schenkerian analysis

[pianistimo]

whilst looking up musical form and researching that, i happened across a neat site that explains schenkerian analysis in depth.  for anyone who has time or inclination, it's a good read.

www.schenkerguide.com/

[pianistimo]

the more i read of schenkerian analysis, the more i am in love with it.  it is a simpler way to analyze than some of the other ways (only by chords and progressions alone). 

are there some pitfalls to shenkerian analysis?  is it allowed at major institutions as a valid way to analyze music.  are you required to learn many different ways of analysis in grad studies of theory?  what are the textbooks that most people use for graduate work in composition?

am tempted to spend my money on schenkerian analysis books.  i saw an analysis of some piano concertos and it was MUCH simpler to do (at least it looked that way) than regular EACH CHORD analysis.  you can take your time and do several layers of analysis.  does anyone recommend any more sites to look at for written EXAMPLES of this form of analysis?

[prometheus]

Sure Schenkerian analysis has pitfalls. One problem is that Schenkers view of music was very rigid and narrow. He never meant his analysis to work for modern classical music or anything outside the of classical altogether. Though people do apply it. There is a book with Schenkerian analysis of Beatles hits.

There is no proper way to analyse music. At least, not yet. As far as I know Schenkerian analysis is much more accepted in the US than in Europe.

Analysis chord progressions by putting roman numbers under them is a very narrow way of analysing that disregards all other elements of the music. Schenkerian analysis doesn't. But is is by no means objective or complete.

Yes, the simplest analysis of a piece is very simple. But there is no magic there. Every piece will reduce to the same three chords (I-V-I) (note: I am only talking about pieces that Schenker called art music).
But this is not the point of analysing. The point is how this is done. Every piece of music is a embelishment of these three chords, or even 6 notes. The question is how it is embelished and how the piece travels from one to the other. So don't be impressed by Schenkerian analysis because it can reduce huge piano concerto's to three chords/six notes. Though this is the center of Schenker's idea, it doesn't achive anything or tell you anything about the piece itself. (because it tells you something about classical music in general)

Here also comes in the problem. Schenkerian analysis wasn't meant to work for piece that aren't I-V-I polarisations. So no modern classical, pop music, jazz, world music, etc.

The importance of Schenker was that he was the first to take this idea that far and work it out into a system. And that he talks about different levels of musical structure.

I have Allan Forte's book on the subject. I have only read the first chapters. So I am no expert. I heard that a lot of the examples in Forte's book are viewed as questionable. Plus, Forte is very rough on the reader. He doesn't explain much in laymen terms, one could even say he makes things more complex while explaining them. But, a very strong basis in music theory is a requirement for anyone interested in Schenkerian analysis.

[Bob]

Schenkerian analysis is very cool.

It's all about simplifying the music and reducing it down.  It lets you know what's "skeletal" and what's on the surface and what the "essence" of the piece is.  Some pieces are very solid.  Others have lots going on at the surface level and that's it's thing.

There's a lot of detail to it.  I wouldn't worry about the formal analysis -- Read up on it and make up your own method of simplifying music.  For personal use, I don't need a nice, clean print version.  I need something that is useful to me.  I do it sometimes more as a way to study a piece.   It's very cool to realize how a phrase or progression is stretched or squashed during a piece, or to see how different section of piece are based off the same ur line of notes.

[pianistimo]

so what i am getting is that you kind of choose your analysis according to the piece you are analyzing.  if you are doing basic classical stuff (to impress teacher) you could maybe use a combo? of shenker and someone else.  i like the way shenker comes up sometimes with his own 'shorthand' by using a fermata (according to measure number) and description that 'here is a point of articulation' by noting it with maybe // lines.  this is the way i think.  very much more tuned to fast 'shorthand' of my own instead of a laborious copying of each chord change.  more looking for changes of tempo, or time signature, or major changes of dynamics, or form, etc.  this is my 'shorthand' idea of the first level.  then - if i understand correctly, you can go back and put more detail in as you have time.  that is the thing.  i don't always have so much time - so it is good to at least get a general feel for a piece by this method.

what is the best method to analyze pieces that are contemporary?   would it be something that is more recent than schenker.  are there new theories and new ways of analyzing that i haven't heard of (am sure there are) and what is currently the 'new trend ' in professional analyzations.  are there people you can talk to about this, if you have a really difficult piece you are trying to analyze? (say, piano concertos?)

[Tash]

i think my harmony teacher mentioned that a few times this year and i was intrigued, but have to take up a music analysis elective to learn about it. and it's not available this year so hopefully next year. but thanks for the link i will check that out

[pianistimo]

you are welcome!  it takes some sitting and reading.  but, it's really interesting (some of the ideas)  especially in relations to music and art having a connection to nature.  that we take the natural forms first (as in all classical studies - like michelangeo did with the human body).  schenker takes the overtone series.  it's cool.

[Bob]

I don't remember about modern things -- you mean like 12 tone?  I would imagine you would have to reduce/simplify them in some way.  Matrices and all that is probably still easier.

I looked into analysis awhile ago.  There is stuff still going on.  I don't remember it now much .  I remember someone was using software to analyze music statisfically and something about analyzing music according to people's brain wave reactions.

[pianistimo]

interesting you mention brain wave reactions.  now that's a great idea.  in fact, on page 220 in 'music, physician for times to come' compiled by don campbell, it explains each of the brain waves:
beta = 14-20 hz.  found in normal waking state of consciousness (present when our focus of attention is on activities of the external world)
alpha = 8-13 hz occurs when we daydream and associated with meditation. (become stronger and more regular when our eyes are closed)
theta = 4-7 hz. found in states of high creativity and have been equated to states of conciousness found in shamanic? work. (occur in deep mediation and sleep)  would wonder if this would apply to christianity - but in a different sense - maybe a feeling of peace?
delta = .5-.3 hz occurs in deep sleep or unconciousness.

there's also high beta = 23 -33 hz. associated with hyperactivity and some types of anxiety
and  k complex = over 33 hz. short bursts and associated with 'aha' moments (integration of ideas or experiences)

now, depending on the listener, you might get more varied responses with contemporary music than classical.  in fact, i sort of wonder if more use of dissonance requires more careful listening, thus, maybe a repetition of the piece (testing twice instead of once).  firstly for the initial response, and second - to compare shock value to what is comprehended and accepted.  do people accept non-traditional music the first time - or does it take several experiences of listening for some.  what percent will never accept it and 'tune out.' 

[amanfang]

I found this website too about 3 or 4 weeks ago.  I'm planning on taking "Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis" this fall, so I found this site as I was looking for stuff on the internet about Schenkerian analysis.  I was hoping to get some idea about what was going on before I started the class.  I started by reading the panic guide, and now I'm going into the slightly more in depth explanations.

[pianistimo]

interesting that you're taking a class.  if you feel like adding to this thread when you heard good stuff, let us know, ok.

[thracozaag]

 Carl Schachter rules.

koji

[ted]

I gave this a fair reading and I confess that do not understand any of it. I can comprehend it at the purely intellectual level but it has about as much musical implication for me as adding up the number of notes in a piece and dividing it by the square root of Einstein's waist measurement.

Thinking about Bernhard's colour conjecture has convinced me more than ever that musical perception is a quale and that therefore no objective syntactical criteria of goodness exist for it.

[pianistimo]

ted,
at least there are choices for all musicians to choose from.  just like music, you play or use what is understood and accepted by you, and occasionally veer this way and that experimenting (so you broaden your horizons).

koji,
thank you for the name drop.  i think you mentioned that name in the pic thread.  i just looked carl schachter up and he's chair at alabama university (as you know).  i wish i could go to alabama.  let me know if he's ever around nyc or pennsylvania, because i would like to hear a lecture or get dvd or something.  does he have an e-mail address at alabama?  i am very scared that i will have to analyze some piano concertos soon.  it's been so long since i've done analyzation.  are there any examples of piano concertos (besides the one i found by *oh, what's his name - dennis pajot?  i used his example last year to glean info from to analyze mozart concertos).  it worked like a charm for me, and i was so happy to at least get the basics.  maybe for modern stuff, shenkerian doesn't work so well, but imo it should work with the shorthand at least!  it gives you a feel for where you are in the music (so you don't have to squint).

[thracozaag]

koji,
thank you for the name drop.  i think you mentioned that name in the pic thread.  i just looked carl schachter up and he's chair at alabama university (as you know).  i wish i could go to alabama.  let me know if he's ever around nyc or pennsylvania, because i would like to hear a lecture or get dvd or something.  does he have an e-mail address at alabama?  i am very scared that i will have to analyze some piano concertos soon.  it's been so long since i've done analyzation.  are there any examples of piano concertos (besides the one i found by *oh, what's his name - dennis pajot?  i used his example last year to glean info from to analyze mozart concertos).  it worked like a charm for me, and i was so happy to at least get the basics.  maybe for modern stuff, shenkerian doesn't work so well, but imo it should work with the shorthand at least!  it gives you a feel for where you are in the music (so you don't have to squint).

  Actually I wasn't aware that Mr. Schachter was chair at Alabama.  He gives lectures from time to time at Mannes, and of course, at Schenker conferences. 
  Schenker is wonderful, but does have its limitations the further in chronology one goes into music history, imo.

koji

[pianistimo]

why?  the greeks based their stuff on overtones, too, didn't they? that's how we came up with teh circle of fifths.  of course, before that we had sung/spoken stuff.  that's what intrueiges me about cantoring and liturgical stuff because there are quarter tones and all that kind of stuff.  it's really quite beautiful.  in fact, just hearing some people speak, if you had some machine that would analyze the tones, it would be interesting to see it on a graph (in terms of the exact tones). 

or, to analyze bird calls. 

or, cricket chirps. 

am sure there are many things that don't exactly follow the overtone series or are built on triads. 

[thracozaag]

why?  the greeks based their stuff on overtones, too, didn't they? that's how we came up with teh circle of fifths.  of course, before that we had sung/spoken stuff.  that's what intrueiges me about cantoring and liturgical stuff because there are quarter tones and all that kind of stuff.  it's really quite beautiful.  in fact, just hearing some people speak, if you had some machine that would analyze the tones, it would be interesting to see it on a graph (in terms of the exact tones). 

or, to analyze bird calls. 

or, cricket chirps. 

am sure there are many things that don't exactly follow the overtone series or are built on triads. 

  I meant FORWARD in chronology.

koji

[pianistimo]

you know, i kind of disagree because when reading the schenkerian idea, i came upon something.  it said that the further you go in the overtone series, the less exact the pitches become.  so an A three or four octaves up is no longer the same note.  now, this would fit modern music to a 't' .  we are getting away from the things we know (triadic) and going into space musically.  in modern music, you also have much larger intervals than before.  it would be interesting to hear a set of variations based on 300 year periods of music to the present.  seems that there are cycles of music (as in gregorian chant - and then some similarities to spoken/sung pitches in very contemporary music).

also, with rhythm, you get into rhythms that are less known.  i heard one the other day (wish i could remember the piece) and it was based on 9.  the accents were still on the first beat (and maybe one other place), but the difference between a measure with eight even beats and nine is huge.  very interesting and makes you feel a little bit different (not necessarily uneasy - but it wakes you up and you don't rest when you hear it.

[thracozaag]

you know, i kind of disagree because when reading the schenkerian idea, i came upon something.  it said that the further you go in the overtone series, the less exact the pitches become.  so an A three or four octaves up is no longer the same note.  now, this would fit modern music to a 't' .  we are getting away from the things we know (triadic) and going into space musically.  in modern music, you also have much larger intervals than before.  it would be interesting to hear a set of variations based on 300 year periods of music to the present.  seems that there are cycles of music (as in gregorian chant - and then some similarities to spoken/sung pitches in very contemporary music).

also, with rhythm, you get into rhythms that are less known.  i heard one the other day (wish i could remember the piece) and it was based on 9.  the accents were still on the first beat (and maybe one other place), but the difference between a measure with eight even beats and nine is huge.  very interesting and makes you feel a little bit different (not necessarily uneasy - but it wakes you up and you don't rest when you hear it.

  Um, try using Schekerian analysis for Boulez (or even Scriabin for that matter).

koji

[pianistimo]

i would say, if i were schenker, you just slightly modify the idea.  you take the most repeated notes (make it the triad - evenly spaced fourths, for example - if they are)  and accept minor changes to them as unimportant (sharp/flats) since we are getting farther from tonaily.  the farther out you go (maybe even accepting two or three half tones) you would accept more notes into the anyalysis as a group.  so instead of C, E, G you could have C, C-sharp,D   one group  and then   F, F#, G another  and so on.  if you have really huge jumps you could even narrow the triad instead of widen it.  for example C, C-quarter tone, C-half-tone, C-three-quarter tone. 

maybe shenker should keep writing because following nature is the coolest.  jsut like discovering space.  the farther out you go, the more chaos.  (yet order within chaos)  it's like the rules change.  you aren't focusing on the harmonies as much as space and time difference.  what if there was no time?  then you could have a note just sound out to it's fullest potential and get lost in silence.  john cage discovered that - silence is something most people don't expect a lot of in music.  of course, total silence is easy to analyze.

[thracozaag]

i would say, if i were schenker, you just slightly modify the idea.  you take the most repeated notes (make it the triad - evenly spaced fourths, for example - if they are)  and accept minor changes to them as unimportant (sharp/flats) since we are getting farther from tonaily.  the farther out you go (maybe even accepting two or three half tones) you would accept more notes into the anyalysis as a group.  so instead of C, E, G you could have C, C-sharp,D   one group  and then   F, F#, G another  and so on.  if you have really huge jumps you could even narrow the triad instead of widen it.  for example C, C-quarter tone, C-half-tone, C-three-quarter tone. 

maybe shenker should keep writing because following nature is the coolest.  jsut like discovering space.  the farther out you go, the more chaos.

  Unfortunately, you're making the (HUGE) supposition that Schenker would even consider such composers as "real" music.

koji

[pianistimo]

yes,  some music messes with your heartbeat and your state of calmness.  it puts you into either a sort of frenzy, or a trance, or a feeling of helplessness and phobic feeling (aiding panic attacks).  for music therapy, i wouldn't play so much modern music.  but, for someone in a coma, it might help them come out. 

[thracozaag]

yes,  some music messes with your heartbeat and your state of calmness.  it puts you into either a sort of frenzy, or a trance, or a feeling of helplessness and phobic feeling (aiding panic attacks).  for music therapy, i wouldn't play so much modern music.  but, for someone in a coma, it might help them come out. 

  Schenker had his definite likes/dislikes when it came to music.  He wrote a rather scathing diatraibe against Reger, for example (a composer that would actually lend itself to his type of analysis despite the density of the writing).

koji

[prometheus]

If you read my posts you would already know why.

Schenkerian analysis assumes that music is a ornamentation of the 'ursatz', or the three I V and I chords.

Since Scriabin's later music is an unfolding of one big dominant chord in different forms/types and Boulez is advanced 12-tone music there is no tonic-dominant polarisation of any kind. So looking for it and trying to find out how it's done is quite futile.


If you were to analyse Scriabin you would look for the major dominant chords and the unfolding of the piece. If you were to analyse Boulez you would find the tone rows and see how they are used/transformed.

Schenkerian analysis isn't universal to music, not even universal to tonal music. It's limited to I-V-I. It breaks down at later Liszt and Wagner.

Pianistimo, I don't get where you are pointing at. I think I might understand your final post but the one before that, what has it to do with Schenker or analysis? The only thing it does is that it would be a good idea indeed (for me) to write a set of variations on a theme, and start out with gregorian chants with melisma all the way towards modern time and ending with a way out atonal, quasi-a-rhythmic variation.

About your last post. You seem to suggest that we can transform a atonal piece into tonal chords, and then apply Schenker. That would't work because the chord you transform to the I and the V don't have that function. If the music is atonal all notes are equal and there is no tonal hierarchy or progression. But that isn't it?

Firstly western music has only 12 tones and equal temperament. I don't see any merit in going beyond that in the sence of creating western compositions. Especially if we are talking about atonal music. But for tonal music it might work out. We could adjust the intonation after each modulation. But then either a computer must perform the piece of we must have a digital piano that 'knows' the score and that adjusts the tuning of the notes at the right time. It just makes me wonder if the modulations will sound smooth?

It's either just temperament and accurate melodies or equal temperament and the possibility to have chords and modulations. The same with microtones. Using the eastern system and trying to write chord progressions results into a lot of dissonance.

In no way C-C#-D has anything to do with C-E-G Changing a sharp/flat are major changes. Replacing C-E-G with C-C#-D sounds very different to replacing it with E-G-B or  A-C-E. It also has nothing to do with overtones. I don't get your point at all.

In a triad, the fifth and the third are the major overtones of the root. Essentially you hear a very rich and colorful root note instead of a combination of notes.

If we go further into the overtone rows then it gets totally useless for music. Actually, Gb as a overtone of C is already more accurate than G. It's already way off. I don't see what C-C#-D has to do with overtones. There is no relation whatsoever. None of these notes can claim dominance of the other and become the 'source' of the note that the others colour. It is the same as playing a C C# and D chord at the same time.

example C, C-quarter tone, C-half-tone, C-three-quarter tone will be a very out of tune note somewhere above C. It will start to sound like a a non-musical sound, not a tone. You talk about narrowing the triad and widening it. What do you mean? Huge jumps?


[edit]
Ooh, there have been some more posts already. Yes, Schenker didn't consider anything that wasn't an ornamentation of the 'ursatz' as music. I am not sure if he had a dislike or hatred against 'unnatural' music in general.

[pianistimo]

If you read my posts you would already know why.

Schenkerian analysis assumes that music is a ornamentation of the 'ursatz', or the three I V and I chords.

Since Scriabin's later music is an unfolding of one big dominant chord in different forms/types and Boulez is advanced 12-tone music there is no tonic-dominant polarisation of any kind. So looking for it and trying to find out how it's done is quite futile.


If you were to analyse Scriabin you would look for the major dominant chords and the unfolding of the piece. If you were to analyse Boulez you would find the tone rows and see how they are used/transformed.

Schenkerian analysis isn't universal to music, not even universal to tonal music. It's limited to I-V-I. It breaks down at later Liszt and Wagner.

Pianistimo, I don't get where you are pointing at. I think I might understand your final post but the one before that, what has it to do with Schenker or analysis? The only thing it does is that it would be a good idea indeed (for me) to write a set of variations on a theme, and start out with gregorian chants with melisma all the way towards modern time and ending with a way out atonal, quasi-a-rhythmic variation.

About your last post. You seem to suggest that we can transform a atonal piece into tonal chords, and then apply Schenker. That would't work because the chord you transform to the I and the V don't have that function. If the music is atonal all notes are equal and there is no tonal hierarchy or progression. But that isn't it?

Firstly western music has only 12 tones and equal temperament. I don't see any merit in going beyond that in the sence of creating western compositions. Especially if we are talking about atonal music. But for tonal music it might work out. We could adjust the intonation after each modulation. But then either a computer must perform the piece of we must have a digital piano that 'knows' the score and that adjusts the tuning of the notes at the right time. It just makes me wonder if the modulations will sound smooth?

It's either just temperament and accurate melodies or equal temperament and the possibility to have chords and modulations. The same with microtones. Using the eastern system and trying to write chord progressions results into a lot of dissonance.

In no way C-C#-D has anything to do with C-E-G Changing a sharp/flat are major changes. Replacing C-E-G with C-C#-D sounds very different to replacing it with E-G-B or  A-C-E. It also has nothing to do with overtones. I don't get your point at all.

In a triad, the fifth and the third are the major overtones of the root. Essentially you hear a very rich and colorful root note instead of a combination of notes.

If we go further into the overtone rows then it gets totally useless for music. Actually, Gb as a overtone of C is already more accurate than G. It's already way off. I don't see what C-C#-D has to do with overtones. There is no relation whatsoever. None of these notes can claim dominance of the other and become the 'source' of the note that the others colour. It is the same as playing a C C# and D chord at the same time.

example C, C-quarter tone, C-half-tone, C-three-quarter tone will be a very out of tune note somewhere above C. It will start to sound like a a non-musical sound, not a tone. You talk about narrowing the triad and widening it. What do you mean? Huge jumps?


[edit]
Ooh, there have been some more posts already. Yes, Schenker didn't consider anything that wasn't an ornamentation of the 'ursatz' as music. I am not sure if he had a dislike or hatred against 'unnatural' music in general.

  thank you for your reply.  i tend to still disagree because if you follow nature in anything, you'll see a reality that always fits.  with overtones, you may not get from C to C# all in one fell swoop.  you have larger intervals and a 'feeling' of the huge overtone series (thus the dissonance) when you include with the note C - all the variations on it. 

but, you are probably right about nixing the I - V - I and starting off on a path to explain going the other direction (to IV) which i read Schenker didn't like.  it would be faster to get to II.  which is quite a dissonance to I.  I/V/I and the triads within it make music very tonal.  but why is music like gregorian chant left out (modes) which emphasize a sixth or fourth by utilzing them as a tonal center and playing that note more often than others.  this would give a sense of the next phase beyond shenkers first phase.  and, then chaotic, which would be yours (12 tone- where all are equal) and then out to digital music (today) where you can control pitch like voice and you go farther out beyond 1/4 tones even to 1/8 and 1/16 and so forth.   THIS IS ALL INCLUDED in the complete overtone series if you follow it all the way.  it's mathmatical.

[thracozaag]

i would say, if i were schenker, you just slightly modify the idea.  you take the most repeated notes (make it the triad - evenly spaced fourths, for example - if they are)  and accept minor changes to them as unimportant (sharp/flats) since we are getting farther from tonaily.  the farther out you go (maybe even accepting two or three half tones) you would accept more notes into the anyalysis as a group.  so instead of C, E, G you could have C, C-sharp,D   one group  and then   F, F#, G another  and so on.  if you have really huge jumps you could even narrow the triad instead of widen it.  for example C, C-quarter tone, C-half-tone, C-three-quarter tone. 

  I'm afraid for me, this modification is untenable at best.

koji

[pianistimo]

why?  if nature can do it, mathematicians can get so far in science, why can't we keep up?  this is unacceptable to me.  i guess, computer generated analyzations are what i mean do exist.  but, can people be trained to more and more complex music, or do they just tune out.  i have been surprised at the musical sound of liturgical music and it seems to have a resonance that i can't explain (despite what you would think would be dissonance to the western ear). 

if we combined eastern and western music together - we would have a sort of graph in history that moves from chaos, to one note (overtone series), to spoken/sung, to eastern, to western (tonal), to reverse of history and back to single note and then silence.  there are no tones that exist without overtones and there are no overtones that don't acommodate any tone that we hear.  so, in a sense, overtones are not dictating I/V/I  only.  though i do like haydn.

[thracozaag]

why?  if nature can do it, mathematicians can get so far in science, why can't we keep up?  this is unacceptable to me.

  Because the complaint about "you took out all my favorite parts of the piece" argument regarding Schenkerian analysis is enhanced ten-fold.

koji

[pianistimo]

but what if you were an indian sitar player, chinese instrumentalist (forget what instrument), indian folk singer, country western singer, so many types of music include other notes than in the western scale.  yet they are valid tones.  i guess, i am philosophizing too much.

i just want to analyze these piano concertos and now believe than schenker will not help me with the contemporary pieces (especially by reger).  i must now, set out on my own, with the aid of my digital computer and keyboard, and brain wave monitor set up to bob.  i will attempt to prove to the world that analyzing doesn't have to kill you.  you can analyze up to three piano concertos at one sitting with my method.  if you don't have bob, you just attach the brain wave monitor to yourself, plunk in the cd, computer does the work, you just sit back and listen.  then you take the printout, and put in some red marks here and there of stuff that really impressed you (your favorite parts) since that's all most people care about anyway.

[thracozaag]

but what if you were an indian sitar player or a snake charmer (playing some kind of recorder).  if the snake likes it, it must be music.

  Um, yeah.

koji

[prometheus]

The overtones go on endlessly. Beyond the B as overtone of the C (which in equal temperament is already blurred) it is quite meaningless. In the end every note will be part of the overtone row. You won't hear them as an overtone or part of the root.

The overtone row of C btw is:
C: C G C E G Bb C D E F G Ab Bb B C

The next octave of overtones is split up in 15 notes, so there our musical notation breaks down completely. Note the Bb and not a B. Mixolydian is the most 'natural' mode' from this perspective. The leading note is 'artificial'.

I don't know Schenker's opinion of Gregorian chants. But his analysis doesn't work. The music is too harmincly primitive. It does not even have chords. Emphasis on the 6th and 4th may be used to make the mode clear. But I am not sure. The 7th is more important in that case, but the 7th will probably demand resolution to the octave, making it usesell to define the mode. I know very little about this kind of music.

[pianistimo]

thank you again for all that you say because it helps me think about things.  i'm just the average dull student, and i become obsessed at times with understanding what is probably beyond me. 

in terms of analyzing music, i want to at least be able to start reading about each of the 20th century composers and what they each said about their own music.  then, i will attempt to make some generalizations of what is agreed upon and what is not.  (probably most don't agree with one another - which makes for a lot of confusion).  i would like to see their own analyzations of their own work.

is there some kind of journal that goes into analyzation?  or does sibelius do some stuff that really helps you save time?  what do you look for in the first glance?  is it always what is peculiar to that composer, or is it more general?

[prometheus]

About indian music. Firstly, the snake is basicly deaf, it reacts to the flute moving

Secondly. Their approach is way different. The essence of euopean classical music is totally different.

Firstly they use a just temperament since they don't have different keys. There is no need for out of tune notes, as a sacrifice for harmony and modulation.
The key used depends on the range of the singer. Every frequency can be used as a root note. The range of the singer is measured and the appropiate root is calculated. The instruments tune to this note.

Then we have a simple line up. We have a singer who is basicly playing solos(or a solo instrument, or both, or several solists). We have one or two percussion instruments and we have a tambura. This is a drone instrument, kind of like a pedal note. The instrument is tuned to the overtones. Often only Do(tonic) and So(dominant). It is the closest thing to a chord they have.

I am going to ignore the percussion instruments. Basicly they play a cycle of beats ranging from 3 to 9. These are called talas. Something called 'compound talas' are also possible. They might count up to 29 for one 'measure'. 

The singer sings the notes from a scale like construction called a 'ragam'. All have a root(tonic) and a perfect fifth(dominant). Most have seven notes. Most ascend the same way they descend, but this may be totally different in complex ragams.

The ragam is also a harmonic mood. The notes are never played together but they superimpose a mood. This is why there are evening ragams and morning ragams. When they play for half an hour in the same ragam, which is done quite often, this creates a harmonic imprint in the listener. This and all the notes of the ragam against the drone of the tambura is the only harmonic element in the music, very subtle.

So lets assume the ragam has 7 notes, and is the same ascending and descending. There are 72 different ways to create a ragam. Note that the ragam must have a perfect fifth. The other positions in the scale have 3 variations, exept for the subdominant/fa. which has only two(actually perfect or augmented in our thermology)

A very common ragam, and often learned first because it is easy to sing is called Mayamalavagowla. When building this ragam on C in western note values we get: C Db E F G Ab B C  Note the large number of augmented seconds, ofset against the minor seconds,  in this scale. Very very rare in western scales.

This scale is sung with as little jumps as possible. And all notes are connected, one note flows to the other, so not stepwise like we do. This is why most instruments they use are fretless and why they prefer singers. They glide through the octave and stop on the right pitches. Often notes are microtonally ornamented. The singer 'hovers' around the note, like some kind of strange vibrato before playing the note itself unambigiously. The number of microtones are litterally endless. Though the music has 15 tones by itself with  an added 7 common microtones. But all the scales can be translated to western equal temperament without losing much of the quality. Actually, some people play indian classical music on harmoniums or other keyboards now. But alot is lost this way.

Now, try stacking thirds on every degree of this scale like we do in the west. We get this chord scale:
Cmaj7 / Dbmaj7 / Em6 / Fm/maj7 / G7b5 /  AbMaj7#5 / BMaj7(sus2)(b5)

Building chord progressions with these chords with as a goal combining the best of both styles of music seems futile. The sweetness of the Mayamalavagowla scale together with these bitter chords work together. I have tried to finda solution, but I don't have one. I am experimenting with this. I actually have a piano and saxophone sonata in draft using this scale in a western setting.

Creating both the modal mood of the indian scale and drone plus the western V-I cadence driven harmonic language. That's even harder to combine. The laws of physics, the overtones, won't let us.

[pianistimo]

interesting!  very interesting!  so are you saying that in indian music you have more of a 'drone' on the notes and less chord changes so you can accomodate the less tonal scale?  these different types of music are facinating to me.  dr. burton, at wcu goes somewhere strange int eh world every year and brings back experiences, pictures, and sounds he's heard.  very interesting to hear more about the ragams.  i sort of wish that music students could take a class and hear (whether dvd or whatever) these many forms of music and be told how the tones are set up.  basically int eh history books we are limited to eastern and western music...and little is said about the eastern (since books are based on western and there is so much info to cover). 

combining two types of music would be hard but not impossible.  i thought i read about some composers who have done that.  (haven't taken 20th century music class yet, kinda scared of the listening i'll have to do.  will it be webern?  ugh)  i'd much rather study ethnic music actually - because it may be a good source for easier listning contemporary music.  there's a meditative feel to some of it that is quite relaxing and lovely.

[prometheus]

You have a drone of a C and a G note and on top of that the solist is playing a solo of 7 notes, which will always have the C and the G as tonic and dominant.

So you basicly have one big chord, or one big harmony. With two pillars, the tonic, C and the dominant G. And on top of that are 5 different colors, for example Db E F Ab and B, but there are 71 different variations.

Then you get into complex ragams, pentatonic-like ragams, ragams with different notes up and down, ragems with 5 notes up and 7 down, zig-zag patterns. All of these combined, etc.

There are no chord changes or modulations at all. The ragam does not change, it is a constant.

Funny thing is the way they perform it also has similarities with both sonata form and jazz. There are really universal principles in music. It is no coindidence that they also split the octave into 7 parts (7 notes + the octave). And they also have the perfect fifth.

But no musical form is truly 'natural'. The most natural music possible would have one 'chord' based on the overtones, like the indian drone or european tonic chord. Then a pentatonic scale. And 4/4 time at a bpm equal to or a little above the persons heart rate. It would be pretty boring. Bells and voices would be the most natural. Strings have highly complex and rich overtones, bells are very plain.

[edit]

I added an example: Click.

This song is actually in a ragam comparible to C major. They call it Shankarabharanam, which is the same as any major scale. The root is also C. I wonder if this is western influence (because the root note can by any frequency). (you can try and play along with the piano, but you will soon notice that the piano isn't build for this, try singing yourself instead )

But anyway, the drone starts, the singer starts to sing in the ragam, hitting mostly C but also E  and some D, and everything inbetween. Also a note just below B but not quite B. Notice how much he does with so little notes. The C is used as a resting point, just as in out tonal music. He keeps going to C. He even goed to G to create an open ending-like phrase.
The singer is being very conservative. The ragam is made clear. (actually in a life concert people will try to figure out both the ragam and the talam ('time signature')) Note that there is a violin following the singer. ( It's one big improvised fugue! )  The violin gets a solo, like is done in jazz...

After this 'exposition' the percussions start and the ragam is fully worked out like a development. Often there is also a percussion solo, and then there is something that can be called a recaputilation. Note the piece stays in quasi-'C major'. It stays in Shankarabharanam.

I am not sure, but I think all the singing is totally fonetic, there are no words.

[Bob]

then, i will attempt to make some generalizations of what is agreed upon and what is not. (probably most don't agree with one another - which makes for a lot of confusion). i would like to see their own analyzations of their own work.

is there some kind of journal that goes into analyzation? or does sibelius do some stuff that really helps you save time? what do you look for in the first glance? is it always what is peculiar to that composer, or is it more general?

Working on a doctorate pianonut?  That's a big project.  I'm interested in what you dig up though.  I think I looked for similar stuff under "style." 

There are jounrals of music theory.  I just can't think of a specfic one.

Software still can't match the analysis a person can do -- at least Sibelius or Finale.  They'll do chord progressions, but that's not a huge help for the effort.  And they make computer mistakes.  It still needs a human touch.  I've heard about programs that analyze 12 tone rows and serialism.  You have to match the analysis with the type of music.  Looking for chord progressions in serialism or combinations in tonal music is going to be a lot of wasted effort.  I think there are limits to the level of depth analysis can go into.  Maybe AI and better technology will allow computers to do better eventually. 

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

how do you know so much about ragams?  this is great!  are you indian yourself?  if not, you're quite a scholar (unlike me, bob).  i just have barely enough time to dream and then practice a little.  maybe in retirement?  at least for now i'm signed up for 'the piano concerto' and i hope i wont' have to analyze much.

is that an evening ragam or a morning ragam?  if i took a guess, it would be morning, but it's putting me to sleep right now.  i find it extremely relaxing.  can't you just see - carried upon one of those walking beds - four good looking indian men at each corner.  puts a dot on forehead with permanent red marker, and makes eyes at husband. 

[prometheus]

No I am not indian. I have never been in India, and I don't know any indian people either. I also don't like Bollywood movies. Actually, only a small part of indian music is classical, very comparible to the west, except that they don't have Fur Elise's and Beethoven's 5th, that everyone knows.
I just happened to like the music so I wanted to know how it works and all. Since I am also a guitarist (which I actually didn't touch for a while) I tried to play this kind of music, which is possible on a guitar. Since jazz is only about 100 years old, european music only about 400, indian music goes back about 4000 years at least. So it is much more refined and advanced than jazz improvisation. Comparing it with composed music doesn't make much sense.

But it's hard to learn this music. I have a lot of books on european classical music but none on indian music. All the information I looked up on the internet, which has a few nice sites. But with all the 'indian' (I don't even know which indian language they are in) names it's not very easy.

Firstly, there are two forms of indian music. Hindustani and carnatic, north and south. They are largely the same from our perspective. Ravi Shankar and the sitar are part of hindustani music. Actually, I am not really sure about the differences, but apart from the different traditions and instruments (which have become blurred anyway) carnatic music seems to be more complex and have a more academic/scientific approach while hindustani music is more emotional/spiritual.
It seems that relating ragams to moods, time, is more often done in hindustani music. They also assosiate ragems with colours, dieties and some ragams are even supposed to cure some kind of disease. I don't know which ragam sankarabharanam is. But since it is the same as our major scale, and it has all these constant intervals, it is probably considered a bright happy ragam.

There are also other music systems that are interesting. Middle eastern music for example. I also heard some things about chinese and japanese music. But my knowledge of those is almost zero.

I hope I will have the oppertunity to follow lessons in carnatic music in the future. And I hope I will be part of some jazz/fusion/world music quartet/quintet one day. And have a degree in european music composition.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

would you be taking the carnatic lessons here or travelling to india.  sounds really very interesting and fun.  why not!  i don't go for the deities (more than one) but i could get into the color idea.  that's what i sort of hear when i hear that music.  also, i think of meditation.  it's a little distracting with all the instruments together at the end, though, and i feel most able to meditate when it's just one instrument and voice. or drone and one other instrument/voice. 

american indian music uses similar but different ideas, too, doesn't it.  i don't really know about the scale, but they always sound sort of spoken/sung - and the intervals are smaller with sliding scales.  very vocal and very rhythmic.  the rhythms alone are interesting. 

music, like language, is so instilled into a culture by birth (and even in the womb).  it's interesting that it has such a power to calm and to excite.  it has a spiritual element always, and it's almost like water in that for Christians we feel the presence of God when praising Him wash over us.  there's a song we sing in church that is a sort of calling to the holy spirit to 'wash over me.'  at first (being that i attended another church before this one, seemed kinda pentacostal - but now, i see it as a request - and i often feel that God hears our requests whether  through music or spoken prayer).  of course, love songs are the same way, and make the lover or loved more intensely passionate. 

[Bob]

https://www.schenkerguide.com/


Looks like a good site.  Brought to you by pianistimo.

[amanfang]

Of course this topic would show up the night before my Schenkerian Analysis project is due.  Analyze a section of a piece with at least 3 graphic reductions and then write a paper about it.  (sigh.)       It's ok.  I LIKE school.......

[pianistimo]

if you feel like posting any of it, please do!  i think having the different layers allows you to keep reviewing the piece and finding more.  it's like having shorthand available to you - first layer - and then, as  you have time - finding out the rest.  I also liked the way dr. drabkin used little shorthands of his own (such as fermatas, etc. that are within the music) and putting them within the measure that is being analyzed so that you get a sense of where you are in the analyzation (unless you have room to analyze the score itself). 

hope your analysis and paper goes well!

ps  if you google 'Drabkin ing'  - you can read a paper that he wrote about it or here:
www.muspe.unibo.it/gatm/Eng/Vol/0/fr_drabkin.htm

[thracozaag]

Inspiration:



koji

[amanfang]

Sorry Koji, can't see the pic.  Anyway pianistimo, I'm still in my first Schenker class, which is "Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis" so my project is still pretty basic.  Anyway, I picked an easier analysis - theme and one variation of Beethoven's Eroica Variations, Op. 35.  So my initial analysis basically concluded that the first 4 measures or so was a stepwise descent from g2 to e-flat2.  It then arpeggiates upward to the B-flat, the first note of the Urlinie.  It descends to f2 over  V, giving us an interruption, then reaches back to B-flat and descending down to E-flat tonic.  My teacher however, suggested that the first four measures are actually - G, A-flat, G making the A-flat an upper neighbor tone, and he suggested a 4th progression (B-flat to F- motion to an inner voice) rather than an interruption.  So I graphed both my initial view and also his view and wrote a paper on the differences looking at both the theme and variation 5.

[pianistimo]

glad you are having fun.  it takes time because sometimes you don't know that you ARE having fun until you get the hang of it.  wish that i could take that class, too.  maybe i'll just keep re-reading the article.  post anytime.

koji, thank you for the pic.  you know i have a box of important people, and for some strange reason i want to print out his pic and put it in the box.  i have newspaper clipping of john browning (hands up over the keyboard), a pic of james johnson (similar pose), a pic of an old jazz prof (just a nice guy and played trumpet and jazz really well), of course old piano teachers (have to find one of carl cranmer), and now this shenker guy.  as i see it, you can create your own family (just kidding).  i liked the one of you two sitting together! 

[amanfang]

I gave my presentation today in class today....  When I asked for questions at the end, my teacher began arguing a new point.  So he said it all goes bac to interpretation, and that mine is not "wrong" per se, but that I needed to consider other possibilities other than the two I mentioned in my project.  Which is fine.  Part of the problem, is that I'm finishing up the introductory couse, and he's been studying this stuff for 20 years.  I certainly don't feel like I have a good grasp on this theory.  I understand some of the major concepts, but don't feel like I can completely apply them "correctly" in music without more practice/study.  Would anyone who has studied Schenker like to comment on my analysis a couple posts up?

[Bob]

I understand what you're saying amanfang.  Same here.

I consider all my classes just an introduction though.  Take any class and put "Introduction to..." and it makes much more sense.  It's not like you can really master something in a semester, is it?