Hello, I want to start analysing music but every time I get stuck with the question: what's the result of the analysis for a composer? For example, a performer after analyzing a composition has an understanding what's going on in the composition and where and therefore he can perform it more accurately. But what can be the result of any composition's analysis for the composer? What should I aim at in music analysis as a composer?
8:56 hello, can you explain me please what is the pedal base here? I can't see signs of sustaining the note and it's an eighth note just like the rest ones BTW videos are great, thank you very very much for making them
post #6 (cont...) Lastly, The best example of all this (12 tone music is quite capable of being "audible") is Rochberg's Second Symphony (right at the first movement): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aUyTghXo-Ts.html The 12-tone melody is first stated right at the beginning. This theme is developed quite convincingly at 1:09 by the strings and again at 1:30 by the low brass. Notice the strings continue the melody it began at 1:09 as the brass come in. It soars and soars to greater and newer heights and creates tension not only on its own, but as expressive counterpoint to the brass. There is development, flow, and drive. Long, expressive, recognizable melody with elaboration.
post #5 (cont...) There are two primary methods of composing this music. In any given texture, you can use the notes from the same row (Method A), or use the notes from two or more rows simultaneously (Method B). So if you had a melody and chords/accompaniment together, you could use the same row for all the notes (A), or use one row for the melody and another row for the chords/accompaniment (B). Those are your only choices. In Method B, notes will repeat before the other 11 have sounded. That's the only way it can be done. This is what happens in instances such as Schoenberg's Piano Concerto. He is using a row for the right hand melody (prime), and another row for the accompaniment left hand (retrograde inversion). That's why the notes repeat in this instance. Other times, he is using a technique called "segmentation" where the row is divided up into equal parts and say the first four notes are used as an ostinato figure and so are repeated while another segment of the row is the melody. This is like the String Quartet No. 3 example. For Method A, you would need to write very short pieces and use the vertical-horizontal method of assigning notes. It doesn't really work in solo pieces where an instrument can only play 1 note. In that case, all you would have is an isomelody if they followed the mythic/strawman "rule" on non-repetition because it would be the same notes over and over again in the same order throughout the piece. But professional serial composers don't do that (see Krenek's solo cello pieces). Also, it gives the piece the sound of randomness (random notes playing). Being able to repeat notes as shape and cohesion to the music as well as give the music identity. There is no "rule" that you cannot repeat a note in the series until the other 11 have sounded when composing a piece with the row(s). That is a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. Not repeating a note ONLY applies to CONSTUCTING THE ROW ITSELF, not when you COMPOSE THE ACTUAL MUSIC. The WIKIPEDIA page has had a paragraph about this on its entry of "TWELVE TONE TECHNIQUE" for at least a decade. Here it is under the heading "Application in composition",: "Note that rules 1-4 above apply to the construction of the row itself, and not to the interpretation of the row in the composition. (Thus, for example, postulate 2 does not mean, contrary to common belief, that no note in a twelve-tone work can be repeated until all twelve have been sounded.)"
post #4 (cont...) There are several different ways of composing with a tone row, not just one. You could use the Segmentation technique and use notes 1-6 as a melody over 7-12 accompaniment, then switch to a new transformation and do 7-12 over 1-6 and do it again with another and again and again. When this happens, there is no appearance of the 12-tone row in the melody, ever, and you can really make for some thematic ideas more easily as notes will repeat more often naturally. You can make the melody last as long as you want. Further, you could use the horizontal-vertical method (as used sometimes by Webern) in which you outline the rhythms of the melody and accompaniment you want and then fill in the notes, not vertically with the row or its different segments, but horizontally and vertically together (meaning you start with any notes that sound together, then fill in each note as it sounds in rhythmic order of occurrence in the texture as whole). This will also never yield any 12-tone rows in any voice, and will also make notes repeat in voices naturally. You also do not have to change transformations in a single piece (although I do when I compose this way, such as making the last note of the row the first note of the next transformation-which is what Stravinsky did a lot). You can make the melody last as long as you want.
post #3 (cont...) The 12-tone system is NOT a "paint-by-number" system in which each-and-every note of the row is equal to each-and-every note of the melody. Note-for-note. No repetitions. No change of order. No different methods of composing with the notes. It all sounds the same. Etc. Etc. That is dead wrong. A melody in 12-tone composition is just like a melody in all other music, as Schoenberg points out. Melodies, however constructed, IS the material. Do we criticize the major scale for producing greater or fewer combinations of notes, but none of them can combine itself more closely to the material than can the first statement of the scale? As Brindle points out in his book, there is no law that states a melody must be confined to neatly fit a row perfectly (or vice versa). You can make a melody out of 6 notes of the row and use the next 6 of the row in the next phrase or chord or whatever you wish. You can use up all 12 notes of a row and then use the next 3 or 4 of the next transformation to finish the melody, etc. You can also keep using transformation after transformation of rows to complete the melody you are trying to achieve until you are done. You can go on for 100 bars writing a melody this way if you want.
post #2 (cont...) It's also worth noting that this type of writing still uses good craftmanship and knowledge of the past (CPT) techniques in order to maintain high quality. For example, we know from the past that line independence is crucial in good counterpoint. You want the lines related, but not exact repetitions all the time. That is extremely boring. Transposed repetitions are better than exact repetitions. Inverted is also preferable. Oblique motion is preferable to parallel. Contrary motion is preferable to oblique (and therefore parallel as well)-which is another pro for invertible repetition. All of those things apply no matter the style. Even in 12-tone. What is more, this principle applies to 12-tone music in that when the second voice or voices come in, it should introduce new notes not heard in the previous voice of the previous bar. This can be hard to do. In any event, the point is, is that it is NOT a “plug in the numbers”, “paint by numbers” system that “writes itself”. As you can see from my posts today, there is clear-cut craftmanship to it with direct influence and links to the past, including principles from CPT.
What you say is true of *some* serial music, but not all. In the generation of Boulez and Stockhausen, for example, they explicitly avoided things like motives, and melodic lines, and tried to serialize other aspects of the music e.g. rhythm and orchestration. These aspects of the music are very salient, and if they are not organised in a clearly audible way, the music is very hard to follow, if not impossible. Even within the classical serial repertoire, it is not surprising that pieces like Berg's Violin Concerto, where the row has very few different intervals, are much more audibly coherent than certain other pieces, using rows with all the intervals. My point is just that serialism itself does not make music audibly coherent. (A lot of people still believe that it does!) A composer, like Berg, with excellent craftsmanship and a personal style, can succeed. But I still know teachers, in music schools, who "analyse" a serial piece just by numbering the notes, with no mention of phrases, punctuation, motives, etc., and they think they have explained everything, Whereas in fact they have explained nothing.
@@alanbelkin9272 thank you for your reply and I understand where you are coming from. I cannot speak about Stockhausen, but I am extremely familiar with Boulez's music. Keep in mind that Boulez changed his style several times within his career. What you mention of Boulez can only be applied to his composition "Structures 1a" for piano. He did not like that piece because he considered it a failed experiment in that it sounded so similar to the chance music "aleatoric" of America. If I may direct you to this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ie5Ore2rjhk.html . He worked in a new way in which freedom was possible. He called Le Marteau a "conquest of freedom" (from strictness in 12-twelve writing). The video says that Le Marteau was a link between the strictly constructivist musical thinking of the Viennese school and the ornamental elements of French music. Boulez in the video actually calls that 20th century rationalist amaciation of music you are referring to a "burden", so he turned to Debussy for the "spontaneity" that he felt was "necessary". It seems that there is also a freer, sort of "right-brained" system to the composition as well where he breaks his own rules here and there for aesthetic reasons, to create that richness and beauty. If it is okay with you, I would like to post several replies to analyze Boulez's music in a way that I hope you will learn from and enjoy (hopefully). I will do his "Notations" and his Livre per courdes. I can also do Le Marteau but will maybe wait for another time for that one perhaps...
@@alanbelkin9272 (reply part 2:) . His Notations. Here (audio with score): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CJG38iQ9d7I.html I’d like to start out of order, with Notation #4 starting at 2:22. If you’ll bear with me: This one is very straightforward, and the patterns are easily audible. Firstly, it uses one and only one row transposition. Simple. Not only that, but it splits the row into two sections (a technique called “segmentation”), each hand of the piano getting 6 notes of the row respectively. Even further still, the left hand is in an audible, easily recognizable pattern-an ostinato of five sixteenths followed by a long-held note. Always in the same register and articulation. The meters change and the pattern appears on different beats of the bar each time (as you know, this is called “rhythmic displacement”) and is a variation technique even CP composers used in various forms. What is more, the right hand “melody” right at the start is in an audible pattern of an additive nature*(see annotation below) (the linear/horizontal type), in which one new note of the set class is introduced one at a time. The first note D appears (and is punctuated, as are all repetitions), then repeats adding the second note C (so D and C). Then those repeat, adding the third note (D, C, and C#). Then those three notes repeat and add the fourth note, (D, C, C#, and B). Then those four notes repeat and add the fifth note (D, C, C#, B, and Bb), etc. and finally the Eb. Notice the phrases he is making throughout with the “melody”, in particular the notes D, C, and C# are grouped together after that point. Of particular note is the last line, bars 10-12. In bar 10 we have a phrase that can be compared to the “compound lines” of Bach/Baroque composers. I'm sure you know what that is, but for any lurkers here not familiar with a compound line, it is a contrapuntal technique in which TWO voices appear in ONE line/the same instrument or voice. Mostly by changing of registers and/or motifs. The compound line is at 2:38. Again, it is in “pedal form”. One voice is the note A that sounds every other note, and the other voice is the other notes in-between. But these two voices are in the SAME LINE. Again, this last example is the same exact type that Boulez does in Bar 10. Notice the “pedal” of Bb and B in the upper voice while the aforementioned melody we are used to, the C, D, C#, etc. is the lower voice, but it’s in the SAME LINE. This is literally no different than Bach, technique-wise, just style (the notes) is different. And the sound of it is quite audible and clear of what he is doing. He set it up perfectly so you can understand it and hear it. This builds to the climax in bar 11 and 12. The highest notes C and C#, which is directly related to/a variation of the B and Bb pairing/structures he’s been using previously. These same structures will also tie into other movements of the piece (i.e., Mvt. 2, 9, 12). Then the final climactic melodic statement at the very end brings the piece to a satisfying, cohesive close. *additive process is A, then AB, then ABC, then ABCD, etc. Like "My. My name. My name is. My name is Adam." Used in poetry, music, etc....
@@alanbelkin9272 (reply part 3:) Notation #7, at 3:55: This one also uses segmentation. The left hand uses 4 notes in two dyad chords, a fifth B and F#, and a fourth C and F. Notice the two chords are coherent in that they are smoothly voice-led (half-step contrary motion in both “voices”). The rest of the notes in the row are used in the right hand, and are arranged as two contrasting/opposing ideas that unfold simultaneously. The first one is the bold, louder fanfare of the descending augmented fourth C# to G. The second idea interspersed with the first is a lyrical one that is also quasi-additive (phrases get longer and longer, more and more intricate, adding notes). Notice the prevalence of augmented fourths/tritones, perfect fourths, and fifths (relating to the accompaniment) and the related sevenths (a distance of two fourths). This cohesively ties the piece together. The next piece, #8 at 4:55, is related to #7 in that it also exploits the interval of the fourth. The rhythmic ostinato (supposed to mimic ethnic percussion/drumming) is a perfect fourth and the accompanying repeated chord is based on perfect fourth of F#-B and an augmented fifth F and C#. The rest of the notes of the row are added, voiced in characteristic fifths and tritones, no different than Scriabin’s “Mystic Chord” you mentioned earlier. Notation #1, at 0:00: An imperfect mirror type form: The first bar is mirrored by the last bar. Bar 8 is mimicking bar 5. #2, at 0:59: Bar 2 repeats bar 1. Bar 3 is a variation of the structures in the previous 2 bars. The ostinato in bar 4 comes from the structures in the previous 3 bars. The following 2 phrases are related as an anabasis and catabasis relationship. The next phrase is related to the anabasis phrase as a rhythmic variation (diminution). The next bar is a variation/climactic repeat of bar 3. The last bar is a variation/climactic repeat of bar 1. The structures in this piece are easily audible, given that they are all seconds and clusters. Theses structures as appearing in the opening bars also appear as is in mvts 9 and 12.
@@alanbelkin9272 (reply part 4:) Livre per courdes ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-omeOdqO05W4.html Pierre Boulez' Livre pour cordes has for a very long time been one of my favorite pieces by anyone. There are many things to like about this piece (for me). What I really love is the total control and mastery of the serial technique, and in such a unique and individual way "destroying" previous methods (meaning that he learned previous techniques and developed his own ideas upon those learned techniques). My biggest pet peeve of serial music "critics" is how they will want to make it seem like it is some sort of paint by numbers system where you are like a slave to the master system dictating and limiting your imagination. In this piece, Boulez uses the row and his novel orchestration technique to craft a beautiful piece that invokes an emotional journey with the overall shape and form not unlike a piece from the CPT. It begins soft and languid, then over the length of the piece increases in dynamics, busier activity (in counterpoint and texture, rhythms and harmony, and density), with a golden section climax (and smaller ups and downs along the way) and the final ultimate chord (one of extreme dissonance that even the Second Viennese School would never have written because of their techniques--didn't do thick clusters). The main thing is that he divides the orchestra (or large string section) up into individual or smaller parts. You can hear the benefit of that in this piece. When he wants to emphasize a note, when everyone's divided, it gets all that much more emphasis when more instruments play it (and all alone). But it's more than that. He will approach that unison contrapuntally. But even more than that, he does it audibly, so as to guide the listener easily. He will give the same phrase (and therefore row) to multiple instruments at different times, but they arrive together at the note he is emphasizing at the cadence. Also, he has complete control over the harmony. It's not just "well, I'll take what the row gives me. I'm stuck with it." He composes (still using the row) to achieve whatever harmonic climate and whatever level of tension or calmness he wants. He does this by counterpoint as well. Very clever. He will state a row in two or more voices...or a row and transposition(s)...He will start one voice and stop the row where he wants the motif or phrase to end and sustain that note. Then, he will start the second voice (voice(s) simultaneously or in continued succession) and stop those motifs and phrases on notes that he wants to sustain as well...all in order to make the harmony he wants to make for the musical context he is writing for at that moment. My favorite recording is the live perfomance by the Vienna Phil linked above. The phrasing is impeccable. And I love how you can hear his connections of one phrase leading to another (like at the beginning when the intense chord leads to the next softer phrase via the common tone chord tone at the very top becoming the melody note next phrase), one instument's melody being handed so easily to another to finish it like handing an egg to someone without cracking it.
It is a moot point to say that people cannot recognize row transpositions (the point has no practical relevance). You are making the classic blunder most armchair critics of serialism make of equivocating the ROW ITSELF with a MELODY. However, A ROW IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A MELODY. A row is a group of notes from which MELODIES CAN BE MADE, just as much a scale in tonal music is a group of notes from which melodies can be made. Notes of the row can be repeated one at a time or repeated in groups, and (gasp) even out of order depending on what method you are using (such as the horizontal-vertical method), or appear out of order to suit contrapuntal or expressive needs, notes of the row can also be (gasp) omitted if one so chooses (all of these claims are supported by the Brindle Smith book on serial composition). Rhythms and texture create patterns in 12-tone music in the exact same way they do in tonal music. A case in point is much of Stravinsky’s 12-tone music. Stravinsky was extremely fond of counterpoint in old styles (i.e., the Renaissance). Like all sorts of canonic imitation, double canons, etc. Twelve-tone music lends itself extremely well to contrapuntal styles. This kind of 12-tone music is VERY easy to hear and grasp and is extremely coherent. It is quite easy to hear the transpositions as well. Especially when it’s slow. It ain’t that difficult to hear a row start with an ascending half-step, ascending tritone, so forth, in a half note, two quarter rhythm, then hear a voice one bar away descend a half step, descend a tritone in the same exact rhythm, even if you can’t follow each and every interval thereafter (can’t tell a minor third from a major third or whatever). You can obviously tell the two are related thematically (inverted and the same rhythm). And so, it’s a “safe bet” the whole thing is coherently related. It’s very, very easy.
Dear sir: It's a true privilege to attend your lessons, full of expertise and clearness. They're the perfect symbiosys between theory and practice: live music. A simple question, if I may: how can I purchase your book in Portugal? Kind regards.
The incessant bashing of your hobby horse disdain for 12 tone music is idiotic, unecessary, rude, and based on complete ignorance of how it is written. Every single video you have to throw it under the bus to make your point? Grow up. Your arguments against it over these years are based on straw men. You have no idea what you are talking about. You should read r brindle smiths book on it to educate yourself, instead of relying on your hubris. I can go into examples of your gross misrepresentations if need be.
All of your work is of an excellent level! My dream is to be able to study with you, but I do not have the financial means to do so. After Arnold Schoenberg, you are, without a doubt, the best and most technical teacher of musical composition of the century. Thank you very much.
I had the honour of studying with Alan for a relatively short time. He is an excellent teacher who respects the interests and music directions of his students.
Fantastic video and somewhat terrifying to witness this level of genius in action. Its not enough just to come up with some interesting chord progression ,but the expression of that progression in time makes all the difference. Ultimately, there is still something completely nebulous about this. There is no exact formula to get from the 1854 version to 1889 revision, and yet the revision is almost objectively superior. But your explanations outline very interesting principles at work and helps bridge that mysterious gap.
I am a very overthinking young man and sometimes i sacrifice practice in sake of theoretical knowledge because my perfectionism rules my creative life currently and i try to distance from it as far as i can. I always am looking for the core of phenomenas (like overtone series) because i will get the full picture - if some key puzzles are lost i find myself confused. A year passed since i startedcto dig a mechanism of music and sound and it is just happened that i organized my music study routine (rhythm abd its notation, voice leading, harmony direction, ear training, melody writing). I am happy that ive started to recognize sound content and form composition in music a d its a long way to go. Your videos are incredibly helpful in my journey. I want to thank you from my heart. I wish you health and many amazing discoveries on yoir own way. Igor
