What Is a CadenCe -...

Markus Neuwirth Pieter Bergé (eds)

What Is a CadenCe?

Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives on Cadences in the Classical Repertoire

Reprint from What is a Cadence? - ISBN 978 94 6270 015 4 - © Leuven University Press, 2015

What Is a CadenCe?

theoretICal and analytICal PersPeCtIves on CadenCes In the ClassICal rePertoIre


Markus neuwirth and Pieter Bergé (eds)

Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives on Cadences in the Classical Repertoire

Leuven University Press

What Is a Cadence?


© 2015 by leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de louvain / Universitaire Pers leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 leuven (Belgium)

all rights reserved. except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers.

IsBn 9789462700154

d / 2015 / 1869 / 19

nUr: 664

Cover and layout: Jurgen leemans

Cover illustration: ‘Cadence #1 (a short span of time), robert owen, 2003’, CC-By-nC-nd Matthew Perkins 2009.


C o n t e n t s 5

Introduction: What is a Cadence? 7

Nine Perspectives

Markus Neuwirth and Pieter Bergé

Harmony and Cadence in Gjerdingen’s “Prinner” 17

William E. Caplin

Beyond ‘Harmony’ 59

The Cadence in the Partitura Tradition

Felix Diergarten

The Half Cadence and Related Analytic Fictions 85

Poundie Burstein

Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of Avoiding Cadential Closure 117

Physiognomy and Functions of Deceptive Cadences in the Classical Repertoire

Markus Neuwirth

The Mystery of the Cadential Six-Four 157

Danuta Mirka

Contents


6 C o n t e n t s

The Mozartean Half Cadence 185

Nathan John Martin and Julie Pedneault-Deslauriers

“Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes” 215

Punctuation Schemas and the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata

Vasili Byros

The Perception of Cadential Closure 253

David Sears

Towards a Syntax of the Classical Cadence 287

Martin Rohrmeier and Markus Neuwirth

List of Contributors 339

Index 343


“ H a u p t r u h e p u n c t e d e s G e i s t e s ” 2 1 5

“haUPtrUhePUnCte des GeIstes”

Punctuation Schemas and the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata

vasili Byros

h ad publication practices in the age of enlightenment resembled the mass-

media distribution and consumption of films in the new Millennium,

eighteenth-century music may have come similarly packaged with “alternate ver-

sions,” “composer’s cuts,” and “outtakes.” the late-eighteenth-century equivalent

of a “Collector’s edition” Blu-ray disc for Beethoven’s second symphony in d major,

op. 36 (1801–02), may well have included among its “outtakes” the passage given in

example 1: an alternate version for bars 56–71 of the first movement.1

My ambition with this chapter is to explain the source of this “alternate version”

and, in so doing, to provide some theoretical, historical, and analytic foundation to

sustain a premise that lies relatively dormant in eighteenth-century Satzlehre. namely,

a cadence is a schema responsible for the cognition of sonata form. such is my attempt to

bring one answer to the query that headlines this symposium. It is a premise most

strongly suggested by heinrich Christoph Koch’s description of “caesuras” (Cäsuren)

as “resting points of the mind” (Ruhepuncte des Geistes), and especially his grouping

of more strongly weighted cadences into “principal resting points of the mind”

(Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes).2 a three-volume tome completed in 1793, the Versuch

brings an implicitly cognitive orientation within the epistemology of the cadence that

also frames a historically situated discussion of “sonata form” (die Form der Sonate) as

a “punctuation form” (interpunctische Form).3 Koch objectifies the sonata concept as a

periodized punctuation script,4 one founded on the cognition of structurally weighted

1. a digital realization of the example may be heard online at http://vasilibyros.com/b2_hyp.aif.2. Koch, Versuch III (1793), §129, 342–343 (213). all english translations derive from Baker (ed. and

trans.), Introductory Essay (1983). Page numbers for the english edition of subsequent citations are given in parentheses alongside the original German references, as in the citation above. In some cases I have modified Baker’s original translation. the most important of these alterations occurs with the translation of “ruhepuncte des Geistes.” Baker drops the genitive noun, “des Geistes,” owing to its redundancy. I have retained it throughout because of its overt cognitive significance, translated as “resting points of the mind” or “mental resting points.” on the cognitive implications of Koch’s writings, see also Mirka, Metric Manipulations (2009).

3. Koch, Versuch III (1793), § 119, 331 (209); § 113, 322 (205).4. the term “script,” discussed in detail below, comes from cognitive psychology, where it is used to

characterize a serially-organized pattern.


2 1 6 V a s i l i B y r o s

. . .. . .

. . . . . .

56

sf sf sf

[Halbcadenz]CONTINUATION ⟾ CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )PRESENTATION

(transition)LE–SOL–FI–SOL (cadenza lunga variant). . . LONG COMMA

. . .

= 69

sfsf

. . .

. . .

. . . . . .

. . .= 64

FENAROLI-PONTE

sf

sf

. . .

. . .

. . .. . .

. . .

. . .

= 61

FENAROLI-PONTE

[Anhang (transition-suffix)]POST-CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )

sf

sf

sf

ff

ff

(i: hc mc)

Example 1: Beethoven, symphony no. 2 in d major, op. 36/i (1801–02), bb. 56–71: alternate version



caesuras. the implication is that cadences are a central feature in constructing mental

representations of sonata-form syntax, which in turn powerfully influence listening

behaviors in the eighteenth century.

to explain and build toward these contentions here, and to properly understand the

context for this “outtake” from Beethoven’s second symphony, I must begin, uncer-

emonious and roundabout as it may be, with a bit of intellectual housekeeping, (meta)

theory, and a couple of anecdotes—the latter recounted from memory, so caveat lector.

•

the publication and influence of robert Gjerdingen’s Music in the Galant Style in recent

years seem to have occasioned a restricted understanding of the term “schema” in

north american musicological circles—despite attempts by david temperley to clar-

ify Gjerdingen’s circumscribed usage of the term to designate certain “scale-degree

schemata.”5 Both the nature and potential weight of this limitation only became appar-

ent to me through conversations with north american colleagues in the winter months

of 2011 and 2012. the first setting is one of our symposium’s midday interludes, when

William Caplin and I discussed the possible intersections between Formenlehre and

“schema theory,” while descending the Pincian hill of the villa Borghese. the con-

versation was not without some collegial disagreement, and yet, any differences of

opinion, I learned shortly thereafter, were nonetheless of the most unwelcome vari-

ety—namely those based in misunderstanding. though Caplin has been receptive to

exploring the form-functional meanings of galant scale-degree patterns, having even

investigated Gjerdingen’s PRinneR as a species of cadence,6 all the same he balked at

the idea that, from a schema-theoretic window, formal functions, formal types, and

especially sonata form are conceptually similar to galant scale-degree patterns at the

phrase level. It was Poundie Burstein who, having observed our conversation, clarified

the misunderstanding by the time we reached the Pincian’s base: he brought it to my

attention that, for Caplin, “schema” meant “galant phrase-level scale-degree pattern.”

this misunderstanding likely owes in no small measure to Gjerdingen’s explicit dis-

tancing of the schema concept from issues of musical “form,” and especially “sonata

form”—viewing the latter as one among several nineteenth-century inventions whose

application to music of the eighteenth century is nothing if not anachronistic, and

therefore suspect where a historically “authentic” hearing of the music is concerned.7

this constrained meaning of a schema conveyed by Music in the Galant Style would have

rendered my suggestion rather flawed indeed, for, among other things, confounding

musical parameters as well as hierarchic levels.

5. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007); temperley, “review of Music in the Galant Style” (2008).6. see Caplin’s contribution to this volume.7. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 22, 370, 415f., 423, 434, passim.



the issue became thematic when it returned in the following winter during a conver-

sation atop another summit across the pond: east hill of Ithaca, ny, with James Webster.8

Webster, too, initially expressed reservation at the possibility of a sonata “schema.” soon

enough, however, he inquired, “In Gjerdingen’s sense?”, thus opening the possibility

for an alternative understanding. this time, consequently, no real disagreement ensued,

as Max Weber and Carl dahlhaus entered the room: the idea seemed more reasonable

when, following a short clarification on my part, Webster himself associated the term

“schema” not with a specific musical parameter, but with a musical “ideal type,” which

has no parametric or hierarchic limitations in principle, being equally applicable to a

cadence, scale-degree progression, contrapuntal idiom, harmonic progression, sen-

tence, period, or larger rounded-binary structure such as sonata form.9

nor is “schema” limited to any particular domain or hierarchic level in any princi-

pled way. the term was a cornerstone of twentieth-century cognitive and social psy-

chology (with long precedents in empirical philosophy),10 used to explain knowledge

structures shaped by one’s environment, particularly social and cultural environ-

ment—or, in Gibsonian terms, to describe knowledge formed through one’s attune-

ment with the environment.11 the roots of this connotation lie in aristotle’s treatise on

memory, which holds the earliest such use of the term12: “schema” (σχήμα) carried an

equivalent meaning as the later latin “habitus” as well as the english “shape.”13 thus

it came to represent a “shaping” of the mind by the structural conditions of an envi-

8. the conversation took place after my giving a colloquium at Cornell University, 23 February 2012, “ethno-Graphing Mozart.”

9. For Weber’s concept of the “ideal type” in general, see Methodology of Social Sciences (1904/2011), 90–93; dahlhaus, Analysis and Value Judgement (1983), 45–86, passim; idem, Realism in Nineteenth-Century Music (1985), 121, passim. Webster himself discusses the “ideal type” in Bergé (ed.), Musical Form, Forms, and Formenlehre (2010), 126. see also Gossett, “Carl dahlhaus and the ‘Ideal type’” (1989). though Webster’s analogy with the Marxian Idealtypus was a closer approximation of my intended meaning, to bring eighteenth-century style under a schema-theoretic lens is not equivalent to viewing musical categories as Idealtypen, and replacing the term “ideal type” with “schema.” the two are conceptually related as simplified abstractions from complex observable phenomena, but they are not synonyms. Idealtypen are largely unmalleable and idealized models, which often cause severe problems when used to explain the diversity and complexity of musical particulars, as Gossett showed in dahlhaus’ own analytic application of the Idealtypus. In Weber’s own words, an ideal type “is a conceptual construct which is neither historical reality nor even the ‘true’ reality. It is even less fitted to serve as a schema under which a real situation or action is to be subsumed as one instance. It has the significance of a purely ideal limiting concept with which the real situation or action is compared and surveyed for the explication of certain of its significant components. [… the ideal type is] arrived at by the analytical accentuation of certain elements of reality. […] In its conceptual purity, this mental construct cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality. It is a utopia.” Methodology of Social Sciences (1904/2011), 93, 90.

10. For an intellectual history of the schema concept in philosophy and cognitive and social psychology, see Byros, “Foundations of tonality as situated Cognition” (2009), Chapter 5, passim.

11. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1986); Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (1966); heft, Ecological Psychology in Context (2001). Gibson’s own ecological interpretation of culture is explicitly given in The Senses, 26f.

12. aristotle, De memoria, in De sensu and De memoria (1906), 114f.13. liddell and scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (1989), s.v. “σχήμα.”



ronment—a “shaping” by way of habit, or, in aristotle’s words, “custom.”14 For this

reason, the swiss child development psychologist Jean Piaget characterized a schema

as an “exogenous mechanism.”15 environments, whether natural, social, or cultural,

produce structural modifications on the mind by way of a mental “adaptation” to and

subsequent “assimilation” of “the particularities of [its] objects.”16 “schema” has

come to represent this relationship between “object” and mind: it refers to the rel-

evant detail in the environment, to its mental representation or “copy,”17 and to the

mind’s use of that representation to navigate or comprehend the same environment

subsequently, when encountering a similar and familiar situation.18

the objects in question to which the mind is adaptable in this way have no restric-

tion in principle. they may be any ecological feature or collection of features that

is amenable to human perception, abstraction, and categorization, regardless of the

type of environment—whether cities, languages, novels, musical works, or motion

pictures. the schema concept applies to all varieties of knowledge. Indeed “schemata

are our knowledge,” as david rumelhart put it, in “schemata: the Building Blocks

of Cognition,” which stands among the most seminal modern writings on schema

theory. they “represent all levels of our experience, at all levels of abstraction. […]

all of our generic knowledge is embedded in schemata.”19 rumelhart is quite clear

that “there are schemata for representing our knowledge about all concepts.”20 a

“schema theory,” then, as rumelhart summarizes it, “is basically a theory about

knowledge. It is a theory about how knowledge is represented and about how that

representation facilitates the use of the knowledge in a particular way.”21 nothing in

the epistemology of the schema concept would belie a schema-theoretic understand-

ing of a harmonic cadence, a sentence, or a concerto form.

nor is this understanding of a schema of course something entirely new to north

american music theory and musicology. It was a foundational concept—in spirit,

if not always in letter—for the majority of leonard Meyer’s output, even if he never

distributed his ideas consistently under an explicit schema headline (for a time even

using the term “ideal type” to get at the concept).22 Most important for our purpose

here, in Style and Music of 1989, Meyer characterized various syntactic parameters

of eighteenth-century music, what he called “primary parameters,” as “scriptlike

14. aristotle, De memoria, in De sensu and De memoria (1906), 111.15. Piaget, “the Psychogenesis of Knowledge” (1980), 23f.16. Ibid.17. aristotle, De memoria, in De sensu and De memoria (1906), 107.18. For a recent discussion of the schema concept’s musical application from psychological, composi-

tional, and historical perspectives, see Byros, “Meyer’s anvil” (2012).19. rumelhart, “schemata” (1980), 41.20. Ibid., 34.21. Ibid., 34.22. see Byros, “Meyer’s anvil” (2012), 273–275, passim.



schemata.”23 In this, he was adopting a concept from yale psychologists roger

schank and robert abelson, who advanced the further specification of a “script”

schema: “a script is a structure […] made up of slots and requirements about what

can fill those slots. the structure is an interconnected whole, and what is in one slot

affects what can be in another. […] thus, a script is a predetermined, stereotyped

sequence of actions that defines a well-known situation.”24 the “scriptlike schemata”

Meyer identified with the eighteenth century certainly included “changing-note melo-

dies,” like Gjerdingen’s “Meyer,” “aprile,” and “Pastorella.”25 these patterns were,

after all, first discussed by Meyer himself under more generic titles: 1–7 … 4–3; 1–7

… 2–1, and 3–2 … 4–3, respectively.26 But Meyer never limited the schema concept

to the scale-degree level: “schemata may arise in connection with any parameter”27;

and among his “scriptlike schemata” are also “antecedent/consequent phrases, full

authentic cadences (subdominant-dominant-tonic), and sonata-form structures.”28

My suggestion to Caplin on the Pincian hill was, evidently, a mere echo of Meyer’s

earlier, historically oriented formulation, which related the schema concept to the

syntactic makeup of eighteenth-century musical organization in general. It is not

simply that a schema-minded orientation may befit any music-theoretic inquiry

because it deals with knowledge in some way—though this is also certainly true with

qualification.29 rather eighteenth-century music is especially apropos to such inquiry,

because its environment is multi-parametrically and multi-hierarchically syntactic, or

“scripted” in schank and abelson’s sense. It consists of numerous levels of “prede-

termined, stereotyped sequence[s] of action.” It is highly “perceptually redundant”

(Meyer’s term) in the domain of syntax on the whole, and therefore schema rich at

all levels of abstraction.30 Generalizations about the environment that give rise to

schema formation are dependent on statistical regularity. James Gibson defined envi-

ronments as “probabilistic” and “stochastically regular,” which renders their naviga-

tion predictive with experience.31 and Meyer similarly described the musico-stylistic

environment in general as a “stochastic process” and “probability system.”32 Because

23. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 14, 245, passim.24. schank and abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding (1977), 41. Within the schema-theoretic

literature, there have been several different approaches to formalizing a “schema,” for example as a prototype, exemplar, script, plan, or frame. see Byros, “Meyer’s anvil” (2012), 329f. (n. 12).

25. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), Chapter 9.26. Meyer, Explaining Music (1973), “exploiting limits” (1980), and Style and Music (1989).27. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 51 (n. 32).28. Ibid., 245.29. Because the schema concept is predicated on cultural or stylistic redundancies and regularity of

behavior, it becomes problematic, for example, in some twentieth-century art-music idioms. see Meyer, Music, the Arts, and Ideas (1967/1994).

30. Ibid., 277.31. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1986), 10, 162.32. Meyer, Music, The Arts, and Ideas (1967/1994), 28, passim.



eighteenth-century music exhibits high degrees of statistical regularity and probabil-

istic structure at numerous levels of its syntactic organization, it demands that one

adopt a schema-minded approach.

(sentence)

(i: hc)

DO–TI ... RE–DO

PASSUS DURIUSCULUS-CADENZA LUNGA

CONTINUATION ⟾ CADENTIAL

5

sf

sfp

pp

PRESENTATION

fzp

p

pfz

8va 8va

Example 2: haydn, string Quartet in d major, op. 33 no. 6/ii (1781), bb. 1–8: structured integration of scriptlike schemata

to do so, moreover, requires a holistic consideration of the various forms and lev-

els of eighteenth-century syntax, as different yet integrated types of schemata, and a

scrutinizing of how their interaction affects listening behaviors. Meyer described the

changing-note scripts at the foreground level as nested elements within larger syn-

tactic processes: “the form of the [changing-note] schema is strophic (a a´), but on

the next hierarchic level, [its] first two elements […] frequently form part of a larger

bar form (a a´B).”33 this “larger bar form” is what Caplin calls a sentenCe. the vari-

ous “scriptlike schemata” are thus hierarchically differentiated as well as interactive:

“In the Classic style, […] changing-note schemata are usually only part of a theme

whose full form is a a´ B.”34 this structured integration can be seen in example 2,

which displays the opening theme from the andante of haydn’s string Quartet in d

major, op. 33 no. 6 (1781). here, a DO–ti … Re–DO scale-degree and harmonic schema

characteristically forms the presentational first half of a sentenCe, whose continuation

33. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 226f.34. Ibid., 231.



phrase involves another phrase-level pattern, a PAssUs DURiUsCULUs variant of a cadence

that eighteenth-century Italians called a cadenza lunga (“long cadence”).35 together,

the DO–ti … Re–DO and cadenza lunga communicate the sentenCe at the next highest

level, and all three scriptlike schemata play integrative roles in communicating the

half cadence at bar 8 as the syntactic goal of the entire theme.

Most experiences, whether finding one’s feet in a new city or in a new symphony,

are simultaneously regulated by numerous types of integrated knowledge. schemata

do not work as hermetically sealed cognitive vacuums but as a structured synergy.

or, as Bradd shore eloquently phrased it in his Culture in Mind, the mind has a “poly-

phonic” structure: “a thick and complex texture of conscious experience is made

possible by the simultaneous interactions of several ‘layers’ of different sorts of

knowledge. […] [e]xperience[s] are layered.”36 to be sure, “[a]ccording to schema

theories [generally], all knowledge is [viewed as] packaged into units. [and t]hese

units are the schemata. embedded in these packets of knowledge is, in addition to

the knowledge itself, information about how this knowledge is to be used.”37 But

these units are not isolated representations in the mind. they result from consor-

tiums of even smaller units of knowledge, and participate in the framing of larger-

scale experiences. the mental organization of experience is a structured aggregate

involving sequential, associative, as well as hierarchical relations among knowledge

units. schemata are, in essence, cognitive hierarchies built up of numerous, embedded

subschemata, that define a broader concept through their interaction: “a schema is

a network […] of subschemata, each of which carries out its assigned task of evalu-

ating its goodness of fit whenever activated. these subschemata represent the con-

ceptual constituents of the concept being represented. […] [a] schema uses results

produced by its subschemata to carry out its tasks.”38 as the ecological psychologist

Ulric neisser describes the concept, a schema is something like a “cognitive map [...]

Units at different ‘levels’ are not just related sequentially; […] they are embedded. […]

actions are hierarchically embedded in more extensive actions and are motivated by

anticipated consequences at various levels of schematic organization.”39

the sentenCe in example 2, for instance, plays such a charting role as a listener nav-

igates the opening theme. each harmonic and scale-degree subschema at the phrase

level is hierarchically embedded in a more extensive action: namely, the cadence at

bar 8, as an anticipated consequence at the highest level of schematic organization

35. the cadenza lunga takes many different forms, see sanguinetti, The Art of Partimento (2012), 107–110, passim, and 145–146 on descending chromatic basses. Cadenze lunghe are conceptually synonymous with Caplin’s concept of “expanded cadential progression” (see n. 93 below).

36. shore, Culture in Mind (1996), 93.37. rumelhart, “schemata” (1980), 34.38. Ibid., 39; see also 40f.39. neisser, Cognition and Reality (1976), 123f., 113.



for the opening theme. But at the same time, the sentenCe and its broader cadential

goal are (reciprocally) enabled by these lower-level, subschematic processes. the

DO–ti … Re–DO is a phrase-level form of syntax that exemplifies PResentAtiOn function,

as one among several tonic-dominant statement-response paradigms. the inconclu-

siveness of its PResentAtiOn function motivates the larger-scale structure: as Meyer put

it, “closure is not very decisive in most instantiations of this schema. this is because

in most cases the changing-note pattern is part of a higher-level melodic process […]

and larger bar form (a a´B).”40 not only does the PAssUs DURiUsCULUs variant of the

cadenza lunga bring the necessary cadential closure to round off the sentenCe, but the

DO–ti … Re–DO retrospectively emerges as an inner-voice pattern within a “higher-level

melodic process”: a hexachordal descent that begins with the sustained A of the first

violin and closes with the resolution of the cadenza lunga and C© in the melody. to

paraphrase rumelhart, the sentenCe schema uses results produced by these subsche-

mata to carry out its tasks. It “emerge[s] from the interaction of […] [these] simpler

elements all working in concert with one another.”41 the same principle applies to

the largest level of schematic organization, so that syntactic forms that occupy the

sentenCe level of structure (like the PeRiOD and HybRiD forms), in turn, become subsche-

mata within a more global script: “formal schemata such as theme and variations,

rondo, da capo arias, and sonata form.”42

and so, the various forms of “replicated patterning” in eighteenth-century music

share deep conceptual resonances insofar as they all are statistical regularities in the

environment, are cognitive hierarchies composed of lower-level subschemata, are all

syntactic (or “scripted”) in their makeup, and they all contribute to the formation of

a summit of syntactic organization in a higher-level formal genre, like sOnAtA FORM.

as a global script schema, sOnAtA FORM emerges from but also inversely subsumes all

other varieties of syntax as its embedded subschemata. Meyer defined “[e]ighteenth-

century sonata form [a]s a script-based schema whose parts are […] articulated into

an arched hierarchy according to the degrees of closure created by several [primary] param-

eters involved. […] [t]he possibility of [such] hierarchic organization depends on the

existence of different kinds and strengths of closure created by syntax. [. . .] [t]he

formation of a hierarchy depends on the existence of closure.”43

this last formulation is most suggestive in the context of eighteenth-century

music theory, and contemporaries’ punctuative descriptions of musical form in gen-

eral—as displayed in several writings by Johann Mattheson, Johann adolph scheibe,

40. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 229, 227.41. rumelhart, smolensky, et al., “schemata and sequential thought Processes” (1986), 20.42. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 51.43. Ibid., 303f., 15, 330 (my emphasis).



Joseph riepel, Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Johann Philipp Kirnberger, and Koch.44

today the sonata form concept is often viewed as a largely mid-nineteenth-century

invention,45 and the term itself a neologism attributed to adolph Bernhard Marx.46

yet 1803 issues of the leipzig Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung reference “sonata form”

as a compositional norm. For example, when the publisher nägeli announced the

printing of Beethoven’s op. 31 set of piano sonatas, he described them as having

“many departures from the customary sonata form” (Abweichungen von der gewöhnli-chen Sonaten-Form).47 this sonata form “custom” or “habit”—the adjective gewöhnlich conceptually implies a noun-form, Gewohnheit—is likely a reference to the concept

objectified some years earlier in Johann Georg sulzer’s 1774 article on the “sonata”

(Sonate), from the Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, and especially in volume 3 of

Koch’s Versuch from 1793.48 Both speak of “the form of the sonata” (die Form der Sonate).

If not a nineteenth-century invention, something about the late-eighteenth-century

view of the concept was certainly lost by the romantic generation, as Karol Berger

has argued for years—specifically, the importance of cadential punctuation, a view

that has been gradually revitalized in recent decades, in more or less explicit terms,

by Berger as well as by Carl dahlhaus, leonard ratner, James hepokoski and Warren

darcy, William Caplin, and Michael spitzer, among others.49

discussions of a sOnAtA schema in the eighteenth century are most implicit in

Koch’s definition and elaboration of “die Form der sonate” as a “punctuation form”

(interpunctische Form).50 In the Versuch, “form” is described as a cognitive hierarchy of

different states of musical closure, punctuation, and rest, what Koch called Ruhepuncte des Geistes.51 these “resting points of the mind” produce a hierarchy of closure, and

44. Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister (1739); scheibe, Der critische Musikus (1738–1745); Joseph riepel, Anfangsgründe (1752–1768); Marpurg, Kritische Briefe (1759–1763); Kirnberger, Die Kunst des reinen Satzes (1771–1779); and Koch, Versuch (1782–1793). For a survey of the concept of musical punctuation in the eighteenth century, see stephanie vial, The Art of Musical Phrasing (2008).

45. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 22, 370, 415f., 423, 434, passim.46. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), 14f.47. nägeli, “ankündigung: repertoire des Clavecinistes” (1803). the term “allzugewöhnlichen sonaten-

Form” also appears in the “recensionen” section of the 11 May 1803 issue (no. 33) of the leipzig AmZ, 559–560, which announces the publication of several keyboard works by anton eberl.

48. sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie (1774–1794), s.v. “sonate”; Koch, Versuch III (1793), §119, 331 (209); §113, 322 (205).49. dahlhaus, “der rhetorische Formbegriff h. Chr. Kochs” (1977); ratner, Classic Music (1980); Budday,

Grundlagen musikalischer Formen (1983); Forschner, Instrumentalmusik Joseph Haydns (1984); Berger, “toward a history of hearing” (1992), “the second-Movement Punctuation Form” (1992), “the First-Movement Punctuation Form” (1996); hepokoski and darcy, “the Medial Caesura” (1997); Berger, “Mozart’s Concerto andante Punctuation Form” (1998); Caplin, Classical Form (1998), “the Classical sonata exposition” (2001), “the Classical Cadence” (2004); spitzer, Metaphor and Musical Thought (2004); hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006); Berger, Bach’s Cycle, Mozart’s Arrow (2007); Burstein, “Mid-section Cadences” (2010); and diergarten, “Jedem Ohre klingend” (2012).

50. Koch, Versuch III (1793), §20, 52 (83); §31, 82 (95); §38, 124 (116); §150, 395 (234); passim. Koch also uses the plural, “interpunctische Formen,” as he describes several types of punctuation form in vol. III, whose differences are affected by, among other things, genre.

51. Koch, Versuch (1782–93), passim; see especially vol. II, §§77–79, 342–348 (1–3).



thus of different formal sections, because they are varied in their markedness—or, in

Meyer’s terms, they afford “different kinds and strengths of closure created by [dif-

ferent kinds of] syntax.”52 and this gradation enables “the possibility of hierarchic

organization.” the “most marked [merklichsten] resting points” articulate “periods”

(Perioden), the “less marked” (weniger merklichen) “single phrases” (einzelne Sätze) and

“incises” (Einschnitte).53 thus a hierarchy arises from the “more or less marked rest-

ing points of the mind” that produce these formal divisions. the largest divisions

of a sonata or symphony that Koch advances are the equivalents of the present-day

exposition, development, and recapitulation, which he called the first, second, and

third “main periods” (Hauptperioden).54 each “period” (Periode) is subdivided into dif-

ferent kinds of “phrases” (Sätze): one or more “internal phrases” (Absätze)—which

are further qualified as “a basic phrase” (enger Satz), “an extended phrase” (erweiterter Satz), or a “compound phrase” (zusammen geschobener Satz)—and a “closing phrase”

(Schlußsatz), which ends a Hauptperiode.55 (Because translations of Satz as “sentence” or

“phrase” invite confusion with the more familiar north american meanings of such

terms, the German is retained hereafter.)

the argument for an arched hierarchy within this punctuation form emerges most

conspicuously in the Sätze that Koch associated with cadences of greatest structural

and perceptual weight, which function as “landmarks” within the “cognitive map”

of a sonata or symphony. these hierarchically superordinate caesuras Koch desig-

nated Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes (“principal resting points of the mind”), which sit

atop the arch of the hierarchy, as they represent the highest degrees of closure.56 they

also define large-scale syntactic relationships within the punctuation form. Koch

maintained that only some cadences (Cäsuren) within a period share in the “collation

of phrases by means of punctuation” (interpunctische Vergleichung der Sätze),57 so that

structural cadences themselves form a higher-level syntactic script: a predetermined,

stereotyped sequence of actions on a large-scale level. this script consists of a series

of weighted caesuras and their attendant Sätze, and admits of several variants.

at the uppermost level of the Hauptruhepuncte sequence is the “closing Satz”

(Schlußsatz) of the exposition and recapitulation (erste or dritte Hauptperiode), produced

by a perfect authentic cadence in the key of the dominant and tonic, respectively. this

PaC is a particular kind of “caesura” (Cäsur) for which Koch specially reserved the term

Cadenz.58 It sits atop the hierarchy because only this Cadenz may close a period, which

52. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 15.53. Koch, Versuch II (1787), §§77–79, 342–348 (1–3).54. Ibid., vol. III (1793), §110, 318–319 (204).55. Ibid., vol. II (1787), §§79–80, 346–349 (2–3); passim.56. Ibid., vol. III (1793), §129–132, 342–347 (213–215); §149, 394f. (233).57. Ibid., vol. II, §112, 440 (48); vol. III, §58, 197 (150).58. Ibid., vol. III, §129, 342f. (213); vol. II §102, 419f. (38f.); passim. Koch also uses the term förmliche

Cadenz; ibid., vol. III, §86, 260 (177), passim.



is the largest formal division and strongest Ruhepunct. each period-ending Schlußsatz

is preceded by various arrangements of tonic- and dominant-oriented “internal Sätze”

(Absätze) in the key of the tonic and dominant. tonic-oriented Sätze go by the term

Grundabsatz (“I-phrase”), and close with tonic harmony (with a perfect or imperfect

authentic cadence),59 and dominant-oriented Sätze go by Quintabsatz (“v-phrase”),

directed at dominant harmony or a half cadence.60 depending on a composition’s

scope, size, and grandiosity, the outer Hauptperioden of a sonata or symphony will have

three or four such Sätze and Hauptruhepuncte in total.61 Koch’s main script types for the

major mode are outlined in table 1. as seen, a sonata-form exposition consists of a

stereotyped sequence of cadences: an opening Hauptruhepunct, produced by the Thema

or Hauptsatz (“theme” or “principal Satz”),62 one or more medial Hauptruhepuncte, and

a closing Hauptruhepunct produced by the Cadenz of the Schlußsatz. a further hierar-

chic division is supplied by Koch’s distribution of these three or four Hauptruhepuncte

into two halves. “this first period is […] divided into two parts.”63 Its “second half ”

consists of “those melodic ideas […] which follow the Quintabsatz in the fifth.”64

this two-part conception of the exposition suggests that the Cadenz which closes the

Hauptperiode, and the Quintabsatz that divides it into two halves, are the structurally

most weighted cadences. later in his Musikalisches Lexicon of 1802, Koch would more

explicitly identify the structural weight of the medial Quintabsatz to that of the Cadenz,

by designating the former Absatz a Halbcadenz.65 these two Hauptruhepuncte, the Cadenz

and Halbcadenz, are equivalent to the “generically obligatory cadences” that underlie

hepokoski and darcy’s sonata theory: the Cadenz marks the “essential expositional

closure” (eeC) and “essential structural closure” (esC) of an exposition and recapitu-

lation respectively, while the Halbcadenz is synonymous with the half cadence of the

“medial caesura”—specifically, the “strong half cadence that [is] rhythmically, har-

monically, or texturally reinforced,” which the “medial caesura is built around.”66 the

59. tonic-oriented contrapuntal cadences and tonic-prolongational phrases more generally would also fall under the Grundabsatz category.

60. Koch, Versuch (1787 and 1793), vols. II, III, passim.61. although Koch introduces the term Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes when discussing larger compositions

which contain four Hauptruhepuncte, the term should not be misunderstood as applying only to compositions containing four such types of punctuation. that is, compositions which contain three Sätze per period vary only quantitatively, not qualitatively. this becomes clear from Koch’s overall discussion of the “the arrangement of larger Compositions” (§72–159).

62. Ibid., vol. II, §79, 347 (3); passim.63. Ibid., vol. III, §129, 342f. (213).64. Ibid., vol. III, §103, 311 (201); also §129, 342f. (213).65. Koch, Musikalisches Lexicon (1802), s.v. “Quintabsatz.” see also Poundie Burstein’s contribution to this

volume on this usage of Halbcadenz in Koch, and its relation to what hepokoski and darcy call the “medial caesura” (see their Elements [2006], Chapter 3, passim).

66. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), 24. the medial caesura is discussed in Chapters 3, 7–8, 11, and passim. In all uses of the term “medial caesura” in this chapter, I mean the entire multi-staged “process” that hepokoski and darcy outline in the Elements (30–36). to be sure, they most commonly use the term to reference the actual moment of gap between the transition and second theme, whether



overall picture of sOnAtA FORM in Koch’s Versuch is a “periodic structure [Periodenbau]

[that] depends on th[e] alternation [of] […] Grundabsätze, Quintabsätze, and Cadenzen.”67

the Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes and their attendant Sätze are explained as large-scale

syntactic regularities in the eighteenth-century musical environment, which define

the sOnAtA concept’s representative constituents as a periodized punctuation script.

Table 1: Punctuation scripts for a sonata-form exposition in Koch 1782–1793, 1802

Hauptsatz medial Halbcadenzen* Schlußsatz

Type 1 (Vol. III, §45, §128) I: GA V: QA V: Cadenz [Anhang]Type 2 (Vol. III, §45, §128) I: QA V: QA V: Cadenz [Anhang]Type 3 (Vol. III, §45, §128) I: GA I: QA V: Cadenz [Anhang]Type 4 (Vol. III, §129)

*Musikalisches Lexicon (1802), 1212.

I: GA I: QA V: QA V: Cadenz [Anhang]

first half second half

the broader significance of this script-based conception is that higher-level subsche-

mata, like the Hauptruhepuncte, have a top-down influence on lower-level, embedded

forms of syntax—or, from the other way round, lower-level forms of syntax have a

bottom-up obligation to communicate the Hauptruhepuncte script. In their function as

the primary subschemata of the sOnAtA schema, the Hauptruhepuncte are not isolated

events within the cognitive hierarchy. the “periodic structure” (Periodenbau) abstracted

in table 1 is communicated by further layering of syntax in the cognitive hierarchy. as

Meyer relates it, sOnAtA FORM is not only scripted as “a tonally defined hierarchic schema

of slots,” but is also “script-dominated”—that is, dependent on lower-level subsche-

mata: “patterns [. . .] are hierarchically connected [. . .] by virtue of their participa-

tion in the higher-level syntactic process of [a] whole movement.”68 like Meyer, Koch

specifies that hierarchically varied forms of closure (Ruhepuncte)—be they local-level

filled in or not; but they also use the term to reference a broader syntactic plan: “in order to function as a normative medial caesura, the forte half-cadence arrival within tr must be additionally reinforced. the whole process often proceeds as follows” (30). they then go on to describe the various stages of that process, which begins with a cadential progression (often including ©4), and ends with a normative beginning of the second theme. to my way of thinking, the thrust of the medial caesura concept lies in its dynamic qualities: it too is a multi-staged scriptlike schema, not any isolated moment in time (whether that of the actual half cadence, or of the gap which follows)—for neither the medial caesura cadence nor the medial caesura gap may carry structural significance in the absence of the other. Both are components of a larger medial caesura schema. this perhaps becomes most explicit in the rationale hepokoski and darcy advance for their “shorthand symbols I:hC MC” and “v:hC MC”: “we […] use [these] symbols […] to suggest this whole complex of musical activity, one in which the literal MC moment [that is, the gap] is to be interpreted referentially to any preceding moment of half-cadential arrival” (24). In what follows, any references to particular stages in the medial caesura schema will be done so by name: “medial caesura cadence,” “medial caesura gap,” etc.

67. Koch, Versuch III (1793), §39, 128 (118).68. Meyer, Style and Music (1989), 246, 330, 40.



Einschnitte or large-scale Hauptruhepuncte—are communicated by hierarchically specific

syntactic processes, which he variously termed “punctuation formulas,” “punctuation

figures,” and “punctuation signs” (interpunctische Formeln; interpunctische Figuren; inter-punctische Zeichen).69 the Cadenz, for example, is the punctuation formula specifically

designated for the Schlußsatz. It is but one of several harmonic and contrapuntal pat-

terns Koch discusses in volume 1 of the Versuch.70 these formulaic, phrase-level signs

are one of “two main characteristics [. . .] through which [. . .] the various sections in

musical works [that] compose their periods [. . .] distinguish themselves as divisions

of the whole. [. . .] the endings of these sections are certain formulas, which let us

clearly recognize the more or less marked resting points. [. . .] [W]hat is important

for all of these divisions is the formula through which they become marked as resting

points, or, to use our chosen term, their punctuation sign [Zeichen].”71

this last phrase is perhaps most indicative of the cognitive implications of punc-

tuation form: it suggests a listener is in a constant state of attunement with some form

of closure, or rest, depending on the “punctuation formula” or “scriptlike schema”

currently in force. Indeed Koch’s specific turn of phrase, “mental resting point,” sug-

gests that a listener is actively doing something in between moments of punctuation—

conceivably tracking various forms of closure. and, if the different types of closure

are themselves regulated by commensurately varied forms of syntax or punctuation

formulas, and therefore integrated within the cognitive hierarchy, then lower-level

forms of closure would be directed to a higher-level state of attunement with the

Hauptruhepuncte at the top of the hierarchy. In neisser’s words, “[a]ctions are hierar-

chically embedded in more extensive actions and are motivated by anticipated conse-

quences at various levels of schematic organization.”72 lower-level forms of syntax are

designed to make the uppermost level of syntax, here the Hauptruhepuncte, most clear

to a listener: “what is important for all of these divisions is the formula through which

they become marked as resting points.”73 Berger, in his own reflections on Koch, char-

acterizes this cognitive implication of punctuation form in semiotic terms. a cadence,

as the ultimate goal of a phrase, is not only a terminal point, but a representation of the

collective syntactic processes leading to it: “It symbolizes closure—not as an arbitrary

signal but as the experience of reaching a goal.”74 Michael spitzer voices a similar sen-

timent: “riepel and Koch shared the same insight that phrase endings are understood

69. Koch, Versuch II (1787), §79, 347f. (2–3); §94, 390 (22); ibid., vol. III (1793), §5, 7 (64); §150, 395 (234); passim.

70. as Koch notes, “[t]he nature of the cadence [Cadenz], as the ending formula of the closing phrase, has already been treated in section 179 of the first volume” (38).

71. Ibid., vol. II (1787), §79, 347f. (2f.).72. neisser, Cognition and Reality (1976), 123f., 113.73. Koch, Versuch II (1787), §79, 347f. (2f.).74. Berger, Bach’s Cycle, Mozart’s Arrow (2007), 180.



by the listener as comprehending the entire phrase, as a kind of musical ‘sign’.”75 so

closure is not an isolated moment in time, but a complex layered experience involv-

ing a consortium of subschemata, all of which are part of this experience of not only

reaching but also setting up a goal. Musical punctuation is graded and processive. to

view the sOnAtA punctuation script as an arched hierarchy of closure is to view multiple,

integrated levels of syntax as variously “anchored” to structurally weighted cadences

(Hauptruhepuncte) at the top of the hierarchy.

table 2 displays this integration in the exposition of Beethoven’s second

symphony. the tabular analysis serves to align and thus illustrate the interactions

among different levels of syntactic subschemata: specifically, how phrase-level pat-

terning (DO–ti … Re–DO types of syntax, registered in Column Phl) and middleground

phrase-structure (sentenCe and PeRiOD types of syntax, registered in Column Ft)

produce “different degrees and strengths of closure,” or variously “marked resting

points.” these foreground and middleground grammars are shown to be synergeti-

cally oriented toward the larger stereotyped sequence of actions represented by the

Hauptruhepuncte script, through the chunking design of the table: boxes refer to cog-

nitive chunks at the various syntactic levels, beginning with individual bars in the

leftmost column. the Hauptruhepuncte and their attendant Sätze are the largest chunks

given in the Column designated hrP: bars 34–47, Grundabsatz or I:PaC; bars 47–69,

Halbcadenz or v:hC; bars 73–112, Cadenz or v:PaC. the latter two cadences corre-

spond to hepokoski and darcy’s medial caesura half cadence (hC MC) and cadence

of essential expositional closure (eeC), respectively.76 the experience of large-scale

musical organization in the symphony is represented as various states of cadential

attunement with the structurally weighted cadences at the top of the hierarchy. these

states are registered in four successive columns to the left of the table as cadential implication (I), cadential realization (r), cadential denial (d), and cadential extension (e). For

example, bars 44–46, which consist of a PRinneR and CADenzA seMPLiCe sequence at the

phrase level (Column Phl), project a cadential implication (I), a state which shifts to

cadential realization (r) with the I:PaC at bar 47.77

75. spitzer, Metaphor and Musical Thought (2004), 216.76. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), Chapters 3, 7f., 11, passim. hepokoski and darcy place the

medial caesura for the sympony’s exposition at bar 71, with a half cadence at bar 69, and caesura fill in bars 71f. see Elements, 25f., 45. the problem of the medial caesura half cadence in the exposition is taken up in detail below.

77. the cadential attunement categories have been registered as a simple “on” or “off” state for the sake of economy. Ideally, and in reality, the monochrome grey in Columns I–e of table 2 should be a spectrum, to register degrees of “on-ness,” where lighter and darker shades represent more pronounced or marked instances of the perceptual category.



Table 2: Beethoven, symphony no. 2 in d major, op. 36/i (1801–02), bb. 34–133: Cadential anchoring and structured integration of syntactic subschema in the sonata form schema

B. I R D E CAD. K PHL FF FT FS HRP34 D Tonic Arpeggiation b.i. (or c.b.i.) Hybrid 4 ~ PT35 D

~ Sentence~ b.i.´

G36 D R37 D U38 D Indugio/Converging . . . consequent ~ N39 D D40 D A41 D B42 D [ . . . Monte . . . ] cont. S43 D A44 D Prinner . . . cont. T45 D Z46 D Cadenza Semplice cadential47 I: PAC D Tonic Arpeggiation . . . Sentence TR I: GA48 D (Diss.49 D Quiescenza post-cad. (b.i.)

post-cad. (intro.)

Cod.)50 D51 D [Long Comma]52 D53 D Quiescenza post-cad. (b.i.´)

H54 DA55 d [Long Comma]L56 dB57 d Le–Sol–Fi–Sol Cad. Lunga . . . cont.⟾cad.C58 dA59 dD60 dE61 i: HC EV. a Fenaroli-Ponte post-cad. Stand. on Dom.N62 aZ63 a

64 a65 a66 a67 a68 a Passus duriusculus cadential69 v: HC* a Ponte post-cad. Stand. on Dom. v: QA/HC MC *70 a71 A Caesura Fill (5–4–3–2–1) lead-in72 A73 A Tonic Arpeggiation c.b.i. Sentence ST74 A [ Hybrid 4 ]

a

75 A76 A77 f Tonic Arpeggiation . . . consequent78 f –E (cadential)

(cadential)

C79 E

Cadenza Lunga

Cadenza Lunga

A80 V/V: PAC E D81 A Tonic Arpeggiation c.b.i. [ Hybrid 4 ´ ] E

a´

a

a´

b

a

a´

b

82 A N83 A Z84 A85 f Tonic Arpeggiation . . . consequent 86 f –E87 E88 V/V: PAC E–A Sol–Fa–Mi (x4, stretto) . . . continuation b

89 A90 A91 A92 A93 A

legend(B.: bar) (I: implication) (R: realization) (D: denial) (E: extension) (CAD: cadence) (K: key) (PHL: phrase level) (FF: formal function) (FT: formal type) (FS: formal section) (HRP: Hauptruhepunct)



Codetta

b´

94 A Falling 3rds/Romanesca . . . continuation95 A96 A [Indugio]97 A98 A Comma . . . C99 A Cadenza Semplice cadential A100 V: DC A Long Comma (incomplete) . . . cadential D101 A E102 A Grand Pause N103 A Indugio/Converging . . . cadential Z104 A105 A106 A107 A108 A109 A110 A Cadenza Composta cadential111 A112 V: PAC A Tonic Arpeggiation ~ post-cad. CT V: Cadenz/EEC113 A–d ~ Ponte ~114 d115 d116 d117 d118 d119 d120 d A121 d N122 d H123 d A124 d N125 d–A G126 A Tonic Arpeggiation127 A128 A129 A130 A131 A132 D Ponte retran. RT133 D

the idea represented in these columns is that the process and perception of closure,

and thus of large-scale sonata-form organization, amounts to a continuous and

graded process of cadential anchoring, analogous to what Jamshed Bharucha called

“melodic anchoring” in a tonal melodic context, where some tones are perceived as

stable points.78 In a sOnAtA-FORM context, “stable points” or, in Koch’s terms, “more

marked resting points,” are the collective and synergetic result of the hierarchically

varied and integrated syntactic processes outlined in Columns Phl, FF, and Ft. the

states of attunement, or “degrees and strengths of closure,” in Columns I–e were

determined in accordance with the normative formal functions of the phrase-level

syntactic patterning of Column Phl, as well as the hierarchical position of these sub-

schemata within higher-level, form-functional syntactic types like sentenCes, PeRiODs,

and so forth. the formal functions of the phrase-level patterning are given in Column

FF, their larger formal type context in Column Ft. the PRinneR and CADenzA seMPLiCe

78. Bharucha, “anchoring effects in Music” (1984).



sequence (Column Phl) in bars 44–46, for example, communicates continuation–cadential syntax at the form-functional level (Column FF) within the larger syntactic

context of a sentenCe (Column Ft). together, these various levels of syntax serve as

orienting subschemata that are anchored to the Hauptruhepuncte in Column hrP—or,

in hepokoski and darcy’s language, they constitute the “trajectories toward generically obligatory cadences.”79 In this case, the generically obligatory or scripted cadences con-

form to Koch’s type-1 exposition script of Hauptruhepuncte (table 1).

the layered integration of these micro- and macro-structured scriptlike schemata

in the symphony brings a positive form of evidence that contemporaries’ descriptions

of the “gewöhnliche sonaten-Form” and “die Form der sonate” implied a conception

of sOnAtA FORM as a punctuation script schema. But there is a complementary, and per-

haps even stronger, piece of analytic evidence in the symphony that would support this

hypothesis: namely, an “abweichung von der gewöhnlichen sonaten-Form”—a marked

deviation from this custom, which brings a kind of negative evidence for a sOnAtA punc-

tuation schema. Exceptio probat regulam (“the exception confirms the rule”). Beethoven

interjects a powerful syntactic deviation that disrupts the multiple levels of syntax in

one sweeping gesture—a gesture that unsettles the otherwise structured integration of

subschemata and, by extension, the entire sOnAtA FORM schema they represent as its con-

ceptual constituents. at the middleground level (Column Ft), all three Hauptruhepuncte

are communicated by sentenCe forms. the principal theme (Grundabsatz, bb. 34–47,

I:PaC) and second theme (Cadenz, bb. 73–112, v:PaC) are syntactically normative in this

regard; they feature no disruption in the overall sentenCe script: PResentAtiOn–COntinUA-

tiOn–CADenCe. the principal theme is a 14-bar compound sentence with a compressed

continuation, and the second theme a 40-bar, doubly-compound sentence (based on

a 32-bar sentence norm) with an extended continuation via a deceptive cadence (bar

100). the transition, however, bears a pronounced syntactic violation in the sentenCe

script. Bars 47–56 present the first half of a compound (16-bar) sentence: an extended

presentation phrase (2 + 4 + 4). this Absatz, which begins in bar 47, is a transition of the

“dissolving codetta” type in hepokoski and darcy’s language, and of the “false closing

section” type in Caplin’s.80 the 10-bar first half (8-bar presentation in bb. 49–56, plus

a 2-bar “introduction,” bb. 47–48) implies an approximate 8-bar continuation phrase

to follow. the continuation does begin at bar 57, but is interrupted at bar 61 by what

Caplin has described as a “premature dominant arrival.”81

the entrance of this dominant is less an arrival than a sublime intrusion. In Caplin’s

own words, the dominant of a minor in bars 61ff. “arrives [. . .] in a noncadential

manner,” and the “complete change of musical material following the dominant

79. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), 13 (emphasis in original).80. Ibid., 102–105; Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 129.81. Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 135.



arrival gives the impression of being a typical standing on the dominant, despite the

lack of cadential articulation.”82 the implication is that a cadence was expected and

denied, and yet a standing-on-the-dominant process, which normally proceeds from

an achieved half cadence, follows in bars 61ff. nonetheless. the cadential anchoring

for this passage in table 2 (Columns I–e) captures this impression by showing a trans-

formation from a state of cadential denial (bb. 61–62) to cadential extension (bb. 63–67).

this succession of cadential anchoring states of course makes no logical sense, as a

cadence must first be produced in order for it to be extended or prolonged by ancillary

material. the analysis is deliberately meant to capture a sense of disorientation on the

part of a listener as regards their cadential anchoring (“what’s coming next?”) and

therefore formal orientation (“where are we?”). this premature dominant arrival at bar

61 represents a disruption on three hierarchically varied syntactic levels: phrase level

(Phl), formal function (FF), and Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes (hrP).

Bars 57–61 present the first two-thirds of a phrase-level harmonic pattern that I have

styled the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL. this schema (and its many variants throughout the long eight-

eenth century) was the centerpiece of a previous study dedicated to the historical percep-

tion of tonality, which focused on Beethoven’s Eroica symphony (1804).83 the schema

is essentially a chromaticized species of one type of cadenza lunga.84 the pattern expands

and chromatically intensifies predominant harmony (something of a composing-out

of an augmented-sixth chord) through a chromatic turn of phrase in the bass that is

oriented around the dominant: ¨6–5–©4–5. Figure 1 shows an abstract representation

82. Ibid.83. Byros, “Meyer’s anvil” (2012); idem, “Foundations of tonality” (2009).84. see n. 35 above.

5e 6r ®6r 7tK∂

5e

le—sol—fi—sol cadenza lunga

* *

7tK∂ 6tK∂

*

VI (i6/4) +ivo7 (i6/4) Vi

+4-6

5

-3

1

-3

1

-3

1

2

7

5

-3

1

1

Figure 1: le–sol–fi–sol schema, cadenza lunga variant: abstract representation, from Byros 2009; 2012



49

[Halbcadenz]

CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )

(transition)LE–SOL–FI–SOL (cadenza lunga) (v: hc mc)

- - -

Example 3: haydn, symphony no. 60/i in C major (1774), bb. 49–52: le–sol–fi–sol schema, Halbcadenz usage

Figure 2 displays the cadential usage of 747 instances of this schema in a corpus of

roughly 3000 musical works from 1720–1840.85 as seen in these statistics, the Le–sOL–

Fi–sOL is a punctuation formula strongly associated with the production of Quintabsätze in general: 63% of the time the (sub)schema articulates a half cadence, compared to

20% and 3% for a PaC (Cadenz) and IaC (Grundabsatz), respectively. More importantly,

the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL holds a strong affinity to a particular kind of Quintabsatz: it carried a

specific syntactic function within the larger sOnAtA punctuation script.

85. the statistics are taken from the corpus data presented in Byros, “Foundations of tonality,” appendix B.

of its full form, which admits of three variables highlighted by asterisks: 1) an abbrevi-

ated version that omits the passing 64 chord between ¨6 and ©4; 2) the possibility of a 6

5

chord on scale degree ©4 as an alternative to the diminished seventh; and 3) the optional

placement of tonic harmony (on scale degree 1) at the beginning, giving rise to a longer

descending thirds pattern in the bass characteristic of cadenze lunghe in general, though

here chromatically altered: 1–¨6–(5)–©4–5. the cadential 64 prior to the final dominant

is also optional, according to customary usage of this chord. an instance from haydn’s

symphony in C major, no. 60 (1774) is shown in example 3.



hc = half cadencepac = perfect authentic cadenceiac = imperfect authentic cadenceec = evaded cadencedc = deceptive cadencede = dominant expansion

hc pac iac ec dc de

(1%)(1%)(3%)

(13%)

(20%)

(63%)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

(3 )

(

( 3 )

Figure 2: le–sol–fi–sol schema: Cadential usage from 1720–1840 (corpus sample size ~3000 compositions), from Byros 2009, appendix B

table 3 registers the schema’s sOnAtA-FORM usage in a smaller representative sample

from the larger corpus, chosen here for the sake of economy: the opening movements

of haydn’s symphonies in a fast tempo, where the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL appears 31 times.

In this circumscribed sample, once again about 65% of the time (20/31) it closes a

Quintabsatz, compared to 16% for a PaC. of these 20 Quintabsatz examples, 14 (70%)

are used to punctuate the cadential goal of the transition—the Halbcadenz, or the

medial Hauptruhepunct in Koch’s exposition scripts (table 1).

Table 3: le–sol–fi–sol schema: sonata-form usage in the opening movements of haydn’s symphonies in a fast tempo

1757/61c. Symphony No. 2 in C major, i, bb. 53–57 {g minor–major} HC1757/61c. Symphony No. 2 in C major, i, bb. 167–168 {c-minor–major} HC1761? Symphony No. 8 in G major, “Le Soir,” i, bb. 109–113 {e minor} HC1762? Symphony No. 9 in C major, i, bb. 55–58 {a minor} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 20–24 {d minor–major} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 57–61 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 50–54 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 162–166 {c minor–major} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, “Feuersymphonie,” i, bb. 25–27 {e minor} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, bb. 100–102 {a minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, i, bb. 50–52 {g minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, bb. 174–177 {c minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 33–34 {e minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 111–112 {a minor} HC1778 c. Symphony No. 67 in F major, i, bb. 104–114 [B-flat–d minor] HC1786 Symphony No. 86 in D major, i, bb. 118–124 [G major–b minor] HC1787 Symphony No. 89 in F major, i, bb. 122–127 {f minor} HC1788 Symphony No. 91 in E-flat major, i, bb. 124–127 {c minor} HC

1757/61c. Symphony No. 2 in C major, i, bb. 53–57 {g minor–major} HC1757/61c. Symphony No. 2 in C major, i, bb. 167–168 {c-minor–major} HC1761? Symphony No. 8 in G major, “Le Soir,” i, bb. 109–113 {e minor} HC1762? Symphony No. 9 in C major, i, bb. 55–58 {a minor} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 20–24 {d minor–major} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 57–61 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 50–54 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 162–166 {c minor–major} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, “Feuersymphonie,” i, bb. 25–27 {e minor} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, bb. 100–102 {a minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, i, bb. 50–52 {g minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, bb. 174–177 {c minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 33–34 {e minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 111–112 {a minor} HC1778 c. Symphony No. 67 in F major, i, bb. 104–114 [B-flat–d minor] HC1786 Symphony No. 86 in D major, i, bb. 118–124 [G major–b minor] HC1787 Symphony No. 89 in F major, i, bb. 122–127 {f minor} HC1788 Symphony No. 91 in E-flat major, i, bb. 124–127 {c minor} HC

1757/61c. Symphony No. 2 in C major, i, bb. 53–57 {g minor–major} HC1757/61c. Symphony No. 2 in C major, i, bb. 167–168 {c-minor–major} HC1761? Symphony No. 8 in G major, “Le Soir,” i, bb. 109–113 {e minor} HC1762? Symphony No. 9 in C major, i, bb. 55–58 {a minor} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 20–24 {d minor–major} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 57–61 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 50–54 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 162–166 {c minor–major} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, “Feuersymphonie,” i, bb. 25–27 {e minor} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, bb. 100–102 {a minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, i, bb. 50–52 {g minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, bb. 174–177 {c minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 33–34 {e minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 111–112 {a minor} HC1778 c. Symphony No. 67 in F major, i, bb. 104–114 [B-flat–d minor] HC1786 Symphony No. 86 in D major, i, bb. 118–124 [G major–b minor] HC1787 Symphony No. 89 in F major, i, bb. 122–127 {f minor} HC1788 Symphony No. 91 in E-flat major, i, bb. 124–127 {c minor} HC1793–94 Symphony No. 100 in G major, “Military,” bb. 144–146 {d minor} HC



1762 Symphony No. 9 in C major 55 581760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 20–24 {d minor–major} HC1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 57–61 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 50–54 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 162–166 {c minor–major} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, “Feuersymphonie,” i, bb. 25–27 {e minor} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, bb. 100–102 {a minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, i, bb. 50–52 {g minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, bb. 174–177 {c minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 33–34 {e minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 111–112 {a minor} HC1778 c. Symphony No. 67 in F major, i, bb. 104–114 [B-flat–d minor] HC1786 Symphony No. 86 in D major, i, bb. 118–124 [G major–b minor] HC1787 Symphony No. 89 in F major, i, bb. 122–127 {f minor} HC1788 Symphony No. 91 in E-flat major, i, bb. 124–127 {c minor} HC1793–94 Symphony No. 100 in G major, “Military,” bb. 144–146 {d minor} HC1793 Symphony No. 101 in D, ‘The Clock,’ i bb. 242–254 {d minor} HC1765 Symphony No. 29 in E major, i, bb. 83–86 {c-sharp minor} PAC1772 Symphony No. 46 in B major, i, bb. 96–99 {g-sharp minor} PAC1785 Symphony No. 83 in G minor, “La Poule,” i, bb. 115–120 {d minor–major} PAC1791 Symphony No. 94 in G major, ‘Surprise’, i, bb. 64–67 {d minor–major} PAC1791 Symphony No. 95 in C minor, i, bb. 128–129 {c minor–major} PAC1765 Symphony No. 28 in A major, i, bb. 40–44 {e minor} EC1771/73 Symphony No. 51 in B-flat major, i, bb. 104–107 [g minor–c minor] EC1791 Symphony No. 96 in D Major, “Miracle,” i, bb. 63–64 [C major–e minor] EC1792 Symphony No. 97 in C Major, i, bb. 66–68 [A-flat major–g minor/major] EC1792 Symphony No. 97 in C Major, i. bb. 206–08 [D-flat major–c minor/major] EC1774 Symphony No. 57 in D major, i, bb. 25–31 {d minor} DE


1760 Symphony No. in G major 24 {d minor–major} 1760c. Symphony No. 18 in G major, i, bb. 57–61 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 50–54 {g minor–major} HC1757/63 c. Symphony No. 20 in C major, i, bb. 162–166 {c minor–major} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, “Feuersymphonie,” i, bb. 25–27 {e minor} HC1766–68c. Symphony No. 59 in A major, bb. 100–102 {a minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, i, bb. 50–52 {g minor} HC1774 Symphony No. 60 in C major, bb. 174–177 {c minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 33–34 {e minor} HC1771/73c. Symphony No. 65 in A major, i, bb. 111–112 {a minor} HC1778 c. Symphony No. 67 in F major, i, bb. 104–114 [B-flat–d minor] HC1786 Symphony No. 86 in D major, i, bb. 118–124 [G major–b minor] HC1787 Symphony No. 89 in F major, i, bb. 122–127 {f minor} HC1788 Symphony No. 91 in E-flat major, i, bb. 124–127 {c minor} HC1793–94 Symphony No. 100 in G major, “Military,” bb. 144–146 {d minor} HC1793 Symphony No. 101 in D, ‘The Clock,’ i bb. 242–254 {d minor} HC1765 Symphony No. 29 in E major, i, bb. 83–86 {c-sharp minor} PAC1772 Symphony No. 46 in B major, i, bb. 96–99 {g-sharp minor} PAC1785 Symphony No. 83 in G minor, “La Poule,” i, bb. 115–120 {d minor–major} PAC1791 Symphony No. 94 in G major, ‘Surprise’, i, bb. 64–67 {d minor–major} PAC1791 Symphony No. 95 in C minor, i, bb. 128–129 {c minor–major} PAC1765 Symphony No. 28 in A major, i, bb. 40–44 {e minor} EC1771/73 Symphony No. 51 in B-flat major, i, bb. 104–107 [g minor–c minor] EC1791 Symphony No. 96 in D Major, “Miracle,” i, bb. 63–64 [C major–e minor] EC1792 Symphony No. 97 in C Major, i, bb. 66–68 [A-flat major–g minor/major] EC1792 Symphony No. 97 in C Major, i. bb. 206–08 [D-flat major–c minor/major] EC1774 Symphony No. 57 in D major, i, bb. 25–31 {d minor} DE





this is the larger formal context for the occurrence in haydn’s symphony in example

3. another instance, given in example 4, shows the same medial caesura context,

now in the recapitulation, from haydn’s Clock symphony in d major (1793–94). and

the medial caesura is precisely the context suggested by bars 57–60 of Beethoven’s

second symphony. the G© that sounds in the bass at bar 61 is the expected, or would-

be, ©4 of the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL cadenza lunga variant, the third stage of the punctuation

formula’s chromatic falling thirds pattern (passage shown below in example 7).

Bar 57 thus begins a stereotypical push to a medial caesura half cadence in d minor,

which would conform to type 3 of Koch’s Hauptruhepuncte scripts (table 1): a i:QA, or

a i:hC MC in hepokoski and darcy’s terms.86 In light of this (sub)schematic context,

bars 57–60 project a strong implication for a half cadence and Quintabsatz in d minor,

owing to the orienting or anchoring function of the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL, as a punctuation

formula that communicates this specific Hauptruhepunct within the larger stereotyped

sequence of actions, script, or cognitive map for a sOnAtA FORM. to paraphrase neisser

once more, the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL is an “action hierarchically embedded in the more exten-

sive action of the Hauptruhepuncte script, and is motivated by these anticipated conse-

quences at the highest level of schematic organization.”

86. as occurs in Beethoven’s First symphony, though without the chiaroscuro change of mode to minor.

But the expectation for a d minor Quintabsatz is aggressively interrupted by the intru-

sion of a new phrase, which immediately recontextualizes the G© of bar 61 into a new

tonal context: it becomes the leading tone of the dominant, a minor. this new phrase

introduces a syntactically competing punctuation formula at the phrase level, and in a

new key at that. Bars 61–68 are a particular variant of a phrase-level pattern that Joseph

riepel called a POnte, a variant which shares features with the schema Gjerdingen has



240

[Halbcadenz]

CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )

(transition) LE–SOL–FI–SOL (i: hc mc)

Example 4: haydn, symphony no. 101/i in d major (1793–1794), bb. 240–246: le–sol–fi–sol schema, Halbcadenz usage

termed a FenAROLi.87 In its typical form (Figure 3a), the FenAROLi consists of alternating

dominant and tonic harmony, guided by a paradigmatic 7–1–2–3 scale-degree pro-

gression, typically in the bass, and a quasi-canonic 4–3–7–1 countermelody, which

sometimes is realized as a pure canon, 2–3–7–1. the schema also characteristically

features a dominant pedal in the soprano or in a “filler” voice. the end result is a four-

stage structure, with the four stages normally repeated. the pattern is therefore quite

cyclical, both in its dominant-tonic oscillation and in its repetition.

Figure 3a: Fenaroli schema: abstract representation, from Gjerdingen 2007

87. riepel, Anfangsgründe (1752–1768); Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), Chapter 14, passim.



the phrase in bars 61–68 is a hybrid version of this schema, a “Fenaroli-style Ponte”

that Gjerdingen briefly mentions in passing, while working through riepel’s discus-

sion of the POnte,88 and that I treat more extensively elsewhere (hereafter FenAROLi-

POnte).89 this hybrid (Figure 3b) is an explicit dominantizing of the standard FenAROLi,

which carries a latent potential to become a dominant pedal: normally contained in

a “filler” or upper voice of the standard version, in the FenAROLi-POnte the dominant is

positioned in the bass, while the paradigmatic 7–1–2–3 line and its countermelody

are relocated to upper voices, typically the soprano and tenor, resulting in a soprano-

tenor exchange, as seen in Figure 3b.

fenaroli-ponte

V(7) I6/4 V(7) I6/4

7 12 3

7 6r 7 6r]

5 5 5 5

1

43

72( )

}

Figure 3b: Fenaroli-Ponte schema: abstract representation, after Byros 2013

the end result is a phrase-type that Caplin would call a “standing on the domi-

nant” and hepokoski and darcy a “dominant lock.”90 the normative usage of the

FenAROLi-POnte is to expand a structural half cadence—hence Caplin’s description of

bar 61 in the second symphony as a “complete change of musical material follow-

ing the dominant arrival[, which] gives the impression of being a typical standing

88. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 202, 207.89. Byros, “trazom’s Wit” (2013).90. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), 24, 30–34, passim; Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 16, 77, passim.

the two terms are actually not precise synonyms insofar as the structural weight of the dominant pedal is concerned. superficially, the terms are identical, in that both designate a dominant-pedal phrase, but they differ in the implied form-functional meaning of the dominant prolongation. For Caplin, a “standing on the dominant” represents incidental material that is supplied after the cadence proper. For hepokoski and darcy (2006), a “dominant lock” actually prolongs the space of the half cadence until the end of the dominant expansion—in their words, the half cadence is “kept alive” (24, 31) until the close of the dominant pedal-point. In this view, the dominant pedal is form-functionally essential, not incidental, an interpretation that is consistent with Koch’s description of the phenomenon as an Anhang (“appendix”), discussed below. see especially n. 95.



on the dominant, despite the lack of cadential articulation.”91 example 5 illustrates

this cadence-extensional usage in the first movement of Beethoven’s C minor Piano

Concerto, op. 37 (c1800).92 and so, there is a local, phrase-level syntactic deviation

at bar 61 of Beethoven’s symphony, where a FenAROLi-POnte interrupts a Le–sOL–Fi–sOL

cadenza lunga variant.

34

40

FENAROLI-PONTE(transition)

(iii: hc)



sf sf sf sf sf

sf sf sf sf sf

&bbb. . . . . . . . . . .

?bbb. . . .

b .

˙ . œn œ ˙ œb œ ˙b œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ œ œb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

Œ œb œ œ œœ œ˙. œn œ œœ œ .œœb œœ œ .

œ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ˙ . œ œ

sf sf sf

sf sf sfsf

&bbb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

?bbb. . .

b. . .

œ œb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œæ˙b

æ˙ æ

˙n

œœ œ . œœb œœ œ .

œ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ

˙ œn œœ œb œ

Example 5: Beethoven, Piano Concerto in C minor, op. 37/i (c1800), bb. 34–44: Fenaroli-Ponte, standing-on-the-dominant function

this disruption at the phrase level also introduces a form-functional non sequitur at

the next highest syntactic levels: the sentenCe and its formal functions (Columns Ft

and FF). the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL, as a cadential pattern, begins to unfold the second half of

91. on the context-independence of a pattern’s inherent formal function, see agawu, Playing with Signs (1991), 103; Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 111; and vallières et al., “Perception of Intrinsic Formal Functionality” (2009), 17–43. there are some cases where the FenAROLi-POnte exhibits continuation function, specifically in what Caplin calls a hybrid 3 context (compound basic idea + continuation). this is the case, for example, with the opening theme of K. 452/ii (bb. 5–8) and of K. 246/i (bb. 5–8).

92. I have deliberately avoided Caplin’s qualification of the standing on the dominant as “post-cadential” for the reasons outlined in n. 90. and n. 95.



the compound sentenCe initiated at bar 47, specifically a fused formal function that

Caplin calls a “continuation ⇒ cadence,” where a continuation consists entirely of

a cadential progression—in this case the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL variant of a “long cadence,”

which is conceptually similar to Caplin’s “expanded cadential progression.”93 the

FenAROLi-POnte interrupts this process, creating a form-functional non sequitur that is

accompanied by an abrupt change of key: a cadence-extensional FenAROLi-POnte in a

minor intrudes on a cadential Le–sOL–Fi–sOL in d minor mid-process.

Both the phrase-level (Phl) and middleground (Ft) deviations are further coor-

dinated to create a larger-scale disruption at the highest level of the arched hierar-

chy: the Hauptruhepuncte script. a corpus analysis of the FenAROLi-POnte’s sonata-form

usage also reveals an affinity to a medial caesura Quintabsatz, as is the case with the

Le–sOL–Fi–sOL, but from the opposite end of the Hauptruhepunct, as a clarifying punc-

tuation formula.94 Whereas the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL is typically used to produce the moment

of cadence itself (the arrival of the dominant), the FenAROLi-POnte was a standard

formula for extending the cadence with ancillary material. Koch also discussed cer-

tain after-the-fact punctuation signs which function as an “appendix” (Anhang): an

“explanation […] which further clarifies the phrase,” and a “means through which

a phrase[’s] […] substance [is] more closely defined.”95 the Anhang affords a kind of

retrospective anchoring of closure in marking the Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes—it com-

municates a state of attunement described as cadential extension (e) in table 2. In the 88

extant movements of Cimarosa’s Keyboard sonatas, the FenAROLi-POnte appears a total

of 21 times, 14 of which (66.7%) are Anhänge to a Quintabsatz that produces the medial

caesura half cadence (table 4).96

93. Indeed Caplin’s category of eCP which normally holds this formal function is one species of cadenza lunga described in the eighteenth century. see sanguinetti, The Art of Partimento (2012), 107–100, passim. on the concept of a “continuation ⇒ cadence,” see Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 45–47, 61, 70, passim.

94. the corpus analysis is featured and outlined in Byros, “trazom’s Wit” (2013).95. Koch, Versuch II (1787), §110, 435 (45). Crucially, for Koch (and for hepokoski and darcy), a dominant

Anhang or pedal-point prolongs the half cadence until the end of the Anhang. In Koch’s discussion of Anhänge, he makes clear that the terminal point of the Anhang and the cadence that precedes it constitute a single structural event insofar as the punctuation form is concerned: “In the comparison of the punctuation of phrases, only that phrase-ending with which the phrase attains its maximum completeness is taken into consideration. the preceding phrase-endings on exactly the same triad are not taken into account, but are considered as mere incises. thus this multiplication of phrase-endings by means of an appendix takes place without transgressing the rule given in section 34” (vol. III [1793], §58, 197 [150f.]). this rule concerns the “sequence of phrase-endings,” specifically the syntax of Grundabsätze and Quintabsätze: “neither two I-phrases nor two V-phrases in one and the same key may be composed immediately after one another with melodic sections which differ from each other” (vol. III [1793], §34, 111f. [110], original emphasis).

96. Byros, “trazom’s Wit” (2013).



Table 4: Fenaroli-Ponte sonata-form usage in the Cimarosa Keyboard sonatas (corpus sample size 88 movements), after Byros 2013

1. Keyboard Sonata in D major, c8, bars 16–17 2. Keyboard Sonata in D minor, c17, bars 24–273. ___________, bars 28–304. Keyboard Sonata in F major, c24, bars 8–10 5. ___________, bars 23–256. Keyboard Sonata in C minor, c28, bars 7–97. Keyboard Sonata in A major, c29, bars 11–138. Keyboard Sonata in E-flat major, c44, bars 9–109. Keyboard Sonata in C minor, c49, bars 5–810. Keyboard Sonata in F major, c71, bars 17–2011. ___________, bars 78–8112. Keyboard Sonata in E-flat major, c74, bars 19–2313. ___________, bars 51–5414. Keyboard Sonata in E-flat major, c77, bars 68–7215. Keyboard Sonata in B-flat major, c78, bars 29–3316. ___________, bars 77–8017. ___________, bars 81–8418. ___________, bars 93–9719. Keyboard Sonata in B-flat major, c80, bars 9–1520. ___________, bars 25–2921. ___________, bars 41–47

HC retrans.-suffixHC retrans.-suffixPAC (repeat of no. 2HC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixDA retrans.-suffixHC transition-suffixHC retrans.-suffixHC retrans.-suffixHC transition-suffixDA transition-suffixDA retrans.-suffixDA transition-suffix

c1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770sc1770s


HC retrans.-suffixHC retrans.-suffixPAC (repeat of no. 2)HC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixHC transition-suffixDA retrans.-suffixHC transition-suffixHC retrans.-suffixHC retrans.-suffixHC transition-suffixDA transition-suffixDA retrans.-suffixDA transition-suffix







1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s1770s

this punctuation formula exhibits an almost identical syntactic affinity to the medial

Hauptruhepunct as the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL in the haydn symphonies (70% compared to

66.7%), but from the opposite end of the cadence, as a transition-suffix, of sorts. and

roughly the same percentage (60%) obtains in randomly encountered occurrences of

the FenAROLi-POnte in the music of Mozart, C. P. e. Bach, haydn, Beethoven, and their

contemporaries: Johann Christian Bach (1735–1782), Josef antonín stepán (1726–

1797), Johann schobert (c1720, 1730, or 1745–1767), Josef Myslivecek (1737–1781),

leopold Mozart (1719–1787), Baldassare Galuppi (1706–1785), and Johann Gottfried

eckard (1735–1809).97 this Halbcadenz-extending function is the formal context for

the passage from Beethoven’s C minor Piano Concerto, shown in example 5.

In the recapitulation of Beethoven two, shown in example 6, the transition (now

also fused with the principal theme)98 is recomposed, and the FenAROLi-POnte’s nor-

mative sonata-form usage restored: it appears in bar 236 as an Anhang to a medial cae-

sura half cadence (Halbcadenz), now in the tonic (example 6). Beethoven’s recomposi-

tion of the passage renders the recapitulated FenAROLi-POnte an explicit commentary

on and corrective to its “premature” entry in the exposition. the latter causes one of

the most powerful syntactic elisions in the repertoire, by producing a non sequitur that

affects a listener’s orientation on numerous levels: tonal orientation (change of key),

97. Ibid.98. see Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 165–167.



phrase-level orientation (breaking of local syntax), middleground form-functional

orientation (disruption of the compound sentence), and ultimately one’s location

within the Hauptruhepuncte sequence that frames the entire cognitive map of a sOnAtA.

the end product is an abrupt clashing of keys and formal functions and an “absent

cadence”99 at the global level.

sf

f

sf

sf

sf

sf

235FENAROLI-PONTECONVERGING

240FENAROLI-PONTE

. . .

. . .

(pt ⟾ transition)(i: hc)

[Halbcadenz]CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )



(i: hc)

Example 6: Beethoven, symphony no. 2 in d major, op. 36/i (1801–02), bb. 235–44: normative Fenaroli-Ponte usage restored in recapitulation

this calculated deviation in the exposition, surely among the types of devices that

sulzer, Koch, and others associated with “sublime” (erhab[e]ne) effects most suitable

and even expected for a symphony,100 could not produce such a wondrous effect had

the large-scale goal of a medial Hauptruhepunct not been anticipated in the mind of

a listener—that is, if one did not expect to be anchored to the “predetermined, ste-

reotyped sequence of actions” one expects at the large-scale level of the sOnAtA punc-

tuation script, as they are shaped and communicated by the lower-level, embedded

99. Mirka, “absent Cadences” (2012). see also Mirka, this volume.100. see e.g., Webster, Haydn’s “Farewell” Symphony (1991), 162f., 230f., 247f., 365, 369; sisman, Mozart: The

“Jupiter” Symphony (1993), 79; Baker and Christensen (eds.), Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition (1995), 106, 147, 152; Brown, “the sublime, the Beautiful, and the ornamental” (1996); and Bonds, “the symphony as Pindaric ode” (1997).



subschemata. the force of the subschematic violations at the foreground (Phl) and

middleground (Ft) levels is compounded by this larger-scale “navigation” through

the “cognitive map” for a sOnAtA FORM. the deviation is strategically targeted at, and

therefore framed within, the larger-scale expectations formed by the Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes as the principal subschemata of the sOnAtA concept. It consequently imposes

a reorientation in the mental representation or cognitive map of this expected “peri-

odic structure” (Periodenbau), as communicated by the structured integration of sub-

schemata, in the mind of a listener. and this change in orientation—effectively, a

schema violation—at the sOnAtA-FORM level is responsible for the passage’s affective

significance and sublime qualities.101 Beethoven two presents a situation where no

medial Hauptruhepunct ever properly materializes in the exposition. the deviation at

bar 61 causes a shift from a Koch-type 3 exposition script, anchored by the Le–sOL–Fi–

sOL punctuation schema, to a Koch-type 1, retrospectively anchored by the FenAROLi-

POnte. But a cadence is never articulated in either scenario. the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL projects

a i:QA that never materializes, the FenAROLi-POnte retroactively expands a v:QA that

never arrives by way of a cadence (a “lack of cadential articulation,” as Caplin put it).

a half cadence does finally appear at bar 69, the only suitable candidate for an hC

MC,102 but is articulated only at the most local level. It sounds within a larger stand-

ing on the dominant context (see table 2), and is therefore not “cadential” in the

sense of the end of a syntactic process, or goal.103 In Koch’s terms, it represents not a

structural Halbcadenz, but a more local Ruhepunct (more along the lines of an Einschnitt) within a larger Anhang—an Anhang to a Hauptruhepunct that never materialized. the

medial Hauptruhepunct is only represented by each punctuation (sub)schema from

either end of the cadence, as shown in example 7. Because neither cadence is fully

articulated, the exposition is a member of neither Hauptruhepunct script category fully.

In hepokoski and darcy’s language, a unique and powerful case of “medial caesura

declined” results, whereby the symphony suddenly leaps ahead in the “deployment

sequence” of medial caesura options,104 from a projected i:hC MC to an after-the-fact v:hC MC (example 7). the exposition of Beethoven two is therefore part Koch-type

3, part Koch-type 1. By representing both i:QA and v:QA medial Hauptruhepuncte via

their respective punctuation schemas (Le–sOL–Fi–sOL and FenAROLi-POnte), it also

touches on Koch’s type 4 exposition script.

101. on the affective and emotional consequence of schema violations, see Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956), and huron, Sweet Anticipation (2006).

102. hepokoski and darcy place the medial caesura at bar 71, with a half cadence at bar 69, and caesura fill in bars 71f. (see Elements [2006], 25f., 45).

103. For a more thorough consideration of this point, see Poundie Burstein’s contribution to this volume. see also Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 43: a cadence “essentially represents the structural end of broader harmonic, melodic, and phrase-structural processes.” see also Caplin, “the Classical Cadence” (2004).

104. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), 36–40.



. . .

. . .

. . .

FENAROLI-PONTE

[Anhang]POST-CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )

. . .

. . .

57

sf sf

[Halbcadenz]CONTINUATION ⟾ CADENTIAL ( DOMINANT )

(transition)LE–SOL–FI–SOL (cadenza lunga variant)

ff

ff

(elision)

(i: hc mc) (v: hc mc)

Example 7: Beethoven, symphony no. 2 in d major, op. 36/i (1801–02), bb. 57–63: elision and symbolic references of the Halbcadenz

these discrepancies and ambiguities may invite the question as to what the “true”

form of the exposition to this symphonic movement may be. But from a schema-

theoretic perspective, these formal types are not candidates for a final interpretation.

to search for “the” form of the symphony is to labor under a misapprehension. the

exposition has no “final” form that can be represented by any one of Koch’s categories

for a sonata-form exposition. hepokoski and darcy go some way to bring this point

in relief when characterizing musical form in general as essentially “dialogic.”105

Beethoven’s exposition is, once again to use their language, “in dialogue with” all

three Hauptruhepuncte scripts. From a schema-theoretic window, the dialogue or

plurality of knowledge extends further to other lower-level features of syntax. every

utterance in a composition is somehow framed within a generic, culturally regulated

context (even if by deviation or omission),106 and these various frames themselves are

interconnected in a complex web of intra-opus, inter-opus, associative, sequential,

and hierarchical relations. Koch’s several exposition scripts of Hauptruhepuncte (here

most relevantly types 1, 3, and 4), the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL and FenAROLi-POnte as lower-level

punctuation (sub)schemas, the middleground syntactic category of sentenCe, these

are all des Geistes—mental representations of past experiences through and against

which Beethoven two is heard, understood, and communicated. they are, to invite

the communication theorist Paul Cobley to the seminar table, integrated “cues” that

collectively prompt generic expectations in the minds of listeners:

105. Ibid., 10f. see also hepokoski, “approaching the First Movement of Beethoven’s Tempest” (2009).106. Cf. hepokoski and darcy, Elements (2006), 7: “[…] deviations helped to reinforce the socially shared

norm that was temporarily overridden.”



[I]t would be a mistake to imagine, as has traditionally been the case, that genres can be identified simply by examining some formal qualities of texts. rather, genre should be understood as a set of expectations on the part of audiences; these expectations are sufficiently prominent in audiences’ minds, and prompted by numerous cues, that they impute a great deal of flexibility in the process by which a text might be said to be part of a genre.107

these “numerous cues” are structured and involve musical knowledge at all levels of

abstraction. Past experiences, when operating together as an organized whole, pro-

duce an emergent concept, a structured configuration of different types of knowledge,

a particular activation of the mind as a “polyphonic structure”—in short, a “schema.”

Koch’s several exposition scripts of Hauptruhepuncte, the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL and FenAROLi-

POnte as lower-level punctuation formulas, the middleground phrase-structural cate-

gory of sentenCe, these are different varieties of eighteenth-century syntax that, through

their structured integration, build to such a schema—to a sOnAtA-FORM schema.

this “schema” conceivably figured into contemporaries’ reasoning, when

they speak, as does nägeli in 1803, of both customary (“gewöhnliche”) and deviant

(“abweichende”) aspects of “sonaten-Form.” and it is reasonable to conclude that

Beethoven’s gesture in the second symphony was calculated to deliberately exploit

the generic expectations his listeners had formed on account of this sOnAtA-FORM

schema. Bob snyder, in his Music and Memory, suggests that “large-scale representa-

tions of musical form […] result in […] listeners having a sense of familiarity and

increasingly specific expectations around the chunk boundaries,” and especially at

the “higher-level chunk boundaries.”108 From an eighteenth-century perspective,

these larger boundaries would correspond to Koch’s Hauptruhepuncte. not only does

Koch’s end-oriented approach to phrase-structure and phrase-definition in gen-

eral support such an interpretation, but he also explicitly identifies the higher-level

chunks—the “principal punctuation sections” (interpunctische Hauptteile)—with the

means of their production: the boundary markers produced by the “principal resting

points of the mind.”109 Beethoven’s deviation is targeted precisely at the boundary of

one of these higher-level chunks, the medial caesura half cadence. In light of the nor-

mative punctuation scripts reconstructed via corpus analysis, it stands to reason that

a sOnAtA-FORM punctuation script was among the culturally shared cognitive contexts

by which composers and listeners communicated in the eighteenth century.

this “schema,” finally, is the context for the “outtake” given in example 1. the

alternate version for bars 56–71 might well have come from a Beethoven sketchbook.

107. Cobley, “Communication and verisimilitude” (2008), 24.108. snyder, Music and Memory (2000), 222, 219; also 54f.109. Koch, Versuch III (1793), §129, 342 (213).



Indeed several folios in landsberg 7,110 which contains sketches for the first movement,

and six drafts of the exposition, show Beethoven working through several different

versions of its transition and medial caesura. these include a diatonic form of the

cadenza lunga, as seen in the excerpt from a first draft reproduced in example 8, which

develops the primary motive from an early version of the symphony.111 the “outtake”

in example 1, however, is a hypothetical recomposition that realizes the implications

of the sOnAtA-FORM schema presupposed by the events of bars 47–61.

[ ]

[ ]2 Va

Example 8: Beethoven, symphony no. 2 in d major, early draft of the transition in the landsberg 7 sketchbook: p. 39 (Karl lothar Mikulicz, ed. [1927], Ein Notierungsbuch von Beethoven, leipzig: Breitkopf und härtel. repr., hildesheim: G. olms, 1972)

the hypothetical recomposition features two basic “corrections” that restore the

deviation to the anticipated course in the sOnAtA script. First, four additional meas-

ures have been added at bar 61 in order to complete the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL cadenza lunga variant initiated at bar 57, as well as the hypermetric and middleground form-func-

tional implications of the compound sentenCe initiated at bar 47.112 second, the actual

music from bars 61–71 of Beethoven’s symphony has been recast in d minor, so that

the FenAROLi-POnte now functions as a proper cadential extension of a normalized

Halbcadenz in d minor, which is fully realized by the completion of the Le–sOL–Fi–sOL.

to facilitate comparison, example 9 aligns the bass line for the reconstruction with

the bass line from Beethoven’s original in the smaller ossia staff. In sum, the hypo-

thetical recomposition reconstructs a plausible (sentence-)continuation as expected

by a listener fluent with the interactions among different kinds of eighteenth-century

syntax—fluent, that is, with the sOnAtA-FORM schema.

110. Mikulicz (ed.), Ein Notierungsbuch von Beethoven (1927/1972), 38–53.111. the six drafts of the exposition in landsberg 7 show an overall transition from a I:hC and v:hC (a

Koch type 4 script) to a v:hC MC.112. the recomposition uses a protracted form of the Le–sOL– Fi–sOL that appears in cadenza lunga contexts.

see for example, Mozart’s symphony no. 27, K. 199/ii, in G major, andantino grazioso, bb. 22–32, and 79–89.



sf

sf

sf

sf

sf

sf

sf sfsf sf

ffsf sf

56 = 61

sfff

61

65

Example 9: Beethoven, symphony no. 2 in d major, op. 36/i (1801–02), bb. 56–71: Bass-line comparison of original (ossia staff) and hypothetical versions

•

In navigating this sOnAtA schema landscape, I have undoubtedly left many stones

unturned. But my ambition, in tying schema theory and the historical context of

“interpunctische Form” to this passage in Beethoven’s symphony (and its alternate

version outtake), was not to bring a definitive answer or conceptualization to the

table: where the cognition and listening practices of late-eighteenth-century sOnAtA

FORM are concerned, thereby hangs a long tale. My intention was simply to offer but

a prologue for such a tale, to maintain that it is a tale worth telling, that the CADenCe

is among its main protagonists, and that such a conception has strong roots in the

late eighteenth century. this brief case study suggests there are indeed stones to be

turned in the first place, and the CADenCe plays a fundamental role in determining

which stones need turning.



Bibliography

agawu, v. Kofi (1991), Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

aristotle (1906), De sensu and De memoria, trans. G. r. t. ross, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, nancy Kovaleff and thomas Christensen, eds. (1995), Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment: Selected Writings of Johann Georg Sulzer and Heinrich Christoph Koch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bergé, Pieter, ed. (2010), Musical Form, Forms, and Formenlehre: Three Methodological Reflections, leuven: leuven University Press.

Berger, Karol (2007), Bach’s Cycle, Mozart’s Arrow: An Essay on the Origins of Musical Modernity, Berkeley and los angeles: University of California Press.

——— (1991), “the second-Movement Punctuation Form in Mozart’s Piano Concertos: the andantino of K. 449,” Mozart-Jahrbuch, 168–172.

——— (1992), “toward a history of hearing: the Classic Concerto, a sample Case,” in: Convention in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Music: Essays in Honor of Leonard G. Ratner, ed. Wye J. allanbrook, Janet M. levy, and William P. Mahrt, stuyvesant: Pendragon, 405–429.

——— (1996), “the First-Movement Punctuation Form in Mozart’s Piano Concertos,” in: Mozart’s Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation, ed. neal Zaslaw, ann arbor: University of Michigan Press, 239–254.

——— (1998), “Mozart’s Concerto andante Punctuation Form,” Mozart-Jahrbuch, 119–138.Bharucha, Jamshed (1984), “anchoring effects in Music: the resolution of dissonance,”

Cognitive Psychology 16, 485–518.Bonds, Mark evan (1996), “the symphony as Pindaric ode,” in: Haydn and His World, ed.

elaine sisman, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 131–153. Brown, a. Peter (1996), “the sublime, the Beautiful, and the ornamental: english aesthetic

Currents and haydn’s london symphonies,” in: Studies in Music History, Presented to H. C. Robbins Landon on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. otto Biba and david Wyn Jones, london: thames and hudson, 44–71.

Budday, Wolfgang (1983), Grundlagen musikalischer Formen der Wiener Klassik, Kassel: Bärenreiter.Burstein, Poundie (2010), “Mid-section Cadences in haydn’s sonata-Form Movements,”

Studia Musicologica 51/1–2, 91–107.Byros, vasili (2009), “Foundations of tonality as situated Cognition, 1730–1830: an enquiry

into the Culture and Cognition of eighteenth-Century tonality, with Beethoven’s eroica symphony as a Case study,” Ph.d. diss., yale University.

——— (2012), “Meyer’s anvil: revisiting the schema Concept.” Music Analysis 31/3, 273–346.——— (2013), “trazom’s Wit: Communicative strategies in a ‘Popular’ yet ‘difficult’

sonata,” Eighteenth-Century Music 10/2, 213–252.Caplin, William e. (1998), Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of

Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, oxford: oxford University Press.——— (2001), “the Classical sonata exposition: Cadential Goals and Form-Functional

Plans,” Dutch Journal of Music Theory 6/3, 195–209.——— (2004), “the Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions,” Journal of the

American Musicological Society 57/1, 51–118.



Cobley, Paul (2008), “Communication and verisimilitude in the eighteenth Century,” in: Communication in Eighteenth-Century Music, ed. danuta Mirka and Kofi agawu, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–33.

dahlhaus, Carl (1983), Analysis and Value Judgement, trans. siegmund levarie, new york: Pendragon Press.

——— (1985), Realism in Ninteenth-Century Music, trans. Mary Whittall, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1978), “der rhetorische Formbegriff h.Chr. Kochs und die theorie der sonatenform,” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 35/3, 155–177.

diergarten, Felix (2012), “Jedem Ohre klingend.” Haydns sinfonische Formprinzipien, laaber: laaber.Forschner, hermann (1984), Instrumentalmusik Joseph Haydns aus der Sicht Heinrich Christoph

Kochs, München-salzburg: Katzbichler. Gibson, James J. (1966), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, Boston, Ma: houghton Mifflin.——— (1986), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, new york: Psychology Press.Gjerdingen, robert o. (2007), Music in the Galant Style, new york: oxford University Press.Gossett, Philip (1989), “Carl dahlhaus and the ‘Ideal type’,” 19th-Century Music 13/1, 49–56.heft, harry (2001), Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of

William James’s Radical Empiricism, Mahwah, nJ and london: lawrence erlbaum.hepokoski, James (2009), “approaching the First Movement of Beethoven’s tempest sonata

through sonata theory,” in: Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and Performance, ed. Pieter Bergé, William e. Caplin, and Jeroen d’hoe. leuven: Peeters, 181–212.

hepokoski, James and Warren darcy (2006), Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata, new york: oxford University Press.

——— (1997), “the Medial Caesura and Its role in the eighteenth-Century sonata exposition,” Music Theory Spectrum 19/2, 115–54.

huron, david (2006), Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation, Cambridge, Ma: MIt Press.

Kirnberger, Johann Philipp (1771–1779), Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik. 2 vols. (volume 1, Berlin, 1771; volume 2, sections 1–3, Berlin and Königsberg, 1776, 1777 and 1779). selections trans. david Beach and Jurgen thym as The Art of Strict Musical Composition, new haven: yale University Press, 1982.

Koch, heinrich Christoph (1782–1787–1793), Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols., leipzig: Böhme. reprint, hildesheim: olms, 1969. selections trans. nancy Kovaleff Baker as Introductory Essay on Musical Composition, new haven, Ct: yale University Press, 1983.

——— (1802), Musikalisches Lexicon, Frankfurt a. M.: hermann.liddell, h. G. and robert scott (1989), An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, oxford and new

york: oxford University Press.Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm (1753–1754), Abhandlung von der Fuge, 2 vols. Berlin: haude &

spencer.——— (1759–1763), Kritische Briefe über die Tonkunst, 2 vols. Berlin: Birstiel.Mattheson, Johann (1739), Der vollkommene Capellmeister, hamburg: herold.Meyer, leonard B. (1956), Emotion and Meaning in Music, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.——— (1967/1994), Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture,

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ——— (1973), Explaining Music: Essays and Explorations, Berkeley: University of California Press.



——— (1989), Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology, Philadelphia, Pa: University of Pennsylvania Press.

——— (1980), “exploiting limits: Creation, archetypes, and style Change,” Daedalus 109/2, 177–205.

Mikulicz, Karl lothar, ed. (1927), Ein Notierungsbuch von Beethoven, leipzig: Breitkopf und hartel. reprint, hildesheim: olms, 1972.

Mirka, danuta (2009), Metric Manipulations in Haydn and Mozart: Chamber Music for Strings, 1787–1791, new york: oxford University Press.

——— (2012), “absent Cadences,” Eighteenth-Century Music 9/2, 213–235.nägeli, hans Georg (1803), “ankündigung: repertoire des Clavecinistes,” Intelligenz-Blatt zur

Allgemeinen Musikalischen Zeitung 23 (august). addendum to issue no. 47 (17 august) of the leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung.

neisser, Ulric (1976), Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology, san Francisco, Ca: W.h. Freeman.

Piaget, Jean (1980), “the Psychogenesis of Knowledge and Its epistemological significance,” in: Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Cambridge, Ma: harvard University Press, 23–34.

ratner, leonard (1980), Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style, new york: schirmer Books.riepel, Joseph (1752–1768), Anfangsgründe zur musikalischen Setzkunst, 5 vols. augsburg: J.J. lotter.rumelhart, david e. (1980), “schemata: the Building Blocks of Cognition,” in: Theoretical

Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Education, ed. rand spiro, Bertram Bruce, and William Brewer, hillsdale, nJ: lawrence erlbaum, 33–58.

rumelhart, david e., Paul smolensky, J.l. McClelland, and G.e. hinton (1986), “schemata and sequential thought Processes in PdP Models,” in: Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, 2 vols. Cambridge, Ma and london: MIt Press, 7–57.

sanguinetti, Giorgio (2012), The Art of Partimento: History, Theory, and Practice, new york: oxford University Press.

schank, roger and robert abelson (1977), Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, new york and london: Psychology Press, taylor & Francis.

scheibe, Johann adolph (1738–1745), Der critische Musikus, 2 vols., hamburg.shore, Bradd (1996), Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning, new york:

oxford University Press.sisman, elaine (1993), Mozart: The “Jupiter” Symphony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.snyder, Bob (2000), Music and Memory: An Introduction, Cambridge, Ma: MIt Press.spitzer, Michael (2004), Metaphor and Musical Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.sulzer, Johann Georg (1787), Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, leipzig: Weidmann & reich.temperley, david (2008), “review of Music in the Galant Style,” Journal of Music Theory 50/2,

277–290.türk, daniel Gottlob (1800), Anweisung zum Generalbaßspielen, 2nd edition, halle and leipzig:

hemmerde & schwetchke, schwickert. reprint, ed. rainer Bayreuther, laaber: laaber, 2005.



vallières, Michel, daphne tan, William e. Caplin, and stephen Mcadams (2009), “Perception of Intrinsic Formal Functionality: an empirical Investigation of Mozart’s Materials,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies 3/1–2, 17–43.

vial, stephanie (2008), The Art of Musical Phrasing in the Eighteenth Century, rochester: University of rochester Press.

Weber, Max (2011), Methodology of Social Sciences, trans. and ed. edward a. shils and henry a. Finch, new Brunswick, nJ: transaction Publishers.

Webster, James (1991), Haydn’s “Farewell” Symphony and the Idea of Classical Style: Through-Composition and Cyclic Integration in his Instrumental Music, Cambridge and new york: Cambridge University Press.


What Is a CadenCe -...

Documents

Transcript of What Is a CadenCe -...