In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 4 0 W i l l i a m E . C a p l i n Comments on James Webster’s Essay “Formenlehre in Theory and Practice” William E. Caplin The essay by James Webster raises significant issues for the theory and analysis of musical form. His advocacy of a ‘multivalent’ analytical approach has proven insightful not only for the two works that he analyzes there, but throughout his numerous writings on classical and romantic music. It is interesting to observe, however, that while his title includes the word ‘theory,’ its contents largely concern analysis.1 “Multivalent analysis (…) is not a theory, but a method” [>129]. True enough, but this begs the question, what theory of musical form underlies the method? If the theory is not explicitly formulated, it should nonetheless be derivable from analytical practice, and when so derived, must prove to be capable of broader application than the particular case at hand. Thus what is largely missing from Webster’s essay is a consideration of the theory that grounds the observations ensuing from his analytical methodology. Indeed, he has generally been reluctant to propose a systematic Formenlehre, though he appeals at times to concepts proposed by Tovey and Cone. In what follows, I examine his analytical methodology in light of its theoretical foundations, implicit as they may be. For his analyses raise concerns about his various interpretations of grouping structure and the form-functional consequences arising from those grouping decisions. In particular, his analyses highlight the role of ‘thematic content’ in determining whether a given group is a formal beginning , middle, or end, and they draw attention to the problem of how broadly the formal categories of ‘antecedent’ and ‘consequent’ should be conceived. Beethoven’s Piano Sonata Op. 10, No. 3, i. According to Webster, mm. 17–22 “have a double function: they are both an intensified end (…) and a beginning-over” [>131]. That this is clearly a form-functional interpretation is evident from his appeal to the temporal qualities of 1 4 1 C o m m e n t s o n J a m e s W e b s t e r ’ s E s s a y beginning and ending. As Webster makes clear, this group, which I will label as group y, is an end in relation to mm. 1–16 (my group x) becauseofcontinuityin“materialandtonality”[>131].Hethusproposes a higher-level group comprising mm. 1–22, as shown by the brackets on the ‘Themes’ line (third from the top) of his analytical chart (see Figure 3.1). Conflicting with this interpretation (and thus revealing the ‘multivalent’ aspects of the situation), is the idea that group y (mm. 17–22) is an antecedent to the following group (my z), mm. 23–53, which functions then as a consequent. The higher-level group that thus arises (mm. 17–53) is shown in the ‘Antecedent-consequent’ line (second from the bottom) on his chart. The idea of a group having a dual formal function, one that usually arises through retrospective reinterpretation, is entirely justifiable given our phenomenological experience of musical time. But when we carefully examine the criteria used to justify this particular form-functional analysis, doubts arise. In the first place, Webster’s primary rationale for grouping x and y together is commonality of thematic content.2 This seems legitimate enough as a basis for grouping decisions. But the question arises whether we actually experience the last unit (group y) of this larger group as expressing a genuine ‘end.’ At issue is what constitutes the concept of formal ending. I would argue that the experience of formal ending involves the notion of closure and, especially, the bringing to conclusion of some syntactical process. In the case of a unit that is defined in terms of continuity of thematic content, no such process can be identified : in that group y is understood simply to continue the melodicmotivic materials from group x, nothing changes, so no sense of closure arises when we arrive at the end of the latter group; there is no necessary reason to believe that the thematic content will change (or not change) after this point. And when it actually happens that the thematic content does change (at the beginning of z), we can understand that group y was the ‘last’ of something, but not necessarily reconstruct the experience of its really having ‘ended’ anything. I would hold that neither continuity of thematic content nor, for that matter, change in thematic content...

Share