A Classic Turn of Phrase: Music and …Edward C. Carterette Roger A. Kendall University of...

438 Reviews

Discussion

This is clearly a useful, flexible tool that is an important contribution to teaching and research. A significant outcome from using these demonstrations is that what one knew previously mainly as an abstraction becomes concrete and specific. One result is the generation of new research ideas.

A few useful extensions could be made. A calibration track with tones, tone bursts, and noise bursts would allow the user to approximate standard levels for testing room and equipment response. This would be helpful for achieving optimal listening. Track numbers and individual track timings corresponding to the descriptions of the demonstrations also should be placed in the booklet. Total timings for section groups also would be useful. As one might expect, there is a certain pitch-centricity in the choice of examples, with a slighting of such topics as timbre.

We envision a collection of CDs that demonstrates the principles and phenomena in other fields. Obvious examples are surveys of higher level perceptual and cognitive phenomena, such as speech or music. Indeed, the relatively low cost of producing high-quality sound on CDs suggests that not only textbooks, but scholarly journals as well, should provide accom- panying examples on CD.

Edward C. Carterette Roger A. Kendall

University of California, Los Angeles

Robert O. Gjerdingen, A Classic Turn of Phrase: Music and the Psychology of Convention. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988, 299 pp.

Although this book's engaging title may suggest a light excursion of Belles Lettres perspective and ambience, that interpretation would be mis- leading. Its goals are considerably narrower, more technical, less literary, its message wholly within the tradition of hardcore empirical research. In- deed, interpreted more matter-of-factly, the book's title could not be more apt: its nearly 300 pages deal almost exclusively with a singular "turn-of- phrase" that resides in our mind's ear as a commanding image of classical style. In a nutshell, it reveals how a single compound musical pattern can operate as a schema of structure, then proceeds to show how that schema waxes and wanes in prominence within the European repertory from early eighteenth until late nineteenth century.

The first 5 of 12 chapters (Part I: Theoretical Foundation) establish the cognitive function and the essential nature of musical schemata. Taking off

Dow

nloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/m

p/article-pdf/7/4/438/191784/40285479.pdf by guest on 16 May 2020

Reviews 439

from Leonard B. Meyer's archetypal constructs and Eugene Narmour's structural categories, Professor Gjerdingen shows how his chosen turn-of- phrase can be found embedded in a remarkably rich body of music, a sam- pling that extends at least from D. Scarlatti's Narciso (1720) to Mahler's Fourth Symphony (?1899). Background substantiations for his experiential hypotheses are carefully exposed, with liberal attention to theoretical guidelines established by perceptual and learning psychologists (David Ru- melhart, Michael Friendly, Frederick Bartlett, Stephen Reed, Janet and Roy Lachman, Joseph Becker, Eleonor Gigson, George and Jean Mandler), with occasional sidelong glances, both admiring and critical, at ideas and proce- dures from linguistic theory (especially the musical applications made by Jackendoff and Lehrdahl in their Generative Theory of Music).

For this reader these early pages overplead the experiential case, as if one still need explain and justify the notion of archetypal patterns recurring as the cognitive touchstones of structure. Many of the remarks within these some 100 pages could have been reduced by less extensive arguments, rely- ing more on justifying references to earlier studies in perceptual psychology and music theory (sources capably and liberally cited in the text). The ground has been well-plowed, from the broadly observable gap-fill melodic paradigm called to our attention by Meyer (1973) to the very narrowly spe- cialized (historically speaking) galant cadence (a cadential I^-V-I of weak- weak-strong metric scansion) recognized first by Charles Cudworth (1949).

But mine is a minor complaint. The author nonetheless lays down within these introductory apologia a valid groundwork for his later revelations (Part II: Historical Survey). He furthermore justifies analytical representa- tions as networks, disparaging, in the process, the tree-structure frame- works that have swept the population of music theorists over the past sev- eral decades, largely through the influence of musician Heinrich Schenker and linguist Noam Chomsky. The author's argument here is pointed and convincing; it reveals in passing the relatively barren processings and rep- resentational modelings left us by Schenker for the explication of musical structure, how a nonprescriptive network model can be used in ways that reveal a wealth of pertinent relationships beyond mere voice leading and harmonic grammar.

Once matters of definition, taxonomic designation, and cognitive justi- fication have been hammered out (through Chapter 5), the book engages its main task, which is penetrating focus on a particular changing-note figure, ®--®...0--(D, then the dogged tracing of that pattern, in its myr- iad individualizations, through no less than one and three-quarters centu- ries of music. It is a narrow spotlight exhaustively poured over a vast musical terrain. It is monumentally thorough and it is revealing. Perhaps my reader recalls the old First Law of Scholarly Success jovially passed around

Dow



440 Reviews

in graduate school, something to the effect that the budding scholar's road to glory is paved by tiny problems capable of sustaining giant careers of tinkering. Professor Gjerdngen has skillfully crammed the totality of his tiny problem into a single book: I fear that nothing more is sayable about the © - - ® ... 0 - - ® schema.

It is essential to observe that this © - - © ...©-- ® pattern, charac- terized by the author as an aggregate of "two proordinate elements," is a compound whose parts exceed mere melodic contours and whose actuali- zation depends on a particularized context (clear tonality, for instance). Three alignments must be present within the basic two-part conjunction to gain membership into this schema's exclusive family. In addition to its contoural path (the defining ®-®-®-®), a particular chord succession is in support, both of these occurring within a prototypical rhythmic scansion. The schema can best be summarized by the following graphic distilla- tion (remembering that elements may move to right or left within unspe- cified limitations):

Proordinate Elements: I II Metric Accents: (?{) I (?l) \ Melodic Contour: (A?) © - - © (B?) © - - ® Harmony: I V V I

A particular configuration is respectively weaker or stronger in its genus- affiliation as it loses or gains elements demanded by this bill-of-materials, or as elements present may shift less or more from their prescribed locations. As the author methodically reveals, the history of the pattern from around 1720 until 1900 is a chronicle of just this kind of less-alike and more-alike development, the schema's peak of popularity (and concomi- tant pro to typicality) coming during a span of around three decades, 1760- 1795. And as he further tells us, it is one of those paradigms "so fundamen- tal to music that they tend to be taken for granted."

In its very simplest manifestation, the schema can be seen in Johann Bap- tist Vanhall's Symphony in C Major (1720) (Figure 1). A less cluttered ex- emplar is hard to imagine. Although this bare version cannot be rated as "a most typical instance" of the genus, it possesses all defining parts in their most proper locations. A correspondingly pristine yet slightly more fetch- ing version occurs in W. A. Mozart's youthful A Major Symphony, Kv. 1 14 (Figure 2).

One of the pleasures of this book comes from the gradual realization that the author is unrolling here a tapestry of unimagined stylistic breadth. Ties whose exact characteristics were in the past only felt are here made anatom- ically explicit, and the range of music is monumental. I must confess that I do not remember having heard even the names of some of the composers whose music betrays very specific melodic-harmonic-rhythmic-textural

Dow



Reviews 441

Fig. 1. J. B. Vanhall (Wanhal), Symphony in C Major, movement I, measures 1-4.

Fig. 2. W. A. Mozart, Symphony in A Major (1771), movement III, measures 9-12~

bonds with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. Some of these, like sym- phonist Louis Massonneau, seem to have escaped detection even by Nicho- las Slonimsky (if the Baker Dictionary is to be trusted), so I am not greatly disturbed by my lapses. Once known, some of these composers are, alas, justifiably forgotten. We are indebted to the author's patience in examining so many pieces, although many of them appear to be more important for the stylistic norms they help us establish than for their inherent aesthetic content. It is amusing to come across a simple-minded passage that might instantly answer the taxonomist's prayers for "the perfect example," only then to realize that one composer's ingenious schema can become another's pat cliché. As, for example, in the hands of one L. Massonneau (Figure 3).

Fig. 3. L. Massonneau, Symphony in Ek Major (1792), movement I, measures 1-4.

Dow



442 Reviews

What is established by this veritable parade of music, sample after sample of individualized versions of the same basic paradigm, through the established greats of the common practice period as well as the likes of Mas- sonneau, E. E. Miiller, Joseph Fiala, Johann Baptist Wanhal, Carlo d'Ordenez, and Filipo Ruge, is demonstrable proof of what is one aspect of a musical style. And most importantly, it is an aspect that exceeds the con- ventional bounds of any separate musical property, showing the kinds of aggregate conditions of structure that ring true of perceived musical coherence. Professor Gjerdingen's schema is operational only when its parts are lined up in a special set of relationships, with some latitudes of adjustment. In isolation, those properties are impotent.

This leads me to the only other weakness I find in this exhaustive study, a weakness that is perhaps unavoidable, that is endemic to the very nature of cognitive schemata. It has to do with just how broadly the borders of a particular schema can be drawn without overstepping the allegiances required to make such archetypes possible. I question in some instances the liberal guidelines the author seems to follow in documenting his case, and I raise the issue here mainly because it relates in basic ways to analyses of all events whose nature is largely controlled by the passage of time. The excerpt illus- trated next is presented by Professor Gjerdingen as a legitimate member of the ® - - © ...©-- ® family. We are led to believe (p. 67) that its only weakness is a certain tonal ambivalence (Bt or F?) within its first two measures (Figure 4). But I find even more troubling here a rhythmic anomaly that makes me ask about defining limits, makes me doubt this passage's designation as a member of the class. My sense of trouble is aroused by the following considerations:

1. The two proordinate elements are rhythmically nonconformal at their most vital melodic junctures, where the © - - ® and the © - - ® ex- changes take place:

a. the © - - ® pattern is of roughly four times greater duration than the © - - ® (J as opposed to J*); b. the © - - ® figure begins with a metric accent and continues through its succeeding full pulse, while the corresponding © - - ® figure is consumed before the duration of the metric accent has passed;

2. the first phrase, terminated by the © - - © , is mirrored, in the second phrase, by termination not on ® but on ® , which is contrary to the schema's structure.

Bertrand Russell asked the question best. Speaking of quite different elements but about the same ultimate problem of definition, he wondered: "How many hairs can a man have on his head and still be described as 'bald'?" Our question seeks meaningful limits to nonconformity, and it seems reasonable that exemplars like the Mozart phrase suffer from excès-

Dow



Reviews 443

Fig. 4. W. A. Mozart, Piano Sonata in Bl> Major, Kv. 333 (1778), movement I, measures 1 1- 14.

sive contrariness. I cannot agree with the author that the negligible ® - - ® realization in Mozart's second cadence (measures 13-14) does in fact "still [fulfill] our expectations." If it does, then our expectations, in my view, are too modest.

For similar reasons I feel uncertain about other exemplars touted here as full-fledged members of the genus, especially when they lack rhythmic characteristics that can project the all-important duplicate function required to bear, in some degree, between the two proordinate parts. It seems especially damaging when the passage appears even to balk at separation into the two required proordinate parts. The Haydn excerpt that follows (Figure 5; shown on p. 69 in the Gjerdingen book) provides a good case study. Ac- cording to the author's interpretation, proordinate element I ends with the ® in measure 50. And indeed, the descending melodic line C - - B of measures 51-52 forms a replica, a fifth below, of the antecedent G - - F(t of measures 49-50. But remaining properties are not supportive; they project a carefully camouflaged seam rather than separation. No definite caesura occurs. Haydn has rhythmically (top and bottom parts) and texturally (coupled thirds initiated in left hand), and contourally (left hand descending line) done what he can to dovetail measure 49 with measures 50-52. The four measures form a continuity that makes proordination into two segments problematic. And thus it seems reasonable to doubt that a © - - ® . . .0 - - ® schema is projected here.

Equally arguable is a passage from Leopold Gassmann's E\> Symphony

Fig. 5. F. J. Haydn, Piano Sonata in G Major, Hob. XVI/27, movement III, measures 49-52.

Dow



444 Reviews

(Figure 6; shown on p. 155 in the Gjerdingen book), in which alleged © - - ® ...©-- (D units lack tightly corresponding melodic elements. In both instances, the ® is such a trivial melodic particle (fleeting lower neighbor- tone) that its contribution to schema is suspect. As phrase terminator, its (D counterpart is structurally far more impressive.

Am I quibbling? I think not. Our object (and certainly Professor Gjer- dingen's object) is to describe accurately the potential musical experience as it may be affected by schemata. The case for schemata is not strengthened by beneficiaries whose claims of legitimacy must be argued in court. At the same time, another Haydn example (Figure 7; from the same work ex- cerpted in Figure 5) that on first glance may appear to suffer the same dis- qualification in fact does not.

Here rhythmic caesura (and thus cadence) is projected by the top line through its agogic accent (beat one, measure 106), this condition neither contradicted nor confirmed by the unflagging Alberti bass. And finally, the top line's contoural duplication (measures 107-108 "answering" measures 105-106) confirms separation into two conjunctive parts. Now these conditions comply more favorably with the spirit as well as the letter of Profes- sor Gjerdingen's observation (p. 192), that". . . the two metric boundaries of a©--®...®--® schema are usually placed in the same metric position. . . ."

And a final questionable issue of this kind arises by asking when a compound pattern should be interpreted as projecting one schema rather than another, when the two are both present. The Boccherini excerpt shown in Figure 8 (p. 206 of the Gjerdingen book) has the melodic ingredients to illustrate my point.

Fig. 6. F. L. Gassmann, Symphony in E\> no. 85 (?1769), movement IV, measures 1-2, and

Symphony in E\> no. 26 (1765), movement I, measures 19-20.

Dow



Reviews 445

Fig. 7. F. J. Haydn, Piano Sonata in G Major, Hob. XVI/27, movement III, measures 105- 108.

Fig. 8. Boccherini, Symphony in D Major, op. 42 (1789), movement I, measures 1-4.

Are we to dismiss the third measure, whose sequential relationship with measure 2 offers, when retroactively considered with measure 4, a package of not two but of three proordinate elements, a jumbo © - - ® . . . ® - - ® ...©-- (D schema? Is it not the amalgam of encompassing rhythmic sequence, joined with the pervading step-progression of the top part, that is the controlling paradigm of the moment? As the author points out, the final two notes of this line's descent are contourally displaced, yet I doubt the power of octave shift to erase the effect of linear continuation, especially within such a tonally bound context.

Concerns for fine-tunings of this kind aside, this is a valuable book for its substance as well as for the admirable clear-headed objectivity and thor- oughness it demonstrates. No serious study of classical style can ignore Pro- fessor Gjerdingen's patient combing of the some 240 works by composers who populate one of the significant eras of our history, showing along the way how this single compound aggregate of only a few seconds duration adds its share to the coherence of experience. Within his concluding chapter the author claims that he has established "an agenda for the study of the phrase that looks beyond the single considerations of size, harmony, form, or melodic contour toward an integrated definition of what constitutes a phrase style." It is easy to agree with him and to feel a twinge of accomplish- ment in his doing it.

William Thomson University of Southern California

Dow



446 Reviews

References

Cudworth, C. Cadence galante: The story of a cliché. The Monthly Musical Record 1949, 79, 176-178.

Meyer L. Explaining music. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973, pp. 145- 157.

Jonathan D. Kramer, The Time of Music; New Meanings, New Temporalities, New Listening Strategies. New York: Schirmer Books, 1988.

Music theory can only benefit from considering questions of time in music in the broader context of time in the natural world. Multidiscipli- nary approaches do have their problems. But difficulties in understand- ing extramusical ways of thought, or mastering the vocabularies of other faculties of knowledge hardly suffice as excuses for not pursuing scholarly work.

J. T. Fraser, "The art of the audible 'now' " (1985)

It is fitting that The Time of Music is a big book, comprising nearly 500

pages; it is offered as a comprehensive theory of musical time, and thus has a big job to do. Nine of its twelve chapters are expository in nature, and intentionally nonlinear in content; the remaining three chapters are "ana-

lytic interludes," detailed analyses intended to illustrate points raised in other chapters.

In the first chapter, "Music and Time," Jonathan Kramer wrestles with some of the nettlesome definitions that must be set forth, and convoluted issues that must be addressed, in any serious discussion of time, music, and the mind.

Kramer introduces the concept of temporal linearity and nonlinearity in

Chapter 2:

Let us identify linearity as the the determination of some characteris- tic^) of music in accordance with implications that arise from earlier events in the piece. Thus linearity is processive. Nonlinearity, on the other hand, is nonprocessive. It is the determination of some character- istic^) of music in accordance with implications that arise from principles or tendencies governing an entire piece or section. Let us also identify linear time as the temporal continuum created by a succession [of] events in which earlier events imply later ones and later ones are conse- quences of earlier ones. Nonlinear time is the temporal continuum that results from principles permanently governing a section or piece, (p. 20, italics his)

Dow



A Classic Turn of Phrase: Music and …Edward C. Carterette Roger A. Kendall University of...

Documents

Transcript of A Classic Turn of Phrase: Music and …Edward C. Carterette Roger A. Kendall University of...