Anno 2015/2

Abstract non disponibile

This article introduces Heinrich Schenker’s early Formenlehre – from his first major theoretical statement, Der Geist der musikalischen Technik, to the first published mention of the Urlinie in his explanatory edition of Beethoven’s op. 101.

Despite Schenker’s sarcastic comments on many aspects of the traditional theory of forms, it is undeniable that his analytical work until Das Meisterwerk in der Musik II (1926) still largely made use of terms and concepts that belonged in the nine- teenth-century.

Schenker’s Ursatz may be an effective model of tonal unity, but that very unity renders its connection with form unclear. This article considers this question from the point of view of energetics.

This article examines the position of form and Formenlehre in energetic theories of music emerged in the first decades of the twentieth century, with particular focus on Kurth and Schenker.

In Der freie Satz, Schenker stresses the innovational character of his description of forms. Yet his Formenlehre does not appear so different from more traditional ones. My claim is that the novelty resides in Schenker’s description of the growth of forms through the levels of prolongation, in a truly transformational process.

Schenkerian theory distinguishes two components of musical structure, thematic design and tonal structure, whose respective roles in creating musical form are left unclear in Schenker’s own work: the Versuch einer neuen Formenlehre from his cap- stone Free Composition (1935) disclaims any reliance on thematic design, while his analyses show a clear awareness of it.

The following essay argues that Caplin, Gjerdingen, and Hepokoski and Darcy explicitly and implicitly borrow ideas from the works of Heinrich Schenker while simultaneously relegating Schenkerian concepts, making anti-Schenkerian protests, and opposing certain Schenkerian interpretations in their own work. 

In Elements of Sonata Theory (2006), James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy devote comparatively little space to the Schenkerian implications of their approach, but what they do write is intriguing, opening up broad avenues for research. This article contributes to that project by confronting Schenkerian theory with the hierarchy of “default” strategies that Hepokoski and Darcy erect around the “medial caesura” (MC).