# Help me again :D



## Polednice

Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to another thread where I have an unanswered question  This one is much more practical however. Let's try to be brief!

Basically, I am currently an undergraduate student (19) of English Language and Literature at university in the UK. I will have finished my undergraduate degree in the summer of 2011, after which, I want to go to a UK conservatoire to study composition (thankfully, the conservatoires accept an undergraduate degree in any subject and will let you do postgraduate study).

This will mean that I will have to apply for a place in around 8-10 months time, which means (aside from the fact that I need to compose something without tearing it to shreds when it's finished!) that I desperately want to brush up on relevant reading so that I can be on par with people who have actually received a music education.

What I would ask of you kind folks is to nudge me in the direction of any books (in depth, academic books; not general reference guides) that concern things such as basic harmony, counterpoint _etc_; the various types of compositional analysis; any books on music and art that you may know of that have been written by contemporary composers; and anything else you might think could be at all useful!

I e-mailed the tutor of music at my university 6 weeks ago and he still hasn't said anything, so I thought I'd try a different tactic  All I have to do now is fit in the reading between a bit of _Beowulf_, _Le Morte D'Arthur_ and about a trillion books filled with mind-numbing literary criticism


----------



## emiellucifuge

This is a very good Harmony Textbook, contains excercises.

http://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Pract...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263725499&sr=8-1


----------



## Argus

Some books I have found useful are:

Kent Kennan - _Counterpoint_ For Baroque enthusiasts

Arnold Schoenberg - _Structural Functions of Harmony_ and _Fundamentals of Music Composition_ Both excellent but the Harmony one is better

Heinrich Schenker - _Harmony_ A bit dry

Walter Piston - _Harmony_ Very good

Johann Joseph Fux - _Gradus ad Parnassum_ A classic. Basic but thorough

I also would like to study compostion but have the disadvantage of skipping university and going straight into a job. I have also never studied music formally, being entirely self taught. I haven't fully explored what pathways are available for me to follow but first intend taking about a year off work and doing some heavy duty studying and composing.

By the way, Polednice, what instrument(s) do you play?


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> I also would like to study compostion but have the disadvantage of skipping university and going straight into a job. I have also never studied music formally, being entirely self taught. I haven't fully explored what pathways are available for me to follow but first intend taking about a year off work and doing some heavy duty studying and composing.
> 
> By the way, Polednice, what instrument(s) do you play?


Thanks very much for your suggestions.

Though I'm at university, I do feel a disadvantage at having had no formal music education at any point either. However, I did a conducting masterclass with Peter Stark last year and he said that it can equally be an advantage, as I could quite easily have a broader cultural knowledge than those I will have to compete with.

Nevertheless, after the fundamentals are out of the way, it really all comes down to ideas and displaying them in some initial compositions. So long as you can find the time to really ground yourself in a serious composing routine and feel happy with some pieces, then you'll practically be in the same position as anybody else. I don't know what kind of route you'd take, but, in your position, I'd still apply to a conservatoire (I can't help but feel studying music at university is a waste if you want to do composition/performance), and then a successful application will just be down to the ideas and skill you can demonstrate.

To answer your question, I'm a pianist above anything else. Though, in order to take part in an orchestra at university, I also play the flute to a good enough standard. After that, I own and dabble in the clarinet, violin and cello, but I'm nowhere near as good on those. One of my peculiar dreams is to acquire one of each instrument in a standard orchestra and try my best to learn them all before I die, even if only to a poor standard! 

How about you?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Polednice said:


> Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to another thread where I have an unanswered question  This one is much more practical however. Let's try to be brief!
> 
> Basically, I am currently an undergraduate student (19)


Wow, another member around my age, that I thought was much older than me.


----------



## Argus

Polednice said:


> How about you?


I play guitar mostly but I'm no slouch on bass. I also play piano (badly) but hopefully want to start investing some serious time in becoming adequate on it. I think composition is my best route as my wrists are becoming quite painful of late and I'm not sure how long before they finally stop me from playing regularly.

All I think I need is time. I'm 21 now and got into music pretty late, at around 18, so I just need to relieve my financial constraints before I can start dedicating myself to music full time.

So if you're studying English Language and Literature why the side step towards music? Which do you see as closer to your future career?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Good suggestiones, Let me warn you Polednice that a few of them are indeed classics (the Fux is the great tome of counterpoint through the ages). Maybe a textbook format would be more helpful however as it would explain things in a modern paradigm and be more practical - it is up to you.

Also - what do you know of things like harmony?


----------



## Polednice

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Wow, another member around my age, that I thought was much older than me.


Do you mean this keeps happening? Sounds like a bad sign 



Argus said:


> I play guitar mostly but I'm no slouch on bass. I also play piano (badly) but hopefully want to start investing some serious time in becoming adequate on it. I think composition is my best route as my wrists are becoming quite painful of late and I'm not sure how long before they finally stop me from playing regularly.


Does that mean you'd have considered a career in performance? I'd thought about performing or conducting because I've never been too confident in my composing skills, but I know I'm a _technically_ good performer, but my personality just doesn't fit in the least. I don't much like confronting people or being faced with crowds; I like to be behind the scenes doing something creative of my own, so I thought I'd stop beating myself up over all the compositions that I thought were crap and just pursue my real dream at whatever cost! 



Argus said:


> All I think I need is time. I'm 21 now and got into music pretty late, at around 18, so I just need to relieve my financial constraints before I can start dedicating myself to music full time.


That sounds sensible to me. I also think it's an advantage anyway, as there's something about the act of creating art that I think should be undertaken only by people who have enough life experience to consider it (i.e. 20+), but that's an entirely different discussion.



Argus said:


> So if you're studying English Language and Literature why the side step towards music? Which do you see as closer to your future career?


It's a matter that's only slightly complicated, but I'll preface it by saying that both art-forms are of equal importance to me. In the future (this is, of course, operating under the assumption of success!), I would imagine that I'd be labelled 'composer', but I would want both literature and music to feature equally in my artistic output.

Basically, I only came to classical music (or any type of music for that matter) when I was 13, so it hadn't ever been a lifelong passion. At that time, I didn't know what I wanted to do. From feedback and suggestions I was getting in my education, up until I was 16 I was practically certain that I wanted to be an astrophysicist!

When I went to college at 16, I took the necessary science/maths subjects, but I also wanted to carry on English literature (and I took French as well). I didn't take music because my high school teacher completely ballsed it up for me - without asking, he entered me early into exams that were for people older than me, and I didn't do as well as I would have done later in life, but, music not being a career choice at that point, I didn't want to do the papers all over again.

Anyway, while I was at college, I started to question the prospect of being involved in science. While I have also adored astrophysics and still love reading about it because of how utterly awe-inspiring it is, I couldn't see myself getting paid to do a career in research - the prospect wasn't fulfilling. Around the same time, after _serious_ emotional upheaval, literature really started to make an impression on me. I had always been good at the subject, but it was when I was 16 that I had that eureka moment and thought, "ART! That's what I need to do with my life."

From then on, music and literature both just took an increasing grip on my life and they're now at the centre of it. At 18, I wasn't developed musically enough to consider entering a conservatoire, but I definitely wanted to continue education, so I went to university to do English instead (which was my best option - it would have been either studying music at a sub-par institution because of my low music background, or studying English at a prestigious place because of the rest of my academic record). Now that I am achieving my grounding in literature, afterwards I want to get a similar education in composition - hence applying to a conservatoire. Then, I will feel more equipped to make artistic decisions, and I can carry on experimenting with various ways that music and literature can overlap.

-- Sorry for the long response!


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Good suggestiones, Let me warn you Polednice that a few of them are indeed classics (the Fux is the great tome of counterpoint through the ages). Maybe a textbook format would be more helpful however as it would explain things in a modern paradigm and be more practical - it is up to you.
> 
> Also - what do you know of things like harmony?


I think it's probably sensible for me to read things in both of the areas that you mentioned - the former because any academic would expect you to know such works, and the latter so that I can actually understand them!

As for things like harmony _etc._, I've read a certain amount. I think I remember having a discussion on here about this kind of thing, because someone was asking for similar advice - I've read books on harmony/counterpoint/double-counterpoint/musical form blah blah blah by quite a few people, and eventually, the basics are the same no matter where you look, and they're only guidelines. Then you get the question of whether or not the 'classics' are outdated, and which rules can and can't safely be broken, so we concluded that, as far as composition is concerned, such books can only take you so far and what you really need to do is study some scores. Nevertheless, I don't want to have missed anything vital, so, seeing as I can access any book I care to name in my library, I might as well at least flick through everything that comes up.


----------



## emiellucifuge

That was going to be my next point 

Remember the strict rules of Harmony are what composers such as Haydn adhered to and all music closer to our time has progressively expanded, removed and modified the system for its own purpose. You still need to know all the rules in order to understand the work of Haydn or Mozart - and this is where you start with Analysis.

Have you ever done any analysis before?


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> That was going to be my next point
> 
> Remember the strict rules of Harmony are what composers such as Haydn adhered to and all music closer to our time has progressively expanded, removed and modified the system for its own purpose. You still need to know all the rules in order to understand the work of Haydn or Mozart - and this is where you start with Analysis.
> 
> Have you ever done any analysis before?


I haven't done any analysis, no. That's one of the key things that I've been looking to read about. I've heard names being dropped before, like 'Schenkerian Analysis', but I have no idea what it is!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well forget Schenkerian for now, thats a subjective analysis. To start you can start at notating what is objectively on the score - the raw material of the composer you could say. 

Assuming youre grounding in harmony is to a sufficient level, you could select a string quartet, symphony by Haydn preferably or maybe earlyish mozart (something very conventional in any case). Then at the bottom of the page mark down the chords shown as well as suspensions etc...


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Well forget Schenkerian for now, thats a subjective analysis. To start you can start at notating what is objectively on the score - the raw material of the composer you could say.
> 
> Assuming youre grounding in harmony is to a sufficient level, you could select a string quartet, symphony by Haydn preferably or maybe earlyish mozart (something very conventional in any case). Then at the bottom of the page mark down the chords shown as well as suspensions etc...


Yes, I see what you mean. I've learned all the tools to do that, but I've never actually sat down and done it with a piece yet, so that's a very good idea.

By the way, I come bearing a gift! Not an exciting one, though. I found my university's reading lists on the internet. You have to be a student to access them, and they're huge with lots of irrelevant stuff, but I've separated the wheat from the chaff and created a document to share with everybody else who would be interested in reading about this kind of thing (I've included all the suggestions on this thread too).

For the sake of taking a really good look at things, I've included historical perspectives on music too, so that we can read both about our musical heritage and about contemporary composition. The subjects I've compiled reading lists for are:

Composition
Orchestration
Musical Analysis and Criticism
Piano Sonata after Beethoven, the
Wagner, Richard (Romantic Operas and Music Dramas)
Romantic Symphony, the
Symphonic Poem, the (c. 1850-1950)
Modernism in Vienna, 1900-1935
Music Since 1945

I hope it will be of use to everyone; I know it will for me. If this thread progresses, or I stumble upon more things, then I'll keep updating the document and, once the thread looks like it's about to die, perhaps the forum could keep a final version somewhere permanent just so that anybody wanting to know where to start on reading like this has a resource readily available.

View attachment 812


----------



## emiellucifuge

Wow thank you!


----------



## Romantic Geek

Samuel Adler's "Study of Orchestration" is an absolute must if you plan to write for ensembles. It's the best out there by one of the best orchestrators ever.

The theory book I used was The Complete Musician by Steven Laitz. It's a newer theory/harmony book with an emphasis on Schenkerian Analysis (though you don't really notice it because he doesn't mention it as such.)

An expensive, but very useful book would be Joseph Straus's "Introduction to Post Tonal Theory." It is the standard book for set theory, which would be very important if you plan on exploring the world of serialism. 

If you had to get one book though, I'd HIGHLY recommend the Adler. It touches a wide variety of instruments and really dives into instrumentation. A great book for those who aren't comfortable writing for instruments they don't play.


----------



## Polednice

Romantic Geek said:


> Samuel Adler's "Study of Orchestration" is an absolute must if you plan to write for ensembles. It's the best out there by one of the best orchestrators ever.
> 
> The theory book I used was The Complete Musician by Steven Laitz. It's a newer theory/harmony book with an emphasis on Schenkerian Analysis (though you don't really notice it because he doesn't mention it as such.)
> 
> An expensive, but very useful book would be Joseph Straus's "Introduction to Post Tonal Theory." It is the standard book for set theory, which would be very important if you plan on exploring the world of serialism.
> 
> If you had to get one book though, I'd HIGHLY recommend the Adler. It touches a wide variety of instruments and really dives into instrumentation. A great book for those who aren't comfortable writing for instruments they don't play.


Thanks for your suggestion - I came across the Adler in a reading list just the other day, and I thought it sounded like a familiar name. Unfortunately, someone took it from the library without checking it out, so there's no knowing when it will turn up again


----------



## Scott Good

I'm a bit of a rarity in that I think the aspiring classical composer should study the prima practica first (after rudiments that is).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_pratica

I strongly recommend Robert Gauldin's "16th century counterpoint" text. Lots of exercises and solid explanations of the not only the what, but the why (essential to a composers understanding of musical theory). I'm not much of a fan of Fux, but, he was very widely read. Reading him to understand counterpoint is like learning to box with pushups and sit ups. It'll help get you strong, but you just might get smashed in the ring.

After that, Bach. (see you in 4+ years!)

The rest is a piece of cake once you understand the roots. Truth is all harmony comes from counterpoint (not vice versa). A solid understanding of this explains with great ease, the chromaticism encountered in later era works.

Yes, Haydn is good to study - especially for form, and melodic variation (and just plain old composing, he was a very creative guy).

And, you should be pouring over some modern scores - perhaps chamber Stravinsky and Messiaen with some Prokofiev and Debussy. Then, you can move to more technically advanced composers such as Schoenberg, or big work Stravinsky (Rite of Spring). Then, mid century modern + latest trends - minimalism and spectralism. Good to become acquainted with it all.

Btw, Schenker is not purely subjective, or at least, not any more so than any other kinds of theory study. It comes from a process of reduction to reveal the underlying voice leading that shapes the structure - very cool stuff, but quite challenging.


----------



## Polednice

Scott Good said:


> I'm a bit of a rarity in that I think the aspiring classical composer should study the prima practica first (after rudiments that is).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_pratica
> 
> _etc._


I completely understand where you're coming from here, but I don't entirely agree with this kind of approach. The problem is that it strikes me that it's more useful for the musicologist than the composer to immerse yourself in the entire evolution of music since Bach. Not only is it counter-productive in that there's a ridiculous amount to get through and understand that it would just stop you from composing with any confidence (!), but most of it would be irrelevant. Of course, the fundamentals as epitomised by Bach are essential, but while it would be useful and interesting to read about the fundamentals of atonal theory, there would be no use in me (in particular) studying the works of the great serialists, because it is an artistic philosophy with which I entirely disagree. I already have well-formed artistic intentions, and it seems like a better idea to me to immerse myself deeply in the music closest to my own creative style, rather than attempt a broad, shallow sweep that covers artistic styles that I think are contrary to art's very purpose.


----------



## Scott Good

Polednice said:


> I completely understand where you're coming from here, but I don't entirely agree with this kind of approach. The problem is that it strikes me that it's more useful for the musicologist than the composer to immerse yourself in the entire evolution of music since Bach. Not only is it counter-productive in that there's a ridiculous amount to get through and understand that it would just stop you from composing with any confidence (!), but most of it would be irrelevant. Of course, the fundamentals as epitomised by Bach are essential, but while it would be useful and interesting to read about the fundamentals of atonal theory, there would be no use in me (in particular) studying the works of the great serialists, because it is an artistic philosophy with which I entirely disagree. I already have well-formed artistic intentions, and it seems like a better idea to me to immerse myself deeply in the music closest to my own creative style, rather than attempt a broad, shallow sweep that covers artistic styles that I think are contrary to art's very purpose.


so...you "know where i am coming from"? ha, whatever. you don't even know where to start as a composer, yet you know where i am at?

btw, the reason you think i am discussing "style" because you don't know what i am actually talking about. your write off only suggests your ignorance of the subject matter.

btw, if you care, you can read my bio, list of works and check out excerpts of my music to see for yourself if I have any credit to my words, be my guest. Perhaps you could do the same, and let me see what you are made of. Then we will know where each is coming from.

www.myspace.com/scottgoodcomposer

- question: what is THE purpose of art?

- do you think dvorak and brahms only studied music that "sounded" like theirs? is it only a coincidence that brahms was a prolific composer of study fugues, even if they don't appear in his major compositions, or perhaps is this a major part of his musical depth?

-when mozart got over his aloofness to the palestrina style and studied it, he wrote some of his best music (the late works). any chance at a connection?

- all music has serialized dimensions - try to prove me wrong with examples, it'll be fun.


----------



## Polednice

Scott Good said:


> so...you "know where i am coming from"? ha, whatever. you don't even know where to start as a composer, yet you know where i am at?
> 
> [and the rest of the jabber]


Well, thank you very much for that post. I don't know what it is about people on this board taking offense at everything anyone says, but I wasn't even contradicting you that greatly; nor was I at all criticising you personally. The point I was making was that your approach seemed _sensible_, but I doubted its universal appeal  Still, I think I can now safely discount your advice. There is much debate in art criticism as to how much we make of an artist's life when we consider their work - however little we consider it, and however much some artistic figures are frankly repellent, it's safe to say that your display of immense arrogance in response to an amateur's opinion betrays your unreliability and apparently cold personality. For all I know, every word you utter could be right, but I'm not going to take serious advice from someone who dishes it out with such an acidic tone, and I'm certainly not going to bother answering your tragically trivial questions. Especially when the first one - a nonsense question about 'THE' purpose of art - demonstrates a severe lack of understanding about the point I was making, as only a fool would suggest that there is a demonstrable, objective function to it. *Sigh*.


----------



## Scott Good

Ok - I re-read. I was rude. Please accept an apology.



Polednice said:


> Especially when the first one - a nonsense question about 'THE' purpose of art - demonstrates a severe lack of understanding about the point I was making, as only a fool would suggest that there is a demonstrable, objective function to it. *Sigh*.


Your original comment upset me.



Polednice said:


> I already have well-formed artistic intentions, and it seems like a better idea to me to immerse myself deeply in the music closest to my own creative style, rather than attempt a broad, shallow sweep that covers artistic styles that I think are contrary to art's very purpose.


I have to confess here that in certain ways, I worship music. I believe it is universal and endless in possibility. Sometimes things are shallow, and sometimes, they are deep. I try very hard to find love in all music. (perhaps I should try better on internet forums.)

In art, there are demonstrable objective functions - many. I like finding them, they are like tools to build compositions. It seems the very nature of the composer is to do this. In the end, the composer has a very objective result - the score which is read and interpreted.

I'm sorry that I took such offense, and it was way too brushed off - absurd ranting really. But please understand that for some reason, these issues of harmony, melody, counterpoint, form, and classical music in general, are very important to me. So, I got incensed unreasonably.

I'll take all the critique...but please not _cold_.

Scott


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to another thread where I have an unanswered question  This one is much more practical however. Let's try to be brief!
> 
> Basically, I am currently an undergraduate student (19) of English Language and Literature at university in the UK. I will have finished my undergraduate degree in the summer of 2011, after which, I want to go to a UK conservatoire to study composition (thankfully, the conservatoires accept an undergraduate degree in any subject and will let you do postgraduate study).
> 
> This will mean that I will have to apply for a place in around 8-10 months time, which means (aside from the fact that I need to compose something without tearing it to shreds when it's finished!) that I desperately want to brush up on relevant reading so that I can be on par with people who have actually received a music education.
> 
> What I would ask of you kind folks is to nudge me in the direction of any books (in depth, academic books; not general reference guides) that concern things such as basic harmony, counterpoint _etc_; the various types of compositional analysis; any books on music and art that you may know of that have been written by contemporary composers; and anything else you might think could be at all useful!
> 
> I e-mailed the tutor of music at my university 6 weeks ago and he still hasn't said anything, so I thought I'd try a different tactic  All I have to do now is fit in the reading between a bit of _Beowulf_, _Le Morte D'Arthur_ and about a trillion books filled with mind-numbing literary criticism


You should look up Stravinsky, Prokofeiv, and Schoenberg. They have written excellent books on music theory.


----------



## JSK

Regardless of whether or not you have a formal composition teacher, the best way to learn to compose music is to compose music. The more you do it, the more comfortable you will get and the better your music will probably get. It also is best to write smaller pieces and gain experience before writing something like a 30-minute string quartet or an orchestral piece, or something in a large sonata form. Don't be too self-conscious at first. Pretty much nobody writes anything amazing on their first try. Show your works to people and ask for comments on what's particularly strong and what needs to be improved and this will help you improve as a composer as well.

I consider improving one's harmonic knowledge to be essential as well. A course is probably the best way to go, but if you can't do that there are books which have exercises and lessons in partwriting and analysis (including form). Although you don't need to write according to these "rules", it is great to be aware of them to know what rules you are bending/breaking. And contrary to what anyone else has said studying early counterpoint and such is NOT necessary. I understand there is a little value in counterpoint, but professors I have talked to believe that the benefits compared to learning harmony are minimal and it's unnecessary at the undergraduate level. I have completed my school's music theory offerings and I have not once learned about "counterpoint," just partwriting/harmony, form, and analysis.

In terms of books, a general, academic reference on music history would be good to have too (you can probably get a cheap old edition of the Grout/Palisca textbook online cheaply) but this is not as essential as composing, learning about harmony, and listening/looking at scores for (imslp.org) new composers and styles.

I don't know about Britain, but graduate programs in composition in America want "modern" music. They like composers who use 20th century techniques, and going too "by the book" will lead many of these snobs to accuse you of being too conservative. That being said, a work by a successful neo-Romantic composer will probably sound "romantic" for much, but not all, of its duration.

Another good exercise is to compose short pieces in the style of *insert random famous composer here*. It's one thing to think about what a composer "sounds" like, but another thing to imitate the composer's style in one of your own compositions. Doing this could greatly expand your compositional toolbox. After writing a few short pieces in the styles of composers you are comfortable with, it might be a good idea to experiment and try a few who appeal less to you, especially 20th century composers. If you are interested in early music, it might not be a bad idea to experiment with modes. Lots of modern composers like unusual scales like that. Eventually you want to have the tools to compose in your own personal style without being frustrated by your skills.

I hope my extended thinking out loud helps. I'm getting my undergraduate degree in music history because my school's composition program is weak. I have little pretension as a composer and frankly have no idea what admission requirments for study in composition are in Britain. That said, I know that even though there are many things you can do in pursuit of your compositional aspirations, the best thing to do is to compose and keep on composing!

JSK


----------



## Polednice

Scott Good: Thanks for your response  It's good to know that you were just awkwardly expressing a passion!  Of course, the advice you offered will still be very useful to me - it's just difficult to take in a lot of contradictory advice from different sources. But, at the end of it all, what would the art-world be like if composers didn't display extremely different approaches and ideals?

JSK: Thanks for your post as well. I think I certainly need to find more time to compose - university makes it so hard because of the sheer amount of work I have to do, so I feel so guilty spending any time doing something I want to do. And, while I love music and composing, I'm _forever_ plagued by the horrible feeling - as soon as I've finished writing anything - that it's awful trash and it should be destroyed. I need better confidence.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Also Schoenbergs books: Structural functions of Harmony, and the other one on composing (? forgot title) are very good.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Also Schoenbergs books: Structural functions of Harmony, and the other one on composing (? forgot title) are very good.


Got those  The other one is the 'Fundamentals of Composition'.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes thats right, youre one step ahead!

Dont mean to contradict you but I do think Scott Good has a valid point and I believe it is worthwile to study serialist music as well as all schools of music, regardless of whether you are already certain that it will not appear in your own music.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Yes thats right, youre one step ahead!
> 
> Dont mean to contradict you but I do think Scott Good has a valid point and I believe it is worthwile to study serialist music as well as all schools of music, regardless of whether you are already certain that it will not appear in your own music.


I understand that, and I certainly agree with it and won't totally reject it, I just meant to question the _extent_ of such a study. After all - even though this is hypothetical and largely irrelevant - the logical extension of that would be, say in a few centuries' time, would the budding composer really be expected to do an _in depth_ study of _every_ major composer who preceded them, and so on into the future? It seems like an unnecessary burden. Of course I'm going to acquaint myself with musical theory, practice and technique throughout all periods and genres _etc._, but I don't think I need to study Schoenberg's scores and get into his artistic frame of mind just as much as I would with a composer I feel more akin to  If you still disagree with that, tell me why!


----------



## Scott Good

Polednice said:


> Scott Good: Thanks for your response  It's good to know that you were just awkwardly expressing a passion!


Cool - good - thanks! 



Polednice said:


> Of course, the advice you offered will still be very useful to me - it's just difficult to take in a lot of contradictory advice from different sources. But, at the end of it all, what would the art-world be like if composers didn't display extremely different approaches and ideals?


Well, it certainly wouldn't be as interesting!

If you care, I could go into my ideas a bit more - it would take some time as they are very difficult to express with words.

If you want, bring a pdf of a piece you really like (not too long!), and I (and others of course) can discuss what is going on. I really like doing this sort of thing, and could reveal some of the process of analysis, and how it can aid the composer. + rather than reading a book, any questions you might have can be answered by simply asking.



Polednice said:


> ...so I feel so guilty spending any time doing something I want to do.


I had some serious issues with this in the past. I felt like such a selfish jerk for composing. But ultimately, I came to realize the world needs and loves music - so, as a composer you feeding that part of being human that craves what music has to offer, whether that be for entertainment, ritual, emotional outlet, dancing, intellectual stimulation etc etc.

So, don't feel guilty! There are people who need and want your music (they just don't know it yet) - you just have to find it to give to them. It is your responsibility to find it and make it for them, if it is indeed your "calling".

< just a silly composer pep rally - don't take too seriously >



Polednice said:


> And, while I love music and composing, I'm _forever_ plagued by the horrible feeling - as soon as I've finished writing anything - that it's awful trash and it should be destroyed. I need better confidence.


Yes, this is hard. Especially when you are starting at a later date with such developed concepts. I started much younger (12), so, simply didn't know any better.

How to build confidence...hummm...well, one idea I would suggest is finding a player or two to compose for - piano and cello say. Write for trusting people whom you get along with. Write something adventurous (I mean in your own terms - explore) - don't worry about it being really really good, but strive for something simply pretty or beautiful - focus on rhythm as it is the main source of musical energy, and don't worry about "rules" - just have fun and ride on your instincts. Then, have them play it and record it.

It is very thrilling to have other people play your music - a rush like no other for me. It will most likely sound better than you thought it would, when the performer puts the expression behind the black and white notes.

And remember, 10 years from now (or even much less), this piece will be a distant memory. When we compose a new work, it seems so important at the time. But for an artists life, each work is a platform to the next stage. The more you complete works, and have them read or performed, the easier it will be to complete new works - just like learning an instrument, it takes lots of practice.

As you progress, your relationships to all of the "rules" and "fashions" will develop, and find it's own way through your own voice.


----------



## JSK

Polednice said:


> And, while I love music and composing, I'm _forever_ plagued by the horrible feeling - as soon as I've finished writing anything - that it's awful trash and it should be destroyed. I need better confidence.


That is completely normal. Again, all you need to do is write more.


----------



## Polednice

Thanks for all you've said - it's certainly useful and reassuring 

I'll dig out a piece to look at as soon as I've finished this blasted essay!


----------



## Scott Good

Polednice said:


> I understand that, and I certainly agree with it and won't totally reject it, I just meant to question the _extent_ of such a study. After all - even though this is hypothetical and largely irrelevant - the logical extension of that would be, say in a few centuries' time, would the budding composer really be expected to do an _in depth_ study of _every_ major composer who preceded them, and so on into the future? It seems like an unnecessary burden. Of course I'm going to acquaint myself with musical theory, practice and technique throughout all periods and genres _etc._, but I don't think I need to study Schoenberg's scores and get into his artistic frame of mind just as much as I would with a composer I feel more akin to  If you still disagree with that, tell me why!


Ok, I'll just go a bit further. (ha ha)

First off, my suggestion wasn't to study EVERY composer! Yes, a completely ridiculous notion - I agree. But, my suggestions were, from my own experience and that of studying with others, pertinent examples of musical concepts that can stimulate both a deeper understanding of classical music, as well as a source of tools for the composer to build their own music today.

The prima practica is not about all music composed in the 16th century, but a practice codified mostly around 2 composers: Palestrina and Lassus. I don't mean to imply in any way that their music is "better" per say than others of the time. But what their music does represent is the seeds of where the functional tonal system would come from. And it is this functional system for which all of the composers of the common era would base their tonal structures around.

I then suggest moving to Bach. Armed with an understanding of how tonal forces were constructed around counterpoint (the harmonious mixing of melodic strains), one then learns about how this is manifested into a dynamic and flexible system capable of a startling diversity of chromatic harmony, and through the inflections of rhythmic devices found in folk music, can reach an incredibly wide spectrum of musical possibility. With careful attention to choral settings and fugal composition, the full nature of pitch in the tonal system (including melody, harmony, counterpoint and how they enunciate form) becomes clearer + Bach's use of rhythm is so utterly compelling, it is worth spending some time with.

Of course, with Bach study comes Vivaldi study, and folk music study, and Buxtehude study etc etc. His music touches so many others - another reason why I strongly suggest in depth study of his music.

With this knowledge, understanding the music of Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, Wagner, Chopin and the boys becomes much easier. And by understanding the common traits between these composers (the tonal system), one can begin to truly understand their unique contributions to the oeuvre. In a way, although my idea of learning this way does take some time at the beginning, in the end, it is a time saver. One will be able to pour through scores, and learn of their nature with great speed, thus saving time.

About modern music: Well, all I can say at this juncture is this - it is very hard to know how study of this music will effect your outlook on musical composition, and how you manifest it into your own work. The composers I suggested I believe, like Palestrina and Bach, offer great insight into the nature of sound and musical possibility. A figure like Schoenberg not only offers insight with his compositions, but also by the systems he developed through intense contemplation of where music had come to at that point, and his reflections upon classical music, which are very useful. He also inspired many other artists, so to know him is to also know, in part, hundreds of others. So did Stravinsky, and Prokofiev and Shostakovitch and on and on.

So, as I suggested, an intense study of the early stuff is good, but also paired with explorations into the wild world of modern music (and I would add, Romantic). At surface first - that's ok. Just get a acclimatized to what went on. See where it takes you. It is ultimately only information - take it or leave it. But, give it some time.

Remember you have many years ahead to learn and compose. I'm 37 and still study music daily. Presently tearing up the Rite of Spring, but also just did a little analysis of Schubert's G maj quartet, a Beethoven overture, the Berg violin concerto, the Ligeti violin concerto, + always popping into some Palestrina and Bach to keep on top. I'm thinking about visiting some Mozart and Haydn...and also Grisey, Murail, and Reich...and also the theory of African music from Ghana...

So much music to contemplate! This is pleasure for me, but I also feel a sense of responsibility - it is part of a work ethic. I'm not trying to brag by saying this, but, often my works involve dozens of performers, and thousands of audience members. I feel it is my duty to provide high quality, passionate music for all of these interests. Why should I expect respect from the 1st violinist, who started playing at the age of 3 and has practiced 4-8 hours every day to achieve their position 20 years later - no, I have to earn it. A composers only asset is their mind - there are no physical requirements - there for the composer needs to have great knowledge and experience. I mean, I'm working on it (and so are you) - we are on the path. The best we can do is through our effort. So, don't be put off by the immensity of the work, but rather inspired. We are only on this cosmic rock for a short visit - might as well make the best of it, and try to do things well.

< just another composer pep rally >

Boy, I do go on and on.


----------



## Polednice

Scott Good said:


> So much music to contemplate! This is pleasure for me, but I also feel a sense of responsibility - it is part of a work ethic. I'm not trying to brag by saying this, but, often my works involve dozens of performers, and thousands of audience members. I feel it is my duty to provide high quality, passionate music for all of these interests. Why should I expect respect from the 1st violinist, who started playing at the age of 3 and has practiced 4-8 hours every day to achieve their position 20 years later - no, I have to earn it. A composers only asset is their mind - there are no physical requirements - there for the composer needs to have great knowledge and experience. I mean, I'm working on it (and so are you) - we are on the path. The best we can do is through our effort. So, don't be put off by the immensity of the work, but rather inspired. We are only on this cosmic rock for a short visit - might as well make the best of it, and try to do things well.


Sensible ethic and wonderful sentiment  I understand more what you were saying before, and I wouldn't argue with it - it makes perfect sense. I have one other question about the order in which I study things - clearly, it would make sense to study composers chronologically, but concerning things like orchestration and general theory on harmony _etc._, would you say that I can do that at any time? At the moment, I'm in a situation of just laying my hands on any books I can, so it's not always easy to put everything in a rigid order..


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> I understand that, and I certainly agree with it and won't totally reject it, I just meant to question the _extent_ of such a study. After all - even though this is hypothetical and largely irrelevant - the logical extension of that would be, say in a few centuries' time, would the budding composer really be expected to do an _in depth_ study of _every_ major composer who preceded them, and so on into the future? It seems like an unnecessary burden. Of course I'm going to acquaint myself with musical theory, practice and technique throughout all periods and genres _etc._, but I don't think I need to study Schoenberg's scores and get into his artistic frame of mind just as much as I would with a composer I feel more akin to  If you still disagree with that, tell me why!


Here's the catch. It isn't a burden at all  The real question is, why not?


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> Here's the catch. It isn't a burden at all  The real question is, why not?


It is when you have to simultaneously do a degree in a completely unrelated subject


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> It is when you have to simultaneously do a degree in a completely unrelated subject


Sounds like a hell of a burden to me, then.


----------



## Polednice

Further to Scott's Good idea (I know, a terrible joke..), I was trying to think of a decent piece of music that we could all look at and comment on. I thought it would be best to do something for piano solo, as it's far less complicated, and then I thought of Brahms because he rules!  So, of Brahms's piano works, I eventually decided that his _Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel_ would be really good to look at - its divided nicely into chunks, each part of which has a different, unique but understandable relation to the initial theme that we can explore, and then there's a nice old fugue to finish it off!

So that we're not overwhelmed (but also don't take ages), I thought we could look at around 3 variations at time and, usefully, Wikipedia has images of all of them. So, here are images of the Aria (the main theme) and Variations 1 & 2 (click to enlarge)  Now think hard, and say anything you like!

View attachment 830


View attachment 831


View attachment 832


----------



## emiellucifuge

cool ill comment with my thoughts later today. And for anyone who doesnt yet know, www.imslp.org has a large collection of pdf public domain scores, maybe the piece is in there.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Further to Scott's Good idea (I know, a terrible joke..), I was trying to think of a decent piece of music that we could all look at and comment on. I thought it would be best to do something for piano solo, as it's far less complicated, and then I thought of Brahms because he rules!  So, of Brahms's piano works, I eventually decided that his _Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel_ would be really good to look at - its divided nicely into chunks, each part of which has a different, unique but understandable relation to the initial theme that we can explore, and then there's a nice old fugue to finish it off!
> 
> So that we're not overwhelmed (but also don't take ages), I thought we could look at around 3 variations at time and, usefully, Wikipedia has images of all of them. So, here are images of the Aria (the main theme) and Variations 1 & 2 (click to enlarge)  Now think hard, and say anything you like!
> 
> View attachment 830
> 
> 
> View attachment 831
> 
> 
> View attachment 832


I've thought hard, and here is my answer. 






Beethoven still dominates Brahms in piano compositions


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> I've thought hard, and here is my answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven still dominates Brahms in piano compositions


 For a moment then, I thought I was going to be challenged by the Diabelli Variations. Those variations seem more godlike to the piano than even Beethoven is to composers!


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> For a moment then, I thought I was going to be challenged by the Diabelli Variations. Those variations seem more godlike to the piano than even Beethoven is to composers!


I know, I should have answered a set of variations with a set of variations. But just a few others write variations I like better than his. Such as: Busoni, Handel, Bach, Sorabji, Medtner.

But, for me, I can't enjoy any other bagatelles more than Beethoven's opus 119 bagatelles.


----------



## Scott Good

Polednice said:


> Sensible ethic and wonderful sentiment  I understand more what you were saying before, and I wouldn't argue with it - it makes perfect sense. I have one other question about the order in which I study things - clearly, it would make sense to study composers chronologically, but concerning things like orchestration and general theory on harmony _etc._, would you say that I can do that at any time? At the moment, I'm in a situation of just laying my hands on any books I can, so it's not always easy to put everything in a rigid order..


Thank you!

Ok. First, as we travel into a bit of analysis (brahms up coming), I do want to make a few things clear. It is of course very important when going into music school to have a decent understanding of the functional tonal system, and its lingo. Tonic, dominant, sub-dominant - Root motion - keys and key areas - scales and degrees of scales. My suggestion of studying Palestrina is an add on - it will come up later - but, as a composer, I think it is best to do it right away for the earlier stated reasons. It will help to look at this study from various sides.

I think much of this will be covered in the Brahms you posted. Perfect example. Will take some time to collate thoughts.

A thing to remember is that the world of classical music is dominated right down to the level of education to the performers needs. And since performers play music of the Romantics most often, it only makes sense it is the place of most theory emphasis. But, I'm not convinced this is in the best interest of the composer. Our job is different.

Study of orchestration: Well, the short is - every time you hear sounds, it is an orchestration, and the study of it is to simply pay attention.

The long, of course is much more involved. If the goal is to compose for orchestra, then there is some specific work to do. But, as you play several instruments, you have a clear head start in many ways.

Yes, Adler book and CDs is very good. Must to have the recordings. Covers lots of sounds and bits of repertoire.

Each instrument in the orchestra has a rich tradition of solo, chamber, and orchestral repertoire. And this can vary from amateur performers, to highly qualified professionals. It is beneficial to understand all of these perspectives on the instruments. If you are in music school, you can often wander into a recital. I found it relaxing, and just spent time listening to the instrument, and what it can do. Way better than eye-plod, and nice to support your colleagues.

Also, the technique of each instrument should be considered. Air flow, bow speed, percussiveness. Valve key systems, fingerings, positions etc etc. I have detailed fingering charts for all instruments...well, somewhere (seems to have been misplaced, and I need it). I like to be aware of what it takes physically to make the sounds I am requesting as in my gut, I think I will be composing more idiomatically for the instrument.

Then there is the study of timbral combination - an endlessly fascinating subject. I believe that it is beyond words in understanding, but here are a couple of exercises I have found beneficial.

Follow a recording with score, and pay specific attention to one instrument or group of instruments. Pick a variety of composers and genres to give a detailed picture of what the instrument sounds like.

At the piano, play a note (start around middle C). Keep reiterating the note and "hear" it on different instruments. Then, add another note, and spend time mixing between different instrumental sounds in your imagination. Then, start playing chords - voice the chords so certain notes are louder than others, and imagine different instruments playing that note within the harmonic context. Perhaps imagine what 2 instruments in unison would sound like playing this within the harmonic context. Mix, and match. Experiment with registers. Don't force it into a process, but just go with where it leads. Another exercise that is quite relaxing and pleasurable.

How does each part relate to each other part? The 2nd clarinet sits in subservient to the principal. But the clarinets exist in the wood wind section, so, relate on this level. But the clarinet also relates to the other sections. The clarinets sound has very different qualities in different registers (chalumeau, throat tones, clarino, altissimo are the 4 main groupings), thus can be supporting the tenor to the soprano - even bass in a particular scoring or by using a bass clarinet. The combinations are endless.

It is true that the composer begins to hear music differently through the training. It is both good and bad. Some of that "magic" is lost through understanding - yes - "ignorance" is actually blissful in certain ways. But, much is also gained. As I said before somewhere, knowing what the common traits are shows more clearly what it was that makes each composer unique. As my specialty is trombone, I can talk about how each composer thought about the trombone, and used it in their music. Even similar sounding composer show incredible individuality in the realm of orchestration. For instance, study Haydn and Mozart horn parts - very different in how they work in section, and within the scoring of the orchestra. Then there are regional/cultural differences - Russians and Germans and British and North Americans etc etc all play each instrument differently in both subtle and overt ways, and so did (do) their composers.

So ya, it's a crazy subject. But such a fun one to explore.

But, if it seems too much, simply refer to the short answer - it is the most important point I am trying to make.


----------



## Lukecash12

Here is a place where you can find some pretty decent lectures on orchestration. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrchestrationOnline


----------



## Scott Good

Lukecash12 said:


> Here is a place where you can find some pretty decent lectures on orchestration. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrchestrationOnline


Very good! I'm on part 2 - so far, I'm %100 behind this guy.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Polednice said:


> It is when you have to simultaneously do a degree in a completely unrelated subject


Which is...?


----------



## Polednice

Romantic Geek said:


> Which is...?


My degree? English Language and Literature. It's not _so_ bad; of course, at least it's an art subject! Plus, I'm cramming music into it wherever I can. I have an 'optional paper' in which I basically get to write anything, so I'm going to analyse Tchaikovsky's _Manfred Symphony_ alongside Byron's drama. Yay!


----------



## Polednice

Right, my weekly essay was finished today, so I have a bit of spare time to have a stab at those variations! Bear in mind that I have absolutely _no idea_ what I'm supposed to do or say, so I'll just describe what I see and then you can all set me right 

So, using the Aria as a basis and looking at the Variation I, it's clear that this Variation remains fairly close to the original melody. Most of the bars in this one have a motif contained in the first three beats, which plays an alternation between two adjacent notes in the Bb major scale. Throughout the whole Variation, the first note of each alternation simply (and expectedly) corresponds to the first note of the beat with which it is paired in the Aria. It seems like a fairly simple starting idea for a first variation, but perhaps the thought for that little motif comes from the repeated figure first used on the third beat of the first bar in the Aria - thus, the variation feels even closer to the original Aria because it closely resembles both its melody and part of its shape.

Still talking about the first three beats of each bar, the accompaniment in the left hand features broken chords of those established in the Aria, with an initial leap of at least an octave, followed by a descent to the closest possible note in the same chord. Meanwhile, the second voice in the treble clef fills the rest of the chord (as not every note of the triad is featured in the bass) by having the two remaining notes of the triad (the first being the final note of the three-note alternation) played below.

During the first half of the Variation, the fourth beat in each bar is slightly different. Instead of a two-semiquaver -> quaver rhythm, it voices the last three semi-quavers of the beat (the first of the four quavers being sustained from the end of the third beat). Here, Brahms embellishes it ever so slightly. Taking a look at the comparable final beats of the first bars of Aria and Variation, the former features the notes G, Bb, D and Eb, while Brahms adds an F. I take it that the D and F are essentially left-over passing notes from the third beat of the bar (a B minor chord) which then pass to Eb and G, respectively, in the last quaver. A similar pattern is followed for the rest of the first half, then, at the end of the first repeat, he just takes the same starting note as the demi-semi-quaver ascent in the Aria, but expands it so that it's essentially a dodecatuplet (or whatever you'd call it!).

In the second half, all of the figures we've met so far continue the same logic (the three-note alternation; the descending three semiquavers; the accompaniment, and the demi-semi-quaver runs), but there's a slightly more complicated motif at the end of the first bar after the repeat mark, following into the bar after. If you take voice 1 and 2 in the treble clef separately, you see that the first voice is continuing the three-semiquaver descent motif, while the second voice plays a mirror image of this theme.

Well, I think I'll just leave it at that for now! I could probably have used a lot more analytical jargon, but I thought I'd just keep it quick and simple for now, just in case I'm looking at completely the wrong things


----------



## Romantic Geek

Polednice said:


> My degree? English Language and Literature. It's not _so_ bad; of course, at least it's an art subject! Plus, I'm cramming music into it wherever I can. I have an 'optional paper' in which I basically get to write anything, so I'm going to analyse Tchaikovsky's _Manfred Symphony_ alongside Byron's drama. Yay!


Ah yes. I heard the BSO perform that live on the radio. It's an excellent piece. I love that motive that keeps coming back. That's a toughie though. Analyzing orchestral works is always tough.


----------



## emiellucifuge

ok... so youve looked at the motivic/thematic variation and it looks good so far! However, and i know you commented on this, but you should use more jargon. It would significantly simplify. You described at length a device which could smply be named... ill let you guess


----------



## Polednice

Romantic Geek said:


> Ah yes. I heard the BSO perform that live on the radio. It's an excellent piece. I love that motive that keeps coming back. That's a toughie though. Analyzing orchestral works is always tough.


I imagine it is but, being an English student, my paper won't involve _that_ kind of analysis - it will be something along the lines of the interpretative value of a composition based upon an already extant piece of art.

As for the analysis, I've done my part in making a fool of myself, someone else take a turn and jog my memory


----------



## Scott Good

*basics*

Hello,

Ok, from your answer, I'm not sure how much of the basics you have down. It's not just "lingo" in the sense that they are abstract words, they are descriptive - they describe specific qualities of the music that allow for intelligible understanding, and the ability to communicate that understanding.

To be honest, this is in many ways very distant review (which is partly why I'm happy to do it!) - but, I might be a bit off on some nomenclature. I am not a teacher at a school, and undergraduate theory was something I studied many years ago. And it is also possible that various ways I look at the music do have a subjectivity to them - this is good. I have always maintained that theory study should have elements of creativity and personality. This is music - this is art. Therefore, subjectivity will always be present in any kind of understanding.

There are feminist or humanist takes, cultural relativist takes, historically relevant takes, performance practice takes, and on and on. Mine strives towards a composers take who is interested in engaging with the classical tradition with their music. That is me.

So, I have provided a breakdown analysis in an attachment. What I am hoping you will do is go over every single aspect of the analysis, and question anything you do not fully understand. It is only the first 4 bars of the aria, but, we can move on once these concepts are understood.

I am very much expecting questions! There are more qualities to label as well, especially in terms of phrasing, motivic break down and variation even within these simple 4 bars. As I said it is a great example to explain much of the functional tonal system, melodic construction, variation, rhythm etc etc.

And, if anyone has issues with it, please voice them...respectfully.

Scott

View attachment 835


----------



## Polednice

Thank you very much for doing that - I'll just go over my responses to everything in vertical order! 

_Melodic and rhythmic sequence_: it seems fairly straigthforward and intuitive, but what exactly do those three words define? Especially if we were to take a longer extract, then what would it cover?

_Cadencial close_: I'm fine with cadences, so nothing to say there.

_Brackets with 'A, B, C, D'_: are those just defining the parameters of each consecutive phrase?

_Bass notation_: I'm fine with my Roman numerals; I'd have been happy enough doing that, but wasn't sure exactly what we'd be looking at, so I didn't fancy sitting down and doing it properly! However, I do need to revise figured bass (or whatever it is that refers specifically to the arabic numbers).

_Sop-Bass reduction_: I don't know where that term comes from and haven't heard of it before, but I know what I'm looking at and I understand it.

_Functional root motion_: again, that seemed straightforward, although, considering my initial take on it, I was a bit thrown by the second crotchet in bar 3 (F); would you understand my misunderstanding if I told you that I was expecting an A a third above that?

_Background voice leading_: this is the main thing that stuck out in my mind because I don't have a clue what it is and I couldn't work it out from looking at it either!

_Schenkerian reduction_: I was reading about reductions earlier this morning, so I know exactly what that is


----------



## Scott Good

Polednice said:


> Thank you very much for doing that


My pleasure!

Ok, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from with these answers.



Polednice said:


> _Melodic and rhythmic sequence_: it seems fairly straigthforward and intuitive, but what exactly do those three words define? Especially if we were to take a longer extract, then what would it cover?


Sequence is a pattern - or perhaps understood as an ordered set. It can be referencing any kind of parameter (as you will learn as you go through more rep).

It most commonly refers to harmonic sequence (I think...) - this is not a harmonic sequence so I thought I should be specific. (but I bet we will find harmonic sequences in the fugue). But the rhythm (in both melody and accompaniment), and the melodic contour are sequential.

More on this a bit later.



Polednice said:


> _Cadencial close_: I'm fine with cadences, so nothing to say there.


Ok. There are many, many more though!

And, let me probe a bit. We are here to study as composers, not theorists. Is there anything to note about this cadence? What I am looking for is it's distinctiveness. What does he do to bring the phrase to a strong close.



Polednice said:


> _Brackets with 'A, B, C, D'_: are those just defining the parameters of each consecutive phrase?


Yes. I also have them there for quick reference, and to highlight the sequential nature.

So, back to sequence. I will again probe with questions: what kinds of variation exist within the sequence? Does A=B=C, or, is there variation. If yes, why? I'm being nit-picky, but I still think there is much to be gained by deep investigation that will help understanding more complex works later.



Polednice said:


> _Bass notation_: I'm fine with my Roman numerals; I'd have been happy enough doing that, but wasn't sure exactly what we'd be looking at, so I didn't fancy sitting down and doing it properly! However, I do need to revise figured bass (or whatever it is that refers specifically to the arabic numbers).


The numbers refer to the intervals above the bass note (not root).

Many are implied. For instance, I also is I, 5,3, but we just call it I as the others are implied. When I is in first inversion, it would be I,6,3, but it is notated as I,6 - a kind of short hand.

The V7 chords are a bit more involved:

root - V7
1st inversion - V65
2nd inversion - V43
3rd inversion - V42

Now, the 2nd inversion I chord is a unique beast, as even though it spells out a I harmony, it almost always functions as an expansion V (or, dominant). Thus, it is called V64.



Polednice said:


> _Sop-Bass reduction_: I don't know where that term comes from and haven't heard of it before, but I know what I'm looking at and I understand it.


Heh..ya. It means Soprano and Bass reduction. So, just top and bottom lines.

Btw, this level of reduction clearly shows the relation to 16th century counterpoint practice. Notice the fluid and expressive curve of the line-the consistent use of thirds and 6ths - combination of parallel and oblique motion between parts. No large intervals in the melody, and the general upward motion is balanced by descending motion at the cadence.

Textbook example.



Polednice said:


> _Functional root motion_: again, that seemed straightforward, although, considering my initial take on it, I was a bit thrown by the second crotchet in bar 3 (F); would you understand my misunderstanding if I told you that I was expecting an A a third above that?


Good! Glad you asked.

I labeled as such because all I am trying to show in this reduction the functioning root motion, not just the root motion. Perhaps there are exceptions, but to my recollection, the vii6 chord almost always functions as a V7 chord. In fact, I'm not sure why it isn't labeled this way...but, it isn't. It occurs because of voice leading issues to avoid parallel motion - so, it is a V7 chord, without the V. F A C Eb..but no F.



Polednice said:


> _Background voice leading_: this is the main thing that stuck out in my mind because I don't have a clue what it is and I couldn't work it out from looking at it either!


Ok. This is more advanced, for sure. But, I just want to introduce you to this next level of reduction.

This, and the next are going more towards a Shenker approach. The whole notes indicate the principal notes of the line. And as in think emiellucifuge (that's a mouthful!) mentioned, there starts to enter a slightly more "subjective" approach to the analysis, but, with objective reasoning.

Upon studying this phrase, several factors indicate a strong emphasis on the note D in the melody. It is the first note of bars 2 and 3, and also arrived at on beat 3 of bar 1. Up to the third bar, it seems as if the melody is constructed by elaborating the note D - this isn't arrived at just by looking, but also by listening. My reduction shows this emphasis.

One might ask why D isn't the first note, if it supposedly "important". 2 reasons: the melody is constructed around an ascending gesture. To start on D wouldn't leave as much room. Also, a little composer "rule" I learned from Dr. Adler (one of my private composition teachers) is simply this - 2 times good, 3 times bad! So, if he repeated the note D at the beginning of each of the first 3 measures, it would be dull.

Hope this is making sense. If not, don't worry about it much, but, keep the concept in the back of your mind. As always, though, ask any questions and I'll do my best to answer.



Polednice said:


> _Schenkerian reduction_: I was reading about reductions earlier this morning, so I know exactly what that is


Well, most of my analysis is reductions, but this is Shenkerian. That 2 chord, 2 voice bit is meant to represent the entire line. This is the fundamental shape of the entire phrase.

Just want to be clear.

So, think about the cadence, and the sequence a bit more, and I'll continue with more of the music.

Ultimately, I hope to relate the variations to all levels of reductions...it's only a question of time. But, it would be very good for me to give it a shot, as I'm feeling rusty on this stuff, and need to refine ways of relating it to others. So please be critical if something isn't making sense.


----------



## Polednice

Scott Good said:


> And, let me probe a bit. We are here to study as composers, not theorists. Is there anything to note about this cadence? What I am looking for is it's distinctiveness. What does he do to bring the phrase to a strong close.


I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to ask with its distinctiveness, but it comes to a strong close because the cadence is 'imperfect' (I - V), the sound of which (more than any other cadence) gives the expectation of more to come, and it simultaneously acts as a bridge to the start of the repeat and to the start of the next section.



Scott Good said:


> Yes. I also have them there for quick reference, and to highlight the sequential nature.
> 
> So, back to sequence. I will again probe with questions: what kinds of variation exist within the sequence? Does A=B=C, or, is there variation. If yes, why? I'm being nit-picky, but I still think there is much to be gained by deep investigation that will help understanding more complex works later.


I'm not really sure about what kind of variation to look for here. I mean, the main figure slowly rises, as is more easily seen in the sop-bass reduction, but, other than that, they all seem fairly homogeneous to me :/



Scott Good said:


> The numbers refer to the intervals above the bass note (not root).
> 
> Many are implied. For instance, I also is I, 5,3, but we just call it I as the others are implied. When I is in first inversion, it would be I,6,3, but it is notated as I,6 - a kind of short hand.
> 
> The V7 chords are a bit more involved:
> 
> root - V7
> 1st inversion - V65
> 2nd inversion - V43
> 3rd inversion - V42
> 
> Now, the 2nd inversion I chord is a unique beast, as even though it spells out a I harmony, it almost always functions as an expansion V (or, dominant). Thus, it is called V64.


Thanks 



Scott Good said:


> Heh..ya. It means Soprano and Bass reduction. So, just top and bottom lines.


Oh! Seems so obvious now; silly me 



Scott Good said:


> Good! Glad you asked.
> 
> I labeled as such because all I am trying to show in this reduction the functioning root motion, not just the root motion. Perhaps there are exceptions, but to my recollection, the vii6 chord almost always functions as a V7 chord. In fact, I'm not sure why it isn't labeled this way...but, it isn't. It occurs because of voice leading issues to avoid parallel motion - so, it is a V7 chord, without the V. F A C Eb..but no F.


I had an inkling that it might be something to do with this, but I couldn't quite put it into words myself, so thanks for clarifying it.



Scott Good said:


> This, and the next are going more towards a Shenker approach. The whole notes indicate the principal notes of the line. And as in think emiellucifuge (that's a mouthful!) mentioned, there starts to enter a slightly more "subjective" approach to the analysis, but, with objective reasoning.
> 
> Upon studying this phrase, several factors indicate a strong emphasis on the note D in the melody. It is the first note of bars 2 and 3, and also arrived at on beat 3 of bar 1. Up to the third bar, it seems as if the melody is constructed by elaborating the note D - this isn't arrived at just by looking, but also by listening. My reduction shows this emphasis.
> 
> One might ask why D isn't the first note, if it supposedly "important". 2 reasons: the melody is constructed around an ascending gesture. To start on D wouldn't leave as much room. Also, a little composer "rule" I learned from Dr. Adler (one of my private composition teachers) is simply this - 2 times good, 3 times bad! So, if he repeated the note D at the beginning of each of the first 3 measures, it would be dull.


Although it will probably take a few more examples for to be fully grasp that portion of the analysis, I certainly understand it much better now, and I can see why it has its subjective aspect.

So, think about the cadence, and the sequence a bit more, and I'll continue with more of the music.



Scott Good said:


> Ultimately, I hope to relate the variations to all levels of reductions...it's only a question of time. But, it would be very good for me to give it a shot, as I'm feeling rusty on this stuff, and need to refine ways of relating it to others. So please be critical if something isn't making sense.


Thanks once again. I'll get my pen out and start scribbling simultaneously and see if I can work out some reductions too!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Aria/Theme -
I, V, I, IV, I, V, I, VII, I, V, *I, V*, 
V, I, V, I, II, III, IV, V, I, V, I, *IV, V, I*.

Var I- 
I, V, I, IV, I, V, I, IV, I, II7(IV), I, IV, *I, V*
V, I, V, III, II, III, IV, V, IV, V, I, V, I, II(7)*, *V7, I*.

* the 7th may be viewed as auxiliary note alternatively.

Variation 2 seems a lot more complicated so Ill do it another time (more suspensions, chromatic movement, maybe pedals etc..)

Anyway from the the chord structures of the first variation you can see a few progressions that are shared with the main theme despite the surface movement being different. Also note how with the dominant 7 Brahms has for some reason emphasised the cadence further.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Polednice said:


> I imagine it is but, being an English student, my paper won't involve _that_ kind of analysis - it will be something along the lines of the interpretative value of a composition based upon an already extant piece of art.
> 
> As for the analysis, I've done my part in making a fool of myself, someone else take a turn and jog my memory


You should do Pictures of an Exhibition then


----------



## Scott Good

Sorry for the delay. Had to finish some other things.

...this would be so much easier in person...



Polednice said:


> I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to ask with its distinctiveness, but it comes to a strong close because the cadence is 'imperfect' (I - V), the sound of which (more than any other cadence) gives the expectation of more to come, and it simultaneously acts as a bridge to the start of the repeat and to the start of the next section.


Yep. This is it's harmonic function. (I'd forgotten the term 'imperfect'. kind of a funny word, eh?)

Other points of note:

1.the ascending melody turns down into the cadence.

2. And another more subjective quality - it appears to me that the rhythm is simply an elaboration of the previous measures. Hard to describe in words, but can you see how the rhythm is "intensified" from what came before - adding of 32nd notes - expansion of the gesture

3. The widest leap in the melody occur at the cadence.

4. Both chords of the cadence are in root position. This is also like bar 2 (another strong cadence), but unlike bars 1 and 3. Another pattern.

So, he really does do quite a bit to close this phrase.



Polednice said:


> I'm not really sure about what kind of variation to look for here. I mean, the main figure slowly rises, as is more easily seen in the sop-bass reduction, but, other than that, they all seem fairly homogeneous to me :/


What I'm looking for is this:

In the sequence, the 1st 2 bars are almost identical, except for the first note (which was already discussed). Then, the entire sequential pattern is transposed up a diatonic third.

This is important. Obvious as it may seem, it is important to remember that when transposing by thirds, the harmonic function often remains static, or only alters slightly. Whereas a sequence of 2nds would necessarily imply new harmonic function. I have attached a pdf to show this.

View attachment 860


It could go further as well, as this harmony is also not in sequence, but, it could (although, it does take some working and would need more chromatisism to work, taking the line out of character - see an example in the pdf). But it might be wise to consider why haydn did what he did. It also goes further to show the importance of the tonic expansion and the note D in the melody. If sequencing with 2nds, this would not be a strong. Also, it dilutes the final cadence of the phrase, by giving in essence twice as much emphasis on the dominant harmony in the middle. Not bad or good - just different. Although, I can see why Brahms chose this theme.



Polednice said:


> Thanks once again. I'll get my pen out and start scribbling simultaneously and see if I can work out some reductions too!


Good plan. Lets compare notes. I`ll see if I can get off of the first 4 bars! I`ve only glanced at the rest of the music.

Till next time.

Scott


----------

