Schubert and Sonata RhetoricOne explanation for the decline of sonata form in the 19th century
involves the perceived paradigm shift from the rhetorical to the organicist
metaphor of musical form. Compounding the problem is the fact that recent
theories of sonata form tend to focus on Classical style compositions and
implicitly conceive of them from a rhetorical standpoint. Two approaches, the
form-functional and the hermeneutic classify and explain features of Classical
style, and provide models for explaining the compositional choices underlying
this formal design, yet provide little explanation for the evolution of the
form in the 19th century. This paper addresses changes in sonata aesthetics and composition
through the lens of Schubert’s late quartets and sonatas. While this
repertoire, in many ways caught between the two aesthetics, is the focus of
much analytical inquiry, key features of Schubert’s formal designs have yet to
be explained from the perspective of this aesthetic duality. To begin, the paper problematizes the rhetorical/organicist duality by
recasting these aesthetic paradigms as analytical biases. Key features of both
aesthetics are in fact identifiable to varying degrees in many repertoires,
both earlier and later than Schubert. Changes in aesthetics, while impacting
upon compositional styles at some level, therefore seem mainly to affect
perception. Consequently, evolutions in design require a different
explanation. To this end, the paper identifies several strategies Schubert
uses to alter form-defining areas of sonata movements. These strategies are
creative reappropriations of Classical gestures, deploying a new rhetoric to
suit new aesthetic purposes. Some of Schubert’s strategies, such as cadential
deviation, are common even in his predecessors, yet the new context subtly
shifts their meaning; other strategies, such as disarticulation and projection
of constituent elements of a form-defining process, are newer. In either case,
these strategies demonstrate the continuity between Schubert’s style and that
of his predecessors. |