-
This?
Originally Posted by Jonah
-
07-19-2017 09:45 AM
-
YesThis?
Sorry I forgot to attach the link...
how he shifts harmonically between 4:00 and 4:11 when finally release comes - and how Furtwangler shows it...
(of course it could be really heard if you listen to the whole cadenza - better the whole movement)))
-
@Jonah - there's a lot in your posts.
I more or less lack the knowledge required to validate or disagree with your statements regarding the classical/baroque era use of compositional structure.
I know the terms you use and what they mean. I could even go about writing a musical sentence. I've read Schoenberg Fundamentals etc. Schoenberg was of course self taught, and cannot be considered an heir to the pedagogical conservatoire tradition (Gjerdingen says the Partimento tradition, and I would be interested to know how true this is) in the same way as Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Copeland, Rachmaninoff, Piazolla, Berio, Quincy Jones etc. That's one of the most interesting things about him.
Gjerdingen is obviously putting forward a specific perspective - I'm aware that the truth may be more complex.
What I might question is whether or not these were concepts actually used by the composers of Mozart's generation. There's a lot of retroactive 19th and 20th century analytical tools (functional harmonic theory a case in point) that was fundamentally alien to the way those musicians thought. These may or may not be useful to the composer or analyst.
I'm not sure to what extent Mozart was consciously writing musical period/sentence structures I lack the specific historical knowledge to confirm or deny - but it seems these are modern terms? Are they Schoenberg's originally?
I did check wikipedia which brought up this rather interesting little summary.
Period (music) - Wikipedia
This is not to say I'm contending your clearly extensive knowledge is incorrect - it's just that it's retroactive. What I'm interested in is the actual tools Mozart etc had at their disposal to write music.
It's a common theme with me obviously. See the altered scale thread etc.
Also - I'm quite interested in the mere hack professionals, or at least the lesser masters. There's no understanding the genius of Bach and Mozart. I have no conception of how anyone could write like Schubert, but I feel some affinity with the likes of say... Schobert? Even papa Bach's life was dominated by practicality.
The sort of guys who wrote all those operas buffo and serioso before Mozart came and smashed everything up. Those guys were prolific. Prolific facility in composition was not a product of rare talent, it was a required skill for the gig of being a court or church musician. Get me a Concerto for Bassett Horn by next Tuesday, or be out on the street.
(I love all that stuff about Haydn having to write 175 pieces for Baryton even though he hated it and it's a profoundly stupid instrument on every level, cos that's what his patron played. That's the sort of shit I'm talking about!)
Nowadays it seems to take years for 'serious' composers to write a new commission. TBF - there are many considerations such as musical language etc that would be alien to 18th century composers. The social conditions would be more analogous to film composers or Nashville songwriters etc, though different in many intriguing ways.Last edited by christianm77; 07-19-2017 at 02:08 PM.
-
Oh - G is keen to point out the importance of Italian teachers in European music generally, including Viennese classicism.
It easiest if you just read his book, or at least check out the podcast. It all falls under the category of 'interesting stuff I have read' rather than anything I can personally present with rigour or scholarship.
But as a musician, I find this stuff cool to play around with.
-
@Christian
TBH when say 'he thought' about artists I do not mean it litteraly... even living artists when they share their thought often seem to think 'God knows what'...
I use mostly their works as a source.. yes I more or less belong to the 'party' that considers works of art as much more true eveidence of artist's personality than his diaries or letters or historical materials...
Today it's common to put forth facts... which sometimes causes ridiculous results especially in painting attribution.
I think it was John Ruskin who once said: I don't care if it is by facts proved that this Giotto's fresco was a fake... the spirit of Giotto is so convincing in it that I believe he must have possessed the soul of the imitator and this enough for me)
Coming back to Mozart... I dont say he used the same terms but German musical tradition after him was not interrupted ever after that including Romatics... and mentioned above records of Furtwangler is an evidence for me. His grandma could listen to Schumann and Schumann was only one step from Mozart...
Modern functional harmony methods used in Russia are coming mostly from method written byTchaikovsky who was strongly influenced by Mozart's music... He was born only 40 years after Mozart's death. He heard live performances of Liszt and Liszt was a student of Salieri and Czerny (his father played in Haydn's orchestra)... so it's not so far one from another.
I think modern HIPP movement was rather reaction to gradula losing that tradidiotn in general, though officially it is stated that they are against Romantic interpretation. I am sure if Romantic performance was still powerful enough nobody would care about going against it.
So there is some inheritance that allows retrospective knowledge to be implied to me.
Again I think partimenti could have been used as tutorial material but hardly it is possible they used them as a tool.. being professional composers. It's too clumsy.... it's a good tool to get into language... to become quick with its rule in practice...
but then you just speak.
When good poets wrote sonnets they did not think about regular rhymes and did not check rhyme vocabulary. As well as good artists did not combine circles with squares painting Madonnas - they did during learning process but later on they put it aside (except periods whe they were focused on developing some new techniques)
Simply speaking they thought about content I am sure much more than of partimenti and particular cadences..
they thought of affects, dramatic or rhitoric expressions through musical means (not tools but means)
You get your skills and then pass on to doing music, expressing meanings... in a sense it is also craftsmanship. They can learn to manipulte with that and find the ways to achieve easy effects...
I agree about Italian school... enough to mention Salieri...Oh - G is keen to point out the importance of Italian teachers in European music generally, including Viennese classicism.
It easiest if you just read his book, or at least check out the podcast. It all falls under the category of 'interesting stuff I have read' rather than anything I can personally present with rigour or scholarship.
But as a musician, I find this stuff cool to play around with.
I will definitely get a book - I like this kind of reading.
-
@Christian..
I guess you mix up a bit daily practicality with musical tools... the fact that they had to work by order does not mean that they did this work badly...
Order is an impulse - true artist does not care where the impulse comes from...
Important question here:
Are we speaking about musical art or musical industry? Two different things.
Are we speaking about tools to imitate and fake music or about tools to create music?
-
Gjerdingen has a few things to say about the Russian tradition. I would be interested of course to hear your thoughts.
-
Is there one?)))Gjerdingen has a few things to say about the Russian tradition.
Despite of many of my countrymen I am a bit self-critical about it... (don't tell them)
-
Absolutely not! Every professional composer knew this stuff cold from childhood, and write what was considered by the mores of the time as good (i.e. well mannered, stylistic, formally perfect) music that fit into its social world. That was the gig. Originally Posted by Jonah
That's quite different to Mozart giving us the humanity of Figaro....
Quite aside from the excesses of 19th century music makers! :-)
I've always been a bit skeptical of the idea of Art. When someone says they are an Artist I want to punch them. That's for others to decide, not you, pal!Order is an impulse - true artist does not care where the impulse comes from...
Important question here:
Are we speaking about musical art or musical industry? Two different things.
Are we speaking about tools to imitate and fake music or about tools to create music?
OTOH I'm not interested in pastiche or fakery. I'm not going to be writing Gallant music - or at least I won't be displaying my attempts in public. But the general logic of the approach that Gjerdingen outlines reminds me of other areas of music that I do play in public as it were. The language of jazz - the form of jazz lines, at least bebop lines - is a lot more sophisticated than just throwing notes on chords. They have their own classical norms and they can be quite complex.
For instance - when do you resolve to the 1 of the key structurally in a phrase? There's a specific function to that resolution.
These aren't even taught in jazz education AFAIK. Learn enough language by ear though and you may intuit them.
I think I am far too eclectic to be a skilled artisan within a single tradition, so my music will always be a collage of different elements. But that kind of is the vernacular of our time IMO.
-
Not quite what I meant... I meant taht we talk about it a bit in a way as if they - those guys those days - imitated music instead of composing it...OTOH I'm not interested in pastiche or fakery. I'm not going to be writing Gallant music - or at least I won't be displaying my attempts in public. But the general logic of the approach that Gjerdingen outlines reminds me of other areas of music that I do play in public as it were. The language of jazz - the form of jazz lines, at least bebop lines - is a lot more sophisticated than just throwing notes on chords. They have their own classical norms and they can be quite complex.
That's true of course... but it's not always a pathetic posture...I've always been a bit skeptical of the idea of Art. When someone says they are an Artist I want to punch them. That's for others to decide, not you, pal!
I have very clear notion about Art and artistic mentality so what ca I do with that? I can't avoid it only because our time has profaned this notion almost completely.
I really believe that Art should raise the human soul... of course you can tell this knowledge won't help me to play D dorian faster... but this is not about it actually.
This is the difference betwee how you do things and what for
Sometimes it seems we mixed them a bit... yes composer X was orders a cantata weekly - so sometimes he had to use compilations from previous cantatas this is how he did it sometime... but what for? to raise some money? Of course not.. only to praise God))
-
I rely on clichés:
-
I believe it's in everyone's interest for that dichotomy to be reconciled. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Haha, well I think he's talking mostly about the students of Rimsky Korsakov.... Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Barry Harris runs his improvisation class by dictating lines. That's how you learn. Master/apprentice. Old school. Originally Posted by Jonah
I have learned to appreciate this approach more and more.
I think you are true Romantic. I'm more classically minded these days - which is not to say I don't appreciate Romantic values and art.That's true of course... but it's not always a pathetic posture...
I have very clear notion about Art and artistic mentality so what ca I do with that? I can't avoid it only because our time has profaned this notion almost completely.
This is true. Although I don't think Haydn would have been praising God much when he had to write Sonata #5,675 for the fecking Baryton :-)I really believe that Art should raise the human soul... of course you can tell this knowledge won't help me to play D dorian faster... but this is not about it actually.
This is the difference betwee how you do things and what for
Sometimes it seems we mixed them a bit... yes composer X was orders a cantata weekly - so sometimes he had to use compilations from previous cantatas this is how he did it sometime... but what for? to raise some money? Of course not.. only to praise God))
-
Yes I got that... Rimsky - Korsakov taught very intensively for a long time in St. Petersburg conservatory... Originally Posted by christianm77
And Tchaikovsly moved to Moscow and taught there but not that much..
All this formed two schools St. Petersburg (Shostakovich and Prokofiev are direct decendants of it) and Moscow (Rakhmaninov and Skryabin for example).
But it seems sometimes it is overemphasized due to the general competition between two capital cities... it seems that in every area there should be Moscow and St.Petersburg school...
Even modern jazz players here are often classified this way)
-
Which is best? ;-) Originally Posted by Jonah
Here's a thing:
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.e...MTS3302_06.pdf
-
Here's a quote from another paper:
'What did a student learn at a Neapolitan conservatory? Listing the subjects of instruction—solfeggio, counterpoint, keyboard —might give a misleading impression, given that subjects with the same titles are still taught today. A wide gulf separates the twenty-year-old college music student of today from a twelve-year-old orphan in Naples apprenticed as a pauper to one of the conservatories. In an economic sense, modern students are like consumers who select products (courses) purchased for them by their parents or by the state. These products come with consumer guides (textbooks) which, when read and digested, are intended to transmit what wise consumers ought to know for their enjoyment of the product. The orphan boy at a conservatory, by contrast, was little more than a slave. Even his allotment of bread was limited by conservatory rules.
Like any other apprentice, his job was to learn the craft, whether he enjoyed it or not. He practiced this craft from sunrise to sunset, six days a week, with no set vacations, often for a decade.The focus of craft training was the proper imitation of models provided by the master: The craft system of education fulfilled one fundamental requisite of educational theory: that the pupil form himself upon a model. The model was not within the mind itself but was an external “form” which was to be imitated. In so doing, the pupil learned a just representation of a thing, or person, imitated, which afterwards could be deviated from by his making further searches from his own “stock” or from the stock of others.
The model might be more accurately described as a complex web of models extending from the smallest detail to the grandest design. It may be easier to illustrate this hierarchy of models by first exploring the craft training of draftsmen.'
Say craft system of education I think - Barry Harris. And Banacos, Tristano and so on. The legends of jazz education.
Many student jazz musicians have in effect found a master on record to imitate. Famous example - think Bird and his Lester Young records. Ten years, 8 hours a day or so. He built his own conservatoire, so to speak.
Master/apprenticeship/mentorship in person is rare these days.
Berklee is the exemplar of modern music education needless to say.Last edited by christianm77; 07-19-2017 at 06:11 PM.
-
St. Petersburg of courseWhich is best? ;-)
Thank you. Very interesting... and strange)
Arensky's 'Collection 1000...' is still widely used. I remember we solved these problems for fun... it was like soleving chess problems or crosswords. But I noticed also that some solved them rather visually - on paper - than aurally.
Another point with time the level decreased... only few students could solve the problem at the instrument playing a coherent piece over it... mostly they just stack chords together awkwardly trying to keep correct voicings.
But there's was nothing about memorizing particular patterns... it was all about practicing harmonization of bass or melody...
I read many books on that period in Russian music that concerned also education and I know many people from Concervatory world - some of them knew even Shostakovich but I never heard anything about the method that presumed learning and practicing patterns as those that are mentioned in that article.
The motives collections that are quoted in an article were used as 'possible solutions'... I do not believe Arensky reeally collected them from actula scores - most probably he just wrote them out himself.
And I do nto think somebody would learn them as formulas... it was rather a sample.
I would even say it is a bit against national character) it is too analytical)))
The 'exceptional' parlor game at the beginning is overemphasized. He asks: How could they do it at such a level? And seems the only way is that their memory is full of formulas they easily used... first of all I do not see something extremely exceptional in the collective score he provides.
And secondly... why does not he think that these kind of things cannot be done without formulas?
I read autobiography of Prokofiev who entered consevatroy be?ng a small kid - as a prodigy... he many times described the process of learning and composing he and his classmates had... I cant remem?er anything like that. And note that Prokofieve is probably one of the most mechanical in that sense - he really could sometimes insert a piece of music inside or stack various fragments together... but he did not mention anything about that kind of method.
Language is much more flexible.
One point that the author most probably could not feel or think about. Russian musical school felt in position of being behind... there was not tradition for this kind of music so this caused the educational system to be elabotated to details.
This also could be partly the reason of some anachronism in means.
Besides the direct influence seems to be a bit ignored... what did they listen to and play as being kids? Most of them come from noble families and heard music at home and in concerts from early years...
For example the example with 6th symphony and Italian menuetto is interesting but the conclusion is strange.
Tchaikovsky was ardent admirer of Mozart... or he could hear it in Italy.. or learn in partimenti.. or...
But the conclusion is that he had it in his memory? So the author wants to say that an artist is cultural? Is it a surprise?
I am not trying to be sarcastic, but it is strange that he tries to explain it in such a simplistic way...
-
I probably do not get how it works in other countries. Originally Posted by christianm77
In Russia arts education is separate from common School (music in common school is only about singing a bit and listening)... if you want your kid to learn music or drawing you go Arts School that they visit after regular school. Mostly you should enter at the age of 7, it lasts for 7 years - then you can go to college and after collecge to Conservatory.
You have your instrument usually 2-3 times a week, history of music 1-2 times a week, theory+solfege 2 times a week, piano 1 a week - obligatory whatever you play...
The exams every semester are pretty tough since these schools are either free or very low price.
Of course level could be different but if you want your kid to stay there you will have to work with him really...
But I know many people who maneged to complete all 7 years and now can hardly play.. so it depends)
By the way in St.Petersburg there's only one in the country school for adults of the same kind...
I mean it is absolutely the same as for kids and also almost free but you can be any age to enter it. It's very nice possibility I think...
-
Interesting stuff. Sounds.... old school... Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Actually this is exactly the kind of commentary I was hoping you would provide. Thank you. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Another of my hobbies is writing prose, and it too uses motif as a girder when building craftsmanship. I can't really remember if I imported the idea from writing into music, or vice-versa. But the analogous thinking is useful to me in either event. Whether the motif is musical or deployed to further my writing, having that motif as a baseline (in a funny way) expands my creativity by contracting it. Now I'm working in a specific melodic or ideological environment, and those limitations guide my creativity. Originally Posted by destinytot
I personally think that our styles, in music, writing, art, or other creative endeavors, are often defined by our limitations, and I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. I've heard seemingly limitless guitarists who sound like nothing because they sound like everything. I've read books from great writers that didn't move me because they succeeded in doing so well in so many different aspects of the art of writing. But without hearing or reading the struggle, the impact of the art is weakened, it seems to me.
Of course, I could just be justifying my crappy guitar playing to myself.
-
Maybe that's the reason why I find the ideas you refer to a bit exeggerated.Interesting stuff. Sounds.... old school...
But it's not only that.
It is extrapolation of this conception to professional compositional process what makes doubt it.
Even probably understanding of this process as conception that lies behind it.
It seems like he wonders: How was it possible that they composed so much music at quite high level? And he comes to conclusion that they should have had some 'short cuts', some mechanical method to do it.
But to me it is much simpler (and both complex) - at the moment musical culture and laguage was developed to such an extent that they just composed it. You were in the middle of it, it is cultural thing... you throw a phrase I pick it up... it is thoroughly conventional enviroment.
There are also different levels in music. The patterns used for education are just minor technical element.. if we compare to literature this is 'how to connect words together in a very flexible language that has plenty of cases and various gramatic forms'.
But writing a novel or a poem - even average - is another thing. You can't just put words together correctly, you have to consider form and content (conciously or intuitively).
This is the next level (I would call it artistic).
Forms in turn also were very conventional.
It is interesting to trace what happened to Sonata Allegro from Haydn to late Romantics... of to bigger Symphonic form.
It is easy to notice that using this form is getting more and more referential with time.
Haydn, Mozart just were inside of it - they lived in it.
Tchaikovsly looks at this form from soutside already... he sees it historically.
Same things concer genres - one of the most important element in compositional semantics - they refer to different genres and styles without naming them directly just incorporating the elements in music as semantic elements (like lulluby, waltz, funeral march, fanfare, sarabande, gavotte etc.).
Then there was also the semantics of orchestration and instruments (for example French horn and clarinet in Tchaikovsky's music)
It was not a collage - because he did not use it conciously. He still felt himself as a part of this culture (though quite remote already).
In that sense these partimenti or solfegge patterns are left far behind in the school days.
There were much more elments in baroque or classical times that were much more substential for compositional process than these patterns and the composers felt really comfortable with these elements and operated them easily.
Maybe this is the thing that is difficult for us to understand restrospectively? It is easier for us to understand that the composer used combinations of patterns rather than to admit he just felt comfortable with any available form and means of expressions that music those days provided to an extenet?
Could it be absolutely different mentality after all where artisans of arts thought in terms of passions and rhitorics as compositional elements?Last edited by Jonah; 07-20-2017 at 04:11 AM.
-
Those are really good points. As you learn better how to use a tool, and get practice doing it, you wield it in a more natural manner -- and if you're good enough, what do people say? They say, "Man, he makes that look easy!" -- because to the composer living in such a milieu, using the tools and idiom of bop, or classical, or what-have-you, that's what they've been steeping in all their lives.
-
Well having just taught some of this bebop stuff today, the process of linking material together of this kind can easily act as a spark to further creativity.
Reply With Quote
Eastman Jazz Elite 16 for les Paul or small body semi.
Today, 08:36 AM in For Sale