Aspects of Form and Voice-Leading Structure in the First Movements of Anton Bruckner's

202 Pages·2014·9.5 MB·English

University of the Arts Helsinki
Sibelius Academy
Aspects of Form and Voice-Leading Structure in the
First Movements of Anton Bruckner’s Symphonies
Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Kai Lindberg
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
Studia Musica 61
Helsinki 2014
ISBN 978-952-5959-81-9 (PAINETTU)
ISBN 978-952-5959-82-6 (PDF)
STUDIA MUSICA 61 (ISSN 0788-3757)
Unigrafia
Helsinki 2014
Abstract
The present study examines aspects of form and Schenkerian voice-leading structure in the
first movements of Anton Bruckner’s Symphonies 1, 2, and 3. In discussing the formal
outlines, I adopt the ideas and terminology presented by James Hepokoski and Warren
Darcy in their Elements of Sonata Theory. The discussion illuminates an extraordinarily
rich interaction between aspects of Bruckner’s forms and the underlying voice-leading
structure. With the help of Sonata Theory, the analyses bring to light a multifarious
dialogue between Bruckner’s formal strategies and the strategies found in the classical and
nineteenth-century sonata traditions.
In addition, the analyses show that the deep-level structure of the movements is
controlled by strong harmonic pillars (I, III, and V, which govern the expositions and
developments), yet the tonal motion between these pillars is often rather subtle and many-
sided. The music typically deviates from the route it seems to be taking and thwarts its
objective several times before the goal is reached. However, the large-scale tonal forces
are strong enough to place the tonally remote passages within the voice-leading strands,
which are part of the more conventional tonal framework. The analyses attempt to show
that the notion of such a framework helps to identify more clearly and precisely the nature
of the deviations, obstructions, deferrals, reversals, and the like, all of which are integral
parts of Bruckner’s harmonic language.
Acknowledgments
Every scientific work is more or less a product of collaboration. Numerous people have
given me valuable help in finishing this work. First of all, I thank my supervisor Professor
Lauri Suurpää for his invaluable comments on the text. Lauri has seen through the whole
process from its start to the finished work, and his insightful and inspiring ideas have been
indispensable at every stage of this process. My warmest thanks also go to Professor Veijo
Murtomäki for his insightful reading and feedback on the manuscript and to Olli Väisälä
for his comments on my analysis of Bruckner’s First Symphony.
I am deeply grateful to Professor Glenda Dawn Goss, who has revised my English
with astonishing precision down to the smallest details. I also thank my colleagues at the
Metropolia University of Applied Sciences for their many encouraging words during this
process.
I am grateful to the two pre-examiners, Professor Joseph C. Kraus of Florida State
University and Assistant Professor Ryan McClelland of University of Toronto, for their
accurate and detailed comments.
Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends, whose support has been of great
value to me. My mother- and father-in-law have given me great strength with their warm
and loving care. My deepest gratitude goes to my beloved wife Tuija for her inspiring
ideas, wisdom, companionship, immeasurable love, and constant support, without which
this work would never have been finished.
Contents
Abstract 3
Acknowledgments 4
1 Introduction 9
1.1 The Aim of the Present Study 9
1.2 Aspects of Form in the First Movements of Bruckner’s Symphonies 1
through 3 10
1.3 Form versus Voice-Leading Structure 13
1.4 The Different Versions of the Symphonies 14
2 Bruckner and Problems of Form 17
2.1 Shaping the Problems 17
2.2 Traditional and Unique Features in Bruckner’s Music 19
3 Theoretical Background 23
3.1 Viewpoints on Musical Organization 23
3.2 Heinrich Schenker's Idea of Form and the Notion of Design 24
3.3Sonata Theory by James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy 29
3.4 Brucknerian Form 31
4 The First Movement of Symphony No. 1 37
4.1 Form and Voice-Leading Structure: An Overview 37
4.2 Exposition 40
4.2.1 First Part 41
4.2.2 Second Part 48
4.3 Development 58
4.3.1 First Part 60
4.3.2 Second Part 64
4.4 Recapitulation 72
4.4.1 Transition and Secondary-Theme Zone 74
4.4.2 Closing Zone 80
4.5 Coda 84
4.6 Conclusion 86
5 The First Movement of Symphony No. 2 89
5.1 Form and Voice-Leading Structure: An Overview 89
5.2 Exposition 93
5.2.1 First Part 93
5.2.2 Second Part 100
5.3 Development 111
5.3.1 First Part 113
5.3.2 Second Part 114
5.3.3 Third Part 116
5.4 Recapitulation 118
5.4.1 The Music Up to the Beginning of the Closing Zone 118
5.4.2 Closing Zone 120
5.5 Coda 123
5.5.1 The Coda in the 1877 Version 124
5.6 Conclusion 127
6 The First Movement of Symphony No. 3 133
6.1. Form and Voice-Leading Structure: An Overview 133
6.2 Exposition 136
6.2.1 First Part 136
6.2.2 Second Part 145
6.3 Development 159
6.3.1 First Part 161
6.3.2 Second Part 165
6.4 Recapitulation 171
6.4.1 First Part 172
6.4.2 Second Part 174
6.5 Coda 180
6.6 Conclusion 182
7 The Three Movements in Perspective 185
8 Epilogue 193
8.1 Bruckner’s Harmonic Language: Differing Viewpoints 193
8.2 Bruckner and the Symphonic Tradition 194
References 199

1 Introduction
1.1 The Aim of the Present Study
Among nineteenth-century symphonists, Anton Bruckner has divided the views of
scholars and performers perhaps more than anyone else. On one side of the spectrum, he
has been praised as one of the foremost composers in the history of the symphony, whose
output represents a magnificent climax of the genre in western music. According to those
who share this view, Bruckner belongs on the highest pedestal of all the symphonists,
especially as he was the greatest innovator of form.1 On the other hand, among those who
do not share these viewpoints, it is often precisely Bruckner’s handling of form that has
been considered the least successful aspect of his symphonic works.2 In this respect, the
early symphonies especially have been designated the least successful of all.
In most analytical treatises on Bruckner, sonata form is evidently the central issue
that either reveals him as a great innovator or as a conservative unable to free himself from
the burden of the formal models as defined by nineteenth-century theorists. On the one
hand, scholars have typically marginalized the role of sonata form as almost irrelevant in
Bruckner’s music, usually by minimizing the significance of sectionalization in his works.
On the other hand, Bruckner has often been regarded as filling pre-existing formal models
with music that does not really fit, thereby producing rigid and awkward forms. In this
connection, the clear-cut sectionality of Bruckner’s music has usually been emphasized.
No doubt, Bruckner scholars have revealed many interesting and valuable aspects of this
1 Such a stance is evident, above all, among German-speaking scholars working in the early twentieth
century. The treatises of August Halm and Ernst Kurth in particular deserve to be mentioned in this context;
see Halm 1923 and Kurth 1925.
2 This attitude is typical of certain English-speaking scholars; see, e.g., Tovey 1981 (1935–1939);
Simpson 1992. At this point it should also be mentioned that Heinrich Schenker, one of the most prominent
German-speaking theorists of the early twentieth century, criticized Bruckner's composing methods rather
harshly. Among other things, Schenker pointed out that Bruckner’s handling of form is rigidly schematic
and almost completely lacking the flexibility typical of music’s “real” masters; see Federhofer 1982.
9
composer’s methods of musical organization. However, the above-mentioned viewpoints
have also created some problems. Either by emphasizing or, alternatively, by minimizing
the role of sectionalization in this composer’s music, an analyst can easily give a more or
less one-sided picture. In other words, some aspects that exert an important impact on the
musical organization may either be left out completely or their significance is not
recognized clearly enough.
In this study, I examine the different aspects of musical organization in the first
movements of Bruckner’s first three numbered symphonies, all of which are in minor
keys: the first two in C minor and the third in D minor. To carry this out, I have two main
perspectives from which the organizing principles operative in these symphonic
movements will be studied. First, I will trace the formal outlines of each movement. Here I
am using the term “form” in a more or less traditional way to mean the outlines of the
thematic material and key areas, which are the primary determinants of form. Second,
these outlines will then be examined against the voice-leading structure, which will be
considered in light of Schenkerian analysis. The different formal units are often clearly
separated from one another in these symphonic movements, which is characteristic of
Bruckner’s music. The resulting sectionalization also brings to light the main focus of this
study: the interaction between the different organizational levels. I believe that with
careful examination of the form (as described above) and voice-leading structure, it is
possible to capture something very elemental in the organization of the movements. In this
way, I hope that it will also be possible to shed new light on the interplay of those features
of the musical organization that link these movements to tradition, as well as on features
that are more distinctively Brucknerian.
1.2 Aspects of Form in the First Movements of Bruckner’s
Symphonies 1 through 3
The above-mentioned view of Bruckner as following certain schematic models in his
music is not entirely unwarranted. In the case of the opening movements of the first three
symphonies, one of the most important features creating such an impression is no doubt
10