Schubert "Heidenröslein, D. 257 (Op.3/3)" - The Sound-in-Time

0:00 - 0:07

The music begins with a playful pulse.  The voice is soft and pastel.  The bass line bounces up and down and then recoils all the way down.  The high soprano note is left alone suspended in air.

o:07-0:10

The voice rises while the melody falls.

0:10-0:14

The voice becomes slightly more forceful.  The end of this phrase feels open yet on edge.  The forward-moving-ness of the music is felt here.

0:14-0:20

The notes flow into each other delicately.

0:20-0:25

Abruptly the delicate fluidity is lost. The voice now sounds a bit shaky as it jumps on to each note.  However, after 2 seconds it returns to the delicate fluidity from before which now seems somehow even more fluid.

0:26-0:33

The voice becomes extremely light.  Enunciated with an air of pompousness.  The piano mimics the voice.

0:33-0:39

The voice becomes stronger and robust.  The syllables are enunciated with more vigor.  The voice feels like it starts off at a distance and comes closer until it reaches that same high note from the beginning, except this time the high note is sung out with power and assertion.

0:39-0:42

The voice grows louder and louder, the tension is building, the piano speeds up.  The melody ascends.

0:43-0:46

A stark contrast.  The voice has lost its vigor.  The tone of the voice is more gentle.  The melody descends.

0:47-0:53

A continuous downfall in loudness and melody.  The gentleness in his voice grows until the melody ends and he shies away.

0:53-0:58

The voice begins to regain its strength, building up to the end of this phrase.  It takes him longer to get to the highest note this time, the voice struggles to reach this point.

0:58-1:05

The piano is soft and so is his voice, which here resumes the same quality it possessed in the beginning.  The piece tenderly comes to an end...

1:06-1:12

... only to resume once more in the most dramatic way.  The piano is more enunciated.  The voice is rich and full of flavor.  The syllables are more drawn out, and there is barely an audible gap between each note.  This time, the high note rings out with glorious resonance.

1:12-1:15

The voice remains full-throated.  The syllables are still drawn out until the end when he starts to cut short his sounds and almost yell the words.

1:16-1:19

In a more delicate way, the rich and flowy nature of his voice returns abruptly.

1:20-1:26

The syllables flow into each other more than ever here, as the voice floats around serenely, and is gently put down.

1:26-1:32

The voice, having lost its fullness, remains soft and does not regain strength in this part, as it had before.  The high note at this point is the faintest note heard in the entire song.

1:32-1:40

The vocalist breathes out the final notes - they fall hushedly from his mouth and the piano catches them.  

1:41-1:46

Silence, white noise fades out.

----Phenomenological Conclusion:

Throughout the piece, certain syllables are always emphasized.  This, plus the extreme rising and falling of each phrase, the overall continuity (no rests), and the deliberate rubato make the piece actively move in all sorts of directions at once.

Schubert "Heidenröslein, D. 257 (Op.3/3)" - Syntax

The specific recording being analyzed is from an album entitled "Schubert: Die schöne Müllerin & Three Lieder".  It was recorded in stereo.

Tenor: Fritz Wunderlich; Piano: Hubert Giesen

Recording Supervision: Hans Ritter.

Recording Engineer: Heinz Wildhagen.

Recorded at Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich from July 2, 1966 through July 5, 1966.

Label: Deutsche Grammophon

Released: September 17, 1996

Heidenröslein is in G Major, and in 2/4 time.  The instrumentation is for piano and one voice (The voice may be in any range. In this case it is a tenor voice.).  The vocal range marked in the score is from G4 to G5.  However, in adapting the song to the tenor vocal range, in this recording it is sung from G3 to G4.  The song is 16 bars in length and is repeated three times for a total of 48 bars of music.  The style marking is Lieblich, which translates from German to mean lovely, gentle, sweet, and charming.  The tempo marking in the score is quarter note = 69.  This recording starts off at tempo 69, however the tempo is not steady throughout.  The length of the recording is 1:46.  

The piano part is chordal. The majority of the piece is structured as such:  the downbeat is in the bass clef and the subsequent chord follows on the upbeat.  This is consistent until the final 3 measures of the 16 bar song, when the piano takes up the melody in a simple restatement.

The chord structure is as follows:

Phrase 1 With Tonic as I:   ||: I  I  ii4/2  ii4/2  V6/5  V4/2  I6  I

Prase 2 With Dominant as I:   IV IV V#4/2 V #4/2 I6 ii6 V7[#3] VI

Extention of Phrase 2 with Dominant as I: I6 ii6 V7[#3]  I

Phrase 3/ Coda with Tonic as I: V V4/2 I6 I, IV IV6 I

Afterthought: IV ii I6/4 V7 I  :|| x3

The first phrase ends somewhat openly on a sort of dragged out Imperfect Authentic Cadence.  The second phrase introduces C# accidentals and modulates to the dominant key of D Major, ending on a deceptive cadence.  The D major segment is then brought to a close with a short 2 bar extention that ends with a Perfect Authentic Cadence in the key of D.  There is a fermata hold on this final chord in the key of D.  The third phrase, which feels more like a coda, revists G Major.  There is a breathe halfway through what I have marked as Phrase 3, on a fermata on the I chord - this can be called a short Imperfect Authentic Cadence.  Then the vocal melody finishes its song with with a plagal cadence in the next 2 bars.  The piano ends the piece with a 2 and a half bar afterthought that solidifies the home key of G major with a Cadential 6/4 chord and a Perfect Authentic Cadence.

There are various stylistic and dynamic markings.  The music is marked pp at measures one and eleven, which is at the beginning of Phrase 3/Coda.  At this second pp, the music is also marked "nachgebend", which translates to mean getting slower, yielding.  However, two measures later in measure thirteen, the music is marked "wie oben" which translates literally as "in the style of above", so it is implied that Schubert wanted to performer to slow down leading up to the end of measure twelve, and then to resume his original tempo upon reaching measure thirteen.  In the piece, there is also one crescendo marking in measure 9, as the music reaches its PAC in D Major, and two decrescendo markings in measure 15, as the song winds down.

Link to score

Schubert "Heidenröslein, D. 257 (Op.3/3)" - Open Listening

The song begins without any introduction, or even a breathe by the vocalist. The melody simply starts and then moves forward.  When the first phrase begins it feels like the singer is skipping along while remaining in a legato style, as the piano bounces back and forth between the bass note and the chord (This piano part is consistent until the last few measure of the song, and it is the driving force of the piece.  The part bounces while remaining a distinct legato quality, which is probably due to a deliberate use of the sustain pedal). As the music moves toward the end of the first phrase, the dynamic grows from a gentle mp to a solid mf - this is especially emphasized in the piano part.  And as the tenor reaches the high note at the end of the phrase, he suddenly softens his voice and almost whispers the syllable.  Additionally, when the singer reaches the end of the phrase he employs rubato.   In fact, there is a rubato feel throughout the phrase from the beginning to the end, and moreover, the tempo fluctuates throughout the whole piece.    

The second phrase begins in the same resilient manner as the first.  However, an accidental is quickly introduced and suddenly the song is filled with an apologetic instability; yet in the next 4 bars this same accidental transforms the melody into a glorious statement that still bears a touch of remorse.  This middle portion of the song ends powerfully in the dominant key, and after a short held out note, the melody swiftly moves back to the original key without any hesitation whatsoever.

We hear an ascending scale that brings us up to the tonic.  It is held out for a moment, and then, as if letting out a deep sigh, the melody arpeggiates downward and lands on the tonic one octave below.  The piece comes to a close with a short restatement of the melodic theme in the piano.  This short composition is repeated three times through, which is the length needed to go to span the entirety of Goethe's poem.  The second time the song begins with more fury, at a slightly faster tempo, in a louder dynamic, with the ends of phrases being sung out rather than whispered.  The notes are almost sung staccato and the syllables seem to be pronounced more clearly, almost as if the singer is speaking or yelling rather than singing and is trying to emphasize the words to a non-German speaker.  Halfway through the second time, the vocals reach a calm legato again, and the rubato is more dragged out, and more dramatic.  During this portion, the piano is also much lighter than before.  Overall, the second time through we see much more stylistic and dynamic contrast.  And the third time through sees even MORE dynamic contrast than the first and second - the first half is ff and full of vigor and the second half is supple and forgiving.  Finally the piece ends, with the restatement of the melody that occurred each time in the piano voice - there is no large cadence, just a gentle affirmation of the tonic that is quickly left alone.

This piece is brief yet it packs a big punch.  It is full of dynamic contrast and deliberate details that bring a bit of magic to the song.  Also, Goethe's poem fits perfectly in the context of this lieb.  The syllables of the poem bounce and roll from note to note and the unbroken sound that springs from this relationship between music and text makes it hard to believe that the poem ever existed separate from the song.

Schubert "Heidenröslein, D. 257 (Op.3/3)" - Historical Background

Schubert was born and died in Vienna, Austria (1/31/1797-11/19/1828).  As a composer, he may be considered a bridge between the "classical" and "romantic" musical periods. Schubert is known for his ingenius melodic writing and his original sense of modulation in harmonic writing.  His music is often described as passionate, dramatic, and above all, extremely inventive.  He composed operas, symphonies, chamber music and more, yet throughout his short life of 31 years the majority of Schubert's output were lieder.  Heidenröalein, one of the 600 or more lieder that Schubert composed, was written in 1815 which may have been his most prolific year (in 1815, Schubert composed around 140 lieder, in addition to other works).   (Newbould)

Franz Schubert is very closely tied with the form of the lied.  A lied is an "art song," usually written for piano and one voice, that is set to the lyrics of a highly literary poem.  Lieder are associated with 19th century European romantic music and the simultaneous flowering of German poetry.  Though seen elsewhere, lieder developed in Germany and specifically, in the hands of Franz Schubert and Robert Schumann.

The poem "Heidenröslein" was an early work composed by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), one of the most influential thinkers and writers in Western culture.  He has an immense history of literary output, his most famous work being the two-part poetic drama "Faust".   Though Schubert was one of the pioneers of setting such well-known poetry to song, he was not the only one to write music to Heidenröslein. (Others such as Brahms and Schumann composed for the poem). 

Since the phenomenology of this analysis will be greatly affected by the vocalist in the recording, it is important to acknowledge the historical background of said vocalist. Fritz Wunderlich like Schubert lived a short life, dying at just 35 years old.  The German tenor was born into a family of music and upon receiving a scholarship to Frieburg School of Music, he began to study both french horn and voice. During his career, he performed many operas in his local language of German, including Mozarts' "Magic Flute".  He also especially noted for his interpretations of Schubert and Schumann's lieder cycles.

Meta-Critique of a Published Critique

Link to the original analysis of the 1889 cylinder recording of Johannes Brahms' piano performance of a segment of his First Hungarian Dance.

Though it is not structured in the same way, this analysis follows the most important rule of the eclectic analysis which is to form the analysis around the work.  The goal is to explore this short, noise-filled recording for the nature of Brahms' performance and a window into the past.  The analysis starts off with a bit of historical background about Brahms, and a more lengthy historical background simply about the recording itself. Here, the analysis provides enough data to teach the reader about the difficulties surrounding this out of use recording style (by cylinders).  The amount of information given about HOW to denoise, however, slightly distracts the reader from the text.  Perhaps this portion might be limited if it is to be presented to a reader who is mostly interested in the particularities of the music itself. 

The author takes a section for general observation or as we might call it, an open viewing of the recording.  Then, the reader is provided with at-length syntactical analysis in which every piece of data is scrutinized.  Once again, the diagrams provide good insight as he compares a transcription of the recording with a transcription of the score. This comparison moves the author smoothly into a discussion of improvisation in brahms' performance, which was what the analyst hoped to uncover in the recording.  This leads him into a nice conclusion, which includes his own kind of meta-critique, instructing the reader about just how difficult it was to decipher the recording and how his attempts are merely a first step in the right direction. 

 Overall, this analysis is a huge success.  It provides a multitude of syntactical data from a recording that is barely audible.  It is true that much of the anaylsis was devoted to describing how things were done, which may or may not benefit the reader.  However, this analysis was limited in nature; due to the terrible quality of the recording, it would have been impossible construct any sort of sound-in-time analysis.

The recording in question can be heard here in its original form, throughout the denoising process and reconstructed as a midi file:  (© 1999 Jonathan Berger, CCRMA, Stanford University. All Rights Reserved.)

The original wax cylinder recording 1889

First step in denoising

Second step in denoising

Third step in denoising

Fourth step in denoising

The same phrase with a synthetic sound overlaid upon the voice that was 'excavated' by the denoising process

Midi reconstruction that takes all the data from the analysis of the recording and maps it onto the entire piece

Ferrara, "Phenomenology as a Tool for Musical Analysis"

Historically, the western mind has yearned to possess objective knowledge.   Current scientific philosophers and phenomenolgists alike, however, have begun to explore the idea of personal knowledge: "the personal (experiential) involvement of a 'knower' in all acts of understanding"(356).   In his article "Phenomenology as a Tool for Musical Analysis," Ferrara examines phenomenology as the means of incorporating experiential knowledge into music analysis.   The phenomenological method does not dominate or manipulate the work as it does in standard analysis, but rather it allows the work to question the analyst and the analyst to respond.  According to Ferrara, a work "functions not only as a series of solved problems to technical questions" but as a "polyphonic texture of syntactical, semantic, and ontological meanings" and therefore it must be attended to in a more human and complex way (357).

Ferrara chooses to analyze Edgard Varèse's Poème électronique, an atonal electronic piece of music, phenomenologically because he believes that most other theoretical approaches cannot function in analyzing this type of music.  In performing this analysis, he is attempting to prove "that applied music theory can be broadened to include the implementation of philosophical interpretation" (358). 

He begins with 3 open listenings.  He maintains that you can and should do as many open listenings as the work lends itself too.  After each listening, he records what he hears, building upon his observations each time, and by the third listening he even begins to try and categorize the sounds into some sort of basic sections.  This leads him into the first listening for syntactical form.  First he describes how he will approach the syntactical analysis - since it will not be as straightforward as a standard syntactical analysis that only works with tonal or structured music, he will have to structure the syntactical analysis around the piece - and then proceeds to analyze each section of the piece (he has broken it up into 10 sections).  Ferrara writes that it is difficult to bracket out "semantic" meanings in a piece like this and focus solely on syntax, since the syntax is made up of sounds like birds in a jungle and crashes which obviously have built-in references.  (This proves, once again, how the analyst must be open to the work and not stuck behind rules).  Syntax is approached on 2 levels in Ferrara's analysis.  Firstly, the analyst brackets out formal training to focus on sounds and textures, and secondly, the analyst may use traditional methods to uncover "higher levels of syntax" and to build upon the first more phenomenological analysis of the music (360).

Ferrara moves on to analyze semantic content and meaning in the work.  Again, there are 2 levels - the obvious, for example a bell tolling, and the second, which deals with a specific and deeper meaning for every sound, such as the bell tolling symbolizing time. Semantic meaning is symbolic and has to do with making references.

The third part of the analysis is onto-historical, which not only grows out of but clarifies the previous syntactical and semantic analysis'.    From listening to the work, Ferrara establishes that "Poème électronique crystallizes what it means to be in the modern era.  In our actual lives, technology (computers, automobiles, or electric can openers) surrounds our existence" (369).   This opens up the work to even more symbolic reference, such as: "The concept of "time ticking away or a heartbeat stopping underscores the importance of temporality in human being (370)".    Additionally, the free and sporadic nature of the music coming in and out of the listener's conciousness parallels the way that realities of our existence come in and out of our conciousness awareness without order.   The onto-logical analysis, therefore, elaborates upon and gives depth to the prior two steps.

The three levels of analysis described in the text are all inter-connected, constantly building upon each other.     In the final open listening, these levels come together to create "an intuitive sense of the whole" (371).  Certain passages, directions, etc. now stand out to Ferrara as he weaves his analysis together, and he is finally able to draw some solid conclusions based in experiential knowledge.

He concludes by stressing that there is no correct way to analyze a work.   He contends that the analysis and the work must be essentially bonded together, grounding the former in the latter.  "If the work functions at levels of meaning other than syntax, then so must the analysis.  Musical analysis must not be limited to a discussion of formal elements"(373).  Ferrara insists that music exists on a multiplicity of levels, and therefore must be approached from many different dimensions, as is explained in the phenomenological analysis.

Reaction

I was unsure why this was titled a "phenomenological analysis" - was the whole analysis supposed to be described in a phenomenological sense, or was the phenomenological element supposed to be the most important, with syntax, semantics, and onto-historical worlds to supplement it?  I was also confused by the syntax.  To me, the syntax seemed like a phenomenological analysis - it consisted of phrases like "juxtaposition of hard percussive sounds" and "round, deep tones" (364-5).  The first step of syntactical analysis especially, when the analyst brackets out formal training just to listen to sound is purely phenomenological in the sense that we have spoken of.  Overall, this entire analysis seems to take on a slightly different structure than the eclectic method, but I can see how the eclectic method grew from this.

Dickie, "Art and the Aesthetic" Chapter 5

In Chapter 5 of his text, "Aesthetic Attention: Disinterested Awareness," Dickie considers two common theories of aesthetic attention - those of Jerome Stolnitz and Eliseo Vivas.  Stolnitz's definition of the aesthetic attitude is characterized by "disinterested and sympathetic attention to and contemplation of any object of awareness whatever, for its own sake alone"(114).    Stolnitz's aesthetic attention has no concern for any hidden purpose in an object, but looks thoughtfully upon the object in question just to experience it's aesthetic.  Similarly, Vivas defines the aesthetic attitude as a fascinated attention on an object, accompanied by "the intransitive apprehension of an object's immanent meaning and values in their full presentational immediacy"(114).   Vivas believes that with by apprehending the inherent meanings, one can experience an object in real-time for what it is, aesthetically.  In this way, Stolnitz and Vivas both suggest that man possesses the power to access the aesthetic object and suspend all outside things through his own power and attitude.   Dickie points out however that it seems more appropriate to employ "distinterested awareness"  when one has some type of ulterior motive, such as to write a review of a sports game, yet it seems more useful to employ "intransitive attention" when one has a predetermined desire, such as for a team to win a game.  Therefore, he contends, it important to understand both theories in order to cover all cases in which they may be utilized.

Dickie questions the idea of interested attention.  He presents an example of a boy who looks at a painting of his father and instead of noting its color or expressive nature is reminded of his father.   By the theorists, this may be described as "attending transitively to the painting by using the work of art as a vehicle for associations, that is, as a case of attending with external factors in mind"(117).  Yet Dickie claims that this boy is simply inattentive to the painting, rather that interestedly aware of it, because as soon as the painting sparks his memory he becomes distracted from the work and begins attending to his own memories.  Dickie also considers a boy who knows of the man in the painting, although it is not his own father.  Here, Dickie makes an interesting claim: "The fact that a certain bit of knowledge about a painting may distract attention from it, does not prove that that certain bit of knowledge must distract attention"(119).  Just because this new boy knows who the subject of the painting is, does not mean that he does not possess the ability to fully appreciate and concentrate on the painting itself while he is concious of this relation.  Next, Dickie builds upon his ideas and contemplates an example of two boys listening to music, one of which is listening to analyze the piece while the other is simply listening with no ulterior purpose.   The theorists, Dickie asserts, understand the first boy to be interestedly aware, and the second one to be disinterestedly aware.  Yet Dickie contends the only claim that can be drawn from this example is: "people attend with different motives"(118).  The music is appreciated in different ways because the boys possess different motives, but there is really only one way of listening, or attending.

Dickie goes on to present examples of false disinterested awareness in other various art forms, like acting and literature: in each he builds up the same conclusion that there are no different types of attention.  When he explores literature, in specific, he notes Vivas' assertion that if a poem is approached non-aesthetically then it can only function in practical ways such as for social criticism or for history.  This appalls Dickie because, like Aldrich, Vivas is beginning to make claims without backing them up.  Dickie uses more character examples to disprove Vivas and spitefully concludes that theorists like Vivas "want us to ignore the historical content and social criticism in literature, as if they were somehow not proper aspects of literature" (124).   How one might employ this forced ignorance (or disinterested awareness) is unclear to Dickie.  This leads him to explore where the concept of disinterested awareness began.

It was originally thought that in order to experience beauty one must be disinterested, that is, "not influenced by regard for personal advantage" (124).   The idea literally became "disinterested contemplation" (contemplation without regard for personal advantage).   Then, however, it evolved into "contemplating something without regard to anything in which it stands in relation"(125).  He traces this back to a man named Hutcheson and his idea that the "sense of beauty is triggered by a certain sort of object independently of any relation in which such an object stands to any other thing"(125).  Dickie explains how Hutcheson's theory of disinterested senses does in fact make some sense, yet the new theories on disinterested consciousness are utterly confused.

Finally, Dickie attempts to show how the new theory on disinterested awareness has been used falsely to back up misguided conclusions on criticism and art appreciation.  He considers Stolnitz's assertion that criticizing artwork is distinctly different from appreciating it.  Stolnitz claims that critics of art seek reasons to back up evaluations of the work in question, while to appreciate the art requires a whole different kind of perception.  He also notes that criticism is good in preparation, but one should never be thinking in this analytical way during the free aesthetic experience.  Stolnitz is basically claiming that a critic is interestedly aware, however Dickie accuses Stolnitz in having no basis for his conclusions as Dickie himself precedes to conclude, once again, that the only thing that separates a critic and a non-critic is his motives, not his way of attending to the work (in which there can be no difference since there is only one way).  Dickie claims that a critic's search for reasons in an artwork are not "incompatible with the appreciation of art", but rather that in noting reasons (either subconsciously or consciously) one's appreciation is often amplified (129). Dickie expands by claiming that seeking out reasons is only being ready to notice things and this action does not have compete with appreciation; in many cases it would even be impossible to analyze, and then appreciate, such as during a live performance.  Dickie considers another common claim by aesthetic attitude theorists, that the moral values in an art work can often disrupt or distract our aesthetic attention.  He argues that not only do most art works have a moral point of view, but these views are often the most important aspects of the work.  There is, as Dickie states, no reason to treat this aspect of the work any differently, and even if there was reason, there is no way to do this.

REACTION

I was struck by Stolntiz's idea that one should not criticize a work during the actual aesthetic experience, because it reminded me of the eclectic method.  Whenever we have an open listening or viewing, we are freely and unquestioningly surrendering ourselves to the work.  Yet, in all other steps of the analysis, we are critically questioning the work at hand and its various aspects.  In this, we seem to be following Stolnitz and the aesthetic-attitude theorists, rather than Dickie.  However, the eclectic method also relates to Dickie in that it is never done with any step - it continues to build upon itself and "the finding of reasons goes on constantly"(130).  Articles such as this reveal how the formation of the eclectic method must have drawn upon many different theories on aesthetic.