See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249882079

Musical Structure and Performance

Article  in  Journal of Music Theory · January 1991

DOI: 10.2307/843820

CITATIONS READS

11 989

3 authors, including:

Cynthia J Folio
Temple University
10 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dissertation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cynthia J Folio on 12 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Yale University Department of Music

Musical Structure and Performance by Wallace Berry

Review by: Steve Larson and Cynthia Folio
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 35, No. 1/2 (Spring - Autumn, 1991), pp. 298-309
Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Yale University Department of Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/843820 .
Accessed: 19/11/2011 21:36

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.

Duke University Press and Yale University Department of Music are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of Music Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
 6. Although Straus, appropriately for a book such as this, does not deal in any
depth with the obvious theoretical questions of what this approach to post-tonal
music does and does not share with Schenker's theories of structural levels in
tonal music, his approach is consistent with his informative article on the sub-
ject (Straus 1987). See also Forte 1988 and other references provided by Straus
in the bibliography at the end of Chapter 4.

LIST OF WORKS CITED

Forte, Allen. 1973. The Structure of Atonal Music. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
. 1988. "New Approaches to the Linear Analysis of Music." Journal of the
American Musicological Society 41: 315-48.
Gauldin, Robert and Mary Wennerstrom. 1989. "Pedagogy." Music Theory Spec-
trum 11/1: 66-73.
Morris, Robert. 1982. Review of Basic Atonal Theory, by John Rahn. Music The-
ory Spectrum 4: 138-54.
. 1987. Composition with Pitch-Classes: A Theory of Compositional Design.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rahn, John, 1980. Basic Atonal Theory. New York: Longman.
Straus, Joseph N. 1982. "Stravinsky's Tonal Axis." Journal of Music Theory 26:
261-90.
1987. "The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music." Journal of
Music Theory 31: 1-22.

Musical Structureand Performance

by Wallace Berry
New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989
xvi, 240 pp.

REVIEWERS
Steve Larson and Cynthia Folio

The opening chapters of Musical Structureand Performance sug-

gest that a valuable book will follow. In the preface and first chapter,
we learn the purpose and guiding questions of the book.
The centralissue of interpretationcanbe summarizedin two questions:
In a particularunit of musicalstructure,to and from what points (and
states) can directedmotionsbe said to lead? And whatis the perform-
er's role in projectingand illuminatingessentialelements of direction
and continuity?(page 2)
Berry says that the performer can project these elements of direc-
tion and continuity through "interventions"that he divides into two
categories: tempo and articulation.
298
 Chapter Two heightens our interest when it lists and illustrates
twelve questions that might arise in studying relations between anal-
ysis and performance. This not only provides a frameworkfor the de-
tailed analyses of subsequent chapters, but by itself, could serve as a
valuable guideline for performersand analysts. These questions range
from very detailed concerns, such as what note to play in ambiguous
situations, to whether players should reinforce or contradictrelation-
ships discovered in formal or structuralanalysis. Other questions have
to do with whether to add dynamic inflections where none are indi-
cated; whether to project disguised motivic imitation, hidden voice-
leading connections, or metrical fluctuations; and how to make
decisions regardingtempo, grouping, text painting, and overall char-
acter. The issues raised--all illustratedwith specific musical examples
that vary in style and texture-lead to a variety of performance sug-
gestions. Along the way, Berry reminds us that "there can be diver-
gent, reasonable concepts of structurein any given piece" and that "a
particularanalytical construct by no means points to a singular, pur-
suant direction of realization" (page 9).
The next three chapters, which make up the main body of the
book, offer detailed analyses of Brahms, Intermezzo in B6, Op. 76,
No. 4; Berg, No. 3 of Four Pieces for Clarinet and Piano, Op. 5; and
Debussy, "C'est l'extase langoureuse," No. 1 of Ariettes Oubliees.
These analyses reflect Berry's impressive skills as performer and
scholar. They also offer a refreshingvariety of analyticalperspectives.
Despite its limited discussion of other studies relating analysis and
performance--and the lack of a bibliography--the book promises
much. But several problems make the book a disappointment.
The first problem is Berry's writing style. He seems to delight in
long, complicatedconstructionsand unusualwords. The result is often
confusing:
The concept of intuitionas derivingfrom experience,yet lackingthe
corroborationof analysisand articulatereason, dismissesany meta-
physicalbasis of knowingand puts aside as irrelevantto the complex-
ities of interestingmusicalstructureany humanresponseswhich may
be neurologicallyprogrammed.(page ix)
In fact, sometimes his desire to use long or fancy words seems to
confuse him, too. What does he mean when he uses the term "ful-
some" (which means "offensive") to describe the "climacticintensity"
of a cadential event in the Debussy song (page 210)?
Sometimes, the writing style even seems to cover up poor reason-
ing. After noting that the G in measure 13 of Berry's Example 2.20
(reproduced as Example 1) is a point of dynamic focus, Berry writes
the following sentence.

299
(a)

7 (after Schenker)

(b)
d
m. 12

I _T___ _V -- --
I__-
-e-

Example 1. Bach, Suite No. 3 for unaccompaniedcello, Sarabande

300
 I should argue that a view of the pitch g2 as the registrallydisplaced
extensionof the fifth scale degree in an overall descent does not mit-
igateagainstits attributionsin the presentsense, since tonaland metric
structuresare differentthings,the lattermoreamenableto interpretive
control. (pages 38-39)
"I should argue that" seems unnecessary. And "mitigate against its
attributions"seems to create a new usage for "mitigate." But-more
to the point-what is the conflictbetween "a view of the pitch g2 as the
registrally displaced extension of the fifth scale degree in an overall
descent" and its attributions in Berry's preceding sentences? The
structural5 of measure 8 becomes a striking, dissonant suspension
through its ascending register transfer to measure 13-a gesture that
cries out for the mounting intensity Berry calls for; this structuralview
is part of why measure 13 has the dynamic focus that Berry attributes
to it. Finally, the "since" that connects the end of Berry's sentence to
its beginningsuggests a logical relationshipwhere none seems to exist.
Another problem is that Berry defines "intuition"(as a type of un-
derstandingthat is based on experience and that is difficultto verbal-
ize) and "analysis" (as systematic, rational thought that can be
verbally articulated)in such a way that they exclude each other. Berry
says his book is not concerned with intuitive insights. But these def-
initions of intuition and analysis confuse the argument from the out-
set. It seems better to distinguish "rational" and "intuitive"-
remembering that the line between them is not sharp (in fact, the
terms represent poles of a continuum). "Rational" and "intuitive"
distinguish different ways of understandingthe same things, not dif-
ferent types of relationships to be understood. Analysis-like
performance- has both intuitive and rational aspects. But Berry's dis-
tinction seems to imply that analysis does not have an intuitive com-
ponent.
It may seem that Berry values the rational over the intuitive. Much
of the rest of the book seems to support that impression (Berry refers
to "the fallible dictates of intuitive feeling" (page x) but does not men-
tion in the same place that the dictates of rational analysis are also
fallible). But that impression turns out to be mistaken; Berry, typi-
cally, wants to have it both ways. He concludes the last chapter by
asserting that
the analysis which informs interpretationaffords a basis-the only
basis-for resolvingthe hardquestionsboth of generalinterpretivede-
meanorand of those elusiverefinementsof detailwhichmake for per-
formancewhichis both movingand illuminating.(page 223, emphasis
added)
But less than a page earlier, he writes that

301
 the interpreter'staste anddiscretionare the only safeguardsagainstex-
aggeratedintervention,againstcrossingthose parlouslines between
too little, enough, and too muchin the projectionof any intendedin-
terpretiveflow of ideas followingfrom analyticalpenetrationand re-
sultinginsight. (page 222, emphasisadded)
When Berry does argue in favor of the rational over the intuitive,
he is often unconvincing. At one point, he refers to "two crowning
instances of clearly descriptivemusical imagery, neither materiallyac-
cessible to singer or pianist without searchinganalysis"(page
43)--the
settings of the words "Leben"and "Ruh"in Hugo Wolf's "Anakreons
Grab." He asks
Without analyticinsights into these factors, how do the performers
even begin to make appropriatemodulationsof tempo and dynamic
intensity,while evokingby calculatedsonorousinflectionand qualities
an atmosphereappropriateto Goethe's text and Wolf's commentary
on the text? (page 43)
But the imagery he refers to is intuitively accessible to the performer
without "searchinganalysis." Furthermore,how could a performerto
whom these things were not intuitively obvious be expected to realize
the "appropriatemodulations of tempo and dynamic intensity"? Fi-
nally, the term "calculated"-often used to describe performancesde-
void of feeling-is ironic here.
Another problem is that the organization of the book is inconsis-
tent with its purpose. The Preface says that the purpose of the book
is:
to pose criticalquestionsof performancein selected, particularcon-
texts representingimportantgeneraof tonal music,and to ask how the
analysisof formal and structuralelements can be responsiveto such
questions,establishinga perspectivefor rationalapproachesto resolv-
ing them. (page xii)
But the book actually takes the opposite tack-it offers detailed anal-
yses and then asks what performance interventions are appropriate.
The result is that (although many theoretically interesting details are
discussed) the reader is exposed to numerous analytic observations
that do not lead to significantor interestinginterpretiveinterventions.
In fact, after many exhaustive (and exhausting) analyses, Berry often
concludes that the best interpretive decision is to not intervene. The
problem is acute in Chapter Four, "Second Case: Berg, No. 3 of Four
Pieces for Clarinetand Piano, Op. 5." Berry offers long discussionsof
tonal implications of passages in which some listeners may find tonal
references vague if not absent (composing alternative continuations

302
for some of these passages might help listeners appreciate the tonal
implications that Berry hears). These are followed by very few rec-
ommendations for interpretation.
Furthermore,if the stated purpose is to "establisha perspective for
rational approachesto resolving questions of performance,"then gen-
eral principles must come to the fore. But Berry leaves it up to the
reader to draw these general principles from his analyses.
In fact, Berry tends to attack generalizations.He cites two passages
from Schenker's writings, both calling for an emphasis on notes that
bear chromatic alterations. But he argues with Schenker.
Here areinstancesin whichinterpretive"necessities"are affirmedvery
preciselyindeed;yet suchclaimedpreceptsare clearlyfartoo sweeping
in implication.They are in fact potentiallyobtrusive,not least with re-
spect to Schenker'sportrayalsof encompassinglines of continuityin
these pieces. (page 9)
And he explains how they might be obtrusive.
Overt emphasison a chromaticalterationsimply because it is there
may impaira vital middlegroundcontinuity,diminishsome essential
proximateevent, or exaggeratethe occurrencewithregardto its formal
context. (page 9)
If he means that too much emphasis on chromatic alterations would
cause these problems, then this is triviallytrue of any intervention. If
he means that there are situations in which any emphasis would cause
these problems, then it would be nice to see some examples of such
situations.
It seems that one of Berry's few principles is that every principle
has an exception. An interesting paradox surfaces when Berry insists
on finding exceptions to this principle, too. He quotes Schmalfeldt
(1985) as saying "There is no single, one-and-only performance deci-
sion thatcan be dictatedby an analyticobservation[italics in original]"
(page 10). Berry himself seems to make this same argument repeat-
edly, but when someone else says it he recognizes that its attempt to
qualify everything needs qualification,so he responds to Schmalfeldt:
Although one may be unpreparedto apply this to all analyticalfind-
ings, the generaltruthof the statementis scarcelydisputable.(page 10)
If he is "unpreparedto apply this to all analyticalfindings,"then does
he feel that somewhere there is a "single, one-and-only performance
decision that can be dictated by analytic observation"? Such an
example--even if it were of an interpretive prohibition--would
strengthen Berry's argument.

303
 Berry's aversion to generalizationsextends to analyticmethods. As
Berry notes on page xii, "this book is about analytical approaches as
well as about the issues of performance to which the analysis leads."
In fact, if the book is to pursue the argument that analysis benefits
performance, then it must inevitably be about analytic methods. Un-
fortunately, the book-while it employs many methods-is not about
methods. It does not compare or evaluate different analytical meth-
ods.
Particularly curious is Berry's avowed rejection of Schenkerian
analysis (cf. Berry 1987, page 14). Berry's use of a variety of methods
is refreshing--there is a lot more to music than voice-leading hierar-
chies. But if he wants to discuss voice-leading structure, then he
should either use Schenker's analytic technique or explain how his
own method improves on Schenker's.
In fact, Berry's work seems confused about principlesof hierarchic
voice-leading structure.He describes Example 3.5 (our Example 2) as

a generalizedimpressionof the total melodic and thematiccontinuity

and its distinctive,individuatingconstituents.Because such constitu-
ents are germaneto this derivedimage, the sketch falls short of ulti-
matelyabstractingthe tonal degreesB-flatand F, to whichthe melody
is in anothersense reducible.(page 52)

PerhapsBerry has chosen the wrong words; if conscious rational anal-

ysis is importantto the performer, then why not provide more than a
"generalized impression"? In any case, the reasoning seems flawed
here. Berry's analysis uses multiple graphic levels to show both the
total continuity and some distinctive constituents. It is not "Because
such constituents are germane to this derived image" that the sketch
falls short, but simply because it does not include enough graphiclev-
els.
Berry offers Examples 3.5, 3.10, and 3.11 (reproducedin Example
2) as analyses of the Brahms Intermezzo. (Berry's suggestion that
these synopses be played should be applauded.) These analyses fea-
ture symbols used in Schenkerian analysis (such as unstemmed note-
heads, parentheses, slurs, dotted slurs, lines suggesting abstractvoice-
leading connections, beams, and broken beams). Notes are displayed
in vertically aligned levels. The elimination of detail from some sys-
tems, the use of noteheads of different size, and the use of stems and
slurs suggest hierarchic levels. Notes are shifted from one octave to
another to show voice-leading connections (see, for example, mea-
sures 44 and 45 in Example 3.10). Are these analyses intended to be
read as Schenkerian analyses? A footnote gives the book's answer:

304
 Allegrettograzioso

mm. 1 4
10-1

also:

(symmetry around b-flat1)

etc.

21 •,• . L• 25 h
_ ....,.. _.•.- _ .
•
2
--• 444

cresc.

t
Example 2a, 3.5 in Musical Structureand Performance
 V
m. 13 m.20 m.32
I I-
-7-;i
V VI IV V

m.4 7,9

1 432 30 31
6.8 10 13
20,

-dP,

(asabove)

I
m.32 m.45
s- e-
m..45
above)

o(as 44
32 36 39
AMU

32 36 39
/ 38 39 44
44 45
45
'"38
.T

41 43 44

(as above)

Example 2b, 3.10 in Musical Structure and Performance

306
 a a a a a.(deeply underlyingV-I) * . *-
mm. 4 5 7 10 11 13 20
(
-•• . ,4• ,VID

"f :

(VI)
Tonic, B-flat:V- - VI - - (IV)
Submediant,g: Neap. (VII I) V I-
Neapolitan,C-flat: III
i a*(deeply underlyingV-I) a a a I
21 30 31 32 41 43 44 45

*I etc.

B-flat: IV V - - (VII) I- -
(as aug. 6th)
C-flat: V VI

b7 -

Example 2c, 3.11 in Musical Structure and Performance

307
 The techniquesof representationnot discussedin the text are self-
evident, or so commonas to requireno explanation.(page 227)

But the slurs in these examples do not seem to have a consistent

meaning. Consider the slurs in Example 3.5, measures 1-4. One con-
nects the small noteheads B to Bb; but since these notes are less struc-
tural than some of the notes connecting them, this slur does not
indicate a clear structuralpitch function. The slurs on the highest of
the three parenthetical systems of unstemmed noteheads seem to in-
dicate membership in voice-leading strands, using upward and down-
ward slurs connecting step-related notes to distinguish a structural
soprano and a structural alto. The slurs on the middle of the three
parentheticalsystems of unstemmed noteheads seem to indicate pass-
ing motions, but the A of measure 4 is less structuralthan the BI, de-
picted as passing to it. The slurs on the lowest of the three
parentheticalsystems of unstemmed noteheads indicate a symmetrical
division of the ambitus of the melody of measures 1-4; although it is
consistent with his comments (page 53), the implied interpretationof
B, as structuralcontradicts the prolongation of the underlying V-it
also contradictsthe reading immediatelyabove it. If the slurs have any
consistent meaning, the three parenthetical systems of unstemmed
noteheads present contradictoryreadings of measures 1-4. Do these
different analyses suggest different ways of playing those measures?
Berry does not even acknowledge their contradiction.
Each level of Example 3.10 removes chords from the level printed
below it. The analysis thus depicts a hierarchyof harmonies. But the
absence of analytical symbols (such as stems and slurs) means that
there are not enough graphic levels to clarify the functions of all the
chords. If detailed analysis improves performance, why omit symbols
that would clarify? And there are some curious anomalies. In mea-
sures 4 and 36, a passing IV6 connects V to V6, but the third lowest
level includes the IV6 yet omits the more structural V6 to which it
passes. The omission of the G:I6of measure 11 from the fourth lowest
level confuses the voice leading (the dissonant C of measure 10 re-
solves down to Bb). The third lowest level obscures the descending7-6
suspensionsin measures 27-30. And why does the diminished-seventh
chord on B appear in measure 37 but not in measure 5?
Example 3.11 compounds the problems of earlier examples. First,
the meaning of the slurs in measures 1-7 is far from "self-evident."
Second, the garbled reading of the AI, chord in measure 31 covers up
an interesting question. Salzer and Schachter (1969) read this as a
neighbor of a G6 prolonged in measures21-32 (pages 458-461). AI,Forte
and Gilbert (1982) read the G6 that follows this same AI, as a passing
motion to the dominant (text, page 274; Instructor'sManual, pages

308
135-136). The readings contradict one another (A6 cannot simulta-
neously be more structuraland less structuralthan Berry's Ex-
G6,).
amples 3.5, 3.10, and the parentheses in measures 21-32 of his
Example 3.11 agree with Salzer and Schachter. But the slur that con-
nects A6 to F in measures 31-32 of Berry's Example 3.11 agrees with
Forte and Gilbert. Do these different analyses suggest different ways
of playing those measures? Again, Berry does not even acknowledge
their contradiction.
Berry describes these three analyses as "differentbut compatible."
But they seem to contradict one another. For example, in Example
3.5, the dotted slur on the last bass note suggests that B6 is prolonged
from measure 41 to the end. But example 3.10 shows (correctly) that
the structural tonic does not arrive until measure 45. Furthermore,
this analytic observation says something about the narrative of the
piece that should affect performance--an interpretation that relaxes
into measure 41 as cadential tonic arrivaldoes so too soon.
Despite these serious problems, performerswill find much to listen
for and think about as well as some specific interpretive suggestions
worthyof exploring. Moreover, the many questions raised should pro-
voke interesting discussions in the neglected area of analysis and per-
formance.

LIST OF WORKS CITED

Berry, Wallace. 1987. Structural Functions in Music. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall; reprint, New York: Dover.
Forte, Allen and Steven Gilbert. 1982. Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis. New
York and London: W. W. Norton.
Salzer, Felix and Carl Schachter. 1969. Counterpoint in Composition: The Study of
Voice Leading. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schmalfeldt, Janet. 1985. "On the Relation of Analysis to Performance: Beethov-
en's Bagatelles Op. 126, Nos. 2 and 5," Journal of Music Theory 29/1: 1-31.

309

View publication stats