Royal Musical Association, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Journal of The Royal Musical Association

Schenker versus Schoenberg versus Schenker: The Difficulties of a Reconciliation
Author(s): Gianmario Borio

Source: Journal of the Royal Musical Association, Vol. 126, No. 2 (2001), pp. 250-274
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Royal Musical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557482
Accessed: 14-01-2018 22:43 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Royal Musical Association, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Musical Association
This content downloaded from 130.104.1.130 on Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:43:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 126 (2001) ? Royal Musical Association
Schenker versus Schoenberg versus

Schenker: The Difficulties of a
Reconciliation
GIANMARIO BORIO
for Mario Bertoncini
ANYONE wishing to take on the task of drawing up a

twentieth-century music theory will inevitably be confron
antithesis between Heinrich Schenker and Arnold Schoenb
in many respects can be considered the Urphdnomen of that v
The controversy between the two Viennese composer-theo
up at ajuncture that was crucial for the evolution of music
between 1911 and 1918; their respective bodies of writi
despite their own claims, do not constitute systems - outli
foundly different visions of the essence and fundamentals
These differences are all the more significant if one takes
their common point of departure: the repertory to which
Austro-German instrumental music of the late eighteenth
teenth centuries, and the key concepts of the musical theo
centuries. Schenker and Schoenberg both vouched for an o
ception of musical works, a high and noble vision of thinkin
and a compositional ethic that aspired unflinchingly towa
ation of the 'masterwork' - ideals seen by the former to be
by the disruptive spirit of modernity, while the latter perceiv
in the mechanistic techniques of the neo-classical comp
reflections on the organization of tonal compositions yield
lytical methods that influenced generations of composers
cologists; reconsidering this antithesis today, at the begin
new century, means questioning the principles on which a
community of music was and can be established.
The relationship between Schenker and Schoenberg w
during the 1970s in the context of historical reconstruction
of the emphasis placed on reciprocal criticisms displayed i
writings or manifested in studies of unpublished mater
My thanks to Laurie Schwartz for her help in bringing the English version of t
present form, and to William Drabkin for kindly providing translations of thr
Schenker's Der Tonwille.
1 See Carl Dahlhaus, 'Schoenberg and Schenker', Proceedings of the Royal MusicalAssociation, 10
(1973-4), 209-15; Jonathan M. Dunsby, 'Schoenberg and the Writings of Schenker', Journal of th
Arnold Schoenberg Institute, 2 (1977), 26-33; Bryan R. Simms, 'New Documents in the Schoe
berg/Schenker Polemic', Perspectives of New Music, 16 (1977), 110-24; Hellmut Federhofe
'Heinrich Schenkers Verhailtnis zu Arnold Sch6nberg', Sonderabdruck aus dem Anzeiger d
philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 118 (1981), 369-90
SCHENKER VERSUS SCHOENBERG VERSUS SCHENKER 251
different interpretations of 'harmoniefremde T6

notes; literally, notes foreign to the harmony) and their
of the concept of repetition, which was of central signi
appear to be the salient points of the controversy
however, musicologists have recognized the need
torical facts and establish a new stage of theoretical
instead of making do with one of the two alternative
of the energy released by debate. David Epstein was t
the question by placing it in the context of a global met
Schmalfeldt then went on to show that Schenker
merely demonstrate the harmonic-contrapuntal r
drive the tonal composition on different levels.3 In
study by CharlesJ. Smith illustrates,4 Schenker also c
tion of musical form, as is particularly apparent in t
his posthumous Derfreie Satz, where he sketches a ty
forms that distances itself from traditional morpholo
which he criticized frequently for being generic
Schoenberg, on the other hand, held on to nume
century premisses and concepts, in particular th
Christoph Koch, Johann Christian Lobe and Adolf
These connections are particularly clear in the comp
gave at the University of Southern California and the U
fornia at Los Angeles between 1937 and 1948, later p
for Beginners in Composition, Structural Functions of H
mentals of Musical Composition, and in the unfinished t
begun during the turbulent years 1934-6, The Musical Id
Technique and Art of its Presentation.6
The question regarding the possibility - and perha
sity - of a reconciliation of the two methods finds
retrospectively, in the fact that they share basic concep
and, potentially, in the conviction that an approach
benefit from the fusion of the two horizons which for
arated by an insurmountable barrier. Unfortunately
serious objective has met with significant obstacles, n
defensive structure of the two schools (which is wea
Charlotte E. Erwin and Bryan R. Simms, 'Schoenberg's Corresponde

Schenker', Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute, 5 (1981), 23-43.
2 David Epstein, Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure (Cambridg
Janet Schmalfeldt, 'Towards a Reconciliation of Schenkerian Concept
Recent Theories of Form', Music Analysis, 10 (1991), 233-87.
4 CharlesJ. Smith, 'Musical Form and Fundamental Structure: An Inve
Formenlehre', Music Analysis, 15 (1996), 191-297; see also Allen Cadwal
Process: The Design of Different Structural Levels', Trends in Schenke
Cadwallader (New York, 1990), 1-21.
5 Heinrich Schenker, Free Composition (Der freie Satz), ed. and trans. Er
York, 1979).
6 Arnold Schoenberg, Models for Beginners in Composition (New York, 1943); Structural Functions
ofHarmony (New York, 1954); Fundamentals of Musical Composition, ed. Gerald Strang and Leonard
Stein (Boston, MA, and London, 1967); The Musical Idea and the Logic, Technique and Art of its Presen-
tation, ed. Patricia Carpenter and Severine Neff (New York, 1995).
7 Schmalfeldt, 'Towards a Reconciliation', 235.
252 GIANMARIO BORIO
generation) as in the
experienced. Schenker
seminated his principl
of research and creati
War on, different gen
refining these proc
Schoenberg's school su
berg lived in the Unit
theory attained the st
previously lacked, it wa
ian theory. It is possib
overshadowed by the
theory: to many it ap
progressive compositi
perhaps there was an i
the field of advanced
marily at composition
position meant abov
elaboration of materia
tonality; yet the objec
analytical tools or theor
composer - that is, all
ition within a historic
Only two of Schoenbe
theory: Josef Rufer a
to 12-note theory and
the author of a treati
densation of Schoenbe
sive expansion of hi
famous pupils, Berg a
essays that manifest
method;10 one cannot
knowledge of Schoenb
to define a theoretical
Rene Leibowitz and T
term process of recept
filtering and distort
8 See Josef Rufer, Composition

Searle (London, 1954); 'Begriff
281-4; 'Von der Musik zur The
(1971), 1-3.
9 See Erwin Ratz, Einfiihrung
expanded, 1973).
10 See Alban Berg, Glaube, H
Webern, The Path to New Mus
11 See Rene Leibowitz, Schoenb
1947), trans. Dika Newlin as Schoe
(New York, 1949); Qu'est-ce que
d'Anton Webern (Liege, 1948); In
op. 31 d'Arnold Schoenberg (P
special case of Rudolf R6ti, who did not attend Scho

even though he was an active presence in his ento
American exile he produced a theory of the Gestalt a
ations which does not show very strong ties to Scho
mous concept.12 Only recently has a student fr
California courses, Patricia Carpenter, together wit
Severine Neff, sought to revisit the issue of Schoenb
phology with the aim of clarifying its outlines and
understandings.13
Schoenberg's theory, then, did not enjoy the pr
mission of ideas or the continuous debate which in the Schenkerian
camp guaranteed the formation of a current of thought that was
granted the status of an independent discipline. This uneven dev
ment makes any attempt at reconciliation difficult, particularly
aims at a higher level of reflection within which previous achievem
are contained. But a reconstruction which attempts to extricate
from the tangled lines out of which the history of twentieth-cen
music theory unfolded would benefit from an investigation of t
differences that goes beyond the documented facts of the controv
rather than from a forced reconciliation conditioned by present
terms. It is within the context of such historical reconstruction that I
wish to discuss certain Beethoven sonatas which highlight the differ
ence between the two approaches. I begin with one of the standar
examples of music theory, the first movement of the sonata op. 2 no
1, going on to examine the passages of the first movement of op. 1
no. 1 discussed by Rufer and commented upon by Schmalfeldt, befor
finally comparing Schenker's and Ratz's analyses of op. 57.
Those familiar with Schenker's mature method might be surprised
to note that in his analysis of op. 2 no. 1 (published in 1922) he make
abundant use of terms deriving from traditional morphology.14 Ba
1-8 are defined as 'antecedent', bars 9-20 as 'consequent with modu-
lation'. Schenker considers the whole of bars 1-20 to be the 'first idea',
calling bars 20-40 the 'second idea'; the 'exposition' ends with a 'third'
or 'concluding idea' which includes bars 41-8. The common termi-
nology seems to strengthen the hypothesis that Schenker and Schoen-
berg drew on a common tradition of study of musical forms. However,
Schoenberg would not have accepted Schenker's formal outline for at
Sacher Foundation, unpublished MS, 1950). Theodor W. Adorno, Der getreue Korrepetitor: Studien
zur musikalischen Praxis, Gesammelte Schriften, xv, ed. Rolf Tiedemann (Frankfurt am Main, 1976),
157-402. Leibowitz began an intense correspondence with Schoenberg in 1945 and had the
opportunity to spend various periods with him during the winter of 1947-8 and the spring of
1950. Adorno studied with Berg in 1925 and kept up a frequent correspondence with him until
his death; see Theodor W. Adorno/Alban Berg: Briefwechsel 1925-35, ed. Henri Lonoitz (Frankfurt am
Main, 1997). On the relationship between Adorno and Berg, see Gianmario Borio, 'Der Aufbruch
der Zwolftontechnik: Zum Briefwechsel Adorno/Berg', Musik und Asthetik, 2 (1998), 110-15.
12 See Rudolf R6ti, The Thematic Process in Music (New York and London, 1951).
13 See the introduction to Schoenberg, The Musical Idea, 1-74.
14 Heinrich Schenker, 'Beethoven: Sonate Opus 2 Nr. 1', Der Tonwille, 7 vols. (Vienna, 1921-4;
repr. with a Foreword by Hellmut Federhofer, Hildesheim, 1990), ii, 25-48 (Urlinietafel pp. 3-4).
254 GIANMARIO BORIO
least two reasons: the

decisively - the form
view of their functio
Schenker calls 'antece
the principal theme,
transition.15 In this l
substantial difference:
and harmonic levels,
the thematic struct
material used is relat
guarantee the relatio
terms 'antecedent' a
The painstaking inves
principal forms of the
sections of Fundame
importance he attac
musical morphology
reason than because
formal structures, th
only partially to a the
For Schoenberg these
filled with melodic an
indications about the
analysis of the themati
sideration, and is capa
understanding what f
piece. There is a relat
and the continuation;
the principal idea is u
ture being none oth
becomes explicit durin
in accordance with its
The mandatory relat
one of the premisses
upheld no less vigorou
ception is strictly dep
in the aesthetic sense
consists of elements
Schenker, on the othe
('organischer Zusamm
an abstraction of the m
15 See Schoenberg, Fundamen

Einfiihrung, 23; Anton Webern,
Zenck, Siegfried Oehigiesser, R
my thanks to the editor for a
16 See Carl Dahlhaus, 'Satz un
Musiktheorie, 9 (1978), 17-26.
17 Schoenberg, Fundamentals,
Even the Urlinie obeys the law of generation, i.e. of repe

a basic instinct arranges itself in accordance with the
procreating Nature as a living example of the same. M
resound in our ears as easily perceivable repetitions;
other hand, creates in its elemental womb repetition
the highest order.18
These two attitudes toward organicism, which deriv

ent philosophical traditions (dialectic logic and vit
condition the ways in which not just the begin
course of the first movement of op. 2 no. 1 is interp
the particular shape of the 'antecedent' is the basis
jections to which, ultimately, the idea of 'organic
traced back. Horizontal brackets in his graph illust
ment of the Urlinie is articulated in three phases:
beginning (bars 1-4), then proceeds decisively towa
(bars 5-7) and finally reverses its own direction (
this type of movement are the particularities i
musical material that Schenker describes as follows:
If the postponement [of the notes of the Urlinie] to metrically unstress

bars is advantageous for the effect of hesitation, their [accelerated] advan
is similarly not lacking in phenomena uniquely associated with it, viz.: t
shortening of the arpeggiations, expressed by the short grace-notes in ba
5 and 6 and emphasized by the two sf accents, then, in bar 7, the arpegg
as the quickest way of expressing an arpeggiation, marked ff 19
It is repetition, or rather replication in constantly changing guises, that

brings the compositional work close to nature, which multiplies an
grows unceasingly. In op. 2 no. 1 the sense of the 'consequent' th
resides for Schenker in the repetition of the concluding phase of t
Urlinie (the reverse of the path) in a lower register, and in three recur-
rences of different lengths. The 'second idea' exhibits the same tri-
partition as the first: the line hesitates (g'-ab' twice in bars 20-4
movement counterbalanced by the bass, which is linked to the 'conse
quent'); then continues resolutely up to e6" (bars 25-8), a movement
which is repeated an octave higher in bars 30-3; and finally, after th
cadence, reverses its own path, involving also the 'concluding idea'.
Schenker succeeds in demonstrating both the short- and long-sca
dynamic curves of the Urlinie by letting the motivic relationships reced
18 'Schon die Urlinie gehorcht dem Zeugungs-, das ist dem Wiederholungsgesetz und fugt s
mit solchem Urtrieb in die stets wachsende, sich mehrende Natur als ein lebendiges St
derselben ein. Wahrend vor unserem Ohr Motive und Melodien sich in Wiederholung
tummeln, die leicht wahrnehmbar sind, zeugt sie in ihrem Ur-SchoB Wiederholungen verb
gener h6chster Art.' Heinrich Schenker, 'Die Urlinie (eine Vorbemerkung)', Der Tonwille, i, 2
(p. 22).
19 'Kommt dem Z6gern das Hinausschieben auf schwache Takte zugute, so fehlt es auch dem
VorstoB nicht an mehreren wieder nur ihm gemilBen Begleiterscheinungen; diese sind:
Verkiirzung der Brechungen, ausgedrickt durch die kurzen Vorschlige in T. 5 und 6 und unter-
strichen durch die beiden sfAkzente; dann in T. 7 das Arpeggio, als die kfirzeste Art eine
Brechung zu durchlaufen, im Zeichen eines ff.' Schenker, 'Beethoven: Sonate Opus 2 Nr. 1', 25.
256 GIANMARIO BORIO
into the background,

stitute the real active
that gives rise to a mot
turns it into its opposi
force.'20 Schoenberg o
pal idea of the first m
totype, which he def
Satz, and later, in En
phrase of two bars (th
posed to the dominant
which 'consists in gra
only uncharacteristi
tinuation'.21 The prese
responds exactly to t
of anticipation of wha
through distinctive tec
up of the model and e
loses its characteristic traits to become an interval of a minor second.
The grace note c" in bar 5 compensates, as it were, for the absence
the first segment of the model, alluding to the ascending motion (fr
c' to ab ") of bars 1-2. Bar 6 is a sequence of the preceding bar. At t
first beat of bar 7 we find yet another representation of bar 1 in t
arpeggio on the tonic chord; then, in the second half of the bar, t
descending upper line of bar 4 is repeated with varied rhythm (alb
on the second rather than the fifth degree). In this phase of liquidat
the stages of harmonic progression articulate the shortening of sy
tactic units; the whole structure ends, in accordance with the rules, on
the dominant. The sentence differs in fact from the circular, closed
progression of the period precisely because its internal disposition
implies a dynamism and openness which are of great advantage for the
economy of first-movement sonata form.
Having grasped this rigidly organized structure, one can understand
the impeccable logic of the subsequent stages of the exposition. The
transition begins with the first segment of the model, which had a
secondary role in the liquidation. After the fermata the dominant
chord returns in the minor; at bar 11 the tonic F minor is interpreted
as VI of Ab major, the chord with which the modulation ends at bar 14.
The first phase of the transition is based on the motive used in the
liquidation. At bar 15 the second phase of the transition begins, which
serves to establish the key of A6 major. The model used here is the five-
crotchet one from the initial motive of the theme, but reformulated
as J J J I J and in descending motion; this is repeated in different ways
until the dominant pedal is established, at which point the subordinate
theme group begins. This section is in many respects different from the
20 Arnold Schoenberg, Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in Form, ed. with an

introduction by Severine Neff, trans. Charlotte M. Cross and Severine Neff (Lincoln, NE, 1994),
27.
21 Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 58.
principal theme, while at the same time being related

nature of this relationship, which Arnold Schmitz
trasting derivation' ('kontrastierende Ableitung'),22 is
importance for the system of forces and counter-fo
mines the particular form and character of the piece.
the subordinate theme group once more employs t
model that began the principal theme, with the
appendix, J .~ (which refers to bar 2). Both the or
figure and its intervallic structure (with a preval
follow the formulation of the motive seen in the final pa
sition. We are therefore faced with two concomitant
the one hand, Beethoven realizes a 'contrasting de
cedure which allows him to employ previously used m
attributing a new character and different function to
cally applying the principle of compositional econom
hand, the way in which the material is configured at
form is a consequence of the processes to which the
viously been subjected, foreshadowing the 'develop
later decades. Yet there is one respect in which the s
matic group differs profoundly from the principal th
is not stable ('feste Formung'), but loose ('lockere For
in fact composed of three elements of different leng
lation: the dominant pedal beneath the contrasting
21-5), sequences of quadruplets in the accompaniment
the key of A6 major (bars 26-32) and a new configurat
motive that exploits one of its variants used in the t
33-40).
Not all of Beethoven's sonatas, obviously, lend them
straightforward demonstration of the system of reciproc
between formal sections that satisfies the ideal of the wo
It is not a coincidence that in Fundamentals of Music
Schoenberg illustrated his point of view by choosing
sonatas which preceded the 'new path'.24 The problem
31 no. 2 (the 'Tempest') and many of the later sonata
understood by Schoenberg as already being integ
domain of technical issues within which he himself worked; the break-
ing down of the square structure of sentences and periods, the antici-
pation of variational procedures in the exposition, the relativization of
formal functions and the simultaneous employment of diverse formal
principles, all of which occupied the composer at least from the First
Quartet, op. 7, were already anticipated to some degree by Beethoven.
22 See Arnold Schmitz, Beethovens 'zwei Prinzipe' (Berlin and Bonn, 1923), 8. Schoenberg, who
probably did not know Schmitz's definition, hints at an analogous procedure which provides
contrast by way of derivation from a given theme (primarily in the development), calling it 'related
contrast' (see Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 201).
23 For these basic concepts, see Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 184, 204; idem, The Musical Idea,
178-9; Ratz, Einfiihrung, 21.
24 On the notion of a 'new path', see Carl Dahlhaus, Ludwig van Beethoven: Approaches to his
Music, trans. Mary Whittall (Oxford, 1991), 166-80.
258 GIANMARIO BORIO
Erwin Ratz was able t

periods - notably th
his functional morph
torical arch from the
of Schoenberg. From
early period seem to
whose subsequent mo
morphology, without
there are moments
Beethoven consciously
tural openness. The an
posed by Rufer and th
subjected by Schmalf
prevail when one trie
completely mastered
calfor two reasons. Fir
of his treatise, trying
the existence of a str
the great tradition o
doing, however, he m
would probably hav
Schmalfeldt identifie
for a reciprocal integ
ally, would unfortun
motivic-figural relat
successful Schenker
analysis'26 (with its i
supertheory of form
variation with Schenk
are jeopardized since,
sis cannot be considered correct.
The objective of Rufer's analysis is to illustrate the Schoenbergia
concept of Gestalt and to demonstrate that 'in order to ensure
thematic unification of a work and thus the unity of its musical conten
all the musical events in it are developed, directly or indirectly, out
one basic shape'27 - a demonstration that would strengthen the thes
of a historical-dialectical continuity between traditional formal thin
ing and 12-note technique. But both in defining the concept of Gest
and in demonstrating such a historical nexus, Rufer lapses into dis
concerting simplifications and a mechanistic vision that contra
sharply with the refined processes of Schoenberg's thought. For Ruf
Gestalt is synonymous with 'phrase', that is, with a syntactical unit of
or more bars made up of a motive and its more or less varied repe
tion, or of two different motives. Thus, the Grundgestalt is the figure
25 It is in this way that the analyses of Schubert's sonata D.840 and Mahler's Sixth, Seventh a
Ninth Symphonies can be read; see Erwin Ratz, Gesammelte Aufsaitze (Vienna, 1975), 75-92, 123
27 Rufer, Composition with Twelve Notes, 38 (see also the 'basic shape analysis' in the append
which all others depend; contained within it are the

ity (in tonal composition) or the intervallic constella
(in 12-note composition) and the basic rhythmic ma
ponents are made explicit at the beginning of the p
the presentation of the principal theme. This point o
accordance with Schoenberg's statements in various
with his compositional practice. The terms Gestalt an
ambiguous precisely because Schoenberg conceived
and flexible concepts; they are able to carry out
general categories of musical language only when fre
determined concretizations.28 Rufer, however, assoc
cepts with a well-defined phenomenon for which S
students generally used the term 'phrase':
From the motive is developed, by means of repetition p
'shape' (Gestalt) or phrase. Usually this contains tw
multiples of these in quick tempi) and consists of the f
one or more motifs with their repetitions in a more or less
In a series of notes from 1934, intended for his treati

idea, Schoenberg defined the adjacent or partially
cepts of motive, phrase, sentence, period, Gestalt and
tinguishing each from the other; in particular, the Gest
characteristically articulated',30 while the phrase is t
inable complete unit. In certain circumstances, the
if this happens, however, it indicates that the same
being considered from two different points of view
basic component of a thematic structure and the Gest
the formation and transformation of motives. If a
different points in the piece and produces a series o
derivative forms, it has to be considered as the Grundge
light that the following statement from a 1931 essay
point should be read: 'Whatever happens in a piece of
but the endless reshaping of a basic shape.'31 The
context the Grundgestalt seems to correspond to the
pal theme is further confirmation of the flexibility of
been noted, Schoenberg also used it to designate the
the 12-note row, putting the rhythmic component
parentheses.32 This turn has puzzled many comm
28 See Rudolf Stephan, 'Zum Terminus "Grundgestalt" ', Vom musikalisc

Vortrdge, ed. Rainer Damm and Andreas Traub (Mainz, 1985), 138-45; for
history of this term, see Michael Beiche, 'Grundgestalt', Handwirterbuch
nologie, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (Stuttgart, 1983-4), ii; an idiosyn
this term is to be found in Patricia Carpenter, 'Grundgestalt as Tonal F
Spectrum, 5 (1983), 15-38.
29 Rufer, Composition with Twelve Notes, 28.
30 Schoenberg, The Musical Idea, 170.
31 Ibid., 354.
32 The analysis of many of Schoenberg's 12-note compositions shows that the most important
motivic-thematic figure need not coincide with the Grundgestalt of the row or with any of its derived
forms; the melody of the first theme of the Adagio of the Third Quartet, op. 30, for example, is
based on non-segmental intervals.
260 GIANMARIO BORIO
Rufer, who had in m

relationship between
Yet the possibility of
thematic configura
prompted deeper ref
its derivatives whic
Rufer's Tables I and
berg because in the e
process that is of inte
Among the writing
vations on different s
to consider Ratz's com
and that of the reca
how in large-scale mo
sition of the recapitul
might be caused by t
reconstruction of a c
Vienna between 193
shows that in one ses
theme as an example
analytical observatio
respects from Rufer'
different general appr
by the contrast betw
tion to the structure o
ally identifies the fou
then to speak of 'typic
Grundgestalt and its
'further developmen
Rufer calls Grundges
phrase or model, is t
figures that contrast
bar 4). For Schoenber
made up of four mo
model such as this m
plausibility of such
should be the result of a series of revisions and confirmations that arise
from the analysis of the other sections of the piece. But precisely such
a will to reconstruct musical logic in the temporal unfolding of material
seems to be lacking in Rufer. On the contrary, an insufficient investi-
gation of the active forces within the thematic structure leads him to
33 See Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 59 (with graph on p. 63), 202-3, 205, 208, 211; Models for
Beginners in Composition (New York, 1942), 19; Structural Functions of Harmony, 132 (Example
136/c).
34 See Ratz, Einfiihrung, 148-9.
35 See Webern, Uber musikalische Formen, ed. Boynton.
36 See Rufer, Composition with Twelve Notes, 28, 39. Note in addition that for the Schoenberg
school the terms 'antecedent' and 'consequent' are adequate only to designate the circular
relationship between the two halves of the period, and do not make sense if applied to a sentence.
Example 1. Motivic configuration of the principal th

op. 10 no. 1, and derivation of the subordinate them
principal theme (model)
f 1
a b c d c d
subordinat
A ) f . I I I I I . I A A
(p)
b' c?
d'
formulate a hypothesis regarding the internal articulation of the expo-

sition which seems to me scarcely tenable: principal theme (bars 1-22);
transition with a first part that liquidates the theme (bars 23-31) and a
second part that prepares the subordinate theme (bars 32-55); sub-
ordinate theme (bars 56-76) and liquidation with codettas (bars
77-105). Even long dissertations on the transformations of the pre-
sumed Grundgestalt bring us no closer to an understanding of the way in
which formal functions are carried out, or the reasons for this
construction.
In itself, Rufer's analysis covers rather little of importance, in so far a
it is something of a tonal digression in a book on 12-note music and does
not form part of the debate in a treatise on musical morphology. Wit
regard to the compatibility of Schoenberg and Schenker's approache
however, it offers important stimuli for reflection, both because the con
frontation with an incorrect application of Schoenberg's teachin
compels us to reflect on the significance of that teaching, and becaus
Schmalfeldt's attempt to find a point of convergence between the tw
approaches seems to hit upon fertile ground precisely in the rectifica
tion of this analysis. One of Schmalfeldt's main concerns is a funda
mental question of functional morphology: how can the relationship
between the stable formation of the principal theme and the loose for
mation of the subordinate theme be described? Schmalfeldt maintains
that neither Rufer nor Schoenberg provides a satisfactory answer to
question, and, taking a Schenkerian graph as her starting-point,
poses a middle-ground contrapuntal structure as a corrective
results of this are that the subordinate theme is articulated in five ph
- exactly what a correct analysis of formal functions supported
decoding of harmonic functions would have shown.37
37 See Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, ii, Figure 154/3, and Schmal
'Towards a Reconciliation', 272-3.
262 GIANMARIO BORIO
In order to illuminat
test the suitability of
contrapuntal structur
that an evaluation of
of the global form of
fest in the first move
beginning with the op
structure of the prin
is, to a certain extent
formal functions tha
with devices such as th
use of developmental
tion of motivic liquid
of the transition, the t
thematic material in
coda and its promot
Schoenberg's point of
arousal of ambiguity,
be counterbalanced in
vations Schoenberg m
Composition, as well a
they consider the prin
tic between openness
enlargement of the t
II7 - V6 with which the sentence ends at bars 15-16 indicates the com-
pletion of this formal structure; on the other hand, the lack of a perfect
cadence in the dominant reveals its openness. It seems almost as if the
objective of the liquidation 'to counteract the tendency towards un-
limited extension'38 has not completely been achieved. This is why
Beethoven opts for a cadential extension (bars 17-22.1): the triplet
arpeggios of the two-bar model can be understood as a reconfiguration
of the grace notes of bars 11 and 13.39 Once the open nature of the
sentence has been made clear, the cadential extension no longer needs
to terminate in the dominant. Close in the tonic is not, however, defin-
itive; the subsequent segment (bars 22-31) responds both to the need
to compensate for the deformation of proportions caused by the
cadential extension and to the need to round out the structure by recu-
perating motivic material that was set aside in the liquidation and in
the cadential extension - that is, motives b (in its original rhythm) and
d. This segment, therefore, is neither the first part of the transition (as
Rufer would have it) nor a codetta (as Schmalfeldt claims), but rather
an integral part of the theme itself. The fact that precisely this segment
has been eliminated from the recapitulation (bars 168-90) can be

39 See Webern, Uber musikalische Formen, ed. Boynton. These grace notes in turn refer to the
grace notes c "-e " of bar 9; if one sees the model of the liquidation as a fusion of the augmenta-
tion of the initial rhythm of motive b with motive d, then the grace notes could be understood,
by analogy with that of bar 5 of the first movement of op. 2 no. 1, as a 'recuperation' of motive a,
which was lost in the thematic fragmentation.
explained if the recapitulation is considered a

thematic material. Such an intention is verified by
the Neapolitan degree at the beginning of the tra
modification of the structure of the sequences an
process which leads unexpectedly to a first reappe
theme in the major mode of IV (bar 215).40
That said, those utilizing the principles of funct
should ask themselves this: after such an enlargem
theme and such a complication of the internal re
its components, how could the subordinate theme
ally contrasts with the principal theme not only in ch
its loose structure, possibly have been configured
gests, on the basis of a proposal by William Caplin
'a continuum between tightly-knit and loose organ
here.41 I would prefer to suggest that, from all the d
of continuation, Beethoven chose to go back to th
or structurally opening up the sentence, experime
that safeguard the looseness typical of subordinate
perspective, I would maintain that the succinct de
gave to this section of the exposition is not wrong
of closer consideration. The non-coincidence between Schmalfeldt's
graph of foreground contrapuntal relationships (after Schenker)
Schoenberg's formal outline is no indication that one or the othe
the explanations needs to be revised; rather, it is a symptom of di
ent interpretations regarding the lengths, limits and functions o
sections - a double perspective made possible by the intrinsic am
ity of the sections and their components. Schoenberg writes:
The subordinate group begins (m. 56) with a lyrical phrase of f
measures which is immediately repeated, the relation being similar to
tonic form-dominant form of the sentence. Two more four measure
phrases follow, forming a varied repetition, in which the broken c
m. 56-57 and 60-61 are replaced with long scale lines (m. 64
68-69). A cadential extension is also repeated with variation, reac
6/4 [chord] in m. 86. An added segment (derived from m. 1) again
the 6/4 [chord] in m. 90, and finally cadences to E6 in m. 94. Th
section from m. 72 to m. 94 is a series of approaches to the cade
codettas (m. 95-105) are derived from the end of the transition.42
Schenker's graph in Derfreie Satz illustrated the path of the tran

in great detail; while it devoted less attention to the sections
sponding to the principal theme and the subordinate theme, it
theless showed that both cases have to do with the prolongatio
primary note G.43 In clarifying Schenker's graph at the fore
40 See Ratz, Einfiihrung, 148-9.

43 Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, ii, Figure 154/3. In the first volu
Meisterwerk in der Musik (Munich, 1925), 189-90 (trans. Ian Bent as The Masterwork in
Yearbook, Volume I, 1925, ed. William Drabkin, Cambridge, 1995, 106), Schenker dedicat
and a more detailed commentary to the principal theme which, for him, extended from
bar 21.
264 GIANMARIO BORIO
level, Schmalfeldt und

of the two themes, w
the Ursatz in the des
mental notes of the
56-105) are, for Schenker, G-F-El (that is, 5-4-3); however, if one
takes into account that these notes correspond to the progression
3/I-2/V-1/I in the harmonic shift to the mediant, one can grasp the
essential substance of the same structural scheme. Taking account of
the importance of G, of the octave displacement of structural notes, of
the cadential processes and of the replicating character of the back-
ground contrapuntal structures, Schmalfeldt draws a foreground
graph that suggests a different formal outline from Schoenberg's. In
standard morphological terms, the subordinate theme group may be
outlined thus: bars 56-63 = presentation, bars 64-9 = varied repetition
of the presentation, bars 70-7 = extended cadential section, bars 78-94
= extended repetition.44
The discrepancies vis-a-vis the formal articulation proposed by
Schoenberg concern the identification of the starting-point of the
'cadential extension' and, more generally, the explanation of the
'hypermetric' structure of one of the segments of the theme (the total
of 38 bars in fact excludes a 'regular' articulation in groups of four).
Schoenberg would have been mistaken to set a caesura at the end of
bar 71, in so far as the attainment of g", an octave above the expected
register, and the subsequent leap to eL"' signal the beginning of a new
section; what is more, the absolute parallelism of the cadential pro-
gression I-IV-V4-V5-3-I between bars 70-7 and 78-86 would rein-
force the hypothesis of a homology of these two segments. The
combination of observations about basic contrapuntal design, har-
monic processes and motivic treatment would finally allow an answer
to the basic question regarding the relationship between the presen-
tation of the model and its continuation in the sense of a continuum
of stability and looseness; the first eight-bar unit 'stands for, that
takes the place of, the continuation unit that normally completes a
tential theme',45 and the entire structure could be explained accor
ing to the scheme 'presentation-abbreviated repetition-cadent
extension'. I am convinced, however, that a closer examination of
Schoenberg's interpretation, in conjunction with a consideration of
the role of the subordinate theme group in the formal economy of the
whole movement, may lead to satisfactory results which do not require
a Schenkerian rectification.
In the first movement of op. 10 no. 1 Beethoven again derives t
model of the subordinate theme group from that of the princ
theme by way of contrasting derivation: not only does the ascent f
g' to eb" repeat the first melodic gesture of bar 1, but the four c
stituent motivic forms are unified within its rhythmic configurat
(see Example 1 above). In bars 60-3 the model is repeated on t
44 See Examples 12 and 14 in Schmalfeldt, 'Towards a Reconciliation', 266-7, 272-3.

45 Ibid., 273.
dominant, as is usual in a sentence. This first unit

be followed by another one carrying out the proce
Beethoven eschews this typical move in order to a
tural parallel with the principal theme. The mom
and harmonic acceleration is expunged from th
dation, but the basic idea is conserved through th
Bars 64-7 are not a kind of parenthesis, but, toge
ceeding four, are to be considered as part of a sing
The segment that makes up bars 64-71 may be
equal parts: a variant of the model and its modifi
dominant. The dramatic gesture of the upper voi
to g, articulates the jolting movement of this 'liq
quence is that bars 72-5 are a further reduction of
macro-rhythm articulated in groups of only one bar.
elaborate the material up to this point; the 'extra'
etition of the preceding two; the regular quaver pr
not as a reference to bars 68-9 or 76-7, but as a r
final phase of lingering on the dominant ('Verwe
nante') with which the transition closes.46 This int
be confirmed if the function of the subordinate th
ined in relation not only to what precedes it but
dynamic in toto. The development employs the ma
pal theme in its two outer parts; the central p
however, fed by a 'new theme' in which reminiscence
of the transition and the beginning of the subord
perceived.47 The most important thing, however,
nate theme as such does not become an object of
section. Perhaps it was this imbalance which in
supply a double reprise of the subordinate theme
such a peculiarity, the recapitulation as a whole c
a 'normalization' of the irregular structures of the
cipal theme (bars 169-90) is relieved of its 'secon
22-30) and, at its first presentation, the subor
215-32) is configured as a regular structure of 8 +
The course of this passage is interrupted precisely
corresponds to what we called the dramatic gestur
ment which is thus confirmed as the conclusion of
The final chapter of the summa theoretica, which
as the 'theory of organic coherence' ('Lehre vom o
menhang'),48 is a demonstration of the fact that t
cepts and procedures from traditional morpholog
him, disregarding the formal question. On the
46 They share a melodic profile as well as a harmonic sense with ba

47 See Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 208. Schenker drew a graph of the
sition, ed. and trans. Oster, ii, Figure 154/7) which brings to light the
in his exegesis (i, 137), however, he insists that the 'diminutions', deriv
of the sonata form, should not be understood as an elaboration whic
but as a reconfirmation of the articulation of the Urlinie.
48 Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, i, xxi.
266 GIANMARIO BORIO
theory of form'49 ai
analysis of backgro
rupted by the exclus
techniques of their e
illustrates formal typ
effects - not mode
explicit in the relat
ground levels: 'The
described in an almo
formation - a transformation of the forces which flow from the back-
ground to the foreground through the structural levels.'50 With regar
to the morphology of tonal music and its ramifications within the Vien-
nese School, one thing is striking: aside from the reduction to a few
prototypes, Schenker maintains the traditional subdivision into the
forms Lied, rondo (as a compound form of the Lied), sonata and vari
ations.51 Sonata form does not relinquish its position at the apex of
complexity in the musical canon; its defining element is 'the prolon-
gation of a division (interruption)'.52 Schenker presents three basic
schemes: the forms in major mode which modulate to V are rep-
resented as linear movements 3-2-1; those in minor mode modulat-
ing to the dominant minor follow the same pattern; finally, the forms
in minor mode modulating to the mediant follow the linear move-
ment 5-4-3-2-1. The most extensive example of this last model is the
graph of the first movement of the sonata op. 57, which merits some
comment, especially if compared with the analyses made by Schoen-
berg and his pupils.53
Schenker maintains that, to satisfy the law underlying the first macro-
section of sonata form (i.e. the exposition), a linear movement start-
ing from the fifth above the tonic, as seen here, must descend to 3/III
or 2/V. With regard to op. 10 no. 1, we have observed54 that the pos-
ition 3/III was reached with the subordinate theme, which in the
process also effects the linear movement 5-4-3. In op. 57 we find our-
selves confronted with an analogous structure, even though the
descent by a third of the Urlinie arrives at position 3/III after the
lowering of the third degree (C6-B6-A6). In describing this process,
Schenker does not consider it reasonable to make reference to
49 Ibid., i, 131. Schenker explains here that he had been thinking about the subj
time. To me, at least, it seems that the first traces of the project may be found in h
the variations of the sonata op. 109, where he defers more thorough investigation
of a new morphology'. See Heinrich Schenker, Erlduterungsausgaben der letzten
Beethovens, Op. 109 (Vienna, 1913), 41.
50 Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, i, 162 (passage excised from
John Rothgeb).
51 Scherzo form disappears, while slow-movement form, which Schoenberg's st
Adagio or Andante form, is redefined as 'four-part form' (ibid., 141).
52 Ibid., 205. This is the element which distinguishes the tripartition of sonata for
of the Lied, which can also be realized through a mixture of major and minor or
auxiliary note.
53 See Schenker's graph of the first movement of op. 57 (Free Composition, ed. and
ii, Figure 154/4); Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 181, 185, 187; idem, Structural Func
143/c; Webern, Uber musikalische Formen, ed. Boynton; Ratz, Einfiihrung, 155-9.
54 See Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, ii, Figure 154/3 (cf. note 3
definitions such as 'second cantabile theme' or 'contr

since the chromatic moments produced in this phase are
clarify the significance of Auskomponierung (composing-ou
framework of sonata form; the task of the developmen
to 'eliminate the chromatics'.55 In an extensive analysis
which the terms Ursatz, Hintergrund and Vordergrund appe
time, along with a three-level graph of the developme
anticipated the relationship of affinity and differen
between the first and second 'ideas'.56 The salient moments of the first
section - which for Schenker includes the modulatory process ending
at bar 35 - are the descending arpeggio on the triad of the opening
and the auxiliary-note oscillation C-Db-C (in the trill of bar 3:
C-D?-C). While the structural significance of the arpeggio is revealed
in the large-scale proportions, the vacillation 5-6-5 is the characteriz-
ing trait of the Urlinie.57 The second 'idea', conversely, aims to eman-
cipate at the level of the Urlinie the movements of descending thirds
which were announced at different points throughout the first section,
but only as foreground events (see, for example, the upper-voice
motion F6-E K-D6 with which the modulation ends at bars 30-3). This
distinctive feature of the second 'idea' is also visible in the graph from
Derfreie Satz, which illustrates the descent through the third at bars 36ff.
and its transposition at bars 44ff.
The observations on these passages contained in the analysis of 1924
are remarkable also because they offer a convincing explanation of the
structure of the subordinate theme, which, in contrast, remains some-
what vague in the morphological analyses of Schoenberg's students.
According to Ratz, the subordinate theme is composed of 16 bars
articulated thus: a model of four bars (bars 35-8), the varied repetition
of the model (bars 39-42), and a 'surprising obfuscation through the
turn to the dominant of A6 minor'.58 For Schenker, the second 'idea'
is bipartite: the 'antecedent' ends at bar 39 with a perfect cadence,
while the 'consequent' is then extended via the lengthening of indi-
vidual values of duration. The notes belonging to the Urlinie are in the
'antecedent' two motions of a descending third, C-B -A6 and D6-C-B6;
the 'consequent' transposes this double motion to the next higher
register with the aforementioned substitution of C6 for C because of
the shift to the minor mode. Beethoven emphasized this mutation of
harmonic atmosphere not only by throwing the notes of the Urlinie into
relief, but also by augmenting the durational values in corresponding
places: bars 41 and 42 for bar 37 and bars 43 and 44 for bar 38.
Analysing the voice-leading at the background level could thus allow
55 Ibid., 134.
56 See Heinrich Schenker, 'Beethoven: Sonate Opus 57', Der Tonwille, iv/1, 3-33 and attached
Urlinietafel, particularly the graph of the development (p. 9).
57 Schenker employs here with a certain audacity a term which, for him, should be an
oxymoron: Urliniemotiv.
58 'Eine iiberraschende Verdfisterung [...] durch die Wendung zur Dominante von as-moll'
(Ratz, Einfiihrung, 157).
268 GIANMARIO BORIO
Ratz's 'surprising obf

ships between the vo
contrapuntal process
The graph from Der
contrasting function
could have been infe
note oscillation and t
underlines the signif
framework of a larg
structural projection
contrapuntal structur
'it is also possible to
exposition'.59 One c
certain difficulties - i
etition of the principa
he opted for a redim
ground level.60 The
of form as a continu
function of every fo
matic structures of
toward understandi
aspects deserve parti
tion of the sonata fo
toward 'tonicizing' -
peripheral harmonic
ordinate themes, and the continuous transformation to which the sub-
ordinate theme is subjected. Ratz recognized the emergence of a
formal problem which assumed increasing prominence in post-
Beethovenian instrumental music (notably in the Austrian lineage of
Schubert, Bruckner and Mahler): the strophic conception of the Lied
is superimposed onto the teleology of sonata form.61 This superimpo-
sition is responsible for an almost perfect proportionality of the dura-
tion of the four macrosections: 66:69:68:59 bars. It is also responsible
for the idiosyncratic aspect of the development, in which all the stages
of the exposition (transition and codetta included) are restated in the
same order; as for the coda, it restates, again in motivic-thematic elab-
oration, the alternation of principal and subordinate themes that was
heard in the development. This four-part articulation could therefore
be read from the perspective of strophic forms as ABA 'B'. However, the
aspect of propulsion, transformation and regeneration of material -
exactly that of sonata form - is not weakened by the circular concep-
tion of the form; the excursions into quite distant harmonic regions
59 Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, i, 137.

60 This problematic aspect is also mentioned by Smith ('Musical Form and Fundamental
Structure', 236). In his 1924 analysis, Schenker emphasizes the shift to F major without, however,
providing any explanation for it, apart from a vague reference to the fact that 'already with the
changing notes in bar 156 onward, the colours of the minor mode reappear' ('Beethoven: Sonate
Opus 57', 12: 'schon bei den Durchgaingen T. 156ff. treten wieder die Mollfarben vor').
61 See the formal outline of the first movement of op. 57 in Ratz, Einfiihrung, 159.
E
e Bbb
E b bb
C c Eb eb Gb/gb
Ebb
A ebb
a
A
a
D
F f Ab
a
ab C/cb
bb
Abb
d Ebb
D ebb
d
Dbb
Bb bb Db db Fb/fb d bb
Bbb
Figure 1. Harmonic areas centred on Ab major (according to principles outlined in

Schoenberg, Structural Functions of Harmony).
are symptomatic of a complication of the musical discourse that relates

to the coda's role as dramatic finale. The coda is a concluding section
not only in the sense of the formal architecture but also in that of
narrative strategy.
Beethoven derived his subordinate theme from the principal theme
with a technique not very different from that which he had used in the
first movement of op. 2 no. 1. He modified the melodic profile of the
first segment of the principal theme, shaping it into a double ascend-
ing-descending curve; the major mode and dolce indication underscore
this change of character. For the continuation, however, he did not
resort to the juxtaposition of different segments, as he had in his first
sonata, but mimed the gesture of repeating the model, which is a
typical feature of the sentence; this is perceived, at least on an uncon-
scious level, as a reminder of the substantial affinity of the two themes.
The repetition does not take place on the dominant but is a simple
transposition of the model at the octave, followed by the process of
motivic dissolution (not liquidation) discussed above. During this
process, the Neapolitan chord once more appears, which in the context
of the mediant (Ab major-Bbb major) is revealing for the harmonic
itinerary. If one constructs a table of the subordinate and principal
areas outlined in StructuralFunctions ofHarmony, centring it on Ab major
(see Figure 1), one sees that the Neapolitan degree appears a second
time at the extreme top right, in the function of the mediant of minor
V of the flat mediant, thus in a symmetrical position with respect to the
E major/minor with which the development begins. The strong
tension created between E major and the home key, F minor, is not
illustrated by Schenker's two graphs because he does not concede even
270 GIANMARIO BORIO
Bb Gb
I vD-b-
Ab - - - - - - - - - - - f
Figure 2. Network of harmonic routes in the first movement of Beethoven, op. 57.
relative autonomy to secondary degrees. The three-level graph

attached to the 1924 analysis for the purpose of illustrating the develop-
ment reveals the reasons which led Schenker to minimize the role of E
major: the note E is in fact considered the first step in a series of major
thirds in the bass line which runs cyclically from the A6 at the end o
the exposition to the Ab of bar 87: 'The leaps of thirds are only passin
notes, therefore one can neither speak of fundamental harmonies no
of a change of key, even if one were initially inclined to regard the A
chord as the dominant of D6 major.'62
It is clear that abandonment of the drastic alternative between struc-
tural degrees and passing notes (or harmonies) can clear the way f
consideration of a harmonic architecture based on multiple for
entrusted with tasks of different magnitude. The proposal put forw
above, to construct a table of harmonic areas centred on Ab ma
assumes that - as in the first movement of op. 2 no. 1 - it is the media
not the tonality of the home key, which plays the guiding role in h
monic shifts. From this perspective, the surprising E major with wh
the development begins can be explained as an 'inversional balan
of the first,63 likewise surprising, harmonic shift of the sonata: the tra
position of the model of the principal theme to the flattened seco
degree (bars 5-8; see also Figure 2). Beethoven seems to draw the att
tion of the listener to the relevance of the minor second several times
over and on different levels; the appearance of the 'fate motive'
accompaniment in the liquidation (bars 10, 12 and 13) is an examp
of this.64 The inversional relationship F-GK/E-F is the key for readin
62 'Die Terzsprfinge sind nur Durchgange, somit darf weder von Stufen, noch von eine
Tonartwechsel gesprochen werden, selbst dann nicht, wenn man den As-Klang vorerst noch
Dominante der Des-Dur-Tonart zu nehmen neigte' (Schenker, 'Beethoven: Sonate Opus 57', 9)
63 See David Lewin, 'Inversional Balance as an Organizing Force in Schoenberg's Music a
Thought', Perspectives of New Music, 6 (1968), 1-21, and David W. Bernstein, 'Symmetry an
Symmetrical Inversion in Turn-of-the-Century Theory and Practice', Music Theory and the Expl
ration of the Past, ed. Christopher Hatch and David W. Bernstein (Chicago, 1993), 377-407. A
different point of view regarding harmonic motion in the first movement of op. 57 is expresse
by Carpenter in 'Grundgestalt as Tonal Function'; see in particular the illustration based
Schoenberg's regions in Figure 2, p. 19.
64 The same motive reappears, transposed and in inversion (E-F), as the main voice in t
dramatic opening of the concluding section (bar 239). At the end of the preceding diminuen
it is heard in its original form, so that here the inversional movement is exhibited in close-up: E
counterbalanced at the fifth, D'-C.
the harmonic movement of the development: the mom

lishment of F# minor at bar 71 not only signals the orie
E minor, but also enharmonically recalls GC; when,
sequence of the second model, the progression runs th
Gbmajor F minor
G major - C major
the circle is closed. The key of D6 major, which is VI o

Gegenklangin functional theory) and at the same time t
of A6 major, carries a weight whose relevance canno
morphological analysis; and in fact it is on this degree t
model of the development, based on the material of th
theme, is stated. It seems to me, then, that Ratz was f
viewing the essential content of the first movement o
transformations of the subordinate theme. It appears fi
many motivic configurations and keys: in the exposition
in the development in Db major, in the recapitulation
the coda modulating from D6 major to F minor and lat
The large-scale movement on the degrees of the D6 majo
firms its centrality. Further, the temporal extension of th
is functional to the dynamic of the drama, permits us
why the subordinate theme recurs in the recapitulatio
mode: the process of gradual transformation require
stage and only in the final bars, in F minor, could a reu
principal theme be effected.
The differences we have outlined in the analyses
Beethoven sonatas could be reduced to the following op
in Schoenberg the formal question is posed implicitly t
model is defined and requires continuation, Schenker,
that not only the proportional relations between section
configuration and elaboration of the motives are n
elements from the structural point of view, positions h
the tradition of the Formenlehre; the gradual eradicatio
principles of this tradition from his writings, noticeable
on the Ninth Symphony, is nothing other than the con
maturing of this conviction. One could go further, and
centrality of the Ursatz and its prolongations renders s
need for a theory of form as a discipline distinct from
and harmony: the form of a composition would be
result of the treatment of contrapuntal lines on the la
scale. However, the fact that at the conclusion of Derfre
included a chapter on form which does not respond
exigencies of systematic coherence but, as Charles J
proposes the basis for a structural theory of form spea
272 GIANMARIO BORIO
hypothesis. Only such a

end to the discourse on
of the eighteenth cent
first high point with A
(on which Schoenberg
in Schenker's opinion,
which had to be surpas
not consider the questi
thanks to the theory of
last chapter of Der fre
version) of a structura
first stage of Schenke
enced writings publis
there are at least two
Hellmut Federhofer (
siderable space to form
Salzer and Federhofer f
concepts of unity and
ent level, the question
particular, Salzer identif
substance of a composit
second, form as archite
mic-thematic articula
phenomenal aspect of a
tive of the analyst's wor
far as it 'confers the ne
life'.66 Salzer disting
form', indicating by the
the second the form o
tion can be grasped onl
the whole are clarifi
motivic-thematic relati
from many of the criter
freie Satz: division, rep
the guiding concepts
described. These, howe
progressions, and for
65 See Hellmut Federhofer, Be
Vienna, 1950), and Felix Salzer,
From the point of view of the h
formal question in these two t
attempt to transfer the principl
was undertaken in the same p
1950) and Rufer (Composition w
'Zw61lftontechnik und Formenl
Autorschaft als historische Konstruk
preten, ed. Andreas Meyer and
66 'Es ist jedoch die themat
notwendige Profil verleiht und e
tonale Zusammenhang in der Mu
Structural Hearing, 224), 'them
as 'pattern'.
encompass passages from pieces by Debussy and Bart6

ity is often liberated from conventional usage.
Federhofer, on the other hand, sets out from a criti
of the theories of musical form drafted by various e
century authors in order to arrive at an outline of a
ception of form. This is already implicit in Schenker'
set in clear relief by a comparison with the contribu
psychologie, of Kurt Westphal, Hermann Erpf and E
Federhofer, the term most appropriate for describ
concept of form is Gestaltverlauf This term reflects the
conviction that the combination or succession of certain elements
creates a unity of superior order, an experiential quality not red
to that produced by partial events; at the same time, Federhofe
the concept of Gestalt from its static nature and infuses it with an
getic component. Schenker's analyses are for him vivid demonst
of the fact that the unity of the musical discourse - form as wh
the result of a process of vital forces and impulses which m
described as 'the expansion of a sonorous space concealed in
chord'.67 Even though Federhofer's analyses should not be iden
tout court with those of Schenker, his approach reveals its roots
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Lebensphilosophie, which i
seldom explicit in Schenker.68 It is possible that a thorough in
gation of this philosophical background might contribute to a
understanding of the differences between Schenker and Schoen
For the moment, though, I should like to conclude with a sum
ing observation: Schenker considered compositions according to
model of life, with its tendency toward reproduction and expa
while for Schoenberg a piece of music is a linguistic creation t
such can be understood only by mastering the syntactic-gramm
rules on which it is based. There are unexpected coincidences b
The Musical Idea of Schoenberg and the Philosophical Investigati
Ludwig Wittgenstein: both texts are dedicated to the premiss of
guistic community, were written far from their authors' native Vie
are in fragmentary form and were published posthumously
Schoenberg had occasion to read it, he certainly would have
with the following assertion of Wittgenstein, in which thought
and technique are tightly interconnected: 'To understand a sen
means to understand a language. To understand a language mea
be master of a technique.'69
Universitda degli Studi di Pavia, Cremona

(translated by Laura Basini)
67 'Dehnung eines im Klanglichen geborgenen Tonraumes' (Federhofer, Beitrdge zur
schen Gestaltanalyse, 38).
68 For example, in the preface to his Harmonielehre, Schenker writes: 'I should like to s
particular the biological factor in the life of tones. We should get used to the idea that to
lives of their own, more independent of the artist's pen in their vitality than one wou
believe' (Heinrich Schenker, Harmony, ed. OswaldJonas, trans. Elisabeth Mann Borgese,
1954, xxv).
69 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (2nd edn,
1958), 81e
274 GIANMARIO BORIO
ABSTRACT
Music theory has increasingly been attempting to find points of co

between the analytical methods of Heinrich Schenker and those of
Schoenberg. However, the move toward a reconciliation has enc
obstacles because of the uneven development of the two schools an
ences in the philosophical background of their procedures. The
article focuses on these differences through an examination of three
examples: the first movements of Beethoven's sonatas op. 2 no. 1, op
1 and op. 57. The comparison of Schenker's analyses in Der Tonwill
freie Satz with those of Schoenberg, Webern, Rufer and Ratz shows that
agreement principally concerns musical form and the functions of
ponents. The differences can finally be traced back to two opposite p
music as nature and music as language.

Royal Musical Association, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Journal of The Royal Musical Association

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Royal Musical Association, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Journal of The Royal Musical Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schenker versus Schoenberg versus Schenker: The Difficulties of a Reconciliation

Author(s): Gianmario Borio

Schenker versus Schoenberg versus

for Mario Bertoncini

ANYONE wishing to take on the task of drawing up a

different interpretations of 'harmoniefremde T6

Charlotte E. Erwin and Bryan R. Simms, 'Schoenberg's Corresponde

8 See Josef Rufer, Composition

special case of Rudolf R6ti, who did not attend Scho

least two reasons: the

15 See Schoenberg, Fundamen

Even the Urlinie obeys the law of generation, i.e. of repe

These two attitudes toward organicism, which deriv

If the postponement [of the notes of the Urlinie] to metrically unstress

It is repetition, or rather replication in constantly changing guises, that

into the background,

20 Arnold Schoenberg, Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in Form, ed. with an

principal theme, while at the same time being related

Erwin Ratz was able t

which all others depend; contained within it are the

In a series of notes from 1934, intended for his treati

28 See Rudolf Stephan, 'Zum Terminus "Grundgestalt" ', Vom musikalisc

Rufer, who had in m

Example 1. Motivic configuration of the principal th

formulate a hypothesis regarding the internal articulation of the expo-

38 Schoenberg, Fundamentals, 58.

explained if the recapitulation is considered a

Schenker's graph in Derfreie Satz illustrated the path of the tran

40 See Ratz, Einfiihrung, 148-9.

level, Schmalfeldt und

44 See Examples 12 and 14 in Schmalfeldt, 'Towards a Reconciliation', 266-7, 272-3.

dominant, as is usual in a sentence. This first unit

46 They share a melodic profile as well as a harmonic sense with ba

definitions such as 'second cantabile theme' or 'contr

Ratz's 'surprising obf

59 Schenker, Free Composition, ed. and trans. Oster, i, 137.

Figure 1. Harmonic areas centred on Ab major (according to principles outlined in

are symptomatic of a complication of the musical discourse that relates

relative autonomy to secondary degrees. The three-level graph

the harmonic movement of the development: the mom

the circle is closed. The key of D6 major, which is VI o

hypothesis. Only such a

encompass passages from pieces by Debussy and Bart6

Universitda degli Studi di Pavia, Cremona

Music theory has increasingly been attempting to find points of co

You might also like