Musical Form, Forms & Formenlehre: Three Methodological Reflections

Formenlehre in Theory and Practice

1 2 3 F o r m e n l e h r e i n T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e Formenlehre in Theory and Practice James Webster During the second half of the twentieth century, theories of musical form were by and large considered passé in English-speaking countries, whether by Schenkerians (especially orthodox Schenkerians), who believed that they had overcome bad old analytical and theoretical traditions; or by postmodern writers, who tend to disdain analysis of ‘the music itself’ altogether. With the revival of interest in Tovey and other older writers, however, and the publication of such major contributions as Charles J. Smith’s “Musical Form and Fundamental Structure: An investigation of Schenker’s Formenlehre” (1996), William E. Caplin’s Classical Form (1998), and James Hepokoski’s and Warren Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory (2006) signs of a rehabilitation of Formenlehre would seem to be present—even in the USA. I shall begin by briefly discussing two important general issues affecting musical form. One is its double aspect: form as structure, and form in time. The other is the relation between form in general (or ‘theory ’), and the particular forms of individual works (or ‘practice’). As we shall see, these two issues are closely related to each other, in ways that are particularly relevant to Formenlehre. The double aspect of musical form arises from the fact that music takes place only in time; and yet a work or movement is also organized as a whole, as a structure. An old but still useful way of referring to this distinction is that of Kurt Westphal, who in the 1930s distinguished between ‘Form’ and ‘Formung’: between form-as-shape (balance, symmetry , proportions, architecture), and form-as-process (the dynamic development of musical ideas through time).1 An analogous distinc- 1 2 4 J a m e s W e b s t e r tion to that between ‘Form’ and ‘Formung’ was proposed by Edward T. Cone; he distinguished in our reception of musical works between ‘synoptic comprehension’ (unity, structure, and so forth), and ‘immediate apprehension’—“the mode by which we directly perceive the sensuous medium, its primitive elements, and their closest interrelationships.”2 Note that this formulation displaces the ostensibly immanent distinction between ‘Form’ and ‘Formung’ into the realm of psychology: between the subject’s aesthetic contemplation of the work and his phenomenological experience of it. Yet another related distinction, especially characteristic of Schenkerian thinking, is that between so-called outer and inner form: between, on the one hand, the construction of the work, or its ‘surface design’ (as one says), into so-and-so many sections having such-and-such relations to each other, and/or according to the successions of musical ideas; and, on the other hand, its organic or ‘deep’ structure, ‘underneath ’ the surface (again, as one says), which develops in time according to its own logic, and bears no necessary correlation with the surface thematic events or even sectional divisions. (Note the ambiguity of the term ‘structure’ in these contexts; it can equally well connote the surface design of a work—its construction—and a ‘deep’ organization that is independent of the surface.) Obviously, each of these dichotomies is framed as a binary opposition : ‘Form’ vs. ‘Formung;’ form as structure vs. form in time; surface design vs. organic deep structure; synoptic comprehension vs. immediate apprehension; and so forth. Indeed if we state only the first term in each pair, we shall obtain a good working definition of Formenlehre: form as structure; as shape; as design; defined by events on the musical surface; emphasizing the construction of the several parts and their relation to the whole; a matter of synoptic comprehension and aesthetic contemplation. Moreover, as everyone knows, such binary oppositions are usually associated with an asymmetrical value-relation, in which one pole is privileged at the expense of the other, and this asymmetry governs or shapes the discourse in question—often unconsciously. However, in the history of Formenlehre these oppositions have not been univalent. In music history and traditional pedagogy, ‘Form’ has usually been privileged over ‘Formung,’ comprehension over apprehension. Like 1 2 5 F o r m e n l e h r e i n T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e many others, I therefore often feel...