Modern harmonic/melodic analysis

[indutrial]

I was wondering if anyone could relate their approaches to analyzing modern pieces (i.e. those that approach or actively use free-tonal/dodecaphonic pitch sets). I've been studying a number of chamber works from the 1920s-30s and am wondering what some people would consider the best methodology for analyzing this music effectively (if that's indeed possible). Right now, I'm looking through Tansman's 4th string quartet, which, like his other quartets, showcases a ton of thick modal harmonies and contrapuntal methods while seeming to utilize the same 'back-door dodecaphonic' sound that one hears in Bartok's quartets. I can generally apply my own variety of harmonic analysis to the work, but I feel like there has to be better approaches. Right now, a measure might appear like this in my notes:

Eb7/Db

Cm(13)

E7b9/B
(Bdim7)
Bb7#11

A13#5 or F#mM7/A (these refer to a measure where [A C# F] are held with a melody of [F# G A G F# G] moving within it.

...in addition to having loads of notes about key relations, potential passing tones, etc.. etc.. The whole mess usually ends up looking like a jazz lead sheet from hell.

Any thoughts or recommendations on ways I could/should refine this? I'm not trying to achieve any sort of full understanding of this music - something I feel is somewhat impossible. I've seen some modern analyses that go way further into mathematical territory that makes me wonder if the composer ever intended such deep scrutiny. Oftentimes, I just like to transcribe portions of whatever I'm studying to guitar, in order to expand my language on that instrument. Does anyone else here ever dissect pieces such as this (anything from after 1920 that's either free-tonal, atonal, or dodecaphonic)? Please relate any similar approaches.

[indutrial]

No takers...

[ramseytheii]

At a certain point it becomes a burden to do a harmony-by-harmony analysis, and you have to focus on things like larger form and specialized voice-leading.  It sounds like this piece, based on what you showed from that one bar, has a tonal center and that the harmonies are not far removed from it (Eb, c, and Bb are not far apart at all, and E7 and b^o can easily be related to them as well).

But how do those work together to create a form?  And how is it composed otherwise - is there a motivic narrative?  Pitch content is not always the most beneficial way to approach an analysis.

Recently I took a look at the third movement from Ligeti's Horn Trio, which is a crazy march.  If you look at the first couple of bars, you will notice that he cycles through the 12 pitches without repeating any, suggesting a serial approach.  This can be more or less confirmed for several bars after that, and one can even discern a type of row.

But then they all start to get out of cycle, and it becomes a mishmash of tones.  The only thing holding it all together is the rhythmic cycle (always repeating in piano, but going out of phase in violin).  There in general are intervals which show a high level of recurrence, mostly major thirds and tritones.  But I don't think there is any systematic away to analyze the pitch content, and certainly no way to do it that would be of benefit to a performer.

I wish I could see this particular quartet, but I wonder if you should stick mainly to strong harmonic points, motivic narrative, and whatever else strikes you as unique about it.

Remember all analysis comes from trying to discern how a piece was put together, and how its most striking moments are constructed.  It always starts from listening to what catches your ear, then trying to discover how the composer made the magic.

Is it possible to see a score of this?

Hope that helps,
Walter Ramsey

[indutrial]

Hello, Mr. Ramsey,

I apologize for not replying sooner. I can't post the score for this work as it is highly copyright (Tansman passed away in 1986) and my only version is xeroxed on 11x17-sized pages.

I appreciate your advice regarding motivic narrative and will try to pay better heed to that in the future. Most of the time I simply come around to embracing the ideas as they stand and I avoid concerning myself too much about where they came from. With Tansman, it's somewhat possible to discern pitch-class patterns and contrapuntal methods. With later composers like Carter, Wuorinen, Andrew Mead, etc... an attempt at solid analysis can lead you to a million dead ends so I end up taking a much looser approach.

[ramseytheii]

THat's a good idea.  In short you have to just examine the piece for what it is, without preconceived notions of any system.  Any analysis is a backwards investigation of how a piece was put together, and every composer has some different aesthetic in mind.

Good luck!
Walter Ramsey