Analysis as Technologically-Mediated Musical Experience by James DiNardo A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Music Theory) in The University of Michigan 2017 Doctoral Committee: Assistant Professor Somangshu Mukherji, Chair Assistant Professor Áine Heneghan Professor Kevin Korsyn Associate Professor Stefano Mengozzi Professor Elizabeth L. Sears James DiNardo [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1299-436X Acknowledgments During my time at Michigan, I have been blessed to have met so many wonderful people who contributed to this study. My advisor, Sam Mukherji, has been extremely supportive of this project, giving generously of his time at each stage of the dissertation process. Without his encouragement, this dissertation could not have been completed. Áine Heneghan has been instrumental to my scholarly development ever since I took an independent study with her in Winter of 2014. This project has benefited from her expertise, attention to detail, and overall enthusiasm for music research. Among the first people I met upon arriving in Ann Arbor was Kevin Korsyn, who has provided invaluable feedback on scholarly and professional matters for the past six years. Stefano Mengozzi read several chapter drafts and engaged me in numerous conservations about music theory and analysis. I am also grateful to Elizabeth Sears, who graciously offered an outside perspective. Many of the ideas explored here first materialized during my coursework. Marion Guck’s seminar “Music as Evocative Object” inspired me to interrogate my own personal responses as a listener and analyst. Professor Heneghan’s independent study on form and Professor Mengozzi’s history of theory seminar furthered my interest in the potency of certain music-analytical tools. Professor Nathan Martin offered extremely helpful comments on all matters pertaining to musical form, and worked through the form-functional analyses in chapter four with me. I also benefited from numerous conversations with graduate-student colleagues, especially those with members of the dissertation writing group. Vivian Luong, Ho-Chak Law, and James McNally provided comments on several chapters, which I hope are much improved as a result. Stephen ii Lett generously read over numerous drafts, challenging me to strengthen my arguments and inspiring me with his own research on music analysis and experience. It is hard to imagine completing this journey without his support and friendship. Finally, I am grateful to my family for their unconditional love and support. My parents have given so much of themselves in helping me succeed. From taking me to saxophone lessons, to numerous campus visits, to helping me navigate the ups and downs of graduate school, they have been a constant source of encouragement. I also wish to thank my sisters for believing in my pursuit of graduate study, and being available to talk about musical and other matters. iii Preface Although it has not been possible to include full scores of the music, the reader is encouraged to have scores on hand, if possible. Every work discussed in this study is in the public domain and is widely available. Individual measures and groups of measures are indicated by m. and mm. respectively, with specific beats named separately (i.e. beat 4 of m. 5). Throughout the dissertation, capital letters are used to denote major chords (i.e. C = C major). Minor chords are indicated with a lowercase m (i.e. Cm = C minor). Roman numerals are assigned based on chord quality, with uppercase numerals indicating major and major-minor chords (i.e. IV, V7), while lowercase letters designate triads and seventh chords that are either minor or diminished (vi, ii7, vii0). The one exception occurs in chapter four, where I follow William Caplin’s practice of using all capitals. At times, jazz or “pop” chord symbols, such as B7/E, are used instead. All other specialized terms and symbols are defined within the individual chapters. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................ii Preface............................................................................................................................................iv List of Examples...........................................................................................................................vii List of Figures................................................................................................................................xi Abstract........................................................................................................................................xii Chapter 1. Analysis, Technology, and Analytical Experience...................................................1 I. Review of Literature....................................................................................................................4 II. Technology and Analytical Experience....................................................................................19 III. Method....................................................................................................................................28 Chapter 2. Exercises in Paradigmatic Analysis........................................................................34 I. A Preliminary Reading of Brahms Op. 119 No. 2.....................................................................35 II. Structuralism and Paradigmatic Analysis.................................................................................47 III. Two Paradigmatic Approaches to Brahms’ Op. 119 No. 2.....................................................57 Chapter 3. Topic, Texture, and Sound: Suggestions by Leonard Ratner..............................89 I. Preliminary Analysis of Bizet Symphony No. 2 in C “Roma,” i...............................................90 II. A Ratnerian Approach to Analysis...........................................................................................99 III. Bizet Symphony in C “Roma,” i, in Ratnerian Terms...........................................................113 v Chapter 4. Grappling with Form and Function......................................................................119 I. Preliminary Analysis of Mozart Mass in C minor, K. 427.......................................................121 II. A Theory of Formal Functions................................................................................................133 III. A Form-Functional Approach to K. 427................................................................................153 Chapter 5. Sonata Theory.........................................................................................................177 I. Rachmaninov Piano Concerto in D minor, Op. 30, i. Preliminary Analysis............................179 II. A Technology for Sonata Forms.............................................................................................193 III. Revisiting Rachmaninov Through Sonata Theory.................................................................210 Chapter 6. Conclusion (and A Toveyan Approach to Analysis)............................................222 I. Preliminary Analysis of Haydn Sonata in G, Hob. XVI:27, i.................................................224 II. Donald Tovey and Analytical Précis Writing: Three Musical Values...................................228 III. Analytical Précis of Haydn Sonata in G, Hob. XVI:27, i.....................................................238 IV. Conclusion............................................................................................................................241 Bibliography...............................................................................................................................246 vi List of Examples Example 1-1: Mozart Sonata in Bb, K. 333, i. Measures 1–10 ....................................................20 Example 2-1: Rhythmic reduction of Op. 119 No. 2....................................................................36 Example 2-2: Outer voices of mm. 23–24....................................................................................40 Example 2-3a: Measures 1–6 of "God Save the King" based on pitch identity (From Agawu’s Example 5.3).......................................................................................................54 Example 2-3b: Paradigmatic analysis of "God Save the King" based on pitch identity (From Agawu’s Example 5.4).......................................................................................................55 Example 2-4: Brahms Intermezzo in E minor, Op. 119 No. 2. Measures 1–17............................59 Example 2-5: Paradigmatic structure based on melodic rhythm at the level of 1 beat..................61 Example 2-6: Paradigmatic structure based on melodic scale degrees at the level of 1 beat........64 Example 2-7: Paradigmatic structure based on melodic rhythm at the level of 1 measure............65 Example 2-8: Paradigmatic structure based on the final harmony of each measure.....................66 Example 2-9: Paradigmatic structure of mm. 1–33 based on melodic scale degrees at the level of 1 beat.......................................................................................................................68 Example 2-10: Paradigmatic structure of mm. 1–35 based on melodic rhythm at the level of 1 measure................................................................................................................69