work structure and musical representation: reflections on adorno's analyses for interpretation

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Irvine]On: 17 January 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918974203]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary Music ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713455393

Work Structure and Musical Representation: Reflections on Adorno'sAnalyses for InterpretationGianmario Borio (translated by Martin Iddon)

To cite this Article Borio (translated by Martin Iddon), Gianmario(2007) 'Work Structure and Musical Representation:Reflections on Adorno's Analyses for Interpretation', Contemporary Music Review, 26: 1, 53 — 75To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07494460601069226URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07494460601069226

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713455393

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07494460601069226

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Work Structure and MusicalRepresentation: Reflections onAdorno’s Analyses for Interpretation1

Gianmario Borio (translated by Martin Iddon)

This article examines Adorno’s thinking on the relationship between musical analysis,interpretation and performance. Adorno’s work is set in the context both of its aesthetic

antecedents, particularly in the work of Schoenberg as composer and as music theorist,and of its subsequent critics. At the centre of the article is a discussion of the analysisseminars which Adorno gave during the Darmstadt Ferienkurse in the mid-1950s, on

Schoenberg’s Verklarte Nacht and Phantasy for violin and piano and Webern’s SixBagatelles for string quartet, op. 9.

Keywords: Adorno; Schoenberg; Structure; Performance

In memory of David Lewin

If one regards Adorno’s theory of musical reproduction in its varied manifestations,

then the relationship of work structure and musical representation (Darstellung)proves to be one of the central problems, which is touched on time and again and

from different perspectives (Adorno, 1976 [1963], 2001). In it the dialectic betweenidea (Gedanke) and its representation, which plays an important role in Schoenberg’smusico-theoretical writings (Schoenberg, 1995), recurs on another level and deals

with a decisive step: the transfer of the musical meaning, which is communicatedthrough the written notes, into an aural result. In the field of acoustic realisation the

whole problematic of the musical idea finds a conclusion: the idea is re-presented in adeeper sense; it surpasses the silent written notes and turns into a sensory pheno-

menon. The conviction that the theory of performance is an indispensable com-ponent of music theory was felt equally by all supporters of Schoenberg’s school; yet

Adorno was the only one who tried to work through the question of musical inter-pretation systematically and substantiate it methodologically.

Contemporary Music ReviewVol. 26, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 53 – 75

ISSN 0749-4467 (print)/ISSN 1477-2256 (online) ª 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/07494460601069226

Downloaded By: [University of California, Irvine] At: 06:51 17 January 2011

The relationship of work structure and musical representation is just as central in

another debate, which was sparked off in English-language musicology after thepublication of Edward T. Cone’s book Musical Form and Musical Performance (Cone,

1968; Schmalfeldt, 1985; Narmour, 1988; Berry, 1989; Dunsby, 1989; Howell, 1992;Lester, 1995; Rothstein, 1995; Cook, 1999). Convictions which were disseminated

widely in the nineteenth century—for example in the writings of Adolf BernhardMarx and Hugo Riemann—went awry, while crucial questions were re-formulatedand discussed: does the knowledge of the compositional structure affect the way in

which a work is performed? Should critical and performative interpretation be boundtogether through a common goal or seen as separate activities? Does performance

limit itself to the faithful translation of the written notes or does it add somethingnew? In Adorno’s Theorie der musikalischen Reproduktion, which, like many of his

musico-philosophical texts, becomes a sort of enquiry on fundamentals, one findsseemingly unequivocal answers to all of these questions. Yet because this treatise

implicitly contains a theory of musical analysis—precisely because of the meaning itattributes to work structure—it pays to follow up the problematics of a piece further,particularly in the area of analysis. For these purposes the published analyses of

interpretation in Der getreue Korrepetitor (Adorno, 1976 [1963], pp. 251 – 368)present an excellent line of enquiry, first because the underlying procedural method

can be seen as a bridge between the two areas of work structure and musicalrepresentation, and second, because they provide the only bar-to-bar analyses that

Adorno authorised for printing.In an influential article Rose Rosengard Subotnik criticised the notion of

structural hearing, which plays a major role in Adorno’s theory of interpretation andanalysis, as being a ‘cultural construct’ (Subotnik, 1996). According to this critical

view, the demand for structural listening—a demand which Adorno shared withmany music theorists of his own and later generations—has marked musicaleducation in western countries deeply and has led to a one-sided understanding of

music, from which the previously intuitive approach to sound and style hasparticularly suffered. Subotnik sees indications of a step change in the demand for

a ‘nonstructural knowledge’ (Subotnik, 1996, pp. 164 – 173), which has made itselfurgently felt in more recent philosophy and subsequently in areas of musicology.

She also discovers traces of an intuitive method in Adorno’s writings, which wouldfacilitate focusing on ideological subtexts in composition, performance and

reception; yet she maintains that they are neutralised to some extent, such that acontradiction arises between the disclosure of social implications and theidealisation of structural hearing. This model of interpretation is shared by many

critics of Adorno’s philosophy of music. With Subotnik it contains a particular bias,because at the same time she is encroaching upon contemporary methodological

discussions in North American musicology. What makes this problematic is that theterm ‘structure’ is principally interpreted as a symptom of cultural identity and is

never discussed in the terms of its specific function in Adorno’s writings. The resultis a distorted picture, in which the distinctions between Adorno, Schoenberg,

54 G. Borio (trans. M. Iddon)


Stravinsky and even Schenker become blurred. It would take up too much space to

elaborate upon this in detail here. I take Subotnik’s critique only as a starting pointfor explaining the concept.

In Adorno’s writings, the term ‘structure’ appears mostly in the time after hisemigration. Its specific formulation may go back to the discussions of twelve-tone

and serial music which took place within, or as a consequence of, the DarmstadtInternationale Ferienkurse fur neue Musik. The fact that structure is not one of theprimary concepts of Aesthetic Theory additionally suggests a specifically musical usage

of the term. In the preface to Der getreue Korrepetitor, Adorno introduced the term‘structural listening’ and referred to Felix Salzer’s parallel usage of it (Salzer, 1977).

He interpreted the fact that both conceptions arose ‘entirely independently of oneanother’ as a sign of the ‘needfulness of the subject’, admittedly without having

investigated the contents of Salzer’s book (Adorno, 1976 [1963], p. 160). Had Adornoset out to read the book in more detail, he might have discovered there a primacy of

theory vis-a-vis the analysed work that could have scarcely corresponded with hisideas.

In Theorie der musikalischen Reproduktion the term ‘structure’ is used several times,

as a correlate and occasionally a synonym for the ‘subcutaneous’ dimension or the‘neumic’ element. Contrary to Subotnik’s view, Adorno does not understand

structure as a Hinterwelt, which has to be brought out in a sort of natural scientificprocedure. He never postulated a contrast between structure and sound. Interpreta-

tion would be much more the process which would lead over from the subcutaneousto the surface (Adorno, 2001, pp. 147, 322). This conception also has a decisive

meaning for Rudolf Kolisch, since it indicates that the interpretive problems of post-tonal music are not fundamentally different from those posited by classical or

romantic music (Adorno & Kolisch, 1954).2 Thus, what is misleading in currentBeethoven interpretation—to take a favourite example of Adorno and Kolisch—would lie exactly in the fact that the subcutaneous layer of the musical phenomenon

is cut away (Adorno, 2001, pp. 147, 159, 171). On that score, the engagement withSchoenberg’s compositions can exercise a legitimate function since, at the same time,

they offer an insight across their surface:

What he [Schoenberg] designated as the ‘subcutaneous’—the fabric of individualmusical events, grasped as the ineluctable moments of an internally coherenttotality—breaks through the surface, becomes visible and manifests itself indepen-dently of all stereotyped forms. The inward dimension moves outward. Orderingcategories, which reduce the difficulties of active listening at the cost of the pureelaboration of the work, are eliminated. (Adorno, 1967, p. 153)

Adorno fell back several times on the idea that New Music pushes the main structural

moments to the exterior (Adorno & Kolisch, 1954; Adorno, 1976 [1963], p. 185;2001, p. 120). This throws light on his understanding of musical structure, creating at

the same time additional problems in an investigation of the relationship betweenwork structure and musical representation. Thus it is a rarer case, even with

Contemporary Music Review 55


Schoenberg, that the structural qualities are immediately perceptible. The musical

logic must first be drawn out through reflection.Musical analysis takes a specific position within both Adorno’s and Kolisch’s

theories of interpretation: it is the single means through which access to thespeech-like articulation of music can be created, and for that reason it is

indispensable (Adorno & Kolisch, 1954; Kolisch, 1968; Adorno, 2001, pp. 10, 125,129). Structure therefore proves to be the interface between the disciplines ofanalysis and performance. This may provoke the impression that the position of

Adorno and Kolisch tallies with that of Schenker and his North Americansuccessors (Rothstein, 1984; Schenker, 2000). It only seems like a convergence

though, since the notion of structure is interpreted differently in both traditions.New Musicology’s critique of the ideological premises of modern music theory goes

nowhere exactly because of their indiscrimination: Schoenberg must be distin-guished from Schenker and both must be distinguished from their respective

successors (Borio, 2001a). The way in which the reciprocal relationship of analysisand interpretation becomes established from Adorno’s perspective is also unique,and hardly compatible with Schenker’s position. Interpretation requires analysis if

it wishes to evade the danger of inarticulacy. For its part, if it wants to avoidwearing itself out in an intellectual game, analysis can find a concrete outcome in

interpretation. Adorno goes into the latter aspect—that analysis, executed critically,cannot be an end in itself—in his final lecture on musical issues (Adorno, 2002a).

He mentions three areas in which the results of analysis can have practicalrepercussions: performance, criticism and composition. Analysis plays a critical role

in all three areas, although a different one in each case: as a disclosure of structuralrelations, as a display of truth content and as a venue for an historical dialogue

between the generations regarding composition. How theory and praxis intersectcan be seen in Adorno’s analyses of interpretation. In identifying and naming theconnecting links, articulation and form of a work, on the one hand analysis

provides important advice for its adequate realisation, while on the other the musictheorist gains greatly from working with a performer, because the concert rehearsal

represents the privileged place in which compositional problems can be observedclearly.

Three questions are still open at this point: 1) To what extent is Adorno’s conceptof structure distinct from others? 2) What are the basic methodological premises

upon which Adorno’s analytical work is founded? 3) Why are his analyses ofinterpretation devoted only to works of the Viennese School? A passage fromthe lecture on musical analysis can be helpful to us in the cases of the first two

questions:

Analysis is thus concerned with structure, with structural problems, and finally,with structural listening. By structure I do not mean here the mere grouping ofmusical parts according to traditional formal schemata, however; I understand itrather as having to do with what is going on, musically, underneath these formalschemata. (Adorno, 2002a, p. 164)



Adorno therefore connects the notion of structure to formal relations, yet calls for a

different formulation from the traditional theory of form. What is important for himis not the classification of the formal sections through higher categories which are

handed down from theory, but the specific function which such formal sectionsexercise within a particular work. The ‘primacy of the object’, which Adorno had

previously defined in a sociological context (Adorno, 1972, pp. 383 – 384; 1978a,pp. 14 – 15), contains here another meaning, but not a secondary one: the long-termgoal of analysis is the breaking-down of truth content, which is why the procedures

are never allowed to take the upper hand over work-immanent meaning. If onefollows Adorno’s argument precisely, one must infer from it that the procedure can

hardly be generalised. In a sense analysis begins anew with each piece, since it is thework which provides the criteria for its own analysis. Adorno interprets the work as a

‘force-field organised around a problem’ (Adorno, 2002a, p. 173). The role of analysisis to articulate this problem verbally and thereby to create the conditions for

explanation of the truth content. In the centre of analytical activity, then, is the workand not the theory. From this position it becomes clear that Adorno never pursued asystematic theory of music, but only provided analyses of individual works. This firm

nominalism distinguishes him from Erwin Ratz, Josef Rufer and Rene Leibowitz, withwhom he is in other respects associated.

Adorno’s notion of structure seems to rest in a precarious balance between theFormenlehre of the nineteenth century and the multilayered composition of the

twentieth century. From tradition, Adorno takes over the terminology, thinking infunctional connections, the primary meaning of form and the dependence upon

models drawn from speech. On the other hand, his involvement in New Music—not just the Viennese School, but also Stravinsky and Debussy, with whom he

occupied himself afresh in the 1960s—brought Adorno to a much closerrelationship between structure and sound, in which the latter is not an externaladdition but the immediate result of the first. The deciding factor in the notion of

musique informelle comes from this: the impression of a ‘form from below’(Adorno, 1978b). The need for new categories with which one can explain functions

and relationships, in respect of entirely new material and entirely new treatment ofmaterial, comes from here too. The delicate balance on which Adorno’s analyses

for interpretation rest is symptomatic of a further dichotomy: because, in anyallowances he makes for serial and aleatoric music, Adorno has not sacrificed modes

of thought such as beginning, continuation, development and close, or similarity,contrast and repetition, on the one hand he remains focused on the ideal of theorganic work, while, on the other, his fundamental analytical position demonstrates

his awareness that traditional organic thinking has reached its end and cannot bere-established. This awareness supports the sensorium of discontinuity, dis-

solution and the informal—a sensorium that reflects the analyses of works byBeethoven and the Schoenberg school, although without the engagement with

Stravinsky and Debussy, and with Boulez and Stockhausen, it could hardly havedeveloped so far.



In order to understand the selection of works that Adorno calls on for his analyses

for interpretation, one must focus on the dialectic of norm and deviation, which hesketched in rather vague notes. Aesthetic nominalism, which for Adorno set the tone

of all significant art in the twentieth century, forces the rethinking of the relationshipbetween the particular and the general. One can interpret the relationship between

norm and application as a derivative of these relationships which are central for all ofphilosophy. The manner in which new works repudiate ingrained norms makesAdorno conscious that application has never been a simple copy of habitual patterns.

As a result, in his theory a figure creeps in, reminiscent of what Jacques Derrida latertermed differance (Derrida, 1982): the norm affirms itself while, in its application, it

undergoes a shift. Every successful application determines a moment of non-identity,of deferment, which is vital for the further survival of the norm. In a passage from

Der getreue Korrepetitor, which focuses on structural hearing, Adorno formulated thisdialectic in the following way:

Yet that awareness of forms always involves that of deviations at the same time;forms live in that wherein they are non-identical with themselves, and theirsubstantiality is in many cases in agreement with their own capacity for modi-fication. (Adorno, 1976 [1963], pp. 184 – 185)

In the lecture on musical analysis, Adorno specified this dialectic more precisely(Adorno, 2002a, pp. 164 – 165). The ‘subcutaneous’, on which the analyst wants to

shed light, is not an Other, which can be separated from the supporting formalscheme. In Schoenberg’s terms: the idea depends to a great extent on forms, which

help bring it to representation. However, following Adorno (and perhaps alsofollowing Schoenberg), this representation comes first through deferment or

deviation, which can itself only be understood with reference to the norm. Adornotook this labyrinth to be one of the decisive problems that musical analysis mustconfront. The choice of works like Webern’s Bagatelles, Berg’s Violin Concerto and

Schoenberg’s Phantasy, then, can be considered a part of the procedure, which isgeared towards the clarification of these difficulties. These and the other works by

Webern, which Adorno made the subject of his analyses of interpretation, presentmusical form in an emergency.

Adorno’s standpoint as explained above may now be discussed through someremarks on his analysis of Schoenberg’s Phantasy. Adorno is well aware of the

meaning of this work within Schoenberg’s development when he interprets the‘composition in coordinated fields’ of the Phantasy as compensating for the pervasivedynamicism, which had predominated in Schoenberg’s preceding compositions

(Adorno, 2002a, p. 174).3 The withdrawal of complex contrapuntalism and thefragmentary, almost labyrinthine, shaping of form set the Phantasy and the String

Trio apart from the earlier works, representing, therefore, a particular case, whichseems more like a new beginning than a consequence of stylistic progression. The

moment of inertia is transformed into a vehicle for a new dynamic. Adornounderstood this special status of the Phantasy within Schoenberg’s output; he decided



to reconstruct the ‘latent formal structure’ (Adorno, 1976 [1963], p. 317), which is

placed behind the rather rhapsodic succession of events. I believe that he is onlypartially successful in this. It seems to me that this limitation comes about because of

the narrowness into which the notion of structure was forced. Adorno remains loyalto Schoenberg in the genre classification of the fantasia, as in both accompanying

principles of the ‘stable’ and the ‘loose formation’ (Schoenberg, 1957). This loyaltyhelped him to formulate the problem properly, though the explanation of it requireda step away from Schoenberg, roughly in the direction which the theory of multi-

dimensional serial technique sketched out in the 1950s. In this environment the ideaof composition in fields might have obtained an additional depth. Structure might

have broken away from its imprisonment in the sphere of musical form and becomespecified as a constellation of parametric sizes.

To signal the distancing from traditional thematic development, Adorno uses,referring to Bartok, the term ‘intonation’. This term, which is foreign to the termi-

nological reservoir of Formenlehre, has a particular history within Adorno’s writings.It appears in the 1957 Darmstadt lecture ‘Criteria of New Music’ as a designation fora possible alternative to thematic composition (Adorno, 1999, p. 160). Yet, a year

earlier, Adorno had already described the serial technique both in and afterSchoenberg as ‘a compositional process that proceeds by segments and is articulated

by ‘‘intonations’’, a stratification of the large forms according to their parts, each ofwhich tends to be roughly equidistant from the centre’ (Adorno, 2002b, p. 124).

Already in 1944, when Schoenberg’s Phantasy had not yet been composed, Adornohad spoken of an alternative conception of form, in contrast to the thematic work, in

relation to Mozart’s Fantasias in C minor and D minor: that of ‘the segment or the‘‘intonation’’’ (Adorno & Eisler, 1957, p. 100). In the context of Schoenberg’s

Phantasy, ‘intonation’ should at first indicate that the thematic substance is notpresented in a single shot; it unfolds much more in four orders of events, similar tothe stance of an improvising violinist, who strives to plot the contours of a melody.

Beyond that, ‘intonation’ has to do with the particular development of a sound whichallows the unity of structure and sound to come through.

The designations of antecedent and consequent which Adorno enlists to describethe first ‘intonation’ refer to one of the basic structures of musical ideas in tonal

music: the period. Joseph Rufer and Rene Leibowitz, too, see a thematic structurein bars 1 – 6 (Leibowitz, 1950, pp. 33 – 34, 100 – 101; Rufer, 1952, pp. 143 – 147,

157 – 159, XVIII – XX).4 Rufer does not refer to it as a period. Nonetheless, therhythmic scheme which he places above the violin part (example 1) emphasises thetypical correspondence between the two halves of a period. Leibowitz analyses this

and other sections of the Phantasy in his unpublished Traite de la composition avecdouze sons, one of the goals of which is to show how the syntactical units of tradition

are reformulated on account of the twelve-tone technique. Consequently, Leibowitztries to express the formal functions of the Phantasy on different levels (example 2).

In the phrase of bar 1 – 2/1 the violin uses the basic hexachord in its original form,while the piano plays its complementary inversion. After that, a contrasting section



follows (bar 2/2 – 4/1), which distinguishes itself from the preceding one via the entry

of new rhythmic figures and the inversion of the row relationships. In the consequent(bar 4/2 – 6) both units reappear in condensed forms. The contrasting motive is

merely alluded to, in a version rather distant from the original (NB1 and NB2 inexample 2). Leibowitz identifies the typical features of a period thus: 1. A strong

caesura in bars 3 – 4, achieved through the repetition of Ab – Gb in the violin andthe entry of the accompanying triplets; 2. Modification of the first phrase at

Example 1 Josef Rufer, Die Komposition mit zwolf Tonen.

Example 2 Rene Leibowitz, Traite de la composition avec douze sons. Facsimile of theunpublished original, with the kind permission of the Paul Sacher Foundation, Basle.



the beginning of the antecedent through the prolongation of repeated notes; 3.

Transformation of the contrasting motive; 4. Cadential function of the sixteenth inthe accompaniment (NB3 in example 2).

I dwelt on Leibowitz’s analysis somewhat longer because it tallies more closely withKolisch and Steuermann’s 1954 Darmstadt performance than Adorno’s analysis does.

To explain these circumstances one must examine the large-scale form and reflect onthe different ways in which Adorno and Leibowitz understand its internal relations.The transition from particular to general is a typical feature of the traditional

Formenlehre, which perhaps maintains its meaning in Adorno’s ‘material theory ofform’ since the establishment of the relationships between the parts as well as between

individual sections and the whole is common to both the traditional and the‘material’ theories (Adorno, 1984). Only an analysis which is satisfactory in this

respect can deliver a solid foundation for a speech-similar performance of the work.Its goal consists of meaningfully articulating the different constituent parts both in

their own terms and in view of the whole. For Leibowitz the passage in question hereis a theme in the true sense of the word. As such it is discussed in the sectionconcerning ‘Structures expositionelles principales’ precisely in the chapter ‘Structures

closes’, a term which translates the Schoenbergian ‘stable formation’. For Adorno, onthe contrary, this section is an ‘intonation’ of a loose sort, which actually contains

traces of a thematic structure typical of tonal music, but without being really basedon it. The pieces of advice he gives to the performer are all useful: emphasis of the

repetition of the first note as a ‘motivic bonding agent’ (Adorno, 1976 [1963],p. 321), consideration for the piano’s triplets, warning before an exaggerated

ritardando. It is rather the orientation of the analysis that arouses doubt. Insistingupon the different elements of the four ‘intonations’ and upon their respective

characters, he suggests an aphoristic performance of the whole opening section.Within the formal economy of the work this section would take on the function of a‘long recitativo introduction’ (Adorno, 1976 [1963], p. 337), which embodies the

principle of stable formation (‘eine Verfestigung’) in comparison with the Adagiosection.

The concept of fantasy acquires utopian characteristics in Adorno’s analysis ofinterpretation, which are reminiscent of the high position this elusive form occupies

in Adolf Bernhard Marx’s hierarchy (Marx, 1948, pp. 335 – 340). As a free form—theepisodes of which, though different in character and size, nonetheless come to a

synthesis—it is for him a certainty that need not be questioned: it introducesdiscontinuity and counteracts developing variation. Leibowitz’s view is entirelydifferent: in the Phantasy he recognises a definite form, which has its own history and

was later named ‘double function form’. Schoenberg had already fallen back upondouble function form in the late tonal phase, the original model for which is

represented by Liszt’s piano sonata. At this stage, though, it acquires anothermeaning in his compositional technique, which Leibowitz regards as revealing: the

twelve-tone technique implies the presentation of the largest differentiation of topicalshapes, which should nevertheless always lead back to the unifying factor—namely,



the row. Should this structural dimension—the row—not be uncoupled from the

formal dimension, then this can only occur through the composition of contrastingideas, which are brought together in an organic unity, different from the formal

schemata of the tonal tradition. This tendency is, according to Leibowitz, dominantin Schoenberg’s output since the Piano Concerto, op. 42. From this perspective,

‘double function form’ appears as a proven schema, which allows the new type ofunity to bear fruit. The situation in bars 1 – 6 of the Phantasy, though, only allowssuch complexity to be sensed. For Leibowitz it concerns a theme in its true sense. It

follows a set of liquidations, in which the thematic material is split off andneutralised. The transition, which primarily uses a 32nd note motive, leads to a

tightly packed reprise of the theme, the function of which is ‘to close halfway’ (‘clorea motie’) the first part of the Phantasy (Leibowitz, 1950, p. 34).

The relationships within a succession of recitativo-like intonations on the onehand, and between theme and liquidation on the other hand, belong to two different

areas compositionally speaking. Adorno and Leibowitz share the idea thatperformance is nothing other than ‘the authentic reproduction of musical shapesand characters’ (Leibowitz & Kolisch, 1979, p. 149). Both were convinced that the

complete understanding of shapes (Gestalten) can only come about through aninvestigation which discloses the functions of formal sections. As a consequence, the

performers who follow Adorno must play the sections under review differently fromthose who align themselves with Leibowitz. The performance of Kolisch and

Steuermann,5 which took place in direct connection with the seminar on perfor-mance and new music during the Darmstadt Ferienkurse in 1954 and was directed by

Adorno and Kolisch, seems paradoxically to follow the analysis of Leibowitz. Thesituation shows yet more curious features if one considers the notes that Kolisch took

for a lecture recital for the Dartington Summer School in 1965. Regina Buschdiscovered traces of Adorno’s analysis concerning both the formal organization andthe general conception of the piece (Busch, 1989). One can perceive this influence in

the following assertion: ‘Title deliberately chosen: Fantasy style/free form but notunorganized/Structurally oriented more on baroque examples than classical/avoids

any sonata-like development’, which continues, ‘rather progressive athematic’. LeopoldSpinner, the Webern student, who was present at the concert, noticed a hiatus

between the critical and performative interpretation; he wrote the following words toKolisch: ‘I enjoyed your recital of Schoenberg’s Fantasy so much . . . , but how could

you speak of this piece as athematic, you of all [people]!’ (Busch, 1989, p. 8).The division between an interpretation of the underlying structures, which suggests

complete agreement with Adorno’s analysis, and a musical representation which

remains true to the ideal of playing thematically seems to support the standpointwhich predominates today, since it again upgrades the role of intuition in the

interpretative process. In the most recent discussions on the relationship betweenanalysis and interpretation the voices which postulate a relative autonomy of the

performative sphere have increased in number. The unavoidable difference betweenanalytical results and performative possibilities seems to confirm the fundamental



division of both disciplines: a way of viewing the work is not translatable directly and

clearly into an acoustic image. The simple observation that there are aspects ofremarkable importance for the analysis, but which play a rather secondary role for the

performance, is sufficient to start to shake traditional conceptions. Tim Howellcriticises, for example, the equation ‘analysis: rationality¼ performance: intuition’.

Both poles always stand in a dialectical relationship, with only the exteriorappearances changing according to whether one is acting in the area of analysis or inthat of interpretation: ‘Both work in ‘‘opposite’’ directions: the analyst progressively

rationalizing his or her intuitive response in the quest of enlightening abstraction, theperformer utilizing rigorously acquired technique such that an interpretation that

imparts a sense of spontaneity, of effortless intuition, is the result’ (Howell, 1992,p. 698). The discordance between theory and praxis which emerges through a

comparison of Adorno’s analysis of the Phantasy and Kolisch and Steuermann’sperformance might count as a symptom of the whole problem. It points to a critical

moment in Adorno’s theory of reproduction upon which it is worth reflecting. Thecomparison shows that there can be a distance between the analysis of structures andthe sonic representation of them, which cannot lead back to the dimension that

Adorno termed ‘idiomatic’. A decisive factor in Leibowitz’s analysis is thatcorrespondence is sought between formal and ‘serial’ functions (which is to say

between the larger formal sections of and familial relationships within transposed andinverted forms of the row). If one relates the serial planimetry to the formal

organization (Lewin, 1983 [1968]; Hasty, 1997), then the perspective of a structuraldimension of a higher order is revealed—a structure in the sense of the theory of

serial music as a field of multiplicitous relationships.6 How much of that can be madeexplicit in performance is a question that can hardly be answered definitively. It is

conspicuous, though, that the debate about the relationship between analysis andperformance is essentially dependent upon how one determines the work structure.

Adorno defined a successful performance as ‘the integral representation of the

musical meaning’ (Adorno, 2001, p. 121). The idea of meaning (Sinn) is the shiftingfigure about which his theory of musical reproduction along with his Aesthetic Theory

communicates (Borio, 2004). The difficulties which a performer encounters in theengagement with post-tonal compositions point to problems with which an aesthetic

of musical modernism grapples. Conversely, every bottleneck in the philosophy ofmusic finds a correspondent in praxis, and actually not only in the area of composing

but also in the work of those who should communicate in sonic form the meaningcoded into the written text. Neither criticism nor performance can decline the task ofdealing with the ways in which meaning constitutes itself. For Adorno, the showcase

of the coherence of meaning is musical form. It is accountable not only for thedevelopment of individual moments but also for their mediation into the whole

(Adorno, 1972, pp. 211 – 223; 1978d). Without form, musical meaning would notemerge from the situation of potentiality, the realm of the merely imagined. There is,

however, a yet more compelling reason which brings together aesthetic reflection andsonic reproduction on common ground: in New Music, form does not appear any



longer as unity, but rather as decay and disintegration. Form has thus become a

problem, which the theoretician has to explain no less than the performer. Adornoconceived his analyses of interpretation in this double role. All of his analyses are at

root analyses of interpretation; in any case, they always hint at the characteristics of asonic representation.

The three Darmstadt lectures on ‘The Young Schoenberg’, which Adorno held in1955,7 a year after the performance seminar with Kolisch and Steuermann, certifyunambiguously how deeply both of Adorno’s competencies were interwoven,

particularly in the public lectures. The second session was dedicated for the most partto formal relations and specifically how they can develop outside tonal language.

Adorno discussed different aspects of this problem on the basis of a single example:Schoenberg’s Verklarte Nacht. The premise of the lecture is that Schoenberg has

already developed the main categories of the new way of thinking about form in thisearly phase and has tried some solutions, which continued to leave traces behind in

the years of the twelve-tone technique. As in the traditional Formenlehre, here form isviewed as a multi-layered phenomenon, which extends from the inner articulation ofthemes to the function of the parts and finally to the total disposition of the piece.

For Adorno, the innovation is more gradual. It does not occur ex abrupto. Indeed, theareas on which Schoenberg turned his critical gaze had already indicated middle and

late Beethoven: the relationship between exposition and development, theintroduction of new shapes during the motivic-thematic process, the problematic

role of the recapitulation in a developing variation form and the setting of convincingcloses under an aesthetic interpretation, which tolerates the well-rounded work less

and less. According to Adorno, the large formal two-part division of Verklarte Nachtcan be explained less by the underlying poem of Richard Dehmel than by the need for

an unconventional form.8 In this work a change of genre takes place: the symphonicpoem strays into the terrain of chamber music. This necessitates a different shapingand treatment of the themes: they no longer function as leitmotifs, which are then

varied according to psychological-descriptive criteria and are supplied from theoutset with a driving force that pushes out the merely episodic. This leads ultimately

to a through-composed form which belongs to the sphere of chamber music. Adornoexplains the two-part division of Verklarte Nacht with reference to the idea of

contrast. That is to say that, for Schoenberg, the point was to set up a second partwhich neither takes the thematic independence of a second movement following a

formally self-contained first, nor corresponds to a motivic-thematic treatment of thefirst part. The idea of such a ‘form of contrasts’, which is open but not at the cost ofits unity, is realised due to the fact that in the second part new thematic forms

alternate with derivations from earlier ones. Thus the principle of alternation takesthe place of the development; each new shape refers to the over-arching formal unity

because it is bound together with an earlier shape as its complement.According to Adorno, the formal scheme that underlies the first part is principally

sonata form. After a slow introduction the main idea enters which is mouldedthrough metrical irregularity. The model of bar 29 is immediately repeated, then spun



out (bb. 31 – 33), and increased to an expressive high point (bb. 34 – 37), until it

finally sheds its impetus and therewith its basic characteristics (bb. 38 – 41) and leadsto a peculiar cadence (bb. 42 – 45). A metrical structure arises from these motions,

which does not tally with customary sentence or period formation: 1þ 1þ 3þ 4þ 3.The thematic form comes about ‘from below’, out of the propelling force of the

motive itself: the theme is already a process. It is characteristic of the new formalthinking that the duration of the individual sections stands in a close relationshipwith the way the theme develops. The coordination of structure and time is a

principle which was already at work in the main sections of the Beethovenianmovements. Schoenberg transfers it to the shaping of the theme itself, the constituent

parts of which can now take so much time as is necessary for them. The conclusion issupplied as it were from outside by a peculiar cadence. It uses an inversion of a major

ninth chord, forbidden by traditional theories of harmony (Lewin, 1987, pp. 45 – 64;Schoenberg, 1997, p. 417). According to Adorno, this memorable sound exercises the

function of a staple, which is not in itself thematic, but is there in order to holdtogether the different thematic shapes. It is the same function that the chain offourths exercises in the Chamber Symphony. In the exposition of the first part, the

cadence indicates not only the conclusion of the main idea, but also the transition tothe secondary idea (bb. 50 – 62). The contrast of both themes is underlined through a

change of the texture: for the first time here the duetting character appears, which wasperhaps suggested by the poem. The idea of contrasting derivation, which plays a

decisive role in traditional formal theory, is retained due to the fact that the metricalarrangement of the antecedent is modelled after the opening of the main idea

(1þ 1þ 3). In bar 75 one hears a new motive; it is used as the model for a sequencewhich lasts until the development. On closer examination it turns out to be an

intervallic permutation of the main idea’s five-note model; Adorno sees an earlyannouncement of the twelve-tone technique in this procedure of derivation, whichconjures up a sort of ‘row-like identity’.9

Adorno’s analysis of Verklarte Nacht first of all concerns a compositional problem,which has a significant corollary in the area of interpretation: the creation of unity

and continuity in a seemingly fragmented structure. The correct renderingpresupposes precise knowledge of similarity and contrast, models and variations,

repetition and modification. What Adorno defines as ‘functional interpretation’ goessubstantially beyond that, however (Adorno, 2001, p. 180). This idea will first make

sense when one considers that Adorno regards relationship as the underlying categoryof musical form.10 The similar and the different may not only be portrayed as such;the way in which the events relate to one another too must be tangible in the

dimension of the sounding manifestation: ‘Interpretation means: to represent eachmusical moment so that the function in the composition can be fulfilled in the

[sonic] realisation’ (Adorno, 2001, p. 180). But this goal is difficult to reach incompositions which do not yield to the principle of the integral work. Adorno

referred to ‘certain works of Schubert’, in which a ‘fragmentary interpretation’ isappropriate throughout. Yet simultaneously he warned against a performance style



which ‘more or less revels in the individual thematic moments without consideration

for the overall structure and dispenses with everything else as a secondarymechanism, . . . the demand would consist of the need to interpret the structure of

the whole itself as something fragmentary, the totality as something which is nottotal’ (Adorno, 2001, p. 283). Schoenberg’s Verklarte Nacht faces a similar problem:

the form attains a particular character simply by virtue of interruption andinterpolation. In identifying the demarcation and function of the sections there isalso here the problem of distinguishing between presentation and anticipation.

Adorno exemplifies this on the basis of the short, slow section in E major (bb.100 – 123) that interrupts the sequence, which otherwise continues without break

towards the development. The adagio character is immediately withdrawn throughthe interpolation of a ‘comforting figure’ (b. 105ff.). However, at the beginning of

the second part of the work the adagio fragment receives another function, onemuch more significant for the unity of the musical form: the triplet Abgesang is

redefined as a consequent of the main idea of this second part. It is a sort of belated‘thematisisation’ of a material from long ago, which served before as nothing but aninsert.

A further problem of the theory of performance, which has a significant corres-pondence in the area of compositional work, is the distinction between shape (Gestalt)

and background (Hintergrund).11 Adorno uses the idea of shape in accordance withSchoenberg’s definition. It stems from the idea of something ‘characteristically

articulated’, which maintains its specific qualities in its repeated occurrence: thesuccession of intervals or just the raw melodic profile or an aspect of the rhythm

(Schoenberg, 1995, pp. 168 – 171). Shape distinguishes itself from motive, which ismainly subordinated to it, as well as from theme, which is a ‘stable formation’ based on

interval relationships, rhythmic characteristics and contrapuntal arrangement:

The absence of ambiguity is not required of Gestalts; it is enough to have anelement by which to identify them and hence recognize them when they recur.Their specific motivic content, and certainly their internal structure need not befixed. A feature such as a sixteenth-note movement in which a theme is dissipatedmay suffice to define a Gestalt, regardless of the notes the figure consists of; thesame is true of even just a salient rhythmic passage generated by various rowderivations. A character, after all, is the aspect of those categories that stamps themwith meaning: the specific quality by means of which the individual musical detailcan be distinguished in its overall context. Expression and ‘tone’ are constitutivefeatures of these characters. They coincide on occasion with shapes and themes, butneed not do so; thus a character may be attached to an entire complex of themesthat itself contains a number of themes or shapes. (Adorno, 1999, p. 181)

In the performance of a work, clarity can therefore only be successful on the basis of

the ability to set shapes apart from background and to make the lines of voice leadingaudible. However, this turns into a difficult undertaking if one works on a piece with

unclear thematicism, a concentrated texture and broken lines. Adorno tackles thesedifficulties in his analysis of Webern’s Six Bagatelles for String Quartet, op. 9.



The analysis is a virtuoso exercise in the ‘material theory of form’. Adorno

takes on nothing less than the discovery of derivatives of traditional formal typesin the immense compression and concentration of the Bagatelles. It is not just to

do with a total form which is reminiscent of the sonata cycle regarding thedisposition of the six pieces: first movement, scherzo, two intermezzi, adagio and

rondo finale. More important still is that formal relationships, which could beengendered earlier only by virtue of motivic-thematic work, develop in thesmallest space. In order to arrive at such organisational unity of the individual

pieces, Webern employs procedures in different compositional dimensions (suchas register, dynamic and timbre), which thus become, in a limited sense,

emancipated. Adorno conceived of his analysis, which can be read as an extensionof Schoenberg’s teaching on the portrayal of thought and compositional logic,

some years before the publication of a famous essay by Henri Pousseur, whichdrew the attention of the Darmstadt circle to the Bagatelles and to Webern’s early

work as a whole (Pousseur, 1955).12 Pousseur’s goal was to discover a principlewhich could explain the structure and behaviour of Webern’s harmonic fields. Theanalysis of the first Bagatelle showed that homogenous networks, which in their

interaction led to the formation of a ‘multi-polar sonic space’, arose fromchromatic relationships of a different sort (Pousseur, 1958). This firm withdrawal

from the intervallic hierarchy of tonal music has far-reaching consequences for atheory of music which wants to profit from the progress of compositional

technique.In Pousseur’s approach there is nothing left for notions like line and shape.

Interruptions of processes, the criss-crossing of voices and continual changes ofdensity and agogic impede the comprehension of lines, in general postulating a

horizontal dimension, which would oppose a vertical-harmonic one. The particularhandling of chromatic intervals leads to a neutralisation of every tendency towardspolarisation and tropism. If a shape turns up then it always explains its meaning on

the basis of the rotation of the chromatic network. For Pousseur it would bemisleading to relate it to latent motives. A dozen years later Harald Kaufmann, who

cultivated friendly relations with Adorno, wrote an analysis of the first Bagatelle, oneof the goals of which was, contrary to Pousseur, to provide evidence for the existence

of a motivic process (Kaufmann, 1984). Kaufmann believed, differently from Adorno,that the basic Gestalt—the ‘figure’ which guarantees the motivic unity of a piece—

could be identified: the famous BACH formula. Its constituent parts appear scatteredin the formal axial point in bar 6, while all the following notes are related to those inthe first half as a free retrograde. No less than Pousseur, Kaufmann is seeking

the foundations of Webern’s style and technique, though to some extent from theopposite point of view: there are later works, like the String Quartet, op. 28,

which provide the model for the understanding of earlier ones like the firstBagatelle. Adorno takes aim, on the other hand, at a third option: the recon-

struction of a motivic process, which is managed for the most part withunconventional means.



A reconstruction of this sort can be successful if one clarifies two aspects: 1. the

function of three sections whose boundaries are marked by ritardandi; and 2.the nature of a sort of Urlinie, which remains somewhat concealed by the main

voice’s jumping from instrument to instrument. The latter aspect is decisive forAdorno’s attempt to explain the form and has important consequences for the

performance:

One should see throughout that the melody voices complement one another, thatthrough the correct proportions of the partial motives a single line comes intobeing, even if it is a broken line. No gaps may result in the melodic continuity.The new voice, as one said earlier, really flows from the old one. (Adorno, 1976[1963], p. 285)

Admittedly one hardly finds a uniform criterion to which the performers should keepfor the working out of the hierarchy of the voices. In the main, Adorno draws on the

models of tonal formal sections. For the exposition, this applies to the division intoantecedent and consequent, and for the development, to the increased density of thepolyphonic texture. Furthermore, he considers the similarity between counterpoint

and voice leading in syntactically corresponding passages to be an important cohesivefactor. For instance, the sense of reprise comes about thanks to the analogous

direction with which in bar 3 the first violin hands over to the cello and then in bars9 – 10 the second violin hands over to the cello, on both occasions with a cross-fade

between the voices through matching crescendo and diminuendo. The impression ofa parallel arrangement of exposition and reprise can be strengthened if the performers

emphasise the correspondence between the four-note chords in the first violin andcello in bars 4 and 8.

Adorno’s analysis of the first Bagatelle achieves its particular quality through astriking synthesis of the experience of performers and the intuition of analysts. Thereare no structural grounds for confirming Adorno’s division of the main voice

between the first and second violins (antecedent) as well as the cello (consequent).No less problematic is the assumption of a melodic unity of syncopated attacks in

the cello, viola and second violin in the developmental bars 5 – 7. Nevertheless, thegenuinely different viewpoints of Pousseur and Kaufmann can serve as a

complement to Adorno’s analysis and can thereby help to underpin his intuition.Unquestionably the BACH formula plays an important role in view of the

disposition of pitches, if not actually as a ‘figure’, then at least as basic material. At alater time Webern stressed that he had used a pre-form of the twelve-tone techniquein the composition of the Bagatelles: ‘In my sketch-book I wrote out the chromatic

scale and crossed off the individual notes’ (Webern, 1963, p. 51). A look at the rowof the String Quartet, op. 28, tells us that the total chromatic appears when the BACH

(Bb A C B) formula is transposed up a major third twice: Bb A C B—D C# E Eb—F#F Ab G.13 Admittedly, one cannot transfer the serial logic to the Bagatelles literally; its

latent presence can be investigated, though. Unlike in the advanced twelve-tonecomposition, here one cannot find any systematic distribution of the twelve notes.



The frame of reference is smaller: just the BACH formula in its various

manifestations.The BACH formula is only one of the twelve possible formations of pitch class set

4 – 1. It is conspicuous that the course of the exposition can be retraced topermutations of this set: D Eb C# C—(Gb)—Ab A B Bb—E F# F G. If we hold on to

the fact that [0, 1, 2, 3] is the basic form of 4 – 1, then as a consequence the first groupappears in the permutation [2, 3, 1, 0], while the second group is the transposedretrograde (t8) of the first, and the third introduces a new permutation in t4 [0, 2, 1,

3]. One finds a similar situation at the end of the piece in retrograde: viola andcello play Bb B C# C; the double stops of the first violin in bars 9 – 10 are Ab – A and

F# – G; the second violin plays the notes Eb Gb F E, which extended from the cello’sharmonic D. It sets out again on the total chromatic, articulated in three forms of

4 – 1 and once again Gb pushes itself in as an extra note. The correspondence betweenbeginning and end is secured at a deep structural level: both linear streams, Bb B C#

C and D Eb F E, follow the same pattern [2, 3, 1, 0] that both of the openingtetrachords used, although in the retrograde form. This correspondence betweenbeginning and ending sections also shows the meaning of the effective pitch content

of set 4 – 1—namely, if one begins the chromatic scale on C, then the first four-notegroup runs C C# D Eb. If, by contrast, one starts with Bb—as in the closing bars—

then it comprises the pitches Bb B C C#. Considerations of this sort may arousesuspicions that the analysis is proceeding too pedantically, as if it had lost its

anchoring in the communicative context of player and listener, in the end just spillingover into abstractions. Probably Adorno would have formulated exactly this

criticism; here is an instance in Adorno’s philosophy of music, which otherwisegenuinely proceeds against metaphysics, in which intuition temporarily wins the

upper hand. To try to find out why the notes are exactly where they are is no futileundertaking. On the contrary, it can be useful for performance-theoretical reflectionson line and main voice.14 Methodically the following questions suggest themselves as

a follow-up: How is the structure of the piece constituted? To what extent does itinfluence the form? Is it situated on the surface or does it first come to light during

conscious playing? Is there a fixed criterion whereby Gestalt and background can beproperly distinguished? How can one render this distinction in performance?

This ensemble of questions has direct consequences for the performance of theexposition. Set 4 – 1 is one of the most used tetrachords in the first half of the

twentieth century. It is easy to recognise, and in fact not only in the BACH versionbut also in other permutations. If one agrees with Adorno’s premise that performancemust make structure audible, then the consequence of playing D Eb C# C

‘thematically’ is binding. On the other hand, Adorno’s preferred line, C# C Gb Ab Bb

E F, contains ‘non-segmental’ intervals. Historical performances of works distinguish

themselves from one another in the rendering of the opening. The La Salle Quartetinterprets the polyphonic structure in a way that comes close to Adorno’s

conception:15 the line C# G Gb Ab Bb E F is emphasised as the main voice of theantecedent, after which the group C B D C# C B (bb. 3 – 4, cello and viola) follows as



a consequent. In contrast, the Quatuor Parrenin and the Juilliard String Quartet give

a greater emphasis to the four-note agglomerations:16 the tritones C – Gb and Bb – Efunction as the hub of the chromatic process. In this sort of ‘structural’ inter-

pretation, the question of the differentiation between shape and background is posedafresh. The performers find themselves additionally burdened with the problem of

how to regain the speech-like quality that Webern doubtless intended. According toSchoenberg, a shape is promoted to the position of basic shape if it appears on severaloccasions and is recognisable as the reference point of shapes derived from it

(Schoenberg, 1995, p. 168). The definition of recurrences and derivations is prac-tically impossible though, when the piece is as short, concentrated and fragmented as

this Bagatelle. The developmental flow of sonata thinking seems here to be replacedwith a spatial conception which determines degrees of illumination and darkening of

the shape. The tripartition of ‘exposition, complication, return’ that Adorno proposescan be maintained without the hypothesis of a concealed motivicism (Adorno, 1976

[1963], p. 284). Adorno seems to have a sense of a spatial-constellative logic when heopines that the linear direction bridges the general pause between exposition anddevelopment (b. 5): the C# harmonic in the cello precisely fills the gap which lies

between both highest notes of the previous section (D in the cello and C in the viola).From a structural viewpoint, the ‘complication’ of which Adorno speaks is already

taking place at the end of the exposition. The notes of set 4 – 1 are now discretelyredistributed amongst the instruments, which leads to a confusion of the linear

dimension. The tetrachords are the same as at the beginning, though they appear inother permutations: C D Eb C#—B Bb A G#—F E F# G. This division of the pitches

has a corresponding mirror image in any case in bars 8 – 9; the constancy of thechromatic pairs (vertical as well as horizontal) can serve as a main thread for the

reading. In this way, Kaufmann’s analysis, which recognises a formal axis in the forte-field of bars 6 – 7, becomes supported further: the set 4 – 1 undergoes a shift, bringingthe BACH formula to prominence.

If performers avail themselves of these analytical findings, then their directionchanges. The symmetrical ordering of related sections around a deeply symbolic

centre represents precisely the opposing principle to sonata-form development. Theperformers’ ways of playing, the hierarchy of the voices, the agogic of the individual

sections and the expression of the melodic fragments must be entirely different. Ormust they? This alternative leads us back to the consideration that I made regarding

Schoenberg’s Phantasy. There, Adorno seemed to equate structure with phraseconstruction and formal functions; the neglect of serial technique had a negativeeffect on the understanding of the work. In the face of the complexity of the

relationships this meant a reduction. In the advanced twelve-tone technique ofSchoenberg’s school, as well as some post-tonal works from outside that school, form

is not necessarily the central regulator of meaning: it can itself be steered byunderlying mechanisms or can be in an interaction with such mechanisms.

In general, nothing contradicts the possibility of understanding structure as amultilayered framework whose constituent parts do not depend upon an organising



centre. Its coherence would derive not from the relatedness of elements to a supposed

central control mechanism, but rather from the density of the internal network ofreferences. Philosophically, this transformed notion of structure returns to Derrida

(Derrida, 2004 [1978]). For the relationship between work structure and musicalrepresentation, it has the advantage of unveiling the simultaneous comprehensibility

or audibility of all structural levels in aural reproduction as an illusion. From thisviewpoint, the musical text is both something more and less than the sound: lessbecause the realised, sounding work surpasses the mere duplication of the text and

assigns a specific weight to what is not notated; more because the text holds togethera complex of possible meanings which cannot be unfolded in a single performance.

The latter aspect, though, makes questionable the idea of a ‘translation’ of structureinto an acoustic result, which occurs from time to time in Adorno (Adorno, 2001,

pp. 173, 219 – 220).17 Such an idea cannot be transferred to music, and not simplybecause a literary text allows but does not require a translation (as a musical text

does). More decisive is that a change of medium takes place between the ‘original’and the ‘translation’, which has an effect on the ascription of meaning. Contrary toAdorno’s thinking, compositional construction and interpretive clarity can hardly

stand in a direct relationship (Adorno, 2001, p. 152). The performer always hassomething to do with the result of the construction and not with the construction

itself. His or her interpretation concerns only certain layers and not the structuralwhole, which can first be made clear from a theoretical view, which is to say, through

conceptualisation.

Notes

[1] This article is an extended version of a paper given in September 2003 at the conferenceMusikalische Analyse und kritische Theorie in Frankfurt-am-Main. It will be published inGerman in 2007 as Werkstruktur and musikalische Darstellung. Reflexionen uber AdornosInterpretationsanalysen, in Adolf Nowak & Markus Fahlbusch (Eds.), Musikalische Analyseund kritische Theorie (Schneider: Tutzing).

[2] A recording of this broadcast is held in the Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Archive inFrankfurt am Main (I thank Rolf Tiedemann and Gabriele Ewenz for allowing me access tothis and other materials). The genesis of this broadcast can be reconstructedthrough materials held in the Kolisch Collection of the Houghton Library at HarvardUniversity.

[3] In the notes for a lecture on Debussy, which Adorno gave on 28 February 1963 at theMusikhochschule in Frankfurt (held in the Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Archive),Schoenberg’s Phantasy is compared with the late works of Debussy with reference to thechange from dynamicism to stasis just explained. ‘Composing in fields’ serves there as aguide to the whole of New Music.

[4] Amongst those responsible for the Leibowitz collection, I thank Ulrich Mosch, who made myaccess to this material possible. On the analytical methods of both Schoenberg exegetes, seeBorio, 2001b.

[5] The performance is available on 50 Jahre Neue Musik in Darmstadt (col legno 1996).[6] Stockhausen terms ‘structural hearing’ the understanding of a polyphonic network, in which

the concept of voice is generally rejected (see Stockhausen, 1963, p. 106).



[7] I thank Friedrich Hommel and Wilhelm Schluter, formerly responsible for the Darmstadtarchive, for giving me the opportunity to research these sources.

[8] This idea belongs to the otherwise broader explanatory model postulated by Wellesz (1971,p. 67), e.g. a five-part rondo, whose sections reflect the closing moments of the poem. Fritsch(1993, pp. 109 – 139) allies himself with this view, admittedly with a considerable expansionof the analytical perspective.

[9] Both motives belong to the pitch class set 5-Z18, whose basic form is [0, 1, 4, 5, 7].[10] A significant correspondence between musical theories of form and Hegel’s notion of form is

precisely the central role that the notion of relationship exercises in both. See Hegel, 1986,pp. 166 – 171.

[11] In his critique of integral serialism, Adorno remarks that the one-sided orientation towardsthe acoustic qualities of individual notes or sounds can have a negative effect on thedevelopment of a ‘figural quality’ (Adorno, 1978b, pp. 519 – 522).

[12] Pousseur transferred the criteria developed in the case of the first Bagatelle to Webern’s othercreative phases (see Pousseur, 1956). The idea of organised chromaticism then exercised aninfluence on Gyorgy Ligeti’s work on Webern (see, for instance, Ligeti, 1961 and 1984[1963 – 1964]).

[13] The row of op. 28 corresponds with the one given above, just with the second tetrachord inits retrograde form.

[14] Christopher Wintle’s analysis of the second movement of Webern’s Chamber Concerto isbased on this premise (see Wintle, 1982).

[15] I am thinking both of the recording of the concerts from 11 September 1958 held at theInternationales Musikinstitut Darmstadt and of the LP released by Deutsche Gramophon in1971.

[16] Compare the performances of the Quatuor Parrenin in Darmstadt on 15 July 1956 (IMD)and that of the Juilliard String Quartet for CBS Records (1970).

[17] On the idea of translation, see also Rosenwald, 1993 and Maus, 1993.

References

Adorno, T. W. (1967). Arnold Schoenberg 1874 – 1951. In S. & S. Weber (Trans.), Prisms(pp. 147 – 172). London: Neville Spearman.

Adorno, T. W. (1972). Asthetische Theorie. In G. Adorno & R. Tiedemann (Eds.), GesammelteSchriften 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1976 [1963]). Der getreue Korrepetitor. Lehrschriften zur musikalischen Praxis.In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften 15 (pp. 157 – 402). Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1977). Arnold Schoenberg 1874 – 1951 (original German version of Adorno, 1967).In R. Tiedemann (Ed.) with G. Adorno, S. Buck-Morss & K. Schultz, Prismen. Kulturkritikund Gesellschaft (Gesammelte Schriften 10.1) (pp. 152 – 180). Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampVerlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1978a). Ideen zur Musiksoziologie. In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften 16(pp. 14 – 15). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1978b). Vers une musique informelle. In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften16 (pp. 493 – 540). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1978c). Kriterien der neuen Musik. In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften 16(pp. 170 – 228). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1978d). Form in der neuen Musik. In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften 16(pp. 607 – 627). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.



Adorno, T. W. (1978e). Musik und Sprache und ihr Verhaltnis im gegenwartigen Komponieren(original German version of Adorno, 2002b). In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften16 (pp. 649 – 664). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (1984). Mahler. Eine musikalische Physiognomik (Gesammelte Schriften 13). Frankfurtam Main: Suhrkamp.

Adorno, T. W. (1992). Zum Problem der musikalischen Analyse. Ein Vortrag (original Germanversion of Adorno, 2002a). In R. Tiedemann (Ed.), Frankfurter Adorno Blatter, 7, 73 – 89.

Adorno, T. W. (1999). Criteria of new music (translation of Kriterien der neuen Musik).In R. Livingstone (Trans.), Sound figures (pp. 145 – 196). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Adorno, T. W. (2001). Zu einer Theorie der musikalischen Reproduktion (H. Lonitz, Ed.). Frankfurtam Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, T. W. (2002a). On the problem of musical analysis. In R. Leppert (Ed.), Essays on music(S. H. Gillespie, trans.) (pp. 162 – 180). London: University of California Press.

Adorno, T. W. (2002b). Music, language, and composition. In R. Leppert (Ed.), Essays on music(S. H. Gillespie, trans.) (pp. 113 – 126). London: University of California Press.

Adorno, T. W. & Eisler, H. (1957). Composing for the films. London: Dennis Dobson. (Original inGerman: Komposition fur den Film, in Adorno, Gesammelte Schriften 15).

Adorno, T. W. & Kolisch, R. (1954). Interpretation und neue Musik. Hessischer Rundfunk.Broadcast 24 November.

Berry, W. (1989). Musical structure and performance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Borio, G. (2001a). Schenker versus Schoenberg versus Schenker. The difficulties of a reconciliation.

Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 126(2), 250 – 274.Borio, G. (2001b). Zwolftontechnik und Formenlehre. Die Abhandlungen von Rene Leibowitz und

Josef Rufer. In A. Meyer & U. Scheideler (Eds.), Arnold Schonberg (1874 – 1951): Autorschaftals historische Konstruktion: Vorganger, Zeitgenossen, Nachfolger und Interpreten(pp. 287 – 321). Metzler: Stuttgart.

Borio, G. (2004). Uber Sinn und Bedeutung in der Musik. Ein Blick aus AdornosMusikphilosophie. In A. Gruschka & U. Oevermann (Eds.), Die Lebendigkeit kritischerGesellschaftstheorie (pp. 109 – 129). Luneburg: Wetzlar.

Busch, R. (1989). Thematisch oder athematisch? Mitteilungen der Internationalen Schonberg-Gesellschaft, 3 – 4, 5 – 9.

Cone, E. T. (1968). Musical form and musical performance. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Cook, N. (1999). Analysing performance and performing analysis. In N. Cook & M. Everist

(Eds.), Rethinking music (pp. 239 – 261). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Derrida, J. (1982). Differance. In A. Bass (Trans.), Margins of philosophy (pp. 1 – 28). Hemel

Hempstead: Harvester.Derrida, J. (2004 [1978]). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In A. Bass

(Trans.), Writing and difference (pp. 351 – 370). London: Routledge.Dunsby, J. (1989). Guest editorial: Performance and analysis of music. Music Analysis, 8(1 – 2),

5 – 20.Forte, A. (1973). The structure of atonal music. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.Frisch, W. (1993). The early works of Arnold Schoenberg 1893 – 1908. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Hasty, C. F. (1997). Form and idea in Schoenberg’s Phantasy. In J. M. Baker, D. W. Beach &

J. Bernard (Eds.), Music theory in concept and practice (pp. 459 – 479). Rochester, NY:University of Rochester Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1986). Wissenschaft der Logik II (Werke 6). Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampTaschenbuch Wissenschaft.

Howell, T. (1992). Analysis and performance: The search for a middleground. In J. Paynter,T. Howell, R. Orton & P. Seymour (Eds.), Companion to contemporary musical thought(vol. 2) (pp. 692 – 714). London/New York: Routledge.



Kaufmann, H. (1984). Figur in Weberns erster Bagatelle. In H.-K. Metzger & R. Riehn (Eds.),Sonderband Anton Webern II (pp. 338 – 341). Munich: edition textþ kritik.

Kolisch, R. (1968). Outline for a theory of performance. Paper presented at the Conference forthe Society of the Humanities, Cornell University, May. Houghton Library, Harvard,Kolisch Collection.

Leibowitz, R. (1950). Traite de la composition avec douze sons. Unpublished typescript held by thePaul Sacher Foundation, Basle.

Leibowitz, R. & Kolisch, R. (1979). Auffuhrungsprobleme im Violinkonzert von Beethoven. Musica,33(2), 148 – 155.

Lester, J. (1995). Performance and analysis: Interaction and interpretation. In J. Rink (Ed.), Thepractice of performance: Studies in musical interpretation (pp. 197 – 216). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lewin, D. (1983 [1968]). A study of hexachord levels in Schonberg’s Violin Fantasy. In B. Boretz &E. T. Cone (Eds.), Perspectives on Schonberg and Stravinsky (pp. 78 – 92). Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.

Lewin, D. (1987). On the ninth-chord in fourth inversion from Verklarte Nacht. Journal of theArnold Schoenberg Institute, 10, 45 – 64.

Ligeti, G. (1961). Die Harmonik bei Anton Webern. Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift, 16, 297 – 302.Ligeti, G. (1984 [1963 – 1964]). Aspekte der Webernschen Kompositionstechnik. In H.-K. Metzger &

R. Riehn (Eds.), Sonderband Anton Webern II (pp. 51 – 104). Munich: edition textþ kritik.Marx, A. B. (1948). Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, praktisch theoretisch (2nd ed., part

3). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.Maus, F. E. (1993). Response to Lawrence Rosenwald. Journal of Musicology, 11(1), 66 – 72.Narmour, E. (1988). On the relationship of analytical theory to performance and interpretation.

In E. Narmour & R. A. Solie (Eds.), Explorations in music, the arts, and ideas: Essays in honorof Leonard B. Meyer (pp. 317 – 340). Stuyvesant: Pendragon.

Pousseur, H. (1955). Anton Weberns organische Chromatik. Die Reihe, 2, 56 – 66.Pousseur, H. (1956). Da Schoenberg a Webern: una mutazione. Incontri musicali, 1, 3 – 39.Pousseur, H. (1958). Webern und die Theorie. Darmstadter Beitrage zur Neuen Musik, 1, 38 – 43.Rosenwald, L. (1993). Theory, text-setting, and performance. Journal of Musicology, 11(1), 52 – 65.Rothstein, W. (1984). Heinrich Schenker as an interpreter of Beethoven’s piano sonatas. 19th

Century Music, 8(1), 3 – 28.Rothstein, W. (1995). Analysis and the act of performance. In J. Rink (Ed.), The practice

of performance: Studies in musical interpretation (pp. 217 – 240). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rufer, J. (1952). Die Komposition mit zwolf Tonen. Berlin: Wunsiedel.Salzer, F. (1977). Strukturelles Horen. Wilhelmshafen: Heinrichshofen.Schenker, H. (2000). The art of performance, H. Esser (Ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University

Press.Schmalfeldt, J. (1985). On the relation of analysis to performance: Beethoven’s Bagatelles Op. 126,

Nos. 2 and 5. Journal of Music Theory, 29(1), 1 – 31.Schoenberg, A. (1957). Die formbildenden Tendenzen der Harmonie. Mainz: B. Schott’s Sohne.Schoenberg, A. (1995). The musical idea and the logic, technique, and art of its presentation,

P. Carpenter & S. Neff (Eds.). New York: Columbia University Press.Schoenberg, A. (1997). Harmonielehre. Vienna: Universal Edition.Stockhausen, K. (1963) . . . wie die Zeit vergeht . . . In D. Schnebel (Ed.), Texte zur elektronischen und

instrumentalen Musik (vol. 1) (pp. 99 – 139). Cologne: Verlag. M. DuMont Schauberg.Straus, J. N. (1990). Introduction to post-tonal theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Press.Subotnik, R. R. (1996). Toward a deconstruction of structural listening: A critique of Schoenberg,

Adorno, and Stravinsky. In R. R. Subotnik, Deconstructive variations: Music and reason inwestern society (pp. 148 – 176). Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.



Webern, A. (1963). The path to the new music, W. Reich (Ed.), L. Black (Trans.). London: UniversalEdition.

Wellesz, E. (1971). Arnold Schoenberg. London: Longman.Wintle, C. (1982). Analysis and performance: Webern’s Concerto Op. 24/II. Music Analysis, 1,

73 – 99.



work structure and musical representation: reflections on adorno's analyses for interpretation

Documents

adornos work

article borio

relationship of work

musical meaning

musical i

musical analysis

work of schoenberg

gianmario2007 work structure