Tonality as Topic: Opening A World of Analysis for Early Twentieth-Century Modernist Music * Thomas Johnson NOTE: The examples for the (text-only) PDF version of this item are available online at: h(p://www.mtos t.org/issues/ to.17.23.4/ to.17.23.4.0ohnson.php 1E2WO3DS: topic theory, tonality, se iotics, odernis , twentieth-century usic A6ST3ACT: In this article, I argue that tonality itself often functions as a topic in early twentieth- century odernist usic. Tonal figurae gain ar8edness while co positional practices si ultaneously fracture and 9ourish after 1900, opening a diverse networ8 of significations and eanings. To account for this variegated usical world, I a(e pt to broaden and extend topic theory’s orbit by deploying two types of se iotic analyses>1) a narrative analysis of tonal figurae within a piece or excerpt and 2) a wider analytical survey of a single tonal figura a ong any pieces. These ethods enable exploration into the con9uences of tonality and eaning in an eclectic set of usical exa ples by Schoenberg, 6erg, 6art?8, Ives, Penderec8i, Feld an, and Tower, a ong others. A ultidi ensional spectru of potential tonal-topicality e erges, re9ecting co posers’ reactions to processes of odernization. Received March 2017 Aolu e 2., Nu ber 4, Dece ber 201, Copyright B 201, Society for Music Theory I. Introduction C1.1] What is a topicE Scholars of the eighteenth century have collected a congeries of answers in the sub0ect’s recent Oxford Handbook , all loosely bound by Danuta Mir8a’s introductory definition: topics are “musical styles or genres taken out of their proper context and used in another oneG (2014 , 2). This basic conception guides most analyses of the canonical repertoire of topic theory > usic of the second half of the eighteenth century>while providing an anachronistic foundation for for ulations li8e Leonard Ratner’s “thesaurus of characteristic figures” ( 1980 , 9) or 1ofi Agawu’s “universe made up of co onplaces of style known to Cconte poraryD co posers and their audiencesG ( 2009 , 43). The plethora of analytical adventures motivated by this notion have revealed a vast collection of sign-functions to be investigated and mobilized in the analysis of Classical music. 1 of 26 C1.-D But when this so ewhat durable set of se iotic references loses structuring and interpretive power in the nineteenth century, topic scholars encounter a much more diJcult analytical real . (1) The diversity of approaches, ste ing partially fro the rise of sub0ectivity over affectivity during the Ro antic era, provide useful, if relatively ad hoc modes of interpretation. (2) Moving to the yriad co positional practices of the twentieth century akes identifying genres and proper se(ings—and thus topics, per Mir8a’s definition> uch tric8ier. Indeed, the lac8 of agree ent among topic-scholars of Ro antic repertoires foreshadows challenges for odernist music of the early 1900s> usic which sty ies se iotic-analytical eKorts by freLuently re0ecting the conventionality so crucial to understanding topics in Classical music. The co only held notion of odernity as an individuated enterprise has further restricted the wor8 of so e recent brave scholars li8e Peter Bur8holder ( 2012 ), Messica Naru ( 2013 ), Sco( Schu ann ( 201N ), and Moseph Straus ( 2001 , 183–248) into a focus on intra-oeuvre topics of single co posers. These sti ulating studies could be fruitfully aug ented by broader twentieth-century topical and se iotic inLuiries, li8e those of Mohanna Fry oyer’s ( 2017 ) recent study of Schoenbergian walPes and topicality in general. (." C1..D In this article, I introduce a broad and fluid conception of topic in modernist music, flexible enough to sustain analyses of many diKerent co posers and wor8s in the diverse traditions of the early twentieth century. (4) As historically infor ed analysts, we would do well to apply a suppler version of topic theory to an era of frag ented co positional and cultural conventions in which co posers had to cope with what literary scholars Bradbury and McFarlane distressingly labeled an “apocalypse of cultural co unityG ( 19,: , 27). As Dahlhaus argues, “since the late eighteenth century all genres have rapidly lost substance,” until “finally, in the twentieth century, individual structures sub it only under duress to being allocated to any genre” ( 1982 , 15). (N) If we are unable to consistently identify genres in this still- eaningful and still-rich music, then we will be unable to consistently analyze topics per Mir8a’s definition. C1./D As one solution to this topical quag ire, I argue that tonality itself often functions as a powerful topic in modernist music and beyond—a topic malleable enough to enco pass wide swaths of signification while satisfying even the most stringent and traditional of topical definitions. To develop this conception, I first brie9y engage two prior analyses of a Schoenberg Klavierstück to indicate the need for my methodology. Then, I explore how tonality functions topically by co paring it to definitions of more conventional eighteenth-century topics. To do so, I borrow Stephen Ru ph’s ( 2011 ; 2014 ) concept of figura and pursue a discussion of tonality’s olecularization and resultant mar8edness reversal in the twentieth century—or tonality’s processes of becoming -topic. (6) This leads to my first type of analysis: a relatively traditional narrative approach to single pieces based on the tonal-topic as a sort of “master signifier” or FLuilting point,” using tonality as a means of se iotic coherence while ac8nowledging points where this “master signifier” threatens to flaen the rich topography of diverse modernis s. (7) Finally, after establishing the potential of tonality to signify topically, I run through an eclectic set of excerpts that illu inate so e of what it signifies more generally in early twentieth-century odernist music. (8) 6y investigating this constellation of signifiers and signifieds in a co positionally diverse corpus, I hope to establish the tonal topic as a viable and useful addition to the growing literature on topic theory outside the eighteenth century. C1.ND As a brief initial disclai er, I should explain what I mean by odernist music. For convenience, I circu scribe a rather narrow and ho ogeneous collection of canonical co posers fro Europe and North A erica for most of this article. Schoenberg’s early atonal wor8s, for example, are over-represented. I intend this neither as an ideological point about the supre acy of this kind of music nor to suggest that it or its practitioners alone are modernist. 3ather, Schoenberg’s music see s an appropriate diagnostic for ideas concerning historicity and signification during this ti e-period since he was a co poser acutely aware of both the concept of tonality and his own historical provenance and posterity. Though this music has been analyzed 2 of 26 freLuently fro any perspectives, I believe it de ands a renewed se iotic engage ent, along with the engage ent of a broader band of co posers. In sections [RD and [,D below, I provide a survey of other co posers, styles of music, and practices that eLually play in the world of topic I open. This article is also not about defining tonality per se in the twentieth century. Instead, I argue for a broad perspective on tonality’s ultivalent significations in modernist music, made possible by ac8nowledging and mobilizing topic theory with passing recourse to literature that ore explicitly explores tonality. Sopefully, this convenient li it will catalyze further analysis and theorization of tonality’s meaningful eKects in twentieth-century music. II. Schoenberg, op. 19 no. 4 C2.1] Previous analyses of Schoenberg’s op. 19 no. 4 epito ize the need for a broad sense of topic. The move ent, as I will show, cannot necessarily sustain analysis of traditional topics while it si ultaneously struggles under the full weight of a conventional set-class analysis. The two approaches that I cover below provide useful though ulti ately li ited sets of analytical conclusions, which I ae pt to aug ent by blending their methodologies. C2.-D Exe plifying orthodox topic theory methodologies, Byron Al Tn ( 2008 ) presents a standard narrative of the move ent, connecting its clear ternary for (A-6-A’) with his se iotic interpretation of Schoenberg’s interactions with past topoi .(9) I provide a full score of op. 19 no. 4 in Example 1 , annotated with Al Tn’s analysis. Each of the for al sections presents clear topical aterial: A e bodies a dance topic, defined by the double-do(ed upbeat, metrical regularity, and triadic-ness; B suggests a recitative with its clear ho ophonic texture and relatively free alto-range elody; and A’ parodies each of those through rhyth ic and har onic manipulation. He describes the move ent as an “extre e tragic irony” which subverts or denies expectations of traditional topics and their meanings. C2..D Al Tn’s analysis is a largely negative one, suggesting a possible dance topic that is “quic8ly worn away,” a sardonic grace note that presages a return which “never co es,” and a final phrase that denies coherence or resolution, “without having established a clear direction” ( 2008 , 185–6). Al Tn eventually clai s that, even though this tiny piece may be filled with topics, “the various topoi function li8e evanescent mas8s, tried on for eKect, but discarded in self-loathing and disgustG (108). Deception plays a key role in Al Tn’s narrative of frag entation and derisive mi icry: “the atonal language erely serves to increase the sense of dislocation” of the topical facades (108).