Another unusual aspect of Webern s symphony is the instrumentation. It is scored for clarinet, bass clarinet, 2 horns, harp, viola, 2 violins and cello. The sparse use of instruments is probably partially due to the economic hardship of the aftermath of World War I, while they were also not included because they were not necessary for such a quiet and introspective work. Webern uses klangfarbenmelodie, as he does in many compositions created just before this one, a practice he derived from the romantic symphonies in their disparity of timbre. Beethoven s antiphonal ensembles have developed into an additional coherent pattern in the symphony. Webern uses it in this piece to highlight his canon and other imitative counterpoint, as well as add another dimension to the imitative patterns. The succession of timbres could be musically meaningful even if the pitches were not in a coherent order.
Evidence of continued interest on the part of twentieth century composers in this new branch of symphonic form is found in the symphonies of Ellen Taaffe Zwilich. Zwilich is often viewed as deriving her compositional style from the atonality of Roger Sessions and the orchestral color of Elliot Carter, though her style shows many elements of attention not only to the same works that inspired many stylistic elements in Webern s symphony, her attention to continuous variation, use of thematic material and orchestration recall Webern as well as Copland and Varese (in orchestration) perhaps more readily than her teachers. As can be said of Webern, her approach is both traditional and modern, combining reinterpretations of traditional form with modern structural and organizational practices.
Zwilich s 3rd symphony uses familiar tertian sonorities, but the harmonic movement is pandiatonic. Spaces of percussive tutti statements (usually miniatures, as only one timbral section sounds in any one tutti statement) are connected with thinly orchestrated sections where no harmony occurs or drones of closely spaced intervals such as minor and major 2nds are used. All sense of tonal harmonic progression is lost in this method, as the melodic lines in the thinly orchestrated sections do not conform to a major or minor modality, which Zwilich usually replaces with an octatonic or synthetic scale. While Zwilich does not use functional harmony, she does emphasize a pitch center through repetition, which is F# in the 3rd symphony. Zwilich s sense of progression in her symphonies always arises from continuous variation on a cell of material. Zwilich usually repeats certain motto-motives unchanged, but most of the other material in her symphonies is subjected to Sch nbergian variation.
The first movement of the symphony is a modified sonata allegro movement. The movement begins with a statement of a recurring motivic idea, which is immediately followed by the first theme, played in the violins and violas. The first theme is primarily a melodic idea at first, but this idea is broken into smaller motivic ideas and used as a harmonic material as the symphony progresses. The use of all the notes in a melodic line simultaneously, as harmony, shows the influence of the 12 tone method on Zwilich s symphony. The first theme (or cell) is repeated in various forms before the second theme appears in measure 19. The second theme is motto-like, and receives little attention as material for variation. The second theme is repeated and the tempo builds to an allegro (120 to the quarter note) at measure 44, in which the first theme is broken into smaller motivic ideas, subjected to variation and used as intervallic material for harmony. Counterpoint increases in this area, and the motivic idea that began the entire symphony makes occasional appearances, though the second theme is absent from either variation or restatement in the allegro section. The tempo begins to slow at measure 120, and rests at 48 per quarter note at measure 130. In this final section of the first movement, the 1st theme is stated in a form closely related to the original statement in the strings, this time played by a solo flute at measure 142. Though the first theme predominates in the final section, a rhythmic motive related to the 2nd theme is played by non pitched percussion instruments at measure 154. The first section can be seen as the exposition (measures 1 43), the allegro section as the development (44 119), and the final section as a modified recapitulation (120 168).
The second movement is much shorter than the first. It uses a rondo form. The cell, which constitutes the A section of the movement is derived from the synthetic scale used for melodic material in the 1st movement theme. Other sections of this movement are based on material loosely associated with the original cell from the first movement, but of considerable contrast, so that the relationship is usually only visible (or audible) after studying the score. A percussion idea from the first movement recurs in this movement. The 3rd movement is played attaca after the 2nd movement. In length, the last two movements are approximately ten minutes, while the first movement is nine. Zwilich commented that the second two movements were intended to balance the first movement in weight and proportion. The third movement is an amorphous section based, like almost all of the material, on the original cell (Example 6). The development in the 3rd movement, as can also be seen in the development of the 3rd movement in her 1st symphony, is based primarily on variations in timbre on a single sonority. These movements recall Webern s 5 Pieces for Orchestra, and 6 Pieces for Orchestra, as well as Sch nberg s 5 Pieces for Orchestra, which all contain harmonically static movements where almost all variation is devoted to timbre.
My analysis of a modified sonata allegro form of the first movement is not based on thematic contrast of the sections alone. As has been stated of the 12-tone method, Zwilich s themes are not themes in the classical sense of the word, which causes some music theorists to refer to them as cells of intervallic and rhythmic material, for lack of any better term to explain themselves (because Zwilich does not use the 12-Tone system). Because the thematic idea is often used as a harmonic idea, it is closely integrated with the harmony of the symphony, and must be thought of as a harmonic idea as much as a melodic idea. A clear example of this compositional practice is found in Zwilich s 1st symphony, where both approaches are prominently used (Example 7). The harmony associated with the theme or constructed from the intervals contained within the theme is used to give distinction to the harmonic sections. The use of cells defines the area both thematically and harmonically, in a way like that of a tone row. Rows, sets and cells are terms which describe the same practice of serializing or approximation of serialized material, the difference lies in that one studiously avoids a pitch center and the other does not (or, one encompasses the complete chromatic scale in content, the other does not). Both are treated and developed in a like manner. The juxtaposition of the motivic idea and the first theme or cell creates unfamiliar harmony and thus gives a feeling of tension. Furthermore the increase in counterpoint and speed in the allegro section add to the tension. This tension is relieved through the move back to more familiar versions of the 1st theme or cell, the return to the original slower tempo, and the use of monophonic or homophonic texture.
There is little sense of steady rhythmic pulse in the 1st and 3rd symphonies of Zwilich. The meter as notated fluctuates rapidly, and there is almost never a rhythmic accompaniment to the most prominent cell being used that establishes a pulse. Most rhythmic punctuation is syncopated and sparse. The rhythm-less feel created owes its origin to Webern and Varese. Zwilich s symphonies seem to build on the symphonic style created by the serial and freely atonal symphonies of the 20th century, such as Anton Webern and Roger Sessions, who was her composition teacher at the Juilliard school.
The instrumentation in the symphonies of Zwilich includes piccolo, flute, oboe, English horn in F, horns in F, clarinet, bass clarinet, bassoon, contrabassoon, trumpet, trombone, bass trombone, tuba, timpani, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and numerous exotic percussion instruments, which is (aside from the percussion) not unusual for symphonies written between 1982 and 1992 in America. What is unusual about the instrumentation in Zwilich s symphonies is her use of the orchestra. While she gathers an enormous group, they rarely ever play at the same time. The intent seems to be merely to have as many different timbral combinations at her disposal as possible. For example, the only time in the 3rd symphony when all of the orchestra is playing at the same time is the first and last two measures. The resulting sound is reminiscent of orchestral music of Copland in early orchestral works and the orchestral compositions of Sch nberg and Webern. Zwilich devoted most of the developmental ideas in the 3rd movement of her 1st and 3rd to timbral ideas. In both symphonies the last movement does provide interesting material in a thematic sense, and the movment tends to lack a sense of propulsion or unfolding in both harmonic and rhythmic respects. What Zwlilich concentrates on in both symphonies is the use of repetitive harmonic material (a non-developmental repeated theme in the 3rd symphony, and a repeated sonority in the 1st) with striking timbral variations.
If the symphonies of Zwilich and Webern discussed above can be regarded as representative of a school of twentieth century symphonic composition, as I believe can be shown in the comparison of these works to the symphonies of Roger Sessions (the 4th through 9th), Elliot Carters Symphony for Three Orchestras and Stravinsky s Symphonies for Wind Instruments (among others), then this school runs parallel to another school, in which the classical model is continually reused in a more widely recognized conservative symphonic tradition. The progressive twentieth century school did not materialize in a revolution, but builds on the models laid down by Brahms, Strauss, Beethoven, Berlioz and Webern.
Traits of this progressive twentieth century symphonic school include the equivalence of harmonic and melodic material, which was pioneered by Arnold Sch nberg. In the absence of a tonal harmonic structure to define the symphonic form, symphonists turn to the row and cell to define areas and create themes, ushering in a new synthesis between themes and key areas new to the twentieth century. Often, the expanded orchestral palette is used to give these organic structures more definition.
The recapitulation of the sonata allegro form has been altered in favor of continuous development of materials. Other techniques are often used to recall the recapitulation, such as a return to an old tempo, restatement of the cell or row in retrograde at the original transposition or a timbral recall of the beginning of the modified sonata allegro. The idea of recapitulation has been rejected by many composers as an unnecessary addition to the symphony, and has been phased out for much the same reasons as the modern conductor often skips the repeat of the exposition.
The focus of the orchestra shifts from expansion of dynamic power or amplitude to a more reserved machine, revered for its capacity to provide the widest range of timbres, but rarely used for dramatic punctuation in the 19th century sense. This resource is used to create new melodic patterns in the tradition of klangfarbenmelodie as well as allow an opportunity for development where there is no harmonic progression in the traditional sense.
To many musicians, the symphony is a genre with an intimate connection to the classical period. These musicians maintain that the symphony is meaningless outside of the original formal boundaries conceived to explain eighteenth century sonata form. However, many genres have been subject to reinterpretation as aesthetic values and musical styles come and go. The fugue, minuet, gavotte, concerto, oratorio, opera, canon, lied, sonata and cantata, among others, have been redefined to relate to various harmonic idioms as their lives as formal ideas have extended into periods beyond their original conception. The symphony is no exception to the practice of retaining old forms and presenting them in novel ways. Many composers have moved on in the twentieth century to create their own formal structures, some of which will undoubtedly survive in this same manner. It is true that the classical conception of the symphony does not fit the progressive symphonies of the twentieth century. I would argue that it does not fit the romantic, experimental symphonies of the 19th century, either. Therefore, rather than calling these symphonies illegitimate, as some theorists would claim, because they certainly have many ties to the history of the symphonic genre, it seems that a historian or theorist should merely consider the chronology involved. Form is relative to a particular time period. While one may create temporal divisions in the development of musical form to a great extent, as one may see changes in musical taste from year to year, this sort of hair-splitting work is not what I advocate. I merely contend that it makes no sense to expect a piece written in 1928 to sound the same as a piece from 1728, only because the two share the same title. To this end I feel that new formal boundaries, tendencies and terminology should be used with the atonal symphony, while bearing in mind the intimate relation of these works with the other symphonies in history.