Showing posts with label reductive analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reductive analysis. Show all posts

8/27/10

Premise Falls Short, 7 Dead, 11 Injured

One of our favorite strategies, here at the DR, is to follow an opening premise to its end, to see if it actually pans out. In most cases, no, it doesn’t. And that’s what makes it funny.

So, in the spirit of tradition, let’s do just that, but abbreviated.

It’s tempting to call Vladimir Feltsman a madman.

Oh my gosh! An opening premise that presumably won’t pan out! Please, please, please tell us—so we can laugh at you—why is it tempting to call him a madman?

It’s crazy what he can do at the piano.

Oh. (sigh)

That’s what most of us would call virtuosic; but, then again, who are we to kiss the Oxford English Dictionary's ass? (And, by the way, screw you Webster! Stop calling.)

You expect the whole thing is going to come apart at the seams, that the elements holding the structure of the piece together are simply going to break apart, like a bridge compromised by a gale force wind.

If by “gale force” you mean Vladimir and by “bridge” you mean music, then no. You’re doing similes wrong, my friend. Bridges blown apart by gale force winds are poorly designed, which is not what you’re saying. Are you saying Chopin sucks. Are you? Didn’t think so.


Figure 1: The original orchestration of the First Piano Concerto 

For an encore, Feltsman offered the ever-popular Chopin Waltz in C-sharp Minor. As he finished the final run at the very top of the keyboard his hand kept going and he seemed to wave goodbye to the audience.

Cute.

Then he smiled – like a madman.

Get it? Because he smiled like a madman, thus ending another awesome DR deconstruction, er, destruction.
-

6/18/10

Friday Quickie: Cop-out Edition

One thing that is certain in the world of print media criticism: space is limited, which makes the art of description difficult. However, in a nine-hundred-word review, it shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

It’s good to be back
Pablo Bardin
Buenos Aires Herald

It’s really a good and long review, except for one part.

[Composer Unsuk Chin] is a disciple of Ligeti and it shows;


I’ll bite. How does her music embody the distinctive qualities of the late master?

…her music is sensitive and transparent, and it was conducted with virtuoso ability by [Shi-Yeon Sung]. [it. mine]

You could never reduce anyone else’s music to such precision.

Figure Google Search. “Sensitive and transparent stereo expansion control”

2/25/08

Music Theorist of the...Week?

Today's Music Theorist of the...Week? is Heinrich Schenker.

(1868-1935)

Schenker developed a reductive form of linear analysis of tonal music that aims to show the structural basis of tonality.

Think of it as a line graph that shows the organization of a painting. Or, if you prefer, think of it as a plot synopsis of a play or movie that shows the important structural events.

The basic idea is that the background of tonal "masterworks" are all structured about simple voice-leading principles. An hour-long Beethoven symphony, to Schenker, has the same principles of design as a Schubert song. This both makes sense and is confusing.

Many of Schenker's students fled Europe in face of Nazi invasions. They all landed in New York or New England, and got jobs all over the place, and thusly his ideas have been disseminated throughout the American music theory landscape. (No one in Europe studies Schenker.)

His ideas are profound and important. I have been forced to study them on more than one occasion. When you do, you make lots of graphs that look like this:

This is very confusing to the uninitiated. Sorry!

His theories are cool. And esoteric, which is also cool. He is also problematic in many ways. He refused to acknowledge music that was before Bach and after Brahms as "music". He was a bigot. He had many hard-to-deal-with ideas.

In the end, his structural ideas about tonal music are compelling. The graphs are fun to make, and to look at! And hard to understand. Here is a picture of Mr. Schenker that is not fun to look at.


You should not listen to his music! However, if you are interested in nerdy, esoteric music theory, you should check out his theory and graphs. They are totally fun to look at.

(All of the graphs get bigger if you click on them!)
-