Theory and Practice JOURNAL OF THE MUSIC THEORY SOCIETY OF NEW YORK STATE July-December, 1985 DOUBLE TSSUE Volume 10, Numbers 1-2 IN COMMEMORATION OF THE SOTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF HEINRICH SCHENKER SCHENKERTAN TREORY IN AMERICA the Early Introductory articles Foreword. The Late Heinrich Schenker (1935). Heinrich Schenker's Contribution to Theory (1936) by Arthur Plettnerssssessesecseseeeateeestteeeteeeeceeartecae esse eeeatee 3 ‘The Role of Heinrich Schenker (1933) by Israel Citkowitz... Heinrich Schenker and Musical Form (1943) by Frank Knight Dale..sssccsesecreeseccensseeeeseeeseeeeteeeseeeser ences 23 The Music Teacher's Dilemma (1935) by Hans Weisse, : Heinrich Schenker's Approach to Detail (1946) by William J. Mitchell.sesesececeecccrneecreneeenetsececsseeeeeestoeetee a9 Musical Synthesis as Expounded by Heinrich Schenker (1935) by Arthur Waldeck and Nathan Broder.s.ssseeeeseeeeceececeseecneeseee sree! 63 Heinrich Schenker's Method of Analysis (1935) by Adele T. Katzecssseceseserenssecerasaeceeeteetsteseeceesseeeestenesee 75MUSIC THEORY SOCIETY OF NEW YORK STATE Board of Directors John Hanson, President Pamela Poulin, Vice-President Mary I, Arlin, Secretary Saul Braverman, Treasurer Francis Brancaleone Richard Hermann Judith Lochhead Margaret Scheppach ‘THEORY AND PRACTICE Prepared jointly by the Music Theory Society of New York State and the Students' Theory Consortium of the Ph.D. Program in Music at the Graduate School of the City University of New York Editor Channan Willner Associate Editor Frank Samarotto Bditors-at-large Larry Laskowski Hedi Siegel Editorial Committee Francis Brancaleone Richard Brooks Eleanor Cory Harold Lewin Bruce McKinney gill Pollack articles Editors Robert Estrine David Gagné Deborah Kessler Jesse Rosenberg gdenek D. Skounal Mark Stevens Reviews Editor Sleanor Cory Production Linnéa Johnson Membership in the Music Theory Society of New York State includes a subscription to Theory and Practice, which is published twice a year. Annual dues are $10 ($5 for students or retired faculty, $15 for joint husband and wife membership). Subscriptions for institutions are $10. Requests for membership or subscription should be addressed to: Mary I. Arlin, Secretary, Music Theory Society of New York State, School of Music, Tthaca College, Ithaca, New York 14850. © 1986 by the music Theory society of New York State TSN 0741-6156 eA FS HIRE EBL GEE Om AREECeR ST ORE weSCHENKERIAN THEORY IN AMERICA ME EARLY INTRODUCTORY ARTICLESppFOREWORD Some fifty years have passed since the death of Heinrich Schenker in Vienna in January, 1935, years that have seen the gradual transformation of Schenker's theories from an obscure language, spoken by few, to a vernacular tongue. This ‘turnabout has of course taken place mostly in the United States, and for good reason, The emigration of Schenker's most eminent followers -- Oswald Jonas, Ernst Oster, and Felix salzer toward the end of the thirties made it possible for the young tradition of linear analysis to continue in the New World and helped pave the way for its popularization later on. But there were other, less obvious circunstances that surrounded the absorption of the new discipline in this country as well, circumstances that in the long run also helped foster the warm hospitality that Schenkerian analysis was later to find here.* Word of Schenker's path-breaking work in theory and in analysis had arrived in the United States well in advance of the arrival of the émigré Schenkerians. In 1931, Hans Weisse, who was one of Schenker's foremost students and with whom some Americans had studied in Vienna, came to New York with the specific purpose of teaching Schenkerian analysis (as well as theory and composition) at the David mannes School. Only two years later, in 1933, the Mannes School sponsored the publication of Schenker's Funf Urlinie-Tafeln (Five Graphic Music Analyses),** Thus there was a true, if largely symbolic, overlap between the final -- and most dramatic -- stages of Schenker's work in Vienna and the beginnings of its dissemination in the States.*** One tends to forget just how difficult those beginnings were. Musicology was still in its infancy: the first chair in musicology was not established until 1930, at Cornell, and the American Musicological Society was founded only in *For a more detailed account and interpretation of the advent of Schenkerian analysis in the United States see William Rothstein, “The Americanization of Heinrich Schenker," In Theory Only, Vol. IX, No. 1 (Maxch, 1986), pp. 5-17. ‘tHeinrich Schenker, Fiinf Urlinie~Tafeln (New York: The David Mannes School, 1933} reprinted under the title Five Graphic Music Analyses (New York: Dover Publications, 1969). ***In this connection it is interesting to note that Schenker had in his possession a handwritten translation of Israel Citkowitz's article, "The Role of Heinrich Schenker," one of the articles reproduced in the present issue of Theory and Practic1934; there was certainly no equivalent to the present-day Society for Yusic Theory.* The academic setting in which Schenkerian analysis was eventually to flourish thus simply not yet exist. Moreover, the community of musicologists and theorists showed fierce resistance to an analytical method that it found either too abstract** or excessively technical.*** Although harmony (and, to a much lesser degree, counterpoint) was taught with a measure of comprehensiveness at conservatories, colleges, and universities, there was no tradition of theoretical thinking and analytical investigation here even remotely comparable to the European tradition. This may have made things difficult for the Schenkerians at first, but it may well have, froma larger perspective, been a blessing in disguise. The relative youth of music theory in America meant that it was not nearly as cemented a discipline as it was in Europe: new trends were of course likely to meet with resistance, but they ultimately had a decidedly better chance of survival and growth than did similar trends in Europe. And so it was that Schenkerian analysis eventually did attain a central position in the study of music in this country. Even back in the thirties and forties, though, there already was a good deal of curiosity on the part of educated musicians regarding the more revolutionary aspects of Schenker's work, especially the concepts of the Urlinie and Ursatz and Schenker's unique graphic notation, It was probably this curiosity that triggered the publication of several introductory articles designed to familiarize the American musician with Schenker's most fundamental concepts and terms. These are the articles we have chosen to reprint in our special anniversary volume of Theory and Practice, a volume commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Schenker's death. Many of these articles are of course the work of émigré European writers, but they surely represent part of the American -~ rather than the Suropean ~~ Schenkerian heritage, While essentially undertaking to introduce the reader to Schenker's fundamental concepts, their authors also take it upon themselves to discredit the prevailing approach to the study of theory and the methods used in teaching theory. Missing to some degree is consideration of the deeper purpose of Schenker's work: the artistic re-creation of the composer's intentions vis-a-vis the guiding ideas embodied in each tonal masterwork by *A historiography of musicology as an academic discipline is given in Ri Crawford, "the American Musicological Society 1934-1984: An Anniversary Essay," published in the form of a pamphlet by the Society in celebration of its 50th anniversary (Philadelphia, 1984). hard **see, for example, Roger Sessions, “Escape by Theory," Modern Music, Vol, XV, No. 3 (March-April, 1938), pp. 192-97; reprinted in Roger Sessions on Music, edited by Edward T, Cone (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), Pp. 256-62, ‘**See Paul Henry Lang, Editorial, The Musical Quarterly, Vol. XXXII, No. 2 (April, 1946), pp. 296-302.means of large-scale relations between noncontiguous tones. But these articles do contain much invaluable information, information whose presentation here could even today prove most helpful both to those who want to find out something about the nuts and bolts of Schenker's theories and to those faced with the rather daunting task of teaching Schenker in the classroon. Not only is this information, as presented, largely accurate; even in its somewhat simplified form, it contains much that is of lasting value. And the articles show a refreshing immediacy, not often recaptured in later publications, that clearly reflects their authors' excitement over their own discovery of Schenker and their desire to share this discovery with other musicians. It is unlikely that we shall see similar articles written and published in the coming decades, at least not in America, Schenker's name is something of a household word now, and his works are gradually being made available in English translation; as a result, such articles can no longer be considered original scholarly work.* In offering the readers of Theory and Practice this collection of Schenkerian articles we hope that it will once again becone possible for those who wish to know more about Schenker's work to avail themselves of the useful information they contain. Despite their age, these articles should well serve students and scholars alike for generations to come. Channan Willner ‘the last and surely most influential of these articles was Allen Forte's classic overview of Schenkerian theory, “Schenker's Conception of Musical Structure,” Journal of Music Theory, Vol. III, No. 1 (April, 1959), pp. 1-307 it has already been reprinted, in Readings in Schenker Analygis and Other Approaches, edited by Maury Yeston (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), Pp. 3-37. Much the same point, regarding the evident decrease in the number of explanatory articles and the corresponding increase in the appearance of analytical studies is made by David Beach in his recent survey, “The Current State of Schenkerian Research,” Acta Musicologica, Vol. LVII, No. 2 (July-December, 1985), pp. 275-307) see especially pp. 275-76. Beach's earlier "Schenker Bibliographies" remain basic to any chronology of Schenkerian analysis in this country. See Journal of Music Theory, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), pp. 2-37 (zeprinted in Yeston, Readings in Schenker Analysis, pp. 275-311); and Journal of Music Theory, Vol. XXIII, No. 2 (Fall, 1975), pp. 275-86. ~The New York Times (Pebruary 3, THE LATE HEINRICH SCHENKER 1H! recent death of Dr. Hein- na, was the loss of one of the most! serious and significant musical, symphonies of Beethoven end the in the works of the great masters organio life of a composition—its different lines, motives and devel- Copyright ¢ 1935) ertical" but also from a ‘hor! * standpoint. This new per- spective, which deals with the way fn which the genius works, con- siste In the transformation of a chord (Tonraumtone-space) as 8 vertical entity Jato horizontal suc- ceasions. Thus tonality appears (0 be the life of one tone which un- folds itself throughout » composi tion, According to hls discovery, the usual conceptions af harmony, counterpoint and form have under- gone @ radical change, as demon- strated in his three volumes, "Har- ‘Kontrapunkt" and Satze” and In "Da Melsterwerk in der Musik."* His coi ceptions of the musical form may be found In. bis many sketches and diagrams of various works by such masters as J. 8, Bach, Handel Scarlattl, Haydn, Mozart, Beetho- ven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, &c. Schenker was not only a great teacher, but through ble original ‘thought he opened new horizons in modern music, tracing Its formal tendencies tar back into receding centuries. Among Schenker’ pupils were Vrieslander, Hermann Roth, J. Petrle Dunn and Hany Welsse, 1938 by The New York Times Company. now living and teaching in this city, Reprinted by permission.ARTHUR PLETTNER Arthur Plettner was a performing musician -- a flutist and conductor -- rather than a theorist or musicologist, and his report on Schenker maintains, appropriately, a healthy distance from the passions of Schenkerian work proper. As it happens, it is perhaps this very distance that enables Plettner to communicate a broad, at times visionary view of Schenkerian theory and the future for its dissemination in the United States. Several major aspects of Schenker's work are dealt with here including its aesthetic, psychological, and purely musical ramifications -- and the strengths and weaknesses of its analytical apparatus are surveyed with a good degree of fairness. The accuracy of Plettner's report is particularly remarkable in view of the report's early date (1936), the relative obscurity of Schenker's work in the United states at the time, and the welter of misrepresentation that Schenker's ideas kad already begun to suffer at the hands of both friends and foes. One passage, in particular, from the last section of Plettner's report, merits quoting in this regard: His work, his challenging ideas, will form the starting point for many new investigations. Schenker's name will go down in the history of music theory for having called attenticn to a problem that all too long had been allowed to remain in the dark, and for devoting his work to its solution,Musical America, Vol. LVI, No. 3 (February 10, 1936), pp. 14, 136 HEINRICH SCHENKER’S CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY Viennese Scholar Sought Broader Base for Analysis of Composition By AntHUR PLerrNER URING the month of May, 1935, the “Sunday editions ot" New York newspapers. reported the passing into another world of the Vien Nese music theorist, Heinrich Schenker. His obituary did ‘not seem to be of great significance t0 the average music fover and active musician in the United States, and yet'a small circle of serious uusielans in this country is realizing hat the work of Heinrich Schenker ‘nay be of farsreachiag. importance to the future development of theory. For- lunately, the third and last volume of Heinrich Schenker's main work,” the ‘Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phan= tasien’ (Viena: Universal Edition), was completed and already in the hands of the printer at the tine of his death, This last volume, in a way, is the syn thesis and systematic presentation of the ideas developed in ins. previous. works, Alreaily the principles enunciated in Schenker writings have found, of one side, devoted adherents, willing to ac cept without question the new doeivines, 2nd, on the other side, seoffers and erit- ies, who can see little gain to composi- tion and the theory ot music im these teachings, which, they claim, are far too involved and abstruse. OF course, suet one-sided and diametrically op: posed valuations of a new theory hardly portray the real situation, The foliow- Ing Tines, therefore, are intended to give fan impartial account of some of Schen- kkee’s aims and contributions to. the Science of musie, as outlined in his Jast book, Vol. Lf, ‘Der Freie Satz’ (Free Composition). ‘Throughout his writings, Schenker subjects the existing books on harmony, counterpoint and fore, and the prevail ing methods of musical analysis to a searching criticism. He finds that though the existing systerrs eat of {50- fated features of sical composition chord-progressions, the combining of “Gcounterpoint), manipotation Of motives, formal patteros like phrases, periods, two ane three: part forms, no” Wire fet be foun nthe 3 eae ian, deseribing the joining of all these ‘contributing cements inte a coberent, organie whol, Seeks Mystery of Genius Music theory, he elaims, describes and ‘enumerates ouly features easily observed by the eye on the surface of composi tions. In analysis, figures are_ written tunder chords in endless succession, mo- tives and themes are isolated for dis- ‘cussion and their appearances and trans~ formations during a piece of music are recorded year in and year out by stu- dents under the watch ul eyes of theory teachers, and still, the factors causing the differences between the marvelous coherence and organic continuity of masterworks and the patchwork com- positions of lesser composers remain a mystery. This problem, however, is fone of prime importance to Schenker, and (0 its solution he devotes his eiforts ‘One may try to explain such differ- ‘ences as being those between genius and mere talent. But that is just stating the enigma in different language: it is not an explanation, The answer to this Reprinted by kind permission of Musical Anerica/High Fidelity. uu12 question, Schenker reasons, must be tound by a closer investigation of the rasterworks, by a_search for forces giving a composition direction and nity. These forces may not be di cernible to the superficial observer and rust be looked for beneath the outside appearance of music. .\ structural back- ground is to be found. These diffculties confronting musi- cians are by no means unique in the ‘theory of music. Investigators in other fiells of research find themselves in tmuch the same position, The eminent psychologist, Wundt, says clearly that “the most exhaustive description of the ‘tems that make up a perception could not yield a description of the qualities ot properties of the perception as a whole.” And the following quotations from Grif fith’s ‘General Introduction to Psy- chology’ deals with the same probler, “since no mere collection of iteins can ever be more than a collection, the tinique qualities of the wholes in mental lites say the perception of a melody, of 4 picture, or the solution of a problem, rust issue from the creative power of Some special agency. It must be that mental life should be sleseribed in terms Of wholes, properties of wholes, in terms Of the total patterns. of configurations ‘which nature herselt has produced The similarity of thought between these quotations and the following sen- tenee, translated from Schenker's last book,” is indeed worthy of attention, “Therefore, is it not futile to attempt the ereation of an organic, living work of art by linking together successions of tones withent a background?” He even more explicit in the following sen- fences, “The background in the srt of painting is visible, therefore it needs neither justification nor explanation That a tmusical art-work also Mas. a background and middle-ground a8 the indispensable prerequisite for an ot- ganic foreground or surface, was un- known to this day, and this work intro duces the concept for the first time... . Even a little bouquet requires some ser blance of order; leading lines, enabling the eye to take in the whole with the least of effort. The ear also requires some sort of guiding lines, and that even more, as it is, so to say, a younger organ than the eye.” Other Arts More Accessible One can readily see from these quota- tions, taken at random from his last fwook, what tase ne lias. set himself. Schenker endeavors to discover th ture of the background in compositions of lasting merit, and then to formulate his findings clearly and yet with sull- cieut Rewiilitg, so they may fit a. gceat variety of types in music. The path of such an investigation is beset with many obstacles, ad one can unverstand that more readily if one Keeps in mind that ‘the, ear is a younger organ than the eyes” music a” much more lately de- veloped art than ‘either poetry, drama, painting, sculpture or architecture, ‘The uiding principles in. other arts are Inore accessible to investigation, they seein to have ‘more i common with btenomena of everyday life, Even in the psychological Iaboratory more efforts are devoted to experiments investigating phenotena. ia. the visual field. ‘Gestalt psychology has heen able to prove in_ numerous experiments the presence of forces influeneing good cone ity, background and Ggure organiea- tion in the visual Geld, but hardly any information is available on forces and ‘organizations active in the aural Geld Tis not surprising, then, that music is considered the most elusive and imma: terial of all artsARTHOR PLETINER Arthur Plettner studied nd ute at Conservatory” of Musie, Wirzburg, had fellowships, three years in ste! Julliard Graduate School, studying conducting with Aibert Stocveel Hie has been ac: tive in light opera both as conductor 2d choranmanter and ‘has. played Hue in ayeaphon orchestras Hla renestral ersion “of Mac: Dowell's "Firesig Tales was formed at the last Worcester’ Festi val ea, MUSICAL ‘AMERICA.4 In onder to find unifying principles, Schenker changes. the, traditional concept of consonant ads,” The tals, aecoed- ing to his ideas, are not necessary re- Sircted to, making their appearance ‘as vertical units (or slightly modified in ar~ peggio form), but the notes of a. triad tray be spread out in time, thereby creat- ing a space in the realm of tone and tine In this way the sensation of unity which is generally associated with the concept of consouant tras, is employed to give cabererce to larger groups of tone-suces- sions, The notes s0 separated. are linked by chains of passing notes, to which, in turn, consonant imervals are_alded"3c- cording to the laws of striet counterpoint, thereby. creating "new consonant spaces, which again open up new possibilities for the employment of passing notes. ‘The re sulting strctore is further elaborated hy the ition of sper, tert anporgiaturas, ete; and by further diller citation and_ detail work the composition takes on its fal form, ‘One can sce that in this way all sue- ceeding chords and melodic lines are the result not of wilful arrangement by the composer, but grow ot of simple begin- ning’, giving the whole logic and unity. Toe concent of tonality becomes a much snore extended one than heretofore: it brings in ine many plienomea which had to be explained by movaltion in the old Schools, "Schenker devises ingenious and elaborate analytical charts (Urlinientfein) of masterworks in oder to substantiate his ideas and ilustrate bow long sections in music are unified by, and subject to, the forces ‘inherent. in. comparatively sinple consonant progressions wel i fun Serve the faws of trict coorterpoint “These tines are only Intended to inte duce to the reader Sehenker's approach to the problem, ax am adeyuate expesition of Is fystem ‘couldnt he atcmpted Ss shorts space,” ‘The langease fers ata) tors core te a te few terme introduced by fume oro Fad readily "othe efforts of the. tran Teor, 's tera translation wou ob ens of much ofthe. seniicance hl sean tehich they pases in the original Geran Some Shortcomings It is not surprising that this new theory. whieh ig so dehnitely opposed to many fea tures of the traditional teachings, hae been the object of much adverse criticism, Tt must be admitted that’ Schenker’ systen hhag some obvious sliorteomings, and his Rede dmigere wil Raye afl tine explaining them away. Tt appears: strange toa liberaleminded. mosiian 0 Rind the many beautiful works of sixteenth century Composers dismiseed! as pricy of a ‘immature musical era, and therefore ene tirely neglected in ‘his theories. Wagner and Debussy are the targets of many tere stating and irate remarks in his. writ ings, vet it is doubtfsl whether the musical ‘world would be: willing to. give up Wage her's ‘Tristan’ and Debussy’ "Afternoon Faun." A theory of lasting value should Somehow ibe able to include these works, And if the question is"asked, whether the new teachings of ‘Schenker ‘could. be in Urodoced. in their present state into the classroom ‘and fe of benefit to. the youn stalent, the answer must be @ decided 10, as his methods of presenting his ideas very often detract from their genuine value and Stand in the way of fture.dissemina- tion ‘Many pages of his writings are marred by lapses into biter politcal tirades and racial discussions which simply are out of place in works of this nature.” Though he Emphasizes more than once that the un derstanding of bis teachings wil inform a performer as to the one and only authori {ative interpretation according to the i= tentions of the composer, itis also never made clear throughout the whole work in exactly what way his methods of analy- sis will leat this particular kind of in- sight. Tt might prove to be very dull in- deed” if) Beethoven's Exot’ Symphony Should be interpreted, forall times to come andy all conductors, in one way only Work of Paramount Influence Ta site of these shortcomings, the work ‘the opinion of the writer will be of paramount influence to the fu ture development of music theory. Never again should texthooks be written with the taiveté shown heretofore. The synthesis of all the elements contributing te 2 composi- tion must rectve systematic attention. ‘The time will come, when more will be expected of the theory’ teacher than to point out with smug. self-sufficiency how Bach fas sed and inverted a short motive in Two: fart Invention No. 1. Schenker points out ‘that the compositions of the extreme mod- ernists are not so much a reaction against the music of the pastas a reaction against the theories of the past, Tt seems that the period of extreme experimentation in amuse ie drawing toa close. "Serious ef forts are again being made to write music that is not primarily destined to. shock the lstener"and” ain for the commorer_ the aan or the como gen 4 master Iusial synthesis, to recognize and struggle ‘with the forces making for coherence and Organization in must Sincerity and Devotion One cannot help but admire the sincerity neste "hit! Heit" Sener ought to his" sell-appeited tasks” the Spun of mae Sralyeed his wets fives proof" of never tring “cea Bis Sore, Be challenging idan wil form the arting point (or many new investigation Schenker ‘name wil go down i he 9 tory of mate theory for having aed a icon (0 problem that all to long. ed len alowed tp remain inthe dave aed oe ‘vodng ts if wore tos seh ‘Thou Sehenker was very much op- posed to modern mutes whieh he conse Ered as having only destructive lendeqcen the period‘ experimentation has fel ot rev means of preston mich ony aya to fake thelr places n'a raboealtyten apd iy there's fn eqns ihe methols.propneed by ‘Schenker are Sanableof Feng enlarged Yo stron exer tint they may" serve to fring ‘onde to what Seer tus ehaon The ime i ripe Fine what are our proiinent theories fo ing? "hey are eying. to adape theo ‘heeedted ate for stents ith met tales of Kindergarten gesRAEL CITKOWTTZ A composer, journalist, and, above all, piano teacher, Russian-born Israel Citkowitz studied Schenkerian theory essentially on his own, (As a promising young composer, he studied with Nadia Boulanger during the 1930s.) His essay on Schenker is more a report on the essence of Schenker's theories than a detailed treatment of his analytical system. Of particular interest here is the emphasis Citkowitz places on Schenker's life-long belief in a closely-knit, organic network of relationships that was to be found at the root of all artistic musical phenomena, a belief that impelled Schenker forward during decades of analytical study. Yet it is equally important to keep in mind -- as Citkowitz, ever the practical performing musician, points out -- that Schenker's achievement hinged, in perhaps even greater measure, on his purely musical instincts and on the unmatched artistic insight with which he approached the issues of voice leading and tonal design. 15Modern Music, Vol. XI, No. 1 (November-Decenber, 1933), THE ROLE OF HEINRICH SCHENKER ISRAEL CITKOWITZ RIGINALLY the function of the theorist was to systema- tize the manifold musical experiences of his own times and make them accessible as a discipline. In most cases the composer himself was the medium to formulate the musical materials of his age for the use of the young musician, This eminently prac- tical function of theory made for clarity and precision. Music was a practise, and its ablest practician, the composer, was the logical person to go to for a clear understanding of that practise. There were of course theorists whose efforts were not directed to this purpose, These gentlemen pursued their activities within that dusty mid-region of abstruse reasonings which we in latter days have unfortuately come to regard as the proper sphere for theorists. But these proceedings did not enter into nor disturb as yet the close rapport between theory and practise. This equi- librium has nowhere been so admirably manifested as in the musical culture of the eighteenth century; and Philipp Emanuel Bach’s Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Klavier zu spielen is per- haps the purest example of the vital discipline of those days. By the middie of the nineteenth century however, it is evident that the delicate and organic relation of theory to practise had gradually ceased to exist. Theory became more and more refractory and lost the transparency that once enabled the ap- Prentice to pass simply and naturally from precept to applica- tion, One could trace historically this deepening cleft between theory and practise but that would be a study in itself. It suffices for our purposes to indicate the fantastic cancerlike growth of theoretical speculation that took place once the divorce was complete between theory and the body of living music that con- stitutes its real subject matter. Reprinted by kind permission of the League ISCM, U.S. Section. pp. 18-23 a718 Under the vicious guidance of such “theory” every impor- tant element of technic was sapped of the vital nourishment that even the merest discipline must afford the student, Har- mony—that powerful keystone on which every factor of mu- sical construction must come to bear was reduced to an aggre- gation of chord-connections, starting with the simplest and working up systematically to the more complex, Naturally there was always room for still more complicated chord-con- nections to tack onto the scheme, Ultimately it resembled a sort of harmonic tape-worm whose monstrous growth was supposed to parallel the developing resources of harmony. Form likewise became a pitiful little patch-work, and the music of Haydn and Mozart was commended to the student for the dexterity with which the seams were joined. The delicacy and precision of their profoundly organic forms was assumed to be mere “formalism,” and Beethoven, since the organic in his forms is inescapable—even to “theorists”—was set up against them as the “man who freed music.” It is obvious that these successive deposits of fallacious theory had the effect of form- ing a “vile and loathsome crust” about the body of music that made access to the vital problems of technic extremely difficult if not impossible. If a Brahms could say that his studies suf- fered unbelievably for this very reason, how baffling must these same obstructions be to the lesser gifted! 1. The responsibility then, that faced musical thought at the end of the nineteenth century was of crucial importance. The threefold range of the problem made a solution as difficult as it was pressing. There was first of all the necessity of restoring to musical theory the consciousness that its starting point and its terminus too, are strictly ex post facto, after the fact of ar- tistic creation, Proceeding on this basis there was then the really Herculean labor of clearing away the accumulated mass of error. Finally there was the task, essentially constructive, of evolving from artistic facts a body of valid technical pria- ciples that would furnish the student and the musician at large with an insight into the workings of musical creation. That was the scope of the task. And if according to Blake greatthings are done when men and mountains meet, then the moun- tain in this case may surely be said to be the historical respon- sibility of the task as we have just outlined it—and the man born to meet this responsibility Heinrich Schenker. In times of great outer confusion and crisis there are many who attempt to rise to the occasion. In the realm of ideas and of art however, the crisis is always less apparent. And so we may say that at the beginning of the twentieth century a huge mountain filled the musical horizon, and that strangely enough, its existence was absolutely ignored. Schenker’s vision was unique in that it pierced through the excited confusion of his times, through all the glittering prospects that a new period of modernity and “progress” seemed to hold forth. Under those circumstances his isolation was only too natural. Here was a man who insisted on seeing mountains and meeting them, while every other theorist worked in the midst of a thick kaleido- scopic jelly that filled the eye so pleasingly and assumed so very readily every possible shape that a new theory might wish it to assume. From the very beginning Schenker worked with a definite sense of the responsibility before him. Coming to Vienna as a youth in the late ’80’s he attached himself with an eager and vital reverence to the music of those masters whose memory is so intimately bound up with that city. A wonderful instinct, an intensely alive apprehension of classic music guided Schen- ker through the theoretical mazes of his time. Brahms said of his earliest writings (criticisms in some newspaper) that only young Schenker knew how to write about music. When it came to preparing his first work (the Harmonielehre, 1906) this solidly rooted basis in the actuality of classic music guaranteed the vitality of his approach. With the Harmonielefre the na- ture and course of all his future activity were clearly defined. In Vienna today Schenker is still engaged in rounding out a lifework that for cohesiveness and integrity is equalled only by the achievements of those men of genius to whose creations he has devoted all his energies and gifts. But it was more than a question of possessing this or that musical and intellectual gift. A vigorous and subtle mind, a 1g20 wonderful ear, an amazing comprehension of the inmost thoughts of the composer, these Schenker possesses. With these qualities alone he would have made invaluable contributions to the task before him. But they would have remained contri- butions and no more. Schenker however, saw to the very core of his problems, and brought their solutions to a definiteness and a depth that make his work a landmark in the history of music. What fundamental quality is it then that welds all the elements of his vision into an intense whole? What sets it so far above the plane of the mere apercu? The answer to this lies in a very profound and deep-rooted attitude towards the realities of musical creations. Stated barely, this attitude may seem rather obvious, but that is far from the case. His position consists in the belief that the configuration of harmonies, mel- odies, phrases, etc. that go to make up a musical form can neither be regarded as a series of adventitious or arbitrary events, nor strung on the thread of some preconceived schema. These events must obey their own laws, and to bring these laws to light is the task of the theorist. 2 Schenker from the very first carried with him this intimate conviction. It is the conviction that directed, deepened and extended the scope of his work. The fact that there were no grounds in previous theory for such a belief, the fact that the motive power of his tremendous activity was solely in his deeply-rooted and inexpugnable belief that all the detailed oc- currences in a master-work could be related organically, does not in any way impair the objective validity of his conclusions. In just that same way a faith in the order of nature made possi- ble the growth of science. It can easily be seen that such a faith, far from satisfying itself with any interposed and tradi- tional theories, goes directly to the facts, absorbs them passion- ately and vehemently, and forges every idea, as William James Put it, in the teeth of these same irreducible and stubborn facts, Schenker’s Harmonielehre is the first important fruit of his faith, Throughout this book a wonderful balance is maintained between the detailed facts as they exist in the music of the mas-ters, and the general laws that are embodied in them. An in- tensely vivid apprehension of harmonic forces at work, their biologic functioning as it were, gives the book a concreteness, an immediate applicability in the field of composition that makes it a worthy successor to Bach’s Versuch, Every further development of Schenker’s is implicit in the Harmonielehre. With this instrument he cleared the ground and provided for himself the solid basis that was to make possible a series of works so organically interdependent, so concatenated, that each may be said to be required by the preceding and make necessary the following one. The clarity of purpose with which Schen- ker had dissociated the intrinsic problems of harmony from the extraneous considerations of voice-leading that had hitherto cluttered up its study, indicated naturally and inevitably the nature of his following work, the Kontragunkt. Here the dis- cipline of voice-leading was all the more vital for having been confined to considerations strictly inherent in itself. Having forged a comprehensive discipline for the student by means of these two primary instruments, Schenker could now tura his attention to the master-works in their entirety. A series of analyses follow here, comprising the third, fifth and ninth symphonies of Beethoven, his last five piano sonatas, the works of Haydn, Mozart, and Brahms. These studies carried him to a deeper and deeper consideration of the underlying laws that govern the articulated structure of musical forms. It is an amazing experience to follow the course of his analyses, to trace the progress of the problem that they set themselves; from the early ones with their concern for surface phenomena, to the later ones that preoccupy themselves more and more with the underlying tensile forces that bind these surface phe- nomena together. Der Freie Satz, Schenker’s latest work (now in process of publication) stands to resume all the principles of form that analytical studies have furnished him. In this way he rounds out his life-work, and brings to a complete consummation an activity that has proceeded from each separate element of musical creation to their highest synthesis, It is beyond the scope of this article to present Schenker’s theories in their actuality. To glibly extract his conclusions ar22 from the attendant considerations and experiences that he is summing up, would do more harm than good. I have hoped to indicate here the import rather than the content of Schenker’s work. It is one that vitally concerns us today. Thirty years ago Schenker raged against the utter confusion that characterized almost every artist and theorist of his time. His voice was scarcely heard. Now we are just beginning to realize the ex- tent to which the decaying culture that aroused his prophetic wrath has been responsible for the noxious disarray of the last decade. If we in our day hope to emerge from this confusion and build a solid musical culture, then a vital revaluation of the music of the past must surely be its foundation-stone. Schenker’s work has created an invaluable instrument towards this revaluation. I say towards advisedly, for such a revaluation is complete only in the light of the actual creative experiences of the near future. In the meantime those avenues of knowledge that do exist are not to be avoided, Heinrich Schenker’s life- long and deeply religious consecration to the music of the masters is one of the fundamental sources of knowledge and discipline in our day.Bulletin of the American Musicological society, No. 7 (october, 1943), pp. 12-13 Southeastern Chapter Heinrich Schenker and Musical Form Frank Knight Dale (SE) (Fearvany 151, 1941, Cuaret Hitt, N.C.) Musica tueory has long suffered from a tendency co focus atten- tion upon the details of a work at the expense of the conception of it as a whole. Schenker realized the aeed for elucidating che principles of organic coherence. Of first importance in this connection is his treatment of the tone- line. Here he deals with the twofold relationship—melodic and har- monic—hetween adjacent tones. A real line is only that which is expressed in a stepwise progression, since all skips represent harmonic entities, and are understood as representing two or more contrapuntal parts. (Neue Musitalische Theorien und Phantasien: Der Freie Satz, Fig. 43.) In the downward sequence: E-C, D-B, C, we hear a line from E to D to C, the first tone of each group being imaginatively prolonged until the next conjunct tone, This observation becomes important for our understanding of organic structure when we per- ceive the operation of the same principle over the entite span of a work, (Ibid,, Figs. 42-2, 49, etc.) The aesthetic value of hearing linear connections over extended time-intervals lies in a resulting increase in sensitivity to what hap- pens between the points connected, Thus we also achieve a far more comprehensive grasp of musical form than that permitted by the usual approach. Reprinted by kind permission of the American Musicological Society. 23HANS EISSE Although not widely published and more a composer than a theorist, Hans Weisse was instrumental in helping disseminate Schenker's work in the United States, and thus represents something of a pivotal figure in the history of the discipline here, Weisse began his studies with Schenker early on, around 1912, at a time when Schenker's work was still at its beginning stage; he was thus in a unique position to observe the gradual unfolding and refinement of Schenker's concepts as they took shape. Well before emigrating to the United States, he taught both Felix Salzer and William J, Mitchell, who had come to Vienna to pursue studies ina discipline completely unknown in the United States at the time, In 1931, Weisse was invited by the Mannes family to take up a position at the David Mannes School (now the Mannes College of Music) and teach theory, composition, and Schenkerian analysis there. Not only was he the first to teach linear analysis in an American music school; his teaching reflected, first hand, a relatively late and advanced stage in Schenker's increasingly comprehensive analytical system, After his untimely death in 1940, his position at Mannes vas taken over by Felix 2526 Salzer. Drawing on Weisse's pioneering work, Salzer restructured school's entire curriculum along Schenkerian Lines a transformation unique at the time and introduced his own concept of "structural hearing," first as a course under that title, then as the landmark text that is still in use today.* At the focal point in the present article, Weisse quotes, vis-a-vis a dream sequence, what would have been Mozart's own analysis -- Schenkerian, to be sure -- of a tricky passage from the F-major Piano Sonata, K. 533/494, which had been inadequately dealt with in a traditional harmony textbook. By invoking Mozart's voice, Weisse summons the intention of the composer as the essential impulse in both carrying out the analysis and subsequently justifying the particular reading at which he had arrived. This has always *See Channan Willner, “David, Clara, and Leopold Manes," in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians in the United States (London and New York: Macmillan, 1986).been a controversial aspect of analytical methodology. (Was the composer aware of these underlying relationships? Are we in a position to uncover his true intentions?) Several other theorists, among them Oswald Jonas and Ernst Oster, have also published studies that touch on these issues from a Schenkerian vantage.* For ease in reading Weisse's examples, ve have supplemented his original examples page with an additional set of the individual examples, interleaved into the text.** ‘Oswald Jonas, "Unbewusstes im Schaffen," in Der Dreiklang, Heft 2, pp. 53-54 (Der Dreiklang is to be reprinted in the near future by Georg Olms Verlag), and Ernst Oster, "The Fantasie-Impromptu: A Tribute to Beethoven," in Musicology, Vol. I, No. 4 (1947), pp. 407-29, reprinted Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, edited by David Beach (New Havel University Press, 1983), pp. 189-207. ‘These copies were prepared by Professor Paul Mast (Conservatory of Music, Oberlin College); we thank him for making then available to us. 27worProceedings of the Music Teachers National Association, 1935, pp. 122-37 THE MUSIC TEACHER'S DILEMMA Hans Weiss David Mannes School, New York City NYONE who works in the field of musical education is to -2 certain extent a teacher of music. In speaking of “the mu- sic teacher's dilemma” however, I wish to refer only to those who have made it their profession to teach the principles of the art of music. Without fear of appearing presumptuous, I dare say that theirs is the most in@uential position so far as the growth or de- cay of our musical culture is concerned. Whether they be con- scious of the fact or not, the course that their pupils will choose on their way to maturity will depend in many an instance es- sentially on the teacher's presentation of the principles of music as an art. No one should underrate the importance of the first impressions made on an enthusiastic young mind in its first con- tact with the principles of his art. Whether positive or negative, they will become important factors in his subsequent artistic de- velopment, be he a composer or an interpreter of music. The mu- sic teacher's influence extends far beyond the classroom. It present, though perhaps not apparent, in all the progressive or retrogressive currents of artistic life as they manifest themselves in the concert hall as well as on the printed page of music. The music teacher's profession i thus a cultural mission of the highest order. Seen from this angle, the problem of the re- lationship between teacher and pupil appears in a new light, quite different rrom that in which it is usually considered. Undue em- phasis is generally laid on the teacher's personality; his principles and artistic creeds are held to be of secondary importance. Yet from the standpoint of maintaining a great musical culture, artistic principles are paramount. The pupil, after all, is not as eager to meet an interesting and stimulating personality as he is to learn —to learn sound, convincing, fertile principles which may help him to realize his artistic aspirations after he has left his teacher's guidance. Undoubtedly the most efficient combina- 2930 tion would be found in the presentation of the principles which are indispensable by a strong and convincing personality. Or have we lost faith in the validity of our musical principles, and do we therefore feel the need of the kind of teacher whose fascinating qualities might compensate for the deficiencies of our current sys- tem of theory? ‘The answer to the question as to how the present generation of young composers has reacted to its musical education will surely not be flattering to the various disciplines of our theory of music. Although they may not have complained in the classroom, the works of their mature years evidence their frank revolt against most of the dogmas that have formed the basis of their musical training, As for the interpreter, after having completed his studies he shuns his previous learning as superfluous and highly unnecessary for his own purposes. In both cases— that of the composer and that of the interpreter —present conceptions of harmony, counterpoint, and form have failed to impart a practi- cable, feasible knowledge. The gap between theory and practice has become so abnormal ly wide that one can speak of their complete estrangement. Mu- sic theory lives a questionable life of its own, quite apart from practice. Practice, on the other hand, has become a crucible for all sorts of experiments conducted under the influence of either intellect or emotion, each boasting of its newly acquired freedom. Think only of the theory of figured bass, which in Bach’s time represented the only theoretical discipline. How inseparable was its connection with musical practice! But under present con- ditions, of what avail is the teaching of harmony to those who have repudiated the triad, of counterpoint to those who have con- founded the distinction between consonance and dissonance? This chasm between theory and practice has led to a crisis in the theory of music, and every teacher, be he aware of it or not, has been confronted with a fatal dilemma. What shall he do in order to maintain the prestige of his profession, which should remain on a high ethical and cultural level? Of the possible solutions, two, as far as I know, have been ventured. One group follows undeviatingly the old familiarcourse of teaching harmony, strict counterpoint, and form. Need- less to say, the policy of closing one’s eyes and ears to what oc curs outside of the classroom endangers extremely the art of mu- sic, The foundations of the art presented to the student in so sober and pedantic a textbook spirit challenge and force resent- ‘ment on his part. Due to the incompatibility of this method with the free and imaginative character of art, the student will doubt and disdain his studies from the very outset as being academic and conservative. It is only too obvious that such a stubborn reten- tion of the traditional system of teaching will never afford us a way out of the dilemma, ‘The other group, perhaps the larger of the two, has taken re fuge in a compromise. In regard to subject matter its methods are quite similar ¢o those of the first group. The compromise finds its acknowledgement in concessions apparent in remarks such as this: “There, you have now learned what has been done in the past in the various styles— go ahead and write your own, write as you please, only feel responsible for what you write.” Schénberg’s harmony textbook is typical of this compromising at- titude. Having locked up the student for a long time in the stuffy and scholastic atmosphere of chord progressions and rules governing their connection, and having reached the end of his book, he suddenly opens the window of possible freedom, sug- gesting, among other things, the possibility of using chords built up by fourths. It would seem, however, far too easy to leave a pupil shouldering the burden of responsibility while still lack- ing a clear and definite conception of the true nature of this artistic responsibility. This compromise, although it bridges the gap between theory and practice in that it encourages the pupil’s interest in experimentation, has transferred the break to the boundaries of music theory itself. Nothing could be more para- doxical than a system of theory which at the culmination of its course renounces its first principles. Thus this, like all compro- mises, cannot be a satisfactory way out of the dilemma. Outside of these two groups there have been a few isolated attempts to obliterate all existent bridges leading from the mu- sical culture of the past and to create a kind of completely un- 3132 precedented music based on a thoroughly new theoretical inde- pendence. Such annihilation of the experiences of our great past is mere vandalism and cannot be seriously regarded, We should not overlook the fact that the other two tendencies, the conservative and the compromising, have this one factor in com- mon: both are anxious to maintain contact with the past. Both are aware of the truth that a culture without tradition is un- thinkable. To do them full justice we must acknowledge and appreciate their honorable intentions. Underlying their concep tions the conviction does exist that our musical past is great, that the student can learn only from the experiences of the great mas- ters and that there are eternal artistic values enshrined in their compositions which must be preserved. Why then, if we agree with them so far, do we object to their methods? Is it not be- cause we feel that the student’s resentment is justified? His dis- satisfaction proves that instinctively he wishes to follow the right course. He expects a thrilling experience in becoming acquainted with the creative spirit of the musical genius, but the method which he hoped would reveal this spirit to him, fails him. Conse- quently —but how unfortunately his disillusionment he turns away from the great music instead of from the poor method. And yet, why should the student suspect the method when no teacher has ever found it unfit for its purposes? ‘The reason why both alternatives, the conservative and the compromising, are fatal and offer no way out of the predicament which I have called the music teacher's dilemma, is this: both believe, with reservations of course, in the validity and usefulness of their method, in spite of the fact that both are utterly incapable of piercing beyond the surface of music. After describing the outward surface of a musical composition, which they are apt to do glibly, their means are completely exhausted and incapable of reaching that eternal sphere of artistic fife — let me call it artistic reality — wherein the unchanging principles of the creative mind Of the musical genius can be found, Let it be said here as bluntly and openly as possible, once and for all: never will the theory of harmony, of counterpoint, of form, taught today as taught by our forefathers — never will it suc- Poh $e RHIND | te) PRA: cama HePtomemmamerm bmn ia) me 7ceed in discovering one single truth characteristic of that state of mind which is the genius’. Never will it afford the slightest insight into that overwhelming sensitiveness and that capacity of judgment which are the natural endowment of the genius’s ear. Never will it afford a significant explanation of the meaning of music as manifested in the greatest works of our literature, the ‘one precious value which must be preserved in the name of a real tradition for the sake of the art of music. All I can do to prove this statement is to draw a cross section of two theoretic disciplines, harmony and counterpoint, and to hint at the crucial points of their insufficiency. I beg you to un- derstand thar I accuse the system only and none of its adherents. Consequently, in referring to one or the other book I shall not mention it by name, in order to avert any suspicion of personal bias. In attacking the current system, it must be said that it has committed crimes against the spirit of the art of music. Art itself will never be endangered. But we are ia danger of losing art, of losing it entirely, and it is with reference to this that I hope to be justified in speaking of the fallaciousness of harmony theory. I wish I could discuss this matter in due proportion to its gravity, but on account of the lack of time I shall be forced to restrict myself to a single example. This has to be short, com- paratively simple, and yet so symptomatic as to afford conclusions of a general nature, I have chosen for this purpose a passage from the second movement of Mozart's F major Sonata because it has been dealt with by a musician whose presentation is typi- cal of harmonic analysis. ‘The passage, in F major, begins in bar 23 of the above men- tioned movement. These are the ten bars subject to our inquiry. ‘The author indicates under bar 1 the tonic, under bar 2 the I 6/4, under bar 3 the dominant; and he writes concerning bar 4: “the use of the dominant major ninth with root” (the chord is actually indicated as a dominant ninth chord) “is not common in music of the eighteenth century, except when the ninth oc- curs as a suspension or other non-harmonic note.” 33trie Tama dl xr oa zz Jae 3 SS ae i — ws are ct b Ler ree Ta fea 9) Tomb:Bal) on tte en St meme £ ¥ i Tages Dane = the The harmony of bar 5 is called the V of the II with D as the root. Mozart's genius entangles the author in the following bars as indicated by the footnotes. With regard to the chord, C, E- flat, F-sharp, A, in bar 6 we read, “The missing root of this chord in F would be D (V of II)” (another ninth chord) “whereas in E-flat it would be F (V of V). The diminished seventh chord 3536 is a vague chord, with many enharmonic possibilities, its orienta- tion being determined by the identity of its mi chord i labelled as a modulatory pivot; it works as the V of the II in F and simultaneously as the V of the V in E-flat, the F- sharp undergoing thereby an enharmonic change to G-flat. The harmony of bar 7, recognized by the author as the I 6/4 of E- flat, induces the following remark: “A false modulation to E-Aat, caused by the tonal streagth of the six-four chord. This chord is difficult of assimilation into the key of F, hence the modula- tion.” The unexpected chord of bar 8 again impels our writer to reveal its ambiguous character. It is noted as the V, of E-flat as well as the II7 of F major and demands two more enharmonic changes, B to C-lat and A-flat to G-sharp. ‘The next two mea- sures contain na problems and the chords are analyzed as the I, and the IV in measure 9 and the 1 6/4 and the V, in measure 10. Mozart's chord progressions are undoubtedly very interesting and the author seems to have chosen them for good reasons. In- deed these reasons are given expression in the author's introduction to his book: “The purpose of this book is not to pursue an immediate in- vestigation of contemporary harmonic technique, but to help lay the foundation for this investigation by clarifying accepted theory and showing what the common practice of composers has been. It must be understood that this common practice is necessarily de- parted from by all composers, if they are to possess individuality. The so-called ‘rules’ of harmony represent what is done by all and hence might be termed the platitudes of music. If we speak of rules being broken by Bach and Beethoven, we are strengthen- ing the popular misconception that the rules were made for com- posers to follow, whereas the process is just the opposite.” The author belongs to the compromising type of theorists. He himself condemns theory in harsh terms — it teaches the plati- tudes of music. And rules, as his Jast remark intimates, are made for composers to break. What a bewildering confusion of con- ceptions! Theory, when it comes to the crucial test of proving its principles, frankly confesses its inability to admit the genius eeinto its world of rules and regulations. It brands the genius an outlaw. Only, to be such an outlaw is a distinct merit. Can this be true? Or has not the genius his own laws to which he willingly submits, fully aware of their important influence on the nature of art? These principles, if made the subject matter of theory, would certainly nor be called the platitudes of music. Let us imagine 2 student, dimly aware of this, given the privi- lege of a happy dream. Mozart stands before him, and, after a glance at what has been written about his music, comprehends the student's predicament. After a gentle curse he turns to the stu- dent and begins to speak: “Sic down; I shall be your teacher. I really do nor see the point of talking about these measures since my musical instinet hhas made everything as clear as music alone can be. But clarity is what you lack. And it is on sccount of your theory that my music bas become unintelligible to you. Forget it. Do you trust my musical texture so little that it seems to you to be in need of the support of roots which I never thought of? Had I written these basses implied by your theory, what a miserable composer T should have been! Besides, why do you interrupt the continu- ous musical action which I had in mind by paying undue atten- tion to every chord a3 soon as it appears? Do you believe that by merely giving names to these chords you could ever understand what I expressed musically? On the contrary, you interrupt the flow of my music and risk losing your orientation. I knew what I was driving at, but if you do n0¢ follow my course you'll never know about that supreme principle of coherence in music which forced me to write just this way. But what astonishes me most is that you do not pay any attention to the upper voice in this passage. I suspect that you believe a composer who writes in the style for which your theory has coined the misnomer, ‘homophony, thinks only of chords above which any melodic line might wander aimlessly. How inadequately you hear! Have you never noticed that the upper voice, though embellished, moves towards definite points which are for the meaning of ‘music of the same importance as are the movements of the bass? Have you never observed how bass and top voice act in complete accord when fulfilling their common motion to a determined goal? Look, and fisten! “ remember, I improvised this passage. This probably sug- gests to you that I gave free rein to my imagination, which T 3738 did not. Improvisation always meant to me the fulfillment of a premeditated plan, under the disguise of the utmost possible freedom. Art ig at its height in such dissimulation, I know that were I to say I had conceived this passage of nine bers within the F major chord, you would not believe it. Your incredulity is that of the average ear which has never experienced large- dimensional hearing. I shall therefore lead you from bar to bar and reveal to you presently the significance of this large- dimensional hearing for the meaning of the composition, I started this passage somewhat hesitantly, as if I had not quite decided what to do. The bass quotes unaccompanied the main motive of the composition and establishes the F major chord. Yet you do not know which of the three possible tones of the triad, F, 4, or C, I wish to hear in the top voice. I always heard and thought in terms of counterpoint. The top voice in- troduces this important tone in the second bar, delayed until the last sixteenth of that figure, which is more to me than 2 mean ingless arpeggio, as you can see. I said its entrance was de- layed, and by that I mean that the bass, as you hear in bar two, has in the meantime progressed to C, the root of the next chord. As a consequence of the delay, A and F of the arpeggio ac- quire the character of suspensions. I disagree with you entirely when, according to your harmony theory and in neglect of my contrapuntal texture, you indicate that chord as a I 6/4 whereas I heard it as a V with 6 and 4 above the bass as suspensions. This I prove in bar 3 by resolving the suspensions 6 and 4, to sand 3. And now compare these three bars, which I conceived in these terms, with the composition itself! (See Fig. 2.) “Did I not succeed in disguising them? Instead of placing the middle voices where they really belong according to my plan, I intimate them only in the arpeggio of bar 2 in registers do not count for the real voice leading. The real top voice, F, appears as the last sixteenth of that figure and in bar 3 the tone G in the bass clef refers to the concealed A of the former bar as its resolution, and thus is established defnitely as a middle voice. C remains the bass through bar 6 Bars 4, 5, and 6 show an analogous procedure. Let me tell you what bap- pened in bar 4. The tones I had to express in my figuration were E, G, B-flat, as you see in figure 2. Thus the arpeggio in bar 4 would have sounded this way: (Fig. 3a) “Had I done this and used the augmented fourth, E-B-Hat, I should have contradicted the first four sixteenths of the begin- ning of my arpeggio in bar 2, which express the third, A-C.