Page 1

Le mcanisme de
Pinvention dans
l'laboration de la
smiologie musicale
JEAN-JACQUES NATTIEZ
La smiologie musicale est un champ privilgi de rflexion pistmologique
sur le mcanisme de l'invention dans la mesure o elle est ne et s'est
dveloppe au contact de disciplines non spcifiquement musicologiques.
Cette situation n'est pas nouvelle dans le dveloppement de la musicologie. Par
dfinition, la musicologie historique a emprunt l'histoire ses concepts, ses
mthodes et ses questionnements. Dans ses dbuts, l'ethnomusicologie,
d'abord connue sous le nom de musicologie compare, s'est explicitement
rfre au modle de la linguistique comparative du XIXe sicle, puis elle s'est
frotte l'anthropologie, au point que certains seraient tents de la rduire
une anthropologie de la musique. Du ct de l'analyse, la set-theory d'Allen
Forte labore pour l'tude des musiques atonales n'aurait pas t possible
sans la thorie mathmatique des ensembles. Et l'mergence de l'informatique
a videmment ouvert tout un champ de recherches du ct de l'analyse
automatique. Quant la psychologie, elle a galement imprgn les recherches
musicologiques: la psychologie exprimentale et ce qu'on a appelle maintenant
les disciplines cognitives ont d'autant plus pntr le domaine musical que l'on
s'inquite aujourd'hui de mieux comprendre ce qui, chez l'auditeur, est
rellement peru de l'uvre.
tudesfranaises, 26, 3, 1990
Page 2
24
tudes franaises, 26,3

Pour ce qui est de la smiologie musicale, son mergence et sa construction

se sont voulues explicitement interdisciplinaires. Pour des raisons historiques
qu'il serait trop long de rappeler ici,j'entends par smiologie musicale deux
sphres d'activits dont la deuxime se prsente comme un dpassement et un
dbordement de la premire:
1) l'utilisation, dans l'analyse musicale, des modles labors par la
linguistique structurale pour l'analyse des langues naturelles, et notamment la
technique paradigmatique;
2) l'laboration d'un cadre gnral d'analyse musicale reposant sur la
reconnaissance de trois instances distinctes dans le fait musical: l'tude des
stratgies compositionnelles, ou potique', l'tude des structures immanentes
de l'uvre, ou analyse du niveauneutre; l'tude des stratgies perceptives
dclenches par l'coute de l'uvre, ou esthsique.Jc rappellerai plus loin
comment l'intervention du potique et de l'esthsique oblige faire appel
d'autres disciplines.
On trouvera des exemples d'analyse paradigmatique dans le livre de Ruwet,
Langage, musique, posie (1972), dans mon essai de 1975 et dans l'ouvrage
d'Arom consacr aux polyphonies centre-africaines (1985). Molino a prsent
sa thorie de la tripartition en 1975 etj'en ai propos une premire srie
d'applications la musique dans Musicologie gnrale et smiologie (1987).
L'illustration empirique d'analyses musicales menes du point de vue de la

smiologie telle que je la conois sera prsente dans un ouvrage en

prparation.
Mon objectif, dans cet article, sera de montrer que le mcanisme d'innovation
n'a pas fonctionn de faon similaire dans les deux grands secteurs
d'laboration de la smiologie musicale que je viens de rappeler.
LA TRANSPOSITION DES MODLES LINGUISTIQUES
Je partirai de cette dfinition de Judith Schlanger: Le modle qui applique un
langage, et une mtaphore dveloppe et pose comme cadre de sens [...].
J'aborde l'activit mtaphorique comme le moyen de l'invention intellectuelle, je
la considre comme le genre heuristique par excellence (1983: 189).
Dans la premire phase de la smiologie musicale, c'est exactement ce qui
s'est pass. Il y a plusieurs raisons la rencontre de la smiologie musicale
et des modles linguistiques dans les annes soixante : une tradition de
rflexion philosophique, notamment phnomnologique, sur la nature du
langage et l'art comme langage (Mikel Dufrenne) ; la conception saussurienne
de l'laboration de la smiologie partir de la linguistique; l'mergence de la
linguistique structurale comme discipline perue comme scientifique, avec son
corpus de
mthodes et de procdures propres.
Page 3
Le mcanisme de l'invention
25
Au dpart, l'expression langage musical, en comparaison du langage
humain, est dj une mtaphore, comme l'on parle de langage de la peinture
ou de langage des fleurs, mais le fait mme de l'utiliser signifie que musique
et langage verbal peuvent avoir des proprits communes qui, dans un
deuxime temps, justifient !'importation de modles linguistiques dont
l'analyse musicale traditionnelle n'avait pas song s'inspirer.
La smiologie compare du langage verbal et de la musique conduit se
poser deux ordres de questions:
1) la musique vhicule-t-elle un message, et si oui, comment?
2) la musique, comme droulement linaire formel, a-t-elle des caractristiques
structurelles communes avec le langage?
la premire question, on peut rpondre que s'il y a bien, pour le compositeur
comme pour les auditeurs, association de signifis, ou plus exactement
d'interprtants (au sens de Peirce), avec la substance musicale, le lien
signifiant-signifi n'est pas ici comparable ce qu'il est dans le langage humain,
puisque l'organisation syntaxique de la musique ne porte que sur sa forme,
alors que la logique des relations sujet-prdicat dans une langue met enjeu des
contenus de signification. C'est donc seulement mtaphoriquement que l'on
peut parler de discours musical, ce qui ne veut pas dire que notre exprience
de la musique soit prive de toute smantique, comme le montrent la fois les
tudes musicologiques sur la pratique de YAffektenlehre l'ge classique, les
investigations sur le terrain en ethnomusicologie (je pense en particulier aux
tudes de Boils sur la musique des Tepehua et des Otomi) et les recherches
de la psychologie exprimentale, notamment celles de Frances et Imberty.
Mais les significations ne sont pas associes une pice musicale de la mme
faon que le signifi d'un mot est accroch son signifiant.
C'est pourquoi les techniques de l'analyse structurale, qui sont d'autant plus
efficaces en linguistique qu'elles laissent de ct la dimension smantique du

langage, trouvent un champ d'application fcond dans l'analyse musicale.

Langage et musique sont constitus d'units discrtes qui, du phonme la
phrase, de la note au thme, se regroupent en segments hirarchiques de plus
en plus larges. Avec la phonologie, et notamment les rgles proposes par
Troubetzko pour la dtermination des phonmes, la linguistique tait en
avance sur la musicologie qui n'avait propos aucun corpus mthodologique un
peu rigoureux pour dterminer les units scalaires d'un idiome musical diffrent
du systme occidental tempr. La transposition propose par Vida Chenoweth
(1979) partir des rgles de Pike a t possible parce que, d'une part, une
analogie tait reconnue depuis assez longtemps entre note et phonme, et
ensuite parce qu'une discipline ayant fait ses preuves comme la phonologie
tait disponible dans la science d' ct.
Page 4
26
tudes franaises, 26, 3
L'analyse musicale d'units plus larges, motiviques et formelles, a bnfici
d'un rapprochement identique: en linguistique, la modlisation paradigmatique
s'appuyait sur la reconnaissance d'une organisation hirarchique; la linguistique
harrisienne proposait d'expliciter les procdures analytiques utilises;
l'ensemble de l'entreprise permettait de mettre aujour le fonctionnement d'un
systme. Si la linguistique fut perue dans les annes soixante comme la
science pilote des sciences humaines, c'est prcisment parce qu'elle
prsentait cette image de rigueur que recherchaient les autres disciplines. Et
cela tait particulirement vrai de la musicologie laquelle on reprochait le
caractre impressionniste de son discours. L'objectif n'est pas ici d'entreprendre
la critique du modle paradigmatique de Ruwet qui ne permet certainement pas
de rpondre toutes les questions qu'il est lgitime l'analyse musicale de
poser, mais il ne fait aucun doute que c'est grce l'innovation qu'a
reprsente, en 1966, son article Mthodes d'analyse en musicologie si, plus
de vingt ans plus tard, l'ethnomusicologue Arom a t en mesure de proposer
la description la plus systmatique et la mieux taye dont on dispose
actuellement d'un vaste corpus musical (1985).
Les analogies entre musique et langage, et l'importation de mthodes mieux
labores en linguistique qu'en musicologie, ont permis d'introduire dans
l'analyse musicale une problmatique et une dmarche qui en taient
absentes. Il y a bien eu innovation parce que, sur la base d'un rapprochement
mtaphorique, l'importation de modles dtourns de leur finalit premire a fait
apparatre des proprits nouvelles dans l'organisation des objets analyss.
LA SEMIOLOGIE COMME THEORIE TRIPARTITE DU FONCTIONNEMENT
SYMBOLIQUE
La situation me parat un peu diffrente en ce qui concerne la projection du
modle tripartite de Molino sur le fait musical. Ce modle, on l'a rappel plus
haut, propose de distinguer processus potiques, niveau neutre et processus
esthsiques. Ce faisant, il identifie des secteurs de la recherche musicologique
qui ont dj leurs traditions et leurs mthodes et qui coexistent de manire
autonome : l'investigation historique de la gense des styles, l'identification des
formes et des structures, les processus perceptifs sur lesquels se penche tout
particulirement aujourd'hui la psychologie cognitive. Il n'y a donc pas ici,
comme dans le cas prcdent, de transposition de mthodes d'une discipline

une autre, mais, au dpart, juxtaposition de pratiques scientifiques qui ont

chacune leurs principes et leur histoire. Or, les questions souleves par le
modle tripartite sont les suivantes :les processus potiques sont-ils lisibles
dans les structures de l'uvre? Les structures de l'uvre sont-elles garantes
des processus esthsiques qu'elle dclenche? Y a-t-il correspondance, par
l'intermPage 5
Le mcanisme de l'Invention
27
diaire de l'uvre, entre processus potiques et processus esthsiques?
On le voit, si innovation il doit y avoir, elle viendra moins de la transposition de
modles amene par une mtaphore que de la confrontation de modles runis
dans une problmatique globale. Par exemple, les principes de systmaticit et
d'explicitation qui sont l'uvre dans l'analyse des structures immanentes
mene sous l'influence de la linguistique sont-ils exportables, mutatis mutandis,
dans l'analyse des processus potiques et esthsiques? Ils le sont, en effet,
mais ils s'appliquent des objets de nature profondment diffrente: non
plus des structures mais des processus. C'est ainsi que les oprations de mise
en srie stylistiques, indispensables dans l'tude de la potique, ne peuvent
prtendre l'exhaustivit qui, elle, est parfaitement envisageable quand, pour
un nombre bien dfini de paramtres, l'analyse porte sur l'organisation d'une
seule pice. Et si la rigueur est bien un trait commun entre les procdures de
l'analyse immanente et les dmarches de la psychologie exprimentale, on est
vite confront un problme de contrle des paramtres intervenant dans telle
situation particulire d'coute (ge, formation, exprience musicale des sujets,
nombre d'auditions, dlimitation des structures musicales testes), problme
qui n'a rien envier au gouffre infinitsimal des dterminations possibles du
ct potique.
la vrit, les dmarches confrontes par la mise en relation des trois ples de
la tripartition rapprochent des mthodologies qui ne sont pas parvenues un
stade identique de dveloppement par exemple, la recherche en matire de
perception est beaucoup plus jeune que l'investigation centenaire de caractre
historique et qui se sont dveloppes partir de critres pistmologiques
diffrents on peut difficilement comparer les exigences de la psychologie
exprimentale et la pratique de l'hermneutique historique.
La nouveaut introduite en musicologie par le modle tripartite me semble donc
consister dans la rencontre de dmarches le plus souvent dj constitues,
avec des questionnements qui n'appartiennent pas en propre chacune d'elles.
Par exemple, que se passera-t-il si l'on tente de systmatiser par un ensemble
de rgles explicites les descriptions traditionnelles de la formation du style de
Beethoven telle qu'on peut la reconstituer en tudiant ses esquisses? Les
dmarches quantifies de
l'exprimentation
vont-elles bouleverser
l'hermneutique musicale traditionnelle inaugure au XIXe sicle par
Kretschmar? Je crois bien que, dans les deux cas, il va y avoir, il y a dj
innovation, dans les dmarches, bien sr, mais galement, et c'est ce qui
importe, dans les proprits exhibes des phnomnes tudis.
On le voit, ce processus innovateur ne se fait pas par transfert de mthodes,
partir d'une mtaphore, mais par confrontation la fois d'exigences
pistmologiques et d'univers relativement autonomes de pratique scientifique.
Ici, c'est une autre ide capitale de Judith Schlanger qui me semble l'uvre:

C'est
parce
qu'on
participe

Page 6
28
tudes franaises, 26, 3
plusieurs organisations conceptuelles la fois qu'on peut cesser d'adhrer
l'une d'entre elles, et c'est parce qu'un grand nombre d'organisations
conceptuelles sont disponibles dans l'espace culturel qu'il est possible d'en
transposer une pour clairer un embarras ou remplir un manque (1983: 80).
Le dfi pos par la thorie de la tripartition la musicologie, c'est prcisment
d'obliger penser concurremment des secteurs particuliers du savoir,
dplacer les principes de l'un vers les principes de l'autre, et passer d'un
univers un autre sans oublier les exigences et les leons de chacun. Nous
sommes en prsence de processus inventifs, non plus parce qu'on a pris au
srieux une mtaphore, mais parce qu'on procde ce que j'aimerais appeler
des confrontations exemplaires.
S'il me parat important, du point de vue de la rflexion pistmologique, de
distinguer ces deux modalits d'innovation, en revanche, on ne perdra rien
souligner que, d'un point de vue smiologique gnral, elles relvent d'un
mme principe fondamental qui les dborde toutes deux dans leur spcificit :
la projection d'un univers symbolique sur un autre.
L'invention n'est-elle pas, le plus souvent, le rsultat de rapprochements, de
mises en relation inattendus? La smiologie musicale tripartite est inventive
parce qu'elle est, dans son propos initial, interdisciplinaire. Et la diffrence de
la musicologie systmatique qui proposait seulement une mise en place et une
juxtaposition de disciplines, elle se demande fondamentalement, par
l'intermdiaire des savoirs et des mthodologies utiliss, quelles sont les
relations entre potique, structures immanentes et esthsique. Ainsi conue, la
description smiologique d'un corpus musical consiste ncessairement en une
combinatoire de smiologies.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
AROM, S., 1985 :Polyphonies etpolyrythmies instrumentales d'Afrique centrale\
Paris, SELAF, 2 volumes.
BENT
5
J., 1987: Analysis, The New Grove Handbooksin Music, Londres,
Macmillan Press.
CHENOWETH, V., 1979: TheUsarufas and their Music, Dallas, Summer
Institute of Linguistics Museum.
COOK, N., 1987: A Guide to Musical Analysis, Londres, Dent.
DEVOTO, M., 1986: Article Analysis, The NewHarvard Dictionary
ofMusic,Cambridge, Harvard, University Press, pp. 37-38.
DUNSBY, J., WHITTALL, A., 1988: MusicAnalysis in Theory and
Practice, Londres, Faber and Faber.
KERMAN
5
J., 1985: Musicology, Londres, Fontana.
MOLINO, J., 1975: Fait musicai et smiologie de la musique,
Musique enjeu, n 17, pp. 37-62.
NATTIEZ, J.-J., 1975: Fondementsd'une smiologie de la musique, Paris,
U.G.., 10/18.

SCHLANGER
5
J., 1983: L'Invention intellectuelle, Paris, Fayard.

ALLEN FORTES SET THEORY,

NEUTRAL LEVEL ANALYSIS
AND POIETICS
JEAN-JACQUES NATTIEZ
Abstract. Through an evaluation of Set Theory based on the distinction between
the delimitation and the definition of musical units, the author shows how this
theoretical
model supplies a description of the components of an atonal work which is the
equivalent
of Roman-numeral harmonic analysis, while at the same time contesting the way in
which
these units are described and segmented.
Using the paradigmatic method, he subjects Fortes analysis of the first eleven
measures
of Schoenbergs Opus 11, no. 1 to a critical reassessment which calls into question
the basic vocabulary which Forte proposes for this piece. He then goes on to
examine the
validity of Fortes claims about the poietic relevance of his analysis, which he
ultimately
contests from a historical as well as a cognitive point of view.
This talk concludes with a concrete proposal which aims at reconciling the elaborate
nomenclature of Forte with a rigorous method of musical segmentation.
The goal of this study is to propose a critical evaluation, as synthetic as possible, of
set theory as it is theorized and applied by Allen Forte. I consider set theory to be
one of
the most important theories in the history of music analysis in the Twentieth
Century:
it offers an analytical model of a particular musical style, namely atonal music, for
which
traditional models, as well as those developed for the analysis of serial music, are
not
adequate. The importance of this model can also be seen in the considerable
number
of applications that have been made of it, as testified by the abundant
bibliographies
which accompany the Analysis entry in both editions of the New Grove, written by
Ian
Bent, revised by Drabkin for its publication in book form (Bent, 1987) and published
in
French by Editions Main doeuvre (Bent, 1998). Its importance also lies in the fact
that
this model can be qualified without hesitation as a scientific one, because its
explicitness
allows any other musicologist, given a particular analysis, to follow the steps taken,
and
if necessary contest the results and suggest new solutions. We recognize then that
it
satisfies Poppers fundamental criterion: an analysis is scientific only if,
paradoxically, it
can be shown to be false.
I will not situate this discussion from the point of view of the uses which it is
possible

to make of this model as a compositional tool, which would pose a completely

different
set of problems, in my opinion, to those which Forte originally conceived: the
analysis
of atonal works. Neither is it my objective, in this context, to go into all of the
problems
raised by this model. In particular, I will leave aside the attempts to adapt it to the
music of historical periods for which it was not originally conceived, that is those
which
1
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
arise out of what Deli`ege calls music of enlarged tonality, modal music or weakly
tonal
music (1989, p. 64), or even to Liszt, Wagner or the serial works by Messiaen. Nor
will
I discuss the important methodological extension with which Forte supplemented
the
model laid out in 1973 in The Structure of Atonal Music by adding a linear
dimension,
inspired, as he himself makes clear (1987), by a Schenkerian perspective on which
he is
incidentally an admirable specialist. I have no qualms about concentrating, as it will
become clear, on the problem of the relationship between the segmentation of units
identified
and arguments concerning compositional strategies, because in Fortes fascinating
application of the linear perspective to Schoenbergs Buch der hangenden Garten,
op.
15 (Forte, 1992), he begins with an inventory of basic tetrachords which he
identifies
in the work. My observations today then logically precede an examination of the
linear
perspective which would have to be undertaken in and of itself, and deal exclusively
with the problems of the basic initial segmentation on which all later elaborations
depend.
My critical observations will be based on two broad fields of knowledge:
- on the one hand, the epistemology of musical analysis;
- on the other, the semiotic theory of tripartition (Molino, 1975; Nattiez, 1987,
1997),
which will lead me to evaluate if and how set theory is relevant with respect to two
of the
three poles of tripartite theory: the neutral level, that is the immanent structures
which
constitute the piece, and the poietic dimension, that is the compositional strategies
from
which the piece originates.
1. Set theory from an epistemological point of view
From the point of view of the epistemology of musical analysis, I believe that a
model
can be evaluated according to the status which it accords, from the beginning, to
the
following constituents:
- Which musical units are considered by the model? Put another way, how are these
units delimited?
- How are the units considered as relevant defined?
It is probably the latter aspect which has been the source of set theorys success,
and
I will simply restate what Celestin Deli`ege said at the first European Congress on
Musical
Analysis, in Colmar, France, in 1989, which expresses an opinion which I also share

wholeheartedly: for having elaborated the table of pitch-class sets in his seminal
work of
1973, The Structure of Atonal Music, Forte deserves the Nobel prize for Music
Analysis,
if there were one. In effect, the problem of the analysis of atonal music lies in the
fact
that, unlike tonal music, there is no taxonomy analogous to the denominations and
descriptions
of chords which were elaborated and theorized over the course of more than two
centuries. The great merit of Forte is to have invented for atonal music a taxonomy
which
is not a simple grafting of harmonic categories, but one that rather seeks their
equivalent.
Ian Bent emphasized in his article analysis that, as is the case for tonal music,
Fortes model is based on the idea that the identity of an entity is not affected by
octave
differences, by its different occurrences, by the inversion of its component parts or
by transpositions. In the same way that an arpeggio or an Alberti bass can both be
associated with one and the same chord, or that a chord in first or second inversion
2
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics
can be reduced to its root position and to the same function (tonic, dominant, etc.),
it
was possible for Forte to reduce the diversity and the multitude of all possible
atonal
sonic manifestations to a number of basic entities, 208 of them to be exact. Whence
his painstaking examination of the procedures of transposition, inversion, inclusion,
intersection
and complementarity, and the essential role which he allots to the intervallic
content of the pc-sets.
I would also add a characteristic which seems to me to be common to the harmonic
taxinomy of tonal music and the taxonomy of pitch-class sets: in the same way that
the
classification of chords make comparisons and stylistic analyses possible, the
classification
of pitch classes allows us to characterize what I like to call the atonal style, and
to make comparisons and to call attention to similarities from one work to the next
of a
composer, or between two different composers. Without this taxonomy, it would not
have
been possible for Forte to publish, in his Composers of the 20th Century series at
Yale
University Press, a collection of books by his disciples devoted to Bartok, Berg,
Debussy,
Hindemith, Ives, Prokofiev, Scriabine, Stravinsky and Var`ese. Without it, Forte
could
not have treated as a whole the 15 melodies of the Buch der hangenden Garten
as he
does in the first part of his detailed analysis of Schoenbergs op. 15 (1992, pp. 288351)
or all of Weberns atonal music (1999). Set theory supplies a metalanguage which
allows
for the seriationof individual works which are constitutive of stylistic ensembles,
which
does not, obviously, eliminate the problems inherent to this method which I will now
discuss.
2. Set theory and criteria for the demarcation of basic units
However, the description of units is not the only component of an analytical model.
It must also be the case that these entities be isolated and delineated on the basis
of

precise criteria of segmentation. It is precisely the question of the demarcation of

units
singled out by the analysis which seems to me to be the main problem with this
model.
I am not the first to make this fundamental objection to Forte (cf. Benjamin, 1974;
Browne, 1974; Bent, 1987, p. 108; Lerdahl, 1989, p. 104; Deli`ege, 1989, p. 68 and
sgg.).
I will cite the critical observation of Nicholas Cook, which strikes me as being the
most
incisive and the most precise: Apart from final details of interpretation, everything
in
the analysis depends on the [initial] segmentation [of the music] because it is here
that
all the musical decisions are made. He then adds, No set-theoretical analysis can
be
more objective, or more well-founded musically, than its initial segmentation.
(Cook,
1987, p. 146). My specific topic will be to confront an empirical analysis of Forte
with
a segmentation founded on criteria more rigorous than the ones which he proposes,
that
is, ones which are explicitly made clear through the paradigmatic technique, and to
then
examine the links between these segmentations and poietics.
Forte is well aware of the importance which segmentation plays in the choice of
basic
units in any analytical model, because he devotes an entire section of The Structure
of Atonal Music, pages 83-92, to such criteria: It is necessary to give attention to a
fundamental and more immediate analytical process, the process of segmentation.
By
segmentation is meant the procedure of determining which musical units of a
composition
are to be regarded as analytical objects (p. 83).
3
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
Forte identifies first of all what he calls primary segments, that is, configurations
which result from conventional techniques such as a rhythmically distinct melodic
figure,
isolated by a rest or by a beam group (p. 83), a vertical harmonic grouping or by
an ostinato pattern. In the concrete examples which he gives in the rest of the
section,
one notes that other criteria are added, such as those of repetition or of context (p.
91).
He also attempts to justify the segmentation of a unit by its return in other parts of
the work (p. 87) or in other works (p. 92), or by taking into account what we already
know about the particular way in which such and such a composer composes (p.
92).
After the primary segments, Forte goes on to speak of what he calls imbrication
(p.
83-84), that is the identification, within a single initial segment, of two or three
overlapping
pc-sets, and which he calls `subsegments of a primary segment. Thirdly, he
distinguishes the composite segments (p.84), that is the combination of more
than one
primary segment or subsegment which are either contiguous or related to each
other.
The beginning and the end of these composite segments are usually marked,
according
to him, by an instrumental attack, or by a rest.
There are principally four methodological problems here:

- Forte seems to take for granted that thanks to a certain number of clues, the
segmentation
of the primary or the composite segments is a given that, so to speak, goes
without saying. The problem which is posed here is in fact that of the analysis of the
neutral
level. Deli`ege (1989, p. 70-73, p. 76) has already made several precise and
invaluable
remarks along similar lines, but I am not sure that the three points which Forte
addressed
him in response are convincing (1989, p. 81). He refers first of all to the linear
analyses
which he grafted onto his initial segmentations; but linear analysis as such cannot
be
the solution to the problem of segmentation because linear analysis itself depends
on
segmentation. In response to Lerdahl, whom Deli`ege opposes to Forte, Forte
comes out
in defense of flexibility in segmentation, but it is precisely this laxness which needs
to be
avoided, and the reason for the necessity of explicit rules of segmentation. Finally,
Forte
refers to an article by Hasty (1984) devoted to phrase analyses of post-tonal music.
This
study deserves close scrutiny. We will simply note that Hasty was not able, at the
time
he wrote that article, to take into account Lerdahl and Jackendorffs book of 1983
which
would have supplied him with the rules necessary for determining the frontiers
between
the end of one event and the beginning of a second, as he himself correctly notes
(Hasty,
1983, p. 169). Moreover, even if he adopts a point of view which is essentially
perceptive,
the author proceeds to discover sets in the first of Weberns Bagatelles, which are
in fact
taken a priori from Fortes model. This is one of the serious problems which he
uncovers.
- As for the subsegments, their identification is effectively of another order
altogether,
because they depend on recognizing, within a primary segment, identified
beforehand,
or in thecomposite segments, entities recognizable from the list of 208 pc-sets.
In principle, the definition of units according to pitch-class sets occurs, for Forte,
after
their segmentation. But in truth, it is very tempting to identify a sub-segment
because
it corresponds to an entity given a priori in the table, and we will see that this is
often
the case. A unit is then defined because it corresponds to an entity present in the
model.
In that case, the reasoning is in danger of becoming circular.
4
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics
- By putting on the same footing the criteria of, on the one hand, repetition within a
work and on the other, between different works of the same composer, and granted
that
Fortes model allows for the construction of a theory of style, because it is based on
the
principle of seriation, the procedure for segmentation nevertheless goes wrong
when it

compares units which belong to different levels of stylistic relevance, from the
single work,
to a group of works within a composers output, and all the way to the entire corpus
of
works by the same composer. This is a problem because in reality, the
determination of
these different stylistic levels requires distinct operations of seriation.
- And Forte adds, in fine, another criterion, this time of a poietic nature: It should
be
said that knowledge of a particular composers way of composing [...] provides
guides for
segment determination. (p. 92) A little earlier, he underscored the poietic
pertinence
of another analytical observation: by noting the analogy between a pc-set particular
to Schoenbergs op. 23, no. 4, and the way in which the composer marked it in the
manuscript (p. 18), Forte seems to want to legitimize, albeit furtively, his immanent
analysis from the point of view of what I name external poietics, that is, the
recourse
to information exterior to the work itself, in this case, the manuscript. He does not
elaborate on this point, but he nevertheless introduces a criterion of poietic
relevance
to the identification of units defined by his analysis. He goes further into this aspect
in his important article of 1981 which I will examine shortly. I will attempt to show
the difficulties which plague the recourse to poietics, though I hasten to add that
this
recourse is necessary, despite the difficulties.
3. Set theory and the analysis of the neutral level
The inventory of these four families of problems leads me to an examination of set
theory from the point of view of the relations between immanent segmentation of
the
pieces and the observations relating to compositional strategies. In order to do this,
I
must first examine how Forte defines the basic units of a piece being analyzed.
What is initially at stake in the definition of basic units? Forte recognizes the need
to begin the job with what the model which I employ calls, following proposals by
Jean
Molino, the analysis of the neutral level. I do not believe that we can trust a few
graphic
signs and our musical intuition alone in the determination of basic segments; also,
the
practice of defining units a priori because they correspond to a pc-set recognized by
set
theory must be avoided at all costs. The reason that there is a need for such
prudence
is that the initial step is decisive: it is as a function of the extension of these
segments,
which are then categorized under the label of pitch-class sets, that the validity of
comparisons
between pc-sets stands or falls. Moreover, if we intend on attributing poietic
pertinence to an immanent analysis, we first have to ensure that the initial
segmentation
is acceptable.
I would like to give an example here of the difficulties which arise from proceeding
with an analysis without first undertaking a systematic segmentation, one which is
based
on explicit and reproducible criteria. To this end, I will examine the important
analysis
which Forte devotes to Schoenbergs op. 11, no. 1, under the title The Magical
Kaleido5

Jean-Jacques Nattiez
scope (Forte, 1981) about which Ian Bent, in his aforementioned study, writes that
this
analysis might well be taken as a model for the method as a whole (1987, p. 108). I
will
examine the approach adopted by Forte by concentrating on the first thirteen
measures
of this piece.
Figure 1. First 13 measures of Schoenbergs op. 11, no. 1

To begin with, here is a paradigmatic segmentation of the first eleven measures of

the piece, in which I am following Deli`eges lead, who has given several examples
of this
approach in a remarkable critical essay (1989, p. 70 et sq.).
Figure 2. Paradigm of the first eleven measures of Schoenbergs op. 11, no. 1. (Nattiez)

6
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics
I will not rehearse here the principles of the paradigmatic method, which are by now
well known (Ruwet, 1972, chap. IV), but, and this adheres to the instructions of the
main proponent of this method, I will explicitly state the criteria which are at work in
the segmentation proposed here:
- A and A are included in the same paradigmatic class
because of the identical phrasing of mm. 1-2 and m. 3 on the one hand, and mm.
9-10 and 11 on the other;
the rhythm of the melody in mm. 1-4 and 9-11 is literally identical;
the chords are both based on tritones and have the same durations in both
measures
2-3 and 10-11;
new musical material begins at measure 4 and 12.
- The unit B, on the other hand, results from what is left over from the segmentation
of A and A, and is itself divided into three sub-units, b, b and b.
A small rhythmic transformation can be observed of the initial Eb, between b on
the one hand, and b and b on the other.
The melodic figures are identical, but there is an addition of D b-C in b.
The figure D-F-A-A]-B, in b and b, stands out from the polyphonic context in
which it is located in b. This is why, at line 2, I rewrote it in parentheses in order
to make clear the paradigmatic transformation which takes place in b and b. This
transformation leads me to identify two sub-units for b and b: b1 and b2 for the
former, b1 and b2 for the latter.
Forte considers that the harmonic vocabulary of the piece is derived from six
hexachords
and four of their complements. I will naturally assume familiarity here with the
complex but precise procedure by which Forte designates pc-classes and
establishes their
intervallic content and their complementarity relations. Here is his list of units
comprising
the basic vocabulary of op. 11, no. 1.
Figure 3. The Harmonic Vocabulary of Op. 11, no. 1. The Six Hexachords and Their
Complements (Forte, 1981, p. 132)

7
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
What is important, from the point of view of the critical examination proposed here,
is the correspondence between the basic units of the piece, grouped as a function
of
the inventory of basic sets (Figure 3) and the musical units explicitly segmented by
the
paradigmatic analysis on the basis of explicit criteria (Figure 2). Here, first of all, is
the
table proposed by Forte of these ten thematic units.
Figure 4. The Six Hexachords and Their Complements. Initial Thematic Statements (Forte,
1981, p. 132)

The units selected by Forte at mm. 10-11, 17-18, 1-3, 5, 7-8, 2-3 and 9-11
correspond
to those delineated by the paradigmatic analysis. For the sake of certainty, we will
mark
on the paradigmatic chart of the 11 first bars, 6 of the 7 pc-sets (6-Z3 appears at
mm.
17-18, but it corresponds to a unit whose segmentation is acceptable).
8
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics
Figure 5. Pc-sets added to the paradigm of the first eleven measures (Nattiez)

On the other hand, the same is not true of the units of mm. 2-3, 10-11 and 12-13.
Lets examine first of all the analysis suggested by Forte of mm. 12-13, on top of
which I will superimpose my own segmentation, with a vertical line (JJN):
Figure 6. Measures 12-13 according to Forte (1981, p. 144), with Nattiezs segmentation
superimposed

9
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
In this analysis, underneath measures 12 and 13, the author gives the list of all the
sets and subsets that he identifies in these two measures. What strikes me as
problematic
is the set 6-Z13.
If we look once again at the table of ex. 4, we note that, in order to construct it,
Forte only considers the first eight notes of bar 12.
If we go back to measures 12 and 13, we can compare the units obtained through
the paradigmatic technique (Ex. 7, first system) and those demarcated by Forte (Ex.
7,
second system).
Figure 7. Units from measures 12 and 13 according to paradigmatic segmentation and
according
to Forte

It can be seen that in measure 12 the basic unit, which ought to have been defined
before the definitions of the sets was given, necessarily includes the E and the C] ,
which
it is impossible to separate from the eight preceding notes: This is because of the
ascending
motion, the slur and the crescendo; after the Bb, another unit of five notes begins,
this time descending and with another slur. Neither does the pc-set 6-Z 42 identified
at measure 12 in order to have the preceding 6-Z13 as a complement, correspond
to an
acceptable segmentation into basic units: it includes the E and the C] from the
preceding
unit, and excludes the low F] which necessarily comes at the end of the second unit.
For these reasons, it does not seem to me that the set 6-Z13 should be included as
part of the basic vocabulary of this work. Moreover, if I set out to find this 6-Z13 in
the rest of the piece, which, allow me to emphasize, is possible thanks to the
complete
10
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics
inventory which Forte has supplied, I only find it a single time, at measures 45 and
46,
but only if we allow for a segmentation which, once again, is not one that we would
be
led to adopt from a systematic segmentation of the piece. Are two occurrences of
two
units arbitrarily segmented in the sound continuum sufficient to be considered one
of the
six basic hexachords of this piece?
If we look again at the demarcations of sets proposed in example 6 (Forte, p. 144)
for the sets 6-Z44 and 6-Z19, i.e., those which are identified in measures 2-3 on the
one

hand, and measures 10-11 on the other, we find, once again, that they do not
correspond
to units suggested by the paradigmatic segmentation.
Figure 8. Projection of the sets 6-Z44 and 6-Z19 onto the Paradigmatic chart (Nattiez)

These two sets are only identifiable at the cost of a selection of pitches which an
explicit segmentation is not able to justify. They therefore do not seem to me to
belong
to the list of the six basic hexachords and their complements.
Going back to example 5, it is certainly surprising that at mm. 7-8 the unit which I
have called b is defined according to the set 6-Z42 as one of the fundamental
hexachords
of the piece, whereas the set which uses the pitch content of unit b, at measures 4
and
5, which is the basis for the development of measures 5 to 8, i.e. precisely of b and
b,
is not even included in Fortes list of fundamental sets.
It is true that, for 6-Z44 et 6-Z19, Forte notes that it is a somewhat concealed
subcomponent
of a thematic statement (p. 136). And he emphasizes the fact that the real
11
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
internal form is determined by the pitch structures that organize the music (p.
130).
In fact, one gets a very clear sense that, given the table of 208 pc-sets, it could
always
be possible to find any one of them at the price of an arbitrary segmentation of the
units, and to establish meaningful relationships of inversion, inclusion, intersection
and
complementarity. This is true when we follow closely, from the beginning, the
presence
of sets considered to be constitutive of the basic vocabulary. In the next example
[ex. 9],
we see how right is the first system, Forte finds three occurrences of the pc-set 6-21
from
measures 9-11.
Figure 9. Occurrences of the set 6-21 in mm. 1-5 according to Forte

And he doesnt stop there. In ex. 10, we see that Forte finds the set in measures
10 and 11, and he discovers its complement 6-Z44 in measures 2 and 3. The rest of
the
analysis is conducted according to the same principles...
12
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics

Figure 10. The set 6-21 identified in mm. 10-11 and its complement in mm. 2 and 3 according
to Forte

The problem of set theory is analogous to that which faces Chomskian generative
grammar, which incidentally appeared on the American scientific horizon around
the
same time, and which also took a rather aloof approach to the criteria of
segmentation
of the units considered: the proposed analytical algorithm is so strong that it
enables
justifying almost any relationship.
4. Set theory and poietic relevance
We must then ask ourselves what motivates Allen Forte to proceed in this manner. I
believe that we can find the key to his method in his conception of poietics and in
the
way in which he treats it.
One might be surprised that I refer to the poietic dimension when, besides the two
brief allusions to poietic concerns which I cited earlier, The Structure of Atonal Music

can be considered, 99.9% of the time, to be a work of Structuralist persuasion. In

truth,
Fortes interest in the poietic is not new to him: one of his first writings deals with
the
Compositional Matrix (1961) and in 1978 he devoted a paper to the creative
evolution
of Schoenberg in his path towards atonality.
For my part, I believe that at some point in every analysis, it is necessary to
confront
the poietic dimension. In the above examination of the tonal harmonic taxonomy
that I discern in Fortes model, I have not yet discussed one of the most important
points.
Since the denomination of chords concerns what is generally called thecommon
practice
era, roughly from Bach to Wagner, and because it is used in music education and
consigned to treatises and textbooks, the denomination of chords has a certain
poietic
relevance. Of course, for each particular composer, we need to specify what the
compositional
strategies consist of on the harmonic level; we would have to take into account
the evolution of tonal harmony over the course of years and to qualify the
impression of
stability which it appears to have enjoyed over a period of more than two centuries.
It
remains nevertheless that these entities, defined by various harmonic taxonomies
desig13
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
nate the basic tools that were taught and from which tonal works were elaborated.
Fortes entire paper on op. 11, no. 1 is predicated on the poietic hypothesis that,
by opposition to the point of view of three of his predecessors (Leichtentritt,
Brinkmann
and Von der Null) for whom the piece still owes much to tonality. For Forte,
beginning
in 1909, Schoenberg invented a radically new way of composing. For him, the
important
point is that the relationship between sets, the dynamic and kaleidoscopic
transformations,
bring into view a second level, situated underneath the conventional musical
surface of the piece, made up of themes and motifs (beneath what appears to be a
conventional
musical surface composed of themes and motives, p. 137). While admitting
that Schoenberg never discussed this manner of composing, he affirms that the
essays
collected in Style and Idea show that at the time he composed Op. 11/1, he was
not
interested in producing tonal music, especially in some kind of contorted tonal
idiom (p.
138), but he does not specify in which texts Schoenberg implied this, the only
exception
being the 1946 article New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea in which
Schoenberg
inscribes the formula Because : Arts means New Arts as its epigraph. Looking
back at this text, one does not get the sense that the desire to write in a new way
goes
all the way back to 1903 for Schoenberg, as Forte asserts. On the contrary, in this
text,
the composer speaks of the period which follows the First World War (1984, p. 114)
and
the allusion is to twelve-tone composition (l984, p. 99).

Fortes poietic characterization amounts to what I call inductive poietics (Nattiez,

1987, p. 177; Eng. trans., 1990, p. 140). This process consists in justifying
compositional
relevance by observing the systematic recurrence of a structural phenomenon.
In Forte, it is based on a reasoning which I could reconstruct as follows: These sets
and their transformations turn up in the piece too often for it not to be the result of
Schoenbergs conscious compositional work; and I quote: Since there are no
sketches for
Opus 11, and, in general, precompositional sketches for the atonal works are
extremely
scarce, we do not know how systematically Schoenberg explored the properties of
the
hexachords. However, from the analytical evidence [my emphasis], it is clear that
the
intricate manipulations of these hexachordal materials was completely natural to
him.
(p. 133). Evidently Schoenberg selected hexachords of considerable diversity as
well as
similarity with respect to interval content. (p. 135)
Once we admit that the analytical evidence, that is the recurrence of sets
inventoried
by analysis, proves that we are indeed in the presence of a hidden compositional
strategy, Forte can appeal to an argument which uses the approach of external
poietics,
i.e., based on information relevant to compositional strategies, but external to the
work
(Nattiez, 1987, p. 177; Eng. trans., 1990, p. 141) n and which would apparently
confirm
the recurrences which he believes to have found: Given Schoenbergs
numerological
bent, the selection of exactly six hexachords of Op. 11/1 is more than fortuitous (p.
133). That is to say, the selection of these basic six elements is apparently
deliberate
and is poietically relevant. But in order to speak of analytical evidence, it would
first
be necessary, at the neutral level, for the basic units to be determined in a
convincing
manner. We saw earlier that this is not the case for one of them and that we are left
wondering about the absence of measures 4 and 5.
14
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics
Fortes empirical observations are not what justifies the poietic relevance of his
analysis.
It is in fact his preconceived notions a priori about Schoenbergs poietics which lead
him to legitimate his analytical procedure. Why does he select, against all evidence,
the
set 6-Z13? Because its complement is 6-Z42 which does in fact correspond to a
structural
unit and because he affirms, on p. 133, that both are fundamental in Die
Jakobsleiter.
By admitting that it is legitimate, here, to retain a set which does not correspond to
a
unit identified on the basis of acceptable criteria, it would be necessary to verify
whether
in Die Jakobsleiter, they were properly segmented. Why does he retain 6-Z19 and 6Z44,
which, as we have seen, are also just as arbitrarily segmented? Because they
correspond
to Schoenbergs musical signature: Es-C-H-B-E-G. (p. 133).
Even if Forte doesnt say so explicitly, one senses that, in order to understand the

poietics of Schoenberg, he is appealing in fact to a very strong hypothesis according

to
which Schoenberg applied, in 1909, a compositional strategy which he never
defined explicitly,
but which roughly corresponds to the formal operations described by set theory.
As I have indicated elsewhere (Nattiez, 1997, p. 17), a poietic interpretation of
structures
revealed by the analysis of the neutral level presupposes that we have an
acceptable
theory of the poietic. I am afraid that I am not able to accept the poietic theory
which I
discern in the article that I am examining here. I have three reasons for this.
The first is of a methodological nature, and I will not return to it: the units selected
and characterized do not all correspond to units grouped as a function of explicit
and
acceptable criteria musical criteria, as Nicholas Cook would say of
segmentation;
their other occurrences are not determined as a function of the initial segmentation
but
from the a priori definitions supplied by the table of sets.
The second reason is of a historical nature. It seems to me that there is no reason to
reject the idea that Schoenberg elaborated poietically his atonal style by
systematically
turning on its head to the tonal organization of pitch and tonal harmony with which
he
was so well acquainted. The fact that the rhythmic, metrical and phrase structure of
this
piece are those of a tonal piece n not to mention the form, as Forte demonstrates
so well
himself in the rest of his paper, based on a play of contrasts, so common to
Romanticism,
and characterizes this piece from beginning to end all of these things lead me to
think
that it is in the gap between the tonal norm and what Schoenberg actually does that
we must pursue our research if we wish to know and understand the compositional
processes
which he put into practice during that period. And as a result, starting from the
proposed paradigmatic analysis, I can make observations whose poietic relevance
seem
to me difficult to contest and which, since they are situated at the surface of the
piece,
have good chances of being quite close to conscious poietics: the introduction
presents
first of all a thematic unit of three measures; then new material (mm. 4-5) allows for
the construction of a new unit, made up once again of three elements. The return of
the
three initial measures transformed (mm. 9-11) reveals a ternary construction. If
there
is a magic number to find in the piece, which is as a matter of fact organised at the
macroscopic level according to a ternary plan, it would be with no doubt number 3
and
not number 6. If this is so, this piece could be relatively easy to understand today
(Forte, p. 127), as Schoenberg said himself in a quotation the author placed at the
top of
his article, but which the rest of the text tries to refute. For me, the logic of the
poietic
15
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
elaboration of op. 11, no. 1 still owes much to the Romantic era.
The third is of a cognitive nature. Lets recall that in order to discern pitch-class sets

and the relationships among them in any musical succession, three conditions must
be
obtained:
1. The ordered set of pitches must be reduced to a non-ordered set, namely the
prime
form, presented in compact form;
2. The interval vector constitutive of the set must be calculated by reducing to one
and
the same class (defined not from the given succession of notes but from the prime
form) an interval, its inversion and its compound, and similarly the enharmonic
intervals which correspond to them;
3. The relationships of transposition, inversion, retrogradation, retrogradationinversion,
inclusion and intersection must be identified once the sets are established.
In order to properly understand Fortes analysis, I made precise tables for myself of
all
of the analytical steps involved here. The analytical operations at work in this text
and
proposed for the atonal period seem to be of such a great degree of complexity that
I
have difficulty following Forte when he writes that The intricate manipulations of
these
hexachordal materials was completely natural to him. (p. 133). Also, I hope that
Allen
Forte will one day respond to the following question: Do you really think that the
manipulations
of the basic material which allow you to construct your taxonomy and which
you follow scrupulously throughout the piece, corresponds to any conscious poietic
strategy?
If we confront the units finally brought out by your analysis, is it conceivable that
Schoenberg followed analogous procedures, on the level of pre-compositional
elaboration,
without recourse to a pencil and paper?Forte himself notes that no sketch of this
nature
has been found for the atonal period. However, such sketches abound for serial
works for
which basic operations inversion, retrograde or retrograde inversion are
infinitely
simpler than what Forte proposes for the atonal period. Also, I cannot help thinking
that what I believe to be genuine Schoenbergian poietics cannot under any
circumstances
justify the analytical approach adopted by Forte.
Once again, this does not invalidate in any way the remarkable taxonomy which he
elaborated for the study of atonal music. Lets say it again, it allows us to undertake
vast
stylistic and comparative analyses, but it is only epistemologically possible on
condition
that it be based first of all on a hierarchical segmentation of works which is at once
systematic
and coherent. This is at any rate the proposal I would like to make here: it would
be fascinating to see what results we would obtain from comparing sets which
would describe
units previously segmented by a paradigmatic analysis at the neutral level. If we
do feel compelled to rely on this preliminary analysis, in effect, the kaleidoscope
which
the analyst will discover in atonal works will effectively be the fruit of magical
operations,
not because the composer hid them there, but because the musicologist, through
sleight
of hand, was acting like a magician!

English translation by Jonathan Goldman.

16
Allen Fortes Set Theory, Neutral level analysis and Poietics

Bibliography

[1] Benjamin 1974

William Benjamin. Review of The Structure of Atonal Music by A. Forte.
Perspectives
of New Music 2, 170-211.
[2] Bent and Drabkin 1987
Ian Bent and William Drabkin. Analysis. London: Macmillan Press.
[3] Browne 1974
Richmond Browne. Review of The Structure of Atonal Music by A. Forte. Journal of
Music Theory 18, 390-415.
[4] Cook 1987
Nicholas Cook. A Guide to Musical Analysis. London, Melbourne: J.M. Dent and Sons.
[5] Deli`ege 1989
Celestin Deli`ege. La set-theory ou les enjeux du pleonasme, Analyse musicale,
No. 17,
pp. 64-79.
[6] Forte 1961-1974
Allen Forte. The Compositional Matrix. Baldwin: Music Teachers National
Association;
reprinted, New York: Da Capo Press, 1974.
[7] Forte 1973
Allen Forte. The Structure of Atonal Music. New Haven - London: Yale University
Press.
[8] Forte 1978
Allen Forte. Schoenbergs Creative Evolution: the Path to Atonality, The Musical
Quarterly 49, 133-176.
[9] Forte 1981
Allen Forte. The Magic Kaleidoscope; Schoenbergs First Atonal Masterwork, Opus
11,
Number 1. Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 5, No. 2, 127-169.
[10] Forte 1987
Allen Forte. Liszts Experimental Music and Music of the Early Twentieth Century.
19th Century Music 10, No. 3, 133-176.
[11] Forte 1989
Allen Forte. La Set-Complex Theory: Elevons les enjeux!. Analyse musicale No.
17,
80-86.
[12] Forte 1992
Allen Forte. Concepts of Linearity in Schoenbergs Atonal Music: a Study of the
Opus
15 Song Cycle. Journal of Music Theory 36, No. 2, 285-382.
[13] Forte 1999
Allen Forte. The Music of Anton Webern. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
[14] Hasty 1984
Christopher Hasty. Phrase Formation in Post-Tonal Music. Journal of Music Theory
28, No. 2, 167-190.
[15] Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1984
Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Boston,
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
17
Jean-Jacques Nattiez
[16] Lerdahl 1989
Fred Lerdahl. Structure de prolongation dans latonalite. In La musique et les
sciences

cognitives. Edited by Stephen McAdams and Ir`ene Deli`ege,. Li`ege, Brussels:

Mardaga,
103-135.
[17] Molino 1975
Jean Molino. Fait musical et semiologie de la musique. Musique en jeu No. 17,
1975,
37-62; Eng. trans., Musical Fact and the Semiology of Music.Music Analysis 9, No.
2,
105-6.
[18] Nattiez 1987
Jean-Jacques Nattiez. Musicologie generale et semiologie. Paris: Christian
Bourgois
editeur; Eng. trans., Music and Discourse. Towards a Semiology of Music. Princeton
University Press.
[19] Nattiez 1997
Jean-Jacques Nattiez. De la semiologie generale `a la semiologie musicale:
lexemple de
la Cathedrale engloutie de Debussy. Protee 25, No. 2, 7-20.
[20] Ruwet 1972-1987
Nicolas Ruwet. Methodes danalyse en musicologie. In Langage, musique, po
esie. Paris:
editions du Seuil. pp. 100-134; Eng. Trans. Methods of Analysis in
Musicology.Music
Analysis 6, No. 1-2, July, 3-36.
[21] Schoenberg 1984
Arnold Schoenberg. Style and Idea. Berkeley n Los Angeles: University of California
Press (new edition).
18