Dear Folks,
I guess most of you do want read my thoughts on the subject after
all. So here's what I sent to Ken:
=====================================================
Dear Ken,
You asked for a few thoughts. OK.
You wrote:
I have had several arguments with my Professor because I have never seen
a convincing statement from an analyst specifying what s/he thought was
the nature of the subject matter. My main candidates are:
1) The way the composer thought, or might have thought about the
work;
Certainly the composer's thoughts and intentions are of utmost
importance to performers and listeners - when we have them. Composers
are not always forthcoming when it comes to communicating their own
thoughts about their work. Sometimes they lack skill in communicating
these thoughts, and sometimes they are not completely honest if they
do. When we consider what the composer "might have thought,"
we are treading on shaky ground, albeit interesting for
discussion.
All the various techniques of analysis try in their own way to
communicate musical structure. I think they can be useful to
performers and listeners as well as student composers. The trouble is
that many (if not all) tend to be dogmatic, especially Schenker.
Schachter and later scholars have expanded and tempered his
pronouncements. At our own university there is plenty of discussion in
the Schenker Analysis classes, and students come away with what is
worthwhile rather than becoming card-carrying ideologues.
2) The way a listener thinks, or might think about the work;
This is certainly important, but one needs to understand where
these thoughts come from. Often they come from ignorance or lack of
listening experience. When listeners are guided in their listening by
the composer or by a competent musician (performer, scholar, teacher),
their perception of the work can be enhanced greatly. As a composer I
like to provide notes for the audience to give them a frame for their
listening. It always seems to enhance their appreciation of my work.
During our annual Oregon Bach Festival one of the ongoing events is
the series of talks that Helmuth Rilling gives concerning the work
that is about to be performed - usually a Bach cantata. He certainly
doesn't put up diagrams on a screen, but he can give insights as to
the way the piece is put together.
3) The way a performer should think (some performers do Schenkerian
analyses before they perform);
Anything that can help a performer to understand how a work has
been constructed, what it was meant to convey, what the composer
thought about it - these are worthwhile, even if they take the form of
graphic analyses, as long as the performer acknowledges that the
analyses are not necessarily the whole truth. The performer's own
emotional reaction to the work is also important, and his or her own
analytical thoughts about the piece are important. Except for
electronic music, a piece of music is not a work of art until a
composer creates it, a performer communicates it, and a listener hears
it. All three have an important part in the life of the work.
4) Marks on paper (in which case the process is pointless).
As you can see by the above, I do not agree with this statement.
If the marks convey some of the truth about a work, they are
worthwhile. It's important that a teacher is able to convey the
meaning of the marks without misleading the student.
I have to go. A student is about to rimg my doorbell.
Warmest regards,
Hal
--
--
Harold Owen
2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my web site at:
http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen
FAX: (509) 461-3608
2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my web site at:
http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen
FAX: (509) 461-3608
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
