© 1979 James Lamb A GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF BRAHMS, OPUS 118, WITH AN INTRODUCTION TO SCHENKERIAN THEORY AND THE REDUCTION PROCESS by JAMES BOYD LAMB, B.M., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN FINE ARTS Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Accepted December 197 9 ACKNOWLEDGNENT The author wishes to ackno-'ledge the contribu­ tions of both time and thought from the members of the committee, particularly Cr. Harold Luce, who took time from his administrativi^ duties to chair the committee and to Dr. Lee Rigsby, who came out of retirement to aid in the completion of this project- Their valuable comments and support are deeply appreciated. It is a difficult task to acknowledge all those who have made this project a reality. I must, however, cite the contributions of my other professors and especially my students at Kansas State University. I also express gratitude to Gary Cobb, who often served as a sounding board for the refinement of many ideas. To Pat Stewart for her timely clerical assistance, I extend my thanks. An.d, of course, I offer a very special, warm thanks to ra>' wife, Lynn and daughter, Kathlyn, for their ceaseless understanding and patience, and many words of encouragement during a time of frequent neglect. ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. AN INTRODUCTION TO SCHENKERIAN THEORY 10 III. THE REDUCTION PROCESS 33 IV. A GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF BRAHMS, OPUS 118 66 Glossary of Graphic Symbols 66 The Work as a Whole 68 No. 1, Intermezzo 69 No. 2, Intermezzo 75 No. 3, Ballade 94 No. 4, Intermezzo 106 No. 5, Romance 114 No. 6, Intermezzo 128 V. CONCLUSION 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY 151 111 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Analysis, in the words of Allen Forte in his Contemporary Tone Structures, is "neither composition nor a method of teaching compo­ sition; nor is it perception, or a way of learning to hear. It is a systematic attempt to obtain significant information about a tonal structure." Forte continues by stating that analysis is the work of the theorist and that it "claims to deal more directly and rigorously with music than does any other type of discursive treatment because it is closer to music. [It] is part of music theory and has its roots in the works of the medieval theorists, while music criticism and many phases of musicology stem from literary criticism." What is to be gained from analysis is increased understanding. Through this increased understanding, more artistic interpretations in perfor­ mances, more perceptive listening, and perhaps more inspired creations will result. Edward T. Cone exhibits a somewhat different:, but similar point of view when he states in his article, "Analysis Today," that the best analysis is the one that "recognizes various levels functioning simultaneously, as when a tone resolves once in the immediate context Allen Forte, Contemporary Tone Structures (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), p. 2. but turns out to have a different goal in the long run." Cone, recognizing more of a dependence on the ear, continues. The greatest analysts (like Schenker at his best) are those with the keenest ears: their insights reveal how a piece of music should be heard, which in turn implies how it should be played.^ An analysis of any work of the nineteenth century must be able to deal with one aspect which is of paramount importance--that of tonality, which was perhaps the prime organizing factor of musical unity in the music of that century. The tonal events of a musical work must be investigated in relation to what precedes them and what succeeds them and in relation to the whole. A tonal musical work unfolds on various levels--formally, the whole, the movement, the section, the phrase, the motive. The musician has always utilized the concept of musical hierarchical structures, as depicted in the diagram of Figure 1. Tonal relationships exist in hierarchic order as well as formal relationships. This concept of hierarchic structure or leveled structure, derives preeminently from the analytical approaches of Heinrich Schenker (1868-1955). Over a period of more than thirty years he formulated an approach whicn has revolutionized the field of musical analysis. He is perhaps the most significant theorist of the 1 "Edward T. Cone, "Analysis Today," Musical Quarterly, 4b, No. 2 (April 1960), p. 178. Edward T. Cone, "Analysis," p. 174. entire composition r movement section r phrase groups r phrase motive 1 1 notes Figure 1. Formal hierarchic structure. twentieth century. Some evidence of his stature and influence lies in the following statements (some quite lengthy, but pertinent) by many of the leaders in the field. He has been the first modern theorist to find out how the imagination of a composer works, and to differen­ tiate between the raw material itself and the con­ summate art that turns this raw material into a great masterpiece. For some of us at least, Schenker's work has revolutionized the whole conception of music as art.^ In the past thirty years or so, we have witnessed the beginning of a revolution in the theory and analysis of tonal music . there seems to be a recognition that many of the concepcs and methods commonly employed are seriously inadequate. Dis­ satisfaction with the misleading results of the old descriptive procedures—the naive associations inherent in the Roman-numeral analysis of harmonic function, the lifelessness of symbolizing form by letters or numbers (ABA, 4-1-4), the trivial results 4 Adelle Katz, "Heinrich Schenker's Method of Analysis," Musical Quarterly, 21 (1935), p. 328. of analyzing melodic "climax" according to curvi­ linear graphs (symmetrical vs. skewed shapes, etc.)—has resulted in a growing appreciation of the work of Heinrich Schenker. His recog­ nition of the importance of harmonic process in tonal music, his symbolization of it through the formulation of the Ursatz and the Urlinie, and particularly his concept of harmonic transfor­ mations on various levels all clearly remain among the most consequential achievements of music theory in this century. ... In our time only Schenker can claim to have created an entirely new system of analysis. The importance allotted Schenker's theory and the enthusiasm surrounding his work seem justified.^ Some writers go so far as to designate his approach as the mainstream; "Of the numerous analytical systems now applied to music, none has gained more universal recognition than the Schenkerian approach." Heinrich Schenker's theoretical work was completed as long ago as 1935, with the posthumous publication of Per freie Satz, but only in the last decade or so has its influence grown to the extent that it must be considered the mainstream of musical analysis. the hegemony of Schenkerian analysis is virtually total in the current world of the music theorist, certainly for tonal music and often for other repertories as well; it seems to be an idea whose time has finally come. Cogan and Escot also recognize Schenker as one of the most influential of twentieth-century theorists. Eugene Narmour, Beyond Schenkerism: the Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), p. 1, c Charles M. Joseph, rev. of Layer Analysis by Gerald Warfield, The American Music Teacher, Feb.-March 1979, p. 47. Ruth A. Solie, rev. of Beyond Schenkerism by Eugene Narmour, Notes, 34 (1977), p. 857. The Austrian theorist Heinrich Schenker and his followers revolutionized musician's [sic] views by illustrating in many elegant analyses the linear motion in eighteenth and nineteenth century music (and its relevance for that music's entire structure), . For almost two hundred years . musical analysis followed Rameau almost exclusively, whereas compositional training and practice were deeply influenced by Fux, Not until the early twentieth century did theorists . principally the Austrian, Schenker--openly consider and resolve the contradictions. In the process the two theories emerged as con^lementary, and the nature of spatial motion in tonal music began to be illuminated by analysis.8 The technique of graphic analysis through reduction, is a process developed by Schenker and one which reveals tonal relation­ ships on more remote levels. Schenkerian analysis is, as aptly described by Maury Yeston. far more than an arhythmic portrayal of long- range voice-leading. It is, primarily, a means of uncovering organic unity within masterwcrks of tonal music, with "organic unity" understood not as an abstract aesthetic norm but rather as a demonstrably concrete relationship of part to whole.^ Of particular interest is his description of the graphic notation system, as he continues. g Robert Cogan and Pozzi Escot, Sonic Design: the Nature and Sound of Music (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977), pp. 153 and 77. 9 Maury Yeston, ed., Readings in Schenker Analysis and Other Approaches (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977), p. 6. What makes the uncovering possible is the spatial mode of presentation that Schenker integrated into his system, since the very medium of discourse about the object under consideration--the work of music—is also music. In this respect an analysis can aspire to the musical elegance of its object much in the same way that literary criticism aspires to the condition of literature.^^ Diverse analytical approaches offer new, fresh insights into a work. No one approach is necessarily the best approach, as each may be a better tool than another to illuminate one aspect of the work, a view held by most analysts, and certainly evident in the following quotation. In discussing the nature of a piece of music and of musical analysis, Charles J. Smith, in his article "The Notations of Analysis" claims.