Download - White Rose eTheses Online

ArticulatingTime
ListeningtoMusicalForms
intheTwenty-FirstCentury
RichardLukePowell
PhD
UniversityofYork
Music
September2016
2
Abstract
This study sets out to explore concepts of musical time by developing two
complementarystrandsofdiscussion,onepractical andtheothertheoretical.The
practical strandis concerneddirectly withinstrumental works from theWestern
art music tradition. Underpinning the thesis are ?ive analytical case studies; in
each, a piecewritten by a living composer (George Benjamin, John Adams, Hans
Abrahamsen, Kaija Saariaho and Thomas Adès) is paired with a work by a
historical ?igure (Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Beethoven and Sibelius). Emphasis
falls upon the contemporary works, with the more familiar canonic repertoire
servingasa lensthroughwhichmorerecentmusic mightbeviewed. Unitedbya
broadconception of form as adurationthat drawslisteners to engagecreatively
withanorganisingimpulse,thesepiecesfacilitatediscussionsofbroaderissuesof
aural structure: continuity, repetition, energy and perspective. An overriding
concernwillbetheeffectthattheseperceptualqualitieshaveuponexperiencesof
timeinmusic,andthewaysinwhichthismightenabledifferentkindsofmeaning.
Through this process, it is intended that more ‘dif?icult’ new works can be
renderedmoreaccessible, whilefamiliar ‘masterpieces’might bythe same token
beviewedinanewlight.
Thismusicological endeavourwill beinformedbyaninvestigationintothe
waysinwhichtimeisperceived.Thissupportingtheoreticalstrandwillsynthesise
philosophical and psychological conceptions of temporality, and their
contributions to subjective perspectives, to provide a framework for the
experiences discussed. Whilst the ‘twenty-?irst century’ aspect ofthe thesis title
serves as a nod towards an emphasis upon contemporary composition, it also
refers to thediversity facingaudiences today. Thejuxtapositionofnew andoldis
re?lectiveofmorerecentculturesofreception:listeninghabitsareformedlessbya
socially-driven system of canons, and increasingly according to individual
preference. This is an attempt to analyse the temporality of musical works at a
point when their compositional chronology has perhaps never seemed so
irrelevant. Ratherthanofferingoverarchingtheories ofperceptionorprescribing
speci?ic methods ofanalysis and interpretation, this studyembracesthe plurality
of experienced musical time in the acknowledgement that articulating these
phenomenamightenrichanappreciationofavarietyofmusicalstyles.
3
Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................................3
Contents.......................................................................................................................................................4
Listof?igures.............................................................................................................................................7
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................9
Author’sdeclaration............................................................................................................................10
1.
Introduction.........................................................................................................................12
2.
AlternativePaths–GeorgeBenjamin&Mozart..................................................28
3.
DirectingTime....................................................................................................................56
4.
PerceptionandPerspective–JohnAdams&Schubert................................71
Treesand?lags...........................................................................................................12
Somethingold,somethingnew..........................................................................14
Keepingscore.............................................................................................................20
Mutualbene?its..........................................................................................................24
Abouttime...................................................................................................................28
Narrativeimpulses..................................................................................................29
Graspingtime.............................................................................................................32
Losingtime..................................................................................................................34
Cyclesandspirals.....................................................................................................36
Temporaldualities...................................................................................................40
Disintegration............................................................................................................45
Timelessness..............................................................................................................50
Clutchingatmetaphors..........................................................................................57
Time,spaceandchange.........................................................................................61
Insearchofdirection..............................................................................................64
Goingwiththe?low.................................................................................................67
Placingperspective.................................................................................................73
Simplicityandcontinuity......................................................................................76
Discontinuity..............................................................................................................80
Movingbeyondspectacle......................................................................................86
Movingbeyondcontrast........................................................................................89
Formandfunction...................................................................................................95
4
Contents
5.
PerceivingTime.................................................................................................................99
6.
DynamicContinuities–HansAbrahamsen&Brahms.................................119
7.
ExperiencingTime........................................................................................................157
8.
NarrativePossibilities–KaijaSaariaho&Beethoven.................................172
Objectiveandsubjectivetime.............................................................................99
Orderandconsciousness...................................................................................102
Processingmusicaltime.....................................................................................104
Affectandattention..............................................................................................109
Diversionsandsubversions..............................................................................113
Developingvariation............................................................................................119
Multipleforms–Abrahamsen..........................................................................122
Innovationwithintradition–Brahms..........................................................128
Tracingboundaries–FourthSymphony:Finale......................................131
Findingdynamism.................................................................................................134
Ebband?low............................................................................................................136
Layersoftime–Schnee:Canon1a.................................................................140
Horizontalperspectives–Schnee:Canon1b............................................144
Temporaldimensions–Schnee:Canon2a.................................................146
Shiftingfocus–Schnee:Canon2b..................................................................148
Disintegration–Schnee:Canons3–5............................................................151
Dynamiccontinuities...........................................................................................155
Perceivingforms....................................................................................................157
Continuityandnarrativepotential................................................................160
Questioningcontinuity........................................................................................164
Dynamicforms........................................................................................................168
Surfacebalance.......................................................................................................174
Internalnarratives................................................................................................177
Fulcra..........................................................................................................................181
Insearchofstability.............................................................................................187
Self-destruction......................................................................................................193
Freshperspectives................................................................................................195
Renewedfocus........................................................................................................199
5
Contents
9.
UnderstandingTime....................................................................................................201
Formalimpulses.....................................................................................................201
Autonomy..................................................................................................................204
Unity............................................................................................................................205
10. EnergyandEquilibrium–ThomasAdès&Sibelius.....................................209
Symphonicrenewal..............................................................................................211
Symphonicresolution?........................................................................................214
Tonalenergy............................................................................................................216
Temporalmultiplicity:Sibelius.......................................................................221
Temporalmultiplicity:Adès.............................................................................225
Disruption.................................................................................................................231
Attainingequilibrium..........................................................................................234
Sonorityandmemory..........................................................................................236
11. Epilogue:Openendings.............................................................................................242
Listofprimarymaterials.................................................................................................................247
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................249
6
ListofUigures
2.1
Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),structuraltable..........................................41
2.2
Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),bars1–16(piano)......................................42
2.3
MozartViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),bars70–81.....................................................43
2.4
Benjamin,Viola,Viola,three-partstructuralplan..................................................................44
2.5
Benjamin,Viola,Viola,bars1–19(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)..........................44
2.6
Benjamin,Viola,Viola,listofevents.............................................................................................48
2.7
Benjamin,Viola,Viola,bars92–97(reproducedfromBenjamin1997).......................49
2.8
Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),bars94–102(piano).................................51
2.9
Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),themes,bars1–4,94–101......................52
2.10
Benjamin,Viola,Viola,bars98–105(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)....................53
4.1
Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960(1),bars1–23.....................................................................81
4.2
Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960(1),trillderivation,bars1and8................................83
4.3
Adams,ShakerLoops(1):harmonicreduction,bars1–104..............................................87
4.4
Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960(1),tabledisplayingstructuralplan.........................90
4.5
Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960,binaryformdiagram......................................................93
4.6
Adams,ShakerLoops(3),solocellomelody,bars3–26.......................................................96
4.7
Adams,ShakerLoops,tabledisplayinggesturalinterpretationofform.......................97
4.8
Adams,ShakerLoops,excerptsshowingrhythmicmotifreversal..................................98
6.1
Abrahamsen,Schnee,canonicparingsacrosstheformalscheme................................124
6.2
Abrahamsen,Schnee,detuningprocessacrossthethreeintermezzi..........................125
6.3
Abrahamsen,Schnee,‘fourmovement’formalscheme.....................................................126
6.4
Abrahamsen,Schnee,‘diminishingstructure’formalscheme.......................................126
6.5
Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),structuralinterpretationsofform.............................126
6.6
Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),reductionofostinato,bars1–8...................................130
6.7
Brahms,FourthSymphony(1),reductionofbars393–403...........................................132
6.8
Brahms,FourthSymphony(3),harmonicreduction,bars317–26.............................133
6.9
Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),reduction,bars97–104..................................................137
6.10
Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),selectedreductionofbars129–36............................138
6.11
Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),‘twogestures’formalscheme......................................139
6.12
Abrahamsen,Schnee(1a),bars1–6(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)..............141
6.13
Abrahamsen,Schnee(1b),bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)..............144
6.14
Abrahamsen,Schnee(2a),reduction,bars1–4.....................................................................146
6.15
Abrahamsen,Schnee(2a),pianoexcerpts,bars22–23and34–35..............................147
6.16
Abrahamsen,Schnee(3b),pianos(bars1–4)........................................................................151
6.17
Abrahamsen,Schnee(4a),bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)..............152
6.18
Abrahamsen,Schnee(5a&5b),pianoparts,bars1–4.......................................................153
7
ListofSigures
8.1
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,formalscheme..........................................................175
8.2
Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),formalscheme.............................................................175
8.3
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(2),bars54–57..........................................................182
8.4
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(2&4),closingsonorityreductions.................183
8.5
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,tabledetailingfulcrashifts..................................183
8.6
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(3),bars1–3................................................................184
8.7
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(4),piano,bars1–4..................................................185
8.8
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(4),piano,bars40–42,(piano)...........................185
8.9
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(1&5)violaandcelloopenings.........................186
8.10
Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),strings,bars1–14......................................................188
8.11
Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),E-minorthemederivation.....................................189
8.12
Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),harmonicreduction,bars248–84......................190
8.13
Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),tonalleanings,bars284–338...............................191
8.14
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(1),piano,bars26–28............................................197
8.15
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(2),bars9–17.............................................................197
8.16
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(3),violaandcello,bars4–7................................198
8.17
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(4),reductionsofselectedbars..........................198
8.18
Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(5),piano,bars1–3..................................................198
10.1
Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,reductionofbars1–4.................................................................210
10.2
Adès,Tevot,reductionofbars1–4..............................................................................................210
10.3
Adès,Tevot,harmonicreduction,bars1–13..........................................................................219
10.4
Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,tabledisplayingtempochanges............................................222
10.5
Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,trombonetheme,bars60–70.................................................224
10.6
Adès,Tevot,tabledetailingtempochanges............................................................................226
10.7
Adès,Tevot,cello,bars65–68,andviolin1,bars92–99...................................................228
10.8
Adès,Tevot,trumpetmelody,bars142–44............................................................................228
10.9
Adès,Tevot,counterpointmotifsutilisedinbars53–91..................................................229
10.10 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,stringsandhorns,bars106–08.............................................232
10.11 Adès,Tevot,reductionofbars302–323...................................................................................237
10.12 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,stringsandhorns,bars500–10.............................................240
8
Acknowledgements
Iwouldnothavebeenabletoundertakethisprojectwithoutthe?inancialbacking
of a Doctoral Studentshipfrom theArts and Humanities ResearchCouncil; I feel
very fortunate to have been givenso muchtime andspace to explore, well, time
andspace, andIamimmenselygratefultotheAHRCforitssupportinthisregard.
The Department of Music at the University of York has provided an incredible
listening and performing environment inwhich to carry out this study. Whilst I
havefeltveryblessedtohavebeenableto treatitassomethingofasecondhome
forthepasteightyears,Ifeelluckierstillthatafterallthattimeitstillprovidesso
stimulating, sochallenging, andyet so warmandfriendlya placetowork.Thisis
mostlythankstoawholehostofpeoplewhohaveinspiredandaffectedthecourse
of this thesis in a variety of ways. Special thanks go to Daniel March, Mark &
Vanessa Hutchinson, Martin & Zoë Scheuregger, John Stringer, James Whittle,
SarahGoulding, George & AnnieWissen, Ian Hoggart, Sophie Simpson, Benjamin
Gait,ThomasSimaku, ChristopherLeedham,Daniel Swain, ImogenClarke,Patrick
JonesandClaireMcGinn.
Thanksalso go to a numberoffriends, mentorsand family members who
haveat various points offered invaluable support: David & Elspeth Dutch, Justin
Evans, Eva Warren, my uncle Paul, my grandfather Pat and his wife Linda,
Maryjane & Tony Clifford, Cathy Denford, Andrew Vickers, Lesley Smith, Mark &
JaneLewis andallthe‘redherrings’. Particular thanks gotoPaulDryhurstforhis
friendship,conversationandtea-drinkingcompanionship.
I would especially like to thank Bella Clifford for her constant love and
encouragement, her ability to keep me calm and grounded, and her endless
patience(ifithadlimits,IthinkIwouldhavefoundthemduringthewritingofthis
thesis!). Far from freaking out when I announced I wanted to study music, my
parents AndyandCareyhavebeenanincrediblesourceofgenerosity, advice and
supportthroughout,andthereisno adequatewaytoshowjusthowgratefulIam.
Mysiblings–Katie,BethandBen–havecontinuedtoinspiremewiththeamazing
livestheylead.Shadow,thegoldenretriever,hasalsobeenever-consistent.
Finally, special thanks go to my supervisor Tim Howell. I feel incredibly
privileged to have beenable to rely onhis guidanceand insight throughout this
project.Iwillalwaysbegratefulforhisfriendshipandsupport.
9
Author’sdeclaration
IdeclarethatthisthesisisapresentationoforiginalworkandIamthesoleauthor.
This work has not previously been presented for an awardatthis, or any other,
University.AllsourcesareacknowledgedasReferences.
ChapterFour containswritten material and?igures (4.3, 4.7and 4.8)taken from
myarticle‘AccessibleNarratives:ContinuityintheMusicofJohnAdams’(listedin
theBibliography).CopyrightisheldbythepublisherTaylor&FrancisLtd.
ShakerLoops–MusicbyJohnAdams
©Copyright1978AssociatedMusicPublishers,Inc.
ChesterMusicLimitedtradingasGSchirmer.
AllRightsReserved.InternationalCopyrightSecured.
UsedbyPermissionofChesterMusicLimitedtradingasGSchirmer.
Tevot–ComposedbyThomasAdès
©2007FaberMusicLtd,London,WC1B3DA
ReproducedbypermissionofFaberMusicLtd
AllRightsReserved.
Schnee–MusicbyHansAbrahamsen
©Copyright2008EdWilhelmHansen.
ChesterMusicLimited.
AllRightsReserved.InternationalCopyrightSecured.
UsedbyPermissionofChesterMusicLimited.
Viola,Viola–ComposedbyGeorgeBenjamin
©1998FaberMusicLtd,London,WC1B3DA
ReproducedbypermissionofFaberMusicLtd
AllRightsReserved.
JeSensUnDeuxièmeCoeur–MusicbyKaijaSaariaho
©Copyright2003ChesterMusicLimited.
AllRightsReserved.InternationalCopyrightSecured.
UsedbyPermissionofChesterMusicLimited.
10
Afterall, whyhasanoveltobeplanned?Cannotitgrow?Whyneeditclose,
asaplaycloses?Cannotitopenout?Insteadofstandingabovehisworkand
controllingit,cannotthenovelistthrowhimselfintoitandbecarriedalong
tosomegoalhedoesnotforesee?
E.M.Forster,AspectsoftheNovel([1927]2005,95)
11
One
Introduction
TreesandUlags
‘Ifatreefalls inaforestandnooneisaroundtohearit, doesitmakeasound?’At
face value, this popular philosophical question solicits a knee-jerk reaction,
apparently warranting a simple yes or no response. Nevertheless, as with any
conundrum, it gentlydemandsanexplorationbeyondits surface. It echoes wider
epistemological enquiriesthat havepunctuatedWesterndiscourses for hundreds
ofyears.ThemethodicaldoubtsofRenéDescartesintheseventeenthcenturyand
the immaterialist conjectures of George Berkeley in the eighteenth, have raised
questions of rationality and sense in empirical and theoretical disciplines alike
(Kantonen 1934, 483–500); even quantum physics has been led back to these
issues when faced with the paradoxical characteristics exhibited by sub-atomic
particles.1 In Eastern thought, the question can be traced further back, with
versionsofitexpressedasconciseZenkōans.TheGatelessGate–akōancollection
publishedbyMumonEkaiin1228–containsacomparablenarrative,inwhichtwo
monks debatewhatismoving:the?lagorthewind. A passingChanmasterleaves
themawestruck athisequallycontentioussuggestionthatratheritis theirminds
thataremoving.Mumon’saccompanyingcommentaryelegantlybottlesthepitfalls
ofdiscussingthephenomenon: 'Thewindmoves, the?lagmoves, themindmoves;
All havemissedit. They only know how to opentheir mouths, Anddo not know
thattheirwordshavefailed’(Yamada2004,143).
Of course, both of these puzzles are neither solvable nor rhetorical; they
cannotbeaddressedinanystraightforwardway. Theleast (orperhaps themost)
thatcanbeconcludedastowhethertheunheardfallingtreeproducesasoundisa
paradox:yesandno. AswithMumon’skōan,thepointofthequestionistheasking
itself and the re?lective journey this provokes. It encourages a heightened self1 PhysicistJim Baggott explains that ‘eversince it wasdiscovered thatatomic and sub-
atomicparticlesexhibitbothlocalised,particle-likepropertiesanddelocalised, wave-like
propertiesphysicistshavebecomeravelledinadebateaboutwhatwecanandcan’tknow
aboutthe‘true’natureofphysicalreality.’(Baggott,2011)
12
Introduction
awarenesspreciselythroughaconsiderationofabsence;emphasisisplacedupon
the relationships between individual and environment. Above all, this
considerationofthenatureofperceptionisthe catalyst forashiftinperspective:
anapparentlyobjectiveenquiryissoonrevealedtobeasubjectiveexploration.
This philosophicalqueryalsoactsasauseful gatewayto contemplationof
sound itself, underlining it as something that is experienced. It would seem that
part of the desired realisation is the acknowledgement that sound, as we
understand it, constitutes much more than its essential physical properties of
vibrations in the air. Of comparable importance are the ways in which these
propertiesare– or, in this instance, are not – receivedby a listener. What was a
factofthe matter has quicklybecomeasourceofinterpretation; a leapfromthe
physical to the metaphysical has occurred. There canbe no endto the different
waysinwhichasinglesoundcanbeheardandinterpreted.Therewillalwaysbeat
leastasmanyhearingsastherearelisteners. Evenifwemightunderstandaspects
ofthosehearingstooverlap, they will nonetheless retainindependencefromone
another.Musicoftenseemstocomplicatethisyetfurther–wonderfullyso.
Conveniently, then, this study is undertaken fundamentally from one
perspective:myown. Musichas beenacaptivatingpresenceinmylife;theact of
listening to it has proved a particular source of fascination. AndIam convinced
thatit is such: anecessary, creative, musical act. Ifthe ‘falling tree’questioncan
impartanythingessentialaboutmusic,itisthatitsverypurpose–perhapsevenits
very existence – might be calledinto questionif it does not involvealistener of
somekind. Eric Clarke – whose work concerning the psychology andecology of
listening will provide a theoretical underpinning at points here – underlines the
uniquesigni?icanceofthisactiveandreactivemode:
Perception is the awareness of, and continuous adaptation to, the environment,
and,on the basisof that general deSinition, the perception of musical meaning is
therefore the awareness of meaning in music while listening to it. It can be
distinguished from musical meaning that arises out of thinking about music, or
reSlectingonmusic,whennotdirectlyauditorilyengagedwithmusic.(2005,5)
The ways in whichpeople listen to pieces of music transform and evolve
over time, even if the performances themselves remain ‘?ixed’ in the form of a
recording(thoughevenhereamultitudeofvariables inevitablyremain). Time, as
13
Introduction
shallbeshown,amountstosomethingofa‘constantvariable’here.Musiccanonly
unfoldasperformance(eitheroriginalorreproduced)intime,andmightbesaidto
‘possess’itsowntimeorduration. Butmusiccanonlytakeplaceinthesametime
once; the onward nature of temporality, and the changes that accompany it,
provideaneverchangingcontextforlistening.Hearingsofdifferentperformances,
or‘works’(ausefulnotionthatwillfeaturethroughoutbutnotwithoutscrutinyat
certain points), do not develop inisolation but enter into a subtledialogue with
one another. On both conscious and sub-conscious levels, performances inform
oneanotherinthemindsoflisteners, chippingawayatestablishedconceptionsto
enable new aural perspectives on the familiar. This study emphasises these
perceptual networks, establishingits ownecology of musical works in orderthat
the broader phenomenonof musical time – an underlying essential condition of
music, but one that proves elusive when considered – might be explored.
Conceptual sub-divisions – principally continuity, repetition, energy and
perspective–provideananalyticalframework,allowingmorespeci?icconcernsto
berelatedtomoregeneraltemporalexperiences. A moresubstantialintroduction
to the issues surrounding the examination of time will follow in Chapter Two
(Alternative Paths); in the meantime, it is necessary to establish both the
framework,andsomeoftheparameters,ofthethesis.
Somethingold,somethingnew
Whilst thereare no limits as to the typesofmusic that couldcontributeto these
discussions, for the purposes of this study it was necessary to establish some
parameters. The only strict criteria for selecting the tenworks foundhere were
that they be instrumental compositions that fall within a broad tradition of
Westernart-music, andthathalfofthemmightbelooselytermed‘contemporary’.
Whileitrepresentsjustasmallpocketofglobalmusichistory,therangepresented
hereisrelativelylarge;theoldestpiecewascomposedin1778,themostrecentin
2008: a 230-yearspread. Here the works are listedinthe case-study pairings in
whichthey will appear in the courseof the thesis, with the speci?ic movements
analysedreferencedatthecloseofworkswhererelevant:
14
Introduction
•
GeorgeBenjamin–Viola,Violaforvioladuo(1997)
WolfgangAmadeusMozart–ViolinSonatainEminor,K.304(2)(1778)
•
JohnAdams–ShakerLoopsforstringorchestra(1978/83)
FranzSchubert–PianoSonatainB-Slat,D.960(1)(1828)
•
HansAbrahamsen–Schnee,TenCanonsforNineInstruments(2008)
JohannesBrahms–SymphonyNo.4inEminor,Op.98(4)(1885)
•
KaijaSaariaho–Jesensundeuxièmecoeurforviola,celloandpiano(2003)
LudwigvanBeethoven–SymphonyNo.3inE-Slat‘Eroica’,Op.55(1)(1804)
•
ThomasAdès–Tevotforlargeorchestra(2007)
JeanSibelius–SymphonyNo.7inC,Op.105(1924)
Theearlierpiecesineachpairingfallintooneoftwogenres:symphoniesor
sonatas. These labels immediately invoke expectations within the context of
Westernartmusic(whichwillremaintheprimaryframeofreferencethroughout).
Whethertheworksinquestionconform,develop, reinvent, or reactagainst those
expectations is less signi?icant than the overriding implication that they will
engagewiththetraditioninsomeway.Itisimportanttoconsidertheseformal–in
some cases possibly even formalist – decisions as creative choices rather than
restrictions. Thedevelopmentofthesegenreswasneverquiteascategorical asis
popularly held; as Charles Rosen observed, ‘theprinciples of“classical” art were
codi?ied(or,ifyoulike,classicised)whentheimpulsewhichcreateditwasalready
dead’(1997, xi). What couldbedismissedastraditionandconventiontoday was
farmorelikelytohaveseemedastimulatingstylisticevolutiontothecomposersof
thetime.Intheirwide-rangingstudyofsonataform,JamesHepokoskiandWarren
Darcy (2006) chart not only conventional procedures prevalent in the late
Eighteenth Century but also numerous instances of individual composers
diverging from these conventions, often to heightened dramatic or expressive
effect. Their understanding offormal procedures as fundamentally dynamic and
dialogicisalso notableonaccountofitsconsiderationoftemporalandperceptual
factors:
15
Introduction
Rather the composer generates a sonata – which we regard as a process, a linear
seriesof compositional choices–to enter intoa dialogue with anintricate web of
interrelatednormsasanongoing actionintime.Theacousticsurfaceofanysonata
(whatwe literallyhear)setsforththesonictracesof thisindividualised,processual
dialogue, one that, from the standpointof reception, itis the taskof the analystto
reinvigorate.(Hepokoski&Darcy,2006,10–11)
Readersmightnotegapsandabsencesamongthe?iguresincludedinthese
case studies. Numerous composers of profound in?luence are not represented.
Althoughtheninemenandonewomanshowcasedhere(thegenderimbalanceis
another deeplydisturbingsideeffectofbothmusical history andtheformationof
the canon, but not the focus of this project) might easily be thought of as being
progressiveorin?luentialintheirownways,theywerenotselectedsolelyonthat
account. Several othermajor ‘progressives’maintainanindirectpresence:Haydn
casts a shadow throughhis bearing on symphonic and sonata forms; in?luential
?igures such as Wagner and Debussy are palpable in the compositional
developments they rendered possible through their unique approaches; and
numeroustwentieth-centurypowerhousessuchas Stravinsky, Cage, Stockhausen,
Boulez, andReichare made knownthrough their in?luence uponre-castings and
re-alignments ofmusical thought. Meanwhile, theSecondVienneseSchoolis here
representedthroughthescholarshipandtheoreticalexplorationsofthecomposer
manyregardasitsforefather,ArnoldSchoenberg;whilsthismusicwillnotfeature,
hisaestheticwritingswill?indaplacehere.Aswellastheseexternalcontributions,
theoretical perspectives will also be offered from the selected composers
themselves.
Although they present aesthetics that are undoubtedly distinct from one
another,thecontemporaryworksutilisedheremightneverthelessbethoughtofas
representative of widertendencies in muchwestern artmusic atthe closeofthe
twentiethcenturyandthebeginningofthetwenty-?irst. Thisoverarchingtrendis
not concerned with surface style but rather with more profound aspects of
compositional approach. Focusing largely on music written after 1980, David
Metzer(2009)framesthisleaninginmodernistterms.Here,modernismisutilised
lessasahistoricalmovementandmoreasacontinuingmentalitythat‘hasastrong
awarenessofitsownprecedentsandbuildsuponthem’:
16
Introduction
Constantly reworking established elements, modernist idioms strengthen
connections with past explorations, thereby creating the surprising result of
modernismsolidifyingthepast,itsownpast.Atthesametime,theinvolvementwith
previousexplorations can yield the new, not so much the shocking gesture as the
differentwaysinwhichan idea hasbeen treated.Themode ofmodernistinquiryis
not unlike that in science, one in which an experiment cites and departs from
previousresearchinthehopeofreachingnewinsights.(2009,7)
In Metzer’s reading, the notion of inquiry emerges as a central facet of
modernism, one that is intertwined with the expressive characteristics that he
perceives in music ofrecent decades. In these works, he asserts, the process of
analysing expressive modes itselfproves to be a mode of expression (2009, 23).
His examination of the expressive act is twinned with an unpacking of
‘compositional states’: particularconditionsorcircumstances thatserveas ideals
to be emulated (though, importantly, not simply mimicked) through musical
constructions.Throughexploringstatesofsilence,fragmentation,lamentation,and
sonic ?lux, he offers a compelling case for compositional focus – rather than
material–asacommongroundfordiscussionofrecentmusic(2009,8–12).
Metzerutilisesthisdistinctionasonewayofseparatingwhatheterms‘late
modernism’frommuchoftheavant-gardeworkproducedinthepost-warperiod;
typi?ied by the largely serial styles promoted at the Darmstadt International
Summer Courses during the 1950s and 60s, the latter music emerges from a
stringent emphasis on ‘newness’, often seemingly at the expense of expressivity
(2009, 18–19). Indeed, itis the modernist engagementwith past modes, andthe
heightenedsubjectiveexpressionthisfacilitates,thatprovidesthemeansbywhich
Metzer seeks to view a diverse range of recent compositional styles – including
neo-Romanticism, new complexity, and spectralism – under the same light:
‘Moving back from the individual details to the larger scene, we can perceive a
range of richly expressive idioms, the vibrancy of which emerges from a
fascination with the immediacy and communicative force of that expressive
moment’(2009,20).
In this sense, it can beposited that the more recent work utilisedin this
study might all be understood as displaying broader, post-avant-garde traits.
Indeed, it might be argued that they exhibit seemingly modernist tendencies
17
Introduction
throughtheirengagementwithstructuralprecedentsandtheirshapingofmusical
form as avehicle for expression. Whilst Adès’ Tevot does this in a more explicit
way through its stated invocation of the symphonic tradition, an emphasis on
contrast, development and dynamism as means by which structure can be
delineated proves central to the music of Abrahamsen, Adams, Benjamin, and
Saariaho.Whileitisnottheintentionofthisthesis to focusuponmodernismasa
principalframeofreference,itisnonethelesssigni?icantthatitcanbeevokedasa
connectingfeature;JulianJohnsonprovidesthemostextensive recentexampleof
thiswithhiscross-historicalstudyOutofTime (2015),emphasisingmodernismas
a potential source of uni?ication rather than division once it ‘is understood in
relation to the aesthetic mediation of social modernity, rather than de?ined
exclusively through technical or stylistic terms to do with atonality or metrical
asymmetry’:‘Whereas theaestheticsofModernismused to dividemusical sheep
and goats into conservative and progressive camps, recently we have found it
more interesting to explore the co-existence and interaction of diverse stylistic
practices which, on closer inspection, begin to show some remarkable
similarities’(2015,7).
Themusicselectionprocessforthisthesiswasinevitablysubjective.These
works were ultimately chosenon account ofwhat I perceivedto be potential to
catalyseanexploration ofbroader musical topics. Indeed, it is these topics that,
whether explicitlyorcovertly, will act asthe guiding principleofthecasestudies
rather than any intention to provide a set of comprehensive analyses.
Consequently, the range – and the limitations – of the analyses themselves will
vary.ExaminationsofcompositionsbyAbrahamsenandBrahms,andbyAdèsand
Sibelius, will take into consideration the entirety of their unfolding forms. By
contrast, the focus in other chapters will fall instead on particular moments of
crystallisation:discussionofworksbyAdams andSchubert willcentreupontheir
openings and the perceptual implications of these passages; meanwhile, two
periodsofalienationatthecentreofpiecesbySaariahoandBeethovenwillserve
as a springboard for an exploration of the effect of these landmarks within the
contextofthewidermusicalnarratives. TheintroductorypairingofBenjaminand
Mozartwillofferconsiderationsofbothlong-termandmomentaryideas,exploring
18
Introduction
both broader formal process and speci?ic passages that might be thought of as
evokingasenseoftimelessness.
Although the pieces are cast in pairings relative to particular temporal
concepts, they each undoubtedly contribute beyond their stations, enriching
broadertheoreticalexaminationaswellasoneanother.Placedbetweenthesecase
studies are four shorter chapters, interludes that seek to synthesise the work of
other scholars into a more cohesive navigation of surrounding conceptual and
theoretical issues. Thelinks between theseinterludesandthe analyseswill often
be implied rather than stated outright; it is hoped instead that they can
increasingly informandstimulateoneanother,accumulatinggraduallytowards a
broaderaccountofmusicaltime.Inconjunctionwiththecasestudiestheybridge,
thetheoretical interludes present adevelopingexplorationofwaysinwhichtime
is understood in philosophical and scienti?ic terms (Chapter Three: Directing
Time),howitspassing isperceivedinpsychologicalandcognitiveterms(Chapter
Five: Perceiving Time), ways in which longer durations are understood and
structured(ChapterSeven:ExperiencingTime),andhowtheseimpressionsmight
feed into more musicological concerns regarding musical form (Chapter Nine:
UnderstandingTime).ChapterTwo(AlternativePaths)willprovideajuxtaposition
of both strands of the thesis, introducing a number of the broader theoretical
questionsthat will featurebeforemovinginto the?irst casestudy(Benjamin and
Mozart). Meanwhile, taking the shape of a brief conclusion, Chapter Eleven
(Epilogue:Openendings)willconsidertheimplicationsoftheparadoxessurveyed
foranopenperspectiveonmusicandtime.
There are numerous musicological movements and discourses –
hermeneutics, semantics, narrativity, formalism, structuralism and
poststructuralism,tonamebutafew–that,whethernamedornot,willcropupin
discussion at various points. It has largely been my intention to sidestep these
larger debates rather than to join them; they are sub-?ieldsthat merit theirown
theses,andcertainlylittlejusticecouldbedonetotherangeofideasandliterature
theyencompasswithoutgrantingthemthefocustheydeserve.Iftheyareinvoked
here, it is only at moments when the essential issues of this study overlap with
principlesattheheartofthosediscourses.Thewide-rangingliteratureconcerning
theearliermusical works examinedherewill be treatedina similar way, drawn
19
Introduction
uponatpointswhenitbearsrelevanceto thetopicsathand. Indeed,tothisend,it
isnotanintentheretoprovidecomprehensiveanalyses–inaconventionalsense
– of these pieces; rather they shall be explored with a view to focusing upon
aspects of their construction that contribute to an ongoing discussion of
temporality.
Keepingscore
The act of analysing a score, by its very nature, will to some degree always be
predisposedtowardsascribingmeaningtomusic‘inandofitself’,grantingitakind
of autonomy.2 Inevitably, within the performance-dependent context of musical
time, theboundariesofmusicalmeaningmustbesetfarwider, encompassingall
manner of textual, perceptual, ecological and cultural factors. Indeed, as Kevin
Korsyn points out, these factors must be taken to form a network of ‘relational
events’ if the dead-end binary of the ‘text/context dualism’ (analyses and
discussionsofmusicthatarelimitedtomovementbetweenconceptionsof‘inside’
and‘outside’thework)is to beavoided(1999, 55–56). Inthissense, itwouldbe
easytocallthesigni?icanceofthescoreintoquestion.Discrepanciesbetweenscore
and sound will always serve to illustrate the shortcomings of notation as an
empirical text. Inhis book Beyond the Score, Nicholas Cook expresses a desireto
ful?ill the outlook of his title whilst airing the prospect of an intriguing return,
suggesting that ‘it is only once you think of music as performance that you can
start to make sense of scores’. Nevertheless, he is realistic regarding their
limitations:
In a nutshell, musicology wassetup around the idea of music as writing rather
than musicasperformance.Tothink of musicas writing istosee itsmeaning as
inscribedwithinthe score, and accordinglyto seeperformanceasa reproduction
of thismeaning. That turns performance into a kind of supplementto the music
itself, an optional extra, rather like reading poetry aloud (because isn’t the
meaning alreadythere on the printed page?). Evenif thatisasatisfactorywayof
2 Thenotionofmusicalworkspossessingsomekindof‘autonomy’istoucheduponinChapterNine
(UnderstandingTime).
20
Introduction
thinking of poetry – which critics like Stanley Fish would deny – it is not a
satisfactorywayofthinkingofaperformingartlikemusic.(Cook2013,1)
Cook’s invocation of Stanley Fish is apt; whilst Fish’s theory of ‘interpretive
communities’ and its accompanying theory of text readings as largely cultural
constructionsoffersawell-consideredcounter-weighttomorecategoricalthinking
(1976, 483–84), it is ultimately his approach to perception and meaning that
provesmost fruitful. Inhis explorationofinterpretativeclashesregardingMilton,
hereachesanopen-endedconclusion:
Inshort, theseare problemsthatapparentlycannotbesolved,atleast notbythe
methodstraditionallybroughttobearonthem. WhatIwould liketoargue isthat
they are not meant to be solved, but to be experienced (they signify), and that
consequently any procedure that attempts to determine which of a number of
readingsiscorrectwillnecessarilyfail.(1976,465)
Ultimately, Cook’s portrayal (2001) ofthe work as emergentin theact of
performance–asan‘interactionofautonomousagents’(2001,192)–servesasa
useful model for musical meaning. Scores, thoughtheycontribute signi?icantlyto
this process, will not hold a monopoly in the course ofthis study; the pieces of
music utilisedherearerepresentedas muchbytheselectedrecordingdetailedin
the primary resource list as they are by their notated forms. However, whilst
speci?icaspectsoftheserecordingswillattimes bereferencedinthecasestudies,
it ismoreoftenthatexcerptsfromthescorewillbeemployedasasupplementto
discussion. Rather than succumbing to the kind of binary that Korsyn warns
against, it is hoped that this use of notation – as representative of important
aspects of many performances – helps to allow these analyses to be adapted
beyondthespeci?icrecordingstheyrelatetohere.Byextension,thisuseofscores
can offer a degree ofclarity that might enable the focus ofthis thesis to remain
uponsubjectiveexperiencesofmusicaltimeratherthanthemoreintricatefacets
oftherelationshipbetweentextandperformance.Whilstitdoesnotfallwithinthe
remit of this thesis to provide a detailed discussion ofthe nature of meaning in
music, various kinds ofmeaning will be impliedor invokedat numerous points.
Thefocuswillnotbethespeci?icshapeofthatmeaning;interestinsteadliesinthe
ways in which aspects of the construction of pieces create particular temporal
21
Introduction
effects whenperformed, and the ways in whichthese perceptual features might
helptofacilitatemeaningfulexperiences.3
Althoughthis thesis drawsupon andis in?luencedbyavarietyofsources,
its theoretical underpinning canbe tracedto several authors whose approachto
similar subjects has provedparticularly useful. Several writers inparticular deal
withmusicaltimeinencouragingways. FirstandforemostisJonathanD.Kramer,
whose The Time of Music (1988) provides one of the most wide-ranging, and
comprehensive attempts to unpack the subject. In conjunction with numerous
articlesthataddressrelatedsubtopics (1973, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1985and2004),
thebookgoesalongwaytowards establishingapractical vocabularythatenables
functionaldiscussionofmusicalworks.BarbaraBarry’sMusicalTime:TheSenseof
Order(1990)hasalsoprovedhelpfulinthisregard;thoughreservationsmightbe
heldregardingits subjectiveperceptualassumptions anditsassertionofaesthetic
preferences, Barry’s written approach exhibits a directness and an intentional
avoidanceofjargonworthaspiringto.ThomasClifton’sMusicasHeard:AStudyin
Applied Phenomenology (1983) admirably addresses ?irst-principle dilemmas
whilstrefusingto beobstructedbythem, utilisingnumerous examples ofmusical
worksinordertoofferapragmaticdissectionofsubjectiveexperience.Inoutlining
hisstanceaccordingtothephenomenologicaltradition,heassertshispositionas‘a
way ofuttering meaningfulstatements whichareobjectiveinthesensethatthey
attempttodescribethemusicalobjectadequately,andsubjectiveinthesensethat
they issue from a subject to whom an object has some meaning’(1983, viii–ix).
Finally, Robert Adlington offers perceptive and incisive appraisals of attitudes
towards temporality in post-tonal music, skilfully highlighting limitations in a
variety of approaches (1997b and2003). Although his writing is predominantly
theory-centric, hisleaningis undoubtedly towardsanalysisandhisdiscussions of
metaphor, gesture, and motion prove pragmatic in their consideration of aural
3 Forfurtherreadingregardingmusicalmeaningandthetensionsdiscussedhere,seeCook(1990,
2001,and2013),Korsyn(1999),Almén(2003),Small(1998)andClarke(2005).
22
Introduction
effect.4 Additionally, in terms of the wider study of time, Freidel Weinert’s The
March of Time (2013) provides a fascinating detailed yet relatively accessible
historical survey of scienti?ic developments in temporal theory; its impact upon
thisthesiswillbediscussedinmoredetailinthecourseofChapterThree.
Morebroadly,EricClarke’swritinghasprovedinvaluableinitsembraceof
interdisciplinarity. His book Ways of Listening: An Ecological Approach to the
Perception of Musical Meaning (2005) goes some way towards constructing a
bridge betweenpsychological, musicological, andanalytical understandings, with
its discussions of speci?ic musical works grounded by the ways in which their
elementsmightbeperceived. Acceptingthe‘truismthat different peopleperceive
notionally the same event in different ways and on different occasions’ (2005,
194), Clarkesetsoutanecological approachto perception, promotingacommon
aural groundbetween individualswithout sacri?icing subjectivelistening: ‘Weall
havethepotentialtoheardifferentthingsinthesamemusic–butthefactwedon’t
(or at least not all the time) is an indication ofthe degree to whichwe share a
common environment, and experience common perceptual learning or
adaptation’(2005,191).
Clarke’sownattitudetowardsmusicalmeaning–assomethingthat differs
accordingtohow, andinwhatcircumstancesitisperceived–iscomplementedby
a number of hermeneutic ideas. One scholar who emerges on a number of
occasionsisLawrenceKramer,whosedeliberateavoidanceofstrictde?initionsfor
musical meaning does not prevent but rather facilitates wider discussions
concerning human values (1990, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009 and2010). With
regardtomorespeci?icaspectsofmusicalcommunication,ByronAlménpresentsa
compelling argument for notions ofmusical narrative that emerge in parallel to
literarytheoriesratherthandirectly fromthem(2008);hisworkfeaturesheavily
inChapterSeven.
4
It is encouraging that further studies into musical time are beginning to emerge.
Although their focus fallsmore upon aesthetic and cultural issues contemporaryto the
composers and musical works they discuss, Karol Berger (2007), Julian Johnson (2015)
and Benedict Taylor (2016) number among particularly engaging recent examples of
scholarship that seeks to emphasise the signiSicance of temporality in musicological
endeavour.
23
Introduction
MutualbeneUits
Many of the earlier works in this thesis have amassed a rich reception history,
somefrequentlyconsidered‘masterpieces’by‘genius’composers. Evenifaspects
ofthosehistories arereferencedhere, thefocus remainsupon theexperiences of
theworkstoday. Suchacclaimoftenseems to have the effect ofsteaming upthe
lens,sotospeak:anaudience’s‘view’oftheartworkisobscuredormanipulatedby
thelabelsattachedtoit. The‘genius’tagsometimesevenintroducesanunsettling
extra-autonomous element to artistic endeavour. At an extreme, Nicholas Cook
draws attentionto Heinrich Schenker’s assertion that ‘genius’composers do not
speak with a voice of their own but instead are used by ‘the superior force of
truth’(Cook1998,32).
While many would dispute the other-worldly intervention Schenker
describes, thenotionof‘masterpieces’persiststoday intheshapeof‘repertories’
or ‘canons’, ‘the imaginary museum of musical works’ as Lydia Goehr termedit
(1992).WilliamWeberrightlyattemptstochallengemodernpreconceptionsabout
the origins of these hierarchies, highlighting the formation of European
pedagogical and performance canons throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.Nevertheless,heconcedesthatitisthecomposersofthe‘Classicalstyle’
that are popularly considered as the foundation stones upon which today’s
repertoryisfounded(Weber1999,340–41). Cookpointsto theancientGreekand
Roman‘standardsofbeauty’thatinspiredthelabel:‘Thistermimpliedthatsimilar
standards had now been set in music, against which the production of all other
timesandplacesmustbemeasured’(Cook1998,31).
CertainlytheAustro-Germanicworksselectedherearelikelytobethought
of in terms ofthislineage. Consequently, it might beexpected that some kind of
statementregardingthecanonisintended;rather,thisthesisisdesignedsimplyto
underlinetwopositivesideeffectsofit.The?irstistheresultingfamiliaritythatan
audience may well have with several of the chosen pieces. The transformative
power of repeated hearings cannot be underestimated, even in the context of
inheritedpreconceptions. Indeed, part ofthe role of these analyses is to engage
with engrained expectations that listeners may have. The second is the way in
whichthis bringingtogether ofdiverse works hints atatranscendenceofperiod
24
Introduction
and era, a certain kind of ‘timelessness’. Each of the pieces selected here
demonstrates this paradoxical temporality, summarised eloquently by Edward
Saidinhisdissectionoflatestyle:
There is Sirst of all the artist’s connection to his or her own time, orhistorical
period, society and antecedents, how the aesthetic work, for all its irreducible
individuality, isnevertheless a part–or, paradoxically, nota part –of the era in
which it was produced. This is not simply a matter of sociological or political
synchronybutmore interestinglyhastodowithrhetoricalorformalstyle…There
isalsoanantitheticalrelationshipinthecase of artistswhoseworkchallengesthe
aestheticandsocialnormsoftheirerasandis,sotospeak,toolateforthetimes,in
thesenseofsupersedingortranscendingthem.(Said2008,299–300)
ApracticalapplicationofthisnotionisharnessedbyE.M. Forster,who–in
his Aspectsofthe Novel – attemptedto ‘exorcise’from academic endeavour ‘that
demonof chronology’, rejecting ahistorical view of literary analysis andinstead
considering great writers not within their own time periods, but all working
togetherinalarge,circularroom:
That is why, in the rather ramshackle course that lies ahead of us, we cannot
considerSictionbyperiods,we mustnotcontemplate the streamoftime.Another
imagebettersuitsourpowers:thatofallthenovelistswritingtheirnovelsatonce.
Theycome fromdifferentagesand ranks, theyhave different temperamentsand
aims, but they all hold pens in their hands, and are in the process of creation.
(Forster[1927]2005,31)
Whilestudies suchas Forster’shaveprovedformativeinthedevelopmentofthis
project, it shouldbeaddedthathisis not anapproachI wishto emulate. Forster
assumeshispositiontoilluminateintegralfacetsofthenovelinordertoadvocate
abroadertheoreticalapproachakinto that ofNew Criticism. Indeed,whilstmany
of the distinctions made by ‘New Critics’ between meaning, intention and
interpretation are worthattention, they carry no more weight than many ofthe
otherapproachesinvokedinthecourseofthisthesis.
The?iveselected works by livingcomposers present by comparison what
might typically be recognised as more ‘dif?icult’ music. Gaining some kind of
standardised, transferrable understanding proves tricky in the absence of many
conventional footholds suchas easily perceivableharmonic, melodic, andmetric
25
Introduction
hierarchies.Itisthesecontemporary piecesthattakecentre-stageas catalystsfor
discussionsofmusicaltime.Thecanonicworks,analysedinparallel,taketheshape
of recognisable lenses through which the new can be viewed and better
understood. However,thisisnotanexclusivelyone-wayprocess.A hoped-forside
effect isthat thenew might in-turnreinvigorate theold: theunfamiliarrendered
moreaccessible,thefamiliarcastinanewlight.Ausefulanalogymightbefoundin
LesMisérablesasVictorHugooutlinesachanceencounterbetweenthehumbleand
elderly priest Monseigneur Myriel and the newly crowned Emperor Napoleon
Bonaparte: ‘Seeing the old priest intently regarding him, he turned to him and
asked sharply: “Who is the gentleman who is staring at me?” “Sire,” replied
Monseigneur Myriel, “youare looking at a plain manandIamlookingatagreat
man.Eachofusmaybene?it”(Hugotrans.Denny1982,20).
Thishope–foramutuallybene?icialanalyticalecologyregardlessofsurface
style–iscentral tothisthesis, anditsapproachtothemusicitutilises.Eachwork
selectedherejusti?iesits placealongsideitsbedfellows onaccount ofwhat itcan
facilitate.Music,atitsmostsuccessful,seems to possessaremarkablecapacityto
actas acatalystformeaning–anabilityto pullinto focusforlistenersallmanner
of things to do with self, emotion, intellect, spirituality, and relationships.
Lawrence Kramer’s eloquent portrayal of music as a ‘dialogue between an
inevitably creative intelligence and an inevitably meaningful world’ seems
particularlyaptintheseterms(2007,29).
The pieces utilised here been selected precisely so that they might be
explored, examined,andinterrogatedinallmannerofways.Eachwaschosenwith
theconvictionthat itwould not only standup to testing but also emerge all the
richerforit.Thereisnodesirehereinprescribinghowanyofthismusicshouldbe
heard. Rather, alternative listening approaches are offered, allowing each
individualtobroadentheirownhearingofapiece.
Similarly,forreasonsthatwilloccupytheremainderofthisstudy,nobroad
theory regarding musical time will beoffered. Instead, I will argue that no such
de?initionscanbereachedregardingsomercurialasubject.Inthefaiththatmusic
ultimatelyseemsto possesstheabilitytoarticulatethingsthatwordscannot–not
least regardingourrelationshipwithtime– it will bethe?inal case-studypairing
(Adès and Sibelius) that will serve to underline the conclusion of this thesis
26
Introduction
throughitsengagementwithprofoundparadoxesofchangeandrecurrence,stasis
and?lux.Idonotwishto seethisapparentopen-endednessassomekindof‘sadly
unavoidable’situation,asBenedictTaylordescribesit(2016,288).Iamconvinced
that to engage with questions like those askedin the course of this thesis is to
become more receptive to one’s own musical experiences and, thus, to leave
oneself open to new ways oflistening andthe new kinds ofmeaning that might
accompanythem.Inthisspirit, all thisendeavourasksofitsreadersisanattitude
ofopennessinamannersimilarto thatoutlinedbyC.S. LewisinAnExperimentin
Criticism:
No poem will give upits secret to a readerwhoenters itregardingthe poetasa
potentialdeceiver,anddeterminednottobetakenin.Wemustriskbeingtakenin,
if we are to get anything. The best safeguard against bad literature is a full
experienceofgood;justasarealandaffectionateacquaintancewithhonestpeople
gives a better protection against rogues than a habitual distrust of everyone.
(Lewis1961,94)
27
Two
AlternativePaths
GeorgeBenjamin&WolfgangAmadeusMozart
Abouttime
The temporally-determined quality of music does not set it wholly aside from
otherart-forms.Whilstit is obviouslyaccompaniedbyallexplicitly performancebased arts, to claim thatotherwritten and visual genres differ drastically in this
respect is to underestimate the ways in which they are perceived. It could very
well bearguedthat theytoo areperformed, albeitinanabstractsense. They too
relyuponthepassageoftimefortheirrealisation,evenifcontroloverdurationlies
toagreaterextentinthehandsofaviewerorareader.Thelinearconstructionofa
novelrequirestimetopassforittoplayoutasitisread;thedurationofaviewing
of a painting may profoundly affect the impression it leaves. The entwining of
music and time is, of course, ?irst and foremost an consequence of the fact that
sound – the basic component of music – can only be comprehended within the
unfoldingtimeittakesforthatsoundtoemerge.However,Iwouldproposethatis
precisely this connection that can set the most profound musical experiences
aside. A surrender of temporal ‘control’ on the part of a listener can lead to a
heightened re?lective awareness of perceptual time. In other words, a musical
experiencecanmanipulatethe?lowoftimeforitslisteners,providingtheyallowit
to. RowanWilliamsisaptinhisinferencethat ifmusic ‘isthemostcontemplative
ofthearts,itisnotbecauseittakesusintothetimelessbutbecauseitobligesusto
rethinktime’(Williams1989,248,quotedinBegbie2000,29).
Itisausefulconstantwithintherichmusicalvarietyofthisstudythateach
chosenworkisnotableforitsabilityto drawlisteners–certainlythisone, atleast
–intothiskindofengagementwiththeirexperiencesoftime.Indeed,beyondmere
exploitation,thepiecesseemtoengineertime,structuringitinanaudiblemanner.
Thanksto their (largely)?ixedexpressionsasnotatedscores, andtheattempts of
most performances to realise (or ‘recreate’) these texts, time is in some sense
‘ordered’throughthechoreographedproductionofsound. The‘musicalforms’in
28
AlternativePaths
the title of this thesis refer to this concept of audible design andits capacity to
communicate, toactasaspringboardfor meaning beyondsimply thestructuring
of sound itself. Arnold Whittall suggests that ‘forms might be de?ined simply as
whatformshaveincommon,re?lectingthefactthatanorganisingimpulseisatthe
heartofanycompositionalenterprise’(Grove,2007).Thesamewouldoftenappear
to also be true at the receptive end of the continuum of creation and
interpretation; surely this same impulse lies at the centre of any listening
enterprise.
Whittallclearlynotesthesigni?icanceofthisimpulseinthebroadercontext
of musical reception: ‘meaning is implicated in form, yet not identical with
it’(2007). Itisagapbetweenconstructionandsigni?icancethat philosopherslike
Eduard Hanslick have argued is bridged by aesthetic ideals such as beauty and
purity. Aspects ofHanslick’s formalist approaches are, in some ways relevant to
this thesis, not least his proposal that music be de?ined as ‘tönend bewegte
Formen’: sonically moving forms (trans. Cohen 1957). Indeed, the emphasis he
places upon the organic, self-driven development of melodic material – the lifeforce ofmusic, as he asserts – is worthnoting. Exploring Hanslick’s conceptions,
Marc Lemaninfers that thesemoving structures ‘have a direct impact onhuman
physiology because they evoke corporeal resonances giving rise to
signi?ication’ (2008, 17). Perceivedformal dynamism will feature at points here,
withparticularfocus placed uponits contribution towards large-scale structural
procedureslikegrowthanddecay,andconvergenceanddivergence(ChaptersSix
andTeninparticular).
Narrativeimpulses
Attitudes to the role form plays in the location of meaning vary greatly. Adam
Ockelforddevelopsanaesthetictheoryofmusiconthegroundsofpalpableorder,
introducing the term ‘zygonic’ to denote patterns internal repetition and selfimitation within structures (2005, 5–6). Here, form itself might be taken to
promote meaningintrinsically, pleasure derivedfrom self-reference. By contrast,
LawrenceKrameracknowledgesthesigni?icanceofconciserepetitionandcyclical
29
AlternativePaths
structures within the context of popular music, but reverses Ockelford’s focus
when discussing Western classical music, highlighting the manner in which ‘the
force ofdeparture ordissolutioncannot beso neatly contained’. Inparticular, he
refusesto letdiscussionoftheaestheticvalueofmusicsupersedeitspracticaland
perceptualcapacities:
Classicalmusicconstantlyputitsclaimsofbeauty,desire,energy,clarity,andsoon
at risk in the currents of contingency and metamorphosis. This willingness to
engage with the passage of time from something like the inside gives the music
partofitsspecialcharacter.Classicalmusicallowsustograsppassingtimeasifit
were an objectorevena body. Time,whichasmutabilitydissolvesthesolidityof
ourlovesand beingsintoabstraction andmemory,becomesa source oftangible,
persistentpleasureandmeaning.(L.Kramer2007,38–39)
In placing these temporal factors at the centre of the perceptual and emotional
experience of music, Kramer highlights further a refreshingly pragmatic
conception of form: ‘One doesn’t listen for the forms, but through them. Form
arises as a projection of drama; the drama is not a paraphrase tacked onto the
form’ (2007, 38–39). The notion of drama is apt; instrumental music might
certainlybesaidtoconveyanarrative,evenifitdoesnotpossessthespeci?icityof
a literary drama. In spite of his reservations, Jean-Jacques Nattiez is quick to
acknowledge the ‘narrative impulse’ – a process which ‘operates when we hear
musicinamoreorlessspontaneouslynarrativemodeoflistening’:‘Onthelevelof
the strictly musical discourse, I recognise returns, expectations and resolutions,
butofwhat,Idonotknow.ThusIhaveawishtocompletethroughwordswhatthe
music does not say because it is not in its semiological nature to say it to
me’(Nattiez,1990,244–45).
Adapting Whittall’s impression of the act of composition, this arrival at
narrative structure could be taken as part of a broader ‘organising impulse’.
Barney Childs agrees: ‘Man traditionally searches to “make sense” out of
experience, and art provides one means he can choose to do this’ (1977, 195).
However,suchlanguagechoicesmightseemto underminethecreativeroutesthis
journeycanencompass.Totalkof‘organising’or‘ordering’maysuggestsomething
altogether more unimaginative, the implicationbeingof themusic possessingan
inherenthierarchicalsystem.Ofcourse, formalhierarchiesshouldnotnecessarily
30
AlternativePaths
beviewedin negativelight; onthe contrary, theyareoften crucial to gainingan
understanding of a perceptual narrative. But to suggest that these systems of
formalhierarchyaresingular–andthatinterpretationislittlemorethanajigsaw
puzzle–wouldbedamaging.Toequateitwiththeactofcomposing,listeningtoois
acreativeact.
Such varied perceptions and visualisations of an experience as
fundamentally universal as the passing of musical time throw open the
interpretative ?loodgates. Paul de Man eloquently outlines the problematic
temporalimplicationsforreadingsofliteraryform:
The idea of totality suggests closed formsthatstrive for ordered and consistent
systems and have an almost irresistible tendency to transform themselves into
objective structures. Yet, the temporal factor, so persistently forgotten, should
remind us that the form is never anything but a process on the way to its
completion.Thecompletedformneverexistsasaconcrete aspectoftheworkthat
could coincide with a sensorial or semantic dimension of the language. It is
constituted inthe mindof theinterpreterasthe workdisclosesitselfin response
to his questioning. But this dialogue between work and interpreter is endless.
(1983,31–32)
The sheer diversity of ways in which a single narrative can be read induces a
paradoxical interchange between subjective and objective, boundaries between
general and speci?ic irretrievably blurred. As Joseph Campbell says of hero
mythologies: ‘Where we had thought to travel outwards we shall come to the
centreofourownexistence;wherewehadthoughttobealone,weshallbewithall
theworld.’(2008, 18). C.S. Lewis, in turn, associates these narrative experiences
withareciprocalrelationshipbetweenthenaturalandthetranscendental:
Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of
individuality.Therearemassemotionswhichhealthewound;buttheydestroythe
privilege. In them our separate selves are pooled and we sink back into subindividuality. But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet
remain myself.Likethenightskyinthe Greekpoem,Iseewithamyriadeyes,but
itisstillIwhosee.(1961,140–41)
Largely freed from the constraints that language and visual elements might
impose, instrumental music already lies some distance along this path of
31
AlternativePaths
abstraction. Many pieces of music, even if they were composed with a speci?ic
subjectmatter,are–inbeingheard–allowedtoassumetheformofmorepersonal
expressionsthatmightneverthelessbeunitedwithbigger,‘universal’ideas.
Graspingtime
Lawrence Kramer’s suggestion that classical music allows passing time to be
‘grasped’ in the manner of a physical entity is indicative of a wider receptive
approachto musical form(2007, 39.) Beyond the obvious referenceto rhythmic
andmetricalaspectsofperformance,itwouldappeartoconsidermusicalworksas
stretchesoftimethatareinsomesensepreserved–or‘kept’–andreproduced(in,
nonetheless, endlessly variable forms) to express wordless narratives. An oftquoted passage in Richard II, ?inds William Shakespeare invoking this idea (5.5.
42–48):
Ha,ha!keeptime:howsoursweetmusicis,
Whentimeisbrokeandnoproportionkept!
Soisitinthemusicofmen'slives.
AndherehaveIthedaintinessofear
Tochequetimebrokeinadisorder'dstring;
Butfortheconcordofmystateandtime
Hadnotaneartohearmytruetimebroke.
With poetic concision, this passage references many of the conceptual obstacles
that face examination of musical time. Apparent dichotomies are invoked –
continuity and discontinuity, linearity and non-linearity, proportion and
disproportion, ‘true’ time and ‘broken’ time – but within a paradoxical
simultaneity. It is these kinds of distinctions that permeate Jonathan Kramer’s
approach;evenhisopeningquestion–‘Doesmusicexistintimeordoestimeexist
in music?’ (J. Kramer 1988, 5) – perhaps hints at the inevitable fallibilities and
limitationsofanysingularenquiry. Heseemswellawareofthis,andhefrequently
takes care to acknowledge both the inherent contradictions and ultimate
redundanciesofthedivisions(1988,58,forexample).
32
AlternativePaths
Indiscussingformal coherence, Theodor Adorno voices what heperceives
as a transformation of ‘crude unmediated space, time, and causality’ within the
context ofartworks from a distant contributor into ‘something other’: ‘Thus, for
example, there is no mistaking time as such in music, yet it is so remote from
empirical time that, when listening is concentrated, temporal events external to
themusicalcontinuumremainexternaltoitandindeedscarcelytouchit’.Adorno
seemsto make astriking temporal distinctionhere, asserting thatempirical time
infringesuponthismusicaltime‘onlybydintofitsheterogeneity,notbecausethey
?low together’(Adorno trans. Hullot-Kentor 1997, 137). Certainly, in assuming a
particular aesthetic perspective, many musicologists andanalysts might oftenbe
seen as implicitly advocating a particular view of musical time. In this way,
Nicholas Cook identi?ies a temporal distinction as lying at the foundations ofthe
oppositionbetweenwhathetermsstructuralistandrhetoricalconceptions:
Thestructuralistmodelisof anidealobjectthatisnotinherentlytemporalbut, in
performance, ispresented throughtime. Time is the medium through which the
music passes, rather in the manner of its steady progression across the screen
whenyouare playing arecording inSonicVisualiser.... Bycontrast, therhetorical
modelisoneinwhichtimeisadimensionof the musicalmaterial,sothat(asIput
it)themusicisnotintime, aswiththestructuralistmodelbutratheroftime.This
means that music isunderstood to be inherently temporal ... and equally that it
shapestemporalexperience,ratherinthemannerofamagneticSield.(2013,126)
Time is often conceived as comprising oppositional characteristics. Jonathan
Kramer describes themas ‘absolute’onthe one hand and‘musical’onthe other,
acknowledgingthepossibilityoftheformerasanrealityexternaltoexperiencebut
promoting the powers ofthe latter to ‘create, alter, distort, or evendestroy time
itself’(1988, 5).5 Nevertheless,hecallsuponthewritingofThomasCliftontohelp
dissectnotionsofobjectivetimeforthepurposesofhisenquiries:
Time is a relationship between people and the events they perceive. It is an
ordering principle of experience. Thus I am focusing on the time that exists
primarilywithin us. Yet evenwhat Icall‘absolute’ time (a term Clifton rejects) is
little more than a social convention agreed to for practical reasons. (J. Kramer
1988,5)
5
Further discussion of the dualities that Jonathan Kramer’s can be found in Chapter Seven
(ExperiencingTime).
33
AlternativePaths
ThoughCliftonmay reject anautocratic readingoftime, heisneverthelesshappy
toworkwithabinaryinterpretation,notingadifferencebetween‘thetimeapiece
takes’ as opposed to ‘the time a piece presents or evokes’ (Clifton 1983, 81).
Kramer’s apparent evasion of concrete conclusions regarding a concept of
‘absolutetime’ proves a concern for Jeremy Begbie, who highlights a number of
inconsistencies: despite his discussions of music inits relation to absolute time,
Kramer holds that it is ‘primarily subjective’, yet he confuses things further by
concludingthat‘timedoesnotexistoutsideofexperience’andthatabsolutetimeis
‘objective time, thetime that is sharedby most people in a given society andby
physical process’. Begbiepoints to ImmanuelKant’s conception of temporality as
theformthat governscognitionanddeterminestheorganisingofsensedataasa
helpfullyclear-cutexpressionofthissubjectivism(Begbie2000,32–33).
Losingtime
In his book Shaping Time, David Epstein’s summation of ‘dual modes’ of time
outlines something perhaps more akin to a power struggle in the mind of a
perceiver:
One is essentially clocklike, a measurement mode that mechanically delineates
equal periods. The other mode relies upon experience for its demarcation –
experience that is particular and unique. Time, seen in the context of such
experience,isanythingbutmechanicalorexternal;quitetheopposite,itisintegral
tothe experience itself. Asa consequence, itis often measured, ordelineated, in
termsofthatexperience.(1995,7)
Thisapparentmistrustofclocktime–andthewiderdesiretoavoidanysurrender
to a notion of objective temporality – is nothing new. In his eleventh book of
Confessions, written in the ?inal years of the Fourth Century, St Augustine’s
ponderingoftheBiblicalcreationnarrativeleadstoadetailedconsiderationofthe
experience of time. He questions how we comprehend the passing of time,
exploring duration, whether it is determined by motion, and the ever-changing
regularity of how it is sensed (trans. Chadwick 1991, 221–245). Perhaps most
signi?icantly, he analyses his own consideration of time, concluding that time
34
AlternativePaths
cannot be appraisedfrom ‘outside’; a questioning of time is itself subject to the
passing of time. Dissecting past and future, he observes how dif?icult it is to
determineexactlywhatconstitutesthe‘present’andhowtoquantify it, providing
aneloquentsummaryofitsparadoxicalnature(trans.Chadwick1991,241):
And yet the times we measure are not those which do not yet exist, nor those
which alreadyhavenoexistence, northosewhichextendovernointervaloftime,
northosewhichreachnoconclusions.Sothe timeswemeasure arenotfuturenor
pastnorpresentnorthoseinprocessof passingaway. Yetwemeasure periodsof
time.(1991,241)
Morerecentattemptstoemphasisethesubjectiveovertheobjectivemightwellbe
considered withinthe fallout of what Michael Rofe describes as ‘one of themost
signi?icant paradigm shifts in modern physics’: the departure from the classical
mechanics premise of time as de?initively measurable regardless of subject
movement (referred to as Newtonian time, in Rofe’s reading) following the
subsequently veri?ied assertions ofAlbert Einstein’s Generaland Special theories
of relativity that space and time are inextricably entwined not only with one
anotherbutalsowithwhatoccurswithinthem. Thedirectimplicationfortheories
oftimewerethat itcouldno longerbeconsideredanabsolute:numerousstudies
show it to alter within the context of extremes in motion and proportion (Rofe
2014,346–7).
With even an objectiveconceptionof time throwninto doubt, it becomes
easytoviewmuchartandscholarshipconcernedwithtimeasareaction–positive
ornegative–tothefutilityofattemptstoquantifytemporalexperience.T.S.Eliot’s
FourQuartetsprovidesaparticularlyiconiccaseinpoint,theexpositiontoits?irst
poem, Burnt Norton, bearing striking resemblances to St Augustine’s musings
(Eliot1944,13):
Timepresentandtimepast
Arebothperhapspresentintimefuture
Andtimefuturecontainedintimepast.
Ifalltimeiseternallypresent
Alltimeisunredeemable.
Whatmighthavebeenisanabstraction
Remainingaperpetualpossibility
35
AlternativePaths
Onlyinaworldofspeculation.
Whatmighthavebeenandwhathasbeen
Pointtooneend,whichisalwayspresent.
When dealing with such mercurial subject matter, it is unsurprising that the
process of music analysis has conventionally shied away from the Einsteinian
conceptionoftime.AsRofeobserves,‘theobjectofanalysisismoreoftenthescore,
rather thanthelistener’s perception ofthat score, andtheunits usedto describe
patterns in music are most often the (Newtonianly stable) bar, tactus or
second’(2014,347).
Itwouldcertainlyseemthat, withinWesternartmusic,thescorehasbeen
upheld– orclung onto – as representative ofahandful ofconstants intheseaof
variablesthatsurroundtheperformanceofawork,apractical blueprint forwhat
might insome sense be seen as an attempted‘repeat’of a temporal experience.
Thisdesireto simulatewidertemporalrepetitionwouldseemto bere?lectedina
moreacutemannerwhentakingintoaccountaspectsofcomposedrepetition:the
controlledrecurrence–orquasi-recurrence–offeatureswithinapiece.Theeffect
of this contained recycling process upon our perception of time becomes
seemingly all the more complex the more it is scrutinised. Repetition or
consistency of even the vaguest kind has a bearing on perceived continuity,
forming a central component of musical syntax. Even discontinuous elements,
when implemented in an extreme or extended manner, are tantamount to
continuitiesoftheirown.6
Cyclesandspirals
Nevertheless,thepresenceofrepetitionwithinapiecedoesnotactasanindicator
ofwhetherthat music mightbe thought ofas linear or non-linearinterms ofthe
temporalityperceived.ThedistinctionJonathanKramerestablishesbetweenthese
two extremes, although linked less convincingly with his conception of the two
6
Further discussion of tensions between continuous and discontinuous elements, and
their implication for broader conceptions of form, can be found in Chapter Five
(PerceivingTime).
36
AlternativePaths
hemispheresofthebrain,offersafascinatingworkablecontinuum.7 MartinClayton
certainlyinterpretsitthisway,concurringthat‘musiccanexploiteitherorbothof
thesecomplexes, andthat anypieceofmusic exhibitsbothlinear andnon-linear
features’(2000,24).Kramerassertsthatthesequalitiesarenotmutuallyexclusive:
‘Mostmusicexhibitssomekindofmixoftemporalities, attimesnebulous, attimes
contradictory, at times changing, at times elusive’ (1988, 58). These linear and
non-linearfeatures, hewouldseemto besuggesting, areseparatedoutwithinhis
discussionsforthepurposeofclarity, facets ofacomplex, plural processisolated
anddissectedinturn.
Approachingthesubject ofmusical time largelythroughthelensofIndian
classical music, Clayton suggests that this systematic treatment ofthe topic may
wellbeendemictoparticularstrandsofmusicology:
IfthereisadifferencebetweenmetreinIndianandWesternmusicitmaylienotso
much inone beingcyclicaland the othernot, butinthe factthatIndian theorists
havenotbeentroubledbytheapparentparadoxofmusicaltimeasbothlinearand
recurrent,whereasWesterntheoristshavebeeninclinedtoplaydownthesenseof
recurrence, letalone cyclicity, in favour of a more singular conception of linear
development.(2000,19)
Capturingmultiplicityofthiskindinwithinthecontextofspeci?icmusicalanalyses
proves dif?icult. Tim Howell attempts just this (2001), mapping Kramer’s
distinctiononto themusicofSibeliustoillustratethewaysinwhichthetimescale
the composer employs initiates contention between motion and stasis, between
progression and stagnation. Howell infers two closely-derived categories of
musical time: theonwardmotionof‘linearity’, andthe repetition-basedstasis of
‘circularity’.(2001,40–1.)
Articulatingmusicaltimeintheseterms, whileprovingfunctional, displays
aninevitable relianceupon successfulmetaphoricalexpression. Nevertheless, the
necessity of this support network has been increasingly acknowledged. Robert
Adlington, points to the work of linguists like George Lakoff and Mark Johnson
(1980) as having beeninstrumental in this shift in perspective: ‘Contrary to the
7
Martin Clayton refers to, but does not elaborate fully upon, doubtsexpressed by Ian
Cross in a private correspondence regarding Kramer’s linking of linear and non-linear
timetotheleftandrighthemispheresofthebrainrespectively(Clayton2001,24).
37
AlternativePaths
traditional understanding of metaphor as an essentially poetic or ?igurative
linguistic device, these theorists have stressed the centrality of metaphor to
cognition and experience. Metaphor, inother words, rather thanbeing subjective
and indeterminately connected to its object, is often necessary and
unavoidable’ (Adlington 2003, 301). The subject of metaphor with particular
relation to time, space and motion, will emerge as a topic of discussion in the
courseofthisthesis,inparticularinChapterThree(DirectingTime).
The‘circularity’descriptionHowellemploys–‘cyclicity’inClayton’sreading
– appeals more directly to perceptual experience than any kind of temporal
actuality. AsClaytonclari?ieswithinhisconsiderationofmetricalimplications,‘no
musiciscyclical inanyempiricallyveri?iablesense.Thecycleisaspatial-temporal
metaphor used in order to clarify, mediate, and communicate subjectivemusical
experience’(2000,18–19).Nevertheless,inspiteofthisprocessofabstraction,the
imagery that different theoretical approaches produce can bear striking
similarities.Claytoncites two theoreticalattempts to address dissatisfaction with
cyclicityasamodelformetricalperception.The?irstisVictorZuckerkandlwho,in
acknowledgingtheimpossibilityofanytrue‘goingback’intime,conjuresa more
linearimage:‘Since[…] everynew beatdoes bringus to a new pointintime, the
process can be better understood and visualised as a wave which also best
corresponds to our sensationofmetre.’Subhadra Chaudhary in her dissectionof
Indian tāla, meanwhile, does not dismiss the visual signi?icance of cyclicity
altogether, butis quicktoemphasise –like Zuckerkandl–themannerinwhichit
differs fromcircularity: ‘Althoughbothhaveroundshapesthecircleisformedby
returning to starting point whereas the cycle is formed by moving forward
graduallyinaspiral.’(Clayton,2000:20–21).
While Claytonalso draws parallels herewith Jeffery Pressing who, within
his ownmetricalstudy, resorts –likeChaudhary – to a graphicalillustrationofa
helix,itisthetheoreticalnotionofaspiralthatisre?lectedinHowell’ssummaryof
temporal synthesis in the music of Sibelius. Uniting his Kramer-derived
conceptions of contrasting linear and circular time within one perceptual
phenomenon, Howell aptly refers to ‘spiralling’: ‘where events appear to be
repetitiveandcircularbutwherethatveryrepetitiondrivesthemusiconwardand
givesitasenseofmomentum.’(2000,90).
38
AlternativePaths
Though speci?ics and semantics may vary, each of these examples
showcasesa conscious decisionto surmisetheperceivedtimeofparticular kinds
of music in terms of gestural metaphors, each an attempt to convey through
straightforwardmeansaprocessofmulti-layeredcomplexity.Theyreach,itwould
seem, thesameconclusionasEdwardT. Cone: ‘Ifmusicisalanguageat all, itisa
language of gesture: of direct actions.... Instrumental utterance, lacking intrinsic
verbalcontent,goessofarastoconstitutewhatmightbecalledamediumofpure
symbolic gesture.’ (1974, 164). Here, a theoretical connection between practical
soundperceptionandabstractinterpretationisforged.EricClarkeunderlinesthe
rolethat implications ofmovement play inthisjourney:‘The sense of motion or
self-motion draws a listener into anengagement with the musical materials in a
particularly dynamic manner... andindoingsoconstitutes avitalpart ofmusical
meaning.’(2005,89).
Zuckerkandl, Chaudhary, Howell and Pressing each reconcile features of
stasis within the context of a dynamic structure: an attempt to emphasise a
relationship of duality and co-existence rather than one of dichotomy and
opposition.EachexamplealsoreinforcesJonathanKramer’sviewsonthepotential
simultaneity of temporal modes. As with Kramer’s own work, for the sake of
clarity, a detailed exploration of apparently plural musical time will entail an
unpacking process, individual components examined in turn (1988, 58). By
adoptingamoresystematicapproachtorelativelyimmediateandobviousaspects
ofauralconstruction, increasinglyprofoundunderlyingtemporalprocessesmight
beconsidered,buildingabridgebetweenphysicalactuality(sound)andexpressive
abstraction(meaningfulinterpretation).Inasimilarmanner,thisthesiswillsetout
tosuggestwaysinwhichtemporalinterpretationsofmusical workscanbelinked
backtofundamental,universalexperiencesoftime,inboththeshort-andthelongterm: issues of beginning and ending, of growth and decay, of convergence and
divergence,ofclimaxandsubsidence,ofexpectationanddenial.
39
AlternativePaths
Temporaldualities
This approach can be illustrated through an initial case-study pairing of two
pieces:thesecondmovementofWolfgangAmadeusMozart’s(1756–1791)Sonata
forkeyboardandviolininEminor,K.304(1778),andGeorgeBenjamin’s(b.1960)
piece for viola duo Viola, Viola composed in 1997. In spite of their stylistic and
formal disparity, both works nevertheless hintatbroader, relatedconceptions of
timeanditssigni?icance.Theyalsoexhibiton-goingdialogues betweenlinearand
non-linearmodes oftime, asadualisticcoexistenceis revealedinthecontrasting
waysinwhichtheirtemporaljourneyscanbeheard.Thisbriefanalysiswillbegin
withanemphasisuponnon-linearcharacteristics;morestatic,structuraldivisions
will beoutlinedshowing theways in whichthe durations of thesepiecescanbe
segmentedaccordingtoaformalplan.Theseoverviewswill graduallygivewayto
more explicitly linear conceptions, taking into account more dynamic musical
processes that could be heard in order that the validity of the more clear-cut
architectural readings might be queried. Finally, further questions will be raised
regardingspeci?icpassagesineachpiecethat presenta‘time’thatis notsoeasily
de?ined.Here, considerationsofthetheformatlargewillgivewaytoexamination
of two speci?ic parallel passages in both works; these analytical perspectives –
long-term andshort-term – will beutilisedtovaryingextents in thecasestudies
thatfollowduringthecourseofthethesis.
Mozart’s sonata was written early in the summer of 1778 while the
composer was staying inParis. Comprising just two movements rather thanthe
typical three, it represents one of his experiments with formal compression; a
numberofother sonatas composedonthesametripfollow acomparableformat
(Bromberger, 2007). Whilst the opening Allegro assumes a conventional ?irstmovement role, theTempo di Menuetto, as its non-committal title might suggest,
represents something of a hybrid. Although it assimilates aspects of minuet and
trio traditions throughits dance-likemetre andits bookending structure, itsalso
seems to sit at odds with these in?luences via its subdued, slow-movement
character.MaintainingtheE-minortonicinitsoutersections,thisissombre,highly
expressivemusic, exhibitingawistful, perhapseven despondentmelancholyrare
inMozart’soutput.
40
AlternativePaths
Formalsegment
A1
Tonality
Barnumbers(total)
Duration
Eminor
1–32
0’46
B
Eminor/Gmajor
32–69
0’59
A2
Eminor
0’35
C
Emajor
70–93
94–127dividedintotworepeated
A3
Eminor
sections(68barsintotal)
128–148
Coda
Eminor
149–171
1’58
0’20
0’37
Fig.2.1:Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,tableshowing
circularstructure
Architecturally speaking, the Tempo di Menuetto displays a circularity of
form: two related outer sections inE-minor enclose a contrasting E-major ‘trio’
episode, withthe musical material distributedaccordingly (seeFigure2.1).8 The
effect is one of self-contained stasis. From the long-term revisitations of the
‘minuet’ material, to the short-term antecedent-consequent relationships found
withinthe melodic andharmonic material, the movement hints at an overriding
senseofcircularity. A distanceistravelledbutlevelsofrepetitionensurethatthe
destinationbearsaeasilyperceivableresemblancetothepointofdeparture.
Nevertheless,aspectsofthisoverviewbetraysomethingmorecomplexthan
mererecurrence;a‘pure’cycleisavoidedthroughalackofdirectrepetition.Inthis
sense, Mozart evades the structural norms of a minuet with the wider opening
section(A1–B–A2inFigure2.1).Insteadoftwodirectlyrepeatedpassages,heopts
for a through-composed developing dialogue between the two instruments. The
roles oftheviolinandpianoarenotlimitedbyanunchanginghierarchyofsoloist
andaccompanist, nor are they presented as constant equals; rather, a give-andtakerelationshipissetinmotionwitheachoffering differentperspectives onthe
thematic material. The return to the A-material after C also differs from the
conventional model in which an unaltered restatement of the opening ‘minuet’
might be expected (often literally, with scores utilising a da capo instruction).
Instead, onlyabriefglimpseoftheinitial material is permitted;the movementis
instead curtailed by a looping coda, a consequent-oriented passage that might
appear disproportionately long relative to the short reprise (A3) it supersedes.
Durationstaken from recording listed in primary resource list(Rachel Podger, violin;
GaryCooper.ChannelClassics:24607).
8
41
AlternativePaths
Fig.2.2:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,bars1–16(piano)
Whilecyclicalqualitiesarestillmaintained,theeffectupontheoverallformofthe
movementisoneofdynamism:thesmall-scaleonwarddevelopmentsofthematic
materialareunderpinnedbywhatmightbethoughtofasaternaryforminwhich
itsepisodesdiminishinduration,ifA1-B-A2istakenasalargeropeningsection.
Consideringthedevelopmentalprocessesinthecourseofthis formaddsa
further dimensionto the linear interpretation. Although the melodic material of
theA-sectionsisconstructedinacontained,antecedent-consequentmanner,atno
point does it appear in exactly the same form twice (see Figure 2.2for the ?irst
appearance ofthe theme). The themes are passed between instruments, varied,
transposed, shortened, extended, and juxtaposed withdifferent countermelodies
andaccompaniments. Evenatthe outsetof A3 (frombar 128), the returnofthe
primary theme is found in thepiano part anoctave lower thanits original form.
Whenthe violin re-joins (from bar 135) it assumes this lower octave, the piano
rising to thehigher octaveto present the melody inunisonwithits counterpart,
notablythe?irst instanceofafullmelodicunisonheldthroughtotheculmination
ofthesubject.
Thismelodyoffundamentally circulardesignisrendereddynamicwithits
components subjectedto spiralling developments, variations and changes. Never
repeatedentirelyinitsoriginalform,theeffectofthesethematicchangesmightbe
heard as one ofgradual fragmentation, of an entity that slowly loses track ofits
ownshape.Inthissense,themelodyappearsunabletofullyaccessitsownhistory,
42
AlternativePaths
Fig.2.3:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,bars70–81
even for a very brief period of time as might usually be expected within a
conventional Classical form through the employment of a recapitulation. Most
notableinthis respectare moments atwhichmultipleexpressions ofthe melody
aredisplaced, theinstruments divertingfromoneanother(seeFigure2.3).These
failed returns are temporally signi?icant, their palpable melodic disintegration
suggesting some kind ofirreversible linear process that is taking place within a
broadercyclicalstructure.
Cast in one nine-minute stretch of music, George Benjamin’s Viola, Viola
doesnotexplicitlysubscribetoanykindofconventionalstructuraltemplateinthe
same manner as Mozart. Nevertheless, a three-part form is audibly delineated
throughtwomomentsofsilencethatactasstructuralmarkers(thedurationofbar
47 and within bar 153), facilitating both upward gear-shifts in both tempo and
tension.Indeed,eachsectionprovesaudiblydistinctincharacter.However,aswith
Mozart’ssonatamovement,suchevidentchangesfailtodispelabroaderfeelingof
stasis.Althougheachsectionexhibitsnovelfeatures,theparallel charactersofthe
outersegmentscontributeto whatcouldbeinterpretedasaternaryformofsorts
43
AlternativePaths
Formalsegment
Barnumbers
Recordedduration
1)Vivace♪.=60-66
1–46
1’25
(Silentformaldivision)
47
0’05
2)Pochiss.Piùmosso♪.=66-69
48–157
6’28
(Silentformaldivision)
Firstquarterof158
0’03
3)Pocopiùmosso♪.=76-80
Secondquarterof158–175
2’00
Fig.2.4:Benjamin,Viola,Viola,three-partstructuralplan
Fig.2.5:Viola,Viola,bars1–19(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)
(seeFigure 2.4): two stretches of unstable, jittery volatility ?lanking a prolonged
outburstofstrident,ferociousviolence(albeitonewithacentrallull).9
TheparallelswithrhetoricalaspectsofClassicalstructuredonotendthere.
As Philip Rupprecht observes in his harmony-centric dissection of the work, its
opening(seeFigure2.5)comprisesthesuccessive‘collisions’of‘fourevents’which
hehighlightsinthescore: a‘tuningA♮’(sustainedbetweenthe two violas inbars
1–12); fortissimo C-major ‘triads’ (appearing in bars 3, 8 and 9); ponticello
‘scurrying’(establishedasacontinuoussequencebetweenthetwoinstrumentsin
bars 10–13); and a harrowing ‘drone’ comprising a low E♭ with C♯ harmonics
(sustained between the two instruments in bars 14–19) (Rupprecht 2005, 31).
Holdingtruetothisexpositorymannerofpresentation,itistheseeventsthatserve
Durationstaken fromrecordinglisted inprimaryresource list(Tabea Zimmerman and
AntoineTamestit,violas.Nimbus:NI5713.).
9
44
AlternativePaths
to generate much of the piece. The motives audibly pervade the form, and are
subjecttonumerouschangesanddevelopments.Indeed,theopeningofthesecond
episode(frombar48)almostseemstoemulatethatofasonata-formdevelopment
section, the opening ‘tuning A♮’ drone recommencing proceedings but now
transposed to a D♮ and juxtaposed with harmonics ?irst on E♮ and then on C♮.
Despitethemany changes thatoccur, thecontinuityofthepieceis underlinedby
therecurrence ofRupprecht’s four motivic features withinthe closing section of
the work: sharp chordal punctuations (from bar 158), scurrying passages (from
bar163,briefglimpsesofdrone-likesustainedharmonics(frombar166).
Whenadoptingaperspectivethatfocusesonrecurringcontentinthisway,
itwouldcertainlyseemthatViola,Viola–throughanapparentrecyclingprocess–
ends upback where it started. Ofcourse, as prominentas the features described
mightappearfor alistener,thisperceivedcircularityisthe product ofaselective
interpretation. As with Mozart’s sonata movement, there are two contrasting
impressionsatworkhere:onearchitecturalandblock-like,theothercharacterised
byonwardchange. Movingbeyondastructuraloverview to takeintoaccountthe
moredetailed–andinmanycasesmoresubtle–changesthattakeplacewithinthe
piece reveals these linear characteristics, allowing suchacategorical view ofthe
worktobechallenged.
Disintegration
Inhis explorationofharmonyandtextureinViola,Viola, Rupprecht highlightsits
composer’s aesthetic to generate interest in musical content, but ultimately to
emphasise movement rather than stasis. He refers astutely to Benjamin’s own
commentsregardingacruxinthemusicofbothOlivierMessiaenandElliottCarter.
Carter’s ‘dry’ sonic environment does not preclude an ‘extraordinary power of
continuity andof complex developments’; meanwhile, Messiaen’s music ‘remains
generallystaticinitsmosaic-likeritual’inspiteoftheextraordinary‘individuality’
ofthe chordsit comprises.Theimplicationseemsto bethatBenjamin’s ideallies
somewhere between the ‘being’ of Messiaen and the ‘happening’ of Carter
(Rupprecht2005,32).
45
AlternativePaths
ForRupprecht,thisstrived-forequilibriumisre?lectedinthetonallanguage
of Viola, Viola, with its middle-register instrumentation acting as the perfect
vehicleforaworkthatisnotrestrictedbythetexturalhierarchiesofconventional
bass-centric harmonicstructures. Poweroftenstemsinsteadfromthecore ofthe
texture with seemingly gravitational consequences for the surrounding material,
controlnowexertedviawhathedescribesasa‘mirror-symmetricinversionabout
a central pitchaxis’ (2005, 28–30). Inaural terms, theconsequence might bean
audiblepulltowardsapointwithintheharmonictextureofagivenpassagerather
than a guiding, or often overriding, tonal rooting below it – a kind of audible
epicentre.
An example that Rupprecht uses to argue this is the ?irst instance of the
‘scurrying’ motif in the second viola part (bars 10–12, see Figure 2.5), and the
mannerinwhichthesecondhalfofeachbarrevolvesaroundD♮asacentralpitch
sandwichedby semitones, perfect?ifths andminorsixths aboveandbelow(2005,
32). Themotifis also,notably,constructedfromasequenceoftritonedyads that,
asRupprechtobserves,provesigni?icantforthelong-termplayingoutofthework.
Rather than leaning towards consonance, Benjamin’s tritones prove generative
throughanongoingdissonance:‘Its“willto resolve”isnotexactlyabandoned, but
largelyevaded:tritonesstillsound‘dissonant’,buttheyprogresstoothertritones.
[…] Parallel motion by tritone dominates the voice leading’ (2005, 32–33). This
unconventionalvarietyoftonalmotionfacilitatesabroader dynamismacrossthe
piece, withtritoneshapespresentindifferentformsattheclimacticculminations
ofboththe?irst(chordsbindingfourtritonedyads,bars33–46)andsecondformal
segments(abroaderrecurring‘pedal’ofC♮andF♯spanningbars 138–57)(2005,
29–34).TheformalchangesofViola,Violaareinthiswaydemarcatedbyrecurring
expressions of a ‘vertical’ harmonic relationship; a broadly static – or perhaps
‘non-linear’–featurepervadesalinearconstruction.
However,perhapsthereisamoreaurallydistinguishableexpressionofthis
duality.Thefour‘events’thatRupprechtoutlinesattheoutsetmightbeunderlined
lessonaccountoftheirharmonicandtimbralcharacters,andmoreintermsofthe
perceived temporal continuum they establish. Indeed, their collision-style effect
might be a consequence of their extreme contrast. Viewing these motifs as
symbolicofapolaritybetweenlinearandnon-linearfeaturesallowsthecontentof
46
AlternativePaths
theworktobequanti?iedinamoreaccessiblemannerintermsofbothsoundand
score.The‘events’fallalongaspectrumbetweensustained,horizontal(continuous
time, typi?iedby the opening ‘tuning A♮’), ormomentary, vertical (discontinuous
time: typi?ied by the sudden, fortissimo ‘triads’) gestures.10 The ‘scurrying’ and
‘drone’ motifs exist as hybrids that lean towards the vertical and horizontal
extremes respectively, with their prolonged patterns punctuated by rearticulations.Followingthemusicalnarrativeaccordingtoapolarity–andoftena
duality – between these notions of time and space reveals a dynamic musical
journey;thisonwardmotion is enhancedbythe slight increase in tempo marked
foreachofthethreeepisodes. Figure2.6offersanaccount oftheauralevents in
thecourseoftheworkwithemphasisplaceduponthecontrastbetweenhorizontal
andverticalgestures.
To combine this continuous drama with thestructural overview explored
earlier, it is possible to view Viola, Viola as a gradual process made accessible
throughitstriptychform.Asseen,theexpositorysegmentofthework(bars1–46)
starklyjuxtaposeshorizontal andverticalgestures that graduallybeginto merge;
bars 36–46illustratethisblendingasshort,angularchordsseemtobecomemore
and more sustained through interactions with ‘scurrying’ ?igures. The
development-style centre seems to present an alternate perspective on the
preceding‘exposition’,withthemusicat?irstrobbedofverticalpunctuations,only
horizontalmaterialretained.Evenwheninterruptivestaccatooutburstsre-emerge
from bar 56, they do so in rapidly succeeding pairs, contributing to the audibly
goal-directedbuildintensionthatthepassageconveys. Thesepairedpunctuations
operate conjunction with the scurrying ?igures as the ?irst climax is reached;
vertical andhorizontal expressions are united within a teleological design. With
thescurryingpassagesnowoutliningrepeatedsequencesofincreasinglengthand
ever-ascending pitch, the paired outbursts eventually revert to a singular form.
TheysignalabreakoutintothepeakoftheclimaxasalowD♮droneseepsoutfrom
thescurrying,coupledat?irstwithaC♯andthenwithaG♯twooctavesabove,the
tritone character of the augmented eleventh sustaining tension at a supposedly
catharticstructuraljuncture(seeFigure2.7).
10 In this instance, it should be
clariSied thatthis concept of ‘vertical time’ differsfrom
JonathanKramer’suseofthatphrase(1988,375);heretheemphasisisonthemomentary
natureofthechordsratherthanonbroaderlinearrelationshipsofcauseandeffect.
47
AlternativePaths
Bars
1–46
47
48–55
Events
1)Vivace
♪.=60-66
Silentbar
2)Pochiss.Piùmosso
♪.=66-69
56–94
AscenttoUirstclimax
95–98
Firstclimax
99–102
‘Timeless’lull
102–14
Firstclimaxresumes
114–22
Lull
122–38 Secondascenttoclimax
138–57
SecondClimax
158
Silencedottedcrotchet
158–75
3)Pocopiùmosso
♪.=76-80
Implications
Contrasting motifs are introduced, with particular
emphasis on a contrast between ‘horizontal’ (drones)
and ‘vertical’ (brief chords) gestures, and slurred
(‘scurrying’, in Rupprecht’sdescription) Sigurationsthat
seem to offer a compromise between the two. The
different ideas merge andcombine, propelled towardsa
climaxthatisabruptlycutshort.
A sudden absence of sound and audible rhythmic Slow
creates a build in tension and also allows a clear
structuraldivision.
The piece appears to restart with a different sonority.
However, this time only the ‘horizontal’ material is
utilised. The sustained quiet dynamic serves to further
heightentension.
‘Vertical’ material is gradually reintroduced, but
disruptive chords now occur largely in immediately
succeedingpairs,creatingamoredynamiccharacter.
Frantic ascending Sigurations lead to a climax with
fortissimochordspunctuatingsustaineddrones.
Astrangeparallelpassageseepsgraduallyintothe midst
of the climax, with the drones graduallyrobbed of tone
and volume. For a short period of time they are
transformedintoharmonics,renderingthemtransparent
andalmostchorale-like.
Promptedbyareturntotheheldfortissimonotesbythe
Sirstviola,itisasiftheclimaxattemptstoresumeinspite
of the interruption; but the sojourn has taken its toll,
semi-stallingthepassageasifitwerenowtakingplacein
slow-motion, movement in pitch and gesture now
notablyhindered.
Motion is gradually slowed further as passages appear
fragmented, momentum lagging. Harmonics return in a
chorale-like formationbrieSlyoncemore,whilstpizzicato
isnotablyintroducedfortheSirsttime,seeminglyderived
as inverted punctuations of the of the horizontal
scurrying passages they are in dialogue; the scurrying
passagesascend,whilstthepizzicatoSiguresdescend.
Motion is returned through the triplet Sigures as they
ascendagain,dynamicsbuilding.Fromb.132momentum
is truly regained with loud dynamics and barrelling
Sigures.
Thesecondclimaxtakestheshape ofahorizontalwallof
sound, a desperate attempt tosustain as much sonority
as possible, demonstrated at an extreme in the case of
trillingbetweendouble-stoppedchords.
The second climax cuts itself brutally short with a
fortissimochord. The shortsilencethatfollowsservesto
create a structural break akin to the earlier break
between‘exposition’and‘development’.
The predominantly pizzicato conclusion ensures that –
although related material is utilised –focus has shifted
from ‘horizontal’ gestures to ‘vertical’ ones. Ratherthan
ascending, the pitch material now largely descends.
Passages are brief and fragmented. Although dynamics
aremostlyquiet,evenfortissimooutbursts(includingthe
closing chords) appear muted by comparison with the
ferocityofthedevelopmentsection.
Fig.2.6:Viola,Viola,listofeventswithemphasisonhorizontalandverticalgestures
48
AlternativePaths
Fig.2.7:Viola,Viola,Uirstclimax,bars92–97(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)
Within the lull that precedes the similarly tritone-capped second climax
(bars138–157),the?irstinstancesofpizzicatointhepieceoccur:threedescending
arpeggiated phrases of increasing length(bars 119–125), anapparent counterto
the ascending phrases that have dominated the central section. Although this
occurswithinthecontextofapredominantlyhorizontal passage, itpre?iguresthe
?inal, pizzicato-dominatedsegment ofthe piece (bars 158–75). Here, themusicis
seemingly robbedof much of its previous horizontal material, withmost bowed
materialnow dispensedwith.Themusic is, forthe?irsttime,riddledwithwhatto
an audience might well interpret as silent pauses. The plucked techniques
represent–bytheiracoustic nature–akindofverticality, aninabilitytosustain.
Nevertheless,althoughtheexecutionmaydiffer,thematerialofthisthirdsegment
isfarfromnovel:thedescendingfragmentsthatpervadetheepisodeseemtooffer
an inverted perspective upon the ascending material that catalysed the earlier
climaxes; beyond simply assuming a post-climactic status, the material seems
deliberately anti-climactic. While abrupt vertical chords dominate, attempts to
reignitehorizontal eventsareoftenstuntedorlimitedtothe textural background
via pianissimomarkings. Whenthe scurrying material returns, theemphasis falls
instead uponthe pizzicato phrases that punctuate it (for example, see bar 167).
Meanwhile,severalnodsto thebygonedrones aremadethroughstrikingplucked
49
AlternativePaths
accents in the secondviola, that are followed by the rapidly-fading afterglow of
bowedfalseharmonicsinthe?irstviola(forexample,seethestartofbar170).
Thesefeaturescontributeto agradual shiftinfocusfromthehorizontalto
thevertical, fromdevelopmenttodisintegration, fromalinear,goal-directedform,
to a non-linear, comparatively goalless one. After the sustained, horizontal
materialhas facilitatedthe climaxes ofthecentral ‘development’, acrystallisation
occursatthe start ofthe closing segment; the suddenpredominance of plucking
rather bowed techniques creates a change in perspective, with emphasis now
falling on vertical attack rather than horizontal prolongation. These acoustic
propertiesimbueanoverallsensationofdecay,ofmaterialexpiringovertime.The
notionofgrowthanddecay is also underlinedinmetaphorical termsthroughthe
repeateduseofascendinggesturestoimbueasenseofgrowththroughthecentral
section,atacticthatisinvertedthroughthedescending?iguresofthe?inalportion.
As Rupprecht observes, this downward trend is re?lected in the long-term tonal
scheme of the segment – the ‘acoustic chorale’, in his description – with a
descending series of tritone dyads (2005, 35–37); a frustrated conclusion is
provided by the emphatically repeated ?inal chord, its central pitch axis of B♭
juxtaposedwithsurrounding E♭s, with theadditionofC♮, C♯, D♮ andA♮ (seebar
175).
Timelessness
So far this case-studyhas beenarticulatedaccordingto dualities oflinearity and
circularity. These temporalities have been mapped, through gestural and
metaphorical means, onto wider experiences of time. Benjaminand Mozarthave
implicitlyexploredthe ideaofdisintegrationordecay throughtheir treatment of
material across forms; nevertheless, by rendering fundamental aspects of these
processes audible throughgradualchanges andmetaphoricalgestures, bothoffer
blueprints for meaningful interpretations that utilise these ideas. Reconsidering
Mozart’s Tempo di Menuetto in terms of the gradual disintegration of its basic
thematic material, Mozart realigns his content within the powerful coda, as if
intent on evoking a kind of control over the conclusion – or perhaps the
50
AlternativePaths
Fig.2.8:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,‘C’theme,
bars94–102(piano)
destruction–ofthepiece. ThereactiontodecayinViola,Violaislessassertive, as
its?inalpassagesstruggleinvaintoregainthesustained,accumulatingqualitiesit
possessedatitsoutset.Itsculminationtakestheshapeofaresignation:notonalor
motivicresolutionfound,littleinthewayofcatharsisachieved.
Ofcourse, manyaspectsofmusical experience cannot beaccountedfor in
terms of a contrast between linearity andnon-linearity. Articulating events that
mightbeperceivedto occurbeyond thisduality is inevitablygoingto provemuch
moredif?icult.Withemphasisnow shiftingfromlong-termstructureto theshortterm effect of particular musical gestures, focus now falls upon two parallel
passages at theheartsoftheseworks;bothpointto atimealtogether apart from
the continuous notions discussed, adding another dimension to the manner in
which this music can be comprehended. The passage in question in Mozart’s
Tempo di Menuetto is more structurally clear-cut, comprising the entirety ofthe
central section ‘C’ (bars 94–127). The peculiar nature of the episode is
compounded by the unprecedented switch to the tonic major, with the piano
simply slipping suddenly andunambiguously into thenew mode atbar 94. What
ensues feels, in one sense, a world away from the melancholy of the opening
‘minuet’.Therhythmic motionwithinthesepatternsappearslessfrantic, withthe
initial subject consisting primarily of successive crotchets. The melody, too, is
much simpler: a pulsating ?igure that falls gradually in steps but rises
predominantly in leaps of ?ifths or sixths (seeFigure 2.8). The harmonic motion
presentedis explicit andstable, withatriadicaccompanimentilluminatingclearly
atonal paththatfavours conventionalshifts–usually utilising a circle of?ifths –
ratherthanthechromaticslipsthatriddlethe‘minuet’.
However, the section still bears relationto its surroundings. The melodic
emphasisonacontrastbetweenstepwiseandleapingintervalsisstillreminiscent
oftheprimary‘minuet’subject.Moreover,acasecouldevenbemadefortherising
51
AlternativePaths
Fig.2.9:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,‘A’(bars1–4)and
‘B’(bars94–101)sectionsubjectswithpitchgesturerelationshipindicated
and falling gestures of the ‘C’ section theme representing a ‘slow-motion’
interpretationofthe‘A’subject(seeFigure2.9).Inadditiontothis,abroadersense
of metre and construction is retained with the phrase structure of the ‘minuet’
replicated here: even-numbered measure divisions emphasise a continuing
symmetryofantecedent-consequentrelationships. Theonlyexceptionto this is a
moment of repose, four in-tempo beats of silence within the second repeated
sectionbeforethe?inalphraseisplayed(bars118–19). In‘C’, thesamenotionsof
cyclicity established in the earlier music are still present – arguably more so on
accountoftheuseofliteralrepeatmarks.Butthe‘slow-motion’melodicstructure,
therhythmic andtonalstabilityandtheuseofpausescontributetoasensationof
detachment. It is as ifthepassage presents an alternatemusicalpath, running in
paralleltotheouter‘minuets’,inwhichthesamesetofmaterialsistakeninavery
different direction. The relevance of the episode to its surroundings is
demonstratedaboveallintheeffortlessmannerinwhichasottovocereturntothe
‘minuet’ is initiated, a simple ascending chromatic scale of quavers in the righthandofthepiano(bar127b)allowinganalmostunnoticedslipbacktoE-minoras
ifthemusichadsimplyregainedconsciousnesswithinitsoriginalspace.
Thepassage inquestioninViola, Viola is much smaller, comprising just a
few bars (bars 99–102). Here, at the ?irst point of climax in the central formal
segment, the fortissimo peak suddenly drops away to reveal a sparse, fragile
texture of harmonics moving disparately, almost in the style of a fragmented
chorale (seeFigure 2.10). Withthe strikingclimactic gestures havingnow faded,
theeffectisnotsomuchafree-fallasalossoftonalandrhythmicgravity.Boththe
52
AlternativePaths
Figure2.10:Viola,Viola,bars98–105(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)
D♮pedalandtheC♯andG♯juxtapositionsthathadcharacterisedthe?inalascentto
theclimax vanish;the harmonics that remainavoidthese notes, sounding G♮, F♯,
E♭, A♮, andC♮. Only at theclose of bar 101, with the emergence ofanA♭, is the
previously overridingtritone relationship enharmonically referred to oncemore.
This promptseems to triggera resurgence ofthe climactic material, but onethat
onlyachievespartialsuccess.Therhythmicmotionthathadaccumulatedgradually
from the start of the section has now been lost and efforts to reignite it prove
stilted. Chordaloutburstsarelonganddrawnout andwiththe‘scurrying’?igures
con?inedtopredominantlychromaticmovementswithinarestrictedpitch-space.
Forallitsinterruptivequalities,theharmonicsarefarfromunrelatedtothe
development of the piece, seemingly derived from the horizontal gestures (the
‘tuning A♮’ and the ‘drone’) at the outset. Yet here they emerge, unbound and
undirected, robbing the ?irst major peak of the work of both momentum and
impact. As with Mozart’s sonata movement, an alternative musical reality is
presented,materialhithertoutilisedaspartofadynamic, goal-directedformnow
brie?ly revealed in a static, detached fashion. The glimpse of this apparently
parallel piece proves unsettling for the singular narrative ofViola, Viola, stalling
theclimaxandinitiating, inthe long-term, a 19-barlullthat is onlyendedbythe
startofanascenttowardsasecondpeak.
53
AlternativePaths
Thesecentral passagesinthe Tempo di Menuetto and inViola,Viola prove
paradoxical. Both give the effectthat they inhabit a time that lies beyond that of
theirpieces,somehoweludingthetensionsoflinearityandcyclicitythatdominate.
Nevertheless,theseepisodesremainas muchapartofthe‘practical’timeoftheir
piecesas everythingelseinthem: theyrepresentanequallyquanti?iableduration
withinthecontextofaperformance,andoccupyanunremarkableamountofspace
withinthesingulardirectionofthenotatedscore. Itwouldnotbeaccurateto say
that they appear wholly ‘non-linear’. Whilst they evade the linearity of the
immediate, foreground musical narrative, they still possess their own linear
temporal?low–theyarenotstatic.
Here, it is appropriate to return to Jonathan Kramer, who makes a
particularly useful distinction within his discussion of what he terms ‘vertical
time’, a ‘present extended well beyond normal temporal horizons’ that
nevertheless does not ‘destroy the temporal continuum’ (1988, 375–97). He
distinguishes between timethat is ‘slowed’or ‘stopped’ (anacute, often restless,
awareness of time passing) and time that is ‘frozen’ in an ‘eternal present’:
timelessness.KramerconcurswithCliftonthatstaticmusicdoesnotleadmerelyto
aperceivedabsenceoftime.Rather,asheoutlines,‘theavoidanceofmotionleads
toaspecialkindoftime’:
Theterm‘timelessness’doesnot, despiteitsetymology,implythattime hasceased
toexist, butratherthatordinarytime has become frozen in an eternalnow… The
extended presentcanexist. Whenit does,onlyone kind oftime issupended while
anotherkind, that we may call (paradoxically) the time of timelessness, replaces it
(Kramer1988,377–78).
Perhapsitisthisideathatcomesclosesttoarticulatingwhatmightbeexperienced
at these crux points in Tempo di Menuetto and in Viola, Viola. Whilst Kramer’s
concernisthebroadereffectof‘non-teleological’music,hereMozartandBenjamin
induce these sensations within the context of teleological pieces. Rather than
simply bringing the primary (hitherto, only) temporal narrative to a point of
standstill, both composers break off from it entirely for a brief period, its time
continuedinstead withinthecontext ofasecondary narrative. As problematic as
articulating it may prove, an experience of timelessness is offered within the
context ofa dynamic artwork. It is aconcept that will recurin theanalyses that
54
AlternativePaths
follow. Indeed, the ?irst port of call in the next case-study (Chapter Four:
Perception and Perspective) will be a description that would seem particularly
pertinent to this case-study, that of ‘released time ?lowing’. However, ?irst it is
necessaryto expandfurtheruponthetheoretical frameworkforthisdiscussionof
temporality.
55
Three
DirectingTime
Attempting to de?ine experiences of time in language might be seen as either a
persistently fruitless task or one of limitless reward. Even a shared experience
might be describedin very different ways by different individuals; their already
unique perspectives might well divergefurther from oneanother whenthey are
expressedthroughwords. By thesametoken, ourownexperiencesoftimemight
often be subject to change; we might repeat fundamentally the same event at a
later date only to ?ind that the temporal sensation it produces is markedly
different.Justasreaders maydistinguishtheirownunderstandingofthe‘time’of
thecase-studypiecesfromthe way they aredescribed inthisthesis, Imightalso
return to them and?indthat theway Iperceiveaspectsofthe performances has
changed. Hopesforclear articulationoftemporal experiences arefurtherclouded
bythefactthattheyaredescribed‘aftertheevent’;writersareseparatedfromthe
duration they wish to account for by a further elapsed duration. In this way,
impressionsoftimerelyuponmemory–itselfsubjecttotemporaldistortions–for
theirarticulation.Meanwhile, anyattempt toarticulateanexperienceoftimeasit
happens(orimmediatelyfollowingit)islikelyto profoundlyaffecttheexperience
itself through the heightened analytical awareness it would require. Of course,
these various levels of ambiguity only serve to make our relationship with time
seemallthemorefascinating.
This chapter will begin by outlining ways in which time is commonly
addressed, examining in particular the role of metaphor in this process and
proposals fromanumber ofscholars – principallyDedre Gentner(2001)–as to
the ways in which metaphorical concepts might emerge. Focussing upon the
aspects of these descriptions that emphasise space, motion and change, the
discussionwillcontinuebyreviewingofsomeofthetheoretical relationshipsthat
underpinthis network oflinguisticideas, withthework ofIanHinckfuss (1975),
RobertAdlington(1997a,1997band2003)andJ.M.E.McTaggart(1993)featuring
prominently.Thiswillleadintoaclosingexplorationofthemovement–or?low–
of time; numerous claims will be surveyed regarding questions of temporal
56
DirectingTime
direction, linearity, and asymmetry, and the perspectives that we, as subjects,
might have upon these phenomena; here emphasis will fall upon the work of
Friedel Weinert (2013), Eric Clarke (2005) and P.J. Zwart (1976). Much of the
discoursepresentedhere, particularlyearly on, isdeliberately detached fromthe
musicalfocusofthisthesis.Itisintendedthatthissynthesisofapproachestowards
time from a number of disciplines might help begin to construct a broad
theoreticalframeworkwithinwhichtheensuingcasestudiesmightsit.
Clutchingatmetaphors
The intention of achieving true precision in addressing time is often misplaced.
Whilst relativist approaches may have revolutionised strategies for dealing with
time, itscontributionto any attempttodeUine it has beensurprisingly limited. As
P.J.Zwartasserts,itisoftenonlyincircumstancesinvolvingextremesofspeedand
distancethatanEinsteinianapproachcomesintoitsown:
In fact the new relativistic time is nothing but the old common time with a
relativisticcorrectionaddedtoitwhereandwhennecessary.Thisisshownclearly
by the fact that Einstein’s famous analysis was notan analysis of the concept of
time, butonlyan analysisofthe processof measuring time. In physicstime isnot
deSined atall, oratthe mostonly as that quantitywhich ismeasured byclocks.
(Zwart1976,9–10)
Here,theinterestofconventionalphysicsliespredominantlyinquantitiesoftime.
Zwartarguesthatthesubstanceofthesedurationsisamatterbeyonditsremit:‘In
factitevencannotgiveade?initionoftimeallbyitself, forsuchade?initionwould
haveto beprecededbyaphilosophical analysis inwhichamongother thingsthe
uses and meaning(s) of the common sense concept of time would be
examined’(1976,10).
Friedel Weinert–inhis helpfully open-mindedsurvey ofthe development
of different strands of temporal theory – offers a more inclusive perspective; he
concedes that, whilst Einstein’s theory of Special relativity is best consideredan
‘extensionofclassicalmechanics’, itnevertheless‘hadarevolutionaryeffectonthe
classicalnotionoftimeinthesamewayinwhichtheGeneral theoryhadeffecton
57
DirectingTime
thenotionofspace’(2013, 64). Consequently, Weinert’s broader outlook proves
less compartmentalised by ?ield, with temporal measurement considered a
‘ubiquitous phenomenon, whichtouches on all the central issues involvedinthe
discussions ofthe nature oftime’ (2013, 86). Of course, reframing everything in
interdisciplinary terms does not make describing time any easier. IanHinckfuss
aptly observes that the task of referring to space andtime is one that we seem
intent on assigning ourselves; he suggests that many problems arise from
limitations inlanguage, raisingtheideathatthey areinfact ‘pseudo-problemsto
be resolved by using a reformed language more appropriate in describing this
world’(Hinckfuss1975,1).
Most everyday language choicesregardingtimerely uponmetaphor. Time
issaidto‘ebband?low’, it‘?lies’, it‘expands’,occasionallyiteven‘stops’. Although
suchdescriptionsmayseemtofallshortofanykindofquanti?iableprecision,they
act as far more than functional stopgaps. Instead, they attend to issues of
perception, outlining important aspects of subjective experience. Indeed,
numerous scholars in recent decades have argued that these parallels are
embedded far deeper within cognitive processes, revealing metaphor to be, ?irst
andforemost, a matter ofconcept. George LakoffandMark Johnson’s Metaphors
We Live By (1980) has proven particularly in?luential in this regard.
Reconsiderations of what constitutesmetaphor havepromptedLakoff to suggest
subsequentlythatbroaderalterationstothelexiconofthesubject:whilstlinguistic
devices might be referred to more speci?ically as ‘metaphorical expressions’, the
term ‘metaphor’ in fact constitutes ‘cross-domain mapping in the conceptual
system’:
The generalisations governing poetic metaphorical expressions are not in
language, butinthought. […]Inshort,the locusofmetaphorisnotinlanguage at
all, butinthe waywe conceptualise one mentaldomainintermsof another. The
general theory of metaphor is given by characterising such cross-domain
mappings.Andintheprocess,everydayabstractconceptsliketime,states,change,
causation, and purpose also turn out to be metaphorical. The result is that
metaphor…isabsolutelycentraltoordinarynaturallanguagesemantics,andthat
thestudyofliterarymetaphorisanextensionof the studyof everydaymetaphor.
(Lakoff1993,203)
58
DirectingTime
JannaSaslawarguesthattherootsofthismappingprocessmayevenbebiological,
asserting that it stems from recurring patterns of ‘kinesthetic’ experience
groundedprimarilyinthehumanbody(Saslaw1996,217–18).
This pervasive character of metaphor is re?lected in philosophical
discoursesregardingthenatureoftime.Here,metaphorscantakevariousshapes,
withtimeactingasbotharesource(to ‘haveplenty’, orto‘runout’,oftime)anda
container (to act ‘within’a period oftime) (Gentner, Imai and Boroditsky 2002,
560). However, most common temporal metaphors rely upon an image of
movementofsomekind, or arelativelackofit.Motionis thetheme,whetherthe
agency in these descriptions is ascribed to time (‘time passes’) or to people (‘to
pass time’). Dedre Gentner identi?ies these descriptions – the ‘time-moving’ and
‘ego-moving’ metaphors – as the two distinct time-space metaphoric systems,
noting ‘an orderly and systematic correspondence between the domains of time
and space in language’ (Gentner 2001, 203). These linguistic links have been
explored extensively by scholars including David Bennett (1975), Elizabeth
Traugott(1978), and ManfredBierwisch(1996). PaticularlyintriguingisHerbert
Clarke’s exploration of space-time metaphors in English language acquisition
(1973),inwhichhearguesthatchildrenlearnhowtoapplyrelevanttermstotheir
prior knowledge and experiences, with spatial expressions later extended to
describetemporalphenomena:
The main evidence for this thesis is the strong correspondence between the
properties of the spatial terms and the properties of man's innate perceptual
apparatus, and between English spatial and temporal expressions. The
correspondenceissostrong,Iwouldargue,thatitsimplycouldnotbecoincidental
anditthereforeneedsexplanation.Time,forexample,isnotjustexpressedwithan
occasionalspatialsimile, butratheritisbasedon athoroughlysystematicspatial
metaphor,suggestingacompletecognitivesystemthatspaceandtimeexpressions
haveincommon.(Clarke1973,62)
Casasanto, Fotakopoulouand Boroditsky(2010)argue in favourofthis mapping
from familiar to less familiar concepts throughtheir experimental results. They
?indthatspaceandtimeareasymmetricallyrelatedintheminds ofchildren, with
their subjects able to ‘ignore irrelevant temporal information when making
judgments about space’, but incapable ofmaintaining suchseparationwhen it is
59
DirectingTime
timethatisbeingjudged;itisapatternthatseemstobemirroredinthecognitive
processingofadults(2010,403).
Gentner refusestotakeforgrantedthat thesemappingproceduresarethe
soleprovider ofspatio-temporal metaphor. Herlineofenquiryintothe linguistic
linkingofspace andtimealsotakes into account thein?luenceoflong-developed
idioms, entertaining the possibility that many phrases may be inherited rather
than intuited. To evaluate this, she suggests three other cognitive roles that
linguistic space-time mappings might play. Least plausible, she ?inds, is the
possibility that theuseofparallel metaphors for space andtime is derived from
comparabledirect similaritiesinphrasestructures –whatsheterms ‘locallexical
relations’– rather than any systematic mapping relevant to the actual concepts
thatlie behindthese phrases. This idea is echoed in thesecond, altogether more
likelysuggestionof‘cognitivearcheology’:thatpeoplemaydefertoalinkbetween
spaceandtimethat existsinthehistoryoflanguagewithoutanycontinuingneed
to connect the two withinthe context of temporal reasoning. A third alternative
Gentner presents is‘structuralparallelism’, in whichconceptual systemsofspace
and time have been constructed entirely separately from one another, but
similarities between the two independent cognitive structures allow for
comparisonstobedrawnthroughlanguage(2001,205–06).
Gentner’s evaluation of these further possibilities makes her ultimate
preferenceforsystem-mapping–inwhichourconceptionsoftimearedrawnfrom
our more readily articulated notions of space – all the more convincing (2001,
220): ‘An initial alignment between common relational structures invites the
mapping of further inferences from the more systematic domain to the less
systematic domain. Thus, candidate inferences are projected from the highly
structureddomainofspacetothemoreephemeraldomainoftime.’Shealsopoints
to the ways in which these mapping systems are represented in functional and
expressiveaspectsofordinarylife,citinggraphs, clocks,timelines,drawingsand–
appropriately–musicalnotation(2001,205).
60
DirectingTime
Time,spaceandchange
As Gentner’s work demonstrates, the cognitivewebofparallels andassociations
thatlinkspaceandtimeiscomplexandnoteasilydeciphered.Evenifthelinguistic
productsofthislink canbebrokendownintotwoprimarytypes ofmotion-based
metaphor (ego-movingandtime-moving), comprehending fully thepsychological
processes that leads to them proves impossible. Thetheoretical interdependence
of space and time has been compounded in the course of the twentiethcentury
through numerous theories – predominantly stemming from Einstein and
Minkowski–thathavenecessitatedthecombinationofthetwo:spaceandtimeare
frequently treatedas spacetime, ‘a unitary entity that decomposes into different
spatialandtemporalintervalsfordifferentreferenceframes’(Dainton2010,314).
John Earman (1970) offers a particularly astute navigation of some of the
philosophicalquestions that arisewhen examining the intertwining of space and
time,outliningthelogicalimplicationsofconsideringspace-timeasaunit.
Distinctions can be made between the ways we treat space and time.
Hinckfuss observes that often the language we use to address each can quickly
becomeincompatible.Thattimecanbesaidto‘?low’whilstspacecannotisjustone
of a number of notions that allows separations to be made. Indeed, itis motionbasedconceptionsoftimethatcreatethebiggestrifts,withthetemporalplacingof
‘now’or ‘present’differingin anumberofsenses from the spatial placing ‘here’;
thepotentialassociationsthatthe‘present’canbearwithmovementdistinguishes
it altogetherfrom asupposedlyunchanging, categoricallocation(Hinckfuss 1975,
63–83). Anthony Quinton, meanwhile, draws attention to an apparently unique
quality of time through a series of logical conjectures involving dreams and
potential multi-temporal myths, concluding that we can conceive of things in
distinctspacesbutnotindistincttimes, ourexperiencesbeingcon?inedtoasingle
temporal series. Furthermore, he asserts that it is possible to conceive of an
experience that is non-spatial, but impossible to conceive of a non-temporal
experience(1993,203–20).
Ofcourse, as withtheseexamples, manyexceptionsto thelinkingofspace
and time occur within theoretical realms. Hinckfuss issues repeated reminders
that ?inding time andspaceto possess exclusiveproperties does not necessarily
61
DirectingTime
equate to a fundamental difference between the two; rather it only indicates a
difference in semantics (1975, 82). For reasons of function, it is perhaps best to
acceptafundamentalrelationshipbetweenspaceandtime,notleastwithregardto
music. Whilstitismetaphorical conceptionsofmotionthatservetoseparatetime
from space, it is physical motion that unites them. The three – time, space and
motion– arecommonlytakenfor grantedas forming a web of interdependence:
the perception of one typically requires the perception of all three. Music itself
comprisesformsofmotion:the movements of performers uponinstruments, the
kinetic nature of travelling sound particles, the biological and neurological
impulses that allow sound to be received and comprehended. David Epstein
deployssuchfundamentalideas fullyandwithoutapology, describingmotionnot
just as ‘the quintessential property of time’ but also ‘the essence of life itself’:
‘Motionisbasically understoodby usingtimeasitsindex.[…]Thereverseofthat
correlationisequallytrue:timeisonlyexperienced,andthusunderstood, through
motion’(1995,8).
Robert Adlington (1997a, 1997b and 2003) calls Epstein’s thesis into
question, expressing concerns regarding the logical contradictions that might
plague such assumptions. Both scholars have distinctmotives; it is verymuch in
Epstein’s interestto acceptsuchviewsoftime andmotiongiventhethrustofhis
work, which largely revolves around proportional relations in metre and speed
acrosstonal pieces largely composedinthe eighteenth andnineteenth centuries.
Adlington’s interest, meanwhile, lies primarily in addressing the ways in which
such frameworks of motion-based description do not adequately serve the best
interestsofmanytypesofmusic,inparticularpost-tonalworks,manyofwhichare
often written off as ‘static’. Crucially, though, his concerns stretch further,
encompassing the potentially damaging impact that ‘hardened’ concepts of time
mighthaveuponpeople’s lives.Forthepurposesofhisargument, andinorderto
evaluateaspectsoftheseeffectsofimposedtemporalparameters,Adlingtontreats
timeas‘asocialconstructionfordealingwithchange’(2003,298–300).
Change–asafundamental expressionofmotion–has lainat thecentreof
discourse regarding temporality for thousands of years; for Aristotle, time and
change possess what Weinert surmises as a reciprocal relationship: ‘Without
change, there can be no recognition of time; and without time, there can be no
62
DirectingTime
measurementofchange’(2013, 8–10). Indeed,Aristotle’squanti?icationofchange
through conceptions of ‘before’ and ‘after’ bears great relevance to McTaggart’s
starting point in his in?luential ‘The Unreality of Time’ (McTaggart 1993). His
argument for this ‘unreality’restson a distinction betweentwo ways ofviewing
time:oneisuntensed(the‘Bseries’),relyingon?ixedpointsinanabstractedtime
that lie earlier or later than one another. The other is tensed (the ‘A series’),
utilising subject positioning to organise events according to past, present and
future within thecontext ofa ‘moving now’.11 Change, McTaggart asserts, relies
uponthe A series; characteristics ofanevent canonly change by virtue of their
context within the on-going shift from future, to present, to past. Whilst the B
seriesremainsabstracted,itnonethelessreliesuponthetensedtemporalityofthe
A series, giventhatearlier-laterrelationshipsrequiretemporalpassage. Thus,the
B series cannot exist without the A-series. As one event cannot simultaneously
possess the characteristics ofpast, present andfuture, the realityofthe A series
leadstoanunavoidablecontradiction–bothseriesmustberejected.Onthefaceof
it,McTaggart’sconclusionmightprovesomewhatstartling:
Nothing isreallypresent, past, or future. Nothing isreallyearlierorlaterthan
anything else or temporally simultaneous with it. Nothing really changes. And
nothing isreallyin time. Wheneverwe perceiveanything in time–whichisthe
only way in which, in ourpresent experience, we do perceive things –we are
perceivingitmoreorlessasitreallyisnot.(1993,34)
Whilst McTaggart’s ‘proof’ of the unrealityof time has loomed large in temporal
philosophyeversince,itschallengesunderpinningmuchsubsequentdiscussion,it
has only served to open the debate yet wider rather than to narrow it. More
broadly, it hassatMcTaggart alongsidemanyotherswho chooseto view time as
fundamentallyidealised,thatistosayaproductofthehumanmind;McTaggartin
factsitswithinatraditionthatincludesKantandAugustinebeforehim,asWeinert
observes(2013,97–98).
11 To put it another way, the ‘A-series’ is a series of positions (containers for events)
runningfromthepast,throughthepresent,andintothefuture–itislargelyreSlectiveofa
‘time passing’ perspective; the ‘B-series’,meanwhile,assumesa ‘passing time’ approach,
organising positionsbyvirtueofwhentheyoccurrelativetootherpositions.Asuggested
C-seriesoffersanextra-temporalinterpretationofperceivedorder,thoughcruciallynotof
changeortime.
63
DirectingTime
Weinert’s description of McTaggart’s ‘proof’ as ‘verbal summersaults’
proves ?itting (2013, 98), not least when taking into account subsequent writers
who have helpfullyreframedhisargumentwithinacontextofseeking to address
and qualify time. D.H. Mellor’s ‘The Unreality of Tense’ (1993) does just this,
evaluating the ways in which change and variation might be articulated whilst
allowinghis focustoremainasmuchontensedanduntenseddescriptors. Arthur
Prior, meanwhile,skilfullydraws attentiontotheconceptsweattachtonotionsof
change, event and process, and how these ideas can often be misattributed in
discussion (Prior, 1993). Also intriguing is Sydney Shoemaker’s compelling
argumentforthehypotheticalbutnonethelessintriguingpossibilityofintervalsin
time that couldbe perceivedwithout thesupposedly essential markerof change
(Shoemaker,1993).
Insearchofdirection
Paul Horwich (1987) takes McTaggart’s work to particularly intriguing ends.
Sidestepping a preoccupation with perceiving change itself, his focus lies in the
three statesoftheA-series:past,presentandfuture. Whilst Epsteinholds change
to bethequintessential propertyoftime, Horwichsuggeststhatitmight bemore
speci?icallyde?inedas‘thedifferencebetweenthepastandthefuture’,onaccount
ofthetwo temporaldirectionsbeing‘fundamentallyunalike’.Itisinthisrespect–
of temporal ‘movement’ being possible in one direction but not the other – that
time is judged to be asymmetrical. To an even greater degree than McTaggart,
Horwich rejects a ‘moving now’ view of time, but in doing so establishes an
especiallyinsightfulaccountsofthewayinwhichsuchaconceptionisformedand
therolesitplaysinthewaystimeisthoughttoplayout.Heattributesthesenseof
time passing or ?lowing to causes phenomenological (the psychological
constructionofacontinuumbetweenrecollectionandanticipation)andlinguistic
(descriptionsoftheplacingofeventsalongthatcontinuum).Referringtothework
ofAdolfGrünbaum(1973),heproposesthatthenoun‘now’acquiresthestatusof
‘asingleentitywhosevaryinglocationsareinstantsoftime’.Hisexplorationofthe
asymmetries oftimegivesriseto a numberofwaysofapproachingthelong-held
64
DirectingTime
notion of time possessing a ‘direction’, including the ‘tree model of reality’, in
whichhistory represents a ?ixed pathand the future aproliferation of potential
branches;andfatalism,inwhichacausalapproachtotimeseesthe?ixednatureof
historical events contributing to a future paththat is also ?ixedby consequence
(Horwich1987,15–36).
This view of temporality as a ‘cause-effect relationship of events’ has
contributedto theon-goingconsiderationofthe topologyoftime, reinforcingthe
suggestion that time might be thought ofas moving inalinear fashion(Weinert
2013, 26–30). A directional view of time continues to prove of both use and
intereststoscholarsacrossanumberof?ieldsinspiteoftheoriesthatcontradictit.
Zwart comprehensively concludes that the direction of time is ‘non-existant’,
contenttothinkofitassimply‘asuccessionofeventsandofstates’: ‘Theopinion
thattime,beinga?low, musthaveadirectionisjustas incorrect aswouldbethe
opinionthatastreamofwordsmusthaveadirection’(1976,103–05).
This remarkofZwart’sis particularly telling. Inthesamesensethatmany
linguistic constructions can appear to us as possessing some kind of ‘direction’,
perhapsasimilarprocessisfrequentlyundertakenwithtime. Timeitselfmaynot
possess a linear character, but subjective experience seems to project such a
qualityontoitwithsurprisingregularity.Regardlessoftherealityofphysicaltime,
spatio-temporal metaphors of motion continue to provide a widely understood
and highly transferrable framework for discussion. Though the more speci?ic
mechanics of theories may vary, there is consistent imagery to be noted across
manymajortheories oftime. Thecontrastbetweenego-movingandtime-moving
metaphorsthatGentnerpresents(2001,203–05)issimplyareframingofwhatshe
summarisesasa‘front/back’interpretationofthetimeline:
Inthe ego-moving system, the future isnormallyconceivedof as infront and the
pastasbehind.Inthetime-movingsystem,thereverseistrue:timemovesfromthe
futuretothepast,sothatpast(earlier)eventsareinfrontandfuture(later)events
arebehind.
Such an approach bears much in common with Smart’s ‘river of time’
analogy(1949)–tobe discussedinmore depthinChapterFour–butisperhaps
morebroadlyre?lectiveofawidertrendofcontraststhatdatesbackasfaraspreSocratic philosophy. Weinert draws a distinction between what he terms
65
DirectingTime
‘Parmenidean Stasis’ and ‘Heraclitean Flux’, derived from their eponymous
thinkers(2013,89–90).ThepoetParmenidesofEleaadvocatedanidealistoutlook
of unchanging‘being’, in which change andthus time are merelyproducts ofthe
human mind. Heraclitus of Ephesus, meanwhile, denied an unchanging ‘being’,
expressinginsteadapreferenceforafundamentalworldofchangingappearances;
his employment of river imagery – ‘we cannot step into the same water yet the
riveristhe same’–seems to haveprovedparticularly formativeformetaphorical
approaches to temporal thought. In thecourseofhissurvey ofthe way in which
strands of temporal theory have developed in light of scienti?ic discoveries,
Weinerthighlights thepervasivenatureofthiskindofdistinction. Most temporal
theory is ultimately alliedto eitheraParmenidean, idealist (frequentlytied with
realistnotionsoftimeasanindependent,consistentpropertyoftheuniverse)ora
Heraclitean, relationalperspectiveontime. Respectively, changeiseither illusory
orfundamental,timeiseitherstaticordynamic,andtheworldiseitheratemporal
ortemporal.
Weinert’s achievement in The March of Time is the intricate manner in
whichheoutlinesbothsidesofthisfundamentaldivide,demonstratingeloquently
theprincipaltheoriesthatunderpinthecontrastsbetweenperspectivesof?luxand
stasis, and between temporal symmetry and asymmetry. He ultimately states a
preferenceforaHeracliteanviewoftime, principallyonthebasis oftheapparent
anisotropic (that is to say,asymmetrical ordynamic)natureoftimeas explained
throughthe quantummechanism ofdecoherence.12 It is an argument thatI ?ind
particularly convincing and, although it is not a primary aim of this study to
support broader claims regarding the nature of time itself, Weinert’s balanced
approach to the ?ield has proved particularly informative and might be said to
providesomethingofatheoreticalunderpinningformuchofwhatfollowshere.Of
greaterrelevanceishisimplicitacknowledgementthatcontrastingunderstandings
oftemporality(relational, idealist andrealist)canallfeaturenotonlyaselements
a philosophical examination of time, but also as facets of subjective experience.
Musical phenomena, as will be shown, can serve to underline this pluralist,
perhapsevenparadoxical,characteristicoftime.
12AdetailedexaminationofquantumdecoherencecanbefoundinWeinert2013,211–59.
66
DirectingTime
GoingwiththeUlow
Maintaining some kind of lexicon of metaphor is particularly useful when
addressing atopic as potentiallyconfusing asmusic, where thesewaters become
increasingly muddied. Whilstit might ?irst appearto take on akindofmediating
roleintemporalperceptionprocesses,furtherinvestigationmayreveal thatithas
a disrupting presence. Articulating experiences of motion becomes particularly
tricky:doesthemusic movethroughtime, ordoestimemovethroughthemusic?
Similarly, as listeners, do we move throughthemusic, or doesthemusic pass us
by?Itis,asAdlingtonnotes(2003,299),possibletoexperienceeither.EricClarke’s
consideration of such questions leads him to invoke the idea of ‘subjectpositioning’, a term primarily employed in cultural and ?ilm studies (2005, 91–
125). Subject-position, Clarke explains, ‘describes the way in which the
construction of a ?ilm causes a viewer/listener to adopt a particular attitude to
what she or he is witnessing’ (2005, 92). He readily concedes that subjectpositioningwillofteninvolvean‘utterlyindividual’perspectiveonthepartofeach
listener, incorporatingthe perceiver’s ‘skills, needs, preoccupations, andpersonal
history’.Nevertheless,heoutlinesthewaysinwhichthenotionofsubject-position
might not just inform but also direct analyses of both vocal and instrumental
works, on account of its profound ecological implications. He asserts that an
importantcomponentofsubject-positioningis‘builtintothematerialpropertiesof
theobjectofperception, andisthereforea shaping force (at least potentially)on
everyperceiver’(2005,125).
One of the most detailed and compelling frameworks for metaphors of
musical motion is provided by Mark Johnson and Steve Larson (2003). They
proposethreeprincipalconcepts: the‘movingmusic’metaphor, inwhichmusical
eventsmovefrom thefuture towards thelistener, areexperienced, andpassinto
thepast;the‘musicallandscape’metaphor,inwhichthepiecetakestheshapeofan
imagined geography and can be experienced from either the perspective of an
active participant (or traveller) or a distant observer; and the ‘musical force’
metaphor, in which pieces act as causal forces uponlisteners. Beyond providing
comprehensiveexplorations of lexiconsforeachframework, JohnsonandLarson
67
DirectingTime
are above all realistic about the variety of musical motions that are available
throughouthistoryandacrosscultures:
The absence of any core literal concept of musical ‘events’ should direct our
attention to the ways we imaginatively conceive of the Slow of our musical
experiencebymeansofmultiple metaphorsthatprovide the relevantlogicsofour
various conceptions of musical motion and space. There is no more a single
univocal notion of musical motion than there is of causation, and yet we have
gottenalongreasonablywellbyknowingwhenaspeciSicmetaphorforcausationis
appropriatewithinaspeciSiccontextofinquiry.(2003,80)
Ultimately,speci?icaspectsofmusicalandtemporalmotionprovesecondarytothe
ways in which metaphors for such motion can facilitate discussion of pieces of
music in relation to our experience of them. Signi?icantly, Clarke points to the
deeperimplicationsofmeaningthatarise(2005,89):‘Thesenseofmotionorselfmotion draws a listener into an engagement with the musical materials in a
particularlydynamicmanner(heorsheseemsto actamongthematerials),andin
doingsoconstitutesavitalpartofmusicalmeaning.’
Beyond purely motion-based descriptions, Robert Adlington offers a
convincing account of the ways in which some music can inspire a plethora of
altogether distinct metaphors (1997b, 79–120, and 2003). Seeking primarily to
advocateavarietyofwaysinwhichpost-tonalworksmightbeaddressedinmore
accurate, andindeedmoreimaginativetermsthan‘static’,he equatesthe view of
musicasmovingwithculturalconceptsoftime(2003,317–318):
[…] change possesses no intrinsic properties that give it a special afSinity with
onward motion over anyof the otherphysical metaphorsbymeans of which we
mightgrasp it. Anotherwayof expressing thiswould be asfollows: music,partly
byvirtueofitssusceptibilitytometaphoricalconceptualisation,implicitlypointsto
thelimitationsofourcustomarydealingswithchange.
In this sense, musical experiences might be regarded as querying cultural
conceptionsoftemporality.Indeed,inthecourseofthechaptersthatfollow,pieces
of music can be seen calling into question aspects of time generally taken for
granted. Temporal asymmetry is engaged with through the notion of musical
repetition,raisingthepossibilityofsimultaneouslylinearandcircularexperiences;
68
DirectingTime
this recurrence of musical ideas encourages alternate perspectives on the
irreversibilityoftime. Itisuseful heretorecallThomasClifton, withhisassertion
that‘continuityisinvolvedintheopennessoftime:intheideathatpasteventsare
not forever sealed off from a present which constantly re-searches it, and that
futureeventsdo notresideinsomeunknowable“other”, ignoring,andignoredby,
thepresentsituation’(1983,97).Indeed,thisnotionofapastthatcanberevisited
– in both musical and cognitive terms – will underpin the case-study pairing of
worksbyAdamsandSchubertthatfollows,withtheiropeningpassagesexamined
in terms of the perceptual implications for their unfolding form (Chapter Four:
PerceptionandPerspective). The singularity of perceivedtimewill alsobe called
into question, withmusical forms emergingthat offerimpressions of multiplicity
(see Chapters Six and Ten in particular). Jonathan Kramer holds a particular
interestinwhathelabels‘multiply-directedlinear time’,referringto music which
possesses a ‘sense of motion, but the direction of that motion is anything but
unequivocal’; although an underlying linearity can be recognised, for Kramer a
displacementofvariousformal goalscanprovide amultipletemporal continuum
(1988,46).
A major part ofaddressing the temporality of music through language is
accepting inevitable inconsistencies. Indeed, it can be easy to discount the very
effectthatlanguagecomprehensionitselfcanhaveuponthewaywemightexpress
anunderstandingofmusic. Onerecent set ofcross-cultural psychological studies
carried out by Athanasopoulos, Tan and Moran (2016) has suggested a link
between linguistic ability and perceived temporal directionality. When
participantsintheUK,JapanandPapuaNewGuineawereaskedtoprovidegraphic
representations of rhythmic patterns, literate participants were morenoticeably
disposedtolinearinterpretationsofmusicalperformances, displayinga‘tendency
to depict informationalong a timeline, inamanner generally consistentwiththe
directionality of their script’; non-literate participants, meanwhile, appeared to
displaynoclearrelianceupondirectionality(2016,1139).Suchstudiesarefurther
indicatorsas to theculturalcomplexity ofthefactorsthatcontributetowards not
only how weexperiencemusicbutalso how wemight thenattemptto articulate
thatexperience.
69
DirectingTime
In light of these variables, establishing a consistent framework for the
discussion of musical time proves especially dif?icult. However, to bring this
discussiontoatemporaryclose,itishelpfultoreturntoZwartinhisevaluationof
three prominent outlooks on the nature of time: the realist view, that time is a
physicalpropertyoftheuniverse,on-goinginspiteofoccurrence;theidealistview,
thatthe passage of time is a construction of thehumanmind; and therelational
view, that the passage of time is dependent upon and effected by changes,
processes and events in the universe (Zwart 1976, 15–33, also discussed in
Weinert2013, 14). Hisconclusionhighlightsadeptlywhymusicalinterests might
lieinthe notions thattherelationalperspectiveontimemight offer,hinting once
againatthepeculiarnotionoftimelessness:
Common sense does not have a clear and distinct conception of time; its
conception is confused and contains all sorts of different and contrary elements
alongsideeachother.Thatthecommonsenseviewismainlyrealist,forinstance,is
evidencedby the factthatinthisviewtime wouldSlowon even if therewere no
world,thatin the voida beforeandan aftercouldstillbedistinguished.Butthere
is also a strong relational element in this view, for, to common sense, time is
intimatelyconnectedwithchange.Theword‘time’makesusthinkintheSirstplace
of events and processes, and not of stationarystates. In this respect it is highly
signiSicant thatone iswontto sayof some out-of-the-wayvillage where nothing
changes thatit isasif time were standing still there. Thisis clearevidence fora
relationalviewontime,forontherealistviewtheconceptof time standingstillis
completelymeaningless.(Zwart1976,33)
Sucha?lexible attitude – andone so considerate towards temporal experience –
seemstobeskilfullyre?lectedintheconclusionsofJohnsonandLarson, whogoto
lengths to emphasise that ‘what is true of musical motion is equally trueof our
incompatibleconceptionsoftimeand,generally,ourinconsistentconceptionsofa
vastrangeofabstractconcepts’:
Our claim is that each of these different, and often inconsistent, metaphorical
structuringsofa conceptgivesusthedifferentlogicsthatweneed tounderstand
the richness and complexityof our experience. Howeverstrong ourdesire fora
monolithic consistent ontology might be, the evidence does not support such a
uniSiedandsimpleviewofhumanexperience.(2003,80)
70
Four
PerceptionandPerspective
JohnAdams&FranzSchubert
Ina1928essay,TheodorAdornohighlightedpoetically–ifperhapshistrionically–
the problems posed by Franz Schubert’s relationship to his outwardly radical
contemporary Ludwig van Beethoven. He notes a difference in the expressive
musical characters perceived, asserting that ‘althoughSchubert’s music may not
always have the power of active will that rises from the inmost nature of
Beethoven,itsendemicshaftsand?issures leadtothesamechthonicdepthwhere
thatwillhaditssource’:
Yetthe starsthatburnforSchubert’smusicarethe sameasthosetowardswhose
unattainable light Beethoven’s clenched Sist reached out. So when it comes to
Schubert’smusic we speak of ‘landscape’. Nothing could betray the substance of
his music more – since he cannot be understood in terms of Beethoven’s
spontaneously integrated personality – than trying to construct him as a
personalitywiththeidea–avirtualcentre–ofpuzzlingoutdissociated elements.
(Adornotrans.DunsbyandPerrey2005,7)
Although subsequent commentary has not been so heavily dogged by the
misplacedexpectationsthatAdornosoughttoaddress,thecruxofthiscomparison
haslingered. Beethoven,forsome,hascometorepresentanovert–ifnotanideal
– representative of musical progress. Schubert, by implication, sidestepped the
revolution.
In reality, of course, things could never be quite so black and white; just
because Schubert did not subscribe to the kind of innovation that Beethoven
espoused,itcouldneverleavehisartstagnantinitswake.Exploringthe‘depths’to
which Adorno alluded, more recent scholarship has in fact pointed to a radical
compositional approach. Publications such as the 2003 multi-author volume
SchuberttheProgressiveattesttoawidespreadeagernesstorenewthecontextsin
which his work is considered (Newbould 2003). Susanne Kogler’s contribution
seeks to posit anotably‘modern’perspective, placinghis musicinthe context of
contemporary composition, utilising both the outlooks and the music of Dieter
71
PerceptionandPerspective
Schnebel(principally hisLiederohneWorte writtenbetween1980and1986)and
Wolfgang Rihm (his WölUli-Liederbuch of 1980–81) in conjunction withAdorno’s
essay. Her means is anunderlining ofSchubert’s skill in engineering perceptual
time and an exploration of the ways in which this foreshadows the expressivity
found in the ‘emotionalised’ New Music establishedinthe 1970s. Emphasised in
particularistheeffectof‘timelessness’(Kogler2003,89–100).
TheabilityofSchubert’s musictoseemingly‘escape’theregularpassageof
time emerges frequently in responses to his music, especially his instrumental
work. A 2012 survey in The Guardian newspaper, for example, canvassed
musicians and listeners, asking each participant to select and discuss their
favourite Schubert piece. Not only did pianist Stephen Hough and actor Simon
Russell Beale both select examples from Schubert’s ?inal trilogy of piano sonatas
butbothmadereferenceto histreatmentofmusicaltime, concurringwithKogler
inhighlightingitasindicativeofhis‘progressiveness’.Houghoutlinedparadoxical
sensations in the Andantino of the A-major sonata D. 959, describing it as
‘prophetic yet timeless’, whileRussell Beale discussedthe‘experimental’Andante
sostenutooftheB♭-majorsonataD.960intermsofthecomposer’sabilityto‘make
timestandstill’:
It is as if he has distilled the process of music-making. He takes a harmonic
progression, exploresit, changesa singlenote, exploresitagain;hebreaksdowna
simplemelodyuntilonlythebonesareleftandthemusicissuspended.Theresultis
aplayofpuresound,withoutexternalreference,thatgivesusaglimpseofeternity.
(Service2012)
Ratherthanacommonplacecon?lationofprogressandcomplexity,thefocus here
is simplicity. This reductive approach can lead to surprising extremes, with
absenceseeminglytakingonanincreasinglyactiverole.Koglerisquickto ground
thisnotionwithintherealmsofhumanperception,observinga‘dialectic’between
soundandsilence(2003,89–92).
This pragmatism also proves useful with regard to Schnebel’s similarly
melodramatic portrayal of the power of musical repetition. From his musings,
Kogler delineates two basic ‘structural elements that determine the timeappearance of the sound’: ‘immediate time’ (points of time) and ‘time passing
by’(?lowingtime). A thirdtemporal category is outlinedwithspecial referenceto
72
PerceptionandPerspective
Schubert’s work: ‘[…] time is ?lowing totally naturally, which makes us almost
forget its transitoriness. It appears so much as unfolding of itself that the
compositionalwillseemstodissolveinitsvegetativecharacter.[…]Thus,released
time starts ?lowing’. Kogler elaboratesonthese ‘enclaves ofspatial andtemporal
distance’:‘AccordingtoSchnebel,thesepassagesrefertoachangeofperspective…
and therefore stand out strikingly against their sound environment. They
constituteextra-territorialmomentsbeyondtime’(2003,90–91).
Placingperspective
Both Schnebel and Kogler draw on valid experience when recalling Schubert’s
music in these terms; as shown above, they are far from alone inreferring to a
profound ‘timeless’ quality. Their attempts to de?ine and quantify these
experiences help to address contradictory aspects of temporal experience. To
conclude that any musical passage occurs beyond time – even in poetic or
perceptual terms – is, of course, to turn a deliberately blind eye to music’s
fundamental grounding in the linear reality of time; as Kogler herself
acknowledges,‘musicmaterialisesasastreamofsound’(2003,89).
Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, the temporary musical effect of
‘timelessness’iswidelyrecognised.Indeed, partoftheattractionofsuchmoments
or episodes lies inthefactthat, forall their apparentevasivequalities, themusic
never leavesthe passageoftime, evenperceptually. Evenasense oftimelessness
could only ever be understood within the context of time passing; to assert
otherwise would be a leap of pure subjective interpretation. This seemingly
illusoryfeaturecanbe adaptedto assumebroadformalsigni?icance, contributing
static or detached experiences within the context of a linear actuality. Jonathan
Kramer is quick to assert the linear context of musical timelessness within his
wider discussion of what he terms ‘vertical time’, claiming that suchmusic ‘can
provoke intense and unusual responses, but it does not destroy the temporal
continuum’. In spite of the unwavering continuation of time, the variety of
experiences availablewithinthedepths ofthe‘extendedpresent’, as Kramerputs
73
PerceptionandPerspective
it, is surprising; as well as the distinct ‘lack of time’ that ‘timelessness offers’,
perceptualtimemightalsobe‘frozen’,‘slowed’or‘stopped’(1988,575–81).
Isit possible to explorethese perceptualcomplexitieswithoutlosing sight
ofthedirectnessand,aswiththiscase,thesimplicityofthemusicalconstructions
thatarouse them? Theseexperiencesare awidelyaccessible aspectofSchubert’s
work; surely they embrace more fundamental aspects of listening? If so, maybe
theseperceptualprocessesneednotbethoughtofinsuchintricateterms.Perhaps
Kogler’sinitialde?initions–oftimeaseitherimmediateorpassing–havemoreto
offer. Surely a third temporal category of ‘released time ?lowing’ – for all its
professeduniqueness – is infact some kind of simultaneous experience of both
pointed and ?lowing time in combination. Indeed, are immediate and passing
temporal states usually experiencedentirely independent of one another? Ifthe
passageoftimeistakenasaconstant, thensurelythedifferencebetweenpointed
and?lowingtimeiswhollyoneofperspective,shiftsintheattentionoflisteners.
Articulatingtemporalpositionsisachallengingtask. IntheFourthCentury,
Augustine grappled withthe notionofapresent ‘so made that it passes into the
past’: ‘So indeedwe cannot say that time truly exists except in thesensethat it
tends towards non-existence’ (trans. Chadwick 1991, 231). Keen to examine
conceptsusuallytakenforgranted,hecontinuesbydismantlingthenotionsofpast
and future, dismissing them – like much functional language – as inaccurate
description:
Perhapsitwouldbe exacttosay:there arethreetimes,apresentof thingspast,a
presentofthingspresent,apresentofthingstocome.[…]Thepresentconsidering
the past is the memory, the present considering the present is immediate
awareness,thepresentconsideringthefutureisexpectation.(1991,235)
EchoingAugustine’semphasisuponthesubjective,Kramerreframestheseideasin
aesthetic terms: ‘The present is not simply the place where perception happens,
not simply the place from which linear and nonlinear perception are projected
respectivelyintothefutureandpast. Itisalso themeetinggroundofmemoryand
anticipation,bothofwhichcolourperception.’(1988,367)
Thesediscussionsoftemporalperspectivemayleadtofurtherquestionsof
subject positioning and dynamism – put simply, does time pass by or is time
passed? Reimagining the concepts that underpinMcTaggart’s ‘The Unreality of
74
PerceptionandPerspective
Time’(1993,introducedpreviouslyinChapterThree)inanotablymoreaccessible
manner, J.J.C. Smart introducesissuesofsyntaxandmetaphortothe discoursein
hisessay‘TheRiverofTime’(1949). His openingremarksseemhighlyapplicable
toaestheticexperience:
Wesaythatweareadvancingthroughtime,fromthepastintothe future,muchas
ashipadvancesthroughtheseaintounknownwaters.Sometimes,again,wethink
of ourselvesasstationarywatching time go by, justaswe maystand ona bridge
and watch leaves and sticks Sloat down the stream underneath us. Events, we
sometimes think, are like such leaves and sticks; theyapproach from the future,
aremomentarilyinthe present,and thenrecede furtherandfurtherintothe past.
ThusinsteadofspeakingofouradvancethroughtimeweoftenspeakoftheSlowof
time.(1949,483)
Indeed,theseimpressionslieattheforefrontofEdwardA.Lippman’sdiscussionof
canonic works inhis article‘ProgressiveTemporality inMusic’ (1984). Crucially,
hisnotionofprogressiondwells notuponbroadertastebutrefersdirectlytothe
sensationsoflistening:‘Thefeelingthatmusicisprogressingormovingforwardin
time is doubtless one of the most fundamental characteristics of musical
experience;yetitmanifestssucharemarkablerangeofvariationinitsprominence
anditsqualitythatattimesitseemstobeabsentaltogether’(1984, 121). Hecites
examples and their effects: the tonally-induced irrelevance of time orderings in
Webern,thestaticcharacterofpassagesinDebussyandWagner, andtheabilityof
many contemporary works freed from pitch constraints to seemingly regress in
time.
Re?lectingupontheseconsiderationsoftimeprovesfascinatingbutcanlead
to an analytical headache. Obviouslyin practice, thereis no dangerof a piece of
music hindering the passage of time on a practical level, yet impressions of
stoppageand regressionabound. Herethe subjective-objective divide thatmusic
scholars face becomes all too blurred; when human perception is one of the
primarymediumsofmusic,howcanaperceivedtimelessnessbeignored?Howcan
abalancebefoundbetweenpragmaticdiscussionofthemusicthatdoesnotstray
from both the actuality of its performance and the continuity of its expressive
form, andthehighly accessibleandengagingindividual experiences that so often
leadtolinguistictail-chasing?Earlier,itwasaskedwhetheritmightbepossibleto
75
PerceptionandPerspective
exploreperceptualcomplexitywithoutlosingsightofmusicalsimplicity.Perhapsit
might be ofuse to turn this questionupon its head. Through consideration of a
pianosonatamovementbySchubert(1797–1828)andamorerecentworkbythe
American composer John Adams (b. 1947) this chapter will look to turn this
question around, asking instead whether analysing musical simplicity might
facilitate a discussion of the complex perceptual phenomena that surround it.
Ratherthanexaminingtheformatlarge,analyticalfocusherewill fallprincipally
upon the openings of both works, and some of the temporal expectations and
evaluations that might emerge. Whilst emphasis will remain upon these parallel
momentsofcrystallisation, someoftheauralimplicationsforthelong-termform
ofthesepieceswillalsobediscussed.
Simplicityandcontinuity
Arelativelyrecentcompositionaltrendthathasbecomesynonymouswithideasof
musical simplicity is thatof minimalism, pioneered during the 1960s and70s in
theUnitedStates by ?igures including La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich,
andPhilipGlass.Althougheachcarvedoutastrikinglyindividualvoiceforhimself,
there are overarching qualities of note. For the most part, their music is
uncompromisinglydirect, self-driven, almostindustrial initsseeminglyceaseless
onward development. As for its construction, Keith Potter writes aptly of an
‘intentionally simpli?ied rhythmic, melodic and harmonic vocabulary’ (Potter,
Grove).K.RobertSchwarzdelineatesthewiderstructuralimplicationsofthis:
Likesomuchnon-Westernmusic,minimalistpiecesdonotdrivetowardsclimaxes,
do not build up patterns of tension and release, and do not provide emotional
catharses. They demand a new kind of listening, one lacking in ‘traditional
conceptsof recollection andanticipation’, asGlasshasputit. In minimalism, you
willnotSindthecontrasts–loudandsoft,fastandslow,bombasticorlyrical–that
arethesubstanceofWesternclassicalmusic.(1996,8–9)
Althoughhehasoftenbeenaf?iliatedwiththestyle,JohnAdamsisnotaminimalist
composer, emphatically so if Schwarz’s checklist is anything to go by; Adams
seemingly falls short in almost every category. He has, perhaps a little more
76
PerceptionandPerspective
accurately, been described as a ‘post-minimalist’ or a ‘second generation
minimalist’ (Service 2011, and Clark 2015). But while facets of the minimalist
aesthetic emerge as prominent audible in?luences in his music, there can be no
doubt that they are absorbedas a feature within a much broader compositional
palate that almost equally encompasses post-Romantic and early-twentieth
century styles(Cahill, Grove).Utilisingthisinclinationto drawuponawide range
ofsources–adistinctlymodernisttendency,atleastinthepost-avant-gardeterms
discussed in the introduction– Adams exhibits an economic handling ofmusical
content,producinghighlyengagingandcommunicativemusicalstructures.Though
hismusicis,inmanysenses,minimal,itseffectisdecidedlynot.
Althoughhe de?ies a strictminimalistaesthetic inmanyways, Adams falls
intoalargegroupoftwentieth-centurycomposerswhosemusic–onaccountofits
apparentsimplicityofconstruction–hasoftenbeenfailedor,worse,side-linedby
more traditional analytical approaches that do not account for its perceptual
intricacies. ItispreciselythisimbalanceinscholarshipthatDaniel Marchseeksto
address inhis thesis Beyond Simplicity(1997). From theoutset, heexpresses his
concern that a negative association between minimalism and simplicity leads
writers todismiss themusic asbeing ‘ofinsuf?icient compositionalinteresttobe
takenseriously’:
Such discussions usually focus on the limited amount of basic material… and
equate simplicity of means with simplicity of effect. Even those pieces which
involveagreatervarietyanddensityofmaterial[…]aretosome extentimplicated
inthisprocess,inthattheiruseofrepetition…isviewedasdemonstratingalackof
‘musical sophistication’, which is again equated with absence of musical effect.
(1997,11)
Exhibiting a complexity of effect in spite a simplicity of means, Adams’s
piece Shaker Loops for string ensemble provides an apt representation of the
dichotomyMarchoutlines.Firstemergingin1978andrevised?iveyearslater,the
work represents not only a career breakthrough for Adams but also a stylistic
watershed; althoughit comprehensively displays the?irstutterances of amature
and now recognisably distinctive musical language, it also stands as one of the
clearest remnants of the composer’s minimalist lineage. Its direct and novel
powers ofcommunicationareillustratedclearlyinthisexcerptfromDavidNice’s
77
PerceptionandPerspective
review of a 2013 performance given by the London Symphony Orchestra
conductedbyAdamshimself:‘Williteverstopelectrifyinguswiththeshockofthe
new,thatseriesofroof-rocking,steam-trainacceleratingchords?Audiencesinthe
SeventiesandEighties musthaveimmediately realisedtheywereinthepresence
ofamasterpiece;westillfeltitlastnight.’(Nice2013)
Aspectsofthisdistinctiveimpression, itmight beargued, areformedfrom
the very opening of the work, a gesture of bold economy: two notes (a perfect
fourth, G♮ and C♮ an octave above middle C) recycled rapidly in rhythmic
uniformity.Fewgesturescouldseemmoreminimal.Fromthe?ifthbaronwards,a
B♮ ?lickersintermittently betweentheinterval,andforafurther18barsthis isall
thatoccurs.
Insome senses, such employment of material is far from unusual. Onthe
contrary, it might appear to subscribe to a conventional pattern in Western art
music, assuming theroleofamusicalfoundationoraccompaniment, aconsistent
undercurrentofsoundthatprovidesarhythmicandtonalframeworkintowhicha
featureofgreaterinterest–usuallysomekindofmelodictheme–canthenstep.At
this point in the work, on a ?irst hearing, it is likely that many typical Western
listeners will still be expecting the musical ‘main event’. Thomas Clifton (1983)
helpfully frames these anticipations in terms of different notions of ‘beginning’.
Theexample hechooses – theopening ofBeethoven’sNinthSymphony – proves
particularly relevant to this case study; like Adams, Beethoven commences his
workwithjustone motoric, recycledinterval – aperfect?ifth. Cliftonassertsthat
he hears Beethoven’s symphony as possessing two beginnings: this opening
undercurrent, and the climactic unveiling of the primary subject 17 bars later,
reached through a brief process of establishedstability, ensuing disruption, and
aggregatecumulation:
Myexperienceofasecondbeginningentailsasituationwhichisneitherarepeat,a
recapitulation, a new beginning, nor another beginning, but which refers to a
complexactivityofbothobservingandparticipatinginaneventwhich(1)belongs
tothesametimeeventastheSirstbeginning;(2)showsitselfintheappearance of
the Sirst beginning; but (3) presents an idea essentially different from that
presentedbytheSirstbeginning.(1983,83–88)
78
PerceptionandPerspective
Perhapsitisthisexpectationofa‘secondbeginning’thatanaudiencefamiliarwith
canonic staples such as Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony would subconsciously
subscribe to at the outset of Shaker Loops. Its initial gestures would certainly
indicatesuchanunfolding.Ofcoursethedenialofthisexpectationisonlyaf?irmed
gradually,anaggingpossibilitytransformedintoapersistentreality.Audiencesare
forced to reappraise their reception of the piece as they continue to receive it,
realigning their expectations andmentally reviewing – perhaps evenreplaying –
theopeningpassagesinordertofollowanon-goingnarrativethread.
Oncethese anticipations are redirected, it is possibleto move beyondthe
surfacesimplicityoftheseinitialgestures,allowingtheirrelevancetotheprojected
musical narrative to emerge. Indeed, these connections that are crucial to a
present-tense aural continuity, an integral aspect of the highly communicative
natureofShakerLoops.Clifton’sobservationsareapt:
A mere succession of sensory experiences cannot be experienced as having
continuityif eventssucceedeachotherwithoutinSluencing eachother.Continuity
isnotanadditive process;tonalatoms,bythemselves,cannotcoagulate toforma
melody. Rather, it is continuity which enables us to recognise melody, and to
atomiseitbyanalysis.(1983,96)
As thework progresses, therepeatedcellularpatterns–‘loops’–thatspringfrom
the texture prove generative through their interaction with one another. The
architectural shape that emerges from these accumulations and interactions
establishes an unbroken narrative stretch. Adams’s own preface to the score
indicatesthat theseissues offormal unityandcommunicationfeaturedheavilyin
hiscompositionalapproach:
Although being in its own way an example of ‘continuous music’, Shaker Loops
differsfrommostotherworksofitskindbecause itseessomuchchange withina
relativelyshort amount of time. Alsoit avoids the formal and temporal purity of
much ‘minimal’ music bynot adhering toa single unbending tempo throughout.
Thislesssevere approach allowsa freer movement from one level of energyto
another,makingamoredramaticexperienceoftheform.(Adams1989,3)
It was such considerations that prompted Adams to revisit the original 1978
‘modular’version,inwhichtheintroductionanddurationofeach‘loop’wasleftto
thediscretionoftheconductor.Dissatis?iedwiththe‘overallshape’and‘harmonic
79
PerceptionandPerspective
movement’ of performances that he himself did not direct, Adams produced a
through-composedversion, ‘lockinginthe harmonic and formal designin a time
scale that made the most sense’ (Adams 2008, 107). The in-vogue brand of
regulated aleatoricism that permeatedtheinitial incarnation– the string quartet
Wavemaker – had by now been replaced entirely with a more conventional,
composer-controlledstructuralconsistency.
The cellular properties of the ‘loops’ themselves contribute to this
continuity;beyondsimplyreappearinginquasi-leitmotivicfashion, thesequences
undergo transformations through their interactions with surrounding materials,
inciting changes in pace and direction. This often occurs discreetly, with
developmentsassumingtexturalroles:theresultantunityislargelysubconscious.
Discontinuity
Inmusical terms, there is no doubt that theopening ofShaker Loopsexhibits an
extremelevel ofcontinuity. A threadofsoundunwinds, without pause, break, or
fracture; indeed, for a large part of the opening movement this thread is only
reinforced. However, a radical simplicity of construction allows the passage to
evade conventional expectations; paradoxically, a form of discontinuity is
precipitated. Ratherthanarisingdirectly–andabruptly– frommusical gestures,
the discontinuance is a gradual realisation for ?irst-time listeners as the
economicalnatureofthematerialiscon?irmed;aprocessofre-contextualisationis
necessitated. The discontinuity takes place ‘in the audience’ rather than ‘in the
music’.
Jonathan Kramer underlines the signi?icance of musically experienced
discontinuity, asserting that an evasion of expectations can prove particularly
profound; for him, the unexpected ‘is more striking, more meaningful, than the
expectedbecauseitcontainsmoreinformation’:
The musical experiences that are the most memorable are the magical moments
whenexpectation issubverted, when complacencyisdestroyed,andwhen a new
world opens.... Tonal discontinuities, when pushed to extremes, create new
experiencesoftime–timethatisnotlinearandnotone-dimensional.(1978,177)
80
PerceptionandPerspective
Figure4.1:Schubert,SonatainB♭,D.960,Uirstmovement(bars1–23)
Whereas Adams ?inds ways to challenge audiences with an unprecedented
continuity,SchubertconfrontslistenerswithanunexpecteddiscontinuityinhisB♭
sonata,onethatcanbepinpointedtotheunprecedentedbasstrillintheeighthbar.
The very opening ofthe work seems to be imbued with a remarkable power to
hold its listeners with a seemingly minimal amount ofeffort (see Figure 4.1). A
81
PerceptionandPerspective
largely stepwise, rhythmically steady theme – spaciously harmonised – at the
higherendofthemiddleregisterissupportedbyatonic-dominantinterplayinthe
bass. A motoric presence is imbued from interceding quaver oscillations. The
passagebetrays very little intent ofharmonic motionaway from theestablished
tonalcentreofB♭ withinthe?irstsevenbars.Thefocalinteractionsoccurbetween
tonic and dominant; even a sojourn into the subdominant in the ?ifth bar is
underpinned by continued tonic emphasis in the bass. Withthe exception of an
ascendingleapto E♭ inthe ?ifthbar(the?irstpoint atwhichthethematic motion
extendsbeyonda stepofatoneorsemitone),themelodytooisheldcomfortably
withintherangeofaperfectfourth.
Disregarding the aural question-mark provided by the closing imperfect
cadence (second half of bar seven), the phrase evokes a strong sense of the
conventional antecedent-consequent patterns that might indicate a contained,
small-scaleform.Infact,thesonatathatensuesfromtheseopeninggesturesisone
ofgiganticproportions,usuallylastingover40minutesinperformances, withthe
Moltomoderato ?irst movementitselfcomprising approximatelyhalfofthatspan.
Suchanexpansive and supposedly complexstructureappearsto sit at odds with
thetonal andmotivic simplicityofthe openingseven bars. Comparison mightbe
drawn with the opening Allegro con brio of Beethoven’s Third Symphony (itself
often approaching 20 minutes in duration), which will be discussed in Chapter
Eight (Narrative Possibilities)in terms ofthe thematic drop to C♯ in its seventh
bar. The effect is of a brief tonal upheaval, a magnetic disruption that is
immediately correctedbut nonetheless precipitates thewidertonal introspection
and interrogation that will serve to project forward an unusually vast musical
architecture. This brief melodic departure from, and return to C♯ is the audible
germofthenarrativecon?lictthatensues.
No such disruption occurs within the thematic content of the ?irst seven
bars of Schubert’s sonata; by this point in a ?irst-time hearing, it is dif?icult to
conceive of any ofthe presented material necessitating a 20-minute movement.
Indeed,the disruptionisyetto come. Unlike inShakerLoops,the discontinuityat
play in Schubert’s sonata does take place within the parameters of the notated
music. Nevertheless,itstillevokesasenseofotherness.Indeedaftersuchatonally
straight-laced opening, the G♭–A♭ bass trill in bar eight presents a jarringly
82
PerceptionandPerspective
Figure4.2:SonatainB♭,D.960,Uirstmovement,selectedbars(1and8)with
bracketshighlightingbassornamentderivation
chromatic enigma.Whilsthetakesnoteofitsmysteriouscharacter, CharlesRosen
viewsthe gestureas highlygenerative, suggesting thatthe ‘entire work seemsto
arise’ from it (1988, 249). Charles Fisk acknowledges this catalytic function but
still underlines the status of the trill as a ‘foreign element’: ‘a harbringer of
something outside or beyond what is implied by the theme itself, something
fascinating in both its allure and its danger.’ He suggests that the harmonic
modulations thatitfacilitates inthe course ofthe movement– and, by extension,
the remainder of the sonata – seem to in turn suggest ‘a state of Entfremdtheit
(‘alienation’)’(Fisk2001,241–42).
An analysis abstracted from aural experience can in fact reveal a motivic
connection that runs through the apparently disparate initial elements; when
transposed, the stepwise ascent of the melody in the ?irst bar can be seen to
reappear as the ?lourish that sets up the trill (see Figure 4.2). However, this
connectiondoes not surfaceasacrucialcomponentofthe passage as it isheard;
thetrillappears insteadasanunrelatedentityintheunfoldingmusical narrative,
not only hinting at new tonal realms but doing so inathus-far unexplored pitch
register. Indeed, bythesame token, the differencesbetweenthe two gestures do
notaudiblyamounttoanoppositioninthesamesenseasRobertHatten’stheoryof
‘markedness’ (1994, 34–38, discussedfurther in Chapters Seven and Eight). The
melody and the trill sit in stark contrast to one another but do not necessarily
appear opposed. Rather, the effect of theinterruptionmight be ofaglimpse of a
distinctivemusicalnarrativerunninginparallel –two alternativeplanesofmusic
momentarily overlapping; indeed, the trill sounds like it belongs to an entirely
83
PerceptionandPerspective
different, fardarkerpieceofmusicinthe wakeofsuchplacidity. The occurrence
creates a stylistic and aesthetic clash: contained clarity meets open-ended
ambiguity; a straightforward sequence of antecedence and consequence is
curtailedbyanominousquestionmark.
Whatprovesperhaps moreradicalistheway music continuestounfoldin
thewakeofthisdisruption. Asfaras anaudience mightbeconcerned, thesonata
simplyrestartsitself:fornearlyfourbars,anidenticalreprisetakesplace,withthe
melodyalteredandextendedfora further?ivebars beyondthat. WhereasShaker
Loops might be seen as inciting a memory-based reassessment of its opening,
Schubert seems to insist upon restarting the sonata from scratch, the trill
apparently presenting a hurdle that cannot be overcome in a conventionally
through-composed manner. The perceptual effect is one of temporal disruption,
directlinearitysacri?icedforasecond,arti?icial attemptatcontinuity. Bygranting
listeners the inside track on this process, of course, the effect is of a jarring
discontinuity. For all its understatement and pianissimo dynamic, such a blatant
cut-and-rewinddecisionseemsparticularlybrazen.
In sonata theory terms, this disjointed introduction would appear to
constitute what Hepokoski and Darcy (2006) might term a ‘deformation’, an
instance of a composer creating a particular expressive effect through the
manipulationor ?louting of astructural norm(614–21); inthis instance, it is the
anticipation of melodic, tonal, and metric continuity that is aroused and offset.
What is particularly notable is the unexpected poignancy with which this
discontinuityisimplemented;whatmightatothertimesprovelittlemorethanan
eccentric disruption here proves unsettlingly evocative, with the passage
seemingly possessing signi?icant narrative potential. David Damschroder, in his
principally harmonic commentary, is even prompted here to speculate as to
whether the openingofthe movement might set inmotiona readingthat draws
parallels withits composer’s con?licted sexuality (2010, 257 & 304–05); heeven
goes so far asto extendthis metaphor to thetonal playing-outofthe movement,
describingthepursuitofa‘gradual conversionfromdeviantD♭–F♭–A♭todiatonic
D♮–F♮–A♮’ (258–259). As conjectural as suggestions like this might seem, the
potential impact ofsuchanalogies isnonethelessderivedfromthe solelymusical
deformations – bothlocaliseddiscontinuities andlong-termtonal leanings –that
84
PerceptionandPerspective
permeate the movement. Writing more broadly, Hepokoski and Darcy (2006)
reinforcetheseconnections:
The expressive or narrative point lies in the tension between the limits of a
competentlistener’sSieldofgenericexpectationsandwhatismadetooccur–ornot
occur–in actual sound atthatmoment.Within anyindividualexemplar(suchasa
single musicalcomposition)operating undertheshapinginSluenceofa communitysharedgenre-system,anyexceptionaloccurrencealongthese linescallsattentionto
itselfasastrongexpressiveeffect(2006,614).
EvenatthisearlystageinSchubert’ssonatathemusicaltime–or‘times’–it
presentshasreachedasurprisinglevelofcomplexity.Kramer,inhisbreakdownof
what heterms temporal modes, acknowledges the challenges inunpacking their
application within musical works, admitting that ‘the categories are not always
comparable, and distinguishing between them is often far from a clear-cut
procedure’(1988,58).Althoughheutilisesparticularexperiencesofdiscontinuous
musicaltimeasdescriptivemarkersbetweenextremesoflinearandverticaltime,
heidenti?ies limitations in their near-consistent impurities: ‘Most music exhibits
some kind of mix of temporalities, at times nebulous, at times contradictory, at
times changing, at times elusive’ (1988, 58). Nevertheless, bearing the blurred
nature ofthese experiences inmind, they resonate strongly withthe opening of
this sonata. Two modes prove particularly apt: ‘moment time’, in whichmusical
continuityiscontainedwithinsectionsratherthandevelopingbyimplication;and
‘multiply-directed time’, in which implications are not realized in subsequent
sections but rather elsewhere, at other points in the musical form. Schubert’s
opening would appear to showcase characteristics of these concepts: two
seemingly disparate types of material, both audibly self-contained, the
consequences oftheirimplications eitherplayedoutat alaterstage(theopening
melody)ortemporarilyfrustrated(the‘alien’trill). Thewidermusicalresultisthe
establishment of an engaging journey for listeners. Perceptually, the piece has
barelybegun, yet it has already appearedto ?indaway to engineer, manipulate,
andrevisititsownhistory. AsCliftonnotes,‘continuityisinvolvedintheopenness
oftime:intheideathatpasteventsarenotforeversealedofffromapresentwhich
85
PerceptionandPerspective
constantlyre-searchesit,andthatfutureeventsdonotresideinsomeunknowable
“other”,ignoring,andignoredby,thepresentsituation’(1983,97).
Movingbeyondspectacle
With their opening gestures, both pieces issue intriguing challenges to
preconceivednotionsofmusicalcontinuity.Butasfascinatingasthesesubversions
prove when they are subjectedto detailed analysis, they fail to account for any
deeper dramatic signi?icance that might occur. Denials of expectations like the
ones discussed cannot necessarily garner and sustain enough interest to draw
listeners into engagement with musical narratives over a longer period of time.
SuchgesturesareperhapscomparabletoAristotle’snotionof‘spectacle’withinhis
wider prescriptions for dramatic narrative; whilst some degree of spectacle
constitutesannecessarycomponentofsuccessfuldrama,heisquickto rank itthe
least signi?icant of the qualities, deeming it ‘attractive’ but ‘very inartistic andis
leastgermanetotheartofpoetry’(trans.Heath1996,13).Whenimplementedfor
a prolonged duration, such gestures make for ‘dif?icult’ listening; incessant
discontinuity amounts to a continuity of its own – one potentially remembered
moreforitsmonotonythanitsmeaning.Focusfortheremainderofthiscasestudy
pairingwillnowshifttothelonger-termstructuralimplicationsthatemergefrom
theopeningsofeachwork.
ShakerLoopscomprisesanuninterruptedhalf-hourofmusic,its four parts
directly interconnected as one extended, unbroken strand. Once its initial
simplicity has encouraged an audience beyond a super?icial reception to a more
actively-involvedstateoflistening, it mustsatisfy theserealignedexpectationsby
providing a suf?icient basis for musical drama. An emotionally communicative
dramaticstructure waspart ofAdams’s originalintentionsforthepiece. Thetitle
takesitscue–inpart–fromthedancesofthe‘Shakers’;thetermisacolloquialism
fortheUnitedSocietyofBelieversinChrist’sSecondAppearing,ofwhichtherewas
a colony near Canterbury, New Hampshire, where he grew up. Through this
reference, Adams draws upon facets of a spiritual experience, deliberately
summoningup ‘thevisionofthese otherwisepious and industrious soulscaught
86
PerceptionandPerspective
Figure4.3:Adams,ShakerLoops,PartI:reductionofharmonicaccumulation
(bars1–104)
upintheecstaticfrenzyofadancethatculminatedinanepiphanyofphysicaland
spiritual transcendence’ (Adams, 2014). Although the music itself does not call
uponspeci?icimageryinanexplicitlyprogrammaticsense,itsfoursubdivisionsare
granted notably motion-based titles: ‘Shaking and Trembling’, ‘Hymning Slews’,
‘LoopsandVerses’,and‘AFinalShaking’.Whethertheaudienceaurally ‘observes’
these motions or enters into a kind of perceptual participation is dif?icult to
ascertain.Ultimately,theemotionalthrustoftheworkisunlikelytoleavelisteners
inastateofdetachment;onthecontrary,theyaredrawntoitsverycentre.
The end result of this compositional approachis the encouragement of a
kind of self-re?lective listening, raising broader questions of motion, space,
subjectivity and temporality. The surface simplicity of the musical material
presented at theoutset of Shaker Loopsprompts aheightened introspection, the
lack ofeventbeyondtheestablishedrepetitionstirringadiscontentmentwithan
attitudeofpassivereception. Spurredbeyondaface-valuehearing,meaningmust
instead be sought in the basic construction of the sound. With no distinctive
melodic shapeuponwhichto focus, attentionisdivertedto thenotes themselves
andhow they relatetooneanother. Itisanapproachthatisfrequentlytakenfor
granted within the context of conventional tonal music. When a hierarchy of
harmonicrelationshipsis established, itsprogressivefunctionisusually assumed
bylisteners. Until this hierarchyis musically challengedor subverted, itis rarely
questioned.Manypiecesin?luencedbytheminimaliststylereaf?irmthissystemin
aparticularlyblack-and-whitemanner.
WhileShakerLoopsundoubtedlytendstowardstonality,itsapproachisnot
so clear-cut. Seemingly, at the outset, no permanent tonic key is established.
Indeed, it could easily be argued that the entire ?irst movement comprises an
extendedseriesoftonalcentres–emerging,overlapping,con?licting,fading.Itisin
this manner of continued allusion without allegiance that the drama – and, by
extension, the broader narrative – of the piece is set in motion. Rather than
87
PerceptionandPerspective
implementing an harmonic ‘gravity’, the composer initiates an audible dialogue
between different gravitational ?ields (seeFigure 4.3). Ina conventional context,
theimplicationoftheopeningperfectfourthisatonalcentreofC♮.Theinterceding
B♮ that follows throws this initial assumption into imbalance, a centre of C♮ still
likely but the possibility of G♮ as a ‘tonic’ of sorts now emerging (a likely
proposition for the score-reader given the one-sharp key signature). The
subsequentintroductionofE♮(ShakerLoops:‘PartI’,bar26)–spatiallythelowest
note – transforms all preconceptions, casting the accumulating chord withinthe
light ofE minor (againin-keeping withthe key signature); theD♮ that ?lickers at
thetopofthechordinconstantinteractionwithitsadjacentC♮ immediatelyserves
toaddasenseoftransiencetothecurrentEminor,achangeincourseapparently
imminentbyvirtueoftheseventh.
While the addition of A♮ (appearing withincreasing prominence from bar
40)andF♯ (alargelyconsistentpresencefrombar51)servestoperpetuateanEminoremphasis, thegradualextensionofthecello linesdownto C♮ (frombar75)
reasserts thepower of thesonoritywith whichthe piece began. The result is an
over-saturationoftonal possibilities andthe arrival at a breaking point. At such
junctures, Adams invokeswhat mightperceivedas changes ingestural trajectory.
The potential for palpable shifts in tonal gravity is vastly reduced by the sheer
numberof notes collected withinsucha limited pitch range. As changes in pitch
gradually become near-imperceptible, the oscillations cease and the ensemble
settlesupononechord(C♮,D♮,F♯,B♮)beforechangingdirectionentirelythrougha
shifttoFmajor.
While an audience may remain largely unaware of the mechanics of the
tonal process, attention will nonetheless be drawn to the interaction between
these competing gravities. Expectations are constantly aroused, averted, and
deniedat differentstagesoftheaccumulation.Propulsivemotionisreinforcedby
theconstant transformationsofthematerial –asnewloops areintroduced, fresh
tonalperspectives areofferedonexistingsonorities.Theeffectuponaperception
ofthelargerformalarchitectureisanenhancedclarityofgestureatoddswithany
preconceived stasis. There is a present-tense awareness of an adaptive, goalorientated structure: the music feels like it is ‘going somewhere’ even if its
audiencecannotpredictwhere,orindeedwhenitwillarrive.
88
PerceptionandPerspective
Movingbeyondcontrast
Aplotisnot(assome think) uniSiedbecauseitisconcerned witha single person.
An indeterminately large numberof things happen toanyone person, notall of
which constitute a unity; likewise a single individual performsmanyactions, and
theydonotmakeupasingleaction.(Aristotle,trans.Heath1996,15)
Aristotle’ssummationofthevarietyofeventsthatauni?iedplotcanencompassis
aptwithregardtoSchubert’s sonata.The?irstpageofits score–whenrealisedin
performance–doesnotofferanimmediateimpressionofunity.Ratherthejarring
contrastsofthemusicalmaterialitpresentsincitesapuzzlingaside:howmightthe
composerunitethesedisparate elements withinthecontextofacohesivewhole?
Theanswer, it emerges, is not quiteso straightforward, yet itis arguably simple,
nonetheless: rather than any immediate attempt to reconcile or resolve the
differences,Schubertiscontenttoletthesetwo‘characters’–self-containedclarity
and other open-ended ambiguity – coexist alongside one another. Indeed, it is
throughchangingauralperspectivesuponthesematerials andtheirrolesthatthe
long-term drama of the movement arises (see Figure 4.4 for a summary of the
formalscheme).13
Followingthe?irstappearanceofthetrillinbar8,theextendedrestatement
oftheopeningthemeculminatesinaperfectcadenceatbar18.Thereturningtrill,
however,isnowplaceduponthetonicitself(bar19),itschromaticoscillationwith
C♭ incitingadescenttowardsitsoriginal G♭ contextattheupbeattobar20. This
diversion sets up an entirely new context for the restatement of the principal
theme: althoughthethemerecommencesonthetonic (aswiththeopeningofthe
movement), itnow?indsitselfrelegatedtothestatusofmediantwithinthenewlyforgedpathofG♭ major(seeFigure4.1).
As Fisk readily acknowledges, such emphasis upon the ?lattened
submediant in a major-key work is not out of the ordinary, even within the
classicalstyle.Whathequiterightlyemphasisesthough,isthe‘portentous’nature
of its signi?icance in this opening passage (2001, 241). While these events
themselves constitute nothing unusual, the way they are paced does. The
13 Durationstakenfromrecording listedin primaryresource list(MitsukoUchida,piano.
Decca:4756282).
89
PerceptionandPerspective
Formaldivision
FirstExposition
(+Sirst-timebars)
SecondExposition
(+second-timebar)
Development
Recapitulation
Bars
Tonalregion(bars)
Duration
1–116
+9bars
B♭major(1–19)
G♭major(20–34)
B♭major(35–47)
F♯ minor(48–73)
Fmajor(74–117i)
0’00–5’44
1–116
+1bar
B♭major(1–19)
G♭major(20–34)
B♭major(35–47)
F♯ minor(48–73)
Fmajor(74–117ii)
5’44–11’04
118–215
C♯ minor(118–148)
D♭major(149–156)
Emajor(157–161)
Cmajor(162–165)
Transition(166–170)
Dminor(/B♭major)(172–202)
Fmajor(Voftonic)(203–215)
11’04–15’15
216–357
B♭major(216–234)
G♭major(235–238)
F♯ minor(239–253)
B♭major(254–266)
Bminor(267–288)
B♭major(289–357)
15’15–21’54
Fig.4.4:SonatainB♭,D.960,tabledisplayingstructuralplan
expansive B♭ sonoritywithits comfortably placedmelodydoesnotsoundinany
wayprecarious;onthecontrary,italmostgivesthesensethat,freeofinterference,
it couldcontinue onwardsinaperpetual state. Suchadramatic uprootingwithin
the ?irst 20bars of the work belies an underlying competing tonal gravity – its
orbit stationed aroundG♭ –withprofoundimplications for themusicalnarrative
to follow. Beneath the tranquil surface of the opening bars, a fundamental
hierarchyhasbeencalledintoquestion.
Withnecessaryintervallic adjustmentsmade, themelodyisgraduallyspun
furtherwithanonward ?low ofquavers from bar 27cascadingintoadeveloping
90
PerceptionandPerspective
sequenceofsemi-quaversfrombar29.Theepisodeiscurtailedbytheintroduction
of triplet quavers (from bar 34), the accumulated momentumpropelledforward
into a forte restatement of the opening material, underpinned by the newly
acquiredtripletrhythm.
The melodic subject is, by this point, outgrowing its shape and its tonal
allegiance with understated ease. Rather than assuming a concrete form, a
perceived ‘theme’ takes the shape of a broader gestural pattern by which each
passage is fashioned; a basic entity never revealed in an ‘essential’ form but
instead continually altered. Schubert extends, elaborates, and fragments the
melody with tireless variety, allowing it to permeate the form of the work. The
effect is a notable temporal dichotomy: on one hand, the form bears an audible
repetitivestreak,asenseofstasisandcircularitythatallowsthemovementtotake
theshapeofameditationononeessentialsubject;ontheother,thereisapalpable
sense of onward development, ofthe sameideaappearing and altering within a
varietyofequallychangeableaudiblecontexts.14
The melodic freedom that this perceptual paradox engenders serves to
counteractthestringencythatmightarisefromtheclearlydelineatedsonataform
withfantasy-likeexploratoryqualities.Theever-developingnarrativeofthetheme
itself eventually proves to be an alienating factor for the audience as it strives
furtherandfurtherfrom its initialstatethroughincreasingly unfamiliarterritory.
The tonal scheme represents, for Charles Rosen, the ‘tour de force’ ofSchubert’s
treatment of the three-key exposition, the gravity towards F♯ minor (a minormode enharmonic transformation of the G♭ that ?irst appeared at bar 20) that
emerges in the extended transitory episode serving deftly to offset the typical
oppositionbetweentonicanddominant(1988,234–249). Rosenisquick to point
towardsthe‘wonderfullyexpressiveambiguities’oftheharmonicprogressions:
[…] the way that A major appears, only to be immediately inSlected and
weakenedbythe B♭ in the bass(bars 58–59),the suggestion ofBminorthatis
14ThisthematicapproachbearsrelationtowhatbothArnoldSchoenberg,andlaterWalter
Frisch with his derived study, have identiSied in the music of Brahms, praising the
evolutionofhisthemesasanexempliSicationofwhattheyterm‘developingvariation’:the
basictrace ofamotifretainedthroughoutan‘endlessreshaping’ (Schoenberg1975,129).
ThisisanideathatiscoveredfurtherinChapterSix(DynamicContinuities)ofthisthesis.
91
PerceptionandPerspective
nevercarriedout, andthe newharmonicmeaningof DminorattachedbrieSlyto
theF♮ inthebassbutsustainedsobrieSly.(1988,249)
In seeking to develop an harmonic approach that bypasses conventional
diatonicism infavour ofvoice-leading ef?iciency between triadic shapes, Richard
Cohn(1999 & 2012) is quick to ascribe further signi?icance to F♯ minor. Rather
than comprising what he terms (with deliberate verbosity) ‘an enharmonically
respelled minor in?lection of the triad on the ?latted submediant degree’, the
sonorityconstitutes a‘polar’key, sharingno tones withtheestablishedB♭major
yetofferingrapidmodulatorypotentialthroughsemitonemovement(1999, 218).
Assuming this perspective onthe relationship between B♭ major and F♯ minor,
Cohn argues, casts new light upon the unnervingly brief switch to the audibly
distantC♯ minor atthe outset ofthedevelopment section,withthisnew point of
tonal gravity representing the corresponding polar relationship to the
conventional dominant of F major (1999, 218–19). Establishing a tonal network
thatrevolvesaroundaseriesofmajorthirds(andtheirresultingtriadicoverlaps)
stemming from the tonic, he takes his analysis further, proposing a structural
schemeinwhichtheoverlapsbetweentriadicshapesallow aconventionaltonic–
dominant–tonic sequenceoverthecourseofthemovement, withtheexceptionof
the‘doubledominant’usedattheoutsetofthedevelopment(2012,125–28).
For listeners, it may well be that such a variety of harmonic implications
andforecastsserves only to enhanceagrowingfeelingofdisorientation.Somuch
so thatby thecloseofthe?irstexposition, aremarkableshifthas occurredinthe
characters of thematerials:with thesudden, fortissimoreappearance in the?inal
bar of the ?irst-time-repeat segment, it becomes apparent that although its
peripheraltreatmentlendsitasomewhatspectralquality,thetrillisnowrendered
familiar by comparison. Serving as a jolting reminder of the interruptions with
whichthework began, it seems to precipitate theexposition repeat itself. A role
reversal has occurred: the tonally rooted primary subject has taken on a more
restless, searchingcharacter,whilstthetrillisrendereditsgroundingfactor. With
each appearance the trill makes it is further absorbed into the consciousness of
listeners; although it may at ?irst seem ‘foreign’, it has before long become
somethingofafamiliarlandmark.
92
PerceptionandPerspective
Fig.4.5:SonatainB♭,D.960,diagramdisplayinglevelsofbinaryformthroughwork
Indeed, this perceptual transformation might be seen as providing a
compellingargument for the inclusionofthe expositionrepeatinperformance.15
Bypassingitaltogetherproducesaprofoundlydifferentpieceofmusic.Notonlyis
thebalanceofa potential binary-formreadingofboth themovement andindeed
the entire sonata (see Figure 4.5) destroyed, but nine bars of music are cut
altogether,nevertobeheard, somethingperhaps moreforgivableifitweren’tfor
thefact that these bars present not only anentirely new ?iguration, but also the
only fortissimorenditionofthetrill motif. Thework isirrevocablychanged,quite
contrary to the composer’s intentions; so extensive is Schubert’s compositional
preparationfor the return to the opening that it seems unwise to view it as an
optionalformalitythatcanbeignored.
Thefullextentoftheshiftsinfunctionofthethemeandtrillishighlightedat
the close of the development. The C♯ minor that opens the section (bar 118
onwards) quickly pivots to D♭ major paving the way for a cascade of far-?lung
progressions (Emajor, Cmajor, A♭ minor, Bminor)thatlandthe music ?irmly in
the bleak realm of D minor with no apparent signposts to indicate a way out.
Indeeditis,asFiskobserves,thereturnofthetrill–inanotablystationarymode–
thatcon?irmsDminor asanew tonal centre (bars 186–87). Asifthe sonata was
exercisingitsownmusicalmemory, theuseofthetrillservesasamotivicprompt,
bringingabout a recollection of theopening theme but transposed – as withthe
G♭-majoriterationfrombar20–tothemediantofthenewtonic.Fiskobservesthe
signi?icanceof this melodic decision, incorporating his own ‘wanderer’-narrative
interpretation(Fisk2001,252):
15AlfredBrendelinparticularexplainsthathemakesthischoiceprimarilyinorderthathe
mightbe able to comfortablyperform Schubert’sSinal three pianosonatasasatrilogyin
one evening, his conSidentoverriding of the composer leading to a disagreement and a
fascinatingexchangewithWalterFrisch(FrischandBrendel,1989).
93
PerceptionandPerspective
Improvising a version of this passage in which the return of the theme begins
instead with thetonicrevealsatonce howcruciallythe melodicemphasison the
third degree affects its feeling. It still feels more like the song of the exiled
protagonist, the lonely wanderer, than like the theme in its more choral, more
angelicinitialform.
Iterationsofthethemefailtoprovideanykindoflong-termharmonicmomentum
asthe intercedingbasstrillscon?irmoscillations betweenDminorandB♭ major.
Hepokoski and Darcy frame this passage in terms of its recapitulatory allusion,
describing it as ‘one of the most moving series of false starts in the
repertory’ (Hepokoski & Darcy 2006, 262). The tonic key not only appears as a
subordinate to itsmediant, but as nothingshortofa momentaryescapist fantasy
within a foreign environment; so thorough has the change of perspective been
upontheopeningsonoritiesthat,bythispointinthemovement,theyserveonlyto
enhanceasenseofdisorientation.Thesameisalsotrueofthedominantforatime,
F major robbedof‘all its conventional power’ inRosen’s words, initially leading
back to D minor (Rosen 1988, 291). As he points out, it is only through the fp
emphasis (bar203) upona dominant-seventh chord that the re-establishment of
the tonic for the recapitulation is undertaken. It is at this point that the trill is
recalled in its original form (bars 213–14), its miniature departure from and
return to the dominant sonority via chromatic unfamiliarity having proved
symbolicofthewidertonalschemethathasunfurled:amicroscopicexpressionof
a macrocosmic procedure. In thedesolatepassage that has precededthis return,
the B♭ major triad has been reintroduced in cryptic segments as a ?iguration
plagued by disorientationanduncertainty, with eachconstituentnote utilised as
the root of a suggested tonal direction: D♮ as a minor-key continuation of the
development-section wilderness; B♭ paradoxically as an exotic escape to the
unfamiliar;F♮at?irstas adeadendandeventuallyasapotentialpathbacktothe
tonic stability ofa recapitulation. Noteworthy in this sense is Nicholas Marston’s
reading(2000),inwhichhesuggeststhatthisnotionoftonaltransformationmight
be carried yet further; highlighting the way in which a heard augmented sixth
chord(B♭♭–D♭–F♭–G)inthecourseoftherecapitulation(bar 253)is infactspelt
as a dominant seventh chord inD major (A♮–C♯–E♮–G♮), heargues that the very
notion of B♭ major as a ‘home’ key is challenged: ‘Consequently, whereas the
94
PerceptionandPerspective
correspondingmomentintheexpositionbroughtareturntothetonicfollowingan
extendeddigressiontothe?lattenedsubmediant,hereinbars254-5Schubertpulls
off the feat of “chromaticising” the tonic, speci?ically by colouring it as a ?lat
submediantitself’(2000,257–258).
Formandfunction
By the closing passages of the ?irst movement of Schubert’s sonata, a profound
shiftinauralperspectiveuponthemusicalcontenthasbeencompleted.Whilethe
materialitselfhasremainedlargelyunchanged, itistheroleeachmotivicelement
playsthathasbeensubjecttoatransformation.Attheoutsetofthemovement,the
trill surfaced as a disruptive presence, its ambiguous chromaticism throwing a
spannerintheworksoftheplain-statedopeningsubjectandprecipitatingjarring
discontinuities. Bythe close ofthemovement, it recurs as a familiar landmark, a
homecomingpromptforthe verysubjectitonceunsettled.As theaudiencehears
thetrill,itisacatalystfortonalmotion,butthetonalgoalinquestionchanges.The
ability of the trill to initially transport the music to a new tonal realm is now
transformedintoanabilityto bringithome. Theopeningmelody, meanwhile,has
developed a restless character; it seems to ?ind little catharsis in its ?inal
appearances, the movement drawn to a conclusion more on account of its
continued iterations within a perpetuated tonic than through any audible
resolution of note. Indeed, it is throughthis lack of satisfactory culminationthat
the subduedgrief of the ensuing Andante sostenuto – set within the tonally far?lungkeyofC♯ minor–andtheauraljourneyofthesonataatlargeisfacilitated.It
is a shift redolent of what Janet Schmalfeldt terms ‘becoming’: ‘the special case
whereby the formal function initially suggested by a musical idea, phrase, or
section invites retrospective reinterpretation within the larger formal
context’(2011,9).
AlthoughAdams’s approachto motivicmaterialandits functionmight not
seem so clear cut, the broader concept of melody – and more speci?ically of
melodic ‘convergence'– is ofgreat signi?icance, audiblysoinShakerLoops. While
thebroader,lyricalgesturesthatemergeattheoutsetofPartII(‘HymningSlews’)
95
PerceptionandPerspective
Figure4.6:ShakerLoops,PartIII,solocellomelody(bars3–26)
sit seeminglyatodds withthe rapidinitial cells andloops that haveprecededit,
thisapparentdisparityismerelyare?lectionoftime-scale.Aswiththeouterparts
of thework, these centralpassages arebuiltfromreiterationsof simplecellular
motifsutilisingintervalsofsecondsandthirds.However,these?iguresnowappear
stretchedandprolonged;hyperactivetextural jostling ofthe openingofthework
has unwound into a drifting, slow-motion dialogue of interlocking fragments
across the ensemble. The transformation of prior materials in this re?lective
manner belies a unity of construction that in turn serves to enhance a sense of
long-termauralcontinuity.
This economical approach to thematic material continues into Part III
(‘Loops and Verses’) as a solo cello emerges atop tranquil textures from the
preceding calm, gradually expanding a slow oscillation between two notes into a
prolongedmelodicmeditation(seeFigure4.6).Thisnew focusupononesingular
subjectratherthantheinteractionsbetweenseveraloverlappinglines –facilitated
bytheprecedingperiodofrelativecalm–mightbeheardasincitingadistortionof
thetemporalityofthework. Contrary to theshiftingattentionencouragedbythe
musical multiplicity exhibitedthroughtherestofthework, theextendedmelodic
outpouringfromthecello providesaclearfocalpoint,acrystallisationofthepreexisting material that engenders a sense of detachment from the temporal ?low,
what might be interpreted as a kind of timelessness within the context of the
broaderform.
This refashioning of basic material through long-term gestures of
convergence can be observed at its pinnacle when the large-scale structure of
Shaker Loopsis considered. Althoughit is experiencedas a singlespan ofmusic,
the narrative form of the work can be reduced to four broad gestures in
96
PerceptionandPerspective
Part
Duration
Gesturalcontent
I.‘ShakingandTrembling’
7’59
An onward rush of multiple agents, interacting
and reacting to one another while joined in a
motoricforwardaction.
II.‘HymningSlews’
5’23
A lull gradually precipitated bythe lack of goal
achievedthroughtheinitialmotion.
8’10
The slow convergence of the ensemble upon a
repeatedrhythm (an inversionof acell from the
opening of the work) catapulted through
multiple accelerations culminating in a climactic
collisionandasubsequentdissipation.
3’25
Are-visitation of themotoricmotionsofthe Sirst
part, an entirely new perspective now gained
upon the material – rather than a race to burn
out,the music instead graduallysinksand fades
toitsconclusion.
III.‘LoopsandVerses’
IV. ‘AFinalShaking’
Figure4.7:ShakerLoops,tabledisplayinggesturalinterpretationofform
accordancewiththedivisionsAdamsmakes(seeFigure4.7).16 Itisintheseterms
that the architecture – and the narrative framework – of Shaker Loops can be
comprehended. Continuityisachievedthroughprocess, but far from themotoric,
accumulative operations of minimalism, this takes a far more organic shape: the
pieceoffersanexplorationoftheprocessofuni?ication.Seekingdirection–at?irst
throughoutwardexplorationandfrenziedonwardmotion–themusiceventually
reaches apointofcrisis and, subsequently, ofcrystallisation. The self-exhausting
locomotive climax of the third movement comprises a series of rhythmic
contractions and expansions of two repeated notes. The initial short-long
?igurationofthecellisapparentlyderivedfromtheB♮ entriesattheveryopening
of thework (Part I – ‘Shakingand Trembling’, bars 5–30). In the course ofwhat
proves to be the formal cataclysm of the work, the length of the two notes is
reversed as the ensemble converges with increasing muscularity (Shaker Loops:
Part III – ‘Loops and Verses’, bars 71–123). The incision has been inverted, the
abruptactionoftheshorternotenowactingasacut-offratherthanasaherald;an
invertedperspective uponthe samebasic motivic shape has been achieved(see
Figure4.8).
16
Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (London Chamber
Orchestra,conductedbyChristopherWarren-Green.VirginClassics:724356185128).
97
PerceptionandPerspective
Figure4.8:ShakerLoops,excerptsshowingrhythmicmotifreversalacrosswork
After this watershed, earlier material is revisited but with an inevitably
alteredperspective.Thefourthand?inalmovementbearsgreatresemblancetothe
?irst, motoricpulsationsemergingandinteractingacrosstheensemble.Butrather
than inciting dramatic builds in tension, these accumulating loops lead to an
ultimate sense of release and relief. Perspectives on essentially unchanged
materialshavebeentransformedoverthecourseofthework.Themusicalcontent
of both Shaker Loops and Schubert’s sonata, it would appear, has retained its
simplicity;thecomplexitiesandchangesthathavearisenareinfactpredominantly
perceptual. In terms of aural content, the experiences of both works end where
theybegan;ratheritistheinterceding‘events’thathavereshapedhowtheymight
beheard.
98
Five
PerceivingTime
Objectiveandsubjectivetime
Psychologistshaveshownthatsubjectivetimedoesnotgenerallyequalclocktime.
In the process of experiencing and then remembering lengths of time, we alter
them. It is misleading, however, to think of subjective time alterations as
distortions. Subjective duration is more relevant to the understanding of music
thanisdurationmeasuredbyaclock.(J.Kramer1988,327)
Although he underlines the variety of temporal experiences that music can
highlight,JonathanKramerlaysthegroundworkforhisin-depthstudyTheTimeof
Music by making a number of interconnected distinctions regarding our
perceptions of time itself (1988, 1–19). He is quick to acknowledge the
correspondencebetweenhisdivisionoflinearandnon-lineartime–akeystoneof
his writing – and the long-held philosophical separation between
‘becoming’ (‘Heraclitean Flux’, as Weinert puts it) and ‘being’ (Weinert’s
‘ParmenideanStasis’).17 The ongoing, quanti?iable ‘ordinary’ time of daily life is
seemingly at odds with a more malleable, immersive musical time, one that is
described as being ‘repeatable, reversible, accelerating and decelerating’ (J.
Kramer 1988, 17). DavidEpsteinisquickto align the?irst ofthese‘times’witha
clocklike measurement mode, withthe latter dependentupon‘experience for its
demarcation’:
The clocklike mode iseasiestto comprehend, especially in an age dominated by
precision timepieces. The exactitude of the clock (ormetronome) is Janus-faced,
however; itisgained atthe expense of interest, forthough clocktime isreliable
and predictable, it is also dull. (How long can a ticking clock, devoid of other
content,hold the attentionof alivelymind?) Experientialtime,bycontrast,isthe
stuffoflife,endlesslyinteresting,rarelythe same,Silledwiththeepisodesofliving
by which it is framed. By this same token it is unpredictable, its particular
structures drawn from and formed by those very elements that make a given
experience unique. In reality, we live by both modes of time. They run
simultaneously, attimescorresponding, atother timesin conSlict. (Epstein 1995,
7)
17
Weinert’sdistinction(2013,89–90)isdiscussedinChapterThree(DirectingTime).
99
PerceivingTime
ForEpstein, theidea ofthe clock proves particularly signi?icant, evenifhe
does appear to underestimate its expressive potential in certain contexts. The
notionofa‘biologicalclock’evenunderpins his explorationofthe ways inwhich
periods of time are perceived and understood (1995, 135–55). He highlights
research into the way in which continuous movements or sensations are
transmittedviaintermittentprocesses in thehumannervous system (principally
Gooddy 1969 & 1977), the leaning of these processes towards synchronicity
(Fraser 1978), and their signi?icance in perceiving units of time (Pöppel 1978).
Whilst his resulting observations about our understanding of metre and tempo
prove useful, there can be no doubt that they serve a particular agenda; his
emphasis upon systematic consistency in time perception re?lects the broader
musical regularity (rhythm, metre and phrase structure) of the classical and
romantic works that dominate his study. His interpretations of musical time are
unapologeticallytiedupwiththeteleologicalstructuralandtonalprinciplesofthe
pieces he deems the most successful. His reasoning for this selection process is
evidencedperhapsmosttellinglyinhisuseofacounterexample,whathedeemsto
bea‘miscalulatedsection’inaScriabin’sPiano Concerto:a12-bardominantpedal
inthe?inal-movementcodajudgedtobeunnecessary–a‘musicalfalsehood’–on
accountofitsapparentintentiontore-establishthealreadyaf?irmedtonic.Inspite
of the climactic effect Epstein himself describes the passage as possessing, he
dismissesitas‘rhetoricallyempty’:
The passion seems hollow, the sweep of the line unconvincing. The phrase feels
untrue. Nor is thisaffective response unfounded; it isgrounded in the structure
itself. Scriabin’s miscalculation provides a musically unneeded passage whose
climacticcharacterisunsupported.The musicis thus atoddswithitsunderlying
structure,andtherebystemsfromnointrinsicneed.(Epstein1995,90–93)
By contrast, Kramer’s approach proves helpful in its aversion to such a
categorical, and indeed intrusively self-certain presentation. Although the
framework he proposes is also marked by contrasting understandings of time,
their simultaneity becomes a point of recurring emphasis. The seemingly
paradoxical experiences that are enabledby this interactionbetween perceptual
extremes becomes something that can be embraced and explored rather than
simply bypassed in favour of a more stable, regularised, middle-ground
100
PerceivingTime
interpretation. Kramer points to the impact of cultural thought upon
interpretations oftime, outlining the linear, absolute time ofthe Westernworld
andthecausalunderstandingitgenerates. Twentieth-centuryartsandtechnology
serve to illustrate a gradual leaning towards less obviously sequential
understandings oftime:theincreasingobsolescenceoftraintravel asametaphor
for modern experience relative to the ‘imperceptible motion’ (and thus the
apparent stasis) of ?light serves as a particularly potent example. Even the
advances that have ensued since Kramer committed his thoughts to print have
only served to enhance his accompanying analogy regarding computing: ‘A
program consists of doubling back, of loops within loops, of branching off in
different directions. It is thus an apt symbol for contemporary temporality.’ (J.
Kramer,1988,9–19)
Moreconvincingly, Kramer’scaseisgroundedinneurologicalthought.The
long-accepteddivisionsinfunctionbetweenthetwohemispheresofthebrainlead
himto concludethat contrasting perceptionsoriginateindistinct butnonetheless
cooperating sections of the brain. The left hemisphere acts as the ‘seat of linear
logic’, offering analytical, compartmentalised readings based on a causal
understanding; theright hemisphere, meanwhile, offersaholistic comprehension
ofcomplexwebsofevents, remainingopento notionsofsimultaneity, expression
andmetaphor.Musicalexperiences–andthusmusicaltime,heasserts–relyupon
both the objective perspective of the left hemisphere, and the subjective
understandingsofferedbytheright(1988,9–12).
Acknowledging this psychological synthesis of perceptual extremes may
help us to elucidate the variety of experiences Kramer alludes to. Instead of
representing direct contrasts, perceptions of time could be located at points on
what might be thought of as a continuum between absolute and relational
conceptions of temporality. Certainly this rooting in cognition provides a more
pragmaticframeworkforan explorationof musical time. Forall their discernible
alignments, the impossibility of a predictable theoretical reconciliation between
objective and subjectivetime must be conceded. Instead, what broadly inclusive
surveys like those by Weinert (2013) seem to underline is how much more
complexandmulti-facetedourunderstandingoftemporalitymightbe;itcannotbe
reducedtoasimplecontrastbetweentwoextremesofregularity and?luctuation.
101
PerceivingTime
Studies like Kramer’s The Time ofMusic demonstrateacommitment to exploring
whatliesbetweenandindeedbeyondthesetwo extremes, andacknowledgethat
theyarenotnecessarilyde?inedbytheiroppositiontooneanother.
I wouldsuggest that writers continue to employ(or imply) theobjectivesubjective distinction – in spite of the apparent oversimpli?ication it risks – on
account of how relatable it remains. It is best regarded as an indicator of how
universally standardised temporal measures cannot even guarantee perceptual
consistency.Rather,itisbesttoacceptthattheco-operationsandtensionsthatare
experiencedbetweenthesetwo contrastingtemporalperspectives –andall those
perceptions of time that might bethoughtofas inhabiting a continuum between
thesetwoextremes–areevidencenotsomuchofadifferencetobereconciledbut
of a coexistence that is in fact characteristic of lived experience. Certainly this
inclusive approachis ofmost use within the contexts ofstudies like this one, in
whichcanonicmusicmoreconventionallythoughtofasengagingwithlineartime
is juxtaposedwithnewerpiecesthatinmanyinstancescanbeseentoundermine
or defy such a reading. This chapter will ?irst provide a brief survey of
psychologicalandcognitiveresearchconcernedwiththemannerinwhichmusical
timeistypicallyprocessedandhowtheseoperationsmaybesubverted.Focuswill
gradually shift to musical characteristics and how the design of compositions
might be thought of as manipulating temporal perceptions. The closing segment
will highlighttwoscholars –RobertAdlingtonandJonathanKramer– whohave
provided particularly insightful ways ofcomprehendingmore recent music that,
through the absence of regularised elements, provokes less conventional
perceptionsoftime.
Orderandconsciousness
The German philosopher Edmund Husserl modelled a more inclusive attitude
towardstemporalperceptionwithhisphenomenologicaltheoriespublishedinthe
?irst halfof thetwentiethcentury (Husserltrans. Brough,1991). Inparticular, he
offers areconciliationofsortsbetweenabsoluteandrelationaltimethroughwhat
hedeemstobeanecessarydismissalofthenotionofobjectivetime;hisintention
102
PerceivingTime
isnottorejecttheconceptoutright,butrathertosuspenditforthepurposeofhis
inquiries(1991,4–8).18Instead,itisanemphasisonintentionalconsciousnessthat
underpins his investigations, providing ‘the very grounding condition of our
knowledge of the world’, as David Clarke surmises (2011, 1–2); for Husserl,
temporality comprises a stream of lived experiences uni?ied within the
consciousnessofthesubject.
Music holds some signi?icance within this view of time perception,
articulating both this momentary ?low and its broader sequential unity in an
undeniably direct manner. Clarke is justi?iably forthright about this relationship,
assertingthat participating in musical acts‘capturesinitsverytemporal essence
thetemporalitythatisessentialtotheknowingofbeing–i.e.consciousness’(2011,
1–2).ItisapointHusserlharnessesinordertoillustratethisprocessofsuccession,
using the example ofthe perceptionof a melody (de?ined here as a sequence of
tones)as aspringboardforhis examinationofmemoryandcontinuity. Crucialto
thisishisconceptofretention:anenduring,present-tensegraspofelapsedtones,
a‘consciousnessofwhathasjustbeen’(Miller1984,120).
It is this process of conscious, invoked memory – distinct from a more
isolated act of recollection – that enables temporal structure to take shape,
allowing events to fall into a potentially meaningful sequence rather than a
disparate array of occurrences. Husserl also outlines a corresponding notion of
protention, what Clarke helpfully describes as ‘the fringe of expectation where
what is just about to happen colours our experience of now’. However, this
supposedlysymmetricalcounterparttoretentionprovesalittlemoreproblematic;
Clarkeraisesaptconcerns regardingboththeincompatibilityofthisconcept with
the apparent asymmetry of time itself and with Husserl’s failure to tackle
anticipation as an opposite to recollection (D. Clarke 2011, 5). It is enough for
present purposes to accept Izchak Miller’s description of the reciprocal
relationshipas it is experienced(1984, 121): ‘According to Husserl, I have[…] a
primal-impression, a continuous manifold of retentions which are‘modi?ications’
of past primal-impressions and a continuous manifold ofprotentions which are
18 A helpfully detailed examination of
this ‘phenomenological reduction’, its distinction
fromCartesian philosophy,anditsimplicationsforthenotionsofobjectandessence, can
befoundinMiller1984,175–98.
103
PerceivingTime
responsibleformyhaving…ananticipatoryawarenessofacontinuousmanifoldof
futureprimal-impressions.’ 19
Inthecontextofaperformance,suchaviewoftimeperceptionwouldseem
to place listeners in the crux of the momentary present, with potential musical
meanings accessiblethroughacombinationof‘moving’memoriesofthepast and
shiftingexpectationsofthefuture.Theideaofan‘organisingimpulse’lyingatthe
heart of the listening enterprise (in the spirit of Whittall’s take on the act of
composition,discussedattheoutsetofChapterTwo:AlternativePaths)appearsto
hold true here.20 It is aconclusion echoed by Hodges andSebald, who conclude
their survey of neurological hearing mechanisms by outlining a psychological
tendency:‘Wemayhaveinventedmusic,inpart,becauseweweresurroundedbya
sound worldfrom whichwe couldnot escape. Musical sound results, at least in
part, from thehuman need to organise andelaborate sensory input’(2011, 96–
110). When it comes to sound, order and meaning are unavoidably linked;
listening to music necessitates, on some level, a direct engagement with our
temporal consciousness. In its broadest sense, ‘musical time’ might best be
understoodasanapproachtowardstheorganisationofsoundthatfacilitatessuch
meaning.
Processingmusicaltime
Practicallyspeaking,it is rhythm andmetrethat mightbethoughtofas themost
rudimentary subdivisions of musical time. However, ‘rhythm’ in particular has
come to encompass a number of de?initions. Christopher Hasty navigates the
‘extraordinary range of reference’ that it has acquired by separating this variety
into threedistinct groups:broadertemporal organisationin music, the unfolding
of musical form, and quanti?iable patterns of rhythm and metre. Although he
19
Detailed examinations of Husserl’s account of the perception of a melody and its
implicationsfortemporalphenomenologycanbefoundinClarke2011:1–24,Miller1984:
117–44,andSmith1979:100–16.
20 ChristopherSmallalsoemphasiseslisteningasanactiveroletoplayintheperformance
of music in his Musicking (1998); his theory will be explored further in the coming
chapters.
104
PerceivingTime
identi?iesthethirdoftheseasthemostcommonlyemployedde?inition,heisquick
to emphasise the implications that anexploration of such features may have for
wider‘rhythms’,eveniftheseareoftenneglectedindiscussion(1981b,183–85).
Indeed, a positivethat might be gleaned from the broadening of‘rhythm’
into something ofan umbrella term is the way in which temporal processing in
music might accordingly be connected with aspects of more general experience.
Hodges andSebaldprovidea convincingoverview ofthe ways in whichahuman
senseofrhythmmightbecontextualisedwithinauniversethatexistsina‘stateof
vibration’, contrasting recurring cosmic shifts with the oscillations of atomic
particles outlinedin String Theory (2011, 31–36): ‘Althoughwe cannot perceive
vibrationsatthemacro-andmicroscopicscales,theperiodicitieswecanperceive
create a rhythmic environment. Seasons of the year, phases of the moon, and
periods of daylight anddark follow in regular, timely patterns.’ In a manner inkeeping with Epstein’s idea of a ‘biological clock’, these natural patterns are
mirroredbythehumanbody, withprocesseslikeheartandbreathingrates,brain
waves,hormonaloutputsandsleepcyclesactingasreadilyobservableillustrations
ofphysiologicalrhythms(HodgesandSebald2011,33).
The fundamental nature of these traits has lead to questions of whether
some basic understandings of rhythm might be considered universal. Although
conceding a decidedly Western perspective, Carolyn Drake and Daisy Bertrand
have set out suggestions for cross-cultural research methods that might helpto
identifycommonprocessingcharacteristics(2003,21–31).Thetraitstheypropose
demonstrate leanings towards regularity of sequence, moderation ofspeed, and
the perceived interrelation of durations and intervals, all features that might
facilitatearhythmicunderstandingthatiscapableofextendingbeyondwhatthey
describeasa‘memorybuffer’ofprocessingtime:
One can imagine a temporal window gliding gradually through time, with new
eventsarriving atone endandoldeventsdisappearing atthe otherduetodecay.
Thusonlyeventsoccurringwithinaspanofa fewsecondswouldbeaccessiblefor
processing at any one time, and only events occurring within this limited time
window can be situated in relation to each other by the coding of relevant
relationalinformation.(2003,23)
105
PerceivingTime
Theability to movebeyondthis basic limitationis just one ofthewaysin
which humans prove themselves to be notably selective in issues of time
organisation;JustinLondonoutlinesacommonapplicationofthisfacilitywithina
musical context, asserting thatoftentheresponsibility lies withlisteners to make
an ‘effort to project and maintain an established meter in passages that involve
things like syncopation and hemiola’ (2004, 25). Both physiologically and
psychologicallyevolvedconstitutions allowpeopleto be‘more time–independent
thanother livingthings’, as Hodges andSebaldputit. This abilityto register and
respondto speci?ic rhythmicpatterns is usually demonstrated fromanearly age,
principallythroughtheincreasinglycomplexprocessesoflanguageacquisitionand
themovementsandexchangesofsocialinteraction(HodgesandSebald2011, 35).
Also developed, albeit more gradually, are tactics for rhythmic adjustment in a
variety of contexts, with people altering their own gestures to accord with the
motions of others, a shift referred to by cognitive theorists as entrainment. As
Londonexplains:
Entrainmentleadsustofocusourattentiontothemostsalienttemporallocations
for events; attention is, by its very nature, selective. We are almost always
immersed in a rich and, from an information-processing perspective, noisy
environment.Thereismuchgoingonthatcommandsourattention,butonlysome
of the activity and information in our environment – including musical
environments–isrelevanttousatanygivetime.(2004,14)
London continues by outlining this as a two-way exchange, with humans
projecting orderandsequenceontothesurroundingenvironmentas time passes.
A long–acknowledged phenomenon he describes as subjective metricisation –
where listeners perceive or impose their own rhythmic groupings upon regular
aural patterns – serves to placefurtheremphasis onthe power listenersholdto
modifyandmanipulatemusicalinformation:
In temporal attending, it is useful (and perhaps necessary) for the perceiver to
establisha self-generated groundagainstwhichthe continuing temporalpatterns
maybediscerned.Thisattending strategymayoriginate inextrapolationsfroma
local invariant or characteristic rhythmic Sigure that implies a particular metric
schema,butthe continuationofa meterislessdependenton subsequentmusical
invariantsthan on (a)the listener'sabilitytogenerate metricpatterns(an ability
106
PerceivingTime
that may vary with age, talent, training, and enculturation), and (b) the lack of
interference from subsequent musical stimuli (interference here meaning the
emergenceofapatternofalternatemetriccues).(2004,14–15)
Theinclination of listeners to attempt to break up longstretches of aural
informationintosmallercomparablechunks asameans to comprehendinglarger
musical structures isanidea thathas beenmuch discussed. The most in?luential
theoretical research carried out in this regard is that by Fred Lerdahl and Ray
Jackendoff,whoseAGenerativeTheoryofTonalMusic(1983)hasprovidedaformal
examination of grouping techniques. Distinct from metre, which constitutes
divisions ofbeats or demarcations (1983, 18), grouping is a process by which a
pieceisdividedupinto temporalunitsaccordingtoaspectsofitsmusicalcontent.
Theseunitsrarely overlap, andtheyfall withinarecursivehierarchy ofdominant
andsubordinateregionsaccordingtotheirsize.21
Directapplicationsofthisgroupingtheoryarelimitedwithinthecontextof
across-historical study suchas this given Lerdahl andJackendoff’s speci?ic focus
uponmoretraditional, tonal music. Inthis sense, themannerinwhich they deal
withmusicalformremainsquiteconventional;subjectandcountersubjectgroups,
regular phrase lengths and established tonal mapping procedures continue to
dictate many broader structural readings. However, all ofthis analytical detail is
notallowedtosupersedeinnatemusicalintuition, withtheauthors assertingthat
the grouping procedures they outline are not con?ined to musically experienced
listeners (1983, 18), with facets of even themost nuanced operations remaining
accessible when presented and af?irmed in the right contexts: ‘Unconscious
processes ofamazingcomplexity andsubtletyarebyno meansincompatiblewith
a conscious impression of great ease and ?luidity, and with the sense that one
learns these cognitive tasks by “just picking them up” from experience with
suf?icientenvironmentalstimulation’(1983,249).Aparticularlyconvincingrecent
af?irmationofthiskindofprocessispresentedbyLondonwhonotestheabilityof
listeners to retainandapplypatternsofattentionto varyinglevelsofrecurrence.
Hehighlightsmusicalexperienceasanotablydynamicphenomenon:
21 A helpfulredaction ofLerdahl& Jackendoff’s theoryof grouping canalso be found in
West,Howell&Cross,1985:34–42.
107
PerceivingTime
We donotencounter‘generic4/4’oreven ‘4/4 ata tempoofquarter-note =120’
butapatternoftiminganddynamicsthatisparticulartothepiece,the performer,
andthe musicalstyle.Therefore,togiveanecologicallyvalidaccountofmeter,we
mustmovebeyond atheoryoftempo-metrical types to ametrical representation
that involves particular timing relationships and their absolute values in a
hierarchicallyrelatedsetofmetriccycles.(2004,159)
Developing this notion, he proposes the ‘Many Metres Hypothesis’: ‘A
listener's metric competence resides in her or his knowledge of a very large
number of context-speci?ic metrical timing patterns. The number and degree of
individuation among these patterns increases with age, training, and degree of
musicalenculturation’(2004,152–53).
Themore empirical rootingofthe ‘generativetheory’incognitivescience
seemstohavestooditingoodsteadwithregardtosubsequentempiricalresearch.
Although Ian Cross (1998) expressed reservations as to whether it provided a
suf?icient alternative to what he termed ‘folk psychologies’ regarding temporal
perception,researchintosegmentationandgroupingprocessescarriedoutbyEric
ClarkeandCarol Krumhansl (1990)hasprovidedoutcomes thatnotonlysupport
LerdahlandJackendoff’stheorybutdemonstrate–throughastudyutilisingmusic
by Mozart and Stockhausen – its potential overlap with less conventional, posttonalmusic.
Christopher Hasty also seeks to account for a wider variety of
compositional styles in his writing concerning metre as it is experienced by
listeners (1981a, 1981b, 1984, 1986 and 1997). In seeking to re-establish a
broaderde?initionofmetreandreaf?irmitsplacewithinavarietyofcompositional
styles,heexplores its impactintermsofattentionandanticipation, formulatinga
theoryofprojection:
Projectivepotentialisthepotentialforapresentevent’sdurationtobereproduced
for a successor. This potential is realised if and when there is a new beginning
whose durationalpotential isdetermined by the nowpast Sirst event. Projective
potentialisnotthepotentialthattherewillbeasuccessor,butratherthepotential
ofa pastand completeddurationalquantitybeing takenasespeciallyrelevantfor
thebecomingofapresentevent.(Hasty1997,84)
108
PerceivingTime
Thesheerbreadthofthisinterpretationofmetreallows awideningofthekindof
musical gestures it can encompass, allowing greater ?lexibility with regard to
phraselengths:
As the phrase is being formed, primary constituents are open to future
interpretation and may bear considerable ambiguities, particularly in the initial
stages.TheclosureofthephraseisthefulSilmentofcertainofthesepossibilitiesat
theexpenseofothers.Attheconclusionofthephrasethestructuralmeaningofthe
constituentshasbecomerelativelySixed. Totheextentthe structureisclosed, the
partsnolongerprojectfuturepossibilities.Ofcourse,closureisrarelysocomplete
as toentirelydenythe future. Normally, something isleft unincorporated which
can engender a new phrase, or there may be residual ambiguities which are
resolvedbysucceedingphrases.(Hasty1984,188)
Affectandattention
Beyond the practical and socialworld of clockordered events there isthe inner
world […] the musical world[…]a Slux where eventshappen ata multiplicity of
unit speeds, where the units themselves are subject to distortions, and where
uncounted episodes, unit-free durations, are a large part of our experience. Our
sense of time comes closest to clock time when we are experiencing a regular
successionof perceptuallyequalunits.Whentheunitsbecome very,verylong the
experience becomes that of unit-free duration. […]When the units become very
shorttheyblurintotexture.(Erickson1963,177)
Undertaking any kind of scienti?ic examination of the relationship between
functional clock time and musical time is no easy feat. Attempted comparison
between a quanti?iable absoluteand a wholly subjectiveexperience inempirical
termsisboundtoprovesomewhatfutile.Apartfromanythingelse,?indingasclose
toanobjectiveandstandardisedmeansofexpressionaspossiblereturnsustothe
problems of articulatory variety discussed in Chapter Three (Directing Time).
Indeed,theapproachofcomposerRobertEricksonquotedaboveservesasanapt
illustration ofthe partiallyestrangedtemporalitythat music is oftenregardedas
inhabiting, atleastforits participants; here, musical timeseeminglythreatensto
acquireakindofperceptual‘autonomy’withregardtotheclock-de?inedabsolutes
109
PerceivingTime
of ordinary functional time. Musical learning and experience may even enable
subjects to develop an independent ‘clock’, with research by Deborah Sheldon
(1994) pointing to the possibility of an ‘internalised steady beat’ acting as the
yardstickbywhichtempochangesarecomprehendedandimplemented.
What can most certainly be gleaned from many studies that attempt to
correlate listeners’ expectations and intuitions of musical durations with clock
timings isthesheervariety offactors that cancontributeto theextremevariation
between these two temporal modes. As Henry Orlov outlines, ‘if the ‘biological
clock’ does not always tell the right time, it is because its readings are often
obstructedanddistortedinsomewaybyphysiologicalandpsychologicalreactions
and processes of different intensity and colouring, of which pleasure and
displeasure, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are the ?irst and most usual’ (1979,
375). Emotions have been shown to have a profound bearing upon the way in
whichtimeand durations inparticular are registered (see Droit-Volet and Meck
2007,andAngrilli,Cherubini,PaveseandManfredini1997),andthisextendstothe
perceivedaffectconveyedbythemusicitself.22
Exploring further links between emotion, tonality and timing, Naomi Ziv
andElad Omer’s study ofdurationestimations intonal andatonal music (2010)
considers theadditional complexitiesofthedifferencesbetweenexperiencedand
remembered time. Some participants listening to keyboard works by Bach and
Schoenberg were asked in advance to judge the amount of time passing (the
prospective paradigm), whilst others were only asked to provide a durational
estimate afterthe fact(theretrospective paradigm). As well as providingfurther
evidenceoftheprofoundroleemotionsplayintimeperception,itwas foundthat
‘themorepleasantandconsonantapiecesounds, theshorteritisperceivedinthe
prospective paradigm, and the longer it seems in the retrospective
paradigm’(2010,192). Suchresults raisequestions ofattentiveness andits effect
upon impressions of time. Recent research emphasises its signi?icance, in
particular with regard to processing duration; Scott Brown’s review of research
concerning this relationship (2010) ?inds attention – on both conscious and
22 Forexample, a studycarried outbyMaria Panagiotidiand Stavroula Samartzi(2010)
demonstrates that, while musical training can help to imbue a more objective sense of
passing clock time,itiscommonplace forall listeners tounderestimate the durationof a
‘happy’ piece (quick in tempo, majorin key) and to overestimate that of a ‘sad’ piece
(slower,minorinkey).
110
PerceivingTime
subconsciouslevels–tobearequirementformoreaccuratetemporaljudgments.23
Emphasisonthenecessityofattentivelisteninginevitablypromptsqueryastothe
effect of altered states of consciousness uponthe processing of musical time, in
particular direct manipulations of subject perception such as those induced by
drugs.24 While such physiological and neurological issues are not a primary
concern here, it is helpful to takenote of a contextualisationoffered by Richard
Elliott:
If consciousness studies has shown an interest in the effects of drug-induced
alteredstatesofconsciousnessonmusic,wemightaskwhysuchalteredstatesare
mostly seen to concern transformations of the immediate perception of
individuals,understoodfromtheperspectiveofchemicalchangesintheirbrains.It
isequallythecasethatwe neverhearanypieceof musicthesamewaytwice,that
wealwaysbring something newand differenttoit, and thatthese differencescan
arise as much from to the impact of history, culture, and politics as of mindalteringdrugs.(2011,336–37)
Somuchscholarlyenergyhasbeendirectedtowardsattentionlevelsthatit
has been suggested that other qualities have been underplayed by comparison.
Whenexaminingdurationspeoplehadassignedtostimuli,DavidEagleman(2010)
foundpredictabilityandmagnitudeofneuralresponse to be especiallyimportant
factors. However, evenaspects ofdirectedpredicationcanplay into theeffect of
attention upon time. In his survey ofstudies concerned with ‘prior entry’ – the
phenomenonofaforthcomingstimulusseemingtobeperceivedsoonerintimeifit
is anticipated than if it is not – Charles Spence (2010) ?inds that accumulated
empirical evidence sits ?irmly in favour of the theory. Once stimuli have
commenced, however, subjects more often experience the opposite effect, with
focussed attention upon events causing them to seem longer in duration. In
23
A large body of research has been undertaken concerning the use of music as a
background element in commercial contexts and its effect upon consumers. Given that
musicinthesestudiesisutilisedasaperipheralpresenceratherthanapointoffocus,they
donotwarrantdetailed explorationhere.However, a numberof publicationsdo explore
aspects of duration experience and estimation with regard to the tempo, content and
familiarityofbackgroundmusic:BaileyandAreni,2006;KellarisandKent,1992;Kellaris
andMantel,1996;CaldwellandHibbert,1999;andOakes,2003.
24 Twouseful and especiallyaccessible recentexplorationsof the effectof drug-induced
altered states upon musical consciousness can be found in Music and Consciousness:
Philosophical,Psychological,andCulturalPerspectivesed.Clarke&Clarke,Fachner,2011:
263–76;andShanon,2011:281–92
111
PerceivingTime
examining this temporal expansion, Peter Ulric Tse (2010) has questioned the
traditional model of distraction as causing aproportion oftemporal information
units to be missed, whilst attention causes less to be missed. He suggests that
listeners assumeamoreengagedroleinthis process throughevidencethat focus
inducedbyanunexpectedeventinfactacceleratesinformationprocessing:
More unitsaredetectedduringtheeventanditthereforeseemstolastlonger,but
thisoccursbecausethere aremore unitsdetected, notbecause feweraremissed.
The previous hypothesis assumed that attention affected sensitivity, leading to
fewer missed cues in a stream of constant rate. Alternatively, it could be that
sensitivityremainsunchangedbyattentionbuttherateof informationprocessing
increases.These interpretationsare notmutuallyexclusive.Bothcouldcontribute
todistortionsinperceived durationandbothare compatible withthe notion ofa
counterthatmeasuresthe amountof information processed inordertocalculate
the duration of perceived events. For either reason, an attended stimulus may
appear to last longerthan a lessattended stimulusthatlaststhe same objective
duration.(2010,146)
Such notions ofattention and distraction inform questions as to whether
people are capable of judging multiple durations simultaneously. Although
researchqueryingtheabilityofsubjectstotimeoverlappingstimulihasnotruled
out thepotentialforthe employment ofmorethanone‘clock’, it has highlighted
notable inclinations: that greater numbers of parallel stimuli cause increasing
disruption in duration judgment (Brown andWest 1990); and that people more
oftenutiliseasingletimesourceas a referencepointby whichto gauge multiple
durations (Rijn and Taatgen 2008). That listeners might seek to organise and
simplify anarrayofstimuli according to anaudiblelowest commondenominator
comes as no surprise. However, this singular ‘pacemaker’ approach is more
complex than such an account would suggest. Inher study concerned with time
estimation in music, Marilyn Boltz is keen to emphasise the effect of different
perspectivesofattentionupondurationperception(Boltz1991).Acknowledginga
common hierarchy of metre, phrase length and rhythm, she asserts that the
processing of these units depends crucially upon whether the material they
contain aligns or avoids expectation; broader structural coherence and
predictability allows the attention oflisteners to move freely betweenlarge and
small units, whilst unpredictable, incoherent music does not so readily facilitate
112
PerceivingTime
suchshifts.Moreover, diversionsfromexpectationwithinphraselengths–suchas
disruptiveaccentplacement,orunexpectedchangesinmelodiccontour–canskew
perceivedunitdurations. Boltz contrastsmelodiesthatconcludeonthetonic with
thosethatdonot,withthelattertypicallyoverestimatedinlength(1991,425–27).
Diversionsandsubversions
It is particularly interesting that Boltz places emphasis upon the variety of
structural levels that canbe identi?iedin pieces ofmusic andthe ways in which
attentional perspective can move between these levels. With regard to the
perceptionoftime,bothmusic andaudienceprove decidedly complex. Focus can
bedrawntowardsdifferentfacetsofcompositionsonvaryingplanesofdetail, and
it is this process of shifting attention between musical characteristics that can
produce changes in how temporality is processed. In the sense that particular
musical traits can elicit certain kinds of reactions from listeners, it might be
perceivedthatagreat deal ofpowerliesinthehandsofcomposers, leavingthem
withtheability not only toorganise musical timeina morelinear-mindedsense
but further to manipulate time for their audiences in a rather more non-linear
fashion. Robert Newell’s assertion that ‘whoever makes music also moulds time’
provesaptinthisregard(1976,147).
Beyondpatternsofrhythm,controlledusesoftimbre,pitchandtonalityadd
further dimensions to audible time. Robert Erickson rightly acknowledges the
lessened signi?icance of timbre in much music of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, where melodic writing is often notably faster and attention thus
focussed on pitch (1975, 82–85). However, there can be little doubt that the
timbralfocus intheoftenmoreprotractedgestures ofmorerecentmusic offersa
more immersive time. Just as unexpected events incite accelerated reception of
temporal information units, a distinctive timbral effect might prompt a similar
heightenedmodeoflisteninginwhich moments perceptually expand; withinthe
context of this study, movements from Hans Abrahamsen’s Schnee might be
consideredintheseterms.Pitchcanprovidesimilarmanipulations. DianaDeutsch
(1980) provides an account of how parallel movement between two separate
113
PerceivingTime
groupings of pitch class can blur the rhythm and order of their perceived
relationships. Firmino, Bueno andBigand(2009) extend this disruptive effect of
pitch movement to tonality, using their research to demonstrate the temporal
acceleration created by music that involves tonal movement to more distant,
unrelatedkeys.
Ofcourse, generalisationregardingthetemporalpotentialofthesemusical
featuresisofonlylimitedusegiventheeffectofsuchfeaturesisdependentonthe
context in whichtheyare presented. Indeed, theinterdependencebetweenthese
characteristicsleadsRobertCutietta(1993)toquestionwhethertheelementsthat
form the basis of much music education (pitch, rhythm, form, dynamics and
timbre)areinfactre?lective ofacategorisationprocessthat doesnotcorrespond
with how pieces are heard. Indeed, his response is to suggest alternative
perception-based elements: three that deal with aspects of musical movement
(motion, energy, ?low), and two that constitute less systematic reinventions of
textureandtimbre(fabricandcolour).Itisnocoincidencethatthesearetermsfar
more readily suited to addressing more recent music. Those describing musical
movementinparticularfeatureheavilyinthisstudy.Withoutdoubt,theyaremore
aural-centric, holistically mindedanalyticalthemes thatmight allow an approach
to musical form that does not rely quite so heavily upon long-held hierarchies.
Indeed, it may well help to provide a more dynamic alternative than simply
mapping a different set of hierarchies onto more progressive music, as Michel
Imbertysuggestsinaddressingtheperceptionofatonalworks(1993).
Of course, even the terms Cutietta suggests constitute necessary
distillations ofafarmorecomplexandintegratedauralreality, one thatdoes not
afford such separations. As Barbara Barry puts it, ‘in analytic time an objective
technique is applied to the work to identify objects for attention, whereas in
experientialtimeitisthemusicalworkasperformancewhichrequiresrecognition
of time as organised motion and ongoing progress’ (1990, 105). Barry’s own
approach to musical time revolves around her ‘tempo/density theory’ derived
fromaparticularunderstanding,that‘thespeedatwhichtimepassesisthespeed
atwhichinformationisprocessed’(1990,165);inessence, the?luctuatingspacing
– or density – of musical events in the course of a composition determines its
perceived temporality and duration. Although her applications of the theory are
114
PerceivingTime
mostly con?ined to works that echo or engage with more traditional structural
values, the reasoning she offers would appear to resonate with both cognitive
theory and, potentially, more recent music: ‘higher density musical information
?ills a longer experiential time than more normative information played at the
same tempo. It requires more processing ‘effort’ because it has a greater
uncertainty (less predictability, which would reduce complexity) and so is less
easilyassimilatedtostandardsasreferencepointsoforganisation’(1990,167).
Itismorerecent, ‘post-tonal’musicthatRobertAdlingtonspeci?icallyseeks
to account for (1997b and 2003). He establishes a useful branch of questioning
with regard to received temporal notions, highlighting their failure to offer
convincing treatments for certain musical experiences. Indeed, highlighting its
relianceuponculturalconstructs, hepointstoalackofinternalcoherenceinmost
commonconceptions: ‘It would appear thatno social concept oftime couldever
adequately contain experience. Rather, what we conventionally refer to as an
individual’s “temporal experience” is the result of personal idiosyncrasies –
assemblages of, and elaborations upon, diverging constructed concepts of
time’ (1997, 21–22). In unpacking these conglomerations of language and
metaphor, Adlington seeks out solid theoretical ground that might be?it the
consideration of new music. A major obstacle he confronts is that of perceived
motion in music, a broadly accepted notion that, he claims, limits the ways in
whichmusical experiencesmightbe described. Studies like thoseby Epstein and
Barry, he asserts, are preoccupied with intuited motion as an essential facet of
musical temporality, oneoftentiedto moretraditionalgoal-orientedperspectives
on tonality andmetrical structure (Adlington, 1997b, 82–88). Inhighlightingthe
insuf?icienciesofsuchdescriptions, Adlingtonpointsto passagesinmoreformally
conventional pieces – Schoenberg’s Piano Concerto and Poulenc’s Sextet – that
might be experienced as temporally ‘static’ as a consequence of their metrical
conformityratherthansimplyinspiteofit(1997b,90).
Taking this ideaofstasis further with more recent examples by Cage and
Reich, Adlington draws upon Jonathan Kramer’s description of ‘vertical time’ to
advocate a different mode of understanding for much new music; rather than
claiming post-tonal composition to represent any kind of ‘withdrawal’ from
standard temporality (Adlington 1997b, 22), he instead proposes a ‘non-spatial’
115
PerceivingTime
interpretationoftimethatsidestepsmorecommonframeworksoflinearprogress:
‘Attentionis insteadabsorbed by the contents of working memory – sifting and
sortinginanefforttolocatedregsofstructure,pattern,ororder’(1997b,103–11).
The implications ofthis interpretation for comprehensionofmusical forms over
longer periods of time will be discussed further in the course of the next
theoreticalinterlude,chapterseven.
Adlington’s scepticism proves particularly useful in identifying the
shortcomings of temporal conceptions that are often taken for granted. His
interrogativemannertowardstheseperceptualmodespavesthewayforaccounts
of previously neglected or unexplained musical experiences. However, his
approachinfactprovesmostconvincinginthecourseofhisclosingexaminationof
Ligeti’sViolinConcerto inwhichsomeofthemore radicalattitudes towards time
hehas proposedareintegrated with more familiar, linear-mindedideas (1997b,
196–215). Focusingupondifferentaspectsofthe?irstmovement oftheconcerto,
Adlingtonconveysbesttheeffectofnon-spatialisedtimewhencontrastingit with
expectationsoflinearity.Theseexpectationsareaf?irmedandsubsequentlydenied
through the composer’s careful deployment of isorhythms and ‘glimpses’ of
organisedpulsethatbrie?lyarouselonger-termanticipations–‘evokethelistener’s
temporality’, as he puts it – before frustrating them once more through their
renewedabsence (1997b, 207). The audible terms in which these distinct ideas
abouttimeintermingleprovesespeciallycompelling:
At the outset of the section, Ligeti’s grouped rhythm connotes a ‘structure’ by
appearing, initially, to measure. Yet this compliance with spatio-linearity is
invoked, only to be gradually and remorselessly withdrawn as the section
proceeds. The music very evidentlycontinues, butwe are explicitly deprived the
usuallinearmeansofconceptualizingit. Broughtfacetoface with the inadequacy
of these means, a listener ischallenged instead to formulate alternative ways of
understandingtheircontinuingexperienceofchange.(1997b,203–4)
This thesis seeks to emphasise that kind of interplay between temporal
modes as a point of analytical interchangebetweenold andnew styles ofmusic;
although compositional means may differ, the end result is a perceptual variety
thatservestounderlinetheexpressivepotentialofthepieces.Tothisend,itisthe
work of Jonathan Kramer that exerts the greatest in?luence. His embrace of the
116
PerceivingTime
oftenseemingly paradoxicalvarietyofmusical‘times’availableto listenersoffers
aninclusiveoutlook thatmight bene?itananalytical approach. Inparticular,heis
careful to try to distinguish between different ‘times’ that might often be
consideredasone,highlightingnuancesthatmighthelpto explainveryparticular
perceptual phenomena. As discussed earlier in this chapter, his broadercontrast
between linear andnon-linear timeis subject to numerous furtherquali?ications
andextensions. Linearity, for example, mighttakeona plural character, withthe
music aurally travelling towards more than one ‘goal’ (‘multiply-directed linear
time’)thanksto elementsofformaldisruptionthatoffsetperceivedsingularity(J.
Kramer 1988,46–49). Evenmoresingular expressionsoflinearitycanbesubject
to re-orderings and discontinuities thatcreateeffects ofmultiplicity, notleast in
relation to beginnings and endings of various kinds. Kramer utilises the ?irst
movementofBeethoven’sStringQuartetinF,Op.135, todemonstratethewaysin
which the deployment of particular musical gestures and statements – a
particularly emphatic ‘?inal’ cadence in the 10th bar, for example – can give the
impression of displaceddirections, beginnings andendings (‘gestural time’) and
thusraisetheideaofa‘multipletemporalcontinuum’(1988,150–61).
Kramer also explores a variety of ways in which direction can be absent
frommusicaltime.Makingreferenceto worksbyBach,ChopinandSchumann,he
observes that pieces can paradoxically convey a sense of motion without also
conveying direction thanks to compositional elements that remain constant
throughout: linearityandmotiondo notalways equateto directioninperceptual
terms. Two further non-linear musical structures also offer subversions of
teleological form. The ?irst – ‘moment form’– constitutes asubversionoftypical
continuitiesthroughthe employmentofdiscontinuousmusicalevents, disrupting
standard notions of linearity in favour of a succession of self-contained
occurrences (J. Kramer 1978 and 1988, 201–20). The second is the antihierarchical ‘vertical time’, in which a dispensation of phrase structuring can
createaplayuponaspects ofperceivedstasis andin?inity that inturnenablesan
immersivetemporalform:
The result is a single present stretched out into an enormous duration, a
potentially inSinite ‘now’ that nonetheless feels like an instant … A vertically
conceived piece, then, does notexhibit large-scale closure. Itdoesnot begin but
117
PerceivingTime
merelystarts. Itdoes notbuild to a climax, does notpurposefullyset upinternal
expectations,doesnotseektofulSillanyexpectationsthatmightariseaccidentally,
doesnotbuild orreleasetension, anddoesnotendbutsimplyceases.(1988,54–
55)
It is anotherkindoftemporal paradox that will formthe starting point of
thecasestudythatnowfollows.CompositionsbyHansAbrahamsenandJohannes
Brahmswillbeexaminedonaccountofthewaysinwhichtheyareableto convey
sensations of motion and stasis simultaneously; whereas focus has previously
fallen on particular passages, emphasis here will instead fall upon some of the
implicationsthatthisperceptualsynthesismighthaveforthelong-termstructural
unfolding of both works. As progressive as this seemingly contradictory
coexistenceofdynamicandstatic temporal modesmightappear, itmightalsobe
consideredto arise from a thematic approachto material developedprimarily in
thenineteenthcentury,theprincipleof‘developingvariation’.
118
Six
DynamicContinuities
HansAbrahamsen&JohannesBrahms
Developingvariation
On the face of it, Schoenberg’s 1947 essay ‘Brahms the Progressive’ (1975b) –
adapted from a 1933radio talk – was promptedby musicological concerns. For
manyatthetime,itwasmorethanamatterofchronologicalfactthatBrahmswas
considered a nineteenth-century composer. His seemed an aesthetic with little
perceivabledistance left to run; few saw inhis music anythingona parwiththe
uncompromising futurism of Wagner, the enduring purity of Mozart, or the
‘forevercontemporary’Beethoven–all?igureswhosemusicwasalready‘escaping’
itsowntimeinpopularcriticism.
The label of conservatism had at no point been entirely unanimous. In
addition to Eduard Hanslick’s adoption of Brahms as a standard-bearer for his
aesthetic notions of musical beauty (Hanslick 1957, 47–70), Nicole Grimes has
recentlyobservedthatatrioofwritersfortheAllgemeinemusikalischeZeitungand
theNeue ZeitschriftfürMusik inthe1860sand1870s– HermannDeiters, Selmar
Bagge and Adolf Schubring – presented a ‘signi?icant foreshadowing of
Schoenberg’s view’ (Grimes 2012, 132). Indeed, even following the composer’s
death, somesought tocounterprevailingviews;writingin1929,J.H.Elliotsought
torailagainst‘atendencyobservableincertainaspectsofcurrentcriticismtodeny
theexistenceofa complete andall-round signi?icanceinthesymphonic music of
Brahms’(Elliot1929,554).
Nevertheless, Schoenberg’s article offered, as its title indicates, a muchneeded reappraisal of a ?igurehead of the Austro-German Romantic tradition
whose music was being written off more and more frequently by scholars as
antiquated.Promotionfroma?igureconventionallyregardedatthetimeasoneof
themostprogressiveinWesternartmusicmaywellhavehelpedtofacilitatewhat
MichaelMusgravedescribedas‘aperiodwhenitisnolongernecessarytoplaythe
advocatetoBrahms’(1990, 136). Inparticular,PeterGayandJ. PeterBurkholder
119
DynamicContinuities
have both made compelling cases for re-evaluations, Gay with regard to the
detrimentaleffectsofculturaloverfamiliarityonourreception(1977),Burkholder
inconsideringthemusic ofthetwentiethcentury:‘Hehasprovidedthemodelfor
futuregenerationsofwhatacomposeris,whatacomposerdoes,whyacomposer
does it, what is of value in music, and how a composer is to succeed…. In this
respect, the “music of the future” has belonged not to Wagner but to
Brahms.’(1984,81).
Threadedthrough ‘Brahms the Progressive’ was a thematic principle that
Schoenberghadbeenexpoundingforsometime,thatof‘developingvariation’:the
basic trace of a motif retained throughout a process of ‘endless
reshaping’(Schoenberg1975, 129).Thespeci?icsofthetheoryhavelongbeenthe
subject of debate. Grimes notes the ?irst appearance of the concept in a 1917
manuscript: ‘Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in
Form’ (Schoenberg, 1994). From the text, she delineates six types of musical
changethatcancontributeto theprocess: rhythmic,intervallic,harmonic,phrase,
instrumentationand dynamic. Writing before the publication of thattext, Walter
Frisch (1984, 1–2)?inds a particularly helpful explanation in a muchlateressay,
‘Bach’of1950.Here, Schoenbergmovesbeyondtheobviouslymusical,alludingto
themoreconceptualunderpinningoftheprinciple;developingvariationallowsthe
‘idea’ofthepiecetobe‘elaborated’,producing‘allthethematicformulationswhich
provide for ?luency, contrasts, variety, logic and unity on the one hand, and
character, mood, expression, and every needed differentiation, on the other
hand’(Schoenberg1975,397).25
Although writing about variation form more generally, Jeffery Swinkin
eloquently outlines a way in whichsuch attitudes towards musical material can
translateintobroaderaestheticoutlooks:
The implicit corollary of the belief that Classical variations are essentially
decorative is thatthe theme in a Classicalsetisanautonomous entitywith Sixed
melodic and harmonic components, susceptible to embellishment but not
reinterpretation… By contrast, anyone who granted variations greater
interpretative potencywouldprobablyregard thetheme notasanapriorientity
25 Fora detailedexaminationof the widerimpact ofBrahms’smusicupon Schoenberg’s
thought,seeMusgrave1979.
120
DynamicContinuities
but as something whose identityis contingent upon the processesto which it is
subjected.(2012,37)
However, it isFrischhimselfwho provides themost persuasiveinterpretationof
thenotionwithregardtobroadermusicalstructure:
Schoenbergvaluesdevelopingvariationasacompositionalprinciplebecauseitcan
prevent obvious, monotonous, repetition … And Brahms’s music stands as the
most advanced manifestation of this principle in the common-practice era, for
Brahmsdevelopsorvarieshismotivesalmostatonce,dispensingwithsmall-scale
rhythmic or metrical symmetry and thereby creating genuine musical prose.
(1984,9)
Of course, Schoenberg had a dual agenda. Beyond his concerns for the
reception of Brahms, he was also busy engineering his own place in musical
history. In portraying a progressive artistic bloodline ?lowing from J.S. Bach
throughHaydn,Mozart, BeethovenandBrahms, hewascarefullyestablishing his
ownaesthetic inheritance. Overtly, Brahms’s music was being promoted through
re-evaluation,butthisreframing process wasalso theproductofacovert motive,
pavingthewayforSchoenberg’sownparticularbrandofradicalserialism.Indeed,
Frisch’s descriptions of the ‘inversions and combinations … augmentations and
displacements’(1984, 9) that comprisedeveloping variationfall tellingly closeto
thelexiconoftwelve-tonecomposition.
The signi?icance of Brahms being utilised in this way should not be
underestimated. After all, Schoenberg was calling upon his music to help
precipitate–perhaps evenprescribe –oneofthemost signi?icant sea-changes in
Westernmusical history, through aradicalrethinkingoftonality and its function
within–andindeeditsbearingupon–musicalform. Itcertainlyprovidesauseful
retorttoaccusationsofartistic conservatism.Butforthepurposesofthisstudy,it
might in turn be of use to adapt Schoenberg’s concept of developing variation,
namely by moving beyond speci?ic musical characteristics to focus upon its
fundamental aural effect. It could be concluded that, at its core, developing
variationisatreatmentoftime.Presentingablendofrepetitionandchangeallows
equilibrium of focus to beestablished: past events are directly recalled to mind,
butareplacedwithinthecontextofaudiblealterationsthatemphasisethepassing
of time. Reminiscence is grounded within a palpably future-bound present. A
121
DynamicContinuities
temporalparadoxofsimultaneousdynamismandstasisissetinmotion: theaural
sensationis atoncebothlinear andcircular. Beyondsimply takingtheshapeofa
compositional approach to melody, developing variation becomes a force of
structural continuity in the heard form of the music. Aspects of this perceptual
effect will be discussed in the course of the case study that follows, with the
apparent interplay between movement and stillness that it facilitates forming a
pointoffocus.
Multipleforms–Abrahamsen
Tempo can be fast or slowand perhaps life has the same thing […]. We can be
living seeminglyquickly, butunderthe surface something movesmore gradually.
Sometimes we have to acknowledge this and wait it out, like living through the
winter.(Molleson2015)
Viewingthenotionofdevelopingvariationinabroader, temporallight,opensthe
?loor to more recent music. Being at its heart a juxtaposition of change and
retention,thecontinuitytheconceptrequirescanbeachievedthroughavarietyof
means beyond the melodic. The work ofDanish composer Hans Abrahamsen(b.
1952)actsasanintriguingcaseinpoint, notleastgiventhathewasalignedearly
in his careerwiththe ‘New Simplicity’ofhis compatriots inthe1960s, apointed
responseto the‘new complexity’serialism advocatedby many in centralEurope
(Beyer 2016). Although the composer distances his current work from the
reactionary nature of those initial pieces (Molleson 2015), he has cultivated
subsequently a deeply personal style in which, as Anders Beyer observes, ‘a
modernist stringency and economy are incorporated into an individual musical
universe’(Beyer2016). Inbroader terms, his approachmightwell beconsidered
‘post-avant-garde’inthe truestsense, havingsteppedout ofastylecharacterised
by extreme ‘newness’(itself a counter to anequally radical trend) to embrace a
range of historical in?luences and preoccupations. Indeed, formal rigour still
features prominently on Abrahamsen’s agenda, as he himself outlines: ‘My
imaginationworks wellwithina?ixedstructure […]. The more stringentit is, the
122
DynamicContinuities
morefreedomI havetogodowninto detail. Formandfreedom: perhaps muchof
mymusichasbeenanattempttobringthetwoworldstogether’(Beyer2016).
In an interview for the Krakow-based Sacrum Profanum Festival in
September2010,Abrahamsendescribedhisownmusicintermshighlyrelevantto
theperceptualissuesthatthedevelopingvariationconceptpresents(Abrahamsen
2010):
Perhapsyou can compare music to an author. There are authorsthatare making
long novels. But of course a novelcan also have differentlengths. Some are only
120pagesandthensomeareathousandpages.AndperhapsIasacomposerama
kindlikea poemcomposer.I’mwriting shortpieces–likea poem–butthenthey
canbeputtogetherformingakindofcycle.(2010)
Here, in outlining his approach, the composer would seem to point towards the
verytemporalparadoxthatdevelopingvariationgenerates.Dynamismisprovided
by the motion from one short piece – or ‘poem’ – to the next. However, their
relevance to one another generates a palpable coherence; remaining, or indeed
cycling, withinonebroadmusical ‘subjectmatter’createsasenseofcontainment,
orperhapsevenstasis.
Abrahamsen’s Schnee (‘Snow’) is an apt re?lection of these compositional
concerns. Completed in 2008 for the Wittener Tage für neue Kammermusik in
Germany, it is writtenfor anine-piece ensemble dividedinto threeequal groups:
strings (violin, viola, and cello), wind (piccolo/?lute/alto ?lute, E-?lat/B-?lat/bass
clarinet, and oboe/cor anglais), and percussion (two pianos, and one performer
utilising tam-tam, schellen, andpaper). Lastingjust under one hour, the work is
builtup of canons. The composerrecalls thathe hadbecome fascinatedwiththe
genrewhilearrangingworksbyJ.S.Bachinthe1990s.Struckbytheideaoftaking
theirrepetitionto extremes, andbytheparadoxesmirroredinthepicturesofthe
twentieth-century DutchartistM.C.Escher,Abrahamsenbeganto conceivemusic
inwhathedescribes asa‘new animatedworldoftimeincirculation’: ‘Depending
on how one looks at these canons, the music stands still, or moves forwards or
backwards. Asformy ownwork, afurther ideacrystallised: towrite apiecethat
consistsofcanonicmotion,andexplorestheuniverseoftime’(Abrahamsen2009).
With regardto thetitle ofthe work, its composerreadilyacknowledges a
long-heldfascinationwithwinter.Hisinterestinsnowliesprimarilyinitseffects:
123
DynamicContinuities
Movement
Instrumentation
Duration
Strings/piano1
8’43
Tutti
9’12
Woodwinds/piano2
6’57
Strings/woodwind
2’01
Canon2b
Lustigspeilend,abernichtzulustig,immerein
bisschenmelancholisch
Tutti
7’24
Canon3a
Sehrlangsam,schleppendundmitTrübsinn(im
Tempodes‘TaiChi’)
Strings/woodwind
6’53
Canon3b
Sehrlangsam,schleppendundmitTrübsinn(im
Tempodes‘TaiChi’)
Pianos/percussion
7’20
Strings
1’57
Canon4a(minore)
(HommageàWAM)
Stürmich,unruhigundnervös
Tutti
2’34
Canon4b(maggiore)
Stürmich,unruhigundnervös
Tutti
2’38
Intermezzo3
Cello/piccolo/clarinet
0’41
Canon5a(rectus)
Einfachundkindlich
Violin/viola/pianos/
piccolo/clarinet
1’07
Canon5b(inversus)
Einfachundkindlich
Violin/viola/pianos/
piccolo/clarinet
1’15
Canon1a
Ruhigaberbeweglich
Canon1b
Fastimmerzartundstill
Canon2a
Lustigspeilend,abernichtzulustig,immerein
bisschenmelancholisch
Intermezzo1
Intermezzo2
Fig.6.1:Schnee,canonicparingsacrosstheformalscheme
‘Snowcantransformafamiliarlandscapeinacoupleofminutesanditdampensall
the usual noises. It allows us to imagine something different. Seasons are very
basicinour livesandwinter is atimeofslowtransition’(Molleson2015).Whilst
snowoffersnewwaysofviewinguponfamiliarscenes,thecanonsofSchneeincite
freshperspectivesonthesamesetsofmaterial.The tencanonsthat makeupthe
124
DynamicContinuities
Intermezzo
Detuningsequence
• Celloplaysseventhpartialharmoniconfourthstring(alreadytuned
•
1
•
•
•
•
2
•
•
•
3
•
•
scordaturafromaC-naturaldowntoaGfromthestartofthework),
whichprovidesF-naturalloweredby1/6th;
CoranglaisSlattensitsconcertF-naturalaccordinglyandthenplaysits
newlySlattenedconcertA-natural;
Strings,altoSluteandbassclarinetadjusttotheSlattenedA-natural;
Thestringtrioremains,detuningbya1/6thpairsofstringsin
descendingSifthsbeforeclosingwithperfectSifthofG-naturalandDnaturalatopanoctaveGbassinthecello,graduallyfadingout.
Celloagainplaysseventhpartialharmoniconfourthstring(Gnow
loweredby1/6th),whichprovidesF-naturalloweredbyafurther
1/6th;
ViolinandviolaadjusttheirDandAstringsdownwardbyafurther
1/6th(now2/6thsSlat);
Violinandviolathenadjusttheirremainingstringsdownwardin
accordancetogetherinadescendingpatternofopen-stringedSifths;
Violinandviolaproceedtochecktheirnewtuningsusingoctave
harmonicsoneachparingofstrings,nowinanascendingpattern,toa
fade-out.
Celloplaysoctaveharmonicdouble-stopofDandAstrings(stillonly
1/6thdetunedfromSirstintermezzo);
PiccoloandE-Slatclarinetadjusttheirtuningsaccordingly;
Allthreeinstrumentsfadeouttogether.
Fig.6.2:Schnee,detuningprocessacrossthethreeintermezzi
work are arranged in ?ive successive pairs, with short ‘haiku-like’ (Abrahamsen
2009)musicalideasdevelopedacrosseachcoupling(seeFigure6.1).26
However, this surface unity of canon pairings does not proceed
uninterrupted. Interposed throughout the form are three brief intermezzi,
disrupting the series of couplings. In each intermezzo, different instruments are
detuned by microtones ahead of the canons that follow. Rather than simply
indicatingapausebetweenmovementsforthedetuningtotakeplace,Abrahamsen
ensures thecontinuity ofthewholework bycarefullyengineeringtheprocess of
each intermezzo, utilising the existing harmonic sonorities of the instruments to
precipitate the detuning (see Figure 6.2). In this way, the detuning process
becomes part of the architecture of the work, each intermezzo showcasing a
particularly effective set of sonorities and minute harmonic shifts. The effect is
striking,withtheshortmovementsofferingastarkcontrastwiththesurrounding
26 Durationstaken from recording listed in primaryresource list(Ensemble Recherche.
MusicEdition,Winter&Winter:910159–2).
125
Fig.6.5:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,outlineofcyclicalformdisplayingstructural
divisionsdrawnbyFrisch(2003,130–40),Pascall(1989,233–245),Rostand(1955,291–299),
andOsmond-Smith(1983,147–65).
Fig.6.4:Schnee,formalschemesegmentedaccordingto‘diminishingstructure’perspective
(C=Canon,I=Intermezzo)
Fig.6.3:Schnee,formalschemein‘fourmovement’perspectivewithapproximatetimings
DynamicContinuities
126
DynamicContinuities
canonsthroughanaudiblelackofrhythmicde?initionandawashofsubtlyshifting
harmonic sequences. Perhaps more profoundly, their placement throughout the
workallowsthemtoactasauraldividers,suggestinganewoverallformofthefour
larger‘movements’(seeFigure6.3).
Inaddition,thereisafurther,moregradualformalprocessatplayherethat
canbededucedfromanoverview:thedecreasinglengthofthecanonpairingsand,
by extension, the four ‘movement’ groupings. Abrahamsen candidly admits that
when he envisaged the full work following the composition of the ?irst canon
pairings,hehadamoreobviouslystaggeredshorteningprocessinmind:
The Sirst pair laststwo times nine minutes, so Iconceived the following pairs in
termsof2timessevenminutes,2timesSiveminutes,2timesthreeminutes,and2
timesoneminute.Finally,timerunsout,justasthatofourlivesrunseverfasterto
itsend.Thiswasmyinitialvision,andthetemporalidea;theexecutionturningout
abitdifferently,andCanons3aand3binparticulargotlonger.(2009,3)
Eventhough the composer’s original plans for a gradually diminishing structure
may not haveworked out in such detail, the effect remains a notable part ofthe
performance (see Figure 6.4). Indeed, the whole work is lent an increasingly
palpablesense ofonwardmotiontowardsitsclose thanks to this audibleprocess
of structural compression and reduction – the broader transience Abrahamsen
speaksofisevokedbytheformalplayingoutofthemusic.Evenwithinthecontext
of a formal overview of Schnee, at least three different formal gestures can be
observed: ?ive pairings of canons, four longer ‘movements’ delineated by three
interludes, andonegraduallydiminishingseries. Aspectsofeachcanbeperceived
in the course of the piece, with different points of unity and division moving
betweenthe backgroundandforegroundofawareness atdifferenttimes. Itisthe
interactions between these contrasting structural interpretations that emerge as
theworkunfoldsthat will formthefocusofthis casestudy. A parallel analysis of
the ?inale of Brahms’ Fourth Symphony will be presented in tandem; here,
comparably distinct formal readings that arise as the piece develops will be
examined.
127
DynamicContinuities
Innovationwithintradition–Brahms
The symphonies of Brahms might not appear the most likely candidates for a
comparison with Abrahamsen’s multi-faceted structure. The intricacies and
logistical complexities of thegenre itselfdo not lend themselvesreadilytowards
formal experimentation, and, ataglance, Brahms’s four contributionsdo littleto
exemptthemselves;eachfollowsthefour-movementstructurethathadremained
the norm for the best part of a century, with inner constructions deviating
relatively littlefrompost-Classical conventions.Hissymphoniesemergedmoreor
less inpairs. Whilethe First Symphony endureda gestationperiodof atleast 15
yearsbeforeit was?inallycompletedin1876,itssuccessorfollowedwithrelative
ease during the summer of the following year. Although a gap of seven years
ensuedbeforehewouldputpentopaperontheThird–writtenentirelywithinthe
summer of 1883 – his compositional choices for the Fourth were already well
underway;inJanuary1882,hediscussedwithHansvonBülowandSiegfriedOchs
the potential for utilising a chaconne by J.S. Bach as the basis for a symphony
movement, expressing his ownreservations in theprocess: ‘But it is too clumsy,
toostraightforward.Onemustalteritchromaticallyinsomeway’(Knapp1989,4).
Theworkcametofruitionacrosstwoconsecutivesummers,in1884and1885,and
was premièred in Meiningen under the composer’s baton on 25 October 1885
(BozarthandFrisch,Grove).
Onits surface, theFourthSymphony mightnot seemlikeparticularlyideal
ammunition against accusations of conservatism. A sonata-form ?irst movement
exploitsrecurringtriadicrelationshipsinitsmelodicandharmoniccontent;aslow
movement – set in the Phrygian mode – adapts that sonata form through its
removal ofthe developmentsection; a scherzo also employs a variant on sonata
form, combining various compressions with allusions to older minuet and trio
constructions. Indeed, it isonly the?inale– upon whichthis chapterwill focus –
thatdepartsfromexpectations.Here,Brahmsutilisesachaconneostinatofromthe
?inal movement of J.S. Bach’s Lutheren churchcantata ‘Nach dir, Herr, verlanget
mich’,BWV150,tosetinmotionacyclicseventeenth-centurypassacagliaform–a
boldyetseeminglyantiquatedmove.
128
DynamicContinuities
Music built upon numerous levels of repetition may well seem to be the
least likely methodofproducing a‘progressive’symphony. IfBrahms wasinany
waylookingtodismisssuspicionsofadesiresimplyto recycleandperpetuatethe
musicofthepast,thisdescriptionwouldseemtobeoneoftheleastef?icientways
ofgoingaboutit.Butthensuchasummarycouldnevergivethefull picture.What
canbeheardisasubversiveorchestralnarrative,expectationsrepeatedlyaroused,
avertedand denied. The progressive character ofthe Fourth Symphony is not a
consequence of boundaries broken and traditions de?ied, but rather of a quiet
determinationtoemploytheparametersofthepastasaframeworkforadynamic,
innovativemusicaldrama.
The?irstmovementglides intoviewasifunannounced,theviolinsslipping
effortlessly into a sinuous theme that traces a pattern of ‘descending’ thirds
(incorporating upwards displacements); the underpinning accompaniment
provides the continuity of a self-perpetuating harmonic cycle. Versions of these
sequences underpin the long-term thematic and tonal structure of not only the
?irstmovementbutalsothesecond;DavidOsmond-Smithmakesacompellingcase
fortheharmonicpathoftheAndantemoderatoprovidinganinvertedcontinuation
of the modulations that characterise the ?irst movement, observing a ‘series of
third-based relations that once more imply anupward risingchain’ (1983, 156–
57).Themovementisheraldedbyanundulatinghorncall;althoughthemotifitself
appearsinthePhrygianmodesuggestingsomethingakintoCmajor, theextended
subjectthatfollowsfromit–andthemovementatlarge–issetinEmajor.
This tonal duality is only enhancedfurtherby the scherzo, set in C-major
proper–purportedly,atleast;themovementholdsparticularsigni?icanceforKo?i
Agawu,notleastonaccountofthenotablelackof‘tonaldesire’itdisplaystowards
its apparent‘home’(1999, 150). Itswhirlwind?igures seemregularly to threaten
tospinoutofcontrol,theirpulsingdriveandever-shiftingrhythmicaccentuations
often hurling them beyondthe reach oftypical phrase structures. As profoundly
workedoutastheoverall formalschemeofthemovementis, whatisheardisan
uncomfortable, hyper-active passage of music, even in its supposedly calmer
central episode. Agawu’s suggestion of a ‘mosaic’ like construction might offer
further explanation for this, drawing ‘af?inities with other musical traditions in
129
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.6:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,harmonicreductionofpassacaglia
ostinato(bars1–8)
which metrical, textural and phrase-structural play serve to inaugurate a
modernisttrend’(1999,151).
Notions of change and dynamism prove central to the ?inale of thework,
whichmaycomeasa surprisegivenitsformal scheme: 32iterations ofthesame
fundamental ostinato ?igure, each lasting eight bars in length, followed by a
spiralling coda in which versions of the theme are distorted and spun out in a
varietyofways(seeFigure6.6).Cappedbyaskywards-climbingmelody,the?igure
infactopensinthesubdominant:thissetsinmotionarestlesssequenceoftriadic
relationships that wheel inevitablytowards thetonic, imbuing thesamesense of
perpetualonwardmotionaswiththematerialofthe?irstmovement.
Theinitial statement frontedbywoodwindandbrass gives wayto stringled variations, rhythmic expansions and evasions allowing phrases to seemingly
over?low their original eight-bar shape. The variations gradually grow calmer in
character, allowing meandering woodwind solos to emerge. Forays into Emajor
furtherbroadenthecharacterofthe?igurebeyondrecognitionand, as theclarity
of the metrical divisions becomes increasingly lost, it is hard not to sense a
growingsenseofcomparativetimelessness;theurgencyoftheopeningchoralehas
been robbed of its purpose, leading to stasis and a seemingly melancholic
stagnation. A reiteration of the chorale in its initial state reinvigorates the full
orchestra to a cataclysmic re-engagement. Earlier principles of rhythmic and
metrical instability are now carried to the furthest possible degree, variations
gradually gainingmomentumbeforespiralinginto acodaoffreneticmodulations.
The severity of the E-minor close seems an inevitability, the ensemble working
multiple fragments and snippets of the chorale into the closing passages. A ?inal
nodtowards Cmajorintheclosingbarsneverthelessoffersareferral backtothe
130
DynamicContinuities
tonal duality that has surfaced previously in the course of the symphony,
seeminglysuggestingthattheminor-keyconclusionhasnotgoneunchallenged.
Tracingboundaries–FourthSymphony:Finale
Althoughthe?irstmovementofthesymphonyhasprovidedagreatdealofinterest
forscholars,perhaps its mostintriguinginterpretationarises inlightofthe?inale.
It has been asserted that both movements take on the shape of chaconnes, the
opening Allegro non troppo implicitly, the ?inale explicitly. The most detailed
interpretationofthe ?irst movement inthis way is provided by JonathanDunsby
(1981), who initially picks up up oncomments made ?irst by Edwin Evans with
regard to the ‘spirit’ of the passacaglia form running through the entire work
(1935, 146–71), andlater by Claude Rostand (1955, 291-299)on account ofthe
?irst movement’s thematic recurrence.27 Using as a springboard the apparent
metrical asymmetries of the nonetheless ‘mechanical’ opening theme and its
sequential nature, Dunsby unveils thematic procedures along the lines of
developingvariation, ?inding intheexpositiona‘mixedform, reconcilingtheidea
of transformed repetition – that is, a variation process – with the sonata
process’ (1981, 76). Indeed, for him it is in some senses the less orthodox
symphonic form that frequently prevails: ‘The transformations which move
forward the sonata structure are often far more subtle than the repetitive
characteristics: the tension between the two processes of the mixed form –
chaconne and sonata – often swings in favour of the chaconne, because the
repetitivecharacteristicsaresostrong’(1981,77).
It could certainly bearguedat the veryleastthat principles ofdeveloping
variationplayamajorroleintheworkingout ofthe?irstmovement, withaltered
repetition displayed on macro and micro levels. More broadly, the sequence of
thirdsthat theopening themesetsinmotionismirroredinthe tonal mapofthe
27
Although Evans points to features of the Sirst movement that prelude the Sinale,
including the Bach-like ‘leading characteristics’ of its theme, he ultimately seems
unconvinced by the attempted fusion of symphonic and passacaglia structures: ‘The
attempt, thoughresulting inSine work, onlyprovesthatthese formscan neverbe united
and places the frank passacaglia–form of the Sinale of this symphony in the light of a
revancheforcertaintraitsoftheSirstmovement’(1935,148).
131
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.7:FourthSymphony,Uirstmovement,reductionofstringpartstoshow
canonicinterplayatclimax(bars393–403)
movement, as Frisch and Edward Cone both attest to (Frisch 2003: 117).
Meanwhile,thematicrepetitionsbeginaudiblyto overlap, aclimactic point inthe
recapitulationallowingtheprimarysubjecttobrie?lytakeontheshapeofacanon
(bars394–401)(seeFigure6.7).
A numberof writers haveshown this to be a two-way street, pointing to
divisions akinto thatof a sonata form design in thepassacaglia ?inale, including
Frisch (2003, 130–40), Pascall (1989, 233–245), Rostand (1955, 291–299), and
Osmond-Smith(1983, 147–65).Acomparisonoftheseinterpretations oftheform
of the movement can be found in Figure 6.5. However, whilst all are agreed in
principle, the underlying shape of this apparent architecture is subject to some
disagreement. Frischpresentsperhapsthemoststraightforwardinterpretationin
terms of its adherence to convention, outlining an exposition comprising two
theme groups linked by a bridge, a development section (from bar 129), a free
recapitulation(frombar193),andacoda(frombar253). ThearchitecturePascall
outlinesisbroadlyidenticaltothatofFrisch,butcontainsaddedcomplexitywithin
the‘development’section.ForPascall,‘development andrecapitulationaremixed
processes in a responsive secondhalfto the form’(1989: 239): the returnto Eminor andthe 3/4metre at bar129signals not theopening ofthe development
section but, in fact, the ?irst point of recapitulation. A development section
intercedes in the following chaconne cycle, taking hold before a ‘retransition’
occursinaheadoftheresumptionoftherecapitulationatbar193.Osmond-Smith,
meanwhile,seems initiallylesscomfortablewithimposingafull sonataformonto
themovement,contentinsteadtosuggestamorethoroughmergingofsonataand
passacaglia forms (1983, 161–65). Rather than asserting the status of an
expositionwith?irstandsecondsubjectgroupingsonto theopeningpassages, his
divisionsliemoreinlinewiththeconventions ofchaconneform, withchanges of
metre (from 3/4to 3/2in bars 97–128)and mode (from Eminor to Emajor in
132
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.8:FourthSymphony,thirdmovement,harmonicreductionofearly
appearanceofchaconneostinatofragment(bars317–26)
bars 105–28). It is in the second half of the work that he shows an interest in
notionsofrecapitulation–bothfrombar129andagainfrombar193–andcoda.
Eventhenumberofcycles ofthechaconnethemeseemstobeasubjectfor
debate. Both Pascall and Osmond-Smith depict 32 cycles, with the ?inal cycle
spinning out directly into a coda conclusion. Although Rostand remains in
agreementthatthecodacommencesatbar253,hechoosestolendmorestructural
credencetowhattheothersarecontenttolabelasanextendedcoda:hepresentsa
?ive-part subdivision, determining four ‘cycles’ ofunequal barlengths (8, 12, 16,
and16)givingwayto aseven-barpassage inwhichthe ?inalcadence is af?irmed
(Rostand1955,299).
Frischoptsto labelthe cycles asvariations;consequently, heportraysthe
movementascomprisinganeight-bartheme,30subsequentvariations,andacoda
separate instatus from thevariations but nonetheless still beginning at bar 253
(2003, 130–40). Whilstthis keepstheinterpretedform ofthe work very muchin
line with the principle ofdeveloping variation that Frischpropounds elsewhere,
theideaofthe?irsteight bars ofthe?inaletakingtheshapeofaconcretestarting
point – the ‘origin’ of the movement – could in fact be seen as somewhat
undermined by Frisch elsewhere in his writings. In Brahms and the Principle of
DevelopingVariation,hedrawsattentiontoaninterruptionatthecloseofthethird
movement of the symphony (bars 317–25) in which a direct transposition
(downwards byaperfect ?ifth)oftheimminent passacagliaostinato(downwards
byaperfect?ifth,E§ –F♯ –G§ –A§ –B♭ becomingA§ –B§ –C§ –D§ –E♭)is‘expanded
intoagrotesqueparody’bywayof‘enourmousregistraldisplacement’(seeFigure
6.8). Frisch explains that, with the onset of the ?inale, the process Brahms
undertakesisoneof‘restoringdignityandlogictothetheme’,citingthesuggestion
133
DynamicContinuities
from the composer’s pocket calendar that the passacaglia may well have been
composedbeforethe scherzo, withthe ostinato referencedeliberately plantedin
lightofwhatwasto comeinthecourseofthesymphony:‘Hereturnsitto asingle
registerandcompletesitbyraisingthesharpedfourthtoa?ifthandresolvingthat
pitchtothetonic. Hethenpaystributetotheresuscitatedthemebyproceedingto
buildanentirevariationmovementfromit’(1984,143).
Findingdynamism
There can be no doubt that these interpretations all have value, not least with
regardto shrugging offthe percieved‘self-conscious archaism shotthrough with
romantic feeling’ that, as Agawu notes, often dominates discussion of the
movement(1999, 150). Nevertheless, to whatextent theyre?lect a present-tense
listening experience remains in question; whilst many of thestructural markers
outlinedcanindeedbeheardasmusical‘events’, orcrystallisationsofchange,the
focus of audience attention is less likely to be the nuances of their formal role.
Perhapsitisworthconsideringthesearchitecturalelementsintermsoftheiraural
consequences.ApassagetakenfromPeterSmith’saligningofBrahmsandHeinrich
Schenkerintheirresponsestosonataformofferssomeperspectiveinthisway:
With respecttorecapitulation, the mostsigniSicantelementof sectionalisation in
sonataform,BrahmsandSchenkerstrovetosubsumetheelementsofdivisionand
repetition within a continuous and dynamic unfolding. While they remained
committedtoahistoricallyvalidatedformaltype characterisedbythe restatement
of large blocks of material, they refused to sacriSice the romantic ideal of an
unbroken, goal-directed Slow. Theyboth struck a compromise between a strong
organicist impulse and theirsensitivity to the realitiesof a formaltype based in
partonthedramaticdelineationofaparallelthematicdesign.(Smith1994:78)
Regardless of whether it might be classi?ied as an adaptation of theme and
variation,passacagliaorsonataforms, the ?inaleoftheFourthSymphony –when
performed–takestheshapeofjustsucha‘continuousanddynamicunfolding’.As
signi?icantastheprogressionproves,theauralexperienceisnotsimplyreducedto
identifying successions of cycles, pinpointing the conclusion of one and the
134
DynamicContinuities
commencement of the next. Indeed, Brahms demonstrates particular skill in
adoptinganobviouslyvariation-basedapproachwithoutincurringtheboundaries
that might typically accompany it. By blurring the lines that traditionally divide
cycles in the passacaglia form, emphasis is placed upon change and continuity
ratherthanstasisanddemarcation.
The composer achieves this blurring principally through two types of
ambiguity: metric andharmonic.28 Occurringat notable points inthe movement,
metric ambiguity is implemented largely through relatively small alterations in
rhythmicemphasisthat, whenembeddedwithinoragainstrecurringpatternsand
?igures, contribute toawider senseofstructural destabilisation.Achangeintime
signature at the centre of the movement (bars 97–128) also allows for more
profound expansion of metrical possibilities. Harmonic ambiguity, meanwhile,
proves more pervasive, with the opening cycle itself seemingly predisposed
towards harmonic motion. The ?irst four bars in particular reveal a tension
betweentonic,subdominantandsubmediant(seeFigure6.6), theresultantnodof
therootpositionsofthesechordstowardsanA-minortriadinturnalludingtothe
patterns of thirds that punctuated the ?irst movement of the symphony. The
voicing ofthe subdominant chordthat opens the work has implications for how
themovementplaysout:withC§andE§featuringasthelowestandhighestpitches
respectively, invoking the long-term tonal signi?icance of those keys across the
preceding movements. The ascent of the top-register ‘theme’ to an F♯ in the
following bar serves to foil what might otherwise have been a more powerful
assertionofthesubdominantbynatureofthebassdroptoA-natural.TheE-minor
chordofthethirdbardoesnotprovidetheauralstabilityassignedto atonickey,
failing to offset a recasting of the opening in bar four, a ?irst-inversion
subdominant chord withregisters now further extended inboth directions. The
cadence that ensues across the four bars that follow is riddled with chromatic
in?lectionsthatservetocomplicatematters(bars5–8).Theupwardssemitonestep
oftheupper‘theme’toanA♯helpsfacilitateF♯major,hereassumingtheroleofa
secondarydominantwithregardtothepartitplaysinbringingthe?irstphraseto
its culmination; with the continued presenceof E§ as the seventh in the timpani
28 Forfurtherdiscussionsof thiskindof ambiguityin Brahms’smusic, seeSmith(1996)
andMurphy(2009).
135
DynamicContinuities
forces the sequence onwards. E minor reappears but once again fails to provide
respite, giving way to a dominant seventh distorted by a diminished ?ifth that
resolvestothemajormodeofthetonic.
The consequence of all this is an opening cycle that, in spite of its
progressions neatly contained within an eight-bar phrase, proves inherently
dynamicthankstoitsrestlessharmonicconstruction.WhilstE§remainsaconstant
presencethroughallbutthepenultimatebar,itseemstoemergeasmoreofatonal
pivotthananunchallengedtonic,failingtoprovidethenecessaryresolutioninthe
course of its three root sonorities. This initial sequence is adapted through the
course of the opening cycles as the ascending upper-register theme becomes
embeddedwithinthebassparts,insuringEminorasatonalcentreandfacilitating
variationsintheharmonicpath.
The?irstmetricalambiguitiesbegintocreepinasthetemposlowstowards
the time signature expansion from 3/4 to 3/2 that accompanies thestart ofthe
13th cycle(frombar97). Thelatterhalves ofboththeninthand10thcycles (bars
69–72and77–80)introduceadropinmomentumthroughtheintroductionofbarto-a-bow slurred ?igures in the strings with descending chromatic scales in the
woodwind.Theopeningofthe11thcycle(bar81)revealsthe?irsthintsofEmajor
as a starting point for the iteration, rather than as an ending. Instead of aurally
initiating another cycle, the impression of a through-composed development is
given, a change in tonal direction offering a new avenue of musical explanation.
Thelossofrhythmicdriveat thispointandthesuddenrelianceuponablock-like
dialogue of chords betweenstrings andwoodwinds gives thesense ofthe initial
drive and rigour of the movement beginning to lag. Here, a precise balance is
struck: a drop in metric momentum is countered by the exploration of more
interestingharmonicavenues.
EbbandUlow
Theexpansion of thetimesignature to 3/2without anychangeintempo forthe
13th iteration (from bar 97) – a doubling of the cycle duration – arouses
disorientation. Rhythmic emphasis, falling on the crotchet of?beat in the upper
136
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.9:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,Ulutemelody(upperline)with
reductionofstringsandhornaccompaniment(lowerline),bars97–104
stringsasacounterpointtotheplaintive,searching?lutemelody,giveslittleclueas
totheexactnatureofthechangethathastakenplace(SeeFigure6.9).However,it
soonbecomesclearthatcyclesarenowprogressingmoreslowly,withversionsof
the now familiar chord sequence now seemingly the most reliable way of
distinguishingtherateofchange.Theharmonicsequences,inturn,aresoonmade
more dif?icult to discern through the full switch to E major from the 14th cycle
(bars105–12). Thesonorities themselvesaremostly expressedinthemiddleand
upperregisters,withthebass emphasislargelyabsent. Theresultisanincreased
sense of stasis, with the goal-directed drive of the initial cycles diminished in
presence; this is initially emphasised by anE-natural pedal throughout the 14th
cycleintheviolasandhorn, withthepedalcontinuedby thehornthroughoutthe
15th(bars113–20). Bass emphasisdoes notreturnuntil the?inalbarofthe16th
iteration(bar128),withthelowA§ofthecelliemphasisingAminor,andproviding
adirectconnectionwiththereprisethatfollows.Inthemeantime,themetreofthe
music has remained largely ambiguous; although the wind instruments have
provided two eight-bar cycles of consistent rhythmic phrase structure, this has
beenroutinelyunderminedbytheemphasisofthestringsuponthesecondminim
beatofeachbar.
The ?irst four bars of the 17th cycle (bars 129–32) bring the ?irst, and
indeedonly,pointofdirectrepetitioninthecourseofthemovement,theopening
‘theme’oftheopeningreprisedinthewoodwindandbrass. Thedescendingstring
137
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.10:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,selectedreductionofbars
129–36
passage that appears in counterpoint to the ascending ‘theme’ instigates a
cataclysmic redirection, curtailingtheiterationnot inEmajorbutinanharmonic
collision (bar 136): a minor third of E§ and G§ is pitched against a violent
reappearanceof thesecondary dominant, an F♯ bass underpinning a suspension
resolvingtowardsF♯majorthroughthe?irstviolinsdropfromD§toC♯ (seeFigure
6.10). Nevertheless, the chromatic in?lections that dogthe two largely ascending
cyclesthatfollow,servenotonlytoreinstallEminor asatonalcentrebutalsoto
blurtheeightbarsofeachcycleintoonecohesiveupwardgesture.Withthestable
broader metre of each iteration re-established, focus shifts from the ‘vertical’
nature of the harmonic content to the ‘horizontal’ development of melodic and
rhythmic?igures.Broaderrhythmicshiftsproveaparticularpointofauralinterest,
with the beat of emphasis in prominent orchestral parts changing for each
iteration. A particularly dynamic pattern can be observed from the 20th cycle
throughtothe23rd,withthepointoffocusshiftingfromtheoff-beatquaver?igure
ofthe20thcycle(bars 153–60)tothesforzandosecondcrotchetsofeachbar(an
accompaniment used in tandem with the newly tripletised-quaver ?igure in the
upperstrings)inthe21st(bars161–68),andtheweightedsecondandfourthbars
inthe22nd(bars169–76).
Bythearrivalofthesuddenlysubdued23rdcycle(bars177–84),asenseof
metrical disorientation has takenhold, with off-beat quaver punctuations in the
woodwindnowjuxtaposedwithanundercurrentofmotorictripletquaversinthe
strings. Theascentofthe24thcycle(bars185–192)towards theaclimactic point
of partial recapitulation continues this juxtaposition, arpeggiated triplet quavers
ascending forcefully above descending straight quavers in the lower strings.
138
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.11:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,formalschemeoftwogestures,
withcyclesdepictedinproportiontoapproximatedurations
Addingto theconfusion, two woodwindinterjections beginonthe quaverupbeat
rather than at the start of bars 186 and 188, lending the passage an onward
lurching sensation. Angular descending outbursts then project a contradictory
dupletimeacrossthe?inalthreebarsofthecycle,abeatofsilenceallowingthefull
orchestra to reassembleforthe partial recapitulation of the25th , 26thand27th
cycles, reframing earlier material from the second, third and fourth iterations
respectively. The27thcycleinparticular (bars209–16)reintroducesaparticular
harmonic questionfrom theearlystages ofthemovement, with aC§ pedalinthe
bassesnotonly casting thepassage in thelightofC major, but reintroducingthe
sonority to theopening of thesubsequent iterations. Meanwhile, metricevasions
continue to abound, fromchromatic bass hemiola(bars 209–12)to theforwardtrippingoff-beats andsyncopations thatcharacterise therun-intowards thecoda
(bars233–52).Thecodaitselfpresentsareversalofthebalancefoundaheadofthe
recapitulationatthemid-pointofthemovement:fromheretheharmonicavenues
areconsiderably narrowed,withE-minorgainingarelentlessstrangleholdonthe
courseofthemusic. Ratheritisrhythmandmetrethatentersastateofoverdrive,
ascyclesaretruncated,spliced,andextendedwithferociousabandon.
Thismirroring mightbeviewedwithinthecontext ofanadditionalwayof
viewingtheform ofthemovement,oneinkeepingwithanauralexperienceofit.
Takingintoaccount thatthepartial recapitulationthatopensthe17thcycleisthe
only point of direct repetition, it is possible to divide the piece at this almost
precisemid-point(withrespecttobothnumberofcyclesandperformedduration).
The ?inale of the symphony can be heard as two gestures of equal length, two
directionsinwhichthepassacagliamightbetaken:the?irstgraduallyslows,metre
becomingmoredisparate, harmonymoreambiguous;the secondacceleratesinto
overdrive, relentless driving rhythms underpinning a close tonal circling of E
139
DynamicContinuities
minor (see Figure 6.11).29 Although played in succession to one another, these
gestures could be thought of as presenting two alternate timespans, stemming
from thevery samestartingpoint–two longformal gestures inwhichthe same
fundamentalmaterialisworkedouttoverydifferentends.
Layersoftime–Schnee:Canon1a
As with the ?inale of the Fourth Symphony, there are several different ways in
which the form of Abrahamsen’s Schnee might be interpreted; as has been
discussed, surface divisions could bemade accordingto the canon pairings, as a
consequence of the placing of the intermezzi, or the work might be seen as a
diminishing series of partitions. However, again in a manner comparable to
Brahms’spassacaglia,anauralexperienceoftheworkrevealsaconsiderablymore
dynamic,continuouscomposition.Thesuccessofbothworks,itwouldseem,liesas
much in their ability to defy or subvert their own formal boundaries in
performanceasitdoesintheirabilitytoretaintheclarityofthosedivisionswhen
analysedafter, or indeed before, the fact. Inthislight, thediscussion of thework
thatfollowsherewill–asitdidtoalargedegreewiththeBrahms–beconcerned
withthelinearpassageofthepiece, andwillbestructuredassuchwithaviewto
gainingadeeperunderstandingofsomeoftheperceptualprocesseslistenersmay
experienceinthecourseofaperformance.
Abrahamsen echoes Brahms’s manner of presenting two alternate
timespansinsuccessionthroughoutthe courseofSchnee. Muchoftheshort-term
continuity of the work depends upon an audible recognition of this process
occurring within the ?ive pairings of canons: each pair is underpinned by one
fundamental musical idea that is rendered in two different ways. The composer
invokesBaroqueforms,particularlythoseofBach,describingthesecondcanonin
eachpairasakindof‘double’ofthe ?irst. InthecaseofCanons1a and1b, which
had originally been both conceived and premièred as a standalone coupling in
2006, Abrahamsen is candidabout bothhis selectionofrepeating structures and
29Durationstakenfromrecordinglistedinprimaryresourcelist(WienerPhilharmoniker,
conductedbyCarlosKleiber.DeutscheGrammophon:457706-2).
140
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.12:Schnee,Canon1a,bars1–6(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)
thedesiredeffectthesechoiceshaveuponthelisteningexperience:‘Itisbasically
thesamemusic,butwithmanymorecanoniclevelssuperimposed.Sothetwoform
apair, andshouldbeheardassuch.Theyareliketwo bigmusicalpictureswhich,
whenheardwithdistant,unfocussedears,mayproduceathird,three-dimensional
picture’(Abrahamsen2009,3).
Any danger of this approach translating into an aurally transparent
accumulative process inpractice, though, is countered byanintricately designed
complication. Inspired by late-nineteenth-century stereoscopic photography
techniques in whichtwo pictures taken from slightly displaced perspectives are
overlaidto create an illusory three-dimensional image, Abrahamsen attempts to
reframe this idea in temporal terms, asking: ‘If one laid two ‘times’ over one
another, would a deeper, three-dimensional time be created?’ (2009, 2). It is
141
DynamicContinuities
perhapsinthis waythatSchneenot onlymirrorsaspectsofBaroquecounterpoint
(independent melodic lines layered polyphonically, each starting at different
points andinmany instances movingat different speeds withinasetmetre) but
also heightens it through the introduction of multiple metrical layers. The
simultaneity ofthesecompetingmetresprovesto bean important featureofthe
listening experience, with the interaction between them contributing to the
perceivabledevelopmentofthework.Inthecomposer’sownwords,‘inthecourse
ofeachindividual canon, a gradualprocessis revealed: onethat sheds lightupon
variousaspects, eachpushedintoeithertheforegroundorthebackground’(2009,
3).
Thisprocessofchangingperspectivesandpositionscanbeobservedacross
the?irsttwopairsofcanons.Canon1aopenswithadirectjuxtaposition,thesteady
quaver pulseofthe violin at odds withthesparseinterjections ofthepiano (see
Figure6.12). Whilst bothinstrumentsinitiallyuseonlyA§s,theiraural effectsare
more distinctive; the arti?icial harmonics of the violin, and the cello soon after,
soundsohighinpitchthattherecomes,inthecomposer’sdescriptioninthescore,
‘only air, like an icy whisper, but with a pulsation’, whilst the high pitch of the
piano notes lends them a chilling incisiveness, cutting through the texture with
rhythmic clarity. Indeed, the rhythmof thepiano line is outlinedinsuchminute
detail–frequentlythroughtheuseofcontradictorydupletandtripletpunctuations
– that it seems deliberately to counter the regularity of the violin quavers,
presenting an obviously competing metre from the very start of the work as it
outlinestherisingandfallingcanontheme.Althoughthepianolinewouldseemto
holdagreatdealmoreinterestthanthatoftheviolin,thetwoarepreventedfrom
entering into a simple foreground-background hierarchy by the fact that they
appeartofunctionas astructural unit, withtheendoftheinitial canonthemein
thepianopromptingtheviolinalsotocurtailitsrepetitionsatthecloseofbar?ive,
witha quaver of silence at the start of bar six allowing the cello to pick up the
ostinato, pianoswiftlyfollowingsuit.Thisbriefauralcommaisrepeatednotonly
atthecloseofthe?irst-timebar(bar10)andthroughtherepeatofbar?ive, butis
prolongedatthecloseofthesecond-timebar(bar10a)throughanotatedpause,in
whichtheviolaholdsanharmonicopen?ifthonA§.
142
DynamicContinuities
Even as further levels of activity are added towards the centre of the
movement,thesenseofhiatusat thecloseofeachiterationofthecanonthemeis
maintained, lending the impression less of thoroughly independent polyphonic
parts, but rather a collection of distinct lines that exhibit connections with one
another at various points. In fact, the most notable change that occurs in the
movement – the transformation of the violin’s pianissimo repeating quaver
ostinato into fortissimo triplet semi-quavers complete with arti?icial harmonic
glissandi (frombar 19) – turns out to be very muchin-keeping withpre-existing
material; although this new ?igure initially appears as a foreground textural
feature, itsglissandi infact createatranslucentdoubling of thecanon theme, the
piano’slucidpunctuationsactingasmomentary ‘stations’forthe violinandcello,
incitingthenecessary changes inpitchdirection. Theconsequenceofthefrenetic
characterofthis centralepisode(bars19–30a)isoneperhapscomparabletothat
of a traditional ternary form, witha second contrasting section allowing a fresh
perspective on the musical landscape of the ?irst section when subsequently it
returns. This interpretation is certainly supported by Abrahamsen’s labeling of
these three successive passages as numbered ‘parts’, with all other succeeding
canons in the work – save 5a & 5b – also following this design. However, this
structural change does notnecessarily precludeacompletely new set ofmusical
materials. In Canon 1a, the metrically evasive theme presented by the piano is
presentthroughout;rather,itisitssettingthatisaltered,withits‘accompaniment’
movingfrombackgroundtoforegroundbeforeretreatingoncemore.Thereturnof
thecomparatively static quaver ostinato from bar 31(‘Part Three’), serves to reestablish the piano theme as a point of focus; familiarity renders the rhythmic
discrepancies (initially heard perhaps as a metrical incompatibility)betweenthe
two ?igures asasourceofinterplayratherthanofcompetition. Withthisdialogue
now acceptedas auni?iedmusical?low, thepassageisallowedto assumea more
dynamicquality givingthe impressionofaperceptual accelerationto thecloseof
themovement.
143
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.13:Schnee,Canon1b,bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)
Horizontalperspectives–Schnee:Canon1b
The material of Canon 1a is reframed from the outset of its double, Canon 1b.
Whilst the fundamental theme is retained, certain elements of its character are
nowconcealed,allowingotherfacetstocometo thefore(seeFigure6.13).Whilst
thepiano line (nowperformedonthesecondpiano)is enhancedthroughupperregister octaves, the quaver ostinato is robbedentirely ofpitch, performednow
throughthe rhythmic rubbingofpaper on thesurface ofa table. These lines are
nowoverlaidbydistortionsoftheirmaterial:thequaverostinatoisnowoffsetbya
percussive ‘guiro’ effect produced on the ?irst piano via glissandi with the
?ingernailsacrossthewhitekeysinline withthe rhythms anddistancesspeci?ied
144
DynamicContinuities
in the score. Meanwhile, violin and viola (the latter in rhythmic unison but
transposeddown a perfect ?ifth) utilise arti?icial harmonics to outline the canon
themein long sustainedgestures, an idea then taken up by piccolo and clarinet
from bar six – an all-new ‘horizontal’ perspective on what has hitherto been
presentedasamorepunctuated‘vertical’thematicidea.Althoughthesenewlayers
areaudiblyrelatedtothefeaturescarriedoverfromtheprecedingmovement,they
serve to introducea contrasting metre, working intandemto set 15/16 phrases
against the broader 9/8 time signature; their sound, however, is not so uni?ied,
withtheglidingstring line lending thepassage anincreasedsense of freedom in
contrast with the the obviously rhythmic input ofthe ‘guiro’ ostinato. Yet again,
though, this effectofduple‘times’isnot oneoftwo indifferentmusicalpaths;the
ensemble stilloperates asaunitfor anabrupthiatusatthecloseofeach?ive-bar
phrase.
The clarity of these independent musical lines is gradually lost as the
movementprogresses. The?irstsignsofthisoccurasthestringsandwoodwind–
previously sharingresponsibilitiesforthesame lines –beginto divergefromone
another: inthecourse ofa violaandcello iterationofthesustainedcanontheme,
oboe and clarinet offer a chromatically-in?lected and metrically displaced
distortionoftheline,?loatingat?irstinparallelbeforetakingoverfromthestrings
completely(bars 11–18a). This initial split preludes themore intricatebranching
thatoccursinthecentralepisode–thesecond‘part’intheternaryformdesign–of
themovement(bars19–30a). Thereturnfromtheopeningmovementofglissandi
triplet semi-quaver ?igures staggered across violin and cello curtails the ‘guiro’
effect, but ushers in trilled echoes of the canon theme in the viola, piccolo and
clarinet, accompanied by sharp punctuations from the oboe. Thecontinuation of
the canon theme in the second piano is soon set in dialogue with a delayed
variationofthethemeinthe?irstpiano,thericocheteffectcreatedbytheresulting
interlockingrhythmsgivinganoverallphasingeffectwiththethemere?lectedand
refractedinthemidstofthenotablythickenedtexture. Indeed,atthispointinthe
movement there are now ?ive broader musical ideas now employed
simultaneously, withthree ofthoseideas further separated in multiplelayers of
displacement.
145
DynamicContinuities
This surface novelty conceals a radical continuity: the canon theme has
beenaconstantfeatureofSchneefromits veryopening.BythecloseofCanon1b,
thismotifhasbeenperpetuallyrepeatedthroughoutthe17-minutedurationofthe
two movements, a temporal undercurrent left almost entirely untouched by the
more ?leeting ‘times’ that have emerged and faded around it. This feature is
underlinedinthethird‘part’ofthemovement(bars31–48a):anotablyprolonged
hiatus–markedby a sustainedcello pedal on thescordaturalow open-string G§
(the detunedC-string, its ?irst deployment and indeed thelowest pitchofSchnee
thusfar)–curtailsthecentralsection;initswake,theternary-esquereturnofthe
materialwhichopenedthemovementbringsthecanonthemeofthepianointothe
foregroundoncemore,highlightingitscontinuedpresenceasafamiliarlandmark,
consistentinspiteofthesurroundingtexturaltrends.
Temporaldimensions–Schnee:Canon2a
Similar processes canbe observed in the second pairing of canons, in whichthe
three-part form ofeachis subdivided further: as well as signposting eachofthe
three parts, silent pauses also split each part into two sub-sections, usually also
signalingtexturalchanges.Canon2a(forwoodwindtrioandsecondpiano)opens
in a notably direct manner: alto ?lute and clarinet alternate to set in motion a
‘theme’ of seemingly perpetual quavers built of arpeggio fragments seemingly
gravitating towards D minor (see Figure 6.14). Both are encouragedto produce
Fig.6.14:Schnee,Canon2a,bars1–4,canontheme(excludingleft-handopen
noteinpianopart)
146
DynamicContinuities
notes that are‘half pitch andhalfair’, withsyllables of short phrasesexclaiming
thearrivalofsnowandtheonsetofwinter(‘EsistSchnee!’and‘EsistWinternacht,
Winternachtjetzt!’)underpinningeachnote.Theresultisaparticularlypercussive
sound, enhanced by Blu-tack-muted F§ punctuations from the piano, wider
resonance provided by the silent depression of the F§ key anoctave lower. The
establishedline soon assumes a broader familiarity, withjust a handful of short
patterns subjectedtoagreatmanyrepetitions. However,thisrecyclingprocessis
far from simple; in addition to nearly every bar presenting a change of time
signature (9/8 and 8/8 initially proving the most common), repeat markings
present at the end ofevery bar or pairs of bars create a subversive texture for
listeners, with aroused expectations of sequences and rhythms routinely
underminedbysmallalterations.
Only a short time passes before this unit of thematic interplay is itself
disrupted.ThepianobreaksfromitsusualmutedF§s,producingtwostaccatoC§sin
bars 15–16, and a further three in bars 22–23. The sound is tonally distinctive,
withC§fallingoutsidetheestablishedD-minorpurview,andindeedfarlouderthan
themutedF§susedsofar.However, theseinterjectionsprotrudemostnotablyina
rhythmic sense, contradicting the wider quaver pulse with the effect of dotted
quaveroff-beats;the aural effectisoneofajarringhemiola, ametrical mismatch
subverting thealternatingpatterns ofthree-andtwo-quavergroups. However, in
the second sub-section of the ?irst part of the movement this interruption is
graduallyintegratedwithinthetheme;itsmoreconsistentappearancesalliedwith
its increasinglymelodic oscillationbetweenC§ andC♯ allow it to berhythmically
normalised, no longer disrupting but rather phasing in and out ofsync withthe
Fig.6.15:Schnee,Canon2a,excerptstoshowscoringofintroductionof
metricallysubversivepianoC§anditssubsequentintegration
147
DynamicContinuities
more familiar quaver groups (see Figure 6.15). The result is a direct musical
representationofAbrahamsen’s stereoscopic photographyanalogy oftwo images
overlapping to create the illusionof a further dimension, two metres moving in
andoutofalignmentwithoneanother.
Thesecondpartofthemovementseesthepiano’srepeatedF§sretainedasa
constant whilst textural shifts occur around it. The once perpetual arpeggiated
?igures becomeincreasingly sporadic inthe alto ?lute line, with thequaverpulse
often maintained only by new oscillating shapes in the piano line. Instead, the
primary dialogue takes place between piano and the quintuplet punctuations of
the newly introduced cor anglais, staccato underlinings from the clarinet also
becomingincreasinglyfrequentbothtowardsandduringthesecondsectionofthe
part.Meanwhile,thealto?luteproducesincreasinglyabstract?igures, startingwith
the downward glissandi effects that recur frequently from bar 70 onwards, and
culminating in the violent ‘wind-like’ sforzando arcs that ?irst appear in the
movement’sthirdpart(frombar155)alternatedwithhyperactivetrills.
Shiftingfocus–Schnee:Canon2b
Thesechanges highlightthe wider agitationthat has takenhold of theensemble.
Continuingquintupletquaverpatternsdisplacedbetweencoranglais andclarinet
growinprominencetowardsthecloseofthesecondpart,maskingwhatremainsof
the canon theme which began the movement. What occurs in the course of the
thirdpartisagradualreturntothisbasictexturalunit. Coranglaisandclarinetreenter into the cyclic dialogue of the theme, allowing the piano – which proved
crucial inretaining thequaver pulsethroughout thesecondpart–to reassertits
apparent‘dupletime’hemiola. The ?inal subsection ofthe movement (bars 179–
207)recreatesthesametexturallandscapeoftheopening,onlysporadicreturnsof
thepiano’shemiolainterjectionsareminderofthelayeringprocessthathastaken
place.
Thetwo-minuteinterlude that intercedesthesecondcanonpairingproves
particularlystrikinginitsfocusupon‘horizontal’materialratherthan‘vertical’,the
series of de-tunings providing an opportunity for long sustainednotes. It is the
148
DynamicContinuities
?irst point in Schnee at which rhythmic momentum is abandoned entirely, the
onwardmetricaldriveoftheopeningthreemovementsreplacedbyanaltogether
freerexpansiveofsuccessivemergingchords.Itsignalsaseachangeforthemusic
thatfollows. Elementsofthissojourncreepaudiblyinto theopeningofCanon2b,
cello and bass clarinet both undertaking drones (F§ and F♯ respectively) with
dovetailinghairpindynamicstocreateadiscordantthrobbingeffect. Violaandcor
anglaisalternatelycontributetheirownsustainedloopingcalls(initiallyanF§ and
a D♭ respectively). The return of the canon theme, meanwhile, is a scattershot
affair, withitsalreadyconglomeratenaturenow enhancedfurtherbythefactthat
violin and alto ?lute are now rendering it in nontuplet and octuplet quavers,
metrically incompatible with the regular quaver pulse maintained by the two
pianos. Theresult is astuttering texture, momentumfrequentlystiltedorstalling
aspart ofamuddleddialogue. Thematerialappears halfremembered, fragments
reappearinginanuncontrolled,inconsistentmanner,likeseparatestreamsoftime
interrupting or jostling with one another. The music attempts to continue in a
mannersimilarto theprecedingmovement but withonly limitedsuccess,energy
ebbing and ?lowing throughout. Whilst recognisable features resurface, in
particularthemoreabstract violent‘wind-like’?lute arcs thatarealso echoedby
the violin andtwo pianos inthe third part, the effect is of familiar material lost
among numerous other layers, its original clarity and rhythmic strength now
cloudedbythedistortionsanddisplacementsthatsurroundit.
Itis throughthis building upoflayers acrossthe ?irst two pairs ofcanons
that it becomes possible to enter into a mode of listening similar to the one
Abrahamsen himself suggests. Perhaps, though, his prescription for ‘distant,
unfocussed ears’ lands slightly wide ofthe mark. Rather, an aural experience of
Schnee mightbesaidtobebycontrastboth‘close’and‘focussed’atcertaintimes;
insteadofsimplyassumingone‘point’from–or‘manner’in–whichtolisten,the
process that is gradually unveiled in thecourse ofthe work seems to encourage
audience members to actively alter their ‘position’, shifting their focus and
distances to engage with particular patterns or combinations of patterns at
particularmoments, orforgivenpassages.Thecontinuousnatureofthethemein
Canon 1a, for example, seems to invite closer examination in its earlier stages
beforeitisveiledbeneathnewlayersofmaterial,astaticfeature(ofsorts)withina
149
DynamicContinuities
movingscene;itisdesignedtobetakenincreasinglyforgranted.Whenitisspot-lit
once more towards the close ofthe movement by virtueof its returnedtextural
prominence, its familiarity means it does not need to be utilised as a point of
deliberatefocusinthesamemannerasbeforebutcaninsteadbeheardasiffroma
distance.Therealisationofitscontinuous natureinspiteofwiderchangessparks
anautomatic changeinperspective; thelack ofneedforfocussedaural analysis,
allowsittoassumeamoredynamicpresencethanitpreviouslypossessed.
Comparable processes occur across the second pairing of canons. The
perpetual‘theme’ofCanon2aistakenforgrantedinthecourseofthemovement
once its subversive shifts in rhythmic emphasis have become familiar; it moves
from a point of focus and examination to a peripheral constant, a background
feature. However, its reappearances inCanon 2bas afragmentary presence in a
stateofmetric?luxservetochangeitscharacterentirely.Whilstitisreassertedas
a point of aural interest, its haphazard movements across the ensemble and its
mercurial metric character make it impossible to utilise as a singular point of
focus; rather, a more ‘distant’ listening approach proves necessary, with focus
readjustedtoencompassthe widerframeofreferencerequiredto makesenseof
thejourney the motiftakes. Focus is no longer trained on one ‘time’ – insteadit
shifts between the multiple overlapping ‘times’, from the background to the
foreground, creating the sense of a three-dimensional sonic landscape that
Abrahamsenintended–atransientmodeoflistening.
The pattern established in the course of the piece so far is of increasing
textural complexity, each canon presenting an idea that is subsumed by new
complementary – or, insome instances, contradictory – ideas resultingin multilayered passages. This recognisable trend of increasing density prompts new
questions for the wider form of the work. In a sense, Abrahamsen faces similar
structuralissuesto Brahms.Whilstthecompositionalchallengeinthe?inaleofthe
Fourth Symphony seems to havebeen to lendafundamentally cyclic movement
theeffectofathrough-composednarrative,inSchneeitisrelevantto wonderhow
aformassembledunambiguouslyfromtenaudiblypairedsectionsmightmaintain
asenseofcontinuity;beyondthedeliberate‘interruptions’ofthethreeintermezzi,
howcanthispiecesoundasauni?iedwhole?
150
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.16:Schnee,Canon3b,pianos(bars1–4)
Disintegration–Schnee:Canons3–5
The answer to these questions seems to begin to emerge in the third pairing of
canons.Canon3aprovidesastarkcontrasttowhathascomebefore,withasudden
dropintempo and ineasily perceivablemetreseeminglycoaxinganew listening
approachfromits audience. The bass clarinet sets inmotion a theme of sorts, a
slowthrobbingthree-note?igurewhichrumblesawayatfrequentbutnotprecisely
regularintervals.Violinandviolasoonbegintobridgesomeofthesepatternswith
sustained?iguresthat culminate in adescendingglissando, workingtogetherina
similarmannertoCanon2b:inrhythmicunison,butseparatedbyaperfectfourth.
Theseinitialexchangesbetweenwoodwindandstringssetthetonefor thewhole
movement. Although these roles are exchanged and further related layers are
quietlyadded, thelisteningexperienceis seemingly guidedbythisslow momentby-moment dialogue;whatmayhaveintheearlier,fasterstagesofthepiecehave
been heard as rhythmicallyinterlocking gestures arenow understoodinamuch
freer sense. Thenatureofthe music serves to realignthe aural focus oncemore,
with the previously prominent concepts of rhythm and metre moving to the
peripheries whilst space, tone, interaction, and silence become points ofgreater
interest.
Whilst the broader structural trend of Schnee so far might create the
expectationofanincreaseinmusicalcomplexityandtexturaldensityinCanon3b,
151
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.17:Schnee,Canon4a,bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)
whatoccursisinfact, aurallyspeaking, theopposite. Atthiscrucialjuncture–the
formal centre of the work – the process is reversed: through the use of just
percussionandpianos,thethematicmaterialoftheprecedingcanonisreducedto
its very essence, the throbbing patterns now barely recognisable having been
transferredtothecircularmotionsofpaperonatable.Thetwopianos,meanwhile,
attempttorecallthemoresustainedgesturesofthestringsandwoodwindthrough
152
DynamicContinuities
Fig.6.18:Schnee,parallelpresentationofpianopartsofCanon5aandCanon
5b(bars1–4)toshowexchangeofcanonthemeandrhythmicpatterns
theuseofpedal;however,limitedbytheinabilitytoperformcrescendi,theeffectis
ofaperpetual dyingaway,asonic transiencemarkedallthemorebythesilences
that intercede gestures (see Figure 6.16). Tonal changes serve to highlight this
particularly desolate musical landscape: although perfect fourths and ?ifths still
abound, the harmonic waters are muddied by recurring semitones, augmented
sevenths and ?latted ninths, enhancing a broader sense of tonal drifting and
disintegration. Although thethirdcanonpairing lasts no longer than thesecond,
thebroaderloss ofmomentum it containsservesto stretchtheperceptual ‘time’
outwards,creatingaspaceatthecoreofSchnee devoidoftherhythmicdrivethat
hadpreviouslydominated.
153
DynamicContinuities
Thisnotionofdisintegration–underlinedbythesteadydetuningprocessof
the intermezzi – is taken to the opposite extreme in Canons 4a and 4b, two
movements which mirror one another and allude inform to ‘minor’ and ‘major’
versionsofaminuetandtriorespectively,thecomposerlabelingtheminthescore
as anhomageto ‘WAM’– Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart(Abrahamsen2009, 4). The
spiky canon theme – played by violin, viola, ?lute and clarinet – appears
rhythmically fragile; rumbling chromatic piano lines and a pair of sleigh bells
(themselves a nod to Mozart’s Die Schlittenfahrt, K. 605 No. 3) outlinine two
separate pulses (one marking each beat of the 3/8 bars, the other marking a
quaverquintupletforeachbar),servingtofurtherdistortanyperceivedregularity
(seeFigure6.17). Gradually more andmorefeatures fromthe early stagesofthe
piecearerecalled, including sustainediterations ofthe canontheme inthe violin
andviola(frombar10onwards)echoingCanon1b, andthe ‘wind-like’sforzando
arcs and trills of the ?lute harking back to Canons 2a and 2b (from bar 13
onwards).Thereturnofsuchfeaturesseemsto nudgetheensembletowardstwo
central ‘trios’ ofeerily suddenstasis, momentum suddenly dropping to reveal a
partialrecollectionofthe?irstcanonpairing,violinprovidingapulseofharmonics
whilst the two pianos reproduce a rhythmically steady ‘guiro’ effect. The cor
anglaisevenbegins tooutlinethedescendingthirdsofthevery?irstcanontheme,
a gesture veiled by the oboe, clarinet and cello via their own sustained ?igures.
When these half-remembered features fail to produce any momentum of their
own, the ‘minuet’ passages are reprised, launching the ensemble onwards, an
unforgivingtemporalonslaught.
After the third intermezzo (itself now acting as a brief point of repose),
thereislittleletuptowardsthecloseofthework;whilstthetempoofthe?inaltwo
canonsisnotablymoresedate,theirsurprisingbrevitygiveslittleopportunityfor
listeners to absorb the new material. Following the example of JS Bach,
Abrahamsen divides the ensemble in two (violin, viola and ?irst piano against
piccolo,clarinetandsecondpiano)to presenta‘rectus’andan‘inversus’, withthe
materialgiventoeachintheformerswappeddirectlyoverforthelatter(see6.18).
Indeed, thematerial itself is a series ofrefractionsand re?lections, with theboth
groups essentially producing different versions of the same patterns
simultaneously. The interlocking piano lines produce a steady quaver pulse
154
DynamicContinuities
reminiscentoftheostinatoattheveryopeningofthework.Indeed,giventhatboth
Canons 5aand5bpresentessentially thesame music twice, thegapbetweenthe
movements(marked‘attaccaalCanon5bintempo’)actsfarmoreasabriefhiatus
like those found in the ?irst two movements, lending the close of the work an
unsettling circular character, with new material framed in a strikingly similar
manner.
Dynamiccontinuities
Althoughtheyharnessverydifferentstylesoverradicallydifferenttimescales,the
two works explored in this case study exhibit similarities in their approach to
issues ofform.BothSchnee andthe?inaleoftheFourthSymphonyarebuilt from
small unitsofrepetition.Theinevitablechallengefacingcomposersofsuchpieces
istoretaintheinterestoflistenersoveralongerperiodoftimebyminimisingthe
potential dulling effect of such recurrence. Brahms and Abrahamsen certainly
achievevariety, butthey do not attemptto conceal the circularity of theirforms.
Rather they engage with the perceptual aspects of cyclical music over longer
periodsoftime,deployingsmall-scale repetitivecells insuchawaythat listeners
might be drawn into an interaction with the recurring material, prompting a
developingrenewal ofaural perspective. Brahms manages this throughacareful
blurring of formal boundaries, more often manipulating the metrical context of
recurring material rather than directly altering the content itself. In Schnee,
meanwhile,itisthedistinctionsbetweencontentandcontextthatbecomeblurred.
As repeating?igures surfaceandenterinto dialoguewithoneanother,they move
inthemindsoflistenersbetweenforegroundandbackground,ashiftingecologyof
motifsandcycles.
It is in this way that both works manage to convey broader continuities,
offering forms that, inspiteof their built-in circularity, somehow allow listeners
thesense ofa through-composedmusical ‘journey’. Whilst Brahms’s ?inaleoffers
two successive time-spans in which the same material is taken in alternate
directions, Abrahamsen’s Schnee takes the shape of a onward process of
disintegrationwhilstneverlosingsightofitsbeginnings,withitsclosehintingata
wider circularity. In this way, the concept of developing variation has profound
implications for the way in whichforms are perceived, highlighting a seemingly
155
DynamicContinuities
contradictory duality of stasisand ?lux. Tensions betweensegmentedrepetitions
andunfolding forms create added temporal interest, drawing further awareness
towards anunderlying temporal experience. It is theway inwhich this broader
continuity emergesfromtheseparadoxicalexperiencesthatwillformthefocusof
Chapter Seven, with applications of narrative ideas representing a particularly
engaging, if sometimes problematic, way of dealing with long-term musical
structure.
156
Seven
ExperiencingTime
Perceivingforms
Theanalystisconcernedwiththepartiallyorimperfectlyheard,withrelationships
between musicalelements as wellasthe elements themselves, and withmusical
contexts. He orshe realises that some things which cannot literallybe ‘heard’ –
that is, cannot be accurately identiSied, named, or notated – may still have
discernible musical reasons for being in a piece. A psychologist may dismiss as
irrelevantstructuresthatalistenercannotidentify. […]Butitdoesnotfollowthat
there is no reason forsuch piecesto be structured the waythey are. (J. Kramer
1988,328–29)
Accounting for musical perception over longer durations proves yet more
challenging, not least given the in?luence of time itself as a crucial factor in
comprehending form. This chapter will explore ways of approaching the
perception of large-scale musical designs, moving through a number of more
cognitive-basedapproachesto discuss how aspects ofperceivedcontinuity might
form the basis of structural understanding. Particular focus will ultimately fall
uponwaysinwhichnarrativeconcepts mightbeappliedto temporal experiences
of compositions, with particularemphasis fallingupon contributions fromByron
Almén(2003and2008),JannPasler(2008)andSusanneLanger(1953).
As Hugues Dufourt notes, ‘cognitive psychology has shown that mental
structures active in perception are above all dynamic and integrating processes
which unceasingly compose and transform data’ (1989, 223). The developing
interplaybetweensmall-scalemusical elementsover prolongedperiodsmakesit
increasingly dif?icult to separate out the effects of these elements when
considering long-term structure. In attempting to locate the perceptual limits of
what he terms ‘form-bearing dimensions’, Stephen McAdams considers the
contributionofavarietyofmusicalfeatures–principallypitch,duration,dynamics
andtimbre–tolarge-scalemusicalconstruction(1989and1999).Thedimensions
he outlines might helpfully be summarised with regard to the metaphorical
directionsthey relate to: the structuringovertime of signi?icant ‘vertical’ events,
157
ExperiencingTime
andthe‘horizontal’organisationofrelatedevents into sequential andsegmented
musicalstreamsandgroups(1989,182–83).However,bothMcAdamsandCélestin
Deliège(Deliège,1989)acknowledgethatthesedimensionsareinturndependent
uponabstractknowledgeaccumulatedthroughreceivedculturalconventions and
extensiveexperienceofmusicthataccordswiththoseframeworks:‘Thisdomainis
perhaps the most important for the consideration of form-bearing capacity
because it is clear that if a system of habitual relations among values along a
dimension cannot be learned, the power ofthatdimensionasastructuring force
wouldbeseverelycompromised’(McAdams1989,183).
Nicholas Cook provides an insightful overview of the intricacies facing
empirical research in this ?ield within the context of the elaborate systems of
expectationfoundinWesternartmusic (1990, 22–43). Thenetwork ofmeanings
apparently conveyed by musical works and the conventions they engage with
introduces new levels of complexity. Heard performances seem to constitute a
durationsomewhatremovedfromthe?lowofnormal time,‘logicallydistinctfrom
anyexternal context’, as Cook puts it: ‘Musical form de?ines anindependent and
repeatablecontextwithinwhichtheeventsofamusicalcompositioncanbeheard
as meaningful. These events gain a kind of objective identity by virtue of their
relationshiptothiscontext.’(Cook1990,38)
Echoing the dimensional aspect invoked by McAdams, Cook outlines an
abstract spatialisation of musical forms. Placing himself in concordance with
Schoenberg, Carl Dahlhaus and Thomas Clifton, he expresses a preference for a
visualexpressionofaworkinwhichtheinterrelationofitspartsmightbeseenas
‘constituting an objective structure’, a simultaneous expression of a temporal
duration (Cook 1990, 38–41). In attempting to account for a broader range of
musical styles than Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s ‘generative theory’ (1983), Irène
DeliègeandMarcMèlenalsoproposethenotionofanabstractedvisualisationofa
musical work, advocating a model that seeks to unite surface characteristics
(DeliègeandMèlen1997).Particularmotifsandgesturestaketheformofcuesthat
are, they suggest, abstracted from the linear progress of the work through
repetition. These cues are subsequently categorised in vertical (separate groups
containing similar cues) and horizontal (relationships between different cue
categories)terms,aprocedurecomparabletothatinferredfromMcAdams above.
158
ExperiencingTime
The end result is what they term an ‘imprint’, a ‘standard auditory image’ that
establishes‘theboundarybetweenwhatisandwhatisnotthenormwithinagiven
piece’(1997,402–08).
The holistic functionof repetitive components withina musical work has
beenthesubjectofnumerouscognitivestudies.Issuesofcoherenceandcontinuity
feature heavily in experimentation carried out by Lalitte andBigand concerning
the sensitivity of listeners to large-scale forms, with deliberate alterations to
structuralorderingspickedupuponbylistenerswhonoticedalackofprogression
or development (LalitteandBigand2006).AdamOckleford, meanwhile, supports
his own‘zygonic’theorymodelby venturingto suggestthat aurally recognisable
derivation of musical material may also play a crucial role in helping to build a
‘structuralnarrative’forthelistener,anideathatwillbereturnedtoshortly(2004
and2005).
Jonathan Kramer evaluates a theory of long-term perception in which
durations are encoded through the memorisation of the musical mechanisms of
particular passages andgestures; whilst he readily accepts ‘chunking’ as amajor
contributor to temporal processing, he is keen to emphasise its limitations,
stressingthat‘musicistoocomplexandmusicalinformationistooelusivetoform
thebasisforaquantitativetheoryofperception’(1988,342):
Themostcommonlyvoicedcriticismoftheinformation-processingmodelisthatit
is curiously static for a theory of time perception. Surely as we experience an
extended duration, informationis encoded stepbystep, notallat once. Youread
thesewordsone (orafew)ata time, graduallybuilding amentalimage ofwhatI
am saying; the meaning doesnot suddenly leap into your consciousness as you
Sinisheachparagraphorsentence.(1988,345)
Kramer convincingly argues that at least two mental processes (information
encoding and timing) form the basis of the perception of large-scale structures
(1988,365–67),playingintoabroaderdualitypresentinmusicaltimeperception.
Just as ‘chunking’isdistinctfromitslessmalleablebut nonetheless simultaneous
‘clock time’ counterpart (1988, 337–38), the act of listening is a mixture of two
cooperativebutsometimesseeminglycontradictorymodes. The?irstis described
as‘still-spectatorobservation’andprovidesparticularinsightintothemechanisms
offormalperception:
159
ExperiencingTime
The still spectator in us builds up a mental representation of the piece, which
becomesgraduallymore completeaswemovethroughthe musicandaswelearn
it better with subsequent hearings. Our mental representations are not in
themselvesdynamicbutare more orlessstatic,exceptwhen we discover(orare
led by a critic’s or analyst’s insights to uncover) structurally important
relationships we had not previously encoded. The gradual accumulation of
encoded information in the form of a mental representation of a piece is what
nonlinearperception,orcumulative‘listening’,reallyis.(1988,367)
Thisrelativelystaticreceptiveapproachiscontrastedwithamoredynamicone,an
‘active listening mode’ focussed upon ‘continually changing materials and
relationships’:‘Thiskindoflisteningisconcernedwithexpectations, anticipations,
andprojections into thefuture.Itislessinvolvedwithformingrepresentationsin
memoryandmoreinvolvedwiththeimmediacyofthepieceandwhereitis going
(ornotgoing)’(1988,367). Ofcourse,assigningdescriptionsofstaticanddynamic
tothetwomodesinthiswayisrepresentativeofjustoneperspective.Inaparadox
typical of temporal philosophy, the labels could just as easily be reversed: the
activemodeis static onaccountofits?ixationinthepresent, whilsttheobserving
modeisdynamicwithregardtothechangingaccumulationsand?igurationsofthe
abstract construction it creates. Musical structures that balance recurrence and
change–likethoseofAbrahamsenandBrahmsanalysedinChapterSix–attestto
thisseeminglyparadoxicalinterchangeability.
Continuityandnarrativepotential
Although earlier lengths may not determine later lengths in the same way that
earlier materials or tonal relations generate later ones, the simple fact that the
music is heard in sequential order may cause us to compare later durations to
earlierones. In other words, although there may be no clear implications about
proportions early in the piece, we may still form expectations about durational
spansbasedonthewaythepieceinitiallyunfolds.Ourlisteningstrategy,then,may
wellbelinearevenifthemusicisnonlinear.(J.Kramer1988,326)
160
ExperiencingTime
Althoughasenseofoverridinglinearitymightseemtobeanobviouscharacteristic
of temporal experience, Kramer’s observations allude to implications for formal
readingsthatmighteasilybeoverlooked.Arecurringconcernthroughoutthecase
studies in this thesis has been the reconciliation of time-bound impressions of
musical performances with seemingly atemporal – or at least retrospective –
structural interpretations of the forms of the works in question. Examining the
formal anticipations of listeners remains, of course, particularly dif?icult.
Articulatingwithclaritysomethingwhichultimatelymaynotcomeintobeingisa
dauntingtask;analystsmustoftensettleforexploringthewaysinwhichemerging
musical structures ful?ill, or leave unful?illed, broader expectations. Janet
Schmalfeldt attempts to approach early nineteenth-century forms from the
perspective ofa perceptual unfolding withher study In the ProcessofBecoming
(Schmalfeldt 2011). Meanwhile, notions like Robert Hatten’s ‘markedness’ – in
whichmusical features are ‘asymmetrically valued’ according to other opposing
features (Hatten1994, 291)– feed into issues oflong-term tensionthatecho the
suggestion of scholars, as Byron Almén notes, ‘that it is the relations between
elements and not the elements themselves that are the foundation of
narrative’(Almén2008,36).30
That the term ‘narrative’ continues to appear is no coincidence. Indeed,
although Ockleford takes the notion in a very speci?ic analytical direction, his
broader description of a ‘structural narrative’ stands as an apt summation of a
centralcontrastinmusicperception:astable,logically-designedwholeintuitedvia
asuccessionofperceivedmomentsandevents.Althoughitdoesnotfallwithinthe
remit of this thesis to appraise the concept of musical narrative in full, certain
aspectsoftheidearetainrelevance.Alldiscussionsofnarrativepersistinengaging
with fundamental continuities of works and performances, in short the binding
essenceofexperiencedmusical time. ForJean-JacquesNattiez itisthelinearityof
this basissuccessionofeventsthatincites narrativeattachment(1990, 257). Just
as musical form entwines with the inescapable linearity of temporal experience,
his recognitionofa‘narrativeimpulse’inmusical listening (discussedinChapter
Two: Alternative Paths) strikes upon an apparently universal trend in human
30Notably,amongthosewriterstowhomAlménalludesisJosephCampbellwithhiscross-
culturalnarrative studyTheHerowitha ThousandFaces(2008);Campbell’sthoughtson
universalaspectsofnarrativearediscussedinChapterTwo(AlternativePaths).
161
ExperiencingTime
nature. Anthropologists Elinor Ochs and Lisa Capps delineate the cross-cultural
social role that narratives play indepicting temporal transition (Ochsand Capps
1996). The chronological dimension of these narratives lends a ‘reassuring
coherence’todisconnectedevents,servingtoaf?irmnotonlyorderbutalsosenses
ofselfandmeaning:
Personal narrative simultaneously is born out of experience and gives shape to
experience. In this sense, narrative and self are inseparable. Self is here broadly
understood to be an unfolding reSlective awareness of being-in-the-world,
including a senseof one’spastandfuture. Wecome toknowourselvesaswe use
narrative to apprehend experiencesand navigate relationshipswith others. The
inseparability of narrative and self is grounded in the phenomenological
assumption that entities are given meaning through being experienced and the
notionthatnarrativeisan essentialresource in thestruggle tobringexperiences
intoconsciousawareness.(Ochs&Capps1996,20–24)
A long tradition exists of scholars utilising this inherent leaning towards
continuity as a springboard for interpretations which organise musical forms
according to facets of literary and dramatic structure. As Fred Everett Maus
explains, listeners can perceive musical events ‘as characters, or as gestures,
assertions, responses, resolutions, goal-directed motions, references, and so on.
Once they are so regarded, it is easy to regard successions of musical events as
formingsomething likeastory, inwhichthesecharactersandactionsgotogether
toformsomethinglikeaplot’(1991,6).Numerousfeaturesofmusicalworkslend
themselvesto suchtreatment: theuse ofsungtexts oraccompanyingstories can
inspire more detailed programmatic readings; the manipulation of thematic
subjects can beviewed as mirroring dramatic character developmentprinciples;
changing phrase structures can be equated to rhetorical and syntactical
conventions(Almén2008,14–15).
Ofcourse,therearelimitationstosuchreadings.Manyofthefeatureslisted
aboveareprevalentonlyinmusicthataccordswithClassicalandRomanticstyles.
Themajorityof narrative theories deal withworks from the late-eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries because the governing tonal principles of those pieces are
decidedly teleological. It is simply easier to attach established plot templates
(tragedy, romance, comedy) to music that echoes the cultural relevance of such
162
ExperiencingTime
archetypes through its formal construction, with motivic, harmonic and tonal
continuitiesre?lectingthenecessary tensionsofcon?lictandresolution,departure
andreturn. Just as thedistinct musical continuities (or, indeed, non-continuities)
foundinmanyrecent pieces maywell call for afreshsetofnarrativearchetypes,
anexplorationthatseekstoplaceoldandnewworksinparallelwilllikelyrequire
fresh,perhapsbroaderperspectivesonformalunderstanding.
Expressing concerns that narrative readings have little bene?it for posttonal music, Robert Adlington airs far broader reservations regarding what he
deems ‘one of the vogues to have emerged from the recent rush to celebrate
music’s ways of meaning and its manifold relations to other cultural
practices’(1997b,121–23).Narrativeanalogiesanddescriptions, heargues,have
become so embedded within the critical lexicon that even some more recent
attemptsto evadethe subjectivityofnineteenth-century modes of analysis serve
instead to reinforce them: ‘So the attribution of what may loosely be termed
narrative characteristics to music frequently occurs quite innocently – in (for
instance)theprioritisationofsequentialorder, theassumptionoftherelatedness
of events, and the expectation of a measure of retention of the course of
events’(1997b,124).
For Adlington, the notion of ‘unfolding structure’ is just one such way in
whichabidtosidestepextra-musical attachments stillendsuprelyingonliterary
principles, albeit in a less overt manner. Just as the suggested meaningful
‘unfolding’ burdens listening with a syntactic dramatisation, imagery is invoked
unavoidablythroughtheideaof‘structure’;thelinguistic andvisualreadingsthat
aresupposedlybypassedemergeasunderlyingperceptualconcepts.Furthermore,
though they are both commonly harnessed by analysts to provide cohesive
readings of pieces, Adlington argues that verbal and visual approaches to form
address irreconcilably distinct aspects of musical experience, and that these
differencesareimplicitlyglossedoverorrarelyquestionedbywritersandreaders
alike (1997b, 140–48). The cultural implications have proved damaging, with a
moretraditionalemphasisuponthescoreitselfandthesupposedneedto‘explain’
it creating decidedly awkward circumstances for contemporary music. Here
composersseemcompelledtoprefaceperformanceswithaf?irmationsofnarrative
163
ExperiencingTime
elements that do not feature so prominently (if at all) for ?irst-time audiences,
leadingtoquestionsofinadequacyonallsides:
Alltoorarelydoessucha failure totrace musicalnarrativepromptan alternative
response:namely,a confrontationof theassumptionsaboutmusical form thatso
regularlyserve toembarrassanddemean. Ratherthan automaticallyassume that
one'sexperiencehasbeeninadequate,itmightbearguedthatconventionalbeliefs
about music's afSinity with narrative are in some way unsatisfactory and
misleading. The manner in which listeners organise sound is simply not done
justicebytheanalogy.(1997b,125–26)
Thefailureofsuchapproachestosupportexperiencesoflessconventional
music in this way proves to be a killing blow for narrative theories as far as
Adlingtonisconcerned.Parallelswithliteraryformsburdenlistenerswiththetask
of perceiving and understanding works as a plot, with only a comprehensive
realisationofthesequenceofeventsconstitutingan‘adequatemusicalexperience’.
Questioning the ability of pieces to convey sequential relations as effectively as
language, he casts doubt upon the speci?icity that many identify in music:
‘Although we are often loath to admit it, music, particularly on ?irst hearing,
frequentlygives little enduring sense of its sequential form, leaving insteadonly
thesketchiestlong-termimpressions’(1997b,133–34).
Questioningcontinuity
The line of questioning Adlington presents constitutes a welcome appraisal of
aspectsofnarrativeandmeaningthatmighteasilybetakenforgranted. However,
it is pertinenttowonderifhisconclusions servetounderestimatethecapacityof
listeners to engage with, and derive meaning from, the temporal continuity of
musical experience. Jean-Jacques Nattiez reaches similarly sceptical conclusions
regarding narrative theory and its applications to musical form; ‘nothing but
super?luous metaphor’ is his somewhat damning indictment (1990, 257).
However, hedoes ?indapositivemeans of progress throughaspects oftemporal
continuity:
164
ExperiencingTime
Butifoneistemptedtodoit,itisbecausemusicshareswithliterarynarrativethat
factthat,withinit,objectssucceedoneanother:thislinearityisthusanincitement
toanarrativethreadwhichnarrativizesmusic.Sinceitpossessesacertaincapacity
forimitativeevocation,itispossibleforittoimitate the semblanceofa narration
without our ever knowing the content of the discourse, and this inSluence of
narrative modes can contribute to the transformation of musical forms. (1990,
257)
Giventhatacentral premiseofnarrative–orofanykindofjourney–isits
engagement with aspects of temporally-bound continuity and coherence, the
employmentofnarrativeconceptsinaccountingforforminanymusicishelpfulin
as far as the continuity of those pieces unfolds as a palpable structural feature.
Inevitably, thereceptivenessoflistenersto different kinds ofcontinuitywill vary
according to an innumerable number of determining factors shaped by social,
culturaland artisticexperiences. But thesearediscourseswith which anysearch
formusicalmeaningmustengage;moreoftenthannottheapplicationofnarrative
theoryconstitutessuchaquest.Inthissense,theapplicationofnarrativeideastoa
piece of music might be seenas offering something akinto a theoretical middleground, offering a more interdisciplinary slant on more traditional, structuralist
perspectives that emphasise the self-suf?iciency of musical forms. As Rose
RosengardSubotnik writes: ‘Structural listeninglooksonthe ability ofa unifying
principle to establish the internal “necessity” of a structure as tantamount to a
guaranteeofmusicalvalue’.Intheseterms,whatmightbedescribedas the‘inner
logic’ofamusicalcompositionrendersitdiscreteandwhole,withitsdevelopment
(often in the Classical mould) audibly expressing the composition’s own ‘selfdetermination’(Subotnik1996,159).
Bycontrast, morerecent poststructuralistleaningsinscholarshipdisplay a
willingness to navigate the intricate networks of ‘extra-musical’ forces that
contribute to musical meaning; they offer what Alastair Williams describes as ‘a
powerful critiqueofmusic’sinstitutionsandmethodologies,anddomuchtobring
musicology into general humanities discourses, preventing perception of it as an
isolateddisciplinewithitsownnarrowconcerns.Ithighlightsthetextualqualities
of music and its discourses, demonstrating just how interdependent they
are’(Williams 2001,41). Althoughhetakescaretoemphasisethewaysinwhich
165
ExperiencingTime
such scholarship presents a ‘continuous transformation’ of the traditions of
structuralist thought, Williamsdoes not shyaway fromhighlighting theneglectit
seekstoaddress(2001,21–22):
Like materialist criticism, structuralism recognised that cultural artefacts,
including music, are underpinned bydeep structures; but unlike materialism, it
failed to understand that self-regulating sign systems might be culturally
determined.Althoughstructuralismdaringlybroke the notion of musicalmeaning
awayfromauthorialintentandscandalisedestablishedhumanistnotionsofart,its
fetish of detachment refused to contemplate the social mediation of apparently
abstractstructures(Williams2012,230).
Lawrence Kramer scrutinises further this vague attitude towards the
locationofmeaning. Criticising a perceived inclinationof music analysts to prize
notionsofunitythathavebeenlargelydiscardedbyliterarytheorists(to‘totalise’,
as heputs it), he argues that narratology has actedas a‘methodological halfway
houseinwhichmusicalmeaningcanbeentertainedwithoutleavingthesafehaven
of form’ (L. Kramer 1995, 98–99). Kramer exercises particular caution when it
comes to the formal implications of narrative readings, describing narrative
elements as ‘forces of meaning’ rather than of structure, and portraying the
narrative condition as ‘fractious and disorderly’: ‘Structure and unity are its
playthings, and its claims to truth are strongest where most contingent, most
mixedupwiththeperplexitiesofidentityandpower,sexanddeath’(1995,119.)
The enquiries of poststructuralism certainly go some way towards
providing the more open-minded theoretical basis necessary for analysing a
varietyofcompositionalstyles.ContrarytoLawrenceKramer’spessimisticviewof
narrative as a catalyst for formal interpretation, scholars have explored ways of
expanding narrative theory to account for contemporary music that might be
thought of as being ‘fractious and disorderly’ in character. Noting the apparent
desires of many recent composers to ‘reject the paramountcy’ of narrativity in
musicthroughthesubversionofaudienceexpectations,JannPasler(2008)seeksa
moreadaptiveapproachthatinvitescomparisonwithJonathanKramer’sinclusive
temporal outlook. She outlines three broad types of alternative narrative
developed by composers in the course of the twentieth century. The ?irst –
‘antinarrative’ – might be thought of as a counterpart to Kramer’s ideas of
166
ExperiencingTime
multiple-time, describing musical works in which conventional narrative
expectations are continually aroused only to be frustrated, subverted or offset
through structural juxtapositions, contrasts and jump-cuts. The second –
‘nonnarrative’ – does not negate the idea of narrative altogether but rather
structuresmusical featurestraditionally indicativeofsuch linearity in awaythat
doesnotful?il theirsupposednarrativefunction; muchminimalist music, withits
non-directedsenseofpulseandtonalbearing,mightbedescribedintheseterms.
Pasler’sthirdcategory –‘nonnarrativity’–isdistinct from‘nonnarrative’; as with
Kramer’s ‘vertical time’, it concerns music that shuns any discernible organising
principle, structure or syntax, and thus attempts to ‘erase the role of
memory’(Pasler2008,39–43).
Perhaps of greater relevance, though, is Pasler’s assessment of novel
approaches to musical narrative developed by composers within the last two
decades of the twentieth century, highlighting what she views as attempts to
reconcile the diverging paths forged by styles that seeks to emphasise either
structuralprinciplesoreaseofperception.Althoughshefocusesprimarilyontextbased works – operas by John Cage andHarrisonBirtwistle, andsong cycles by
BernardRands–herconclusionsholdwiderrelevance:
Thesenarrativesborrowthe mostimportantattributesoftraditional narratives–
the use of signiSieds, well-deSined structures, conSiguration, unifying reference
points,transformation,andmemory.Buttheycontinuetorespondtothe modern
desire for expressing the multiplicity of existence, fragmentary and seemingly
irrationalorders, and meaningsthat gobeyondthose thatareknown.[…] Evenif
theirconSiguration isnotthatof a dramaticcurve, theirstructuresgenerallyhave
clearly deSined beginnings and endings, and they reach closure of one sort or
another.[…]Butperhapsmostimportant, suchworksmayincorporatemorethan
onenarrative,eithersuccessivelyorsimultaneously.(2008,46–47)
Byron Almén is similarly receptive to less conventional narrative types,
notingthe frequentabsenceofaperceivable ‘topic’(aprimary expressivefeature
oftenestablishedearlyinapiece,frequentlyde?inedinoppositiontoanothertopic
in the manner of Robert Hatten’s ‘markedness’ principle (1994, 291)) in many
serialandminimalistworks.Theabsenceofthiscontrast–andthusdirectedness,
Alménasserts– caninturnproducepieces thatfailtosupportnarrativereadings
167
ExperiencingTime
(Almén 2008, 90–91). Although he deems the questions as to the limits of
narrativity that these non-narratives raise as beingbeyond the remit ofhis own
enquiries, Almén’s own theoretical framework proves particularly compelling.
Lookingtoevadeanoutlookinwhichmusicalnarrativeisderivedprimarilyfrom
literary modes, heproposes amoreproductive‘sibling’model inwhichbothare
indirectly related as ‘distinct media sharing a common conceptual
foundation’ (Almén 2008, 12–13). Indeed, he suggests that this theoretical
distinction proves to bealiberatingfactor for musical meaning, withthe lack of
semantic speci?icity inherent in literature and drama facilitating ‘wider
applicabilityandgreater immediacy’for musical narratives. Many ofhis working
de?initionsofmusicnarrativere?lectthisconcernforreceptionandsemantics:
It is a psychologically and socially meaningful articulation of hierarchical
relationshipsandourresponsestothem.Itinvolvesthe coordinationofmultiple
structure of meaning at multiple levels. It crucially depends on a conSluence of
factors–abstractconventionsof meaning, speciSicmusico-temporalsuccessions,
and individual interpretation both conscious and unconscious. It is capable of
supporting multiple interpretive strategies invoking different political and
temperamentalimperatives.(2008,27)
Dynamicforms
Ultimatelythemappingofmoredetailedconstructssuchasnarrativeontomusical
form is a matter of interpretation. Whether such processes prove helpful or not
with regard to perceiving and forming an understanding of particular pieces of
music will vary, often drastically, according to a wide range of factors; these
include thestyle andcharacter of thework in question, the performance ofthat
work, the context ofthat performance, and disposition andframeofmindofthe
audience. Ofcourse, suchvarietystandsas aseemingly unsurpassableobstacleto
anyeffortto developadetailedtheory that mightaddressallkinds ofmusic with
somedegreeofsuccess.However,thiswouldbetomissthepoint:anyembraceof
diversity is boundto involve, in turn, anequallyopen-mindedapproachtowards
theoretical variety. Asfar as narrativegoes, the mosthelpful unity that mightbe
identi?iedacrossmusicalstylesistheiruniversaltime-boundcharacter.Forallthe
168
ExperiencingTime
ways in which composers have manipulated their forms to subvert a linear
experience – whetherthrough theuseofdiscontinuous features, or total elusion
via anattempttoinvoke anon-narrative–theoverridingtemporal experienceof
their work will invariably include fundamental parameters of start- and stoppoints, ifnotthe formal closureofa recognisable beginning andendas Jonathan
Kramerdistinguishes(Kramer1982, 1). Similarlimitationsapplyinliteratureand
other media.31 Indiscussing the‘menu-driven tree structure’that websites offer
theirreaders, allowingthemto createtheirownsequenceratherthansuccumbto
anenforcedlinearity, PeterElbowaptlynotes that suchtime-savingstrategies do
not enable an avoidance of time altogether: ‘They let us escape an enforced
sequence through a text, but they do nothing to help us escape sequence itself.
Human readers are still stuck with the ability to read only a few words at a
time’(2006,653).
Any counter-claim to this overruling linear reality, like the assertion of
narrative, might well be considered the product of an illusion. However, these
illusions retain crucial importance as the products of subjective musical
experience.Ifanything,thecontrastsandcon?lictsbetweenthebroaderpassageof
timeandthedistortionsofthewayitisexperiencedmighthelpinformanalysis.A
palpabletensionis ofteninducedbetweenthis overridingconnectionofduration
andthemusicalsubversionscontainedwithinitthatmightconfrontordefyit.The
reassuring onward stability of thepassage of time ensures a broader continuity
that is nevertheless allowing of and receptive to experiences of internal
discontinuity.SusanneLangertouchesonthis tensionthroughher preferencefor
multipletemporalformsovera‘one-dimensional’time:
Butlife isalwaysa dense fabricof concurrenttensions, and as each of them isa
measure of time, the measurementsthemselves donot coincide. Thiscausesour
temporalexperience tofallapartintoincommensurate elementswhichcannotbe
all perceived together as clear forms. When one is taken as parameter, others
become‘irrational’,outoflogicalfocus,ineffable.Sometensions,therefore,always
sinkintothe background;somedrive and some drag, butforperception theygive
31
Almén presents an interesting critique of Nattiez’s inference that causality is a
prerequisitefornarrative, utilising examples from literature –including ashortstoryby
KazuoIshiguro–todemonstratethatconnectionsbetweeneventsareultimatelymade by
theobserverratherthanbytheauthororcomposer(Almén,2008:30–32).
169
ExperiencingTime
qualityratherthanformtothepassageoftime,whichunfoldsinthepatternof the
dominantanddistinctstrainswherebywearemeasuringit.(1953,112–13)
Langer’s hesitationtoincludenotions offormhereisseeminglytiedto her
widertemporaloutlook.Actualexperience,sheasserts,hasno‘closedform’;rather
it is memory that creates form, shaping experience ‘into a distinct mode, under
which it can be apprehended and valued’. ‘It is the real maker of history,’ she
writes, ‘not recordedhistory butthe sense ofhistoryitself, the recognition of the
past as acompletely established(thoughnotcompletely known)fabric ofevents,
continuous inspaceand time, and causally connectedthroughout’. However, the
emphasis she places upon memory as a selection of the many impressions of
presentexperiencehintsatthemoresigni?icantpartthatin-the-moment listening
mightplay;indeed,sheassertsthat‘torememberaneventistoexperienceitagain,
but not in the same way as the ?irst time’ (1953, 262–63). The immediacy of
experienced event does contribute to a broader impression of musical
construction,notjustasanabstractedmemorybutasanencounterthatmustbein
somewayrelivedinorderforitsrolewithintheformtobeadequatelyrealised.
It is the wider temporal, andthus formal signi?icanceofsuchmoments in
musical performances that are at risk of neglect within theories that place
emphasis uponacceptedperceptual hierarchies ofmusic: rhythmic andmetrical
groups,segments andproportions. Therecanbeno doubtthatthewaysinwhich
wederivemeaningfromthesenotionsfeatureheavilyinformalthought.However,
this can come at the expense of a consideration of how particular events and
passages can in?luence overall structural impressions. These moments do not
necessarily have to subvert larger structural continuities; rather they can
sometimes pull them into focus, or temporarily render them unimportant inthe
minds oflisteners. Articulatingor identifying the effect of such moments canbe
particularlydif?icult,notleastgiventhemercurialnatureofsubjectiveexperience:
thecharacterofmomentsmayneverappearthesamewaytwice, andwhatmight
seem a particularly lucid and signi?icant passage during one hearing of a work
mightwellslipbyalmostunnoticedduringanother.Buttherecanbenodoubtthat
inordertoaccountforsuchevents,broaderideasofformshouldretaina?lexibility
in-keeping with this subjectivity. Just as the musical relationships that help to
170
ExperiencingTime
create perceptual continuities within pieces may shift and alter, so should
conceptionsofformmaintainasenseofdynamism.
There can be little doubt that the unusual temporality found in these
instancesisamajorcontributortotheirsigni?icance.Examplesofdescriptionsand
explorationsofcomparablephenomenaappearacrossabroadrangeofliterature.
Edward T. Hall proposes the cultural notion of ‘sacred time’ as an immersive,
removedalternativetothepassageofordinary‘profane time’ (Hall 1984, 25–26,
discussedinKramer1988,16–18,andinLushetich2014,77–78).JonathanKramer
asserts that music possesses the ability to re?lect both sacred and profane time
(Kramer1988,17),aconclusionechoedbyBarbaraBarryinheroutlineofmusical
time comprising adialectic between?inite‘structured’ andin?inite ‘transcendent’
modes. These ideas have been adapted to narrative terms; Pasler suggests that
momentsofnarrativetransformationserveto interrupt thelinearityofamusical
work (Pasler 2008, 33–36), whilst Almén makes reference to points of crisis in
piecesandtheireffectsuponperceivedresolution(Almén2008,22).
Passagessuchastheseseemto facilitateaphaseofanti-hierarchicaltime, a
signi?icant temporal experience that might appear at once isolated from and
profoundly connected to its musical surroundings. It is in these moments that
some kind of recognised formal signi?icance – whether a convergence or
divergenceofmaterial,achangeindirection,amotivicrecasting,areturntoearlier
ideas,orarestart–enablesanimmersivetime.A heightenedawarenessoftimeis
promptedinlisteners, enablingabroader perceptual‘space’inwhichthecontent
anditswiderrelevancecanbeexploredbeyondtheregularityofcontinuouslinear
time. It might be argued that such phenomena constitute some of the closest
experiences to ‘timelessness’ (as an immersive moment set apart from a
comparatively‘timed’context)thatmusiccanprovide.Thecasestudythatfollows
willbeginby exploringtwosuchexamples andtheirimpactwithinthecontext of
two very different musical works: the ?irst movement of Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’
Symphony and Kaija Saariaho’s piano trio Je sens un deuxième coeur. Utilising
parallelpassagesat theheart ofbothpieces asaspringboardforconsiderationof
theirwiderdesigns,someofthenarrativeimplicationsfortheperceivedtemporal
formswillbeexplored.
171
Eight
NarrativePossibilities
KaijaSaariaho&LudwigvanBeethoven
Many ofthe analyses within this thesis – whether explicitly or not –began with
speci?ic landmarks in musical structures, catalytic passages in long-term forms.
Thespringboardforthiscasestudytakestheshapeofabriefparallelbetweentwo
pieces, acorrespondencethatischaracterisedbymelody. Thischapter,inasense,
comestheclosesttoutilisingLawrenceKramer’s‘hermeneuticwindows’approach
as astartingpoint, withhisnotionof‘structural tropes’proving particularly apt:
‘Sincetheyarede?inedintermsoftheirillocutionaryforce,asunitsofdoingrather
thanunits of saying, structural tropes cut across traditional distinction between
form andcontent. They can evolve from anyaspect of communicative exchange:
style, rhetoric, representation, and so on’(1990, 9–10). An examination ofthese
two passageswill giveway to anexplorationofthebroaderarchitectures ofboth
pieces, and the manner inwhich their temporal narratives mightfacilitatethese
momentsofsigni?icance.
The?irstpassagecanbefoundat thecentreofKaijaSaariaho’s (b. 1952)Je
sens un deuxième coeur for viola, cello and piano (2003). Here, an episode
characterised by dissonance and a rhythmic drive of relentless force reaches a
point ofburn-out. Itgivesway to ashroudedatmosphereasthe thirdmovement
begins, a slowly lapping piano accompaniment underpinning the strings as they
present the ?irst notable gestures of melodic unison in the course of the piece
(thirdmovement, bars1–10).Arching?iguresecho fragmentsofpreviouslyheard
material before repeatedly disintegrating into whispered harmonic trills,
discernible pitch content ebbing away atop a dissonant, tonally static
accompaniment. The self-perpetuating, onward insistence of the preceding
movement has all but vanished, with the music seemingly recoiling from its
ferocity,retreatingintoitself.Asenseofdisillusionmenttakeshold,claustrophobia
setting in as the sameharmonic shapes are treaded andretreaded, the abilityto
generateanylastingmotionseeminglydisabled.
172
NarrativePossibilities
ThesecondpassageconstitutesaparticularlydistinctivepassageinWestern
musical history. Theopening Allegro con brio ofBeethoven’s (1770–1827)Third
Symphony (1804) reaches near-total meltdown at a structural point that early
listenersmusthaveassumedwouldsignalahomecomingtotheopeningmaterial.
Asuccessionofdizzyinglyrapidmodulationsprecipitates–insteadofatriumphant
return–acataclysmicseries ofjuxtaposedchords, violentsyncopationandbrutal
dissonance threatening to wipe the slate clean of the established metre and
harmony (?irstmovement, bars248–79).32 Melodic content, too, is undersiegeas
WilliamKindermandescribes:‘So unrelentingisthis rhythmic fragmentationand
compressionthatthethematicmaterialisvirtuallydissolvedinto nothingatabout
that point when the recapitulation would normally be expected’ (1995, 91). As
brutal unison string chords ricochet and fade in the fallout, a coiling melody
emerges inthewoodwind, onealtogetherdistinctfromthethemes that havethus
fartakencentre-stageinthework.Theforeignnatureofthesubjectismatchedby
thekey in whichitis presented: E minor, one step away from the furthest tonal
pointfromtheE♭-majortoniconadominantcycle.Theresultsareaudiblyalien,a
senseofdisorientationaroused.
Thedetachment andloss thatcanbeexperiencedinboth ofthese passages
might seem to lie at odds with the rigorous structures they sit within. In these
passages,timeappearsdistorted,asifdetached,orreleased,fromitssurroundings.
Beethoven’s?irstmovementisunquestionablylinearincharacter,itsrestlesstonal
desire imbuing its duration with a seemingly irrepressible urgency. In spite of
numerous small-scale metrical disruptions, the product of this design is an
overridingtemporal continuity.It is inthewakeofthedevelopmentalclimaxthat
thisprogressiveapproachisbrie?ly calledintoquestion, withthedistant E-minor
melodyseeminglyhighlightingthealienatingcostofsuchprogress.Saariaho’strio,
meanwhile, at times gives the outward impression of a similar kind of driven
continuity inthetwo fastersegments that?lankthiscentral movement. However,
this chapter will exploretowhat extentthesurface linearity of thesemovements
affects temporal character of the work at large, and indeed how this apparent
32
Whilst the ‘Eroica’ has been treated to a rich reception history of analyses and
commentaries,theywillrarelyformpartofthediscussionhere,withtheexceptionofScott
Burnham’s dissection of the work in light of heroic tropes (1995). For an insightful
considerationofthisreceptionhistory,seeLockwood1982.
173
NarrativePossibilities
advancement canbe reconciledwith the static disquiet at the core ofthe work.
Throughanevaluationofbothofthesepassageswithintheirrespectiveworks,itis
hoped that they can be shown as ‘structural tropes’, constituting formal
proceduresthatalso emergeasrecognisableexpressiveacts(L.Kramer1990, 10).
Their roles within the perceived temporalities of the works are particularly
signi?icant, offeringat once a sense ofdetachment from the temporal journey at
large whilst simultaneously pulling the course of that journey into focus. The
purpose of this case study, with regard to the discussion in Chapter Seven
(Experiencing Time), is not to map out or advocate speci?ic narrative plans for
these pieces. Rather it is to highlight potential interpretive levers – perceptible
formal and temporal elements ofthe music rooted in conceptions of continuity,
energyandperspective–thatmightserveasabasisforsuchreadings.Ultimately,
itisthewayinwhichthesestructuresmightbeheardandunderstoodovertime–
bothinthemomentoflistening, andinretrospect–thatwillpavethewayforthe
discussionofapproachestomusicalforminthetheoreticaldiscussionthatfollows
inChapterNine(UnderstandingTime).
Surfacebalance
Although these two works were conceived almost two centuries apart, and take
verydifferentcourses withregardtomusicalstyleandsubstance,thecomparable
sensationsofdisorientation–emotional,temporalandspatial–thatareinducedat
theirstructuralcoresofferarevealingparallel. Itisobviousthattheseapparently
relatedends are achieved through differing means. Nevertheless, a glance at the
wider architectural properties of both pieces reveals a shared emphasis on
balanced proportion. The ?ive segments of Saariaho’s trio are lent a collective
symmetry throughtheir placement:three slow sections intercededby two faster
episodes, barnumbers, metronome marks, andtypical performance durationsall
corresponding to create two approximate movement types. The central slow
movement lies perceptually furthest from therelative clarity ofthe opening and
174
NarrativePossibilities
Movements
Bars
Crotchetpulse(bpm)
Duration
1.Iunveilmybody
35
c.40(withinsenzatempo)
3’37
2.Openuptome
88
c.92–104
1’59
3.Inherdream,shewaswaiting
58
c.66
4’03
4.Letmein
96
c.86
2’17
5.Ifeelasecondheart
56
c.63
4’48
Fig.8.1:Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,formalscheme
Sonataformcomponent
Exposition
Development
Recapitulation
Bars
304
244
274
Sub-component
Bars
Duration
Firstexposition
153
2’45
Expositionrepeat
151
2’42
Departure
126
2’22
Return
118
2’06
Recapitulation
159
2’55
Coda
115
2’30
Fig.8.2:Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony,Uirstmovement,formalscheme
closingsections,itssti?linginactivityanddisorientationpresentingastarkcontrast
tothefasteroutburststhatimmediatelybookendit(seeFigure8.1).33
The opening Allegro con brio of Beethoven’s Third Symphony broadly
follows the architectural patterns of sonata form. Conventionally speaking this
might give the impression of a bipartite form, with the repeated exposition
balanced out by a brief development section and a rounding recapitulation.
However, evenjust comparing the‘Eroica’ to earliersymphonic ?irst movements
serves to indicate an expansion, its 15-minute-plus timescale easily eclipsing
predecessors. What proves fascinating, however, is not the expansion itself but
where ithasoccurred.Farfromsimplybeingstretchedoutwards,Beethovenseeks
33 Durations taken from recording listed in
primaryresource list (Jonathan Moerschel,
viola;EricByers,cello;GloriaCheng,piano.HarmoniaMundi:HMU907578).
175
NarrativePossibilities
to change the structural make-up of the music from within, identifying and
broadeningthesectionstypicallygrantedlessscope(seeFigure8.2).34
Thesonataformis transformedfromabipartite to atripartite form, with
exposition, development, and recapitulation granted relatively equal weighting.
Paradoxically, whatmightbeviewedasamanipulation–astructuraldeformation,
asHepokoskiandDarcywoulddescribeit–oftheclassicalforminfactalignswith
the very ethos of that outlook, as de?ined by Charles Rosen: ‘the symmetrical
resolutionofopposingforces’(1997,83);indeed,itisthepalpablestrainprecisely
of the attempt to provide this kind of rhetorical balance that might enhance a
‘deformational’reading, with Beethoven seemingly applying – in Hepokoski and
Darcy’swords–‘compositionaltensionandforcetoproduceasurprising, tensionprovokingorengaging result’(2006, 617).Furthermore,itispossibletoviewthe
forminanincreasinglyepisodic manner,sub-dividingthesestructuralboundaries
torevealsixapproximatelycomparablesmallersegmentsofbetween115and159
bars in length, eachassuming a different role in the developing narrative ofthe
piece. To achieve a heightened mode of expression, the scope of the musical
narrative has been broadened to encompass a greater sense of journey and
con?lict.
The principle expansions are found in the development and the
recapitulationsections,bothofwhicharedoubledinconventionalsizerelativeto
the formal proportions of the movement. Rather than simply propelling the
materialthroughpointsoftensionandclimaxbacktowardsthetonic,Beethoven’s
development sectionhere takes the shapeof two gestures, the ?irst carrying the
music further away from tonic stability before a return occurs throughout the
second. Thecataclysmicbreakdownthatoccurs justbeforetheE-minorlandmark
ofdisorientationliesatthetraditionalpointofrecapitulation.Insteadofproximity
tostability, audiencesarepresentedwithapalpabledistancefromit,themusicin
an apparent state of deconstruction rather than reconstruction. In spite of this
apparent deformation, it is still notable that the fundamental changes contained
within the development might still be understood according to the normative
zones that Hepokoski andDarcy outline, witha sequenceoflinking, preparatory,
34
Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (La Chambre
Philharmonique,conductedbyEmmanuelKrivine.Naïve:V5258).
176
NarrativePossibilities
centralaction, andretransitional functionsemerging (2006, 229–30). Indeed, the
violenteruptionatthecentreofthesectionmightbethoughtofasanampli?ication
oftheveryqualitiesthatWilliamCaplin(1998)ascribesto thetypical‘core’ofthe
development, projecting ‘an emotional quality of instability, restlessness, and
dramatic con?lict’ (1998, 142); Caplin’s description of the musical features that
mighthelptocreatetothiseffectproveparticularlyrelevantifcarriedtoextremes:
‘Thedynamiclevelisusuallyforte,andthegeneralcharacterisoftenoneofSturm
und Drang. The core normally brings a marked increase in rhythmic activity
projected by conventionalised accompanimental patterns. Polyphonic devices –
imitation, canon, fugal entries – can contribute further to the complexity of the
musicaltexture’(1998,142).
Thecoda,meanwhile,achievestheparadoxofcallingthestabilityofthetonic
into question precisely by af?irming it, ‘recapitulating the entire process of the
movement,‘ as Burnham asserts (1995, 23). The entire movement could
theoretically conclude with the close of the ?irst part of the recapitulation, a
gradualfadeoccurringinthetonickey.Itisatthispoint,however,thattheprimary
themeisforceddownwardsviatwooutbursts,the?irstinD♭,thesecondinCmajor
paving the way for the coda – a two-step motion derived from the subversive
manoeuvre from E♭ to C♯ in the celli in bars 6–7. Through a series of further
modulations, the tonic is eventually re-established and ecstatically stated at the
movement’s close. More generally, it demonstrates a further questioning of the
security and dominance of the tonic framework and the primary material that
accompanies it, the varied perspectives granted through the tonal and thematic
distanceofferedintheexpandedsectionsactingtoweakenthesenseofhierarchy.
Paradoxically,itisthroughaheightenedsenseofproportionalbalanceintemporal
formthatapalpabledegreeofinstabilityisreinforced.
Internalnarratives
Metaphors involving human actionsengage the imagination more directly, overtly
andpowerfullythan those detailing facelessprocessesthat are meaninglyorganic.
(Burnham1995,8)
The subject matters that served as inspirations for both pieces are strikingly
different. Forming a major part of the mythology surrounding the piece,
177
NarrativePossibilities
Beethoven’s ‘muse’is well known:theoriginal scoreoftheworkboretheheader
‘Buonaparte’. The composer had originally conceived of dedicating the work to
NapoleonBonapartebuthadinsteadoptedforhispatronPrinceLobkowitzforthe
practical purposes of obtaining both a première and a fee. The First Consul of
Francehadinsteadassumedtheapparentstatus ofsubject, the personi?icationof
the ideals of freedom and equality that had permeated the recent French
Revolution.AshispupilFerdinandRiesrecalled,itwaswhile?inishingthepiece,in
May 1804, that Beethoven furiously withdrew the title-page inscription upon
hearingofNapoleon’sallbutself-appointmentas‘Emperor’,declaring:‘Sohetoois
nothing more than an ordinary man! Now he will also trample all human rights
under foot, and only pander to his own ambition; he will place himself above
everyoneelseandbecomeatyrant!’(Sipe1998, 54–56). The political catalyst for
theworkwas,nevertheless,somethingthatBeethovenmadelittleefforttoconceal,
subsequently revealingtheinspirationbothtohispublishers (describingit asthe
real title) and ?inally naming the work as an ‘heroic symphony, composed to
celebrate the memory of a great man’ (Robbins Landon 1974, 93–94). Heroism
itselfhadbecomethesubject.
Jesensundeuxième coeurgrewinitiallyfromSaariaho’s work onhersecond
operaAdrianaMater,premièredthreeyears afterthecompletionofthetrioatthe
OpéraBastilleinParis.Thestage-workconcernsamotherinanunnamedmodern
countryonthe vergeofinsurgenceandwar. Asthe opera’s directorPeter Sellars
explains(2012),thecontentofeachmovementstemsfromparticularscenesinthe
opera.Themusic ofthe?irstmovement is –intheopera –thewoman’s dreamof
freedominaclaustrophobicsti?lingworld:‘Thegestureofunveilingisprovocative
but innocent, adult but celebrating a sensuality that moves deeply inside every
human being.’ The second section is utilisedas heralcoholic boyfriend violently
appeals to her to let him into her house, while the central alienated movement
takestheformofadreamsequenceinwhichwaractuallybreaksoutintheircity,
familiarlandscapesravaged:‘Strange,stolenmomentsoftendernesscontrastwith
horror –watchingata distanceina dream theterrible thingsthat humanbeings
are capable of.’ The vision becomes a reality and the music of the fourth
movement, most shockingly, accompanies asceneinwhichthewoman’sdrunken
boyfriend, now a member of the local militia, attempts and succeeds to batter
178
NarrativePossibilities
down the door – he enters, and rapes the woman. The trio closes – in an
intriguingly circularmanner– withthestartingpoint for theopera: themother’s
sensed physical relationship with the unborn child she bears as a result of the
horriblyviolentact:
Theemotionaldepththatwe associate withanymothercarryinganychildismade
deeper by the fact that her sisterencouragesher to have an abortion, to kill the
monster that is growing inside her, a living embodiment of her violation. This
motherchoosestokeepthe child, and singing toit asshe carriesitinside her, she
decidesthathervoicewillhelpshapethischild.Thischildwillnotbeamonster,but
aloving,whole,sane,andvaluedhumanbeing.(2012,9–10)
Although both composers may have approached the compositional process
withmoreconcrete images inmind, the ties between thepieces andtheir initial
subjectmattershavebeendeliberatelyweakened.Beethoven’sresponseto–what
was inhis eyes – Bonaparte’s eventual trans?igurationinto theverymonsterthe
manhadsetouttodestroy,wastoremovehisstatusasthestandardbearerofthe
symphony. The composer’s convictions regarding the work itself remained
unblemished. The relationship between Saariaho’s music and its subject matter,
meanwhile,isdemonstratedinhergeneralattitudetowardsopera:
It’salways the inner space thatinterests me. And in a waythatmakesmyoperas
verydifSicultto stage. In Emilie, thiswomanis writing aletterfor90 minutes–so
whatdoyoudowiththat?It’sveryprivate:everything ishappeninginthiswoman’s
mindduringone nightwhenshe’sworking.Likeallof myoperas,itshouldhave the
effectofbeingfundamentallyprivate music,musicthatIwanttocommunicatewith
theinnerworldofmylisteners,justasitexpressesmyinnerimagination. (Saariaho
andService2011,14)
Accordingly, it is this communication withthe internal – andits side-effect
appealto theuniversal–thatallowsthetrio totakeonalifeofitsownbeyondits
operaticgenesis.Whilethetitlesofeachmovementreferspeci?icallyto signi?icant
fragments of Amin Maalouf’s libretto, only a comprehensive knowledge of the
opera itself would allow a listener to apply a speci?ic ‘synopsis’. Saariaho’s
programmenoteforthetrioallowsaglimpseonthealtogetherseparatethematic
content that served as a compositional catalyst, emphasising a twice-abstracted
takeuponthepiece:
179
NarrativePossibilities
The title of the Sirst section, ‘I unveil my body’, became a metaphor: the musical
material introduced was orchestrated to reveal the individual characters of the
three instruments and their interrelations. The second and fourth partsboth start
from ideasof physical violence. In the contextof this trio the violence has turned
intotwostudies on instrumental energy. Part three isa colourstudy inwhich the
threeidentitiesaremeldedintoonecomplexsoundobject.Thelastsectionbringsus
to the thematic starting point of my opera, again very physical: the two hearts
beatinginapregnantwoman’sbody.(2003)
Thesubjects ofbothworks might, in a somewhat obvious sense, be saidto
encompasstheconceptofan‘other’.Beethoven’ssubject–heroism–isastatethat
canonlytrulybeidenti?iedinrelationtoitssurroundings,morespeci?icallysome
kindofopposition.Heroicqualities,likemostcharactertraits,areatleastpartially
de?ined by their opposites; the performance of heroism typically involves
overcoming something. While the ‘other’ of Saariaho’s opera may ?luctuate
accordingtothedevelopmentoftheplot(theboyfriend,thesister,con?lictandwar
itself),thecomposerindicatesthatthecentralimageattheheartoftheabstracted
trio is of the relationshipbetween a mother and her unborn child. It presents a
fascinatingparadox–the‘other’thatisfoundwithin,aninternaldialogue.
Thisliteralinternalisationoffersthepotentialforanew wayofviewingboth
pieces. In Saariaho’s conception of motherhood, the narrative may be said to
concern an attempt to understandoneselfas much as it does to understandthe
‘other’withinoneself– aninterdependenceisat workhere. Meanwhile,although
Beethoven’s subject of heroism could on its surface be seen to concern con?lict
withanexternal?igure,amoreclassically-groundedconceptionoftheheroechoes
theideaofaninwardperspective. This redirectionofexpectationsis summed up
eloquently by Joseph Campbell in his dissection of protagonist narratives in
culturalmythologies: ‘Wherewehadthoughtto traveloutwardsweshall cometo
thecentreofourown existence; where wehad thought to be alone, we shall be
with all the world’ (2008, 18). Both the Allegro con brio ofthe ‘Eroica’ and the
macro-symmetryofJesensundeuxièmecoeur,foralltheiroutwardviolence,might
insteadbeheardasgrapplinginwardly.
180
NarrativePossibilities
Fulcra
In spite of the surface linearity that the ?ive-movement structure of Je sens un
deuxième coeurpresents,itstemporalexperiencewouldseem to possess facetsof
circularity. There are numerous points ofaudible return, recognisable harmonic
andmelodicshapesfrequentlyre-emerginginthecourseofthework. Ratherthan
taking the form of speci?ic materials that recur in a leitmotivic fashion, the
signi?icanceoftheserecurrencesseems tolieinthesonoritiesthemselvesandthe
tonal power that they gain through their very repetition and recasting. In
attemptingto makefurther senseofthesestructuralmarkers,itisusefulto draw
upon an idea presented by another ?igure featured in this study, the British
composerThomasAdès. Heexpressesapreferenceforcertainpitchesaspointsof
audiblerecurrenceinthecourseofawork:
It’ssomething in the waythat Ihearall music, actually, this idea of there being a
single note – a particular pitch on a particular instrument – that has a crucial
function acrosswhole structures... You see iteverywhere: in BeethovenorMozart,
HaydnorChopin:there will be anote that will be afulcralpoint forwhole pieces.
Andoftenitwon’tbethetonic.Oftenitwillbeanotethathasbecomeanobsession,
aroundwhichthewholepiecehinges.(AdèsandService2012,48)
Certainly an obvious ‘fulcrum’ emerges in the course of the ?irst movement
through the repetition of octave G♮s in the bass-line of the piano. Initially
resoundedtwice(bars 1–7),theoctaveisdisruptedby theintroductionofaB♭in
place of the lower G♮ (bars 8–11). After anseries of alternate bass resonances
(bars12–28:A♮ –A♭–D♮–E♭–F♯), G♮ returnsintheformofatremolo pedalthat
lastsfrombar29tothecloseofthemovement,underpinningtheascenttoaclimax
inbothdynamicandactivitylevels(bar31)andthefadethatfollows.
WhilstG♮ certainlyappears tobeestablishedassomethingofabassfulcrum
in the course of the ?irst movement by virtue of its recurrence – the ‘obsessive’
character suggested by Adès very much demonstrated – its role within a tonal
contextisnotquiteclear. Althoughitsfunctionwouldseemtoencompassthatofa
tonic,providingapotentialbasisforastableframework, notransparentharmonic
hierarchy is subsequently outlined. Indeed, the very repetition and grounding
natureoftheG♮pedalseemstoinciteakindofperceptualrestlessness;ratherthan
181
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.3:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,secondmovement,bars54–57
providing security, as the G♮ is comprehensively assimilated into the accepted
harmonicgeographyofthemusic,agrowingneedforchangesets in. Thusbythe
closeofthemovementakindofauralclaustrophobiahastakenhold;themusical
content has seemingly peaked without precipitating a new direction, its
accumulated potential energy now in need of an outlet. In this sense, the pedal
approachesthefunctionofadominantratherthanatonic,providingaspringboard
ofsortsforthekineticoutburstthatfollows.
The harmonic grounding that is presented at the opening of the second
movement provides a step away from the established fulcrum and, in doing so,
opens up the possibility for what could be viewed as a second focal point:
continuedreiterationsofA♮dominatetheopening28bars(interestinglyA♮proved
to be the ?irst fully-?ledged bass departure from G♮ in the course of the ?irst
movementatbar12).Followingaseriesofswiftharmonicjolts, theA♮fulcrumis
reasserted at a structural landmark, a climactic, fortissimo point of emphasised
rhythmicconvergenceamidthericocheting dialogueat bar 55(seeFigure8.3). It
lands almost exactly at the ‘goldensection’ ofthe movement, afrequent peak of
aestheticinterestinthetemporalandarchitecturalschemeofapiece,the55thbar
of a total of 88 (the Golden Ratio of 88 being 54.38699101166787); it is also
notablewithregard to itssigni?icance withintheFibonacci sequence, 55and A♮
also features within theviolent, thrice-repeated, nine-note chordthat brings the
movementto itsclose, itselfaconglomerationofsigni?icant harmonicbasspedals
thatoccurinthecourseofthemovement(seeFigure8.4).
182
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.4:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,reductionsofclosingsonoritiesof
secondandfourthmovements
Movements
Openingfulcrum
sonorities
Closingfulcrumsonorities
1.Iunveilmybody
G♮inbass
2.Openuptome
A♮outlinedinbass
3.Inherdream,she
A♮inhigherregisters,F♯
A♮inhigherregisters,F♯
waswaiting
andF♮inbass
andF♮inbass
A♭/A♮trillleadingtoG♮
G♮andA♮includedwithin
emphasisinbass
dissonantoutbursts
4.Letmein
G♮pedal
5.Ifeelasecondheart G♮inbass
G♮&A♮includedwithin
dissonantoutbursts
G♮pedal
Fig.8.5:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,tabledetailingfulcrashifts
Taking the idea ofG♮ and A♮ as competing, orat thevery least interacting,
fulcra has interesting implications, not least with regardto the circularity ofthe
work. Simply taking the presence of these two notes within the opening and
closing gestures of each movement reveals a traceable harmonic narrative (see
?igure 8.5). With A♮ having G♮ as the bass grounding at the outset of the second
movement,thedisorientationattheoutsetoftheensuingcentraldreamsequence
seems to arise from the absence of such lower-register clarity. Although the
movement is introduced by A♮s in the strings, the notes seep in via the higher
registers, with any meaningful tonal sway immediately displaced by the
dissonanceinthelefthandofthepiano:F♯andF♮ (thirdmovement, frombar2).
Thislossoftonalclarityinwhatfollowswouldappear–atleastinpart–tobedue
to the absence of a clear fulcrum. Indeed, it might be suggested that for the
majority of the movement, the concept is broadened to instead encompass the
183
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.6:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,thirdmovement,bars1–3
entirearea surrounding G♮ and A♮. Semitone relationships dominate muchofthe
lower-registercontentthroughout.Inthisway,F♯-F♮andits‘dominant’pairingC♯C♮ holdgreat sway in the early stages of the movement (bars 1–26), repeatedly
disrupting any audible security established by the fulcra; see Figure 8.6 for an
exampleoftheclashesandinteractionsbetweenF♯-F♮.inthepianoleft-hand, and
G♮ intheright-hand,allbeneathsustainedA♮sintheviolaandcello).A♮doesbegin
to show as something ofatemporary arrival point, struck uponfrequently atthe
closeofslowlydescendingleft-handphrases in thepiano (frombar32onwards)
beforeemergingbrie?ly inde?initiveoctaves (bars40–41).G♮ also emerges asthe
lowervoice ofanostinatopiano phrase(combinedwithE♮ andF♮),onebarlong,
that appears erratically at ?irst (in bars 42, 45 & 48) before enjoying an
undisturbed?ive bars ofrepetitiontowards the closeofthe movement (bars 50–
54).ItisnonethelesssupplantedbythereturnoftheF♯-F♮octavepairingfromthe
openingofthemovementinthe?inalbars(bars55–58).
Whathasthus farremainedalargelyhorizontal dialoguebecomes avertical
onefromtheoutsetofthefourthmovement,thetwofulcrasetdirectlyagainstone
another. The initial piano trill creates a haze of A♭ andA♮, a hangover from the
chromatically muddiedwaters ofthe previous section. Therepeatedpatternthat
then quickly evolves in the lower registers of the piano spans a ninth, G♮ at its
184
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.7:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,fourthmovement,bars1–4,(piano)
Fig.8.8:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,fourthmovement,bars40–42,(piano)
lowestpoint,A♮atitshighest. Althoughtonal weightinitiallyseemstoliewithG♮,
its depthcombinedwitha?irstbeat emphasis,addednotesandarapidshiftfrom
straight semiquavers to quintuplets and ?inally sextuplets allows a displacement,
withG♮ nowactingasanupbeat,A♮asthedownbeatofeachostinato gesture(see
Figure8.7).
Letmeintakestheformofanexaggerated, manicreturntothefastmaterial
of the structurally symmetrical second movement. Discontinuity permeates the
musical landscape, manifesting itself in the shape of unexpected ‘jump-cuts’
precipitated by sharp, dissonant tutti chords that curtail the perpetuating
sequences.Eachrenewalofsequentialactivityfollowingtheseinterruptionsseesa
newmoveinthepowerstrugglebetweenthetwofulcra,G♮orA♮usuallyemerging
as repeated punctuations of patterns, oftenaudible as the lowest pitch: take, for
example, the appearancesofG♮ from bars 16and19, orA♮ frombars 12and23.
Thecyclingfour-note pattern(B♮ – A♮ – A♯–G♮) thatappears in thebass ofthe
pianofrombar34onwardsinconjunctionwithrapidright-handscales–andthat
eventuallydominatesthe?inal passages ofthemovement–seesbothfulcrapitted
againstone anotheroncemore,G♮ againassumingthestance ofabass upbeat,A♮
ringingoutanoctave higher thantherest ofthephrase(seeFigure8.8). Evenas
thepatternbecomesmisshapenanddeformedtowardsthecloseofthemovement
(bars74–92),thetwofulcraremainwithinitsgraspwithnotableconsistency,the
185
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.9:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,openingsofUirstandUifthmovements,
reductiontohighlightreversalofnoteseries(violaandcello)
reintroductionofchromatic elements incloseproximityultimately doing littleto
dull their impact. The two notes even assume roles within the chord that is
frequently utilised as a sudden interruption, almost always pairedin the strings
(with frequent piano backing) withanadditional A♭, a chromatic blurring again
recallingthedisorientationofthecentralmovement(bars54–58,63,67and69).
Finally, both fulcra are crucially contained within the 10-note chord that
violentlyconcludesthe movement(seeFigure8.4). Closelyrelatedto theparallel
?iguration that concludes thesecondmovement, thechordseems to performthe
function of wiping the tonal slate clean, allowing a con?ident bass octave
reassertion of G♮ from the very start of the ?inal movement. In audibly circular
fashion, the music here in many ways mirrors the opening of the entire piece,
broaderarching gestures stillpresentyetnowunderpinnedbyaquickermetrical
motion. Indeed, a reversal ofthe opening rise-and-fall idea in the strings canbe
heardwithinthe?irstthreebars, E♮–F♮–C♯nowpresentedinretrogradewithan
intercedingD♮nowintroducedinthecello(SeeFigure8.9).
Intriguingly, the bass resonances presented in the lowest registers of the
pianoalsoecho –atleastinitially–thebroaderpathofthe?irstmovement:aB♭is
soon introduced in place of one of the octave G♮s (from bar 5), with octave A♮s
introduced (from bar 9) followed by A♭s (from bar 13). After further episodes
rootedbynotablytriadicbassnotes(B♭andD♮)aswellasextendedspellswithA♮
and A♭, it falls to a seven-bar G♮ pedal to conclude the work (bars 50–56), the
unresolved sensation of the close of the ?irst movement now displaced and
186
NarrativePossibilities
counterbalanced by a sense of return. The perception lies far closer to that of a
tonic,the?irstfulcrumcon?irmedasthetruearchitecturalfoundation.
Insearchofstability
Whilst the essential theory of two properties interacting and competing can
certainly betransferredfrom Je sensun deuxième coeur to the ?irst movement of
the‘Eroica’,itisdif?iculttoapply‘fulcrum’labelstospeci?icsonoritiesorelements.
Expandingthe‘fulcra’conceptsomewhat,itispossibletoviewBeethoven’sAllegro
con brio architecture as comprising a dialogue created by motions between two
extremes of a spectrum: stability and instability. The resulting sensation is of
musical content held in an ever-present but shifting tension between these two
poles.Itis,perhaps,whatBurnhamtouchesonwhenhedescribesthe‘latenttrend
towards death’hehearsintheC♯ofbar seven(1995, 22). Goingfurther, itmight
beportrayedas a two-way relationship, inherent tendencies ofone towards the
other:stabilitytowardsself-destruction,instabilitytowardsresolution.
Inthecourseofthe‘Eroica’,stabilitymanifestsastheverybuildingblocksof
conventional Classical tonality: thetriaditself. Forits?irst four bars, theopening
theme of the work takes the shape of an unambiguous expression of this,
remarkably utilising only the three constituents of the tonic chord with the
downbeat emphasis falling solely on E♭ (see bars 3–6 in Figure 8.10). Its
supremely static nature presents aparadoxical subject, onthe one handa blank
motiviccanvasripefordevelopmentonaccountofitssimplicity,andontheothera
statement of stability so bold that it almost seems to demand its own
deconstructionif anything new is to come from it. Its ?igurationalso raises new
ideaswhencontrastedwiththetwoexplosivetuttiE♭outbursts thatcomebefore
it: avertical expressionofthetriad(twochords)followedbyahorizontalone(an
arpeggiatedsubject).Therelationshipbetweenthetwogesturesatthisstageinthe
work presents two expressions of energy: potential and self-perpetuating, the
lattercastingthe arpeggio shapeinadynamic rather thanastatic manner. While
thetriadicpurityofthisthemeremainsunmatched,manyofthethemesthatfollow
all outline thetriadto somedegree, the threenotes providing theframework of
187
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.10:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,bars1–14(violins,violasandcellos)
much of the subsequent motivic construction and development. Even the ‘new’
melody that appears inthe wakeofthecentral implosion(frombar284)audibly
tracestheE-minortriadwithitsphrasedcontours. Indeed, theapparentnoveltyof
thethemeis,inmanyways, afacade;thesubjectisinfactafusionofearlierideas
taken from the exposition (see Figure 8.11). The result is a fresh and unusual
perspectiveonhighlyfamiliarmaterials.
The stable manoeuvres of the these triadic ?igures interact with broader
gestures of instability that initially stem from a motivic cell introduced in the
seventhbar, a two-part semitonestepdownwards inthe celli from E♭ to C♯, the
harmonicresultbrie?lytakingtheshapeofadiminishedchordonG♮. (seebars7–
11inFigure8.10)Thetonalconsequenceisthequickestablishmentofapalpable
relationshipbetweenstableandunstabletonalforces;RobertHattendescribesthe
C♯ as a ‘seed of instability’ (1994, 121). Almost immediately (from bar 9), the
188
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.11:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,thematicderivationofE-minordevelopment
repulsion from thetonic createdthroughthe sharpenedsubmediant is corrected
throughadiametricassertionofthemediant,are-attractiontoE♭inducedthrough
areversalofthesemitonedropinthebass.Inmanyways,thisC♯ mightbeseenas
representative of the subversive ‘opposition’ against which the heroism of the
movement might be judged. However, it seems particularly signi?icant that this
chromatic disruptionemergesaudiblyfromthecellothemeitselfratherthanfrom
a different source. Here, Hatten’s concept of ‘markedness’ – an asymmetrical
evaluationofdifferentoropposingfeatures (1994, 34–43)–is evokedwithinthe
samebroadmelodicshape.AswiththeconceptualnarrativeofJesensundeuxième
coeur,theopposition,andthecon?lictthatensues,stemsfromwithin.
Thesemitoneslippervadestherestofthemovementalmostas prominently
asthetriaditself,at?irstfacilitatingmultipleshiftsawayfromE♭(bars17–24)that
haveto thenbereversed,furtherdestabilisingthestatusofthekey.Inmanyways,
its aural status as the tonic – as a de?inite point ofdeparture – rarely seems in
doubt; rather the effect is of the very signi?icance of the tonic and its broader
structural implications being called into question, an initial statement of
unparalleledstabilitytendingtowardschaos.Theresultofthesesubversionsupon
thewiderarchitecturemaywellbeagradualdislodgingofanauralrelianceonthe
role of the tonic. The effect on the exposition repeat is profound, witheven the
initialstabilitynowperceptuallysubvertedfortheaudience,E♭almostassuminga
mirage-likequality.
Asthemovementprogresses,thechromatic slipisconstantlycastandrecast
in apparent attempts to counteract its destructive tendency, to normalise the
gesturewithinamoreconventionaltonalframework. Thepeakofthis struggleis
189
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.12:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,harmonicreduction,bars248–84
reached at the core of the development section, ever-continuing drops and
violently syncopated chromatic shifts creating strained modulations, eventually
reachingapoint ofno return (seeFigure 8.12foranharmonic reductionof this
passage). As the onward rhythmic motion begins to disintegrate, a diminished
chordonD♯–underpinnedbyA♮–momentarilygiveswayto two barsofCmajor
in its second inversion (bars 274–75). The suddenunalloyed major triad seems
frighteninglyalienatthispointinthework,thefourbarsthatfollowcomprisingan
equally terrifying F-major chord in the second inversion riddled with sevenths,
invoking achaotic collision of F major andA minor(bars 276-279). Rather than
precipitatingalong-awaitedstandardmodulatoryreturnto thetonicviathenow
theoreticallytouchableB♭dominant,anentirelydifferentharmonicrouteissought
throughanunsettlinglyspelledB-majordiminished-seventhchordcloudedfortwo
bars byanadded?lattenedninthfor theswitchtotheaudiblyforeignterritoryof
E-minor(bars280-84).
Burnham insightfully notes the role that the linearity – both tonal and
temporal–ofthemovement’sdesignplaysinthedisorientationexperiencedhere:
‘Forifwedo?indourselvesinwhatmayretrospectivelybeadjudgedanimpossibly
remote harmonic realm, we are made to feel the ineluctable continuity of the
process throughwhichwearrivedthere’. Heisalsorightto notethatthepassage
constitutesa‘long-rangeunderlyingtonal preparationofEminor’(1995, 11–12);
thesustainedB-majortriadsinbars262–65actasamajorcontributorinaf?irming
theeventual move throughaperfect cadence(bars 280–284). However, itcannot
190
NarrativePossibilities
Bars
Tonalleaning
284–91
Eminor
292–99
Aminor
300–07
Cmajor
308–12
Cminor
313–15
A♭ major–D♭ major–B♭ major
316–19
E♭ major
320–29
E♭ minor
330–37
G♭ major
338
B♭ major
Fig.8.13:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,tonalleanings,bars284–338
beemphasisedenoughthat thisprocedureisembeddednotonlywithinlayers of
dissonance but also within apolyphonic ‘pulling apart’of boththe harmonic and
metricalfabric.
Ashasbeennoted, theE-minorthemethatthenemergesisnotasnovelasit
may appear, essentially derived from pre-existing – and audibly recognisable –
compositional elements andprovidinga characteristic outline ofthe new triadic
tonal basis. Perhaps the disorientation here stems not from the content’s
unfamiliarity, but precisely from its haphazard familiarity; the theme takes the
shape of a recollective conglomeration of the core motivic ideas of the work,
concepts that now teeter on theedgeofirrelevanceinthe wakeofsuch abrutal
assault on – and dismantling of – the traditional tonal scheme. With a desolate
extension of the development sectionnow unfolding wherea triumphant return
homewouldconventionallysit,thisisnotsimplyadenialofauralexpectations,but
aviolentrejectionofthem.
In the wake of this tonal implosion, it is the semitone slips that drive the
music onwardsinitswake, incessantupwardgear-shiftssettinginasthepassage
seemstostriveforanalternativedirectionwithrenewedvigour(seeFigure8.13).
ThesearchextendsinsuchafranticmannerthatE♭majorisinfactstruckuponin
191
NarrativePossibilities
its early stages, though its lack of relevance to the immediate harmonic scheme
leaves it bypassedinfavourofits ownminorkey, proofofa full tonal alienation
achieved(bars316-22). Thefrenzieddriveofthemusiceventuallyreachesapoint
of burn-out, stalling at a B♭-major-seventh chord (from bar 378)with theadded
?lattened-ninthintroducedinthe ?irst violins from bar382(adirect referenceto
thesameintervallicadditioninbars282–83aheadofthemovetoE-minor).Inthe
moment of listening, the horn call of the returning ?irst subject (bars 394–95)
seems to surface ‘prematurely’ , arriving before the ensuing nod to a dominant
seventhintheviolins hasbeengivenachancetoresolvetothetonic, preempting
aural expectations that a point of return might be imminent. Certainly the
appearanceofthemotifseemstojarwiththecontext:semi-quaverrepetitions in
the violins providing a skeletal reference to the dominant-seventh harmony
(adjacent A♭ and B♭). It is a discontinuity that seems to echo with the by-now
strengtheneddesireforareturn to the tonic realm, perhaps a hang-upfrom the
metrical disruptions and jump-cuts that have taken place throughout the
developmentsection.However,thisdiscontinuityisabsorbedintothecontinuityof
thewholeinretrospect inthewaythat it providesanewperspectiveonthe?irst
subject;tonalemphasisnowfallsuponthe?ifthratherthanthetonic,precipitating
the?inaltuttirushtotherecapitulation(bars394-98).
Whentherecapitulationgraduallyslowstoahalt(bars551–56),theE♭tonic
successfully re-established as an audible point of return, the movement could
hypotheticallyconcludeveryeasily. Butjustaswiththecorrespondingjunctureat
thecentreofdevelopmentsectionatwhichtherecapitulationisdenied,Beethoven
projects thearchitecturefurtherahead,delayingtheconclusionofthe movement.
The fading reminiscences of the primary triad subject are thrust downwards
througha broadening of thesemitone slip, D♮ and C♯becoming D♭ andC♮ (bars
557–64).35 The most notable aspect of this extension is the enharmonic
transformationofC♯toD♭, thevery representationofinstabilitynowassimilated
as part ofa potential solution to the form of the movement. What this brief but
signi?icantharmonicshiftcreatesisanopportunityforare-routetothetonic with
theintent ofestablishing a greatersenseofstability. Therepulsive powerofthe
35 Othercommentatorswho haveargued thisinclude Sipe (1998, 103), Burnham(1995,
21)andBasilLam(1966,122).
192
NarrativePossibilities
semitone slipis harnessed as a tool to emphasise theaudiblepower of thetonic
triadviaanincreaseintonal momentumforthe?inalapproachtoit.Morebroadly
speaking, the establishment of a ?inal ‘coda’ section con?irms a new sense of
balanceandsymmetry ofstructure–the sonataformis here no longer bipartite,
buttripartite.
Self-destruction
Thewiderresultofthisperceivedinstabilityisarigorousinterrogationofthetriad
itselfengineeredthroughchangingperspectivesuponit.Beyondmerelysettingup
a hierarchical system of harmonic interactions and patterns of antecedence and
consequence, the ‘Eroica’ seems to call into question its very fabric and, more
broadly, tonality itself as a means by which a framework can be provided for
musical structure. Throughtheheavilytriadic characteroftheinitialmaterial,the
repeated chromatic subversions that disrupt it, and the subsequent attempts to
reassertconventionaltonalpowerandstability, aninwardexaminationofmusical
functionisprecipitated.
The‘Eroica’isoftenhighlightedbycommentatorsonaccountofitsperceived
outwardviolence:itsbrutalrhythmicdisregardforitsmetre,itsblatant?loutingof
traditionalstructuralboundaries.ConradWilson,afterdescribingthe‘unstoppable
momentum’ of the ?irst movement, draws attention to the second in terms of
notably public gesture: ‘The music, complete with sonorous oration, is hugely
atmospheric and at times thunderously graphic’ (2003, 34). Perhaps, though, its
most compelling force is directed within, spiralling inward. The centre of the
movementtakestheformofanimplosionratherthananexplosion. Thesimplicity
of thecoresubject from whichthework stems–the E♭-major sonority – is such
thatitsverynatureisultimatelyplacedbeneaththemicroscope;itisthetriaditself
thatonehearsdismantledandevaluated.Thisquestioningmightevenbeextended
to thebroaderformitselfwithregardtothewayinwhichthe structurehasbeen
manipulated. In drawing attention to the reshaping of form and its parallel
implications forexpressivecontentthroughthe course ofthenineteenthcentury,
Hepokoski andDarcysuggestthat‘thepresenceofanysonatadeformationwhose
implicationsextendoverthegenericstructureofthewholepiecewouldseemipso
193
NarrativePossibilities
facto to call into question the legitimacy of the sonata strategy to provide a
solutiontothecompositionalorexpressiveproblemathand’(2006,254).
Theinteractions of tonal stabilityandinstability across theentire structure
facilitateabroadersenseof?luctuatingtensionswithinanauralmagnetic?ield.The
overall feeling is oneof departureandreturn, withthe symmetrical sonata-form
extensionprovidingaperfectvehicleforabalancedperceptualnarrative,thepoint
of greatest alienation occurring at the very centre of the movement and
precipitating a parallel ‘homecoming’. The piece can be viewed as a three-part
structure, with a six-part subdivision, each pairing interacting in a very direct,
almost antecedent-consequent fashion. The tonal and structural uncertainties of
the ?irst airing of the exposition allow for a development of these doubts and
instabilitieswithinitsrepeat.Whentheopeninghalfofthedevelopmentleadsnot
torecapitulationbuttocrisis,thesecondhalf–afteraninitialdisquiet–comprises
are-energisedhuntforformaldirectionandclarity.Whenitis?inallyreached,the
recapitulationsuccessfullytraversessequencesofmaterialoncemoreto bringthe
musicbacktoE♭,butthecodathatfollowsservestorealignandreassertthetonic
withanend-weighting that brings the ?inal section into line with a symmetrical
structural scheme. The temporal consequences are paradoxical: the intense
compressionofclimacticeventsandofmetricalenergycontrastswiththeextreme
lengthofthestructuralandtonaljourneytoenableamusicaltimethatappearsat
onceshortandlong,condensedandexhaustive.
Ratherthanpresentingcalm,innerre?lection,theintrospectionofthe‘Eroica’
is never lackinginforce. Its processofself-analysis reveals aninwardly-directed
violence, a constant desire to undermine its own characterthrough therepeated
testingofitsabilitytomaintainits shape whenput underextremepressurefrom
diametric forces; in musical terms, this is expressed through an examination of
tonal function through the subversion of systematic triadic structures through
recurringchromaticanddissonantfeatures.Themovementdoesnotsomuchtake
the form of an ‘outward’ development as an internal assault, representing a
barrage of attempts to undermine the signi?icance of the major triad. Here the
introspectiveprocess provesviolentinmanysenses, takingtheformofanalmost
frenziedchippingawayatoneselftoaccesssomethingwithin.
194
NarrativePossibilities
Freshperspectives
Interpreting Je sens un deuxième coeur according to the conception of fulcra
certainly aidsanarchitectural understandingofthe piece, providingaframework
foritsconstruction. Thenotionofafulcrum–ahingeorasupport–impliesstasis,
anobjectthatmayfacilitatemovementandchangebutinitselfremainsunaltered
and immovable. Whilst both G♮ and A♮ often reappear in the same guise, their
characters andtheir broadermeanings are transformedacross the courseofthe
work.G♮,forinstance,isfrequentlymanifestedasoctavesinthelowerregistersof
the piano. While its persistent, often pedal-like presence in the ?irst and last
movementsprovescomparableinmanyrespects,howanaudiencemighthearthe
fulcrum maywell be radically different at the endof the work thanat the start.
This is principally to do with the changes in the musical energy that the pedal
facilitates. The early predominance of G♮ as a grounding for the piece incites a
desirefor,andultimatelyprecipitates,change.Althoughitispresentedinthesame
essential manner in the?inal movement, what is perceivedis apointofarrival, a
return to a familiar landmarkwhich, althoughactingearlieras a springboardfor
departure, can now be settled upon for the purposes of closure. The fulcra do
indeedaccordwithastatic interpretation, but therangeofdifferent perspectives
offereduponthemchangethroughoutthecourseofthepieceasaconsequenceof
the harmonic shifts that occur around them. A parallel couldevenbe drawn, in
terms of traditional tonal function, with a transformation of the same sonority
fromadominanttoatonic.
Whiletheideaofapiececenteringaroundapairoffulcraisconceivable, itis
worthobservingthattwo pivot-pointsinfactinteract, provingas complementary
to one another as they are competitive. Mirroring its earlier introduction (?irst
movement, bar 12), the assertion of A♮ at the opening ofthe second movement
does not simply challenge theauthorityof G♮. Rather, it offers a temporary but
much-needed resolution, realising the change in trajectory – and indeed the
releaseofrhythmicenergy–thattheclosingpedalofthe?irstmovementdemands.
When the two fulcra do develop a more notably combative relationship in the
fourthmovement, theimmediateconsequences may well appear violent, but the
195
NarrativePossibilities
endresult–inthe?ifthmovement–isarecapitulationofthetonalcollaborationof
theopeningofthework.
The co-operative facets of the relationship between the two fulcra are
demonstratedbestinthethirdmovementbytheabsenceofG♮.WhileA♮maintains
a strong presence, it is rarely in so de?initive a form as the bass octaves that
permeatetheotherslowmovementsinthework. Oftenassumingpositionsinthe
higher registers, it is frequently juxtaposed with other surrounding chromatic
notes, F♮ andF♯ initially occupying the lower regions. With the previously lucid
basstonalitynowblurredandmuddiedbyalackofclarity,itbecomesobviousthat
the disappearance of G♮ creates a fulcral imbalance, one that has an expressive
functioninthesenseofdisorientationthatthisabsencehelpstoarouse. Notonly
are the two focal points of the work interdependent, but the stability and
orientationofthepieceseemsto dependonboththeexistenceandfunctioningof
theirrelationship.
The fulcra might be thought of as serving as an underlying aural anchor,
emphasisingforanaudiencethetheebband?lowoftensionthroughoutthework.
Crucially, apreciseunderstanding oftheserecurring sonorities andtheir rolesis
not required. Themanner inwhichtheirinteraction withoneanother permeates
eachmovement might besaidto bring aboutasubconsciousaural delineationof
thebroadermusicalarchitecture; it is possibletosensethechangeinperspective,
theinclinationstowardsdepartureandreturn, thecontrasts betweencon?lict and
cooperation. These changes are also re?lected on a smaller scale through the
motivic material from which the content of the piece is constructed. In a
masterstrokeofeconomy, thecomposerensuresthatasenseofauralcontinuityis
establishedby placingemphasisnotononespeci?icsubjectormelodicshape, but
instead upon the relationships within a three-note formation: two notes a
semitoneapartplacedwithathirdnoteofamoredisparateinterval–twoobjects
in close proximity juxtaposed with a third object that provides harmonic
perspectiveonthatpair. Ratherthanbeingpresentedastheorganicbasis forthe
work,the?iguredoes notdominateitsopeningstages,presentedinsteadwiththe
utmost subtlety, integratedwithinabroaderrising gestureinthepiano line(see
Figure8.14).
196
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.14:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,Uirstmovement,three-notemotif
emergence,bars26–28(piano)
Fig.8.15:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,secondmovement,bars9–17
It is in the second movement that the motif is perpetuated in an almost
obsessivemanner, theopeninglow A♮s inthepiano immediatelygivingway to a
repeatedpatternalternatingthefulcrumwithG♭andF♮(bar3).Thecellocutsthe
pianoshort,presentinganewsequential?igurationofthesamethree-noteidea:F♮,
G♭, C♮ (bars 4–6). It in turn is interrupted by the viola witha third, contracted
sequence: C♮, E♮, D♯ (bars 7–8). The pianofulcrum returns for two bars (bars 9–
10),precipitating, frombar11,a tuttiinwhichfragmentedfacets ofthemotifare
expressedineachinstrumentalline(seeFigure8.15).
Withtheprecedentnowsetfortheproliferationofthe?igure, itpervadesthe
entiremovement,harmonicgearshiftsrelyingprimarilyonsuddenre-calibrations,
compressions andextensions ofthe motifitself. Indeed, themovement seems so
?ixatedwiththepatternthatitissoonfullyabsorbedastherecognisablematerial
from which the music is constructed. Propelled through various harmonic
gravitations the effect is soon one of disorientation, the consequence being the
brutal burn-out atthe close of themovement, the motifnotably appearinginthe
?inalchordintheleft-handofthepianowithabarelyrecognisablebutnonetheless
signi?icantconventionaltonalleaningtowardstheoriginalfulcrum(bars86-88:D♮,
F♯,G♮).
197
NarrativePossibilities
Fig.8.16:Saariaho:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,thirdmovement,
violaandcellomelody,bars4–7
Fig.8.17:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,fourthmovement,reductionsof
interruptingchords,selectedbars
Fig.8.18:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,Uifthmovement,bars1–3(piano)
The ?igure becomes more thematically distinct in the central slow
movement.The?irstmomentofnotable,sustainedmelodicunisonintheworkisin
fact a re-imagining of the motif, the three notes (A♮, B♭, E♮ – a notable leaning
towards the triadic features of the second fulcrum) traced by viola and cello
delicatelyasifinaslow-motionfree-fallfrombars4(seeFigure8.16).Themelodic
developmentsthatfollowcontinuetotracevariationsonthemotif.
Thereturntoviolenceinthefourthmovement seesthemotifmutated,with
added notes serving to increase its dynamism as the members of the trio are
seeminglythrownforwardonacollisioncoursewithoneanother. Herethethreenote patterns are not as clearly de?inedas intheearlier, parallel fast movement,
instead absorbed within longer gestures of greater momentum. While both the
treatment of material and the modulatory behaviour accords with the earlier
198
NarrativePossibilities
episode, it is this loss of control and de?inition that brings about a second
cataclysm, frequent vertical interruptions comprisingmultipleexpressionsofthe
motifeventuallyleadingtoarecasting ofthesecondmovement’s?inal chord(see
Figure 8.17). Finally, the motif is adapted in the ?ifth movement to assume a
speci?ic falling gestureintheupper registers ofthepiano twinnedwithafurther
vertical expressionofitinthelefthand(seeFigure8.18).Whilethepreciseshape
of thepattern changes throughout themovement, the?igure essentiallytakes on
thestatus ofamercurial ostinato, still present at the verycloseofthe work ina
morerhythmicallystraightforwardmanner.
Renewedfocus
Listening to Je sens un deuxième coeur sets in motion a paradoxical temporal
experience; though it undoubtedly encompasses episodes of dynamism and
surfacelinearity, theultimateeffectisofabroaderstasis. Thoughtheinteractions
betweenthethree-notemotivicintervalsandthetonalfulcraprovidesensationsof
moment-by-momentchange,theoveralleffectislessofalinearjourneybutrather
acyclical one,inwhichemphasisis placednotonchangesinthecontentitselfbut
on the changing perspectives of listeners upon that content. The kaleidoscopic
process of the same materials being recast and reinterpreted allows for fresh
views on familiar ideas. The constant manoeuvres ofrealignment create varying
degreesofvisibilityofthemusicalcontent,resultinginablurred?irstmovement,a
?ixated second, a disorientated glimpse of clarity and alignment in the third, a
distorted fourth, and a calmer, accepting ?ifth. Whereas the sense of alienation
experienced in the E-minor passage at the heart of Beethoven’s ?irst movement
stems precisely fromarealisation–throughalinearcontinuityofdesign– ofthe
vasttonaldistancethathasbeenhithertotravelled,thedespondencythatmightbe
perceived in the third movement of Saariaho’s trio arises from an awareness –
articulatedbythere-calibratedmotivicmaterial–ofhowlittledistancehasinfact
beentraversedinspiteoftheenergyexpended.Thesenseofdisorientationinboth
pieces does originate in a heightened awareness of the experienced formal
199
NarrativePossibilities
continuity, but these comparable sensations arise from very different musical
properties. Moving beyondthesework-speci?icinstances, muchofthetheoretical
discussion that follows (Chapter Nine: Understanding Time)will dwell uponthe
tensions that might develop between such unique, disruptive gestures, and the
wider, continuous, supposedly uni?ied forms they appear within; indeed, the
question as to whether such con?licting conceptions require some kind of
reconciliatoryapproachhasbeenthesubject ofsome debateamong analysts and
musicologists.
AnarrativedrawnfromJesensun deuxièmecoeurmightnottaketheshape
ofanoutwardjourney,butratherofanintrospection.Emphasisisplacednotupon
a distance travelled or a transformation achieved, but on a heightened selfknowledge facilitating new views upon pre-existingideas. Theinwardprocess of
self-directed violence and contemplation showcased throughout the piece is
comparableto theparallelaction inBeethoven’s ‘Eroica’. Andalthoughthe direct
consequence of this interactionbetween stability and instability seems to be, in
both works, aninclinationtowards a self-destructionthat seems to threatenthe
veryarchitectureofthemusic,theconsequenceis infactakindofresolution.The
‘chipping away’ identi?ied in the ‘Eroica’, and the constant desire to realign and
rearrangeresultsinanewsenseofself-discovery,inthesamewaythatasculpture
isconstructedfromablockofstonebytheremovalofouter,super?luousmaterial
in a bid to uncover the willed form within. Saariaho presents this process
comprehensively.Bytheendofthepiece, thesamesetofessentialmaterialisstill
being utilised, but it hasstruck uponafreshcharacter, arenewedalignmentwith
itself. Beethoven’sstretchofmusic isonlythetipoftheicebergwithregardtothe
broaderformoftheentirework, but it setsthe verysameprocessinmotion, one
that reaches its apotheosis in the driving simplicity ofthe ?inale and, perhaps it
mightbeargued,intheinvigorated,triadic-enforcedclassicismthat characterises
thecomposer’ssequel,hisFourthSymphony.
200
Nine
UnderstandingTime
Formalimpulses
Timebecomesmatterinmusic;thereforecomposingisexploringtimeasmatterin
all itsforms: regular, irregular.Composingiscapturingtime andgivingita form.
(Saariaho2000,111)
KaijaSaariahomakesaprofoundconnectionbetweentimeandform.36Forher,the
act of composition involves a direct engagement with, and mediation between,
these two perceptual concepts. Indeed, the openness with which she addresses
both ideas bears great relevance here. Time comprises a dynamic experience,
varying in regularity; any compositional form that it might be ‘given’constitutes
justoneofmanypotentialoptions. Musical formscanbeasnumerousandvaried
asthedifferenttemporalimpressionstheyarticulatefortheiraudiences.Effective
performances allow listeners the opportunity to ‘compose’ forms, harnessing
common‘organisingimpulses’tostructuresequencesofeventsinwaysthatmight
facilitatemeaning.
Althoughnumerousculturalfactorscanhaveasubstantialimpactuponthe
precise nature of these impulses, they amount to a seemingly universal human
predispositiontoattempttomakesenseofauditoryinformation,tounderstandits
sequence. Indeed, such in?luencing factors serve only to enhance the inherent
dynamismofmusicalacts. Creativeattemptsto relivethepastinduceparticularly
meaningful paradoxes (as shall be underlined in the ?inal case-study of Chapter
Ten). The onward-bound asymmetry of temporal experience imbues musical
repetitionwith both a desire to return to thepast and a tacit acknowledgement
that it can only be accessed as memory. Compositional approaches such as
developing variation prove especially interesting precisely because they
demonstrate – and indeed incite – a conscious engagement with both past and
futurethroughpresent-tensemusicalchange.
36 Kaija Saariaho’s thoughts on composition and time
2009,54,andRofe2001,81.
201
are discussed further in Moisala
UnderstandingTime
Saariaho’s comments touch upon an ongoing tension for composer,
performerandlistener:althoughparticularaspectsofitscontentscanberecorded
and reproduced, time cannot be ‘captured’ or retained. Though controllable
elementsofeventscanberepeated,thesubjectiveandecologicalcontextsofthose
events cannot. We can never hear, or by extension understand, something quite
the same way twice; as listeners, our organising impulses are unavoidably
dynamic. The case studies in this thesis are intended to support a position that
embracesthismercurialstateofaffairsratherthancircumventorturnablindeye
to it. The interplay between various musical continuities and discontinuities in
compositions both old and new ensures the emergence of fresh formal
perspectives,notleastwhenthesepiecesareplacedsidebyside.
With regard to meaning, the complex musical interactions perceived by
listeners are entwined with the social networks of performance situations. In
seeking to account for some of the nuances of these relationships, Christopher
Smallproposed‘musicking’asaverbthatencompassesallmannerofparticipation
withinperformance, listening included. Questions of the meaning and value of a
‘work’ – a fragile concept in these terms – are therefore relocated to speci?ic
performance situations(Small 1998, 9–10). David Burrows(1997)places similar
emphasis upon music as performance, drawingparallels withdynamicalsystems
theories, time-dependent understandings of causal processes utilised across a
rangeof?ields.Heportraysworksas‘perceptualexercises’, aligningmuchoftheir
valuewiththewayinwhichtheydemandanactof‘temporalsynthesis’onthepart
oflisteners(1997,533).Withtheintentionofavoidingastableconceptionofform,
he asserts that the ‘primary identity’ of a work constitutes an ‘emergent that
accompanies theveryprocess of synthesising theimpressions madeby a?low of
sounds’ (1997, 545). Nevertheless, his views regarding musical meaning seem
strangelyconclusive:
Music gives us concrete, sensorially grounded, but at the same time, safely
contained exercisein managing thedynamicalsystemsthatconstitute ourlives.It
also offers us a consequent glowing sense of our competence in doing so. Life
resistscomprehension;musicinvitesit.Participatinginmusicisaccompaniedbya
renewedsenseofmastery,suchasmodelsprovideforawiderangeofproblematic
phenomena,overtheprocessesofourself-creation.(1997,545)
202
UnderstandingTime
Small, by contrast, presents the more compelling possibility that perception and
theprocessesofmentalorganisationthataccompanyitconstituteanencodingthat
even more comprehensively mirrors our ecology (1998, 50–56). The af?irming
closurethatBurrowsachievesisthusreplacedbyafarmorerealistic, open-ended
complexity:
If, as Ihave suggested, musicking isan activitybymeansof which we bring into
existence a setof relationships thatmodel the relationshipsof ourworld, not as
theyarebutaswewouldwishthemtobe,andifthroughmusickingwelearnabout
andexplorethoserelationships,weafSirmthemtoourselvesandanyoneelsewho
maybe paying attention,andwecelebrate them, the musickingisinfacta wayof
knowing our world – not that pre-given physical world, divorced from human
experience, that modern science claims to know but the experiential world of
relationshipsinallitscomplexity–andinknowing it, welearnhowtolive wellin
it.(Small,1998,50)
Itisanholisticallymindedapproachsuchasthisthatoffersthepotentialfor
amorerealisticappraisalofmusicalexperience–itselfanetworkofphysical and
psychological relationships–andthewaysinwhichavarietyofdistinct butoften
overlappinginterpretationsmightbedrawnfromit.Performancesmightbesaidto
constitute temporal ‘spaces’ comprising amalgamations of musical and social
interactions. A musical work might accordingly be taken as signifying a kind of
blueprint for how certain aspects ofthattimespanwill play out aurally, withthe
manner of this structural process inviting readings of a particular leaning. But
cruciallyitisherethatthereachofthecomposedworkisexceeded. AsEricClarke
observes, listeners retain an ‘utterly individual’ perspective incorporating their
‘skills, needs, preoccupations, and personal history’ (2005, 125). Indeed, he
expresses a preference for an expanded view of perceptual meaning,
encompassing not only the immediate acoustic and geographical contexts of a
performance but also cultural, ideological and emotional factors frequently
dismissed as too abstract; rather, he argues, these phenomena also constitute
‘sources’,sincethey ‘constitute theconditionsandcircumstancesthat giveriseto
themusic’(2005,189–90).
203
UnderstandingTime
Autonomy
AlthoughClarkedevelopsaparticularlyconvincingecologicalaccountofperceived
musical meaning, he remains open to the ways in which notions of the musical
work can impact aural experiences. He provides an incisive evaluation of the
autonomy with which works are often imbued, moving past the surface
incompatibilitybetweenthisassertionandanecologicalapproachtodiscussways
inwhichthetwooutlooksmightbene?itoneanother.37 Perhapssurprisingly,facets
of ecological listening areoften found to play into autonomous sensibilities, with
thevery act ofattending to soundsthemselves(rather thanas signi?iers ofother
subjectsorobjects)imbuingpieceswithadegree ofself-governance (2005, 126–
155).Itispreciselythroughthismodeofreceptionthatmorestructurally-minded
readingsofcompositionscan?lourish:
Musicalautonomymaybe an illusion,butit hasgivenrise toa kindof listening
that has particular characteristics and preoccupations. This style of listening
arises from the interaction of a number of factors: listening circumstances, the
relationshipbetweenperceptionandaction,theorganisationofmusicalmaterial,
andlisteners’predispositions.(2005,154)
For Nicholas Cook, the autonomy of a work also emerges through its
repetitionasan‘independentandrepeatablecontext’, bothwithinits formandof
itsform,withmusicaleventsgaining‘akindofobjectiveidentitybyvirtueoftheir
relationship to this context: when a theme is repeated in a symphony, one’s
experienceoftherepetitionisnotasubjectiveone(“IfeellikeIdidbefore”)butan
objective one (“this bit is like the previous bit”)’ (Cook 1990, 38). The
acknowledgementthatthis autonomyisanaesthetic?igmentdoesnotnecessarily
preclude it from featuring in more grounded ecological approaches. It is a
paradoxical duality that is re?lected in temporal perception. The overriding,
onward nature of timedoes not invalidate listening experiences that threatento
alter,subvert,ortranscendthatlinearityinaperceptualmanner.Thechallengesto
temporal continuity that many performances offer are largely illusion, the
37 Clarke followsthisdiscussionbyprovidinganinsightfulanalysis of a worksteepedin
the compositional trappings of the autonomous tradition – the Sirst movement of
Beethoven’sStringQuartetinAminor, Op.132–byutilising ecologicalprinciples(2005,
156–88)
204
UnderstandingTime
products of cultural constructs. But these illusions contribute to the value we
ascribe to musical experiences, as the emphasis upon such phenomena –
durational distortion, circularity, stasis, impressionsoftimelessness– throughout
thisthesisdemonstrates.
Unity
Ofcourse, theseconceptual interrelationships leave a considerable challenge for
scholarswillingtoaddressthem.ArnoldWhittall(1999)providesanastutesurvey
of attempts to reconcile the formalist, analysis-driven approaches of the
autonomoustradition,andthe‘worldly’relativismofnewmusicology,highlighting
the dif?icult ofproducing an‘interpretative musicology that is adequately plural
andadequatelycoherent’(1999,101).Heexpressesparticularconcernsregarding
themarginalisationofanalytical techniques, inparticular thosesuchas Heinrich
Schenker’sthatemphasiseprinciplesoforganiccoherence,andtheeffectthatthis
mighthaveuponthemusicologicallandscape:
A deconstructed musicology ceases to be musicology at all if it resists direct
engagement with composer and composition, and side-steps the possibility that
worksof artmaybe defencesagainstthe worldasmuchasproductsoftheworld.
Itis understandable that committed deconstructionists should (single-mindedly)
regardtheideaofalessmonolithicbutstillwork-centredmusicologyasseekingto
achieve the old coercive objectives byonly slightlydifferent means. Yet, for that
very reason,those same committed deconstructionists, intheirzealtotransform
musicologyintosomething else,maybereluctanttoacceptthatmuch,ifnotall, of
what they desire can actually be better achieved from within an enriched
musicologythanfromoutsideit.(1999,100)
WhilstWhittallbalanceshisconcernswithabroaderreceptivenesstowards
anintegratedmusicological approach, Robert Morganexpresses something more
akinto alarmat whatheperceives to bearecent ‘anti-unity’leaning inanalytical
writing (Morgan, 2003). Troubled by an apparent opposition to coherence as a
point of focus for interpretation, he embarks upon detailed critiques of ?ive
analysesofcanonic repertoire(byKo?i Agawu, Daniel Chua, JosephDubiel, Kevin
Korsyn and Jonathan Kramer), seemingly highlighting a certain futility – an
205
UnderstandingTime
apparent dearth of meaning – in their emphasis upon disunifying elements in
musical works: ‘Once disunity is asserted, they have nothing more to say of an
analytical nature.Unityiscertainlynot theonlythingworthanalysing,but,inthis
musicatleast, thealternativeisnotdisunitybutadifferentanalyticalperspective
altogether’(Morgan2003,43).Whilstheconcedesthatcertainkindsofintentional
musical disunity can be meaningful, such meaning is only rendered possible
throughitsconnectionwithothermatters,inotherwordsviaanoverridingunity.
Toassertdisunityinacompositionisnotonlyto labelthatworkafailure,butalso
tocurtailanalyticalcommentary‘immediatelyandentirely’(2003,27).
Many of the arguments Morgan presents simply stem from structuralist
aesthetic preferences; his invocation of the notion of an ‘objective account of
music’ – and more speci?ically the idea that an anti-unitarianist position might
eliminatethepossibilityofit– speaksvolumes(2003,22).However, itisdif?icult
toreconcilehisclaimedembraceofapost-structuralistdesireto evolveandadapt
analytical conceptions(2003,41–43)withhisapparentunwillingnesstolendany
validity to the ways in which others might hear the same pieces of music.
Appraisinganalyses ofworks byHaydn,Mozart, BeethovenandBrahms, heseeks
explicitlyto‘dissolve’theargumentsagainstunitymadebyotherscholarsthrough
therecognitionofparticular‘readilyperceivable’unifyingfeaturesofthemusic.
Inevitablysuchsingle-mindedprescriptivismhasdrawnforcefulresponses
from those it criticises. Daniel Chua (2004)?inds Morgan’s treatment ofthe ?irst
movementofBeethoven’s StringQuartetinAminor, Op.132,unsettlingprecisely
onaccountofitsdisregardoftemporalimpressions,asifthis‘dissolving’approach
couldrender thepiece ‘rational, transparent and coherent’: ‘There is not even a
processofformalstruggleinhisanalysis,sincehisanalyticalinsightsarebasedon
static structural identities. The disruptive features and gestures that I see as
integraltothearticulationoftheformintimeareneutralisedbyMorganasmerely
surface variation in space’ (Chua 2004, 354–55).38 Jonathan Kramer (2004),
meanwhile,callsMorganoutonhisfailuretogofurtherinde?ininghisconception
of unity and his attempted denial of a potentially enriching interplay between
unityanddisunity.Kramerarguesinsteadforabroadernotionofcoherence‘based
38 KevinKorsynalsooffersanincise rebuttalof Morgan’scriticismofhisBrahmsanalysis
inKorsyn,2004.
206
UnderstandingTime
on differences as well as similarities, on lack of precedent (of certain events or
segments)aswell as clearprecedent’(J. Kramer2004, 368). Expressing empathy
with scholars anxious at the prospect of traditional analytical tools losing their
relevance, he persuasively calls for the same kind of integrated musicology
ponderedbyWhittall, openingupmoreformalistmethodsto frameworksthatare
notbasedsolelyonthe‘elucidationofunity’:
The analysesthatI most value do not try to prescribe how a piece ought to be
heard,butrathertheysuggestwaysthatitmightbeheard.Andthosewaysshould,
andforme sometimesdo,respondtootheraspectsoftheworkthanjustitsunity.
Apieceof musicislikeaperson,orlikelife.Itisnottotallyneat.Notallpartsofit
belong togetherinclear-cutways.Itcandostrangethings. Itcanbe easiertolove
than to understand. It can contain moments of irrationality, of disorder, even of
chaos – which can be appreciated as important contributors to meaning and
experience.(J.Kramer2004,369–70)
Kramer’s desire to demote unity from its ‘privileged position as a universal or
necessarycondition’(2004, 370)ispre-echoedbyFredEverettMaus(1999)who
not only ?irmly denies that analysis necessarily equates a search for unity, but
aboveall treatswithscepticismanyclaims regardingunity oritsabsence‘thatdo
notgiveacentralclaimtomusicalexperience’(1999,188).Mausalsoexploresthe
plurality ofwhat can bemeant when issues of unity are discussed. He points to
inconsistencies in the language used to address unifying musical elements,
highlightingthesubtlebut nonetheless importantdistinctionsbetweenseemingly
relatedterms: synthesis(discrepantitemsbroughtinto satisfactory relationship),
integration(acceptanceofinternaldiversityovertime),integrity(eventsovertime
preservinganddisplayingacorevalue),andlogic (eventssucceedingoneanother
withasenseofnon-empiricalnecessity)(1999,183–86). Indeed,perhapsitmight
beconcludedthatthetemporalaspectto whichMausrefersconstitutesoneofthe
most consistent elements across these notions, that unity at once comprises
continuityandcoherencethroughtheplayingoutofmusicalelementsovertime.
Perhaps most signi?icantly, musical experiences can elicit a sense of
paradox through the way in which they are often able to sustain contrasting
analytical approaches such as those discussed. Performances can support
interpretations that emphasise both unity and disunity, presenting a perceptual
207
UnderstandingTime
coexistence of contrasting characteristics. In a further echo of the ecological
mirroringthatSmallproposes (1998, 50–56),coherent orcontinuous readings of
works can be drawn from an amalgamated network of musical and social
relationshipsthatmightjustaseasilyfacilitateanemphasisuponincoherenceand
disruption.Amusicalform mightpossessthecapacity tobeheardsimultaneously
asconclusiveandambiguous, ‘closed’and‘open’.Inthespirit ofthispotential for
paradox – and in the acknowledgement emphasised throughout this thesis that
music seemingly possesses the ability to articulate things about time that words
cannot–thisthesiswillbegintodrawtoaclosewithone?inalcasestudy,apairing
of musical works by Jean Sibelius and Thomas Adès. On the face of it, their
alignment is particularly close: two symphonies for large orchestras, lasting
approximately twenty minutes in length, both cast in single-movement forms
demarcated byintricate sequences ofrelated tempo changes. Ofgreaterinterest,
though, arethewaysinwhichbothpieceshighlighttheprofoundincongruitiesof
long-termrepetition.Throughaspectsoftheirconstruction,theysuggestdifferent
ways of understanding recurring content in changing contexts. Ultimately, both
pieces facilitate meaning through their reconciliation of journeys that are
experienced as simultaneously onwardand circular. Mirroringbroader temporal
experience, they somehow af?irm a dynamic, Heraclitean ?lux whilst raising the
possibility of a static, Parmenidean ideal. Like this thesis, their conclusions are
openended;closureisbothattainedanddenied.Perhapstheencouragementsuch
musicoffersusaslistenersiscomparabletowhatE.M.Forsterasksofthenovelist:
Afterall,whyhas anovel to be planned?Cannotitgrow?Whyneeditclose, asa
playcloses?Cannotitopenout?Insteadofstandingabovehisworkandcontrolling
it, cannotthe novelist throwhimself intoit and be carriedalong to some goalhe
doesnotforesee?([1927]2005,95)
208
Ten
EnergyandEquilibrium
ThomasAdès&JeanSibelius
Thisprojecthasrevolvedaroundjuxtapositionsofoldandnew,drawingattention
to the different ways in which various composers have approached temporal
issues through their structuring of musical ideas. These observations have been
primarily utilised as catalysts for wider discourses addressing aspects of our
experiences of time. I have deliberately tried to avoid emphasising direct
comparisonsbetweenmusical works. Thisclosingcasestudy – twinning Thomas
Adès’sTevotwithJeanSibelius’sSeventhSymphony–willbeanexception.Inmost
respects, it provides the most likely of pairings within the thesis: two onemovement orchestral works, both lasting approximately 20 minutes, both
purportedly engaging withthe symphonic tradition. Itcertainly seems thatthese
surface similarities are the product of design rather than accident; as will be
shown, AdèshimselfhasexpressedhisownthoughtsonSibelius’smusic(another
unique aspect of this pairing) and it seems quite plausible that Tevot might be
viewedasanextensionofthisengagement.
However, Iwouldsuggest that theirmost profound connectionsare aural.
Considerbothopenings:twogestures–oneascending,theotherdescending–that
in spite of their simplicity, seemingly hold the potential for the forms that will
unfold. At the beginning of the Seventh Symphony, a rising scale fragmented
through several instrumental parts obliquely references several potential keys
before offsetting these mounting expectations by coming to rest on an entirely
different harmonic plane (see Figure 10.1); the arrival at an entirely unrelated
triadcreatesanimmediatefrictionbetweentwosetsofsonorities,acomplextonal
tensionthatwillcometode?inetheunfoldingoftheworkandrequiresresolution
overtime.AttheoutsetofTevot,meanwhile,stratosphericcascadesoffalling?ifths
seamlesslyemergeintheupperstrings,theiroscillationsunderlinedbysustained
woodwind to create the impression of a chromatically descending chorale-like
texture(seeFigure10.2).Theeffectisnot so muchofadirectsourceofharmonic
con?lict; rather a tonal restlessness takes hold, a seemingly perpetual series of
209
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.1:Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,reductionofbars1–4
Fig.10.2:Adès,Tevot,reductionofbars1–4
onward-leaningmodulationsengenderinganaudibledynamismthatwillprovidea
continuingsourceofstructuraldirection.
Bothoftheseopeningspossess cellularqualities:themusical tensionsthey
containultimatelyprovedecisiveinthewayinwhichtheirbroaderformsplayout.
This audibly organic mode of composition can be viewed not only as an
engagement withthe symphonic tradition butalso as anexpression of temporal
thought. Through different harmonic, rhythmic and motivic vocabularies, both
Adès and Sibelius offer striking perspectives on issues of continuity, recurrence
anddirection. Theycreatelarge-scalemusical structuresthat double asengaging,
210
EnergyandEquilibrium
wordlessnarratives,encouraginglistenerstoconsidertowhatextenttheapparent
closurethese pieces providetranslates into a senseof catharsis, and to question
connectionsbetweentimeandmeaning.Thiscasestudywillexploresomeofthese
ideasthroughanalyticaldiscussion,examiningselectedpassagesfromacrossboth
works in order to re-emphasise the broader paradoxes – stasis and dynamism,
closureandopenness – that haveunderpinnedthe temporalperspectives offered
by this thesis. The epilogue that then follows will offer a brief consideration of
some of the implications these broader ?indings might have for an open-ended
outlookuponmusicandtime.
Symphonicrenewal
JustasJeanSibelius(1865–1957)summarisedthe?inaleofhisSymphonyNo.3in
Cmajor, Op. 52(1907)as ‘thecrystallisationofideas fromchaos’(Tawaststjerna
1986, 66), the work as awhole might besaidto represent astylistic watershed.
Presented through notably sparse orchestration, its three relatively brief
movements announce a departure from the late-romantic gestures that had
dominatedthe composer’s previous efforts in thegenre. Characteristics latent in
his earlier music here emerge, with a renewed sense of motivic economy and
formal concision seemingly referencing Classical tendencies. As Tim Howell
observes,‘muchthatisoriginal–progressive–aboutSibelius’scompositioncomes
notfromarejectionofearlierpracticebutfromitsreinterpretation’(2001,37–38).
Many of the features presented in the Third Symphony would subsequently
develop through the course of the composer’s four further contributions to the
genre; HaroldTruscott evengoesso faras to draw a‘genealogical tree’fromthe
worktotheremainderofSibelius’signi?icantorchestraloutput(1967,92–98).The
composer’s broader preferences are exhibited deftly in his later works, with his
oft-quotedremarks to Mahler regarding the ‘profound logic’ of symphonic style
and structure (Rickards 1997, 96) clearly re?lected in both the organic
developmentsandthepared-downinstrumentationofthoseworks.
Sibelius’s determination to rely solely upon what he deemed necessary
reaches its zenith in his Symphony No. 7, Op. 105 (1924). Here his prior
211
EnergyandEquilibrium
experimentsinformalcompression–executedtovaryingextentsintheThirdand
Fifth Symphonies – culminate in one extraordinary, 20-minute-plus unbroken
span, characters andcontrasts ofconventionally separatemovementsassimilated
into a single cohesive stretch of music. The label ‘symphony’ was ascribed
tentatively by the composer; even at the time of its Stockholm première on 23
March 1924, it was still entitled ‘Fantasia sinfonica’, and it was only following
careful subsequent consideration that the name change was undertaken
(Murtomäki1993,242).
Whileitsstatusasasymphonyhasrarelybeenquestioneddirectly,scholars
have often struggled to reach a consensus regarding its structure. Although the
work exhibits an undeniably changing, episodic form, delineating it accordingto
moreconventionalexpectations hasnotnecessarilyprovedeasy.Truscott, to give
an early example, expresses a personal struggle to come to terms with the
architecture of the work, asserting its one-movement plan to be ‘a contrivance
ratherthanagrowth[…]nomoreaone-movementsymphonythanisSchumann’s
Fourth’ (1967, 92–98). Cecil Gray overcomes such dif?iculties by attempting to
reconcile the piece with conventional design, claiming it to comprise four
successiveinterconnectedmovementswhilstsimultaneouslyconstituting‘asingle
andindissolubleorganism’(1935,71).However,SimonParmet’ssuggestion–that
it wouldbefruitlesstoattempt areadingofitsform thathingesupon‘terms and
concepts borrowedfrom anearlierperiod’(Parmet 1959, 127; also discussedby
Murtomäki1993,245–46)–provesinsightful;hisportrayaloftheworktakesinto
accountitsperformeddurationandrevolvesaroundmusicaldevelopmentsframed
bytwoC-major‘cornerstones’placedateitherendofthework(Parmet1959,128–
29).Writingmorerecently,VeijoMurtomäkiplacesemphasisuponnovelelements
in his interpretation of the work, proclaiming it to be neithera singular sonataform expanse nor aconglomeration of several movements but rather‘something
newandrevolutionaryinthehistoryofthesymphony’(1993,242).
Other modern contributors, however, appear morecontent to adapt more
conventional constructions in their readings. Edward Laufer, for example, draws
uponSibelius’soriginalintentionfor‘anHellenicrondo’toconcludethesymphony.
Usingthisdescriptionasaspringboard,hemapsarondostructureonto thework,
envisioninga ‘boldrefashioningofthe classical design’as a meansto athorough
212
EnergyandEquilibrium
senseofmusical continuity: ‘By not concentrating thedevelopmental passages in
onelargersectionas inasonataformmovement, butbyplacingthemthroughout
so as to introduce and thereby enhance the expositional sections, a sense of
continuous growth, cumulation, and completion of sections is achieved’ (Laufer
2001, 355). Nevertheless, perhaps amongthe most convincing interpretations of
the symphony is that provided by Arnold Whittall who highlights an interplay
between a wider sense of structural symmetry and a more episodic leaning
towards ‘imbalance and instability’. His more conceptual framing of the
compositionalarchitectureoftheworkprovesparticularlyuseful:‘Oneofthemost
remarkableaspectsoftheSeventhSymphonyisthesenseinwhichitsubvertsthe
essentials ofsymmetrical stabilitywhilenevercompletelylosingsightofpositive,
af?irmative modes of expression: balancing modernism and classicism, in other
words’(Whittall2004,62–63).
The balances that Sibelius managed to strike with his SeventhSymphony
have proved particularly in?luential in the years since its composition, not only
helpingtoopenthe?loodgatestonumerousotherone-movementorchestralworks
– whether the word ‘symphony’ features as a title or not – but also helping to
reiterateanolderworkingde?initionofthegenre.Beyondsimplymakingreference
to surface structures or orchestral forces, the term ‘symphonic’ engages more
keenly with the organic character and musical content of a piece, implying
something ‘extended and thoroughly developed’ (Larue, Wolf, Bonds, Walsh and
Wilson,Grove).Onaccountofits‘totalunity’,theSeventhevenservesasapointof
closure for Lionel Pike in his exploration of the symphonies of Beethoven and
Sibelius, withthework conforming to Pike’s de?initionof‘symphonic’as thevery
kindofuni?ied,interconnected‘profoundlogic’thatSibeliuspropoundedtoMahler
(Pike 1978, 203). Meanwhile, composer David Matthews has cited Sibelius’s
symphoniesasadirectin?luenceonhisown,pointingtotheseeminglyparadoxical
‘truestasis’theyattain‘throughenergyandmovement’(Dufallo1989,154):‘Ihave
learnt a lot from his control of pace, his welding together of different kinds of
movement, his imperceptible transitions from fast to slow or slow to fast.’
Matthews associates theSeventh in particular withakindof symphonic essence
(Matthews1993,190):‘TheSeventhSymphony…isalwaysmovingsymphonically;
evolving, changing direction, sometimes with slow deliberation, sometimes with
213
EnergyandEquilibrium
athleticswiftness.’SuchdynamismresonateswithHowell’sperceptiveimpression
ofthe‘continuousdevelopment’presentinthework(aSibelianhallmark), andits
relianceupon‘contextratherthancontenttode?inefunction’(Howell1989,86)
Symphonicresolution?
The kind of momentum Matthews describes does indeed seem to pervade the
symphony, anadvancing dynamismpalpableinthe ‘workingout’ofthe music. A
sense ofunmistakable development is imbued without the uni?iedsweep of the
workbeingdamaged;onthecontrary,musical progressionseems to enhancethe
structuralprolongation. Writtenjusttwoyearsafterthesymphony,thetonepoem
Tapiola,Op.112isoftenusedbyscholarsasalitmustestforthesymphonicnature
oftheSeventh. Atasurfaceglance, itwouldappeartobearmuchincommonwith
the symphony: a single-span, twenty-minute orchestral work with its material
derivedorganicallyfromitsopeninggestures.However,itisinhowtheworkplays
out that the differences emerge. Stephen Walsh highlights the ‘dialectical and
dynamic force’ of the Seventh, pointing to its exceptional ability to settle largescale musical con?licts in just one extended movement: ‘As a descriptive and
imaginative work Tapiola is a considerable achievement. But it can hardly be
denied that the symphony, in satisfactorily resolving more complicated issues
within the same time-span, is musically and intellectually the more substantial
work’(Walsh,Grove).
Intriguingly, it is through this comparisonofpieces that Thomas Adès (b.
1971)– a Britishcomposer – arrives atvery differentconclusions. His notion of
symphonicgravitatestowardsamusical impulseto resolve– to ‘closeacircle’, as
heputsit.Withthisinmind,heexpressestheviewthatthesymphoniesofSibelius
betray a con?lict between this inclination to conclude and an ‘inner desire’(one
inherentinthematerial)toventureoutwardsintonewterritories:
The conSlictbecomes more powerful asthe symphoniesgoon. Inthe Fifth itisa
huge struggle which isachieved, in the Sixth it seemsso powerfulthatit has to
happenjustoffstage,andinthe Sevenththereisa sense thatalthoughhe makesit
in the endhe isall butbroken bythe effort. Itbecomesan increasinglyagonising
process. Butin thetonepoems,he isreleased from theconSlictofhavingtomake
214
EnergyandEquilibrium
an abstract argument that functions logically. So the end of Tapiola is deeply
conclusive, but the end of the Seventh Symphonyis painfullyinconclusive.(Adès
andService2012,172)
ItisinterestingthatwhatWhittall,forexample, identi?iesasasuccessful fusionof
‘fundamentalelements oftraditionwithfreedom and?lexibility’(2004, 61), Adès
seeminglyhearsasapointofextremeartisticfriction.Thecomposerhighlightsthis
asaparticularlyprogressiveandin?luentialaspectofSibelius’scontributiontothe
genre:
I’msayingthatwithSibelius,thefunctionofsymphoniccompletenesspassedfrom
the‘abstract’intothe ‘metaphorical’,andIthinkithasstayedthere.Ithinkhewas
the Sirst to break,painfully, themistakenidea thata symphonic argumenthadto
haveasortofstructuralordertoit.(AdèsandService2012,173)
However, with regard to the broader tradition he has reservations, expressing
misgivings with regardto the expectations of ‘aninevitable kind of structure or
decorum’ that he feels accompany the ‘symphony’ title (2012, 173). It seems
signi?icantthen,givensuchqualms, thatthelabelisonehehasemployed,utilising
it to describe Tevot, a work for large orchestra composed from 2005–6 and
premièred on 21February2007 bythe BerlinPhilharmonic Orchestra underthe
directionofSirSimonRattle.39 The titleofthework carries severalmeanings. In
modern-day Hebrew it signi?ies ‘vessels’, adapted in musical terminology to
represent bars of music; however, in its singular form – tevah – it is utilised
speci?icallyintheBibletorepresenttwouniquevessels: Noah’sarkandtheNileboundreedbasketinwhichthebabyMosesisplacedbyhismother(Adès2007:iii,
andGrif?iths 2014, 7). Describing the titleas being like a ‘gift’, Adès outlines the
waysinwhichitsmeaningprovidedaconceptualspringboardforthecomposition:
Ilikedtheideathatthebarsofthemusicwerecarryingthenotesasasortoffamily
throughthe piece. And theydo, because withoutbars, you'd have musical chaos.
ButI wasthinking aboutthe ark, the vessel, inthe piece as the earth. The earth
would bea spaceship, ashipthatcarriesus-and severalotherspecies!-through
39 Adès’s1997 work forlarge orchestra Asylahasalsobeen describedasa symphonyby
numerouscommentators(forexample GrifSiths2014, 7), notleastonaccountof itsfourmovement structure. However, the composer himself has not invoked the label to the
workin soexplicita manneraswithTevot;inthissense,Asylaisa symphonybyformal
allusionratherthanbyovertdesign.
215
EnergyandEquilibrium
thechaosofspace insafety. Itsoundsabitcolossal, butit'stheideaoftheship of
theworld.(Service2007)
It seems likely that – in writing a 20-minute, one-movement symphony – Adès
wouldhavebeenalltooawareoftheparallelsthatmightbedrawnwithSibelius’s
Seventh.Indeed,givenhisapparentwillingnesstodiscusshisviewsuponSibelius’s
music, it would beunwiseto rule out the possibility that these surface allusions
maywellbedeliberate.Certainly, whenTomServiceintroducesAdès’sownmusic
into their discussionofSibelius, the composeris quick to invoke bothTevot and
Polaris– ashorter orchestralcompositioncompletedin2010–inmuchthesame
comparative mannerashehasjustspokenoftheSeventhSymphony andTapiola
(AdèsandService2012,172–73).
Interestingly, though, he does seem to haveintended Tevot to be imbued
withthekindofmusicalresolutionthathe?indsSibelius’ssymphonytobelacking.
Service’sattempttoassociateTevotwithAdès’s1997orchestralworkAsylaviathe
suggestion that the title of the more recent work implies a ‘haven-like place of
refuge–anasylum’drawsaparticularlyde?initiveresponsefromthecomposer:‘A
havensoundsasifoneishidingfromsomething,andIdon'tthinkthataboutTevot.
Inthis piece, it'smorelikea?inalresolution–areal resolution– ratherthanthat
oneisescapingfromsomething’.Indeed, Adèsisunafraidofemphasisingthegoaldirected facets of the work, discussing it in terms of an abstract narrative: ‘I
thought of the piece as one huge journey, but in order to make that journey
truthful, to give it movement, there had to be many quite sudden and instant
changesoflandscape’(Service2007).
Tonalenergy
Attheendofagreatsymphonythereisthesensethatthemusichasgrownbythe
interpenetrativeactivityofallitsconstituentelements.Nothingiseverallowedto
lapse into aimlessness, or the kind of inactivity that needs artiSicially reviving…
The great thing to keep constantly in mind is that no single element is ever
abandoned, ordeliberatelyexcluded,thatthecomposermustmasterthemalland
subordinatethemtothedemandsofthewhole.(Simpson1966b,10)
216
EnergyandEquilibrium
Althoughmade four decades beforeTevot hadbeen completed, Robert Simpson’s
observations regarding successful symphonies seem as relevant to the work of
Adès as they do to that ofSibelius. Bothcomposers exercise precise control over
thewayinwhichmaterialsarepresentedandstructured,exhibitingparticularskill
in their handling of musical energy. Whilst this energy management is related
principally to aspects of tempo and rhythm, it also extends beyond pulse-based
issuestoencompassmotivicandharmonicdevelopment.
Although Sibelius’s symphony – still rooted in post-romantic formal
principles – inevitably exhibits tonal governance in a comparatively cogent
manner,itisworthemphasisingthatTevotalsodisplaysaconsideredtreatmentof
sonority and its bearing upon large-scale structure. Adès sidesteps a more
traditional hierarchical framework infavourofanever-shiftingharmonicgravity,
immediately establishingthis dynamismwiththe passagedescribedatthe outset
of this chapter. This cellular ?igure – an open ?ifth followed by a falling minor
second – is in fact characteristic ofthe composer’s style, as outlinedby Dominic
Wells (2012,6–12). The‘5+2’progression,as Wellsdubsit, surfacesasacommon
featureinanumberofworksinthecomposer’scatalogue.40However,whilstWells
points to many of these instances in terms of their melodic effect, he highlights
three works in particular upon which the progressions have a more notably
harmonic bearing: The Tempest (2003–4), Violin Concerto (2005), and Tevot
(2007).Optingtodiscussonlythe?irsttwoofthesepieces,heoutlinesthewaysin
whichboth exhibit the clearestablishment oftonic keys that are thensubverted
throughafallingminorsecond(Wells2012,11–13).
Tevot,bycomparison, displaysaheightenedsenseoftransience. Nosooner
has the?irstopen?ifthsoundedintheviolins, ?luteandpiccolothanafurther?ifth
is extended downwards. The ensuingsemitone fall in the second bar creates the
model for the parallel descending sequences that then emerge, new chains
entering at regularintervals. Adès’s propensity to utilise open?ifthsasacatalyst
40 Wellsmakesreference to variedappearancesof the ‘5+2’ Sigure in Arcadiana(1994),
Asyla(1997),The FayrfaxCarol(1997),ThesePremisesare Alarmed(1998), JanuaryWrit
(1999), and America: A Prophecy (1999), as well as in The Tempest (2003–4), Violin
Concerto(2005),andTevot(2007).
217
EnergyandEquilibrium
for both harmonic and melodic content has been frequently noted.41 However,
here this approach is extended yet further, with these descending chains of
oscillating determining both subject and tonality. The ‘5+2’ progression is
embedded as a stratospheric sequence, with interrelated streams of ?ifths now
cascading downwards in apparent perpetual motion, its passage continually
renewedintheupperreachesofeachinstrument(seethewoodwindreductionsin
Figure10.2for anexampleoftheorchestrationaldetail, andthetreblecleflinein
Figure 10.3 for an harmonic reduction of this sequence). John Roeder notes the
multidimensional effect of a comparable ?igure in a bass oboe passage in the
secondmovementofAsyla,observingthewayinwhichonelinemelodicsequences
ofdescendingsemitonesseparatedbylargerintervalshelpstogivetheimpression
ofseparatescalesoccurringindifferentregistral bands(2006,126–27).Whilethe
proliferationofthis ideathroughoutmultipleinstruments attheopeningofTevot
certainly heightens this kind oftemporal multiplicity, his largerpoint – that this
kindofwritinghelpsto establishcontinuity–stillstandshere.However, thistype
of polyphonic construction avoids the completion of the transformational pitchchange cycles thatoccur in muchofAdès’s music, asourceofclosure for Roeder
(2006,127).
Thegenerallackofemphasisuponthebeginningorendofthesecycleshas
aharmonic bearing. Instead ofany hierarchybeingestablishedandsubsequently
uprooted,the‘tonality’oftheworkmovesbyallusion,withpassingnodstovarious
sonorities hintingat atonalcentrein constantmotion:amercurial point ofaural
reference.Theeffectisalso rhythmic:theonlyjudgeofsmall-scalepulsebeingthe
triplet quaver-semiquaver oscillations of the violins, whilst on a larger scale
listeners are encouraged to gauge the passing of time by the gradual semitone
descents. Comparisons might be drawn here with the composer’s Piano Quintet
(2000)inwhichPhilipStoeckeridenti?iescyclicstructuresthataresuperimposed,
juxtaposed and extended to such a degree that ‘the underlying cyclic source is
essentiallyunrecognisable’(2014,59).
Theintroductionofacontrasting?igureinthelowerwindandstringsfrom
thefourthbaroffersanaudiblefoothold,providingatemporalmarkerbeyondthe
41Forexamples,seeBarkin2009,168;Fox2014,47;Roeder2006,146&151;Venn2006,
108–9;Whittall2003,22.
218
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.3:Tevot,reductionofharmonicchangesthataccumulate
withineachbar(bars1–13)
perpetual harmonic descent as it develops through the opening minutes of the
work (see the bass clef line in Figure 10.3 for an harmonic reduction of this
subject).Theblock-likehomophonicgesturecreatesatonaljuxtaposition,sporadic
successions of three-part chordchanges inciting anindependent rate of motion,
but one seemingly united more broadly with the free-?loating tonality. Indeed,
whilst these harmonic shifts remainconsonant in isolation – largely comprising
interrelated major triads with one additional note – the harmonic clashes that
emerge with the descending ?ifths material create a cluster-chord effect.
Nevertheless, a small thematic contrast is notable, with upper lines in the
modulationsoftentracingsubtlebutunmistakablestepwiseascents.
Thisopeningpassageprovescellularinanumberofsenses.Principally,itis
through the interaction between these two parallel ideas that the sense of
perpetualmotionthatpervadestherestoftheworkisestablished.Inconjunction,
the gestures present three different kinds of tension: between harmonic clarity
and ambiguity, between ascent and descent in pitch, and between a contentgeneratedneedtosustaintonalmobilityandanevidentinherentdesiretoresolve.
The form of the piece is devoted to settling these frictions. The only additional
featureofnoteisabriefhornmotif:amajesticupwardleapofaminorsevenththat
occurs in bar 21. In spite of its simplicity, it remains strikingly prominent,
occurringnotonlywithinaspacebetweenthechordal ?iguresbutconstitutingthe
219
EnergyandEquilibrium
only noticeably wideintervallic jumpwithinthecontext ofanintricateorchestral
texturecharacterisedbystepwisemovements.
ThecellularfunctionoftheopeningtoSibelius’ssymphony,meanwhile,has
beennotedbyseveralcommentators.Theinitialwhite-notescaleinthestringshas
beendescribedintermsofavarietyofharmonicfunctions,predominantlyasbeing
intheC-majortonic(Howell 1989, 87),inG majoras adominanttothattonic on
accountoftheinitialG♮ timpaniroll(Howell1989,87,andMurtomäki1993,261),
andinAminoronaccountofthecello notethatfollowsit(Pike1978,204).These
readings not only serve to underline a degree of tonal uncertainty at this early
stage, but each also grants the ensuing A♭ minor chord a notably subversive
presence. However,ascompellingastheseperspectivesremainwithregardtothe
long-term unfolding of the symphony, they inevitably require a degree of
familiarityonthepart of anaudience. Withoutthe ability to identify thenotes of
the scale by ear, or prior understanding of the sequence of musical events, the
symphonymay emergefora ?irst-time listener in an unsettlingly vaguemanner,
notesascendingstepbystepwithlittleindicationoftherolestheymayassumein
anykindofbroadertonalscheme.
Withoutdoubt, theA♭minor chordsitsatoddswithwhathas precededit,
but arguably more by its novelty (its ?irst and?ifth degrees areabsent from the
preceding material) than by a particular tonal jarring within the context of any
establishedkey.TheTristan-esquechromaticslipsthatoccurinitswakeunderline
further the notion that no clear tonal centre has thus far been cemented; the
overridingsensationmight well beoneofsearching, thegradually shiftingchordshapes throughout the passage lending it an almost improvisatory quality. The
harmonictensionpresenthereisindeedpalpable,butnotyetinawaythatmight
makebroaderstructural sense. Thelong-range tonal potentialofthese sonorities
remainsaurallyveiledforthetimebeingasfarasanaudiencemightbeconcerned.
Giventhis initial ambiguity, the passages that ensue – usually lying beneaththe
umbrellalabelofan‘introduction’–assumeacrucialrole,servingnotjusttoaf?irm
C major as a key of central importance but to establish it in the wake of such
uncertainty.
Although clear allusionsto this tonic emerge throughthe leaningsofboth
melodies and pedal points from the seventh bar onwards, the sequential
220
EnergyandEquilibrium
repetitionsthatensuemaintainnodstowardsmoredissonantroutes.A♭continues
to featureprominently,althoughisfrequently audibly normalisedwithinFminor
?igures. Indeed, it is through this process of harmonic familiarization and
assimilationthatthe dominantisreassertedin bar 21, preparingtheway forthe
richly polyphonic string passage that follows in which C major is repeatedly
underlinedwithincreasingemphasis.Thereassertionthatbeginsatbar50incites
a full convergence, the entire ensemble uniting on an unmistakable perfect
cadenceinbars59–60,thearpeggiatedtrombonetheme–itselfseeminglyderived
with inaudible subtlety from the second violin line from bars 35–43, as John
Gardnerhaspointedout(1977,912)–cappingthe?irstsigni?icantpointofarrival
in the work. Howell points to the accumulative process of this introductory
passage in support of his broader notion of the ‘continuous development
technique’that pervades boththe thematic and thetonal course ofthe work; for
him,theopeningsegmentactsasaminiaturisedre?lectionofthisprinciplethrough
its ‘initial denialof,buteventualpreparationfor, theestablishmentofCmajorby
reinterpretation of the same elements which interrupted that goal in order to
con?irm it’(1989, 87). Inthis sense, it comes as no surprisethat itis viathe reemergence of A♭s andE♭s that the climax is eventually curtailed, the ensemble
joltedinto an F-minor diversion from bar71. As the ensemble departs from the
stability it has so elaborately established, it becomes clear that an audible
balancingacthasbeensetinmotion.
Temporalmultiplicity:Sibelius
Thehandlingofrhythmicenergythroughoutbothworksamountstofarmorethan
justalinear-mindedebband?low.Rather,instilledcontinuitieshelptocreatemore
complex perceptual structures, granting listeners the impression ofa pluralistic
temporalexperience. Sibeliusdoes not go so farasto support thetempochanges
outlined in theSeventhSymphony withmetronomemarkings; Parmet relays the
composer’sgeneralaversiontoemployingthem,drawingparallelswithBeethoven
in his assertion that tempi are best intuited rather than prescribed (1959, 4).
However, even without such speci?icity, the symphony emerges as an equally
221
EnergyandEquilibrium
Speedtype
Tempo(Timesignature)
Bars
Duration
Slow
Adagio(3/2)
1–92
0’00–7’58
Unpochettmenoadagio
93–100
7’58–8’20
Pocoaffret.
101–128
8’20–9’37
PocoapocoaffrettandoilTempoal
129–133
9’37–9’47
Formerw =new w. (6/4)
134–155
9’47–10’15
Vivacissimo
156–212
10’15–11’09
Transitional
Fast
Rallentandoal...
Transitional
Formerw =new e. (3/2)atbar220
213–221
11’09–11’24
Slow
Adagio
222–236
11’24–12’23
Transitional
Pocoapocomenolentoal...
237–241
12’23–12’35
Formerw =new w. (6/4)
242–257
12’35–12’59
Allegromoltomoderato
(withfermataatbar255)
258–282
12’59–13’51
Transitional
Unpochett.Affrettando
283–284
13’51–13’54
Moderate
Allegromoderato
285–289
13’54–14’02
Transitional
Pocoapocomenomoderato
290–408
14’02–16’49
Vivace
409–448
16’49–17’24
Presto
449–463
17’24–17’35
Pocoapocorallentandoal...
464–475
17’35–17’49
Adagio(3/2)
476–495
17’49–19’10
Largamentemolto
496–505
19’10–20’10
Affetuoso
506–521
20’10–21’47
TempoI
522–525
21’47–22’17
Moderate
Fast
Transitional
Slow
Fig.10.4:SymphonyNo.7,tabledisplayingtempochangesanddurations
complex construction, with its many speed changes deployed in what on the
surfacemightnotappeartobeanovertlysystematicmanner(seeFigure10.4).42
42
Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (London Symphony
Orchestra,conductedbySirColinDavis.LSOLive:LSO0552).
222
EnergyandEquilibrium
Aninitialfootholdmightbegainedbyidentifyingrecurrences.Mostnotable
arethe threeAdagiopassages that bookendand intersect thestructure. Thetwo
stretchesthatliebetweencomprisenoticeablymorechangeable,fastermusic,with
littleinthewayobviousrecurrence.However, thesevariedspeedsmayinturnbe
sorted into two broader categories: fast music (including Vivacissimo, Vivace,
Presto) and moderate, transitory music (the gradual acceleration to the ?irst
Vivacissimo, theAllegromolto moderatoand theAllegromoderato). Inrelationto
themusical content theypresent, these three tempo groupings – slow, moderate
andfast–serveagreaterpurposethansimplyoutliningdifferentspeedsatwhich
themusicmoves.Theyrepresentthreeparalleltemporalthreads, ongoingstrands
of development, eachacting in independent but ultimately interconnected ways.
The paradoxical simultaneity of both slow and fast music is enhanced by the
middle-groundtransitionsthat,inbridgingthetwoextremes,alsoofferglimpsesof
the way in which they interlock. The rallentando (bars 213–22) passage that
connects theVivacissimo withtheensuingAdagio,doesmorethansimplyjointhe
dots; thecarefully staggeredmetrical shifts of thechromatic scales inthe strings
heightenthecontinuityoftheformalchange,drawingattentiontothepotentialfor
long (‘slow’)phrase structures infast music, andto the presenceofrapid, scalic,
harmonically unstable gestures within more tonally secure, metrically slower
content. This presence ofthefast withintheslow–andviceversa –isreinforced
bythefactthatwhatisthennotatedas anaccelerationto Allegromoltomoderato
(frombars237–57)mighteasilyinfactbeheardasaspeedchangeintheopposite
direction.Inasimilar way, thelater jumpto Presto(bar449)isinfactmadeasa
meansbywhichtoreachthesubsequentAdagioratherthanasanendinitself,the
propulsive string sequences providing a candid, moment-by-moment
demonstration of theway thesame material canfunction within‘slow’ and ‘fast’
contexts.Viewingtheworkintermsofthesecontrastingyetcooperatingtemporal
levels may offer a reading that supports the seamless mercurial but nonetheless
logicalauralimpressiontheSeventhSymphonyleaveswithaudiences. Itsmusical
energy is directednotinonedirectionbutinthree, creating adynamicmultilevel
structure. Tempo changes require less in the way of departure and arrival but
rather an aural readjustment; focus can fall on fast-moving detail, or a slowermovingbiggerpicture,oritcantransitionbackandforthbetweenthetwo.
223
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.5:SymphonyNo.7,trombonetheme,bars60–70
Thethree passages of‘slow’ music that punctuatethe SeventhSymphony
havebeenfrequentlyshownnotonlytoframethearchitectureoftheworkbutalso
toimbueitwithstability.ForWhittall,itisthecontrastthattheseepisodesprovide
inwhichthe‘strengthandoriginality’ofthepiececanbefound;hewritesofthem
as‘themostexplicitthematicandtonalpillarsoftheuni?ieddesign’,describingthe
‘imbalance and instability’ that emerges in the surrounding music (2004, 63).
Certainlythesesections exhibitaclear degreeofconsistency withtheirrecurring
trombonetheme(seeFigure10.5)acting–viaanotablystablearpeggiatedshape–
as an aural af?irmation of the key of C: the major mode in the bookending
segments,theminormodeinthecentralone.
Pike draws a further parallel with Beethoven in the apparent
acknowledgement of both composers that themes invariably prove more
memorable thantonalities (1978, 209). However, it wouldcertainly seem inthe
case of theSeventhSymphonythat Sibelius isintent onutilising both. Periods of
transience–bothintermsofpulseandtonality–aredominatedbyscalicmelodic
activity;thelinear,seeminglygoal-directednatureofsuch?iguresdirectlyconveys
motion and provides an accumulation – and, at points, an over-saturation – of
harmonic material that contributes to anoverriding loss ofstability. Meanwhile,
the three passages that oversee an arrival at the C♮ sonority, and provide
assurances of its tonal signi?icance, are prominently capped by the trombone
theme;itsharmonically?irm,arpeggiatedshapenotonlyreinforcesthesecurityof
the ?irst C-major episode, but proves an important factor in instilling stability
thereafter.Atthesepointsinthesymphony, subjectandsonorityacteffectivelyas
a unit, alerting listeners to anunmistakable recurrenceof motivic and harmonic
content. Thesestatic aspects certainly lendawider senseofstability to theaural
experience. Tonallyspeaking, theyoffercredence to thenotionoftheworkbeing
224
EnergyandEquilibrium
‘inC’,orperhapsratheronit,withthesonorityaf?irmedthroughclearlydelineated
perfectcadencesinthecourseofeachAdagiopassage.
However, even taking these passages inisolation, an image ofsuchstasis
does not paint thefull picture. Thereis a paradox at play here. Threeostensibly
staticformalsegmentsperformthesamestabilisingfunction,yetdosoinamanner
that betrays a kind of musical development; they are not only affected by the
harmonic shifts that take place in the interceding episodes but incite the tonal
unrest that prompts them. Although they present essentially the same sonority,
thesepassagesarealso indicativeof, andindeed receptiveto, change– amusical
reminderthatrecurrencecannotcircumventanawarenessofthepassageoftime.
Inthis light, the form of the SeventhSymphony seems to evidencea collision of
whatHowell outlinesasadistinctionbetweentwoattitudestowardstemporality:
functional, onward-leaning repetitionand retrospective, melancholic recollection
(2013,103–104).WhenSibelius’semphaticattemptstorevisitthepastdirectlyfall
victim(viaaudibleharmonicchanges)tothelinear-mindednarrative, theresultis
aratherspecial hybridofrepetitionandrecollection. Whilsta desiretoreturnto
theaf?irmation andsecurity oftheopening cadencepointbecomesapparent, the
inevitable variations that in?iltrate the recurrences facilitate an onward,
developmental function; the audible denial of a full return lends the passages a
simultaneousairofreminiscence. Atsuchmoments, thesymphony might be said
to possess ‘times’that,inspiteoftheiruni?iednarrativedirection,couldbeheard
as‘facing’inoppositedirections.
Temporalmultiplicity:Adès
ConsideringTevotpurelyintermsofthemetronomemarksspeci?iedinthescore,
itseemstofall intotwoapproximatehalves:the?irstcharacterisedbychange,the
second by consistency. Reconciling this with an aural impression – and by
extensionequatingthesetempochangeswiththerecordedclock timingsatwhich
they occur – three structural segments in fact emerge: an initial longer period
punctuatedbyregular?luctuationsinpulse(bars1–256)eventuallygiveswaytoa
shorter but nonetheless more spacious passage that, by contrast, stays at one
225
EnergyandEquilibrium
Bars
Pulse
Statedtempointerrelation
Duration
1–52
r=c.80
Conmoto
0’00–3’58
53–91
e=c.80
formerr=newe
3’58–5’12
92–101
e=120
formerep =newe
5’12–5’25
102–111
e=108
–
5’25–5’36
112–125
e=92
–
5’36–5’53
126–141
e=80
–
5’53–6’15
142–184
e=160
formerr=newe
6’15–7’20
185–213
w=120
formerw. =neww
7’20–8’00
214–222
e=80
formere=newr(Tempoof‘F’,bar53)
8’00–8’15
223–250
e=c.108
formerr=newep
8’15–8’49
251–256
e=c.160
formerep=newe(Tempoof‘L’,bar142)
8’49–9’02
257–284
r=c.52
Calandomoltoerit…
–
9’02–12’01
–
12’01–12’08
TempoI:previousrp =newr
–
12’08–13’26
Atempo,serenomaconmoto
13’39–19’23
391–392
r=80
Pocopiulargamente
–
19’23–19’37
393–398
e=c.80
–
19’37–19’54
Doppiomovimento:formerr=newe
–
19’54–21’31
285–286
286–300
300–302
302–390
r=c.80
Rit.
e=160
441–444 MoltorallentandoalUine
399–440
13’26–13’39
21’31–22’05
Fig.10.6:Tevot,tabledetailingtempochangesinscoreandperformancedurations
notablyslower speed(bars257–285);thisstabilityseemsto precipitatethe ?inal,
andindeedthelongeststructuralstagewhichreturnstoand(savefor threebrief
pull-ups)maintainsasinglepulse,withthenotatedmotiondoubledatthecloseof
theworkfrombar399(seeFigure10.6).43
On the face of it, this reading would appear to indicate three radically
different passages of music. However, one feature would seem to hint at an
underlyingcontinuity: apulseof80bpm–oritsdoubledexpressionof160bpm–
recursfrequentlythroughthecourseofthepiece,apointofconstancyinthemidst
43
Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (Berliner
Philharmoniker,conductedbySirSimonRattle.EMIClassics:4578132)
226
EnergyandEquilibrium
of change (appearances highlighted by bold type inthe ‘Pulse’ columnof Figure
10.6). By equating the three occurrences of the 160bpm marking to its halved
speeddemarcation,itispossibletoviewTevotaspossessingasingle,centralpulse,
acore‘time’thatactsasapoint ofauralreferencefromwhichdeparturesmaybe
made.
Growing unrest in the opening passage seemingly prompts the ?irst
departures from this central pulse. The perceived regularity of the established
onward tonal ?lux and the steady interaction between contrasting ideas proves
short-lived; frombar 24onwards, a gradual butnonetheless palpableprocess of
divergencebegins to occuras subtleadditions to the orchestral texture beginto
convolute the audible division between different gestures. The chordal
progressions not only starttobecomemorefrequentbuteventuallybegintolose
theirrhythmicunityand,byextension,theirharmoniccoherence;theseseparating
strands ofsustainedmaterial servetomuddytheharmonicwatersfurther asthe
descending?ifthspatternscontinue, chromaticin?lectionsnowcreepingintotheir
trajectory. This ramping up of tonal tension is supported not only by an
increasingly cluttered texture but also by a gradual ensemble crescendo that
culminates in a moment of release at bar 53, most of the amassed orchestra
suddenly dropping away to reveal an abrupt change in metre, content and
structure.Skitteringwoodwindburst intoanongoingdialogueofangularstaccato
triplet-quavers,pitchedpercussioncontributingglitteringpunctuations.
In spite of the surface change from bar 53, an underlying continuity is
perceivable;althoughits trajectoryis now fragmented, abroaderdescentof?ifths
and minor seconds – and the mobile tonal centre that accompanies it – is still
audible, even if the inclusion of new intermediary notes (thirds in particular)
rendersitlessdirect(seeClarinet,bars53–54inFigure10.9).Thistransformation
proves to be a blueprint ofsorts for theway inwhich the ?irst half of the work
proceeds, with motivic changes precipitating audible structural changes whilst
maintainingasenseofinterrelationbyunderliningorreframingdifferentfacetsof
the materials with which the work began: a kind of varied repetition. The
simplicityoftheshapesAdèsemploysproveespeciallyfunctionalinthisway, with
different motivic fragmentations and expansions preserving asenseof cohesion,
227
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.7:Tevot,examplesofmotivicdevelopmentsincorporatingormanipulating
open-Uifthrelationships(cello,bars65–68,andviolin1,bars92–99)
Fig.10.8:Tevot,trumpetmelody,bars142–44
eveniftracingthespeci?icoriginsandprocessesinvolvedinthesechangesproves
trickyinthecourseoflistening.
The two intervals that underpin the opening are adapted to produce
material that performs different structural functions. The distinctive open ?ifth
relationships are utilised to create notably dynamic passages (see Figure 10.7),
beingattimes, invertedandaugmented(frombar65)andaccentuatedinangular
motifs (frombar92). Meanwhile, thepotential for tonal frictioncontainedwithin
the minor second relationship is audibly exploited as a way of ramping up
structural tension. The ?irst noticeablederivationemerges as a sliding chromatic
?igure that develops through the strings (bars 72–91), its perpetual stepwise
descentarecognisablenodtothesequentialscoringoftheopening,withsemitone
patterns now enhanced througha more gradual, stepwise falling gesture. As the
?igurespreadsthroughouttheorchestra,itsdissonantcollectivepresenceservesto
muddythetonalwaters, precipitatingmotivicandstructuralchangesfrombar92.
However, the subject continues to plague the music, reappearing in violent
glimpses(bars101–102andbars111–12)beforereturninginagrowinglyfrantic
uni?ied version from bar 119; its chromatic effect upon the tonal direction
necessitates a steadying structural change from bar 142, the trumpet solos (see
228
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.9:Tevot,counterpointmotifsutilisedinbars53–91
Figure 10.8)underpinnedbyascendingpedals (B♮ – C♯ – D♮ –E♭ – E♮). A slower
pacedbut more rhythmically angular reinvention ofthe theme takes holdinthe
oboesfrombar175,snowballingthroughthefullorchestra;iteventuallygivesway
toarecommencementofitsearlierslidingincarnation(frombar214),thoroughly
saturatingbothtonalandtexturalpalates.
Oneformal impression, here, might be a set of variations onthe opening
passage, withthesimplicityofthe material allowing listeners to takefor granted
its broaderunityandto focusmoreoveruponitsgesturalcontent, withlong-term
dialogues emergingbetween ascending anddescendingtrajectoriesand between
wideandnarrowintervals.However,thedynamicnatureofthisvariation-ledform
becomesclearintheoverlapping,andoftenoutrightsimultaneous,presentationof
itsdevelopments.Thisintricatereappraisalofmotifstakestheformofdivergences
andconvergences, withnew ideas emerging anddeveloping inparallel with one
another. Within a very short space of time of the skittering woodwind and
percussion ?igure (from bar 53), it is placed in counterpoint ?irst with the
metricallyjarringinversionandaugmentationof?ifthsfrombar65(aboldclashof
descendingandascendinggestures),andsubsequentlywiththeslidingchromatic
shapes,whichgraduallytakeprecedentfrombar72(seeFigure10.9).
Thesequenceoflargelyinterrelatedtempo changesthattakesplaceacross
the?irsthalfofTevot,whilstindicativeofanintricateformalcontinuity,onlypaints
apictureofblock-like,verticallyimplementedchange.Passagesofcounterpoint,as
above, point to further levels of development, transformations taking place in
parallel rather thanindirectsuccession. Indeed, therhythmic varietyonoffer in
such episodes adds complexity to the interpretation of pulse demarcation.
229
EnergyandEquilibrium
Although the tempo itself may make frequent returns to reference points
(principallythatof80bpmoritsdouble,160bpm)themetricalemphasiscontained
withinthis framework isregularly shiftingby virtue ofthe material deployed. So
characteristicdothesechangesbecomethatwithoutthevisual cueofthescoreor
aconductor, determiningwhich gestures accordwith thebroadertimesignature
andwhich?loutitprovesaparticularlydif?icult,ifnotaseeminglyirrelevant,task;
theoverridingexperienceamountstosomethingmuchmore?luidandmercurial.
Adès’sinclinationto employdifferent temporallevels inhismusichas not
goneunnoticed. Christopher Foxhas producedadetailedexaminationofmultiple
time-scalesinthe?irstmovementofhisViolinConcerto,highlightingshiftsinsmallscale (varying speed of semitone drops) and large-scale (differing instrumental
‘orbits’) recurrences (2014, 28–56). Paul Roeder, meanwhile, frames such
compositionaltechniqueswithinthecontextofJonathanKramer’sobservationson
themultiplicity of postmodernmusic. Surveying a quintet ofpiecescomposed in
the 1990s, he concludes that while this music could indeed be deemed
postmodern, such descriptions prove insuf?icient in accounting for its sheer
temporalvariety, pointingtotheparadoxical manner inwhicha ‘narrative, linear
interpretationmayemergequitereadilyfromthehigher-levelperceptionoflocally
variousconcurrentperiodicitiesandtrends’(Roeder2006,149). AlthoughRoeder
pointsto Arcadiana–withitsintricatewebofallusions,referencesandquotations
– as the mostobvious exponent ofthese characteristics, heasserts thatthey are
nonetheless facilitatedthroughfundamentalmusicalmeans,aboveallatreatment
ofrhythm.
Tevot certainly exhibits aspects of what Roeder terms ‘multiply-paced
polyphony’(2006, 149), with particularthematicideas departingfrom viewonly
toreappearinnewguises,oftenwithchangingrhythmicpropertiesallowingeither
a cohesive or pointedly jarring counterpoint with parallel ?igures. Consider the
variedappearances ofthe sliding chromatic descent ?igurediscussedearlier(see
Figure 10.9), with its changing shape not only demonstrating a particularly
malleable approach to motivic development but also expanding musical scope
withoutsacri?icingcontinuity.Thisoverlappingtechniquecallstomindtheparallel
temporalstreamsofSibelius’sSeventhSymphony,thestarkjuxtapositionof–and
230
EnergyandEquilibrium
interaction between – different materials, metres and tempi engendering an
audiblemultiplicity.
Nevertheless, in spite ofthese apparent divisions, a clear linear narrative
remainsinbothworks. Theinterrelatednatureofthematerialslendsthemusical
discourseanunmistakablesingularity,disparateratesofmotionultimatelyunited
in their direction, mobile tonal centres urging all textural components restlessly
onwards.Beyondthis,themusic seemstoexhibitanobviouswillforitsseparated
elementstoconverge,withanumberofepisodesnotonlyseekingtocombineclose
and wide pitch intervals but also attempting, unsuccessfully, to reconcile the
orchestrainmoreuni?iedtextures.Themostprominentoftheseattemptsseesthe
entire ensemble save the horns unite on a disjointed, dissonant triplet-crotchet
?igure, descending semitonepatterns fragmentedby unpredictable leaps in pitch
andirregularrhythmic breaks (bars223–250).Whenthehornsenter,itisonlyto
compoundthe volatile distortions ofthis ?igure, their fanfare-like countermelody
characterisedbytriadic shapes descendingbysemitonesteps. Tryas itmight,the
violentpassage fails to forceany kindofresolutionand, shortly afterithas been
curtailed by a reprisal of the arching, legato trumpet ?igure (bars 251–256), an
abruptdrop intempo precipitates anunprecedentedstructuralchange(frombar
257).Withrhythmic momentumvastlydepleted, metricalde?initionisnow lostin
a sighing ebb and ?low of dissonant clusters, throbbing punctuations, semitone
ascents and descents still perceivable in the middle registers; the energy so
relentlessly accumulated throughout the ?irst ten minutes of the work has
dissipated,withlittleinthewayofresolutionachieved.
Disruption
As withTevot,itisthetensioninherent inthe?igures thatopenSibelius’sSeventh
Symphony that incites structural change. The composer’s management of
harmonic con?lict and competition emerges as a particularly potent tool for
addressingissuesoflong-termresolution.Toaccordtonal changewiththeearlier
mapping of three different temporal levels, a clear correlation emerges, with
swifter,lesspredictablemodulationstakingplaceinthecourseofthefastermusic.
231
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.10:SymphonyNo.7,reductionofstringsandhorns,bars106–8
Indeed, the ?irst tempo shifts are seemingly precipitated by an increase in
harmonic activity: a build in musical energy is created by the content itself,
sequential motivic exchanges across the orchestra inciting greater tonal motion
withpulse following suit(bars 71–105). As the steadiness engendered bythe Cmajor cadence begins to fade, tonality becomes moretransient, with a variety of
newharmoniesandpulsesexplored.Inthecourseofthisgradualaccelerando,that
tonal instability is maintained through allusions to different harmonic realms.
Listeners are left witha searching sensationas new sonorities –or ones at least
audiblyremovedfromtherecentclimax–areexploredwithincreasingspeed.
Nevertheless, anetwork ofreferences to theinitial disparity betweenthe
tonic and its A♭ subversion serves to keep these new occurrences within the
context of the pre-existing tensions. In addition to the extensive melodic
explorationofscalic patterns alluding to thewhite-note ascent ofthe opening, a
more speci?ic reference to thetonic appears inthe hornsat bars107–108witha
brief recalling of the trombone theme from the ?irst grand cadence. This latter
occurrence also acts as the?irst notable point of arrival withinthe course of this
transitorypassage,afullcrescendoatopanE♮pedal(bars104–105inthetimpani
anddoublebasses)culminatinginanincisivecontrarymotionscaleinthestrings.
Thescaleplateaus into a middle-registerdissonancecharacterisedbywhole-tone
relationships(F♯,B♭andD♮)thatis inturntransformedthroughatonicemphasis
in thebass into a C-major resonance, withaddedsecondsand ?lattenedsevenths
hinting at the juxtaposition of a G-minor triad; the resulting clash allows an
alternative view, G-minor with an added sixth producing a Tristan-esque
resonance(seeFigure10.10).
A♭ proves animportant pivot point in the increasinglyscherzo-likemusic
thatensues,withadescendingbassmanoeuvrefrombars115–18concludingwith
two pointedA♭ majorchordsthat arethenenharmonicallytransformed,withthe
232
EnergyandEquilibrium
resultingG♯shelpingtoprepareforthetransienceoftheforthcomingVivacissimo
(frombar156).Althoughthekeychangetothree?latsatbar134provesindicative
of the eventual direction of the music with regard to the forthcoming C-minor
Adagio, itbearsmoreimmediaterelevancetothe on-goingexplorationsofE♭, for
Howell ‘the only unequivocally and conventionally established secondary
key’(1989,106).Inanycase,atthetimeofitsimplementationthisnotatedchange
haslittleimpactonauralproceedingswiththestring?iguresintheapproachtothe
Vivacissimoseeminglyhintingatanumberoftonalcentres,E♮andC♯ emergingas
temporarycontenders.Fromhereon,thereislittleletupintonalmotionuntilthe
arrival at G-major in bar 208; the unison chromatic gestures that follow in the
stringsallowitspresencetobeprolonged, cementingitsstatusasthedominantto
theminorratherthanthemajormodeofthetonicforatransformedreturnofthe
cadencematerial.
This alteration of the tonic mode for the central Adagio prompts a
reconsideration. The?irstgrandC-majorcadencehasindeedprovedtobetheonly
point of true stability in the whole work, one that not only required extensive
af?irmation to be truly established but that then swiftly faded from view. The
gradual increase in tempo that followed has been matched by a loss in tonal
stability;ratherthananykindofconventional alternative key having beenfound,
insecurity has takenhold, with?luctuations inenergynow supplanting a relative
stasis.Pike’sinterpretationofthesymphonyascomprisingtwo tonalaxes–C♮,G♮
andD♮ontheonehand, A♭,E♭ andB♭ ontheother–seemsparticularlyaptinthis
light (1978, 210–11). Ratherthanamoretraditionalhierarchicalapproachtothe
tonal centres of the symphony, Sibelius establishes a careful balance between a
number of keys, setting in motion what more often appears to be a kind of
harmonic pendulum effect, coexistence more often chosen in favour of direct
con?lict. As disruptive as the presence of A♭ may frequently appear to be, it
precipitatesthestructuralinstabilitythattheotherwiselargelystaticC-majortonic
requires for the work to play out, allowing its repeated reaf?irmations to
demarcatethebroaderarchitecture.
233
EnergyandEquilibrium
Attainingequilibrium
Althoughitcanseemeasierto assignspeci?ictonalaxestotheformalsegmentsof
the Seventh Symphony, the aural reality is that both are often present
simultaneouslytovaryingextents,hintingatakindofequilibrium.Indeed,muchof
the success of the single-span form depends on this, continuity of structure
ensuredthroughthethoroughintegrationofcontrastingideas.Theappearancesof
A♭ in the opening passages may be read as subversions but really they set in
motion a tonal balancing act, introducing the very uncertainty that requires
repeatedaf?irmationsofanarchitecturallyfunctionaltonic; asdisruptiveasthese
features ?irst seem, they are revealed to perform a very different function over
time.JustasC-majorresonancesarethenabletomaintainapresenceinthecourse
of the faster transitions (at bar 107, for example), the in?luence of the many
modulations within the realms of A♭ and E♭ necessitates the minor-mode
conversionof thetonic for the central cadence. This also helps to emphasisethe
continuingremnantsoffastermusic–abovealltheunderpinningchromatic-scales
inthestrings – thatliebeneaththesurfaceoftheslowerchorale-likematerial in
thewindandbrass.
The consequences of this balance ofsonorities can be heard inthe faster
musicthatensuesinthewakeofthecentralAdagiocadencepassage, inwhichthe
earlier tonal transience is redeployed with notably less aural disorientation, a
moredirectinterplaybetweenstableandunstableaxesbecomingmoreobvious.A
brief but audible jolt to E major in bar 242 paves the way for a further
miniaturisationofthetonalplanatlarge:twosuccessiveapproachestothetonicin
itsmajormode.The?irstprovesunsuccessful, divertedthroughdownwardminorkey chromatic shifts to C♯ minorandC minor (bars 252–57);the secondis more
fruitful,withunaccompaniedsequentialrepetitionsascendingquicklythroughG,A
andB♭(bars 258–60).However, ratherthanatriumphantreturnto thetonic,the
arrival at C major (from bar 261) seems to trigger a brief hesitationin onward
momentum,anotatedpausehighlightingatonicpedaloverlaidbyaD-minortriad
(bar265). Themelodies thatensueseemto continuethisharmonic juxtaposition,
withthemelodicexchangesthatfollowseeminglyoutliningD-minorshapeswhilst
234
EnergyandEquilibrium
exhibiting a clear audible gravitationtowards the tonic, with dominant leanings
soonfollowing(bars266–274).
Capitalising upon this uncertainty, the contrasting tonal axis continues to
shape the unfolding form: a brieflurch to A♭ (bar 309) precipitates an A-minor
diversion, with the passage eventually curtailed by a descending A♭-major
arpeggio(bars320–21).Thischangeintonaldirectionpromptsalapseinenergy:
a series of downwardmodulations eventually brings the ensemble to a point of
rest, dissonant string dialogues giving the impression of a loss of rhythmic and
harmonic direction (bars 334–336). However, a solitary dominant pedal in the
hornsseems tooffer areminderofthe more stableaxis(bar337);thedissonant
string sequence is reinitiated, the violas intercede with the arpeggiated melody
that?irstmarkedthearrivalatAllegromoderato(frombar285),andbothrhythmic
momentumandtonalstabilityarerestored.
Fromhereon, thetwotonalaxes seemto achieveamoreobvious stateof
equilibrium. Although a clear relationship between speed of tempo and rate of
tonal changeis still evident, potential interruptions and diversions –suchas the
prominent A♭ timpani punctuations (bars 346–48), and the two chromatically
in?lected passages that engineer modulations to B♭ and E♭ (bars 359–362 and
370–374,respectively)–dolittletodisruptthe?lowandindeedtheupbeatnature
of the material. Indeed, once the stuttering comma-led jump to Vivace has been
navigated, even the winding harmonic shifts that eventually lead back to the
dominantfortheonsetoftheAdagiobywayofthePresto(frombar449)seemfar
less startling, with such manoeuvres having been somewhat normalised by the
comparableproceduresthatpreparedthe?irstAdagio.
Sibelius’s implementation of contrasting tonal axes offers a further
separationoftherolesthatthesedifferentspeedscontributetothedevelopmentof
the tonal plan. In essence, all three energy levels grant different temporal
perspectivesuponthetonic,approachingthesonorityofC♮ bydifferentmeansand
thus at different speeds. The three Adagio segments in essence offer three
extendedperfect cadences,C–inbothits majorandminormodes– assertedand
reasserted in audible ‘slow-motion’ but rarely without small tonal disruptions,
principally through ?igures incorporating A♭. The moderate, transitory formal
segments seem to offer more unsteady attempts to maintain this tonic, with
235
EnergyandEquilibrium
passingharmoniccentres promptedbyearlierdisruptions(principallyA♭, E♭ and
B♭). However, these new paths are not simply periods of instability, but rather
necessary sojourns designed to strengthen the tonic resolve. Both ensuing fast
sections act as extendedpreludes to the Adagio passages that follow, continuing
theexplorationofmoredistantharmonicareaswiththeultimategoalofanarrival
atthedominant, offering adirect routebacktothetonic. Itisinthis waythatthe
passages of the greatest instability ultimately serve to reinforce the structural
security ofthesymphonicform, withthemomentumofthework gearedtowards
tonalrecurrence.
Sonorityandmemory
Most variation-based forms are self-perpetuating in character. Their structural
direction is instilled through an inherent propensity to re-express; continual
reinventionbecomestheauralgoal.Withoutembeddingmoreconventionalformal
issues of contrast and con?lict within a variation-led piece, its conclusion will
struggletoattainthesenseofrequiredresolutionthatotherdesignscanoffer.Ifit
cannotoperatecyclically,returningto somethingapproachingitsbasicshape,the
senseofanendingmightoftenbedeliberatelyimplementedthrougharampingup
oftensionthatiseventuallyreleasedinaculminatingpassage. Bythemid-pointof
Tevot, itappearsthatthis releasehasprovedelusive. Numerousreinterpretations
ofthesamebasicgesturalharmonicideashavebeenaired,ofteninanoverlapping
manner, all perpetuatingthesamesenseofmobiletonalgravity. Theresult, from
bar 257, seems to have been a point of burnout: several increasingly violent
rhythmiccollisionshavefailedtoprovideanykindofresolution,insteadleadingto
a loss of energy: the drifting harmonic sequences – now aimlessly undulating
rather than perpetually descending – are now underpinned by ominous
fragmentations of the oscillating textures from the opening of the work. The
broader formal frustration ofthis passage isseemingly vented throughafurther
outburst, its?iguresascendingtoananguishedclimax,shiftsofsecondsandthirds
colliding in orchestral-wide dissonance (bar 280). The composer’s take on
variationformseemstohavearrived,fornow,ataparticularlybleakconclusion.
236
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.11:Tevot,reductionofbars302–323
Itis atthispointthatawatershedoccurs. Witharesumptionoftheinitial
tempo, Adèscalls upon the particularly distinctive sonorities and textures ofthe
openingofthepiece–chainsof?ifthsintheupperstringsandwind–butgradually
implementstheminascending,ratherthandescending, sequences(bars 287–302,
withuni?iedascending patterns achievedfrombar 293). This retrogradegesture
gives the impression not of a direct recapitulation, but of a speci?ically musical
returnto arememberedpointinthework;thiseffectofa‘returnto’ratherthana
‘recurrenceof’isenhancedbythereversalofpitchdirection, aconcertedeffortto
audiblyturnbackmusical‘time’.Reintroductionsofintermittentharmonicclusters
in the brass and the upward leaping horn motif, bothnotable features from the
openingofthework,underlinethistreatmentofmusicalmaterialassomethingto
be actively navigated and explored by the listener rather than passively
experienced.
Eventually,this ascentplateaus into astratosphericchoraledividedamong
the violins (from bar 303). This tentative succession of shifting consonant
resonancesgivestheimpressionofadownward-driftingharmonicseries. Mediant
237
EnergyandEquilibrium
completionsprovideafullharmonicrenderingoftheopen?ifthsthathavethus-far
dominated. The heart of the shifting tonal centre that has pervaded the work is
here revealed in its essence, as if its very genesis has been unveiled: a chain of
interconnected, predominantly consonant sonorities – many integrating major
triads – led perpetually onwards by a dynamic tonal gravity (see Figure 10.11).
Theapparentabsenceofanyhierarchyinthisseriesnegatesanyimmediatedesire
for resolution, imbuing the music with a new kind of stability characterised by
clearerboundariesofharmonicandrhythmicenergy.
This new consistency paves the way for one ?inal variation, a ?loating
melody thatemerges in thepiccolos atop this harmonic bed (frombar314). The
theme has an uncanny presence, bearing a striking novelty whilst still seeming
familiar. It is in fact a hybrid subject, conglomerated from various aspects of
precedingvariations. Itcomprisestwoparts:the?irst isadirectstepwiseascent–
aninversionofthefallingsecondsoftheopeningthat,inits?irstfourbars,allowsa
spelt-out traversal of the rising seventh interval of the horn call in bar 21; the
second is a slower descent – tentative oscillations of tones and semitones are
gentlyloweredinpitchinamore stabilizedversionofthecomparable?igurethat
?irst took hold in the lower strings from bar 72. More signi?icantly, this new
materialconforms –bothmetricallyandharmonically–withitsbackground.The
result is a gesture of post-romantic tranquility, and as the ?igure begins to
proliferate in slow majestic counterpoint through the woodwind and onwards
throughtheentireorchestra,itbeginstoaccumulateanalmostMahleriantension.
Almost the entire second half of the work proceeds in the manner of one ?inal,
grandvariation, melody andchorale?igures?inally unitedintheirsteady, onward
tonal motion. As it might be understood in the act of listening, reconciliation
between the con?licting ideas presented in Tevot is achieved through a ‘revisitation’ of the work’s ‘origins’, its essential matter realigned in order that it
mightbeheardinamorecohesiveway.Thecomposer’sowntakeonStravinsky–
thathismusicmightbeheardas‘sayinggoodbyetoaformertypeofwritingatthe
sametimeaswelcominganewone’–seems apt inthis light. Inparticular, Adès’s
interpretation of The Rake’s Progress proves especially telling: ‘[…] it’s almost as
thoughthematerialhasatenderness,it’ssoftandmalleablebecauseit’spreparing
238
EnergyandEquilibrium
for a metamorphosis; it’s the end ofone thing, the disintegration of one way of
thinkingandthebeginningofanotherone…’(AdèsandService2012,76).
Indeed,sopowerful doesthisnewly acquiredstability provethatitalmost
seems that the onward tonal path must be deliberately diverted in order for a
conclusionto bereached.Atthepeakofagigantictextural anddynamicbuild,the
suddenstallingoftonalmotion–viasuccessivesustainedtriadsofCmajorandG
major(bars393–98)–seemsto precipitateahugeensembleconvergenceonanA
pedal,E♮ completingtheopen?ifthasoscillationsreappearintheviolinsand?lutes
(bar399).Harmonicdynamismisnowreplacedbyblock-likechangesofsonority:
two further reassertions of the orchestral chord, precipitated by solo trumpet
?igures, combine the pre-existing ?ifth of A♮ and E♮ withone a tone lower, bass
emphasisfalling?irstuponG♮(bar415)andthenuponD♮(bar429).
Theseseeminglyjolting reorientations areexplainedwithinthe context of
the?inaloutburstinbar441:anemphaticreturntoanopen?ifthonA♮,underlined
bytunedpercussioninthefollowingbar.Thechordisallowedtofadeintosilence,
dying oscillations in the violins acting as a subtle aural reminder that Tevot has
returnedto theveryresonancewith which it began. How conclusive this closing
gesture proves depends upon the perspective of the listener. The circularity
evident in the return to the opening sonority would certainly seem to exhibit a
kindofclosure.However,itmaysimultaneouslynudgeaudiencestowardsideasof
thein?inite; formalcircles, bytheirveryde?inition, provide closurewhilsthinting
atthe ideathat theshape itselfcancontinue, repeating itselfwithout end. Inthis
sense,however,Tevotoffersnotonecirclebut perhapssomething moreakinto a
?igureofeight.Tworeturnstotheopeningmaterial–oneatthecentreofthework,
theotheratitsclose– suggesta broader kindofvariationstructure, a process of
formal re-evaluation and reinvention. Alternate times are presented: whilst the
work seemingly acknowledges that the past cannot be relived, attempting to
repeat key events can inform new perspectives and provide different ways of
approachingthesameideas.
While Sibelius seemingly addresses the same kind of temporal concepts
withhisSeventhSymphony,theresultingexperiencedoesnotnecessarilyproduce
thiskindofcatharsis. Heretheunderlyingacknowledgementthatthepastcannot
berelivedisrepeatedlychallenged,perhapsdeliberatelyso. WhilstTevottwice(at
239
EnergyandEquilibrium
Fig.10.12:SymphonyNo.7,reductionofstringsandhorns,bars500–10
its centre and at its conclusion) makes clear references back to its opening
material, these recurrences act as springboards for formal changes. By contrast,
whilst the similarly positioned cadence passages in the Seventh Symphony do
precipitate wider changes, they themselves become the focal points of the
structure.Nosoonerhastheensembledepartedfromtheemphaticcertaintyofthe
?irstC-majorAdagiothanitexpressesadesiretoreturntoit,arecallingofboththe
sonority and the trombone theme (bar 107–08) seemingly expressing
dissatisfaction with the new harmonic agenda that is taking hold. Although the
ensuingcentralcadence–aminor-keycompromisewiththecontrastingtonalaxis
–allows aperiodofrelativeclarity, its effectdoeslittleto stabiliseproceedingsin
the manner of the earlier episode. The con?idence of the trombone theme is
underminedbythechromaticin?lectionsofthecontinuingfastermusic,itsreprisal
renderedasafutileattempttoregainalostsecurity.
Thisapparentneedtoreturntothepastiscon?irmedbythe?inalsegueinto
Adagio, anemphaticattempt that comesfarcloser to achievingitsgoal. However,
havingfacilitatedthereturnto themajormodeofthetonic in the?irst place, the
alternatetonal axiscannotbeshaken.RepeatedF♯s inthestrings(frombar484)
may appear supportive of the dominant but they pave the way for further
dissonances, E♭s almost immediately creeping in in the horns andwoodwindto
alludetotheminor-modeoncemore. TheF-minordiversionthat?irstappearedat
bar 71, instead of serving to calm the climax, now sends the orchestra off on a
violent upward sequence as it continues in search of its resolution. As the
ensemble strays further from the safety of the tonic it resorts to a desperate
240
EnergyandEquilibrium
attempt atstructural symmetry, curtailing thesequencewithaviolenttuttichord
to allow the strings an opportunity to reprise their C-major-af?irming chorale.
However, context wins out over content. The result is a dissonant, anguished
descent; the realisation that the tonal axes must continue to coexist is further
cemented as – following a further tutti punctuation – the strings continue their
outburstwithaheldA♭ majorchordwithanaddedaugmentedsixthatbar500,a
German sixth construction seemingly devoid, in any direct sense, of its
conventional pre-dominant function(see Figure 10.12). A ?inal stuttering ascent
stallsonanA♭ beforesinkingback to thedominant, horns andbassoonushering
back in thetonic witha truncated echo of thetrombone theme(bar506–09), an
apparent gesture of resignation in the wake of the failed attempt to regain the
stabilityoftheopening Adagio. Vagueallusions to asymmetricaldesigncontinue
with ?lute and bassoon providing fragmented slow-motion reminiscences of the
?littingthemetheyairedintheopeningpassages(bars511–17referencingbars7–
10)atopatremoloaccompaniment. Theclosingcadenceoftheworkunderlinesa
resignationto the coexistenceofthetwo tonal axes, the prominentshift from B♮
upwards to C♮ in the strings perhaps offering a ?inal nod to the A♭ minor
subversionwhichsettheformofthesymphonyinmotion.Emphasisisplacedonce
again upon a tension that has audibly developed, yet seemingly remains as
balanced–or, indeed,as inconclusive–asitdidwhenitwas?irstheard. To what
extent this ending provides resolution may depend upon the perspective of a
listener. As withTevot, theSeventhSymphony’sclosingevocationofanaspect of
its opening seemingly poses further questions regarding the extent to which
notionsofclosureandreturnmightintertwine.
241
Eleven
Epilogue:Openendings
Torememberaneventistoexperienceitagain,butnotinthesamewayastheSirst
time.(Langer1953,263)
Thetemporal experiencesofTevotand theSeventhSymphonyprompt questions
regarding the nature of repetition. Points of return draw attention to circular
aspectsofstructuraldesign,makinglistenersawareoftensionsbetweenstaticand
dynamic formal characters. The way in which both pieces conclude warrants
further consideration of beginnings and endings, of closure and continuation.
Returnsmightinsomesenseconveyasenseofconclusion, butbythesametoken
reawaken the impulses that began the journey inthe ?irst place. Intheseterms,
musical repetition might be seen as engaging with long-term continuity in a
paradoxicalmanner,evokinganattemptattemporalsymmetrycomparabletothat
outlined by Søren Kierkegaard: ‘Repetition and recollection are the same
movement, except in opposite directions, for what is recollected has been, is
repeated backwards, whereas genuine repetition is recollected forward’ (1983,
89).
Inasimilarmanner, this thesis has also exhibited circularcharacteristics.
Just as many of the works analysed have been shown to engage with the same
broad formal issues, seemingly new lines of enquiry have frequently led to
recurrences ofwidertemporal questions.Thisremains,Iwouldargue,anecessity
of exploring what will always amount to a subjective experience. Attempts to
separate so broad and all-encompassing a phenomenon out into multiple
componentswillultimatelyprovefrustrating.Ashasbeenshown,thediscussionof
time will inevitably involve numerous other factors that might at ?irst glance
appeardistinctbutoncloserexaminationconstituteanetworkofinterdependent,
oftenoverlappingconcepts.AswiththeformsoftheseworksbyAdèsandSibelius,
thisstudyhasservedtoaf?irmthepossibilityforthecoexistenceofbothstaticand
dynamic temporal outlooks, and theplaceofboth withinmusicalanalysis. These
are ideas that, whether they are stated or not, I would argue come into play
whenever issues of continuity, repetition, energy and perspective are discussed
242
Epilogue:Openendings
withregardtoideasofform.Indeed,thisthesishasmaintainedthatconsideration
ofsuchconceptsmightprovideafruitfulspringboardforwaysofanalysingmusic
that not only remain open to the multiplicity of time but to a diverse range of
compositionalstyles.
Manyofthetenetsofthisthesisgravitatetowards,orindeedareprompted
by, what might be thought of as poststructuralist concerns: a desire to
contextualisetheconstructionofmusicalcompositionswithinthecomplexwebof
culturalrelationshipsandperceptualinteractionsthatencompassit. Nevertheless,
the analyses presented here still bear something of a structuralist streak,
emphasising the important roles that musical form can assume within these
networks. Indeed, the underlying notion of temporal linearity (the necessary
progressionfromabeginningtoanendingofsome kind)asafundamentalaudible
continuitycouldevenperhapsbeportrayedas amoreconventionalrelianceupon
unity as an analytical parameter. Notions of unity, coherence and stability have
regularly featuredas essential issues inthese casestudies, even if the focus has
beentheways inwhichtheyexistinbalance, orimbalance, withtheiropposites:
disunity, incoherence and instability. The very acknowledgement of this tension
wouldseemtoengagewiththeidea–oftentakenasagivenoftraditionalanalysis
– that pieces of music should ‘make sense’, that they retain some kind of selfsuf?icient logic. In the end, this is at best a profoundly meaningful illusion that
listeners might willingly buy into – at worstit might be consideredapotentially
restrictive fallacy. Rose Rosengard Subotnik offers a helpful reminder that both
music and its audiences prove considerably more diverse, asserting that the
‘rationalsubstratumofmusicalknowledge?inallyonsomeact,choice,orprinciple
thatisnotitselfrationallydemonstrable’(1996,170):
Onlysome musicstrivesforautonomy.Allmusichassoundanda style.Onlysome
peoplelistentomusicstructurally.Everyonehasculturalandemotionalresponses
tomusic.Thesecharacteristicsandresponsesarenotuniformorimmutablebutas
diverse, unstable, and open-ended as the multitude of contexts in which music
deSinesitself.(1996,175)
As persuasive as analytical explorations of more formalist concepts like
unitycanbe,notleastinlendingauralexperiencesasenseofretrospectiveclosure,
theirpropensitytowardscatharsiscannotgrantthemdominationoveralternative
243
Epilogue:Openendings
ways of hearing pieces. Eric Clarke attributes the cultural power that autonomy
wields in part to the ‘intensely absorbing… perceptual meanings’music affords,
but nevertheless insists that itis ‘justoneamongmany ways oflistening’(2005,
188).Thecontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesdiscussedhereultimatelytaketheshape
of interpretive suggestions – no more, no less. They are ways of reaching
understandings ofpieces of music rather thanthe wayofreadingthem. Inthese
terms, Joseph Dubiel’s notion of structure as a route to new meaningful
comprehensions – a call to exploration – proves particularly resonant. It is, he
writes, ‘a way to hold open the possibility of discovery, the possibility of
responding aurally to something in a piece to which I was not antecedently
attuned’(Dubiel2004,198).
Though several analytical styles have been utilised, it has not been a
concern ofthis study to advocate or developmore a speci?ic listening or indeed
musicological strategy beyond a broader receptiveness to issues of perceived
musical time and, accordingly, an open-minded approach to the diversity of
meanings these experiences might facilitate.44 Mark Hutchinson, in his
explorations of late-twentieth century repertoire (Hutchinson 2012 and 2016),
similarlylocatesakindofunityinthepluralitythathisanalysesuncover. Through
examinations of works by Ligeti, Adès, Saariaho, Takemitsu, and Kurtág, he
convincingly argues that theexperiences ofpotent cohesionthey offer arise as a
consequence of their ‘multi-layered and ‘sometimes seemingly-contradictory’
content rather than in spite of it (Hutchinson 2012, 37). He continues not by
prescribing a speci?ic approach but rather echoing Whittall (1999) and Kramer
(2004) in their call for an adaptive approach to pre-existing conceptual and
analyticalframeworks(Hutchinson2012,279).
I would propose, though, thatthe dynamic rede?initions ofcoherencethat
Hutchinsonoutlinesmightnotnecessarilybelimitedtomorerecentmusic.Asthe
case studies presented in this thesis have hopefully shown, even more familiar,
canonic works can contribute to ongoing – some might say progressive –
44 Lawrence Ferrara (1984) suggests a phenomenological procedure that maintains an
admirable emphasis upon repeated, ‘open listenings’ that focus gradually on different
structural levels. However, the conclusions he draws are tied to notions of syntax,
semanticsandontology,more speciSichierarchiesofmeaningthatliebeyondthescopeof
thisthesis.
244
Epilogue:Openendings
musicological and compositional dialogues. Time, I have suggested, is an everrelevantpointofconceptual focusinthisregard. It has been shown to provide a
means by which formalist elements mightretaina voice withinpoststructuralist
thought without precluding either froma place withinthe perceptual ecology of
musicalperformance.Similarly,whilstoldandnewmusiccanbeheardassittingat
stylistic odds, bothcanbe nevertheless shownto engage withessential issues of
experienced continuity and its absence. Temporality itself can become a
springboard for analytical endeavours that facilitate a dialogue between
stylisticallydisparateworks.Time–astheessentialbindingforceofexperience–
emergesasatoolbywhichcontemporarylistenersmight, forawhile,sidestepthe
historicalandcultural contextsthatcouldsometimesappearatriskoflimitingthe
impactofpieces.
Ontheotherhand, timefrequentlyappearsunbound.Temporalexperience
is, at its heart, inconsistent. It can seem fractious and unpredictable whilst
nevertheless maintaining the same ecological reliability that allows us to
coordinate countless social and cultural networks with its passing. Listening to
music constitutesacreativeactthatdrawsusinto engagementwiththis paradox
andthe impact it might have upon theway welive our lives. Whenwriters like
Jonathan Kramer (1988, 5) and Nicholas Cook (2013, 126) ask, in their own
fascinatingways,whethermusicunfoldsintimeorwhethertimeunfoldsinmusic,
it is not that they expect to ?ind any kind of de?initive answer. Rather they
recognise that both perspectives have a function in musicological and
philosophical thought. Both present meaningful avenues of exploration, and
neither should be closed off. The contradictions they present through their
coexistenceencourageustoattempttounderstandfurtherourownexperiencesof
timeanditsmeaning.
In a study characterised by repetition and plurality, drawing a suitable
conclusion is no easy task. However, perhaps something to be learned from the
various listening approaches suggestedinthesepages isthatnotions likeclosure
restalmost asmuchuponourattitudes towards experiences asthey douponthe
nature of the experiences themselves. It is perhaps timely to acknowledge T.S.
Eliot’s contention that circularity and changeare not always mutually exclusive,
especiallywhentakinginto accountthetransformations ofperspectivethatresult
245
Epilogue:Openendings
fromtheactofrevisiting:‘Weshallnotceasefromexploration/Andtheendofall
our exploring/Will beto arrive wherewestarted/ Andknow the placeforthe
?irst time’ (Eliot 1944, 59). Going round in circles can, given the chance, prove
meaningfulafterall.
246
PrimaryResources
Scores
Thecomposition date ispresented?irst, withthe publication datelistedafterthe
publisherwhereitdiffers.
Abrahamsen,Hans.2008.Schnee–Tencanonsfornineinstruments.
Copenhagen:EditionWilhelmHansen.
Adams,John.1982.ShakerLoopsforstringorchestra(1982Revision).
NewYork:AssociatedmusicPublishers,1989.
Adès,Thomas.2007.Tevotforlargeorchestra,op.24.
London:FaberMusic,2014.
Beethoven,Ludwigvan.1804.SymphonyNo.3inE-?latmajor,Op.55,‘Eroica’.
Mainz:Eulenburg,2009.
Benjamin,George.1997.Viola,Violaforvioladuo.
London:FaberMusic,1998.
Brahms,Johannes.1885.SymphonyNo.4inEminor,Op.98.
London:Eulenburg,1998.
Mozart,WolfgangAmadeus.1778.SonataforviolinandpianoinEminor,K.304.
Leipzig:Breitkopf&Härtel,1879.
Saariaho,Kaija.2003.Jesensundeuxièmecoeurforviola,celloandpiano.
London:ChesterMusic.
Schubert,Franz.1828.PianoSonatainB-?lat,D.960.
NewYork:Dover,1970.
Sibelius,Jean.1924.SymphonyNo.7,Op.105(RevisedEdition).
Copenhagen:EditionWilhelmHansen,1980.
247
PrimaryResources
Recordings
Abrahamsen, Hans. 2009. Schnee. Ensemble Recherche. Music Edition, Winter &
Winter:910159–2.
Adams, John. 2000.Minimalist–Adams/Glass/Reich/Heath[inc. ShakerLoops].
LondonChamberOrchestra,conductedbyChristopherWarren-Green.Virgin
Classics:724356185128.
Adès,Thomas.2010.Tevot/ViolinConcerto/ThreeStudiesfromCouperin/Dances
from Powder Her Face. Berliner Philharmoniker, conducted by Sir Simon
Rattle.EMIClassics:4578132.
Beethoven,Ludwigvan.2011.CompleteSymphonies[inc.SymphonyNo.3inE-?lat
major, Op.55, ‘Eroica’]. La Chambre Philharmonique, conducted by
EmmanuelKrivine.Naïve:V5258.
Benjamin, George. 2004.Shadowlines/Viola, Viola/Three Studies/PianoSonata.
TabeaZimmermanandAntoineTamestit,violas.Nimbus:NI5713.
Brahms, Johannes. 1981. Symphony No. 4. Wiener Philharmoniker, conducted by
CarlosKleiber.DeutscheGrammophon:457706-2.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. 2007. Complete Sonatas for Keyboard and Violin,
Volume4[inc. SonatainE-minor,K.304].RachelPodger,violin;GaryCooper.
ChannelClassics:24607.
Saariaho, Kaija. 2012. The Edge of Light: Messiaen / Saariaho [inc. Je sens un
deuxième coeur]. Jonathan Moerschel, viola; Eric Byers, cello; Gloria Cheng,
piano.HarmoniaMundi:HMU907578.
Schubert,Franz.2004.MitsukoUchidaPlaysSchubert[inc.PianoSonatainB-?lat,D.
960].MitsukoUchida,piano.Decca:4756282.
Sibelius,Jean.2004.SymphoniesNo.3&7.LondonSymphonyOrchestra,conducted
bySirColinDavis.LSOLive:LSO0552.
248
Bibliography
Abraham, Gerald. 1952. ‘The Symphonies.’ In Sibelius: A Symposium, edited by
GeraldAbraham,14–37.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Abrahamsen, Hans. 2009. ‘Schnee (2006–08).’Linernotes for Hans Abrahamsen:
Schnee.EnsembleRecherche.MusicEdition,Winter&Winter:910159–2.
_______.2010.‘8thSacrumProfanumFestivalModernClassic–InterviewwithHans
Abrahamsen.’YouTubevideo,5:33.Filmed2010.Postedbybiurofestiwalowe
on 1 December, 2010. Accessed 1 September 2016. https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShT8dVqggCg.
Adams, John. 2008. Hallelujah Junction: Composing an American Life. New York:
Picador.
_______. 2014.‘ShakerLoopsforstring septet(1978)’.Accessed22February, 2013.
www.earbox.com/chamber-music/shaker-loops.
Adams, John, RebeccaJemianandAnneMariedeZeeuw. 1996.‘AnInterview with
JohnAdams.’PerspectivesofNewMusic34(2):88–104.
Adès, Thomas, andTomService. 2012. ThomasAdès: Full ofNoises, Conversations
withTomService.London:FaberandFaber.
Adorno, Theodor W. 1997. Aesthetic Theory. Translated by Robert Hullot-Kentor
andeditedbyGretelAdornoandRolfTiedemann.London:AthelonePress.
_______. 2005. ‘Schubert(1928),’translatedby JonathanDunsbyandBeatePerrey.
19th-CenturyMusic29(1):3–14.
Adlington, Robert. 1997a. ‘Review of Shaping Time: Music, the Brain, and
PerformancebyDavidEpstein.’MusicAnalysis16(1):155–71.
_______.1997b:‘TemporalityinPost-tonalMusic.’PhDthesis,UniversityofSussex.
_______. 2003: ‘Moving beyondMotion: Metaphors for Changing Sound.’Journal of
theRoyalMusicalAssociation128(2):297–318.
Agawu, Ko?i. 1999: ‘Formal perspectives on the symphonies.’ In The Cambridge
Companion to Brahms, edited by Michael Musgrave, 133–55. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Aitken,Stuart.1998.‘ReviewofThirdspace:JourneystoLosAngelesandOtherRealand-Imagined Places by EdwardW. Soja.’Geographical Review 88(1): 148–
51.
249
Bibliography
Almén, Byron. 2003. ‘Narrative Archetypes: A Critique, Theory, and Method of
NarrativeAnalysis.’JournalofMusicTheory47(1):1-39.
_______.2008.ATheoryofMusicalNarrative.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Angrilli,Alessandro,PaoloCherubini,AntonellaPaveseandSaraMantredini.1997.
‘The in?luence of affective factors on time perception.’ Perception and
Psychophysics59(6):972–82.
Athanasopoulos,George,Siu-LanTanandNikkiMoran.2016.‘In?luenceofliteracy
on representation of time in musical stimuli: An exploratory cross-cultural
studyinthe UK, Japan, and PapuaNew Guinea.’PsychologyofMusic 44 (5):
1126-1144.
_______.2008.ATheoryofMusicalNarrative.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Aristotle.1996.Poetics,translatedbyMalcolmHeath.London:PenguinBooks.
Arnheim,Rudolf.1978. ‘AStrictureonSpaceandTime.’CriticalInquiry4(4):645–
55.
Arstilla, Valtteri, and Dan Lloyd, editors. 2014. Subjective Time: The Philosophy,
Psychology,andNeuroscienceofTemporality.London:MITPress.
Augustine.1991.Confessions,trans.HenryChadwick.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Baggott,Jim.2011.‘QuantumTheory:Ifatreefallsintheforest…’OxfordUniversity
Press Blog, 14 February. Accessed 30 August 2016. http://blog.oup.com/
2011/02/quantum.
Bailey, Nicole, and Charles S. Areni. 2006. ‘When a few minutes sound like a
lifetime: Does atmospheric music expand or contract perceived time?’
JournalofRetailing82:189–202.
Barkin, Elaine R. 2009. ‘About Some Music ofThomas Adès.’ Perspectives of New
Music47(1):165–73.
Barry,BarbaraR.1990.MusicalTime:TheSenseofOrder.NewYork:Pendragon
Press.
Begbie,Jeremy.2000.Theology, MusicandTime.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Bent, Ian D. ‘Hermeneutics.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . A c c e s s e d 2 1 F e b r u a r y , 2 0 1 4 , h t t p : / /
www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/12871.
250
Bibliography
Bennett,DavidC.1975. Spatial andtemporal usesofEnglish prepositions:anessay
instratiUicationalsemantics.London:LongmanGroup.
Berger,Karol.2007.Bach’sCycle,Mozart’sArrow:AnEssayontheOriginsofMusical
Modernity.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Bernard, JonathanW. 2003. ‘Minimalism, Postminimalism, andtheResurgence of
TonalityinRecentAmericanMusic.’AmericanMusic21(1):112–33.
Beyer,Anders.‘Abrahamsen,Hans.’GroveMusicOnline.OxfordMusicOnline.Oxford
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , a c c e s s e d 1 S e p t e m b e r , 2 0 1 6 . h t t p : / /
www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/46325.
Bierwisch, Manfred.1996. ‘How muchspacegetsintolanguage?’InLanguage and
Space, edited by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F.
Garrett,31–76.Cambridge:MITPress.
Boltz, MarilynG. 1991. ‘Time estimationand attentional perspective.’ Perception
andPsychophysics,49(5):422–33.
Born, Georgina, editor. 2013. Music, Sound and Space: Transformations of Public
andPrivateExperience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bozarth, GeorgeS., and Walter Frisch. ‘Brahms, Johannes.’In Grove Music Online.
Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 6 September, 2016,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/
51879.
Bretherton,David.2012.‘ReviewofATheoryofMusicalNarrativebyByronAlmén.’
MusicAnalysis31(3):414–21.
Brendel,Alfred.2001.AlfredBrendelonMusic:CollectedEssays.Chicago:ACappella
Books.
Bromberger, Eric. 2007. ‘About the Piece: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Violin
Sonata, K. 304.’ Accessed 23 February, 2015. http://www.laphil.com/
philpedia/music/violin-sonata-k-304-wolfgang-amadeus-mozart.
Brown, Scott W. 1997. ‘Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in
concurrenttemporalandnontemporalworking memorytasks.’Perception &
Psychophysics59(7):1118–40.
_______.2010. ‘Timing,resources,andinterference:Attentionalmodulationoftime
perception.’ In Attention and time, edited by Anna C. Nobreand Jennifer T.
Coull,107–22.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
251
Bibliography
Brown, Scott W., and Alan N. West. 1990. ‘Multiple timing and the allocation of
attention.’ActaPsychologica,75:103–21.
Burkholder, JPeter. 1984. ‘Brahms andTwentieth-Century Classical Music.’19thCenturyMusic8(1):75–83.
Burnham,Scott.1995.BeethovenHero.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Burrows,David. 1997.‘A DynamicalSystemsPerspectiveonMusic.’TheJournalof
Musicology15(4):529–45.
Butler, Chris. 2012. Henri Lefebvre: SpatialPolitics, EverydayLife and the Right to
theCity.Abingdon:Routledge-Cavendish.
Butler, David. 1992. The Musician’s Guide to Perception and Cognition. New York:
SchirmerBooks.
Cahill, Sarah. ‘Adams, John.’ Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , a c c e s s e d S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 , h t t p : / /
www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/42479.
Caldwell,Clare,andSallyA.Hibbert.1999.‘Playthatoneagain:Theeffectofmusic
tempo on consumer behavior in a restaurant.’ European Advances in
ConsumerResearch4:58–62.
Campbell, Joseph. 2008. The Hero With A Thousand Faces (Third Edition).
California:NewWorldLibrary.
Caplin, William E. 1998. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the
Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Carl,Robert.1991. ‘ReviewsofAnalyticApproachestoTwentieth-CenturyMusicby
JoelLester;Meta+HodosandMETAMeta+Hodos:APhenomenologyof20thCenturyMaterialsandanApproachtotheStudyofFormbyJamesTenney;The
TimeofMusic:NewMeanings,NewTemporalities, NewListeningStrategiesby
JonathanKramer.’Notes47(4):1107–10.
Casasanto,Daniel, OlgaFotakopoulouandLeraBoroditsky.2010.‘SpaceandTime
intheChild’sMind:EvidenceforaCross-Dimensional Asymmetry.’Cognitive
Science34.387–405.
Childs, Barney. 1977. ‘Time and Music: A Composer’s View.’Perspectivesof New
Music,15(2):194–219.
Chua,DanielK.L.2004.‘RethinkingUnity.’MusicAnalysis23(2/3):353–59.
252
Bibliography
Churgin, Bathia. 1998. ‘Beethoven and the New Development-Theme in SonataFormMovements.’TheJournalofMusicology16(3):323–43.
Clark, Herbert. H. 1973. ‘Space, time, semantics, and the child.’ In Cognitive
developmentandtheacquisitionoflanguage,editedbyTimothyE.Moore,27–
63.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Clark, Philip. 2015. ‘Minimalism at 50’ Gramophone, 19 June, 2015. Accessed 23
September2016,http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/minimalism-at-50.
Clarke, David. 2011. ‘Music, Phenomenology, Time Consciousness: Aeditations
after Husserl.’ In Music and Consciousness: Philosophical, Psychological, and
Cultural Perspectives, edited by David Clarke andEric Clarke, 1–24. Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Clarke, David and Eric F. Clarke, editors. 2011. Music and Consciousness:
Philosophical, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Clarke,EricF.1989. ‘Issues inLanguageandMusic.’ContemporaryMusicReview4
(1):9–22.
_______.2005.WaysofListening:AnEcologicalApproachtothePerceptionofMusical
Meaning.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Clarke, Eric F., and Nicholas Cook, editors. 2004. Empirical Musicology: Aims,
Methods,Prospects.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Clarke, Eric F., and Carol L. Krumhansl. 1990. ‘Perceiving Musical Time.’ Music
Perception:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal7(3):213–51.
Clayton, Martin. 2000. Time in Indian Music: Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North
IndianRagPerformance.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Clifton, Thomas. 1983. Music as Heard: A Study in Applied Phenomonology. New
Haven:YaleUniversityPress.
Cohn, Richard L. 1999. ‘As Wonderful as Star Clusters: Instruments forGazing at
TonalityinSchubert.’19th-CenturyMusic.22(3):213–232.
_______. 2004. ‘Uncanny Resemblances: Tonal Signi?ication in the Freudian Age.’
JournaloftheAmericanMusicologicalSociety57(2):285–324.
_______.2012.AudaciousEuphony:ChromaticismandtheTriad’sSecondNature.New
York:OxfordUniversityPress.
253
Bibliography
Cone, Edward T. 1974. The Composer’s Voice. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Cook,Nicholas.1983.‘ReviewofMusicAsHeard:AStudyinAppliedPhenomenology
byThomasClifton.’MusicAnalysis2(3):291–94.
_______.1990.Music,Imagination,andCulture.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
_______.1998.Music:AVeryShortIntroduction.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
_______. 2001. ‘Theorizing Musical Meaning.’ Music TheorySpectrum, 23 (2): 170–
195.
_______. 2013. Beyond the Score: Music asPerformance. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cook, Nicholas andMark Everist, editors. 1999. Rethinking Music. Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Cross, Ian. 1998. ‘MusicAnalysisandMusic Perception.’Music Analysis17(1):3–
20.
Cumming, Naomi. 1997. ‘The HorrorsofIdenti?ication: Reich’s “DifferentTrains.”’
PerspectivesofNewMusic35(1),129–52.
Cutietta, Robert A. 1993. ‘The Musical Elements: Who said they’re right?’ Music
EducatorsJournal79(9):48–53.
Dainton,Barry.2010.Timeandspace(Secondedition).Durham:Acumen.
deMan, Paul.1983. ‘FormandIntentintheAmericanNew Criticism.’InBlindness
andInsight:EssaysintheRhetoricofContemporaryCriticism(Secondedition),
20–35.London:Routledge.
Damschroder, David. 2010. Harmony in Schubert. Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Deliège, Célestin. 1989. ‘On form as actually experienced.’ Contemporary Music
Review4(1):101–15.
Deliège, Irène. 1989. ‘A perceptual approach to contemporary musical forms.’
ContemporaryMusicReview4(1):213–30.
Deliège, Iréne, and Marc Mélen. 1997. ‘Cue abstraction in the representation of
musical form.’In Perception and Cognition ofMusic, edited byIrèneDeliège
andJohnSloboda,387–412.Sussex:PsychologyPress.
254
Bibliography
Deliège, Iréne, Marc Mélen, Diana Stammers and Ian Cross. 1996. ‘Musical
Schemata in Real-Time Listening to a Piece ofMusic.’ Music Perception: An
InterdisciplinaryJournal14(2):117–59.
Deliège, Irène, andJohnSloboda, editors. 1997.Perception andCognitionofMusic.
Sussex:PsychologyPress.
Dell’Antonio,Andrew,editor.2004.BeyondStructuralListening:PostmodernModes
ofHearing.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Deutsch,Diana.1980.‘MusicPerception.’TheMusicalQuarterly66(2):165–79.
Dowling, W. Jay. 1989. ‘Simplicity and complexity in music and cognition.’
ContemporaryMusicReview4(1):247–53.
Drake, Carolynand Daisy Bertrand. 2003. ‘The Quest forUniversals in Temporal
Processing in Music.’ In The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music, edited by
IsabellePeretzandRobertJ.Zatorre,21–31.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Droit-Volet, Sylvie, and Warren H. Meck. 2007. ‘How emotions colour our
perceptionoftime.’TrendsinCognitiveSciences11(12):504–13.
Dubiel, Joseph. 2004. ‘Uncertainty, Disorientation, and Loss as Responses to
Musical Structure.’ In Beyond Structural Listening: Postmodern Modes of
Hearing, edited by Andrew Dell’Antonio, 173–200. Berkeley: University of
CaliforniaPress.
Duffalo, Richard. 1989. Trackings: Composers Speak with Richard Duffalo. New
York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Dufourt, Hugues. 1989.‘Music andcognitive psychology:Form-bearingelements.’
ContemporaryMusicReview4(1):231–36.
Dunsby, Jonathan 1981. Structural Ambiguityin Brahms: Analytical Approachesto
FourWorks.Michigan:UMIResearchPress.
Eagleman, DavidM. 2010. ‘Durationillusions andpredictability.’InAttention and
time, edited by Anna C. Nobre and Jennifer T. Coull, 151–62. New York:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Earman, John. 1970. ‘Space-Time, or How to Solve Philosophical Problems and
Dissolve Philosophical Muddles without Really Trying.’ The Journal of
Philosophy,67(9):259–277.
Egeland Hansen, Finn. 2006. Layers of Musical Meaning. Copenhagen: Museum
TusculanumPress.
255
Bibliography
Elbow, Peter. 2006. ‘The Music of Form: Rethinking Organization in Writing.’
CollegeCompositionandCommunication57(4):620–66.
Eliot,T.S.1944.FourQuartets.London:FaberandFaber.
Elliot,J.H.1929.‘BrahmsasSymphonist.’TheMusicalTimes,70(1036):554.
Elliott, Richard. 2011. ‘Public consciousness, political conscience, andmemory in
Latin American nueva canción.’ In Music and Consciousness: Philosophical,
Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives, edited by David Clarke and Eric
Clarke,327–39.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Epstein, David. 1985. ‘Tempo Relations: A Cross-Cultural Study.’ Music Theory
Spectrum,7:34–71.
_______. 1987. Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure. New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
_______. 1990. ‘Brahms and the Mechanisms of Motion: The Composition of
Performance.’ In Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives,
Papersdelivered atthe InternationalBrahmsConference Washington, DC, 5-8
May1983,editedbyGeorgeS.Bozarth,191–228.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
_______.1995.ShapingTime:Music,theBrain,andPerformance.NewYork:Schirmer
Books.
Erickson,Robert.1963.‘Time-relations.’JournalofMusicTheory7(2):174–92.
_______.1975.SoundStructureinMusic.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Evans, Edwin. 1935. Handbook to the Chamber and Orchestral Music of Johannes
Brahms:Secondseries,Op.68totheend.London:WilliamReeves.
Fachner, Jörg. 2011. ‘Drugs, alteredstates, andmusical consciousness: reframing
timeandspace.’InMusicand Consciousness:Philosophical, Psychological,and
CulturalPerspectives,editedbyDavidClarkeandEricClarke,263–76.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Ferrara, Lawrence. 1984. ‘Phenomenology as a Tool for Musical Analysis.’ The
MusicalQuarterly70(3):355–73.
Firmino, Érico Artioli, José Lino Oliveira Bueno, and Emmanuel Bigand. 2009.
‘Travelling ThroughPitchSpaceSpeeds upMusical Time.’ MusicPerception:
AnInterdisciplinaryJournal26(3):205–09.
Fish,Stanley.1976.‘Interpretingthe“Variorum”.’CriticalInquiry2(3):465–85.
Fisk,Charles.2001.ReturningCycles:ContextsfortheInterpretationof
256
Bibliography
Schubert’sImpromptusandLastSonatas.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press.
Forster,E.M.(1927)2005.AspectsoftheNovel.London:PenguinClassics.
Fox, Christopher. 2004. ‘Tempestuous Times:The Recent Music ofThomas Adès.’
TheMusicalTimes145(1888):41–56.
_______. 2014. ‘MultipleTime-ScalesinAdès'sRings.’PerspectivesofNewMusic 52
(1):28–56.
Fraser, Julius T. 1978. Time as ConUlict: A ScientiUic and Humanistic Study. Basel:
Birkhäuser.
_______.1985.‘TheArtoftheAudible“Now”.’MusicTheorySpectrum,7:181–84.
Friedman, William J. Abouttime: Inventingthe Fourth Dimension. Cambridge: MIT
Press,1990.
Frisch, Walter. 1982. ‘Brahms, Developing Variation, and the Schoenberg Critical
Tradition.’19th-CenturyMusic5(3):215–32.
_______. 1984. Brahmsandthe Principle ofDeveloping Variation. London: University
ofCaliforniaPress.
_______. 2000. ‘"You Must Remember This": Memory and Structure in Schubert's
StringQuartetinGMajor,D.887.’TheMusicalQuarterly84(4):582–603.
_______.2003.Brahms:TheFourSymphonies.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Frisch,WalterandAlfredBrendel.1989. ‘”Schubert’sLastSonatas”:AnExchange.’
New York Review of Books, 16 March, 1989. http://www.nybooks.com/
articles/1989/03/16/schuberts-last-sonatas-an-exchange/.
Gardner,John.1977.‘Sibelius7.’TheMusicalTimes118(1617):912.
Gay,Peter.1977.‘Aimez-vousBrahms?Re?lectionsonModernism.’Salmagundi36:
16–35.
Gentner, Dedre. 2001. ‘Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning.’ In Spatial
schemasin abstractthought, editedby MeridethGattis, 203–22. Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.
Gentner,Dedre,MutsumiImai,&LeraBoroditsky.2002.‘Astimegoesby:Evidence
for two systems in processing space–time metaphors’. Language and
CognitiveProcesses,17(5):537–565.
Goehr, Lydia. 1992. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the
PhilosophyofMusic.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
257
Bibliography
Gooddy, William. 1969. ‘Disorders of the Time Sense.’ In Handbook of clinical
neurology, edited by Pierre J. Vinken and George W. Bruyn, 229–50. New
York:Wiley.
_______.1977.‘TheTimingandTimeofMusicians.’InMusicandtheBrain,editedby
Macdonald Critchley and Ronald A. Henson, 131–40. London: William
HeinemannMedicalBooks.
Gray,Cecil.1934.Sibelius.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
_______.1935.Sibelius:TheSymphonies.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Greene,DavidB.1982.TemporalProcessesinBeethoven’sMusic.NewYork:Gordon
andBreach.
Grif?iths,Paul.1985.NewSounds,NewPersonalities:BritishComposersofthe1980s
inConversationwithPaulGrifUiths.London:FaberandFaber.
_____. 2014. Programme note on Thomas Adès, Tevot (2007). City of Birmingham
Symphony Orchestra, Thomas Adès (conductor), Symphony Hall,
Birmingham,11June,2014.17–19.
Grimes, Nicole. 2012. ‘The Schoenberg/Brahms Critical Tradition Reconsidered.’
MusicAnalysis31(2):127–75.
Grimley,Daniel M,editor.2004. TheCambridgeCompanion toSibelius.Cambridge,
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Grünbaum,Adolf.1973.PhilosophicalProblemsofSpaceandTime(Secondedition).
Boston:Reidel.
Gurvitch, Georges. 1964. The Spectrum of Social Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
PublishingCompany.
Hall, EdwardT. 1984. The Dance ofLife: The OtherDimension of Time. New York:
Doubleday.
Hanslick,Eduard.1957. TheBeautifulinMusic.TranslatedbyGustavCohen,edited
byMorrisWeitz.NewYork:TheBobbs-MerrillCompany.
Hargreaves, Jonathan. 2008.‘Music as Communication: Networks ofComposition,’
PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.
Hasty, ChristopherF. 1981a. ‘Rhythm inPost-Tonal Music: Preliminary Questions
ofDurationandMotion.’JournalofMusicTheory25(2):183–216.
_______. 1981b. ‘Segmentation and Process in Post-Tonal Music.’ Music Theory
Spectrum3:54–73.
258
Bibliography
_______. 1984. ‘Phrase Formation inPost-Tonal Music.’Journal ofMusic Theory 28
(2):167–90.
_______. 1986. ‘OntheProblem ofSuccessionandContinuityinTwentieth-Century
Music.’MusicTheorySpectrum8:58–74.
_______.1997.MeterasRhythm.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hatten,RobertS.1994.MusicalMeaninginBeethoven:Markedness,Correlation,and
Interpretation.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Hepokoski, James. 2009. Music, Structure, Thought: Selected Essays. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy. 2006. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms,
Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Hinckfuss,Ian.1975.TheExistenceofSpaceandTime.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
_______. 1988.‘AbsolutismandRelationisminSpaceandTime:A FalseDichotomy.’
TheBritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience39(2):183–92.
Hodges, DonaldA. andDavidC. Sebald. 2011. Musicin the Human Experience:An
IntroductiontoMusicPsychology.London:Routledge.
Horwich, Paul. 1978. ‘On theExistenceofTime, Space, andSpace-Time.’Noûs 12
(4):397–419.
_______. 1987. Asymmetriesin Time: Problemsin the PhilosophyofScience.London:
MITPress.
Howat, Roy. 2003. ‘Reading betweenthe lines oftempo and rhythm inthe B ?lat
Sonata, D960.’ In Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance Practice,
Analysis,editedbyBrianNewbould,117–138.Aldershot:Ashgate.
Howell, Peter, Ian Cross and Robert West, editors. 1985. Musical Structure and
Cognition.London:AcademicPress.
Howell, Tim. 1989. Jean Sibelius: Progressive Techniques in the Symphonies and
TonePoems.NewYork:GarlandPublishing.
_______. 2000. ‘Restricting the Flow: Elements of Time-scale in Sibelius’ Sixth
Symphony.’TijdschriftvoorMuziektheorie,5(2):89–100.
_______. 2001. ‘“Sibelius theProgressive.”’In SibeliusStudies, edited byTimothy L.
Jackson and Veijo Murtomäki, 35–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
259
Bibliography
_______.2013.‘Brahms,KierkegaardandRepetition:ThreeIntermezzi.’19th-Century
MusicReview10(1):101–17.
Howell, Tim, Jon Hargreaves and Michael Rofe, editors. 2011. Kaija Saariaho:
Visions,Narratives,Dialogues.Farnham:Ashgate.
Hubbard, Phil,RobKitchinandGillValentine,editors.2004. KeyThinkerson Space
andPlace.London:Sage.
Hugo,Victor.1982.LesMisérables. TranslatedbyNormanDenny.London:Penguin
Classics.
Husserl, Edmund. 1991. On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal
Time (1893–1917), translated by John Barnett Brough. Dordrecht: Kluwer
AcademicPublishers.
_______. 2014. ‘The Structure of Lived Time,’ translated by James Mensch. In
Subjective Time:ThePhilosophy,Psychology,andNeuroscience ofTemporality,
editedbyValtteriArstillaandDanLloyd,61–74.London:MITPress.
Hutchinson,Mark.2012.‘Rede?iningcoherence:interactionandexperienceinnew
music,1985-1995.’PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.
_______. 2016. Coherence in New Music: Experience, Aesthetics, Analysis. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Imberty, Michel. 1993. ‘How do we perceive atonal music? Suggestions for a
theoreticalapproach.’ContemporaryMusicReview,9:325–37.
Jackson,TimothyL.2001.‘Observationsoncrystallizationandentropyinthe
musicofSibeliusandothercomposers.’InSibeliusStudies,editedbyTimothy
L.JacksonandVeijoMurtomäki,175–272.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Jackson, Timothy L., and Veijo Murtomäki, editors. 2001. Sibelius Studies.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Johnson,Julian. 2015. OutofTime: Musicand the MakingofModernity. NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Johnson, Mark L. andSteveLarson. 2003: ‘”Something in the Way She Moves” –
MetaphorsofMusicalMotion.’MetaphorandSymbol18(2):63–84.
Johnson, Timothy A. 1994. ‘Minimalism: Aesthetic, Style, or Technique?’ The
MusicalQuarterly78(4):742–73.
260
Bibliography
Kantonen, Taito Almar. 1934. ‘The In?luence of Descartes on Berkeley.’ The
PhilosophicalReview43/5:483–500.
Karl, Gregory. 1997. ‘Structuralism andMusical Plot.’ Music Theory Spectrum, 19
(1):13–34.
Keil, Charles M. H. 1966. ‘Motion and Feeling Through Music.’ The Journal of
AestheticsandArtCriticism24(3):337–49.
Kellaris, JamesJ.,andRobertJ. Kent. 1992.‘Thein?luenceofmusiconconsumers’
temporal perceptions: Does time ?ly when you’re having fun?’ Journal of
ConsumerPsychology1(4):365–76.
Kellaris, James J., and Susan P. Mantel. 1996. ‘Shaping time perceptions with
background music: The effect of congruity and arousal on estimates of ad
durations.’PsychologyandMarketing,13(5):501–15.
Kerman,Joseph.1985.Musicology.London:FontanaPress.
Kierkegaard, Søren. 1983. Fearand Trembling, Repetition:Kierkegaard’sWritings,
VI.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Kinderman,William.1995.Beethoven.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kivy,Peter.2002.IntroductiontoaPhilosophyofMusic.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Knapp, Raymond.1989.‘TheFinaleofBrahms’sFourthSymphony:TheTaleofthe
Subject.’19th-CenturyMusic13(1):3–17.
Kogler,Susanne.2003.‘”Timelessness”and“ReleasedTime”–FranzSchubertand
Composition Today.’ In Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance
Practice,Analysis,editedbyBrianNewbould,89–100.Aldershot:Ashgate.
Korsyn, Kevin. 1999. ‘Beyond Privileged Contexts: Intertextuality, In?luence, and
Dialogue.’InRethinkingMusic,editedbyNicholasCookandMarkEverist,55–
72.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kramer, Jonathan D. 1973. ‘Multiple and Non-Linear Time in Beethoven’s Opus
135.’PerspectivesofNewMusic11(2):122–45.
_______.1978.‘MomentForminTwentiethCenturyMusic.’TheMusicalQuarterly64
(2):177–94.
_______.1981.‘NewTemporalitiesinMusic.’CriticalInquiry7(3):539–56.
_______. 1982. ‘Beginnings and Endings inWestern Art Music.’Canadia University
MusicReview3:1–14.
261
Bibliography
_______.1985.‘StudiesofTimeandMusic:ABibliography.’MusicTheorySpectrum7:
72–106.
_______. 1988. The Time ofMusic: New Meanings, NewTemporalities, NewListening
Strategies.NewYork:SchirmerBooks.
_______. 2004. ‘The Concept of Disunity and Musical Analysis.’ Music Analysis 23:
361–72.
Kramer, Lawrence. 1990. Music as Cultural Practice: 1800–1900. Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
_______. 1995. Classical Music and Postmodern Knowledge. Berkeley: University of
CaliforniaPress.
_______. 2002. Musical Meaning: Toward a Critical History. Berkeley: University of
CaliforniaPress.
_______. 2005. ‘Saving the Ordinary: Beethoven’s Ghost Trio and the Wheel of
History.’BeethovenForum12(1):50–81.
_______. 2007. WhyClassical Music Still Matters. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
_______.2010InterpretingMusic.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Lakoff, George. 1993. ‘The Contemporary Theory ofMetaphor.’ In Metaphor and
Thought (Second edition), edited by Andrew Ortony, 202–51. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lakoff,GeorgeandMarkJohnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Lalitte, Philippe, and Emmanuel Bigand. 2006. ‘Music inthe Moment? Revisiting
theEffectofLargeScaleStructures.’PerceptualandMotorSkills103:811–28.
Lam, Basil.1966.‘LudwigvanBeethoven.’InTheSymphony,VolumeOne:Haydn to
Dvořák,editedbyRobertSimpson,104–74.Aylesbury:PenguinBooks.
Langer, Susanne K. 1953. Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art Developed from
PhilosophyinaNewKey.London:RoutledgeandKeeganPaul.
Larson, Steve. 1997.‘TheProblemofProlongationin“Tonal”Music:Terminology,
Perception,andExpressiveMeaning.’JournalofMusicTheory41(1):101–36.
Larue, Jan, Eugene K. Wolf, Mark Evan Bonds, Stephen Walsh, Charles Wilson.
‘Symphony.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University
262
Bibliography
Press. Accessed 1 September, 2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/
subscriber/article/grove/music/27254.
Latham, Alan. 2004. ‘Edward Soja.’In KeyThinkerson Space andPlace, editedby
PhilHubbard,RobKitchinandGillValentine,269–74.London:Sage.
Laufer,Edward.2001.‘ContinuityandDesignintheSeventhSymphony.’InSibelius
Studies, edited by Timothy L. Jackson and Veijo Murtomäki, 352–90.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Layton,Robert.1965.Sibelius.London:J.M.DentandSons.
Le Poidevin, Robin andMurray Macbeath, editors. 1993. The PhilosophyofTime.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production ofSpace, translatedby Donald NicholsonSmith.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing.
_______. 2013. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and EverydayLife, translated byStuart
EldenandGeraldMoore.London:Bloomsbury.
Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.
London:MITPress.
Leman, Marc. 2008. Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. London:
MITPress.
Lewin, David. 1986. ‘Music Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes of Perception.’
MusicPerception:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal3(4):327–92.
Lewis, C.S. 1961. An Experiment in Criticism. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lippman, Edward A. 1984. ‘Progressive Temporality in Music.’ The Journal of
Musicology3(2):121–41.
Lochhead,Judy. 2016.ReconceivingStructure in ContemporaryMusic: NewToolsin
MusicTheoryandAnalysis.NewYork:Routledge.
Lockwood, Lewis. 1982. ‘”Eroica” Perspectives: Strategy and Design in the First
Movement.’InBeethovenStudies3,editedbyAlanTyson,85–106.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
London, Justin. 2004. Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of Musical Meter.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lushetich,Natasha.2014.Fluxus:ThePracticeofNon-Duality.Amsterdam:Rodopi.
263
Bibliography
Mailman, Joshua Banks. 2007. ‘Review of Repetition in Music: Theoretical and
MetatheoreticalPerspectivesbyAdamOckleford.’PsychologyofMusic,35(2):
363–375.
March, Daniel. 1997. ‘Beyond Simplicity: Analytical Strategies for Contemporary
Music,’PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.
_______. 2011. ‘From the Air to the Earth: Reading the Ashes.’ In Kaija Saariaho:
Visions, Narratives, Dialogues, edited by Howell, Tim, Jon Hargreaves and
MichaelRofe.3–14.Farnham:Ashgate.
Margulis, Elizabeth Hellmuth. 2005. ‘Review of Decentering Music: A Critique of
ContemporaryMusicalResearchbyKevinKorsyn.’PsychologyofMusic,33(3):
331–37.
Marston, Nicholas. 2000. ‘Schubert’s Homecoming.’ Journal of the Royal Musial
Association125(2):248–70.
Matthews,David.1993.‘LivingTraditions.’TheMusicalTimes134(1802):189–91.
Maus, Fred Everett. 1988. ‘Music as Drama’. Music Theory Spectrum, 10 (10th
AnniversaryIssue):56-73.
_______.1991.‘MusicasNarrative.’IndianaTheoryReview11:1–34.
_______.1997.‘Narrative, DramaandEmotioninInstrumentalMusic.’TheJournalof
AestheticsandArtCriticism55(3):293-303.
_______. 1999.‘ConceptsofMusicalUnity’. InRethinkingMusic,editedby Nicholas
CookandMarkEverist,171–92.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
McAdams, Stephen. 1989.‘Psychologicalconstraints onform-bearing dimensions
inmusic.’ContemporaryMusicReview4(1):181–98.
_______. 1999. ‘Perspectives on the Contribution of Timbre to Musical Structure.’
ComputerMusicJournal23(3):85–102.
McClelland, Ryan. 2009. ‘Brahms and the Principle of Destabilised Beginnings.’
MusicAnalysis28(1):3–61.
McTaggart, J.M.E. 1993. ‘TheUnreality ofTime.’In The PhilosophyofTime, edited
by Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 23–34. New York: Oxford
University Press. Originally publishedas ‘Time’inThe Nature ofExistence, ii
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1927).
Mellor, D.H. 1993. ‘The Unreality ofTense.’InThe PhilosophyofTime, editedby
Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 47–59. New York: Oxford
264
Bibliography
University Press. Originally published inReal Time (Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress,1981).
Mensch, James. 2014. ‘A Brief Account of Husserl’s Conception of Our
Consciousness of Time.’ InSubjective Time: The Philosophy, Psychology, and
NeuroscienceofTemporality,editedbyValtteriArstillaandDanLloyd,61–74.
London:MITPress.
Metzer, David. 2009. Musical Modernism at the Turn ofthe Twenty-First Century.
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Meyer, Leonard B. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of
ChicagoPress.
Micznik, Vera. 2001. ‘Music and Narrative Revisited: Degrees of Narrativity in
BeethovenandMahler.’JournaloftheRoyalMusicalAssociation126(2):193–
249.
Miller, Izchak. 1984.Husserl,Perception,andTemporalAwareness.Cambridge:MIT
Press.
Moisala,Pirkko.2009.KaijaSaariaho.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.
Molleson, Katie. 2015. ‘A composer fortheseason.’The Herald, 14January, 2015.
Accessed 1 September, 2016. http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/
13197029.A_composer_for_the_season/.
Morgan, Robert P. 2003. ‘The Concept of Unity and Musical Analysis.’ Music
Analysis22(1/2):7–50.
Mundle,C.W.K.1967.‘TheSpace-TimeWorld.’Mind76(302):264–69.
Murphy, Scott. 2009. ‘Metric cubes in some music of Brahms.’ Journal of Music
Theory53(1):1–56.
Murtomäki, Veijo. 1993.Symphonic Unity: The Development ofFormalThinking in
the Symphonies of Sibelius, translated by Henry Bacon. Helsinki, Studia
MusicologiaUniversitatisHelsingiensis.
Musgrave, Michael. 1979. ‘Schoenberg and Brahms: A study of Schoenberg’s
responsetoBrahms’s musicas revealedinhisdidacticwritingsandselected
earlycompositions.’PhDthesis,KingsCollegeLondon.
_______. 1983. ‘Brahms the Progressive: Another View.’ The Musical Times 124
(1683):291–94.
265
Bibliography
_______. 1990. ‘Schoenberg’s Brahms.’ In Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical
Perspectives, Papers delivered at the International Brahms Conference
Washington,DC,5-8May1983,123–138.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
_______, editor. 1999. The CambridgeCompanion toBrahms.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Nattiez,Jean-Jacques. 1990.‘CanOneSpeakofNarrativityinMusic?’Translatedby
KatharineEllis.JournaloftheRoyalMusicalAssociation15(2):240–57.
Newbould, Brian, editor. 2003. Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance
Practice,Analysis.Aldershot:Ashgate.
Newell,Robert.1976.‘FourTiersontheFoundationofTime.’InternationalReview
oftheAestheticsandSociologyofMusic7(2):147–74
Nice, David. 2013. ’St Lawrence StringQuartet, LSOStringOrchestra, Adams, LSO
St Luke’s.’ The ArtsDesk, 24January, 2013. www.theartsdesk.com/classicalmusic/st-lawrence-string-quartet-lso-string-orchestra-adams-lso-st-lukes.
Nobre,AnnaC., andJenniferT.Coull,editors. 2010.Attention andtime.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Norris, Christopher. 2005. ‘Music theory, analysis and deconstruction: How they
might (just) get along together.’ International Review of the Aesthetics and
SociologyofMusic,36(1):37–82.
Oakes, Steve. 2003. ‘Musical tempo and waiting perceptions.’ Psychology and
Marketing20(8):685–705.
Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps. 1996. ‘Narrating the Self.’ Annual Review of
Anthropology25:19–43.
Ockelford, Adam. 2004. ‘On similarity, derivation and the cognition of musical
structure.’PsychologyofMusic32(1):23–74.
_______. 2005. Repetition in Music: Theoretical and Metatheoretical Perspectives.
Aldershot:Ashgate.
Orlov, Henry F. 1979. ‘The Temporal Dimensions of Musical Experience.’ The
MusicalQuarterly65(3):368–78.
Osmond-Smith David. 1983. ‘The retreat from dynamism: a study of Brahms’s
Fourth Symphony.’ In Brahms: Biographical, documentary and analytical
studies,editedbyRobertPascall.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
266
Bibliography
Paddison, Maxand IrèneDeliège, editors. 2010. ContemporaryMusic: Theoretical
andPhilosophicalPerspectives.Farnham:Ashgate.
Pascall, Robert, editor. 1983. Brahms: Biographical, documentary and analytical
studies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
_______.1989.‘GenreandtheFinaleofBrahms’sFourthSymphony.’MusicAnalysis8
(3):233–45.
Panagiotidi, Maria and Stavroula Samartzi. 2010. ‘Time estimation: Musical
trainingand emotional contentofstimuli.’PsychologyofMusic 41 (5): 620–
629.
Parmet,Simon. 1959. The SymphoniesofSibelius:A Studyin Musical Appreciation.
London:Cassell.
Pasler, Jann.2008. ‘NarrativeandNarrativityinMusic.’InWritingThrough Music:
EssaysonMusic,CultureandPolitics.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Peretz,Isabelle, andRobertJ.Zatorre, editors. 2003.TheCognitiveNeuroscienceof
Music.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Pike,Lionel.1978.Beethoven,Sibeliusandthe‘Profoundlogic’:StudiesinSymphonic
Analysis.London:AthlonePress.
Pöppel, Ernst. 1978. ‘Time Perception.’ In Handbook of Sensory Physiology, III,
editedbyRichardHeld, HerschelW. LeibowitzandHans-LukasTeuber, 713–
29.Berlin:Springer.
Potter, Keith. ‘Minimalism.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . A c c e s s e d 2 2 F e b r u a r y , 2 0 1 3 , h t t p : / /
www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/40603.
Powell, Richard. 2014. ‘Accessible Narratives: Continuity in the Music of John
Adams.’ContemporaryMusicReview33(4):390–407.
Prior, ArthurN.1993. ‘Changesineventsandchangesinthings.’InThePhilosophy
of Time, edited by Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 203–20 New
York: OxfordUniversity Press. Originally publishedinPhilosophy37(1962):
130–47.
Quinton, Anthony. 1993. ‘Spaces andTimes’ in The PhilosophyofTime, editedby
Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 36–46. New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
267
Bibliography
Reynolds, Jack. 2004. ‘Chapter Six: Decision.’InUnderstanding Derrida, editedby
JackReynoldsandJonRoffe,46–53.London:Continuum.
Rice, Timothy. 2003. ‘Time, Place, and Metaphor in Musical Experience and
Ethnography.’Ethnomusicology47(2):151–79.
Rickards,Guy.1997.JeanSibelius.London:PhaidonPress.
Rijn, Hedderik van, and Niels A. Taatgen. 2008. ‘Timing of multiple overlapping
intervals:Howmanyclocksdowehave?’ActaPsychologica129(3):365–75.
RobbinsLandon,H.C.1974.Beethoven:ADocumentaryStudy.London:Thamesand
Hudson.
Roeder,John.1997.‘ReviewofMeterasRhythmbyChristopherF.Hasty.’Journalof
theSocietyforMusicTheory–MusicTheoryOnline4(4):1–6.
_______. 2006. ‘Co-operating Continuities in the Music of Thomas Adès.’ Music
Analysis25:121–54.
Rofe, Michael. 2008. ‘ShostakovichandtheRussianDoll: DimensionsofEnergy in
theSymphonies,’PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.
_______. 2011. ‘Capturing Time and Giving it Form: Nymphéa.’ In Kaija Saariaho:
Visions, Narratives, Dialogues, edited by Howell, Tim, Jon Hargreaves and
MichaelRofe.81–106.Farnham:Ashgate.
_______.2014.‘DualismsofTime.’ContemporaryMusicReview33(4):341–54.
Rosen, Charles. 1988. Sonata Forms: Revised Edition. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
_______. 1997. The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. London: Faber and
Faber.
Rostand,Claude.1955:Brahms:Volume2.Paris:ÉditionsLeBonPlasir.
Rowell, Lewis. 1979. ‘TheSubconscious Language ofMusical Time.’ Music Theory
Spectrum1:96–106.
_______.1990.‘ReviewofTheTimeofMusic:NewMeanings,NewTemporalities, New
Listening Strategiesby Jonathan D. Kramer’. Journal ofMusic Theory34(2),
348–59.
Rupprecht, Philip. 2005. ‘Above and beyond the Bass: Harmony and Texture in
GeorgeBenjamin'sViola,Viola.’Tempo59(232):28–38.
268
Bibliography
Saariaho,Kaija.2003. ProgrammenoteforJe sensun deuxième coeur. MusicSales.
Accessed 21 February, 2014. http://www.musicsalesclassical.com/
composer/work/14333.
Saariaho, Kaija and Tom Service. 2011. ‘Meet the Composer.’ In Kaija Saariaho:
Visions, Narratives, Dialogues, edited by Howell, Tim, Jon Hargreaves and
MichaelRofe.3–14.Farnham:Ashgate.
Said,EdwardW.2008.‘UntimelyMeditations(reviewofMaynardSolomon’sLate
Beethoven).’InMusicattheLimits:ThreeDecadesofEssaysandArticles.
London:Bloomsbury.
Saariaho, Kaija. 2000. ‘Matter and Mind in Music.’ In Matter and Mind in
Architecture,editedbyPirkkoTuukkanen.Helsinki:AlvarAaltoFoundation.
Saslaw, Janna. 1996. ‘Forces, Containers, and Paths: The Role of Body-Derived
ImageSchemasintheConceptualizationofMusic.’JournalofMusicTheory40
(2):217–43.
Schmalfeldt, Janet. 2011. In the Process of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical
Perspectives on Form in Early Nineteenth-Century Music. Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Schoenberg, Arnold. 1975a.Style and Idea:Selected writingsofArnoldSchoenberg,
edited by Leonard Stein and translated by Leo Black. London: Faber and
Faber.
_______. 1975b. ‘Brahms the Progressive.’ In Style and Idea: Selected writings of
ArnoldSchoenberg,editedbyLeonardSteinandtranslatedbyLeoBlack,398–
441.London:FaberandFaber
_______. 1994. Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in Form. Ed.
Severine Neff and trans. Charlotte M. Cross and Severine Neff. Nebraska:
UniversityofNebraska.
Schwarz,K.Robert.1996.Minimalists.London:Phiadon.
Sellars, Peter. 2012. ‘The Edge of Light: Music of Messiaen and Saariaho.’ Liner
notesforTheEdgeofLight:Messiaen/Saariaho.GloriaCheng(piano),Calder
Quartet.HarmoniaMundi,HMU907578,CD.
Sera?ine, MaryLouise.1984.‘TheDevelopmentofCognitioninMusic.’TheMusical
Quarterly70(2):218–33.
269
Bibliography
Service,Tom.2007.‘WritingMusic?It’slikeFlyingaPlane:TomServiceonThomas
Adès.’TheGuardian,26February,2007.Accessed1September2016, https://
www.theguardian.com/music/2007/feb/26/classicalmusicandopera.tomservice.
_______. ‘Minimalism at 50: how less became more’ The Guardian, 24 November,
2011. Accessed23 September 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/music/
2011/nov/24/minimalism-at-50.
_______.2012.‘Schubert:Ferocious,tender,sublime.’TheGuardian, 19March,2012.
Accessed 22 February, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/
mar/19/schubert-ferocious-tender-sublime.
Shakespeare, William, Jonathan Bate, and Eric Rasmussen. 2007. The RSC
Shakespeare:TheCompleteWorks.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Shanon, Benny. 2011. ‘Music and ayahuasca.’ In Music and Consciousness:
Philosophical,Psychological, andCulturalPerspectives,editedbyDavidClarke
andEricClarke,281–92.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sheldon, Deborah A. 1994. ‘Effects of Tempo, Musical Experience, and Listening
Modes on Tempo Modulation Perception.’ Journal of Research in Music
Education42(3):190–202.
Shields,Rob. 2004.‘HenriLefebvre.’InKeyThinkerson Spaceand Place,editedby
PhilHubbard,RobKitchinandGillValentine,208–13.London:Sage.
Shoemaker, Sydney. 1993. ‘Time Without Change.’ In The Philosophy of Time,
editedbyRobinLePoidevinandMurrayMacbeath,63–79.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.OriginallypublishedinTheJournalofPhilosophy66(1969),
363–81.
Simpson, Robert, editor. 1966a. The Symphony: Volume 1. Aylesbury: Penguin
Books.
_______.1966b.TheSymphony:Volume2.Aylesbury:PenguinBooks.
Sipe, Thomas. 1998. Beethoven: Eroica Symphony. Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Small, Christopher. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening.
Connecticut:WesleyanUniversityPress.
Smart,J.J.C.1949.‘TheRiverofTime.’Mind58(232):483–94.
Smith, F. Joseph. 1979. The Experiencing of Musical Sound: Prelude to a
PhenomenologyofMusic.London:GordonandBreach.
270
Bibliography
Smith, Neil Thomas. 2015. ‘Mathias Spahlinger's passage/paysage and “the
BarbarityofContinuity.”’ContemporaryMusicReview34(2–3):176–86.
Smith,PeterH.1994. ‘BrahmsandSchenker:A MutualResponsetoSonataForm.’.
InMusicTheorySpectrum16(1):77–103.
_______. 1996. ‘Youreap whatyousow: Someinstances ofrhythmic andharmonic
ambiguityinBrahms.’MusicTheorySpectrum28(1):57–97.
Soja,EdwardW.1989.PostmodernGeographies:TheReassertionofSpaceinCritical
SocialTheory.London:Verso.
_______. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined
Places.Oxford:BlackwellPublishers.
Spence, Charles. 2010. ‘Prior entry: Attention and temporal perception.’ In
Attention and time, edited by Anna C. Nobre and Jennifer T. Coull, 89–106.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Stambaugh, Joan. 1964. ‘Music as aTemporal Form.’The Journal ofPhilosophy61
(9):265–80.
Strickland, Edward.1991. AmericanComposers:Dialogueson ContemporaryMusic.
Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Stoecker, Philip. 2014. ‘Aligned Cycles in Thomas Adès’s Piano Quintet.’ Music
Analysis33(1):32–64.
Subotnik, Rose Rosengard. 1996. Deconstructive Variations: Music and Reason in
WesternSociety.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Swed,Mark.1989.‘JohnAdams.’TheMusicalTimes130(1761):662–64.
Swinkin,Jeffrey. 2012.‘Variationas ThematicActualisation:TheCaseofBrahms’s
Op.9.’MusicAnalysis31(1):37–89.
Tawaststjerna, Erik. 1986. Sibelius – Volume II:1904-1914, translated by Robert
Layton.London:FaberandFaber.
Taylor,Benedict.2016.TheMelodyofTime:MusicandTemporalityintheRomantic
Era.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Teller,Paul.1991.‘Substance,Relations,andArgumentsabouttheNatureofSpaceTime.’ThePhilosophicalReview100(3):363–97.
Tillmann, Barbara, andEmmanuel Bigand. 1996. ‘Does Formal Musical Structure
AffectPerceptionofMusicalExpressiveness?’Psychologyofmusic24:3–17.
271
Bibliography
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1978. ‘On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in
language.’InUniversalsofHumanLanguage,Volume3:WordStructure,edited
byJosephH.Greenberg,369–400.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Truscott,Harold. 1966.‘JeanSibelius(1865-1957).’InTheSymphony,VolumeTwo:
Elgar to the Present Day, edited by Robert Simpson, 80–103. Aylesbury:
PenguinBooks.
Tse, Peter Ulric. 2010. ‘Attention underlies subjective temporal expansion.’ In
Attention and time, edited by Anna C. Nobre and Jennifer T. Coull, 137–50.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Venn, Edward. 2014. ‘ThomasAdès’s“Freaky,Funky, Rave”.’MusicAnalysis33(1):
65–98.
_______. 2015. ‘Thomas Adès and the Spectres of Brahms.’ Journal of the Royal
MusicalAssociation140(1):163–212.
Wagner, Richard. 1988. Wagner on Music and Drama, A compendium ofRichard
Wagner’sprose works, selectedand arranged by Albert Goldman and Evert
Sprinchorn,andtranslatedbyH.AshtonEllis.NewYork:DaCapoPress.
_______. 2008. Beethoven. Translatedby William AshtonEllis. MiltonKeynes: Dodo
Press.
Walsh,Stephen.‘1901–18:Mahler,Sibelius,Nielsen,’in‘Symphony.’InGroveMusic
Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 31 August,
2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/
27254pg3#S27254.3.
Weber, William. 1994. ‘The intellectual origins of musical canon in eighteenthcenturyEngland.’JournaloftheAmericanMusicologicalSociety47:488–519.
_______. 1999.‘TheHistory ofMusical Canons.’InRethinkingMusic, editedbyMark
EveristandNicholasCook,336–55.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Weinert,Friedel.2013.TheMarch ofTime:Evolvingconceptionsoftime inthe light
ofscientiUicdiscoveries.London:Springer.
Weingard,Robert.1977.‘Space-TimeandtheDirectionofTime.’Noûs11(2):119–
31.
Wells, Dominic. 2012. ‘Plural Styles, Personal Syle: The Music of Thomas Adès.’
Tempo66(260):2–14.
272
Bibliography
Whittall, Arnold. ‘Form.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . A c c e s s e d 3 1 A u g u s t , 2 0 1 6 , h t t p : / /
www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/09981.
_______. 1999. ‘Autonomy/Heteronomy:The ContextsofMusicology.’InRethinking
Music, edited by Nicholas Cook and Mark Everist, 73–101. Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
_______. 2004. ‘The later symphonies.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Sibelius,
editedbyDanielM.Grimley,49–65.Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.
Williams, Alastair. 1995. New Music and the Claims of Modernity. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
_______.2001.ConstructingMusicology.Aldershot:Ashgate.
_______. 2012. ‘Constructing Meanings and Subjectivities in Music: Theories and
Practices.’ In Constructing the Historiography of Music: The Formation of
Musical Knowledge, edited by Sandra Danielczyk, Christoph Dennerlein,
Sylvia Freydank, Ina Knoth, Mathias Maschat, Lilli Mittner, Karina Seefeldt
andLisbethSuhrcke,227–40.Hildesheim:GeorgOlmsVerlag.
Williams,Rowan.1989.‘PostmodernTheologyandtheJudgementoftheWorld.’In
PostmodernTheology:Christian Faith in a PluralistWorld,editedbyFrederic
B.Burnham,92–112.NewYork:HarperCollins.
Wilson, Conrad. 2003. Notes on Beethoven: 20 Crucial Works. Edinburgh: Saint
AndrewPress.
Yamada, Kōun, trans. 2004. The Gateless Gate: The Classic Book of Zen Koans.
Boston:WisdomPublications.
Yuasa,Jōji.1993.‘TemporalityandI:FromtheComposer’sWorkshop.’Perspectives
ofNewMusic31(2):216–28.
Ziv, Naomi, and Elad Omer. 2010. ‘Music and time: the effect of experimental
paradigm,musicalstructureandsubjectiveevaluationsontimeestimation.’
PsychologyofMusic39(2):182–95.
Zwart, P.J. 1976. About Time:Aphilosophical inquiryinto the origin and nature of
time.Oxford:North-HollandPublishingCompany.
273