Suzannah Clark comments on an analysis by Thomas A. Denny of Schubert's song "Ganymed," D544. He is concerned to locate
the degree to which symmetrical pairs of thirds may be detected in its array of five keys. He spots them between Ab and Cb on the one hand and E and C on the other, [but] this configuration problematically omits the final key from consideration. [He therefore] invokes Schenker. The complex of keys in "Ganymed" unfolds beneath, he says, an Urlinie. But this is no ordinary Urlinie. The thread that joins the keys in "Ganymed" turns out to be an extraordinary turn of Schenkerian events. Denny finds an ascending Urlinie, from Eb to E-nat to F. It is even chromatic. He makes no comment about its unusual behavior (Schenker's final verdict was that an Urlinie should always descend and should always be strictly diatonic). Instead, Denny slips seamlessly to another hermeneutic plane and suggests that the Urlinie that he identifies "mirrors Ganymed's ascent into the clouds." (Clark, 108)I would not rule this "Urlinie" out, of course, but I doubt I'd call it an Urlinie—maybe something more like "abstract top-level melodic shape," but that's not very snappy sounding, alas. And abstract it certainly is, as its connection to specific melodic elements has no stronger a claim than do other triad notes. The best one can say is the voice never goes above the notes indicated as background tones, and the piano is quite restrained, too, only going higher in the E major section and in its short coda. Here are excerpts from the score, taken from the first edition, with relevant pitches marked.
The Ab major opening; the turn to Cb major:
The turn from E major to F major:
And the ending, with half of the piano's coda. Here, not making any claim about focal notes preceding it, I mark out a relatively simple descent from ^4 to ^1 in the closing cadence.
Clark's attitude seems to be critical of Denny's reading—and of its source (note the phrase "Schenker's final verdict")—but the real focus of her critique is Denny's shift from analysis to hermeneutics ("Instead, Denny slips seamlessly. . ."). Shortly after (109), she says that "This book aims to expose how an analyst's choice of music theory can shift hermeneutic windows. As suggested already, an object of interpretation can indeed 'be made to appear explicitly problematic' by one theory, but not another." Thus, it would appear that the shifting is the problem, but in a note (108n96) she also says that "I do not mean to imply that a musical structure should only ever be explained by means of a single theory. Rather, I wish to note that the impulse to shift theoretical positions is usually accompanied by a desire to draw some hermeneutic conclusion that is not accessible through a single method of analysis." The uncertainty I feel about what to make of this is apparently shared by at least one of the book's reviewers: "I dwell on this example because it illustrates a tendency I found frustrating in Clark’s otherwise admirably readable and engaging book. We gladly follow [Clark’s] lively discussions of published analyses. Yet when Clark locates [a hermeneutic window] she can seem reluctant to open it very far, preferring to make only hasty notations" (Muxfeldt, ¶6).
References:
Suzannah Clark. 2011. Analyzing Schubert. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas A. Denny. 1989. “Directional Tonality in Schubert’s Lieder.” In Franz Schubert—Der Fortschrittliche? Analysen, Perspektiven, Fakten, edited by Erich Wolfgang Partsch, 37–53. Tutzing: Hans Schneider.
Kristina Muxfeldt, Review of Suzannah Clark, Analyzing Schubert (Cambridge University Press, 2011). Music Theory Online 18/3.
