Segmentation and Interpretation in Atonal Music «John F, Doerksen University of Western Ontario ‘London, Ontario, Canada Email: doerksen@julian.uwo.ca Abstract ‘This paper argues that, in the analysis of atonal music, segmentation and interpretation are two sides of the same coin. While it has been long recognized that segments determine interpretation, the impact of interpretive goals upon segmentation strategie has been less examined, This paper describes two essentially different approaches to atonal music-the structuralist versus the contextualis stance-and examines how their various assumptions inform segmentation strategies. It then goes on to outline a contextualist approach to the segmentation of atonal music, ‘attempting to render explicit the influence of the interpretive goal on the process of segmentation. 1, Introduetion ‘You might well ask of the statement in my Abstract whether or not it is reasonable to polarize the two terms structural and contextual: the distinction, you ‘may argue, isnot so clear as thet. And that point you ‘must be granted. The structuralist approach to atonal analysis often engages the contextuaity ofthe music, and at some level the contextualist approach makes assumptions about how the music defines significant structures. To some extent my polarization of the two terms is indeed. artificial. Nevertheless, the specific ways in which the two approaches engage structuralism and contextualism differ, they find theit points of departure in rather different underlying i, and they will most likely produce contrasting analytical outcomes. By treating them as opposites I attempt to clarify the general characteristics of each analytical approach. Inthis paper I touch upon salient aspects of the ‘wo analytical approaches, and explore their impact con segmentation strategies. Before proceeding tothe details, however, let me name what | believe are the defining characteristics of the two approaches. By the siructuralist approach to atonal music 1 mean analysis that privileges collections of pitches for reasons that lie outside ofthe individual piece. In this view itis reasonable to defend a particular segment, for instance, with reference tothe role of apart collection of pitches in the composer's arvre as & whole. By the confertualist approach, on the other hand, I mean analysis that aims to derive the ignificance of materials by engaging the surface motives and gestures of the individual piece. In a contextualist analysis a segment is defended principally on the basis of its gestural identity in the music. ‘As the discussion and selected examples in the following pages show, the structuralist approach is ‘well represented in the literature.’ The contextualist approach, however, has been less explored, particularly when it comes to the interpretation of contextually-defined segments. For this reason I include in this essay the results of a contexnualist analysis ofthe first of Anton Webern's Zwei Lieder, Op. 8: it serves to demonstrate the benefits and limitations of contextualism, ‘The Structuralist Approach (Of the various extemal sources of support to which analysts tum to justify structuralist segments, one can identify at least three main categories: (1) extra- ‘musical significance; (2) compositional intent; and (G) analytical experience. Allen Forte’s analysis of the first of Schoenberg's Three Piano Pieces, Op. 11, provides an example of the role of extra-musical significance. In bis article “Pitch-Class Set Analysis, Today,” Forte retums to this piece-one which he has analysed in considerable detail elsewhere (see Forte 1972 and 1981}-to demonstrate how a collection of pitches derived from Schoenberg's name plays an important compositional role. Reproduced in example | isthe segment he identifies * Forte writes this about the segment: in this opening music of Op. 11, No. 1, we find, as we do in all the music after the 1905 songs of Op. 6, Schoenberg's signature, Es-C-H-B-E-G, here transposed up six ‘Given space limitations, this paper focuses primarily on the analytical practice of Allen Fort as representative ofthe structuralist approach. Fort is, ‘of course, @ pioneer in the analysis of atonal music, and his work continues to wield great influence. His formulation of pitch-class set theory in The Structure of Atonal Music (1973) stil serves as a standard reference inthe field *Forte presents this set-class, 6-244, in a letter name diagram in his Example 4 (1985, 44), ICMC Proceedings 1999 -337-semitones, for Schoenberg almost never presented the hexachord ins literal form (Forte 1985, 45-46). Consider the assumptions about atonal analysis that this segment reveals. As we seein example 1, Forte's segment interrupts the opening gesture ofthe melody and it excludes the B§ in the inner voice of the accompaniment, even though this note is not particularly set apart in the texture. At first glance the segment would seem the result of an ad hoc procedure, Certainly the boundaries at the musical surface would not invite this grouping; indeed, the segment crosses significant boundaries. (Nevertheless, the segment is not without basis: it flows logically from Forte's assumption that Schoenberg took truly intervallic approach to composition-the pitches are unordered and transposed, thus retaining only an_intervallic relationship to the signature that Forte invokes as justification for the grouping-and that he would usually conceal his signature. Example 1. Schoenberg's Op. 11, No. 1: Set-Class 6-248 The knotty problem of compositional intent ‘occasionally finds its way into the question of segmentation. Whereas some analysts discount its usefulness others find in compositional intenta key to interpretation. Ethan Haimo (1996), for example, applies Schoenberg's concept of “developing variation” in his analysis ofthe composer's Op. 11, NNo. 1, the work in which Forte finds the signatures. Yin an article entitled, “Schoenberg's Creative Evolution,” Forte shows how the signature appears in many of Schoenberg's pieces and in various contexts, but he has also come under criticism for his segmentation strategies. Ethan Haimo, for instance, disputes Forte's claims, concluding that “there is not 4 single case that shows that Schoenberg ever consciously used his musical signature” (Haimo 1996, 190).. “Forte, for instance, expresses his view clearly ‘when he writes, “From the practical standpoint, a presumed knowledge of ‘what the composer thought he was about’ is not adequate forthe development of analytical tools that lead to an understanding of his music” (Forte 1986, 336), Haimo purports to reveal a series of underlying motivie relationships in the piece. In example 2 [ Example 2. An Abstract Motive in Schoenberg's Op. 11,No. 1 bbeam the notes in the opening phrase of the piece that Haimo identifies as general motive type b. He writes: Taken by itself, it might seem capricious to isolate 6 as a discrete motivic identity. Afterall, this figure is extracted from the middle of the phrase, and there are no rhythmic, phrasing, or ‘other features that seem to isolate itasa distinct, apprehensible unit. ‘What might justify the consideration of as a significant motive is not its initial appearance, which is moderately veiled, but the many different ways in which this motive returns Faimo 1996, 194). Inthe course of hs interpretation, Haimo identifies three such abstract motives, and shows how Schoenberg develops them in the course of the work. Like the signature in Forte's analysis, the three notes ofthis motive also seem drawn out of context, What is the likelihood that two analysts working independently on this passage would identify this segment? Haimo openly recognizes the apparent capriciousness of his segmentation, but he is prepared to justify it by reaching outside of the particular composition, by invoking Schoenberg's practice of developing variation, and by demonstrating that one can understand the entire piece as a working out of a few general motives. ‘The final category listed above as a source of suppor for segments-analytical experience—israther Jess defined than the others, and iti often invoked indirectly. We find an example in Forte's description of pitch materials in Schoenberg's work: Some of these hexachords were special favourites of the composer's. For example, 6-Z10/39 occur in Op. 23/4. The hexachordal pair 6-213/42 is fundamental to Die Jakobsleiter, while 6-Z19/6-Z44 occur inevery atonal and 12-tone work. And 6-21 is the first hexachord of Pierrot lunaire, Op. 21” (Fore 1981, 133), While knowledge of a repertoire is without a doubt invaluable, the experienced analyst who's segmentation strategy is too strongly focussed by assumptions of what constirutes the preferred pitch materials of a given composer runs the risk of overlooking other materials that might also be - 338- ICMC Proceedings 1999representative. This is especially pertinent in the situation where contextual clues in the music itself are disregarded in favour of segments that reinforce the initial assumptions. There is one additional aspect of structuralist approach that falls outside the three categories just described but that merits comment. Iti simply this: structuralism tends to be theory-centred rather than music-centred. It tends to assume that significant theoretical relationships-complement or similarity relations, for instance-also constitute significant ‘musical relationships.> This is not to say that the structuralist approach is entirely theory-driven, but rather that, in the reciprocal relationship between theory and object, the theory may be given greater ‘weight than the music. This assumption is evident in a listof informal guides to segmentation Forte offers (1) the set occurs consistently throughout... (2) the complement of the set occurs consistently throughout; (3) if the set is a member of a Z- pair, the other member also occurs; (4 the sets ‘an “atonal” set, not a set that would occur in a tonal work (1972, 45). Suggestions (2) and (3) in particular supply theoretical rather than musical constraints to segmentation. ‘The types of segmentation strategies one usually finds in structuralist analyses of atonal music, then, favour external criteria as a source of justification. ‘The approach offers various benefits Perhaps most. importantly, pc set theory sets out clear definitions and categories of relationships, and thus supplies a basis for assigning significance to segments. Furthermore, the interpretive basis is systematic: an Rp relation involving actual pitch-classes, for instance, is more significant than one involving only interval-classes. What is not systematic, however, is the segmentation process, which is all the more reason for analysts to engage the issues directly Analysts, however, tend to treat this aspect of analysis as self-evident 3. The Contextualist Approach ‘Whereas the structuralist approach tends to identify segments based on external criteria, the contextualist approach identifies segments based on their viability as musical gestures. What drives the contextualist segmentation stategy above all else is the ‘assumption that gestural boundaries in the music are crucial determinants of the analytical unit. Christopher Hasty (1981) offersa lucid discussion of ‘Various scholars have hinted at this aspect of atonal analysis. Fred Lerdal sets the criticism in the context of perception, writing, “The question is whether these particular abstractions reflect and illuminate our hearing” (1989, 66). contextual factors that contribute tothe cohesiveness of a segment, He argues that discontinuities within a musical domain-a rest in a melodic line, for example-form boundaries. In a given context, discontinuities in different domains may not all correlate with each other, but their grouping function is nonetheless of central importance. Hasty's notion focuses the segmentation strategy on the musical context and diminishes the role of external factor. ‘The segments that appear in example 3, for instance, are decided primarily on the basis of gestural discontinuities. Presented are the last two measures Example 3, Webern, Op. 8, No. 1, mm. 13-14. ‘of Webern's Op. 8, No. 1. The rest after the G# (m. 13), slurs, and text all set apart the first part of the passage from the second. One can also understand the entire passage, however, as possessing a unity that sets it apart from material that precedes it. For this reason a compound segment is included in the voice, The gesture in the harp is distinguished from the vocal segments on timbral grounds, and because itdoesnot correlaterhythmically with vocal gestures, it is not included in a compound segment. This example gives an indication of the contextaist strategy: its main goal isto identify as analytic units It gestures that have a distinct musical identity ‘The benefit of such an approach to segmentation is that the process can be systematized toa relatively high degree. The difficulty that ensues, however, is that the richness of the atonal musical surface will tend o yield a plethora of set-classes, and traditional means of constructing analytic meaning are not as effective with such results as they are in analyses ‘where the analytic results are more tightly controlled during the segmentation process. (One way to deal with the range of set-classes that result from 2 gesturally-based segmentation, however, is to rank results on the basis of their connectedness within the composition, The analytic results of Webern's Lied presented in table | are based on connections derived largely from classical pe set theory. The matrix in table | evaluates the range of contextual connections of a given musical event, and then ranks the event accordingly. In shor., it represents a network of relationships and supplies a bass for interpretive statements about the wor. *See Doerksen (1998) for matrix details, ICMC Proceedings 1999 ~339-Table 1. Matrix: Webem’s Op. 8, No. | PCSCPCS PS LR PCX INC 33 2 2 2 35 1 2 28 1 e 57. 2 6 5212 1 um 7:28 58 1 a a 56 52 1 37 os “6 ox3 Ta 6A 61 Me 32 43 49 38 33 55 at 2 6224 5237 - 47 69 416 30 6 POSC Pitch-Class Set-Ciass PCS = Pitch-Class Set POX= Ptch-Class Exchange INC = Literal Inclusion EMB = Embedded Complement FS = Formally Significant Wal = Boundary: Whole Piece U= Usage OVL LC EMB FS PHR SEC WHL BV SSI 3000 "7900 ‘133, 5533 3733 3500 3400 3200 3133 3000 3000 2967 2867 2800 2733 2600 2533, 2487 2333 2333, 2333 2287 2287 2287 ‘2200 ‘2200 "2200 2200 '2200 2133 2133 2133 [2087 “2067 PS = Pitch Set ‘OVL = Overiapping Complement PHR = Phrase Boundary ‘SSI Set-Ciass Salence Index LR = Literal Repetition LC= Literal Complement SEC = Section Bounsary 4, Conclusion Having gone to some effort to distinguish between structuralst and contextualist approaches, I would notbe representing atonal analytical practice fairly I failed to underscore the fact that concepts from each approach inform the other; the dst not always clear-cut, What is clear, however, is that each approach takes a distinctive position on the process of segmentation, 5. References Doerksen, J. (1998) Set-Ciass Salience and Forte's ‘Theory of Genera. Music Analysis 17/2: 195+ 205. Forte, A. (1972) Sets and Nonsets in Schoenberg's ‘Atonal Music. Perspectives of New Music TN: 43-65. Forte, A. (1973) The Structure of Atonal Music. New Haven: Yale University Press. Forte, A. (1978) Schoenberg's Creative Evolution: the Path to Atonality. Musical Quarterly 64: 133-76. Fone, A. (1981) The Magical Kaleidoscope: ‘Schoenberg's First Atonal Masterwork, Opus 11, No. 1. Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 5: 127-68. Forte, A. (1985) Pitch-Class Set Analysis Today. ‘Music Analysis 4: 29-58. Forte, A. (1986) Letter to the Editor in Reply to Richard Taruskin from Allen Forte. Music Analysis 5: 321-337 Haimo, E. (1996) Atonality, Analysis, and the Intentional Fallacy. Music Theory Spectrum 18/2: 167-99. Hasty, C. (1981) Segmentation and Process in ‘Atonal Music. Music Theory Spectrum 3: S4- B. Lerdahi,F. (1989) Atonal Prolongational Structure Contemporary Music Review 4: 65-87 ICMC Proceedings 1999