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

1 6 9 N o t e s Notes 1. The events described here refer to the genesis of the present volume, not to the order in which the essays are presented. 2. For example, see Caplin, Classical Form, p. 3: “Once a venerable subdiscipline of music theory, the traditional Formenlehre (…) has largely been abandoned by theorists and historians for many reasons. These include the influence of Heinrich Schenker’s critique of form as foreground manifestation of more fundamental contrapuntal-harmonic processes; the acceptance of a historicist attitude that eighteenth-century music is best analyzed by eighteenth-century theories; and the mistrust by the new musicology of systematic, classificatory models of musical organization.” Two of these reasons are also endorsed by James Webster in the beginning of his essay in the present volume: “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 traditions; or by postmodern writers, who tend to disdain analysis of ‘the music itself’ altogether” [>123]. Another inhibiting factor in the development of theories of musical form—the so-called ‘war against the textbooks’—is raised by Hepokoski and Darcy in Elements of Sonata Theory (pp. 6–9). These authors rightly observe that in the second half of the twentieth century, “[T]he reiterated conviction that there was no single plan for sonata form in the later eighteenth century” caused an attitude in which the inquiry into “the presence of substantially more complex systems of standard practices” was discouraged (p. 7). p p . 1 6 5 – 1 6 8 ...

Share