and then it turned into the Shroud of Turin

Ok, so before Advanced Analysis today, i was talking to a compatriot about the analysis homework. We are analyzing a Schoenberg String Quartet, going through, finding the different row forms and their meanings. Our professor had asked the class to look at a few measures, identify what forms of the row were used and why Schoenberg chose them. we were told it was "something really really cool...at least to Schoenberg at the time."

So, i compared them, found some dyad pairs that were in two measures, but the third measure was completely different, so it threw me off...then the next couple seemed to have a couple dyads in common with the first two, and some flipping in order of specific pitches, but, i just wasn't seeing much.

My friend and i were discussing this as we were walking over (after drinking coffee) and we figured the professor would lay some crazy stuff down. Our professor, honestly, is quite amazing. he really tries to find out the why's of music, not just "Oh, and here are the row forms used and when." That's what theory is all about, yes, but so often, i've never gotten to that point in the class. it's about learning the pedantic issues; identifying the row, filling out a matrix, in set theory-getting everything in prime form, identifying trichords and such...My current theory professor says "well, yeah, you need to know how to do that, but, what's the point if you can't see the relationships the composer is creating? It's not about what form of the row, but WHY is that form of the row necessary at that specific moment."

So, my friend and i were walking and basically decided that, somehow, our professor would take the row, transpose it (probably a tritone), then take the retrograde, tear it into little bits, pee on it, put it in a magic hat, say three words, and "POOF" its the Shroud of Turin.

and, ya know, we were far off...

Our Professor took the forms. we pointed out a couple pairs of matching dyads, then he pointed out "they are ALL matching pairs." Shows how much space really messes with your thinking...we noticed the pairs close together, and the pairs that started and ended, but not the ones in the middle. boo to me for not being observant. shoulda started the analysis before 11pm last night. n'ah, i still wouldn't have seen it...

Then Professor posits a rule of transposition for the row- that if you transpose it 6 away, you'll get the dyads, and if you invert it and move it + or - 3 away, you get the dyads, thereby creating 4 form clusters.

THEN he goes on to show us how the measure with the form that didn't fit (which i knew didn't fit but didn't know why) fits in with these measures over here, but instead of doing dyads in order (1-2, 3-4, 5-6) he was stacking dyads vertically between the two forms...

thus, our professor more or less did take the form, transpose it, invert it, tear it into little bits...and made the Shroud of Turin...or at least a pretty damn clear picture of how Schoenberg put together this String Quartet and many other pieces...and eluded to the fact that later composers use this quite often...

He also said that doing a 12 tone matrix can confuse us from seeing this relationships. You do the matrix, the distance starts messing with what you see. Put everything close together, right on top of each other. Dissect measure by measure, form by form, and something big will pop out. Schoenberg lays down a classic musical form: Intro-AABAAB AND the intro, which is P0, of course, acts as a "tonic" if you will, and that the A section functions like a Dominant, and B as a secondary Dominant...thus, taking atonal harmonic and melodic ideas but classic tonal structural ideas all at once...

Schoenberg is awesome. and my professor is a much more gifted theorist than i probably ever will be.

and, everyday, as i walk to class, i pass KinderMusik posters, drawings of "what is music" with bright crayons, swirls, and all different shapes...and somehow, that means a lot more to me, and i get it...completely. my professor is bridging that gap, for me, of what i hear and what is on the page. it's not just random rows without meaning, it's a lot more...but it's still not bright crayons drawing self-meaningful shapes yet...that's the theory i'm looking for...and it may be just drawing brightly coloured shapes in crayon...