Saturday, 2:45 pm–5:00
pm
Schenker’s concept of interruption (Unterbrechung) was one of the last to be added to the central body of theory as represented in Der freie Satz and it remains indispensable to understanding the relationship of voice-leading structure (by nature continuous) and formal design (often brought about by surface articulation and repetition). Nonetheless, interruption remains widely regarded as inherently problematic and even contradictory. Peter H. Smith has characterized the issue as a conflict between what he calls Type-1 and Type-2 derivations, which would seem to be inherently incompatible. To put the problem succinctly, which of the two 3^–2^s is the main one belonging to the deepest level? This paper will propose a perspective in which the apparent contradiction is made intelligible by being placed within a spectrum of freer interruption types, possibilities explicitly noted by Schenker but little recognized in current theory. It will demonstrate a possible origin for the concept of free interruption, and show how it is conceptually prior to the commonly recognized strict forms, suggesting that these freer forms of interruption may have served as the basis for the strict sense of interruption. Finally, a generalized concept of interruption will be to shown to provide a wider variety of analytical tools for synthesizing voice leading and articulative design.
It is widely held that Schenkerian ideas first began to spread in the U.S. in late 1931, when Schenker's student Hans Weisse arrived to teach at New York's Mannes Music School. However, unexplored testimonies suggest an earlier infusion. In a 1927 letter, Schenker himself affirmed that his ideas were circulating in New York. In an early 1932 article, Irving Kolodin declared that he learned of Schenker from George Wedge, whom he characterized as "a pioneer" in Schenker's work in America. These remarks indicate that a degree of Schenkerian activity existed earlier than and independent of Weisse's work. This is an important revelation, as it alters received notions of how Schenkerian ideas first began to take root here.
I explore these early activities through an examination of archive materials and obscure published essays. The roles of various Americans are investigated, with a principal focus on two: the afore-mentioned Wedge, and Carl Bricken, who had studied piano with Weisse in Vienna, in the 1920s. Their analytic approaches borrowed from Schenker's own; however, as Schenker was not named in their publications, his influence remained hidden to most. Nevertheless, they pushed beyond a more "verticalist" interpretation of music toward a more flowing, linear conception. Accordingly, they helped set the stage for the later, overt promotion of Schenker's ideas by Weisse and others.
In sum, this study cultivates an expanded awareness of the range of early influences Schenker's ideas may have had in the U.S.
This paper adds a Schenkerian viewpoint to current scholarship on the role of multiple themes in the new-key area of sonata-form expositions. Recent theories of form view the distinction between subordinate themes and closing themes in fundamentally different ways. William Caplin does not separate closing themes and subordinate themes into different theme-types. In his view, a closing theme is either a second subordinate theme or is a part of a chain of codettas in the closing section. James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, on the other hand, invoke the idea of the essential expositional close (EEC)—usually the first perfect authentic cadence in the new-key area—to separate subordinate and closing themes. New-key themes occurring before and after the EEC are subordinate and closing themes, respectively. Schenkerian analysis, a third perspective, can inform and find common ground between these two viewpoints. This paper explores possible reasons for multiple fifth-progressions in the new-key area and integrates these explanations with both Caplin’s theory of formal functions and Hepokoski and Darcy’s Sonata Theory. An examination of Classical-period, major-key symphonic expositions with multiple new-key themes reveals three rationales: (1) addressing a detour within the new-key area to the minor mode; (2) responding to a problematic cadence at the subordinate theme’s conclusion; and (3) completing a linear descent in the register opened up by the medial caesura.