So the question that has been plaguing me since I completed a course in Beethoven is the examination of Beethoven's "spurious" works. Theorist and performers spend so much time focusing on Beethoven's great works such as the Symphonies, String Quartet, and Piano Sonatas, with his choral, Military Band, and Other Chamber works get pushed to the side.
However, these pieces seem to have quite a bit to offer both analysts and performers. Granted, some are not as groundbreaking, but others might be landmark compositions in their own genres that have not been given the time of day.
I find myself spending a lot of time with Beethoven's Wind Band marches recently. The march in D major, in particular, is a really peculiar piece that is quite fascinating to analyze.
The form of the work is ternary with a short introduction. Though the piece is in D major, it focus on key areas typically not moved to in marches, especially during this time. The subdominant, chromatic mediants, and the flat leading tone are all key areas in this five minute march. To accomplish this, Beethoven had to write for three different keys of brass instruments.
How do these works come back into the repertoire? With all the wind ensembles around the country, why does a work like this not get performed anymore?
Part of this has to do with instrumentation. The work is too easy for many college ensembles, yet high school ensembles cannot deal with the transposition requirements. Not only that, but instruments like the Saxophone and Euphonium are not included in these older works, so that puts them out of the high school repertoire, who prefers to keep all instrumentalists playing.
Would a modern edition with optional Saxophone and Euphoium parts, among others, be worth writing. Would it destroy the intent of the original, or continue in the spirit of writing for what is available?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Harmonic Rhythm
I have recently been looking over this little gem by Mascagni from his opera "Cavalleria Rusticana." The most emotionally heart wrenching part of this short piece occurs about two thirds of the way through, in the excerpt I have reproduced below.
I am particularly interested in the area highlighted in the red box. The score for this work can make this quite deceptive. Like many works, the strings are highlighted as the voice to pay most attention too. That is magnified in this score because the harp is not a prominent voice, and the organ is supposed to be out in the distance. In the score I'm studying from, I don't even have the bass part written in.
So naturally, an easy mistake to make is to focus on the string line throughout this section. Without any analysis of this piece, the goal would be to get a sense of longing through articulation and beat placement throughout these measures. This might be the sound in one's ears:
However, you cannot ignore the harmonies underneath this melody. The harmonic rhythm is clearly laid out in the organ part:
Cleverly, the F is present in all three chords in this highlighted section (the I, vi, and IV, and even the ii7). Dissonance is created in the descending bass line with the organ harmonies. Otherwise, the only dissonance between the F and the bass line is the second right at the beginning of the section. With the awareness of the harmonies created in the organ part, this should inform the strings on how to play their line, with stress on the second eighth note of the figure over the dissonance, and will inform the bass line how to treat the dissonant C under the dotted quarter at the beginning of the bar. Dissonant beats are highlighted below.
Now listening again, do you hear a different sound in this passage:
I am particularly interested in the area highlighted in the red box. The score for this work can make this quite deceptive. Like many works, the strings are highlighted as the voice to pay most attention too. That is magnified in this score because the harp is not a prominent voice, and the organ is supposed to be out in the distance. In the score I'm studying from, I don't even have the bass part written in.
So naturally, an easy mistake to make is to focus on the string line throughout this section. Without any analysis of this piece, the goal would be to get a sense of longing through articulation and beat placement throughout these measures. This might be the sound in one's ears:
However, you cannot ignore the harmonies underneath this melody. The harmonic rhythm is clearly laid out in the organ part:
Cleverly, the F is present in all three chords in this highlighted section (the I, vi, and IV, and even the ii7). Dissonance is created in the descending bass line with the organ harmonies. Otherwise, the only dissonance between the F and the bass line is the second right at the beginning of the section. With the awareness of the harmonies created in the organ part, this should inform the strings on how to play their line, with stress on the second eighth note of the figure over the dissonance, and will inform the bass line how to treat the dissonant C under the dotted quarter at the beginning of the bar. Dissonant beats are highlighted below.
Now listening again, do you hear a different sound in this passage:
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Phrasing in Beethoven 5
One of the most frequently performed pieces in the symphonic literature is Beethoven's fifth symphony. It is powerful, but also very popularized. It is so much a standard in every conductor's repertoire that is it sometimes assumed known and understudied by conductors (especially student conductors). Gunther Schuller made this same point in his book The Complete Conductor. He has a significant chapter on this symphony, spending much of it on phrasing. I like to combine his thoughts with the theories of Edward T. Cone in Musical Form and Musical Performance.
The focus here is the presence of hypermeter, or a large scale (or, to be more schenkerian, a deeper, more background) meter. Most will agree that Beethoven constructs this piece in four bar phrases. What is most interesting for me is how he plays around with the surface level structural downbeats and hypermeter.
This first snippet comes from the first five measures of the piece. I have marked in upbeat and downbeat motion of these phrases. It should be understood that at any point in this movement, the "and two and" figure should always be read as a local upbeat. It is always going somewhere else and never is inactive as a motive. Now, look at the following measures (mm. 6-14).
Reading the first figure as a "four" in a 4 beat hypermeter, we get two clean four bar phrases. In fact, Schuller, notes that all phrases are four bars except for two instances of a five bar phrase and a number of 6 bar phrases (4 bars with 2 bar extensions).
Now think of a standard four bar measure. The strongest beat is beat 1, followed by beat 3. 2 serves as an upbeat to 3, and 4 an upbeat to 1. While each of the string entrances should be played with the three eight notes as an upbeat feeling to the sustained pitch, the first entrance (vnII here) should be the strongest with the others coming away from the downbeat in bar one.
In both instances, the top voice (vnI) is a stronger felt entrance than the alto voice (viola), but weaker than the first entrance of the second violins. In the second phrase, the first violins have the fourth bar upbeat, which could support a small crescendo on bar three of this phrase for that voice as they become the primary voice, taking the lead away from the second violins (who have be thus far placed strongest metrically).
This last example is a reduction of mm. 33-63. The phrases are marked with double bars (you see here an example of a phrase extension in bars 38-43).
What I find most interesting about this passage is the complete metrical displacement of the motivic chain. In the opening, the motive was first introduced on bar four of the hypermeter, then repeated twice after the phrase downbeat. In this section, the motive is played in bar one of the hypermeter and repeated four times, leading forward in a downward spiral to the strong beat one. Each of the red boxes shows the upbeat unit and where it leads to. The green boxes represent the final upbeat motion into the strong structural downbeat of each phrase. These parts occupy the strongest place metrically in the hierarchy of the hypermeter, and should be played as such.
The focus here is the presence of hypermeter, or a large scale (or, to be more schenkerian, a deeper, more background) meter. Most will agree that Beethoven constructs this piece in four bar phrases. What is most interesting for me is how he plays around with the surface level structural downbeats and hypermeter.
This first snippet comes from the first five measures of the piece. I have marked in upbeat and downbeat motion of these phrases. It should be understood that at any point in this movement, the "and two and" figure should always be read as a local upbeat. It is always going somewhere else and never is inactive as a motive. Now, look at the following measures (mm. 6-14).
Reading the first figure as a "four" in a 4 beat hypermeter, we get two clean four bar phrases. In fact, Schuller, notes that all phrases are four bars except for two instances of a five bar phrase and a number of 6 bar phrases (4 bars with 2 bar extensions).
Now think of a standard four bar measure. The strongest beat is beat 1, followed by beat 3. 2 serves as an upbeat to 3, and 4 an upbeat to 1. While each of the string entrances should be played with the three eight notes as an upbeat feeling to the sustained pitch, the first entrance (vnII here) should be the strongest with the others coming away from the downbeat in bar one.
In both instances, the top voice (vnI) is a stronger felt entrance than the alto voice (viola), but weaker than the first entrance of the second violins. In the second phrase, the first violins have the fourth bar upbeat, which could support a small crescendo on bar three of this phrase for that voice as they become the primary voice, taking the lead away from the second violins (who have be thus far placed strongest metrically).
This last example is a reduction of mm. 33-63. The phrases are marked with double bars (you see here an example of a phrase extension in bars 38-43).
What I find most interesting about this passage is the complete metrical displacement of the motivic chain. In the opening, the motive was first introduced on bar four of the hypermeter, then repeated twice after the phrase downbeat. In this section, the motive is played in bar one of the hypermeter and repeated four times, leading forward in a downward spiral to the strong beat one. Each of the red boxes shows the upbeat unit and where it leads to. The green boxes represent the final upbeat motion into the strong structural downbeat of each phrase. These parts occupy the strongest place metrically in the hierarchy of the hypermeter, and should be played as such.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Opening to Brahms 1
Analysis of Brahms’ First Symphony, Bars 1-9
The beginning of this symphony is incredible. A wash of sound, a constant heart beat in the low voices and timpani, full string section and full woodwinds.
Sitting down to do a harmonic analysis of the opening of this movement, Brahms’ habit of playing with the meter will also play with your mind as you try to figure out which notes in which voice belong to which chord. Above you will see a reduction of the opening of this symphony. It has three main ideas (doubled at the octave). Line one is played by the violins and celli. Line two belongs to flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons, Eb Horns (partially), and violas. The pedal C (line three) is played by the timpani, contrabassoon and contrabass, and is also sustained by the C Horns.
The most important road block in analyzing this opening is lining up what the harmonic rhythm is and where the actual chords are. The goal of the following section is to show how aligning line one over the harmonic rhythm established by line two can uncover the underlying harmonic progression in these nine bars. This can be accomplished by eliminating the second quarter note in the first bar of line one, and writing the part exactly as written. To realign the parts at the end, extend the final Bb in measure 7 and the F natural in measure 8 by one eighth note each. This looks like the figure below.
As you can see (and perhaps more clearly hear) this lines up the two parts almost perfectly, allowing for a harmonic progression that is clear to discern, and a regular harmonic rhythm. The progression can be explained thusly (roman numerals reference the key of c minor):
Bar 1 : Beat 1 announces a unison c, implying i. Beat 4 is a vii°/ii. The vii°/ii resolves to a
Bar 2 : II, which over the course of the bar and a quasi voice exchange leads to
Bar 3 : ii (the ultimate goal of the vii°/ii). Beat 4 is a vii° of the next chord which is
Bar 4 : a V7/E. Using root motion by a third, this chord progresses to
Bar 5 : V
Bar 6 : i
Bar 7 : IV
Bar 8 : Beat 1 produces a dominant chord of the next harmony on beat 2, a V7/VII. This chord is transformed on beat 7 by raising the root up a halfstep into a vii°/V.
Bar 9 : V.
When the piece is lined up this way, you do not find a single non-chord tone, except for a couple passing tones in the ascending stepwise sections, and the pedal C that drones throughout.
Brahms, by offsetting line one, has created added even more tension in the first four bars (as if the progression there was not tense enough), and has added a bit of suspense to the seemingly plane V – i – IV turnaround in the middle of these bars. This will also explain why there is a release of harmonic tension when the Ab moves to the G in bar five.
I hope that this little analysis provides a clearer picture of the opening of this great symphony.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Peter Mennin: a composer born from the Eastman tradition…
There is so much to say about this symphony, as it is filled with so many interesting elements, especially in terms of harmony and rhythm. But I feel like I’ve ramble on enough about this piece and want to move on to others.
So for my last post on Peter Mennin (at least until I study him again), I want to talk about where he belongs in the history of music. When historians and history books cover this era of music history, they tend to get tied up in the areas of atonality, serialism, chance music, minimalism, and so forth. However, Mennin fits in another camp, that of extended tonality, a continuation of what was going on before Schoenberg moved into the atonal realm.
As you have seen here, vertical harmonies might not always function the way we would expect, but horizontal lines are indicative of a key. These are elements of 20th century counterpoint, used by composers such as William Schuman, Bernard Rogers, and Howard Hanson.
I suppose you could say this area is sometimes avoided in history texts because it adds a whole new dimension to recent music history. Certainly Schumann, Rogers, Hanson, and their peers wrote for orchestra, but their names are most commonly associated with compositions for wind ensemble.
As the title of this post suggests, Mennin was born out of the Eastman tradition. He was at Eastman right before Frederick Fennell formed the Eastman Wind Ensemble, of which Hanson was a big supporter. Hanson composed several works for wind ensemble, a sound that belongs to what many college directors call “50s band music.” It is a distinct extended tonality that characterizes these works. Instrumental choirs were used independently and rarely mixed.
That being said, when I first heard Mennin’s Third Symphony, I instantly heard the sound of the wind ensemble in the orchestration and tonality. This stems from the sound that he inherited from his teachers. In flipping through Howard Hanson’s first two symphonies, what sticks out to me is his grouping of instrumental choirs, frequent use of brass for melodic material, and frequent meter shifts.
The characteristics of Mennin’s Third Symphony are very similar. And here, I am going to list the qualities of Mennin’s symphony that sets him apart from other symphonic composers:
Though Mennin’s symphonies belong to this camp of tonal (or at least tone centric) music, I hope in the future that these symphonies will get studied more frequently.
------------------------
Works Referenced
So for my last post on Peter Mennin (at least until I study him again), I want to talk about where he belongs in the history of music. When historians and history books cover this era of music history, they tend to get tied up in the areas of atonality, serialism, chance music, minimalism, and so forth. However, Mennin fits in another camp, that of extended tonality, a continuation of what was going on before Schoenberg moved into the atonal realm.
As you have seen here, vertical harmonies might not always function the way we would expect, but horizontal lines are indicative of a key. These are elements of 20th century counterpoint, used by composers such as William Schuman, Bernard Rogers, and Howard Hanson.
I suppose you could say this area is sometimes avoided in history texts because it adds a whole new dimension to recent music history. Certainly Schumann, Rogers, Hanson, and their peers wrote for orchestra, but their names are most commonly associated with compositions for wind ensemble.
As the title of this post suggests, Mennin was born out of the Eastman tradition. He was at Eastman right before Frederick Fennell formed the Eastman Wind Ensemble, of which Hanson was a big supporter. Hanson composed several works for wind ensemble, a sound that belongs to what many college directors call “50s band music.” It is a distinct extended tonality that characterizes these works. Instrumental choirs were used independently and rarely mixed.
That being said, when I first heard Mennin’s Third Symphony, I instantly heard the sound of the wind ensemble in the orchestration and tonality. This stems from the sound that he inherited from his teachers. In flipping through Howard Hanson’s first two symphonies, what sticks out to me is his grouping of instrumental choirs, frequent use of brass for melodic material, and frequent meter shifts.
The characteristics of Mennin’s Third Symphony are very similar. And here, I am going to list the qualities of Mennin’s symphony that sets him apart from other symphonic composers:
- The use of counterpoint within tonal areas without much regard for vertical sonority.
- The use of asynchronous rhythms and metric pulses.
- The use of the orchestras choirs to present themes in whole, rarely blending woodwind and brass, or brass and string, etc.
- Minimal thematic material with lots of development.
- Ambiguous, yet fluid form.
Though Mennin’s symphonies belong to this camp of tonal (or at least tone centric) music, I hope in the future that these symphonies will get studied more frequently.
Works Referenced
- Battisti, Frank L. The Winds of Change. Galesville: Meredith Music Publications, 2002.
- Hanson, Howard. Symphony No. 1. Boston: Carl Fischer Inc., 1923.
- Hanson, Howard. Symphony No. 2. New York: Carl Fischer Inc., 1932.
- Mennin, Peter. Symphony No. 3. New York: Hargail Music Press, 1948.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)