City University of New York (CUNY)CUNY Academic WorksDissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Graduate Center1989Talent and Technique: George Gershwin's"Rhapsody in Blue" and John Paul II's Mayday 1984Address to New York Gay and Lesbian Socialists'League at Cooper Union's Great Hall (Transcribedinto Verse from Unauthorized French and ItalianVersions of the Official Soviet Translation of thePolish Original by Norman MacAfee) for TenorSolo, Chorus (SATB), and Eight PlayersArthur MaiselGraduate Center, City University of New YorkHow does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!Follow this and additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etdsPart of the Music CommonsThis Dissertation is brought to you by CUNY Academic Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projectsby an authorized administrator of CUNY Academic Works. For more information, please contact deposit@gc.cuny.edu.Recommended CitationMaisel, Arthur, "Talent and Technique: George Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" and John Paul II's Mayday 1984 Address to New YorkGay and Lesbian Socialists' League at Cooper Union's Great Hall (Transcribed into Verse from Unauthorized French and ItalianVersions of the Official Soviet Translation of the Polish Original by Norman MacAfee) for Tenor Solo, Chorus (SATB), and EightPlayers" (1989). CUNY Academic Works.https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1698INFORMATION TO USERSThe most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.U niversity M icrofilms International A Bell & H owell Information C o m p a n y 3 0 0 North Z e e b R oad , Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0O rd er N u m b e r 9000045Talent and technique: George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in B lue” and, John Paul IPs M ayday 1984 Address to N ew York Gay and Lesbian Socialists’ League at Cooper U nion’s Great H all (transcribed into verse from unauthorized French and Italian versions o f the official Soviet translation o f the Polish original by N orm an M acAfee) for tenor solo, chorus (SA T B ), and eight players. [Original music]Maisel, Arthur, Ph.D.City University of New York, 1989Copyright ©1989 by Maisel, Arthur. All rights reserved.300 N. Zeeb Rd.Ann Arbor, MI 48106TALENT AND TECHNIQUE:GEORGE GERSHWIN’S RHAPSODY IN BLUEandJOHN PAUL ITS MAYDAY 1984 ADDRESS TO NEW YORK GAY AND LESBIAN SOCIALISTS’ LEAGUE AT COOPER UNION’S GREAT HALL (TRANSCRIBED INTO VERSE FROM UNAUTHORIZED FRENCH AND ITALIAN VERSIONS OF THE OFFICIAL SOVIET TRANSLATION OF THE POLISH ORIGINAL BY NORMAN MACAFEE)FOR TENOR SOLO, CHORUS (SATB), AND EIGHT PLAYERSbyARTHUR MAISELA dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philoshopy, The City University of New York.1989© 1989 ARTHUR MAISEL All Rights ReservedThis manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Music in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.DateP . ' ' Professor Henry Weinberg uChair of Examining CommitteeExecutive OfficerProfessor Hugo Weisgall Professor H. Wiley Hitchcock Professor Steve Larson Professor Carl Schachter Professor Sherman Van SolkemaSupervisory CommitteeDate Professor Barry S. BrookThe City University of New York[signature][signature]i vAbstractTALENT AND TECHNIQUE:GEORGE GERSHWIN’S RHAPSODY IN BLUEandJOHN PAUL ITS MAYDAY 1984 ADDRESS byArthur MaiselAdviser: Professor Hugo WeisgallThe dissertation consists of two parts, an analytical essay and a composition.The essay starts from the fact that the musical worth of the Rhapsody in Blue has often been questioned, despite its having been a fixture of the repetoire since its premiere.A close (Schenkerian) analysis shows the flaws of the piece in detail. It also reveals considerable structural coherence, however, comprising very sophisticated treatment of motives in the foreground and middleground, and, in the background, the unfolding of a tritone as the boundary of a tonic that is both B-flat major-minor and a whole-tone collection. Since Gershwin was mostly untrained at the time and the Rhapsody was his first large work, the question arises as to how he was able to achieve such sophistication. The answer proposed is that through improvisation he was able to tap his great talent, though lacking the technique to write a completely convincing work. The essay concludes with a brief consideration of Schenker’s concept of talent as it relates to our ability to comprehend music in general, particularly in light of recent thought about cognition.In form, the composition falls somewhere between a cantata and a monodrama (overlaid with elements of the Mass) for solo tenor and chorus (SATB). It is scored for flute (piccolo, alto), B-flat clarinet (E-flat soprano, bass), E-flat alto saxophone, percussion (one player), celesta, piano, electric piano, and organ (two keyboard players), violin (viola), and cello.VPrefaceWhy would anyone devote an intensely analytical theoretical dissertation to George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue? Surely it is not worth the sustained effort involved. Admittedly, it is a classic of a kind—but a dissertation on it must be of that unfortunate (and all too prevalent) class that can be described as “trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.” jI do see the point and I do not entirely disagree. But however much it tends to sound like the sort of pastiche we associate with the “overtures” to Broadway shows, it seems as if Gershwin himself wanted to write a piece that met Classical standards. Maybe we should take his intentions seriously, rather than prejudging the results of a close study of the music.Having made a close study of the music, my reasons for this presentation of the results are of two kinds, personal and professional. The professional reasons will, I hope, become clear in the course of the dissertation—though perhaps I should summarize them here.It seems to me that Heinrich Schenker’s theories of tonal music—while widely influential (in fact, probably constituting the “paradigm” of current tonal theory)—have not been deeply understood. It is always easier to adopt the superficial aspects of any system than to grasp its profoundest ideas. The reception of Freud’s theories is a prime example of this tendency: It has now proceeded from superficial and uncritical acceptance to rejection often based on an equally superficial understanding. Lest this happen to Schenkeras well, we owe it to the music we love and want to understand to gain a comprehensive understanding of the ideas before we add to or subtract from them.The Rhapsody in Blue provides us with an interesting “test case” for Schenker’s ideas, because it is the work of a very talented, but largely untrained composer. Does a Schenkerian analysis correspond to what we already feel about the piece, confirming its status both as a minor masterpiece and a work with serious flaws? Does it confirm these general reactions in detail? Further, does such an analysis help to explain how such a piece could have been created in the first place by such a composer? Finally, does the analysis suggest more universal truths about musical creation and musical apprehension?I believe that the analysis not only meets the first condition of corresponding to what we already feel, while illuminating both the successes and failures in the musical workings of the piece, but it also provides the basis for addressing the more general concerns mentioned.One key to tonal music that Schenker dwelt on, but that is often neglected nowadays, is the fundamental importance of improvisation in the Classical tradition. Here is a link with Gershwin’s compositional practice that can explain some of the impressive compositional control, otherwise very difficult to account for, shown in the piece. Moreover, if mastery of improvisation is a key factor in Gershwin’s success, we are led to consider whether intuition might play a greater role both in the creation and apprehension of music than it is fashionable to acknowledge, just as Schenker’s ideas imply.My personal reasons for so protracted a study of this piece are simpler to describe:It is one of those pieces that got me interested in music at an early age—you might say that I am repaying a debtIn both the personal and professional realms, therefore, it boils down to my owingV I Isomething to the music.I also owe a lot to some people: my adviser, Hugo Weisgall, and the other members of the defense committee, H. Wiley Hitchcock, Steve Larson, Carl Schachter, Sherman Van Solkema, and Henry Weinberg; my teachers in Schenkerian analysis, David Loeb, the late Ernst Oster, the late Felix Salzer, and Carl Schachter; and (because, despite my strong interest in theory, I persist in thinking of myself as primarily a composer) my composition teachers, Peter Pindar Steams, Henry Weinberg, and Hugo Weisgall. My friend and colleague, Frank Samarotto, helped at various stages, not the least of which was his assistance in the final stages of processing the words.When what seems to be a cliche is really the truth, we can at least hope that it will be seen as the truth and not a cliche: Most of all, I owe a lot (and it has been quite a year—what with this, and moving, and Sam) to my wife, Jane.Arthur Maisel December 1988Table of ContentsVP reface.......................................................................................................................vPart I. Talent and Technique: George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in BlueIntroduction.................................................................................................................1Form ..............................................................................................................3Harmonic Language.....................................................................................10The Core of the Piece: Bars 1-29 ................................................................11The Analysis............................................................................................................ 16Bars 30-137.................................................................................... 16Bars 138-302............................................................................................... 33Bars 303-509............................................................................................... 44Talent and Technique............................................................................................... 71Gershwin’s Technique: Improvisation........................................................76Talent............................................................................................................ 86Appendix..................................................................................................................94Bibliography............................................................................................................ 97Part n. John Paul IPs Mayday 1984 Address......................................................1001IntroductionThe Rhapsody is not a composition at all... [even though] the themes, or tunes, or whatever you want to call them ... are terrific—inspired, God-given.—Leonard BernsteinMany musicians do not consider George Gershwin a serious composer. But they should understand that, serious or not he is a composer, that is, a man who lives in music and expresses everything, serious or not, sound or superficial, by means of music, because it is his native language.—Arnold SchoenbergSometimes what comes out of that piano frightens me.—George GershwinThe year 1984 saw the 60th anniversary of the premiere of George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, a piece that continues to occupy a special place in the repertoire: It is almost universally admired, and yet at the same time condescended to, often even by its2professed admirers. The Bernstein quotation above is an example of this ambivalence.i Virgil Thompson takes the slightly different tack of praising Gershwin for his success in writing a rhapsody, but then pointing out how easy it is to write one.2 The general impression seems to be that early in his career Gershwin was a talented but not very skilled composer. (Recall that he was only twenty-five when he wrote the Rhapsody and almost completely untrained as a composer in any formal sense.3 Moreover, the piece was written in a matter of three or four weeks, when—at least according to legend—Gershwin read in the newspaper at the beginning of January 1924 that he was writing a piece for a concert on February 12.) Today, the piece is one of the staples of the “light classic” genre—much as certain movements of Haydn’s symphonies once were.I do not mean to imply that Haydn and Gershwin are equals, but the comparison is not an idle one: In both cases true “gems,” though not neglected, were undervalued by being programed and played automatically. This came of their having fallen into that particular niche of the repertoire. At any rate, it was probably inevitable that Haydn’s symphonies would be “rediscovered” because of their high value; in the case of something like the Rhapsody in Blue rediscovery is perhaps less than inevitable. And yet such pieces1 Bernstein, “A Nice Gershwin Tune”; the Schoenberg quotation comes from “George Gershwin” in Style and Idea (first published in Armitage); for the Gershwin quotation, see footnote 33 below.2In Armitage.3See Schwartz, Life, 52-56.3do not enter the repertoire for no reason.This analysis will not contradict the general impression, but the most fundamental justification for any analysis is that it can reveal artistic subtleties normally not present (at least consciously) to the listener. My analysis will show that Gershwin’s first large piece works not only in its details, but, surprisingly enough, as a unified whole if one with a rather unusual structure.My analysis will be Schenkerian; I hope even those who feel they are against or above or beyond Schenker will find a close examination of the work (a desideratum whatever the analytic methodology employed) worthwhile.4FormThat the Rhapsody in Blue is a highly sectionalized series of themes—as befits the genre of rhapsody—has often been remarked. What has not been noted in print (probably4 In a recent article, Harold Bloom writes: “I hear and read continually the complaint that criticism is now too much concerned with itself, and too little devoted to the clarification of work more primary than itself. I am moved to the countercomplaint that criticism is still too little concerned with itself, because it manifests too much anxiety over method. The quest of contemporary criticism is for method, and the quest is vain. There is no method other than yourself. All those who seek for a method that is not themselves will find not a method, but someone else, whom they will ape and involuntarily mock.” In the concluding section of this paper we will see that some of Schenker's ideas have profound implications that usually escape those who get caught up in methodological wrangles, both pro and con.4because it is so obvious) is that some of the themes and figures recur in various keys throughout the piece, whereas others occur once in but a single key. I believe this distinction, important in itself, may have further ramifications: The themes that recur can be said to be the source of the structure. “Source” here means the origin of details peculiar to the structure of the Rhapsody in Blue, but can also be understood in the sense that the recurrence of these themes signals significant structural events. In contrast, themes that occur once can be viewed as being at the service of the structure: that is, they appear for a local structural purpose; once that purpose is served, they disappear. In the Table of Themes and Figures (Example 1)1 have followed this distinciton by numberingExample 1: Table of Themes and Figuresequalsboth: and:'pentatonic interpretation"Theme 2 © H j f e— i >BBrTrfrr'5Example 1 (continued) C major themeffifTrf |f*feG major theme ~.~TE=f "WI 3 IP~cf. "Insertions" figure (below)-^*E major themeInsertions" figure #>» from:¥Structural applied dominants figures,_ s T r- ~ f —see also: bars 24ff.,41 f., 55 ff„ 75f„123ff., 387ff., and 508A A *A.. .\UrL .r i um^ p - .... *(&erL 2v*. basso.)Example 1 (continued) Form al Analysis* = solo piano cuts in solo piano versionBars: 1 -5 6-10 11-14 15-19 19-20 21-24 24-29 30-37Key: Bb (Eb) Ab II V of Gb Gb II V of A V of ATheme 1 sequence (cf. 347-356)(Theme 2) Theme 1 insertion•piano solo entersTheme 1 insertion*cadenza*Bars: 38-47 48-71 72-80 81-90 91-105 105-114 115-127 127-137Key: A VI (III) V of A A —*-V of C C C — V of GTheme 1 (with insertions)extension of Theme 1 and cadenzaTheme 1 extension of Theme 1 C major theme (transition) Theme 2 (transition based on Theme 2) ■* *Bars: 138-172 172-180 181-222 223-225 226-227 228-241 242-255 256-296Key: G G (A ) G II V of 0 i l l l l i l l i l l ~*-V of G GG major theme (transition) Theme 2 Theme 1 insertion Theme 1 with extension"development" of Theme 1G major theme* • illlSjplslllllll l i i l l i l *put thru 176 ■ cut thru 24 $Bars: 297-302 303-346 347-382 383-424 425-486 487-504 505-508 508-509Key: — V of E E £5-6 V/ll of E IIA of E = bill of Eb — V of Eb Eb Bbcadenza•E major theme E major theme continued*cadenza*cadenza continued Theme 2 (E major theme referred to in orchestra)471-474 W t 487-488 cuTheme 11insertionCP7the themes that recur but naming the one-time themes by their keys.5A seeming contradiction to this distinction is perhaps the “E major Theme,” which occurs only once but has a pivotal structural role. But, as we shall see, this theme has strong connections with Theme 1.Over the years the piece has been arranged for ensembles of different size. The first arrangement, performed at the premiere, was for a 1920s “jazz” band and solo piano. But Gershwin himself wrote only a two-piano score; the part for second piano was orchestrated by Ferde Grofe.6 The published edition closest to the original differs from the manuscript in many trivial and several significant respects.75 One aspect of the Rhapsody that is easily overlooked is that, contrary to expectation, Gershwin, who had written almost nothing but songs and vocal music previously, was able to write characteristically instrumental melodies. These melodies are unlike the songs in that they have a breadth desirable in a large-scale composition. Theme 1, for example, is not built up from the repetition of short-breathed motives as a song like “The Man I Love” is.^Schwartz, Life, 78ff. The band (with doublings indicated in parentheses) consisted of B^ clarinet (bass clarinet, oboe, Ej? soprano and Ejp alto saxophones), Ej? alto saxophone (B|? soprano and Ej? baritone saxophones), B|? tenor saxophone (B|? soprano saxophone), 2 horns in F, 2 trumpets in B^, 2 trombones, tuba (string double bass), percussion, timpani, banjo, celesta, piano, and 4 first and 4 second violins.Gershwin's abilities as an orchestrator were called into question throughout hiscareer.7The manuscript score is in pencil and consists of 56 pages. The parts (“Jazz Band” and “Piano Solo”) are written in the usual two-piano format seen in reductions of piano concertos. Gershwin was only intermittently careful in supplying dynamics andother indications. Many of those he did provide are altered in the published version; where there are serious musical ramifications to the alterations, I will comment. There are also occasional indications of instrumentation in the jazz band part—but it is unclear whether Gershwin or Grofe made them. The original version can be seen on microfilm in the8The overall scheme of the piece involves the unfolding of a tritone from the Bj? major of the opening through the G major of the extended piano solo (bars 138ff.) to the “E major theme” (bars 303ff.).8 The tritone is then rationalized as a motion to a neighbor of the main embellishing chord of the background progression (TVW7, bars 484ff.) whichmoves in turn to I6 —presenting the 3 of the upperline descent in the bass—and then, V-I.The Urlinie is buried for most of the piece, more implicit than explicit, while the top voice presents a superposed inner voice, bjrajrg-f (see Examples 2a and 2b).9Library of Congress, call number “Music 1350.”^Because there are no measure numbers in the score (and I was unable to get permission to reproduce it as an appendix to this paper), the following table is given. It refers to the two-piano “original version” score which is the version here analyzed.page first bar on page page first bar on page page first2 1 16 147 30 3273 19 17 162 31 3394 31 18 171 32 3505 41 19 181 33 3706 48 20 196 34 3917 60 21 206 35 4118 70 22 215 36 4299 78 23 230 37 44110 88 24 236 38 45511 97 25 243 39 46912 106 26 260 40 48113 115 27 276 41 49414 124 28 289 42 50115 138 29 3039This paper refers to pitches in two ways: (1) When specific pitches are discussed, the system in which c1 = middle c is employed; (2) when pitches are referred to in a more general sense (e.g., as members of a motive), I use lower case letters for all pitches except bass tones, which are always upper case.Example 2© 3( Ig )bl^Fbsg)icf. bars 305-ff I(*i$) e m i t falso compare inner voice - ----- — ------- w i th :© (jg) @ ® © (ffiT)illb. © ® ® ® )NB: superposicf inner voice [ , E: 3Vfe)¥ 5 ^.cf. h»jr y>i (?T)b m} £S('3> ____)Eb- d bt / i \&b'd bEb-dbi=g-------- ip amilEMiy’(common.-tane German 5)EM(common-"tone diminished 7-Ri)unity of the passage; i.e., that the modulations are only surface phenomena, representing a larger progression within B\? major-minor, I-^VII-^VL (The dyad e^-d^ also figures in Theme 2 [see Example 1] both when first heard in bars 1 Iff. and last heard in bars 489ff. The latter occurence of Theme 2 represents a large-scale embellishing chord in the background progression of the piece, as shown in Example 2. The presence of a clear reference to a theme to be used later does not mean that the first 29 bars are not a unit.1 4Gershwin had probably tried out different themes before beginning to write the piece down. Nor does it mean that the piece was not improvised: he was undoubtedly aware of certain melodic ideas he wanted to use ahead of improvising the piece as a whole. The linkage of bars 1 Iff. and 489ff. both by the theme and its function, however, was probably the product of improvisation.)Finally, compare a sketch of the voice leading of bars 2-26 with bars 28-29 (Example 4). These latter measures clearly represent a summary of the voice leading up thispoint, thus bracketing the first section. Note that the motion of bt^-blj2 is only implied bythe suspension of c$ in bar 24 (see Example 4). But the implication of the resolution of 9-8 is supported by the passage at bars 19-20 where the suspension is literally resolved in the jazz band part. This is not, by the way, an editorial addition as one might suspect, butpresent in the original manuscript in Gershwin’s hand. (The motion of bj^-blp will occur prominently in the G major passage, in bars 183,187, etc.—i.e., at the dividing point of the tritone descent, see Example 2.)While much is sometimes made of the various cuts with which the Rhapsody is p erfo rm ed , 13 it is noteworthy that (as far as I know) no one ever cuts the first 30 measures or leaves out the E major section (bars 303ff.)—the most salient sections from the13See Bernstein.1 5Example 4i t3-8IN( 3 ) _________________kJ- - j- 1>-jL5= P(4Wp rP^ < £ [ d - M O - c - r f - d }2 Eri ; T 3 3l i f t * i&— :— =-•------------ J "nstructural point of view. The most commonly made cuts, following the piano solo version, are in structurally redundant parts of the tritone progression in the bass, B^-E—particularly within the section at the dividing point, G (see the Formal Analysis in Example 1, and the background graph, Example 2).For the remainder of the analysis I will proceed more or less straight through the piece. There are other details of the first 29 measures worth mentioning but I prefer to1 6discuss them in connection with later events to which they relate.The Analysis Bars 30-137The first phrase of the short cadenza on an E dominant chord beginning in bar 30 shows a line, e2 -f2 -g2 . This motive has been heard before in bars 5,7, and 9 as G-AJt-B^, C-DJt-E)? and f-g^-a^ respectively—and its source lies further back, in bar 3 with what seems to be an “answer” to the important motive ej?2 -d2 -dj?2 , that is, e ^ -e2 -f2 . One might say the chromatic progression is a “mistake” of which the diatonic progressions are attempted “corrections.”The second phrase of the cadenza on the E dominant chord (bars 33-37) is based on the descent b^2 -a^2 -g^2 -f2 (bars 2-3), which becomes e2 -d2 -c2 -b1 in bars 33-34. The frequent use of g and f throughout the passage—even in ascent (bars 30-32)—creates the sort of cross-relation so much a part of the sound of the piece, and first heard in bar 2.The next section of the piece, beginning in bar 38, repeats the Theme 1 in A1 7m ajo r. 14 For the first time the theme is repeated in an antecedent-consequent phrase structure, and is extended and repeated again (in C minor) making a section with a phrase structure A]A2BA3. Between the statements of the theme in A1 and A2 are inserted passages similar to those at the beginning (compare bars 41-42 and 46-47 with bars 19-20 and 24-29). What is especially noteworthy is the long-range connection that Gershwin draws between this section and the opening through several means: the inserted material derives ultimately from the opening trill in the clarinet (f-g). Gershwin assigns the motiveto the clarinet again in the original manuscript, and in the same register (e-f$).15 In this regared it is also interesting that the solo piano enters for the first time, in bar 19, in this same register—which entrance Gershwin notated in the manuscript with the right hand part in the bass staff, not—as in the published edition—changing the clef on the upper staff.His notation graphically (if probably unconsciously) represents the physical sensation of playing e below middle c with the right hand—very similar to playing f below middle c (the first note of the piece) with the right hand, and very different from playing the e with the14As is shown in the background graph, Example 2, the A in the bass is a passing tone between B[? and G. The use of A major rather than F as the governing harmony (what one would expect in Bj?) in fact results from the contrapuntal spinning out of the conventional progression I-V6-VT. How this occurs will be examined after some of the more recondite features of the foreground have been clarified. Any reader who is interested in gaining a sense of the background before proceeding should consult Example 10.15 It was probably Ferde Grofe who thought of using the bass clarinet an octave lower, which makes the passage much more effective, yet maintains via color some connection with the opening.1 8left hand.Also worth noting is the presence of the elz-d-dlzmotive (here spelled djf-d -^cft) in phrases Al and A2, bars 38-39 and 43-44 despite the change of key to A (it is quite strikingbecause the djj clashes with the harmony). Example 5 shows this and several other instances of the use of this motive. The motive in bars 38-39 occurs in the same register asbar 3 but has also been prepared in the background (also in the same register) by the d$2 inbars 24-25 and the dty2 in bars 26-27—after which Gershwin quits this register until the c$2 in bar 38. The cadenza—again, perhaps interpolated later—passes through the d2 , but since it prolongs an E dominant 7th chord, there is no difficulty hearing the retention of the d; besides, the cadenza focuses primarily on the lower register from which it bubbles up and to which it subsides. (I do not hear any linear connection between the d2 of bars 26-27 and the e2, f2, g2 of bars 30-32, which are reaching up toward the eventual a2 of bar 38.)The contrasting B phrase, in F major, exemplifies the improvisatory character of the piece: The melodic contour is suggested by the piano filigree in bars 41-42 and 46-47 and will in turn suggest its own successor when it recurs in bars 81-84 (see below). Also, note the ubiquitous motive, here spelled e^-d-dj? in the bass, and the ei-fi (from bars 3-4) in bar 48.The harmonic meaning of the succeeding measures (bars 55ff.) is difficult to followExample 5 ©, \>*ri -< 3^m r£$£T■ t l mJ M t ] # n ! ^ .#% jfcjTOr0 ?2 0at first, at least in detail. Evidently, a prolongation of A is occurring, because Theme 1 returns once again in A major (in the band) at bar 72 after a practically literal repetition of the cadenza on the dominant, E. Working back from the E, we find that it is preceded by a passage (bars 61-64) which once again outlines the tritone B^-E—this time all in dominant 7th chords with raised llths, maximizing the similarity between the and E chords. In addition, this time the F chord is included as a passing chord within the unfolding, as if to make clear both the derivation of the passage from the opening theme (and by implication, the derivation of bars 1-29 from the same thing), and, moveover, the connection of E to F (see Example 9 below; when this passage recurs near the end it will serve to link E with E^.) We can thus assume that the passage in question moves from A somehow to B^ in the bass, and thence via the tritone unfolding to E, and so once again to A.The intervening bass tones are clear at first: F (bars 48-51) and then C (bars 52-55). The passage beginning in bar 55 starts with C in the bass and has moved to C$ by the end of the phrase (see Example 6 for the voice leading); the ($ skips as an applied V to F$, from which the bass moves to B[?. (Note the intriguing symmetry of the bass, shown in Example 7: This feature, though not fully significant of the true nature of the passage, does perhaps help the ear connect A with B^.)What all this amounts to will be clarified by an examination of the upper line of bars21Exam ple 6« :e '> -d -c * (neighbor softenschromatic motion)Example 738-65. The uppermost line, from the beginning, has shown (bars 2-23) divided intob2 and gj}2 (bars 24-29); having reached a2 in bar 38 it shows an enlarged (transposed) secondary interpretation of the Theme 1, that is to say, not as a descending minor scale, but2 2Example 8. W @ ® @ © © © ( § ) © ©Ij r-------- 3--------- ------------------------ ***■ ------- *“ J = r5---------■— * f — 5 \ v ( * .\ / \ < f.! / \ ^ /w ic e \/ / version is worth considering: It has the effect of delaying the “brightening” of the music to conincide with the new section beginning in bar 91. Bycontrast, the major 4 “telegraphs” the shift of modes, making a smoother but less dramatic impression.2 8Example 11© J ~ nfrrfH-f »■ >•But it serves a structural function as well, and that is what determines its uniqueness.The primary structural function of the passage in question is to summarize once again the upper voice progression (thus far, b^2 -a2-g2) while at the same time reinstating the b|f on top. (The motion to g is one to an inner voice with the ultimately moving to an aj^ , spelled as gjj, the 3 in E major. This in turn will require the b^ to accommodate bybeing inflected—thus making G major rather than G minor the dividing point of the tritone descent This chromatic inflection, which is also a prominent foreground melodic feature of the G major section, especially bars 18 Iff., is constantly referred to during the C major2 9theme by the alternation of the dominant sevenths of C and G.) It should be pointed out that the g2 of the background motion to an inner voice from bj?2 does not arrive until bar 138 when G is reached in the bass as well. The g2 of the C major theme is a passing tone between a and f$, resulting from an additional level of diminution (see Example 12).Example 12\ / / NB / \ / ( c f . Ex. 3)5H- 3(N B )The summary alluded to takes place on the foreground and middleground levels simultaneously. In the foreground, the piano figure reiterates bjra-g in various registers. Of somewhat greater subtlety is the middleground expression of the same figure. The bj? is expressed in a very unusual way—though paradoxically one based on a most commonplace procedure, namely the use of interrupted antecedent-consequent phrase structure.Usually the descent to the tonic of a tune is interrupted on the second degree of the3 0scale in the antecedent phrase, to be completed only with the repetition of the tune in the consequent phrase; in the present instance the goal is not the tonic at all, but the lowered 7th—constantly present in the harmony, but only reached melodically as the final note of the consequent phrase. While it may seem strange to assert the primacy of the bj? over c when it could just as well be heard as a passing tone between c and a, I favor the b^ because of the context. After all, not all 7ths are passing tones, even when they appear literally to be so on the surface.18 In this case the bj? is (in a loose sense) a “suspension” from the very beginning of the piece, even though on a more local level it does indeed seem to be a passing tone—between a and b (not c and a, see Examples 10 and 12).The next note in the line is a1 (bars 99-102). Notice that it depends from c in much the same way and in the same register as the melodic b^i, supporting the notion of c as a retained tone rather than one involved in linear motion. A nice touch is the presence of a in three registers—like the b[? in the piano figure—but in the melody itself because the piano has dropped out.The arrival on the repeated and accented g2 is finally not merely asserted but achieved in bar 103, and occasions the broadening of the rhythm of the foreground descent to c into triplets. The b^ is retained in the piano and picked up almost immediately by theiSFor example, see bar 36 of the second movement of Mozart’s Piano Sonata,K. 282, where the bj?2, though more consonant that the a\?, is plainly an appoggiatura to it, nonetheless. Not quite so obvious, but I think the same, is the c2-b ^ of bars 154 and 156 of the third movement of K. 280.31jazz band (bar 107). The short cadenza that follow states B^A G yet again, now in the bass. Note especially the chord on B[?: Its placement at the beginning of an 8-measure phrase (see reduction, Example 13) tends to support the reading of B|? as more importantExample 13than A despite surface parallelisms between A and C. This in turn reinforces the reading of the previous passage. Recall that, in the background, the B[? continues to govern the bass until G is reached. One might almost want to consider the chord at bar 107 an instance of the background “shining through” into the foreground. How this can happen will be understood by a study of the progress of the “diminutions” in the bass (see Example 14a) and a comparison with a sketch of the middleground (Example 14b). (The chord progression in the latter example does not represent the background, but “reconstructs” a keyboard-harmony-like source for the counterpoint.)With the arrival on G (bars 111-15) the bt» seemingly moves decisively to bfy. But the first full statement of Theme 2 follows in C major, this can be viewed as a structural weakness. In Gershwin’s defense, it could be said that Theme 2 is first (and last) heard associated with the subdominant and, since the local tonic is G, C is an appropriateSSLuExample 14 a- y....■■"O — i^cLm j\r axSSge9-----/ p--------------------------- 1key—but the move to C cannot be completely exonerated because it is structurally redundant It does serve to establish the note e on top as preparation for the voice exchange (see Example 10); one cannot help but feel that a more skilled composer would have been more concise.The rounding of Theme 2 into a popular song form (AABA) occasions another reference to the climactic point of the Theme 1 in bars 3-4, e-f: here e3 (bars 117,121) and3 3f3 (bars 123,125). The connection is not capricious. As Example 14b shows, the e is in fact connected to the f of the beginning, which is being reasserted here because e is about tocontinue to e|? via the voice exchange, and f to move to g (on its way to joining the a^ /g$ of the superposed inner-voice descent, bjralrg-f, see Example 2a).In any case, after the C is established in the bass with e on top (b^ is retained in an inner voice—though it again descends in the foreground, b^a-g), an exchange of voices:e v dCyields the German 6th chord (N.B.: still the same characteristic embellishing interval notedearlier in bars 2,17, and 22). This resolves on the dominant of G, with a \ ~ \ motion in4 - 3the upper voices. The little figure in bars 135-36 is a reminiscence of the cadenza in bars 30-37, especially 36 and 37, and serves the same function, i.e., filling in the key-defining tritone, in this case f$-c. It will recur again at the next point of background arrival, on the dominant of E.Bars 138-302Once G, the dividing point of the tritone descent in the bass, is definitively reached in bar 138, another feature can be discerned. Recall the voice leading of bars 2-29 (summarized in bars 28-29)—two main features were the inflection of bj^ to bh and the3 4inner-voice activity of the still-covered head tone, d ( 3), through a motion to its lowerneighbor, c, returning over a chromatic passing cj£ This same voice leading structure has been expanded to encompass bars 2-138! (See Example 15.)Example 15It is also just at this point (bar 138) that d ( 3) does in fact emerge in the highestregister—at first by implication, and then explicitly after the elaborate “boundary play”19 around its lower neighbor, c (see Example 16).The G major section from bar 138 to bar 298, the longest and, as I will show, structurally the weakest portion of the work, is where most of the performance cuts traditionally have been made.The theme in G major, bars 138ff., is often cut in performance because the published solo piano version omits bars 138-76—the material being repeated almost19See Schenker, Free Composition, §260 (pages 103-5).3 5Example 16j i i || boowW^--pl<3wj — -jf ^ T(note shift of boundaries = f-g: cf. Exx. 14 and 21)bars 1 2 7 -3 0 in greater detail:ef. bar 3! Ex. 10literally in bars 260-95. (In that version, d emerges as 3 in what corresponds to bar 180 here.) It is evidendy related to Theme 1 through the descent of a fourth from the tonic, hereg-f-e-d.20 The efyis an inflection prepared (in the bass) by the c-B^-A^j-G of the previous section—though in that case the motion was not direcdy related to Theme 1. The G major20Compare Schwartz’s analysis of the relationship, Life, 329-30.3 6theme seems to be especially related to the pentatonic interpretation (of Theme 1), both in inversion and in its original form. Moreover, it is saturated with motivic references to other themes, as is shown in Example 17.E xam ple 17 (see T able o f T h em es and Figures, E x. 1)I Theme 1: pentatonic interpretation X X 3i §ny—*-*j-| trill and insertionspentatonicinterpretationinverted bb -- a -- gUXrepeated noted, bar 91 (etc.) also: cf. rhythm, bar 3Note that the piano part (which is not in the manuscript [page 14]) in bars 138-41 attempts a descent, dS-cS-b)?3 (because the head tone has now emerged?)—but this cannot be achieved because of the shift to G major. Example 18 shows that a similar descent is attempted in the middleground of the melody: d-c, d-c-b^, bars 138-41, 142-44-46.The transposition of the theme through minor thirds (G, bars 138ff., B[?, bars 156f., Dj?, bars 148ff., E[=Fj?], bars 168f., G, bars 170ff.), with particular emphasis on the tritone transposition, is of some interest because of its similarity to the background3 7progression of the piece as a whole. Example 18(shownjnjreal^© < © ( © © © ® ® (ig) @ ©/A\ i fcouno&vr f f i ...k3^ = 4J Y ^ V — -a —Z a S - -.....i ..................^ ( © ©• • • ftH—* * $ ? -------- — v —--------- 1------------- 1------' " i ' < @ < ©• • • •__j f L . ....................... .I (continued.. . ) ■l- t*---------=-------- --------------------------------------------- 10—1 v- - ( f ± y ---------- ^' ...._ q ^ i »Mr ------- ------ %6 ------- 7H- 3bars 136-53 injjetaMi \Pi )m C2ijajra lgr^ =fei© ) < ©1 1 1@ @ >_ 1• • • /6m• •i• •4 Mi• •a y—a — ■ - cs-" n "TP^=J @)FfFf (w Qp) Qp)(W cf. (Hw>\)i " 4 J"g l @ @ @ ) @boModavij pl®y.WJ3EZzcsG — <+ ——7—33 9In passing, I also ought to mention that one (not very important) connection is lost by cutting bars 138-76: The cadenza of bars 170-76 makes the chromatic passage of bars 177-80 seem less unprepared. It also states the boundary play, d-f-d, which will be animportant feature in succeeding pages. The chromatic passage runs from d to fff2 (bars 177-80), and is subdivided in a suggestive way at bj^ajf)1, referring to the 6th between d and ty? which constitutes the tonal space opened by Theme 1 and the locus of most of the voice leading of the piece. This presumably marks the second definitive arrival on G, where the piano takes over for a while.An argument for the traditional cuts could thus be made that, by eliminating one of the several seemingly definitive arrivals on G (i.e., the one in bar 138), the cuts tighten the structure considerably. But even with the cuts of bars 138-76 and 226-46 the G major section has several “definitive” arrivals.The other events of the section are “redundant” as well (from a structural point of view)—consisting of boundary plays around d in the upper voice and G in the bass, as summarized in Example 18. In fact, no true linear motion occurs until very shortly before the E major section begins in bar 303.Despite its structural weakness (which I am convinced is experienced by listeners in some way and perhaps has unconciously emboldened performers to make cuts), there are several foreground features of this section that deserve mention. The prominent recollection4 0of the motive in the solo horn (bars 213-14) is especially beautiful.Also, the whole note eft2 in bar 220 (almost never held long enough in performance) is very important to the sense of the passage: Even-numbered measures are accented at this point in the piece; if the eff is held for a full measure, the g3 of the quotation of Theme 1 falls on weak bar 223—note also that the theme appears without the characteristic upbeat of bars 1,37, etc. making clear its subordination to d3 which falls on the downbeat of strong bar 224. (Although it is not absolutely clear in the manuscript, Gershwin may have considered having the jazz band play what the soloist now plays in bars 223-25—but the band’s entrance on g would have emphasized g rather than d).A section in the manuscript which was cut before publication continues thefiguration of bars 214ff. for eight measures after the present bar 220 over the chords D 3-C$ 3-D 3, making one more reference to the motion to the lower neighbor of the head tone.With the wonderful dive that ends the cadenza of bars 247-55, the d returns to the inner voice and the g is again established on top. The g is embellished with chromaticneighbors, gft1 (bar 261) and fjj1 (bar 262) as if to signal its reinstatement (this embellishment having been prepared by the Phrygian harmonies of the preceding section, see bars 247ff., and especially, 255). Besides its chromatic adornments, the g is emphasized in another way, that is, by allusion: The G major theme, which first occurred (assuming that it was not cut!) at the emergence of d in the highest register, by its returnreinforces the renewed emphasis on g which had been suppressed in favor of d.But the d is not to be supplanted without some “straggle”: Note the echo of bar 259 in bar 263, in an isolated high register. (The next time this register is reached, in bar 280, the e[?3-d2 of 263 is continued d|?3, completing yet another rather oblique, but registrally clear reference to the ubiquitous motive.) The d is heard one last time in the upper register (although clearly subordinate to g) in bars 292-95, but then it is finally displaced to c andthen to b in bar 299 (approached from below: a, bars 296-98—a$, bar 299). While not a true linear motion in the background, but only a motion to an inner voice, this progression does not seem to be yet another instance of boundary play because, for the first time, the c is supported by a V chord (see Example 19). Note how the resemblance of the G major theme to Theme 1 is enhanced by the approach to the third degree from below (cf.: dl?, bar3, dty, bar 4).Example 194 2In terms of what I have been describing half-facetiously as a struggle between d and g (which may lend a subliminal frisson to this repetitive passage that it would not otherwise have), it is noteworthy that the manuscript has what is shown in Example 20a in bars 293 and 295—as if the g were being insisted upon—rather than what appears in the published version, shown in Example 20b. The latter is more practical, and in any case the resolutionof g to ffj in preparation for its inflection of gjj is clear without extra emphasis.Example 20a. m anuscript, bars 293 b. published version,and 295 (page 28) same ParsExample 2). Note that the foreground impression of bars 299-302 is that b emerges fromI -> *aWith the reestablishment of g, the background inner-voice motion, b{?-a-g, is completed and the next linear goal, a^(gjj) can be approached (see the background graphs,aft (bl?)—but that the latter also moves literally to aty and thence to gjj (a|?), connecting the gJJ to the b(? of bar 2; the first three notes of the theme in E major (bar 303) also fill the tonalspace thus opened, gjfc-tl]1.In the background, the linear movements are b|r4>(g{j) and f-e (see Example 21).4 3Example 21The d is “retained” as the center of the motive dff-dCj-cfl, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that the cjjCdj;) stands in (i.e., as ^3 in B^) for d. The ambiguity of c$ /d^—is it a lowerneighbor of d or a lowered 3?—can be said to be a flaw of the piece (if not a flaw of theanalysis). At any rate, as is often the case, quasi-linear connections between the voices also abound:•The motion to an inner voice, b^-a-g, connects the ty? strand to an implied strand starting on f (cf. Examples 4 and 16).•When the inner voice g moves to f$ it is to facilitate both the ultimately theoreticaPibackground connection between f and e and the chromatic inflection g-gfj(a^).22•The d strand splits in two: The d-c-b (shown in Example 19) is a motion to aninner voice which picks up the inflection of bt-tJ], necessitated by the bass motion b !?-E;21Because, though hinted at in the details—see bars 298-99 and 300, for example—it is relatively unrealized in the foreground.22See Schenker, Free Composition, §249 (pages 91-92) and Figure 114, especially Example 2.4 4but, as was mentioned above, the d is also retained motivically—although on the surface it moves linearly over <3$ to e.Bars 303-509The connections of Theme 1 and the E major theme have been mentioned above. Example 22a shows how the a^2 -g^2 (N)-a^ of bar 2 later becomes the middleground ofgft1 -ffr-gtt1 of the E major theme (bars 303ff.); the motive of ej^ -d-dj^ , which first appears in the melody in bar 3 (and recurs frequently between bars 3 and 305, see Example 5 above) is repeated both in the foreground and middleground in the E major section,respelled d$-dty-c$, as shown in Example 22b. (While enumerating connections between the beginning of the piece and the E major section, I also ought to mention the exact inversion of bars 2-3 in bars 303-10, also shown in Example 22.)2323Charles Schwartz (Life , 329) has noted some inversional connections, but not this one. The motivic connections he mentions often seem rather vague; as a result, I find them questionable. (He may well be on to something, but either I am not catching on or—if I understand him aright—I am not convinced.) I also question whether an unskilled composer like Gershwin would—as Schwartz has to assume—unconsciously make the “sophisticated motivic transformations” Schwartz finds. From my compositional experience I can believe that, where either exact pitch content or exact interval content is involved, motivic links are audible to the subconscious (which is basically pretty unsophisticated). Once either the pitches or intervals are altered, I doubt that the subconscious would make a connection unless something like rhythmic identity were involved. (See Schwartz's set of examples on page 331, where I agree with him but am not convinced by his explanations.) It should be added for the sake of clarity that in tonal music half steps and whole steps can be heard as equivalent intervals if the scale steps involved are the same, e.g., 5- % = 5- ^ 6.4 5Example 22 (see Ex. 25)Pk• ©mtnote: exact inversion A34 b® < M -c#i | ] ,J_(b*sgi B)d ?4 » t|» - 1THE REFERENTIAL COLLECTION3^(» Bk: I 7 )(see Exx. 2 ,4 , 9 , 14b. 15, 34, 36, and 37)After Gershwin had begun to study with Joseph Schillinger (1932), inversion began to play a conscious role in his compositions. For example, the song “A Foggy Day” is based on a modified inversion of the chimes of “Big Ben”:f ~~in4 6To the primary connections may be added the following secondary ones: The notes Theme 1, dW?-ety-f (bar 3) are accompanied in the tenor by a^-g-gl^-f, although the alignment is not exact. This is transposed in the E major theme as e-f$-fj<-gj| and—still inthe tenor and now with exact alignment—b-a$-afy-gfj (bars 304-10). Note in this regard that the alto’s quarter notes in bar 3, c-cjrb^, when transposed by the same interval as the otherlines become dff-dfy-cff! (See Example 23.)In addition, recall that the answer to e^rd-dj? within the first theme itself, i.e., e{?-e-f, was already modified to G-A^-B^ in bar 5. (Throughout the following discussion of motivic relationships please refer to Example 24 below.) That the G-A^B^ suggests the first notes of the E major theme—but in E|?—is not just a coincidence. The E is the goal of the tritone unfolding, but eventually it will be “explained” as an embellishment of E^ as IVl?7. Further connections of the E major theme to bars 5ff. will be developed in thediscussion of bars 347-56 below. The connection of the two 3-note motives will be£ 'Big Ben' inverted.%R e f r a in y=3=p»:Lo-~A foggy day in London tow n—Of course, Gershwin had a marvelous ear. According to Schwartz, Gershwin could instantly reproduce on the piano almost anything he heard. Note, for example, the curious fact that the counterpoint beginning in the right hand in bar 19 of the second of the Three Preludes is implicit in the overtones of the accompaniment figure in the left hand. (I discovered this by playing the piece on a harpsichord with 8’ and 41 ranks engaged.)4 7Example 23transposed:confirmed in the piano cadenza on C$ (bars 383ff.), where cfj-d-e (or, almost e^-d-dj? reversed) becomes the recurrent motive; it is further confirmed by the literal reversaldj^ -d^ j- e!? in the last quotation of Theme 2 in El? (see jazz band part, bars 491-92). Furthermore, the piano interpolations at bars 327-31 recall the similar ones, at bars 124 and126, in the C major statement of Theme 2. This “found” connection of ej?-d-c with d$-dfy-c$ also helps link the reversal of the former, cff-d-e, with the reversal of the latter, already4 8mentioned.Finally, the reversal of the motive is reflected in the background: Reading the d (3 in B^) as having been displaced by dj^ 3 and £ [c$] in E), we can see that the lattertone is retained until bar 475 where it moves to d, and that it then moves to dp with the final statement of Theme 2 at bar 487.Because of the multifarious relationships among the 3-note motives of the piece, a graphic presentation seems appropriate in summary (see Example 24).The theme in E major is of course related rhythmically to the G major theme of the preceeding section (bars 260ff.).24 (Because of this rhythmic connection it ought not to be played quite as slowly as it often is—the marking is only “Andantino moderate,” after all.) Example 25 shows the elaboration of the theme from the motivic middlegroundneighboring motion, g$-f$-g$.A comparison of this example with Example 15 shows an astonishing similarity between the E major theme and bars 2-29/2-138.Note the clever rhythmic treatment of the motive dfj-dfy-cjj (shown in Example 22) which causes it to reproduce itself at the level of 2-measure groups; for a brief discussion241 find Schwartz’s pitch connections (Life, 330-31) less convincing because repeated notes are not the same as octave leaps. The downward octave leaps of 5- 5 (bar303, etc.) I think I hear as connected to the way Theme 1 transfers 8- ^ 7“^ 6“ 5 (bars 2-3) down an octave (bar 4), and to other octave transfers—so characteristic of the piano—such as the bjra-g of the C major theme (bars 9 Iff.).4 9Example 24suaoests suggests(DtransposedrecallsVCotW*-------(piano solo)transposedrecalls 03) recallscel -------- --suggests(piano solo)*B7) suggestsipv —cf. relationship of bars 3, 124 and 327^reverse ^ S \ 0 X #f & @ | © \1 background, Ex. 2 #5 0Example 25Hifof its rhythmic relationships to earlier material, see below. In addition, mention should be made of the rather subtle reference to the motive at its original pitch in the second phrase, where on the surface it is transposed (bars 313-16). It is heard untransposed passing fromthe tenor to the bass, dff, third quarter of bar 312; dfy, fourth quarter; cff, downbeat of bar 313. Example 26b shows the structural significance of this nice touch, underlining as it51Example 26Ex. 25banticipation.0 hwasmre groups (eack chord represents Z treasures)in ?( -p ) n (=v7)(* see Ex. 30 and cf. bar 371)does the connection between the literal 5-6 neighbor motion in the first phrase and the 5-6motion (transformed into surface bass motion of a descending third, e to cff) which serves a contrapuntal function—breaking up parallel fifths—between the first sixteen bars and the5 2last eight.25A noteworthy discrepancy between the manuscript and the published version is the placement of the ritard. in bars 321-24. The manuscript has the ritard. only in bar 323, which is, I believe, superior musically: it reduces the sentimentality of the phrase somewhat, and increases the difference between two steps of an obvious sequence.The phrase structure of the theme is also quite subtle: The first eight bars of thetheme are expanded from four bars, as shown in Example 27a.26 The expansion of the ffj1 and the fx1 into two measures each, and the insertion of the redundant g$i for twoExample 271st phmseHPboss: E* F*-~7~rrB2nd pltmse(J )—ZnA phrasePR#bass: E G#.- e -G*-3rd pKwse25 A paradox of this piece is the avoidance of parallels in the background in contrast to their free use in the foreground. (See below for a possible significance of this.)26The expanded measures are usually played poco stringendo, and I have actually heard a performance by a youngster who intuitively—though mistakenly—“corrected” the passage by playing these measures Doppio movimento.5 3measures allow the middleground unfolding of the motive in the inner voice. Butthe insertion of the g$ serves another function in relation to the next phrase, which is, again, basically four measures (see Example 27b.)Referring to the graph (Example 26), one can see an interesting conflict:Melodically, the ai-b^cjj2 constitute a third progression. But this seems to contradict the exchange of voices governing the harmony of the second phrase:g # ^ e #E ^ G lIn effect, the a1 (with b1 as a passing tone) forms an anticipation of the harmony that begins the third phrase, 116, in a similar way to the c2-d2 -el?2 of bars 5-6 in the first movement of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier Sonata, Op. 106 (see Example 28). One difference between the two instances is the tempo, which in the Beethoven is very fast and in the Gershwin very slow. (But, also note that Beethoven’s third is from root to third, of the II chord, while Gershwin’s is from third to fifth.) Given the need to make the four measures of a-b seem like an anticipation, the role of the redundant g$ in the first phrase becomes clear. By rounding off the first phrase to eight measures, it gives the impression that the last two measures of the second phrase have been cut off by an elision with the beginning of the third phrase. The third phrase can then be heard as anticipated by the end5 4Example 28Beethoven, Op. 1 0 6 ,1aribcilxtcion.of the second phrase. (Note that the second phrase is actually less distorted rhythmically than the first!)The third phrase prolongs the interrupted 2 with II-V in the bass, but the f$, though strongly implied, appears nowhere—except as the high point in the solo violin flourishes of the last four measures, by which time a motion to an inner voice (e-d$) has long since commenced. The strength of the implication is a result of the combination of the e$i(spelled ffy, bars 315-16) and the motion to an inner voice just mentioned (see Example 29).Example 291A3 f aimplies impliesThe fact that the original manuscript has a cjj in the chord of bars 315f.—i.e., V7 of II—confirms ejf rather than f^ j as the correct spelling.5 56My reading of 115 rather than D7 is based on the lOths I assume underlie the passage (see Example 30), and is supported by the solo piano in bar 371; it does not seriously affect the meaning of the passage in any case.Example 30- ( 1 0 )- -1 0 - 10 -*10-H 0 - 10Also, to my ear, the F$ in the bass, bar 317, does not seem to connect with that of bar 321. Perhaps the latter F{| is the “missing” 2—coming as it does from G$. (We will see that thestructural descent of the entire piece is finally achieved only in the bass.) A final comment concerning Example 30: the bracket shows a transposed hidden reference to bar 3 (P-e^-d2- ^ ) . Note that the descent is in both cases from the fifth of the governing5 6harmony .27The repetition of the E major theme shows another variation on antecedent- consequent phrase structure: In bars 345-46 the 3 simply refuses to move on to 2 over the V7 chord. This will be answered, in effect, at the end of the E major section, by an extraordinary prolongation of the motion 3 - 2 , in which the descent from gj}, after movingto fit at bar 379, continues to ffy (e|t) in bar 382—revealing the fit (in retrospect) to havebeen a passing tone in a motion to an inner voice. The ejt is then prolonged throughout theC|t cadenza (bars 382-424), with some teasing moves toward ff|—but only as aneighbor—and only resolves to f§ at bar 433! (See Examples 32 and 33, below.)The beginning of the piano solo (bars 347ff.) is a passage of parallel lOths which27Although it must remain a matter of speculation, it is worth pondering the fact thatthe theme with its interrupted descent, gjt-fjl, takes place three times—and what relationship this may have to the triplet figure of bar 2:In any case, note that the interrupted descent of the theme as a whole replicates some features of its own foreground and middleground (cf. Examples 25b, 26, and 33),such as the 5-6 motion over E; the motion to an inner voice g$-e$; and the use of thechromatic passing tone fx to connect f|| and g$. Since the middleground neighbor motiong$-f$-g|| is almost certainly connected to bar 3 (see Example 22), the background connection shown in the example above is perhaps not so farfetched.5 7carries gj}1 up through an octave to its neighbor, a2 (bar 353).28 The neighbor note movesover two passing tones to its upper third, eft3 (note the dynamic climax on the a, and thelovely decrescendo up to c$), and then a restatement of the theme begins. That the passage in parallel lOths thus represents a kind of free variation on the theme is shown in Example 31.Example 31"Variation (Theme)^ (io - 10 - 10 etc. ■ .) - 10 - 10$Theme (see Exx. 25 and 26)Jl £ p (but see Ex. 32)= t c -Z __________10-I ,T10(=3)(=10) - 10The movement up from a to eft in four measures seems to compensate for the elision of the end of phrase 2 by phrase 3 in the theme. But it also serves to emphasize eft (i.e., d(?, or 3 in B^), making the following connection with the opening of the piece: Just as the^The passage originally gave two measures to each step of the sequence; what isnow done in two half-notes in bar 350 took three measures in the manuscript—cf| for two measures and d for one (see pages 34-36 of the manuscript).5 8moment the c$ is reached, the motive d$-dfy-c$ is abruptly transferred to the pitches of theother motive (gjt-fjj-gfj), thus: gft-gjj-ffj. Moreover, the chord of bar 356 is identical to the chord of the second half of bar 2! The exchange of motives betweeen d and a /^gfj marks the tritone relationship between Theme 1 in B|? and the E major theme; the presence of the sameembellishing chord—initially made distinctive by the cross-relation aty-al?—underlines the fact that the tritone motion in the bass represents the unfolding of a single harmonic entity. Iwill have more to say about this below. (The embellishing chord of bar 356 contains d$ andc$ as, by now, we would expect.)Finally, with respect to bars 347-56, note the resemblance between bars 347-53 and bars 5-10: a motive of an ascending 3rd (half step, whole step) is twice transferred up a fourth, in both instances. That both passages are sequential does not necessarily detract from the significance of the resemblance. Note, for example, that they also both act as extensions—of themes the connections of which have been demonstrated in detail.The poetic “calmato” of bars 373-74 is noteworthy in the interpretation of the theme for two reasons: First, it would not be nearly as effective without the metrical ambiguity inherent in the phrase structure (i.e., it occurs in bar 17 of the theme,-or what would normally be the first, but is in fact the third measure of the third phrase); second, and more important, it relates to a shift in the underlying contrapuntal structure (see Example 32). Where the III (=I6) chord of bars 319-320 was clearly a passing chord within a prolonged5 9Example 328.(Cadenza)n , in the third repetition of the theme the II becomes a neighbor within an enlargement of the theme’s V of H This harmony in turn becomes the basis of the cadenza.Although it is omitted in the published score, in the manuscript Gershwin gave thetide “Finale” to the music from the C$ cadenza on (bar 383 to the end). This is, however, not a coda in the usual sense of a “tail” added onto a structure already complete in itself, nor does it imply some lack of structural connection between this section and what preceded it.29 There is, in any case, plenty of evidence for assuming “Finale” to refer not so much to29Many composers, since Beethoven’s time at the latest, have been concerned with intermovement connections. The F major scherzo, acting as a “neighbor chord” of the Aminor 4 chord that frames the second movement, and resolves to the dominant, E, at the beginning of the last movement of Beethoven’s Symphony no. 7, is a good example.Another instance that, as far as I am aware, has never been noted in print, is the way the solo part in Beethoven’s Violin Concerto completes, in bars 310-14 of the third movement, a melody that was repeatedly left uncompleted in the second movement (bars 3—4, etc.).While most of Gershwin’s orchestral works are cast in one movement forms, an6 0the letter as to the spirit of the music, which does seem to hurtle toward the conclusion: Notonly the previously mentioned unfinished business of the motion from g|J to f$ (3 - 2 inE)—which will be reinterpreted in the course of its prolongation—but also such obviousfactors as the motivic connection between the c$-d-e of the cadenza and the gj}-a-b of the Emajor theme argue for continuity. The c$-d-e in fact becomes g$-a-b at the climax of the cadenza in bars 408-10. In addition, the four bars marked “Sognando” (dreamy) whichfollow the climax are a recollection of bar 3, dl7-(et0-efy-f, in keeping with the multifarious connections between the beginning of the piece and the E major section, of which the cadenza is a continuation. The dyad e-f (which finds its ultimate source in the confrontationof and E) is especially prominent in this section in the form of the cross-relation dj-ejf.The move from efy to e$ implied in the bass (see Example 33, below) is prefigured in theforeground during the E major theme, in the middle voice, efy1 -e$i -e^, bars 303, 315, 317; and, in the bass, (E)-F-E, bars (303), 323, 325.It may be remarked in passing about the little tune that creeps into the cadenza at bars 399ff.: perhaps a clue to its meaning is that the premiere of the Rhapsody was onexception, the Concerto in F, provides an interesting example of Gershwin’s desire to connect separate movements. The structural tone of the piece as a whole is (I believe) 3(a/a^ r). This becomes 5 in the middle movement in D^. What is sometimes obscured in performance because of a long break between movements is that the at the end of the slow movements is led down over g at the beginning of the last movement, to f in bar 21, in order to reestablish F as the tonic and as 3. This explains what otherwise seems rather peculiar, that the last movement starts in G minor. (This has also been noted in Gilbert.)61Lincoln’s Birthday, 1924. Of course, it is also an indication of what the entire section isabout: g$-f$. (Note also that its descent from cfj2 to gjj1, bars 405-8, vaguely recalls the E major theme, bars 317-25—compare Example 29.)As mentioned above, the applied dominant to F$ finally resolves only at bar 433. From this point to bar 475 there is a passage in parallel lOths which transfers the intervalf M up over minor thirds through two octaves—although downward transfers keep the texture from literally rising two octaves. The F$ is a pivot chord. Arising as V of V in E (EM of IV), it is reinterpreted in Ej? (TV) as \^H (Gj?). The progression then continues to Vjof Elp in bars 481-86, and to Ej? itself in bar 487. The motion in parallel lOths is best presented graphically (see Example 33). Note how the chord in bars 459-60 represents the goal, E^, prematurely arrived at, and how the music “backtracks” at that point. The chord is built up from the top notes of the preceding parallel lOths: b[?(aft), d^(c$), with the e havingmoved to f as a neighbor. The a2 is a passing tone from g which marks the b|?(a$) as the closure of the first octave of the upward transfer—although, because of the backtracking inthe bass, the ff| does not “catch up” with b(? for several measures. (Compare gf^i-ai -ajji, bars 437-39 with g2 -a2 -b^2 , bars 449-61.)A questionable aspect of the Finale that ought to be discussed briefly is the literal reuse of material (from bars 55-60) in bars 461-70. One is liable to suspect Gershwin, under pressure of time as he was, of “plugging in” the passage carelessly. But it can be at6 2Example 33c P f 0U l .i 'l Cad6nZa ( i o & b r M S )E: ^ 3 2 ______ - j - V C~ T - >® @ @ > @II\0 - 10 -(& )fpivofc chord) ___________ ^cf. Ex. 26C— i X cf-J*)I6 3least rationalized: First, the use of the passage expresses, on the surface, the “backtracking” of the underlying contrapuntal motion better than any newly composed music could have done. Second, on a deeper level, note how—given what precedes and follows it—the passage expresses different relationships than it did previously. Perhaps it is the very faceless modularity of the passage that, paradoxically, makes this possible.The main difference due to context is that the passage functioned in bars 55-60 toprolong C in the bass, whereas now it prolongs F$. As to details, note how the addition ofinstrumental doubling stresses the relationship of fjj to g in bars 463-65: Previously the g had been a retained tone throughout the passage up to this point; here it is an embellishmentof the fj| (but its eventual goal in the background, as well). The break at bars 459-60 also tends to give the stress, previously on e in the upper voice, to bj?. (One could certainly speculate about that reversal!)At bar 471, the passage is no longer a literal repetition since the chain of parallellOths has to be continued up to F$-a$, which is arrived at in bar 475. But the next six measures (bars 475-80) are unclear in detail: In the jazz band the parallel lOths continue,although now descending in whole steps from F$-a|| to D-fjJ. The piano part is omitted in the manuscript (pages 49-50), but in the published version it seems to contradict the jazzband, showing the same parallel chords as bars 61-63, Bl> ” , A I? ” , f |7 7 7To my ears the piano part predominates since it clearly articulates the underlyingharmonic shift from j^ ITC to V7 of Ej? in bar 475. Admittedly, my understanding of the passage is conditioned by years of playing the solo piano version of the piece, which has no indication whatsoever of the jazz band part at this point (bars 471-74 being made to conform exactly to bar 60, and bars 475-80 to bars 61-63). Of course, that the solo piano version stresses the chord (V7) here could be used as an argument for my interpretation.On the other hand, F$(G^)—as is shown in Example 34— governs the bass until the arrivalExample 34© © (303) and E dominant seventhshords, d-a^/gjj. In this sense the true tonic of the piece (although inteipreted as B|? major on the surface) is the whole-tone collection that contains B^! The resulting ambiguity is a structural problem to be sure, but one of a very high order of sophistication.303°I believe that the structure—in common with other early 20th-century pieces—is an uneasy amalgam in which two sets of harmonic criteria coexist. A whole-tone structure does not naturally unfold such that the 2 in its Urlinie would be supported by V' But some composers seem to have been loath to discard tonal structures even when those structures6 7The section in Ej? ( IW ) starting in bar 487 requires no detailed commentary save to point out the summarizing f$-g (see Example 2b) of the theme, bars 490-91, and toremind the reader of two points previously made: the summarizing dt'-d^ j-el? in bars 491-92 (jazz band part); and the fact that Theme 2 was first introduced, also in E^, in bars 11-14.Exam ple 3 7___________________________ "reversals"__________________________________ ________________________from Bb to E (Fb ): from E to Bb:eb"d"C'1 (see Ex 24) c»"d" ebe b -d -c (see Ex. 24) c{tf-g--ab (see above) ab--g--fbb-bli(cb) (see above & Exx. 4 , 14b, 15) bt? —bb (see above)stress on ( | in bars 55-60 stress on (bj| [ ^ ] in bars 461-71(see Ex. 9) (see Ex. 33)foreground: e--f (bars 3 , 48 , 117-23) f~e (bars 315-17 etc., innervoice, and 323-35, etc., bass)background: f -e (see Exx. 4 ,9 , 21) e (f b)—f(ett) (see above)Example 37 shows how the Finale achieves the reversal of several contrapuntal and motivic aspects of the first part of the piece: the cff-d-e^ has already been noted; the b also returns to b|?. The gff (aj?), in finally moving to gjj in the superimposed inner-voice descent,conflicted with the harmonic materials they were using. See my article on The Fourth of July.6 8b^a^-g-f, represents a reversal that commences at the tritone “divider”: Recall that the although structurally connected to b^, was approached from below (from g). Since we may assume that in some sense the inner-voice g came from the f of the I chord, the continuation of aj? by g and then f reverses this process. The final piano solo (bars 508-9) summarizes and confirms this progression (see Example 2).Referring back to Example 34, note that the 5-6 motion of f-g over B\? is the model for the 5-6 motions of the E major theme (see Examples 26 and 33), and also, on a larger scale, is the basis of the entire piece, in which the overall structure is the prolongation of I by an embellishing IW 7 chord produced by combining the 5-6 motion and a chromatic inflection of 3 to ^ 3. Even though cjj/d^ is sometimes alternatively treated as a lowerneighbor or a chromatic passing tone, its primary identity as ^3 is affirmed by its ultimatesource, the dj?2 in bar 3).Once we reach the embellishing IVW7 the concluding structural melodic descent and harmonic closure is achieved quite perfunctorily. To end the piece Gershwin employs a strategy very similar to the one he used to get from E to Ej? to move from e[? to d, but now in a much more condensed—and therefore more problematical way. (Again the pressure of limited time may perhaps be held accountable.) Example 38 shows that the E{? prepares anF dominant \ (bar 504) which leads back to the chord in root position, with the curious result that the e^ must be reattained and let to a d, which gathers thereby the weight of a6 9Example 38XV7 Z (um tesjlu ed ) EMmelodic tone and can carry the structural descent. The upper voice proper remains stationary on f to the end.Examples 39a and b compare the two passages: e-ej* bars 303-487 and e^-d, bars487-507. In the first instance the \ recalls what might be termed a “charged” sonority (theE) and mediates its resolution; in the second the \ is what stores the “charge,” so that an otherwise unwarranted connection of two IV7s can be made. The similarity of the E and E\? sections also includes the motion of the structural upper-voice tone as it is displaced,respectively, d-djj-e and dl>-dfy-e|? (see Example 40).The ultimate source of this idiosyncratic use of counterpoint—of which Gershwin’s grasp was wholly intuitive, but nonetheless strong—may well be the sequential passage inbars 5-10. Example 39c shows how the prepares the 7th above C in bar 7, which has its resolution in the a I? of bar 16. Note that (aside from instead of A^ j) this is a tritonetransposition of the bass of Example 39a, E-Fjf-El?. Of course other connections between the E major theme and this initial passage have already been noted.Example 39recallsE: I !■* zEb: bHE (=V7)bi : - ? :m...d z j/t ~ (A — —7 ) ---------- ( 6 )of register)Example 40recallsI f ! ?[and thus recalls)(note shiftm 377 © ©71The merely implicit melodic descent ( 3 - 2“ 1 ) at the end is not unlike that of the initial statement of Theme 1 (bars 2-5), where the foreground emphasis is also all on f (twice the goal of descents from bj^ ). Likewise, the d ( 3 ) of bar 4 gains its onlyemphasis—by implication—from the d^ of bar 3, of which it is the “correction.”Talent and TechniqueThe abrupt and unconventional ending brings up the matter of Gershwin’sinexperience. The use of the \ seems to me to work (at least to the extent of preventing total disaster). But however much we are impressed by the improvisatoty coup, we cannot shake a sense of its ad hoc awkwardness. This too is one’s impression of the piece as a whole. The structure would be masterly—if only it were successfully projected in the foreground.We have seen that Gershwin’s seemingly loosely constructed Rhapsody shows what one expects (evidence of the melodic talent that is incontrovertibly his), but also, on careful analysis, shows the long-range structural connections and, to some extent, the integration of detail with large-scale organization typical of the works of great composers.Such findings always contradict the commonsense idea that a composer builds up a piece from smaller bits—the very word composer implies it—and the Rhapsody in7 2particular seems “assembled” at least superficially. If the analysis is accurate, then perhaps the commonsense view of compositional talent needs revision. Naturally, it is possible that the analysis is mistaken; it is also possible that one should not use Schenkerian models for less than great music. As to the first possibility, it can be pointed out that the findings of the analysis in fact correspond to the general impression that most listeners have received: Gershwin was undoubtedly talented but his music seems somehow flawed. I have just shown in more detail both exactly where the flaws lie and whence the impression of talent comes.It has always been difficult for me to believe that a composer can have talent for foreground detail alone (especially given, as in this case, so large a talent). There ought to be some evidence of talent on the middleground and background levels. I believe it is impossible to be merely a “great melodist” The talent, which is the ability to hear, is identical for melody and for large-scale composition. The latter is an extension of the former and can therefore be thwarted by lack of training.3iWhile not trying to promote Gershwin to the level of “great composer,” I think he was a greatly talented composer whose music has suffered many bad performances because his lack of training engendered flaws in his works that made them difficult to perform convincingly. I hope to have shown that there is often more formal assurance than meets31Cf. Schenker, Free Composition , §30, pages 18-19.7 3the eye. If musicians were to become aware of such subtleties, their performances would improve—and Gershwin’s standing as a composer would be easier to judge.As to whether Schenkerian analysis can be successfully applied to works by lesser composers, the norm has been to beg the question (a tendency deriving from Schenker himself). I think it is fair to say he thought he had discovered a “philosopher’s stone” that would make possible the separation of true masterpieces from the run-of-the-mill. Unfortunately (from our essentially positivist standpoint) there was a large subjective bias in his procedure: Composers he considered to be great turned out to write great music; those he did not turned out to be demonstrably incompetent But subjectivity is part and parcel of the process—Schenker’s “analysis” is a hermeneutic, as opposed to a logical procedure. If he was guilty of favoring the music he loved, this is at worst a sentimental error.Despite the seemingly immortal myth to the contrary, Schenker most often placed the individual piece at the center of attention; for this reason it is consistent with his methods—and even his truest beliefs—to apply his principles to lesser compositions. Or at least some of them: there are pieces that are lesser because they are less individual than others, more stereotyped; but a piece can also be too individual to be totally successful. I think we have seen that the Rhapsody fits the latter description.Another idea which may have been implied inadvertently in the course of the7 4analysis ought to be expressly delimited here: Gershwin was not an intellectual composer, nor was he, despite his friendly acquaintance with Alban Berg and Arnold Schoenberg, an avant-garde composer. But he was a contemporary composer: His music shows both an (undoubtedly intuitive) knowledge of and a concern with the development of tonal materials fully congruent with his time. Moreover, when he dealt with the problems that his contemporaries were facing, Gershwin was able, in spite of his lack of theoretical background, to find interesting solutions. For example, while it is true that a customary progression through the circle of fifths might have been the source of the opening in the Rhapsody, the structurally implicit treatment of a single harmony encompasing two dominant seventh chords a tritone apart as the tonic was far from customary (and never became so in tonal music).Gershwin’s music is in any case intensely chromatic (much more so than the average American composer of his era). While not a radical like Ives, he was more adventurous harmonically than middle-of-the-road composers like Carpenter or Taylor. But his chromaticism is idiosyncratic as well; cross-relations are especailly characteristic of his style. This distinctive sound seems in Gershwin’s case to derive in equal parts from Jazz and Jewish influences, sharing, as they do, the combination of pentatonicism and major-minor tonality. These, along with many other immigrant traditions in the New York of his time, were involved in an explosive cross-fertilization within the world of popular7 5music. But while Gershwin’s harmonic vocabulary later became (via motion pictures and recordings) the standard style of popular music (in the late ’30s, ’40s and ’50s), it must be recalled that in his time it was still quite “advanced”—for that milieu in particular.Where did it come from? Though his vocabulary had at least some connection to post-Wagnerian chromaticism, I find rather doubtful that it was derived, as is sometimes assumed, from the French Impressionists in Gershwin’s case—certainly not at the stage in his career that he wrote the Rhapsody.32 Gershwin was a more than usually self-absorbed composer and presumably picked up his knowledge of chromaticism partly from the Chopin and Liszt he played as a young piano student, but especially from his own improvisatory experiments at the keyboard.The main point of course is, we should pay less attention to the fact that he was no theorist—his analytical statements being remarkable only for their callowness—and more to the fact that he, like composers of earlier times, was a renowned improviser. Let us examine how improvisation made the Rhapsody possible.32See Schwartz, Life, 126-29 for an examination of the famous Stravinsky and Ravel stories. As mentioned above, Schwartz also disposes of other claimants to influence (pages 52-56).7 6Gershwin’s Technique: improvisationThe most unusual feature of the piece (as presented by the analysis) is its harmonic structure, involving the unfolding of the tritone from the major of the opening to the E major of the so-called “Blues” (bars 303ff.). Close analysis has revealed intriguing connections between the Bj? and E sections, leading us to consider whether the two keys represent, in some sense, a single harmonic entity comparable to a I-L*7 complex (where W acts as V7 of IV; see Example 22).While such things (as the unfolding of a tritone, for example) are not unheard of, it is difficult to credit Gershwin with so masterful a grasp of tonal relations, since Charles Schwartz has convincingly documented Gershwin’s lack of formal training (see note 31, above). It is difficult, that is, unless we assume a powerful intuitive grasp of them (in a word, talent). The means he used to tap his intuitive powers was improvisation, for music seemed to flow from his fingers; as he said: “Sometimes what comes out of that piano frightens me.”33But this method of composing has gained a bad reputation (“not serious”) in more33Quoted in Levant, 232. Given to Gershwinesque character, Sam Frankl, in the play Merrily We Roll Along by Kaufman and Hart (Act 2, Scene 3).7 7recent years, a period when composers have sought to control their music ever more consciously- As a result, improvisation has come to be seen as an alternative to composition—-justified on such grounds as enhancing the freshness of music making, or allowing a kind of democracy to the process wherein the performers share more equally in shaping the music and the composer reaps the spiritual benefits of not having to impose one’s ego on others.34 But the nature of improvisation has much to teach us even about works not so purely improvisational, for example, what constitutes success in the dialectic between unity and invention in any large-scale work.That composition and improvisation have been closely related in the past is common knowledge, of course. It is evident in several ways—to cite only the most obvious: the great lengths some composers go to (Beethoven, for example) to give their compositions an improvisatory quality.It is, however, possible to make a more general assertion about the relationship between composition and improvisation: For the musical equivalent of the “willing suspension of disbelief’ to take place, the musical discourse of a composition must seem to be improvised in real time, like the dialog of play. Though we know that the actors are not making up Shakespeare’s poetry, we need to believe they are, and can, if the actors allow^There is an interesting criticism of improvisation as the basis of composition on other grounds in George Antheil’s Bad Boy o f Music (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1945), 109-11.7 8us to do so. Musical performance thrives on a similar illusion.But just as composition tends in this way towards an ideal of improvisation (though never attaining it), real improvisation can never satisfy the condition of c o m p o s i t i o n .33 For one thing, with composition, the job of both performer and audience is to create an illusion of improvisation. This can be done quite reliably precisely because the composition exists apart from the realization, at least as a potential structure. With improvisation, there is a constant anxiety about the whole enterprise both for performer and audience: the structure might fail to exist. With improvisation, therefore, the potential for failure rather than the potential for discourse becomes the center of attention.So, while a successful improvisation seems all the more wonderful for the improviser’s having taken a risk and overcome the odds, composition provides a more dependable occasion for calling a group of people together. (In a society less minutely structured with respect to time than ours, the improvisatory occasion can be extended, and often is, until something happens that justifies having gathered an audience.)In any case, the act of improvsation can have several stages: At first, a preliminary idle wandering in which the subconscious has its fullest play. The conscious mind may35This assertion has been questioned by Carl Schachter, who cites great composers like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven as improvisers (private communication). First, I think it is fair to assume that even such masters had better and worse days as improvisers.Second, I am attempting here to describe phenomenologically the differences between composition and improvisation: I do not doubt that any number of Mozart’s improvisations were more successful as musical structures than any number of compositions by Salieri.7 9then decide to consider a certain idea as a “beginning”: Often something a bit out of theordinary or unexpected (like the cfj of bar 7 of the Eroica) will seize the imagination because it seems to need to be spun-out—“explained,” if you like. This spinning out can take many forms, but one that seems characteristic of “improvisatory” pieces is to keep returning to the inspired idea in larger and larger scale so that what started out as, for example, a contrapuntal detail can eventually become the tonality of an extended se c tio n .3 6 Another method (which can be combined with the first) is to allow one idea as it develops to suggest other ideas. This guarantees a surface impression of continuous invention. It is possible | that that is why Beethoven (and Brahms, who probably learned it from Beethoven) so favored this device—it helped a talented improviser give laboriously worked-out compositions the aura of improvisation.37When an untrained composer, like Gershwin at age twenty-five, writes down an improvisation, it would seem that one motive might be to compensate with the excitement of the “real thing” for an inability to construct an artifice that can create the illusion. (Compare documentary filmmakers who trade on the idea of giving the viewer real life,36See Salzer.370 f course, Gershwin not only was a habitual improviser, but in this case was forced by circumstances to work especially quickly. Schwartz has carefully reconstructed the actual course of events from the legends that seem early on to have become attached to Gershwin (Life, 74-95).The role of the press in Gershwin’s career would make an interesting study.8 0when, in fact, few can resist making a film into a story—thus giving the audience what it probably really wants, rather than what it only thinks it wants.)Again, this is not to say that the two acts of composition and improvisation are completely antithetical. A composition without “inspiration” can easily devolve into mere construction; inspiration in this context can be seen as the sort of thought that occurs to one during a playful, apparently aimless, receptive—in other words, improvisatory frame of mind. For its part, the improvisation without some constructive principle can easily become aimless in fact, and not just apparently so.In the Rhapsody in Blue the improvisatory origin of the work is revealed in two ways. First, on or near the surface, details suggest their successors: one of the best instances is the gradual emergence of the C major theme at bar 91 from the material in the bars after 81 (see Example 11). The second way that the improvisatory origin shows—on a deeper level—is that the large-scale structure of the piece is also suggested by details on the surface: for example, the way the initial progression of the piece, I-I^ % -IV7, comes to govern the entire structure, as was shown above in Example 22 (see Example 41). It seems highly unlikely that Gershwin planned even the more superficial instances; how much more unlikely that he had any awareness of the deeper ones. (For what it is worth, I can attest to such unconscious relationships from my own experience as a composer, and we have81Example 41EM TST7WTOn jEM IV7WT=I(,)Schoenberg’s testimony to similar experiences.38)A number of other instances from the piece may be cited of the ways in which the surface gives evidence of improvisatory origin: Besides the slow emergence of the triadic motive in bars 8 Iff., there are several rhythmic connections between the C major theme and preceding and succeeding material, all of which point to improvisation.The rhythm j* j* I think ultimately derives from the rhythm of the firsttheme3 3u rrr(diminution)r •- t» i . e t c . by extension (the repeated note) and metric shift (the38Amold Schoenberg, “Composition with Twelve Tones (I),” Example 3, in Style and Idea.8 2upbeat becoming the downbeat). The repeated note.later links up with Theme 2,(repeated note) (repeated notes)|*j* p p p| p becoming 7 p j« p j» j» p jp . (Another diminution, not present in the manuscript, also connects the C major theme with Theme 2; see, for example, bars107ff. 7 |» j* j* q* ere •) Finally, the rhythm of the C major theme recurswith the d$-dfy-c$ motive in the E major section, bars 305ff. (underscoring the motivic links to the first theme with rhythmic links as well).Example 24 showed how several motives were related to each other by simple juxtaposition. The use of such motivic resemblances as “come to hand” in the course of a piece is an obvious hallmark of improvisation, allowing for the assertion of a relationship where none exists* in any organic sense. (The idea that a composer rationally works out all relationships is clearly wrong in any case.) Again we see a dialectic between the results of conscious control and planning on the one hand and those of a process of discovery on the other. The distinction can be clarified by an analogy from the theory of evolution in biology, where a single life form can be transformed into several new species, or two species can come to resemble each other more closely (so called “convergent evolution”). This second process was also seen in the relationship of the G major theme to Theme 1, a case in which material arose (bass, bars 106-14) that was not itself directly related to Theme 1 but played the role of making it easier to hear the G major theme as related to Theme 1.8 3The background in improvisation tends to grow out of the foreground (a foreground feature being expanded to govern the background, as exemplified by the relationship of the first theme to bars 2-29, and of bars 2-29 to bars 2-138 and ultimately to the piece as a whole). The process can be reversed, however: A feature arising in the background can suggest features in the foreground, such as the way the pentatonic interpretation of Theme 1 in A (bars 72ff.) emerges from the registrally isolated pitches a2 (bar 38), g2 (bar 53), e2 (bar 61), as was shown in Example 8 above; or, another instance, the way the use of Theme 2 is suggested at bars 18 Iff. by the inflection—necessitated bythe motion of the bass from Bl? to E—of bl^-tJ]2 in the background (see Examples 14 and 15 above). That the choice of foreground detail—which theme to use to project a given harmony—can be affected by the background structure does imply an awareness of the background. There is no reason that this awareness need be conscious, however, and no grounds for believing Gershwin capable of making use of any such awareness, had it been.As has been suggested above, it is improvisatory “mistakes” that provide the impetus for this sort of composition in the first place. Imagine that Gershwin had played the recomposed version of the first theme in Example 42. It is clear that he would have had to keep on searching for something more problematical on which to base a large-scalepiece. It is the fact that the melody “oversteps” the dty2—seemingly out of its own downward momentum—that establishes the motive e^rd-d^ as a central melodic factor, and8 4Example 42lini I --efc.&5£the dyad Ej^ -dj^ /c^ as a central harmonic factor of the piece. It can even be argued that, by overstepping the third step of the B^ » major scale, the melody sets off the descending circle of fifths which ends up taking the music down a tfitone to E (BjT-E^-A^-D^-G^-C^/B-E). In this way issues that ultimately become background material seem to address themselves to the composer as foreground details that compel further treatmentThere is a somewhat similar example to the “out-of-control” circle of fifths of bars 2-29 of the Rhapsody in Chopin’s Mazurka, op. 56, no. 1 (see Example 43), where adescent from 3 to 3 in B major oversteps the goal, djj, to land on di| because of a literalcircle of fifths sequence. The resulting G major harmony later becomes the tonality of a contrasting section of the piece.39Ancillary to the internal evidence garnered by analysis for the improvisatory origin of the piece is the evidence gained by examining the manuscript. As mentioned above , it39My thanks to Frank Samarotto for pointing this out.8 5Example 43Chopin, Op. 56, No. 1seems to support the view that the Rhapsody was improvised: in its general lack of erasure, and in the tendency for blocks of the composition to emerge easily at first, but then evidently to lose steam (more abbreviation, sketchiness, an occasional question mark) as the block comes to an end.Compositional structure seems to have meant repetition to Gershwin (to the extent he had any conception of it at all): constantly rehashing the same material with only the most elementary variation and no development to speak of. Thus, the weakest features of the structure are precisely those in which he seems to impose compositional control.Of course, Gershwin wrote the piece in a matter of two to three weeks; he did not have the leisure to sketch or otherwise carefully construct his first large instrumental work. The legend, probably true, has it that he forgot his promise to Paul Whiteman until very shortly before the deadline. It is at least plausible that the reason he forgot was that he knew8 6he would be improvising anyway. Perhaps, unconsciously, he hoped to legitimize his compositional method by putting himself in a situation where it was the only possible way to proceed!TalentThere is another issue that the analysis of the Rhapsody in Blue allows us to address (if only provisionally). Because of the curious contrast between Gershwin’s well-established40 lack of training and the sophistication of the harmonic structure—not to mention such paradoxes as the surely unconscious avoidance of parallels in the background while they are being used freely in the foreground—the analysis provides us with an unusual means of access to the vexed issue of the relationship between talent and technique. Through a kind of “thought experiment,” those elements, usually inextricable, can be separated, and their relationship examined. Perhaps surprisingly, the dialectical tendencies of Schenker’s theories41 imply conclusions similar to those arrived at through40Schwartz, Life, 52-5641Schenker’s dialectical tendencies, which he almost certainly picked up from the culturally pervasive Hegelianism of his milieu, might better be related to Vico’s distinction between datum and factum, i.e., the given and the made (both thinkers place greater value on the latter). In a talk at the Schenker Symposium at Mannes College in March 1985, William A. Pastille suggested Goethe rather than Hegel as the source of Schenker’s most8 7such an experiment: that talent is for structure, and not necessarily just for surface detail.Anyone offering a theory of tonal music must, willy-nilly, address the issue of what part of a composer’s ability is innate and what part learned—whether explicitly or not. In doing so, one must, nowadays at least, conform to the evidence developed in fields such as philosophy and psychology, where the issue is addressed from different perspectives. It is my contention that Heinrich Schenker’s theory of tonal music (though hardly a unified formal theory) still gives, if only by implication, the best description of the workings of the musical mind. The Rhapsody in Blue provides the possibility of “watching over the shoulder” of a talent both mature and relatively untrained. In contrast, the works of the child Mozart, even had he not been formally trained, would not be appropriate to such a “thought experiment” because he was a child.The two concepts of talent and technique must be separated, however. I propose the following working definitions: Talent seems to involve a profound understanding of relationships between pitches, and between rhythms—and so on, to a greater or lesser extent, with the other materials of music. Technique, which can be developed, is the ability to project that understanding into structures of ever greater cohesiveness. Thus, even composers sometimes found deficient in their handling of larger structures (e.g., Schubert and Chopin) are acknowledged to be talents of the first rank.basic esthetic ideas.8 8One need not follow Schenker into a claim that the tonal system—of which the talented composer has a deeper than average perception—is derived from nature. And in fact Schenker’s claim is not as extreme as is sometimes supposed: He posits a Hegelian dialectic between nature and art as the ground of the synthesis which the tonal system represents. In his view, the dialectic is reenacted in various relationships in every piece of tonal music, among them: the relationship between tonic and dominant, and that between tonality and diatony (loosely, melody).42Even if one takes the extreme opposite position, that tonal music is entirely without a basis in nature, compositional talent—if the word means anything at all—must reside in a seemingly instinctive grasp of such a system, one which cannot be built up from compositional experience. That is to say, the locus of musical talent must be the same as that of the possibility of there being any such thing as music at all.The Schenkerian position is thus not incongruent with the Viconian idea that we can understand only what we can make. Music is based on nature, but at the same time, is a purely human artifact. In other words, a composer does not have to understand nature so much as music.The word “instinctive” will bother many, seeming to beg the question of talent. But42Schenker, Free Composition , Chapter 1 passim and §§16 (page 14) and 4 (pages 11-12).8 9I do believe that the word “talent” names something. (Such a statement opens one up to the charge of reification, but that is not my tack: It will transpire below that “instinctive” need not be taken literally to mean “inherited,” but only “automatic, and generally inaccessible to modification in the mature individual.”)I believe that the talent of the composer does not lie in a faculty that others do not possess, so much as in having (to put it crudely) “more” of that faculty—the way some people have longer toes than others. As far as I know, no amount of exercise or better nutrition can change the length of your toes; no amount of training can make you a talented composer.Since the musicality of the composer is not different in kind from that of the “average music lover” (and this would clear up how average people can “get something out o f ’ the music of great composers), it follows that any ultimate formal explanation of talent per se must therefore be impossible. (The genetic aspect is presumably an imponderable as well, since it is unlikely that there is a specific gene either for bigger toes or musical talent, these characterisitics probably being the result of random confluences of many genetic factors.)43From a close examination of the Rhapsody in Blue we gather, moreover, that43Schenker (Free Composition, §30 [pages 18-19]) denies the ability to create to nongeniuses, but his argument can be read as allowing one who understands short-range progression to extend this understanding to the background by “the exertion of spiritual and psychical energy.”9 0compositional talent is more unitary than, say, writing ability. Many people can write perfectly good sentences; far fewer can write good paragraphs—not to mention good chapters or books. But a composer’s inabilities are more likely to show up even in the foreground.44Schenker’s theories imply that compositional talent is unitary because the pitch structure itself is unitary (deriving ultimately from a single pitch and its overtones). There is an aspect to this subtle point—so central to Schenker’s thought—that is often overlooked because attention is concentrated on the multiplicity of levels: Not only is the pitch structure unitary in its “horizontal” aspect of being the expression of a single tone in time (as is widely understood), it is also unitary in its “vertical” aspect: all the levels coexist in the foreground.45In a manner of speaking, the “timeless” unity of the pitch in nature is expressed moment to moment by the vertical aspect of polyphony. In the synthesis that is music, the antitheses of timeless pitch and unfolding in time, or rhythm, are involved in a44 Perhaps a comparison of Richard Rodgers with Gershwin might be instructive—if probably somewhat unfair. When one plays through twenty songs by each, it is clear that, despite marvelous individual touches, Rodgers’ songs en masse have a “four-square” quality (pace Alec Wilder) and Gershwin’s do not. It is thus no accident, in my view, that Rodgers never wrote a satisfactory large-scale piece. To repeat, this is not really being fair to Rodgers, since he never had Gershwin’s pretensions to “greatness” either.But for me Rodgers’ music represents the triumph of experience and craft over modest talent (that is, just the reverse of Gershwin’s qualities).45Schenker, Free Composition, §29 (page 18).91dialectic—and are renamed, “harmony and counterpoint”Linguistic models of tonal music fall down on just this point of vertical unity: There is no background apart from what is present (either literally or by strong implication) in the foreground o f the music itself. In contrast, the Chomskyan background structure of a sentence often disappears in the process of transformation, except for “traces” left in the foreground. Thus, the background of a piece of music is not reconstructed from the foreground in Schenker’s approach, so much as laid bare.46The subtlety of Schenker’s “metaphysical” distinction between nature and art—and its practicality—become more evident For example, if we take as given that the natural state of a pitch and its overtones is simultaneous coexistence, making it a sort of real metaphor for timelessness; and further, that it is only art which introduces the unfolding in time of the pitch structure, thereby creating the synthesis, music, from the antithetical concepts of pitch and rhythm: Why, after all, should we expect such antithetical structures as pitch and rhythm to have the same organization?Schenker’s “neglect of rhythm” begins to seem an unfair characterization of a rather profound idea: The structure of a piece of music is unitary by virtue of its origin in a single pitch; but therein also lies its potential to unfold on multiple levels—i.e., the fact that the fundamental structure is at once the sentence and the paragraph and the whole book. (To^See the Appendix for the philosophical bases of this argument.9 2put it another way, a piece of music is a sentence made up of other sentences which are in turn made up of still other sentences, and so on.) If the success of this insight has led to some of the misfortunes of rhythm theory—where attempts to find the same structures at different levels have failed to convince—it is due to an incomplete understanding of Schenker’s idea.47 The discontinuities between different levels of rhythm (i.e., the measure, the phrase, the section) are actually more like those between literature’s sentence, paragraph, and chapter.To summarize, our examination of the Rhapsody in Blue has shown that the act of improvisation allowed Gershwin to create a unified structure despite his almost total lack of compositional training at the time. (It would be of interest to study his more consciously crafted later pieces to see what effect, if any, greater control had on their success.) We have seen how these results tend to confirm the a priori nature of compositional talent, and how such findings are already implicit in Schenker’s theory of tonal music (when it is deeply understood and not just being raided for analytical methodology): The unity of the pitch structure means there is no such thing as foreground talentBut it also means that the average music lover’s ability to apprehend the foreground47Schenker is in part responsible for the confusion by his not distinguishing carefully enough between the background or fundamental structure of music and the even more fundamental structure of pitch in nature. Compare, in Free Composition, Chapter 1, section 3 (pages 4-5) and Chapter 2, §§1-2 (pages 10-11).9 3is not different in kind from an ability to apprehend the background. If this is true, then the current state of affairs in which the “genius” and the “common person” have nothing to say to each other (wherever blame may lie) must end soon. Yet, neither the intensification of craft nor the dissolution of content can guarantee communication. Rather, both composer and listener must rely on their common heritage, the irreducible musicality of human beings.9 4A p p e n d ixIn this appendix I will discuss some of the ideas of Jeiry A. Fodor, a philosopher of cognitive science, whose thoughts about the workings of the mind I hope will be as helpful to the reader as they have been to me in thinking through these issues.Among Fodor’s books are: (1) The Language of Thought, in part a consideration of the possibility—which Fodor is willing to abandon, but clearly leans toward—that linguistic formalism does not necessarily entail reductive simplicity, that is, a relatively small number of basic computational elements of either vocabulary or syntax. He leans toward this possibility even though the entailment of reductive simplicity would make life easier for those involved in the formalization (pp. 154-56). Since tonal music clearly is a system in which a small number of relatively undifferentiated elements generate the complexity of the surface by repeated application of a small set of transformational rules, it would appear to operate in an entirely different way from natural language.(2) The Modularity o f Mind, pursues Fodor’s contrareductionism by arguing for reflexive, modular, and stimulus-type-specific input systems (see pp. 38ff.). This means that, for example, sentence recognition and panther recognition—and presumably something like melody recognition—would be automatically “preprocessed” (reflexivity) before being made available to the more global higher cognitive processes; that in all9 5likelihood they would be preprocessed separately (modularity). Any reductive program of general cognition would thus reach its “bottom line” with relatively highly processed elements; any further reduction would have to proceed along separate lines depending on the species of input (stimulus-type-specificity). A unified and reductive cognitive theory is thus ruled out.In addition, Fodor thinks that it is the very modular nature of the input systems which accounts for the success of reductive theories concerning them (vision, for example), whereas the global character of higher cognitive processes in effect rules out any reductive theory of thought whatsoever (see pp. lOlff.).Fodor’s discussion of the experimental evidence for and the ramifications of his model is too involved to summarize here, and in any case makes fascinating reading. But, what is most salient to music theory, it should be noted that the three-part scheme Fodor postulates, which inserts the reflexive input modules between the transducers—eyes, ears, etc.—and higher cognitive processes, creates a two-tier mental structure. On the one hand, Chomsky’s sentence analysis would take place in the input modules and only the understanding of, say, the poem which the sentences make up would occupy the higher cognitive processes. On the other hand, Schenker’s analysis is more a global affair, like understanding a poem.This may explain what has been, to me at least, a rather obscure point in Free9 6Composition (§28, pp. 17-18)—why Schenker insists so strongly on the difference between the fundamental structure and the cadences of conventional harmony (indeed its “substantive opposition” to them). Perhaps he had an inkling of the distinction between modular preprocessing, which certainly must apply to conventional cadences, and the higher cognition that applies to the fundamental structure.At any rate, the superficial resemblances between Chomsky’s levels of structure and rules of transformation, and those of Schenker should be understood as artifacts of analysis. Perhaps it bears repeating that Schenker’s superiority as a theorist of music has always resided in the fact that he grew more and more to think of music as music. The graphs are music—not words, not pictures, not anything else.The model presented by Lerdahl and Jackendoff, insofar as it is language-based (not stimulus-type-specific), would probably be invalidated, though Fodor’s theories agree with that model’s bias toward inherent principles of musical cognition. Perhaps Lerdahl and Jackendoff give us a picture of how the automatic preprocessing of a putative musical module works. Schenker’s theory, by contrast, is global, and therefore—-just as some of its critics charge—not thoroughly reductive (Fodor’s point is that a global theory cannot be thoroughly reductive, and vice versa)./9 7BibliographyPrimary Sources 1. MusicGershwin, George. Rhapsody in Blue /For Jazz Band and Piano. [“Jan. 7,1924”] LC, Music 1350 (microfilm).The autograph, a two-piano score. . Rhapsody in Blue /for Piano and Orchestra, [“two piano—four hands (original)”](New York: New World Music, 1924).Published version closest to autograph. . Rhapsody in Blue. (Piano Solo) (New York: New World Music, 1924).Source of cuts commonly made in performance of other versions.2. Theoretical IssuesFodor, Jerry A. The Language o f Thought. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980 [Reprint of: New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1975]). . The Modularity of Mind. (Cambridge, MA: MTT Press, 1983).Shows that reductive (positivist) foundation for theory (in general) may not only be inadvisable, but actually impossible.Schenker, Heinrich. Free Composition, tr. Ernst Oster. (New York: Longman, 1979).Last statement of Schenker’s ideas; the culmination (but not the ultimate codification it was intended to be) of his theoretical work. Must be read very critically.9 8Secondary Sources1. Music and BiographyArmitage, Merle, ed. George Gershwin. (New York: Longmans, Green, 1938.)Anecdotes and tributes from friends and colleagues, including Schoenberg (reprinted in Style and Idea), Virgil Thompson, and Ferde Grofe.Bernstein, Leonard. “A Nice Gershwin Tune,” in The Joy o f Music. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1959).Good statement of view of Gershwin widely held among musicians.Gilbert, Steven E. “Gershwin’s Art of Counterpoint,” Musical Quarterly LXX/4 (Fall 1984) 423-56.A “modified” Schenkerian approach to the music.Levant, Oscar. “My Life: Or the Story of George Gershwin,” in A Smattering of Ignorance. (New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1940).Schwartz, Charles. Gershwin: His Life and Music. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973).The most definitive biography to date. Includes abridged version of his Gershwin bibliography (q.v.). . “George Gershwin: A Bibliography,” Bibliographies in American Music. TheCollege Music Society Series. (Detroit: Information Coordinators, 1973).9 92. Theoretical IssuesBloom, Harold. “Criticism, Canon-Formation, and Prophecy: The Sorrows of Facticity,” Raritan m/3 (Winter 1984) 1-20.Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983).Maisel, Arthur. “The Fourth of July by Charles Ives: Mixed Harmonic Criteria in a Twentieth-Century Classic,” Theory and Practice 6/1 (August 1981) 3-32.Salzer, Felix. “Haydn’s Fantasia from the String Quartet, Opus 76, No. 6,” The Music Forum IV (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) 161-94.Schoenberg, Arnold. Style and Idea. Leonard Stein, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984 [reprint of New York: St. Martin's, 1975]).I8 .r i r rk Is rl*!>.V ‘JM^ K Cl S.t.r^S ' * ?N Tk« stcrel,ai J (cotta. voce)NB: Charuf is positionedr - icello110ft;***Popey o u .o w 'H w ^ tte Cifc^ost o f i - J e a s fh tm putridly I r i n j i i y j(coUcl voce)_____________POPE WISES FINGER FAR 5 IIENCEc e l l o1 1 1Popei f tH e imlie - roPope is c e n t e r s t a g - e fsuh,ddceooLei — 5oh ■— ooc e l l o112Q> St*nfrt)aiX I sa*j h o s tile s te« c lipore Hmps u p st a ff ( wLEFT HAND) AND POIND TO IT (wtTH SIGHT) LIKE THE PfM- MICT IM A TV COMMEftC IAL >&LAN r i (.Ki M )_ i . i l ear I r . J ,c e l l o114C h o iru S1161 1 7~ , i * *7podmq yt>--v#)ffpj @ (b?=f)«_Q_"iiiiPopeof te - ihj <*j> tive b' ( *- J = J —> )(W)cello(breve)118119JW :7=E=£¥& & E i= = £p - i a j f t npi-*m j,h J° r^ >—rtif*(55) »'123Pope-Hie war Id will lost lowaer my Cojbict&j to lave tny ■ ■ ( popf e C M t t E S h i h s f i f ) _ ( _A l - l e . io_A l - L e - U ia.cello124/SatolUxtfl^ UOjfpa/fc of ii 0 )A tewpo (J= 112)1 ithe peasuts spilling dtwii in-fa 'Hie fiejisspiL - lingside .-five pea.- Wswe ling out of — twitr\ t te pea - Sa»h a/eiout oF — their £ChoruSCui" oF — 4»i61251 2 6i -Popecello1271 2 8WPF. . . J L 132dor.Poperm _ , —t : f -cello I f ]1331 3 4*' 4|i ">£ T1 r■ r .(Sw-dt Sir*. Ktktf)1 3 5-olUL \jAPope> -(»«& and be - + ir*^ — 'rte I 'den.poco CLLLeu\r^ =j^ QM^ &tL1 3 8dIi>A ~ T T »A«*A * T T » AtE^ clovihptUeeL-11(r.h . 'd in£ (l.h. f S tv tr t)nten .fa o lto CL t& n potnfi i - dea.ovctu t-ae*. *.bo>d He +Kd «m-I Hifc ffn -ly i - d e a-> n jHe cv>-lym-ly i-dfi*. A-bod Hfc ir.:if=5C-hoiruSHe i - de*.0,-bm4 He the i - dec-^ o«5*> '36*nptC 1397^*Popef t , e - f i r s t i - sombrerZ-PopeOhseeW-cello1477Jtouf l1I II J * =58 fPopecello149celloInrtp1501511nr4 .j M =$9 -*1 5 2-e~3wwV/oliicello153S t i t ' l e l ia j iwr'to UiiBkjk bar 2U ,y(H) 15)r ? r . c » *mmtiroyi b*r2i71 sutta into hmUveB L « « £ - frr vhu*l cttedr kaa/t «ne S p ree — a iH t tVr& j s h e s —COSTp b f l t J w jc e * £ a j> t iru c .t t * r * e d b y fa r u / i t c l'cut icello(«) (ii)( 7 )155t*ie bvnitine (ba*~3tl)OFF-STAGE B/ PCUMBEAT OF BA(< 2 7 1TSCT -takt Wood stkS09Popejf mu re curnno drea*,fo^F )*1 tejbe S e a r n d v ic iin (tn- r e t u r ncello156XPa.<»•>-HIHAT—-------F r y - ‘------ H '~~t = fcn r - r 7 , - ' : : - - f — f - - ■ - \ ■ - f - - - _ ft--------------p«rcCMSftL * 9- , pnur. P ■ ""fc— r~~ . - .......- j _- - —---- ■ = i. icririE ouEfeTHUMBS TO C*£ST; ON THE MUS flF WS FEET (A IA CAfeHBV (Utce «»« letwe* jxrU»^« *«J w U l 'le .f»Hi»< i«t» «>ie w i l e otter,«1 tie [*rfjnvM ^isctetie*.=152. -------Violin.SfoaWher*Wejattte paM'OiitH158MWMFman siRgit . _shot by a convert frtm JudaitnOn emblem of baft a --------ism ®. Mic-u ice A RADIO TKiOcello(cotta eoce)15998ITT,o■«;.«3Jm rnr rt J illm - \ \c n091 .COA."■fVCQitke. *tio1 6 2 ^ tp^ wpu-tt). *i|P4 - aj-^ s-fw4- omf.(pete, iate aervsoL’iaJce ayasi*■fate c&lest*.I£U>0g m d a + U v M i n e i n i t o s n u jl e l i aptA. l i f e a>M*»a and k o p e — r, r t . -ir-totttf dis cmuse( . h _ J - 110 \ (Af H e SOUMD QUflLITy OF CHofelS V ' — / 310UID SEEM 75 *'EMER6E")f n uX fi<*v£ 3uct .sleep less warnjihy if JV^ peccA.i*>iM»oimtefa* w e r e - / a J t e aH>e*- Vifilin.tJ fue*4eviotih170jLtto-fWtPopebelietfefS will cdl have io Live in itCHoRuj B now visible b u t s t i l l d is ta n t fron pope. FRflH BAR i f ? TO BAR 3SO TUty BE&iN APPROACH SLOWLY, m171I \ / 172at1ill!I Ilf;S?S.,fljttoftukIC Otofe m j j h<*- le t ncA leant A f t rJ p&nthCiif avv-fVe fcttiW .- F80H BAR 35* TO 3 6 3 CHORUS SU FATHERS A R ouw p POPE-e~■ • f t r r t f J .vifcr.cello173§eaillii4 ii * u l1 7 4175I 'MP | J'ft-.'flMiPiIz TAXI HORNStozoPopei >'ll I ( f l it ? 1 Wouldn't i e rte firs t S tr a it P£FROM BAR 3 7 1 TO B fiH 3 7 5 C HORuS’S CIRCLE CLOSES IN o n pope ( th o u g h h is f a c e rem a ins v is ib le )-Atrcello176(snwtfc fr* Kjk&r)J*d r e - f o 0. iced C AY' in El 'SalvA.dfy-(sn&Jc m AS heceSSAry)1771 7 8ili_>iUuo"■-Sr Ii liwilU4 k4 r>O'OXfel.ly

Rhapsody in Blue

Abstract

Extracted data

Rhapsody in Blue

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items