C RITICAL F ORUM

155

issues. Taking it entirely on its own terms, I feel Bonds has set rather too much store by past criticisms directed against his chosen composers for their invocation of Beethovenian models. Such criticisms, nowadays easily deflected, could be cover-ups for feelings of dissatisfaction with the music which the original commentator found difficult to articulate; to counter the articulated criticism is certainly not without value, but it may not necessarily help us to address the deepest issues. D AVID F ANNING

NOTES
1. Paul Bekker, Die Sinfonie von Beethoven bis Mahler (Berlin: Schuster and Loeffler, 1918). Bekkers text did appear in Russian translation in the 1920s and featured in various Soviet discussions of symphonism thereafter. Nicholas Cook, Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). See David Brodbeck, Brahms: Symphony No. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), especially pp. 3950. The reference to Schumanns initial conception for the Fourth Symphony appears on p. 40. See Brodbeck, Brahms: Symphony No. 1, pp. 679.

2. 3.

4.

Paul Hawkshaw and Timothy L. Jackson (eds.), Bruckner Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). xv+301 pp. 40.00. ISBN 0 52157014X (hb).

Bruckner has not fared well in the English-speaking world as an object of musicological investigation. In contrast to the considerable body of biographical and text-critical literature to have emerged from Central Europe, publications elsewhere have not been plentiful. The many analytical techniques developed since the Second World War, principally through the American reception of the ideas of Schenker and Schoenberg, have left Bruckner largely untouched. Textual research, partly because of the imposing quantity of editorial problems, and perhaps also because of the difficulty of obtaining access to source materials,1 has been virtually non-existent. Studies in English have in the past taken the form either of general considerations of Bruckners life and works, or extended monographs engaged in broad critical surveys.2 Neither has this literature been unanimous in its approval. Toveys patronising and disparaging remarks,3 which he managed to
Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

156

C RITICAL F ORUM

package as a defence, introduced a critical position which has endured, regardless of the intervening publication of the two critical Gesamtausgaben under Robert Haas and Leopold Nowak. Consideration of Bruckners music as fundamentally at odds with the Austro-German mainstream, and the association of his alleged social navety with compositional incompetence, recurs in the work of Robert Simpson, Deryck Cooke and Lionel Pike.4 Central to all these interpretations is a dichotomy between instinct and duty. Bruckners training and sense of tradition necessitated the employment of traditional forms, but his instincts produced material which was essentially unsuited to their demands. The position is summed up by Toveys contention that Bruckner conceived magnificent openings and Gtterdmmerung climaxes, but dragged along with him throughout his life the apparatus of classical sonata forms as understood by a village organist.5 Recently this perception has started to change. Following the death of Leopold Nowak, the study of Bruckners manuscripts has become a more popular pursuit outside central Europe. Revisionist studies by Paul Hawkshaw and Benjamin Korstvedt,6 the imminent appearance of new publications under the editorship of William Carragan, as well as recent completions of the Ninth Symphony by Carragan and Jonathan Phillips, all indicate a new era of nonGermanic involvement in the text-critical process. The traditional biographical depiction of Bruckner has also undergone reform. The image of the child-like, ill-educated peasant has been replaced by that of a pragmatic, self-made man, who pursued his own education relentlessly.7 Analysis has followed slowly. Isolated articles by Timothy Jackson, Stephen Parkany and William Benjamin aside,8 the detailed analysis of Bruckners music remains unpopular in Britain and America, in part because of the apparent editorial complexities. The publication of Bruckner Studies therefore represents something of a milestone. It is the first extended study of Bruckners music in English since Robert Simpsons The Essence of Bruckner appeared over thirty years ago. Certainly it is the first substantial English-language work to consider Bruckner via any of the mainstream post-war analytical techniques. The new volume contains eleven studies, divided between investigations of textual issues, studies in the reception of Bruckners music, and analytical essays. In the first category, Paul Hawkshaw provides a study of the sources for the F minor Mass, Elisabeth Maier examines Bruckners personal diaries, and Benjamin Korstvedt explores the ideological motivations behind the publication of the first critical Gesamtausgabe. The interpretation of Bruckners music by the Wagnerians, both during and after his lifetime, is considered by Margaret Notley and Stephen McClatchie respectively, and the annexation of Bruckner by the National Socialist Party by Bryan Gilliam. In addition, Robert Wason investigates Josef Schalks theory of harmony in relation to Bruckners didactic influence. The book concludes with four analytical essays: Timothy Jackson and Warren
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

157

Darcy consider Bruckners unconventional treatments of sonata form, Edward Laufer analyses the Scherzo and Adagio of the Ninth Symphony from a Schenkerian perspective, and Joseph Kraus explores phrase rhythm in the early scherzos. Both articles concerned directly with editorial issues are informative, but also raise problems and suggest conclusions that are not fully explored. Paul Hawkshaw establishes the importance of an early source for the F minor Mass which was unavailable to both Robert Haas and Leopold Nowak, and demonstrates convincingly that the nature of this source and its subsequent revisions give a good general measure of Bruckners working methods. Hawkshaws evidence adds further weight to the idea that Bruckners revisions were intended to remedy practical and analytical concerns, and were not necessarily a product of his nervous breakdown and its associated manias. One of the authors main analytical points that, apart from the soprano solo in bars 479515 of the Credo, the vocal parts remained unchanged after 1868 and acted as a structural skeleton for subsequent revisions is not entirely supported by the information he presents in the table on p. 9, which notes alterations made in 1877 to the chorus in bars 1579 of the Gloria. More seriously, Hawkshaw provides no suggestions as to how these findings might aid the preparation of a new edition. Without such a conclusion it appears unavoidably that the obvious goal of the study has been omitted. Korstvedts essay betrays a similar sense of incompletion. He cogently shows that the Gesamtausgabe under Haas was indelibly marked with the ideology of Nazism, and that the wholesale rejection of the editions prepared by the Schalk brothers and Ferdinand Lwe gravely underestimated the extent of Bruckners collaboration with the editors. However the essay also raises important questions that are not addressed. First, although the fascist ideological associations of the first critical edition should certainly be recognised (it is not my intention in any way to endorse such opinions), Korstvedt is continually in danger of rejecting Haass editions simply because of this association. Whatever their ideological motivation, Haass publications deserve consideration on purely musicological grounds; we must not reject the possibility that Haas was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. That political motivation and editorial rectitude are not necessarily related is clear when one examines the discrepancies between the Haas editions and the ideologically less controversial Nowak editions. Even a brief comparison reveals that, complex though the underlying source issues might be, the actual material differences are in most instances very minor. The purely musical effects of a change in political ideology mostly concern small details. Second, Korstvedts proposal that the often extreme differences between the Gesamtausgaben and the original publications should be viewed simply as another stage in the revision process fails to account for the many drastic
Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

158

C RITICAL F ORUM

changes of form, style and instrumentation. Even in instances for which evidence of collusion is strong, the approach to orchestration and presentation of material is substantially different from any of the versions made by Bruckner alone. The most extreme example is perhaps the Fifth Symphony, where the original editors removed large sections and carried out such substantial reorchestration that it is frequently difficult to recognise the Schalk and Haas editions as the same piece. In the Finale the cuts seriously impair the form: the recapitulations of the first and second subjects are completely omitted. It is difficult to believe that we should accept such major changes in compositional sensibility so lightly, and solely on the basis of evidence suggesting partial collaboration.9 Third, Korstvedt hints at the consequences of his position without providing a full analysis. If, as the article concludes, the validity of some of the first publications does indeed undermine the pursuit of an Urfassung for many of Bruckners works and it appears that in many instances biographical justification can legitimately be sought for versions at every stage of the revision process then this clearly has profound consequences for the process of analysis and interpretation, since much of the reticence of analysts results from a belief in the absence of an uncontentious, authentic text. The goal of the editorial process would thus more properly be the provision of a set of possible texts for each work, to be distinguished on the basis of analytical and hermeneutic preference. A more pluralistic approach is therefore to be endorsed, not only because it evades the questionable textual ideology of the Urfassung, but also because it frees Bruckner scholarship from the domination of textual research. This general sense of failing to pursue arguments to a substantial conclusion also pervades the essays on reception history. The studies by Notley, Gilliam and McClatchie overlap considerably, in so much as all three examine the reception of Bruckner by elements of the German and Austrian far right. In each case the evidence presented is of considerable value. Notley provides a clear overview of the political context of Viennese Wagnerism, and of the ideological motivation behind the appropriation of Bruckner as a Wagnerian symphonist. Yet the most promising intention expressed by Notley, to explicate the extent of Bruckners involvement with Wagnerian politics, which she claims were more direct than has been suspected (p. 55) is ultimately not fulfilled. Her concluding remarks give scant evidence of Bruckners direct collusion with the ideals of Wagnerian propaganda, beyond citing Gllerichs uncorroborated statement that Bruckner reportedly felt an aversion towards Jews, and noting that the deutscher Michael character of German folklore, which Bruckner associated with the Scherzo of the Eighth Symphony, was also a favoured symbol of the right-wing Pan-German movement. As Notley points out, Gllerichs statement does not sit easily with the fact that Bruckner made no obvious effort to distance himself from Jews, and in fact counted several Jews amongst his
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

159

closest supporters, including Friedrich Eckstein and Hermann Levi. Neither can she produce any evidence to suggest that Bruckner was aware in any sense of the political affiliations of the deutscher Michael figure. In the end her conclusion does no more than restate the widely accepted point that Bruckners image, and music, were absorbed and reinvented by the Wagnerians. The articles by Gilliam and McClatchie make considerable progress towards unravelling the tangled relationship between Bruckner and the rise of German fascism. Gilliams study is particularly valuable: the distortion of Bruckners music, character and religion in order to accord with National Socialist principles is investigated extensively and sensitively. McClatchies essay shifts the focus of attention onto music-theoretical issues, exposing the relationships between the Lorenzian analytical techniques brought to bear on Bruckners music in Germany in the inter-war years and the emerging philosophies of National Socialism. Both studies present important information on a significant and disturbing area of Bruckner reception. Yet, like Notleys essay, both articles work too much in one direction. Bruckner becomes a vehicle for the study of subsequent cultural phenomena, but it is not made clear how this might contribute to our understanding of Bruckners music. The result is that Bruckner himself recedes into the background. This is also apparent in the essays by Maier and Wason. Maiers intention to use Bruckners diaries as a measure of the composers character is scarcely realised. The evidence provided by the diaries is almost entirely mundane or emotionally neutral, consisting largely of brief records of engagements, teaching commitments, religious observances and dates of personal significance. Even when a psychologically revealing event is recorded, such as an encounter with a girl Bruckner considered attractive, the diarised record is curt and devoid of any revealing commentary. In order to coax psychological meaning from this material, Maier sets about relating the annotations to the facts of Bruckners life, and providing psychological interpretations of her own. This process only really serves to highlight the uninformative nature of the material; the interpretation of events could proceed in this fashion without the aid of the diaries at all. Similarly, although Wasons investigation is undeniably interesting in its explication of Schalks harmonic thinking, the attempt to relate Schalks ideas to Bruckner is insubstantial. Bruckners didactic influence is observed in Schalks efforts to extend Sechters fundamental bass theory to accommodate contemporary chromatic practices. Whilst Bruckner himself would almost certainly not have publicly extended Sechters thinking in this way, it is certain that Schalk would have come to Sechters theories through Bruckners teaching. Schalks theories are related by Wason to the analysis of Bruckners music through Schalks definition of chromaticism, which rejects the equal-tempered scale in favour of the seven-plus-five notion associated with earlier asymMusic Analysis, 18/i (1999)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

160

C RITICAL F ORUM

metrical tunings. Wason marshals reported biographical information to indicate that Bruckner may have endorsed this view, and therefore concludes that many of the theoretical tools currently employed for dealing with this music might be seriously inadequate, since they generally assume equal temperament as the basis of the system.10 Quite apart from the fact that this opinion courts the intentional fallacy without any attempt at providing a convincing defence, and adopts an historicist view of the nature of analysis with no pretence of theoretical justification, once again we have an essay which only has anything to say about understanding Bruckners music in its concluding paragraphs. By introducing such issues Wason also provides a link with the ensuing analytical studies. The essays by Jackson and Darcy both orientate themselves around James Hepokoskis theoretical model for the distortion of sonata form in nineteenth-century practice.11 Jacksons article, quite substantially the longest of the collection, attempts to locate the formal idiosyncrasies of the Finale of the Seventh Symphony as part of the practice, observable in works from Haydn to Schoenberg, of truncating or reversing the order of recapitulation. Jackson links this practice to two rhetorical characteristics associated with tragedy, namely peripety [sic], defined according to Aristotles Poetics as a shift of what is being undertaken to the opposite ... in accordance with probability or necessity (p. 143), and the rhetorical figure hyperbaton, the violation of normal usage to create an emotional effect (p. 146). The essay draws on a wide range of pieces, including Haydns Symphony No. 44, the Quartet from Mozarts Idomeneo, Schuberts Quartettsatz, Cherubinis Mde, the first movement of the Symphonie fantastique, the Finale of Sibeliuss Fourth Symphony, and numerous works by Brahms, most notably the Fourth Symphony, the Third Violin Sonata and the Schicksalslied.12 The structure of each work is represented through reductive analysis, and the processual characteristics observed are variously related to biographically or textually derived narrative programmes of Jacksons own devising.13 Whilst the range and ambition of the article is impressive, it exhibits a consistent sense of having taken on more than it can manage. This is particularly obvious in the opening pages. Three complex central issues the relationship between rhetoric and musical structure, the pertinence of narrative hermeneutic strategies, and the nature of the nineteenth-century sonata form are broached in rapid succession, without any pretence of extended theoretical consideration. The statement that however conjectural interpreting a formaltonal event in programmatic-rhetorical terms may be, it is a time-honoured theoretical practice is asserted with scant attention to the attendant problems of musical narrativity (p. 143). Does Jackson wish to resurrect the programmatic interpretative practices of the nineteenth century? If so, are his motives grounded in a post-modern escape from the purely formalist approach, or do they derive from an historicist desire to reconstruct the contemporary herme Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

161

neutic context? If the former is true, then a far more extensive recognition of the existing literature on narrativity is surely necessary. Anthony Newcomb is mentioned,14 but significant contributions from Carolyn Abbate, Alan Street and Jean-Jacques Nattiez are not.15 If the latter is true, and the consideration of rhetoric and instrumental music in the eighteenth century as a means of justifying the interpretations of his eighteenth-century examples suggests that it is, then he must address the issue of the relationship between intention and analysis in far more detail. As it stands, Jackson confidently proposes a notion of autonomy for classical instrumental music, and its supremacy over texted music, without any recognition of the substantial body of eighteenth-century literature which asserts the contrary position.16 Problems surrounding the theorising of the sonata idea receive a similarly sparse treatment. In borrowing James Hepokoskis definition of sonata deformation, Jackson tacitly assumes a normative concept of sonata form, but gives no theoretical defence of this claim. There is surely a serious theoretical problem here, which is that the normative definition of sonata form not only fails as a definition of eighteenth-century practice, but also of nineteenth-century practice. In the eighteenth century the style is too homogeneous to permit a division into the rule and exceptions to the rule; in the nineteenth century, experimentation becomes so widespread that the normative conception fails to account for the vast majority of works making reference to the sonata principle. In short, any study defining sonata practice in relation to a norm must confront the problem that there is no single work which could necessarily be described as normative. The idea exists only as an abstraction. In the analyses themselves Jackson makes a number of technical decisions which are at best contentious, at worst simply incorrect. Perhaps the most serious error is to be found in the analysis of the Finale of Brahmss Third Violin Sonata. It is difficult to see how he arrives at the conclusion that the second subject is in F major in the exposition, and Bb major in the recapitulation, when the material plainly establishes C major and F major respectively. The error has a profound effect on his analysis, since a correct reading would view each second subject key as a local relative major (to A minor in the exposition and D minor in the recapitulation), and thus lend far more prominence to V at the end of the exposition and I in the recapitulation than Jacksons analysis contends. Description of the assertive, fortissimo perfect cadences at the end of the exposition and recapitulation as not yet structural seems wilfully perverse; it is hard to imagine more structurally assertive cadences than these. Interpretation of the fundamental line as a 5-progression presents further difficulties. In the opening material, and especially in the closing bars, a descent from 3 is most strongly indicated. It is difficult to take Jacksons contentions seriously when the foundations of his analyses seem so unstable. Similar problems are apparent in his treatment of the Schicksalslied. The loMusic Analysis, 18/i (1999)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

162

C RITICAL F ORUM

cation of 5 as the initial Kopfton in bar one has no foundations in the actual material, which uncontentiously establishes 3. If Jackson intends the Bb in bar 3 to be a displaced Kopfton he does not indicate as much. In any case, this pitch is not prolonged into the closing cadence of the introduction, which is in fact assiduous in its avoidance of 5. The return of the introduction in C major, as the substance of the coda, carries the same difficulty: Jackson assigns a 5 at bar 380 when 3 is clearly prevalent. No attempt is made to justify these decisions, but considerable weight is later given to the significance of the mythical initial Bb as part of a large-scale 765 progression spanning the entire work as far as bar 380. Without the assumption of 5 as the Kopfton exposed in the introduction, the foreground detail yields no such progression. Interpretation of the opening of the central section as a prolongation of G is similarly peculiar; surely this material implies C minor via its dominant. Jacksons interpretation of the form is also ill-conceived. His rejection of the interpretation advanced by Alan Luhring and John Daverio,17 that the work yields a double sonata structure in which the first section omits the development, in favour of a single reversed sonata without a recapitulation of the first subject, contradicts much of the tonal and thematic evidence, in particular the repetition of a two-subject structure and concomitant IVII tonal strategy in the first choral section. Technical problems also emerge in the analyses of Brahmss Tragic Overture and Fourth Symphony. What exactly does Jackson mean when he claims that the opening D minor six-three chord [of the Tragic Overture] is a revoiced extension of an implied root-position tonic (p. 176)? If, as I suspect, he 5 simply intends that I6 3 is an inversion of I3, then this amounts to the needlessly verbose statement of a theoretical truism. Interpretation of the first movement of the Fourth Symphony as a partially reversed sonata form seems more justifiable, but even here Jackson considerably manipulates the material evidence to support his claim. Suggesting that the shadowy reference to the opening at mm. 24658 does not constitute the definitive beginning of the recapitulation either structurally or motivically (p. 179) ignores the fact that this passage exactly reproduces the intervallic outline of the first theme in augmentation, and that it does in fact resolve the immediately preceding dominant preparation onto E minor. Problems of Schenkerian technique are also apparent. Assignment of an initial 5 is plausible if contentious, but why Jackson has decided that the B major harmony of bar 137 should be considered structural, whilst completely omitting the return of the first subject in the tonic eight bars later when it plainly re-establishes the Kopfton 5 at pitch, is mystifying. That it should prove necessary to give such attention here to problems arising from the analysis of Brahmss music is itself indicative of an underlying problem. Despite the title, Bruckner is given no central place in the discourse, but appears instead as one more example in a list, which in fact gives most prominence to the music of Brahms. When Jackson finally examines the Finale
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

163

of Bruckners Seventh Symphony, an array of controversial technical decisions surfaces once again. It is surely not the case that the third group in the exposition occurs over A. Certainly it starts in A minor, but the prolongation lasts for no more than two bars. The harmony of this passage is continuously mobile until the concluding sixteen-bar section establishes C major. The large-scale augmented arpeggiation EAbC is thus far more significant in the exposition than Jacksons graph indicates. Moreover, whilst it is clearly true that the themes of the exposition reappear in reverse order in the concluding part of the movement, the third group return carries considerable functional ambiguity. Standing as the first gestural high-point after the exposition, it is not merely a transposed restatement, but extends and develops the material harmonically and thematically. Given that it also appears in the key of B minor, a significant question must be asked: how do we know that this is not still the development? The functions of development and recapitulation overlap here in a way which Jackson fails adequately to explain. Warren Darcy approaches the issue of sonata deformation rather differently. In contrast to Jackson, Darcy restricts himself solely to Bruckners music. The main concern here is with thematic structure; issues of tonality are only broached when they have a bearing on thematic presentation. The goal of the article is to present a taxonomy of thematic and developmental types, each of which the author links to a narrative paradigm. Darcy establishes the concept of sonata deformation in Bruckner as a departure from the redemption, or struggle to victory, plot archetype embodied in the minor-to-major tonal trajectory associated above all with Beethovens Fifth Symphony. The virtue of this article is that Darcys classifications describe a number of Brucknerian thematic strategies which depart from the concept of developing variation, but which have received little attention. The category of teleological genesis is of particular significance. It is almost a defining feature of Bruckners style that the definitive version of a theme should not be given at the beginning, but should be revealed gradually, and stated at a later point in the form, frequently at the climax of the development or the beginning of the recapitulation. As Darcy remarks, this process inverts the expected thematic strategy, and usually precipitates a recapitulatory crisis which transfers the burden of resolution and synthesis onto the coda. It is perhaps less to Darcys credit that he does not recognise that these procedures were noted by Ernst Kurth in 1925.18 It is also a pity that more attention is not paid to the actual mechanism of this process. Bruckner tends to employ syntagmatic thematic transformations, both in order to link subject groups and to establish a pre-developmental motion towards the definitive statement. A good example can be found in the first movement of the Eighth Symphony, where the first and second groups are connected in the exposition by an ongoing process of motivic mutation, through which rhythmic elements of the first theme are gradually replaced by
Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

164

C RITICAL F ORUM

those of the second theme.19 The technique is taken up more extensively in the development. Here the process is fourfold: the first theme is stated in alternation with its augmentation; the second theme is stated in free inversion; the second theme is combined with the opening of the first theme; finally the first theme, in augmentation, is given as the definitive form. Some of Darcys categories warrant close scrutiny. Characterisation of Bruckners second groups as alienated because they frequently introduce a chromatic tonal region, and as suspension fields because their thematic structure tends to involve persistent returns of the subject, can be challenged. To assert that chromatic tonal regions stand outside the normative tonal practice of the time is to assume that diatonic tonal relationships still constitute the norm in late nineteenth-century tonality. In fact, chromatic regions are at least as prevalent in late nineteenth-century practice as IV or iIII relationships. Arpeggiations of diminished or augmented structures as background phenomena become part of the common practice, and either coexist with, or else usurp, diatonic relationships. The concept of alienation as it is applied here assumes that these regions carry no structural function, except to introduce distance between structural relationships. The claim that repetition of a theme has an alienating effect on its structural function is also hard to maintain; there is no reason why recursive structures should be excluded from the mechanism of the sonata form. Furthermore, many of Bruckners first subjects are also recursive (see, for example, the first movements of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Symphonies), yet Darcy does not claim that they also stand outside the structure. It seems more plausible to suggest that Bruckner is introducing a conflict of organisational means as a motivating structural force. A duple repetition in the first group might be opposed by a triple recursive structure in the second. The form may subsequently act to resolve or overcome this distinction, either by presenting both groups in the same form, or by retaining the structure of one group at the expense of the other. The articles by Edward Laufer and Joseph Kraus are rather more modest in their intentions. The aim of Laufers study is to show that Schenkerian analysis, despite Schenkers negative reception of Bruckner, is in fact revealing when applied even to his most complex works. The greater majority of his graphs are concerned with unearthing melodic prolongations in the middleground of foreground thematic material, with the goal of refuting Schenkers claim (as subsequently conveyed by Jonas) that for Bruckner, the art of prolongation was no longer attainable. In many cases Bruckners ear could not hear together as an entity the beginning and end points of a motion (cited in Laufer, p. 210). The article is certainly successful in this respect; it becomes apparent, at least in the Scherzo and Adagio of the Ninth Symphony, that Schenkers misgivings do not in truth affect the prolongational manipulation
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

165

of thematic material. The reductive approach also allows us to grasp a process at the heart of the Adagio, which is the consistent delay in the establishment of an uncontentious 3 until the coda, and the persistent ambiguity surrounding the functional status of the eventual tonic.20 However there is also a sense in which Schenkers objections are not really countered here. Laufers concentration on melodic prolongational aspects neglects an important concern in Schenkers remarks, which is that Bruckners excessive chromaticism dislocates the harmonic relationship between foreground and background. The profusion of local chromatic diversions undermines the organic prolongational relationship between small-scale harmony and large-scale tonicisation, because the diatonic models of the cadence, since they are replaced or diverted at the foreground, are concomitantly obscured at the background. To be sure, this is not an accusation Schenker levelled exclusively at Bruckner; it formed the substance of his dispute with much compositional practice from Wagner onwards. Laufers analytical approach makes no attempt to resolve this problem. Hence, his reductive analyses reveal melodic prolongational procedures, but also schematically demonstrate the harmonic dislocation of foreground and background. These issues conceal a more fundamental difficulty. The essential point of Laufers article is that it should pit Schenkerian analysis against Schenker himself. Schenkers conservative stance prevented him from seeing manifold applications of his ideas in the progressive music of the late nineteenth century. The technique therefore remains revealing, provided we divorce its application from the opinions of its inventor. But surely this is precisely how the development of Schenkerian analysis after Schenkers death has proceeded in general. From Felix Salzers wide-ranging applications onwards,21 Schenkers ideology has been systematically detached from the technical aspects of his theory. Laufer thus associates with a large body of literature here, without ever acknowledging the fact. It is only concentration on the pedagogical relationship between Bruckner and Schenker, and the simple fact that Bruckner has been largely untouched by Schenkerian analysis, which makes Laufers point seem distinctive. Finally, Joseph Krauss study is interesting, if brief. Kraus makes a number of important points regarding the metrical structure of Bruckners music; indeed, some of his contentions have validity beyond the analysis of the early scherzos. As he shows, the traditional opinion that Bruckners music succumbs almost exclusively to the domination of the four-bar phrase is not supported by close analysis. The relationship between the revision process and Bruckners own metrical analyses is also introduced, as is the opinion, expressed elsewhere by Thomas Rder and Timothy Jackson,22 that revisions were frequently made in order to standardise the metrical structure. Krauss preference for the Linz version of the First Symphony is sensible, since the Vienna revision completely
Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

166

C RITICAL F ORUM

removes the formally significant hypermetrical irregularities of the earlier version. The coexistence of metrical and Schenkerian analyses in this essay is not always comfortable. As with many of the other articles in Bruckner Studies, the analysis is based on an initial theoretical premise which demands far more extensive consideration. It is frequently unclear precisely how we are meant to understand the interaction of metrical and pitch parameters: is there a necessary relationship between metrical placement and the structural significance of a pitch event, or are the two parameters separate, but occasionally confluent? Frequently Kraus indicates the latter; the two dimensions are in many instances considered separately. Yet beyond citing precedents in studies by Carl Schachter and William Rothstein,23 the theoretical basis of the study is not elucidated independently of the analyses. Given that Bruckner Studies represents such a clear opportunity to confront some of the serious critical problems surrounding Bruckners music, I can only conclude that it emerges as a disappointment. This arises partly because, in the majority of essays, Bruckner and his music are very much background concerns. One feels this particularly in the essays on reception history. The evidence they present is significant, but its relevance to an understanding of the composers work remains unclear. When an effort is made, as in the studies by Notley and Wason, it is only in the context of brief concluding remarks. Bruckner remains a distant figure in Jacksons essay: the status given to the Seventh Symphony in the title is in no way justified by the space allocated to it in the text. The sense of distance pervades even Maiers study of Bruckners notebooks. The object under investigation is so mundane and uninformative that it might just as well be absent altogether. But the real problem here is more fundamental. For all its efforts in individual areas, Bruckner Studies fails to assess the global state of Bruckner scholarship. It is not enough to re-examine the existent manuscripts, or take issue with the Gesamtausgaben in favour of the original editions, or to recognise the ideological gap between Bruckner and his later proponents. Studies in textual matters or reception history must also show how their findings might contribute to the understanding of Bruckners music, if the real crisis in Bruckner scholarship the paucity of our analytical and hermeneutic response is ever to be remedied. The analytical essays make some effort to escape these difficulties, but their intentions are consistently compromised, either by persistent technical errors, or by failing to provide adequate theoretical foundations. This is the real problem with Bruckner Studies: the serious interpretative problem at the heart of our reception of Bruckners music is never its central concern. J ULIAN H ORTON

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

167

NOTES
1. Hans Redlichs remarks in the preface to his edition of the F minor Mass (London: Eulenberg, 1967) are telling in this regard: the editor of the present edition was denied access to the autograph and refused a microfilm of it by Leopold Nowak That unco-operative attitude is inexcusable in the trustee of a statecontrolled public library-institution whose very raison detre must be to make the autographs of a great composer accessible to every serious scholar and student (p. 40). See for example Derek Watson, Bruckner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975; rev. edn 1996); Dika Newlin, BrucknerMahlerSchoenberg (New York: Kings Crown Press, 1947); Philip Barford, Bruckner Symphonies (London: BBC, 1978). See especially Donald Francis Tovey, Bruckner: Romantic Symphony in E major, No. 4, and Bruckner: Symphony in A major, No. 6, in Essays in Musical Analysis, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), pp. 6979, 7984. Robert Simpson, The Essence of Bruckner (London: Gollancz, 1967); Deryck Cooke, Bruckner, Anton, in Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London: Macmillan, 1980), Vol. 3, pp. 35266; Lionel Pike, Beethoven, Sibelius and the Profound Logic (London: Athlone Press, 1978), pp. 7986. Tovey, Sibelius: Symphony in C major, No. 3, Op. 52 in Essays in Musical Analysis, Vol. 2, p. 121. Paul Hawkshaw, The Manuscript Sources for Bruckners Linz Works: A Study of His Working Methods from 18561868 (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1984), and see also The Date of Bruckners Nullified Symphony in D minor, 19th-Century Music, 6 (1983), pp. 25263; Benjamin Korstvedt, The First Edition of Anton Bruckners Fourth Symphony: Authorship, Production, and Reception (PhD diss., University of Pensylvania, 1995), and see also The First Published Edition of Bruckners Fourth Symphony: Collaboration and Authenticity, 19thCentury Music, 20 (1996), pp. 326. See for example Manfred Wagner, Bruckner (Mainz: Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, 1983); see also Stephen Johnsons introductory remarks in Bruckner Remembered (London: Faber, 1998), pp. xixxii. Timothy L. Jackson, Bruckners Metrical Numbers, 19th-Century Music, 14 (1990), pp. 10131; Stephen Parkany, Kurths Bruckner and the Adagio of the Seventh Symphony, 19th-Century Music, 11 (1988), pp. 26281; Stephen Parkany, Bruckner, in The Nineteenth-Century Symphony, ed. D. Kern Holoman (New York: Schirmer, 1997), pp. 195223; William Benjamin, Tonal Dualism in Bruckners Eighth Symphony, in William Kinderman and Harald Krebs (eds.), The Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Music (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), pp. 23758. Benjamins study is to some extent pre-empted by Paul Dawson-Bowling; see the latters Tonal and Thematic Unity in Bruckners Eighth Symphony, The Music Review, 33 (1969), pp. 22536. For a more extended analysis of this work, see Julian Horton, Towards a Theory of Nineteenth-Century Tonality (PhD diss., Cambridge University, 1998), pp. 128270.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

168
9.

C RITICAL F ORUM
Paul Hawkshaw has recently argued against Korstvedts position. See The Bruckner Problem Revisited, 19th-Century Music, 21 (1997), pp. 96107 (Korstvedts reply appears in the same volume, pp. 1089). Hawkshaw provides considerable evidence suggesting that Franz and Josef Schalk deliberately withheld many of their alterations from Bruckner, and were aware that his reaction to their changes would be negative if discovered. That Bruckner could be fiercely antagonistic to the activities of the Schalk brothers is corroborated by Friedrich Klose, who reports a ferocious quarrel between Bruckner and Josef Schalk over a projected performance of Schalks two-piano arrangement of the Fifth Symphony in his Meine Lehrjahre bei Anton Bruckner (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1927), pp. 140 44. Whatever the level of collaboration, it appears that the Schalks and Ferdinand Lwe collectively maintained an agenda in the preparation of the first editions which did not necessarily require Bruckners participation.

10. Wason also suggests that a knowledge of the temperaments of the organs Bruckner played would help the process of analysis (p. 139). This reasoning commits the error, common also to the thinking of the historical performance movement, of assuming that the esthesics of performance practice and instrumental technology are necessarily the poietics of composition. 11. See James Hepokoski, Sibelius: Symphony No. 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), especially pp. 59 and 1930, and the same authors FieryPulsed Libertine or Domestic Hero? Strausss Don Juan Revisited, in Bryan Gilliam (ed.), Richard Strauss: New Perspectives on the Composer and His Work (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992), pp. 13575. 12. The tragic associations of these works surely have more to do with the topical or rhetorical associations of their material than with their formal strategies. If the reversal of recapitulatory order is a necessary condition of the representation of tragedy, we would have to consider the first movement of Mozarts Piano Sonata in D, K. 311, as such. Clearly it would be nonsense to make such an association in this case, because the work exhibits none of the topics or figures commonly linked with tragedy. Jackson tries to distance himself from this problem by making a distinction between deformation of the form and symmetrical presentation of themes (p. 147). Precisely what the practical difference between these two procedures is remains unclear. 13. Some of these interpretations are rather excessive in relation to their cited biographical justification. The association of the Finale of Bruckners Seventh Symphony with Liszts Eine Faust-Symphonie seems particularly tenuous. The point of contact between the two works, the arpeggiation of the augmented triad C EAb, conceals the fact that the two tonal strategies are quite different in their executions. It is also hard to digest the contention that Bruckner was consciously representing Wagner as proto-typical Faust figure discovering, in new harmonic resources, the tonal philosophers stone alchemistically linking music with greater forces in the universe (p. 197). Simply demonstrating that Bruckner knew Eine Faust-Symphonie does not support this conjecture. I find the idea that Ab in this movement may also represent the crucifixion of Wagner-Christ on the cross of the Viennese Brahmsian hegemony (p. 196) because it corresponds to a similar tonal procedure in the motet Vexilla Regis even harder to accept.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

C RITICAL F ORUM

169

14. Anthony Newcomb, Once More Between Absolute and Programme Music: Schumanns Second Symphony, 19th-Century Music, 7 (1984), pp. 23350. 15. Carolyn Abbate, Unsung Voices: Opera and Musical Narration in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991); Alan Street, The Obbligato Recitative: Narrative and Schoenbergs Five Orchestral Pieces, Op. 16, in Anthony Pople (ed.), Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 16483; Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Can One Speak of Narrativity in Music?, trans. Katherine Ellis, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 115 (1990), pp. 24057. 16. This point demands elaboration. Jackson only cites one source here, Guiseppe Carpanis Le Haydine, overro lettere sur la vita e le opere del celebre maestro Giuseppe Haydn (Milan: Candido Buccinelli, 1812). Citing a nineteenth-century document as a measure of eighteenth-century aesthetics seems peculiar. Carpanis text actually post-dates the classic statement of the aesthetic of instrumental music, E. T. A. Hoffmanns 1810 review of Beethovens Fifth Symphony (originally published in Vol. 12 of the Allgemeine Musikalisches Zeitung), by two years. Contemporary opinion on this matter was clearly divided; against Carpani we may set Heinrich Christoph Koch, who claimed that because instrumental music is nothing but the imitation of song, the symphony especially represents the choir; and Johann Georg Sulzer, who held that in the last position we place the application of music to concerts, which are presented merely as entertainments. See Carl Dahlhaus, The Idea of Absolute Music, trans. Roger Lustig (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989), p. 11 and p. 4. Hence citation of a single text as evidence of a global aesthetic position is clearly misleading; rather the level of debate from this time indicates a period of transition. It is harder to find literature from fifty years earlier supporting Hoffmanns argument. 17. Alan Luhring, Dialectical Thought in Nineteenth-Century Music as Exhibited in Brahmss Setting of Hlderlins Schicksalslied, Choral Journal, 25 (1985), pp. 5 13; John Daverio, The Wechsel der Tne in Brahmss Schicksalslied, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 46 (1993), pp. 84113. 18. In the first volume of his 1925 study on the composer, Kurth observes that we very often encounter the phenomenon where Bruckner does not begin with the theme at all but rather with a prelimenary development that builds up to it. See Lee Rothfarb (trans. and ed.), Ernst Kurth: Selected Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 152. Neither are such phenomena specifically Brucknerian, nor indeed specific to the nineteenth century. Examples are found in the first movements of Beethovens Ninth and Schuberts Eighth Symphonies, in the last movement of Mozarts Symphony No. 41 and in Handels Keyboard Suite in E major. 19. Kurth also provides an analysis of this passage. See his Bruckner, Vol. 1 (Berlin: Hesse Verlag, 1925; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1971), pp. 34655. Werner Korte has analysed the same motivic process from a rather different perspective: see Bruckner und Brahms (Tutzing: Hans Schneider Verlag, 1963), pp. 2438. 20. Laufer also sporadically provides programmatic interpretations for his findings. Strangely, he does not observe perhaps the most obvious programmatically sug-

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

170

C RITICAL F ORUM
gestive reference in the Adagio, the inversion of the Miserere theme from the D minor Mass (Gloria, bars 100106 in Nowaks edition) which constitutes the opening motive of the second subject. The association of this theme with subsequent D minor works is not restricted to the Ninth Symphony: it is also quoted in the first movement of the Third Symphony at the end of the exposition (bars 258 67 in the 1873 version, 23141 in the 1877 version, and 22737 in the 1889 version). Its appearance in the Ninth Symphony suggests a redemptive Christian programme, especially when taken in conjunction with the works dedication to my dear Lord.

21. Felix Salzer, Structural Hearing (New York: Dover, 1952). 22. Thomas Rder, Auf dem Weg zur Bruckner Symphonie. Untersuchungen zu den ersten beiden Fassungen von Anton Bruckners dritter Symphonie (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1987), pp. 1634; Jackson, Bruckners Metrical Numbers, pp. 1017. 23. Carl Schachter, Rhythm and Linear Analysis: A Prelimenary Study, The Music Forum, 4 (1976), pp. 281334; Rhythm and Linear Analysis: Durational Reduction, The Music Forum, 5 (1980), pp. 197232; Rhythm and Linear Analysis: Aspects of Metre, The Music Forum, 6/i (1987), pp. 159; William Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music (New York: Schirmer, 1989).

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999

Music Analysis, 18/i (1999)