Society for Music Theory

Intertextuality in Western Art Music

Intertextuality in Western Art Music by Michael L. Klein
Review by: ALASTAIR WILLIAMS
Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2006), pp. 316-320
Published by: on behalf of the Society for Music Theory
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mts.2006.28.2.316 .
Accessed: 30/06/2014 11:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Society for Music Theory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Music Theory Spectrum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
09.Reviews_pp291-320 7/24/06 1:51 PM Page 316
316 music theory spectrum 28 (2006)
Michael L. Klein. Intertextuality in Western Art Music.
Indiana University Press, 2005.
reviewed by alastair williams
Michael Klein is concerned that a reader might view the
musical examples used in his book as representative of the
repertoire described by Joseph Kerman as “the piano
teacher’s rabbit hutch” (21). Indeed, he virtually accepts this
potential criticism by acknowledging, as a pianist, that this is
the body of works that comes to mind when he contemplates
music. He certainly allows this canon to prevail; neverthe-
less, he could have defended himself more robustly by refer-
ring to the strand in the book deriving from the music of
Witold Lutosl-awski, whose Fourth Symphony is the topic of
the last chapter. Karol Szymanowski also contributes to this
thread, as does Chopin—sometimes in the context of inter-
textual links with Lutosl-awski. In effect, the book straddles
two repertoires: one being Lutosl-awski and his precursors,
the other being standard piano works. Chopin functions as a
central figure in this scheme, although this device is not
spelled out, because he bridges the two repertoire groups by
virtue of being simultaneously a composer for piano and a
Polish national. Klein is to be applauded for expanding the
canon in this way, but why exactly he chose not to comment
on his idiosyncratic choice of music remains a puzzle.
The reason for Lutosl-awski’s inclusion immediately be-
comes evident when we learn from the bibliography that
Klein’s doctoral thesis was a study of Lutosl-awski’s late
music; indeed, it is entirely understandable that the author
should turn to music he knows well when considering inter-
textual approaches to music. What, however, is a little odd is
This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:14 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
that, by placing Lutosl-awski alongside a repertoire mainly
derived from the long nineteenth century, Klein bypasses a
wide range of modernist music. Discussion not only of mod-
ernism and intertextuality, but also of the traditions with
which Lutosl-awski interacts would have certainly helped to
correct this asymmetry.
The author describes his project as follows: “The journey
I propose, then, is one that promises no definitive, closed,
unquestionable, or complete theory of intertextuality in
music. I offer no new methodology for uncovering authori-
tative readings of works but only suggest initiatives for open-
ing up texts” (21). This statement is admirable for its mod-
esty; however, it is also somewhat redundant, for it is hard to
imagine that anyone would offer a definitive, closed, unques-
tionable, or complete theory of intertextuality in music, since
to do so would be to dismiss the inherently open-ended
qualities of intertextuality. Klein’s aversion to overreaching
claims does not, however, prevent him from adopting a
theory-rich approach, which draws not only on music theory
but also on a range of structuralist and poststructuralist liter-
ature. Even so, his desire for openness ensures that he uses
these sources pragmatically to provide a context, rather than
deploying them systematically to drive his arguments. As a
result, the performative dimension of this text becomes
rather important, with much depending on how persuasive
the reader finds Klein’s intertextual links.
One of the most consistent points of reference in the text
is Harold Bloom’s understanding of literary influence, and
yet Klein is at pains to distance himself from the more au-
thoritative, combative aspects of Bloom’s approach. Indeed,
he expresses reservations about Kevin Korsyn’s 1991 applica-
tion of Bloom’s ideas to musical intertextuality, feeling that
Korsyn’s ideas “only underscore our idea of the great artwork
as univocal utterance of the great composer” (18). Instead,
like Bloom, of seeking instances in which music overcomes
its precursors, Klein wishes to consider the multiple textual
associations that pieces generate. However, this strategy
makes the role of Bloom’s theory of poetic influence in
09.Reviews_pp291-320 7/24/06 1:51 PM Page 317
reviews
Klein’s study rather unclear; for, despite its intertextual di-
mension, Bloom’s approach values strong works that slough
off dependency in the process of forging a commanding
voice—an attitude that does not blend well with Klein’s
more benign call for an “ecology of pieces” (46).
As a rule, the author is not unduly concerned with
whether or not his intertextual connections are justified by
evidence of an historical influence; indeed, he makes a virtue
of seeking little by way of historical context for his claims, to
the extent that he is even willing to read history in reverse.
This transhistorical view of intertextuality becomes immedi-
ately apparent in Chapter 1, when Klein proposes a set of
intertextual associations with Chopin’s Etude in C Major,
Op. 10, No. 1, including the first prelude from J. S. Bach’s
Well-Tempered Klavier, Book 1, (WV 846); Lutosl-awski’s
Study No. 1 (from the Two Studies for Solo Piano); and the
piano accompaniment in the opening of “St. Veronica Wipes
his Face” from Peter Maxwell Davies’s (Vesallii Icones). Klein
considers that the Bach-Chopin intertext is a modern one
since, he argues, it is unlikely that Chopin would have
known Bach’s score. Using Bloom as his model, he then goes
on to claim that “Chopin is the precursor to Bach because he
asks us to hear the earlier composer’s prelude in a new way.
The prelude as newly heard has no existence prior to
Chopin’s etude” (8). While one can understand what Klein
means by this assertion, it would have been more in keeping
with his stated preference for an ecology of pieces to make
the more modest claim that, by situating itself in the overall
listening environment, the Chopin etude at least partially
colors our access to the Bach prelude. What complicates
matters is the Bloomian language of precursors, which
prompts Klein to argue for an historical inversion instead of
merely proposing an intertextual network of associations.
Given this interest in transhistorical structural connec-
tions, it is not surprising that the author turns his attention
to the relationship between structuralism and music theory
in the next chapter, claiming that “in music analysis as in
myth, the structure is the meaning” (28). This position then
This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:14 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
317
allows him to make what he calls a “Bloomian misreading”
of the following statement by Bloom: “The meaning of a
poem can only be another poem” (29); in Klein’s version this
becomes: “The structure of a poem is another poem” (30).
This substitution enables him to argue that if the meaning of
music is the relationships between structures, then this struc-
tural meaning can extend beyond a single work to an inter-
textual network. From this perspective, the author intends to
challenge orthodox doctrines of organicism and autonomy,
which seek above all internal cohesion within a score; in-
deed, he has some success in doing so, as we have just seen
with the Bach-Chopin intertext. But this manoeuvre does
not push beyond the limitations of structuralism in the man-
ner required for consideration of musical subjectivity of the
sort found in the later chapters; for it is perfectly possible to
conceive of structures referring to one another without aban-
doning the structuralist doctrine that subjectivity is under-
pinned by deep codes.
Indeed Klein invokes just such a vision of structuralist
meta-subjectivity when, paraphrasing Claude Lévi-Strauss,
he writes, “What matters is that those structures are the op-
erations of the mind writ large as an immortal object” (28).
Klein subsequently argues that structuralism “must take into
account the impact of culture” (28); however, this concession
is not sufficient to prevent the book’s structuralist sympathies
from grating with its later evocation of a musical meaning
embedded in human subjectivity. This is because in order for
structuralism to promote the idea that subjectivity is pro-
duced by deep codes, it needs to downplay the active role of
human agency in the production of meaning.
Musical meaning is certainly an important topic for
Chapter 3, where Klein examines the ways in which codes
become conventions, using Robert Hatten’s semiotic
hermeneutics as a model; in fact, Hatten’s work provides the
starting point for the opening examples. These are based on
the “arrival” six-four that Hatten identifies in measure 14 of
the third movement of Beethoven’s Hammerklavier Sonata,
Op. 106, and which he also associates with Liszt’s use of the
09.Reviews_pp291-320 7/24/06 1:51 PM Page 318
318 music theory spectrum 28 (2006)
“salvation” six-four with its suggestion of elevated resolution.
Because Hatten does not actually provide an example from
Liszt, he leaves space for Klein to make a suitably grand
choice from the second key area of the first movement of the
B minor sonata (m. 205). Arriving after a short cadenza, this
moment initiates a sixteen-bar passage of ecstatic resolution
based on six-four chords. Furthermore, Klein also builds on
Hatten’s idea by identifying what he calls the “tragic form”
(66) of the arrival six-four—the minor version of the same
chord—which he finds exemplified in climactic passages
from Chopin’s Ballades in G minor, op. 23, and F minor, op.
52. These citations obviously derive from his detailed knowl-
edge of the piano repertoire, and they present the idea of
several scores communicating with one another by means of
a semiotic code in a plausible way.
When, however, the author uses his Liszt example to jus-
tify another transhistorical argument, he stands on less firm
ground. For while it is reasonable to claim that Liszt’s ex-
pressive understanding of this chord colors, or intensifies,
our hearing of Beethoven’s deployment, it is less convincing
to say that “Beethoven borrows the transcendence of the six-
four chord in Liszt” (63); again, the Bloomian vocabulary
threatens to distort what would otherwise be a valuable com-
ment. This time, however, Klein’s historical argument be-
comes more developed: he ponders whether Hatten’s read-
ings are intended to reflect what Beethoven’s contemporaries
would have heard, or whether they are targeted at the sensi-
bilities of a modern audience. His conclusion is that Hatten
aims at both horizons: he intends that a present-day reader-
ship will be convinced by the interpretation, and yet he also
considers that Beethoven’s contemporaries would have heard
the music in a similar way. Klein, by contrast, is less inter-
ested in the hermeneutics of interpretative recovery and
more focused on the present-day reader—or at least a post-
Lisztian reader—since this is the only listener who could
hear Liszt in Beethoven’s use of the arrival six-four. Again,
this position is more compatible with the notion of simul-
taneity, as suggested by the prospect of an ecology of pieces,
This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:14 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
than with the reversal of chronology floated in this chapter
and elsewhere in the book.
In Chapter 4 Klein proceeds to a discussion of intertext as
a sign of the uncanny. His opening gambit is that Freud’s fa-
mous interpretation of the uncanny resonates with evoca-
tions of the uncanny we find in music, which might be de-
scribed as “horrifying” or “other worldy.” In this way, Klein
interprets the last two bars of the middle movement of
Beethoven’s Appassionata Sonata, Op. 57, as “uncanny
tremor” leading to “terrible recognition” on the basis that the
diminished seventh chord in measure 95, which displaces the
expected tonic, disrupts the calm stillness of the second
movement, while its fortissimo repetition in the following bar
amounts to a “terrible recognition that the turmoil of the
first movement” (83) has returned.
This uncanny interruption leads Klein to consider the
subjectivity of the last movement, asking whether it is lo-
cated in the compulsive sixteenth-note motion, in the sup-
porting bass, in the dotted motif, or in the chorale texture of
the coda. His rather startling conclusion is that “the subject
is shattered in its own defiant attempts to form itself out of
cataclysm” (85). Just how shattered is this subject in music
full of triadic shapes? The Finale unfolds tonally in a coher-
ent manner, despite all its surface activity—and it is surely, in
part, at this level that subjectivity lies, albeit in interaction
with the surface. For this reason, it would be more accurate
to say of this movement that its subjectivity becomes polyva-
lent, rather than shattered, in the mercurial switching be-
tween the constituent elements, while the mood of the coda
is undoubtedly one of sheer excitement. The diminished sev-
enths that announce the last movement do indeed signify a
return to the mood of the first movement, but in doing so
they herald a range of subjective states.
The final chapter expands further the scope of intertextu-
ality by turning to the topic of narrativity in music, with a
particular focus on Lutosl-awski’s Fourth Symphony. Klein
informs us that Chopin was the only Romantic Lutosl-awski
acknowledged to have exerted an influence on his own
09.Reviews_pp291-320 7/24/06 1:51 PM Page 319
reviews
music; however, the intertext the author constructs between
Chopin and Lutosl-awski in this particular case is purely
speculative. Arguing that the Fourth Symphony engages
nineteenth-century narrative structures, he returns to the
discussion, from Chapter 3, of Chopin’s Fourth Ballade in
order to suggest that this symphony follows the narrative
structure of Chopin’s score. In particular, he claims that
in both cases a bright apotheosis “reaches a terrible reversal
before the coda” (128). Accordingly, he summarizes
Lutosl-awski’s narrative as follows: “An optimistic theme, in-
troduced by a prolonged texture with significations for magi-
cal otherness, promises an apotheosis that leads instead to
reversal, an ominous pronouncement, and a culminating out-
cry; from this climax the persona collapses into remem-
brance of an earlier darker state before a pause lends time to
prepare for the defiant coda” (129).
In doing so, Klein acknowledges that Lutosl-awski’s sym-
phony has a darker ending than the coda of Chopin’s
Ballade, and yet his description functions at an archetypal
narrative level, without attempting to situate these gestures
socially or culturally. So, while this argument may well con-
vince at a structural level, it says little about what it means to
apply a narrative configuration dating from 1843 to music
completed in 1992, after all the adventures of modernism. It
cannot be that this narrative model simply has a fixed mean-
ing: its semantic coding must, surely, vary according to his-
torical context. Adorno’s (1992) model of how Mahler gen-
erates a second life from established conventions would have
been a good place from which to start an investigation of
narrative transformation.
Given that hermeneutics plays a significant role in the
book as a whole, and that Klein regularly makes transhistori-
cal leaps, Hans-Georg Gadamer is something of an unex-
pected absence from the bibliography. Gadamer’s notion of
prejudgment (Vorurteil )—whereby we experience tradition
as saturated with socio-cultural meanings but also alter those
associations by bringing something of the present to them—
would certainly have enabled Klein to construct a more nu-
This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:14 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
319
anced argument.1 This is so not least because the concept of
prejudgment envisages that a later event might influence, or
reconfigure, interpretation of an earlier event, in a meeting of
hermeneutic horizons, without going so far as to suggest that
the second event is a precursor to the first. Applied to
Lutosl-awski’s Fourth Symphony, such an approach would
have allowed Klein to consider how the incorporated
Chopin model signifies in music informed by the experience
of modernism.
Furthermore, as Andrew Bowie (1997) remarks in a re-
cent study of hermeneutics, “it is the reconfiguration of exist-
ing linguistic elements to release new semantic potential, or
to destroy existing meanings, that makes literature a vital fact
in the self-understanding of modernity, not the fact that all
texts are parasitic upon other already existing texts.” Clearly,
the word “music” can easily be substituted for “literature” in
this quotation. On this basis, it would have been interesting
to have contemplated, in relation to the dynamics of moder-
nity, what is destroyed and what is reconfigured in the juxta-
position of Chopin and Lutosl-awski.
As I have indicated in my account of how the chapters re-
late to one another, there is a tension in this book between
structuralist and poststructuralist theoretical claims, while
the hermeneutic criticism does not really align itself with ei-
ther side. (Personally, I find the approach too willing to let
structuralist concerns prevail over context and circumstance.)
In his attempted synthesis of theoretical strands, Klein
wishes to replace the self-contained, integrated model of the
work with the notion of an ecology of intertexts but is not
keen to collapse texts into discourses. On a practical level, he
prevents this slippage by limiting the number of intertextual
links, even though he does not in principle exclude other
possibilities. On a theoretical level, he grapples with the sen-
timent found in the following sentence: “Though the analy-
ses presented here are far from the postmodern ones that
1 See also Kramer 2003.
09.Reviews_pp291-320 7/24/06 1:51 PM Page 320

320 music theory spectrum 28 (2006)

many try to envision, a broader definition of intertextuality

within these analyses does point to ways in which deep
structures can participate in the very critique that is their un-
doing” (49). The diplomatic compromise offered in this
statement is representative of Klein’s approach, which prefers
to place models alongside one another rather than to explore
their conflicting claims, even as the priorities of the book
change in later chapters. These problems do not, however,
prevent Klein from providing coherent accounts of the theo-
rists and practices on which he comments; and, at the practi-
cal level, he brings refined musical instincts to his intertex-
tual investigations.

list of works cited

Adorno, Theodor. 1991. Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy,

trans. by Edmund J. Jephcott. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Bowie, Andrew. 1997. From Romanticism to Critical Theory:
The Philosophy of German Critical Theory. New York and
London: Routledge.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and Method, trans. re-
vised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall.
London: Sheed and Ward Ltd.
Kramer, Lawrence. 2003. “Subjectivity Rampant!”, in The
Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction, ed. by
Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert and Richard Middleton.
London and New York: Routledge.

This content downloaded from 129.12.65.247 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:43:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions