Michael Cooper wrote:
>BTW I find it hardly surprising that you enjoy many pianists'
>Kinderszenen. The music presents few challenges interpretative or
>technical, and obviously is quite accessible to any listener. And it
>is hard for a pianist to find an idiosyncratic approach to take to the
>performance; the music is just to simple, charming, and direct, so any
>one pianist tends to play it about the same as the next.
I have at least two dozen recordings of the Kinderszenen in my collection,
and no two are identical. The professional pianists I've talked to, even
those who are very well known, tell me adamantly that they don't know any
music that, in the final analysis, is easy to play, though it may be
relatively straightforward to execute *mechanically*. They also tell me
that technique is a widely misunderstood term that it involves much more
than fingering, and which properly includes mastery of balance, affective
inflection, rhythmic tension, motivic characterization, consistency,
dynamic, discerning connections that link one part of the piece to another
across time and distance, etc. So I suppose that there is more to it than
playing the notes, no matter how few of them you mght see on the page.
What is simple and direct for one person may also be simple and direct for
another, sure, but from a different perspective. The question, it seems to
me, especially in a piece like Kinderszenen, concerns subtlety and nuance.
My 8 year old could probably play Kinderszenen simply, too, but I doubt
with the kind of subtlety of expressive nuance and technical command, in
its broadest sense, that a pro or a great artist could.
Also, someone sent me not long ago a detailed analysis, by Alban Berg, of
Traumerei. It's too technical for me to get into, but I think it's pretty
amazing that a composer of Berg's stature would find so much to discuss,
and so much complexity, about what you'd' think is a simple piece.
Here's that analysis, by Alban Berg, of Schumann' s Traumerei. It's not
so simple and direct, after all, it seems.
The Musical Impotence of Hans Pfitzner's "New Aesthetic"
By Alban Berg
"But with a melody like that one is suspended in mi-air. One can
only recognize its quality, not demonstrate it.; there is no agreement
to be reached about this quality by intellectual means: either one
understands it by the rapture it arouses, or one does not. Whoever
cannot go along with it cannot be converted by any arguments, and
someone who attacks it except to play the melody and say "how
beautiful". What the melody says is as deep and as clear, as mystical
and as obvious as the Truth".
It may be a severe disappointment for many musicians-as it is for
me-to see such words written by a composer of Pfitzner's standing.
And that in a book bursting with erudition, that hardly leaves a
single sphere of human knowledge untouched and shows itself as it
were oriented in philosophy, politics, history of music and race
theory, aesthetics and morality, journalism and literature, and God
knows what else.
But in a field where knowledge would be most imperative, in the
field of things musical, it is simply denied us, and the writer
assumes a point of view which precludes from the start any possibility
of distinguishing good from bad. And then he continues (in highly
ungrammatical German): " So I speak the following only to a small
group, namely those who still have and want to have a sense of the
quality of a melody-a sense that has been driven out of us with
strongly increasing success since decades ago."
But he does not say a single word to this small group-amongst which
I presume to count myself-which could be of assistance to that "sense"
or even take account of it. Instead he issues the equally German
exhortation (German in sentiment this time rather than in the mode
of expression):
"So we who still have this sense, let us courageously enthuse!"
For my part I would rather leave the enthusing to that large group
who do not need to have the "sense of the quality of a melody" "driven
out" of them (because they don"t have it), and reserve for myself
and the few others who managed to escape (all the enthusing) a
worthier, and in any case, matter-of-fact relationship to music.
But it turns out on the other hand that the small group that Pfitzner
calls on is not so small after all, for he feels able to present
their musical sense with the following indescribably difficult and
even problematic case: No. 7 of Schumann's Kinderszenen: Traumerei.
Not one of the many hundreds of melodies-that are not so generally
familiar-from classical symphonic music or chamber music that even
in Schumann's day enjoyed a great and uncontested success, and one
which since then, as far as I know, has not been subjected to any
particularly sharp "attack".
So, the praise that Pfitzner lavishes on the Kinderszenen seems all
the more unnecessary, and does not testify to any particular "courage":
"Each of the little pieces in this opus is a musical shape of fine
charm, poetry and musicality, and above all highly personal in
character."
And when he goes on:
"But could anyone who understands the primeval language of music
fail to recognize that Traumerei is quite uniquely distinguished
by the quality of this melody? That is applicable only in so far
as this piece is "quite uniquely distinguished" in another way,
so uniquely that Pfitzner describes it on the very next page as
"not really belonging in the Kinderszenen".
But I assert (besides what I have to say later about the quality of
this melody) that Traumerei is already distinguished by its central
position as No. 7 of thirteen pieces, and occupies therefore a very
special position in the symmetrical structure of the whole opus, and
is a vital component-perhaps the most vital-of the whole. This can
be overlooked when as a matter of principle one turns ones back on
any "agreement by intellectual means". If one does not do that, and
allows the "sense for the quality of a melody" (doubtless including
a sense of its tonAlity) to function for once instead of letting it
be confiscated by a small group, then it will certainly strike one
that Traumerei is also distinguished from the point of view of its
tonality. It is the first of the Kinderszenen in a flat key and
shares this property with only the following piece, Am Kamin (which
is also related to it in other ways).
But Pfitzner prefers to close his eyes to all that. Rather he is
concerned in general, and also in the special case of Traumerei,
which nothing less than the "primeval language of music" and:
"For whoever does not understand it, Traumerei is a little piece
in song-form with the tonic, dominant, sub-dominant, and other
closely related keys-without deviation from the normal, as far as
the elements are concerned; no harmonic novelty, no rhythmic
finesse, the melody rising through the notes of the triad, "for
piano, two hands".
Not the layman- who confronts this composition with perplexity-but
the musically educated (who possesses the faculty of recognizing it
theoretically) is told once and for all that his education is of no
use to him if he does not understand the primeval language of music.
And if he does understand this language his theoretical faculties
are not all all necessary, since "with a melody like this" one is
"suspended in mid-air" anyway.
"A melody like this" we may mention in passing, means a "beautiful,
genial melody", "a genuine musical inspiration", without any other
evidence being brought forward, whether for its beauty, its genius,
or its genuineness, except that "the desire to explain it is a
dilettante undertaking." For: ..."When we are faced with something
ungraspable that defies our explanation, we are happy to loosen
the strict succession of thoughts, surrender the weapons of reason
and declare ourselves completely captive, dissolving defenselessly
in feeling. To a genuine musical inspiration all one can truly
say is "how beautiful it is!". Anything closer, any word in the
direction of "Why?" belittles the impression received, injures
the spiritual phenomenon, destroys the "breath" of the "poem"."
Pfitzner manages, even in the case under discussion, to avoid these
three dangers simply by regarding all purely musical arguments as
dealt with in these few theoretical morsels quoted earlier.
His next cry-"But for us who know, what a miracle of inspiration"
-arouses the pleasant hope that we will after all hear something
musically revealing about Traumerei from someone who understands
the melody and the primeval language of music in general, that is,
from "someone who knows" and not from some "enthusiast" who merely
surrenders himself to his "feelings". But we are fobbed off with a
question that even manages to elude any sort of knowledge:
"What can be said about it that will make it accessible to the
understanding of one who does not feel this melody "through and
through", this melody which is at the same time the whole piece,
and where form and idea are practically identical? Nothing."
Admitted! But there ought to be something one can say about the
quality of a melody to someone who DOES feel it through and through.
Even if only about a negative example-any old piece of kitsch-which
does not have to be felt through and through! For if it really was
impossible to produce and "arguments" except to those of us of feeling
then anyone would have the same right to "enthuse into the illimitable"
in the same tone as Pfitzner about any inspiration which he feels to
be "beautiful", "genial", and "genuine", and one would not be able
to contradict him. If one reads these quotations from Pfitzner
substituting Hildach for Schumann (for example) and Lenz for Traumerei,
anyone who does not contest the right to "dissolve defenselessly in
feeling would have to "surrender the weapons of reason" and "declare
himself completely captive" to such a courageous Hildach enthusiast.
That cannot be! There must be some possibility of saying something
irrefutable about a melody, something that will "make it accessible
to the understanding " and awaken a sense of quality. Naturally
something of a musical nature; not purely matters of feeling and all
too personal enthusiasm that cannot be implemented by any evidence,
such as the following:
"I can speak of the nobility of the language of sound, of the
absolute originality, deeply personal quality and pristine
peculiarity of the melody, of its Germanness, delicacy, intimacy-it
is as though the words were flitting around in circles in front
of the notes"-it certainly is-"all of them together cannot come
close to saying what it is that makes the melody what it is."
And that is right too! Nevertheless he does attempt to get to grips
with the beauty of this piece by calling it (after he has established
that it is a Traumerei and not for heaven's sake "anything in the
nature of a "reverie""): "thoughtful, serious feeling, deeply losing
itself, fine-souled and yet powerful. The well-known head of Schumann
with his head supported on his hand can give an idea of this. One
can enthuse on into the illimitable in this way without managing to
conjure up the magic of this music in words. It is a drop of music
from the deepest spring; we too (?) are musically depraved and lost
if we dissociate ourselves from this beauty.".
Yes, but we are also musically depraved and lost if we can find-and
consider possible-no explanation (that brings us closer to the art)
of this beauty except comparisons borrowed from all fields (but not
music) and springing from a mood more tipsy than "fine-souled".
It could be objected that the writings of the old masters sometimes
contain descriptions of the sort that I am taking exception to, and
that my criticism therefore applies not only to Pfitzner but also
Schopenhauer, Wagner, or Schumann (for example). My reply to
this-without involving myself in the pros and cons of such musical
description and the extent to which they are acceptable today-is that
this sort of enthusiastic musical description only had sense when
the world's attention had to be drawn to the beauty of a particular
work, when this beauty had to be revealed. And this usually required
more courage than sticking up for Traumerei, which-as -mentioned
before-charmed and impressed the whole musical world from the first
day it appeared. And remember that such literary remarks were always
accompanied-when they originated from a significant composer (think
of Schumann's Writings on Music and Musicians)-by purely musical
discussion, usually on a very high level. And when this was so, an
exhaustive and relevant analysis was usually provided as well.
In Pfitzner's book-which pretends to so much erudition in other
respects-we are denied the very erudition which could convince us of
his opinions. And wherever he does use his erudition and theorizes,
he does it in such a nonchalant and insufficient-even false-manner
that (I must repeat what I said at the beginning) the unenlightened
reader imagines he has in front of him a book by a philosopher or
politician or other kind of scholar writing a feuilleton, but never
by a composer of Pfitzner's standing.
For how can such a composer dismiss the melody of Traumerei with the
words "rising through the notes of the triad"? The beauty of this
melody does not actually lie so much in the large number of motivic
ideas, but in the three other characteristic features of beautiful
melodies. Namely: the exceptional pregnancy of the individual
motives; their profuse relations with one another; and the manifold
application of the given motivic material (see example 37).
The fact that the melody "rises through the notes of the triad" is
its least recommendation. My feeling is-to take only this recurrent
rising phrase (see the motive marked a)-that the auxiliary note E,
dissonant with respect to the F major triad disposed as a succession
of notes, is the characteristic and charming element. And we must
not forget that this whole turn of phrase is felt immediately as a
variation (and what a variation!) of the initial leap of a fourth.
This leap also survives in the motif of the descending phrase (b, c,
d) constantly changing into different intervals (m) by taking advantage
of every opportunity provided by the harmony.
For reasons of space I can only hint at the other melodic variants.
Notice particularly the variants of the above-mentioned descending
phrase (x, y, z). I cannot pass over the last appearance of this
phrase (Z) without remarking that there is hardly anything one could
say about it that would be less characteristic than Pfitzner's phrase
about "feeling deeply losing itself". From the highest note of this
little four bar sentence we descend over a sixth for the first time,
and this by means of a motivic "inversion" made up of interval steps,
and, for the first time, an intervallic leap. It is this inversion
which Pfitzner's phrase so utterly fails to describe, this melodic
return home, which is a return to the starting point from the harmonic
point of view as well.
Pfitzner's verdict on the rhythm of this melody is equally irrelevant.
He cannot find any "finesse" in it, although the shift of accent
between the strong and weak parts of the bar persists throughout the
whole piece and must strike any musical listener as just such "finesse".
This shift is evident in the first two bars, produced by the rising
figure a which shifts the up-beat rhythm to a position one crotchet
further on. It is still more evident when one observes the half-closes
and full-closes of the individual little four bar sentences from this
point of view. These end as follows:
at A (and E) on the second crotchet
at B (after a grace note) on the third crotchet
at C on the fourth quaver
The next sentence, which is apparently a sequential repeat of the
preceding, does not close on the third crotchet (which would have
been perfectly admissible harmonically) but-extending beyond it- at
D on the fourth crotchet.
Finally the last bar brings a close that is certainly different
rhythmically from that of the second sentence: at F on the third
crotchet.
After what I have said so far, it will have to be admitted that by
describing and "demonstrating" in this way we obtain a different, a
more closely approximate image of the "quality of a melody:" than
Pfitzner was capable of giving with his enthusing words and his
insufficient analysis which falsified the musical facts. In the
music example I have tried to show (quite casually, in the first four
bars notated above Schumann's original) how poverty-stricken such a
melody looks when it does not possess, for example, the melodic
refinements that I have listed, and of which one could really say
merely that it "rises through the notes of the triad" and lacks
"rhythmic finesse". I have retained a second motif (the descending
one, which Pfitzner does not even consider worth the trouble of
mentioning) at least in the needy form s, and I have not changed
Schumann's (by no means ordinary) harmonic skeleton.
But Pfitzner rides rough-shod over the harmony too. He refers to
the "tonic, dominant, sub-dominant", but pretends to know nothing of
any "deviation from the usual, as far as the elements are concerned".
And yet what individuality we find here too! Both as regards the
structure within the individual sentences (notice, for example, in
the first four bar sentence how the changes of harmony proceed in
the following increasing and decreasing note values: 5/4, 3/4, 1/4,
2/4, 1/8, 1/8, 1/4, 3/4, and then back to 5/4, etc) and as regards
the disposition with reference to the whole piece and its prominent
points. These points-I am referring to the separate melodic climaxes
of each of the six sentences-occur on the following chords, which
get stronger harmonically in the order of their appearance:
at G (and K) on a triad
at H on a seventh chord
at I (and J) on a ninth chord with minor ninth.
The second repeat of the first eight bars should bring (if we were
really dealing with "a little piece in song form with tonic, dominant,
and sub-dominant") a mechanical repetition of the harmonic events of
the first eight bars (G and H), with the second four-bar sentence
providing the final return to the tonic (e.g. by transposition a
fourth higher). But how is the tonic reached in actuality! Instead
of the expected seventh chord (belonging to the region of the
sub-dominant) of the corresponding point H, we now hear at the last
climax: at L a ninth chord, this time with a major ninth.
The strongest chord harmonically has been saved up for the ends,
and the cadence which follows it can be truly said to represent a
"deviation from the usual": it contains one and the same cadential
motif (c2) twice in succession (the only time in the whole piece that
this happens), harmonized in two different ways. And although it
goes without saying that the conception of this piece-and composition
in general-takes place in a sphere far removed from theoretical
deliberations, yet it would hardly be possible to design an ending
like this without artistic intention and the conscious exercise of
technical musical ability. We are all the more justified, even
compelled (if we wish to form a judgment about music) to give an
account of this from a musico-theoretical point of view as well, and
further make it as precise and foolproof as possible. But not like
Pfitzner, whose manner of making musical "personal descriptions" is
reminiscent of the conventional "official descriptions" where everything
is represented as being "usual" and "normal". Some ossifying official
would have no scruples about writing the usual "special distinguishing
marks: None" even under the picture of Schumann's head supported on
his hand.
Pfitzner does exactly the same with Traumerei! He even goes further:
he makes the composition seem quite insignificant, normal and lacking
in distinguishing marks by representing it as a sort of bagatelle
"for piano two hands" (even putting the phrase in inverted commas).
Well, a brief glance at the music is enough to convince anyone that
this is a strict piece of four part writing (with the exception of
a coupe of points) which, as far as the style, character, contrapuntal
technique, range of the individual parts and their playability and
singability are concerned, could easily be given over to a string
quartet or wind ensemble, or even to the four singing voices.
There is a great difference between this composition (notice for
example the four part imitation at e)-even though it appeared as a
piano piece and is only valid as such-and the sort of composition
that is dismissed as "for piano two hands", a genre that is basically
restricted to a homophonic style in which melody and accompaniment
are each allotted one of the two hands. And it is a fact that the
other pieces in the Kinderszenen do not possess this universal musical
style, but use a pianistic style that takes into account-in a more
or less artistic manner-the technique of the instrument.
This difference jumps to the eye when one turns to the piece following
Traumerei: No. 8 Am Kamin (see the musical example!). But the
other pieces are "piano pieces" even more than Am Kamin; for example
No. 10 Fast zu Ernst. Of this whole series of character pieces this
is the one that cannot be credited with any more significant distinction
(nor any less significant distinction) than "for piano two hands",
whereas to describe Traumerei in this way is not only irrelevant but
also-when it is stated so tendentiously-represents a disparagement
of the style of this piece.
Such a disparaging tone with reference to the purely musical
properties of this melody is supposed to create an impression of
artlessness, despite which an effect as elevated as it is "ungraspable"
is obtained. And once this impression is created-with six lines of
analysis in telegraphic style and five times as many lines of courageous
enthusing-it is easy to draw the conclusion-and this is the direction
that Pfitzner's writing intends to take-namely, that it is just as
useless for modern music to surround itself with the odium of technical
artistry and find "theoretical support" for its horrors, as it is to
try to find theoretical explanations for the beauty of classical
music. Which is the reason why in the whole book there is not a
single attempt with regard to an example taken from modern music to
find a purely musical orientation for himself and his readers about
these horrors, and throw some light on them. The statements (printed
with wide spacing) that "musical impotence is declared permanent and
supported theoretically" and that "music no longer needs to be
beautiful, and the composer need have no ideas of his own" are
considered sufficient. None of this can be proved theoretically,
any more than the opposite can be proved with regard to classical
music. A "real honest public" does not need such art, and whoever
pretends to feel the need for it is one of those "culture snobs or
worse" who, as is well known, "gobble up everything like dogs:
Beethoven today, Kandinsky tomorrow". Which is apparently conclusive
evidence that "a symptom of decay" exists-a fact that was still called
in question on the title page.
It should now be my task, my duty even, to do what Pfitzner has
carefully neglected to do in his whole book. Namely to speak of
that modern music which he attacks from literary, political and
other points of view (but not from the musical point of view) in a
matter-of-fact way for once, and demonstrate on at least one example
how things stand today with regard to those matters that go into the
making of good music: melodies, richness of harmony, polyphony,
perfection of form, architecture, etc. And if I succeeded in this
as well as I did with Traumerei I would have proved the existence of
that purely musical potency which Pfitzner fails to demonstrate even
in the cases of Beethoven, Schumann, and Wagner, although his whole
discussion of classical music was motivated solely by the intention
of exposing the music of today as "impotent", and therewith striking
it dead.
For my aim of rehabilitating modern music I would choose-following
a momentary impulse rather than with the intention of selecting
particularly typical cases-two song-like melodies (just as Pfitzner
did): Ach Knabe, du musst nicht traurig sein! from der Schwildwache
Nachtlied by Mahler, and the subsidiary them of Schonberg's Chamber
Symphony.
But this article is limited by considerations of space and I cannot
go into these examples here. Another time! But I may be believed
when I say that my proof of musical potency will be successful.
Perhaps my musico-theoretical remarks about Schumann's Traumerei will
be sufficient for that "small group"-apostrophized by me too-"who
still have and want to have a sense for melody"; at least they can
serve as a suggestion as to how modern melodies may be judged. Such
things are not simple! It might be more obvious and easier for that
small group to try using the negative procedure: namely, to take
the standards that I applied to Schumann's Traumerei and am accustomed
to apply in other cases, and apply them to a melody which would
frustrate my other trusted "arguments" and "explanations" if I wanted
to bring theoretical proof of its beauty.
I chose-this time rather with the intention of selecting a particularly
typical case than following a momentary impulse-a song composed in
1916 (so it is certainly modern) [from Five Songs, opus 26, by Hans
Pfitzner]. Unfortunately I cannot reproduce it on full, and can only
give a harmonic indication of the accompaniment ("rising through the
notes of the triad, for piano two hands".) (example 38)
However, regard this melody with the same loving exactitude-penetrating
into all the musical aspects-that I devoted to Traumerei, and you
will not hold it against me if in this case I make an exception and
save myself the trouble of making a penetrating musical analysis
which would in any case only "diminish the impression and injure the
spiritual phenomenon". For truly: With a melody like this one is
suspended in mid-air. One can recognize its quality, not demonstrate
it: there is no agreement to be reached about this quality by
intellectual means: either one understands it by the rapture it
arouses, or one does not. Whoever cannot go along with it cannot be
converted by arguments, and there is nothing to say against someone
who attacks it except to play the melody and say "How beautiful".
Which I do herewith.
Alban Berg
From "Musikblatter des Anbruch", Vienna, second year, No. 11-12, June 1920
--Doug Fields
|