Musical Form, Forms & Formenlehre: Three Methodological Reflections

Comments on James Hepokoski’s Essay “Sonata Theory and Dialogic Form”

9 0 W i l l i a m E . C a p l i n Comments on James Hepokoski’s Essay “Sonata Theory and Dialogic Form” William E. Caplin In his essay, James Hepokoski makes a persuasive case that his preferred analytical methodology—‘dialogic form’—offers significant advantages over earlier procedures, such as the ‘conformational’ and ‘generative’ approaches identified by Mark Evan Bonds [>72].1 As Hepokoski clearly shows, a dialogic approach powerfully engages an articulated theoretical background with a flexible analytical application in ways that highlight the formal individuality of a musical work. And his moving beyond purely formal explanations into the realm of hermeneutic analysis enriches his methodology all the more. Indeed, I am sympathetic to Hepokoski’s dialogic approach and believe that my own analyses largely follow the spirit of that enterprise. Seeingasmytheoryofformalfunctionsisbasedonawide-spreadempirical study of a restricted musical repertory, focused around the works of three composers within a limited geographical and temporal context (Vienna, roughly 1770–1810), the formal categories that I identify effectively embody the “norms, guidelines, possibilities, expectations, and limits” of a clearly defined historical background [>71].2 Any analytical application of my theory will by necessity carry with it the caveat ‘in relation to classical practice’ and thus bring forth elements of the dialogical processes advocated by Hepokoski. (That I rarely extend my concerns to hermeneutic considerations is due to my own scholarly inclinations rather than to any methodological qualms, though, as I suggest toward the end of these comments, a hermeneutic interpretation is only as solid as the formal analyses upon which it is based.) A central issue for any dialogic analysis is the choice of categories against which to assess the formal manifestation of a particular work (usually, just a single movement). As I argued in my opening essay, I find it advantageous to focus on categories of formal function rather than formal type, and I see such advantages playing out in the three overtures that Hepokoski analyzes in his essay. For in considering certain phrasestructural situations associated with specific middle-ground formal 9 1 C o m m e n t s o n J a m e s H e p o k o s k i ’ s E s s a y functions, especially those of ‘subordinate theme’ and ‘development,’ I find that his choice of underlying formal type is either problematic or insufficiently exploited. Indeed, I believe it is essential to address levels of phrase functionality, since decisions there directly impinge upon any assessment of large-scale form.3 Egmont. Hepokoski’s choice of sonata form as the model with which to discover a deformation in this overture strikes me as entirely appropriate . Indeed, it is almost impossible to imagine any other formal type that could have come into consideration. And the deformation of sonata form surely results, in part, from the lack of home-key closure within the recapitulation function itself. Beethoven evidently wanted to forestall a shift to the home-key major until the Siegessymphonie coda, and so he brought the subordinate theme in the submediant region of the home key; he thus fails to provide any cadential closure for the home key in the confines of the recapitulation proper. As a result, the emphasis on the home-key major of the coda is highly anticipated because of its being withheld in the recapitulation and so enormously satisfying when it finally does appear.4 But the matter goes beyond purely tonal considerations. For another deformation of sorts concerns the phrase-structural organization of the subordinate theme itself, both in the exposition and recapitulation. Unusual for a symphonic-style exposition for Beethoven is the relatively ‘tight-knit’ organization of this theme in relation to the main theme, which itself is quite ‘loose,’ lacking as it does a proper cadence.5 Not only is the main theme longer than the subordinate theme (30 measures versus 23), but the latter lacks the typical devices that help provide powerful momentum to the cadential arrival, such as evaded cadences and expanded cadential progressions. Indeed, listeners might wonder whether the norms of tight-knit versus loose organization have been largely upset, so that by the end of the exposition, they will already perceive that something is formally awry, that this is far from an “orthodox” exposition, as Hepokoski contends [>73]. And when the same situation obtains in the recapitulation, listeners may demand all the more for the 9...