I especially liked the first analogy to a lens coming into focus, just as true performance comes into focus as intonation becomes exact. I was hoping that this article wouldn't solely focus on the micro-level of intonation, and I was pleased.
Being the theory-minded student that I am, I first was hooked by Johnston's musical "time-scales": Macro-time, normal-time, micro-time. This sparked the thought in my mind: how could this potentially relate to Heinrich Schenker's method of analysis? A major tenant of Schenker's theory is the evidence of appropriate Background, middle-ground and foreground. As Johnston describes, these musical levels in both theories are similar in terms of organized pitches, a second layer of rhythmic ideas and a final layer of small nuances.
Second, Johnston gives an example meant to demonstrate the significance of tonality by describing the drone in traditional Indian music. He connects it to Western music by saying "The tonic in Western music is our nearest equivalent to the drone, but it is not overtly and constantly present, so its function in bringing meaning to all other tonal events is mediated by the network of tonal relationships that make up the fabric of the music, and the tonic serves a s both a point of departure (home) and also as a goal, even if not achieved" I see this as applied to Schenkerian theory as the emphasis on the outermost "form" of music, and how music doesn't ever fully modulate or stray from the tonic (in traditional Western music). The tonic is persistent throughout a Schenker analysis, even if not always present or consistent.
A final similarity is the difference between patters, sequences and repetitions. Johnston notes that a sequence "travels", what Schenker would describe as "Zug" (e.g. quart-zug, 4th sequence)whereas a repetition is static. Schenker did not 'overanalyze' repetitions and take them for significant changes when they are truly static. He did however, acknowledge the importance of sequences, Zug, to allow composition to get from one place to another, still all within the realm of tonic.
A caveat of this comparison is that Schenker's theory was not meant to be applied to contemporary or atonal music by any means (A little elitist I might say, but those were the times!) Yet Johnston begins to apply his theories of 3 levels of music, (just) intonation and tonality to other pieces in contemporary or Avant Garde repertoire. He mentions Harry Partch, who devised his own almost-orchestra full of
uniquely tuned instruments. The other caveat I take with the obsession over intonation: will these systems ever take? I find it impossible to believe that someday an ensemble will undertake the choice to decipher Partch's notation (despite the program notes he gives), reinvent the instruments, and perform or record his music? Don't get me wrong, the guy was inventive, cutting-edge and unique, but I have no real intention of creating a Eucal Blossom to perform Avant Garde music on. For a complete list of instruments, if you're feeling particularly ambitious and enjoy working with your hands, check out Harry's fun little orchestra
No comments:
Post a Comment