The Influence of Riemann (and Richter) on Music Theory in Scandinavia

Thomas Jul Kirkegaard-Larsen

Even though it is well known that Hugo Riemann’s function theory traveled far and wide beyond the boundaries of German-speaking Musikwissenschaft, the exact impact it has had in other linguistic and national communities—the ways in which it has been adapted, transformed, and combined with local idiosyncrasies—has been subject to limited scholarly scrutiny. Lately, however, the surge of interest in global histories of music theory (see Raz et al. 2019) has given the international music theoretical community new insights into function theory’s many different national adaptations. Recent examples include Gesine Schröder’s entry on this blog and the research project on Chinese reception of European theory to which it refers (see Cheong and Hong 2017; 2018; Ying and Komatović 2017), as well as the 2018 special issue of Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie devoted to research in the global reception of European music theories, in which one article focuses on Riemann’s (as well as Schenker’s and Schoenberg’s) dissemination in Brazil (Almada et al. 2018).

It may come as no surprise, then, that Riemann’s function theory also found its way up north, to Scandinavia. More surprising, perhaps, is the fact that even in Scandinavia, in which German was considered the musicological lingua franca for much of the 20^th century before it gradually turned towards English, the direct influence of German sources is very limited. Moreover, even though the Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian languages are similar enough to enable cross-national communication—and even though Scandinavian theorists demonstrably have influenced each other across national borders—the function theories of the three countries are remarkably different from each other. This blog entry gives a brief introduction to some of the ways that function theory was received and transformed in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and makes reference to some of my own research published in forthcoming articles.

Sweden

Apart from an article in the Swedish Journal of Music Research from 1931 which primarily discusses Hugo Riemann’s idea of Scheinkonsonanz (Svensson 1931), the first Swedish text on function theory was Sven E. Svensson and Carl-Allan Moberg’s Harmonilära from 1933. Here, Riemann’s direct influence is palpable: the authors adhere to his much criticized theory of harmonic dualism and structure the textbook in the style of Riemann’s Handbuch der Harmonielehre, which—from the third edition and onward—presents the theory of functions in tandem with his earlier theory of Harmonieschritte (Riemann 1898). But though the textbook of Svensson and Moberg has certainly been influential insofar as it introduced function theory to Sweden, until then dominated largely by Aron Bergenson’s Harmonilära (1899) (which was itself modelled on Ernst Richter’s Lehrbuch der Harmonie [1853]), none of Svensson and Moberg’s dualistic aspects are to be found in later publications. Instead, a monistic theory evolved in publications by Ingemar Liljefors (1937; 1951), Harald Göransson (1947; 1950), Valdemar Söderholm (1959), and Henry Lindroth (1960) to mention but a few of the most formative theorists. Unlike the case in Denmark and Norway, there are several Swedish publications clearly inspired by Austro-German function theories, especially those of Hermann Grabner (a main inspiration in Göransson 1947; 1950) and Wilhelm Maler (influential in Tegen 1974 and Smedeby 1978). Thus, present-day Swedish function theory is quite similar to what one finds in German publications, but with many unique characteristics nonetheless. For instance, several Swedish publications group chromatic mediants into a matrix of categorizations along three axes: a particular mediant is either upper or lower; primary or secondary; and even has a subdominant or dominant function—a peculiar addition to David Kopp’s 2002 book on historic mediant theories worthy a study of its own.

 Denmark

Function theory enters Denmark the same year as it enters Sweden: in 1933 with Finn Høffding’s Harmonilære. Høffding’s account of function theory could not have been more different from that of its contemporaneous Swedish counterpart: there are no traces of harmonic dualism, or any reference to Harmonieschritte. In fact, Høffding altogether avoids the term “function,” replacing it with the idea of “affinity” between chords. This term, Høffding explains, is “borrowed from chemistry, in which it designates a substance’s tendency to connect with a certain other” (Høffding 1933, 4; my translation). In effect, there is a change of focus from function residing in the chords to affinity between chords—though in practice, Høffding’s analyses apply function letters in a conventional way, albeit with some terminological innovations. For instance, Høffding presents a new function symbol for the chord on the sixth scale degree as it appears in deceptive cadences: A tilted T symbolizing that it functions as a tonic substitution, conceptually different from Riemann’s Tp, tonic Parallel (later Danish theories write Ts or Tst as shorthands for the tonic substitution). Høffding thus makes way for a new breed of function theory—only fully realized in Svend Westergaard (1961)—in which chords in paradigmatic progressions receive distinct functional suffixes; third related chords are not always a Parallel, a Leittonwechsel, or a Gegenklang (Grabner 1944), but may be analyzed as a substitution of a main function, a derivation, a prolongation, and more. With Teresa Waskowska Larsen and Jan Maegaard’s Indføring i romantisk harmonik (1981), this system evolved into an analytical approach that to a certain extent anticipates later Anglo-American transformational and neo-Riemannain approaches, a point that I discuss furtherly in my article “Transformational Attitudes in Scandinavian Function Theories,” forthcoming in Theory and Practice.

Norway

Function theory gets a late start in Norway compared to its neighboring Scandinavian countries. The first publication with traces of function theory is Thorleif Eken’s Harmonilære from 1948. Eken refers to the Danish Harmonilære of Povl Hamburger and Hakob Godske-Nielsen (1939) as his main inspiration; though adding a few function theoretical aspects, Hamburger and Godske-Nielsen’s textbook is closely modelled on that of the Danish J. D. Bondesen (1897), which is in turn strongly influenced by Richter’s Lehrbuch (1853), a book that Bondesen had previously translated to Danish (Richter 1883). In other words, Richter-inspired textbooks such as these, as well as the Norwegian Praktisk harmonilære by Gustav Fredrik Lange (1897), continued to exert influence in much of 20^th century Scandinavian theory, especially in Norway. In Eken’s function theory, this influence is still noticeable. Eken uses Roman numerals rather than function letters, but he refers to his numerals as “function numbers.” It was only with Anfinn Øien’s publications (1971; 1975) that function theory seriously entered Norway. Like Eken, Øien looks to the writings of the Danish Povl Hamburger and presents a function theory with the same unique terminology that Hamburger presents in his Harmonisk analyse (1951). In effect, Norwegian theory largely emanates from Hamburger and his analytical practice where the Parallel-term is reserved for instances where there is an actual tonal indication of the Parallel key; for third-related chords that do not imply a change of key, one uses the functional suffixes submediant and mediant instead. This practice continues in Norwegian theory to this day—though the usefulness of function theory has been questioned in the Robert Gauldin-inspired publication by Petter Stigar (Gauldin 1997; Stigar 2004).

Ramifications of Riemann and Richter

The influence of Riemann and Richter in Scandinavia is in itself not the interesting point here. Rather, it is the fascinating and unpredictable ways that the theories have been received, remodelled, and ramified in directions more or less segregated from their origins. There are many reception histories to be written here.

Thomas Jul Kirkegaard-Larsen is a PhD student in Musicology at Aarhus University, Denmark. He holds MA and BA degrees from Aarhus University in Musicology and Scandinavian Languages and Literature. His dissertation focuses on the traditions of Anglo-American Schenkerian theory and Continental-European Funktionstheorie for the purpose of reassessing and bridging the perceived gap between these traditions. Thomas is the winner of the Patricia Carpenter Emerging Scholar Award 2018 as well as a Fulbright Scholarship 2017–18 which supported his stay as a Visiting Research Scholar at the CUNY Graduate Center.

References

Almada, Carlos de Lemos, Guilherme Sauerbronn de Barros, Rodolfo Coelho de Souza, Cristina Capparelli Gerling, and Ilza Nogueira. 2018. “The Reception and Dissemination of European Music Theories in Brazil: Riemann, Schenker, and Schoenberg.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 15 (2): 129–154.

Bergenson, Aron. 1899. Harmonilära. Stockholm: Abraham Lundquist Musikförlag.

Bondesen, Jørgen Ditleff. 1897. Harmonilære. Copenhagen: Det Nordiske Forlag.

Cheong, Wai Ling and Ding Hong. 2017. “Eine Altlast – das Brigaden-Lehrbuch in China.” Zeitschrift ästhetische Bildung 9.

———. 2018. “A Soviet Harmony Textbook’s Twisted Fate in China.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 15 (2): 45–77.

Eken, Thorleif. 1948. Harmonilære. Oslo: Norsk Notestik & Forlag.

Gauldin, Robert. 1997. Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Grabner, Hermann. 1944. Handbuch der Harmoielehre. Berlin: Max Hesses Verlag.

Göransson, Harald. 1947. Funktionell harmonilära, 2^nd ed. Stockholm: no publisher.

———. 1950. Lyssnarens harmonilära. Stockholm: Forum.

Hamburger, Povl. 1951. Harmonisk analyse. Copenhagen: Aschehoug.

Hamburger, Povl, and Hakon Godske-Nielsen. 1939. Harmonilære. Copenhagen: Aschehoug.

Høffding, Finn. 1933. Harmonilære. Copenhagen: Wilhelm Hansen.

Kopp, David. 2002. Chromatic Transformations in Nineteenth-Century Music. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lange, Gustav Fredrik. 1897. Praktisk harmonilære. Kristiania: Warmuths Musikforlag. [2^nd ed. in 1905; 3^rd and 4^th ed. undated.]

Larsen, Teresa Waskowska, and Jan Maegaard. 1981. Indføring i romantisk harmonik. Copenhagen: Engstrøm & Sødring.

Liljefors, Ingemar. 1937. Harmonilärans grunder med ackordanalys enligt funktionsteorien. Stockholm: C. A. V. Lundholms Aktiebolag.

———. 1951. Harmonisk analys enligt funktionsteorien. Stockholm: C. A. V. Lundholms Aktiebolag.

Lindroth, Henry. 1960. Musikalisk satslära. Malmö: Allhems Förlag.

Raz, Carmen, David E. Cohen, Roger Mathew Grant, Andrew Hicks, Nathan John Martin, Caleb Mutch, Melanie Wald-Fuhrmann, Felix Wörner, and Anna Zayaruznaya. 2019. “Going Global, In Theory.” Musicological Brainfood 3 (1).

Richter, Ernst Friedrich. 1853. Lehrbuch der Harmonie. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.

­­———. 1883. Harmonilære. Translated by J. D. Bondesen. Copenhagen: Thorvald Petersens Bog- & Musikhandel.

Riemann, Hugo. 1898. Handbuch der Harmonielehre, 3^rd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.

Smedeby, Sune. 1978. Från treklang till nonackord: Harmonilära. Stockholm: Eriks Förlaget.

Stigar, Petter. 2004. Elementær harmonilære. Koralharmonisering, kontrapunkt, generalbass og variasonssatser. Bergen: Fakbokforlaget.

Svensson, Sven E. 1931. “Till förståelsen av dissonansbegreppet.” Svensk tidskrift fïr musikforskning 13: 163–170.

Svensson, Sven E., and Carl-Allan Moberg. 1933. Harmonilära. Stockholm: Carl gehrmans Musikförlag.

Söderholm, Valdemar. 1959. Harmonilära. Stockholm: Nordiska Musikförlaget.

Tegen, Martin. 1974. Musikteori I. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet – Musikvetenskap.

Westergaard, Svend. 1961. Harmonilære. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Wilhelm Hansen.

Ying, Wang, and Nikola Komatović. 2017. “Eine prächtiges Wachstum! Vorbilder, Originalität und Auswirkungen von Igor Sposobins Harmonielehrbuch, unter Berücksichtigung der Situation in China und in Serbien.” Zeitschrift ästetische Bildung 9.

Øien, Anfinn. 1971. Grunnbok i funksjonell harmonilære. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Øien, Anfinn. 1975. Harmonilære: Funksjonell harmonik i homofon sats. Oslo: Norsk Musikforlag.

A Princely Manuscript at the National Library of China — Part I: Guido’s Hexachords and the 18th-century Chinese Opera Reform

Zhuqing (Lester) Hu

Originally from the court library of the Qing Empire (1636-1912), National Library of China Putong Guji 15251 (c. 1707) is a manuscript in Chinese of 127 folios, roughly 24*12 cm in size, organized in four separate stitched wrapped-back fascicles (ce 冊) in one cloth encasement.Many scholars have perused its first 51 folios, which contain a copy of the earliest Chinese-language treatise on Western music, Elements of Pitch Pipes (c. 1690);[1] see Image 1, for example, for an illustration of the Guidonian hand in f. 16r.

Image 1: An illustration in f. 16r of the Guidonian hand, featuring exquisite fingernails and shrouded by mystifying clouds at the wrists — both were distinct features of hand diagrams used in guqin 古琴 or Chinese zither manuals of the time. © 中国国家图书馆 National Library of China

Virtually no consideration, however, has been accorded to the latter 76 folios, which feature a commonplace book on Chinese music theory in ff. 52-83 and a collection of preparatory notes and reckonings for a treatise on Chinese musical tuning in ff. 84-127. The reason for this one-sided attention is easy to gauge. Whereas the commonplace book and the collection of notes in ff. 52-127 are but two among hundreds of early modern Chinese writings on “indigenous” music, the copy of Elements in ff. 1-51 arose directly from musical encounters between China and Europe that otherwise left few treatises in the early days. The musica practica content of hexachords and staff notation in Elements developed from the music lessons that the Portuguese Jesuit Tomás Pereira (1645-1708) gave to the Kangxi Emperor (r. 1662-1722) and his sons between the 1670s and 90s. Many of its passages also came straight from Books V and VII of Athanasius Kircher’s (1620-1680) Musurgia universalis (1650), of which the Belgian Jesuit Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688) produced a partial Chinese translation in 1685.[2]

After spending two months last year copying the latter 76 folios of Putong Guji 15251 into my laptop word by word, however, I realized that their “Chinese” contents were as much a product of trans-Eurasian musical exchanges as was the “Western” content of its first 51 folios. Granted, unlike the explicit references to xiyang 西洋 or Western Europe in Elements, the commonplace book and collection of notes in ff. 52-127 do not declare any foreign connections. Still, these latter folios constitute a case of what art historian Jonathan Hay has termed “hidden cosmopolitanism,” where cross-cultural engagements were not narrated as such by their historical participants and thus become “hidden” in their sources.[3] This hiddenness, Hay argues, does not imply a lack of depth: on the exact contrary, hidden cosmopolitanisms often arise when once-foreign influences have been “assimilated to the point of invisibility.” Such was the case of ff. 52-127 in Putong Guji 15251. As I will show in this blogpost, the apparently parochial contents of these folios epitomize the global embeddedness of the Qing court in its production of musical knowledge. Even without a single reference to Guido’s syllables, ff. 52-127 reveal the musical, political, and epistemological reasons for which a treatise on musica practica was copied into ff. 1-51 in the first place.

My post will divide into two parts. The current part focuses on the commonplace book in ff. 52-83, showing how the Qing used Guido’s hexachords to reform the modal theory and pedagogy of Chinese opera. A future part will focus on the collection of notes in ff. 84-127, showing how musica practica facilitated the Empire’s proposal of a fourteen-tone temperament in 1714. Besides shedding light on these overlooked traces of Sino-European musical exchanges, I also hope to draw the attention of historians of music theory to cases of hidden cosmopolitanisms similar to the latter folios of Putong Guji 15251. In our current endeavors to globalize the study of the history of music theory, scholars have mainly focused on texts that openly invoke their connections with a cultural “Other.” These “explicit cosmopolitanisms,” however, confine our narratives to the surface of cross-cultural encounters and neglect the deep transformative effects of transregional integrations. While sources like the copy of Elements of Pitch Pipes in ff. 1-51 of Putong Guji 15251 may pique our multicultural sensibilities, it is only by heeding the less obvious globalities such as those in ff. 52-127 that we may grasp the scope and depth of musical interconnectivities across the early modern world.

A Preview of Qing Imperial Music Theory

Before diving into the commonplace book in ff. 52-83, it is important to understand the context in which the entire Putong Guji 15251 was compiled. While no preface or postscript explains how its three constitutive sections relate to one another, two critical pieces of paratextual evidence illuminate how the continuously foliated manuscript came together as a whole. While the three texts were written by several different hands in black ink, a single hand annotated the entire manuscript in vermilion, a restricted color at the Qing court. A stamp impression on f. 1r further discloses the identity of this annotator: “Conferred by His Imperial Highness Prince Cheng of the First Rank, Third Son of the Emperor.” This was the full title of Aisin Gioro In-c’i (1677-1732), who was also the de facto eldest son of the Kangxi Emperor after his two elder brothers were politically disinherited in 1712.[4] Though he ultimately failed to prevail in the ongoing succession strife, In-c’i garnered significant clout from editing his father’s 100-volume (juan 卷) Origins of Cosmological Sciences,[5] which comprises one treatise each on astronomy, music theory, and mathematics. While much of their content derived from Jesuit lectures to the Emperor, the treatises themselves were written by a team of Manchu, Mongol, and Chinese scholars under In-c’i, who regularly reported to his father with drafts starting in 1711.[6] It was in this process that In-c’i adapted the Western content of Elements in ff. 1-51 of Putong Guji 15251 into the last volume of Orthodox Meaning of Pitch Pipes (1714), the Qing’s official music theory treatise that also makes up volumes 43-47 of Origins.[7]

In-c’i’s end goal of drafting a comprehensive music treatise for the Qing Empire continues to inform the entire Putong Guji 15251 after f. 51. In fact, the commonplace book in ff. 52-83 laid out the course for all Qing-sponsored research on music in the next century, of which Orthodox was but an initial step. According to a brief foreword in f. 52v, In-c’i himself ordered digests of Chinese writings on music to be compiled, with the focus on comprehensiveness rather than depth. The first three chapters of the resultant commonplace book amass materials on lülü 律呂 (Because lülü “pitch pipes” were the primary tools for studying tuning in the Chinese tradition, the term was a metonym for tuning and music theory in general—ergo the title of Elements of Pitch Pipes, even though pitch pipes are never mentioned in this treatise). As I will show in the second installment of this two-part blogpost, Chapters 1-3 of the commonplace book perfectly parallel the first volume of Orthodox. Particularly, they set the stage for a series of experiments on tuning whose results would be recorded into ff. 84-127 later in Putong Guji 15251 and lead to the proposal of a fourteen-tone temperament.

Moving beyond tuning, Chapters 4-6 spell out the ultimate agenda of Qing-imperial music theory: a reform to opera, particularly regarding modes or diao 調. Since the genre matured in the 14^th century, most Chinese operatic traditions have been deriving their melodic materials from preexisting qupai 曲牌 “fixed tunes.” Comparable to contrafacta, each fixed tune features a characteristic metric and rhyme scheme for fitting new lyrics and a melody malleable to the tones of different words. The theoretical backbone for these thousands of fixed tunes used in various singing genres was a system of eighty-four modes, in which the seven types of diatonic scales are transposed to start on each pitch of the twelve-tone octave. Thus, after Chapters 1-3 of the commonplace book introduce the twelve pitch pipes (lülü) and the seven-note diatonic scale, Chapter 4 enumerates their combinations with two slide charts, each comprising one fixed wheel labeled with the twelve pitches on the outside and one movable wheel labeled with the seven notes of the scale on the inside (see Image 2). Out of all these theoretically possible transpositions and mutations, Chapter 5 studies the modes that were actually used in different periods. While musicians at the Sui (518-618) and early Tang (618-907) courts first formulated the eighty-four-mode system and labeled the twenty-eight they used, only seventeen modes remained in northern opera and thirteen in southern opera by the sixteenth century. Finally, after first introducing the gongche 工尺 notational syllables used by opera performers, Chapter 6 catalogues nearly a thousand modally ordered fixed tunes and concludes by discussing the contours, cadences, permissible mutations, and characters of different modes.

Image 2: Two slide charts (also known as volvelles), the first one rotating counterclockwise and the second one clockwise, in f. 62r, illustrating all possible combinations of the twelve-tone octave and the seven-note diatonic scale. Rotating charts are particularly fitting here, since the word for transposition in Chinese, xuangong 旋宮, literally means “rotating the tonic,” and the word for mutation, zhuandiao 轉調, literally means “turning around the mode.” © 中国国家图书馆 National Library of China

“Western” Music a Millennium Apart

It was precisely to rectify the use of modes in opera and better train opera performers that the Qing found Guido’s hexachords helpful. Though they governed China as a minority conquest regime, the Qing’s Manchu rulers surpassed all preceding Chinese regimes in opera patronage. Not only did opera’s penchant for historical themes help the Manchus appropriate the Chinese historical imagination, but sponsoring these immensely popular theatrics also brought the court closer to the Chinese landed gentry and merchant guilds, the Empire’s bread basket and tax base who were also opera aficionados themselves. Thus, even though they remained on the su 俗 “vulgar” end of the echelon of genres in contrast to the yayue 雅樂 “elegant music” that Confucianism stipulated for a virtuous ruler, opera dominated all court rituals of the Qing, from monthly feasts to diplomatic receptions and military triumphs. And while theater troops from across China performed for special occasions and imperial tours, the court also established an academy of music, nanfu 南府, to oversee regular opera performances and train eunuch performers, who had been responsible for all types of music at the court since the 17^th century.

Faced with this increasing demand of performers, the Qing turned to musica practica. Though European missionaries bragged only about their musical tutelage of the Kangxi Emperor and his sons, an edict on August 2, 1714 indicates that most of their pupils were actually eunuchs. Addressing the chief eunuch, the Emperor asked that eunuch musicians learn their “u le ming fa shuo la (i.e. ut re mi fa sol la)” from the Italian Lazarist Teodorico Pedrini (1671-1746) in order to master not only their voice and instruments but also lülü “music theory.”[8] And the type of music theory they should master by studying ut re mi fa sol la was exactly the use of modes in opera. Published less than five months after the edict, Orthodox prefaces its last volume on musica practica with a history of how Suzup (fl. 568),[9] a pipa player from Kucha, helped Chinese musicians of the Sui Dynasty develop the eighty-four-mode system. Drawing a parallel between the 6^th-century Suzup from xiyu 西域 “Western Region” or Central Asia and the 18^th-century European missionaries from xiyang “Western Ocean” or Europe, the preface portrays the latter’s Guidonian hexachords as an effective pedagogy for the former’s modal system. And just as Suzup’s Central Asian music helped rescue Chinese music from centuries of disrepair at his time, the preface argues, Guido’s hexachords promised to rescue Suzup’s system of eighty-four modes from a millennium of misuse in Chinese opera after the Sui and Tang eras, to the point that it had become “empty words in history books.”

As it turns out, this idea of using Guido’s transposing and mutating hexachords to learn the eighty-four modes and rectify their use in opera was in In-c’i’s mind as he was reading Putong Guji 15251. While he left no comment on staff notation or rhythmic notation in the copy of Elements in ff. 1-51, In-c’i concentrated his remarks on chapters concerning the Guidonian gamut, annotating every ut re mi in the main text with its corresponding gongche syllable, the notation system opera performers used (Image 3).

Image 3: A full ladder presentation of the Guidonian gamut spanning three octaves, in ff. 12v-13r. Unfortunately, I have not been able to acquire colored scans of the source, yet all the tiny Chinese characters written in the diagram were annotations in vermilion by In-c’i, translating ut re mi fa sol la into their equivalent gongche syllables. © 中国国家图书馆 National Library of China

And while he pasted additional papers onto Chapters 5 and 6 of the commonplace book just to accommodate his comments on the fixed tunes and the modes, he read through its first three chapters on musical tuning too cursorily to even punctuate them. What’s more, at the same time he incorporated musica practica from Elements into Orthodox (1714), In-c’i oversaw two modally ordered compendia of qupai or fixed tunes that built on the last three chapters of the commonplace book: The Emperor’s Library of Lyrical Tunes (1715) featuring tunes from before the 13^th century, and The Emperor’s Library of Opera Tunes (1715) featuring tunes from after the 13^th century.[10] After In-c’i’s political demise in the 1720s, his brother and former apprentice In-lu (1695-1767) assumed Inc’i’s library and continued his research agenda. This culminated in Grand Compendium of Northern and Southern Opera Tunes in All Modes in 1746, which features more than two thousand tunes, four thousand musical scores, and extensive discussions on the history, usage, and characters of the modes (see Image 4).[11] It was around the same time that the Qing court codified the ritual use of opera, assigning different ceremonial functions to some two-hundred newly composed chengyingxi 承應戲 “on-demand intermezzi.”

Image 4: The first qupai 曲牌 or “fixed tune” presented in the gao dashidiao 高大石調 “High Arabic Mode”—comparable to D#-Mixolydian in the Western system—in Grand Compendium of Northern and Southern Opera Tuens in All Modes (1746), Vol. 44. The title of this fixed tune, man’er wu yunqi 蠻兒舞雲旗 “the barbarian kid waves the cloud banner,” has nothing to do with the lyrics of the actual opera aria presented here as an example of the tune; the aria is drawn from a seasonal ritual opera performed on the 7^th day of the 7^th month in the Chinese calendar, also known as the Chinese Valentine’s Day. © 中国国家图书馆 National Library of China

 

Thus, even though no cross reference exists between the ostensibly “Western” treatise in ff. 1-51 and the digests on “Chinese” music theory and opera in ff. 52-83, these two parts of Putong Guji 15251 were nonetheless compiled and consumed with a common objective: to perfect the use of modes in opera, so as to better harness their political power in service of the Qing Empire. And though I am yet to chance upon an 18^th-century Chinese score of opera tunes notated with Guido’s syllables or staff notation, the entanglements both inside and outside the manuscript between the Qing court’s operatic ambitions and its interest in Western musica practica show that the latter played a far more significant role than mere foreign exotica.

 

 

[1] Lülü zuanyao 律呂纂要. The earliest record of this text is the entry on May 1, 1691 in the diary the French Jesuits Jean-François Gerbillon and Joachim Bouvet kept on their lectures to the Kangxi Emperor between January 1690 and November 1691. See Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS 17240, f. 277r.

[2] See Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Jap. Sin. 145, f. 82v, in Verbiest’s letter to Charles de Noyelle in Rome on August 1, 1685.

[3] See Jonathan Hay, “Foreword” to Petra Ten-Doesschate Chu et al ed., Qing Encounters: Artistic Exchanges between China and the West (Los Angeles: The Getty Research Institute, 2015), vii-xix.

[4] The Kangxi Emperor effectively disinherited his two eldest sons in 1708 and 1712 respectively.

[5] Lüli yuanyuan 律曆淵源, literally “Origins of Pitch Pipes and Calendar”; I have translated “pitch pipes and calendar” as “cosmological sciences” due to the cosmological resonances inscribed onto pitch pipes and calendar in the Confucian tradition to which the treatise appeals.

[6] See No. 2307, 2310, 2321, 2324, 2326, 2328, 2329 in Kangxichao manwen zhupi zouzhe quanyi 康熙朝滿文硃批奏摺全譯 (“Complete Translation of Vermilion-Annotated Memorials in Manchu from the Kangxi Era”), 1996.

[7] Lülü Zhengyi 律呂正義.

[8] I have not seen this source myself, only as cited in various credible secondary sources. Purportedly it is located at the Propaganda Fide archives in Rome.

[9] His name, here in Tocharian, is also known as Sujiva in Sanskrit and Suzhipo 蘇祗婆 in Chinese.

[10] Yuding qupu 御定詞譜and Yuding qupu 御定曲譜. See No. 3115 in Kangxichao hanwen zhupi zouzhe 康熙朝漢文硃批奏摺(“Complete Translation of Vermilion-Annotated Memorials in Manchu from the Kangxi Era”), 1985.

[11] Jiugong dacheng nanbeici gongpu 九宮大成南北詞宮譜.

Lester Hu is a PhD Candidate in Music History and Theory at the University of Chicago. His dissertation, Music and Qing Imperial Formations, c. 1680-1820: Negotiating Historiography and Ethnography in the Global Music History, examines the shifting epistemologies of music and sound in early modern China in a transregional context. When not working on academic stuff, he enjoys cooking—particularly braising, which allows him to do work at the same time.

 

Rhythm, Number, and Heraclitus’ River

David E. Cohen

The following short passage was recorded by an anonymous student of Aristotle or his school in the section on music in the pseudo-Aristotelian work known as the Problems:

We enjoy rhythm because it possesses number both familiar and ordered, and moves us in an orderly way. For ordered movement is by nature more akin [to us] than disordered, as indeed [it is itself] more natural.[1]

We enjoy rhythm, this tells us, in part because it “possesses number,” and in part because it moves us in a particular, “natural” way. The following is a reading of this passage as an invitation to situate some fundamental issues concerning rhythm in a historical context.

Let us begin with “rhythm” (rhythmos) itself. The word has a number of meanings in ancient Greek, including “measure, proportion or symmetry of parts.” In the present (musical) context, its use would have implied the application of those concepts to the proportional relationships of time durations specifically, manifested first in the long and short syllables of the Greek language, especially as these were exploited in verse, and then in the analogous temporal relations evidenced in the tones of melody and the bodily movements of dance.

Thus for an educated Greek of antiquity, to say that rhythm is a phenomenon of quantity, measure, and proportion would have been to state the obvious. But the word “number” (arithmos) implies a more specific claim, namely, that rhythm consists in “discrete” quantity, that is, a kind of quantity that is intrinsically “quantized,” coming in distinct, segregated units, or discrete batches of a common unit, this being precisely what was meant in ancient Greek by “number” in the specific and proper sense of the word: a countable collection of units.[2] And this idea of units of measure, whether conglomerated into a set or concatenated in a (temporal or spatial) series, reminds us that the durational relations of measure, proportion, and symmetry mentioned above all entail regularity or periodicity, the recurrence of a single, consistent time span. As we are told in an earlier section of the Problems, “every rhythm is measured by a determinate motion, and equal motion is of this kind.”[3]

All this implies that, for the writer and readers of our quoted passage, rhythm might have had a quality akin to that which we now call meter, characterized by periodicity, regularity, symmetry, the repetitive and predictable recurrence of identically “spaced” modules of identical “length.”[4]

On the other hand, it is also possible—though unlikely—that in the phrase “rhythm possesses number,” “number” is being used generically or metaphorically to denote “quantity” in general (to posón). If so, then it could be read so as to include continuous quantity, the kind of quantity found in the lines, planes, and solids of geometry, which the Greeks also called “magnitude” (megethos). Such a conception of the quantitative nature of rhythm might be taken to emphasize its continuity, its fluidity, its flow (rheuma). It might remind us that the word itself, rhythmos, is possibly related to the verb rhein, “to flow.” One might even go so far as to recall Heraclitus’s doctrine of universal flux: that “all things flow” (panta rhei) so that they are ever new, as in his saying that “upon those who step into the same rivers new waters are ever flowing.”[5] Such a reading would stress precisely those features that we now tend to associate specifically with rhythm: variety, creativity, unpredictability, what Christopher Hasty has characterized as the “spontaneous creation of the ever new,” in opposition to meter as the “constant repetition of the same.”[6]

That possibility is tempting. Nonetheless, the passage seems clearly to support the normal and proper meaning of “number” as “discrete quantity,” distinct groups of discrete units. For the passage goes on to characterize this “number” possessed by rhythm as both “familiar” and “ordered.” The word translated as “familiar” (gnôrimon) is from gnôrizein, “to come to know,” with its resonance of gnôsis, “knowledge,” suggesting that the “number” of rhythm is “familiar” in the sense of being “known” to the intellect, which recognizes something in it, meaning that the number in question is an entity of such a kind as to be, by nature, capable of being cognized (or “re-cognized”) by the mind; indeed its adverbial form gnôrimos means “intelligible,” “capable of being understood.” But for a Greek of the fourth century BC, that characterization would inevitably have implied the properties of regularity and finitude, as opposed to the chaotic and unknowable infinite.

At the same time, this “number” is ordered (tetagmenos); this word comes from a verb (tattein) that means to organize things or people into a definite arrangement, for example, to draw troops up into a battle formation; it is the same word that gives us “syntax” and its derivatives. It calls to mind the fact that another attested meaning of rhythmos is “form,” “shape.” And it is this property of being “ordered” that is responsible for rhythm’s powerful effect on us, which is to “move us in an orderly way” —something that rhythm can only do, of course, because it is already “ordered” itself, in a way that must somehow be related to the order that subsists in ourselves.

This is why our passage’s second sentence tells us that “ordered movement is by nature more akin [to us] than disordered, as indeed [it is itself] more natural”:  the word translated as “more akin,” oikeotera, characterizes things and people that are domestic, or related by blood, or friendly, or proper, or appropriate. Again, there is no fully satisfactory English equivalent, but all of those resonances amount to an implicit assertion of a profound and intimate relationship between us as living beings and the general phenomenon of “order.” We respond with pleasure to this phenomenon of order which, we are told, is also “more natural in itself,” because order is already within us as a principle of nature. And it is why the answer to the broader question of the passage as a whole, which asks why we take pleasure in melody and consonance as well as rhythm, is that we naturally enjoy those things that embody a proportion or ratio (logos), because “a ratio is [itself] an order (taxis); and order is, by nature, pleasant.”[7]

Measure, proportion, regularity, knowability, order: these properties would surely have seemed, to the early readers of this passage, far more characteristic of discrete quantities than of continuous ones, which—as had already long been known—are rife with the possibility of irrationality. (Think, for instance, of the value of pi.)

It is the fragmentary Elementa rhythmica of Aristoxenus, himself a student of Aristotle, that provides the earliest detailed theoretical account of rhythm in terms of proportional durational relations[8] —more specifically, of ratios between the durations of the upward motion (anô, arsis) and the downward motion (katô, basis) of the metrical verse foot, measured in multiples of a temporal unit he calls the prôtos chronos (the “primary duration”).[9] Rhythm, Aristoxenus says, occurs when the rhythmized material (speech in poetry, tones in music, movements in dance) is divided into parts that are, again, “knowable” (gnorimois), and so produce the special kind of determinate arrangement (taxis, from tattein) of temporal durations that qualifies as “rhythmic” (enrhythmon).[10] This requires (among other things) that the upward and downward motions of each foot be mutually commensurable: that each of them be an integral multiple of the protos chronos, which is therefore their “common measure” (metron koinon). Such a foot is “rational” (rhêtos). “Irrationality” (alogia) occurs when that is not the case. But this is not “irrationality” in the proper mathematical sense: it is not that the lengths of the arsis and basis have no possible “common unit.” Rather, Aristoxenus calls a foot “irrational” when the common measure of its up and down motions is a duration shorter than the perceptually indivisible protos chronos. Such a duration is, simply for that reason, “arrhythmic,” and all such irrational feet are “not proper (oikeiai) to the nature of rhythm” itself.[11] Consequently, only the very small set of verse feet with ratios that are, in this sense, “rational,” and are moreover “familiar” or “knowable” (gnôrimon) because their proportional relation of arsis to basis is easily perceptible, are “proper (oikeiai) to, and capable of being ordered in accord with, the nature of rhythm.”[12] All this, of course, rules out a fortiori any proportional relations that are truly irrational (in the proper mathematical sense of having no common unit at all), and so restricts the domain of rhythm to that of arithmos, “number” in the Greek sense explained earlier.

A few moments ago I mentioned Heraclitus’s maxim, “Upon those stepping into the same rivers ever new waters flow.” Unlike his other, more famous saying, “It is not possible to step into the same river twice,” or the catch phrase used to summarize his thought, “everything flows,” this one, which seems to acknowledge the sense in which people actually can “step into the same river” more than once, permits us to think that perhaps Heraclitus did recognize some sort of stability along with the flux. It prompts us to recognize that, while everything may be continually changing, it is precisely in and through that ceaseless alteration that the seemingly stable entities of our empirical world apparently persist and subsist. The parallels, and contrasts, with rhythm and meter are intriguing.

I’d like to close with the suggestion that this dialectic of flux and stasis, sameness and difference, unfolds not only over short spans but in and through the course of history as well. It is evident in our feeling that the anonymous Greek passage we’ve been examining says things that seem both archaic and alien, as in the emphasis on an otherwise undefined “number,” and on the other hand, things that seem quite current, such as its author’s unmistakable sense that within the phenomenon called “rhythm” and its powerful effect on us there is something that is both extraordinary and significant and yet deeply, intimately familiar. Rhythm does indeed move us, cause us pleasure, and, at least in many cases, seem profoundly natural while doing so. And we are still seeking to understand why, although the kinds of answers we prefer now are usually very different from those of over two thousand years ago. But what I especially like about the passage I’ve just been discussing is its quiet sense of wonder at the marvelous phenomenon of rhythm, and its calm confidence that this can be explained by being defined and situated within a world of nature that has not, as yet, been disenchanted. It is by studying the history of such questions and answers that one can sometimes come to a new understanding, not only of who we are, how we got here, and what we have gained, but also of what we have lost along the way.[13]

 

[1] ῥυθμῷ δὲ χαίρομεν διὰ τὸ γνώριμον καὶ τεταγμένον ἀριθμὸν ἔχειν, καὶ κινεῖν ἡμᾶς τεταγμένως· οἰκειοτέρα γὰρ ἡ τεταγμένη κίνησις φύσει τῆς ἀτάκτου, ὥστε καὶ κατὰ φύσιν μᾶλλον (Problemata, Book 19, Chap. 38; 920b33-36).

[2] The study that established the meaning of arithmos in ancient Greek mathematics is Jacob Klein, Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra, trans. Eva Brann (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1968), originally published in German in 1934.

[3] πᾶς ῥυθμὸς ὡρισμένῃ μετρεῖται κινήσει, τοιαύτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ δι’ ἴσου οὖσα (Problemata, Book 5, Chap. 16; 882b2-3).

[4] I draw here on the brilliant critique of this conception of meter by Christopher Hasty, Meter as Rhythm (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), esp. pp. 1-21.

[5] ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ. (H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6^th ed. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1951), Vol. 1, Chap. 22, Pt. B, Frag. 12).

[6] Hasty, op. cit., pp. 4-5.

[7] ὁ μὲν οὖν λόγος τάξις, ὃ ἦν φύσει ἡδύ (Problemata, Bk. 19, Chap. 38; 921a3-4).

[8] Aristoxenus’ Elementa rhythmica is well translated in Andrew Barker, Greek Musical Writings, Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1989). I quote here from the edition by G. B. Pighi (Bologna: Patron, 1959), as reproduced in Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (URL: stephanus.tlg.uci.edu).

[9] Aristoxenus defines the prôtos chronos as “that [duration] which cannot be divided” by the least division of any rhythmized material (speech sounds, musical tones, bodily motions): Καλείσθω δὲ πρῶτος μὲν τῶν χρόνων ὁ ὑπὸ μηδενὸς τῶν ῥυθμιζομένων δυνατὸς ὢν διαιρεθῆναι (ed. cit. p. 19:21-22). It is not, of course, indivisible in the absolute sense, since time itself for Aristotle and his followers is continuous.

[10] Ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἂν εἴη μεριστὸν εἶναι τὸ ῥυθμιζόμενον γνωρίμοις μέρεσιν, οἷς διαιρήσει τὸν χρόνον. … Ἀκόλουθον δέ ἐστι … τὸ λέγειν, τὸν ῥυθμὸν γίνεσθαι, ὅταν ἡ τῶν χρόνων διαίρεσις τάξιν τινὰ λάβῃ ἀφωρισμένην, οὐ γὰρ πᾶσα χρόνων τάξις ἔνρυθμος (Elementa rhythmica, ed. cit., p. 18: 15-16, 18-20).

[11] Δεῖ δὲ μηδ’ ἐνταῦθα διαμαρτεῖν, ἀγνοηθέντος τοῦ τε ῥητοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου, τίνα τρόπον ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς λαμβάνεται. … Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ φύσιν λαμβάνεται ῥητόν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς τῶν ἀριθμῶν μόνον λόγους. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐν ῥυθμῷ λαμβανόμενον ῥητὸν χρόνου μέγεθος πρῶτον μὲν δεῖ τῶν πιπτόντων εἰς τὴν ῥυθμοποιίαν εἶναι, ἔπειτα τοῦ ποδὸς ἐν ᾧ τέτακται μέρος εἶναι ῥητόν· τὸ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς τῶν ἀριθμῶν λόγους λαμβανόμενον ῥητὸν τοιοῦτόν τι δεῖ νοεῖν οἷον ἐν τοῖς διαστηματικοῖς τὸ δωδεκατημόριον τοῦ τόνου καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο ἐν ταῖς τῶν διαστημάτων παραλλαγαῖς λαμβάνεται. Φανερὸν δὲ διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι ἡ μέση ληφθεῖσα τῶν ἄρσεων οὐκ ἔσται σύμμετρος τῇ βάσει· οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν μέτρον ἐστὶ κοινὸν ἔνρυθμον (Elementa rhythmica, ed. cit., p. 23:1-3, 9-19).

[12] Διὰ ταύτην γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν τὸ μὲν ἡρμοσμένον εἰς πολὺ ἐλάττους ἰδέας τίθεται, τὸ δὲ ἀνάρμοστον εἰς πολὺ πλείους. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς χρόνους ἔχοντα φανήσεται· πολλαὶ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν συμμετρίαι τε καὶ τάξεις ἀλλότριαι φαίνονται τῆς αἰσθήσεως οὖσαι, ὀλίγαι δέ τινες οἰκεῖαί τε καὶ δυναταὶ ταχθῆναι εἰς τὴν τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ φύσιν (Elementa rhythmica, ed. cit., p. 19:3-8).

[13] The foregoing is an expanded and much revised version of remarks read at the opening plenary session of the fifth annual Mannes Institute for Advanced Studies in Music Theory, held at the Mannes School of Music in New York City in the summer of 2005. The Institute’s topic that year was rhythm, and I was to lead a workshop that would examine theories of rhythm historically. Each workshop leader delivered a brief preliminary address. I wish to thank Carmel Raz for suggesting that I share mine with the readers of the AMS / SMT HoT blog.

 

David E. Cohen is Senior Research Scientist with the research group, “Histories of Music, Mind, and Body” at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany. His research focuses on the history of music theory from Greek antiquity through the nineteenth century. A PhD graduate of Brandeis University (1993), he has held professorships at Columbia, Harvard, and Tufts Universities, and visiting professorships at Yale and McGill Universities. His article, “‘The Imperfect Seeks its Perfection’: Harmonic Progression, Directed Motion, and Aristotelian Physics” received the 2001 Best Publication award of the Society for Music Theory. Among his current projects are an essay about the musical note as the “element” of music, a study on Rameau’s harmonic theory, and a book, The End of Pythagoreanism: Music Theory, Philosophy, and Science from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment.

Storms in Chang-an: On the Music Debate of Kai-huang Period

Rujing Huang

In its pursuit of national rejuvenation, the Xi administration in China has shown a renewed interest for traditional culture. Integral to this latest wave of cultural renaissance is a movement to reconstruct—based on treatises of various historical times—the nation’s classical music theory, an effort driven by a group of musicians, scholars and self-acclaimed literati (wenren) in Beijing. Accompanying the intensifying anxiety over the absence of a unified, national music theory is a re-emerged faith in the ancient Chinese association between the quality of music and the quality of rule. Throughout early and imperial Chinese history, the consolidation of political powers had almost always entailed a large-scale reform of the state sacrificial music system, a crucial step in harmonizing the new regime with larger cosmic patterns and in turn confirming its legitimacy. Such efforts ranged from the adjustment of musical temperament to that of modal scales, and from the re-sizing of ritual bell chimes to the renewal of the official repertory. Marking one of these pivotal moments is the Music Debate of Kai-huang Period (thereafter “the Debate”), a series of conferences summoned by the emperor between 582 and 594 CE to reform music theory. The Debate is best documented in the “Treatise on Music” of the Book of Sui, official dynastic history and a major source for the music of the Sui court (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Wei Zheng (580-643), Book of Sui (Suishu), Harvard-Yenching Rare Book T 2605 2124

A Backdrop

Historians today have pointed to the period between 500 and 800 CE as the “first great divergence” between China and Europe: while in Eastern Eurasia the Sui dynasty reunited China following the long-time fragmentation of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, in Western Eurasia the decline of the Roman Empire had brought about a tumultuous era of political disintegration. In the musical realm, when Boethius was working to safeguard Greek musical knowledge, the Sui court was confronted with the sudden influx of foreign music—an after-effect of a newly unified China—that had started to threaten the ritually proper sacrificial music known as yayue. Taking place in the capital city of Chang’an, the Debate eventually evolved into a fierce political battlefield.  Its account captures the unique role that music theory played in shaping early Chinese conceptions of the government, the empire, and the universe.

Largely absent in the English-language literature, the Debate nevertheless remains a topic of interest among music historians and theorists in China today. Explicit mention of this milestone event is rare among avid revivalists of classical music theory in Beijing, but many theoretical contributions of the Debate continue to underlie the ongoing revivalist campaign. A re-examination of the Debate is timely, not only for its relevance to current discussions about the recovery of classical Chinese music theory, but also for the gateway it provides to understanding the intersection between music and politics during a historical period of frequent inter-ethnic exchange, the effects of which are still felt today.

The Debate

In 582 CE, an imperial decree was issued by Emperor Wen of Sui (Figure 2), founder of China’s Sui Dynasty, to “check the Bureau of Music and to alter the tones in a modal scale along with the standard tuning pitch-pipes,” initiating a twelve-year reform aimed at rectifying the official system of imperial ritual music. According to the Book of Sui, the Emperor, then dissatisfied with the initial slow progress of the reform, lamented, “The Mandate of Heaven has been bestowed upon me for seven years. How can the Music Bureau still praise the virtues of the bygone era!” Underlying the Emperor’s anxiety is a century-old belief in the necessity of “correcting” the official music of the former court immediately after the rise of a new imperial regime.

Figure 2: Emperor Wen of Sui, from the Portraits of Former Emperors (Lidai diwang tu) by Yan Liben (600–673); Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

The first watershed moment of the Debate occurred in 587 CE, when the Emperor summoned a cohort of scholar-official elites to resume the discussion over yayue. Zheng Yi, the Duke of Pei, famously proposed the theory of Wu-dan Qi-diao (“five note-sets, seven mode-keys,” or WDQD) based on the teachings of Sujivha, a Kuchean musician who arrived at the Chinese court with Princess Ashina of the Göktürk empire—a nomadic confederation of Turkic peoples in medieval Inner Asia (Figure 3). It was recorded that Sujivha, using five heptatonic “note-sets” (dan in Kuchean terms, or yun in Chinese modal terminology) built on distinct home pitches (gong), demonstrated the possibility of initiating mode-keys (diao) on all seven scale degrees of a note-set (Figure 4 a and b).[1] In citing Sujivha, Zheng hoped to revive a classical tradition of modulation known as “rotating the gong and shifting the diao” (xuangong zhuandiao), which calls for the monthly modulation of the basic, heptatonic note-set—by altering its gong pitch—in order to achieve seamless alignment between musical structure and the changing cosmic elements.

Figure 3: A Map of Tang China at 700 CE, with Kucha and Chang’an highlighted in red (image credit: Ian Mladjov). A Central Asian oasis kingdom, Kucha became the seat of a Chinese protectorate (officially “the Protectorate General to Pacify the West”) during the Tang Dynasty.

An erudite of the National Academy (guozi boshi) and a key opponent of Zheng, He Tuo insisted that the “yellow bell” or huangzhong pitch (C), a musical signifier for “the virtue of the ruler,” be established as the only gong sound of the Sui dynasty. To gain imperial favor, officers who sided with He argued that only by securing the majestic “yellow bell” pitch as the gong would the newly founded empire rightfully prevail over the previous Northern Zhou rule, a regime believed to be overtaken for falsely selecting a musical symbol for “the ruled”—the linzhong or “forest bell” pitch (G)—as its official gong. He’s narrative is rooted in an ancient method of pitch generation known as “A-Third-Removing-Extending” (ATRE, see an earlier post by Guangming Li), which specifies that the “yellow bell” pitch pipe “generates downward”—and hence governs—the “forest bell” pitch pipe. He’s argument soon won over the heart of the Emperor, who overturned Zheng’s proposal and concluded that the gong of Sui be none other but the pitch of “yellow bell.”

Figure 4a. Illustration of the Wu-Dan Qi-Diao (WDQD) theory:
the basic heptatonic note-set (dan) built on C

 

Figure 4b.  Illustration of the Wu-Dan Qi-Diao (WDQD) theory: the seven mode-keys (diao) of a dan

The second turning point of the Debate came in 589 CE, immediately after the Sui conquered its neighboring Chen state. In fear of having the popular music (suyue) and foreign music (huyue) from the newly annexed lands “pollute” the orthodox, elegant ritual music (yayue) of the Sui court, the Emperor ordered for another grand meeting to revise yayue. In the limelight was Niu Hong, Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices, who advised that the Emperor re-consider Zheng Yi’s earlier proposal for restoring the classical method of “rotating the gong” (xuangong) throughout the year. The emperor, having fully subscribed to He’s argument on the potentially disastrous, symbolic power of music, rejected Niu’s recommendation and once again affirmed the status of “yellow bell” as the sole, legitimate gong of his rule.

Five years later, a renewed system of imperial ritual music was in place, with its “yellow bell” ringing, sounding the most auspicious gong of an august emperor. This historic debate on music theory and its symbolic power, its full details beyond the scope of this post, eventually developed into ruthless political warfare, with hundreds of scholar-officers found guilty for fueling political factionalism. This included Su Kui, an overall supporter of Zheng, and his father Su Wei, Duke of Pi and the grand chancellor of the Sui dynasty.

Throughout, both the minister’s and the emperor’s concerns over the absolute gong pitch foreground the rich symbolic systems in which classical Chinese music theory participated. Pitch names, in particular, have long been regarded as forces capable of reflecting and altering social order. In convincing the emperor, He tactically fell back on the ancient and semi-legendary association between the “yellow bell”—often regarded as the imperial bell—and the ruler as well as the divine will. For He, only when the gong pitch is fixed on this most auspicious tone, with no monthly or seasonal adjustments, would the new dynasty be brought into ultimate harmony with the cosmos.

A Closer Look  

The large-scale, inter-ethnic migration that marked the turbulent Southern and Northern dynasties (420–589 CE) induced much anxiety in the succeeding Sui court, whose ruling class feared the infiltration of foreign and popular melodies into the sacred realm of imperial ritual music. It was against this backdrop that the Debate unfolded. Standing at the center of the storm was Zheng Yi, the musical mastermind whose theoretical contributions remain the focal point of existing scholarly writings (Figure 5). Via the work of Zheng, I hope to bring to light the subtle dynamics between popular music (suyue), foreign music (huyue), and imperial ritual music (yayue), three fluid constructs central to early Chinese perceptions of music that continue to inform discussions over the state of classical music theory in China today.

Figure 5: Tomb inscriptions (muzhi) of Zheng Yi (540-591), Tang West Market Museum,
excavated in 2014

Music historians today have turned to Zheng’s connection with Sujivha when dissecting the inflow of foreign music into the Central Plain during the Sui, a period often dismissed for the “barbarianization” (huhua) of Han Chinese culture. Over the decades, scholars have probed the possible Karnatik (Hayashi 1936), Hindustani (Xiang 1937), Central Asian (Guan 1980), and Persian (Wang 1931; Shen 1993) roots of Sujivha’s WDQD theory. At issue is Zheng’s bold proposal that mode-keys be initiated on all seven scale degrees—including the two altered (bian) tones—of the standard heptatonic note-set. Traditionally, the bian tones, highlighted in Figure 4a, were treated as auxiliary notes in the Chinese modal system, which was commonly regarded to comprise five rather than seven diatonic modes. Aside from importing foreign practices, Zheng is also remembered—sometimes criticized—for disseminating knowledge that had been previously kept secret. This includes his decision to illustrate the classical art of modulation on the Kuchean pipa, a secular instrument, leading to the propagation of Sujivha’s theory outside the palace during the ensuing Tang dynasty.

Musicologists who work against a simplistic portrait of Zheng as an enthusiast for “the foreign” (hu) and “the popular” (su) have called for a re-evaluation of his contribution. Shen Tung (1993), for one, argues that Zheng is as much a classicist as he is a syncreticist, and that underneath Zheng’s efforts to “apply” (yong) imported knowledge is his unwavering faith in classical Chinese learning, the “essence” (ti) of his campaign.[2] Scholars sharing this viewpoint re-associate Zheng’s proposal for “rotating the gong” with similar teachings in the Book of Rites, a Confucian classic deemed unequivocally Chinese. Attention also lands on Zheng’s adherence to the exclusive usage of the yayue scale in imperial ceremonial contexts. The yayue scale, so named for its historical association with the yayue tradition, is a modal scale that features a prominent augmented fourth (A4) between the gong and bianzhi scale degrees (Figure 6a). It is recorded that Zheng once condemned the Imperial Music Office for interfusing the yayue and xinyue (new music) scales, deriding the bianzhi scale degree of the latter—which forms a perfect fourth (P4) with the gong—as “betraying the Way of pitch generation” (Figure 6b). Shen, in her textual analysis of the Book of Sui, traces Zheng’s criticism of the xinyue scale to the classical method of ATRE, and proceeds to argue that behind Zheng’s acceptance of WDQD is his realization that the imported theory from Sujivha “fits like matching tallies” the scales generated under ATRE. A connection is thus established between Zheng’s proposals and sources of classical authority. In this narrative, Zheng is no longer the radical who “impurified” yayue and sidetracked the “authentic” history of Chinese music theory. Instead, he has become a guardian of traditional knowledge who—in bridging it with the foreign—develops and empowers it.

Figure 6: Yayue Scale and Xinyue Scale

The Debate, which took place during one of the most short-lived regimes in Chinese history, extends far beyond the musical realm. In his analysis of early Sui politics, Wang Li-zeng seeks to uncover the hidden agenda behind the Emperor’s response to each core participant of the Debate, arguing that in rejecting or accepting a given proposal, the Son of Heaven was in essence gesturing to the nuanced political network behind the screen.[3] The Debate thus brings to the surface a classical association between music, cosmology, and government theory that was in effect then and is gradually re-entering the Chinese consciousness today. Finally, with its participants ranging from historians, music theorists and musicians to Confucian scholar-officials and political strategists, the Debate meaningfully contrasts intellectual exchanges in China today, often limited by disciplinary boundaries and scholar-practitioner divides. The wind keeps blowing, as I write, leaving many of us wonder whether yet another storm is brewing.

[1] A standard heptatonic “note-set” within the context of Chinese yayue refers to a collection of seven pitches within an octave—in ascending, stepwise arrangement—that in its basic formation resembles a Lydian modal scale and that functions as the basis of scalar and modal construction. Laurence Picken and Ernest Rowland. Music from the Tang Court: Some ancient connections explored. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.  By “mode-key,” I adopt Picken and Rowland’s translation of diao, an ambiguous Chinese character that falls in between Western notions of “key” and “mode.”

[2] Shen Tung, “‘On the Music Conference of Kai-huang Period.’ 隋代開皇樂議研究,” New History 4, no.1 (1993): 1-42.

[3] Wang Li-zeng, “‘The Kai-huang Music Debate and Early Sui Politics.’ 開皇樂議與隋初政治,” Journal of Tianjin Conservatory of Music, no.4 (2003): 33-36.

 

Rujing Huang is a Ph.D. Candidate in Ethnomusicology at Harvard University’s Department of Music. This year, she also serves as a Graduate Student Associate at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.

Researching the Transfer of Central-European Music Theory and Composition Treatises to China

Gesine Schröder

My interest in the circulation of European music theory in China was initially piqued through the doctoral work of Wang Ying, for whom I served as an external advisor. Now a lecturer of music theory in Guangzhou, Dr. Wang was a doctoral candidate at the Central Conservatory of Beijing at the time and spent two years of her studies in Leipzig. Like her, many students from China have been coming to Central Europe seeking to learn some “original European theory” at a university or conservatory. But at the same time these students have been bringing with them to Europe an idiosyncratic understanding of Western music theory that seems to synthesize recent, partially North American theories with outgrowths of theories from late nineteenth-century Leipzig and with relics of the British theoretical tradition. Trying to understand the roots of this amalgamation was the beginning of a research project that I initiated, along with collaborators Cheong Wai-Ling from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Zhang Wei of the Shanghai Conservatory of Music.

Together with these colleagues we organized workshops that involved primarily young scholars and students. The aim was to trace the paths through which Central European theories arrived in China, focusing on theories and composition treatises from the late nineteenth century to the present day and particularly those dating from the decade following the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. How did these theories change along the way and how were they adapted? When and in which form did they develop an independent existence in the new location? How could one describe the current status of Chinese music theories used in pedagogy?

Through financial support from the Austrian Eurasia Pacific Uninet foundation, our team could hold four small conferences dedicated to these questions. These conferences took place in Hong Kong (January 2014), Shanghai (April 2015), Vienna (January 2016), and again in Hong Kong (April 2017). Contributions from the first three meetings were published in Spring 2017 in a special issue of the online journal Zeitschrift ästhetische Bildung ZÄB. The following discussion makes reference to some of these articles. But first, I start with some notes about the last meeting (2017) that is not yet documented in the publication.

Figure 1: In the apartment of Luo Zhongrong 罗忠鎔 (seated), with his wife Li Yamo 李雅莫, singer; Gesine Schröder (Wien/Leipzig); Kang Xiao 康啸 (China Conservatory Beijing); Odila Schröder (Heidelberg/Nottingham); Jonathan Stark (Vienna); Tobias Tschiedl (Vienna/now Montréal); Hong Ding (Soochow/Hong Kong); N.N. (China Conservatory Beijing)

This meeting concluded with a week-long research stay in Beijing during which we documented materials in the libraries of the Central Conservatory and the China Conservatory. During this stay, our team of six researchers from China, Austria, and Germany also visited Luo Zhongrong (see Figure 1). A pioneer of new music and music theory in his country, Luo is an important eyewitness to their development. Almost 94 years old, he lives with his family in the outskirts of Beijing. Luo’s work as composer and as translator of music theory treatises illustrates one way in which European music theories arrived in China, how they were transformed and sinicized.

In the mid-1940s, Luo Zhongrong studied in Shanghai with Tan Xiaolin who himself had been a student of Paul Hindemith’s at Yale. Through Tan, Luo became familiar with Hindemith’s harmonic concepts. When he was incarcerated in the cultural revolution, Luo translated Hindemith’s The Craft of Musical Composition (originally Unterweisung im Tonsatz [Mainz 1937; English ed. London 1942]) into Chinese (using the English version as his model), and later the first volume of Hindemith’s A Concentrated Course in Traditional Harmony (London 1944). Both translations were printed only in 1984 and 1980 respectively. Luo also translated Schoenberg’s Harmonielehre (again from the English edition), as well as monographs by George Perle and Allen Forte. Luo is regarded as the first composer in China to have used Schoenberg’s “method of composing with twelve tones which are related only to one another,” such as in his song with piano accompaniment Picking Flowers in the Lotus Garden from 1979. But how did he become acquainted with Schoenberg’s method if he had not studied outside his home country?

In the People’s Republic of the 1950s to 70s snippets of information about the Second Viennese school circulated furtively, having been imported by Jewish émigrés during the Nazi period. Wolfgang Fraenkel, exiled from Berlin, taught at the Shanghai Conservatory and from 1947 onwards his successor Julius Schloß from Vienna (see here). Besides the regular music-theoretical subject matter, both of them also introduced their students to the atonal compositional methods and the style of the Second Viennese School. Such teachings are evident in the atonal piano piece Night Scenery (1947) by Sang Tong, which was composed already before the founding of the People’s Republic. As colleagues at the Shanghai Conservatory, Sang and Luo exchanged ideas about their new compositional experiments long before Sang’s piece was published in 1981.

Another way to learn about atonal composition—and one that, according to Luo’s account, was paradoxically more efficient—was through music theory. He referred specifically to the Chinese translation of Czech author Ctirad Kohoutek’s book that contained two chapters on the twelve-tone method. He remembers that the discussion of the composition method was presented with the same harsh critique that had to be applied to any so-called formalistic method during the regime of socialist realism. However, Luo was able to appreciate the descriptions of the compositional methods between these layers of criticism. In an idiosyncratic approach, Luo sinicized the method by composing the twelve-tone row from pentatonic segments, as multiple Chinese music theorists have analyzed (see here and here). In later dodecaphonic compositions, Luo also applied the ordering principles of the row to rhythmic formulas that he derived from traditional Chinese genres of music.

In the first half of the twentieth century, modern Chinese music theory was influenced the most through the knowledge brought back from students who had spent time in Central and Western European countries and the United States. Up until the 1950s, some impact can be traced as well to newer Japanese theories, which often had their roots in theories from the Paris Conservatory, in North American treatises or in the work of Hugo Riemann. Among Chinese scholars who had studied abroad, individual personalities such as Xiao Shuxian were important in particular because of their teaching service besides their treatises. Xiao, for example, taught counterpoint at the Central Conservatory in Beijing for decades. She had studied in Brussels, following an adapted French curriculum. Having lived in Switzerland for over a decade as the wife of conductor Hermann Scherchen, she was well acquainted with new music composed in Europe.

Her uncle Xiao Youmei was even more influential for the early history of Chinese music theory. He had studied in Leipzig in the years preceding World War I. While Xiao received his doctorate under Riemann from the University of Leipzig, his introductory music and harmony treatise shows more similarity with ideas that he picked up in his parallel studies at the Conservatory of the same city. The theories of Salomon Jadassohn were still widespread at the Conservatory even years after his death—despite Riemann’s vehement criticism of his former teacher. Similarly, Jadassohn’s thought persisted at the Conservatory of Shanghai over decades through Xiao’s students. Sang Tong’s harmony treatise, for instance, uses the analytical ciphers that disseminated far beyond Leipzig in the late nineteenth century, as can be seen in an excerpt from that treatise in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Excerpt from Sang Tong’s harmony treatise (Shanghai 2001, 121)

Riemann’s ideas, meanwhile, still played an influential role in conceptualizing a Chinese music pedagogy and musicology—a “plan of musical knowledge”—in the years preceding the foundation of the People’s Republic. Also Chinese harmonic theory bears traces of Riemann’s ideas. This, however, only occurred later—after the death of Xiao Youmei and the foundation of the People’s Republic—and via a different route: the Soviet Union. The so-called Brigade-treatise, written by four theory professors of the Moscow Conservatory and first published in Russian in 1937 and in a Chinese translation in 1957 and 1958, had a far-reaching impact (as is discussed here and here).

Figure 3: From the Chinese translation of the harmony treatise of the so-called theory-brigadiers, p. 201. The annotations come from Sun Yongdan, the owner of this copy.

However, what was transmitted to China as “function theory” through the Soviet pedagogy treatises bears little resemblance to Riemann’s ideas. (See Figure 3: In this passage from Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro, act II, scene 1, the parallelism is shown to lie in the analogy of the functional symbols, showing the progression S->T [in the first instance this is hidden in the second letter of the functional symbols respectively]).

Moreover, China absorbed music-theoretical ideas and concepts from scholars who visited the country. Among the first was Boris Aleksandrovič Arapov (1905–92) of the Leningrad Conservatory. He taught at the Central Conservatory between 1955–57. Further guest lecturers were invited to China from other countries of the Warsaw Pact as well, such as Paul Schenk from Leipzig, who taught at the conservatories of Beijing, Shanghai und Guangzhou in 1959 for seven weeks (see here, esp. 11–13). A translation of his lectures is preserved in the library of the Central Conservatory. Schenk advocated for a pragmatic music theory, which built on the work of his teacher Sigfrid Karg-Elert and initially opposed Riemann’s dualistic thinking through a more radical polaristic concept. Its pedagogically simplified version was the music-theoretical approach of reference to anyone wanting to become a musician in the GDR and remained so up until 1989 and beyond.

Figure 4

See for example Figure 4, which explains Richard Strauss’ “Eulenspiegel-chord” (the so-called “Australian Sixth”) through Karg-Elert’s system as a mixture of two polar second-degree third-related chords: S_M and D^m.

Other guest lecturers came from the UK, such as composer Alexander Goehr (born in Berlin in 1932). He lectured on new compositional techniques in Beijing in 1980—the year of publication of Luo’s dodecaphonic song—and again a little later. But also permanent teachers at the Central Conservatory such as Yao Heng-lu elevated the relevance of England for Chinese music theory. The Central Conservatory had been closed during the Cultural Revolution and Yao was among the first students to matriculate there in 1976 upon its reopening after the reign of the Gang of Four. In the 1980s, Yao completed his PhD in England. Afterwards he taught many generations of Chinese students at the Central Conservatory in music analysis.

Figure 5: from Yao Heng-lu’s Essential Training for Composition, Beijing 2011, p. 125.

He is the author of many pedagogical treatises. His harmony treatise demonstrates how chord symbols that Yao imported from England merged with Soviet symbols and more traditional Roman numerals. An example is the symbol for the augmented sixth-chord in Figure 5, an excerpt from Wagner’s The Valkyrie, act II, scene 4.

Examples like those quoted above made it clear to our research team that it would be too narrow to consider only relics of German-language music theory in China. Instead, it would require a team of scholars who are trained in the theory traditions of other countries as well to adequately trace and differentiate the influence of Roman numerals of presumably German origin, Soviet chord symbols, which adopt a Riemannian system, and British signs which root in ideas from the early nineteenth century. The British tradition of music theory has played a strong role also for political reasons: Since Hong Kong was integrated into the People’s Republic, it has constituted a pole of attraction for students from mainland China, who come to study within a music theory system that still bears clear traces of its past as a former British colony.

Today there are numerous contacts between China and music theorists from around the world. Among the many guest lecturers—including Steven Laitz from the Juilliard School respectively the Eastman School of Music, Reinhard Bahr from Hamburg, or Ariane Jeßulat from Berlin who was invited to participate in the Forum Music Analysis (2016)—Allen Forte was particularly influential. He visited Shanghai in 2009 during the conference of the Chinese Society for Music Analysis. Still more influential are, as mentioned, Chinese teachers who had studied abroad and who return to their home country with the acquired knowledge, which is usually adapted in manifold ways. These adaptations of imported theories pertain most commonly to the quality of the respective theories (however that might be assessed), rather than to the historical or local contexts from which they arose and that they originally referred to. This is particularly evident in the discipline of counterpoint.

Figure 6: A page from the first index to Chinese Art Education Encyclopaedia. Music Volume (Shanghai 2010, 3 vols.).

The theories are dissolved from their original contexts and it seems as if they thus become particularly adept for contemporary composition in China—at a time, notably, when these theories increasingly lose relevance for compositional pedagogy across Western and Central Europe. It is common in China that pedagogical treatises partake in the decontextualization and sinicization of materials and theories by demonstrating compositional principles through examples of recent Chinese music. Figure 6, a page from the first index to Chinese Art Education Encyclopaedia. Music Volume, for example, shows such a mixture of compositions from diverse historical and geographical origins, including many works by Chinese composers.

 

Gesine Schröder is Professor of Music Theory at the University of Music and Performing Arts in Vienna and at the Hochschule für Musik und Theater in Leipzig.

 

 

Blog post translated by Stephanie Probst

 

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

Conference Report

 

On November 8^th and 9^th, the SMT  History of Theory Interest Group / AMS Study Group co-sponsored a conference on “Instruments of Music Theory,” at the Eastman School of Music in Rochester, NY co-organized by Prof. Andrew Hicks (Cornell University), Prof. Nathan Martin (University of Michigan), Dr. Caleb Mutch (Indiana University), Dr. Carmel Raz (Columbia University), and Prof. Anna Zayaruznaya (Yale University).  The event, which attracted nearly eighty registrants, featured three keynote speakers, eleven papers by scholars in all career stages (from graduate students to full professors), and a hammered clavisimbalum concert with music from the Faenza Codex and other recently discovered manuscript fragments.

The conference sought both to build upon and to reinforce the increasingly eclectic and interdisciplinary set of questions now being asked within music studies and the humanities more broadly, to which the history of theory, as an inherently interdisciplinary field of study, has already begun to make significant contributions. Its theme, “Instruments of Music Theory,” explored Prof. Alexander Rehding’s recent call to “reconsider the relationship between music-theoretical instruments and the music theory they occasion” (MTO 22.6 [2016]), while also foregrounding the broader global context in which theories and instruments of music are situated.

The first day began with a session examining the use of “instruments in theory” as well as the uses of “theories as instruments,” chaired by Prof. Stefano Mengozzi (University of Michigan). The first speaker, Etha Williams (Harvard University), discussed the gendered meanings of sensibility in Denis Diderot and Anton Bemetzrieder’s Leçons de clavecin (1771), an instructional treatise detailing the keyboard lessons given to Diderot’s daughter, Marie-Angélique. The next paper, given by Lester Hu (University of Chicago), attempted to reconstruct the engagement between the Jesuit writer on Chinese music, Jean-Joseph Marie Amiot, and the contemporaneous Qing treatise that proposed a fourteen-tone temperament. The third speaker, Prof. Karl Braunschweig (Wayne State University), examined the changing role of music-theoretical reductions between the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries, focusing on the ways they provided material forms for elusive language conditions in music. Dr. Scott Gleason (Oxford University Press), the final speaker on the panel, used the writings of contemporary music theorist David Lewin to investigate how historical music theories can be leveraged as instruments for music-theoretical exploration.

After lunch, the conference reconvened for the first keynote address by Dr. David Catalunya, an accomplished medieval musicologist and early music performer currently based in Würzburg, Germany. Dr. Catalunya’s presentation featured organological demonstrations about the sensorial perception of music-theoretical precepts, focusing on the organ but also including Pythagorean bells, which he had reconstructed in collaboration with bell makers, as well as his own newly reconstructed hammered clavisimbalum, a medieval precursor to the fortepiano and built following the description of Henri Arnaut de Zwolle in a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Although de Zwolle does not describe the hammer action in detail, Dr. Catalunya and his collaborators were able to reconstruct it using the plans for the hammer of a clock also detailed in the manuscript.

Dr. David Catalunya’s Keynote Address

The afternoon session featured three papers that engaged with “theories of instruments.” Chaired by Prof. Alice Clark (Loyola University New Orleans), the panel began with Dr. Leon Chisholm (Deutsches Museum), who discussed the embodied ecology of music-making that underpins the shift from a voice-centered to keyboard-centered paradigm of musical thought in the sixteenth century. The next speaker, Prof. Rebecca Cypess (Rutgers University), considered the dependence of seventeenth-century basso continuo practice on the embodied knowledge of skilled instrumentalists, as well as on compositional ingenuity, uncovering traces of an experimental process among harpsichordists in Luzzaschi’s Madrigali (1601) and Frescobaldi’s Toccate (1615). The last paper on the panel, jointly delivered by Prof. Bryan Parkhurst (Oberlin College) and Prof. Stephan Hammel (University of California-Irvine), considered how the study of musical instruments within the broader anthropological and sociological study of human practices and institutions might open the door for a Marxist telling of the history of music.

The conference then reconvened for the second keynote address by Prof. Rehding (Harvard University) entitled “Global Thoughts on Music-Theoretical Instruments.” Occasioned by the coincidental calculation of equal temperament in both Western Europe and Ming Dynasty China in the late sixteenth century, Prof. Rehding asked us to consider the divergences that underlie such apparent similarities. He then ventured an alternative methodology for a transcultural history of music theory, drawing from Shigehisa Kuriyama’s analysis of cultural comparisons from the realm of medical history.

 

Prof. Alexander Rehding’s Keynote Address

Following the dinner reception, co-sponsored by the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University and the Journal of Music Theory, the evening concluded with a spellbinding concert performed by Dr. Catalunya on his hammered clavisimbalum featuring music from the fifteenth-century Faenza Codex and other recently discovered manuscript fragments.

The second day of the conference began with a panel on “instruments of theory” chaired by Prof. Thomas Christensen (University of Chicago). The first speaker, Elizabeth Lyon (Cornell University), examined Jean Gerson’s Tractatus de Canticis (fifteenth century) as an illustration of the ways in which allegorical uses of music theory contribute to knowledge of extra-musical domains and may also feed back into the aesthetics of sounding music. The second speaker, Prof. Joon Park (University of Arkansas), considered ways in which the terms “murky” and “transparent,” commonly used in Chinese and Korean calligraphy and music, both do and do not map onto ideas about high and low pitches in Western music theory. The third speaker, Prof. Abby Shupe (Colorado State University), surveyed the way in which the eighteenth-century French music theorist Jean-Philippe Rameau used both real and imaginary experiments with household implements in order to ground his claims in the empirical science of his day. The last speaker on the panel, Prof. David Cohen (Columbia University), analyzed discrepancies in accounts of the Pythagoras myth and argued that the role played by quantified string tensions in the Nicomachus of Gerasa’s version demonstrates a Neopythagorean desire to appropriate the Aristoxenian conceptualization of pitch as “tension” (tasis).

Thursday’s activities ended with a final keynote by Prof. Gabriela Currie (University of Minnesota) on “Instrumental Globalities: Object, Thought, Practice in Pre-modern Eurasia.”

Prof. Gabriela Currie’s Keynote Address

Prof. Currie’s lecture outlined the linguistic, archeological, and iconographic   evidence for the early dissemination of musical instruments in the intellectual and artistic exchanges along Eurasian trade routes. It was along these routes that the early outlines of global modernity first emerged, as people from diverse cultures facilitated a Eurasian transcultural commerce. The music-iconographical legacies of these complex Eurasian networks allow us to map a new model of instrumental and music-theoretical “globalities.”

The last session of the conference took place on Friday evening during the AMS Study Group’s dedicated session, chaired by Prof. Andrew Hicks (Cornell University). The first speaker on the panel, Lars Christensen (University of Minnesota), discussed cosmological diagrams produced during the Northern Song dynasty (960-1127), showing how similar kinds of discrepancies had to be silently normalized in calculating a calendar of twelve months and deriving a gamut of twelve pitches. The next speaker on the panel, Steffi Probst (Harvard University), was unfortunately unable to attend in person but contributed nonetheless a lively paper on musical visualization strategies in the “AudioGraphic” player piano rolls created by Percy A. Scholes between 1925 and 1930. Prof. Jennifer Iverson (University of Chicago) followed with a paper describing Oskar Sala’s Mixtur-Trautonium, an early synthesizer that reflected contemporary vowel experiments of Carl Stumpf, as a boundary object that drew various several unexpected cultural and scientific strands together. The fourth speaker on the panel, Siavash Sabetrohani (University of Chicago), discussed the role of the oud in the reception of Greek music theory during the Islamic Caliphate in ninth-century Baghdad. The panel concluded with a paper by Prof. Alexander Bonus (Bard College) on the influence of the metronome on various aspects of modern musical and scientific engagements with the notion of time.

Historians of Music Theory Admiring the Clavisimbalum

Additional photos and videos can be found on the conference website

With thanks to:

The Central New York Humanities Corridor (from an award by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation), The Westfield Center for Historical Keyboard Studies, The Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University, The Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia University, The Journal of Music Theory, The Eastman School of Music, Cornell University, and the Society for Music Theory

Teaching Solfège in Socialist East Germany

Anicia Timberlake 

What can music pedagogies for children tell us about how grown-ups think about music? My recent work examines the politics of classical music in socialist East Germany (GDR) through the lens of children’s music education. Officially, the doctrine of socialist realism demanded that citizens of the new socialist society should perform and listen to new music that emphasized socialist ideals. Stylistically, this music was meant to both draw from the German classical tradition and also move beyond it. But there’s a difference between theory and practice: East German policymakers dictated what was to be sung, not how it was to be learned. They rarely stepped into the nation’s classrooms, where teachers often operated by a different set of assumptions. I look at children’s pedagogies to see how music was taught to children in practice, and, by extension, to learn about how the people in charge of bringing music to the state’s youngest citizens conceived of it.

As the Soviet occupied zone (and later the GDR) sought to restructure its educational system, many teachers—not policymakers—looked to the progressive pedagogies (Reformpädagogik) of the late nineteenth century and the Weimar era for inspiration, believing that the utopian aims of the earlier time could be taken up again and, perhaps, fulfilled. Many of these pre-war German progressives used aspects of English tonic sol-fa, a singing pedagogy developed in the mid nineteenth century that used syllables, hand gestures (cheironomy), and a simplified notation system to teach adult amateurs to read music. In adapting tonic sol-fa for children, they jettisoned the simplified notation to focus solely on the syllables and the cheironomy.

Fig. 1: Wilfried Friedrich, Heinrich Martens, Richard Münnich, and Karl Rehberg, Tonika-Do, Eitz, Jale (Berlin: Volk und Wissen, 1949), 8.

Tonic sol-fa (likely already familiar to many Western readers of this blog) is a movable-do system that sets a major scale to adapted Guidonian syllables: do re mi fa so la ti do. East Germans used the following cheironomy (Fig. 1).

Many teachers used the system as outlined here.[1] Others developed their own solmization (or solfège) systems meant to teach everything from music literacy to absolute pitch.

 

 

Heinrich Werlé’s Solfège Method

In 1949, as part of this trend, the teacher and choral conductor Heinrich Werlé published a guide to his own solfège method, developed on the basis of 40 years of working with children.[2] The method was meant to let what he considered to be the child’s natural musical tendencies unfold by themselves, according to their own pace. Werlé claimed that all newborn infants cried at, or close to, the pitch a’, which formed the tonal center of their childish lives. Children up through the age of 10 continued to produce the pitch spontaneously and intuitively: “not through thinking,” he emphasized, but rather “out of their bodily and spiritual instinct [Antrieb]” (3). From the infant’s scream, Werlé also deduced the inborn nature of diatonic harmony. Careful observation of the infant revealed that she hit a second note when breathing in between cries. This note was always higher by an octave, a fifth, or two octaves, proving the primacy of the intervallic relationships that structured tonal music. The relationship between tonic and dominant was fundamental to the infant’s body, as it was to the world of physics. Thus, Werlé concluded, “the foundation for harmony is already there […] the choice of so-called primary overtones indicates […] that a process is unfolding subconsciously which points back nearly to the hour of music’s birth within acoustics” (5). From these earliest tones, toddlers would go on to improvise songs that used the notes of the tonic triad; children of five or six would “naturally” add the sixth scale degree.

Werlé’s solmization system was meant to cultivate from within those musical tendencies that he believed to be present within the child since birth. Like tonic sol-fa, his used syllables and cheironomy to activate children’s muscle memories: Werlé, like other solfège practitioners, believed that children’s physical abilities developed faster than their rational brains. And like tonic sol-fa—at least as it was practiced in East Germany—his system focused exclusively on diatonic repertoire.

But there, the similarities between the methods ended. Teachers of tonic sol-fa generally started the youngest learners with the pitches so and mi, a falling third common to children’s songs. Children first learned the hand signals for just those notes; they then added (in order) do, la, re, ti, and fa. Thus the method encouraged children to learn songs based on a major triad and a pentatonic scale before moving to repertoire that used a full diatonic scale.

In contrast, Werlé started with the single primal pitch, a’, to which he assigned the syllable fe and a helpful mnemonic gesture (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Heinrich Werlé, Musik im Leben des Kindes, 54.

This gesture and syllable, which worked together as a “unity,” formed the basis for children’s tonal education. Werlé recommended that the learning child train himself by suddenly singing fe with his arm outstretched and checking the pitch with a tuning fork. The child would slowly rediscover, or simply refine, the natural tonal center with which he had been born.

What about that fe gesture?

When I’ve given talks on this method, the fe gesture—right arm outstretched parallel to the ground—always prompts uncomfortable giggles. The resemblance to the Hitlergruß is striking for North American audiences. Curiously, none of Werlé’s contemporaries commented on it. Perhaps, to their eyes, the gestures weren’t actually that similar, as the Hitlergruß is angled upward. (Indeed, Werlé’s system studiously skips over the danger zone: when the arm is held at ca. 30 degrees above level, the palm is rotated so that it’s held perpendicular to the ground.) Or the similarity may have simply been irrelevant: East German music educators were willing to overlook the fact that many of the Weimar-era pedagogies they were intent on using had been used throughout the Nazi era as well. From the teachers’ perspective, the gestures and syllables might have seemed apolitical, being devised to teach skills and not any propositional content; perhaps the gesture’s context was too innocent to raise eyebrows.

Fig. 3: Heinrich Werlé, Musik im Leben des Kindes, 54.

The next steps were a guided exploration of the tonal space around a’, already familiar to children from their spontaneous musical improvisations. First, children were to proceed to f#’ (a minor third below a’), given the syllable Wa and a gesture similar to fe but at an angle (Fig. 3).

Fig. 4: Heinrich Werlé, Musik im Leben des Kindes, 55.

This step was nearly automatic, Werlé wrote, as f#’ was a “primary tone of sympathetic resonance […] already present in the subconscious as we sang fe, as it is one of the notes whose sum produces fe.” (The falling minor third, of course, was central to tonic sol-fa education as well, but not for psychoacoustic reasons: teachers simply noted that most children’s songs and speech tended to feature the interval.) Next the teacher was to drop his hand to his side, producing d’, or Mu (Fig. 4).

The rest of the pitches of the D major scale would follow slowly over time. Werlé assigned them the syllables Mu Ro Wa la fe bü zu mu,[3] and the following gestures, in which the arm traces a 180 degree arc from bottom to top, and for each step upwards, the palm alternates between being held parallel and perpendicular to the ground:

Fig. 5: Heinrich Werlé, Musik im Leben des Kindes, 63.

The whole-arm gestures were meant to indicate to children the relative height of pitches in a way that a purely hand-based cheironomy of other solfège systems could not. The choice of D major as the center was determined by the child’s natural inclinations; children were never to sing in another key.

 

Why does this matter?

All children’s pedagogies negotiate between the material to be learned and the abilities of the growing child. Thus the design of pedagogies can tell us what aspects of music are believed essential (the material to be learned), who the child is when she begins learning (what mental and physical skills are believed abilities that are natural and easy), and the processes by which the gap between the two can be closed.

Tonic sol-fa seems to assume that children are born musically unformed, and can be trained to be proficient in a complex musical system through methods tailored to their developmental stage. Werlé, by contrast, believed that children were born with all the elements of tonal harmony already in place—complete with mostly reliable absolute pitch—and that the teacher’s job was to help them strengthen their natural abilities. The hand gestures and syllables were mnemonic devices; they did not represent skills to be learned from scratch. Werlé also cautioned the teacher against “learned, theoretical concepts of music” (“[das] lernhaft musikalisch Begriffliche”) (34), which would overtax the children’s memories, destroying their organic relationship to music. Thus the teacher’s job was less to teach children than to preserve for them a space in which they could remember that which they already knew.

Werlé moreover seemed to believe that the nature of music itself ought to be identical to the capabilities with which the child was born: no more, no less. For every childish ability he described, he pointed to a corresponding acoustic phenomenon. The intervals between children’s cries and breaths were reproduced in the overtone series, and the ease with which children sang a falling minor third (a’-f#’) was due to that same overtone relationship. Thus he implied that tonal music was the only natural form of music, not only because of its acoustic resonances (and here he ignored all the questions of tuning and temperament that such statements often prompt) but also because of its organic presence within the childish body.

This firm conviction that children can produce tonal music organically—not only because they hear it from a young age, but because they are essentially born singing it—is a funny fit for a socialist nation. Marxist theories of history emphasize that societies, and the people who live in them, change qualitatively over time; most East German theories of education therefore shied away from anything that ascribed too much importance to an “inborn” and unchanging human nature. The idea that there could be a music that was biologically best for children was therefore distinctly un-Marxist. The method, however, still enjoyed moderate success: it was taught at several pedagogical institutes, and reportedly had a good reputation in East Germany (and in West Germany as well).[4]

To say that Werlé’s method was un-Marxist is not to say that it was explicitly anti-socialist, or even merely apolitical. The idea that tonal music is baked into human nature has obvious political ramifications. To close, I’ll draw out just one. The method was clearly designed to be German: instead of relying on internationally well-known tonic sol-fa syllables, Werlé chose a new set—Mu Ro Wa la fe bü zu mu. (In this, he might have been following the lead of the teacher Richard Münnich, whose 1930 solmization system Jale used phonemes particularly useful for singing in German.) Werlé had explained that the vowels he chose were physiologically determined: the progression u – o – a – e – i moved the child’s larynx upwards, easing the singing of the ascending scale (56). While it is possible that physiology also prompted Werlé to substitute “i” for “ü” – the mouth could be held in the same position for bü and zu, and “ü” might be easier to sing than “i” – the vowel “ü” at the same time reinforced a distinctly German sound world. Similarly, the syllables wa and zu relied on a knowledge of German orthography. These markers made the method essentially unexportable. But even more, there are hints of a familiar chauvinism in a method that uses specifically, even exclusively, German-language sounds as an expression of an innate, universal human musicality. Policymakers may have called for new music for a new society, but teachers delivered pedagogy that traded on older notions: tonality is universal, and universality is German.

 

[1] East German pedagogues traced their solfège lineage directly back to the efforts of Sarah Glover (1845) and John Curwen (1885) in Victorian England. They made no mention of French solfège or of the Kodaly method. For more information on English tonic sol-fa, see Charles McGuire, Music and Victorian Philanthropy: The Tonic Sol-fa Movement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Other German solmization systems common in East Germany included Carl Eitz’s Tonwort (1911), a fixed-do system designed to teach absolute pitch and account for chromatic tones and modulations, and Richard Münnich’s Jale (1930), a movable-do system that operated much like tonic sol-fa but with different cheironomy and syllables designed to fit the German language.

[2] Heinrich Werlé, Musik im Leben des Kindes (Dresden: Ehlermann, 1949).

[3] Werlé indicated that only the first three syllables were to be capitalized, but gave no explanation.

[4] Letter from H. Becker to E. Zaisser, 19 May 1950, DPZI 14.

Anicia Timberlake researches the politics of music education in postwar East and West Germany. She is on the musicology faculty at the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University.