After class Tuesday, I found myself somewhat surprised: I knew what I was going to teach of course, and I knew what we were going to listen to, but I found myself excited at the insights I gained into these pieces by applying the Hepokoski/Darcy principles and also getting the opportunity to get some interpretive reactions from you.
I realize this is a very unusual idea! We all know that music is expressive, that it moves us, etc., but I think we too often don't look into some of the things in the music that produce this effect. What last night's class provided, especially for the Scarlatti, was a glimpse into how a composer who confines himself to the same form continues to make that form novel and moving. It seems to me we need both elements.
How did it strike you to use analysis as a means to dig deeper into the affect or expression of the music? Is it effective? Or should analysis be one thing and poetics another? And if it's effective, what kinds of things should we think about when we're analyzing? (This blog post and its comments serve the double purpose of helping you as you begin working on your first response paper!) :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For me, at least when I was growing up, I didn't really care about WHY certain music got my attention - I just paid attention to the fact that I liked it, and just listened to it for what it was, not really knowing what was behind it. Now that I have grown musically, however, I have found it more and more necessary to analyze music. The more you know about a piece, I believe, the better it may be peformed or appreciated.
ReplyDeleteWhy did a composer choose to use that particular method? Where is this phrase going to and where has it come from? What is behind that chord progression? What period was it from and what are the other works by the same composer like? These are all questions that we may take for granted, yet they are all important to the interpretation and sucess of playing and understanding a piece of music.
On the other hand, I believe that you shouldn't use so much analysis that it will hinder your artistic instincts to perform or enjoy a piece. You can't really immerse yourself in music if you're constantly thinking about theory ... there needs to be some kind of enjoyment or emotional connection to perform something well, or else it will just sound like a bunch of notes.
In conclusion, I believe it is necessary to know the theory and analysis apsects behind music to perform it correctly, but in order for it to sound like it is supposed to or for you to appreciate it to it's full potential, there needs to be some other kind of connection between the music and yourself.
In Scarlatti's music, I was very interested to hear the difference between the earlier works and his older works. In K.212 the structure as to how he was building the chords in the development section was so clearly influenced by where he was during this period of his life. The sonata form as a whole has a way of effecting the listener and he does so very adequately.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, we are taught to analyze music in order to get a better understanding while performing. Having a knowledge of phrasing, chords, cadences, etc. is crucial in putting the correct emotion into a piece of music. I view form and emotion as equal partners in music, just as in literature. Shakespeare's sonnets are some of the greatest examples of this. The fact that he can make the reader feel while still maintaining his form of a 14 lines 10 syllables per line in iambic pentameter. There can be no argument as to whether or not each piece provokes feeling. Koch's idea of music being compared to a sentence is perfect for this! In music, if we must analyze why a piece is emotional, we should pay attention to the phrasing and certain musical markings for the structure, but also the use of cadences (and how they are approached), tempos, key changes, etc.
In music, this is also the case. With Scarlatti, he sticks to the form rigidly, but the effect of the music is never lost. My favorite part in the pieces we listened to occurred in K.212 in the development section, when he is driving in c minor toward the repetition of segments from the exposition and it suddenly switches back to the A major for a brief moment. The form at its best here, he utilizes repetition of "p" ideas from the exposition in the development to create a jarring stop after an excellent build.
I believe analysis is necessary in understanding the emotion regarded in a piece. To a certain extent, each holds their own merit and in context with one another, should never be over analyzed. Contemplating form too closely could lose the emotion in the music, and vice-versa.
-Kristen Edwards
When it comes to poetics and analysis, I believe that the two ideas are not needed to support each other when defining the expression of any work of art. When listening to a piece of music (unless the listening is being done for a class) I prefer to sit back and enjoy the music as it unfolds; the overall structure and minute nuances make little difference to how I hear a piece. I will say, that analyzing a piece is rather enlightening and provides much information about the work, but as I said before, this analysis will not change how I hear the expression of a piece.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with Meaghan that when I listen to a piece, it doesn't change how I hear the piece or how it affects me emotionally. It's interesting, because when performing, the analysis helps me to capture the emotion to help the listener hear what I'm trying to evoke. But when I'm on the other side, I don't view the analysis as necessary.
ReplyDelete-Kristen E
I agree with Meaghan as well - I guess it just depends on the situation like she described. For classes, you definitely need to be aware of everything that is going on in the piece while you're listening to it, especially if you're going to be differentiating the music in listening tests and whatnot. When you're listening for pure enjoyment, you don't really care about what is behind the piece - you're just trying to enjoy it. Actually performing a piece yourself, I think, *should* involve both analysis and emotional enjoyment, but I believe through the different stages of learning a piece and performing it, analysis, emotion, and enjoyment should be emphasized on different levels.
ReplyDeleteThis means I have something to add to what I said in my previous entry. I mentioned how there needs to be a knowledge of why certain things occur in music in order for it to be analyzed and interpreted as it should be. This most likely should be done early on in the game of learning a piece - analyzing it harmonically/melodically etc. as well as listening to it. I think that many people forget that once they analyze a piece before they perform it, all of that analysis must be able to be *applied* to get the full outcome one desires. In my opinion, if you're learning a piece to perform, it means nothing if you know how a piece works, but can't demonstrate it in performance. All that time that you have put into analyzing it will have no real meaningful end product to the audience if there is no application of the analysis.
Thinking about this, I think I have an idea about how a piece should be learned and performed, when the case presents itself. Analysis should be carried out early on in the process to allow ample time for the information to sink in and to allow time for application. After this has been done, I think that is the time to grow emotionally with it. For example, you need to know the notes in a passage to make it sound beautiful - and accuracy of notes is not the thing you should be most concerned about either! Learning notes is probably the one of the most basic forms of analysis. If you're thinking about just note accuracy, for example, there is no way you're going to phrase something correctly, incorporate dynamics to their full potential, etc. Once you learn the notes/phrasing/dynamics/what the rest of the ensemble has, you may create most beautiful music and be able to enjoy it to the full potential. You have to be able to do everything in performance.
In conclusion, I agree with Meaghan with what she had to say about classroom learning vs. pure enjoyment. *However, when one is performing a work, analysis (beginning stages of learning) and emotional development with the piece (ending stages with learning after analysis has occured and has been applied) both have their place.
I guess what draws me to this method is the fact that I enjoy the music and then look more into it to see what informs that enjoyment. And that leads me to ponder the expressive reasons behind certain compositional choices--we don't know why they were made, but we can understand the impact it has on the music as it unfolds.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on a previous statement that Meaghan made.
ReplyDelete"When listening to apiece of music (unless the listening is being done for a class) I prefer to sit back and enjoy the music as it unfolds..."
I, too, prefer to listen to music in an environment where there are no other distractions and the all that remains is me, the listener, and the recorded performance. But I also prefer to do this with assigned listenings for classes. It may be important to go back and follow along with a score, analyzing specific passages or elements that only exist for fractions of a second, but it is the whole, and how it affects the listener, that is more important.
For me, internalizing a composition is th best way to appreciate what is happening. Many listenings are required for such an activity, but once internalized we can begin to make judgements on the composition. This is far more useful than following along with a score from the outset.
On the subject of expression, I often find it difficult to discover a recording that is performed in such a way that seems appropriate. Some performances are just aweful, some technically superb but lacking emotion, but few are excellent. For example, the UNH Wind Symphony is beginning to work on Stravinsky's Octet for winds. I listened to three recordings and wasn't happy with the performance. It wasn't until Adam (our class TA) tipped me off to a really superb performance of the piece by the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra that I was struck emotionally by the work. A new copy of the CD now awaits me in my GSS box. (Yes, that's right, I bought it. Support your fellow musicians and actually pay for your music!)
From Tom Power:
ReplyDeleteFor me, understanding the theory and form of sonata form (or other classical music forms) is critical for understanding the emotional impact. Before I learned how sonata form worked I didn't listen to very much classical music because I didn't understand how it worked. After the survey of western music class I started listening to classical music more and more because I understood where it was going. Once I understood that, I was affected emotionally by the music.
For class I always follow the score for the assigned readings because it helps me understand what the composer is doing, and this heightens the emotional content for me.