Models of Musical Analysis: Early Twentieth-Century Music Review Author[s]: Penelope M. Peters Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 39, No. 1. (Spring, 1995), pp. 186-201. ble URL: bttp//links jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909% 28199521 %2939%3A 1%3C 186%3AMOMAET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D Jowmal of Music Theory is currently published by Yale University Department of Music. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at butp:/\vww jstor.orglabout/terms.huml. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/www jstor-org/journals/yudm hi Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ereating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contaet support @jstor.org, hupswwwjstororg/ Mon Nov 13 15:40:12 2006after the 1989 cut-off date. The other missing work isa reprinted chapter from 1968 book on perception, 18. Tn the first volume of Davis, Computer Applications in Music, in which the cutoff date is mid:1986, the proportion of men/women cited i about 12:1. In the second volume, 1986-1989, the rato changes to about SI. For « more bal: anced anthology, see Mira Balaban, Kemal Ebcioflu, and Oxto Laske, editors, Understanding Music with Al: Perspectives on Music Cognition (Cambridge, ‘Menlo Park and London: AAAI PresiMIT Press, 199). 19, Kassler, $1 20, Balaban et a., Understanding Music with AI, reviewed by Jason Vantomme, Computer Music Journal 1801 (1994): 82-88, Models of Musical Analysis: Early Twentieth-Century Music ed. Jonathan Dunsby Oxford, England: Alden Press, 1993 153 pp. REVIEWER Penelope M. Peters Johnathan Dunsby is the series editor for Models of Musical Anal- _ysis, Blackwell's recent educational series, as well as the editor for Early Twentieth-Century Music, the latest volume in the set. Early ‘Twentieth-Century Music, designed for the serious student of music, presents essays by seven celebrated music scholars from three conti- nents: Arnold Whittall, Craig Ayrey, and Malcom Gillies represent Great Britain and Australia, while Allen Forte, James Baker, Martha Hyde, and Bryan Simms are the American contributors. ‘The diverse areas of specialities associated with this array of names are intentional, for Dunsby aims to acquaint the reader with a spec- ‘trum of analytical methods that are essential for the complex study of ‘music composed in the early decades of this century. However, this collection is not a diluted survey of compositional styles from the pe- riod. Rather, Dunsby is to be applauded for permitting the contrib- utors to investigate just a few composers of their choice, or even @ single piece; asa result, the enthusiast’s fervor animates each offering. ‘The seven chapters probe the era's three principal organizational processes—extended tonality, post-tonality, and dodecaphony. Dunsby notes that some of the analytical methods presented in the volume range {rom those already “established” to others of a “pioneering” na- ture; not unexpectedly, the two types occasionally overlap, and essays ‘may feature more than one approach. Within the established meth- ods, Forte and Simms intensively explore pitch-class set theory, al- 186though Forte expands his essay with a focus on foreground rhythm. Serial analysis underlies the chapter by Martha Hyde, but she too aug- ‘ments her comprehensive study with a recently conceived approach, the investigation of motivic contour. Baker's voice-leading analyses validate the application of expanded-Schenkerian theory. ‘Alternative methods may be an accurate description for the re- ‘maining approaches, for Whittal and Gillies each formulate and apply analytical methods originating with Schoenberg and Bartok respec tively. Ayrey, presenting a recognizably “pioneering” method, credits both Schenker and Schoenberg for some of his procedures, ‘The essays on established theories, either alone or in various com- binations, could provide the foundation for a seminar, while the more speculative contributions will encourage healthy dialogue and may suggest starting points for other new methods, or adaptations of the cone under consideration. As Bryan Simms notes, theorists have had four decades to enhance and evolve the techniques of pitch-class set theory and, of course, even longer for serial procedures. By contrast, the very nature of the three pioneering methods presented here pre- cludes the benefits acquired through implementation and exposure; in addition, each of them is best suited to a single or very limited style ‘of music—chordal texture in one, post-1930's music of Bartok in another, and “tonal-serial” music for the third. Thus the pilot ap- proaches are at a disadvantage in providing clear guidelines either for applying their methodology to other works, or for interpreting the in- formation gleaned through them. Nonetheless, the legitimacy of these ‘methods lies in their capability of revealing either different aspects of 4 piece, or those which an established method may conceal, in any case encouraging free and imaginative thought about new and familiar works. ‘The volume begins with an alternative method presented by Ar- rnold Whittall in “Tonality and the Emancipated Dissonance: Schoen- berg and Stravinsky.” Because a degree of ambiguity persists in the notions of emancipated dissonance and expanded tonality, Whittall, undertakes the task of devising a system that will precisely and con- sistently describe all vertical formations constituting emancipated dis- sonance.' Taking as a point of departure Schoenberg's unwieldy, verbal figured-bass descriptions, Whittall first identifies the bass note by letter name, and then notates the remaining pitches in ascending order, within the octave, using figures and accidentals. Because ex. tended tonality implies a chromatic-scale abstraction, each figure must, bbe accompanied by a qualifying accidental. Thus, a natural sign pre- ccedes major and perfect intervals, a sharp precedes augmented inter- vals, while @ flat precedes all minor and some diminished intervals (Whittall is aware that his system is inconsistent when illustrating 187augmented unison #1 augmented third B minor second 42 diminished fourth ha major second "2 perfect fourth 4 ‘augmented second 42 augmented fourth m7 diminished third 463. diminished fourth M4 ‘minor third $3 ete. ‘major third B Figure 1 «diminished intervals that can be represented either by a single or dou- ble flat) A partial listing of Whittal’s figures clarifies his procedure. (Gee figure 1.) ‘While some might criticize this process as merely transferring the information from staff to figured notation, Whittall suggests that “un- expected under! \ilarites” of chords may become more obvious in the reduction to systematized figures (5). For clarity, three self- evident facets of his method are mentioned: Whittall restricts his sys- tem to chords “unable to be codified by traditional criteria” (6); the bass note is neither the root of a chord, nor representative of a scale degree; and chord:-identfication symbols, unlike pitch-class sets, rep- resent ordered collections that are not inversionally equivalent— consequently, they are very numerous. (In Whittall’s system, there are fifty-five three-note chords for each pitch class, compared with twelve pitch-class sets of the same cardinality.) Whittall analyzes the third of Stravinsky's Three Pieces for String ‘Quartet and song number five from Schoenberg's Das Buch der hang- enden Garten, op. 15. Whittall’s analyses are quite detailed; unfortu- nately, remarks here must be brief. In the Stravinsky, Whittall’s analysis discloses that the “flat 2" or ‘minor second above the bass proves to be one of the most prevalent features of the piece. Not only is it the initial interval in nearly half of the one hundred and twenty-three chord statements, but it also ap- pears at structurally important points. Furthermore, the minor second. plays an important large-scale role; if one accepts C} as the tonal cen- ter in part two (mm. 27-37) of section 1, then the principal tonal con- ‘ast in the piece occurs through the shift from the central key of C to Cf and back In “Saget mir,” exact, transposed, or “texturally redistributed” repetitions are less common than in the Stravinsky, and the minor sec- ‘ond is no longer the prevalent initial interval; indeed, Whittall uncov- ers numerous chord formations that invite description as altered triads or sevenths. Unfortunately, Whitall’s restriction to chordal analysis 188‘does not reveal the prominence of the tritone in this work, neither in the chords nor as a motif. To mention only a few surface instances in the voice, ESA is not only the final interval but also stands out through its low register; inthe piano, the Es~A of measure 6 recurs in measure 8, while the tritone appearing in the bass of measure 13 sequences in measure 14. The tritone that saturates the chordal tex- ture is not readily distinguished by Whittall’s system because of the ascending order of intervals used to tabulate chords The strengths of Whittall’s system lie in its conformity of represen- tation, possibilities for comparison, and potential for tabulating sta- tistical data. The chordal analysis reveals invariant features and invites comparison with similar, triadic, formations. However, the problems and virtues of statistical data lie in determining what information to encode and what to do with it once encoded. (Every type of analysis poses a challenge of ths sort.) ‘Alter studying Baker's four analyses in “Post-Tonal Voice Lead- ing,” few readers would dispute the validity of adopting Schenker's theory as “the most effective means for analyzing expansions of harmonies through voice-leading and for evaluating the relation of ‘modified tonal procedures to conventional tonal practice” (21). Baker investigates four pieces in varied post-tonal styles, whose structures are nonetheless grounded on extended or modified tonal procedures, namely Wolfs song Das verlassene Mégadlein, Ives's song In Flanders Fields, Debussy’s prelude Canope, and BartGk's “Scherzo” from the Suite, op. 14. The pieces share one other quality imposed by Baker, in that each exhibits “conflicting key areas.” Baker elaborates his exhaustive analysis with discerning commen- tary on matters germane to each piece; especially insightful is his in- tetpretation of the correspondences between text and music in the two songs. In addition, forthe reader less familiar with Schenkerian theory, Baker weaves unobtrusive definitions and conventions into his discussions Baker’s first, unquestionably difficult, step is to uncover the orga- nization ofthe tonal and non-tonal structures for each ofthese works Tonal coherence is probably most explicit in the Wolf song; nonethe- Jess, Baker draws our attention tothe harmonic vagueness inthe outer sections created though the absence of a complete tonic triad and the largely dyadic texture. Wolf's departures from conventional tonal structure occur mainly in his treatment of the augmented triads in the middle section of the song. After identifying the various Keys and the tunes associated with them in Ives's Flanders Fields, Baker asserts that *[t]he crucial ques- tion is whether these discrete harmonic areas function within a single tonality—whether there is a fundamental tonic harmony which is 189prolonged through a large-scale cadential progression or analogous means” (27). The harmonic areas in question are G major, A major, and B minor. Although the piece neither begins nor ends “with a clear reference” to G, Baker identifies it as the principal key. The initial ue lies with its prominent appearances at the first vocal entrance ‘Columbia Gem,” mm. 8-9) and the climax of the song, which fea- tures a counterpoint of La Marseillaise and “God Save the King (mm. 29ff.). To confirm G major as “the single prevailing tonic throughout the piece,” Baker deftly peels away each obfuscating layer, proceeding nearly measure-by-measure and voice-by-voice (29). Remarkably, his sketch is quite straightforward. Some of Baker's ‘most satisfying observations are those that deal with the unifying el ‘ements of the song, especially the recurring motives and their tonal and pitch correspondences. ‘A challenge in the analysis of Canope is to resolve the tension re- sulting from the conflict between D minor and C major, the two pre- vailing tonal areas of the piece. Baker dismisses the notion that Canope is an example of polytonality, because “it dispenses with the hierarchy of tonal relations so essential to tonality and to much music ‘employing techniques of extended tonality as well” (35). Rather, Bak- er’s analysis progressively confirms the structural primacy of C major despite conspicuous surface affirmations of D minor. Baker's selections reveal increasing structural complexity concom- itant with the obscurity of their tonal procedures. In the Bartsk, Baker must first reconcile the augmented triad that permeates the ‘Scherzo with a coherent tonal structure. But he faces an even greater problem extracting a single tonic from the two conflicting tonal areas ‘of Bb and C; indeed, the significance of C as tonic in the Scherzo can only be completely understood in conjunction with its relationship to the harmonic scheme of the Suite as a whole. Despite the differences among the works selected, Baker detects {our similarities in voice-leading techniques: a refined use of register, symmetrical structures, synthetic structures, and an avoidance of ex. plicit statements of important tonal harmonies. More significantly, he confirms the “adaptability of the traditional tonal system to a variety of twentieth-century styles” (40). Gillies adopts a unique approach in his essay “Pitch Notations and Tonality: Bartok.” The discussion centers on Bart6k’s use of pitch spelling “to distinguish the functions of notes within their melodic, harmonic, contrapuntal and, ultimately, tonal contexts” (42). By 1931, Bartok had established his notational system’s rules, based pi marily on linear principles. Presumably, then, an analysis sensitive to pitch spellings could provide insight into Bariok’s later works. 190According to Gillie, Bart6k’s pitch notation determines @ work's tonal structures,” which may last anywhere “from a few beats in only cone of several parts to entire small pieces” (44). Bartok's basic premise is easly understood: pitch notation identifies the tonics of pri- ‘mary and temporary tonal structures through their upper and lower leading tones (“semitonal encirclement") which in a perfect system fare notated as diatonic half steps. A musical passage does not require both leading tones, but neither may be notated chromatically, unless two adjacent tonics coexist; in other words, when ES, upper leading tone to D, is notated as DY then both D and E are tonics. However, rmusical factors such as beginning and ending pitches, symmetries, rep- tition, register, and dynamics are usualy required to define which is the primary tonic. Gilles isolates thirteen categories of scalar-type pitch structures in Bart6k's compositions. The frst two, “odd- and even-numbered chro- matic structures,” circumseribe bimodal passages with tonics sepa- rated either by an odd or even number of semitones. Odd-numbered structures are more common than even-numbered; thus, the ratio 7:5 indicating tonics a fith apart is more frequent than tonics paired by tritone, expressed by the ratio 6:6. Gilies's remaining categ0- ries identify tones ina variety of tonal structures—incomplete twelve note structures (category 4), octatonie structures (category 5), and so on, through diatonic, whole-tone, pentatonic, triadic, sub-, and super- octave structures Gillies illustrates his categories either with musical passages or ta- bes: for example, in measures 50-1 from the Diverimento for Stings 1, chromatic encircling identifies four tonics A¥, C4, E, G Gx At BBA CHD DIE FFEG AS ABS According to Gillies, the tonics in this situation “always appear to form some kind of seventh chord” (category 11) expressed by the ratio 3:3:3:3; here other musical factors determine the tonic, for it “is not necessarily best assigned to the traditional root of the seventh chord” (47) Gilles's analysis of “Free Variations,” no. 140 from the Mikrokos: ‘mos, is best summarized by his chart. (See figure 2, his figure 3.16.) Gillies thoroughly discusses the rationale behind his choices of tonal areas, and some of their large-scale structural implications. Some readers may find that a few of his tonics, identified by semi-tonal en- circlement, contradict conclusions arrived at by other means, for ex- ample, his “microtonicization” of B (the penultimate note of the gesture) in mm. 22-3. However, the emphasis on the tonal centers A, C, and Ff revealed by Gilles’s analysis leads him to conclude that “ai 191‘higher tonal level, ‘Free Variations’ is best interpreted as a symmet- tical movement around the centre of A by minor third intervals” (54).° The value of this system for aiding in the interpretation of voice leading, ambiguous tonal areas and unusual spellings is clear. Natu- rally, there are difficulties arising in large part from Bartok’s frequent departures from these rules and, especially from the eventual inter- pretation of the many tonics identified. Indeed, as Gillies notes, “{hJad Bart6k employed his pitch notations consistently as described above, analysts would soon have ‘decoded’ his tonal structures” (48) Martha Hyde's deceptively simple title, “Dodecaphony: Schoen- berg.” proposes to clarify all aspects of Schoenberg's twelve-tone ‘theory—its social, historical, theoretical, and musical perspectives; in- deed, Hyde fulfils the promise to the extent that itis possible in a single chapter. More importantly, Hyde involves her readers from the outset, asserting that she will explain two problems or discrepancies between Schoenberg's method and his music that continue to antag- nize his critics, ‘The first, which Hyde identifies as the “harmonic problem,” is Schoenberg's “claim that the twelve-tone row regulates both harmo- nies and their successions” (57). The second problem is Schoenberg's failure “to explore the potential of the twelve-tone method to gener- ate its own forms,” as Pierre Boulez argued (57-8). (Boulez 1952). Before exposing her solutions, Hyde outlines twelve-tone theory ‘and its basic operations, stressing concepts which are more peculiar to Schoenberg's application of the method. For example, Hyde infers from Composition with Twelve Tones a comprehensive definition of ‘harmony which indicates a “secondary dimension” of the series. These harmonies “can be derived from one or more forms of the basic set and always have non-successive order numbers, but are nonetheless equivalent to linear segments of the basic set” (61). Thus, “secondary ‘harmonic sets” as well as the complements of linear sets play pivotal roles in Schoenberg's series. For Hyde, an analysis must emphasize aspects that lead to more informed hearing of the music's structure. To this end, she begins her analysis of Schoenberg's Klavierstuck, op. 33b with a thorough in- vestigation of the row and its properties. Through partitioning, she notes distinguishing and related features of each segment, then intuits which facets a composer might exploit. For example, the overall “whole-tone sound” of the interval-class Succession of the row points to possible criteria for deriving structural harmonies in the piece; seg- ‘mentation reveals a prevalence of whole-tone sets in hexachordal and tetrachordal partitioning, but the trichords produce two non-whole- tone sets in the two inner segments, thereby providing “temporal di ferentiation of the middle of the row from its beginning and end” 192ta Ww a 0 vie acces p p to fa as © ta 49 p 4 a ssa 0 0. ta “a “a 0 0 0 «Suan cams, ra) 1 ta 2 9 ‘a “a 0 ta Ey ° 0 waa {al 0 0 5 a a 0 0 0 p © D p a 0 0 Ot 2 0 > 0 a4 a a sa A a ‘a a ¥ ty 2 ac