Please listen to Berio's Sinfonia, 3rd movement; and read through the following materials on it.
David Osmond-Smith, "From Myth to Music: Lévi-Strauss's Mythologies and Berio's Sinfonia." The Musical Quarterly, vol. 67 no. 2, April 1981, 230-260.
A review of David Osmond-Smith's book-length guide to Sinfonia, in Notes, Sept. 1987, pp. 56-59. (Unfortunately this book is checked out; I wasn't able to get my hands on it in time for class.) And a brief online account of the work.
On Stravinsky's Requiem Canticles: (sorry, no online listening for this piece - but the CD is on reserve in the library, CDISC M1520 S87 A75)
Anthony Payne, "Requiem Canticles." Tempo, No. 81, Stravinsky's 85th Birthday. (Summer, 1967), pp. 10-19. With some useful musical examples and a sketch fragment.
Stravinsky expert Eric Walter-White's review of the first performance at Princeton, in Tempo, No. 79, Winter 1966-67, 14-15.
Claudio Spies, "Some notes on Stravinsky's Requiem settings." Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 5, No. 2. (Spring - Summer, 1967), pp. 98-123; see esp. from p. 107 ff. A rather technical article dealing with Stravinsky's serial technique (copied from his sketches), with some very useful formal diagrams.
On Boulez' Eclat/Multiples:
Michael Chanan, review of first performance. Tempo, New Ser., No. 95 (Winter, 1970-1971), pp. 30-33; with some interesting philosophical thoughts on the failure of music analysis dealing with new music (circa 1970).
Listening for Messiaen's Chronochromie:
Introduction
Antistrophe II
Coda
Finally, please comment on Channan's comment in his review: "I take it as axiomatic that in the past two or three decades at least, musical analysis has failed to relate to what we actually hear. It has merely fumbled around in the face of an increasing multiplicity of musical types. All it has been able to do is provide blueprints for composers, but not for listeners." Try to think of examples and counterexamples to this argument; in your comment, choose a side pro or contra; make a short argument!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I cannot imagine what non-musicians must think when trying to read and understand an analysis. I believe music of the past 20-30 years has been left open to individual interpretation. One person will hear something different from another. I do not think it is anyone's position to tell people what to hear in any piece. The "blueprints" are there to help us better understand the structure of the piece, but not to tell us what to hear.
If by listeners Channan means non-musicians, then he is probably right. However, for listeners who are also musicians, I think that he is completely wrong. For example, I had listened to the Rite of Spring many times before I read Boulez's analysis, but I found that the analysis confirmed some ideas I had intuited about the piece through listening and expanded my understanding of the piece by revealing connections that I hadn't heard. On the other hand, I have read analysis papers that seem to focus on less experientially relevant aspects of the music. They don't connect with my listening experience, but perhaps they really connect with someone else's listening experience. It's a tricky issue because what we hear in a piece is so subjective, it's different for everyone. To expect analysis to deliver THE explanation of why we listen to it a certain way is totally unrealistic; similarly, it's reductive to suggest that we ALL hear the same things in a piece. I think that analysis should do its best to provide objective evidence in the music-as-score for what we hear. In other words, the first step towards analysis should obviously be listening; then, one can work backward to the details of how the composer created those exceptional experiential moments.
I think it's a tough call to say whether or not the analysis of post tonal music really does change how we listen to it. For some reason, I am more drawn to an inaccessible piece when I hear how it was crafted, but do I hear the things that are being analyzed? I'm not so sure of that... As it was pointed out in class, Music of Changes and Structures sound very similar, and yet could not be any more different in terms of compositional techniques. However, when a piece is somewhat more straight forward such as the Messiaen we looked at today, breaking down the piece into chunks gets me to see the piece on a grander scale, and does really change how I listen to it.
We used to have fairly long debates about this in undergrad, and I do think that the analysis of a piece helps me to understand and--to an extent-- appreciate a piece more than simply listening to it. For example, the video in class today of Boulez' "Eclat/ Multiples" made me that much more intrigued by it. By having been "behind the scenes" in rehearsals and seeing firsthand what the composer and conductor intend to create make the piece come to life for me. However, I have to be honest-- if I had just heard the piece without watching the video I think I would not have been nearly as interested or moved by the music.
For non-musicians, I totally agree with Channan's comment. I think that the analysis better serves the composer, NOT the listener. Taken one more step, the analysis helps the musically educated as well, but in my case for example (here we go) I find that sometimes I get a little bitter or resentful of a piece when I can only appreciate it after analyzing it.
Channan’s statement is an apt diagnosis of the situation at the time. Especially serialist analysis—-in the code-breaking mode—-seeks to demonstrate what the composer actually did when writing the piece. This dismantles the music, trying to show how it works—-or a “blueprint for composers.” Fascinating as this may be, it does not at all address how the music sounds or how it impacts listeners. (Perhaps it is not too cynical to suggest that some of these “blueprint” analysts don’t care how it impacts listeners.) From among our readings, Claudio Spies’s “Some Notes on Stravinsky’s Requiem Settings” falls closer to the “blueprint” category rather than the “listener” category. He is primarily concerned with discovering from where Stravinsky chose his notes. While this does explain how the composer constructed his piece, such an approach overlooks the inherent communicative emotiveness of Stravinsky’s score. This is what affects listeners, not a knowledge of pitch content. If analysts instead tried to explain what makes this piece so affecting and effective, then perhaps the listeners (and the performers) would not be left out of the equation. In my mind, it is not even a question of musician versus non-musician. Rather "blueprint" type analyses consider only the creation of a work, not its realization/performance.
Yet even the "listener" approach has its pitfalls. It can all too easily become a tedious and lengthy description in words of something that the ear can perceive almost immediately. Channan himself, around pages 31-32, begins to fall into this trap. At least his approach looks at the end result—-the performable composition—-rather than the “under construction” phase of composing.
This is a fun topic, musician vs. listener..listener vs. musician..you cannot assume a negative context from either end when considering the question asked..however you must atleast consider each side as relevant.
Imagine yourself as a "novice" music lover and/or appreciator and instead of hearing Bach's "B Minor Mass" for the first time you are challenged by looking at the score...yet when heard it is completely different, for many reasons that cannot be written in words or symbols. This may be a little off from what Channan was arguing but this is where Im going with my thoughts. A blueprint of a piece of music might on one hand be fascinating to a "novice" when he/she doesn't understand what they are looking at, but I think they can still appreciate the experience just as much without anything to look at. I can see the musician (performer, conductor, composer etc) as riding the fence on this issue. In my case it would most definitely depend on the specific work.
I do not agree completely with Chanan's statement. Mainly because he says musical analysis provides for the composer, "but not for the listeners".
Since I am an elementary music teacher, I will throw in my example from what I know. With my students, we listen to orchestral works or instrumental works throughout the year. My job, I feel as their teacher, is to teach them how to listen. Sometimes I ask them to focus in on a certain part, or sometimes I play the track and ask them what they picked up from it. There are times we all look at listening guides. These listening guides give students varying aspects to listen for and also what to expect in the music. I believe that these blueprints help students find parts of the music they might not have realized were there before. By finding new sounds or techniques in one piece, they are then (hopefully) transferring this knowledge over to other musical works. And through all of these tools, they are becoming better listeners as they grow older.
So, I cannot agree with Chanan when he exclaims that musical analysis does nothing for a listener. It all depends on one’s knowledge of what they are looking at or reading, as well as personal experience. The more you listen, the better able you are to hear. Musical analysis is just one tool to help in the process.
I would argue that Boulez (Messiaien, and Stockhausen as well) could not have any reasonable expectation that the music they were writing was meant for the listener. Sure, Stockhausen may have had visions of grandeur for sitting by the crackling fire while listening to his “Studie 3”, but this music was not meant for merely listening.
The listener, musician or not, is one who expects to find some pleasure or satisfaction in the experience of listening. And while many people do listen and find pleasure in Boulez’s music, that pleasure is derived from the understanding of Boulez’s compositional techniques and methods of writing. Therefore, the analysis, is meant for the composer primarily, but also for the listener-theorist. Here is the critical distinction. The listener merely listens, for which there is no need for analysis. The listener-theorist is interested in the intent of the composer, or the composer’s creative methods. So to clarify Channan’s statement, analysis IS effective for the listener-theorist, but not the listener.
To me, the only music we have studied thus far that does not promote itself to analysis is Cage, who clearly dictated that his music (organization of sound) had no purpose. It was not to complete a row, or form, but it merely was what it was.
The music of Boulez and the like is not like Cage, whose music was not designed to be dissected, carefully thought out and analyzed.
Does a listener (or non-musician) have a score in front of them at a musical performance? This may seem like a sarcastic question, but it is applicable to our topic of discussion. It is not common practice for a conductor to hand out copies of the score. Most audience members will never see a musical score unless they seek it out themselves. Why don't we do this? If the conductor did include score excerpts in the program notes, would the listener be able to interpret or understand the piece of music any better? Does it make them less of a listener if the answer is no? These questions and this topic all go back to the idea of the musical elite in my mind. Does the ability to read music or analyze a musical score really determine the level of enjoyment a listener is afforded during a performance? It is my opinion that a listener (whether musician or non-musician) will get what he/she wants out of a musical performance.
I suppose I would generally agree with what people have already said: that Chanan could be wrong depending on the level of musical training of the listener. However, depending on the sophistication of the analysis I think it could help even the average listener on at least what to listen for and to give an overall impression of the piece.
I think Channan is over-generalizing the system of music analysis in the 20th century. As discussed in class, it seems as though a different perspective needs to be taken when previewing a 20th century musical score. The conceptualization of reading one of these scores is no longer to determine strictly form and harmonic analysis, but to gain a better understanding in which to comprehend the overall form and compositional structure in which to perform or fully realize the piece at a higher aesthetic level.
I understand Channan's comment stating that 20th century analysis is just fumbling around to find answers that aren't necessarily and easily apparent. What I think he is getting at, is that no longer is harmonic analysis of music attainable to the novice music student, but like the music itself, must be analyzed by a highly proficient 20th century compositional specialist.
For me it's helpful to get some information about the composer or the music I'm listening to- it could be an analysis or some story or the contest(as it was today with Ligeti - the scenes from the Kubrick's movie(I saw it before but I just wanted to see it again, because of the music too,I'm sure I'll hear it differently,knowing more about the composer and his music).
I won't be able to fallow some
detailed and highly professional account,but some piece of information can awake my interest and make me listening more actively.Just as with the composing-the frame,the rules don't necessarily kill the inspiration,sometimes just opposite,for the listener the frame(of an idea or some information) could be the helpful
point,from which imagination begins to work.
Doesn't have to be like this, but can.
Post a Comment