perahia's secret?

[ionutz]

I know that Muray Perahia, Radu Lupu and Richard Goode use schenkerian analysis. But how? How can this be applied in piano performance? Do you think that you can notice from one's playing that he does this sort of analysis?

[Hmoll]

I know that Muray Perahia, Radu Lupu and Richard Goode use schenkerian analysis. But how? How can this be applied in piano performance? Do you think that you can notice from one's playing that he does this sort of analysis?

Oh, Schenkeriean analysis. 

I never read that these pianists used Schenkerian analysis. It is useful for, among other things, to see the overall big picture, and shape of a piece of music - for example, large movements between tonic to dominant. To the extent that their playing shows that scope of understanding, and assuming that they indeed have analyzed the pieces they play using Schenkerian analysis, then I would say yes.

[Bob]

Schenkarian analysis can give you a much simpler view of a piece.  You can reduce the whole piece to one note, usually the tonic.  You can be aware of broad harmonic movements.

For me, I find it a lot easier to memorize one idea (the boiled down Schenkarian ideas) rather than all the itzy-bitzy details of the piece.  It's definitely easier to realize a page or two of music is relaly just movement from the tonic to the dominant or some idea like that.  I find it really cool to know that certain patterns come back and sometimes those patterns are just stretched out a little more.  "On page 1, there's a chord progression.  On page 2, the same chord progression comes back, but it's really stretched out."  Schenkarian analaysis is good for seeing these patterns, these things in the background.

btw, you don't have to be an expert at doing this, or be really formal about it and produce neat clean analaytical papers -- I've done some really messy analyses that make pieces easier to hold in my mind.  I haven't always followed the Schenkarian ideas and have found interesting patterns on my own.

So that might be how it helps performance -- Being able to understand the more important elements and patterns and keep them in mind.  This would certainly affect interpretation and you're whole view of the piece.   It could be that a performer realizes some very small detail reflects some broad overall pattern in the piece.  I remember a Beethoven pice (I think is was B.) that is all based on a m2 interval.

If not in interpretation, being aware of the underlying patterns will certainly help memory and give you confidence during the performance -- There's less to memorize since you understand how things relate and fit together.

And with any analysis, if you do one and leave it on paper (as oppose to being fluent with it and having it in mind   or being able to do the analysis at sight) it may not really be very useful at all.  If you can only do a Schenkarian on paper, it may not be really useful if you can't remember it while you practice or while you perform.  I'm thinking in terms of "practical" or "field-ready" analysis that you can hold it your mind, not having all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed on a nice, neat piece of paper.

[ionutz]

  What do you think is the primary tone in Beethoven's 32 variations' theme in c minor?

[Daevren]

Uuh C?

Schenkerian anaylsis is really advanced stuff. It gives you a view of the structure of the piece on several levels.

I think that because we are talking about several individual variations Schenkerian analysis is less effictive than normal.

Schenker tried to find a system to analyse music as objectively as possible. It does not apply to all kinds of music. It is perfect for post-romantic sonata forms. You can reduce a piece to three chords on the level with the least detail. Of course this does not really help a performance much.

Total analysis of a piece will. This will require years of musical study.

[pianonut]

awhile back i read an article about schenkerian analysis and it seems to go along with 'points of articulation' that i am listening for in symphonies.  you basically go along until something changes (key, texture, harmonies, hand placement) and mark those points (as people do with memory spots - and you can use them as memory spots).  i am now using railroad ties in  my mind at 'points of articulation.'  that has helped me A LOT.

[ted]

I spent some time attempting to understand it because so many people kept talking about it but the method seemed so utterly foreign to my own approach to music that I soon dropped it. It seems to relate to Western music of a very restricted type. But I guess I'm nothing to go by as I don't understand the purpose of ordinary theory ; the only thing which decides what I write and play is my ear.

[Daevren]

Trying to understand Schenkerian analysis without even knowing basic theory is like trying to run a marathon without knowing how to walk.

To me the basics of Schenkerian analysis seems very logical and obvious. It explains how everyone hears a note.

An important point in Schenkerian analysis is that some notes are alot more important than others. Also, that two notes or even chords that are very much the same can have very different functions based on the contect in which they are used.

I often wonder how much value the conlcusions you can draw from individual notes have on the big picture of the whole composition.

Schenker developed this method only for what he called 'real music'. This kind of stops after Wagner I think. But it can still be applied to more modern composers. People even applied it to pop music. There is a book out there with Schenkerian analysis of all The Beetles hits.

Ted, you do not understand the purpose of theory? It is explaining why something sounds good, of course.

[pianonut]

in the new harvard dictionary it explains schenkerian analysis as a linear analysis or layer analysis.  the first layer is the foreground (taking large phrases and picking the least amount of notes -picking most important ones for most prominent in  principles of strict counterpoint). this is called the ursatz.  for memory's sake, i just like the ursatz  principles.

but, you can go on to analyse the middle layer (taking harmonies and melodic layer further in analyzation  - in the points between the phrases)

and the third layer, the background (the further the layer, the more complicated) say 'a tonal projection through time of a tonic triad.'

the good thing about schenkerian analysis is it is not as hard as it first appears (having to write three separate layers).  you can simply highlight (for instance a bach chorale) with different colored pencils on the notes for the different levels, and voila' there's your analysis.

other forms of music analysis are more complicated, but understandable,too if you find a good book and go from the beginning to the end.  often times, i want to know about a detail (but can't get the understanding without reading more of the chapter) and try too hard without just letting go and reading the context of the chapter.  Ted, or anyone else who wants to know more theory should try some workbooks (these are so helpful) with the answers in the back or in key. 

[ted]

Daevren and Pianonut:

Yes, that's what musicians have told me. However, faced with the fact that the sounds I really like are "right" to me and "wrong" to theoretical experts, I would rather ignore theory and follow what pleases me than try to alter my intuitive response and accommodate sounds which displease me to suit their theories and taste.

I can study these things at the intellectual level if I choose, I'm not completely dense, but they have absolutely no emotional or intuitive value to me. I would therefore just as soon use my reasoning brain on something like mathematics, which does contain universality, and keep my music on the intuitive side.

Algorithmic composition, which I'm having another try at now, seems to me the only form of theory I would willingly embrace. However, if it doesn't produce instinctively satisfying sounds I shan't bother for very long.

[ted]

I hasten to add that I do not say these things in order to be cavalier or provocative, or to appear the forum madman. Indeed, I am capable of writing conventional music passably well (through my ear though, not through theory). However, it is not my native tongue; the core of me has always heard something different and, as I age, there seems little point in wasting time trying to be something I am not in order to prove a point to people.

[Daevren]

I would rather ignore theory and follow what pleases me than try to alter my intuitive response and accommodate sounds which displease me to suit their theories and taste.

Uuh, you always have an instinct to tell you what sounds good? And theory will always sound worse than your intuitive response?

I compose music sometimes, you really need a good base of intuitive composing. But music theory can be so useful. You can analyse what you intuitively wrote, you can structure it, rewrite it so it sounds even better.

Or when you just don't know what to do you have several options.

It is my impression you need to be really talented to intuitively write something with large scale harmonic depth. Music writting by people ignorant of music theory seems to be strong in melody and rhythm but weak at structure and harmony. sometimes there is no harmonic movement at all. With theory one could improve a piece of music like that very effectively.

About performing music. I prefer just following intuition there. I also prefer to play for memory. Some people do study the score, the music etcetra. That is not something I prefer to do atm. I hope I will in the future, because I think using both methods will improve my playing. But at this time I think I just lack the skill to effectively do that.

[ted]

I always have an instinct which tells me what sounds good TO ME, yes, because I don't push notes which do not sound any good to me just because they fit into a pattern somebody else has made up. I am only making the case relative to MY OWN musical aesthetic, not to other people's. What other people like is their own business and does not concern me. I don't presume to say that theories do not produce fully satisfying music for somebody else, how can I ? I can presume to know which sounds I enjoy and which I do not, and I simply play these sounds and not others. That's all there is to it.

So far, theories experts have tried to teach me have produced sounds which I do not much care for - but this is only relative to me. Other people might think they're marvellous and that's great - good luck to them. They enjoy their music, I enjoy mine.

[Daevren]

Sounds like you like your music not because it sounds good but because its yours.

Theory doesn't tell you something sounds good only one way. Theory tells you all the ways music can sound good.

Theory will help you write music you like more. If you don't believe me, fine. But when composing is concrerned, knowledge is power. Knowing theory gives you alot of control over your ideas.

How much music theory do you actually know? Sounds like you are scared of the unknown.

[ted]

Sounds like you like your music not because it sounds good but because its yours.

I don't think so. I like a very eclectic range of music which I like for the same reason I like my own - it sounds good to me.

Theory doesn't tell you something sounds good only one way. Theory tells you all the ways music can sound good.
Theory will help you write music you like more. If you don't believe me, fine. But when composing is concrerned, knowledge is power. Knowing theory gives you alot of control over your ideas.

I can see some sense in this, but if I used a theory for my own stuff it would have to be my own theory. I concede that learning theories may add to my enjoyment of their associated music in the intellectual sense.


How much music theory do you actually know? Sounds like you are scared of the unknown.

Well, I know hardly any. Thinking I ought to, I took a course in it from a very prominent musician. (Cost me an arm and a leg !) He pronounced that my music was all wrong and suggested alterations in accordance with theory. I diligently worked at those matters for months. At the end I still found my wrong sounds more enjoyable to listen to than his right sounds. Now I cannot see any sense in trying to change what I like to suit a theory. Suppose I like strawberries and not bananas. Then an "expert" tells me the theory says I should like bananas. What use is this ? I may come to assimilate all sorts of knowledge and facts about bananas but I'm still going to prefer strawberries to actually eat.

Scared of the unknown in music ? I really doubt it - I spend a lot of time listening to new music in many genres.

I hope I am explaining myself this time, as I obviously haven't expressed matters very well so far - it's par for the course for me lately.

[Daevren]

but if I used a theory for my own stuff it would have to be my own theory.

Your own theory? This sounds strange to me. For me music theory is something universal. Using music theory means not only composing by writing down what I hear but also applying grammar. Being aware of everything that is going on in my music.

About the teaching experience. It seems that the teacher set up some excersizes for you. Not for the sake of writing esthetic music. But for giving you a sense of musical harmony. Getting the basic grammar down. He corrected your music, not because it didn't sound good enough. But because it did not follow the rules set up before you started writing.

This is just an assumption I wasn't there.

And your banana/strawberry analogy is totally alien to me. Music theory doesn't change your taste. It teaches how music works. It teaches you endless possibilities to put together musical ideas.

Maybe you could give an example of your music that was considered incorrect by the teacher. And then the corrected version that sounded less enjoyable to you. This might be hard, but it could solve the issue we are discussing.

The first thing I learn to my student(I have only one) is: "If it sounds good it is good."

But if I send up strict rules for him so he can practice one technique, sounding good is irrelevant. So I might correct that, resulting in poorer music but improving the skill of the student.

[ted]

While I appreciate your explanations I think our musical aesthetics are as different as chalk and cheese. Terms such as "universality", "rules" and "grammar" have nothing at all to do with my musical purpose. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't understand you at all. I shall accept that the "fault", if fault it is, is mine. Unless you are referring to trying to imitate specific styles of the past using rules perhaps ? Some folk get pretty good at doing that but I don't want to live somebody else's dream.   

Nonetheless, if you are still curious I can easily email you an mp3 and corresponding .pdf of the score containing a particular example that musician considered "wrong". Just give me a private message telling me where to send them.

[Daevren]

Music is based on a part of phyisics which is universal. In western music all the theory basic theory is the same to everyone. And there are alot of shared principles if you compare different cultures.

The main usage of theory is not to imitate that what has been written before.

Maybe someone can express his or her perspective on this. Of course mine is as unique as yours. I think my email is in my profile. Or in my MSN link or something.

[ted]

I'll send you an example over the next day or two. Meanwhile, let's see what others here have to say about it.

I had a few moments to spare so I have sent you two "wrong" mp3s. Please tell me if you do not receive them.

[Derek]

Theory's all the same crap all the time anyway, why do people study it more than they study melody and rhythm?

I mean if you study baroque and classical pieces you're going to find the same stuff over and over and over and over again. Those devices sound pretty damned boring isolated on their own, and when a baroque or classical piece sounds good it usually has something to do with the melody, though piece after piece uses the same harmonic devices ad nauseam. 

I remember reading in a book I have that arpeggiated basses in Romantic music were "much abused" in the 19th century. As well they should be! They sound good!

imagine how that author would talk about boogie woogie!!

[ted]

That's right. Harmony's just arbitrary icing on the cake really. Don't know why people make such a fuss about it. I once had a jazz pianist practically throw me out of his house for daring to suggest he play a different chord. Well, I reckon I do know why harmony is given all this attention really - because it can be easily analysed using musical notation. Rhythm and melody are more interesting and important because only a tiny subset of them ever fits notation and metre. Baroque style sounds pretty good if you play it off the beat, metrically unaligned  and use a lot of keys at once though ! It sounds okay orchestrated using the sound effects from video games too - have to do something to spice it up; it's a bit deadly otherwise.

[Daevren]

Why people make so much fuss about harmony? Its the essense of western music! In general western music has no rhythm whatsoever. We sacrificed melody for harmony by using a whole tempered system. All our melodies are out of tune so our harmony can work.


For me its not icing on the cake. Its the core. If I want melody or rhythm I go listen to non-western music.

Why do people study theory more than melody and rhythm? Uuh aren't those two covered in theory too?

I do not understand you when you say harmony can be easily analysed while the other two can't. Surely, the lack of depth in melody and rhythm in western music make them far more easily analysable.

And you had some guts to tell that jazz pianist to chance his chords. I already imagine you telling him to chance his altered dominant chord into a plain triad. Must have turned his world upside down.

[Derek]

I would challenge the idea that Western music is impaired melodically.

and Jazz still uses tempered scales...and has tremendous melody and rhythm. It seems to me only those with perfect pitch would be bothered by the slight even distribution of dissonance in our tempered system.  It certainly doesn't bother me. It IS true that indian music for example has purer, brighter intervals...but I'd find it hard to say that their melodies are better than western music. Rhythm, definitely. Melody no.

In a certain sense of course its silly to seperate out these concepts in ANY style of music since the effect of all three combined is what makes the music sound the way it does. In the end it boils down to personal preference.

[ted]

That's right, Derek. In the end personal preference is all that matters. I could have saved myself half a dozen posts by saying that in the first place.

Daevren, I was using the example of the jazz pianist to illustrate that preoccupation with arbitrary rules is by no means confined to Western classical music. For interest's sake, my exact comment to him was that it seemed to me all these complicated chords he was using (and I hasten to add I liked his playing very much) might be more easily conceived mentally, for improvisational purposes, as combinations of simpler partitions. e.g. a ninth as a major in the left hand against a minor in another key in the right - you know the sort of thing - Brubeck did it all the time; I think he must have got it from Milhaud.

Oh goodness, the reaction to this innocent conjecture! "Brubeck wasn't a "real" jazz pianist, doing it that way would make everything sound strange - what a terrible thing for me to say !" Soon after that he suggested that it was time I left.

Essentially I'm getting the same reaction here from a different point of view and in a different way. The final arbiter of what I enjoy hearing at the piano is my own ear and my own brain - there are no external absolutes, no rules about it. What other people think of my music doesn't matter a stuff to me - I need accept neither praise nor blame. To me that's a seemingly obvious truth, as was my statement to the jazz pianist.

What's your email size limit ? Is it very low ? I've had two attempts to send you some "wrong" pieces and they've bounced.

[Daevren]

I am not saying western music does not have nice melodies, or less good melodies. I am only explaining the general focus on harmony. Its the thing western music prioritizes.

I am not promoting those parts of theory that conflict your personal preference. Surely alot of people are obsessed by their rules, or conservative about their thing.

For jazz pianists playing insane changes is a game. Jazz is not very easy on non-musicians. There are plenty of people that would argue that 'jazz' non musicians can like isn't real jazz. Of course from the general perspective this is stopid. But it may make it more fun for the jazz pianist.

Also, this is not an argument against theory. You just like something else. You could even use the same theory to support your opinion. Theory doesn't say there is only one good way to do something.

I am not telling you to leave.

I hope I can learn something from your theory teachers apperent mistake. And I emailed you back.

[bernhard]

I must say that I am all the way on Ted’s side on this one.

Although I have a huge interest in musical theory, teach it and insist that my students do analyse their pieces (for a very specific reason that may be not quite what one would expect), and although I agree with many isolated statements by Daevren, his overall conclusion misses a very important point:

The history of music theory is the history of breaking the rules of music theory. One only need to look at Haydn criticising and trying to “improve” on Beethoven’s compositions (and Beethoven’s disgust at it) according to the “rules of theory”, to feel glad indeed that Beethoven didn’t give a toss.

Or Bach’s harmonisations of chorales – which to this day are studies by harmony students – that defy theoretical organisation.

Think about Scarlatti sonatas. Try as you might you will not be able to point one as “typical”. Scarlatti constantly surprises and breaks his own rules (or what we may perceive as “rules”). The fact, is that in many cases (if not in all) most superior composers are not following “rules” or “formulas” even when (e.g. Mozart) they appear to be doing so.

In composition, theory is always an after-thought, never a previous condition. The musical theory that models and explains Mozart’s music did not exist in Mozart’s time. In fact the first theoretical compilation was the treatise by Rameau in the early 1700’s. He figured out some important organisational issues like the fact that a C major triad was still a C major triad even if it was inverted. The marriage to physics would have to wait at least 150 years when Helmholtz published his (then) ground breaking work – most of which is still valid today – “On the sensations of tone”. Before Rameau, theory – if it existed at all – consisted mostly of “tricks of the trade” jealously guarded with secrecy by musician’s guilds. None of this stopped the composers of the time to come up with some of the most sublime music ever written.

Yes, - as Ted said – if you want to compose pieces in the style of a certain composer, the theory relating to that composer (incidentally there is no universal theory that applies to everyone – as there is no single way to analyse a piece of music – Schenkerian analysis is but one out of many possibilities, and many times it will be totally inadequate) will be very helpful, and you better stick to that particular set of rules, otherwise it will not be in “style”. But otherwise, theory can be a two edged tool that may help or hinder you in equal measure.

This is not to say that theory is useless – quite the opposite. For a total beginner, theory will be an enormous time-saving device. But eventually one has to master it  and then let it go. I suspect Ted is in this case: he has a vast experience of these things, they have all been internalised at the unconscious level, he does not need it anymore.

If you think this subject in terms of language, grammar is very important, and yet, grammar does not come before language: it explains language, and as language changes through usage, so must grammar follow suit. One can easily imagine a narrow minded grammarian taking issue with Joyce’s “Finnegan Wake” or Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”.


Best wishes,
Bernhard.