12/06 class

We also had presentations today. The first presentation was on Mozart, his life, the last year of his life and the requiem. The presentations were fairly brief, except for the presentation on the requiem which seemed very well researched and was given completely without notes or powerpoint. I was a little disappointed that the two people that did presentations on the life of Mozart and the last year of Mozart couldn't answer Steve's question about if Salieri killed Mozart. Perhaps they thought it was a trick question!
The next group was the group Mere and I were originally in, that did presentations on opera. The Pagliacci presentation was good, but the best part was watching the finale of the opera. Alexis did a great job on her presentation on La Boheme, she especially connected the audience to the new movie Rent, which I think interested a lot of people in the presentation more. I thought it was particularly impressive when her powerpoint died and she gave her presentation without it. Kristin did her project on Gilbert and Sullivan, particulary Sullivan. I thought it was very interesting to hear about Sullivan's other accomplishments without Gilbert.
We also had two radio shows on minimalism and modernism that were very differently done. The one on minimalism was done much like a NPR broadcast--with the last presenter actually sounding like someone you could hear on NPR!!!--to the modernists more humorous approach. Both were very well done and enjoyable. The Steve Reich was very strange but cool to listen to, and I particularly loved the piece where there were people talking all at once. I could hear individual words, but they were at such a level that it was impossible to hear any complete sentence. it reminded me of being in a large crowd of people, overhearing snippets of conversations. Very interesting, also a little frustrating because I really wanted to hear what they were saying!
We ended the class with evaluations, which I will remind Steve I was kindhearted enough to take ALL the way down the hall to Robin. I assume this will be noted and taken into consideration in computing my final grade. Thank you.

11/29 class

Today we had just presentations, no lecture. Mere and I started off the day with our presentation on Bartok, which I think went quite well. I think we pulled our different papers together into a common thesis quite well, hopefully it came across to the class. We freaked everyone out when we showed them a bit of Bluebeard's Castle, which I don't think they were prepared for.
After us, the group on the Miniature did their presentation. It was divided basically into four presentations, the Concerto, Paris in the 1830's, Chopin and the Waltz, Chopin's relationship with George Sand, Schubert's Winterreise and the "Moonlight Sonata." I thought the presentations on Sand and Chopin and Winterreise were the most interesting. The presentation on Chopin was very well researched and seemed like a neat topic. The girl who gave the presentation had read letters from Chopin to Sand and they enriched her presentation greatly. The presentation on Winterreise was very well explained and had the piece so we could listen to the really engaging piece. I'd like to hear the rest of it sometime. The last presentation on the Moonlight sonata (as we know it's not really called, but it's easier to remember) was an interesting idea, as the presenter tried to show how the piece could be compared to a more modern rock song, or even jazz.
The next presentation we saw was on Gregorian chant, with a very entertaining slideshow. There was a lot of information in this presentation, covering not only the history of Gregorian chant, but the other forms of chant that Gregorian emerged with and beat to more popularity.
The last presentation was a beautiful website designed by Dusty Alligood that not only looked incredibly professional but also had tons of information on it. The presentors couldn't have possibly covered it all, but they did a very engaging presentation that was incredibly well researched and thorough. Very good job by all.

11/22

Today we discussed more modern music, with Steve first discussing the way that intellectual movements and discoveries can be connected, even if it's not direct. Like in the case of Einstein and Stravinaky, I assume they weren't terribly influenced or affected by each others work directly, but because of Einstein's discoveries, the whole world had changed. Coming from this climate, obviously other parts of the world are going to be changed. I think composers directly feed off of how people are thinking at the time and what the social and political climate is. We also talked about WWI and what a major shaping influence it was on music and the culture in general. It was such a break from the previous wars, especially in the way it was fought. Because of the new technology (like mustard gas and such) the world became a much more frightening place. Couple that with Einstein telling you that the world and time are not how you've always perceived them, you have a pretty messed up global climate that will most definitely influence the art being created.
We also talked about how the different "isms" that emerged were really a sign of splintering, as the expressionists looked in the psyche ans scoffed at the impressionists for being "light." I think in a time as tumultuous as I just discussed, you're going to have a lot of new theories about the world, as well as different ways of looking at it, just so people can survive with the new knowledge they've encountered. This is why there were suddenly so many schools of thought regarding music and art.
We then listened to Peirrot Lunaire, who was very different. The music was incredibly atonal and the pitches became less important. Suddenly, the rhythm was at the forefront and what came out was, fankly, a little disturbing. I can definitely see how the new advances in psychology (Freud) and this feeling of a loss of identity in a modern world manifested in this composer's music. It felt lonely, desolate and unsure about the world as his characters search to try to find themselves. Scott Erb talked about in his Comparative politics class how whenever a society changes dramatically in a short period of time, you will have intense feelings of isolation, alienation and a lack of belonging. I think this definitely is a clear indicator of how this can be shown through music. One of the way Lunaire accomplishes this is through sprechstimme, a method of pitch aproximation tha tis truly freaky. I am such a melody person, I love hooks, things that are simple and catchy. I love interesting music too, but this style is just too much for me, and makes me feel nervous because I feel like my ear has nothing to hold onto.
We then listened to Aaron Copeland's Fanfare for the Common Man, which is a lovely piece of music. Steve explained how he used fourths instead of thirds in the harmonies so that the pieces would feel much more open. This explained a lot of Copeland's sound actually, I was surprised how much the chords suddenly sounded like him. He then played us Joan Tower's Fanfare for the Uncommon Woman, which was alright. I thought it was a little too reminiscent of Copeland's, but with a too modern twist. Perhaps it wasn't so much the music as the title that really bothered me. The little shot of feminism--instead of common woman, it's uncommon woman, bugged me a little bit.
Then we heard my favorite piece of the day, Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960). This piece really was incredibly powerful and evocative, I couldn't believe how much it put you in the scene, basically by using silence. I know a lot of people were bored because there wasn't a lot of movement, but that was the most powerful thing about it to me. We just sat there, hearing the dust and debris in the air, as the high strings made the cracking sounds of buildings falling over (sounded also like the sound produced by rubbing the back of your bow on the strings...) and sirens rising in the air. The sirens weren't even close, like perhaps a less talented composer would do, they were distant and seemed impossible to get to. I felt like I was trapped in a building, listening to all these sounds around me, and it was thoroughly disturbing but also so emotional for me. I think this piece was a perfect example of what you can do with modern music that you couldn't do before; create scenes and evoke emotions as powerful and complicated as those, through the music.
Steve asked me to comment on the possibility of impressionist sounds in modern music. I see the lineage of this kind of music in much of the stuff that's being created now. Directly, much of the ambient music of today has that tone-painting feel to it, no hooks or choruses or verses, just music setting a scene. Also, other genres are picking that up and working with it, like recent releases from alt-country band, My Morning Jacket, (particularly Z) which also seem to go nowhere in particular, but it's the journey that matters. Even further, and maybe a little of a stretch, on Spoon's last album Kill the Moonlight (before this year's brilliant Gimme Fiction) there was a song called Stay Don't Go, where there is a repeated ostanatto bass line and everything else on top are little fragments. The guitar licks, the vocals, the piano, the synth-y riffs all seem to fade in and out while the bass continues.

Blog for 11/08

I was absent on 11/08, so I am going to do a replacement blog for the 11/15, which we aren't required to do, because I was there.
In the class from the 15th we tlked about modernism, in its three major forms, Impressionism, experssionism, and Primitivism. While Primitivism and impressionism were the dominant forms in France and Russia (Stravinsky did primitivism IN France, but was Russian), expressionism was mainly from Germany.
Impressionism was the style that really appealed to me, especially the Debussy. His music is just so visible to me. He's more like a painter than a musician to me, every note on the piano is a brushstroke on a canvas. Monet obviously started the impressionistic movement, interestingly enough, like the so-called "Moonlight Sonata," a name that pleased no one in the movement! Monet was considered vulgar and untalented because he wasn't painting things in painstaking detail. At this point, there were obviously few photographs, and it was very complicated. Up until this point, paintings had filled that void and artists would try to capture the exact likeness of their subject. Monet's paintings are extraodinary (especially in person, I loved the ones I saw at the Met museum in NYC) because they have so much more texture and feeling than the painters that came before. Because France was at that point occupied by Germany, Debussy wanted to create a style of music that was completely French. Because the art movement had begun in France, he turned to art for inspiration. I think this is similar to Debussy. I downloaded Voiles, which Kate recommended to the class. I can see why some people wouldn't like him, but compared to the rough and savage sounds of his German (and French) contemporaries, his music makes so much sense to me. I can see that some would not like the unsettled, unfinished quality his music has. The listner feels (particularly in Voiles and Nuages) like they were just dropped into the music at a random point, and they exit at a random point too. The music moves wonderfully (I think), but has no precise movements or sections--definitely has a climax though--and that's why I really like the build. I have to assume Debussy had this in mind because he picked such abstract, hard to feel subjects like clouds and wind. He absolutely accomplishes the sounds of both things that basically have no sound.
We also looked at a Manet painting, which shows a similar lack of care for the structure that came before. In the painting, certain random parts are smudges of grey and don't matter. It's amazing because the first time you look at the painting, you don't really see them, they blend into the whole scene. Debussy seems to capture this feeling by not caring about the little details, more about the whole picture and the feeling that goes along with it. Conversely, in Germany the paintings we were shown were very detailed, and actually kind of scary. They also captured the unease and desolate feeling I think Stravinsky plays with. I don't hate Stravinsky, I just don't enjoy listening to him. A bit like extreme modern art or experimental jazz, I enjoy it but feel a little like I'm left out of the party. I'm not sure I get really get it, but I can enjoy it objectively by looking at how different it is from everything that came before. I don't enjoy the Schoenburg. Kate told me that the piece that was sung doesn't have actual notes, just approximations made by the singer. It made me intensely nervous and edgy and I felt like it was crazy for the sake of beign crazy.
Out of the three, as I sit here and listen to Nuages, I definitely enjoy Debussy. If you blindfolded someone and let them listen to Debussy, I'm sure images would pop into their head and they'd tell you what they see. It might not be the right thing, or the thing he was aiming to describe, but it's still evocative to all the senses, so they would still see something. The Stravinsky and even more the Schoenburg are interesting, but don't show me any images in my mind, and I feel lost.

10/25 and 11/01

10/25 Class:
We discussed the "miniture" style of music of the Romantic Period. These songs (lieder) are meant to be played in small enviroments, like theaters and salons. The pieces often exist just as themselves and are not part of any larger piece with movements. Today we looked at Schubert and Schumann mainly. This kind of music introduced the style of the virtuostic player, the music began to get more and more complicated and was designed to get a certain reaction from the audience. There was an intense interest in exoticism, fantasy, nature and night. The way they achieved these sounds was through a more chromatic approach to music, which means it wasn't so focused around the tonic note and being in the key. Leider also made the piano into much more of a player in the music, not just the accompianment. Especially in Schubert, the piano is often much more complicated than what the singer is singing.
The first piece we listened to was Erlkonig by Schubert. I was very familiar with this piece as my sister and I would often listen to Marian Anderson's version and be completely freaked out. It's one of my favorite pieces of singing music of all time, mainly because I'm just so amazed with the range of emotions and sounds that the singer has to create. I'm also amazed by how Schubert could use the melodies to his advantage and create such frightening sounds. As Steve said in class, it's weird that the most frightening melody in the whole piece, the Erlkonig's, is actually the only one in a major key. It's such a scary piece, and I think the scariest part is the last line that is sung completely without accompianment and not in key at all.
We then moved to Gretchen am Spinnrade, also by Schubert. This is the story of Gretchen, a character from the Goethe's Faust. She's in love with Faust who has sold his soul to the devil. basically, she is spinning at her wheel and thinking about him, and the whole piece reaches a climax when she thinks about kissing him. The piano part creates the spinning sounds as it rolls around and arpeggiates. I love the opening line of this piece because it always seems to come in unexpectantly. The rest of the piece is nice though I like the music so much more when it's in a minor key. The piece floats between minor and majoy throughout, and I lose interest a little bit when it sounds too much like a generic love song (because of the major key). Thankfully, as soon as it gets like this, Schubert goes back to the original minor key melody and repeats the first line about her peace being gone and it becomes all dark again. I've always loved Schubert mainly because of how exciting the piano parts are and how perfect the melodies can be. My suggestion for future sections of this class would be to replace Gretchen with The Trout. I think it would contrast Erlkonig equally, but if you explain the fishing story, I think people could relate with it a little more than Gretchen. That piece has an insane piano part that really does imitate the reeling in of the fish. I have particular fond memories of Ian Bosterich (spelling..) singing it.
We then moved on to Schumann and Du Ring am Mienem Finger, a piece about a woman getting married. It comes from a song cycle that goes through a woman's entire life as reflected through the man she falls in love with and eventually marries. It's a beautiful piece, particularly becaus eof the contrast with the others. The music changes as she gets older, the pieces become slower and more contemplative. This song is pretty much in the middle and I like how it has elements of the wisdom that will come later but also still has the spritely bounciness of her more carefree youth.
Finally, Steve played us a Chopin Ballade in G Minor from 1818. This piece was a little earlier and heavily influenced by the lyricism of Italian opera and Mozart. Chopin wrote almost exclusively for piano, mainly songs that were meant to be played in salons and other small places.
Definitely my favorite section of this week's class was listening to the Schubert pieces. It was a terrible, blustery, snowy day and Steve turned out all the lights when he played Erlkonig and just looking out the windows you could see the wind swirling the leaves around and feel the dark night the boy and his father were riding through. It was a perfect way to experience that song and it made it even more powerful than it is on it's own.

10/18

In class this tuesday we first discussed the different elements of music that are really necessary to know when you're listening and trying to understand the pieces. These included diatonic, chromatic, tonic, cadences (normal and deceptive) and tonality. I've taken music theory classes and also played different instruments for most of my life, so these were things I was already familiar with, but at the same time it was really interesting to be shown the differences so well. The most interesting part for me was the way Steve demonstrated modulation. He would start in one key and just improvise the melody, soon drifting into another key. I think it was a very interesting concept for those who may not be as familiar with music as others are. Then someone asked about changing from major to minor keys which was even more interesting. The idea of relative minors intrigue me, simply because playing a line over one chord (say, a C major chord) and then you can play it over another related minor chord (in this case, A minor) and the tone will be completely different. He also demonstrated on the piano tonics and how the melody wants to go somewhere to just resolve and how sometimes the composer will send you off in another direction (deceptive cadence). The opening chords of Baby I'm Amazed by Paul McCartney come to mind for me.
We then moved on to the Opus 27 No. 2 in C# minor, which most people know as the Moonlight Sonata. The funny part about this (which I wasn't aware of until that class) was that Mozart never intended for it to be called that, it was just the publisher inserting his own feelings into the piece ("Ooooh I hear...moonlight") I guess it stuck, but Beethoven never intended it to be called that. I learned my lesson, let me tell you.
The first piece is gorgeous, obviously, and Steve showed us the concept of rubato ("to steal" in this case, time). It's the idea that the artist has some freedom within the piece to change the dynamics and the tempo slightly. Obviously the artist can't go nuts with this, but it's definitely an important concept in making a piece your own. The first movement is indicative of this idea, and Steve played it wonderfully. The second movement is a minuet and a lot different from the first. it seems that when beethoven worked in movements they would all be very diverse sounding, and would create a range if different emotional reactions. The third movement was a huge storm and it really captured that well. It was interesting to see how Beethoven really created the virtuoso player, this piece was incredibly difficult with constantly moving left and right hands. It was a very show-off piece, but at the same time, it created the sound of the storm and was very moving too.
During the seminar section we listened to the Violin Sonata No. 9 in A major played by Ann Sophia Mutter and I downloaded the piece played by Artur Rubenstein, which is gorgeous. The melody is transferred from the violin to the piano and I love the way the violin suddenly hooks into rhythm playing. I also love the little melody that the piano and the violin pass back and forth that break up the sections. It's beautiful melodically, it's a very major-key positive melody, that seems to threaten to go minor but then resolves major again. There are little moments that are quieter and minor, but it seems like a very triumphant piece of music. I especially like the end of the piece, it ends exactly when it seems like it can't go on anymore and finishes with a big, string-grinding end. Between his sonatas and the symphonies, I definitely prefer his sonatas, they seem to cover such a huge range of emotion and dynamics. He seemed to play with the different sections using the breaks between and the different parts to create a more thorough and imaginative message for the listener to get from the pieces.

10/11

On tuesday's class we discussed the French revolution and its aftermath, particularly the Reign of Terror. We also discussed the changing importance of music from Mozart to Beethoven's time. We watched a scene from Amadeus where Mozart was basically a servant to the Duke, and all that changed by the time of Beethoven, who really wanted to make the artists the most important part. Then we discussed the rise of Napoleon and his conquering of much of Europe for France. At first Beethoven loved him, naming a symphony after him. When Napoleon decides to crown himself Emperor, Beethoven is disgusted and renamed it, which I think is hilarious.
Beethoven had wanted to study with Mozart, but after he arrived found out he had just died. He ends up going much further musically and politically than Mozart. He breaks from the symphony structure that had been standard (fast, slow, moderate, fast/very fast). We listened to the Fifth Symphony in class and I am currently listening to the first movement right now. It's so different because of the repeated rythmic pattern (da-da-da-Duuuh) through so many different instruments, parts and kind of, mini-themes. They may be melodically different, but so much of it is based around this same element, it really keeps you in the song. My mind keeps saying, "oh! There's that rhythm again..." It's interesting to actually listen to it, since it is such a familiar piece of music that most of us grow up with. It's incredibly serious and ominous sounding. There are moments of gentleness and sections of incredibly victorious sections, and it seems almost without form, but in a good way. He knows precisely when the listener wants to hear a theme again, when we've gone enough time without it.
I also downloaded the first movement of the 6th Symphony, which is the Allegro section. It is ridiculously chipper, with oboe solos (Beethoven obviously liked the oboe) and quick stirng movement. It sounds very regal to me, like a King taking his dogs and going for a horseback ride in the woods. Very organic. It's funny because I did picture myself outside, maybe by a pond or in the middle of the woods, so when I read the program notes and the author discusses how it was part of the Romantic "getting back" to nature, I wasn't all surprised. Even though it says Beethoven viewed himself more as a poet than a painter, I honestly can see the setting completely in my mind. As the piece speeds up at the end, it reminded me of perhaps being on horseback or running through the woods and feeling the air and wind rushing in your ears, and then stopping again around 4:47 to view the beauty of the natural enviroment.
There is no doubt that both of these piece are exciting, they are just exciting in extremely different ways. They both command the listener's attention, but they get it differently. I feel very compelled to listen to the Fifth Symphony, because it drags you along because a sort of blood-lust: it seems like it could be bad, yet you're dying to know where he's going. Kind of like in a movie where the characters see a dark place and you just know there's something nasty in there, yet they just have to go in and check it out for themselves. The Sixth for me was very much the opposite, I went along willingly, feeling like I was being taken on a ride or a tour. The pieces made a lot of sense, but I think it is a characteristic of Beethoven to not really go in the direction you think he will. Like later in the Fifth Symphony, when the third movement Suddenly becomes the fourth and then the fourth Suddenly becomes the third again. I don't think his mind worked in the very set and decided way everyone else's had become up until that point. His music still makes an incredible amount of sense, but I can imagine how shocking it must've been at the time. The phrases are so long (especially in the question and answer section around 3:50 in the Sixth) you really have to wait a long while for closure, compared to the quick question and resolution of Mozart. Like the Fifth however, the Sixth also relies heavily on rhythm, and throughout the movements I listened to there were numerous rhythmic themes. It's such driving, interesting music, I love listening to it. Even when it's serious and ominous like the Fifth, I still feel compelled to listen because I know there will be some amazing twists and turns along the way to a gorgeous and perfect finale.

09/27

Last class we discussed more about the classical period and actually all the musical periods. It was very interesting to talk about what defines a period in music. It's not only the style of the music, but also the role it plays in society at that time. We think of music as something we listen to in our spare time, or for the lucky few, a profession, but it has meant very different things to people at different times. In early music it was made to carry news between towns and such, and then it became a vehicle for worship of God. It's many centuries until the artists creating the music and the composers writing it actually recieve the kudos they deserve. We discussed the historical context of the Classical Period, which came after the enlightenment took place in Europe. Musically, the music of this period was very rational and pleasing to the senses. The music was not supposed to shoick or disturb the listener; it could make them sad or pleased, or any other emotion, but should still be pleasant to listen to. We also talked about how many of the characteristics of this music were all about contrast, especially in the dynamics and rhythm.
Kate then sang for us. Cherubino is one of my favorite operatic characters for a variety of reasons. I love the childish, excited quality of his music, like he's always rushing forward to the next thing, and I think the possibilites for acting can be hilarious. Non So Pui is different from many other Mozart arias because of the way the singer seems to jump into the song. Instead of having the usual pretty buildup of the intro (like in Porgi Amore) for example, the orchestra seems to burst forth with their beginning and the singer joins almost immediately. I love the effect of this, which is another adolescent quality of being unable to wait for anything. I'm listening to Fiorenza Cossotto's version, and although her voice is pretty manly, the feminine qualities make it sound quite adolescent. I'm not quite as fond of the slower/higher part of the aria because she makes it a little shrill, but her high notes in the rest of the piece (the quicker ones) ring likes bells.
We also were able to hear the Mozart Piano Sonata in C Major K. 330, both the first movement and a bit of the second. I have also downloaded the second movement, which I think I actually like better. It is the andante section, so it is much slower than the first. The mood is much more contemplative and relaxed as the notes seem--as they often do with Mozart--to just fall into the right place. Every so often there is a seventh which to me just screams Mozart, but all the phrases complete themselves perfectly and there are no stray notes. I really find myself getting interested in the piece (and not coincidentally, the first time I listened was where my ears perked up) when it suddenly turns minor at 2:25. Even though it doesn't last, it hints at something a little more dark, and then resolves much the same way as the other sections. The interesting part is when it comes back and seems a little more insistant, but finishes a little more quietly. Then it slowly builds back up to a sort of climax at 3:40, but then tapers off a bit. I love the moments of tension within this relaxing, calm piece. The minor theme comes back, and leads right into a rephrasing of the original theme. It's perfect, and I'm just amazed at the way Mozart carries the listener along.
I enjoyed the first movement I heard in class so much that I downloaded it for my other choice. I love how the song starts right out in the action and the melody is so strong. The left hand is there and prominent, but the melody just forces itself into your ears and asks to be listened to. I love how almost off-time the melody turns at 1:25, it makes me think that the pianist has lost control of the melody and it's running away with the rhythm, but then the pianist catched up. There's also a moment at 2:26 (around) where there is a subtle little ornamentation of the melody that just works so perfectly. There's a fear that somehow music this pleasant is in some way simple, but just istening to the interplay between the two hands on the piano and the different segments of this piece prove that is quite incorrect. Mozart never ceases to amaze me.