berry forte & journal music theory jmt 2006

David Carson Berry, “Journal of Music Theory under Allen Forte’s Editorship,” Journal of Music Theory 50/1 (2006): 7–23.

• ABSTRACT •

This article addresses the role played by Allen Forte in establishing the Journal of Music Theory as a journal of record for the American discipline of music theory, as it emerged and evolved in the 1960s. The journal was founded at Yale University in 1957 by editor David Kraehenbuehl. When he left his position at both the university and the journal in 1960, the editorship passed to Allen Forte, who functioned in that capacity for the next seven years, making him not only the longest-serving editor in the journal’s history, but also one at an especially crucial period, when conceptions of the field were beginning to crystallize and circulate in the forms recognizable today. This article explores, in turn, the path Forte took to the journal (and Yale); aspects of editorship, design, and production during his time; the personal imprint he made on the journal, in terms of his editorial agenda; and his departure from the editorship and the legacy he left behind. Quotations from the author’s interviews with Forte are included.

NOTE ON THE ARTICLE, FROM DANIEL HARRISON, “INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE,”

JOURNAL OF MUSIC THEORY 50/1 (2006), 3–4: “For this fiftieth anniversary issue, we publish two methodologically unusual articles that treat the history of the journal—and, by extension, the discipline—from very different angles. Relying on interviews with Allen Forte and others, David Carson Berry creates a rich history of JMT’s early years, when the journal was composed on a typewriter and laid out on a dining-room table in the editor’s apartment. While Berry’s account highlights people and places, Yosef Goldenberg’s article examines the products, undertaking a bibliometric study of the article content of the first forty-eight volumes. The result is, in essence, a meta-analytical study of the discipline of music theory based on what JMT has published over the years. In their respective historical and analytical interests, both articles enact the kind of inquiry that has drawn many to music theory in the first place” (p. 3).

ERRATUM

On p. 18, in the final sentence of the paragraph that continues from the prior page, there is a redundant citation. The sentence should have omitted the first and retained the second, as shown below (with the strikethrough indicating the required deletion):

In that same issue, Forte’s student Teitelbaum published the article “Intervallic Relations in Atonal Music” (1965) that was indebted to Forte’s work, and in fact stemmed from a master’s thesis (Teitelbaum 1964) of the same title that he had completed at Yale the prior year (Teitelbaum 1964).

7

Journal of Music Theory 50:1, Spring 2006

DOI 10.1215/00222909-2008-004 © 2008 by Yale University

Journal of Music Theory under Allen Forte’s Editorship

David Carson Berry

Abstract This article addresses the role played by Allen Forte in establishing the Journal of Music Theory as a journal of record for the American discipline of music theory, as it emerged and evolved in the 1960s. The journal was founded at Yale University in 1957 by editor David Kraehenbuehl. When he left his position at both the uni-versity and the journal in 1960, the editorship passed to Allen Forte, who functioned in that capacity for the next seven years, making him not only the longest-serving editor in the journal’s history, but also one at an especially crucial period, when conceptions of the field were beginning to crystallize and circulate in the forms recognizable today. This article explores, in turn, the path Forte took to the journal (and Yale); aspects of editorship, design, and production during his time; the personal imprint he made on the journal, in terms of his editorial agenda; and his departure from the editorship and the legacy he left behind. Quotations from the author’s interviews with Forte are included.

when the Journal of Music Theory debuted in the spring of 1957, found-ing editor David Kraehenbuehl (1923–97) aspired to elevate music theory beyond its contemporary status as a “didactic convenience.” In the foreword to the first issue, he announced that he sought nothing less than its “restora-tion . . . [to] a mode of creative thought” (Kraehenbuehl 1957a, 1).1 Based at the Yale School of Music, JMT was to serve as a catalyst for this renaissance by offering a long-overdue forum for “those isolated creative theorists who have wondered who and where their brethren are.” “The creations of the music theorist [were] in need of a stage”—a “necessary stimulant” for “theo-retical discovery”—and the new journal was intended to provide one.2 Over the course of seven semiannual issues, Kraehenbuehl rose to the challenge by publishing twenty-two articles on a variety of theoretical issues,3 nearly as

1 Kraehenbuehl’s use of the word creative as a description of music theory’s mode of thought is distinctive. In addition to the use quoted in the main text, he employs the word three more times (“a creative music theory,” “creative theo-rists,” and “the creations of the music theorist”).

2 In the interim between the first and second issues, Krae-henbuehl was surprised to find that articles had been sub-mitted mainly “by musicologists, not theorists or compos-

ers,” and that two-thirds of the subscribers were also of the former (rather than the latter) group. He took this as proof that, heretofore, theorists had “found little encouragement to express themselves creatively in their vocation,” as he phrased it in an editorial, “A Matter of Policy,” in the journal’s second issue (Kraehenbuehl 1957b, 125).

3 One of this number was in two parts: Hans Lenneberg, “Johann Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music,” part 1,

8 J O U r n A l o f M U S I c T h E O r Y

many entries in a “theory forum,” dedicated to ideas that did not warrant a full-length article, two special-topics forums (one on theoretical training and the other on the professional music theorist), a bibliography of “music theory in translation,” and reviews of some fifty books.

Then, in 1960, Kraehenbuehl unexpectedly left his position as a newly tenured associate professor at Yale, and with it his editorship of the journal.4 he was succeeded by Allen Forte (b. 1926), who would function in that capac-ity for seven years, making him not only the longest-serving editor in the journal’s history,5 but someone who served at an especially crucial period, when conceptions of the field were beginning to crystallize and circulate in the forms recognizable to us today. The period of Forte’s editorship and its related histories are the focus of the present essay, in preparation for which I conducted two interviews with him.6 In the following, I will first explore the path Forte took to the journal (and Yale); turn to aspects of editorship, design, and production during his time; examine the personal imprint he made on the journal in terms of his editorial agenda; and lastly consider his departure from the editorship and the legacy he left behind.

The Path to JMT (and Yale)

Forte was certainly a member of the group Kraehenbuehl had in mind when he dedicated JMT to creative theorists who worked in isolation while ponder-ing the whereabouts of kindred spirits. After being discharged from the navy following World War II, Forte moved to new York city, where he eventually availed himself of the G.I. Bill to pay for enrollment at columbia Univer-sity. There, while working toward an undergraduate music degree, he stud-ied composition, first with Otto luening and later with Vladimir Ussachevsky. Although he continued composition studies at the graduate level and tended to associate mainly with composers while at the school, he recalls that he felt “really quite alone” in his interests, which were directed more toward theo-retical and analytical ideas than composing. his penchant was atypical for a period in which “there was very little activity” in music theory and, to whatever

JMT 2/1 (1958): 47–84; and part 2, JMT 2/2 (1958): 193–236. Several articles focused on historical studies, including translations of texts. It should be noted that, early on, Krae-henbuehl expressed concern that there might emerge an imbalance between articles on “the historical aspect of our subject [i.e., theory]” and those of interest to “contempo-rary theorists and composers,” and he suggested greater support for the latter (1957b, 125).

4 For a brief discussion of why Kraehenbuehl left Yale (ini-tially to work with young students at the New School for Music Study, which he cofounded in Princeton, New Jer-sey), see Burkhart 1997.

5 The record is tied on this front: Martha M. Hyde also served as editor for fourteen semiannual issues, from 25/1 (spring 1981) through 31/2 (fall 1987).

6 All quotations, unless otherwise attributed, come from these interviews. The first (and more lengthy) interview was conducted in person, at Forte’s home in Hamden, Connecti-cut, on June 28, 2006; the second was conducted by phone on October 8, 2006.

9David Carson Berr y JMT under Allen Forte’s Editorship

extent there were doctoral programs in the field, they seemed to be “for dis-appointed composers, in which the doctoral project consisted of composing a work and then ‘theorizing’ about it” (Forte 1977, 158). As Milton Babbitt would remark later, “professional theorists,” as we think of them now, really did not exist until “the generation of Allen Forte.”7

nonetheless, Forte forged ahead with his focus and found part-time positions at columbia University Teachers college (where he taught piano, not theory and analysis, but managed to incorporate the latter subjects into lessons when appropriate), the Manhattan School of Music (where he first had the opportunity to teach a theory class, including some degree of Schen-kerian graphing), and the Mannes college of Music (the early center of Schenkerian activity in the United States).8 concurrently he began publishing his first writings, including those that adapted Schenkerian concepts: a book-length study of twentieth-century music titled Contemporary Tone-Structures (Forte 1955) and an article that demonstrated the interrelatedness of tempo, rhythm, and melody in Brahms’s haydn Variations (Forte 1957a). Indeed, it was the Schenkerian bent of his work, plus Babbitt’s recommendation to school president leopold Mannes, that led to Forte’s position at the Mannes School, where he taught various analysis classes during 1957–59.

It was at this time that Forte and JMT first began to intersect, for the inaugural issue of the journal featured a review of Contemporary Tone-Structures by howard Boatwright (1957)—one negative enough in tone to warrant a response by Forte (1957b) in the second issue, and a counterresponse by Boat-wright (1958) in the third.9 A major association occurred thereafter, when editor Kraehenbuehl wrote to ask if Forte “would do an article on [heinrich] Schenker” for the journal. Although the prior review (and the exchange it prompted) certainly made Kraehenbuehl aware of Forte’s work, it was Bab-bitt who (again) recommended him for the job. As Forte quipped, “If you’re looking for the person behind” theory-related endeavors during this period, “it’s always Milton Babbitt. . . . [he] knew everybody and everything that was going on.”

The article, published as “Schenker’s conception of Musical Structure” in JMT 3/1 (1959), provided a needed distillation of the analytic apparatus at a time when only Schenker’s much earlier Harmonielehre (1906) had appeared in English.10 The article also served to keep Forte in Kraehenbuehl’s mind

7 Babbitt (1987, 121) adds that “there was no such thing as a professional theorist at any university that I can think of when I began becoming involved with universities”—i.e., in the 1930s.

8 For a summary of the role of the Mannes School in the early dissemination of Schenkerian ideas in the United States, see portions of “Early Advocates” and “Initial Insti-tutional Homes” in Berry 2005.

9 Despite the review and exchange of responses, Forte was quick to tell me that after he began at Yale and met Boat-wright personally, he found the latter to be “very friendly and very cordial,” and the two became good friends.

10 Forte’s article was later reprinted in Readings in Schen-ker Analysis and Other Approaches, ed. Maury Yeston, 3–37 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). Schenker’s Harmonielehre appeared in English as Harmony, edited by


when—around the time it appeared—Yale’s School of Music sought a new fac-ulty member to augment its theory program. Following Kraehenbuehl’s rec-ommendation, Forte was invited to have lunch with luther noss, dean of the School of Music and chairman of the Department of Music, and richard Don-ovan, a composer and Battell Professor of the Theory of Music. At the meet-ing, Forte was invited to teach at Yale, beginning in the fall of 1959—although noss cautioned him against incorporating Schenkerian ideas into his classes. The warning was of course ironic, given the topic of Forte’s JMT article, and it was also nugatory, as Forte taught a seminar on Schenker during his very first semester there.

Whatever anti-Schenkerian sentiments existed at Yale were perhaps due to Paul hindemith’s lingering influence. hindemith had taught composi-tion and theory at the School of Music from 1940 until 1953, but his impact extended past that period, creating what Forte (1998, 9) has called his “resid-ual contribution[s] to music theory at Yale.” For one thing, hindemith had insisted on a master’s degree in music theory as a separate major, not com-bined with composition. “This distinction,” Forte asserted, precipitated the eventual “founding of the Ph.D. [program] in Music Theory . . . in the Depart-ment of Music, where it [was] associated with graduate studies in musicology.” Furthermore, JMT itself “was a product of hindemith’s intellectual presence at Yale,” in that Kraehenbuehl had been a student of hindemith (and was appointed to Yale in 1953 after hindemith’s departure, upon his recommen-dation) and was “no doubt inspired” to found JMT “by hindemith’s interest in music theory” (Forte 1998, 9–11).11 Yale proponents of hindemith’s theories, as codified especially in his The Craft of Musical Composition (1942), perhaps saw Schenker’s theories as unwanted competition.12 Indeed, Schenker’s ideas did eventually displace hindemith’s “from what might otherwise have been a

Oswald Jonas and translated by Elisabeth Mann Borgese (University of Chicago Press, 1954). Despite having been written before Schenker’s later ideas and graphing tech-niques were developed, the English edition did include an introduction by Jonas in which later concepts such as the Ursatz were explained.

11 Forte continues: “Indeed, the early issues of the jour-nal contain several articles directly traceable to Hindemith’s influence.” This influence was also identified at the time, as evidenced by a 1959 letter to the editor by composer Elliott Carter (1959), who observed: “You lean, editorially, rather too heavily on the notion of the ‘physical’ or ‘natural’ basis of music theory as one would expect from the followers of Hindemith.”

12 Along these lines, it should be noted that Howard Boat-wright—who had authored the negative review of Forte’s first book—was also a Hindemith student, and furthermore

served as his “main assistant in his courses and fill[ed] in for him when he was absent” (Forte 1998, 7). As evidence of the extent to which Schenker’s and Hindemith’s ideas were once of similar stature, consider that several master’s theses (of past decades) engaged in what I have called “comparative and synthetic studies” of the two systems—i.e., studies that either juxtapose analytic methods, so as to demonstrate what each can (and cannot) reveal about a given composition, or employ the methods alongside one another, so as to achieve a more comprehensive view of a composition. In more recent decades, it is most com-monly Arnold Schoenberg’s ideas that have been combined or contrasted with Schenker’s, but “the view prior to 1980 was rather different. At that time, studies that synthesized or compared Schenker and Hindemith had been more numerous—a testament to the standing Hindemith once had” (Berry 2004, 17).


position of leadership in American musical-intellectual history” (Forte 1998, 9),13 and this was due in no small part to the role played by JMT and Forte’s stu-dents in the Yale Department of Music in disseminating Schenkerian ideas.14

The Editorship, Design, and Production

Forte was named to JMT’s “editorial committee” his first year on the Yale faculty, which corresponded to volumes 3/2 (1959) and 4/1 (1960). If there were any signs of his new presence, they were relatively subtle.15 One possible exception came in the form of a polemical article now well known in certain circles. In JMT 3/2 (1959), roy Travis had published an essay, “Toward a new concept of Tonality?” in which—following the precepts of his teacher Felix Salzer—a Schenkerian approach was extended to the music of Béla Bartók. It prompted a harsh response by Ernst Oster in JMT 4/1(1960), which rever-berated for two more issues, with rejoinders by first hans neumann and then Arthur J. Komar.16 Oster, a pupil of Oswald Jonas and defender of Schenkerian orthodoxy, had become Forte’s friend following their introduction by Babbitt, and Forte may have brought Travis’s article to his attention, or in some other way advanced the possibility of a response.

At the end of the 1959–60 academic year, when Kraehenbuehl decided to leave Yale, he asked Forte if he would assume the editorship. he did, begin-ning with volume 4/2 (1960).17 With articles already in the publication pipeline from Kraehenbuehl’s term, Forte’s editorial influence was not as apparent in

13 More specifically, Schenker’s ideas worked in conjunc-tion with those of Babbitt to form “the two major obstacles to the dissemination and perpetuation of Hindemith’s music-theoretic ideas in the United States” (Forte 1998, 9).

14 For a summary of the role JMT played in the dissemina-tion of Schenkerian ideas in this country, see the second paragraph of “Dissemination through Journals” in Berry 2005. For more on Forte’s role, see portions of “Early Advo-cates” and “Initial Institutional Homes” in the same article.

15 Some things that might hint at Forte’s influence were, in fact, coincidental. For example, there was a forum on the “professional music theorist” in JMT 4/1 (1960), and one of its five authors was Howard Murphy. He had been in charge of the theory program while Forte was at Columbia Univer-sity Teachers College, and he was on the theory faculty of the Manhattan School of Music and perhaps arranged for Forte’s part-time appointment there. Indeed, in the preface to Contemporary Tone-Structures, Forte (1955) had acknowl-edged an “indebtedness to . . . Murphy for his sustaining interest.” However, the forum was not original to JMT in 1960, but instead had been organized for a meeting of the Music Teachers National Association in February 1959, and

JMT published the papers and panelists’ comments so that a wider audience could be reached. Another example: given Forte’s interest in historical theory (and also looking ahead to the 1974 dissertation of his advisee David Beach, which was titled “The Harmonic Theories of Johann Philipp Kirnberger”), one might wonder if Forte solicited Joyce Mekeel’s article on “The Harmonic Theories of Kirnberger and Marpurg” (JMT 4/2 [1960]: 169–93). However, Mekeel had graduated from Yale’s School of Music, where she had studied with Kraehenbuehl, and at the time of the article she was even involved with Kraehenbuehl’s New School for Music Study in Princeton (see n. 4). Thus, her article was, as Forte informed me, “a hold-over from Kraehenbuehl.”

16 Hans Neumann, “Letters to the Editor,” JMT 4/2 (1960): 274–75; and Arthur J. Komar, “Letters to the Editor,” JMT 5/1 (1961): 152–56. The next year, Komar would complete a Schenker-influenced master’s thesis under Forte, at the Yale School of Music (Komar 1962).

17 In practical terms, the new editor had already been announced (inferentially) in volume 4/1 (1960), where the front matter informed readers that “editorial communication should be addressed to” Forte.


that issue,18 but it was certainly announced visually with the design changes of the following issues. For its first few years, JMT’s cover design had been fairly conventional. It consisted of black print on a light blue paper stock (lighter than the official Yale Blue, to allow for the printing, but still evocative of the school’s signature color). Below the title was ever-changing line art, taken from historical treatises; a full listing of article titles and authors, plus only headers for other sections (“book reviews,” etc.); and the volume and date denotations. With volume 5/1 (1961), the graphic makeover commenced. As shown in Figure 1a, the previous light blue was now cast into stark relief, as

18 Although again Oster appears, this time as the author of a mostly favorable review of The Sense of Music (Prince-ton: Prince ton University Press, 1959), by Schenker’s pupil Victor Zuckerkandl.

Figure 1a. JMT 5/1 (1961). NB: the cover designation 5/2 is a

mistake. Print colors: light blue and black, with blue-on-black

and black-on-blue lettering


it cut angularly into a field of black. The new cover, stripped of all but basic publication identifiers, was striking, especially in its lettering, which combined vertical and horizontal orientation with blue-on-black inverting into black-on-blue. Inside, the table of contents also reflected the new design, as did the title page of each article, in which the authors’ names were especially prominent and rendered in interesting combinations of larger and smaller lettering. The person behind the new design was named in the masthead: Sharland, the professional name used by Forte’s wife, who was also a notable photographer for Life magazine. A year later the cover was granted another design (also by Sharland), in which the initial letters of the journal’s name assumed promi-nence and divided the cover into white on one side and a vibrant color on the other, as illustrated in Figure 1b. This design ran for three years, from volumes

Figure 1b. JMT 7/1 (1963). Print colors: yellow and white with

black lettering


6/1 (1962) through 8/2 (1964),19 after which time the journal adopted a rela-tively plain gray cover with black-and-white lettering. Although Forte found the color covers to be “striking,” he recalls that considerations of cost might have led to their discontinuation.20

While the new cover designs enhanced the exterior of the journal, inside the production costs were kept to a minimum.21 The musical autography was created professionally, by new York–based Wilmia Polnauer,22 but as much work as possible was done locally, by Forte and his assistants. Alfred B. Kuhn (a music librarian) served as copyeditor; he checked such things as spelling and punctuation and made sure the articles adhered to house style.23 The journal’s text was not typeset at a print shop, but rather completed on a typewriter by Edith limosani and lucille de nuzzo (successively).24 The results were none-theless pleasing, with proportional letter spacing and margins neatly justified, as they were using what was then an advanced office machine: the IBM Exec-utive electric. Much of the remaining preprinting work was done by select graduate students; several were involved during Forte’s editorship, including David Beach, John rothgeb, and richard Teitelbaum.25 Some of their work was done on campus—not in the School of Music, but in the basement of nearby W. l. harkness hall. however, perhaps most of it was done at Forte’s linden Street apartment, where there was a room with a large table and the necessary supplies (including a light box). There, musical examples and other figures were manually pasted into the text, and the completed pages (i.e., the mechanicals) were sent to Yale’s central Duplicating Bureau for photo-offset reproduction.26

19 The colors, each used for a two-issue volume, were suc-cessively purple, yellow, and red.

20 At another point in the interview, Forte also mentioned that, during his tenure as editor, “there wasn’t much money” coming from the School of Music to “keep the journal going.”

21 I thank John Rothgeb for supplementing and clarifying some of the facts in this paragraph.

22 Polnauer would later do the same job for Perspectives of New Music.

23 Kuhn served in this capacity from volumes 5/1 through 10/1. Rothgeb also performed the job, beginning with vol-ume 9/1 and continuing throughout Forte’s time as editor.

24 During Forte’s time as editor, their periods of service (by volume and issue) were Limosani, 4/2–6/2, and de Nuzzo, 6/2–11/1. They were credited in the masthead with “produc-tion,” as was John de Lucia (4/2–10/1), but his job was differ-ent since he was in charge of the printing department that handled JMT and other Yale materials (see also n. 26).

25 “Editorial assistants” were not listed in the journal until volume 7/1 (1963), when Beach and Teitelbaum first appeared under that heading. They remained for the next two issues, and then it was Beach and Rothgeb for volume 8/2 (1964). However, Rothgeb has told me that he probably did uncredited work on the journal during the 1963–64 year, when he was first in the master’s program. So it is pos-sible that others were also assisting before it was officially recognized in print. (Among the jobs Rothgeb recalls doing was proofreading, which was done in tandem with Forte: one would read aloud from the edited and typed text as the other followed the original, editorially marked text.)

26 Most of the issues from this time credit the Central Dupli-cating Bureau in the back matter; the designation is found in volumes 2/1 (1958) through 3/2 (1959), and 6/2 (1962) through 10/1 (1966). Perhaps the issues between these spans were also done there. With 10/2 (1966), however, de Lucia is no longer given a production credit (see n. 24), and perhaps it was at this time that the journal contracted its printing to be done elsewhere. In correspondence separate from our interviews, Forte said that when the printing and mailing was done outside of Yale, there were initially prob-lems with lateness, which led to subscriber complaints.


Editorial Influences and Inclinations

Under Forte, the journal’s editorial apparatus remained as it had before: in addition to an editor there was an “editorial committee” that consisted of Yale faculty.27 For the first three years of Forte’s appointment, the committee was the same: richard crocker (musicologist), Quincy Porter (composer), Mel Powell (composer), Brooks Shepard (music librarian), and luther noss (the School of Music’s dean, a member ex officio). The only non-Yale member of the committee was George Jacobson, a former Kraehenbuehl student who taught at nearby Southern connecticut State college. changes occurred with volume 7/2 (1963), when crocker and Jacobson left the committee and rich-mond Browne (theorist), Donald Martino (composer), and claude Palisca (musicologist) joined, making Browne the only dedicated theorist28 (although Palisca’s contributions to historical theory are well known). The minority sta-tus of theorists was reflective of the time and would change in due course as Yale and other schools shepherded a new and larger generation of theorists into the academic world.

In addition to critiquing submissions occasionally (as specialties and time permitted), one function Forte had hoped the board would perform was to scout potential articles. however, this rarely happened, due to members’ other commitments and (for most) a general lack of interaction with those likely to author such articles. It thus fell mainly to Forte to “find the younger people who were writing things, and encourage them to submit.” he did this in various ways, including by keeping his ears open at conferences, such as those of the American Musicological Society. As editor, Forte had a “different idea of the scope of music theory” than Kraehenbuehl had—a broader view, and one that also placed more emphasis on analysis (of which he notes “there wasn’t very much . . . in the old[er] issues”).29 he was interested in “get[ting] a different kind of material” for the journal and making it “more diversified in content.” naturally, many submissions were received unsolicited, but given Forte’s proactive approach, we should consider some of the categories of research he cultivated.

Excluding the transitional issue immediately after Kraehenbuehl’s departure, the first issue to reflect Forte’s influence on content was volume

27 Although this was the system established at the outset, the observant reader will note terminological changes in the journal’s front matter. For volumes 1/1–3/1, it listed an editor plus “board.” For volumes 3/2–4/1, this changed to an “edi-torial committee” with a “chairman” (i.e., the actual editor, Kraehenbuehl). With volume 4/2, the designation “editor” was used once more. There was also another group that had been denoted “regional editors” by Kraehenbuehl—renamed “regional advisors” by Forte. The intention of cre-ating this group was to ensure input beyond the boundaries of Yale; however, the group did not actively participate in the journal, and so it was eliminated in 1966.

28 See Browne 2003, where he explains that, upon gradua-tion “from Yale in 1958, having been trained as a composer, but given a vision of generic theory by David Kraehen-buehl . . . , I knew that I wanted to spend my academic life as a theorist” (par. 4).

29 One way of expanding the role of analysis was to initiate analysis symposia, regarding which see later comments in the main text, and n. 34.


5/1 (1961, which also debuted the aforementioned graphic makeover). At the beginning of Forte’s career, Schenker and Babbitt were his “two inspirational figures” (Forte 1977, 158), and the ideas of both were represented in this issue—Babbitt’s, by his own entry, and Schenker’s, through his devotee (and Forte’s friend) Oster. The latter authored only five essays in English, perhaps because “he was very sensitive about writing in” his adopted tongue; although “he spoke English perfectly,” his written prose “had to be edited quite a bit.” Of the five essays, three were published in JMT under Forte’s editorship.30 The first was the response to Travis’s article, mentioned above; the second, in the issue at hand, was “register and the large-Scale connection” (1961). Forte had encouraged Oster to write something, and Oster decided on this topic, which—proceeding from Schenker’s analysis of the first movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata op. 109—explored how register can become “one of the main elements of composition . . . , on equal footing with harmony, counterpoint and thematic development” (Oster 1961, 56). According to Forte, Oster “thought that register as a [compositional] parameter had been seriously neglected, and he had a lot of ideas about it, which I thought were really excellent.” Similarly, Forte gave Babbitt an open invitation to write about whatever he wanted. The result (submitted to the editor in handwritten form) was “Set Structure as a compositional Determinant” (1961), which further extended ideas presented in two essays published elsewhere: “Some Aspects of Twelve-Tone composition” (1955) and “Twelve-Tone Invariants as composi-tional Determinants” (1960).31 Given the article’s mathematical explication of combinatorial principles, Forte drolly wondered if some readers might think the title was “Set Structure as a compositional Deterrent.”

Keeping with a Schenkerian focus, Forte later encouraged William J. Mitchell to write for the journal. A student of hans Weisse and author of the 1939 textbook Elementary Harmony, which was likely the first in America explic-itly to incorporate Schenkerian ideas, Mitchell had authored several reviews (including one on Forte’s Contemporary Tone-Structures) but only one other the-oretical or analytical essay.32 Forte had first become aware of him while a stu-dent at columbia (where Mitchell taught). his completed article (implicitly Schenkerian in approach) was “The Study of chromaticism,” which became the lead entry in volume 6/1 (1962). Oster was likewise invited to contribute his third and final essay to JMT, a Schenkerian analysis of Mozart’s Menuetto in D for Piano, K. 355, and it was included in an “analysis symposium” in vol-

30 Excluded from this number are reviews. The five essays are Oster 1947, 1949, 1960, 1961, and 1966.

31 The last-named article originated in the 1959 Princeton Seminar in Advanced Musical Studies, in which Forte also participated; see Forte 1960.

32 The review of Forte was in Etude (74/6 [1956]: 8); Mitchell also had reviewed the translation of Schenker’s Harmony (see n. 10) in Musical Quarterly (41/2 [1955]: 256–60). The

other “theoretical or analytical essay” was Mitchell 1946. He had also published “C.P.E. Bach’s Essay: An Introduc-tion” (Mitchell 1947), which (as indicated in the editor’s note on p. 460) “represent[ed] the introductory chapter to” his forthcoming translation and editing of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments (New York: Norton, 1949).


ume 10/1 (1966).33 With it, Forte wished to inaugurate a series of symposia, which he felt would be of “interest to those concerned with problems of ana-lytic method.” The procedure would be straightforward: a “short composition [would be] selected and experienced musicians [would be] invited to pre-pare analyses” without restrictions, using “any technique [they regarded] as appropriate” (Forte 1966a). As a result, readers would “have an opportunity to observe technique, and give thoughtful consideration to the insights provided by different, possibly divergent approaches.”34 The symposium in volume 10/1 was the only one to appear while Forte remained as editor, although the series continued in subsequent years.35

Turning to the Babbitt-influenced side of theory, we find several such articles, a few perhaps owing to some personal connection with Forte. For example, there was Martino’s “The Source Set and Its Aggregate Formations,” in volume 5/2 (1961). The article sprang from Babbitt’s work, which the author first came in contact with in 1952 while a master’s student at Prince-ton (where Babbitt taught). After reading Babbitt’s 1960 essay “Twelve-Tone Invariants,” Martino began to work on his own essay, which he later described as “more like a user’s manual, a ‘how-to’ guide, than a theory paper,” some-thing “intended as a dictionary for composers, not analysts” (Boros and Mar-tino 1991, 228). Martino had joined the Yale music faculty the same year as Forte, and the two also taught together at the Yale Summer School of Music and Art in norfolk. So although Forte in no way prompted Martino’s essay, he was “closely associated” with him and very “interested” in the work— circumstances that certainly aided in its placement in the journal.

continuing in the Babbitt-inspired vein, there are also Forte’s own endeavors. As is well known, during the 1960s he began to develop his ideas of pitch-class set theory. In the prior decade, Salzer had inspired Schenker-influenced approaches to so-called neotonal works of the twentieth century, and Babbitt had begun to investigate properties of serial works. In contrast, nonserial atonal music (of which Forte was an admirer) seemed open for the-oretic exploration. Forte was at the time engaged in mathematical studies on his own, and he was attracted to the idea of a set, as defined mathematically. he first brought his evolving methods to bear on an analysis of Schoenberg’s

33 “Analysis Symposium,” JMT 10/1 (1966): 18–52. It was supposed to include three analyses, but one author was unable to make the deadline; the two analyses that did appear were by Boatwright (formerly of Yale and the JMT editorial board, but then dean of the School of Music at Syracuse University) and Oster. Boatwright’s analysis was subsequently addressed in Roland Jackson, “Further Obser-vations on Mozart’s Menuetto in D Major,” JMT 11/2 (1967): 277–79.

34 These last comments come from the “Editorial” at the end of volume 9/2 (p. 338), in which Forte announced the forthcoming symposium. A more basic purpose of the

series was “to enlarge the scope of the journal to include significant contributions to analysis.”

35 See, e.g., “Analysis Symposium [Schubert, Moments Musicaux, op. 94/1 (publ. 1828)],” JMT 12/2 (1968): 184– 239, with analyses by Matt Hughes, Lawrence Moss, and Carl Schachter; and “Analysis Symposium [Beethoven, Piano Sonata in C, op. 53 (‘Waldstein,’ 1803–4): Introduzi-one],” JMT 13/2 (1969): 186–217, with analyses by David W. Beach, Donald Mintz, and Robert Palmer.


Sechs kleine Klavierstücke, op. 19 (1911), published elsewhere (Forte 1963). But it was in JMT the following year—volume 8/2—that he first introduced “A Theory of Set-complexes for Music” (1964), which would eventually efflo-resce as The Structure of Atonal Music (1973).The article commanded further attention in the subsequent issue, 9/1, where John clough (1965) offered a critique and Forte (1965) responded. In that same issue, Forte’s student Teit-elbaum published the article “Intervallic relations in Atonal Music” (1965) that was indebted to Forte’s work, and in fact stemmed from a master’s thesis (Teitelbaum 1964) of the same title that he had completed at Yale the prior year (Teitelbaum 1964).36

Electronic music was another topic of research that Forte promoted as editor. This may seem to have been prompted again by Babbitt’s influence, but it should be recalled that Forte had studied with luening and Ussachevsky while at columbia. These composers had been involved individually in elec-tronic music from the early 1950s, had subsequently collaborated on elec-tronic works, and had established an electronic music center at the school—which in 1958, with Babbitt and roger Sessions also on board, became the columbia-Princeton Electronic Music center. In fact, Forte’s first published article (Forte 1956) was a general-readership recounting (for High Fidelity magazine) of his visit to the electronic music studio of the WDr (West Ger-man radio) at cologne.37 Thus, for volume 7/1 (1963), it was Forte’s idea to bring in Babbitt as coeditor of an issue devoted to (in the latter’s words) “an exposition of the means of specifying, generating, and regulating sound and sound succession, electronically and electromechanically” (Babbitt 1963, n.p.).38 Another article that “belong[ed] to” the same series of essays (Winckel 1963) was published in the next issue,39 and the series continued with a sec-

36 See Teitelbaum 1965, 126, n. 3, for an acknowledgment of Forte.

37 He noted that, while there, he had heard Karlheinz Stock-hausen’s Studie I (1953) and Gottfried Michael Koenig’s Klangfiguren 1955 (this presumably refers to what would be called Klangfiguren I [1955], as opposed to Klangfiguren II [1955–56]). He also made passing mention of the Ameri-can “music for tape” group, “of which Vladimir Ussachevsky and Otto Luening are the most prominent members” (Forte 1956, 67).

38 Incidentally, this theme issue (JMT 7/1) coincided with the elimination of the “theory forum” section that Kraehen-buehl had begun in volume 1/2 (1957)—a section briefly retitled as simply “forum” for the two issues of volume 6 (1962). In a correspondence separate from our interviews, Forte explained that the forum was eliminated because he was receiving many submissions that were “contentious” or “pursuing antiquated issues.” On the contentious front,

it should be noted that critical responses to past articles had been part of the forum from its start (under Kraehen-buehl); e.g., the Forte–Boatwright exchange had been placed there, as had Oster’s rebuttal of Travis (Oster 1960). The tran-sitional issue that Forte inherited from Kraehenbuehl also had such an entry: Nicholas Temperley, “Re: Functional and Non-functional Dissonance,” JMT 4/2 (1960): 233–35, which was a response to Richard Bobbitt, “The Physical Basis of Intervallic Quality and Its Application to the Problem of Dissonance,” JMT 3/2 (1959): 173–207. Among the entries of somewhat antiquated scope was perhaps Wilford W. Berard, “The Eleventh and Thirteenth Partials” (so titled in the table of contents only), JMT 5/1 (1961): 95–107, which addressed the proper equal-temperament notation of the titular overtones.

39 The acknowledgment that it belonged with the prior issue was made by Forte in an “Editorial Note” at the start of the issue.


ond theme issue in 8/1 (1964).40 One of the articles in the last-named issue (Meyers 1964) was extended into the subsequent issue, where it was joined by Babbitt’s “An Introduction to the r.c.A. Synthesizer.”41 It may surprise some present-day readers to find so many articles on electronic music in JMT, but at the time, Forte recalls, “it seemed that electronic music was the wave of the future.” Of course, from today’s vantage point, he adds that “it turned out to be [only] a little part of the wave.”

Departure and Legacy

There were, of course, other research areas in which Forte was interested, including those pertaining to historical theory (regarding which, it should be remembered that Yale’s Music Theory Translation Series actually began as an adjunct to JMT, which published its first book in 1963).42 But the final research area to be considered here—indeed, the one that indirectly led Forte away from JMT—is the use of computers in music analysis. This interest went hand in hand with his development of pitch-class set theory; to facilitate the com-plex calculations, he began using computers. his first involvement with them was at Yale, where he took a computer course with a faculty member he had gotten to know. By the time he was working on his article on set-complexes (Forte 1964), he was using Yale’s IBM 7094/7044 Direct coupled System.43 In support of similar applications, John Selleck and roger Bakeman (the latter a programmer at the Yale computer center) published an article in JMT 9/2 in which “data processing techniques” were demonstrated as a “tool [for] musi-cal analysis” (Selleck and Bakeman 1965, 281); examples of Gregorian chant provided the data.44 In 1966, Forte published his own article, “A Program for

40 This issue bears no note that Babbitt is coeditor nor that it continues the series begun a year before, but Forte had stated in the previous issue that Babbitt “continues to serve as coeditor of the series, which will be completed in the Spring 1964 issue (our next)” (Allen Forte, “Editorial Note,” JMT 7/2 [1963]: n.p.).

41 The Meyers article was actually in three installments, the last of which did not appear until two years later, in JMT 10/2 (1966): 216–74.

42 Kraehenbuehl had envisioned a translation series at the time JMT began, “as an adjunct to the journal.” His inter-est stemmed from the course “History of Music Theory” that he taught during 1953–57 and that Hindemith had taught beforehand (Forte 1998, 11). The first book in the series came out after Forte was JMT editor (although he was not involved in its production): Francesco Gasparini, The Practical Harmonist at the Harpsichord, a translation of Gasparini’s L’armonico pratico al cimbalo (1708) by Frank S. Stillings, edited by David Burrows (New Haven: Yale School of Music, 1963). The series’ general editor was Richard L. Crocker, a Yale musicologist on JMT ’s editorial committee,

who had been designated “historical editor” of the journal for its first three issues. According to him, the series was intended “to make the most important treatises in theory and pedagogy available in modern English translation” (“Richard L. Crocker: The Music Theory Translation Series,” JMT 7/1 [1963]: 1). Around that same time, Crocker left Yale for the University of California, Berkeley, and Claude V. Palisca became the series’ general editor. By the time its second book appeared in 1968, the series was affiliated with Yale University Press, not JMT. (The second book was Gioseffo Zarlino, The Art of Counterpoint, Part Three of Le istitutioni harmoniche, 1558, translated by Guy A. Marco and Claude V. Palisca [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968]; it would take several years for the third and fourth books to appear [in 1978 and 1982], after which time a few were published in closer succession.)

43 He notes that it was used to compile a “complete roster of set-complexes for the 12-pitch system” (Forte 1964, 162, and 182 n. 21).

44 They used the FORTRAN II (FORmula TRANslation) lan-guage, developed by IBM in 1958.


the Analytic reading of Scores,” in which he described using the SnOBOl3 computer language as an aid to analyzing music; Anton Webern’s Four Pieces for Violin and Piano, op. 7 (1910) served as the demonstration score.45 The following year, Forte produced several more articles—and even a brief book—on the topic (all published elsewhere).46 For these projects, he had been working not at Yale but at Project MAc, the computer science and artificial-intelligence laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Forte had been told by a computer specialist at Yale that MIT was the center of the kind of activity in which he seemed interested, and he had taken leave in 1965–66 to work there. Subsequently, he was offered a faculty position as Professor of humanities, which he accepted for 1967–68. It was during this latter period that Forte relinquished editorship of the journal, although he maintained a position on its “advisory board.” When he returned to Yale in the fall of 1968, he did not seek the editorship again, as he felt “it was time for a change” in the journal. he did not think keeping the same editor for too many years was healthy; it was better to “get new people” every now and then.

And so, the years of Forte at the helm came to an end. But just as he would later speak of hindemith’s “residual” influence at the Yale School of Music, so we can speak of Forte’s residual influence over JMT. For one thing, he had a hand in the academic training of the ten editors that followed him (spanning the years 1967–94), for all received their Ph.D.s from Yale, and all but two had Forte as their dissertation adviser.47 For another, there is the extensive list of former Forte students that have published articles in JMT; four published articles in issues while he was still editor (Teitelbaum, roth-geb, Beach, and Brian Fennelly),48 and the list continues to the present. More broadly, Forte, as a leading figure in what Babbitt called the first generation of professional theorists, helped set the tone for what a music theory journal should be. certainly Kraehenbuehl deserves tremendous credit for instigating the enterprise, and in my interviews with Forte, he commended Kraehen-buehl’s achievement more than once. however, in a 1958 review of the first three issues of JMT, Mitchell expressed a certain disquiet about the journal’s

45 SNOBOL3 (StriNg Oriented symBOlic Language) was developed at Bell Laboratories in 1963 and became com-monly used in analyzing both music and literature.

46 These include “A Syntax-Based Score Reading Program,” Project MAC Technical Report TR-32 (Cambridge, MA: Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967); “The Program-ming Language SNOBOL3,” Computers and the Humanities (May 1967); “Music and Computing: The Present Situa-tion,” Computers and the Humanities (September 1967); “Computer- Implemented Analysis of Musical Structure,” Computer Appli cations in Music, proceedings of the West Virginia University Conference on Computer Applications in Music (1966), edited by Gerald Lefkoff (Morgantown: West Virginia University Library, 1967); and SNOBOL3 Primer: An Introduction to the Computer Programming Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967). Additionally, there was

“The Structure of Atonal Music: Practical Aspects of a Computer-Oriented Research Project,” in Musicology and the Computer, ed. Barry S. Brook (City University of New York Press, 1970).

47 In chronological order, these were (with an asterisk denoting the two who did not have Forte as their adviser): David W. Beach, *Bryan R. Simms, James M. Baker, *Jane Stevens, Anthony Walts, Martha M. Hyde, Christopher Hasty, J. Randall Wheaton, Jack F. Boss, and Joel Galand.

48 Teitelbaum 1965; John Rothgeb, “Some Uses of Math-ematical Concepts in Theories of Music,” JMT 10/2 (1966): 200–15; Brian Fennelly, “Structure and Process in Webern’s Opus 22,” JMT 10/2 (1966): 300–28; and David Beach, “The Functions of the Six-Four Chord in Tonal Music,” JMT 11/1 (1967): 2–31.


early bearing. he noted that music theory “in its most generalized meaning embraces a wide field of speculation,” but for many it was simply “a pedagogi-cally oriented investigation of music in terms of its construction and syntax” (Mitchell 1958, 540–41). Despite Kraehenbuehl’s lofty proclamations in the first issue (some of which were quoted at the outset of the present essay), Mitchell feared it was this second and more narrow view of theory that JMT was settling into. It would take “breadth of vision and constant cross-refer-ence” to “keep theory from languishing,” and he worried that the journal would not be up to the task unless it “re-expand[ed] its restricting definition of the theory of music” (542). In his years as editor, Forte fostered that expan-sion, and his more inclusive approach helped stave off some of the charges of circumscription and cliquishness that peer publications, like Perspectives of New Music, faced during their early years.49 In the process, Forte secured a stable future for what has become a journal of record for English-language theoreti-cal contributions.

49 This is not to suggest that JMT was immune from reader criticism. As Forte told me, there was “resistance from peo-ple who didn’t like [the] articles or various approaches . . . we were publishing,” although it eventually “calmed down and the magazine became very well established with a regu-lar, periodic publication. Then there was much less of that.” However, because JMT ’s purview was broader than Per-spectives of New Music (which focused only on relatively recent music), it was perhaps less susceptible to some of the targeted criticisms of the latter.

Although early reproaches of Perspectives are not the topic of the present essay, some explication is in order, given the comments in the main text. Perspectives, a Princ-eton-based journal that debuted in the fall of 1962, was ini-tially supported by the Fromm Music Foundation, which had funded the Princeton Seminars in Advanced Musical Stud-ies, in 1959 and 1960 (see also n. 31). Foundation head Paul Fromm (1906–87), a wine importer who had fled Nazi Ger-many and settled in Chicago, had proclaimed in the inaugu-ral issue that the journal would be devoted to “opening ave-nues of communication between composers and interested performers and listeners” in order to encourage “a mutual interchange of ideas.” It was to be “a forum of consider-ably broader scope” than the previous Princeton Seminars, one that “would draw together American composers, their European colleagues, their fellows in the musical world, and literate people in every field” (Fromm 1962, 1–2). However, as the journal’s editorial “perspective” coalesced, Fromm became—in the words of David Gable—disenchanted with the “exclusive viewpoint [that] came to dominate” it. “How-ever intrinsically valuable the kinds of analytic approaches that came to typify it may [have been], Perspectives [became] in essence a highly specialized theory journal for contemporary music. For a decade, Fromm and certain members of the advisory board attempted to broaden the journal’s scope, and when the editorial board . . . refused

to return to the original conception, Fromm withdrew his funding in 1972” (Gable 1988, xv). This view of the policies of Perspectives was also asserted publicly in a letter to the editor, printed in the tenth anniversary issue, in which com-poser Robert Ceely (who had studied with Babbitt at Princ-eton) complained that to read the goals Fromm proclaimed in that first issue was “to read about a journal that never happened” (Ceely 1972, 259). Instead, the journal that came to exist should more accurately be retitled “Perspectives on New Philosophy, Perspectives on New Theory, or, at worst, the Princeton Alumni Weekly” (ibid.).

Years later, in a dialogue between the initial editors Arthur Berger and Benjamin Boretz, Berger admitted that “right from the start [the journal] was not only not what the out-there ‘public’ presumably wanted, but it wasn’t even something the . . . Fromm Music Foundation wanted,” and that indeed the journal was “perceived to be clannish” in its publication selections and editorial viewpoint—a com-ment to which Boretz added, “And we were!” (Berger and Boretz 1987, 596, 598). Berger also asked if Boretz “recall[ed] that—even in the reviews—[Perspectives] stood for twelve-tone music and not much else,” to which the lat-ter responded “Yes, sure” (ibid., 597). Along similar lines, Forte told me that around the time Perspectives debuted, Boretz came to New Haven to visit him. “He began to ask me directly if I thought that . . . their initiation of the new magazine would in some way interfere with JMT. And I said, no, I couldn’t see that it would. Because we had a different clientele, we were getting different kinds of people to write. And that turned out to be the case.” He later added (in a cor-respondence separate from our interviews) that among the reasons Perspectives did not become “competition” with JMT was that it became primarily “a vehicle for the writings of Boretz and other Princeton affiliates ([such as its] gradu-ate students).”


With this in mind, I will close by quoting Forte’s own summary of JMT’s early years:

[The journal] was a lot of fun to do, as I keep saying. And it generated a lot of excitement because what . . . [it] did was to discover that there was a commu-nity out there, of performers, composers, and music theorists, who were inter-ested in a journal of that kind. Their interests were not satisfied by . . . other periodicals. . . . But JMT looked like a good forum for them, and that turned out to be the case. It still is.

Works Cited

Babbitt, Milton. 1955. “Some Aspects of Twelve-Tone composition.” The Score and IMA Maga-zine 12: 53–61.

———. 1960. “Twelve-Tone Invariants as compositional Determinants.” Musical Quarterly 46: 246–59.

———. 1961. “Set Structure as a compositional Determinant.” Journal of Music Theory 5/1: 72–94.

———. 1963. “An Introduction.” Journal of Music Theory 7/1: vi–vii.———. 1964. “An Introduction to the r.c.A. Synthesizer.” Journal of Music Theory 8/2:

251–65.———. 1987. Words about Music. Edited by Stephen Dembski and Joseph n. Straus. Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press.Berger, Arthur and Benjamin Boretz. 1987. “A conversation about Perspectives.” Perspectives of

New Music 25/1–2: 592–607.Berry, David carson. 2004. A Topical Guide to Schenkerian Literature: An Annotated Bibliography

with Indices. hillsdale, nY: Pendragon. ———. 2005. “Schenkerian Theory in the United States: A review of Its Establishment and a

Survey of current research Topics.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 2/3. http://www.gmth.de/www/zeitschrift.php?option=archiv. (Also available in print: Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 2/2–3 [2005]: 101–37.)

Boatwright, howard. 1957. “review of Contemporary Tone-Structures.” Journal of Music Theory 1/1: 112–18.

———. 1958. “re: Contemporary Tone-Structures.” Journal of Music Theory 2/1: 85–92.Boros, James and Donald Martino. 1991. “A conversation with Donald Martino.” Perspectives of

New Music 29/2: 212–78.Browne, richmond. 2003. “The Deep Background of Our Society.” Music Theory Online 9/1.

http://societymusictheory.org/mto/issues/mto.03.9.1/mto.03.9.1.browne.htm. Burkhart, charles. 1997. “remembering David Kraehenbuehl.” Journal of Music Theory 41:

188.carter, Elliott. 1959. “On the nature of Music Theory” (letter to the Editor). Journal of Music

Theory 3/1: 170. ceely, robert. 1972. “communications.” Perspectives of New Music 11/1: 258–62.clough, John. 1965. “Pitch-Set Equivalence and Inclusion (A comment on Forte’s Theory of

Set complexes).” Journal of Music Theory 9/1 (1965): 163–71.Forte, Allen. 1955. Contemporary Tone-Structures. new York: Bureau of Publications, columbia

University Teachers college.———. 1956. “composing with Electrons in cologne.” High Fidelity 6: 64–67, 156–59.———. 1957a. “The Structural Origin of Exact Tempi in the Brahms-haydn Variations.” Music

Review 18: 138–49.———. 1957b. “re: A review in Our Issue of March 1957.” Journal of Music Theory 1/2: 201–5.


———. 1960. “Bartók’s ‘Serial’ composition.” Musical Quarterly 46: 233–45.———. 1963. “context and continuity in an Atonal Work: A Set-Theoretic Approach.” Perspec-

tives of New Music 1/2: 72–82.———. 1964. “A Theory of Set-complexes for Music.” Journal of Music Theory 8/2: 136–83.———. 1965. “The Domain and relations of Set-complex Theory.” Journal of Music Theory

9/1: 173–80.———. 1966a. “Editor’s Introduction.” Journal of Music Theory 10/1: 18. ———. 1966b. “A Program for the Analytic reading of Scores.” Journal of Music Theory 10/2:

330–64.———. 1973. The Structure of Atonal Music. new haven, cT: Yale University Press.———. 1977. “Music Theory in re-transition: centripetal Signs.” College Music Symposium 17/1:

156–62.———. 1998. “Paul hindemith’s contribution to Music Theory in the United States.” Journal

of Music Theory 42/1: 1–14.Fromm, Paul. 1962. “Young composers: Perspective and Prospect.” Perspectives of New Music

1/1: 1–3.Gable, David. 1988. “Paul Fromm in American Musical life.” In A Life for New Music: Selected

Papers of Paul Fromm, ed. David Gable and christoph Wolff, ix–xviii. cambridge, MA: harvard University Department of Music.

hindemith, Paul. 1942. The Craft of Musical Composition. Book I (“Theoretical Part”). Translated by Arthur Mendel. Book II (“Exercises in Two-Part Writing”). Translated by Otto Ort-mann. new York: Associated Music Publishers.

Komar, Arthur J. 1962. “recapitulation-Variation and the conception of Sonata-Form as a Sym-metrical Structure.” Master’s thesis, Yale University.

Kraehenbuehl, David. 1957a. “Foreword.” Journal of Music Theory 1/1: 1.———. 1957b. “A Matter of Policy.” Journal of Music Theory 1/2.Meyers, robert G. 1964. “Technical Bases of Electronic Music [Part 2].” Journal of Music Theory

8/2: 184–250.Mitchell, William J. 1939. Elementary Harmony. new York: Prentice-hall.———. 1946. “heinrich Schenker’s Approach to Detail.” Musicology 1: 117–28.———. 1947. “c.P.E. Bach’s Essay: An Introduction.” Musical Quarterly 33: 460–80.———. 1958. “review of Journal of Music Theory vols. 1/1–2 and 2/1.” Musical Quarterly 44:

540–42.Oster, Ernst. 1947. “The Fantasie-Impromptu: A Tribute to Beethoven.” Musicology 1: 407–29.———. 1949. “The Dramatic character of the Egmont Overture.” Musicology 2: 269–85.———. 1960. “re: A new concept of Tonality (?).” Journal of Music Theory 4: 85–101.———. 1961. “register and the large-Scale connection.” Journal of Music Theory 5/1: 54–71.———. 1966. “Analysis Symposium [on Mozart, Menuetto in D for Piano, K. 355 (?1786–87)].”

Journal of Music Theory 10/1: 32–52.Selleck, John and roger Bakeman. 1965. “Procedures for the Analysis of Form: Two computer

Applications.” Journal of Music Theory 9/2: 281–93.Teitelbaum, richard. 1964. “Intervallic relations in Atonal Music.” M.M. thesis, Yale University.———. 1965. “Intervallic relations in Atonal Music.” Journal of Music Theory 9/1: 72–127.Winckel, Fritz. 1963. “The Psycho-acoustical Analysis of Music as Applied to Electronic Music.”

Translated by louise Eitel Peake. Journal of Music Theory 7/2: 194–246.

David Carson Berry teaches at the College-Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati. A

past recipient of the Society of Music Theory’s “Emerging Scholar Award,” he is collaborating with Allen

Forte on a book about the music of Cole Porter.

berry forte & journal music theory jmt 2006

Documents