Yale University Department of Music

Review: A Commentary on Schenker's Free Composition Author(s): Carl E. Schachter Reviewed work(s): Free Composition (Der freie Satz) by ; Ernst Oster Source: Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 25, No. 1, 25th Anniversary Issue (Spring, 1981), pp. 115-142 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Yale University Department of Music Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/843469 Accessed: 14/01/2010 20:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org me to be at least as close to the backgroundas the I-VI-I that Schenker includes in the first level in connection with a neighboringnote to 5 (p. 42, ? 108). The material of Part II, then, is not presentedquite as systematically as it might at first appearto be. I rather doubt that it can ever be sys- tematized in the way that the simplermaterials and proceduresof strict can, but I think that Schenker'spresentation could pos- sibly be improvedupon by someone with sufficient knowledge and will- ingness to work. Despite its shortcomings, Part II remains an indis- pensable resource for anyone who wants to understandmusic. Schenk- er's totally new and highly important conception of the relation of form to tonal structure is based, to a considerableextent, on proce- dures first discussedin Part II. Contrapuntallyprolonged basses. The first middlegroundtechnique that Schenker describes is that of filling in the space between the ini- tial I and the V of the .The way he shows this process (in Figure 14) is most interesting.The first stage is a complete arpeg- giation through the third; passing tones then compose out the arpeggio creating a conjunct line from I to V. This procedure would seem to suggest that the motion from I to V is necessarilysubdivided at the III or I6 produced by the arpeggiatedbass, but this is not at all what Schenker intends. He states that II or IV (of the stepwise bass) might receive an emphasisfrom a tone of the fundamentalline that coincides with one of them. In that case the III would recede in importanceand assume a passing function-another instance of the mutual adjustment of chord, consonance, and "nature"on the one hand and line, disson- ance, and "art"on the other. And indeed except in minor, the path to V leads far more charac- teristically through IV or II than through III or I6. Each in a different way, IV and II introduce the possibility of a subsidiaryfifth relation- ship into the progressionfrom tonic to dominant and thus add to the harmonic content of the piece. In addition, the stepwise motion from I to II and from IV to V adds an intensely linearquality to the bass part. It is important to note that Schenkeruses his characteristicsinterlock- ing slurs (I-IV or I-IV) only for progressionsinvolving IV and II, not for those arpeggiatingthrough III or I6. In this way he conveys the far more intense motion to V producedby II or IV. Schenker believed that a bass part, in principle, could not receive the extensive diminutionalelaboration characteristic of the uppermost part; basses tend to move in slower values and with more disjunctmo- tion. Consequently a fully developed passing motion from I to V is not always possible; skips-perhaps from I to IV or II to V-are some- times unavoidable.Still, even the partial filling in of the fifth from I to V reveals the activity of the linear-melodicprinciple, whose tendency 130 to move by step must sometimes adjust to and compromisewith the kind of progressionappropriate to a bass. It seems to me that Part II of Free Composition contains the best solution we have to a prob- lem that has vexed theorists since Rameau: what is the basis of the progression from IV to V? The basis is contrapuntal;that is why it eluded Rameau and his followers. IV move to V as the result of a space-filling motion that composes out the leap of a fifth from I toV. One shortcomingof the section on contrapuntallyprolonged bassses is Schenker's restrictinghis illustrationsto progressionsin major. This restriction creates no difficulties in Part I, for differencesof mode have no bearing on the except, perhaps, for octave lines, which seem slightly less problematic in minor. But at the first middleground level, the differences already take on considerablesig- nificance. In particularthe use of III in minor requires comment. If III already appears under 5, the stretch 5-4-3 can unfold over the sustained III. At a later level the 5-4-3 can receive the support of a cadence tnicizing III, in which case the melodic line will assume the guise of 3-2-1 in the mediant "key." This possibility is unique to minor; the emphasisit gives to III is such that a IV or II6 that follows will necessarilyhave the function of a passingchord ratherthan a goal. This creates significantimplications for form, especially sonata form in minor. Later in the book Schenker shows such middlegroundprogres- sions (Figure 154/2 and 3), but he does not do so at this point, nor does he refer to the later illustrations. I should like to make one more observationabout the contrapuntal- ly prolonged basses. As Figure 16 shows,_theintroduction of II or IV provides consonant support for 4 in a 5-line, thus reducing the un- supported stretch. At the same time, however, this procedure trans- forms 3 into either an unsupporteddissonant passingtone (over IV or II) or the sixth of a 6 formation above V. In either case 3 becomes a more active tone than in the fundamentalstructure. Sometimes, but by no means always, a later level will provide consonant support for the passing 3, usually in the form of an apparent"I" interpolatedbetween IV (or II) and V. Even then, the conceptually dissonant characterof the 3 is evident to any listener who takes in the larger context. To provide at once consonant support for 4 and stability for 3 requires the use of two bass arpeggiations,as shown in Figure 19. Interruption.Schenker's discussion of this most importanttechnique is reasonablyclear, and it is made still clearerby some excellent foot- notes provided by Jonas, Oster, and Rothgeb. Schenker obviously re- garded the discovery of interruption as one of his greatest achieve- ments; it is perhapsthe most important component of his conception of form. I don't intend to write about interruptionhere, but I do wish to comment on one of its frequent by-products:the upward transfer 131