but with constant attention to producing exactly calculated effects. Thus he has not embraced serial techniques nor the simple block textures or ostinatos of, say, Penderecki. His use of melodic lines has been sparing in his orchestral works, although freely developing lines appear often in the chamber pieces. There is always structural interest in Lebič's music, and not just the use of sounds for their immediate effect.
POVZETEK
Lojze   Lebic   (1934)   je   eden   izmed  vodilnih   slovenskih skladateljev   svoje   generacije.   Čeprav  je   napisal   nekaj   det   v tradicionalnem  stilu,   si  je   s   kompozicijsko   zrelostjo   osvojil novo   teksturalno   tehniko,   S   skupino   skladb,   kot   so  Meditacije za   dvas   Ekspresije,   Atelier  in  Impromptus   za   klavir,   si  je utrdil   zmožnost   tekočega   in   učinkovitega   komponiranja  v melodicno-teksturalnem  stilu   svojih   sodobnikov.   V večjih ansambelskih   skladbah,   kons   (b)   in   kons   (a),   je   komponiral   bolj v   zvočnih  blokih,   a   z   manj   zanimanja   za  posamezne   glasove,   s tehniko,   ki   jo  je  prenesel   na  orkestralna   dela   Korant   in   Glasovi» Obe   deli   odsevata  močno,   obenem pa   voljno   oblikovno   kontrolo. Podobno   kot   v   komornih   delih  Pozgana   trava   vsebuje   jasno izoblikovane   melodične   linije   in   to   ne   samo   v   solističnem vokalnem  partu,   pri   čemer  pa   s   harmonskimi   in   ritmičnimi značilnostmi   kaze   na   svoj  prehodni   značaj.   Od  kompozicije Impromptu   št.   4   (1974)   dalje   daje   Lebic  izvajalcu   svoje   glasbe večjo   svobodo.   V  treh   solističnih   delih,   Sonet,   Chalumeau   in Okus   po   času,   ki   beži,   uporablja   improvizacij o   in   svobodno interpretacijo  grafične   notacije.   Elementi  parodije   se pojavljajo   v   zadnji  med   temi  skladbami.   Kvartet   za   tolkala razširja   uporabo  grafične   notacije   in,   kot   v   kons   (a),   od izvajalcev   zahteva,   da  govorijo  fonetične   zvoke,   ki   so          '¦
integrirani   v  glasbeno   strukturo.   Tangram   za   komorni   orkester predstavlja  uspešno   kombinacijo   elementov,   ki   naj  jih   organizira dirigent   (tangrame   namreč),   in  drugega   gradiva,   ki   ostaja  pod strogo   kontrolo   skladatelja.   Celotna  forma  je   pozorno  usklajena. Lebiceva  glasba   odseva   rahločutno   ravnovesje   med  novim  in nepreizkušenim   ter   starim   in   uspešnim  kakor   tudi   med  zeljo   za elegantnimi   zvoki   in  potrebo   po   trdni   oblikovni   disciplini.
81