Powell - Articulating Time corrected (pages) - CORE

ArticulatingTimeListeningtoMusicalForms

intheTwenty-FirstCentury

RichardLukePowell

PhD

UniversityofYork

Music

September2016

Abstract

This study sets out to explore concepts of musical time by developing two

complementarystrandsofdiscussion,onepractical andtheothertheoretical.The

practical strandis concerneddirectlywithinstrumentalworks from theWestern

art music tradition. Underpinning the thesis are ?ive analytical case studies; in

each, a piecewrittenbya livingcomposer (GeorgeBenjamin, JohnAdams,Hans

Abrahamsen, Kaija Saariaho and Thomas Adès) is paired with a work by a

historical ?igure (Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Beethoven and Sibelius). Emphasis

falls upon the contemporary works, with the more familiar canonic repertoire

servingasa lensthroughwhichmorerecentmusicmightbeviewed.Unitedbya

broadconceptionof formasadurationthatdrawslisteners to engagecreatively

withanorganisingimpulse,thesepieces facilitatediscussionsofbroaderissuesof

aural structure: continuity, repetition, energy and perspective. An overriding

concernwillbetheeffectthattheseperceptualqualitieshaveuponexperiencesof

timeinmusic,andthewaysinwhichthismightenabledifferentkindsofmeaning.

Through this process, it is intended that more ‘dif?icult’ new works can be

renderedmoreaccessible, while familiar ‘masterpieces’mightbythe sametoken

beviewedinanewlight.

Thismusicological endeavourwillbeinformedbyaninvestigationintothe

waysinwhichtimeisperceived.Thissupportingtheoreticalstrandwillsynthesise

philosophical and psychological conceptions of temporality, and their

contributions to subjective perspectives, to provide a framework for the

experiences discussed.Whilst the ‘twenty-?irst century’aspect of the thesis title

serves as a nod towards an emphasis upon contemporary composition, it also

refers to thediversity facingaudiences today.Thejuxtapositionofnewandoldis

re?lectiveofmorerecentculturesofreception:listeninghabitsareformedlessbya

socially-driven system of canons, and increasingly according to individual

preference. This is an attempt to analyse the temporality ofmusical works at a

point when their compositional chronology has perhaps never seemed so

irrelevant.Ratherthanofferingoverarchingtheories ofperceptionorprescribing

speci?icmethodsofanalysisand interpretation, this studyembracestheplurality

of experienced musical time in the acknowledgement that articulating these

phenomenamightenrichanappreciationofavarietyofmusicalstyles.

3

Contents

Abstract........................................................................................................................................................3

Contents.......................................................................................................................................................4

Listof?igures.............................................................................................................................................7

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................9

Author’sdeclaration............................................................................................................................10

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................12 Treesand?lags...........................................................................................................12

Somethingold,somethingnew..........................................................................14

Keepingscore.............................................................................................................20

Mutualbene?its..........................................................................................................24

2. AlternativePaths–GeorgeBenjamin&Mozart..................................................28 Abouttime...................................................................................................................28

Narrativeimpulses..................................................................................................29

Graspingtime.............................................................................................................32

Losingtime..................................................................................................................34 Cyclesandspirals.....................................................................................................36

Temporaldualities...................................................................................................40

Disintegration............................................................................................................45

Timelessness..............................................................................................................50

3. DirectingTime....................................................................................................................56 Clutchingatmetaphors..........................................................................................57

Time,spaceandchange.........................................................................................61

Insearchofdirection..............................................................................................64

Goingwiththe?low.................................................................................................67

4. PerceptionandPerspective–JohnAdams&Schubert................................71 Placingperspective.................................................................................................73

Simplicityandcontinuity......................................................................................76

Discontinuity..............................................................................................................80

Movingbeyondspectacle......................................................................................86

Movingbeyondcontrast........................................................................................89 Formandfunction...................................................................................................95

4

5. PerceivingTime.................................................................................................................99 Objectiveandsubjectivetime.............................................................................99

Orderandconsciousness...................................................................................102

Processingmusicaltime.....................................................................................104

Affectandattention..............................................................................................109

Diversionsandsubversions..............................................................................113

6. DynamicContinuities–HansAbrahamsen&Brahms.................................119 Developingvariation............................................................................................119

Multipleforms–Abrahamsen..........................................................................122

Innovationwithintradition–Brahms..........................................................128

Tracingboundaries–FourthSymphony:Finale......................................131 Findingdynamism.................................................................................................134

Ebband?low............................................................................................................136

Layersoftime–Schnee:Canon1a.................................................................140

Horizontalperspectives–Schnee:Canon1b............................................144

Temporaldimensions–Schnee:Canon2a.................................................146 Shiftingfocus–Schnee:Canon2b..................................................................148

Disintegration–Schnee:Canons3–5............................................................151

Dynamiccontinuities...........................................................................................155

7. ExperiencingTime........................................................................................................157 Perceivingforms....................................................................................................157 Continuityandnarrativepotential................................................................160

Questioningcontinuity........................................................................................164

Dynamicforms........................................................................................................168

8. NarrativePossibilities–KaijaSaariaho&Beethoven.................................172 Surfacebalance.......................................................................................................174 Internalnarratives................................................................................................177

Fulcra..........................................................................................................................181

Insearchofstability.............................................................................................187

Self-destruction......................................................................................................193

Freshperspectives................................................................................................195 Renewedfocus........................................................................................................199

Contents

5

9. UnderstandingTime....................................................................................................201 Formalimpulses.....................................................................................................201

Autonomy..................................................................................................................204

Unity............................................................................................................................205

10. EnergyandEquilibrium–ThomasAdès&Sibelius.....................................209 Symphonicrenewal..............................................................................................211

Symphonicresolution?........................................................................................214 Tonalenergy............................................................................................................216

Temporalmultiplicity:Sibelius.......................................................................221

Temporalmultiplicity:Adès.............................................................................225

Disruption.................................................................................................................231

Attainingequilibrium..........................................................................................234 Sonorityandmemory..........................................................................................236

11. Epilogue:Openendings.............................................................................................242

Listofprimarymaterials.................................................................................................................247

Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................249

Contents

6

ListofUigures

2.1 Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),structuraltable..........................................41

2.2 Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),bars1–16(piano)......................................42

2.3 MozartViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),bars70–81.....................................................43

2.4 Benjamin,Viola,Viola,three-partstructuralplan..................................................................442.5 Benjamin,Viola,Viola,bars1–19(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)..........................442.6 Benjamin,Viola,Viola,listofevents.............................................................................................482.7 Benjamin,Viola,Viola,bars92–97(reproducedfromBenjamin1997).......................492.8 Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),bars94–102(piano).................................51

2.9 Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304(2),themes,bars1–4,94–101......................52

2.10 Benjamin,Viola,Viola,bars98–105(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)....................534.1 Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960(1),bars1–23.....................................................................81

4.2 Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960(1),trillderivation,bars1and8................................83

4.3 Adams,ShakerLoops(1):harmonicreduction,bars1–104..............................................874.4 Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960(1),tabledisplayingstructuralplan.........................90

4.5 Schubert,SonatainB-SlatD.960,binaryformdiagram......................................................93

4.6 Adams,ShakerLoops(3),solocellomelody,bars3–26.......................................................964.7 Adams,ShakerLoops,tabledisplayinggesturalinterpretationofform.......................974.8 Adams,ShakerLoops,excerptsshowingrhythmicmotifreversal..................................986.1 Abrahamsen,Schnee,canonicparingsacrosstheformalscheme................................1246.2 Abrahamsen,Schnee,detuningprocessacrossthethreeintermezzi..........................1256.3 Abrahamsen,Schnee,‘fourmovement’formalscheme.....................................................1266.4 Abrahamsen,Schnee,‘diminishingstructure’formalscheme.......................................1266.5 Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),structuralinterpretationsofform.............................126

6.6 Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),reductionofostinato,bars1–8...................................130

6.7 Brahms,FourthSymphony(1),reductionofbars393–403...........................................132

6.8 Brahms,FourthSymphony(3),harmonicreduction,bars317–26.............................133

6.9 Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),reduction,bars97–104..................................................137

6.10 Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),selectedreductionofbars129–36............................138

6.11 Brahms,FourthSymphony(4),‘twogestures’formalscheme......................................139

6.12 Abrahamsen,Schnee(1a),bars1–6(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)..............1416.13 Abrahamsen,Schnee(1b),bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)..............1446.14 Abrahamsen,Schnee(2a),reduction,bars1–4.....................................................................1466.15 Abrahamsen,Schnee(2a),pianoexcerpts,bars22–23and34–35..............................1476.16 Abrahamsen,Schnee(3b),pianos(bars1–4)........................................................................1516.17 Abrahamsen,Schnee(4a),bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)..............1526.18 Abrahamsen,Schnee(5a&5b),pianoparts,bars1–4.......................................................153

7

8.1 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,formalscheme..........................................................1758.2 Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),formalscheme.............................................................175

8.3 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(2),bars54–57..........................................................1828.4 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(2&4),closingsonorityreductions.................1838.5 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,tabledetailingfulcrashifts..................................1838.6 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(3),bars1–3................................................................1848.7 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(4),piano,bars1–4..................................................1858.8 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(4),piano,bars40–42,(piano)...........................1858.9 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(1&5)violaandcelloopenings.........................1868.10 Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),strings,bars1–14......................................................188

8.11 Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),E-minorthemederivation.....................................189

8.12 Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),harmonicreduction,bars248–84......................190

8.13 Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony(1),tonalleanings,bars284–338...............................191

8.14 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(1),piano,bars26–28............................................1978.15 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(2),bars9–17.............................................................1978.16 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(3),violaandcello,bars4–7................................1988.17 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(4),reductionsofselectedbars..........................1988.18 Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur(5),piano,bars1–3..................................................19810.1 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,reductionofbars1–4.................................................................210

10.2 Adès,Tevot,reductionofbars1–4..............................................................................................21010.3 Adès,Tevot,harmonicreduction,bars1–13..........................................................................21910.4 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,tabledisplayingtempochanges............................................222

10.5 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,trombonetheme,bars60–70.................................................224

10.6 Adès,Tevot,tabledetailingtempochanges............................................................................22610.7 Adès,Tevot,cello,bars65–68,andviolin1,bars92–99...................................................22810.8 Adès,Tevot,trumpetmelody,bars142–44............................................................................22810.9 Adès,Tevot,counterpointmotifsutilisedinbars53–91..................................................22910.10 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,stringsandhorns,bars106–08.............................................232

10.11 Adès,Tevot,reductionofbars302–323...................................................................................23710.12 Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,stringsandhorns,bars500–10.............................................240

ListofSigures

8

Acknowledgements

Iwouldnothavebeenabletoundertakethisprojectwithoutthe?inancialbacking

of aDoctoral StudentshipfromtheArts andHumanities ResearchCouncil; I feel

very fortunate to havebeengivensomuchtimeandspace to explore, well, time

andspace,andIamimmenselygratefultotheAHRCforitssupportinthisregard.

The Department of Music at the University of York has provided an incredible

listening and performing environment inwhich to carry out this study. Whilst I

havefeltveryblessedtohavebeenableto treatitassomethingofasecondhome

forthepasteightyears,Ifeelluckierstillthatafterallthattimeitstillprovidesso

stimulating, sochallenging, andyet sowarmandfriendlyaplacetowork.Thisis

mostlythankstoawholehostofpeoplewhohaveinspiredandaffectedthecourse

of this thesis in a variety of ways. Special thanks go to Daniel March, Mark &

Vanessa Hutchinson, Martin & Zoë Scheuregger, John Stringer, James Whittle,

SarahGoulding, George&AnnieWissen, IanHoggart, Sophie Simpson,Benjamin

Gait,ThomasSimaku, ChristopherLeedham,Daniel Swain, ImogenClarke,Patrick

JonesandClaireMcGinn.

Thanksalso go to anumberof friends,mentorsand familymemberswho

haveatvarious pointsoffered invaluablesupport: David& ElspethDutch, Justin

Evans, Eva Warren, my uncle Paul, my grandfather Pat and his wife Linda,

Maryjane& TonyClifford, CathyDenford, Andrew Vickers, Lesley Smith, Mark &

JaneLewis andallthe ‘redherrings’. Particular thanksgotoPaulDryhurstforhis

friendship,conversationandtea-drinkingcompanionship.

I would especially like to thank Bella Clifford for her constant love and

encouragement, her ability to keep me calm and grounded, and her endless

patience(ifithadlimits, IthinkIwouldhavefoundthemduringthewritingofthis

thesis!). Far from freaking out when I announced Iwanted to study music, my

parentsAndyandCareyhavebeenanincrediblesourceofgenerosity, adviceand

supportthroughout,andthereisnoadequatewaytoshowjusthowgratefulIam.

Mysiblings–Katie,BethandBen–havecontinuedtoinspiremewiththeamazing

livestheylead.Shadow,thegoldenretriever,hasalsobeenever-consistent.

Finally, special thanks go to my supervisor TimHowell. I feel incredibly

privileged to have beenable to rely onhis guidanceand insight throughout this

project.Iwillalwaysbegratefulforhisfriendshipandsupport.

9

Author’sdeclaration

IdeclarethatthisthesisisapresentationoforiginalworkandIamthesoleauthor.

Thiswork has not previouslybeenpresented for anawardat this, or anyother,

University.AllsourcesareacknowledgedasReferences.

ChapterFour containswrittenmaterial and?igures (4.3, 4.7and4.8)taken from

myarticle‘AccessibleNarratives:ContinuityintheMusicofJohnAdams’(listedin

theBibliography).CopyrightisheldbythepublisherTaylor&FrancisLtd.

ShakerLoops–MusicbyJohnAdams

©Copyright1978AssociatedMusicPublishers,Inc.

ChesterMusicLimitedtradingasGSchirmer.

AllRightsReserved.InternationalCopyrightSecured.

UsedbyPermissionofChesterMusicLimitedtradingasGSchirmer.

Tevot–ComposedbyThomasAdès

©2007FaberMusicLtd,London,WC1B3DA

ReproducedbypermissionofFaberMusicLtd

AllRightsReserved.

Schnee–MusicbyHansAbrahamsen

©Copyright2008EdWilhelmHansen.

ChesterMusicLimited.


UsedbyPermissionofChesterMusicLimited.

Viola,Viola–ComposedbyGeorgeBenjamin

©1998FaberMusicLtd,London,WC1B3DA

ReproducedbypermissionofFaberMusicLtd

AllRightsReserved.

JeSensUnDeuxièmeCoeur–MusicbyKaijaSaariaho

©Copyright2003ChesterMusicLimited.


UsedbyPermissionofChesterMusicLimited.

10

Afterall,whyhasanoveltobeplanned?Cannotitgrow?Whyneeditclose,

asaplaycloses?Cannotitopenout?Insteadofstandingabovehisworkand

controllingit,cannotthenovelistthrowhimselfintoitandbecarriedalong

tosomegoalhedoesnotforesee?

E.M.Forster,AspectsoftheNovel([1927]2005,95)

11

One

Introduction

TreesandUlags

‘Ifatreefalls inaforestandnooneisaroundtohearit,doesitmakeasound?’At

face value, this popular philosophical question solicits a knee-jerk reaction,

apparently warranting a simple yes or no response. Nevertheless, as with any

conundrum, it gentlydemandsanexplorationbeyonditssurface. It echoeswider

epistemological enquiriesthathavepunctuatedWesterndiscourses forhundreds

ofyears.ThemethodicaldoubtsofRenéDescartesintheseventeenthcenturyand

the immaterialist conjectures of George Berkeley in the eighteenth, have raised

questions of rationality and sense in empirical and theoretical disciplines alike

(Kantonen 1934, 483–500); even quantum physics has been led back to these

issues when faced with the paradoxical characteristics exhibited by sub-atomic

particles.1 In Eastern thought, the question can be traced further back, with

versionsofitexpressedasconciseZenkōans.TheGatelessGate–akōancollection

publishedbyMumonEkaiin1228–containsacomparablenarrative, inwhichtwo

monksdebatewhatismoving:the?lagorthewind.ApassingChanmasterleaves

themawestruckathisequallycontentioussuggestionthatratheritis theirminds

thataremoving.Mumon’saccompanyingcommentaryelegantlybottlesthepitfalls

ofdiscussingthephenomenon: 'Thewindmoves, the?lagmoves, themindmoves;

Allhavemissedit. Theyonly knowhow to opentheirmouths, Anddo not know

thattheirwordshavefailed’(Yamada2004,143).

Of course, both of these puzzles are neither solvable nor rhetorical; they

cannotbeaddressedinanystraightforwardway.Theleast (orperhaps themost)

thatcanbeconcludedastowhethertheunheardfallingtreeproducesasoundisa

paradox:yesandno.AswithMumon’skōan,thepointofthequestionistheasking

itself and the re?lective journey this provokes. It encourages a heightened self-

12

1 Physicist JimBaggott explains that ‘eversince itwasdiscoveredthatatomic andsub-atomicparticlesexhibitbothlocalised,particle-likepropertiesanddelocalised,wave-likepropertiesphysicistshavebecomeravelledinadebateaboutwhatwecanandcan’tknowaboutthe‘true’natureofphysicalreality.’(Baggott,2011)

awarenesspreciselythroughaconsiderationofabsence;emphasis isplacedupon

the relationships between individual and environment. Above all, this

considerationofthenatureofperceptionis thecatalyst forashiftinperspective:

anapparentlyobjectiveenquiryissoonrevealedtobeasubjectiveexploration.

Thisphilosophicalqueryalsoactsasauseful gatewaytocontemplationof

sound itself, underlining it as something that isexperienced. Itwould seem that

part of the desired realisation is the acknowledgement that sound, as we

understand it, constitutes much more than its essential physical properties of

vibrations in the air. Of comparable importance are the ways in which these

propertiesare– or, in this instance, arenot–receivedby a listener.Whatwas a

factofthematterhas quicklybecomeasourceofinterpretation; a leapfromthe

physical to themetaphysical has occurred. There canbe no endto the different

waysinwhichasinglesoundcanbeheardandinterpreted.Therewillalwaysbeat

leastasmanyhearingsastherearelisteners.Evenifwemightunderstandaspects

ofthosehearingstooverlap, theywillnonetheless retain independencefromone

another.Musicoftenseemstocomplicatethisyetfurther–wonderfullyso.

Conveniently, then, this study is undertaken fundamentally from one

perspective:myown.Musichasbeenacaptivatingpresenceinmylife;theact of

listening to it hasprovedaparticular sourceof fascination. AndIamconvinced

thatit is such: anecessary, creative, musical act. If the ‘falling tree’questioncan

impartanythingessentialaboutmusic,itisthatitsverypurpose–perhapsevenits

veryexistence–might becalledinto question if it does not involvea listenerof

somekind. Eric Clarke–whosework concerning thepsychologyandecologyof

listeningwill provide a theoretical underpinning at points here– underlines the

uniquesigni?icanceofthisactiveandreactivemode:

Perception is the awareness of, and continuous adaptation to, the environment,

and,on the basisof that generaldeSinition, the perception ofmusicalmeaning is

therefore the awareness of meaning in music while listening to it. It can be

distinguished frommusical meaning that arises out of thinking aboutmusic, or

reSlectingonmusic,whennotdirectlyauditorilyengagedwithmusic.(2005,5)

Theways inwhichpeople listen to pieces ofmusic transform and evolve

over time, even if the performances themselves remain ‘?ixed’ in the form of a

recording(thoughevenhereamultitudeofvariables inevitablyremain).Time, as

Introduction

13

shallbeshown,amountstosomethingofa‘constantvariable’here.Musiccanonly

unfoldasperformance(eitheroriginalorreproduced)intime,andmightbesaidto

‘possess’itsowntimeorduration.Butmusiccanonlytakeplaceinthesametime

once; the onward nature of temporality, and the changes that accompany it,

provideaneverchangingcontextforlistening.Hearingsofdifferentperformances,

or‘works’(ausefulnotionthatwillfeaturethroughoutbutnotwithoutscrutinyat

certain points), do not develop inisolationbut enter into a subtledialoguewith

one another. On both conscious and sub-conscious levels, performances inform

oneanotherinthemindsoflisteners, chippingawayatestablishedconceptionsto

enable new aural perspectives on the familiar. This study emphasises these

perceptualnetworks,establishingitsownecologyofmusicalworks inorderthat

thebroader phenomenonofmusical time –anunderlying essential conditionof

music, but one that proves elusive when considered – might be explored.

Conceptual sub-divisions – principally continuity, repetition, energy and

perspective–provideananalyticalframework,allowingmorespeci?icconcernsto

berelatedtomoregeneraltemporalexperiences. Amoresubstantial introduction

to the issues surrounding the examination of time will follow in Chapter Two

(Alternative Paths); in the meantime, it is necessary to establish both the

framework,andsomeoftheparameters,ofthethesis.

Somethingold,somethingnew

Whilst thereare no limits as to the typesofmusic that couldcontributeto these

discussions, for the purposes of this study it was necessary to establish some

parameters. Theonly strict criteria for selecting the tenworks foundherewere

that they be instrumental compositions that fall within a broad tradition of

Westernart-music, andthathalfofthemmightbelooselytermed‘contemporary’.

Whileitrepresentsjustasmallpocketofglobalmusichistory,therangepresented

hereisrelativelylarge;theoldestpiecewascomposedin1778, themostrecentin

2008:a230-yearspread.Here theworks are listedinthe case-studypairings in

whichtheywill appear in the courseof the thesis, with the speci?ic movements

analysedreferencedatthecloseofworkswhererelevant:

Introduction

14

• GeorgeBenjamin–Viola,Violaforvioladuo(1997)WolfgangAmadeusMozart–ViolinSonatainEminor,K.304(2)(1778)

• JohnAdams–ShakerLoopsforstringorchestra(1978/83)FranzSchubert–PianoSonatainB-Slat,D.960(1)(1828)

• HansAbrahamsen–Schnee,TenCanonsforNineInstruments(2008)JohannesBrahms–SymphonyNo.4inEminor,Op.98(4)(1885)

• KaijaSaariaho–Jesensundeuxièmecoeurforviola,celloandpiano(2003)LudwigvanBeethoven–SymphonyNo.3inE-Slat‘Eroica’,Op.55(1)(1804)

• ThomasAdès–Tevotforlargeorchestra(2007)

JeanSibelius–SymphonyNo.7inC,Op.105(1924)

Theearlierpiecesineachpairingfallintooneoftwogenres:symphoniesor

sonatas. These labels immediately invoke expectations within the context of

Westernartmusic(whichwillremaintheprimaryframeofreferencethroughout).

Whethertheworksinquestionconform,develop, reinvent,or reactagainst those

expectations is less signi?icant than the overriding implication that they will

engagewiththetraditioninsomeway.Itisimportanttoconsidertheseformal–in

some cases possibly even formalist – decisions as creative choices rather than

restrictions.Thedevelopmentofthesegenreswasneverquiteascategorical asis

popularlyheld; asCharles Rosen observed, ‘theprinciples of“classical” artwere

codi?ied(or,ifyoulike,classicised)whentheimpulsewhichcreateditwasalready

dead’(1997,xi).What couldbedismissedastraditionandconventiontodaywas

farmorelikelytohaveseemedastimulatingstylisticevolutiontothecomposersof

thetime.Intheirwide-rangingstudyofsonataform,JamesHepokoskiandWarren

Darcy (2006) chart not only conventional procedures prevalent in the late

Eighteenth Century but also numerous instances of individual composers

diverging from these conventions, often to heightened dramatic or expressive

effect. Their understanding of formal procedures as fundamentally dynamic and

dialogicisalsonotableonaccountofitsconsiderationoftemporalandperceptual

factors:

Introduction

15

Rather the composergenerates a sonata –which we regard as a process, a linearseriesof compositional choices– to enter intoa dialoguewith an intricatewebof

interrelatednormsasanongoing actionintime.Theacousticsurfaceofanysonata

(whatwe literallyhear)setsforththesonictracesof thisindividualised,processual

dialogue, one that, from the standpointof reception, itis the taskof the analystto

reinvigorate.(Hepokoski&Darcy,2006,10–11)

Readersmightnotegapsandabsencesamongthe?iguresincludedinthese

case studies. Numerous composers of profound in?luence are not represented.

Althoughtheninemenandonewomanshowcasedhere(thegenderimbalanceis

anotherdeeplydisturbingsideeffectofbothmusicalhistoryandtheformationof

thecanon, but not the focusof thisproject)might easily be thoughtof as being

progressiveorin?luentialintheirownways, theywerenotselectedsolelyonthat

account. Severalothermajor ‘progressives’maintainanindirectpresence:Haydn

casts a shadow throughhis bearingon symphonic and sonata forms; in?luential

?igures such as Wagner and Debussy are palpable in the compositional

developments they rendered possible through their unique approaches; and

numeroustwentieth-centurypowerhousessuchasStravinsky, Cage,Stockhausen,

Boulez, andReicharemade knownthrough their in?luenceuponre-castingsand

re-alignments ofmusical thought.Meanwhile, theSecondVienneseSchool ishere

representedthroughthescholarshipandtheoreticalexplorationsofthecomposer

manyregardasitsforefather,ArnoldSchoenberg;whilsthismusicwillnotfeature,

hisaestheticwritingswill?indaplacehere.Aswellastheseexternalcontributions,

theoretical perspectives will also be offered from the selected composers

themselves.

Although they present aesthetics that are undoubtedly distinct from one

another,thecontemporaryworksutilisedheremightneverthelessbethoughtofas

representativeofwidertendencies inmuchwesternartmusicatthe closeofthe

twentiethcenturyandthebeginningofthetwenty-?irst.Thisoverarchingtrendis

not concerned with surface style but rather with more profound aspects of

compositional approach. Focusing largely on music written after 1980, David

Metzer(2009)framesthisleaninginmodernistterms.Here,modernismisutilised

lessasahistoricalmovementandmoreasacontinuingmentalitythat‘hasastrong

awarenessofitsownprecedentsandbuildsuponthem’:

Introduction

16

Constantly reworking established elements, modernist idioms strengthen

connections with past explorations, thereby creating the surprising result of

modernismsolidifyingthepast,itsownpast.Atthesametime,theinvolvementwith

previousexplorations can yield the new, notsomuch the shocking gestureas the

differentwaysinwhichan ideahasbeen treated.Themodeofmodernistinquiryis

not unlike that in science, one in which an experiment cites and departs from

previousresearchinthehopeofreachingnewinsights.(2009,7)

In Metzer’s reading, the notion of inquiry emerges as a central facet of

modernism, one that is intertwined with the expressive characteristics that he

perceives inmusic ofrecent decades. In theseworks, he asserts, theprocess of

analysingexpressivemodes itselfproves to beamodeofexpression (2009, 23).

His examination of the expressive act is twinned with an unpacking of

‘compositional states’:particularconditionsorcircumstances thatserveas ideals

to be emulated (though, importantly, not simply mimicked) through musical

constructions.Throughexploringstatesofsilence,fragmentation,lamentation,and

sonic ?lux, he offers a compelling case for compositional focus – rather than

material–asacommongroundfordiscussionofrecentmusic(2009,8–12).

Metzerutilisesthisdistinctionasonewayofseparatingwhatheterms‘late

modernism’frommuchoftheavant-gardeworkproducedinthepost-warperiod;

typi?ied by the largely serial styles promoted at the Darmstadt International

Summer Courses during the 1950s and 60s, the latter music emerges from a

stringent emphasis on ‘newness’, oftenseemingly at theexpense ofexpressivity

(2009, 18–19). Indeed, it is themodernistengagementwithpastmodes, andthe

heightenedsubjectiveexpressionthisfacilitates,thatprovidesthemeansbywhich

Metzer seeks to view a diverse range of recent compositional styles – including

neo-Romanticism, new complexity, and spectralism – under the same light:

‘Moving back from the individual details to the larger scene, we can perceive a

range of richly expressive idioms, the vibrancy of which emerges from a

fascination with the immediacy and communicative force of that expressive

moment’(2009,20).

In this sense, it canbeposited that themore recent work utilisedin this

study might all be understood as displaying broader, post-avant-garde traits.

Indeed, it might be argued that they exhibit seemingly modernist tendencies

Introduction

17

throughtheirengagementwithstructuralprecedentsandtheirshapingofmusical

formas avehicle for expression.WhilstAdès’Tevot does this inamore explicit

way through its stated invocation of the symphonic tradition, an emphasis on

contrast, development and dynamism as means by which structure can be

delineated proves central to the music of Abrahamsen, Adams, Benjamin, and

Saariaho.Whileitisnotthe intentionofthisthesis to focusuponmodernismasa

principalframeofreference,itisnonethelesssigni?icantthat itcanbeevokedasa

connecting feature;JulianJohnsonprovidesthemostextensiverecentexampleof

thiswithhiscross-historicalstudyOutofTime (2015),emphasisingmodernismas

a potential source of uni?ication rather than division once it ‘is understood in

relation to the aesthetic mediation of social modernity, rather than de?ined

exclusively through technical or stylistic terms to do with atonality ormetrical

asymmetry’: ‘Whereas theaestheticsofModernismused to dividemusical sheep

and goats into conservative and progressive camps, recently we have found it

more interesting to explore the co-existence and interaction of diverse stylistic

practices which, on closer inspection, begin to show some remarkable

similarities’(2015,7).

Themusicselectionprocessforthisthesiswasinevitablysubjective.These

workswere ultimately chosenonaccount ofwhat Iperceivedto be potential to

catalyseanexploration ofbroadermusical topics. Indeed, it is thesetopics that,

whetherexplicitlyorcovertly,will actastheguidingprincipleofthecasestudies

rather than any intention to provide a set of comprehensive analyses.

Consequently, the range – and the limitations – of the analyses themselves will

vary.ExaminationsofcompositionsbyAbrahamsenandBrahms,andbyAdèsand

Sibelius, will take into consideration the entirety of their unfolding forms. By

contrast, the focus in other chapters will fall instead onparticular moments of

crystallisation:discussionofworksbyAdamsandSchubertwillcentreupontheir

openings and the perceptual implications of these passages; meanwhile, two

periodsofalienationatthecentreofpiecesbySaariahoandBeethovenwillserve

as a springboard for an explorationof theeffect of these landmarkswithin the

contextofthewidermusicalnarratives.TheintroductorypairingofBenjaminand

Mozartwillofferconsiderationsofbothlong-termandmomentaryideas,exploring

Introduction

18

both broader formal process and speci?ic passages that might be thought of as

evokingasenseoftimelessness.

Although the pieces are cast in pairings relative to particular temporal

concepts, they each undoubtedly contribute beyond their stations, enriching

broadertheoreticalexaminationaswellasoneanother.Placedbetweenthesecase

studiesare fourshorter chapters, interludes thatseek to synthesise theworkof

other scholars into a more cohesive navigation of surrounding conceptual and

theoretical issues.Thelinksbetweentheseinterludesandtheanalyseswill often

be implied rather than stated outright; it is hoped instead that they can

increasingly informandstimulateoneanother,accumulatinggraduallytowards a

broaderaccountofmusicaltime.Inconjunctionwiththecasestudiestheybridge,

thetheoretical interludespresentadevelopingexplorationofwaysinwhichtime

is understood in philosophical and scienti?ic terms (Chapter Three: Directing

Time),howitspassing isperceivedinpsychologicalandcognitiveterms(Chapter

Five: Perceiving Time), ways in which longer durations are understood and

structured(ChapterSeven:ExperiencingTime),andhowtheseimpressionsmight

feed into more musicological concerns regarding musical form (Chapter Nine:

UnderstandingTime).ChapterTwo(AlternativePaths)willprovideajuxtaposition

of both strands of the thesis, introducing a number of the broader theoretical

questionsthatwill featurebeforemoving into the?irst casestudy(Benjaminand

Mozart). Meanwhile, taking the shape of a brief conclusion, Chapter Eleven

(Epilogue:Openendings)willconsidertheimplicationsoftheparadoxessurveyed

foranopenperspectiveonmusicandtime.

There are numerous musicological movements and discourses –

hermeneutics, semantics, narrativity, formalism, structuralism and

poststructuralism,tonamebutafew–that,whethernamedornot,willcropupin

discussion at various points. It has largely beenmy intention to sidestep these

largerdebates rather thanto join them; they are sub-?ieldsthatmerit theirown

theses,andcertainlylittlejusticecouldbedonetotherangeofideasandliterature

theyencompasswithoutgrantingthemthefocustheydeserve.Iftheyareinvoked

here, it is only at momentswhen the essential issues of this study overlapwith

principlesattheheartofthosediscourses.Thewide-rangingliteratureconcerning

theearliermusicalworks examinedherewill be treatedina similarway, drawn

Introduction

19

uponatpointswhenitbearsrelevanceto thetopicsathand. Indeed,tothisend, it

isnotanintentheretoprovidecomprehensiveanalyses–inaconventionalsense

– of these pieces; rather they shall be explored with a view to focusing upon

aspects of their construction that contribute to an ongoing discussion of

temporality.

Keepingscore

The act ofanalysing a score, by its very nature, will to some degree always be

predisposedtowardsascribingmeaningtomusic‘inandofitself’,grantingitakind

of autonomy.2 Inevitably, within the performance-dependent context of musical

time, theboundariesofmusicalmeaningmustbesetfarwider, encompassingall

manner of textual, perceptual, ecological and cultural factors. Indeed, as Kevin

Korsyn points out, these factorsmust be taken to form a network of ‘relational

events’ if the dead-end binary of the ‘text/context dualism’ (analyses and

discussionsofmusicthatarelimitedtomovementbetweenconceptionsof‘inside’

and‘outside’thework)is tobeavoided(1999,55–56). Inthissense, itwouldbe

easytocallthesigni?icanceofthescoreintoquestion.Discrepanciesbetweenscore

and sound will always serve to illustrate the shortcomings of notation as an

empirical text. Inhis bookBeyond the Score, NicholasCook expressesadesireto

ful?ill the outlook of his title whilst airing the prospect of an intriguing return,

suggesting that ‘it is only once you think ofmusic as performance that you can

start to make sense of scores’. Nevertheless, he is realistic regarding their

limitations:

Ina nutshell, musicologywassetup around the idea of musicaswriting rather

thanmusicasperformance.Tothinkofmusicaswriting istosee itsmeaningas

inscribedwithinthescore,andaccordinglytoseeperformanceasareproduction

of thismeaning. That turnsperformance intoa kindof supplementto themusic

itself, an optional extra, rather like reading poetry aloud (because isn’t the

meaning alreadythere on the printedpage?).Evenif that isasatisfactorywayof

Introduction

20

2Thenotionofmusicalworkspossessingsomekindof‘autonomy’istoucheduponinChapterNine(UnderstandingTime).

thinking of poetry – which critics like Stanley Fish would deny – it is not a

satisfactorywayofthinkingofaperformingartlikemusic.(Cook2013,1)

Cook’s invocation of Stanley Fish is apt; whilst Fish’s theory of ‘interpretive

communities’ and its accompanying theory of text readings as largely cultural

constructionsoffersawell-consideredcounter-weighttomorecategoricalthinking

(1976, 483–84), it is ultimately his approach to perception and meaning that

provesmost fruitful. InhisexplorationofinterpretativeclashesregardingMilton,

hereachesanopen-endedconclusion:

Inshort, theseare problemsthatapparentlycannotbesolved,atleastnotbythe

methodstraditionallybroughttobearonthem.WhatIwould liketoargue isthat

they are notmeant to be solved, but to be experienced (theysignify), and thatconsequently any procedure that attempts to determine which of a number of

readingsiscorrectwillnecessarilyfail.(1976,465)

Ultimately, Cook’sportrayal (2001)ofthework as emergent in theact of

performance–asan‘interactionofautonomousagents’(2001,192)–servesasa

usefulmodel formusicalmeaning.Scores, thoughtheycontribute signi?icantlyto

this process, will not hold amonopoly in the course ofthis study; the piecesof

musicutilisedherearerepresentedasmuchbytheselectedrecordingdetailedin

the primary resource list as they are by their notated forms. However, whilst

speci?icaspectsoftheserecordingswillattimesbereferencedinthecasestudies,

it ismoreoftenthatexcerptsfromthescorewillbeemployedasasupplementto

discussion. Rather than succumbing to the kind of binary that Korsyn warns

against, it is hoped that this use of notation – as representative of important

aspects of many performances – helps to allow these analyses to be adapted

beyondthespeci?icrecordingstheyrelatetohere.Byextension,thisuseofscores

canofferadegree ofclarity that mightenable the focus of this thesis to remain

uponsubjectiveexperiencesofmusicaltimeratherthanthemoreintricatefacets

oftherelationshipbetweentextandperformance.Whilstitdoesnotfallwithinthe

remit of this thesis to providea detaileddiscussion ofthe natureofmeaning in

music, various kindsofmeaningwill be impliedor invokedatnumerous points.

Thefocuswillnotbethespeci?icshapeofthatmeaning;interestinsteadliesinthe

ways inwhich aspects of the construction of pieces create particular temporal

Introduction

21

effects whenperformed, and theways inwhichthese perceptual featuresmight

helptofacilitatemeaningfulexperiences.3

Althoughthis thesisdrawsuponandis in?luencedbyavarietyofsources,

its theoretical underpinning canbe tracedto several authorswhose approachto

similar subjectshasprovedparticularlyuseful. Several writers inparticular deal

withmusicaltimeinencouragingways.FirstandforemostisJonathanD.Kramer,

whose The Time of Music (1988) provides one of the most wide-ranging, and

comprehensive attempts to unpack the subject. In conjunction with numerous

articlesthataddressrelatedsubtopics(1973, 1978,1981, 1982, 1985and2004),

thebookgoesalongwaytowardsestablishingapracticalvocabularythatenables

functionaldiscussionofmusicalworks.BarbaraBarry’sMusicalTime:TheSenseof

Order(1990)hasalsoprovedhelpfulinthisregard;thoughreservationsmightbe

heldregardingitssubjectiveperceptualassumptionsanditsassertionofaesthetic

preferences, Barry’s written approach exhibits a directness and an intentional

avoidanceofjargonworthaspiringto.ThomasClifton’sMusicasHeard:AStudyin

Applied Phenomenology (1983) admirably addresses ?irst-principle dilemmas

whilstrefusingtobeobstructedbythem,utilisingnumerousexamplesofmusical

worksinordertoofferapragmaticdissectionofsubjectiveexperience.Inoutlining

hisstanceaccordingtothephenomenologicaltradition,heassertshispositionas‘a

wayofutteringmeaningfulstatementswhichareobjectiveinthesensethatthey

attempttodescribethemusicalobjectadequately,andsubjectiveinthesensethat

they issue froma subject to whom an object has somemeaning’(1983, viii–ix).

Finally, Robert Adlington offers perceptive and incisive appraisals of attitudes

towards temporality in post-tonal music, skilfully highlighting limitations in a

variety of approaches (1997band2003). Althoughhis writing is predominantly

theory-centric, hisleaningisundoubtedly towardsanalysisandhisdiscussionsof

metaphor, gesture, andmotion prove pragmatic in their consideration of aural

Introduction

22

3Forfurtherreadingregardingmusicalmeaningandthetensionsdiscussedhere,seeCook(1990,2001,and2013),Korsyn(1999),Almén(2003),Small(1998)andClarke(2005).

effect.4 Additionally, in terms of the wider study of time, Freidel Weinert’sThe

March of Time (2013) provides a fascinating detailed yet relatively accessible

historical survey of scienti?ic developments in temporal theory; its impact upon

thisthesiswillbediscussedinmoredetailinthecourseofChapterThree.

Morebroadly,EricClarke’swritinghasprovedinvaluableinitsembraceof

interdisciplinarity. His book Ways of Listening: An Ecological Approach to the

Perception of Musical Meaning (2005) goes some way towards constructing a

bridge betweenpsychological,musicological, andanalyticalunderstandings, with

its discussions of speci?ic musical works grounded by the ways in which their

elementsmightbeperceived.Acceptingthe‘truismthatdifferentpeopleperceive

notionally the same event in different ways and on different occasions’ (2005,

194),Clarkesetsoutanecologicalapproachto perception, promotingacommon

aural groundbetween individualswithout sacri?icingsubjective listening: ‘Weall

havethepotentialtoheardifferentthingsinthesamemusic–butthefactwedon’t

(or at least not all thetime) is an indicationofthe degree to whichwe share a

common environment, and experience common perceptual learning or

adaptation’(2005,191).

Clarke’sownattitudetowardsmusicalmeaning–assomethingthatdiffers

accordingtohow,andinwhatcircumstancesitisperceived–iscomplementedby

a number of hermeneutic ideas. One scholar who emerges on a number of

occasionsisLawrenceKramer,whosedeliberateavoidanceofstrictde?initionsfor

musical meaning does not prevent but rather facilitates wider discussions

concerninghumanvalues (1990, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009and2010).With

regardtomorespeci?icaspectsofmusicalcommunication,ByronAlménpresentsa

compellingargument fornotionsofmusical narrative that emerge in parallel to

literarytheoriesratherthandirectly fromthem(2008);hisworkfeaturesheavily

inChapterSeven.

Introduction

23

4 It is encouraging that further studies into musical time are beginning to emerge.Although their focus fallsmore upon aesthetic andcultural issues contemporaryto thecomposers andmusicalworks theydiscuss, KarolBerger(2007), Julian Johnson (2015)and Benedict Taylor (2016) number among particularly engaging recent examples ofscholarship that seeks to emphasise the signiSicance of temporality in musicologicalendeavour.

MutualbeneUits

Many of the earlier works in this thesis have amassed a rich receptionhistory,

somefrequentlyconsidered‘masterpieces’by‘genius’composers.Evenifaspects

ofthosehistoriesarereferencedhere, thefocus remainsupontheexperiencesof

theworkstoday. Suchacclaimoftenseems to have theeffect ofsteaming upthe

lens,sotospeak:anaudience’s‘view’oftheartworkisobscuredormanipulatedby

thelabelsattachedtoit.The‘genius’tagsometimesevenintroducesanunsettling

extra-autonomous element to artistic endeavour. At an extreme, Nicholas Cook

draws attentiontoHeinrichSchenker’s assertion that ‘genius’composers do not

speak with a voice of their own but instead are used by ‘the superior force of

truth’(Cook1998,32).

While many would dispute the other-worldly intervention Schenker

describes, thenotionof‘masterpieces’persiststoday intheshapeof ‘repertories’

or ‘canons’, ‘the imaginarymuseum ofmusical works’ as LydiaGoehr termedit

(1992).WilliamWeberrightlyattemptstochallengemodernpreconceptionsabout

the origins of these hierarchies, highlighting the formation of European

pedagogical and performance canons throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries.Nevertheless,heconcedesthatitisthecomposersofthe‘Classicalstyle’

that are popularly considered as the foundation stones upon which today’s

repertoryisfounded(Weber1999,340–41).Cookpointsto theancientGreekand

Roman‘standardsofbeauty’thatinspiredthelabel:‘Thistermimpliedthatsimilar

standards hadnow been set inmusic, against which the productionof all other

timesandplacesmustbemeasured’(Cook1998,31).

CertainlytheAustro-Germanicworksselectedherearelikelytobethought

of in terms ofthis lineage.Consequently, itmightbeexpectedthat somekindof

statementregardingthecanonisintended;rather, thisthesisisdesignedsimplyto

underlinetwopositivesideeffectsofit.The?irstistheresultingfamiliaritythatan

audience may well have with several of the chosen pieces. The transformative

power of repeated hearings cannot be underestimated, even in the context of

inheritedpreconceptions. Indeed, part of the role of theseanalyses is to engage

with engrained expectations that listeners may have. The second is the way in

whichthis bringingtogether ofdiverseworkshintsatatranscendenceofperiod

Introduction

24

and era, a certain kind of ‘timelessness’. Each of the pieces selected here

demonstrates this paradoxical temporality, summarised eloquently by Edward

Saidinhisdissectionoflatestyle:

There is Sirst of all the artist’s connection to his or herown time, orhistorical

period, society and antecedents, how the aesthetic work, for all its irreducible

individuality, isnevertheless a part–or, paradoxically,nota part–of the era in

which itwas produced. This is not simply a matter of sociological or political

synchronybutmore interestinglyhastodowithrhetoricalorformalstyle…There

isalsoanantitheticalrelationshipinthecaseofartistswhoseworkchallengesthe

aestheticandsocialnormsoftheirerasandis,sotospeak,toolateforthetimes,in

thesenseofsupersedingortranscendingthem.(Said2008,299–300)

ApracticalapplicationofthisnotionisharnessedbyE.M.Forster,who–in

hisAspectsofthe Novel – attemptedto ‘exorcise’from academic endeavour ‘that

demonofchronology’, rejecting ahistorical view of literary analysis andinstead

considering great writers not within their own time periods, but all working

togetherinalarge,circularroom:

That iswhy, in the rather ramshackle course that lies ahead of us, we cannot

considerSictionbyperiods,wemustnotcontemplate the streamoftime.Another

imagebettersuitsourpowers:thatofallthenovelistswritingtheirnovelsatonce.

Theycome fromdifferentagesandranks, theyhave different temperamentsand

aims, but theyall hold pens in theirhands, and are in the process of creation.

(Forster[1927]2005,31)

Whilestudies suchas Forster’shaveprovedformativeinthedevelopmentofthis

project, it shouldbeaddedthathisisnotanapproachIwishto emulate. Forster

assumeshispositiontoilluminateintegral facetsofthenovelinordertoadvocate

abroadertheoreticalapproachakinto thatofNewCriticism. Indeed,whilstmany

of the distinctions made by ‘New Critics’ between meaning, intention and

interpretationareworthattention, they carry no moreweight thanmany ofthe

otherapproachesinvokedinthecourseofthisthesis.

The?iveselectedworksby livingcomposers present bycomparisonwhat

might typically be recognised as more ‘dif?icult’ music. Gaining some kind of

standardised, transferrable understandingproves tricky in theabsenceofmany

conventional footholds suchaseasily perceivableharmonic, melodic, andmetric

Introduction

25

hierarchies. Itisthesecontemporarypiecesthattakecentre-stageascatalystsfor

discussionsofmusicaltime.Thecanonicworks,analysedinparallel,taketheshape

of recognisable lenses through which the new can be viewed and better

understood.However,thisisnotanexclusivelyone-wayprocess.Ahoped-forside

effect isthat thenewmight in-turnreinvigorate theold: theunfamiliarrendered

moreaccessible,thefamiliarcastinanewlight.Ausefulanalogymightbefoundin

LesMisérablesasVictorHugooutlinesachanceencounterbetweenthehumbleand

elderly priest Monseigneur Myriel and the newly crowned Emperor Napoleon

Bonaparte: ‘Seeing the old priest intently regarding him, he turned to him and

asked sharply: “Who is the gentleman who is staring at me?” “Sire,” replied

MonseigneurMyriel, “youare looking at a plainmanandIamlookingatagreat

man.Eachofusmaybene?it”(Hugotrans.Denny1982,20).

Thishope–foramutuallybene?icialanalyticalecologyregardlessofsurface

style–iscentral tothisthesis, anditsapproachtothemusicitutilises.Eachwork

selectedherejusti?ies itsplacealongsideitsbedfellows onaccountofwhat itcan

facilitate.Music,atitsmostsuccessful,seems topossessaremarkablecapacityto

actasacatalystformeaning–anabilitytopullinto focusfor listenersallmanner

of things to do with self, emotion, intellect, spirituality, and relationships.

Lawrence Kramer’s eloquent portrayal of music as a ‘dialogue between an

inevitably creative intelligence and an inevitably meaningful world’ seems

particularlyaptintheseterms(2007,29).

The pieces utilised here been selected precisely so that they might be

explored,examined,andinterrogatedinallmannerofways.Eachwaschosenwith

theconvictionthat itwouldnot only standup to testingbut also emergeall the

richerforit.Thereisnodesirehereinprescribinghowanyofthismusicshouldbe

heard. Rather, alternative listening approaches are offered, allowing each

individualtobroadentheirownhearingofapiece.

Similarly,forreasonsthatwilloccupytheremainderofthisstudy,nobroad

theory regardingmusical timewill beoffered. Instead, Iwill argue thatno such

de?initionscanbereachedregardingsomercurialasubject.Inthefaiththatmusic

ultimatelyseemstopossesstheabilitytoarticulatethingsthatwordscannot–not

leastregardingourrelationshipwithtime– itwillbethe?inal case-studypairing

(Adès and Sibelius) that will serve to underline the conclusion of this thesis

Introduction

26

throughitsengagementwithprofoundparadoxesofchangeandrecurrence,stasis

and?lux.Idonotwishto seethisapparentopen-endednessassomekindof‘sadly

unavoidable’situation,asBenedictTaylordescribesit(2016,288).Iamconvinced

that to engagewithquestions like those askedin the course of this thesis is to

become more receptive to one’s own musical experiences and, thus, to leave

oneselfopento newwaysoflisteningandthenewkinds ofmeaning thatmight

accompanythem.Inthisspirit, all thisendeavourasksofitsreadersisanattitude

ofopennessinamannersimilarto thatoutlinedbyC.S.LewisinAnExperimentin

Criticism:

Nopoemwill giveup itssecret toareaderwhoenters itregardingthe poetasa

potentialdeceiver,anddeterminednottobetakenin.Wemustriskbeingtakenin,

if we are to get anything. The best safeguard against bad literature is a full

experienceofgood;justasarealandaffectionateacquaintancewithhonestpeople

gives a better protection against rogues than a habitual distrust of everyone.

(Lewis1961,94)

Introduction

27

Two

AlternativePathsGeorgeBenjamin&WolfgangAmadeusMozart

Abouttime

The temporally-determined quality of music does not set it wholly aside from

otherart-forms.Whilst it isobviouslyaccompaniedbyallexplicitlyperformance-

basedarts, to claim thatotherwrittenandvisual genresdifferdrastically in this

respect is to underestimate theways inwhich they are perceived. It could very

well bearguedthat theytoo areperformed,albeit inanabstractsense.They too

relyuponthepassageoftimefortheirrealisation,evenifcontroloverdurationlies

toagreaterextentinthehandsofaviewerorareader.Thelinearconstructionofa

novelrequirestimetopassforittoplayoutasitisread;thedurationofaviewing

of a painting may profoundly affect the impression it leaves. The entwining of

music and time is, of course, ?irst and foremost anconsequence of the fact that

sound– thebasic component ofmusic – can only be comprehendedwithin the

unfoldingtimeittakesforthatsoundtoemerge.However,Iwouldproposethatis

precisely this connection that can set the most profound musical experiences

aside. A surrender of temporal ‘control’ on the part of a listener can lead to a

heightened re?lective awareness of perceptual time. In other words, a musical

experiencecanmanipulatethe?lowoftimeforitslisteners,providingtheyallowit

to. RowanWilliamsisaptinhisinferencethat ifmusic ‘is themostcontemplative

ofthearts,itisnotbecauseittakesusintothetimelessbutbecauseitobligesusto

rethinktime’(Williams1989,248,quotedinBegbie2000,29).

Itisausefulconstantwithintherichmusicalvarietyofthisstudythateach

chosenworkisnotableforitsabilitytodrawlisteners–certainlythisone,atleast

–intothiskindofengagementwiththeirexperiencesoftime.Indeed,beyondmere

exploitation,thepiecesseemtoengineertime,structuringitinanaudiblemanner.

Thanksto their (largely)?ixedexpressionsasnotatedscores, andtheattemptsof

most performances to realise (or ‘recreate’) these texts, time is in some sense

‘ordered’throughthechoreographedproductionofsound. The ‘musicalforms’in

28

the titleof this thesis refer to this concept of audibledesignand its capacity to

communicate, toactasaspringboardformeaningbeyondsimply thestructuring

of sound itself. ArnoldWhittall suggests that ‘forms might be de?ined simply as

whatformshaveincommon,re?lectingthefactthatanorganisingimpulseisatthe

heartofanycompositionalenterprise’(Grove,2007).Thesamewouldoftenappear

to also be true at the receptive end of the continuum of creation and

interpretation; surely this same impulse lies at the centre of any listening

enterprise.

Whittallclearlynotesthesigni?icanceofthisimpulseinthebroadercontext

of musical reception: ‘meaning is implicated in form, yet not identical with

it’(2007). Itisagapbetweenconstructionandsigni?icancethatphilosopherslike

EduardHanslick have argued is bridgedby aesthetic ideals such as beauty and

purity. Aspects ofHanslick’s formalistapproaches are, in someways relevant to

this thesis, not least his proposal that music be de?ined as ‘tönend bewegte

Formen’: sonically moving forms (trans. Cohen 1957). Indeed, the emphasis he

places upon the organic, self-drivendevelopment ofmelodic material – the life-

forceofmusic, as heasserts – isworthnoting. ExploringHanslick’sconceptions,

MarcLemaninfers that thesemoving structures ‘haveadirect impact onhuman

physiology because they evoke corporeal resonances giving rise to

signi?ication’ (2008, 17). Perceivedformal dynamismwill feature at points here,

withparticularfocusplaceduponits contribution towards large-scale structural

procedures likegrowthanddecay,andconvergenceanddivergence(ChaptersSix

andTeninparticular).

Narrativeimpulses

Attitudes to the role form plays in the location ofmeaning vary greatly. Adam

Ockelforddevelopsanaesthetictheoryofmusiconthegroundsofpalpableorder,

introducing the term ‘zygonic’ to denote patterns internal repetition and self-

imitation within structures (2005, 5–6). Here, form itself might be taken to

promotemeaning intrinsically, pleasurederivedfrom self-reference. By contrast,

LawrenceKrameracknowledgesthesigni?icanceofconciserepetitionandcyclical

AlternativePaths

29

structures within the context of popular music, but reverses Ockelford’s focus

whendiscussing Western classical music, highlighting themanner inwhich ‘the

forceofdepartureordissolutioncannotbeso neatly contained’. Inparticular, he

refusesto letdiscussionoftheaestheticvalueofmusicsupersedeitspracticaland

perceptualcapacities:

Classicalmusicconstantlyputitsclaimsofbeauty,desire,energy,clarity,andsoon

at risk in the currents of contingency and metamorphosis. This willingness to

engagewith the passage of time from something like the inside gives the music

partofitsspecialcharacter.Classicalmusicallowsustograsppassingtimeasifit

were anobjectorevenabody.Time,whichasmutabilitydissolvesthesolidityof

ourlovesandbeingsintoabstraction andmemory,becomesa sourceoftangible,

persistentpleasureandmeaning.(L.Kramer2007,38–39)

In placing these temporal factors at the centre of the perceptual and emotional

experience of music, Kramer highlights further a refreshingly pragmatic

conception of form: ‘One doesn’t listen for the forms, but through them. Form

arises as aprojection ofdrama; the drama is not a paraphrase tacked onto the

form’ (2007, 38–39). The notion of drama is apt; instrumental music might

certainlybesaidtoconveyanarrative,evenifitdoesnotpossessthespeci?icityof

a literary drama. In spite of his reservations, Jean-Jacques Nattiez is quick to

acknowledge the ‘narrative impulse’ – aprocess which ‘operates whenwe hear

musicinamoreorlessspontaneouslynarrativemodeoflistening’:‘Onthelevelof

the strictly musical discourse, I recognise returns, expectations and resolutions,

butofwhat,Idonotknow.ThusIhaveawishtocompletethroughwordswhatthe

music does not say because it is not in its semiological nature to say it to

me’(Nattiez,1990,244–45).

Adapting Whittall’s impression of the act of composition, this arrival at

narrative structure could be taken as part of a broader ‘organising impulse’.

Barney Childs agrees: ‘Man traditionally searches to “make sense” out of

experience, and art provides one means he can choose to do this’ (1977, 195).

However,suchlanguagechoicesmightseemtounderminethecreativeroutesthis

journeycanencompass.Totalkof‘organising’or‘ordering’maysuggestsomething

altogethermoreunimaginative, the implicationbeingof themusicpossessingan

inherenthierarchicalsystem.Ofcourse, formalhierarchiesshouldnotnecessarily

AlternativePaths

30

beviewedinnegativelight; onthe contrary, theyareoften crucial to gainingan

understanding of a perceptual narrative. But to suggest that these systems of

formalhierarchyaresingular–andthatinterpretationislittlemorethanajigsaw

puzzle–wouldbedamaging.Toequateitwiththeactofcomposing,listeningtoois

acreativeact.

Such varied perceptions and visualisations of an experience as

fundamentally universal as the passing of musical time throw open the

interpretative ?loodgates. Paul de Man eloquently outlines the problematic

temporalimplicationsforreadingsofliteraryform:

The idea of totality suggests closed formsthatstrive for ordered and consistent

systems and have an almost irresistible tendency to transform themselves into

objective structures. Yet, the temporal factor, so persistently forgotten, should

remind us that the form is never anything but a process on the way to its

completion.Thecompletedformneverexistsasaconcreteaspectof theworkthat

could coincide with a sensorial or semantic dimension of the language. It is

constituted inthemindof theinterpreterastheworkdisclosesitself in response

to his questioning. But this dialogue between work and interpreter is endless.

(1983,31–32)

The sheer diversity of ways inwhich a single narrative can be read induces a

paradoxical interchange between subjective and objective, boundaries between

general and speci?ic irretrievably blurred. As Joseph Campbell says of hero

mythologies: ‘Where we had thought to travel outwards we shall come to the

centreofourownexistence;wherewehadthoughttobealone,weshallbewithall

theworld.’(2008, 18). C.S. Lewis, in turn, associates thesenarrativeexperiences

withareciprocalrelationshipbetweenthenaturalandthetranscendental:

Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of

individuality.Therearemassemotionswhichhealthewound;buttheydestroythe

privilege. In them our separate selves are pooled and we sink back into sub-

individuality. But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet

remainmyself.LikethenightskyintheGreekpoem,Iseewithamyriadeyes,but

itisstillIwhosee.(1961,140–41)

Largely freed from the constraints that language and visual elements might

impose, instrumental music already lies some distance along this path of

AlternativePaths

31

abstraction. Many pieces ofmusic, even if they were composedwith a speci?ic

subjectmatter,are–inbeingheard–allowedtoassumetheformofmorepersonal

expressionsthatmightneverthelessbeunitedwithbigger,‘universal’ideas.

Graspingtime

Lawrence Kramer’s suggestion that classical music allows passing time to be

‘grasped’ in the manner of a physical entity is indicative of a wider receptive

approachtomusical form(2007, 39.)Beyond theobvious referenceto rhythmic

andmetricalaspectsofperformance,itwouldappeartoconsidermusicalworksas

stretchesoftimethatareinsomesensepreserved–or‘kept’–andreproduced(in,

nonetheless, endlessly variable forms) to express wordless narratives. An oft-

quoted passage inRichard II, ?inds William Shakespeare invoking this idea (5.5.

42–48):

Ha,ha!keeptime:howsoursweetmusicis,

Whentimeisbrokeandnoproportionkept!

Soisitinthemusicofmen'slives.

AndherehaveIthedaintinessofear

Tochequetimebrokeinadisorder'dstring;

Butfortheconcordofmystateandtime

Hadnotaneartohearmytruetimebroke.

With poetic concision, this passage referencesmany of the conceptual obstacles

that face examination of musical time. Apparent dichotomies are invoked –

continuity and discontinuity, linearity and non-linearity, proportion and

disproportion, ‘true’ time and ‘broken’ time – but within a paradoxical

simultaneity. It is these kinds of distinctions that permeate Jonathan Kramer’s

approach;evenhisopeningquestion–‘Doesmusicexistintimeordoestimeexist

in music?’ (J. Kramer 1988, 5) – perhaps hints at the inevitable fallibilities and

limitationsofanysingularenquiry.Heseemswellawareofthis,andhefrequently

takes care to acknowledge both the inherent contradictions and ultimate

redundanciesofthedivisions(1988,58,forexample).

AlternativePaths

32

Indiscussingformal coherence, TheodorAdorno voiceswhatheperceives

as a transformationof ‘crude unmediated space, time, and causality’ within the

context ofartworks from a distant contributor into ‘somethingother’: ‘Thus, for

example, there is no mistaking time as such inmusic, yet it is so remote from

empirical time that, when listening is concentrated, temporal events external to

themusicalcontinuumremainexternaltoitandindeedscarcelytouchit’.Adorno

seemstomakeastriking temporaldistinctionhere, asserting thatempirical time

infringesuponthismusicaltime‘onlybydintofitsheterogeneity,notbecausethey

?low together’(Adorno trans.Hullot-Kentor1997, 137). Certainly, in assuming a

particularaesthetic perspective,manymusicologists andanalystsmightoftenbe

seen as implicitly advocating a particular view of musical time. In this way,

NicholasCook identi?iesa temporaldistinctionas lying at the foundations ofthe

oppositionbetweenwhathetermsstructuralistandrhetoricalconceptions:

Thestructuralistmodelisofanidealobjectthatisnotinherentlytemporalbut, in

performance, ispresented throughtime. Time is the medium throughwhich the

music passes, rather in the mannerof its steadyprogression across the screen

whenyouareplayingarecording inSonicVisualiser.... Bycontrast, therhetorical

modelisoneinwhichtimeisadimensionof themusicalmaterial,sothat(asIput

it)themusicisnotintime,aswiththestructuralistmodelbutratheroftime.Thismeans thatmusic isunderstood tobe inherently temporal ... and equally that it

shapestemporalexperience,ratherinthemannerofamagneticSield.(2013,126)

Time is often conceived as comprising oppositional characteristics. Jonathan

Kramerdescribes themas ‘absolute’onthe one handand‘musical’ontheother,

acknowledgingthepossibilityoftheformerasanrealityexternaltoexperiencebut

promoting thepowers ofthe latter to ‘create, alter, distort,or evendestroy time

itself’(1988,5).5 Nevertheless,hecallsuponthewritingofThomasCliftontohelp

dissectnotionsofobjectivetimeforthepurposesofhisenquiries:

Time is a relationship between people and the events they perceive. It is anordering principle of experience. Thus I am focusing on the time that exists

primarilywithinus.Yetevenwhat Icall ‘absolute’ time(a termClifton rejects) islittle more than a social convention agreed to for practical reasons. (J. Kramer

1988,5)

AlternativePaths

33

5 Further discussion of the dualities that Jonathan Kramer’s can be found in Chapter Seven(ExperiencingTime).

ThoughCliftonmay rejectanautocratic readingoftime,heisneverthelesshappy

toworkwithabinaryinterpretation,notingadifferencebetween‘thetimeapiece

takes’ as opposed to ‘the time a piece presents or evokes’ (Clifton 1983, 81).

Kramer’s apparent evasion of concrete conclusions regarding a concept of

‘absolutetime’proves a concern for JeremyBegbie, who highlights anumberof

inconsistencies: despitehis discussions ofmusic inits relation to absolute time,

Kramer holds that it is ‘primarily subjective’, yet he confuses things further by

concludingthat‘timedoesnotexistoutsideofexperience’andthatabsolutetimeis

‘objective time, thetime that is sharedbymostpeople inagivensociety andby

physicalprocess’. Begbiepoints to ImmanuelKant’s conceptionof temporality as

theformthatgovernscognitionanddeterminestheorganisingofsensedataasa

helpfullyclear-cutexpressionofthissubjectivism(Begbie2000,32–33).

Losingtime

In his book Shaping Time, David Epstein’s summation of ‘dual modes’ of time

outlines something perhaps more akin to a power struggle in the mind of a

perceiver:

One is essentially clocklike, a measurement mode that mechanically delineates

equal periods. The other mode relies upon experience for its demarcation –

experience that is particular and unique. Time, seen in the context of such

experience, isanythingbutmechanicalorexternal;quitetheopposite,itisintegral

tothe experience itself.Asa consequence, it is oftenmeasured, ordelineated, in

termsofthatexperience.(1995,7)

Thisapparentmistrustofclocktime–andthewiderdesiretoavoidanysurrender

to a notion of objective temporality – is nothing new. In his eleventh book of

Confessions, written in the ?inal years of the Fourth Century, St Augustine’s

ponderingoftheBiblicalcreationnarrativeleadstoadetailedconsiderationofthe

experience of time. He questions how we comprehend the passing of time,

exploring duration, whether it is determined by motion, and the ever-changing

regularity of how it is sensed (trans. Chadwick 1991, 221–245). Perhaps most

signi?icantly, he analyses his own consideration of time, concluding that time

AlternativePaths

34

cannot be appraisedfrom ‘outside’; a questioning of time is itself subject to the

passing of time. Dissecting past and future, he observes how dif?icult it is to

determineexactlywhatconstitutesthe‘present’andhowtoquantify it, providing

aneloquentsummaryofitsparadoxicalnature(trans.Chadwick1991,241):

And yet the times we measure are not those which do not yet exist, nor those

whichalreadyhavenoexistence,northosewhichextendovernointervaloftime,

northosewhichreachnoconclusions.Sothe timeswemeasurearenotfuturenor

pastnorpresentnorthoseinprocessof passingaway.Yetwemeasureperiodsof

time.(1991,241)

Morerecentattemptstoemphasisethesubjectiveovertheobjectivemightwellbe

consideredwithinthe falloutofwhatMichaelRofe describes as ‘oneof themost

signi?icant paradigm shifts in modernphysics’: the departure from the classical

mechanics premise of time as de?initively measurable regardless of subject

movement (referred to as Newtonian time, in Rofe’s reading) following the

subsequently veri?iedassertions ofAlbert Einstein’sGeneralandSpecial theories

of relativity that space and time are inextricably entwined not only with one

anotherbutalsowithwhatoccurswithinthem.Thedirectimplicationfortheories

oftimewerethat itcouldno longerbeconsideredanabsolute:numerousstudies

show it to alter within the context of extremes inmotion andproportion (Rofe

2014,346–7).

With evenanobjectiveconceptionof time throwninto doubt, it becomes

easytoviewmuchartandscholarshipconcernedwithtimeasareaction–positive

ornegative–tothefutilityofattemptstoquantifytemporalexperience.T.S.Eliot’s

FourQuartetsprovidesaparticularlyiconiccaseinpoint,theexpositiontoits?irst

poem, Burnt Norton, bearing striking resemblances to St Augustine’s musings

(Eliot1944,13):

Timepresentandtimepast

Arebothperhapspresentintimefuture

Andtimefuturecontainedintimepast.

Ifalltimeiseternallypresent

Alltimeisunredeemable.

Whatmighthavebeenisanabstraction

Remainingaperpetualpossibility

AlternativePaths

35

Onlyinaworldofspeculation.

Whatmighthavebeenandwhathasbeen

Pointtooneend,whichisalwayspresent.

When dealing with such mercurial subject matter, it is unsurprising that the

process of music analysis has conventionally shied away from the Einsteinian

conceptionoftime.AsRofeobserves,‘theobjectofanalysisismoreoftenthescore,

rather thanthelistener’s perceptionofthat score, andtheunitsusedto describe

patterns in music are most often the (Newtonianly stable) bar, tactus or

second’(2014,347).

Itwouldcertainlyseemthat,withinWesternartmusic, thescorehasbeen

upheld– orclungonto –asrepresentativeofahandful ofconstants intheseaof

variablesthatsurroundtheperformanceofawork,apractical blueprint forwhat

might insome sense be seenas an attempted ‘repeat’ofa temporal experience.

Thisdesiretosimulatewidertemporalrepetitionwouldseemtobere?lectedina

moreacutemannerwhentakingintoaccountaspectsofcomposedrepetition:the

controlledrecurrence–orquasi-recurrence–offeatureswithinapiece.Theeffect

of this contained recycling process upon our perception of time becomes

seemingly all the more complex the more it is scrutinised. Repetition or

consistency of even the vaguest kind has a bearing on perceived continuity,

forming a central component of musical syntax. Even discontinuous elements,

when implemented in an extreme or extended manner, are tantamount to

continuitiesoftheirown.6

Cyclesandspirals

Nevertheless,thepresenceofrepetitionwithinapiecedoesnotactasanindicator

ofwhetherthatmusicmightbe thoughtofas linearornon-linearintermsofthe

temporalityperceived.ThedistinctionJonathanKramerestablishesbetweenthese

two extremes, although linked less convincingly withhis conception of the two

AlternativePaths

36

6 Further discussion of tensions between continuous and discontinuous elements, andtheir implication for broader conceptions of form, can be found in Chapter Five(PerceivingTime).

hemispheresofthebrain,offersafascinatingworkablecontinuum.7MartinClayton

certainlyinterpretsitthisway,concurringthat‘musiccanexploiteitherorbothof

thesecomplexes, andthatanypieceofmusicexhibitsbothlinear andnon-linear

features’(2000,24).Kramerassertsthatthesequalitiesarenotmutuallyexclusive:

‘Mostmusicexhibitssomekindofmixoftemporalities,attimesnebulous,attimes

contradictory, at times changing, at times elusive’ (1988, 58). These linear and

non-linearfeatures, hewouldseemto besuggesting,areseparatedoutwithinhis

discussionsforthepurposeofclarity, facets ofacomplex,plural processisolated

anddissectedinturn.

Approachingthesubject ofmusical time largelythroughthe lensofIndian

classical music, Clayton suggests that this systematic treatment ofthe topicmay

wellbeendemictoparticularstrandsofmusicology:

IfthereisadifferencebetweenmetreinIndianandWesternmusicitmaylienotso

much inone beingcyclicalandthe othernot,butinthe factthatIndian theorists

havenotbeentroubledbytheapparentparadoxofmusicaltimeasbothlinearand

recurrent,whereasWesterntheoristshavebeeninclinedtoplaydownthesenseof

recurrence, letalone cyclicity, in favourof a more singularconception of linear

development.(2000,19)

Capturingmultiplicityofthiskindinwithinthecontextofspeci?icmusicalanalyses

proves dif?icult. Tim Howell attempts just this (2001), mapping Kramer’s

distinctiononto themusicofSibeliustoillustratethewaysinwhichthetimescale

the composer employs initiates contentionbetweenmotion and stasis, between

progression and stagnation. Howell infers two closely-derived categories of

musical time: theonwardmotionof ‘linearity’, andtherepetition-basedstasis of

‘circularity’.(2001,40–1.)

Articulatingmusicaltimeintheseterms,whileprovingfunctional,displays

aninevitablerelianceuponsuccessfulmetaphoricalexpression. Nevertheless, the

necessity of this support network has been increasingly acknowledged. Robert

Adlington, points to thework of linguists like George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

(1980)as having beeninstrumental in this shift inperspective: ‘Contrary to the

AlternativePaths

37

7 Martin Clayton refers to, but does not elaborate fully upon, doubtsexpressed by IanCross in a private correspondence regarding Kramer’s linking of linear and non-lineartimetotheleftandrighthemispheresofthebrainrespectively(Clayton2001,24).

traditional understanding of metaphor as an essentially poetic or ?igurative

linguistic device, these theorists have stressed the centrality of metaphor to

cognitionandexperience.Metaphor, inotherwords,rather thanbeing subjective

and indeterminately connected to its object, is often necessary and

unavoidable’ (Adlington 2003, 301). The subject of metaphor with particular

relation to time, space and motion, will emerge as a topic of discussion in the

courseofthisthesis,inparticularinChapterThree(DirectingTime).

The‘circularity’descriptionHowellemploys–‘cyclicity’inClayton’sreading

– appeals more directly to perceptual experience than any kind of temporal

actuality.AsClaytonclari?ieswithinhisconsiderationofmetricalimplications,‘no

musiciscyclical inanyempiricallyveri?iablesense.Thecycleisaspatial-temporal

metaphor used in order to clarify, mediate, andcommunicate subjectivemusical

experience’(2000,18–19).Nevertheless,inspiteofthisprocessofabstraction,the

imagery that different theoretical approaches produce can bear striking

similarities.Claytoncites two theoreticalattempts to addressdissatisfactionwith

cyclicityasamodelformetricalperception.The?irstisVictorZuckerkandlwho,in

acknowledgingtheimpossibilityofanytrue ‘goingback’intime,conjuresamore

linearimage: ‘Since[…] everynew beatdoes bringus to anew pointintime, the

process can be better understood and visualised as a wave which also best

corresponds to our sensationofmetre.’SubhadraChaudhary inher dissectionof

Indian tāla, meanwhile, does not dismiss the visual signi?icance of cyclicity

altogether,but isquicktoemphasise–likeZuckerkandl–themannerinwhichit

differs fromcircularity: ‘Althoughbothhaveroundshapesthecircleisformedby

returning to starting point whereas the cycle is formed by moving forward

graduallyinaspiral.’(Clayton,2000:20–21).

WhileClaytonalsodrawsparallels herewith JefferyPressingwho, within

hisownmetricalstudy, resorts– likeChaudhary– to agraphicalillustrationofa

helix,itisthetheoreticalnotionofaspiralthatisre?lectedinHowell’ssummaryof

temporal synthesis in the music of Sibelius. Uniting his Kramer-derived

conceptions of contrasting linear and circular time within one perceptual

phenomenon, Howell aptly refers to ‘spiralling’: ‘where events appear to be

repetitiveandcircularbutwherethatveryrepetitiondrivesthemusiconwardand

givesitasenseofmomentum.’(2000,90).

AlternativePaths

38

Though speci?ics and semantics may vary, each of these examples

showcasesa consciousdecisionto surmisetheperceivedtimeofparticularkinds

of music in terms of gestural metaphors, each an attempt to convey through

straightforwardmeansaprocessofmulti-layeredcomplexity.Theyreach,itwould

seem, thesameconclusionasEdwardT. Cone: ‘Ifmusicisalanguageatall, itisa

language of gesture: of direct actions.... Instrumental utterance, lacking intrinsic

verbalcontent,goessofarastoconstitutewhatmightbecalledamediumofpure

symbolic gesture.’ (1974, 164). Here, a theoretical connectionbetween practical

soundperceptionandabstractinterpretationisforged.EricClarkeunderlinesthe

rolethat implications ofmovement play inthis journey: ‘The senseofmotionor

self-motiondrawsa listener into anengagement with themusicalmaterials in a

particularlydynamicmanner... andindoingsoconstitutesavitalpartofmusical

meaning.’(2005,89).

Zuckerkandl, Chaudhary, Howell and Pressing each reconcile features of

stasis within the context of a dynamic structure: an attempt to emphasise a

relationship of duality and co-existence rather than one of dichotomy and

opposition.EachexamplealsoreinforcesJonathanKramer’sviewsonthepotential

simultaneity of temporal modes. As with Kramer’s own work, for the sake of

clarity, a detailed exploration of apparently plural musical time will entail an

unpacking process, individual components examined in turn (1988, 58). By

adoptingamoresystematicapproachtorelativelyimmediateandobviousaspects

ofauralconstruction, increasinglyprofoundunderlyingtemporalprocessesmight

beconsidered,buildingabridgebetweenphysicalactuality(sound)andexpressive

abstraction(meaningfulinterpretation).Inasimilarmanner,thisthesiswillsetout

tosuggestwaysinwhichtemporalinterpretationsofmusicalworkscanbelinked

backtofundamental,universalexperiencesoftime,inboththeshort-andthelong-

term: issues ofbeginning and ending, of growth anddecay, of convergenceand

divergence,ofclimaxandsubsidence,ofexpectationanddenial.

AlternativePaths

39

Temporaldualities

This approach can be illustrated through an initial case-study pairing of two

pieces:thesecondmovementofWolfgangAmadeusMozart’s(1756–1791)Sonata

forkeyboardandviolininEminor,K.304(1778),andGeorgeBenjamin’s(b.1960)

piece forviola duo Viola, Viola composed in 1997. In spite of their stylistic and

formaldisparity, bothworksneverthelesshintatbroader, relatedconceptionsof

timeanditssigni?icance.Theyalsoexhibiton-goingdialoguesbetweenlinearand

non-linearmodesoftime, asadualisticcoexistenceisrevealedinthecontrasting

waysinwhichtheirtemporal journeyscanbeheard.Thisbriefanalysiswillbegin

withanemphasisuponnon-linearcharacteristics;morestatic,structuraldivisions

will beoutlinedshowing theways inwhichthedurationsof thesepiecescanbe

segmentedaccordingtoaformalplan.Theseoverviewswill graduallygivewayto

more explicitly linear conceptions, taking into account more dynamic musical

processes that could be heard in order that the validity of the more clear-cut

architectural readingsmight bequeried. Finally, furtherquestionswill be raised

regardingspeci?icpassages ineachpiecethatpresenta‘time’thatisnotsoeasily

de?ined.Here,considerationsofthetheformatlargewillgivewaytoexamination

of two speci?ic parallel passages in both works; these analytical perspectives –

long-termandshort-term–willbeutilisedtovaryingextents in thecasestudies

thatfollowduringthecourseofthethesis.

Mozart’s sonata was written early in the summer of 1778 while the

composerwas staying inParis. Comprising just two movements rather thanthe

typical three, it represents one of his experiments with formal compression; a

numberofother sonatas composedonthesametripfollowacomparableformat

(Bromberger, 2007). Whilst the opening Allegro assumes a conventional ?irst-

movement role, theTempodiMenuetto, as itsnon-committal titlemight suggest,

represents somethingof a hybrid. Although it assimilates aspects ofminuetand

trio traditions throughits dance-likemetreandits bookending structure, itsalso

seems to sit at odds with these in?luences via its subdued, slow-movement

character.MaintainingtheE-minortonicinitsoutersections,thisissombre,highly

expressivemusic, exhibitingawistful,perhapsevendespondentmelancholyrare

inMozart’soutput.

AlternativePaths

40

Architecturally speaking, theTempo di Menuetto displays a circularity of

form: two relatedouter sections inE-minor enclose a contrastingE-major ‘trio’

episode,withthemusicalmaterialdistributedaccordingly (seeFigure2.1).8 The

effect is one of self-contained stasis. From the long-term revisitations of the

‘minuet’ material, to the short-term antecedent-consequent relationships found

withinthemelodic andharmonicmaterial, themovementhintsat anoverriding

senseofcircularity.Adistanceistravelledbutlevelsofrepetitionensurethatthe

destinationbearsaeasilyperceivableresemblancetothepointofdeparture.

Nevertheless,aspectsofthisoverviewbetraysomethingmorecomplexthan

mererecurrence;a‘pure’cycleisavoidedthroughalackofdirectrepetition.Inthis

sense, Mozart evades the structural norms of a minuet with the wider opening

section(A1–B–A2inFigure2.1).Insteadoftwodirectlyrepeatedpassages,heopts

for a through-composeddeveloping dialogue between the two instruments. The

rolesoftheviolinandpianoarenotlimitedbyanunchanginghierarchyofsoloist

andaccompanist, nor arethey presentedas constant equals; rather, a give-and-

takerelationshipissetinmotionwitheachofferingdifferentperspectivesonthe

thematic material. The return to the A-material after C also differs from the

conventional model in which an unaltered restatement of the opening ‘minuet’

might be expected (often literally, with scores utilising a da capo instruction).

Instead, onlyabriefglimpseoftheinitialmaterial is permitted;themovementis

instead curtailed by a looping coda, a consequent-oriented passage that might

appear disproportionately long relative to the short reprise (A3) it supersedes.

AlternativePaths

41

8 Durationstaken from recording listed in primaryresource list(Rachel Podger, violin;GaryCooper.ChannelClassics:24607).

Formalsegment Tonality Barnumbers(total) DurationA1BA2

Eminor 1–32 0’46A1BA2

Eminor/Gmajor 32–69 0’59

A1BA2 Eminor 70–93 0’35

C Emajor94–127dividedintotworepeated

sections(68barsintotal)1’58

A3Coda

Eminor 128–148 0’20A3Coda Eminor 149–171 0’37

Fig.2.1:Mozart,ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,tableshowingcircularstructure

Whilecyclicalqualitiesarestillmaintained,theeffectupontheoverallformofthe

movementisoneofdynamism:thesmall-scaleonwarddevelopmentsofthematic

materialareunderpinnedbywhatmightbethoughtofasaternaryforminwhich

itsepisodesdiminishinduration,ifA1-B-A2istakenasalargeropeningsection.

Consideringthedevelopmentalprocessesinthecourseofthis formaddsa

furtherdimensionto the linear interpretation. Although themelodicmaterial of

theA-sectionsisconstructedinacontained,antecedent-consequentmanner,atno

point does it appear in exactly the same form twice (seeFigure 2.2 for the ?irst

appearanceof the theme). The themes are passed between instruments, varied,

transposed, shortened, extended, and juxtaposedwithdifferent countermelodies

andaccompaniments. Evenatthe outsetofA3 (frombar 128), the returnofthe

primarytheme is found in thepiano part anoctave lower thanitsoriginal form.

Whenthe violinre-joins (from bar 135) it assumes this loweroctave, thepiano

rising to thehigheroctavetopresent themelody inunisonwithits counterpart,

notablythe?irst instanceofafullmelodicunisonheldthroughtotheculmination

ofthesubject.

Thismelodyoffundamentally circulardesignisrendereddynamicwithits

components subjectedto spirallingdevelopments, variationsand changes.Never

repeatedentirelyinitsoriginalform,theeffectofthesethematicchangesmightbe

heardas one ofgradual fragmentation, of anentity that slowly loses track ofits

ownshape.Inthissense,themelodyappearsunabletofullyaccessitsownhistory,

AlternativePaths

42

Fig.2.2:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,bars1–16(piano)

even for a very brief period of time as might usually be expected within a

conventional Classical form through the employment of a recapitulation. Most

notableinthis respectaremomentsatwhichmultipleexpressionsofthemelody

aredisplaced, theinstrumentsdivertingfromoneanother(seeFigure2.3).These

failed returns are temporally signi?icant, their palpable melodic disintegration

suggesting somekind of irreversible linear process that is takingplacewithin a

broadercyclicalstructure.

Cast in one nine-minute stretch ofmusic, George Benjamin’s Viola, Viola

doesnotexplicitlysubscribetoanykindofconventionalstructuraltemplateinthe

same manner as Mozart. Nevertheless, a three-part form is audibly delineated

throughtwomomentsofsilencethatactasstructuralmarkers(thedurationofbar

47andwithinbar 153), facilitating both upwardgear-shifts inboth tempo and

tension.Indeed,eachsectionprovesaudiblydistinctincharacter.However,aswith

Mozart’ssonatamovement,suchevidentchangesfail todispelabroaderfeelingof

stasis.Althougheachsectionexhibitsnovel features,theparallel charactersofthe

outersegmentscontributetowhatcouldbeinterpretedasaternaryformofsorts

AlternativePaths

43

Fig.2.3:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,bars70–81

(seeFigure2.4): two stretchesofunstable, jittery volatility ?lanking a prolonged

outburstofstrident,ferociousviolence(albeitonewithacentrallull).9

TheparallelswithrhetoricalaspectsofClassicalstructuredonotendthere.

As PhilipRupprecht observes inhis harmony-centric dissectionof thework, its

opening(seeFigure2.5)comprisesthesuccessive‘collisions’of‘fourevents’which

hehighlightsinthescore:a‘tuningA♮’(sustainedbetweenthe two violas inbars

1–12); fortissimo C-major ‘triads’ (appearing in bars 3, 8 and 9); ponticello

‘scurrying’(establishedasacontinuoussequencebetweenthetwoinstrumentsin

bars 10–13); and a harrowing ‘drone’ comprising a low E♭ with C♯ harmonics(sustained between the two instruments in bars 14–19) (Rupprecht 2005, 31).

Holdingtruetothisexpositorymannerofpresentation,itistheseeventsthatserve

AlternativePaths

44

9 Durationstaken fromrecording listed inprimaryresource list(Tabea ZimmermanandAntoineTamestit,violas.Nimbus:NI5713.).

Formalsegment Barnumbers Recordedduration1)Vivace♪.=60-66 1–46 1’25

(Silentformaldivision) 47 0’05

2)Pochiss.Piùmosso♪.=66-69 48–157 6’28

(Silentformaldivision) Firstquarterof158 0’03

3)Pocopiùmosso♪.=76-80 Secondquarterof158–175 2’00

Fig.2.4:Benjamin,Viola,Viola,three-partstructuralplan

Fig.2.5:Viola,Viola,bars1–19(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)

to generatemuch of the piece. Themotives audibly pervade the form, and are

subjecttonumerouschangesanddevelopments.Indeed,theopeningofthesecond

episode(frombar48)almostseemstoemulatethatofasonata-formdevelopment

section, the opening ‘tuning A♮’ drone recommencing proceedings but now

transposed to a D♮ and juxtaposedwith harmonics ?irst on E♮ and then on C♮.

Despitethemanychanges thatoccur, thecontinuityofthepieceis underlinedby

therecurrenceofRupprecht’s fourmotivic featureswithinthe closing sectionof

thework: sharp chordal punctuations (from bar 158), scurrying passages (from

bar163,briefglimpsesofdrone-likesustainedharmonics(frombar166).

Whenadoptingaperspectivethatfocusesonrecurringcontentinthisway,

itwouldcertainlyseemthatViola,Viola–throughanapparentrecyclingprocess–

ends upbackwhere it started.Ofcourse, asprominentas the featuresdescribed

mightappearforalistener,thisperceivedcircularityistheproduct ofaselective

interpretation. As with Mozart’s sonata movement, there are two contrasting

impressionsatworkhere:onearchitecturalandblock-like,theothercharacterised

byonwardchange.Movingbeyondastructuraloverviewto takeintoaccountthe

moredetailed–andinmanycasesmoresubtle–changesthattakeplacewithinthe

piece reveals these linearcharacteristics, allowingsuchacategorical view ofthe

worktobechallenged.

Disintegration

InhisexplorationofharmonyandtextureinViola,Viola, Rupprechthighlightsits

composer’s aesthetic to generate interest in musical content, but ultimately to

emphasise movement rather than stasis. He refers astutely to Benjamin’s own

commentsregardingacruxinthemusicofbothOlivierMessiaenandElliottCarter.

Carter’s ‘dry’ sonic environment does not preclude an ‘extraordinary power of

continuity andofcomplexdevelopments’;meanwhile, Messiaen’smusic ‘remains

generallystaticinitsmosaic-likeritual’inspiteoftheextraordinary‘individuality’

ofthechordsitcomprises.TheimplicationseemstobethatBenjamin’s ideallies

somewhere between the ‘being’ of Messiaen and the ‘happening’ of Carter

(Rupprecht2005,32).

AlternativePaths

45

ForRupprecht,thisstrived-forequilibriumisre?lectedinthetonallanguage

of Viola, Viola, with its middle-register instrumentation acting as the perfect

vehicleforaworkthatisnotrestrictedbythetexturalhierarchiesofconventional

bass-centricharmonicstructures. Poweroftenstemsinsteadfromthecoreofthe

texturewith seemingly gravitational consequences for the surroundingmaterial,

controlnowexertedviawhathedescribesasa‘mirror-symmetricinversionabout

a centralpitchaxis’ (2005, 28–30). Inaural terms, theconsequencemightbean

audiblepulltowardsapointwithintheharmonictextureofagivenpassagerather

than a guiding, or often overriding, tonal rooting below it – a kind of audible

epicentre.

An example that Rupprecht uses to argue this is the ?irst instanceof the

‘scurrying’motif in the second viola part (bars 10–12, see Figure 2.5), and the

mannerinwhichthesecondhalfofeachbarrevolvesaroundD♮asacentralpitch

sandwichedbysemitones, perfect?ifthsandminorsixthsaboveandbelow(2005,

32).Themotifis also,notably,constructedfromasequenceoftritonedyads that,

asRupprechtobserves,provesigni?icantforthelong-termplayingoutofthework.

Rather than leaning towards consonance, Benjamin’s tritones prove generative

throughanongoingdissonance:‘Its“willto resolve”isnotexactlyabandoned,but

largelyevaded:tritonesstillsound‘dissonant’,buttheyprogresstoothertritones.

[…] Parallel motion by tritone dominates thevoice leading’ (2005, 32–33). This

unconventionalvarietyoftonalmotionfacilitatesabroaderdynamismacrossthe

piece,withtritoneshapespresentindifferentformsattheclimacticculminations

ofboththe?irst(chordsbindingfourtritonedyads,bars33–46)andsecondformal

segments(abroaderrecurring‘pedal’ofC♮andF♯spanningbars138–57)(2005,

29–34).TheformalchangesofViola,Violaareinthiswaydemarcatedbyrecurring

expressions of a ‘vertical’ harmonic relationship; a broadly static – or perhaps

‘non-linear’–featurepervadesalinearconstruction.

However,perhapsthereisamoreaurallydistinguishableexpressionofthis

duality.Thefour‘events’thatRupprechtoutlinesattheoutsetmightbeunderlined

lessonaccountoftheirharmonicandtimbralcharacters,andmoreintermsofthe

perceived temporal continuum they establish. Indeed, their collision-style effect

might be a consequence of their extreme contrast. Viewing these motifs as

symbolicofapolaritybetweenlinearandnon-linearfeaturesallowsthecontentof

AlternativePaths

46

theworktobequanti?iedinamoreaccessiblemannerintermsofbothsoundand

score.The‘events’fallalongaspectrumbetweensustained,horizontal(continuous

time, typi?iedby the opening ‘tuning A♮’), ormomentary, vertical (discontinuous

time: typi?ied by the sudden, fortissimo ‘triads’) gestures.10 The ‘scurrying’ and

‘drone’ motifs exist as hybrids that lean towards the vertical and horizontal

extremes respectively, with their prolonged patterns punctuated by re-

articulations.Followingthemusicalnarrativeaccordingtoapolarity–andoftena

duality – between these notions of time and space reveals a dynamic musical

journey;thisonwardmotion is enhancedbythe slight increase in tempomarked

foreachofthethreeepisodes.Figure2.6offersanaccountoftheauralevents in

thecourseoftheworkwithemphasisplaceduponthecontrastbetweenhorizontal

andverticalgestures.

To combine this continuous dramawith thestructural overview explored

earlier, it is possible to view Viola, Viola as a gradual process made accessible

throughitstriptychform.Asseen,theexpositorysegmentofthework(bars1–46)

starklyjuxtaposeshorizontal andverticalgestures that graduallybegintomerge;

bars36–46illustratethisblendingasshort,angularchordsseemtobecomemore

and more sustained through interactions with ‘scurrying’ ?igures. The

development-style centre seems to present an alternate perspective on the

preceding‘exposition’,withthemusicat?irstrobbedofverticalpunctuations,only

horizontalmaterialretained.Evenwheninterruptivestaccatooutburstsre-emerge

from bar 56, they do so inrapidly succeeding pairs, contributing to the audibly

goal-directedbuildintensionthatthepassageconveys.Thesepairedpunctuations

operate conjunction with the scurrying ?igures as the ?irst climax is reached;

vertical andhorizontal expressions are unitedwithin a teleological design. With

thescurryingpassagesnowoutliningrepeatedsequencesofincreasinglengthand

ever-ascending pitch, the paired outbursts eventually revert to a singular form.

TheysignalabreakoutintothepeakoftheclimaxasalowD♮droneseepsoutfrom

thescurrying,coupledat?irstwithaC♯andthenwithaG♯twooctavesabove,the

tritone character of the augmentedeleventhsustaining tension at a supposedly

catharticstructuraljuncture(seeFigure2.7).

AlternativePaths

47

10 In this instance, it should be clariSied thatthis concept of ‘vertical time’ differsfromJonathanKramer’suseofthatphrase(1988,375);heretheemphasisisonthemomentarynatureofthechordsratherthanonbroaderlinearrelationshipsofcauseandeffect.

AlternativePaths

48

Bars Events Implications

1–461)Vivace♪.=60-66

Contrasting motifs are introduced, with particularemphasis on a contrast between ‘horizontal’ (drones)and ‘vertical’ (brief chords) gestures, and slurred(‘scurrying’, in Rupprecht’sdescription) Sigurationsthatseem to offer a compromise between the two. Thedifferent ideasmerge andcombine,propelled towardsaclimaxthatisabruptlycutshort.

47 SilentbarA sudden absence of sound and audible rhythmic Slowcreates a build in tension and also allows a clearstructuraldivision.

48–552)Pochiss.Piùmosso

♪.=66-69

The piece appears to restart with a different sonority.However, this time only the ‘horizontal’ material isutilised. The sustained quiet dynamic serves to furtherheightentension.

56–94 AscenttoUirstclimax‘Vertical’ material is gradually reintroduced, butdisruptive chords now occur largely in immediatelysucceedingpairs,creatingamoredynamiccharacter.

95–98 Firstclimax Frantic ascending Sigurations lead to a climax withfortissimochordspunctuatingsustaineddrones.

99–102 ‘Timeless’lull

Astrangeparallelpassageseepsgraduallyintothemidstof the climax,with the drones graduallyrobbed of toneand volume. For a short period of time they aretransformedintoharmonics,renderingthemtransparentandalmostchorale-like.

102–14 Firstclimaxresumes

PromptedbyareturntotheheldfortissimonotesbytheSirstviola,itisasiftheclimaxattemptstoresumeinspiteof the interruption; but the sojourn has taken its toll,semi-stallingthepassageasifitwerenowtakingplaceinslow-motion, movement in pitch and gesture nownotablyhindered.

114–22 Lull

Motion is gradually slowed further as passages appearfragmented,momentum lagging. Harmonics return in achorale-like formationbrieSlyoncemore,whilstpizzicatoisnotablyintroducedfortheSirsttime,seeminglyderivedas inverted punctuations of the of the horizontalscurrying passages they are in dialogue; the scurryingpassagesascend,whilstthepizzicatoSiguresdescend.

122–38 SecondascenttoclimaxMotion is returned through the triplet Sigures as theyascendagain,dynamicsbuilding.Fromb.132momentumis truly regained with loud dynamics and barrellingSigures.

138–57 SecondClimaxThesecondclimaxtakestheshapeofahorizontalwallofsound, a desperate attempt tosustain asmuch sonorityas possible, demonstrated at an extreme in the case oftrillingbetweendouble-stoppedchords.

158 SilencedottedcrotchetThe second climax cuts itself brutally short with afortissimochord.The shortsilencethatfollowsservestocreate a structural break akin to the earlier breakbetween‘exposition’and‘development’.

158–753)Pocopiùmosso

♪.=76-80

The predominantly pizzicato conclusion ensures that –although related material is utilised – focushas shiftedfrom ‘horizontal’ gestures to ‘vertical’ ones. Ratherthanascending, the pitch material now largely descends.Passages are brief and fragmented. Although dynamicsaremostlyquiet,evenfortissimooutbursts(includingtheclosing chords) appear muted by comparison with theferocityofthedevelopmentsection.

Fig.2.6:Viola,Viola,listofeventswithemphasisonhorizontalandverticalgestures

Within the lull that precedes the similarly tritone-capped second climax

(bars138–157),the?irstinstancesofpizzicatointhepieceoccur:threedescending

arpeggiatedphrasesof increasing length(bars 119–125), anapparentcounterto

the ascending phrases that have dominated the central section. Although this

occurswithinthecontextofapredominantlyhorizontalpassage, itpre?iguresthe

?inal,pizzicato-dominatedsegmentof thepiece (bars158–75).Here, themusicis

seemingly robbedofmuchof its previous horizontal material, withmost bowed

materialnowdispensedwith.Themusic is, forthe?irsttime,riddledwithwhatto

an audience might well interpret as silent pauses. The plucked techniques

represent–bytheiracousticnature–akindofverticality, aninabilitytosustain.

Nevertheless,althoughtheexecutionmaydiffer, thematerialofthisthirdsegment

isfarfromnovel:thedescendingfragmentsthatpervadetheepisodeseemtooffer

an inverted perspective upon the ascendingmaterial that catalysed the earlier

climaxes; beyond simply assuming a post-climactic status, the material seems

deliberately anti-climactic. While abrupt vertical chords dominate, attempts to

reignitehorizontal eventsareoftenstuntedorlimitedtothetexturalbackground

viapianissimomarkings.Whenthe scurryingmaterial returns, theemphasis falls

insteaduponthe pizzicato phrases thatpunctuate it (forexample, see bar167).

Meanwhile,severalnodsto thebygonedronesaremadethroughstrikingplucked

AlternativePaths

49

Fig.2.7:Viola,Viola,Uirstclimax,bars92–97(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)

accents in the secondviola, that are followedby the rapidly-fading afterglow of

bowedfalseharmonicsinthe?irstviola(forexample,seethestartofbar170).

Thesefeaturescontributetoagradual shiftinfocusfromthehorizontalto

thevertical, fromdevelopmenttodisintegration, fromalinear,goal-directedform,

to a non-linear, comparatively goalless one. After the sustained, horizontal

materialhas facilitatedtheclimaxesofthecentral ‘development’, acrystallisation

occursat the start ofthe closing segment; thesuddenpredominanceofplucking

rather bowed techniques creates a change in perspective, with emphasis now

falling on vertical attack rather than horizontal prolongation. These acoustic

propertiesimbueanoverallsensationofdecay,ofmaterialexpiringovertime.The

notionofgrowthanddecay is also underlinedinmetaphorical termsthroughthe

repeateduseofascendinggesturestoimbueasenseofgrowththroughthecentral

section,atacticthatisinvertedthroughthedescending?iguresofthe?inalportion.

As Rupprecht observes, this downward trend is re?lected in the long-termtonal

scheme of the segment – the ‘acoustic chorale’, in his description – with a

descending series of tritone dyads (2005, 35–37); a frustrated conclusion is

provided by the emphatically repeated ?inal chord, its central pitch axis of B♭ juxtaposedwithsurroundingE♭s,withtheadditionofC♮, C♯, D♮ andA♮ (seebar175).

Timelessness

So far this case-studyhas beenarticulatedaccordingto dualities oflinearityand

circularity. These temporalities have been mapped, through gestural and

metaphoricalmeans, ontowider experiences of time. BenjaminandMozarthave

implicitlyexploredthe ideaofdisintegrationordecay throughtheir treatmentof

material across forms; nevertheless, by rendering fundamental aspects of these

processes audible throughgradualchangesandmetaphoricalgestures, bothoffer

blueprints for meaningful interpretations that utilise these ideas. Reconsidering

Mozart’s Tempo di Menuetto in terms of the gradual disintegration of its basic

thematic material, Mozart realigns his content within the powerful coda, as if

intent on evoking a kind of control over the conclusion – or perhaps the

AlternativePaths

50

destruction–ofthepiece.ThereactiontodecayinViola,Violaislessassertive, as

its ?inalpassagesstruggleinvaintoregainthesustained,accumulatingqualities it

possessedatitsoutset.Itsculminationtakestheshapeofaresignation:notonalor

motivicresolutionfound,littleinthewayofcatharsisachieved.

Ofcourse,manyaspectsofmusical experience cannotbeaccountedfor in

terms of a contrast between linearityandnon-linearity. Articulating events that

mightbeperceivedto occurbeyond thisduality is inevitablygoingto provemuch

moredif?icult.Withemphasisnow shiftingfromlong-termstructureto theshort-

term effect of particular musical gestures, focus now falls upon two parallel

passages at theheartsoftheseworks;bothpointtoatimealtogetherapart from

the continuous notions discussed, adding another dimension to the manner in

which this music can be comprehended. The passage in question in Mozart’s

Tempo di Menuetto is more structurally clear-cut, comprising theentirety ofthe

central section ‘C’ (bars 94–127). The peculiar nature of the episode is

compounded by the unprecedented switch to the tonic major, with the piano

simply slipping suddenlyandunambiguously into thenewmodeatbar94.What

ensues feels, in one sense, a world away from the melancholy of the opening

‘minuet’.Therhythmicmotionwithinthesepatternsappearslessfrantic,withthe

initial subject consisting primarily of successive crotchets. The melody, too, is

much simpler: a pulsating ?igure that falls gradually in steps but rises

predominantly in leapsof ?ifthsor sixths (seeFigure2.8). Theharmonicmotion

presentedisexplicitandstable,withatriadicaccompanimentilluminatingclearly

atonalpaththatfavours conventionalshifts–usually utilisingacircleof ?ifths –

ratherthanthechromaticslipsthatriddlethe‘minuet’.

However, the section still bears relationto its surroundings. Themelodic

emphasisonacontrastbetweenstepwiseandleapingintervalsisstillreminiscent

oftheprimary‘minuet’subject.Moreover,acasecouldevenbemadefortherising

AlternativePaths

51

Fig.2.8:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,‘C’theme,bars94–102(piano)

and falling gestures of the ‘C’ section theme representing a ‘slow-motion’

interpretationofthe‘A’subject(seeFigure2.9).Inadditiontothis,abroadersense

of metre and construction is retainedwith the phrase structureof the ‘minuet’

replicated here: even-numbered measure divisions emphasise a continuing

symmetryofantecedent-consequentrelationships.Theonlyexceptionto this is a

moment of repose, four in-tempo beats of silence within the second repeated

sectionbeforethe?inalphraseisplayed(bars118–19). In‘C’, thesamenotionsof

cyclicity established in theearliermusic are still present– arguably more so on

accountoftheuseofliteralrepeatmarks.Butthe‘slow-motion’melodicstructure,

therhythmicandtonalstabilityandtheuseofpausescontributetoasensationof

detachment. It is as ifthepassagepresents analternatemusicalpath, running in

paralleltotheouter‘minuets’,inwhichthesamesetofmaterialsistakeninavery

different direction. The relevance of the episode to its surroundings is

demonstratedaboveallintheeffortlessmannerinwhichasottovocereturntothe

‘minuet’ is initiated, a simple ascending chromatic scale of quavers in the right-

handofthepiano(bar127b)allowinganalmostunnoticedslipbacktoE-minoras

ifthemusichadsimplyregainedconsciousnesswithinitsoriginalspace.

Thepassage inquestioninViola, Viola ismuch smaller, comprising just a

few bars (bars 99–102). Here, at the ?irst point of climax in the central formal

segment, the fortissimo peak suddenly drops away to reveal a sparse, fragile

texture of harmonics moving disparately, almost in the style of a fragmented

chorale (seeFigure2.10).Withthestrikingclimactic gestureshavingnow faded,

theeffectisnotsomuchafree-fallasalossoftonalandrhythmicgravity.Boththe

AlternativePaths

52

Fig.2.9:ViolinSonatainEminorK.304,secondmovement,‘A’(bars1–4)and‘B’(bars94–101)sectionsubjectswithpitchgesturerelationshipindicated

D♮pedalandtheC♯andG♯juxtapositionsthathadcharacterisedthe?inalascentto

theclimaxvanish;theharmonics that remainavoidthesenotes, soundingG♮, F♯,

E♭, A♮, andC♮. Only at thecloseof bar101, with theemergence ofanA♭, is thepreviously overridingtritonerelationshipenharmonically referredto oncemore.

Thispromptseems to triggeraresurgenceoftheclimacticmaterial,butonethat

onlyachievespartialsuccess.Therhythmicmotionthathadaccumulatedgradually

from the start of the section has now been lost and efforts to reignite it prove

stilted. Chordaloutburstsare longanddrawnoutandwiththe ‘scurrying’?igures

con?inedtopredominantlychromaticmovementswithinarestrictedpitch-space.

Forallitsinterruptivequalities, theharmonicsarefarfromunrelatedtothe

development of the piece, seemingly derived from the horizontal gestures (the

‘tuning A♮’ and the ‘drone’) at the outset. Yet here they emerge, unbound and

undirected, robbing the ?irst major peak of the work of both momentum and

impact. As with Mozart’s sonata movement, an alternative musical reality is

presented,materialhithertoutilisedaspartofadynamic,goal-directedformnow

brie?ly revealed in a static, detached fashion. The glimpse of this apparently

parallel piece provesunsettling for the singular narrative ofViola, Viola, stalling

theclimaxandinitiating, inthe long-term, a19-barlullthat is onlyendedbythe

startofanascenttowardsasecondpeak.

AlternativePaths

53

Figure2.10:Viola,Viola,bars98–105(reproducedfromBenjamin1997)

Thesecentral passagesintheTempodiMenuettoand inViola,Viola prove

paradoxical. Both give the effectthat they inhabita time that liesbeyond that of

theirpieces,somehoweludingthetensionsoflinearityandcyclicitythatdominate.

Nevertheless, theseepisodesremainasmuchapartofthe ‘practical’timeoftheir

piecesaseverythingelseinthem: theyrepresentanequallyquanti?iableduration

withinthecontextofaperformance,andoccupyanunremarkableamountofspace

withinthesingulardirectionofthenotatedscore. Itwouldnotbeaccurateto say

that they appear wholly ‘non-linear’. Whilst they evade the linearity of the

immediate, foreground musical narrative, they still possess their own linear

temporal?low–theyarenotstatic.

Here, it is appropriate to return to Jonathan Kramer, who makes a

particularly useful distinction within his discussion of what he terms ‘vertical

time’, a ‘present extended well beyond normal temporal horizons’ that

nevertheless does not ‘destroy the temporal continuum’ (1988, 375–97). He

distinguishesbetween timethat is ‘slowed’or ‘stopped’ (anacute, often restless,

awareness of time passing) and time that is ‘frozen’ in an ‘eternal present’:

timelessness.KramerconcurswithCliftonthatstaticmusicdoesnotleadmerelyto

aperceivedabsenceoftime.Rather,asheoutlines,‘theavoidanceofmotionleads

toaspecialkindoftime’:

Theterm‘timelessness’doesnot,despiteitsetymology,implythattimehasceased

toexist, butratherthatordinarytimehasbecome frozen in an eternalnow…The

extendedpresentcanexist.Whenitdoes,onlyone kindoftime issupendedwhile

anotherkind, thatwe maycall (paradoxically) the timeof timelessness, replaces it(Kramer1988,377–78).

Perhapsitisthisideathatcomesclosesttoarticulatingwhatmightbeexperienced

at these crux points inTempo di Menuetto and inViola, Viola. Whilst Kramer’s

concernisthebroadereffectof‘non-teleological’music,hereMozartandBenjamin

induce these sensations within the context of teleological pieces. Rather than

simply bringing the primary (hitherto, only) temporal narrative to a point of

standstill, both composers break off from it entirely for a brief period, its time

continuedinsteadwithinthecontextofasecondary narrative. Asproblematic as

articulating it may prove, an experience of timelessness is offered within the

context ofa dynamic artwork. It is aconcept that will recurin theanalyses that

AlternativePaths

54

follow. Indeed, the ?irst port of call in the next case-study (Chapter Four:

Perception and Perspective)will be a description that would seem particularly

pertinent to this case-study, that of ‘released time ?lowing’. However, ?irst it is

necessarytoexpandfurtheruponthetheoretical frameworkforthisdiscussionof

temporality.

AlternativePaths

55

Three

DirectingTime

Attempting to de?ine experiences of time in languagemight be seen as either a

persistently fruitless task or one of limitless reward. Evena shared experience

might bedescribedinvery differentwaysbydifferent individuals; their already

uniqueperspectivesmightwell divergefurther from oneanotherwhenthey are

expressedthroughwords.By thesametoken,ourownexperiencesoftimemight

oftenbe subject to change;wemight repeat fundamentally the same event at a

later date only to ?ind that the temporal sensation it produces is markedly

different.Justasreadersmaydistinguishtheirownunderstandingofthe‘time’of

thecase-studypieces fromthewaythey aredescribed inthisthesis, Imightalso

return to themand?indthat theway Iperceiveaspectsoftheperformances has

changed.Hopesforcleararticulationoftemporal experiencesarefurtherclouded

bythefactthattheyaredescribed‘aftertheevent’;writersareseparatedfromthe

duration they wish to account for by a further elapsed duration. In this way,

impressionsoftimerelyuponmemory–itselfsubjecttotemporaldistortions–for

theirarticulation.Meanwhile, anyattempttoarticulateanexperienceoftimeas it

happens(orimmediatelyfollowingit)islikelytoprofoundlyaffecttheexperience

itself through the heightened analytical awareness it would require. Of course,

thesevarious levels ofambiguityonly serve to make our relationshipwith time

seemallthemorefascinating.

This chapter will begin by outlining ways in which time is commonly

addressed, examining in particular the role of metaphor in this process and

proposals fromanumber ofscholars – principallyDedreGentner(2001)–as to

the ways in which metaphorical concepts might emerge. Focussing upon the

aspects of these descriptions that emphasise space, motion and change, the

discussionwillcontinuebyreviewingofsomeofthetheoretical relationshipsthat

underpinthis networkof linguistic ideas,withthework ofIanHinckfuss (1975),

RobertAdlington(1997a,1997band2003)andJ.M.E.McTaggart(1993)featuring

prominently.Thiswill leadintoaclosingexplorationofthemovement–or?low–

of time; numerous claims will be surveyed regarding questions of temporal

56

direction, linearity, and asymmetry, and the perspectives that we, as subjects,

might have upon these phenomena; here emphasis will fall upon the work of

Friedel Weinert (2013), Eric Clarke (2005) and P.J. Zwart (1976). Much of the

discoursepresentedhere, particularlyearly on, isdeliberatelydetached fromthe

musicalfocusofthisthesis.Itisintendedthatthissynthesisofapproachestowards

time from a number of disciplines might help begin to construct a broad

theoreticalframeworkwithinwhichtheensuingcasestudiesmightsit.

Clutchingatmetaphors

The intentionof achieving true precision in addressing time is oftenmisplaced.

Whilst relativist approaches mayhaverevolutionisedstrategies fordealingwith

time, itscontributiontoany attempttodeUine ithas beensurprisingly limited. As

P.J.Zwartasserts,itisoftenonlyincircumstancesinvolvingextremesofspeedand

distancethatanEinsteinianapproachcomesintoitsown:

In fact the new relativistic time is nothing but the old common time with a

relativisticcorrectionaddedtoitwhereandwhennecessary.Thisisshownclearly

by the fact thatEinstein’s famous analysiswasnotananalysisof the conceptoftime, butonlyananalysisoftheprocessofmeasuring time. In physicstime isnotdeSined atall, oratthemostonly as thatquantitywhich ismeasured byclocks.

(Zwart1976,9–10)

Here,theinterestofconventionalphysicsliespredominantlyinquantitiesoftime.

Zwartarguesthatthesubstanceofthesedurationsisamatterbeyonditsremit:‘In

factitevencannotgiveade?initionoftimeallbyitself, forsuchade?initionwould

haveto beprecededbyaphilosophicalanalysis inwhichamongother thingsthe

uses and meaning(s) of the common sense concept of time would be

examined’(1976,10).

FriedelWeinert–inhishelpfullyopen-mindedsurveyofthedevelopment

of different strandsof temporal theory–offersamore inclusive perspective; he

concedes that, whilst Einstein’s theoryof Special relativity is best consideredan

‘extensionofclassicalmechanics’, itnevertheless‘hadarevolutionaryeffectonthe

classicalnotionoftimeinthesamewayinwhichtheGeneral theoryhadeffecton

DirectingTime

57

thenotionofspace’(2013, 64). Consequently,Weinert’sbroader outlookproves

less compartmentalised by ?ield, with temporal measurement considered a

‘ubiquitousphenomenon,whichtoucheson all the central issues involvedinthe

discussionsofthenature oftime’ (2013, 86). Of course, reframing everything in

interdisciplinary terms does notmakedescribing timeany easier. IanHinckfuss

aptly observes that thetask of referring to spaceandtime is one that we seem

intent on assigning ourselves; he suggests that many problems arise from

limitations inlanguage, raisingthe ideathattheyareinfact ‘pseudo-problemsto

be resolved by using a reformed language more appropriate in describing this

world’(Hinckfuss1975,1).

Most everyday languagechoicesregardingtimerely uponmetaphor.Time

issaidto ‘ebband?low’, it ‘?lies’, it ‘expands’,occasionallyiteven‘stops’. Although

suchdescriptionsmayseemtofallshortofanykindofquanti?iableprecision,they

act as far more than functional stopgaps. Instead, they attend to issues of

perception, outlining important aspects of subjective experience. Indeed,

numerous scholars in recent decades have argued that these parallels are

embedded fardeeperwithincognitiveprocesses, revealingmetaphor to be, ?irst

andforemost, amatter ofconcept. GeorgeLakoffandMark Johnson’sMetaphors

We Live By (1980) has proven particularly in?luential in this regard.

ReconsiderationsofwhatconstitutesmetaphorhavepromptedLakoff to suggest

subsequentlythatbroaderalterationstothelexiconofthesubject:whilstlinguistic

devicesmight be referred to more speci?icallyas ‘metaphorical expressions’, the

term ‘metaphor’ in fact constitutes ‘cross-domain mapping in the conceptual

system’:

The generalisations governing poetic metaphorical expressions are not in

language,butinthought. […]Inshort, the locusofmetaphorisnotinlanguageat

all, but inthewaywe conceptualise onementaldomain intermsof another.The

general theory of metaphor is given by characterising such cross-domain

mappings.Andintheprocess,everydayabstractconceptsliketime,states,change,

causation, and purpose also turn out to be metaphorical. The result is that

metaphor…isabsolutelycentraltoordinarynaturallanguagesemantics,andthat

thestudyofliterarymetaphorisanextensionof the studyofeverydaymetaphor.

(Lakoff1993,203)

DirectingTime

58

JannaSaslawarguesthattherootsofthismappingprocessmayevenbebiological,

asserting that it stems from recurring patterns of ‘kinesthetic’ experience

groundedprimarilyinthehumanbody(Saslaw1996,217–18).

This pervasive character of metaphor is re?lected in philosophical

discoursesregardingthenatureoftime.Here,metaphorscantakevariousshapes,

withtimeactingasbotharesource(to ‘haveplenty’,orto‘runout’,oftime)anda

container (to act ‘within’aperiod oftime) (Gentner, Imai andBoroditsky2002,

560). However, most common temporal metaphors rely upon an image of

movementofsomekind, orarelativelackofit.Motionis thetheme,whetherthe

agency in these descriptions is ascribed to time (‘time passes’)or to people (‘to

pass time’). Dedre Gentner identi?ies thesedescriptions – the ‘time-moving’and

‘ego-moving’ metaphors – as the two distinct time-space metaphoric systems,

noting ‘anorderly and systematic correspondence between thedomains of time

and space in language’ (Gentner 2001, 203). These linguistic links have been

explored extensively by scholars including David Bennett (1975), Elizabeth

Traugott(1978),andManfredBierwisch(1996). PaticularlyintriguingisHerbert

Clarke’s exploration of space-time metaphors in English language acquisition

(1973),inwhichhearguesthatchildrenlearnhowtoapplyrelevanttermstotheir

prior knowledge and experiences, with spatial expressions later extended to

describetemporalphenomena:

The main evidence for this thesis is the strong correspondence between the

properties of the spatial terms and the properties of man's innate perceptual

apparatus, and between English spatial and temporal expressions. The

correspondenceissostrong,Iwouldargue,thatitsimplycouldnotbecoincidental

anditthereforeneedsexplanation.Time,forexample,isnotjustexpressedwithan

occasionalspatialsimile, butratheritisbasedonathoroughlysystematicspatial

metaphor,suggestingacompletecognitivesystemthatspaceandtimeexpressions

haveincommon.(Clarke1973,62)

Casasanto, FotakopoulouandBoroditsky(2010)argue in favourofthismapping

from familiar to less familiar concepts throughtheir experimental results. They

?indthatspaceandtimeareasymmetricallyrelatedinthemindsofchildren,with

their subjects able to ‘ignore irrelevant temporal information when making

judgments about space’, but incapable ofmaintaining suchseparationwhen it is

DirectingTime

59

timethatisbeingjudged;itisapatternthatseemstobemirroredinthecognitive

processingofadults(2010,403).

Gentnerrefusestotakeforgrantedthat thesemappingproceduresarethe

soleproviderofspatio-temporalmetaphor.Her lineofenquiryintothe linguistic

linkingofspaceandtimealsotakes into account thein?luenceof long-developed

idioms, entertaining the possibility that many phrases may be inherited rather

than intuited. To evaluate this, she suggests three other cognitive roles that

linguistic space-time mappings might play. Least plausible, she ?inds, is the

possibility that theuseofparallel metaphors for space andtime is derived from

comparabledirect similaritiesinphrasestructures –whatsheterms ‘locallexical

relations’– rather than any systematic mapping relevant to the actual concepts

thatliebehindthese phrases.This idea is echoed in thesecond, altogethermore

likelysuggestionof‘cognitivearcheology’:thatpeoplemaydefertoalinkbetween

spaceandtimethatexists inthehistoryoflanguagewithoutanycontinuingneed

to connect the two withinthe context of temporal reasoning. A third alternative

Gentnerpresents is‘structuralparallelism’, inwhichconceptual systemsofspace

and time have been constructed entirely separately from one another, but

similarities between the two independent cognitive structures allow for

comparisonstobedrawnthroughlanguage(2001,205–06).

Gentner’s evaluation of these further possibilities makes her ultimate

preferenceforsystem-mapping–inwhichourconceptionsoftimearedrawnfrom

our more readily articulated notions of space – all the more convincing (2001,

220): ‘An initial alignment between common relational structures invites the

mapping of further inferences from the more systematic domain to the less

systematic domain. Thus, candidate inferences are projected from the highly

structureddomainofspacetothemoreephemeraldomainoftime.’Shealsopoints

to theways inwhich thesemapping systems are represented in functional and

expressiveaspectsofordinarylife,citinggraphs, clocks,timelines,drawingsand–

appropriately–musicalnotation(2001,205).

DirectingTime

60

Time,spaceandchange

As Gentner’swork demonstrates, the cognitivewebofparallels andassociations

thatlinkspaceandtimeiscomplexandnoteasilydeciphered.Evenifthelinguistic

productsofthislink canbebrokendownintotwoprimarytypesofmotion-based

metaphor (ego-movingandtime-moving), comprehending fully thepsychological

processes that leads to themproves impossible. Thetheoretical interdependence

of space and timehas been compounded in the courseof the twentiethcentury

through numerous theories – predominantly stemming from Einstein and

Minkowski–thathavenecessitatedthecombinationofthetwo:spaceandtimeare

frequently treatedas spacetime, ‘a unitary entity thatdecomposes into different

spatialandtemporal intervalsfordifferentreferenceframes’(Dainton2010,314).

John Earman (1970) offers a particularly astute navigation of some of the

philosophicalquestions that arisewhenexamining the intertwiningof spaceand

time,outliningthelogicalimplicationsofconsideringspace-timeasaunit.

Distinctions can be made between the ways we treat space and time.

Hinckfuss observes that often the languagewe use to address each can quickly

becomeincompatible.Thattimecanbesaidto‘?low’whilstspacecannotisjustone

of anumberofnotionsthat allowsseparations to bemade. Indeed, it ismotion-

basedconceptionsoftimethatcreatethebiggestrifts,withthetemporalplacingof

‘now’or ‘present’differing inanumberofsenses from the spatial placing ‘here’;

thepotentialassociationsthatthe‘present’canbearwithmovementdistinguishes

italtogetherfromasupposedlyunchanging, categorical location(Hinckfuss1975,

63–83). Anthony Quinton, meanwhile, draws attention to an apparently unique

quality of time through a series of logical conjectures involving dreams and

potential multi-temporal myths, concluding that we can conceive of things in

distinctspacesbutnotindistincttimes,ourexperiencesbeingcon?inedtoasingle

temporal series. Furthermore, he asserts that it is possible to conceive of an

experience that is non-spatial, but impossible to conceive of a non-temporal

experience(1993,203–20).

Ofcourse, aswiththeseexamples,manyexceptionsto thelinkingofspace

and time occur within theoretical realms. Hinckfuss issues repeated reminders

that ?inding timeandspaceto possess exclusiveproperties does not necessarily

DirectingTime

61

equate to a fundamental difference between the two; rather it only indicates a

difference in semantics (1975, 82). For reasons of function, it is perhaps best to

acceptafundamentalrelationshipbetweenspaceandtime,notleastwithregardto

music.Whilstit ismetaphoricalconceptionsofmotionthatservetoseparatetime

from space, it is physical motion that unites them. The three – time, space and

motion–arecommonlytakenfor grantedas forming awebof interdependence:

the perception of one typically requires the perception of all three. Music itself

comprisesformsofmotion:themovementsofperformers uponinstruments, the

kinetic nature of travelling sound particles, the biological and neurological

impulses that allow sound to be received and comprehended. David Epstein

deployssuchfundamental ideas fullyandwithoutapology, describingmotionnot

just as ‘the quintessential property of time’ but also ‘the essence of life itself’:

‘Motionisbasicallyunderstoodbyusingtimeasitsindex. […]Thereverseofthat

correlationisequallytrue:timeisonlyexperienced,andthusunderstood, through

motion’(1995,8).

Robert Adlington (1997a, 1997b and 2003) calls Epstein’s thesis into

question, expressing concerns regarding the logical contradictions that might

plague suchassumptions. Bothscholars havedistinctmotives; it is verymuch in

Epstein’s interest toacceptsuchviewsoftimeandmotiongiventhethrustofhis

work, which largely revolves aroundproportional relations inmetre andspeed

acrosstonalpieces largely composedintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.

Adlington’s interest, meanwhile, lies primarily in addressing the ways in which

such frameworks ofmotion-based description do not adequately serve the best

interestsofmanytypesofmusic,inparticularpost-tonalworks,manyofwhichare

often written off as ‘static’. Crucially, though, his concerns stretch further,

encompassing the potentially damaging impact that ‘hardened’ concepts of time

mighthaveuponpeople’s lives.Forthepurposesofhisargument, andinorderto

evaluateaspectsoftheseeffectsofimposedtemporalparameters,Adlingtontreats

timeas‘asocialconstructionfordealingwithchange’(2003,298–300).

Change–asafundamental expressionofmotion–has lainat thecentreof

discourse regarding temporality for thousands of years; for Aristotle, time and

change possess what Weinert surmises as a reciprocal relationship: ‘Without

change, there can be no recognitionof time; andwithout time, there canbeno

DirectingTime

62

measurementofchange’(2013,8–10). Indeed,Aristotle’squanti?icationofchange

throughconceptions of ‘before’ and ‘after’ bears great relevance toMcTaggart’s

starting point in his in?luential ‘The Unreality of Time’ (McTaggart 1993). His

argument for this ‘unreality’restsonadistinctionbetweentwoways ofviewing

time:oneisuntensed(the‘Bseries’),relyingon?ixedpointsinanabstractedtime

that lie earlier or later than one another. The other is tensed (the ‘A series’),

utilising subject positioning to organise events according to past, present and

futurewithin thecontext ofa ‘moving now’.11 Change,McTaggart asserts, relies

uponthe A series; characteristics ofanevent canonly changeby virtueof their

context within the on-going shift from future, to present, to past. Whilst the B

seriesremainsabstracted,itnonethelessreliesuponthetensedtemporalityofthe

Aseries, giventhatearlier-laterrelationshipsrequiretemporalpassage. Thus,the

B series cannot exist without the A-series. As one event cannot simultaneously

possess the characteristics ofpast, presentandfuture, the realityoftheA series

leadstoanunavoidablecontradiction–bothseriesmustberejected.Onthefaceof

it,McTaggart’sconclusionmightprovesomewhatstartling:

Nothing isreallypresent, past, or future.Nothing isreallyearlieror laterthan

anything else or temporally simultaneouswith it. Nothing really changes. And

nothing isreallyin time.Wheneverweperceiveanything in time–whichis the

onlyway in which, in ourpresent experience,we do perceive things–we are

perceivingitmoreorlessasitreallyisnot.(1993,34)

Whilst McTaggart’s ‘proof’of theunrealityof time has loomed large in temporal

philosophyeversince,itschallengesunderpinningmuchsubsequentdiscussion, it

has only served to open the debate yet wider rather than to narrow it. More

broadly, it hassatMcTaggart alongsidemanyotherswhochooseto view timeas

fundamentally idealised,thatistosayaproductofthehumanmind;McTaggartin

factsitswithinatraditionthatincludesKantandAugustinebeforehim,asWeinert

observes(2013,97–98).

DirectingTime

63

11 To put it anotherway, the ‘A-series’ is a series of positions (containers for events)runningfromthepast,throughthepresent,andintothefuture–itislargelyreSlectiveofa‘time passing’ perspective; the ‘B-series’,meanwhile,assumesa ‘passing time’ approach,organisingpositionsbyvirtueofwhentheyoccurrelativetootherpositions.AsuggestedC-seriesoffersanextra-temporalinterpretationofperceivedorder,thoughcruciallynotofchangeortime.

Weinert’s description of McTaggart’s ‘proof’ as ‘verbal summersaults’

proves ?itting (2013, 98), not leastwhen taking into account subsequentwriters

whohavehelpfullyreframedhisargumentwithinacontextofseekingtoaddress

and qualify time. D.H. Mellor’s ‘The Unreality of Tense’ (1993) does just this,

evaluating the ways in which change and variation might be articulatedwhilst

allowinghis focustoremainasmuchontensedanduntenseddescriptors. Arthur

Prior,meanwhile,skilfullydrawsattentiontotheconceptsweattachtonotionsof

change, event and process, and how these ideas can often be misattributed in

discussion (Prior, 1993). Also intriguing is Sydney Shoemaker’s compelling

argumentforthehypotheticalbutnonethelessintriguingpossibilityofintervalsin

time that couldbeperceivedwithout thesupposedly essential markerofchange

(Shoemaker,1993).

Insearchofdirection

Paul Horwich (1987) takes McTaggart’s work to particularly intriguing ends.

Sidestepping a preoccupationwithperceiving change itself, his focus lies in the

threestatesoftheA-series:past,presentandfuture.WhilstEpsteinholdschange

tobethequintessential propertyoftime,Horwichsuggeststhatitmightbemore

speci?icallyde?inedas‘thedifferencebetweenthepastandthefuture’,onaccount

ofthetwo temporaldirectionsbeing‘fundamentallyunalike’.It isinthisrespect–

of temporal ‘movement’ beingpossible inonedirectionbut not theother – that

time is judged to be asymmetrical. To an even greater degree than McTaggart,

Horwich rejects a ‘moving now’ view of time, but in doing so establishes an

especiallyinsightfulaccountsofthewayinwhichsuchaconceptionisformedand

therolesitplaysinthewaystimeisthoughttoplayout.Heattributesthesenseof

time passing or ?lowing to causes phenomenological (the psychological

constructionofacontinuumbetweenrecollectionandanticipation)andlinguistic

(descriptionsoftheplacingofeventsalongthatcontinuum).Referringtothework

ofAdolfGrünbaum(1973),heproposesthatthenoun‘now’acquiresthestatusof

‘asingleentitywhosevaryinglocationsareinstantsoftime’.Hisexplorationofthe

asymmetriesoftimegivesriseto anumberofwaysofapproachingthelong-held

DirectingTime

64

notion of time possessing a ‘direction’, including the ‘tree model of reality’, in

whichhistory represents a ?ixedpathand the future aproliferation ofpotential

branches;andfatalism,inwhichacausalapproachtotimeseesthe?ixednatureof

historical events contributing to a futurepaththat is also ?ixedby consequence

(Horwich1987,15–36).

This view of temporality as a ‘cause-effect relationship of events’ has

contributedto theon-goingconsiderationofthe topologyoftime,reinforcingthe

suggestion that timemight be thought ofasmoving ina linear fashion(Weinert

2013, 26–30). A directional view of time continues to prove of both use and

intereststoscholarsacrossanumberof?ieldsinspiteoftheoriesthatcontradictit.

Zwart comprehensively concludes that the direction of time is ‘non-existant’,

contenttothinkofitassimply‘asuccessionofeventsandofstates’: ‘Theopinion

thattime,beinga?low,musthaveadirectionis justas incorrectaswouldbethe

opinionthatastreamofwordsmusthaveadirection’(1976,103–05).

This remarkofZwart’sisparticularly telling. Inthesamesensethatmany

linguistic constructions canappear to us as possessing some kindof ‘direction’,

perhapsasimilarprocessisfrequentlyundertakenwithtime. Timeitselfmaynot

possess a linear character, but subjective experience seems to project such a

qualityontoitwithsurprisingregularity.Regardlessoftherealityofphysicaltime,

spatio-temporal metaphors of motion continue to provide a widely understood

and highly transferrable framework for discussion. Though the more speci?ic

mechanics of theories may vary, there is consistent imagery to benoted across

manymajortheories oftime. Thecontrastbetweenego-movingandtime-moving

metaphorsthatGentnerpresents(2001,203–05)issimplyareframingofwhatshe

summarisesasa‘front/back’interpretationofthetimeline:

Intheego-movingsystem, the future isnormallyconceivedof as infrontandthepastasbehind.Inthetime-movingsystem,thereverseistrue:timemovesfromthefuturetothepast,sothatpast(earlier)eventsareinfrontandfuture(later)eventsarebehind.

Such an approach bears much in common with Smart’s ‘river of time’

analogy(1949)–tobediscussedinmoredepthinChapterFour–butisperhaps

morebroadlyre?lectiveofawidertrendofcontraststhatdatesbackas faraspre-

Socratic philosophy. Weinert draws a distinction between what he terms

DirectingTime

65

‘Parmenidean Stasis’ and ‘Heraclitean Flux’, derived from their eponymous

thinkers(2013,89–90).ThepoetParmenidesofEleaadvocatedanidealistoutlook

ofunchanging ‘being’, inwhichchange andthus time aremerelyproducts ofthe

human mind. Heraclitus of Ephesus, meanwhile, denied an unchanging ‘being’,

expressinginsteadapreferenceforafundamentalworldofchangingappearances;

his employment of river imagery – ‘we cannot step into the samewater yet the

riveristhesame’–seems tohaveprovedparticularly formativeformetaphorical

approaches to temporal thought. In thecourseofhissurvey oftheway inwhich

strands of temporal theory have developed in light of scienti?ic discoveries,

Weinerthighlights thepervasivenatureofthiskindofdistinction.Most temporal

theory is ultimately alliedtoeitheraParmenidean, idealist (frequently tiedwith

realistnotionsoftimeasanindependent,consistentpropertyoftheuniverse)ora

Heraclitean, relationalperspectiveontime. Respectively, changeiseither illusory

orfundamental,timeiseitherstaticordynamic,andtheworldiseitheratemporal

ortemporal.

Weinert’s achievement in The March of Time is the intricate manner in

whichheoutlinesbothsidesofthisfundamentaldivide,demonstratingeloquently

theprincipaltheoriesthatunderpinthecontrastsbetweenperspectivesof?luxand

stasis, andbetween temporal symmetry and asymmetry. He ultimately states a

preferenceforaHeracliteanviewoftime, principallyonthebasisoftheapparent

anisotropic (that is to say,asymmetrical ordynamic)natureoftimeas explained

throughthequantummechanism ofdecoherence.12 It is anargument that I ?ind

particularly convincing and, although it is not a primary aim of this study to

support broader claims regarding the nature of time itself, Weinert’s balanced

approach to the ?ield has proved particularly informative andmight be said to

providesomethingofatheoreticalunderpinningformuchofwhatfollowshere.Of

greaterrelevanceishisimplicitacknowledgementthatcontrastingunderstandings

oftemporality(relational, idealistandrealist)canall featurenotonlyaselements

a philosophical examination of time, but also as facets ofsubjective experience.

Musical phenomena, as will be shown, can serve to underline this pluralist,

perhapsevenparadoxical,characteristicoftime.

DirectingTime

66

12AdetailedexaminationofquantumdecoherencecanbefoundinWeinert2013,211–59.

GoingwiththeUlow

Maintaining some kind of lexicon of metaphor is particularly useful when

addressingatopic aspotentiallyconfusingasmusic,where thesewaters become

increasinglymuddied.Whilst itmight ?irstappearto takeonakindofmediating

roleintemporalperceptionprocesses,furtherinvestigationmayreveal thatithas

a disrupting presence. Articulating experiences of motion becomes particularly

tricky:doesthemusicmovethroughtime,ordoestimemovethroughthemusic?

Similarly, as listeners,dowemove throughthemusic, ordoesthemusic pass us

by?Itis,asAdlingtonnotes(2003,299),possibletoexperienceeither.EricClarke’s

consideration of such questions leads him to invoke the idea of ‘subject-

positioning’, a term primarily employed in cultural and ?ilm studies (2005, 91–

125). Subject-position, Clarke explains, ‘describes the way in which the

construction of a ?ilm causes a viewer/listener to adopt a particular attitude to

what she or he is witnessing’ (2005, 92). He readily concedes that subject-

positioningwillofteninvolvean‘utterlyindividual’perspectiveonthepartofeach

listener, incorporatingtheperceiver’s ‘skills, needs,preoccupations, andpersonal

history’.Nevertheless,heoutlinesthewaysinwhichthenotionofsubject-position

might not just inform but also direct analyses of both vocal and instrumental

works, on account of its profound ecological implications. He asserts that an

importantcomponentofsubject-positioningis‘builtintothematerialpropertiesof

theobjectofperception, andisthereforea shaping force (at least potentially)on

everyperceiver’(2005,125).

One of the most detailed and compelling frameworks for metaphors of

musical motion is provided by Mark Johnson and Steve Larson (2003). They

proposethreeprincipalconcepts: the‘movingmusic’metaphor, inwhichmusical

eventsmovefrom thefuture towards thelistener, areexperienced, andpassinto

thepast;the‘musicallandscape’metaphor,inwhichthepiecetakestheshapeofan

imagined geography and can be experienced from either the perspective of an

active participant (or traveller) or a distant observer; and the ‘musical force’

metaphor, inwhichpieces actas causal forcesupon listeners. Beyondproviding

comprehensiveexplorationsof lexiconsforeachframework, JohnsonandLarson

DirectingTime

67

are above all realistic about the variety of musical motions that are available

throughouthistoryandacrosscultures:

The absence of any core literal concept of musical ‘events’ should direct our

attention to the ways we imaginatively conceive of the Slow of our musical

experiencebymeansofmultiplemetaphorsthatprovide therelevantlogicsofour

various conceptions of musical motion and space. There is no more a single

univocal notion of musical motion than there is of causation, and yet we have

gottenalongreasonablywellbyknowingwhenaspeciSicmetaphorforcausationis

appropriatewithinaspeciSiccontextofinquiry.(2003,80)

Ultimately,speci?icaspectsofmusicalandtemporalmotionprovesecondarytothe

ways inwhichmetaphors for such motion can facilitate discussion ofpieces of

music in relation to our experience of them. Signi?icantly, Clarke points to the

deeperimplicationsofmeaningthatarise(2005,89): ‘Thesenseofmotionorself-

motion draws a listener into an engagement with the musical materials in a

particularlydynamicmanner(heorsheseemstoactamongthematerials),andin

doingsoconstitutesavitalpartofmusicalmeaning.’

Beyond purely motion-based descriptions, Robert Adlington offers a

convincing account of the ways inwhich somemusic can inspire a plethora of

altogether distinct metaphors (1997b, 79–120, and 2003). Seeking primarily to

advocateavarietyofways inwhichpost-tonalworksmightbeaddressedinmore

accurate,andindeedmoreimaginativetermsthan‘static’,heequatestheviewof

musicasmovingwithculturalconceptsoftime(2003,317–318):

[…] change possesses no intrinsic properties that give it a special afSinity with

onwardmotionoveranyof the otherphysicalmetaphorsbymeansofwhichwe

mightgrasp it. Anotherwayofexpressing thiswouldbeasfollows:music,partly

byvirtueofitssusceptibilitytometaphoricalconceptualisation,implicitlypointsto

thelimitationsofourcustomarydealingswithchange.

In this sense, musical experiences might be regarded as querying cultural

conceptionsoftemporality.Indeed,inthecourseofthechaptersthatfollow,pieces

of music can be seen calling into question aspects of time generally taken for

granted. Temporal asymmetry is engaged with through the notion of musical

repetition,raisingthepossibilityofsimultaneouslylinearandcircularexperiences;

DirectingTime

68

this recurrence of musical ideas encourages alternate perspectives on the

irreversibilityoftime. Itisuseful heretorecallThomasClifton,withhisassertion

that‘continuityisinvolvedintheopennessoftime:intheideathatpasteventsare

not forever sealed off from a present which constantly re-searches it, and that

futureeventsdonotresideinsomeunknowable“other”, ignoring,andignoredby,

thepresentsituation’(1983,97).Indeed,thisnotionofapastthatcanberevisited

– inbothmusical and cognitive terms – will underpin the case-study pairingof

worksbyAdamsandSchubertthatfollows,withtheiropeningpassagesexamined

in terms of the perceptual implications for their unfolding form (Chapter Four:

PerceptionandPerspective). Thesingularityofperceivedtimewill alsobecalled

into question,withmusical formsemergingthatofferimpressionsofmultiplicity

(see Chapters Six and Ten in particular). Jonathan Kramer holds a particular

interestinwhathelabels‘multiply-directedlinear time’,referringtomusicwhich

possesses a ‘sense of motion, but the direction of that motion is anything but

unequivocal’; although an underlying linearity can be recognised, for Kramer a

displacementofvariousformal goalscanprovideamultipletemporal continuum

(1988,46).

A major part ofaddressing the temporality ofmusic through language is

accepting inevitable inconsistencies. Indeed, it canbe easy to discount the very

effectthatlanguagecomprehensionitselfcanhaveuponthewaywemightexpress

anunderstandingofmusic.Onerecent set ofcross-culturalpsychological studies

carried out by Athanasopoulos, Tan and Moran (2016) has suggested a link

between linguistic ability and perceived temporal directionality. When

participantsintheUK,JapanandPapuaNewGuineawereaskedtoprovidegraphic

representations of rhythmic patterns, literate participants weremorenoticeably

disposedto linearinterpretationsofmusicalperformances,displayinga‘tendency

to depict informationalong a timeline, inamanner generallyconsistentwiththe

directionality of their script’; non-literate participants, meanwhile, appeared to

displaynoclearrelianceupondirectionality(2016,1139).Suchstudiesarefurther

indicatorsas to theculturalcomplexityofthefactorsthatcontributetowardsnot

only howweexperiencemusicbutalso howwemight thenattempttoarticulate

thatexperience.

DirectingTime

69

In light of these variables, establishing a consistent framework for the

discussion of musical time proves especially dif?icult. However, to bring this

discussiontoatemporaryclose, itishelpfultoreturntoZwartinhisevaluationof

three prominent outlooks on thenature of time: the realist view, that time is a

physicalpropertyoftheuniverse,on-goinginspiteofoccurrence;theidealistview,

thatthe passageof time isa constructionof thehumanmind; and therelational

view, that the passage of time is dependent upon and effected by changes,

processes and events in the universe (Zwart 1976, 15–33, also discussed in

Weinert2013,14).Hisconclusionhighlightsadeptlywhymusicalinterestsmight

lieinthenotions thattherelationalperspectiveontimemightoffer,hintingonce

againatthepeculiarnotionoftimelessness:

Common sense does not have a clear and distinct conception of time; its

conception is confused and containsall sortsof differentand contrary elements

alongsideeachother.Thatthecommonsenseviewismainlyrealist,forinstance,is

evidencedbythe factthat inthisviewtimewouldSlowon even if therewereno

world,thatin thevoida beforeandanaftercouldstillbedistinguished.Butthere

is also a strong relational element in this view, for, to common sense, time is

intimatelyconnectedwithchange.Theword‘time’makesusthinkintheSirstplace

of events and processes, and not of stationarystates. In this respect it ishighly

signiSicant thatone iswonttosayof someout-of-the-wayvillage where nothing

changes thatit isasif timewere standing still there. Thisis clearevidence fora

relationalviewontime,forontherealistviewtheconceptof time standingstillis

completelymeaningless.(Zwart1976,33)

Sucha?lexible attitude–andone soconsiderate towards temporalexperience –

seemstobeskilfullyre?lectedintheconclusionsofJohnsonandLarson,whogoto

lengths to emphasise that ‘what is true ofmusical motion is equally trueof our

incompatibleconceptionsoftimeand,generally,ourinconsistentconceptionsofa

vastrangeofabstractconcepts’:

Our claim is that each of these different, and often inconsistent, metaphorical

structuringsofa conceptgivesusthedifferentlogicsthatweneedtounderstand

the richnessand complexityof our experience. Howeverstrong ourdesire fora

monolithic consistent ontologymightbe, the evidence does not support such a

uniSiedandsimpleviewofhumanexperience.(2003,80)

DirectingTime

70

Four

PerceptionandPerspectiveJohnAdams&FranzSchubert

Ina1928essay,TheodorAdornohighlightedpoetically–ifperhapshistrionically–

the problems posed by Franz Schubert’s relationship to his outwardly radical

contemporary Ludwig van Beethoven. He notes a difference in the expressive

musical characters perceived, asserting that ‘althoughSchubert’s music maynot

always have the power of active will that rises from the inmost nature of

Beethoven,itsendemicshaftsand?issures leadtothesamechthonicdepthwhere

thatwillhaditssource’:

Yetthe starsthatburnforSchubert’smusicarethesameasthosetowardswhose

unattainable light Beethoven’s clenched Sist reached out. So when it comes to

Schubert’smusicwe speakof ‘landscape’.Nothing could betray the substance of

his music more – since he cannot be understood in terms of Beethoven’s

spontaneously integrated personality – than trying to construct him as a

personalitywiththeidea–avirtualcentre–ofpuzzlingoutdissociatedelements.

(Adornotrans.DunsbyandPerrey2005,7)

Although subsequent commentary has not been so heavily dogged by the

misplacedexpectationsthatAdornosoughttoaddress,thecruxofthiscomparison

has lingered.Beethoven,forsome,hascometorepresentanovert–ifnotanideal

– representative of musical progress. Schubert, by implication, sidestepped the

revolution.

In reality, ofcourse, things couldneverbequite so black andwhite; just

because Schubert did not subscribe to the kind of innovation that Beethoven

espoused,itcouldneverleavehisartstagnantinitswake.Exploringthe‘depths’to

whichAdorno alluded, more recent scholarship has in fact pointed to a radical

compositional approach. Publications such as the 2003 multi-author volume

SchuberttheProgressiveattesttoawidespreadeagernesstorenewthecontextsin

which his work is considered (Newbould 2003). Susanne Kogler’s contribution

seeks to posit anotably‘modern’perspective, placinghismusic inthe context of

contemporary composition, utilising both the outlooks and themusic of Dieter

rlp503

71

Schnebel(principallyhisLiederohneWortewrittenbetween1980and1986)and

WolfgangRihm (hisWölUli-Liederbuch of 1980–81) in conjunctionwithAdorno’s

essay. Hermeans is anunderlining ofSchubert’s skill in engineeringperceptual

time and an explorationof theways inwhich this foreshadows theexpressivity

found in the ‘emotionalised’NewMusicestablishedinthe 1970s. Emphasised in

particularistheeffectof‘timelessness’(Kogler2003,89–100).

TheabilityofSchubert’smusictoseemingly‘escape’theregularpassageof

time emerges frequently in responses to his music, especially his instrumental

work. A 2012 survey in The Guardian newspaper, for example, canvassed

musicians and listeners, asking each participant to select and discuss their

favourite Schubert piece. Not only did pianist Stephen Hough and actor Simon

RussellBealebothselect examples fromSchubert’s ?inal trilogyofpianosonatas

butbothmadereferencetohistreatmentofmusicaltime,concurringwithKogler

inhighlightingitasindicativeofhis‘progressiveness’.Houghoutlinedparadoxical

sensations in the Andantino of the A-major sonata D. 959, describing it as

‘prophetic yet timeless’,whileRussellBealediscussedthe ‘experimental’Andante

sostenutooftheB♭-majorsonataD.960intermsofthecomposer’sabilityto‘maketimestandstill’:

It is as if he has distilled the process of music-making. He takes a harmonic

progression, exploresit, changesa singlenote, exploresitagain;hebreaksdowna

simplemelodyuntilonlythebonesareleftandthemusicissuspended.Theresultis

aplayofpuresound,withoutexternalreference,thatgivesusaglimpseofeternity.

(Service2012)

Ratherthanacommonplacecon?lationofprogressandcomplexity,thefocushere

is simplicity. This reductive approach can lead to surprising extremes, with

absenceseeminglytakingonanincreasinglyactiverole.Koglerisquicktoground

thisnotionwithintherealmsofhumanperception,observinga‘dialectic’between

soundandsilence(2003,89–92).

This pragmatism also proves useful with regard to Schnebel’s similarly

melodramatic portrayal of the power of musical repetition. From his musings,

Kogler delineates two basic ‘structural elements that determine the time-

appearance of the sound’: ‘immediate time’ (points of time) and ‘time passing

by’(?lowingtime). A thirdtemporal category isoutlinedwithspecial referenceto

PerceptionandPerspective

72

Schubert’s work: ‘[…] time is ?lowing totally naturally, which makes us almost

forget its transitoriness. It appears so much as unfolding of itself that the

compositionalwillseemstodissolveinitsvegetativecharacter.[…]Thus,released

time starts ?lowing’.Koglerelaboratesonthese ‘enclavesofspatialandtemporal

distance’:‘AccordingtoSchnebel,thesepassagesrefertoachangeofperspective…

and therefore stand out strikingly against their sound environment. They

constituteextra-territorialmomentsbeyondtime’(2003,90–91).

Placingperspective

Both Schnebel and Kogler draw on valid experience when recalling Schubert’s

music in these terms; as shownabove, they are far from alone inreferring to a

profound ‘timeless’ quality. Their attempts to de?ine and quantify these

experiences help to address contradictory aspects of temporal experience. To

conclude that any musical passage occurs beyond time – even in poetic or

perceptual terms – is, of course, to turn a deliberately blind eye to music’s

fundamental grounding in the linear reality of time; as Kogler herself

acknowledges,‘musicmaterialisesasastreamofsound’(2003,89).

Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, the temporary musical effect of

‘timelessness’iswidelyrecognised. Indeed,partoftheattractionofsuchmoments

orepisodes lies inthefact that, forall theirapparentevasivequalities, themusic

never leavesthepassageoftime, evenperceptually.Evenasenseoftimelessness

could only ever be understood within the context of time passing; to assert

otherwise would be a leap of pure subjective interpretation. This seemingly

illusoryfeaturecanbeadaptedto assumebroadformalsigni?icance, contributing

static or detachedexperiences within the context of a linear actuality. Jonathan

Kramer is quick to assert the linear context of musical timelessness within his

wider discussionofwhat he terms ‘vertical time’, claiming that suchmusic ‘can

provoke intense and unusual responses, but it does not destroy the temporal

continuum’. In spite of the unwavering continuation of time, the variety of

experiencesavailablewithinthedepthsofthe ‘extendedpresent’, asKramerputs


73

it, is surprising; as well as the distinct ‘lack of time’ that ‘timelessness offers’,

perceptualtimemightalsobe‘frozen’,‘slowed’or‘stopped’(1988,575–81).

Is itpossible to exploretheseperceptualcomplexitieswithoutlosing sight

ofthedirectnessand,aswiththiscase,thesimplicityofthemusicalconstructions

thatarouse them?TheseexperiencesareawidelyaccessibleaspectofSchubert’s

work; surely they embracemore fundamental aspects of listening? If so, maybe

theseperceptualprocessesneednotbethoughtofinsuchintricateterms.Perhaps

Kogler’sinitialde?initions–oftimeaseitherimmediateorpassing–havemoreto

offer. Surely a third temporal category of ‘released time ?lowing’ – for all its

professeduniqueness – is in fact somekind ofsimultaneous experienceof both

pointed and ?lowing time in combination. Indeed, are immediate and passing

temporal states usually experiencedentirely independent of one another? Ifthe

passageoftimeistakenasaconstant, thensurelythedifferencebetweenpointed

and?lowingtimeiswhollyoneofperspective,shiftsintheattentionoflisteners.

Articulatingtemporalpositionsisachallengingtask. IntheFourthCentury,

Augustinegrappledwiththenotionofapresent ‘somadethat itpasses into the

past’: ‘So indeedwe cannot say that time truly exists except in thesensethat it

tends towards non-existence’ (trans. Chadwick 1991, 231). Keen to examine

conceptsusuallytakenforgranted,hecontinuesbydismantlingthenotionsofpast

and future, dismissing them – like much functional language – as inaccurate

description:

Perhapsitwouldbeexacttosay:there arethreetimes,apresentof thingspast,a

presentofthingspresent,apresentofthingstocome.[…]Thepresentconsidering

the past is the memory, the present considering the present is immediate

awareness,thepresentconsideringthefutureisexpectation.(1991,235)

EchoingAugustine’semphasisuponthesubjective,Kramerreframestheseideasin

aesthetic terms: ‘Thepresent is not simply theplacewhereperceptionhappens,

not simply the place fromwhich linear and nonlinear perception are projected

respectivelyintothefutureandpast. Itisalso themeetinggroundofmemoryand

anticipation,bothofwhichcolourperception.’(1988,367)

Thesediscussionsoftemporalperspectivemayleadtofurtherquestionsof

subject positioning and dynamism – put simply, does time pass by or is time

passed? Reimagining the concepts that underpinMcTaggart’s ‘The Unreality of


74

Time’(1993,introducedpreviouslyinChapterThree)inanotablymoreaccessible

manner, J.J.C. Smart introducesissuesofsyntaxandmetaphortothediscoursein

hisessay‘TheRiverofTime’(1949).Hisopeningremarksseemhighlyapplicable

toaestheticexperience:

Wesaythatweareadvancingthroughtime,fromthepastintothe future,muchas

ashipadvancesthroughtheseaintounknownwaters.Sometimes,again,wethink

ofourselvesasstationarywatching timegoby, justaswemaystandona bridge

and watch leaves and sticks Sloat down the stream underneath us. Events, we

sometimes think, are like such leaves and sticks; theyapproach from the future,

aremomentarilyinthepresent,andthenrecede furtherandfurtherintothepast.

ThusinsteadofspeakingofouradvancethroughtimeweoftenspeakoftheSlowof

time.(1949,483)

Indeed,theseimpressionslieattheforefrontofEdwardA.Lippman’sdiscussionof

canonicworks inhisarticle‘ProgressiveTemporality inMusic’ (1984). Crucially,

hisnotionofprogressiondwellsnotuponbroadertastebutrefersdirectlytothe

sensationsoflistening:‘Thefeelingthatmusicisprogressingormovingforwardin

time is doubtless one of the most fundamental characteristics of musical

experience;yetitmanifestssucharemarkablerangeofvariationinitsprominence

anditsqualitythatattimes itseemstobeabsentaltogether’(1984,121).Hecites

examples and their effects: the tonally-induced irrelevance of time orderings in

Webern,thestaticcharacterofpassagesinDebussyandWagner,andtheabilityof

many contemporary works freed frompitchconstraints to seemingly regress in

time.

Re?lectingupontheseconsiderationsoftimeprovesfascinatingbutcanlead

to an analyticalheadache. Obviously inpractice, thereis no dangerofapieceof

music hindering the passage of time on a practical level, yet impressions of

stoppageandregressionabound. Herethe subjective-objectivedivide thatmusic

scholars face becomes all too blurred; when human perception is one of the

primarymediumsofmusic,howcanaperceivedtimelessnessbeignored?Howcan

abalancebefoundbetweenpragmaticdiscussionofthemusicthatdoesnotstray

from both the actuality of its performance and the continuity of its expressive

form, andthehighlyaccessibleandengagingindividualexperiences that so often

leadtolinguistictail-chasing?Earlier, itwasaskedwhetheritmightbepossibleto


75

exploreperceptualcomplexitywithoutlosingsightofmusicalsimplicity.Perhapsit

might beofuse to turn this questionupon its head. Throughconsiderationof a

pianosonatamovementbySchubert(1797–1828)andamorerecentworkbythe

American composer John Adams (b. 1947) this chapter will look to turn this

question around, asking instead whether analysing musical simplicity might

facilitate a discussion of the complex perceptual phenomena that surround it.

Ratherthanexaminingtheformatlarge,analytical focusherewill fallprincipally

upon the openings of bothworks, and some of the temporal expectations and

evaluations thatmight emerge. Whilst emphasis will remain upon theseparallel

momentsofcrystallisation, someoftheauralimplicationsforthelong-termform

ofthesepieceswillalsobediscussed.

Simplicityandcontinuity

Arelativelyrecentcompositionaltrendthathasbecomesynonymouswithideasof

musical simplicity is thatofminimalism, pioneeredduring the1960sand70s in

theUnitedStates by ?igures including LaMonteYoung, Terry Riley, SteveReich,

andPhilipGlass.Althougheachcarvedoutastrikinglyindividualvoiceforhimself,

there are overarching qualities of note. For the most part, their music is

uncompromisinglydirect, self-driven,almostindustrial initsseeminglyceaseless

onward development. As for its construction, Keith Potter writes aptly of an

‘intentionally simpli?ied rhythmic, melodic and harmonic vocabulary’ (Potter,

Grove).K.RobertSchwarzdelineatesthewiderstructuralimplicationsofthis:

Likesomuchnon-Westernmusic,minimalistpiecesdonotdrivetowardsclimaxes,

do not build up patterns of tension and release, and donot provide emotional

catharses. They demand a new kind of listening, one lacking in ‘traditional

conceptsof recollection andanticipation’, asGlasshasput it. Inminimalism, you

willnotSindthecontrasts–loudandsoft,fastandslow,bombasticorlyrical–that

arethesubstanceofWesternclassicalmusic.(1996,8–9)

Althoughhehasoftenbeenaf?iliatedwiththestyle,JohnAdamsisnotaminimalist

composer, emphatically so if Schwarz’s checklist is anything to go by; Adams

seemingly falls short in almost every category. He has, perhaps a little more


76

accurately, been described as a ‘post-minimalist’ or a ‘second generation

minimalist’ (Service 2011, and Clark 2015). But while facets of the minimalist

aesthetic emerge as prominent audible in?luences in his music, there canbeno

doubt that they are absorbedas a featurewithinamuchbroader compositional

palate that almost equally encompasses post-Romantic and early-twentieth

century styles(Cahill,Grove).Utilisingthis inclinationto drawuponawiderange

ofsources–adistinctlymodernisttendency,atleastinthepost-avant-gardeterms

discussed in the introduction–Adamsexhibits aneconomichandling ofmusical

content,producinghighlyengagingandcommunicativemusicalstructures.Though

hismusicis,inmanysenses,minimal,itseffectisdecidedlynot.

Althoughhede?ies astrictminimalistaesthetic inmanyways,Adams falls

intoalargegroupoftwentieth-centurycomposerswhosemusic–onaccountofits

apparentsimplicityofconstruction–hasoftenbeenfailedor,worse,side-linedby

more traditional analytical approaches that do not account for its perceptual

intricacies. ItispreciselythisimbalanceinscholarshipthatDanielMarchseeksto

address inhis thesisBeyond Simplicity (1997). Fromtheoutset, heexpresseshis

concern that a negative association between minimalism and simplicity leads

writers todismiss themusicasbeing ‘ofinsuf?icient compositionalinteresttobe

takenseriously’:

Such discussions usually focus on the limited amount of basic material… and

equate simplicity of means with simplicity of effect. Even those pieces which

involveagreatervarietyanddensityofmaterial[…]aretosomeextentimplicated

inthisprocess,inthattheiruseofrepetition…isviewedasdemonstratingalackof

‘musical sophistication’, which is again equated with absence of musical effect.

(1997,11)

Exhibiting a complexity of effect in spite a simplicity ofmeans, Adams’s

piece Shaker Loops for string ensemble provides an apt representation of the

dichotomyMarchoutlines.Firstemergingin1978andrevised?iveyearslater,the

work represents not only a career breakthrough for Adams but also a stylistic

watershed; althoughit comprehensivelydisplays the?irstutterancesofamature

andnow recognisably distinctive musical language, it also stands as one of the

clearest remnants of the composer’s minimalist lineage. Its direct and novel

powersofcommunicationareillustratedclearlyinthisexcerptfromDavidNice’s


77

review of a 2013 performance given by the London Symphony Orchestra

conductedbyAdamshimself:‘Williteverstopelectrifyinguswiththeshockofthe

new,thatseriesofroof-rocking,steam-trainacceleratingchords?Audiencesinthe

SeventiesandEightiesmusthaveimmediately realisedtheywereinthepresence

ofamasterpiece;westillfeltitlastnight.’(Nice2013)

Aspectsofthisdistinctiveimpression, itmightbeargued,areformedfrom

the very opening of thework, a gesture ofbold economy: two notes (a perfect

fourth, G♮ and C♮ an octave above middle C) recycled rapidly in rhythmic

uniformity.Fewgesturescouldseemmoreminimal.Fromthe?ifthbaronwards,a

B♮ ?lickersintermittentlybetweentheinterval,andforafurther18barsthis isall

thatoccurs.

Insome senses, suchemploymentofmaterial is far fromunusual. Onthe

contrary, itmight appear to subscribe to a conventional pattern inWestern art

music, assuming theroleofamusical foundationoraccompaniment,aconsistent

undercurrentofsoundthatprovidesarhythmicandtonalframeworkintowhicha

featureofgreaterinterest–usuallysomekindofmelodictheme–canthenstep.At

this point in thework, on a ?irst hearing, it is likely that many typicalWestern

listeners will still be expecting themusical ‘main event’. Thomas Clifton (1983)

helpfully frames these anticipations in terms of different notions of ‘beginning’.

Theexamplehechooses – theopening ofBeethoven’sNinthSymphony–proves

particularly relevant to this case study; like Adams, Beethoven commences his

workwithjustonemotoric, recycledinterval –aperfect?ifth.Cliftonassertsthat

he hears Beethoven’s symphony as possessing two beginnings: this opening

undercurrent, and the climactic unveiling of the primary subject 17 bars later,

reached through a brief process ofestablishedstability, ensuingdisruption, and

aggregatecumulation:

Myexperienceofasecondbeginningentailsasituationwhichisneitherarepeat,a

recapitulation, a new beginning, nor another beginning, but which refers to a

complexactivityofbothobservingandparticipating inaneventwhich(1)belongs

tothesametimeeventastheSirstbeginning;(2)showsitselfintheappearanceof

the Sirst beginning; but (3) presents an idea essentially different from that

presentedbytheSirstbeginning.(1983,83–88)


78

Perhapsitisthisexpectationofa‘secondbeginning’thatanaudiencefamiliarwith

canonic staples such as Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony would subconsciously

subscribe to at the outset of Shaker Loops. Its initial gestures would certainly

indicatesuchanunfolding.Ofcoursethedenialofthisexpectationisonlyaf?irmed

gradually,anaggingpossibilitytransformedintoapersistentreality.Audiencesare

forced to reappraise their reception of the piece as they continue to receive it,

realigning theirexpectationsandmentally reviewing–perhapsevenreplaying –

theopeningpassagesinordertofollowanon-goingnarrativethread.

Oncethese anticipations areredirected, it ispossibletomove beyondthe

surfacesimplicityoftheseinitialgestures,allowingtheirrelevancetotheprojected

musical narrative to emerge. Indeed, these connections that are crucial to a

present-tense aural continuity, an integral aspect of the highly communicative

natureofShakerLoops.Clifton’sobservationsareapt:

A mere succession of sensory experiences cannot be experienced as having

continuityif eventssucceedeachotherwithoutinSluencingeachother.Continuity

isnotanadditiveprocess;tonalatoms,bythemselves,cannotcoagulate toforma

melody. Rather, it is continuity which enables us to recognise melody, and to

atomiseitbyanalysis.(1983,96)

As theworkprogresses, therepeatedcellularpatterns–‘loops’–thatspringfrom

the texture prove generative through their interaction with one another. The

architectural shape that emerges from these accumulations and interactions

establishes an unbroken narrative stretch. Adams’s own preface to the score

indicatesthat theseissuesofformalunityandcommunicationfeaturedheavilyin

hiscompositionalapproach:

Although being in its own way an example of ‘continuous music’, Shaker Loopsdiffersfrommostotherworksofitskindbecause itseessomuchchangewithina

relativelyshort amountof time. Alsoitavoids the formaland temporalpurityof

much ‘minimal’ musicbynot adhering toa single unbending tempo throughout.

This lesssevere approach allowsa freermovement from one level of energyto

another,makingamoredramaticexperienceoftheform.(Adams1989,3)

It was such considerations that prompted Adams to revisit the original 1978

‘modular’version,inwhichtheintroductionanddurationofeach‘loop’wasleftto

thediscretionoftheconductor.Dissatis?iedwiththe‘overallshape’and‘harmonic


79

movement’ of performances that he himself did not direct, Adams produced a

through-composedversion, ‘lockinginthe harmonic and formaldesign ina time

scale that made the most sense’ (Adams 2008, 107). The in-vogue brand of

regulatedaleatoricism thatpermeatedtheinitial incarnation– thestringquartet

Wavemaker – had by now been replaced entirely with a more conventional,

composer-controlledstructuralconsistency.

The cellular properties of the ‘loops’ themselves contribute to this

continuity;beyondsimplyreappearinginquasi-leitmotivicfashion, thesequences

undergo transformations through their interactionswith surroundingmaterials,

inciting changes in pace and direction. This often occurs discreetly, with

developmentsassumingtexturalroles:theresultantunityislargelysubconscious.

Discontinuity

Inmusical terms, there isnodoubt that theopening ofShaker Loopsexhibits an

extremelevel ofcontinuity. A threadofsoundunwinds,without pause, break, or

fracture; indeed, for a large part of the opening movement this thread is only

reinforced. However, a radical simplicity of construction allows the passage to

evade conventional expectations; paradoxically, a form of discontinuity is

precipitated.Ratherthanarisingdirectly–andabruptly– frommusical gestures,

the discontinuance is a gradual realisation for ?irst-time listeners as the

economicalnatureofthematerialiscon?irmed;aprocessofre-contextualisationis

necessitated. The discontinuity takes place ‘in the audience’ rather than ‘in the

music’.

Jonathan Kramer underlines the signi?icance of musically experienced

discontinuity, asserting that an evasion of expectations can prove particularly

profound; for him, the unexpected ‘is more striking, moremeaningful, than the

expectedbecauseitcontainsmoreinformation’:

Themusical experiences thatare the mostmemorable are the magicalmoments

whenexpectation issubverted,whencomplacencyisdestroyed,andwhen anew

world opens.... Tonal discontinuities, when pushed to extremes, create new

experiencesoftime–timethatisnotlinearandnotone-dimensional.(1978,177)


80

Whereas Adams ?inds ways to challenge audiences with an unprecedented

continuity,SchubertconfrontslistenerswithanunexpecteddiscontinuityinhisB♭ sonata,onethatcanbepinpointedtotheunprecedentedbasstrillintheeighthbar.

Thevery opening ofthework seems to be imbuedwitha remarkablepower to

hold its listenerswith a seeminglyminimal amount ofeffort (see Figure 4.1). A


81

Figure4.1:Schubert,SonatainB♭,D.960,Uirstmovement(bars1–23)

largely stepwise, rhythmically steady theme – spaciously harmonised – at the

higherendofthemiddleregisterissupportedbyatonic-dominantinterplayinthe

bass. A motoric presence is imbued from interceding quaver oscillations. The

passagebetrays very little intent ofharmonic motionaway from theestablished

tonalcentreofB♭ withinthe?irstsevenbars.Thefocalinteractionsoccurbetweentonic and dominant; even a sojourn into the subdominant in the ?ifth bar is

underpinnedby continued tonic emphasis in the bass. Withthe exceptionof an

ascendingleapto E♭ inthe ?ifthbar(the?irstpoint atwhichthethematicmotionextendsbeyondastepofatoneorsemitone),themelodytooisheldcomfortably

withintherangeofaperfectfourth.

Disregarding the aural question-mark provided by the closing imperfect

cadence (second half of bar seven), the phrase evokes a strong sense of the

conventional antecedent-consequent patterns that might indicate a contained,

small-scaleform.Infact, thesonatathatensuesfromtheseopeninggesturesisone

ofgiganticproportions,usuallylastingover40minutesinperformances,withthe

Moltomoderato ?irstmovementitselfcomprisingapproximatelyhalfofthatspan.

Suchanexpansiveandsupposedly complexstructureappearstosit at oddswith

thetonal andmotivic simplicityoftheopeningsevenbars. Comparisonmightbe

drawnwith theopeningAllegro con brio ofBeethoven’s Third Symphony (itself

often approaching 20 minutes in duration), whichwill be discussed in Chapter

Eight (NarrativePossibilities) in terms ofthe thematic dropto C♯ in its seventh

bar. The effect is of a brief tonal upheaval, a magnetic disruption that is

immediatelycorrectedbutnonetheless precipitates thewidertonal introspection

and interrogation that will serve to project forward an unusually vast musical

architecture. This briefmelodic departure from, and return to C♯ is theaudible

germofthenarrativecon?lictthatensues.

No such disruption occurs within the thematic content of the ?irst seven

bars of Schubert’s sonata; by this point in a ?irst-time hearing, it is dif?icult to

conceive ofanyofthe presentedmaterial necessitating a 20-minute movement.

Indeed,thedisruptionisyetto come.Unlike inShakerLoops, thediscontinuityat

play in Schubert’s sonata does take placewithin the parameters of the notated

music.Nevertheless,itstillevokesasenseofotherness.Indeedaftersuchatonally

straight-laced opening, the G♭–A♭ bass trill in bar eight presents a jarringly


82

chromaticenigma.Whilsthetakesnoteofitsmysteriouscharacter,CharlesRosen

viewsthegestureashighlygenerative, suggesting thatthe ‘entireworkseemsto

arise’ from it (1988, 249). Charles Fisk acknowledges this catalytic functionbut

still underlines the status of the trill as a ‘foreign element’: ‘a harbringer of

something outside or beyond what is implied by the theme itself, something

fascinating in both its allure and its danger.’ He suggests that the harmonic

modulations thatitfacilitates inthecourseofthemovement– and, byextension,

the remainder of the sonata – seem to in turn suggest ‘a state ofEntfremdtheit

(‘alienation’)’(Fisk2001,241–42).

An analysis abstracted from aural experience can in fact reveal a motivic

connection that runs through the apparently disparate initial elements; when

transposed, the stepwise ascent of the melody in the ?irst bar can be seen to

reappear as the ?lourish that sets up the trill (see Figure 4.2). However, this

connectiondoes not surfaceasacrucialcomponentofthepassage as it isheard;

thetrillappears insteadasanunrelatedentityintheunfoldingmusicalnarrative,

not only hinting at new tonal realms butdoingso inathus-far unexploredpitch

register. Indeed, bythesametoken, thedifferencesbetweenthe two gesturesdo

notaudiblyamounttoanoppositioninthesamesenseasRobertHatten’stheoryof

‘markedness’ (1994, 34–38, discussedfurther inChapters Sevenand Eight). The

melody and the trill sit in stark contrast to one another but do not necessarily

appearopposed. Rather, the effect of theinterruptionmight be ofaglimpseof a

distinctivemusicalnarrativerunninginparallel –twoalternativeplanesofmusic

momentarily overlapping; indeed, the trill sounds like it belongs to an entirely


83

Figure4.2:SonatainB♭,D.960,Uirstmovement,selectedbars(1and8)withbracketshighlightingbassornamentderivation

different, fardarkerpieceofmusic inthewakeofsuchplacidity. Theoccurrence

creates a stylistic and aesthetic clash: contained clarity meets open-ended

ambiguity; a straightforward sequence of antecedence and consequence is

curtailedbyanominousquestionmark.

Whatprovesperhapsmoreradicalisthewaymusiccontinuestounfoldin

thewakeofthisdisruption.Asfarasanaudiencemightbeconcerned, thesonata

simplyrestartsitself:fornearlyfourbars,anidenticalreprisetakesplace,withthe

melodyalteredandextendedfora further?ivebarsbeyondthat.WhereasShaker

Loops might be seen as inciting a memory-based reassessment of its opening,

Schubert seems to insist upon restarting the sonata from scratch, the trill

apparently presenting a hurdle that cannot be overcome in a conventionally

through-composedmanner. The perceptual effect is one of temporal disruption,

directlinearitysacri?icedforasecond,arti?icial attemptatcontinuity.Bygranting

listeners the inside track on this process, of course, the effect is of a jarring

discontinuity. For all its understatement andpianissimo dynamic, such a blatant

cut-and-rewinddecisionseemsparticularlybrazen.

In sonata theory terms, this disjointed introduction would appear to

constitute what Hepokoski and Darcy (2006) might term a ‘deformation’, an

instance of a composer creating a particular expressive effect through the

manipulationor ?loutingofastructural norm(614–21); inthis instance, it is the

anticipation ofmelodic, tonal, and metric continuity that is aroused and offset.

What is particularly notable is the unexpected poignancy with which this

discontinuityisimplemented;whatmightatothertimesprovelittlemorethanan

eccentric disruption here proves unsettlingly evocative, with the passage

seemingly possessing signi?icant narrative potential. David Damschroder, in his

principally harmonic commentary, is even prompted here to speculate as to

whether theopeningofthemovementmight set inmotiona readingthat draws

parallelswithits composer’s con?licted sexuality (2010, 257&304–05); heeven

goes so farastoextendthismetaphor to thetonalplaying-outofthemovement,

describingthepursuitofa‘gradualconversionfromdeviantD♭–F♭–A♭todiatonicD♮–F♮–A♮’ (258–259). As conjectural as suggestions like this might seem, the

potential impactofsuchanalogies isnonethelessderivedfromthesolelymusical

deformations–bothlocaliseddiscontinuities andlong-termtonal leanings –that


84

permeate the movement. Writing more broadly, Hepokoski and Darcy (2006)

reinforcetheseconnections:

The expressive or narrative point lies in the tension between the limits of a

competentlistener’sSieldofgenericexpectationsandwhatismadetooccur–ornot

occur–in actualsoundatthatmoment.Within anyindividualexemplar(suchasa

singlemusicalcomposition)operatingundertheshapinginSluenceofacommunity-

sharedgenre-system,anyexceptionaloccurrencealongthese linescallsattentionto

itselfasastrongexpressiveeffect(2006,614).

EvenatthisearlystageinSchubert’ssonatathemusicaltime–or‘times’–it

presentshasreachedasurprisinglevelofcomplexity.Kramer, inhisbreakdownof

whatheterms temporalmodes, acknowledges the challenges inunpacking their

applicationwithinmusical works, admitting that ‘the categories are not always

comparable, and distinguishing between them is often far from a clear-cut

procedure’(1988,58).Althoughheutilisesparticularexperiencesofdiscontinuous

musical timeasdescriptivemarkersbetweenextremesoflinearandverticaltime,

he identi?ies limitations in their near-consistent impurities: ‘Most music exhibits

somekind ofmixof temporalities, at times nebulous, at times contradictory, at

times changing, at times elusive’ (1988, 58). Nevertheless, bearing the blurred

nature ofthese experiences inmind, theyresonate strongly withthe openingof

this sonata. Twomodes proveparticularly apt: ‘moment time’, inwhichmusical

continuity iscontainedwithinsectionsratherthandevelopingbyimplication;and

‘multiply-directed time’, in which implications are not realized in subsequent

sections but rather elsewhere, at other points in the musical form. Schubert’s

opening would appear to showcase characteristics of these concepts: two

seemingly disparate types of material, both audibly self-contained, the

consequencesoftheirimplications eitherplayedoutat alaterstage(theopening

melody)ortemporarilyfrustrated(the‘alien’trill).Thewidermusicalresultisthe

establishment of an engaging journey for listeners. Perceptually, the piece has

barelybegun, yet it has alreadyappearedto ?indaway to engineer,manipulate,

andrevisititsownhistory.AsCliftonnotes,‘continuityisinvolvedintheopenness

oftime:intheideathatpasteventsarenotforeversealedofffromapresentwhich


85

constantlyre-searchesit,andthatfutureeventsdonotresideinsomeunknowable

“other”,ignoring,andignoredby,thepresentsituation’(1983,97).

Movingbeyondspectacle

With their opening gestures, both pieces issue intriguing challenges to

preconceivednotionsofmusicalcontinuity.Butasfascinatingasthesesubversions

provewhen they aresubjectedto detailedanalysis, they fail to account for any

deeper dramatic signi?icance that might occur. Denials of expectations like the

ones discussed cannot necessarily garner and sustain enough interest to draw

listeners into engagementwithmusical narratives over a longer periodof time.

SuchgesturesareperhapscomparabletoAristotle’snotionof‘spectacle’withinhis

wider prescriptions for dramatic narrative; whilst some degree of spectacle

constitutesannecessarycomponentofsuccessfuldrama,heisquicktorank itthe

least signi?icantof the qualities, deeming it ‘attractive’ but ‘very inartistic andis

leastgermanetotheartofpoetry’(trans.Heath1996,13).Whenimplementedfor

a prolonged duration, such gestures make for ‘dif?icult’ listening; incessant

discontinuity amounts to a continuity of its own– one potentially remembered

moreforitsmonotonythanitsmeaning.Focusfortheremainderofthiscasestudy

pairingwillnowshifttothelonger-termstructural implicationsthatemergefrom

theopeningsofeachwork.

ShakerLoopscomprisesanuninterruptedhalf-hourofmusic, its fourparts

directly interconnected as one extended, unbroken strand. Once its initial

simplicity has encouraged anaudience beyonda super?icial reception to amore

actively-involvedstateoflistening, itmustsatisfy theserealignedexpectationsby

providing a suf?icient basis for musical drama. An emotionally communicative

dramaticstructurewaspartofAdams’s originalintentionsforthepiece. Thetitle

takesitscue–inpart–fromthedancesofthe‘Shakers’;thetermisacolloquialism

fortheUnitedSocietyofBelieversinChrist’sSecondAppearing,ofwhichtherewas

a colony near Canterbury, New Hampshire, where he grew up. Through this

reference, Adams draws upon facets of a spiritual experience, deliberately

summoningup ‘thevisionoftheseotherwisepiousand industrious soulscaught


86

upintheecstaticfrenzyofadancethatculminatedinanepiphanyofphysicaland

spiritual transcendence’ (Adams, 2014). Although themusic itself does not call

uponspeci?icimageryinanexplicitlyprogrammaticsense,itsfoursubdivisionsare

granted notably motion-based titles: ‘Shaking and Trembling’, ‘Hymning Slews’,

‘LoopsandVerses’,and‘AFinalShaking’.Whethertheaudienceaurally ‘observes’

these motions or enters into a kind of perceptual participation is dif?icult to

ascertain.Ultimately,theemotionalthrustoftheworkisunlikelytoleavelisteners

inastateofdetachment;onthecontrary,theyaredrawntoitsverycentre.

Theendresult of this compositional approachis the encouragement ofa

kind of self-re?lective listening, raising broader questions of motion, space,

subjectivity and temporality. The surface simplicity of the musical material

presentedat theoutsetofShakerLoopsprompts aheightened introspection, the

lack ofeventbeyondtheestablishedrepetitionstirringadiscontentmentwithan

attitudeofpassivereception. Spurredbeyondaface-valuehearing,meaningmust

instead be sought in the basic construction of the sound. With no distinctive

melodic shapeuponwhichto focus,attentionisdivertedto thenotes themselves

andhowthey relatetooneanother. It isanapproachthatisfrequentlytakenfor

granted within the context of conventional tonal music. When a hierarchy of

harmonicrelationships isestablished, itsprogressivefunctionisusuallyassumed

bylisteners.Until this hierarchy ismusicallychallengedor subverted, it is rarely

questioned.Manypiecesin?luencedbytheminimaliststylereaf?irmthissystemin

aparticularlyblack-and-whitemanner.

WhileShakerLoopsundoubtedlytendstowardstonality,itsapproachisnot

so clear-cut. Seemingly, at the outset, no permanent tonic key is established.

Indeed, it could easily be argued that the entire ?irst movement comprises an

extendedseriesoftonalcentres–emerging,overlapping,con?licting,fading.Itisin

this manner of continued allusion without allegiance that the drama – and, by

extension, the broader narrative – of the piece is set in motion. Rather than


87

Figure4.3:Adams,ShakerLoops,PartI:reductionofharmonicaccumulation(bars1–104)

implementing an harmonic ‘gravity’, the composer initiates an audible dialogue

between different gravitational ?ields (seeFigure4.3). Inaconventional context,

theimplicationoftheopeningperfectfourthisatonalcentreofC♮.Theinterceding

B♮ that follows throws this initial assumption into imbalance, a centreof C♮ still

likely but the possibility of G♮ as a ‘tonic’ of sorts now emerging (a likely

proposition for the score-reader given the one-sharp key signature). The

subsequentintroductionofE♮(ShakerLoops:‘PartI’,bar26)–spatiallythelowest

note – transforms all preconceptions, casting the accumulating chordwithinthe

light ofEminor (againin-keepingwiththekeysignature); theD♮ that ?lickers at

thetopofthechordinconstantinteractionwithitsadjacentC♮ immediatelyserves

toaddasenseoftransiencetothecurrentEminor,achangeincourseapparently

imminentbyvirtueoftheseventh.

While theadditionofA♮ (appearingwithincreasing prominence frombar

40)andF♯ (alargelyconsistentpresencefrombar51)servestoperpetuateanE-

minoremphasis, thegradualextensionofthecello linesdowntoC♮ (frombar75)

reasserts thepowerof thesonoritywithwhichthepiecebegan. The result is an

over-saturationoftonal possibilitiesandthe arrival atabreakingpoint. At such

junctures, Adams invokeswhatmightperceivedas changes ingestural trajectory.

The potential for palpable shifts in tonal gravity is vastly reducedby the sheer

numberofnotes collectedwithinsucha limitedpitchrange. As changes inpitch

gradually become near-imperceptible, the oscillations cease and the ensemble

settlesupononechord(C♮,D♮,F♯,B♮)beforechangingdirectionentirelythrougha

shifttoFmajor.

While an audience may remain largely unaware of the mechanics of the

tonal process, attention will nonetheless be drawn to the interaction between

these competing gravities. Expectations are constantly aroused, averted, and

deniedatdifferentstagesoftheaccumulation.Propulsivemotionisreinforcedby

theconstant transformationsofthematerial –asnewloopsareintroduced, fresh

tonalperspectivesareofferedonexistingsonorities.Theeffectuponaperception

ofthelargerformalarchitectureisanenhancedclarityofgestureatoddswithany

preconceived stasis. There is a present-tense awareness of an adaptive, goal-

orientated structure: the music feels like it is ‘going somewhere’ even if its

audiencecannotpredictwhere,orindeedwhenitwillarrive.


88

Movingbeyondcontrast

Aplotisnot(assome think)uniSiedbecauseitisconcernedwitha singleperson.

An indeterminately large numberof thingshappen toanyone person, notallof

which constituteaunity; likewise a single individual performsmanyactions, and

theydonotmakeupasingleaction.(Aristotle,trans.Heath1996,15)

Aristotle’ssummationofthevarietyofeventsthatauni?iedplotcanencompassis

aptwithregardtoSchubert’ssonata.The?irstpageofitsscore–whenrealisedin

performance–doesnotofferanimmediateimpressionofunity.Ratherthejarring

contrastsofthemusicalmaterialitpresentsincitesapuzzlingaside:howmightthe

composerunitethesedisparateelementswithinthecontextofacohesivewhole?

Theanswer, it emerges, isnotquiteso straightforward, yet it is arguably simple,

nonetheless: rather than any immediate attempt to reconcile or resolve the

differences,Schubertiscontenttoletthesetwo‘characters’–self-containedclarity

and other open-ended ambiguity – coexist alongside one another. Indeed, it is

throughchangingauralperspectivesuponthesematerialsandtheirrolesthatthe

long-term drama of themovement arises (see Figure 4.4 for a summary of the

formalscheme).13

Followingthe?irstappearanceofthetrillinbar8,theextendedrestatement

oftheopeningthemeculminatesinaperfectcadenceatbar18.Thereturningtrill,

however,isnowplaceduponthetonicitself(bar19),itschromaticoscillationwith

C♭ incitingadescenttowardsitsoriginalG♭ contextattheupbeattobar20.Thisdiversion sets up an entirely new context for the restatement of the principal

theme:althoughthethemerecommencesonthetonic (aswiththeopeningofthe

movement), itnow?indsitselfrelegatedtothestatusofmediantwithinthenewly-

forgedpathofG♭ major(seeFigure4.1).As Fisk readily acknowledges, such emphasis upon the ?lattened

submediant in a major-key work is not out of the ordinary, even within the

classicalstyle.Whathequiterightlyemphasisesthough,isthe‘portentous’nature

of its signi?icance in this opening passage (2001, 241). While these events

themselves constitute nothing unusual, the way they are paced does. The


89

13 Durationstakenfromrecording listedinprimaryresource list(MitsukoUchida,piano.Decca:4756282).

expansiveB♭ sonoritywith its comfortably placedmelodydoesnotsoundinanywayprecarious;onthecontrary,italmostgivesthesensethat, freeofinterference,

it couldcontinueonwards inaperpetualstate. Suchadramaticuprootingwithin

the ?irst 20bars of thework belies anunderlying competing tonal gravity – its

orbit stationedaroundG♭ –withprofoundimplications for themusicalnarrativeto follow. Beneath the tranquil surface of the opening bars, a fundamental

hierarchyhasbeencalledintoquestion.

Withnecessaryintervallicadjustmentsmade, themelodyisgraduallyspun

furtherwithanonward ?low ofquavers frombar 27cascadingintoadeveloping


90

Formaldivision Bars Tonalregion(bars) Duration

FirstExposition

(+Sirst-timebars)

1–116

+9bars

B♭major(1–19)G♭major(20–34)B♭major(35–47)F♯ minor(48–73)Fmajor(74–117i)

0’00–5’44

SecondExposition

(+second-timebar)

1–116

+1bar

B♭major(1–19)G♭major(20–34)B♭major(35–47)F♯ minor(48–73)Fmajor(74–117ii)

5’44–11’04

Development 118–215

C♯ minor(118–148)D♭major(149–156)Emajor(157–161)Cmajor(162–165)

Transition(166–170)

Dminor(/B♭major)(172–202)Fmajor(Voftonic)(203–215)

11’04–15’15

Recapitulation 216–357

B♭major(216–234)G♭major(235–238)F♯ minor(239–253)B♭major(254–266)Bminor(267–288)

B♭major(289–357)

15’15–21’54

Fig.4.4:SonatainB♭,D.960,tabledisplayingstructuralplan

sequenceofsemi-quaversfrombar29.Theepisodeiscurtailedbytheintroduction

of triplet quavers (from bar34), the accumulatedmomentumpropelledforward

into a forte restatement of the opening material, underpinned by the newly

acquiredtripletrhythm.

Themelodic subject is, by this point, outgrowing its shape and its tonal

allegiance with understated ease. Rather than assuming a concrete form, a

perceived ‘theme’ takes the shape of a broader gestural pattern bywhich each

passage is fashioned; a basic entity never revealed in an ‘essential’ form but

instead continually altered. Schubert extends, elaborates, and fragments the

melody with tireless variety, allowing it to permeate the form of thework. The

effect is anotable temporal dichotomy: on onehand, the formbears anaudible

repetitivestreak,asenseofstasisandcircularitythatallowsthemovementtotake

theshapeofameditationononeessentialsubject;ontheother, thereisapalpable

senseof onward development, of the sameideaappearingand altering within a

varietyofequallychangeableaudiblecontexts.14

The melodic freedom that this perceptual paradox engenders serves to

counteractthestringencythatmightarisefromtheclearlydelineatedsonataform

withfantasy-likeexploratoryqualities.Theever-developingnarrativeofthetheme

itself eventually proves to be an alienating factor for the audience as it strives

furtherandfurtherfrom its initialstatethroughincreasinglyunfamiliarterritory.

Thetonal scheme represents, for Charles Rosen, the ‘tourde force’ ofSchubert’s

treatment of the three-key exposition, the gravity towards F♯ minor (a minor-

mode enharmonic transformation of the G♭ that ?irst appeared at bar 20) thatemerges in the extended transitory episode serving deftly to offset the typical

oppositionbetweentonicanddominant(1988,234–249). Rosenisquick topoint

towardsthe‘wonderfullyexpressiveambiguities’oftheharmonicprogressions:

[…] the way that A major appears, only to be immediately inSlected and

weakenedbytheB♭ in the bass(bars58–59),the suggestionofBminorthatis


91

14ThisthematicapproachbearsrelationtowhatbothArnoldSchoenberg,andlaterWalterFrisch with his derived study, have identiSied in the music of Brahms, praising theevolutionofhisthemesasanexempliSicationofwhattheyterm‘developingvariation’:thebasictraceofamotifretainedthroughoutan‘endlessreshaping’ (Schoenberg1975,129).ThisisanideathatiscoveredfurtherinChapterSix(DynamicContinuities)ofthisthesis.

nevercarriedout, andthenewharmonicmeaningofDminorattachedbrieSlyto

theF♮ inthebassbutsustainedsobrieSly.(1988,249)

In seeking to develop anharmonic approach that bypasses conventional

diatonicism infavour ofvoice-leading ef?iciency between triadic shapes, Richard

Cohn(1999& 2012) is quick to ascribe further signi?icance to F♯minor. Rather

than comprising what he terms (with deliberate verbosity) ‘an enharmonically

respelled minor in?lection of the triad on the ?latted submediant degree’, the

sonorityconstitutes a ‘polar’key, sharingno toneswiththeestablishedB♭majoryetofferingrapidmodulatorypotentialthroughsemitonemovement(1999, 218).

Assuming this perspectiveontherelationship between B♭major and F♯minor,Cohn argues, casts new light upon the unnervingly brief switch to the audibly

distantC♯minorattheoutsetofthedevelopmentsection,withthisnewpoint of

tonal gravity representing the corresponding polar relationship to the

conventional dominantof F major(1999, 218–19). Establishing a tonal network

thatrevolvesaroundaseriesofmajorthirds(andtheirresultingtriadicoverlaps)

stemming from the tonic, he takes his analysis further, proposing a structural

schemeinwhichtheoverlapsbetweentriadicshapesallowaconventionaltonic–

dominant–tonicsequenceoverthecourseofthemovement,withtheexceptionof

the‘doubledominant’usedattheoutsetofthedevelopment(2012,125–28).

For listeners, itmaywell be that such a varietyof harmonic implications

andforecastsservesonly toenhanceagrowingfeelingofdisorientation.Somuch

so thatby thecloseofthe ?irstexposition, aremarkableshifthasoccurredinthe

charactersof thematerials:with thesudden, fortissimoreappearance in the?inal

bar of the ?irst-time-repeat segment, it becomes apparent that although its

peripheraltreatmentlendsitasomewhatspectralquality,thetrillisnowrendered

familiar by comparison. Serving as a jolting reminder of the interruptions with

whichthework began, it seems toprecipitate theexposition repeat itself. A role

reversal has occurred: the tonally rooted primary subject has takenon a more

restless, searchingcharacter,whilstthetrillisrendereditsgroundingfactor.With

eachappearance the trillmakes it is further absorbed into the consciousnessof

listeners; although it may at ?irst seem ‘foreign’, it has before long become

somethingofafamiliarlandmark.


92

Indeed, this perceptual transformation might be seen as providing a

compellingargument for the inclusionoftheexpositionrepeat inperformance.15

Bypassingitaltogetherproducesaprofoundlydifferentpieceofmusic.Notonlyis

thebalanceofa potential binary-formreadingofboth themovementandindeed

the entire sonata (see Figure 4.5) destroyed, but nine bars of music are cut

altogether,nevertobeheard, somethingperhapsmoreforgivableifitweren’tfor

thefact that thesebarspresent not onlyanentirelynew ?iguration, butalso the

only fortissimorenditionofthetrillmotif. Thework isirrevocablychanged,quite

contrary to the composer’s intentions; so extensive is Schubert’s compositional

preparationfor the return to theopening that it seems unwise to view it as an

optionalformalitythatcanbeignored.

Thefullextentoftheshiftsinfunctionofthethemeandtrillishighlightedat

the close of the development. The C♯ minor that opens the section (bar 118

onwards) quickly pivots to D♭ major paving the way for a cascade of far-?lungprogressions (Emajor,Cmajor,A♭ minor, Bminor)thatlandthemusic ?irmly inthe bleak realm of D minor with no apparent signposts to indicate a way out.

Indeeditis,asFiskobserves,thereturnofthetrill–inanotablystationarymode–

thatcon?irmsDminorasanew tonal centre (bars186–87).Asifthesonatawas

exercisingitsownmusicalmemory, theuseofthetrillservesasamotivicprompt,

bringingabout a recollectionof theopening themebut transposed–aswiththe

G♭-majoriterationfrombar20–tothemediantofthenewtonic.Fiskobservesthesigni?icanceof thismelodic decision, incorporatinghis own ‘wanderer’-narrative

interpretation(Fisk2001,252):


93

15AlfredBrendelinparticularexplainsthathemakesthischoiceprimarilyinorderthathemightbeable to comfortablyperformSchubert’sSinal three pianosonatasasatrilogyinone evening, his conSidentoverriding of the composer leading to a disagreement andafascinatingexchangewithWalterFrisch(FrischandBrendel,1989).

Fig.4.5:SonatainB♭,D.960,diagramdisplayinglevelsofbinaryformthroughwork

Improvising a version of this passage in which the return of the theme begins

insteadwith thetonicrevealsatonce howcruciallythemelodicemphasison the

third degree affects its feeling. It still feels more like the song of the exiled

protagonist, the lonely wanderer, than like the theme in itsmore choral, more

angelicinitialform.

Iterationsofthethemefailtoprovideanykindoflong-termharmonicmomentum

asthe intercedingbasstrillscon?irmoscillationsbetweenDminorandB♭ major.Hepokoski andDarcy frame this passage in terms of its recapitulatory allusion,

describing it as ‘one of the most moving series of false starts in the

repertory’ (Hepokoski &Darcy 2006, 262). The tonic key not only appears as a

subordinate to itsmediant, but asnothingshortofamomentaryescapist fantasy

within a foreign environment; so thorough has the change of perspective been

upontheopeningsonoritiesthat,bythispointinthemovement,theyserveonlyto

enhanceasenseofdisorientation.Thesameisalsotrueofthedominantforatime,

Fmajor robbedof ‘all its conventional power’ inRosen’swords, initially leading

back to Dminor (Rosen 1988, 291). As he points out, it is only through the fp

emphasis (bar203)uponadominant-seventhchordthat there-establishmentof

the tonic for the recapitulation is undertaken. It is at this point that the trill is

recalled in its original form (bars 213–14), its miniature departure from and

return to the dominant sonority via chromatic unfamiliarity having proved

symbolicofthewidertonalschemethathasunfurled:amicroscopicexpressionof

amacrocosmic procedure. In thedesolatepassage thathas precededthis return,

the B♭ major triad has been reintroduced in cryptic segments as a ?igurationplaguedby disorientationanduncertainty, witheachconstituentnoteutilisedas

the root of a suggested tonal direction: D♮ as a minor-key continuation of the

development-section wilderness; B♭ paradoxically as an exotic escape to theunfamiliar;F♮at ?irstasadeadendandeventuallyasapotentialpathbacktothe

tonic stability ofa recapitulation.Noteworthy in this sense is NicholasMarston’s

reading(2000),inwhichhesuggeststhatthisnotionoftonaltransformationmight

be carried yet further; highlighting the way inwhich a heard augmented sixth

chord(B♭♭–D♭–F♭–G)inthecourseoftherecapitulation(bar253)is infactspeltas a dominant seventhchord inDmajor (A♮–C♯–E♮–G♮), heargues that the very

notion of B♭ major as a ‘home’ key is challenged: ‘Consequently, whereas the


94

correspondingmomentintheexpositionbroughtareturntothetonicfollowingan

extendeddigressiontothe?lattenedsubmediant,hereinbars254-5Schubertpulls

off the feat of “chromaticising” the tonic, speci?ically by colouring it as a ?lat

submediantitself’(2000,257–258).

Formandfunction

By the closingpassages of the ?irstmovement of Schubert’s sonata, a profound

shiftinauralperspectiveuponthemusicalcontenthasbeencompleted.Whilethe

materialitselfhasremainedlargelyunchanged, it istheroleeachmotivicelement

playsthathasbeensubjecttoatransformation.Attheoutsetofthemovement,the

trill surfaced as a disruptive presence, its ambiguous chromaticism throwing a

spannerintheworksoftheplain-statedopeningsubjectandprecipitatingjarring

discontinuities. Bythe close ofthemovement, it recurs as a familiar landmark, a

homecomingpromptfortheverysubject itonceunsettled.As theaudiencehears

thetrill, itisacatalystfortonalmotion,butthetonalgoalinquestionchanges.The

ability of the trill to initially transport the music to a new tonal realm is now

transformedintoanabilitytobringithome.Theopeningmelody,meanwhile,has

developed a restless character; it seems to ?ind little catharsis in its ?inal

appearances, the movement drawn to a conclusion more on account of its

continued iterations within a perpetuated tonic than through any audible

resolutionofnote. Indeed, it is throughthis lack ofsatisfactoryculminationthat

the subduedgriefof the ensuingAndante sostenuto – set within the tonally far-

?lungkeyofC♯ minor–andtheauraljourneyofthesonataatlargeisfacilitated.It

is a shift redolent ofwhat Janet Schmalfeldt terms ‘becoming’: ‘the special case

whereby the formal function initially suggested by a musical idea, phrase, or

section invites retrospective reinterpretation within the larger formal

context’(2011,9).

AlthoughAdams’s approachtomotivicmaterialandits functionmightnot

seem so clear cut, the broader concept of melody – and more speci?ically of

melodic ‘convergence'– isofgreatsigni?icance, audiblysoinShakerLoops.While

thebroader,lyricalgesturesthatemergeattheoutsetofPartII(‘HymningSlews’)


95

sit seeminglyatoddswiththe rapid initial cells andloops thathaveprecededit,

thisapparentdisparityismerelyare?lectionoftime-scale.Aswiththeouterparts

of thework, thesecentralpassages arebuiltfromreiterationsof simplecellular

motifsutilisingintervalsofsecondsandthirds.However,these?iguresnowappear

stretchedandprolonged;hyperactivetextural jostlingoftheopeningofthework

has unwound into a drifting, slow-motion dialogue of interlocking fragments

across the ensemble. The transformation of prior materials in this re?lective

manner belies a unity of construction that in turn serves to enhance asenseof

long-termauralcontinuity.

This economical approach to thematic material continues into Part III

(‘Loops and Verses’) as a solo cello emerges atop tranquil textures from the

preceding calm,gradually expandingaslowoscillationbetween two notes into a

prolongedmelodicmeditation(seeFigure4.6).Thisnew focusupononesingular

subjectratherthantheinteractionsbetweenseveraloverlappinglines–facilitated

bytheprecedingperiodofrelativecalm–mightbeheardasincitingadistortionof

thetemporalityofthework. Contrary to theshiftingattentionencouragedbythe

musicalmultiplicityexhibitedthroughtherestofthework, theextendedmelodic

outpouringfromthecelloprovidesaclearfocalpoint,acrystallisationofthepre-

existingmaterial that engenders a sense ofdetachment from the temporal ?low,

what might be interpreted as a kind of timelessness within the context of the

broaderform.

This refashioning of basic material through long-term gestures of

convergence can be observed at its pinnacle when the large-scale structure of

ShakerLoopsisconsidered. Althoughit is experiencedas a singlespanofmusic,

the narrative form of the work can be reduced to four broad gestures in


96

Figure4.6:ShakerLoops,PartIII,solocellomelody(bars3–26)

accordancewiththedivisionsAdamsmakes(seeFigure4.7).16Itisintheseterms

that the architecture – and the narrative framework – of Shaker Loops can be

comprehended. Continuityisachievedthroughprocess,but far fromthemotoric,

accumulative operations ofminimalism, this takes a farmore organic shape: the

pieceoffersanexplorationoftheprocessofuni?ication.Seekingdirection–at?irst

throughoutwardexplorationandfrenziedonwardmotion–themusiceventually

reaches apointofcrisisand, subsequently, ofcrystallisation. The self-exhausting

locomotive climax of the third movement comprises a series of rhythmic

contractions and expansions of two repeated notes. The initial short-long

?igurationofthecellisapparentlyderivedfromtheB♮ entriesattheveryopening

of thework (Part I – ‘ShakingandTrembling’, bars 5–30). In thecourse ofwhat

proves to be the formal cataclysm of the work, the length of the two notes is

reversedas the ensemble convergeswith increasing muscularity (Shaker Loops:

Part III – ‘Loops andVerses’, bars 71–123). The incision has been inverted, the

abruptactionoftheshorternotenowactingasacut-offratherthanasaherald;an

invertedperspectiveuponthe samebasicmotivic shape has beenachieved(see

Figure4.8).


97

16 Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (London ChamberOrchestra,conductedbyChristopherWarren-Green.VirginClassics:724356185128).

Part Duration Gesturalcontent

I.‘ShakingandTrembling’ 7’59An onward rush of multiple agents, interactingand reacting to one another while joined in amotoricforwardaction.

II.‘HymningSlews’ 5’23 A lull gradually precipitated bythe lack of goalachievedthroughtheinitialmotion.

III.‘LoopsandVerses’ 8’10

The slow convergence of the ensemble upon arepeatedrhythm(an inversionofacell from theopening of the work) catapulted throughmultiple accelerations culminating in a climacticcollisionandasubsequentdissipation.

IV. ‘AFinalShaking’ 3’25

Are-visitationof themotoricmotionsofthe Sirstpart, an entirely new perspective now gainedupon the material – rather than a race to burnout, themusic insteadgraduallysinksand fadestoitsconclusion.

Figure4.7:ShakerLoops,tabledisplayinggesturalinterpretationofform

After this watershed, earlier material is revisited but with an inevitably

alteredperspective.Thefourthand?inalmovementbearsgreatresemblancetothe

?irst,motoricpulsationsemergingandinteractingacrosstheensemble.Butrather

than inciting dramatic builds in tension, these accumulating loops lead to an

ultimate sense of release and relief. Perspectives on essentially unchanged

materialshavebeentransformedoverthecourseofthework.Themusicalcontent

of both Shaker Loops and Schubert’s sonata, it would appear, has retained its

simplicity;thecomplexitiesandchangesthathavearisenareinfactpredominantly

perceptual. In terms ofaural content, theexperiences of bothworks endwhere

theybegan;ratheritistheinterceding‘events’thathavereshapedhowtheymight

beheard.


98

Figure4.8:ShakerLoops,excerptsshowingrhythmicmotifreversalacrosswork

Five

PerceivingTime

Objectiveandsubjectivetime

Psychologistshaveshownthatsubjectivetimedoesnotgenerallyequalclocktime.

In the process of experiencing and then remembering lengths of time, we alter

them. It is misleading, however, to think of subjective time alterations as

distortions. Subjective duration ismore relevant to the understanding of musicthanisdurationmeasuredbyaclock.(J.Kramer1988,327)

Although he underlines the variety of temporal experiences that music can

highlight,JonathanKramerlaysthegroundworkforhisin-depthstudyTheTimeof

Music by making a number of interconnected distinctions regarding our

perceptions of time itself (1988, 1–19). He is quick to acknowledge the

correspondencebetweenhisdivisionoflinearandnon-lineartime–akeystoneof

his writing – and the long-held philosophical separation between

‘becoming’ (‘Heraclitean Flux’, as Weinert puts it) and ‘being’ (Weinert’s

‘ParmenideanStasis’).17 The ongoing, quanti?iable ‘ordinary’ time of daily life is

seemingly at odds with a more malleable, immersive musical time, one that is

described as being ‘repeatable, reversible, accelerating and decelerating’ (J.

Kramer1988,17).DavidEpsteinisquicktoalign the?irst ofthese‘times’witha

clocklikemeasurementmode, withthe latter dependentupon‘experience for its

demarcation’:

The clocklikemode iseasiestto comprehend, especially in an age dominated by

precision timepieces. The exactitude of the clock (ormetronome) is Janus-faced,

however; it isgained atthe expense of interest, forthough clocktime isreliable

and predictable, it is also dull. (How long can a ticking clock, devoid of other

content,hold the attentionof a livelymind?)Experientialtime,bycontrast, isthe

stuffoflife,endlesslyinteresting,rarelythesame,Silledwiththeepisodesof living

by which it is framed. By this same token it is unpredictable, its particular

structures drawn from and formed by those very elements thatmake a given

experience unique. In reality, we live by both modes of time. They run

simultaneously,attimescorresponding,atother timesin conSlict. (Epstein 1995,

7)

17Weinert’sdistinction(2013,89–90)isdiscussedinChapterThree(DirectingTime).

rlp503

99

ForEpstein, theideaoftheclockprovesparticularlysigni?icant, evenifhe

does appear to underestimate its expressive potential in certain contexts. The

notionofa ‘biologicalclock’evenunderpinshisexplorationof theways inwhich

periods of time are perceived and understood (1995, 135–55). He highlights

research into the way in which continuous movements or sensations are

transmittedvia intermittentprocesses in thehumannervoussystem (principally

Gooddy 1969 & 1977), the leaning of these processes towards synchronicity

(Fraser 1978), and their signi?icance in perceivingunits of time (Pöppel 1978).

Whilst his resulting observations about our understanding ofmetre and tempo

prove useful, there can be no doubt that they serve a particular agenda; his

emphasis upon systematic consistency in time perception re?lects the broader

musical regularity (rhythm, metre and phrase structure) of the classical and

romantic works thatdominatehis study. His interpretationsofmusical time are

unapologeticallytiedupwiththeteleologicalstructuralandtonalprinciplesofthe

pieces he deems themost successful. His reasoning for this selection process is

evidencedperhapsmosttellinglyinhisuseofacounterexample,whathedeemsto

bea‘miscalulatedsection’inaScriabin’sPianoConcerto:a12-bardominantpedal

inthe?inal-movementcodajudgedtobeunnecessary–a‘musicalfalsehood’–on

accountofitsapparentintentiontore-establishthealreadyaf?irmedtonic.Inspite

of the climactic effect Epstein himself describes the passage as possessing, he

dismissesitas‘rhetoricallyempty’:

Thepassion seems hollow, the sweepof the line unconvincing. The phrase feels

untrue. Nor is thisaffective responseunfounded; it isgrounded in the structure

itself. Scriabin’s miscalculation provides a musically unneeded passage whose

climacticcharacterisunsupported.Themusicis thusatoddswithitsunderlying

structure,andtherebystemsfromnointrinsicneed.(Epstein1995,90–93)

By contrast, Kramer’s approach proves helpful in its aversion to such a

categorical, and indeed intrusively self-certain presentation. Although the

framework he proposes is also marked by contrasting understandings of time,

their simultaneity becomes a point of recurring emphasis. The seemingly

paradoxical experiences that are enabledby this interactionbetweenperceptual

extremes becomes something that can be embraced and explored rather than

simply bypassed in favour of a more stable, regularised, middle-ground

PerceivingTime

100

interpretation. Kramer points to the impact of cultural thought upon

interpretations oftime, outlining the linear, absolute timeoftheWesternworld

andthecausalunderstandingitgenerates.Twentieth-centuryartsandtechnology

serve to illustrate a gradual leaning towards less obviously sequential

understandingsoftime:theincreasingobsolescenceoftraintravelasametaphor

for modern experience relative to the ‘imperceptible motion’ (and thus the

apparent stasis) of ?light serves as a particularly potent example. Even the

advances that have ensued since Kramer committed his thoughts to print have

only served to enhance his accompanying analogy regarding computing: ‘A

program consists of doubling back, of loops within loops, of branching off in

different directions. It is thus an apt symbol for contemporary temporality.’ (J.

Kramer,1988,9–19)

Moreconvincingly, Kramer’scaseisgroundedinneurologicalthought.The

long-accepteddivisionsinfunctionbetweenthetwohemispheresofthebrainlead

himto concludethat contrastingperceptionsoriginateindistinctbutnonetheless

cooperating sectionsof the brain. The left hemisphereacts as the ‘seat of linear

logic’, offering analytical, compartmentalised readings based on a causal

understanding; therighthemisphere,meanwhile, offersaholistic comprehension

ofcomplexwebsofevents, remainingopento notionsofsimultaneity, expression

andmetaphor.Musicalexperiences–andthusmusicaltime,heasserts–relyupon

both the objective perspective of the left hemisphere, and the subjective

understandingsofferedbytheright(1988,9–12).

Acknowledging this psychological synthesis of perceptual extremes may

help us to elucidate the variety of experiences Kramer alludes to. Instead of

representing direct contrasts, perceptions of time could be located at points on

what might be thought of as a continuum between absolute and relational

conceptions of temporality. Certainly this rooting in cognition provides a more

pragmatic frameworkforanexplorationofmusical time. Forall their discernible

alignments, the impossibility of a predictable theoretical reconciliationbetween

objectiveand subjectivetimemust be conceded. Instead,what broadly inclusive

surveys like those by Weinert (2013) seem to underline is how much more

complexandmulti-facetedourunderstandingoftemporalitymightbe;itcannotbe

reducedtoasimplecontrastbetweentwoextremesofregularityand?luctuation.

PerceivingTime

101

Studies likeKramer’sThe Time ofMusic demonstrateacommitment to exploring

whatliesbetweenandindeedbeyondthesetwoextremes, andacknowledgethat

theyarenotnecessarilyde?inedbytheiroppositiontooneanother.

Iwouldsuggest thatwriters continue to employ(or imply) theobjective-

subjective distinction – in spite of the apparent oversimpli?ication it risks – on

account of how relatable it remains. It is best regarded as an indicator of how

universally standardised temporal measures cannot even guarantee perceptual

consistency.Rather,itisbesttoacceptthattheco-operationsandtensionsthatare

experiencedbetweenthesetwo contrastingtemporalperspectives–andall those

perceptionsof time thatmightbethoughtofas inhabiting a continuumbetween

thesetwoextremes–areevidencenotsomuchofadifferencetobereconciledbut

of a coexistence that is in fact characteristic of lived experience. Certainly this

inclusiveapproachis ofmost usewithin thecontexts ofstudies like this one, in

whichcanonicmusicmoreconventionallythoughtofasengagingwithlineartime

is juxtaposedwithnewerpiecesthat inmanyinstancescanbeseentoundermine

or defy such a reading. This chapter will ?irst provide a brief survey of

psychologicalandcognitiveresearchconcernedwiththemannerinwhichmusical

timeistypicallyprocessedandhowtheseoperationsmaybesubverted.Focuswill

gradually shift to musical characteristics and how the design of compositions

might be thought of asmanipulating temporal perceptions. The closing segment

willhighlighttwoscholars–RobertAdlingtonandJonathanKramer– whohave

providedparticularly insightfulwaysofcomprehendingmore recentmusic that,

through the absence of regularised elements, provokes less conventional

perceptionsoftime.

Orderandconsciousness

The German philosopher Edmund Husserl modelled a more inclusive attitude

towardstemporalperceptionwithhisphenomenologicaltheoriespublishedinthe

?irsthalfof thetwentiethcentury (Husserltrans. Brough,1991). Inparticular, he

offersareconciliationofsortsbetweenabsoluteandrelationaltimethroughwhat

hedeemstobeanecessarydismissalofthenotionofobjectivetime;hisintention

PerceivingTime

102

isnottorejecttheconceptoutright,butrathertosuspenditforthepurposeofhis

inquiries(1991,4–8).18Instead,itisanemphasisonintentionalconsciousnessthat

underpins his investigations, providing ‘the very grounding condition of our

knowledge of the world’, as David Clarke surmises (2011, 1–2); for Husserl,

temporality comprises a stream of lived experiences uni?ied within the

consciousnessofthesubject.

Music holds some signi?icance within this view of time perception,

articulating both this momentary ?low and its broader sequential unity in an

undeniablydirectmanner. Clarke is justi?iably forthright about this relationship,

assertingthat participating inmusical acts‘capturesinitsverytemporal essence

thetemporalitythatisessentialtotheknowingofbeing–i.e.consciousness’(2011,

1–2).ItisapointHusserlharnessesinordertoillustratethisprocessofsuccession,

using theexample ofthe perceptionofamelody (de?inedhere as a sequenceof

tones)as aspringboardforhis examinationofmemoryandcontinuity.Crucialto

thisishisconceptofretention:anenduring,present-tensegraspofelapsedtones,

a‘consciousnessofwhathasjustbeen’(Miller1984,120).

It is this process of conscious, invokedmemory – distinct from a more

isolated act of recollection – that enables temporal structure to take shape,

allowing events to fall into a potentially meaningful sequence rather than a

disparate array of occurrences. Husserl also outlines a corresponding notionof

protention, what Clarke helpfully describes as ‘the fringe of expectationwhere

what is just about to happen colours our experience of now’. However, this

supposedlysymmetricalcounterparttoretentionprovesalittlemoreproblematic;

Clarkeraisesaptconcernsregardingboththeincompatibilityofthisconceptwith

the apparent asymmetry of time itself and with Husserl’s failure to tackle

anticipation as an opposite to recollection (D. Clarke 2011, 5). It is enough for

present purposes to accept Izchak Miller’s description of the reciprocal

relationshipas it is experienced(1984, 121): ‘AccordingtoHusserl, I have[…] a

primal-impression, acontinuousmanifoldofretentionswhichare ‘modi?ications’

of past primal-impressions and a continuousmanifoldofprotentions which are

PerceivingTime

103

18 A helpfullydetailed examination of this ‘phenomenological reduction’, itsdistinctionfromCartesianphilosophy,anditsimplicationsforthenotionsofobjectandessence, canbefoundinMiller1984,175–98.

responsibleformyhaving…ananticipatoryawarenessofacontinuousmanifoldof

futureprimal-impressions.’19

Inthecontextofaperformance,suchaviewoftimeperceptionwouldseem

to place listeners in the crux of themomentary present, with potential musical

meaningsaccessiblethroughacombinationof‘moving’memoriesofthepastand

shiftingexpectationsofthefuture.Theideaofan‘organisingimpulse’lyingatthe

heart of the listening enterprise (in the spirit of Whittall’s take on the act of

composition,discussedattheoutsetofChapterTwo:AlternativePaths)appearsto

hold truehere.20 It is aconclusionechoedby Hodges andSebald, who conclude

their survey of neurological hearing mechanisms by outlining a psychological

tendency:‘Wemayhaveinventedmusic, inpart,becauseweweresurroundedbya

soundworldfromwhichwe couldnot escape. Musical sound results, at least in

part, from thehumanneed to organiseandelaborate sensory input’ (2011, 96–

110). When it comes to sound, order and meaning are unavoidably linked;

listening to music necessitates, on some level, a direct engagement with our

temporal consciousness. In its broadest sense, ‘musical time’ might best be

understoodasanapproachtowardstheorganisationofsoundthatfacilitatessuch

meaning.

Processingmusicaltime

Practicallyspeaking, it is rhythmandmetrethatmightbethoughtofas themost

rudimentary subdivisions of musical time. However, ‘rhythm’ in particular has

come to encompass a number of de?initions. Christopher Hasty navigates the

‘extraordinary rangeof reference’ that it has acquiredbyseparating thisvariety

into threedistinctgroups:broadertemporal organisationinmusic, theunfolding

of musical form, and quanti?iable patterns of rhythm and metre. Although he

PerceivingTime

104

19 Detailed examinations of Husserl’s account of the perception of a melody and itsimplicationsfortemporalphenomenologycanbefoundinClarke2011:1–24,Miller1984:117–44,andSmith1979:100–16.

20ChristopherSmallalsoemphasiseslisteningasanactiveroletoplayintheperformanceof music in his Musicking (1998); his theory will be explored further in the comingchapters.

identi?iesthethirdoftheseasthemostcommonlyemployedde?inition,heisquick

to emphasise the implications that anexplorationof such featuresmay have for

wider‘rhythms’,eveniftheseareoftenneglectedindiscussion(1981b,183–85).

Indeed, a positivethatmight be gleaned from thebroadening of‘rhythm’

into something ofan umbrella term is theway inwhich temporal processing in

music might accordingly be connectedwith aspects ofmore general experience.

HodgesandSebaldprovidea convincingoverviewoftheways inwhichahuman

senseofrhythmmightbecontextualisedwithinauniversethatexistsina‘stateof

vibration’, contrasting recurring cosmic shifts with the oscillations of atomic

particles outlinedinStringTheory (2011, 31–36): ‘Althoughwecannot perceive

vibrationsatthemacro-andmicroscopicscales, theperiodicitieswecanperceive

create a rhythmic environment. Seasons of the year, phases of the moon, and

periods ofdaylight anddark follow in regular, timely patterns.’ In amanner in-

keeping with Epstein’s idea of a ‘biological clock’, these natural patterns are

mirroredbythehumanbody,withprocesseslikeheartandbreathingrates,brain

waves,hormonaloutputsandsleepcyclesactingasreadilyobservableillustrations

ofphysiologicalrhythms(HodgesandSebald2011,33).

The fundamental natureof these traits has lead to questions of whether

some basic understandings of rhythm might be considered universal. Although

conceding a decidedly Western perspective, Carolyn Drake and Daisy Bertrand

haveset out suggestions for cross-cultural researchmethods thatmight helpto

identifycommonprocessingcharacteristics(2003,21–31).Thetraitstheypropose

demonstrate leanings towards regularity of sequence, moderationofspeed, and

the perceived interrelation of durations and intervals, all features that might

facilitatearhythmicunderstandingthat iscapableofextendingbeyondwhatthey

describeasa‘memorybuffer’ofprocessingtime:

One can imagine a temporal window gliding gradually through time, with new

eventsarriving atone endandoldeventsdisappearing attheotherduetodecay.

Thusonlyeventsoccurringwithinaspanofa fewsecondswouldbeaccessiblefor

processing at anyone time, and only events occurring within this limited time

window can be situated in relation to each other by the coding of relevant

relationalinformation.(2003,23)

PerceivingTime

105

Theability tomovebeyondthisbasic limitationis justoneof thewaysin

which humans prove themselves to be notably selective in issues of time

organisation;JustinLondonoutlinesacommonapplicationofthisfacilitywithina

musical context, asserting thatoftentheresponsibility lieswithlisteners tomake

an ‘effort to project andmaintain an establishedmeter in passages that involve

things like syncopation and hemiola’ (2004, 25). Both physiologically and

psychologicallyevolvedconstitutionsallowpeopleto be‘more time–independent

thanother livingthings’, asHodgesandSebaldputit. This abilitytoregisterand

respondto speci?ic rhythmicpatterns is usuallydemonstrated fromanearlyage,

principallythroughtheincreasinglycomplexprocessesoflanguageacquisitionand

themovementsandexchangesofsocialinteraction(HodgesandSebald2011,35).

Also developed, albeit more gradually, are tactics for rhythmic adjustment in a

variety of contexts, withpeople altering their own gestures to accordwith the

motions of others, a shift referred to by cognitive theorists as entrainment. As

Londonexplains:

Entrainmentleadsustofocusourattentiontothemostsalienttemporallocations

for events; attention is, by its very nature, selective. We are almost always

immersed in a rich and, from an information-processing perspective, noisy

environment.Thereismuchgoingonthatcommandsourattention,butonlysome

of the activity and information in our environment – including musical

environments–isrelevanttousatanygivetime.(2004,14)

London continues by outlining this as a two-way exchange, with humans

projectingorderandsequenceontothesurroundingenvironmentas timepasses.

A long–acknowledged phenomenon he describes as subjective metricisation –

where listeners perceive or impose their ownrhythmic groupings upon regular

aural patterns– serves to place furtheremphasis onthepower listenersholdto

modifyandmanipulatemusicalinformation:

In temporal attending, it is useful (and perhaps necessary) for the perceiver to

establisha self-generated groundagainstwhichthe continuing temporalpatterns

maybediscerned.Thisattendingstrategymayoriginate inextrapolationsfroma

local invariantor characteristic rhythmic Sigure that implies a particularmetric

schema,butthe continuationofameterislessdependenton subsequentmusical

invariantsthanon (a)the listener'sabilitytogeneratemetricpatterns(an ability

PerceivingTime

106

thatmayvarywith age, talent, training, and enculturation), and (b) the lack of

interference from subsequent musical stimuli (interference here meaning the

emergenceofapatternofalternatemetriccues).(2004,14–15)

The inclinationof listeners to attempt to break up longstretchesof aural

informationintosmallercomparablechunksasameans tocomprehendinglarger

musical structures isanidea thathas beenmuchdiscussed. Themost in?luential

theoretical research carried out in this regard is that by FredLerdahl and Ray

Jackendoff,whoseAGenerativeTheoryofTonalMusic(1983)hasprovidedaformal

examination of grouping techniques. Distinct from metre, which constitutes

divisions ofbeats or demarcations (1983, 18), grouping is aprocess by which a

pieceisdividedupinto temporalunitsaccordingtoaspectsofitsmusicalcontent.

Theseunitsrarelyoverlap,andtheyfallwithinarecursivehierarchyofdominant

andsubordinateregionsaccordingtotheirsize.21

Directapplicationsofthisgroupingtheoryarelimitedwithinthecontextof

across-historical study suchas this givenLerdahl andJackendoff’s speci?ic focus

uponmoretraditional, tonalmusic. Inthis sense, themannerinwhich they deal

withmusicalformremainsquiteconventional;subjectandcountersubjectgroups,

regular phrase lengths and established tonal mapping procedures continue to

dictatemanybroader structural readings.However, all ofthisanalytical detail is

notallowedtosupersedeinnatemusical intuition,withtheauthorsassertingthat

thegroupingprocedures they outline are not con?ined to musically experienced

listeners (1983, 18), with facetsof eventhemost nuancedoperations remaining

accessible when presented and af?irmed in the right contexts: ‘Unconscious

processesofamazingcomplexityandsubtletyarebynomeansincompatiblewith

a conscious impression of great ease and ?luidity, and with the sense that one

learns these cognitive tasks by “just picking them up” from experience with

suf?icientenvironmentalstimulation’(1983,249).Aparticularlyconvincingrecent

af?irmationofthiskindofprocessispresentedbyLondonwhonotestheabilityof

listeners to retainandapplypatternsofattentiontovaryinglevelsofrecurrence.

Hehighlightsmusicalexperienceasanotablydynamicphenomenon:

PerceivingTime

107

21 AhelpfulredactionofLerdahl& Jackendoff’s theoryof grouping canalso be found inWest,Howell&Cross,1985:34–42.

Wedonotencounter‘generic4/4’oreven ‘4/4ata tempoofquarter-note=120’

butapatternoftiminganddynamicsthatisparticulartothepiece,theperformer,

andthemusicalstyle.Therefore,togiveanecologicallyvalidaccountofmeter,we

mustmovebeyondatheoryoftempo-metrical types toametrical representation

that involves particular timing relationships and their absolute values in a

hierarchicallyrelatedsetofmetriccycles.(2004,159)

Developing this notion, he proposes the ‘Many Metres Hypothesis’: ‘A

listener's metric competence resides in her or his knowledge of a very large

number of context-speci?icmetrical timing patterns. The number and degreeof

individuation among these patterns increases with age, training, and degree of

musicalenculturation’(2004,152–53).

Themoreempirical rootingof the ‘generativetheory’incognitivescience

seemstohavestooditingoodsteadwithregardtosubsequentempiricalresearch.

Although Ian Cross (1998) expressed reservations as to whether it provided a

suf?icient alternative to what he termed ‘folk psychologies’ regarding temporal

perception,researchintosegmentationandgroupingprocessescarriedoutbyEric

ClarkeandCarolKrumhansl (1990)hasprovidedoutcomes thatnotonlysupport

LerdahlandJackendoff’stheorybutdemonstrate–throughastudyutilisingmusic

byMozart andStockhausen – its potential overlapwith less conventional, post-

tonalmusic.

Christopher Hasty also seeks to account for a wider variety of

compositional styles in his writing concerning metre as it is experienced by

listeners (1981a, 1981b, 1984, 1986 and 1997). In seeking to re-establish a

broaderde?initionofmetreandreaf?irmitsplacewithinavarietyofcompositional

styles,heexplores its impact intermsofattentionandanticipation, formulatinga

theoryofprojection:

Projectivepotentialisthepotentialforapresentevent’sdurationtobereproduced

for a successor. This potential is realised if and when there is a newbeginning

whose durationalpotential isdetermined bythe nowpast Sirst event. Projective

potentialisnotthepotentialthattherewillbeasuccessor,butratherthepotential

ofapastandcompleteddurationalquantitybeing takenasespeciallyrelevantfor

thebecomingofapresentevent.(Hasty1997,84)

PerceivingTime

108

Thesheerbreadthofthis interpretationofmetreallowsawideningofthekindof

musical gestures it can encompass, allowing greater ?lexibility with regard to

phraselengths:

As the phrase is being formed, primary constituents are open to future

interpretation andmaybear considerable ambiguities, particularly in the initial

stages.TheclosureofthephraseisthefulSilmentofcertainof thesepossibilitiesat

theexpenseofothers.Attheconclusionofthephrasethestructuralmeaningofthe

constituentshasbecomerelativelySixed.Totheextentthestructureisclosed, the

partsnolongerprojectfuturepossibilities.Ofcourse,closureisrarelysocomplete

as toentirelydenythe future. Normally, something isleftunincorporatedwhich

can engender a new phrase, or there may be residual ambiguities which are

resolvedbysucceedingphrases.(Hasty1984,188)

Affectandattention

Beyondthe practical and socialworld of clockordered events there is the inner

world […] the musicalworld[…]a Sluxwhere eventshappen ata multiplicityof

unit speeds, where the units themselves are subject to distortions, and where

uncounted episodes, unit-free durations, are a large part of our experience.Our

sense of time comes closest to clock time when we are experiencing a regular

successionofperceptuallyequalunits.Whentheunitsbecomevery,verylong the

experience becomes thatof unit-free duration. […]When the units become very

shorttheyblurintotexture.(Erickson1963,177)

Undertaking any kind of scienti?ic examination of the relationship between

functional clock time and musical time is no easy feat. Attempted comparison

between a quanti?iable absoluteand awholly subjectiveexperience inempirical

termsisboundtoprovesomewhatfutile.Apartfromanythingelse,?indingasclose

toanobjectiveandstandardisedmeansofexpressionaspossiblereturnsustothe

problems of articulatory variety discussed in Chapter Three (Directing Time).

Indeed,theapproachofcomposerRobertEricksonquotedaboveservesasanapt

illustrationof thepartiallyestrangedtemporalitythatmusic isoftenregardedas

inhabiting, at least for its participants; here,musical timeseeminglythreatensto

acquireakindofperceptual‘autonomy’withregardtotheclock-de?inedabsolutes

PerceivingTime

109

of ordinary functional time. Musical learning and experience may even enable

subjects to develop an independent ‘clock’, with research by Deborah Sheldon

(1994) pointing to the possibility of an ‘internalised steady beat’ acting as the

yardstickbywhichtempochangesarecomprehendedandimplemented.

What can most certainly be gleaned from many studies that attempt to

correlate listeners’ expectations and intuitions of musical durations with clock

timings isthesheervarietyoffactors thatcancontributeto theextremevariation

between these two temporal modes. As Henry Orlov outlines, ‘if the ‘biological

clock’ does not always tell the right time, it is because its readings are often

obstructedanddistortedinsomewaybyphysiologicalandpsychologicalreactions

and processes of different intensity and colouring, of which pleasure and

displeasure, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are the ?irst andmost usual’ (1979,

375). Emotions have been shown to have a profoundbearing upon the way in

whichtimeanddurations inparticular are registered (seeDroit-Volet andMeck

2007,andAngrilli,Cherubini,PaveseandManfredini1997),andthisextendstothe

perceivedaffectconveyedbythemusicitself.22

Exploring further links between emotion, tonality and timing, Naomi Ziv

andEladOmer’sstudy ofdurationestimations intonal andatonal music (2010)

considers theadditionalcomplexitiesofthedifferencesbetweenexperiencedand

remembered time. Some participants listening to keyboard works by Bach and

Schoenberg were asked in advance to judge the amount of time passing (the

prospective paradigm), whilst others were only asked to provide a durational

estimateafterthe fact(theretrospectiveparadigm). Aswell as providingfurther

evidenceoftheprofoundroleemotionsplayintimeperception,itwas foundthat

‘themorepleasantandconsonantapiecesounds, theshorteritisperceivedinthe

prospective paradigm, and the longer it seems in the retrospective

paradigm’(2010,192). Suchresults raisequestionsofattentivenessanditseffect

upon impressions of time. Recent research emphasises its signi?icance, in

particularwith regard to processing duration; Scott Brown’s review of research

concerning this relationship (2010) ?inds attention – on both conscious and

PerceivingTime

110

22 Forexample,astudycarriedoutbyMaria PanagiotidiandStavroula Samartzi(2010)demonstrates that, while musical training can help to imbue a more objective sense ofpassing clock time, itiscommonplace forall listeners tounderestimate the durationof a‘happy’ piece (quick in tempo, majorin key) and to overestimate that of a ‘sad’ piece(slower,minorinkey).

subconsciouslevels–tobearequirementformoreaccuratetemporaljudgments.23

Emphasisonthenecessityofattentivelisteninginevitablypromptsqueryastothe

effect of altered states of consciousness uponthe processing ofmusical time, in

particular direct manipulations of subject perception such as those induced by

drugs.24 While such physiological and neurological issues are not a primary

concern here, it is helpful to takenoteof a contextualisationofferedbyRichard

Elliott:

If consciousness studies has shown an interest in the effects of drug-induced

alteredstatesofconsciousnessonmusic,wemightaskwhysuchalteredstatesare

mostly seen to concern transformations of the immediate perception of

individuals,understoodfromtheperspectiveofchemicalchangesintheirbrains.It

isequallythecasethatweneverhearanypieceofmusicthesamewaytwice,that

wealwaysbring somethingnewanddifferenttoit, andthatthese differencescan

arise as much from to the impact of history, culture, and politics as of mind-

alteringdrugs.(2011,336–37)

Somuchscholarlyenergyhasbeendirectedtowardsattentionlevelsthatit

has been suggested that other qualities have been underplayed by comparison.

Whenexaminingdurationspeoplehadassignedtostimuli,DavidEagleman(2010)

foundpredictabilityandmagnitudeofneuralresponsetobeespeciallyimportant

factors. However, evenaspects ofdirectedpredicationcanplay into theeffect of

attention upon time. Inhis surveyofstudies concernedwith ‘prior entry’– the

phenomenonofaforthcomingstimulusseemingtobeperceivedsoonerintimeifit

is anticipated than if it is not – Charles Spence (2010) ?inds that accumulated

empirical evidence sits ?irmly in favour of the theory. Once stimuli have

commenced, however, subjects more often experience the opposite effect, with

focussed attention upon events causing them to seem longer in duration. In

PerceivingTime

111

23 A large body of research has been undertaken concerning the use of music as abackground element in commercial contexts and its effect upon consumers. Given thatmusicinthesestudiesisutilisedasaperipheralpresenceratherthanapointoffocus,theydonotwarrantdetailedexplorationhere.However, anumberof publicationsdoexploreaspects of duration experience and estimation with regard to the tempo, content andfamiliarityofbackgroundmusic:BaileyandAreni,2006;KellarisandKent,1992;KellarisandMantel,1996;CaldwellandHibbert,1999;andOakes,2003.

24 Twousefulandespeciallyaccessible recentexplorationsof the effectofdrug-inducedaltered states upon musical consciousness can be found in Music and Consciousness:Philosophical,Psychological,andCulturalPerspectivesed.Clarke&Clarke,Fachner,2011:263–76;andShanon,2011:281–92

examining this temporal expansion, Peter Ulric Tse (2010) has questioned the

traditionalmodelof distraction as causing aproportion oftemporal information

units to be missed, whilst attention causes less to be missed. He suggests that

listenersassumeamoreengagedroleinthisprocess throughevidencethat focus

inducedbyanunexpectedeventinfactacceleratesinformationprocessing:

Moreunitsaredetectedduringtheeventanditthereforeseemstolastlonger,but

thisoccursbecausetherearemoreunitsdetected, notbecause feweraremissed.

The previous hypothesis assumed that attention affected sensitivity, leading to

fewermissed cues in a stream of constant rate. Alternatively, it could be that

sensitivityremainsunchangedbyattentionbuttherateof informationprocessing

increases.These interpretationsarenotmutuallyexclusive.Bothcouldcontribute

todistortionsinperceiveddurationandbothare compatiblewiththenotionofa

counterthatmeasurestheamountof informationprocessed inordertocalculate

the duration of perceived events. For either reason, an attended stimulus may

appear to last longerthan a lessattended stimulusthatlasts the same objective

duration.(2010,146)

Suchnotionsofattention anddistraction inform questions as towhether

people are capable of judging multiple durations simultaneously. Although

researchqueryingtheabilityofsubjectstotimeoverlappingstimulihasnotruled

out thepotential forthe employmentofmorethanone‘clock’, it hashighlighted

notable inclinations: that greater numbers of parallel stimuli cause increasing

disruption in duration judgment (BrownandWest1990); and thatpeoplemore

oftenutiliseasingletimesourceas areferencepointbywhichto gaugemultiple

durations (Rijn and Taatgen 2008). That listeners might seek to organise and

simplify anarrayofstimuliaccording to anaudiblelowestcommondenominator

comes as no surprise. However, this singular ‘pacemaker’ approach is more

complex than such anaccountwould suggest. Inher study concernedwith time

estimation in music, Marilyn Boltz is keen to emphasise the effect of different

perspectivesofattentionupondurationperception(Boltz1991).Acknowledginga

common hierarchy of metre, phrase length and rhythm, she asserts that the

processing of these units depends crucially upon whether the material they

contain aligns or avoids expectation; broader structural coherence and

predictability allows theattentionoflisteners to move freely betweenlargeand

small units, whilst unpredictable, incoherentmusic does not so readily facilitate

PerceivingTime

112

suchshifts.Moreover,diversionsfromexpectationwithinphraselengths–suchas

disruptiveaccentplacement,orunexpectedchangesinmelodiccontour–canskew

perceivedunitdurations.Boltzcontrastsmelodiesthatconcludeonthetonicwith

thosethatdonot,withthelattertypicallyoverestimatedinlength(1991,425–27).

Diversionsandsubversions

It is particularly interesting that Boltz places emphasis upon the variety of

structural levels that canbe identi?iedinpieces ofmusic andtheways inwhich

attentional perspective can move between these levels. With regard to the

perceptionoftime,bothmusic andaudienceprovedecidedly complex. Focus can

bedrawntowardsdifferentfacetsofcompositionsonvaryingplanesofdetail, and

it is this process of shifting attention between musical characteristics that can

produce changes in how temporality is processed. In the sense that particular

musical traits can elicit certain kinds of reactions from listeners, it might be

perceivedthatagreatdealofpowerliesinthehandsofcomposers, leavingthem

withtheabilitynot only toorganisemusical timeinamorelinear-mindedsense

but further to manipulate time for their audiences in a rather more non-linear

fashion. RobertNewell’s assertion that ‘whoevermakesmusic also moulds time’

provesaptinthisregard(1976,147).

Beyondpatternsofrhythm,controlledusesoftimbre,pitchandtonalityadd

further dimensions to audible time. Robert Erickson rightly acknowledges the

lessenedsigni?icanceof timbre inmuchmusic of the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries, where melodic writing is often notably faster and attention thus

focussed on pitch (1975, 82–85). However, there can be little doubt that the

timbralfocus intheoftenmoreprotractedgesturesofmorerecentmusic offersa

more immersive time. Just as unexpectedevents incite accelerated receptionof

temporal information units, a distinctive timbral effect might prompt a similar

heightenedmodeoflisteninginwhichmomentsperceptually expand;withinthe

context of this study, movements from Hans Abrahamsen’s Schnee might be

consideredintheseterms.Pitchcanprovidesimilarmanipulations.DianaDeutsch

(1980) provides an account of how parallel movement between two separate

PerceivingTime

113

groupings of pitch class can blur the rhythm and order of their perceived

relationships. Firmino, Bueno andBigand(2009)extend this disruptive effect of

pitch movement to tonality, using their research to demonstrate the temporal

acceleration created by music that involves tonal movement to more distant,

unrelatedkeys.

Ofcourse, generalisationregardingthetemporalpotentialofthesemusical

featuresisofonlylimitedusegiventheeffectofsuchfeatures isdependentonthe

context inwhichtheyarepresented. Indeed, theinterdependencebetweenthese

characteristicsleadsRobertCutietta(1993)toquestionwhethertheelementsthat

form the basis of much music education (pitch, rhythm, form, dynamics and

timbre)areinfactre?lectiveofacategorisationprocessthatdoesnotcorrespond

with how pieces are heard. Indeed, his response is to suggest alternative

perception-based elements: three that deal with aspects of musical movement

(motion, energy, ?low), and two that constitute less systematic reinventions of

textureandtimbre(fabricandcolour).Itisnocoincidencethatthesearetermsfar

more readily suited to addressing more recent music. Thosedescribingmusical

movementinparticularfeatureheavilyinthisstudy.Withoutdoubt,theyaremore

aural-centric, holisticallymindedanalyticalthemes thatmight allow anapproach

to musical form that does not rely quite so heavily upon long-held hierarchies.

Indeed, it may well help to provide a more dynamic alternative than simply

mapping a different set of hierarchies onto more progressivemusic, as Michel

Imbertysuggestsinaddressingtheperceptionofatonalworks(1993).

Of course, even the terms Cutietta suggests constitute necessary

distillations ofafarmorecomplexandintegratedauralreality, one thatdoesnot

afford such separations. As Barbara Barry puts it, ‘in analytic time an objective

technique is applied to the work to identify objects for attention, whereas in

experientialtimeitisthemusicalworkasperformancewhichrequiresrecognition

of time as organised motion and ongoing progress’ (1990, 105). Barry’s own

approach to musical time revolves around her ‘tempo/density theory’ derived

fromaparticularunderstanding,that‘thespeedatwhichtimepassesisthespeed

atwhichinformationisprocessed’(1990,165);inessence, the?luctuatingspacing

– or density – of musical events in the course of a compositiondetermines its

perceived temporality and duration. Althoughherapplications of the theory are

PerceivingTime

114

mostly con?ined to works that echo or engage withmore traditional structural

values, the reasoning she offers would appear to resonate with both cognitive

theory and, potentially, more recentmusic: ‘higher densitymusical information

?ills a longer experiential time thanmore normative information played at the

same tempo. It requires more processing ‘effort’ because it has a greater

uncertainty (less predictability, which would reduce complexity) and so is less

easilyassimilatedtostandardsasreferencepointsoforganisation’(1990,167).

Itismorerecent, ‘post-tonal’musicthatRobertAdlingtonspeci?icallyseeks

to account for (1997b and2003). Heestablishes a useful branchof questioning

with regard to received temporal notions, highlighting their failure to offer

convincing treatments for certain musical experiences. Indeed, highlighting its

relianceuponculturalconstructs,hepointstoalackofinternalcoherenceinmost

commonconceptions: ‘It wouldappear thatno social concept oftime couldever

adequately contain experience. Rather, what we conventionally refer to as an

individual’s “temporal experience” is the result of personal idiosyncrasies –

assemblages of, and elaborations upon, diverging constructed concepts of

time’ (1997, 21–22). In unpacking these conglomerations of language and

metaphor, Adlington seeks out solid theoretical ground that might be?it the

consideration of new music. A major obstacle he confronts is that of perceived

motion in music, a broadly accepted notion that, he claims, limits the ways in

whichmusical experiencesmightbedescribed. Studies like thoseby Epsteinand

Barry, he asserts, are preoccupiedwith intuitedmotion as an essential facet of

musical temporality, oneoftentiedtomoretraditionalgoal-orientedperspectives

on tonalityandmetrical structure(Adlington, 1997b, 82–88). Inhighlightingthe

insuf?icienciesofsuchdescriptions,Adlingtonpointstopassagesinmoreformally

conventional pieces – Schoenberg’s Piano Concerto and Poulenc’s Sextet – that

might be experienced as temporally ‘static’ as a consequence of their metrical

conformityratherthansimplyinspiteofit(1997b,90).

Taking this ideaofstasis furtherwithmore recentexamples by Cageand

Reich, Adlington draws upon JonathanKramer’s description of ‘vertical time’ to

advocate a different mode of understanding for much new music; rather than

claiming post-tonal composition to represent any kind of ‘withdrawal’ from

standard temporality (Adlington1997b, 22), he instead proposes a ‘non-spatial’

PerceivingTime

115

interpretationoftimethatsidestepsmorecommonframeworksoflinearprogress:

‘Attentionis insteadabsorbedby thecontents ofworkingmemory– siftingand

sortinginanefforttolocatedregsofstructure,pattern,ororder’(1997b,103–11).

The implications ofthis interpretation for comprehensionofmusical formsover

longer periods of time will be discussed further in the course of the next

theoreticalinterlude,chapterseven.

Adlington’s scepticism proves particularly useful in identifying the

shortcomings of temporal conceptions that are often taken for granted. His

interrogativemannertowardstheseperceptualmodespavesthewayforaccounts

of previously neglected or unexplained musical experiences. However, his

approachinfactprovesmostconvincinginthecourseofhisclosingexaminationof

Ligeti’sViolinConcerto inwhichsomeofthemoreradicalattitudes towards time

hehas proposedareintegratedwithmore familiar, linear-minded ideas (1997b,

196–215). Focusingupondifferentaspectsofthe?irstmovementoftheconcerto,

Adlingtonconveysbesttheeffectofnon-spatialisedtimewhencontrastingitwith

expectationsoflinearity.Theseexpectationsareaf?irmedandsubsequentlydenied

through the composer’s careful deployment of isorhythms and ‘glimpses’ of

organisedpulsethatbrie?lyarouselonger-termanticipations–‘evokethelistener’s

temporality’, as he puts it – before frustrating them once more through their

renewedabsence (1997b, 207). The audible terms inwhich thesedistinct ideas

abouttimeintermingleprovesespeciallycompelling:

At the outset of the section, Ligeti’s grouped rhythm connotes a ‘structure’ by

appearing, initially, to measure. Yet this compliance with spatio-linearity isinvoked, only to be gradually and remorselessly withdrawn as the section

proceeds.The music veryevidentlycontinues, butwe are explicitlydeprivedthe

usual linearmeansofconceptualizingit.Broughtfacetofacewiththe inadequacy

of thesemeans, a listener ischallenged instead to formulate alternative waysof

understandingtheircontinuingexperienceofchange.(1997b,203–4)

This thesis seeks to emphasise that kind of interplay between temporal

modesasapointofanalytical interchangebetweenoldandnewstyles ofmusic;

althoughcompositional meansmay differ, the end result is a perceptual variety

thatservestounderlinetheexpressivepotentialofthepieces.Tothisend,itisthe

work of Jonathan Kramer that exerts thegreatest in?luence. His embraceof the

PerceivingTime

116

oftenseeminglyparadoxicalvarietyofmusical‘times’availableto listenersoffers

aninclusiveoutlook thatmightbene?itananalytical approach. Inparticular,heis

careful to try to distinguish between different ‘times’ that might often be

consideredasone,highlightingnuancesthatmighthelptoexplainveryparticular

perceptualphenomena. Asdiscussedearlier in this chapter, his broadercontrast

between linear andnon-linear timeis subject to numerous furtherquali?ications

andextensions. Linearity, forexample,mighttakeonaplural character,withthe

music aurally travelling towards more than one ‘goal’ (‘multiply-directed linear

time’)thanksto elementsofformaldisruptionthatoffsetperceivedsingularity(J.

Kramer1988,46–49).Evenmoresingularexpressionsoflinearitycanbesubject

to re-orderings anddiscontinuities thatcreateeffects ofmultiplicity, not least in

relation to beginnings and endings of various kinds. Kramer utilises the ?irst

movementofBeethoven’sStringQuartetinF,Op.135, todemonstratethewaysin

which the deployment of particular musical gestures and statements – a

particularly emphatic ‘?inal’ cadence in the 10thbar, for example – cangive the

impressionof displaceddirections, beginnings andendings (‘gestural time’)and

thusraisetheideaofa‘multipletemporalcontinuum’(1988,150–61).

Kramer also explores a variety ofways in which direction canbeabsent

frommusicaltime.MakingreferencetoworksbyBach,ChopinandSchumann,he

observes that pieces can paradoxically convey a sense of motion without also

conveying direction thanks to compositional elements that remain constant

throughout: linearityandmotiondonotalwaysequatetodirectioninperceptual

terms. Two further non-linear musical structures also offer subversions of

teleological form. The ?irst – ‘moment form’–constitutes asubversionoftypical

continuitiesthroughtheemploymentofdiscontinuousmusicalevents, disrupting

standard notions of linearity in favour of a succession of self-contained

occurrences (J. Kramer 1978 and 1988, 201–20). The second is the anti-

hierarchical ‘vertical time’, in which a dispensation of phrase structuring can

createaplayuponaspectsofperceivedstasis andin?inity that inturnenablesan

immersivetemporalform:

The result is a single present stretched out into an enormous duration, a

potentially inSinite ‘now’ that nonetheless feels like an instant … A vertically

conceived piece, then, doesnotexhibit large-scale closure. Itdoesnot begin but

PerceivingTime

117

merelystarts. Itdoesnotbuild toaclimax, doesnotpurposefullysetupinternal

expectations,doesnotseektofulSillanyexpectationsthatmightariseaccidentally,

doesnotbuildorreleasetension,anddoesnotendbutsimplyceases.(1988,54–

55)

It is anotherkindoftemporal paradoxthatwill formthestartingpoint of

thecasestudythatnowfollows.CompositionsbyHansAbrahamsenandJohannes

Brahmswillbeexaminedonaccountofthewaysinwhichtheyareabletoconvey

sensations of motion and stasis simultaneously; whereas focus has previously

fallen on particular passages, emphasis herewill instead fall upon some of the

implicationsthatthisperceptualsynthesismighthaveforthelong-termstructural

unfolding of both works. As progressive as this seemingly contradictory

coexistenceofdynamicandstatic temporalmodesmightappear, itmightalsobe

consideredto arise froma thematicapproachtomaterial developedprimarily in

thenineteenthcentury,theprincipleof‘developingvariation’.

PerceivingTime

118

Six

DynamicContinuities

HansAbrahamsen&JohannesBrahms

Developingvariation

On the face of it, Schoenberg’s 1947 essay ‘Brahms the Progressive’ (1975b) –

adapted from a 1933radio talk –waspromptedby musicological concerns. For

manyatthetime,itwasmorethanamatterofchronologicalfactthatBrahmswas

considered a nineteenth-century composer. His seemed an aesthetic with little

perceivabledistance left to run; fewsaw inhismusic anythingonaparwiththe

uncompromising futurism of Wagner, the enduring purity of Mozart, or the

‘forevercontemporary’Beethoven–all?igureswhosemusicwasalready‘escaping’

itsowntimeinpopularcriticism.

The label of conservatism had at no point been entirely unanimous. In

addition to Eduard Hanslick’s adoption ofBrahms as a standard-bearer for his

aesthetic notions ofmusical beauty (Hanslick 1957, 47–70), Nicole Grimes has

recentlyobservedthatatrioofwritersfortheAllgemeinemusikalischeZeitungand

theNeueZeitschriftfürMusik inthe1860sand1870s– HermannDeiters, Selmar

Bagge and Adolf Schubring – presented a ‘signi?icant foreshadowing of

Schoenberg’s view’ (Grimes 2012, 132). Indeed, even following the composer’s

death, somesought tocounterprevailingviews;writingin1929,J.H.Elliotsought

torailagainst‘atendencyobservableincertainaspectsofcurrentcriticismtodeny

theexistenceofa complete andall-roundsigni?icanceinthesymphonicmusic of

Brahms’(Elliot1929,554).

Nevertheless, Schoenberg’s article offered, as its title indicates, a much-

needed reappraisal of a ?igurehead of the Austro-German Romantic tradition

whose music was being written off more and more frequently by scholars as

antiquated.Promotionfroma?igureconventionallyregardedatthetimeasoneof

themostprogressiveinWesternartmusicmaywellhavehelpedtofacilitatewhat

MichaelMusgravedescribedas‘aperiodwhenitisnolongernecessarytoplaythe

advocatetoBrahms’(1990,136). Inparticular,PeterGayandJ. PeterBurkholder

rlp503

119

have both made compelling cases for re-evaluations, Gay with regard to the

detrimentaleffectsofculturaloverfamiliarityonourreception(1977),Burkholder

inconsideringthemusicofthetwentiethcentury: ‘Hehasprovidedthemodelfor

futuregenerationsofwhatacomposeris,whatacomposerdoes,whyacomposer

does it, what is of value in music, and how a composer is to succeed…. In this

respect, the “music of the future” has belonged not to Wagner but to

Brahms.’(1984,81).

Threadedthrough ‘Brahms theProgressive’was a thematic principle that

Schoenberghadbeenexpoundingforsometime,thatof‘developingvariation’:the

basic trace of a motif retained throughout a process of ‘endless

reshaping’(Schoenberg1975, 129).Thespeci?icsofthetheoryhavelongbeenthe

subject of debate. Grimes notes the ?irst appearance of the concept in a 1917

manuscript: ‘Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in

Form’ (Schoenberg, 1994). From the text, she delineates six types of musical

changethatcancontributeto theprocess: rhythmic, intervallic,harmonic,phrase,

instrumentationanddynamic.Writingbefore thepublicationof that text,Walter

Frisch(1984, 1–2)?indsaparticularly helpful explanation inamuchlateressay,

‘Bach’of1950.Here,Schoenbergmovesbeyondtheobviouslymusical,alludingto

themoreconceptualunderpinningoftheprinciple;developingvariationallowsthe

‘idea’ofthepiecetobe‘elaborated’,producing‘allthethematicformulationswhich

provide for ?luency, contrasts, variety, logic and unity on the one hand, and

character, mood, expression, and every needed differentiation, on the other

hand’(Schoenberg1975,397).25

Although writing about variation form more generally, Jeffery Swinkin

eloquentlyoutlines away inwhichsuchattitudes towards musical material can

translateintobroaderaestheticoutlooks:

The implicit corollary of the belief that Classical variations are essentially

decorative is thatthe theme inaClassicalsetisanautonomousentitywith Sixed

melodic and harmonic components, susceptible to embellishment but not

reinterpretation… By contrast, anyone who granted variations greater

interpretative potencywouldprobablyregard thethemenotasanapriorientity

DynamicContinuities

120

25 Foradetailedexaminationof thewiderimpactofBrahms’smusicupon Schoenberg’sthought,seeMusgrave1979.

butas somethingwhose identityis contingent upon the processestowhich it is

subjected.(2012,37)

However, it isFrischhimselfwhoprovides themostpersuasiveinterpretationof

thenotionwithregardtobroadermusicalstructure:

Schoenbergvaluesdevelopingvariationasacompositionalprinciplebecauseitcan

prevent obvious, monotonous, repetition … And Brahms’s music stands as the

most advanced manifestation of this principle in the common-practice era, for

Brahmsdevelopsorvarieshismotivesalmostatonce,dispensingwithsmall-scale

rhythmic or metrical symmetry and thereby creating genuine musical prose.

(1984,9)

Of course, Schoenberg had a dual agenda. Beyond his concerns for the

reception of Brahms, he was also busy engineering his own place in musical

history. In portraying a progressive artistic bloodline ?lowing from J.S. Bach

throughHaydn,Mozart, BeethovenandBrahms, hewascarefullyestablishinghis

ownaesthetic inheritance. Overtly,Brahms’smusicwas beingpromoted through

re-evaluation,butthisreframingprocesswasalso theproductofacovertmotive,

pavingthewayforSchoenberg’sownparticularbrandofradicalserialism.Indeed,

Frisch’s descriptions of the ‘inversions and combinations … augmentations and

displacements’(1984, 9) that comprisedeveloping variationfall tellinglycloseto

thelexiconoftwelve-tonecomposition.

The signi?icance of Brahms being utilised in this way should not be

underestimated. After all, Schoenberg was calling upon his music to help

precipitate–perhaps evenprescribe–oneofthemostsigni?icant sea-changes in

Westernmusicalhistory, througharadicalrethinkingoftonalityand its function

within–andindeeditsbearingupon–musicalform. Itcertainlyprovidesauseful

retorttoaccusationsofartisticconservatism.But forthepurposesofthisstudy, it

might in turnbe of use to adapt Schoenberg’s concept of developing variation,

namely by moving beyond speci?ic musical characteristics to focus upon its

fundamental aural effect. It could be concluded that, at its core, developing

variationisatreatmentoftime.Presentingablendofrepetitionandchangeallows

equilibrium of focus to beestablished: past events are directly recalled to mind,

butareplacedwithinthecontextofaudiblealterationsthatemphasisethepassing

of time. Reminiscence is grounded within a palpably future-bound present. A

DynamicContinuities

121

temporalparadoxofsimultaneousdynamismandstasisissetinmotion: theaural

sensationisatoncebothlinearandcircular. Beyondsimply takingtheshapeofa

compositional approach to melody, developing variation becomes a force of

structural continuity in the heard formof themusic. Aspects of this perceptual

effect will be discussed in the course of the case study that follows, with the

apparent interplay betweenmovement and stillness that it facilitates forming a

pointoffocus.

Multipleforms–Abrahamsen

Tempo can be fastor slowand perhaps life has the same thing […].We can be

livingseeminglyquickly,butunderthe surface somethingmovesmore gradually.

Sometimeswe have to acknowledge thisand wait it out, like living through the

winter.(Molleson2015)

Viewingthenotionofdevelopingvariationinabroader, temporallight,opensthe

?loor to more recent music. Being at its heart a juxtaposition of change and

retention,thecontinuitytheconceptrequirescanbeachievedthroughavarietyof

means beyond themelodic. Thework ofDanish composerHansAbrahamsen(b.

1952)actsasanintriguingcaseinpoint, notleastgiventhathewasalignedearly

inhiscareerwiththe ‘NewSimplicity’ofhis compatriots inthe1960s, apointed

responseto the‘newcomplexity’serialismadvocatedbymany incentralEurope

(Beyer 2016). Although the composer distances his current work from the

reactionary nature of those initial pieces (Molleson 2015), he has cultivated

subsequently a deeply personal style in which, as Anders Beyer observes, ‘a

modernist stringency and economy are incorporated into an individualmusical

universe’(Beyer2016). Inbroader terms, hisapproachmightwell beconsidered

‘post-avant-garde’inthe truestsense, havingsteppedoutofastylecharacterised

byextreme ‘newness’(itselfa counter to anequally radical trend) to embrace a

range of historical in?luences and preoccupations. Indeed, formal rigour still

features prominently on Abrahamsen’s agenda, as he himself outlines: ‘My

imaginationworkswellwithina?ixedstructure […]. Themore stringentit is, the

DynamicContinuities

122

morefreedomIhavetogodownintodetail.Formandfreedom:perhapsmuchof

mymusichasbeenanattempttobringthetwoworldstogether’(Beyer2016).

In an interview for the Krakow-based Sacrum Profanum Festival in

September2010,Abrahamsendescribedhisownmusicintermshighlyrelevantto

theperceptual issuesthatthedevelopingvariationconceptpresents(Abrahamsen

2010):

Perhapsyou cancomparemusic toanauthor. There are authorsthataremaking

long novels.Butofcourseanovelcan alsohavedifferent lengths. Some are only

120pagesandthensomeareathousandpages.AndperhapsIasacomposerama

kindlikeapoemcomposer.I’mwriting shortpieces–likeapoem–butthenthey

canbeputtogetherformingakindofcycle.(2010)

Here, in outlininghis approach, the composerwould seem to point towards the

verytemporalparadoxthatdevelopingvariationgenerates.Dynamismisprovided

by the motion from one short piece – or ‘poem’ – to the next. However, their

relevance to one another generates a palpable coherence; remaining, or indeed

cycling,withinonebroadmusical ‘subjectmatter’createsasenseofcontainment,

orperhapsevenstasis.

Abrahamsen’s Schnee (‘Snow’) is an apt re?lection of these compositional

concerns. Completed in 2008 for the Wittener Tage für neue Kammermusik in

Germany, it iswrittenforanine-pieceensembledividedinto threeequal groups:

strings (violin, viola, andcello), wind (piccolo/?lute/alto ?lute, E-?lat/B-?lat/bass

clarinet, andoboe/cor anglais), andpercussion (two pianos, and one performer

utilising tam-tam, schellen, andpaper). Lasting justunderone hour, thework is

builtupof canons. Thecomposerrecalls thathehadbecome fascinatedwiththe

genrewhilearrangingworksbyJ.S.Bachinthe1990s.Struckbytheideaoftaking

theirrepetitiontoextremes, andbytheparadoxesmirroredinthepicturesofthe

twentieth-centuryDutchartistM.C.Escher,Abrahamsenbeganto conceivemusic

inwhathedescribesasa‘newanimatedworldoftimeincirculation’: ‘Depending

on howone looks at thesecanons, themusic stands still, ormoves forwards or

backwards.Asformy ownwork, afurther ideacrystallised: towriteapiecethat

consistsofcanonicmotion,andexplorestheuniverseoftime’(Abrahamsen2009).

With regardto thetitle ofthework, itscomposerreadilyacknowledges a

long-heldfascinationwithwinter.Hisinterestinsnowliesprimarilyinitseffects:

DynamicContinuities

123

‘Snowcantransformafamiliarlandscapeinacoupleofminutesanditdampensall

the usual noises. It allows us to imagine something different. Seasons are very

basic inour livesandwinter is atimeofslowtransition’(Molleson2015).Whilst

snowoffersnewwaysofviewinguponfamiliarscenes, thecanonsofSchnee incite

freshperspectivesonthesamesetsofmaterial.Thetencanonsthatmakeupthe

DynamicContinuities

124

Movement Instrumentation Duration

Canon1aRuhigaberbeweglich Strings/piano1 8’43

Canon1bFastimmerzartundstill Tutti 9’12

Canon2aLustigspeilend,abernichtzulustig,immereinbisschenmelancholisch

Woodwinds/piano2 6’57

Intermezzo1 Strings/woodwind 2’01

Canon2bLustigspeilend,abernichtzulustig,immereinbisschenmelancholisch

Tutti 7’24

Canon3aSehrlangsam,schleppendundmitTrübsinn(imTempodes‘TaiChi’)

Strings/woodwind 6’53

Canon3bSehrlangsam,schleppendundmitTrübsinn(imTempodes‘TaiChi’)

Pianos/percussion 7’20

Intermezzo2 Strings 1’57

Canon4a(minore)(HommageàWAM)Stürmich,unruhigundnervös

Tutti 2’34

Canon4b(maggiore)Stürmich,unruhigundnervös Tutti 2’38

Intermezzo3 Cello/piccolo/clarinet 0’41

Canon5a(rectus)Einfachundkindlich

Violin/viola/pianos/piccolo/clarinet

1’07

Canon5b(inversus)Einfachundkindlich

Violin/viola/pianos/piccolo/clarinet

1’15

Fig.6.1:Schnee,canonicparingsacrosstheformalscheme

work are arranged in ?ive successivepairs, with short ‘haiku-like’ (Abrahamsen

2009)musicalideasdevelopedacrosseachcoupling(seeFigure6.1).26

However, this surface unity of canon pairings does not proceed

uninterrupted. Interposed throughout the form are three brief intermezzi,

disrupting theseries of couplings. In each intermezzo, different instruments are

detuned by microtones ahead of the canons that follow. Rather than simply

indicatingapausebetweenmovementsforthedetuningtotakeplace,Abrahamsen

ensures thecontinuityof thewholework bycarefullyengineeringtheprocessof

each intermezzo, utilising the existingharmonic sonorities of the instruments to

precipitate the detuning (see Figure 6.2). In this way, the detuning process

becomes part of the architecture of the work, each intermezzo showcasing a

particularly effective set of sonorities andminute harmonic shifts. The effect is

striking,withtheshortmovementsofferingastarkcontrastwiththesurrounding

DynamicContinuities

125

26 Durationstaken from recording listed inprimaryresource list(Ensemble Recherche.MusicEdition,Winter&Winter:910159–2).

Intermezzo Detuningsequence

1

• Celloplaysseventhpartialharmoniconfourthstring(alreadytuned

scordaturafromaC-naturaldowntoaGfromthestartofthework),

whichprovidesF-naturalloweredby1/6th;• CoranglaisSlattensitsconcertF-naturalaccordinglyandthenplaysits

newlySlattenedconcertA-natural;

• Strings,altoSluteandbassclarinetadjusttotheSlattenedA-natural;• Thestringtrioremains,detuningbya1/6thpairsofstringsindescendingSifthsbeforeclosingwithperfectSifthofG-naturalandD-

naturalatopanoctaveGbassinthecello,graduallyfadingout.

2

• Celloagainplaysseventhpartialharmoniconfourthstring(Gnow

loweredby1/6th),whichprovidesF-naturalloweredbyafurther1/6th;

• ViolinandviolaadjusttheirDandAstringsdownwardbyafurther

1/6th(now2/6thsSlat);• Violinandviolathenadjusttheirremainingstringsdownwardin

accordancetogetherinadescendingpatternofopen-stringedSifths;• Violinandviolaproceedtochecktheirnewtuningsusingoctave

harmonicsoneachparingofstrings,nowinanascendingpattern,toa

fade-out.

3

• Celloplaysoctaveharmonicdouble-stopofDandAstrings(stillonly

1/6thdetunedfromSirstintermezzo);• PiccoloandE-Slatclarinetadjusttheirtuningsaccordingly;

• Allthreeinstrumentsfadeouttogether.

Fig.6.2:Schnee,detuningprocessacrossthethreeintermezzi

DynamicContinuities

126

Fig.6.3:Schnee,form

alschem

ein‘fourmovem

ent’perspectivewithapproximatetimings

Fig.6.4:Schnee,form

alschem

esegm

entedaccordingto‘diminishingstructure’perspective

(C=Canon,I=Interm

ezzo)

Fig.6.5:FourthSymphony,fourthmovem

ent,outlineofcyclicalform

displayingstructural

divisionsdraw

nbyFrisch(2003,130–40),Pascall(1989,233–245),Rostand(1955,291–299),

andOsm

ond-Sm

ith(1983,147–65).

canonsthroughanaudiblelackofrhythmicde?initionandawashofsubtlyshifting

harmonic sequences. Perhaps more profoundly, their placement throughout the

workallowsthemtoactasauraldividers,suggestinganewoverallformofthefour

larger‘movements’(seeFigure6.3).

Inaddition,thereisafurther,moregradualformalprocessatplayherethat

canbededucedfromanoverview:thedecreasinglengthofthecanonpairingsand,

by extension, the four ‘movement’ groupings. Abrahamsencandidly admits that

when he envisaged the full work following the composition of the ?irst canon

pairings,hehadamoreobviouslystaggeredshorteningprocessinmind:

The Sirst pair laststwo timesnineminutes, so Iconceived the following pairs in

termsof2timessevenminutes,2timesSiveminutes,2timesthreeminutes,and2

timesoneminute.Finally,timerunsout,justasthatofourlivesrunseverfasterto

itsend.Thiswasmyinitialvision,andthetemporalidea;theexecutionturningout

abitdifferently,andCanons3aand3binparticulargotlonger.(2009,3)

Eventhough the composer’soriginal plans for a graduallydiminishing structure

maynothaveworkedout in suchdetail, theeffect remains a notablepart ofthe

performance (see Figure 6.4). Indeed, the whole work is lent an increasingly

palpablesenseofonwardmotiontowardsitsclose thanks to thisaudibleprocess

of structural compression and reduction – the broader transience Abrahamsen

speaksofisevokedbytheformalplayingoutofthemusic.Evenwithinthecontext

of a formal overview of Schnee, at least three different formal gestures can be

observed: ?ive pairings of canons, four longer ‘movements’ delineated by three

interludes, andonegraduallydiminishingseries.Aspectsofeachcanbeperceived

in the course of the piece, with different points of unity and division moving

betweenthebackgroundandforegroundofawarenessatdifferenttimes. Itisthe

interactionsbetween these contrasting structural interpretations that emerge as

theworkunfoldsthatwill formthefocusofthiscasestudy. A parallel analysis of

the ?inale of Brahms’ Fourth Symphony will be presented in tandem; here,

comparably distinct formal readings that arise as the piece develops will be

examined.

DynamicContinuities

127

Innovationwithintradition–Brahms

The symphonies of Brahms might not appear the most likely candidates for a

comparison with Abrahamsen’s multi-faceted structure. The intricacies and

logisticalcomplexitiesof thegenre itselfdonot lend themselvesreadilytowards

formal experimentation, and, ataglance, Brahms’s four contributionsdo littleto

exemptthemselves;eachfollowsthefour-movementstructurethathadremained

the norm for the best part of a century, with inner constructions deviating

relatively littlefrompost-Classical conventions.Hissymphoniesemergedmoreor

less inpairs.WhiletheFirstSymphonyendureda gestationperiodofat least15

yearsbeforeitwas?inallycompletedin1876, itssuccessorfollowedwithrelative

ease during the summer of the following year. Although a gap of seven years

ensuedbeforehewouldputpentopaperontheThird–writtenentirelywithinthe

summer of 1883 – his compositional choices for the Fourth were already well

underway;inJanuary1882,hediscussedwithHansvonBülowandSiegfriedOchs

the potential for utilising a chaconne by J.S. Bach as the basis for a symphony

movement, expressinghis ownreservations in theprocess: ‘But it is too clumsy,

toostraightforward.Onemustalteritchromaticallyinsomeway’(Knapp1989,4).

Theworkcametofruitionacrosstwoconsecutivesummers,in1884and1885,and

was premièred in Meiningen under the composer’s baton on 25October 1885

(BozarthandFrisch,Grove).

Onits surface, theFourthSymphonymightnotseemlikeparticularlyideal

ammunition against accusations of conservatism. A sonata-form ?irstmovement

exploitsrecurringtriadicrelationshipsinitsmelodicandharmoniccontent;aslow

movement – set in the Phrygian mode – adapts that sonata form through its

removal ofthe developmentsection;ascherzo also employsavarianton sonata

form, combining various compressions with allusions to older minuet and trio

constructions. Indeed, it isonly the?inale– uponwhichthis chapterwill focus –

thatdepartsfromexpectations.Here,Brahmsutilisesachaconneostinatofromthe

?inalmovement of J.S. Bach’s Lutherenchurchcantata ‘Nachdir, Herr, verlanget

mich’,BWV150,tosetinmotionacyclicseventeenth-centurypassacagliaform–a

boldyetseeminglyantiquatedmove.

DynamicContinuities

128

Music built upon numerous levels of repetitionmaywell seem to be the

least likelymethodofproducinga ‘progressive’symphony. IfBrahmswasinany

waylookingtodismisssuspicionsofadesiresimplytorecycleandperpetuatethe

musicofthepast,thisdescriptionwouldseemtobeoneoftheleastef?icientways

ofgoingaboutit.Butthensuchasummarycouldnevergivethefullpicture.What

canbeheardisasubversiveorchestralnarrative,expectationsrepeatedlyaroused,

avertedand denied. Theprogressivecharacterofthe FourthSymphony is not a

consequence of boundaries broken and traditions de?ied, but rather of a quiet

determinationtoemploytheparametersofthepastasaframeworkforadynamic,

innovativemusicaldrama.

The?irstmovementglides intoviewas ifunannounced, theviolinsslipping

effortlessly into a sinuous theme that traces a pattern of ‘descending’ thirds

(incorporating upwards displacements); the underpinning accompaniment

provides the continuity ofa self-perpetuating harmonic cycle. Versions of these

sequences underpin the long-term thematic and tonal structure of not only the

?irstmovementbutalsothesecond;DavidOsmond-Smithmakesacompellingcase

fortheharmonicpathoftheAndantemoderatoprovidinganinvertedcontinuation

of themodulations that characterise the ?irst movement, observing a ‘series of

third-basedrelations that oncemore implyanupwardrisingchain’ (1983, 156–

57).Themovementisheraldedbyanundulatinghorncall;althoughthemotifitself

appearsinthePhrygianmodesuggestingsomethingakintoCmajor, theextended

subjectthatfollowsfromit–andthemovementatlarge–issetinEmajor.

This tonal duality is onlyenhancedfurtherby the scherzo, set inC-major

proper–purportedly,atleast;themovementholdsparticularsigni?icanceforKo?i

Agawu,notleastonaccountofthenotablelackof‘tonaldesire’itdisplaystowards

its apparent ‘home’(1999,150). Itswhirlwind?iguresseemregularly to threaten

tospinoutofcontrol,theirpulsingdriveandever-shiftingrhythmicaccentuations

oftenhurling thembeyondthe reachoftypical phrase structures. As profoundly

workedoutastheoverall formalschemeofthemovementis,whatisheardisan

uncomfortable, hyper-active passage of music, even in its supposedly calmer

central episode. Agawu’s suggestion of a ‘mosaic’ like construction might offer

further explanation for this, drawing ‘af?inities with other musical traditions in

DynamicContinuities

129

which metrical, textural and phrase-structural play serve to inaugurate a

modernisttrend’(1999,151).

Notions ofchange anddynamismprove central to the ?inale of thework,

whichmaycomeasa surprisegivenitsformal scheme:32iterations ofthesame

fundamental ostinato ?igure, each lasting eight bars in length, followed by a

spiralling coda inwhich versions of the theme are distorted and spun out in a

varietyofways(seeFigure6.6).Cappedbyaskywards-climbingmelody,the?igure

infactopensinthesubdominant:thissetsinmotionarestlesssequenceoftriadic

relationships thatwheel inevitablytowards thetonic, imbuing thesamesenseof

perpetualonwardmotionaswiththematerialofthe?irstmovement.

Theinitial statement frontedbywoodwindandbrass giveswayto string-

led variations, rhythmic expansions andevasions allowing phrases to seemingly

over?low their original eight-barshape. Thevariations gradually grow calmer in

character, allowingmeanderingwoodwindsolos to emerge. Forays into Emajor

furtherbroadenthecharacterofthe?igurebeyondrecognitionand, as theclarity

of the metrical divisions becomes increasingly lost, it is hard not to sense a

growingsenseofcomparativetimelessness;theurgencyoftheopeningchoralehas

been robbed of its purpose, leading to stasis and a seemingly melancholic

stagnation. A reiteration of the chorale in its initial state reinvigorates the full

orchestra to a cataclysmic re-engagement. Earlier principles of rhythmic and

metrical instability are now carried to the furthest possible degree, variations

graduallygainingmomentumbeforespiralingintoacodaoffreneticmodulations.

The severity of the E-minor close seems an inevitability, the ensembleworking

multiple fragments and snippetsof the chorale into theclosing passages. A ?inal

nodtowardsCmajorintheclosingbarsneverthelessoffersareferralbacktothe

DynamicContinuities

130

Fig.6.6:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,harmonicreductionofpassacagliaostinato(bars1–8)

tonal duality that has surfaced previously in the course of the symphony,

seeminglysuggestingthattheminor-keyconclusionhasnotgoneunchallenged.

Tracingboundaries–FourthSymphony:Finale

Althoughthe?irstmovementofthesymphonyhasprovidedagreatdealofinterest

forscholars,perhaps itsmost intriguinginterpretationarises inlightofthe?inale.

It has been asserted that bothmovements take on the shape of chaconnes, the

opening Allegro non troppo implicitly, the ?inale explicitly. The most detailed

interpretationofthe ?irstmovement inthisway is providedby JonathanDunsby

(1981), who initially picks up uponcommentsmade ?irst by EdwinEvans with

regard to the ‘spirit’ of the passacaglia form running through the entirework

(1935, 146–71), andlaterby ClaudeRostand (1955, 291-299)onaccount ofthe

?irst movement’s thematic recurrence.27 Using as a springboard the apparent

metrical asymmetries of the nonetheless ‘mechanical’ opening theme and its

sequential nature, Dunsby unveils thematic procedures along the lines of

developingvariation, ?inding intheexpositiona‘mixedform, reconcilingtheidea

of transformed repetition – that is, a variation process – with the sonata

process’ (1981, 76). Indeed, for him it is in some senses the less orthodox

symphonic form that frequently prevails: ‘The transformations which move

forward the sonata structure are often far more subtle than the repetitive

characteristics: the tension between the two processes of the mixed form –

chaconne and sonata – often swings in favour of the chaconne, because the

repetitivecharacteristicsaresostrong’(1981,77).

Itcouldcertainly bearguedat theveryleast that principles ofdeveloping

variationplayamajorroleintheworkingoutofthe?irstmovement,withaltered

repetitiondisplayed onmacro andmicro levels. More broadly, the sequence of

thirdsthat theopening themesetsinmotionismirroredinthe tonalmapofthe

DynamicContinuities

131

27 Although Evans points to features of the Sirst movement that prelude the Sinale,including the Bach-like ‘leading characteristics’ of its theme, he ultimately seemsunconvinced by the attempted fusion of symphonic and passacaglia structures: ‘Theattempt, thoughresulting inSinework, onlyprovesthatthese formscanneverbeunitedand places the frank passacaglia–form of the Sinale of this symphony in the light of arevancheforcertaintraitsoftheSirstmovement’(1935,148).

movement, as Frisch and Edward Cone both attest to (Frisch 2003: 117).

Meanwhile,thematicrepetitionsbeginaudiblytooverlap, aclimacticpoint inthe

recapitulationallowingtheprimarysubjecttobrie?lytakeontheshapeofacanon

(bars394–401)(seeFigure6.7).

A numberofwritershaveshown this to be a two-way street, pointing to

divisions akinto thatofasonata formdesign in thepassacaglia ?inale, including

Frisch (2003, 130–40), Pascall (1989, 233–245), Rostand (1955, 291–299), and

Osmond-Smith(1983,147–65).Acomparisonoftheseinterpretationsoftheform

of the movement can be found in Figure6.5. However, whilst all are agreed in

principle, the underlying shape of this apparent architecture is subject to some

disagreement. Frischpresentsperhapsthemoststraightforwardinterpretationin

terms of its adherence to convention, outlining an exposition comprising two

themegroups linkedby a bridge, a development section (from bar 129), a free

recapitulation(frombar193),andacoda(frombar253).ThearchitecturePascall

outlinesisbroadlyidenticaltothatofFrisch,butcontainsaddedcomplexitywithin

the‘development’section.ForPascall, ‘developmentandrecapitulationaremixed

processes ina responsive secondhalfto the form’(1989: 239): the returnto E-

minor andthe3/4metre atbar129signalsnot theopening ofthedevelopment

section but, in fact, the ?irst point of recapitulation. A development section

intercedes in the following chaconne cycle, taking hold before a ‘retransition’

occursinaheadoftheresumptionoftherecapitulationatbar193.Osmond-Smith,

meanwhile,seems initiallylesscomfortablewithimposingafull sonataformonto

themovement,contentinsteadtosuggestamorethoroughmergingofsonataand

passacaglia forms (1983, 161–65). Rather than asserting the status of an

expositionwith?irstandsecondsubjectgroupingsonto theopeningpassages,his

divisionsliemoreinlinewiththeconventions ofchaconneform,withchangesof

metre(from 3/4to 3/2inbars 97–128)andmode(from Eminor to Emajor in

DynamicContinuities

132

Fig.6.7:FourthSymphony,Uirstmovement,reductionofstringpartstoshowcanonicinterplayatclimax(bars393–403)

bars 105–28). It is in the secondhalf of thework that he shows an interest in

notionsofrecapitulation–bothfrombar129andagainfrombar193–andcoda.

Eventhenumberofcyclesofthechaconnethemeseemstobeasubjectfor

debate. Both Pascall and Osmond-Smith depict 32 cycles, with the ?inal cycle

spinning out directly into a coda conclusion. Although Rostand remains in

agreementthatthecodacommencesatbar253,hechoosestolendmorestructural

credencetowhattheothersarecontenttolabelasanextendedcoda:hepresentsa

?ive-part subdivision, determining four ‘cycles’ ofunequal bar lengths (8, 12, 16,

and16)givingwaytoaseven-barpassage inwhichthe ?inalcadence is af?irmed

(Rostand1955,299).

Frischoptsto labelthe cyclesasvariations;consequently, heportraysthe

movementascomprisinganeight-bartheme,30subsequentvariations,andacoda

separate instatus from thevariations butnonethelessstill beginning at bar 253

(2003, 130–40).Whilstthis keepsthe interpretedformofthework verymuchin

linewith theprinciple ofdeveloping variation that Frischpropoundselsewhere,

theideaofthe?irsteightbarsofthe?inaletakingtheshapeofaconcretestarting

point – the ‘origin’ of the movement – could in fact be seen as somewhat

underminedbyFrisch elsewhere in hiswritings. InBrahmsand the Principle of

DevelopingVariation,hedrawsattentiontoaninterruptionatthecloseofthethird

movement of the symphony (bars 317–25) in which a direct transposition

(downwardsbyaperfect ?ifth)oftheimminentpassacagliaostinato(downwards

byaperfect?ifth,E§ –F♯ –G§ –A§ –B♭ becomingA§ –B§ –C§ –D§ –E♭)is‘expandedintoagrotesqueparody’bywayof‘enourmousregistraldisplacement’(seeFigure

6.8). Frisch explains that, with the onset of the ?inale, the process Brahms

undertakesisoneof‘restoringdignityandlogictothetheme’,citingthesuggestion

DynamicContinuities

133

Fig.6.8:FourthSymphony,thirdmovement,harmonicreductionofearlyappearanceofchaconneostinatofragment(bars317–26)

from the composer’s pocket calendar that the passacaglia may well have been

composedbeforethescherzo,withtheostinato referencedeliberatelyplantedin

lightofwhatwastocomeinthecourseofthesymphony:‘Hereturnsittoasingle

registerandcompletesitbyraisingthesharpedfourthtoa?ifthandresolvingthat

pitchtothetonic.Hethenpaystributetotheresuscitatedthemebyproceedingto

buildanentirevariationmovementfromit’(1984,143).

Findingdynamism

There can be no doubt that these interpretations all have value, not least with

regardto shruggingoffthepercieved‘self-conscious archaism shotthroughwith

romantic feeling’ that, as Agawu notes, often dominates discussion of the

movement(1999, 150).Nevertheless, towhatextent theyre?lect a present-tense

listening experience remains inquestion;whilstmany of thestructural markers

outlinedcanindeedbeheardasmusical‘events’, orcrystallisationsofchange,the

focus of audience attention is less likely to be the nuances of their formal role.

Perhapsitisworthconsideringthesearchitecturalelementsintermsoftheiraural

consequences.ApassagetakenfromPeterSmith’saligningofBrahmsandHeinrich

Schenkerintheirresponsestosonataformofferssomeperspectiveinthisway:

Withrespecttorecapitulation, themostsigniSicantelementof sectionalisation in

sonataform,BrahmsandSchenkerstrovetosubsumetheelementsofdivisionand

repetition within a continuous and dynamic unfolding. While they remained

committedtoahistoricallyvalidatedformaltypecharacterisedbytherestatement

of large blocks of material, they refused to sacriSice the romantic ideal of an

unbroken, goal-directed Slow. Theyboth struck a compromise betweena strong

organicist impulse and theirsensitivity to the realitiesof a formaltype based in

partonthedramaticdelineationofaparallelthematicdesign.(Smith1994:78)

Regardless of whether it might be classi?ied as an adaptation of theme and

variation,passacagliaorsonataforms, the ?inaleoftheFourthSymphony–when

performed–takestheshapeofjustsucha‘continuousanddynamicunfolding’.As

signi?icantastheprogressionproves,theauralexperienceisnotsimplyreducedto

identifying successions of cycles, pinpointing the conclusion of one and the

DynamicContinuities

134

commencement of the next. Indeed, Brahms demonstrates particular skill in

adoptinganobviouslyvariation-basedapproachwithoutincurringtheboundaries

thatmight typically accompany it. By blurring the lines that traditionally divide

cycles in the passacaglia form, emphasis is placed upon change and continuity

ratherthanstasisanddemarcation.

The composer achieves this blurring principally through two types of

ambiguity:metric andharmonic.28 Occurringat notablepoints inthemovement,

metric ambiguity is implemented largely through relatively small alterations in

rhythmicemphasisthat,whenembeddedwithinoragainstrecurringpatternsand

?igures, contributetoawidersenseofstructuraldestabilisation.Achangeintime

signature at the centre of the movement (bars 97–128) also allows for more

profound expansion of metrical possibilities. Harmonic ambiguity, meanwhile,

proves more pervasive, with the opening cycle itself seemingly predisposed

towards harmonic motion. The ?irst four bars in particular reveal a tension

betweentonic,subdominantandsubmediant(seeFigure6.6), theresultantnodof

therootpositionsofthesechordstowardsanA-minortriadinturnalludingtothe

patterns of thirds that punctuated the ?irst movement of the symphony. The

voicing ofthe subdominant chordthat opens theworkhas implications forhow

themovementplaysout:withC§andE§featuringasthelowestandhighestpitches

respectively, invoking the long-term tonal signi?icance of those keys across the

preceding movements. The ascent of the top-register ‘theme’ to an F♯ in the

following bar serves to foil what might otherwise have been a more powerful

assertionofthesubdominantbynatureofthebassdroptoA-natural.TheE-minor

chordofthethirdbardoesnotprovidetheauralstabilityassignedtoatonickey,

failing to offset a recasting of the opening in bar four, a ?irst-inversion

subdominant chordwithregisters now further extended inbothdirections. The

cadence that ensues across the four bars that follow is riddled with chromatic

in?lectionsthatservetocomplicatematters(bars5–8).Theupwardssemitonestep

oftheupper‘theme’toanA♯helpsfacilitateF♯major,hereassumingtheroleofa

secondarydominantwithregardtothepartitplaysinbringingthe?irstphraseto

its culmination; with the continuedpresenceofE§ as the seventh in the timpani

DynamicContinuities

135

28 Forfurtherdiscussionsof thiskindof ambiguityinBrahms’smusic,seeSmith(1996)andMurphy(2009).

forces the sequence onwards. Eminor reappearsbut onceagain fails to provide

respite, giving way to a dominant seventh distorted by a diminished ?ifth that

resolvestothemajormodeofthetonic.

The consequence of all this is an opening cycle that, in spite of its

progressions neatly contained within an eight-bar phrase, proves inherently

dynamicthankstoitsrestlessharmonicconstruction.WhilstE§remainsaconstant

presencethroughallbutthepenultimatebar,itseemstoemergeasmoreofatonal

pivotthananunchallengedtonic,failingtoprovidethenecessaryresolutioninthe

course of its three root sonorities. This initial sequence is adapted through the

course of the opening cycles as the ascending upper-register theme becomes

embeddedwithinthebassparts, insuringEminorasatonalcentreandfacilitating

variationsintheharmonicpath.

The?irstmetricalambiguitiesbegintocreepinasthetemposlowstowards

the time signature expansion from 3/4 to 3/2 that accompanies thestart ofthe

13th cycle(frombar97).Thelatterhalvesofboththeninthand10thcycles (bars

69–72and77–80)introduceadropinmomentumthroughtheintroductionofbar-

to-a-bow slurred ?igures in the strings with descending chromatic scales in the

woodwind.Theopeningofthe11thcycle(bar81)revealsthe?irsthintsofEmajor

as a startingpoint for the iteration, rather thanas an ending. Insteadof aurally

initiating another cycle, the impression of a through-composed development is

given, achange in tonal direction offering a new avenueofmusical explanation.

Thelossofrhythmicdriveat thispointandthesuddenrelianceuponablock-like

dialogueof chords betweenstrings andwoodwinds gives thesense ofthe initial

drive and rigour of the movement beginning to lag. Here, a precise balance is

struck: a drop in metric momentum is countered by the exploration of more

interestingharmonicavenues.

EbbandUlow

Theexpansionof thetimesignature to 3/2withoutanychange intempo forthe

13th iteration (from bar 97) – a doubling of the cycle duration – arouses

disorientation. Rhythmic emphasis, falling on the crotchet of?beat in the upper

DynamicContinuities

136

stringsasacounterpointtotheplaintive,searching?lutemelody,giveslittleclueas

totheexactnatureofthechangethathastakenplace(SeeFigure6.9).However, it

soonbecomesclearthatcyclesarenowprogressingmoreslowly,withversionsof

the now familiar chord sequence now seemingly the most reliable way of

distinguishingtherateofchange.Theharmonicsequences,inturn,aresoonmade

more dif?icult to discern through the full switch to Emajor fromthe14th cycle

(bars105–12). Thesonorities themselvesaremostlyexpressedinthemiddleand

upperregisters,withthebass emphasislargelyabsent. Theresultisanincreased

sense of stasis, with the goal-directed drive of the initial cycles diminished in

presence; this is initially emphasisedbyanE-natural pedal throughout the14th

cycleintheviolasandhorn,withthepedalcontinuedbythehornthroughoutthe

15th(bars113–20).Bass emphasisdoesnotreturnuntil the?inalbarofthe16th

iteration(bar128),withthelowA§ofthecelliemphasisingAminor,andproviding

adirectconnectionwiththereprisethatfollows. Inthemeantime,themetreofthe

music has remained largely ambiguous; although the wind instruments have

provided two eight-bar cycles of consistent rhythmic phrase structure, this has

beenroutinelyunderminedbytheemphasisofthestringsuponthesecondminim

beatofeachbar.

The ?irst four bars of the 17th cycle (bars 129–32) bring the ?irst, and

indeedonly,pointofdirectrepetitioninthecourseofthemovement,theopening

‘theme’oftheopeningreprisedinthewoodwindandbrass.Thedescendingstring

DynamicContinuities

137

Fig.6.9:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,Ulutemelody(upperline)withreductionofstringsandhornaccompaniment(lowerline),bars97–104

passage that appears in counterpoint to the ascending ‘theme’ instigates a

cataclysmicredirection, curtailingtheiterationnot inEmajorbutinanharmonic

collision (bar 136): a minor third of E§ and G§ is pitched against a violent

reappearanceof thesecondary dominant, anF♯bassunderpinning a suspension

resolvingtowardsF♯majorthroughthe?irstviolinsdropfromD§toC♯(seeFigure

6.10). Nevertheless, thechromatic in?lections that dogthe two largely ascending

cyclesthatfollow,servenotonlytoreinstallEminorasatonalcentrebutalsoto

blurtheeightbarsofeachcycleintoonecohesiveupwardgesture.Withthestable

broader metre of each iteration re-established, focus shifts from the ‘vertical’

nature of the harmonic content to the ‘horizontal’ development ofmelodic and

rhythmic?igures.Broaderrhythmicshiftsproveaparticularpointofauralinterest,

with the beat of emphasis in prominent orchestral parts changing for each

iteration. A particularly dynamic pattern can be observed from the 20th cycle

throughtothe23rd,withthepointoffocusshiftingfromtheoff-beatquaver?igure

ofthe20thcycle(bars153–60)tothesforzandosecondcrotchetsofeachbar(an

accompaniment used in tandem with the newly tripletised-quaver ?igure in the

upperstrings)inthe21st(bars161–68),andtheweightedsecondandfourthbars

inthe22nd(bars169–76).

Bythearrivalofthesuddenlysubdued23rdcycle(bars177–84),asenseof

metrical disorientation has takenhold, with off-beat quaverpunctuations in the

woodwindnowjuxtaposedwithanundercurrentofmotorictripletquaversinthe

strings.Theascentofthe24thcycle(bars185–192)towards theaclimacticpoint

of partial recapitulation continues this juxtaposition, arpeggiated tripletquavers

ascending forcefully above descending straight quavers in the lower strings.

DynamicContinuities

138

Fig.6.10:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,selectedreductionofbars129–36

Addingto theconfusion, twowoodwindinterjectionsbeginonthequaverupbeat

rather than at the start of bars 186 and 188, lending the passage an onward

lurching sensation. Angular descending outbursts then project a contradictory

dupletimeacrossthe?inalthreebarsofthecycle,abeatofsilenceallowingthefull

orchestra to reassembleforthepartial recapitulationof the25th , 26thand27th

cycles, reframing earlier material from the second, third and fourth iterations

respectively. The27thcycle inparticular (bars209–16)reintroducesaparticular

harmonicquestionfrom theearlystages ofthemovement, withaC§ pedal inthe

bassesnotonlycasting thepassage in thelightofCmajor, but reintroducingthe

sonority to theopeningof thesubsequent iterations.Meanwhile,metricevasions

continue to abound, fromchromatic basshemiola(bars 209–12)to theforward-

trippingoff-beatsandsyncopations thatcharacterise therun-intowards thecoda

(bars233–52).Thecodaitselfpresentsareversalofthebalancefoundaheadofthe

recapitulationatthemid-pointofthemovement:fromheretheharmonicavenues

areconsiderablynarrowed,withE-minorgainingarelentlessstrangleholdonthe

courseofthemusic.Ratheritisrhythmandmetrethatentersastateofoverdrive,

ascyclesaretruncated,spliced,andextendedwithferociousabandon.

Thismirroringmightbeviewedwithinthecontextofanadditionalwayof

viewingtheformofthemovement,oneinkeepingwithanauralexperienceofit.

Takingintoaccount thatthepartial recapitulationthatopensthe17thcycleisthe

only point of direct repetition, it is possible to divide the piece at this almost

precisemid-point(withrespecttobothnumberofcyclesandperformedduration).

The ?inale of the symphony can be heard as two gestures of equal length, two

directionsinwhichthepassacagliamightbetaken:the?irstgraduallyslows,metre

becomingmoredisparate, harmonymoreambiguous;thesecondacceleratesinto

overdrive, relentless driving rhythms underpinning a close tonal circling of E

DynamicContinuities

139

Fig.6.11:FourthSymphony,fourthmovement,formalschemeoftwogestures,withcyclesdepictedinproportiontoapproximatedurations

minor (see Figure 6.11).29 Although played in succession to one another, these

gestures could be thought of as presenting two alternate timespans, stemming

fromthevery samestartingpoint–two longformalgestures inwhichthe same

fundamentalmaterialisworkedouttoverydifferentends.

Layersoftime–Schnee:Canon1a

As with the ?inale of the Fourth Symphony, there are several different ways in

which the form of Abrahamsen’s Schnee might be interpreted; as has been

discussed, surfacedivisions couldbemade accordingto the canon pairings, as a

consequence of the placing of the intermezzi, or the work might be seen as a

diminishing series of partitions. However, again in a manner comparable to

Brahms’spassacaglia,anauralexperienceoftheworkrevealsaconsiderablymore

dynamic,continuouscomposition.Thesuccessofbothworks,itwouldseem,liesas

much in their ability to defy or subvert their own formal boundaries in

performanceas itdoes intheirabilitytoretaintheclarityofthosedivisionswhen

analysedafter,or indeedbefore, the fact. Inthislight, thediscussionof thework

thatfollowsherewill–asitdidtoalargedegreewiththeBrahms–beconcerned

withthelinearpassageofthepiece, andwillbestructuredassuchwithaviewto

gainingadeeperunderstandingofsomeoftheperceptualprocesses listenersmay

experienceinthecourseofaperformance.

Abrahamsen echoes Brahms’s manner of presenting two alternate

timespansinsuccessionthroughoutthecourseofSchnee.Muchoftheshort-term

continuity of the work depends upon an audible recognition of this process

occurring within the ?ive pairings of canons: each pair is underpinned by one

fundamentalmusical idea that is rendered in two differentways. The composer

invokesBaroqueforms,particularlythoseofBach,describingthesecondcanonin

eachpairasakindof‘double’ofthe ?irst. InthecaseofCanons1aand1b,which

had originally been both conceived and premièred as a standalone coupling in

2006,Abrahamsen is candidaboutbothhis selectionofrepeating structuresand

DynamicContinuities

140

29Durationstakenfromrecordinglistedinprimaryresourcelist(WienerPhilharmoniker,conductedbyCarlosKleiber.DeutscheGrammophon:457706-2).

thedesiredeffectthesechoiceshaveuponthelisteningexperience:‘Itisbasically

thesamemusic,butwithmanymorecanoniclevelssuperimposed.Sothetwoform

apair,andshouldbeheardassuch.Theyareliketwobigmusicalpictureswhich,

whenheardwithdistant,unfocussedears,mayproduceathird,three-dimensional

picture’(Abrahamsen2009,3).

Any danger of this approach translating into an aurally transparent

accumulativeprocess inpractice, though, is counteredbyanintricatelydesigned

complication. Inspired by late-nineteenth-century stereoscopic photography

techniques inwhichtwo pictures taken from slightly displacedperspectives are

overlaidto createan illusory three-dimensional image, Abrahamsen attempts to

reframe this idea in temporal terms, asking: ‘If one laid two ‘times’ over one

another, would a deeper, three-dimensional time be created?’ (2009, 2). It is

DynamicContinuities

141

Fig.6.12:Schnee,Canon1a,bars1–6(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)

perhapsinthiswaythatSchneenotonlymirrorsaspectsofBaroquecounterpoint

(independent melodic lines layered polyphonically, each starting at different

points andinmany instancesmovingat different speedswithinasetmetre)but

also heightens it through the introduction of multiple metrical layers. The

simultaneity ofthesecompetingmetresprovestobean important featureofthe

listening experience, with the interaction between them contributing to the

perceivabledevelopmentofthework. Inthecomposer’sownwords, ‘inthecourse

ofeachindividual canon, agradualprocess is revealed:onethatsheds lightupon

variousaspects, eachpushedintoeithertheforegroundorthebackground’(2009,

3).

Thisprocessofchangingperspectivesandpositionscanbeobservedacross

the?irsttwopairsofcanons.Canon1aopenswithadirectjuxtaposition,thesteady

quaverpulseoftheviolinatoddswiththesparseinterjections ofthepiano (see

Figure6.12).WhilstbothinstrumentsinitiallyuseonlyA§s,theiraural effectsare

more distinctive; the arti?icial harmonics of the violin, and the cello soon after,

soundsohighinpitchthattherecomes, inthecomposer’sdescriptioninthescore,

‘only air, like an icy whisper, but witha pulsation’, whilst thehighpitchof the

piano notes lends them a chilling incisiveness, cutting through the texture with

rhythmic clarity. Indeed, the rhythmof thepiano line is outlinedinsuchminute

detail–frequentlythroughtheuseofcontradictorydupletandtripletpunctuations

– that it seems deliberately to counter the regularity of the violin quavers,

presenting an obviously competing metre from the very start of thework as it

outlinestherisingandfallingcanontheme.Althoughthepianolinewouldseemto

holdagreatdealmoreinterestthanthatoftheviolin,thetwoarepreventedfrom

entering into a simple foreground-background hierarchy by the fact that they

appearto functionasastructural unit,withtheendoftheinitial canonthemein

thepianopromptingtheviolinalsotocurtailitsrepetitionsatthecloseofbar?ive,

withaquaver of silenceat the start of bar sixallowing the cello to pick up the

ostinato,pianoswiftly followingsuit.Thisbriefauralcommaisrepeatednotonly

atthecloseofthe?irst-timebar(bar10)andthroughtherepeatofbar?ive, butis

prolongedatthecloseofthesecond-timebar(bar10a)throughanotatedpause,in

whichtheviolaholdsanharmonicopen?ifthonA§.

DynamicContinuities

142

Even as further levels of activity are added towards the centre of the

movement, thesenseofhiatusat thecloseofeachiterationofthecanonthemeis

maintained, lending the impression less of thoroughly independent polyphonic

parts, but rather a collection of distinct lines that exhibit connections with one

another at various points. In fact, the most notable change that occurs in the

movement – the transformation of the violin’s pianissimo repeating quaver

ostinato into fortissimo triplet semi-quavers complete with arti?icial harmonic

glissandi (frombar19)– turns out to be verymuchin-keepingwithpre-existing

material; although this new ?igure initially appears as a foreground textural

feature, itsglissandi infact createatranslucentdoublingof thecanon theme, the

piano’slucidpunctuationsactingasmomentary ‘stations’ fortheviolinandcello,

incitingthenecessary changes inpitchdirection. Theconsequenceofthefrenetic

characterofthis centralepisode(bars19–30a)isoneperhapscomparabletothat

of a traditional ternary form, witha second contrasting section allowing a fresh

perspective on themusical landscape of the ?irst sectionwhen subsequently it

returns. This interpretation is certainly supported by Abrahamsen’s labeling of

these three successive passages as numbered ‘parts’, with all other succeeding

canons in thework – save 5a & 5b– also following this design. However, this

structural change does notnecessarily precludeacompletely new set ofmusical

materials. In Canon 1a, the metrically evasive theme presented by the piano is

presentthroughout;rather,itisitssettingthatisaltered,withits‘accompaniment’

movingfrombackgroundtoforegroundbeforeretreatingoncemore.Thereturnof

thecomparativelystatic quaver ostinato frombar31(‘PartThree’), serves to re-

establish the piano theme as a point of focus; familiarity renders the rhythmic

discrepancies (initiallyheardperhapsasametrical incompatibility)betweenthe

two ?iguresasasourceofinterplayratherthanofcompetition.Withthisdialogue

nowacceptedasauni?iedmusical?low, thepassageisallowedto assumeamore

dynamicqualitygivingthe impressionofaperceptualaccelerationto thecloseof

themovement.

DynamicContinuities

143

Horizontalperspectives–Schnee:Canon1b

Thematerial of Canon 1a is reframed from the outset of its double, Canon 1b.

Whilst the fundamental theme is retained, certain elements of its character are

nowconcealed,allowingotherfacetstocometo thefore(seeFigure6.13).Whilst

thepiano line (nowperformedonthesecondpiano) is enhancedthroughupper-

register octaves, thequaver ostinato is robbedentirely ofpitch, performednow

throughtherhythmicrubbingofpaperon thesurfaceofa table. These lines are

nowoverlaidbydistortionsoftheirmaterial:thequaverostinatoisnowoffsetbya

percussive ‘guiro’ effect produced on the ?irst piano via glissandi with the

?ingernailsacrossthewhitekeysinlinewiththerhythmsanddistancesspeci?ied

DynamicContinuities

144

Fig.6.13:Schnee,Canon1b,bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)

in the score. Meanwhile, violin and viola (the latter in rhythmic unison but

transposeddowna perfect ?ifth) utilise arti?icial harmonics to outline the canon

themein longsustainedgestures, an idea then taken upbypiccolo andclarinet

from bar six – an all-new ‘horizontal’ perspective on what has hitherto been

presentedasamorepunctuated‘vertical’thematicidea.Althoughthesenewlayers

areaudiblyrelatedtothefeaturescarriedoverfromtheprecedingmovement,they

serve to introducea contrastingmetre,working intandemto set 15/16phrases

against the broader 9/8 time signature; their sound, however, is not so uni?ied,

withtheglidingstring line lending thepassage anincreasedsenseof freedom in

contrast with the theobviously rhythmic input ofthe ‘guiro’ ostinato. Yetagain,

though, thiseffectofduple‘times’isnotoneoftwo indifferentmusicalpaths;the

ensemblestilloperatesasaunitforanabrupthiatusatthecloseofeach?ive-bar

phrase.

The clarity of these independent musical lines is gradually lost as the

movementprogresses. The?irstsignsofthisoccurasthestringsandwoodwind–

previouslysharingresponsibilities forthesame lines–beginto divergefromone

another: inthecourseofaviolaandcello iterationofthesustainedcanontheme,

oboe and clarinet offer a chromatically-in?lected and metrically displaced

distortionoftheline,?loatingat?irstinparallelbeforetakingoverfromthestrings

completely(bars11–18a). This initial split preludes themore intricatebranching

thatoccursinthecentralepisode–thesecond‘part’intheternaryformdesign–of

themovement(bars19–30a). Thereturnfromtheopeningmovementofglissandi

triplet semi-quaver ?igures staggered across violin and cello curtails the ‘guiro’

effect, but ushers in trilled echoes of the canon theme in the viola, piccolo and

clarinet, accompaniedbysharp punctuations from theoboe. Thecontinuationof

the canon theme in the second piano is soon set in dialogue with a delayed

variationofthethemeinthe?irstpiano,thericocheteffectcreatedbytheresulting

interlockingrhythmsgivinganoverallphasingeffectwiththethemere?lectedand

refractedinthemidstofthenotablythickenedtexture. Indeed,atthispointinthe

movement there are now ?ive broader musical ideas now employed

simultaneously, withthreeofthose ideas furtherseparated inmultiple layersof

displacement.

DynamicContinuities

145

This surface novelty conceals a radical continuity: the canon theme has

beenaconstantfeatureofSchnee fromitsveryopening.BythecloseofCanon1b,

thismotifhasbeenperpetuallyrepeatedthroughoutthe17-minutedurationofthe

two movements, a temporal undercurrent left almost entirelyuntouched by the

more ?leeting ‘times’ that have emerged and faded around it. This feature is

underlinedinthethird‘part’ofthemovement(bars31–48a):anotablyprolonged

hiatus–markedby a sustainedcello pedalon thescordaturalow open-string G§

(thedetunedC-string, its ?irst deploymentand indeed thelowest pitchofSchnee

thusfar)–curtailsthecentralsection;initswake,theternary-esquereturnofthe

materialwhichopenedthemovementbringsthecanonthemeofthepianointothe

foregroundoncemore,highlightingitscontinuedpresenceasafamiliarlandmark,

consistentinspiteofthesurroundingtexturaltrends.

Temporaldimensions–Schnee:Canon2a

Similarprocesses canbe observed in thesecondpairingof canons, inwhichthe

three-part formofeachis subdivided further: as well assignposting eachofthe

three parts, silentpauses also split each part into two sub-sections, usually also

signalingtexturalchanges.Canon2a(forwoodwindtrioandsecondpiano)opens

in a notably direct manner: alto ?lute and clarinet alternate to set inmotion a

‘theme’ of seemingly perpetual quavers built of arpeggio fragments seemingly

gravitating towardsD minor (see Figure6.14). Bothare encouragedto produce

DynamicContinuities

146

Fig.6.14:Schnee,Canon2a,bars1–4,canontheme(excludingleft-handopennoteinpianopart)

notes thatare ‘halfpitchandhalfair’,withsyllablesof short phrasesexclaiming

thearrivalofsnowandtheonsetofwinter(‘EsistSchnee!’and‘EsistWinternacht,

Winternachtjetzt!’)underpinningeachnote.Theresultisaparticularlypercussive

sound, enhanced by Blu-tack-muted F§ punctuations from the piano, wider

resonance provided by the silent depressionof the F§ key anoctave lower. The

establishedline soonassumesabroader familiarity, withjustahandful of short

patternssubjectedtoagreatmanyrepetitions.However,thisrecyclingprocessis

far from simple; in addition to nearly every bar presenting a change of time

signature (9/8 and 8/8 initially proving the most common), repeat markings

present at the endofeverybarorpairs of bars create a subversive texture for

listeners, with aroused expectations of sequences and rhythms routinely

underminedbysmallalterations.

Only a short time passes before this unit of thematic interplay is itself

disrupted.ThepianobreaksfromitsusualmutedF§s,producingtwostaccatoC§sin

bars 15–16, and a further three in bars 22–23. The sound is tonally distinctive,

withC§fallingoutsidetheestablishedD-minorpurview,andindeedfarlouderthan

themutedF§susedsofar.However, theseinterjectionsprotrudemostnotablyina

rhythmic sense, contradicting the wider quaver pulse with the effect of dotted

quaveroff-beats;theaural effectisoneofa jarringhemiola,ametricalmismatch

subvertingthealternatingpatternsofthree-andtwo-quavergroups. However, in

the second sub-section of the ?irst part of the movement this interruption is

graduallyintegratedwithinthetheme;itsmoreconsistentappearancesalliedwith

its increasinglymelodic oscillationbetweenC§ andC♯ allow it to berhythmically

normalised, no longer disrupting butrather phasing in andout ofsync withthe

DynamicContinuities

147

Fig.6.15:Schnee,Canon2a,excerptstoshowscoringofintroductionofmetricallysubversivepianoC§anditssubsequentintegration

more familiar quaver groups (see Figure 6.15). The result is a direct musical

representationofAbrahamsen’s stereoscopic photographyanalogyoftwo images

overlapping to create the illusionof a further dimension, two metresmoving in

andoutofalignmentwithoneanother.

Thesecondpartofthemovementseesthepiano’srepeatedF§sretainedasa

constant whilst textural shifts occur around it. The once perpetual arpeggiated

?igures becomeincreasinglysporadic inthealto ?lute line, with thequaverpulse

oftenmaintained only by new oscillating shapes in the piano line. Instead, the

primary dialogue takes placebetween piano andthequintuplet punctuations of

the newly introduced cor anglais, staccato underlinings from the clarinet also

becomingincreasinglyfrequentbothtowardsandduringthesecondsectionofthe

part.Meanwhile,thealto?luteproducesincreasinglyabstract?igures,startingwith

thedownward glissandi effects that recur frequently from bar 70onwards, and

culminating in the violent ‘wind-like’ sforzando arcs that ?irst appear in the

movement’sthirdpart(frombar155)alternatedwithhyperactivetrills.

Shiftingfocus–Schnee:Canon2b

Thesechangeshighlightthewideragitationthathas takenholdof theensemble.

Continuingquintupletquaverpatternsdisplacedbetweencoranglais andclarinet

growinprominencetowardsthecloseofthesecondpart,maskingwhatremainsof

the canon theme which began themovement. What occurs in the course of the

thirdpartisagradualreturntothisbasictexturalunit.Coranglaisandclarinetre-

enter into the cyclic dialogue of the theme, allowing the piano –which proved

crucial inretaining thequaver pulsethroughout thesecondpart–toreassertits

apparent ‘dupletime’hemiola. The ?inal subsection ofthemovement (bars 179–

207)recreatesthesametexturallandscapeoftheopening,onlysporadicreturnsof

thepiano’shemiolainterjectionsareminderofthelayeringprocessthathastaken

place.

Thetwo-minuteinterlude that intercedesthesecondcanonpairingproves

particularlystrikinginitsfocusupon‘horizontal’materialratherthan‘vertical’,the

series of de-tunings providing anopportunity for long sustainednotes. It is the

DynamicContinuities

148

?irst point in Schnee at which rhythmic momentum is abandoned entirely, the

onwardmetricaldriveoftheopeningthreemovementsreplacedbyanaltogether

freerexpansiveofsuccessivemergingchords.Itsignalsaseachangeforthemusic

thatfollows. Elementsofthissojourncreepaudiblyinto theopeningofCanon2b,

cello and bass clarinet both undertaking drones (F§ and F♯ respectively) with

dovetailinghairpindynamicstocreateadiscordantthrobbingeffect.Violaandcor

anglaisalternatelycontributetheirownsustainedloopingcalls(initiallyanF§ and

a D♭ respectively). The return of the canon theme, meanwhile, is a scattershotaffair,withitsalreadyconglomeratenaturenowenhancedfurtherbythefactthat

violin and alto ?lute are now rendering it in nontuplet and octuplet quavers,

metrically incompatible with the regular quaver pulse maintained by the two

pianos.Theresult is astuttering texture,momentumfrequentlystiltedorstalling

aspartofamuddleddialogue. Thematerialappears halfremembered, fragments

reappearinginanuncontrolled,inconsistentmanner,likeseparatestreamsoftime

interrupting or jostling with one another. Themusic attempts to continue in a

mannersimilarto theprecedingmovementbutwithonly limitedsuccess,energy

ebbing and ?lowing throughout. Whilst recognisable features resurface, in

particular themoreabstract violent ‘wind-like’?lutearcs thatarealsoechoedby

theviolin andtwo pianos inthe third part, the effect isof familiarmaterial lost

among numerous other layers, its original clarity and rhythmic strength now

cloudedbythedistortionsanddisplacementsthatsurroundit.

It is throughthisbuildingupoflayersacrossthe ?irst two pairs ofcanons

that it becomes possible to enter into a mode of listening similar to the one

Abrahamsen himself suggests. Perhaps, though, his prescription for ‘distant,

unfocussed ears’ lands slightly wide ofthemark. Rather, an aural experienceof

Schneemightbesaidtobebycontrastboth‘close’and‘focussed’atcertaintimes;

insteadofsimplyassumingone‘point’from–or ‘manner’in–whichtolisten,the

process that isgradually unveiled in thecourseoftheworkseems to encourage

audience members to actively alter their ‘position’, shifting their focus and

distances to engage with particular patterns or combinations of patterns at

particularmoments, orforgivenpassages.Thecontinuousnatureofthethemein

Canon 1a, for example, seems to invite closer examination in its earlier stages

beforeitisveiledbeneathnewlayersofmaterial,astaticfeature(ofsorts)withina

DynamicContinuities

149

movingscene;itisdesignedtobetakenincreasinglyforgranted.Whenitisspot-lit

oncemore towards the close ofthemovement by virtueof its returnedtextural

prominence, its familiarity means it does not need to be utilised as a point of

deliberatefocusinthesamemannerasbeforebutcaninsteadbeheardasiffroma

distance.Therealisationofitscontinuousnatureinspiteofwiderchangessparks

anautomatic changeinperspective; thelack ofneedfor focussedaural analysis,

allowsittoassumeamoredynamicpresencethanitpreviouslypossessed.

Comparable processes occur across the second pairing of canons. The

perpetual‘theme’ofCanon2aistakenforgrantedinthecourseofthemovement

once its subversive shifts in rhythmic emphasis havebecome familiar; it moves

from a point of focus and examination to a peripheral constant, a background

feature. However, its reappearances inCanon2bas afragmentary presence in a

stateofmetric?luxservetochangeitscharacterentirely.Whilstitisreassertedas

a point ofaural interest, its haphazardmovements across the ensemble and its

mercurial metric character make it impossible to utilise as a singular point of

focus; rather, a more ‘distant’ listening approach proves necessary, with focus

readjustedtoencompassthewiderframeofreferencerequiredtomakesenseof

thejourney themotiftakes. Focus isno longer trainedonone ‘time’– insteadit

shifts between the multiple overlapping ‘times’, from the background to the

foreground, creating the sense of a three-dimensional sonic landscape that

Abrahamsenintended–atransientmodeoflistening.

Thepatternestablished in the courseof thepiece so far is of increasing

textural complexity, each canon presenting an idea that is subsumed by new

complementary– or, insome instances, contradictory – ideas resultinginmulti-

layered passages. This recognisable trend of increasing density prompts new

questions for the wider form of thework. In a sense, Abrahamsen faces similar

structuralissuestoBrahms.Whilstthecompositionalchallengeinthe?inaleofthe

Fourth Symphonyseems to havebeen to lendafundamentally cyclicmovement

theeffectofathrough-composednarrative,inSchneeitisrelevanttowonderhow

aformassembledunambiguouslyfromtenaudiblypairedsectionsmightmaintain

asenseofcontinuity;beyondthedeliberate‘interruptions’ofthethreeintermezzi,

howcanthispiecesoundasauni?iedwhole?

DynamicContinuities

150

Disintegration–Schnee:Canons3–5

Theanswer to thesequestions seems to begin to emerge in the thirdpairingof

canons.Canon3aprovidesastarkcontrasttowhathascomebefore,withasudden

dropintempoand ineasilyperceivablemetreseeminglycoaxinganewlistening

approachfromits audience. The bass clarinetsets inmotiona theme ofsorts, a

slowthrobbingthree-note?igurewhichrumblesawayatfrequentbutnotprecisely

regularintervals.Violinandviolasoonbegintobridgesomeofthesepatternswith

sustained?iguresthat culminate inadescendingglissando,workingtogetherina

similarmannertoCanon2b:inrhythmicunison,butseparatedbyaperfectfourth.

Theseinitialexchangesbetweenwoodwindandstringssetthetonefor thewhole

movement. Although these roles are exchanged and further related layers are

quietlyadded, thelisteningexperienceis seeminglyguidedbythisslowmoment-

by-momentdialogue;whatmayhaveintheearlier, fasterstagesofthepiecehave

beenheard as rhythmically interlockinggestures arenowunderstoodinamuch

freer sense. Thenatureofthemusic serves to realigntheaural focus oncemore,

with the previously prominent concepts of rhythm and metre moving to the

peripheries whilst space, tone, interaction, and silence become points ofgreater

interest.

Whilst the broader structural trend of Schnee so far might create the

expectationofanincreaseinmusicalcomplexityandtexturaldensityinCanon3b,

DynamicContinuities

151

Fig.6.16:Schnee,Canon3b,pianos(bars1–4)

whatoccursisinfact, aurallyspeaking, theopposite.Atthiscrucialjuncture–the

formal centre of the work – the process is reversed: through the use of just

percussionandpianos,thethematicmaterialoftheprecedingcanonisreducedto

its very essence, the throbbing patterns now barely recognisable having been

transferredtothecircularmotionsofpaperonatable.Thetwopianos,meanwhile,

attempttorecallthemoresustainedgesturesofthestringsandwoodwindthrough

DynamicContinuities

152

Fig.6.17:Schnee,Canon4a,bars1–3(reproductionofAbrahamsen2008)

theuseofpedal;however,limitedbytheinabilitytoperformcrescendi,theeffectis

ofaperpetual dyingaway,asonic transiencemarkedallthemorebythesilences

that intercede gestures (see Figure 6.16). Tonal changes serve to highlight this

particularly desolate musical landscape: althoughperfect fourths and ?ifths still

abound, the harmonic waters are muddied by recurring semitones, augmented

sevenths and ?latted ninths, enhancing a broader sense of tonal drifting and

disintegration. Although thethirdcanonpairing lastsno longer than thesecond,

thebroaderloss ofmomentum it containsservesto stretchtheperceptual ‘time’

outwards,creatingaspaceatthecoreofSchneedevoidoftherhythmicdrivethat

hadpreviouslydominated.

DynamicContinuities

153

Fig.6.18:Schnee,parallelpresentationofpianopartsofCanon5aandCanon5b(bars1–4)toshowexchangeofcanonthemeandrhythmicpatterns

Thisnotionofdisintegration–underlinedbythesteadydetuningprocessof

the intermezzi – is taken to the opposite extreme in Canons 4a and 4b, two

movementswhichmirroroneanotherand allude in form to ‘minor’and ‘major’

versionsofaminuetandtriorespectively,thecomposerlabelingtheminthescore

asanhomageto ‘WAM’–WolfgangAmadeusMozart(Abrahamsen2009,4). The

spiky canon theme – played by violin, viola, ?lute and clarinet – appears

rhythmically fragile; rumbling chromatic piano lines and a pair of sleigh bells

(themselves a nod to Mozart’s Die Schlittenfahrt, K. 605 No. 3) outlinine two

separate pulses (one marking each beat of the 3/8 bars, the other marking a

quaverquintupletforeachbar),servingtofurtherdistortanyperceivedregularity

(seeFigure6.17). Graduallymore andmorefeatures fromthe earlystagesofthe

piecearerecalled, including sustainediterationsofthe canontheme intheviolin

andviola(frombar10onwards)echoingCanon1b,andthe ‘wind-like’sforzando

arcs and trills of the ?lute harking back to Canons 2a and 2b (from bar 13

onwards).Thereturnofsuchfeaturesseemsto nudgetheensembletowardstwo

central ‘trios’ ofeerily suddenstasis,momentum suddenlydropping to reveal a

partialrecollectionofthe?irstcanonpairing,violinprovidingapulseofharmonics

whilst the two pianos reproduce a rhythmically steady ‘guiro’ effect. The cor

anglaisevenbegins tooutlinethedescendingthirdsofthevery?irstcanontheme,

a gesture veiled by the oboe, clarinet andcello via their own sustained ?igures.

When these half-remembered features fail to produce any momentum of their

own, the ‘minuet’ passages are reprised, launching the ensemble onwards, an

unforgivingtemporalonslaught.

After the third intermezzo (itself now acting as a brief point of repose),

thereislittleletuptowardsthecloseofthework;whilstthetempoofthe?inaltwo

canonsisnotablymoresedate,theirsurprisingbrevitygives littleopportunityfor

listeners to absorb the new material. Following the example of JS Bach,

Abrahamsen divides the ensemble in two (violin, viola and ?irst piano against

piccolo,clarinetandsecondpiano)topresenta‘rectus’andan‘inversus’,withthe

materialgiventoeachintheformerswappeddirectlyoverforthelatter(see6.18).

Indeed, thematerial itself is a series ofrefractionsandre?lections, with theboth

groups essentially producing different versions of the same patterns

simultaneously. The interlocking piano lines produce a steady quaver pulse

DynamicContinuities

154

reminiscentoftheostinatoattheveryopeningofthework.Indeed,giventhatboth

Canons 5aand5bpresentessentially thesamemusic twice, thegapbetweenthe

movements(marked‘attaccaalCanon5bintempo’)actsfarmoreasabriefhiatus

like those found in the ?irst two movements, lending the close of thework an

unsettling circular character, with new material framed in a strikingly similar

manner.

Dynamiccontinuities

Althoughtheyharnessverydifferentstylesoverradicallydifferenttimescales,the

two works explored in this case study exhibit similarities in their approach to

issuesofform.BothSchnee andthe?inaleoftheFourthSymphonyarebuilt from

smallunitsofrepetition.Theinevitablechallengefacingcomposersofsuchpieces

istoretaintheinterestoflistenersoveralongerperiodoftimebyminimisingthe

potential dulling effect of such recurrence. Brahms and Abrahamsen certainly

achievevariety, buttheydonotattempttoconceal thecircularityof theirforms.

Rather they engage with the perceptual aspects of cyclical music over longer

periodsoftime,deployingsmall-scalerepetitivecells insuchawaythat listeners

might be drawn into an interaction with the recurring material, prompting a

developingrenewal ofaural perspective. Brahmsmanages this throughacareful

blurring of formal boundaries, more often manipulating themetrical context of

recurring material rather than directly altering the content itself. In Schnee,

meanwhile,itisthedistinctionsbetweencontentandcontextthatbecomeblurred.

As repeating?igures surfaceandenterintodialoguewithoneanother,theymove

inthemindsoflistenersbetweenforegroundandbackground,ashiftingecologyof

motifsandcycles.

It is in this way that bothworksmanage to conveybroader continuities,

offering forms that, inspiteof theirbuilt-in circularity, somehow allow listeners

thesense ofa through-composedmusical ‘journey’.WhilstBrahms’s ?inaleoffers

two successive time-spans in which the same material is taken in alternate

directions, Abrahamsen’s Schnee takes the shape of a onward process of

disintegrationwhilstneverlosingsightofitsbeginnings,withitsclosehintingata

wider circularity. In this way, the concept of developing variationhas profound

implications for theway inwhichforms are perceived, highlighting a seemingly

DynamicContinuities

155

contradictorydualityof stasisand ?lux. Tensions betweensegmentedrepetitions

andunfolding forms createadded temporal interest, drawing further awareness

towards anunderlying temporal experience. It is theway inwhich this broader

continuityemerges fromtheseparadoxicalexperiencesthatwillformthefocusof

Chapter Seven, with applications of narrative ideas representing a particularly

engaging, if sometimes problematic, way of dealing with long-term musical

structure.

DynamicContinuities

156

Seven

ExperiencingTime

Perceivingforms

Theanalystisconcernedwiththepartiallyorimperfectlyheard,withrelationships

betweenmusicalelements aswellasthe elements themselves, and withmusical

contexts.He orshe realises that some thingswhichcannot literallybe ‘heard’ –

that is, cannot be accurately identiSied, named, or notated – may still have

discernible musical reasons for being in a piece. A psychologist maydismissas

irrelevantstructuresthatalistenercannotidentify. […]Butitdoesnotfollowthat

there isnoreason forsuchpiecestobe structuredthe waytheyare. (J.Kramer

1988,328–29)

Accounting for musical perception over longer durations proves yet more

challenging, not least given the in?luence of time itself as a crucial factor in

comprehending form. This chapter will explore ways of approaching the

perception of large-scale musical designs, moving through a number of more

cognitive-basedapproachestodiscusshowaspectsofperceivedcontinuitymight

form the basis of structural understanding. Particular focus will ultimately fall

uponways inwhichnarrativeconceptsmightbeappliedto temporalexperiences

of compositions,withparticularemphasis fallinguponcontributions fromByron

Almén(2003and2008),JannPasler(2008)andSusanneLanger(1953).

As Hugues Dufourt notes, ‘cognitive psychology has shown that mental

structures active inperception are aboveall dynamic and integrating processes

which unceasingly compose and transform data’ (1989, 223). The developing

interplaybetweensmall-scalemusical elementsoverprolongedperiodsmakes it

increasingly dif?icult to separate out the effects of these elements when

considering long-term structure. Inattempting to locate theperceptual limits of

what he terms ‘form-bearing dimensions’, Stephen McAdams considers the

contributionofavarietyofmusicalfeatures–principallypitch,duration,dynamics

andtimbre–tolarge-scalemusicalconstruction(1989and1999).Thedimensions

he outlines might helpfully be summarised with regard to the metaphorical

directionsthey relate to: thestructuringovertimeofsigni?icant ‘vertical’ events,

rlp503

157

andthe‘horizontal’organisationofrelatedevents into sequential andsegmented

musicalstreamsandgroups(1989,182–83).However,bothMcAdamsandCélestin

Deliège(Deliège,1989)acknowledgethatthesedimensionsareinturndependent

uponabstractknowledgeaccumulatedthroughreceivedculturalconventionsand

extensiveexperienceofmusicthataccordswiththoseframeworks:‘Thisdomainis

perhaps the most important for the consideration of form-bearing capacity

because it is clear that if a system of habitual relations among values along a

dimensioncannotbe learned, thepower ofthatdimensionasastructuring force

wouldbeseverelycompromised’(McAdams1989,183).

Nicholas Cook provides an insightful overview of the intricacies facing

empirical research in this ?ield within the context of the elaborate systems of

expectationfoundinWesternartmusic(1990, 22–43). Thenetworkofmeanings

apparently conveyed by musical works and the conventions they engage with

introduces new levels of complexity. Heard performances seem to constitute a

durationsomewhatremovedfromthe?lowofnormal time, ‘logicallydistinctfrom

anyexternal context’, asCook puts it: ‘Musical form de?inesanindependentand

repeatablecontextwithinwhichtheeventsofamusicalcompositioncanbeheard

as meaningful. These events gain a kind of objective identity by virtue of their

relationshiptothiscontext.’(Cook1990,38)

Echoing the dimensional aspect invoked by McAdams, Cook outlines an

abstract spatialisation of musical forms. Placing himself in concordance with

Schoenberg, Carl Dahlhaus andThomas Clifton, he expresses a preference for a

visualexpressionofaworkinwhichtheinterrelationofitspartsmightbeseenas

‘constituting an objective structure’, a simultaneous expression of a temporal

duration (Cook 1990, 38–41). In attempting to account for a broader range of

musical styles than Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s ‘generative theory’ (1983), Irène

DeliègeandMarcMèlenalsoproposethenotionofanabstractedvisualisationofa

musical work, advocating a model that seeks to unite surface characteristics

(DeliègeandMèlen1997).Particularmotifsandgesturestaketheformofcuesthat

are, they suggest, abstracted from the linear progress of the work through

repetition. These cues are subsequently categorised invertical (separate groups

containing similar cues) and horizontal (relationships between different cue

categories)terms,aprocedurecomparabletothatinferredfromMcAdamsabove.

ExperiencingTime

158

The end result iswhat they term an ‘imprint’, a ‘standard auditory image’ that

establishes‘theboundarybetweenwhatisandwhatisnotthenormwithinagiven

piece’(1997,402–08).

Theholistic functionof repetitive componentswithinamusical work has

beenthesubjectofnumerouscognitivestudies.Issuesofcoherenceandcontinuity

feature heavily in experimentationcarried out by Lalitte andBigandconcerning

the sensitivity of listeners to large-scale forms, with deliberate alterations to

structuralorderingspickedupuponbylistenerswhonoticedalackofprogression

ordevelopment (LalitteandBigand2006).AdamOckleford,meanwhile, supports

hisown‘zygonic’ theorymodelby venturingtosuggestthat aurally recognisable

derivation ofmusical material may also play a crucial role in helping to build a

‘structuralnarrative’forthelistener,anideathatwillbereturnedtoshortly(2004

and2005).

Jonathan Kramer evaluates a theory of long-term perception in which

durations are encoded through thememorisationof themusical mechanisms of

particularpassages andgestures; whilst hereadilyaccepts ‘chunking’asamajor

contributor to temporal processing, he is keen to emphasise its limitations,

stressingthat‘musicistoocomplexandmusical informationistooelusivetoform

thebasisforaquantitativetheoryofperception’(1988,342):

Themostcommonlyvoicedcriticismoftheinformation-processingmodelisthatit

is curiously static for a theory of time perception. Surely as we experience an

extended duration, informationisencoded stepbystep, notallatonce.Youread

thesewordsone (ora few)ata time, graduallybuildingamentalimageofwhatI

am saying; the meaning doesnot suddenly leap intoyour consciousness as you

Sinisheachparagraphorsentence.(1988,345)

Kramer convincingly argues that at least two mental processes (information

encoding and timing) form the basis of the perception of large-scale structures

(1988,365–67),playingintoabroaderdualitypresentinmusicaltimeperception.

Just as ‘chunking’isdistinctfromitslessmalleablebutnonetheless simultaneous

‘clock time’counterpart (1988, 337–38), theact of listening is amixtureof two

cooperativebutsometimesseeminglycontradictorymodes. The?irstisdescribed

as‘still-spectatorobservation’andprovidesparticularinsightintothemechanisms

offormalperception:

ExperiencingTime

159

The still spectator in us builds up a mental representation of the piece, which

becomesgraduallymorecompleteaswemovethroughthemusicandaswelearn

it better with subsequent hearings. Our mental representations are not in

themselvesdynamicbutaremore orlessstatic,exceptwhenwe discover(orare

led by a critic’s or analyst’s insights to uncover) structurally important

relationships we had not previously encoded. The gradual accumulation of

encoded information in the form of a mental representation of a piece iswhat

nonlinearperception,orcumulative‘listening’,reallyis.(1988,367)

Thisrelativelystaticreceptiveapproachiscontrastedwithamoredynamicone,an

‘active listening mode’ focussed upon ‘continually changing materials and

relationships’:‘Thiskindoflisteningisconcernedwithexpectations,anticipations,

andprojections intothefuture.It is lessinvolvedwithformingrepresentationsin

memoryandmoreinvolvedwiththeimmediacyofthepieceandwhereitisgoing

(ornotgoing)’(1988,367).Ofcourse,assigningdescriptionsofstaticanddynamic

tothetwomodesinthiswayisrepresentativeofjustoneperspective.Inaparadox

typical of temporal philosophy, the labels could just as easily be reversed: the

activemodeisstaticonaccountofits?ixationinthepresent,whilsttheobserving

modeisdynamicwithregardtothechangingaccumulationsand?igurationsofthe

abstract construction it creates. Musical structures that balance recurrence and

change–likethoseofAbrahamsenandBrahmsanalysedinChapterSix–attestto

thisseeminglyparadoxicalinterchangeability.

Continuityandnarrativepotential

Although earlier lengths may not determine later lengths in the same way thatearliermaterials or tonal relationsgenerate later ones, the simple fact that themusic is heard in sequential ordermay cause us to compare later durations to

earlierones. In otherwords, although there may be no clear implications aboutproportions early in the piece, we may still form expectations about durationalspansbasedonthewaythepieceinitiallyunfolds.Ourlisteningstrategy,then,may

wellbelinearevenifthemusicisnonlinear.(J.Kramer1988,326)

ExperiencingTime

160

Althoughasenseofoverridinglinearitymightseemtobeanobviouscharacteristic

of temporal experience, Kramer’s observations allude to implications for formal

readingsthatmighteasilybeoverlooked.Arecurringconcernthroughoutthecase

studies in this thesis has been the reconciliation of time-bound impressions of

musical performances with seemingly atemporal – or at least retrospective –

structural interpretations of the forms of theworks in question. Examining the

formal anticipations of listeners remains, of course, particularly dif?icult.

Articulatingwithclaritysomethingwhichultimatelymaynotcomeintobeingisa

dauntingtask;analystsmustoftensettleforexploringthewaysinwhichemerging

musical structures ful?ill, or leave unful?illed, broader expectations. Janet

Schmalfeldt attempts to approach early nineteenth-century forms from the

perspectiveofaperceptual unfoldingwithher study In the ProcessofBecoming

(Schmalfeldt 2011). Meanwhile, notions like Robert Hatten’s ‘markedness’ – in

whichmusical features are ‘asymmetrically valued’ according to other opposing

features(Hatten1994,291)– feed into issues oflong-term tensionthatecho the

suggestion of scholars, as Byron Almén notes, ‘that it is the relations between

elements and not the elements themselves that are the foundation of

narrative’(Almén2008,36).30

That the term ‘narrative’ continues to appear is no coincidence. Indeed,

although Ockleford takes the notion in a very speci?ic analytical direction, his

broader description of a ‘structural narrative’ stands as anapt summation of a

centralcontrastinmusicperception:astable, logically-designedwholeintuitedvia

asuccessionofperceivedmomentsandevents.Althoughitdoesnotfallwithinthe

remit of this thesis to appraise the concept ofmusical narrative in full, certain

aspectsoftheidearetainrelevance.Alldiscussionsofnarrativepersistinengaging

with fundamental continuities ofworks and performances, in short the binding

essenceofexperiencedmusical time. ForJean-JacquesNattiez itisthelinearityof

thisbasissuccessionofeventsthat incitesnarrativeattachment(1990,257). Just

asmusical form entwines with the inescapable linearity of temporal experience,

his recognitionofa‘narrativeimpulse’ inmusical listening (discussedinChapter

Two: Alternative Paths) strikes upon an apparently universal trend in human

ExperiencingTime

161

30Notably,amongthosewriterstowhomAlménalludesisJosephCampbellwithhiscross-culturalnarrative studyTheHerowithaThousandFaces(2008);Campbell’sthoughtsonuniversalaspectsofnarrativearediscussedinChapterTwo(AlternativePaths).

nature. Anthropologists Elinor Ochs and Lisa Capps delineate the cross-cultural

social role that narratives play indepicting temporal transition (OchsandCapps

1996). The chronological dimension of these narratives lends a ‘reassuring

coherence’todisconnectedevents,servingtoaf?irmnotonlyorderbutalsosenses

ofselfandmeaning:

Personal narrative simultaneously isborn out of experience and gives shape to

experience. In this sense, narrative and self are inseparable. Self is here broadly

understood to be an unfolding reSlective awareness of being-in-the-world,

including a senseof one’spastandfuture.Wecome toknowourselvesasweuse

narrative toapprehend experiencesand navigate relationshipswith others. The

inseparability of narrative and self is grounded in the phenomenological

assumption that entities are givenmeaning through being experienced and the

notionthatnarrative isanessentialresource in thestruggle tobringexperiences

intoconsciousawareness.(Ochs&Capps1996,20–24)

A long tradition exists of scholars utilising this inherent leaning towards

continuity as a springboard for interpretations which organise musical forms

according to facets of literary and dramatic structure. As Fred Everett Maus

explains, listeners can perceive musical events ‘as characters, or as gestures,

assertions, responses, resolutions, goal-directed motions, references, and so on.

Once theyare so regarded, it is easy to regard successions ofmusical events as

formingsomething likeastory, inwhichthesecharactersandactionsgotogether

toformsomethinglikeaplot’(1991,6).Numerousfeaturesofmusicalworkslend

themselvesto suchtreatment: theuse ofsungtexts oraccompanyingstories can

inspire more detailed programmatic readings; the manipulation of thematic

subjects canbeviewedasmirroringdramatic character developmentprinciples;

changing phrase structures can be equated to rhetorical and syntactical

conventions(Almén2008,14–15).

Ofcourse,therearelimitationstosuchreadings.Manyofthefeatureslisted

aboveareprevalentonlyinmusicthataccordswithClassicalandRomanticstyles.

Themajorityofnarrative theories dealwithworks from the late-eighteenthand

nineteenth centuries because the governing tonal principles of those pieces are

decidedly teleological. It is simply easier to attach established plot templates

(tragedy, romance, comedy) to music that echoes the cultural relevanceof such

ExperiencingTime

162

archetypes through its formal construction, with motivic, harmonic and tonal

continuitiesre?lectingthenecessarytensionsofcon?lictandresolution,departure

andreturn. Just as thedistinctmusical continuities (or, indeed,non-continuities)

foundinmanyrecentpiecesmaywell call forafreshsetofnarrativearchetypes,

anexplorationthatseekstoplaceoldandnewworksinparallelwilllikelyrequire

fresh,perhapsbroaderperspectivesonformalunderstanding.

Expressing concerns that narrative readings have little bene?it for post-

tonal music, Robert Adlington airs far broader reservations regarding what he

deems ‘one of the vogues to have emerged from the recent rush to celebrate

music’s ways of meaning and its manifold relations to other cultural

practices’ (1997b,121–23).Narrativeanalogiesanddescriptions,heargues,have

become so embedded within the critical lexicon that even some more recent

attemptsto evadethesubjectivityofnineteenth-centurymodesofanalysis serve

instead to reinforce them: ‘So the attribution of what may loosely be termed

narrative characteristics to music frequently occurs quite innocently – in (for

instance)theprioritisationofsequentialorder, theassumptionoftherelatedness

of events, and the expectation of a measure of retention of the course of

events’(1997b,124).

For Adlington, thenotion of ‘unfolding structure’ is just one suchway in

whichabidtosidestepextra-musical attachments stillendsuprelyingonliterary

principles, albeit in a less overt manner. Just as the suggested meaningful

‘unfolding’ burdens listeningwith a syntactic dramatisation, imagery is invoked

unavoidablythroughtheideaof‘structure’;thelinguistic andvisualreadingsthat

aresupposedlybypassedemergeasunderlyingperceptualconcepts.Furthermore,

though they are both commonly harnessed by analysts to provide cohesive

readings of pieces, Adlingtonargues that verbal and visual approaches to form

address irreconcilably distinct aspects of musical experience, and that these

differencesareimplicitlyglossedoverorrarelyquestionedbywritersandreaders

alike (1997b, 140–48). The cultural implications haveproved damaging, with a

moretraditionalemphasisuponthescoreitselfandthesupposedneedto‘explain’

it creating decidedly awkward circumstances for contemporary music. Here

composersseemcompelledtoprefaceperformanceswithaf?irmationsofnarrative

ExperiencingTime

163

elements that do not feature so prominently (if at all) for ?irst-time audiences,

leadingtoquestionsofinadequacyonallsides:

Alltoorarelydoessucha failure totracemusicalnarrativepromptanalternative

response:namely,a confrontationof theassumptionsaboutmusical form thatso

regularlyserve toembarrassanddemean. Ratherthanautomaticallyassume that

one'sexperiencehasbeeninadequate,itmightbearguedthatconventionalbeliefs

about music's afSinity with narrative are in some way unsatisfactory and

misleading. The manner in which listeners organise sound is simply not done

justicebytheanalogy.(1997b,125–26)

Thefailureofsuchapproachestosupportexperiencesoflessconventional

music in this way proves to be a killing blow for narrative theories as far as

Adlingtonisconcerned.Parallelswithliteraryformsburdenlistenerswiththetask

of perceiving and understanding works as a plot, with only a comprehensive

realisationofthesequenceofeventsconstitutingan‘adequatemusicalexperience’.

Questioning the ability of pieces to convey sequential relations as effectively as

language, he casts doubt upon the speci?icity that many identify in music:

‘Although we are often loath to admit it, music, particularly on ?irst hearing,

frequentlygives little enduring senseof itssequential form, leaving insteadonly

thesketchiestlong-termimpressions’(1997b,133–34).

Questioningcontinuity

The line of questioning Adlington presents constitutes a welcome appraisal of

aspectsofnarrativeandmeaningthatmighteasilybetakenforgranted.However,

it ispertinenttowonderifhisconclusions servetounderestimatethecapacityof

listeners to engage with, and derive meaning from, the temporal continuity of

musical experience. Jean-Jacques Nattiez reaches similarly sceptical conclusions

regarding narrative theory and its applications to musical form; ‘nothing but

super?luous metaphor’ is his somewhat damning indictment (1990, 257).

However,hedoes ?indapositivemeansofprogress throughaspects oftemporal

continuity:

ExperiencingTime

164

Butifoneistemptedtodoit,itisbecausemusicshareswithliterarynarrativethat

factthat,withinit,objectssucceedoneanother:thislinearityisthusanincitement

toanarrativethreadwhichnarrativizesmusic.Sinceitpossessesacertaincapacity

forimitativeevocation,itispossibleforittoimitate the semblanceofa narration

without our ever knowing the content of the discourse, and this inSluence of

narrative modes can contribute to the transformation of musical forms. (1990,

257)

Giventhatacentralpremiseofnarrative–orofanykindofjourney–isits

engagement with aspects of temporally-bound continuity and coherence, the

employmentofnarrativeconceptsinaccountingforforminanymusicishelpfulin

as far as the continuity of those pieces unfolds as a palpable structural feature.

Inevitably, thereceptivenessoflistenerstodifferent kinds ofcontinuitywill vary

according to an innumerable number of determining factors shaped by social,

culturalandartisticexperiences. But thesearediscourseswithwhichanysearch

formusicalmeaningmustengage;moreoftenthannottheapplicationofnarrative

theoryconstitutessuchaquest.Inthissense,theapplicationofnarrativeideastoa

pieceofmusicmight beseenas offering something akintoa theoreticalmiddle-

ground, offering amore interdisciplinary slant onmore traditional, structuralist

perspectives that emphasise the self-suf?iciency of musical forms. As Rose

RosengardSubotnikwrites: ‘Structural listeninglooksontheability ofaunifying

principle to establish the internal “necessity”of a structure as tantamount to a

guaranteeofmusicalvalue’.Intheseterms,whatmightbedescribedas the‘inner

logic’ofamusicalcompositionrendersitdiscreteandwhole,withitsdevelopment

(often in the Classical mould) audibly expressing the composition’s own ‘self-

determination’(Subotnik1996,159).

Bycontrast,morerecentpoststructuralistleaningsinscholarshipdisplaya

willingness to navigate the intricate networks of ‘extra-musical’ forces that

contribute to musical meaning; they offerwhat AlastairWilliamsdescribes as ‘a

powerfulcritiqueofmusic’s institutionsandmethodologies,anddomuchtobring

musicology intogeneral humanitiesdiscourses,preventingperceptionof it as an

isolateddisciplinewithitsownnarrowconcerns.Ithighlightsthetextualqualities

of music and its discourses, demonstrating just how interdependent they

are’(Williams2001,41). Althoughhetakescaretoemphasisethewaysinwhich

ExperiencingTime

165

such scholarship presents a ‘continuous transformation’ of the traditions of

structuralist thought,Williamsdoesnotshyaway fromhighlighting theneglect it

seekstoaddress(2001,21–22):

Like materialist criticism, structuralism recognised that cultural artefacts,

including music, are underpinned bydeep structures; but unlike materialism, it

failed to understand that self-regulating sign systems might be culturally

determined.Althoughstructuralismdaringlybroke thenotionofmusicalmeaning

awayfromauthorialintentandscandalisedestablishedhumanistnotionsofart,its

fetish of detachment refused to contemplate the social mediation of apparently

abstractstructures(Williams2012,230).

Lawrence Kramer scrutinises further this vague attitude towards the

locationofmeaning. Criticising a perceived inclinationofmusic analysts to prize

notionsofunitythathavebeenlargelydiscardedbyliterarytheorists(to‘totalise’,

asheputs it), heargues thatnarratology hasactedasa ‘methodological halfway

houseinwhichmusicalmeaningcanbeentertainedwithoutleavingthesafehaven

of form’ (L. Kramer 1995, 98–99). Kramer exercises particular cautionwhen it

comes to the formal implications of narrative readings, describing narrative

elements as ‘forces of meaning’ rather than of structure, and portraying the

narrative condition as ‘fractious and disorderly’: ‘Structure and unity are its

playthings, and its claims to truth are strongest where most contingent, most

mixedupwiththeperplexitiesofidentityandpower,sexanddeath’(1995,119.)

The enquiries of poststructuralism certainly go some way towards

providing the more open-minded theoretical basis necessary for analysing a

varietyofcompositionalstyles.ContrarytoLawrenceKramer’spessimisticviewof

narrativeas a catalyst for formal interpretation, scholars have exploredwaysof

expanding narrative theory to account for contemporary music that might be

thought ofas being ‘fractious and disorderly’ in character. Noting the apparent

desires of many recent composers to ‘reject the paramountcy’ of narrativity in

musicthroughthesubversionofaudienceexpectations, JannPasler(2008)seeksa

moreadaptiveapproachthatinvitescomparisonwithJonathanKramer’sinclusive

temporal outlook. She outlines three broad types of alternative narrative

developed by composers in the course of the twentieth century. The ?irst –

‘antinarrative’ – might be thought of as a counterpart to Kramer’s ideas of

ExperiencingTime

166

multiple-time, describing musical works in which conventional narrative

expectations are continually aroused only to be frustrated, subverted or offset

through structural juxtapositions, contrasts and jump-cuts. The second –

‘nonnarrative’ – does not negate the idea of narrative altogether but rather

structuresmusical featurestraditionally indicativeofsuch linearity inawaythat

doesnotful?il theirsupposednarrativefunction;muchminimalistmusic, withits

non-directedsenseofpulseandtonalbearing,mightbedescribedintheseterms.

Pasler’sthirdcategory–‘nonnarrativity’–isdistinct from‘nonnarrative’; aswith

Kramer’s ‘vertical time’, it concernsmusic thatshuns any discernibleorganising

principle, structure or syntax, and thus attempts to ‘erase the role of

memory’(Pasler2008,39–43).

Perhaps of greater relevance, though, is Pasler’s assessment of novel

approaches to musical narrative developed by composers within the last two

decades of the twentieth century, highlighting what she views as attempts to

reconcile the diverging paths forged by styles that seeks to emphasise either

structuralprinciplesoreaseofperception.Althoughshefocusesprimarilyontext-

basedworks – operas by John CageandHarrisonBirtwistle, andsong cycles by

BernardRands–herconclusionsholdwiderrelevance:

Thesenarrativesborrowthemostimportantattributesoftraditionalnarratives–

the use of signiSieds, well-deSined structures, conSiguration, unifying reference

points,transformation,andmemory.Buttheycontinuetorespondtothemodern

desire for expressing the multiplicity of existence, fragmentary and seemingly

irrationalorders, andmeaningsthatgobeyondthosethatareknown.[…]Evenif

theirconSiguration isnotthatof adramaticcurve, theirstructuresgenerallyhave

clearly deSined beginnings and endings, and they reach closure of one sort or

another.[…]Butperhapsmostimportant, suchworksmayincorporatemorethan

onenarrative,eithersuccessivelyorsimultaneously.(2008,46–47)

Byron Almén is similarly receptive to less conventional narrative types,

notingthe frequentabsenceofaperceivable ‘topic’(aprimaryexpressivefeature

oftenestablishedearlyinapiece, frequentlyde?inedinoppositiontoanothertopic

in themanner of Robert Hatten’s ‘markedness’ principle (1994, 291)) inmany

serialandminimalistworks.Theabsenceofthiscontrast–andthusdirectedness,

Alménasserts–caninturnproducepieces thatfailtosupportnarrativereadings

ExperiencingTime

167

(Almén 2008, 90–91). Although he deems the questions as to the limits of

narrativity that thesenon-narratives raiseas beingbeyond theremit ofhis own

enquiries, Almén’s own theoretical framework proves particularly compelling.

Lookingtoevadeanoutlookinwhichmusicalnarrativeisderivedprimarilyfrom

literarymodes, heproposes amoreproductive ‘sibling’model inwhichbothare

indirectly related as ‘distinct media sharing a common conceptual

foundation’ (Almén 2008, 12–13). Indeed, he suggests that this theoretical

distinctionproves tobea liberatingfactor formusicalmeaning, withthe lackof

semantic speci?icity inherent in literature and drama facilitating ‘wider

applicabilityandgreater immediacy’formusical narratives. Manyofhisworking

de?initionsofmusicnarrativere?lectthisconcernforreceptionandsemantics:

It is a psychologically and socially meaningful articulation of hierarchical

relationshipsandourresponsestothem.Itinvolvesthecoordinationofmultiple

structure of meaning atmultiple levels. It cruciallydependson a conSluence of

factors–abstractconventionsofmeaning,speciSicmusico-temporalsuccessions,

and individual interpretation both conscious and unconscious. It is capable of

supporting multiple interpretive strategies invoking different political and

temperamentalimperatives.(2008,27)

Dynamicforms

Ultimatelythemappingofmoredetailedconstructssuchasnarrativeontomusical

form is amatter of interpretation.Whethersuchprocesses provehelpful ornot

with regard to perceiving and forming an understanding of particular pieces of

music will vary, often drastically, according to a wide range of factors; these

include thestyle andcharacter of thework inquestion, theperformance ofthat

work, thecontext ofthatperformance, anddispositionandframeofmindofthe

audience.Ofcourse, suchvarietystandsasaseeminglyunsurpassableobstacleto

anyeffortto developadetailedtheorythatmightaddressallkinds ofmusicwith

somedegreeofsuccess.However,thiswouldbetomissthepoint:anyembraceof

diversity isboundto involve, in turn, anequallyopen-mindedapproachtowards

theoretical variety.Asfar asnarrativegoes, themosthelpful unity thatmightbe

identi?iedacrossmusicalstylesistheiruniversaltime-boundcharacter.Forallthe

ExperiencingTime

168

ways in which composers have manipulated their forms to subvert a linear

experience –whetherthrough theuseofdiscontinuous features, or totalelusion

viaanattempttoinvokeanon-narrative–theoverridingtemporal experienceof

their work will invariably include fundamental parameters of start- and stop-

points, ifnotthe formal closureofa recognisablebeginningandendas Jonathan

Kramerdistinguishes(Kramer1982,1). Similarlimitationsapplyinliteratureand

othermedia.31 Indiscussing the ‘menu-driven tree structure’thatwebsites offer

theirreaders, allowingthemtocreatetheirownsequenceratherthansuccumbto

anenforcedlinearity, PeterElbowaptlynotes that suchtime-savingstrategiesdo

not enable an avoidance of time altogether: ‘They let us escape an enforced

sequence through a text, but they do nothing to helpus escape sequence itself.

Human readers are still stuck with the ability to read only a few words at a

time’(2006,653).

Any counter-claim to this overruling linear reality, like the assertion of

narrative, might well be considered the product of an illusion. However, these

illusions retain crucial importance as the products of subjective musical

experience.Ifanything,thecontrastsandcon?lictsbetweenthebroaderpassageof

timeandthedistortionsofthewayitisexperiencedmighthelpinformanalysis.A

palpabletensionisofteninducedbetweenthis overridingconnectionofduration

andthemusicalsubversionscontainedwithinitthatmightconfrontordefyit.The

reassuringonward stability of thepassage of timeensures abroader continuity

that is nevertheless allowing of and receptive to experiences of internal

discontinuity.SusanneLangertouchesonthis tensionthroughherpreferencefor

multipletemporalformsovera‘one-dimensional’time:

Butlife isalwaysa dense fabricof concurrenttensions, and as each of them isa

measure of time, the measurementsthemselvesdonot coincide. Thiscausesour

temporalexperience tofallapartintoincommensurate elementswhichcannotbe

all perceived together as clear forms. When one is taken as parameter, others

become ‘irrational’,outoflogicalfocus,ineffable.Sometensions,therefore,always

sinkintothebackground;somedrive andsomedrag,butforperceptiontheygive

ExperiencingTime

169

31 Almén presents an interesting critique of Nattiez’s inference that causality is aprerequisitefornarrative, utilisingexamples from literature –includingashortstorybyKazuoIshiguro–todemonstratethatconnectionsbetweeneventsareultimatelymadebytheobserverratherthanbytheauthororcomposer(Almén,2008:30–32).

qualityratherthanformtothepassageoftime,whichunfoldsinthepatternof thedominantanddistinctstrainswherebywearemeasuringit.(1953,112–13)

Langer’shesitationtoincludenotionsofformhereisseeminglytiedto her

widertemporaloutlook.Actualexperience,sheasserts,hasno‘closedform’;rather

it is memory that creates form, shaping experience ‘into a distinctmode, under

which it can be apprehended and valued’. ‘It is the real maker of history,’ she

writes, ‘not recordedhistory butthe sense ofhistory itself, the recognitionof the

past asacompletelyestablished(thoughnotcompletelyknown) fabric ofevents,

continuous inspaceand time, and causallyconnectedthroughout’. However, the

emphasis she places upon memory as a selection of the many impressions of

presentexperiencehintsatthemoresigni?icantpartthatin-the-moment listening

mightplay;indeed,sheassertsthat‘torememberaneventistoexperienceitagain,

but not in the same way as the ?irst time’ (1953, 262–63). The immediacy of

experienced event does contribute to a broader impression of musical

construction,notjustasanabstractedmemorybutasanencounterthatmustbein

somewayrelivedinorderforitsrolewithintheformtobeadequatelyrealised.

It is thewider temporal, andthus formal signi?icanceofsuchmoments in

musical performances that are at risk of neglect within theories that place

emphasis uponacceptedperceptualhierarchies ofmusic: rhythmic andmetrical

groups,segmentsandproportions. Therecanbeno doubtthatthewaysinwhich

wederivemeaningfromthesenotionsfeatureheavilyinformalthought.However,

this can come at the expense of a consideration of how particular events and

passages can in?luence overall structural impressions. These moments do not

necessarily have to subvert larger structural continuities; rather they can

sometimespull theminto focus, or temporarily render them unimportant inthe

mindsoflisteners. Articulatingor identifying the effect of suchmoments canbe

particularlydif?icult,notleastgiventhemercurialnatureofsubjectiveexperience:

thecharacterofmomentsmayneverappearthesamewaytwice, andwhatmight

seem a particularly lucid and signi?icant passage during one hearing of a work

mightwellslipbyalmostunnoticedduringanother.Buttherecanbenodoubtthat

inordertoaccountforsuchevents,broaderideasofformshouldretaina?lexibility

in-keeping with this subjectivity. Just as the musical relationships that help to

ExperiencingTime

170

create perceptual continuities within pieces may shift and alter, so should

conceptionsofformmaintainasenseofdynamism.

There can be little doubt that the unusual temporality found in these

instancesisamajorcontributortotheirsigni?icance.Examplesofdescriptionsand

explorationsofcomparablephenomenaappearacrossabroadrangeofliterature.

Edward T. Hall proposes the cultural notion of ‘sacred time’ as an immersive,

removedalternativeto thepassageofordinary‘profane time’ (Hall 1984,25–26,

discussedinKramer1988,16–18,andinLushetich2014,77–78).JonathanKramer

asserts that music possesses the ability to re?lect both sacred andprofane time

(Kramer1988,17),aconclusionechoedbyBarbaraBarryinheroutlineofmusical

time comprisingadialectic between?inite‘structured’andin?inite ‘transcendent’

modes. These ideas have been adapted to narrative terms; Pasler suggests that

momentsofnarrativetransformationserveto interrupt thelinearityofamusical

work (Pasler 2008, 33–36), whilstAlmén makes reference to points of crisis in

piecesandtheireffectsuponperceivedresolution(Almén2008,22).

Passagessuchastheseseemto facilitateaphaseofanti-hierarchicaltime,a

signi?icant temporal experience that might appear at once isolated from and

profoundly connected to its musical surroundings. It is in these moments that

some kind of recognised formal signi?icance – whether a convergence or

divergenceofmaterial,achangeindirection,amotivicrecasting,areturntoearlier

ideas,orarestart–enablesanimmersivetime.Aheightenedawareness oftimeis

promptedinlisteners,enablingabroaderperceptual ‘space’inwhichthecontent

anditswiderrelevancecanbeexploredbeyondtheregularityofcontinuouslinear

time. It might be argued that such phenomena constitute some of the closest

experiences to ‘timelessness’ (as an immersive moment set apart from a

comparatively‘timed’context)thatmusiccanprovide.Thecasestudythatfollows

willbeginbyexploringtwosuchexamples andtheirimpactwithinthecontext of

two very different musical works: the ?irst movement of Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’

Symphony and Kaija Saariaho’s piano trio Je sens un deuxième coeur. Utilising

parallelpassagesat theheartofbothpiecesasaspringboardforconsiderationof

theirwiderdesigns,someofthenarrativeimplicationsfortheperceivedtemporal

formswillbeexplored.

ExperiencingTime

171

Eight

NarrativePossibilitiesKaijaSaariaho&LudwigvanBeethoven

Many of the analyseswithin this thesis–whether explicitly or not –beganwith

speci?ic landmarks inmusical structures, catalytic passages in long-term forms.

Thespringboardforthiscasestudytakestheshapeofabriefparallelbetweentwo

pieces,acorrespondencethat ischaracterisedbymelody.Thischapter, inasense,

comestheclosesttoutilisingLawrenceKramer’s‘hermeneuticwindows’approach

asastartingpoint,withhisnotionof‘structural tropes’provingparticularly apt:

‘Sincetheyarede?inedintermsoftheirillocutionaryforce,asunitsofdoingrather

thanunits of saying, structural tropes cut across traditional distinctionbetween

formandcontent. They can evolve fromanyaspectof communicativeexchange:

style, rhetoric, representation, andso on’(1990, 9–10). An examination ofthese

twopassageswill givewaytoanexplorationofthebroaderarchitecturesofboth

pieces, and themanner inwhich their temporal narrativesmight facilitatethese

momentsofsigni?icance.

The?irstpassagecanbefoundat thecentreofKaijaSaariaho’s (b. 1952) Je

sens un deuxième coeur for viola, cello and piano (2003). Here, an episode

characterised by dissonance and a rhythmic drive of relentless force reaches a

pointofburn-out. Itgiveswaytoashroudedatmosphereasthe thirdmovement

begins, aslowly lapping piano accompaniment underpinning the strings as they

present the ?irst notable gestures ofmelodic unison in the course of the piece

(thirdmovement,bars1–10).Arching?iguresecho fragmentsofpreviouslyheard

material before repeatedly disintegrating into whispered harmonic trills,

discernible pitch content ebbing away atop a dissonant, tonally static

accompaniment. The self-perpetuating, onward insistence of the preceding

movement has all but vanished, with the music seemingly recoiling from its

ferocity,retreatingintoitself.Asenseofdisillusionmenttakeshold,claustrophobia

setting in as thesameharmonic shapes are treadedandretreaded, the abilityto

generateanylastingmotionseeminglydisabled.

172

ThesecondpassageconstitutesaparticularlydistinctivepassageinWestern

musical history. TheopeningAllegro con brio ofBeethoven’s (1770–1827)Third

Symphony (1804) reaches near-total meltdown at a structural point that early

listenersmusthaveassumedwouldsignalahomecomingtotheopeningmaterial.

Asuccessionofdizzyinglyrapidmodulationsprecipitates–insteadofatriumphant

return–acataclysmicseriesofjuxtaposedchords, violentsyncopationandbrutal

dissonance threatening to wipe the slate clean of the established metre and

harmony (?irstmovement, bars248–79).32 Melodic content, too, isundersiegeas

WilliamKindermandescribes: ‘So unrelentingisthis rhythmic fragmentationand

compressionthatthethematicmaterial isvirtuallydissolvedintonothingatabout

that pointwhen the recapitulationwould normally be expected’ (1995, 91). As

brutal unison string chords ricochet and fade in the fallout, a coiling melody

emerges inthewoodwind,onealtogetherdistinctfromthethemesthathavethus

fartakencentre-stageinthework.Theforeignnatureofthesubjectismatchedby

thekey inwhichit is presented: Eminor, one stepaway from the furthest tonal

pointfromtheE♭-majortoniconadominantcycle.Theresultsareaudiblyalien,asenseofdisorientationaroused.

Thedetachment andloss thatcanbeexperiencedinbothofthesepassages

might seem to lie at oddswith the rigorous structures they sit within. In these

passages,timeappearsdistorted,asifdetached,orreleased,fromitssurroundings.

Beethoven’s?irstmovementisunquestionablylinearincharacter,itsrestlesstonal

desire imbuing its duration with a seemingly irrepressible urgency. In spite of

numerous small-scale metrical disruptions, the product of this design is an

overridingtemporal continuity.It is inthewakeofthedevelopmentalclimaxthat

thisprogressiveapproachisbrie?lycalledintoquestion,withthedistantE-minor

melodyseeminglyhighlightingthealienatingcostofsuchprogress.Saariaho’strio,

meanwhile, at times gives the outward impression of a similar kind of driven

continuity inthetwo fastersegments that?lankthiscentralmovement.However,

thischapterwillexploretowhat extentthesurface linearityof thesemovements

affects temporal character of thework at large, and indeed how this apparent

NarrativePossibilities

173

32 Whilst the ‘Eroica’ has been treated to a rich reception history of analyses andcommentaries,theywillrarelyformpartofthediscussionhere,withtheexceptionofScottBurnham’s dissection of the work in light of heroic tropes (1995). For an insightfulconsiderationofthisreceptionhistory,seeLockwood1982.

advancement canbe reconciledwith the static disquiet at the core ofthe work.

Throughanevaluationofbothofthesepassageswithintheirrespectiveworks,itis

hoped that they can be shown as ‘structural tropes’, constituting formal

proceduresthatalsoemergeasrecognisableexpressiveacts(L.Kramer1990,10).

Their roles within the perceived temporalities of the works are particularly

signi?icant, offeringatonce a sense ofdetachment from the temporal journey at

large whilst simultaneously pulling the course of that journey into focus. The

purpose of this case study, with regard to the discussion in Chapter Seven

(Experiencing Time), is not to map out or advocate speci?ic narrative plans for

these pieces. Rather it is to highlight potential interpretive levers – perceptible

formal and temporal elements of the music rooted in conceptions of continuity,

energyandperspective–thatmightserveasabasisforsuchreadings.Ultimately,

itisthewayinwhichthesestructuresmightbeheardandunderstoodovertime–

bothinthemomentoflistening,andinretrospect–thatwillpavethewayforthe

discussionofapproachestomusicalforminthetheoreticaldiscussionthatfollows

inChapterNine(UnderstandingTime).

Surfacebalance

Although these twoworks were conceivedalmost two centuries apart, and take

verydifferentcourseswithregardtomusicalstyleandsubstance,thecomparable

sensationsofdisorientation–emotional,temporalandspatial–thatareinducedat

theirstructuralcoresofferarevealingparallel. Itisobviousthattheseapparently

relatedends are achieved through differingmeans. Nevertheless, a glance at the

wider architectural properties of both pieces reveals a shared emphasis on

balanced proportion. The ?ive segments of Saariaho’s trio are lent a collective

symmetry throughtheirplacement: three slow sections intercededby two faster

episodes, barnumbers,metronomemarks, andtypicalperformancedurationsall

corresponding to create two approximate movement types. The central slow

movement liesperceptually furthest fromtherelative clarity oftheopeningand


174

closingsections,itssti?linginactivityanddisorientationpresentingastarkcontrast

tothefasteroutburststhatimmediatelybookendit(seeFigure8.1).33

The opening Allegro con brio of Beethoven’s Third Symphony broadly

follows the architectural patterns of sonata form. Conventionally speaking this

might give the impression of a bipartite form, with the repeated exposition

balanced out by a brief development section and a rounding recapitulation.

However, evenjustcomparing the ‘Eroica’ to earliersymphonic ?irstmovements

serves to indicate an expansion, its 15-minute-plus timescale easily eclipsing

predecessors. What proves fascinating, however, is not the expansion itself but

where ithasoccurred.Farfromsimplybeingstretchedoutwards,Beethovenseeks


175

33 Durations taken from recording listed in primaryresource list (JonathanMoerschel,viola;EricByers,cello;GloriaCheng,piano.HarmoniaMundi:HMU907578).

Sonataformcomponent Bars Sub-component Bars Duration

Exposition 304Firstexposition 153 2’45

Exposition 304Expositionrepeat 151 2’42

Development 244Departure 126 2’22

Development 244Return 118 2’06

Recapitulation 274Recapitulation 159 2’55

Recapitulation 274Coda 115 2’30

Fig.8.2:Beethoven,‘Eroica’Symphony,Uirstmovement,formalscheme

Movements Bars Crotchetpulse(bpm) Duration

1.Iunveilmybody 35 c.40(withinsenzatempo) 3’37

2.Openuptome 88 c.92–104 1’59

3.Inherdream,shewaswaiting 58 c.66 4’03

4.Letmein 96 c.86 2’17

5.Ifeelasecondheart 56 c.63 4’48

Fig.8.1:Saariaho,Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,formalscheme

to change the structural make-up of the music from within, identifying and

broadeningthesectionstypicallygrantedlessscope(seeFigure8.2).34

Thesonataformis transformedfromabipartite to atripartite form,with

exposition, development, and recapitulation granted relatively equal weighting.

Paradoxically,whatmightbeviewedasamanipulation–astructuraldeformation,

asHepokoskiandDarcywoulddescribeit–oftheclassicalforminfactalignswith

the very ethos of that outlook, as de?ined by Charles Rosen: ‘the symmetrical

resolutionofopposingforces’(1997,83);indeed,itisthepalpablestrainprecisely

of the attempt to provide this kind of rhetorical balance that might enhance a

‘deformational’reading, withBeethoven seemingly applying – inHepokoski and

Darcy’swords–‘compositionaltensionandforcetoproduceasurprising, tension-

provokingorengagingresult’(2006, 617).Furthermore,itispossibletoviewthe

forminanincreasinglyepisodicmanner,sub-dividingthesestructuralboundaries

torevealsixapproximatelycomparablesmallersegmentsofbetween115and159

bars in length, eachassuming adifferent role in thedevelopingnarrative ofthe

piece. To achieve a heightened mode of expression, the scope of the musical

narrative has been broadened to encompass a greater sense of journey and

con?lict.

The principle expansions are found in the development and the

recapitulationsections,bothofwhicharedoubledinconventionalsizerelativeto

the formal proportions of the movement. Rather than simply propelling the

materialthroughpointsoftensionandclimaxbacktowardsthetonic,Beethoven’s

development sectionhere takes the shapeof two gestures, the ?irst carrying the

music further away from tonic stability before a return occurs throughout the

second.Thecataclysmicbreakdownthatoccurs justbeforetheE-minorlandmark

ofdisorientationliesatthetraditionalpointofrecapitulation.Insteadofproximity

tostability, audiencesarepresentedwithapalpabledistancefromit,themusicin

an apparent state of deconstruction rather than reconstruction. In spite of this

apparentdeformation, it is still notable that the fundamental changes contained

within the development might still be understood according to the normative

zones thatHepokoski andDarcy outline,withasequenceoflinking, preparatory,


176

34 Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (La ChambrePhilharmonique,conductedbyEmmanuelKrivine.Naïve:V5258).

centralaction, andretransitional functionsemerging (2006, 229–30). Indeed, the

violenteruptionatthecentreofthesectionmightbethoughtofasanampli?ication

oftheveryqualitiesthatWilliamCaplin(1998)ascribesto thetypical‘core’ofthe

development, projecting ‘an emotional quality of instability, restlessness, and

dramatic con?lict’ (1998, 142); Caplin’s description of the musical features that

mighthelptocreatetothiseffectproveparticularlyrelevantifcarriedtoextremes:

‘Thedynamiclevelisusuallyforte,andthegeneralcharacterisoftenoneofSturm

und Drang. The core normally brings a marked increase in rhythmic activity

projected by conventionalised accompanimental patterns. Polyphonic devices –

imitation, canon, fugal entries – can contribute further to the complexity of the

musicaltexture’(1998,142).

Thecoda,meanwhile,achievestheparadoxofcallingthestabilityofthetonic

into question precisely by af?irming it, ‘recapitulating the entire process of the

movement,‘ as Burnham asserts (1995, 23). The entire movement could

theoretically conclude with the close of the ?irst part of the recapitulation, a

gradualfadeoccurringinthetonickey.Itisatthispoint,however,thattheprimary

themeisforceddownwardsviatwooutbursts,the?irstinD♭,thesecondinCmajorpaving the way for the coda – a two-stepmotion derived from the subversive

manoeuvre from E♭ to C♯ in the celli in bars 6–7. Through a series of furthermodulations, the tonic is eventually re-establishedandecstatically statedat the

movement’s close. More generally, it demonstrates a further questioning of the

security and dominance of the tonic framework and the primary material that

accompanies it, the variedperspectives granted through the tonal and thematic

distanceofferedintheexpandedsectionsactingtoweakenthesenseofhierarchy.

Paradoxically, itisthroughaheightenedsenseofproportionalbalanceintemporal

formthatapalpabledegreeofinstabilityisreinforced.

Internalnarratives

Metaphors involving humanactionsengage the imaginationmore directly, overtly

andpowerfullythan those detailing facelessprocessesthataremeaninglyorganic.

(Burnham1995,8)

The subject matters that served as inspirations for both pieces are strikingly

different. Forming a major part of the mythology surrounding the piece,


177

Beethoven’s ‘muse’ iswell known:theoriginal scoreoftheworkboretheheader

‘Buonaparte’. The composer had originally conceived of dedicating the work to

NapoleonBonapartebuthadinsteadoptedforhispatronPrinceLobkowitzforthe

practical purposes of obtaining both a première and a fee. The First Consul of

Francehadinsteadassumedtheapparentstatusofsubject, thepersoni?icationof

the ideals of freedom and equality that had permeated the recent French

Revolution.AshispupilFerdinandRiesrecalled,itwaswhile?inishingthepiece,in

May 1804, that Beethoven furiously withdrew the title-page inscription upon

hearingofNapoleon’sallbutself-appointmentas‘Emperor’,declaring:‘Sohetoois

nothingmore than anordinaryman! Now he will also trample all human rights

under foot, and only pander to his own ambition; he will place himself above

everyoneelseandbecomeatyrant!’(Sipe1998, 54–56). Thepolitical catalyst for

theworkwas,nevertheless,somethingthatBeethovenmadelittleefforttoconceal,

subsequently revealingtheinspirationbothtohispublishers (describingit asthe

real title) and ?inally naming the work as an ‘heroic symphony, composed to

celebrate thememory of a great man’ (Robbins Landon1974, 93–94). Heroism

itselfhadbecomethesubject.

Jesensundeuxième coeurgrewinitiallyfromSaariaho’swork onhersecond

operaAdrianaMater,premièredthreeyearsafterthecompletionofthetrioatthe

OpéraBastilleinParis.Thestage-workconcernsamotherinanunnamedmodern

countryonthevergeofinsurgenceandwar. Astheopera’s directorPeterSellars

explains(2012),thecontentofeachmovementstemsfromparticularscenesinthe

opera.Themusicofthe?irstmovement is – intheopera–thewoman’s dreamof

freedominaclaustrophobicsti?lingworld:‘Thegestureofunveilingisprovocative

but innocent, adult but celebrating a sensuality that moves deeply inside every

humanbeing.’Thesecond section isutilisedasheralcoholic boyfriend violently

appeals to her to let him into her house, while the central alienatedmovement

takestheformofadreamsequenceinwhichwaractuallybreaksoutintheircity,

familiarlandscapesravaged:‘Strange,stolenmomentsoftendernesscontrastwith

horror–watchingatadistanceinadream theterrible thingsthathumanbeings

are capable of.’ The vision becomes a reality and the music of the fourth

movement,most shockingly, accompanies asceneinwhichthewoman’sdrunken

boyfriend, now a member of the local militia, attempts and succeeds to batter


178

down the door – he enters, and rapes the woman. The trio closes – in an

intriguinglycircularmanner–withthestartingpoint for theopera: themother’s

sensedphysical relationshipwith the unborn child she bears as a result of the

horriblyviolentact:

Theemotionaldepththatweassociatewithanymothercarryinganychildismade

deeper by the fact that her sisterencouragesher to have an abortion, tokill the

monster that is growing inside her, a living embodiment of her violation. This

motherchoosestokeepthe child, and singing toitasshe carriesitinside her, she

decidesthathervoicewillhelpshapethischild.Thischildwillnotbeamonster,but

aloving,whole,sane,andvaluedhumanbeing.(2012,9–10)

Althoughboth composersmay have approached the compositional process

withmoreconcrete images inmind, the tiesbetween thepiecesandtheir initial

subjectmattershavebeendeliberatelyweakened.Beethoven’sresponseto–what

was inhis eyes – Bonaparte’seventual trans?igurationinto theverymonsterthe

manhadsetouttodestroy,wastoremovehisstatusasthestandardbearerofthe

symphony. The composer’s convictions regarding the work itself remained

unblemished. The relationship between Saariaho’smusic and its subject matter,

meanwhile,isdemonstratedinhergeneralattitudetowardsopera:

It’salways the innerspace that interestsme. And in a waythatmakesmyoperas

verydifSicult tostage. InEmilie, thiswomaniswritinga letterfor90minutes–sowhatdoyoudowiththat?It’sveryprivate:everything ishappening inthiswoman’s

mindduringonenightwhenshe’sworking.Likeallofmyoperas,itshouldhave the

effectofbeingfundamentallyprivatemusic,musicthatIwanttocommunicatewith

theinnerworldofmylisteners, justasitexpressesmyinnerimagination. (Saariaho

andService2011,14)

Accordingly, it is this communicationwiththe internal – andits side-effect

appealto theuniversal–thatallowsthetrio totakeonalifeofitsownbeyondits

operaticgenesis.Whilethetitlesofeachmovementreferspeci?icallytosigni?icant

fragments of Amin Maalouf’s libretto, only a comprehensive knowledge of the

opera itself would allow a listener to apply a speci?ic ‘synopsis’. Saariaho’s

programmenoteforthetrioallowsaglimpseonthealtogetherseparatethematic

content that served as a compositional catalyst, emphasising a twice-abstracted

takeuponthepiece:


179

The title of the Sirst section, ‘Iunveilmy body’, became a metaphor: the musical

material introduced was orchestrated to reveal the individual characters of the

three instruments and their interrelations. The secondand fourth partsboth start

from ideasof physical violence. In the contextof this trio the violencehas turned

intotwostudieson instrumental energy. Part three isa colourstudy inwhich the

threeidentitiesaremeldedintoonecomplexsoundobject.Thelastsectionbringsus

to the thematic starting point of my opera, again very physical: the two hearts

beatinginapregnantwoman’sbody.(2003)

Thesubjects ofbothworksmight, inasomewhatobvious sense, be saidto

encompasstheconceptofan‘other’.Beethoven’ssubject–heroism–isastatethat

canonlytrulybeidenti?iedinrelationtoitssurroundings,morespeci?icallysome

kindofopposition.Heroicqualities,likemostcharactertraits,areatleastpartially

de?ined by their opposites; the performance of heroism typically involves

overcoming something. While the ‘other’ of Saariaho’s opera may ?luctuate

accordingtothedevelopmentoftheplot(theboyfriend,thesister,con?lictandwar

itself),thecomposerindicatesthatthecentral imageattheheartoftheabstracted

trio is of the relationshipbetween amother andherunborn child. It presents a

fascinatingparadox–the‘other’thatisfoundwithin,aninternaldialogue.

Thisliteralinternalisationoffersthepotential foranewwayofviewingboth

pieces. In Saariaho’s conception of motherhood, the narrative may be said to

concern an attempt to understandoneselfasmuchas itdoes to understandthe

‘other’withinoneself– aninterdependenceisatworkhere.Meanwhile,although

Beethoven’s subject of heroism could on its surface be seen to concern con?lict

withanexternal?igure,amoreclassically-groundedconceptionoftheheroechoes

theideaofaninwardperspective.This redirectionofexpectationsissummedup

eloquently by Joseph Campbell in his dissection of protagonist narratives in

culturalmythologies: ‘Wherewehadthoughtto traveloutwardsweshallcometo

thecentreofourown existence;wherewehadthought to be alone,we shall be

withall theworld’ (2008, 18). Both theAllegro con brio of the ‘Eroica’ and the

macro-symmetryofJesensundeuxièmecoeur, foralltheiroutwardviolence,might

insteadbeheardasgrapplinginwardly.


180

Fulcra

In spite of the surface linearity that the ?ive-movement structure of Je sens un

deuxièmecoeurpresents, its temporalexperiencewouldseemtopossess facetsof

circularity. There arenumerous points ofaudible return, recognisableharmonic

andmelodicshapes frequentlyre-emerginginthecourseofthework.Ratherthan

taking the form of speci?ic materials that recur in a leitmotivic fashion, the

signi?icanceoftheserecurrencesseemstolieinthesonoritiesthemselvesandthe

tonal power that they gain through their very repetition and recasting. In

attemptingtomakefurthersenseofthesestructuralmarkers,itisusefulto draw

upon an idea presented by another ?igure featured in this study, the British

composerThomasAdès.Heexpressesapreferenceforcertainpitchesaspointsof

audiblerecurrenceinthecourseofawork:

It’ssomething in the waythat Ihearallmusic, actually, this idea of there being a

single note – a particular pitch on a particular instrument – that has a crucial

functionacrosswholestructures... You see iteverywhere: inBeethovenorMozart,

HaydnorChopin:therewillbeanote thatwillbeafulcralpoint forwhole pieces.

Andoftenitwon’tbethetonic.Oftenitwillbeanotethathasbecomeanobsession,

aroundwhichthewholepiecehinges.(AdèsandService2012,48)

Certainly an obvious ‘fulcrum’ emerges in the course of the ?irst movement

through the repetition of octave G♮s in the bass-line of the piano. Initially

resoundedtwice(bars1–7), theoctaveisdisruptedby theintroductionofaB♭inplace of the lowerG♮ (bars 8–11). After anseries of alternatebass resonances

(bars12–28:A♮–A♭–D♮–E♭–F♯),G♮ returnsintheformofatremolopedalthatlastsfrombar29tothecloseofthemovement,underpinningtheascenttoaclimax

inbothdynamicandactivitylevels(bar31)andthefadethatfollows.

WhilstG♮ certainlyappears tobeestablishedassomethingofabassfulcrum

in the courseof the ?irstmovement by virtue of its recurrence– the ‘obsessive’

character suggested by Adès very much demonstrated – its role within a tonal

contextisnotquiteclear.Althoughitsfunctionwouldseemtoencompassthatofa

tonic,providingapotentialbasisforastableframework,notransparentharmonic

hierarchy is subsequently outlined. Indeed, the very repetition and grounding

natureoftheG♮pedalseemstoinciteakindofperceptualrestlessness;ratherthan


181

providing security, as the G♮ is comprehensively assimilated into the accepted

harmonicgeographyofthemusic,agrowingneedforchangesets in. Thusbythe

closeofthemovementakindofauralclaustrophobiahastakenhold;themusical

content has seemingly peaked without precipitating a new direction, its

accumulatedpotential energy now in needof an outlet. In this sense, the pedal

approachesthefunctionofadominantratherthanatonic,providingaspringboard

ofsortsforthekineticoutburstthatfollows.

The harmonic grounding that is presented at the opening of the second

movement provides a stepaway from the established fulcrum and, in doing so,

opens up the possibility for what could be viewed as a second focal point:

continuedreiterationsofA♮dominatetheopening28bars(interestinglyA♮proved

to be the ?irst fully-?ledged bass departure from G♮ in the course of the ?irst

movementatbar12).Followingaseriesofswiftharmonicjolts, theA♮ fulcrumis

reasserted at a structural landmark, a climactic, fortissimo point of emphasised

rhythmicconvergenceamidthericochetingdialogueatbar55(seeFigure8.3). It

lands almost exactly at the ‘goldensection’ ofthemovement, a frequent peakof

aestheticinterestinthetemporalandarchitecturalschemeofapiece,the55thbar

of a total of 88 (the Golden Ratio of 88 being 54.38699101166787); it is also

notablewithregard to itssigni?icancewithintheFibonaccisequence, 55and A♮

also featureswithin theviolent, thrice-repeated, nine-note chordthat brings the

movementto itsclose, itselfaconglomerationofsigni?icantharmonicbasspedals

thatoccurinthecourseofthemovement(seeFigure8.4).


182

Fig.8.3:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,secondmovement,bars54–57

Taking the idea ofG♮ andA♮ as competing, orat thevery least interacting,

fulcrahas interesting implications, not least with regardto the circularity ofthe

work. Simply taking the presence of these two notes within the opening and

closing gestures of eachmovement reveals a traceable harmonic narrative (see

?igure 8.5).WithA♮ havingG♮ as thebass grounding at theoutset of the second

movement,thedisorientationattheoutsetoftheensuingcentraldreamsequence

seems to arise from the absence of such lower-register clarity. Although the

movement is introduced by A♮s in the strings, the notes seep in via the higher

registers, with any meaningful tonal sway immediately displaced by the

dissonanceinthelefthandofthepiano:F♯andF♮ (thirdmovement, frombar2).

Thislossoftonalclarityinwhatfollowswouldappear–atleastinpart–tobedue

to the absence of a clear fulcrum. Indeed, it might be suggested that for the

majority of themovement, the concept is broadened to instead encompass the


183

Fig.8.4:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,reductionsofclosingsonoritiesofsecondandfourthmovements

MovementsOpeningfulcrum

sonoritiesClosingfulcrumsonorities

1.Iunveilmybody G♮inbass G♮pedal

2.Openuptome A♮outlinedinbassG♮&A♮includedwithin

dissonantoutbursts

3.Inherdream,she

waswaiting

A♮inhigherregisters,F♯

andF♮inbass

A♮inhigherregisters,F♯

andF♮inbass

4.LetmeinA♭/A♮trillleadingtoG♮emphasisinbass

G♮andA♮includedwithin

dissonantoutbursts

5.Ifeelasecondheart G♮inbass G♮pedal

Fig.8.5:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,tabledetailingfulcrashifts

entirearea surroundingG♮ andA♮. Semitone relationships dominatemuchofthe

lower-registercontentthroughout.Inthisway,F♯-F♮andits‘dominant’pairingC♯-

C♮ holdgreat sway in theearly stages of themovement (bars 1–26), repeatedly

disrupting any audible security established by the fulcra; see Figure 8.6 for an

exampleoftheclashesandinteractionsbetweenF♯-F♮.inthepianoleft-hand,and

G♮ intheright-hand,allbeneathsustainedA♮sintheviolaandcello).A♮doesbegin

to show as somethingofatemporaryarrivalpoint, struck uponfrequentlyatthe

closeofslowlydescendingleft-handphrases in thepiano (frombar32onwards)

beforeemergingbrie?ly inde?initiveoctaves(bars40–41).G♮alsoemergesasthe

lowervoiceofanostinatopiano phrase(combinedwithE♮ andF♮),onebarlong,

that appears erratically at ?irst (in bars 42, 45 & 48) before enjoying an

undisturbed?ivebars ofrepetitiontowards thecloseofthemovement(bars50–

54).ItisnonethelesssupplantedbythereturnoftheF♯-F♮octavepairingfromthe

openingofthemovementinthe?inalbars(bars55–58).

Whathasthus farremainedalargelyhorizontaldialoguebecomesavertical

onefromtheoutsetofthefourthmovement,thetwofulcrasetdirectlyagainstone

another. The initial piano trill creates a hazeofA♭ andA♮, a hangover from thechromaticallymuddiedwatersof theprevious section. Therepeatedpatternthat

thenquickly evolves in the lower registers of thepiano spans a ninth, G♮ at its


184

Fig.8.6:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,thirdmovement,bars1–3

lowestpoint,A♮at itshighest.AlthoughtonalweightinitiallyseemstoliewithG♮,

itsdepthcombinedwitha?irstbeatemphasis,addednotesandarapidshiftfrom

straight semiquavers toquintupletsand ?inally sextupletsallowsadisplacement,

withG♮nowactingasanupbeat,A♮asthedownbeatofeachostinatogesture(see

Figure8.7).

Letmein takestheformofanexaggerated,manicreturntothefastmaterial

of the structurally symmetrical secondmovement. Discontinuity permeates the

musical landscape, manifesting itself in the shape of unexpected ‘jump-cuts’

precipitated by sharp, dissonant tutti chords that curtail the perpetuating

sequences.Eachrenewalofsequentialactivityfollowingtheseinterruptionsseesa

newmoveinthepowerstrugglebetweenthetwofulcra,G♮orA♮usuallyemerging

as repeatedpunctuations ofpatterns, oftenaudibleas the lowestpitch: take, for

example, theappearancesofG♮ frombars 16and19, orA♮ frombars12and23.

Thecyclingfour-note pattern(B♮ –A♮ –A♯–G♮) thatappears in thebass ofthe

pianofrombar34onwardsinconjunctionwithrapidright-handscales–andthat

eventuallydominatesthe?inalpassagesofthemovement–seesbothfulcrapitted

againstoneanotheroncemore,G♮againassumingthestanceofabassupbeat,A♮

ringingoutanoctavehigher thantherest ofthephrase(seeFigure8.8).Evenas

thepatternbecomesmisshapenanddeformedtowardsthecloseofthemovement

(bars74–92),thetwofulcraremainwithinitsgraspwithnotableconsistency,the


185

Fig.8.7:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,fourthmovement,bars1–4,(piano)

Fig.8.8:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,fourthmovement,bars40–42,(piano)

reintroductionofchromaticelements incloseproximityultimatelydoing littleto

dull their impact. The two notes even assume roles within the chord that is

frequentlyutilised as asudden interruption, almost alwayspairedin thestrings

(with frequent piano backing)withanadditionalA♭, a chromatic blurring againrecallingthedisorientationofthecentralmovement(bars54–58,63,67and69).

Finally, both fulcra are crucially contained within the 10-note chord that

violentlyconcludesthemovement(seeFigure8.4).Closelyrelatedto theparallel

?igurationthat concludesthesecondmovement, thechordseems toperformthe

function of wiping the tonal slate clean, allowing a con?ident bass octave

reassertionof G♮ from thevery start of the ?inal movement. In audibly circular

fashion, themusic here inmany ways mirrors the opening of the entire piece,

broaderarchinggesturesstillpresentyetnowunderpinnedbyaquickermetrical

motion. Indeed, a reversal ofthe opening rise-and-fall idea in the strings canbe

heardwithinthe?irstthreebars,E♮–F♮–C♯nowpresentedinretrogradewithan

intercedingD♮nowintroducedinthecello(SeeFigure8.9).

Intriguingly, the bass resonances presented in the lowest registers of the

pianoalsoecho–atleastinitially–thebroaderpathofthe?irstmovement:aB♭issoon introduced in placeof oneof the octave G♮s (from bar 5), with octave A♮s

introduced (from bar 9) followedby A♭s (from bar 13). After further episodesrootedbynotablytriadicbassnotes(B♭andD♮)aswellasextendedspellswithA♮andA♭, it falls to a seven-bar G♮ pedal to conclude the work (bars 50–56), theunresolved sensation of the close of the ?irst movement now displaced and


186

Fig.8.9:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,openingsofUirstandUifthmovements,reductiontohighlightreversalofnoteseries(violaandcello)

counterbalancedby a sense of return. Theperception lies farcloser to thatof a

tonic,the?irstfulcrumcon?irmedasthetruearchitecturalfoundation.

Insearchofstability

Whilst the essential theory of two properties interacting and competing can

certainly betransferredfrom Je sensun deuxième coeur to the ?irstmovementof

the‘Eroica’, itisdif?iculttoapply‘fulcrum’labelstospeci?icsonoritiesorelements.

Expandingthe‘fulcra’conceptsomewhat,itispossibletoviewBeethoven’sAllegro

con brio architecture as comprising adialogue created bymotions between two

extremes of a spectrum: stability and instability. The resulting sensation is of

musical content held in an ever-present but shifting tension between these two

poles. Itis,perhaps,whatBurnhamtouchesonwhenhedescribesthe‘latenttrend

towardsdeath’hehearsintheC♯ofbarseven(1995, 22). Goingfurther, itmight

beportrayedas a two-way relationship, inherent tendencies ofone towards the

other:stabilitytowardsself-destruction,instabilitytowardsresolution.

Inthecourseofthe‘Eroica’,stabilitymanifestsastheverybuildingblocksof

conventional Classical tonality: thetriaditself. Forits ?irst four bars, theopening

theme of the work takes the shape of an unambiguous expression of this,

remarkably utilising only the three constituents of the tonic chord with the

downbeat emphasis falling solely on E♭ (see bars 3–6 in Figure 8.10). Itssupremely static naturepresents aparadoxical subject, onthe one handa blank

motiviccanvasripefordevelopmentonaccountofitssimplicity,andontheothera

statement of stability so bold that it almost seems to demand its own

deconstructionifanything new is to come from it. Its ?igurationalso raises new

ideaswhencontrastedwiththetwoexplosivetuttiE♭outbursts thatcomebeforeit:avertical expressionofthetriad(twochords)followedbyahorizontalone(an

arpeggiatedsubject).Therelationshipbetweenthetwogesturesatthisstageinthe

work presents two expressions of energy: potential and self-perpetuating, the

lattercastingthearpeggio shapeinadynamic rather thanastaticmanner.While

thetriadicpurityofthisthemeremainsunmatched,manyofthethemesthatfollow

all outline thetriadto somedegree, the threenotesproviding the frameworkof


187

much of the subsequent motivic construction and development. Even the ‘new’

melodythat appears inthewakeofthecentral implosion(frombar284)audibly

tracestheE-minortriadwithitsphrasedcontours. Indeed, theapparentnoveltyof

thethemeis, inmanyways, afacade;thesubjectis infactafusionofearlierideas

taken from the exposition (see Figure 8.11). The result is a fresh and unusual

perspectiveonhighlyfamiliarmaterials.

The stable manoeuvres of the these triadic ?igures interact with broader

gestures of instability that initially stem from a motivic cell introduced in the

seventhbar, a two-part semitonestepdownwards inthecelli fromE♭ to C♯, theharmonicresultbrie?lytakingtheshapeofadiminishedchordonG♮. (seebars7–

11inFigure8.10)Thetonalconsequenceisthequickestablishmentofapalpable

relationshipbetweenstableandunstabletonalforces;RobertHattendescribesthe

C♯ as a ‘seed of instability’ (1994, 121). Almost immediately (from bar 9), the


188

Fig.8.10:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,bars1–14(violins,violasandcellos)

repulsion fromthetonic createdthroughthe sharpenedsubmediant iscorrected

throughadiametricassertionofthemediant,are-attractiontoE♭inducedthroughareversalofthesemitonedropinthebass.Inmanyways,thisC♯ mightbeseenas

representative of the subversive ‘opposition’ against which the heroism of the

movementmight be judged. However, it seems particularly signi?icant that this

chromaticdisruptionemergesaudiblyfromthecellothemeitselfratherthanfrom

a different source. Here, Hatten’s concept of ‘markedness’ – an asymmetrical

evaluationofdifferentoropposingfeatures (1994, 34–43)– isevokedwithinthe

samebroadmelodicshape.AswiththeconceptualnarrativeofJesensundeuxième

coeur,theopposition,andthecon?lictthatensues,stemsfromwithin.

Thesemitoneslippervadestherestofthemovementalmostasprominently

asthetriaditself,at?irstfacilitatingmultipleshiftsawayfromE♭(bars17–24)thathaveto thenbereversed,furtherdestabilisingthestatusofthekey.Inmanyways,

its aural status as the tonic – as a de?inite point ofdeparture – rarely seems in

doubt; rather the effect is of the very signi?icance of the tonic and its broader

structural implications being called into question, an initial statement of

unparalleledstabilitytendingtowardschaos.Theresultofthesesubversionsupon

thewiderarchitecturemaywellbeagradualdislodgingofanauralrelianceonthe

roleof the tonic. Theeffect on the exposition repeat is profound, witheven the

initialstabilitynowperceptuallysubvertedfortheaudience,E♭almostassumingamirage-likequality.

Asthemovementprogresses,thechromaticslipisconstantlycastandrecast

in apparent attempts to counteract its destructive tendency, to normalise the

gesturewithinamoreconventionaltonalframework.Thepeakofthis struggleis


189

Fig.8.11:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,thematicderivationofE-minordevelopment

reached at the core of the development section, ever-continuing drops and

violently syncopated chromatic shifts creating strainedmodulations, eventually

reachingapointofno return(seeFigure8.12foranharmonic reductionof this

passage). As the onward rhythmic motion begins to disintegrate, a diminished

chordonD♯–underpinnedbyA♮–momentarilygiveswayto twobarsofCmajor

in its second inversion (bars 274–75). The suddenunalloyedmajor triad seems

frighteninglyalienatthispointinthework,thefourbarsthatfollowcomprisingan

equally terrifying F-major chord in the second inversion riddledwith sevenths,

invokingachaotic collisionof F major andAminor(bars276-279). Rather than

precipitatingalong-awaitedstandardmodulatoryreturnto thetonicviathenow

theoreticallytouchableB♭dominant,anentirelydifferentharmonicrouteissoughtthroughanunsettlinglyspelledB-majordiminished-seventhchordcloudedfortwo

barsbyanadded?lattenedninthfor theswitchtotheaudiblyforeignterritoryof

E-minor(bars280-84).

Burnham insightfully notes the role that the linearity – both tonal and

temporal–ofthemovement’sdesignplaysinthedisorientationexperiencedhere:

‘Forifwedo?indourselvesinwhatmayretrospectivelybeadjudgedanimpossibly

remote harmonic realm, we are made to feel the ineluctable continuity of the

process throughwhichwearrivedthere’.Heisalsorighttonotethatthepassage

constitutesa ‘long-rangeunderlyingtonalpreparationofEminor’(1995,11–12);

thesustainedB-majortriadsinbars262–65actasamajorcontributorinaf?irming

theeventualmovethroughaperfect cadence(bars280–284). However, itcannot


190

Fig.8.12:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,harmonicreduction,bars248–84

beemphasisedenoughthat thisprocedureisembeddednotonlywithinlayersof

dissonancebut alsowithinapolyphonic ‘pulling apart’ofboththeharmonicand

metricalfabric.

Ashasbeennoted, theE-minorthemethatthenemergesisnotasnovelasit

may appear, essentially derived from pre-existing – and audibly recognisable –

compositional elementsandprovidingacharacteristicoutline ofthe new triadic

tonal basis. Perhaps the disorientation here stems not from the content’s

unfamiliarity, but precisely from its haphazard familiarity; the theme takes the

shape of a recollective conglomeration of the core motivic ideas of the work,

concepts thatnow teeteron theedgeofirrelevanceinthewakeofsuchabrutal

assault on – anddismantling of – the traditional tonal scheme.With adesolate

extensionof thedevelopment sectionnow unfoldingwherea triumphant return

homewouldconventionallysit,thisisnotsimplyadenialofauralexpectations,but

aviolentrejectionofthem.

In thewake of this tonal implosion, it is the semitone slips that drive the

musiconwardsinitswake, incessantupwardgear-shiftssettinginasthepassage

seemstostriveforanalternativedirectionwithrenewedvigour(seeFigure8.13).

ThesearchextendsinsuchafranticmannerthatE♭majorisinfactstruckuponin


191

Bars Tonalleaning

284–91 Eminor

292–99 Aminor

300–07 Cmajor

308–12 Cminor

313–15 A♭ major–D♭ major–B♭ major

316–19 E♭ major

320–29 E♭ minor

330–37 G♭ major

338 B♭ major

Fig.8.13:‘Eroica’,Uirstmovement,tonalleanings,bars284–338

its early stages, though its lack of relevance to the immediateharmonic scheme

leaves it bypassedinfavourofitsownminorkey, proofofa full tonalalienation

achieved(bars316-22).Thefrenzieddriveofthemusiceventuallyreachesapoint

ofburn-out, stallingat aB♭-major-seventhchord(from bar378)with theadded?lattened-ninthintroducedinthe ?irst violins frombar382(adirectreferenceto

thesameintervallicadditioninbars282–83aheadofthemovetoE-minor).Inthe

moment of listening, the horn call of the returning ?irst subject (bars 394–95)

seems to surface ‘prematurely’ , arrivingbefore the ensuing nod to a dominant

seventhintheviolinshasbeengivenachancetoresolvetothetonic, preempting

aural expectations that a point of return might be imminent. Certainly the

appearanceofthemotifseemstojarwiththecontext:semi-quaverrepetitions in

the violins providing a skeletal reference to the dominant-seventh harmony

(adjacent A♭ andB♭). It is a discontinuity that seems to echo with the by-nowstrengtheneddesireforareturn to the tonic realm, perhapsahang-upfrom the

metrical disruptions and jump-cuts that have taken place throughout the

developmentsection.However,thisdiscontinuityisabsorbedintothecontinuityof

thewholeinretrospect inthewaythat itprovidesanewperspectiveonthe?irst

subject;tonalemphasisnowfallsuponthe?ifthratherthanthetonic,precipitating

the?inaltuttirushtotherecapitulation(bars394-98).

Whentherecapitulationgraduallyslowstoahalt(bars551–56),theE♭tonicsuccessfully re-established as an audible point of return, the movement could

hypotheticallyconcludeveryeasily.Butjustaswiththecorrespondingjunctureat

thecentreofdevelopmentsectionatwhichtherecapitulationisdenied,Beethoven

projects thearchitecturefurtherahead,delayingtheconclusionofthemovement.

The fading reminiscences of the primary triad subject are thrust downwards

througha broadening of thesemitone slip,D♮ andC♯becomingD♭ andC♮ (bars557–64).35 The most notable aspect of this extension is the enharmonic

transformationofC♯toD♭, theveryrepresentationofinstabilitynowassimilatedas part ofa potential solution to the formof themovement. What this briefbut

signi?icantharmonicshiftcreatesisanopportunityforare-routetothetonicwith

theintent ofestablishing a greatersenseofstability. Therepulsive powerofthe


192

35 Othercommentatorswhohaveargued thisinclude Sipe (1998,103),Burnham(1995,21)andBasilLam(1966,122).

semitone slip is harnessedas a tool to emphasise theaudiblepowerof thetonic

triadviaanincreaseintonalmomentumforthe?inalapproachtoit.Morebroadly

speaking, the establishment of a ?inal ‘coda’ section con?irms a new sense of

balanceandsymmetry ofstructure–thesonata formishereno longerbipartite,

buttripartite.

Self-destruction

Thewiderresultofthisperceivedinstabilityisarigorousinterrogationofthetriad

itselfengineeredthroughchangingperspectivesuponit.Beyondmerelysettingup

a hierarchical system of harmonic interactions andpatterns of antecedenceand

consequence, the ‘Eroica’ seems to call into question its very fabric and, more

broadly, tonality itself as a means by which a framework can be provided for

musicalstructure. Throughtheheavilytriadic characteroftheinitialmaterial,the

repeated chromatic subversions that disrupt it, and the subsequent attempts to

reassertconventionaltonalpowerandstability,aninwardexaminationofmusical

functionisprecipitated.

The‘Eroica’isoftenhighlightedbycommentatorsonaccountofitsperceived

outwardviolence:itsbrutalrhythmicdisregardforitsmetre,itsblatant?loutingof

traditionalstructuralboundaries.ConradWilson,afterdescribingthe‘unstoppable

momentum’ of the ?irst movement, draws attention to the second in terms of

notably public gesture: ‘The music, complete with sonorous oration, is hugely

atmospheric andat times thunderously graphic’ (2003, 34). Perhaps, though, its

most compelling force is directed within, spiralling inward. The centre of the

movementtakestheformofanimplosionratherthananexplosion.Thesimplicity

of thecoresubject fromwhichthework stems–theE♭-major sonority – is suchthatitsverynatureisultimatelyplacedbeneaththemicroscope;itisthetriaditself

thatonehearsdismantledandevaluated.Thisquestioningmightevenbeextended

to thebroader formitselfwithregardtothewayinwhichthestructurehasbeen

manipulated. In drawing attention to the reshaping of form and its parallel

implications forexpressivecontentthroughthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,

HepokoskiandDarcysuggestthat‘thepresenceofanysonatadeformationwhose

implicationsextendoverthegenericstructureofthewholepiecewouldseemipso


193

facto to call into question the legitimacy of the sonata strategy to provide a

solutiontothecompositionalorexpressiveproblemathand’(2006,254).

Theinteractionsof tonal stabilityand instability across theentire structure

facilitateabroadersenseof?luctuatingtensionswithinanauralmagnetic?ield.The

overall feeling isoneofdepartureandreturn,withthe symmetrical sonata-form

extensionprovidingaperfectvehicleforabalancedperceptualnarrative,thepoint

of greatest alienation occurring at the very centre of the movement and

precipitating a parallel ‘homecoming’. The piece can be viewed as a three-part

structure, with a six-part subdivision, each pairing interacting in a very direct,

almost antecedent-consequent fashion. The tonal and structural uncertainties of

the ?irst airing of the exposition allow for a development of these doubts and

instabilitieswithinitsrepeat.Whentheopeninghalfofthedevelopmentleadsnot

torecapitulationbuttocrisis,thesecondhalf–afteraninitialdisquiet–comprises

are-energisedhuntforformaldirectionandclarity.Whenitis?inallyreached,the

recapitulationsuccessfullytraversessequencesofmaterialoncemoretobringthe

musicbacktoE♭,butthecodathatfollowsservestorealignandreassertthetonicwithanend-weighting that brings the ?inal section into linewitha symmetrical

structural scheme. The temporal consequences are paradoxical: the intense

compressionofclimacticeventsandofmetricalenergycontrastswiththeextreme

lengthofthestructuralandtonal journeytoenableamusicaltimethatappearsat

onceshortandlong,condensedandexhaustive.

Ratherthanpresentingcalm,innerre?lection,theintrospectionofthe‘Eroica’

is never lackinginforce. Its processofself-analysisrevealsaninwardly-directed

violence, a constantdesire to undermine its owncharacterthroughtherepeated

testingofitsabilitytomaintainits shapewhenputunderextremepressurefrom

diametric forces; inmusical terms, this is expressed through an examinationof

tonal function through the subversion of systematic triadic structures through

recurringchromaticanddissonantfeatures.Themovementdoesnotsomuchtake

the form of an ‘outward’ development as an internal assault, representing a

barrage of attempts to undermine the signi?icance of the major triad. Here the

introspectiveprocessprovesviolentinmanysenses, takingtheformofanalmost

frenziedchippingawayatoneselftoaccesssomethingwithin.


194

Freshperspectives

Interpreting Je sens un deuxième coeur according to the conception of fulcra

certainlyaidsanarchitectural understandingofthepiece,providingaframework

foritsconstruction. Thenotionofafulcrum–ahingeorasupport–impliesstasis,

anobjectthatmayfacilitatemovementandchangebutinitselfremainsunaltered

and immovable. Whilst bothG♮ and A♮ often reappear in the same guise, their

charactersandtheir broadermeanings are transformedacross the courseofthe

work.G♮, forinstance,isfrequentlymanifestedasoctavesinthelowerregistersof

the piano. While its persistent, often pedal-like presence in the ?irst and last

movementsprovescomparableinmanyrespects,howanaudiencemighthearthe

fulcrummaywell be radically different at the endof thework thanat the start.

This is principally to do with the changes in themusical energy that the pedal

facilitates. The early predominance of G♮ as a grounding for the piece incites a

desirefor,andultimatelyprecipitates,change.Althoughitispresentedinthesame

essentialmanner in the?inalmovement,what is perceivedis apointofarrival, a

return to a familiar landmarkwhich, althoughactingearlieras a springboardfor

departure, can now be settled upon for the purposes of closure. The fulcra do

indeedaccordwithastatic interpretation,but therangeofdifferent perspectives

offereduponthemchangethroughoutthecourseofthepieceasaconsequenceof

theharmonic shifts that occur around them. A parallel couldevenbe drawn, in

terms of traditional tonal function, with a transformation of the same sonority

fromadominanttoatonic.

Whiletheideaofapiececenteringaroundapairoffulcraisconceivable, itis

worthobservingthattwopivot-pointsinfact interact,provingas complementary

to one another as they are competitive. Mirroring its earlier introduction (?irst

movement, bar 12), the assertion ofA♮ at theopeningofthe secondmovement

doesnot simply challenge theauthorityofG♮. Rather, it offers a temporarybut

much-needed resolution, realising the change in trajectory – and indeed the

releaseofrhythmicenergy–thattheclosingpedalofthe?irstmovementdemands.

When the two fulcra do develop amore notably combative relationship in the

fourthmovement, theimmediateconsequencesmaywellappearviolent, but the


195

endresult–inthe?ifthmovement–isarecapitulationofthetonalcollaborationof

theopeningofthework.

The co-operative facets of the relationship between the two fulcra are

demonstratedbestinthethirdmovementbytheabsenceofG♮.WhileA♮maintains

a strong presence, it is rarely in so de?initive a form as the bass octaves that

permeatetheotherslowmovementsinthework.Oftenassumingpositionsinthe

higher registers, it is frequently juxtaposed with other surrounding chromatic

notes, F♮ andF♯ initiallyoccupying the lower regions. With the previously lucid

basstonalitynowblurredandmuddiedbyalackofclarity,itbecomesobviousthat

the disappearance of G♮ creates a fulcral imbalance, one that has an expressive

functioninthesenseofdisorientationthatthisabsencehelpstoarouse. Notonly

are the two focal points of the work interdependent, but the stability and

orientationofthepieceseemstodependonboththeexistenceandfunctioningof

theirrelationship.

The fulcra might be thought of as serving as an underlying aural anchor,

emphasisingforanaudiencethetheebband?lowoftensionthroughoutthework.

Crucially, apreciseunderstandingof theserecurringsonorities andtheir rolesis

notrequired.Themanner inwhichtheirinteractionwithoneanotherpermeates

eachmovementmightbesaidto bringaboutasubconsciousaural delineationof

thebroadermusicalarchitecture; it ispossibletosense thechangeinperspective,

theinclinationstowardsdepartureandreturn, thecontrastsbetweencon?lictand

cooperation. These changes are also re?lected on a smaller scale through the

motivic material from which the content of the piece is constructed. In a

masterstrokeofeconomy, thecomposerensuresthatasenseofauralcontinuityis

establishedbyplacingemphasisnotononespeci?icsubjectormelodicshape,but

instead upon the relationships within a three-note formation: two notes a

semitoneapartplacedwithathirdnoteofamoredisparateinterval–twoobjects

in close proximity juxtaposed with a third object that provides harmonic

perspectiveonthatpair.Ratherthanbeingpresentedastheorganicbasis forthe

work, the?iguredoesnotdominateitsopeningstages,presentedinsteadwiththe

utmost subtlety, integratedwithinabroaderrisinggestureinthepiano line(see

Figure8.14).


196

It is in the secondmovement that the motif is perpetuated in an almost

obsessivemanner, theopening low A♮s inthepiano immediatelygivingway to a

repeatedpatternalternatingthefulcrumwithG♭andF♮(bar3).Thecellocutsthepianoshort,presentinganewsequential?igurationofthesamethree-noteidea:F♮,

G♭, C♮ (bars 4–6). It in turn is interruptedby the viola witha third, contractedsequence:C♮, E♮,D♯ (bars7–8). Thepianofulcrumreturns for twobars (bars 9–

10),precipitating, frombar11,a tuttiinwhichfragmentedfacetsofthemotifare

expressedineachinstrumentalline(seeFigure8.15).

Withtheprecedentnowsetfortheproliferationofthe?igure, itpervadesthe

entiremovement,harmonicgearshiftsrelyingprimarilyonsuddenre-calibrations,

compressionsandextensions ofthemotif itself. Indeed, themovement seems so

?ixatedwiththepatternthat itissoonfullyabsorbedastherecognisablematerial

from which the music is constructed. Propelled through various harmonic

gravitations the effect is soon one of disorientation, the consequence being the

brutal burn-outat the closeof themovement, themotifnotablyappearinginthe

?inalchordintheleft-handofthepianowithabarelyrecognisablebutnonetheless

signi?icantconventionaltonalleaningtowardstheoriginalfulcrum(bars86-88:D♮,

F♯,G♮).


197

Fig.8.15:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,secondmovement,bars9–17

Fig.8.14:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,Uirstmovement,three-notemotifemergence,bars26–28(piano)

The ?igure becomes more thematically distinct in the central slow

movement.The?irstmomentofnotable,sustainedmelodicunisonintheworkisin

fact a re-imagining of themotif, the three notes (A♮, B♭, E♮ – a notable leaningtowards the triadic features of the second fulcrum) traced by viola and cello

delicatelyasifinaslow-motionfree-fallfrombars4(seeFigure8.16).Themelodic

developmentsthatfollowcontinuetotracevariationsonthemotif.

Thereturntoviolenceinthefourthmovementseesthemotifmutated,with

added notes serving to increase its dynamism as the members of the trio are

seeminglythrownforwardonacollisioncoursewithoneanother.Herethethree-

notepatterns arenotas clearly de?inedas intheearlier, parallel fastmovement,

instead absorbedwithin longer gestures of greater momentum. While both the

treatment of material and the modulatory behaviour accords with the earlier


198

Fig.8.16:Saariaho:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,thirdmovement,violaandcellomelody,bars4–7

Fig.8.17:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,fourthmovement,reductionsofinterruptingchords,selectedbars

Fig.8.18:Jesensundeuxièmecoeur,Uifthmovement,bars1–3(piano)

episode, it is this loss of control and de?inition that brings about a second

cataclysm, frequent vertical interruptionscomprisingmultipleexpressionsofthe

motifeventuallyleadingtoarecastingofthesecondmovement’s ?inal chord(see

Figure 8.17). Finally, the motif is adapted in the ?ifth movement to assume a

speci?ic falling gestureintheupper registers ofthepiano twinnedwithafurther

verticalexpressionofitinthelefthand(seeFigure8.18).Whilethepreciseshape

of thepatternchanges throughout themovement, the?igureessentiallytakeson

thestatus ofamercurial ostinato, stillpresent at theverycloseofthework ina

morerhythmicallystraightforwardmanner.

Renewedfocus

Listening to Je sens un deuxième coeur sets in motion a paradoxical temporal

experience; though it undoubtedly encompasses episodes of dynamism and

surfacelinearity, theultimateeffect isofabroaderstasis.Thoughtheinteractions

betweenthethree-notemotivicintervalsandthetonalfulcraprovidesensationsof

moment-by-momentchange,theoveralleffectislessofalinearjourneybutrather

acyclicalone,inwhichemphasisisplacednotonchangesinthecontentitselfbut

on the changing perspectives of listeners upon that content. The kaleidoscopic

process of the same materials being recast and reinterpreted allows for fresh

viewson familiar ideas. The constantmanoeuvresofrealignment create varying

degreesofvisibilityofthemusicalcontent,resultinginablurred?irstmovement,a

?ixated second, a disorientated glimpse of clarity and alignment in the third, a

distorted fourth, and a calmer, accepting ?ifth. Whereas the sense of alienation

experienced in theE-minorpassage at the heart of Beethoven’s ?irstmovement

stemsprecisely fromarealisation–throughalinearcontinuityofdesign–ofthe

vasttonaldistancethathasbeenhithertotravelled,thedespondencythatmightbe

perceived in the thirdmovement of Saariaho’s trio arises from an awareness –

articulatedbythere-calibratedmotivicmaterial–ofhowlittledistancehasinfact

beentraversedinspiteoftheenergyexpended.Thesenseofdisorientationinboth

pieces does originate in a heightened awareness of the experienced formal


199

continuity, but these comparable sensations arise from very different musical

properties.Movingbeyondthesework-speci?ic instances,muchofthetheoretical

discussion that follows (ChapterNine: Understanding Time)will dwell uponthe

tensions that might develop between such unique, disruptive gestures, and the

wider, continuous, supposedly uni?ied forms they appear within; indeed, the

question as to whether such con?licting conceptions require some kind of

reconciliatoryapproachhasbeenthesubject ofsomedebateamonganalystsand

musicologists.

AnarrativedrawnfromJesensundeuxièmecoeurmightnottaketheshape

ofanoutwardjourney,butratherofanintrospection.Emphasisisplacednotupon

a distance travelled or a transformation achieved, but on a heightened self-

knowledge facilitatingnewviews uponpre-existing ideas.Theinwardprocessof

self-directed violence and contemplation showcased throughout the piece is

comparableto theparallelaction inBeethoven’s ‘Eroica’.Andalthoughthedirect

consequence of this interactionbetween stability and instability seems to be, in

bothworks, aninclinationtowards a self-destructionthat seems to threatenthe

veryarchitectureofthemusic,theconsequenceis infactakindofresolution.The

‘chipping away’ identi?ied in the ‘Eroica’, and the constantdesire to realignand

rearrangeresultsinanewsenseofself-discovery,inthesamewaythatasculpture

isconstructedfromablockofstonebytheremovalofouter,super?luousmaterial

in a bid to uncover the willed form within. Saariaho presents this process

comprehensively.Bytheendofthepiece, thesamesetofessentialmaterialisstill

beingutilised, but ithasstruckuponafreshcharacter, arenewedalignmentwith

itself.Beethoven’sstretchofmusic isonlythetipoftheicebergwithregardtothe

broaderformoftheentirework, but it setstheverysameprocess inmotion, one

that reaches its apotheosis in thedriving simplicity ofthe ?inale and, perhaps it

mightbeargued,intheinvigorated,triadic-enforcedclassicismthatcharacterises

thecomposer’ssequel,hisFourthSymphony.


200

Nine

UnderstandingTime

Formalimpulses

Timebecomesmatterinmusic;thereforecomposingisexploringtimeasmatterin

all itsforms: regular, irregular.Composing iscapturingtime andgiving ita form.

(Saariaho2000,111)

KaijaSaariahomakesaprofoundconnectionbetweentimeandform.36Forher,the

act of composition involves a direct engagement with, andmediation between,

these two perceptual concepts. Indeed, the openness withwhich she addresses

both ideas bears great relevance here. Time comprises a dynamic experience,

varying in regularity; any compositional form that itmight be ‘given’constitutes

justoneofmanypotentialoptions.Musical formscanbeasnumerousandvaried

asthedifferenttemporalimpressionstheyarticulatefortheiraudiences.Effective

performances allow listeners the opportunity to ‘compose’ forms, harnessing

common‘organisingimpulses’tostructuresequencesofeventsinwaysthatmight

facilitatemeaning.

Althoughnumerouscultural factorscanhaveasubstantial impactuponthe

precise nature of these impulses, they amount to a seemingly universal human

predispositiontoattempttomakesenseofauditoryinformation,tounderstandits

sequence. Indeed, such in?luencing factors serve only to enhance the inherent

dynamismofmusicalacts.Creativeattemptsto relivethepastinduceparticularly

meaningful paradoxes (as shall beunderlined in the ?inal case-study of Chapter

Ten). The onward-bound asymmetry of temporal experience imbues musical

repetitionwithbothadesire to return to thepast and a tacit acknowledgement

that it can only be accessed as memory. Compositional approaches such as

developing variation prove especially interesting precisely because they

demonstrate – and indeed incite – a conscious engagement with both past and

futurethroughpresent-tensemusicalchange.

201

36 Kaija Saariaho’s thoughts on composition and time are discussed further in Moisala2009,54,andRofe2001,81.

Saariaho’s comments touch upon an ongoing tension for composer,

performerandlistener:althoughparticularaspectsofitscontentscanberecorded

and reproduced, time cannot be ‘captured’ or retained. Though controllable

elementsofeventscanberepeated,thesubjectiveandecologicalcontextsofthose

events cannot. We can neverhear, orbyextensionunderstand, something quite

the same way twice; as listeners, our organising impulses are unavoidably

dynamic. Thecase studies in this thesis are intended to support aposition that

embracesthismercurialstateofaffairsratherthancircumventorturnablindeye

to it. The interplay between various musical continuities and discontinuities in

compositions both old and new ensures the emergence of fresh formal

perspectives,notleastwhenthesepiecesareplacedsidebyside.

With regard to meaning, the complex musical interactions perceived by

listeners are entwined with the social networks of performance situations. In

seeking to account for some of the nuances of these relationships, Christopher

Smallproposed‘musicking’asaverbthatencompassesallmannerofparticipation

withinperformance, listening included.Questions of themeaning andvalueof a

‘work’ – a fragile concept in these terms – are therefore relocated to speci?ic

performancesituations(Small 1998, 9–10).DavidBurrows(1997)places similar

emphasis uponmusic as performance, drawingparallelswithdynamicalsystems

theories, time-dependent understandings of causal processes utilised across a

rangeof?ields.Heportraysworksas‘perceptualexercises’,aligningmuchoftheir

valuewiththewayinwhichtheydemandanactof‘temporalsynthesis’onthepart

oflisteners(1997,533).Withtheintentionofavoidingastableconceptionofform,

he asserts that the ‘primary identity’ of a work constitutes an ‘emergent that

accompanies theveryprocessof synthesising theimpressionsmadebya?lowof

sounds’ (1997, 545). Nevertheless, his views regarding musical meaning seem

strangelyconclusive:

Music gives us concrete, sensorially grounded, but at the same time, safely

containedexerciseinmanaging thedynamicalsystemsthatconstitute ourlives. It

also offers us a consequent glowing sense of our competence in doing so. Life

resistscomprehension;musicinvitesit.Participatinginmusicisaccompaniedbya

renewedsenseofmastery,suchasmodelsprovideforawiderangeofproblematic

phenomena,overtheprocessesofourself-creation.(1997,545)

UnderstandingTime

202

Small, bycontrast, presents themore compelling possibility that perceptionand

theprocessesofmentalorganisationthataccompanyitconstituteanencodingthat

even more comprehensively mirrors our ecology (1998, 50–56). The af?irming

closurethatBurrowsachievesisthusreplacedbyafarmorerealistic,open-ended

complexity:

If, as Ihave suggested,musicking isan activitybymeansof whichwe bring into

existencea setof relationships thatmodel the relationshipsof ourworld, notas

theyarebutaswewouldwishthemtobe,andifthroughmusickingwelearnabout

andexplorethoserelationships,weafSirmthemtoourselvesandanyoneelsewho

maybepayingattention,andwecelebrate them, themusicking isinfactawayof

knowing ourworld – not that pre-given physical world, divorced from human

experience, that modern science claims to know but the experiential world of

relationshipsinallitscomplexity–andinknowing it,we learnhowtolivewellin

it.(Small,1998,50)

Itisanholisticallymindedapproachsuchasthisthatoffersthepotentialfor

amorerealisticappraisalofmusicalexperience–itselfanetworkofphysicaland

psychologicalrelationships–andthewaysinwhichavarietyofdistinctbutoften

overlappinginterpretationsmightbedrawnfromit.Performancesmightbesaidto

constitute temporal ‘spaces’ comprising amalgamations of musical and social

interactions. A musical work might accordingly be taken as signifying a kindof

blueprint forhowcertain aspectsofthattimespanwill playout aurally,withthe

manner of this structural process inviting readings of a particular leaning. But

cruciallyitisherethatthereachofthecomposedworkisexceeded.AsEricClarke

observes, listeners retain an ‘utterly individual’ perspective incorporating their

‘skills, needs, preoccupations, and personal history’ (2005, 125). Indeed, he

expresses a preference for an expanded view of perceptual meaning,

encompassing not only the immediate acoustic and geographical contexts of a

performance but also cultural, ideological and emotional factors frequently

dismissed as too abstract; rather, he argues, these phenomena also constitute

‘sources’,sincethey ‘constitute theconditionsandcircumstancesthatgiveriseto

themusic’(2005,189–90).

UnderstandingTime

203

Autonomy

AlthoughClarkedevelopsaparticularlyconvincingecologicalaccountofperceived

musical meaning, he remains open to theways inwhich notions of themusical

work can impact aural experiences. He provides an incisive evaluation of the

autonomy with which works are often imbued, moving past the surface

incompatibilitybetweenthisassertionandanecologicalapproachtodiscussways

inwhichthetwooutlooksmightbene?itoneanother.37 Perhapssurprisingly,facets

ofecological listeningareoften foundtoplay into autonomous sensibilities, with

thevery act ofattending to soundsthemselves(rather thanas signi?iers ofother

subjectsorobjects)imbuingpieceswithadegreeofself-governance(2005, 126–

155).Itispreciselythroughthismodeofreceptionthatmorestructurally-minded

readingsofcompositionscan?lourish:

Musicalautonomymaybean illusion,but ithasgivenrise toa kindof listening

that has particular characteristics and preoccupations. This style of listening

arises from the interaction of a number of factors: listening circumstances, the

relationshipbetweenperceptionandaction,theorganisationofmusicalmaterial,

andlisteners’predispositions.(2005,154)

For Nicholas Cook, the autonomy of a work also emerges through its

repetitionasan‘independentandrepeatablecontext’, bothwithinits formandof

its form,withmusicaleventsgaining‘akindofobjectiveidentitybyvirtueoftheir

relationship to this context: when a theme is repeated in a symphony, one’s

experienceoftherepetitionisnotasubjectiveone(“IfeellikeIdidbefore”)butan

objective one (“this bit is like the previous bit”)’ (Cook 1990, 38). The

acknowledgementthatthisautonomyisanaesthetic ?igmentdoesnotnecessarily

preclude it from featuring in more grounded ecological approaches. It is a

paradoxical duality that is re?lected in temporal perception. The overriding,

onwardnatureof timedoes not invalidate listening experiences that threatento

alter,subvert,ortranscendthatlinearityinaperceptualmanner.Thechallengesto

temporal continuity that many performances offer are largely illusion, the

UnderstandingTime

204

37 Clarke followsthisdiscussionbyprovidinganinsightfulanalysisof aworksteepedinthe compositional trappings of the autonomous tradition – the Sirst movement ofBeethoven’sStringQuartetinAminor,Op.132–byutilising ecologicalprinciples(2005,156–88)

products of cultural constructs. But these illusions contribute to the value we

ascribe to musical experiences, as the emphasis upon such phenomena –

durational distortion, circularity, stasis, impressionsoftimelessness– throughout

thisthesisdemonstrates.

Unity

Ofcourse, theseconceptual interrelationships leavea considerable challenge for

scholarswillingtoaddressthem.ArnoldWhittall(1999)providesanastutesurvey

of attempts to reconcile the formalist, analysis-driven approaches of the

autonomoustradition,andthe‘worldly’relativismofnewmusicology,highlighting

thedif?icult ofproducing an ‘interpretativemusicology that is adequately plural

andadequatelycoherent’(1999,101).Heexpressesparticularconcernsregarding

themarginalisationofanalytical techniques, inparticular thosesuchas Heinrich

Schenker’sthatemphasiseprinciplesoforganiccoherence,andtheeffectthatthis

mighthaveuponthemusicologicallandscape:

A deconstructed musicology ceases to be musicology at all if it resists direct

engagementwith composer and composition, and side-steps the possibility that

worksofartmaybedefencesagainsttheworldasmuchasproductsoftheworld.

Itis understandable that committeddeconstructionists should (single-mindedly)

regardtheideaofalessmonolithicbutstillwork-centredmusicologyasseekingto

achieve the old coercive objectives byonlyslightlydifferentmeans.Yet, for that

veryreason, those same committeddeconstructionists, intheirzealtotransform

musicologyintosomethingelse,maybereluctanttoacceptthatmuch,ifnotall,of

what they desire can actually be better achieved from within an enriched

musicologythanfromoutsideit.(1999,100)

WhilstWhittallbalanceshisconcernswithabroaderreceptivenesstowards

anintegratedmusicologicalapproach, RobertMorganexpressessomethingmore

akintoalarmatwhatheperceives to bearecent ‘anti-unity’ leaning inanalytical

writing (Morgan, 2003). Troubled by an apparent opposition to coherence as a

point of focus for interpretation, he embarks upon detailed critiques of ?ive

analysesofcanonicrepertoire(byKo?i Agawu, Daniel Chua, JosephDubiel, Kevin

Korsyn and Jonathan Kramer), seemingly highlighting a certain futility – an

UnderstandingTime

205

apparent dearth of meaning – in their emphasis upon disunifying elements in

musical works: ‘Once disunity is asserted, they have nothing more to say of an

analyticalnature.Unityiscertainlynot theonlythingworthanalysing,but, inthis

musicatleast, thealternativeisnotdisunitybutadifferentanalyticalperspective

altogether’(Morgan2003,43).Whilstheconcedesthatcertainkindsofintentional

musical disunity can be meaningful, such meaning is only rendered possible

throughitsconnectionwithothermatters, inotherwordsviaanoverridingunity.

Toassertdisunityinacompositionisnotonlyto labelthatworkafailure,butalso

tocurtailanalyticalcommentary‘immediatelyandentirely’(2003,27).

Many of the arguments Morgan presents simply stem from structuralist

aesthetic preferences; his invocation of the notion of an ‘objective account of

music’ – andmore speci?ically the idea that an anti-unitarianist positionmight

eliminatethepossibilityofit– speaksvolumes(2003,22).However, itisdif?icult

toreconcilehisclaimedembraceofapost-structuralistdesiretoevolveandadapt

analytical conceptions(2003,41–43)withhisapparentunwillingnesstolendany

validity to the ways in which others might hear the same pieces of music.

AppraisinganalysesofworksbyHaydn,Mozart,BeethovenandBrahms,heseeks

explicitlyto‘dissolve’theargumentsagainstunitymadebyotherscholarsthrough

therecognitionofparticular‘readilyperceivable’unifyingfeaturesofthemusic.

Inevitablysuchsingle-mindedprescriptivismhasdrawnforcefulresponses

from those itcriticises.Daniel Chua (2004)?indsMorgan’s treatmentofthe ?irst

movementofBeethoven’sStringQuartetinAminor,Op.132,unsettlingprecisely

onaccountofitsdisregardoftemporalimpressions,asifthis‘dissolving’approach

couldrender thepiece ‘rational, transparent andcoherent’: ‘There is not even a

processofformalstruggleinhisanalysis,sincehisanalyticalinsightsarebasedon

static structural identities. The disruptive features and gestures that I see as

integraltothearticulationoftheformintimeareneutralisedbyMorganasmerely

surface variation in space’ (Chua 2004, 354–55).38 Jonathan Kramer (2004),

meanwhile,callsMorganoutonhisfailuretogofurtherinde?ininghisconception

of unity and his attempted denial of a potentially enriching interplay between

unityanddisunity.Kramerarguesinsteadforabroadernotionofcoherence‘based

UnderstandingTime

206

38KevinKorsynalsooffersanincise rebuttalofMorgan’scriticismofhisBrahmsanalysisinKorsyn,2004.

on differences as well as similarities, on lack ofprecedent (ofcertain events or

segments)aswell asclearprecedent’(J. Kramer2004, 368).Expressingempathy

with scholars anxious at the prospect of traditional analytical tools losing their

relevance, he persuasively calls for the same kind of integrated musicology

ponderedbyWhittall,openingupmoreformalistmethodsto frameworksthatare

notbasedsolelyonthe‘elucidationofunity’:

The analysesthatImostvalue do not try toprescribe how a piece ought to be

heard,butrathertheysuggestwaysthatitmightbeheard.Andthosewaysshould,

andformesometimesdo,respondtootheraspectsoftheworkthanjustitsunity.

Apieceofmusicislikeaperson,orlikelife.Itisnottotallyneat.Notallpartsofit

belong togetherinclear-cutways.Itcandostrangethings. Itcanbe easiertolove

than tounderstand. It can containmoments of irrationality, of disorder, even of

chaos – which can be appreciated as important contributors to meaning and

experience.(J.Kramer2004,369–70)

Kramer’s desire to demote unity from its ‘privileged position as a universal or

necessarycondition’(2004, 370)ispre-echoedbyFredEverettMaus(1999)who

not only ?irmly denies that analysis necessarily equates a search for unity, but

aboveall treatswithscepticismanyclaims regardingunityor itsabsence‘thatdo

notgiveacentralclaimtomusicalexperience’(1999,188).Mausalsoexploresthe

plurality ofwhat canbemeantwhen issues ofunity arediscussed. Hepoints to

inconsistencies in the language used to address unifying musical elements,

highlightingthesubtlebutnonetheless importantdistinctionsbetweenseemingly

relatedterms: synthesis(discrepantitemsbroughtinto satisfactoryrelationship),

integration(acceptanceofinternaldiversityovertime),integrity(eventsovertime

preservinganddisplayingacorevalue),andlogic(eventssucceedingoneanother

withasenseofnon-empiricalnecessity)(1999,183–86). Indeed,perhapsitmight

beconcludedthatthetemporalaspecttowhichMausrefersconstitutesoneofthe

most consistent elements across these notions, that unity at once comprises

continuityandcoherencethroughtheplayingoutofmusicalelementsovertime.

Perhaps most signi?icantly, musical experiences can elicit a sense of

paradox through the way in which they are often able to sustain contrasting

analytical approaches such as those discussed. Performances can support

interpretations that emphasiseboth unity and disunity, presenting aperceptual

UnderstandingTime

207

coexistence of contrasting characteristics. In a further echo of the ecological

mirroringthatSmallproposes (1998, 50–56),coherent orcontinuous readingsof

works can be drawn from an amalgamated network of musical and social

relationshipsthatmightjustaseasilyfacilitateanemphasisuponincoherenceand

disruption.Amusicalformmightpossessthecapacity tobeheardsimultaneously

asconclusiveandambiguous, ‘closed’and ‘open’.Inthespiritofthispotential for

paradox – and in the acknowledgement emphasised throughout this thesis that

music seeminglypossesses the ability to articulate thingsabout time that words

cannot–thisthesiswillbegintodrawtoaclosewithone?inalcasestudy,apairing

of musical works by Jean Sibelius and Thomas Adès. On the face of it, their

alignment is particularly close: two symphonies for large orchestras, lasting

approximately twenty minutes in length, both cast in single-movement forms

demarcatedbyintricate sequences ofrelatedtempo changes. Ofgreater interest,

though, arethewaysinwhichbothpieceshighlighttheprofoundincongruitiesof

long-termrepetition.Throughaspectsoftheirconstruction,theysuggestdifferent

ways of understanding recurring content in changing contexts. Ultimately, both

pieces facilitate meaning through their reconciliation of journeys that are

experiencedas simultaneously onwardandcircular.Mirroringbroader temporal

experience, they somehow af?irm a dynamic, Heraclitean ?lux whilst raising the

possibility of a static, Parmenidean ideal. Like this thesis, their conclusions are

openended;closureisbothattainedanddenied.Perhapstheencouragementsuch

musicoffersusaslistenersiscomparabletowhatE.M.Forsterasksofthenovelist:

Afterall,whyhasanovel tobeplanned?Cannotitgrow?Whyneeditclose, asa

playcloses?Cannotitopenout?Insteadofstandingabovehisworkandcontrolling

it, cannotthenovelist throwhimself intoit andbe carriedalong tosome goalhe

doesnotforesee?([1927]2005,95)

UnderstandingTime

208

Ten

EnergyandEquilibriumThomasAdès&JeanSibelius

Thisprojecthasrevolvedaroundjuxtapositionsofoldandnew,drawingattention

to the different ways in which various composers have approached temporal

issues through their structuringofmusical ideas. These observations havebeen

primarily utilised as catalysts for wider discourses addressing aspects of our

experiences of time. I have deliberately tried to avoid emphasising direct

comparisonsbetweenmusicalworks. Thisclosingcasestudy – twinningThomas

Adès’sTevotwithJeanSibelius’sSeventhSymphony–willbeanexception.Inmost

respects, it provides the most likely of pairings within the thesis: two one-

movement orchestral works, both lasting approximately 20 minutes, both

purportedlyengagingwiththesymphonic tradition. Itcertainly seems thatthese

surface similarities are the product of design rather than accident; as will be

shown,AdèshimselfhasexpressedhisownthoughtsonSibelius’smusic(another

unique aspect of this pairing) and it seems quite plausible that Tevot might be

viewedasanextensionofthisengagement.

However, Iwouldsuggest that theirmostprofoundconnectionsare aural.

Considerbothopenings:twogestures–oneascending,theotherdescending–that

in spite of their simplicity, seemingly hold the potential for the forms that will

unfold. At the beginning of the Seventh Symphony, a rising scale fragmented

through several instrumental parts obliquely references several potential keys

before offsetting thesemounting expectations by coming to rest on an entirely

different harmonic plane (see Figure 10.1); the arrival at an entirely unrelated

triadcreatesanimmediatefrictionbetweentwosetsofsonorities,acomplextonal

tensionthatwillcometode?inetheunfoldingoftheworkandrequiresresolution

overtime.AttheoutsetofTevot,meanwhile,stratosphericcascadesoffalling?ifths

seamlesslyemergeintheupperstrings, theiroscillationsunderlinedbysustained

woodwind to create the impression of a chromatically descending chorale-like

texture(seeFigure10.2).Theeffectisnotsomuchofadirectsourceofharmonic

con?lict; rather a tonal restlessness takes hold, a seemingly perpetual series of

209

onward-leaningmodulationsengenderinganaudibledynamismthatwillprovidea

continuingsourceofstructuraldirection.

Bothoftheseopeningspossesscellularqualities:themusical tensionsthey

containultimatelyprovedecisiveinthewayinwhichtheirbroaderformsplayout.

This audibly organic mode of composition can be viewed not only as an

engagementwiththe symphonic tradition butalso asanexpressionof temporal

thought. Through different harmonic, rhythmic and motivic vocabularies, both

Adès and Sibelius offer striking perspectives on issues of continuity, recurrence

anddirection. Theycreatelarge-scalemusical structuresthatdoubleasengaging,

EnergyandEquilibrium

210

Fig.10.1:Sibelius,SymphonyNo.7,reductionofbars1–4

Fig.10.2:Adès,Tevot,reductionofbars1–4

wordlessnarratives,encouraginglistenerstoconsidertowhatextenttheapparent

closurethesepieces providetranslates intoasenseofcatharsis, and to question

connectionsbetweentimeandmeaning.Thiscasestudywillexploresomeofthese

ideasthroughanalyticaldiscussion,examiningselectedpassagesfromacrossboth

works in order to re-emphasise the broader paradoxes – stasis and dynamism,

closureandopenness – that haveunderpinnedthe temporalperspectives offered

by this thesis. The epilogue that then follows will offer a brief considerationof

some of the implications these broader ?indings might have for an open-ended

outlookuponmusicandtime.

Symphonicrenewal

JustasJeanSibelius(1865–1957)summarisedthe?inaleofhisSymphonyNo.3in

Cmajor,Op.52(1907)as ‘thecrystallisationofideas fromchaos’(Tawaststjerna

1986, 66), thework as awholemightbesaidto represent astylisticwatershed.

Presented through notably sparse orchestration, its three relatively brief

movements announce a departure from the late-romantic gestures that had

dominatedthecomposer’s previous efforts in thegenre. Characteristics latent inhis earlier music here emerge, with a renewed sense of motivic economy and

formal concision seemingly referencing Classical tendencies. As Tim Howell

observes,‘muchthatisoriginal–progressive–aboutSibelius’scompositioncomes

notfromarejectionofearlierpracticebutfromitsreinterpretation’(2001,37–38).

Many of the features presented in the Third Symphony would subsequently

develop through the course of the composer’s four further contributions to the

genre;HaroldTruscott evengoesso faras todraw a‘genealogical tree’ fromthe

worktotheremainderofSibelius’signi?icantorchestraloutput(1967,92–98).The

composer’s broader preferences are exhibiteddeftly in his laterworks,withhis

oft-quotedremarks toMahler regarding the ‘profound logic’ of symphonic style

and structure (Rickards 1997, 96) clearly re?lected in both the organic

developmentsandthepared-downinstrumentationofthoseworks.

Sibelius’s determination to rely solely upon what he deemed necessary

reaches its zenith in his Symphony No. 7, Op. 105 (1924). Here his prior


211

experimentsinformalcompression–executedtovaryingextentsintheThirdand

Fifth Symphonies – culminate in one extraordinary, 20-minute-plus unbroken

span, charactersandcontrastsofconventionally separatemovementsassimilated

into a single cohesive stretch of music. The label ‘symphony’ was ascribed

tentatively by the composer; even at the time of its Stockholm première on 23

March 1924, it was still entitled ‘Fantasia sinfonica’, and it was only following

careful subsequent consideration that the name change was undertaken

(Murtomäki1993,242).

Whileitsstatusasasymphonyhasrarelybeenquestioneddirectly,scholars

haveoften struggled to reacha consensus regarding its structure. Although the

work exhibits anundeniablychanging, episodic form, delineating it accordingto

moreconventionalexpectationshasnotnecessarilyprovedeasy.Truscott, togive

an early example, expresses a personal struggle to come to terms with the

architecture of the work, asserting its one-movement plan to be ‘a contrivance

ratherthanagrowth[…]nomoreaone-movementsymphonythanisSchumann’s

Fourth’ (1967, 92–98). Cecil Gray overcomes such dif?iculties by attempting to

reconcile the piece with conventional design, claiming it to comprise four

successiveinterconnectedmovementswhilstsimultaneouslyconstituting‘asingle

andindissolubleorganism’(1935,71).However,SimonParmet’ssuggestion–that

itwouldbefruitlesstoattemptareadingofitsform thathingesupon‘termsand

concepts borrowedfromanearlierperiod’(Parmet1959,127; also discussedby

Murtomäki1993,245–46)–provesinsightful;hisportrayaloftheworktakesinto

accountitsperformeddurationandrevolvesaroundmusicaldevelopmentsframed

bytwoC-major‘cornerstones’placedateitherendofthework(Parmet1959,128–

29).Writingmorerecently,VeijoMurtomäkiplacesemphasisuponnovelelements

in his interpretationof thework, proclaiming it to beneithera singular sonata-

formexpansenoraconglomerationofseveralmovementsbut rather‘something

newandrevolutionaryinthehistoryofthesymphony’(1993,242).

Othermoderncontributors, however, appearmorecontent to adaptmore

conventional constructions in their readings. EdwardLaufer, for example, draws

uponSibelius’soriginalintentionfor‘anHellenicrondo’toconcludethesymphony.

Usingthisdescriptionasaspringboard,hemapsarondostructureonto thework,

envisioninga ‘boldrefashioningoftheclassical design’as ameanstoathorough


212

senseofmusicalcontinuity: ‘Bynot concentrating thedevelopmental passages in

onelargersectionas inasonataformmovement,butbyplacingthemthroughout

so as to introduce and thereby enhance the expositional sections, a sense of

continuous growth, cumulation, and completion of sections is achieved’ (Laufer

2001, 355).Nevertheless, perhaps amongthemost convincing interpretationsof

the symphony is that provided by Arnold Whittall who highlights an interplay

between a wider sense of structural symmetry and a more episodic leaning

towards ‘imbalance and instability’. His more conceptual framing of the

compositionalarchitectureoftheworkprovesparticularlyuseful:‘Oneofthemost

remarkableaspectsoftheSeventhSymphonyis thesenseinwhichitsubvertsthe

essentialsofsymmetricalstabilitywhilenevercompletelylosingsightofpositive,

af?irmativemodes of expression: balancing modernism and classicism, in other

words’(Whittall2004,62–63).

Thebalances that Sibeliusmanaged to strikewithhis SeventhSymphony

haveproved particularly in?luential in the years since its composition, not only

helpingtoopenthe?loodgatestonumerousotherone-movementorchestralworks

– whether theword ‘symphony’ features as a title or not – but also helping to

reiterateanolderworkingde?initionofthegenre.Beyondsimplymakingreference

to surface structures or orchestral forces, the term ‘symphonic’ engages more

keenly with the organic character and musical content of a piece, implying

something ‘extendedand thoroughly developed’ (Larue, Wolf, Bonds,Walshand

Wilson,Grove).Onaccountofits‘totalunity’,theSeventhevenservesasapointof

closure for Lionel Pike in his exploration of the symphonies of Beethoven and

Sibelius,withtheworkconforming toPike’sde?initionof‘symphonic’as thevery

kindofuni?ied,interconnected‘profoundlogic’thatSibeliuspropoundedtoMahler

(Pike 1978, 203). Meanwhile, composer David Matthews has cited Sibelius’s

symphoniesasadirectin?luenceonhisown,pointingtotheseeminglyparadoxical

‘truestasis’theyattain‘throughenergyandmovement’(Dufallo1989,154):‘Ihave

learnt a lot from his control of pace, his welding together of different kinds of

movement, his imperceptible transitions from fast to slow or slow to fast.’

Matthewsassociates theSeventh inparticularwithakindof symphonic essence

(Matthews1993,190):‘TheSeventhSymphony…isalwaysmovingsymphonically;

evolving, changing direction, sometimeswith slow deliberation, sometimes with


213

athleticswiftness.’SuchdynamismresonateswithHowell’sperceptiveimpression

ofthe‘continuousdevelopment’presentinthework(aSibelianhallmark), andits

relianceupon‘contextratherthancontenttode?inefunction’(Howell1989,86)

Symphonicresolution?

The kind ofmomentum Matthews describes does indeed seem to pervade the

symphony,anadvancingdynamismpalpableinthe ‘workingout’ofthemusic. A

sense ofunmistakable development is imbuedwithout theuni?iedsweepof the

workbeingdamaged;onthecontrary,musicalprogressionseemstoenhancethe

structuralprolongation.Writtenjusttwoyearsafterthesymphony,thetonepoem

Tapiola,Op.112isoftenusedbyscholarsasalitmustestforthesymphonicnature

oftheSeventh.Atasurfaceglance, itwouldappeartobearmuchincommonwith

the symphony: a single-span, twenty-minute orchestral work with its material

derivedorganicallyfromitsopeninggestures.However,itisinhowtheworkplays

out that the differences emerge. Stephen Walsh highlights the ‘dialectical and

dynamic force’of the Seventh, pointing to its exceptional ability to settle large-

scale musical con?licts in just one extended movement: ‘As a descriptive and

imaginative work Tapiola is a considerable achievement. But it can hardly be

denied that the symphony, in satisfactorily resolving more complicated issues

within the same time-span, is musically and intellectually the more substantial

work’(Walsh,Grove).

Intriguingly, it is through this comparisonofpieces thatThomasAdès (b.

1971)– a Britishcomposer – arrives atverydifferentconclusions. His notionof

symphonicgravitatestowardsamusical impulseto resolve– to ‘closeacircle’, as

heputsit.Withthisinmind,heexpressestheviewthatthesymphoniesofSibelius

betray a con?lict between this inclination to conclude andan ‘inner desire’(one

inherentinthematerial)toventureoutwardsintonewterritories:

TheconSlictbecomesmore powerfulasthe symphoniesgoon. Inthe Fifth itisa

huge strugglewhich isachieved, in the Sixth it seemssopowerful thatit has to

happenjustoffstage,and intheSevenththereisasense thatalthoughhemakesit

in the endhe isallbutbrokenbythe effort. Itbecomesan increasinglyagonising

process.Butin thetonepoems,he isreleased from theconSlictofhavingtomake


214

an abstract argument that functions logically. So the end of Tapiola is deeplyconclusive, but theendof the SeventhSymphonyispainfullyinconclusive.(Adès

andService2012,172)

ItisinterestingthatwhatWhittall, forexample, identi?iesasasuccessful fusionof

‘fundamentalelements oftraditionwith freedomand?lexibility’(2004, 61),Adès

seeminglyhearsasapointofextremeartisticfriction.Thecomposerhighlightsthis

asaparticularlyprogressiveandin?luentialaspectofSibelius’scontributiontothe

genre:

I’msayingthatwithSibelius, thefunctionofsymphoniccompletenesspassedfrom

the‘abstract’intothe ‘metaphorical’,andIthinkithasstayedthere.Ithinkhewas

the Sirst tobreak,painfully, themistakenidea thata symphonic argumenthadto

haveasortofstructuralordertoit.(AdèsandService2012,173)

However, with regard to the broader tradition he has reservations, expressing

misgivingswith regardto the expectations of ‘an inevitablekind ofstructureor

decorum’ that he feels accompany the ‘symphony’ title (2012, 173). It seems

signi?icantthen,givensuchqualms, thatthelabelisonehehasemployed,utilising

it to describe Tevot, a work for large orchestra composed from 2005–6 and

premièredon21February2007bytheBerlinPhilharmonicOrchestraunderthe

directionofSirSimonRattle.39 The titleofthework carriesseveralmeanings. In

modern-day Hebrew it signi?ies ‘vessels’, adapted in musical terminology to

represent bars of music; however, in its singular form – tevah – it is utilised

speci?icallyintheBibletorepresenttwouniquevessels:Noah’sarkandtheNile-

boundreedbasketinwhichthebabyMosesisplacedbyhismother(Adès2007:iii,

andGrif?iths 2014, 7). Describing the titleasbeing like a ‘gift’, Adèsoutlines the

waysinwhichitsmeaningprovidedaconceptualspringboardforthecomposition:

Ilikedtheideathatthebarsofthemusicwerecarryingthenotesasasortoffamily

throughthe piece. And theydo, because withoutbars, you'dhavemusicalchaos.

ButIwasthinking aboutthe ark, thevessel, inthe piece as theearth. The earth

wouldbea spaceship, ashipthatcarriesus-and severalotherspecies!-through


215

39 Adès’s1997work forlargeorchestraAsylahasalsobeendescribedasa symphonybynumerouscommentators(forexample GrifSiths2014, 7),notleastonaccountof itsfour-movement structure. However, the composerhimself has not invoked the label to theworkin soexplicitamanneraswithTevot; inthissense,Asylaisa symphonybyformalallusionratherthanbyovertdesign.

thechaosofspace insafety. Itsoundsabitcolossal,butit'stheideaoftheshipof

theworld.(Service2007)

It seems likely that – in writing a 20-minute, one-movement symphony – Adès

wouldhavebeenalltooawareoftheparallelsthatmightbedrawnwithSibelius’s

Seventh.Indeed,givenhisapparentwillingnesstodiscusshisviewsuponSibelius’s

music, it wouldbeunwiseto ruleout thepossibility that thesesurface allusions

maywellbedeliberate.Certainly,whenTomServiceintroducesAdès’sownmusic

into their discussionofSibelius, thecomposer is quick to invokebothTevot and

Polaris–ashorterorchestralcompositioncompletedin2010–inmuchthesame

comparativemannerashehas justspokenoftheSeventhSymphonyandTapiola

(AdèsandService2012,172–73).

Interestingly, though, he does seem to have intendedTevot to be imbued

withthekindofmusicalresolutionthathe?indsSibelius’ssymphonytobelacking.

Service’sattempttoassociateTevotwithAdès’s1997orchestralworkAsylaviathe

suggestion that the title of the more recentwork implies a ‘haven-like placeof

refuge–anasylum’drawsaparticularlyde?initiveresponsefromthecomposer:‘A

havensoundsasifoneishidingfromsomething,andIdon'tthinkthataboutTevot.

Inthispiece, it'smorelikea?inalresolution–areal resolution–ratherthanthat

oneisescapingfromsomething’. Indeed,Adèsisunafraidofemphasisingthegoal-

directed facets of the work, discussing it in terms of an abstract narrative: ‘I

thought of the piece as one huge journey, but in order to make that journey

truthful, to give it movement, there had to be many quite sudden and instant

changesoflandscape’(Service2007).

Tonalenergy

Attheendofagreatsymphonythereisthesensethatthemusichasgrownbythe

interpenetrativeactivityofallitsconstituentelements.Nothingiseverallowedtolapse into aimlessness, or the kind of inactivity thatneedsartiSicially reviving…

The great thing to keep constantly in mind is that no single element is ever

abandoned,ordeliberatelyexcluded,thatthecomposermustmasterthemalland

subordinatethemtothedemandsofthewhole.(Simpson1966b,10)


216

Althoughmade fourdecades beforeTevothadbeencompleted,Robert Simpson’s

observations regarding successful symphonies seem as relevant to the work of

Adèsas they do to thatofSibelius.Bothcomposers exerciseprecise controlover

thewayinwhichmaterialsarepresentedandstructured,exhibitingparticularskill

in their handling of musical energy. Whilst this energy management is related

principally to aspects of tempo and rhythm, it also extends beyond pulse-based

issuestoencompassmotivicandharmonicdevelopment.

Although Sibelius’s symphony – still rooted in post-romantic formal

principles – inevitably exhibits tonal governance in a comparatively cogent

manner,itisworthemphasisingthatTevotalsodisplaysaconsideredtreatmentof

sonority and its bearing upon large-scale structure. Adès sidesteps a more

traditionalhierarchical framework infavourofanever-shiftingharmonicgravity,

immediatelyestablishingthis dynamismwiththepassagedescribedat theoutset

of this chapter. This cellular ?igure – an open ?ifth followed by a falling minor

second– is in fact characteristic ofthe composer’s style, as outlinedbyDominic

Wells(2012,6–12).The‘5+2’progression,asWellsdubsit, surfacesasacommon

featureinanumberofworksinthecomposer’scatalogue.40However,whilstWells

points tomany of these instances in terms of their melodic effect, he highlights

three works in particular upon which the progressions have a more notably

harmonic bearing: The Tempest (2003–4), Violin Concerto (2005), and Tevot

(2007).Optingtodiscussonlythe?irsttwoofthesepieces,heoutlinesthewaysin

whichbothexhibit the clearestablishmentoftonickeys that are thensubverted

throughafallingminorsecond(Wells2012,11–13).

Tevot,bycomparison,displaysaheightenedsenseoftransience.Nosooner

has the?irstopen?ifthsoundedintheviolins, ?luteandpiccolothanafurther?ifth

is extendeddownwards. The ensuingsemitone fall in thesecondbar creates the

model for the parallel descending sequences that then emerge, new chains

entering at regularintervals. Adès’spropensity to utiliseopen?ifthsasacatalyst


217

40 Wellsmakesreferencetovariedappearancesof the ‘5+2’ Sigure inArcadiana(1994),Asyla(1997),TheFayrfaxCarol(1997),ThesePremisesareAlarmed(1998), JanuaryWrit(1999), and America: A Prophecy (1999), as well as in The Tempest (2003–4), ViolinConcerto(2005),andTevot(2007).

for both harmonic and melodic content has been frequently noted.41 However,

here this approach is extended yet further, with these descending chains of

oscillating determining both subject and tonality. The ‘5+2’ progression is

embedded as a stratospheric sequence, with interrelated streams of ?ifths now

cascading downwards in apparent perpetual motion, its passage continually

renewedintheupperreachesofeachinstrument(seethewoodwindreductionsin

Figure10.2foranexampleoftheorchestrationaldetail, andthetreblecleflinein

Figure 10.3 foranharmonic reductionof this sequence). JohnRoedernotes the

multidimensional effect of a comparable ?igure in a bass oboe passage in the

secondmovementofAsyla,observingthewayinwhichonelinemelodicsequences

ofdescendingsemitonesseparatedbylargerintervalshelpstogivetheimpression

ofseparatescalesoccurringindifferentregistralbands(2006,126–27).Whilethe

proliferationofthis ideathroughoutmultiple instrumentsattheopeningofTevot

certainly heightens this kind oftemporalmultiplicity, his largerpoint– that this

kindofwritinghelpstoestablishcontinuity–stillstandshere.However, thistype

of polyphonic constructionavoids the completion of the transformational pitch-

change cycles thatoccur inmuchofAdès’smusic, asourceofclosure forRoeder

(2006,127).

Thegenerallackofemphasisuponthebeginningorendofthesecycleshas

aharmonic bearing. Insteadofanyhierarchybeingestablishedandsubsequently

uprooted,the‘tonality’oftheworkmovesbyallusion,withpassingnodstovarious

sonoritieshintingat atonalcentreinconstantmotion:amercurialpointofaural

reference.Theeffectisalsorhythmic:theonlyjudgeofsmall-scalepulsebeingthe

triplet quaver-semiquaver oscillations of the violins, whilst on a larger scale

listeners are encouraged to gauge the passing of time by the gradual semitone

descents. Comparisonsmightbedrawnherewith thecomposer’s Piano Quintet

(2000)inwhichPhilipStoeckeridenti?iescyclicstructuresthataresuperimposed,

juxtaposed and extended to such a degree that ‘the underlying cyclic source is

essentiallyunrecognisable’(2014,59).

Theintroductionofacontrasting?igureinthelowerwindandstringsfrom

thefourthbaroffersanaudiblefoothold,providingatemporalmarkerbeyondthe


218

41Forexamples,seeBarkin2009,168;Fox2014,47;Roeder2006,146&151;Venn2006,108–9;Whittall2003,22.

perpetual harmonic descent as it develops through the opening minutes of the

work (see the bass clef line in Figure 10.3 for an harmonic reduction of this

subject).Theblock-likehomophonicgesturecreatesatonaljuxtaposition,sporadic

successions of three-part chordchanges inciting anindependent rate ofmotion,

but one seemingly united more broadly with the free-?loating tonality. Indeed,

whilst these harmonic shifts remainconsonant in isolation– largely comprising

interrelatedmajor triads with one additional note – the harmonic clashes that

emerge with the descending ?ifths material create a cluster-chord effect.

Nevertheless, a small thematic contrast is notable, with upper lines in the

modulationsoftentracingsubtlebutunmistakablestepwiseascents.

Thisopeningpassageprovescellularinanumberofsenses.Principally,itis

through the interaction between these two parallel ideas that the sense of

perpetualmotionthatpervadestherestoftheworkisestablished.Inconjunction,

the gestures present three different kinds of tension: between harmonic clarity

and ambiguity, between ascent and descent in pitch, and between a content-

generatedneedtosustaintonalmobilityandanevidentinherentdesiretoresolve.

The form of the piece is devoted to settling these frictions. The only additional

featureofnoteisabriefhornmotif:amajesticupwardleapofaminorsevenththat

occurs in bar 21. In spite of its simplicity, it remains strikingly prominent,

occurringnotonlywithinaspacebetweenthechordal ?iguresbutconstitutingthe


219

Fig.10.3:Tevot,reductionofharmonicchangesthataccumulatewithineachbar(bars1–13)

onlynoticeablywideintervallic jumpwithinthecontextofanintricateorchestral

texturecharacterisedbystepwisemovements.

ThecellularfunctionoftheopeningtoSibelius’ssymphony,meanwhile,has

beennotedbyseveralcommentators.Theinitialwhite-notescaleinthestringshas

beendescribedintermsofavarietyofharmonicfunctions,predominantlyasbeing

intheC-majortonic(Howell 1989,87), inGmajorasadominanttothattonicon

accountoftheinitialG♮ timpaniroll(Howell1989,87,andMurtomäki1993,261),

andinAminoronaccountofthecellonotethatfollowsit(Pike1978,204).These

readings not only serve to underline a degree of tonal uncertainty at this early

stage, but each also grants the ensuing A♭ minor chord a notably subversivepresence.However,ascompellingastheseperspectivesremainwithregardtothe

long-term unfolding of the symphony, they inevitably require a degree of

familiarityonthepartofanaudience.Withouttheability to identify thenotesof

the scale by ear, or prior understanding of the sequence ofmusical events, the

symphonymayemergefora ?irst-time listener in anunsettlinglyvaguemanner,

notesascendingstepbystepwithlittleindicationoftherolestheymayassumein

anykindofbroadertonalscheme.

Withoutdoubt, theA♭minorchordsitsatoddswithwhathasprecededit,but arguablymore by its novelty (its ?irstand?ifthdegrees areabsent from the

preceding material) thanby a particular tonal jarring within the context of any

establishedkey.TheTristan-esquechromaticslipsthatoccurinitswakeunderline

further the notion that no clear tonal centre has thus far been cemented; the

overridingsensationmightwell beoneofsearching, thegraduallyshiftingchord-

shapes throughout the passage lending it an almost improvisatory quality. The

harmonictensionpresenthereisindeedpalpable,butnotyetinawaythatmight

makebroaderstructural sense. Thelong-range tonalpotentialofthesesonorities

remainsaurallyveiledforthetimebeingasfarasanaudiencemightbeconcerned.

Giventhis initial ambiguity, the passages that ensue– usually lying beneaththe

umbrellalabelofan‘introduction’–assumeacrucialrole,servingnotjusttoaf?irm

Cmajor as a key of central importance but to establish it in the wake of such

uncertainty.

Althoughclearallusionsto this tonicemerge throughthe leaningsofboth

melodies and pedal points from the seventh bar onwards, the sequential


220

repetitionsthatensuemaintainnodstowardsmoredissonantroutes.A♭continuesto featureprominently,althoughis frequentlyaudiblynormalisedwithinFminor

?igures. Indeed, it is through this process of harmonic familiarization and

assimilationthatthedominantisreassertedinbar21, preparingtheway forthe

richly polyphonic string passage that follows in which C major is repeatedly

underlinedwithincreasingemphasis.Thereassertionthatbeginsatbar50incites

a full convergence, the entire ensemble uniting on an unmistakable perfect

cadenceinbars59–60,thearpeggiatedtrombonetheme–itselfseeminglyderived

with inaudible subtlety from the second violin line from bars 35–43, as John

Gardnerhaspointedout(1977,912)–cappingthe?irstsigni?icantpointofarrival

in the work. Howell points to the accumulative process of this introductory

passage in support of his broader notion of the ‘continuous development

technique’thatpervadesboththe thematicand thetonal courseofthework; for

him,theopeningsegmentactsasaminiaturisedre?lectionofthisprinciplethrough

its ‘initial denialof,buteventualpreparationfor, theestablishmentofCmajorby

reinterpretation of the same elements which interrupted that goal in order to

con?irm it’(1989, 87). Inthis sense, it comes as no surprisethat it is viathe re-

emergence of A♭s andE♭s that the climax is eventually curtailed, the ensemblejoltedinto anF-minordiversion frombar71. As the ensembledeparts from the

stability it has so elaborately established, it becomes clear that an audible

balancingacthasbeensetinmotion.

Temporalmultiplicity:Sibelius

Thehandlingofrhythmicenergythroughoutbothworksamountstofarmorethan

justalinear-mindedebband?low.Rather,instilledcontinuitieshelptocreatemore

complex perceptual structures, granting listeners the impressionofa pluralistic

temporalexperience.Sibeliusdoes notgoso faras tosupport thetempochanges

outlined in theSeventhSymphonywithmetronomemarkings;Parmet relays the

composer’sgeneralaversiontoemployingthem,drawingparallelswithBeethoven

in his assertion that tempi are best intuited rather than prescribed (1959, 4).

However, even without such speci?icity, the symphony emerges as an equally


221

complex construction, with its many speed changes deployed in what on the

surfacemightnotappeartobeanovertlysystematicmanner(seeFigure10.4).42


222

42 Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (London SymphonyOrchestra,conductedbySirColinDavis.LSOLive:LSO0552).

Fig.10.4:SymphonyNo.7,tabledisplayingtempochangesanddurations

Speedtype Tempo(Timesignature) Bars Duration

Slow Adagio(3/2) 1–92 0’00–7’58

Transitional

Unpochettmenoadagio 93–100 7’58–8’20

TransitionalPocoaffret. 101–128 8’20–9’37

Transitional PocoapocoaffrettandoilTempoal 129–133 9’37–9’47Transitional

Formerw =new w. (6/4) 134–155 9’47–10’15

Fast Vivacissimo 156–212 10’15–11’09

TransitionalRallentandoal...

Formerw =new e. (3/2)atbar220213–221 11’09–11’24

Slow Adagio 222–236 11’24–12’23

Transitional Pocoapocomenolentoal... 237–241 12’23–12’35

ModerateFormerw =new w. (6/4) 242–257 12’35–12’59

ModerateAllegromoltomoderato(withfermataatbar255)

258–282 12’59–13’51

Transitional Unpochett.Affrettando 283–284 13’51–13’54

Moderate Allegromoderato 285–289 13’54–14’02

Transitional Pocoapocomenomoderato 290–408 14’02–16’49

FastVivace 409–448 16’49–17’24

FastPresto 449–463 17’24–17’35

Transitional Pocoapocorallentandoal... 464–475 17’35–17’49

Slow

Adagio(3/2) 476–495 17’49–19’10

SlowLargamentemolto 496–505 19’10–20’10

SlowAffetuoso 506–521 20’10–21’47

Slow

TempoI 522–525 21’47–22’17

Aninitialfootholdmightbegainedbyidentifyingrecurrences.Mostnotable

arethe threeAdagiopassages thatbookendand intersect thestructure. Thetwo

stretchesthatliebetweencomprisenoticeablymorechangeable,fastermusic,with

littleinthewayobviousrecurrence.However, thesevariedspeedsmayinturnbe

sorted into two broader categories: fast music (including Vivacissimo, Vivace,

Presto) and moderate, transitory music (the gradual acceleration to the ?irst

Vivacissimo, theAllegromoltomoderatoand theAllegromoderato). Inrelationto

themusical content theypresent, these three tempo groupings– slow,moderate

andfast–serveagreaterpurposethansimplyoutliningdifferentspeedsatwhich

themusicmoves.Theyrepresentthreeparalleltemporalthreads, ongoingstrands

of development, eachacting in independent but ultimately interconnectedways.

The paradoxical simultaneity of both slow and fast music is enhanced by the

middle-groundtransitionsthat,inbridgingthetwoextremes,alsoofferglimpsesof

the way in which they interlock. The rallentando (bars 213–22) passage that

connects theVivacissimowiththeensuingAdagio,doesmorethansimplyjointhe

dots; thecarefully staggeredmetrical shiftsof thechromatic scales inthestrings

heightenthecontinuityoftheformalchange,drawingattentiontothepotentialfor

long (‘slow’)phrasestructures infastmusic, andto the presenceofrapid, scalic,

harmonically unstable gestures within more tonally secure, metrically slower

content.Thispresenceofthefastwithintheslow–andviceversa–isreinforced

bythefactthatwhat isthennotatedasanaccelerationtoAllegromoltomoderato

(frombars237–57)mighteasilyinfactbeheardasaspeedchangeintheopposite

direction.Inasimilarway, thelater jumptoPresto(bar449)isinfactmadeasa

meansbywhichtoreachthesubsequentAdagioratherthanasanendinitself,the

propulsive string sequences providing a candid, moment-by-moment

demonstrationof thewaythesamematerial canfunctionwithin‘slow’and ‘fast’

contexts.Viewingtheworkintermsofthesecontrastingyetcooperatingtemporal

levelsmay offer a reading that supports the seamless mercurial but nonetheless

logicalaural impressiontheSeventhSymphony leaveswithaudiences. Itsmusical

energy isdirectednotinonedirectionbutinthree, creatingadynamicmultilevel

structure. Tempo changes require less in the way of departure and arrival but

rather an aural readjustment; focus can fall on fast-moving detail, or a slower-

movingbiggerpicture,oritcantransitionbackandforthbetweenthetwo.


223

Thethree passages of‘slow’music that punctuatethe SeventhSymphony

havebeenfrequentlyshownnotonlytoframethearchitectureoftheworkbutalso

toimbueitwithstability.ForWhittall,itisthecontrastthattheseepisodesprovide

inwhichthe‘strengthandoriginality’ofthepiececanbefound;hewritesofthem

as‘themostexplicitthematicandtonalpillarsoftheuni?ieddesign’,describingthe

‘imbalance and instability’ that emerges in the surrounding music (2004, 63).

Certainlythesesections exhibitacleardegreeofconsistencywiththeirrecurring

trombonetheme(seeFigure10.5)acting–viaanotablystablearpeggiatedshape–

as an aural af?irmation of the key of C: the major mode in the bookending

segments,theminormodeinthecentralone.

Pike draws a further parallel with Beethoven in the apparent

acknowledgement of both composers that themes invariably prove more

memorable thantonalities (1978, 209). However, itwouldcertainly seem inthe

caseof theSeventhSymphonythat Sibelius is intent onutilisingboth.Periodsof

transience–bothintermsofpulseandtonality–aredominatedbyscalicmelodic

activity;thelinear,seeminglygoal-directednatureofsuch?iguresdirectlyconveys

motion and provides an accumulation – and, at points, an over-saturation – of

harmonicmaterial that contributes to anoverriding loss ofstability. Meanwhile,

the three passages that oversee an arrival at the C♮ sonority, and provide

assurances of its tonal signi?icance, are prominently capped by the trombone

theme;itsharmonically?irm,arpeggiatedshapenotonlyreinforcesthesecurityof

the ?irst C-major episode, but proves an important factor in instilling stability

thereafter.Atthesepointsinthesymphony,subjectandsonorityacteffectivelyas

aunit, alerting listeners to anunmistakable recurrenceofmotivic andharmonic

content. Thesestatic aspects certainly lendawider senseofstability to theaural

experience. Tonallyspeaking, theyoffercredence to thenotionoftheworkbeing


224

Fig.10.5:SymphonyNo.7,trombonetheme,bars60–70

‘inC’,orperhapsratheronit,withthesonorityaf?irmedthroughclearlydelineated

perfectcadencesinthecourseofeachAdagiopassage.

However, even taking these passages in isolation, an imageofsuchstasis

doesnot paint thefull picture. Thereis aparadox at play here.Threeostensibly

staticformalsegmentsperformthesamestabilisingfunction,yetdosoinamanner

that betrays a kind of musical development; they are not only affected by the

harmonic shifts that take place in the interceding episodes but incite the tonal

unrest thatprompts them. Althoughthey present essentially the same sonority,

thesepassagesarealso indicativeof, andindeedreceptiveto, change–amusical

reminderthatrecurrencecannotcircumventanawarenessofthepassageoftime.

Inthis light, the formof theSeventhSymphonyseems to evidenceacollisionof

whatHowelloutlinesasadistinctionbetweentwoattitudestowardstemporality:

functional, onward-leaning repetitionand retrospective,melancholic recollection

(2013,103–104).WhenSibelius’semphaticattemptstorevisitthepastdirectlyfall

victim(viaaudibleharmonicchanges)tothelinear-mindednarrative, theresult is

aratherspecialhybridofrepetitionandrecollection.Whilstadesiretoreturnto

theaf?irmationandsecurity oftheopening cadencepointbecomesapparent, the

inevitable variations that in?iltrate the recurrences facilitate an onward,

developmental function; the audible denial of a full return lends thepassages a

simultaneousairofreminiscence.Atsuchmoments, thesymphonymightbe said

topossess ‘times’that,inspiteoftheiruni?iednarrativedirection,couldbeheard

as‘facing’inoppositedirections.

Temporalmultiplicity:Adès

ConsideringTevotpurelyintermsofthemetronomemarksspeci?iedinthescore,

itseemstofall intotwoapproximatehalves:the?irstcharacterisedbychange,the

second by consistency. Reconciling this with an aural impression – and by

extensionequatingthesetempochangeswiththerecordedclock timingsatwhich

they occur – three structural segments in fact emerge: an initial longer period

punctuatedbyregular?luctuationsinpulse(bars1–256)eventuallygiveswaytoa

shorter but nonetheless more spacious passage that, by contrast, stays at one


225

notablyslowerspeed(bars257–285);thisstabilityseemsto precipitatethe ?inal,

andindeedthelongeststructuralstagewhichreturnstoand(savefor threebrief

pull-ups)maintainsasinglepulse,withthenotatedmotiondoubledatthecloseof

theworkfrombar399(seeFigure10.6).43

On the face of it, this reading would appear to indicate three radically

different passages of music. However, one feature would seem to hint at an

underlyingcontinuity:apulseof80bpm–oritsdoubledexpressionof160bpm–

recursfrequentlythroughthecourseofthepiece,apointofconstancyinthemidst


226

43 Durations taken from recording listed in primary resource list (BerlinerPhilharmoniker,conductedbySirSimonRattle.EMIClassics:4578132)

Bars Pulse Statedtempointerrelation Duration1–52 r=c.80 Conmoto 0’00–3’58

53–91 e=c.80 formerr=newe 3’58–5’12

92–101 e=120 formerep =newe 5’12–5’25

102–111 e=108 – 5’25–5’36

112–125 e=92 – 5’36–5’53

126–141 e=80 – 5’53–6’15

142–184 e=160 formerr=newe 6’15–7’20

185–213 w=120 formerw. =neww 7’20–8’00

214–222 e=80 formere=newr(Tempoof‘F’,bar53) 8’00–8’15

223–250 e=c.108 formerr=newep 8’15–8’49

251–256 e=c.160 formerep=newe(Tempoof‘L’,bar142) 8’49–9’02

257–284 r=c.52 – 9’02–12’01

285–286 Calandomoltoerit… – 12’01–12’08

286–300 r=c.80 TempoI:previousrp =newr 12’08–13’26

300–302 Rit. – 13’26–13’39

302–390 r=80 Atempo,serenomaconmoto 13’39–19’23

391–392 Pocopiulargamente – 19’23–19’37

393–398 e=c.80 – 19’37–19’54

399–440 e=160 Doppiomovimento:formerr=newe 19’54–21’31

441–444 MoltorallentandoalUine – 21’31–22’05

Fig.10.6:Tevot,tabledetailingtempochangesinscoreandperformancedurations

of change (appearances highlightedbybold type inthe ‘Pulse’ columnofFigure

10.6). By equating the three occurrences of the 160bpm marking to its halved

speeddemarcation,itispossibletoviewTevotaspossessingasingle,centralpulse,

acore‘time’thatactsasapointofauralreferencefromwhichdeparturesmaybe

made.

Growing unrest in the opening passage seemingly prompts the ?irst

departures from this central pulse. The perceived regularity of the established

onward tonal ?lux and the steady interaction between contrasting ideas proves

short-lived; frombar24onwards, a gradual butnonetheless palpableprocessof

divergencebegins to occurassubtleadditions to the orchestral texturebeginto

convolute the audible division between different gestures. The chordal

progressionsnotonlystarttobecomemorefrequentbuteventuallybegintolose

theirrhythmicunityand,byextension,theirharmoniccoherence;theseseparating

strands ofsustainedmaterial servetomuddytheharmonicwatersfurtherasthe

descending?ifthspatternscontinue, chromaticin?lectionsnowcreepingintotheir

trajectory. This ramping up of tonal tension is supported not only by an

increasingly cluttered texture but also by a gradual ensemble crescendo that

culminates in a moment of release at bar 53, most of the amassed orchestra

suddenly dropping away to reveal an abrupt change in metre, content and

structure.Skitteringwoodwindburst intoanongoingdialogueofangularstaccato

triplet-quavers,pitchedpercussioncontributingglitteringpunctuations.

In spite of the surface change from bar 53, an underlying continuity is

perceivable;althoughits trajectoryisnowfragmented, abroaderdescentof?ifths

andminor seconds – and the mobile tonal centre that accompanies it – is still

audible, even if the inclusion of new intermediary notes (thirds in particular)

rendersitlessdirect(seeClarinet,bars53–54inFigure10.9).Thistransformation

proves to beablueprint ofsorts for theway inwhich the ?irst half of thework

proceeds, withmotivic changes precipitating audible structural changes whilst

maintainingasenseofinterrelationbyunderliningorreframingdifferentfacetsof

the materials with which the work began: a kind of varied repetition. The

simplicityoftheshapesAdèsemploysproveespeciallyfunctionalinthisway,with

differentmotivic fragmentations andexpansions preserving asenseof cohesion,


227

eveniftracingthespeci?icoriginsandprocessesinvolvedinthesechangesproves

trickyinthecourseoflistening.

The two intervals that underpin the opening are adapted to produce

material that performs different structural functions. The distinctive open ?ifth

relationships are utilised to create notably dynamic passages (see Figure 10.7),

beingattimes, invertedandaugmented(frombar65)andaccentuatedinangular

motifs (frombar92).Meanwhile, thepotential for tonal frictioncontainedwithin

the minor second relationship is audibly exploited as a way of ramping up

structural tension. The ?irst noticeablederivationemerges as a sliding chromatic

?igure that develops through the strings (bars 72–91), its perpetual stepwise

descentarecognisablenodtothesequentialscoringoftheopening,withsemitone

patterns nowenhanced throughamoregradual, stepwise falling gesture. As the

?igurespreadsthroughouttheorchestra, itsdissonantcollectivepresenceservesto

muddythetonalwaters,precipitatingmotivicandstructuralchangesfrombar92.

However, the subject continues to plague the music, reappearing in violent

glimpses(bars101–102andbars111–12)beforereturninginagrowinglyfrantic

uni?ied version from bar 119; its chromatic effect upon the tonal direction

necessitates a steadying structural change from bar 142, the trumpet solos (see


228

Fig.10.7:Tevot,examplesofmotivicdevelopmentsincorporatingormanipulatingopen-Uifthrelationships(cello,bars65–68,andviolin1,bars92–99)

Fig.10.8:Tevot,trumpetmelody,bars142–44

Figure10.8)underpinnedbyascendingpedals (B♮ –C♯ –D♮ –E♭ –E♮).A slowerpacedbutmore rhythmicallyangular reinvention ofthe themetakes holdinthe

oboesfrombar175,snowballingthroughthefullorchestra;iteventuallygivesway

toarecommencementofitsearlierslidingincarnation(frombar214),thoroughly

saturatingbothtonalandtexturalpalates.

Oneformal impression, here, mightbea set of variationsonthe opening

passage, withthesimplicityofthematerial allowing listeners to takefor granted

itsbroaderunityandto focusmoreoveruponitsgesturalcontent,withlong-term

dialoguesemergingbetweenascending anddescendingtrajectoriesandbetween

wideandnarrowintervals.However,thedynamicnatureofthisvariation-ledform

becomesclearintheoverlapping,andoftenoutrightsimultaneous,presentationof

itsdevelopments.Thisintricatereappraisalofmotifstakestheformofdivergences

andconvergences, withnew ideas emerging anddeveloping inparallel with one

another. Within a very short space of time of the skittering woodwind and

percussion ?igure (from bar 53), it is placed in counterpoint ?irst with the

metricallyjarringinversionandaugmentationof?ifthsfrombar65(aboldclashof

descendingandascendinggestures),andsubsequentlywiththeslidingchromatic

shapes,whichgraduallytakeprecedentfrombar72(seeFigure10.9).

Thesequenceoflargelyinterrelatedtempochangesthattakesplaceacross

the?irsthalfofTevot,whilstindicativeofanintricateformalcontinuity,onlypaints

apictureofblock-like,verticallyimplementedchange.Passagesofcounterpoint,as

above, point to further levels of development, transformations taking place in

parallel rather thanindirectsuccession. Indeed, therhythmic varietyonoffer in

such episodes adds complexity to the interpretation of pulse demarcation.


229

Fig.10.9:Tevot,counterpointmotifsutilisedinbars53–91

Although the tempo itself may make frequent returns to reference points

(principallythatof80bpmoritsdouble,160bpm)themetricalemphasiscontained

withinthis framework isregularly shiftingby virtueof thematerial deployed.So

characteristicdothesechangesbecomethatwithoutthevisualcueofthescoreor

aconductor, determiningwhichgestures accordwith thebroadertimesignature

andwhich?loutitprovesaparticularlydif?icult, ifnotaseeminglyirrelevant,task;

theoverridingexperienceamountstosomethingmuchmore?luidandmercurial.

Adès’s inclinationto employdifferent temporal levels inhismusichasnot

goneunnoticed.ChristopherFoxhasproducedadetailedexaminationofmultiple

time-scalesinthe?irstmovementofhisViolinConcerto,highlightingshiftsinsmall-

scale (varying speed of semitone drops) and large-scale (differing instrumental

‘orbits’) recurrences (2014, 28–56). Paul Roeder, meanwhile, frames such

compositionaltechniqueswithinthecontextofJonathanKramer’sobservationson

themultiplicityofpostmodernmusic. Surveying aquintet ofpiecescomposed in

the 1990s, he concludes that while this music could indeed be deemed

postmodern, such descriptions prove insuf?icient in accounting for its sheer

temporalvariety,pointingtotheparadoxicalmanner inwhicha ‘narrative, linear

interpretationmayemergequitereadilyfromthehigher-levelperceptionoflocally

variousconcurrentperiodicitiesandtrends’(Roeder2006,149).AlthoughRoeder

pointstoArcadiana–withitsintricatewebofallusions,referencesandquotations

– as themostobvious exponent ofthese characteristics, heasserts thatthey are

nonetheless facilitatedthroughfundamentalmusicalmeans,aboveallatreatment

ofrhythm.

Tevot certainly exhibits aspects of what Roeder terms ‘multiply-paced

polyphony’(2006, 149), withparticularthematic ideas departingfrom viewonly

toreappearinnewguises,oftenwithchangingrhythmicpropertiesallowingeither

a cohesive or pointedly jarring counterpoint with parallel ?igures. Consider the

variedappearances ofthesliding chromaticdescent ?igurediscussedearlier(see

Figure 10.9), with its changing shape not only demonstrating a particularly

malleable approach to motivic development but also expanding musical scope

withoutsacri?icingcontinuity.Thisoverlappingtechniquecallstomindtheparallel

temporalstreamsofSibelius’sSeventhSymphony,thestarkjuxtapositionof–and


230

interaction between – different materials, metres and tempi engendering an

audiblemultiplicity.

Nevertheless, in spite ofthese apparent divisions, a clear linear narrative

remainsinbothworks.Theinterrelatednatureofthematerialslendsthemusical

discourseanunmistakablesingularity,disparateratesofmotionultimatelyunited

in their direction, mobile tonal centres urging all textural components restlessly

onwards.Beyondthis,themusicseemstoexhibitanobviouswillforitsseparated

elementstoconverge,withanumberofepisodesnotonlyseekingtocombineclose

and wide pitch intervals but also attempting, unsuccessfully, to reconcile the

orchestrainmoreuni?iedtextures.Themostprominentoftheseattemptsseesthe

entire ensemble save the horns unite on a disjointed, dissonant triplet-crotchet

?igure, descending semitonepatterns fragmentedby unpredictable leaps inpitch

andirregularrhythmicbreaks(bars223–250).Whenthehornsenter,itisonlyto

compoundthevolatiledistortions ofthis ?igure, their fanfare-like countermelody

characterisedbytriadic shapesdescendingbysemitonesteps.Tryas itmight,the

violentpassage fails to forceanykindofresolutionand, shortly afterithasbeen

curtailed by a reprisal of the arching, legato trumpet ?igure (bars 251–256), an

abruptdrop intempoprecipitates anunprecedentedstructuralchange(frombar

257).Withrhythmicmomentumvastlydepleted,metricalde?initionisnow lostin

a sighing ebb and ?low of dissonant clusters, throbbing punctuations, semitone

ascents and descents still perceivable in the middle registers; the energy so

relentlessly accumulated throughout the ?irst ten minutes of the work has

dissipated,withlittleinthewayofresolutionachieved.

Disruption

AswithTevot, itisthetensioninherent inthe?igures thatopenSibelius’sSeventh

Symphony that incites structural change. The composer’s management of

harmonic con?lict and competition emerges as a particularly potent tool for

addressingissuesoflong-termresolution.Toaccordtonalchangewiththeearlier

mapping of three different temporal levels, a clear correlation emerges, with

swifter, lesspredictablemodulationstakingplaceinthecourseofthefastermusic.


231

Indeed, the ?irst tempo shifts are seemingly precipitated by an increase in

harmonic activity: a build in musical energy is created by the content itself,

sequential motivic exchanges across the orchestra inciting greater tonal motion

withpulse following suit(bars71–105). As thesteadinessengenderedbythe C-

major cadencebegins to fade, tonality becomesmoretransient, withavarietyof

newharmoniesandpulsesexplored.Inthecourseofthisgradualaccelerando,that

tonal instability is maintained through allusions to different harmonic realms.

Listeners are leftwitha searching sensationas new sonorities –oronesat least

audiblyremovedfromtherecentclimax–areexploredwithincreasingspeed.

Nevertheless, anetwork ofreferences to theinitial disparitybetweenthe

tonic and its A♭ subversion serves to keep these new occurrences within thecontext of the pre-existing tensions. In addition to the extensive melodic

explorationofscalicpatterns alluding to thewhite-noteascentoftheopening, a

morespeci?ic reference to thetonicappears inthehornsat bars107–108witha

brief recalling of the trombone theme from the ?irst grand cadence. This latter

occurrencealso actsas the?irst notablepointofarrivalwithinthecourseof this

transitorypassage,afullcrescendoatopanE♮pedal(bars104–105inthetimpani

anddoublebasses)culminatinginanincisivecontrarymotionscaleinthestrings.

Thescaleplateaus into amiddle-registerdissonancecharacterisedbywhole-tone

relationships(F♯,B♭andD♮)thatis inturntransformedthroughatonicemphasisin thebass into aC-majorresonance,withaddedsecondsand ?lattenedsevenths

hinting at the juxtaposition of a G-minor triad; the resulting clash allows an

alternative view, G-minor with an added sixth producing a Tristan-esque

resonance(seeFigure10.10).

A♭ provesan importantpivot point in the increasinglyscherzo-likemusicthatensues,withadescendingbassmanoeuvrefrombars115–18concludingwith

twopointedA♭ majorchordsthatarethenenharmonicallytransformed,withthe


232

Fig.10.10:SymphonyNo.7,reductionofstringsandhorns,bars106–8

resultingG♯shelpingtoprepareforthetransienceoftheforthcomingVivacissimo

(frombar156).Althoughthekeychangetothree?latsatbar134provesindicative

of the eventual direction of the music with regard to the forthcoming C-minor

Adagio, itbearsmoreimmediaterelevancetotheon-goingexplorationsofE♭, forHowell ‘the only unequivocally and conventionally established secondary

key’(1989,106).Inanycase,atthetimeofitsimplementationthisnotatedchange

haslittleimpactonauralproceedingswiththestring?iguresintheapproachtothe

Vivacissimoseeminglyhintingatanumberoftonalcentres,E♮andC♯ emergingas

temporarycontenders.Fromhereon,thereislittleletupintonalmotionuntilthe

arrival at G-major inbar 208; the unison chromatic gestures that follow in the

stringsallowitspresencetobeprolonged,cementingitsstatusasthedominantto

theminorratherthanthemajormodeofthetonicforatransformedreturnofthe

cadencematerial.

This alteration of the tonic mode for the central Adagio prompts a

reconsideration.The?irstgrandC-majorcadencehasindeedprovedtobetheonly

point of true stability in the whole work, one that not only required extensive

af?irmation to be truly established but that then swiftly faded from view. The

gradual increase in tempo that followed has been matched by a loss in tonal

stability;ratherthananykindofconventional alternativekeyhavingbeenfound,

insecurity has takenhold,with?luctuations inenergynowsupplantingarelative

stasis.Pike’s interpretationofthesymphonyascomprisingtwo tonalaxes–C♮,G♮

andD♮ontheonehand,A♭,E♭ andB♭ ontheother–seemsparticularlyaptinthislight(1978,210–11).Ratherthanamoretraditionalhierarchicalapproachtothe

tonal centres of the symphony, Sibelius establishes a careful balance between a

number of keys, setting in motion what more often appears to be a kind of

harmonic pendulum effect, coexistence more often chosen in favour of direct

con?lict. As disruptive as the presence of A♭ may frequently appear to be, itprecipitatesthestructuralinstabilitythattheotherwiselargelystaticC-majortonic

requires for the work to play out, allowing its repeated reaf?irmations to

demarcatethebroaderarchitecture.


233

Attainingequilibrium

Althoughitcanseemeasiertoassignspeci?ictonalaxestotheformalsegmentsof

the Seventh Symphony, the aural reality is that both are often present

simultaneouslytovaryingextents,hintingatakindofequilibrium.Indeed,muchof

the success of the single-span form depends on this, continuity of structure

ensuredthroughthethoroughintegrationofcontrastingideas.Theappearancesof

A♭ in the opening passages may be read as subversions but really they set inmotion a tonal balancing act, introducing the very uncertainty that requires

repeatedaf?irmationsofanarchitecturallyfunctionaltonic; asdisruptiveasthese

features ?irst seem, they are revealed to perform a very different functionover

time.JustasC-majorresonancesarethenabletomaintainapresenceinthecourse

of the faster transitions (at bar 107, for example), the in?luence of the many

modulations within the realms of A♭ and E♭ necessitates the minor-modeconversionof thetonic for thecentral cadence. This alsohelps toemphasisethe

continuingremnantsoffastermusic–abovealltheunderpinningchromatic-scales

in thestrings – thatliebeneaththesurfaceoftheslowerchorale-likematerial in

thewindandbrass.

Theconsequences of this balance ofsonorities can beheard inthe faster

musicthatensuesinthewakeofthecentralAdagiocadencepassage, inwhichthe

earlier tonal transience is redeployed with notably less aural disorientation, a

moredirectinterplaybetweenstableandunstableaxesbecomingmoreobvious.A

brief but audible jolt to E major in bar 242 paves the way for a further

miniaturisationofthetonalplanatlarge:twosuccessiveapproachestothetonicin

itsmajormode.The?irstprovesunsuccessful,divertedthroughdownwardminor-

keychromatic shifts to C♯ minorandCminor (bars252–57);thesecondismore

fruitful,withunaccompaniedsequentialrepetitionsascendingquicklythroughG,A

andB♭(bars258–60).However, ratherthanatriumphantreturnto thetonic,thearrival at Cmajor (from bar 261) seems to trigger abriefhesitationin onward

momentum,anotatedpausehighlightingatonicpedaloverlaidbyaD-minortriad

(bar265).Themelodies thatensueseemto continuethisharmonic juxtaposition,

withthemelodicexchangesthatfollowseeminglyoutliningD-minorshapeswhilst


234

exhibitinga clear audible gravitationtowards the tonic, withdominant leanings

soonfollowing(bars266–274).

Capitalising upon this uncertainty, the contrasting tonal axis continues to

shape the unfolding form: abrief lurchto A♭ (bar309)precipitates anA-minordiversion, with the passage eventually curtailed by a descending A♭-majorarpeggio(bars320–21).Thischangeintonaldirectionpromptsalapseinenergy:

a series of downwardmodulations eventually brings the ensemble to a point of

rest, dissonant string dialogues giving the impression of a loss of rhythmic and

harmonic direction (bars 334–336). However, a solitary dominant pedal in the

hornsseems toofferareminderofthemorestableaxis(bar337); thedissonant

string sequence is reinitiated, the violas intercede with the arpeggiatedmelody

that?irstmarkedthearrivalatAllegromoderato(frombar285),andbothrhythmic

momentumandtonalstabilityarerestored.

Fromhereon, thetwotonalaxes seemtoachieveamoreobvious stateof

equilibrium. Although a clear relationship between speed of tempo and rate of

tonal changeis still evident, potential interruptions anddiversions –suchas the

prominent A♭ timpani punctuations (bars 346–48), and the two chromaticallyin?lected passages that engineermodulations to B♭ and E♭ (bars 359–362 and370–374,respectively)–dolittletodisruptthe?lowandindeedtheupbeatnature

of thematerial. Indeed, once thestuttering comma-led jumpto Vivace hasbeen

navigated, even the winding harmonic shifts that eventually lead back to the

dominantfortheonsetoftheAdagiobywayofthePresto(frombar449)seemfar

less startling, with such manoeuvres having been somewhat normalised by the

comparableproceduresthatpreparedthe?irstAdagio.

Sibelius’s implementation of contrasting tonal axes offers a further

separationoftherolesthatthesedifferentspeedscontributetothedevelopmentof

the tonal plan. In essence, all three energy levels grant different temporal

perspectivesuponthetonic,approachingthesonorityofC♮ bydifferentmeansand

thus at different speeds. The three Adagio segments in essence offer three

extendedperfectcadences,C–inbothitsmajorandminormodes–assertedand

reasserted in audible ‘slow-motion’ but rarely without small tonal disruptions,

principally through ?igures incorporating A♭. The moderate, transitory formalsegments seem to offer more unsteady attempts to maintain this tonic, with


235

passingharmoniccentrespromptedbyearlierdisruptions(principallyA♭,E♭ andB♭). However, thesenew paths are not simply periods of instability, but rathernecessary sojourns designed to strengthen the tonic resolve. Both ensuing fast

sections act as extendedpreludes to theAdagio passages that follow, continuing

theexplorationofmoredistantharmonicareaswiththeultimategoalofanarrival

atthedominant,offeringadirectroutebacktothetonic. It is inthiswaythatthe

passages of the greatest instability ultimately serve to reinforce the structural

securityofthesymphonicform,withthemomentumoftheworkgearedtowards

tonalrecurrence.

Sonorityandmemory

Most variation-based forms are self-perpetuating in character. Their structural

direction is instilled through an inherent propensity to re-express; continual

reinventionbecomestheauralgoal.Withoutembeddingmoreconventionalformal

issues of contrast and con?lict within a variation-led piece, its conclusion will

struggletoattainthesenseofrequiredresolutionthatotherdesignscanoffer.Ifit

cannotoperatecyclically,returningto somethingapproachingitsbasicshape,the

senseofanendingmightoftenbedeliberatelyimplementedthrougharampingup

oftensionthatiseventuallyreleasedinaculminatingpassage.Bythemid-pointof

Tevot, itappearsthatthisreleasehasprovedelusive.Numerousreinterpretations

ofthesamebasicgesturalharmonicideashavebeenaired,ofteninanoverlapping

manner, all perpetuatingthesamesenseofmobiletonalgravity.Theresult, from

bar 257, seems to have been a point of burnout: several increasingly violent

rhythmiccollisionshavefailedtoprovideanykindofresolution, insteadleadingto

a loss of energy: the drifting harmonic sequences – now aimlessly undulating

rather than perpetually descending – are now underpinned by ominous

fragmentations of the oscillating textures from the opening of the work. The

broader formal frustration ofthis passage isseeminglyvented throughafurther

outburst, its ?iguresascendingtoananguishedclimax,shiftsofsecondsandthirds

colliding in orchestral-wide dissonance (bar 280). The composer’s take on

variationformseemstohavearrived,fornow,ataparticularlybleakconclusion.


236

It isatthispointthatawatershedoccurs.Witharesumptionoftheinitial

tempo, Adèscalls upon theparticularly distinctive sonorities and textures ofthe

openingofthepiece–chainsof?ifthsintheupperstringsandwind–butgradually

implementstheminascending,ratherthandescending, sequences(bars287–302,

withuni?iedascendingpatterns achievedfrombar293).This retrogradegesture

gives the impression not of a direct recapitulation, but of a speci?icallymusical

returntoarememberedpointinthework;thiseffectofa‘returnto’ratherthana

‘recurrenceof’isenhancedbythereversalofpitchdirection, aconcertedeffortto

audiblyturnbackmusical‘time’.Reintroductionsofintermittentharmonicclusters

in the brass and theupward leaping hornmotif, bothnotable features from the

openingofthework,underlinethistreatmentofmusicalmaterialassomethingto

be actively navigated and explored by the listener rather than passively

experienced.

Eventually,thisascentplateaus intoastratosphericchoraledividedamong

the violins (from bar 303). This tentative succession of shifting consonant

resonancesgivestheimpressionofadownward-driftingharmonicseries.Mediant


237

Fig.10.11:Tevot,reductionofbars302–323

completionsprovideafullharmonicrenderingoftheopen?ifthsthathavethus-far

dominated. The heartof the shifting tonal centre that has pervaded thework is

here revealed in its essence, as if its very genesis has been unveiled: achainof

interconnected, predominantly consonant sonorities – many integrating major

triads – ledperpetually onwards by a dynamic tonal gravity (see Figure10.11).

Theapparentabsenceofanyhierarchyinthisseriesnegatesanyimmediatedesire

for resolution, imbuing themusic with a new kind of stability characterised by

clearerboundariesofharmonicandrhythmicenergy.

This new consistency paves the way for one ?inal variation, a ?loating

melody thatemerges in thepiccolosatop thisharmonicbed (frombar314). The

themehas anuncanny presence, bearing a striking novelty whilst still seeming

familiar. It is in fact a hybrid subject, conglomerated from various aspects of

precedingvariations. Itcomprisestwoparts:the?irst isadirectstepwiseascent–

aninversionofthefallingsecondsoftheopeningthat,inits?irstfourbars,allowsa

spelt-out traversal of the rising seventh interval of the horn call inbar 21; the

second is a slower descent – tentative oscillations of tones and semitones are

gentlyloweredinpitchinamorestabilizedversionofthecomparable?igurethat

?irst took hold in the lower strings from bar 72. More signi?icantly, this new

materialconforms –bothmetricallyandharmonically–withitsbackground.The

result is a gesture of post-romantic tranquility, and as the ?igure begins to

proliferate in slow majestic counterpoint through the woodwind and onwards

throughtheentireorchestra, itbeginstoaccumulateanalmostMahleriantension.

Almost the entire secondhalf of thework proceeds in the manner of one ?inal,

grandvariation,melodyandchorale?igures?inallyunitedintheirsteady, onward

tonal motion. As it might be understood in the act of listening, reconciliation

between the con?licting ideas presented in Tevot is achieved through a ‘re-

visitation’ of the work’s ‘origins’, its essential matter realigned in order that it

mightbeheardinamorecohesiveway.Thecomposer’sowntakeonStravinsky–

thathismusicmightbeheardas‘sayinggoodbyetoaformertypeofwritingatthe

sametimeaswelcominganewone’–seemsapt inthis light. Inparticular,Adès’s

interpretationofThe Rake’s Progressprovesespecially telling: ‘[…] it’s almost as

thoughthematerialhasatenderness, it’ssoftandmalleablebecauseit’spreparing


238

for a metamorphosis; it’s the end ofone thing, the disintegration ofonewayof

thinkingandthebeginningofanotherone…’(AdèsandService2012,76).

Indeed,sopowerfuldoesthisnewlyacquiredstabilityprovethatitalmost

seems that the onward tonal path must be deliberately diverted in order for a

conclusiontobereached.Atthepeakofagigantictexturalanddynamicbuild,the

suddenstallingoftonalmotion–viasuccessivesustainedtriadsofCmajorandG

major(bars393–98)–seemstoprecipitateahugeensembleconvergenceonanA

pedal,E♮ completingtheopen?ifthasoscillationsreappearintheviolinsand?lutes

(bar399).Harmonicdynamismisnowreplacedbyblock-likechangesofsonority:

two further reassertions of the orchestral chord, precipitated by solo trumpet

?igures, combine the pre-existing ?ifthof A♮ andE♮ withone a tone lower, bass

emphasisfalling?irstuponG♮(bar415)andthenuponD♮(bar429).

Theseseeminglyjolting reorientationsareexplainedwithinthe context of

the?inaloutburstinbar441:anemphaticreturntoanopen?ifthonA♮,underlined

bytunedpercussioninthefollowingbar.Thechordisallowedtofadeintosilence,

dyingoscillations in theviolins actingas a subtle aural reminder thatTevot has

returnedto theveryresonancewithwhich it began. Howconclusive this closing

gesture proves depends upon the perspective of the listener. The circularity

evident in the return to the opening sonoritywouldcertainly seem to exhibit a

kindofclosure.However,itmaysimultaneouslynudgeaudiencestowardsideasof

thein?inite; formalcircles,bytheirveryde?inition, provideclosurewhilsthinting

atthe ideathat theshape itselfcancontinue, repeating itselfwithout end. Inthis

sense,however,Tevotoffersnotonecirclebutperhapssomethingmoreakinto a

?igureofeight.Tworeturnstotheopeningmaterial–oneatthecentreofthework,

theotheratitsclose– suggestabroaderkindofvariationstructure, aprocessof

formal re-evaluation and reinvention. Alternate times are presented: whilst the

work seemingly acknowledges that the past cannot be relived, attempting to

repeat key events can inform new perspectives and provide different ways of

approachingthesameideas.

While Sibelius seemingly addresses the same kind of temporal concepts

withhisSeventhSymphony,theresultingexperiencedoesnotnecessarilyproduce

thiskindofcatharsis.Heretheunderlyingacknowledgementthat thepastcannot

berelivedisrepeatedlychallenged,perhapsdeliberatelyso.WhilstTevot twice(at


239

its centre and at its conclusion) makes clear references back to its opening

material, these recurrences act as springboards for formal changes. By contrast,

whilst the similarly positioned cadence passages in the Seventh Symphony do

precipitate wider changes, they themselves become the focal points of the

structure.Nosoonerhastheensembledepartedfromtheemphaticcertaintyofthe

?irstC-majorAdagiothanitexpressesadesiretoreturntoit,arecallingofboththe

sonority and the trombone theme (bar 107–08) seemingly expressing

dissatisfaction with the new harmonic agenda that is taking hold. Although the

ensuingcentralcadence–aminor-keycompromisewiththecontrastingtonalaxis

–allowsaperiodofrelativeclarity, itseffectdoeslittleto stabiliseproceedingsin

the manner of the earlier episode. The con?idence of the trombone theme is

underminedbythechromaticin?lectionsofthecontinuingfastermusic,itsreprisal

renderedasafutileattempttoregainalostsecurity.

Thisapparentneedtoreturntothepastiscon?irmedbythe?inalsegueinto

Adagio, anemphaticattempt that comesfarcloser toachievingitsgoal.However,

havingfacilitatedthereturnto themajormodeofthetonic in the?irst place, the

alternatetonalaxiscannotbeshaken.RepeatedF♯s inthestrings(frombar484)

may appear supportive of the dominant but they pave the way for further

dissonances, E♭s almost immediately creeping in in thehornsandwoodwindtoalludetotheminor-modeoncemore.TheF-minordiversionthat?irstappearedat

bar 71, instead of serving to calm the climax, now sends the orchestra off on a

violent upward sequence as it continues in search of its resolution. As the

ensemble strays further from the safety of the tonic it resorts to a desperate


240

Fig.10.12:SymphonyNo.7,reductionofstringsandhorns,bars500–10

attemptatstructuralsymmetry, curtailingthesequencewithaviolenttuttichord

to allow the strings an opportunity to reprise their C-major-af?irming chorale.

However, context wins out over content. The result is a dissonant, anguished

descent; the realisation that the tonal axes must continue to coexist is further

cementedas – following a further tutti punctuation– the strings continue their

outburstwithaheldA♭ majorchordwithanaddedaugmentedsixthatbar500,aGerman sixth construction seemingly devoid, in any direct sense, of its

conventional pre-dominant function(see Figure 10.12). A ?inal stuttering ascent

stallsonanA♭ beforesinkingback to thedominant, horns andbassoonusheringback in thetonicwitha truncatedechoof thetrombone theme(bar506–09), an

apparent gesture of resignation in the wake of the failed attempt to regain the

stabilityoftheopeningAdagio. Vagueallusions to asymmetricaldesigncontinue

with ?lute andbassoonproviding fragmented slow-motion reminiscences of the

?littingthemetheyairedintheopeningpassages(bars511–17referencingbars7–

10)atopatremoloaccompaniment. Theclosingcadenceoftheworkunderlinesa

resignationto the coexistenceof thetwo tonal axes, theprominentshift fromB♮

upwards to C♮ in the strings perhaps offering a ?inal nod to the A♭ minorsubversionwhichsettheformofthesymphonyinmotion.Emphasisisplacedonce

again upon a tension that has audibly developed, yet seemingly remains as

balanced–or, indeed,as inconclusive–asitdidwhenitwas?irstheard. Towhat

extent this ending provides resolution may depend upon the perspective of a

listener. AswithTevot, theSeventhSymphony’sclosingevocationofanaspect of

its opening seemingly poses further questions regarding the extent to which

notionsofclosureandreturnmightintertwine.


241

Eleven

Epilogue:Openendings

Torememberaneventistoexperienceitagain,butnotinthesamewayastheSirst

time.(Langer1953,263)

Thetemporal experiencesofTevotandtheSeventhSymphonyprompt questions

regarding the nature of repetition. Points of return draw attention to circular

aspectsofstructuraldesign,makinglistenersawareoftensionsbetweenstaticand

dynamic formal characters. The way in which both pieces conclude warrants

further consideration of beginnings and endings, of closure and continuation.

Returnsmightinsomesenseconveyasenseofconclusion,butbythesametoken

reawaken the impulses that began the journey inthe ?irstplace. Intheseterms,

musical repetition might be seen as engaging with long-term continuity in a

paradoxicalmanner,evokinganattemptattemporalsymmetrycomparabletothat

outlined by Søren Kierkegaard: ‘Repetition and recollection are the same

movement, except in opposite directions, for what is recollected has been, is

repeated backwards, whereas genuine repetition is recollected forward’ (1983,

89).

Inasimilarmanner, this thesishasalso exhibitedcircularcharacteristics.

Just as many of the works analysed have been shown to engagewith the same

broad formal issues, seemingly new lines of enquiry have frequently led to

recurrencesofwidertemporalquestions.Thisremains, Iwouldargue,anecessity

of exploring what will always amount to a subjective experience. Attempts to

separate so broad and all-encompassing a phenomenon out into multiple

componentswillultimatelyprovefrustrating.Ashasbeenshown,thediscussionof

time will inevitably involve numerous other factors that might at ?irst glance

appeardistinctbutoncloserexaminationconstituteanetworkofinterdependent,

oftenoverlappingconcepts.AswiththeformsoftheseworksbyAdèsandSibelius,

thisstudyhasservedtoaf?irmthepossibilityforthecoexistenceofbothstaticand

dynamictemporaloutlooks, and theplaceofbothwithinmusicalanalysis. These

are ideas that, whether they are stated or not, I would argue come into play

whenever issues of continuity, repetition, energy andperspective are discussed

242

withregardtoideasofform.Indeed,thisthesishasmaintainedthatconsideration

ofsuchconceptsmightprovideafruitfulspringboardforwaysofanalysingmusic

that not only remainopen to themultiplicity of timebut to a diverse range of

compositionalstyles.

Manyofthetenetsofthisthesisgravitatetowards,orindeedareprompted

by, what might be thought of as poststructuralist concerns: a desire to

contextualisetheconstructionofmusicalcompositionswithinthecomplexwebof

culturalrelationshipsandperceptualinteractionsthatencompassit.Nevertheless,

the analyses presented here still bear something of a structuralist streak,

emphasising the important roles that musical form can assume within these

networks. Indeed, the underlying notion of temporal linearity (the necessary

progressionfromabeginningtoanendingofsomekind)asafundamentalaudible

continuitycouldevenperhapsbeportrayedasamoreconventionalrelianceupon

unity as an analytical parameter. Notions of unity, coherence and stability have

regularly featuredas essential issues inthese casestudies, even if the focus has

beentheways inwhichtheyexist inbalance, orimbalance,withtheiropposites:

disunity, incoherence and instability. The very acknowledgement of this tension

wouldseemtoengagewiththeidea–oftentakenasagivenoftraditionalanalysis

– that pieces of music should ‘make sense’, that they retain some kindof self-

suf?icient logic. In the end, this is at best a profoundly meaningful illusion that

listenersmightwillinglybuy into –atworst itmight beconsideredapotentially

restrictive fallacy. Rose RosengardSubotnik offers a helpful reminder that both

music and its audiences prove considerably more diverse, asserting that the

‘rationalsubstratumofmusicalknowledge?inallyonsomeact,choice,orprinciple

thatisnotitselfrationallydemonstrable’(1996,170):

Onlysomemusicstrivesforautonomy.Allmusichassoundandastyle.Onlysome

people listentomusicstructurally.Everyonehasculturalandemotionalresponses

tomusic.Thesecharacteristicsandresponsesarenotuniformorimmutablebutas

diverse, unstable, and open-ended as the multitude of contexts in which music

deSinesitself.(1996,175)

As persuasive as analytical explorations of more formalist concepts like

unitycanbe,notleastinlendingauralexperiencesasenseofretrospectiveclosure,

theirpropensitytowardscatharsiscannotgrantthemdominationoveralternative


243

ways of hearingpieces. Eric Clarke attributes the cultural power that autonomy

wields inpart to the ‘intensely absorbing…perceptualmeanings’music affords,

but nevertheless insists that itis ‘justoneamongmanyways oflistening’(2005,

188).Thecontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesdiscussedhereultimatelytaketheshape

of interpretive suggestions – no more, no less. They are ways of reaching

understandings ofpiecesofmusic rather thantheway ofreadingthem. Inthese

terms, Joseph Dubiel’s notion of structure as a route to new meaningful

comprehensions – a call to exploration – proves particularly resonant. It is, he

writes, ‘a way to hold open the possibility of discovery, the possibility of

responding aurally to something in a piece to which I was not antecedently

attuned’(Dubiel2004,198).

Though several analytical styles have been utilised, it has not been a

concern ofthis study to advocateor developmorea speci?ic listening or indeed

musicological strategy beyond a broader receptiveness to issues of perceived

musical time and, accordingly, an open-minded approach to the diversity of

meanings these experiences might facilitate.44 Mark Hutchinson, in his

explorations of late-twentieth century repertoire (Hutchinson 2012 and 2016),

similarlylocatesakindofunityinthepluralitythathisanalysesuncover.Through

examinations of works by Ligeti, Adès, Saariaho, Takemitsu, and Kurtág, he

convincinglyargues that theexperiencesofpotent cohesionthey offerarise as a

consequence of their ‘multi-layered and ‘sometimes seemingly-contradictory’

content rather than in spite of it (Hutchinson 2012, 37). He continues not by

prescribing a speci?ic approach but rather echoing Whittall (1999)andKramer

(2004) in their call for an adaptive approach to pre-existing conceptual and

analyticalframeworks(Hutchinson2012,279).

Iwouldpropose, though, thatthedynamicrede?initionsofcoherencethat

Hutchinsonoutlinesmightnotnecessarilybelimitedtomorerecentmusic.Asthe

case studies presented in this thesis havehopefully shown, evenmore familiar,

canonic works can contribute to ongoing – some might say progressive –


244

44 Lawrence Ferrara (1984) suggestsa phenomenological procedure thatmaintainsanadmirable emphasis upon repeated, ‘open listenings’ that focus gradually on differentstructural levels. However, the conclusions he draws are tied to notions of syntax,semanticsandontology,morespeciSichierarchiesofmeaningthatliebeyondthescopeofthisthesis.

musicological and compositional dialogues. Time, I have suggested, is an ever-

relevantpointofconceptual focusinthisregard. It hasbeenshown to provide a

means bywhich formalist elementsmightretainavoicewithinpoststructuralist

thoughtwithoutprecluding either fromaplacewithinthe perceptual ecologyof

musicalperformance.Similarly,whilstoldandnewmusiccanbeheardassittingat

stylistic odds,bothcanbenevertheless showntoengagewithessential issuesof

experienced continuity and its absence. Temporality itself can become a

springboard for analytical endeavours that facilitate a dialogue between

stylisticallydisparateworks.Time–astheessentialbindingforceofexperience–

emergesasatoolbywhichcontemporarylistenersmight, forawhile,sidestepthe

historicalandculturalcontextsthatcouldsometimesappearatriskoflimitingthe

impactofpieces.

Ontheotherhand, timefrequentlyappearsunbound.Temporalexperience

is, at its heart, inconsistent. It can seem fractious and unpredictable whilst

nevertheless maintaining the same ecological reliability that allows us to

coordinate countless social and cultural networks with its passing. Listening to

music constitutesacreativeactthatdrawsus intoengagementwiththisparadox

andthe impact itmight have upon thewaywelive our lives. Whenwriters like

Jonathan Kramer (1988, 5) and Nicholas Cook (2013, 126) ask, in their own

fascinatingways,whethermusicunfoldsintimeorwhethertimeunfoldsinmusic,

it is not that they expect to ?ind any kind of de?initive answer. Rather they

recognise that both perspectives have a function in musicological and

philosophical thought. Both present meaningful avenues of exploration, and

neither should be closed off. The contradictions they present through their

coexistenceencourageustoattempttounderstandfurtherourownexperiencesof

timeanditsmeaning.

In a study characterised by repetition and plurality, drawing a suitable

conclusion is no easy task. However, perhaps something to be learned from the

various listeningapproaches suggestedinthesepages isthatnotions likeclosure

restalmostasmuchuponourattitudes towardsexperiencesastheydouponthe

nature of the experiences themselves. It is perhaps timely to acknowledge T.S.

Eliot’s contention that circularity and changearenot alwaysmutually exclusive,

especiallywhentakingintoaccountthetransformationsofperspectivethatresult


245

fromtheactofrevisiting:‘Weshallnotceasefromexploration/Andtheendofall

ourexploring/Will betoarrivewherewestarted/Andknow theplaceforthe

?irst time’ (Eliot 1944, 59). Going round in circles can, given the chance, prove

meaningfulafterall.


246

PrimaryResources

Scores

Thecompositiondate ispresented?irst, withthepublicationdatelistedafterthe

publisherwhereitdiffers.

Abrahamsen,Hans.2008.Schnee–Tencanonsfornineinstruments.

Copenhagen:EditionWilhelmHansen.

Adams,John.1982.ShakerLoopsforstringorchestra(1982Revision).

NewYork:AssociatedmusicPublishers,1989.

Adès,Thomas.2007.Tevotforlargeorchestra,op.24.

London:FaberMusic,2014.

Beethoven,Ludwigvan.1804.SymphonyNo.3inE-?latmajor,Op.55,‘Eroica’.

Mainz:Eulenburg,2009.

Benjamin,George.1997.Viola,Violaforvioladuo.

London:FaberMusic,1998.

Brahms,Johannes.1885.SymphonyNo.4inEminor,Op.98.

London:Eulenburg,1998.

Mozart,WolfgangAmadeus.1778.SonataforviolinandpianoinEminor,K.304.

Leipzig:Breitkopf&Härtel,1879.

Saariaho,Kaija.2003.Jesensundeuxièmecoeurforviola,celloandpiano.

London:ChesterMusic.

Schubert,Franz.1828.PianoSonatainB-?lat,D.960.

NewYork:Dover,1970.

Sibelius,Jean.1924.SymphonyNo.7,Op.105(RevisedEdition).

Copenhagen:EditionWilhelmHansen,1980.

247

Recordings

Abrahamsen, Hans. 2009. Schnee. Ensemble Recherche. Music Edition, Winter &

Winter:910159–2.

Adams, John.2000.Minimalist–Adams/Glass/Reich/Heath [inc.ShakerLoops].

LondonChamberOrchestra,conductedbyChristopherWarren-Green.Virgin

Classics:724356185128.

Adès,Thomas.2010.Tevot/ViolinConcerto/ThreeStudiesfromCouperin/Dances

from Powder Her Face. Berliner Philharmoniker, conducted by Sir Simon

Rattle.EMIClassics:4578132.

Beethoven,Ludwigvan.2011.CompleteSymphonies[inc.SymphonyNo.3inE-?lat

major, Op.55, ‘Eroica’]. La Chambre Philharmonique, conducted by

EmmanuelKrivine.Naïve:V5258.

Benjamin,George.2004.Shadowlines/Viola, Viola/ThreeStudies/PianoSonata.

TabeaZimmermanandAntoineTamestit,violas.Nimbus:NI5713.

Brahms, Johannes. 1981. SymphonyNo. 4.Wiener Philharmoniker, conducted by

CarlosKleiber.DeutscheGrammophon:457706-2.

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. 2007. Complete Sonatas for Keyboard and Violin,

Volume4[inc.SonatainE-minor,K.304].RachelPodger,violin;GaryCooper.

ChannelClassics:24607.

Saariaho, Kaija. 2012. The Edge of Light: Messiaen / Saariaho [inc. Je sens un

deuxième coeur]. JonathanMoerschel, viola; Eric Byers, cello; Gloria Cheng,

piano.HarmoniaMundi:HMU907578.

Schubert,Franz.2004.MitsukoUchidaPlaysSchubert[inc.PianoSonatainB-?lat,D.

960].MitsukoUchida,piano.Decca:4756282.

Sibelius,Jean.2004.SymphoniesNo.3&7.LondonSymphonyOrchestra,conducted

bySirColinDavis.LSOLive:LSO0552.

PrimaryResources

248

Bibliography

Abraham, Gerald. 1952. ‘The Symphonies.’ In Sibelius: A Symposium, edited by

GeraldAbraham,14–37.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

Abrahamsen, Hans.2009. ‘Schnee (2006–08).’Linernotes forHansAbrahamsen:

Schnee.EnsembleRecherche.MusicEdition,Winter&Winter:910159–2.

_______.2010.‘8thSacrumProfanumFestivalModernClassic–InterviewwithHans

Abrahamsen.’YouTubevideo,5:33.Filmed2010.Postedbybiurofestiwalowe

on 1 December, 2010. Accessed 1 September 2016. https://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShT8dVqggCg.

Adams, John. 2008.Hallelujah Junction: Composing an American Life. New York:

Picador.

_______. 2014. ‘ShakerLoops forstringseptet(1978)’.Accessed22February,2013.

www.earbox.com/chamber-music/shaker-loops.

Adams, John,RebeccaJemianandAnneMariedeZeeuw.1996.‘AnInterviewwith

JohnAdams.’PerspectivesofNewMusic34(2):88–104.

Adès, Thomas,andTomService.2012.ThomasAdès: Full ofNoises,Conversations

withTomService.London:FaberandFaber.

Adorno, TheodorW. 1997. Aesthetic Theory. TranslatedbyRobert Hullot-Kentor

andeditedbyGretelAdornoandRolfTiedemann.London:AthelonePress.

_______. 2005. ‘Schubert(1928),’translatedby JonathanDunsbyandBeatePerrey.

19th-CenturyMusic29(1):3–14.

Adlington, Robert. 1997a. ‘Review of Shaping Time: Music, the Brain, and

PerformancebyDavidEpstein.’MusicAnalysis16(1):155–71.

_______.1997b:‘TemporalityinPost-tonalMusic.’PhDthesis,UniversityofSussex.

_______. 2003: ‘Moving beyondMotion:Metaphors forChangingSound.’Journal of

theRoyalMusicalAssociation128(2):297–318.

Agawu, Ko?i. 1999: ‘Formal perspectives on the symphonies.’ In The Cambridge

Companion to Brahms, edited by Michael Musgrave, 133–55. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Aitken,Stuart.1998.‘ReviewofThirdspace:JourneystoLosAngelesandOtherReal-

and-Imagined Places byEdwardW. Soja.’Geographical Review88(1):148–

51.

249

Almén, Byron. 2003. ‘Narrative Archetypes: A Critique, Theory, and Method of

NarrativeAnalysis.’JournalofMusicTheory47(1):1-39.

_______.2008.ATheoryofMusicalNarrative.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Angrilli,Alessandro,PaoloCherubini,AntonellaPaveseandSaraMantredini.1997.

‘The in?luence of affective factors on time perception.’ Perception and

Psychophysics59(6):972–82.

Athanasopoulos,George,Siu-LanTanandNikkiMoran.2016. ‘In?luenceofliteracy

on representation of time inmusical stimuli: An exploratory cross-cultural

studyintheUK, Japan, andPapuaNewGuinea.’PsychologyofMusic 44(5):

1126-1144.

_______.2008.ATheoryofMusicalNarrative.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Aristotle.1996.Poetics,translatedbyMalcolmHeath.London:PenguinBooks.

Arnheim,Rudolf.1978. ‘AStrictureonSpaceandTime.’CriticalInquiry4(4):645–

55.

Arstilla, Valtteri, andDan Lloyd, editors. 2014. Subjective Time: The Philosophy,

Psychology,andNeuroscienceofTemporality.London:MITPress.

Augustine.1991.Confessions,trans.HenryChadwick.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

Baggott,Jim.2011.‘QuantumTheory:Ifatreefallsintheforest…’OxfordUniversity

PressBlog, 14 February. Accessed 30August 2016. http://blog.oup.com/

2011/02/quantum.

Bailey, Nicole, and Charles S. Areni. 2006. ‘When a few minutes sound like a

lifetime: Does atmospheric music expand or contract perceived time?’

JournalofRetailing82:189–202.

Barkin, ElaineR. 2009. ‘About SomeMusic ofThomas Adès.’Perspectives ofNew

Music47(1):165–73.

Barry,BarbaraR.1990.MusicalTime:TheSenseofOrder.NewYork:Pendragon

Press.

Begbie,Jeremy.2000.Theology,MusicandTime.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Bent, Ian D. ‘Hermeneutics.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . A c c e s s e d 2 1 F e b r u a r y , 2 0 1 4 , h t t p : / /

www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/12871.

Bibliography

250

Bennett,DavidC.1975.Spatialandtemporal usesofEnglish prepositions:anessay

instratiUicationalsemantics.London:LongmanGroup.

Berger,Karol.2007.Bach’sCycle,Mozart’sArrow:AnEssayontheOriginsofMusical

Modernity.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Bernard, JonathanW. 2003. ‘Minimalism, Postminimalism, andtheResurgenceof

TonalityinRecentAmericanMusic.’AmericanMusic21(1):112–33.

Beyer,Anders.‘Abrahamsen,Hans.’GroveMusicOnline.OxfordMusicOnline.Oxford

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , a c c e s s e d 1 S e p t emb e r , 2 0 1 6 . h t t p : / /


Bierwisch,Manfred.1996. ‘Howmuchspacegets intolanguage?’InLanguageand

Space, editedby Paul Bloom, MaryA. Peterson, LynnNadel, andMerrill F.

Garrett,31–76.Cambridge:MITPress.

Boltz, MarilynG. 1991. ‘Time estimationand attentional perspective.’Perception

andPsychophysics,49(5):422–33.

Born, Georgina, editor. 2013. Music, Sound and Space: Transformations of Public

andPrivateExperience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bozarth, GeorgeS., andWalter Frisch. ‘Brahms, Johannes.’InGroveMusic Online.

Oxford Music Online. OxfordUniversityPress. Accessed6September, 2016,

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/

51879.

Bretherton,David.2012.‘ReviewofATheoryofMusicalNarrativebyByronAlmén.’

MusicAnalysis31(3):414–21.

Brendel,Alfred.2001.AlfredBrendelonMusic:CollectedEssays.Chicago:ACappella

Books.

Bromberger, Eric. 2007. ‘About the Piece: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Violin

Sonata, K. 304.’ Accessed 23 February, 2015. http://www.laphil.com/

philpedia/music/violin-sonata-k-304-wolfgang-amadeus-mozart.

Brown, Scott W. 1997. ‘Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in

concurrenttemporalandnontemporalworkingmemorytasks.’Perception&

Psychophysics59(7):1118–40.

_______.2010. ‘Timing,resources,andinterference: Attentionalmodulationoftime

perception.’ InAttention and time, editedby AnnaC. Nobreand JenniferT.

Coull,107–22.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bibliography

251

Brown, Scott W., and Alan N. West. 1990. ‘Multiple timing and the allocationof

attention.’ActaPsychologica,75:103–21.

Burkholder, JPeter. 1984. ‘BrahmsandTwentieth-CenturyClassicalMusic.’19th-

CenturyMusic8(1):75–83.

Burnham,Scott.1995.BeethovenHero.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Burrows,David.1997.‘ADynamicalSystemsPerspectiveonMusic.’TheJournalof

Musicology15(4):529–45.

Butler, Chris. 2012.Henri Lefebvre: SpatialPolitics, EverydayLifeand theRight to

theCity.Abingdon:Routledge-Cavendish.

Butler, David. 1992.The Musician’sGuide toPerceptionandCognition.New York:

SchirmerBooks.

Cahill, Sarah. ‘Adams, John.’ Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford

Un i v e r s i t y P r e s s , a c c e s s ed S ep t embe r 23 , 2 016 , h t t p : / /


Caldwell,Clare,andSallyA.Hibbert.1999.‘Playthatoneagain:Theeffectofmusic

tempo on consumer behavior in a restaurant.’ European Advances in

ConsumerResearch4:58–62.

Campbell, Joseph. 2008. The Hero With A Thousand Faces (Third Edition).

California:NewWorldLibrary.

Caplin, William E. 1998. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the

Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Carl,Robert.1991. ‘ReviewsofAnalyticApproachestoTwentieth-CenturyMusicby

JoelLester;Meta+HodosandMETAMeta+Hodos:APhenomenologyof20th-

CenturyMaterialsandanApproachtotheStudyofFormbyJamesTenney;The

TimeofMusic:NewMeanings,NewTemporalities,NewListeningStrategiesby

JonathanKramer.’Notes47(4):1107–10.

Casasanto,Daniel,OlgaFotakopoulouandLeraBoroditsky.2010. ‘SpaceandTime

intheChild’sMind:EvidenceforaCross-DimensionalAsymmetry.’Cognitive

Science34.387–405.

Childs, Barney. 1977. ‘Time andMusic: A Composer’s View.’PerspectivesofNew

Music,15(2):194–219.

Chua,DanielK.L.2004.‘RethinkingUnity.’MusicAnalysis23(2/3):353–59.

Bibliography

252

Churgin, Bathia. 1998. ‘Beethoven and theNew Development-Theme in Sonata-

FormMovements.’TheJournalofMusicology16(3):323–43.

Clark, Herbert. H. 1973. ‘Space, time, semantics, and the child.’ In Cognitive

developmentandtheacquisitionoflanguage,editedbyTimothyE.Moore,27–

63.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Clark, Philip. 2015. ‘Minimalism at 50’ Gramophone, 19 June, 2015. Accessed23

September2016,http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/minimalism-at-50.

Clarke, David. 2011. ‘Music, Phenomenology, Time Consciousness: Aeditations

after Husserl.’ InMusic and Consciousness: Philosophical, Psychological, and

Cultural Perspectives, editedbyDavidClarkeandEricClarke, 1–24. Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.

Clarke, David and Eric F. Clarke, editors. 2011. Music and Consciousness:

Philosophical, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Clarke,EricF.1989. ‘Issues inLanguageandMusic.’ContemporaryMusicReview4

(1):9–22.

_______.2005.WaysofListening:AnEcologicalApproachtothePerceptionofMusical

Meaning.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Clarke, Eric F., and Nicholas Cook, editors. 2004. Empirical Musicology: Aims,

Methods,Prospects.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Clarke, Eric F., and Carol L. Krumhansl. 1990. ‘Perceiving Musical Time.’Music

Perception:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal7(3):213–51.

Clayton, Martin. 2000. Time in Indian Music: Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North

IndianRagPerformance.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Clifton, Thomas. 1983. Music asHeard: A Study in Applied Phenomonology. New

Haven:YaleUniversityPress.

Cohn, RichardL.1999. ‘AsWonderful as Star Clusters: Instruments forGazing at

TonalityinSchubert.’19th-CenturyMusic.22(3):213–232.

_______. 2004. ‘Uncanny Resemblances: Tonal Signi?ication in the Freudian Age.’

JournaloftheAmericanMusicologicalSociety57(2):285–324.

_______.2012.AudaciousEuphony:ChromaticismandtheTriad’sSecondNature.New

York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bibliography

253

Cone, Edward T. 1974. The Composer’s Voice. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Cook,Nicholas.1983.‘ReviewofMusicAsHeard:AStudyinAppliedPhenomenology

byThomasClifton.’MusicAnalysis2(3):291–94.

_______.1990.Music,Imagination,andCulture.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

_______.1998.Music:AVeryShortIntroduction.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

_______. 2001. ‘TheorizingMusicalMeaning.’Music TheorySpectrum, 23 (2): 170–

195.

_______. 2013.Beyond the Score: Music asPerformance. Oxford: OxfordUniversity

Press.

Cook,Nicholas andMark Everist, editors. 1999.RethinkingMusic. Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Cross, Ian. 1998. ‘MusicAnalysisandMusic Perception.’MusicAnalysis17(1):3–

20.

Cumming, Naomi. 1997. ‘TheHorrorsofIdenti?ication:Reich’s “DifferentTrains.”’

PerspectivesofNewMusic35(1),129–52.

Cutietta, Robert A. 1993. ‘TheMusical Elements: Who said they’re right?’Music

EducatorsJournal79(9):48–53.

Dainton,Barry.2010.Timeandspace(Secondedition).Durham:Acumen.

deMan,Paul.1983. ‘FormandIntentintheAmericanNewCriticism.’InBlindness

andInsight:EssaysintheRhetoricofContemporaryCriticism(Secondedition),

20–35.London:Routledge.

Damschroder, David. 2010. Harmony in Schubert. Cambridge: Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Deliège, Célestin. 1989. ‘On form as actually experienced.’ Contemporary Music

Review4(1):101–15.

Deliège, Irène. 1989. ‘A perceptual approach to contemporary musical forms.’

ContemporaryMusicReview4(1):213–30.

Deliège, Iréne, andMarc Mélen. 1997. ‘Cue abstraction in the representationof

musical form.’In PerceptionandCognition ofMusic, editedbyIrèneDeliège

andJohnSloboda,387–412.Sussex:PsychologyPress.

Bibliography

254

Deliège, Iréne, Marc Mélen, Diana Stammers and Ian Cross. 1996. ‘Musical

Schemata in Real-Time Listening to a Piece ofMusic.’Music Perception: An

InterdisciplinaryJournal14(2):117–59.

Deliège, Irène, andJohnSloboda,editors. 1997.PerceptionandCognitionofMusic.

Sussex:PsychologyPress.

Dell’Antonio,Andrew,editor.2004.BeyondStructuralListening:PostmodernModes

ofHearing.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Deutsch,Diana.1980.‘MusicPerception.’TheMusicalQuarterly66(2):165–79.

Dowling, W. Jay. 1989. ‘Simplicity and complexity in music and cognition.’


Drake, CarolynandDaisy Bertrand. 2003. ‘TheQuest forUniversals inTemporal

Processing in Music.’ In The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music, edited by

IsabellePeretzandRobertJ.Zatorre,21–31.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Droit-Volet, Sylvie, and Warren H. Meck. 2007. ‘How emotions colour our

perceptionoftime.’TrendsinCognitiveSciences11(12):504–13.

Dubiel, Joseph. 2004. ‘Uncertainty, Disorientation, and Loss as Responses to

Musical Structure.’ In Beyond Structural Listening: Postmodern Modes of

Hearing, edited by Andrew Dell’Antonio, 173–200. Berkeley: University of

CaliforniaPress.

Duffalo, Richard. 1989. Trackings: Composers Speak with Richard Duffalo. New

York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Dufourt, Hugues.1989. ‘Music andcognitivepsychology:Form-bearingelements.’


Dunsby, Jonathan1981.StructuralAmbiguity inBrahms:Analytical Approachesto

FourWorks.Michigan:UMIResearchPress.

Eagleman,DavidM. 2010. ‘Durationillusionsandpredictability.’InAttentionand

time, edited by Anna C. Nobre and Jennifer T. Coull, 151–62. New York:


Earman, John. 1970. ‘Space-Time, or How to Solve Philosophical Problems and

Dissolve Philosophical Muddles without Really Trying.’ The Journal of

Philosophy,67(9):259–277.

Egeland Hansen, Finn. 2006. Layers of Musical Meaning. Copenhagen: Museum

TusculanumPress.

Bibliography

255

Elbow, Peter. 2006. ‘The Music of Form: Rethinking Organization in Writing.’

CollegeCompositionandCommunication57(4):620–66.

Eliot,T.S.1944.FourQuartets.London:FaberandFaber.

Elliot,J.H.1929.‘BrahmsasSymphonist.’TheMusicalTimes,70(1036):554.

Elliott, Richard. 2011. ‘Public consciousness, political conscience, andmemory in

Latin American nueva canción.’ InMusic and Consciousness: Philosophical,

Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives, edited by David Clarke and Eric

Clarke,327–39.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Epstein, David. 1985. ‘Tempo Relations: A Cross-Cultural Study.’Music Theory

Spectrum,7:34–71.

_______. 1987. Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure. New York: Oxford

UniversityPress.

_______. 1990. ‘Brahms and the Mechanisms of Motion: The Composition of

Performance.’ In Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives,

Papersdelivered atthe InternationalBrahmsConferenceWashington,DC, 5-8

May1983,editedbyGeorgeS.Bozarth,191–228.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

_______.1995.ShapingTime:Music,theBrain,andPerformance.NewYork:Schirmer

Books.

Erickson,Robert.1963.‘Time-relations.’JournalofMusicTheory7(2):174–92.

_______.1975.SoundStructureinMusic.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Evans, Edwin. 1935.Handbook to the ChamberandOrchestralMusic of Johannes

Brahms:Secondseries,Op.68totheend.London:WilliamReeves.

Fachner, Jörg. 2011. ‘Drugs, alteredstates, andmusical consciousness: reframing

timeandspace.’InMusicandConsciousness:Philosophical, Psychological,and

CulturalPerspectives,editedbyDavidClarkeandEricClarke,263–76.Oxford:


Ferrara, Lawrence. 1984. ‘Phenomenology as a Tool for Musical Analysis.’ The

MusicalQuarterly70(3):355–73.

Firmino, Érico Artioli, José Lino Oliveira Bueno, and Emmanuel Bigand. 2009.

‘TravellingThroughPitchSpaceSpeedsupMusical Time.’MusicPerception:

AnInterdisciplinaryJournal26(3):205–09.

Fish,Stanley.1976.‘Interpretingthe“Variorum”.’CriticalInquiry2(3):465–85.

Fisk,Charles.2001.ReturningCycles:ContextsfortheInterpretationof

Bibliography

256

Schubert’sImpromptusandLastSonatas.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia

Press.

Forster,E.M.(1927)2005.AspectsoftheNovel.London:PenguinClassics.

Fox,Christopher. 2004. ‘TempestuousTimes:TheRecentMusic ofThomasAdès.’

TheMusicalTimes145(1888):41–56.

_______. 2014. ‘MultipleTime-Scales inAdès'sRings.’PerspectivesofNewMusic52

(1):28–56.

Fraser, Julius T. 1978. Time as ConUlict: A ScientiUic and Humanistic Study. Basel:

Birkhäuser.

_______.1985.‘TheArtoftheAudible“Now”.’MusicTheorySpectrum,7:181–84.

Friedman,WilliamJ.Abouttime: Inventingthe FourthDimension. Cambridge:MIT

Press,1990.

Frisch,Walter. 1982. ‘Brahms, DevelopingVariation, and theSchoenberg Critical

Tradition.’19th-CenturyMusic5(3):215–32.

_______.1984.BrahmsandthePrincipleofDevelopingVariation. London:University

ofCaliforniaPress.

_______. 2000. ‘"YouMust Remember This": Memory andStructure in Schubert's

StringQuartetinGMajor,D.887.’TheMusicalQuarterly84(4):582–603.

_______.2003.Brahms:TheFourSymphonies.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Frisch,WalterandAlfredBrendel.1989. ‘”Schubert’sLastSonatas”:AnExchange.’

New York Review of Books, 16 March, 1989. http://www.nybooks.com/

articles/1989/03/16/schuberts-last-sonatas-an-exchange/.

Gardner,John.1977.‘Sibelius7.’TheMusicalTimes118(1617):912.

Gay,Peter.1977.‘Aimez-vousBrahms?Re?lectionsonModernism.’Salmagundi36:

16–35.

Gentner, Dedre. 2001. ‘Spatial metaphors in temporal reasoning.’ In Spatial

schemasin abstractthought, editedbyMeridethGattis, 203–22. Cambridge,

MA:MITPress.

Gentner,Dedre,MutsumiImai,&LeraBoroditsky.2002.‘Astimegoesby:Evidence

for two systems in processing space–time metaphors’. Language and

CognitiveProcesses,17(5):537–565.

Goehr, Lydia. 1992. The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the

PhilosophyofMusic.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Bibliography

257

Gooddy, William. 1969. ‘Disorders of the Time Sense.’ In Handbook of clinical

neurology, edited by Pierre J. Vinken and GeorgeW. Bruyn, 229–50. New

York:Wiley.

_______.1977. ‘TheTimingandTimeofMusicians.’InMusicandtheBrain,editedby

Macdonald Critchley and Ronald A. Henson, 131–40. London: William

HeinemannMedicalBooks.

Gray,Cecil.1934.Sibelius.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

_______.1935.Sibelius:TheSymphonies.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

Greene,DavidB.1982.TemporalProcessesinBeethoven’sMusic.NewYork:Gordon

andBreach.

Grif?iths,Paul.1985.NewSounds,NewPersonalities:BritishComposersofthe1980s

inConversationwithPaulGrifUiths.London:FaberandFaber.

_____. 2014. ProgrammenoteonThomasAdès,Tevot (2007). CityofBirmingham

Symphony Orchestra, Thomas Adès (conductor), Symphony Hall,

Birmingham,11June,2014.17–19.

Grimes, Nicole. 2012. ‘The Schoenberg/Brahms Critical Tradition Reconsidered.’


Grimley,DanielM,editor.2004.TheCambridgeCompanion toSibelius.Cambridge,


Grünbaum,Adolf.1973.PhilosophicalProblemsofSpaceandTime(Secondedition).

Boston:Reidel.

Gurvitch, Georges. 1964. The Spectrum of Social Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel

PublishingCompany.

Hall,EdwardT. 1984.TheDanceofLife:The OtherDimension ofTime. New York:

Doubleday.

Hanslick,Eduard.1957.TheBeautifulinMusic.TranslatedbyGustavCohen,edited

byMorrisWeitz.NewYork:TheBobbs-MerrillCompany.

Hargreaves, Jonathan.2008. ‘Music asCommunication:NetworksofComposition,’

PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.

Hasty, ChristopherF. 1981a. ‘Rhythm inPost-TonalMusic: PreliminaryQuestions

ofDurationandMotion.’JournalofMusicTheory25(2):183–216.

_______. 1981b. ‘Segmentation and Process in Post-Tonal Music.’ Music Theory

Spectrum3:54–73.

Bibliography

258

_______. 1984. ‘PhraseFormation inPost-TonalMusic.’ Journal ofMusic Theory28

(2):167–90.

_______. 1986. ‘OntheProblemofSuccessionandContinuityinTwentieth-Century

Music.’MusicTheorySpectrum8:58–74.

_______.1997.MeterasRhythm.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hatten,RobertS.1994.MusicalMeaninginBeethoven:Markedness,Correlation,and

Interpretation.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Hepokoski, James. 2009. Music, Structure, Thought: Selected Essays. Farnham:

Ashgate.

Hepokoski, James, andWarren Darcy. 2006. Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms,

Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata. New York:


Hinckfuss,Ian.1975.TheExistenceofSpaceandTime.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

_______.1988.‘AbsolutismandRelationisminSpaceandTime:AFalseDichotomy.’

TheBritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience39(2):183–92.

Hodges, DonaldA. andDavidC. Sebald. 2011.Musicin theHumanExperience:An

IntroductiontoMusicPsychology.London:Routledge.

Horwich, Paul. 1978. ‘On theExistenceofTime, Space, andSpace-Time.’Noûs12

(4):397–419.

_______. 1987.AsymmetriesinTime:Problemsin thePhilosophyofScience.London:

MITPress.

Howat, Roy. 2003. ‘Reading betweenthe lines oftempo andrhythm intheB ?lat

Sonata, D960.’ In Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance Practice,

Analysis,editedbyBrianNewbould,117–138.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Howell, Peter, Ian Cross and Robert West, editors. 1985.Musical Structure and

Cognition.London:AcademicPress.

Howell, Tim. 1989. Jean Sibelius: Progressive Techniques in the Symphonies and

TonePoems.NewYork:GarlandPublishing.

_______. 2000. ‘Restricting the Flow: Elements of Time-scale in Sibelius’ Sixth

Symphony.’TijdschriftvoorMuziektheorie,5(2):89–100.

_______. 2001. ‘“Sibelius theProgressive.”’InSibeliusStudies, editedbyTimothy L.

Jackson and Veijo Murtomäki, 35–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Bibliography

259

_______.2013. ‘Brahms,KierkegaardandRepetition:ThreeIntermezzi.’19th-Century

MusicReview10(1):101–17.

Howell, Tim, Jon Hargreaves and Michael Rofe, editors. 2011. Kaija Saariaho:

Visions,Narratives,Dialogues.Farnham:Ashgate.

Hubbard,Phil,RobKitchinandGillValentine,editors.2004.KeyThinkersonSpace

andPlace.London:Sage.

Hugo,Victor.1982.LesMisérables.TranslatedbyNormanDenny.London:Penguin

Classics.

Husserl, Edmund. 1991. On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal

Time (1893–1917), translated by John Barnett Brough. Dordrecht: Kluwer

AcademicPublishers.

_______. 2014. ‘The Structure of Lived Time,’ translated by James Mensch. In

SubjectiveTime:ThePhilosophy,Psychology,andNeuroscienceofTemporality,

editedbyValtteriArstillaandDanLloyd,61–74.London:MITPress.

Hutchinson,Mark.2012.‘Rede?iningcoherence:interactionandexperienceinnew

music,1985-1995.’PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.

_______. 2016. Coherence in NewMusic: Experience, Aesthetics, Analysis. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Imberty, Michel. 1993. ‘How do we perceive atonal music? Suggestions for a

theoreticalapproach.’ContemporaryMusicReview,9:325–37.

Jackson,TimothyL.2001.‘Observationsoncrystallizationandentropyinthe

musicofSibeliusandothercomposers.’InSibeliusStudies,editedbyTimothy

L.JacksonandVeijoMurtomäki,175–272.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Jackson, Timothy L., and Veijo Murtomäki, editors. 2001. Sibelius Studies.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Johnson, Julian. 2015.OutofTime:Musicand theMakingofModernity. NewYork:


Johnson,Mark L. andSteveLarson. 2003: ‘”Something in theWay SheMoves” –

MetaphorsofMusicalMotion.’MetaphorandSymbol18(2):63–84.

Johnson, Timothy A. 1994. ‘Minimalism: Aesthetic, Style, or Technique?’ The


Bibliography

260

Kantonen, Taito Almar. 1934. ‘The In?luence of Descartes on Berkeley.’ The

PhilosophicalReview43/5:483–500.

Karl, Gregory. 1997. ‘StructuralismandMusical Plot.’Music Theory Spectrum, 19

(1):13–34.

Keil, Charles M. H. 1966. ‘Motion and Feeling Through Music.’ The Journal of

AestheticsandArtCriticism24(3):337–49.

Kellaris, JamesJ.,andRobertJ.Kent.1992. ‘Thein?luenceofmusiconconsumers’

temporal perceptions: Does time ?ly when you’re having fun?’ Journal of

ConsumerPsychology1(4):365–76.

Kellaris, James J., and Susan P. Mantel. 1996. ‘Shaping time perceptions with

backgroundmusic: The effect of congruity and arousal on estimates of ad

durations.’PsychologyandMarketing,13(5):501–15.

Kerman,Joseph.1985.Musicology.London:FontanaPress.

Kierkegaard, Søren. 1983. Fearand Trembling,Repetition:Kierkegaard’sWritings,

VI.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Kinderman,William.1995.Beethoven.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kivy,Peter.2002.IntroductiontoaPhilosophyofMusic.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Knapp,Raymond.1989. ‘TheFinaleofBrahms’sFourthSymphony:TheTaleofthe

Subject.’19th-CenturyMusic13(1):3–17.

Kogler,Susanne.2003. ‘”Timelessness”and“ReleasedTime”–FranzSchubertand

Composition Today.’ In Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance

Practice,Analysis,editedbyBrianNewbould,89–100.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Korsyn, Kevin. 1999. ‘BeyondPrivilegedContexts: Intertextuality, In?luence, and

Dialogue.’InRethinkingMusic,editedbyNicholasCookandMarkEverist,55–

72.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kramer, JonathanD. 1973. ‘Multiple and Non-Linear Time in Beethoven’s Opus

135.’PerspectivesofNewMusic11(2):122–45.

_______.1978.‘MomentForminTwentiethCenturyMusic.’TheMusicalQuarterly64

(2):177–94.

_______.1981.‘NewTemporalitiesinMusic.’CriticalInquiry7(3):539–56.

_______. 1982. ‘Beginnings and Endings inWesternArt Music.’Canadia University

MusicReview3:1–14.

Bibliography

261

_______.1985.‘StudiesofTimeandMusic:ABibliography.’MusicTheorySpectrum7:

72–106.

_______. 1988.The Time ofMusic:NewMeanings, NewTemporalities,NewListening

Strategies.NewYork:SchirmerBooks.

_______. 2004. ‘TheConcept of Disunity andMusical Analysis.’Music Analysis 23:

361–72.

Kramer, Lawrence. 1990. Music as Cultural Practice: 1800–1900. Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

_______. 1995. Classical Music and Postmodern Knowledge. Berkeley: University of

CaliforniaPress.

_______. 2002.MusicalMeaning: Toward a Critical History. Berkeley: Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

_______. 2005. ‘Saving the Ordinary: Beethoven’s Ghost Trio and the Wheel of

History.’BeethovenForum12(1):50–81.

_______. 2007.WhyClassicalMusic Still Matters. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia

Press.

_______.2010InterpretingMusic.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Lakoff, George. 1993. ‘The Contemporary TheoryofMetaphor.’ InMetaphorand

Thought (Second edition), edited by Andrew Ortony, 202–51. Cambridge:


Lakoff,GeorgeandMarkJohnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:University

ofChicagoPress.

Lalitte, Philippe, andEmmanuel Bigand. 2006. ‘Music intheMoment? Revisiting

theEffectofLargeScaleStructures.’PerceptualandMotorSkills103:811–28.

Lam,Basil.1966. ‘LudwigvanBeethoven.’InTheSymphony,VolumeOne:Haydn to

Dvořák,editedbyRobertSimpson,104–74.Aylesbury:PenguinBooks.

Langer, Susanne K. 1953. Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art Developed from

PhilosophyinaNewKey.London:RoutledgeandKeeganPaul.

Larson, Steve. 1997. ‘TheProblemofProlongationin“Tonal”Music:Terminology,

Perception,andExpressiveMeaning.’JournalofMusicTheory41(1):101–36.

Larue, Jan, Eugene K. Wolf, Mark Evan Bonds, Stephen Walsh, Charles Wilson.

‘Symphony.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University

Bibliography

262

Press. Accessed 1 September, 2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/

subscriber/article/grove/music/27254.

Latham,Alan.2004. ‘EdwardSoja.’In KeyThinkerson Space andPlace, editedby

PhilHubbard,RobKitchinandGillValentine,269–74.London:Sage.

Laufer,Edward.2001.‘ContinuityandDesignintheSeventhSymphony.’InSibelius

Studies, edited by Timothy L. Jackson and Veijo Murtomäki, 352–90.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Layton,Robert.1965.Sibelius.London:J.M.DentandSons.

Le Poidevin, RobinandMurrayMacbeath, editors. 1993. The PhilosophyofTime.

NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1991.The Production ofSpace, translatedby DonaldNicholson-

Smith.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing.

_______. 2013.Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time andEverydayLife, translatedbyStuart

EldenandGeraldMoore.London:Bloomsbury.

Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.

London:MITPress.

Leman,Marc. 2008.Embodiedmusic cognitionandmediation technology. London:

MITPress.

Lewin, David. 1986. ‘Music Theory, Phenomenology, andModes of Perception.’

MusicPerception:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal3(4):327–92.

Lewis, C.S. 1961. An Experiment in Criticism. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Lippman, Edward A. 1984. ‘Progressive Temporality in Music.’ The Journal of

Musicology3(2):121–41.

Lochhead,Judy. 2016.ReconceivingStructure inContemporaryMusic:NewToolsin

MusicTheoryandAnalysis.NewYork:Routledge.

Lockwood, Lewis. 1982. ‘”Eroica” Perspectives: Strategy andDesign in theFirst

Movement.’InBeethovenStudies3,editedbyAlanTyson,85–106.Cambridge:


London, Justin. 2004. Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of Musical Meter.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lushetich,Natasha.2014.Fluxus:ThePracticeofNon-Duality.Amsterdam:Rodopi.

Bibliography

263

Mailman, Joshua Banks. 2007. ‘Review of Repetition in Music: Theoretical and

MetatheoreticalPerspectivesbyAdamOckleford.’PsychologyofMusic,35(2):

363–375.

March, Daniel. 1997. ‘BeyondSimplicity: Analytical Strategies for Contemporary

Music,’PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.

_______. 2011. ‘From the Air to the Earth: Reading the Ashes.’ InKaija Saariaho:

Visions, Narratives, Dialogues, edited by Howell, Tim, Jon Hargreaves and

MichaelRofe.3–14.Farnham:Ashgate.

Margulis, ElizabethHellmuth. 2005. ‘Review ofDecentering Music: A Critique of

ContemporaryMusicalResearchbyKevinKorsyn.’PsychologyofMusic,33(3):

331–37.

Marston, Nicholas. 2000. ‘Schubert’s Homecoming.’ Journal of the Royal Musial

Association125(2):248–70.

Matthews,David.1993.‘LivingTraditions.’TheMusicalTimes134(1802):189–91.

Maus, Fred Everett. 1988. ‘Music as Drama’. Music Theory Spectrum, 10 (10th

AnniversaryIssue):56-73.

_______.1991.‘MusicasNarrative.’IndianaTheoryReview11:1–34.

_______.1997. ‘Narrative,DramaandEmotioninInstrumentalMusic.’TheJournalof

AestheticsandArtCriticism55(3):293-303.

_______. 1999. ‘ConceptsofMusicalUnity’. InRethinkingMusic,editedbyNicholas

CookandMarkEverist,171–92.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

McAdams, Stephen.1989. ‘Psychologicalconstraintsonform-bearingdimensions

inmusic.’ContemporaryMusicReview4(1):181–98.

_______. 1999. ‘Perspectives on the Contribution of Timbre to Musical Structure.’

ComputerMusicJournal23(3):85–102.

McClelland, Ryan. 2009. ‘Brahms and the Principle of Destabilised Beginnings.’


McTaggart, J.M.E. 1993. ‘TheUnreality ofTime.’InThe PhilosophyofTime, edited

by Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 23–34. New York: Oxford

UniversityPress.Originallypublishedas ‘Time’inTheNatureofExistence, ii

(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1927).

Mellor, D.H. 1993. ‘TheUnrealityofTense.’ InThe PhilosophyofTime, editedby

Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 47–59. New York: Oxford

Bibliography

264

University Press. Originally published inReal Time (Cambridge: Cambridge

UniversityPress,1981).

Mensch, James. 2014. ‘A Brief Account of Husserl’s Conception of Our

Consciousness ofTime.’ InSubjective Time: The Philosophy, Psychology, and

NeuroscienceofTemporality,editedbyValtteriArstillaandDanLloyd,61–74.

London:MITPress.

Metzer, David. 2009.Musical Modernismat the Turn ofthe Twenty-First Century.

NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Meyer, Leonard B. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of

ChicagoPress.

Micznik, Vera. 2001. ‘Music and Narrative Revisited: Degrees of Narrativity in

BeethovenandMahler.’JournaloftheRoyalMusicalAssociation126(2):193–

249.

Miller, Izchak.1984.Husserl,Perception,andTemporalAwareness.Cambridge:MIT

Press.

Moisala,Pirkko.2009.KaijaSaariaho.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Molleson,Katie.2015. ‘A composer fortheseason.’The Herald, 14January,2015.

Accessed 1 September, 2016. http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/

13197029.A_composer_for_the_season/.

Morgan, Robert P. 2003. ‘The Concept of Unity and Musical Analysis.’ Music

Analysis22(1/2):7–50.

Mundle,C.W.K.1967.‘TheSpace-TimeWorld.’Mind76(302):264–69.

Murphy, Scott. 2009. ‘Metric cubes in some music of Brahms.’ Journal ofMusic

Theory53(1):1–56.

Murtomäki, Veijo.1993.SymphonicUnity:The DevelopmentofFormalThinking in

the Symphonies of Sibelius, translated by Henry Bacon. Helsinki, Studia

MusicologiaUniversitatisHelsingiensis.

Musgrave, Michael. 1979. ‘Schoenberg and Brahms: A study of Schoenberg’s

responsetoBrahms’smusicasrevealedinhisdidacticwritingsandselected

earlycompositions.’PhDthesis,KingsCollegeLondon.

_______. 1983. ‘Brahms the Progressive: Another View.’ The Musical Times 124

(1683):291–94.

Bibliography

265

_______. 1990. ‘Schoenberg’s Brahms.’ InBrahms Studies: Analytical andHistorical

Perspectives, Papers delivered at the International Brahms Conference

Washington,DC,5-8May1983,123–138.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

_______, editor. 1999.TheCambridgeCompanion toBrahms.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Nattiez,Jean-Jacques.1990.‘CanOneSpeakofNarrativityinMusic?’Translatedby

KatharineEllis.JournaloftheRoyalMusicalAssociation15(2):240–57.

Newbould, Brian, editor. 2003. Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance

Practice,Analysis.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Newell,Robert.1976.‘FourTiersontheFoundationofTime.’InternationalReview

oftheAestheticsandSociologyofMusic7(2):147–74

Nice,David.2013. ’StLawrenceStringQuartet, LSOStringOrchestra, Adams,LSO

StLuke’s.’The ArtsDesk, 24January, 2013.www.theartsdesk.com/classical-

music/st-lawrence-string-quartet-lso-string-orchestra-adams-lso-st-lukes.

Nobre,AnnaC., andJenniferT.Coull,editors.2010.Attentionandtime.NewYork:


Norris, Christopher. 2005. ‘Music theory, analysis anddeconstruction:How they

might (just) get along together.’ International Review of the Aesthetics and

SociologyofMusic,36(1):37–82.

Oakes, Steve. 2003. ‘Musical tempo and waiting perceptions.’ Psychology and

Marketing20(8):685–705.

Ochs, Elinor, and Lisa Capps. 1996. ‘Narrating the Self.’ Annual Review of

Anthropology25:19–43.

Ockelford, Adam. 2004. ‘On similarity, derivation and the cognition of musical

structure.’PsychologyofMusic32(1):23–74.

_______. 2005. Repetition in Music: Theoretical and Metatheoretical Perspectives.

Aldershot:Ashgate.

Orlov, Henry F. 1979. ‘The Temporal Dimensions of Musical Experience.’ The


Osmond-Smith David. 1983. ‘The retreat from dynamism: a study of Brahms’s

Fourth Symphony.’ In Brahms: Biographical, documentary and analytical

studies,editedbyRobertPascall.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bibliography

266

Paddison,Maxand IrèneDeliège, editors. 2010.ContemporaryMusic:Theoretical

andPhilosophicalPerspectives.Farnham:Ashgate.

Pascall, Robert, editor. 1983. Brahms: Biographical, documentary and analytical

studies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

_______.1989.‘GenreandtheFinaleofBrahms’sFourthSymphony.’MusicAnalysis8

(3):233–45.

Panagiotidi, Maria and Stavroula Samartzi. 2010. ‘Time estimation: Musical

trainingandemotional contentofstimuli.’PsychologyofMusic41 (5):620–

629.

Parmet,Simon. 1959.The SymphoniesofSibelius:A Studyin MusicalAppreciation.

London:Cassell.

Pasler, Jann.2008. ‘NarrativeandNarrativityinMusic.’InWritingThroughMusic:

EssaysonMusic,CultureandPolitics.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Peretz, Isabelle, andRobertJ.Zatorre, editors. 2003.TheCognitiveNeuroscienceof

Music.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pike,Lionel.1978.Beethoven,Sibeliusandthe‘Profoundlogic’:StudiesinSymphonic

Analysis.London:AthlonePress.

Pöppel, Ernst. 1978. ‘Time Perception.’ In Handbook of Sensory Physiology, III,

editedbyRichardHeld,HerschelW.LeibowitzandHans-LukasTeuber,713–

29.Berlin:Springer.

Potter, Keith. ‘Minimalism.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . A c c e s s e d 2 2 F e b r u a r y , 2 0 1 3 , h t t p : / /


Powell, Richard. 2014. ‘Accessible Narratives: Continuity in the Music of John

Adams.’ContemporaryMusicReview33(4):390–407.

Prior,ArthurN.1993. ‘Changesineventsandchanges inthings.’InThePhilosophy

of Time, edited by Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 203–20New

York:OxfordUniversityPress.OriginallypublishedinPhilosophy37(1962):

130–47.

Quinton,Anthony. 1993. ‘Spaces andTimes’ inThe PhilosophyofTime, editedby

Robin Le Poidevin and Murray Macbeath, 36–46. New York: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Bibliography

267

Reynolds, Jack. 2004. ‘Chapter Six: Decision.’InUnderstanding Derrida, editedby

JackReynoldsandJonRoffe,46–53.London:Continuum.

Rice, Timothy. 2003. ‘Time, Place, and Metaphor in Musical Experience and

Ethnography.’Ethnomusicology47(2):151–79.

Rickards,Guy.1997.JeanSibelius.London:PhaidonPress.

Rijn, Hedderik van, andNiels A. Taatgen. 2008. ‘Timing of multiple overlapping

intervals:Howmanyclocksdowehave?’ActaPsychologica129(3):365–75.

RobbinsLandon,H.C.1974.Beethoven:ADocumentaryStudy.London:Thamesand

Hudson.

Roeder,John.1997.‘ReviewofMeterasRhythmbyChristopherF.Hasty.’Journalof

theSocietyforMusicTheory–MusicTheoryOnline4(4):1–6.

_______. 2006. ‘Co-operating Continuities in the Music of Thomas Adès.’ Music

Analysis25:121–54.

Rofe,Michael. 2008. ‘ShostakovichandtheRussianDoll:DimensionsofEnergy in

theSymphonies,’PhDthesis,UniversityofYork.

_______. 2011. ‘Capturing Time and Giving it Form: Nymphéa.’ InKaija Saariaho:



_______.2014.‘DualismsofTime.’ContemporaryMusicReview33(4):341–54.

Rosen, Charles. 1988. Sonata Forms: Revised Edition. NewYork:W. W. Norton&

Company.

_______. 1997. The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. London: Faber and

Faber.

Rostand,Claude.1955:Brahms:Volume2.Paris:ÉditionsLeBonPlasir.

Rowell, Lewis. 1979. ‘TheSubconsciousLanguage ofMusical Time.’MusicTheory

Spectrum1:96–106.

_______.1990. ‘ReviewofTheTimeofMusic:NewMeanings,NewTemporalities,New

Listening Strategiesby JonathanD. Kramer’. Journal ofMusicTheory 34(2),

348–59.

Rupprecht, Philip. 2005. ‘Above and beyond theBass: Harmony and Texture in

GeorgeBenjamin'sViola,Viola.’Tempo59(232):28–38.

Bibliography

268

Saariaho,Kaija.2003.ProgrammenoteforJe sensundeuxièmecoeur.MusicSales.

Accessed 21 February, 2014. http://www.musicsalesclassical.com/

composer/work/14333.

Saariaho, Kaija and Tom Service. 2011. ‘Meet the Composer.’ InKaija Saariaho:



Said,EdwardW.2008.‘UntimelyMeditations(reviewofMaynardSolomon’sLate

Beethoven).’InMusicattheLimits:ThreeDecadesofEssaysandArticles.

London:Bloomsbury.

Saariaho, Kaija. 2000. ‘Matter and Mind in Music.’ In Matter and Mind in

Architecture,editedbyPirkkoTuukkanen.Helsinki:AlvarAaltoFoundation.

Saslaw, Janna. 1996. ‘Forces, Containers, and Paths: The Role of Body-Derived

ImageSchemasintheConceptualizationofMusic.’JournalofMusicTheory40

(2):217–43.

Schmalfeldt, Janet. 2011. In the Process of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical

Perspectives on Form in Early Nineteenth-Century Music. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Schoenberg,Arnold. 1975a.Style and Idea:SelectedwritingsofArnoldSchoenberg,

edited by Leonard Stein and translated by Leo Black. London: Faber and

Faber.

_______. 1975b. ‘Brahms the Progressive.’ In Style and Idea: Selected writings of

ArnoldSchoenberg,editedbyLeonardSteinandtranslatedbyLeoBlack,398–

441.London:FaberandFaber

_______. 1994. Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in Form. Ed.

Severine Neff and trans. Charlotte M. Cross and Severine Neff. Nebraska:

UniversityofNebraska.

Schwarz,K.Robert.1996.Minimalists.London:Phiadon.

Sellars, Peter. 2012. ‘The Edge of Light: Music ofMessiaenandSaariaho.’ Liner

notesforTheEdgeofLight:Messiaen/Saariaho.GloriaCheng(piano),Calder

Quartet.HarmoniaMundi,HMU907578,CD.

Sera?ine,MaryLouise.1984.‘TheDevelopmentofCognitioninMusic.’TheMusical

Quarterly70(2):218–33.

Bibliography

269

Service,Tom.2007.‘WritingMusic?It’slikeFlyingaPlane:TomServiceonThomas

Adès.’TheGuardian,26February,2007.Accessed1September2016,https://

www.theguardian.com/music/2007/feb/26/classicalmusicandopera.tomservice.

_______. ‘Minimalism at 50: how less becamemore’ The Guardian, 24 November,

2011. Accessed23 September 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/music/

2011/nov/24/minimalism-at-50.

_______.2012. ‘Schubert:Ferocious,tender,sublime.’TheGuardian,19March,2012.

Accessed 22 February, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/

mar/19/schubert-ferocious-tender-sublime.

Shakespeare, William, Jonathan Bate, and Eric Rasmussen. 2007. The RSC

Shakespeare:TheCompleteWorks.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Shanon, Benny. 2011. ‘Music and ayahuasca.’ In Music and Consciousness:

Philosophical,Psychological,andCulturalPerspectives,editedbyDavidClarke

andEricClarke,281–92.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Sheldon, DeborahA. 1994. ‘Effects of Tempo, Musical Experience, and Listening

Modes on Tempo Modulation Perception.’ Journal of Research in Music

Education42(3):190–202.

Shields,Rob.2004.‘HenriLefebvre.’InKeyThinkersonSpaceandPlace,editedby

PhilHubbard,RobKitchinandGillValentine,208–13.London:Sage.

Shoemaker, Sydney. 1993. ‘Time Without Change.’ In The Philosophy of Time,

editedbyRobinLePoidevinandMurrayMacbeath,63–79.NewYork:Oxford

UniversityPress.OriginallypublishedinTheJournalofPhilosophy66(1969),

363–81.

Simpson, Robert, editor. 1966a. The Symphony: Volume 1. Aylesbury: Penguin

Books.

_______.1966b.TheSymphony:Volume2.Aylesbury:PenguinBooks.

Sipe, Thomas. 1998. Beethoven: Eroica Symphony. Cambridge: Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Small, Christopher. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening.

Connecticut:WesleyanUniversityPress.

Smart,J.J.C.1949.‘TheRiverofTime.’Mind58(232):483–94.

Smith, F. Joseph. 1979. The Experiencing of Musical Sound: Prelude to a

PhenomenologyofMusic.London:GordonandBreach.

Bibliography

270

Smith, Neil Thomas. 2015. ‘Mathias Spahlinger's passage/paysage and “the

BarbarityofContinuity.”’ContemporaryMusicReview34(2–3):176–86.

Smith,PeterH.1994. ‘BrahmsandSchenker:AMutualResponsetoSonataForm.’.

InMusicTheorySpectrum16(1):77–103.

_______. 1996. ‘Youreapwhatyousow: Someinstances ofrhythmicandharmonic

ambiguityinBrahms.’MusicTheorySpectrum28(1):57–97.

Soja,EdwardW.1989.PostmodernGeographies:TheReassertionofSpaceinCritical

SocialTheory.London:Verso.

_______. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined

Places.Oxford:BlackwellPublishers.

Spence, Charles. 2010. ‘Prior entry: Attention and temporal perception.’ In

Attention and time, editedbyAnna C. Nobre and JenniferT. Coull, 89–106.


Stambaugh, Joan. 1964. ‘MusicasaTemporal Form.’The Journal ofPhilosophy 61

(9):265–80.

Strickland, Edward.1991.AmericanComposers:DialoguesonContemporaryMusic.

Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Stoecker, Philip. 2014. ‘Aligned Cycles in Thomas Adès’s Piano Quintet.’Music

Analysis33(1):32–64.

Subotnik, Rose Rosengard. 1996. Deconstructive Variations:Music and Reason in

WesternSociety.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Swed,Mark.1989.‘JohnAdams.’TheMusicalTimes130(1761):662–64.

Swinkin,Jeffrey. 2012. ‘VariationasThematicActualisation:TheCaseofBrahms’s

Op.9.’MusicAnalysis31(1):37–89.

Tawaststjerna, Erik. 1986. Sibelius – Volume II:1904-1914, translated by Robert

Layton.London:FaberandFaber.

Taylor,Benedict.2016.TheMelodyofTime:MusicandTemporalityintheRomantic

Era.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

Teller,Paul.1991.‘Substance,Relations,andArgumentsabouttheNatureofSpace-

Time.’ThePhilosophicalReview100(3):363–97.

Tillmann, Barbara, andEmmanuel Bigand. 1996. ‘DoesFormalMusical Structure

AffectPerceptionofMusicalExpressiveness?’Psychologyofmusic24:3–17.

Bibliography

271

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1978. ‘On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in

language.’InUniversalsofHumanLanguage,Volume3:WordStructure,edited

byJosephH.Greenberg,369–400.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Truscott,Harold.1966.‘JeanSibelius(1865-1957).’InTheSymphony,VolumeTwo:

Elgar to the Present Day, edited by Robert Simpson, 80–103. Aylesbury:

PenguinBooks.

Tse, Peter Ulric. 2010. ‘Attention underlies subjective temporal expansion.’ In

Attention and time, editedbyAnna C. Nobre and JenniferT. Coull, 137–50.


Venn,Edward.2014. ‘ThomasAdès’s“Freaky,Funky,Rave”.’MusicAnalysis33(1):

65–98.

_______. 2015. ‘Thomas Adès and the Spectres of Brahms.’ Journal of the Royal

MusicalAssociation140(1):163–212.

Wagner, Richard. 1988.Wagner on Music and Drama, A compendium ofRichard

Wagner’sproseworks, selectedand arranged byAlbert Goldman andEvert

Sprinchorn,andtranslatedbyH.AshtonEllis.NewYork:DaCapoPress.

_______. 2008.Beethoven. TranslatedbyWilliamAshtonEllis.MiltonKeynes:Dodo

Press.

Walsh,Stephen.‘1901–18:Mahler,Sibelius,Nielsen,’in‘Symphony.’InGroveMusic

Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 31 August,

2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/

27254pg3#S27254.3.

Weber, William. 1994. ‘The intellectual origins of musical canon in eighteenth-

centuryEngland.’JournaloftheAmericanMusicologicalSociety47:488–519.

_______.1999.‘TheHistoryofMusicalCanons.’InRethinkingMusic, editedbyMark

EveristandNicholasCook,336–55.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Weinert,Friedel.2013.TheMarchofTime:Evolvingconceptionsoftime inthe light

ofscientiUicdiscoveries.London:Springer.

Weingard,Robert.1977.‘Space-TimeandtheDirectionofTime.’Noûs11(2):119–

31.

Wells, Dominic. 2012. ‘Plural Styles, Personal Syle: The Music ofThomas Adès.’

Tempo66(260):2–14.

Bibliography

272

Whittall, Arnold. ‘Form.’ In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . A c c e s s e d 3 1 A u g u s t , 2 0 1 6 , h t t p : / /


_______. 1999. ‘Autonomy/Heteronomy:TheContextsofMusicology.’InRethinking

Music, edited by Nicholas Cook andMark Everist, 73–101. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.

_______. 2004. ‘The later symphonies.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Sibelius,

editedbyDanielM.Grimley,49–65.Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.

Williams, Alastair. 1995. New Music and the Claims of Modernity. Aldershot:

Ashgate.

_______.2001.ConstructingMusicology.Aldershot:Ashgate.

_______. 2012. ‘Constructing Meanings and Subjectivities in Music: Theories and

Practices.’ In Constructing the Historiography of Music: The Formation of

Musical Knowledge, edited by Sandra Danielczyk, Christoph Dennerlein,

Sylvia Freydank, Ina Knoth, MathiasMaschat, Lilli Mittner, Karina Seefeldt

andLisbethSuhrcke,227–40.Hildesheim:GeorgOlmsVerlag.

Williams,Rowan.1989.‘PostmodernTheologyandtheJudgementoftheWorld.’In

PostmodernTheology:Christian Faith in aPluralistWorld,editedbyFrederic

B.Burnham,92–112.NewYork:HarperCollins.

Wilson, Conrad. 2003. Notes on Beethoven: 20 Crucial Works. Edinburgh: Saint

AndrewPress.

Yamada, Kōun, trans. 2004. The Gateless Gate: The Classic Book of Zen Koans.

Boston:WisdomPublications.

Yuasa,Jōji.1993.‘TemporalityandI:FromtheComposer’sWorkshop.’Perspectives

ofNewMusic31(2):216–28.

Ziv, Naomi, and Elad Omer. 2010. ‘Music and time: the effect of experimental

paradigm,musicalstructureandsubjectiveevaluationsontimeestimation.’

PsychologyofMusic39(2):182–95.

Zwart,P.J. 1976.About Time:Aphilosophical inquiryinto the originandnature of

time.Oxford:North-HollandPublishingCompany.

Bibliography

273

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/09981




Powell - Articulating Time corrected (pages) - CORE

Documents

Transcript of Powell - Articulating Time corrected (pages) - CORE