Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:04:44.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Analyst’s Voice

Review products

SchachterCarl, The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, ed. StrausJoseph (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). viii + 312 pp. £34.49

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2018

Nicholas Marston
Nicholas Marston*
Affiliation:
King’s College, Cambridge Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essay
Information
Nineteenth-Century Music Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , August 2019 , pp. 333 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cone, Edward T., The Composer’s Voice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

2 Beach, David and Mak, Su Yin, eds, Explorations in Schenkerian Analysis (New York: University of Rochester Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Richard Cohn, ‘Lewin, David’, Grove Music Online (accessed 30 July 2017).

4 David Lewin’s Morgengruß: Text, Context, Commentary, ed. David Bard-Schwarz and Richard Cohn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

5 David Lewin’s Morgengruß, 53; Explorations in Schenkerian Analysis, viii.

6 Schachter, Carl, The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, ed. Joseph N. Straus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; citation at p. 99. Further page references are given in the main text.

7 Suurpää, Lauri, Death in Winterreise: Musico-Poetic Associations in Schubert’s Song Cycle (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Marston, Nicholas, ‘The Development of Schenker’s Concept of Interruption’, Music Analysis 32/3 (2013): 332–362 Google Scholar.

8 For example, Smith, Peter H., ‘Brahms and Schenker: A Mutual Response to Sonata Form’, Music Theory Spectrum 16/1 (1994): 77–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, not cited here; Mirka, Danuta, Metric Manipulations in Haydn and Mozart: Chamber Music for Strings, 1787–1791 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Robert P. Morgan has similarly identified linear motion and neighbour motion, along with arpeggiation, as fundamental transformational processes in Schenker’s mature thought, though recognizing that neighbour motion is ‘derived from, and less fundamental than, passing motion’. See Morgan, , Becoming Heinrich Schenker: Music Theory and Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Schachter also has been honoured by a Festschrift. See Poundie Burstein, L. and Gagné, David, eds, Structure and Meaning in Tonal Music: Festschrift in Honor of Carl Schachter (Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

11 See the celebrated graph of ‘Aus meinen Tränen spriessen’ from Dichterliebe: Heinrich Schenker, Free Composition (Der freie Satz), trans. and ed. Ernst Oster, 2 vols (New York: Longman, 1979), II, Figure 22b.

12 For a classic formulation see Kerman, Joseph, ‘Notes on Beethoven’s Codas’, in Beethoven Studies 3, ed. Alan Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 141–159 Google Scholar.

13 A representative example from Schenker’s own work, though not a sonata-form movement, is the graph of the Menuetto from Mozart’s Piano Sonata in A, K331; see Schenker, Free Composition, II, Figure 35, 1.

14 On interruption and sonata form, see Schenker, Free Composition, I, p. 134. Schenker never published an $$\hat{8}$$ -line sonata-form analysis, but his unpublished reading of the first movement of Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata is pertinent. See Marston, Nicholas, Heinrich Schenker and Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 42–47 Google Scholar.

15 Schachter, Carl, ‘Either/Or’, in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 165–180 Google Scholar; reprinted in Schachter, Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N. Straus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 121–33.

16 Schenker, Free Composition, I, 141.

17 Schenker, Free Composition, I, 141–3.

18 Schenker in fact points to the finale of Op. 2 No. 3 as an example of ‘a transition from A1 to B1: Free Composition, I, 142 (§319). For James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, this is one of several Beethoven piano sonata finales that offer ‘instructive examples of the standard Type 4 sonata, though usually – and most typically – with individual quirks that are of special interest’. See Hepokoski, and Darcy, , Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 407. Among the ‘quirks’ exhibited by the ‘otherwise paradigmatic’ Op. 2 No. 3 finale are ‘a dramatically “failed” exposition and non-resolving recapitulation’, and ‘witty, “wrong-key” references’.

19 Schenker, Free Composition, II, Figure 155, 3.

20 OC 38/398: ‘So war z. B. im Rondo D dur von Mozart der Weg durchaus nicht in Hinblick auf ein bestimtes Gesetz der Wiederholungen des Rondo-Themas ge[399]wählt vielmehr ging der Baß sein bestimten Kontrapunktwege, die nebenbei an dieser oder jener Stelle das Rondo-Thema treffen: [Graph follows]’.

21 Schenker, Free Composition, I, 36–40, and II, Figs 21–26; also I, 134, §312.

22 See van Beethoven, Ludwig, A Sketchbook from the Summer of 1800, ed. Richard Kramer (Bonn: Beethovenhaus, 1996)Google Scholar; also Kramer, ‘Ambiguities in La Malinconia: What the Sketches Say’, in Beethoven Studies 3, 29–46. Schachter tackles the relationship of Beethoven’s sketches and final versions in ‘The Sketches for the Sonata for Piano and Violin, Op. 24’, Beethoven Forum 3 (1994): 107–25.

23 ‘Motive and Text in Four Schubert Songs’, in Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, ed. David Beach (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 61–76; reprinted in Schachter, Unfoldings, 209–20; also ‘The Triad as Place and Action’, Music Theory Spectrum 17/2 (1995): 149–69; reprinted in Unfoldings, 161–83.

24 Rushton, Julian, ‘Guest Editorial’, Music Analysis 3/1 (1984): 6 Google Scholar.

25 Rushton, Julian, The Musical Language of Berlioz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

26 Schenker, Heinrich, ‘Die Kunst der Improvisation’, in Das Meisterwerk in der Musik: ein Jahrbuch von Heinrich Schenker, vol. I (Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1925), 11–40 Google Scholar; trans. Richard Kramer in The Masterwork in Music: A Yearbook, Volume I (1925), ed. William Drabkin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 2–19; Schenker, The Art of Performance, ed. Heribert Esser, trans. Irene Schreier Scott (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); Schenker, ‘Über den Niedergang der Kompositionskunst: eine technische-kritische Untersuchung’, transcribed and translated William Drabkin, Music Analysis 24/1–2 (2005): 131–231.

27 I, on the contrary, recall a previously sceptical graduate student composer telling me how a compositional blockage had been cleared for him by thinking ‘Schenkerianly’.

28 Agawu, Kofi, ‘How We Got Out of Analysis, and How to Get Back In Again’, Music Analysis 23/2–3 (2004): 279 Google Scholar.

29 Hooper, Giles, review of Nicholas Cook, Beyond the Score: Music as Performance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar, Music Analysis 35/3 (2016): 411.

30 Schenker, Free Composition, I, xxi.