Calvin Gruhlke Mus 100, Prof.

Gifford Listening Notebook #4

Talis Spem in alium. Motet 1b). Thomas Tallis (1505 - 1585) Renaissance 2+3). Pitch: I felt that this motet had a lot of emphasis on creating harmonies between the different sections of the choir. I also noticed that each choir section seemed to be responsible for a certain pitch range. Each pitch range seemed to be consistent in terms of stereo separation so I knew where to listen for a certain section and could focus on just one portion at a time more easily. I thought pitch was the most important parameter because compared to other a cappella pieces we heard this one had more focus on harmony than most did. Texture: Because there were different sections of the choir this piece was able to achieve a blended sound at points even though the only voice being used was singing. I think part of this was achieved through the difference between the male voices and female voices that sounded different enough to create this blending without only differing in pitch alone. I thought texture was very important because of how it was used together with how many sections of choir it had. Dynamics: Dynamics were present only during a few portions of the piece. Most of the time the choir maintained the same volume as it moved through the text. There were a few portions that were slightly softer but this was due mostly due to there being only one or two sections of choir singing. I thought dynamics were not incredibly important but there was still gradual small changes throughout. Timbre: The timbre was only a choir. I thought that the piece maintained an overall lighter atmosphere that I think was achieved through its long sustained notes and lack of dissonance between choir sections. I didnt see timbre as being unique or particularly important. Most motets seemed to have a similar sound to this one in this parameter. Rhythm: There was barely any rhythm used in this piece. The text was read at a slow and flowing pace that did not have a recognizable pattern to it. I put rhythm last because most other pieces around this time had a similar lack of rhythm. 4.) There was repetition of the lines that were being read but they went by so slowly that the form was not clearly patterned. I think when lines were repeated the blending and volume differed making it even less patterned. 5.) I think a lot of other motets around this time did not have quite the choir size that Spem in alium did. And because they had a larger choir they were able to more easily separate themselves for either a performance or in this case recording during present era. 6.) Would this be recorded in an actual church as to mimic where a motet whould usually be performed? Was the choir arrangement specified by Tallis or was it not written down? Could motets like this be adapted to use other instruments as well?

Unknown Goshoraku No Kyu. Japanese Gagaku 1b). Group Performance (700 - 1100 ) 2+3). Timbre: The timbre included classic Japanese gagaku instruments including the sho, hichiriki, maybe a third wind instrument, taiko, an additional lower pitched drum, and either the biwa or koto which was the plucked instrument. While this timbre was not unique for gagaku music, it was still very unique in comparision to the other pieces we have heard in class. This difference in instruments is why I picked timbre first. Rhythm: There was a drum used in this piece but I found the rhythm to be irregular and unpulsed. The drum would gradually increase in frequency until it reached a certain speed and stop. This was repeated many times but still did not give a definite rhythm. This unique element of having the drum change tempo was why I listed rhythm second. Texture: The wind instruments all played together usually which was the constant texture in the piece. The plucked instrument was only used during the breaking points in which the drum would reach that certain speed and stop playing. Overall not many of the instruments played similar lines with the exception of the winds. Since most voices had a distinct part I only put texture third as it did not stand out as unique. Pitch: I think the pitch range of this piece was fairly small as neither the plucked instruments not the winds were able to play any lower register notes. The only low notes I heard were by the bigger drum which was rarely used. Since the pitch range was so small I decided to rank it lower than other parameters. Dynamics: The volume was very consistent throughout the whole piece. Even during the portions when the drum would break and stop playing, the plucked instruments would start and fill in the gap. So by having each instrument play at separate times over the winds it created a very constant volume level. The dynamics did not seem particularly important to this piece because of this. 4.) This piece is highly patterned despite its lack of rhythm. I heard the same drum buildup happen over a dozen times with a very similar three or four note melody played by the plucked instrument at the end. 5.) I picked out that the outro had a way of almost breaking down the rhythm. Every eight measures or so the main pattern the bells were playing would take away a note in their melody. So by the very end the pattern had become only one repeating note. 6.) Would each player only be able to play with his own gagaku group since this genre relies so heavily on practice without a conductor? Since the drum never maintained a steady beat, which of the instruments was used as a guide to follow? Where any gagaku composers credited?

Goldstein Ishi/Man Waxati Soundings. Violin solo 1b). Malcolm Goldstein (1936 - Present) 2+3). Pitch: The notes that Goldstein was able to play seemed very unique for the violin. I heard he used complex combinations of short jagged notes with longer sliding notes. In addition I think a lot of his techniques for achieving these notes might have been previously thought as undesirable for a violin to play but found a way for them to be used. Timbre: Even though the only instrument used was the violin I picked timbre second because Goldstein in a way created other voices through his playing technique as I heard many sounds that I would have not classified as coming from a violin. So this was another parameter I found important due to his technique which was able to achieve sounds that were previously unused in violin music. Rhythm: On my first listen I would not have noted rhythm as being particularly important. However now I think that there are some rhythmic patterns throughout the piece. These patterns are created by him repeating his unique jagged sounds intermittently between the more traditional violin notes. Since this complex rhythm does occur through most of the piece I decided to place it higher on importance. Texture: Since there was only one instrument being played it was hard to tell what kind of layering was occurring. I would say that even though there was only one instrument there was some heterophony because of the way he used jagged notes in addition to the longer more traditional sounding violin notes. I chose this fourth because the texture was really important to the piece, but it was still unique. Dynamics: The dynamics remained very consistent and didnt change volume level very much. There might have been parts where the volume seemed to increase slightly along with the speed that he was playing at but it wasn t anything particularly notable. Since the dynamics werent very present I placed it last. 4.) While I didnt hear many patterns reoccur in this piece there were clear patterns happening within the piece itself. They varied in tempo and in pitch but there was almost always some kind of repetition used in the types of notes he was playing. 5.) I think after Goldstein made this piece he helped show the potential of the violin for being used as a solo instrument. Not only that, but that the violin can be used in a nontraditional way. 6.) Could Goldsteins techniques be applied to other string instruments? What would these type of violin techniques sound like used in combination with other instruments supporting it? Did other violinists take offence to these radically different sounds?