Sunday, 9:30 am–12:30 pm
Monroe 216
Schumann's Fugal Writing: A Modular Approach to Form in the "Sonata Fugatos"
Recent theoretical research on Schumann has made significant contributions to a wide range of topics within the composer’s oeuvre. But very little attention has been paid to fugato passages in Schumann’s works, an oversight that is especially surprising in light of the composer’s lifelong fascination with J. S. Bach’s music in general and fugue in particular (Schumann himself described his obsession as a Fugenpassion). This paper addresses this lacuna by examining those fugato passages that occur within Schumann’s sonata-form or sonata-based movements composed between 1841 and 1845. My focus is on Schumann’s preference for large amounts of repetition in these passages and the resulting “modular approach to form,” a term recently used by Julie Hedges Brown in reference to the Piano Quartet, op. 47. Such repetition is surprising in these fugato passages, as one would expect the increased attention to linear, contrapuntal devices to preclude this type of repetition. The movements examined in this study are: the first movement of the String Quartet in A Minor, op. 41, no. 1 (1842); and the finales of the Piano Quintet, op. 44 (1842), the Piano Quartet, op. 47 (1842), and the Piano Concerto, op. 54 (finale composed in 1845). I focus mostly on the Piano Quartet and Piano Quintet because they contain the most extensive fugato passages. Schumann’s “sonata fugatos” contain a richness and complexity of musical design that renders them worthy of scholarly attention.
The Three-Key Trimodular Block in Schubert and Brahms's Sonata Expositions
Sonata-form expositions typically articulate two key areas, with the secondary theme, and the second key area, often announced by what Hepokoski and Darcy (1997, 2006) define as a “medial caesura” (MC). A specialized form arises when two medial caesuras appear in the middle of the exposition: the “trimodular block” (TMB). More unusual still are expositions in which these two medial caesuras articulate three key areas, a form I will call the “three-key trimodular block.” Schubert utilized this form in several of his sonata-form expositions, and, as James Webster (1977 and 1978) suggests, appears to have influenced Brahms, who also adopted this unusual phenomenon in some of his early and late compositions. Hepokoski and Darcy’s TMB allows us to critically re-appraise this unusual form (previously discussed as the “three-key exposition” in Schachter 1983, Beach 1994, Graybill 1988, and Kessler 2006) by exploring the pieces’ interactions with generic conventions—i.e., comparing them to traditional two-key expositions employing trimodular blocks and three-key continuous or single-MC expositions. This paper will explore the three-key TMB in works by Schubert and Brahms, as well as rare eighteenth-century examples of this form in Mozart, Beethoven, and Cherubini. The tonal structures of the pieces will also be considered in conjunction with the TMB. Hepokoski and Darcy’s landmark publication Elements of Sonata Theory briefly mentions this formal phenomenon but leaves the subject tantalizingly open to further study, which this paper will undertake.
Hidden Voice Exchanges: Three (Analytical) Fantasies and a Sarabande by J. S. Bach
When are voice exchanges functional and when are they the musical equivalent of optical illusions? Can a voice exchange be present even when it cannot literally be seen in the score? The hunt for voice exchanges can be an addictive pastime, and a composition will offer far more examples of analytical fool’s gold than the real thing. Virtually any piece of tonal music contains numerous instances of hypothetical voice exchanges that are musically irrelevant, dubious, or nonsensical. In these situations a keen ear is more important than a keen eye. In other instances the converse is true: a functional voice exchange may be present even if it is difficult or impossible to see on the page. This presentation addresses these issues in the context of the Sarabande from J. S. Bach’s Partita No. 2 in D Minor for Solo Violin (BWV 1004). The legitimacy of a single voice exchange (mm. 21–22) is debated by positing various interpretive hypotheses (analytical fantasies influenced by various pitch swaps) before arriving at conclusions that satisfy the structural contours of the composition rather than an infatuation with interesting, yet dubious, examples of voice exchange. The final interpretation uncovers many interesting features of the Sarabande, including the use of motivic parallelisms, voice exchanges in pairs, and inverted versions of the cadential 6/4 chord. It also answers the question of whether the proposed voice exchange in mm. 21–22 is functional or illusory.
In his commentary on Beethoven’s “Appassionata” Sonata, Donald Francis Tovey fancifully describes a note as representing E≤≤≤≤, instead of CΩ as written. The source of this capricious passage may be found in Tovey’s Companion to the Beethoven Pianoforte Sonatas, published in 1931 by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music. The Associated Board was, and remains, a uniquely British institution that sets a series of instrumental examinations in eight levels, known as “grades.” Although intended to serve practical musicians, primarily students and serious amateurs, many encountering “E≤≤≤≤” would no doubt be perplexed by Tovey’s whimsical aside. So is this a truth spake in jest?
This paper will examine the development section of Beethoven’s “Appassionata” in light of Tovey’s curious enharmonic perspective. Intended to point out the absurdity of interpreting harmonic progressions literally, Tovey’s fantastic excursion into the world of multiple sharps and flats reveals a clear understanding of the tonal implications of this passage. In contrast to Tovey’s fanciful reading, the well-known analysis by Heinrich Schenker, the “other” leading tonal theorist of the twentieth century, represents a more austere, distant perspective. Schenker’s analysis (in Der Tonwille) shows how the events in Beethoven’s development section relate to the movement’s background structure, revealing these motivic connections through detailed voice-leading graphs.
Although the merging of ideas by Tovey and Schenker would appear to be incongruous, the two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. This paper offers an analytic perspective that differs from both Tovey and Schenker while reconciling their widely different interpretations.