Grand Valley Review Volume 23 | Issue 1 Article 4 2001 The rC eative Process vs. The aC non Kurt J. Ellenberger Grand Valley State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gvr Recommended Citation Ellenberger, Kurt J. (2001) "The rC eative Process vs. The aC non," Grand Valley Review: Vol. 23: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gvr/vol23/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Grand Valley Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. by Kurt J. Ellenberger frenzied and unforh The Creative Process vs. for "originality" (as trinsic value in and greatest composers a The Canon in a variety of differe as a testament to thE Hindemith Recycles in Ludus Tonalis in our own contempc necessary for today' s ways in which this w he contemporary composer faces many ob­ confines of a centuri Tstacles in the struggle towards artistic inde­ apparently still capab pendence. Not the least of these is the solemn music) in the hopes th realization that one's work will inevitably be might show themsel compared to the countless pieces of music that expression of our ow define the tradition of musical achievement as canonized in the "Literature." Another lies in the he need for one's mandate (exacerbated in this century by the T logical outgrowtl academy's influence) that, to qualify as innova­ ently a powerful 01 tive or original, a work must utilize some new influence. While most form or brilliantly organized and tightly wrought rather overtly in thei system (harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, philosophi­ about their lineage • cal, political, or otherwise). There is a seemingly pedagogical writings contradictory element in these two sentences in 1952) and Paul Hind Kurt J. Ellenberger is Assistant which lies the philosophical problem for contem­ in both categories (1 Professor of Music and Director porary composers today: How does one maintain populated, of course) oflazz Studies at Grand Valley a connection to the canon (whose syntax and music gives the imp1 State University. grammar must be realized or alluded to in some the defensive who is manner, however obscure, if comprehensibility body of professionals is of any concern) while at the same time break­ works really are a lo ing new ground in the search for one's own called "Common aesthetic voice? While the answers to these ques­ Hindemith' s case, his tions are deeply personal (and as such will ters theoretical, pede probably define one's aesthetic value system as stemmed from a ge1 much as they initially challenge its development), knowledge to the ne: we can see in the music of the contemporary He viewed this as a ~ masters an approach to innovation that is at the cially in an age whe1 same time both old and new. Often, this is ac­ compositional practic complished by recycling the forms, phrase the famous baroque t structure, and harmonic and melodic formulae "[like] a gushing strE from ages past and presenting them within a new banks" but rather (as context. In this way, the much-sought-after in­ torrential flood." 3 Hi novation occurs organically, without slavish because he apparent! adherence to (or mimicry of) the old styles; and tern" (as outlined in Til also without the ungratifying and quickly for­ in his own works. Th gotten oddities that are often the result of a entirely-he was not < Kurt f. Ellenberger frenzied and unfortunately context-free search elaborate compositional system for "originality" (as if originality had some in­ for subsequent generations to trinsic value in and of itself). This century's blindly follow (he repeatedly greatest composers accomplished this synthesis warns that such a system is an in a variety of different ways, all of which stand impossibility in the creation of as a testament to the creative genius contained art). Instead, he was attempting in our own contemporary canon. It is absolutely to establish an a-stylistic means necessary for today' s composers to examine the by which a young contemporary ways in which this was accomplished within the composer could work within an oser faces many ob­ confines of a centuries-old system (one that is environment of extreme disso­ )Wards artistic inde­ apparently still capable of generating truly "new" nance, completely outside the these is the solemn music) in the hopes that resources as yet untapped realm of the Common Practice < will inevitably be might show themselves as viable tools for the Period, while still maintaining an pieces of music that expression of our own musical visions. aurally recognizable hierarchy deal achievement as of consonance and dissonance . ." Another lies in the he need for one's work to be recognized as a In short, an expansion of the this century by the Tlogical outgrowth of the tradition is appar­ harmonic language which could o qualify as innova­ ently a powerful one-few have escaped its conceivably include the most lst utilize some new influence. While most composers show their roots harshly dissonant of sonorities, and tightly wrought rather overtly in their music, others also tell us yet one that also recognized the hythmic, philosophi­ about their lineage in their philosophical and authority of the harmonic series. Is There is a seemingly pedagogical writings. Arnold Schoenberg (1874- In light of this disparity (quite ~se two sentences in 1952) and Paul Hindemith (1895-1963) belong reasonable and even expected, problem for contem­ in both categories (the latter being much less given his intent) between his w does one maintain populated, of course).1 In Schoenberg's case, the theory and his works, what then (whose syntax and music gives the impression that he is a man on is the connection between 1r alluded to in some the defensive who is trying to convince a hostile Hindemith's music and the if comprehensibility body of professionals and amateurs alike that his canon? Or, more precisely, he same time break­ works really are a logical outgrowth of the so­ which elements of the past re­ arch for one's own called "Common Practice Period." 2 In surface in his music? 1swers to these ques- Hindemith's case, his voluminous output in mat­ (and as such will ters theoretical, pedagogical, and philosophical he answer to this question etic value system as stemmed from a genuine desire to impart his T is one that speaks not only tge its development), knowledge to the next generation of composers. to the plight of composers; in its f the contemporary He viewed this as a serious responsibility, espe­ larger context it speaks to the wation that is at the cially in an age where the various "currents" of challenge faced by artists in all w. Often, this is ac­ compositional practice ran not, in the words of areas of creative pursuit. The the forms, phrase the famous baroque theorist, J. J. Fux (1660-1741), great composers, authors, visual d melodic formulae "[like] a gushing stream that has overflowed its artists, poets, and dancers of the tg them within a new banks" but rather (as Hindemith saw it) "[like] a past cast a long shadow into the uch-sought-after in­ torrential flood." 3 Hindemith has been criticized present, one that is both inspi­ ly, without slavish because he apparently did not use his own "sys­ rational and yet somehow ) the old styles; and tem" (as outlined in The Craft ofMusical Composition) daunting in the implied challenge ng and quickly for­ in his own works. This criticism misses the point that it presents to contemporary ften the result of a entirely-he was not attempting to establish some artists. In short, how does one r==============================-~~-=··==--·~-=============~--~=========== Kurt J. Ellenberger utilize that which cannot be niques and materials used by Hindemith in Ludus Example 1: Typical Ph1 avoided (the past) while at the Tonalis 5 are fairly obvious (Hindemith' s concern same time finding a new means for clarity and comprehensibility seems always a) of personal expression? at the fore) and are indeed closely related to 6 those found in Early Music , and by extension, n order to answer this ques­ the Common Practice Period.7 These include: I tion, we will examine the work in which Hindemith' s contra­ i) church modes-primarily Phrygian, Llocrian, puntal voice finds its greatest Dorian and Aeolian; C: IV' v expression: his collection of in­ ii) regular phrase lengths which are often pe­ vvnat may not De as terludes and fugues entitled riodic; ship between the moda Ludus Tonalis. Of the work, iii) regular rhythms and meters (compound patterns found consis Hindemith said, "I am ... calling meters, when used, are quite transparent); Tonal is. Hindemith' s p1 it Ludus Tonalis because of its di­ v) key/ mode relationships within movements; norities (using primaril dactic (not to say sophisticated) vi) standard musical forms. with an occasional com quality. Our Latin experts here probably one of his mm at Yale think the title is very apt. It is the first of these that I would like to ex­ This is a means by whi I cannot find anything better in pound. Modes are featured quite prominently sense of proportion and German or English to describe and generally govern both the melodic and har­ these extremely conson clearly what it is ... [while also] monic aspects of Ludus Tonalis. Phrygian mode very obviously as cade hinting at the Well-Tempered Cla­ appears most often, which is perhaps not surpris­ balance is achieved w vier and the Art of Fugue (the ing, since this mode features an upper leading nant sonorities that ar form, that is, not the quality)."4 tone and a lowered seventh (inverse to the ma­ Form is thus also ea: It was written during jor scale).