Music theory is an often-puzzling topic for me as I suspect it is for many composers. I am reminded of a Shostakovich anecdote. He was sitting down to breakfast with a friend and commented that the cook making the eggs in the kitchen was like a musicologist (or music theorist) in that he worked with the eggs and prepared them to eat, but it is we that actually enjoy them. Some composers also have a significant role as theorists and Schoenberg comes first to mind. But most composers, when they speak of theory at all, do so rather cryptically. For them it is what Glenn Gould once called a "centipedal" question. The centipede was standing by the road one day when someone came along and said "I have often wondered, since you have so very many legs, which one do you actually start with when you walk?" This question was so troubling for the centipede that he didn't know how to answer it and thinking about it he froze by the side of the road, unable to move.
Music theory comes in many varieties: the kind of Roman numeral harmonic analysis we learn in first year theory, but also the kind of rudimentary counterpoint one learns using the "species" method. Then there is structural analysis or form functional analysis. There is also the kind of specialized analysis that is associated with the identifying of rows in serial music. Schenkerian analysis has become very popular as have some varieties of what is called "psychological" analysis. Analysis depends on some kind of underlying theory. For example, the Roman numeral harmonic analysis depends on a highly developed method of labeling chords according to their role in harmonic progressions and according to their inversion. The theory of chord inversion originates with Jean-Philippe Rameau in his treatise of 1722. It is elaborated by the harmonic practice of J. S. Bach in his chorale harmonizations and has been refined over the centuries since.
Modern compositions such as the Rite of Spring by Stravinsky which is based on the use of Russian folksong and the octatonic scale did not receive a real theoretical explanation, or partial explanation at least!, until the 1960s. In general the practices of composers like Haydn and Mozart were only partially understood for a long time. Rules of thumb under the term: "sonata-allegro form" were applied, but the truth is that for every so-called theoretical "rule" there were more exceptions than anything else. I think that we are still struggling a bit with some pieces by Beethoven and Chopin.
At the end of the day, music theory, while certainly useful and interesting, is of only modest value to the ordinary listener and not much more to the composer. I can safely say that while I have read a great deal of what Schoenberg has to say about composition, I don't find that it has the slightest influence on what I write.
What you do as a composer when you sit down to write something is look for inspiration--but no, it doesn't actually work that way. What you do is wait and hope for something to come along, some idea that will give you an opening. It can come from any source, but for me it often comes from imagining some kind of musical idea. Once one comes along that seems promising I start writing. It is not an intellectual process however. I just write stuff and if it seems the right stuff I keep it, but often it is not right and I throw it away. Schoenberg once said to a student, pointing to the eraser end of a pencil that this end was more important than the other end, that you write with. I often sketch on paper because music software can be so limiting.
When I am writing I stumble across things that I really like and I try to figure out what make that particular combination of notes so pleasing so I can do it again or develop it in some way. This is a kind of theorizing I suppose, but the difference with conventional music theory is that this is very local and specific while music theory in general tries to be general and universal.
Ok, let's listen to something. This is the Missa Salve Regina by Tomas Luis de Victoria.
No comments:
Post a Comment