Agawu1989 PDF

Schenkerian Notation in Theory and Practice
Author(s): V. Kofi Agawu

Source: Music Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Oct., 1989), pp. 275-301
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854291
Accessed: 12-02-2016 09:02 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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.
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Analysis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 131.172.36.29 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
V. KOFI AGAWU
SCHENKERIAN NOTATION IN THEORY

AND PRACTICE
One of the most visible featuresof contemporary music analysisis the

multiplicityof its notationalmethods.* Statisticalcharts,algebraicequations,
tablesand graphshavebecomevirtually indispensableto anymusic-theoretical
or music-analytical undertaking.Chief among these notationsis the voice-
leading graph, now a regularfeaturenot only of journalsdevoted to the
dissemination ofanalyticalresearch,butalso ofotherswhosefocusis primarily
historical.'What accountsforthis preoccupationwith notationalmethods?
First,itmaywellbe thediscipline'sresponsetoa wider'crisisofrepresentation'
(Marcus and Fischer1986: 8) whichnow plaguesboththesocialsciencesand
thehumanities.Justas literary theoryhas developeda largelyunprecedented
self-consciousness aboutlanguageand metaphor,justas anthropology is having
tocontendwiththevariousformsofnarrative strategiesby which it'reports'the
ostensiblyempiricalresultsoffieldwork, justas philosophyis beingchallenged
to renounceitsprivilegedaccessto 'truth'byacknowledging thecontamination
of its language,and just as historianshave had to give up the notionof a
transparentlanguagewhich simplycommunicatesthe 'facts' of history,so
music analysts are becoming increasinglyconscious of the inescapably
ideologicalnatureoftheirdiscourses,bothverbaland musical.2
A secondfactormaybe the influenceof contemporary musiccomposition,
whichin the last fortyor fifty yearshas witnesseda remarkableexplosionin
notational methods (Griffiths1986 offers a bird's-eye view of these
developments). Music analystsmaytherefore simplybe responding tothesame
communicative urgeas theirfellowcomposers.Yet itis bynomeanscertainthat
contemporary analysisproceeds with much awarenessof developmentsin
contemporarycomposition.Whereas twentyyears ago one could speak
confidently of 'composer-theorists',one is less inclinedto takethatparticular
conjunctionforgrantedin today'sintellectual climate.
A thirdand mostdirectreasonis ofcoursetheinfluential workofSchenker,
describedrecentlyas 'the greatestmusicalanalystof the twentiethcentury'
* A shorterversionofthisarticlewas readat theOxford Music AnalysisConference1988.I am grateful
University toPatrick
McCreless,RichardSmithand ArnoldWhittallfortheircommentson a draftofthearticle.
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 275
V. KOFI AGAWU
(Wintle 1988). Amongthe growingfoldone findsorthodoxand unorthodox

Schenkerians,neo-Schenkerians,strictconstructionists, post-Schenkerians
and a host of others.One sure way to identifythemis by theirnotational
stripes.3
The Schenkergraph has become an importantsymbolin contemporary
analyticalculture.It is (or represents),
variously,a proto-musical
structure, an
objetd'art,a formofdiscourse,a speciesofwritingand an assemblyofmental
concepts; it partakesof a 'theoreticallanguage' (Keiler 1983-4: 227) or a
metalanguage;and it is, most definitely,a status symbol. Like any other
influentialcriticaltool, however,Schenkeriangraphs both illuminateand
mystify thenatureofmusicalstructure. As WilliamBenjaminputit a littleover
a decadeago:
[t]hepresent-dayvoguishnessof the Schenker-like

graphhas been of
positive infacilitating
effect andthereby a morelaconicstylein
encouraging
communication,
analytical butithashadthesignificantly
negativeeffect
of
allowinginadequate
thinkingtohidebehindcalligraphic (Benjamin
ability.
1976/7:31)
The challengesposed by Benjamin'swordshave largelyfallenon deaf ears.

Evenhiscontention regarding thecommunicative function ofgraphshasnot,in
myview,been adequatelyanswered.It is partofmyaimin thisessayto restate
Benjamin'schallenge,thoughfroma different perspective, andtouse thisas the
basisfordevelopinga critiqueofcontemporary usesofSchenkerian notation.In
orderto set intoreliefSchenker'sown practice,I beginby consideringsome
uses ofhierarchic notationthataredistinctlyunSchenkerian. Then I considera
handfulofprecedentsforSchenker'spractice.This leads to a discussionofthe
epistemological statusofthegraph.A fourthsectiondescribesSchenker'swell-
knownanalysisof the second of the Dichterliebe songs,and contrastswhatI
perceiveto be a conflictingstrategywith the systematising views of neo-
Schenkerians.A fifthsectiontakes a look at the applicationof Schenkerian
notationto music thatis not straightforwardly tonal. I concludewithsome
practicalsuggestions.Byisolatingonlya handfulofthenumerousstrandsinthe
current practice of Schenkerian notation and exposing some of the
contradictions inherentin thepractice,I do notclaimthatinconsistencies and
contradictions are undesirable(how could theybe, in our post-structuralist
age?) butratherthat,becausetheyremainunacknowledged, theyblocktheway
to progressin our discipline.
I
Examples 1-5 are designed to supportthe obvious assertionthat not all
manifestations
of hierarchicnotationare Schenkerian;in factI suspectthat
orthodoxSchenkerianswill wantto distancethemselvesfromsome of these
276 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989
SCHENKERIAN NOTATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
methodsof representation. Example 1 is Tovey's remarkablesynopsisof the

harmoniccontentofthefirstmovementof Schubert'sC majorStringQuintet
(Tovey 1949: 150). This analysis appears in the context of a broader
demonstration of tonalityin Schubert,of whichtheQuintetis singledout on
accountof its striking use of Neapolitanrelations.The harmonicstructure of
themovement is givenheresimplyas an expandedcadence.Toveyexplainsthat
thedottedminimsand semibrevesarethefocalpointsoftheprogression, while
crotchetsand quavers represent'connexionlinks'. This hierarchicstructure
embodiesa conflict, however.It conveys,on theonehand,partoftheidea ofan
Ursatzbyvirtueofitsseveresynopticstance.On theotherhand,it hintsat the
idea of a rhythmic reductionby its acknowledgement of metricconstraints.
Tovey was perhaps unaware of the six-bar hypermetreproduced by his
reduction, but it is interesting thathe retainedsome senseofmetreon whatis
a
unquestionably deep levelof structure.The alloy,namely,theidea
resulting
of a 'rhythmicUrsatz',is of courseanathemato Schenkerianthought,which
holdsthat'structure... in itsfinalanalysisis arhythmic' (Salzer 1962:41).4
Ex. 1 Tovey'ssynopsisoftheharmoniccontentofSchubert'sStringQuintetin
C major,firstmovement
-Alot -movementyjuu.
M MW
RecapitulatloR
ILPvff
I1-
_W VI
Example 2 is an analysisof Chopin's Prelude Op. 28, No. 9 fromWallace

Berry'schallengingbook Structural FunctionsofMusic (1976), one of whose
centraltasksis to explainthehierarchicbasesoftonal,post-tonal and pre-tonal
music.BerrycitesthisPreludeas an illustration oftheprincipleof'tonalorder
as an inflation
ofharmonicorderand succession'.He distinguishes betweenthe
primarytonalsystemof thePrelude,whichincludesthearpeggiatedE major
chord,E-AJ/G#-B-E and variouspassingsecondarytonics.The result,however,
is decidedlyunSchenkerian.For example,thereis no strongcommitment to a
strictlylinearview of events;Berrypresentsthe graph 'withoutfidelityto
originalvoice-leading'(1976: 69). Furthermore, he insistson innervoicesand
failsto include the structuraldominanton the same hierarchiclevel as the
framing tonic.This is nottosaythatBerry'smeaningis obscure,onlythat,from
a Schenkerian pointofview,itis unorthodox.
Example 3a is a melodic-harmonic archetypewhich Leonard B. Meyer
uncoversin worksby Mozart,Beethovenand Berlioz.The waysin whichthe
archetypeis variedby each composerbecomethebasis foran analysisofstyle-
change between Classicism and Romanticism.Meyer explains that '[t]he
notationused in theanalysesdoes notrepresentthedurationofthestipulated
pitches,but onlytheirrelativestructuralimportanceand theirconstancyas
featuresof the archetype'(1980: 182). The orderof importanceis as follows:
beamedwhitenotes;beamedand stemmedblacknotes;stemmedblacknotes;
V. KOFI AGAWU
Ex. 2 Berry'sanalysisofChopin'sPreludein E major,Op. 28, No. 9
Enharmonic-diatonic succession
I
a x
F,f:V
.. .. A :V
... ,aE _
IE
T:
RE:
i
i
~al,/glt: iii
and unstemmedblack notes. Althoughthe representation thus conveysa

hierarchy, certain detailsin such
Meyer'smethod, as thelinkingofthesecond
and thirdwhitenotesin thebass, or thehighstatusofthesubdominant, depart
significantlyfromSchenkerianprecedent.In Ex. 3b I attemptto 'Schenkerise'
Meyerby rewriting the archetype.From this it emergesthatthe archetype
embodiesa 3-line,thattheinitial3 is approachedby arpeggiation and thatthe
initialbass noteis prolongedbymeansofa doubleneighbouring-note motion.
Example3b, however,is notmerelya translation ofEx. 3a; it is themodelofa
differentpiece.
Ex. 3a Meyer'sarchetype
forClassic-Romantic
music
A(I +1) 8 (or 3)

. rn
b: m
?(z)
ySAs
f(Ox
' " '' _
Cs) s-i b)IJ 'E3 ( '1

a) ,--
I - )
. -do,,me_% g.
"V I--
l._.._f -,---
278 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989
Ex.3bSchenkerian
version
ofEx.3a
A3
N N
I V
Example4 is Edward T. Cone's analysisof thefirstfourbars of themost-

analysedpieceinmusicalhistory,Mozart'sA majorSonata,K.331 (Cone 1968:
28). The contextis a demonstrationof rhythmic levels of performance,for
whichthereductionis adducedas evidenceof'a movement awayfromandback
to theoriginalpositionofthetonicchord,followedby the(feminine)cadence'
(1968: 29). Withoutreopeningthedebatesaboutwhetherthisis a 5-lineor a 3-
one, we mightnote thatCone's orthography takesin bothreadings,albeiton
differentlevelsofstructure.
The 3 oftheoverall3-2 (whitenotes)is prolonged
by a 5-4-3motionand simultaneously by a palindromic3-2-1-2-3progression.
Cone thussucceedsin capturingsomeofthepassage'smultiple The
resultfroma Schenkerian of
point view,however, is somewhat meanings.
untidy.
Ex. 4 Cone's analysisoftheopeningbarsofMozart'sPiano Sonatain A major,
K.331
A
A
r- 49 !I F 1 w I I II it i - V
1 II :- H-V|9
Igo
I 1 V

V. KOFI AGAWU
from
Ex. 5 is anexcerpt
Finally, Taruskin's
Richard oftheSecond
analysis
Tableau fromStravinsky's Petrushka(1987). In this post-tonalcontext,the
governingsonorities
are referrable
to theoctatonicscale. Taruskinaimsto go
beyondthemereestablishment
of'localreferability
totheoctatonic
scale'(1987:
sonore. . is maintainedas a stable
266) and to showthat'an octatoniccomplexe
pointofreference governing thewhole spanof[the]composition, whateverthe
vagariesor digressionsalongtheway' (1987: 267). The 'summary'graphuses
sizes of note-head,
different to conveystructural
presumably significance
(Taruskinnowhereexplainshissystemofnotation).The assumption ofregistral
equivalence,coupledwiththeblindnessto certainregistral connections,is an
immediateindicationof the non-Schenkerian natureof thenotation.It is not
alwaysclearwhetherslursdepictdependencyorconnection;noris itclearwhat
is the statusof pitchesthatfalloutsidethe referential
octatonicconnection.
Whether
thetypesofhierarchy herearecomparable
unearthed to,ormerely
analogousto,tonalhierarchies
is notclearfromthediscussion.(I shallreturnto
thispointin thefifth
partofthe presentstudy.)
Ex. 5 Taruskin'sanalysisoftheopeningofStravinsky's
ChezPetrouchka
3
F4-81 1150Fs-o
ri na$- 1 ucd-7~
na -1
sonorities:
Governing III
Coll.
jFe
There are doubtlesscontextualjustifications forthe methodsadopted by

thesewriters,and it is notmyaim hereto assessfullytheexplanatoryvalue of
the graphsquoted above. What theirexternalformmakes pertinentis the
epistemologicalstatusof graphsin general.What is a graph?What does it
communicate,and how does it do so? Are graphsas appropriatefor tonal
hierarchies
as theyareforpre-and post-tonalhierarchies? Exactlywheredo we
locatetheinterfacebetweencompositionand analysis,and howdoes thegraph
promote or undermineour view of that interface?Is there an aesthetic
dimensionto thispractice,and ifso, whatare itsdefiningparameters?
II
These areonlya fewoftheissuesraisedbythegraphsquotedin Exs 1-5,butit
is alreadyapparentthatanymeaningful discussionof such broadissues must
proceed withinspecifiedlimits. So, by oversimplifying the historyof the

practice of hierarchic we
notation, might make explicit a claim whichhas been
implicit in the discussionso farand which will be undermined in due course,
namely, that from our viewpoint thesenotationalroadsstem from Schenker.It
is to the theorist'swordsthatwe shouldturn.Here is the statement thathas
baffledgenerations of Schenker'sstudents:
The musicalexampleswhichaccompany thisvolumeare not merely

aids;
practical they havethesame power andconviction
as thevisualaspect
of theprintedcomposition itself(theforeground).
Thatis, thegraphic
is partoftheactualcomposition,
representation notmerely an educational
means.(Schenker 1979:xxiii)
Astonishing words,makingverylargeclaimsforthe Supplementto Der freie

Satz. How can discourseabouta workbe accordedthesamestatusas thework
itself,withoutriskingthechargeof "ultimateheresy"(Rushton1984:4)? What
authorizestheanalyst'sefforts, andinwhatsenseis thisauthority comparableto
thecomposer's?Does notanalyticconventionappealin thefirstinstanceto the
coherenceof its arguments,while compositionalnotationremainsentirely
pragmatic,dependentmainlyupon what the composerwishesto conveyin
musicallanguage?Is therenot a difference in extent,perhapseven in kind,
betweenanalysts'and composers'acceptanceoftheconstraints ofa notational
code?
In one important sense,Schenker'sstatement is trulyprophetic.Byblurring
the distinctionbetween an analyticalrepresentation and the work itself,
Schenkerhintsat a similareffort amongliterary theorists,someofwhomhave
arguedthatthe difference betweencriticismand the literaryworkis largely
illusory.6To say thatthe graphis part of a musicalworkis to expand the
conceptualboundariesof the art-work;it is also to endow the analystwitha
degree of 'composerly'competence.A sympatheticreadingof Schenker's
statement wouldtherefore stressnottheapparentconfusion ofpriorities
butthe
of a
postulation decidedlyhighergoal fortheanalyst.In writingaboutmusic,
thebestanalystscannothelpbutwritemusic.Schenkerofcoursehad a lotmore
to sayaboutthestatusofhisgraphs,butitseemstome thattheabovestatement
capturesthe essentialmotivationof the analyst.To continueto unravelits
implications, we need to embarkon a briefhuntforthesourcesofhierarchic
notation, with Schenkeras guide.
We are all familiarwith the conflicting tendencyamong composersand
theoriststo establishthemselves, on theone hand,as heirsofa greathistorical
tradition, whileon theotherhandseekingto preservea certainnoveltyin their
own work. This may explainwhySchenkerpaused in the middleof a high-
minded theoreticalexegesisto give a capsule historyof hierarchicnotation
(1979: 97-8). It is an incompleteand largelyself-servingaccount,whosemain
claimis thatall roadslead to Schenker.But it makestwoimportant pointsthat
are crucialforunderstanding hierarchicnotation.7
V. KOFI AGAWU
The firstis thathierarchic notation hasboththeoretical and compositional

precedents. Schenker mentions in this connection Carl PhilippEmmanuel
Bach'sEssayontheTrueArtofPlaying Keyboard Instruments (citedasBach1974)
as thesourcenotonlyofhierarchic notation in a broadsensebutalso ofthe
specificnotionsof Schichten: 'C.P.E. Bach touchesupon the worldof
diminution in thedeepersenseofitsrelationship withthemiddleground and
background' (Schenker1979:98). Withoutdenying thevalidity ofhistorical
connections between Bachand Schenker, it shouldbe stressed thattheEssay
supportsthisviewonlyin concept,not in thepracticalnotationof those
concepts. Bach'srichly illustrated treatise makesuseoftwosizesofnote-heads.
Smallnotesareusedin pragmatic ways,ratherthanin theserviceofa firm
theoreticalidea. Theyoccurat thecompletion ofwritten scalesormotives to
indicatedirection ratherthanornamental status(1974:46-7,59,70-3);theyare
usedto indicatehypothetical resolutions (: 112),to showvariousornaments,
especiallytwo-note ones (: 132,358), toindicate arpeggiations andhiddenfifths
(: 188,200) and tofill
out innervoices (: 443). Bach is thereforeconcerned with
diminution in a generalsense.But it is a longwayfromtheseprimitive
demonstrations ofhierarchy tothefully-fledged Schenkerian graph.s
The second,moresubstantial point made by Schenker is thatcompositional
notation is itselfanalytic.Schenker's interest heredoes notfollowBusoni's
intriguingclaimthat'notation isitself thetranscription ofanabstract idea.The
moment thatthepentakespossession ofit,thethought losesitsoriginalform'
(1987: 87). Nor does Schenkerengagequestionsabouttheidentity of the
musicalworkin themanner ofRomanIngarden (1986).His concern is rather
withthehierarchic distinctions embodied inactualpiecesofmusic.Bywayof
illustration,Schenker refers to justtwocomposers, HandelandChopin.It is
to
testimonySchenker's philological interest thathehadfounda discrepancy in
theeditions ofHandel'skeyboard SuitesII inF majorandSuiteIII inD minor.
Example6 compares thelastthreebarsoftheopeningAdagiooftheF major
Suitein twoeditions.In theChrysander edition(Ex. 6a) all thenotesarethe
same size, whereasin an earlier(1720) edition- presumably one whose
publication wassupervised by Handel- a distinction ismade between smalland
largenotes(thesmallnoteshavebeenrestored in a numberoflatereditions,
includingHandel 1983,fromwhicheditionEx. 6b is taken).Example7,
similarly,showsan excerpt fromChopin'sAb1?tude, Op. 25,No. 1,towhich
--now g
Ex. 6 Bs 13-15ofHandel'sSuiteII inF major,Adagio,intwoeditions
Im ga L III HF
ILM 0 V
b)
13 t
F1
F :F 1
65 3 2
4 3
Ex. 7 OpeningbarsofChopin's1~tudein Abmajor,Op. 25, No. 1
sostenuto(=104)
Allegro
_____________
-3-
LF
,,All
r i! ~1! : II i ! l PI I ll lit I l l l I
aJI----
;i lI Iii 11 ilI
[Ztl''l .. Ii' / : i
. ll . '.. ,,iI'
., . {i. .
Schenkerrefers;herelargenote-headspick out thestructural notesofmelody

and bass.
Two claimsthatSchenkermakeswithreference tothesepiecesare,first,that
thedistinction betweennoteshas implications fora 'correctperformance even
of the bass', and, second, that the larger notes highlightmiddleground
structure.The idea ofa single'correctperformance' seemstounderestimate the
complexities ofperformance, justas theclaimthatonemightapproach'thetrue
senseofthemusic'(1979: 98), withitsvisionofa single,'definitive' meaning,no
longerseemsaxiomaticin today'sintellectual climate.Neitheroftheseclaimsis
uncharacteristic ofSchenker,however.
As a brieftestof the significance of Schenker'sclaims,Ex. 8 analysesthe
openingbars of theF majorSuite. Schenker'sclaimis essentially correct:the
ascentto 3 is representedbylargenotes,whileall thesmallnotesareornamental
in status.Handel's notationis in thatsense'analytic'.Elsewhere,however(see,
forexample,bs 8-14),therearedifferences betweenHandel's notationand the
putativeSchenkerian interpretation, eventhoughthebroadsweepofharmonic
movementis implicitin Handel's ownhierarchy.
To citeC.P.E. Bach, Handel and Chopinas evidenceofa historical basisfor
hierarchicnotationis hardlya compellingnarrative, butit has theadvantageof
keepingin view the link betweencomposition,analysisand performance.
Knowingabout precedents,however,does not explain Schenker'spractice.
The need to explicatethesymbolicin Schenkerbecomesparticularly acutein
viewoftheapparently subsidary role thatwords play in his analyticalpractice.
V. KOFI AGAWU
Ex. 8 Reduction
ofbs 1-2ofHandel'sSuiteII inF major,
Adagio,
compared
withHandel's notation
I
I
- c -
V I
Adagio
52
Accordingto David Epstein, Schenker's'graphology... [renders]words

unnecessary to one familiarwithhis concepts'(1981: 145); AllenForteclaims
that'therepresentational devicesare so refinedthattheyrenderlengthy verbal
explanationunnecessary'(1977: 9); JonathanDunsby and Arnold Whittall
detectan 'urgetowardsgraphicself-sufficiency' (1988: 30). Schenkerhimself
introducesthe Five GraphicMusic Analyseswith the claim that '[t]he
presentation in graphicformhas now been developedto a pointthatmakesan
explanatory textunnecessary'(1969: 9). And in a letterto Felix-Eberhard von
Cube, Schenkerhopesthat'thepicturecan "speak"evenwithouta text'['sodass
das Bild auch ohneText "reden"kann'](quoted in Drabkin1985: 253).
It is thisparty-lineretreatfromverbalexegesisthatbringsus facetofacewith
theissuesof communication, and forcesus to confront thelinguisticstatusof
graphs:howdoes hierarchic notationcommunicate, especiallywhentheobject
aboutwhichit presumesto communicate - namely,musicor a musicalwork,
thedifference beingfarfrom -
trivial has so farnotbeenshowntobe a legitimate
system of communication? To what extent are we justifiedin usingtheword
or
'language' 'metalanguage' to describe Schenker's notationalsystem?After
all, we tendto thinkofmusicas somesortoflanguage,and nothingthatwriters
like Keiler(1978), Powers(1980) or Nattiez(1987) tellus aboutthelimitations
of thatanalogymakes us wantto recant.In any case, we can alwayscall on
metaphorto dissolvetheseimpreciselabels.
III
A Schenkergraphis a formofwriting. It embodiesdiscourseabouta piece of
music. Its metalinguistic functionis consistentwithBarthes'definition of 'a
system whose plane of content is itself constituted a
by signifying system'
(Barthes 1967: 90) because it sharessome of the symbolsof compositional
notation.If Salzer is correctin his claim that 'motionis the predominant
elementin tonalmusic'(1962: 50), and iftheadequaterepresentation ofmotion
constitutesthe ideal forthe analyst,thenthe appeal of hierarchicnotationis
clear:itcapturesboththediachronicand thesynchronic dimensionsofa piece.
It does so bydeferring to thecommunicative aspects ofmusic notation,so that,
whateverelse itadds to musicnotation,itdoes so fromwithinratherthanfrom
without.9And yetsuch a claimfailsto confront the seriousdoubtcast on the
self-referentialnatureofdiscoursebySuzanneLangerwhenshearguesthatitis
'a mistake. . to symbolizethingsbyentitiestoomuchlikethemselves'(1942:
65). Langer,itappears,wishestominimisethecontinuity betweensignifier and
signified, or ratherto insiston thevalueofa residualdiscontinuity; butitcould
be arguedthattheconjunctionis indispensableto sensitivemusicanalysis.By
forcingitspractitioners to get 'inside'themusicalorganism,and to acceptthe
tracesofthatenvironment on theirfinalproducts(i.e. thegraphs),Schenkerian
analysisdefinesa profoundly ambivalentrelationbetweenmusicalobjectand
theanalysisofthatobject.
Withoutseekingto resolvethedisparity betweenSalzerand Langer,we may
say thatthe graphembodiesprimarily and inevitably verbalconceptsabouta
piece ofmusic.This meansthatcommunication bymeansofa Schenkergraph
relieson at leasttwo,non-intersecting, semioticsystems,musicand language.
Readingthegraphentailsa crossingofsystemicboundaries,and theprocedure
becomesmorecomplicatedif thereis an accompanying verbalcommentary,
thatis, a languageabout a graphwhichis itselfa formof discourseabout a
musicalwork.Giventheprincipleofnon-redundancy betweensemioticsystems
(crudely,we cannotsaythesamethingwithwordsthatwe can withmusic,an
idea discussed in Benveniste 1981), we cannot claim a relationshipof
equivalencebetweena graphand its accompanying verbalcommentary. This
crossingofboundaries,anchoredas it werebyitsunequivocalcommunicative
intent,opensup richtheoretical possibilities;it is, however,a potentialsource
ofconfusionas well.
No discourseaboutmusic,whetheritis presentedgraphically orverbally,can
escape themediationofa conceptualapparatus.And in thisrespecttheremay
wellbe fundamental differences betweencompositionand performance, on the
one hand, and analysison the other. To fail to confrontthe conceptual
apparatus,however,byassertingan interest in theory-free analysis,is merelya
rhetorical ploy.This is notto denythedifference in effectbetweenan analysis
whichconfronts itsowntheoretical presuppositions, therebyturningitselfinto
a meta-analysis, and onewhichtakesthosesamepresuppositions forgranted.If
all ofourconceptualapparatusis thuscontaminated, thenwe mustask further
MUSIC ANALYSIs 8:3, 1989 285
V. KOFI AGAWU
whatitmeanstoaimfor'a musicalunderstanding ofmusic'(Salzer 1962:30) or

to accord Schenker'sgraphsthe statusof 'artisticstatements,
in music,about
music'(Benjamin1981: 160). NeitherSalzernorBenjaminwoulddenytherole
ofconceptsin musicanalysis,so thattheirclaimsmustbe seentotranscendthe
attainments
linguistic prescribedbytheory.I believethatmostmusicianswould
neverwishtorelinquishsomedependenceuponthenotionof'musicality'andto
continueto cultivatemusicalanalyses, howevermysteriousthe nature of
musicalitymay be. It would not therefore be a sufficient
counter-argument
simplyto assertthe impossibilityof a non-verballymediateddiscourseabout
music.For Benjaminand Salzer,as indeedforSchenker,theanalyst'staskis of
a decidedlyhigherorder.
IV
Turningfromthegeneraltotheparticular, I shalldistinguish threecategoriesof
hierarchic notation.The firstis a rhythmic reduction,in whichobjectlanguage
and metalanguageretainan algebraicequivalence- to use thenomenclature of
C.S. Peirce(1986: 10), theyactas iconicsigns;thesecond,whichI shallcallthe
'pure' graph,is one whoselexicon,althoughit bearssomesimilarity to music
notation,setsup a radicallydifferent conversional scale; and thethirdis whatI
shallcall themixedgraph,becauseitmixeselementsofthefirsttwocategories
(see also thediscussionin Forte 1979).
To takethesimplestfirst:a rhythmic reductionis a metalinguistic structure
whichis durationally equivalentto theworkor passagethatembodiesitsobject
language. We are all familiarwith rhythmicreductionsfromcounterpoint
treatises,compositionmanuals and theorytext books. Examples 9 and 10
illustrate thisprinciple.In Ex. 9, fromCzerny'sSchoolofPracticalComposition
(1848: 92-3), the firsttwo systemsconstitutetherhythmic reduction(Czerny
callsitthe'ground-harmony'; othersmightrefertoitas a 'harmonicsummary')
ofChopin's1?tudeOp. 10, No. 1. The reductionis a simplification ofthesemi-
of
quaver 'movingfigure' Chopin's original, shown in the third systemhere.
Example 10,devised byForte and Gilbert(1982: 199), is a reduction ofBach'sC
minorPreludefromthe firstbook of the Well-Tempered Clavier. Semibreves
stand forBach's semiquavers.The reductiondoes much the same thingas
Czerny'sexample,but,whereasCzernyforthemostpartcollectstheaggregate
sound includingdoublings,and whereashis reductionincludessemibreves,
minimsand crotchets, Forteand Gilbertadopta strictchorale-style textureand
maintaina semibrevepulse,at leastin theopeningbars.'0
It is in assessingtherolethattherhythmic reductionplaysin a fully-fledged
Schenkeriananalysis that we encounterits somewhatambivalentstatus.
Althoughit may be regardedas a firststage in the reductiveprocess,and
althoughForteand Gilbertstatequiteexplicitly that'therhythmic reduction,in
essence,is a rhythmic representation of the foreground level' (1982a: 40), it
oftenhappensthat,dependingon themetricscale ofthereduction,aspectsof
thepieceeliminatedin thisinitialexercisemayhaveto be resuscitated

at a later
stageduringthedevelopment ofa multi-levelanalysis.Thus thepedagogically
attractiveprogressionfromPIECE throughRHYTHMIC REDUCTION to
FOREGROUND, MIDDLEGROUND and BACKGROUND may or may
not be operativebeyond the elementarystages of practicein Schenkerian
analysis., The rhythmic reductionwould seem, in fact,to occupythe space
betweentwonominallydiscretelevelsofstructure, themiddleground and the
foreground, withoccasionalexcursionsupwardsor downwardsdependingon
thepiece. Its strength
maywelllie in thisflexibility.
reduction'ofChopin's1?tudeinC major,Op. 10,No. 1
Ex. 9 Czerny's'rhythmic
The ground-harmonyof the first Study by Chopin, Op. 10.

Allegro.,'.o2.
Ic~I I %I
9=
.-
-j t
r lk
--
ILO
.l- .-
rdif 00
The mtoving' fig-ureof this Study is the following:-
./tlle o?ro,. r..

) -'
82 .o
A 7C
"t |K I''
:
&-.
.
, ..I
--- "
It is obviousfromExs 9 and 10 that,as a generalrule,the metalinguistic

structurehas fewerelementsthantheobjectlanguage.This growsout of the
reasoningthatthecomplexities ofa masterpiece arebestunderstoodin synopsis
orreduction,ratherthanin elaboration.On thispointitis worthcontrastingthe
approachesof music analystswith those of literarytheorists.Compare,for
example,a classictextlikeRolandBarthes'S/Z (1974), whichcomprisesa two-
hundred-page of Balzac's thirty-three-page
metacriticism shortstory,withan
equallyclassictextsuchas Schenker'sEroicaanalysis(1925-30),whichrunsto
onlya fractionof chelengthof Beethoven'sscore.The apparentdifference in
scale is striking.
But howvalidis thecomparison?Is therereallya difference
in
V. KOFI AGAWU
scale? Here we encountera paradox:ifhierarchicnotationis describableas a

metalanguage,why is it capable only of diminishedstatementsratherthan
elaborations?To pose the questionis to hintat thepossibilitythatnotionsof
elaborationformusicanalystsmaynotmeanwhatis nominallyproposedbyan
iconicrepresentation. To reduceis to amplifyand magnify,to elaborate. A
secondpointarisingoutofthemetalinguistic statusofhierarchic
notationis the
impossibilityof specifying the scale of equivalencebetweensemioticsystems:
crudely,how manywordsare equivalentto one bar ofrhythmic reduction?If
thetaskofestablishing equivalenceappearsto be fruitless,evenfoolish,from
the beginning,then it will at least serve,firstto remindus of the need to
understandbetterthe natureof analogy,and second as a correctiveto those
analystswhopersistin judgingnon-verbal analyticlanguagessuperiortoverbal
ones (or viceversa).'3
Ex. 10 Forte's and Gilbert's'rhythmicreduction'of bs 1-4 of J.S. Bach's

PreludeNo. 2 in C minor,WTC I
FF= F ?
Rj- '
Solution
(Continue
forentire
piece.)
_MAi
Of 0 . ,1xI V
3 ri__I
1
..MI. 5~11
6
jb.
The othertwo formsof hierarchicnotation,the pure and the mixed,are

in thatmuch-analysed
illustrated analysisofSchenker's,ofthesecondsongof
Schumann'sDichterliebe (1979, Fig. 22b, reproducedas Ex. 11). My own
concernis neitherto confrontthe details of Schenker'sinterpretation (see
Komar 1971,Forte 1977and Neumeyer1982)norto chastiseSchenkerfornot
doingwhathe did notsetoutto do in thefirstplace (Kerman1980); itis rather
to considerthelinguisticstatusofthesymbology.
There are three layers of hierarchic organisation, Background,
Middlegroundand Foreground;and thereare two opposed manifestations of
hierarchy.First,accordedto thenumberofelementsin each layer,hierarchic
supremacyis accordedto the Foreground;secondand conversely, notionsof
structuraldepthand musicalessenceprivilegetheBackgound.The layersare
relatedasymmetrically,thusdiscouraging thesimplistic
idea thata progression
from Backgroundto Foregroundmirrorsa conceptualjourneywhile the

oppositeprogression,fromForegroundto Background,denotesa perceptual
journey,thisin spiteof the generative of Backgroundto Foreground
priority
(Keiler 1983-4: 206). Unidirectionalorientationis not particularlyhelpful
beyondtheveryelementary stagesin thepracticeofSchenkerian analysis.This
is because of a centralcontradiction inherentin thenotionof a multi-levelled
musicalstructure, whichrequiresthelevelsto be theoreticallyopenand closed
at the same time:open in the globalsenseof ensuringtransition betweenthe
levels,and closed in the local sense of allowingthe nominalindependenceof
each level(thesemattersarepursuedin Narmour1977and Keiler 1983-4).
Ex. 11 Schenker'sanalysisofSchumann'sDichterliebe,
No. 2
Schumann, "Aus meinen Trianenspriessen" (Dichterliebe, no. 2)
A,4 W3M 8n
Al
2f A ))
B
A1 --
Fgd. I IV V-I V-( -I
I have referredto the Backgroundand Middlegroundas 'pure' because,

althoughtheypreservethe temporalsequence of the eventsin Schumann's
song,theirmeaningcarriesoververylittleofthebaggageoftheactualmusical
notation.Justas 'music,inreachingfromthementaltothephysicalworld,must
pass througha process of visualisationalienatingitselffrompure sound'
(Griffiths 1986: 5), so thisanalysis,in reachingfromthe stateofmusicto the
stateofanalyticaldiscourse,mustdoublyalienateitselffrom'puremusic'. To
understandSchenker'sreading,we mustconsultan externallexiconthatwill
unlock,dictionary-fashion, thesystemofequivalencesbeingused here.These
are arbitrary signs,in Saussure'sterms,but theyare different in thetypeand
degreeofarbitrariness fromthatinherentin compositional notation.
I stressthe distancebetweenmusic and thesetwo 'pure' graphsbecause,
unlessit is understoodthatthereis a scaleofconversioninwhichelementsofa
far from stricthierarchyare being invoked, the graph is likely to be
misunderstoodand to occasion those irritatingnoises summedup in that
popularnonsequitur, 'Whydo youchoosethisnoteinsteadofthat?'.One should
be cautiousingranting that'muchoftheinformation [whichthegraphs]present
is readilyaccessibleto the musician'(Forte 1977: 9), forthe domainof this
didacticconversionis thoughtexpressedin verballanguagerepresentedby
V. KOFI AGAWU
symbolswhichbeara fortuitous relationship to musicalsymbols.

I mayhave overemphasized thedistancebetweentheconceptsenshrinedin
thewordsBackgroundand Foregroundand themusic,butit seemsto me that
this has to be done in orderto underlinethe special characteristics of the
Foregroundgraph. It is true that Schenkerinvokesthe principlesof tonal
counterpoint in theanalysisofall threelayers,butcounterpoint is emphatically
not music,howevermuchcounterpoint relatesto musicas linguisticinputor
reflective, analyticaloutput.(It is no accidentthatSchenker'sgreattrilogyof
treatisesproceedsfromharmony tocounterpoint and thentofreecomposition.)
And thereis no reasonwhy one could not play these arhythmic graphsto
illustratetheessenceofthestructure, but thiswouldnotbe thesame thingas
performing a piece of music. Like Hans Keller's functionalanalyses(for
example, Keller 1985), such a performance would violatetheintegrity of the
masterpiece in orderto introduce theanalyst'snotionsofrepetition, transition,
variationand development.One wouldbe performing a structure ratherthana
piece of music - which is notto deny that music has structure.14
It is in thelastand lowestofthethreelayersofEx. 11 thatwe encounterwhat
I havecalledthe'mixed'typeofgraph.Herewe musttreadcarefully. Thereare,
on theone hand,compositional featuressuchas a timesignature,barlinesand
actual note values, as well as near-compositional featureslike the durational
reductionsof certainbars (1, 13, 16 and 17). On the otherhand, thereare
analyticalfeaturessimilarto thoseindicationsof structural value foundin the
Backgroundand Middlegroundgraphs.It is notenoughsimplyto saythatthe
Foregroundis morepiece-like;we mustsubsequently confront theparadoxthat
thegraphconveysbyvirtueofitswillingness to acceptunderthesameroof,so
to speak, two different, perhapsantithetical, practices.We can illustratethis
brieflyby lookingat the incidenceof minimsin the Middleground.These
becomequaversor crotchets intheForeground.Butthereis no mechanicalway
ofmappingMiddleground minimsontotheForeground.In factone cannottalk
aboutminimson theMiddleground,becausethoseareactuallystemmedwhite
notes. Minimsderix: froman iconic equivalencebetweenmusic and graph;
whitenoteswithstemssimplylook likeminims,but meansomething entirely
different. The twodutiverespectively fromobjectlanguageand metalanguage.
To say that 'notationin a Schenkeriananalyticgraph does not represent
duration'(Forteand Gilbert1982a: 40) is ofcoursenormatively correct,butit
could easily deflectattentionfromthe rich possibilitiesopened up by this
Foregroundgraph.Such an assertionrunscounterto Dunsby'sand Whittall's
view,whichseemsto me moredynamic,that'themoresubstantial vindication
of Schenker's graphics ... is their kinship with compositionand with
compositionteaching'(Dunsby and Whittall1988: 31).
We are on the vergeof sayingthatSchenker'spracticein thisexampleis a
flexibleand pragmaticone; anyonemixingfeaturesof notationderivingfrom
differenttraditionsmay be courtingdisaster.Yet I wonder whetherthis
methodologicalstep was not inevitableforone so keen to explicatewhathe
called 'the tensionof musical coherence'(1979: 6); whetherin fact,by its
admissionofcertainoppositions,thisgraphdoes notrepresent theconvergence

of Schenker's'artistic'and 'theoretical'motivations?Seen in this light,the
extravagant claimquotednearthebeginningofthispaper,thatthegraphsare
partof the work,is not heretical,but rathergrowsout of an idealisationof
analyticalgoals. Heresy and idealism may not always be distinguishable,
however.
If Schenker'spracticein thisone example- and thereare, ofcourse,many
moreexamples,whichcannotbe goneintohere15- is flexibleand pragmatic,
thenhow can we justifysubsequentattemptsto systematise, standardiseand
even formalisethe practiceof hierarchicnotation,as made by Salzer (1967),
Forte and Gilbert(1982) and Karl-OttoPlum (1988), amongothers?Would
suchattempts notruncountertothebasicimprovisatory and artistic
motivation
forproducinga Schenkeriangraph?How farcan we go in thisdirectionbefore
falsifyingSchenkerianprecedentbothpractically and ideologically?
The instinct to systematise may be no more than a responsetotheconstraints
ofpedagogy,a wayof ensuringefficient dissemination ofpowerfulideas. Not
everything lends itselfto easysystematisation, however. Those thingsthatare
marginalised in neo-Schenkerian textsthus become especiallyvisible.Consider,
forexample,theabsenceofanysustaineddiscussionofthenumberofstructural
levelsfromSalzer'sStructural Hearingor Forte's and Gilbert'sIntroduction to
Schenkerian Analysis.To the question 'Justhow manystructurallevels are
there?'theanswer'three'is oftengivenmorefortheoretical conveniencethan
because of its analyticalexpediency.What Schenkeractuallysays may seem
evasive,and evencontradicted byhisowntheoretical preoccupations, butitalso
throwsup an important challenge:'It is impossibleto generalizeregarding the
numberof structural levels,althoughin each individualinstancethenumber
can be specifiedexactly'(1979: 26). Not an easychallengeto accept,especially
sinceanysatisfactory resolutionofthelevel-problem willhaveto contendwith
the variablesuggestiveness of thoseSchenkergraphswhichtypicallysplitthe
Middlegroundintotwoor morelayers(see Proctorand Riggins1988fora fuller
discussion).It wouldseemnecessary, however,evenin a textbook,togo beyond
theoreticalconvenienceand to offersomeindicationofthoseaspectsofmusical
structurethat compel furtherelaborationin middlegroundlevels. Such a
demonstration could have thepositiveadvantageof sharpeningthecriticalor
evaluativeaspects of Schenker'smethod by demonstrating the difference
betweena Haydnand a Vanhal,a Mozartand a Dittersdorf, or a Mendelssohn
and a Gade. This mightnotbe 'proofthatone composeris superiorto another,
but it could make explicitthosefeaturesof a piece thatare valued withina
particularaesthetic,howeverconventionalor culture-bound thevalue system
itselfmightbe.16
It is tempting to suggestthatto systematise is to minimisethosethingsthat
mattermostto a musician.It is to push towardslinguisticcompetencerather
than to stimulateprofoundutterances.This is not to deprecateattemptsto
ensurethe'efficient' use of Schenkeriannotation;it is ratherto pointout that
these two tendencies,the linguisticand the 'poetic', maintaina precarious
V. KOFI AGAWU
balance in Schenker'sown analyticalwork,thatthisis one of the method's

sourcesof strength,and thatthisbalance musttherefore be retainedin the
disseminationofhisideas.'7
V
One finalareain whichtheuse ofSchenkeriannotationraisesdifficult issuesis
in theanalysisofso-calledtransitional
or post-tonalmusic.That tonalmusicis
organisedis no longersubjecttodebate.Butitis notclearhowthe
hierarchically
oppositionsunearthedin Schenker'sanalysisof an unequivocallytonalpiece
likethesecondsongofSchumann'sDichterliebe can be extendedto theanalysis
of musicby Scriabin(Baker 1983), Stravinsky (Forte 1988), Bart6k(Wilson
1984)and others.Giventheconsiderabletonalweightattaching tothetraditions
of Schenkeriananalysis,we mustconsiderwhetherpost-tonalhierarchiesare
equivalent,analogous or similarto tonal hierarchies.One primeexample,
Forte'srecentanalysisofLiszt's NuagesGris(1987), willserveto highlight the
problemsposed bythispractice(see Ex. 12). The pieceis neither
interpretative
straightforwardlytonalnorlackingcompletely a tonalsense;itslanguageseems
to partakeoftwolinguisticsystems,and itis becauseofthisthatithas attracted
muchattention amonganalysts.
Ex. 12 Forte'sanalysisofLiszt's Nuagesgris
A B
04-19
C
0
a 3-10 3-12
4-7: 6-20 (4-8)
4-18 4.18 4-19 4-19 ' 4-194-19 4-7 4.18

4-24 4-24 18
8-18
D(A)
4-19 4-19 4-19
24 5-26
.,
L.H. mm. 9-18
4-19
Forteuses twomainmethods,a quasi-Schenkerian notationand pitch-class

set designations.Both methodsare used to illustratethe piece's hierarchic
structure,but theyderivetheirauthorityfromdifferent sources. Although
Forterefersto Ex. 12 as a 'middleground sketch',therebyinvitingcomparison
with other middlegroundsketches,he makes significantdeparturesfrom
orthodoxSchenkeriananalysis.While thereare no indicationsofharmonicor
melodicfunction(neitherRomannumeralsnorcapped Arabicfigures),Forte
makesno directclaimthatsuchfunctions arenotdiscernible,since,elsewhere
in his commentary on Liszt's 'experimental idiom',he refersto 'mediant'and
'tonic'functions.Andtheweightofconvention thatrestson theuse ofstemmed
and unstemmed,white and black, note-headsintroducesa deliberate(but
unacknowledged) disjunction between Forte's verbal and musical
metalanguages.
Large-scalestructural coherencein Nuagesgrisis discussedin termsof set-
class control.The 'primarytetrachord'is set 4-19, whose members,D, Bb,
F#and G (shownin whitenoteson thegraph)are 'projected'acrossthespanof
thepiece. Whytheseparticularnotesshouldbe especiallyprivilegedis a rather
complexissue, admittingof no straightforward explanation.By contrast,on
morelocal levelsof structure, familiardiminutions, mainlysemitonemotion,
often(but,alas, notalways)takeon thenormative function ofresolution.What
we have,then,are twokindsofhierarchies:set-classhierarchy, derivingfrom
unstatedand farfromconsistentsegmentalcriteria,and diminution, deriving
fromtheprinciplesoftonalcounterpoint. It is notclearwhetherFortemeansto
sustainthispotentiallyexciting'undecidability', orwhethertheconditionarises
bydefault,thatis, bytheapplicationoftwoseparatemethodsinordertoobtain
an empiricalresult.
Example13comparesForte'sreadingofbs 25-32ofNuagesgris(Ex. 13a)with
one thatattemptsan explanationin termsoftonalorextended-tonal procedure
(Ex. 13b). The second readingsuggeststhatthe passage is made up of two
cadencesin G minor,theseconda variationofthefirst.We mayevenminimise
theextentofthevariationbyreplacingthe5-4-3witha 3-2-1descent,thanksto
thenotionofcovertonesand impliednotes.Forte'sreading,on theotherhand,
failsto confrontthe possibility,if not the inevitability (givenhis notational
medium),ofa G minororientation in thesebars.It is notclearwhy,in theright
handofb.25, Bbis givenas a whitenote,whereasinthesequentialrepetition the
whitenoteis D ratherthanEb.Nor is itself-evident howFortearrivesatthetwo
sets 3-10 and 3-12 respectively. And, in the lefthand, it is not immediately
apparentwhy thebass Ds are stemmed ratherthantheGs theylead to, thereby
reversing thetraditionalhierarchic relationship betweendominantand tonic.
The contrastsbetween the two readingsgiven in Ex. 13 grow out of
differencesin analyticalplots,butwe neednotenterintotheintricacies ofthose
plots in orderto see thatthe problemof segmentation, acknowledgedas a
particularchallengeinpitch-class setanalysis,playsa partinthisinterpretation.
SinceFortedoes notstateanybutthemostgeneralcriteriain hisarticle,we are
leftto inferthemfromhis discussionof thegraph.Scepticsmightarguethat
V. KOFI AGAWU
notesare groupedtogethersimplyin orderto obtainparticularsets,whichare

thenrelatedto sets elsewherein the piece in orderto make the explanation
coherent.Attentionwould thus have shifted,deconstructive fashion,from
to
objectlanguage metalanguage, from thework to discourse about thework.
Forte's analysis,in my view, conveysa problemratherthana solution,the
problemofreconciling twotypesofhierarchies thatderivefromtwodifferent,
and in thiscase opposed,structural principles.Forte'sreluctanceto pursuea
tonal explanationmay reflecthis uneasinessabout the numerousquotation
marksthatmustnecessarily be appendedto boththeRomannumeralsand the
capped Arabic numbersused in Ex. 13b. The resultof this strategyis a
discrepancy betweensucha claimand thepracticaluse ofhierarchic notationin
theanalysis.Iftheresultsreachedin thestudyofsimilarcompositional contexts
are anythingto go by (see, forexample,Ayrey1982),thenthesolutionmight
well be to postulatea discontinuity betweenthose local levels admittingof
diminution and thelarger,set-class-governedlevel,so that,insteadofimplying
a synthesisbetween two strangebedfellows,pitch-classset analysis and
Schenkerian analysis,thetwowereinfactshowntodemonstrate different
views
of the piece. There is not necessarily balance, synthesis or even
@
complementation; thereis onlyconfrontation.
Ex. 13a Forte'sanalysisofbs 25-32ofNuagesgris
cC
3-10 3.12
4-7 (4-8)
)
7 S(48) 3-11 4-7 (m 2)
4-18
8-18
Ex. 13b 'Tonal' readingofbs 25-32ofNuagesgris
IN
(2i) (
oe 0
I V I ;
\I V# 16 55 \T(7)j I
l l6 4 5
VI
I beganthisessayby drawinga tentativeconnectionbetweentheexplosionin
modesofmusic-analytical andthewider'crisisofrepresentation'
representation
in thediscoursesof thesocialsciencesand thehumanities.Whetheror notwe
wish to describethe currentstateof music-analytical discoursein termsof a
a
'crisis' is matter for individualsto decide, but that decisionwill have to
considernot justtheverballanguagesthatwe inevitablydrawon but also the
music-notational languagesthathavebeen myconcernin thisessay.I wantto
closebymakingfourbriefpoints.
First,fromSchenker'sownexample,itseemsclearthatnotationalpracticeis
to be definedin termsof oppositions,betweencompositionand analysis,
between artisticand theoreticalmotivations,and between pragmaticand
systematising instincts.This meansthatneo-Schenkerian efforts,
by focusing
on the linguisticaspectsof Schenker'swork,have reducedawaytheexciting
tensionin his analyticalmethod.To putit crudely,we arebeingtaughthowto
make grammatically correctstatementsratherthan interesting or profound
ones. 1
Second,thereis (and has been fora while)a wideninggap notjustbetween
compositionand analysisbut also and especiallybetweenrecomposition and
analysis. Few analysts today are able to make their point by offering
grammatically competentrecompositionsof pieces, the kind of thingthat
Schoenbergexcelled at (for example, Schoenberg1970) and that might
encourage the developmentof what Salzer (illogically)calls 'a musical
explanationofmusic' (1962: 30). But whilethiskindofrecreative abilitydoes
notguaranteeanalyticalsuccess,itsvirtualabsencesometimesleads to tedious
workbyanalysts.Yet it seemsan important adjunctto anyeffort to redressthe
balancebetweenSchenker'sad hocand formalizing instincts.19
Third,theextensiveprinting ofgraphsin ourjournalsmaywellbe a signthat
all is notright.Arenotmanyofthegraphswe use pre-analytical (representing
thegenesisoftheanalyst'sefforts) ratherthananalytical(presenting theactual
conclusionsarisingfromthe analysis)?Except in the case of didacticworks,
suchprinting oflongsamplesofhierarchic notationwithno specificconclusions
arisingout of the effortseems to me to blur the dividingline between
tautologicaldemonstrations and exhaustiveones. If thepointoftypography 'is
preciselythatitshouldnotdrawattention toitself,notdisturbtheillusionofits
neutrality and faithfulness',
thenwe arerightto suspectthat'communication is
threatened... [when]themeansbecomevisible'(Griffiths 1986: 5).
Fourthand finally,theincreasinglyfashionable use ofhierarchic notationfor
the analysisof post-tonalmusic must deal with the apparentdisjunction
between at least two types of hierarchy,the one derivingfromtonal
counterpoint and tonalfunction,
theotherfromthenebulouscatch-allcategory
of 'contextualsalience' (see Lerdahl 1988). By not confronting this basic
incompatibility, we run the risk of claimingalmost by defaultan iconic
relationship betweenthemusicalworkanditsmetalanguage, thusundermining
V. KOFI AGAWU
the nominal function of the metalanguage, which is to illuminate. Analysts

cannot affordto siton thefence,however; we must decideto let theissues remain
undecidable.
NOTES
1. Voice-leading graphs feature regularlyin the followingAnglo-American

publications:Journalof Music Theory,In TheoryOnly,Music Analysis,Indiana
TheoryReviewandMusicTheory Spectrum.Theymayalso be foundin 19th-Century
Music, The Musical Quarterly, Journalof Musicology, Journalof theAmerican
Musicological Societyand, perhapsmostsurprisingly, TheMusicalTimes.
2. At the heartof this radical self-consciousness about discourseare the various
searchlights of deconstructive criticism. Norris 1982 considerstheliterary angle,
whileNorris1985takesin developments in philosophy.Marcusand Fischer1986
summarisebroad developmentsin anthropological writing,while Geertz 1983
providesspecificcase studies.White 1973 includesa rigorousdefinitionof the
issuesconfronting contemporary historians.See also Street1989fora studyofthe
implications ofdeconstruction formusicanalysis.
3. For a comprehensive summaryof the currentstateof Schenkerianresearchsee
Beach 1985. A less comprehensive but nevertheless entertaining accountmaybe
foundin Rothstein1986.
4. But see Schachter1980 fora 'metricalbackground'to varioustonalpieces, and
Lewin 1982-3fora reductiveanalysiswhichretainsmetreon thedeepestlevelof
structure.
5. Analysesof portionsof the themeof Mozart's Sonata K.331 appear throughout
Schenker1979. The fullestreading,whichshowsa 5-line,occursin Fig. 157. It
shouldnotbe inferred frommycommentsaboutCone's analysisthatSchenkerdid
notincludemultiplemeaningsin hisgraphs.On thecontrary, therearenumerous
analyses in which multiple linesare for
indicated, example,Fig. 92.
6. See, forexample,Paul de Man's claimthatthedifference betweenliterature and
criticism is 'delusive'(1979: 19).
7. A fulleraccountoftheprehistory ofreductiveanalysismaybe foundin Morgan
1978. The emphasis,however,is on conceptsofreductionand notspecifically on
theirnotation.Morgan's studyalso providesa framework for explicatingthe
hierarchic basisoftonalmusic,a subjectnotpursuedin thepresentstudy.See also
Narmour1983-4,Keiler 1983-4,Komar 1988and Mooney1988.
8. See also Quantz 1966,Tilrk 1982and Mozart 1948forsimilaruses oftwosizesof
notehead.It is thiswidespread,evidently pragmaticuse ofhierarchic notationthat
underminesSchenker'sinterpretation ofBach's practice.
9. Not all theorists agreethatSchenker'sgraphsare eminently suitableconveyorsof
dynamic tonal motion. For example, proponentsof psychologicalmodels of
implicationand realization(Meyer 1956 and Narmour1977) findthe Schenker
graphlimitedin thisrespect.But see theremarkable discussionofthelifeoftones
in Zuckerkandl1973, which, perhaps not coincidentally,draws on some of
Schenker'sconcepts.
10. The excerptquotedin Ex. 10 is thebeginningofan exercisein whichstudentsare
encouragedto make decisionsabout middleground structureat a relativelyearly
stageoftheanalysis.AlthoughForteand Gilbertdo notprovidethefullsolution,
they point out that there are strongparallelsbetween this prelude and the
precedingC majorone, analysedin Schenker1969.
11. To choosejustone exampleoftheunclearstatusofrhythmic reductionsin Forte
and Gilbert1982: in thesampleexerciseon p. 139,whichconsistsofan analysisof
thefirsteightbars of the secondmovementof Beethoven'sPiano Sonata Op. 7,
thereis verylittledistinction betweentheso-called'rhythmic reduction'and the
'middleground sketch'. It would be on
difficult, the strengthof thisoneexample,to
support theclaim that 'the rhythmic reduction . . is a rhythmicrepresentation of
the foregroundlevel', unless the act of representing somehowtransforms that
whichis represented intoa middleground phenomenon.
12. See also thediscussionin Keiler 1981,wherethenotionof'paraphrase'is invoked
in connectionwithRameau's bassefondamentale. Sinceall ofKeiler'sexamplesare
giveninmetreand rhythm, itis notpossibletoapplyeveryone ofhisconclusionsto
thearhythmic 'pure' graphdescribedbelow.
13. The apparentself-sufficiency of Schenker'sgraphshas provedto be a stumbling
block to positivistsanxiousto obtainempirical,verbally-mediated 'results'from
musicanalysis.Withoutunderplaying theimportanceofresults,it shouldalso be
said that,becausea Schenkergraphneedsto be heardas wellas read,its'message'
cannotultimately be translated out ofa graphicmediumintoa verbalone (see also
thediscussionin Benjamin1982). Those whoholdtheviewthatmusicanalystsare
essentiallywritersmaywell findthattheycompromise(sometimesunacceptably)
theresultsoftheiranalytical investigations byhavingtoparcelthemoutintheform
of simple propositionalstatements.By the same token, the unavoidabilityof
conceptsin thepracticeofSchenkerian analysisplacestheseefforts in thecompany
ofotherwritings, and demandsan acceptance,at leastin principle,ofconventional
standardsofwriting.
14. See also Benjamin1981fora stimulating discussionofsomeoftheissuesraisedby
performing Schenkergraphs.
15. Otherexamplesof Schenker's'mixed'practiceare theEroica analysis(Schenker
1925-30),theanalysisofChopin's1?tudeOp. 10,No. 12in Schenker1969,andFigs
110/3and 73/3fromSchenker1979.
16. See also Proctorand Riggins1988fora discussionofthenotionoflevels,including
thespecifictheoretical principlesthatconstraina multi-levelled middleground.
17. AmongSchenkerians who,in myview,maintainthisbalanceare Schachter,Oster
andJonas.It is noteworthy, forexample,thatin a worklikeJonas1982,whichmust
countamongthebestintroductions to thespiritof Schenker'swork,thereis not,
strictlyspeaking,a single'Schenkergraph'!
18. See also Smith1981forsomediscussionofthevalue-systems implicitin different
analyticalplots.
19. There are of course exceptionsto this generalisation,includingCook 1987,
Rothstein1988,Smith1986and Benjamin1976/7.
V. KOFI AGAWU
REFERENCES
Ayrey,Craig, 1982: 'Berg's "Scheideweg" : AnalyticalIssues in Op. 2/ii',Music

Analysis,Vol. 1, pp. 189-202.
Bach, C.P.E., 1974: Essay on the TrueArtof PlayingKeyboardInstruments, trans.
W.J. Mitchell(London: Eulenberg).
Baker, James, 1983: 'SchenkerianAnalysisand Post-Tonal Music', in Aspectsof
SchenkerianTheory,ed. David Beach (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress),
pp. 153-86.
Barthes,Roland, 1967: Elements ofSemiology, trans.AnnetteLaversand Colin Smith
(London: Cape).
1974:S/Z, trans.RichardMiller(New York: Hill and Wang).
Beach, David, 1985: 'The CurrentStateof SchenkerianResearch',ActaMusicologica,
Vol. 57, pp. 275-307.
Benjamin, William E., 1976/7: 'Tonality withoutFifths: Remarks on the First
MovementofStravinsky's ConcertoforPiano and Wind Instruments', In Theory
Only,Vol. 2, pp. 53-70;Vol. 3, pp. 9-31.
1981: 'Schenker'sTheoryand the Futureof Music', JournalofMusic Theory,
Vol. 25, pp. 155-73.
1982: 'Models ofUnderlyingTonal Structure:How Can They Be Abstract,and
How ShouldTheyBe Abstract',MusicTheory Spectrum, Vol. 4, pp. 28-50.
Benveniste, 1mile, 1981: 'The Semiology of Language', Semiotica, Special
Supplement,pp. 5-23.
Berry,Wallace, 1976:Structural Functions ofMusic(EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall).
Busoni,Ferruccio,1987: TheEssenceofMusicand OtherPapers(New York: Dover).
Cone, EdwardT., 1968:MusicalFormandMusicalPerformance (New York: Norton).
Cook, Nicholas,1987:A GuidetoMusicalAnalysis(London: Dent).
Czerny,Carl, 1848: SchoolofPracticalComposition, trans.J. Bishop,3 vols (London:
RobertCocks and Co.).
De Man, Paul, 1979: Allegories ofReading:FiguralLanguagein Rousseau,Nietzsche,
RilkeandProust(New Haven: Yale University Press).
Drabkin,William,1985: 'A Lesson in AnalysisfromHeinrichSchenker:The C Major
PreludefromBach's Well-TemperedClavier,Book I', MusicAnalysis,Vol. 4,
pp. 241-58.
Dunsby,Jonathan,and Whittall,Arnold,1988:MusicAnalysisin Theory and Practice
(London: Faber).
Epstein, David, 1981: 'On Schenker'sFree Composition', Journalof Music Theory,
Vol. 25 (No. 1), pp. 143-53.
Forte, Allen, 1977: 'Schenker'sConceptionof Musical Structure',in Readingsin
Schenker Analysis,ed. MauryYeston(New Haven: Yale University Press).
1979: 'Introduction to theEnglishEdition[ofDerfreieSatz]', in Schenker1979,
pp. xvii-xx.
1987: 'Liszt's ExperimentalIdiom and Music of theEarlyTwentiethCentury',
19th-Century Music,Vol. 10, pp. 209-28.

1988: 'New Approachesto theLinearAnalysisofMusic',JournaloftheAmerican
Musicological Society,pp. 315-48.
Forte, Allen, and Gilbert,Stephen,1982: Introduction to SchenkerianAnalysis(New
York: Norton).
1982a: Instructor'sManual forIntroduction to Schenkerian Analysis(New York:
Norton).
Geertz,Clifford,1983: Local Knowledge:Further Essays in Interpretive
Anthropology
(New York: Basic Books).
Paul, 1986: 'Sound-Code-Image',in Eye Music: GraphicArtofNew Musical
Griffiths,
Notation(London: ArtsCouncil)-
Handel, G.F., 1983: KeyboardSuites,ed. AnthonyHicks (Munich:Henle).
Ingarden,Roman, 1986: The WorkofMusic and theProblemofIts Identity (London:
MacmillanPress).
Jonas, Oswald, 1982: Introduction to the Theoryof HeinrichSchenker,trans. John
Rothgeb(New York: Longman).
Keiler, Allan R., 1978: 'Bernstein'sThe UnansweredQuestionand the Problemof
Musical Competence',TheMusicalQuarterly, Vol. 64, pp. 195-222.
1981: 'Music as Metalanguage:Rameau's FundamentalBass', in Music Theory:
Special Topics,ed. RichmondBrowne(New York: AcademicPress).
1983-4:'On Some Propertiesof Schenker'sPitchDerivations',MusicPerception,
Vol. 1, pp. 200-28.
Keller,Hans, 1985:'FunctionalAnalysisofMozart'sG minorQuintet',MusicAnalysis,
Vol. 4, pp. 73-94.
Kerman,Joseph,1980: 'How We Got into Analysis,and How to Get Out', Critical
Inquiry,Vol. 7, pp. 311-31.
Komar,Arthur,1971: 'The Music ofDichterliebe: The Wholeand itsParts',in Robert
Schumann:Dichterliebe, ed. ArthurKomar(New York: Norton).
1988: 'The PedagogyofTonal Hierarchy',In Theory Only,Vol. 10,pp. 23-8.
Langer,Suzanne,1942: 'Discursiveand Presentational Forms',inPhilosophy ina New
Key(New York: PenguinBooks).
Lerdahl,Fred, 1988: 'AtonalProlongational Structure',Contemporary MusicReview,
Vol. 6.
Lewin,David, 1982-3:'Schubert:"Aufdem Flusse"', 19th-Century Music,Vol. 6.
Marcus,GeorgeE., and Fischer,MichaelM.J., 1986:Anthropology as CulturalCritique:
An Experimental Momentin theHumanSciences(Chicago: University ofChicago
Press).
Meyer, Leonard B., 1956: Emotionand Meaningin Music (Chicago: Universityof
ChicagoPress).
1980: 'ExploitingLimits: Creation,Archetypes,and StyleChange',Daedalus,
pp. 177-205.
Mooney, Kevin, 1988: 'Theoretic Problems in Komar's Conception of Tonal
Hierarchy',In Theory Only,Vol. 10, pp. 31-5.
Morgan,RobertP., 1978: 'Schenkerand theTheoreticalTradition:The Conceptof
MusicalReduction',CollegeMusicSymposium, pp. 72-96.
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989 299
V. KOFI AGAWU
Mozart, Leopold, 1948: Versucheinergriindlichen Violinschule[1756], trans.Editha

Knocker(London: OUP).
Narmour,Eugene, 1977: BeyondSchenkerism: The Need forAlternatives in Musical
of
Analysis(Chicago:University ChicagoPress).
1983-4:'Some Major TheoreticalProblemsconcerning theConceptofHierarchy
in theAnalysisofTonal Music', MusicPerception, Vol. 1, pp. 129-99.
Nattiez,Jean-Jacques, 1987:Musicologie generaleetSemiologie (Paris:Bourgois).
Neumeyer,David, 1982: 'Organic Structureand the Song Cycle: AnotherLook at
Schumann'sDichterliebe', MusicTheory Spectrum, Vol. 4, pp. 92-105.
Norris,Christopher, 1982:Deconstruction: Theory andPractice(London: Methuen).
- 1985: TheContest ofFaculties(London: Methuen).
Plum, Karl-Otto,1988: 'Towards a MethodologyforSchenkerianAnalysis',Music
Analysis,Vol. 7, pp. 143-64.
Peirce,CharlesS., 1986: 'Logic as Semiotic:The Theoryof Signs', in Semiotics:An
IntroductoryAnthology, ed. RobertE. Innis(London: Hutchinson),pp. 1-23.
Powers, Harold S., 1980: 'Language Models and Musical Analysis',Ethomusicology,
Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1-60.
Proctor,Gregory,and Riggins,HerbertL., 1988: 'Levels and the Reorderingof
Chaptersin Schenker'sFree Composition', Music TheorySpectrum,Vol. 10,
pp. 102-26.
Quantz,JohannJoachim,1966:On PlayingtheFlute,trans.EdwardR. Reilly(London:
Faber).
Rothstein,William, 1986: 'The Americanization of HeinrichSchenker',In Theory
Only,Vol. 9, pp. 5-17.
1988: 'PhraseRhythmin Chopin'sNocturnesand Mazurkas',in ChopinStudies,
ed. JimSamson(Cambridge:CUP).
Rushton,Julian,1984: 'GuestEditorial',MusicAnalysis,Vol. 3, pp. 3-7.
Salzer,Felix, 1962:Structural Hearing:TonalCoherence inMusic(New York: Dover).
1967: 'A GlossaryoftheElementsofGraphicAnalysis',TheMusicForum,Vol. 1,
pp. 260-8.
Schachter,Carl, 1980: 'Rhythmand Linear Analysis:DurationalReduction', The
MusicForum,Vol. 5, pp. 197-232.
Schenker,Heinrich,1925-30:Das Meisterwerk in derMusik:Ein Jahrbuch(Munich:
Drei MaskenVerlag).
1969:Five GraphicMusicAnalyses,ed. Felix Salzer(New York: Dover).
1979: Free Composition (Der freieSatz), trans.and ed. ErnstOster(New York:
Longman).
Schoenberg,Arnold,1970:Fundamentals ofMusicalComposition (London: Faber).
Smith,CharlesJ., 1981: 'Prolongations and Progressions as MusicalSyntax',in Music
Theory:Special Topics,ed. RichmondBrowne(New York: AcademicPress),
pp. 139-74.
1986: 'The Functional Extravaganceof ChromaticChords', Music Theory
Spectrum, Vol. 8, pp. 94-139.
Street,Alan, 1989: 'SuperiorMyths,DogmaticAllegories:The Resistanceto Musical
Unity',MusicAnalysis,Vol. 8, Nos 1-2,pp. 77-123.
Taruskin,Richard,1987: 'Chez Petrouchka: Harmonyand TonalitychezStravinsky',

19th-CenturyMusic, Vol. 10,pp. 265-86.
Tovey,Donald F., 1949:EssaysandLectures onMusic(London: OUP).
Tiurk,Daniel Gottlob, 1982: School of ClavierPlaying,trans.RaymondH. Haggh
(Lincoln: UniversityofNebraska Press).
White, Hayden, 1973: Metahistory:The HistoricalImaginationin Nineteenth-Century
Europe(Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversity Press).
Wintle, Christopher,1988: 'Music's New Criticism'[Review of Nicholas Cook,
A GuidetoMusicalAnalysis],TimesLiterary Supplement,22-8January.
Wilson,Paul, 1984: of
'Concepts Prolongation and Bart6k'sOpus 20', Music Theory
Vol.
Spectrum, 6, pp. 78-89.
Zuckerkandl,Victor,1973:Man theMusician(Princeton:BollingenSeries).
MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989 301

Agawu1989 PDF

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

Agawu1989 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schenkerian Notation in Theory and Practice

Author(s): V. Kofi Agawu

SCHENKERIAN NOTATION IN THEORY

One of the most visible featuresof contemporary music analysisis the

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 275

(Wintle 1988). Amongthe growingfoldone findsorthodoxand unorthodox

[t]hepresent-dayvoguishnessof the Schenker-like

The challengesposed by Benjamin'swordshave largelyfallenon deaf ears.

276 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989

methodsof representation. Example 1 is Tovey's remarkablesynopsisof the

Example 2 is an analysisof Chopin's Prelude Op. 28, No. 9 fromWallace

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 277

Ex. 2 Berry'sanalysisofChopin'sPreludein E major,Op. 28, No. 9

and unstemmedblack notes. Althoughthe representation thus conveysa

A(I +1) 8 (or 3)

Cs) s-i b)IJ 'E3 ( '1

278 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989

Example4 is Edward T. Cone's analysisof thefirstfourbars of themost-

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 279

There are doubtlesscontextualjustifications forthe methodsadopted by

280 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989

proceed withinspecifiedlimits. So, by oversimplifying the historyof the

The musicalexampleswhichaccompany thisvolumeare not merely

Astonishing words,makingverylargeclaimsforthe Supplementto Der freie

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 281

The firstis thathierarchic notation hasboththeoretical and compositional

282 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989

Ex. 7 OpeningbarsofChopin's1~tudein Abmajor,Op. 25, No. 1

Schenkerrefers;herelargenote-headspick out thestructural notesofmelody

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 283

Accordingto David Epstein, Schenker's'graphology... [renders]words

284 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989

MUSIC ANALYSIs 8:3, 1989 285

whatitmeanstoaimfor'a musicalunderstanding ofmusic'(Salzer 1962:30) or

286 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989

thepieceeliminatedin thisinitialexercisemayhaveto be resuscitated

The ground-harmonyof the first Study by Chopin, Op. 10.

The mtoving' fig-ureof this Study is the following:-

./tlle o?ro,. r..

It is obviousfromExs 9 and 10 that,as a generalrule,the metalinguistic

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 287

scale? Here we encountera paradox:ifhierarchicnotationis describableas a

Ex. 10 Forte's and Gilbert's'rhythmicreduction'of bs 1-4 of J.S. Bach's

The othertwo formsof hierarchicnotation,the pure and the mixed,are

288 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989

from Backgroundto Foregroundmirrorsa conceptualjourneywhile the

Schumann, "Aus meinen Trianenspriessen" (Dichterliebe, no. 2)

I have referredto the Backgroundand Middlegroundas 'pure' because,

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 289

symbolswhichbeara fortuitous relationship to musicalsymbols.

290 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989

admissionofcertainoppositions,thisgraphdoes notrepresent theconvergence

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 291

balance in Schenker'sown analyticalwork,thatthisis one of the method's

4-7: 6-20 (4-8)

4-18 4.18 4-19 4-19 ' 4-194-19 4-7 4.18

292 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989

Forteuses twomainmethods,a quasi-Schenkerian notationand pitch-class

MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3, 1989 293

notesare groupedtogethersimplyin orderto obtainparticularsets,whichare

Ex. 13a Forte'sanalysisofbs 25-32ofNuagesgris

Ex. 13b 'Tonal' readingofbs 25-32ofNuagesgris

294 MUSIC ANALYSIS 8:3,1989