Conclusion
 |
| Isabel Fitton |
"I am an unashamed champion of tonality…Tonality means line; line means melody; melody means song; and song, especially folk song, is the essence of music, because it is the natural, spontaneous and primordial expression of human emotion."
Edward Elgar dedicated Variation VI to his viola student, Isabel Fitton (1868-1936). Elgar knew the Fitton family from his youth. At the founding of the Worcestershire Philharmonic Society in 1897, Elgar was appointed conductor and Isabel served as one its two secretaries. The other secretary was Winifred Norbury, the friend pictured within Variation VIII.
Elgar chose to acknowledge his friend using the Old Testament version of her name. In Hebrew Ysobel is derived from Elisheba, meaning “Oath of God” or "God is her oath". Elizabeth
Ein feste Burg plays through and over Variation VI as shown in Figure 11.1. The missing Principal Theme plays in the upper staff while the variation appears in the lower two staves as a piano reduction. The notes of the Principal theme are based on Bach’s rendering of Ein feste Burg from the final chorale of cantata BWV80. A sound file of Figure 10.1 is available online.
Figure 11.2 illustrates precisely how Ein feste Burg was carefully mapped over Ysobel based on melodic interval mirroring, and the contrapuntal devices of contrary, parallel and similar motion. Melodic interval mirroring occurs when note intervals from Ein feste Burg are reflected in the variation over comparable or identical distances between notes. These notes do not necessarily appear in the melody line of the variation. Parallel motion is when voices from Ein feste Burg and the variation move in the same direction by the same melodic interval. Similar motion is when both voices move in the same direction, but not by the same intervals. Contrary motion takes place when Ein feste Burg moves in the opposite direction than the variation, again not necessarily by the same interval. Parallel motion is indicated by PM, contrary motion by CM, and similar motion by SM. In some instances, the upper voice of the variation moves parallel with Ein feste Burg while the base line moves in a contrary manner. An effective counterpoint typically employs a fairly balanced mix of contrary and similar motion, something clearly evident with this mapping.
Table 11.1 summarizes 39 melodic conjunctions between Ein feste Burg and Variation VI. A melodic conjunction is any shared note between the two melody lines. Share melody notes are dispersed over 17 out of 22 measures of Variation VI, or 77% of the movement.
Table 11.2 breaks down melodic conjunctions between Ein feste Burg and Variation V by note type. There are 7 shared melody notes with frequencies range from 1 to 11.
Table 11.3 gives a complete breakdown of all shared notes between Ein feste Burg and a piano reduction of Variation V. There are 105 shared notes spread out over 21 measures out of 22 measures. Melodic conjunctions are indicated in bold enclosed by a double box. All other note matches not found between both melody lines are shown in bold enclosed by a single box. Note conjunctions not involving both melody lines are also known as chordal conjunctions. There are a total of 9 shared note types with frequencies ranging from 1 to 27.
Table 11.4 condenses data from Table 11.3 according to note type and frequency with a total of 9 types of shared notes with frequencies ranging from 1 to 27. Of these shared notes, 7 are also shared by both melodies lines of Ein feste Burg and R.P.A. (i.e., A, B, C, D, E, F, and G).
Conclusion
Based on the data in Figures 11.1-11.2 and Tables 11.1-11.4, the preponderance of the evidence proves that Ysobel is a clear and convincing counterpoint to Ein feste Burg.
2 comments:
One could take just about any tune in straightforward major tonality and "map" it onto this charming variation. What you have created here is the musical equivalent of the Procrustean Bed.
There is no justification for your very un-Victorian rhythmic distortions of Luther's melody -- none whatsoever.
The fact is that you want a particular outcome and you are manipulating what you want and ignoring what you don't want in order to achieve it.
And, by the way, "Parallel motion" is not so much a contrapuntal "principle," as you put it, as something that Elgar would have striven to avoid. To invoke it as a justification for how you have chosen to distort and force Luther's tune onto Elgar's music suggests that your own grasp of counterpoint is faulty.
Notice that Anonymous asserts just about any tune could be mapped over this variation without furnishing any evidence in support of such a grandiose claim. Much the same could be said about the rest of Anonymous' comments – vacuous verbiage devoid of any concrete evidence. As for the claim Luther’s tune is forced and distorted, the same could be said about its various renderings by Bach, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Raff and Wagner. Understandably I count myself in good company.
Post a Comment