Masters thesis klez analysis

[Joshua Horowitz <horowitz...>]

Hi friends,

Aaron and I have been communicating about musicological stuff in klezmer
music. Our communique is included below. The intention is to get wider
input from those of you who are interested in helping out with the
problems of analysis for Aaron's masters thesis. It's 
another long one (surprise, surprise)... Josh

Aaron Beim wrote:

I have one question/comment for you:

I understand the need to differentiate between melody and harmony when
the
original harmony was not written to be accompanied by a more
complex/"busy" harmonic rhythm.  I would agree with you for the most
part,
that I need to separate the melody and harmony because contemporary
klezmer musicians play original melodies but alter the harmonies and
thus
the transitional chords don't really support any melodic movement to
what
you call a sub-mode.

I've noticed a few cases though where the ornamentation of the melody is
altered to fit the underlying transitional harmony (ie a
diminished-seventh chord).  Do you think the categories you set-up are
static or are they capable of being expanded upon or ammended?
Contemporary klezmer music differs in many ways from it's original
counterpart and the music might just be changing to that extreme. 
That's
why I've always had a problem with the term "revival" and see it as Mark
slobin does, as a "restructuring" or reconditioning.  What about when
someone composes a new piece in the style of "traditional" klezmer but
fits the melody to their corresponding transitional chords?

I don't think that these chords correspond new modal categories, per se,
but I can definitely see them as something more than transitional
harmonic
material.

Josh Horowitz wrote:

It occurred to me that in your thesis you would need to differentiate
between older and newer styles of klezmer music, as such things as
harmony based modulations are foreign to the older style (as I know
you're aware). So when you mention transitional secondary dim. chords
you are talking about juxtaposition modulations, i.e. modulations which
are effected through the use of a juxtaposed harmony and not an
integrally melodic modulation. Sure, the melody itself will always
modulate to a new mode, but if this new mode is not a sub-mode of the
original mode, the melodic modulation will always be direct. I suggest
you separate melody form harmony completely to observe what's going on
there if you haven't already done this.

Aaron wrote:

> I've noticed a few cases though where the ornamentation of the melody is 
> altered to fit the underlying transitional harmony (ie a
> diminished-seventh chord).  Do you think the categories you set-up are static 
> or are they capable of being expanded upon or ammended?

Josh wrote:

Without seeing (hearing) the example you're referring to it's difficult
to answer that, but I can give you some general thoughts:

First, the analytic system I set up was geared specifically for dealing
with the "traditional" style of klezmer music, i.e. the early period. As
I mentioned to you, I think that it's part of the creativity of the
musicologist to develop such systems, which can be very specific.
However, the flexibility of the system you choose is a proof of its true
utility. In the case of the system I developed, it can very easily deal
with modern alterations to the style, but not without some additions to
the system which I logically clarify in my London paper, which deals
even with Kletzka Red's developments.

I think that if the music is derivative of the traditional klezmer genre
(and by definition, if the melodies are recognizable as tunes from the
early recordings, even with modern touches, this would qualify) the
system you use for analysis should be able to include both the old style
as well as modern developments.

 What about when
> someone composes a new piece in the style of "traditional" klezmer but
> fits the melody to their corresponding transitional chords?

There are many levels to this question, and it stands at the core of the
problem of typology, which is the most exhausting of categories of
analysis for me. If we restrict that question only to the question of
"What analytic system should we use to take care of pieces written in
the folk style but which diverge from it" and stay clear of the "is it
klezmer music or not?" (help!) question, there is a logical way to
divert the latter, though you can't avoid it entirely in my opinion,
unless you choose an analytic system which goes outside of the realm of
the music its analyzing (i.e. to Schenkerian or functional harmonic
systems, or western modal theory) which I think only complicates your
purpose. In short: your analysis should on some level reflect the
musicians' intentions and his/her aesthetic world.

When you are comparing the function of juxtaposition, which in this case
can be reformulated to, "what do I do when the music uses an older genre
(trad klezmer music) for its basis, but deviates through the use of
modern techniques?,  I would use a system geared toward analysing the
klezmer part, then isolate those elements which do not belong to that
system and treat them separately. That requires of course, thorough
knowledge of the basic system of klezmer system, which I hope to have
summarized partly in the mode article. Without a system, and
understanding of the basis for a style, you can't possibly talk about
deviation from it. That much should be obvious. Unfortunately, my model
is the only existing one, as these problms haven't been dealt with
seriously in the musicological world. Take it or leave it, but trust me,
I spent many a lonely Saturday night filing it into its present form.
It's not perfect, so if you can improve it, nothing would please me
more.
Here are some examples to illustrate what I've written:

Problem: You have a trad melody played with jazz harmonies.
Solution: Split up melody and harmony and treat them separately

Problem: The end of a klezmer melody phrase uses a foreign chord AND
foreign connecting phrase to get to a traditional sub-mode.
Solution: Present the normal construct without the deviation, then
isolate the "foreign elements" and show how they differ from the old
way.

Problem: The end of a klezmer melody phrase uses a foreign chord AND
foreign connecting phrase to get to a totally non-traditional tonal
area.
Solution: Present the normal construct without the deviation, then
isolate the "foreign elements" and comment on the fact that the "totally
non-traditional tonal area" doesn't fit in with the older style and show
how the new one differs from the old one.

Keep in mind that the old system of klezmer music remained unaffected by
harmony. New harmonic constructs often have notes within their chords
that lie outside of the mode. In some cases (see my paper when it comes)
I think that molecular changes are happening in the actual modes, but we
can't ascertain what they really are until they become bonafide
patterns. Until we reach a point in time where the actual changes are
obvious, I suggest treating them as foreign elements to the system.

In summary, yes, I do believe that changes in the actual "genetic
material" of the modes has occurred in the past in klezmer music, and is
still happening, right before our eyes. On the other hand, these changes
happen more slowly than it seems. Whereas modern renditions often SOUND
very modern, upon closer observation most developments are quite simple
and conscious juxtapositions that stick out like a pig in a shul if you
know the basic material.

Let me know if this helps. It's not as wishy-washy as it sounds- just
hard to communicate without sound examples.... be well, Josh

Aaron wrote:

<In summary, yes, I do believe that changes in the actual "genetic
<material" of the modes has occurred in the past in klezmer music, and
is
<still happening, right before our eyes. On the other hand, these
changes
<happen more slowly than it seems.

I haven't discerned any clear patterns yet, but I would think that with
the
time and effort, an analysis of Klezmer -- even "traditional" Klezmer
music -- would result in the need to broaden categories or to create new
ones.  But are these categories purely modal and exist separately from
the
harmonic qualities or, sicne the new categories are based mostly on
Western
structures, are they interdependent.  FYI: for my work now I definately
am
not going to propose any new categories but I'm just wondering.

Thanks for your problem/solution examples, they're very helpful.  But I
have
one comment, though.  By separating the traditional from the western/new
for
purposes of analysis, does one loose the overall personality of the
piece
or, more generally, the sub-genre.  I think something as simple as doing
a
jazz solo over Klezmer "changes" doesn't apply to my argument, but what
if
the fusion is more complex than that?  Do we loose the forest for the
trees
(pardon the banality) by doing separate categories of analysis?  I guess
you
could do a third category which would include the piece in its entirety
rather than its segregated parts, but I think even that is not as
complete
an analysis as looking at all the elements as interdependent.

I guess in terms of looking at "new" klezmer as compared to the old, a
separation would make sense, but how about looking at the new in of
itself?

Josh wrote:

there are clear patterns which have developed in the modern styles of
klezmer. Even in the so-called avante garde world patterns develop very
quickly- as quickly as one musician copies or varies what another has
done. Today 12-tone technique, combinatorial sets, aleatoric and
probability theory, sound clusters and microtonality are old hat
concepts in music. Nothing short of an application to music of the
newest discoveries in quantum theory can be called new.

> I haven't discerned any clear patterns yet, but I would think that with the
> time and effort, an analysis of Klezmer -- even "traditional" Klezmer
> music -- would result in the need to broaden categories or to create new
> ones.  But are these categories purely modal and exist separately from the
> harmonic qualities or, sicne the new categories are based mostly on Western
> structures, are they interdependent.

> Thanks for your problem/solution examples, they're very helpful.  But I have
> one comment, though.  By separating the traditional from the western/new for
> purposes of analysis, does one loose the overall personality of the piece
> or, more generally, the sub-genre.  I think something as simple as doing a
> jazz solo over Klezmer "changes" doesn't apply to my argument, but what if
> the fusion is more complex than that?  Do we loose the forest for the trees
> (pardon the banality) by doing separate categories of analysis?

By analyzing the music we already have lost the forest for the trees.
MAKING music is the forest. ANALYZING it is the trees. Music is a
language. Analysis is a translation of that language into another
language. Both have their symbols, both have their rules of symmetry and
both have their modes of communication. Try not to forget what the
PURPOSE of your analysis is. For me it is very personal- to increase my
improvisational vocabulary, to quicken my learning, to learn through my
understanding of the music how to listen to it in its entirety, and also
to have a language for communicating it to others who want to learn,
which can be too difficult sometimes through only playing it for them.
It's not an end in and of itself for me but has a painfully utilitarian
purpose. It's like speed-reading. Not only should it help you to learn
faster but also comprehend more. Those who think analysis is only an
academic excercise may not have explored the advantages of it. It is a
tool. As such it can reep destruction or can help to build.

back to reality....bleep....

  I guess you
> could do a third category which would include the piece in its entirety
> rather than its segregated parts, but I think even that is not as complete
> an analysis as looking at all the elements as interdependent.

None of the elements in the klezmer scene I see today escape analysis.:
Tonality is complex. But its system is finite and traceable. It has
firmly established systems of analysis (modal and tonal counterpoint.
Diatonic, chromatic and jazz harmony). Atonality is traceable. It also
has firmly established systems of analysis  (Schoenberg and Hauer
12-tone theories, set theory). The historical anomoly is that modality
is the oldest element of the klezmer system, BUT it has no system of
theory. to date. There are reasons for this, but the BIGGEST problem
you'll encounter is your analysis of modality, because we have no
historical precedents for it. This is what I've tried to construct in my
system of analysis (for what its worth). The other elements which you
will encounter now in newer klezmer music are all firmly entrenched in
tonal music, be it jazz, rock, or even free-tonal music. I think its
very easy to discern these elements, and my first instinct in analyzing
them is to use the systems which exist for each as they appear. Why not
first combine them? After all, that's what's happening in the music. If
a klezmer melody appears in the D mogen ovos mode played by tenor sax
and over it you have the piano and bass playing over it the following
progression: Dm11  F7#9   E7b9#9  Eb#5 DmMaj7

analyze the mode as it is: Mogen Ovos

then analyze the juxtaposed chords as:

d minor: I - subValt/II - SubValt/V - bII#5 - I harm minor

In the above you obviously get are mixing 2 systems of analysis... BUT
that's exactly what the music is doing! Why not match the system to the
phenomenon?

In the above you will notice that the extensions of the harmonies create
tones which are "foreign" to the mode. There are 5 chords written. the
foreign tones found are as follows:

1) none
2 Eb and Ab
3) G#
4) Eb Db
5) C#

These foreign tones not only create musical dissonance, they also create
psychological dissonance, as the listener senses what German theorists
call "Stilbruch" meaning a break in style. When you set up an
expectation in music (in this case an older modal structure) then break
it through the use of elements which are not indiginous to it (newer
jazz harmonies), that constitutes a break in style. If the audience is
familiar with both worlds, they percieve this and react. This reaction
is psychological dissonance. When the point arrives where they are
familiar with the styles and DON'T react, we will know that the elements
have been integrated at a molecular level. Naturally every listener will
have different levels of listening experience, so music history never
travels at the same rate. Its relative like everything else, as it
involves the listener. This is how I'm explaing the interdependency you
mention. The elements do interact with each other. There are integrative
and rejective reactions to every new element introduced into  every
system. Klezmer music is an open syste. It allows new elements. The
Iranian Dastgah system is a closed system. It allows very few new
elements, and those are strictly controlled. If you encounter complex
elements in new klezmer music which lie outside of a system, say wild
non-tonal lines with no discernible musical logic, chances are the
musician himself is not trying to control them. At this point, fill in
the analysis box with "gone fishing" and don't worry about it. You could
even develop a symbol for it, like a rainbow trout with angel wings.

Some of this may be food for thought, I don't know. I wouldn't break my
head too much about creating "new" systems of analysis. Klezmer music
has not integrated any elements outside of this century's basic musical
givens.  Have fun, Josh

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+