Schenker offered his most detailed account of modal inflections at the opening of the Harmonielehre in two chapters entitled “Die übrigen Systeme (Kirchentonarten)” and “Mischungen.”29Here he
used the notions of mixtures and tonicization to analyze various modal passages from works of the Common-Practice Period. One extract that he discussed in particular detail is given in figure 4.3 (Beethoven, “Heiliger Dankgesang,” String Quartet in A Minor, Op. 132).30Beethoven apparently completed this piece after recov-
ering from a serious illness in 1825. He celebrated his recovery by inscribing the score with the phrase “Holy Song of Thanksgiving to the Divinity by a Convalescent, in the Lydian Mode.”31 As if to
underscore the highly personal nature of the movement, Beethoven even marked the contrasting D-major sections “Feeling new strength” and the final section “With most intimate feeling.”
Although much has been written about this remarkable move- ment, most commentators take for granted that the opening sec- tion is indeed in Lydian mode. The signs are clear enough. As Schenker himself pointed out, there is the chorale-like feel of the half notes, the strong tendency to use triads in root position, the clear avoidance of any extreme chromaticisms, and perhaps most significantly of all, the consistent preference for B rather than B.32
Given these factors and Beethoven’s own title, the case for a Lydian interpretation seems almost overwhelming.
Yet, while Schenker certainly acknowledged the strong modal tendencies of the “Heiliger Dankgesang,” he insisted that these traits stem not from the Lydian system per se, but from chromati- cisms within the overall key of F major:
It could be objected that the two B’s in measures 5 and 23 (first and fourth part) are incompatible with F major and can be explained only if we presup- pose the Lydian system as [the] basic key. This objection can be countered: The two B’s, as they appear here, are in no way incompatible with our F
major. They result from a trivial chromatic trick, which we use everyday and on only slight occasion to emphasize the cadence and to underline the F major character of the composition.33
In Schenker’s opinion, “[I]t is true that the composer’s intention to avoid the B-flat is particularly noticeable—an intention which, in art, unfailingly entails punishment; it is not true, however, that, in accordance with that intention, the Lydian mode is presented con- vincingly.”34
Schenker’s own analysis divides the opening section into five parts. The first ends with a deceptive cadence in F major (mm. 5–6);
Figure 4.3. Beethoven, “Heiliger Dankegesang,” String Quartet, Op. 132. From Schenker, Harmonielehre, Ex. 47.
the second, modulates to C major and ends with an imperfect authentic cadence (mm. 11–12); the third is in C major and closes with a half cadence (mm. 17–18); the fourth leads back from C major to a perfect authentic cadence in F major (mm. 23–24); and the fifth modulates to D major and ends with a half cadence (mm. 29–30).35
The ramifications of this analysis are shown in figure 4.4 (Graph of Beethoven, “Heiliger Dankgesang,” String Quartet, Op. 132). It suggests that the passage is built from a distinctive prototype I–I6
–V/V–V–I or VI. As shown in figure 4.4a, this prototype controls the opening phrase of the movement. Notice how the progression from I–I6
is mirrored by a descent from A to F in the upper voice. Figure 4.4b then shows how this same pattern governs the opening section as a whole. The local motion to V in mm. 4–5 is now pro- jected as the larger tonicization of C in mm. 11–12. Beethoven even- tually returns to F via the I6
in m. 20. This sonority leads to the
prominent cadential progression V/V–V–I in mm. 23–24. Beethoven now presents the rising inner line C–D–E–F in the alto rather than the tenor voice. Despite the obvious modal tendencies of the surface, there are several clues that the music does not conform to the princi- ples of sixteenth-century polyphony. For example, the descending fifths A–D–G in m. 7 of the second violin part are unlikely in Palest- rina’s style, as are the successions C–F–G–B–C in mm. 11–12 and C–A–C–A–G–F–B–C in mm. 25–28.
As it happens, the reading in figure 4.4 stands in direct contrast to the one presented in a paper by Kevin Korsyn. Besides many dif- ferences in detail, the most striking divergence between the two analyses is that the former is in F major, whereas the latter is inter- preted in F Lydian. Although Korsyn’s sketch purports to be Schenkerian in nature, it is very hard to reconcile with Schenker’s own interpretation.36
For Schenker, the power of the tonal system was ultimately much greater than that of the Lydian system: “[Beethoven] had no idea that behind his back there stood that higher force of Nature [that] led his pen, forcing his composition into F major while he himself was sure he was composing in the Lydian mode, merely because that was his conscious will and inten- tion.”37
He added, “Is that not marvelous? And yet it is so?”
Before leaving Schenker’s explanation of Lydian inflections, it is worth noting that he used much the same arguments in his analysis of Chopin’s Mazurka Op. 24, no. 2 in Kontrapunkt 1. According to him:
With this passage, however, Chopin by no means intends to establish the old [Lydian] system as equivalent (to major and minor) and as independent; this is sufficiently clear from the refined artistry he uses in the introduction as well as the harmonization in general to provide the listener with the absolute certainty of only C major and F major.38
Schenker concluded, “Thus, the passage in question simply con- tains a few features of artist archaism, a highly ingenious trick, such as could befall Chopin occasionally in the midst of his fantastic improvisations.”39
Whereas Schenker drew on the concept of tonicization to explain the Lydian features of Beethoven’s “Heiliger Dankgesang,” he invoked the notion of mixture to explain the Dorian qualities of the music shown in figure 4.5 (Brahms’s song “Vergangen ist mir
Glück und Heil,” Op. 48, no. 6). These qualities are not hard to spot. The song is written in four-part chorale style and is clearly centered on the tonic D. Except for a single B triad in m. 23, Brahms consistently favors the pitch B to its diatonic counterpart. To emphasize the modal qualities even further, Brahms frequently uses the lowered leading tone, C.
Nonetheless, Schenker insisted that these modal inflections stem not from the Dorian system, but from mixtures within the key of D minor. His analysis is worth quoting at length:
The artist here clearly aims at writing in Dorian mode on D. This results from the mere fact that he omitted the key signature B in a composition really written in D minor. Brahms, too, guided by his desire to compose in Figure 4.5. Brahms, “Vergangen ist mir Gluck und Heil,” Op. 14, no. 6. From Schenker, Harmonielehre, Ex. 50.
Dorian mode (just like Beethoven, in the previous example, aiming at the Lydian) strictly avoids any B with one single exception in the second-to-last measure.40
He continued:
And yet I insist: None of the B’s occurring in this beautiful chorale is to be derived, as Brahms believed, from the Dorian scale as such; we must substi- tute, rather the following explanations. The first bars constitute, basically, the A minor scale; hence the B is justified merely in consideration of that key. It is true that, with the C of m. 2, the composition changes to D minor. If in this D minor the IV Stufe is presented with the third B natural rather than with the diatonic third B, the idea of D minor remains nevertheless alive in the listener. More than that, we recognize here the very B natural which we employ in our daily practice in D major/minor (cf. par. 38ff.) and, to boot, in this same sequence IV3
–V3
, without sacrificing in any way the identity of the D minor! That Brahms abstains from using the B in the sub- sequent development (mm. 10–13) is simply explained by the motion that the composition is taking toward C major.41
Schenker concluded, “This example, too, demonstrates how music itself holds on to the minor mode even where the artist’s intention aims at the Dorian system.”42
As it stands, Schenker’s analysis leaves a lot to be desired. For one thing, the opening phrase does not really center on A minor; on the contrary, it clearly moves to a half cadence in D minor. For another, mm. 10–13 may indeed move towards C major, but this motion is temporary to say the least. In fact, the goal of the pro- gression is the cadence in D at m. 16. An alternative interpretation is given in figure 4.6 (Graph of Brahms, “Vergangen ist mir Glück und Heil,” Op. 48, no. 6). The most obvious feature of this piece is that it repeats two basic chunks of material: mm. 1–6 are repeated as mm. 6–11, and mm. 11–16 are repeated as mm. 17–22. The piece ends with a single three-bar phrase. The tonal structure of mm. 1–6 (6–11) is particularly intriguing and provides clues to the layout of the piece as a whole. The passage consists of two distinct phrases: mm. 1–3 move from the tonic chord D (m. 1) to a half cadence on A (m. 3); mm. 4–6 then move back from the dominant (m. 4) to a perfect authentic cadence on the tonic D (m. 6). From a contra- puntal perspective, the motion to the dominant in mm. 2–3 (7–8) is quite distinctive; it is marked by a clear melodic motion
A–C–B–A–G–F–E over a bass motion A–E–F–C–D–A. The descending trajectory of this figure culminates in the motion from E to D at the cadence in mm. 5–6 (10–11). Seen in this context, the B’s in mm. 2 (7), 4 (9), and 5 (10) all arise as simple mixtures, while the C’s in mm. 3 (8), 4 (9), and 5 (10) serve to tonicize D.
If we compare the counterpoint of the first chunk with that of the second, we see that the former is a variant of the latter. The sec- ond chunk begins with a sequential motion from a triad on A to a triad on C in mm. 11–14 (17–20). This motion is answered by a progression E–F–C–D–A–D that recalls the progression in mm. 2–3 (7–8). This time, however, the soprano motion B–A–G–F–E is buried in the inner voices: B–A appear in the alto, G–F–E occur in the tenor. The new soprano follows the alto line of mm. 2–3 (7–8). Once again, the B’s in mm. 12 (17), 13 (18), 15 (20) arise as mix- tures and the C in m. 16 (21) serves to tonicize D. The closing three-bar phrase (mm. 22–24) then mirrors the end of the first chunk: the final cadential descent is almost identical in both cases, A–G–E–D. In both cases the Dorian traits arise from the process of simple mixture.
It should be clear from the preceding analyses of the “Heiliger Dankgesang” and “Vergangen ist mir Glück und Heil” that in Schenker’s mind, Beethoven and Brahms were able to simulate modal music using the resources of the tonal system. Instead of invoking separate Lydian or Dorian systems, he explained these inflections through the concepts of mixture and tonicization. Schenker drew on these same ideas in his discussions of other modal pieces. In Kontrapunkt 1, for example, he claimed that,
although the chorale melody “Gelobet seist du Jesu Christ” might appear to have a Mixolydian quality, Bach’s settings are “obviously grounded in G major.”43
And, in his discussion of Hassler’s melody “O Sacred Head Sore Wounded” in Der freie Satz, Schenker men- tioned that Bach’s settings of the tune paid “only an outward trib- ute to the Phrygian System that people of the time believed in.” Instead he regarded the melody as firmly rooted in the major mode.44