Fuggir La Cadenza or The Art of Avoiding

What Is a
Cadence?
Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives
on Cadences in the Classical Repertoire
Markus Neuwirth
Pieter Bergé (eds)
Reprint from What is a Cadence? - ISBN 978 94 6270 015 4 - © Leuven University Press, 2015
What Is a Cadence?
What Is a Cadence?
Markus Neuwirth and Pieter Bergé (eds)
Leuven University Press
© 2015 by Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain / Universitaire
Pers Leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this
publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any
way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers.
ISBN 9789462700154
D / 2015 / 1869 / 19
NUR: 664
Cover and layout: Jurgen Leemans
Cover illustration: ‘Cadence #1 (a short span of time), Robert Owen, 2003’, CC-BY-
NC-ND Matthew Perkins 2009.
C o n t e n t s 5
Contents
Introduction: What is a Cadence? 7

Nine Perspectives
Markus Neuwirth and Pieter Bergé
Harmony and Cadence in Gjerdingen’s “Prinner” 17

William E. Caplin
Beyond ‘Harmony’ 59
The Cadence in the Partitura Tradition
Felix Diergarten
The Half Cadence and Related Analytic Fictions 85

Poundie Burstein
Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of Avoiding Cadential

Closure 117
Physiognomy and Functions of Deceptive Cadences in the Classical Repertoire
Markus Neuwirth
The Mystery of the Cadential Six-Four 157

Danuta Mirka
6 Contents
The Mozartean Half Cadence 185

Nathan John Martin and Julie Pedneault-Deslauriers
“Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes” 215

Punctuation Schemas and the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata
Vasili Byros
The Perception of Cadential Closure 253

David Sears
Towards a Syntax of the Classical Cadence 287

Martin Rohrmeier and Markus Neuwirth
List of Contributors 339
Index 343
Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of Avoiding Cadential Closure 117
Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of

Avoiding Cadential Closure
Physiognomy and Functions of Deceptive
Cadences in the Classical Repertoire*
Markus Neuwirth
I. On the physiognomy of the deceptive cadence:

An eighteenth-century perspective
F ollowing a topos that is widespread in the analytical literature, music from

the second half of the eighteenth century may be described as goal-directed.1
To reflect the teleological qualities inherent in “classical” music, analysts of differ-
ent persuasions frequently make use of metaphors derived from the source domain
of a “journey,” including its cognates “trajectory” and “path” as well as “departure”
and “arrival.”2 A musical “phrase” may be considered the smallest building block
expressing goal-directedness, as it articulates a tonal motion towards a final sonority
(either the tonic or the dominant) that is usually established by means of a cadential
progression.3 Expressing the tripartite temporal paradigm of a beginning, a middle,
and an end, a phrase may thus rightly be regarded as the prototype of form in classical
music in general.4 If we accept such goal-directedness as one of the basic premises
for the analysis of classical music, it is uncontroversial to claim, following Leonard B.
Meyer, that one of the most important procedures adopted in the classical style was
the strategic delay of structural closure. Such a delay had the function of both playing

*
Financial support for the research presented in this chapter has been generously provided by The
Research Foundation – Flanders.
1. E.g., Schenker, Free Composition (1979), 5; Lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory (1983), 174; and
Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 42.
2. On the concept of “source domain,” see Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (2008), 276.
3. Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm (1989), 5: “A phrase should be understood as, among other things, a
directed motion in time from one tonal entity to another; these entities may be harmonies, melodic
tones (in any voice or voices), or some combination of the two.”
4. See Agawu, Playing with Signs (1991), 51ff.
118 Markus Neuwirth
with listeners’ expectations and stretching the temporal dimensions of a given com-
position. Deceptive cadences, one important means of achieving this aim, therefore
deserve critical attention.5 In addition to their significant structural impact, deceptive
cadences may also have strong psychological implications, as becomes clear from
Aldwell and Schachter’s fitting description:
Deceptive cadences are inconclusive. They create no sense of repose: on

the contrary, they produce suspense that dissipates only when the total
stability is regained, usually through an authentic cadence. By delaying
resolution to a goal tonic, they intensify the feeling of resolution when that
tonic eventually arrives.6
Even a superficial examination of present-day theoretical approaches to the deceptive

cadence reveals an astonishing uniformity, as the concept is largely restricted to a
rather simple harmonic formula: the motion from dominant to submediant. This is
surprising, considering that composers employed a much wider variety of deceptive
cadences in actual practice.7 This variety is in part reflected in the confusion over the
terminology used to refer to deceptive progressions. The deceptive cadence has been
extensively theorized by numerous historical writers, giving rise to a multiplicity of
terms in at least five languages (Latin, Italian, French, German, and English): caden-
tia ficta, cadenza sfuggita, cadenza d’inganno, cadenza finta, cadence evitée, cadence rompue,
Trugschluß, Ausfliehen der Cadenz, fliehender Tonschluß, and deceptive cadence, to mention
just a few of the terms that were in use in the eighteenth century.8
The simplistic treatment of the deceptive cadence is in part due to the fact that
modern textbooks on tonal harmony typically adopt a chord-centered, as opposed
to a linear (or contrapuntal), perspective with regard to eighteenth-century music,
especially when seeking to explain cadences. However, such a harmonically reduc-
tionist approach is by no means self-evident, as Robert Gjerdingen points out in his
2007 study entitled Music in the Galant Style. In fact, it raises two serious problems, one
related to anachronism and the other to its limited explanatory scope:
Generations of nineteenth- and twentieth-century music students have

learned about musical phrase endings—cadences—from textbooks on
harmony. This chord-centered view of musical articulation was fully
5. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 22, 296.

6. Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 199.
7. A notable exception is Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 29. Caplin offers more variety with respect to the
concept of the deceptive cadence than is typically provided in music textbooks and essays. Caplin’s
view is anticipated by Schenker’s broader definition of the deceptive cadence: “Finally, also, the
deceptive cadence allows for various modifications; for, in a broad sense, any step progression, not
merely V–IV or V–VI, may be heard as a deceptive cadence, provided that it prevents the fulfilment of
an expected full close” (Schenker, Harmony [1954], 226f.).
8. See, for instance, Schmalzriedt, “Kadenz” (1974).
appropriate to the aims of general musical education in the Romantic age,

but it is too coarse-grained for an esoteric, courtly art like galant music.
Or put another way, it highlights only what Locatelli has in common with
Rimsky-Korsakov.9
Adopting a common-denominator approach, modern theorists have identified a sim-

ple dominant-to-tonic motion as the “essence” of an authentic cadence.10 It might be
for this reason that current cadence taxonomies consider only the two final chords
of a larger progression as the defining features that characterize the type of a given
cadence.11 This approach may be seen as a consequence of Jean-Philippe Rameau’s
“long shadow,”12 since Rameau was probably the first theorist to use “cadence” to
refer to two-membered fifth-related progressions.13 Owing to this Ramellian heritage,
voice leading is understood as a secondary dimension that serves merely to smooth the
harmonic progression; in other words, voice leading is taken into account only after
categorical distinctions have already been made on the basis of the harmonic analysis.
In keeping with this chord-centered perspective, numerous modern textbooks on
tonal harmony view the deceptive cadence as arising from a genuinely harmonic pro-
cedure: in an otherwise regular cadential progression, the final tonic is unexpectedly
replaced by a substitute harmonic function, thus creating the deceptive effect that gives
this progression its name. It is usually the triad on scale degree ➅, the submediant,
that is interpreted as acting as a tonic substitute, since vi and I have two tones (1^ and
3^) in common and their roots are a minor third apart. This understanding of deceptive
cadences in terms of harmonic substitution dates back to Hugo Riemann’s theory of
Klangvertretung,14 if not earlier; this Riemannian heritage also surfaces in many modern
textbooks, for instance, in Aldwell and Schachter’s Harmony and Voice Leading.15
It must not be overlooked, however, that already in the eighteenth century decep-
tive cadences were sometimes described in exclusively harmonic terms. Authors as
diverse as Johann Adolf Scheibe and Johann Philipp Kirnberger interpreted decep-
tive cadences as resulting from a chord substitution or from an unexpected harmonic
resolution. As Scheibe explains in his Critischer Musicus (1739), a deceptive cadence
9. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 140.

10. See Temperley, The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures (2001), 336. V–I is no doubt too unspecific a
feature to be used in differentiating the cadence from other (non-cadential) types of progressions; see
the Introduction to this volume.
11. E.g., Forte, Tonal Harmony (1974), 50; Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 27–29, 43.
12. Holtmeier’s term; see his “Rameaus langer Schatten” (2010).
13. Rameau, Treatise on Harmony (1722/1971), 63ff. Rameau’s understanding was widely accepted
throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century. Furthermore, it should be noted that
for Rameau, the “perfect cadence” (cadence parfaite) was considered the prototype of directed harmonic
motion in general.
14. See, for instance, Riemann, Handbuch der Harmonielehre (1898).
15. Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 197. See also Gauldin, Harmonic Practice in
Tonal Music (1997), 242f., and Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 29, 101.
120 Markus Neuwirth
arises “when one alters the final note at the end of a phrase and turns to a completely
different and unexpected chord”.16 For Kirnberger (1774), the deceptive cadence is the
third main type of an ending that arises “if one does not move from the dominant of
the key to the tonic.”17
In this chapter, I will adopt a historically informed perspective by placing a linear
(or contrapuntal) analysis at the center of my discussion of deceptive cadences. More
specifically, I will draw on the centuries-old Klausellehre, according to which closure
is brought about by a specific combination of individual voices called clausulae rather
than by a specific succession of harmonies. This approach might challenge those
theorists who have long been taught that the ways in which cadential closure was
achieved in Renaissance and in classical music are categorically distinct. The sources
that Gjerdingen and others18 refer to suggest that the Klausellehre was of vital impor-
tance to Renaissance music, but also continued to be influential for eighteenth-cen-
tury music as well. Taking into account the profound insights offered by eighteenth-
century theoretical sources promises to circumvent the pitfalls of anachronism and
may additionally increase the descriptive power of a modern theory of the cadence.
As the following cursory overview of the historical literature will demonstrate,
the Klausellehre proves particularly powerful in addressing the deceptive cadence.
Consider one of the earliest and most well-known descriptions of deceptive (or
evaded) cadences, that found in Gioseffo Zarlino’s highly influential 1558 treatise Le
istitutioni harmoniche—a description that in its focus on the behavior of single voices is
markedly different from modern approaches:
[T]o make intermediate divisions in the harmony and text, when the words
have not reached a final conclusion of their thought, we may write those
cadences which terminate on the third, fifth, sixth, or similar consonances.
Such ending does not result in a perfect cadence; rather this is now called
“evading the cadence” (fuggir la cadenza). It is fortunate that we have such
evaded cadences. They are useful when a composer in the midst of a beau-
tiful passage feels the need for a cadence but cannot write one because the
period of the text does not coincide, and it would not be honest to insert one.
[…] From what I have said, it is evident that any cadence not terminating on
an octave or unison may be called imperfect because it evades the perfect
ending. […] a cadence is evaded […] when the voices give the impression
of leading to a perfect cadence, and turn instead in a different direction.19
16. Scheibe, Critischer Musicus (1739), 478 (my translation).

17. Kirnberger, Die Kunst des reinen Satzes (1774), 97f.
18. See, for instance, Holtmeier, “Heinichen, Rameau, and the Italian Thoroughbass Tradition” (2007)
and Menke, “Die Familie der cadenza doppia” (2011).
19. Zarlino, Le istitutioni harmoniche (1558), 223 (trans. in The Art of Counterpoint [1968], 151).
For Zarlino, perfect cadences—whether simple or diminished20—end with an octave

or a unison. Any intervallic progression that evolves like a perfect cadence but ulti-
mately refuses to end like one is described as involving an “evaded cadence” (cadenza
sfuggita), which the author illustrates by means of various two-voice settings (bicinia).
Elsewhere in his treatise, Zarlino dubs this type of incomplete ending an “imperfect
cadence” or “improper cadence.”21 In other words, Zarlino uses the concept of the
“evaded cadence” as an umbrella term, lumping together all possible kinds of con-
trapuntal configurations that start as though they were going to bring about a perfect
cadence but then frustrate this expectation by ending on third, fifth, or sixth intervals.
In general, for Zarlino, the placement of cadences is closely linked to the syntactical
subdivisions of the text: While perfect cadences, ranking highest with regard to their
syntactical weight, serve to punctuate complete sentences (or thoughts) of the text,
the use of evaded cadences is largely motivated by the fact that the text has not yet
reached its syntactical conclusion.
Zarlino’s contrapuntal (or intervallic) approach resurfaces more than a century
later in various French and Italian sources, in which cadences are typically understood
as two- or three-part contrapuntal progressions categorized according the final inter-
val established over the bass. As one example of many, La Voye Mignot’s treatment
of cadences may be cited here pars pro toto, as it can be considered representative of
the theoretical practice of the time. La Voye Mignot distinguishes between three types
of cadence—perfect (parfaite), broken (rompue), and waiting (attendante)—, which are
said to differ with respect to their degree of finality. The third type, the cadence attend-
ante, ends with ➀–➄ in the bass and largely corresponds to our modern half cadence;
Charles Masson refers to this as cadence irreguliére.22 Perfect cadences (featuring ➄–➀,
➁–➀, or ➃–➂ in the bass) end on a perfect consonance (the octave or unison).23 By
contrast, the broken cadence fails to conclude on the expected perfect consonance
because the bass, instead of providing its proper clausula (➄–➀), moves from ➄
either to ➅ or to ➂, thus ending either on a third or a sixth.24 Masson comes perhaps
closest to Zarlino’s definition, as he “calls imperfect any cadence in which an interval
other than the octave is sounded at the closing.”25
Following this sixteenth- and seventeenth-century tradition, Johann Gottfried
Walther in his Musicalisches Lexicon from 1732 describes two possible ways of creating a
deceptive ending, depending on the specific treatment of either the bass or one of the
20. See n. 52.

21. Zarlino, The Art of Counterpoint (1968), 148.
22. Masson, Nouveau traité (1699), 24.
23. See also Nivers, Traité de la composition (1667), 23f.; and Masson, Nouveau traité (1699), 24.
24. La Voye Mignot, Traité de musique (1656), 74ff. Masson refers to the broken cadence as cadence imparfaite,
adding to the bass-generated variants those produced by a melodic deviation in the soprano.
25. Christensen, Rameau and Musical Thought in the Enlightenment (1993), 114.
122 Markus Neuwirth
upper voices (most typically the soprano).26 The first type arises when the bass moves
down a third (➄–➂) or ascends by whole- or semi-tone (➄–➅ or ➄–¨➅) rather than
either leaping down a fifth or up a fourth (➄–➀) as expected. The remaining voices,
by contrast, behave as if they were bringing about a full close; it is only the bass that
breaks the normative pattern (see Example 1).27
The second type results from the deviant behavior of one of the upper voices: if,
unlike the first type, the bass does indeed provide its “normative” bass clausula (the
cadenzia basizans), the upper voice may surprisingly resolve the 4–3 suspension to
¨➂ rather than ª➂ as expected.28 This alteration produces what Berardi has called
motivo di cadenza (see Example 2);29 in modern parlance, this is seen as giving rise to
a Caplinian “abandoned cadence” followed by a descending-fifths sequence that is
employed to accomplish a modulation.30
Example 1: Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon (1732), 125: Deceptive cadence produced by bass motion
Example 2: Berardi, Documenti armonici (1687), 151: “Motivo di cadenza”
Walther’s description permits an interesting observation: especially in the first case, the
author groups together into a single category what in modern harmonic terms would
belong to two (or three) distinct categories because of the different harmonic functions
26. One may assume that Walther’s description, as it appears in a dictionary, reflects an older
understanding of cadence.
27. Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon (1732), 125.
28. Ibid.
29. Berardi, Documenti armonici (1687), 152ff. See also Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon (1732), 425.
30. On the modulatory function of the deceptive cadence, see below.
(I6, vi, or ¨VI) that occur on the ultima. This is because rather than focusing on the har-
monic result, Walther instead examines how a deceptive ending is produced, considering
the behavior of each individual voice within a genuinely contrapuntal setting.
Key to understanding deceptive cadences within the system of Klausellehre is the
concept of Klauselverwechslung—that is, the interchangeability or recombination
of clausulae. Klauselverwechslung is a common method of varying cadences that has
been described in numerous sources, as, for instance, in Andreas Werckmeister’s
Harmonologia Musica from 1702.31 Here, let us concentrate on which clausulae can be
used to replace the clausula basizans. According to Werckmeister, the clausula cantizans
(1–7–1), the clausula tenorizans (3–2–1), and the clausula altizans (5–5–3) can all be trans-
ferred to the bass register, thus weakening the sense of closure conveyed by a given
contrapuntal configuration.32 The only clausula that is exempt from interchangeability
is the bass clausula; its proper place is exclusively in fundamento.33 It should also be
noted that a cadence does not necessarily require all four clausula to be present: two
or three of them may be sufficient, most importantly the bass clausula and one of the
clausulae principales (either the tenor or the discant clausula).
Perhaps the most explicit explanation of deceptive cadences in terms of
Klauselverwechslung can be found in Meinrad Spieß’s 1745 Tractatus Musicus Compositorio-
Practicus. In describing deceptive cadences, Spieß quotes almost directly from
Walther’s dictionary, but with the addition of an interesting observation. He notes
that the deceptive cadence almost coincides with the cadentia altizans (that is, a cadence
with the clausula altizans in fundamento).34 Indeed, it is clear from the two examples of
cadentia altizans provided by Spieß that he is referring to typical variants of a deceptive
cadence (see Example 3). This implies that Spieß regards both ➄–➂ and ➄–➅ move-
ments in the bass as possible forms of a clausula altizans rather than as manipulations
of the bass clausula, the latter being the common view.35
Referring to the ➄–➂ variant as a form of the clausula altizans is uncontroversial.
This view was put forth by Walther, who, following Printz, called ➄–➂ a clausula saltiva
imperfectior, emphasizing its similarity to the cadentia altizans.36 In his Praecepta from
1708, Walther used the term clausula minus perfecta to refer to a clausula altizans shifted to
the bass, thus suggesting a close relationship between the alto clausula and the decep-
tive cadence. More debatable, however, is the idea of relating the ➄–➅ variant to the
31. See, for instance, Werckmeister, Harmonologia musica (1702), 48.

32. Ibid., 49. 5–5–5, a variant of the clausula altizans, is commonly found in an inner voice.
33. Ibid., 50. See also Printz, Phrynis mitilenæus (1676), 30; and Kellner, Treulicher Unterricht im General-Baß
(1737), 22f. For a less restrictive view, see Spieß, Tractatus musicus (1745), 94.
34. Spieß, Tractatus musicus (1745), 95.
35. In the context of a discussion of incises (Einschnitte), Mattheson refers to the 5–6 movement in the bass
as clausula imperfecte ascendens; the 5–3 movement is called clausula imperfecte descendens. See Mattheson,
Der vollkommene Capellmeister (1739), 186.
36. Printz, Phrynis mitilenæus (1676), 28.
124 Markus Neuwirth
cadentia altizans. This is because the ➄–➄–➄ variant lacks the ascending step that for
Printz is the defining feature of the clausula ordinata ascendens imperfectior.37 It is arguably
the difference between this variant and ➄–➅ that prompts Spieß to assert that the lat-
ter variant of the deceptive cadence would almost (!) coincide with the cadentia altizans.
Example 3: Spieß, Tractatus Musicus (1745), 96: Deceptive cadence produced by bass motion
As is widely accepted, the clausula altizans is the least important (and most expendable)
of the four clausulae, serving merely to fill in missing elements in order to complete
the harmony (“Ausfüllung der Harmonie”), hence its designation as clausula exple-
mentalis.38 There was no consensus among eighteenth-century theorists regarding
the question of whether such an auxiliary clausula might also appear in fundamento.
When this form of cadence was allowed at all, theorists such as Walther and Johann
Mattheson devalued it, using the term clausula (formalis) minus perfecta.39 They thus sug-
gested that this cadence was considered imperfect in some respects: it could only
produce what Mattheson, invoking an analogy to language, calls a comma. Following
Lipsius, Mattheson defines a comma as “a little part of the sentence through which the
discourse obtains a little caesura.”40 Similarly, Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg considers
the deceptive cadence to be nothing but a “mere Absatz,”41 which, like a comma, is
incapable of concluding a larger whole. This type of cadence can therefore only be
used in the middle of a composition, never at its end.42
37. Ibid.
38. Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon (1732), 171.
39. Mattheson, Critica musica (1722), 27.
40. Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister (1739), 184 (my translation).
41. Marpurg, Kritische Briefe über die Tonkunst (1763), 68.
42. Walther, Praecepta (1708), 162.
Building on this discussion, we can now consider some of the theoretical impli-
cations of conceptualizing the deceptive cadence in terms of a specific combination
of clausulae. First and foremost, it is important to recognize that Walther’s rationale
helps to explain a particular feature of the V(7)–vi deceptive variant that has long been a
topic of discussion among theorists: namely, the doubling of the third of the chord on
the sixth scale degree. An explanation based on voice-leading considerations is pro-
posed by Aldwell and Schachter. They argue that the third is usually doubled in a V(7)–vi
progression, as this allows the leading tone to be properly resolved upwards to 1^ and
simultaneously helps to avoid parallel fifths.43 In addition, it permits the proper reso-
lution of the tritone (4^–7^), since the dominant seventh is able to properly resolve to 3^.
From a functional perspective, it has been argued that doubling this chordal ele-
ment (which is the root of the tonic triad) reflects the close relationship between vi
and I, the former referred to as a Riemannian Tonikaparellele.44 This view essentially
dates back to Rameau’s pioneering Traite de l’harmonie from 1722. Here, the author
argues that “the third implies the true fundamental sound, whose replicate cannot be
displeasing.”45 This would make it “preferable to place the octave of the third in the
chord [of the sixth degree] rather than the octave of the bass.”46
In order to understand Rameau’s explanation properly, it is important to bear in
mind that the ➄–➅ movement in the bass poses a serious problem for Rameau’s
general theory, as it seems to contradict his essential principle of fifth motion of the
fundamental tones. Seeking to resolve this problem, Rameau argues that the sub-
mediant chord is really an inverted tonic, with the sixth replacing the chordal fifth
and the fundamental bass being the third of the submediant. As Thomas Christensen
emphasizes, “[s]ince all other aspects of the voice leading remain unaltered, and the
substitution is only of a consonant interval, Rameau can claim that the cadence rompue
is still a variety of the cadence parfaite granted by license.”47
From Walther’s perspective, however, these explanations seem insufficient or at
the least only partially valid. As we can infer from his description, the doubling of
the third is merely an epiphenomenon of the retained basic contrapuntal structure
43. Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 198.
44. Riemann, Handbuch der Harmonielehre (1898), 1ff.
45. Rameau, Treatise on Harmony (1722/1971), 73. See also Agmon, “Functional Harmony Revisited”
(1995), 212.
46. Ibid.
47. Christensen, Rameau and Musical Thought in the Enlightenment (1993), 116. See also Caeyers, Het ‘Traité
de l’Harmonie’ van Jean-Philippe Rameau (1989), 226–228. Pointing out “obvious inconsistencies with
Rameau’s analysis” of the deceptive cadence, Christensen emphasizes that Rameau changes this
position in his later writings, in particular the Génération harmonique (Chapter 15) and the Code de
musique pratique, renouncing the principle of “fundamental fifth motion in all cadential patterns” (see
Christensen, Rameau and Musical Thought in the Enlightenment [1993], 117).
126 Markus Neuwirth
consisting of two clausulae principales: the clausula cantizans and the clausula tenorizans.48
This two-voice contrapuntal framework can be interpreted as obeying the Aristotelian
principle of motion, moving from a state of imperfection to a state of perfection: it
articulates the intervallic progression from two imperfect consonances (a sixth inter-
val), the latter of which is typically prepared by a syncopated seventh suspension dis-
sonance, to a perfect consonance (the octave, with 1^ in both voices).49 Suggesting an
additive nature of musical settings in the classical style, the clausulae principales consti-
tute a contrapuntal nucleus or skeleton that remains intact, irrespective of how the
surrounding voices behave.50
As shown above, the presence of a dissonance was deemed crucial already in
Renaissance theories.51 Cadences featuring a suspension dissonance were called
formales, diminuite, composte, ligatae, or ornate, whereas cadences lacking this features
were referred to as either simplices or purae.52 As René Descartes cogently argues in his
Compendium musicae (1618), the syncopated dissonance adds to the sense of closure
achieved at the moment of arrival on the final octave because it delays the fulfilment
of, and thus increases, expectation.53 Conversely, the absence of a suspension (and
hence the dissonance) in a fully consonant homophonic note-against-note counter-
point (in the sense of a Fuxian “first species”) would weaken the sense of closure
conveyed by a given cadence.
Interestingly, during the 40 or so years following the publication of Walther’s dic-
tionary, composers made use of the 7–6 suspension dissonance (or 4–3 against ➄–➀
in the bass) in cadences at structurally significant points. In the context of classical
sonata-form movements, this dissonance was not infrequently employed to articulate
the moment of structural closure, whether in the exposition (“essential expositional
closure” or EEC) or in the recapitulation (“essential structural closure” or ESC).54
This implies that the presence of the dissonance signals a moment of great structural
importance, even though definitive closure may be denied at the very last moment due
to the deviant behavior of one or more clausulae.
To illustrate this situation, let us briefly consider an excerpt from Haydn’s String
Quartet op. 17 No. 4 (see Example 4). Towards the end of the first movement’s
48. Walther, Musicalisches Lexicon (1732), 171. According to Walther, these two clausulae are called principales
because they can be exchanged.
49. This intervallic pattern (6–7–6–8), the sixth-to-octave progression in contrary motion, is commonly
referred to as clausula vera.
50. See Holtmeier’s notion of additiver Tonsatz in his “Rameaus langer Schatten” (2010).
51. See Diergarten in this volume.
52. See Schmalzriedt, “Kadenz” (1974), 5ff. The distinction between cadenze semplici and cadenze diminuite
dates back to Zarlino, Le istitutioni harmoniche (1558), 221. The distinction between clausulae simplices
and clausulae formales dates back to Calvisius, Melopoiia (1592).
53. Descartes, Compendium musicae (1618), 55.
54. Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements (2006), 20.
exposition, a “grand cadence”55 is about to materialize, featuring temporally extended

functional sonorities (with each stage occupying one full measure), a cadential 64, and
a tenor clausula with a trill on 2^ in the soprano (m. 40). Owing to these features, grand
cadences are particularly suited to articulating a moment of structural significance in
a sonata-form exposition. In addition, a closer look at the first and second violin lines
reveals the presence of a characteristic suspension dissonance: 9–10, rather than 7–6,
as the tenor clausula lies above the clausula cantizans. Although this two-part counterpoint
(9–10–8) could easily give rise to a perfect authentic cadence, the two lowest voices do
not make their expected contribution: the cello moves from ➄ to ➅, while the viola
proceeds from ➃ to ª➃. Due to the separation of forces combining to establish a full
cadence, the deceptive cadence here may come as a surprise not only to listeners but
also to (at least two) performers, especially in the case of a prima vista performance.
Example 4: Haydn, String Quartet in C minor, op. 17 No. 4/i, mm. 38–41
The distinction between the variants of a deceptive cadence generated by bass motion
and those produced by the upper voices had a notable tradition long before Walther,56
and it remained important throughout the eighteenth century as well. Numerous
contemporaneous theorists explained deceptive cadences in terms of the non-norma-
tive behavior of one of the voices typically involved in creating a complete cadence.
However, not all of them subscribed to Walther’s theory of Klauselverwechslung when
describing the various forms of deceptive cadences. For instance, in his Kritische Briefe
über die Tonkunst, Marpurg argues that interrupted and evaded cadences arise when either
the penultimate or the ultimate stage of the expected succession is altered in either the
bass or the soprano. He cites V7–vi, V7–vii°7/vi–vi, and V7–V42–I6, among other harmonic
progressions. In the second volume (1787) of his Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition,
Heinrich Christoph Koch likewise categorizes deceptive patterns into soprano- and
55. See Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 152.

56. See, for instance, Caeyers, Het ‘Traité de l’Harmonie’ van Jean-Philippe Rameau (1989), 217ff.
128 Markus Neuwirth
bass-generated groups.57 With regard to the bass, Koch cites only the ➄–➅ motion
and its variant ➄–©➄–➅, but his soprano-induced deceptive cadences show a greater
variety. Three variants end with a V–I progression supporting 2^–3^ in the upper voice,
its chromaticized variant 2^–©2^–3^, or (due to octave replacement) 2^–8^ (see Example 5).
Similar variants are cited in Daniel Gottlob Türk’s Clavierschule from 1789, but without
much additional explanation.58 Interestingly, none of these authors relate the methods
of producing deceptive cadences to the procedure of exchanging clausulae.
Example 5: Koch, Versuch II (1787), 445: Four variants of deceptive cadences
Example 6: Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 61: A melodically deceptive cadence
Anticipating Koch’s discussion of deceptive cadences generated by the upper

voice, Riepel provides an interesting case of a “false and deceptive […] cadence”
57. Koch, Versuch II (1787), 444f.

58. Türk, Clavierschule (1789), 352.
(“falsche und betriegende […] Cadenz”) that illustrates the technique of avoiding
cadential closure by melodic means alone: in his example, the melody is expected to
go down to scale degree 1^ but instead surprisingly reverts to 3^ (see Example 6).59
The subtlety of Riepel’s interpretation becomes evident when it is compared to
a modern analysis: because the harmonic progression that can be inferred from the
given melody is V–I, and because the ultimate chord has the third in the soprano,
most analysts would be inclined to view this as an instance of an imperfect authen-
tic cadence. However, such a reading would conflate two different types of imperfect
cadences: those in which a perfect authentic cadence is expected, and those in which
no such expectation has been generated. The latter is the case with the Prinner cadence,
in which the third scale degree is actually the expected melodic goal.60 This is not merely
a terminological issue; rather, it reflects significant differences in formal expectations,
as demonstrated by what usually follows these two types of cadences in a given com-
positional context: whereas the melodically deceptive PAC cannot stand on its own
and is therefore almost invariably followed by phrase repetition that brings about a
satisfactory PAC, the Prinner cadence can indeed function as a Kochian Grundabsatz—
concluding a self-contained thematic unit that, especially in the galant style, is usually
followed by a transitional unit ending with a half cadence in the tonic key.
Clearly, the technique described by Riepel has been exploited numerous times in
the classical repertoire. Mozart’s Keyboard Trio in B¨ major, K. 502/i (m. 8) provides
just one of the many examples of this technique (see Example 7).61 Often, 2^–3^ is deco-
rated by a chromatic passing tone (©2^), as seen in the second movement of the same trio
(m. 4). The unsatisfactory nature of such an ending is underscored by the fact that it is
followed by an immediate repetition of the previous phrase that ultimately reaches a
state of complete closure. Overall, this interpretation suggests that the modern notion
that “[t]he deceptive cadence […] [is] a deviation merely in the bass”62 is too limited.
The category of the deceptive cadence may be extended to cover the case of
a deceptive imperfect authentic cadence as well. The idea that the IAC can also be
avoided by a deceptive move in the bass is not explicitly mentioned in the historical
literature. Although this strategy seems to have been much less frequently employed
than the deceptive PAC, there are some significant examples of this type in the musi-
cal literature.63 The comparatively infrequent usage of this strategy may be due to the
59. Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 61.

60. On the Prinner cadence, see Caplin in this volume.
61. See also Mozart’s Keyboard Sonatas K. 284/ii (m. 25), K. 309/ii (m. 72), K. 310/iii (m. 44), K. 330/iii
(m. 55), K. 331/i (m. 16), K. 333/ii (m. 25), and K. 333/iii (m. 32).
62. Lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), 138.
63. See Mozart’s Piano Concerto, K. 466/ii (m. 32; compare with the intact IAC in m. 8), the Keyboard
Trio, K. 254/ii (mm. 2.3 and 5.3), and the Keyboard Sonatas K. 279/i (mm. 7–10), K. 330/i (mm.
27–31), K. 332/ii (mm. 5– 6), and K. 457/ii (mm. 9–11). Caplin mentions Haydn, Hob. XVI:26/i, m. 18
as a further instance of this type; see Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 271 (n. 25).
130 Markus Neuwirth
fact that the IAC is already a weaker form of cadence; further weakening it by a decep-
tive motion in the bass may therefore be deemed ineffective. Finally, there is Sulzer’s
argument that the half cadence can also be avoided by means of a vermiedene Kadenz
(see below) by adding a seventh to the ultimate V chord.64 Based on the analyses of
Riepel and Sulzer, we may conclude that rather than viewing deception as a separate
type similar in status to a PAC or an HC, it can best be understood as a technique (or
strategy) that could essentially operate on all basic cadential types (PAC, IAC, HC).
Example 7: Mozart, Keyboard Trio in B¨ major, K. 502/i, mm. 1–12 (keyboard only)
II. Formal and tonal functions

of the deceptive cadence
Having discussed the various forms that deceptive cadences can take, I now focus
on the structural roles they can play in different form-functional and tonal contexts.
Such contextual usages have most prominently been discussed by Schenkerian theo-
rists. For these scholars, the concrete form of deceptive cadence is less important
than the manner in which the deceptive sonority is embedded (and hence functions)
in the overall voice-leading structure. Carl Schachter, for instance, examines the
64. See Sulzer, “Cadenz” (1771), 186. See also Burstein in this volume.
various functions that scale degree ➅ in the bass fulfills in deceptive cadences (usu-
ally, but not invariably, supporting vi), demonstrating that ➅ acts as a highly flex-
ible connective element of the bass melody. As Schachter notes, it is precisely this
context-dependent flexibility that poses a considerable challenge to any theoretical
discussion of the deceptive cadence: “As it happens, […] deceptive cadences are fre-
quently quite difficult to interpret, partly because the ways they relate to harmonic
context, to the articulation of formal units, and to the higher levels of tonal structure
are so numerous and varied.”65
Crucial to answering the question of the contextual role of the deceptive harmony
is therefore what follows that sonority. In this regard, Schenker himself in his Free
Composition provides a brief but illuminating discussion of what he refers to as “the
so-called deceptive cadence,” devoting particular attention to the events that may fol-
low the deceptive ending (see Example 8): “With the succession V–VI, the bass in a)
sets out in the direction of the ascending fourth-progression […] – but it can be led
back by means of interpolated fifths into the direction of the descending fifth V–I.”66
As we shall see below (see Example 12), the ascending fourth-progression may form
the second half of the rising variant of the “rule of the octave.” The possibilities cited
by Schenker are by no means exhaustive, however. In actual compositional practice,
➅ may revert directly to ➄ (especially when ➅ supports vii°6/V or V43/V) without inter-
polating the leap down to ➁. In addition, ➅ may be followed by another ➂–➃–➄–➀
(or ➃–➄–➀) bass motion that eventually succeeds in completing the previously
interrupted cadential progression.
Example 8: The deceptive cadence in Schenker’s Free Composition, Figure 71
No matter which of these options a composer chooses, the deceptive harmony is

usually interpreted by Schenkerians as a prolongation of the dominant; the domi-
nant preceding the deceptive sonority remains active until it is resolved to the tonic
that concludes the subsequent phrase.67 The situation is therefore analogous to the
type of Schenkerian interruption structure found in a parallel period, in which the V
chord ending the first phrase is disconnected from what immediately ensues in the
second phrase and resolves only when the final tonic enters.68 (Note that the issue of
65. Schachter, “Che inganno!” (2006), 281.

66. Schenker, Free Composition (1979), 70.
67. Less frequently, it is interpreted as a prolongation of the tonic.
68. For an account of Schenkerian interruption, see, for instance, Cadwallader and Gagné, Analysis of
Tonal Music (2011), 119f.
132 Markus Neuwirth
whether the harmony following the dominant groups forward or backward is largely
irrelevant to decisions regarding harmonic subordination.) One may even take the
analogy between these two situations one step further by suggesting that both feature
phrase repetition motivated by an incomplete cadence in the structure’s first part—a
technique that has later come to be known as the “one-more-time” technique, a term
coined by Janet Schmalfeldt.69 In the case of the period, it is either a half cadence or an
imperfect authentic cadence that prompts the composer to repeat the previous phrase
and to conclude the entire structure with a comparatively stronger type of cadence (a
PAC), thus creating the form-defining antecedent-consequent pattern.70 If we accept
Schenker’s idea that interruption is crucial to creating form in music, then the decep-
tive cadence may also be understood as a genuinely form-building device.
(1) Formal extension

Although the consideration of the larger-scale functions of cadential devices is
more characteristic of twentieth-century theories, it is not the case that eighteenth-
century authors neglected these functions entirely. In fact, Joseph Riepel (in his
Grundregeln zur Tonordnung insgemein from 175571) and Johann Friedrich Daube (in his
Generalbaß in drey Akkorden from 1756) were among the first theorists to mention the
capacity of unfinished cadences to motivate the repetition of a previously incom-
plete cadential phrase.72
To be sure, for Schmalfeldt, the application of the one-more-time technique
is closely linked to what she defines as an “evaded cadence”—that is, a cadential
progression whose expected goal harmony (the tonic) is cut off from the preced-
ing group, instead initiating the subsequent group. However, Schmalfeldt’s discus-
sion should not be taken to imply that the one-more-time technique could only be
realized by means of an evaded cadence; neither eighteenth-century sources nor the
compositional practice of the time support such a view. In fact, any form of inconclu-
sive (or imperfect) cadence, whether deceptive or evaded by modern standards (i.e.,
irrespective of whether the deceptive harmony groups forward or backwards) can
give rise to phrase repetition.73 In addition, the one-more-time technique is not con-
69. Schmalfeldt, “Cadential Processes” (1992), 1–52. In general, when phrase repetition occurs in these
situations, the repeated phrase need not necessarily end on 1^ in the same register promised by the
previous phrase (although it often does); it may also close either an octave higher or lower. When it does
so, one may speculate as to whether the purpose of the phrase repetition is not only to bring about the full
closure previously denied, but also to reach a different (perhaps structurally more conclusive) register.
70. See Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 200: “the deceptive cadence provides
the impetus for a varied repetition of the whole four-bar phrase in a kind of antecedent-consequent
grouping. This is another frequent possibility.”
71. This is the second volume of Riepel’s Anfangsgründe zur musicalischen Setzkunst.
72. Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 61f., and Daube, Generalbaß in drey Akkorden (1956), 70.
73. Although Caplin does not state this explicitly, it follows from his discussion that he subscribes to this
view; see Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 101.
fined to the secondary-theme zone; it can be found in a number of formal sections,

ranging from the primary and secondary themes (within an exposition) to the end
of the development.
In the main-theme zone, the one-more-time technique is most commonly used in
sentences to effect the repetition of the continuation phrase. In Haydn’s C-major Trio
Hob. XV:27/i, for instance, it seems that the sentence continuation (mm. 5ff.) might
conclude the main-theme structure with a perfect authentic cadence as early as m. 8
(see Example 9). The fact that the moment of closure is denied by means of a common
variant of a deceptive cadence (vii°7/vi–vi) motivates the (almost literal) repetition of
this four-measure phrase, this time completing the entire primary theme by means of
an elided I:PAC (m. 12).74 Due to the utilization of a deceptive cadence, the sentence
continuation is extended from four to eight measures. The same structural effect can
be produced by a melodically deceptive PAC (formerly IAC), as seen in the Mozart
Trio, K. 502/i (m. 8) cited above (Example 7).
Example 9: Haydn, Keyboard Trio in C major, Hob. XV:27/i, mm. 1–12 (keyboard only)
One variant of the one-more-time strategy in a sentential main theme involves

extended “monofold sentences” with only one basic idea and a repetition of the
74. In Beethoven’s Sonata op. 2 No. 3/i, it is an imperfect authentic cadence that motivates the repetition
of the sentence continuation (see mm. 1–13).
134 Markus Neuwirth
continuation phrase.75 A model example of this type can be found at the opening of
Haydn’s String Quartet op. 17 No. 4 (see Example 10). Here, a typical Romanesca bass
(➀–➄–➅–➂, in the minor mode) merges into a cadential ➂–➃–➄ pattern, which
proceeds not to ➀ but instead to ➅ (m. 6). However, ➅ is not articulated as an ending
point, but rather as the initial event of another (this time complete) cadential progres-
sion that concludes on ➀. Thus, the continuation phrase (second half of m. 4 to m. 6)
and its repetition are linked to each other in a loop-like fashion, and the first failed
cadence is best described as an evaded cadence pace Schmalfeldt.76
The degree of deceptiveness attributed to a particular instance of a deceptive cadence

depends not only on the harmony replacing the final tonic (and its relation to both the
tonic and the penultimate dominant in terms of common tones), but also to a large
extent on the specific formal context in which it is used. For instance, in the context
of a sonata-form exposition, deceptive or evaded cadences may be said to occur more
frequently in the subordinate-theme area than in the primary theme or transition.77
Likewise, the one-more-time technique has more commonly been associated with
75. Richards, “Viennese Classicism and the Sentential Idea” (2011). In 1960, Wilhelm Fischer gave the
resulting formal design the label “A2B”; see Fischer, “Zwei Neapolitanische Melodietypen” (1960),
7–21.
76. See also Mozart’s Keyboard Sonata K. 279/ii, in which the basic idea (mm. 1–2) is followed first by an
evaded cadence (mm. 3–4) and then by a complete cadence (mm. 5–6).
77. The transition (almost) never makes use of delaying strategies such as the deceptive cadence.
the subordinate-theme zone than with the primary-theme zone. Indeed, examples of
this technique employed in the S-zone abound in the musical literature.
Based on their stylistic knowledge, listeners expect to be fooled at some point
prior to the moment of structural closure. However, this is not to say that a decep-
tive cadence is deprived of its surprising capacity when it is frequently used, and
hence in a way expected, in a given formal context. Whether or not it exercises
deceptive power ultimately depends on the extent to which conscious stylistic (and
thus abstract) knowledge is accessible during our real-time processing of musical
information. Here, an interesting cognitive problem arises, as Naomi Cumming
has described: the contradiction between the claim that listeners have acquired
stylistic competency and the phenomenon of deceived listening expectations.
Leonard Meyer’s assertion that listening expectations rely on and are indicative
of the internalization of stylistic norms can only be maintained on the basis of a
differentiation in the concept of style78: Cumming assumes that only the abstract
rules (derived from a given corpus) have been internalized, not the individual solu-
tions and strategies serving the realization of these rules.79 A variant of the prob-
lem Cumming describes is the so-called “Wittgenstein paradox”: If a listener is
completely familiar with a given piece, this familiarity is viewed as precluding any
feeling of surprise; as a result, the piece under consideration would be deprived
of its aesthetic qualities. Nevertheless, most of us would agree that a deceptive
cadence in a familiar piece still sounds unexpected. This problem can only be
resolved by distinguishing between two different types of expectations, one based
on “veridical” memory and the other on “schematic” memory.80 Crucially, these
two memory systems are assumed to be modularly separated, or, in Jerry Fodor’s
terms, “informationally encapsulated.”81
The stylistic knowledge acquired by listeners familiar with the classical style
creates the expectation that sometimes subordinate themes will feature not merely
a single deceptive (or evaded) cadence but rather a series of several such cadences.
Consider the exposition in the first movement of Haydn’s G-major Sonata, Hob.
XVI:27 (Example 11). What is remarkable about this movement is that the exposi-
tion could have ended 14 measures earlier than it actually does. In other words, it
would have been possible for Haydn to establish a moment of structural closure
already in m. 43. However, Haydn instead chooses to deny definitive closure no
fewer than three times, thus greatly expanding the subordinate-theme zone.82 First,
78. See, for instance, Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956), 72.
79. Cf. Cumming, “Analogy in Leonard B. Meyer’s Theory of Musical Meaning” (1991), 185.
80. On this distinction, see Bharucha, “Music Cognition and Perceptual Facilitation” (1987), 1–30.
81. See Jackendoff, “Musical Parsing and Musical Affect” (1991), 221.
82. In Haydn’s Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:26/i, the same type of deceptive cadence (m. 23) is used only
once. It is not followed by other instances of deceptive cadences of the same type or other inconclusive
136 Markus Neuwirth
when the upper voice descends from 6^ to 1^, the bass deviates from the expected
cadential pattern by moving from ➄ to ➅ (rather than leaping down to ➀). The fact
that this progression is not heard as articulating a true deceptive goal is due to the
inner voices (D and G©), which transform what might be fleetingly understood as a
stable submediant sonority into a much more active secondary dominant function
(vii°6/V; m. 44).
A second cadential goal is approached in mm. 47–48. Here again, the soprano
carries out its expected typical concluding formula (1^–2^–1^, featuring a trill on the
penultimate 2^), but once more the bass denies closure by moving from ➂–➃–➄
to ➅, with the latter again being harmonized as vii°6/V. The preceding unit is now
repeated in its entirety (mm. 48–52 ~ 43–47), but the roles of the soprano and bass
are exchanged: Whereas the bass provides its expected clausula ➄–➀, the soprano
violates expectations by moving from 2^ to 3^ (rather than completing its previous
1^–2^–1^ pattern). This cadence may be heard as an imperfect authentic cadence, but
because a perfect authentic cadence is genuinely expected at this point and this expec-
tation is disappointed, we can refer to this pattern as a melodically deceptive cadence
(based on Riepel’s suggestion cited above). The unsatisfactory character of the IAC is
also revealed by the fact that a two-bar unit is attached to this cadence. This unit not
only completes the previously denied 1^–2^–1^ pattern (mm. 54–55) but also restates the
same cadential material, thus re-opening the phrase and not allowing S to end until
the PAC closing the exposition as a whole is achieved.83 The ensuing three-bar unit
functions to confirm the new tonic (mm. 55–57).
This example is instructive in a number of respects. For one thing, it illustrates
that in the secondary-theme zone, the number of cadence evasions in a row is typically
limited to three (or four).84 In addition, the order of the different types of deceptive
cadence is also revealing: Haydn first uses very strong deceptive variants in which the
chord interrupting the cadential progression is highly unexpected. Only toward the
end of the exposition does Haydn use more subtle (milder) variants of inconclusive
cadences. Generally speaking, in the case of multiple successive deceptive cadences,
the composer seems to prefer deceptiveness to move from strong to weak.85
cadences (e.g., IACs); instead, a second attempt at a complete cadence commences, using different
material (mm. 23–27).
83. See also Hepokoski and Darcy’s notion of “EEC-deferral” described in their Elements (2006), 150ff.
84. See also the analogous situations in Mozart’s Piano Sonatas K. 310/i and 332/i.
85. See also Haydn’s Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:21/ii (Example 12) and the String Quartet op. 17 No. 4/i
(Example 15). This topic merits further examination.
        
       
38
        
   
        
          
p mf
          

 

       
43
                  
  

 
                         

    
  
       
48
                  
    


   
f
                     
   

                    
53
    
p        
                   
Example 11: Haydn, Keyboard Sonata in G major, Hob. XVI:27/i, mm. 38–57
Another particularly imaginative example of a deceptive cadence motivating further

attempts to realize a complete cadence can be found in the second movement of
Haydn’s Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:21 (see Example 12). The first part of the second-
ary-theme area (mm. 13–19) is designed as a sentence, featuring a four-measure pres-
entation, a two-measure continuation, and a two-measure (failed) cadence. Following
a sequential progression, a tonic chord that is then transformed into a secondary
dominant to IV launches a normative cadential progression (mm. 18–19). However,
the cadence does not succeed in providing full closure to the S-zone. Rather, Haydn
violates listening expectations in a variety of ways, playing not only with the “what”
dimension of expectation (the expected tonic vs. a non-tonic harmony) but also with
the “when” dimension (the downbeat vs. a subsequent weak beat), thus creating an
even stronger effect of surprise: On the downbeat of m. 20, we do not hear a full
chord (neither the expected tonic nor a deceptive harmony) but rather the third d2–b2
held over from the preceding measure in the manner of an appoggiatura; the bass
drops out at this point (the bass is implied rather than actually present). This delay of
resolution heightens or intensifies the state of expectation. At the moment when we
138 Markus Neuwirth
anticipate that the imagined appoggiatura will resolve on the second, weak beat of
m. 20, the soprano moves from 2^ to 1^ (as expected). However, the soprano continues
to be shadowed a third below, thus providing a1 as a non-tonic element. Likewise,
there is no tonic harmony provided at this point, but rather a fully-diminished sonor-
ity (vii°65/V) based on A—a dissonant harmony that propels the music further instead
of allowing a resting place. The diminished chord is prolonged into the next bar,
where it resolves into a V6 chord; this in turn leads to a root-position tonic preparing
a second attempt to achieve a complete cadence. As a result, scale degree ➅ on which
the deceptive sonority is based acts as a connective element that forms part of the
ascending linear bass motion ➄–➅–➆–➀, as described by Schenker (see above).86
13
16
19
23
Example 12: Haydn, Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:21/ii, mm. 13–26
As stated above, the sonorities with which the expected cadential pattern is inter-
rupted at its ultimate stage, thus motivating the use of the one-more-time technique,
are limited neither to vi nor to I6. An excerpt from Haydn’s Symphony No. 40/i dem-
onstrates that this technique could begin with almost any harmony initiating the new
86. See also Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 199.
formal segment (see Example 13).87 Here, following a variant of a Passo Indietro (vii°64–
I6), a Cudworth cadence88 typically used to attain a moment of structural closure seems
to be about to materialize (m. 43), but the final tonic fails to appear; instead, the
music rather abruptly leaps backwards in time in a loop-like manner to IV (m. 44 ~
41), which initiates another attempt to conclude the previously incomplete cadence.
Unlike typical instances of an “evaded cadence,” the tonic is denied entirely: Since
“both the third and the root [of the tonic] disappear”89, Riepel argues, the degree of
deceptiveness is enhanced in this particular case (see Example 14).
41
Example 13: Haydn, Symphony No. 40/i in F major, mm. 41–46 (piano reduction)
Example 14: Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 62
Deceptive cadences, especially those featuring chords based on scale degree ➅, fre-
quently serve the purpose of prolonging the penultimate dominant. This dominant
prolongation, which can be rather short or highly extended in time, is sometimes not
directly followed by a second attempt to complete the cadential progression in the man-
ner of the one-more-time technique. Let us consider two examples of this category,
beginning with the first movement of Haydn’s String Quartet op. 17 No. 4 (mm. 38–53;
see Example 15). Toward the end of the exposition, it appears that a grand cadence
is about to materialize, featuring a complete cadential progression, a comparatively
slow harmonic rhythm, a cadential 64, and a trill on 2^. As mentioned above, this type
of cadence is commonly used to attain the “Essential Expositional Closure” (EEC) in
a sonata-form movement. Despite the unequivocal presence of features belonging to
this cadence type, the cadence ultimately fails to establish closure. Although the first
violin moves from 2^ to 1^, accompanied by 7^ to 1^ in the second violin, the bass and the
viola break the expected pattern by moving from ➄ to ➅ and from 4^ to ª4^, respectively,
87. Cf. also Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 106.

88. Cf. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 147.
89. Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 62 (my translation).
140 Markus Neuwirth
thus producing the deceptive progression V7–vii°6/V (m. 41). As Schachter notes (see
above), scale degree ➅ is a remarkably flexible connective element, irrespective of the
harmony (vi or vii°6/V) it supports.90 It can either continue the ascending line by pro-
ceeding to ➆ (e.g., Haydn’s Hob. XVI:21/ii, see above), or, alternatively, it can return
to ➄, as it does here (m. 42). As a result, the deceptive cadence is embedded between
two dominant sonorities, with the motion ➄–➅–➄ in the bass serving to prolong V.
This V chord is somewhat disconnected from the subsequent cadential progression
both harmonically and texturally, as the progression starts not on the tonic but rather
on a ii6 chord. Interestingly, perfect closure is strategically delayed until the very end of
the exposition by means of twice avoiding melodic closure in the soprano (mm. 47 and
51), which moves from 2^ back to 3^ rather than to 1^.
38
42
90. Alternatively, a diminished chord (vii°7/V) on ©4 can be used to achieve virtually the same structural
effect (as, for instance, in Ignaz Pleyel’s Symphony No. 10 in F major [1786], Them. Index 10, first
movement, m. 68).
45
49
52
The temporal extension of the dominant prolongation may even go so far as to pro-
duce what Bernard Van der Linde has called a Versunkenheitsepisode—that is, a more or
less extensive tonal parenthesis.91 Unlike the examples discussed above, in this case,
there is no immediate second attempt to complete the previously inconclusive cadence.
91. Van der Linde, “Die Versunkenheitsepisode bei Beethoven” (1977).
142 Markus Neuwirth
In the first movement of Johann Georg Albrechtsberger’s C-major Symphony (from

1768), the composer opted to follow a widespread mid-century convention of con-
firming the subordinate key by means of a PAC (m. 21) before the entrance of a more
lyrical theme or idea (see Example 16). Usually, after this strong cadence, a contrast-
ing section ensues, one that features a reduced instrumental texture (strings alone),
a reduced dynamic level (piano), and (optionally) a sustained ➄ in one of the voices
and imitative counterpoint. Although he begins the section with only the first and
second violins in piano, Albrechtsberger deviates from this practice by twice insert-
ing a unison cadence (mm. 22–23 and 24–25). The listener naturally expects the sec-
ond unison cadence (bass progression ➂–➃–➄) to conclude on the tonic. However,
all voices move on to ¨➅ instead (m. 25), subsequently prolonging the E-flat major
sonority for three measures. It is only at the end of m. 27 that Albrechtsberger intro-
duces a 7–6 suspension resolving to the augmented sixth (C©), which in turn resolves
to a D-major sonority in the manner of a Phrygian half cadence (m. 28). This cadence
is followed by a final tutti section that provides a PAC (m. 34) that is more conclusive
than the earlier unison cadence (even if it would not have been interrupted). In retro-
spect, the extended E-flat sonority acted as an upper neighbor to (and thus as a means
of prolonging) V. Introducing ©4^ is a very common way to clarify the function of the
chord on the flattened submediant, forcing it to resolve to V.92
21
25
Example 16: Albrechtsberger, Symphony in C major (from 1768), i, mm. 21–28 (piano reduction)
A composer could opt to postpone a structural cadence not only in the exposition
but in the development section as well. One rather straightforward example of this
strategy can be found in the first movement of Haydn’s F-major Sonata Hob. XVI:23
(Example 17); a more detailed treatment of deceptive cadences in the development
can be found in the next section under “modulation.” Following a series of dimin-
ished chords, a perfect authentic cadence in the key of the submediant seems ready to
92. See also Haydn, Keyboard Trio in E major, Hob. XV:28/i (mm. 24ff.).
materialize, one that promises to lend structural closure to the development section
as a whole. However, the expected tonic sonority is denied at the ultimate stage of
the cadential progression, and a diminished chord on C© (vii°7) is sounded instead
(m. 75). As a dissonant sonority, the diminished chord is cut off from the preceding
group in the manner of an evaded cadence; at the same time, it gives rise to a second
attempt at completing the cadence.93
73
75
Example 17: Haydn, Sonata in F major Hob. XVI:23/i, mm. 73–77
Because the diminished chord is analogous to the chord appearing on the downbeat
of m. 73, a loop-like effect is created at this point: It is as if the listener is pushed back
to an earlier point in time. This example provides evidence that I6 is only one (although
probably the most common) of several options that can be used to interrupt a caden-
tial pattern in order to subsequently launch a second cadential progression. In fact,
a variety of other harmonies can fulfill this role; some of these harmonies (especially
dissonant ones) seem to automatically give rise to a new beginning (and thus to group
forward) rather than providing a genuine goal harmony.
(2) Modulation
The second large-scale function of deceptive cadences described in the contempora-
neous literature is modulation, a function mentioned by authors as early as Daube,
Albrechtsberger, and Reicha. Daube, for instance, presents a list of 17 possible ways
of avoiding cadential closure, some of which make use of applied dominants and thus
imply a key change (e.g., V7–vii°7/ii, V7–V42/ii, V7–V7/IV, and V7–V42/IV; see Example 18).94
Daube’s list is expanded considerably in Antonin Reicha’s Traité de haute composition
musicale from 1824, in which the author cites no fewer than 129 possible forms of decep-
93. After the vi:PAC, we hear a Fonte sequence that realizes the modulation back to the home key (mm. 77ff.).
94. Daube, General-Bass in drey Accorden (1756), 68.
144 Markus Neuwirth
tive cadences. According to Reicha, a composer may choose to build a substitute chord
for the expected tonic on any scale degree of a chromatic scale (including a number of
enharmonic variants).95 The examples presented by Daube and Reicha clearly dem-
onstrate that eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century theorists had a much broader
category in mind when they used the term “deceptive cadence” than most theorists
do nowadays. In addition, it is evident that theorists of that time shared with modern
writers a sensitivity to the structural functions of deceptive cadences.
Example 18: Daube, General-Bass in drey Accorden (1756), 68: Variants of deceptive cadences
The modulatory function of deceptive cadences is explicitly mentioned by

Albrechtsberger. Echoing Scheibe’s characterization in terms of a “foreign harmony
related to a different key,” Albrechtsberger considers that a deceptive cadence has
occurred when a cadential progression ends on a chord that does not belong to the
key implied by that progression. In this process, virtually any chord can be chosen
to digress from the home key: “To those who are proficient masters in the art of
modulation, it will be easy to create these deceptive cadences in an endless variety
of shape; for it is possible to modulate from every interval, as through a labyrinth,
to every key […].”96 It is precisely the capacity of bringing about a modulation that,
in Albrechtsberger’s opinion, sets the Trugschluß apart from what he calls unterbro-
chene Cadenz (or “interrupted cadence”), both being deceptive cadences. From a lis-
95. Reicha, Traité de haute composition musicale (1824), 686.

96. Albrechtsberger, Gründliche Anweisung zur Composition (1790), 166 (translation by Novello).
tening perspective (in real-time), however, this distinction becomes evident only in
retrospect, as the decisive criterion is whether or not the deceptive harmony (which
may even be identical in the two cases) is used to launch and ultimately confirm the
modulatory process to a new key.
It comes as no surprise that within a sonata-form context, deceptive cadences
initiating a modulatory process have exclusively been used in development sections.
Consider, for instance, the diatonic modulation employed in the first movement
of Haydn’s C-major Symphony No. 38 (see Example 19). In an attempt to con-
clude the development in the key of the submediant, a cadence is prepared twice
but rejected both times by VI (➄–➅ in the bass, mm. 107f. and 109f.). The third
time, an even clearer cadential progression seems to be about to emerge: a unison
➂–➃–➄ motion that promises to bring about closure by leading to a ➄–➀ bass
clausula.97 ➄–➀ is denied, however, and instead ➄ proceeds to ➅, with ➅ eventually
being contextualized as the root of an F-major sonority. F major is then extended for
another twelve measures (mm. 113–124). It is only in m. 125 that F is reinterpreted as
IV in the key of C major, turning into a ii6 chord through a 5–6 intervallic progression
over a stationary bass note (➃). The fourth scale degree in the bass is then forced
by a V42 chord to drop down to ➂ (harmonized as I6), which in turn gives rise to a
converging half cadence (m. 128) that concludes the development section (m. 131).
104
113
122
Example 19: Haydn, Symphony No. 38/i in C major, mm. 104–131 (piano reduction)
97. Note that the bass clausula is the only clausula that can realize a cadential effect in the manner of a
unison cadence despite the absence of the other clausulae. The bass clausula appearing in all voices is
frequently used to articulate the end of a Kochian Schlußsatz (see Koch, Versuch II [1787], 422).
146 Markus Neuwirth
In retrospect, it becomes clear that the deceptive cadence in m. 112 ultimately served
a modulatory purpose. It is important to note here that in a different formal context,
such as the exposition, this type of harmonic prolongation is usually deployed to create
a tonal parenthesis; by using ¨➅ as the bass note of a German augmented sixth chord,
Haydn could easily return to the key of A minor if he had intended to stay in that key.98
Another instructive instance of a deceptive cadence fulfilling a modulatory function
in the development section, one that is more difficult to grasp in terms of traditional
theory, can be found in the first movement of Haydn’s Symphony No. 8, better known
as Le Soir (see Example 20). Here, after a stormy sequential passage in the middle of the
development, the main theme is sounded in mm. 143ff. in the subdominant key (sub-
sequent to a IV:HC in m. 141).99 Whereas the antecedent phrase closes with an imper-
fect authentic cadence, as expected on the basis of the analogous pattern established at
the beginning of the movement (m. 146 ~ m. 4), the consequent phrase refuses to con-
clude with a perfect authentic cadence, which would be required to complete the peri-
odic structure of the theme. Instead, right at the moment when the cadential 64 resolves,
the bass begins to move downwards, first to ➃ (supporting a V42 chord, m. 149.3), then
to ➂ (harmonized as I6, m. 150). In other words, whereas the upper voice behaves
as expected in a normative cadential context, providing a highly typical descending
5^–4^–3^–2^–1^ line (mm. 149–150), the bass undermines closure by moving down to ➂.
141
Example 20: Haydn, Symphony No. 8/i in G major (Le Soir), mm. 141–152 (piano reduction)
In a different formal context, such as in the subordinate-theme section of an exposition,

the harmonic situation described above would be interpreted as involving an evaded
cadence—one that raises the expectation of a full cadential progression in the same key
to follow, thus realizing the implications that have been created. In the context of the
development, however, Haydn chooses to employ a strategy that is both ingenious and
remarkably simple. First, no clear grouping boundary is established at the moment of
arrival on I6 (m. 150). I6 is not cut off from the preceding progression—for example, by
98. For a non-modulatory usage of the deceptive sonority, see the development section in Leopold
Kozeluch’s Piano Sonata op. 15 No. 2/iii: here, the deceptive harmony (VI in the key of the submediant)
does not give rise to a modulation but instead fulfills a prolongational function (mm. 100f.). As a
result, the development ends on V/vi rather than V/I.
99. Some authors view this thematic return as articulating a false recapitulation, an interpretation that
I have challenged elsewhere; see Neuwirth, “Does a ‘Monothematic’ Expositional Design have
Tautological Implications for the Recapitulation?” (2010), 383–385.
a marked textural break, as is usually the case in similar situations that theorists have
identified as evaded cadences. Second, the I6 chord is reinterpreted as IV6 of G major
(the home key), which can now easily be transformed into a German augmented sixth
chord on ¨➅ by chromatic contrary motion of the outer voices (c2–c©2 in the soprano
and E–E¨ in the bass, m. 151).100 By resolving the augmented chord, a half cadence in the
home key is achieved (m. 152), setting the stage for the subsequent perfect authentic
cadence to conclude what previous commentators have described as the development
section.101 In other words, the deceptive (or perhaps better, “redirected”) cadence is
again used here to return to the home key of a sonata-form movement. However, what
is so remarkable about this particular cadence is that there is a seamless transition from
the (failed) perfect cadential progression to the goal harmony of the Phrygian cadence
(mm. 149–152). This feature makes a classification in terms of either a deceptive or an
evaded cadence particularly tricky for the analyst.
Daube and Albrechtsberger were not the only eighteenth-century theorists to
point out the modulatory usage of deceptive cadences. In his Allgemeine Theorie der
schönen Künste, Sulzer (assisted by Kirnberger) describes a situation that he refers to
as involving a “vermiedene Kadenz” (“avoided cadence”).102 The defining feature of this
technique of cadence deviation is that just at the moment when one expects the final
tonic to enter, that tonic is transformed into an applied dominant by adding a lowered
seventh (I7 = V7/IV), thus pushing the musical trajectory in a different tonal direction.
The entrance of a dissonant sonority at the end of a cadence makes it clear that the
deceptive harmony does not articulate a genuine resting point after which the music
can simply restart another formal unit to achieve definitive closure in the same key.
Rather, in the manner of an evaded cadence, the applied dominant groups forward
with the following unit, in which we expect a new key to receive cadential confirma-
tion. Anticipating Schmalfeldt’s (and Caplin’s) grouping-based distinction between
deceptive and evaded cadences, Sulzer does not consider this progression to belong
to the category of “cadence” at all. Unlike the deceptive cadence, the chord replacing
the tonic in a vermiedene Kadenz is a forward-looking dissonant harmony that propels
the music onward instead of articulating a point of rest.103
Due to its modulatory capacity, Sulzer’s vermiedene Kadenz was often used in com-
positional practice to articulate the boundaries between the “development proper”
and the retransition. In a number of examples from Haydn’s oeuvre, the deceptive
100. A different possibility is exploited in the recapitulation of Mozart’s Keyboard Sonata K. 283/ii, m. 27,
where the I6 in the tonic key is transformed into a V7/IV chord, thus preparing the subsequent entrance
of the subdominant key.
101. For a more detailed analysis of the development section, see Neuwirth, “Does a ‘Monothematic’
Expositional Design have Tautological Implications for the Recapitulation?” (2010), 383–385.
102. Sulzer, “Cadenz” (1771), 186.
103. See also Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 29.
148 Markus Neuwirth
goal serves as a secondary dominant that enables the composer to modulate from
the key of vi back to the home key within the retransition: V7/vi–V7/ii–ii64–V7/I–I. Here,
the vermiedene Kadenz is typically followed by an elided (or interrupted) Fonte model104
that eventually completes the modulatory process.105 This situation is aptly illustrated
by the first movement of Haydn’s Keyboard Sonata in D major, Hob. XVI:37/i (see
Example 21), where a cadential 64 (m. 57) resolves into a V7 chord supporting scale
degree 2^ (decorated by a trill) in m. 58. However, although the dominant resolves into
a chord based on a root a fifth below (B), we do not get the expected B-minor chord,
but instead hear yet another V7 based on B (m. 59), which is subsequently prolonged
by an (incomplete) neighboring motion.
Although the expected cadence is interrupted in m. 59, there is also a sense of
elision conveyed at this point, as the harmony replacing the tonic is a closely related
substitute for the tonic of B minor and thus articulates both an endpoint and the initial
event of the subsequent phrase. This interpretation can account for the fact that no
phrase repetition is employed in such situations to close off the harmonic structure, at
least on a local level. If we denied any sense of resolution here, the V-implication would
remain entirely open. Nevertheless, as a moment of harmonic instability, the decep-
tive sonority clearly groups forward rather than articulating a resting point (however
unexpected) of the previous cadential progression. In addition, it is not only harmonic
expectations that are violated here, but melodic implications as well: 2^ does not pro-
ceed to 1^ but is instead forced to turn back to ©3^. The first half of m. 59 is then repeated
one step lower (m. 60), but the expected neighboring motion is denied; instead, the
V7/I sonority is sustained and a forceful scalar lead-in gives way to the emphatic re-
entrance of the home-key tonic that articulates the start of the recapitulation (m. 61).
104. Fonte is the Italian term for one of three voice-leading patterns (the other two being Monte and Ponte)
introduced by Riepel in his Tonordnung (1755), 44–48. Riepel intended the term Fonte (literally, “well,
fountain, source”) to indicate “going down a well” (or, in Riepel’s words, “Fonte, Brunn zum hinabsteigen”;
see his Tonordnung [1755], 44). This metaphor refers to the characteristic descending motion of the
model, as the initial unit (generally in minor mode and with a length that may vary between two and
16 measures) is immediately transposed down a whole step (usually into major mode). Typically, each
unit consists of an alternation between a 6/3 and a 5/3 sonority, with 4–3 in the soprano accompanied
by 7–1 in the bass. The example given by Riepel shows a descending sequence in a C-major context, in
which A–d (V/ii–ii) is followed by G–C (V/I–I), reaching the tonic at the final stage of the model. The
Fonte is first and foremost a voice-leading model that can be used to destabilize the main tonality and
bring about a modulation. As a result, it appears primarily at two formal positions within the sonata-
form context: either in the exposition transition or in the developmental retransition. Outside of the
sonata-form context, the Fonte has also been used in smaller forms, such as minuets directly after the
double repeat sign; this usage can be found in the minuets written by Mozart as a young boy (see
Gjerdingen, “Defining a Prototypical Utterance” [1991], 133ff.).
105. Examples from Haydn’s oeuvre include the Keyboard Sonatas Hob. XVI:25/i (mm. 44f.) and Hob.
XVI:35/i (mm. 98f.), the Symphony No. 75/i (mm. 111f.), the String Quartet op. 55 No. 3/i (mm. 122f.),
and the Keyboard Trio Hob. XV:6/i (m. 97).
54
56
59
62
Example 21: Haydn, Keyboard Sonata in D major, Hob. XVI:37/i, mm. 54–64
A quite similar situation can be observed in the development section of the first
movement of Haydn’s F-major Symphony No. 89 (see Example 22). Here, a caden-
tial process in the submediant key is launched by means of a Neapolitan sixth chord
(m. 105), which is subsequently chromatically intensified by moving from ➃ to ©➃
(G–G©). The diminished chord based on ©➃ leads to a cadential 64 that resolves, as
expected, to a V chord (m. 107); however, the proper resolution of this chord is
denied. Instead of providing the tonic in the next measure, yet another V(7) chord
appears (m. 108), one that is expected to resolve to a G-minor sonority (i.e., iv in
the context of the submediant key). Although we do not get a G-minor chord in root
position, we hear the expected chordal elements over a sustained D in the bass in
m. 109 (in the manner of a neighboring motion, as described above in the analysis
of Haydn’s D-major Sonata). This neighbor-note motion remains incomplete, as a
chromatic passing-note motion (D–D¨–C) in the bass leads to a final V7 chord (m.
110), which prepares us for the home-key entrance of the recapitulation articulated
by the main theme’s fanfare-like incipit (mm. 111ff.).
150 Markus Neuwirth
105
Example 22: Haydn, Symphony No. 89/i in F major, mm. 105–112 (piano reduction)
Other examples from the literature suggest that the deceptive harmony need not
necessarily be an applied dominant; a fully diminished sonority can likewise be used
to achieve a similar deceptive effect, accompanied by comparable structural conse-
quences. In Haydn’s A-flat major Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:43/i (see Example 23),
for instance, the development “proper” promises to conclude with a perfect authentic
cadence in the submediant key (F minor). However, at the moment of expected tonic
resolution, a fully diminished chord on ª➂ enters (m. 88), pushing the music in a
different tonal direction and paving the way back to the home key. It first prepares
a double dominant (m. 89) before resolving to a dominant (m. 90), which in turn
resolves to the tonic (m. 91). The harmonic process in mm. 87–93 can be summarized
as follows: V7/vi–vii°7/ii–V7/V–V65–I–ii65–V65/V–V (I:HC).
86
90
Example 23: Haydn, Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:43/i in A¨ major, mm. 86–93
A slightly different procedure using a diminished sonority is employed in the devel-

opment section of Mozart’s Piano Sonata K. 279/ii (see Example 24). Here, the sub-
mediant key is unequivocally established in m. 31 by means of a Phrygian progres-
sion. The subsequent harmonic progression sets up the expectation of increasing the
degree of closure by signaling a perfect authentic cadence. However, the penultimate
dominant does not properly resolve into a tonic harmony but is instead sustained by
bass motion (➄–➃), thus turning into a third-inversion sonority. Due to the analogy
with m. 33 and the resumption of the subsequent cadential progression, a loop-like
effect is produced in mm. 35–36. (Note that this mild (or not so mild) shock has
been carefully prepared by the deceptive cadence we heard in the primary theme of
the exposition, m. 4.) Since cadential closure has been denied before, expectations
regarding a complete cadence are considerably enhanced at this point in the form.
But once again, Mozart refuses to properly resolve the penultimate dominant, instead
sustaining ➄ in the bass, chromatically deflecting the upper voice (c©2–c2), and fill-
ing in the remaining elements in the inner voices to create a fully diminished chord,
vii°43/V (m. 37). This chord considerably increases the sense of denial in comparison
to the applied dominant-seventh chord in Haydn’s Hob. XVI:37/i, in which at least
some sense of resolution is conveyed, owing to the presence of the chordal root.
The diminished chord is used to arrive at a sixth chord (m. 38) that, in turn, car-
ries the potential of acting as the antepenultima ii6 in the home key (F major).106 This
makes it clear that any chord that has the potential to push the musical course in
29
33
37
41
Example 24: Mozart, Piano Sonata in F major, K. 279/ii, mm. 29–44
106. That formal context is crucial to the treatment of a given deceptive sonority, becomes evident from the
non-modulatory usage of the diminished chord in Mozart’s Piano Sonata K. 281/ii (see mm. 39 and
41, respectively).
152 Markus Neuwirth
another tonal direction can be used to interrupt the expected cadential progression.107
Continuing the descending-fifths sequence initiated with the dominant of D minor
(A–D–g–C–F), Mozart is able to achieve the entrance of the recapitulatory rotation
(mm. 43ff.). As this example quite convincingly demonstrates, Mozart indeed reveals
himself as one of Albrechtsberger’s “proficient masters in the art of modulation.”
Conclusion
By way of conclusion, I would like to summarize the most important findings offered
in this chapter. First of all, the various forms that a deceptive cadence can take in the
eighteenth-century repertoire exceed by far the simple V(7)–vi (or, in minor, V(7)–¨VI)
formula cited in countless modern textbooks on tonal harmony. Second, adopting
a linear (as opposed to chord-centered) perspective on deceptive cadences helps to
explain in a quite elegant fashion a particular feature that has long been a topic of
discussion: namely, the doubling of the third of the submediant. Third, the deceptive
cadence is a device that not only plays with listening expectations, but also serves a
variety of structural purposes, such as phrase extension (including dominant prolon-
gation and tonal parenthesis) and modulation. To this end, almost any sonority can
be chosen to interrupt the expected cadential progression. Some of these sonorities
seem to automatically create a mere chord succession (rather than a genuine progres-
sion), thus grouping forward, while others represent true goal harmonies. However,
no matter whether a cadence is deceptive or evaded by modern standards, the struc-
tural consequences (most importantly, phrase extension) may be virtually identical.
Therefore, local grouping might seem secondary in a structural sense; what matters
is the fact that a given cadential progression does not reach a state of completion
and is frequently (but not invariably) followed by a second (successful) attempt to
attain closure. Whether a certain deceptive cadence is prolongational or modulatory
in nature depends largely on the formal context in which it appears: in an exposition,
it typically serves a prolongational purpose, while in the development the same type
of deceptive cadence may be used to bring about a modulation.
These insights into the structural consequences of deceptive cadences notwith-
standing, one of the most important lacunas that must be addressed in future research
107. In Haydn’s Keyboard Trio in F© minor, Hob. XV:26/i, a diminished chord on G© is used as a deceptive
harmony at the very end of development section (m. 61f.); this chord is then reinterpreted in such a
way as to prepare the subsequent entrance of the recapitulation (m. 63).
concerns the psychological effects of these devices. Only a more detailed study of the
preconditions of these effects—in particular, the intricate and multilayered interac-
tion between intra- and inter-opus knowledge structures—will allow us to arrive at a
more complete understanding of the seemingly simple but in fact highly complex art
of avoiding cadence closure.
Bibliography
Agawu, Kofi (1991), Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Agmon, Eytan (1995), “Functional Harmony Revisited: A Prototype-Theoretic Approach,”
Music Theory Spectrum 17/2, 196–214.
Albrechtsberger, Johann Georg (1790), Gründliche Anweisung zur Composition mit deutlichen
und ausführlichen Exempeln, zum Selbstunterrichte, erläutert; und mit einem Anhange: Von der
Beschaffenheit und Anwendung aller jetzt üblichen musikalischen Instrumente, Breitkopf: Leipzig.
Aldwell, Edward and Carl Schachter (2003), Harmony and Voice Leading, Australia, United
States: Thomson/Schirmer.
Berardi, Angelo (1687), Documenti armonici, Bologna: Monti.
Bharucha, Jamshed J. (1987), “Music Cognition and Perceptual Facilitation: A Connectionist
Framework,” Music Perception 5/1, 1–30.
Cadwallader, Allen and David Gagné (2011), Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Caeyers, Jan (1989), Het ‘Traité de l’Harmonie’ van Jean-Philippe Rameau (1722) en de ontwikkeling
van het muziektheoretische denken in Frankrijk, Paleis der Academien: Brussels.
Calvisius, Sethus (1592), Melopoiia sive melodiae condendae ratio, Erfurt: Baumann.
Caplin, William E. (1998), Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, New York: Oxford University Press.
——— (2004), “The Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions,” Journal of the
American Musicological Society 57/1, 51–117.
Christensen, Thomas (1993), Rameau and Musical Thought in the Enlightenment, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, Naomi (1991), “Analogy in Leonard B. Meyer’s Theory of Musical Meaning,” in:
Metaphor: A Musical Dimension, ed. Jamie C. Kassler, Syndey: Currency Press, 177–192.
Daube, Johann Friedrich (1756), General-Bass in drey Accorden, gegründet in den Regeln der alt- und
neuen Autoren, Frankfurt a. M.: André.
Deppert, Heinrich (1993), Kadenz und Klausel in der Musik von J.S. Bach. Studien zu Harmonie und
Tonart, Tutzing: Schneider.
Descartes, René (1618/1650), Compendium musicae, Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius Junior.
Fischer, Wilhelm (1960), “Zwei Neapolitanische Melodietypen bei Mozart und Haydn,”
Mozart-Jahrbuch 1960-61, 7–21.
Forte, Allen (1974), Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice, 2nd edition, New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
154 Markus Neuwirth
Gauldin, Robert (1997), Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music, New York: Norton.
Gjerdingen, Robert O. (1988), A Classic Turn of Phrase: Music and the Psychology of Convention,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
——— (1991), “Defining a Prototypical Utterance,” Psychomusicology 10, 127–139.
——— (2007), Music in the Galant Style, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hepokoski, James and Warren Darcy (2006), Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata, New York: Oxford University Press.
Holtmeier, Ludwig (2007), “Heinichen, Rameau, and the Italian Thoroughbass Tradition:
Concepts of Tonality and Chord in the Rule of the Octave,” Journal of Music Theory 51/1, 5–49.
——— (2010), “Rameaus langer Schatten: Studien zur deutschen Musiktheorie des 18.
Jahrhunderts,” Ph.D. diss., Technische Universität Berlin.
Jackendoff, Ray (1991), “Musical Parsing and Musical Affect,” Music Perception 9/2, 199–229.
Kaiser, Ulrich (2006), Die Notenbücher der Mozarts als Grundlage der Analyse von W.A. Mozarts
Kompositionen 1761–1767, Kassel: Bärenreiter.
Kellner, David (1732), Treulicher Unterricht im General-Baß, Hamburg.
Kirnberger, Johann Philipp (1771/2004), Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik, Kassel:
Bärenreiter [English transl. by David Beach and Jurgen Thym (1982), The Art of Strict
Musical Composition. Introduction and Explanatory Notes by David Beach, New Haven:
Yale University Press].
Koch, Heinrich Christoph (1782–1787–1793), Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols.,
Leipzig: Böhme. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1969. Selections trans. Nancy Kovaleff Baker
as Introductory Essay on Musical Composition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983.
——— (1802), Musikalisches Lexikon, Frankfurt a. M.: Hermann.
——— (1811), Handbuch bey dem Studium der Harmonie, Leipzig: Hartknoch.
Lakoff, George (2008), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff (1983), A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm (1760, 1763, 1764), Kritische Briefe über die Tonkunst, Berlin: Birnstiel.
Masson, Charles (1699), Nouveau traité des règles de la composition de la musique, Paris: Ballard.
Mattheson, Johann (1739), Der vollkommene Capellmeister, Hamburg: Herold.
——— (1722), Critica musica, Hamburg: Herold.
Menke, Johannes (2011), “Die Familie der cadenza doppia,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Musiktheorie 8/3, 398–405.
Meyer, Leonard B. (1956), Emotion and Meaning in Music, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
——— (1989), Style and Music: History, Theory, and Ideology, Philadelphia: University of
Chicago Press.
Mignot, De la Voye (1656), Traité de musique, Paris: Ballard.
Mirka, Danuta (2004), “Das Spiel mit der Kadenz,” Die Musikforschung 57/1, 18–35.
Neuwirth, Markus (2010), “Does a ‘Monothematic’ Expositional Design have Tautological
Implications for the Recapitulation? An Alternative Approach to ‘Altered Recapitulations’
in Haydn,” Studia Musicologica 51/3-4, 369–385.
Nivers, Guillaume-Gabriel (1667), Traité de la composition de musique, Paris: Ballard.
Printz, Wolfgang Caspar (1676–1677), Phrynis Mitilenæus, oder Satyrischer Componist, Dresden
and Leipzig: J.C. Mieth & J.C. Zimmermann.
Rameau, Jean-Philippe (1722), Traité de l’harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels, Paris: Ballard
[English transl. by Philip Gossett (1971), Treatise on Harmony, New York: Dover].
Reicha, Antonin (1824–1826), Traité de haute composition musicale, Paris: Zetter.
Richards, Mark (2011), “Viennese Classicism and the Sentential Idea: Broadening the
Sentence Paradigm,” Theory and Practice 36, 179–224.
Riemann, Hugo (1898), Handbuch der Harmonielehre, 3rd edition, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Riepel, Joseph (1996), Anfangsgründe zur musicalischen Setzkunst (= Sämtliche Schriften zur
Musiktheorie), ed. Thomas Emmerich, 2 vols., Vienna: Böhlau.
Rothstein, William (1989), Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music, New York: Schirmer.
Schachter, Carl (2006), “Che inganno! The Analysis of Deceptive Cadences,” in: Essays from the
Third International Schenker Symposium, ed. Allen Cadwallader, Hildesheim: Olms, 279–298.
Scheibe, Johann Adolf (1739), Critischer Musicus, Hamburg: Thomas von Wierings Erben.
Schenker, Heinrich (1935/1979), Free Composition, trans. and ed. Ernst Oster, New York:
Longman.
——— (1954), Harmony, trans. Elizabeth Mann Borgese, ed. Oswald Jonas, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Translation of Harmonielehre, Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906.
Schmalfeldt, Janet (1992), “Cadential Processes: The Evaded Cadence and the ‘One More
Time’ Technique,” Journal of Musicological Research 7/1-2, 1–52.
Schmalzriedt, Siegfried, Elke Mahlert, and Bernd Sunten (1974), “Kadenz,” in: Handwörterbuch
der musikalischen Terminologie, Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Schneider, Herbert (1973), “Charles Masson und sein ‘Nouveau traité’,” Archiv für
Musikwissenschaft 30/4, 245–274.
Spieß, Meinrad (1745), Tractatus musicus compositorio-practicus, Augsburg: Lotters Erben.
Sulzer, Johann Georg (1771–1774), Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, 2 vols. Berlin: Winter.
Temperley, David (2001), The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures, Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Türk, Daniel Gottlob (1789), Klavierschule oder die Anweisung zum Klavierspielen für Lehrer und
Lernende, Leipzig and Halle.
Van der Linde, Bernard S. (1977), “Die Versunkenheitsepisode bei Beethoven,” Beethoven-
Jahrbuch 1973-77, 319–337.
Walther, Johann Gottfried (1708), Praecepta der musicalischen Composition, Weimar.
——— (1732), Musicalisches Lexicon oder Musicalische Bibliothec, ed. Friederike Ramm, Kassel:
Bärenreiter, 2001.
Werckmeister, Andreas (1702), Harmonologia Musica oder Kurtze Anleitung Zur Musicalischen
Composition, Frankfurt and Leipzig: Calvisius.
Zarlino, Gioseffo (1558/1968), Le istitutioni harmoniche, part III [English transl. by Guy A. Marco
and Claude V. Palisca (1968), The Art of Counterpoint, New Haven: Yale University Press].

Fuggir La Cadenza or The Art of Avoiding

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

Fuggir La Cadenza or The Art of Avoiding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is a

Markus Neuwirth and Pieter Bergé (eds)

Leuven University Press

Cover and layout: Jurgen Leemans

Introduction: What is a Cadence? 7

Harmony and Cadence in Gjerdingen’s “Prinner” 17

The Half Cadence and Related Analytic Fictions 85

Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of Avoiding Cadential

The Mystery of the Cadential Six-Four 157

The Mozartean Half Cadence 185

“Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes” 215

The Perception of Cadential Closure 253

Towards a Syntax of the Classical Cadence 287

List of Contributors 339

Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of

I. On the physiognomy of the deceptive cadence:

F ollowing a topos that is widespread in the analytical literature, music from

Deceptive cadences are inconclusive. They create no sense of repose: on

Even a superficial examination of present-day theoretical approaches to the deceptive

Generations of nineteenth- and twentieth-century music students have

5. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 22, 296.

appropriate to the aims of general musical education in the Romantic age,

Adopting a common-denominator approach, modern theorists have identified a sim-

9. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 140.

16. Scheibe, Critischer Musicus (1739), 478 (my translation).

For Zarlino, perfect cadences—whether simple or diminished20—end with an octave

20. See n. 52.

Example 2: Berardi, Documenti armonici (1687), 151: “Motivo di cadenza”

31. See, for instance, Werckmeister, Harmonologia musica (1702), 48.

exposition, a “grand cadence”55 is about to materialize, featuring temporally extended

55. See Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 152.

Example 5: Koch, Versuch II (1787), 445: Four variants of deceptive cadences

Example 6: Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 61: A melodically deceptive cadence

Anticipating Koch’s discussion of deceptive cadences generated by the upper

57. Koch, Versuch II (1787), 444f.

59. Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 61.

II. Formal and tonal functions

Example 8: The deceptive cadence in Schenker’s Free Composition, Figure 71

No matter which of these options a composer chooses, the deceptive harmony is

65. Schachter, “Che inganno!” (2006), 281.

(1) Formal extension

fined to the secondary-theme zone; it can be found in a number of formal sections,

One variant of the one-more-time strategy in a sentential main theme involves

The degree of deceptiveness attributed to a particular instance of a deceptive cadence

Another particularly imaginative example of a deceptive cadence motivating further

Example 12: Haydn, Keyboard Sonata Hob. XVI:21/ii, mm. 13–26

Example 14: Riepel, Tonordnung (1755), 62

87. Cf. also Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 106.

91. Van der Linde, “Die Versunkenheitsepisode bei Beethoven” (1977).

In the first movement of Johann Georg Albrechtsberger’s C-major Symphony (from

Example 17: Haydn, Sonata in F major Hob. XVI:23/i, mm. 73–77

The modulatory function of deceptive cadences is explicitly mentioned by

95. Reicha, Traité de haute composition musicale (1824), 686.

In a different formal context, such as in the subordinate-theme section of an exposition,

A slightly different procedure using a diminished sonority is employed in the devel-

Example 24: Mozart, Piano Sonata in F major, K. 279/ii, mm. 29–44

You might also like