UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:______
I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:
It is entitled:
This work and its defense approved by:
Chair: ______
“Transforming Chaos”: Modes of Ambiguity in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 in E Minor
A Master’s Thesis Submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Music Theory
In the Division of Composition, Musicology, and Music Theory
of the College-Conservatory of Music
By
Breighan Moira Brown
B.A., Music B.B.A., Finance
Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana, May 2002
August, 2007
Committee Chair: Dr. David Carson Berry ABSTRACT
Ambiguity is arguably one of musical romanticism’s most significant means for creating
artistic expression. This thesis supports this claim through a thorough investigation of
ambiguity, especially as manifested in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 in E Minor (1888).
Chapter 1 defines and categorizes musical ambiguity through a detailed review of current,
relevant scholarship. Using terminology pertinent to the study of musical semiotics, Chapter 2
examines the metaphorical potential of ambiguity that results from Tchaikovsky’s pervasive use
of the subdominant harmony. This chapter also explicates the notion of thresholdism as a powerful heuristic for exploring ambiguity within several transitory passages in the Fifth
Symphony. Finally, Chapter 3 introduces the concept of first-order metric parallelisms to
illustrate how ambiguity in the metric domain can inform our interpretation of ambiguity in the
pitch domain. Each chapter investigates a different mode of ambiguity, but together they reveal
ambiguity to be an underlying unifying principle that saturates multiple structural levels of the
symphony. As a result, this study of musical ambiguity provides valuable insights to inform our
understanding of Tchaikovsky’s musical language.
iii
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am truly honored to have had Dr. David Carson Berry as my advisor for this thesis.
With every draft of my work he offered thoughtful commentary, inspiring observations, and superb editorial suggestions, which helped to focus and polish my arguments. Above all, I am thankful for his extraordinary mentorship as he dedicated copious amounts of time to encouraging and motivating the formulation of my ideas. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr.
Catherine Losada, whose detailed and articulate recommendations contributed significantly to the quality of my discourse. I especially thank her for teaching me the art of critical response to scholarship. Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Robert Zierolf, who provided me with many fine suggestions. I appreciate the time he dedicated to helping me complete this document.
Finally, I am eternally grateful to my parents, for without their generous support, encouragement, prayers, and unwavering confidence in me, this project would not have been possible.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures vii
Introduction 10
Chapter 1: Defining Ambiguity 15 I. Definition, Etymology, and Classification 16 1. Ambiguity and Structure 17 2. Ambiguity and Signification 18 3. Ambiguity and Context 21 4. Ambiguity and Predictability 22 II. Ambiguity as a Music-Theoretic and -Analytic Concept 27
Chapter 2: A Semiotic Approach to Ambiguity 41 I. Critical Review of Scholarship 43 II. Semiotics 47 III. Plagal Ambiguity and Markedness 53 IV. Ambiguity and “Thresholdism” 63 1. Thresholdism and Romanticism 65 2. Thresholdism in the Fifth Symphony 68 3. Thresholdism and Tchaikovsky 73
Chapter 3: Exploring Metric Ambiguity 87 I. Issues of Meter and Pitch in the Valse 90 II. First-Order Metric Parallelisms 98
Works Cited 114
vi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Caption Page
Chapter 1: Defining Ambiguity 1.1 Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 4 in F Minor, I, mm. 1–20 40 1.2 Beethoven, String Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3, mm. 20–31 40
Chapter 2: A Semiotic Approach to Ambiguity 2.1 Competencies in Musical Understanding 75 2.2 Dual Network (from Daniel Harrison) 75 2.3 Comparison of Authentic vs. Plagal Voice-Leading 76 2.4 Plagal Domain (from Deborah Stein) 76 2.5 Conventional Functions of the Subdominant Harmony 76 2.6 Transformation of Tonic Function 77 2.7 Tchaikovsky’s Manipulation of the Subdominant Harmony 77 2.8 Comparison of Figures 2.6 and 2.7 77 2.9 Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, mm. 72–88 78 2.10 Manipulation of Subdominant Harmony in mm. 72–88 78 2.11 Voice-Leading Graph of mm. 72–88 78 2.12 Progression of Key Areas between Movements 79 2.13 Process of Semiosis 79 2.14 Torzhestvennost in Russian Chant Harmonization 79 2.15 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, I, Subdominant 80 Decoration in mm. 1–4 2.16 1812 Overture, Subdominant Decoration in String Solo, 80 mm. 1–6 2.17 Orthodox Church’s Znamenny chant 80 2.18 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, I, Transition 81 to the Development, mm. 213–26
2.19 Summary of Harmonic Motion, Mvmt. I, mm. 213–26 81
2.20 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, IV, Transition 82 from Primary to Secondary Theme, mm. 45–60
vii
2.21 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, II, Transition 83 from Fate Motive to Primary Theme, mm. 96–112
2.22 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, Transition 84 to Recapitulation, mm. 138–46
2.23 Comparison of mm. 138–44 with mm. 80–84, Mvmt. III 84 2.24 Omnibus Progression 85 2.25 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, Omnibus 85 Progression, mm. 53–9
2.26 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, 86 Thresholdism in the Coda, mm. 241–66
Chapter 3: Exploring Metric Ambiguity 3.1 Types of Metrical Dissonance 103 3.2 Formal Organization of Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, Valse 103 3.3a Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, Valse 104 Type B, Direct Metrical Dissonance in Phrase 1, mm. 1–11
3.3b Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, 105 Metrical Consonance in Phrase 2, mm. 12–19
3.4 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, 105 Durational Reduction of Phrase 1, mm. 1–11
3.5 Abstract Progression from Metrical Dissonance to Consonance 106 in Phrases 1 and 2, mm. 1–19 3.6a “Neighboring” Metrical Motion 106 3.6b “Passing” Metrical Motion 106 3.7a Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, 107 Interaction of Accent to Initiate Metrical Reinterpretation, mm. 20–27 3.7b Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, 107 “Correction” of Metric Imbalance in Consequent Phrase, mm. 28–36 3.8 Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, III, 108 Metrical Dissonance in the B Section, mm. 72–88
3.9 Comparison of “Fate” Theme Occurrences across Movements 109
viii 3.10a Neighbor-Note in Melody of Opening Phrase, mm. 1–19 110 3.10b Neighbor-Note in Melody and Harmony of Middle Phrase, 110 mm. 20–36 3.11a Schenker Graph, A Section, Middleground, Level II 111 3.11b Schenker Graph, A Section, Middleground, Level I 112 3.12a Voice-Leading Graph of B Section, mm. 72–88 112 3.12b Manipulation of Harmony in B Section, mm. 72–88 113 3.13 Harmonic Motion in the Coda, mm. 155–66 113
ix INTRODUCTION
Vor der Abstrakzion ist alles eins, aber eins wie Chaos; nach der Abstrakzion ist wieder alles vereinigt, aber diese Vereinigung ist eine freye Verbindung selbstänger, selbstbestimmter Wesen. Aus einem Haufen ist eine Gesellschaft geworden, das Chaos ist in eine mannichfaltige Welt verwandelt.1
[Before abstraction, everything is one, but it is the oneness of chaos; after abstraction, everything is again unified, but this unification is a free [i.e., not chaotic] network of independent and self-defined beings. Out of a [disorganized] heap, an organization has come into being; chaos has been transformed into a complex world.] —Novalis
“Ambiguity: Lending Clarity, Maintaining Chaos” is the evocative title of the opening chapter of Deborah Lund’s Ambiguity as Narrative Strategy in the Prose Work of C.F. Meyer.2
Although her book focuses on literary works, the polarity between chaos and clarity advanced by the title, and the further implication that ambiguity is at the root of this opposition, presents a
striking perspective from which to approach musical analysis. Certainly, much of music theory
is concerned with “lending clarity”; its most prominent methodologies often aim to illuminate
the nature of coherence and unity in music. For example, in Free Composition, Heinrich
Schenker outlines the concept he takes to be not only “inherent in the works of the great masters”
but “the very secret and source of their being: that of organic coherence.”3 He designates the background as the fundamental structure (Ursatz), which represents the totality of a work from
1 Novalis, Blüthenstaub [Pollen], no. 95 (1798). Translation my own.
2 Deborah Lund, Ambiguity as Narrative Strategy in the Prose Work of C.F. Meyer (New York: P. Lang, 1990).
3 Heinrich Schenker, Free Composition (Der freie Satz): Vol. III of New Musical Theories and Fantasies, trans. and ed. Ernst Oster (New York: Pendragon Press, 1977), xxi. Italics added.
- 10 - which the middleground and foreground levels are organically manifested, gaining originality as
elements of design are implemented. Organic coherence is also a central component of Arnold
Schoenberg’s ideas regarding compositional organization, not only in works from the common-
practice era but also in the atonal works of his own day. Among his influential ideas is the
notion of the Grundgestalt, which is “the basic musical idea of a piece …; the ‘first creative
thought’ from which everything in the piece can be derived.”4 Finally, pitch-class set theory, as developed in the 1960s and afterward, aims to demonstrate the intervallic unity of works that obey neither the functions of conventional tonal syntax nor the systematic orderings of post-tonal serialism. Although the preceding methodologies are quite different in their approaches, each inevitably seeks to “lend clarity.”
In contrast, it is also interesting to examine how “maintaining chaos” may inform convincing musical analysis. A listener often finds delight, enjoyment, and mystical allure in
passages that seem chaotic, and thus to explore the nature of alleged “chaos” can be an important
aspect of a thorough analysis. For example, in his analysis of Mendelssohn’s Venetian Gondola
Song, Op. 30 No. 6, L. Poundie Burstein remarks that the role of musical analysis is not to
present complex and potentially ambiguous voice-leading structures in more simplified versions,
but rather to acknowledge how a simple underlying idea is uniquely and artistically expressed in
terms of surface chaos.5 The significance of this statement lies in its suggestion that compelling musical analysis seeks not only to reveal the coherence of a work vis-à-vis its “simplified underlying idea,” but also to retain the aesthetic integrity of its nuance.
4 William Drabkin, “A Glossary of Analytical Terms,” in Ian Bent, Analysis (New York: W.W. Norton, 1987), 117.
5 L. Poundie Burstein, “Of Species Counterpoint, Gondola Songs, and Sordid Boons,” in Structure and Meaning in Tonal Music: Festschrift in Honor of Carl Schachter, ed. L. Poundie Burstein and David Gagné, Harmonologia Series No. 12 (New York: Pendragon Press, 2006), 35.
- 11 - To reveal coherence while retaining aesthetic nuance is the essential goal of the analyses
in this document. In other words—to posit a musical corollary to Lund’s thought-provoking
title—I aim to examine the conflict between compositional structure (which, at deeper levels, I
take to exemplify clarity) and design (which, on levels closer to the surface, may suggest chaos).
The study of musical ambiguity offers a profitable means by which to explore this opposition. I will demonstrate this through a study of Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 in E Minor
(1888), and I will argue that ambiguity is an essential feature of his compositional style. I will trace numerous surface ambiguities as they pervade deeper levels of the work’s structure, and thus attain significance as a unifying force. Informed by concepts derived from musical semiotics, I will investigate the communicative potential of ambiguity and argue that an awareness of it serves to deepen our understanding of Tchaikovsky’s stylistic and cultural orientation. In each analysis presented herein, Tchaikovsky’s penchant for circumventing convention will be shown to result in numerous ambiguities that are essential to defining his musical ethos.
The first chapter seeks to define and categorize musical ambiguity through a detailed review of current, relevant scholarship. The goal of this chapter is threefold: 1) to provide the definition and etymology of “ambiguity”; 2) to define and classify ambiguity as it may be manifested in music; and 3) to explore ambiguity as a music-theoretic and -analytic concept.
Part I will define ambiguity and examine its function as a literary device so as to derive potential corollaries useful for discussing ambiguity in the musical domain. Scholarship linked to linguistic theory by William Empson, David Gorfein, Greg Simpson, and Patrizia Tabossi will provide the impetus for this discourse, in conjunction with pertinent music-related articles by
Jonathan Berger, Leonard Meyer, and Leonard Ratner. Part II, informed by the contributions of
- 12 - Kofi Agawu, David Epstein, Carl Schachter, and William Thomson, will then examine several techniques associated with the resolution of ambiguity in tonal music, and conclude by considering the analytical advantages of espousing both a dialectical and hierarchical approach to the study of musical ambiguity.
Chapter 2 presents a semiotic approach to ambiguity in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 in E minor. Focusing specifically on the metaphorical potential of ambiguity, this chapter will examine the symphony from two perspectives: 1) subdominant pervasiveness and 2) thresholdism. With regard to the former, using terminology derived from Robert Hatten’s musical “markedness” and Deborah Stein’s “plagal domain,” I will argue Tchaikovsky’s pervasive use of the subdominant to be marked, and the resultant ambiguity to be essential to understanding his stylistic and cultural orientation. Then, inspired by John Francis Fetzer’s exploration of thresholdism as paramount to romantic expression, I will argue that the image of being poised between two viable alternatives functions not only as a powerful heuristic for examining ambiguities associated with Tchaikovsky’s musical ethos, but also as a valuable means of understanding the composer’s psychological and emotional states.
The third and final chapter investigates metric ambiguity as manifested in the third movement of Tchaikovsky’s symphony, the Valse. This chapter will first address how metric issues can challenge an investigation of ambiguity; I argue that it is more difficult to resolve ambiguities involving metric considerations than it is those involving harmonic events. The foremost concern of this chapter, however, is to demonstrate how seemingly ambiguous events in the metric domain can inform our interpretation of events in the pitch (i.e., harmonic–melodic) domain. I will accomplish this by addressing the interaction of Schenkerian “motivic parallelisms” with the various metric processes prevalent in the work, and conclude by
- 13 - introducing the concept of first-order metric parallelisms. This concept not only highlights the
analogous processes that govern both the metric and motivic domains of the Valse, but also
emphasizes the organically manifested unity achieved by the interaction of these processes.
In sum, this thesis aims to present a hierarchical perspective of ambiguity while arguing
that ambiguity was an essential compositional premise for Tchaikovsky. 6 That is, ambiguities
that pervade the surface and late-middleground levels of this symphony often reveal themselves
to be part of a deeper-level strategy to achieve complete structural unity. Moreover, this unity is
not only achieved in the melodic–motivic domain, but can also be demonstrated to operate
within the metric domain to further bind the work together. Because the controlled use of
ambiguity serves as an underlying unifying principle that saturates multiple structural levels, it
attains a salience that rises to the level of a compositional premise, particularly in the sense
advanced by David Epstein. Thus, it is my goal to present analyses that identify the nature of
this unification while maintaining the aesthetic integrity of the “chaos.” To do so will provide
valuable insights regarding Tchaikovsky’s stylistic and cultural orientation, and thereby deepen
our understanding of his musical language.
6 David Epstein develops the notion of ambiguity as a compositional premise in Brahms’s Second Symphony. He recognizes compositions as a conflict between frames of reference, which are “structured by concepts, procedures, and modes of reference intrinsic to the medium,” and compositional “premises,” which are intrinsic and unique to a particular composition. To the extent that compositional “premises” are elements of compositional design, it is plausible that ambiguity may be a purposeful “premise.” Epstein, Beyond Orpheus:Studies in Musical Structure (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1979), 161–62.
- 14 - CHAPTER 1: DEFINING AMBIGUITY
In the writings of Friedrich Schlegel (1772–1829), one finds significant contributions to
our understanding of artistic expression within nineteenth-century aesthetic traditions. His
commentaries are particularly relevant to our study of musical ambiguity, as he embraces chaos
and opposition as constituent elements of artistic expression. For example, in his essay “Über
das Studium der griechischen Poesie” [“On the Study of Greek Poetry”], he writes that the poetry
of his time “appears like an ocean of warring forces, where the parts of the dissipated beauty, the
fragments of shattered art, move confusedly through one another in a lugubrious mixture. One
could call it a chaos of everything sublime, beautiful, and charming.”7 Schlegel espouses not
only chaos as a salient descriptor of artistic affect, but also conflict, declaring elsewhere that “an
idea is a concept perfected to the point of irony, an absolute synthesis of absolute antitheses, the
continual self-creating interchange of two conflicting thoughts.”8 This “synthesis of opposites” is what conveys the characteristic intent of romantic expression, particularly the notion that one of its most cherished aims is this union of perfection, or coherence, with chaos and opposition.9
Schlegel’s gnostic views provide an appropriate point of departure for this study of musical ambiguity, particularly insofar as they seek to strike an effective balance between
“maintaining chaos” and “lending clarity” in musical analysis, as per the remarks in the
7 Friedrich Schlegel, “Über das Studium der griechischen Poesie” (1795; publ. 1797), trans. and ed. Stuart Barnett as On the Study of Greek Poetry (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 21.
8 Friedrich Schlegel, Athenäum Fragmente (1797–98), no. 121, in Kritische Friedrich Schlegel Ausgabe, ed. Hans Eichner (Munich: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 1967), II:184; translated by Peter Firchow in Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde and the Fragments (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971), 176.
9 John Daverio, Nineteenth-Century Music and the German Romantic Ideology (New York: Schirmer Books, 1993), 13.
- 15 - Introduction (following Lund). The goal of the present chapter is to refine and elaborate upon this approach in three ways: it will 1) provide the definition and etymology of “ambiguity,” 2) define and classify ambiguity as it may be manifested in music, and 3) explore ambiguity as a music-theoretic and -analytic concept.10 As this discourse will demonstrate, musical ambiguity is, indeed, a “synthesis of opposites.”
I. DEFINITION, ETYMOLOGY, AND CLASSIFICATION
The Oxford English Dictionary defines ambiguity as follows: 1) “wavering of opinion; hesitation, doubt, uncertainty as to one’s course”; 2) “capability of being understood in two or more ways, double or dubious signification”; and 3) “a word or phrase susceptible to more than one meaning; an equivocal expression.”11 As suggested especially by the third definition, ambiguity is perhaps most readily intuited as it is expressed in language. Indeed, for centuries, our enjoyment of poetry, literature, and other rhetorical forms has been dependent upon the strategic use of words or phrases that have multiple meanings or dubious signification. Not surprisingly, then, ambiguity as a linguistic construct has been subjected to extensive scrutiny.12
10 An essay that exerted an early influence on my work was David Carson Berry, "On the Rhetorical Nature of Musical Ambiguity: An Essay and Analysis,” unpublished paper submitted for a graduate seminar at Yale University (May 1997). While Berry considers the dialectical tensions evoked by ambiguity, and their implications for musical rhetoric, my discourse explores the insights that can be derived from embracing both dialectic and hierarchic approaches to ambiguity. Nonetheless, both endeavors engage similar concepts related to the classification and definition of ambiguity as an analytic construct.
11 “Ambiguity,” definitions 1, 3a and 4, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); accessed via OED Online, 10 May 2007.
12 The resolution of semantic ambiguity was explored extensively at a 1988 conference at Adelphi University, Garden City, NY; from this conference a collection of essays was published as Resolving Semantic Ambiguity, ed. David S. Gorfein (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989). A more recent collection of essays was published as On the Consequences of Meaning Selection: Perspectives on Resolving Lexical Ambiguity, ed. David S. Gorfein (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001). See also Uwe K. Reichenbach, Contexts, Hierarchies, and Filters: A Study of Transformational Systems as Disambiguated Languages (Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1983); Frederic Schick, Ambiguity and Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Hinrich Schutze, Ambiguity Resolution in Language Learning: Computational and Cognitive Models (Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1997).
- 16 - Much of this scholarship has been concerned with how we process ambiguities in language, and
furthermore, how we arrive at the intended meanings of such ambiguities. By articulating the
specific nature of ambiguity resolution as a cognitive function, scholars have aimed to explain
more clearly its existence as a tool for artful expression. Thus, in attempting to establish potential
musical corollaries, it will be useful first to explore ambiguity as a literary device. The ensuing
discussion, informed by scholarship that addresses ambiguity as a linguistic construct, aims to
establish useful parallels in musical domains; the topics to be addressed relate specifically to: 1)
ambiguity and structure; 2) ambiguity and signification; 3) ambiguity and context; and 4)
ambiguity and predictability.
1. AMBIGUITY AND STRUCTURE
Our intuitions about ambiguity in language are informed not only by its definition, but also by its various types. Greg B. Simpson considers the following sentences to manifest three basic types of ambiguities:13
1. The men decided to wait by the bank. 2. Visiting relatives can be a nuisance. 3. The shooting of the hunters was terrible.
The first sentence represents lexical ambiguity; one of the words (i.e., “bank”) carries more than
one meaning (i.e., a geographical location or a financial institution). Syntactic or surface
structure ambiguity is expressed in the second sentence, which is able to be parsed in two ways
(i.e., “visiting” can be interpreted as an adjective or a verbal noun). The third sentence exhibits
structural ambiguity, for there is only one possibility for its surface structure representation;
13 This discussion is a summary of ideas presented by Greg B. Simpson, “Varieties of Ambiguity: What Are We Seeking?,” in Gorfein, Resolving Semantic Ambiguity, 13–15.
- 17 - however, ambiguity arises as a result of deeper structural elements (i.e., it is unclear how to
interpret “shooting”: is it terrible that the hunters were shot, or was it their shooting technique
that was terrible). In progressing through these basic types of ambiguity, an intriguing trend is
revealed: structural hierarchy plays an important role in determining complexity. For example,
in terms of mere identification, ambiguities that lie closer to the surface (as in sentence 1) are
more readily detected than those at deeper levels (as in sentence 3). Similarly, William Empson
denotes seven types of ambiguity that are “intended as stages of advancing logical disorder.”14
Like Simpson, Empson’s seven types progress from relatively basic manifestations of ambiguity in word usage and grammatical structure to those that are considered fully equivocal, in which ambiguity seems to pervade multiple structural levels.
This structural view of ambiguity suggests a productive connection between linguistic ambiguity and musical ambiguity, insofar as musical analysis often seeks to illuminate the interaction of musical constructions at various structural levels. To elaborate this connection, my analyses will articulate how musical ambiguity functions at several levels of structure in
Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony; I will argue that this ambiguity both highlights musical continuity and adds to the complexity and richness of the composer’s style.
2. AMBIGUITY AND SIGNIFICATION
In addition to lexical, syntactic, and structural ambiguities, Simpson also considers a
fourth type: pragmatic ambiguity.15 In contrast to the other three types, pragmatic ambiguities arise as a result of the metaphorical implication of a statement, rather than any multiple meaning
14 William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity, 3rd edn. (New York: New Directions Publishing Corp., 1966), 48.
15 Simpson, “Varieties of Ambiguity,” 14.
- 18 - associated with the definition or combination of specific words. An example is found in the
sentence: “He is skating on thin ice.” Here, the interpretive possibility is either literal or
figurative. Of course, we cannot speak directly of musical analyses that embrace “literal” or
“figurative” interpretations of a work, as music has no comparable literal meaning; nonetheless,
pragmatic ambiguity in music has relevance due to its ability to function as a metaphor for an
extramusical concept. This is a topic that has been subjected to extensive elaboration,
particularly within studies of musical semiotics (i.e., musical signification).16
While some musical metaphors may lend themselves to straightforward interpretation,17
many instances arise in which there are multiple options for elucidation. The plausibility of such
a situation is suggested by both the definition and etymology of ambiguity. Ambiguity is derived
from Latin, combining amb (“both ways”) and agere (“drive”), and was defined earlier as
“uncertainty as to one’s course.”18 Using this derivation, Doris Silbert posits an interesting definition of musical ambiguity: it “occurs when a musical entity, while contributing to the main direction of movement, is still effective in suggesting other possible directions of movement, or when, against the main tension, it introduces counter tension.”19 In music, instances abound in which harmonic, melodic, or metric structures project uncertainty or “counter tension” with
regard to the course of the passage. For example, deceptive resolutions, elided phrases, and
Schenker’s notion of auxiliary cadences each contribute to forward motion in a work, while also
16 Chapter 2 of this thesis will present a thorough examination of scholarship relevant to the study of semiotics.
17 For example, in the eighteenth century, the use of drums, triangle, winds, and cymbals was customarily interpreted as signifying the Western conception of “Turkish Music.” See Leonard Ratner, Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style, (New York: Schirmer, 1980), 21.
18 “Ambiguity,” etymology and definition 1, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn.
19 Doris Silbert, “Ambiguity in the String Quartets of Joseph Haydn,” Musical Quarterly 36/4 (1950): 564.
- 19 - creating a sense of belonging to what precedes and what follows their occurrence.20 In essence, these constructions “drive both ways.” Additional devices that can be used in the composing-out of ambiguity, within a tonal context, include harmonic elements such as chains of fully- diminished seventh chords and enharmonically spelled augmented-sixth chords; and rhythmic elements such as syncopations and hemiolas. In my study of Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony, I will examine structures that are not only ambiguous in terms of their harmonic, metric, or formal function, but also in terms of their extramusical significance. As a result, ambiguity is posited as a compelling musical signifier, specifically when considered beyond the context of its localized occurrences.
In differentiating various types of ambiguity, it is important to note that significant analytical results are not gained from merely labeling ambiguities. While labeling is important to the extent that it explicates the specific character of a particular instance of ambiguity, of more immediate relevance is discerning what these classifications tell us about the overarching implication of ambiguity. To this end, the foregoing discussion has identified two essential features with regard to the nature of ambiguity: first, ambiguity is able to function at different levels of structure; and second, ambiguity has the potential for signification. Following from
20 With regard to creating forward motion, auxiliary cadences are an intriguing construction. L. Poundie Burstein has noted a certain confusion associated with the “space” (i.e., harmonic and metric) to which an auxiliary cadence belongs. Regarding harmonic space, Burstein’s discourse is largely based upon Schenker’s notion of the auxiliary cadence, as presented in Free Composition. In reference to the tonic goal of an auxiliary cadence, Schenker writes that “the space up to [the tonic’s] actual entrance belongs conceptually to the preceding harmony.” Regarding metric space, Burstein warns the analyst against mistakenly concluding that the auxiliary cadence belongs in the preceding harmony’s metric space; it actually belongs to the metric space of the goal harmony. He cites Rothstein and Laufer as making such misleading assessments, claiming that they associate auxiliary cadences with anticipations. See L. Poundie Burstein, “Unraveling Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence,” Music Theory Spectrum 27 (2005): 163–67; Heinrich Schenker, Free Composition (Der Freie Satz): Vol. III of New Musical Theories and Fantasies, trans. and ed. Ernst Oster (New York: Pendragon Press, 1977), 88; William Rothstein, “Rhythmic Placement and Rhythmic Normalization,” Trends in Schenkerian Research, ed. Allen Cadwallader (New York: Schirmer, 1990), 98 and 112; and Edward Laufer, “On the First Movement of Sibelius’s Fourth Symphony: A Schenkerian View,” in Schenker Studies 2, ed. Carl Schachter and Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 135 ff, as quoted in Burstein, “Unraveling,” 164.
- 20 - this, we can begin to examine conditions and strategies for resolving ambiguity; and in the process, discern further parallels between the linguistic and music domains. This is not to suggest that ambiguity must be resolved in every instance, or that establishing particularly specific linguistic analogies is a desirable goal of this discourse. Rigid application of linguistic theory to music may cause the analyst to overlook unnecessarily aspects more exclusive to musical structure and design. Thus, the present examination of ambiguity resolution in language aims to establish a flexible framework, from which we can glean overarching concepts that are useful to both the assessment of ambiguity as it arises in music and the interpretation of ambiguity as it supports and illuminates features of structure and design.
3. AMBIGUITY AND CONTEXT
In canvassing the scholarship relevant to the resolution of ambiguity, two ideas with immediate application to music analysis become apparent: 1) the importance of context and 2) the effect of predictability. It must be noted that context and predictability essentially work in conjunction with one another; that is, predictions are often based upon the inferences established by context. However, it is fruitful to outline several basic principles regarding context before examining how it coincides with predictability. Consider this example of lexical ambiguity: “He took a shot.” In order to assign meaning to “shot,” a specific context must be established. For example, each of the following sentences intimates a different meaning of the word shot:
1. He took a shot at the deer 2. He drank a shot of whiskey. 3. I took a great shot with my camera.
In sentence 1, shot refers to the firing of a bullet; in 2, it refers to a measure of alcohol; and in 3, it refers to a photograph. While this example demonstrates that multiple features of an
- 21 - ambiguous word can be exploited, more importantly it reveals that context is paramount to one’s
interpretations. We can imagine a similar situation in music. Consider, for example, a
dominant-seventh sonority built on C, which is placed in the contexts of F major, C major, and E
minor. Similar to the preceding sentences, this example shows that tonal context is paramount to
interpreting the different functions of the dominant-seventh sonority (i.e, as V7, V7/IV, and a pre- dominant augmented-sixth, respectively). Furthermore, with ambiguous structures such as the fully-diminished seventh chord, context attains even more significance in its ability to clarify meaning. The examination of context may also offer significant insights with regard to the foregoing discussion of ambiguity as a musical signifier. The harmonic and metric recontextualizations of certain themes and motives—particularly Tchaikovsky’s characteristic
“Fate” theme21—creates a sense of ambiguity not only in terms of musical structure, but also with its strong metaphorical implications.
4. AMBIGUITY AND PREDICTABILITY
In considering the importance of context in resolving ambiguities, it is logical also to
examine the effect of predictability in resolving—as well as potentially heightening—ambiguity.
Patrizia Tabossi explains that context can be used to “prime” a desired target word, and the more
predictable a target is, the faster we are able to process it.22 Essentially, sentential context
21 The “Fate” theme is the label given to the main melodic material Tchaikovsky’s last three symphonies. It is specifically referred to by Tchaikovsky as the “Fate” theme in his correspondence with his patroness Nadejda von Meck; see Catherine Drinker Bowen and Barbara Von Meck, Beloved Friend: The Story of Tchaikowsky and Nadejda von Meck (New York: Random House, 1937). In the Fourth Symphony, the theme is the brass introduction and is found in the trumpet part; in the Fifth Symphony, the theme is the clarinet solo of the introduction; and in the Sixth Symphony, it is heard in the string introduction.
22 Patrizia Tabossi, “What’s in a Context?,” in Gorfein, Resolving Semantic Ambiguity, 25–28.
- 22 - prompts one to generate a set of featural restrictions that an upcoming word should have.23 For example, “He is reading a ______,” requires that the target word be something that can be read
(such as a book or magazine), and excludes other, non-readable items. On one hand, scholars agree that word processing can be affected by predictable contexts, such as exhibited in this example; on the other hand, however, they view this effect as quite weak, claiming that it is rare for words to be truly predictable.24 Indeed, once the featural restrictions have been applied, the
sentence could have been satisfactorily completed using the words “book,” “magazine,”
“newspaper,” “novel,” and so forth; in the given context, none of these choices is more probable
than any of the others.
The foregoing claims are significant when examined in terms of ambiguity resolution.
First of all, predictability, insofar as it prompts us to establish restrictive criteria, may be used to
increase the speed with which ambiguous words or phrases are able to be interpreted. Consider
the sentence presented earlier: “The man stood by the bank.” By altering it to “The fisherman
stood by the bank,” a writer is able to exploit a certain level of predictability associated with
“fisherman,” which causes us more quickly to interpret “bank” as the ground bordering a river
and not a financial institution. Second, predictability can be exploited to heighten the intensity
of an ambiguous situation, rather than lend it clarification. Tabossi explains the existence of a
hypothetical “access threshold” that context and predictability can be used to cross when
23 Greg B. Simpson and George Kellas, “Dynamic Contextual Processes and Lexical Access,” in Gorfein, Resolving Semantic Ambiguity, 45.
24 This conclusion is expressly noted in Tabossi, “What’s in a Context?,” 30. Other studies have also completed experiments in which predictability has a 20–39% chance of impacting the identification of the correct target word. See P. Gough, J. A. Alford, and P. Holley-Wilcox, “Words and Context,” in Perception of Print ed. O. J. Tzeng and H. Singer (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981). Similar studies have been conducted by W. D. Marslen- Wilson and L. K. Tyler, “The Temporal Structure of Spoken-Language Comprehension,” Cognition 8 (1980): 1–71; and K. E. Stanovich and R. F. West, “On Priming By a Sentence Context” Journal of Experimental Psychology 112 (1983): 1–36.
- 23 - attempting to arrive at resolution.25 However, it is quite plausible that some contexts may not cross this threshold at all, so as to retain the ambiguity—or to “maintain chaos” (to again evoke
Lund). It is in this sense that predictability and context become powerful tools in utilizing ambiguous situations toward artistic ends.
The predictability resulting from context is also important to how musical situations are processed. A basic example is found in the period structure: if given an antecedent phrase ending with a weak cadence, often, certain audible features at the beginning of the consequent phrase render a strong cadence fairly predictable. Here, as with the literary example, the context of the antecedent phrase causes the listener to establish certain restrictive criteria for its completion, and the predictability of the result increases the speed with which one processes its
4 6 actualization. Likewise, given a V2 chord, its resolution to I is rather predictable due to voice- leading tendencies. Composers may also use this sense of predictability to circumvent our expectations—whether those expectations involve formal, harmonic, or metric domains. In essence, composers may choose not to cross the “access threshold,” and such a technique is central to creating richness and intrigue, particularly in music of the romantic era. In fact,
Tabossi’s conclusion that there is a direct relationship between predictability and speed of lexical processing is of even greater pertinence to the effectiveness of remaining on the “access threshold.” When expectations as listeners are clearly predictable, the subsequent circumvention of those tendencies yields a greater expressive impact. Leonard Meyer espouses the view thusly:
“such delays and irregularities are most effective precisely when patterns and shapes are distinct
25 Tabossi, “What’s in a Context?,” 38.
- 24 - and tangible; for it is then that expectations of continuation and closure are most clear and unambiguous.”26
The interaction of predictability and context are also central concerns of Jonathan
Berger’s theory of musical ambiguity. His theory is rooted in the belief that “the element of
surprise (and hence, the often complex balancing act of fulfilling or frustrating the listener’s
expectations) is the sum affect of the controlled use of ambivalence.”27 He presents an
“Ambiguity Model,” that serves as a “methodology for delving more deeply into the commonal[i]ty of ambiguity at all levels of structure.”28 This model consists of a series of binaries: patent/latent, prepared/incipient, developing/static, and structural/non-structural.
These pairs not only provide us with an apparatus for specifying the kinds of ambiguity used in music, but also fuse the notions of structure, signification, context, and predictability, which pervaded the foregoing discussion. For example, an ambiguity is latent if it carries a certain degree of self-inferred predictability; it is patent if is indeterminate in terms of correct parsing options and can only be clarified by contextual redefinition. An ambiguity is prepared if preceded by a contextualizing statement of clarity; it is incipient if it begins the work and involves cross-dimensional conflict. Finally, developing ambiguity is defined by the progressive clarification of an initial ambiguity; this is in contradistinction to static ambiguity, which occurs when an ambiguity is repeated without clarification. From these descriptions, it is apparent that context and predictability are essential to differentiating classifications of ambiguities.
Furthermore, Berger’s ambiguity types reveal the structural significance that ambiguity can
26 Leonard B. Meyer, “Principles of Pattern Perception: The Weakening of Shape,” ch. 5 in Emotion and Meaning in Music (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 157.
27 Jonathan Berger, “A Theory of Musical Ambiguity,” Computers in Music Research 2 (1990): 92.
28 Berger, “A Theory of Musical Ambiguity,” 94. The “Ambiguity Model” is displayed in Berger as Figure 1, 98.
- 25 - attain. In his model, patent ambiguity is the only non-structural type, whereas latent ambiguity
is the most localized instance, generally having little bearing on the future development of the
work.29 Consequently, developing ambiguity holds the most structural significance, given that its elucidation unfolds with the temporal progression of the work. This concept also becomes relevant to the examination of ambiguity from a Schenkerian perspective, for developing ambiguity may be found to pervade deep levels of the middleground, receiving clarification only at (or near) the background. From this, a situation can be imagined, in which ambiguity becomes a valuable apparatus for creating organically manifested unity in a work—that is, a vehicle by which to “lend clarification” while “maintaining chaos.”30
In summary, it is useful to recall Carl Schachter’s admonition, in “Either/Or,” that the
analyst should not be misled by false analogies of music to language, particularly with regard to
musical ambiguities.31 In keeping with this view, the foregoing discussion should not be
interpreted as an attempt to achieve the literal mapping of sundry aspects of linguistic ambiguity
onto specific musical structures. Instead, the goal has been to extract overarching concepts that
may better inform our understanding of the function and nature of ambiguity as manifested in
music. While structure, signification, context, and predictability are all relevant to the study of linguistic ambiguity, these concepts are also paramount to how we understand music; thus, using literary terminology to establish musical corollaries is a profitable endeavor. This section has demonstrated several basic relationships between linguistic and musical ambiguity, while noting also that attributes associated with ambiguity can operate across various domains (i.e., harmonic,
29 Berger, “A Theory of Musical Ambiguity,” 96.
30 Organically manifested unity is a topic that will be explored in more detain in chapter 3.
31 Carl Schachter, “Either/Or,” in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 165–79, reprinted in Carl Schachter, Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N. Straus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 124.
- 26 - melodic, metric). Furthermore, the potential for these attributes to permeate various structural
levels was also posited. These observations have provided an appropriate foundation for the
subsequent discussion of ambiguity as a music-theoretic and -analytic concept.
II. AMBIGUITY AS A MUSIC-THEORETIC AND -ANALYTIC CONCEPT
In his essay on types of linguistic ambiguity, Greg B. Simpson aptly concluded that
“ambiguity serves two critical roles: as one of our most fundamental problems and as one of our most powerful tools.”32 Expounding upon this dual premise, the present section will investigate ambiguity as a fundamental “problem” within the musical domain. Subsequent chapters of this thesis will argue that ambiguity was one of Tchaikovsky’s most powerful expressive tools.
The vexing nature of ambiguity as a music-theoretic construct has been discussed by Kofi
Agawu. He cites a basic contradiction between the “resistance to explanation implicit in an
ambiguous phenomenon” and the “explanatory impulse of theory,” and suggests that this
contradiction is the reason that ambiguity, as a concept in its own right, has not been subjected to
much explicit theorizing.33 In fact, Agawu goes so far as to conclude that once the enabling constructs of music theory are introduced, ambiguity ceases to exist. Although his conclusions apparently reject what I take to be an integral aspect of musical analysis—“maintaining the chaos”—he does touch upon two overarching concepts that have pertinence to the current study: the hierarchical nature of resolving ambiguity, and that “theory-based analysis necessarily
includes a mechanism for resolving ambiguities at all levels of structure.”34
32 Simpson, “Varieties of Ambiguity,” 21.
33 Kofi Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music: A Preliminary Study,” in Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Music, ed. Anthony Pople (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 87.
34 Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music,” 107.
- 27 - Regarding the former, Agawu’s view of ambiguity rests on the premise that when
presented with an ambiguous construction, context will always result in a hierarchy of potential
options for resolution. In other words, as with contexts in language, musical contexts will have
the effect of “priming” a target interpretation that is more likely than other options. As an
example of this, Agawu uses the opening G–Eb motive of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. In and
of themselves, these pitch-classes are ambiguous because they could belong to three major keys
and eleven minor keys.35 However, once the context has been established (i.e., in m. 3), C minor emerges as the strongest interpretive possibility. In this example, the eventual contextualization of G–Eb succeeds in supporting Agawu’s main point regarding ambiguity and hierarchy; however, the example fails to consider a listener’s perception of the work in real time. Part of the enjoyment derived from the opening of the symphony is perhaps contingent upon the fact that for the first two measures, a degree of ambiguity prevails; until the context is established, tonal orientation remains uncertain (or at least unconfirmed). Accordingly, ambiguity may play an important role in how we understand and interpret the opening measures of Beethoven’s Fifth
Symphony.36
The listener’s real-time experience of potential ambiguities was also central to the thoughts of a nineteenth-century theorist: Gottfried Weber (1779–1839). In his remarks on the
35 Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music,” 86.
36 This resonates with ideas expressed by Edward Cone in “Three Ways of Reading a Detective Story—Or a Brahms Intermezzo,” in Music: A View from Delft: Selected Essays, ed. Robert P. Morgan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989): 77–96. [Reprinted from The Georgia Review 31/3 (1977): 554–74. Cone begins by asking why we would read a detective story over again if we already know what is going to happen. He then explains that different readings have different artistic goals: the first reading is to find out what happens; the second reading is to analyze events in light of the final ending; and the third reading—informed by the knowledge of the first and the analysis of the second—is the ideal reading as its goal is informed appreciation of the work. The ambiguity at the beginning of the Beethoven symphony can be viewed from the same perspective: upon the first hearing, we find out that the ambiguity is resolved; in the second hearing, we interpret the ambiguity in light its future resolution; in the third hearing, we enjoy the ambiguity as an artistic device.
- 28 - introduction to Mozart’s String Quartet in C, K. 465 (i.e., the “Dissonance” Quartet), he
acknowledges a “succession of interesting, aurally intriguing and highly agreeable ambiguities
[Mehrdeutigkeiten] of key and of chord progression.”37 Similar to what happens when listening to Beethoven’s symphony, it is not until the opening and isolated C in the bass is contextualized
that the “ear experiences the pleasant sense of relief which it always associates with the gradual
resolution of harmonic ambiguities.”38 The foregoing statement clearly resonates with Agawu’s main contention; however, it is significant that this resolution does not occur until after the listener processes the opening progression as ambiguous, or “aurally intriguing.” Ambiguity thus remains an essential facet of our listening experience with Mozart’s quartet.
These examples from Beethoven and Mozart represent somewhat simple instances of potential ambiguity, but many works exist (particularly from the romantic period) where plausible multiple meanings are the driving force of the musical surface. As an example, consider the introduction to the first movement of Tchaikovsky’s Fourth Symphony in F Minor.
As demonstrated by Figure 1.1, the main key of F minor is not confirmed until commencement of the exposition in m. 28. The lone Ab of the opening is subjected to a number of intriguing harmonic manipulations, which continuously frustrate the expectations of the listener.39 Such an opening is crucial to the expressive aim of the work, in that the initial and prolonged state of
37 Gottfried Weber, “[Ü]ber eine besonders merkwürdige Stelle in einem Mozart’schen Violinquartett aus C,” Versuch einer geordneten Theorie der Tonsetzkunst zum Selbstunterricht, 3rd edn. (Mainz: Schott, 1830–32), vol. III, 196–226; as quoted in Ian Bent, ed., Music Analysis in the Nineteenth Century, vol. I: Fugue, Form and Style (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 163.
38 Weber, “[Ü]ber eine besonders merkwürdige Stelle,” as quoted in Bent, 164.
39 This particular instance of ambiguity is an example of what Jonathan Berger has defined as incipient ambiguity, or a prolonged initial ambiguity. Whereas the incipient ambiguity in the Tchaikovsky excerpt is eventually resolved (at the onset of the exposition), many works written in the latter part of the nineteenth century take as a premise this type of ambiguity and in essence, depend upon non resolution. In fact, Berger argues that “one way of thinking about the dissolution of tonality is in terms of the steady rise of incipient ambiguities in music of the middle to late nineteenth century.” Berger, “A Theory of Musical Ambiguity,” 96.
- 29 - harmonic instability successfully portrays the dramatic potential of the fate theme for this
symphony.40 The foregoing examples not only demonstrate ambiguity as important to the
listener’s experience of the work but also as a compelling mode of expression for the composer.
Thus, embracing these ambiguities becomes necessary for an informative musical analysis.
The notion of predictability is also relevant to this discourse. In one respect,
predictability functions to strengthen any hierarchy established as a result of context. For
example, earlier in this chapter, we investigated the ability of predictability to increase the speed
with which we assign meaning to a given ambiguity. Alternately, it was demonstrated that
composers could use predictability, and the expectations associated with a particular compositional framework, to create purposeful equivocation. Returning to the Beethoven symphony example, competent listeners assume certain featural restrictions on the tonal directions the opening G–Eb could take based upon the conventions of tonality. However,
Beethoven could have circumvented the more obvious tonal implications of the opening G–Eb and used C minor not as the tonic, but instead as the subdominant of G minor, etc. Here, artistic delight arises as a result of either delaying the establishment of a context through which to resolve the ambiguity, or progressing in a direction different than what was originally predicted.
Likewise, in Weber’s analysis of Mozart’s quartet, he notes that the listener is “inclined initially” to hear the C in the bass as the tonic; but when C eventually becomes the third of Ab major, earlier predictions are subverted. Situations such as those of the prior two examples not only heighten the enjoyment of their localized occurrences, but also influence our perception of subsequent musical material. As Weber asserted about encountering ambiguous circumstances:
40 In the Fourth Symphony, the theme is the brass introduction and is found in the trumpet. For detailed explanation of the “fate” theme, see also footnote 21.
- 30 - “in doubt, the ear looks and listens eagerly for what will happen next,” and in many instances
what happens is “totally contrary to all expectations.”41
The preceding examples demonstrate that a listener may establish a cognitive model of
what is expected (within the syntax of tonality), against which what actually occurs may be
compared. This notion provides an appropriate point of departure from which to examine
Agawu’s second point, that “theory-based analysis necessarily includes a mechanism for
resolving ambiguities at all levels of structure.”42 This view is contingent on his statement that
an “explicit theory” will have its constituent “enabling constructs.”43 While tonal syntax, in
general, is the enabling construct that explicates many of the author’s points, one detects a
certain Schenkerian thread that inevitably binds his discourse, particularly as he emphasizes
hierarchy and structural levels. Although Agawu’s study is not explicitly Schenkerian in focus, I
find it to be an underlying presence—and one suggestive of several compelling insights
regarding our present focus. Thus, it will be fruitful to examine what the enabling constructs of
this “explicit” theory—Schenkerian theory—can reveal about the function of ambiguity.
Certainly, Schenker’s explanation of a musical foreground, middleground, and
background supports Agawu’s claim that equivocation cannot exist within the confines of an
explicit theory. In Free Composition, Schenker describes the background in music as
representing the totality: “in it resides the comprehensive perception, the resolution of all
diversity [in the middleground and foreground] into ultimate wholeness.”44 In contrast, the foreground and middleground are defined by their “obstacles, reverses, disappointments …
41 Weber, “[Ü]ber eine besonders merkwürdige Stelle,” as quoted in Bent, 157.
42 Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music,” 107.
43 Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music,” 88.
44 Schenker, Free Composition, 5.
- 31 - detours, expansions, interpolations, and … retardations,” which essentially reveal the creative
genius of the composer.45 In order to demonstrate the organic coherence of the masters, the analyst must reconcile foreground elements of design with the background structure. To accomplish this, the foreground and middleground events are presented hierarchically in a vertical alignment to illustrate their successive elaborations of the basic structure. This contrasts with Agawu’s conception of hierarchy, in which surface ambiguities are generally clarified by hierarchical processing within an immediate temporal context (i.e., ambiguity is exhibited in an
“ambiguity-to-clarity” order).46 Although the latter process (as described by Agawu) is horizontal in its conception, the former (after Schenker) introduces a vertical dimension to ambiguity resolution at deeper structural levels, and essentially refuses to allow ambiguity to emerge as a governing structural device. Although this may mark a desirable goal for
Schenkerian analyses, particularly according to Agawu, other scholars have claimed this to be one of the critical weaknesses of Schenker’s theory.47
In a 1980 analysis of Beethoven’s String Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3, Robert Hatten posits that because the Schenkerian methodology requires reconciling musical constructions with the pre- defined coherence of the background, instances of ambiguity that may be crucial to our structural perception of the work cannot be satisfactorily assessed.48 His analysis begins by acknowledging
45 Schenker, Free Composition, 5.
46 Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music,” 91.
47 Particular instances of this alternative view will be discussed in the forthcoming section. See Robert Hatten, “An Approach to Ambiguity in the Opening of Beethoven’s String Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3, I,” Indiana Theory Review 3 (1980): 28–35; and Ken Johansen, “Gabriel Fauré and the Art of Ambiguity,” Journal of the American Liszt Society 43 (1998): 8–44.
48 Hatten uses Eugene Narmour’s 1977 critique of Schenker as the point of departure for his essay (see Narmour, Beyond Schenkerism [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977]). Hatten specifically draws upon Narmour’s central thesis that “what does not happen in a work is crucial to the extent that it can influence our perception of what does.” Hatten, “An Approach to Ambiguity,” 28.
- 32 - the peculiarity with which—after a slow introduction—the Allegro Vivace begins with a progression from C (on the weak beat) to G7 (on the strong beat) in m. 31 (see Figure 1.2).
Hatten describes the occurrence of the G7 as “strikingly novel,” not only because of its metric displacement, but also because of its harmonic implication in conjunction with prior events, specifically the manifestation of the minor six-four chord between two inversions of a diminished-seventh chord in mm. 20–22. While in and of itself the six-four chord may seem unstable, its contextualization between harmonies of lesser stability renders it consonant, particularly as the outer voices expand to octave Cs. In fact, it is this six-four chord that serves as the basis for Hatten’s reading of the introduction in F minor. Given the slow tempo of the introduction, the listener is able to ascribe the expected cadential function to the six-four chord rather than assign it mere passing significance, making the expectation of F minor in m. 31 more compelling. Hatten contends that once the enabling constructs of Schenkerian theory are applied to this passage, the implicational effect of the six-four chord is unable to be preserved, and it is subsequently relegated to a subordinate role, despite the fact that its presence creates novelty for the listener.49
The equivocation associated with the diminished harmonies is also lost within the
Schenkerian methodology: at deeper structural levels, these harmonies are either reduced-out completely, or forced to resolve in one specific direction, despite the possibility that their multivalence is essential to the expressivity of the passage. Ken Johansen’s exploration of ambiguity in the music of Gabriel Fauré also posits this aspect of analytic systems as a central concern. He proposes an alternate system of analysis that examines how ambiguity is made and what its expressive significance is. As with Gottfried Weber, the experience of the listener is of
49 Hatten, “An Approach to Ambiguity,” 34.
- 33 - paramount consequence to the emergence of ambiguity. For Johansen, the set of featural
restrictions assigned to a structure is dependent upon standards associated with the particular
genre, as well as our memory and experience as listeners. Ambiguities therefore occur as the
difference between the actual sound of the music and the memory of the listener.50 Johansen’s discourse reveals a compelling insight regarding the nature of ambiguity: that in many instances, the dubious signification necessary for ambiguity to exist does not arise from multiple implications of the structure itself, but rather as a result of conflict between the musical
realization and our preconceived expectations. This particular aspect of ambiguity will allow us not only to examine truly equivocal musical constructions (e.g., diminished-seventh chords, augmented-sixth chords, etc.), but also to speak of situations that suggest musical ambiguity, while not being inherently ambiguous.51 When viewed in this multi-dimensional way, the power of ambiguity to infuse musical experience is apparent, as is the fact that much allure and intrigue may be lost due to the fact that the Schenkerian methodology and notation systems are not intended to preserve multi-implicational structures.
Consequently, it is necessary for both analysis and performance to strike an effective balance between illumination of ambiguities that drive perception of the surface and those structures that unify the background. Although the background represents the pinnacle of musical unity, Schenker explains that comprehension of it can only be achieved through performances and interpretations that satisfactorily portray all levels of structure. He writes that
“the performance of a musical work of art can be based only upon a perception of that work’s
50 Johansen, “Gabriel Fauré and the Art of Ambiguity,” 12–13.
51 This point also serves as the point of departure for William Thomson’s essay and is considered to be what he calls functional ambiguity, defined as an instance “when a music event, whether small or large, projects equivocation, implying no clear syntactic meaning or two or more potential meanings” (Thomson, “Functional Ambiguity in Musical Structures,” Music Perception 1 [1983]: 3).
- 34 - organic coherence,” which means that one can “achieve true musical punctuation only by
comprehending the background, middleground, and foreground.”52 Elsewhere in Free
Composition, he proclaims that “to achieve an overall dynamic shading appropriate to the basic version while presenting the inner shadings of the ornamental details, such as chromatics, neighboring notes, and suspensions—all this in the proper light and shade—indeed transcends the powers of all but the most gifted performers.” 53 As ambiguity is generally most pervasive at
the foreground and middleground levels, implicit in Schenker’s views is the idea that a
performance should aim to maintain and illuminate, rather than resolve, the ambiguity. Similarly,
it becomes essential for an analysis of a musical work of art to attend to the foreground,
middleground, and background, or else risk the loss of a certain sense of organic unity.
It is perhaps Carl Schachter’s analyses that most effectively reveal the delightful ambiguities of the foreground while simultaneously demonstrating their roles in a work’s overall organic unity. The point of departure for his essay “Either/Or” provides another perspective that
resonates strongly with the ideas of listener experience expressed by Weber and Johansen.
Schachter first acknowledges the significance of context in defining meaning for a compositional
detail; however, he subsequently emphasizes that “the larger shape manifests itself to the listener
only after he has correctly understood certain crucial details.”54 Schachter approaches the work’s of Schenker’s “great masters” with a striking awareness that many foreground musical constructions create a “forked path for the analyst, who must search for clues about which of two or more possible interpretations is the correct one, or about which of two or more ‘correct’ ones
52 Schenker, Free Composition, 8. Italics added.
53 Schenker, Free Composition, 97.
54 Schachter, “Either/Or,” 121. Italics added.
- 35 - is truest artistically.”55 More compelling, however, is his demonstration that these “forked paths” often pervade deeper levels of structure. For example, his analysis of Chopin’s Mazurka,
Op. 33, No. 1, demonstrates how a neighbor-figure in the foreground assists in clarifying an ambiguous prolongational span at another level; his analysis of the Gavotte en Rondeaux, from
Bach’s Partita No. 3, illustrates the novelty created when prolongational spans do not line up with formal boundaries; and his final analysis, of the Larghetto movement from Mozart’s Piano
Concerto, K. 491, addresses the interpretation of a passage whose middleground could be parsed two different ways within the context of a more inclusive level of structure. This last analysis is of a movement in five-part rondo form (i.e., A1BA2CA3) that features a significantly abridged A2
56 section. On one hand, A2 could be construed as a deep-level return to tonic. Alternately, because the return to tonic in A2 is so brief, this section could be interpreted as a parenthetical
link between the B and C sections (which tonicize VI and IV, respectively), thereby suggesting
VI to IV as the deeper-level motion. Because the tonic is confirmed in A2, and its scale degree is implicitly present in the pre-dominant B and C sections, this occurrence creates a genuine example of double meaning; both interpretations can co-exist without contradicting one another.57 From Schachter’s discourse we can glean two significant features regarding
ambiguity within a Schenkerian purview: first, surface ambiguities may facilitate the resolution
of ambiguity at deeper levels of structure; second, ambiguity is able to pervade multiple
55 Schachter, “Either/Or,” 122.
56 In fact, Schachter explains that this interpretation is aligned with Schenker’s general explication of rondo form in Free Composition. Schenker describes rondo form as comprising two three-part forms: ABA and ACA combine to form ABACA, and that “possible abbreviations of the A2 or A3 sections, or their appearances in embellished form, in no way negate the rondo form.” Schenker, Free Composition, 141–42, as discussed in Schachter, “Either/Or,” 128.
57 This discussion summarizes Schachter’s analysis in “Either/Or,” 128–30.
- 36 - structural levels (a point made earlier in this chapter with regard to linguistic ambiguity) and
does not necessarily require resolution.
The latter observation is most crucial to this study of musical ambiguity, for it
demonstrates the potential for ambiguity to become a driving force of compositional structure and provides a compelling argument against its categorization as a mere decorative device of subordinate function. Thus, to disregard its presence completely, or to adhere strictly to rules that require its resolution in all instances, would be to ignore an essential feature of compositional design. Furthermore, one must not discount the potential for ambiguities in the melodic domain to inform understanding of ambiguities in other musical domains. For example, in Chapter 3, I will illustrate the difficulties associated with interpreting events in the metric domain and demonstrate how metric ambiguities function concurrently with ambiguities in the melodic domain to establish overall compositional unity. To the extent that Schenkerian theory provides a useful framework for examining the interaction of hierarchical levels and organic unity, it offers a compelling apparatus for an investigation of ambiguity—especially one that views ambiguity as lying at the root of the opposition between chaos and clarity (as advanced in the Introduction). The hierarchical confines of Schenkerian methodology not only provide a structure for “lending clarification” to surface ambiguities, but also establish a frame of reference for comparing actualized musical structures with those standards in our memory and experience as listeners and performers, a frame against which the music is manipulated by composers to achieve heightened expressive goals. These same hierarchical confines also require that analysis illuminate all levels of the hierarchy, particularly those elements that “maintain the chaos,” for often they can unlock the nature of organic unity.
- 37 - The foregoing discussion should not be interpreted as an effort to discount Agawu’s
claim that ambiguity cannot exist within an explicit theory; indeed, the prior explanations and
examples inevitably affirm this position. Instead, the point that may be gleaned from the
expanded implications of Agawu’s view is that the hierarchy used to resolve ambiguity must
exist in order to establish some frame of reference against which to measure ambiguity. The
background (or any basic underlying structure for that matter) not only assists in clarifying the
ambiguities of the foreground, but, more importantly, serves to intensify the expressive
significance of such ambiguities. To this end, this discourse has advanced one particular
argument as to why one must not limit our study of ambiguity to one that is hierarchically
driven; instead one must adopt one that embraces its dialectical or oppositional aspects as well.
Only then can one fully comprehend the composition as a complete musical work of art.
The culmination of the preceding perspective has been compellingly presented in David
Epstein’s book, Beyond Orpheus. The present chapter has, thus far, positioned ambiguity at the
junction between several opposing forces: clarity vs. chaos, structure vs. design, unity vs.
conflict, hierarchic vs. dialectic approaches, and background vs. foreground. Epstein posits yet
another contrariety: frame of reference vs. compositional premise. While the former refers to
historical or stylistic concerns of musical language or general formal features (i.e., phrases,
periods, sonata-form, background), the latter refers to surface musical ideas, or events at the
foreground and middleground.58 Epstein explains that surface musical ideas are sometimes pervasive to the point of becoming structurally determinative; these ideas can then attain status as compositional premises. He identifies the opening motive of Brahms’s Second Symphony
(D–C#–D–A) as embodying properties of harmonic and rhythmic indeterminacy that are
58 This is a summary of terminology as explained in David Epstein, “Ambiguity as Premise,” ch. 8 in Epstein, Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 161.
- 38 - manifested under various guises to permeate the overall structure of the symphony. He therefore takes ambiguity to be the overarching premise of Brahms’s symphony. This argument will be adopted and espoused in the forthcoming chapters: ambiguity will be taken to function as a compositional premise for Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony. His use of the subdominant (Chapter
2) and of ambiguous metric structures (Chapter 3) will be demonstrated to pervade deep levels of the symphony’s structure. These chapters aim to illuminate the nature of these ambiguities as both essential aspects of Tchaikovsky’s compositional design and progenitors of compositional unity. The following analyses seek to reveal what Leonard Bernstein called the “delights” of ambiguity, 59 insofar as they promote a more comprehensive understanding of Tchaikovsky’s musical style.
59 This intriguing turn of phrase is taken from the title of Bernstein’s fourth Charles Eliot Norton lecture, given at Harvard in 1973, where he examines the “delights and dangers of ambiguity” in music. See “The Delights and Dangers of Ambiguity,” ch. 4 in Bernstein, The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 193.
- 39 - CHAPTER 1: DEFINING AMBIGUITY
FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1. TCHAIKOVSKY, SYMPHONY NO. 4 IN F MINOR, I, MM. 1–20.
60 FIGURE 1.2. BEETHOVEN, STRING QUARTET, OP. 59, NO. 3, MM. 20–31.
60 This example represents a concatenation of Hatten’s Example 1, which provides the score of the quartet, and Example 2, which provides his voice-leading analysis. Hatten, “An Approach to Ambiguity,” 31–32.
- 40 - CHAPTER 2: A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO AMBIGUITY
In the previous chapter, ambiguity is defined and explored as a music-theoretic and
-analytic concept. Both hierarchical and dialectical (i.e., oppositional) approaches to ambiguity
are considered; and although ambiguity is argued to be essentially hierarchical in nature,
embracing both approaches is taken to be the most effective way to illuminate the interaction of
compositional structure and design. The present chapter will expound on this view by focusing on aspects of a dialectical approach to ambiguity, in particular the extramusical meaning that can be derived from its surface and structural manifestations.
In her study of the literary works of Conrad Ferdinand Meyer (1825–98), Deborah S.
Lund investigates this dialectical approach to ambiguity. She argues that “ambiguity can be symptomatic of something beyond its localized functioning. . . . [I]ntended or not,” an ambiguity may have “an extended signification which points beyond the interpretive puzzle it presents.”61
Her intimation recalls the investigation, in Chapter 1, of pragmatic ambiguity (i.e., in language,
ambiguity arising from the operation of metaphors), where the potential of ambiguity to hold
external meaning was posited as a useful parallel to the music domain. This ability of ambiguity
to signify beyond its localized occurrences becomes quite compelling when considered with
regard to the multi-faceted nature of Tchaikovsky’s compositional style. Here I invoke
ambiguity in the extended sense expressed by William Empson, as “any verbal nuance, however
slight, which gives room for alternative reactions to the same piece of language.”62 Adapting this
61 Deborah S. Lund, Ambiguity as Narrative Strategy in the Prose Work of C.F. Meyer (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 12–13.
62 William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity, 3rd edn. (New York: New Directions Publishing Corp., 1966), 1.
- 41 - definition to a musical artwork, ambiguity thus becomes a compositional nuance, or certain lack of clarity that arises as a result of foiling listeners’ expectations; in other words, ambiguity is marked by a break with the conventional. These ambiguities, when examined in terms of their extramusical implications, reveal intriguing possibilities for the interpretation of Tchaikovsky’s music.
This chapter, organized into four sections, examines these breaks from convention and their resultant ambiguities in order to consider how they can promote a more comprehensive understanding of Tchaikovsky’s style. Part I, which presents a critical review of scholarly literature regarding Tchaikovsky’s musical style, reveals a contradictory set of opinions with regard to the composer’s aesthetic orientation. The remainder of the chapter aims to examine potential ways of clarifying this ambiguity. Part II will posit musical semiotics as a relevant tool for scrutinizing the discrepancies in Tchaikovsky-related scholarship. Semiotics is generally defined as the study of “signs” in music, and it is the signification potential of ambiguity, as addressed in Chapter 1, that may offer useful insights to comprehending Tchaikovsky’s music.
Part III, informed by Deborah Stein’s notion of the “plagal domain,” will investigate the pervasiveness of the subdominant harmony in the Fifth Symphony; its usage will be studied as a specific manifestation of ambiguity that can assist in apprehending the nature of Tchaikovsky’s compositional ethos. Finally, in Part IV, “thresholdism” will be explored as a potential signifier, representing a possible alternative for understanding dichotomies in Tchaikovsky scholarship as well as musical ambiguities found in the Fifth Symphony.
- 42 - I. CRITICAL REVIEW OF SCHOLARSHIP
In canvassing the scholarly literature on Tchaikovsky’s musical style, one is struck by the
fact that the composer has been viewed through two very different lenses. The divergence seems
to stem from how one assesses the level of the composer’s “Russianness” (i.e., his use of
nationalistic devices such as folk tunes) in comparison to the extent to which he follows the
formal and structural conventions of Western traditions. Viewing through one lens are those
scholars who hail Tchaikovsky as too Russian.63 On the one hand, they note what they take to be
a general lack of formal unity and coherence in his music;64 on the other hand, they tally the
number of folk- and popular-song references in his music and observe the extent to which he
relied upon Russian literary sources (e.g., Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Pushkin) for inspiration.
Juxtaposing these circumstances, they assume that the latter serves as a surrogate for the former.
That is, they essentially accuse Tchaikovsky of using folksong and other Russian references to
conceal his inability to create interesting formal structures in the Western traditions.
Scholars who consider Tchaikovsky to be not Russian enough view through the other
lens. Despite abundant folksong references and an apparent dedication to Russian literature, they
claim that the manifestations of these sources in his works are not “pure.” For example, in a
discussion of the Fourth Symphony, in F Minor, Edward Garden issues the following complaint:
63 David Brown, Anthony Holden, Alan Kendall, and John Warrack are those who label Tchaikovsky as quintessentially Russian, while fueled by historical criticism penned by César Cui and Alfred Bruneau, Edward Garden, and Brown accuse Tchaikovsky as being not Russian enough. See David Brown, Tchaikovksy, vol. 4, The Final Years, 1885-1893 (New York: Norton, 1991); Anthony Holden, Tchaikovsky (New York: Bantam Press, 1995); Alan Kendall, Tchaikovsky: A Biography (London, Bodley Head, 1988); John Warrack, Tchaikovsky (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973); and Edward Garden, Tchaikovsky (New York: Octagon Books, 1973). Commentary on Tchaikovsky by Cui and Bruneau was penned mainly in La Musique en Russie, which was a reissue, in book form, of a series of articles originally published in 1878 in the Revue et Gazette musicale, which became the sole source of information on Russian music for French critics. A summary of their criticism can be found in Richard Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 49.
64 Brown, Tchaikovsky: The Final Years 1885–1893, 10.
- 43 - The folksong, “In the Fields there Stood a Birch Tree” is adapted as the second subject of the finale. Unlike the folksongs used in the Second Symphony and elsewhere, this song, like the “Fate” motive itself later on, is dragged in most inappropriately, squared off with two extra beats and ruined in the process.65
According to Garden, it is not the use of the “birch tree” folksong that is inappropriate, but rather the Westernized context in which Tchaikovsky places the song. The lush harmonic setting and metric regularization (i.e., it is altered to attain even phrasing) disrupt the folksong’s natural
“purity.” The criticism penned by Tchaikovsky’s contemporaries, César Cui and Alfred
Bruneau, is perhaps the harshest with respect to this manner of interpretation. In La Musique en
Russie (which was essentially the sole source of information on Russian music for French critics
in the nineteenth century), Cui dismisses Tchaikovsky as “a musician of extraordinary talent,
except that he abuses his technical facility . . . [he is] far from a partisan of the New Russian
school; he is more nearly its antagonist.”66 Expanding on Cui’s criticism, the composer Bruneau writes, “devoid of the Russian character that pleases and attracts us in the music of the New
Slavic school, developed to hollow and empty excess in a bloated and faceless style, his works astonish without overly interesting us.”67
In Defining Russia Musically, Richard Taruskin also explicates the nature of this
scholarly opposition. He argues that when viewed by the West, most Russian composers find
themselves to be in such a “double bind.” However, as a result of the attention accorded him by
the French press, the issue is even more transparent for Tchaikovsky. Taruskin declares that it
seems to be the “Western habit” to classify all Russian composers, “like any others who do not
65 Garden, Tchaikovsky, 81.
66 César Cui, La Musique en Russie (1880; repr., Paris: Fischbacher, 1974), 132, 119. As quoted in Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically, 49.
67 Alfred Bruneau, Musiques de Russie et musiciens de France (Paris: Bibliotheque Charpentier, 1903), 27– 28. As quoted in Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically, 49.
- 44 - hail ... from the ‘panromanogermanic’ mainstream, as ‘nationalists,’ whatever their actual predilections.”68 Elsewhere, he claims that within conventional canonic historiography, Russian
composers cannot achieve even secondary rank without their “exotic native dress.” With such
native ties, however, they cannot ever hope to achieve much more than secondary stature.69 And thus, we find Tchaikovsky in a musicological “ghetto” (to recall Taruskin’s appropriately named essay): he is not “Romano-Germanic” enough to be taken seriously by the West, and not
“Russian-Nationalist” enough to be esteemed by his native contemporaries.70
Each view of Tchaikovsky’s degree of Russianness certainly focuses on issues relevant to
the interpretation of his music; but more meaningful analysis can be achieved if we view the
composer through a lens that encompasses both views, one that sits on the “threshold” so to
speak, thus revealing the individuality and uniqueness of his style. It may seem that to embark
upon such an approach would be to invite ambiguity unnecessarily, rejecting any hope of
clarification with regard to the composer’s style. But I believe that to privilege one side of this
discourse over the other would result in overlooking some of the more salient features of his
music. In Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style, Henry Zajaczkowski advocates an approach that seeks to
embrace both sides of the aforementioned dichotomy. For example, assessing the frequent
occurrence of the augmented triad in Tchaikovsky’s works, he writes, “Tchaikovsky proclaims
his national music character in his fondness for this type of progression. . . . But there are various
68 Richard Taruskin, “P.I. Chaikovsky and the Ghetto,” in Defining Russia Musically, 48. Italics added.
69 Taruskin, “P.I. Chaikovsky and the Ghetto,” in Defining Russia Musically, 48.
70 Regarding terminology used in this discourse: in Defining Russia Musically, Taruskin more expressly defines “panromanogermanic” music as characterized by “structural complexity and profusion of highly differentiated detail.” Moreover, this style was heavily invested in the “autonomy of das Individuum” (p. 424). Throughout this chapter, I will present many examples in Tchaikovsky’s music that indeed show his ability to create “structural complexity” and highly “differentiated detail.” Rather than using Taruskin’s term (i.e., panromanogermanicism), for the remainder of this chapter I will describe such examples as being aspects of Tchaikovsky’s adherence to the conventions of the West, or his “Westernness.”
- 45 - cases in which Tchaikovsky proclaims his own musical character by adapting this procedure to his own expressive ends.”71 Zajaczkowski’s intuitive statement suggests that while there may be
generically “Russian” attributes of Tchaikovsky’s music, these qualities must not hinder our
ability to recognize that they are often in the service of unique and compelling expressive ends.
Thus, a deeper awareness of Tchaikovsky’s “own musical character” and “own expressive ends,”
while perhaps embracing ambiguity (i.e., not requiring its resolution) to a certain extent, may
prove far more useful in reconciling the two lenses through which the composer is typically viewed.
Of paramount importance to this discussion is the realization that Tchaikovsky’s artistic aim was, above all else, the “expressive end” of a composition. Tchaikovsky viewed each of his creations as an expression of his soul; as he said with respect to his Fourth Symphony, “There is not a note in this symphony which I did not feel deeply, and which did not serve as an echo of sincere impulses within my soul.”72 Although it may seem that most romantic composers
aspired to expressive ends, Tchaikovsky went so far as to judge his contemporaries based upon
their ability to express. For example, he writes of Brahms, “his works are made up of little
fragments of something or other, artfully glued together, thus, he never expresses anything, or if
he does, he fails to do it fully.”73
Accordingly, an analysis of Tchaikovsky’s works that investigates melodic, harmonic,
and formal structures, and how they are manipulated to achieve his own expressive ends, seems
pertinent with regard to situating the composer in a realm that reconciles the bifurcation
71 Henry Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1987), 62. Italics added.
72 David Brown, Tchaikovsky, vol. 2, The Crisis Years, 1874–1878 (London: Victor Gollancz, 1982), 163.
73 As translated in Taruskin, The Oxford History of Western Music, vol. 3 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 792.
- 46 - expressed by the scholarship described above. What aspects of his musical structures are used to
express a particular mood or ambiance? Might his musical language signify some style or affect
that suggests the root of his “Russianness,” “Westernness,” or a transcendence of the two? An
analysis engaging musical semiotics—the study of musical signification—seems most relevant to
understanding and illuminating Tchaikovsky’s music. A semiotic approach will not only aid in
better defining the Tchaikovsky’s music, but it will also allow us to “maintain the chaos” that is
so essential to the mystical aura of his works.
II. SEMIOTICS
In the subsequent analysis I will focus on the pervasiveness of subdominant harmony and
the ambiguity created through its unconventional use as signs of Tchaikovsky’s adherence to
Western conventions, Russianness, and above all, his own expressive ends. I will then consider
several other manifestations of ambiguity within the symphony that may be interpreted as
representations of “thresholdism,” a concept (to be defined subsequently) of paramount
importance to romanticism in general. As with the discourse on the subdominant,
“thresholdism” will become another means of reconciling the contrarieties found to exist in
Tchaikovsky-related scholarship.
Before commencing the musical analysis, however, it is necessary to survey relevant
concepts and terminology associated with musical semiotics. According to Charles Peirce, “a
sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.”74 We can infer from this that a sign must be clearly conveyed given the medium of representation.
74 As quoted in John Deely, Brooke Williams, and Felicia E. Kruse, eds., Frontiers in Semiotics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986), 40. Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was an American polymath, physicist, and philosopher, who is credited with laying the foundation of modern semiotics (theory of signs). He is also noted for his contributions to logic, mathematics, and philosophy.
- 47 - Furthermore, a sign must adhere to the socially constructed conventions associated with the
medium in order for it to be significant to an individual. For example, according to Daniel
Chandler, a text is “an assemblage of signs (such as words, images, sounds, and/or gestures)
constructed (and interpreted) with reference to the conventions associated with a genre and in a
particular medium of communication.”75 Accordingly, we may define a musical composition, mutatis mutandis, as an assemblage of signs (such as melodies, harmonies, and rhythms) constructed and interpreted with reference to conventions associated with a style or genre.
Compositions of the classical period have been interpreted in this manner by Leonard Ratner, who has categorized idioms into “topics” commonly found in music of this period.76 For
example, the use of drums, triangle, winds, and cymbals represented a Western conception of
“Turkish music”; the use of driving rhythms and full texture signified “Sturm und Drang”; and
rustic music with a drone and flourishing melody represented “Musette Pastorale.”77 Implicit in the acknowledgment of these signs is the fact that they were “marked” for significance for those
stylistically competent in the repertory of the classical era.
This notion of markedness—or being marked—is essential to this discussion. In Musical
Meaning in Beethoven, Robert Hatten defines markedness as the “valuation given to difference.”78 Before further explicating the notion of markedness, he provides context for its
apprehension by noting two competencies in musical understanding (see Figure 2.1). The first is
75 Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2002), 3.
76 Leonard Ratner, Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style (New York: Schirmer, 1980), Chapter 2.
77 Ratner, Classic Music, as discussed in Chapter 2.
78 The concept of markedness traces its roots back to the Russian linguist Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) and the Prague School of linguistic theory. Robert Hatten introduces the term into musical discourse in Hatten, Muscial Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994), 34.
- 48 - the stylistic, that is, the principles and constraints of a specific style; the second is the strategic,
which refers to the individual choices and exceptions occasioned by a work. The former is
concerned with correlations as defined by the semantic nature of culture; the latter deals with
interpretations, or the further contextualization of expression in the actual music.79 Hatten explains that the stylistic and the strategic are in constant conflict with one another and the notion of markedness arises from the resultant tension. This phenomenon is particularly relevant to our examination of ambiguity in the music of Tchaikovsky, and its critical reception. The two lenses through which the composer is viewed (i.e., Westernness vs. Russianness) represent two levels of stylistic competency that are already in conflict with one another. The strategic competency, which arises as a result of Tchaikovsky’s desire to “express fully,” adds the another layer of tension, presenting a three-fold interaction of competencies from which markedness is created. The challenge for the analyst is not only to determine those aspects of the music that function at all levels of these competencies, but to demonstrate how the tension created by their interaction may be significant to the listener.
One approach to this challenge can be found in the work of David Epstein. The duality between the stylistic and strategic competencies discussed above closely parallels the distinction he makes regarding a compositional frame of reference and a compositional premise.80 While the former is intrinsic to the medium or stylistic constraints, the latter is unique to a composition, and thus belongs to the strategic realm. Using Brahms’s Second Symphony as an example,
Epstein establishes the plausibility of ambiguity as a compositional premise, within the constraints (i.e., frame of reference) of sonata form. He demonstrates that Brahms’s use of the
79 Hatten, Muscial Meaning in Beethoven, 29–30.
80 David Epstein, “Ambiguity as Premise,” ch. 8 in Epstein, Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 161.
- 49 - main motive, to consistently obscure metric and formal boundaries at various structural levels
throughout the symphony, serves to create a sense of pervasive ambiguity, which in turn can be
interpreted as Brahms’s compositional premise.81 Along similar lines, Tchaikovsky’s particular
use of the subdominant harmony, in place of the more conventionally stable dominant harmony, causes a certain indeterminacy of voice-leading and equivocalness of forward motion at various structural levels; this results in an overall sense of ambiguity, which I argue to be Tchaikovsky’s compositional premise. Use of the subdominant harmony creates the conflicting strategic competency from which we are able to extract the notion of markedness. Essentially, the compositional premise manifests itself in the composer’s attempt to stretch the limits of the established frame of reference, so as to create complex structures and differentiated detail. The preceding commentary recalls ideas presented in the Introduction: that ambiguity offers a profitable means by which to explore the interaction between compositional structure (frame of reference) and design (premise). One aspect of Tchaikovsky’s expressiveness is the ambiguity that results from his emphasis of the subdominant. To the extent that this process can be interpreted as a mode of expressivity, the subdominant is contextually marked.
Subsequently, Hatten refines what is meant by markedness when he describes it as “the valuation given to difference.” In other words, if a musical gesture is marked within a given context, it displays characteristics different from those expected as per convention. The use of the Picardy third in the Baroque period is an example of this. In minor-key pieces, use of the
Picardy third was a practice by which the expectation of an authentic cadence resolving to the minor tonic was thwarted by resolving instead to the major form of the tonic. The Picardy third was therefore marked to the ears of the Baroque listener, due to its deviation from the
81 Epstein, “Ambiguity as Premise,” 161.
- 50 - expectations of minor-mode music. Markedness can also be manifested from the opposition of musical concepts. For example, one of the most significant stylistic oppositions in tonal music is that of major mode vs. minor mode. Hatten explains that with such contrarieties, markedness occurs as a result of the asymmetry of their relationship; in other words, “the marked term will
occur less frequently than the unmarked term.”82 Therefore, in the classical style, the minor
mode is marked for expressive significance, given its less frequent appearance. The intense
expressive potential of the minor mode also carried over into the romantic era, as composers
sought to stretch the limits of tonality; the chromatic flexibility of the minor mode contributed
amiably to this end.83
Daniel Harrison also noted that the major-minor opposition is one of the binaries fundamental to our conceptual strategies.84 His “dual network,” reproduced as Figure 2.2,
suggests a salient connection between the minor mode and the subdominant. According to this
network, plagal cadences and an emphasis on the subdominant are signposts of the sonic
landscape characteristic of minor in general. A notable aspect of this network is Harrison’s
acknowledgement of a characteristic semitone for each mode; in major this is, of course, 7^ to 8;^
^ ^ in minor, it is b6 to 5. The significance of this observation is revealed upon considering the level
of conclusiveness that each semitone lends to cadential gestures within their respective modes.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the differentiation in tonal opposition that occurs when authentic voice-
leading is compared with plagal voice-leading. Conventionally, plagal voice-leading does not
82 Hatten, Musical Meaning in Beethoven, 36.
83 It is important to note that although the term “opposition” was used, major and minor are not opposites in the usual sense. That is, major can be expressive too, but minor more exclusively so. See Hatten, Musical Meaning in Beethoven, 36.
84 Daniel Harrison, Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 17.
- 51 - attain the tonic-directed conclusiveness that authentic voice-leading achieves. Certainly, from
some theoretical standpoints (i.e., not Schenker’s), the closure attained by both voice-leading
models may be considered equal. The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theories of Moritz
Hauptmann (1792–1868), Johann Philipp Kirnberger (1721–83), Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg
(1718–95), Hugo Riemann (1849–1919), and Georg Andreas Sorge (1703–78) all considered the
subdominant to be equipollent with the dominant; together the two chords provided symmetrical
framing for the tonic. However, our practical experience—heavily influenced by the music of
the common-practice period85—has conditioned us to hear the V–I progression as more fundamental to tonal closure. This is reflected in the tenets of Schenkerian theory (so widely circulated in the U.S. in the last thirty years), which have generally ascribed a more limited function to the subdominant in common-practice music. Deborah Stein has also investigated the aural significance of the two models in Figure 2.3. She explains that to our ears, whereas the opposition between the tonic and dominant is resolved via a strong authentic cadence in the first half of the figure, the opposition in the plagal voice-leading “arises from ambiguity, not from polarity.”86 From the striking relationships between the minor mode and the use of subdominant, in conjunction with the prior commentary on markedness, we can posit the plausibility of plagal markedness, to be taken up in the following section.
85 Sandra McColl refers to the “common-practice” period as one in which “everything a trained musician could be expected to do or make with the elements of the diatonic system was governed by the principles which formed the foundation of [the musician’s] training, the rules of voice-leading as exemplified by strict counterpoint . . .” (Sandra McColl, Music Criticism in Vienna, 1896–1897: Critically Moving Forms [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], 213–14); the internal quotation is taken from Geoffrey Payzant, “Hanslick, Sams, Gay, and ‘Tönend Bewegte Formen,’” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 40/1 (1981), 46.
86 Deborah Stein, Hugo Wolf’s Lieder and Extensions of Tonality (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1985), 38.
- 52 - III. PLAGAL AMBIGUITY AND MARKEDNESS
The concept of plagal markedness resonates strongly with the essence of ambiguity
investigated thus far: expressive meaning is achieved by thwarting listener expectations,
resulting in the creation of tension and opposition (or “chaos”). Generally speaking, when
evoking markedness, it is the goal of an analysis to “explain the organization and fundamental
role of musical oppositions in both specifying and creating expressive meanings.”87
Consequently, markedness becomes essential to comprehending the manner in which ambiguity
“lends clarity” and “maintains chaos” in this music, and inevitably attains status as a
compositional premise. The following analysis of Tchaikovsky’s music will illustrate that the
composer’s use of the subdominant is marked in two ways. First, using Deborah Stein’s plagal
domain as a point of departure for examining Tchaikovsky’s extensive emphasis of the
subdominant,88 I will demonstrate “plagalness” as being marked in the nineteenth century and
therefore a plausible means of expression within the conventions of the common-practice era.89 I will further examine the parallels that can be drawn between the plagal domain and the Russian tradition of choral music, demonstrating one possible interpretation of Tchaikovsky’s
Russianness. The goal of this analysis is to present examples of the multi-dimensional nature of ambiguity discussed in Chapter 1; that is, the ambiguity associated with the plagal domain infiltrates several structural levels of Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony and creates compelling metaphorical implications. While a hierarchical approach to this ambiguity is espoused to the extent that such an approach clarifies the function of ambiguity at deeper levels of the musical
87 Hatten, Muscial Meaning in Beethoven, 34.
88 The notion of the plagal domain is introduced in Stein, Hugo Wolf, chapter 2.
89 It is important to note that the structures discussed in Tchaikovsky’s music, when assessed in relation to the characteristics of our earlier definition of a “common-practice” period (see footnote #82), can be considered to be marked.
- 53 - structure, a dialectical approach must also be embraced to gain the full impact of what ambiguity
can reveal about the composer’s style.
In Nineteenth-Century Music and the German Romantic Ideology, John Daverio
characterizes romantic music by its broad declamations, brilliant and bold gestures, misty
veilings, deductive envelopings, and troubling instabilities.90 He explores the various means by
which romanticism is manifested in music, citing as examples its individuality of expression,
cultivation of the fantastic, delight in insoluble contradictions, mystical union of subject and
object, and yearning for the infinite.91 Certainly, the guiding motto of romantic thought seems to be “nothing but ambiguity.”92 The details of Deborah Stein’s plagal domain present one
possible analytical tool by which we can identify specific musical structures that embody the
descriptive elements listed here. She defines the plagal domain, shown in Figure 2.4, as “the
subdominant harmony and a complex network of harmonic relationships [that] involve the
subdominant . . . [yet] transcend the traditional common-practice subdominant function.”93 In
other words, attention is focused on the plagal domain as it represents a collection of musical
structures that succeed in diverting the expectations of the stylistically competent listener (i.e.,
one competent in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century music). As we have previously
defined ambiguity in a similar manner, the plagal domain represents a specific construct through
which musical ambiguity can be explored. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
90 John Daverio, Nineteenth-Century Music and the German Romantic Ideology (New York: Schirmer), 4.
91 As summarized by Daverio, Nineteenth-Century Music, 5.
92 Patrizia Violi and Wendy Steiner, “Ambiguity,” in Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, 2nd rev. and updated edn. (New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994), 26. Violi and Steiner do not use this phrase in reference to the characteristics of Romanticism, but rather to illustrate the notion of “différence,” as explained by the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). This concept combines the ideas of deferring and differing, that is, how meaning is both postponed (through an endless chain of signifiers) and entangled in binary oppositions and hierarchies.
93 Stein, Hugo Wolf, 19.
- 54 - conventional role of the subdominant was either to prolong the tonic or to prepare and lead to the dominant,94 as illustrated in Figure 2.5. In contrast, the use of the subdominant within the plagal domain transcends these expected functions; as a result, its use attains expressive significance, and thus is marked.
Each branch of Stein’s plagal domain (Figure 2.4) presents a fascinating perspective from which to view the use of the subdominant in the nineteenth century. In the common-practice era, two operations, plagal substitution and transformation of tonic function, are employed to create plagal ambiguity. Plagal substitution occurs when an alternate chord (i.e., other than IV), such as
II, bII, VI, or bVI assumes the function of IV. This phenomenon can also be expanded to include deceptive cadences and chromatic harmonies such as the augmented-sixth chord. As a result, this expansion suggests the plausibility of the subdominant as a major tonal force that can eventually usurp the dynamic role of the dominant.95 This particular occurrence is defined by
Stein as dominant replacement, which comprises the right branch of the plagal domain. Stein posits that toward the end of the nineteenth century, pervasive use of the subdominant gives way to a “plagal axis,” which serves as an analog to the normative tonic–dominant axis.96 Using
94 This presents a blatant opposition to the theories of harmony discussed earlier (i.e., those of Riemann, Sorge, Marpurg, Kirnberger, and Hauptmann), which considered the subdominant as equal to the dominant. Stein, Hugo Wolf, 20.
95 Stein, Hugo Wolf, 22.
96 As the pervasiveness of the subdominant increases in the nineteenth century, it has the potential to become less marked. This trend is noted by Robert Hatten when explicating the details related to musical markedness. Recalling the example of the Picardy 3rd used earlier, Hatten explains that as this construction was used more frequently its occurrence became less marked; he refers to this phenomenon as markedness growth (Hatten, Musical Markedness in Beethoven, 38–41). Likewise, Stein’s “Dominant Replacement” represents a situation where the frequent use of the subdominant would actually be expected and no longer marked. Her analysis, however, deals expressly with the music of Hugo Wolf (1860–1903), whose music is shown to be governed solely by plagal harmonic progressions. Thus, with regard to Wolf, we cannot speak of “plagal markedness.” It remains fruitful to explore the subdominant as marked in Tchaikovsky’s music, however, as his constructs within the plagal domain are often juxtaposed against the conventions of the West, in which authentic progressions predominated. To this extent, Tchaikovsky’s plagal structures are marked.
- 55 - Schenker’s model of the tonic-dominant–axis at the foreground, middleground, and background,
she summarizes the role of the dominant:
The dominant functions . . . to define the tonic, to affirm the tonic on a local and large-scale level through authentic cadences or tonal polarity. The dominant articulates the tonic—on the deepest and most abstract level—by participating in a horizontalization of the tonic triad through the Bassbrechung.97
Dominant replacement thus occurs when the subdominant attains these same roles of definition,
affirmation, and articulation at various levels of a work’s structure.
Plagal ambiguity can also be created by the transformation of tonic function. This is a
process by which the tonic becomes the dominant of the subdominant (i.e., V/IV). Figure 2.6
illustrates the transformation of a I–IV progression to that of a V–I progression. In minor keys,
this transformation can be attained by altering the mode of the tonic chord, in addition to adding
the seventh. Maximum ambiguity, however, can be achieved when this occurs in a major key, as
the quality of the tonic triad remains the same, and transformation is attained only by adding the
lowered seventh, which then resolves to the subdominant. Stein claims that this technique is
significant in the nineteenth century, explaining that “the ambiguity that results from this transformation is especially powerful since it not only creates harmonic ambiguity but also reverses the nature of harmonic function from an opening to a closing progression.”98 In other
words, our ears are conditioned to hear movement from tonic to the subdominant as wanting to
continue (i.e., on to the tonic, by V–I or some other means). This transformation has the aural
effect of circumventing our expectation by providing closure. The effect of creating closure
before originally anticipated, especially within a localized context, serves to foment this sense of
97 Stein, Hugo Wolf, 26.
98 Deborah Stein, “The Expansion of the Subdominant in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Music Theory 27 (1983), 157.
- 56 - ambiguity. Although Tchaikovsky did not initiate a transformation of tonic function in exactly in this manner, he did exploit the notion of subtle chromatic alteration as a means of creating ambiguity. In his music, we find that the specific processes applied to the tonic sonority in
Figure 2.6 (i.e., chromatic alteration of the third and addition of the lowered seventh) are in effect applied to the subdominant harmony to instigate unconventional harmonic motion.
Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony in E Minor abounds with instances where the subdominant is manifested as a tonal force and used to create ambiguity on the foreground and at deeper levels. The first example can be found in the exposition of the first movement.
Essentially, the key area of E minor is not substantiated by the conventional polarity of the dominant–tonic relationship, but rather by a pervasive emphasis of the subdominant. The brooding opening clarinet solo is accompanied by an oscillation between the I and iv chords.
Likewise, the entrance of the opening theme is harmonized by an alternation between the tonic and subdominant. The absence of any perfect-authentic cadential material further draws the listener’s attention to the subdominant as the essential means of establishing a tonal center in this section. Even more striking is the manner in which the subdominant is chromatically transformed to initiate motion to the secondary thematic area. Figure 2.7 demonstrates the process by which the pervasively emphasized subdominant, A minor, becomes the dominant of the secondary key area of D major (bVII). This occurrence is marked for significance because a typical listener would expect the exposition to proceed conventionally, with a secondary theme in either the minor dominant (B minor) or the relative major (G major). While these key areas are occasionally suggested locally, such an expectation is thwarted by the overall chromatic transformation of A minor to A major.
- 57 - Not only is the subdominant expanded beyond its conventional use to define and
articulate the tonal center of the exposition, but it is also transformed to initiate motion between
formal sections in an unexpected way. Figure 2.8 demonstrates the relationship between this
process and Stein’s transformation of tonic function. This example illustrates that while we do
not get the full effect in which an opening progression becomes a closing progression, as is
customary with Stein’s transformation, the same operation of chromatic alteration is used to
transform the opening progression into one that is more harmonically indeterminate. The
resultant ambiguity gives the work a powerful sense of forward motion while simultaneously
establishing a subtle strand of continuity between the formal units.
The unexpected movement from E minor to D major between the primary and secondary
themes of this exposition closely mirrors one particular aspect of double tonality noted by Stein
in the music of Hugo Wolf.99 It might seem that using the term double tonality here would
suggest that E minor and D major are competing to function as the governing tonic;100 but Stein explains a second type of the phenomenon that involves “a complex formal design in which the traditional common-practice polarity of two closely related harmonies is replaced by a tension between two opposing and remotely related keys.”101 Here the tension arises as a result of the
movement from E to D. The most striking feature of this phenomenon is the use of the
99 Deborah Stein defines “dual” or “double” tonality as “the existence of two distinct tonal domains (each with its own tonic–dominant axis, etc.) that coexist and compete for tonal supremacy.” This concept is closely related to the earlier work of Robert Bailey, who discusses a “double-tonic complex,” where the two tonics are generally related by the interval of the third. See Robert Bailey, “An Analytical Study of the Sketches and Drafts,” in Prelude and Transfiguration from “Tristan und Isolde,” ed. Robert Bailey (New York: Norton, 1985), 118–20.
100 Joseph Kraus also notes the peculiarity of these key relationships and explores the plausibility of dual tonality in his article. He eventually dismisses dual tonality in the sense that he does not believe there to be two governing tonics in the symphony. However, he nevertheless upholds the notion that the juxtaposition of two pervasive key areas may be significant in the context of Tchaikovsky’s symphony. Kraus also draws upon the concept of the “double-tonic complex” as posited by Robert Bailey. See Joseph Kraus, “Tonal Plan and Narrative Plot in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 in E Minor,” Music Theory Spectrum 13 (1991): 21–47.
101 Stein, Hugo Wolf, 7.
- 58 - subdominant to create the conflict. By manipulating the harmonic function of the subdominant—by essentially “dominantizing” it—it creates a heightened level of expressiveness and becomes marked for significance.
The foregoing discussion illustrates a specific way in which a romantic artwork may fuse coherence and continuity with chaos and opposition (to recall comments in Chapter 1). At the foreground and early middleground levels, ambiguity is an important aspect of our perception.
At deeper levels, however, the ambiguity functions to connect formal units more subtly.
Tchaikovsky employs a similar modus operandi to move between key areas in the third movement. The waltz begins in A major and modulates to the relative minor (F#) for the B section. It is in the B section that harmonic motion is initiated via the plagal axis. Figure 2.9 presents a condensed score of this excerpt. For the first two phrases (mm. 72–76 and 76–80), the accented harmonies in the strings emphasize movement from tonic (F# minor) to subdominant
(B minor). In the next phrase (mm. 81–84) the subdominant is chromatically manipulated to become the dominant of E major for the next formal section (mm. 89ff.). Figure 2.10 presents a reduction of this process. The unexpected motion from F# minor to E major is accomplished via a subtle “dominantization” of the subdominant. Affirming Agawu’s conclusions regarding hierarchy (discussed in Chapter 1) the ambiguity resulting from this harmonic motion is essentially resolved once it is considered within the context of structural levels. Figure 2.11 presents a voice-leading graph of this section, which shows the basic function of the unusual harmonic motion at a deep middleground level; the motion from F# minor to E major supports the graceful descent of ^3 to ^2 (in A major) across the boundary of the formal sections. Despite the fact that this ambiguity is able to be resolved within the enabling constructs of Schenkerian
- 59 - theory, it is nonetheless an important aspect of this analysis, particularly as it relates to
Tchaikovsky’s pervasive use of the subdominant and the metaphorical implications therein.
Figures 2.7–2.11 represent the phenomenon of dominant replacement as it is manifested
on both the foreground and middleground levels of the symphony. Essentially, a foreground
oscillation between tonic and subdominant initiates a process whereby the subdominant becomes
the impetus for forward motion to the next formal section by way of its functional manipulation.
Although on the foreground the subdominant retains its significance as the principal way of
affirming the tonic, the middleground motion is still defined by the local tonic–dominant
polarity, albeit via the “dominantization” of the subdominant. Upon examination of the large-
scale key relationships of the background, between movements of the whole symphony, it
becomes apparent that a complete dominant replacement has occurred. The chromatic
transformation of the subdominant, which was so integral to the inner-workings of each
movement, is now bypassed. The key relationships of each movement are related by a
completely plagal progression, inevitably on equal footing with that of the conventional
dominant progression. Figure 2.12 demonstrates the means by which the progression of tonal
centers between each movement proceed along a double-plagal progression (IV/IV–IV–I). The
subdominant of E minor (A minor) is transformed to become the dominant of D major in the
second movement. D major is further interpreted as the subdominant of the third movement in A
major. Subsequently, in the fourth movement, A major progresses plagally to E major.102 Once again, the relationship of movements within the plagal domain is marked, given the expectation of key areas that proceed through the dominant (B-major/minor) or perhaps the relative major (G major) before returning to the tonic. The manifestation of the plagal axis on such a large
102 Kraus, Tonal Plot, 25.
- 60 - structural level serves to unify the work across formal and structural boundaries, while the
apparatus used to illustrate this coherence maintains the essence of the ambiguity as a
meaningful expressive tool. The ambiguity that occurs, as a result of subdominant emphasis, manages to unify the work to a great extent, suggesting Tchaikovsky’s use of the idiom to
achieve remarkable expression in the work.
Now that we have considered a few examples of how “plagalness” is marked to our ears
in terms of Tchaikovsky’s adherence to Western conventions, it is important to interpret the
notion of plagal markedness with respect to Tchaikovsky’s Russianness. I argue that
Tchaikovsky’s use of the subdominant may also be interpreted symbolically: it serves to signify
the music of the Russian Orthodox Church. The model of dialogical thought proposed by
Charles Peirce is useful to this discourse. Figure 2.13 illustrates what Peirce recognized as the
three main elements of signification or semiosis. The form taken by the musical sign is the
representamen, the sense we make from the sign is the interpretant, and the object is that to
which the sign refers103—in the present context, the musical repertory from which one abstracts the musical idea. Extending these ideas to the discussion of the subdominant in Tchaikovsky’s music, this chord is the representamen. The markedness of the subdominant (already addressed) implicates Russian Orthodox music as its object, that is, the repertory from which it arises; and our conception of this music—or conception of Tchaikovsky’s Russianness—is its interpretant.
Evidence of Tchaikovsky’s reverence of Orthodox music can be found in biographies of
the composer: “He liked to attend church services and although he was critical of the ‘frequent
abuses of the dominant seventh’ that had infiltrated chant harmonizations, he nevertheless was
103 Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2002), 34.
- 61 - deeply moved by the beauty of the Orthodox services.”104 He actually preferred Orthodox over
Catholic services as he declared that the latter lacked a sense of solemnity.105 This solemnity is
referred to in Russia as torzhestvennost and is associated not with “the flashy, boisterous,
fanfare-like celebration” but instead “with a holy, divine event . . . through which one is exalted
and uplifted,” and “which is dignified, mystical, noble and beyond man.”106 The musical manifestation of torzhestvennost can be most clearly observed within Russian chant harmonizations. Figure 2.14 illustrates several of the more notable features of this concept, which include the intensification or broadening of the “subdominant effect,” through emphasis of the third and fourth scale degrees. The opening clarinet solo of the Fifth Symphony clearly illustrates this idea with the melodic emphasis of ^3 (i.e., the note G in E minor) while accompanied by 1^ and 4^ in the bass (see Figure 2.15). Moreover, the 1812 Overture, is strikingly reminiscent of the chant harmonization in Figure 2.14. This particular piece commences with movement from the tonic to the subdominant, which includes decoration and intensification of 4^ with 3^ (see Figure 2.16).
Additionally, it must be noted that the concept of solemnity has its foundations in the
Orthodox Church’s znamenny chant. This chant is characterized as an unmetered, freely flowing, lyrical melody, exuding a peaceful and ethereal quality (see Figure 2.17). The influence of these features is especially apparent in Figures 2.15 and 2.16. In each example, a simple, lyrical, and chant-like melody is presented. Their slow and placid quality harkens back to the sort of religiosity so closely associated with the znamenny chant. Tchaikovsky’s devotion to
104 Olga Dolskaya, “Tchaikovsky’s Roots in the Russian Choral Tradition,” in Tchaikovsky and His Contemporaries: A Centennial Symposium, ed. Alexandar Mihailovic (London: Greenwood Press, 1999), 191.
105 Dolskaya, “Tchaikovsky’s Roots,” 191.
106 Dolskaya, “Tchaikovsky’s Roots,” 192.
- 62 - lyricism and melody at the expense of motivic development bears witness to the pervasive
influence of the znamenny concept throughout his compositional output and further support his
essential Russianness.
To summarize, in this section I have investigated the signification potential of ambiguity
as a means of clarifying one of the conflicts relevant to current scholarship regarding
Tchaikovsky’s music. Through examination of the subdominant and plagalness, grounded in the terminology of semiotics, I have suggested a way of illuminating the important aspects of
Tchaikovsky’s music ethos. Tchaikovsky’s pervasive emphasis of 4,^ the subdominant harmony, and progressions within the plagal domain are all outside the context of its conventional or common-practice usage. The markedness of these compositional features encourages deeper scrutiny of the composer’s works so as to promote a better understanding of his aesthetic position. By determining the signifying potential of the subdominant, I have not only shown
plagalness as a lens though which to view the nature of Tchaikovsky’s “Russianness,” but have demonstrated its usefulness in revealing the techniques of the composer’s own expressive ends.
IV. AMBIGUITY AND “THRESHOLDISM”
In order to clarify aspects of Tchaikovsky’s cultural and stylistic orientation, the
foregoing analysis focused on the signification of one specific musical device characteristic of
his compositional language: pervasive use of the subdominant. A more inclusive investigation of signification and ambiguity in Tchaikovsky’s music may be attained through an approach that concentrates on more general features of his style (e.g., linking procedures, developmental techniques, harmonic devices, etc.). In Chapter 1, ambiguity was demonstrated to be a
“synthesis of opposites”: functioning at the juncture between unity and conflict, clarity and
- 63 - chaos, structure and design, background and foreground, and hierarchical and dialectical
approaches. In a similar vein, the present chapter explores ambiguity as it occurs at the
intersection of Tchaikovsky’s Russianness and Westernness, as well as the notion that plagal
markedness is a result of a conflict between stylistic and strategic competencies. Within each of
these contrarieties, ambiguity seems to belong to both domains, never resting firmly on only one side of the opposition. To this extent, ambiguities find themselves poised between two viable alternatives, or, on a “threshold” of sorts.
In “Music on the Threshold of German Romanticism,” John Francis Fetzer presents a compelling argument for the concept of thresholdism as a “quintessential feature of the art and attitude which we label Romantic.”107 He begins by drawing on our basic conception of a
threshold as being a “line of demarcation between separate realms” and suggests that by crossing
this line “one moves from one distinct area to another.”108 He then posits the following
questions: “Suppose one remains perched on the threshold, without proceeding in either
direction?”; and “Can one be said to participate in both spheres simultaneously, fusing or even
confusing both?”109 These questions invite intriguing conclusions when considered in the context of ambiguity as a synthesis of opposites, particularly when applied to the current study of ambiguity in the works of Tchaikovsky. In this section, I aim to demonstrate that yes, one can
remain “perched” on a threshold—participating in, and moreover fusing aspects of two opposing
realms—and that indeed, Tchaikovsky did this often. Accordingly, I posit thresholdism as a compelling object (after Peirce) of signification for ambiguity in his Fifth Symphony. This
107 John Francis Fetzer, “Music on the Threshold of German Romanticism,” in The Romantic Tradition: German Literature and Music in the Nineteenth Century, in Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte, eds. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), 43.
108 Fetzer, “Music on the Threshold,” 43. Italics added.
109 Fetzer, “Music on the Threshold,” 44.
- 64 - section will proceed according to the following trajectory: 1) I will articulate the specific nature
of thresholdism as a salient feature of romanticism and, moreover, how we might represent the
concept musically; 2) I will focus specifically on musical representations of thresholdism within
the transitory sections of the symphony; and 3) I will argue that a type of threshold quality
infused Tchaikovsky’s personal character. I have chosen to focus on transitory passages for two
reasons: first, these passages, by their very function, present a fundamental example of a musical
threshold—they are poised between two formal units; second, transitory sections contain some of
Tchaikovsky’s most unique compositional devices, which have also been the subject of his
harshest criticism.110 For Tchaikovsky these passages, although serving as formal thresholds,
also seem to present an expressive outlet by which the composer aimed not only to participate
legitimately in the romantic movement (despite frequent criticism), but also to communicate his
personal feelings of thresholdism or “betweenness” within society (a topic that will be examined
as this discussion progresses).
1. THRESHOLDISM AND ROMANTICISM
“For the Romantic Poet every moment is a threshold.”111 This provocative statement
serves as an appropriate point of departure for Albert Cook’s study, in which he demonstrates the
significance of the threshold for the expressive aims of many nineteenth-century authors
including Blake, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Dickinson, and Nietzsche. Cook, like the present author,
110 In fact, Henry Zajaczkowski devotes an entire chapter of Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style to the composer’s linking procedures. Moreover, in the subsequent chapters of the book, many of Tchaikovsky’s developmental and harmonic devices are found to govern many of these transitory passages. Zajaczkowski also addresses the fact that these procedures, although ingenious, have been criticized by Western scholars. See Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style, 2–23, 37–38, and 136–46.
111 Albert Cook, Thresholds: Studies in the Romantic Experience (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 3.
- 65 - recognizes romanticism as a magnification of contrarieties: permanence vs. transience,
imagination vs. reality, love vs. solipsism, and mortal vs. Olympian.112 The threshold thus becomes an essential metaphor for experiencing these conflicts. Fetzer cites three scholars who have acknowledged such a threshold quality in German literary romanticism: Siegbert Prawer (b.
1925), Novalis (1772–84), and Oskar Seidlin (1911–84).113 Although their commentary is
mainly in reference to literary practice, their language nevertheless suggests application to the
musical domain. For example, Prawer writes that “the most characteristic art of German
romanticism transports reader, viewer, and listener to a frontier between the visible and the
invisible, the tangible and the intangible.”114 The significance of Prawer’s statement resides not
only in his suggestion that music has the power to transport the listener to a threshold, but also in
the inference that the composer alone holds the key to revealing to the listener what lies within
the “invisible” or “intangible” realms. In fact, Prawer explains that the romantic artist “feels
more strongly than his fellow-men the connection between the odd and eccentric . . . He feels
also a conflict between the claims of the imagination . . . and those of common reality.”115 The inevitable goal of the romantic composer is therefore to transcend the triteness and regularity of everyday society, and to achieve new heights of expression. In the words of Novalis: “by giving
112 Cook, Thresholds, 7.
113 Siegbert Prawer is a scholar of German Language and Literature. For his most relevant commentary regarding Romanticism and thresholdism see Prawer, ed., The Romantic Period in Germany: Essays by Members of the London University Institute of Germanic Studies (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), 1–16. Oskar Seidlin is a German-born American literary scholar and poet. For relevant commentary, see Seidlin, “Prag: deutsch-romantisch und habsburgisch-wienerisch,” in Seidlin, Von erwachendem Bewusstsein und vom Sündenfall: Brentano, Schiller, Kleist, Goethe (Stuttgart: Klett, 1979), 93–119. Novalis is the pseudonym for Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg, an author and philosopher of early German Romanticism. He describes the threshold quality of Romanitc art most notably in Henry von Ofterdingen, trans. Palmer Hilty (New York: Ungar, 1964), 25; and Schriften: Die Werke Friedrich von Hardenbergs, ed. Paul Kluckhohn and Richard Samuel, Vol. II (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), 545.
114 Prawer, The Romantic Period in Germany, 4. Italics added.
115 Prawer, The Romantic Period in Germany, 6. Italics added.
- 66 - the commonplace a heightened meaning, the ordinary a mysterious appearance, the known the
dignity of the unknown, the finite an infinite aura, I thus romanticize them.”116
Thresholdism is also salient to the exploration of ambiguity. This is most convincingly
conveyed in the scholarship of Oskar Seidlin. He defines the threshold thusly:
It is the point of transition, that which mediates and connects, looking in both directions, forward and backward; and even though it clearly leads from an outer to an inner space, it is nevertheless suspended in a unique hovering state, belonging to here as well as there, but “belonging” in the sense of no longer here and not yet there. The threshold is, transposed to the temporal state, a moment of parting in which, to be sure, the new departure is already present as a tardy lingering which, however, also can be labeled an incipient anticipation.117
This definition of the threshold resonates with the exploration of the etymology of ambiguity,
where the word was shown to be derived from Latin, combining amb (“both ways”) and agere
(“drive”). Furthermore, the close relation of Seidlin’s threshold to the etymology of ambiguity
has immediate relevance to the investigation of transitory passages in Tchaikovsky’s music, for
what is a transition but a “tardy lingering” of what precedes and an “incipient anticipation” of the
formal unit to follow?118 Additionally, Fetzer posits several more specific musical constructions
that may communicate aspects of the threshold. He lists the diminished-seventh chord,
fluctuation between major and minor keys, enharmonic reinterpretation, augmented triads, and
delayed resolutions of non-harmonic tones as examples of musical thresholdism. These
examples are significant as many of these structures were also demonstrated to be ambiguous as
well (see Chapter 1). Adding to Fetzer’s list, augmented-sixth chords, deceptive resolutions,
116 Novalis, Schriften: Die Werke, 545, as quoted and trans. by Fetzer, “Music on the Threshold,” 51.
117 Seidlin, “Prag: deutsch-romantisch und habsburgisch-wienerisch,” 97, as quoted and trans. by Fetzer, “Music on the Threshold,” 47.
118 Although I think thresholdism is a feature of transitions in general, I find the notion to be even more compelling when applied to Tchaikovsky’s transitions, for in these sections we find musical structures that are unique to the composer’s style. See also footnote 110.
- 67 - static harmonies, as well as the omnibus progression may also serve a similar function. In the
following analysis of Tchaikovsky’s music, these devices will be found to pervade his musical
language, allowing him not only to transport the listener to the threshold but also to participate
fully in German romanticism.
2. THRESHOLDISM IN THE FIFTH SYMPHONY
Having laid the foundation for thresholdism as a significant element of romanticism and as a pervasive element of Tchaikovsky’s musical language, we can now investigate in a more specific manner how this might allow the composer to partake legitimately in “Westernness.”
Tchaikovsky’s linking procedures provide an appropriate point of departure for this discourse, as they are the primary reason that the composer is accused of lacking the formal unity and coherence that is customary of the Germanic style. Zajaczkowski uses “thread in the seams” as a metaphor to describe the overarching impression of Tchaikovsky’s music as consisting of
“distinctly perceptible sections, sewn together, rather than the smooth, seemingly effortlessly
spun kind of structure at which Brahms, for example, was so adept.”119 Indeed, it was
Tchaikovsky who first used “thread in the seams” to express concern over his own deficiencies
in the area of formal structure, writing that “to the day I die, I shall have written nothing that is
perfect as concerns form. . . . The thread in the seams is always noticeable to the experienced eye, and it is impossible to do anything about it.”120 Although Tchaikovsky’s linkage techniques
indicate a possible weakness for the composer, I believe that some of his unique compositional
119 Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style, 1.
120 Piotr Chaykovskiy, Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy: literaturnïye proizvedeniya i perepiska (Complete edition: literary works and correspondence), vol. 14 (Moscow, 1974), 542; from letter to K. K. Romanov of 3 October 1888, as quoted in Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style, 1.
- 68 - devices, as well as his most compelling representations of musical thresholdism can be found in
these sections.121
Simplistic is a descriptor frequently used by Zajaczkowski to refer to Tchaikovsky’s
transitory passages. Often characterized by a single prolonged tone, a repeated harmony, or
juxtaposition of basic melodic figurations, these sections may seem only loosely to bind together
the structures that frame them. Upon closer examination, however, their components reveal
some of Tchaikovsky’s most subtle and powerful expressions of happiness conjoined with
conflict and impending fate (i.e., emotions on the threshold). Figure 2.18 provides the score for
the transition to the development in the first movement. The most obvious feature of this
passage is the drastic reduction in texture and dynamic that separates the end of the exposition
from the beginning of the transition (i.e., mm. 213–14). Despite this contrast, the intensity of the
passage remains fierce. Through the juxtaposition of the horns and the strings, Tchaikovsky
quickly altered the upbeat mood of the exposition to one that is riddled with conflict and
turbulence. The foreboding horn calls interrupt the playful figure in the strings with a number of
subtle harmonic alterations that create much uncertainty with regard to tonal direction. Figure
2.19 summarizes the pathway that leads from D major to Bb major for the beginning of the
development. This harmonic motion presents one aspect of the musical threshold: it anticipates
the development by leaving the listener in a genuine state of suspense. However, Figure 2.18
121 The ensuing analysis is based upon generalized stylistic features of Tchaikovsky that have been identified by Zajaczkowski. Zajaczkowski generalizes aspects of the composer’s work including linkage techniques, developmental techniques, harmony and tonality, and orchestration, and is primarily concerned with showing these methods to be those of a leading creative artist in the Western Romantic tradition. While my goal is similar to the extent that I wish to present these procedures as aspects of Tchaikovsky’s Westernness, I also aim to illustrate aspects of thresholdism within these sections. It is also important to note that while this discussion is limited to transitions passages, I do find that thresholdism pervades other aspects of Tchaikovsky’s style; however, that is beyond the scope of this analysis.
- 69 - also highlights how the rhythmic figures in this transition hearken back to the primary and
secondary themes of the exposition, thereby manifesting a “tardy lingering.”
A similar procedure is used to transition from the primary to the secondary thematic
material in the final movement of the symphony. As shown in Figure 2.20, the primary theme is
ended by a dramatic reduction in orchestration, where contrasting groups of instruments are
juxtaposed. The regal character of the G7 that ends the primary theme (mm. 46–47) is quickly
undermined by the subtle shift to E minor in m. 49. The pedal G emphasized by the timpani and
contrabass contribute to the fateful change in mood that surely imbues the listener with eagerness
for what is to come. And indeed, the oscillation in the strings (mm. 51–57) anticipates the
rhythmic and melodic motives that begin the allegro vivace, while remnants of the primary
theme are echoed by the brass/woodwinds. This passage is one of Tchaikovsky’s most
powerfully expressive episodes, for throughout this subdued transition the listener does not
suspect the jolting severity with which the allegro vivace enters. One can surely imagine the
allegro vivace as the harsh reality of fate interrupting but a moment of peaceful serenity.
Alternatively, Figure 2.21—from the climax of the second movement—presents a
transitory passage in which the listener is on the threshold of being overcome by fate, before
tranquility is granted with the return of the main theme. Here the threshold is created not by
orchestrational juxtaposition, but by the incessant repetition of an ambiguous harmony. After a
whirlwind of developmental activity, C# minor is reached in mm. 96–98. However, the fate
4 theme enters over an A2 chord, which, in the context of the preceding harmony, could be interpreted as a German augmented-sixth chord. The unstable inversion and polarity of the chord, in addition to its prolonged repetition, allow Tchaikovsky to build a great deal of suspense in this section before its much-desired resolution to D major (as opposed to C# minor) in m. 110.
- 70 - The dramatic effect is heightened further by the abrupt changed in dynamics and texture from m.
107 to m. 108, a feature that has been shown in the foregoing examples to be essential to
Tchaikovsky’s compositional ethos.
To advance the “thread in the seams” analogy, Zajaczkowski describes another important feature of Tchaikovsky’s style as the existence of “a thread of musical figuration, arising in one section of a piece that weaves its way into the next section, as an accompaniment.”122 A basic example of this technique is found in the transition to the recapitulation in the third movement.
Here, the qualities of thresholdism are presented in a different light. Figure 2.22 reveals that the lingering of prior material actually occurs in the scalar accompaniment once the recapitulation has begun. The anticipation occurs as a result of the phrase expansion initiated by the transitional cadential rhetoric in mm. 142–44. Figure 2.23 presents a comparison of mm. 138–44 with its analogous passage in mm. 80–84. Uncertainty arises in m. 142 because the listener expects a cadence, as on the downbeat of m. 84. However, these expectations are confounded by the alternate harmonic goal of the phrase-expansion, which prepares the return of A major.
Thus, suspense is created for the listener as the new direction of the melodic material in mm.
138–44 reveals itself.
The transition to the secondary thematic material in the third movement also presents a harmonic device well-suited to the qualities of thresholdism identified thus far: the omnibus progression. Figure 2.24 illustrates a basic example of this concept. This symmetrical progression, in which inner voices serve as pedals (here B and D) and outer voices diverge chromatically, are quite conducive to creating musical ambiguity. Figure 2.25 demonstrates
Tchaikovsky’s somewhat altered use of the progression in mm. 57–59. The pedal-note (B) is
122 Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style, 13.
- 71 - reiterated by the bassoon and further intensified by its embellishment with A#. This repetition, as well as the bassoon’s rhythmic figure, serves to create a strand of continuity with the preceding melodic material (i.e., m. 53 and m. 55). Moreover, the contrary chromatic motion in the other voices provides a sense of anticipation towards the eventual resolution of the dominant- seventh chord.
Figure 2.26 presents a manifestation of thresholdism that serves a more structural function as the link between the third and fourth movements. In the coda of the third movement, the listener is threatened with both rhythmic and harmonic instability. Regarding the former, the main fate theme of the symphony is reinterpreted within the governing 3/4 meter (mm. 241–55), giving it a lilting and foreboding quality. Regarding the latter, harmonic instability is subsequently created in mm. 256–66, as—over a tonic pedal—closure is not achieved by the expected dominant-tonic progression, but rather by the alternation of tonic with the subdominant triad (with added sixth). Although the triad with added sixth was commonly used by
Tchaikovsky, its appearance at the end of this movement lacks the definitiveness with which he normally created closure, an effect that is further intensified by the hemiolas that recall the recontextualized fate theme. It seems as though the listener is left in lingering anticipation after the last chord of this movement. In the following chapter, these two excerpts will have particular poignancy as they will support my examination of the potential for metric ambiguity to reveal important aspects of organic unity within the third movement.
The foregoing examples have not only demonstrated compelling manifestations of the musical threshold, but have illustrated several features unique to Tchaikovsky’s transitional techniques. As a result, another aspect of Tchaikovsky’s adherence to Western convention has been revealed. Despite the harsh critical response to his transitory and other compositional
- 72 - procedures, Tchaikovsky’s powerful display of ambiguity and expression in these sections
allows him to transport the listener to a frontier between the peril of fate and the hope of
tranquility, satisfying an essential requirement of romanticism. Tchaikovsky, in other words,
“found nothing as ‘interesting,’ or as ‘wonderful,’ as the threshold of things.123
3. THRESHOLDISM AND TCHAIKOVSKY
In addition to these compelling musical manifestations of the threshold, it must also be
noted that a certain threshold syndrome seems to have infused Tchaikovsky’s personal character.
In Albert Cook’s examination of the threshold as a significant aspect of the romantic experience,
the notion of feeling arises as particularly pervasive. Cook begins by quoting Goethe’s Faust,
one of romanticism’s quintessential characters, who exclaims that “Gefühl ist alles” [“Feeling is
all”].124 Certainly, this is true to the extent that in romanticism, feeling is the threshold: for the
romantic artist, feeling is that which connects internalized personal thought with the society of
the world around him. For example, Cook writes that “person and world reflect each other, and
interact, on the ground of feeling.”125 It seems that for Cook, feeling allows one to simultaneously participate in two spheres: that of the personal and that of the world. What becomes particularly apparent with the study of Tchaikovsky’s life and music is that the composer saw the deep expression of feelings through music as the only outlet for his own, genuine interaction with the outer world. It is commonly known that Tchaikovsky embraced
solitude. Certainly, the fact that he never met his patroness, Nadejda von Meck, in person attests
123 Fetzer, On the Threshold, 57.
124 Cook, Thresholds, 4.
125 Cook, Thresholds, 5.
- 73 - to this. He reluctantly accepted visitors and when traveling, often longed to return to the
Motherland (Russia) to be near his family (i.e., those that he trusted completely). Over time, the
effects of his disastrous marriage to Antonina Milyukova, his frequent hypochondriacal
behavior, and his anguished emotions regarding public reception caused him to become
increasingly introverted, and completely disinclined to trust others for fear of being ostracized.126
Thus, the most compelling displays of feeling, for Tchaikovsky, are notably manifested in his music. Indeed, we have witnessed this firsthand through the foregoing musical examples.
Tchaikovsky’s style is permeated with “the tantalizing sadness-conjoined-with-happiness,”
which has been noted as a vital element of the greatest music and is moreover representative of
his personal character.127
126 For more detailed discussion regarding Tchaikovsky’s emotional character and its implication on his interaction with others see David Brown, Tchaikovsky Remembered (Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1994); Malcolm Brown, “Biographical Issues in Tchaikovsky Scholarship,” in Tchaikovsky and His Contemporaries: A Centennial Sympsium, ed. Alexandar Mihailovic (London: Greenwood Press, 1999): 263–73; Alexander Poznansky, Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man (New York: Schirmer, 1991); and Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style.
127 Zajaczkowski, Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style, 142.
- 74 - CHAPTER 2: A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO AMBIGUITY
FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1. COMPETENCIES IN MUSICAL UNDERSTANDING.
MUSICAL UNDERSTANDING
Stylistic Competency Strategic Competency (constraints of a style) (individual choices)
Tchaikovsky’s Tchaikovsky’s Tchaikovsky’s “Westernness” “Russianness” own expressive ends
TENSION
MARKEDNESS (Subdominant)
FIGURE 2.2. DUAL NETWORK (from Daniel Harrison, Harmonic Functions, 27).
MAJOR MINOR Motion from 7 to 8 Motion from b6 to 5 Dominant Subdominant Authentic Cadence Plagal Cadence Ascending 5th Semicadence Descending 5th Semicadence Sharp Flat
4 7 6 2
- 75 - FIGURE 2.3. COMPARISON OF AUTHENTIC VS. PLAGAL VOICE-LEADING.
FIGURE 2.4. PLAGAL DOMAIN (from Deborah Stein, Hugo Wolf, 22).
PLAGAL DOMAIN
COMMON PRACTICE EXTENDED USE
Plagal Ambiguity Dominant Replacement
Plagal Substitution
Transformation of Tonic Function
FIGURE 2.5. CONVENTIONAL FUNCTIONS OF SUBDOMINANT HARMONY.
- 76 - FIGURE 2.6. TRANSFORMATION OF TONIC FUNCTION.
FIGURE 2.7. TCHAIKOVSKY’S MANIPULATION OF THE SUBDOMINANT HARMONY.
FIGURE 2.8. COMPARISON OF FIGURES 2.6 AND 2.7.
- 77 - FIGURE 2.9. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, MVMT. III, MM. 72–88.
FIGURE 2.10. MANIPULATION OF SUBDOMINANT HARMONY IN MM. 72–88.
FIGURE 2.11. VOICE-LEADING GRAPH OF MM. 72–88.
- 78 - FIGURE 2.12. PROGRESSION OF KEY AREAS BETWEEN MOVEMENTS.
FIGURE 2.13. PROCESS OF SEMIOSIS
That to which the sign refers the sign our conception of the sign
OBJECT REPRESENTAMEN INTERPRETANT
Music of the Russian Subdominant Our conception of Orthodox Church “marked” Russian Orthodox Music
FIGURE 2. 14. TORZHESTVENNOST IN RUSSIAN CHANT HARMONIZATION TROPARION, TONE 1, IN OBIKHOD NOTNAGO TSERDOVNAGO PENIIA (ST. PETERSBURG, 128 1903).
^ 4 - - 3^
OБ - - - - - ще – е вос-кре-се - - - н – е пржде Твоея страти увъ-ря - - - - я
128 This is presented as example 12.7 in Dolskaya, “Tchaikovsky’s Roots,” 393.
- 79 - FIGURE 2. 15. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, I, SUBDOMINANT DECORATION IN MM. 1–4.
FIGURE 2.16. 1812 OVERTURE, SUBDOMINANT DECORATION IN STRING SOLO, MM. 1–6.
FIGURE 2.17. ORTHODOX CHURCH’S ZNAMENNY CHANT 129 GLAS [TONE] 1.
129 This is example 12.6 in Dolskaya, “Tchaikovsky’s Roots,” 363.
- 80 - FIGURE 2.18. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, I, TRANSITION TO DEVELOPMENT, MM. 213–26.
FIGURE 2.19. SUMMARY OF HARMONIC MOTION, MVMT. I, MM. 213–26
- 81 - FIGURE 2.20. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, IV, TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY THEME, MM. 45–60.
- 82 - FIGURE 2.21. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, II, TRANSITION FROM FATE MOTIVE TO PRIMARY THEME, MM. 96–112.
- 83 - FIGURE 2.22. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, TRANSITION TO RECAPITULATION, MM. 138–46.
FIGURE 2.23. COMPARISON OF MM. 138–44 WITH MM. 80-84, MVMT. III.
- 84 - 130 FIGURE 2.24. OMNIBUS PROGRESSION.
FIGURE 2.25. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, OMNIBUS PROGRESSION MM. 53–9.
130 From Victor Fell Yellin, The Omnibus Idea (Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1998).
- 85 - FIGURE 2.26. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, THRESHOLDISM IN THE CODA, MM. 241–66.
- 86 - CHAPTER 3: EXPLORING METRIC AMBIGUITY
In his study of ambiguity in tonal music, Kofi Agawu suggests that the most formidable
problem in musical interpretation may be the understanding of rhythm and meter.131 Although he does not satisfactorily describe the nature of such “formidability,” the statement is nevertheless thought-provoking. To elaborate on his point, I believe that it is more difficult to resolve ambiguities involving metric considerations than it is those involving harmonic events, and this allows us to accept more readily analyses that do not resolve but rather embrace the
“duality” of certain metric ambiguities. To support this position, consider the potential harmonic ambiguity arising from a fully-diminished seventh chord. The chord’s equal division of the octave makes its harmonic function ambiguous when devoid of a further clarifying context.
Each of its four notes has the potential to function as the leading-tone to the root of the following chord. In order to resolve this ambiguity, context plays a role of paramount importance. The spelling of the chord (i.e., potential for enharmonicism), the governing tonality of the formal unit, or the tonal goal of the section are a few contextual considerations that assist in favoring one interpretation over another. Moreover, the metric placement of this chord (e.g., at the onset of a formal unit, on the weak beat of a measure, etc.) may also influence whether to ascribe it broader structural significance. The ambiguity associated with the fully-diminished seventh chord not only reveals the many possibilities for its interpretation, but also highlights the significance of context in helping to clarify this ambiguity. Given that the possibilities for
131 Kofi Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music: A Preliminary Study,” in Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Music ed. Anthony Pople (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), 95. He posits this as an alternative view to Carl Schachter’s claim that it is “in the sphere of harmony … that the most frequent and difficult problems [of interpretation] arise” (Schachter, “Either/Or,” in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], 166; reprinted in Schachter, Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N. Straus [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 122.
- 87 - interpretation are often as numerous as the contextual situations that influence them, it is
probable that the latter will provide strong support for one of the former.
In comparison, let us now consider a fundamental question of metric ambiguity: that of
metric reinterpretation. Take for example, the opening parallel period of a sonata, whose length
is 9 measures (in a 4 + 5 phrase division). Interpretation of the first measure in each phrase as
metrically strong is suggested by its placement at the beginning of a formal unit. The ambiguity
arises in our interpretation of the last measure. Is this measure strong, as would be the case if
strong–weak patterning is continued: or might some earlier event affect a metric reinterpretation,
allowing this measure to be weak in preparation for a new phrase unit? While context also plays
an important role in resolving this instance of ambiguity, the challenge lies in the limited options
for interpretation; the extra measure is either strong or weak.132 The decision to choose one interpretation over the other may be influenced by surface accents, interaction of instrumental layers, registral placement of melodic notes, and harmonic emphasis.133 The result, however,
may be that these contextual situations lead to a tie, given the binary nature of metric
interpretations (i.e., strong or weak), thus emphasizing the “duality” of a metric event rather than
suggesting a resolution (as is often the case with ambiguous harmonic events).
132 William Rothstein summarizes several reasons for our penchant for a duple organization of meter. The binary operation of meter was viewed by theorists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to be “best,” or “most natural.” Jospeh Riepel (1709–1782), Johann Philipp Kirnberger (1721–83), Heinrich Christoph Koch (1749–1816), Hugo Riemann (1849–1919), and Ebenezer Prout (1835–1909) held such views. Rothstein also summarizes Schenker’s view as follows: “A preference for duple organization is innate to human beings for physiological and psychological reasons. This innateness leads a powerful normative influence to duple structures, which is one reason why so many non-duple phrases can be understood as modified duple ones.” (See Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music [New York: Schirmer Books, 1989], 33–4.)
133 The difficulty in resolving questions of metric and hypermetric interpretation is discussed in William Thomson, “Functional Ambiguity in Musical Structures,” Music Perception 1 (1983) 3–27. (See also Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm, 52–56.) Furthermore, the interaction of surface events and melodic and harmonic emphasis are evaluated as different kinds of accent by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1983), 17–19.
- 88 - The preceding discussion has offered some interesting observations regarding the
resolution of ambiguity as it is manifested on the surface level of a work. However, it is my
opinion that if certain parallels can be drawn between processes governing the melodic/harmonic
domain and those governing the metric domain, then perhaps some of the difficulties in
providing a regular metric interpretation can be minimized. That is, certain aspects of metric
ambiguity may be illuminated by examining how they relate to the fundamental harmonic
structure of the work. This resonates with an idea that permeates the introduction and first
chapter, namely that identifying the function of ambiguity is essential to illuminating the
interaction of structure and compositional design that uniquely defines a composer’s style. In
other words, ambiguities that seem irreconcilable at the surface and middleground of a work can
often be demonstrated to have evolved from a more basic deep-level structure. While this view
is expressly Schenkerian in conception, it should not be considered anachronistic, as similar
thoughts were expressed in the nineteenth century. For example, in discussing the influence of
Friedrich Schlegel on nineteenth-century musical thought and criticism, John Daverio
summarizes one aspect of his thought thusly: “apparent chaos in an artwork is often a foil for the
most carefully thought-out organizational plan.”134 This statement is of paramount importance to the present investigation of ambiguity. It is the purpose of this chapter to examine the “apparent chaos” or ambiguities in Tchaikovsky’s Valse—the third movement of his Fifth Symphony in E
Minor (1888)—from the perspective of metric structure. I will argue that the ambiguities resulting from an intricate interaction between surface metric and pitch domains are, in essence, manifestations of a deeply rooted, organic unity found within the work. This discussion will
134 John Daverio, Nineteenth-Century Music and the German Romantic Ideology (New York: Schirmer Books, 1993), 12.
- 89 - advance a Schenkerian approach to rhythm and meter and incorporate several of Schenker’s
most salient motivic considerations.
I. ISSUES OF METER AND PITCH IN THE VALSE
Among Schenker’s profound contributions to our understanding of tonal music is his
unique conception of the motive. Moving beyond motivic iterations at the surface-level of a
composition, he addressed a motive’s potential for “hidden repetitions” at deeper levels—that is,
the ability of a motive to be transformed under various guises so as to manifest itself at different
levels of a work’s structure. The English term commonly used to describe this phenomenon is
“motivic parallelism.”135 In this section, I will examine significant motivic parallelisms in
Tchaikovsky’s Valse. I will place particular emphasis on the interaction of these motives with
analogous metric processes also prevalent in the work. Consequently, the concept of “first-order metric parallelisms” will be introduced as a means of extending Schenker’s notion of motivic parallelisms to the metric domain, while also permitting a deeper understanding of the relationships that can be intuited between meter and voice-leading processes.
Tchaikovsky’s Valse presents a fascinating lens through which to examine these relationships; not only because the work incorporates a number of intriguing features when considered in terms of metric perception, but, more generally, because the waltz is significant in terms of composer’s creative output. Tchaikovsky’s incorporation of the ballet style, particularly through the orchestral waltzes of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth symphonies, is perhaps one of his
135 This topic is discussed at length in Charles Burkhart, “Schenker’s ‘Motivic Parallelisms,’” Journal of Music Theory 22 (1978), 145–75. In his writings, Schenker often referred to hidden repetitions or “verborgene Wiederholungen.” Schenker used the term “motivischer parallelismus” mainly in reference to melodic repetitions at the surface level. Here, like Charles Burkhart, I will use “motivic parallelism” to describe the correspondence between a motive and its repetition at various levels of a work’s structure.
- 90 - most important contributions to the development of the late romantic symphony. In these works,
the waltz attains symbolic significance—its placement within each symphony juxtaposes
seemingly lighthearted figurations with the deeply serious gestures of the characteristic Fate
theme.136 The qualifier “seemingly” is appropriate here, for upon further examination, one
discovers that beneath the waltzes’ cheerful surface rhythms, jovial mood, and major mode, the
interaction of several deep-level metric and harmonic processes produces a sense of ambiguity
and intensity equal in stature to that of their surrounding movements.
Christopher Hasty’s theory of projection offers a compelling perspective from which to
consider the general nature of triple meter—one that can be profitably applied to the study of this
waltz. Essentially, Hasty notes that any durational articulation has “projective potential” or
rather, the implication for immediate replication.137 Generally speaking, these projective impulses are labeled “strong” and “weak” for analytical purposes, making projection a binary operation. Thus, the role of projection in terms of triple meter becomes problematic.138 Hasty
explains that the difficulty in perceiving triple meter arises from the function of the third beat.
The third beat continues beat two while simultaneously deferring the completion of projective
potential implicated by beat two; in contrast, in a two-beat measure, or any measure governed by
duple division, the downbeat of the next measure would complete the projective potential.
136 The main melodic material of each symphony is referred to by Tchaikovsky as the “Fate theme” in his correspondence with his patroness Nadejda von Meck; see Catherine Drinker Bowen and Barbara Von Meck, Beloved Friend: The Story of Tchaikowsky and Nadejda von Meck (New York: Random House, 1937). In the Fourth Symphony, the theme is the brass introduction and is found in the trumpet part; in the Fifth Symphony, the theme is the clarinet solo of the introduction; and in the Sixth Symphony, it is heard in the string introduction.
137 Christopher Hasty, Meter As Rhythm (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), Chapter 7.
138 Hasty, Meter As Rhythm, 131.
- 91 - Viewed in this way, triple meter is inherently ambiguous; and pieces written in that meter educe
a certain off-balance or lilting quality.139
The Valse’s notated time signature of 3/4 has further implication with regard to the
perception of metric hierarchy. According to Harald Krebs, the time signature is the “primary
metrical consonance” in a work and becomes a frame of reference by which we are able to
compare different series of rhythmic events.140 It is essentially the “metric background,” which thus invites the listener to determine how contradictory surface rhythms can be reconciled to it.
Often this reconciliation reveals interesting ways in which compositional design can elaborate a more basic network of structural relationships. For this particular waltz, I will demonstrate how a compelling sense of intensity and forward motion results from Tchaikovsky’s striking use of the
“unequal” feeling already inherent in triple meter, in addition to his manipulation of the primary metrical background. An organically manifested unity also emerges from these processes. The terminology relevant to this discourse is presented as Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2 depicts the formal organization of the Valse as compound ternary
(ABA+Coda), where each section exhibits its own nested ternary form. The A and B sections
each present strikingly varied manipulations of the primary 3/4 meter: the A section is more
placid and flowing and the B section offers a chromatic and quick-paced contrast. In the first
phrase of the A section, shown in Figure 3.3a, one becomes immediately aware of a sense of
metric imbalance. The regular triple-meter melody in the first violins is offset by the
accompaniment layer, which presents a displaced triple meter commencing on beat two—in
general, a typical feature of most waltzes. This illustrates a prime example of what Harald
139 This is a summary of the main points in Hasty, Meter As Rhythm, 130–47.
140 Harald Krebs, “Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance,” Journal of Music Theory 31 (1987), 105.
- 92 - Krebs has defined as Type B direct metrical dissonance. Both instrumental layers are independently in 3/4; however, they are superimposed to create a sense of displacement.141
Although the melody is metrically consonant (or aligned) with the background meter, the dissonance is created by its interaction with the accompaniment, whose triple meter begins a quarter-note later.142 The annotations under Figure 3.3a demonstrate how this dissonance is retained across subsequent levels of hypermeasures (i.e., units of two and four measures).
Perhaps the most striking feature of the opening phrase is the manner in which
Tchaikovsky “corrects” the metric dissonance (see Figure 3.3b). Figure 3.4 presents a durational reduction of the first phrase,143 which serves to highlight the problem encountered in m. 9 when one tries to reconcile the existing metric dissonance. The fourth hypermeasure of the accompanimental pattern extends into m. 9, initiating a three-bar phrase extension. This extension expands the dominant harmony, while simultaneously presenting an accelerated hypermeter (i.e., it extends the fourth hypermeasure). The groupings of four eighth notes provide the listener with a sense of 2/4 meter; when juxtaposed against the preceding 3/4 meter, it manifests indirect metrical dissonance (that is, one placed adjacently rather than
141 This is a summary of topics discussed in Krebs, “Some Extensions,” 103. Krebs’ article represents an extension of ideas presented in Maury Yeston, The Stratification of Musical Rhythm (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976). While Yeston’s work is paramount to recognizing the operation of meter on stratified levels, I find Krebs’ expansion and refinement of terms related to metrical consonance and dissonance to be particularly relevant to the present discussion.
142 Frank Samarotto has aptly defined this dissonance to be the “shadow meter” of the piece. He defines shadow meter as a secondary meter formed by a series of regularly recurring accents, when those accents do not coincide with the accents of the prevailing meter. The term was introduced in “Strange Dimensions: Regularity and Irregularity in Deep Levels of Rhythmic Reduction,” originally a paper presented in March 1992 at the Second International Schenker Symposium (New York), subsequently published under the same title in Schenker Studies 2, ed. Carl Schachter and Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999), 222–38.
143 This is based on the graphs presented by Carl Schachter, “Durational Reduction,” Music Forum 5 (1980), 197–232, reprinted in Unfoldings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 54–78. In Figure 3.4 each quarter note value represents one measure in the score; however in m. 9, each quarter note represents 2 beats in the score to reflect the change in the perceived meter.
- 93 - simultaneously).144 The listener expects the continuation of triple meter; however, the introduction of 2/4 foils this expectation, resulting in metrical dissonance. Functionally, this section prepares the downbeat of the next phrase, in which the instrumental layers are realigned to be consonant with one another. Figure 3.5 provides an abstract view of this process. Given the metrical consonance in the second phrase (shown in Figure 3.3b), it seems as though an extension is not needed there, providing a plausible explanation for its regular length of eight measures.
Krebs has suggested that the process depicted in Figure 3.6 has an analogy in the pitch domain.145 He describes several situations in which the progressions between metric dissonances and consonances may evoke attributes of the neighbor note and passing note. Figure 3.6 illustrates the metric analogues that can be devised to represent these embellishment types. The process of Figure 3.6a is akin to neighboring motion because the metric dissonance occurs between metric consonances of the same cardinality; that is one departs from and returns to the same (metric) consonance. The process of Figure 3.6b is akin to passing motion because the metric dissonance occurs in between metric consonances of different cardinalities; that is, the
(metric) dissonance is framed by two different consonances, and the former serves to connect or bridge the latter. In both examples, a section’s primary metric consonance is “embellished” by a dissonance. Returning to Figure 3.5, note that the metrical processes between the first two phrases delineate a “neighboring” metrical progression. Of course, given the absence of
144 Indirect dissonance is significant because it involves the juxtaposition of meters. The initial interpretive level of preceding material is kept in the listener’s mind and is inevitably contradicted. This is also discussed by Krebs, “Some Extensions,” 103.
145 Krebs, “Some Extensions,” 116.
- 94 - metrically consonant material prior to the dissonant first phrase, it is most apt to describe this
process as analogous to an incomplete neighboring metrical progression.
Let us now examine the manner in which this neighboring metrical motion is manifested
in subsequent sections of the work. Figures 3.7a and b show the middle section of A (mm. 20–
36). Its two phrases begin by retaining the projected two- and four-bar hypermeasures of the
preceding section, as well as a sense of metric consonance. The passage includes several
significant features related to the functioning of metric accent, created by the interaction of
hypermeter with salient pitch and harmonic events. To discuss these, I turn to the work of
Lerdahl and Jackendoff, who differentiate three types of accent within metrical structure.146
Phenomenal accents are created by stress placed on any event at the musical surface; structural accents are the result of melodic or harmonic points of articulation within a section; and metric
accents are any relatively strong beats in a particular metrical context. If we are to assume a
regular meter in this passage (i.e., begin analysis with a strong metric accent in m. 20), then the
points of metric accent are in mm. 20, 22, 24, and 26; however, the phenomenal and structural
accents contradict these metric accents. First of all, the harmonic notations of Figure 3.7 show
that with the exception of the cadential gesture (mm. 26–27), the main points of harmonic
gravity in the section fall on weak beats of the hypermeasures. Furthermore, the phenomenal
accents that occur as a result of registral placement and melodic emphasis work in conjunction
with the structural accents to initiate hypermetric reinterpretation. In m. 23, the expectation is
one of melodic repose, parallel to that of m. 21. However, the last three eighth notes of the
measure prompt the listener to reinterpret the entire measure as accented, given that the figure
instigates a strong upward melodic pull, which reaches its goal on the downbeat of m. 25. This
146 This is a summary of terminology presented in Lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, 17–19.
- 95 - further suggests the need for metric reinterpretation as the registral placement of the A in m. 25
marks it as phenomenally strong. The second level of metric annotation in Figure 3.7a illustrates
that the effect of this reinterpretation is to align the structural and phenomenal accents with
metric accents. This alignment is short-lived, however, as an irregular three-bar hypermeasure in
m. 27, is found at the end of the phrase. As Figure 3.7b shows, this discrepancy is once again
“corrected” in the consequent phrase. An extra measure (m. 36) is added to alleviate the
ambiguity created by the metric reinterpretation and to prepare the upcoming phrase. Although
this section does not exhibit traditional metric dissonance in the sense that there are simultaneous
conflicting meters, I believe there to be a more localized sense of metric dissonance created by the conflicting interaction of accents as well as the consistent need for metric reinterpretation.
Alternation of these processes within this section further supports the notion of “neighboring” metric progressions, as the phrase that precedes it (shown in Figure 3.3b) and the phrase that follows it (which is identical to Figure 3.3b) are of the same type of metrical consonance. In fact, when the opening thematic material of the movement returns, it appears not in the form of the metrically dissonant first phrase (as would be expected of a literal return) but instead in the form of the metrically consonant second phrase (i.e., Figure 3.3b).
The B section of the waltz presents further instances of metric dissonance and of neighboring metrical progressions. Figure 3.8 provides a simplification of mm. 72–88: the two phrase units that comprise the first part of this section. In this formal unit, the registral partitioning and melodic grouping of the sixteenth-notes in the Violin I and Viola are governed by a perceived 2/4 meter against the 3/4 meter in the slower moving parts; the result is a series of six-bar phrases. In contrast to the metric dissonances discussed in the A section, the interaction of meters in these phrases exhibits Type A direct dissonance, in which the cardinalities of the
- 96 - interpretive layers are different and presented simultaneously. It is not until m. 88 that the meters
of the melody and accompaniment are aligned. This section still retains six-bar phrases, but both
parts are now governed by a perceived 2/4 meter. The formal structure of this section is
governed by motion from metrically dissonant to metrically consonant material, in a manner analogous to neighboring motion (as explained earlier). As in the A section, this metric progression is most analogous to that of an incomplete neighbor, as there is no prior consonant material.
One of the elements that serves to unify the separate movements of the symphony is the reappearance of the first movement’s main fate theme in each of the subsequent movements. Its insertion in the coda of the Valse presents an interesting manifestation of a neighboring metrical
progression, when the themes in the first and fourth movements are considered as the framing
metric contexts. In Figure 3.9 the metric orientation of all three “Fate” instances is depicted.
The interaction of instrumental layers and underlying metric analyses of the first and fourth
movements shows the theme to be quite regular and metrically consonant. In the third
movement, however, the theme is re-contextualized within the governing triple meter. This re-
composition in 3/4 presents a striking contrast in mood to the lighter, more jovial moods of the
other melodic motives in the movement. The hemiolas in mm. 248–55, as well as the off-beat
accents of the accompanimental layers (marked with an asterisk), give the fate theme an edgy
and unsettled quality that is not achieved by its appearance in the other movements. As shown
by the score annotations at the level of 2-bar hypermeasures, the hemiolas actually serve to align
the composite meter with the other movements; however, the pervasive surface-level conflict of
accent inevitably supports the notion of a large-scale neighboring metrical progression that spans
multiple movements.
- 97 - II. FIRST-ORDER METRIC PARALLELISMS
The notion of neighboring metric progressions in this waltz raises fascinating implications with regard to deeper levels of the harmonic and melodic structure, especially as
related to the Schenkerian concept of motivic parallelism.147 A striking feature of Tchaikovsky’s
melodic language in this movement is his prominent placement of various upper-neighbor
figures. Figure 3.10a highlights three such instances in the opening phrase. The neighbor note
draws attention to itself not only because of its dissonant occurrence on the strong beat of the
measure, but also because its resolution occurs in alignment with the strong beats of the
dissonant accompanimental meter, further contributing to the sense of metrical imbalance
already discussed (i.e., regarding Figure 3.3a). Figure 3.10b marks the neighbor note as a
pervasive element of the melody in the middle section (mm. 20–36), and also highlights its significance in terms of the harmonic motion. In this example, Tchaikovsky commences the entire phrase with a neighbor-functioning sonority; the E-major dominant in m. 21 is preceded in the bass (in m. 20) by its chromatic upper neighbor, F§, creating a iv6 sonority. This contributes to the metric ambiguity perceived, because the placement of this harmony on a hypermetric strong beat conflicts with the structural accents created by the more stable dominant harmony found on the hypermetric weak beat. The placement of this chord at the onset of an entire formal unit ensures its metric significance at deeper levels of the hypermetric structure, as well as the importance of the neighbor figure at deeper levels of the voice-leading structure. The D is essential in linking the two framing sections of the ternary form, as it is the upper neighbor to C#
147 See note #135.
- 98 - (3),^ the Kopfton. Figures 3.11a and 3.11b present a series of Schenker graphs that demonstrate the significance of the neighbor-note at two levels of the middleground.
Figure 3.12 provides two voice-leading graphs of the B section that illustrate the essential role of the neighbor-note configuration in generating forward motion. Let us focus on the four phrases comprising mm. 72–88. This section commences in F# minor, the relative minor of the main key, and supports C# as the Kopfton. Despite the contrast achieved by a turbulent and abrupt change in metric orientation, the C# provides a compelling strand of continuity with the A section, which is also controlled by C# within A-major tonality. Figure 3.12b offers a deeper view of the harmonic motion, revealing E major to be the goal. This example shows the process by which members of the F#-minor triad function as upper-neighbor notes to members of the E- major triad, toward which they are (non-simultaneously) directed. The introduction of E major then continues to support the prolongation of B as 2^ of the Urlinie. Thus, the large-scale harmonic motion from F# minor to E major seems to function as a deep-middleground, upper- neighbor configuration. Significantly, this same motion between “neighboring” key areas is also governed by a neighboring metrical progression, as was demonstrated in an earlier example (see
Figure 3.8).
The prominence of the neighbor-note figuration throughout the middleground allows it to
attain status as a first-order motive. In Free Composition, Schenker suggests such motives when
he wrote, “there are some prolongations [that] occur only at the first level [of the middleground],
others [that] take place only at the second. The prolongations at the later levels evolve from
- 99 - those at the first two levels.”148 Allen Cadwallader has examined this phenomenon in detail and described these first-level prolongations as “involving the most basic type of diminution—the most general linear patterns of the tonal system—that elaborate the [Urlinie].”149 Basic linear
progressions, reaching-over motions, and upper-neighbor-note patterns represent just a few
examples of these basic diminutions, which are considered to be first-order motives. The most
significant aspect with regard to these first-order motives is that they represent abstractions of
the more elaborate configurations found closer to the surface level—that is, the motives
identified at levels closer to the surface are in some way derived from these first-level
middleground abstractions.
Let us now consider the manner in which this derivation occurs in the Valse. First of all,
the neighbor-note configuration is essential to articulating the ternary form of the A section; as
the graph in Figure 3.11b shows, 4^ is prolonged as part of a complete neighbor to the Kopfton.
Moreover, Figure 3.12 illustrates the form-generating power of this figuration in the B section of
the work. In this section, the resolution of the tonic prior to the onset of B is undermined by the
abrupt modulation to F# minor. In contrast to the stability and closure suggested by tonic, it
initiates continuous motion across formal boundaries and sets the stage for the neighboring
harmonic motion. The evolution of the neighbor-note at later levels was demonstrated in earlier
examples. Figure 3.10 illustrates that as we move closer to the surface, the upper-neighbor note
is a motivic unifier, one that is also presented in altered forms, so as to suggest further motivic
associations to the listener. This example depicts how deep-level neighbor notes evolve to
148 Heinrich Schenker, Free Composition (Der Freie Satz): Vol. III of New Musical Theories and Fantasies, trans. and ed. Ernst Oster (New York: Pendragon Press, 1977), 26.
149 Allen Cadwallader, “Prolegomena to a General Description of Motivic Relationships in Tonal Music,” Integral 2 (1988), 5.
- 100 - influence the later levels through manifestations of chromatic lower neighbor notes in addition to
the numerous upper-neighbor figures. Finally, even the closing measures of the movement
function as a subtle reminder that the neighbor-note motive is an overarching premise of the
compositional structure. Figure 3.13 summarizes the harmonic motion of the final twelve bars
(mm. 155–66). From this graph, we find that the final measures of the movement contravene
conventional tokens of closure, as the alternation of tonic and half-diminished seventh chord
built on B§ infuses the passage with modal mixture and plagal function. By tracing the evolution
of the neighbor-note and its realizations at various levels of the Valse’s structure, these examples have demonstrated an important aspect of organic unity essential to this work.
To summarize, in the first part of this paper I illuminated the nature of metric processes
in the waltz, and in the second part I argued that the neighbor-note figure was a pervasive feature
of motivic unity from the surface to deep middleground levels. My examples have demonstrated
a striking correlation between the neighbor-note configurations that govern the melodic structure
and the “neighboring” processes of the metric structure. I have called this phenomenon a “first-
order metric parallelism,” in that a process prominent in the work’s motivic structure governs
metric processes in an analogous manner. The concept stems from this discourse on first-order
motives, for an abstraction of the process is necessary to reconcile motivic and metric
terminology. That is, it is only because the waltz’s motivic parallelisms can be summarized
using an abstract concept—the neighbor note—that we are able to construct its corollary in the
realm of rhythm and meter. The neighbor-note idea has thus been shown to permeate two
different domains in Tchaikovsky’s Valse: meter and voice-leading. The concept of a first-order
metric parallelism is significant in that it highlights the extent to which the work is coherent
across domains. Furthermore, by tracing the influence of the neighboring figure from the first
- 101 - level of the middleground to its numerous manifestations at the surface level, I have revealed a
significant aspect of the work’s organic unity. And so once again we find truth in a poetic line
from Goethe that was quoted and embraced by Schenker: here “there is nothing in the skin that is
not in the bone.”150
150 “Es ist nichts in der Haut / Was nicht im Knochen ist,” from “Typus,” among the set of poems titled “Kunst” in Goethe’s Sammlung von 1827; Schenker quotes the poem in “Nich ein Wort zur Urlinie,” Der Tonwille 2 (1922), 5.
- 102 -
CHAPTER 3: EXPLORING METRIC AMBIGUITY
FIGURES
151 FIGURE 3.1. TYPES OF METRICAL DISSONANCE.
DIRECT METRICAL DISSONANCE– Passages exhibiting INDIRECT METRICAL DISSONANCE– Passages exhibiting dissonance occur simultaneously. dissonance are adjacent rather than simultaneous.
TYPE A – Cardinalities of interpretive levels are different. TYPE A – Cardinalities of interpretive levels are different. Example: Musical line X is perceived in ¾ while musical Example: A passage in ¾ is immediately followed by a line Y is perceived in 2/4 and both lines occur concurrently. passage in 2/4. The listener expects continuation of ¾ into the next passage; this expectation is thwarted by an abrupt change.
TYPE B – Cardinalities of interpretive levels are the same. TYPE B – Cardinalities of interpretive levels are the same. Example: Musical lines X and Y are both perceived in ¾, Example: A passage in ¾ is immediately followed by 103 but are displaced. another passage in ¾ with alternative orientation within the measure.
FIGURE 3.2. FORMAL ORGANIZATION SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, VALSE.
A (mm. 1–72) B (mm. 72–144) A (mm. 145–213) Coda (mm. 213–65) a (mm. 1–11; 12–19) α a (mm. 72–76; 76–80) a (mm. 145–52; 152–60) a (mm. 214–27; 228–40) b (mm. 20–27; 28–36) b (mm. 80–4; 84–8) b (mm. 161–68; 169–77) b (mm. 241–55) a’ (mm. 37–44; 45–56) β dev. (mm. 88–126) a’ (mm. 178–85; 186–97) close (mm. 256–66) transition (mm. 57–72) α a (mm. 126–30; 130–4) transition (mm. 198–213) b (mm. 134–8; 138–44)
151 These definitions are taken from Harald Krebs, “Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance,” Journal of Music Theory 31 (1987), 99– 120.
FIGURE 3.3. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, VALSE: COMPARISON OF METER IN FIRST TWO PHRASES.
3.3A. TYPE B, DIRECT METRICAL DISSONANCE IN PHRASE 1, MM. 1–11.
1 0
4
3.3B. METRICAL CONSONANCE IN PHRASE 2, MM. 12–19. 1 0 5
152 FIGURE 3.4. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, VALSE, DURATIONAL REDUCTION OF PHRASE 1, MM. 1–11.
152 This notation is adapted from Carl Schachter, “Durational Reduction,” Music Forum 5 (1980), 197–232, reprinted in Unfoldings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 54–78.
FIGURE 3.5. ABSTRACT PROGRESSION FROM METRICAL DISSONANCE TO CONSONANCE IN PHRASES 1 AND 2 (MM. 1–19).
Measures: 1–8 9–11 12–19
Background: / / / / /
Melody:
Acc:
Metric Dissonance Dissonance Consonance (Mel vs. Acc) (Mel+Acc vs background) All Voices
“Neighbor” function 1
0 Metric Dissonance ------Metric Consonance 6
153 FIGURE 3.6A. “NEIGHBORING” METRICAL MOTION. Layer 1: / / / Layer 2: / / / / Consonance Dissonance Consonance
FIGURE 3.6B. “PASSING” METRICAL MOTION. Layer 1: / / / Layer 2: / / / / Consonance Dissonance Consonance
153 These examples based on Harald Krebs, “Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance,” Journal of Music Theory 31 (1987), 99–120.
FIGURE 3.7A. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, INTERACTION OF ACCENT TO INITIATE METRICAL REINTERPRETATION, MM. 20–27. ---- = Strong V = Weak
Metric reinterpretation
FIGURE 3.7B. “CORRECTION” OF METRIC IMBALANCE IN CONSEQUENT PHRASE, MM. 28–36. 107
Metric reinterpretation
FIGURE 3.8. SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN E MINOR, III, METRICAL DISSONANCE IN THE B SECTION, MM. 72–88.
108
FIGURE 3.9. COMPARISON OF “FATE” THEME OCCURRENCES ACROSS MOVEMENTS.
1 0 9
FIGURE 3.10. PROMINENCE OF NEIGHBOR-NOTE FIGURE.
3.10A. NEIGHBOR-NOTE IN MELODY OF OPENING PHRASE, MM. 1–19.
N = upper-neighbor figure n = lower-neighbor figure
3.10B. NEIGHBOR-NOTE IN MELODY AND HARMONY OF MIDDLE PHRASE, MM. 20–36.
110
FIGURE 3.11. SCHENKER GRAPHS.
3.11A. MIDDLEGROUND, LEVEL II. 1 111 0 9
3.11B. MIDDLEGROUND, LEVEL I.
112
FIGURE 3.12A. VOICE-LEADING GRAPH OF B SECTION.
FIGURE 3.12B. MANIPULATION OF HARMONY IN PHRASE 1 OF B SECTION.
113 FIGURE 3.13. HARMONIC MOTION IN THE CODA, MM. 155–66.
WORKS CITED
Agawu, Kofi. “Ambiguity in Tonal Music: A Preliminary Study.” In Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Music. Edited by Anthony Pople, 86–107. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Bailey, Robert, ed. Prelude and Transfiguration from “Tristan und Isolde.” New York: Norton, 1985.
Bent, Ian, ed. Music Analysis in the Nineteenth Century, vol. I: Fugue, Form and Style. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Bent, Ian. Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton, 1987.
Berger, Jonathan. “A Theory of Musical Ambiguity.” Computers in Music Research 2 (1990): 91–119.
Bernstein, Leonard. Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Berry, David Carson. “On the Rhetorical Nature of Musical Ambiguity: An Essay and Analysis.” Unpublished paper submitted for a graduate seminar at Yale University, May 1997.
Bowen, Catherine Drinker and Barbara Von Meck. Beloved Friend: The Story of Tchaikowsky and Nadejda von Meck. New York: Random House, 1937.
Brown, David. Tchaikovsky. Vol. 2, The Crisis Years, 1874–1878. New York: Norton, 1991.
———. Tchaikovsky. Vol. 4, The Final Years, 1885–1893. New York: Norton, 1991.
Burkhart, Charles. “Schenker’s ‘Motivic Parallelisms.’” Journal of Music Theory 22 (1978): 145–75.
Burstein, L. Poundie. “Of Species Counterpoint, Gondola Songs, and Sordid Boons.” In Structure and Meaning in Tonal Music: Festschrift in Honor of Carl Schachter. Harmonologia Series No. 12. Edited by L. Poundie Burstein and David Gagné, 33–40. New York: Pendragon Press, 2006.
———. “Unraveling Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence.” Music Theory Spectrum 27 (2005): 159–85.
Cadwallader, Allen. “Prolegomena to a General Description of Motivic Relationships in Tonal Music.” Integral 2 (1988): 1–35.
114
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Cook, Albert. Thresholds: Studies in the Romantic Experience. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
Daverio, John. Nineteenth-Century Music and the German Romantic Ideology. New York: Schirmer Books, 1993.
Deely, John, Brooke Williams, and Felicia E. Kruse, eds. Frontiers in Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Eichner, Hans ed. Kritische Friedrich Schlegel Ausgabe. Munich: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 1967.
Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity. 3rd edn. New York: New Directions Publishing Corp., 1966.
Epstein, David. Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1979.
Fetzer, John Francis. “Music on the Threshold of German Romanticism.” In The Romantic Tradition: German Literature and Music in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte, 43–60. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992.
Garden, Edward. Tchaikovksy. New York: Octagon Books, 1973.
Gorfein, David S., ed. On the Consequences of Meaning Selection: Perspectives on Resolving Lexical Ambiguity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001.
Harrison, Daniel. Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Hasty, Christopher. Meter As Rhythm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hatten, Robert. “An Approach to Ambiguity in the Opening of Beethoven’s String Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3, I.” Indiana Theory Review 3 (1980): 28–35.
———. Musical Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Holden, Anthony. Tchaikovsky. New York: Bantam Press, 1995.
Johansen, Ken. “Gabriel Fauré and the Art of Ambiguity.” Journal of the American Liszt Society 43 (1998): 8–44.
115
Kendall, Alan. Tchaikovsky: A Biography. London: Bodley Head, 1988.
Kraus, Joseph. “Tonal Plan and Narrative Plot in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 in E Minor.” Music Theory Spectrum 13 (1991): 21–47.
Krebs, Harald. “Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance.” Journal of Music Theory 31 (1987): 99–120.
Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.
Lund, Deborah. Ambiguity as Narrative Strategy in the Prose Work of C.F. Meyer. New York: P. Lang, 1990.
McColl, Sandra. Music Criticism in Vienna, 1896–1897: Critically Moving Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Meyer, Leonard B. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Mihailovic, Alexandar, ed. Tchaikovsky and His Contemporaries: A Centennial Symposium. London: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Novalis. Henry von Ofterdingen. Translated by Palmer Hilty. New York: Ungar, 1964.
———. Schriften: Die Werke Friedrich von Hardenbergs. Edited by Paul Kluckhohn and Richard Samuel. Vol. II. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960.
Payzant, Geoffrey. “Hanslick, Sams, Gay, and ‘Tönend Bewegte Formen.’” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 40/1 (1981): 41–48.
Poznansky, Alexander. Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man. New York: Schirmer, 1991.
Prawer, Siegbert, ed. The Romantic Period in Germany: Essays by Members of the London University Institute of Germanic Studies. New York: Schocken Books, 1970.
Ratner, Leonard. Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style. New York: Schirmer, 1980.
Reichenbach, Uwe K. Contexts, Hierarchies, and Filters: A Study of Transformational Systems as Disambiguated Languages. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1983.
Rothstein, William. Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music. New York: Schirmer Books, 1989.
———. “Rhythmic Placement and Rhythmic Normalization.” In Trends in Schenkerian Research. Edited by Allen Cadwallader, 87–114. New York: Schirmer, 1990.
116
Schachter, Carl and Hedi Siegel, eds. Schenker Studies 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Schachter, Carl. Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis. Edited by Joseph N. Straus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Schenker, Heinrich. Free Composition (Der freie Satz): Vol. III of New Musical Theories and Fantasies. Translated and edited by Ernst Oster. New York: Pendragon Press, 1977.
Schick, Frederic. Ambiguity and Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Schlegel, Friedrich. “Über das Studium der griechischen Poesie.” 1795; publ. 1797. Translated and edited by Stuart Barnett as On the Study of Greek Poetry. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Schutze, Hinrich. Ambiguity Resolution in Language Learning: Computational and Cognitive Models. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1997.
Sebeok, Thomas, ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. 2nd rev. and updated edn. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.
Seidlin, Oskar. “Prag: deutsch-romantisch und habsburgisch-wienerisch.” In Von erwachendem Bewusstsein und vom Sündenfall: Brentano, Schiller, Kleist, Goethe. Stuttgart: Klett, 1979.
Silbert, Doris. “Ambiguity in the String Quartets of Joseph Haydn.” Musical Quarterly 36/4 (1950): 562–73.
Simpson, Greg B. “Varieties of Ambiguity: What Are We Seeking?” In Resolving Semantic Ambiguity. Edited by David S. Gorfein, 13–21. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
Stein, Deborah. “The Expansion of the Subdominant in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Journal of Music Theory 27 (1983): 153–80.
———. Hugo Wolf’s Lieder and Extensions of Tonality. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1985.
Tabossi, Patrizia. “What’s in a Context?” In Resolving Semantic Ambiguity. Edited by David S. Gorfein, 25–39. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
Taruskin, Richard. Defining Russia Musically. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
———. The Oxford History of Western Music. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
117
Thomson, William. “Functional Ambiguity in Musical Structures.” Music Perception 1 (1983): 3–27.
Warrack, John. Tchaikovsky. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973.
Yellin, Victor Fell. The Omnibus Idea. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1998.
Yeston, Maury. The Stratification of Musical Rhythm. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Zajaczkowski, Henry. Tchaikovsky’s Musical Style. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1987.
118