University of Cincinnati

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.

Load more