Newsletter No. 31 (January 2009) (PDF) - Society for Music Analysis

S M Asociety for music analysisnewsletterJanuary 2009ContentsEditorial 2President‟s letter 3New committee members 4Reviews corner: CarMAC 2008, review articleby Arnold Whittall 5CarMAC 2008, further reviews 9SMA Study Day 14Diary 15SMA Masters‟ Bursaries 2009–2010 16Events 17

S M AexecutivecommitteePresidentMichael Spitzermichael.spitzer@durham.ac.ukVice PresidentDanuta Mirkad.mirka@soton.ac.ukEvents OfficerLois Fitchlois.fitch@rncm.ac.ukInformation OfficerTim Rutherford-Johnsontim.johnson77@btopenworld.comAdministrator and TreasurerEdward Venne.venn@lancaster.ac.uksubmissionsThe Society for Music Analysis (SMA)publishes the SMA Newsletter in Januaryand July, with respective submissiondeadlines of 1 November and 1 May.Send materials for submission by email totim.johnson77@btopenworld.com or, ifnecessary, by post to:Tim Rutherford-JohnsonInformation OfficerSMA Newsletter/Website97a Rosebery RoadLondon N10 2LDeditorialThe central feature of the Society‟s 2008was a very successful Music AnalysisConference in Cardiff. The event makes itspresence felt in this issue with a specialreview-article by Arnold Whittall that alsomarks the centenaries of Messiaen andCarter, and three reviews from JosephDubiel, Anthony Gritten and Michael Byde.Reviews Corner also features a review bySimon Jones of our Study Day on Analysingthe Musically Sensuous, held at LiverpoolUniversity in November. As ever, I amgrateful to all contributors to the newsletterfor their submissions.2009 will be one of the Society‟s busiest forsome time. Four exciting SMA events,including our inaugural Summer School inAnalysis, are introduced in Michael‟spresident‟s letter on the opposite page.Posters for each are printed at the end ofthis newsletter and on the events page ofour website. Please feel free to distributecopies of these notices to any colleaguesand students who may be interested.This year should see the launch of aredesigned SMA website. Detailed plans arecurrently ongoing, but it will feature a moreup-to-date look, more information and anumber of new features. Keep an eye onwww.sma.ac.uk for developments.And, as Michael details in his letter, we saythanks and farewell to two long-standingmembers of the executive, William Drabkinand Nick Reyland, and welcome two newmembers in their place, Danuta Mirka andLois Fitch. Both are introduced in thefollowing pages, and I would like to offer myown welcome to the committee to both.Wishing you all a happy, analytical 2009!Tim Rutherford-JohnsonEditorSMA newsletter 2

president’s letterA Happy NewYear to all ourmembers! I hopeyou have had agood Christmas,and that Santahas beengenerous (a newiPod hasrevolutionised myown listeningpractices!). Oneyear into my post,it is with naturallymixed feelingsthat I say farewellto retiring officers, and greet new ones.William Drabkin and Nick Reyland, who bothjoined the Executive Committee in 2005, arestepping down. Bill has given the Societyinestimable service as Vice-President,assisting myself and Amanda Bailey with hiswisdom and council. Perhaps his particularachievement is to have put the SMA‟sschedule of events on a secure financialfooting through a regular grant from the MusicAnalysis Development Fund. The success ofthese events is largely due to Nick‟s dynamicand resourceful leadership; it was Nick whoput the MAC tradition back on the rails after aperiod of uncertainty, and CarMAC would nothave been possible without him. Welcome toDanuta Mirka, our new Vice-President, and toLois Fitch, who succeeds Nick as EventsOfficer. Both bring with them new experiencesand interests, and I look forward to their input.And I‟m grateful to the rest of the team – Ed,Tim, Jo, and Tristian – for their energy andsupport over the last year.It has been a great year of events – theRoadshows, the stimulating Autumn StudyDay at Liverpool, organised by AnahidKassabian, and of course the Society‟sflagship conference at Cardiff. The SMA isenormously grateful to Charles Wilson and histeam for delivering an outstanding conference,which the newsletter reports from threeangles, as well as a thought piece from ArnoldWhittall. It will be a tough act to follow. Eventsin 2009, if not bigger or better, will generallybe longer – catering for the practicality oftravelling to the northern corners of thekingdom. The Spring Study Day at Glasgowand the TAGS at Durham will both occupyweekends, and will feature more keynotespeakers than before. John Butt, who ishosting the „Analysing Bach‟s Passions‟weekend in Glasgow, will be joined by theeminent Bach scholars Laurence Dreyfus andDaniel Melamed. What could be morewonderful than devoting an Easter weekend tothe study of these towering masterpieces,works which have strangely defied analysis?The TAGS Weekend is the first of three eventshappening at Durham this year. I look forwardto welcoming you to one of the mostspectacular city centres in the world. Let mesay a few words about these events. The MayTAGS features two extraordinary phenomena.The first is partimenti – extemporisedharmonic schemas with the potential torevolutionise study of galant and classicalmusic, demonstrating a continuity betweencomposing and performing. The famousAmerican theorist and music psychologistRobert Gjerdingen, whose recent book, Musicin the Galant Style, discovered partimenti, willbe giving the opening address. The otherphenomenon is Rudolph Lutz, Professor ofimprovisation at the Schola CantoriumBasiliensis in Basel, who will be bringingGjerdingen‟s partimenti to life with a keynotepiano and harpsichord recital. ExperiencingLutz‟s genius and charisma in action is likehaving Mozart in front of you. Staying with thegraduate scene, the SMA is proud this July toinaugurate its biennial Music Analysis SummerSchool (www.dur.ac.uk/analysis.school), inassociation with Wiley-Blackwell and the IMR,offering intensive training in four modules ofcurrent music theory: Neo-Riemannianharmony, the New Formenlehre, Semiotics,and Schenker. Teaching, accommodation, andcatering are free – all you need do is get there.August will see the International Conferenceon Music and Emotion(www.dur.ac.uk/music.emotion), initiating theSMA‟s new strategy of alternating MACs withthemed conferences. So why emotion? Thestudy of emotion and affect is of burningimportance in the humanities, as well as thesocial and biological sciences. Philosophers,psychologists and scientists talk about musicalSMA newsletter 3

emotion; it is time now for music analysis tojoin the conversation. This will be the first timethat a conference on music and emotion willbe organised under the banner of a musicsociety. Music analysis can only be deepenedand enriched through a dialogue with theempirical and speculative disciplines. „Somesort of emotional experience is probably themain reason behind most people‟sengagement with music‟, say Patrik Juslin andJohn Sloboda, two of the many keynotespeakers at the conference. This will be anexciting year to be an analyst in the UK. I hopeto see you at as many events as you canmanage.Michael Spitzernew committee membersDanuta Mirka, Vice PresidentI am currently SeniorLecturer at SouthamptonUniversity. I studiedmusic theory at theSzymanowski Academyof Music in Katowice,Poland, and earned thePh.D. in musicology atthe University of Helsinki,Finland. In mydissertation/book TheSonoristic Structuralismof Krzysztof Penderecki(1997), I reconstructedthe technique employed in the composer's 'soundmass' compositions of the early 1960s. From Polishcontemporary music I moved to the study of musicalcommunication in the late eighteenth century. I amparticularly interested in integrating aspects ofhistorical music theory with those of contemporarymusic-theoretical research including cognitivelyorientedmusic theory and cognitive musicology, and Iapply this approach to the study of meter and rhythmin a forthcoming book for Oxford University Press,2009). The subsequent book will be a study ofhypermeter and phrase structure in lateeighteenth-century music. Other aspects ofmusical communication that interest meinclude musical topics and forms analyzed intheoretical terms of the late eighteenthcentury. As Vice-President of the Society forMusic Analysis, I will strive to support thePresident of the Society in his efforts to bringthe disciplines of music theory and analysisinto greater prominence on the scene ofmusical scholarship in Great Britain and tofoster music-theoretical and analyticalinterests of students and young scholars atBritish HEIs. I will also aim to strengthen theties of the SMA to its sister societies abroad,in particular to the Society for Music Theoryand Gesellschaft für Musikforschung.Lois Fitch, Events OfficerMy background includesa BA (Hons) and PhDfrom Durham University(with Max Paddison). Myresearch focuses on theaestheticsandphilosophy of twentiethandtwenty first-centurymusic, in particular that ofBrian Ferneyhough. Ialso have interests inanalysis of tonal and atonal music, semiotics andresearch into the role of the performer in New Music.I teach the history of music from the Baroque to thepresent day, analysis, aesthetics and performancestudies. At postgraduate level I havesupervised doctoral students in the areas ofcontemporary British music, topic theory andanalysis.I would like to become more involved in theSMA. This is an exciting time for theSociety, and recent research in the fieldhas captured attention widely. I find this aparticularly fruitful area of research and amable to feed it into my teaching at all levels.The Society's events are important inbringing together original ideas anddisseminating new and challengingresearch to musicologists and studentsalike.SMA newsletter 4

eviews cornerCardiff Music Analysis ConferenceOrganised by Charles Wilson. Cardiff University 4–7 September 2008Review article: Centennial reflectionsComplex challenges but potentially richrewards confront prospective analysts ofOlivier Messiaen and Elliott Carter, bornon 10 and 11 December 1908respectively. The principal reward is thepossibility of shedding new light on someof the most highly-regarded music fromthe second half of the 20 th century.Nevertheless, analysts who keep contextsin mind might well find themselvesconsidering the exact nature and extent ofthat „high regard‟ alongside the essentialcharacter of the music itself. WithMessiaen a solid consensus seems tohave developed, with no prominent voicesdissenting from the general view that hewrote very personal music of very highquality. Even the Boulezian caveat aboutthe dangers of collage-like juxtapositionshas been given a positive spin, asevidence of an innovative and productivemodernism. 1 With Carter the situation isdifferent, especially after a prominenthistorian, one Richard Taruskin, accusedhim of embracing an „asocial aesthetic‟,and compared him to his detriment with anear-contemporary, Benjamin Britten,whose primary concern, as Britten himselfonce put it, was „to write music for humanbeings – directly and deliberately‟. 2More of that comparison later. Meanwhile,as far as technical character is concerned,both Messiaen and Carter can be seen asexponents of post-tonality: that is, bothnormally shun the comprehensivefunctional frameworks of diatonic orchromatic tonality, but do not always avoidat least fragmentary allusion to suchframeworks. In addition, both employ1See „Proposals‟ (1948), in Pierre Boulez,Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship, trans. StephenWalsh (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 49. See alsoArnold Whittall, „Messiaen and twentieth-centurymusic‟ in Messiaen Studies, ed. Robert Sholl(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007),232–53.2 Richard Taruskin, The Oxford History of WesternMusic, vol. 5, „The Late Twentieth-Century‟ (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2005), 261–306 (305).Benjamin Britten, „On receiving the first Aspen Award(1964)‟, in Britten on Music, ed. Paul Kildea (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2003), 255–63 (256).structuring methods for pitch and rhythmthat have become familiar but whoseprecise operations in specific pieces –even quite short ones - can be far fromsimple to explicate. With pitch, inparticular, both have preferred „unordered‟source materials – modes or sets – to theordered series forms of twelve-tone ormore integrally serial composition. Since itis a considerable challenge to the analystto determine how such source materialsare deployed, bar by bar, in a score byMessiaen or Carter, and to present suchdiscussions in readable form, analystsmight well relish the prospect of moving toanother feature common to bothcomposers - that is, the connectionbetween non-vocal music and such textsas might be referenced in titles, epigraphsor associated commentaries. Moreevidence of common ground is providedby the fact that both have allowed forassociations between their music and thenatural world, and both at different timeswere inspired by the deserts and canyonsof the Western United States. Respondingto such cues, analysts often aim to ascribewhat was once termed „extra-musical‟meaning to materials whose methods ofpresentation and elaboration are alsounder review.In reality, of course, those aesthetic,stylistic qualities that attract analysts toone of these composers might actuallypromote a degree of principled dislike forthe other, given that in so many essentialways they are very different. Despite beingborn within a day of each other, and bothpassing their most crucial student years inParis, their trajectories diverged quiteradically. Against Messiaen‟s rapidadvancement one sets Carter‟s slow,steady evolution: against Messiaen‟sRoman Catholicism, Carter‟s agnosticscepticism: against Messiaen‟s long-termpositions as performer and teacher,Carter‟s shunning of long-term academiccommitments and any pretensions asconductor or player: against Messiaen‟sallusions to birdsong, plainchant and non-Western rhythmic patterns, Carter‟s lessSMA newsletter 5

heterogeneous and (arguably) moresystematic procedures. Neither had muchto say about the other‟s music, but it mightbe surmised that Messiaen‟s forms andstylistic qualities were too reminiscent ofIvesian centrifugalism for Carter to findthem acceptable as that „emancipateddiscourse‟ to which he himself aspired. 3 AsCarter might have put it, it would havedone Messiaen good to knuckle down toserious, disciplined training under NadiaBoulanger – and no wonder „Madame‟always had doubts about Messiaen‟smusic. 4 Looking at Carter, Messiaen mighthave felt that (as with several of his ownmost prominent pupils) „emancipation‟ hadgone too far, and deplored the music‟ssecular ethos. Yet both composersattached immense importance toconveying a celebratory, even joyful spirit,placing the inevitable turbulence andfragmentation of musical modernism inunusually positive perspectives.Such generalities suggest a wealth ofpossibilities for analysts undertaking closereadings of their most characteristiccompositions. Nevertheless, as thecentenary month approached one wasmost conscious of disparity in that (froman admittedly unscientific impression)Messiaen seems to have had the lion‟sshare of attention, both in the concert halland in substantial publications,biographical and critical. Doubtless thathas much to do with the fact that, since1992, Messiaen‟s career has been„finished business‟, and it has beenpossible to work on those multifariousmaterials that survive under thestewardship of Yvonne Loriod-Messiaen,as Peter Hill and Nigel Simeone haveshown. In addition, the publication of the7-volume Traité de rythme, de couleur etd’ornithologie (1994-2002) hasreinvigorated technical studies of thecomposer‟s understanding of modality andmany other raw materials. On a muchsmaller scale, the appearance of Carter‟sHarmony Book in 2002 underlined the kindof details about his technical thinking thathad long been known from examples likethe charts for the Concerto for Orchestra.Yet in 2008 the emphasis with Carter hasbeen more on celebrating the remarkablecontinuation of his creative work right up tothe present: commemorative publications,with the exception of a slender collectionof essays from Pendragon Press and a„centennial portrait‟ from the SacherStiftung in Basel, where his sketches andmanuscripts are housed, have been thinon the ground. 5In this context, it was particularly gratifyingfor CarMAC 2008 to find itself – at least forits first eight hours – exploring Carterrather than Messiaen, with five papers thatfell into two broad categories: closereadings of small-scale works, andbroader explorations of the character andmeaning of larger and more representativecompositions. In the first category, MarionGuck‟s discussion of „qualities of action ...in Au quai‟ focused on the 56-measureduo for viola and bassoon (2002) with thejokey Schoenbergian title, a title given newpertinence in Carter‟s miniscule salute toOliver Knussen. Guck introduced aphenomenological, „receptional‟ analysisthat moved between the kind of qualitiesrepresented by „limping‟, „singing „and„dwindling‟ and small-scale „constructional‟features relating mainly to one of Carter‟sfavoured pitch-class collections, the alltrichord(or all-triad) hexachord. Guck‟sdiscourse played usefully with thingsheard – or rather, with her recollection andsubsequent thoughts about things thatseemed to have been heard – the realtimeof the twenty-or-so minutes talk inproductive tension with the real time of aless-than-three-minute composition. Theconference‟s other close Carter readingwas an even more dramatic indication ofhow a sustained verbal narrative – thisone nearer to thirty minutes – couldforcefully spread-eagle yet usefullyilluminate a six-minute flute monody.Joshua Mailman‟s „An imagined drama ofcompetitive opposition in Carter‟s Scrivo invento‟ complemented Guck‟s specifics ofaction as analogies for modes of physicalmotion (limping), spatial volume(dwindling) and musical activity (singing)with a fundamental binary strategydetermining form, content and aestheticorientation – the latter the Heraclitean viewof music as „a flux of opposing forcesseeking and resisting unity‟, which3Elliott Carter, Collected Essays and Lectures,1987–1995, ed. Jonathan W. Bernard (Rochester,NY: University of Rochester Press, 1997), e.g.10.4 Peter Hill and Nigel Simeone, Messiaen (NewHaven and London: Yale University Press, 2005), 31.5 A volume of Carter Studies is in preparation forpublication by Cambridge University Press, probablyin 2010.SMA newsletter 6

suggested affinities with Michael Cherlin‟swork on Schoenberg. 6Specific to Mailman‟s intricate andabsorbing study (to be published in MusicAnalysis) is a document that went farbeyond Guck in its reliance on computergeneratedgraphics and chartings for settheoreticsurveys (including, crucially, theComplement Union Property) and spatialprojections of „dynamic form‟, all focusedon the oppositional struggle between„agreeable‟ and „dynamic‟ moods andpersonified by an „incumbent‟ and a„challenger‟ respectively: a struggle thatthe emergence of an „arbiter‟ brings intofocus yet fails to resolve. Mailman‟sprovocative and thought-provoking ideasabout convergence led to a wholesequence of musical tactics, such as„exclude rival through subset proxy‟, thatsuggested a compositional semiotic withthe composer deploying specific setmaterials to determine dramaticdevelopments perceptible to the listener,with no reflective ratiocination required.The intricate interaction of formalism andhermeneutics (my terms, not Mailman‟s) inthis paper will have left most of hisaudience – and everyone contemplatinghis 18-page handout – with much food forthought about the current state of theirdiscipline as it contemplates 2008‟s pair ofcentenaries.No less significant were the consequencesof CarMAC‟s three other Carterpresentations, and anyone who spent theperiods allotted to Guck and Mailmanpining for those large-scale, richlypolyphonic compositions that enshrineCarter‟s principal claim to fame will havehad some respite during composer MartinBoykan‟s first-hand reminiscences ofreactions to the first string quartet when itwas new. At the other end of Carter‟scompositional spectrum are Partita (thefirst movement of Symphonia) and a songfrom Tempo e tempi - the focus for JohnLink‟s discussion of aspects of the latemusic (see below) - and the ClarinetConcerto, which Joseph Dubiel explored ina lucid traversal of the strengths andlimitations of phenomenological analysis:or, in Dubiel‟s formulation, „musical6 Michael Cherlin, Schoenberg’s Musical Imagination(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).Chapter 2, Dialectical opposition in Schoenberg‟smusic and thought‟ derives from an article firstpublished in Music Theory Spectrum 22/2 (Fall2000).experiences that might be elicited by thecomposition‟. In both cases, probing of thecontinuum between relatively fixed orstable events and the other extremes ofrelatively unstable, „floating‟, mobilequalities illuminated the spaces-in-time bywhich Carter organizes his structures, andalso reinforced one‟s awareness of theremarkable exuberance – joyfulness, ifyou adopt Roger Scruton‟s view of the lastsection of the Concerto for Orchestra 7 –which (at least since the Piano Concerto)has been the predominant quality ofCarter‟s music, even when it limps,dwindles or, in dramatic terms, fails toallow combative aggressiveness to betotally routed by the agreeable and theexuberant.Opening out from the Cardiff Cartersessions, a series of topics suggestthemselves in which features particularlysalient to centenary analyses of bothcomposers can be considered in outline.The first relates to another significantevent from December 1908, the firstperformance in Vienna of Schoenberg‟ssecond string quartet. Preceding theParisian Sacre riot by more than fouryears, this is a favoured point forhistorians to locate the birth of the posttonalcentury. Simply becauseSchoenberg‟s Op. 10, unlike some of itsimmediate successors, shares with TheRite of Spring a refusal to abandon allaspects of tonal thinking, preferring toexplore the confrontation or alternationbetween abandonment and nonabandonment,it remains of greatsignificance in serving to define the mostfundamental quality of the post-tonalcentury itself – as post-tonal but not atonal(true atonality being the relatively rareexception) and music in which variousremnants of tonal thinking survivebecomes something approaching thenorm. In these terms, Messiaen andCarter are at their most divergent, forwhereas Messiaen‟s rejection of centric,bass-controlled harmony was relativelyshort-lived (mainly confined to the 1950s)Carter‟s (after the mid-1950s) appears tohave been much more complete andsustained. In essence, Carter‟scommitment to more radical techniqueshad much to do with his understanding ofhow two crucial figures in early 20 thcentury modernism, Debussy and7 Roger Scruton, The Aesthetics of Music (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1997), 494.SMA newsletter 7

Schoenberg, could be thought of ashaving a common purpose. Whendiscussing Debussy‟s late sonatas in anessay from 1959, revised in 1994, Cartergives little or no consideration of mattersof harmony and modality. 8 The kind ofsymmetries and centric possibilities thatremained so stimulating for Messiaen areset aside in favour of the kind of formalflexibility and unpredictability that becameso important for Boulez at much the sametime.Well before the Debussy essay, in 1953,Carter had written revealingly about hisefforts to extent the scope of „my musicalflow‟, and contended – again in the kind ofterms that Boulez would have endorsed –that the most important features of SecondViennese composers were not twelve-toneroutines but those qualities that had beenestablished in their earlier, expressionistworks: „the high degree of concentration,lending itself to rapid change and thequick, intense making of points. The use ofequally intense melodic shapes, oftenbroken up into short, dramatic fragments,joins with a very varied rubato rhythmictechnique to produce a new kind of whatmight be called instrumental recitative.The rapid increases and decreases ofharmonic tension, quick changes ofregister, and fragmented, non-imitativecounterpoint are also worthy of note. Thisall adds up to a style of remarkable fluiditythat seems to have been derived from thelate works of Debussy but seen throughthe expressive extremes that characteriselate Romantic German music, particularlyMahler and Richard Strauss‟. 9This „remarkable fluidity‟ remained abeacon for Carter throughout his career,the consequences of combiningDebussian and Mahlerian qualitiesespecially relevant to such later largescalescores as the Symphonia and theopera What next? For Messiaen, bringingGermanic elements alongside Gallic oneswas always a much more difficult exercise,and his music is never more remarkablethan when managing to evoke Wagnerian,Tristanesque ecstasies without a trace ofthe Wagner – or Mahler, or Berg - style.There might even be some truth in therisky generalisation that it is Stravinsky(after Debussy) who is the most crucialhigh modernist source for Messiaen, just8 Carter, Collected Essays, 122–33.9 Carter, Collected Essays, 207.as it is Schoenberg (after Debussy) forCarter. When Carter writes revealingly ofthe avoidance of „redundancy‟ as one ofthe central lessons he learned from NadiaBoulanger, 10 it is tempting to link this pointto the comments of Messiaen‟sbiographers about his „uneasy‟ relationswith someone who was „unconvinced byMessiaen‟s music and was not afraid tosay so‟. 11John Link‟s Cardiff presentation was ofparticular interest in using examples fromthe later music to define a style that seemsto float between degrees of stability andinstability, variance and invariance, andprocedures in which (a hint ofconvergence with Messiaen?) pitchrecurrences or emphases mightoccasionally create suggestions ofextended or suspended tonality – or evenof pantonality, in Richard Kurth‟s intriguingreshaping of the Schoenbergiancategories. 12 The tiny, 7-bar „UnaColumba‟ from Tempo e tempi discussedby Link is especially suggestive in thisrespect, and the wider sense of a humanevision of life, and of the world floatingbubble-like in space as something torejoice in rather than to merit fearfullamentation, reinforces Carter‟s distinctivemodernism and also strongly countersTaruskinian arguments that his work iswithout social concerns. Just as Messiaenhymns the spiritual life, so Cartercelebrates humanist stoicism, showinghow much sheer joy can emerge from thecontemplation of infinite space. It may bejoy tinged with irony and regret, but it is joynone the less. The dense, stratifiedinvariants shown by John Link at the endof Partita have their complement in thedissolving ascent at the end ofSymphonia‟s finale, Allegro scorrevole, inCarter‟s version of that „light from thebeyond‟ of which Messiaen‟s last largescaleorchestral work, Eclairs sur l’au-delàoffered a Christian version. The continuingchallenge to analysts is to illuminate thislight-charged music with a vision andseriousness appropriate to its characterand stature.Arnold Whittall10 Carter, Collected Essays, 284.11 See Note 4.12 Richard Kurth, „Moments of Closure: Thoughts onthe Suspension of Tonality in Schoenberg‟s FourthQuartet and Trio‟, in Music of my Future. The StringQuartets and Trio, ed. R. Brinkmann and C. Wolff(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000),139–60.SMA newsletter 8

Panel for 'Phenomenological Approaches to the Music of Elliott Carter' at CarMAC 2008 (l–r: Arved Ashby(convenor), Martin Boykan, Marion Guck, Joseph Dubiel. Photo: Susan Schwalb)ReviewsIn addition to Professor Whittall‟s article, we are pleased to have three reviews of CarMAC from twoestablished scholars and one current postgraduate.Postwar concert music was a major topic atCarMAC 2008, with one of four plenarysessions and half the regular sessionsdevoted to the topic. Sessions orientedprimarily to analysis, as contrasted with itstheoretical presuppositions, included two onthe music of Elliott Carter, one on„Contemporary British composers‟, and oneon „Italian music after the Second WorldWar‟. Unfortunately I was unable to attend asession on „Covert modernism in the“conservative” mainstream‟, or any of anumber of papers on the last day of theconference, that also addressed postwarconcert music and jazz; still it is possible toreport on a relatively coherent subset of thepresentations.None of the speakers in the plenary session,called „Phenomenological Approaches to theMusic of Elliott Carter‟, would claim to haveemployed the philosophical methodadvertised. Perhaps most innocent of anyepoché was Martin Boykan (BrandeisUniversity), who specifically situated hisencounter with Carter‟s first quartet as acrucial event in his own development as acomposer. Particularly interesting was hisaccount of Carter‟s influence working notdirectly, but through his work‟s making moreaccessible to Boykan aspects of other musicthat were relevantly stimulating, notablyOckeghem‟s long-breathed, not necessarilymotivic counterpoint. Marion A. Guck (TheUniversity of Michigan) interpreted thecontrasts observed in the duo Au Quai interms of kinesthetically expressed character,with less emphasis on personification (andtherefore drama) than is usual; the degree towhich passages seemed kinestheticallyexpressive at all emerged as itself adimension of variety. My analysis of theClarinet Concerto addressed comparativelybroad issues of instrumentation, texture, andspeed, with attention to the gradualovercoming of simple binaries as animportant aspect of the work‟s continuity.While none of these presentationssuggested anything like tabula rasaperception of sound – a possibilitymentioned by Arnold Whittall as heintroduced the next Carter session – achange of approach could be sensed in thatsession nonetheless. The researchpresented in „Elliott Carter 2‟ tended torespond more directly to the guidance thatthe composer has given for the reception ofhis work. John F. Link (William PatersonCollege) read the recent narrowing ofCarter‟s set-class „vocabulary‟ as making themusic‟s drama more interior and thereby,perhaps paradoxically, making the musicmore socially accessible. Joshua Mailman(Eastman School of Music), in a study of theflute solo Scrivo in vento, offered extensiveformal articulation of two dramas in thework: that of register and tone, which isreadily apparent, and that of the two types ofall-interval tetrachord, whose observation isSMA newsletter 9

more dependent on the formalities. For thishe was awarded the Music Analysis 25thAnniversary Prize for the best paper by astudent. (Brenda Ravenscroft [Queen‟sUniversity, Ontario], scheduled to speak onrhythm and design in the late music, wasunable to attend the meeting.)The effect on analysis of ideological andintellectual currents of various kinds becamea more explicit theme in later sessions.Kenneth Gloag (Cardiff) noted earliercommentators‟ interest in emphasizing theatonal aspects of Nicholas Maw‟s Scenesand Arias, and contrasted this with a morecontemporary pluralistic attitude to this andother issues. Benjamin Davies(Southampton) set out to make the most ofHarrison Birtwistle‟s provocative denial thatthe exact pitches and intervals wereessential to some of his work, proposing toaccept an aura of alternative possibility as akind of experiential depth comparable to, ifquite different from, that allegedlyengendered by hierarchic structure in othermusic. Edward Venn (Lancaster) traced theuse of motives and procedures from Brahmsin the so-named work by Thomas Adès;here a preoccupation with the composer‟sreported perspective reached a kind ofextreme.The Italian session was defined by a specifichistorical and political setting. PeterRoderick (York) articulated the differentsituations assumed and asserted by RomanVlad, Luigi Dallapiccola, and Luigi Nono in acontext defined by purportedly, notnecessarily actually, aligned dichotomies ofcommunism and the west, realism andformalism, and by overarching question ofwhether twelve-tone compositionrepresented an aesthetic tied to its Vienneseorigin or an adaptable technique. Analysesof works by these three composers wereoriented to the definition of their stances.Bruce Durazzi (Washington University in StLouis) showed how the basic texturalopposition in Nono‟s Incontri could be read –with some encouragement from thecomposer – as an unsynthesised dialecticopposition and as a gendered one. Theargument intriguingly absorbed andexploited aspects of serial technique thatone might expect to find written off asmerely perceptually unsound. Ian Dickson(unaffiliated) pushed back againstrepresentations of Scelsi‟s music asunanalysable by assimilating a shortpassage of the violin-cello Duo to ananalytical model highly constrained by themetaphor of grammar, thus removing it fromone ideological field to transplant it intoanother.The methodological implications of all thistwentieth-century work for music analysis asa whole are encouraging. The very area ofspecialization that once did most to createan impression, positive or negative, ofanalysis as „scientific‟ here could be seen asa locus of intense eclecticism, still includinghighly formalized methods but also givingrenewed attention to the differently exactingdisciplines of experiential relevance, lucidinformal expression, openness to culturalcontext in many senses, and concern withthe problems attaching to consideration ofcomposers‟ intentions. Such expansion ofintellectual scope can only be a good thing,for us analysts among ourselves and for theprospect of our engagement in the largerdiscussions going on around us.Joseph DubielDelegates brave enough to weather the rainin early September were rewarded atCarMAC with a well-organised, efficient butfriendly conference. The demographic ofdelegates was diverse: as well as the partyfaithful and the new faces of up-and-comingUK scholars, there were delegates fromEurope and several senior scholars from theUSA. The dialogue was sparky andrefreshing, mirroring the programme, whichfor my money was probably the mostinteresting xxxMAC programme in manyyears. The timetable played host to cardcarryingtheorists, pragmatic analysts,culture-immersing ethnomusicologists,performers, combinations of the above andothers, and even on the single day I wasable to attend (Friday) there was aninteresting mix of approaches represented inthe audiences to and questions respondingto each paper.Opening the day‟s events as one of threeparallel sessions, was session 3C,„Polyphony and Disjunction‟. Chaired withenthusiasm by Jonathan Cross, this sessionopened the floor to three diverse papers onwhat Cross, introducing the session,described as the return of counterpoint toserious debate.Marc Rigaudière‟s (Université Paul Verlaine)paper was titled „Reading between theLines: The Analysis of Melodic Disjunction inTonal Music‟. The focus of this paper wasthe relationship between contrapuntalstructure and melodic line, as drawn out bySMA newsletter 10

the compound melodic textures of, say,Bach cello suites, and pursued at theboundary between concepts of line andvoice. It was noted that rewriting a singlecompound melody as strict counterpoint isnot always a straightforward matter ofrenotation and sometimes requiresanalytical intervention, and that the wholeprocess is itself non-reversible. Alsodiscussed was the degree of focus ofintervention; whether reading in smallsegments or more globally ensures oravoids contrapuntal problems in analyticalinterpretation; whether polyphony is merelya matter of “hearing prominent moments”.Rigaudière coined the term „obliquepolyphony‟ to cover musical situations wherethe composer can be said to have been“fully conscious of the potentialities of theset of techniques based upon auditorypersistence”. His point here was that certainpitches, given specific attributes of saliencesuch as register, duration and so on, persistin the ear beyond their nominal notationalend, and impact upon the perception andthus analysis of polyphonic structures. Inconsidering examples from Bach, Mozart,Telemann and Schumann, this paperbroached the issue of style, considering arange of compositional decisions, from tryingto avoid voice-leading ambiguity (whatRigaudière called “defects”) to providing thelistener with “the delights of mild andtransient uncertainty”. Questions fromMichael Spitzer and Anthony Grittenrespectively asked how the analyticalapproach proposed relates to other methodsin the history of musical interpretation, andabout the role of notation (e.g. bowingmarks) in setting in motion specific analyticalinterpretations.George Papageorgiou‟s (Royal Holloway)talk was illustrated by a variety ofPowerpoint visualisations, including variouslevels of moving arrows and the pathwaysfollowed by bouncing balls. The title was„Defying Gravity: Structural Conflict asDynamic Experience‟, and the intention ofthe project of which the paper is part, is toconstruct models of how the listenerexperiences music in which there are “two ormore non-aligned or incompatible groupingstructures or layers of motion” (presumably,the vast majority of musics). The centralcontention of the paper was that the conflictbetween, say, rhythmic vs. metric patternsor harmonic vs. phrase structure, is locatedin the overall patterns, shapes, or gesturesthat such contradictory patterns coalescetogether to produce. This, Papageorgiouargued, allowed for the production of anintegrated single model for following theroles of composers, performers, andlisteners in the musical experience.Stylistically, the gestural patterns thatPapageorgiou mapped out visually wereargued to generate musical interest as afunction of their deviation from someprototypical well-formed pattern.Physiologically, he also argued that theseemergent patterns derive their meaning from“our daily experience of physical movementin space-time”, though noted that some ofhis proposals probably need to beempirically tested. There was much ofinterest in this paper, including the verticalorientation of the visualisations (picked up inthe questions), a rewriting of the opening ofMozart‟s Sonata K311 (an inversion that stillled to the V half-close in bar 4), and clearantecedents and overlaps in previous workon the subjects of dynamics (Wallace Berry),forces (Steve Larson), and intensity curves(John Rink). Questions from Jonathan Crossand Michael Spitzer respectively askedwhether looking at the ensuing variations ofK311 would shed light on the analyticalinterpretation offered of the theme, andwhether the fact that bodies don‟t just moveup and down like the bouncing balls in theillustrations was a worry for the theory beingproposed.I wasn‟t able to listen properly andattentively to the final paper in the session,but caught a few threads of an argumentabout the possible relationship betweenBakhtinian polyphony and Benjaminiandistraction, and the implications for ananalytical method able to take account of thecontemporary world in which the listenerlistens to Stravinsky. Questions includedone from Robert Hatten asking whether thenotion of a „structural distraction‟ was or wasnot a paradox that needed working through.In the early afternoon, session 5A, „LateSchubert: Songs, Cycles, Repetitions‟,chaired by Robert Hatten, presented fouruniformly excellent papers by youngerscholars. Anne Hyland (Cambridge) wasfirst, with „The Burden of Schubert‟sInstrumental Music Reconsidered: VariationForm in the Second Movement of D810,„Der Tod und das Mädchen‟. She consideredthe reception of D810 by rethinking the issueof teleology and the „burden of repetition‟identified and constructed by Scott Burnhamwith respect to Schubert‟s sonata forms, andattempted to problematise the issue ofrepetition with respect to Schubert‟sSMA newsletter 11

developmental techniques. Most of thepaper was devoted to presenting the graphicresults of a broadly Schenkerian analysis ofthe variations in the second movement andexhibited a strong reading of themovement‟s resolution and rhythmic closure.Questions included an observation by JulianHorton about the use Schubert makes oftexture as part of a diminution variationscheme, and how this might relate toHyland‟s pitch- and rhythm-centred reading.Michael Spitzer, noting that the use of ^5 invariation themes is quite common in Haydnand Mozart, especially when leftuncompleted as a promissory note for laterworking through in the variations, askedwhat made this particular theme‟s ^5special, suggesting that it might be preciselythe lack of ^4 in the musical text andHyland‟s analytical reduction.David Bretherton (Southampton) and BlakeHowe (CUNY) presented on, respectively,„Evocation through Structure in Schubert‟s„Gondelfahrer‟‟ and „On Annihilation andTranscendence: Schubert‟s Final MayrhoferSettings‟. Both speaking about Schubert‟sMayrhofer settings, there were somefascinating interactions between their twoarguments. Bretherton presented acomparative reading of D808 and D809, thelatter being a four-part male chorus recompositionof the former. Discussing thequite substantial changes Schubert effectedin D809, and invoking a particular moment inEuropean history, Bretherton was able topresent a good case for D808 having beencomposed before D809. Moreover, heargued, the song must have presented itscontemporaries with rich and ambiguouscontent that was probably deemed toopolitically subversive to be published inSchubert‟s lifetime – most obviously in itscentral section, the A b s of which toll midnightin a chillingly symbolic piece of art imitatinglife, “marking the passage of time andcausing it”. In his paper, Howe, using threeimage schemata (separation, rupture, andtranscendence), presented a hermeneuticreading of Schubert‟s “shared intertextualmusical gestures” and cyclical intentions, inparticular the force that takes C to C # or D b ,and offered a sensitive reading of„Auflösung‟ that paid due attention to the useof register. He also proposed a re-orderingof the four songs D805–8 composed in early1824, based upon evidence found in thesketches.Cameron Gardner (Cardiff) talked through ahermeneutic interpretation of the A minorPiano Sonata D845, relating it motivically to„Todtengräbers Heimwehe‟ D842 andunfolding a thoughtful analysis of thenarrative structure of its first movement.Illustrating his own examples at the piano,his reading allowed for many connectionsbetween song and sonata to emerge,particularly in the motivic realm. The mainfocus of his attention was on the sonata‟scoda (and the song‟s final verse). His claim,made with reference to work by RobertHatten and Michael Klein and arguingagainst Charles Fish‟s integrative reading ofthe final three sonatas, was that Schubert‟suse of enharmonic shifts and motivicrepetition sets in motion an interpretation ofthe sonata quite different to the song, and inwhich the ending of the sonata is ultimatelynon-transcendent. Gardner noted that thisreading could be extended across the wholesonata, given the parallels with the finalmovement.With the exception of the AGM of the SMA,which had an unfortunately low turnout inthe afternoon, CarMAC had an energeticatmosphere, which I‟m sure continuedthrough Saturday and Sunday. There wascertainly plenty of evidence of vibrantcommunities of scholars working at, with,through, against, in, around, beyond, andalongside analysis.Anthony GrittenOn the train on the way to the Cardiff MusicAnalysis Conference (CarMAC), Iexperienced a mixture of feelings. I waslooking forward to a conference which mightnot invite one of my usual complaints: “Whatabout the music?!”. But there was also someapprehension, perhaps encouraged by thewet early autumn weather. Would I reallycall myself an „analyst‟? How would I fit inamong scholars who would call themselves„analysts‟? Such misgivings are notuncommon among research students, andindeed established academics. Andnegotiating disciplinary identity is not merelytheoretical, but raises important intellectualand practical questions. To whom is mywork addressed? Where shall I submitarticles for publication? What jobs can Iapply for? And – of course – whichconferences should I attend?My fears proved unfounded. The sea ofhopelessly impenetrable and unnecessarilycomplex forms of verbal and diagrammaticalexpression I have sometimes associatedwith music analysis were not much inSMA newsletter 12

evidence here. There were, as expected,plenty of papers (including my own) focusingon pitch, but there was a broad range ofother kinds of analytical investigation aswell, including sessions on temporality andmetre and on narrativity.Further sessions explored the boundaries ofanalytical enquiry with more cultural andsocially focused disciplines. In an excellentplenary session on music theory after theOttoman Empire, John O‟Connell‟s (Cardiff)paper explored differing constructions ofmusical literacy in Turkey, one basedprimarily on poetry and the other basedprimarily on musical modes. This promptedreflection on the different social and culturalpositions revealed by alternative Islamic andMiddle Eastern conceptualisations of musictheory and their interaction with ideas fromthe Western tradition. Ruth Davis‟s(Cambridge) paper affirmed that thetransition between aural and writtentraditions was tied up with issues ofnationalism and modernisation, in Tunisiaparticularly, but with more generalramifications.As Vanessa Hawes (East Anglia) pointedout in her paper, more or less explicit inmany of the sessions was the question ofthe extent to which musical structure relatesto human experience. This was especiallyapparent in the „phenomenologicalapproaches‟ in the first session of theconference on Elliott Carter, but this themerecurred in discussion of figures as diverseas Malcolm Arnold and Harrison Birtwistle.Hawes‟s own paper offered an intriguingframework for addressing this topic, drawingon information and communication theoryand especially on the little-known work ofDavid Krahenbuehl. Patterns of similarityand difference (musical or otherwise) aresubjected to statistical analysis for the extentto which they provide interest and reward.One highlight of the conference was themuch-anticipated lecture-recital given bySMA Distinguished Lecturer, Robert Hatten(Indiana). An excellent concert on theprevious night had whetted the appetite tohear more of the Gould Piano Trio, and thesession did not disappoint, with the dialoguebetween Hatten, the trio and the audienceproviding much insight into the chosen topic,Schubert‟s piano trio slow movements.As well as providing wide-ranging andstimulating scholarship, this was anextremely friendly conference, with mealsand social events equally as engaging asthe formal sessions. Four days in Cardiffgave me hope that my prejudices against„analysis‟ were unfounded.Michael BydeSMA Study Day: Analysing the Musically SensuousOrganised by Anahid Kassabian and Mirjam JoossUniversity of Liverpool, 22 November 2008This study day looked at ways to analysesensation in music. The importance ofinterdisciplinary analytical approaches to thissubject was highlighted in the first talk byFranco Fabbri (Turin) and Marta GarcíaQuiñones (Barcelona). They used the idea ofsimultaneously analysing Fabbri's interest,and García Quinoñes' disinterest, in the musicof the Shadows. They combined sociological,psychological, contextual, and musicologicalanalyses of both the music itself, and theirown relationships with it, to explain their verydifferent visceral responses.The idea that sensation in music can beanalysed at all was challenged by RoddyHawkins (Leeds). He placed musicalsensuousness in opposition to musical syntax,saying that the former resisted analysis.However, this view was contradicted by themajority of speakers: Kenneth Smith(Durham), used a harmonic analysis of twopieces by Scriabin to psycho-analyticallyexplain how one level of their sensuousappeal lay in his creation of complex,ambiguous and counteracting drives (and theirsublimation) through his use of the dominantchord, arguing that the overlaying of differentdominant drives pulled the listener in differentdirections simultaneously; James Wishart(Liverpool) used the idea of the musical'moment' to analyse music's sensuousness interms of sonority, looking at the complexrelationship between 'moments' and structure;and Hawkins' earlier assertion was furthercountered by Tabitha Heavner (Connecticut),who spoke about the ideas of American musiccritics from 'Gilded Age' New York. Shepointed out that, while these critics oftendivided the nature of music into intellectual,emotional and sensuous components, forthem, sensuousness was a result of theSMA newsletter 13

manipulation of musical parameters; so, forexample, William Henderson saidsensuousness was composed of rhythm,melody and harmony, while Henry Jamesdescribed tone-colour as music's mostsensuous component. The one speaker whoseemed to reinforce Hawkins' point was IanBiddle (Newcastle), who argued thatsensuousness was a cultural idea, and,therefore, that any attempt to analyse itautomatically relied on culturally-definedframes of reference.The need to find additional, new ways ofanalysing sensation in music was expressedby many speakers: Carlo Nardi (Università diTrento) looked at mimesis in electronic musicto help explain the proliferation of live visualsin electronic performances; and JustinWilliams (Nottingham) described how he useda more frequency-based, rather than the moretraditional pitch-based, analysis forunderstanding the nature of sub-bass in hiphopcar culture: frequency being particularlyimportant for explaining how dynamiccompression can add to fullness of sound, forexample.Sub-bass turned out to be a mini-theme of theday, as the keynote speaker, Steve Goodman(East London), also talked about this topicextensively, though his interest was, moregenerally, in 'unsound': the thresholdsbetween hearing and touch, as in infrasound;between sound and silence, with ultrasound;and the untapped potential of the audiblefrequency range.Of course, all the outside stimuli weexperience have a sensuous nature. However,as Julian Henriques (Goldsmiths) argued,music's sensuous side is much more importantfor it than for language: indeed it is at the heartof its ability to move us. While languagestructures the world in terms of opposed,diacritical (or digital) ideas, music usescontinuous (or analogue) variation to allow usto think through sound. He also argued thatthis sensuous meaning could not be separatedfrom syntactic structure: that sensuousnessand analysis are not binaries, but, rather, havean intimate relationship. This idea seemedneatly to sum up the viewpoint of manyspeakers in this fascinating study day.Simon JonesSMA events 200924–25 April 2009Bach‟s PassionsSMA Spring Study Day(Glasgow University)Contact: John ButtEmail: j.butt@music.gla.ac.uk1–2 May 2009SMA TAGS Day for Postgraduates(Durham University)Contact: Jo BuckleyEmail: jo.buckley@durham.ac.uk13–15 July 2009SMA, IMR and Wiley-Blackwell SummerSchool in Analysis(Durham University)Contact: Michael SpitzerEmail: michael.spitzer@durham.ac.uk31 August–3 September 2009SMA Conference on Music and Emotion(Durham University)Contact: Jo BuckleyEmail: jo.buckley@durham.ac.ukAutumn 2009 (date to be confirmed)Performance CriticismSMA Autumn Study Day(Middlesex University)Contact: Anthony GrittenEmail: A.Gritten@mdx.ac.ukSMA newsletter 14

society for music analysismasters’ bursaries 2009–2010The Society for Music Analysis will award upto four bursaries of £1,500 (full-time students)or £1000 (part-time students) per annum forone to two years to those commencing UKMasters‟ degrees, on the following conditions:1. Applicants in 2009 must be registered orhold the offer of a place for an MA, MMusor similar degree in music analysis ortheory and analysis, or in a programmethat contains a significant music-analyticalemphasis. The initial bursary will cover theperiod from October 2009 to September2010.2. Applicants must be essentially self-fundingand not in receipt of any substantial grant,bursary, prize, studentship or similarfinancial support. Where despite somesuch funding a genuine need can beshown, the application will be consideredon equal terms with other applications.Bursary holders are required to inform thePresident of the Society of any significantchanges of funding basis.3. Where relevant, bursaries awarded for2009–2010 will be renewed for 2010–2011subject to a satisfactory report on workfrom the holder‟s institution. It will be theholder‟s responsibility to commission thatreport and to have it sent to the Presidentof the Society during August 2010. If a2009–2010 bursary holder goes on to readfor a higher degree in 2010–2011, thebursary will be renewed unless the studentsecures full funding for the latter year.4. Successful applicants will be required tobecome student members of the SMA ifnot already enrolled. They may be invitedto assist the Society from time to time, andwill be encouraged to stand for election asa student representative on theCommittee, but this will not be aconsideration in respect of receipt andrenewal of any bursary.Applications should be made by Friday 21August 2009. The application should be in theform of a curriculum vitae; a brief descriptionof the degree course and the student‟sobjectives in pursuing it; a statement of theapplicant‟s financial circumstances based onan account of income and expenditure; andthe applicant‟s contact details and any specialinformation that might be relevant.Please also ensure that an academicreference in support of the applicationreaches Dr Michael Spitzer (SMAPresident) at the address below by thedeadline of Friday 21 August 2009.Two copies of completed applications shouldbe sent by post to Michael Spitzer,Department of Music, University of Durham,Palace Green, Durham, DH1 3RL.Applications sent by email will not beconsidered.Applications will be reviewed by MichaelSpitzer and by Alan Street, editor of thejournal Music Analysis. Successful applicantswill be notified by mid September 2009.Reasons will not be given for decisions.Successful applicants are required to submit a500-word report at the end of each year ofstudy that is supported by an SMA Bursary.The report should include a summary of themain analytical components or modules of thecourse and how your studies have contributedto the next stage of your career.SMA newsletter 15

procedure for the award of grantsfrom the Music Analysisdevelopment fund1. Grants to IndividualsThe Editorial Board of the Journal makesgrants from its Development Fund in the formof support for travel and subsistence to UKbasedstudents and scholars working in thediscipline of music analysis to attendconferences abroad, to consult library andarchival resources or to pursue othercomparable research activities. Individualgrants will not normally exceed £500.The Board will also consider requests fromindividuals for forms of support other thanthose detailed above. Such requests mightconcern, for instance, the acquisition ofmicrofilms or photocopies of sources, orassistance with the preparation of material forpublication.Criteria governing the award of suchgrants are: i) the academic strength of theplanned research and its relevance to thestudy of music analysis; ii) the financial need.Applicants should therefore give a brief (c.300-word) account of the research to beundertaken and/or research material to beobtained, explaining its relevance to musicanalysis; additionally, they should give detailsof any other applications for support that havebeen made, or should explain why funding isnot available from other sources. Studentapplications should be supported by asupervisor's reference.The Board does not fund sabbatical leaveor research assistants.2. Grants to Support Conferences andOther MeetingsIn addition to offering grants to individuals, theBoard supports UK academic conferences,seminars and meetings concerned wholly or inpart with the discipline of music analysis.Support is offered in three forms: i) aguarantee against loss; ii) a grant to assistwith the travel and subsistence of a seniorscholar from overseas; iii) a grant to supportthe attendance of students delivering paperson a music-analytical subject, or of studentsregistered on courses including a substantialcomponent of analysis. The Board will notnormally entertain applications for more thanone of these forms of support for a singleconference or event.Applications should be supported by adraft programme or a brief (c. 300-word)account of the conference or event;additionally, they should give details of anyother applications for support that have beenmade, or should explain why funding is notavailable from other sources.3. Application ProceduresApplications, either in writing or by email,should be addressed to the Chair of theEditorial Board at the address given in eachissue of the Journal. Applications will beconsidered and awards made by a subcommitteeof the Editorial Board. There are noapplication deadlines; each application will beconsidered on receipt. Applicants maynormally expect a decision within one monthof their application.SMT international travel grantsInternational Travel Grants are available for the purpose of attendingSociety for Music Theory (SMT) conferences. Application information canbe found on the website of the SMT's Committee on Diversity:http://www.societymusictheory.org/index.php?pid=90SMA newsletter 16

S M ACall for PapersBach’s PassionsSociety for Music Analysis Spring Study DayUniversity of Glasgow24–25 April 2009Keynote speakers: John Butt, Laurence Dreyfusand Daniel MelamedThe Spring Study Day of the Society for Music Analysis will be hosted at the University ofGlasgow on the subject of Bach's Passions. The conference is organised by John Butt,Gardiner Professor of Music at Glasgow, whose book, Bach's Dialogue with Modernity:Perspectives on the Passions will be published in 2009. He is also musical director ofScotland's Dunedin Consort, whose recording of the Matthew Passion was released in2008; members of the consort will be heard during the conference. As well as offering achance to exercise their post-Enlightenment analytical tools on some earlier repertoire, it ishoped that the occasion will give participants the opportunity to experience something of therichness of the city of Glasgow, perhaps combined with a trip further afield. A visit to adistillery is already rumoured.Proposals are invited for papers on a broad range of analytical topics, including (but notlimited to):* musical form and structure, including the analysis of individual numbers* studies of compositional process (including different versions of the Passions)* hermeneutic and philosophical approaches* Bach and historical listening practice* analytical reception studies* the Passions and the musical work concept* invention and performativityProposals (up to 200 words) for papers of c. 20 minutes duration should be sent by 1 February 2009to John Butt (j.butt@music.arts.gla.ac.uk). All those submitting proposals will be notified by 1 March.societyeventsfor music analysisSMA newsletter 17

S M ATAGS Dayfor Music PostgraduatesUniversity of DurhamFriday 1 st – Saturday 2 nd May 2009Call for PapersThe SMA's annual Theory and Analysis Graduate Students (TAGS) Days will be hostedby the Department of Music at the University of Durham, for the first time over two days,on Friday 1 and Saturday 2 May 2009. Delegates will be invited to arrive by lunchtimeon Friday and sessions will finish by late afternoon on Saturday. The extended durationwill allow delegates from further afield to attend, while also allowing time for a greaternumber of papers, following the success of TAGS events in recent years.The event aims to provide a supportive and friendly environment in which postgraduatescan gain experience in presenting their work and meet fellow researchers. Participantswho do not wish to present are also very welcome. We are delighted to announce thatRobert Gjerdingen (Northwestern University) and Rudolph Lutz (Schola CantorumBasiliensis) will present a key-note address and recital workshop on the theme of„extemporizing partimenti‟ on the evening of Friday 1 May.Proposals are invited from postgraduate students for 20-minute papers addressing anyanalytical or theoretical subject, although key themes for this year‟s event will beimprovisation and performance theory, and contributions are welcomed from performersas well as traditional analysts. Proposals for themed sessions containing two or threepapers on related topics are also welcomed. Abstracts of no more than 250 wordsshould be sent by email to Jo Buckley at jo.buckley@durham.ac.uk. Please includename, affiliation, postal address, email address and AV requirements on a separatecover sheet. Organisers of themed sessions should submit a brief overview togetherwith the individual abstracts.The closing date for receipt of proposals is 1 FEBRUARY 2009. All those submittingproposals will be notified by 1 March 2009.societyeventsfor music analysisSMA newsletter 18

S M ASociety for Music Analysis, IMRand Wiley-Blackwell SummerSchoolUniversity of Durham13–15 July 2009Building on the success of their jointly sponsored Research Training Roadshows,the SMA, in collaboration with the IMR and the publishers of Music Analysis, Wiley-Blackwell, will inaugurate a biennial summer school in music analysis at theUniversity of Durham, 13-15 July 2009. The residential course will be open tointernational applicants and will provide a unique forum for advanced study in theoryand analysis in the UK.Designed as an intensive programme run in small seminar groups, the summerschool will feature three UK tutors from different institutions (William Drabkin, JulianHorton and Michael Spitzer) and a Wiley-Blackwell Fellow from the United States,the eminent theorist Richard Cohn (Yale University). Seminars will be given on Neo-Riemannian harmony, Schenker, the new Formenlehre and semiotics. The EditorialBoard of Music Analysis has provided a subvention that will offer up to twenty-fivepostgraduate students in music free accommodation and meals: participants needonly cover the cost of their travel to Durham.Teaching at the Summer School will be intensive, with attendance capped at 25. Tobe considered for a place, please submit a CV to Michael Spitzer(michael.spitzer@durham.ac.uk) by 1 April 2009, giving details of your academicqualifications, and your current work. You must be enrolled in a Masters or PhDprogramme. Successful applicants will be informed by 1 May 2009.Further details are available on the website: www.dur.ac.uk/summer.school/societyeventsfor music analysisSMA newsletter 19

S M AQuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.Call for PapersInternational Conference onMusic and EmotionUniversity of Durham31 August – 3 September 2009The conference is conceived around four key-note panels representing thedisciplines of music theory, philosophy, psychology and sonic arts. In addition, weinvite papers on any aspect of emotion research, including:* new tools for analysing emotion in musical structure* theories of expression, arousal, contagion, and representation* categorical, dimensional, circumplex, and prototype models* aesthetic psychology and the role of empirical evidence* statistical and probabilistic models, including theories of expectation andmarkedness* measuring physiological change, brain imaging, and analysis of gesture andwhole-body movement* mechanisms of induction, transmission, and evaluation* cross-modality and metaphor* labelling versus dynamic modelling* cross-cultural and trans-historical differences and universals* musical emotion in social context* classical versus evolutionary perspectives* rhetoric, figurality, and the passions* how emotion is mediated through musical form, material, timbre, and voiceProposals (up to 200 words) for papers of around 20 minutes' duration should besent by email to Jo Buckley (jo.buckley@durham.ac.uk) by 1st March 2009. Furtherdetails can be found at www.dur.ac.uk/music.emotion/.societyeventsfor music analysisSMA newsletter 20