issues in dahlhaus

7/30/2019 Issues in Dahlhaus

1/16

Review: Issues in DahlhausAuthor(s): Christopher WintleSource: Music Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Oct., 1982), pp. 341-355Published by: Blackwell PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854179

Accessed: 21/06/2010 16:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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

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

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

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

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/854179?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/854179?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/16

CHRISTOPHERWINTLE

REVIEWARTICLE ISSUES N DAHLHAUS

The ollowing iscussions a responseo therecentranslationntoEnglish f anumberf importantritings y theGermanheorist arlDahlhaus. hese re:RichardWagner'sMusic Dramas(Velber: 971;English ranslationyMaryWhittall,Cambridge,UP, 1979);Between Romanticismand Modernism:Four Studies n the Music of the Later NineteenthCentury Munich:974;EnglishranslationyMaryWhittall, erkeley, niversityf California,980);Estheticsof Music(Cologne:967;English ranslationy WilliamW. Austin,Cambridge,UP, 1982);ourentries'Harmony',CounterpoinK,Tonality'nd'Wagner')orThe New GroveDictionaryof Music and Musicians,edited yStanley adie, London: acmillan,1980);nd SchoenbergndSchenker2,ro-ceedingsofthe Royal MusicalAssociation,Vol. 100, 1973-1974.1: Dahlhaus s AnalystThe entryon CarlDahlhaus n TheNew GroveDictionaryoncludeswith the remarkthat 'a constant heme of Dahlhaus'swritingsand research s the presentconceptionof musicand its place n the modernworld'.The author,Hans HeinrichEggebrecht,might well have gone on to draw the corollary o his observation: hat implicit inDahlhaus'swork is also the idea of what the role of historian,critic, theoristandanalystmight be in the same society. And before urning o his writings, t is worththinkinga little about his role. As Dahlhaus's emarks n the theoristKnudJeppesenshow,l he is well aware hat no amountof circumspection an preventanalystsandcritics rombeingcaughtup in the circumstances nd issuesof theirown times. He iscertainlyno exception. On the contrary, he way he argues is, to a large extent,intimately bound up with what it is he chooses to argue about, which in turnrepresents considered esponse o the various egacieshe has inherited romearlier

. .crltlcs.In the English-speaking orld, Dahlhaus s perhapsbest-known s the authorof anumberof stimulatingwritingson RichardWagner,2 nd as principal ditor of theWagnerCompleteEdition. But, as his list of worksshows, his range s significantlywiderthan this. In the earlierperiodsof music history,he has writtenon Josquin,onthe problems of rhythm in sixteenth and seventeenth century music, and onGesualdo; e has produceda numberof articleson J.S. Bach;his nineteenth-century

( MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982 341


3/16

CHRISTOPHERWINTLE

workmakesa special eatureof integratingmusicalwithsociologicalssues;and nourown century,he moveseasily from Schoenberg o modernmusicand electronics.Someof his otherwritings,on the otherhand,are topical,covering he historiesofharmony,counterpointand tonality, musical aestheticsand epistemology,and,indeed,muchelse besides.As with Matthesonand Riemannbeforehim, thereis asenseof strivingaftera completeness f view,whichnot onlyemerges romthelargercontextof his work,but whichis alsoevident n the balanced,consideredqualityofthe writing tself.Unlikesome of his German redecessors, owever,he is settingout notso muchtooffera method,as to suggesta numberof methodologicalrameworks. n this hereflectsthe low-keyed,self-effacing tyle of so muchpost-warEuropean hinking,with itsmistrustof the globalsystem.In sofaras heseesthe mainneedaslying n theeffortto explicate he deeper ssuesthatstandbehindapparent nes, and to ensurethatthe termsof a discussionareclearbeforeanyquestionsof detailare entered nto,his approachs essentiallyphilosophical.He insiststhatany newinterpretationmustbe informedby an 'historical onsciousness',whichentailsnot merelyreturning oprimary istoricalmaterials,but alsocoming o termswith whateverhasbeen said nthehistoryof a subject's riticism he attributes onsiderablemportanceo thepowerof the writtenwordin musichistory).He demands, oo, that the complexityof anysubject s adequately ecognised, o that ts aesthetic,criticalandanalyticdimensionsare treatedas appropriatelynter-dependent. Similarly,just as he warnsof thedangersof isolatingharmony,counterpoint nd tonality n the courseof a musicalanalysis, o doeshe integratemanyof thesesubjects' oncerns n his entries or TheNew Grove).In all this he revealsa fundamental, nd vital, conservatism.Unlikemanyothermodernanalysts,he does not derivehis paradigms implyfromotherdisciplines.Butso cogent s whathe offers n theirplacethatthe absenceof a readilyidentifiablemethodemergesas a strength,andnot as a weakness, n his work.Consistentwith Dahlhaus's oncernbothforhistoryandthe traditions f Europeanthoughtis his attraction o topicswhichdemand dialectical xertions' n order toresolveeither criticaldisagreements r internaldichotomies.(That an argumentshould be 'free of contradictionswithin itselfr is the second of three conditionsnecessary or 'an interpretationworthyof its name': the first stipulatesthat theargumentmustnot depart romthe text' elsewhereDahlhausdemands hatcloseanalysis houldbe an indispensable reliminaryo any investigation andthe thirdstates, conversely,that 'it must not be utterlyconsumedwith executinga literalreadingof the work' in other words, there must be a broader,historically-conscious,critical ramework.3)n thewritingsunderreview,thereare twostriking,and contrasted, xamplesof such 'exertions'.The firstis central o the longestandmost substantialessay from BetweenRomanticism nd Modernism,Issues inComposition'.Here, Dahlhausarguesthat, for all the differencesn theirchoiceofmedia,andcontraryo receivedopinion,Wagner ndBrahmswere n factaddressingthe sameproblem: his arose'fromthe difficultyof reconciling onstrictedmusicalideaswith the desireto workin largeforms,and fromthe undermining f classicalformby the technical onsequence f the brevityof the thematic ubstance'.4On theotherhand, he resolves hepolemicbetweenSchoenberg ndSchenkerby suggestingthatthe protagonistsweretalkingat cross-purposes: choenberghe sees as dealingwith motiviccoherence,with the Wagner-Schoenbergepertoire,with developingvariation,and with 'endsrather hanorigins',and Schenkerwith tonalcoherence,with the Bach-Brahmsepertoire,with the Ursatz,and with 'the law behindthemanifestation'.

MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 198242


4/16

ISSUESIN DAHLHAUS

Both argumentsare stimulatingand provocative when will analystsrecognizeSchenkeras the greatestmotivic hinkerof them all?).They are alsooverstated,asrecentcritics(DavidMurray n Wagner,5 ndWalterFrischon Brahms6) ave beenquick to point out. But Dahlhaus sees a degree of exaggeration s the bad faithnecessary or effectivepresentation.The critic, he argues,should 'not be afraidofmakingbroadgeneralizations,asteningon the salientfeature n tendencies,andconstructing"idealtypes"'7.Certainly, hese principlesalsocharacterizehe otherside of Dahlhaus'sactivity the uncovering f new problems,arising romissuesthat had been ignoredpreviously,or had been considereduncontentious, r quitesimplyhad not evenexisted. Sometimes hesenew 'dialectical' ontextsanswer heneedsofourtimesquitestrikingly.Theconcluding hapter fRichardWagner'sMusicDramas, orexample,examines heproblems acing hemodernWagnerian roducer:The ideaof the 'totalartwork', he integrationn musicaldramaof a particulartheatrical tyle, which thusbecomesa featureof the workandnot merelyof itsperformance,omesto griefoverthefailure o recognize hatnotall theartshavethe character f works of art in a strictsense.Mimeticart althoughWagner'composed' tagemovementandgesture nto his works is not a workof art initself, or evenpart of a work, to the extentthatmusicor language anbe. Thismeans hat it cannotoutlivethe age in which the workwaswritten.8

But if this argument again a provocativeone (it describesa state of affairs,certainly; utwhatof thealternative iew-point, hatwepreseveoldballetsandwatchold films?) absolvesthe producerfrom the burden of 'authentic'Wagnerianproduction,he still has to confrontDahlhaus'sotherpremise, that Wagnercouldconceiveno musicalfigureindependently f its theatricalunction. The two state-mentsarenotnecessarily ontradictory:heinescapable ilemma heydefine ouchesuponthe heartof Wagner's esthetic.Andmoderncriticismof Wagnerian erform-ance,by havingto begin withan assessment f a producer'sdialecticalxertions'novercoming his dilemma, must necessarilyengage in both sides of Dahlhaus'scharacteristicallyorthrightdebate.Indeed3 t is through his Wagnerianwritings that Dahlhausmay be seen mostclearly n historicalperspective.AnthonyNewcombehas alreadymade heimportantpointthat

Justas Lorenzoriginatedn a polemicagainst he accusations f formlessnessnWagner, o DalhaussWagneriannalyses riginated sa polemicagainstLorenz,who viewedWagner'smusicdramasas an unbroken hainof tonallyclosedandtonallydefinedformalschemata.Perhapsas a result,Dahlhausnot onlystressestheflexible,anti-schematicatureof Wagner'sorms,he alsoregularlyhooses oignore he tonalbuildof Wagner'sunits.9

It is also possible to recognizean over-reaction gainst he kind of inspiredvenomfound n TheodorAdorno's alsorecently ranslated)ssayonWagnerl theembodi-ment of the most intenselove andhatred maginable).Dahlhaus'sview of Wagner,likeCurtvonWesternhagen's,lls themodern,sterilizedone. Theremay, of course,no longerbe the politicalurgency or chaptersas chargedas Adorno'son Wagner's'socialcharacter', ndDahlhaus's oolnessof approachmakes ora welcomechange.But theargument hat'theintellectual ndpolitical ignificance' f Wagner'swork isnowpartof historyand can be regardedwitha historian's etachment'l2ignificantlydoesnot standas thepreface o anykindof reassessment. he factthattheissuesareby-passed and,hence, reveal heircontinuingpotency)means hat unusuallywithDahlhaus thecontradictionsnherent n thehistorical videncearesuppressed.ForMUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982 343


5/16

CHRISTOPHERWINTLE

if Wagner deploredhecommonpracticeof tracingmusicalworksbackto biograph-icalroots . . . his life was merely he foodon whichhis work fed'l3then he alsoleftplentyof encouragementor tendentious eadings f hisworks.Most symptomatic ftheconfusions n this issuearethe contradictions ithinDahlhaus's wn writings:nthe Esthetics f Musiche offers the opposite,andmore realistic,assertion hat 'muchwouldbe ostby outright ubstitution f a structuralistnterpretationor thebiograph-icalemphasis n the historyof nineteenthcenturymusic'.l4(Nevertheless,manyofAdorno'spointsreappearn Dahlhaus'swork, eitherdirectly ransferred,r fascina-tingly transmuted.Both writers, for example, ascribeWagner'scompressionofthematicmaterialntomnemonicallympressiveragmentso sociologicalactors.InAdorno, he leitmotivesare thevehiclesby whichthe audiencemay dentifywiththecomposer-conductor an identificationhatrenders hemsupine,and henceripeforthe acts of 'terrorism'whichWagner nflictsupon them. This is modified n Dahl-haus: the fragmentsmerely attempt to satisfy the insatiabledemands of thenineteenth-centuryistener or novelty.)Thereareotherways, too, in whichDahlhaus's pproacho analysiss definedanddelimitedthroughthe exerciseof his 'historical onsciousness'.Genre studies, forexample, hattrace he growth,apotheosis nddeclineof a form(suchasthemassortheoratorio) reseento derive heirparadigmsrombiology,and henceto be situatedfirmly within the context of nineteenth-centuryritical endeavour the renewedinterest n Darwinsimmay yet changethis attitude).On the otherhand, analyticmonographswhich do not go unrepresentedn Dahlhaus's euvre)courtthe peren-nial dangersof New Criticism, n which 'exaggerated istorical hinkingleads totreating ndividualworksin a quarantine oreignto history':l5 he single-mindedpursuitof a piece's ndividuality eflects as does alsothe kindof compositionwhichaims to be entirely ui generts)heloss of genre-consciousness,nd weakens, hroughthe absenceof comparative ctivity, the capacity or responsible aesthetic)evalu-ation.To steerbetweenall theseScyllasand Charybdisesequires,n Dahlhaus'swords,anew breedof professional critics 'who deservethe name and have not merelyaccidentallytumbled ntothe career'16 But et usnot stand oomuchonexclusivity:it was, after all, the composer,and part-timeanalystAlbanBerg who provided,throughhis polemic againstPfitznerof 1920,17 n attackagainstreductiveanalysisthat is still moreeffectivethan muchof whatis to be foundin the writingsof themodernscholarswho have moved into the 'beyond'.) Dahlhausis just such aprofessional.His capacity o weld expositionand reflection nto an argument hatmoves easilyamong its aesthetic,criticaland analyticdimensions s the workof aliterary irtuoso.His tone is reasonable, ndunpolemical; is style s lucid andfree ofjargon;he is unfailinglythought-provoking;nd his work is likely to remainatouchstoneorothercritics or manyyears o come.Indeed,evenwhenaspectsof histhoughtprovokeothers ntochallenge as they do in the nextpartof this responsethecomplexity f the issuesthat haveto be engaged,and the qualityof discussionthatis demanded,n themselvespay tribute o this achievement.

2: A Tristan eriodIn a key chapter romEstheticsf Music, Standardsf criticism',Dahlhausarguesthat 'someworkof artflawed romthe pointof view of perfectionmay be significant

MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 198244


6/16

ISSUESIN DAHLHAUS

fromthe point of view of greatness'.l8Somethingof the samemayalso be saidofcriticism.Imperfections,properlyunderstood,shouldnot necessarilydiminishanappreciationf thewhole,especiallywhenthe premises hathave ed to falseconclu-sionsarethemselves ound.AlthoughDahlhaus's roader ccountof Wagner'smusicdramas s striking,and imaginative, hereare problemswith some of the analyticdetails.Andin answeringhesekindsof problem, t is justas important s to offeradifferent nterpretationo understandhow the flawsarose,whatthe natureof thealternativeriteria eeded o resolve hem s, andwhat hewideranalytic onsequenceof adopting hemis likelyto be.One suchproblematic assages the interpretationf eightbarsfromAct 1, scene5, of Tristan ndIsolde.Sincemuchof the essay('Issues n composition')l9n whichthisoccurs s devoted o technicaldiscussion,andsincethisis theonlymusicexamplefromWagnerquotedin the text, much dependsupon the readingcarrying omeconviction.But beforeturningto this, it is worthsummarizingts background,nwhich Dahlhaustraces the evolutionof Wagner'smusicallanguageunder threeheadings:musical dea, syrltax,andtonality.Whereasn classicalmusic,he argues,motiveshademanatedrombroaderhema-tic and symphonicprocesses, hiswasno longer hecase n romanticmusic:thescaleof themusical deahadcontractedromthatof thethemeto thatof theself-sufficient(and,hence,expressivelymorepregnant)motiveandformshadto adapt hemselvesto this fact (in general, 'formal deas and melodicdetail come into being simul-taneously' indeed, 'conceptionsof musicalformare based,in eachera, on thecharacteristic ypes of thematic material'rather than vice versa). Previously,thematically-derived otiveshad been led sequentially hroughdifferent onalitiesonly as partof a 'development' ection:now, in the absenceof broader hematiccontexts,sequencewasnecessarilyncorporatednto exposition.Two consequencesemerged romthisimportant hiftin practice: irst,the figurativepadding'hathadpreservedormalbalancen Mozartdisappeared,s eachmomentbecamemelodicallyas significant s the next (Dahlhaus uggests hatin thephrase endlessmelody',theemphasis hould ie with themelodyrather han ts endlessness) nd second,motivesthathadbeenexpressivelyindeterminate'n Beethoven,nowacquired,hrough heirdramaticontexts,new,concretemeaningsthesocialand iterarybackgroundo thischange s describedwith exemplary larity n thetenthchapterof EstheticsfMusic).The syntacticeffect of Wagner constructingout of these newly individuatedmotivesapolythematicmusic-dramaticebwasas Dahlhaus oes onto suggest,bothto upsetthe classicalprincipleof complementaryarts(antecedent ndconsequent,questionand answer,and so forth) and to dissolvethe quadraticproportionsofpre-Wagnerian usic(forexample, he2 + 2 + 4 barphrases)ntoamusicalprose, nwhichdissonanceandmetric rregularity,arfrombeingexceptions hatdemandedresolutionntoconsonance ndregularity,hemselvesbecame heyardstickby whichallelsewasmeasured.Thedistinction, urthermore, etween egularitynd rregular-ity, as with the distinctionbetweenconsonanceand dissonance,was 'no longeranelement n the construction f form'.All of thisled to a newtonalcontext: thetonalitycharacteristicf Wagner,unlikethatof Brahms,s not an"expanded",entripetal ne, integratingemotedegreesandregionsin one secure tonic, to which modulationscan alwaysbe related,but a"wandering"r "floating" ne'.20 Infact, the term'floating's misused hroughoutBetweenRomanticismndModetnisms a synonym or 'wandering', ndis correctlydefinedonlyin the 'Tonality' ntryof TheNew Grove s 'thevacillation etween wo

MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982 345


7/16

,^,5 | h. n h6bJ

(H8 9$ - tS $ tY f#CV I

CHRISTOPHERINTLE

ororeeys, though not in the sense of modulationbut of ambiguity').2lThis

'wandering'epresents,quite simply, an 'orderof succession'of tonalities,'joined

togetherikethelinks n achain,without herenecessarily einganyotherconnection

betweenhefirstandthird inksthanthe second'.22Thissuggestions so profoundly

anarchicn its rejectionof hierarchies, f prolongation ndof anykindof harmonicexcursionhatDahlhaushimself s atoncemoved oqualifyhisoverstatement:this s

not tolaim that there are no examplesin Wagnerof tonalitywhich is both

"expanded"ndyet stillclearlyrelated o a tonalcentre,oreventhatsuchexamples

areare,utmerely hattheparticular armonic rocedures notthefirstthatshould

beiteds representinghe principlesof Wagnerianorm.'

Ex.1

v bw . I , K 8

Gb6 c6 ab6 eb6 b6b:V IIN VI III I1 2 3 4 5c6IIN6

G6 f#4f#:IIN I47 8

It is at this point in the argument hat Dahlhausturnsto his Trtstanxample,

beginning is analysiswith Schoenberg's ccountof the sameeightbars,as repro-

ducednStructuralunctionsfHarmonyseeEx. 1). Schoenbergaysofthispassage:

[Theexample], romTristan, s oneof thoseWagnerianmelodieswhicharebuilt

byquasi-sequentialepetitions f a shortphrase. t is analysed sbeingn B minor

in spiteof the F minor-likeprogressionI(Neap.>V, because hismethodoffers

the opportunityof analysingthe last phrase (bars 7-8) as an ending onv

substitutingor an endingon V. The progressionsn the second(bars3 4) and

third(bars5-6) phrasesarebettercalled'quasi-Neapolitans'I-V)because he

harmoniesn bars3 and5 arenot majorchords.23

346 MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982


8/16

ISSUESIN DAHLHAUS

In describing his as 'ingenious,but not particularlylluminating',Dahlhausquiterightlypoints out that in bs 1-2 the familiar-soundingNeapolitan'movesuggestsacontinuationn F minor,and that thesymbols houldread f:IIN-V', rather han 'b:V-IIN'. He is alsorightto argue hat,quasi-Neapolitansotwithstanding,henotionof altered hromatic ootsto the Ab and Eb minorchordsof bs 34 necessary or a Bminor nterpretations itselfproblematic.On the otherhand, it is Dahlhaus's onclusionshat aredssarminglyimple. Whathe asks us to hear is not 'the persistence f a singleunderlyingkey', but a chainof'fragmentaryonalallusions': irst, IIN-V in F minor then I-Vb in Ab minor, and'finally'(sic) I-IIN in B minor. The chain hangs together by 'the harmonicreinterpretationf individualnotes'which are 'held in commonby certainchords'('oneexpects he Ab in b.3 to become hemediant f F minor afterF minor: IN-V],and the B in b.5 to become hemediantof G sharpminor Abminor];but instead heAb acts as the rootof a chordof Ab minor, and the B as the root of a chord of Bminor').The factthat this tonalitywanders,he continues, s due to thewayWagnerhad transformedmusical deaand syntax 'thepassagemay be eightbars ong but itssyntactic tructuredoes not rest on a periodic chemarepresenting formalcorrela-tive to the principleof tonalcentrality;t is createdby sequential epetition,a linearandsuccessional rocedure'):moreover, he equidistantonalitiesF/Ab/Bdividetheoctavesymmetrically,n a manner hat 'undermines unctional onality'.24Ofcourse, n rejectingSchoenberg,Dahlhaus s alsorejectingLorenz 'Schoenbergsharedwith AlfredLorenz he view that,in Wagner, onality . . is structuraln thewider sense'). And significantly,Lorenz's point of focus (the 'secure F# minortonality' hat he claims the passageestablishes)25s precisely hatcadence bs 7- 8)which Dahlhausignores entirely. Whilst there is no need to take any notice ofLorenz's crudeattempt to diagnose Bar-form'here (the requisite2 + 2 + 3 barproportionsruncateheessential inalnote in theeighthbar), t is usefulto noticethedramatic arallelism efinedbytheboundaries f his 6Fbar period:at thebeginning,this firstF# minorcadencemarks hemomentwhenTristanoffershissword o Isolde(min. score, pp. 22g7); at the close, a second F# minor cadenceimmediatelyprecedes he signal o Branganeo fetchthe deathpotion a signal hatbelies,with aprofound andcomplex)dramatic rony,Isolde'swords to Tristan, 'I let the swordfall' (ibid., pp. 231 - 2). Clearly,Lorenz'scadencematters.(It does not affect theargumenthat the firstcadence s interrupted ndthe secondelided into the 'domi-nantseventh'of f#: IV.)Butbeforepursuing his critique, t is important or us to restore hepassage o theform it assumes n the score, so as to be able to fulfil Dahlhaus'sown ideal of anintegralanalysis Ex. 2). The unity of Tristan's hought s at once revealedby theBeethovenian,wedge-shaped ynamics: pp beginning,a sharprise to a climax(p,cresc to f), and an abruptdropthat leadsto a close at theoriginal evel (p to pp). Thecaesura hat follows the climax n b.6 marks he twophasesof the passage.In thefirstphase,Tristan hinksthrough heimplications f Isolde's akingupthe swordheoffers: heuniquelyarticulatedhordsof b.6 (bowed,marcato,wo-quaver atternonthe downbeat) ividly llustrates hekeyword n thefirstthree ines of text ('undfuhr'es sicherund est'), a keyword hat is set to the highest note of the eight bars.Thesequentialprocessesof this phase are manifestonly in instrumentationsustainedwindchord/string izzicato)and rhythm noticethedramatic iminution ffest froman 'expected'minim to a crotchet):andalthough he similarity f contour n eachofthe three vocal phrases (bs 1-2, 34 and 5-6, with anacruses) uggests a 'latent'

MUSIC ANALYSIS1: 3, 1982 347


9/16

_ _ _ _

(in B)

P P;iP w w

( @ bJ$ - - - - _Ppizz.v. t 4bo J Xpizz. Plzz.

b


10/16

_

o

i} - fip - --

o:s - WsX - - >p

so9@

X - - SA- - $p i z z * o9a

e s a d S i d 7 " eCtC$C. (Erreicht ihr sein Schwert der )

l

i b r S b : l 4 r j G G 6 7 G l f ttG2 2 1 1Schwort, und fuhr' es sicher und fest, daB du nicht dir's ent-sel - Ien laCt !

Bog pjzz Bog

cresc. f P

* ) - - - - 5


11/16

CHRISTOPHERWINTLE

On the one hand, the notation shows a first musical span, defined by flat-sideharmonies,which emerges romthe Eb minorof the introductory rchestral assage,and extends as far as the fourth bar of the vocal phrase.Following his, a genuineenharmonic hange,pivotingon Gb /F# andCb/B, eads o the sharp-side armonies,beginning with the B minor chord of b.5. This notation reflects the ongoingexperienceof the music (the phenomenologists'emps dure'e),26 and answers o theneeds of preservinga seamless extural low. On the other hand, a second musicalspan, overlappinghe first, and conceived ntirely n sharp-side armonies,s definedby the eight-barvocal phraseunder discussion:Ex.4

7 8Bars: 1 3 5 3 2 - 1

Ascent ( N-N) !

| Phase 1 Phase 2 1> j J J J '

s i ) 9 1 j t ? t-j:+,| Woodw i nd Strl ng

chords: chords ( pizz):

Roots: " ffl

-

03 't5 1 43 t3' :I ,

, IExcurslon: | '

A ?- bA(iv: ( i - IIN VI v )t i: iv IIN i

Viewed in retrospect (the phenomenologists'emps espace), its self-sufficiencyencourages unified nterpretationn the tonalsphere,as in all otherspheres.Crudelyput, in the criticaldebate o far, Dahlhaushas responded o the ongoingaspectof themusic, Schoenbergand Lorenz to the retrospective ne. Although some musicalobservations elong to just one or the otheraspect the F minordesignation elongs

MUSICANALYSIS1:3, 198250


12/16

ISSUES IN DAHLHAUS

only to the flat-side harmonies), and are hence irreduciblewithin some largersynthesis,we canneverthelessnvokethespiritof Dahlhaus ufficiently o claim hatthe conflictbetweenthe analystsmaybe at leastpartially esolved.Let us turn first to Ex. 4. This recognizesAdorno'spremisethat in Wagner'orchestrations transformedntoanintegraleature f composition'27.yconnectingthe wind chords in the first 'phase' of the passage,and by concludingwith thepizzicato hords n thesecond phase',areading mergeswhichconfirmsLorenz'sF#minor, nwhichtheF: majorandG#minorchordsof bs 1and 3 actasmodalvariantscolouringa Schenkerian scent(Anstieg)o a structural hird degree.Withinthisframework, choenberg'sandDahlhaus's)B minor onality epresents o more hana harmonic xcursion its consequenceswill be explored ater).Because he rate ofharmonic hythmntensifies n thispassage romone-in-a-barbs 1-5) to two-in-a-bar(bs6-7), andbecause especially thewindchordsenterattwo-barntervals, t is

hardnot to hearthe eight-bars ulfillingthe demandsof classicalquadratic yntax.Thehierarchiesevealedby thewindchordsalsoplay a part n Ex. 3. Since heGbmajorharmony 1) is nowseen to belongto a deflectedcadence n Ebminor theGband Bbfulfiiexpectations; nlythe Db is unexpected,and,hence,destabilising),t isnolongerpossible o sustain he viewthatthisharmonymaybe simplyconstrued s aNeapolitan oanF minor onicsuggestedby thevocalanacrusis . Onthecontrary,Fminor s impliedonly as an intermediaryonality a conceptdiscussedby Dahlhaushimself n a chapteronLohengrin).28imilarly,he Ab minorand Eb minor riads 3and 4), far fromrepresentingquasi-Neapolitans'n answer o an exaggerated uto-nomy accordedto sequence,are simply diatonicwithin the prevalentGb major.Moreover,here s nothinghereto suggest hatthe Ebminorchordmightbeheardasan altereddominant o an anticipated,but suppressed, onic triadof Ab minor,asDahlhaushas claimed.Oneissueremains:why F minor s invokedas an intermediaryonality,and whythereis an harmonicexcursionaroundB minor. Is it significant hat both movesinvolve Neapolitanprocedures?The answerdefines the same kind of subversiveelementwithin the musical anguage hatDahlhausdentifies andwhichreflects hepolarities f theentiredrama), hough ts agentsaredifferent.The climacticG in thevoice s supported y a CmajorharmonyIIN withinb): thisstandsat thedistanceofa tritone theanti-functionalnterval) rom the Gb/F#poles of the passage. t is this. .trltone . watS anticipated othin theharmonies f bs 1 and2, andwhich,indeed, s

prominent n the vocalcontourof thosebars.Fromthisone example, t wouldbe wrongto inferthat allof Dahlhaus's bserva-tionsareuntenable:Wagner, n certainpassages,doescreateanewmusicalprose,justas in others he depends upon literal sequence. But the deepermoralhas beenarticulated y Dahlhaushimself,and suggeststhat we, like PadreMartini,shouldcontentourselveswithexamples esemplare)s they occur n situ:. . . harmonycannotsensiblybe considered n isolationfrom the remainingaspectsof composition . . a true theory of harmonymust far transcend heboundsof a conventional armony extbook.29

3: In ConclusionBoianBujic, in a reviewof Esthetics fMusic,30 asdrawnattention o threeways nwhichDahlhaushas responded o the challengeof a subjectwhosematterbelongsessentially o eighteenth-and nilleteenth-centurytudies:first by incorporatingMUSICANALYSIS1:3, 1982 351


13/16

CHRISTOPHERWINTLE

numberof new topicsinto his chronologicalurvey asthe translatorWilliamAustinpointsout, the GermanitleMusikaesthetikas a resonance lightlydifferent rom tsEnglishone); second by includinga substantial hapteron the phenomenology fmusic; andthird, by balancing renewedspeculative pproachwith concreteappli-cations n thechapters n 'Esthetics ndhistory',and 'Standards fcriticism'. ntheirturn, Dahlhaus's wnwritingspose manychallenges ortheirreaders,andanaccountof some of these leadsat once to a few of the central ssues of our day.The analysis, n terms of functional onality, of the openingthree bars from theAdagioof Schoenberg'sThirdStringQuartet,Op. 30, might, for example,promptatemperate eview of what such an approachmight signify in broader erms('Har-mony', p. 183, Ex. 14:significantly, he mistakes n the analytic eductionoverstatethe case n tonality's avour the Eb is misplaced egistrally, ndcannot herefore elinked in the mannershown to the subsequentD#, and in the final 'dominantseventh', heB is erroneously oubled; hemetronomemark, oo, shouldshow thataquaver,not a crotchet,equals60.) That therearesuch ocalized llusions o tonality nSchoenberg'swelve-notemusicshould not be takenas irrefutable roof that entirepieces should be heardin this way (paceHindemith,3l t would be hard to do socogently),but evidence that in its constitution he musical anguageallows for aconflict between, on the one hand, the world of twelve-noteharmonyprojectedthrough heassociation ndreassociation f motives the'atonal'egacy),and, on theother hand, and secondarily, he tonal world of stepwisevoice-leadingand root-progressions.This both parallels nd mirrors ituationsn tonalmusic wheretwelve-note procedures and, as Hans Keller hasshown, serialones as well32 stand n'dialectical' elationshipwith tonal ones: the pathos of the slow movement fromBeethoven'sPiano Sonata, Op. 10, No. 3, for example, arisesout of the conflictbetween tonality and the formation and re-formationof trinities of diminishedsevenths hroughout, o thateven asfamiliar n entityasthedominant eventh,whichcan mediate between the two worlds (by raising its root a semitone), becomesambivalentn its implications.Forthe analyst, he choice ies betweenaccepting ucha 'fluid' dea of musical anguage,or following heorists uch as Schenker rBabbitt,whose 'unitarian' pproacheswould tend to excludepossibilitiesof this kind.Dahlhaus'sown approach o the writings of Schenker s in fact a cautiousone.There aremanyAnglo-Americanmusicians, or example,who mightwant to see theconceptof Stufen scale-steps) levated o a moreprominentposition n thehistoryofharmonictheory: at least one writer, David Beach, has seen it as the crowningformulationn a traditionextending back through the work of GottfriedWeber,Kirnberger nd Schulz o (ironically)Rameau.33ndeed, n his quiteun-Schenkerianassertion that the transition from strict to free style necessarily involves theintroductionof basse ondamentalean assertion easily corroborated y Mozart'steaching of Thomas Attwood),34Dahlhausoffers an incentive for a long-overduereviewof the anatheman whichSchenkerheld Rameau a review hat can only gosome way to restoringto the harmonicdimension a greaterprimacythan it hassometimes njoyed n the Schenkerianiterature.In a footnoteto a recent articleon the genesis of the Ring, RobertBaileywrites:

It is of course significant for the cyclic natureof the work that it ends in Db where,in effect, it began. This fact alone led Lorenz (op. cit. p. 47) to call Db the 'tonic'(Haupt-tonart)f the Ring,but it is unthinkable that the nearly three operas-worthof music in between are organised in relation to a tonic Db.3s

352 MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982


14/16

ISSUESIN DAHLHAUS

Dahlhaus's ntroduction o the broader ssues of the Ring offers the most helpfulapproacho sortingoutthefundamental roblemsBaileyraiseshere.The expectationthat'nearly hreeoperas-worthf music'shouldbe manifestly entredon Db presup-posesa homogeneity f the cyclethat is beliedby theactuality.Dahlhausargues hatthe genesisof the work 'thegrowthof the dramaof Siegfriednto the tragedyofWotan'36- accounts or its unclassical ature: he cycleis genuinely wo-fold n itsconcerns,and anyinterpretationmustbeginby addressingtselfto the consequencesof this fact.To describe heRingmerelyasWotan's ragedy andthus to be able toinvoke a straightforwardonal argumentbased on Db) would indeed, as Baileyargues,be to overlookproportions nd to minimize he significance fwhatDahlhausimaginatively escribesas the 'Siegfried airytale' a descriptionhe shows to havesyntactic onsequences).Butas thecentreof the Wotan-strainf theRing,Db is morethan 'thinkable':t is the areathroughwhichmaineventsof this part of the dramaunfold.In DasRheingold,t celebrateshefalsesecurityof Valhalla;n Gotterdammer-ung ts tensionsareresolvedn Brunnhilde's oignant Ruhe,ruheduGott'expansionof the Valhallacadence-figurecontrary o Dahlhaus's uggestion, he perfunctoryconclusions o periodsplay a dramatic olein thecycle);and at the veryclose,Db ismetamorphosedhrough he association f the Valhallahemewith the redemption-by-lovemotive. (Evendiscounting he idea of a 'progressive'Db tonality,Bailey'ssuggestion hat the returnof Db is 'significantor the cyclicnatureof the work'isevidently alse:dramatically,he 'cycle' s completeonlywhentheRing s returnedothe Rhinemaidens:nd,of course,theyoriginally uarded he gold in Eb, not Db.)Dahlhaus'sgreatest nfluence,however, s likely to be exertedthroughhis com-mentson Brahms.Severalpassagesare analysed n somedetail, all illuminatingly.WhereasDahlhauswritesof classical onality hat'. . . harmonicheoryhasstillnotreallyaccepted heideathatClassical armony,whosetheory t purportso be, cannotadequatelybe understoodother than in relationto musicalform',37he suggestsconversely, n an accountof the G minorRhapsody, hat Brahmswasrelyingon thenineteenth-centuryistener's eceiveddeaof form o makedisparate armonic ventshomogeneous:

The openingof therhapsody,at firstsight'roving' . . in obedience o no laws,demands o be interpretedonallybecause he work s in sonata orm. . . Aftertheadventof thesecondsubjectgroup,which s in thedominant . . it is possibleto look backand recognize he openingas the principal ubjectgroup,and thescattered uggestionsof G minorcoalesce,underthe influenceof formalaware-ness, to form a tonic. The listener'sunderstanding nd recognitionof formalconventionsntervenen his graspof the harmony;rhapsody's madesubject o'sonata orm'.38

(Notice how, once again, the argument s implicitlyfoundedon the distinctionbetween emps space ndtemps uree, distinctionat oncereinforced ndmademorecomplexby the 'exposition' epeat.)Thatformcanthusbe seenasboth nertandvitalallowsDahlhaus o claimthat Brahmsachievedntegration f tonalityandsyntax' nthe faceof the moreprogressise tendencyof the material'.This description f thecreative ensionat the heartof Brahms'smusic seemsjust right:in the nocturnalIntermezzoOp. 116,No. 4, forexample,a traditionalABAstructurebothprovidesthecontext or, andwithstands,a subversivemusicalargumentbasedon theambiva-lencebetweenE majorandC::minorepitomisedn theopening, ragmentaryne-bar'idea'.Since,in the openingsection,the firststatement f the periodends(b. 9) in V

MUSIC ANALYSIS 1: 3, 1982 353


15/16

CHRISTOPHERWINTLE

of E major,and the second(b. 25) in V of C# minor,Brahmsalso appears o berevitalizing raditional yntaxhere; furthermore,he drawsupon an 'intermediary'tonality,E minor,to linkthetwogrincipal onalities, inceGb,re-interpretedsFX,acts as the leadingnote to C#:V. 9Therearemanyother ssues n thesewritingswhich nvitecommentary notablytheimplicationsormusictheoryof his description f the two culturesco-existingnthepolyphonyof J.S. Bach(what s theprovenancen theseventeenth enturyof the'hierarchic'ontrapuntaltyle?);andthe propositionhat n thethesecondhalfof thenineteenthcentury,the dissociationof music 'from the prevailing piritof the ageenabledt to fulfilla spiritual, ultural,and deologicalunctionof amagnitudewhichcanhardlybe exaggerated'40maywe notdescribeZeitgeist n dialecticalerms?).Thevalueof pursuing hem,he implies, n a boldandmovingpassage f theEsthetics,doesnot simply ie in satisfying cholarly uriosity:t is integral o definingwhatthemusicis, and hence, for creating he basisfor true aesthetic udgment:

. . . a prejudiceagainst analysis, a judgmentthat transformingmmediateimpressionsnto reflected mpressions epresentsmproverishmentnd exploi-tation,mightbe counteredby pointingout that theprejudicetselfdependsuponreflection.Original ntuitionknowsnothingaboutitself . . . it would not beparanoido suspectthatthe lost immediacy theconditionongedfornostalgi-callyby a culturesurfeitedwith itself anddenouncingtself wasmorelikelypartial,musty,andembarrassed . . True mmediacys notthe firstone . . . butrather hesecond,mediatedby reflection.Theoriginal et'(Ursprung),o borrowthewordsof KarlKraus, s 'thegoal', not the beginning.4

NOTESThe writingsof CarlDahlhausarereferredo as:RWMD(RichardWagner'sMusicDramas),BRAM(BetweenRomanticismndModernism),OM (Estheticsf Music),H, C and T (Har-mony,C01mtert0intnd Tonality)

1. C.p.845.2. Theseare listedin AnthonyNewcomb, TheBirthof Musicout of the Spiritof Drama',l 9th-Century usic,Vol. 5, No. 1, Summer1981,p. 65.3. EOMp.99.4. BRAM, p. 64.5. David R. Murray, MajorAnalyticApproacheso Wagner'sStyle:A Critique',MusicReview,Vol. 39, 1978,pp. 211-22.6. WalterFrisch, 'Brahms,DevelopingVariation nd the SchoenbergCriticalTradition',l 9th-Century usic,Vol. 5, No. 3, 1982.7. BRAM, p. 75.8. RWMD,p. 160.Dahlhausdiscusses hesame ssue n relation o themusicof AlbanBergin EOM, pp. 6F69. Fora review implicitly) redicated n theoppositeview, seeGeorgePerle,'Friedrich'sLulu', Tempo,No. 137,June1981,pp. 2-7.9. AnthonyNewcomb,op. cit., p. 40.10. TheodorAdorno, n Searchof Wagner,rans.RodneyLivingstoneLondon:NLB 1981;firstpublishedas VersuchberWagner, rankfurt,Suhrkamp,1952).

11. Curtvon Westernhagen,Wagner: biography,rans.MaryWhittall Cambridge:CUP,1978).12. RWMD,p. 1.13. ibid.,p.2.14. EOM, p.xx; and cf. p. 89.

354 MUSICANALYSIS1:3, 1982


16/16

ISSUESIN DAHLHAUS

15. ibid.,p. 91.16. ibid.,p. 87.17. AlbanBerg,'TheMusical mpotence f HansPfitzner's"NewAesthetic", reprintednWilliReich,AlbanBerg(London:ThamesandHudson,1965).18.EOM,p.8819. BRAM, pp. 4W78.20. ibid.,pp. 6849.21. T, p. 54.22. BRAM, p. 66.23. ArnoldSchoenberg,Structural unctions f Harmony, evisededitionby LeonardStein(London:Faber,1969),p. 107.24. BRAM, pp. 67-68.25. AlfredLorenz,DerMusikalischeuJbauonRichardWagner'sTnstan nd solde'Band I,Das GeheimniserFormbei RichardWagner),econdedition(Tutzing:HansSchneider,1966),p. 59. Lorenzwrites:This perioddisplaysan emphatic,expressiveIntroduction':he darkpassage WarMorolddirsowert . . entfallenasst'.Thepassage,beginningwiththe'Blickmotiv'in D# minor,fixes thekeyof F: minorbya seriesof chordsderived romtheDeathmotive.The vocalpassage tselfhasa smallBar-form: +2+3.

26. Thebackgroundo thephenomenologicalistinctionbetween emps uree ndtempsspaceis outlined n EOM, Chapter13, p. 74 ff.27. Adorno,op. cit., p. 75.28. RWMD,p. 43.29. H, pp. 18S187.30. MusicandLetters,orthcoming.31. PaulHindemith,Craftof MusicalComposition,ol. 1, revisededition,1945,pp. 217-18.32. See, for example,Hans Keller, 'Strict SerialTechnique n ClassicalMusic', Tempo,No. 37, 1955,p. 12.33. DavidBeach,'Theoriginsof harmonic nalysis',fournal fMusicTheory,Vol. 18, 1974,pp. 27F307.34. WolfgangMozart,Attwooddtudien, eue MozartAusgabe Barenreiter), ol. 30, No. 1,1965.35. RobertBailey, TheStructure f theRingandits Evolution', 9th-Century usic,Vol. 1,No. 1, 1977,p. 54.36. RWMD,p. 97.37. H, p. 181.38. BRAM, p. 71.39. Cf.JonathanDunsby'sdiscussion f Op. 116andArnoldWhittall's f Op. 121 nBrahms:Biographical, ocumentaryndAnalytical tudies, d. RobertPascall Cambridge: UP,inpress).40. The theme s developedn 'Neo-romanticism',RAM, p.1 ff.41. EOM, p. 41.

355MUSICANALYSIS1: 3, 1982

issues in dahlhaus

Documents