a)
.1320..an

.‘6‘.
IO...

‘69:: o
gknui ,
11:5“ .7.
:0: 3:33... .
, .uflyfoh
. .4.»an haw—V. .
an'Q'iJi- Irf .11.
cxwrflmmuwwflfifvfifi. .
..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Efimmwfiwmgmmflwfi. 4. ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in.
2006

l

LIBRARY

 

 

 

~ Michigan State
Universnty

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

INCOMPLETE URSATZFORMEN TRANSFERENCES
IN THE VOCAL MUSIC OF HEINRICH SCHENKER

presented by

Benajmin McKay Ayotte

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in - Music Theory

 

 

 

 

Major Professor's Signature
3’ , IS - o X

Date

 

MSU is an afiinnative—action, equal—opportunity employer

 

.—-.-._.-— ..-.---n-o--.-.-.---.—-.-.-.--.-.—r—.u-u—uocuun-n--o-.-.--.-

u-.—.—.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._._._._,_

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 KilProleccaPres/CIRC/DateDue Indd

 

INCOMPLETE URSA YZFORAEN TRANSFERENCES
IN THE VOCAL MUSIC OF HEINRICH SCHENKER

By

Benjamin McKay Ayotte

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Muisc Theory

College of Music

2008

ABSTRACT

INCOMPLETE URSA TZFORMEN TRANSFERRENCES
IN THE VOCAL MUSIC OF HEINRICH SCHENKER

By

Benjamin McKay Ayotte

Although his fame now rests on his theoretical works, Heinrich Schenker (1868—1935)
was a composer of sufficient talent to attract the notice of Johannes Brahms and Ferruccio
Busoni, both of whom encouraged and assisted him. Unfortunately, there is a dearth in the
professional literature of material pertaining to Schenker’s professional activities outside of his
theoretical writing. This dissertation proposes to begin to fill this void by providing
transcriptions of a sample of Schenker’s early compositions (four tmpublished vocal works)
with accompanying commentary investigating the relationship between the tonal structures
found in these pieces and the place these structures have in his developing theories of
tonal music. Specifically, I investigate incomplete transferences of the Ursatzformen
involving the auxiliary cadence and back-relating dominant. As a secondary concern, I
show some hidden motivic repetitions in the music against a background of Schenker’s
ideas of monotonality and musical organicism derived from his theoretical works. I
show, through careful analysis of Schenker’s own compositions, how these ideas, far
from being arcane and abstract (as the theoretical descriptions tend to indicate), are living
and vital components of his musical fabric.

Part I of the dissertation will serve as an introduction to Schenker as a composer and to
the theoretical and philosophical bases of the subsequent analysis by surveying the

development of musical organicism throughout his writings. In this section, I include: (I) a

biographical sketch highlighting experiences and relationships pertinent to Schenker’s
development as a composer, an overview of his compositions, and an examination of
contemporaneous critical reaction based on archival research; and (2) an accormt of the genesis
of the concepts of monotonality and musical organicism through Schenker’s theoretical work
illustrated by examples from the standard tonal literature. Part H comprises the analytical
component and consists of: (l) a presentation of the main compositional techniques to be
discussed, namely incomplete transferences of the Ursarzformen, as formd in Schenker’s
writings and illustrated by examples drawn fiom the tonal literature; and Schenker’s own
works; and (2) demonstrations, via analytical commentary and graphic analyses, that several of
Schenker’s unpublished vocal works show his dramatic use of these particular techniques. This
commentary will focus on salient features of the work in question and will examine: (1) the
compositional techniques described above; (2) issues of text setting including use of
programmatic techniques; and (3) Schenker’s setting of a given text vised-v12: that of other
composers of whom he can reasonably be expected to have had knowledge, especially when
structural similarities, as opposed to merely stylistic similarities, are evidenced. Appendices
include copies of the manuscripts and complete transcriptions of Schenker’s music cited in this

study, poetic texts and translations, and supplemental illustrations.

© 2008
Benjamin McKay Ayotte

All Rights Reserved

For Sara,

sine qua non

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During the long process of conceiving and writing this dissertation, I have been
supported and sustained by the faith, hope, and love of my family and friends. To my children,
Victoria, Jonathan, and Benjamin, I offer my love and thanks for their extending to me as much
patience and understanding as their few years would allow while I sat in front of my computer
day afier day surrounded by mountains of papers and many a quaint and curious volume of
Schenkerian lore. To my wife Sara I must offer the utterrnost gratitude (for which my poor
words are grossly insufficient) for her unyielding faith in me, her selfless love for me, and her
fervent hope (as mine) that this project would eventually come to fruition. My parents have
also blessed me with love and support of every kind during these years of struggle, for which I
shall always be grateful. They have provided me with models of kindness, generosity, faith,
perseverance, and grace under pressure. I thank my father in particular for his willingness to
debate the relative merits of French music, for quelling my tendency towards academic elitism,
and for keeping me humble.

In addition to the aydrm love of family, I have been equally blessed by the (pixie love
of friendship in the persons of James H. Wagner and Carmen Aquila, and Michael Newberry
with whom I discussed the basic tenets of this thesis and received encouragement, ideas, and
pracyical advice.

As a tree is known by its fruit, I hope that this fi'uit reflects well upon my tree of
knowledge at whose trunk is the knowledge base provided by Sylvan Kalib, Marilyn Saker,
and Anthony Iannaccone during my undergraduate studies at Eastern Michigan University; a

tree whose first branch leads to Bowling Green State University and diverse musical

vi

experiences with, first and foremost, Vincent Benitez, a wonderful mentor and scholar whose
enthusiasm for twentieth—century music and music theory in general and Messiaen in particular
was contagious. Also with Vincent Corrigan, whose punctiliousness in deciphering Medieval
and Renaissance notation increased my appreciation for those who labor to create perfonning
editions. My tree’s final branch leads back to Michigan and Michigan State University where I
was able to polish my teaching skills as a teaching assistant and later instructor, and be
challenged by the rigors of a doctoral course of study. To the administration, especially Dr.
Frederick Tirns, and later Dr. David Rayl who supported my work financially and allowed the
Ph. D. program to stay open long enough for me to graduate, I remain grateful. To the faculty
who served as my TA supervisors, Bruce Campbell, Alan Gosrnan (now a professor at the
University of Michigan), and Gordon Sly: you served as mentors and offered many practical
suggestions, both in words and through their fine examples, to improve my teaching of music; I
am grateful for your fine examples. To my dissertation committee, Professors Bruce Campbell,
Gordon Sly, Mark Sullivan, and Leigh Van Handel, I thank you for your careful reading of this
document and for your many suggestions for its improvement.

In particular, I owe tremendous thanks to my adviser Gordon Sly for his support,
understanding, and encouragement during my six years at MSU. From my initial recruitment
through the long and circuitous dissertation road, even when my family responsibilities made it
difficult or impossible for me to work on the dissertation for months at a time, he never lost
faith in me. Quite the contrary, he was always empathetic and understanding. I am grateful for
his entrusting to me the role of editorial assistant for his essay collection Keys to the Drama. I
look forward to the published volume as much as he!

soli deo gloria!

vii

PREFACE

The work of Heinrich Schenker has provided the music-theoretical community with
powerful analytical tools and philosophical underpinnings with which to explore the music of
the so-called common—practice period of tonal musical art; the period during which music that
composed-out a diatonic background flourished. The fundamental question that I wish to
explore in this dissertation involves using the young Schenker’s musical works as a lens
through which to view his later theoretical apparatus. I hope to show that Schenker’s
analytical method is born out of a composer thinking about the firndamental questions of
tonality and not out of abstractness or arbitrariness and certainly not out of a scientific (and
therefore inartistic) approach to analysis that is divorced fiorn musical practice.

From my examination of all of Schenker’s compositional manuscripts, I have selected
four songs that have one feature in common: tonal designs that lend themselves to varying
interpretations which suggest that Schenker was more closely allied with his progressive
Viennese contemporaries than his theoretical writings would tend to suggest. I hope to show
that, despite the novelty of the designs in these works, Schenker’s concern for unified voice-
leading structure is strongly in evidence in his youthful compositional efforts. His desire to
unify his musical compositions with a solid voice-leading structure that could support the
tonal design suggested by the text and by his compositional instinct yielded some very

creative solutions indeed.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... xii
KEY TO SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................... xv
PART ONE.
HEINRICH SCHENKER AS COMPOSER .............................................................................. 1—50
1.1. Biographical Sketch of Heinrich Schenker and a Discussion of His Relationships
with other Musicians in Vienna ..... - ........ 1
l .2 Overview of Schenker’ 5 Music and its Reception ..................................................... 10
1.3. On Organic Theory 1n General ................................................ --28
1 4. Development of the Organic Metaphor 1n Schenker’ 3 Theoretical Writings ......... 32
PART TWO.
INCOMPLETE TRANSFERENCES OF THE URSA TZFORMEN AS USED IN
SCHENKER’S VOCAL MUSIC .............................................................................. 51— 107
2.1. Introduction .......................................................................... - ..... 51
2. 2. The Auxiliary Cadence as an Incomplete Ursatzform transference ................. 55
2. 3. The Back- Relating Dominant as an Incomplete Ursatzform transference ...... 78
2.4. Hidden Motivic Repetition as an agent of organic coherence 86
2.5. The Analytical Problems of Directional Tonality ................................................ 89
2.6. Musical-Textual Symbolism and Narrative of the Op. 6 Song Texts .................... 104
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 108
APPENDIX A.
MANUSCRIPTS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS ............................................................................. 111
Agnes
A.l Manuscript ............................................................................................................. 112
A2 Transcription ......................................................................................................... 114
Heimat
A.3 Manuscript ............................................................................................................. 116
AA Transcription ......................................................................................................... 120
Nachtgrufl
A.5 Manuscript ............................................................................................................. 127
A.6 Transcription ......................................................................................................... 132
Wanderers Nachtlied
A.7 Manuscript ............................................................................................................. 140
A8 Transcription ......................................................................................................... 143

ix

APPENDIX B.

 

SONG TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS ..................................................................................... 147
B] Agnes ............................................................................................................................. 148
B2 Heimat ........................................................................................................................... 148
3.3 Nachtgrzfi ..................................................................................................................... 149
8.4 Wanderers Nachtlied ................................................................................................... 149
APPENIDIX C.
SUPPLEMENTAL ILLUSTRATIONS ....................................................................................... 150
C. 1 Letter of Schoenberg cited on p. xx ........................................................................... 151
C. 2 Photograph of Louis Savart, Fritz Kreisler, Eduard Gartner, Hans Redlich
and Arnold Schoenberg ...... -- .............................................................. 152
C. 3 Concert Program of 26 January 1905 ........................................................................ 153
C. 4 Concert Program of 19 March1902 ........................................................................... 153
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................... 154

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1 Schenker’s Published Compositions, ca. 1892—1901 12
1.2 Ludwig Jacobowski’s Ausklang ................................................................................................. 16
1.3 Unpublished Songs with Opus Numbers ............... 22
1.4 Unpublished Vocal Music without Opus Numbers - - 23
1.5 Unpublished Instrumental Compositions 25
1.6 Contemporaneous Performances of Schenker’s Works 26
1.7 Stufen available in the Major-Minor System 35
2.1 Form of Nachtgrufl ...................................................................................................... 59
2.2 Structural versus Literal Tonic Beginning - 60
2.3 Form of Wanderers Nachtlied ..... 66
2.4 Heimat tonal structtn'e with narrative implications- - 99
B.1 Agnes by Eduard Morike (1804—75) ......................................................................... 148
3.2 Heimat by Richard Dehmel (1863—1920) 148
B3 Nachtgrufl by Johann Eichendorff(l788—1857) ....................................................... 149
8.4 Wanderers Nachtlied by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749—1832) 149

xi

 

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Mozart, Sonata K. 545, mm. 1—9 ............................................................................................... 38
1.2 Schenker’s subject analysis of 1909 ........................................................................................... 39
1.3 Schenker’s subject analysis of 1935 ........................................................................................... 39
1.4 Brahms, Variations on a theme by Handel op. 24 .................................................................... 41
1.5 Chopin Nocturne op. 27/2, mm. 41—45 ..................................................................................... 43
2.1 The Three Ursatzformen .............................................................................................. 51
2.2 Comparing Complete and Incomplete Ursatzformen .................................................. 53
2.3 Mendelssohn’s Wedding March, mm. 1—4 with Schenker’s analysis .................................... 57
2.4 NachlgrrgB, mm. 1-4 ..................................................................................................................... 58
2.5 NachtgrrgB, mm. 1-4 as auxiliary cadence ................................................................................. 58
2.6 Beethoven, First Symphony, mm. 1—12, I—V reading ........................................................... 61
2.7 Beethoven, First Symphony, mm. 1—12, aux. cad. Reading ................................................... 63
2.8 Example of elided dissonance .................................................................................................... 64
2.9 Beethoven, op. 90 Sonata, mm. 1—28 ...................................................................................... 64
2.10 Schenker, F S fig. 109a] ............................................................................................................ 65
2.11 Beethoven Op. 90: foreground reading ................................................................................... 66
2.12 Schenker, Wanderers Nachtlied showing tonal ambiguity ................................................... 66
2.13 Wanderers Nachtlied, mm. 1—6 ................................................................................. 67
2.14 Two Interpretations of mm. 1—22 .............................................................................. 69
2.15 Measures 22—27 showing parallel construction ......................................................... 70
2.16 Background of Wanderers Nachtlied ......................................................................... 71

xii

2.17 F minor reading of Wanderers Nachtlied ................................................................... 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.18 Chopin, E minor prelude op. 28/4, voice-leading graph ............................................ 74
2.19 Schenker’s graph of Strauss’s Blue Danube Waltz - - ............................ 74
2.20 Schubert’s setting of Wanderers Nachtlied ................................................................ 75
2.21 Schenker’s analysis of Chopin’s Prelude op. 28/2 ..................... 76
2.22 Chopin, Mazurka op. 30/2, background ..................................................................... 77
2.23 Back-relating dominant as single chord ..................................................................... 79
2.24 voice-leading interpretation [of figure 3.5] ................................................................ 79
2.25 Beethoven, theme from Ninth symphony, IV ............................................................. 80
2.26 Schenker’s Agnes op. 8, no. 1 with Chordal Analysis - - -- - 82
2.27 Agnes, mm. 1—5 showing aux. divider ....................................................................... 82
2.28 Agnes, mm. 6—12, foreground graph .......................................................................... 83
2.29 Brahms’s setting of Agnes (strophe 1, mm. 1—17 with analysis) ............................. 85
2.30 Voice-leading graph of Brahms’s Agnes op. 59/5 ..................................................... 86
2.31 Beethoven op. 2, no. 1, mm. 21—34 ............................................................................ 88
2.32 Mozart K. 333, 1, mm. 23-30 showing hidden repetition .......................................... 88
2.33 Schenker’s graph of Chopin’s Scherzo, op. 31 ....................................................................... 92
2.34 Mahler, Wenn mein Schatz Hochzeit macht, G minor reading ............................................. 93
2.35 D Minor reading of Schatz .......... - .................................. - ........ 93
2.36 Heimat mm. 1—16 (Strophe 1) .................................................................................................. 95
2.37 Heimat mm. 29—50 (Strophe 2) ................................................................................................ 96
2.38 Heimar, summary of tonal motion .......................................................................... 97
2.39 Heimat, third—divider versus auxiliary cadence interpretation .............................................. 98

xiii

2.40 Heimat mm. 1—18 foreground graph .............................................................. 101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.41 Heimat, mm. 17—28 (transition) ........................................................................................... 102
2.42 Heimat mm. 18—51, foreground graph ................................................................................ 103
2.43 Heimat mm. 52—69 (coda) - - .............. - 104
A1.Agnes op. 8, no. 1 (manuscript) ......................................... - - .......... 1 12
A2 Agnes (transcription) ............................................................................................ -_ 1 14
A3 Heimat op. 6, no. 1 (manuscript) ............................................................................................. 116
AA Heimat (transcription) ....... - 120
A5 Nachtgrufl op. 6, no. 2 (manuscript) ............................................. - - ........ 127
A.6 Nachtgngli (transcription) ......................................................................................................... 132
A7 Wanderers Nachtlied op. 6, no. 3 (manuscript) ...... - - -- 140
A8 Wanderers Nachtlied (transcription) ............................................................ - 143
CI letter of Schoenberg to Hugo Leichtentritt ........................ - - ................... 150
C. 2 Picture of Louis Savart, Fritz Kreisler, Eduard Gartmr, Hans Redlich, and Arnold
Schoenberg (violoncello).... - - 151
C3 Concert Program of 26 January 1905 ........................................................ - 153
C4 Concert Program of 19 March 1902 ........................................................................................ 153

xiv

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

References to Schenker ’s Writings

Following what is by now an established convention in the Schenkerian literature, I will be
using the following rubric of abbreviation for Schenker’s published theoretical works:

 

Work* Original cited as Translation cited as

The Art of Performance - AP

Ein Beitrag zur Omarnentik BO BO-Eng
Hannonielehre HL HL-Eng

Chromatische F antasie und Fuge CFF CF F-Eng

Kontrapunkt I, II KPT I, H CPT I, II

Beethovens Neunte Sinfonie BNS BNS-Eng
Erlauterungsausgabe Op. 109 EA 109 -

Erlauterungsausgabe Op. 110 EA 110 -

Erlauterungsausgabe Op. 1 11 EA 1 11 -

Erlauterungsausgabe Op. 101 EA 101 EA 101-Eng

Der Tonwille 1—10 TWl, TW2, etc. TWl-Eng, TWZ-Eng, etc.
Meisterwerk I, II, HI MWI, MW2, etc. MWl-Eng, MW 2-Eng
Fiinf Urlinie Tafeln FUT FUT

Oktave und Quinten OQ OQ-Eng

Der freie Satz FS FC

References to Archival Materials

J C = Oswald Jonas Memorial Collection, University of California, Riverside.

Format: JC XXII: 5 = Box 22, folio 5 (according to the Lang/Kunselman
catalogue) available at http://content.cdib.0rg/view?doc1d=tflj49n9zc

OC = Ernst Oster Collection of the Papers of Heinrich Schenker, New York Public
Library. Format: 0C H: 6 = File 2, page 6 (According to Robert Kosovsky’s
catalogue)

*see references for complete bibliographic citation

XV

PART ONE: HEINRICH SCHENKER AS COMPOSER
1.1. Biographical Sketch of Heinrich Schenker and His Relationships with Other

Musicians in Vienna.

Heinrich Schenker was born on 19 June 1868 at Wisniowzyk (Galicia) in western
Ukraine. Little is known of his early musical influences or formative years. In 1884, Schenker
registered at the University of Vienna to study law, completing a doctorate of jurisprudence in
1890.1 In 1887 he began studying composition with Franz Krenn (1816—1897) and Johann
Fuchs, harmony and counterpoint with Anton Bruckner (1824—1896), and piano with Ernst
Ludwig at the Vienna Conservatory. Schenker also studied choral pedagogy.2 Between 1891
and 1898, his most fertile period in terms of his musical output, Schenker contributed concert
reviews and short essays on musical and cultural subjects to the periodicals Die Zukunfi of
Berlin (eighteen articles), Musikalisches Wochenblatt of Leipzig (seven articles), Die Zeit of
Vienna (forty-five articles), and Wiener Abendoost (one article).3 It was through this musical
criticism, as well as his performances of his own and others’ music, that he became known
among the Viennese musical establishment. On 10 May 1897, Schenker wrote Max Kalbeck:

I dare not flatter myself to assume that you have heeded my

literary attempts in Harden's Zukunfi,‘ in the Viennese Neuer
Revue, or in Die Zeit. It would mean so much more to me,

 

' For a discussion of Schenker’s legal studies, see Wayne Alpem, “Music Theory as a Mode of Law: The
Case of Heinrich Schenker, Esq.,” Cardozo Law Review 20/5—6 (1999): 1459—1511.

2(“Choralttbung,” “Choralschule”) Hellmut Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker: Nach Tagebficher undBriefen in der
Oswald Jonas Memorial Collection, University of California, Riverside (Hildesheirn: Georg Olrns Verlag, 1985),
5-6

3 The texts of the articles have been re-published in Hellrnut Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker als Essayist und
Kritiker: Gasammelte Auffsdtze and Kleinere Berichte aus dem Jahren 1891-1901 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms
Verlag, 1990). For an insightful discussion of Schenker’s early critical work vis-a-vis Hanslick and other writers of
the time, see Kevin Karnes’s dissertation, “Heinrich Schenker and Musical Thought in Late Nineteenth—Centmy
Vienne” (Brandeis University, 2001).

4Maximilien Harden (1861-1927) was the editor of Die Zukurgfi, to which Schenker contributed some eighteen
articles between 1892 and 1897.

however, if you wanted to do me the honor of hearing
compositions of mine, which Brahms, Goldmark, d’Albert and
Busoni have recognized and praised, perhaps too much I do
not ask you to trouble yourself with the thought, as I implore

your prominent literary help. The only thing left for me to do is

to introduce myself as a composer in the circle of the very best

even before d'Albert plays something of mine. May I hope? 5
As his letter indicates, Schenker’s compositions attracted the notice of Brahms (1833—1897),
who subsequently recommended Schenker to Sirnrock (Berlin) and Breitkopf and Hartel
(Leipzig). Breitkopf would go on to publish four opuses of Schenker’s in 1898 and 1901 and
Sirnrock published one in 1899. Schenker became personally acquainted with Brahms upon
being introduced by Eugen d’Albert.6 After complimenting Schenker’s pianistic abilities,
Brahms examined what was to become Schenker’s Fantasie op. 2, declared it “more orchestral
than pianistic” but recommended it for publication, nonetheless.7 In the year of Brahms’s
death, Schenker published obituaries in Neue Revue (bd. 8/1, 1897) and Die Zukunfi (bd. 8/ 19,
1897). In the latter article, he recalls “once when I had occasion to be telling [Brahms] about
Bruckner, and when, in the course of my accormt, I repeatedly mentioned the names Bruckner

and Hugo Wolf in connection with one another, he interrupted me suddenly and corrected me

with irony: “Really? I thought that Hugo Wolfwas a completely isolated summit! [eine Spitze

 

slch darf mir wohl nicht schmeicheln, anzrmehmen, daB Sie meine schriftstellerischen Versuche in Harden’s
Zulrury‘i, in derWienerNeuenrevueoderinderZeitbeachtethaben? Es lagemirabermehrdaran, wenn Siemirdie
Ehre erweisen wollten, Compositionen von mir anzuhOren, llber die sowohl Brahms, als Goldmark, d’Albert und
Busoni sehr, vielleicht allzusehr anerkennend sich aussprachen. Ich bitte Sie, durch den Gedanken sich gar nicht zu
beum'uhigen, als bate ich implicite um Ihre markante schriftstellerische Hilfe. Mir ist nur datum zu thun, im Kreis
der Allerbesten nrich als Komponist enzufilhren, noch ehe d’Albert von mir einiges spielt. Darfich hofl'en? Cited in
Federhofer 1985, 15-16. Unless otherwise specified, all translations firm the German are mine.

“D’AlbertwasamosoperfonnerandpmfessorofpianoatflreViemaconservamrymrdapupfl ofFranzLiszt.
He was also quite famous for his compositions, including eighteen (Wagner-influenced) operas, the most famous of
which is probably Tie/land (1903).

7Heinrich Schenker, “Erinnerungen an Brahms,” Deutsche Zeitschrrfi 46 (May 1933), 475-482 cited in Patrick
Miller, “The Published Music of Heimich Schenker: An Historical-Archival Introduction,” Journal of
Musicological Research 10 (1991), 181. The Fantasy was subsequently published by Breitkopf in 1897.

fiir sich]”8 Such ironic and sarcastic comments were, apparently, typical of Brahms in his later
years and were often misunderstood by the recipients. Schenker later wrote in his critical
edition of Beethoven’s op. 111, “not only did the recipients of [Brahms’s criticism], to their
own detriment, fail to understand the master’s wisdom, but they began to revile him almost as
soon as they had left his home, proclaiming him to be an intolerable, cruel artist, even a boor.”9
Schenker, who idolized Brahms, described him as “the last master of German composition” in
the dedication to his 1912 monograph on Beethoven’s ninth symphony (see below).

The Dutch baritone Johannes Messchaert (1857—1922) learned of Schenker through his
concert reviews in the Austrian press, and enlisted him as his accompanist for a concert tour,
which further established Schenker’s reputation as a pianist and composer. Between 7 January
and 4 February 1899, Schenker toured with Messchaert, giving concerts in Klagenfurt, Graz,
Triest, Briinn, Lemberg, Vienna, Budapest (two), Linz, and Aussig. In addition to the songs of
Grieg, Brahms, Schubert and Wolf, the programs featured two of Schenker’s compositions: the
Legende movement from his Fantasia, op. 2, and one of his piano pieces, op. 4.lo

Busoni initiated contact with Schenker upon hearing the praises that Karl Goldmark”
lavished on him. Busoni writes, in a letter of 1897 “it would be — from everything Master

Goldmark tells me of you —— a great pleasure to become acquainted with you personally.”‘2

 

8William Pastille, “Schenker’s Brahms,” The American Brahms Society Newsletter 5/2 (1987), l. Pastille’s citation
of Die Zukunfi 8 disagrees with Federhofer 1990 who cites Zukwy‘i 19. Brahms is quoted as having said, “So, ich
denke, Hugo Wolf ist eine Spitze fllr sich?” (F ederhofer 1990, 235).

9Cited in Pastille 1987, 2. This passage is not to be found in Jonas’s edition of EA 1 l l

10The travel plan and content of the concerts is found in the JC XXXV: 5 entitled Osterreichische Tourne'e des
Herm Professor Johannes Messchaert, cited in F ederhofer 1985, 18

llGoldmark (1830-1915) was a composer of operas and champion (although not a radical one) of Wagner’s works.
His most successful work was Die Konigin von Saba, seen as a “musical counterpoint to the orientalistic paintings
of Hans Makart and the monumental Viennese fin—de-siécle buildings in the Ringstrasse.” (Grove, 2000)

Busoni offered Schenker the prediction that “his compositions, because of the great subjectivity
that characterizes them, will not be popular hits.”l3 Busoni is known to have given Schenker
compositional guidance on his op. 2 Fantasie and performed his Syrian Dances in an orchestral
transcription.

Busoni and Schenker did not collaborate on any ftuther projects, but remained
interested in each other’s work tmtil the appearance of Busoni’s Entwwfeiner Neuen Asthetik
der T onkunst (1907). In his Kontrapunkt I of 1910 Schenker criticizes Busoni, saying. “it is
inconceivable . . . how artists and theorists in our midst (for example, Saint-Saéns, Busoni,
Bellerman, Capellerr, A. J. Polak, L. Riemann, and others) can call for a return to the old church
modes and exotic scales as a means of expanding our musical horizon. This certainly belongs
among the most ironic and shameful characteristics of the present confusion and lack of
orientation.” He goes on, recommending that “those artists and theorists who long so much for
other systems . . . save their energy for more worthwhile matters.”l4

Busoni, in a letter of 1910 to Emil Hertzka,15 writes that he “look[s] forward to
receiving Schenker’s study of the Chromatic Fantasia.” This publication, however, deepened

the rift between himself and Schenker for, upon examining it, he lamented, “I scarcely

understand Schenker anymore. We used to be good musical fiiends. This manner of gaping

 

12Es wird mir — nach Allenr, was Meister Goldmark von lhnen erzahlt — eine groBe freude sein, Sie persbnlich
kennenzulemen. Federhofer 1985, 77.

l3Ihre Compositionen, dank der groBen Subiuktivitaet, die in ihnen henscht, nicht eben mit einem Schlag populaer
werden (Emphasis original). M1, 78.

l4[CPT I: 21, 32] Wie nun aber umgekehrt in unsere Mitte von Kitnstlem, von Theoretikem gar der Ruf nach
den alten Kirschtonarten oder den exotischen Tonleitern, als nach einer Erweiterung unseres musikalischen
Horizontes ausgehen konnte, ist unbegreiflich, tmd diese Tatsache gehdrt ganz sicher zu den ironischsten und
beschamendsten Merkmalen der gegenwtlrtigen Zenfitung und allgemeined lnstinktlosigkeit.” “mdchte ich den
Kunstlem und Theoretikem, die so dtlrstend nach anderen Systemen verlangen, dringend empfehlen, ihre Energie
fitr lohnendere Gegenstande aufzusparen. (KPT I: 33, 47)

‘5 Emil Hertzka (1869-1932) was the managing director of Universal Edition as of 1907.

open-mouthed at a master’s earthly achievements is, to my mind, too uncritical. What would
such a ‘researcher’ (who has written 30 pages of close print about a 15-page keyboard work)
have to do if he were to work through Bach’s complete compositions? However — music and
music research are two different matters. Let us allow Schenker his confiibution.”l 6

The correspondence between Schoenberg and Schenker fiom September through
November 1903 also refers to the orchestration of the syrische Ta'nze.l7 Subsequent
correspondence reveals Schoenberg irnportuning Schenker tojoin the Wiener Ansorge-
Verein,18 later to become the Vereinigung schaflbnder T onla'instler, an organization in Vienna
devoted to modern music. Judging from the correspondence, Schenker refirsed all invitations
to their meetings. The relationship between the two men became resentful and confrontational
in later years with each attacking the other in their respective writings. Schenker virulently
attacks modern music and culture in his prefaces to Kontrapunla I (1910) and Beethovens
Neunte Sinfonie (1912). Schoenberg responded, in his own Harmonielehre of 191 1 that “what
he says there is not much better than the complaining old pensioner [Invaliden-Geraunze]
speaking about ‘the good old days’.”19

Schoenberg wrote a polemical essay of his own in 1923 where he criticizes the

“Spenglers, 2° Schenkers, and so forth . . . [as] totally lacking in creative talent” and “merely

 

l‘K’Anthony Beaumont, ed. F ermccio Busoni: Selected Letters (London, Boston: Faber and Faber, 1987), 409.

17The letters from Schoenbergto Schenker and transcribed and translated in Charlotte Erwin and Bryan R. Sirnms,
“Schoenberg's Correspondence with Heinrich Schenker,” Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 5/1 (1981):
23-43. Schenker’s replies, unfortunately, are not preserved in either legacy.

1"Named for Conrad Ansorge (1862-1930) 8 Berlin pianist and song composer.

19Arnold Schoenberg Harmonielehre, 1911,454n, cited in Bryan R. Sirnms, “New Documents in the Schoenberg-
Schenker Polemic,” Perspectives of New Music 16/ 1 (1977), 1 1 l.

20Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) was a philosopher and social critic whose work The Decline of the West (1918-22)
compares the history of civilizations to the life cycles of organisms (e.g., every culture passes through the age-

thrashing about with tastefirl turns of phrase.” He concludes by repenting ever of having
praised Schenker, saying, “I so enjoy paying due tribute, or tempering criticism by dwelling on
whateverthereistopraise—buthereIalmostbelievethatlarninthewrong, arrdthatthis case
calls for action with a firm hand, or even, perhaps, foot.”21 Nevertheless, it is known that
Schoenberg possessed and studied a number of Schenker’s works at least through 1924.
Furthermore, he listed Schenker’s works first (“vor allem”) in a letter of 3 December 1938 to
Hugo Leichtentritt listing “German writers on music who had interested him.” Particularly
telling is his listing Schenker’s works as “before all the others” followed immediately by
“although 1 disagree with almost everything [in them].”22

As an advocate of “absolute music,” Schenker felt a special disdain for Richard Strauss,
both as a conductor and composer. In his 1897 article “Unpersonliche Musik,” he wrote
contemptuously of Strauss, as the foremost representative of “program music,” for attempting
to “reproduce Nietzsche’s ideas and emotions in the symphonic poem Also Sprach
Zarathustra” before coming to terms with his own musical individuality.” In a diary entry of
29 October 1906 regarding a concert that Strauss conducted, he wrote, “with explicit exposition
of his weakness, his ignorance of the synthesis and the lack of a true deep expression and

creative organization, [Strauss commits] violence against the best pieces everywhere.” Of

 

phasesoftheindividualrmn. Eachhasitschildlroodyouflrmanhoodandoldage. Foracomparisonofthe
worldviews of Schenker and Spengler, see Byron Almén, “Prophets of the Decline: The Worldviews of

Heinrich Schenker and Oswald Spengler.” Indiana Theory Review 17/1 (1996): 1-24.

2"”Ihose who Comphun About the Decline” in Style and Idea: Selected Writings ofAmold Schoenberg ed
Leonard Stein (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984): 203-4.

22“vor' allem: (obwohl ich fast allen nicht eirlvelstanden bin) Heinrich Schenkers samtliche Schriften” cited in
Jonathan M. Dlmsby, “Schoenberg and the Writings of Schenker,” Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Instimte 2
(1977), 26. The works Schoenberg owned, which contain many glosses and marginalia are: Ein Beitrag zur
Omamentik, Harmonielehre, Kontraprmlrt, Beethovens IX SWonie, and Der Tonwille, vol 1. The letter is
reproducedinAppendix B, page 138.

23Heinrich Schenker, “Unpersbnlichc Musik,” Neue Revue 8/1 (1897): 464-468, cited in Federhofer 1985, 219.

Strauss’s tone poems, Schenker seems to have admired Tod und Verklarung and Till
Eulenspiegel. His diary entries mention his finding Zu‘ge (linear progressions) in Tod und
Verklc‘imng, and describing Till Eulenspiegel as “quite ingenious” [wirklich genial]. Don Juan,
however, was dismissed as “rnelodically banal and corny [kitschig]. ” Schenker disliked the
Sinfonia Domestica (“incomplete artistry; incomplete instinct”), calling Strauss’s compositional
style “papier-maché simplicity.” 2“ Schenker attended the Viennese premiere ofSanme,
recording the following in his diary for 25 May 1907:

On the stage, however, without such background, without

perceptible prerequisites and causes, merely standing on its own,

the violent point of the action is not at all able to work, let alone

to shock. The action remains internally distant to the spectator,
and only boredom is the effect (provided certainly infection of
the nerves remain through complaint and the same play). The
music of Strauss is always, in its “motives,” (a bar in length and
even shorter), always repeating the same trick, the trick of the
tension of the neighbor notes—against the whole form an
unparalleled triviality. Bad passing motions, etc.25

later, in Kontrapunkt I, Schenker writes that “despite heaviest orchestration, despite
noisy and pompous gestures, despite “polyphony” and “cacophony,” the proudest products of
Richard Strauss are inferior — in terms of true musical spirit and authentic inner complexity of

texture, form, and articulation — to a string quartet of Haydn, in which external grace hides the

 

24Federhofer 1985, 257

2’ Aufder Bilhne aber ohne solchen l-Iintergrlmd, ohne wahmehmbar Voraussetzrmgen lmd Ursachen bloss auf sich
selbst gestellt, vermag die grauenvolle Pointe del- Handllmg ueberhaupt gar nicht 211 wirkerl, geschweige zu
erschuettern. Die Handlung blelbt dem Zuschauer innerlich feme, und nur Langeweile ist die Wirkung (sofern
freilich Ansteckung der Nerven durch Reklarne und der gleichen ausser Spiel bleibt). — Die Musik von Strauss ist in
ihren "Motiven" (ein taktigen und noch kuerzeren!) irnmer wie der auf delselben Trick gestellt, den Trick der
Spanmmg der Nebennoten, -in den breiteren dagegen von einer Trivialitaet ohnegleichen. Schlechte Durchgaenge
usw. Federhofer 1985, 258

inner complexity, just as color and fragrance of a flower render mysterious to humans the

undiscovered, great miracles of creation.”26

Schenker never held an academic post; rather, he supported himself and his wife
through private teaching in piano and theory. Many of his students were influential musicians:
scholars and pedagogues, conductors, and composers, notably F elix-Eberhard von Cube
(1903—1987), John Petrie Dunn (1878—1933), Wilhelm Furtwangler (1886—1954), Anthony
von Hoboken (1887—1983), Oswald Jonas (1897—1978), Erwin Ratz (1898—1973), Hermann
Roth (1882—1934), Felix Salzer (1904—198Q, Otto Vrieslander (1880—1950), Hans Weisse
(1892—1940), and Victor Zuckerkandl (1896—1965). Schenker’s influence is evident in their
writing and teaching.

Furtwangler was particularly impressed with Schenker’s ideas on Beethoven’s ninth
symphony, and his later writings contain many references to Schenker. He was known to have
consulted Schenker routinely on scores he was preparing, and the two men enjoyed an amiable
correspondence. The idea that resonated most powerfully for Furtwangler was the concept of
F ernhoren (“distance-hearing”). In 1954 he wrote:

What Schenker places at the center of all of his observations is
the concept of F emho'ren in music . . . F ernhoren (i.e., hearing
applied over great spans to fundamental relationships that often
spread across many pages), characterizes for Schenker great
classical German music. This is the reason Schenker began
again with this classical music, referred to it again and again,
and never grew tired of demonstrating its organic superiority to
what is considered music today. With the idea of advancing
F emhoren, Schenker forged a platfonn, beyond all historical
tests, beyond all subjective preferences, and which, pr0perly

grasped, will be just as demonstrably certain as other
contemporary scientific judgments.27

 

“CW 1: xxi.

In 1927, Schenker founded the Wiener Archiv/fir Photogramme musikalischer
Meisterhandschrifien with Otto Erich Deutsch (1883—1967) and Anthony van Hoboken.28 The
archive was established in the Austrian National Library to collect and preserve manuscripts of
the master composers for use by scholars. The importance that Schenker places on manuscript
study for performers and scholars cannot be overstated. Schenker believed that the composer’s
own notation fiequently provided clues to the structure of the work. These clues were often
destroyed by modern editors interpolating their own expression marks, altering slurring and
bowing markings, and in some cases even changing notes or bar lines. The establishment of the
Photogramme Archiv made the manuscripts of various composers available in an attempt to
counter this practice. Oswald Jonas, a disciple of Schenker’s and important proponent of his
work, maintained that “most people look upon musical autographs as a hobby or, at most, as
historical documents preserved from [sic] matters of piety.” He goes on to describe how “the
master-works are far too often left in their practical reproduction to those whose musical
training and instinct are far too imperfect to allow them to understand the depth ofthe work.”29

Schenker died on 14 January 1935 with his main work, Der fieie Satz, still in
manuscript form. In his Last Will and Testament (1929), Schenker left everything to his wife

and asked that his supporters help her, for he said “my work is also her work.” In a second

 

27Was Schenker in den rnittelpunkt aller seiner Betrachtungen stellt, ist der Begrifl“ des Femhbrens in der Musik . . .
Das Femhbren, das heiBt das Hbren, das Ausgerichtetsein auf weite Feme, auf einen groBen, oft viele Seiten
weggehenden Zusammenhand, kennzeichnet fitr Schenker die groBe klassische deutsche Musik, und es ist dies der
Grund, warurn Schenker irnmer wieder von dieser klassischen Musik ausging, irnmer wieder auf sie hinweis und
nich mitde wurde, ihre organische Uberlegenheit i'lber das, was heute als Musik gilt, nachzuweisen, Mit dem Begrifl'
der Forderung des Femhbrens hat Schenker cine Plattfonn geschaffen, genau so sicher zu wissenschafllicher
Erkenntnis werden wird, wie die Geschichte andered wissenschaftlicher Erkenntrlisse unserer Zeit. Wilhelm
Furtwangler, Ton und Wort, Brockhaus (Wiesbaden), 1954:201-202.

28Deutsch was Hoboken’s music librarian from 192e1935; he was also considered the leading authority on
Schubert Hoboken was a collector of early editions of music, and most famous for his catalogue of Haydn’s works.

29Oswald Jonas, “The Photogramm-Archives in Vienna.” Music and Letters 15/4 (Oct. 1934), 344-45.

document (1934), he requested that his epitaph be “Here rests one who understood the soul of
music, who revealed its laws in the spirit of the masters, as none before him.”30 His body was
interred in the Central Cemetery in Vienna}1 Upon his death, his wife made a list of his
possessions, including numerous unfinished projects. These include notes for Der fieie Satz
and Die Kunst des Vortrags, a treatise on performance. Other unfinished projects included
articles on thoroughbass and numerous analytical sketches.32 She also divided Schenker’s
literary estate among several of his students. The greater portion of Schenker’s literary estate
was given to Oswald Jonas and Ernst Oster. Smaller collections may be found in the legacies

of Felix Salzer and Rheinhard Oppel.
1.2. Overview of Schenker’s Music and its Reception
Part I: Schenker ’s Published Music

Patrick Miller, in the only article-length source dedicated to Schenker’s compositions,
notes that “[Schenker’s] published compositions, which were printed between 1892 and 1901,
consist of seven works, which represent an assimilation of a wide range of musical styles with a
predominance of minor keys and ternary form” and that “a close examination of his
compositions reveals that prior to the establishment of his reputation as a theorist, Schenker had

absorbed many of the stylistic features of the tonal music which he was later to explain

 

30i-Iier ruht, der die Seele der Musik vemommen, ihre Gesetze im Sinne der gnoBen verktlndet, wie keiner vor ihm.
Federhofer 1985, 37.

3'In an essay-review entitled “Current Issues in Schenkerian Analysis,” Musical Quarterly 76/2 (Summer
1992): 242-263, Timothy Jackson gives very precise directions for those interested in visiting Schenker’s
gravesite. Pictures exist in the booklet from the Schenker exhibition in Vienna, Heinrich Schenker als
Rebel! und Visionc'ir, ed. Evelyn Fink (Verlag Lafite: Vienna, 2003), 60.

32this list is preserved in 0c 1.

10

theoretically.”33 He goes on to say that the compositions themselves reveal an “introspective
brooding, emotional quality” and feature “thick textures with a predominance of octave
doublings, frequent emphasis of lower registers, harmonic ambiguity, and striking voice-
leading effects.”34 In summary, he writes that “the published compositions succinctly reflect
not only Schenker’s thorough assimilation of the German tonal tradition, but also reveal an
individual musical sensibility and a discerning mind that would later investigate that tradition
from a new theoretical point of view.”3 5
Schenker’s published compositions employ a variety of styles and compositional
techniques reflecting his close study of the German masters. His published works include a
fantasia (op. 2), solo songs (op. 3), 36 seven character pieces (opp. 1 and 4), inventions (op. 5), a
part song (op. 7/3), and a set of Landler (op. 9) as well as the Syrian Dances mentioned above.
Patrick Miller describes each of the published works in terms of its stylistic characteristics and
speculates on the influence of other composers on Schenker. He focuses in particular on
Schumann, especially the Toccata op. 7 and Fantasia op. 17, whose influence is corroborated in
both Schenker’s correspondence and his diary entries. In fact, Schenker praises Schumann

when describing, in a letter to Julius Rontgen, his own compositional style evidenced in his

opp. 3 and 5:

 

3 3 Patrick Miller, “The Published Music of Heinrich Schenker: An Historical-Archival Introduction,” Journal of
Musicological Research 10 (1991), 177-78. Emphasis mine. This point will be demonstrated through the analyses
of Part I].

34m, 131-32.

35lh_id., 194.

36A work for accompanied mixed chorus, “Mondnacht,” bears “op. 3, Hefi 1, no. 1” on its front page (JC

XXII:2). One can speculate that it belongs more properly with Schenker’s other works for mixed chorus
grouped by him as op. 7 (though the other op. 7 works are unaccompanied)

ll

From everything I’ve sent, it will be obvious to you that I take no pleasure
in getting wrapped up in enharmonicism and chromaticism, as people are
so fond of doing today in the most childish of ways. The reason for all the
present carrying on is the following view of mine: No one has such a
brilliant sense of tonality that he is able to write with such brilliant,
multifaceted inventiveness (and, in turn, in such multifaceted forms) as,
e.g., Schumann.37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opus lI‘itle Publisher Date Dedicatee
1 Zwei Clavierstficke Doblinger 1892 Julius Epstein
2 Fantasie fiir Pianoforte Breitkopf 1898 Feruccio Busoni
3 Sechs Lieder Breitkopf 1901 [none]
4 F tinf Klavierstticke Breitkopf 1898 Feruccio Busoni
5 Zweistimmige Inventionen Breitkgf 1901 Irene Mayerhofer
7/3 Vortiber38 Unknown Unknown [none]
10 Landler Simrock 1899 Wilhelm Kux
[9]39 Sgische Tanze Wieinberger n.d. Alphons von Rothschild

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.1 Schenker’s Published Compositions, 1892—1901

Opus I:ZweiClavierst12cke

Marc Rochester, in a recent review of the reissue of Schenker’s op. 1 notes that Schenker “had
been a fairly successful composer.” He writes, “both the Etude and Capriccio are lively pieces
showing little of the dryness so often a feature of late l9‘h-century German piano music. That
Schenker was a pupil of Bruckner is clear in the harmonic language, but beyond that much of

the melodic and rhythmic shape shows that had he pursued a career as a composer he would

 

37 Aus Allem Eingesandten aber werden Sie ersehen, dass es mir kein Spass ist, mit Enharmonik u
Chromatik umzuspringen, so, wie man es geme in kindischester Weise heute thut. Die Ursache alles
heutigen Treibens ist meiner Ansicht nach wohl die: {6} Keiner hat ein so geniales Tonartgefilhl, keine so
geniale Mannigfaltigkeit der Erfmdung u. was dasselbe Mannigfaltigkeit der Form, um so schreiben zu
konnen, wie z. B. sagen wir: Schumann. Federhofer 1985: I89-92, translated by Ian D. Bent on the
Schenker Correspondence Project website
http://mt.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/schenker/correspondence/letter/nmi_c_l 7601_4I 301 .htrnl.

38There exist in the JC XXII: 9 photocopies of four printed page: numbered I51 — 154 containing Voruber in open
score. The name and date of the publication is unknown.

39The Syrische Ta'nze do not bear an opus number. Inasmuch as Schenker’s opus numbers do not seem to
reflect chronology, The piece should logically be considered his op. 9. This would result in ten opuses,
either grouped by him or published, with no gaps in the numbering.

12

have had much that was original and distinctive to offer.”40 Miller perceives the influence of
Schumann and Chopin in his discussion of the piece, which has been recorded by Anne
Koscielny and by Peter Barcaba.4|

Each piece focuses on a specific technical-musical task. In the Etude, legato
playing of double notes in required, while the Capriccio consists of the
powerful execution of elaborate arpeggiations. The overall musical effect of
the pairing of the two pieces is that the Etude serves as a kind of prelude to the
impassioned Capriccio. The quiet, yet agitated, Etude recalls to a certain extent
the pianistic writing of Schumann (e.g., Toccata in C major, op. 7), while the
dramatic Capriccio, with its tempestuous mood, declarnatory expression, and
brilliant pianistic surface clearly shows the influence of Chopin (e. g., Etude 1n F
minor, op. 10/9)... ,leBOth pieces, however, reveal in introspective, brooding
emotional quality.”4

Opus 2: F antasie fiir Pianofime

The Fantasia for piano is easily Schenker’s most ambitious work. It was performed on
his concert tour with Messchaert and was, judging from correspondence, also performed in
some form by Busoni, although I have been unable to locate programs corroborating this.
Milles assesses the Fantasie as very Schumannesque:

With its shifting moods and apparently free form, the work seems to have been
inspired by Schumann’s Fantasie in C major, op. 17. The title of the work and
the tempo—expressive marking for the first movement . . . confirm a conscious
similarity to Schumann’s Fantasie. ... Perhaps more than any of his published
compositions, the Fantasie reveals important aspects of Schenker’s
compositional personality. While the work displays imaginative thematic
development and striking textural patterns, the overall mood of the composition
is primarily introspective rather than extroverted.43

 

4°The Musical Times, vol. 124, No. 1686 (Aug, 1983): 490.

"For Koscielny’s recording, see the Musical Heritage Society disc MHS 522205H. Barcaba’s recording is
part of a multimedia presentation accompanying the proceedings from the Schenker symposium in Vienna,
Schenker- Traditionen, ed. Evelyn Fink and Martin Eybl (K6ln: Bohlau, 2006)

“Miller 1991, 181.

43Miller 1991, I81, 184.

I3

Opus 3: Sechs Lieder
Schenker’s only published set of songs contain settings of poems by Ludwig Jacobowski
(Versteclde Jasminen, Vogel im Busch, Ausklang, Allein) Detlev von Liliencron (W iegenlied),
and Wilhehn Muller (Einkleidung). According to Patrick Miller, the songs are reminiscent of
the Lieder of Schubert and Brahms and show a predominant influence of Schumann.44 A
review of his op. 3 Lieder from the Neue Musikalische Presse of March 1905 by “H. G.,”
however, was unflattering:

[These] songs would have better remained unwritten and

unpublished. They propose criminal tasks to the singer and the

listener. In any case, a “lullaby” would have been enjoyable

although the one included also swarms with ugliness and

eccentricities. The intentions of the author are often good, and

if one considers the score without differentiating the tones, one

may believe that he recognizes characteristic lines. But the

tones! Discordant crazy ideas that must have been imagined

with effort.45
Eduard Gartner was a vocalist and (based on the photograph in Appendix C.2) a violinist He
supported Schenker’s compositional work and is known to have performed several of
Schenker’s songs in recitals. He performed Ausklang from the op. 3 songs and Heimat,
Nachtgndi, and Meeresstille from the op. 6 songs on two separate recitals.46 In a letter to

Rontgen, Schenker writes:

 

44Miller 1991, 185.

45Lieder, die besser ungeschrieben und ungedruckt geblieben waren. Sue muten dem Stinger und Harer wahre
Strafaufgaben zu Geniessbar ware allenfalls ein “Wiegenlied” obwohl es auch darin von Hasslichkeiten und
Verschrobenheiten wimmelt. Die Intentionen des Autors sind oft gut und wenn man das Blatt aus einer Sah weite
betrachtet, dass man ein Notenbilderhalt, ohne die Noten selbst tmterscheiden zu konnen, mag man trefl’ende Zfige
der Charakteristik zu erkennen glauben. Aber die Noten! Misstonigeres Schrullen hafieres lasst sich mit Mtlhe
ausdenken. OC [1: 18.

“’16 Nov 1900 and 19 Mar 1902. See Appendix B, illustrations 8.3 and 8.4 for the concert programs

14

I am absolutely certain that you must—that you simply must—find one
of the [op. 3] Lieder pleasing (so firmly am I convinced of this, and I say
so nevertheless with all the modesty that you and I both deserve): “Der
Ausklang.” There is, incidentally, a strange, uncanny reason for this
(and here comes the tragedy): On the same evening as the concert [19
March 1902] , almost the same hour, even the same minute in which
Gartner performed [my work], the uncommonly congenial author of the
poem “Leuchtende Tage”—the author of “Ausklang”—died in Berlin,
before the end of his thirty-second year!! If Gartner had sung
“Auslgang” at that moment, how strange the coincidence would have
been!

Miller, in his article, suggests that Ausklang is the “most effective” of the set; it is surely the

most introspective and somber. Rontgen largely concurs in his reply to Schenker:

To me, “Ausklang” stands out among the Lieder. The marvelous text has
found immediate expression in the music, and the Lied must make a
profound impression. The other Lieder seem a bit less natural to me (with
the exception of the delightful “Wiegenlied”!). But the texts are of a
wittier sort, and you have illustrated everything interestingly! The last
Lied is least to my liking—it seems, to me, to be too heavy for the clever
text in places (the Gl minor episode). As I said, however, I must probe
them further and ask that you consider these few words as merely
provisional.48

This particular song merits further discussion especially because is it singled out for praise both

by the composer himself and a prominent colleague and, in addition, was programmed on

 

47Zweifle ich gar nicht, — so fest liberzeugt bin ich davon, u. sage es dennoch mit aller Bescheidenheit, die
mir vor mir selbst u. vor lhnen doch zukommt, — dass lhnen unter {4} den Liedem ein einziges gefallen
muss, ja, gefallen muss: ,,Der Ausklang”. Damit hat es fibrigens eine dtlstere, unheimliche Bewandtnis.
- hier setzt eine Tragik ein — denken Sie: am selben Abend des Concertes, fast auf die Stunde, auf die
Minute genau, in der Ganner mich vortrug, starb in Berlin der umgemein [recte' ungemein] sympatische
Dichter der “Leuchtenden Tage”, der Autor des “Ausklangs” in Alter von nicht 32 Jahrenll Hatte Gartner
um diese Minute den “Ausklang” gesungen, wie eigentllmlich ware diese Zusammentreffen gewesen!
Federhofer 1985: 189-92. Translated by Ian Bent on the Schenker Correspondence Project website
http://mtccnmtl.columbia.edu/schenker/correspondence/Ietter/nmi c 17601 41301. See Appendix B,
illustration 3.4 for the concert program.

48 “Ausklang” steht mir unter den Liedem obenan. Der herrliche Text hat einen unmittelbaren Ausdruck in
der Musik gefunden und das Lied muB eine tiefe Wirkung machen. Die anderen Lieder kommen mir zum
Theil nicht so nattlrlich vor (das reizende Wiegenlied [in lower right corner:] ausgenommen!) Die Texte
sind ja aber auch mehr geistreicher Art und interessant haben Sie Alles illustrirt! Am Wenigsten sagt mir
das letzte Lied zu — mir kommt’s hie und da etwas zu schwer ftlr den leichtfertigen Text vor (gis-moll
Episode)“ Doch, wie gesagt, ich muB noch besser eindringen und bitte Sie diese paar Worte nur als
vorlaufig anzusehen. F ederhofer I985: I89-92. Translated by Ian Bent on the Schenker Correspondence
Project website http://mt.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/schenker/correspondence/letter/nmi_c_I 7601_4 I301

15

recitals to the exclusion of the other songs of the set. The text, below, bespeaks the redemptive
nature of suffering and sorrow. Sorrow, Jacabowski writes, has “justly” wounded us out of the
depths of our hearts. It is as if our hearts convict us of a wrongdoing. If we overcome it

through contrition, we will then be blessed by it and grow spiritually. Schenker sents the poem

in F! minor, moves through D‘ major, G major, C minor, and BL major before returning to Fl

and ends the tonic major.
Es wird kein Leid so tief gefunden There is no sorrow felt so deeply
dem Heil und Heilung nicht begegnet. For which one will not meet salvation and healing.
Und hast Du's innig fiberwunden, And if you have oversoce it deeply
so recht aus Herzensgrund verwunden, which has so justly wounded you for reasons of
hats Dich am Ende noch gesegnet your heart, then in the end it will yet bless you

Table 1.2 Ludwig Jacobowski’s Ausklang

Opus 4: F unf Klavierstz’icke

His op. 4 piano pieces were reviewed in The Musical Times (March 1, 1900: 175). The
unidentified reviewer describes the pieces as “more difficult [than Roland Revell’s Five
Caprices] but they would repay the extra practice they might require. The would form

excellent studies for development of independence between the hands, a feature of pianoforte

”49

playing which does not always receive the attention it deserves. Miller describes the pieces

as follows:

With regard to key, thematic material, and texture, the first piece closely
resembles passages fiom the first movement of Schenker’s F antasie. The
pastoral character of the second piece recalls Schubert, with its simple folklike
thematic material, while the haunting melody and impassioned development of
the third piece reflect the influence of Beethoven and Brahms. Like the first
piece of the set, the fourth piece, with its drone-like qualities also resembles in
texture passages from the Fantasie. The fifth piece opens in a leisurely

 

49The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular, Vol. 41, No. 685. (Mar. 1, 1900), p. 175.

16

manner, eventually gives way to declamatory passages, and concludes with
arresting harmonies and textures.50
Opus 5: Zweistimmige Inventionen
Schenker is known to have sent Julius Rontgen a copy of his Zweistimmige
Inventionen. He seems to have been particularly fond on no. 2 of the set of four. He
wrote to Rontgen on 13 April 1901, “I hope that Invention No. 2, of which I am very
proud, interests you. It is indeed rather quick—I mean passionate, deliberate, very
expressive! It is here, primarily, where I’ve breached modernism. It would make
me very happy if this invention pleased you.”5 1 Patrick Miller offers this
assessment of these works vis-a-vis Scheker’s other published output.
The four pieces in this set seemingly mark a departure fiom the dense harmonic
and rhythmic textures of Schenker’s previously published piano compositions.
The intricate melodic lines of these pieces, however, imply a texture rich with

harmonic and rhythmic details. The first invention is a delicate chromatic
study, while the second invention is an intense chromatic piece based on the B—

A—C—H motive, Blr—A—C—B. With regard to thematic material and texture, the
third invention is the most transparent of the set and is an exacting study in
finger articulation. The fourth invention is a canon and, according to a printed
footnote, is ‘a study after J S Bach’s Invention no. 2 (C minor)52

Opus 9: Landler

The Landler are a set of Austro-German folk dances in three-quarter time. Although

written as a set, the individual dances seem successively composed. The opening and

closing dance are identical, but there is no formal scheme that one can speak of.

 

5" Miller 1991, 185.
5 ' “Ich bitte Sie um 1hr Interesse filr die Invention N9 2, auf die ich sehr stolz bin. Sie ist sogar ziemlich
rasch, ich meine passionirt, gedacht, sehr ausdrucksvoll! Hier ist es hauptsachlich, wo ich das Modeme

brachte. Es wfirde mich sehr freuen, wenn diese lnv. lhnen gefallen wollte.” Federhofer 1985: 189-92.

52rh_id_., 187, 190.

17

In the tradition of Schubert and Brahms, theses dance—like ‘character pieces’

combine simple folklike melodies with inventive harmonic digressions and

varied textural juxtapositions. The Minder begin and end in G major and

commence with musical material designated tempo giusto.53
Syrische Tanze

In January of 1900, Schenker and fellow pianist Moriz Violin (1879—1959) premiered
Schenker’s Syrische T time for piano, four hands. This work proved to be a high point in his
career, for it sparked an unlikely relationship between himself and Ferruccio Busoni (1866—
1924), ever the proponent of new music. The correspondence between Schenker and Busoni
fiom November 1900 through September 1903 regards the Syrische Tc'inze. Busoni evaluated
the work favorably (after playing through them, he pronounced them “genial”) and desired to
perform them in an orchestral version with the Berlin Philharmonic. He thought that they
would serve well to introduce Schenker in his concert “of new and rarely played works.” In a
letter of 25 August 1903, he writes to Schenker: “I would like very, very much to have your
name on the program and thought that an orchestral version of the Syrische Tanze would
introduce you well. Do you have the pieces for orchestra? They ‘cry out’ for it, and I pray you,
to realize this wish for me and write to me with your opinion about it.”54

After securing Schenker’s approval, he contacted Arnold Schoenberg (1874—
1951) to orchestrate the dances, so that he “could have his name on the program as

well.” Schenker, upon studying Schoenberg’s orchestration, remarked in a letter to

Busoni, “a first glance suggests the style of Richard Strauss. Not to my personal taste,

 

”and, 185, 187.
5” Ich mechte Sie sehr, sehr gem auf dem Programm haben und dachte, daB eine orcherstrirte Auswa_l_rl der

Syrischer Taenzc Sie sehr gtlnstig einfllhren wurde. Haben Sie die Sachen fllr Orchester? Sie ‘schreien’ danach,
und ich bitte Sie, mir diesen Wunsch zu ermdglichen und umgehend Ihre Meinung darttber zu schreiben. Ibid., 82.

18

using the orchestra that way. But, if I’m not mistaken, it will sormd quite good.”55 This
work was performed on a concert of the Berlin Philharmonic on 5 November 1905.56
Thus, three of the great talents of the early twentieth century collaborated on this work
as composer, orchestrator, and conductor.

The Syrische Ta'nze received generally negative reviews. One reviewer,
complaining of about the lack of German music on the program, wrote that “[the
Syrische T time] have nothing one can distinguish fiom Negro marches, Turkish

”57 Many reviewers called it simply

shepherd music, and similar enchantrnents.
“entertaimnent music” [Unterhaltungsmusik].58 One reviewer mentions Schoenberg’s
orchestration, writing that “[it] stands in proper relation to the content” Others speak
of his “erotic colors.”59 One of the more colorfirl reviewers calls the Tdnze “banal in the
highest degree” and writes “during them, one felt as if he were in a hospital imagining
drunken dervishes or belly-dancers across the way.”60 Still other reviewers called them

“trivial and uninteresting” and stated that they “[do] not belong at a serious concert.”61

 

“Erwin, Charlotte and Bryan R. Simms. “Schoenberg's Correspondence with Heinrich Schenker,” Journal
of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 5/1 (1981): 23-43.

56A copy of the concert program, in the JC XXXV: 5, shows the work having been performed along with d’Indy’s
L ’Entranger, Debussy’s Prelude de l’aprés-midi d’un faun, Berlioz’s March fiom Troyenes, and Nielsen’s 4

Temperamenie.

5"[die Syrische Tanze] haben nichts, was sie wesentlich von Niggermarschen, tflrkischer Scharwachenmusik
und dergleichen Zauber unterscheidet. Berliner Local-Anzeiger 6 November 1903. 0C 11: 5.

58See, for example, reviews in Berliner Barsencourier (6 November 1903) and Berliner Tageblatt (7 November
1903) etc. 0C 11: 6

”Die Gegenwart (Berlin), 12 November 1903. 0C 11: 7
60Bei jenen glaubte man sich ins Krankenhaus verfeBt, bei den Tanzen wahnte man sich betrunkenen

Derwischen ofer Bauchtanzerinnen gegentlber zu sehen. Tag/iche Rundschau (Berlin), 9 November 1903.
CC 11: 7.

l9

Miller describes the character of the dances:

The first dance of book one opens with a wistful section followed by an
energetic allegro scherzando which builds in intensity until the unexpected
end. ... The second dance of book one begins with a forceful section of
persistent dissonances which gives way to a bright vivace middle section. A
plaintive melody is presented at the outset of the first dance of book two and
leads into a lyrical middle section.” The second dance of book two consists of
repetitive rhythms, abrupt syncopations, and compressed melodies which
provide an energetic finale for the set.62

Part II: Schenker ’s Unpublished Compositions

Schenker’s compositional manuscripts number over 450 pages contained in 48 folders
in Box XXII and XXIII of the Oswald Jonas Memorial Collection at the University of
California, Riverside. These are songs (177 pages), incidental music for Hamlet (40 pages),
Moriz Violin’s instrumentation of the Syrian Dances (94 pages), and Schenker’s instrumental
works (122 pages) plus 25 pages of sketches. Among his unpublished works are thirty-six
complete songs, only six of which bear dates, all before 1899 (see table 1.3 and 1.4).
Schenker’s texts are drawn fi'om the German Romantic poets, with the exception of German
translations of Sappho (“Eros rfiffelt mich wieder”) and Byron (“O mein einsem Kissen”). His
unpublished songs bearing opus numbers include (1) a set of three (possibly four) songs for

solo voice and piano, op. 663; (2) three songs for mixed chorus, op. 76’; and four songs for

 

6|Sie sind belanglos und uninteressant und gehoren kaum in ein emstes Konzert. Nationalzeitung (Berlin), 10
November 1903. 0C 11: 7.

62Millcr1991, 190, 194.

63Manuscript sources include JC XXII:3—6, of in which no. 3 is given twice, to two different Goethe texts.
The first, “Meeresstille,” is in Schenker’s hand (nos. I and 2 being in a his copyist’s hand), and the second,
“Wanderers Nachtlied” is in the same copyist’s hand. This leads me to believe that perhaps Wanderers
Nachtlied was being prepared for publication. Curiously, the disputed no. 3 was not performed along with
the other two Canner’s concert on 26 January 1905 (see table 1.5)

20

women’s chorus, op. 8. Several songs, moreover, exist in more than one version, indicating
revision. The three (or four) op. 6 songs are found both individually and as conjugate
manuscript leaves. The opus 8 songs also are found in more than one version and the three (or
four) songs are likewise found individually and within conjugate manuscript leaves. Other
songs that have more than one source include Drunten aufder Gassen, Der Gang von Wittow
nach Jasmund Mir Tra'umte von einen Myrthenbaum, O Mein einsam, einsam, einsam Kissen.
His unpublished instrumental works number two piano pieces, eight string trio
movements, four string quartet movements, a work for hom, and incidental music for Hamlet.
Judging fiom the scores, Schenker had a proclivity for minor keys and triple meters, as well as
a marked fondness for the string trio. Some manuscripts give indications of being part of larger
works (e.g., the string trios marked “11,” Scherzo, etc), but it is difficult to determine this

conclusively.

 

64One of the songs for mixed chorus, Voruber op. 7/3, was published (see above). All are listed in table
1.2.

21

 

_ an. 3.. cm ...-...:

.5731 um...

 

 

289592 pig—.29 _ wig

 

 

 

. . a

_ zea— »Worm>uorm

— _, #859986.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

252 » era

» 9.3

m 5.3

manages. .S . $9
58: £52.38: » mnméaéé
, ,. l. maifiméé
gazes es . . at ”$323-3
. , .. . flaigwnflig
58: 655.53 ..Esae _>§n§_ss mzhsm » 92-33%-8
. _ . gutgwumuim;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

a use” a .6 e. > See
wwwlushumtt
aging:swagggenrezazies 5335333er 3.33.1. 95m. » enfeheéru
fill
, guarantee.
.nxé;°§_~8§5.e.3 Egg _3§§s_smm mg » m_no..-eum2-8

 

an “CE” :

 

 

  

.2895 8.58 an. was". .3

   
 

Eim can:

.noutmuphnminu
2093:339ng

 

 

Ti

 

 

 

weseneumé

 

Table 1.3 Unpublished Songs with Opus Numbers

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.883. 81...?! FIE... 9:8. » 8-..
.883. 5...... 3324......- 888 was. a of...
.88.... 9.....ng ,goaszaai 3.8.... ms... » ...-...
.88... antigens. Egl E53585. ...Ee. » ...-e
.885. eggs-3-..... 8:35.: .15...ng 2...... » ...-...
.88.... 8.5.... Eefienr 2.0.3888 2.8. W are
.88.... eumaaea..>..£.§..§a>§ 38835.3... 229...? Sm... M max-8.2.-..
_ _ . . . . _ _ . . . , p 98-988-...
.28.... Era-5-855. 85283.3; Eu... :8... e 22-3.23...
. . , . . . l , acreage-...
.38.... mafeagimszaz. 8:35.35; 3.5.... 5...... w 2-...
.28.... 882.898.3552-...8. 3...... was; as... w ...-a
58.... 355%.... 8.25.. was. as... w ...-...
8.8.... 3:31;... a s H... 2...... Es... ......a » ...-....
.28.... 8.5.5.3ng ......iu remain as... » or...
58.... §5§§n5§§§ ......w... ,E1& 3...... .r ...-....
58...... SE... 88.4.5. 83.8% as... ... ...-e
.o .8. .. uneaéeaiaeiaa $8.32.? .33. use... w .... -..
58.... unassignzeeis. SEES... 2.85.... as... » ...-...
.m .8. .. .... ...... a - z - ...... SE. 7...... 58.5... ......s. ......a. a E - a
.a 8.... .. mania... gas 5...... .....ma 3...... as... w of...
.m .8.” .. SE... SE: 2...... who... 3...... u 9-.....
.28.... 5.33.353?! Es: 2.88. 3...... a 9-...
58.“... 5.85.85??? 8.33 ...... ......e. m e-..
.m .83. was... .....a... .2.... 3...... n ...-m.

 

 

 

Table 1.4 Unpublished vocal music without opus numbers

23

Judging fiom the number of reviews in Schenker’s scrapbook, 65 his best known works
were his arrangements of J. S. and C. P. E. Bach, the Syrische T a’nze (best known in
Schoenberg’s orchestral setting), and three works for women’s chorus: Voriiber, op. 7/3 after a
poem by Johanna Ambrosius (1854—1938), Agnes, op. 8/1, after a poem by Eduard Morike
(1804—1875), and 1m Rosenbusch der Liebe schliefl 0p. 8/2 after Hoffman von Fallersleben’s
(1798—1874) poem. Of these, Von'iber was performed in December 1903 at a concert of the
Wiener Sangerverein, and Agnes and 1m Rosenbusch der Liebe Schlief in February of 1904.66

Voru‘ber, according to H. von Friedléinder-Abel’s review “snakes through the church
modes and then trivially ends with a reminiscence of the song-table.

[Liedertafelreminiszenzen 1”“ Another reviewer described its “wonderful text” and its “having
been composed with great art.”68 Regarding Agnes and Im Rosenbusch der Liebe Schlief, a
reviewer fiom an unidentified periodical wrote “these charming a capella pieces for women’s
chorus are the best that I, as a knowledgeable author on music, know of the effective
compositions.69 Still another wrote, “[the pieces] show consummate mastery of setting

technique and a rich artistic experience. The old and modem elements of style are bound

 

65The scrapbook is preserved in OC [1. It was begun in 1902 and maintained until Schenker’s death in 1935.
(”The concert programs are preserved in JC XXXV: 5. See table 1.5 below for a list of performances.

“Heinrich Schenker’s “Vortlber,” . . . durch die Kirschentonarten durchschlangelt und dann recht trivial mit
Liedertafelreminiszenzen zu enden. Montags-Revue (21 December 1903 ), 0C 11: 8. The reference
Liedertafelreminiszenzen is obscure; the author possibly means either (I) that the song ends with the same
melodic material with which it began, or that (2) an announcement was made reminding the audience about
the singing society. The Reminiszenzen (“reminiscence”) is an Operetta convention of repeating a song
with the whole company at the end of the work.

63Heinrich Schenker dirigirte ein auf wundervollen Text der Johanna Ambrosius mit viel Kunst
komponiertes Tonsttlck “Vorfiber.” Fremdenblatt (Vienna), 24 December 1903. 0C 11: 8.

“Diese reizenden a-capella-Sttlcke filr Frauenstirnmen sind das beste, was ich von dem auch als
kenntniBreichen Musikschriftsteller wirkenden Compositionen kenne. Unidentified Periodical, 2 March
1904. 0C 11: I3.

24

harmoniously. The first choir [Agnes] effectively developed its intimate charm, but the

piquancy in the voice-leading of the second [Rosenbusch] was a bit blurred.”70

TITLE UM ENT KEY
, A1:

,A

do "[1"

rio
,C

,E
,F
,C
,GMinor
,AMinor

con molto , A Minor

Table 1.5 Unpublished Instrumental Compositions

 

Schenker’s arrangements of two J. S. Bach cantatas were quite successful, the first of
which (“Selig ist der Mann,” BWV 57) was performed in November and December of 1902
and the second (“Ich will den Kreutzstab gem tragen, ” BWV 56) in January and April of 1911.
The reviewers, as is perhaps to be expected, devoted more space to discussions of Géirtner’s
performance and Bach’s music than technical details of Schenker’s arrangements. Schenker
was said to have “led [the performance of BWV 57] with great piety, correct style, and

. 7
effectiveness.” 2

 

70[die ChOre] zeigen vollendete Beherrschung der schweierigen Sasstechnik und reiche Kunsterfahrlmg, die alte und
modeme Elemente des Stils harmonisch bindet. Der erste Chor entfaltete wirksam seine intimen Reine, doch die
Pikanterien in der Stimmfllhrung des zeriten wurden irn Vortr'age ein wenig verwischt. Wiener Abendpost (4 arch
1904). OC [1: 13.

7|This is surmised because of the performance date of 5 Aug 1893 (see table 1.5 below)

25

Other musicians programmed Schenker’s works on their recitals. Eduard Géirtner

(1862-1918) performed Schenker’s Meeresstille op. 6/3 and Blumengrufl on 19 January 1895,

his Wiegenlied op. 3/2 (accompanied by Alexander Zemlinsky) on 1 December 1900, Ausklang

op. 3/4 on 19 March 1902, and his Heimat and Nachtgrufl op. 6/1—2 on 26 January 1905.

Louis Savant, also a fiiend of Schenker, performed the latter’s unpublished horn serenade on

concerts of5 August 1893 and 5 March 1894.73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE WORKS PERFORMERS
5 Aug 1893 Horn Serenade Louis Savart (horn), Martha Homing (piano)
5 Mar 1894 Horn Serenade L. Savart (horn), Maria Baumeyer (piano)
19 Jan 1895 Meeresstille (op. 6/3a), Blumengrufi Eduard Gartmr (voice)
8 Jan 1899 Legende (from op. 2), Klavierstu‘ck op. 4/2 Heinrich Schenker (piano)
14 Jan 1899 Legende (fi'om op. 2), Klavierstzick op. 4/2 H. Schenker (piano)
26 Jan 1900 Syrische Tanze (Piano, four hands) H. Schenker, Moriz Violin
16 Nov 1900 Wiegenlied (op. 3/2) E. G5rtner (voice), Alexander von
Zemlinsky(piano)
19 Mar 1902 Ausklang (op. 3/4) E. Garmer (voice)
18 Nov 1903 Voru’ber op. 7/3 Wiener Singakademie, H. Schenker (d'n.)
3 Nov 1904 Arr. Of Ph. Em. Bach's A-Minor Concerto (W. H. Schenker (piano), M. Violin (dir.)
26, H. 430)
26 Jan 1905 Heimat (op. 6/1), Nachtgrufl (op. 60) E. Garnier (voice)
5 Nov 1905 Syrische Tanze (Orchestrated by Schoenberg) Berlin Philharmonic (Ferruccio Busoni, dir.)
15 Apr 1906 Arr. Ph. Em. Bach's A-Minor Concerto Richard Epstein (piano)
13 Jan 1911 Arr. Selig ist der Mann (BWV 57) E. Gartner, Mina Lefler
Arr. Ph. Em. Bach's F-Major Concerto (W. 46, Paul de Conne, M. Violin (pianos)
H. 410)
Arr. lch will den Kreutzstab gern Tragen E. Garnier
(BWV 56)
17 May 191 I Arr. Ph. Em. Bach's A-Minor Concerto Anna Voileanu (piano)

 

Arr. Handel's B Major concerto

Stefania Goldner, Angela Novack (harps)

 

 

 

Arr. Ph. Em. Bach's F-Major Concerto

 

Aurelre Cemé, Stella Wang (pianos)

 

Table 1.6 Contemporaneous Performances of Schenker’s Works74

Later in life, in a diary enhy of 10 October 1931, Schenker reflected that“ my

compositions, real ‘treasures,’ are as original in the world of today as my theory! Those around

 

72Dr. Schenker fllhrten das Werk mit voller Pietat, stilgerecht und wirkungsvoll aus. Neue Musikalische
Presse (Vienna), 23 November 1902. 0C 11: 1.
73JC XXXV: 5. See the illustration in Appendix 32. for a picture of Savart and Gartner

“Based on concert programs (JC XXXV: 5) or Schenker’s scrapbook (CC 11)

26

 

me and the public have suitably treasured and admired the works, — it was clear to me,
however, that I would not arrive at the level of master, let alone surpass one — on the other
hand, I felt the duty to place into the world that which only I knew. Today, however, I am
proud of what I was able to accomplish compositionally.”75 Judging from the reviews that
Schenker kept in his scrapbook, the Viennese public and critics did not share his optimistic
appraisal of his compositions. As far as his renunciation of composition goes, Schenker said, “I
composed many [pieces] in my youth, [and] my things were received with applause; but when I
saw how people misunderstood Brahms, I suffered so much because of it, that I let everything
stand and wrote my theoretical works.”76 Evidence in Schenker’s correspondence suggests
that, precisely because of the negative reviews of his compositions, he elected to publish his
first theoretical work, Harmonielehre, anonymously. In a letter to the publisher, Cotta
Verlag, dated 8 November 1905, Schenker writes about his condition of anonymity:

First let me explain the anonymity. A critical edition of C. P. E. Bach,

published by order of Universal Edition here, to which I have written a

supplementary book, A Contribution to Ornamentation, has had such

success with the press and the public that, in accordance with an long-

standing human foible, hostile opinions have suddenly been expressed

about my work as a composer, despite the successes of the performances,

and despite the fact that firms such as Sirnrock, Breitkopf & Harte],

Weinberger, etc. have published my works. So as not to jeopardize my
future work, I elected to assume anonymity for the time being.77

 

75Meine Kompositionen, wahre ‘Schfitze’, in die Welt von Heute so einmalig wie meine Theorie! Die urn rrrich und
die Offentlichkets haben die Arbeiten nach Gebtlhr hoch geschttm und bewundert, - ich selbst war mir aber klar
dartlber, daB ich keirren Meister erreiche, geschwiehe tlbertreffe dagegen fithlte ich die Verpflichtung, das, was ich
allein nur wuBte, in die Welt zu setzen. Doch hin ich heute stolzer als je aufdas, was ich auch komponierend leisten
konnte! Federhofer I985, 21.

76[ch komponiert viel in meiner Jugend, meine Sachen wurden mit Beifall aufgenommen; aber als ich sah, wie man
Brahms mtierstand, litt ich so sehr danrnter, daB ich alles stehen und liegen lieB und meine theoretischen Werke
schrieb. Hans Wolf, “Heinrich Schenkers persbnlichkeit irn Unterrich.” Der Dreiklang 7 (1937), 182.

77 Vorerst die Erkltlrung der Anonymitat. Eine auf Bestellung der hiesigen ,,Universal-Edition“
veroffentlichte kritische Ph. Em. Bach-Ausgabeé der ich ein Buch “Beitrag zur Ornamentik“ beigegeben
habe, hatte einen solchen Erfolg bei der Presse u. dem Publikum, daB sich, nach einer lieben alten
Gewohnheit der Menschen, plotzlich Vorurteile gegen meine kompositorische Tatigkeit ge laut zu machen

27

Nicholas Cook, speculating on Schenker’s abandonment of composition, suggests that “it
is hard to reconcile the nature of Schenker’s compositions with his developing orientation
as a theorist.” Further, he notes that “there is no evidence of Schenker’s engagement as a
composer with the issues of ‘cyclic form’ which were occupying him as a theorist by the
early 19003, and one wonders whether it was not his realization that as a composer he
was essentially a miniaturist . . . that lay behind his comments in a diary entry [cited

above]”78

1.3. On Organic Theory in General

One of the great tasks a composer faces is how to create and balance unity and diversity
in a composition. The metaphor of organicism in music resonated powerfully with Schenker
and he sought to unify his compositions with motivic association. He sought to diversify his
compositions, and add to their impact, through compositional devices that he would later
describe as incomplete transferences of the Ursatzform. This dramatic technique creates
apparent diversity within the unity of the Ursatz. In order to appreciate Schenker’s technique
as a composer, it is necessary to examine several ideas that occupied him throughout his works,
and to trace the development of these ideas: (1) the means of conferring organic unity on music
through the motive and the progression of Stufen, the examination of precisely what Schenker
means by organicism in music; (2) the various means of writing a composition by motivic

repetition; and (3) the incomplete transferences of the Ursatzform as a means of creating

 

versucht haben, trotz den Erfolgen der Auffllhrungen, u. trotzdem Firmen wie Sirnrock, Br. & Ha‘rtel,
Weinberger, etc. meine Sachen druckten. Um den kilnftigen Arbeiten nicht zu schaden, entschied ich mich
zur vorltlufigen Anomymita't. Transcribed and translated by Ian D. Bent on the Schenker Correspondence
Project website (http://mt.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/schenker/correspondence/letter/ca_I2__1 I805.html)

’8 Nicholas Cook, The Schenker Project (Oxford, 2007): 83

28

diversity and ambiguity within the unity of the Ursatz. This chapter will examine these ideas,
illustrating them with examples drawn from Schenker’s own work or other works fiom the
standard repertoire.

Organic theory is finds its origins in the writings of Classical Greece, but achieved real
currency in the nineteenth century with the ascendancy of Romanticticism. The conception of
the work of art as analogous to a biological organism is a prevalent one in critical discourse and
is often a tacit assumption of the analytical process itself. One might say that the goal of
analysis is to prove synthesis. This conception lies at the core of most eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century discourse on music as an a priori assumption: great works of art can be
shown to demonstrate organic coherence if they demonstrate unity of parts and whole, and if
they exhibit growth. In the case of music, Schenker also sees the tones themselves as being
possessed of “wills” and “biological urges.” As Schenker was primarily occupied with the
music of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is not surprising that he should adopt its
critical apparatus as well.

Plato writes in Phaedrus, “Every speech must be put together like a living creature,
with a body of its own; it must be neither without head nor without legs; and it must have
a middle and extremities that are fitting both to one another and to the whole work.”79
Aristotle writes in his Poetics, “the composition of its [i.e., the epic poem’s] stories
should clearly be like that in a drama; they should be based on a single action, one that is
a complete whole in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end, so as to enable the work to

produce its own proper pleasure with all the organic unity of a living creature.”80 He also

 

7” Plato, the Phaedrus, trans. by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. From Plato: Complete Works, ed.
by John M. Cooper, 264C.

29

writes that the mark of a good (i.e., well-composed) work is that nothing can be added or
subtracted without damaging the whole.8| These comments of both Plato and Aristotle
refer to well-structured rhetoric, but are easily applicable to music and feed into the
musica poetica of the eighteenth century and its outgrowth, the organism metaphor in the
nineteenth.

The man to whom many writers look as the source and summit of organic thought
in the nineteenth century is Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Although organic thought
certainly is not original to Goethe, and though Goethe does not define it per se, his conception
of it can be deduced from his many aphorisms on art and nature. He observed, for example,
“every work of art, large or small, comes from the [initial] conception.”82 And again, “[art] has
neither core nor covering, but is everything at once.”83 Even the English Romantic poets
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772—1834) and William Wordsworth (1770—1850) took up such
thinking. Coleridge writes “the difference between an inorganic and organic body is this: In the
first . . . the whole is nothing more than a collection of the individual parts or phenomena . . .
while in the second the whole is everything and the parts are nothing.”84 Bendetto Croce writes
“the fact that we divide a work of art into parts, a poem into scenes, episodes, sirniles,

sentences, or a picture into single figures and objects, background, foreground, etc. . . .

 

8° Aristotle, “On Poetics,” Chapter 23 in Great Books ofthe Western World, ed. Mortimer J. Adler ct a1.
Volume 9: Aristotle, 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

82Bei jedem Kunstwerk, groB oder kleirr, kommt alles auf die Konzeption an. cited in Oswald Jonas, Einfiihrung in
die Lehre Heinrich Schenkers, p. l 15.

83 [die Kunst] hat weder kern noch Schale, alles ist sie mit einem Male. Allerdings. (gesammelte Gedichte)

$4Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Table Talk cited in Ruth Solie, “The Living Work: Organicism and Musieal Analysis,”
Neneteenth-Centwy Music 40. (I980), 150.

30

annihilates the work, as dividing the organism into heart, brain, nerves, muscles, and so on
turns the living being into a corpse.”85

Many scholars have pointed out connections between Schenker and the German
philosophers Kant (1724—1804), Goethe (1749—1832), Hegel (1770—1831), and Schopenhauer
(1788-1860).86 These scholars each attempt to equate Schenker’s mature theoretical
formulation, the Ursatz, with a philosophical metaphor drawn out of the philosopher’s works.
Kevin Korsyn equated the Ursatz with Kant’s “transcendental logic,” while William Pastille,
Severine Neff and Gary Don link it to Goethe’s Urphc’inomen [“archetypal phenomenon”] and
Urpflanze [“archetypal plant”]. Richard Cherlin proposes the Ursatz to be a three-stage
Hegelian dialectic (thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis) expressed as Urlinie vs. Baflbrechung =
Ursatz. Nicholas Cook sees the influence of Schopenhauer in Schenker’s use of musical
criticism as an instrument of social criticism and or ethics. Some basic knowledge of the ideas
of these men is necessary if one is to understand Schenker’s view of organicism and its
pervasiveness in the critical literature.

While each of these contributions illuminates a facet of Schenker’s theory, Schenker’s
epistemology draws abundantly fi'om a multitude of sources. A survey of the aphorisms with
which Schenker sought to relate another’s idea with his own reveals a man eager to place his
own ideas about the nature and structure of music in the context of the great German thinkers
of the past, drawing abundant inspiration fiom Goethe in Der T onwille, Das Meisterwerk and

even in Der fieie Satz. The following discussion traces the organicist metaphor through

 

85Bendetto Croce, Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic, trans. Douglas Ainslie, 2“d edn.
(London, 1929), p. 20. Cited in Solie 1980, p. 150.

86See, for example Korsyn, 1988 (Kant), Don 1988 and Pastille 1990 (Goethe), Cherlin 1988 (Hegel), and Cook
1989 (Schopenhauer).

31

Schenker’s writing, showing how the idea bears fi'uit in the ideas of the motive and its

permeation of the musical texture, and the composing-out of Stufian.
1.4. The Development of the Organic Metaphor in Schenker’s Theoretical Writings
Der Geist des Musikalischen Technik(1895)

Schenker’s most ambitious article, written in 1895 for Musikalisches Wochenblatt and
appearing in seven installments, is called Der Geist der musikalischen Technik (“The Spirit of
Musical Technique”).87 This article contains, in embryonic form, theoretical precepts that
inform Schenker’s later theoretical works. Ideas that continued to engage him throughout his
career included discontent with traditional theoretical instruction in music and the need for a
system of analysis that addresses the unity and coherence that he perceived in music—haits for
which literary descriptions alone were insufficient.88 Der Geist des musikalischen T echnik,
being Schenker’s first purely speculative work, is a starting point for the investigation of
Schenker’s developing ideas about the nature and structure of music. He divides the article into
five sections, with 1 and 2 (untitled) devoted to discussions of melody and repetition,
respectively. Subsequent sections are entitled “Polyphony,” “Harmony,” and “Mood, Form
and the Organic.” In his study of the article, William Pastille notes its apparent discontinuity.

In addition to offering fiagrnentary ideas, Geist further inhibits clarity with
its faulty style. Schenker glides effortlessly over large gaps of reasoning.

 

87A translation, by William Pastille, may be found in Theoria 3 (1988), 86-104. A completely revised translation,
also by Pastille can be found as Appendix A of Nicholas Cook’s The Schenker project: Race, Politics, and Music
Theory in fm—de-siecle Vienna (New York: Oxford, 2007)

88In the first volume of Der Tonwille (1921), Schenker ridicules those who describe the rhythmic motive of
Beethoven’s fifth symphony as “fate knocking on a door.” Noting an identical note-repetition in the fourth piano
concerto, he asks, “Was that, perhaps another door on which Fate was knocking, or on the same door but a different
knocking?” [ww' das etwa ein anderes Tor, an das das Schicksal gepocht oder hat es an dasselbe Tor nur anders
gepocht?] Heinrich Schenker, Der Tonwille I (1921), p. 3 l.

32

He often turns away from one topic to entertain a parenthetical idea,
returning to the first subject only later, in a different context. Sometimes
definitions of special terms do not appear until after the terms have already
been introduced. And the occasional inappropriate illustration complicates
matters even more.89

One reason for its episodic nature is that Der Geist des musikalischen Technik was,
according to the editor of Musikalisches Wochenblatt (the journal in which it appeared) part of
a larger work, still in manuscript, that formed the basis for a lecture at the University of Vienna.
No evidence in support of this can be found in either the Jonas or the Oster collection.90 In
spite of this, Geist remains a valuable study, for it treats subjects to which Schenker would
return in his later works: (1) the fundamental importance of repetition as a generator of musical
content, (2) polyphony as the foundation of western art music, (3) the explanatory nature of
counterpoint in analysis, (4) the “immortality” of musical content, and (5) the primacy of this
content over external form.”

In Der Geist des Musikalisches Technik (1897), Schenker objects to musical
organicism: “in reality, musical content is never organic, for it lacks any principal of causation.
An invented melody never has a determination so resolute that it can say, ‘only that particular
melody may follow me, none other.’ Rather, as a part of the labor of building content, the

composer draws fiom his imagination various similarities and contrasts, from which he

eventually makes the best choice.”92 Schenker’s objections are that (1) music lacks causality,

 

”William Pastille, “Heinrich Schenker, Anti-Organicist,” Nineteenth-Century Music 8/1 (1984), 30.

90Pastille 1984, 30.

”Pastille 1984, 31.

92In der That ist kein musikalischer Inhalt organisch. Es fehlt ihm ein jeglicher Causalnexus, und niemals hat eine

erfundene Melodie eben so bestimmen Willen, daB sie sagen kann, “nur jene bestimme Melodie darf mir folgerr,
eine andere nicht” Gehbrt es doch zu den Schmerzen des Inhalts-aufbaues, daB der Componist von seiner

33

and thus lacks organic growth and that (2) the composer imposes his own will on the material,

which thus lacks organic unity.93

Other Early Works

Schenker worked for Universal Edition of Vienna. In 1902 he published an edition of five
sonatas and one rondo from C. P. E. Bach’s 1779 collection F iir Kenner und Liebhaber (1902).
He followed this with a treatise of his own on ornamentation (Ein Beitrag zur Ornamentik,
I904, rev. 1908) intended to be an introductory volume to the sonatas. Schenker also edited the
complete piano sonatas of Beethoven, based on the autograph score or, where no score was
extant, on the earliest printed editions with the composer’s corrections. He also made
arrangements of two Cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach, two piano concertos of Philip
Emmanuel Bach and two organ concerti of Handel.94

Harmonielehre (1 906)

In 1906 Schenker published his Harmonielehre anonymously.95 He largely
abandoned composition and criticism and devoted his life to elucidating the great masterworks
of music. Harmonielehre became the first volume of Schenker’s Neue Musikalische Theorien
und Phantasien, the work upon which his reputation would later rest. In it, Schenker further
develops the idea of repetition and association in music (first postulated by him in Der Geist
der musikalische Technik) and begins to resolve these difficulties in his mind and accept the

concept of organicism in music. These ideas of repetition and association, signifying for

 

Phantasie sich mehere Ahnlichkeiten une Contraste verschaflt, un schlieBIih die beste Wahl zu treffen. Schenker,
Der Geist des Musikalisches Technik. [translation by William Pastille]

93 William Pastille, “Heinrich Schenker, Anti-Organicist,” Nineteenth-Century Music 8/1 (1984), 32.

94The Organ Concerto arrangements were published by Universal and, later, International

34

Schenker organic coherence, were embodied in the concepts of Motiv and Stufe, respectively.
With the Motiv and Strife, Schenker develops the ideas of the “biological life” of tones, and the
“unconscious genius.”

The Stufe, according to Schenker, “is a higher and more abstract unit [than the triad], so
that it may, many times consume several harmonies, of which any one could be an independent
triad or seventh-chord)"; that means, even if certain harmonies seem to be independent triads or
seventh-chords, they may nonetheless add up, in their totality, to one single triad, e.g., C—E—G,
and they would have to be subsumed under the concept ofthis triad on c as a Strife?”
Schenker rejects the notion of “closely relat ” and “distantly related” keys, preferring to show
the major-minor system as supporting chromatic inflections on all scale steps through mode

mixture:

 

C D!» D El», E F G A1», A Bl», B
I £11 11 III IV V VI VII
Table 1.7. Stufen available in the Maj or-Minor System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schenker goes on to describe how, in the music of late Romanticism, major and minor
fuse together: he combines the notes of both the major and minor scale into a single chromatic
scale and then places major and minor triads (via mixture) on each degree. Schenker then
shows how each of these degrees may serve as an illusory key (“scheinbare Tonart”) that could,

in turn, be composed out.98

 

96by Vierklang, Schenker intends the only consonant four-note combination: the seventh chord.

97Denn die stufe bildet eine bohere abstrakte Einheit [als Dreiklang], so daB sie zuweilen mehere Harmonien
konsumiert, von denen jede einzelne sich als selbsbestandiger Dreiklang oder Vierkland betrachten lieBe; d h. wenn
gegebenenfalls mehere Harmonien auch selbstfindigen Drei- oder Vire-klangen tihnligh sehen, so k6nnen sie unter
Umstanden nichtsdestoweniger zugleich auch cine Dreiklangssumme, z. B. C E G hervortrieben, um derentwillen
sie dann alle miter den Begriff eben des Dreiklanges auf C, als einer Stufe, subsumiert werden mtlssen.

l-IL: 181.

98HL§160

35

In Harmonielehre, Schenker explains the biological metaphor of the inner life of tones,
firrthering his acceptance of organicism and making his unique contribution:
We should get accustomed to seeing tones as creatures. We

should learn to assume in them biological urges as they characterize

living beings. We are faced, then, with the following equation: in

nature, procreative urge -> repetition -) individual kind; in music,

analogously: procreative urge -) repetition -) individual motif. The

musical image created by repetition need not be, in all cases, a

painstakingly exact reproduction of the original series of tones. Even

fi'eer forms of repetition and imitation, including manifold little

contrasts, will not cancel the magical effects of association.99

Throughout his writings, Schenker contrasts the “genius” with the “non-genius.” His

definition of genius narrows as his writings progress (and as he accepts more firlly the organic
nature of music). In Harmonielehre, the genius is one who allows music to speak for itself
without undue imposition of his own will on it: “a great talent or a man of genius, like a
Sleepwalker, often finds the right way, even when his instinct is thwarted by one thing or
another . . . by the filll and conscious intention to follow the wrong direction. The superior
force of Truth -— of Nature, as it were — is at work mysteriously behind his consciousness,
guiding his pen, without caring in the least whether the happy artist himself wanted to do the
right thing or not.’”00 Thus, the music of the true genius, as Schenker understood and defined

the term, will always be organic for his will is guided by nature. In contrast, Schenker viewed

 

99Man gewbhne sich endlich, Tenen wie Kreaturen ins Auge sehen; man gewohne sich, in ihnen biologische Triebe
anzunehmen, wie sie den Lebewesen innewohnen Haben wir doch schon hier vor uns cine Gleichung: In der
Natur". Fortpflanzungstrieb — Wiederholung -— individuelle Art; in der Tonart ganz so: Fortpflanzrmgstrieb -
Wiederholrmg — individuelles Motiv. Schenker 1906, 6.

looGl'oBen Talenten und Genies namlich ist es oft eigen, Nachtwandlem gleich den rechten weg zu gehen, auch
wenn sie durch dieses oder jenes hier sogar durch die volle Absicht auf Falsches, verhindert sind, auf ihren Instinkt
zu horchen. Es ist, als komponierte geheirnnissvoll hinter ihrem BewuBtsein und in ihrem Narnen die weit HOhere
Macht einer Wahrheit, einer Natur, der es gar nicht verschlagt, ob der gltlckliche Kttnstler selbst die Richtige wollte
oder auch nicht. Ib_id., p. 76-77.

36

the music of the non-genius to be composed successively, by stringing together musical
materials in the manner of a quilt, thus lacking true background synthesis.

To Schenker, a motive was not simply an adjacent series of tones that may be
manipulated in various ways by the composer, '0' but was rather a linear pattern that binds the
piece together; a mridirectional line that exhibits control over a larger passage, and that may be
operative on various levels of structure. He goes on to say, “only by repetition can a series of
tones be characterized as something definite. Only repetition can demarcate a series of tones
and its purpose. Repetition is thus the basis of music as an art.’”02 Oswald Jonas, in his
Einfiihrung in die Lehre Heinrich Schenkers, provides an illustration of Schenker’s enlarged
concept of motive as a unifying factor. hr this example, the upper-voice line A—G—F—E in mm.
3—4 is expanded into the scalar passage of mm. 5—8, whose initiating and peak tones duplicate

this sequence of pitches:

 

lo'E.g., by transposition, sequential repetition, inversion, retrograde and the like.

'OZHL-Eng, 5

37

Allegro

3)

 

 

 

 

 

Takt 3,4 Takt 5, 6, 7, 8
II 0 TD 13 n j
b) - i ii i r". i . . a

 

Figure 1.1. Mozart Sonata K. 545, mm. 19"3

Although he has yet to discover the Urlinie, which, in Schenker’s mature theory, is the

fundamental guiding motive of the whole work, his discovery of linear progressions (Ziige) is a

major factor in determining the organic coherence behind the musical artwork. The idea of a

unifying motive is hardly unique to Schenker. What is unique, however, is the conception of

motive as a linear progression that may be elaborated on several layers of structure, often

simultaneously.

Bach ’s Chromatic Fantasia (1909)

Schenker’s study of Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy (1909) contains an early references to the idea

of linear coherence and linear progression revealed through a reductive analytic technique, i.e.,

 

'03Oswald Jonas, Eirfiihrung in die Lehre Heinrich Schenker (Vienna: Universal Edition), p. 3

38

stripping away the more ornamental pitches in order that the underlying structure of a passage
may be seen more clearly. In this study, Schenker explains the subject of the fugue as being
based on the compositional unfolding of the D-Minor harmony. His commentary reveals his
pleasure in this discovery: “Thus the veil is lifted fiom a wondrous and profound mystery. All
of the chromaticisrn of the subject, seemingly so diffuse and aimless, is in fact firmly rooted in

the composed-out D-Minor chord. Indeed, it is as if we heard only the composed-out chord

'99104

itself! What inspired construction

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.2. Schenker’s subject analysis of 1909
Later, in Der fieie Satz (1935), he returned to the work, providing the following analysis of the

subject and showing its harmonic basis:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
Fugue 5 a 3 a a
' -H—-—.-H—
- — V - ...... 42- u l
l ) «...-....- 1'

Figure 1.3 Schenker’s subject analysis of 1935'05
Schenker’s edition of Bach’s work is not a full-scale contrapuntal analysis. It is, rather, a bar-

by-bar commentary that reveals his concern with standard performance considerations (e.g.,

 

'MCFF: 45.

'°’l=s, 7 (fig. 20.2)

39

tempo, dynamics, fingering, omamentation) insofar as they convey the perfonner’s technical
understanding of the work.

Der Kontrapunla: I 91 0 And 1921

Four years after Harmonielehre, the first part of his second volume of Neue Musikalische
Theorien und Phantasien was published. Der Kontrapunkt, published in two volumes in 1910
and 1922, was a study of voice-leading, showing how the connections between the scde
degrees are achieved. He first justifies his treatise by explaining that previous methods of
instruction (those of Fux, C. P. E. Bach, and Rarneau) failed to differentiate between exercises
and actual composition106 Furthermore, these methods were based on either voice-leading
only, without reference to scale-degrees (F ux, Bach), or on scale-degrees only, without
reference to voice-leading (Rarneau).107 In Kontrapunla, Schenker begins to show how the
concepts embodied in strict counterpoint underlie and inform free composition. This idea is of
paramount importance in the development of Schenker’s thought and is closely linked to his
later theory of Schichten (“structural layers”). Schenker shows how “ideas in fiee composition
are expressed mostly in a texture of two voices,” citing the following example and concluding
that “the real connection between strict counterpoint and free composition can in general be

discovered only in reductions similar to the one just quoted.” '08

 

“Schenker refers to Fux’s Gradus ad Parmassum of 1727 and Bach’s Versuch Uber das Wahre Art, das Klavier
zu Spielen of 1759.

107Schenker, Counterpoint I. In the ease of Rameau, while he did discuss scale-degrees be interpreted every vertical
sonority as a scale-degree, with no regard to actual contrapuntal function.

l"“Schenlter, Counterpoint I, p. 199.200.

40

Brahms, Variations on a Thene by Handel Op. 24, Var. XXIII

P<f p<f

 

Figure 1.4 Brahms, Variations on a theme by Handel op. 24

If there is one principal idea that Schenker is trying to express in Der Kontrapunkt, it is
that linear progressions underlie even the most angular foreground melodies. This idea finds its
expression in the concept of “melodic fluency,” which he describes as “a kind of compensating
aesthetic justice vis-a-vis the overall shape, within which each individual tone is a constituent
part of the whole as well as an end unto itself.” He further describes the cantus firmus as “a
spare melodic beauty burdened with the purpose of an exercise” and “a little organism ... [that]
still has its animation.”l09 Rothgeb’s rendering of “Seele” with “animation” is curious as
the English word almost exclusively connotes movement, whereas the German “Seele” is

typically translated “soul.” Rothgeb may have been thinking of the Latin root, “anima”

 

"’9 Schenker,Counterpoint I, p. 94. Kontrapunkt I states, “1m ‘flieBenden Gesang’ finden wir somit cine
Art ausgleichender asthetischer Gerechtigkeit gegentlber dem Gesamtgebilde von Tenen, innerhalb dessen
jeder einzelne Ton ebensosehr Mittel zum Gesamtzweck als auch Selbstzweck ist.” And later, “Wir haben
eben in C. f. zwar eine mit einem Aufgabenzweck belastete karge Melodieschbnheit, aber irnmerhin eine.
Der kleine, mit beobachtung so vieler Verbote kttnstlich hergestellte Organismus hat dennoch auch seine
Seele!” (134)

41

which, of course, means “soul” but the context here does not make that connection clear.
Schenker’s diction is in keeping with his organic thinking, that the coherence conferred

upon the Cantus by the requirements of melodic fluency constitutes its “soul.”

Erlc'iuterungsausgaben (1 91 3——I 921)

In 1913, Schenker delved into critical studies of the last five piano sonatas of Beethoven

These appeared at irregular intervals, in 1913 (op. 109), 1914 (op. 110), 1915 (op. 111), and
1921 (op. 101). An edition on op. 106 was not completed or published. In the critical edition of
Beethoven’s op. 111, Schenker’s analysis is still tied to the rhythm of the foreground. He
shows, through durational reduction, linear progressions in an (in this case) arpeggiated texture
(Figure 1.5). In the critical edition of op. 101, however, Schenker employs the term Urlinie for
the first time denoting his reduction of the foreground to a coherent linear progression Later,
he would use the term to denote the fimdarnental motive governing all of the tonal relationship
in the piece. His describes the Urlinie as a “photograph of the essence of the soul, so to speak”

and maintains that it “is the possession of genius alone.”1 10

‘R

'lm‘GewiBennassen ist die Urlinie Lichtbild des Seelenkemes.” “Die Urlinie ist Besitz des genies allein.”
SChenker 1920: 7-8.

42

 

Figure 1.5. Chopin Nocturne op. 27/2, mm. 41415“l

Following the publication of the critical edition of op. 1 1 1, there was a five-year period in
which no new works appeared. This gap in Schenker’s publications between 1915 and 1920
was filled, presumably, by the crystallization of own concepts and formulations. His thinking
was undergoing a change that would emerge in his pamphlets Der Tonwille (“the will of the
tone”). This change in Schenker’s drinking was not limited to his ideas on music, but his ideas
about culture and nationalism, as well. He, like many Austrians and Germans, was incensed
over the Treaty of Versailles that marked the ending of the war, as well as the fall of the
Habsburg Empire. His writing thus tended to take on a more pronounced anti-French and anti-
Democratic turn. The fruits of this period are seen in the second instalhnent of Der Tonwille,
wherein Schenker wholeheartedly embraces the concept of organicism.

Der Tonwille: 1 921—1 924

 

”'Heinrich Schenker, Erlduterungsausgebe die letzten Sonaten Beethoven: Sonate C mall op. 11], p. 7

43

The ten pamphlets that comprised Der T onwille were devoted to expository essays, political
and social commentary, and analyses of individual pieces.‘ '2 In them, his analytical
methodology and conceptual thinking crystallized further, using an evolving graphic notation
to convey the voice-leading. The most significant analyses in Der Tonwille are of Beethoven’s
Fifth Symphony and Brahms’s Variations and Fugue on a theme by Handel. The publications
also contain essays expounding his most important musical discovery, the Urlinie, essays on
the nature and history of music, and a particularly polemical essay entitled “On the Mission of
the German Geniuses.” He also examined compositions of Haydn, J. S. Bach, Mozart,
Beethoven, C. P. E. Bach, Schubert, Schumann, and Mendelssohn. Of greatest significance in
the Tonwille booklets is Schenker’s conception of the Urlinie as the primary melodic motion
governing an entire piece. Essays on the Urlinie can be found in volumes 1 and 2, with
commentary spread throughout. This concept was to undergo firrther refinement (as was its
graphic presentation) in the three yearbooks of Das Meisterwerk in der Musik ”3
Schenker’s organic thinking comes to full fruition in his analysis of Mozart’s piano sonata K.
310 fiom the second Tonwille booklet:

The work of the youthful master conceals mysterious relations — in

some ways similar and comparable to the ultimately inexplicable

secrets of our circulatory system —, which interconnect and nourish the

whole. If so-called thematic work is understood to mean, for example,

motivic alteration, inversion, augmentation, and similar

transformations, which lie on the surface and meet every car, then this

term may certainly not be applied to those causative factors — brought
to light here only to a modest extent for the first time — which defy the

 

”zAn excellent discussion of the general content, as well as translations of twelve essays fiorn Der Tonwille may be
formd in Joseph Lubben’s “Analytic Practice and Ideology in Schenker’s Der Tonwille,” PhD diss., Brandeis
University, 1995. A complete translation has recently been published by Oxford University Press.

“3In general, the voice-leading graphs of Der Tonwille retain the literal rhythm of the foreground, while in Das
Meisterwerk, Schenker begins to differentiate between levels of structure using rhythmic durations to signify
structural significance (e.g., the Urlinie would be presented in whole-notes, being the most remote level of
structure).

44

narrowness of a single concept, the constriction of a single word. In
addition we see that, in dimension, direction, and inner motion, in
repetition of subdivisions and key and so on, all the parts of the line are
mutually interdependent, the vigor and abundance of the organic
streaming into every vein. Motive and diminution, as offshoots of the
line, variegate Urlinie-segments, individual Stufen, and modulations,
andjuxtapose the parts in such a way as to bind the whole all the more
tightly. Further aids to synthesis are: in the realm of rhythm, for
example, the reinterpretation of measures, the opposition of motives to
the firndamental meter; in the realm of voice-leading, the skill and
beauty of the Auflensatz setting — both of the Urlinie and of the
dirninutions — and above all the broad, elaborate passing motions. And
in each and every particular the richest diversity, attesting to the
boundlessness of organic life.l '4

With his embrace of the organic metaphor conjoining the Urlinie, the Stufe, transformations

and repetitions of the Motiv, and the Synthese itself, Schenker continued his probing analyses.

Das Meisterwerk In Der Musik: 1925—1930

In 1925 he began publishing a ‘yearboo ” instead of quarterly pamphlets, in order to
analyze pieces in greater detail and provide longer expository essays. These yearbooks, entitled
Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, contain analyses of Beethoven’s third symphony and Mozart’s

fortieth along with two extraordinary essays, “On The Organic Nature of Sonata Form” and

 

114

Das werk des jugendlichen Meisters birgt in sich gehemnisvolle Beziehungen, die, den mrerforschlich-letzten
Geheimnissen lmdseres Blutkreislaufs irgendwie verwand und vergleichbar, das ganze bilden und nahren. Versteht
man unter sogennanter thematische Arbeit zum Beispiel Motivverandenlngen, Umkehrung, VergroBenmg und
dergleichen Verwandlungen, die obenauf liegen und jedem Ohr entgekommen, so daflc diese Beziechnung sicher
nicht aud jene Ursachlichkeiten angewendet werden, die, hier nur zu einem geringen Teile zum erstenmal and Light
gezogen, der Enge eined Begriffes, der Kleinheit eines Wortes spotten. Wir sehen femed alle teile der Linie in
GroBe, Richtung und innerer Bewegung, in Wiederholung von Unterteilungen und Tonart u. s. w. einander
bedingen, in alle Adem Kraft und Segen des Organischen verstrbmend. Motiv und Dirninution, als SproBlinge der
Linie, verflirben Urlinie-Abschnitte, einzelne Stufen, Modulation und seBen so die Teile gegeneinander, um desto
fester das Ganze zu binden. Als weitere Behelfe ftlr die Synthese finden sich im Bereich der Rhythmik zum
Beispiel die Umdeutung von Takten, das Gegenspiel von Motiven gegen das grundlegende Metrum; irn Berich der
Stimmfllhrung Kunst und Schbnheit das AuBensatzes, und zwar sowohl des SaBes der Urlinie als der Dirninution
und ganz beseonders die weiten so kunstvollen Durchgange. Und irn allem und jedem reichste Mannigfaltigkeit,
die Unendlichkeit organischen Lebens bezeugend Schenker, Der Tonwille 2 (1922), p. 17 [translation by William
Pastille]

45

“The Organic Nature Of The Fugue.”1 '5 In volume 1 of Meisterwerk, Schenker opens with an
essay on improvisation, illustrating how the principles of composing a fiee fantasia as laid out
in C. P. E. Bach’s Versuch conoborated his own view of composition. He follows this with a
tirade against modern editorial practices, showing how modem editors have corrupted the texts
of the composers by inserting their own articulations (and adversely affecting the synthesis).
Schenker then moves on to analyses of Bach, D. Scarlatti, and Chopin. He concludes with
another essay on the Urlinie tint builds upon the essays in Der Tonwille 1 and 2. The second
volume opens with another essay on the Urlinie that forms a continuation fiom the first
Yearbook and contains attacks on Schoenberg and Stravinsky before moving into two of his
most original essays, “The Organic Nature of Sonata Form,” and “The Organic Nature of the
Fugue.” These two seminal essays will be discussed below. Mozart’s fortieth symphony is
analyzed as well as Haydn’s “Representation of Chaos” fiom The Creation. In another essay,
Max Reger’s variations and firgue on a theme of Bach is held up as a Gegenbeispiel (counter-
example) and shows how, in Schenker’s view, Reger nrisunderstands the structure of Bach’s
theme, as is evidenced by his variations.

The third yearbook of Meisterwerk, appearing in 1930, opens with an essay on Rameau
and is a classic example of Schenker’s polemic. In it, he traces conventional theory back to
Rameau and shows the detrimental effect tint Rarneau’s theories have had on theory and
composition. The remainder of the volume is devoted to a lengthy and thorough analysis of

Beethoven’s third symphony with a discussion of literature and performance suggestions.

 

“’rhe first translation of many ofthe essays in Meisterwerk is found in Sylvan Kalib’s dissertation “Thirteen
Essays from the Three Yearbooks Das Meisterwerk in der Music: An Annotated Translation,” PhD diss.,
Northwestern University, 1974 in which Kalib gives translations of each general “type” of essay. The three
yearbooks have since been translated in theirentirety by Ian Bent et al., and issued by Cambridge University Press.

46

In Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, the most significant examples of his organicist
thinking are the previously-cited essays on fugue and sonata form fiom yearbook two (1926).
In these two essays, Schenker explains his position as an organicist vis-a-vis traditional (non-
organic) theory. In the essay on sonata form he shows that, whereas conventional theory
teaches a generalized pattern based on themes, key relationships and the like, the sonata of the
“geniuses” takes place “through the extemporizing flow of A uskomponierung, with the
bormdaries of sections, and choices of key being determined by the specific manner in which
the Urlinie and Ursatz are unfolded and distributed”1 '6 As his examples, Schenker chooses
Haydn’s sonata in G—Minor (Hob. XVI: 44), and Beethoven’s piano sonatas op. 10 (nr. 1 and 2)
and op. 109. He talks of the “degeneracy” of the generation following the masters, of the
Romantics who “aspired to create sonatas and symphonies of even grander scope than those
written by the masters. ... The results were deplorable. Instead of producing organic works of
art,workswerebeingwrittenwhichmightbecomparedtobatterinwhichraisinshadbeen
added; but even after the cake was finished, the raisins were still discernible. The sonata,
however, is not a cake — it is a tonal mass, comprised of such material in which raisins should
not be detectable.”117

In the essay “On the Organic Nature of the Fugue,” Schenker dispenses with traditional
structure of subject, answer, episode, modulation, stretto and the like, preferring to show how
the firgue is an organic composition like the sonata but one that generally shows more

foregrormd contrapuntal activity. Schenker takes as his example the C-Minor fugue fiom J. S.

 

"6Sylvan Kalib, “Thirteen Essays fiom the Three Yearbooks Das Meisterwerk in der Music by Heinrich Schenker:
An Annotated Translation,” PhD diss., Northewstem University, 1973, Vol III. p. 70.

msie wollten die Sonaten, Sirrfoniennoch grOBemr aks die Meister sie schaffen. Das Ergebnis warentsprechend
kflglich: statt organische Krmstwerke erltstanded Werke, in die, wie in einen Tieg, Rosinen getan waren — auch irn
fertigen Kuchen sind die Rosinen m untersceiden -, die Sonate ist aber kein Kitchen, sie ist eine Tonrnasse aus
einem Stoff, in dem Rosinen nicht zu rmterscheiden sind Schenker, Das Meisterwerk in der Musik I], p. 53.

47

Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1. He systematically points out the greater logic of his
organic explanation versus the traditional approach, citing analyses by Marpurg, Adolph Marx,
Hugo Riemann, Wilhelm Werker, and Wolfgang Graeser. He concludes, “How does such an
interpretation [i.e., those of the preceding theorists] differ from mine? Does the difference lie
simply in the terminology, or does it go beyond this or that ‘theory’ and depend on a
completely different way of hearing? One writer hears three sections; I hear only one. Yet
another heard rumbling notes and intensifications and poetic effects; I hear a rational language
of tones, more rational than the language of speech can ever be. And if applied to spwch, can
one possibly imagine such totally different ways of hearing? I leave the reader to draw his own

conclusion.”l '8

Der fieie Satz (I935)

The culmination of his life’s work, Der fieie Satz, published posthumously by his disciple
Oswald Jonas in 1935, contained a systematic working-out of his theory of structural levels,
governed by an Ursatz, according to the demands of organic construction. He showed how the
Ursatz may be divided to produce formal junctures and apparent changes of key. He
systematically discusses: (I) the various dirninutions that serve to prolong the tonic triad and

their graphic presentation; and (2) how the principles of strict counterpoint are borne out and

 

ll"Ist der Unterschied dieser und ahnIicher Auffassungen gegentlber der meinen bloB auf die verschiedene
Narnengebung zurtlckzuf‘uhren oder geht es jenseits von wie irnmer beschaffenen “Theorien: um eirr wesentlich
andered Heren? Der andere hon drei Stitze, ich nur einen, der andere drei Tonarten, ich nur cine, der andere cube
Tonrumpelei und Steigerung und Poetisches, ich eine Tonverklmft, wie vemunftiger keine Sprachvemunft sich
gebarden kann — ist eine so aufl‘ttllig groBe Verschiedenheit des Herens auf den Gebiete der Sprache auch nur
denkbar? Das Nachprtlfen der Wahrheit tlberlasse ich dem Leser. Schekner, Das Meisterwerk in der Musik II, p.
94.

48

E(ICS

H9

broadened in scope at various levels of structure. The conclusion is a discussion of the

various forms in tonal music. Appearing throughout, and woven into the analytical text, are
political-social diatribes, exaltations of the genius of German composers, and various other
commentaries typical of the Vermischtes (“miscellaneous”) sections of Der T onwille and Das
Meisterwerk in der Musik.

In the introduction to Der F reie Satz, Schenker summarizes its content and lays out
what he feels is the preferred method of instruction for the musician:

In opposition to [previous theories of music], I present here a new
concept, one inherent in the works of the great masters; indeed, it is the
very secret and source of their being: the concept of organic coherence.
The following instructional plan provides a truly practical
understanding of the concept. It is the only plan which corresponds
exactly to the history and development of the masterworks, and so is
the only feasible sequence: instruction in strict comterpoint (according
to F ux-Schenker), in thoroughbass (according to J. S. and C. P. E.
Bach), and in free composition (Schenker). Free composition, finally,
combines all the others, placing them in the service of the law of
organic coherence as it is revealed in the Ursatz (Urlinie and
Baflbrechung) in the background, the voice-leading transformations in
the middleground, and ultimately in the appearance of the
foreground]20

Schenker’s motto, stated on the covers of the T onwille booklets and Der fieie Satz, Semper
idem sed non eodem modo (“always the same but not in the same manner”) refers to the idea
that the configuration of a great many pieces may be, for example, a third-line, but the manner

in which that third-line itself is prolonged and auskomponiert is what gives the composition its

 

“9 Freie Satz was originally intended by Schenker to be Book In of Kontrapunkz. See Hedi Siegel, “When fieier
Satz was part of Kontrapunld (Schenker Studies 2: 12—25)

”olhr stele ich nun hier eine neue Lehre entgegen, wie sie sich in der Werken der groBen meister, und zwar als das
Geheimnis ihrer Entstehung und ihres Werdens birgt: die Lehre vom organischen Zusammenhang. AIS m iht nun
wirklich praktisch hinleitend, stele ich, wieder nur der Geschichte und Entwicklung des Geniewerks streng
entsprechend, den einzig gebotcnen Lehrplan auf: die Lehre vom strengen Satz (nach F ux—Schenker), vom
GeneralbaB (nach Joh. Seb. and Ph. Em. Bach) and die Lehre vom fieien Satz (nach Schenker), die zuletzt alle
Lehren ineinanderschlingt urrd dem Gesetz des organischen Zusammenhanges dienstbar macht, wie er sich durch
den Ursatz (Urlinie, BaBbrechung) als Hintergrund, durch die Stimmfilhrtmgsverwandling als Mittelgmnd und
schlieBlich durch den Vordergrund offenbert. Schenker, Der F reie Satz, pp. 15-16 [Translation by Ernst Oster].

49

individuality. This idea also has proformd ramifications for any great work of art, whether it be

literary, musical, or visual.

50

PART TWO: INCOMPLETE TRANSFERENCES OF THE

URSA TZFORMEN AS USED IN SCHENKER’S VOCAL MUSIC
2.1. Introduction

As a composer, Schenker’s music employs the tonal language of nineteenth-
century Romanticism. Thus, to understanding his compositional choices, we will employ
the analytical methodology and techniques that he established in his later writings to
explain that language. After a general discussion of the weakening of diatonic key
relationships and the (inherent) analytical problems that result, I will explore Schenker’s
theoretical concepts of hidden motivic repetition and incomplete Ursatzform
transferences as a means to understand his own music, as it employs these devices
consistently.

Schenker views the musical artwork as the temporal unfolding of the chord of nature
(formed by the first five partials of the overtone series) by filling in its tonal spaces with passing
tones in the upper voice. The upper voice melody (Urlinie) may take any of three forms, filling
in the tonal space of the chord by descending from the third, the fifth, or the upper octave into
the tonic. The bass voice expresses the tonality by arpeggiating to its upper fifth, coinciding
with the i of the Urlinie and returning to its point of origin. The temporal extension of the
chord of nature in time is called Prolongation, and the method by which this is accomplished is
termed Auskomponierung: the chord, unfolded in time, is thus transformed firm a vertical to a
horizontal entity. This configuration, which Schenker termed the Ursatz, forms the skeletal
basis for most music that Schenker investigated. The Ursatz itself may be prolonged through

various diminutions such as passing tones, neighboring tones, and arpeggiation.

51

” 3332i 836321321~

DJ)
N)
—

 

I V I I VII VI

Figure 2.1 The Three Ursatzformen
These dirninutions create musical content. Likewise, these main diminutions may give rise to
additional diminutions, each stage becoming further and further removed fi'om the germinal
Ursatz. This idea of successively generated content illustrates Schenker’s concept of Schichten
(“structural levels”).

Occasionally, however, tonal motion may be incomplete. Two types of incomplete
progressions that Schenker considers in his writings are the auxiliary cadence and the
back-relating dominant, both of which are major tenets of Schenker’s theories and have
powerful analytical implications. Both are incomplete transferences of the Ursatzformen,
which is Schenker’s archetype for tonality. The relationship between the two concepts,
though, has not been explored in the literature, and it is this relationship that I would like
now to consider. A complete tonal structure, in Schenker’s View, will consist of three
parts: (1) the opening tonic, which is the point of departure for all musical activity; (2)
the upper fifth, or dominant, which represents a departure from the tonic; and (3) a return
to the point of origin. This tonal triangle is elided in both the auxiliary cadence and the
back-relating dominant, which are reciprocally related in that the former consists of the

second two thirds of the Bassbrechung, or firndamental bass arpeggiation, and the latter

52

consists of the first two-thirds, as shown:

A) complete tonal B) auxiliary cadence C) back-relating dominant

SIFUCIUI‘C

 

Figure 2.2 Comparing Complete and Incomplete Ursatzformen

Each piece explored in this dissertation is predicated upon an auxiliary cadence design
that incorporates a back-relating dominant in a different way (recall semper idem sed non
eodem modo). Both the auxiliary cadence and back-relating dominant are open tonal
progressions that conceptually prolong the tonic. They differ in that the auxiliary
cadence is not closed in its beginning, and the back-relating dominant is not closed at its
ending. This seems to threaten organic unity which needs a beginning, middle, and end
(e. g., the I—V—I of the Ursatz). The auxiliary cadence, in particular, offers the analyst a
lens through which to view a seemingly non-unified structure. Both of these ideas will be
discussed in the engiuing discussion: first the auxiliary cadence (section 2.], pp. 55—78),
and then the back-relating dominant (section 2.2, pp. 78—87)

Agnes employs an incomplete progression that begins on V1 and moves through
[:11 to V resulting in an auxiliary divider leading to a recommencement in the tonic major
that is similar to Brahms’s setting of the same text. In the opus six songs, the three
chosen texts, while seeming to exhibit a teleological plan, lend themselves to auxiliary
cadence designs because of their poetic ambiguities. Each of the three songs realizes that

ambiguity in a different way. The first, Heimat, exhibits a design similar to Agnes

53

(I)

“3

n1

inasmuch as the auxiliary-cadence beginning proceeded to a dominant, but the design is
expanded to encompass two key areas, C and E, resulting in a double-tonic tonal plan that
is subsumed and unified within the auxiliary-cadence design. Nachtgrufl begans with
auxiliary cadence and moves into a ternary form whose tonal clarity is striking given the
ambiguities of the two songs that border it. Finally, Wanderers Nachtlied takes the
double-tonic idea of Heimat but works it out in a different way, specifically by embracing
one key within another by employing subtle motivic designs to highlight relationships
between the keys of F and D.

I intend to show that the tonal problems Schenker explored as a composer were
similar to those faced by Mahler and Wagner, but on a lesser scale. Schenker, after all,
was a composer of Lieder and chamber music, not of grand symphonies and Music-
drarnas. Schenker’s compositional problem becomes, then, how to capture the essence of
a poetic text using the tonal palette of post-Wagnerian harmony and how, at the same
time, to create tonally unified works of art. I will be examining in this section: (1) the
analytical problems of directional tonality (including the double-tonic complex) in which
I will show how Schenker employed this technique in his Heimat, op. 6/1; (2) the
analytical problems of determining the tonic or non-tonic status of an opening (which is
of crucial importance to the tonal design of a work) illustrated by Schenker’s setting of
Goethe’s Wanderers Nachtlied, op. 6/3; and (3) the importance of motivic unity and
hidden motivic repetition in unifying music that contains such tonally problematic

structure.

54

2.2 The Auxiliary Cadence as an incomplete Ursatzform transference
The auxiliary cadence is an incomplete progression, opening with a non-tonic harmony
and moving into the tonic. At the beginning of a piece, it lends a sense of ambiguity to the
tonality and results in a comparatively greater sense of “arrival” once the tonic harmony does,
in fact, sound. The opening progression is then understood retrospectively as having pointed
toward the tonic. Schenker refers to such procedures as “deceptive beginnings.” He notes in
Harmonielehre that the ear expects the tonic chord at the beginning of a piece and will, until
evidence to the contrary appears, accept the opening sonority and key as the tonic:
If we hear, for example, the tone G, our first impulse is to expect the
prompt appearance of also D and B, the descendants of G; for this is the
way Nature has conditioned our ear. If the artist subverts this natural
order, if he procwds, e.g., with the lower fifth C, he belies our natural
expectation. The actual appearance of C informs us g; m facto that
the subject was not G but C. In this case, however, it would have been
more natural to introduce the C first and to have it followed by Gm
Many pieces, for dramatic or programmatic reasons, will open with a non-tonic
sonority or even key area Schenker’s term, Hilfkadenz (auxiliary cadence) refers to “[t]he
voice-leading [being] ‘closed off from what precedes it: that is, the opening harmonies are
related only to the forthcoming I; they point only to it. However, despite the degrees which

belong to the forthcoming root, the space up to its actual entrance belongs conceptually to the

 

12'Erscheint, z. B. der Ton G, so pladiert unser Gefilhl zunachst dafltr, daB offenbar zu G sich bald sine
eigenen Dezendenten D und H gesellen werden, da in diesem Sinne unser Gefllhl von der Natur instruiert
ist. Stellt nun der Ktlnstler diese nattlrliche Ordnung um, und laBt auf ein G gar die Unterquint C folgen, so
hat er damit ohne Zweifel unsere Erwartung Lagen gestraft. Daraus, daB das C tatsachlich gefolgt ist,
erfahren wir hinterher, daB es sich da gar nicht urn G, sondem vielmehr um C gehandelt hat, in welchem
F alle aber G auf C folgen zu lassen doch das Natilrliche gewesen ware. Schenker, Harmonielehre, p. 45-6.
[Translation Jonas, p. 32.]

55

preceding harmony.”122 Obviously, if an auxiliary cadence were to begin a composition there
would be no music preceding it. There are three ways in which the auxiliary cadence can
operate: (1) the non-tonic opening; (2) an auxiliary cadence in the middle of a progression; and
(3) a whole piece structured as an auxiliary cadence. This is distinguished fiom the first type
by the tonic being reached only at the end of the piece (both, necessarily, are non-tonic
beginnings). The first type is prefaced by a discussion of tonicity — the factors that determine
how is the tonic of a piece to be determined, especially at its outset. The third type includes

cases of “directional tonality” discussed above.

First type: The non-tonic opening and factors determining tonic status

The auxiliary cadence may operate on the foreground or on the background.123 An example of
an auxiliary cadence that exists only on the foregrormd is a phrase that does not begin with the
tonic chord but one whose beginning is understood retrospectively as leading to the tonic chord
that eventually occurs. One example is found in the Wedding March of Felix Mendelssohn’s

incidental music for A Midsummer Night ’3 Dream (1843):

 

122FC p. 88. A structure similar to Heimat governs Schumann’s 1m Wunderschonen Monat Mai (op. 48/1), except
flrattheworkopenswiththeupperthird, III', insteadofflrelowerhVI‘ andthusdoesnotrequireaclmnge ofkey

signature.

'23 This would seem to contradict Schenker’s conception of the auxiliary cadence as specifically a
foreground event. When I speak of a “background” auxiliary cadence, I am refening to directional tonality,
where two keys are set up as rival tonics and the first key, which features complete progressions and
motivic autonomy, is eventually understood to be subordinate to the second.

56

(sixth-progression)

 

 

 

iig v 1373 ii6 V2

 

iii
Figure 2.3 Mendelssohn’s Wedding March, mm. 1—4,
with Schenker’s analysis (F S fig. 89/4)

Schenker’s analysis fiom Der fieie Satz shows the subordinate nature of the opening
harmonies. In this example, the line connecting the upper voice C3 with the beginning of the
structural C in the bass (shown as an open notehead) that makes clear the retrospective
connection. Such “normalization” is common in Schenker’s analyses and shows structural
connection at a deeper level.124 The opening sonority relates only locally to the E minor
beginning, and not to the tonic C major.

The first section of Schenker’s Nachtgrufl op. 6/1 (with what will be shown to be
a characteristic gesture in Schenker’s compositional language) begins with an auxiliary
cadence II(=V9/v}—V—I. The auxiliary cadence is appropriate here since a progression
beginning “in the middle” may, in the context of the chosen text, symbolize that death

may take us at any time, as a thief in the night.125

 

124 Normalization refers to the conceptual re-alignment of foreground pitches at a middleground level; it is
the opposite of displacement.

57

Sinnlich, mit Ausdruck
(Ieise)

Voice

Weil jet-zo al-lw stil - Ie ist Und

A.”

Piano

        

l“

V094, v7 I

Figure 2.4. Nachtgrufl, mm. 1-4

:32
N)

 

~‘Ul

Figure 2.5 NachtgngB, mm. 1-4 as auxiliary cadence
The remainder song is cast in ternary form with a clear I—V—I tonal scheme at the
background level. The large-scale tonal design of the song does not raise the types of
analytical questions that the two outer members of the set, Heimat and Wanderers
Nachtlied, do. Rather, within this clear tonal structure, Schenker employs overlapping
phrases and long chromatic ascent. The overall structure reveals an interrupted descent

from 3 where the middle section, in F major, beginning and ending on C serves to

prolong the i. The opening music returns and the descent to the tonic ensues.

 

'25 Cf. I Thessalonians 5:2, 11 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 16:10

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
Maw” 1—19 A 20—39 B 40—67 A
Tonality Bi? major F major Bi? major
“Weil , “ .
Text jetzso alles 92$th E13899?
stille ist” 0mg
Dramatic Calmness, Remembrance Ascent 0f the
S'tu ti stillness, of the vanities king to His
I a on rest ofthe world throne

 

 

Table 2.1 Form of Nachtgrufl

The Determination of the Structural Tonic

Related to ambiguous beginnings is the opening with a tonic (or apparent tonic; this distinction
is crucial) sonority that the subsequent music reveals to be another scale degree altogether. One
of the tasks of the analyst is to evaluate, based on contextual evidence, the tonic or non-tonic
status of a harmony. A literal statement of a tonic triad at the beginning of a work is not,
according to Schenker, sufficient to establish a structural tonic conclusively; nor is the absence
of a literal tonic triad enough to preclude a structural tonic. L. Poundie Burstein, in his writings
on the auxiliary cadence,126 addresses these issues and, inasmuch as this aspect of design
figures into Schenker’s compositional work, it will be beneficial to summarize his ideas here.
Burstein suggests that, for Schenker, the presence or absence of a tonic is an either/or
question. It is analytically useful, however, to accept that the presence or absence of a
tonic can be ambiguous. Such cases might be a weakly-established tonic or non-tonic

beginnings that strongly hint at an opening I. 127

 

'26 See, for example, “’Unravelling Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence,” Music Theory Spectrum
27.2 (Fall 2005): 159-185 and “Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence” in Essays from the Third
International Schenker Symposium (Hildesheim: Olms, 2007): 1-38.

'27 Frank Samarotto, in his forthcoming article on the first movement Beethoven’s op. 132 quartet,
examines one case of such a weakly established tonic that he terms a “divided tonic” that is present almost

59

Burstein examines several of Schenker’s analyses fiom Der fieie Satz, which are

summarized below. He notes,

It may seem troubling that subtle differences may separate progressions
that are read as beginning with a true tonic from those that are read as
auxiliary cadences. Schenker never provides clear rules for deciding if
an opening sonority is a tonic or not, nor does it even seem possible that
such a determination could be made. And yet this determination often
has far-reaching ramifications. If an opening chord that is weakly
suggested nonetheless is accepted as tonic, it can serve on the highest
level as the background tonic, one of the most important harmonies of
the entire piece. If it is not accepted as a tonic, then all traces of the
chord disappear from the analysis, even on the foreground level.128

In his article, he examines several analyses from Der fieie Satz in which Schenker grapples
with this issue.

1. Structural, but not literal, tonic beginnings: '29

a. Chopin Flm nocturne op. 15/2 (fig. 117/1)

b. Chopin A minor mazurka op. ‘17/4 (fig. 63/2)

c. Beethoven, Symphony no. 2, first movement (fig. 100/2b)
II. Literal, but not structural, tonic beginnings:

a Beethoven Ab major sonata, op. 26/ii (fig. 1 10/e3)

b. Brahms, B major waltz, op. 39/ 1 (fig. 1 lO/bl)

c. Chopin, Ab major mazurka, op. 24/3 (fig. 40H)
111. More problematic cases

a. Mozart’s ‘dissonant’ quartet (fig. 99/3)

b. Beethoven’s E minor sonata, op. 90

c. Beethoven’s C major symphony, op. 21

Table 2.2. Structural versus Literal Tonic Beginning

The opening of Beethoven’s first symphony with its famous non-tonic opening is
illustrative in this regard. I propose here two readings of the opening twelve bars, the first

showing a I—V progression, and the second reading an auxiliary cadence leading to a back-

 

by implication only and whose elusiveness governs the whole design of the movement. See “The Divided
Tonic in the First Movement of Beethoven’s Op. 132,” in Keys to the Drama: Nine Perspectives on Sonata
Form ed. Gordon Sly (Ashgate, forthcoming).

'28 Burstein 2007: 21-22.

'29 Roman numerals l and 11 contain the titles cited in Burstein 2007, examples 10 and 11 (pp. 20 and 22).

Titles under Roman numeral 111 are discussed on p. 19

60

relating dominant, IV—V—(I). Reading the passage as opening on the tonic (see Figure 2.6),
the opening sonority is interpreted as a tonic chord with a flatted seventh. This tonic is
prolonged until the structural dominant in bar 9. This necessitates the strong tonicization of V
in bar 3 to be read part of the Bassbrechung I—V—I that extends the tonic firnction until bar 8.
Melodically, the upper voice moves from 3 to 5, passing through ta in the manner of an
Anstieg. The G, once attained, remains conceptually in force throughout the introduction; the

intemrption in bar 12 comes from an inner-voice descent.

 

I” (v 1) V7

Figure 2.6 Beethoven, First Symphony mm. 1—12, I—V reading
Schenker seems to agree with this view, for he writes (also in Harmonielehre) “We should be
wary, however of all sorts of deceptions which spirited authors have in store for us, particularly
at the beginning of a work. I do not include here the beginning of Beethoven’s symphony No.
I, which at first raised such excitement because allegedly it did not open with a tonic. For, in
reality, it does begin with the tonic, even though a dominant seventh-chord is piled upon it.” 13°
An alternate reading that interprets the opening as an auxiliary cadence hinges on the

interpretation of the very first chord: is it the tonic or not? Secondary V7 chords are usually

 

no Schenker, Harmonielehre §l35

61

dependent for their meaning upon the following chord. A reading that I consider more accurate
interprets the first twelve bars as an auxiliary cadence IV —H—V with the V leading to l in bar
13 (the start of the first theme group). To do otherwise, I drink, robs the introduction of much
of its dramatic power: Beethoven does not give us a root-position tonic chord until that start of
the first theme group. The tonic function of the opening sonority is compromised by the
addition of a flatted seventh, which tends toward resolution to the IV and thence to V.

Schenker admits that the composer will play upon the audience’s expectation of a tonic only to
lead the composition in an entirely different direction be reinterpreting the chord. He writes
that the composer “tries to mock us, consciously and purposively, by suddenly revealing the
same chord which we supposed to be a tonic as an entirely different scale-step.13 1” The reading
that I propose, illustrated in Figure 2.7, brings the primacy of the dominant to the fore and, as it
does not relate back to an opening tonic, is not interrupted and allows for the dramatic thrust

into the first idea of the symphony.

 

13' Schenker, Harmonielehre 235.

62

 

A

V7/ "
[V [V 11 V

Figure 2.7 Beethoven, First Symphony, mm. 1—12 aux. cad. reading

 

The interpretation of figure 2.7 hinges on the interpretation of the structure and fimction
of the dominant seventh chord. Schenker acknowledges that the dissonance can be elided, that
is, lacking an initiating tone. According to this logic, the opening chord is a tonic according to
the idea that the passing or neighbor tone may appear without its initiating tone: “thus the
preparation itself may be elided and the dissonance placed on the strong beat in its absence.
Dissonant chords thereby arise, for which in certain circumstances a purely implicit
preparation . . . can be assumed; otherwise the apparently fiee dissonance must be understood
as the clearly established internal element of a latent passing motion.”132 This is intuitively
understood by musicians who, even without the benefit of a Schenkerian understanding, speak
of seventh “cho ” or augmented-sixth “chords” whose evolution into independent harmonies

depends on the concept of elision thus:

 

'32 “so kann ntlmlich die Vorbereitung elidiert und die Dissonanz auf den guten Taktteil auch ohne solche gesetzt
warden. Es entstehen dadurch dissonante Akkorde, bei denen unter Umstanden immerhin eine bloB
stillschweigende Vorbereitung durch die vorausgegangene Harmonie . . . wohl angenommen warden kann,
sonst aber die scheinbar frei auftretende Dissonanz aur als mittlerer, dueutlich fixierter Teil eines latenten
Durchgsnges.” Schenker, Kontrapunkt l, 366.

63

with the dissonance with the dissonance

 

 

 

 

 

Jim t elided becomes: l : “5:1. 5| elided bemmf’s'H 4 fl.
$1? . F r; : {i 1' ".- 1; " ' 5' g
134,7 1v V7/ivIV map) V It“ V

Figure 2.8 Example of elided dissonance
Another ambiguous example is formd in the opening of Beethoven’s op. 90 Piano

Sonata in E Minor. Schenker mentions this work in Hannonielehre and returns to it briefly in
Der fieie Satz. He wrote in 1906: “When we listen to the opening measures of Beethoven’s
piano sonata , op. 90, our instinct suggests unfailingly that we are probably dealing here
with a tonic [triad] in E minor. . .. Our assumption, however, will not be confirmed
[because in] the Beethoven sonata, the E minor triad reveals itself soon enough to be a VI

step in G major.” ’

Componist-t in August 1814.
and Ausdruck.‘

    

Mit Lebhaftigkeit und

 

Figure 2.9 Beethoven op. 90 sonata, min. 1—28

64

Oswald Jonas, in a footnote, comments on Schenker’s interpretation: “obviously,
Schenker made a mistake here. As a matter of fact, the sonata is in E minor and the G
can be understood only as the result of a progression by a third, dividing into two the
ascent to the dominant, B.”133 This is corroborated by his 1935 reading, where he
describes precisely that situation: “the paths [in fig. 14/1 a, b] represent an arpeggiation
of the fifih through the third. This gives rise to the concept of a third-divider (which will
be explored more fully in the discussion of Heimat below, p. 94ff). The meaning of this
third-divider changes according to whether it achieves the value of an independent toot,
especially when the third is raised (III', as at b). However, in both instances, the essential
unity of the fifth-arpeggiation prevails over the third-divider. Schenker provides the
following middleground sketch of the opening measures showing the progression closed

in E minor.

(=3 2 i)

 
   

CHI

5 r 1'
(=1 (6) II V I)
Figure 2.10 Schenker, FS fig. 109a]
A foreground reading of the passage is shown in figure 2.11, which prioritizes the
auxiliary cadence beginning since the absence of the leading tone forces swift

tonicization of III. E minor is confirmed only at the close of the passage with the

 

'33 HL-Eng, 251.

65

dominant at m. 15 (which does not in any way refirte Jonas’s correction).

910121314 151617

:f\

 

VI V 1 VJ”! (111 V 1)

AC leading to 111
V

 

V I
I

III AC leading to V minor
(within 111 stufe)

illl-V-l AC governing first tonal area

Figure 2.11 Beethoven Op. 90: foreground reading

The interpretation of the opening tonality of Schenker’s Wanderers Nachtlied poses similar
concerns. The tonicity of the opening triad is in question inasmuch as it functions as Vl/m,

exactly as in the Beethoven:

(Ie ise)

Voice

Piano

 

\./
6—5 1V3

 

1): Major: [5

FMinor: V1 FR‘6 v4_3 1

Figure 2.12 Schenker, Wanderers Nachtlied showing tonal ambiguity

Schenker begins this song with an auxiliary cadence that obscures the tonality and

66

embraces the DI» tonic within the local context of F minor. By reinterpreting the tonic
opening as an auxiliary cadence leading to the dominant of the mediant, Schenker sets us
immediately in the world of the wanderer seeking his rest: we are disoriented tonally.

The basic tonal motion of the song is summarized in the table below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 1 2 3 4
Harmony Auxiliary Cadence Cadence on AL Auxiliary Cadence Db
to V of Fm; DbM to V ome; Fm
Text “Uber allen “In allen Wipfeln” “Die Vegelein “Warte nur”
Gipfeln” schwei en”

 

 

 

Table 2.3 Form of Wanderers Nachtlied

sixth

 

(leise)

Voice

Piano 5 motive
sotto voce

 

6-5 motive enlarged and contained within auxiliary cadence leading to F minor
6

l6
DLM:I 6-5-4 f
3 3 4-3
Fm: VI Fr+6 v I

Figure 2.13 Wanderers Nachtlied, mm. 1—6
The chromaticism of the passage following this is vague and diffuse as if we too are
wandering in the mists, unsure of our tonal bearings. The interplay between Di and F is a
prominent feature of the design of the work. This analysis focuses principally on two
different interpretations of the movement's basic voice-leading structure, one of which is
a response to the music's novel tonal design. As explained above, our ears are

conditioned to accept the opening notes as the tonic until evidence to the contrary

67

appears. This is the case with the opening Db major which is the first firll triad heard, and
which then progresses to IV, albeit in six-four position, on the first beat of m. 3. Such a
progression (1 i: 3 I 3) would establish, albeit weakly, D» as tonic. The notes of the six-
four, however, are inflected upwards, forming the Fr+6 of F minor which then resolve to
the dominant of that key.

Figure 2.13 also shows how the piano introduction serves to (I) introduce the
tonality in an ambiguous manner; and (2) introduce the two most prominent motives: (a)
the ascending sixth; and (b) the 6—5 motion. Tonal ambiguity is employed for
programmatic and musical reasons. It is programmatic in that it musically portrays the
central poetic idea of waiting for rest: the listener must wait (“warte nur”) for the context
to become clear before he can interpret what he is hearing and “rest” in tonal stability.
Schenker’s musical reasons are made clear in his choice of motive: nested 6—5 motivic
ideas that are manifested on the middleground as auxiliary cadences.

This idea, that a key is established, however tenuously, by means of an
incomplete progression ties in to Schenker’s motivic plans for the piece as a whole. In
this case, the 6—5 motive, appearing first on the foreground as contrapuntal motion above
the bass, is enlarged on the middleground as the harmonic progression VI—V, which is
used in to tonicize the mediant and the subtonic via auxiliary cadence in those key areas.
Additionally, lest this subcutaneous motivic play be too abstract, the initial component,
the sixth scale step, is expressed as a melodic motive of a sixth which is also composed-
out on the middleground as a series of linear progressions. Figure 2.14 shows two variant

readings of the first part of the song (mm. 1—22):

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 o 7 s 9 1011 l2 _13 14 15 l6 17 18 20 21 22
l _ _
gt i. l l ‘l
PM?“ h +5 + ' ‘H—E- - r .i
'J /"¢ . 7 Slxth - ’7'
J Sixth
I b.
K‘I T A 'l J
‘ illAhAwlf" i 4L ' r l I - his- 1 L
r/ V %0 fi/'
aux. cad.
V - V 1 III --------- I)

Figure 2.14 Two Interpretations of mm. 1—22
This certainly illustrates the concept of which Goethe was thinking when he penned the
lines, “there is nothing in the skin that is not in the bones?”34 In this case, the motivic
saturation from the foreground to the background corroborates the primacy of the sixth
which even extends to the last chord of the song - a sixth-position tonic triad!

Of central importance to Schenker’s conception of form is the idea of interruption
and the related ideas of the dividing, or back-relating, dominant. By bar 22, the music
has established D: as a tonic by means of an incomplete progression (111. 1—3) and, more
strongly, by the half cadence at m. 22. Does this mean that Schenker implied the song to
be a two-part form? This apparent upper-fifth divider segments the four-line poem into

two two-line units. Corroborating the interruption interpretation are (l) the motivic

 

”4 Goethe’s poem Typus, fiom which that line comes, seems to have had particular resonance for Schenker
and his followers. Schenker quotes it in Der Tonwille Il (1922): 5 Jonas quotes it in Der Dreiklang, a
short-lived periodical produced in collaboration with Felix Salzer, similar in many respects to Der
Tonwille.

69

descent of the upper-voice in mm. 6—1 7ff (and its copy in mm. 6—11); and (2) the sense
of recommencement in the following section, which is brought about by a progression
analogous to that of mm. 1—4. Reading the dominant as an interruption would be
incorrect, I think, for the single reason that the harmonic progression is continuous, i.e.,
we have reached the dominant in m. 22 and a true interruption would require a melodic
and harmonic recommencement analogous to an interrupted period. The music that

follows takes the newly-attained dominant as its point of departure, as shown:

sixth-motive
expressed
as a fourth
Voice
Die VO-ge-lein schwei-gen,
Piano

 

FlE

6-5 motive enlarged and contained within an
auxiliary cadence handing to C minor
6

Dtmajor: V vi V 4 A
3 4 - 3
Cminor: VI iv VI Fr+6 V I

Figure 2.15 Measures 22—27 showing parallel construction (cf. fig. 2.13)
A more correct reading of the Urlinie, then, should point to an uninterrupted structure,
although the parallelism makes an interruption reading seem plausible but harmonically
untenable. The overall course of the Urlinie prolongs 5 (AL) from bars 5 through 37,

which descends over a I-ii—V—I progression.

Figure 2.16 Background of Wanderers Nachtlied

7O

There is an intriguing correspondence between Franz Schubert’s setting of Wanderer ’s
Nachtlied and Schenker’s. Of course, Schenker would surely have known of his more
famous countryman’s setting (as he was an accompanist of Lieder), and probably had
intimate knowledge of the score. In light of this, it is curious that the song was not
analyzed by Schenker in either his published or unpublished works. Nor can sketches be
found in either the Jonas or Oster collections.

The correspondence (one might even call it intertextuality) lies in each
composer’s use of a VI—V—I auxiliary cadence but, whereas Schenker uses this gesture
twice (once at the beginning of each strophe), Schubert reserves the auxiliary cadence for
the climactic “warte nur.” While Schubert’s use of the technique at this point in the
progression emphasizes the need for patience on the part of the wanderer seeking his rest,
there is no doubt that rest will come. The tonal structure is unequivocal in Schubert’s
setting. In Schenker’s, by contrast, the tonal structure is restless and ambiguous.

The notion of rest seems uncertain in Schenker’s setting on three counts: first, the
auxiliary cadences are placed at the beginnings of strophes and are applied to non-tonic
degrees. Second, the melodic line at “ruhest du auch” occurs three times: (1) in in. 35—38
coming to rest on 2 supported by a CL—Db dyad suggesting a v/w (that progresses to an
altered IV); (2) coming to rest on a C1» in m. 41, extending that harmony; and finally (3) a
melodic S—I descent supported by a unison Dir-the most conclusive end thus far. Third,
the four-measure piano postlude establishes F as the lowest bass pitch, which puts the
tonic triad into sixth position — a kinetic, not static, position — which seems to contradict
the text (or provide for the interpretation) that the rest of earthly death is only the first

stage of a spiritual journey. Additionally, the prominent F in the bass may be some

71

attempt to compensate for the lack of a 3 of the fundamental line.

An alternate reading that might explain the curious F conclusion in the bass is that
the song was actually conceived in F minor, and that the opening Db relates to the tonality
only as VI. Such a reading (one possibility is shown in Figure 2.17) is borne out by the
tonal plan of the music and especially by the parallel auxiliary cadences VI—V—I of I (F
minor) and VI—V—I of V (C minor) resulting in the characteristic long-terrn arpeggiation

l—III—V—I over the course of the work.

123 4 678 9 510111213 14 1516 1718 2021 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I) (III)

23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4142 44 45 47 48 49

 

(V) (I)

Figure 2.17 F minor reading of Wanderers Nachtlied

Two issues that are evident in this reading are (1) the modal mixture in the fundamental

line (54—3—4224); and (2) the migration of the Urlinie into the bass. Both have

72

135 As an example, consider Chopin’s E minor prelude,

precedents in the tonal literature.
op. 28/4, in which the Urlinie, beginning in the upper voice, migrates and concludes in

the tenor.

 

i6 Mi ’ "” V‘—'(H) 16 “39 V (VI)

Figure 2.18 Chopin, E minor prelude op. 28/4, voice-leading graph

Second Type: The Auxiliary Cadence in the middle of a progression

If a middle section of a ternary form were to be structured as an auxiliary cadence, the
voice-leading graph would show the opening chord of the auxiliary cadence connecting to its
tonic, and not to the harmony immediately preceding it. Schenker, in Der fieie Satz, gives an

example from Johann Strauss’s “Blue Danube” waltz No. 1:

 

135For a discussion of such events, see Carl Schachter’s “The Submerged Urlinie" Current Musicology 56
(1994): 54-71. Also of interest is Brent Yorgeson’s unpublished paper, “The Melodic Bass: Submerged
Urlinies, Shadow Urlinies and 'Urlinie Envy',” Music Theoy Midwest (Friday, 16 May, 2003, Indianapolis,
IN). The author furnished me a copy of the paper, which remains unpublished.

73

 

 

 

 

......................

 

 

 

 

——('l v r
in; 1
v“ (._ W-ll—'- —, l) -n v I (turn) - I) a) 1

Figure 2.19 Schenker’s graph of Strauss’s Blue llmube Waltz
Here the middle section, which composes out the 2 of the first branch, is structured as an
auxiliary cadence. The unfolded interval E—A in the bass voice of the lower staff firnctbns
locally as an auxiliary cadence in A Major. It is “closed off ’ from what precedes it, a
foreground descent from 3—I in D Major (note the parentheses on the middleground Roman
numeral analysis showing that the E major harmony does not relate to D Major but rather to A
Major).

Another interesting example occurs in Schubert’s setting of Goethe’s Wanderers
Nachtlied in which the ascent to the primary tone of the Urlinie pauses at the V and re-
commences (as if it had been interrupted) in diminution over a VI—V—I auxiliary cadence. The
auxiliary cadence in this case is closed off through the restatement of the third— span of the
Anstieg; the VI harmony does not serve as a neighbor between the two V’s, nor does it firnction
as any sort of tonic-prolonging “deceptive” progression. Its meaning is that of an introductory

harmony leading to the tonic of measure 10.

74

I"
\

 

 

 

 

= *
--_——_—_i——__=———_=_=’_
., t. 6 v _,
1 vi V l V I
aux. cad.
9 lo II 1213 l4

14
u
a
u.
a
s:
an

(dim. of Anstieg) 3 2 I

N)

 

 

.... II
I
H
'I
the}.
ill
ii
i
I. '
I
l l
i) I
I
.l i
ll.
3
.L;

 

EE'E'éE-EEE _—..g.2=__ _=.:_=_.EA_ ._ .. ..:_
-—-.———— m‘_=__.=.=— _ .2. _
l
V l’ \, r r l'
V 6 6 7 6 7 6
5 5 4 g
l ' V 3 V] v l v 1

Auxiliary cadence

Figure 2.20 Schubert’s setting of Wanderers Nachtlied

Third-Type: The Auxiliary Cadence as the basis for an entire composition

It is rare for such an auxiliary cadence to form the basis for an entire composition. In such
cases, the composer must create harmonic motion within his chosen harmony while
circumventing the urge to resolve to the structural 1. Examples occur in Schumann (e. g.,
Mondnacht and Schb‘ne F remde from Lieder/vet's. ”6 Another example is Chopin’s Prelude op.
28/2 (1838—9). This is the most extensive example of an auxiliary cadence given by Schenker",
the whole piece is heard as a prolongation of V, supporting a fifth-line, with the I reached only
in the final bar. Regarding this example, Schenker writes “This example shows the complete

composition. The piece is a true prelude: it represents a fifth-progression over V—I only.”137

 

'36 Charles Burkhart, “Departures from the Norm in two songs from Schumann’s Liederkreis,” Schenker
Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 146-47. Burkhart examines Mondnacht and
Schb'ne Fremde from the cycle.

’37 Hierher zahlt auch unser Beispiel das, obgleich ein Ganzes vorstellend, immerhin das Wesen eines
Prélude so weit wahrt, als es nur einen Quintzug darbringt iiber V—I. Scheker, Freie Satz p. 136.

75

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.21 Schenker’s analysis of Chopin’s Prelude op. 28/2138

Ultimately, there comes a point when even Schenker admits confusion regarding the
tonality of a given work. His interpretation of Chopin’s Mazurka op. 30/2 (1837) shows this.
In the analysis, he writes, “an Urlinie progression and VB—I in the bass are lacking here; the
lmcertainty which arises about the tonality almost prevents us from calling this mazurka a

completed composition.”139 Schenker provides the following sketch of the bass:

 

 

 

 

 

MeasureSZI-l6 l7 - 24 33 - 48 49 NB
. /\l/ / f T \ >1 A
9- u / {It 1 ,1 (It ll / 4
ijfi .. / j - ii If i'
T1 F’ / a ll 1' 1
iv ' / l '
BMinor: I 11,3 VH3 (‘2) I 4 (Teiler)
F# Minor.'( ) I— III—V'3 Ih IV — I

Figure 2.22 Chopin, Mazurka op. 30/2, background
He goes on to say that “[the example] is undivided, due to the large arpeggiation which leads to

3—2—I; but it represents only the first part of a three—part song form.” ”0 Is the Chopin

 

mSChenker, Freie Satz, Figure 110/3.

139Auch fehlt hier ein Urlinie-lug und beim Basse VB—l; die dadurch entstehenden Zweifel an der Tonart
gestatten irn Grunde nicht, hier schon vom einer fertigen Mazurka zu sprechen. Schenker, Der freie Satz, p.

201.

“0[das Beispiel], das bei 3—2—I vermbge der brechung ungeteilt ist, dennoch den ersten Tell in einer
dreiteiligen Liedform dar[.] Idfl. Schenker is discussing musical form in this portion of the text.
According to his approach, the divisions of the Ursatz are the means by which formal demarcations are
made (i.e., an undivided Ursatz yields an undivided or one-part form, while a divided Ursatz may give rise
to forms ranging from a simple ternary to a sonata-allegro form.

76

Mazurka, then, a bona-fide example of directional tonality; or, is it an incomplete composition
that ends with a back-relating dominant? Even Schenker does not propose a monotonal
reading; his Strden analysis shows the VH3 as a “pivot,” functioning as I in the new key.
Corroborating this is the A Major of m. 48, whose meaning relates only to the Pl as 111 (not to
the B as VII). One cannot help but wonder why Schenker inserted the parenthesis in front of
the Pi analysis. The B minor and Cl Major harmonies could very well be read as IV and V‘3 in
F 3 Minor, producing an auxiliary cadence of IV—V—I. Yet Schenker proposes that it is the
“first part” of a song form. The preceding mazurka is in C minor and the one that follows is in
D Major. Since they bear no relationship, motivically or tonally, to the B minor Mazurka,
Schenker’s judgment is questionable.

Schenker’s understanding of the dramatic possibilities of these incomplete
progressions informed his compositional practice in many ways. As a composer, he
seems to have grasped the myriad ways in which these progressions can be used to create
musical expectation and meaning. In Agnes, he employs an auxiliary divider, explained
below as an auxiliary cadence leading to a back-relating dominant which is quite rare in
the tonal repertoire because of the absence of a tonic at either end of the progression; in
Heimat he employs a similarly-structured tonal design that employs two different keys,
combining a double-tonic design with the auxiliary cadence structure. Nachtgruss
displays one his simplest uses of the technique, while Wanderers Nachtlied explores the
filndamental tonal problem of tonicity and shows Schenker’s clever manipulation of

motives at the service of larger design considerations.

2.3 The Back-relating Dominant as an incomplete Ursatzform transference

77

In order to understand the incomplete transferences that form the basis for this
examination of Schenker’s music, consider again the complete Ursatzformen that consist
of the Urlinie filling in the tonal space of the triad from 3, 5, or 8 coupled with the
structural Baflbrechung from Ito V and back.

The back-relating dominant can exist on several musical levels and is best
understood as a composing-out of the tonic triad leading to the dominant. What usually
follows is a regaining of the tonic and finishing the musical phrase or section. I show
three types of back-relating dominanta: (1) a single chord within a phrase; (2) a
semicadence at the end of a phrase; and (3) a structural dividing dominant at the end of a
section. An example of the first type, an extremely local back-relating dominant (kind of
a parenthetical insertion), would be one that, in the manner of a sentence, allows the

composer to elaborate his basic idea141 as Figure 2.23 shows:

Allegretto grazioso J- = 84

 

BRD
I v II ii v8—7 I

Figure 2.23 back-relating dominant as single chord

In this example, the dominant harmony in the second measure relates back to the opening

 

14' The usage of “basic idea” here follows William Caplin‘s in Classical Form and refers to the melodic
content of the phrase

78

tonic, and not (this is the crucial point) to the ii and V that follow it. A proper reading of
the passage would prioritize the tonic and characterize the melody as expanding tonic by

prolonging the fifth scale degree via a third-span, thus:

A A

5 4

DJ)

 

I V I

Figure 2.24 Voice-Leading Interpretation [of figure 2.23]

The two V chords in m. 2 and m. 3 function differently: the first serves to interrupt the
harmonic motion after the opening melody is stated (at the level of the dominant and in
the manner of an echo) while the second is the cadential dominant and of correspondingly
greater structural importance. The passing tone At (4), which is conceptually dissonant
against the tonic prolongation, is given consonant support by the bass F upon its entry. It
then becomes dissonant upon the arrival of the dominant Bl» and then descends to 3.

A second context in which the back-relating dominant functions, which is very
typical, is at the end of an antecedent phrase, such as one would find in an interrupted
period leading to a recommencement of the melody. Here, the back-relating dominant

serves to establish 2 (supported by V) at the semicadence of the antecedent phrase. The
consequent phrase then recommences melodically, reattaining 3 and progressing through

2 to I for melodic closure.

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.25 Beethoven, theme from the Ninth Symphony, IV.

A third type of back-relating dominant is the high-level form-generating type such
as a structural semicadence in a binary, ternary, or sonata form. Such a dominant is
termed a divider inasmuch as it divides the Urlinie into two (or more) Auskomponierung
spans. This is found, for example, at the end of the development of many sonatas.
Schenker ’s use of Incomplete Ursatztomen Transferrences in Agnes op. 8/1

Schenker, sensing the dramatic potential for these two types of incomplete
transferences , combines them to form an “auxiliary divider” in which the tonic of a
passage is present only by implication.

In Agnes op. 8/1,142 Schenker employs a back-relating dominant in this manner.
He begins his setting arnbiguously, and the key of A minor is only defined retrospectively
by the auxiliary cadence VI—JaII—V leading to the back-relating dominant of mm. 5—6.
This type of progression occurs “when the tonic Stufe is completely omitted fiom a

progression. Such a progression begins in the manner of an auxiliary cadence yet ends

 

”2 This poem has been set by several other composers, including Schenker’s student Otto Vrieslander
(1880—1950). Other settings are found in Hugo Wolf’s Marike-Lieder (no. 14, 1888), and Brahms op. 59/5
(published in 1873). Schenker’s setting, the first of his op. 8 songs for women’s chorus, was first
performed in February 1904 with the Wiener Sangerverein conducted by the composer (For the program,
see JC XXXV: 5).

80

with a dividing dominant.”m An auxiliary divider writes Burstein, “allows for a key to
be established without an actual statement of the tonal center.”

Schenker’s setting of the poem is unpretentiously strophic and requires a scant
twelve measures. The song, in A minor, consists of two phrases in an asymmetn'cal (5 +
7) antecedent-consequent relationship. The antecedent phrase terminates on a half
cadence with the broad motion VI—lII—VlI and the consequent phrase completes the tonal
motion HH—V—I. It is reproduced in its entirety below along with a bi-level Chordal
analysis consisting of a chord-by-chord description along with an interpretation of the
progression of Stufen showing how the individual chords serve the prolonged harmony. ”4

Andante
I?) >—

schmll mt - bu.

Wie-u-nL I0 dutch: Tel Its In
H0 - Flaky-l Ah . 9: am Wen ich

 

 

 

 

HC
Vl6 v6 liv6 l3 xulli i3 LII6 i6 V3 i° V U] v V7 l V6 Vii” l
Vi [vii (P) (P) v (p) (l “l V) (echo)
V
(go 7 8 > 9 dim In > I I m lg,“

Wu mall-lbw nu: bli'e

~Mu um (nor)
Nachdcmlktg if: undead-ml,
-sen bind,

An dem Mu Ra -

 

l Nil/"i3 511° [1162113 ii “16W: i°v3 i6 v iv 111° vii i Vi
l .ii v 1

 

Figure 2.26 Schenker’s Agnes op. 8, no. 1 with Chordal Analysis

 

"3 Burstein 2007: 31.
m I should note here that Schenker's manuscript (JC XXII: 10) found in Appendix A, is in open score; in
my analytical reduction the two staves are SS and AA

81

Figure 2.27 sketches the antecedent phrase, showing the auxiliary divider:

    

v "U Q‘ — ‘- '

V

        

A minor: v] LII (l I)

 

Auxiliary cadence + dividing dominant = "auxiliary divider"

Figure 2.27 Agnes, mm. 1—5
There are several tonic chords within the phrase, but they are not structural; they are all
serving to prolong a different harmony. A root-position V—I progression does occur in
bar 3, but it functions within a dominant prolongation as the lower level harmonic
analysis shows. While the brevity of Agnes might be enough to dissuade some analysts
from reading an interrupted structure, the auxiliary cadence and strong half cadence make
such a reading compelling. The tonal motion of the opening phrase suggests an
incomplete, chromatically inflected neighbor motion (646) leading to a 34—3-2 melodic
descent.
The consequent phrase (mm. 6—12) begins on the tonic major, preserves the

characteristic Phrygian LII of the antecedent phrase, and completes the V-I harmonic
motion and melodic descent to l. The final two bars confirm the motivic significance of
the Phrygian LII with the melodic succession LQ—l—fl-l counterpointed by W—i-S—l
resulting in a lIvii-i—V—i during which the Q of the Urlinie occurs first as L? and then
(implied) as Q over the V of the last bar. The unusual progression towards the end (mm.

10—12), in which 3 supported by III6 and Q by V, mimics a cadential six— four; the

82

substitution of G (yielding a 1116) for the more usual A (which would have formed a V3) is

a detail of voice-leading.

6 7 8 9 IO 11 12
3 a m iii

  

    
 

\

  

VII

3
\\\/

 

I (2) LII V IV III6 V i

Figure 2.28 Agnes, mm. 6—12, foreground graph

The text describes a woman whose lover has been unfaithfiil and who is lamenting the
quick passing of the “time of roses.” As roses are an archetypal symbol of love, the
meaning of the text is a yearning for a return to the time during which the relationship
blossomed. There is not a clear beginning and exposition of the situation in this poem.
The speaker describes being repulsed by the cheerful singing of the other women and
wandering, trancelike, through the valley, finally stopping at a linden tree to weep. The
linden tree carries with it several symbolic connotations: conjugal love (see, for example,
Walther von der Vogelweide’s Unter den Linden), resting under the linden tree tends to
symbolize death (e.g., Schubert’s Am Brunnen vor dem Tore from Winterreise or
Mahler’s Die zwei blauen Augen from Lieder einesfahrenden Gesellen).

In another setting of the text by Brahms (op. 59/5), several structural
characteristics are very similar to Schenker’s. Given Schenker’s broad musical
knowledge and given his admiration of Brahms, it is likely, that Schenker knew Brahms’s

setting. Brahms’s Agnes begins with an auxiliary cadence (but not an auxiliary divider),

83

shares the rhythmic motive J] JV. J‘I J’ .M, shares the basic antecedent-consequent phrase

structure, and shares the modal shift to the tonic major in the consequent phrase.
Differences in Brahms’s setting include the repeated consequent phrase that cadences
first imperfectly (with the melody on i3), reserving the perfect cadence (in the tonic
minor) for the end of the strophe. The melodic characters are different, too, although the
third-motive is shared. But, while Schenker prefers the filled-in third, Brahms melody
prioritizes the leap of a third, either down (bars 3—6, 11, and 16) or up (bars 8—10 and 13—
15). Another difference between the two settings is that, while Schenker’s is strophic,
as described above, Brahms’s accompaniment changes for each verse, resulting in a
mofidied strophic setting. For example, he sets verse 1 in a homorhythmic Chordal
texture while verse 2, which describes the women singing, changes to a jaunty off—beat
accompaniment that is transformed, in verses 3 and 4 into a richer contrapuntal setting
depicting the aimless trance-like wandering of the woman. A score of the first strophe
with analysis is shown as Figure 2.29, which is followed by a foreground voice-leading

graph (Figure 2.30)

84

con "£010 p

   
  
  

 

Rosenzeit! wie schnell vorbei, schnell vor-bei bist du doch ge - gan-gen!

iv ii Vi i (6) V'
auxiliary cadence beginning
8
P

 

War mein Lieb' nur blie - ben treu, blie- ben treu, soll - te mir

(modal shifi)
1 “In iv° (i) v' iv6 (3) v' iv (6) V2: Lt it

 

war mein Lieb' nur blie - ben treu, blie - ben treu, nicht ban-gen.

 

9- -8
I Vin iv6 (3) v' iv“ (3) V' iv (Mi “1 '3

Figure 2.29 Brahms’s setting of Agnes (strophe 1, mm. 1—17 with analysis)

85

3 332i

 

WIN 1 (WV I v ill") I IV Vt:§l
auxiliary cadence

Figure 2.30 Voice-leading graph of Brahms’s Agnes op. 59/5

2.4 Hidden Motivic Repetition as an agent of organic coherence

The idea of motivic parallelism was introduced above in section 1.4. Its compositional
usage usually takes the form of a melodic span that shapes the music at a number of
structural levels. Examples of motives treated in this way include: (1) ornamental
figures, such as neighbor—note motions; (2) linear progressions through a particular
interval, e. g., a sixth-span; or (3) the combination of these to create a melodic shape that

is used motivically.

First Type: Ornamental Figure as Motive

An example of an ornamental figure (such as a neighbor note) becoming motivic can be
found in Schenker’s famous analysis of the first movement of Beethoven’s Fifth
Symphony from Der Tonwille (1921). He writes, “the Urlinie shows us that it is not
actually all four tones making up the principal motive that are of the essence, but merely

the two half-notes separated by a step.” He then demonstrates “how the two primary

86

tones of the motive strive towards the nodal points of the fourth or fifih by the annexation
of further tones.”145 By the “annexation of further tones” Schenker is describing the
process of motivic enlargement, which is the repetition of a motive over a longer time-
span In Schenker’s own work, Heimat, to be discussed more fully below, a single
chromatic neighbor motion becomes a prominent background motive joining two

foreground keys.

Second Type: Linear Progression as Motive

The expansion of the 5—3—4—3 motive of Mozart’s K. 545 piano sonata, first movement,
(given on page 37) is a second type of motive that may be subject to hidden repetition.
As a further example of this second type, Beethoven’s first piano sonata is permeated
with a sixth-motive that grows organically from the opening gesture (a descent fi'om 3 to
7), through the transition and second theme, and underlies the development section as
well. Figure 2.31 shows the sixth expanded through the second theme (and is indicative

of how this type of parallelism operates):

 

I45Der Urlinie entnehmen wir, daB filr sie nicht einmal alle vier TOne des Hauptmotivs, sondem nur die
beiden einen Sekundschriff voneinander entfemten halben wesentlich in F rage kommen. wie die beiden
KemtOne des Motivs sogar nach einem ZusammenschluB noch weiterer TOne bis zu den Knotenpunkten
der Quart oder Quint streben.

87

Theme 2 (Arpeggiated sixth)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middleground sixth span (inversion)
Figure 2.31 Beethoven op. 2, no. 1, mm. 21—34

Third Type: Melodic shape as motive (combination)

 

 

76 6 6 66
I 5 5 V

For an example of this third type, consider the second theme of the first movement of

Mozart’s Piano Sonata in Bl» Major, K. 333:

88

Figure 2.32 Mozart K. 333, 1, mm. 23—30 showing hidden repetitionI46
In this example, the initial melodic idea (pattern) consisting of the neighbor motion (5—5—
5) and the descent (54—8—24) is copied twice147 as shown with the nested beams. The
first copy, spanning mm. 23-26 retains the neighbor motion, but truncates the original
fifth to a third, 34—3. The second copy spans the entire eight bars but terminates at 2
because of the interrupted period structure of the theme. The consequent phrase is an
extended repetition with the necessary termination on I. A fourth motivic repetition is
found in the bass voice linking the antecedent and consequent phrases. In this statement,

however, the initial C is missing.

2.5 The Analytical Problems of Directional Tonality

Teleological monotonality is the idea that musical works express one key and that
apparent changes of key148 are prolonged chromatic elaborations of a flmdamentally diatonic
progression. This diatonic, and unidirectional, linear progression that is prolonging the tonic
triad, is a core axiom of Schenker’s conception of music as art. In Der fieie Satz, he writes “in
contrast [to the Diatonie of the background], tonality, in the foreground, represents the sum of
all occurrences, fiom the smallest to the most comprehensive, including illusory keys and all

the various musical fonns.”149 However autonomous other tonal regions may seem in the

 

”6 This sketch was given to the author during a course in Schenkerian Analysis with Gordon Sly.

147 I am using the term “pattern” to refer to the first occurrence of a motive, and “copy” to refer to
subsequent occurrences as Charles Burkhart does in “Schenker’s Motivic Parallelisms” (Journal of Music
Theory 22 (1978): 145-75.

'48 Schenker favors the term scheinbare tonart, “illusory key.”

”9. . .so zeigt in der Vordergrlmd die Tonalitat als summe aller Erscheinungen von den niedersten bis zu
dem umfassendsten, bis zu scheinbaren Tonarten und den Fonnen. Schenker, Freie Satz, p. 28 [Translation
Oster, p. 5].

89

foreground, they are still under the control of the Diatonie of the background and are realized
as composed-out Stnfen.

Applying Schenkerian principles to nineteenth-centmy chromatic music can be
problematic depending on the type and extent of the chromaticism. In his Harmonielehre,
Schenker states “the artist cannot write too chromatically as long as his intention is, through
chromatic contrasts, to show [the chromaticism’s] relationship to diatonicism in the proper
light.”150 In the music ofthe late—nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, the artistic
expression of tonality (through linear progressions, hidden repetitions, and diminutions)
became less important to composers. Rather, greater and greater modes of expression,
typically characterized by a higher degree of chromaticism and more remote tonal

151

relationships, are often the composer’s goal. Brian Hyer, in the Grove Dictionary, writes:

[N ineteenth-century] motivic chromaticism destabilizes the careful

coordination between the melodic and harmonic dimensions that

characterized Classical music, freeing music from the requirement to close

on the original tonic: numerous pieces from Schubert onwards begin and

end in different keys; . . . the dictum that pieces close on the original tonic

was an aesthetic rather than a cognitive requirement. ‘52
Whether creating a musical setting of a text or a work of “absolute” music, the Romantic
composer tends to confer unity upon a work through motivic and thematic means or through
programmatic or associative use of tonality rather than through functional harmonic

relationships.

 

‘5°[D]er Kunstler nicht genug chromatisch schreiben mine, sofem er eben durch chromatische Kontraste die
Verhalmisse der Diatonie ins rechte Licht semen will. Schenker, meonielelv'e, 396.

”Robert Morgan, ed. Modern Times, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1993), 5.

'52 Brian Hyer, “Tonality §4.iii” in Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 14 January 2008),
<http://www.grovemusic.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu:2047>

90

Thus key relationships that compose-out a diatonic backgrmmd began to weaken in the

nineteenth century, especially the fifth-relationship of the all-important dominant-tonic axis.153

” '54 of a tonic-dominant-tonic bass

This axis, which is for Schenker part of a “sacred triangle
arpeggiation, begins to be replaced with third-relations beginning with simple Chordal
juxtapositions, and extending to thematic areas. In the first movement of Beethoven’s fourth
piano concerto (1810), for example, the opening phrase (mm. 1—5) moves from I — V in the
tonic of G major. The orchestra then enters on B major (HI’): an upper chromatic mediant
relationship. In the second movement of his fifth symphony (1808) the second idea (mm. 32fi)
likewise occurs within the IH' harmony.

This weakening of foreground diatonicism was especially appropriate in vocal music,
in which the interpretation of the text’s meaning and mood is crucial, and where each composer

'5 5 Additionally, the composer no longer felt

seeks to interpret the poem that he is setting.
required to end a work in the same key in which it began. Composers tended to gravitate

towards third-relations in cases where the opening and closing tonalities were not identical. As
early as 1815, Schubert was experimenting with directional tonality.156 Directional tonality, or

tonal pairing, is the use of two tonalities, one of which serves as an opening tonic and one of

 

'53 Bryan Simms, Twentieth-Century Music: Style and Structure (New York: Schirmer, 1995), 10-1 1.
'54 “heilig sei ihm [der Musiker] dieses Dreieck! [Das Bild der Bassbrechung]” FS p. 45, §l9.

'55There exist in the literature numerous examples of songs by Mahler, Wolf, Schubert, and others that
employ directional tonality involving third- or fifth-related keys. Some of these will be discussed below.

‘56 See William Kinderman’s “Some Early Examples of Tonal Pairing” in The Second Practice of

Nineteenth-Century Tonality, ed. William Kinderman and Harald Krebs (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, l996): 23-30.

91

which serves as a closing tonic. ' 5 7 In his article, “The End of Die Feen and Wagner’s

Begirmings,” Matthew Bribitzer-Stull discusses the difference between directional tonality and

the double-tonic complex:

While directional tonality comprises the transformation of tonic function
from one tonic chord (key) to another across the span of a piece, the two
tonic keys of a double-tonic complex are not simply its opening and
closing tonal centres: rather, they are the dual harmonic poles between
which the music oscillates, at one point suggesting one key, and on
another occasion the other. The most fluid examples give the impression
that the tonic chord of either key can serve a tonal fiinction at nearly any
time, often merely implying each tonic sonority through their respective
dominant chords.‘58

Both of these procedures seem to preclude the possibility of a unified tonal framework, thus
bringing into question the applicability of Schenker’s notion of organicism (a notion that
depends on monotonality). In analyzing a directionally tonal work, the analyst is faced with the
problem of interpreting the two tonalities. It is entirely possible that the opening tonality serves
as an “introduction” to the principal tonality with which the work closes. Such cases will

typically involve a reinterpretation of the Urlinie (e.g., 3 becomes 3 when the harmony moves

from VI to 0.159 This is the case in the Chopin Scherzo op. 31 (1837):

 

'57 There seems to be no agreement regarding this term. Scholars will speak of “double tonality,”
“directional tonality,” “progressive tonality,” “tonal pairing,” or “double-tonic complex” to express similar
ideas. See especially the work of Robert Bailey.

‘58 Matthew Bribitzer-Stull, “The End ofDie Feen and Wagner’s Beginnings: Multiple Approaches to an Early
Example of Double-Tonic Complex, Associative Theme, and Wagnerian Form.” Music Analysis 258 (2006): 324.
'59Harald Krebs comments upon this Scherzo in “Tonal and Formal Dualism in Chopin’s Scherzo, Op. 31,”
Music Theory Spectrum 13 (1991), 48-60. Krebs takes issue with Schenker’s analysis and prefers to show two
descents, one in Bl» minor inten'upted at the 2 and finishing in Do Major.

92

  
    
     

     

I
I

I

.‘~: ;' IMI~—ll' I

     

“In It: . '5‘” l
nun-r. :15.‘ --- ...-I an —nt-u
__‘-fi —II-.._ ll_-.ua .
mw-il ul‘v‘l Inl—

  

Figure 2.33 Schenker’s graph of Chopin’s Scherzo, op. 31 160

Ofien, the two tonalities at work in a piece are third related, possibly the result of
mixture, e.g., a work will begin or end in the key of the VI or [H (or WI or IH'). A work may
also begin in the key of the dominant, resolving to the tonic only at the end. In his song cycle
Lieder einesfahrenden Gesellen (1883), Gustav Mahler (1860—1 91 l) exploits directional
tonality, using plagal (fourth) relations: in the first of the four songs, Wenn mein Schatz
Hochzeit macht, Mahler begins in D Minor and moves to G Minor for the final cadence. This
song is probably best explained as a non-tonic opening in G Minor, beginning on the minor V

and returning to that degree via descending thirds before cadencing on G:

 

V III I laVI IV V2:§ I

Figure 2.34 Mahler, Wenn mein Schatz Hochzeit macht, G minor reading
The alternative, analyzing the work in D minor, produces a nonsensical, incomplete

Urlinie that terminates on 3.:

 

'60 Schenker, Freie Satz, fig. 102.6.

93

 

 

 

 

I v1 IV in JV Vi—i 1:

 

IV

Figure 2.35 D Minor reading of Schatz

Mahler employs directional tonality in the other songs of the cycle, moving from D to B Major
in Gieng heut ’ Morgens u'berfeld, from D to B Minor in [ch hab ’ ein glz'lhend Messer, and
moving from E Minor to F Major in Die zwei blauen Auge. Similarly Brahms, whose
influence on Schenker has been indicated above, employs directional tonality in two of his op.
59 songs, no. 4 (“Nachtklang ”) and no. 6 (“Ein gute nacht ”). The first of these songs moves
from Cl Minor to Fl Minor, and the second from D Maj or to A Major, both employing fifth-
relations.
Schenker ’3 Use of Directional Tonality in Heimat 0p. 6/1

Schenker employs directional tonality in Heimat op. 6/1 probably in an effort to
reflect the rhetorical structure of the poemm The first strophe, beginning in C minor and

moving to El: major (m. 8), establishes a mood of anxiety and restlessness brought about by the

 

16' Heimat is the first song of Schenker’s “three songs for low voice with pianoforte accompaniment op. 6.” A
concert program preserved in the Jonas Collection (XXXV: 5)indicates that Eduard Ganner performed the work at a
Liederabend on 26 January 1905 at the Besendorfersaa], Vienna (see Appendix B for a copy of the program).
Another, later, setting of the same poem was made by Rudi Stephen (1887—1915) in 1914. Stephen,
according to an article by Robert Blackburn was killed in action near Tampol in Galicia, Schenker’s
birthplace. His setting is described as showing a “fondness for a warm and ambiguous chromaticism.”(See
Sieben Lieder noch verschiedenen Dichiern, Ed.2049, published posthumously by Schott, with a preface by
Karl Hell). The same might be said of Schenker’s setting, although it is unlikely that Stephen had
knowledge of it.

94

rustling of trees. This is possibly an allusion to remembrance of childhood fears. Harmony and
rhythm contribute to the evocativeness of the setting: the harmonies are unstable, the rhythm is
syncopated, and the texture is thick, replete with octave doublings in the lower register of the

piano.

cresc.

   
       

Und auchim a1 ten El temhause und noctumA bend kei ne Rub?
sorta voce
A A
3 3 3
V
r—‘9 v it iv‘ hi"
<

echo voice

Sehn sflchtig harich demGe brause hohenPappeln drau Ben zu.

A

W \ J id W
> pm > “’

 

Am 1(6 3) films 3) I (inst in" (1.11% L '32) Iii WI.

 

111

Figure 2.36 Heimat mm. 1—16 (Strophe 1)
The second strophe transitions (mm. 26—30) to E major (a doubly chromatic mediant
relationship, mm. 31-40), digresses briefly to C major (mm. 40—51), and closes in E major
(mm. 52—66). This strophe depicts the assuagernent of anxiety through the presence of the
mother coming into the room with her lamp. The texture of the accompaniment,
correspondingly, is reduced to a gently undulating arpeggio, possibly representing the
rernernbrances of rocking with Mother and the calming of the above fears, and the melody
takes on longer note values and a more lyrical character. The harmonies, correspondingly, are

more stable and diatonic.

95

Ruhiger u mil grofler Warme

teneramente Mut

 

> Tat

e—s . >
V] H 7. ii" H ill(= v/V) /- v1 . WI

und al le Sehmtlchtever sin ken, o Mut ter!
A in, r .

F A

 

9—8
3 7. I
tonic pedal (16—5) that rocks gently between I and V

 

1 6—5 7. 7. if —§ (V)

 

 

Figure 2.37 Heimat mm. 29—50 (Strophe 2)
Overview of the Formal Scheme and Tonal Design new
The formal scheme of the song reveals a binary design which is appropriate to the tonal
scheme. This tonal scheme lends itself to at least two possible readings, each of which
prioritizes a particular feature of the design. Figure 2.38 below does not seek to interpret the
structure, except to indicate that the transition between the two keys, represented by the pitches
Cl and B, is of less structural weight than the flaming sections. The dual-layer harmonic

analysis hints at two possible interpretations of the tonal scheme:

96

 

 

 

 

 

tllll

Figure 2.38 Heimat, summary of tonal motion

The two readings proposed are (l) a third-divider reading that prioritizes the opening
key and results in an incomplete tonal structure; (2) an auxiliary cadence reading that considers
the piece to be in E major beginning with a composed-out non-tonic harmony. These two
mutually exclusive readings are both incomplete Ursatdorm transferences and both
encapsulate the conundrum of a piece with different beginning and ending keys: where does the
structural weight lie? Both the beginning and the ending are equally important. Further, the
two tonal areas of the song occupy roughly equal time spans. However, as analysts concerned
with unity, it is the ending that defines closure. These two readings of the background structure

are shown in Figure 2.39.

97

A) Heimat background as third-divider B) Heimat background as auxiliary cadence

5 .

l 826 27 29 3lff

8 26 27 29 3lff

 

 

IIH IV6Vlt§I 1 111, 1V6 Vt; I
iIHl iVl'"

Figure 2.39 Heimat, third-divider versus auxiliary cadence interpretation

The first reading presents a C minor structure that is “interrupted” at its upper
chromatic mediant whose importance is prefigured by a rapid tonal shift from C minor to its
upper diatonic mediant, or relative major (note the dotted slur in the figure). This reading,
which prioritizes the opening C minor section and shows the E major as subordinate, does not
reflect the dramatic structure of the poem quite as well as I would like. The chief reasons for
this are (1) that the poem is over and there is no return to the state ofanxiety represented in the
first strophe; and (2) that the tonal structure is open and incomplete. A structure that is divided,
whether by the fifth or by the third, necessitates a tonal or thematic return after the point of
division and that is lacking in this interpretation.

The second interpretation presents an auxiliary cadence th—IV—V—I in E major in
which the opening harmony, C minor 0in of E), is prolonged by composing-out its upper
third, Fla (bf). This interpretation clearly shows that the opening C minor section is subordinate

to the closing E major despite the seeming equality of the two keys (each tonal area does

98

indeed have its own motivic ideas and its own musical character). This interpretation also

seems to fit well with the narrative of the poem (anxiety moving to calmness) which is best

represented by an open beginning moving toward proper tonal closure.

A third possible interpretation, that of a double-tonic complex, also seems to work fiem

a narrative point of view. Bearing in mind the distinction made by Matthew Bribitzer-Stull,

that “the two tonic keys of a double-tonic complex are not simply its opening and closing

tonal centers: rather, they are the dual harmonic poles between which the music

oscillates,” the double-tonic complex idea is compelling inasmuch as it allows for either

structural model to serve. The C tonality, introduced as minor with stormy dissonance (“dem

Gebrause”) and intense chromaticism (mm. 1—16), represents the speaker. The change to

major (mm. 40—50) with its gentleness and lyricism vanquishes the yearning (“alle

sehnsiichte versinken”) signifies a change in the speaker’s condition: same tonic (speaker) but

different mode (calm, not anxious). The agent for the change of condition is the mother,

represented by the key of E major. The music does certainly oscillate between these poles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measures 1—7 8—18 19—30 31—40 41—52 53—66
transition
Tonality C minor El? major E major C major E major
“und noch “sehtst'tchtig “lmd h6re $311135: “und alle “Mutter, in
Text am abend her ich den sacht dir titre di 1 sehtsiichte dein licht
keine ruh” Gebrause” klinken” ei;,amPe versinken” hinein”
“The “Whew! “Morn
Dramatic “I have no offltesomnighldst ‘Someone s It 5 my always
. . peace of coming! But mother .
Situatlon . . , are . . knows Sleeping?
mde m frightening who!? Is it a coming to l ’s best
anxious” 99 monster?” check on n
me. me ,, for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.4 Heimat tonal structure with narrative implications

99

 

It is my contention that the design of Heimat features a double-tonic complex design
thatisstlucturedasanawriliarycadence. Oftlrethreewaystointerpetthebroadtonal design
of the song, I believe that this provides the listener with the most meaningful experience of the
music: two distinct and seemingly equal tonal poles are perceived but, at the same time, our
need for unified musical structure must be addressed, and the separation of elements of design
and structure allow for both experiences to be accommodated analytically. I would, therefore,
like to pursue this idea further and examine how unified tonal structure is present despite the

double-tonic design.

Structure versus Design; or, An ersatz Ursatz?

It is often useful in analysis to separate elements of design (form, melody, rhythm,
motives) fi‘om structural elements (the work’s connapuntal-hannonic fi'amework) so that
workings of each may be made clear and, in the case of unusual designs, an attempt at
reconciliation can be made. In the case of Heimat, the elements of tonal design (such as the
key scheme and rhythmic activity of the sections) are striking and an analysis that completely
ignores these simply does injustice to the music. At the same time, as coherent tonal structure,
ifpresent, must be reflected the analysis should “assimilate into [its] interpretations an
acknowledgment of the expressive and form-making potential of key change”162 as well as
demonstrate that the tonal design, while it informs the structure, is ultimately subordinate to the
structure. Since we have already posited a sketch of the tonal structure of the music (the
auxiliary cadence structure of Figure 23%), let us now examine the melodic character of the

work and see how the structural path of the Urlinie is affected by the tonal design.

 

'62 Carl Schachter, “Analysis by Key: Another Look at Modulation.” Music Analysis 6/3 (1987), 289-318:
315

100

The first section of the song, mm. 1—17, establishes the key of C minor by means of a
bass pedal, and a weak V—I progression before moving to the mediant via a Ié—iv‘S—III
With the early move away from C minor, the melodic 3 assumes the ftmction of 3, the
significance of which becomes clear in the transition to follow. From this point (m. 8), the B
chord is prolonged by arpeggiation in the bass (Br—G—Bl» with incomplete chromatic
neighboring tones decorating I and 3), and repetition as an ostinato. This prolongation
continues, in the upper voice, as a minor-ninth chord above the 3 bass ostinato is unfolded
through mm. 8—17: El: (bass, m. 8) G (soprano, m. 8) — Bl» (mm. 10—13)— D (mm. 14—15)— H:
(mm. 16—17). Each successive tone of the arpeggiation, moreover, is enriched on the

foreground by a descent to the initiating upper-voice G4. The unfolded sonority then yields to

an El: Major triad with G in the outer voices.

9 l0 ll l2 l3 l4 l5 I6 I718

 

 

r m.
WI'

Figure 2.40 Heimat mm. 1—1 8 foreground graph
The transitional passage of mm. 19—30 begins with the E: major chord in sixth position,
articulated in a syncopated rhythm in the right hand, while the notes of the bass descend
chromatically from G to E1», moving the chord back in root position. After stating the ostinato
B—G—G—Bb once more, the upper voice descends to E, a unison with the bass, and then
ascends by semitone recalling the Elw—Pl» of the ostinato. The El» of the bass descends through D:

(which fimctions as Ct) to C with which the melodic Bl, approached by leap from the E,

101

dissonates sharply (although the extreme registral gap serves to mollify the efiea). The bass’s
returnto Oi(thathad been spelledas Db) and descentto B supportingatimelodic figure inthe
upper voice effects the transition to E major and transforms G! into the G (3) required of E

major.

I‘

 

\Jfi/zg \U/
Tar
Ii? BVI [(5 2) —————————————————— descent to i filled in chromatically ---------------------

sacht die

n‘I. . /_

 

q

I (3)

 

 

”:13 (n) Vfi:§

smoothing out of dissonance by increasing registral distance

Figure 2.41 Heimat, mm. 17—28 (transition)
At this point, the melodic descent Gi—Fl (3—2) is interrupted just as the knock on the door
interrupted the speaker’s reverie. As described above, the musical character of the song
changes from the pungent chromaticism and agitated rhythms to a gentle lyricism and
unperturbed diatonicism. The upper voice slowly begins its descent once more and reaches its

goal. The bass, however, ascends by semitone bringing the music into a region of WI and

102

recalling the opening section’s C—tonality and the prominent melodic G (3) but with the
following changes: (1) the mode is changes from minor to major; and (2) the gentle arpeggios
and diatonicism are carried over from the previous section.

18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 28 30 3; 34 35 38 39 40 4i 43 44(45-49) 50 51
3 2n 3 7.

 

V

13332"

 

JJV

v2:31 v M V’ '

IIIOI

Figure 2.42 Heimat mm. 18—5 1 , foreground graph

The gentleness of this C major section is interrupted (again, in two senses) by the unfinished
melodic descent 3—«1—3—2 and by the fortissimo octave CS in the piano’s lowest register. The
D: which sounds above the C recalls the opening of the song and brings the section to a close.
The final section returns to E major with the getle arpeggios becoming more ethereal as they
ascend into the uppermost register of the keyboard. The melodic descent to I, implicit in the
tonic pedal, is unfulfilled in the melody which diverts to 3 (recalling the melodic emphasis of
the opening section). The harmonic support for 2 is elusive here, even though the melodic 2 is

quite prominent. The notes of the dominant are all present in m. 60, but the bass has been

anchored on E.

103

 

[07])- I iv I iv

 

(V) 1

gr
vi[o7] I ”‘

Figure 2.43 Heimat mm. 52—69 (coda)
2.6 Musical-Textual Symbolism and Narrative of the Op. 6 Song Texts
The narrative that is suggested by both the text and the structural characteristies of the
‘ music is about dying and the separation of the soul from the body (the body-soul dichotomy
being the most fundamental existentialistic dualism). The text suggests a man returning to his
childhood home, reliving old childhood fears, and dying there. In his moments before
death he experiences a serenity and peace that he imagines is brought about by his mother
bringing in a lamp. All his yearning vanishes in that light. The mother-figure is possibly

a guardian angel, or some sort of spiritual guide, leading him into the afterlife. He is no

104

longer yearning because he is to be united with God. As St. Augustine wrote, “our hearts
are restless untill they find rest in Thee.”163

The death of the speaker is implied by the Urlinie in C that begins, and is
interrupted twice. The first interruption occurs with the knock on the door when
“mother” comes in with her lamp. The second interruption occurs afier a return to the
key of C, now major, and is an interruption in the technical Schenkerian sense. The
actual moment of death is depicted by the fortissimo octave C’s in the piano’s lowest
range which completes the I—V—I tonal motion in C while leaving the Urlinie
incomplete. The implication: life goes on. The final section becomes increasingly more
ethereal as the gentle arpeggios of the accompaniment ascend into the highest register of
the piano.

The spiritual odyssey is continued in the next song, Nachtgrufl, which describes a
peaceful death and the entrance of the soul into eternity. The predominant images are of
rest; of the sleep of death and of the soul greeting the “eternal light.” The first strophe
describes the process of dying, concentrating on spiritual liberation rather than physical
agony: the world quiets down, as if everyone is sleeping. The soul of the persona
becomes detached from the tumult of the world and perceives only the eternal light,
which it greets and rests within. The second strophe is a reflection on life, its “false
purposes” and its “vanity” that recall the book of Ecclesiastes “vanity of vanities, saith

Ecclesiastes, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”I64 Vanity is described as “the false purpose

that no one wants to endure.” The third strophe describes the ascendancy of “another

 

'63 “inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te.” St. Augustine of Hipo, Confessions, Book I.

16““vanitas vanitatum dixit Ecclesiastes vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas”Ecclesiastes I: 2; translation from

the Douay-Reims version of the Holy Scriptures.

105

king,” which is likely a reference to the Lamb of God, described as the “King of Kings”
in Revelation. As a text describing the entrance of the soul into eternity, Schenker’s
musical setting is appropriately serene.

In our overall teleological interpretation of the three texts, as Heimat dealt with
death and the separation os the soul from the body, and as Nachtgrufl described the soul
resting “as a ship” and “greeting the eternal light” as the King ascended the pinnacle,
Wanderers Nachtlied seems to reflect the rapt and reverent awe-filled stillness before the
moment of judgment. The basic question to be resolved is whether the promised “rest”
will indeed occur. Throughout the song, all of its ambiguities suggest that the question is
never answered.

This poem, arguably the most famous lyric poem in the German language, was
written on the wall of a hut while Goethe was vacationing in Tyrol. Goethe evokes a
mood, not merely by describing the stillness of evening but, one might say, by becoming
evening stillness itself. Key words of the text illustrate the hierarchical evolutionary
progression in nature from the inanimate to the animate, from the mineral, through the
vegetable, to the animal kingdom; from the hilltops to the tree-tops to the birds and
finally to man. The poet-wanderer here is not embracing nature in the romantic way. He

is embraced within it, as the last link in the organic scale of being.165

 

'65 Stein, Deborah et al. Poetry into Song: Performance and Analysis of Lieder, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995): 46. The idea of the “great chain of being” ‘65 is valuable here, which organizes
creation hierarchically according to additive positive attributes. In this case, rocks (which have existence)
would be at the bottom of the chain, followed by trees (which have existence and life), animals (which have
existence, life, and motion), and finally to man (which has existence, life, motion and a spirit). The chain
progresses upward into the spirit world through the nine orders of angels, and finally to God, the source and
summit of all existence. A corollary of this idea is the development of morality owing to the spirit-flesh
dichotomy inherent to man. For a discussion of the development of this idea, see the Dictionary of the
History of Ideas, edited by Philip Wiener (New York: Scribner, 1974), Vol. I, pp. 325-335.

106

The metric and rhythmic organization is basically in trochaic rhythm (7) although
the line lengths are irregular. The final “du auch” is a spondee that interrupts the metric
flow, i.e., “WAR-te nur, BAL-de RUH—est DU AUCH” conveying a final sense of repose, in
an inversely analogous manner to the famous spondee of the third witch in Macbeth

(I.i.8-10) “WHERE the PLACE? up-ON the HEATH. THERE to WAIT for MAC-BETH” that

introduces the eponymous hero of Shakespeare’s play.

107

CONCLUSION

I have tried to show in this dissertation that Schenker’s understanding of the
dramatic possibilities of incomplete progressions informed his compositional practice in
many ways. He seems, as a composer, to have grasped the myriad ways in which these
progressions can be used to create musical expectation and meaning. I have shown that
his compositional practice explored the various ways in which one compositional
technique could be applied.

It is hoped that this preliminary investigation into Schenker’s compositional
technique will inspire musicians to explore these “real treasures” and to breathe life into
them through their performances and analyses. Although this dissertation focused on
only one specific compositional technique (namely, Schenker’s varied use of the
auxiliary cadence and back-relating dominant), the riches of his music will reward critical
inquiry. Much more work remains to be done if a complete understanding of Heinrich
Schenker as a Viennese musician is to be obtained. His compositional output is varied, as
I catalogued in this work’s first chapter, and invites further investigation. '66 Although
the relationship between Schenker’s theoretical writing and his compositional practice
offers a compelling avenue of exploration, other avenues include poetic interpretation and
choice of texts, the various questions of textual/musical relationships or the dramatic
nature of his incidental music and songs from Hamlet. Placing Schenker’s setting of a
particular text alongside a setting by a more established composer, as I have done briefly,
may yield insight into his poetic interpretation or structural characteristics held in

common. Schenker, primarily a Liedkomponist, has been characterized by Nicholas

 

I66See also the catalogue of Schenker’s compositions in Chapter ZBenjamin Ayotte, Heinrich Schenker: A
Guide to Research (New York and London: Routledge, 2004)

108

Cook as “essentially a miniaturist.” Cook concedes that Schenker’s compositions do not
engage the issues of ‘cyclic forrn’ that were informing his theoretical writings of the early
19003. He also suggests that “it is hard to reconcile the nature of Schenker’s
compositions with his developing orientation as a theorist.”167 Criticisms
notwithstanding, including Schenker’s own statement that he knew he would “become no
master let alone surpass one,” I believe that these pieces deserve to be better known. The
compositions of Heinrich Schenker reveal a keen and probing mind with a flair for
drama; they reveal a composer of talent who recognized the dramatic potential of
dynamic tonal progressions, one who was able to frame novel tonal designs within a
unified structure, and a composer who had a most intimate knowledge of the German
Romantic tradition and was conversant with its tonal language. Despite (or perhaps
because of) the more conservative turn his theories and view of repertoire later took,
Schenker’s compositions afford important access to his musical thought. Taken in the
context of his life’s work, they reveal a musical thinker whose compositional style and

theoretical understanding were closer than might initially appear.

 

'67 Nicholas Cook, The Schenker Project (Oxford, 2007): 82—83

109

APPENDICES

110

APPENDIX A

MANU SCRIPTS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS

111

A.1 Agnes op. 8, no. I (manuscript)

Used by permission of Special Collections, University of California, Riverside
Libraries, University of California, Riverside, CA

,x/ua/au/z 1' ([1? I]! ))

W'l‘luc

571/! IL

  
  
 

a).

0 ll! 5 ”4

I'bldd "(i

/”>

 

 

m"ruw--n-nnu-zm -‘ 41‘“.

112

A.l Agnes (manuscript, cont’d)

 

,J/rh/Au: [#15,

 

 

113

A.2 Agnes (transcription)

Agnes

strum erllte (moms)

mmker.op.&lo.l

 

 

 

 

vor - bei.

schnell

 

 

 

 

4g

 

 

 

J
V

b.

 

k
n

 

 

 

 

III .-
11
"In

82

ea L3
.2“;

wlndL Wcin

 

 

 

 

 

mein Lieb'
Ned! dem Bug
dem Hut

WI!
An

- gcnl
rm.
Lin - dc

114

A.2 Agnes (transcription, cont’d)

        

    

mir nidrt,

Treu

L
n
I.

sell - u:
r .
er

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

A.3 Heimat op. 6, no. 1 (manuscript)

Used by permission of Special Collections, University of California, Riverside
Libraries, University of California, Riverside, CA

 

I . era 1.4-4.444,
... Wtweumw Jfimm

fiA’t/ly- g ,7/7//

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pr /r«/:l7m;jniu Iz‘l/(tc , /3¢n in}:

3 its; at e ifié‘
’* :a

 

 

116

A.3 Heimat (manuscript, cont’d)

 

117

A.3 Heimat (manuscript, cont’d)

 

 

 

  

 

 

[ff/JP II 1 i r V I K”“ - ' ~ : ' ‘-
,_ 7 r- ,, , ? ’ 77 777W,

 

O

V

 

 

gsi "

 

 

118

A.3 Heimat (manuscript, cont’d)

 

 

 

 

119

A.4 Heimat (transcription)

Heimat

Andante (fast in Allabreve), jadocll nicht hurtig

Voice

SOHO VOCt’

Piano
legato

- tern-hau - se

120

Heinrich Schenker, I868-l 935
Richard Dehmel, “634920

 

 

A.4 Heimat (transcription, cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

A.4 Heimat (transcription, cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V

molto dim.

 

 

 

122

A.4 Heimat (transcription, cont’d)

2“ > >-

v

klin - ken,

 

> pit} dim.

$—

30 Ruhiger u mit grofler Warme

teneramenlc

poco dolce

 

 

123

 

A.4 Heimat (transcription, cont’d)

Sehn-snob - te

terl in dein Licht hin - ein.

 

124

A.4 Heimat (transcription, cont’d)

 

 

 

125

A.4 Heimat (transcription, cont’d)

 

126

A.5 NachtgrrgB op. 6, no. 2 (manuscript)

Used by permission of Special Collections, University of California, Riverside
Libraries, University of California, Riverside, CA

,, v a 1
c/ kaé%ffludd m 5%,,m

‘ 44444 awaits/l [7. e.gkflfidrfl')

 

     

2.4“

127

A.5 Nachtgrufl (manuscript, cont’d)

 

F'"

 

 

128

A.5 Nachtgrrgfl (manuscript, cont’d)

 

129

A.5 Nachtgrufi (manuscript, cont’d)

 

 

 

130

A.5 Nachtgrufl (manuscript, cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

7’ ff: : ""_—_ " ,v : m , "7"", T-in_.l_—‘

131

 

A.6 Nachtgrufl (transcription)

Nachtgrufl

Heinrich Schenker, 1868-I935
Joseph von Eichendorfl 1788-1857

Sinnlich, mit Ausdruck

(lain)

Voice

 

 

132

A.6 Nachtgrufi (transcription, cont’d)

 

 

133

A.6 NachtgruB (transcription, cont’d)

Ei - tel - keit. Was

 

134

A.6 Nachtgrufl (transcription, cont’d)

25

Quasi recit

135

50512”.

 

A.6 Nachtgrufl (transcription, cont’d)

 

 

136

A.6 Nachtgrufl (transcription, cont’d)

 

137

A.6 Nachtgrufl (transcription, cont’d)

52 piir dim.

 

55 sorten.

o\-—./
sul - -

pir‘i sostenuto e

 

138

A.6 Nachtgrufl (transcription, cont’d)

 

139

A.7 Wandereds Nachtlied op. 6, no. 3 (manuscript)

Used by permission of Special Collections, University of California, Riverside
Libraries, University of California, Riverside, CA

 

flarM24J/aoé/éd

K/oeéé (

 

 

140

A.7 Wanderers Nachtlied (manuscript, cont’d)

 

 

 
    

4 "daffy/I

 

141

A.7 Wanderers Nachtlied (manuscript, cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

A8. Wanderers Nachtlied (transcription)

Wanderers Nachtlied

Helm-lei Schenker, 1868-1935
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, "49-182

Felerllclr, nicht u Inga-I

Voice

 

Wip - feln

 

143

A8. Wanderers Nachtlied (transcription, cont’d)

die Vo-ge-lein schwei - gen

 

144

A8. Wanderers Nachtlied (transcription, cont’d)

31

 

 

 

145

A8. Wanderers Nachtlied (transcription, cont’d)

44 (sehr let's!)

    

 

(If!!!
(

146

APPENDIX B

SONG TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS

147

8.] Agnes by Eduard Morike (1804—75)

Rosenzeit! wie schnell vorbei, Time of roses! How quickly past,
schnell vorbei bist du doch gegangen! Quickly past have you gone!
War mein Lieb' nur blieben treu, Had my sweetheart only remained true,
sollte mir nicht bangen. Then I should fear nothing.
Um die Ernte wohlgemut, At the harvest, cheerfully,
wohlgemut Schnitterrinnen singen. the reaping women sing.
Aber, ach! mir kranken Blut, But ah! my sick blood,
will nichts mehr gelingen. does not want to succeed anymore
Schleiche so durch's Wiesental, I creep thus through the meadow valley,
so durch's Tal, als irn Traum verloren, as if lost in a dream,
nach dem Berg, da tausendmal, to the mountain, where a thousand
er mir Treu' geschworen. times, he swore he would be true.

Oben auf des Hugels Rand, Above on the hill’s edge, turning away,

abgewandt,wein' ich bei der Linde; I weep by the linden tree;
an dem Hut mein Rosenband, On my hat, the wreath of roses
von seiner Hand, from his hand
spielet in dem Winde. Blows in the wind.

3.2 Heimat by Richard Dehmel (1863-1920)

Und auch im alten Elternhause And also in my parents’ old house
und noch am Abend keine Ruh? and yet no peace in the evening?
Sehnsiichtig hor ich dem Gebrause Yearning, I hear the rushing

der hohen Pappeln drauBen zu. of the tall poplars outside.
Und hore sacht die Titre klinken, And I hear the door ring gently,

Mutter tritt mit der Lampe ein; Mother steps in with a lamp;

und alle Schnsr'ichte versinken, and all yearning vanishes,

o Mutter, in dein Licht hinein. 0 mother, in thy light

148

B.3 Nachtgrufl by Johann Eichendorff (1788—1 857)

Weil jetzo alles stille ist While all the world is quiet,
Und alle Menschen schlafen, And everyone asleep,
Mein Seel das ewge Licht begriiBt, My soul hails the eternal light,
Ruht wie ein Schiff im Hafen. And rests safely as a ship in harbor.
Der falsche F leiB, die Eitelkeit, Deceitful acts and vanity by day
Was keinen mag erlaben, Will keep us troubled,
Darin der Tag das herz zerstreut, But they cannot touch the heart at night,
Liegt alles tief begraben. So deeply are they buried.
Ein ander Koni g wunderreich Another king,
Mit koniglichen Sinnen, With a similarly wonderful essence,
Zieht herrlich ein im stillen Reich, Will be with us in this hour
Besteigt die ew’igen Zinnen. As we mount the eternal pinnacle.

B.4 Wanderers Nachtlied II by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749—1 83 2)

Uber allen Gipfeln ist Ruh, O’er all the hill-tops
in allen Wipfeln Is quiet now
spiirest du In all the tree-tops
kaum einen Hauch; Hearest thou
Die Vogelein schweigen im Walde. Hardly a breath;
Warte nur, balde The birds are asleep in the trees:
Ruhest du auch. Wait; soon like these

Thou too will rest.168

 

I68

Translation by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

149

APPENDIX C

SUPPLEMENTAL ILLUSTRATIONS

150

fl
. r \
Borrn Drofmro Leichtentritt:
hereto Department
Harvard University
Cwnbrldgo, eines 3oXII. 1938

Liebor Herr wobeichtcntrittz

in der Universitii‘t: hatte ich nicht:
Zeit Ihre Emma nach deutschern Bfic‘mrn «no mich interossioren
aus ‘rrlich zu benntworten.

Ich bin kein "Laser" and Lianne
dnher Oij't‘lntllCll die folr'tmdon Richer nur sehr abor-
flfichlieh und 131818th rmr einzelne aus dem leS!J.1’1frn-
hang, racrissene Abachrribte.T”:lohtatiostotwnistar erizmor-o
ich mich an mmchen guton Godamrenfiortmasiclrtlich werden

..e Sie jn selbst,'-.renn nicht alle so die meirzten driven selbst:
g- 1(0me
.Vor allemrlobwohl ich mit first (111:3 nicht oinveratandcn bin)
Heinrich {schonkers afimtliohe Schriften.
'rfilholrr “Telzcrafiobcr itch 33ml dor ”anyone
A1013 {inmueue ltnmnrrinle‘rire
1."?in Cnssirerfiloothovon und die Gestalt
Zttnyrhof or : dor Luna ‘5: clam-z
"miter Iior'mrdzAuf dirz'i ‘erro zur Email!
Lotte Kallenbnch Grollorzimmtilarton der modernism ht'usrik
Paul Stefano Humidor Eif'rchor
Adler-a ital-1101‘ Bioi‘;r£tpirio
Speohta ” "
Heller-1mm; Font‘cmnrrrlst l l l l 1 l l
ifkscrfimrd Marx : r1; OT-Ig’X) a 1 isiomrl ohro
‘t‘i'orvrrnn it‘rpfziitutlion zur 'i'iarmonl. “-

Vielleicht fallen xir noch "ooh:- mains-r
C-(Ff'glt'll‘ oin,r1nnn schrrtibo .‘Lcl‘: winder. Ich iflaubo mun sollte
mrmcho dieser Bflchor don turnariknnrtrn zur iiormtnis brirmon.
Es IcBnnte holfen,eie van iris-er rose-lion Aestltrstik nog-
zuloitongdac sind dociytrotz dew racist vorsormocirton
L::.sclr'uckswoioe,andoro tienlchtsmnkte,afa clie,dl.c man
in Esmliachen und amor-ikwriachon i'llOOPIGUAOCl'lEJITI findoto

Mit: boaton Grflaeern, Dn‘

Illustration C. 1, a letter from Schoenberg to Hugo Leichtentritt indicating his
(Schoenberg’s) interest in Schenker’s writings. Property of the Arnold Schonberg
Centre; downloaded from http://wwwschoenbergat/scans/DVD017/3106jpg

151

 

Illustration C.2. from lefi: Louis Savart (horn), Fritz Kreisler and Eduard Gar'tner
(violins), Hans Redlich (flageolet), and Arnold Schoenberg (Violoncello). Savart and
Garner were known to have performed Schenker’s music (see below for programs),
and Schoenberg orchestrated his Syrian Dances.

Picture downloaded from

 

http Z//WWW “AL“ ‘ I n‘bw-dulwataa A iblltllt

I J U

152

Riverside

Ia,

ity of Californ'

ivers

dc, CA

ra, Rivers

f Special Collections, Un

ity of Californ

ission o
ivers

Used by perm
Libraries, Un

Haze—c.3552 5.3333 in?

_ ‘19::«3:: __.

.....hs .r 4.1. in? Maseratfitr ? r\4 1 t .4141».

6255.3 7.: we. “:25: 33...: swarm re; a E:

.... 33323."..2:

Emmoeeuwpcezo

2.5.... $2.3...

UCmE...:. .

Unis—Eu: 532.22.. ...... a: 3:. 21:5.
“2:: 9943:. . r; 2.3:. .3... 3.8.2..
51:15 .325: .

 

.22.: rear

Us. H.o.:p_:. ...: 7:: e..:.:&..:
5.25:1...

:55?

H... 2.2.2.: 9.5....

maniac...

H: 92:25:...

a... :3...

no»: 932....

E. i. ‘92...

. in. .135. $5.32...

41:5: .4313: 3:...
...—n. '2:— 393:3.
x... S... 6322:;
2: v: 3.5:.
”...... 9,2... 5. :59 2.. 25:? man.

«a. ‘33.:
a... 3:52. n.3, Emma x—Dmaa.
55:: v3 Conan-nu 2a.:- !a Goa—3.3.- nib—cal.

51.55.33. 3...; v.6 flap—2...

Eemfiaon Ob. 8:8: om we amused. Sou on
2E3 magma 03.89. gem moraine} moms“:
can Zenimxee. cu. a. new. _ 88 N

Iaaaulnlaega ‘Zanam: In?
Finite—Jail...

1 uM r r t l...’ . .§.u..n_\..r\JI. . Wu 1
.

 

2:282: .... 5m"... .13....wrnuaaoe on; m as...
.... $.15... gummcuanwaauhaia
omwoomncmeze

@353 @mlzen

”...:Elaza m... ......522 «2.5.3:. 953. :5,
Sun—433.. F. ...:v :7“. ”Fife/...: .14.. ..
32.6+.2..o..n_a.....:.m. .....2 7.. 5.2.7.: aft 7 ....

P 5.1313 mag—nan.

   
  

 

...

€232.55.

 

.. a h. .58 ,3. a... S... 32.2..3 .5... .250...
... .952...
935.52.
...: 62.“...
'39:. . , in: 2:. . 52.5..
£3.29.
a 2:339. main—.3
...—E: . .= 2: .... .Hg: ..er... 26:.
u 252..
a. 32..
a? .
. 1E

  

é: (4.325399.

9:...2::.5:. Crista}...
tiller];

«nu—e" be Conn...

 

55330: 0.? 8:8: cm 3 38.0.9 Sow 3
£30: mafia Owned" wenn moraine; ufitfifi
cu. u. no. A

153

LITERATURE CITED

154

LITERATURE CITED

Almén, Byron “Prophets of the Decline: The Worldviews of Heinrich Schenker
and Oswald Spengler.” Indiana T'heory Review 17/1 (1996): 1-24.

Alpem, Wayne “Music Theory as a Mode of Law: The Case of Heinrich
Schenker, Esq.,” Cardozo Law Review 20/5—6 (1999): 1459—1511.

Aristotle, “On Poetics,” Chapter 23 in Great Books of the Western World, ed.
Mortimer J. Adler et a1. Volume 9: Aristotle, 11. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1954.

Ayotte, Benjamin M. Heinrich Schenker: A Guide to Research. New York and
Iondon: Routledge, 2004.

Beaumont, Anthony ed. F erruccio Busoni: Selected Letters. London and Boston:
Faber and Faber, 1987.

Burkhart, Charles. “Departures from the Norm in two songs from Schumann’s
Liederkreis,” Schenker Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990: 146-47.

Burstein, L. Poundie. “Unravelling Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary
Cadence,” Music Theory Spectrum 27.2 (Fall 2005): 159-185

 

. “Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence” in Essays from the
Third International Schenker Symposium (Hildesheim: Olms, 2007): 1-38.

Cook , Nicholathe Schenker project: Race, Politics, and Music Theory in
F in—de-siécle Vienna. New Yorlc Oxford, 2007.

Dunsby, Jonathan M. “Schoenberg and the Writings of Schenker,” Journal of the
Arnold Schoenberg Institute 2 (1977):

Erwin, Charlotte and Bryan R. Simms, “Schoenberg's Correspondence with Heinrich
Schenker,” Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 5/1 (1981):

F ederhofer, Hellmut. Heinrich Schenker: Nach T agebz'icher und Briefen in der Oswald
Jonas Memorial Collection, University of California, Riverside. Hildesheirn:
Georg Olms Verlag, 1985.

 

. Heinrich Schenker als Essayist und Kritiker: Gasammelte Aufisdtze und
Kleinere Berichte aus dem Jahren 1891-1901. Hildesheirn: Georg Olms
Verlag, 1 990.

155

Fink, Evelyn ed. Heinrich Schenker als Rebell und Visionar. Verlag Lafite:
Vienna, 2003.

Fink, Evelyn and Martin Eybl, eds Schenker-Traditionen. (Koln: Bohlau, 2006

Furtwangler, Wilhelm. “Heinrich Schenker: Ein Zeitgeméissene Problem” in Ton und Wort.
Wiesbaden: Brockhaus, 1954: 201-202.

Jackson, Timothy. “Current Issues in Schenkerian Analysis,” Musical Quarterly
76/2 (Summer 1992): 242-263.

Jonas, Oswald. Einfi'ihrung in die Lehre Heinrich Schenkers: Das Wesen des
musikalischen Kunstwerks. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1932.

 

. “The Photogramm—Archives in Vienna.” Music and Letters 15/4
(Oct. 1934): 344-45.

Kalib, Sylvan Sol. "Thirteen Essays from the Three Yearbooks Das Meisterwerk in der
Musik: An Annotated Translation." 3 vols. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University,
1973.

Kames, Kevin. “Heinrich Schenker and Musical Thought in Late Nineteenth-Century
Vienna” (Brandeis University, 2001).

Krebs, Harald. “Tonal and Formal Dualism in Chopin’s Scherzo, Op. 31.” Music Theory
Spectrum 13.] (1991): 48-60.

Miller, Patrick “The Published Music of Heinrich Schenker: An Historical-Archival
Introduction,” Journal of Musicological Research 10 (1991),

Kosovsky, Robert. The Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker / A Finding List.
New York: New York Public Library, 1990.

Lang, Robert and JoAn Kunselman. Heinrich Schenker, Oswald Jonas, Moriz Violin: A
Checklist of Manuscripts and Other papers in the Oswald Jonas Memorial
Collection. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994.

Lubben, Joseph “Analytic Practice and Ideology in Schenker’s Der Tonwille,”
PhD diss., Brandeis University, 1995.

Morgan, Robert ed. Modern Times. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1993

Pastille, William. “Heinrich Schenker, Anti-Organicist.” Nineteenth-Century Music 8
(1984): 29-36.

156

 

. “Schenker’s Brahms,” The American Brahms Society Newsletter 5/2
(1987): 1-3.

Plato, the Phaedrus, trans. by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodrufi‘. From Plato:
Complete Works, ed. by John M. Cooper, 264C.

Rochester, Marc. Review of Schenker’s op. 1. The Musical Times, vol. 124,
No. 1686 (Aug, 1983): 490.

Schenker, Heinrich. Counterpoint. Translated and edited by John Rothgeb and Jiirgen
Thym. New York: Schirmer Books, 1987.

 

. Free Composition (Der F reie Satz). Translated and edited by Ernst Oster.
New York: Longman, 1979. 2 Volumes.

. Harmonielehre. Volume I of Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien
(Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906); reprint edition (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1978)

 

 

. Kontrapunkt. Volume II of Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien,
Book 1 (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1910), Book 2 (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1922); reprint
edition (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1991)

 

. Erlaugerungsausgabe die letzteffinfSonaten van Beethoven: Kritische
Ausgabe mit einfuhrung und Erla'uterung (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1913-20);
new edition revised by Oswald Jonas (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1971-72).
Sonata E dur, Op. 109 published 1913; revised edition 1971

Sonata As dur, Op. 110 published 1914; revised edition 1972

Sonata 0 moll, Op. 111 published 1915; revised edition 1971

Sonata A dur, Op. 101 published 1920; revised edition 1972

(Op. 106 was never published)

 

. Harmony. Translated by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, edited and annotated by
Oswald Jonas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

 

. Das Meisterwerk in der Musik. 3 vols 1925, 1926, 1930; reprint.
Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1974.

 

 

. “Agnes.” Score, 1897. Oswald Jonas Memorial Collection Box XXII,
File 5, Tomas Rivera Library, University of California, Riverside.

 

. Der Tonwille. 10 vols 1921, 1923, 1924; reprint. Hildesheim: Georg Olms
Verlag, 1990.

 

. “Heimat, op. 6, no. 1.” Score, n.d. Special Collections, Tomas Rivera
Library, University of California, Riverside.

157

 

. “NachrgruB, op. 6, no. 2.” Score, n.d. Special Collections, Tomas Rivera
Library, University of California, Riverside.

. “Unpersonliche Musik,” Neue Revue 8/1 (1897): 464-468

 

. “Wanderers Nachtlied, op. 6, no. 3.” Score, n.d. Special Collections,
Tomas Rivera Library, University of California, Riverside.

 

Simms, Bryan R. “New Documents in the Schoenberg-Schenker Polemic,”
Perspectives of New Music 16/1 (1977)

 

. Twentieth-Century Music: Style and Structure. New York: Schirmer,
1995

Solie, Ruth. “The Living Work: Organicism and Musical Analysis.” Nineteenth-Century
Music 4 (1980): 147-156.

Stein, Deborah et al. Poetry into Song: Performance and Analysis of Lieder New York.
Oxford University Press, 1995.

 

 

. Hugo Wolf’s Lieder and Extensions of T onality. Ann Arbor: UMI
Research Press, 1985.

Stein, Leonard ed Style and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984

Wolf, Hans “Heinrich Schenkers personlichkeit irn Unterrich.” Der Dreiklang 7 (1937):
176—84

158

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lllIflilllflllllljllljflwllflllllflllllllllll