Idea, storyline y sinopsis

While the basic method of paradigmatic analysis—determine the units of a composition, establish the bases of their association, and thus explain the unique system of the individual work—is easy enough to describe, the real value of paradigmatic analysis may well lie in its ability to illuminate compositional fea- tures and strategies sensed intuitively. My next example is a slow movement of a piano sonata by Mozart. Although its textures are more uniform than the discur- sive textures we typically hear in his fi rst movements—think, for example, of the topically marked and thus apparently discontinuous fi rst movements of K. 284 and K. 332—my intuition here is that discontinuity is an essential feature of this movement as well. Th is claim may seem counterintuitive at fi rst. Yet, if we focus on the contrapuntal subsurface, we will see that a succession of tonal models or little progressions—each tastefully ornamented, sometimes elaborately, sometimes modestly—accrues an additive feel made possible by local discontinuities. We are reminded of A. B. Marx’s claim, which Schenker denies, that Mozart employs “a succession of many small structures.”10 _{Th ese discontinuous structures group into}

families, and their affi liations can be brought out in a paradigmatic analysis. More formally, then: the purpose of the analysis is to reveal the harmonic cum contrapuntal relations that make Mozart’s composition possible and to suggest that their disposition by means of a technique of aggregation is enabled in part by discontinuity. Th ere are three steps to the method. First, responding to the usual imperative to domesticate the movement for analysis, I have followed Schenker in preparing a two-voice version of Mozart’s composition (example 5.9).11 _{As a second}

step, and in keeping with our concerns in this chapter, I scanned the movement for smaller but meaningful units (labeled 1, 2, 3 . . . 28 in example 5.9). A third and fi nal step involved arranging these units into a paradigmatic chart (example 5.10) with three columns labeled A, B, and C. Units in each column express one of three types

10. A. B. Marx, Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, praktisch-theoretisch (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1837–1847), quoted by Schenker in Der Tonwille, 66.

11. See Schenker, Der Tonwille, 58, fi gure 2. Th ere are slight diff erences between my representation and Schenker’s. I have kept note values in treble and bass throughout, retained Mozart’s literal registers, added a continuous fi gured bass between the two staves, and dispensed with roman numerals.

of basic motion. Th e fi rst is an open (I–V) progression, such as we have in the fi rst 4 bars of the movement. (See unit 1 and its return as unit 19; see also units 5, 18, and 21. Unit 16 is also open since it expresses a V prolongation.) Column B represents a closed (I–V–I) progression, such as we have in bars 5–8 of the movement (unit 2), although it, too, can be modifi ed to begin on I6, ii, or IV. Column B is by far the most populated paradigm of the three. Column C, the least populated, expresses a linear intervallic pattern (10–10–10–10) enlivened by 9–8 suspensions. It occurs only once, near the end of the so-called development section, the “point of furthest remove” (in Ratner’s terminology).12 _{If, as stated earlier, the purpose of the analysis}

is to establish the conditions of possibility for this particular movement, then once we have fi gured out how to improvise these three kinds of tonal expression—an open one, a closed one, and a sequential, transitional progression—using a vari- ety of stylistic resources, the essential analytical task has been fulfi lled. Th e rest is (harmless) interpretation according to the analyst’s chosen plot.

It is possible to tell many stories about this movement on the basis of the dem- onstration in examples 5.9 and 5.10. For example, virtually all of the units in the fi rst reprise except unit 1 are column B units. Because each unit is notionally complete— that is, it attains syntactic closure—the narrative of this fi rst reprise may be charac- terized as a succession of equivalent states or small worlds. We might say therefore that there is something circular about this fi rst reprise and that this circular tendency, operative on a relatively local level, counters the larger, linear dynamic conferred by the modulatory obligations of what is, aft er all, a sonata-form movement.

Other stories may be fashioned around parallelism of procedure. For example, the second reprise begins with two statements of unit 2 (units 13 and 14), now in the dom- inant. But this same unit 2 was heard at the end of the fi rst reprise (units 11 and 12). Th e music aft er the bar line thus expands the temporal scope of the music before the bar line. Since, however, units 11 and 12 functioned as an ending (of the fi rst reprise), while 13–14 function as a beginning (of the second reprise), their sameness at this level reminds us of the reciprocal relationship between endings and beginnings.

We might also note the uniqueness of unit 17, which marks a turning point in the movement. Heard by itself, it is a classic transitional unit; it denies both the choreographed incompletion of column A units and the closed nature of the widespread column B units. It could be argued that strategic turning points as represented by unit 17 are most eff ective if they are not duplicated anywhere else in the movement. Th is interpretation would thus encourage us to hear the move- ment as a whole in terms of a single trajectory that reaches a turning point in unit 17. Finally, we might note the prospect of an adumbrated recapitulation in the succession of units 18 and 19. While the microrhythmic activity on the surface of 18 forms part of the sense of culmination reached in the development, and while the onset of unit 19 is an unequivocal thematic reprise, the fact that the two units belong to the same paradigm suggests that they are versions of each other. No doubt, the thematic power of unit 19 establishes its signifying function within the form, but we might also hear unit 18 as stealing some of unit 19’s thunder.

12. Leonard G. Ratner, Th e Beethoven String Quartets: Compositional Strategies and Rhetoric (Stanford, CA: Stanford Bookstore, 1995), 332.

CHAPTER 5 Paradigmatic Analysis

Andante cantabile con espressione

1 2 3 4 7 6 6₅ 4 -- 3 7 6 ₄6--_--5₃ 4₃ 6₅ 11 5 6 7 8 4 3 65 6 6 64----53 43 R2 6 43 R2 6 65 64 6 6 64 ----5§ 9 22 10 11 12 13 6 6 6 6 _{6 64}-- --5§ 6 6 6 64 8--- 74 ---§ 3 4 74----83 4 74----38 33 _{14 15 16 17} 6 6 4---5§ 6 6 8 6 4 -- -- -- 7 5 § ! 7# 8 ---- 7 H # 109 -- 8--- 7 45 _{18 19} 10 9 ---8 4 -- 3 109 -- 8--- 7§ 109 ---8 4 ---- 3 6 M Y 7 6 56 _{20 21} 6 5 4 --3 7 6 64----53 42 6 42 6 --- 4-- 3 7 22 68 _{23 24 25} 6 6 6 5 6 65 46----53 6 6 78 ₂₆ 27 ₂₈ 6 6 6 6 6 4 53 6 6 6 8 6 4 --- U _M 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3

Example 5.9. Outer voice reduction (aft er Schenker) of Mozart’s Piano Sonata in

Readers will have their own stories to tell about this movement, but I hope that the paths opened here will prove helpful for other analytical adventures. I have suggested that, if we agree that the slow movement of Mozart’s K. 310 can be recast as an assembly of little progressions—mostly closed, independently meaningful expressions of harmonic-contrapuntal order—then the inner form of the movement might be characterized as a succession of autonomous or semiautonomous small worlds. Units follow one another, but they are not nec- essarily continuous with one another. If anything rules in this Mozart move- ment, it is discontinuous succession. Paradigmatic analysis helps to convey that quality.

Chronological versus Logical Form in Chopin’s