从作品D959浅析舒伯特钢琴奏鸣曲的艺术特征及演奏方法外文翻译资料-外文翻译网

JULIAN HORTON

STASIS AND CONTINUITY IN SCHUBERTrsquo;S STRING QUINTET: RESPONSES TO NATHAN MARTIN, STEVEN VANDE MOORTELE, SCOTT BURNHAM AND JOHN KOSLOVSKY

The articles gathered in this issue of Music Analysis contribute substantially to the analytical understanding of Schubertrsquo;s String Quintet, D. 956, and to scholarship on his instrumental forms in general. The approaches these essays adopt are diverse, yet mutually illuminating: Formenlehre, Schenkerian theory, neo-Riemannian theory and conceptions of rhetoric and expression cohabit peacefully, clarifying core strategic issues from distinctly different perspectives. The contributions are novel further because they offer a coordinated reflection on design, structure and meaning in a work that has hitherto attracted notable but piecemeal attention, as is evidenced especially in the secondary literaturersquo;s inclinations to favour the first movement or to consider only selected passages, to which the analyses collected here offer a welcome corrective.1

My response has two objectives. Primarily, I capitalise on the opportunity to formulate an analytical conspectus of the whole Quintet by drawing together the threads of argument that Nathan Martin, Steven Vande Moortele, Scott Burnham and John Koslovsky advance and clarifying their pertinence to an overview of the work. At the same time, I also want to interrogate my colleaguesrsquo; views by identifying points of disagreement or potential lacunae and offering, if not solutions, then at least alternative perspectives. My approach is analytical rather than theoretical: I treat the interpretation of D. 956 as an end and employ the theoretical debates to which the other articles give rise as a means of analysis. By way of conclusion, I raise one pressing contextual issue and develop an argument which marshals the other authorsrsquo; findings as contributory evidence.

Allegro ma non troppo

The conﬂation of form-functional and harmonic-transformational perspectives offered by Martin and Vande Moortele refreshes our perception of the ﬁrst movement in two crucial respects. First, it pursues into new analytical territory Janet Schmalfeldtrsquo;s much-discussed concept of lsquo;becomingrsquo;.2 Martin and Vande

Moortele pinpoint a critical gap in Schmalfeldtrsquo;s usage which its application to the ﬁrst movement of D. 956 exposes. This is embodied in the tension between,

DOI: 10.1111/musa.12031

194 Music Analysis, 33/ii (2014)

copy; 2014 The Author.

Music Analysis copy; 2014 John Wiley amp; Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

on the one hand, her Hegelian urge to regard the outcome of functional trans-formation as retaining a trace of the function that has been transformed, and on the other hand, the inability of her symbolic formulation lsquo;rArr;rsquo; to capture this property. The authors offer a useful reﬁnement and extension of the idea in this regard, distinguishing between transformations in which one function overwrites another (rArr;), transformations in which the second function retains traces of the ﬁrst (lArr;), and situations in which the sense of function remains suspended between possible interpretations (hArr;).

Secondly, consideration of the form-functional repercussions of Schubertrsquo;s

chromatic tonal usage – speciﬁcally the problematic installation of E major

between C and G – leads to the important observation that reinterpretation of

Ersquo;s function (as upper neighbour to V of G, mixed-modal inﬂection of C or,

following Richard Cohn, hexatonic dominant substitute) necessitates reinter-pretation of the materialrsquo;s formal function.3 As Martin and Vande Moortele explain, such harmonic considerations lsquo;have important implications ... for form-functional interpretation of the expositionrsquo; (p. 000). Elaborating on Cohnrsquo;s idea that all triads arising within a given hexatonic system can substitute functionally

for one another, the authors draw Einto the hexatonic orbit of G and use this

afﬁliation to problematise the functional identity of the cello duet initiated at bar

60, which seems rhetorically secure as a subordinate theme in III until the

motion through C major at bar 71 and subsequent arrival at a PAC in the dominant by bar 79. The resulting challenge to the themersquo;s formal function brings the hArr;symbol into action: the material is neither subordinate nor transi-tional but lsquo;stands poised undecidably between conﬂicting formal functions, which it holds in dynamic tension, now one asserting itself, now the otherrsquo; (p. 000).

The point is well taken, but it also raises issues. To begin with, although Martin and Vande Moortele create analytical capital from the hexatonic impli-

cations of pairing Eand G, they pay less attention to how Erelates to the global

tonic, C. In one sense it is fruitful to understand this in terms of modal mixture:

explaining Eas the relative of the parallel minor allows us to make a cyclical link

between, for example, the ﬁrst-movementrsquo;s subordinate theme and the minor-

mode shading of the ﬁnalersquo;s main theme. At the same time, the C–Emodulation

can also be understood as part of an octatonic system, a perception that accom-modates modal mixture because the parallel minor of C major is available within

the octatonic collection containing the major triads on C and E.

Whether we understand Ehexatonically or octatonically depends on whether

we afﬁliate it with the dominant or the tonic; the resulting issues of orientation both support and problematise Martin and Vande Moortelersquo;s analysis. In one

sense the functional ambiguity of the Ematerial is reinforced. The collapse of

the musicrsquo;s subordinate-theme status into a transitional function can now be regarded as bound up with the tension between octatonic and hexatonic afﬁlia-

tions: as

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

STASIS menlehre, Schenkerian theory, neo-Riemannian theory and conceptions of rhetoric and expression cohabit peacefully, clarifying core strategic issues from distinctly different perspectives. The contributions are novel further because they offer a coordinated reflection on design, structure and meaning in a work that has hitherto attracted notable but piecemeal attention, as is evidenced especially in the secondary literaturersquo;s inclinations to favour the first movement or to consider only selected passages, to which the analyses collected here offer a welcome corrective.1