The Art of Hearing True

The Art of Hearing True

All too often in music we spend too much time and effort on analyzing the “theme”—whether this theme takes shape in a repeating motivic figure or in a transmorphic Leitmotiv—which takes us further and further away from understanding the true nature of what makes a masterpiece. This is not to say that the study of themes is not crucial in the synthesis of the musical allegory composers paint upon the page; but, just like the study of visual art, if you only look at the shallowness of the ostensibly apparent figures you may overlook (or rather, underlook) the details that rebuke a certain schema, and instead facilitate an accurate grasp of the general truths. These details that come together to make a piece an organic work of art are much deeper than the mere mapping of themes in a piece of music. No musical philosopher understood this better than Heinrich Schenker. As an ode to his endeavor to “fix the ears” of the populace who not only wish to listen to music, but of whom also strive to glean the shimmer of genius great composers like Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven graced humankind with, this essay attempts to extoll the logic behind the grace and elegance of the second movement of Mozart’s Piano Sonata in f minor, K 280. In order to accomplish this goal, I shall utilize the background, middleground, and foreground ursatz analysis, as well as utilizing the foundational principles of Schenkerian theory,  in order to illustrate a truer way to listen to this piece.

We can surmise that the urlinie line starts on the due to several reasons. The fact that the C starts out the piece and is then reiterated by an upper neighbour tone helps support this reasoning. Also, the C appears once again in m.3 for the duration of the entire measure. After the ^1 in m. 2 there is a clearly explicit fourth zug going down to the , which can be used as an argument for the tonic to be the first note of the urlinie line; however, an argument against this reasoning is that the bass note underneath this is a ♭B, with an inner voice having a G, which causes the F in the upper line to be heard as the seventh of chord in first inversion, both of which are not ideal situations for the opening structural basis of the movement because the addition of both of these factors make the F hover precariously in the air, doomed to fall back down, which of course it does, back to the . Now it is possible to interpret the F in m. 2 to be a passing motion of a fourth zug, whilst the C in m.1 against the tonic as the stufen makes a strong entrance and establishment for the ursatz. Of course, once we look at fig. a) in my graph, we can see that the plays an important structural role in the piece as a whole when looking at the background analysis. The overall structure of the urlinie line in the ursatz moves from the to the ^1 through stepwise motion, cementing the as the first note of the urlinie in the Sonata.

This first step plays a vital role in our analysis. By establishing the as the first note in the urlinie and eliminating the tonic, we can garnish a truer sense of the motion the piece makes as a whole. As we can see in fig. a, the piece makes a stepwise descent from ^5, to ^4, to ^3, to ^2 at the end of the development section. From here, we have an interruption of the urlinie line. The line should continue to ^1; however, the descent is interrupted and starts over again at ^5 in the recapitulation in m. 37. We then make our descent throughout the recapitulation through a similar line, this time reaching a conclusion at m.60 with a move from V to I, giving our ears a resolution. This way of hearing the piece gives us a truer sense of the tension throughout the piece. From mm. 1-36 we have made our way from the tonic to the dominant through an arpeggiated motion, and now we are ready to hear the tonic. We hear the tonic in m. 38; however, this tonic does not have the solid final cadential motion we crave. This immediately previous sentence illustrates this same effect in literature—the whole thought of “We hear the tonic in m. 38” is tagged on by the rest of the sentence by the simple use of a semi-colon. Just that one thought followed by a period would have been sufficient in ending the thought, but the addition forced us to continue on with the thought until we reached an actual finality of the resolution of the  period. This is what Mozart has done in his Piano Sonata. We almost finished the musical thought, but we instead continued it from the start, and now we have to continue “grammatically” (a.k.a the ^5 -^1 urlinie line) until we reach a final conclusion of the thought.

Seeing how this piece is written in the Sonata form, looking at the different layers of ursatz we can see how the piece connects much more intimately from section to section that merely looking at the “Sonata Structure” leaves out. As already mentioned, the fifth zug progression of the urlinie line as seen in the background (fig. a) provides us with a way to understand how the different sections interact to create a cohesive piece. Popular musical analysis (i.e. what the Columbia Music program teaches in the music theory requirement) would relate the cohesiveness of the Sonata through the repetition of the musical figure show in the first three beats of the piece, relying on the pitch class (of them being an upper neighbour tone) and rhythm (the use of the dotted eighth note followed by the sixteenth note and eighth note) to show that this theme is repeated throughout the piece as written, as well as in transposition. We can see this repeated in mm. 1-8, mm. 22-23 (as would be interpreted as way the listener is harkened to remember the first theme once again right before the development section takes this motive and expounds on it), m. 25, mm. 33-41 (with the theme interpreted as a way to make a smooth transition into the recapitulation), mm. 58-59 (closing the piece symmetrically with the theme ending the movement). A similar technique is used with the texture of the second theme, with the interpretation of the added utilization of the texture in the development section of mm. 29-32, ergo tying together the two themes and showing a way they can be combined. Of course, this texture is used once again in the recapitulation, with the change of being in the tonic key, which is supposed to represent the dialogue of the two sections with the texture-theme being heard as “resolved” (i.e. in the tonic key) as well as for symmetric reasons. However, as Schenker has written about the Sonata form, this reading is very shallow and does not show how the larger structural composition of the piece has a strong foundation which allows for further levels of embellishment to be built upon it that will not crumble when piled upon one another. In fact, this reading fails to input the logical progression of the stufen which creates our strong foundation of the piece.

An excellent example of this can be seen when looking more closely at the ursatz during the second theme. In the larger structural context, we can see how the tonic section of the first theme arpeggiates to the dominant development section, with an intermediary to the +III, as represented by the modulated second theme to A♭ Major.  This shows how the stufen is strongly structured in the very familiar sound of arpeggiation on the background structure. Having this very familiar context for our ears, the modulation section to the relative mode (A♭ major) is not jarring at all, despite entering the piece only nine measures into the Sonata. Furthermore, a Schenkerian approach to the analysis of this piece reveals to us that the choice for this modulation is much more significant than it being merely in the relative mode. Besides the arpeggiated lower line supporting this modulation, the overall urlinie movement from the to the ^1 is possible due to this modulation, providing us with ^3 note in the urlinie line of the whole piece. It is also very Schenkerian to stress the role the ^3 has in the overall structure of a piece. The ^3 allows for an extended prolongation of overall stufen movement, and is often settled on for vast amounts of time because it creates tension for our ears, making the eventual cadential motion of V - I (with the ^2 -^1 in the urlinie line) much more fulfilling with a strong sense of resolution. Of course, as previously mentioned, in our piece this sense of tension is even further emphasized by the interruption of the urlinie line, which makes the real conclusion/resolution even more fulfilling for the listener, a mighty feat for such a small piece.

Analysis of this piece with the aid of its Ursatz also brings to light how the urlinie line can show us details that can be hard to hear when you are only listening to the piece moment to moment (which Schenker is against if one wishes to hear the true nature of the piece). Moving from the background layer to the foreground, we can see how between the ^3 of the dominant stufen and the ^1 of the final tonic resolution at m. 60, there lies a descent from the G♭ of m. 25 to the D♮ of m. 32 (with this being heard as the V/V of the upcoming stufen note of C). Although this descent is interrupted by the dominant motion at m. 33, it continues again at m. 37, ergo tying together the development section and recapitulation section. This connection allows the listener to feel greater cohesion emanating from the piece as the descent of the urlinie line in foreground gives our ears markers to hear a continuity as the urlinie line of the foreground shows a greater movement to the end tonic. It is here that we gain much insight into how Schenker’s theory allows for structural cohesion markers beyond straining to hear the background movement. This hearing of the piece would be lost without the help of Schenker’s ears.

With the help of Schenker, I am able now to hear the overarching movement throughout the piece. This listening deepens my conceptual understanding of the piece, which goes way beyond the shallow tying together of the piece via theme repetition. I can now better hear the movement of piece, and I can now better hear the implicit tension the piece imparts on the listener. It is now with great happiness that I trudge forward in my comprehension of the study of music; it is now that I am beginning to hear music anew, hear music true.

KILL THE SAVAGE SAVE THE MAN

KILL THE SAVAGE, SAVE THE MAN

Ferguson Nez

History of Western Music: The Quiver of the Native American Opera

10 May 2014

During the 19th century the United States of America was trying to establish a national sound. This endeavor proved easier said than done. Due to the fact that in order to be considered a serious composer one was obligated to go to Europe and study music, the sound of American composers remained in the tradition of Western-Europe. It was not until the end of the 19th century that American composers started thinking critically about America’s “native” musics—those of Native American (Indian) descent and African American (Negro) descent. However, due to high racism and musical elitism of that time, many critics deemed this music unbefitting of a concert hall. It is the former of these two music genres that is of particular interest due to the fact that it failed in its plight to achieve national adoption in the American music cannon (as opposed to jazz music that has strong African American roots as well as other musical genres that claim jazz roots). The Native American genre as a national sound failed due to the opposing viewpoints, not having a common cultural history, as well as the Native American music’s lack of commonality with Western music— as in the areas of harmonization, rhythm and lyrics, differences in production, as well as having problems with authenticity in it truly being in the Native American style, all areas in which can be found in The Sun Dance Opera by Zitkala-Sa and William Hanson.

Gene Krupa and Leonard Bernstein make a poignant reasoning into why Native American music failed to empathize with the American majority, or rather, why the American majority failed to empathize with Native American music. It did not fail due to lack of participation in the engineering of a national sound based on Native American music, “[a]fter all, it was large, it was active, it was earnest, it was sincere.” Krupa and Bernsteins’ argument for the ultimate failure of this genre of music is that “[a] national music is national in direct proportion to how close to its home audiences feel. And when such an audience was presented with an Indian lament, they could think it all very pretty and touching, but it wasn’t their music. The fact remained that they were not Indians, any more than we are today.” It is therewithin that a basic, yet crucial, categorical imperative is proclaimed: We (from the American-emigres majority perspective) are not You. This point is simple and succinct. These two cultures do not share a common deep-rooted history nor are their cultural goals in align with one another. In fact, their cultural goals can easily be described as completely opposed to one another—whilst the Americans were trying to create a new, uniquely-American culture, the multitudes of Native American tribes were trying to preserve their own cultures (the extent to which they were successful can be implicitly seen in the fact that they themselves oft categorize their identity of their tribe under the umbrella term of “Native American,” which did not exist pre-European contact). Furthermore, this intrinsic “othering” of the Native Americans by the American people can be viewed as necessary in order for an ease of conscious during this time when ideas of “Manifest Destiny” was considered just and pertinent in the American identity. As much as America might like to consider itself a “melting pot” of cultures, the truth is that some cultures melt better than others.

In order to further understand just how different these two groups of people are, we can look at the writings of Zitkala-Sa on her experience of the common Native American growing up through the 19th century in the boarding system (which remained a common experience for many Native Americans through to the end of the 20th century). Zitkala-Sa writes about her first day experience in a boarding school classroom, legions away from her home:

I sank deep into the corner of my seat, for I resented being watched. Directly in front of me, children who were no larger than I hung themselves upon the back of their seats, with their bold white faces toward me. Sometimes they took their forefingers out of their mouth and pointed at my moccasined feet. Their mothers, instead of reproving such rude curiosity, looked closely at me, and attracted their children’s further notice to my blanket. This embarrassed me, and kept me constantly on the verge of tears.

Here we can clearly see how jarring the two cultures react to one another when they are actually interacting for the first time. The Native Americans seem to be a novelty for the white man to look at and immediately gawk at. This young girl at the age of eight is thrown into a new world far away from her mother and family, which would be frightening for any young child. Instead of trying to welcome the frightened newcomers, the adults instead join in on the gawking of the young children even though it is almost certain they have seen many other Native American children arrive at the boarding school (Zitkala-Sa mentions beforehand that her older brother went to the boarding school before her). However, due to the fact that it is the Native American who is thrown into the world of the “Paleface,” the majority of Americans never experience any Native American culture to the extent they can empathize with the plight of the Native American. For the Native American, living through a very “white” experience which can be very jarring.

Although the experience that Zitkala-Sa has at the boarding school is common for many Native Americans, what is uncommon—and what is relevant specifically to the study of music history—is what happens later in her life. After enduring the boarding school system, she returns to the academic world to pursue a college education at Earlham College and further musical education at the Boston Conservatory of Music.Using this education, she writes several articles for Harpers Bazaar and other Journals about her experiences as a Native American woman. Once she gets married to a United States army lieutenant, she is forced to move to Utah for an extended stay due to her husband being stationed there. It is in Utah where she meets William Hanson, a music teacher and composer at Brigham Young University. Shared in their love for music, they decide to collaborate for a musical work. They decide to write an opera, and together they decide to write an opera about the Sun Dance (entitled The Sun Dance Opera), a self-mutilation ritual for many Plains Indians (of which Zitkala-Sa is one of). In writing this opera, they both decide to incorporate song melodies from Zitkala-Sa’s Sioux heritage directly into the melodies of the opera. In addition to the translation of Native American melodies into this Western style, various chants from the real Sun Dance ceremony was added as interludes between the main singers, as sung by a chorus. The chorus was composed of all Native Americans, so they added an authentic element to the opera. The lead singers were white people due to the lack of trained Native American singers in the Utah region. This opera was well received in Utah, where it was first performed. However, once it was entitled Opera of the Year by the New York Opera Guild in 1938 and production was set up on Broadway in New York City for a wider audience, finding an all Native American chorus group deemed difficult, and the production crew decided that instead they would hire Native Americans as the leads for authenticity allowing for an all white chorus. It is in this process that a “high art” is made using the experiences and music of what, a the time, was considered an uncivilized, or “low,” culture. It is in this fact that makes this piece a prime example of an attempt for Native American music to become a national sound for America.

However, The Sun Dance Opera failed to achieve critical acclaim by music critics in New York City. One reason for its failing to gain critical acclaim once in New York city is due to the fact that the Sioux melodies did not translate into interesting melodies once harmonized in the Western tradition (i.e. tonic to sub-dominant to dominant to tonic, etc). Since many Native American songs are in a pseudo-chant style, sans any harmonic undertone, once harmonized the music fell flat to the audience whose ears were accustomed to the Western style of music. When mixing two very different musical genres, especially in this case of trying to make atonal music tonal, the end result can be less than stellar if you try to fit everything by the book into the new style. Because tonal music relies very heavily on the triad as an intrinsic music idea, the repetitious melody hitting the same note multiple times can sound awfully dull if the music harmony is not progressing at a decent enough interval. It is this reason that the chant-like Sioux songs failed to create interesting melodies in the tonal vernacular that relies heavily on arpeggios a musical function.

Another reason The Sun Dance Opera failed to achieve critical acclaim is because that Native American music is often out of the realm of a metered rhythm, as well as utilizing vocables often instead of set lyrics.The singer is free to vary the rhythm as he or she sees fit, allowing for a more emotional evocation of the song in its intended purpose (for example, showing the emotional changes in a story and allowing for a more story-like interpretation of the text, or to create a more austere setting when saying a prayer to the Great Spirit). The utilization of the vocables in a song incorporates the pure idea of music without words in a way that transcends words. However, due to the fact the composers were trying to fit the Native American melodies neatly into the Opera form, once words are added, the Native American melody loses the opportunity to convey a music idea through the pure loss of words that the repetition of vocables allows for.

In terms of the production of The Sun Dance Opera, the Utah and New York showings differ in one significant way. The people who played the lead roles in the Utah shows were trained singers from the area, and due to the lack of trained Native American singers in the area, they were white. However, the chorus parts were played by Native Americans in the area. In the New York shows, the roles were reversed, with trained Native American singers in the New York area singing the leading roles and with the chorus being composed of white people. Because the chorus parts were actual chants from the Sun Dance ceremony, the New York shows lacked the authenticity, and thereby the power that made The Sun Dance Opera a success in Utah and eventually being named Opera of the Year by the New York Opera Guild. This lack of authenticity for the most Native American part of the opera could easily be seen as a tremendous loss for the overall effect of the opera. Because white people who are trained in singing can sing the Native American influenced melodies that have been written into the vernacular of opera easily, the melodies of the lead opera singers did not lose an of its power and effect on the audience. However, since the white chorus lacked a Native American cultural background that is required for a meaning performance of the chanting of the chorus part of the opera that has deep roots in the specific ceremony of the opera, these crucial parts of the opera lacked power in the New York performances which ultimately led to less favorable reviews by New York City music critics that went to see the opera on Broadway.

The New York City performances also lacked a serious air of authenticity that may have helped the mindsets of the music critics to view the opera in a better light. The problem with authenticity is caused by the fact that William Hanson did not credit Zitkala-Sa for her vital role in the creation of the opera, especially as a chief source of knowledge about the Sun Dance ceremony and its importance to the religious and cultural aspects of the Sioux Nation. This is rather odd especially because he writes in the journal about his collaboration with Zitkala-Sa. Although she did die a few months before the New York performances, she still put the work into the opera when it was debuted in Utah. Perhaps the music critics of New York would be more awed in the piece if they knew that the creation of it was from the point of view of an authentic Native American and not just a fan of the culture. Zitkala-Sa played a monumental role in the creation of this opera, however received no credit in the New York performances.

Another role in the critique of the authenticity of this piece lies in its co-creator. Since Zitkala-Sa had the education of the Western world and the background of a Native American culture, she can be viewed as really giving us an example of how a Native American perceives a Western art form and interprets it in a new way. It is in this reason perhaps why it was chosen to be performed in New York City. However, without her to guide the New York City performances her masterpiece was lost in a white translation of her bi-cultural expression of music as an art form. It is that a claim to authenticity can be found—Zitkala-Sa is a melding of the two cultures that were attempting to be melded. However, even she couldn’t create an opera that bridged the gap of the two cultures despite living in both. This fact bolsters the argument that the gap between the two cultures is too wide to bridge—if a person who lived in both worlds couldn’t achieve artistic harmony and national success through her music, then it just shows how different the cultures and two music genres are.

These are the chief reasons why Native American music as a national sound for the United States of America failed to take root. Even at the fundamental base the two cultures have very disparaging differences that make it difficult for them to work together and create a harmonious sound. Furthermore, the differences in the music styles and how it is performed in practice create disjunct ideas in the new style of the Western-European musical vernacular. The melodies do not flow as well as being very monotonous in comparison to Western-European operas that make many more varied leaps that make the music pleasant to the ear and interesting to the listener. Consequentially, the addition of varied leaps help the harmonic progression of the piece which allows for a much more interesting overall performance. The rhythm also did not help the situation. Because the original versions of the songs was not in a metered system the translation of the rhythm can come off as much more rigid and not as free-flowing as the original. In addition, the vocables as a main characteristic of the Native American song was lost when adapting it to a much more highly syllabic music form, thereby losing its uniqueness and attraction. The differences in performance from the Utah and New York City versions also caused for a disfavorable music criticism which then related to lower profit margins, making more subsequent operas and musical expressions less likely to be attempted by composers who were composing for a living as well as less than likely chances for an investor to put money into a production of further Native American inspired music. No matter how short-lived this option for a national sound was, the resulting works of arts show how during a turbulent time in American music history American composers were exploring many facets of musical expression.

Bibliography

Bernstein, Leonard and Gene Krupa. “Has Jazz Influenced the Symphony? (1947).” In Modernism and Music: An Anthology of Sources, edited by Daniel Albright, 401-402. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Bonds, Evans. A History of Music in Western Culture. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Hafen, P Jane. “A Cultural Duet: Zitkala Sa and the Sun Dance Opera.” In Great Plains Quartely, Spring 1998.

Zitkala-Sa. “The School Days of an Indian Girl.” In American Indian Stories. Washington: Hayworth Publishing House, 1921.

—“The Sun Dance Opera.” In Dreams and Thunder: Stories, Poems, and The Sun Dance Opera, edited by P. Jane Hafen. The University of Nebraska Press, 2001.