Why My Son Will Never Play Football

October 23rd, 2010

This is an elaboration of a statement I have made to a few people now and again, and a few more since Noah was born.  I hope it doesn’t amount to heresy in too many people’s minds, but since becoming a father, I feel all the more strongly about it.  My son, Noah, will not be playing football, at least not in any sort of organized way.  Please don’t think him a coward or less of a man–it simply isn’t his choice.  If Becky and I have more children, they won’t be playing football, either.

As a band member, and later as a high school and college band director, I have seen more football games than I might otherwise have chosen to see.   I’ve been told that you never really understand the game until you’ve played it, and while I’ve played in pickup games, mostly touch or flag, I can’t really say that I’ve played football.  Not in the way that some men mean when they talk about their football experiences.

I’ve watched, though.  And I watch Ohio State play football, not out of a great love of the game, or out of genuine affection for Ohio State, but because it’s a link to my hometown, and sometimes they show places that I’ve been during the coverage, and it was the Ohio State marching band that first inspired me to be a trombonist in any serious way.  I haven’t been to an Ohio State football game since 1987, and I’ve never paid for a ticket–I was an usher with the Boy Scouts back then.  Ohio State football reminds me of home, and I live a long way from there.

I don’t know what my parents woudl have said if my brother and I wanted to play.  We certainly weren’t encouraged to play or to try out, and until that season ushering at Ohio State, my parents only ever took us to a few games, always Homecoming at Wittenberg University, my father’s alma mater.  When I was in first grade, I remember Wittenberg beating Marietta 65-3.  I don’t know what the response to a yearning desire to play football would have been; my brother and I both had other interests, and we were pushed toward Boy Scouts  by my father, who was the best scoutmaster I ever saw.

Noah will not play football because of the almost certain chance that he will be injured either in practice or in the game.  In particular, the chance of brain injury–almost too certain to call it a chance–is what really damns the sport in my book.  One person I’ve discussed this with recently objected that helmets keep getting better and better.  However, a helmet may protect the skull from direct trauma, but it does little for the brain, floating serenely in the cranium until subjected to the sudden acceleration that can cause concussion, or worse.

Just what does a concussion mean to a young man of football age?  The teens are a time when the brain is developing rapidly, but in an odd way–the unused synapses are being closed down, and trauma to the brain at that age accelerates this process.  All humans undergo this pruning of neural pathways, but if too few remain, it can become difficult if not impossible to learn later in life.  The results of repeated concussions are rapidly becoming clear–greater risk of depression, suicide, and propensity for substance abuse, violent behavior, along with diminished capacity to adapt to a changing and challenging world.

While none of these prospects is good, this last is probably the most concerning.  In the 1940s, perhaps it was the case that a young man who suffered a concussion or two would be just fine.  The economy was based on manufacturing and agriculture to a far greater extent than today.  A person of less-than-perfect mental ability could still find a job that would allow him to support a family in a middle-class lifestyle and possibly even retire comfortably courtesy of strong unions, Social Security and a booming American economy.  The work was relatively simple, repetitive and unchanging.  A high school diploma was enough.

Today, though, a college degree is the new high school diploma.  By the time Noah graduates high school in 2028, it is difficult to imagine that a master’s degree will not be necessary for most desirable jobs.  The repetitive, simple job that provides a middle-class existence has been gone for decades, of course, and the truth is that Noah will need every brain cell he can muster to be competitive in a world in which competition is global, intense and technologically driven.  To allow him to participate in an activity, namely football, that is predicated on deliberately striking another human being as hard as physically possible, and being so struck oneself, is, to my thinking, the epitome of child abuse.

Here in Oklahoma, and in much of the rest of the country, high school football is a religion, and what I’m saying is heresy.  Many of my colleagues, neighbors and students regard their time playing high school football as golden, and eagerly anticipate the day that their sons can put on helmet and shoulder pads.  Around here, community leagues begin in elementary school, as was true in my hometown.  Even if I had wanted to play football in middle school, I would have been outclassed by my peers who had played years of UA Grid Kid football.  What I’m about to say next will anger football lovers even more:

Football must to be banned if the United States is to compete in the 21st century world.

It is no secret that the growing economies, especially China and India, will soon surpass America in nearly every category, at least those in which they have not bested us already.  Like Noah, we will need every brain cell we can lay our hands on to be creative, intelligent and tenacious rather than lethargic, beaten-down or worse.  We simply cannot sacrifice a generation of our young men in the name of a game.

Maybe an outright ban isn’t necessary.  Government can apply a variety of tools to influence behavior.  Perhaps denying federal funding to schools who continue to sponsor football teams is the answer.  Perhaps a punitive tax on football equipment that would fund the social services required by the victims of concussions and their families.  Perhaps a switch to flag football is the answer–an option suggested derisively by one commentator not long ago on national television in response to what he perceived as an overly “safe” call.

Why do we as a society continue to promote this sort of institutionalized violence?  As a male, I understand the occasional desire to “knock heads”–I have as much testosterone as the next man.  However, if our society isn’t based on the need to subvert those urges, then upon what is it founded?  Are we really in need of this kind of ritualized warfare?  Are there not more civilized forms of competition just as intense?

Football undoubtedly has benefits for some young men.  As with all opportunities for young men to interact with wiser, older men, football allows lives to be changed for the better when a boy who hasn’t had a fair shake encounters men of character.  At the same time, though, does the number of injuries and deaths in high school football really justify this?  Are there not other chances for young men to encouter the men who will become their mentors and shape them?  Wouldn’t a few less traumatically-brain-damaged men be better able to provide this for some boys who don’t currently get it, whether their sons or someone else’s?

Similarly, the argument that football teaches persistence and otherwise “builds character” is technically true, at least for the young men who don’t get cut from the team or have to quit because of injury.  But any endeavor worth pursuing and well-persued can teach persistence.  I learned it from music, while my brother learned it working on the school newspaper.  We also both had a serious dose of it from Scouting and from running our newspaper delivery route (a small business, really).  Any activity worth pursuing can teach character and persistence, and possibly without brain-damage an indoctrination of violence.

Perhaps football teaches strategy and tactics.  Again, this may be true.  It was said that Wellington’s victory at Waterloo was born on the ball fields of Eton and Cambridge.  I am not such an idealist to believe that our country will not one day need to again demonstrate military prowess in the fundamental sort of way that football would seem to simulate on a weekly basis.  However, I would submit that the boon Wellington and his officers actually got from playing together was not strategic in nature, but rather more to do with command and control, as a 19th-century officer could not immediately know his commander’s wishes in the heat of battle.  It was through their personal knowledge of Wellington’s style that his former classmates were able to intuit his intentions.  We have the equivalent in the United States, namely in the cadres of officers graduated each year from West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy.  Football has little to do with it.  The best way to study strategy and tactics is to actually study strategy and tactics, then engage in the most realistic simulations of warfare as possible, not to participate in a game requiring you to knock helmets deliberately with the very people who you will one day depend on as you fight alongside them.

People who know me consider me to be serious (although people who really know me know that I have a lighter side, too).  I see nothing wrong with throwing the flag, as it were, on a dangerous activity, and I can only hope that people will read this and understand when Noah doesn’t suit up sometime around 2022 or so.  I hope to do as my parents did and present him with other opportunities to build his character, first and foremost providing him with an example, as did my father.  I will understand if people my age (and younger, as I’m a little old to be a first-tiem father) continue to let their sons play, but please respect my decision, and don’t try to convince Noah that he needs to play football.

Mahler, Symphony No. 8, movement 1

October 4th, 2010

I was afraid that I would arrive at this piece and it would be absolutely overwhelming, but that hasn’t been the case.  Not in the slightest.  The problem I’m having is that I just don’t like what I’m hearing very much.

I don’t think this is Mahler’s best effort.  Perhaps in writing a “Symphony of a Thousand,” he had to paint with broad brushstrokes:  too broad, if you ask me.  I hadn’t listened to this piece seriously in a very long time–at least fifteen years, and I knew much less about how to listen then than I do now.  Plus, I think every college-aged brass player has to get excited about Mahler–any Mahler–just because it’s orchestral music that doesn’t involve counting quite as many rests.  Let’s face it–Mahler was good to the brass section in a way that some other composers weren’t (although plenty were).  So in my testosterone-fueled, late-teenage years, this piece may have seemed like a little bit of heaven.  I have to admit, though, that there is a little bit of hell here, too.

One of the very exciting parts about studying Mahler has been getting to know his unique orchestration.  He may call for quadruple woodwinds, but it isn’t so that they can all play as loud as possible at the same time.  Rather, he mixes, blends and balances in a manner that could only be honed by a familiarity with the orchestra that I can only envy.  As a conductor, he must have been literally analyzing scores as he was on the podium during rehearsal, committing every effect to memory. 

Usually, this expertise shows through in the scores, but not here.  There are quadruple woodwinds, and a large brass section, but they almost continuously used en masse, and usually in the sort of mixed scoring that band directors often derisively call “safe scoring.”  Perhaps the simple truth is that the enormous choruses of the premiere required this, but it is disappointing in comparison to the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh symphonies.

This first movement is not without its merits, though.  Mahler may have ignored his genius for orchestration (or perhaps not, as the music does succeed in overwhelming the listener with sound, just not the analyst).  I can’t deny that, as art and as craft, this is an effective composition, just as is Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture.  Like 1812, though, it is unrellenting in a way that is somewhat off-putting.  Both these pieces are great music, but they are great in the way that the Grand Canyon is great–their beauty and their appeal lies more in magnitude and sheer forcefulness than in greatness.

Just what is symphonic about this movement?  Is it possible for a piece that is virtually sung throughout to be a symphony?  Up to this time, Mahler had incorporated voices at the end of his symphonies–almost as though he had exhausted what instruments might have to say, just as Beethoven did in his Ninth, but here they appear from the beginning–from the second measure.  The singing is nearly unrellenting for over one hundred measures–the first major instrumental interlude comes at m. 122.  The material here–still fairly broadly scored–is related to the thematic material presented so far, and it is only 18 bars before the voices enter again.

I don’t understand the almost constant doubling of the voice parts–even the soloists–throughout this movement.  This was not Mahler’s approach in the Second Symphony, at least not to the extent we see it here.   I think perhaps that knowing the circumstances of the premiere–a festival setting with an enormous chorus–may have influenced his decision, and perhaps overly so.  Is it possible that, if Mahler had lived longer, he would have revised this work, as he did so many of his others?  Perhaps 1915 or 1916 would have seen a version scored with more reasonable forces in mind. 

There does seem to be a basic sonata principle at work here.  The instrumental interlude seems to suggest the beginning of a development section, and the harmonic pace of the movement quickens after m. 122.  At m. 169, following a deceptive cadence, a second instrumental interlude begins, this one lasting until m. 217 (significantly longer).  When the voices reenter, the music is in C# minor, and both key and text (which is recycled) continue to suggest the development of a sonata-allegro.

Beginning in m. 231, Mahler dwells on an important text:  Lumen accende sensibus–Kindle a light in our senses.  The Romantic yearning for a full feeling of existence is summed up in this line, and Mahler repeats the text several times, where he has mostly set the text much more plainly up until now.  It reappears in a massive climax in m. 262.

At the pickup to m. 275, the children’s chorus enters for the first time, and at a moment where it seems as though nothing else could make this music bigger, grander, this entrance makes it clear that there can be more.  The music now moves from C-sharp minor to E minor, and then to E-flat major, the home key.  This is not the final return, though, and the key changes again, by sequence, to A major in m. 355, and then to Db major just a few bars later.

A return of the accende lumen text leads back to the true return to the home key in measure 385.  Over the next twenty-eight bars the music builds to a truly titanic climax that is the recapitulation.  It appears over a dominant pedal that leads to a long frustration of the tonic chord–we have recaputulated melodically, but not harmonically, and there is no clear tonic chord in E-flat until m. 525.  At some point, there is a transition to coda material–the plagal-function harmonies in m. 564 confirm this–and a final push to an enormous last page.

On, then, to the second movement, the final scene of Faust.  And then to the piece in this set that I know the least, the Ninth.  After that, I have decided to send myself into some of the best works of the 1940s by several different composers.  I’m not certain yet precisely which pieces these will be, but I know that 2011 will see me in Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring, Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra and Elliott Carter’s Piano Sonata.

On the Road Again: Minneapolis and Rock Island

October 3rd, 2010

It’s been a crazy two weeks, with the bulk of it spent out of town, and too much of it spent away from my family, but it’s also good to get out and share insights and work with colleagues, and both of these trips allowed that.

First was the national conference of the College Music Society in Minneapolis.  I had never been to the Twin Cities before, and I didn’t see a great deal of Minneapolis, but what I saw I liked.  I was there to present a poster session on my research into rhythm–what I call quintuplous meters and their notation.  When I found out that I would be giving a poster of my research instead of a large-group presentation, I was a little disappointed, but in fact, I discovered that the poster format was perfect–instead of giving my talk to everyone at once, I could answer questions one-on-one, tailoring my approach to the individual person.  I probably had about as many one-to-one conversations standing there by my poster as there would have been people at my session, and I think everyone went away with their questions answered.

The other great part of the conference was the informal exchange of ideas.  I feel that I’ve spent mine and the university’s money well if I come away from a conference energized and ready to try something back home that I’ve learned about in a session or discussed with colleagues.  The persistent problem that kept coming up with my music theory and composition colleagues who teach at smaller schools is that more and more music majors arrive as freshmen needing the equivalent of what we call at OPSU “Fundamentals of Music.”  They simply are often not ready for Music Theory I.  At OPSU, we have been offering Music Fundamentals during the summer term, but most students who plan to take Theory I in the fall don’t end up taking Fundamentals in the summer first.  The ones who do are generally more successful in Theory I, and the one’s who don’t, but should hold the class back as I spend more time than is probably necessary “reviewing” (i.e., exposing students for the first time in many cases) scales, key signatures, triads and the notation of rhythm.  It turns out that we are not the only school with this problem, and I have brought the dialogue back to OPSU with the suggestion that all incoming music majors take Fundamentals of Music in the fall semester unless they can pass a test showing that they know the material.  Theory I would then be offered in the Spring, with Theory II as a mandatory summer class for all first-year music majors.  Still in the thinking stages, but with the vast array of subjects (ever-growing) that falls into the music theory sequence, I think students would be better for it.

I went to Minneapolis not really knowing anybody, although I expected to run into a few acquaintances.  Nolan Stolz had the poster next to mine, and it was good to finally meet him in person (and to get his feedback on my poster).  Alex Nohai-Seaman and I met through the Roommate Finder for the conference, and I am glad we did.  It was good to see Jason Bahr again, and to hear his choral piece performed on a stupendous concert.  I played a piece for Bonnie Miksch way back in my Cincinnati days, and it was nice to reconnect.  Jay Batzner gave excellent and insightful advice, and I want to learn more about being a human from him.  Rachel Ware had the poster behind mine, and I think our conversations in Minneapolis will lead to a collaboration down the road, so I’m very excited for that to happen.

Four days in Goodwell, then, and a drive to Garden City to catch the Amtrak, although not before having dinner with Jim McAllister, which is always a pleasure.  At this conference, the Society of Composers Region V Conference at Augustana College, I was able to room with an old friend, Dan Perttu.  As usual, some interesting music, some more difficult to listen to, played well by the Augustana students and faculty, along with invited guests.  The highlight for me was finally hearing a live performance of Starry Wanderers by Dianna Anderson.  Dianna was a master’s student at Cincinnati when I was there, and I was assigned to her studio for private piano lessons.  I wish I’d practiced more, because there was clearly much more for me to learn from her!  Her interpretation, as at the premiere that I missed last year, was the type that takes what I think is a pretty good piece and makes it better.  She brings it to life in a way that makes me proud to have written the piece.  On top of that, she is still the kind and down-to-earth person I remember from the mid-1990s.  If you have a chance to hear her play, do it.  If she is your teacher, learn well.

As always, it was good to see familiar faces, as well as a slew of new ones.  At my paper presentation on Saturday morning, I was thrilled to see flutist Kimberlee Goodman in the audience, whom I haven’t seen since we were at Ohio State.  Her performance of Jennifer Merkowitz’ Phyllotaxis was inspired, and since she asked me to send scores, I hope she can bring her talent to bear on my music in the near future.

A train ride home (I hope Amtrak finds my hat when the train gets to LA), and I’m back, but just as soon, Becky and Noah are off to see off her family at the Amarillo airport.  Perhaps this week, the Saunders’ will actually see some of each other…

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, movement 5

September 1st, 2010

I used this movement the other day with my freshmen to explain one of the ways that musicians determine tempo–the tempo of the opening is determined by the ability of the timpanist to play clearly the first two measures.  Since the standard timpani technique doesn’t involve the double-bounce stroke, there is a fairly finite speed at which the timpani solo here can be played.

Less literally, I’ve been trying to determine if the title means “Rondo as Finale” or “Rondo, then Finale.”  There is a reasonably clear seven-part rondo structure that dissolves into a long coda.  The first version of the refrain begins in m. 7, with a theme in the brass which includes some daring trumpet writing–D6, approached by a slur of a sixth.  A tricky proposition, and this perhaps accounts for the doubling of this line by the clarinets and oboes.  This refrain appears in C major, in contrast to the E minor of the opening six bars.

The strings take over the texture in m. 27, with a dotted rhythm that will reappear later in the piece, and not just in the refrain.  Measure 31 is the final new material of this section, repeated half notes which will prove prominent later on as well.  The remainder of the refrain is devoted to restatement of material so far, and to a fanfare which leads to the tonic chord in m. 51.  There is then a direct modulation to a chromatic mediant–A-flat major, which is the key for the first episode.

The first episode begins with a rising eighth-note figure and a change in tempo.  The material here is reminiscent of Mahler’s more folk-influenced material.  Rather than a “round dance,” we have a much squarer dance that begins hesitantly in the woodwinds, and is answered with the melody in the cello (m. 56ff).  Unlike most classical rondos, this episode is not harmonically closed, and works its way back to the second refrain, visiting C major (m. 79), then to D major, in alternating sections of 3/2 and 2/2.  Beginning at m. 116 (Pesante), the music moves back toward C major by common chord modulation, to prepare the second refrain.

Beginning in m. 120, the second refrain continues until m. 152, making it a somewhat truncated version of this material.  The transition to the second episode is more or less monophonic, following a cadence on C major.  The second episode begins in m. 153 in A minor.  Oddly, it begins with melodic material from the first episode, in the violas in m. 154.  This material based on the earlier section continues until m. 186, when the strings enter with a unison figure reminiscent of some of the “Turkish” music of Mozart.  Three measures later (m. 189), the brass reenter with the chorale which signalled the retransition to the refrain.  Here, however, while much of the transitional material returns, it leads not to the refrain in C major, but to further music in a developmental mode (this is the appropriate place for a development section in a sonata-rondo).  Some lovely music for string quintet in A major follows at m. 220.  An interjection in Db major (m. 241), seems to move even further from a return to the refrain.  This is followed by another unison passage for the strings, alternating between 2/2 and 3/2.

Beginning in m. 268, a version of the refrain melody, reworked for 3/2, appears in the brass in the opening key.  From this point forward, there are several possible candidates for the refrain, but none is explicit.  Perhaps the most convincing is the chorale for the brasses beginning in m. 360.  This is followed by the unison string material from m. 241 (m. 368), only a half-step higher in the key of Bb.

The remainder of the movement is suggestive of coda material, and as usualy for Mahler, builds to the end.  Some interesting moments include a whole-tone passage leading to a cadence on Db major in m. 506.  A final appearance of the refrain chorale appears in m. 539, this time for the full brass section and accompanied by the timpani solo from the opening of the movement.  Measure 568 is a brilliant section for winds and percussion that is reminiscent of English change-ringing.  The last cadence of the piece occurs in m. 580, from which a run of sixteenth notes leads to the end of the piece.

On to the Eighth Symphony, then.  September will be for the sacred-themed first movement, and October will have the profane second movement.  See you there!

Miscellaneous Thoughts

August 19th, 2010

Anyone remember the homegrown version of the 95 Theses from Garrison Keillor’s novel Lake Wobegon Days?  There aren’t quite 95 of them (yet) but here are some things I’ve been thinking about over the summer.

  • Fatherhood is awesome.  But probably not for everyone with a Y-chromosome.
  • You never finish developing your aural skills.
  • When did celebrities become experts?  I caught some (as much as I could take) of the History Channel’s “America: The Story of Us” series this summer, and it was terrible.  Broad generalizations, and celebrities trying to explain their takes on various events in US history.  I should have expected as much from the network that brought us “Ice Road Truckers.”  Best US history documentary is still Alaistair Cooke’s America.  All-time best documentary mini-series ever is still Carl Sagan’s Cosmos.
  • To the History Channel’s credit, they didn’t start the fire.  Among the many failings of Disney’s Fantasia 2000 was using people like Steve Martin and Bette Midler instead of a musicologist of the caliber of Deems Taylor, who narrated the original.  Don’t get me started.
  • It was really warm for four weeks in Oklahoma this summer.  Really warm.  I didn’t feel cooled-off for the entire month from mid-July to just a couple of weeks ago.  I don’t know how people made it (and still make it) without air conditioning.
  • On that note, I so badly want to be an environmentalist, and do my part, but I’m not doing a very good job at it.  I was most efficient when I lived with my parents, shared rides to school, participated in the community recycling program, didn’t fly anywhere and packed out my trash when I went camping with the Boy Scouts.  Now, I pretty much do nothing to be part of the solution.
  • I am so sick of cell-phone commercials.
  • Oh… and I heard on the radio that the Internet is now moving to the next big thing (or already has).  Great.

Again, not 95, but it’s a start.  There just needed to be more to my blog than Mahler today.

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, movement 4

August 16th, 2010

Every entry here brings me one step closer to Mahler’s Eighth Symphony, perhaps the most daunting of these works.  Instead of neat little movements, two giant parts, more cantata, or even opera than symphony.  But that is still two weeks away.  For now, a look into a lovely little serenade.

In some works, the choice of orchestra plays as much a role in the character of the piece as does the motivic material, and Mahler’s decision to include guitar and mandolin makes this movement stand out from every other so far.  In addition, Mahler omits all the heavy brass and percussion, giving a light texture rare in Mahler.

The first section is harmonically very conservative–the first 93 measures are very dedicated to the key of F major, with fairly regular cadences and a great deal of melodic repetition.  The theme introduced by the horn beginning in mm. 8-11 is not just the basis for the material to follow, but the starting gate for the melodic structure of the movement.  Each phrase opens with this theme, and its motives pull apart to become the phrase endings. 

Measure 28 sees the beginning of another notable technique in this movement.  The melody in the first violins is shadowed by a simultaneous variation in the violas, a manner of heterophony.  Measure 38 has a return of the horn theme, now with an F major chord in the fourth measure, instead of the original F minor.  Measure 53 is the beginning of a dominant pedal point that lasts until m. 71, when the bass descends to a G, allowing a half cadence in m. 76, at which point the original horn theme reappears in the oboe, now beginning with a step up instead of down.  The pedal point continues, finally resolving to the tonic in m. 85.

This transitional material is the beginning of a developmental section–this movement cannot be understood as a sonata-allegro because of the lack of a secondary key area, but it follows the basic compositional plan of sonata-allegro.  Sparse material–quarters and halves, with interjections based on the horn theme–lasts until m. 125, when the music changes key for the first time in this movement, to A-flat.

The music moves quickly to F-minor, and in m. 150, the horn theme appears in the bass, in rhythmic augmentation.  The next bars move quickly–to a dominant chord on Eb, which resolves deceptively in m. 162, leading to G-flat major in m. 170.  and beginning in m. 176, the music shifts again to B-flat major.  At measure 187, the horn and cellos begin presenting melodic material in unison, and this unison doubling becomes a contrapuntal treatment in m. 195, another iteration of the heterophony technique noted earlier.

Beginning in m. 211, Mahler presents a developmental core that, strangely enough, doesn’t modulate.  Two seven-measure sections begin with the same four-bar material, but then end with passages that leave them in different keys, the last using a phrase extension to return to F major.  In m. 253, the music seems to arrive in A major, but modulates directly to F major in a recapitulation of the opening section.

In the recapitulation, the same phrase structure, exclusively in F major, is featured, with a very close correspondance to the beginning of the piece.  True to Mahler’s style, there are changes of scoring, and the addition of obligato lines, as at mm. 273ff.  The music moves to a long dominant chord, beginning in m. 308.  This dominant chord has a long neighboring section, beginning in m. 320, and resolves in m. 332.

The remainder of the piece is coda material, built from the horn theme and other material of the movement.  Unlike the previous “Nachtmusik” movement, the music ends on the tonic of the piece.

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, third movement

August 8th, 2010

The central movement of this five-movement symphony is in the keys of D major and D minor and is structured as a scherzo-trio.  The scherzo material has the feel of something of a moto perpetuo, and this is not Mahler’s first effort in this vein.  It grows from the tiny seed of a half-step (Bb-A) in the timpani and low strings, gathering momentum over the first twelve bars, with each new aspect of the texture–first the horns, then the woodwinds, then a dotted-note flute motive, and finally the arrival of a theme in m. 13–seeming to grow out of the existing material.  If the goal of this study is to unlock some of Mahler’s compositional secrets, I think I have started to find them.  Just as Mahler’s Mahler-ness–his cliches, the predictable aspects of his style–begin to pile up in my mind, I am coming to see how it is that he is able to structure large-scale pieces and more importantly, to maintain the interest of the listener over what may seem an excessive length of time. 

A summary, then, of what I’ve learned thus far:

  • introduce new material sparingly, and base new ideas on old ones.  The first 100 bars of this movement are a fantastic example of this.  The first 24 bars are based on Mahler’s elaboration of the material presented in the introductory passage.  That material is then used to preface a new theme beginning in m. 24, and accompanied by motives that have already been stated.  The suggestions of hemiola made by the opening statement–does it begin on an upbeat or a downbeat–are played out in this theme, as in m. 30ff.
  • Use harmony sparingly.  Mahler extends the horizons of his pieces by avoiding, at all costs, things that I encourage my undergraduate theory students to pursue with a vengeance, in a harmonic sense.  While my students–and admittedly, I myself–tend to write one chord per melody note (chorale style) or one chord per measure (probably an anachronistic reflection of our familiarity with 20th-century popular styles), Mahler tends to have long swathes of music that are based on the same chord.  These aren’t exactly pedal points, but Mahler is thinking in terms of a chord being a key area rather than a single harmonic event.  In some ways, the harmonic rhythm present in much of Mahler is more reminiscent of Mozart or Haydn than it is of composers closer to Mahler in time.  Even Brahms tends toward a more regular harmonic rhythm that I would consider to be a hallmark of the Romantic style.
  • Repetition is not a dirty word for Mahler, even though exact repetition is rare.  When material returns, it is almost always reorchestrated, if not completely reworked.  There is a great deal of repwithout insipidness as a result.  Repetition is welcome in this music.
  • At the same time, Mahler’s music is filled with variety of every type.  Even when he is being his most Mahleristic, there is no sense that we have heard this before.  While I have always perceived the Seventh Symphony as being third in the middle grouping of Mahler’s symphonies, a rehashing of the previous two–the bold Fifth, the cataclysmic Sixth–as I dig deeper, there is less evidence of that.

So, that said, here are some interesting spots in this movement.  I have Schenkerian training, and some might consider me a Schenkerian, but I am always open to other explanations.  However, the passage in mm. 54-62 is so striking an example of an upper neighbor being used to extend a melody that it can’t go without comment.  There is literally nowhere for the G in the violins in m. 58 to go except back to the F# from whence it came, which it does in m. 60.

The transitional section beginning in m. 108 is sublime.   Again, Mahler is being tight with his material, but we see much of the motivic material used thus far in this little passage that also brings the music to D major in m. 116.  The quasi-echo effect of this phrase is a wonderful transitional device.

As mysteriously as it appeared, the scherzo vanishes beginning around m. 155.  Triplets have been replaced by eighths, drifting away into an awkward contrabassoon solo in m. 159.  When the triplets reappear, it is in a muted allusion to the opening material beginning in the following bar.

The Trio material, beginning in m. 179, is a reworking of the woodwind theme first stated in m. 38, only now in the major mode, and in inversion.  As always, Mahler is somewhere between major and minor, and steadfastly refuses to commit to either.

Beginning in m. 210, a persistent call-and-response begins, first between solo viola and celli, then between violins and horns (m. 218ff), then bassoons and brass (m. 226ff), then between trombones and horns (m. 236ff) leading to a climactic moment in m. 243 (marked “Pesante”).  This build-up, however, has not been to some grand release of tension that we would expect of Mahler, but to a prefunctory gesture  that dissolves into a new theme (composed of old motives) in the horns and celli.  This theme, begining in m. 246, is a parody of material from the Third Symphony, as if Mahler is poking himself in the ribs.  A further question–is this self-parody, or self-plagiarism?  Unlike some composers (including me), Mahler was a tireless revisor of his own works, and the Third Symphony was foremost among these, so at any rate, it could not have been accidental.  As a composer who engages in a fair amount of quotation, both of others and myself, I always hope that the listener will catch it–surely an act of parody rather than plagiarism.

The trio ends with the indication Wieder wie am Anfang (“Always as the beginning.”)  Unlike earlier composers (even as late as Brahms and Dvorak), Mahler does not simply indicate a Da Capo and repeat the Scherzo verbatim.    After a transitional section in E-flat minor, which is the perfect setup for preparation for the Bb that begins the scherzo proper, a significantly expanded introduction ensues (m. 293ff).  This allows Mahler to incorporate material from the trio (the call-and-response motive in m. 306ff).

An orchestrational concern–if Mahler could have written a timpani solo in mm. 323ff, would he have done so?  The basses seem to be covering the unavailable timpani notes.

Measure 408 includes the first use I am aware of of the “snap” or “Bartok” pizzicato; certainly the first in Mahler, and an interesting reworking of the introductory material, now being used to introduce a coda.  Trio material appears, now fully voiced, in the form of the Third Symphony quote in m. 417, and from this point, the movement peters out as gradually as it faded in.  If the idea behind this piece is night, then this movement steals in and out in the manner of a dream.  As for myself, I am a night sleeper, and when I remember a dream, it is almost always just before waking.  Perhaps Mahler would have a more receptive audience for this Symphony in my wife, who frequently naps in the evening, only to wake for quite some time around midnight.  I barely know that night happens, but Becky lives a great deal of her life there.

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, movement 2

July 26th, 2010

Once again, I find myself with less time than I would like to write.  Hopefully, brevity will make me make each word count.

This movement has some fascinating aspects.  I begin with Mahler’s use of texture, which is more intricate and highly developed here than in much of his previous music.  Immediately following the horn solo that opens the movement, the woodwinds begin to build a complex sonic scrim more akin to Ravel or Stravinsky than to Mahler (mm. 10-27).  While motives from the horn solo appear throughout this passage, it is really an orchestral crescendo that leads to a climax in m. 28.  In mm. 28-9, the major-minor motive from the Sixth Symphony reappears, here in the home key of C (I should note that this motive doesn’t really “belong” to the Sixth Symphony, as it appears frequently throughout Mahler’s work).

There follows a harmonized repetition of the theme introduced by the horns, with an immediate variation, beginning in m. 37.   In m. 44, there is an example of Mahler’s interesting use of color in the solo oboe and horn.  The oboe colors the repeated horn notes, lending body and renewed interest to the opening theme.

Measure 62 presents the main theme yet again–this is a highly thematic movement.  It is now coupled with a figural countermelody in the woodwinds, a running triplet idea that will reappear frequently in this movment.  In m. 69, Mahler uses a cadential pattern that is somewhat quirky.  Having arrived on a half-cadence, a subdominant chord is inserted before the return of the tonic in m. 70.  The iv chord is highlighted with a dynamic accent, and is somewhat reminiscent of Robert Schumann’s tendency to begin phrases with a subdominant harmony, as though we were joining the music already in progress.

At m. 83, the first significant change in mood appears, with a change in both tempo and key (to Ab major).  The melody here is linked to the main theme by its opening motive, a rising interval from the triad in question, beginning on the anacrusis.  An extension of this initial phrase leads to a half-cadence in m. 81.  Mahler’s frequent use of the half-cadence in this movement suggests a more open, fantasia-like conception.  This dance-like music continues until an authentic cadence in Ab minor in m. 121, followed immediately by a reprise of the opening horn solo, leading into a modulatory passage that brings back the main theme in C major in m. 141.

In m. 144ff, the horn and oboe are again paired, a favorite color choice for Mahler in this movement.  This section is very much a restatement of the first section (up to the key change to Ab).  In m. 161, the fascinating texture from the opening is revisited, culminating with the same CM-Cm chord (more lushly scored this time) in mm. 187-188.

Measure 190 marks the beginning of new material in C minor, roughly based on the inversion of the main theme.  Mahler’s color choice is again interesting–oboe and English horn each doubled by a solo cello and then, when the range becomes excessive, byh solo violas (m. 198ff).  In m. 211ff, there is an interesting diversion to the key of B minor, strikingly remote from each harmonic destination thus far, with a swing back to C major for the return of the main theme in m. 223, now stated by the full orchestra.

The A-flat major theme reappears in m. 262, now with a countermelody in the woodwinds (two flutes, two oboes and two clarinets in unison).  The amount of thematic repetition in this movement is impressive–and highly suggestive of seven-part rondo form, although Mahler chooses not to state this explicity.  This places the A-sections in C major-minor, the B-sections in A-flat major and the C-section in C-minor.

At m. 317, the typical Mahlerian approach to coda begins–the opening theme begins to unravel, with reminders of earlier textures and ideas intertwining.  By the end, all that is left is the triplet accompanimental idea, which dissolves into not the tonic pitch, but rather the dominant of hte movement, G, leaving a sense of incompleteness that the beginning of the next movement fails to resolve.

Mahler, Symphony No. 7, movement 1

July 13th, 2010

I’ve done the listening and score study this time around, but I simply am short on time this morning, so here are my big ideas, and I will leave the close reading for another time.

How long can one go as a composer before beginning to sound like oneself?  I find the opening of this movement to be similar in mood and material to parts of the first movement of the Fifth Symphony.  Mahler has been Mahler from the beginning, of course.  There are always Mahlerisms, and I have been seeking them out through the course of this exercise, but self-quotation is another matter entirely.  And again, this is not the outright recycling that composers have frequently used when time or energy ran short.  In some ways, this is the third symphony in a row that has begun with music that seems to resemble a funeral march.

A harmonic analysis reveals many “wrong way” progressions–I teach my theory students to favor the falling fifth, falling third and rising second root motions, but Mahler frequently moves in the opposite direction.  From a harmonic standpoint, sequential patterns are important here.  There are many instances of slow harmonic rhythm (and pedal point) punctuated by sequences that change chords twice in each bar.  The pedal point tendency is not new, but this use of sequence happens to an extent that seems relatively unique to this movement.

Mahler’s melodic material is highly cohesive–as usual, there is a great deal of motivic development.  At the same time, Mahler very rarely uses “simple” melody-with-accompaniment textures in this movement, which is something of a contrast with the Sixth Symphony.  Even in expository passages, melody is almost always combined with another melody, and in developmental sections, it is difficult to know what the main melodic idea is at some points.

Scoring is drastically different from the two previous pieces.  Mahler had been tending to a mixed scoring, with blending of instrumental colors, and, especially in the Sixth Symphony, most of the orchestra playing a good deal of the time.  Here, instruments seem more likely to play as sections without reinforcement from other sections, although there is still a good deal of flutes-doubling-violins to add penetration to their high register.  Instead of the eight horns customary to Mahler, there are only four, plus a tenorhorn in Bb (my assumption is that this is something like the British bore baritone I remember from my brass band days).  Color has become more of a concern for Mahler.  If memory serves from some undergraduate research into Mahler’s compositional practices, it was around this time that he rejected the piano reduction as a first draft, worried that it made his music too pianistic.  Instead, he began to work with a short score of four to five staves.  I have found this technique to be extremely helpful in creating band and orchestra pieces.

In some ways there is also a variation technique at work here.  Material presented as a funeral march reappears as a strange, wobbly dance, and then again as a triumphal fanfare.  Mahler never explicitly wrote a “theme and variations,” but he certainly appears capable of employing that strategy.

Onward then–I refer myself to my copy of the score.

Mahler, Symphony No. 6, movement 4

June 30th, 2010

I will be the first to admit that I have not done my homework to the extent I would ideally like to over the past two weeks.  Perhaps I should have allotted more time to the 822 measures of this movement, but truthfully other things have got in the way.  To allow myself an extension would simply impinge on the three remaining pieces, and since by the time I am ready to write the next blog entry, we will also be on the cusp of moving, it seems better to summarize my observations and move forward today.

With this movement, it seems very difficult to get past Mahler’s symbolism–the hammer blows, the major-minor motive and the rest.  Tony Duggan, in his excellent summary of recent recordings of this piece, deals with some of the many performance issues, such as the ordering of the movements (which differs from my edition, the Dover miniature score and from many recent recordings), and the precise number of hammer blows (Mahler’s final decision appears to have been two, while my score, a reprint of the 1906 Nachfolger edition, calls for three).  He also suggests that this piece is the most classically ordered of all of Mahler’s symphonies, and I find myself tending to agree with that statement.

In an interesting way, the two hammer blows that Mahler retained seem to delineate the exposition, development and recapitulation of a sonata-allegro form, with the third (missing) blow indicating the coda.

Mahler opens this movement with an interesting texture and harmony–a German augmented-sixth chord that resolves deceptively to the tonic in m. 9, the first appearance of the major-minor motive in this movement.  The motive is presented as it appeared in the first movement, in the brass, and accompanied by timpani and drums, but with the strings offering a countermelody that contains material of motivic importance for the rest of the movement.

In m. 16, a tuba solo introduces further new material, including an octave leap.  Throughout this symphony, the octave leap has been an important element, and part of the cohesiveness of the work as a whole is Mahler’s use of the octave (and sometimes larger intervals) to create a sense of drama and pathos.  Rodney Winther teaches that small intervals build tension, while large intervals build drama, and Mahler employs both, but the drama of this movement is the aspect that wins out, I think.

The tuba solo is accompanied by a descending chromatic bass, which is highly typical of Mahler.  In mm. 19 and 22, the clarinets and horns have an interesting effect that I typically associate more with later composers, such as Stravinsky.  The clarinets articulate the beginning of a phrase, but the horns sustain the final note, as though the echo has a different timbre than the initial attack.  In the end, it is this sort of synthesis and blending that makes for fantastic orchestral writing, and Mahler is transcending the German orchestrational style in this instance.  A comparison with the scoring techniques used by composers of a generation earlier–Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner–reveals a much more conservative approach, with much greater use of simple block and mixed scoring techniques.  Composers of the same generation and younger, however, start to show this sort of adventurous approach to orchestration–Richard Strauss and Schoenberg, for example.  Strauss would seem to be the first of these new orchestrators to achieve notoriety–before Mahler, perhaps?

I don’t often wish that I were a trumpet player, but m. 46 has an absolutely fantastic line that makes me a little bit envious.  This is followed by another typical descent to the cadence, as the music shifts to C-minor in m. 49 for a chorale setting, first in a very dark woodwind and horn timbre, then in a lighter timbre that uses the middle, relaxed registor of the horns.  Again, Mahler is being expository here, and this material reappears later in the movement in a drastically transformed body.

From this point, the tempo and scoring become faster and fuller, and by m. 114, the written tempo is Allegro energico, the tempo of the first movement.  The martial, mechanistic feel of that movement is carried forward here in a section that, if not quotation, is at least style-copy.

In m. 182, marked pesante, the low brass state a theme that begins with a decsending octave, here on A.  This theme reappears after both of the hammer blows, and as the dark coda, which would have followed the third hammer blow in Mahler’s sometime plan for this movment. 

Measure 228 sees the harmony move from D major to D minor, with both the descending octave idea and a texture that is reminiscent of the material in the first few measures of this movement.  This portion of the piece is developmental in nature, and as it builds to the first hammer blow (m. 336) the music becomes more an more rhythmically compelx, particularly around m. 290, where Mahler juxtaposes several divisions of the beat as the music leads to a cadence in G major in m. 296.

A trend that I have detected in Mahler’s work is a growing concern with counterpoint.  Almost nowhere in this movement does Mahler use a simple “melody with accompaniment” texture.  Whether imitation or inversion or augmentation, Mahler seems to have come to a more “crafty” approach to his art.  At the same time, Mahler’s counterpoint does not adhere strictly to the traditional “rules,” and dissonance is often freely introduced without preparation.   For an example of this tendency, see mm. 302ff, wherein a two-measure motive is passed around imitatively, often with strikingly dissonant results.

I find myself shorter on time than on ideas about this piece–again, I refer myself to my notes on it.  The last three canonical symphonies remain–I am undecided about the Tenth, Das Lied von der Erde or some of the other pieces I might work with.  The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth are enormous compositions with which I am somewhat less familiar with than the first six symphonies, and come December, I will have to see where my thinking about Mahler lies.  If I have learned what I need to from this master, I may move on (to what, I am not certain).

Schedule for the Seventh will be as follows:

  • July 1-12: Movement 1
  • July 13-24: Movement 2
  • July 25-August 5: Movement 3
  • August 6-17:  Movement 4
  • August 18-31:  Movement 5

Hope to have you with me!