Guest Editorial: Performance and Analysis of Music

8/9/2019 Guest Editorial: Performance and Analysis of Music

1/17

Guest Editorial: Performance and Analysis of MusicAuthor(s): Jonathan DunsbyReviewed work(s):Source: Music Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Mar. - Jul., 1989), pp. 5-20Published by: Blackwell PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854325.

Accessed: 31/07/2012 03:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Blackwell Publishingis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMusic Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/854325?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/854325?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/17

JONATHAN

UNSBY

GUEST

EDITORIAL:

PERFORMANCE

AND

ANALYSIS

OF

MUSIC

I

Even

within

relatively

mall, tentative,

solated areas

of

music-analytical

activity,

here s

much hat

s

contentious,

nd

this

s

certainly

rue n the

rea

of

performers'

iews

n

analysis' analysis

s

represented,

or

nstance,

y

the

journals

f that

discipline.*

he

area of

performance

nd

analysis

f music

s

examinedhere within he confines f Western-Europeanonal music and

modern

Western-European

nalytical esponses

o it. Without

pology

for

dealing

only

with

old

music,

and

for

dealing

only

with

received,

Germanic

view

of

analysis,

henarrowness

mustbe admitted.

here

are ofcourse enses

in

which he

hallenges

f

performing

ost-tonal

music,

whichmust

e

a

central

modern

preoccupation,

re different

n

kind,

just

as there

are

other,

sophisticated

musical societies

n which the

very oncept

of

performance

s

different societies

n

which here

s no

notation,

ocieties

n

which

what

we

would

call

a

performance

s in factmore

a sortof

game,

societies

n which

everyone

s a

performer.

There seems to be a growingwarenessn music-theoreticalircles f the

potential

or

deeper

nvestigation

f the connections etween

ontemplating

music

nd

actually resenting

t. Indeed

a

number

f

recent

ublications

ave

rushed

n

-

wheremost heorists

ave,

n the

recent

ast,

feared

o

tread

with

little

vert ttention

o

underlying

ssues,

especially

he

ssue of the extent

o

which unified

ocus n

performance

nd

analysis

s

even

desirable,

et

alone

possible.

Within

narrow

rame

f

reference,

hen,

hisbrief iscussion

egins

with ome

of

the eedsof

our

thinking

bout

performance,

nd

proceeds

with

few ase-studies

n

non-technical

anguage.

Finally,

here s modest omment

on a moral o be drawn rom

authentic',

istoricist

erformanceractice.

*This

essay

s therevised ersion f n address o

the

First

Annual

Encounter

f the

NationalAssociation

or

Research

nd

Graduate

tudies

n

Music,

Salvador,

Brazil,

21-4 November1988.

Travel

funding

rom

he

British

ouncil

s

gratefully

acknowledged.

also

thank

James

llis for

ointing

me n

one ofthe

directions

akenhere.

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989 5


3/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

II

Many will assume that thegreatestmusic-theoreticalnd music-analytical

impact

on

present-dayperformance

ractices

has

emanated

from

the

Schenkerian

chool,

of which

morewill

be said

in

due

course. Yet

it can

be

argued

that

at least as much

has been

inherited

rom

hose whose musical

education

temmed

irectly

r

indirectly

rom

Arnold

Schoenberg;

or t s a

Schoenbergian ssumption

hata

thorough onceptual

nderstanding

f the

musical

score is the

prerequisite

f

adequate

performance.

he course

of

twentieth-century

usic

has

surely

shown

this to be true in the area

of

dodecaphonic

music.

Despite

the nsistence

f

he

Second-Viennese

omposers

that t s howthemusic oundswhichmatters,othow twasmade, verybody

now

accepts

hat

sensitive

erformance

f

these

post-tonal

cores,

specially

perhaps

f

Webern's,

s

unlikely

o

occur

unlessthe

performer

s

thoroughly

familiar ith he nterval

roperties

f

thetonerow

or

rows nd the

rhythmic

structure f their

presentation. very

detail

of

the score

and all

the

interrelationships

re

considered

ital

study

forthe

performer.'

t is

hardly

surprising

hat

this belief

n

the essential ole of

analysis

s

preparation

or

performance

f new music

became the

byword

among Schoenbergians

regardless

fwhether he

repertoire

as newor

old,

and that hiswidecircle

f

performance

deology

as ncluded

many

f

hemost nfluential

igures

nworld

music frecent imes.

The

position

s

stated

directly y

violinist udolf

Kolisch,

who maintained

that he

tudy

f score

has oreachmuch urther

han

sual tructural

nalysis.

t has o

penetrate

so

deeply,

hatwe are

finally

ble to retrace

very

houghtrocess

fthe

composer. nly

uch

thorough

xamination

ill nable storead

he

igns

to their

ull xtent

nd

meaning

nd to define he

bjective erformance

elements,

specially

hose

eferring

o

phrasing,

unctuation

nd

nflection,

the

peechlike

lements.2

An

equally

tringent

ealization

f

this

pproach

s to

be found

n

Erwin

tein's

book

Form

nd

Performance,

n

which

we are toldthat

The

performer'saramount

oncern

s torealize

he

haracter

f

he

music;

it s the

urpose

or

which hemusic

waswritten.

e

should

ot

egin

ith

preconceived

deas boutmoods

remotions

obe

expressed,

ut eek

he

character

n

the

music's ormal

eatures.t is the

tructuref

the

music,

resulting

romts

melodic, armonic,

hythmical

nd

dynamic

omponents,

that etermines

ormnd haracter

t

he ame

ime.

he

character

s

given

by he tructure.nfullyealizinghe econd ewill onveyhe irst,ut y

pulling

hemusic bout

e will

ontort

oth.He

must ake ccount f he

features

f

he tructure

nd,

n

combining

hem,

ecide

heir

recedence

according

ohis ense f

proportion

nd

udgement

f

balance.3

6

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989


4/17

PERFORMANCE

AND

ANALYSIS

The Second-Viennese

pproach

o

performance

as much n common

with

the

Schenkerian radition hich ends o claim

priority

n thesematters.

oth

rest nmusical dealism: hemusical core, t shoped,offershemost omplete

possible

evidence

f whatthe

composer

ntended,

nd the

performer

as

the

responsibility

f

decoding

his

nformation

nd

representing

t to the ast

detail

in

musical

performance.

he

reality

s

different,

f

only

because

musical

notation

tself,

n skilled

ompositional

ands,

s

so economicalwith he

ruth,

but n

general

ecause

of

the

nescapable

halo of historical

ontingency

n

the

playing,

inging

r

conducting

fother

eople's

music.Within either f

these

dominant

forces which have

shaped

our

preconceptions

bout

musical

performance

s

there

systematiclace

for he

pragmatism

f

he

rehearsaloom

or

the

teaching

tudio,

n

which aural

and verbal tradition s the

essential

currency. here snotevenplacefor hepragmatismfthe

musicologist,

ho

can

discover

ne

day

thedocument hat

hallenges

ome

aspect

of

yesterday's

interpretation.

To

underestimatehe

high

musical

achievement,

e

it

Schoenbergian

r

Schenkerian,

hat

came

from

n

inspired

reative dealismwould

be

quite

without rtistic

ntegrity.

evertheless,

he

performer

eeds some mediation

between he

spiritual

nd the

actual,

without

ndermining

ither.This

can

begin

o

be achieved

y

making

rather

imple

distinction,

ne which s

often

overlooked,

etween

nterpretation

nd

performance.

particular

nalysismay

well ead tothe conviction hat particular indof nterpretations essential,

but

how o

convey

hat

nterpretation

o

the istenern

performance

s

a different

matter.

epending

on

instruments,

coustics,

venfactors

uch as thetime

f

day,

t

may

be

necessary,

or

nstance,

o

grossly

xaggerate

musical

details n

order o

get

the

message

cross:

vidence fthis s

the areer f

one of

themost

highly-valued

odern

nterpreters,

he

ate Glenn

Gould,

who

withdrew

rom

public

concertwork

ltogether

ecause ofthe

musically

alse

performance

hat

he believed t

imposed

between

nterpreter

nd

listener.4

Without

doubt,

a

sociological

understanding

f

performance

s a

much

less

pure

kind

of

knowledge

han

he

analytical

nderstanding

f

nterpretation

hich

has

been

an ideal ofthiscentury.As a consequence,performersho do not think f

themselvesas

analysts

cannot

expect

too

much from

those who

do.

Understanding

nd

trying

o

explain

musical

tructures not

the

amekindof

activity

s

understanding

nd

communicating

usic.There s a

genuine

verlap

between

hese

poles

of

activity,

ut t

cannot

e a

complete

verlap.

A

few emarks

re

required

t

this

tage

n

how

heviews

ust

xpressed

elate

to

the

Schenkerian

osition

n

musical

erformance.

chenker imself

sed

the

word

'interpretation'

s a

pejorative

erm to

signify

he

imposition

f a

performer's

wn,

personal,

idiosyncratic

musical

ideas on

those

of

the

composer.

Here it

is

used

differently,

o

mean

the

understanding

f

a score

derivedprincipally rom he internal vidence of thatscore. The present

distinction

etween

nterpretation

nd

performance

oes not

substantially

contradict

chenker's

wn

formulation,

n

which

t s claimed

hat ll

evidence

needed

to

assimilate

composition

s to

be

found

n

a

score;

but what

the

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 8:1-2,

1989

7


5/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

composer

does

not offer he

performer

s

a

guide

to

the means

of

actually

producing

he

required

ffect.

The

modern

music-theory

ommunity

as been

unwilling o acknowledge, owever, he iteralnessf Schenker's elief hat

only

n the o-called

Meisterwerk'

an that

magical

ontinuity

e found

n which

every

etail

f

tonal nd

rhythmic

tructures interrelated

ith

very

ther,

n

themusical

urface,

t the

deepest

evels f

prolongation

nd

between

hose nd

intervening

evels

ftonal

hierarchy.

A number

f

commentatorsave asked

how

Schenkerian

enets an

be used

in

the

nalysis,

ot

only

f

masterpieces',

utofwhat

might

e

called

ordinary

good

music.6

Ordinary

ood

music

might

displaymany

of

the

voice-leading

features

f he onal

masterpiece,

ut

t

s

not

n essence

rganic,

o that here

s

no

goldenkey

to

explaining

ts structure

nd

there

an be no

golden

key

o

ts

interpretation.

t sprobably idely ssumed hat he essons obe learned rom

interpreting

he

structure f a

masterpiece

annot

fail

to enhance

our

subsequent

pproach

o

ess

organic

music

that

he killed

nterpreter

f,

ay,

Mozart's

Piano

Sonata

n

A

minor,

K.310,

will

do well

n

playing

sonata

by

Dussek

or Pinto.Yet evenhere here

s

a

danger

f

over-theorising,

danger

f

performing

ess

tautly-structured,

nformal

music

as if it were in

the

masterpiece

radition.

he wholesale

doption

n music

heory

f Schenkerian

analytical

echniques

without

rigorous

pplication

fSchenkerian

esthetics

has

consigned

he

distinctionetween

masterpiece

nd

non-masterpiece

o the

safety f the touchline: f this endsa moreacceptablefaceto thezealotof

Schenkerian

heory,

t

may

also

create

unnecessary

difficulties or the

performer,

ho

has

to

contendwith

kind of

pan-Schenkerism

hat

arries

none

of

he rtistic

ompulsion

f he

riginal

deal.

That

being

o,

one can

only

recommend

orking

s

positively

s

possible

n

the

post-idealistic

nvironment.

It seems

to follow

hatthe

most

helpfulway

to characterize

nalysis

or he

performer,

hich

s bound

to be at

the

very

east

Schenker-influenced,

s not

s

some

form f bsolute

ood,

but

as

a

problem-solving

ctivity.

There

lready

xists

traditionf

kind

n this

espect,

een

n

the nteraction

of

pedagogy

nd

performance

hrough

arious

pproaches

o the

oncept

f he

musical dition. ometimeshe esult f heurge orecord erformanceisdom

took

he

form

f echnical

nd

spiritual

dvice,

fwhich

Alfred ortot's

ditions

of

Chopin

are

probably

he best-known

xamples.

An

especially

nteresting

group

s formed

y

the ditors

f

Beethoven's

iano

sonatas,

on

Billow

1894)

and

Schnabel

1935) tending

owardsmatters

f

expression,

ovey

1931)

and

Schenker

1934)

more

oncerned

ith

ddressing

hat

we

might

owadays

all

analytical

ssues,

butall

of

hem

ecognizing

hat

othhistorical

nowledge

nd

intense,

etailed

tudy

f ll

aspects

f he

core re

required.'

The

very

istory

of

nineteenth-century

ditorial

ractice

may

be viewed

s

part

f he

pre-history

of

wentieth-century

nalysis

as

is the

history

f

programme-note

riting

n

the

late nineteenthentury, specially n Britain, n whichthorough esearch

remains

o be

even

begun):

it moved

from

he

stage

of awareness

of

the

inadequacy

of the

musical

score as a

guide

to

interpretation,

o the

late-

Romantic

taste

for

imposing

personal'

readings,

or

'interpretations'

n

8

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 8:1-2,

1989


6/17

PERFORMANCE AND

ANALYSIS

Schenker's ense

of theword one ronic

highpoint

fthis econd

phase

being

FerruccioBusoni's

desire

o

make

whathe

thought

f

as

a concert ersion

f

Schoenberg's hree Piano Pieces, Op.ll, of 1909,muchto thecomposer's

consternation. he reaction which set

in,

expounding respect

for

the

composer's

ext,

nd

study

f t

per

e,

made

t

inevitable hat he

theory

nd

analysis

ftonal

musicwould

become

mportant,

or he

essence

f

that

tudy,

which s

themeans nd terms f

understanding

usical

tructure,

ameto

be

at

a

premium.

It was

also

inevitable that this would

raise difficulties

f

communication.

he more

ophisticated

he

nalysis,

he ess

comprehensible

t

is

to the

non-specialist,et

ne

might

are

to

say

hat t s

the

non-specialist

ho

has

greatest

eed

of

the

analysis.

However

ffectively

hese

difficulties

an

be

overcome

n

the

ong

erm,

we should

void

being

entimental

bout

chimeric

unity fpurposebetweenmusicians'

iffering

bjectives.

III

Some

questions

f

nterpretation

re

easily

esolved

y analysis'

f

one form r

another.

When

they

re

not,

t

may

be that

he

nalysis

s

poor,

but t s

equally

possible

hat

he

performer

s

asking

ll-considered

uestions.

he

following

s a

simple

ase

in

point.

n

the

hird ection

f

Brahms's

antasie

Op.

116,

No.

2,

we hearnew,contrasting aterial, heopening ndmiddle ection nminor

givingway

o

major-mode

elody

with o

down-beat

epeated

otes

see

Ex.

1).

The

performer

ight

sk:

what s

the

relationship

etween

hese wo

melodies?

The

answer

s

that,

with

characteristic

ngenuity,

rahms

s

using

the

ong-

standing

echnique

f

varied

wo-part

ouble

counterpoint

t the

octave,

s

Ex.

2

illustrates. et

there s no

serious

roblem

or

he

performer

n

any

ase n the

presentation

f

hese

hemes. he

melodies re

clearly

esigned

o

contrast,

nd

the

underlyingnity

may

not ven

need

to

be

perceived

irectly

y

the

istener:

any

pointing-up

ere

by

the

pianist,

or

nstance

y

bringing

ut

the

middle

voice of

the

opening

n

order to

show

the

derivation f

the

subsequent

contrastingheme,wouldhardly eappropriate;twoulddestroyhebalance f

contrastnd

unity

o which

Brahms

as,

as

always, iven

areful

ompositional

thought.

Some kinds of

problem-solving

re,

on

the

other

hand,

necessary

nd

effective.

n

interesting

ase is

that

of Maurizio

Pollini's

one-time

nter-

pretation

f the

first

movement

f

Beethoven's

Waldstein

onata,

n

which

he

second

themewas

offeredn

the

exposition

with an

unusual dull

tone,

the

mostly

hree-note

hords

n

each

handmore

r

ess

equally

weighted; et

n

the

reprise

he

heme

was

played

with

he

uminously

inging op

ine

hat s

usually

expected

f master

ianist.

This

was

doubly

ffectiveor

eingperformed

na

large uditorium, here uchdevices fcontrastreespecially oticeable. he

problem

Pollini

was thus

solving,

consciously

or

unconsciously,

was

presumably

ne of

harmony.

he second

theme n

the

exposition

s in

the

mediant

major, major,

ollowing

heC

major

pening.

he

first

eprise

f

his

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 8:1-2,

1989

9


7/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

Ex.

1

Brahms,

ntermezzo,

p.

116,

No.

2

Andante

...

. .rI

Ir

Por

.. .

,,

-c -

a

]

P l'I.I

.it mr i i i--l l

Ex.

2

theme

s

not n

the

tonic,

ut

n

A

major,

he ubmediant

major.

Although

his

is

a

logical

ranspositional

elationship,

t

s

a bold

and

temporary

ariation f

sonata

convention,

s

Beethoven onfirms

y

repeating

he theme n the

submediant

minor,

hen t ast

thetonic.

How

can the

performer

apitalize

n

this

process,

ender t as

articulate

s

possible

for he

istener? ne

very

ood

solution,Pollini's,

is

to draw sonic

attention

o

this

point

in

the musical

architecture

y

dding

n

unprecedentedxpressive

dge

o the

econd heme

n

the reprise,focusing he listener's oncentrationt a special moment n

Beethoven's armonic

arrative. n

analysis

an

explain

he

pecialquality

f

the harmonic

prolongation

ere,

but

only

the

performer

an make

the

judgement

hat his

hould

have

expressive

ffect

n the

nterpretation.8

10

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

989


8/17

PERFORMANCE AND

ANALYSIS

Ex. 1

cont.

G

I

-

I*-

A

I-

IAre

I

TIMMi

Ex.

2

cont.

t

l

IV

It

is

appropriate

t

this

tage

to

introduce ome

concrete,

hough

necessarily

tentative,

xamples

fthe

pecific

nteraction

etween

nalytical

nterpretation

and

actual

performance,

llustrated rom

he

Prelude n

G

minor,

p.

28,

No.

22,

of

Chopin.

To

provide

some

initial

orientation,

x. 3

presents

wo

summaries

f

the

first

wenty-four

ars.

System

1

shows

a

simplerhythmic

reduction f

this

music:

the

rhythmic

eduction s

hardly

ontroversialn

general,given

that

he

piece

is in

an

elaborated-chorale

tyle,

aking

ts ead

from

he

famous

wentieth

relude n

C

minor,

which s an

unelaborated

ock-

chorale.System is a transcriptionfthe nformaleductionn Schenkerian

voice-leading

otation

it is not

really

necessary

o be

familiar

with

the

symbology

f

his

notationn

order o

follow

he

perceptions

t

records

bout

he

music.

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989

11


9/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

Ex.

3

Chopin,Op.

28,

No. 22

(bs

1-24)

rhythmicreduction

A 1.

k

j

I;-j

JTIj

I

fI..H.15L

'v'

6

6

4

3

4

3

'voice

eading

,j

1

NIN

It s

probably

ll-too-obvious

rom

he

very

eginning

ow ome

f

hedetails

of Ex.

3

may mpingeupon

an ideal

interpretation.

or

instance,

here

s

a

difficulty

f

voicing

n the

tempestuous

nd

forceful

pening.

The

neighbour-

note

figure

G-F#

G

in the

left-hand

melody,

nd the

leading-note-to-tonic

motion f he

upper

ine,

both end o trick he ar

nto

hearing

he econd

bar

s

a tonicharmonyseeEx. 4).

Ex.

4

0000

tit

WE@@

The

harmonic keleton

f

the

opening

llustrated

n Ex.

5, however,

Ex. 5

0000

3 3 3 3

G)~

S

demonstrates

hat

b

n

the

ight

and

of

b.2

is

vital othe

voice-leadingattern;

and

there

s

every

eason or

he

pianist

o consider

iving

t a

special

larity

f

articulationn someway,ofwhichEx. 6 is simply theoreticalllustration

Chopin

eems

o have

set

problem

erefor he

nterpreter,

ut

t

may

fter

ll

result

rom he

relative

ack

of

clarity

n

themodern

iano

compared

with

he

composer's

mid-nineteenth-century

rench nstrument:

12

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

989


10/17

PERFORMANCE AND

ANALYSIS

Ex.

3 cont.

15

x0

0

[ocoJ

6

'aT

r

+8II I

I

oo1

6

6f+0

i6

6

[+801

+80]

Ex. 6

SJ'

Ex.

>-sf

Parenthetically:

he

best

ctual echnical

olution

or

he

E6

is

probably

o

play

it

fractionally

efore

he other

notes of the

right

hand

-

but the

particular

solution

epends

n which

tyle

f

piano

playing

he

performerepresents.

Further nto thepiece anotherkind ofproblem-solvings possible,hard

though

t s to

describe

erbally.

he main

melody

s

in

the

bass,

butthe

right-

hand

melody

s also active

hroughout

ost

f

hefirst ection. n

bs 15 and

16,

however,

he

right

and settles n

E6

and threatenso

be heard s an

awkward

patch

n

the melodic

nvention. he

bracketsmarked

x'

on Ex. 3

indicate,

though,

hat

Chopin

s

using

a familiar

onnective evice

to move

the music

from ectionA

into he

contrasting

iddle

ection: nce

the

E6

is

heard

n

this

way,

as

a

tense,

orward-moving

elodic

upbeat

n

themotion

o

A6

in

b.

18

-

not s a

melodic

acuum,

utas a

prolongation

eld n

check

hat s

straining

o

continueto its

immediate

goal

-

there s

no

longer any problem

here

in

performance.he analysis stablishes, s itwere,belief n whatChopinhas

written,

f

his

were

necessary

though

here

re

many

hought-provoking

ases

of uch

necessity,

f

which

further

xample

will

be offered

n

due course.

The

performer

onscious f

the

connection nder

discussionwill

nstinctively

lace

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989

13


11/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

and voice

F in

the

ight

andof

b.

17 tomake t

sound,

not

nly

he

beginning

f

a new

section,

ut also

part

f

an

ongoing

ine.9

The connectinginearpatterns etween ectionsA and B oftheTwenty-

Second Prelude can determine he

nterpretation

f the entire

hape

of the

middle ection.The

bracketsmarked

y'

on Ex. 3 show that he

nterval

f

a

sixth,

filled

by stepwise

motion,

s

important

n

the

motivicmenu of

the

composition.

he

interval

f a sixth

ppears

below

the evel

of the mmediate

foreground

n

a

long

prolongation

oving

rom

.

13,

which s the

egistraleak

of he eft and

of

hewhole

piece,

o

what an

be

considered he

gestural

limax

of

ection

,

the

octave-spaced

b

in

bs

22

and

23. Each

preceding

ote

f

his

overallmotion f sixth

s

connected

irectly

ith ts

uccessor,

nd

the

gap

that

opensupat thebeginningfb.21 sespeciallyffectivenexposinghefinal tep

from

middle

C to B

.

From

the

point

fviewof

voice-leadingheory,

t should

be

noted hat his

progression,

hich

might

uide

the

performer

n

shaping

he

middle

ection,

s

part

f

he

middleground

evel f he tructure

f he

piece.

n

theory,

he nevitable

movementso

the

dominant,

n bs

24,

then

2,

34

and the

penultimate

ar,

are

perhaps

f

deeper ignificance

or hetonal

oherence

f

thePrelude.

And this

xemplifies

n earlier

oint,

hat

we

should

not

expect

complete

verlap

between

heory

nd

practice.

A

theory

f

which he

central

aim is

to demonstrate onal coherence

may

be

of

great mportance

o

the

performer,

ut the

performer

s concernedwith

much lse besides.

V

It

may

well be thatthe

problem-solving

otential

f

analysis

has

been least

effective

n

the area

of

musical

time

in

questions

f

proportion,

metre

nd

rhythm.

hese neffable

ualities

fmusic

re

ikely

o

be

the east

menable

o

conceptual

crutiny,

nd matters

hat

have been

illuminated

ery

ittle

ven

through

he

musicologist's

microscope

an

barely

be touched

upon

in

this

particular

ommentary.

What

analysis

eems so little

ble to

capture

s that

secret ftheperformer timing which ubsumes o manyfactorsuch as

rubato,

tructural

rticulation

nd

expressive

mphasis,

nd

which s such

a

powerful

lement

n

the

presentation

falmost

ny

omposition.

It

is

perhaps

n the area

of musical

timing

hat the

sharpest

deological

distinction

ecomes

lear

n

the

goals

of he

nalyst

nd the

performer.

onsider

the

performer's

ine

ine between

pointed

rticulation

nd

cheap,

theatrical

effect

n Ex.

7,

where he econd

G,

marked

with n

asterisk,

must

e heard

s:

an

upbeat

to the

following

ote;

the

subsidiary hythmic

ember f

a

dotted-

note

figure;

he

filling-in

f an unattacked

irst eat

after

busy

two-beat

anacrusis;

nd

as

havingmany

urtherunctions.

t s a note verburdened

ith

meanings,

mostofwhichcan be resolved n performanceytheconvenient

introduction

f n

unscripted

ause

on the hird eat

of he irst

ncomplete

ar,

thus

destroying

he

arger

stablishment

f

perception

fmetricalrder

n

the

first

hrase.

14

MUSIC ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989


12/17

PERFORMANCE

AND

ANALYSIS

Ex. 7

Berg,

onata,

p.

1

Missig

bewe

p

accel.

rit.

'n

I ft

/

The

opening

f

Berg's

Sonata,

fine

hough

t

s,

s

what

erformers

ould

all

'problematic',

omething

o

be dealtwith

pragmatically:

here s not

quite

the

magisterial

larity

f

compositional

ntention

nd

intended

xecution hat

ne

finds

n

themature

work f

Beethoven

r

Stravinsky,

carlatti

r

Messiaen.

The

analyst

s

powerless

n

sucha

case.

Analysis

eals,

n

general,

with

he

deology

of

veneration,

he

celebration

f

cultural

erfection,

he

explanation

f how

thingswork nmusic,notofhowtheydon't workquiteas well as onemight

wish.

The

Berg

s the

first fficial

ork fa

young omposer,

ut such

difficulties

are to

be found ven n

masterpieces.

xample

8

shows n

interesting

ase

see

below).

This s

the econd

heme f

Brahms'sD

minor

Violin

Sonata,

Op.

108,

a themewhich

ounds

excellent ater

on

in

the violin

part.

However,

s

first

presented

n

the

piano

solo,

it

is

virtually

nperformable.

t

any

reasonable

speed

thefive

pread

notes,

nd

ndeed six

spread

notes n

the

fifth

ar

of

the

theme,

orce

hiatuswhich

hreatens,

ither

o sound

ugly

because

thechords

are so

abrupt,

r

to

destroy

he

metre

f

they

re

given

nough

ime o unroll

o

thesforzandi.xample8a showsthepassage n Artur chnabel'sedition, n

which

ll the

markings

ncircled n

small

print

re

by

the

editor

nd the

arge-

print

markings

re

Brahms's wn.

Schnabel's

olution o

the

rhythmic

roblem

is

to

compensate

y dynamic uance,

nd t

evidently

ests

n

an

analysis

f

he

dissonant

ersus

onsonant tatus f

he

ppoggiaturas.

xample

8b

attempts

o

convey

his

y

matching

chnabel's

ynamics

ith

hierarchical

epresentation

of

thevoice

eading:

he

orrespondences

re

self-evident.

est

this

llustration

seem

an

act of critical

eresy

n

challenging

he

compositional

isdom f

the

maturework f

a

genius,

t

should

be

added

thatBrahms

himself

new

he had

writtenn

mpracticable

dea

here.His own

copy

f

he

printed

music

arries n

emendation n whichthelefthand is not

spread

on thefourth

uaver,

but

repeats

hebass

notes n

the

hird

eat,

moothing

ut

the

rhythm

nd

texture,

as in

Ex. 9.

This

is a

frustrating

ase of

the

omposer's

wn

critical

nalysis;

t

s

of

ittle

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989

15


13/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

Ex. 8

Brahms,

iolin

onata,

p.

108/I

PV77..

P.

7'

7

fs

l 0 10

I I,

I-

w" Ir

',

I

"

If:

v-',,

l

I

? M

,

-1i

practical

elp,

for

Brahms

never ltered he

plates

for

ubsequent rinting

f

Op.

108,

nd

there s no

surviving

istorical

vidence

hat e

actually

meant

he

passage

o be

revised.'0

VI

If there s

a subtext

ere,

t s that

ur

problems

re much

morewith he

past,

rather

han he

present

nd

near-present,

han

may

be

casually

ssumed

r even

tenaciously laimed. For this reasona pathhas been carvedthrough he

twentieth

entury bserving

he

borders

nly

of

Schoenberg

nd

Schenker,

suspending

thers:

n

mportant

urther

order

might

e

called

Stravinskyism,

where execution'

in

which he

death

s

celebrated,

ot

ofthe

uthor,

ut

of

16

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

989


14/17

PERFORMANCE

AND

ANALYSIS

tof 7

....

1"

~

-nr

A I I

As

p-1

it \

-I

t

1

-10)

_ rIn

the performer' supplants nterpretation;nothermightbe called 'taste',

posing

he

question

forwhom

s the

performer

erforming?',question

which

has

not

yet

ccrued

quite

the awesome ense of overthrow

xperienced

n its

current

European counterpart:

for whom

nowadays

is the

composer

composing?'.

Such sins of omission must be minor. For

instance,

the

'execution'

deology,

whether

modern,

rold

n

the

sewing-machine'

pproach

to the ate

Baroque,

has

no

avowedneedof

nalysis

owever

roadly

onceived,

even

f

pretended

xecution

an

never

ruly

ide ts

ack

of

neutrality.

s for

questions

of

reception,

here is no

implication

hat

these are

relatively

'unimportant', nly

that

any

discussionmust

see its own

boundaries nd

recognizetsownovert rcovert rovisionality.

Those who find he

past

ess

troublesomehan he

present

must

ympathize

littlewith hosewho

don't,

ndviceversa

though

heviceversa

may

ften ntail

a

touch of

future-conscience

n

thosewho

worry

bout the

past overmuch).

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989

17


15/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

When the

two

become

smudged,

reative

nergy

s

released.

It is not the

elimination

f

personal

hoicefrom

erformance

hat eal rtists

esire',

writes

Richard aruskin,but ts mprovementnd refreshment'-othgoalsbeing, f

not

reactionary,

evertheless

nherently

eactive,

hough

reative oo.11

This s notthe

place

to hunt o

ground

he

good

and bad courses fhis recent

'The Pastness

f

hePresent

nd thePresence f he

Past', which,

n the

dark

f

print,may

be remembered

y performers

nd

analysts

like

for

rasing

hat

confusing

word

'authentic'

with the

resoundingly straightforward

'authenticist',

most

legant

emantic

ut-down.

et

it

s

intriguing

it must

be,

to

anyone

nterestedn music

nalysis'

that

n

Taruskin's

ong

nd

richly-

referenced

rgument

bout

theunhistorical ature f uthenticist

erformance

hardly

word s said about

analysis,

r even about

theory.

ome of the few

explicit

omments re from ucha

height

hat

they

ound an

earlywarning

against

would-be

guru:

If "structural" as the

sanctified

hibboleth f the

"new

critical"1930s and

1940s,

surely hierarchy"

nd

"unifying"

ere the

sanctified

ordsof

the Schenkerian

950sand

1960s,

t least

n the cademic

bastions f

ogicalpositivism

. .'12

good

poseur

tuff.

What s not aid speaksvolumes, o which hebest ccessmaybe that eal n

the 'real artists'

of Taruskin's

antepenultimatearagraph.

s this not the

musicologically

cceptable

ace

of the

urge

of

pan-Schenkerism',

hat

part

of

thetheory usinesswhich mbodiesTaruskin's ery

wn

horror-category

f

a

'quasi-religiousundamentalism.. : what s not ermittedsprohibited' my

italics)?

f real' in Taruskin's

view

of

performance

s

not a

deeplyprohibitive

critical

erm,

something

must have been

lost

in

translation

American

o

English).

Whether

e thinks hat

n the uthenticist

ebate

heory

nd

analysis

re

ust

not

permitted,

r

are

actually rohibited,

s not it

hardly

eeds

aying

even

raised

n The

Pastness f

thePresent'.

But,

ntellectual

uard

down,

you

have

to be

extraordinarily

anctimonious

o

ignore

hat

what s not

permitted

ne

moment

ecomes

prohibited

t

the

very

next

n

everyday

uman

onduct.

A

subliminal

rohibition

ight xplain

heone weird

prat

aruskin

hrowsn

to

catch,presumably,llbig-headedheory-mackerels'curiousperformersill

always

ind

what

hey

eed n the ources

nd

theorists'14

my

talics).

o

theory

s

solved?

As does

any spect

f

history,

heory-then-and-now

ffersts

hallenges

to the

understanding

eaching

rom he

past

to the

present,

eveals

ontinuing

ambiguities

f

purpose,

always

has

potential

o unnerve

proponents

f

the

settled

musical

iew: re

these nd

all

other ivecharacteristics

o be written

ut

ofthe

cript?

ot

permitted,

r

prohibited?

VII

Either

way,

the bottom

ine

-

even

n thehallowed

ground

f how to

present

music

oothers-

s that heres no

escape

from

heory

n

general

r n

particular,

though

we

may

ach sometimes

eed

to

escape

from

hinking

bout

ttoo

much,

18

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989


16/17

PERFORMANCE

AND ANALYSIS

and some

need to

escape

always,

even

though

there s

no

escape.

'Performance

and

Analysis'

people

know

it

does

not feel

quite

like this when

you

are on

stage

- thus, again, the 'partial overlap'. Yet there is no epistemologicalreason for

analysis

and

its theoriesto work n fear of what it feels ike on

stage.

NOTES

1.

For an

excellent

iscussion

f these

matters,

ee

Christopher

intle,

Webern's

Concerto

Op.

24/II',

Music

Analysis,

Vol.

1,

No.

1

(March

1982),

pp.74-81:

'Performing'.

2. Quoted nJoanAllenSmith, choenbergnd

His Circle:A

Viennese

ortrait

New

York:

Schirmer,

986),

pp.105-6.

See

also Rudolf

Kolisch,

Zur Theorie er

Auffiihrung,

usik-Konzepte,

ol. 29/30

January

983).

3. Form nd

PerformanceLondon:

Faber,

1962),p.20.

4. A

wide-rangingicture

f

this rtist's iews can be

found n The

GlennGould

Reader,

d. Tim

Page London:

Faber,

1987).

5.

A

concise and well-documented

tudy

of

this

aspect

of

Schenker's

work s

published

in

William

Rothstein,

Heinrich Schenker

as an

Interpreter

f

Beethoven's

iano

Sonatas',

Nineteenth-Century

usic,

Vol.

8,

No.

1

(Summer

1984),

pp.3-28.

6. WilliamA. Pastille,Heinrich chenker, nti-Organicist',nNineteenth-Century

Music,

Vol.

8,

No.

1

Summer

984),

pp.29-36, rgues

hat here re

continuing

challenges

n

Schenker's

oncept

of the Meisterwerk'nd

concludeswith the

fundamental

uestion:

If

Schenker's

heory roperly pplies

only

o theworks

f

geniuses,

ow

does t relate o theworks f

non-geniuses?'my

talics)

the

phrase

'works of

genius'

would

have been

more

felicitous or

a

numberof obvious

reasons,

nd

Pastille's

urn

f

phrase

here

mayyethelp

to

perpetuate

he

very

trend

e s

arguing gainst.

CharlesBurkhart

muses n whether

here

was

ndeed

a

process

of

development

ut

subsequent

retraction ven

in

the field

of

the

masterpiece

n

Schenker's

hinking

bout

the

relationship

etween

ynamic

nd

pitch-structuralevels which t onetime chenkerupposedmust orrespond,

though

one wonders f

perhaps

t was notan

idea that

he]

eventually ropped':

see 'Schenker's

Theory

of

Levels and

Musical

Performance',

n

Aspects

f

Schenkerian

heory,

d. David

Beach

New

Haven: Yale

University

ress,

1983),

pp.95-112 p. 112n).

7.

For a

brief

iscussion f

the

history

nd

current tate f

editions f

Beethoven's

piano

sonatas,

ee William

Drabkin,

The

Beethoven

onatas',

Musical

Times,

Vol.

126,

No.

1706

April1985),

pp.216-20.

8.

The Waldstein

eprise

s

discussed

y

KonradWolffn

Schnabel's

nterpretation

f

Piano Music

London: Faber,

1979),

with

different

olution o the ame

ssue:

'The modulation

.

.

is

. .

. a major structural vent. This becomes clear

according

o

Schnabel,

f

he

heme ere s

more

imply

that

s,

ess

expressively

-

presented;

omewhat n

the

style

f an

improvised

modulation n

the

organ

.

'(p.134).

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 8:1-2,

1989

19


17/17

JONATHAN

DUNSBY

9. Bar 21 confirmshatone

of

the

multiple

unctions

f

F in the

right

and s to

initiaterogression.ucha rolefor his itch lasshasalready eenexposedn the

harmonic eversal

flatside)

t initiates

n

the left

hand

melody

n b.

14

-

an

inescapably rganicist

omment.

10. All the nformation

iven

here bout the

Brahms evision

s

drawn

romRobert

Pascall,

Brahms nd theDefinitive

ext',

n

Brahms:

iographical,

ocumentary

and

Analytical

tudies,

d. Robert

Pascall

(Cambridge:

CUP,

1983),

pp.59-75

(p.74).

Pascall

argues

that we should

have no reservations

n

actually

using

Brahms's

rivate

mendations.

11. 'The Pastness

f hePresent

nd

thePresence

f he

Past',

n

Authenticity

nd

Early

Music: A

Symposium,

d.

Nicholas

Kenyon

London:

OUP,

1988), pp.

137-210

(p.206).

12.

Ibid.,

p.

168.

13.

Ibid.,

p.181.

14.

Ibid.,

p.214.

20

MUSIC ANALYSIS

8:1-2,

1989

Documents

Guest Editorial: Performance and Analysis of Music