Posts Tagged ‘score’

November 5th, 2008 A brief analysis of Gorecki Symphony No. 3

When I try to analyze Gorecki’s Symphony No. 3, it seems like there’s nothing for you to analyze - would you try to analyze Ravel’s Bolero or Steve Reich’s In C? Everything written there is so simple and obvious. Ravel’s Bolero is no more than repeating the same themes with different instruments at the first glance, although actually there are lots of subtle changes (addition of parallel fifths, or parallel chords, etc.) But it is that simplicity which makes it so innovative. While some contemporary music focus on atonality and other devices to make a piece sound “new”, this Gorecki symphony is innovative because it is so simple. I can only think of famous quotes from JinYong’s novel: “重劍無鋒，大巧不工”, “天之道，捐有餘而補不足，是故虛勝實，不足勝有餘”, “無招勝有招”. Simplicity wins over complexity. It is the aesthetics that make a piece sounds so fresh and different from other pieces, NOT by means of any special techniques or any special notation.

Still, I want to go more deeply how it works. This is not a detail analysis of the piece, it merely serves as a listening guide, a description of what happens in the piece.

******

Firstly, Gorecki knows how to restrict himself to as few materials as possible. Start from a single note, growing to two notes, and then to a short phrase, and then to a longer phrase written in a larger range - that is what the soprano is doing in the 2nd movement. If you tries to sing it, the melody does not sound particularly interesting. The tension lies in the gradual addition of notes, and gradual climbing up the scale in a wavy line. (see below) The phrase F marked below is similar to the beginning, just it is in the higher register with an inverted direction of motion (though not an exact inversion). Beauty of symmetry. And it ends with a monotone, Db, the beginning note.

And that are the 7th chords that contribute to the ethereal, heavenly sound (See below, and tries to play it on a piano). Notice that all string parts are divisi, even the double bass that gives a transparent tone colour. When we learn harmony in theory lessons, we are taught that it is good to leave a wide space between lower members in a chord, thus cello and double bass are often an octave apart in most classical and romantic reportoire. Well, this rule does not apply here (as well as in many modern music).

*******

Before going into how Gorecki writes the 8-part canon of the 1st movement, first let’s have a look at the theme itself. Just like the 2nd movement, the theme is like an arch shape. The first phrase limits to three pitches only (E, F#, G), and then gradually the range expands to octave until it reaches the higher E, where the climax lies. The melody, again like a plainchant, is mostly stepwise. This is important. Stepwise motion makes it much more easier to write counterpoint.

All strings are divided into two parts, contributing to totally 10 separate parts in the string orchestra. But the whole exposition is just an 8-part canon. The theme starts off with half of the double bass, and then the other half enters, imitating the theme at an interval of a 5th higher. Then half of the cello enters, again at a 5th higher (but still in the key of E minor).

A midi demo of the above example:
[audio:http://licheong.com/music/Gorecki3_ex2.mp3]

The numbers under the staff indicates the interval between the higher notes and the bass note.
You will see that when the two parts are put together, they are NOT always consonant. There are a lot of second inversion too. Second inversion are often considered dissonant in harmony textbooks. But as most notes in the melody are linked stepwisely, even if the intervals between the two part are dissonant (2nd, 4th and 7th), they are just suspension or passing tones that immediately resolve afterwards. And dissonance, especially suspensions, are the dramatic moments, those are the moments where you feel sad and wants to cry.

And you will find that there are a lot of parallel 8ves! Parallel 8ves are considered “wrong” in textbook about four-part harmony. (You get 2 marks deducted when you write a parallel 8ve in HKCEE music exam theory!) But most teachers can’t explain why parallel 8ve is bad, they just told the students “you shouldn’t write parallel 8ve because it is bad”. But why is it bad? It is bad only because when two parts suddenly plays the same pitch, it sounds like suddenly it is a 3-part harmony, not a 4-part harmony, and the parts which play the same pitch will stand out, that makes it sound odd. BUT, it does not mean that parallel 8ve should never be used. It is often used in medieval music (organum) as well as in modern music (especially Debussy who deliberately breaks this rule), and also in music in other parts of the world (e.g. 自然和聲 in Sheng in Chinese music). It is just because parallel 8ves contributes a sound that does not sounds like music in the common practice, from baroque to romantic period. But even Beethoven and Bach wrote some parallel 8ve. (You can find a few parallel 5ths and 8ves in Waldstein sonata). Music comes before rules. Most rules in music theory are not universal, they are just a description of how some music works, but NOT all music.

A chord has only 3 notes, and the 3 notes can either go up, go down, or keep at the same pitch when it arrives at the next chord. So when it comes to 8-part writing, it is unavoidable to have parallel 8ve. In this particular case, parallel 8ve is an advantage, not an disadvantage, because by doubling the other parts, it makes the texture clearer. And these things contributes to the “renaissance” or even “medieval” sound of this piece. And here is a reduction of the 8-part canon, try to play it on the piano and you will discover the mastery of his work. It is not easy at all to write an 8-part canon like this.

A midi demo of the 8-part canon:
[audio:http://licheong.com/music/Gorecki3_ex1.mp3]

After going through the cycle of 5th eight times, the canon already go back to the tonic. (tonic-dominant-supertonic-submediant-mediant-leadingtone-subdominant-tonic) Lastly, the upper half of the 2nd violin and 1st violin enters, but they are just doubling the uppermost parts at an octave above.

And this is the structure of his first movement:

October 22nd, 2008 Score Reading

讀譜之境界：

第一層：從不懂看譜，到懂得看譜。
第二層：能夠視唱一行的樂譜，或者視奏一份鋼琴譜。
第三層：聽著音樂看管弦樂譜，開始能夠辨認樂器，以及不同組合配搭的音色變化。（但我發現自己以往讀譜很多時只是止於這一步，雖然看了很多譜，但轉眼就忘了，對其作曲和配器技法沒有深究，有如過眼雲煙。）
第四層：從演奏者的角度去看某一首曲，甚至參與其中，這樣會對樂器的運用以至這樂器和其它樂器的關係有更深瞭解（可惜我沒有一件管弦樂器能力足以勝任樂隊演奏，頂多是彈鍵盤樂器而已！）
第五層：從Theory的角度去看一首曲，結構和和聲分析的角度去讀譜，開始理解多些整體的結構是怎樣編織，以及細緻之處是怎樣寫出來。這時會留意到很多一直沒有為意的轉調以及和聲的運用。（但單單分析不過是紙上談兵而已！）
第六層：從指揮的角度去看一首曲，想想怎樣去演繹這樣一首曲。這時會留意到很多一直沒有為意的記號以及速度和節奏的變化，結構不再是理論上的，而是感覺上的。這時應該有能力彈奏移調樂器，以至可以把管弦樂譜用鋼琴彈出來。
第七層：Photographic memory，背譜吧！試試有沒有能力把一首樂曲的旋律、和聲、以至表情記號都記下來，在腦海裏播放沒有甚麼大不了，有能力不看譜演奏或者指揮，又或者能夠把樂譜默出來，相信已經把這種武功練到極致。（相信已經走火入魔了！）

October 21st, 2007 IMSLP 關閉了

前日友人傳來 IMSLP.org (International Music Score Library Project) 網站關閉的消息。當時沒有看，一看才知，又一個美好的共享平台因為觸犯版權法而被迫關閉了！

IMSLP.org 從 2006 年開始運作，這個網站近來已被樂譜出版公司 Universal Editions 致信要求對方關閉。網主是自己掏腰包建設網頁，他說自己沒有賺一分一毫，也意想不多竟然吸引了全球的樂迷，不惜花大量時間 scan 譜上載，不足一年已經放了一萬多份樂譜。這是一個多麼難得的網站！之前教學的時候，也常在這網站找尋樂譜，印了來當教材。你要知道樂譜有時是很難找的，當琴行買不到，公共圖書館也沒有多少，假如大學的圖書館也沒有的話，就只有求諸網絡，也有一些網站收錢網上賣樂譜，但很少像這一個網站完全免費。在 imslp 的 forum 看見有不少人表示，大學的教授都推薦學生去用這個免費資源。

大多數國家的版權法裏面，作曲家死後七十年（有些國家好像是五十年）他的作品就會變成公共財產 public domain。但是出版商印製的樂譜，版權歷時多久，我不太清楚。總有一些舊的版本，或者一些出版當時就未受版權法保護的版本，應該可以合法的免費分享吧。但是在網絡世界裏面，上載的人就不會管那麼多，也有人把如 Bartok 的 Mikrokosmos 放上網(Bartok 1945 才死，應該還有版權），難免觸犯法例。

我們可以做甚麼呢？我們有沒有可能自己建設分享樂譜網站？建設網站不難，難的是管理。我相信免費共享始終是網絡的大趨勢，一個網頁倒了，始終會有人起另一個網頁。不過到時做網頁的管理者就要很小心，花工夫去分辨上傳的樂譜有沒有犯法，說不好要聘請法律顧問準備負責打官司。幸好現時仍有一些網站在做類似的事，例如 Mutopia Project，又有Piano Society。 Piano Society 不單讓我們可以找到免費的鋼琴音樂 MP3，也讓一些年青未有知名度的鋼琴家可以分享自己彈奏的音樂。這是很難得的。

一分面，消費者當然喜見網上的免費資源。像 Wikipedia, Youtube 一樣，免費共享，正正是吸引到大家自願奉獻的原因。版權法已經追不上網絡世界的變化，不是說打擊翻版就可以改變現實的。越來越多人相信知識應該是共享的，而不是一小撮人的專利。版權法保障的是出版公司的利益，免費下載是消費者的利益，但消費者的得益卻又損害出版的生態而最終受害。這是一個循環的怪圈。

版權法始終是個兩難。唱片的銷量受非法下載影響而大跌，樂譜出版也是一樣的。在現在這個社會，又有幾多人會買樂譜呢？都是本身玩音樂、學音樂的人，這樣的人就已經不多。你看看香港的琴行，最好賣的我估計只有 ABRSM 的考試書吧，畢竟在香港考試至上。除此之外，可能是所有學琴人都彈的 Sonatinas Album？又或者 Rupert 的流行曲鋼琴譜？冷門一點的樂曲，沒有巿場，琴行也就不會入貨。這個巿場實在太小，假如連僅有的巿場都被網絡奪去的話，這些公司就要倒閉了。

樂譜的製作是很花時間的事，比起一般出版可能都要難，作曲家把樂譜騰寫幾次，再給人抄寫校對，以前靠執字粒一樣的方法去印製樂譜，現在用電腦打樂譜都覺得難，真時很難想像以前的人怎樣製作如此精密的樂譜出來。

十九世紀歐洲中產的家庭都喜歡自己玩音樂，當時又沒有錄音，除了現場聽音樂會，很多音樂就是靠樂譜流傳，造就了當時蓬勃的樂譜巿場。而人們喜歡買樂譜回家自己彈，也造就了很多編曲，Liszt 把貝多芬的交響曲改編成鋼琴版，Brahms 把自己的樂曲改了一個又一個樂器組合的版本，正是因為有巿場。從貝多芬開始，很多作曲家除了教學和演出之外，主要的收入來源來自出版商的委約，不少作品是委約催生的。音樂事業的蓬勃，和出版社的蓬勃很有關。到了唱片的發明，錄音變成了主要的傳播途徑，樂譜的功能就已經下降了。UE 出一封信叫別人網站關閉很容易，但是否這樣就能適應這個社會呢？

*******

讀了 UE 寄出的信。看完之後覺得 UE 並不完全反對這個網站的存在，它不滿的只是這個網站沒有過濾侵權上載的機制，要求網站刪除 UE 出版的樂譜。只要找到一個辦法避免這個情況，絕對有機會重新開始類似網站。

友人丹尼斯傳來一篇文章的鏈結，對於 copyright 有更詳細的討論：
http://johnsonsrambler.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/ue-statement-on-the-imslp-forums/

June 19th, 2006 作曲一定要寫樂譜嗎？

看見朋友的文章，討論作曲是否一定要樂譜。

這年來在教一間中學的電子音樂班，發現學生們原來真的不用看譜，猶其是喜歡玩結他的。要作旋律， click 進去電腦就可以了，就算打進去發現音高、節奏不適合，可以之後再搬高搬低。雖然這樣很慢，但是他們一邊打、一邊聽著 playback ，也鍛練了自己的耳朶，很多時他們不明白為甚麼那個和弦合適，是 trial and error 試出來的，但竟然可以整到一個 V/V chord 出來，這不也是一種方法嗎？如果真的要他們先學樂理，他們可能己經悶死左，但現在他們很有成功感。

作完以後，要叫另一個拉小提琴的學生演奏，他也不看譜 (suzuki method?)，帶著耳筒一邊聽一邊嘗試拉。原來這樣也有個好處，如果他聽不清楚，他便要停了音樂，再播過，這樣反而逼使他反覆練習。

這著實令我懷疑，寫樂譜、看樂譜是不是最好的創作模式？猶其在今天可以透過電腦作曲的時候，製作音樂，可以直接演奏、錄音、製作成光碟，樂譜已經不是一個必然的環節。而以前中國拉二胡的、非洲打鼓的，也絕對不需要樂譜。當然，若不是有樂譜的發展，也不會有交響曲那種極度複雜的織體出現。但是，我總覺得學習樂譜有困難的人，未必沒有音樂感，反而自小看著樂譜練習的人，卻不一定有音樂感。這並非說不用學習樂譜，只是覺得把學習樂譜當成學習音樂，只會是本末倒置。很可惜的是，在另外一個班裏面我正是這樣教的，也真難怪悶死一班學生。

一位朋友學習書法的經歷也讓我大開眼界。以前中小學我們學習毛筆字的時候，都是臨摹字帖，一筆一劃的跟著寫。這一位老師卻不是這樣教，他並不以臨摹字帖開始。他教導學生先練習「方塊字」，即是說，每一筆、每一劃都一樣粗細，自己寫，而不是直接學習楷書。這樣一寫出來，你才會發現，你以為很簡單的方塊字，一樣可以寫得漂亮、寫得醜陋。原來字的整齊與否、字與字之間的空間疏密、每個字的構圖和線條佈局比起甚麼都重要。我們平常太著重事情的支節了，忘記了這才是一手字漂亮與否的關鍵。例如一個「三」字，你會讓那一橫長一些，會較有趣味？各種字體的不同之處，可能正在於強調不同的地方，假如你夠膽破格，便可以創出另一種字體出來。這樣一說，真是當頭棒喝，讓學生看到一個從沒有看到的境界。這不正是華山劍法和獨孤九劍的最大分別嗎？

想起達摩和弟子們的故事。達摩希望傳位給弟子，要每個弟子嘗試解釋佛法的要旨。眾弟子都嘗試用語言去解釋，達摩的回答是：你們只得到我的皮和肉。到了慧可，他只是鞠了一個躬，達摩歡喜讚嘆：你已經得到我的精髓。每個學藝術的人都應問自己一句，到底甚麼才是精髓所在？