Interpreting Schenkerian Prolongation

MARIANNE KIELIAN-GILBERT
INTERPRETING SCHENKERIAN PROLONGATION
[Chopin's] replacement of implicative or causal classical structures (such as

antecedent-consequent) with a reliance on discrete ànalogy' ± on parallel
segments and layers ± . . . turns attention away from propulsive relationships to
the immediacy of the moment . . . The very system of tonal implication is used
against itself . . . to produce an effect of analogy that counteracts the force of
harmonic resolution. (Subotnik 1991, p. 157)
[T]he choosing to employ the twelve-pitch-class syntax for composing, though

not easily formulable as the replacement of `tonal axioms' by `serial axioms', still
is formulable at a fairly general and deep level as the replacement of the
analytical and synthetic notion of prolongational parallelism (`Schichten') by
that of transformational parallelism, extensible to inter- as well as intra-
dimensional parallelism, to multidimensional imaging. The syntactic analogy
can be pressed even further (prolongations induce transformations of structural
functions; transformations induce prolongations of ordered intervallic
structure), but a different syntax has been created, just as a different geometry
was created, susceptible to different adaptations and applications. (Babbitt 1997
[1999]), p. 132)
Music is, by a natural inclination, what immediately receives an adjective

[predicate] . . . [This predication] . . . has an economic function: the predicate is
always the rampart by which the subject's image-repertoire protects itself
against the loss that threatens it: the man who furnishes himself or is furnished
with an adjective is sometimes wounded, sometimes pleased, but always
constituted; music has an image-repertoire whose function is to reassure, to
constitute the subject who hears it. (Barthes 1985, pp. 267±8).
Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, Menuetto

Some time ago I worked with an analysis class on the opening of the Menuetto
of the third movement of Mozart's String Quartet in D minor, K. 421 (Ex. 1a).
One group analysed the passage as extending the tonic and setting up a
cadential dominant, prepared by the `strong' subdominant on the downbeat of
bar 9 (Ex. 1b and Fig. 1b). The other group focused on the cadential function
of the `dominant' six-four harmony on the downbeat of bar 8 and its five-three
resolution in bar 9 (Ex. 1c and Fig. 1c):
Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) 51

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
52 MARIANNE KIELIAN-GILBERT
Fig. 1 Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, Minuetto, bars 1±10

bars: 1/3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
upper line: A A G G F FED EAC D
bass line: D C C B B AGF GAA D
figs: 5 — 6 5 — 6 5 — 6 6 6 6 8 7 8
4 6 –5
readings:
b) RN: i (i) ii V i
c) RN: i Gr+6 V 64 5
3 i
d) RN: i Gr+6 V i (+ suffix)
e) RN: i Gr+6 ii V i
I later discovered that Allen Forte and Steven Gilbert had analysed this
passage along the lines of the second reading shown in Ex. 1c (and Fig. 1c) and
had commented on the relative appropriateness of other readings:
The prolongation of f2 in m. 8 is worthy of comment, since this kind of situation
may still cause difficulty to the analyst. In the worst case, this would be read as a
descent from 3 ^ÿ1 ^ ± an arrival on 1^ two measures too soon ± in which case e2 in
m. 9 would be (mis)understood as some kind of neighbor note. In fact, what we
have here is an idiomatic foreground prolongation of six-four. The bass of the
six-four is a on the downbeat of m. 8; the resolution of the six-four occurs on the
second quarter note of m. 9 over bass a, with a dissonant passing note f1, in
second violin. Prior to its resolution, the six-four is prolonged first by the
descending motion in parallel sixths between descant and bass that occupies all
of m. 8 and then by the flagged lower neighbor note g on the downbeat of m. 9
which delays the return of the bass a and the resolution of the six-four to five-
three. (Forte and Gilbert 1982, pp. 363±4, my emphasis).
But is this musical situation actually as fixed or obvious as their text seems to
suggest? Is it the case that anyone hearing a tension between a tonic grouping
and a dominant extension in these bars is, at best, naive and inexperienced?
Could the ènergy' from the six-four be played out several times in these bars,
so to speak: in bar 8, in bar 9 and, in retrospect, in the span from bars 8 to 9?
What role does the contrapuntal organisation of this passage play in such
perceptions? In the light of these questions, it is not which reading is right or
wrong, but how the òscillation' of different readings of harmonic-thematic
(and contrapuntal) patterns and groupings might characterise the elements in
question. Indeed, Forte and Gilbert's text is designed more to circumvent the
possibility of hearing an arrival on tonic on the third beat of bar 8 ± àn arrival
^ two measures too soon' ± in which case, one would hear bars 9±10 as some
on 1
kind of an echo or suffix (this less preferable hearing is shown in Fig. 1d; Ex.
1d).
ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

INTERPRETING SCHENKERIAN PROLONGATION 53
Ex. 1a Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, Menuetto, bars 1±10
Ex. 1b Extension of tonic, bars 1±8

1 3 5 7 9
( )
I was in a group that initially heard reading 1b (Ex. 1b) and subsequently
the other readings (Exs. 1c and 1e). Having to choose one and eliminate
another, or to say that one was less valid than the other, did not satisfy our
Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Ex. 1c Extension of dominant six-four/five-three, bars 8±9

1 3 4 6 8 10
Ger +
Ex. 1d Anticipation of tonic arrival, bar 8

1 3 5 7 8 10
Ex. 1e Extension of pre-dominant function, bars 7±10
1 3 5 7 9
Ger +
Ger +

perceptions of the passage. In our discussion it was helpful to think that

alternative perceptions ± that of a delayed tonic and/or an extended dominant ±
contributed to the particular rhythmic and tonal èffect' of this passage, and to
place these perceptions in some theoretical context. It helped to `hear multiply'
rather than to reduce our experience by eliminating or ranking perceptions.
Emerging in the `postmodern climate' of the 1990s, the question arises as to
how the temporality of different hearings might be construed and experienced.
Not only are multiple readings sometimes ± often ± possible, they may also be a
significant way to render the specificity of a particular reading or the dynamic
of a progression over time. Might the sense of an òscillation', a back-and-forth
of different hearings, characterise the relationships of such conflicting and/or
multiple harmonic readings over time? Should we be wary of the fact that our
theoretical tools often compel us to make ìmpossible' unitary decisions, or
should we welcome the fact that they force them, impossible as they are?1
Temporal Process, Interpretative Understanding and Theoretical-

Experiential (In)determinacy
This study pursues issues of temporal process and theoretical-experiential
(in)determinacy in music by way of investigating the relationships and tensions
between prolongational and translational relationships in tonal hearing and
analysis. Crucial here is a sensitivity to the changing temporal extents and
levels of musical perception. Distinctions between prolongational (back-to-
front, orientations of conceptual depth) and translational relationships (left-to-
right, orientations of linear succession) are fundamental in construing and
relating aspects of conceptual understanding and moments of temporal/
qualitative experience.2 The temporalities of such effects as `holding on',
ànticipation', `deflection', `delay', èarly or late arrival', `movement towards',
or `movement from X to Y' (e.g. `pivot-chord' experience), come under the
umbrella of descriptions that relate the determinate qualities of ongoing
purposeful change with conceptual understanding. A larger issue, to be
considered later, concerns relationships between the kinds of ambiguity
(multiple perceptions and interpretations) that we encourage in the sphere of
analysis and the ambiguities that postmodernism encourages in opening up
multiple realities and subjectivities, and in stressing reader-orientated
responses.
The play of presentation and response, perception and interpretation, is part
of the dynamic temporal character of music. Alternative responses and
interpretations can hone experience, point to the `strangeness' of `fresh'
perspectives, or characterise the effects of ongoing temporal experience. They
open up ways of (re)hearing and (re)thinking, and allow for the play of
(in)determinacy and the sharpening of perception.

The notion of determinacy registers the extent to which a particular

theoretical angle or level can model a musical experience. Aspects of music are
more or less determinate ± registered and made intelligible ± through the
orientations of particular theories. In this sense, theories are ways of
conceptualising, describing and hearing. Temporal hearing draws on a
particular relationship of conceptual (abstract) and presentational (music-
temporal) experience ± the varying senses in which the angles of a theory
provide a `determinate feeling' or `syntactic depth' to an experience.3 In turn,
this `determinate feeling' can nuance or change a theory. Thus, a theory is like
a musical instrument that one takes up to play a piece and allow it to sing,
rather than a medical instrument or tool that one might use for a particular
function, such as surgery.
To some extent, all interpretative-experiential situations embody an
appreciation of theoretical-experiential (in)determinacy. The act of selecting
one set of meanings may have an effect on another set of values. Particular
distinctions may become fluid when experienced from a different angle of
understanding. Differentiation varies with the interactions of subject/perceiver
and emerging object(s) of perception. For example, the Heisenberg principle of
indeterminacy (1926) states that one cannot know or determine both position
and momentum at the same time, and moreover, that the act of measuring one
disturbs the other. The more precisely one tries to measure position, the more
one perturbs momentum, and thus the less one can measure momentum. The
position of the observer directs and determines the nature of physical events
for perception and analysis. This is in contrast to classical mechanics, which
maintained that it is possible to measure simultaneously the position and the
momentum of any body. If a particle, however, has, or is regarded as having,
some of the properties of a wave, then the uncertainty principle is a necessary
consequence.4
Interpretative-experiential (in)determinacy is related to, though distinct from,
vagueness (not enough information available for interpretation) and ambiguity
(information available for multiple interpretations that are comparably plausible)
in the ways that it mediates categorisation and lived temporal experience.5 The
(in)determinacy of gender, for instance, suggests that categorical distinctions
(though not irrelevant) are inadequate or variably nuanced. Experiential-
theoretical (in)determinacy allows for a listener's disposition to construe
determinate relations as `disturbed by' or `contingent upon' one's lived
experience ± and thus modifiable by alternative perceptions and by the effort
necessary to hold certain conceptions in relation to others in and over time. These
alternative (non-simultaneous) relational orientations are, to some extent,
mutually implicated though not necessarily equally weighted. For example, just
as prolongation (`composing out') describes a `way of listening' that characterises
the degree of willingness to hold onto one event while hearing another,6 it also

includes the sense of the relationship of a later to an earlier event that enlivens
that earlier event (and vice versa). It is a relational process that projects and
embeds structural functions and part-whole relationships. To experience
prolongation is to differentiate content at different levels of specificity.
The experience of prolongation may embody alternative perceptual and
conceptual groupings at different levels or temporal distributions (e.g. the
situation of prolonging a suspension, Schenker's account of the consonant
passing-note). Although the implication of a prolonged harmony (e.g. a tonic)
extends to events within its temporal span, prolonging harmonies (e.g. a
dominant) can, and with expressive consequences, condition, nuance or even
reconstitute the prolonged harmony. The latter situation is not rare: it
motivates a perceptual-conceptual situation in which one confronts paradoxical
or seemingly contradictory prolongational relationships. In this article, I will
not only argue for the value of such alternative perceptions, but I shall also
suggest that the presence of these perceptions is one way of experiencing
broader motions or progressions in temporal flux, of experiencing their
temporal process and expression.
For some repertoires `prolongation' is a problematic concept, encompassing
apparently different approaches and conflicting views. Even in conventional
tonal situations, one can alternately experience the qualities and status of notes
as consonant or dissonant. What is `prolonged', for example, when a
suspension is embellished? In an ornamented suspension, the ornaments are
also heard in relation to the suspended note(s). We construe dissonance as a
passing motion experienced in relation to a conceptually deeper `background'
configuration that defines and prolongs a consonant interval. In what
situations, or to what advantage, might a `dissonant' element project an
alternative sphere of influence, one that might hold both consonant and
dissonant elements in abeyance, or extend another element as `dissonant'? One
cannot resolve these questions, except by reference to levels of hearing, to the
process of defining progressions, or to rhythmic-metric presentation and
temporal process.7 Here, I explore these issues by examining what I shall refer
to as the relationships and tensions between prolongational and translational
relationships in tonal analysis.
Revisiting Mozart, K. 421, Menuetto

Do we need to choose between two or more readings of the Menuetto from
Mozart's D minor String Quartet? In Forte and Gilbert's hearing of an
extended dominant six-four function as initiated by the six-four (Ex. 1c; Fig.
1c), once the German sixth moves to the six-four in bar 8, the cadential mode is
operational, and the interpretation is finalised. In part, convention directs an
understanding of the following six-four harmony as the dominant `resolution'

Ex. 1f Purcell, `Dido's Lament' from Dido and Aeneas
38
Violin I
very soft
Violin II
Viola very soft
sempre
guest. When I am
sempre
Larghetto [ .= ]
10
laid, am laid in earth, may my wrongs cre ate No
2nd time
1st time
trou ble, no trou ble in thy breast, When I am

of the augmented sixth (bar 8, as a metrical `downbeat').8 What is interesting is

that Forte and Gilbert go to some length to explain the bass motion as a passing
motion from a down to f, encompassed within a larger neighbour-note motion
(a±g±a). Their reading thus leaves open the question of whether the neighbour-
note motion is `deeper' than the passing motion.
The extended tonic reading (Ex. 1b, Fig. 1b; Ex. 1e, Fig. 1e) preserves
aspects of melodic parallelism between the first violin of bars 1±2 (f2±e2±c]2±d2)
and that of bars 8±10 (or bars 7±10, this upper-line pattern can be heard within
bar 8 and also extending between bars 7 and 10). Notice that if the suspension
on beat 1 of bar 2 is incorporated into the mapping of patterns, both possibilities
of motivic-thematic harmonisation ± of the six-four (bar 8) as extended
dominant or anticipated dominant ± are embedded in the opening bars
(bracketed in Ex. 1a). Both readings allow for different `waves' of f2±e2±c]2±d2
in bars 7/8±10 (and in relationship to the counterpoint of the d1±c]1±e1±d1
pattern of the viola in bars 7±8). Significantly, though perhaps less metrically
aligned at the surface, the combination of hypermetric groupings would suggest
reading an extension of pre-dominant harmony in bars 7±9 (thus the German
sixth becomes part of an extension of the initial tonic ± see Ex. 1e; Fig. 1e).9 In
this reading, the German sixth extends throughout the harmonies of bars 8±9.
This connection highlights the contrapuntal repetition of the cello line (b[±a±g±
f, bars 7±8) in the viola in bars 9±10 and the `voice-exchange' between the
Geman sixth and the iio6 harmonies of bars 7 and 9 respectively (B[±G]/G±B[).
Consequently, claims of motivic parallelism cannot provide a basis for
choosing one reading over the other. Rather than arguing for the efficacy of
unitary choice, the specificity of the particular effects of a musical passage
often emerges through multiple, alternative or contradictory readings: that is,
one might engage in multiple readings to characterise the tonal-temporal effect
of a passage. For example, the progression to the tonic sixth chord of bar 8
deflects the energy of the previous six-four as dominant, continuing the energy
of the descending bass line, showing that the six-four's possible function as
dominant is still in process and not fixed. Events are determinate in separate
time frames, rather than fixed or captured in a unitary determinate reading.
Attention is drawn and deflected; deciding between `still' and àgain' is the
perceptual issue that is at the crux of these kinds of situations.10
The topos of the opening phrase embodies a Baroque lament pattern (cf.
`Dido's Lament' from Purcell's Dido and Aeneas, Ex. 1f), a characteristic bass
line that descends from 1 ^ to 5,
^ followed by a skip and stepwise ascent to 5:
^ D±
C]±C±B±B[±A±F±G±A±(D). One could read Mozart's bass line as a manipula-
tion of this pattern in several ways: 1) following reading 1c, by drawing
connections between the two instances of À' in the bass, G is a lower neighbour
note and F is a consonant skip from the first A; or 2) foregrounding the
extension of tonic via an arpeggiation of D±A±F, with the chromatic filling-in of

the initial fourth, suggested by readings 1b or 1e. I do not intend to suggest that
alternative readings are always or never equally weighted, or that a conventional
reading should be assigned a `background' priority. I simply wish to emphasise
the potential of leaving open a many-to-one relationship of foreground/
experiential hearing and a background or conventional construct, whether that
construct is a `convention,' in this instance modelled on the lament outline, or
whether it is a basic pattern, e.g. a chromatic descent from 1 ^ to 5.
^
In these examples, it is notable that the (temporal) oscillation of inter-
pretative perceptions is a function of construing alternately the phenomena of
harmonic and thematic repetition in music. By òscillation' I mean a back-and-
forth motion or a repeated change (fluctuation) of patterns and/or implications.
As evident in the Mozart example, the apparent alternation of I and V
harmonies (in bars 1±3, 7±8, 8±9, 8±10) presents a play between different
groupings and degrees of articulation and arrival. Such oscillations may project
different qualities (experiential effects) depending on the degree of depth
(`vertical', back-to-front play between levels of abstraction and prolongational
groupings), the time extent of the process of alternation (`horizontal,' left-to-
right presentation of translational, i.e. melodic, parallelism), and the number
and rate of reversals or alternations (the degree and rate of change).
In the examples that follow, the concept of oscillation and its attendant
sound qualities suggests ways to construe the dynamic aspects of moving
between different states or conditions. These qualities include senses of
rocking or vacillating, fluctuating or wavering, or fluctuating attention
between different states or courses of action. They also include conditions of
continued reversal ± swinging, rapid alternation (fluttering, quivering,
jiggling, hovering) and flickering.11 As we shall see, aspects of oscillation can
apply both to alternative levels of musical perception that are non-
simultaneously active, as well as to alternating events in a series. By
projecting different kinds of fluctuation ± conceptual (vertical, depth), linear
(horizontal) or fast-slow (varying rates), alternating relationships may be
constructed as ongoing and processive rather than as discrete clicks
associated with a specific moment in time. These perceptions call for
descriptions that mediate between what has already happened and what is
about to happen.12
Schenkerian Prolongation: Effects, Òbjects' and Dubiel `Motions'

Teaching Schenker's theory as a process of `reduction' stems in part from
Allen Forte's 1959 article, the implications of which have been described by
William Rothstein and Robert Snarrenberg in terms of the Àmericanisation
of Heinrich Schenker'.13 Others have noted that prolongation and reduction
can be related as different aspects of the same process (Neumeyer and

Tepping 1992; Cadwallader and GagneÂ 1998), though Schenker's orienta-

tion is notably from èarlier' (deeper) to `later' (more determinate) levels of
understanding.14 Fundamental to the latter conception of prolongation as
elaboration are the various kinds of note-relationships that obtain between
events at earlier and later levels (Schichten). One tendency of the `reductive'
stance is to attempt to account for relationships between levels in terms of a
note-for-note mapping of events, or a one-to-one relationship, between the
events of different levels and events represented by a score.15 By contrast,
viewing Schenkerian prolongation as elaborative, as `composing out', leads
to the idea that the object of prolongation can be a process or rule, in
addition to the background `normalisation' or verticalisation of a chord or
interval. The conception of prolongation as a process, `rule' or function ± or
a `motion' between structural harmonies ± maps events of earlier and later
levels in many-to-one relationships.16 Joseph Dubiel has demonstrated that
this idea ± of making motions or rules the objects of prolongations as much as
harmonies or notes ± finds confirmation in Schenker's cryptic arguments and
examples in Counterpoint:
[In Schenker's view, deviations in word order of a sentence from Faust do not]
constitute an offense against German grammar [but] only prolongations of the
most ordinary grammatical laws. (Counterpoint I, 13) . . . [This] reveals, first of
all, that the kind of entity that gets prolonged is a rule ± which is to say that little
in this book supports the standard latter-day application of the concept to
pitches and harmonies. (Dubiel 1990, p. 293)
Dubiel also makes the point that Schenker's theory of prolongation, whether
from the perspective of elaboration or reduction (invoking particular functions
or motions to explain a harmonic progression), attributes musical èffects' to
particular combinations of notes (ibid., p. 297).17 In this view, Schenkerian
prolongation is extended to encompass motions, processes or `rules', as well as
notes and chords, and the effects that result from working out those motions or
rules in particular ways over time.18
The sketches shown here suggest different strategies of listening. Firstly,
they present interpretations singly and in combination. In the case of the
Mozart K. 421 examples, each sketch depicts a different temporal distribution
of harmonies and the musical effect is the result of the alternation (oscillation)
between the different, non-simultaneous perceptions. Secondly, they show
harmonic areas in conjunction with non-aligned and repeated motivic patterns
(in brackets). Here the effect is that of a tension between a thematic repetition
and a goal-orientated harmonic progression. Thirdly, they show a succession of
alternating (oscillating) harmonic-thematic patterns. In this strategy, the effect
captures a hearing of a deeper harmonic motion that is expressed by more than
one reiteration of that progression.

The next part of this article explores how such conceptions of prolongation
as the `temporal' process of structural functions can characterise the dynamic
nature of `fluctuating', ànticipating' and `delaying' music event-perceptions.
The Proctor and Riggins/Rothstein Exchange

In their article À Schenker Pedagogy' (Proctor and Riggins 1989), Gregory
Proctor and H. Lee Riggins analyse a portion of a figured Bach Chorale
(No. 47, `BeschraÈnkt, ihr Weisen' ± Ex. 2a) as a `deceptive' extension that
highlights the èffect' of a dominant prolongation in bars 4±6 (Ex. 2b). William
Rothstein, in a subsequent letter to the editor of the Journal of Music Theory
Pedagogy (Rothstein 1990b), criticises their reading as `mechanical', and argues
for an alternative, more `musically' viable interpretation of the pattern as an
extension of tonic harmony in bars 4±6 by means of a 10±5±10 voice-leading
pattern derived from a species model (Ex. 2c). If one considers both these
readings as alternative middlegrounds that work out the implications of an
earlier level, namely the `process' of an eventual `motion' from I to V, then the
two readings can function as alternative levels that are non-simultaneously
active (oscillating), though apparently contradictory, as in the Mozart K. 421
example. These levels compose out the `deeper' temporal process of a motion
from I to V.
From this perspective, each reading is coherent as articulating the more
`local' effects of a broader temporal motion in process from I to V. Such
apparently contradictory readings are expressions of non-simultaneous
multiple foreground readings, each a configuration of a broader temporal
process represented in a deeper middleground reading. Several questions
result from this kind of àllowance' or `suspension': to what extent is it
desirable or possible to construe the temporal motion 1) in relation to a single
reading, 2) in relation to an oscillation of two or more readings in tandem, or 3)
as one reading of a deeper, less determinate level that includes both of the more
determinate interpretations (see Ex. 2d as a possible representation of this idea,
i.e. with implications of a line from 5^ (Proctor and Riggins) and/or a line from 3
^
(Rothstein) in the harmonic area of the dominant).
Might the musical èffect' of the passage result from the interaction of both
temporal process and conceptual distinctness? Does the deeper level
accommodate both aspects as alternating or co-existing at later, more local
levels? These later levels thereby contribute to the determinate musical èffects'
of a background conception of the passage ± the èffects' of a contrast between
senses of apparent arrival or delay ± and are evidence of an oscillation of
relations that stem from a temporal process (motion). Are these èffects' best
characterised as a `slow motion' oscillation of several hearings or as a single
hearing that registers determinate, but individually incomplete readings by

Ex. 2a Bach, Figured Chorale, No. 47, `Beschrankt, ihr Weisen'

5
10 15
20
25 30
way of reference to an àbstraction' of a higher/earlier level? Does the sense in

which the `locally determinate readings' (Figs. 2b and 2c) are mutually
exclusive preclude the possibility of hearing bars 4±6 as an area of oscillation or
process that extends a deeper harmonic progression, or does it stimulate that
perception?19 The ideas presented here would suggest the latter position.

Ex. 2b After Proctor-Riggins 1989 (bars 1±8; Fig. 1a, 11): bar 4ff as extension of
the dominant
‹
3 2
(5 )
‹
‹
‹
4 3 2 1
( ) ( )
Ex. 2c After Rothstein 1990 (bars 1±8; no example): bars 6±8 as extension of the
dominant
‹
‹
3 2
Ex. 2d ^ 2
Local oscillation, scale degrees 3± ^
‹
A: 3 2
‹
(E: 5 4 3 2 1 ) **
v.
‹
‹
‹
A: ( 5 4 ) 3 (2 3 ) 2
‹
(E: 3 2 1 )*
( ) ( )
* Rothstein
** Proctor-Riggins

Rothstein's reading highlights the melodic `parallelism' and contour

transformation of the upper line (see brackets, bars 4±5, C]±B±A±B±C]; and
bars 5±6, B±A±G]±F]±G]±A). Proctor and Riggins's reading calls attention to
the alternation of I and V harmonies in both passages (bars 1±2, I: I±V±I6±V±I;
and bars 4±6, V: (I)±V±I±V±I). In this reading one can hear the melodic
pattern of the bass in bars 3±4 in relation to the rhythmically expanded and
harmonically re-orientated pattern in the bass prior to the structural cadence of
bars 7±8 (bracketed in Ex. 2b).
Other examples of `perceptions' that can be characterised as specific
relations of (conflicting or contradictory) èffects' include irregular resolutions,
deceptive relations, the `consonant passing note', deflected/delayed six-four
resolutions, subdominant v. dominant contexts (e.g. I: I±IV [C±F] v. IV: V±I
[C±F]), functional substitution (six-four functional orientations as I or V;
German sixth as tonic or pre-dominant), and so on. These perceptions fuse
multiple and conflicting experiential orientations, each with an appreciable
musical èffect' that contributes to the determinate perception of the passage.
In particular, the conflicting orientations draw alternately from parallelisms
created by prolongation (embedded structural functions) or by the repetition of
melodic patterns (linear succession, pattern translation).
Such responses are not to be taken as an advocation of a relativistic or
indiscriminate application of a particular theoretical position, Schenkerian or
otherwise. The unitary decisions encouraged by certain theories can also
function to encourage an attention to specifics, so as to highlight the tension
between normative and compositional presentation. In this sense,
presentational ambiguities of various sorts are often carefully handled within
the confines of a particular theory, such that the musical context can `clarify'
which of a range of situations a composer might intend.20 In these cases, the
theoretical indeterminacy of more determinate levels (levels focused on one or
another interpretation) may be understood as a process that crystallises the
conceptual-temporal configuration of an earlier, more abstract level. Or it
might be possible to maintain a range of possibilities such that one orientation
may prevail, and then another.21
The extent to which oscillating readings and perceptions are possible or
desirable invokes the familiar rabbit/duck or old woman/young woman figures.
Different viewings are mutually exclusive, but the `composite' figure or èffect'
includes the structural orientations and aspects that make possible the flip in
perspective from one figure to the other. Each view depends on a different axis
of orientation.22 A similar example in a painting by Georges Braque is
discussed by Rudolf Arnheim:
The shape of the profile line changes entirely, depending on which face it is seen
to belong to. What was empty becomes full; what was active, passive . . . the

objects create the illusion of being materially present, only to change without
notice into something completely different but equally convincing.23
In a musical context, one orientation might yield prolongationally embedded

patterns, another orientation might suggest melodic groups that project
repeated melodic patterns. Such different musical readings can be mutually
exclusive but their composite representation can incorporate the èffects' of
alternative hearings. However, one aspect of this analogy between image and
music that may not be comparable is the perceptual strength of the figures and
the perceiver's ability to switch between them at will. The ability to change
musical orientations seems to be more fluid, and available to the conscious
control of the listener; in comparison, the viewer's control of the image seems
less predictable.
In an oscillating process or experience, the outcome may be impossible to
decide, suspended until the final element has appeared. In tonal (Schenkerian)
perception we often choose the first element (e.g. the tonic) as that which
directs the structural progression.24 A variety of factors can make this situation
temporally and musically interesting: the addition of new elements, varying the
length of oscillation, shifting rhythmic or melodic emphases within the period
of formation, or shifting between prologational and melodic (translational)
orientations. These possibilities suggest different ways of experiencing the
effects of repetition as a means of extending and nuancing conceptually deeper
structural progressions.
How or at what level do we `back up' to locate the `ground' for alternative
readings of the sort considered here?25 And do we undertake `backing up' with
a related loss of determinacy? There are, of course, artistic, political and
personal issues at stake on all sides. Does one side really need to claim the
primacy of the `depth' of musical experience, eschewing the application of
mechanical rules and procedures? Need another side appeal to reasonable
pedagogy, to rational analytical approaches to `the music'? Nothing precludes
those holding contrasting positions from invoking a lineage of analytical
training to establish credibility or to silence the ùntrained'. A `method' can be
the province of those with years of specialised education. It can also be used as
a means of highlighting the distinctiveness of particular readings, of evaluating
their relative degrees of fit (or lack of fit) with experienced musical passages, or
of incorporating the means to reconcile different interpretations within the
confines of a particular theory. What is significant in the context of this
discussion is that sometimes differences of interpretation, rather than being a
function of the relative expertise of an interpreter, stem from the possibility of
hearing different or alternative expressions of a background level in foreground
levels, or from hearing in terms of different orientations. Such differences
reflect a tension between prolongational and translational relationships and

hearing. Thus, an awareness of particular orientations and approaches can

change power relationships between analysts, or between the analyst and the
piece.
This is not the same as saying that there is no `right' analysis, or opting for a
sufficiently general set of rules such that any analysis that fits them is equally
apt. Rothstein raises the problem of what happens when an ànalysis is one of
an indeterminate number of ``correct'' analyses, all of them equally uncon-
cerned with the music and hence equally uninteresting' (Rothstein 1990b,
p. 297). As I have argued, the interest lies in the interactions of theory and
experience and in the sensitivity to music's temporal processes. Thus, whether
one formulates conflicting prolongational-motivic readings as oscillatory (or
even as simultaneously operative, as Martin Scherzinger does at times in his
analysis of the Adagio from Mozart's Piano Sonata in F major, K. 280) may not
matter as much as developing the implications of this oscillation for listening,
analysis and interpretation.26
One frame for mediating various positions in Schenkerian analysis is the
òrganic context' of the whole: `which of the two lines is primary ± and thus
whether G]4 or E4 rules at the cadence ± can only be determined by the
subsequent course of the chorale' (Rothstein 1990b, p. 297). Yet one way of
reading the Bach chorale às a whole' might be as a large-scale working out of
the tension between hearing an extending tonic in bars 4±5 (delaying tonic and
thus delaying a move to V, see Ex. 2c) or hearing an initial reference to V (see
Ex. 2b). Thus, the Rothstein-adapted orientation of Ex. 2c might endorse a
hearing of the F] minor area of bars 21±4 as supporting a delay of tonic
harmony until the return of the tonic in bar 29. The Proctor and Riggins-
derived orientation of Ex. 2b (initiation and extension of V) might endorse a
hearing of the influence of V in bars 4±8 extending to the return of V in bars
25±8, and thus hearing the thematic repetition of bars 17±20 (IV) in bars 25±8
(V) and the repetition of F]±E±D±C] in the upper line of bars 3±4 in bars 21±2
as part of a progression extending the influence of V.
Rothstein cautions analysts to avoid a `preconceived idea of what they will
find [that] easily blinds them to what actually occurs in the music. [In such
cases:] Theory wins, music loses.' (ibid.) Yet distinctions and differences of
interpretations are not to be passed over: `Recognized, acknowledged,
challenged, they [can] serve as points of articulation, departure, transforma-
tion, and significantly, mutual implication and definition' (Kielian-Gilbert
1997, p. 254). One must be able to try out alternative readings within particular
theoretical contexts; and the disjunctions between readings can open a space
for positions that are both sympathetic and biting. The theoretical orientation
is not the music and thus the differences that obtain can be illuminating from
both the perspective of the theory (and its logical constraints) and that of `the
music' with its performed and experiential contingencies.

Leaving aside the question of what brings credibility to an analyst, the larger
issue here is how to sustain the potential of alternative readings and how to
bring various readings into contact with each other without the need for
competition, without the need for one reading to depose another.27 The next
section takes up distinctions of prolongational and translational parallelism as a
means of pursuing this issue.
Prolongational and Translational Parallelism

Schenker's well-known remarks at the beginning of Harmony on the artistic
significance of repetition in art bring together two èxperiments': the role of
repetition in determining the identity and association of motives, and a tonal
system that can allow for the èxpansion' of the motive:
Thus the motive constitutes the only and unique germ cell of music as an art. Its
discovery had been difficult indeed. No less difficult, however, proved to be the
solution of a second problem, viz, the creation of a tonal system within which
motivic association, once discovered, could expand or express itself. Basically
the two experiments are mutually dependent: any exploration of the functions
of the motif would, at the same time, advance the development of the tonal
system, and vice versa, any further development of the system would result in
new openings for motivic association. (Schenker 1973, p. 20)
The progression, direction and force of a succession of Stufen (harmonic

scale steps) express the working out, or paths, of a structural harmonic
progression. Harmonic Stufen manifest themselves in the progression and
transformation of structural functions at different levels of determinacy
(Schichten) with respect to the articulations of the musical foreground. These
levels establish prolongational parallelisms that articulate and transform goal-
directed structural progressions through successive elaboration (composing
out).
The role of thematic restatement in this orientation is often one of delaying
the completion of the structural harmonic progression. Dubiel also makes this
point, noting that Schenker conceives interruption or a divided ìnner form'
^ 2//
(3± ^ 3±
^ 2± ^ as an undivided structure at a deeper level (3±
^ 1) ^ 2± ^ 28 The point of
^ 1).
interruption of the structural progression is fixed specifically by the structural
articulation of the dividing dominant and requires the tonal-thematic
restatement. Oswald Jonas describes it in this way:
A most powerful urge to repeat is created by initiating a certain movement
whose starting and concluding points may be unequivocally presumed by the
listener, then to interrupt this movement at the crucial moment ± say, just
before the concluding step. A tension is thereby created which can be relaxed
only by a repetition, this time without interruption, running its full course to a
satisfactory conclusion. (Jonas's Ìntroduction' to Schenker 1973, p. xxiii)

In a related way, the extension of Schenkerian conceptions of prolongation to

situations of harmonic oscillation (e.g. motions between Stufen) is to express these
motions at more foreground levels of the process of composing-out. As we have
seen, these are often cases of exact thematic repetition where the structural
implications of the first harmony prevail at a deeper level during the repetition.
The second thematic presentation, to the extent that it re-articulates the initial
structural progression, is thus a marker for the ongoing process of the progression.
The completion of the repetition or restatement can also signal the continuation of
the progression. The deeper level harmonic motion thus also holds the first Stufe
(harmonic area) in temporary abeyance during the oscillation, and at the end of the
thematic restatement that initial motion is eventually completed.29
The direction and force of the prolongational transformation of a structural
progression thus contrasts with the `stasis' of melodic-thematic repetition.
This contrast is aptly characterised by Milton Babbitt in his distinction
between the prolongational parallelism of `tonal axioms' ± prolongations that
ìnduce transformations of structural functions' ± and the transformational
parallelism of `serial axioms' ± transformations that ìnduce prolongations of
ordered intervallic structure' (Babbitt 1997 [1999], p. 132). Rose Subotnik
identifies the latter process in Chopin's repetitions as `producing an effect of
analogy that counteracts the force of harmonic resolution' through its apparent
stasis (Subotnik 1991, p. 157). Operating in contrast to prolongational
parallelism, translational parallelism is the successive repetition of melodic or
harmonic òrdered intervallic structures', a concept that links Babbitt's
transformational parallelism with Schenker's account of motivic identification
through successive repetition.30
Prolongational parallelism projects the temporal transformation of a
structural function. Pattern and copy are of different temporal lengths (see
Fig. 2) and include back-to-front projections of deeper-level patterns in more
determinate, temporally shorter presentations.31
A translational parallelism is one that moves a configuration over in space-
time. To translate is to `transfer' or `transport' a body or form of energy from
one point of space to another without rotation (or from one person, place or
condition to another). The term `translational' also stems from a symmetrical
operation or motion that duplicates a configuration by spatial repetition
through a fixed distance. Translational parallelism in a musical context
involves a left-to-right movement (duplication) of a pattern, shifting the
original configuration to a new spatial-temporal location, thereby moving some
of the initial aspects as well. The temporal length of pattern and copy is the
same or functionally equivalent. In the following discussion, I explore how
translational parallelism allows for or extends the notion of motivic (and
harmonic) repetition into the conceptual framework of Schenkerian sub-
surface and cross-level parallelism (and vice versa).

Fig. 2 Tendencies of prolongational and translational parallelism
Prolongational parallelism Translational parallelism

(mutually related)
· projects the èxpansion' or · projects identity and repetition or

enlargement of the motive restatement of the motive
· pattern and copy are different · pattern and copy are the same or
lengths of functionally equivalent lengths
· underpinned by goal-directed · repetitions project periodicity,
structural progressions. temporal balance and/or the
Emphasises transformations of functional equivalence of ordered
structural functions (e.g. I-V-I): interval patterns. Emphasises
a) nested, embedded patterns pattern repetition.
b) successively presented
patterns
· thematic repetition delays or · thematic repetition is reiterative
extends harmonic completion: analogical; it suggests:
a) end of repetition signals the a) a potential equilibrium of

completion of the emphasis; highlights imitative
progression counterpoint
b) primacy to the initiating b) `chess board' effect of
harmony emphasis, i.e. potential for
alternate rhythmic groupings
based on grouping initial or
subsequent harmonies
· cross-level or sub-surface · functional equivalence of parallels
relationships between parallels
· `motivic parallelism': the · motivic/thematic-harmonic
prolongational application of a repetition: translational
translational (transformational) application of a prolongational
process; projects hierarchy process; tends towards a
suspension of hierarchy
· temporal transformation · temporal duplication (translation)
(embedding; prolongation) of a of a prolongational process or
structural function functional succession
· goal-directed (hierarchical), · spatial (non-hierarchical),
`homophonic', vertical, abstract, `contrapuntal', horizontal, linear,
back-to-front left-to-right
· potential for translational
combination, i.e. overlapping
chains or groupings

Though mutually interdependent, the two processes have distinct tenden-

cies. An analogue of spatial or planar geometry, translational parallelism relates
successively articulated musical patterns on or at the same level of determinacy
(syntactic-semantic depth): the patterns have functionally equivalent lengths
and are related through successive temporal presentation. They extend (via
repetition) ordered interval structures and are thus temporally `static'. In
contrast, incorporating dimensions of conceptual-syntactic `depth',
prolongational parallelism connects patterns at different levels of abstraction:
the related patterns have different temporal lengths, and they are either
embedded one within another or presented successively. They extend and
transform structural functions and are thus temporally `progressive'.
In Schenkerian terms `motivic parallelism' is a prolongational application of
a translational process. Conversely, `motivic and/or thematic repetition' is a
translational application of a prolongational process (as for example, in
imitative textures).32 `Harmonic oscillation' can articulate both prolongational
and translational functions.33
As a way of hearing the differing temporal effects of such `parallelisms' more
specifically, consider Allen Cadwallader's reading of Mendelssohn's Song
Without Words, Op. 62 No. 1 (his Ex. 1.1 and 1.3 are shown in Ex. 3b).34 The
passages in question are bars 5±10 and 22±35 (see Ex. 3a). His reading of bars
5±10 shows the modulation from G major to B minor accomplished by the
extension of a G major harmony (in bars 6±8) via the German sixth of B minor
(bar 8), progressing to the structural dominant six-four of bar 9. Similarly, his
reading of bars 26±35 (Ex. 3b) extends the subdominant harmony (C major) of
bar 27 via a 5±6 exchange to the chromaticised II65 (V/V) of bar 32, progressing
to the structural dominant six-four cadence at bars 33/34±5.35
My alternative readings (shown in Exs. 3c and 3d) acknowledge the
harmonic oscillation between G major and B minor harmonies in bars 6±8 and
8±10 (bar 6, G major and bar 8, B minor (first inversion); bar 8, French sixth
and bar 10, B minor, see Ex. 3c), and the harmonic oscillation between IV or
V65 of V to the cadential six-four in bars 24±9 and 30±35, respectively (see Ex.
3d). In particular, these readings highlight the repetition of the melodic line in
both these passages (bracketed in the upper line); the melodic line states and
then intensifies the basic elements of the progression from G major to B minor.
In the first instance the melodic phrase happens twice (bars 6±8 and 8±10), the
first time without a cadence but clearly establishing B minor as the goal for a
cadence, the second time achieving the cadence but doing so through a
repetition of the first phrase. If we associate the move to B minor with one
moment in time, Schenkerian practice, with its emphasis on delay, would
direct us to pick the later one with the cadence and treat the preceding music as
elaborating the transitional harmony. In contrast, taking account of the
translational parallelism of the melodic statements contributes an alternative

Ex. 3a Mendelssohn, Song Without Words, Op. 62 No. 1 i) bars 1±10

Andante espressivo
cresc.
cresc.
cresc.
dim.
10 cresc.
reading, in tandem with the previous reading. The sense of oscillation between
these readings characterises the processive aspects of moving from I to III and
of interrelating thematic and harmonic aspects.
Similarly, one can hear the thematic return of the opening in bar 22ff
transformed by the change in the consequent phrase of the opening melody in
bar 26ff (compare bar 4ff, bar 22ff and bar 26ff: in bar 26 the consequent
phrase begins with a descending perfect fifth, d2±g1 (!)). The continuation
extends the motion of I (bar 22) to IV±V again by a process of harmonic
oscillation (of IV or V65 of V to V) that is marked by the direct thematic
repetition of bars 26±30 in bars 30±34 (bracketed in the upper line of Ex. 3d).
The climactic repetitions of bars 26±9 and 30±35 coincide with the dominant
six-four harmony. It is worth noting that these thematic repetitions project D±
E±D neighbour-note motions in the upper part that also relate to the

Ex. 3a (continued) ii) bars 22±41

22
cresc.
25
cresc.
28
cresc.
31
dim.
34
cresc. dim.
38
dim.

Ex. 3b Cadwallader 1990 (`Form and Tonal Process'), Ex. 1.1, bars 1±10 and Ex.
1.3, bars 22±35
1 4 8 10
‹
3 3 3 3
‹
* * (2) * * * * *
x = D–C–B
x x x
y y
a A1 (= bars 1–2)
= B:
G: + +
antecedent consequent
+
‹
3 3
* * *
x x
y
b
2 8 10
24 26 27 30 32 34 35
‹
‹
‹
3 2 1
‹
* * (3) * * * *
x modified
x
N N
N
A2 N
(CP) P ( )
CP
G:

Ex. 3c Bars 1±10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
‹
‹
‹
‹
3 (2) 3 (3 2 1 ) (3 2 1 )
()
Ex. 3d Bars 22±35

22 24 25 26 29 30 33 35
translational parallelism of the D±E±D pattern offset in the bass (both Ds in

the bass articulate a six-four `cadential' dominant).
Thus, in both passages, the thematic restatements correlate with processes
of harmonic oscillation. They relate the translational parallelisms of the
thematic/harmonic repetitions to the prolongational parallelisms of local and
deeper harmonic levels.
Oscillation and Alternative Emphases

In contrast, consider the different situation where the ordered relationship
between the structural harmonies changes during the period of oscillation.
How does the eventual move towards completion of the structural progression
occur?36 How might thematic presentation, and prolongational and/or
translational parallelism, participate in this process? Three different analytical
contexts show different compositional approaches to this issue: Schenker's
analysis (via Drabkin) of the role of the consonant passing note, Dubiel's
analysis of conflicting middleground readings in a Brahms concerto, and my
account of shifting tonic-dominant and dominant-tonic groupings in a Chopin
prelude.

Schenker's formulation of the consonant passing note is instructive,

particularly for its insights into the possible relationships of levels and the
ways that structural functions can be transformed. William Drabkin provides
an eloquent account of multiple contexts of Schenker's view of the
subdominant harmony: I±IV±I±V±I (3± ^ 3±
^ 4± ^ 2± ^ understood as [(I±(IV±I))±
^ 1)
8±7
V±I] or as [I±IV ±V±I] (see Ex. 4a which reproduces examples from Drabkin
1996, pp. 149±50). According to Drabkin, `These two interpretations are
fundamentally opposed to one another' (ibid., p. 150).37 Since `Schenker
understood all dissonance as arising from consonance, so that a crucial way in
which music develops is by dissonances at a higher level being made consonant
at a lower level, through an enriched bass; . . . this process in turn enables new
dissonances to emerge at the lower level' (ibid., p. 152). The `tonic' can thus
appear in the course of the connection of IV and V harmonies such that the
dominant, not the tonic, is the goal of the progression. However, Schenker also
recognised cases in which one might argue in either direction:
We are not dealing with a simple case of Schenker offering different

explanations of the voice-leading of similar passages of music, a difference
attributable to what is sometimes referred to as `the development of his
theories'. It is a contradiction that derives from viewing the subdominant from
the perspective of the tonic, on the one hand, and viewing the tonic from the
perspective of a IV±V progression, on the other. (Ibid., p. 174)
The phenomenon of the consonant passing note characterises a situation in

which a consonant harmony is interpolated as a passing harmony in a higher
level prolongation of a `dissonant' or less stable harmony, which in turn finds
resolution at a still higher level. In the case of hearing a consonant passing note,
a higher-level extension of the second element of the progression colours the
perception of subsequent consonant harmony (at a lower level) which
functioned initially as the first element of the structural progression. Rather
than hearing the consonant passing harmony as a `violation' of the logic of a
prolongational succession, one can re-orientate one's hearing in terms of that
succession at a deeper level.38 In this case, hearing the consonant passing note
as a lower-level inflection of a higher-level move (IV±V) suggests a particular
`colouring' of the (subordinate) tonic harmony at a later level such that the
second element (IV) colours the first. Such colourations result from different
ways of hearing an oscillating succession of harmonies.
It is also worth noting that the temporal perceptions of contradictory
readings, or of linking alternative readings at different levels, can be nuanced in
different ways. These differences are both related to and separate from
contextual presentation. Thus, Steve Larson's strict neighbour-note reading of
the g1 of bar 6 (shown in Ex. 4b) is supported by rhythmic presentation and
immediate context (projecting the translational parallelism of G±F±E in bars

Ex. 4a Drabkin, `The Consonant Passing Note' (1996), Exs. 1±3

‹
3 2 1
(— — )
‹
3 2 1
1±4 and 5±8) (Larson 1997, p. 107).39 My alternative reading is not unrelated to
rhythmic context: it renders a different rhythmic unfolding (i.e. distribution)
of the upper line pattern G±F±E, hearing the translational parallelism of bars
5±6 and 7±8 (A±G±F, G±F±E).
Joseph Dubiel, in a subtle discussion of the opening ritornello of the first
movement of Brahms D minor Piano Concerto, looks at àbnormal' inflections
of the opening D minor tonic by a B[ triad ± abnormal, because these
Ex. 4b Larson, `The Problem of Prolongation' (1997), Ex. 4, and an alternative

reading
Ex. 4 A contextually unstable octave embellishes a contextually more stable seventh
F G E
G A F
A F G E

references fuel situations that conflict with the larger tonal norms of the
movement in which they occur (Dubiel 1994, pp. 82±3).40 According to
Dubiel, the way to `maintain both that the tonic inflects the B[ chord and that
the B[ chord inflects the tonic' is `by not maintaining both interpretations of
the same objects at the same time' (ibid., p. 85). Understanding the
ìnterpretative timing' of the events is crucial to Dubiel's distinction, that is,
attending `to the temporal frames of the perceptions they entail' ± when such
perceptions become relevant and for how long they are the leading possibilities
(ibid., p. 87, his emphasis). In Dubiel's hearing of the Brahms movement,
constructing schematic middlegrounds for tonal norms and motivic àbnorms'
means showing one or the other (but not both) às an explicit reappearance of a
sonority present all along, or as the return of a sonority temporally displaced',
i.e. as non-simultaneous prolongational readings (Ex. 5 gives Dubiel's (a)
normal and (b) abnormal schematic middlegrounds for the opening ritornello):
the àbnormal span is uncovered when the D minor span inside it ends; but
then this span reaches back to the beginning' (ibid., p. 87). The B[ chord
becomes a `point of reference for what will eventually resolve it' (ibid., p. 85).
Dubiel's distinction is that although transformational relations interact with
and motivate the tonal (prolongational) progression, the two middlegrounds do
not find a deeper level of co-existence because of the non-simultaneity of their
rhythmic organisation. In hearing the piece in this way, the two incompatible
prolongational readings undoubtedly inflect each other, though their musical
levels, temporal extents and effects can be quite different. In the Brahms
movement, the local rhythmic elaborations of the normative progression (in
model A, a2 spawns b[2 as a neighbour-note to a2 at later levels) are referential
for a distinct and àbnormal' middleground reversal (in model B, b[2 spawns a2
as a neighbour-note to b[2, initiating an oscillation with a2). This underscores
Ex. 5 Dubiel, `Contradictory Criteria' (1994), Ex. 3.1

a b
appogg.
appogg. appogg.
nb

the idea that instances of harmonic-thematic oscillation can create notably

different musical effects in particular musical contexts.
In his analysis Dubiel demonstrates that non-simultaneous conflicting
middlegrounds can arise from the temporal experience of music in different
conceptual (prolongational) spaces or temporal (translational) spans (tonal and
motivic). In a similar way, David Lewin's model of perceptual-contextual
description tracks musical perceptions at different stages of temporal
experience.41 Lewin's model characterises the conceptual experience of music
as moments or stages that have different or changing temporal extents
depending on the set of implications upon which they draw. Each context
depicts a temporal NOW of experience, namely a set of events that organises
perceptions, including past retentions and future protentions (possibilities)
framed in relation to a specific Language L. Musical perceptions are temporal
`windows' that motivate the conceptual contexts for a perception (these
include: a set of EVents, a ConteXT for that set, a Perception-Relation-LIST,
and a Statement-LIST). The contexts range from individual `slices' that
include single conceptual entities in the Language (e.g. various potential tonal
orientations of a chord) and passages before or after these instances that shape
the context of hearing. Particular temporal extents variously position the
chord-sound in the conceptual-experiential framework of Language L. Both
Dubiel and Lewin show that `similar terms can refer to rather different
conceptions at particular historical moments' (Lewin 1986, p. 115). They draw
attention to the ways that the categorical formulations of a theory (its `Platonic
THEs') can constrain or motivate music perception, and vice versa.
Chopin, Prelude in D[ Major, Op. 28 No. 15

Chopin's D[ major Prelude (Ex. 6a) is a study in the tensions and alternations
of the tonal-harmonic forces of prolongation and the melodic forces of
translation. The Prelude creates the effects of a temporal oscillation or
alternation of musical spans in the context of alternate groupings of repeated I±
V±(I) patterns. The musical analogue is the ambiguity of temporal
redistributions of prolongationally distinct (conflicting) functions and spans
of tonic or dominant influence. Consider the analogy of two different
groupings found in an oscillating series abababababababa such that both àb'
and `ba' orientations are possible and operating at `different musical times' or
are linked (chained) together in an overlapping fashion (Fig. 3). I have labelled
this overlapping of two different (alternative) translational groupings
translational combination. We are aware of these conflicting orientations in a
non-simultaneous fashion (related to the visual problems of the orientations for
the rabbit/duck or old woman/young woman perspectival figures). The
alternate groupings of tonic and dominant pairs infuse the Prelude.

Fig. 3 Alternating series and translational combination
a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a
(1) a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a
versus:
versus: (translational combination)
I V I V I V I V I V I V I V I
(1) I V I V I V I V I V I V I V I
versus:
versus: (translational combination)
Previous examples have investigated situations in which the initial

prolongational function (i.e. tonic) governs the succession of harmonies at
deeper levels. This analysis explores the implications of the second harmonic
function (i.e. dominant) to condition or nuance the first over varying time
extents.42 That is, the function of the dominant conditions, nuances and even
reconstitutes the tonic notes (in six-four configurations) in different temporal
frames. This temporal redistribution of different harmonic functions makes
possible the continuation of aspects of the nocturne-like A section of the
Prelude in its funeral-like B section.

Ex. 6a Chopin, Prelude in D[ Major, Op. 28 No. 15, bars 1±57
Sostenuto
10
15
20
24

Ex. 6a (continued)
28
sotto voce
cresc.
33
cresc.
38
43
cresc.
48
cresc.
53

Exs. 6b and 6c show respectively the tonic and dominant extents or

implications of the phrase, the six-four sonority implying a tonic or dominant
orientation over the course of the opening phrase. In Ex. 6b, tonic orientations
suggest a hearing of the melodic g[2 as a neighbour to an extended (deeper) f2.
In Ex. 6c dominant orientations suggest hearing g[2 as initiating a third span to
e[2 at the end of the melody within which the f2 works as a consonant passing
note in an extension of dominant harmony.43 The double neighbour-note
^
figure of the upper line suggests a redistribution of scale-degree functions of 3±
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
2±4±3 (F±E[±G[±F), with 5±4±6±5 (A[±G[±B[±A[) in an inner voice. 44
This temporal overlapping or redistribution of alternative harmonic functions

continues in the subsequent sequential patterns of bars 9±20 in two ways. Ex. 7a
shows how the G[ major harmony of bar 10 extends the tonic orientation of bars
8±10. In contrast, Ex. 7b shows the G[ major harmony of bar 10 in the context of
an extended dominant function (the tonal region of A[ major/minor). These
orientations project the double neighbour-note figure F±E[±G[±F in distinct
Ex. 6b `Tonic' implications of the phrase, bars 1±4; melody g[2 as neighbour to
an extended f2 [F±E[±G[±F]
1 4
F E G F
‹
‹
3 2 4 3
Ex. 6c `Dominant' implications of the phrase, bars 1±4; melody g[2 as initiating a
third span to e[2 [F±E[±G[±E[±(F)]
1 4
F E G E (F)
‹
‹
3 2 4 (3)
() ()
(NB The repeated a 1 calls the functional status of tonic into question on beat 3, and specifically in bar 2.)

temporal distributions. Significantly, each figure is connected in harmonically

conflicting (non-simultaneous) temporal extents. Such temporal overlapping of
distinct I or V prolongational spans continues throughout the Prelude.
In the subsequent contrasting `b' section of the aba structure of bars 1±27,
two sequentially related sub-phrases melodically project A[ minor in bars 11±
12 and B[ minor in bars 15±16. The 10±5 linear pattern now recalls the opening
melodic scale-degree pattern 5± ^ 6±
^ 4± ^ 5
^ (with 3±
^ 2± ^ 3
^ 4± ^ in an inner voice) in each
tonal area. These bars variously suggest B[ as a neighbour to A[ (Ex. 8a) or A[
major as a neighbour to B[ minor over the span of bars 9±20 (Ex. 8b). The
perception of this temporal redistribution of harmonic functions is emblematic
of the alternating relationship of the eight-six-four and nine-seven-three
harmonies over the A[ pedal of the opening bars. In particular, the melodic
double neighbour-note patterns give the first reference to the chromatic notes
C[ and F[, notes that will feature prominently in the contrasting C]/D[ minor
mode of the B section.
Significantly, hearing the reference to B[ in bars 15±16 as a neighbour to A[
invokes further scale-degree implications: the pattern F±E[±G[±F, now shaded
^ 5±
as 6± ^ 7±
^ 6^ in relation to A[ minor/major (with D[±C±E[±D[ as 4± ^ 3±
^ 5±4
^ in the
inner voice). In contrast, the A[ tonal area can be heard as a neighbour to B[, in
the context of an internal expansion of the double neighbour-note f2±e[2±g[2±
^ 2±
f2, 3± ^ 3.
^ 4± ^ These multiply determinate possibilities, the product of a 10±5
Ex. 7a `Tonic' implications, bars 8±10

8 10 12
Ex. 7b `Dominant' implications, bars 7±10
7 8 10 12

Ex. 8a B[ as neighbour to A[, bars 9±19: A[ minor double-neighbour figure, bar

12
9–12 19
‹
‹
5 4 6 5
‹
‹
3 2 4 3 (N)
a :
D :
Ex. 8b A[ as neighbour to B[, bars 8±20: B[ minor double-neighbour figure, bar

16
13 16 20
1–8
*
( )
‹
‹
‹
‹
9–10 11–12 b : 5 4 6 5
‹
‹
‹
‹
3 2 4 3
‹
3 2 4 3
N
( ) ( )
D :
* parallel to a area in Ex. 8a
linear pattern over the course of bars 9±20, colouring the melodic grouping of
E[±F±E[, by that of F±E[±D[/F.45
A similar mix of orientations, and tonal scale-degree shadings, is played out
over the entire expanse of the texturally contrasting minor-mode and funeral-
like B section. The oscillations present the C]-minor harmony alternately as a
five-three extension of tonic function (C]/D[ minor) (Exs. 9a and 9b), and/or as
a six-four extension of dominant functioning G] minor (Ex. 9c).46
In a similar way, the scale-degree orientations surrounding C]/D[ as tonic
and G]/A[ as dominant reverse the temporal and scale-degree orientations that
were projected in the first section (Exs. 9a and 9d): C]±B]±D]±C], as 1±^ 7±
^ 2± ^
^ 1
of C] minor, in a translational combination, overlapping with a grouping that
emphasises C] as an extension of the dominant G] minor, D]±C]±E±D] as `5± ^
^ 6±
4± ^ 5'
^ (with C]±B]±D]±C] as 4± ^ 3±
^ 5± ^ (see Ex. 9d).
^ 4)

Ex. 9a Double-neighbour patterns, bars 28±35
28 30 31 33 35
‹
‹
‹
‹
c : 2 1 3 2
‹
‹
‹
‹
v. g : 5 4 6 5
(E D F E !) D C E D
D C E D C B D C
C B D C
Ex. 9b C] as articulation of `tonic' function: double-neighbour pattern, bars 28±

35
28 30 31 33 35
C B D C
i+V
Ex. 9c C] as `six-four' articulation of `dominant' function: double-neighbour

pattern, bars 28±35
28 30 31 33 35
D C E D
i+V
or
()
Analogous to the role played by B[ minor as vi in D[ or as a neighbour to A[

(V of D[) in the first section, the striking articulation of E major in bars 40±43
(and again in bars 56±9) functions alternately as major VI in A[/G] minor or as

Ex. 9d Overlapping (translational) statements of the double-neighbour patterns:

C]±B]±D]±C] and D]±C]±E±D]: C] as `tonic' v. C] as `six-four' articulation of
`dominant' function
‹
‹
(d : 3 ‹ 2 4 3 )
‹
g : 5 4 6 5
‹
c : 1 7 2 1
`neighbour' to D[ minor (by third relation).47 In perceptual terms, then, is E a

neighbour to D] over G]/A[ as sustained dominant (Ex. 10c), or is E/F[ an
extension/subsitute for the tonic, projecting the tonic compass of the passage
(Exs. 10a and 10b)? The oscillating significance of E major as tonic substitute
or as part of a six-four extension of G] minor dominant48 opens up a tension of
hearing non-simultaneous, prolongationally conflicting readings over the
temporal course of the passage, rather than a development of conflicting
interpretations. Although the identities of tonic and dominant are not in
question, their attendant functions are in temporal flux or oscillation
throughout the entirety of the B section. The funeral-march B section relates,
and transforms, the temporal processes of the nocturne-like A section, thereby
interconnecting nocturne and funeral march.49 This overlapping also nuances
the similarities and ambiguities of the `dividing' dominants of bars 26±7 and
74±5 (see Ex. 10c (part d1), bracket below the stave, and Ex. 10d), the latter of
which is coloured by the continued oscillation of v and i harmonies.
Finally, the plagal reference to F] minor (G[ minor) via [VI (B[[) (or
Neapolitan sixth of V, B[[/A major) in bar 63 and V7/IV in bar 71 harks back to
the plagal ambiguity of bars 9±10 (and the question of D[ as a consonant
passing note in bar 10). Throughout the Prelude, the oscillating relationship
between A[ and B[ (along with their various scale-degree and tonal-harmonic
shadings) resonates in bar 3 (inner voice A[±B[±A[), in the A[ minor±B[ minor
relationships of bars 11±19, in the G]±A] oscillations in the upper voice of bars
64±7 and 72±5, in the èchoes' of the B[±A[ dyads of bars 8±12, and in the
concluding six bars of the piece. (For example, is the a[2 on beat 2 of bar 82 a
consonant passing note between B[ and G[, and/or is B[±G[ an inflection of the
dominant A[?)
These translationally parallel, prolongational patterns ± as interlocking
groupings of tonic and dominant harmonies ± counterpoint the alternation of

Ex. 10a Bars 28±44: C] as articulation of `tonic' function

28 40 41 42 43 44
C D E D (C )
( )
Ex.10b Bars 28±44: C] as articulation of `tonic' function

28 31 36 40 42 44 75
Ex. 10c Bars 28±44: C] as `six-four' articulation of `dominant' function

28 31 40 42 44 75
‹
‹
( g :5 4 6 5 ) C 70 73 B D
(E) D C E D 75
62 64
!
(d1) D C E D
( )
Ex. 10d Overlapping (translational) statements of the double-neighbour

patterns: C]±B]±D]±C] and D]±C]±E±D]. C] as `tonic' v. C] as `six-four'
articulation of `dominant' function
24 26 27 28
‹
3 2 ( 3!)
F E G E
(d2) D C E D

major and minor modes in the Prelude. For example, the A section embeds
minor-mode tonal areas (A[ minor and B[ minor) within the context of a
major-mode tonic (D[ major), and the B section embeds a major-mode tonal
area (E major) within the context of minor mode tonic and dominant (C] minor
and G] minor). From this perspective, these processes of oscillation and
embedding offer ways to hear the B section as a musical `turning inside out' of
the A section. These contrasts transform and interrelate aspects of the nocturne
in the subsequent funeral march.50
Sonority, Structure and Genre

Rose Subotnik has written about Chopin's ìndividuality' of style, under-
scoring its play or focus on sound as `pure' sonority (Subotnik 1991, pp. 141±
65, esp. pp. 148±55). For example, in her analysis of the `transitional' passage
from Chopin's E major EÂtude, Op. 10 No. 3 (bars 54±62), she proposes that its
effects result from Chopin's suspending and lingering on multiple
interpretations of melody and harmony in either/both E major or/and B major
(ibid., pp. 157±162; see the epigraph at the beginning of this article). Chopin's
ìnnovation' is thus to create situations of thematic-harmonic analogy rather
than (or in the context of) goal-directed harmonic progressions. The sensuous
and cultural particularity of Chopin's music is not that of a `self-evident
intelligibility' or structure but of à particular individual in a particular cultural
situation', and thus contingent on matters of style (ibid., p. 152). Matters of
style and `sonority' are distinct from those of `structure', by which she means
linearly directed, hierarchical relations and hearing.
In the terms outlined here, however, sonority is as much part of structure as
structure is part of sonority: back-to-front and left-to-right oscillating relation-
ships connect sonic shading and syntactic continuity; translational parallelisms
interact with prolonged and, at times, overlapping harmonic progressions. One
need not construe sonic aspects as solely linked to style or as `natural',
àutonomous' and set apart from structure. Bruce Horner has pointed out that
properties of sonority are intimately linked with `specific practices of pro-
ducing and signifying with sound', rather than with the idealising of `musical
essence' defined in terms of properties of the `medium of sound':
. . . the experience of music as possessing `dynamic sensuous fullness' is itself a

socially produced effect of specific materially-conditioned listening practices
rather than a natural antidote to ideological pressures . . . By positing elements
of sound as the `natural' essence of music which fixed forms silence, rather than
as fully social and material, we contribute to just such mythicization [by the
bourgeois culture] and its suppression of practical consciousness. (Horner 1998,
pp. 171, 184±5)51

Musical `structures' are likewise not immune to the effects of socially and
materially conditioned listening and interpretative practices: they are vitally
connected to social-cultural practices of producing and signifying.
In music-analytic terms, to understand Chopin's individuality is to describe
his reworking of the oppositions of sonority and structure. To consider the
ways in which his music requires us to redefine such oppositions is to call
attention to structure's intimate link with music's temporal process and
character ± and to Chopin's particular `temporalisation' (translation) of a depth
of harmonic-tonal relationships. In his `temporalisation', opposite values
alternate, oscillate, resonate, and thus come into contact. Often a feeling of
reconciliation may be mixed with a sense of nostalgia, morbidity of obsession,
or promise of visionary reconciliation more implied than directly stated.52
Do accounts of varying syntactic depth paint music as a `radiant image of
transcendental significance ± that which is perfectly ordered without apparent
social intervention'? (McClary 1988, p. xv) If Chopin's melodies seem to resist
social interpretation, is it because we are too inclined to hear his melodic lines in
terms of a myth of philosophical progress or of a striving towards a heightened
ideal?53 In this sense, both Subotnik's focus on Chopin's sonority and sonorous
identity apart from linear structural progression, and my account of his practices
of translational parallelism and harmonic oscillation, are strategies for arresting
or nuancing tonal outcomes by describing an activity in contrast to the
directionality of rational progress. The music is, in this sense, `self-involved'.
Are Chopin's apparent circularities a game of the surface of the piece, subject to
masterful and beautiful domination by the logic of progression at the end (or in
the `background')? Or does a sensitivity to Chopin's oscillations open up a field of
alternative temporal experience and interpretation, in counterpoint with the
gender politics of Chopin's culture, to challenge a hearing of his music as
something divorced from life? Its temporal processes point to a music involved in
the world, articulating insights into the vagaries of being human.
Music theory ± construing (syntactic-semantic) relationships ± in this sense
`does not diffuse the political consequences of ongoing material conditions but,
rather, provides a means of constructing and understanding agency and
subjective identity in multiple locations'.54 In Chopin's music we might well
find the play of dualities of meaning that take on different faces simply by
virtue of the person who listens and relates to them in her/his own way, but
these listeners, interpreters and music also write and are written upon in the
fields of social practice.55 Acts of appropriation and theory construction can be
revolutionary when done self-consciously, and thus `separation of the political
from the non-political may be more a matter of degree than of kind' (Kielian-
Gilbert 1997, p. 275).
Ambiguity or alternative interpretations in the sphere of listening and
analysis are not simply a breeding ground for an apparent postmodern

disregard of ethical or interpretative grounding. Particular contexts shape our

musical perceptions and descriptions by drawing out different values of music.
Observations may be persuasive or have validity from particular perspectives
(interpretative selectivity). Similarly, music may present many values, and
particular interpretations may respond to some of those values and not to
others (interpretative incompleteness/gaps). It is thus helpful to examine which
values play a role in our perceptions.56
*
In the debate between Schenker and von Cube that Drabkin narrates, in the
temporal differentiations that Dubiel describes, and in the tonic-dominant
oscillations of Chopin's D[ major Prelude that I have examined, the `sounds' of
alternative musical contexts or of interrelating prolongational and translational
interpretations are evident. Such interactive contacts have significant potential
to shape alternative hearings and stories; they do not simply muddy the `will of
the tones'.
Interpretative positions may draw on or work from assumptions of
`normative' conception(s) of tonal structure.57 Rose Subotnik argues that,
although problematic, interpreting the tonality of classical music as a ùniversal
norm' furthers the sense in which relations and distinctions between style and
structure can be manipulated:
With Mozart and especially Haydn, however, it is often possible to entertain the
illusion that the empirical particularity and arbitrariness of style have been
integrated seamlessly with the universal necessity of an abstract musical
structure, so that one could momentarily believe that the style is the structure
and that for this music, stylistic understanding (the stylistic perception or, in a
sense, the apprehension of structure as a surface) and structural understanding
(the understanding of structural meaning or the apprehension of internal
structural connections) are identical. (Subotnik 1991, p. 118)
But Subotnik also stresses that conceptualisations of music and its structures
are deeply embedded in social-cultural-personal practices and processes of
construction and interpretation (a position evident in the epigraph by Barthes
at the beginning of this article). Different possibilities of social and musical
engagement materialise in the forces of embedded and successive (repeated)
musical relationships. And interactions of the tonal processes of prolongation
and translation, of sonority (style) and structure, have particular analytical,
pragmatic and political implications, and significantly project markedly
different experiential effects.
The variable orientations and interactions of harmonic oscillation and
thematic repetition, and of prolongational and translational parallelism, offer
different ways of experiencing and construing the particular effects of temporal

function and theoretical (in)determinacy. Situations of harmonic oscillation ±

in which the relative priority of initial and concluding structural functions
changes (as in the Chopin Prelude) ± call attention to the varying effects of
temporal translation on prolongation, and between thematic restatement and
harmonic function. Issues of syntactic depth and semantic meaning are not
separate from social-cultural narratives; indeed, they shape and are the
products of such narratives. Reconceiving their connections and interactions is,
in fact, part of understanding and enlivening music's narratives and its
potential to resonate and touch our times and our lives.
NOTES
1. I am grateful to Joseph Dubiel for framing our discussion in these terms at one
point in our comparison of alternative readings of Mozart's K. 421. I also want to
thank Elizabeth Sayrs and Joseph Dubiel for their insightful comments on an
earlier version of this article.
2. For a discussion of how left-to-right (linear, horizontal) and back-to-front
(depth, spatial) metaphors align with different emphases of vertical and
horizontal dimensions of tonality in the theoretical positions of four theorists ±
Marx, Riemann, Schenker and Reti ± see Ìnstitutional Values: Beethoven and
the Theorists', in Burnham 1995, pp. 66±111. Burnham regards the tension of
Schenker's juxtaposing the `left-to-right coherence of the Beethovenian motive-
as-seed . . . with something like the background-to-foreground coherence of
Schenker's later theory' as crucial to the historical development of Schenker's
theory of tonality (ibid., p. 93).
In his review of Christopher Hasty's Meter as Rhythm (1997), Arnold Whittall
calls attention to Hasty's explicit foregrounding of processive (temporal) experience
and emphasis on projection as a mode of perception. Significantly, Whittall argues
that theorising about listening is not simply an alternative or superior to theorising
about reflection, but à necessary complement to it' (Whittall 1999, p. 360). In so
doing, he seeks to redress the problem of an asymmetrical weighting of either
processive (left-to-right, linear) or reflective (back-to-front, conceptual) hearing.
He thus calls attention to the `conceptual minefield which attempts to separate
process from product can create' (the problematic separation of process and product
of which Hasty is also well aware). For Hasty, Whittall argues, `the challenge of
working with the opposition between process, conceived as something which is
``presently going on'', and in which ``nothing is ever fixed'', and the familiar
territory of structure as ``product'' is entirely in keeping with a modern spirit of
intellectual enquiry and aesthetic curiosity' (ibid., p. 363).
3. This orientation is indebted to Chapter 4, Ànalytic Fallout', of Benjamin Boretz,
Meta-Variations: Studies in the Foundations of Musical Thought (New York:
Open Space, 1995). Boretz construes determinacy as syntactic depth. Ìn fact the
Schenkerian notion is not denied but explicated by my characterization; for the
notion here is just that the ``levels'' constitute ± each individual level as well as all
the levels collectively ± a model of (all) the distinguishable data of the composition,

such that each level specifies a particular degree of (and kind of) determinacy for
that data' (p. 201). `[T]o be a ``thing'' in music is just to be a determinate
structure of determinable differences among observable aspects of elements and
events, the extent of particularity to which anything is a musical thing depends on
the extent to which, and the number of levels on which, not only the fact of
difference, but also the nature of difference and the degree of difference (in that
order) are cognitively determinable through perception' (p. 358).
4. See Walter J. Moore. Physical Chemistry, 3rd edn. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1962), pp. 481±2. John Cage explored different sides of (in)deter-
minacy to mean: actions to bring about an unforseen situation, an absence of
hierarchy, or an awareness of the relatedness of all things and beings (and to
suggest that `this complexity is more evident when it is not over-simplified by an
idea of relationship in one person's mind' (John Cage, Ìndeterminacy (1959)', in
Silence (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), p. 260). See also
`Composition as Process, II, Indeterminacy', in Silence, pp. 35±40 (esp. p. 36);
and Richard Kostelanetz, John Cage (ex)plain(ed) (New York: Schirmer, 1996),
pp. 79±82 (esp. p. 81).
5. Kofi Agawu (1994) includes a bibliography of work by various writers on
ambiguity in music. He supports the paradoxical claim that within the confines of
an explicit music theory `the concept of ambiguity is meaningless' (ibid., p. 88).
His focus, however, is on how the confines of a theory direct and dictate the
rendering of listeners' perceptions of tonal music. He does not explore how
plausible readings in different (non-simultaneous) time frames might describe the
`fusion' of particular musical effects in a passage, or the ways that musical
presentations can make the constraints of a theory problematic.
6. See Dubiel 1994, p. 96. Various definitions of prolongation have also been proposed
by such theorists as Joseph Straus (1987), Carl Schachter (1990), Allen Forte and
Steven Gilbert (1982) and Richard Littlefield and David Neumeyer (1992).
7. Consider hearing, for example, the progressions in Debussy's PreÂlude `BruyeÁres'
(Book 2, No. 5) in relation to a strict Schenkerian harmonic paradigm, in contrast
to allowing different formal areas or pitch repetitions to dictate or constrain the
emphasis. It is likely that such a hearing would differ from Felix Salzer's analysis.
One can thus hear `progression' against the changes and emphases of section,
register or formal relationships. Even in more conventional tonal situations such
emphases can be variously employed, though the usual tendency is to construe
voice-leading events in a closer, mutually `characterising' relationship with those
of formal design. See Felix Salzer, Structural Hearing, Vol. 2 (New York: Dover,
1952), Debussy, `BruyeÁres', Ex. 478, pp. 252±5.
8. The dotted quaver/semiquaver upbeat gestures of the inner parts (violin 2 and
viola) that lead to bar 2, as well as to bars 4, 6 and 8 (in the cello), render bars 2, 4,
6 and 8 as hypermetric downbeats. This hearing lends support to reading 1c (the
effect of an extended six-four/five-three dominant in bars 8±9), or to reading 1e
(the effect of an extended tonic via a pre-dominant in bars 7±9). In contrast, the
dotted quaver/semiquaver upbeat gestures of violin 1 that lead to bars 1 and 3, as
well as to bars 5 and 7, render bars 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 as hypermetric downbeats.

This correlates with reading 1b (the effect of an extended tonic in bars 1±8), or
reading 1e (the effect of an extended pre-dominant in bars 7±9), harmonies
followed by the dominant of bar 9.
9. See n. 8. Metric emphasis on odd bars stresses the parallel fifths of bars 3, 5 and
7; metric emphasis on even bars stresses the parallel sixths in violin 1 and cello of
bars 4, 6 and 8, aligned with the falling perfect fourths of violin 1 of bars 4 and 6,
though supported by chromatic notes (C] and B) in the cello.
10. My thanks to Elizabeth Sayrs for describing the issue in these terms.
11. See Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. òscillation' and `flicker'. The `function' of an
oscillation is described by the upper and lower limits of the reversal; the `fusion
frequency' delineates the lowest rate or length of variation or point at which the
oscillation (or flicker) is not perceptible.
12. Joseph Dubiel (2000) describes `flickering qualities' in the sounds of particular
motions between harmonies. His examples of a `paradox . . . where we have reason
to assert two different and ostensibily musically incompatible prolongational
descriptions' are from the B[-flat minor prelude in Book II of Bach's Well-
Tempered Clavier, the second movement of Beethoven's String Trio in G major,
Op. 9 No. 1, the aria `Dove sono' from Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro, and
Brahms's song ÀbenddaÈmmerung', Op. 49 No. 5. Dubiel also explores the extent
to which such musical encounters serve to transform (and even disunify) the
theory or conceptual framework òver various instances of its application' (ibid.,
p. 9). I wish to thank Joseph Dubiel for sharing this work with me.
13. Rothstein 1990; Snarrenberg 1996, esp. pp. 315±19. See also Snarrenberg 1994.
14. See Snarrenberg 1996 on the latter point, esp. pp. 315±16. See also Carl
Schachter: Ì should like to suggest a slightly different way of viewing back-
ground structure. It becomes self-evident that any awareness of a background
depends on its being embodied somehow in a foreground. And that ``somehow'' is
extremely variable.' (Schachter 1999, p. 314)
15. In contrast to a Schenkerian orientation, Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff have
pursued the theoretical implications of preserving this note-to-note connection
between levels in their reductions (Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983). Also see
Edwin Hantz's review of Lerdahl and Jackendoff, Music Theory Spectrum, 7
(1985), pp. 190±202. Steve Larson discusses this issue in Larson 1997, to which
Straus (1997) and Lerdahl (1997) respond. Lerdahl clarifies his position by
separating the left-to-right ordering of èlements in a string' and the ìnternal
content of an element' such that àt any prolongational level, only what is needed
in that context is retained through a transformational operation'. He speculates
that the nature of an event at a global level might involve an abstraction of tonal
function rather, or more likely, than transformations of voice-leading (Lerdahl
1997, pp. 148±51).
16. Also see Dubiel 1990 and 1994.
17. Robert Snarrenberg develops the idea of effects more specifically in relation to
Schenker's verbal descriptions of music in Snarrenberg 1997. He writes of effects as

conceptual components that angle a perceptual response: a `concept to focus the

listener's attention' (p. 4); a pointer, hint or aid to train a listener's attention (p. 5);
an ìnterpretive disposition' (p. 28); and a `reflective analysis of listener response' (p.
7). A particular effect can combine a set of aspects; he does not examine the
relationships between aspects. In one sense, I am exploring effects that achieve their
particular result because of a tension of contrasting effects, i.e. effects spawned by
tensions and interrelations of left-to-right and back-to-front perceptions.
18. See also Snarrenberg 1994, esp. pp. 324±8.
19. Frank Samarotto pursues a related argument (Samarotto 1999). He contrasts
Schenker's construal of the rapport between deeper levels of tonal hierarchy ± one
that èmanat[es] from background to foreground' (ibid., p. 238) ± with the
capacity of more local rhythmic events to figure in deeper levels of a rhythmic-
metric hierarchy. Ìt is perhaps essential to the nature of rhythmic analysis that
the opposite seems to occur: immediate gestures penetrate to deeper levels and
disturb their stability' (ibid.). This disturbance is often articulated through
`shadow metre', Samarotto's term for metric emphasis in contrast to the main
metre (metre as written) (ibid., p. 235).
20. For example, in their discussion of various functions of the six-four chord,
Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter emphasise `how much the meaning of a six-
four chord depends on context'; see Harmony and Voice Leading, Vol. 1 (New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978), pp. 261±80.
21. Also see the Schachter-Rothgeb exchange on Schubert's Moment Musical, Op. 94
No. 1, in Yeston 1977, pp. 171±201. Specifically, their disagreement centres on
bar 10ff: Schachter reads the upper-line C of this passage as prolonged (with B as
a neighbour note); Rothgeb argues that C is subordinate to B. Both readings have
validity if one understands bars 8±15 as a process of working out an eventual
motion of upper line c1 (bar 8) to b1 (bar 12) as a motion of I to V. At lower levels,
the oscillating process gives both interpretations validity and vitality (N.B. both
authors draw on motivic aspects in support of their individual readings).
22. The ears and neck of the young woman in one view are alternately the eyes and
mouth of the old woman in the other view (other aspects remain the same for both
figures, e.g. the coat and scarf). See Henry Gleitman, Psychology (New York:
Norton, 1981), p. 252.
23. See Rudolf Arnheim, Art and Visual Perception: a Psychology of the Creative Eye,
new edn. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 226±7. Braque's
painting is titled Cubist Woman (Lithograph, 10 14 in.) and can be viewed at
http://www.elinoffgallery.com/braque.htm [February 2002].
24. In a similar way, Scott Burnham has noted that, for Schenker, the `drama of the
Urlinie' is primarily an orientation of delay àrising in the form of potentially
dramatic digressions and retardations of a fundamentally goal-oriented traversal'
(Burnham 1995, p. 90). Offering an admonition to those who regard Schenker's
theory as exclusively focused on delay, Carl Schachter has noted that à knowing
listener judges the sequence of events, in a counterpoint exercise and also in a
composition, in relation to the possible choices open to the counterpoint student

or composer at that juncture of the exercise or piece. Awareness of this aspect of

the Schenkerian enterprise serves as a corrective of the prevalent but mistaken
opinion that Schenkerian analysis concentrates exclusively on a retrospective
view of music without taking into account a moment-by-moment perspective.'
Carl Schachter writing to the SMT discussion list (submitted by Stephen
Slottow, 18 September 2000); see http://www.societymusictheory.org/smt/
25. Pieter van den Toorn has noted that a `retreat' to deeper levels of abstraction may
be necessary to place more `determinate' readings in relief. See his discussion of
motive in Music, Politics, and the Academy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1995), pp. 111 and 124. See also my rejoinder to include the specificity of
categorisations as products of human motivation in Kielian-Gilbert 1997.
26. Scherzinger explores hearings `suspended between alternatives' as having
subversive and potentially political consequences in his analysis and discussion
of progression and motivic patterns in the Adagio movement. He relates the
ìndecisions' to departures from syntactical norms or stylistic conventions after
the work of Dubiel (1994). See Scherzinger 1999 and 2002. Of the opening of the
Adagio, Scherzinger writes: `But not letting one interpretation trump the other is
also subversive . . . And is this not a way of making those codes leak by pervading
our ears with every minority; with every detail and mutation . . . What is
subversive about this kind of hearing is that it marks, and becomes fascinated by,
those musical moments that reflect something that is out of kilter with what is
readily apparent as a syntactical norm or as a stylistic convention of the piece . . .
These are moments that veer away from having the value of archetypes; moments
that resist crystallizing into sedimented generality . . . moments that proliferate,
not reduce, laws of combination' (Scherzinger 2002, p. 145).
In contrast, John Rothgeb emphasises the value of prioritising readings
resulting from different orientations (e.g. `pitch-to-rhythm' v. `rhythm-to-pitch'
interpretations): Ìn several examples of competing and even conflicting
associations it may be in order to hear both associations . . . but to assign priority
to one of them.' (Rothgeb 1997, p. 183) `The norm in art music, however, is
saturation of the musical surface with associations that are ``genuine'' (rather than
``spurious'' . . .) and that compete, each of them with some degree of legitimacy
for the ear's attention' (ibid., p. 184). Despite this situation, `the ear' may be `too
easily seduced' or `distracted' from apprehending relationships that ènric[h] the
content': à different association will elude the ear that is too easily seduced by the
first one . . . distrac[ting] the ear from a relationship that enriches the content
vastly more than it alone could possibly do' (ibid.). Rothgeb appears to position
`the ear' between relationships of `content' and relationships that `distract' or
`seduce'.
27. The issue of requiring a normative (single, best) reading in Schenkerian analysis
has consequences beyond the pragmatic questions considered in this essay. See,
for example, Littlefield and Neumeyer (1992), where they show how Schenkerian
readings can be directed or angled so as to `narrate' different things about a
musical passage, giving priority to particular musical features, as for example,
framing beginning and end, register, inner lines. This àngling' is made possible
by their reconceptualising the Ursatz as a middleground phenomenon. They also

stress that the choice of what to read in a musical passage is contingent and
contextual.
28. See Schenker's analysis of Chopin's `Revolutionary' EÂtude in C minor, Op. 10
No. 12 in Schenker 1969, pp. 54±5 and Schenker 1979, Fig. 12. This gives rise to
varying interpretations as to where the `point of interruption' occurs, with the
articulation of the dividing dominant or at the end of the prolongational extension
of that dominant (and thus with varying practices of positioning the double
solidus marks (//) in a sketch to signal the interruption).
29. This correlates with the practice of omitting repeated passages in Schenkerian
sketches.
30. The distinction between successive translation in linear time and conceptually
embedded patterns can have other ramifications as well. Consider Edward T.
Cone's analysis of èquilibrium' in the first movement of Stravinsky's Symphony
in C (Cone 1963) where he distinguishes between contrasting types of perceptions
and orientations. Rhythmic segments articulate a symmetry of axially
complementary pairs balancing the temporal units of the introduction (x) and
exposition (y) around those of the development (z), recapitulation (y) and coda
(x): x-y-z-y-x. These temporal spans are complemented by a scheme of transla-
tional symmetry (parallelism), a presentation of corresponding thematic units
balanced through repetition and restatement. A similar distinction informs my
analysis of the first movement of Stravinsky's Octet; see Kielian-Gilbert 1991.
31. The terms `pattern' and `copy' are drawn from Burkhart 1978.
32. Patrick McCreless examines the expressive effects of semitone relations, asking if
motion by a semitone is transpositional (translational in the context of this article)
or prolongational (i.e. transpositional but within a prolongational framework). He
suggests that often we can hear them either way, in chromatic (symmetrical) or
tonal (asymmetrical) space. See McCreeless 1996.
33. For an example of this interaction, see the analysis of Clara Schumann, Romance
No. 1, Op. 21 (1853) in Kielian-Gilbert 2000.
34. See Cadwallader 1990. This reading also appears in Cadwallader and GagneÂ,
1998, pp. 266±70. See also Carl Schachter's analysis of the same piece in
Schachter 1995. Their interpretations of these passages are notably similar, and
contrast with those I present here.
35. In showing the deeper 5-6 exchanges of these passages, the readings by
Cadwallader and GagneÂ (1998) and Schachter (1999) highlight the recurring
motivic references to the voice-leading of the opening bars, a sixth moving to a
fifth above the bass, throughout the piece: F]±d2 to G±d2.
36. For an interesting example of how this move towards completion can be nuanced
in situations of interruption, consider the indication to repeat the second part of a
binary dance design. The `standard' interpretation might suggest that the àrrival'
on the tonic occurs within, or towards the end of, the first statement of the B
section (disregarding the impact and implications of the repeat). However, in
Beethoven's Scherzo movement from the Piano Sonata in D major, Op. 28, the

repeat of the B section of the Scherzo poses the issue of hearing different
interpretations (roles) of the `tonic' harmony. In the first statement of the B
section the àrrival' of the concluding D major tonic can be reinterpreted in
retrospect (undercut) as a potential extension or anticipation of the D six-five
harmony at the beginning of the restated B section and thus as continuing the
`span of implication' of the dividing dominant from the first section through to
the final tonic of the B section upon its second statement.
37. Richard Cohn (1992) and Carl Schachter (1990) have also discussed the
implications of conflicting or contradictory groupings of melodic lines and
motives in Schenkerian practice. For example, Schachter similarly describes the
different possible harmonic contexts of a descending fourth.
38. A famous case in point is Schenker's analysis of the C] of bar 2 of the second song
from Schumann's Dichterliebe, Op. 48 as a consonant passing note connecting
IV±V. This song is discussed by Drabkin (1996), Dubiel (1990), Forte (1977),
Kerman (1994) and Neumeyer (1982). Arthur Komar, in his critical edition of
Dichterliebe (New York: Norton, 1971) argues against Schenker's interpretation
(see pp. 70±73), as does Forte, albeit in different ways.
39. In contrast to positions advocated by Straus (1997) and Lerdahl (1997), Larson
stresses the prominent function of presentational context in listeners' judgements
of pitch stability. In this example, however, the question of whether the octave G
or seventh F is `more stable' depends on how consonant and dissonant
relationships direct and influence the perceptions of specific interactions.
40. Dubiel uses the term abnorm to refer to `definably irregular events that become
criteria of prolongation or succession in violation of larger norms of the pieces in
which they occur'.
41. See Lewin 1986. Peter Smith has adapted Lewin's model to depict different
`tonic' contexts in Schenkerian analysis; see Smith 1995.
42. A Lewin transformation, RICH, describes a pattern that undergoes an RI
chaining transformation of elements such that the transformation of a pattern is
both a transposition and a retrograde inversion of the initial pattern with
complementary common notes: à RICH(s) is that retrograde-inverted form of s
whose first two elements are Sn-1 and Sn, in that order . . .. if s A±C±E[±E,
then RICH(s) is E[±E±G±B[' (Lewin 1986, pp. 180±81). When this `translational
parallelism' is applied to a harmonic context, it can motivate a series of
interlocked, mutually influencing prolongational contexts. For more on RICH
transformations, see Lewin 1987, pp. 180±88. Translational combination may
provide one means of linking tonal (functional harmonic) and collectional
approaches to pitch organisation in twentieth-century `tonal' music.
43. Charles Rosen has noted `the extraordinarily subtle ways in which Chopin
prevents classical expectations from even coming into play . . . Chopin is a
master at weakening the force of his dominant preparations ± when he uses
them ± without, in fact, allowing any possibility of the final tonic to be in
doubt. His technique does not admit any real ambiguity (that is, any conviction
that another tonic is imminent); what it does is remove some of the absolute

sharp-edged contour of tonic definition, and this endows the music with a less
angularly defined shape that allows Chopin's morbidity full play' (Rosen 1997,
p. 396).
William Rothstein takes a different approach in his analysis of Chopin's E major
EÂtude, Op. 10 No. 3, bars 16±17: ìn this instance the ambiguity of harmonic
meaning is especially remarkable . . . here two harmonic functions, V and I, stake
virtually an equal claim to the six-four chord'. Because of the continuation of the
passage (bars 17±21), he reads a tonic emphasis, `the concluding sequence
represents an expanded final tonic'. See Rothstein 1989, pp. 225±6.
44. The status of E[ and G[ as part of a double neighbour-note melodic figure in
relation to D[ and F becomes apparent at this point: the e[2±g[2 pattern arises
from motion from an inner-voice a[1. Also implicit (realised later in the B section)
^ 5±
is the scale-degree shading of these notes in relation to A[ (V): 6± ^ 7±
^ 6^ (F±E[±
^ ^ ^ ^
G[±F) and 1±[7\±2±1 (A[±G[±B[±A[).
45. Jim Samson characterises the `b' section of the opening A section as typically
more regular/periodic, sequentially structured, and deriving generically from a
stanzaic type rather than an aria type of melodic writing (as in the opening à' of
the A section). See Samson 1996, pp. 169±72.
46. This reading positions the B section as initiating a subsequent minor-mode tonic
branch to the interruption at the structural cadence on the dominant that
concludes the A section in bar 27 (interruption model) in relation to hearing the B
section as a continuation or extension of the dividing dominant to the subsequent
branch of the interruption (major tonic) that marks the return of the A section in
bar 76. The harmonic-functional oscillation revolves around the alternate status
of tonic and dominant functions.
47. Presumably Charles Rosen might lean towards this latter orientation: `Most of
the later structures of Chopin assume that a minor key and its relative major are
essentially the same tonality. Going from one to the other is a change of mode
rather than a modulation. This enables him to conciliate his need to move from
closed to open effects with the more orthodox patterns that are largely irrelevant
to his thinking.' (Rosen 1997, p. 398)
48. Among other things, the ramifications of this extended oscillation would argue
against any shortening of the passage: Ìt is perhaps understandable that in this
familiar piece a cut is sometimes made of bars 43±58, but this can only reduce the
poignancy of the return to D-flat' (Thomas Higgins, `Notes Toward a
Performance', Norton Critical Score, Chopin Preludes, Op. 28 (New York:
Norton, 1973), p. 66. In the interpretation offered here, even the issue of `return'
would require qualification.
49. See Abraham's description of the B section of the Prelude as `monastery monks
processing as in a funeral march'. Gerald Abraham, Chopin's Musical Style,
quoted in Jim Samson, The Music of Chopin (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1985).
50. These shadings and implications of interrelated nocturne and funeral march are
highlighted when the A and B sections of the Prelude are featured as off-screen

music in the 1997 film, Face/Off, a film about role-reversal and alternative
identity. See Kielian-Gilbert (forthcoming).
51. Feminist theory has also called attention to the connection between aesthetic
contemplation (regarding texts as autonomous) and the sexual oppression that
derives from practices of `male gaze' in visual contexts. See Mary Devereaux,
Òppressive Texts, Persisting Readers, and the Gendered Spectator: the New
Aesthetics', Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 48/iv (1990), p. 342. Caryl
Flinn has also noted that `the notion of music ± and with it, woman ± so
frequently becomes cast in terms of profoundly imaginary pleasures of disordered
unsignifiability . . . [and risks] losing her and music to imaginary obscurity,
meaninglessness and social ineffectivity.' See `The ``Problem'' of Femininity in
Theories of Film Music', Screen, 27/vi (1986), p. 61; also Strains of Utopia:
Gender, Nostalgia, and Hollywood Film Music (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992), esp. Ch. 2, `The Man Behind the Muse: Music and The Lost
Maternal Object'.
52. For example, in the Fantaisie-Impromptu, the outer sections articulate fiery, and
circular, figurations of C] minor harmonies in contrast to the inner sections,
which present a transcendental D[ major melodic line that articulates harmonic
and melodic oscillations of A[ and B[. In the coda, the D[-major melody returns
in rhythmic augmentation, now in the bass as a left-hand melody. This
orientation of the melody as a `harmonic' bass now underpins the figurative
right hand, and both suggests and suspends a sense of reconciliation between
their previous respective identities as figuration and melodic line.
53. For a different orientation to the reception of Chopin's music, see Kallberg 1996.
54. See Kielian-Gilbert 1999.
55. It is interesting to note that the Internet Movie Database lists 114 films between
1931 and 2002 containing Chopin's music: see http://us.imdb.com/ (February
2002).
56. See also Subotnik 1996, esp. pp. 65 and 115.
57. In contrast, Elizabeth Sayrs argues that traditional Schenkerian backgrounds
denote a `style' rather than a `measure' of tonality, along the lines of Leonard
Meyer's conception of style as a set of compositional constraints. Her dissertation
presents a conceptualisation of Schenker's Ursatz as a particular set of constraints
on idealised voice-leading paradigms; see Sayrs 1997.
REFERENCES
Agawu, V. Kofi, 1994: Àmbiguity in Tonal Music: a Preliminary Study', in
Anthony Pople (ed.), Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Music (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), pp. 86±108.
Babbitt, Milton, 1997 [1999]: À Response', in À Symposium in Honor of Milton
Babbitt', Perspectives of New Music, 35/ii, pp. 129±36.

Barthes, Roland, 1985: `The Grain of the Voice', in The Responsibility of Forms:
Critical Essays on Music, Art, and Representation, trans. R. Howard (New
York: Hill and Wang).
Burkhart, Charles, 1978: `Schenker's Motivic Parallelisms', Journal of Music
Theory, 22, pp. 145±75.
Burnham, Scott, 1995: Beethoven Hero (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Cadwallader, Allen, 1990: `Form and Tonal Process: the Design of Different
Structural Levels', in Allen Cadwallader (ed.), Trends in Schenkerian Research
(New York: Schirmer), pp. 1±22.
Cadwallader, Allen and GagneÂ, David, 1998: Analysis of Tonal Music: a
Schenkerian Approach (New York: Oxford University Press).
Cohn, Richard, 1992a: ` The Autonomy of Motives in Schenkerian Accounts of
Tonal Music', Music Theory Spectrum, 14, pp. 150±70.
_____, 1992b: `Schenker's Theory, Schenkerian Theory: Pure Unity or
Constructive Conflict?', Indiana Theory Review, 13, pp. 1±20.
Cohn, Richard and Dempster, Douglas, 1992: `Hierarchical Unity, Plural Unities:
Toward a Reconciliation', in Katherine Bergeron and Philip Bohlman (eds.),
Disciplining Music: Musicology and its Canons (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press), pp. 156±81.
Cone, Edward T., 1963: `The Uses of Convention: Stravinsky and His Models', in
Paul Henry Lang (ed.), Stravinsky: a New Appraisal of His Work (New York:
Norton), pp. 21±33.
Drabkin, William, 1996: `Schenker, the Consonant Passing Note, and the First-
Movement Theme of Beethoven's Sonata Op. 26', Music Analysis, 15/ii±iii,
pp. 149±89.
Dubiel, Joseph, 1990: `When You are a Beethoven: Kinds of Rules in Schenker's
Counterpoint', Journal of Music Theory, 34/ii, pp. 291±340.
_____, 1994: `Contradictory Criteria in a Work of Brahms', in David L. Brodbeck
(ed.), Brahms Studies, Vol. 1 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press),
pp. 81±110.
_____, 2000: À Program for More Work', unpublished lecture given at Harvard
University (March).
Forte, Allen, 1977: `Schenker's Conception of Musical Structure', in Maury
Yeston (ed.), Readings in Schenker Analysis and Other Approaches (New
Haven: Yale University Press), pp. 337. Reprinted from Journal of Music
Theory, 3/i (1959), pp. 1±30.
Forte, Allen and Gilbert, Stephen E., 1982: Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis
(New York: Norton).
Horner, Bruce, 1998: Òn the Study of Music as Material Social Practice', Journal
of Musicology, 16/ii, pp. 159±99.
Kallberg, Jeffrey, 1996: Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History, and Musical Genre
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Kerman, Joseph, 1994: `How We Got Into Analysis, and How To Get Out', in
Write All These Down: Essays on Music (Berkeley: University of California
Press), pp. 12±32.
Kielian-Gilbert, Marianne C., 1991: `Stravinsky's Contrasts: Contradiction and
Discontinuity in his Neoclassic Music', Journal of Musicology, 9/iv, pp. 448±80.
_____, 1997: Ìnvoking Motives and Immediacy: Foils and Contexts for Pieter C.
van den Toorn's Music, Politics, and the Academy', 19th-Century Music, 20/iii,
pp. 253±78.
_____, 1999: Òn Rebecca Clarke's Sonata for Viola and Piano: Feminine Spaces and
Metaphors of Reading', in Elaine Barkin and Lydia Hamessley (eds.), Audible
Traces: Gender, Identity, and Music (Zurich: Carciofoli Press), pp. 71±114.
_____, 2000: `The Woman in the Music (Feminism as Theory and Practice)',
College Music Symposium, 40, pp. 62±78. This essay can also be accessed at the
CMS website: http://www.music.org/ProfActiv/Pubs/Sym/Vol40/articles/
Kielian-Gilbert.html
_____, forthcoming: `Chopiniana and Music's Contextual Allusions', in Halina
Goldberg (ed.), The Age of Chopin: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), pp. 162±99.
Larson, Steve, 1997: `The Problem of Prolongation in Tonal Music: Terminology,
Perception, and Expressive Meaning', Journal of Music Theory, 41/i, pp. 101±36.
Lerdahl, Fred, 1997: Ìssues in Prolongational Theory: a Response to Larson',
Journal of Music Theory, 41/i, pp. 141±55.
Lerdahl, Fred and Jackendoff, Ray, 1983: A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Lewin, David, 1986: `Music Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes of Perception',
Music Perception, 3/iv, pp. 327±92.
_____, 1987: Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations (New Haven: Yale
University Press).
Littlefield, Richard and Neumeyer, David, 1992: `Rewriting Schenker: Narrative,
History, Ideology', Music Theory Spectrum, 14/i, pp. 38±65. Reprinted in
Adam Krims (ed.), Music/Ideology: Resisting the Aesthetic (Amsterdam: G+B
Arts International, 1998).
McClary, Susan, 1988: `The Undoing of Opera: Toward a Feminist Criticism of
Music', foreword to Catherine CleÂment, Opera, or the Undoing of Women,
trans. Betsy Wing (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
McCreless, Patrick, 1996: Àn Evolutionary Perspective on Nineteenth-Century
Semitonal Relations', in William Kinderman and Harald Krebs (eds.), The
Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality (Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press), pp. 87±113.
Neumeyer, David, 1982: Òrganic Structure and the Song Cycle: Another Look at
Schumann's Dichterliebe', Music Theory Spectrum, 4, pp. 92±105.
Neumeyer, David and Tepping, Susan, 1992: A Guide to Schenkerian Analysis

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Proctor, Gregory A. and Riggins, H. Lee, 1989: À Schenker Pedagogy', Journal of
Music Theory Pedagogy, 3/i, pp. 1±24.
Rosen, Charles, 1997: review of John Rink and Jim Samson (eds.), Chopin Studies
2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), Music Analysis, 16/iii,
pp. 392±9.
Rothgeb, John, 1997: `Salient Features', in James Baker, David Beach and
Jonathan Bernard (eds.), Music Theory in Concept and Practice (Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press), pp. 181±96.
Rothstein, William, 1989: Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music (New York: Schirmer).
_____, 1990a: `The Americanization of Heinrich Schenker', in Hedi Siegel (ed.),
Schenker Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 192±203.
_____, 1990b: `Letter to the Editor: ``The Americanization of Schenker
Pedagogy?'' ', Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 4/ii, pp. 295±300.
_____, 1990c: `Rhythmic Displacement and Rhythmic Normalization', in Allen
Cadwallader (ed.), Trends in Schenkerian Research (New York: Schirmer),
pp. 87±113.
Samarotto, Frank, 1999: `Strange Dimensions: Regularity and Irregularity in Deep
Levels of Rhythmic Reduction', in Carl Schachter and Hedi Siegel (eds.),
Schenker Studies 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 222±38.
Samson, Jim, 1996: Chopin (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Sayrs, Elizabeth, 1997: Àpproaches to Wolf: Schenker, Transformation,
Function' (Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University).
Schachter, Carl., 1990: Èither/Or', in Hedi Siegel (ed.), Schenker Studies
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 165±79.
_____, 1995: `The Triad as Place and Action', Music Theory Spectrum, 17/ii,
pp. 149±69.
_____, 1999: `Structure as Foreground: ``das Drama des Ursatzes'' ', in Carl
Schachter and Hedi Siegel (ed.), Schenker Studies 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), pp. 298±314.
_____, 2001: Èlephants, Crocodiles, and Beethoven: Schenker's Politics and the
Pedagogy of Schenkerian Analysis', Theory and Practice, 26, pp. 1±20.
Schenker, Heinrich, 1969: Five Graphic Music Analyses (New York: Dover).
_____, 1973: Harmony, ed. Oswald Jonas, trans. Elisabeth Mann Borgeses
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1973).
_____, 1979: Free Composition, trans. and ed. Ernst Oster (New York: Longman).
Scherzinger, Martin, 1999: `Line, Rhythm, and a Motivic Detail in Mozart's Piano
Sonata in F major (K. 280), Adagio', Indiana Theory Review, 20/i, pp. 71±89.
_____, 2002: `Feminine/Feminist? In Quest of Names with No Experiences (Yet)',
in Judy Lochhead and Joseph Auner (ed.), Postmodern Music/Postmodern
Thought (New York: Routledge), pp. 141±76.
Smith, Peter, 1995: `Structural Tonic or Apparent Tonic?: Parametric Conflict,

Temporal Perspective, and a Continuum of Articulative Possibilities', Journal

of Music Theory, 39/ii, pp. 245±83.
Snarrenberg, Robert, 1994: `Competing Myths: the American Abandonment of
Schenker's Organicism', in Anthony Pople (ed.), Theory, Analysis and
Meaning in Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
_____, 1996: `The Art of Translating Schenker: a Commentary on The Masterwork
in Music, Vol. 1', Music Analysis, 15/ii±iii, pp. 301±42.
_____, 1997: Schenker's Interpretive Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Straus, Joseph. N., 1987: `The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music',
Journal of Music Theory, 31/i, pp. 1±21.
_____, 1997: À Response to Larson', Journal of Music Theory, 41/i, pp. 137±9.
Subotnik, Rose R., 1991: Developing Variations: Style and Ideology in Western
Music (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
_____, 1996: Deconstructive Variations: Music and Reason in Western Society
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Yeston, Maury (ed.), 1997: Readings in Schenker Analysis and Other Approaches
(New Haven: Yale University Press).
Whittall, Arnold, 1999: review of Christopher F. Hasty, Meter as Rhythm (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997), Journal of Music Theory, 43/ii, pp. 359±72.

Interpreting Schenkerian Prolongation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Interpreting Schenkerian Prolongation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARIANNE KIELIAN-GILBERT

INTERPRETING SCHENKERIAN PROLONGATION

[Chopin's] replacement of implicative or causal classical structures (such as

[T]he choosing to employ the twelve-pitch-class syntax for composing, though

Music is, by a natural inclination, what immediately receives an adjective

Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, Menuetto

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) 51

Fig. 1 Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, Minuetto, bars 1±10

upper line: A A G G F FED EAC D

bass line: D C C B B AGF GAA D

d) RN: i Gr+6 V i (+ suffix)

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Ex. 1a Mozart, String Quartet in D minor, K. 421, Menuetto, bars 1±10

Ex. 1b Extension of tonic, bars 1±8

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Ex. 1c Extension of dominant six-four/five-three, bars 8±9

Ex. 1d Anticipation of tonic arrival, bar 8

Ex. 1e Extension of pre-dominant function, bars 7±10

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

perceptions of the passage. In our discussion it was helpful to think that

Temporal Process, Interpretative Understanding and Theoretical-

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

The notion of determinacy registers the extent to which a particular

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Revisiting Mozart, K. 421, Menuetto

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Ex. 1f Purcell, `Dido's Lament' from Dido and Aeneas

Viola very soft

laid, am laid in earth, may my wrongs cre ate No

trou ble, no trou ble in thy breast, When I am

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

of the augmented sixth (bar 8, as a metrical `downbeat').8 What is interesting is

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Schenkerian Prolongation: Effects, `Objects' and Dubiel `Motions'

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Tepping 1992; Cadwallader and GagneÂ 1998), though Schenker's orienta-

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

The Proctor and Riggins/Rothstein Exchange

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Ex. 2a Bach, Figured Chorale, No. 47, `Beschrankt, ihr Weisen'

way of reference to an `abstraction' of a higher/earlier level? Does the sense in

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Rothstein's reading highlights the melodic `parallelism' and contour

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

In a musical context, one orientation might yield prolongationally embedded

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

hearing. Thus, an awareness of particular orientations and approaches can

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Prolongational and Translational Parallelism

The progression, direction and force of a succession of Stufen (harmonic

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

In a related way, the extension of Schenkerian conceptions of prolongation to

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Fig. 2 Tendencies of prolongational and translational parallelism

Prolongational parallelism Translational parallelism

· projects the `expansion' or · projects identity and repetition or

a) end of repetition signals the a) a potential equilibrium of

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Though mutually interdependent, the two processes have distinct tenden-

Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003) ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

Ex. 3a Mendelssohn, Song Without Words, Op. 62 No. 1 i) bars 1±10

ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003 Music Analysis, 22/i±ii (2003)

Ex. 3a (continued) ii) bars 22±41