[Smt-talk] Goethe

Fri May 17 12:37:43 PDT 2013

List,

There's also William Pastille, "Music and Morphology:  Goethe's Influence
on Schenker's Thought," Schenker Studies (1990) 29-44.  I believe this is
drawn from Pastille's 1985 Cornell dissertation.

Best,

Bryan

Bryan Parkhurst
PhD Candidate
Department of Philosophy and Department of Music Theory
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:05 PM, <
smt-talk-request at lists.societymusictheory.org> wrote:

> Send Smt-talk mailing list submissions to
>         smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         smt-talk-request at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         smt-talk-owner at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Smt-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Metamorphosis (Michael Morse)
>    2. Re: Semitonal voice leading (Ildar Khannanov)
>    3. Re: Metamorphosis (Gregory Karl)
>    4. Re: Metamorphosis (Arndt, Matthew)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:31:52 +0000
> From: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>
> To: "smt-talk at societymusictheory.org"
>         <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: [Smt-talk] Metamorphosis
> Message-ID: <BAY171-W79BBC9F31F5BE09204AFF1D0A30 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Folks,
>   I've been at least tangentially intrigued by the influence of Goethe on
> musicians and music theory for quite a while. Anton Webern's letter to his
> friends Josef Humplik and Hildegard Jone about the conception of his
>  Variations for Orchestra explicitly ties that work to Goethe's Urpflanze
> notion. And I recently read a critical but very respectful study by
> Helmholtz of the contemporary status, ca. 1860, of Goethe's scientific
> ideas. It made me wonder; has anyone tried to synthesize the scattered but
> clearly considerable influence of Goethe's scientific ideas on music theory
> and practice? Are there studies you can recommend about particular
> musicians or theorists? Finally, has anyone here ever been involved with
> this set of issues?
> Thx,
> Michael MorseTrent University Peterborough, Oshawa
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130516/f9cae72c/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ildar Khannanov <solfeggio7 at yahoo.com>
> To: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org,      Andrew Schartmann
>         <andrew.schartmann at yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Semitonal voice leading
> Message-ID:
>         <1368725066.99451.YahooMailClassic at web125304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Andrew and the List,
> ?
> this is a chicken-and-the-egg question but you will have to choose one
> over another if you do not want to enter le cercle vicieux.
> ?
> First of all, I am not familiar with the concept of "German augmented
> sixth chords." Normally, when one national tradition introduces a new term,
> another tradition is there to evaluate and, sometimes, to contest the
> innovation. That was the case for French an German traditions in the 18th
> and 19th centuries. The phrase "German chord" does not mean anything to me
> for this particular reason but in Dimitar's terms it is an altered
> Subdominant, and this explains everything.
> ?
> The Subdominant supertonic four-three with augmented sixth and raised root
> does not sound like the Dominant seventh chord. It is a
> common?misconception. It sounds like Subdominant--nothing can hide its
> Subdominant origin.
> ?
> Dominant seventh chord is not just any major-minor seventh chord. It is a
> Dominant seventh because it is related to Tonic this way. Besides Dominant
> seventh chord, a large group of other chords, with different voice leading
> obligations, ?are related exactly this same way, as Dominants. The same
> applies to secondary Dominant seventh chords as they are related to local
> Tonics.
> ?
> My point has?been that Dominant seventh chord is such
> notwithstanding?voice-leading conditions in which it is commonly employed.
> On the contrary, its?quality (relation to Tonic) generates voice leading.
> Again, the horse should be placed ahead of the coach.
> ?
> Counterpoint does not define the quality of intervals and chords;
> the?intervals and chords do define the rules of counterpoint.
> ?
> The first?species of counterpoint suggests that we should not move in
> parallel fifth. Let us replace the quality of the interval (if you think
> that contrapuntal context defines the quality of the interval).?We should
> not move in parallel x. This statement loses its meaning? because?it is
> exactly the quality?of the interval, the P5, that defines the "rule of
> counterpoint" and not vice versa.?And indeed, in history of music theory
> there were many?attempts to characterize the phenomenal quality of the P5
> as the determinant of this particular?rule of counterpoint, including the
> theological explanation (the P5 represents God and its replication?in
> adjacency would be a blasphemy).
> ?
> Intervals, chords and their intrinsic qualities (functions)?are mental
> products, the results of logic and abstract thinking. They accompany
> composition, performance and listening experience.
> ?
> Best wishes,
> ?
> Ildar Khannanov
> Peabody Institute
> solfeggio7 at yahoo.com
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/14/13, Andrew Schartmann <andrew.schartmann at yale.edu> wrote:
>
>
> From: Andrew Schartmann <andrew.schartmann at yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Semitonal voice leading
> To: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 4:31 PM
>
>
>
>
> Dimitar,
>
>
> To unravel what you said, you're making the basic point that "rules" of
> counterpoint and harmony are style-based/context-based. I'm not sure anyone
> would argue with you, unless they're willing to posit music theory as a
> natural science, in which case they'd be wrong.
>
>
> Ildar,
>
>
> I want to make sure I fully understand what you're getting at when you say
> that "the question of function cannot be and should not be tied to the
> so-called voice leading context. The Dominant Seventh chord functions as
> Dominant with or without the resolution triad in sight." This is a
> tautology.
>
>
> I assume, however, that you mean the following: a major-minor seventh
> chord functions as a dominant no matter where we find it. If you hold this
> to be true, I'm going to guess you haven't listened to much beyond
> classical music. And even if we stay within the classical repertoire, what
> do you make of German augmented sixth chords?
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Andrew Schartmann
> Graduate Student
> Yale University
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130516/03a942f9/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 22:25:39 -0400
> From: Gregory Karl <gregkarl at frontier.com>
> To: smt-talk <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Metamorphosis
> Message-ID: <9CFE7D4A-F946-4048-8439-08B5B5DCB233 at frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
>         DelSp="yes"
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> If I remember correctly, this article uses the Urpflanze as its prime
> example of bad science. It may cite some useful sources:
>
> David L. Montgomery , "The Myth of Organicism: From Bad Science to
> Great Art," The Musical Quarterly, 75 (1991)
>
> Ruth Solie's "The Living Work: Organicism and Musical
> Analysis," (19th-Century Music 4 (1980)) might have some good leads.
> It's been a while; I just don't remember.
>
> Bye now,
> Greg Karl
> Jay NY
>
>
>
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Michael Morse wrote:
>
> > Dear Folks,
> >
> >   I've been at least tangentially intrigued by the influence of
> > Goethe on musicians and music theory for quite a while. Anton
> > Webern's letter to his friends Josef Humplik and Hildegard Jone
> > about the conception of his  Variations for Orchestra explicitly
> > ties that work to Goethe's Urpflanze notion. And I recently read a
> > critical but very respectful study by Helmholtz of the contemporary
> > status, ca. 1860, of Goethe's scientific ideas. It made me wonder;
> > has anyone tried to synthesize the scattered but clearly
> > considerable influence of Goethe's scientific ideas on music theory
> > and practice? Are there studies you can recommend about particular
> > musicians or theorists? Finally, has anyone here ever been involved
> > with this set of issues?
> >
> > Thx,
> >
> > Michael Morse
> > Trent University
> > Peterborough, Oshawa
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Smt-talk mailing list
> > Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> > http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-
> > societymusictheory.org
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130516/c010ecc6/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 03:51:02 +0000
> From: "Arndt, Matthew" <matthew-arndt at uiowa.edu>
> To: smt-talk <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Metamorphosis
> Message-ID: <2025AEC9-99E6-4DA8-8623-E8FA80507B63 at uiowa.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Gary W. Don wrote a dissertation on the topic: ?Music and Goethe?s
> Theories of Growth? (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1991). A few
> pieces by John Covach touch on the broader reception of Goethe's scientific
> ideas at the turn of the twentieth century, notably ?The Sources of
> Schoenberg?s ?Aesthetic Theology,?? 19th-Century Music 19/3 (1996):
> 252?262. And there have been several pieces about Goethe's influence on
> Schenker and Schoenberg in particular, the most notable of which is
> Severine Neff, ?Schenker, Schoenberg, and Goethe: Visions of the Organic
> Artwork,? in Schenker-Traditionen, ed. Martin Eybl and Evelyn Fink-Mennel
> (Vienna: B?hlau, 2006), 29?50.
>
> Matthew Arndt
> Assistant Professor
> The University of Iowa School of Music
> 2700 University Capitol Center
> Iowa City, IA 52242
> 319-353-2181
> matthew-arndt at uiowa.edu<mailto:matthew-arndt at uiowa.edu>
>
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Gregory Karl wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> If I remember correctly, this article uses the Urpflanze as its prime
> example of bad science. It may cite some useful sources:
>
> David L. Montgomery , "The Myth of Organicism: From Bad Science to Great
> Art," The Musical Quarterly, 75 (1991)
>
> Ruth Solie's "The Living Work: Organicism and Musical Analysis,"
> (19th-Century Music 4 (1980)) might have some good leads. It's been a
> while; I just don't remember.
>
> Bye now,
> Greg Karl
> Jay NY
>
>
>
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Michael Morse wrote:
>
> Dear Folks,
>
>   I've been at least tangentially intrigued by the influence of Goethe on
> musicians and music theory for quite a while. Anton Webern's letter to his
> friends Josef Humplik and Hildegard Jone about the conception of his
>  Variations for Orchestra explicitly ties that work to Goethe's Urpflanze
> notion. And I recently read a critical but very respectful study by
> Helmholtz of the contemporary status, ca. 1860, of Goethe's scientific
> ideas. It made me wonder; has anyone tried to synthesize the scattered but
> clearly considerable influence of Goethe's scientific ideas on music theory
> and practice? Are there studies you can recommend about particular
> musicians or theorists? Finally, has anyone here ever been involved with
> this set of issues?
>
> Thx,
>
> Michael Morse
> Trent University
> Peterborough, Oshawa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org<mailto:
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org<mailto:
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130517/13466b69/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
>
> End of Smt-talk Digest, Vol 52, Issue 10
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130517/82e1877c/attachment-0002.htm>