ABSTRACT: Anne Shreffler's recent book on Webern is a breath of fresh air in the antiseptic laboratory of more traditional Webern studies. Challenging his conventional image as a "cerebral master of control," she paints an intimate portrait of a lyrical composer of Lieder in the line of Schubert and Wolf, whose intellectual concern for logical coherence is tempered by an intuitive appreciation of the expressive potential of ambiguity. This book presents detailed musicological evidence about Webern's life and compositional process to substantiate analytical assertions about his music in support of this lyrical reappraisal. There is important new information about the composer's sketching routine, the precise nature and sequence of each compositional step, the aesthetic criteria invoked in revisions, and the essential character of his creative decision making. Contrary to analytic approaches that ignore or devalue ambiguity as a flaw, Shreffler praises the richness of multiple associations it implies. Poignantly, it is the quintessentially structured music of Webern, the paragon of analytic formalism, in which the author asserts this theoretical imperative. Her musical insights and interdisciplinary methodology merit careful attention and considerable praise.
 Shreffler's lyrical Webern is no longer the calculating Mr. Spock of "sparseness, severity, and control" like the familiar logical one, an "intellectually driven genius" (p. 4) determined to extricate himself from the lugubrious excesses of musical Romanticism. The meticulous musical engineer who memorized train schedules, once revered for "building structures from sound itself," is transmogrified into Shreffler's "champion of the lyric genre" (p. 4), an expressive humanist invoking a keen poetic sensibility to avert an aesthetic crisis caused by an arid and overly mechanistic compositional technique.
 Lyrical Webern appeals to our heart, not our brain. He
implores us to hear his music not as "Chinese puzzles" to be
deciphered and unraveled, but as emotional experiences to be felt
and savored. Shreffler conceives of these neglected
compositional traits as manifesting a latent tension within
musical modernism itself. She dubs Webern's setting of Trakl's
poetry in op. 14 the centerpiece of her study, a
"quintessentially modernist work" (p. 19). Although the author
does not propose this realignment, however, lyrical Webern can be
filtered through a postmodern, poststructuralist lens as well.
 The analytic as opposed to musicological value of sketch
study, of course, has come under attack from those considering it
irrelevant to the autonomous structure of the finished work.
Shreffler's methodological debt to Lewis Lockwood, a leading
sketch advocate and editor of the Studies in Musical Genesis and
Structure series in which this book appears (based upon
Shreffler's 1989 dissertation under Lockwood's direction), is
evident from her unflinching archival commitment.
 Despite Shreffler's epistemological disclaimer, however, like most theorists she continues to make what still sound like objective propositions about the music itself--not simply about her subjective impressions. The legitimate distinction Shreffler is driving at, though, entails a fruitful shift of focus in sketch study away from the compositional intent of a revision to its compositional effect. Instead of trying to burrow inside the composer's head to divine the subjective reasons for his choices, we can discern their objective consequences in the structure of the music itself.
 Whatever the vicissitudes of sketch study, the fact remains we are still interested in the underlying issue itself, that is, the complex relationship between the creative process and the work of art. Analysis of the score as an isolated entity can sometimes present a narrow, stoic view that may feel incomplete, contrived, or unsatisfying. Sketch study, like the companion issue of compositional intent, is controversial precisely because it breaches this modernist requirement of aesthetic autonomy. In this sense, sketch study has a postmodern bite, insistently anchoring analytic abstractions in the terra firma of creative reality. In the hands of a skilled practitioner like Shreffler, who not only makes it her academic business to gain access to archival sites in remote sectors of the scholarly universe, but also possesses the musicological and theoretical skills to construe them in enlightening ways, sketch study can be a valuable analytic tool.
 Shreffler's attitude toward the creative process parallels her rejection of the modernist view of music history as a teleological progression between different styles, in favor of a postmodern conception that is de-centered, discontinuous, fragmented, and pluralistic. History as evolution is replaced by history as synchronic tension. Webern's atonality is not an embryonic, inherently flawed stage of unsystematic musical chromaticism, eventually shedding its structural deficiencies and blossoming into the rational totalization of serialism. Serialism can claim no structural superiority over atonality simply because it came later. These are both independent and fully developed musical languages, premised upon equally valid but merely different aesthetic criteria. If anything, atonality's more ambiguous theoretical premises might account for its greater longevity in surviving serialism into the postmodern era.
 This contrapuntal layering of successive parts is visually evidenced by discernible vertical misalignments between individual lines in the sketches shown in the book. It is also conspicuously reminiscent of similar vertical misalignments between successively conceived voices in the music of Heinrich Isaac, whom Webern notably admired. Shreffler construes this cumulation of independent melodic strands as revealing a predominately linear approach to polyphony, which she in turn attributes to the essential lyricism of Webern's musical conception. She further extrapolates that the composer's lack of interest in combinatoriality in his later serial works manifests this same lyric orientation, inducing him to conceive of rows primarily from a horizontal and melodic perspective rather than a vertical or harmonic one.
 Other crucial aspects of the sketches support Shreffler's revised conception of a lyrical Webern as well. Instead of deliberating intensely over each painstaking note as one might imagine, he actually seems to have jotted his musical ideas down rather quickly, fluidly, and intuitively, revising if at all on the spot. In fact, there is virtually no evidence that he ever reworked or even revisited previously sketched material during this atonal period at all. His entire approach to composing appears to be based instead upon free transformations in a through-composed, "stream-of consciousness-like fashion" (p. 234), as opposed to any rigorous, intellectual, systematic procedures that might appeal to logical Webern.
 Given the intricate structure of the musical outcome, it is
nothing short of astonishing that Webern's atonal sketches, like
Schoenberg's, reveal absolutely no precompositional aids,
schemes, charts, plans, or diagrams suggestive of any systematic
 Shreffler detects a subtle shift from the static pointillistic textures of free atonality in Webern's early pre-war instrumental pieces to the more extended linear counterpoint in the later works after 1924. She attributes this transition not to Schoenberg's serialism, but rather to Webern's discovery of lyricism during the intervening vocal period. The crisis in Webern's career was not his later stylistic confrontation with his mentor's methodology and his need to develop a personal serial voice, but rather his more elemental need to develop a basic contrapuntal and melodic technique. The specific manner in which Webern confronted this fundamental challenge--by learning how to write a flowing lyrical atonal line in a vocal setting--set the stage for how he later addressed serialism as well.
 According to Shreffler, Webern's initial atonal period from 1908-14 hit a dead end in musical miniaturism because his compositional technique was basically incapable of sustaining an extended melodic line, and thus generating bona fide counterpoint. These early aphoristic pieces from opp. 5-11 are "not contrapuntal and could not be," in the sense of combining independent, self-sufficient horizontal melodies (p.107). They have an essentially vertical construction based upon the static "juxtaposition of non-overlapping musical ideas" and "isolated gestures," creating more of a timbral mosaic than a contrapuntal web. Even in those works that "seem contrapuntal" like op. 5/3, Shreffler contends that the apparent parts are really only "quasi-independent layers rather than truly autonomous, self sustaining polyphonic melodic voices." In short, Webern really didn't know at this stage "how to maintain the total chromatic in a contrapuntal context" (pp.107-08).
 Shreffler argues that the composer turned in desperation to
song as a way out of this musical cul de sac. The continuity of
the words in a poetic text necessitated horizontal thinking and a
more fluid melodic approach. Writing vocal music in a
declamatory style, to which Webern exclusively devoted himself
for ten years, led to a more integrated linear style, as opposed
to the fractured juxtaposition of autonomous cells in the earlier
instrumental pieces. Projecting the long lines of a poem with a
sustained melody, from which the other parts organically derived,
not only led out of the atonal impasse, but eventually blossomed
into a linear, melodic, or "lyrical" approach to serialism.
Webern's experience in writing through composed vocal music thus
"predisposed" him to "writing rows melodically and accompanying
them with similar linear figures" (p.18).
 Shreffler places op. 14, Six Songs on Poems by Georg Trakl at the musical juncture between these opposing lyrical and logical approaches. But it was only the latter impulse of the first and last periods, without the opposing melodious, lyrical impulse of the middle vocal period that tempered it, that the Darmstadters seized upon and reified in trimming Webern's aesthetic to fit their own formalist conceit. Armed with empirical evidence from the composer's newly discovered sketches, Shreffler seeks to redress this historical imbalance by elevating lyrical Webern to a level of parity with his logical counterpart.
 Given the ambitious methodological scope of her endeavor and the controversial nature of her allegations, however, a broader analytic pallet might help at times. The author's analyses essentially are confined to foreground relationships on the musical surface. They could be enhanced by penetrating to deeper structural levels and adopting a more "transformational attitude." For the most part, though, Shreffler makes an able case with the means she invokes. The book's technical limitations also assure that there are no intimidating theoretical impediments to its apprehension by the expanded audience of musicologists and theorists it is designed to address.
 One of the inherent consequences of Shreffler's interdisciplinary approach is the relinquishment of excessive technicality in either direction. While some musicologists may find her invoking analytic "babble-prose," some theorists may discern insufficient analytic evidence to substantiate her claims. To anyone who values communication beyond increasingly narrow occupational walls, however, Shreffler's style is exemplary. A more complex theoretical apparatus might easily compromise not only her hybridized methodology, but her thesis of an approachable, less systematic, lyrical Webern.
 Still, Shreffler's discussion of op. 14/4's Abendland III is one spot where a heftier analytic toolchest would help. Her contention is that the piece reflects a significant change in compositional technique away from the fragmented juxtaposition of cells towards an integrated, linear contrapuntal web. Attempting to show the organic derivation of instrumental parts from the lyrical vocal line, she extracts a handful of disparate referential sets from the initial vocal gesture--(56E), (3456), (456E), (E056), and (E3456)--which she then designates as a single collective referential motive.
 Acknowledging that these constituent sets are "not formally equivalent," Shreffler nonetheless argues that they "are functionally so because of their common origin" in the vocal phrase (p. 163). Her analysis here, as well as throughout, could be reinforced by identifying prime forms, instead of merely normal orders. Boiling these down to (016), (0123), (0127), (0167), and (01237) makes things a lot clearer, and highlights their invariant subset relationships. More seriously, however, she restricts herself to locating local recurrences of these different sets on the musical surface, which she then submits as evidence of an organic contrapuntal style manifesting Webern's lyric impulse.
 But Shreffler casts too wide a net. Other than their common origin in the initial vocal gesture, there is little analytic payoff derived from noting the subsequent recurrence of so many sets in the instrumental parts. Motivic saturation in itself reveals nothing unique about this particular piece. Numerous first period works reveal the same saturation derived from an opening gesture. Without some further demonstration of how these sets link up to one another at deeper levels of structure, it is not exactly clear how this piece "represents a breakthrough in Webern's handling of motivic atonality...changing how motives relate to each other" (p. 174), let alone reflecting anything notably lyrical.
 Shreffler partitions out the semitone dyads [C-C#] and [D-D#] within each trichord to show their equivalence with the opening dyads. She accounts for the nonconforming E and F# at the end as "imbedded modifications" of the initial dyadic idea. In an earlier sketch, however, she notes in passing that the opening [C-C#] dyad was originally preceded by an E, thus presenting a [C-C#-E] trichord both at the beginning and the end. A reasonable inference could be drawn that the sketch was therefore actually more unified by a long-range structural relationship than the revision. By lopping off the initial E, Webern disrupted the equivalency between opening and closing trichords, opting in favor of a more local association between dyads at the expense of large-scale unification.
 Shreffler's impressive archival excavation of three different sketches of the opening vocal gesture of op.14/1's Die Sonne also affords additional analytic inferences in support of her thesis of a lyrical Webern. Each of the three preliminary versions of the phrase is internally unified by an equivalency relationship between two constituent sets. In the final version, however, Webern again ruptured this internal symmetry by juxtaposing two disparate sets instead. This revision also suggests a preference for lyrical disorder over logical order, supporting the revised conception of the composer Shreffler proposes. This compositional orientation of undermining rather than promoting logical coherence is subtly summed up in the final gesture of the finished work as well. A note-for-note equivalency relationship unfolding progressively between two sets is ultimately derailed by the last two notes of the piece in a dramatic crescendo. The deliberate disruption in the revision process thus provides a useful analytic paradigm for comprehending structural aberrations in the final score, too.
 At the outset, these two pentachords are not "near-retrogrades" as Shreffler claims, but rather "near-retrograde inversions" at RI5. Their ordered pitch-class interval successions, <-5-1+3-1> and <-1+3-1+5>, are near-retrogrades, not retrograde inversions as they must be to make the pitch segments themselves near-retrogrades. This is a minor oversight that might actually support Shreffler's argument, however, since the abandoned RI relationship is even stronger evidence of a serial state of mind than a mere retrograde.
 But Shreffler's case is seriously jeopardized by the fact
that the two segments are more directly heard as
near-transpositions or traditional canonic imitations. The first
four notes of the second pentachord, <C#-C Eb-D>, form an exact
transposition down a whole step of the first pentachord starting
on its second note, <Eb-D-F-E>, with the same <-1+3 1> interval
succession. Moreover, this is succeeded by another
transpositional entrance down another whole step of a third
pentachord <B-F#-F-G#-A>, whose first four notes transpose those
of the first pentachord exactly from its beginning, again with
the same intervals <-5 1+3>. In light of this conventional
transpositional scheme, Shreffler's contention that lyrical
Webern was rebelling against Schoenberg's logically ordered
retrogrades and inversions when he abandoned this sketch seems to
attack a straw man.
 Canonic serial operations, for example, can be defined
progressively as "progressive-transposition (PnT),"
"progressive-inversion (PnI)," "progressive-retrograde (PnR),"
and "progressive-retrograde inversion (PnRI)," where n equals the
size or cardinality of the participatory subset of equivalent
notes between two near-equivalent sets. The value of n also
represents the number of the successive application or
"run-though" of the transformation in a sequence, ranging from
(1, 2 . . . m), with m equal to the maximum cardinality of the
entire set, at which point the progressive transformation is
identical to the normal equivalency operation. P transformations
flush out the continuum of transformational increments between
the "all-or-nothing" of strict equivalency relationships.
 PnRI successively retrogrades the interval succession of the three pentachordal segments in Webern's op. 14/1 sketch, but progressively inverts only n of their members at a time. The first run-through, P1RI, retrogrades the entire intervallic succession <-5-1+3-1> of the first pentachord <Ab-Eb-D- F-E>, but inverts only its first interval. This generates <-1+3-1+5>, the interval succession of the second pentachord, <C#-C-Eb-D-G>. The descending fourth <Ab-Eb> at the beginning of the first pentachord thus becomes the ascending fourth <D-G> at the end of the second, while the transpositionally invariant tetrachords <Eb-D-F-E> and <C#-C-Eb-D> remain intact.
 The second progressive application, P2RI, then retrogrades
the output of P1RI, but this time inverts just its first and last
intervals. This generates <-5-1+3+1>, the interval succession of
the third pentachord, <B F#-F-G#-A>. Now the first and third
pentachords share a transpositionally invariant tetrachord at
their beginning, with the descending semitone <F E> at the end of
the first pentachord matching the ascending semitone <G#-A> at
the end of the third pentachord. The three segments of Webern's
sketch thus comprise a coherent transformational network
logically organized by a single progressive transformation.
 But regardless of the means of structural integration in this sketch, Shreffler's conclusion is warranted by its most crucial point: its abandonment. Webern ultimately disrupted even the fuzziest logic by tossing out the second pentachord altogether and substituting a structurally anomalous and inexplicable <C#-G-C> trichord in the final version instead. The underlying compositional process here as before reveals the composer deliberately revising his sketches to instill greater ambiguity rather than order through the distortion or "fuzzification" of a logical scheme.
 The compositional process suggested by these sketches of
ambiguating or "dissonating" the normative regularity of a
structural idea alters the composer's traditional image as a
calculating precisionist invariably seeking total coherence and
organic unification. It transforms the familiar portrait of
logical Webern into his lyrical alter ego trying to stretch
beyond the restrictive confines of his intellect in pursuit of
the expressive potential of ambiguity. It also flips the
compositional process on its head as a process of deconstruction
rather than construction. Instead of logically integrating,
purifying, and rationally shaping an initial, amorphous,
intuitive idea through the progressive refinement of its
structural imperfections, Webern at other times appears to have
employed the inverse process. He intentionally blurred the logic
of systematic prototypes in order to translate the fractured
syntax and juxtaposed metaphors of Trakl's expressionist poetry
into the disassociated discourse of free atonality.
 Must the act of composing or theorizing inevitably imply
defeating incongruities by bending them into conformity with some
totalizing principle? Is aesthetic value always dependent upon
what Derrida calls the "illusion of a centered structure?"
Ironically, it is the music of Webern, this paragon of logical
refinement, that suggests not. In presenting this reappraisal,
Shreffler invokes a more magnanimous conception not only of his
music, but of music generally--one that embraces the beauty of
"crippled symmetry" and invites us to celebrate flaws and
wrinkles instead of always trying to "iron them out."
 At the same time, however, Shreffler's lesson in lyricism
ought not disrupt one dogma only to substitute another. Her new
lyrical Webern need not diminish our appreciation of the old
logical one as well, as she herself concedes. An occasional
absence of crisp set-class equivalence does not necessarily imply
chaos or preclude some other form of rational organization.
There are many other significant unifying factors and criteria
for musical comprehensibility, particularly with respect to how a
piece is heard. Moreover, fuzzy logic and progressive
transformations suggest that lyricism and even ambiguity may be
achieved through logical means themselves. Lest we forget that
logical Webern wrote "even the most fragmented sounds must have a
completely coherent effect." Still, at other times lyrical
Webern described having "an intuitive vision of the work as a
whole...inspiration, if you like."
 Our two Weberns, one logical the other lyrical, exist side
by side. Both are real and necessary to our full recognition of
their collaborative achievement. But in the end, of course,
there is only one real Webern--and he is both together,
delicately balanced in a steady state of logical lyricism. It is
his music's symbiosis between rationality and intuition, its
precarious dialectic between order and expressivity, uniting what
Levi Strauss called "the contrary attributes of being both
intelligible and untranslatable," that instills its special
mystique. This paradox earns Webern's rank and resilience
despite shifts in analytic paradigms across the poststructural
divide. For how else can the same composer be claimed by
contrary aesthetics? Bach, in Webern's time, was appropriated by
competing factions. Now Webern seems to have sufficient breadth
to be appreciated from different and even opposing perspectives.
These oscillating views exist simultaneously in our minds and the
music itself. Analysis is simply "a selection," as Leo Treitler
once wrote, "from all the true things that may be said" about a
work of art.
 Despite his advocacy of Darmstadt orthodoxy, Karlheinz
Stockhausen nonetheless espoused tolerant catholicity toward
Webern's music. As if anticipating Shreffler's heretic
reappraisal nearly a half century later, die Riehe's "enfante
terrible" confessed on the tenth anniversary of the composer's
death: "We have been accused of doing violence to Webern's music
by reading into it something that is not there at all. There is
not one interpretation but as many as there are points of view.
The fact that everyone discovers something different in his music
and wishes to demonstrate it to others throws a useful light on
the manifold ideas about Webern; and that above all, his music
allows of interpretation from the most varied points of view
speaks only for its vitality. Let us concern ourselves with our
common task, for it is unfruitful to make out of it a clash of
philosophies. The matter at hand is to acquire a knowledge of
the actual contents of Webern's scores, to quicken our perception
of it, looking from every possible angle. Not everything that
cries out for contradiction should be taken too seriously. And
every musician who loves this music may feel it his duty
untiringly to bring it nearer to others, to communicate the joy
he feels at having discovered it. Then Webern's music will be
able gradually to radiate its innermost power, by drawing people
together in shared astonishment at such beauty."
2. Shreffler's expansive interpretation of modernism has ample
support, but many scholars discern a sea change warranting the "post"
prefix. Postmodernism emphasizes certain contradictions within
modernism that are manifested here. Compare Arnold Whittall,
"Modernist Aesthetics, Modernist Music: Some Analytic Perspectives,"
Music Theory in Concept and Practice, ed. Baker, Beach, and Bernard
(Rochester: Rochester University Press, 1997): 157-80, and Jonathan D.
Kramer, "Beyond Unity: Toward an Understanding of Musical
Postmodernism," Concert Music, Rock, and Jazz since 1945, ed.
Marvin and Hermann (Rochester: Rochester University Press,
1995): 11-33, which notably distinguishes Webern from postmodern
Return to text
3. Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, ed. and
trans. Hong and Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992):
203. Even Herbert Eimert, editor of Darmstadt's die Riehe, for
instance, embraced Webern's "scanty, undecorated, unrhetorical
lyricism.""A Change of Focus," die Riehe: Anton Webern 2 (1955):
29-36. Christopher Wintle, "Webern's Lyric Character," Bailey, ed.
Webern Studies: 229-63, underscores the problem by concluding in
exasperation, "how curious that, fifty years [later], we have still to
get the measure of Webern's lyric character!"
Return to text
4. Kathryn Bailey, The Twelve-Note Music of Anton Webern
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Return to text
5. Other Webern sketch studies include Wayne Alpern,
"Aggregation, Assassination, and an 'Act of God': The Impact of
the Murder of Archduke Ferdinand Upon Webern's Op. 7 No. 3,"
Theory and Practice 21 (1996): 1 28; Felix Meyer and Anne
Shreffler, "Webern's Revisions: Some Analytic Implications,"
Music Analysis 12.3 (1993) 355-79, and "Performance and
Revision: The Early History of Webern's Four Pieces for Violin
and Piano, Op. 7," Bailey, ed., Webern Studies: 135-69; and
Allen Forte, "A Major Webern Revision and Its Implications for
Analysis," Perspectives of New Music 28.1 (1990): 224-53.
Return to text
6. Lockwood summarizes the sketch debate in "The Beethoven
Sketchbooks and the General State of Sketch Research,"
Beethoven's Compositional Process, ed. William Kinderman
(Lincoln: Nebraska University Press, 1991): 6-13.
Return to text
7. The traditional view is expressed by Robert Marshall's "basic
article of faith [that] the final reading is superior to the
rejected reading," The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: the
Sources, the Style, the Significance (New York: Schirmer Books,
Return to text
8. A similar conspicuous dearth of precompositional sketches in
Schoenberg's atonal music is noted in Ethan Haimo, "Atonality,
Analysis, and the Intentional Fallacy," Music Theory Spectrum
18.2 (fall, 1996): 167-99, and also in Bartok's music in Laszlo
Somfai, Bela Bartok: Composition, Concepts, and Autograph
Sources (Berkeley: California University Press, 1996): 81-82.
Return to text
9. Shreffler thereby links this study with her previous research
showing that Webern's first serial effort in op. 15/4 emerged
directly out of a vocal line. "'Mein Weg geht jetzt vorueber":
The Vocal Origins of Webern's Twelve Tone Composition," Journal
of the American Musicological Society 47 (1994): 275-338.
Return to text
10. For purposes of clarity, directed intervals (+ and -)
instead of conventionally uniformly ascending intervals are used
to denote pitch class intervals, not pitch intervals, i.e., -5 =
7. The prime forms of these three sets are 5-4 (01236), 5-7
(01237), and 5-10 (01346).
Return to text
11. David Lewin discusses progressive and partial transformations in a
different context in Generalized Musical Intervals and
Transformations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987): 125-28,
141-43. Joseph Straus explores near transformations in "Voice Leading
in Atonal Music," Baker, Music Theory in Concept: 237-74. Ian
Quinn, "Fuzzy Extensions to the Theory of Contour," Music Theory
Spectrum 19.2 (fall, 1997): 232-63, offers a "Fuzzy Tutorial" to
analyze "slight alterations" in Steve Reich's music.
Return to text
12. P3RI would retrograde the previous output, this time
inverting just its first, second, and fourth intervals to
generate <-1+3+1+5>. P4RI would in turn retrograde that, finally
inverting all its intervals, just like a conventionally crisp RI
equivalency relationship to generate <-5-1-3+1>. In conventional
pci notation, P1RI <7-11-3-11> = <11-3-11-5>, P2RI <11 3-11-5> =
<7-11-3-1>, P3RI <7-11-3-1> = <11-3-1-5>, P4RI <11-3-1-5> =
Return to text
13. Shreffler's central theme of "multiple reference" acknowledges
affinity with Arnold Whittall's "multiple meaning" in "Webern and
Multiple Meaning," Music Analysis 6 (1987): 333-53, which in turn
cites Schoenberg's "multiple harmonic meaning" in Structural
Functions of Harmony (New York: W.W. Norton, 1969): 168. See also Janna
Saslaw and James Walsh, "Musical Invariance as a Cognitive Structure:
'Multiple Meaning' in the Early Nineteenth Century," Music Theory in
the Age of Romanticism, ed. Ian Bent (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996): 211-32.
Return to text
14. Stravinsky's and Bartok's sketches also were often simpler,
classical prototypes or "Urforms" transformed to become
increasingly free and remote from their normative structural
origins. Joseph Straus, "The Progress of a Motive in
Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress," The Journal of Musicology 9
(1991):166-85; Somfai, Bartok: 155-58.
Return to text
15. Morton Feldman, "Crippled Symmetry," Essays (Kerpen:
Beginner Press, 1985): 124-37; Jacques Derrida, "Structure,
Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," A
Postmodernist Reader, ed. Natoli and Hutcheon (Albany: SUNY
Press, 1993): 223-42.
Return to text
16. Several recent studies invoke ambiguity as an analytic approach.
Morris posits "degrees of relatedness by deviation" in Webern's music
in "Conflict and Anomaly in Bartok and Webern," Musical
Transformation and Musical Intuition: Essays in Honor of David Lewin,
ed. Atlas and Cherlin (Roxbury: Ovenbird Press, 1994): 59-79; Lewin
explores a "disoriented, out-of-focus" passage in "Some Notes on
Pierrot Lunaire," Baker, Music Theory in Concept: 433-57; Philip
Lambert posits a "scrambling" technique in parsing "tenuous musical
connections" in The Music of Charles Ives (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997): 94-100; Robert Morgan discerns "tonal
uncertainty" in "Chasing the Scent: The Tonality of Liszt's Blume und
Duft," Baker, Music Theory in Concept: 361-76; Joseph Swain presents
a "syntactically anomalous" Beethovenian motive in Musical Languages
(New York: W.W. Norton, 1997): 74-77. Kofi Agawu sounds a cogent dissent
in "Ambiguity in Tonal Music: A Preliminary Study," Pople, Meaning in
Return to text
17. Igor Stravinsky and Robert Craft, Themes and Episodes (New
York: Knopf, 1966): 43.
Return to text
18. Anton Webern, The Path to the New Music, trans. Leo Black
(Byrn Mawr: Theo. Presser, 1963): passim.
Return to text
19. Leo Treitler, "Music Analysis in a Historical Context," Music and
the Historical Imagination (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1989): 69; Claude Levi Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked quoted in
Moldenhauer, ed. Webern Perspectives: xix.
Return to text
20. Karlheinz Stockhausen, "For the 15th of September 1955,"
trans. Leo Black, die Riehe: Webern: 37-39.
Return to text
Return to Beginning
 Copyrights for individual items published in Music Theory Online (MTO) are held by their authors. Items appearing in MTO may be saved and stored in electronic or paper form, and may be shared among individuals for purposes of scholarly research or discussion, but may not be republished in any form, electronic or print, without prior, written permission from the author(s), and advance notification of the editors of MTO.
 Any redistributed form of items published in MTO must include the following information in a form appropriate to the medium in which the items are to appear:
This item appeared in Music Theory Online in [VOLUME #, ISSUE #] on [DAY/MONTH/YEAR]. It was authored by [FULL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS], with whose written permission it is reprinted here. Libraries may archive issues of MTO in electronic or paper form for public access so long as each issue is stored in its entirety, and no access fee is charged. Exceptions to these requirements must be approved in writing by the editors of MTO, who will act in accordance with the decisions of the Society for Music Theory.
This document and all portions thereof are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Material contained herein may be copied and/or distributed for research purposes only.