Music Alban Berg- Music Theory Spectrum

8/20/2019 Music Alban Berg- Music Theory Spectrum

1/16

Dave Headlam. The Music of Alban Berg . New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1996.

reviewed by richard hermann

Dave Headlam’s study of Berg’s music is the successor toDouglas Jarman’s identically titled book published in 1983. At 460 pages Headlam’s text is more detailed than Jarman’sand incorporates much of the important scholarship on Bergand post-tonal theory that has appeared in the interveningthirteen years. Headlam aims for a wider readership thanprofessional music theorists and defines his terms accord-ingly (x).1 He claims that Berg’s music warrants a broad setof critical and analytical approaches: “Berg’s music is . . .susceptible to both a modernist approach, treating each pieceas a self-contained musical entity, and to a postmodernistapproach, searching for meaning in the works’ symbols andreferences, history and context, both past and present, and

the effect on the listener” (9–10). In the end, Headlam’sprincipal aim is to contribute “to the continuing study of Berg’s music” (2), and does so through recourse to modernisttheoretical tools.

The main argument of The Music of Alban Berg is laid outin five chapters. Three analytical chapters are each devotedto a different musical “period”: tonal, atonal, and serial.(Headlam defines these periods on the basis of musical re-sources rather than mere chronology, though of course tosome extent the two intersect.) These analytical chapters al-ternate with two chapters that introduce the theoretical ideasneeded for the analytical discussions.The analytical chapters

contain a wealth of diagrams, examples, figures, and tablesthat, in addition to the author’s astute observations, givereaders a “leg up” in their own studies of this music; his ref-erences to the existing analytical literature and Berg’s owntheoretical ideas and analytical commentaries are especially helpful. Unifying threads for understanding Berg’s entireoeuvre are symmetry and cyclic interpretations of musical

materials, for which Headlam freely acknowledges his debtto George Perle (61). Preceding these chapters is a fine intro-duction that places his work into the context of Berg scholar-ship as a whole. Yet, despite the book’s admirable clarity inlayout, its theoretical and analytical claims suffer from im-precise definitions. As we shall see, Headlam makes assump-tions about tonality and cyclic construction in particular thattend to obfuscate manyof his often engaging analytical points.

the tonal period

The first analytical chapter addresses Berg’s tonal compo-sitions, defined by Headlam as the early student worksthrough the first three songs of op. 2. Unfortunately, this is

the only analytical chapter not preceded by an introductory theoretical chapter. Headlam simply assumes that Berg’searly pieces are tonal, a question very much in dispute amongother Berg scholars.2 On the surface, this music may seemtonal: Berg uses key signatures after all. But the use of “rov-ing” harmonies (to borrow Schoenberg’s term), non-triadicsimultaneities, and successive unresolved dissonances pointsto a more “extended” tonality or even atonality. Headlamchooses to pass over this controversial issue in silence. Healso chooses not to consider Berg’s own thoughts on tonality or those of his mentor, but instead employs without rationale

reviews 149

2 Janet Schmalfeldt (1991) claims that op. 1 is tonal.Yet Joseph N. Straus writes of the second song from the Four Songs, opus 2: “Let us putaside thoughts of E minor and see how the music is organized” (1990,

84).

1 Right after the acknowledgments follows “A Note on Terminology,”a brief three-page section (ix–xi) which tacitly assumes readers have

taken an introductory course in post-tonal theory.

MTS.Reviews_pp131-174 5/11/04 11:06 AM Page 149


2/16

the theories of Heinrich Schenker, which were not built toelucidate highly extended tonality much less atonality.3

Since Headlam does not directly concern himself withconsiderations of analytical method, the reader surmises thathis actions are at least partly justified by his assertion that“proof of any theoretical approach is, of course, in the analy-ses that result” (65).4 With this comment in mind, let us

consider his analyses of the Piano Sonata in B minor, op. 1(1907–08), and the song “Nun ich der Riesen Stärkstenüberwand,” op. 2, no. 3 (1909–10).

Headlam writes of op. 1: “The closing theme of the expo-sition,” shown in Example 1, “leads toward I with a motionthrough V and II, that is, F and C (mm. 49–55)” (23). II,in other words, occurs after V—which is odd, since II nor-mally prepares V. This chord, at m. 51, is also unusual interms of its (tonal) intervallic construction: {C2,D4,G4,B4,D5}. As II, this simultaneity lacks a chordal third, E, and in-cludes an altered (lowered) fifth, G. Headlam’s “phrygian” IIis also joined by a dissonant seventh (B ) and ninth (D). Dresolves to E, a mixed chordal third, on the second beat of the measure, but B is transferred up an octave and left unre-

solved. Meanwhile, the bass arpeggiates C2,F

2,B2, whichthe tenor follows canonically with C 3,G3,C4. In short,

notwithstanding notions of mixture and of being out of con-text, the chord-type could also strongly suggest either a iiø7

function in B minor or a viiø7 function in D major. Why,then, phrygian II? The latter part of Headlam’s Schenkeriangraph of the exposition is reproduced as Example 2. Here astructural V supporting 2̂ in the soprano at 46 “progresses” to

this II. How can such a harmonic “retrogression” (an out-of-order, even reversed, succession of harmonies) be tonally confirming in such a highly chromatic context? ShouldHeadlam claim that this phrygian II is an upper fifth thatexpands the V, the idea founders on the distance of six semi-tones in pitch-class space between the two chordal “roots.” These two Grundtöne do not occupy the same diatonic

(“home key”) or harmonic-series space and hence can notdefine an upper fifth relationship.5 As noted, these chordscontain unresolved dissonances and are out of grammaticalorder at the surface. Perhaps these observations underlie my inability to hear these moments in the manner Headlamspecifies. Example 2 further shows the next structural har-mony to be V at m. 54 of the score. V’s “root,” however, oc-curs in what from a Schenkerian perspective is an inner voiceand is rhythmically syncopated within a descending sequen-tial pattern, placing its status as controlling harmonic eventinto question. Unfortunately, Headlam gives no explanationfor his choices.

Such analytical problems are not isolated. ConsiderHeadlam’s discussion of op. 2, no. 3, the score for which is

given as Example 3. “In op. 2, no. 3, the principal harmonicand scale-degree relationships are around notes {A ,B ,F ,E },or the conventional nineteenth-century emphasis on scaledegrees 1̂, 2̂, 6̂, 5̂; these scale-degree relationships are re-flected harmonically in motives that can be described in set-class terms as members of [01], [016], and [0156]” (34). On what theoretical basis may we invoke set-classes in a tonalanalysis? Let us briefly examine these assertions. A in thebass at m. 5, for instance, can assume a dominant function inrelation to the D-minor triad on the following downbeat;two voice-leading chords occur in between this D-minor

150 music theory spectrum 26 (2004)

3 Why not use one of the tonal theories of Berg’s contemporaries, such asSchoenberg, Riemann, Louis and Thuille, or even of subsequent theo-rists, such as Hindemith, or Lerdahl and Jackendoff, among many? Of course, these theories and teachings have differing purposes, but never-theless remain viable to the task at hand. Not to consider them or thelarger theoretical issues concerning the choice of Schenker is curious.

4 At least since Popper (1962), theories are understood to be only sup-

ported or refuted and can not be proven by empirical (here, analytical)results.

5 On the upper fifth chord and “back-related V,” see Cadwallader andGagné (1998, 180, 420 n. 47) and Aldwell and Schachter (1989, 145,235–6, 417). In neither source is the upper fifth used to support thesubstitute transformation of II for II. The back-related V derives from

Schenker’s comments on the “übertragende Teiler,” which Ernst Ostertranslates as “applied divider” in §279 of Free Composition (1979).



3/16

triad and its reiteration on the second beat of m. 8, whichcoincides with the end of a textual unit. The arrival on Dminor, in other words, would appear to be a salient, “struc-tural” event in the song. On what grounds—tonal oratonal—should A (as B), then, be included in Headlam’s

set of “principle harmonic and scale-degree relationships” when D is excluded? Headlam goes on to say about the re-

mainder of the song: “Tonally, the guide leads the narratorback to the home tonic (A ) from the point of furthest re-move—the tritone or the ‘darkest land’ (D as IV of II). Theending in sleep is inconclusive, however, signified by theclosing E sonority, V of A ” (43). How can the D minor

chord bounding the suddenly denser, soft left-hand synco-pated chords of mm. 6–8 function as IV of II, when no A

reviews 151

Š Ý

Š Ý

Š

Ý

²²

²² ð ð Ł

Ł Ł Ł ð

ý¦−¦

−¦− − n

Ł Ł

Ł ² Ł

Ł Ł

Ł ¦¼Ł

Ł Ł Ł

ý¦

¦−− Ł Ł ¦¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ýý−

−−

²² ²² m

¹

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²¦ ¦¦ m

Ł ¦

n

¼Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ý

¦¦ ¦¦ m Ł Ł Ł Ł ²²² m

Ł ¦ n

¼Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ý−

¦² ²

nŁ Ł Ł Ł ²²²

Ł ¦

n

ð ¹

ð Ł Ł Ł ýýý

²

¦ ¦¦¦

n

[[

n

Ł Ł

¦¦ n

Ł Ł ¦¦ Ł Ł ²²

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł

−¦¦

¦¦

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

²² ¦

¦ Ł ¦

Ł Ł

ð ð ðŁ

¦

¦¦¦

Ł ¦ Ł ¦

Ł Ł

Ł

ý²

¦

Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł

Ł

ý−

Ł

Ł ¦ Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

²

²¦ ²

Ł Ł ²

Š

Ý

²²

²² Ł Ł

ð ð ð Ł

¦

¦¦¦

Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł Ł

Ł

ý² Ł ¦ Ł Ł ý−

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

²

²¦ ²

Ł Ł ² Ł Ł

ÿ

¼ ¦

\ ¹Ł ¦

Ł Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł ¦Ł Ł ² Ł ¦ Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ý

−¦²− Ł ¦ Ł ¹

Ł ¦²Ł Ł ¦² Ł Ł Ł ¦ ²² Ł ²

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł Ł ¦² Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł

²²

¦\\

Ł ² Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł

¦ ²−

¦

Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł

−¦¦

¦

Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł

ŁŁý

¦ ¦−

²

Ł −

Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł ýý

−−¦

¦¦

Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł ¦¦¦ Ł

Ł Ł

−

−−

Š Ý

²²²² ¼Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ý

¦

¦−¦− Ł Ł −¦

Ł ² Ł Ł Ł Ł ý¦²

−− Ł Ł −¦Ł ¦ Ł

Ł Ł

¦−−

Ł Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł Ł ýý

¦¦ Ł Ł −− Ł Ł −− Ł

Ł

ý

ý

−

−

Ł Ł −¦ Ł Ł ² Ł Ł Ł

Ł

−¦¦

¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł ýý

¦¦¦¦

Ł Ł ²²Ł Ł ¦¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł ý

ý

¦¦¦¦

Ł Ł ¦− Ł ¦ ¼Ł n Ł

Ł

¦¦

¼Ł Ł ý− Ł ² Ł

¹

Ł ¼¦

Ł ¦ Ł Ł ý¦ Ł ¦

Ł ²Ł Ł Ł Ł

−¦Ł − l Ł ŁŁ ý− Ł ¦ Ł

Ł Ł Ł ý¦

¦¦²\ Ł ² l

!

!!

42

46

51

6

6

6 r.H.

l.H.l.H.

e accel.

breiter

dimin. e

ritard.

dimin. e poco accel.

Viel langsamer (Quasi adagio)

(Tempo I)

)(

)( )(

example 1. Berg, Piano Sonate op. 1, score excerpts.



4/16

major or minor chord, enharmonically equivalent to B

(major or minor), appears afterwards, not to mention the

fact that its only appearance is as part of a progression func-tioning as V leading to that D minor chord?

In Headlam’s words: “The secondary key area is II, B

respelled enharmonically as A, achieved by reinterpreting F

(VI of A ) as V of II (B)” (43). This F to E7, a V 7-typechord, occurs between mm. 3–4, but the harmonic progres-


Š

Ý

²²

²² Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦² Ł Ł Ł ²− Ł Ł Ł ²¦ Ł Ł Ł ²−

Ł

Ł Ł Ł ²¦

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

²

²²²

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

¦

−Ł Ł Ł Ł

²¦

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

²

²

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

²

²

²²Ł ¦ Ł ² Ł

Ł Ł Ł

¦

²

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

− Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł −−

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

¦

¦

−Ł Ł Ł Ł −¦

ð Ł Ł −¦−

Ł Ł Ł

¦−−

Ł Ł Ł −−−

Š

Ý

²²

²² Ł Ł Ł −¦¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦−

Ł Ł Ł Ł

−¦

¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

−−

¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦¦−−¦

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł −

−−

Ł Ł

Ł −−

−

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

−−−−−− Ł Ł Ł ² Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

−

−

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

²¦

Ł Ł ² Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

²²²²

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł −

²

Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦²¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł

²

¦²

Š

Ý

²²

²² Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

²²²

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦−¦²¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

¦−

¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

−−

² Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

−−Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

−

−

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦

−−

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

²

−−

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦−−

Ł Ł Ł −−¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł −¦−−

Ł Ł ² Ł Ł

Ł Ł

¦− Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł ²² Ł Ł

Ł Ł

¦¦

¦¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

−¦ Ł Ł

Ł ²− Ł Ł Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł

Ł −¦ Ł Ł − Ł Ł ²

Ł Ł Ł Ł g

² Ł

!

!

!

( ) ( )

[29]

42

[33] [36] [38]

[41] [44]

[49] [52] [55]

5-cycle

wt

wt

wt

(D:) V

N

[II V] II

N

[VI V] II [VI III] B−: [VII]

N

V

−N

I6

−3̂

[V] V

¦2̂ 5̂

B: II7

4̂ (3̂)

V

2̂

−II

¦2̂

V

(5̂)

II7

example 2. Headlam’s Graph of Berg, op. 1, Exposition.



5/16

sion in question is functionally out of order. It should be IV (D minor with mixture) to V 7 (above E) to I in A major(or minor). Instead, we have E7 in m. 4 to A7 in m. 5 to

D minor, also in m. 5. Other factors emphasize D minor,including changes of density, dynamics, and durational

patterning. The local D minor “tonic” is approached by itsV 7, which is in turn preceded by its own applied V 7; bothapplied dominants are constructed, spelled, and resolved in

traditionally tonal ways. Headlam acknowledges this read-ing: “The circle-of-fifths progression from aligned ascending

reviews 153

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Š

Š Ý

−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−

/0

/0/0

Ł −[

¼

¼

Ł − Ł ¦ Ł ý−

¹¹

Ł Ł Ł

−−−[

Ł Ł

Ł ýý

ý¦¦

¦

Ł −

Ł Ł Ł

¦¦¦ n n

Ł −

Ł Ł

Ł

−−

−

n

n

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł ¦

Ł −

Ł − Ł ¦

Ł −

Ł Ł

Ł

¦¦

¦ Ł −

Ł ¦

Ł ¦ Ł −

Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł ¹

−−− n Ł Ł −−

Ł

¹Ł Ł ð Ł Ł −−

Ł Ł −−][

Ł Ł

¾

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ýý−−

Ł − Ł −

Ł Ł

Ł ¦

Ł Ł −− n

Ł −

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

−− n

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł ²

Ł Ł

Ł Ł ¹ ýý

¦¦

Ł ¦

Ł ²

Ł ² Ł ²

Ł

Ł ý¦

Ł

¹ Ł ¦ n

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł ¹² n

Ł

Ł Ł ¦¦

Š

Š Ý

−−−−−−−

−−−−

−−−

−−−−−−−

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦¦²

Ł

ð

Ł

¦

¦ n

Ł Ł ²

Ł Ł Ł ¦¦¦

Ł ¦ Ł ¦

Ł ¦

n

Ł −

Ł Ł ²¦

Ł ý¦

\\

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦

¦ n

\\

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł ¦ ð

ð ¦

n

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł ý¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

¦ n

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦¦¦¦¦

Ł ¦ Ł ý

ð ¦

n

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦¦¦

Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

00

0000

Ł ý¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

¦ n

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦¦¦ ¦¦

Ł ¦ Ł

Ł ¦

n

Ł Ł Ł Ł

−−²¦

[

¼

Ł Ł

Ł ¹ýý

¦¦

−

n

Ł Ł Ł −−Ł Ł ¦¦ n

¹

Ł Ł

Ł ¹

²²

¦

n

Ł ¦

Ł Ł ¦¦ n

Ł Ł Ł ¦¦

Ł ¦

Ł Ł ²² n

/0

/0/0

!

!

Ä

5

Nun*) ich der Rie- sen Stärk- - sten ü- berwand, *) mich aus dem dun- - kel-sten Land heim-

-fand *) an ei- ner wei-ßen Mär- chen-hand, hal- len schwer die Glok- ken; *) und ich

3 3

3

3 3

3

Alban Berg, op. 2, no. 3

l.H.

r.H.

l.H. r.H.r.H.

r.H.r.H.

*) Diese Stellen nicht hastig, sondern im Tempo desgesprochenenWortes.

II.

(riten.)

a temporit.

dimin.e molto ritard.

moltoritard.langsam

cresc. (molto)

cresc.

espress.

(pocoaccel.)

Erst ziemlich bewegt, dann langsam

example 3. Score of Berg, Four Songs, op. 2, no. 3.



6/16

5- and descending 1-cycles may be interpreted as [V]–V–Iin D minor, but given the tonal context a preferable alternatereading is V–I arriving as V/IV–IV (in II)” (44).6 How can we understand this as Headlam suggests, when A itself is

never established as a clear tonal region before or after this“progression”? He himself notes that “. . . rather than E orD as IV of A , a tonal situation which is untenable” (44).But Headlam does not tell us why.7

Both Headlam’s analysis of this song and my discussionof his analysis shift from a hierarchical perspective to a moresurface-oriented discussion of harmonic grammar. Headlamseems to recognize the shift as follows: “The first three songsin op. 2 are tonal, in characteristic late nineteenth-century style, with rhythmic displacements of consonances, resolu-

tion of dissonance into changes of chords, and extendeddominants by cyclic voice-leading and collections. In allthree songs, tonic chords are expressed with dominant char-acteristics and thus have an ambiguous status as . . . in op. 2,

no. 3, A as I or IV of E and, in the area of II, A (B) as Ior V of IV in D (E)” (34). How can a piece be tonal, nomatter how extended, when its main harmonies are neversecure in their most elemental functions?8

Earlier Headlam was right to invoke set-class entities inthis song, as I will, though for different reasons. The am-biguous functional status of important harmonies and the“problematic” tritone tonal relation in this song can be ex-plained post-tonally. My counter analysis examines the bassline, then the harmonies, and, finally, their interactions.


6 The E,A,D pitch-class segment from the ascending 5-cycle wouldmodel the harmonic roots of the progression, and the G ,G,(F ),F segment from the descending 1-cycle would simultaneously modelan upper voice in that progression. The F in parentheses is, of course,neither present in nor implied by the progression.

7 For an exposition of IV’s tonal status in Schenkerian thought, seeBrown, Dempster, and Headlam 1997.

8 Berg’s use of these triads would correspond to the last of Schoenberg’s(1978, 153) four ways of describing the nature of chords and their waysof relating to a tonic as follows: “The harmony is nowhere disposed toallow a tonic to assert its authority. Structures are created whose laws do

not seem to issue from a central source (Zentrum); at least this centralsource is not a single fundamental tone.”

Š

Š Ý

−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−

/0

/0/0

Ł ý¦ n

Ł Ł ¹Ł Ł

ýý

ý

¦¦−¦ l[

n

Ł ¦ lŁ Ł Ł

¦¦− l

Ł ¦\

Ł Ł ¦

n

¾

Ł Ł ý¦\

n

¾

Ł − l

Ł ¦

Ł Ł −¦

]\

l

Ł −

Ł − l

Ł − n

Ł Ł ý−

−

n

m

Ł ¦

Ł Ł

−−\\ Ł − n

ð − n

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

−

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

ý

Ł Ł Ł Ł − n

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

ý

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł −

Ł Ł Ł Ł n

Ł − n\\

ð ð

Ł Ł Ł

ý−

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł −

Ł Ł Ł

¼

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

¼

Ł ý

Ł Ł Ł

Ł − n

ÿ

ð ð

Ł Ł Ł

ýý

−

ð ð ð ¦\\\ !

9

( ) ( )

wan- ke durch die Gas- sen schlaf- be- fan- gen.

3 3 3

abdämpfen

molto

moltodimin.

rit.

rit.

espress.

dimin.

example 3. [continued ]



7/16

I interpret the main features of the bass line as a globalprojection of an ordered abstract subset A 2 (m. 1),D2 (mm.6–8),E2 (m. 11–12) of the opening A 2,C3,G2,D 2 bassline (octave doublings are omitted).These are the beginning,middle, and ending pitches of the song’s bass line. NB: Herethe beginning bass pitch of this “global” member of set-class3-5[016] is also the first of the “local” opening bass-note

superset. The global middle pitch D2 is preceded locally by A2 and is followed by A 2; that is, D2 occupies the medialposition here, too, as another member of 3-5. The globally ending E 2 is preceded by a B 2 and an E2, yet another mem-ber of 3-5. These observations can be formulated in terms of Klumpenhouwer networks, henceforth “k-nets” (see Lewin1990). Example 4 displays these k-nets. Here, LBLX standsfor local bass-line k-net of ordinal position X, and GBLstands for global bass-line k-net; these represent the orderedsets mentioned above. The circled pitch classes of theLBLXs represent pitch classes in the beginning, middle, andend positions constituting the GBL as previously described. The k-net of Example 4(f) represents transformations amongthe transformations between the global and local k-nets. My

interpretative choices in both this k-net and that of Example4(d) reflect the medial emphasis created by the extendedstylistic quotation of tonal progression (one-third of thesong’s duration), represented here by LBL2. Note that thetransformational pattern is the same between that of the em-phasized medial LBL2 to the boundary position LBLs asthat of GBL to the boundary LBLs. In addition, the medialLBL2 shares the same transformations as GBL.

Taking Headlam’s interpretation of the initial triad asthat of A minor along with the medial D-minor triad andthe closing E -major triad, Example 5 presents the triadic k-nets for the song in a similar manner as before. (LTX standsfor local triad of ordinal position X.) Just as with Headlam’stonal interpretation, there appears to be no path to a next hi-erarchical level yet more distant from the surface. The GBL

is the key to understanding the organization of the triadick-nets at that next level. Example 6 displays the transforma-

tional paths between the bass line and triadic k-nets. As seenin Example 6(d), the boundary LTs share the same transfor-mational configuration with GBL, and the remaining trans-formational paths have been commonplace in the variousk-net structures for the song. The triads that accompany GBL—A major (m. 1), D minor (mm. 6–8), and E major(mm. 11–12)—can thus be understood as undermining con-

ventional harmony by organizing its prime icon, the triad,in coherent but non-tonal ways. Headlam’s symbolic inter-pretation linking events of the text with the tritone (furthesttonal distance away) between the opening and medial triadsalso fits well with this analysis.

Clearly, op. 2, no. 3 pushes Schenker’s monotonal theory beyond the system’s explanatory bounds: witness the unre-solved ambiguity of harmonic function, the large-scale tri-tone root progression from the tonic (resulting in a ratherforced interpretation of the preceding surface progression),and the resulting collapse of tonal hierarchy. I will not eventouch upon the difficulties involved in explaining dissonanceusage. By comparison, the post-tonal analysis puts no strain whatsoever on post-tonal theory. Instead of focusing on the

problematic tritone “progression” and the ambiguity of atheoretically-strained Schenkerian analysis, a k-net analysisemphasizes the commonalities of T

7in all triadic and bass-

line k-nets along with homologous commonalities betweenGBL and LTXs transformations (of transformations). T

7re-

lates the framing boundary pitch classes of the triad organiz-ing GBL about the song’s “weighted center.” As we now have an efficient explanation encompassing this song’s rede-ployment of traditionally tonal materials, we may ask: Is thismusic tonal or does it simply refer to that system within alarger post-tonal context?

the atonal and serial periods

Headlam’s discussion of Berg’s non-tonal music develops

certain new theories and reorients some past approaches,particularly Perle’s work on cycles and symmetry (54–5).

reviews 155



8/16


8

2

2

3

8

3

LBL1(mm. 1–2)

I3

7

I8

1

T7

9

LBL2(mm. 5–8)

I5

8

I10

T7

t

LBL3(mm. 10–12)

I2

4

I7

T7

GBL

GBL

LBL2 LBL3LBL1

I5

I10

T7

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

(e)

(f )

LBL1

LBL2

1,11

LBL3

1, 91,10

1,10 1, 0

1, 9

1,10 1, 9

example 4. Bass line K-nets for Berg, op.2, no. 3.



9/16

This reorientation employs even-interval cycles, odd-intervalcycles, wedges, and motives. The importance of “whole-toneplus collections” have long been recognized in the literatureon Berg; these collections contain all even or all odd pitchclasses, save for one member. Naturally, Headlam relatesthese to even-interval cycles. He develops three forms of pitch-class set structures from the “odd-interval collections, which may be defined as those with only odd intervals be-tween adjacent notes, although these collections are much

less distinctive as TnI-classes, excluding only the whole-toneand whole-tone+ collections” (72). “Collections from odd-

interval cycles appear in three forms: (1) as cyclic segments. . . ; (2) as cyclic segments plus an added note . . . ; and (3) as‘gapped’ collections, cyclic segments with one or possibly twogaps in the cycle” (73). He adds that “because of their mix of even and odd intervals, odd-interval-based collections lack the harmonic distinctiveness of whole-tone collections. Al-though 3-cycle collections are sufficiently restricted in con-tent to be recognizable even when the cyclic interval doesnot appear between all adjacent elements, collections from

1/B and 5/7 cycles rely on the presence of the cyclic intervalfor definition in their gapped and larger forms” (73).

reviews 157

3

3

LT1(mm. 1–4)

I2

e

I7

8

T7

9

LT2(mm. 6–8)

I2

5

I7

2

T7

t

LT3(mm. 11–12)

I5

7

I10

T7

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

“Am” “Dm” “EM”

LT1

LT2

1, 3

LT3

1, 31, 0

example 5. Triadic K-nets for Berg, op. 2, no. 3.



10/16

Moreover, these observations are not always sufficient todecide whether a segment is a “cycle+ collection” or a“gapped-cycle collection”. For instance, Example 3.1d onpage 69 (not reproduced here) labels the A2,D3,E3,G3,B3 whole-tone chord from Act 1 of Wozzeck (m. 330) as a 5-cycle+ collection. This pitch set could also be identified,however, as a 5-cycle gapped collection in pitch-class space,or E,A,D,G,…,B, with C and F constituting the omitted

gap pitch classes. His labeling is of added importance be-cause Headlam posits a “dissonant” status for non-cyclic

members of cyclic based collections.9 Perhaps the decidingfactor could be Headlam’s suggestion that the dissonant sta-tus of some pitch classes “rely on the presence of the cyclic


9 “The questions of consonance, dissonance, and embellishing tones inBerg’s music hinge on the dichotomy between the underlying cycliccollections and transformations and the surface collections, which con-tain cyclic and non-cyclic elements. The problem is similar to that inlate tonal music, where the functional basis of the system is often diffi-

cult to separate out or decipher from the surface. For the most part, it ispossible to distinguish cyclic-based chord and non-chord tones and

LT1(mm. 1–4)

I2

e

I7

8

3

T7

(a)

(b)

“Am”

LBL1(mm. 1–2)

I3

7

I8

1

T7

1, 1

1,11

8

LT2(mm. 6–8)

I2

5

I7

2

9

T7

“Dm”

LBL2(mm. 5–8)

I5

8

I10

9

T7

1, 3

1, 9

2

example 6. Bass Line and Triadic K-nets for Berg, op. 2, no. 3.



11/16

interval for definition in their gapped and larger forms” (73).But where is this “presence” manifested? In pitch spacemeasured from low to high, the adjacent ordered intervals of

this chord are 5,2,3,3, which suggests a 3-cycle at least asmuch as a 5-cycle derivation. In pitch-class space, thischord’s interval-class vector is 122131, its set class is5-29[01368], and its trichordal and tetrachordal vectors of abstract inclusion respectively are 010110212110 and00000000000011010000001000100.10 Abstract subsets of cardinalities 2 through 4 that hold the maximum number of ic 5 are set-classes 2-5[05], 3-9[027], and 4-23[0257]. Notethat set-class 2-5 is the most numerous dyadic abstract

reviews 159

10 Vectors are taken from Morris 1991. These correspond to results yielded by employing Lewin’s embedding function (Lewin 1977, 197).

their dissonance-consonance relationships in Berg’s music. The cyclic-based collections present no hierarchy or distinction between harmony and voice leading, however, except where established contextually. Inmy view, the cyclic collections in Berg’s atonal music are referential, andare the basis of the pitch language, but they are not prolonged in a tonalsense. Cyclic collections are quickly superseded, are not ‘in force’ in theirabsence, and require constant reiteration for their continuing referential

status. Thus, I do not posit large-scale cyclic collections comprised of largely non-adjacent notes spanning a piece or large sections” (63–4).

GBL

LT2 LT3LT1

(c)

(d)

1, 0 1, 9 1, 0

LT3(mm. 11–12)

I5

7

I10

3

t

T7

“Em”

LBL3(mm. 10–12)

I2

4

I7

t

T7

1, 9

1, 3

3

example 6. [continued ]

1, 0 1, 9



12/16

subset; set-class 3-9 is tied for the most numerous with set-class 3-7; and all tetrachordal abstract subsets are repre-sented equally. Thus, this chord presents a mixed case forpitch-class space presence of the 5-cycle. By implication, theauthor’s following statement clarifies this chord’s status: “InBerg’s atonal music, passages of an expository nature arecharacterized by distinctive cyclic materials in c lear presenta-

tions; however, long ‘dissonant’ passages also occur in whichdistinctions between materials are not as clear. This di-chotomy is reminiscent of late nineteenth-century music, which although tonal, contains long passages of extendeddissonance and harmonic ambiguity” (64). Certainly, thischord is “dissonant” with regard to the 5-cycle, but theoreti-cally it is better characterized as ambiguous with regard tocyclic structure. This explanation undercuts the rhetoricalstructure that is metaphorically based on consonance anddissonance, and on harmonies whose function are ambigu-ous. It is unfortunate that Headlam chooses this particularchord to illustrate the foundational principles for the study of this style period. His example 3.2(b) (not provided), a re-duction of mm. 372–373 from Act 1 of Wozzeck, would have

been clearer. This is one of many passages that convincingly demonstrate the analytical relevance of the cycles.Headlam’s “gap theory” also is problematic. It features re-

flexivity, symmetry, and transitivity; thus, it is a similarity re-lation. As such, it suffers from the various problems thatsimilarity relations face: pitch space and other realizationfactors can undermine perception and even lead to counter-intuitive results. In addition, its lack of development createstheoretical problems too.11

Also problematic are the numerous analogies to tonalpractice (such as “cadence,” “resolution,” and “meter”) andthe application of standard atonal techniques. I will considerseveral instances of each in turn.

On mm. 31–4 of the Orchesterlied, op. 4, no. 5, Headlam writes: “The upper line arpeggiates G5–A5–B5–C6–E6,accompanied by an inner-voice sum-0 wedge F 4–E4–D4–(B3)–A3 and the E-based motive 4/a, and harmonized with whole-tone+ chords that characteristically alternatesource collections C and C ” (93). Example 7 excerpts mo-tive 4/a from Headlam’s Example 3.7 (87). Several questions

arise on examining the score. Is a “sum-0 wedge” a pitch-space or pitch-class space construct? Why is B3 in paren-theses when it is present in the cellos? If the accompanimentis based on a sum-0 wedge, then where is pitch-class G, thecounterpart to pitch-class F? Questions also surface whenHeadlam invokes symmetry: “The opening vocal phrase of op. 4, no. 2, B–B–G– F –F–E –A–E [is] symmetricalaround A4/B 4” (91). But pitch-classes A, C, C, and D,needed to sum-pair with pitches B4, G4, F 4, and F4 of the vocal phrase, are not members of the “phrase.”

Headlam recognizes that analogies with tonality (in par-ticular) are referential and not structural. At one point, forinstance, he writes parenthetically that “characteristically, theinterval 7s over the bass allude to a local ‘tonal’ stability”

(85). But at times his language strongly implies that they may also have a structural role. “As in many Berg pieces[here the String Quartet, op. 3, first movement], the focuson the bass G2 in mm. 3–9 sounds vaguely tonal; character-istically, the upper D3 in mm. 6–9 has a dual role as a disso-nance in the C whole-tone+ context and a consonant upperinterval 7 support for G2” (83). Headlam’s Example 3.6(a)


11 For instance, a simultaneous pitch-space realization of set-class

6-20[014589] (two gapped but in each case with two missing pitchclasses per gap) as E3,A3,C5,F 5,A 6,D 7 might reasonably be heard as

more a projection of ic 5 than a simultaneous pitch-space realization of 6–Z40[012358] (which possesses two gaps with one pitch class missingin each gap—see below, however) as C4,D 4,D4,E 4,F 4,A 4. Further,if this is truly a pitch-class space relation, then spreading 6-Z40 on thepitch-class clock with either five or seven semitones between the“hours” reveals three gaps, two with one pitch class missing and another with more than one pitch class missing. A further problem arises: even

if we ignore the larger third gap, 13 of 50 hexachords (26%) share thisproperty with respect to ic 5. This is not a very fine-grained tool.



13/16

reviews 161

ÝŠ ¾ Ł − Ł − Ł − Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł ²

ð ð ð ð − ð − ð − ð − ð

ints 5 5 5 5 5 5 T6

Š

Š

š

Ý

.0

.0

.0

.0

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

³ Ł ¦[ Ł − Ł − Ł ¦ Ł ¦

ÿ

ð ¦̂[_ ¼

¼

Ł −\\ Ł ¦\\

¹

¹

ÿ

Ł ý

Ł ¦ l

Ł ¦ l

Ł l

Ł l

¹

¹

Ł ² l

Ł ¦ l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł ý

¹

¹

Ł ¦\

ÿ

Ł ýý¦

¾

¾

Ł ² l

Ł − l

Ł ² l

Ł ¦ l

Ł ² Ł ýý¦

¾

¾

Ł ¦ l

Ł ¦ l

Ł ² l

Ł ¦ l

Ł ¦

ÿ

Ł −

¹

¾ Ł ¦ l\\

³

Ł ²

Ł −\\ Ł − Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł −

Ł ýý

Ł ýý¦ nŁ

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

$

%

Š

Š

š

Ý

ÿ

Ł ¦ \\ Ł ýý−

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł ²

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł ýý−

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł −

¹

Ł

Ł −

Ł

Ł −\ Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł ýý

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł ¦\\

Ł ²

Ł

Ł −

Ł

Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł ý

Ł ¦

Ł ²\\

Ł

Ł ²¾

ð ¦\\\ ¾

Ł −\\\

Ł ¦\\\

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

$

%

!

!Ä

Ä

Ä

Ä

3

3

3

6

6

MT

CYC

WGE

MT

SMT

espress.

Langsam ä (Tempo I)

example 7. Motive 4/a in op. 4 from Headlam’s Example 3.7.

example 8. Headlam’s Example 3.6a, the opening of String Quartet, op. 3, i.



14/16

(81), given here as Example 8, is the annotated openingof this movement. He has previously identified set-class3-3[014], aligned 1- and 5-cycles, wedge voice leading, andhorizontally unfolding 3-cycles as important in this move-ment (79). Recall that the + note, here D3, is analogically dissonant in the local cycle+ collection. As the aligned cyclesare not present and ic 5 is either not present or present in the

remaining structures as an “unstable” interval, how can an in-terval 7 provide structural “support” in this atonal movement?

A similar situation obtains with the term “cadence.” Tocreate an atonal analogy to a tonal cadence requires a greatdeal: simultaneous and coordinated intervallic patterning of soprano and bass, and stereotypical harmonic successions.Cadential points in tonal music, moreover, are typically fol-lowed by repetition (with or without variation) or by clearly contrasting material. Further, cadences are frequently sepa-rated from one another or are at least expected after more orless standard phrase lengths (e.g., 4, 8, or 16 measures). Yetthe only criterion Headlam invokes for hearing atonal ca-dences is that a succession of cyclic segments is involved:“The phrase [from the first movement of the String Quartet,

op. 3, shown in Example 8] ends with an ‘open’ cadence(m. 9): a C [sic] whole-tone+ chord {G,B,D,F } leading toa less structural neighboring 5-cycle+ chord {A,D,C,E}”(83). While this and other cadences described throughoutchapter 3 occur at segmental points of articulation, he pro- vides us with no segmentation criteria for deciding whenpoints of articulation are cadential as opposed to servingmerely as markers for “semiphrase” boundaries.

If Headlam’s considerations of the tonal and atonal musicare problematic, his elucidation of Berg’s highly idiosyncraticserial music deserves fulsome praise. Of Berg’s serial “tac-tics,” he writes that “the basis of Berg’s pitch language in hislater music continues to be the cyclic collections of his earlierperiod, developed with regard to order-position relationshipsand aggregate completion, and still capable of tonal allusion

by registral spacing and intervallic emphases” (195). Head-lam makes telling use of the rich legacy of sketches, row-

tables, self-analyses, and musically revealing letters by Bergon his serial music, and of the various studies of that materialin print, the direct analytical application of which, however,remains an area of disagreement among scholars. Headlamneatly summarizes the contending positions and then giveshis own: “any relationships that Berg reveals between rowsand material on the surface may have dramatic associations

or even local musical structural bases, but they are not neces-sary for musical coherence. Since the rows are not central,their treatment or relationship to the surface need not beconsistent. Thus, Berg can reorder rows and even add oromit notes without disturbing the language. Although heoften carefully related derived materials to the original row,the use of row-derived materials in non-row contexts, thereordering of row segments, and the free addition of non-row-derived notes suggests that the basis of the language isnot the rows but the smaller derived and non-derived mate-rials, which are mostly, as in his atonal music, cyclic-basedcollections” (197–98).

Each of the serial pieces receives a detailed analysis en-gaging pitch structure, rhythmic structure, and musical form;

readers will benefit enormously from the plentiful and usefulinformation on Berg’s serial music. While Headlam makesfrequent use of Berg’s writings, he does so with a critical eye. A particularly insightful discussion relates these materials toproblems of compositional realization in mm. 45–67 of thethird movement from the Lyric Suite (264–70). In effect,the series of important questions he raises amounts to a callfor a new critical edition of the work.

conclusion

Headlam’s attempts to view Berg’s tonal, atonal, and serial work as unified by cyclic materials and their derivatives(386), occasionally ignores or overlooks some theoretical andanalytical issues. His conclusions laudably point out some of

the difficulties in such an enterprise. He notes that an im-portant question about Berg’s music has not yet been asked.




15/16

I paraphrase it here: how do passages, strata, or even entiremovements that do not fit the assumptions made here co-here? (388). Still other questions lurk. Are we to read his ac-count of Berg’s music as a Bildungsroman, the story of a com-poser perfecting his craft (389)? This may leave some of usuncomfortable with the unstated implication that later worksmust be better than earlier ones. And are we to believe in a

form-building processes rooted in a rhetoric of order versuschaos from a composer who has well documented his con-structive means (64)? What of the assumption of unity itself in the body of work by a composer of keen dramatic sensibil-ities in the very city and time of Freud?12

Headlam has patiently and lovingly woven the fabric of astory about Berg’s great music from the threads of a multi-tude of scholars and his own work. Although there are sometears and even gaps in that fabric, Headlam’s book is an im-portant point of departure in exploring the gorgeous tapestry of Berg’s music.

list of works cited

Aldwell, Edward, and Carl Schachter. 1989. Harmony and Voice Leading . 2nd ed. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Brown, Matthew, Douglas Dempster, and Dave Headlam.1997. “IV Hypothesis: Testing the Limits of Schenker’s Theory of Tonality.” Music Theory Spectrum 19/2: 155–205.

Cadwallader, Allen, and David Gagné. 1998. Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hayes, Malcom. 1995. Anton von Webern. London: Phaidon.

Jarman, Douglas. 1979. The Music of Alban Berg . Berkeley:University of California Press.

Lewin, David. 1977. “Forte’s Interval Vector, My IntervalFunction, and Regener’s Common-Note Function.”

Journal of Music Theory 21/2: 194–237.———. 1990. “Klumpenhouwer Networks and Some

Isographies that Involve Them.” Music Theory Spectrum

12/1: 83–120.Moldenhauer, Hans, with Rosaleen Moldenhauer. 1979.

Anton von Webern: A Chronicle of His Life and Work, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Morris, Robert D. 1991. Class Notes for Atonal Music Theory.Lebanon, New Hampshire, Frog Peak Music.

Popper, Karl R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge . New York: Harper.

Schenker, Heinrich. 1979. Free Composition, trans. ErnstOster. New York: Longman.

Schmalfeldt, Janet. 1991. “Berg’s Path to Atonality: ThePiano Sonata, Op. 1.” In Alban Berg: Historical and

Analytical Perspectives, ed. David Gable and Robert P.Morgan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 79–109.

Schoenberg, Arnold. 1978. Theory of Harmony, trans. Roy E.Carter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Straus, Joseph N. 1990. Introduction to Post-tonal Theory .

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

reviews 163

12 Hayes (1995, 108) and Moldenhauer (1979, 178–80, 195) both docu-ment an occasion on which Berg’s friend, Anton Webern, sought help

from Freud’s follower and later apostate, Alfred Adler, at the suggestionof Schoenberg.



16/16

Reproducedwith permissionof thecopyrightowner.Further reproduction prohibitedwithoutpermission.

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thmuseo
View:	241 times
Download:	0 times

Music Alban Berg- Music Theory Spectrum

Documents