Gavin Black is director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center. He can be reached by e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>.
Counterpoint IV
A student who has worked on a piece of contrapuntal keyboard music in the ways outlined in my last few columns will be able to play the piece with great security, accuracy, and confidence. The student’s performance of that piece will project a strong sense of the contrapuntal lines as individual, autonomous melodies with shape and direction. This result is as close to being certain as anything in the realm of human endeavor ever is: this systematic working out of separate voices is an extremely powerful tool.
However, nothing in that method deals directly either with interpretive questions as such or with aspects of performance that might arise out of motivic or harmonic analysis. The method can work with many different interpretive stances as regards tempo, articulation, phrasing, registration, rubato (or lack thereof), agogic accentuation, etc., and many philosophies regarding memorization, concert programming, authenticity (or, again, lack thereof), fingering, pedaling, posture, etc. In this column I will discuss questions involving form and structure, and suggest an approach to motivic analysis—I prefer to call it motivic awareness—that I believe is useful and flexible, and that arises naturally out of the learning and practicing approach outlined in the last few columns.
Almost every piece of music deals in some way with issues of sameness and change. In some types of pieces, the way in which those opposite poles are presented is very clear. For example, in a chaconne or passacaglia, the repeated harmonic pattern provides sameness or continuity, while the various melodies, rhythms, and textures that unfold over that harmonic pattern provide change. In a rondo, the ritornello represents continuity and everything else represents change or development. In sonata-allegro form, on one level continuity is represented by a recapitulation, and change by the development section. However, the balance (or tension) between sameness and difference may also be manifested in other, more subtle ways, such as having two principal themes that are very different from one another. In general, in tonal music change is represented by departures from the tonic and continuity by the return to it.
In pieces that are largely or entirely contrapuntal—built up of melodies happening in different voices—questions of overall structure, including the handling of continuity and change, are dealt with in large part through recurring melodic themes or motives, and through the patterns of recurrence of those motives. A motive is a recognizable bit of melody, and when it recurs, it is recognizably the same, or close enough to being the same that a listener’s ears and mind will accept it as being the same. In some types of pieces, some recurrences of themes will be at least somewhat predictable. In a fugue, the beginning of the piece will be shaped by each voice entering in turn with the same theme—the fugue subject—and the end section of the piece will involve the return of that theme in some or all of the voices. In between there will almost always be passages—sometimes long, sometimes short—during which the fugue subject is more or less absent. A chorale-based contrapuntal piece will often have one or more recurring motives derived directly from the chorale melody. In a piece that is canonic, the different voices will present the same melodic material at different times.
(Notice that at least some of the reasoning in the above paragraph is circular. I wrote that “in a fugue” such-and-such will happen. I could just as well have written that if such-and-such happens, we will call it a fugue.)
In principle, a piece could be fully or partly contrapuntal without having very much—or indeed any—recurrence of themes. A piece could be written in three or four or more voices, and the voices could share no thematic material at all, and each voice itself could fail to repeat any recognizable themes. However, this essentially never happens. There are pieces—for example, several of the Orgelbüchlein chorales—in which motives are shared by only two out of the four voices (Puer natus, Heut’ triumphieret Gottes Sohn) or in which the voices share little or no thematic material from one to another, but do each repeat and develop motives as they go along (Ich ruf’ zu dir). But a piece that is worked out rigorously in voices and in which melodic motives play no role is a rarity, to say the least. There seems to be, and to have been over the centuries, a strong consensus that a voice-based texture and a motive-based rhetorical structure go together.
This makes it natural to assume that the first goal in interpreting such pieces is to bring out the theme(s), (subject(s), motive(s). I have often had students who were pianists new to organ and harpsichord ask me how it could be plausible to play a fugue, for example, on those instruments, since they do not permit the player to use dynamics to make the fugue subject stand out from the rest of the texture. Of course it’s possible to do this occasionally, when the logistics of the notes and the fingering happen to line up just right, but it can not be done in a thoroughgoing way. However, sometimes students assume that there must indeed be a way to do this, and that it must be in fact the hidden art—the secret!—of playing counterpoint on harpsichord and organ. At first glance this seems to make sense: if themes and motives are important, even crucial, to contrapuntal keyboard music, then surely it is important or crucial that listeners be able to hear those themes.
However, this idea bumps up against an interesting historical reality. It was precisely during the time when the only keyboard instruments available for performance were those instruments on which the player cannot bring themes out explicitly that the writing of contrapuntal music for the keyboard most flourished. The decline in the predominance of rigorously contrapuntal music in the (newly written) repertoire after the Baroque period corresponded exactly to the rise of the piano and the replacement of the harpsichord with the piano in everyday use. So apparently composers have seen the piano’s ability to use dynamics to highlight particular parts of the texture to be inconsistent with, or at least not conducive to, the writing of counterpoint. Instruments on which the changing timbre up and down the keyboard helps to make individual voices clear and autonomous, but on which individual motives cannot be brought out have been seen by composers as most conducive to writing counterpoint for the keyboard.
This, in turn, seems to me to point to perhaps the most important concept for a student, or any performer, to bear in mind when thinking about shaping performances of contrapuntal pieces on a keyboard instrument. On the one hand, the music is at its very essence made up of motives or themes, not just notes. These motives are the philosophical and rhetorical building blocks of contrapuntal music. They are the words and phrases, while the individual notes are the phonemes. But, on the other hand, there is no reason to consider any one theme or motive or subject within a given piece to be more important than any of the others.
In the course of working on the separate voices of a contrapuntal keyboard piece, any student—even one who is not yet very experienced with this kind of music—will become, perhaps unwittingly, a real expert on the motivic content of that piece. Simply as a result of having listened a lot to each voice and, by definition, to all of that voice’s melodies, themes, motives, or subjects, that student will have become perhaps the world’s leading expert on what is going on melodically in that line. This expertise may well be largely subconscious. I believe that the best way to point a student towards making that awareness of the motivic content of contrapuntal voices explicit, and thus heighten its ability to help enliven the music, is to ask the student simply to try to notice anything and everything that happens more than once.
This is a deliberately simple, colloquial, almost naïve way of looking at themes in contrapuntal voices. One purpose of starting out by looking at voices this way is to avoid a prejudice in favor of motivic ideas that have what might be called a professionally sanctioned importance, such as fugue subjects, countersubjects, or motives derived from a chorale. If these things are present, then a neutral search for anything that happens more than once will certainly find them. If, in a particular piece, such themes really are the most important thing about the motivic structure of the piece, then that will become apparent, because those themes will occur more, and/or in more important contexts, than other recurring events that the student may find. But again, even themes that recur more frequently are not more important in performance than themes that recur less often. That is, there is no reason to treat them differently in performance than other motives. It is a good working assumption that anything that a composer took the trouble to do more than once should be treated as rhetorically important.
The question arises of how we know—how a student can tell—what actually constitutes something that happens more than once. In principle, what we are looking for is simple: intervals, melodic shapes, and rhythms that are the same one place in a voice as they are somewhere else (in that voice or in another voice). Some points to remember in looking for such things—or in helping a student to do so—are as follows:
1) It can be useful to make copies of a piece and use different copies to highlight different themes or other recurring events.
2) It makes sense to notice and highlight first of all anything that jumps out as being obvious. This will often include—but not be limited to—“official” motives such as fugue subjects or chorale phrases. Longer motives are the easiest to notice right off the bat.
3) It then makes sense to scan any as-yet unhighlighted sections of each voice looking first for rhythmic patterns that recur, since those are often easiest to spot, and then for intervals or melodic patterns that recur.
4) There is no harm in identifying something as a recurring theme when, according to someone else’s analysis, it might not be. It is more interesting to notice more similarities than to notice fewer. If something seems far-fetched (“there is a major sixth here in m. 4, and another one there in m. 7” or “the note A occurs in each of these three measures”) then it might be far-fetched—in which case it will probably melt away upon further consideration—or it might turn out to be real. If on reflection it seems real, then it might lead to some insight about the piece or to a more rhetorically convincing playing of the piece or of that part of it. It would be a shame to miss out on this.
5) At the same time, it is not necessary to expect to find everything the first time through. The act of looking through voices hoping to find recurring motives will almost certainly lead to playing all of the notes more meaningfully—more like words and phrases and not just phonemes—regardless of whether you do or don’t find all of the plausible recurring motives.
I have recently done (actually re-done) a quick analysis of two very basic Bach contrapuntal works, the first Two-Part Invention and the first fugue of the Well-Tempered Clavier. In the former I have found that one half-measure in both voices together (m. 6, second half), one measure in the upper voice (m. 13, third beat through m. 14 second beat), and a further half measure in the upper voice (m. 21, second half) consist of material that is not part of any motive that recurs. That’s all: ten beats out of a total of 176 in the piece. Of those ten beats, six occur in cadences. In a cadence the relative importance of harmony goes up and the relative importance of counterpoint goes down. (Cadences express sameness or togetherness rather than diversity or change.)
In the fugue, there are 432 beats of voice-writing (27 measures, four beats per measure, four voices). Of these, no more than about 40 beats are constructed out of thematic material that does not recur, and there is no moment in the piece when there is not at least one voice presenting recurring material. The fugue subject occurs officially 23 times. However, part of the recurring material consists of fragments of the fugue subject. The analytic approach being described here makes it unnecessary to consider those notes anomalous or fragmentary, but still permits an understanding of how they relate to the rest of what is going on.
In both of these pieces I have now found more notes that seem to me to belong to recurring melodic ideas—i.e., more things that happen more than once—than I did the last time I looked them over some years ago. Our ability to notice should grow with experience.
Sometimes looking for anything that happens more than once can be revealing in unexpected ways. Years ago when I first studied the Praeludium in E Major, BuxWV 141, by Dietrich Buxtehude, I happened to notice that the opening four notes—the rising tetrachord b-c#-d#-e—recurred at least a time or two. I decided to look for this motive wherever I could find it in the piece. The recurrence of that simple, almost throwaway bit of melody turned out to provide a structural roadmap of the whole work. It occurs in one form or another at all of the important transition points in the piece, and actually serves as a guideline to the affect of the different sections. It would never, however, be identified as any kind of subject that is developed contrapuntally in the work.
(Since there is not space here to delve into the details of these three examples, I have posted them on the Princeton Early Keyboard Center website, <A HREF="http:www.pekc.org">www.pekc.org</A>, with highlighting in several colors, and thorough commentary. I have also posted some expanded discussion of the relationship between this kind of contrapuntal learning and various aspects of interpretation, including a perspective or two other than, and different from, my own.)
In essence, this approach is very simple, as simple as it sounds: notice everything that happens more than once; notice as much as you can, but don’t worry about noticing everything; let your awareness of musical words and phrases enliven your playing of the music.
Next month I will turn to the interesting and sometimes vexing—but comparatively circumscribed!—subject of the playing of repeated notes.
