: Because of their novel harmonic and formal tendencies, Bruckner’s symphonies are often subjected to extravagant analytical practices. Schenker, himself a Bruckner student, viewed them as sublime, but ultimately unworkable, harmonic jumbles: “a potpourri of exaltations.” Darcy has argued that Bruckner’s second themes are largely presented in the “wrong” key, creating a nontraditional “suspension field ... [isolated] from the main line of ... symphonic discourse.” Taking this view as a point of departure, I show (1) that Bruckner’s second theme key choices do not break from tradition—they have precedent in earlier, more canonic literature; and (2) that distinct “profiles” emerge from them: I-to-V in opening movements, I-to-III-to-V in finales. These profiles suggest both that Bruckner conceived of deep structure as chromatically saturated, and that he varied the degree of saturation to differentiate between types of movements. Thus, Bruckner’s chromatic second themes—far from “suspending” a movement’s trajectory—represent powerful, energizing events en route to the dominant. Volume 24, Number 1, March 2018 Copyright © 2018 Society for Music Theory Bruckner’s reputation in this country is something of a mystery. We are told that he was a simple-minded peasant who wrote over-long and simple-minded symphonies; that he was, moreover, a “Wagnerian symphonist” and mystically linked with Mahler. The average intelligent . . . musician is properly impressed by the German-Austrian musical tradition; but when he is told that in these countries Bruckner is treated as the equal of Brahms and indisputably the superior of Sibelius, he decides that there are aberrations of taste even in the most musical of nations. He expels Bruckner from his consciousness not so much because he dislikes Bruckner’s symphonies—for at best he has probably heard only the fourth and the seventh—but because he has been told by a variety of . . . historians, writing with patronizing conviction, that Bruckner was a well-meaning bore “wri en up” by the Wagnerites to impress the Brahmins (70). [0] It may come as a surprise that the above paragraph was penned by an Englishman (Henry Raynor) writing in 1955; for, with a small handful of changes, it could have easily been wri en yesterday about the current tepid atmosphere of Bruckner reception in North America—although I should add that the symphonies have recently become a more regular presence in concert halls. The theoretical outlook on Bruckner has fallen more or less in step with the general apathy of the performance community. But when theorists have turned to Bruckner’s music, most have done so with a problematic a itude that is well illustrated by one of Raynor’s statements in particular—that Bruckner was a “Wagnerian symphonist . . . mystically linked with Mahler.” The problem does not lie with the first part of this statement, given Bruckner’s well-known efforts to translate the operatic vocabulary of Wagner into a symphonic language. It is the connection with Mahler that I find troubling: How often do we think about composers in terms of their successors? Do we describe Mozart by saying he was linked with Beethoven? Certainly it is crucial to construct chains of effect and influence when talking about music history, but I find this forward-looking, modernizing approach to Bruckner anachronistic and ultimately unhelpful. Fringe Tonality, Schenkerian Tonality [1.1] The tendency to group Bruckner with a later band of composers (Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius) represents a significant undercurrent in Bruckner scholarship, specifically among authors concerned with the music’s tonality. The consensus seems to be that if Bruckner’s music is tonal, it is only tonal in an oblique, half-hearted way. Yes, Bruckner’s symphonies start and end in the same key and have many of the trappings of tonal music—but perhaps only as a courtesy to aid the listener. This approximates the view expressed by William Benjamin, concerning the Eighth Symphony: The listener can construct the apparent monotonality of many late-romantic works but perhaps not experience it as such. In more specific terms, the fact of beginning and ending in the same key may lead to an experience only of return to, and not of the motion within or prolongation of that, properly speaking, constitutes monotonality. (1996, 237–38) In other words, the music is implicitly or explicitly denied the distinction of ‘organic tonal unity’ that commonly differentiates monotonality from other, looser varieties of tonality.(1) We are left to wonder: Of what sort, then, is Bruckner’s tonality? [1.2] On the other hand, perhaps this music really is best viewed as tonal in a far stricter way. Benjamin captures well the most central feature of this sort of tonality: “motion within,” or Auskomponierung, an integrative process whereby some voice-leading events are pressed into the service of elaborating others. It is in this sense that I will be referring to tonality throughout this article. Schenkerian analysis of course serves to confirm a work’s tonal unity, and as such can be understood to exert a conservative, “recuperative” (to use Joseph Straus’s [2011] term) force on the music it examines. However, paradoxically enough, the Schenkerian approach has tended to modernize Bruckner: in the Sixth Symphony, Timothy Jackson sees an “anticipatory tonic” in the development of the second movement (2001, 224);(2) analyzing the Fourth Symphony, Edward Laufer reads the entire first movement as an Anstieg (2001, 116).(3) These and other fairly exotic readings suggest that Laufer and Jackson consider Bruckner to occupy the outer fringes of Schenkerian tonality: an assessment which, in turn, seems to have led Julian Horton (among others) to believe that one cannot apply Schenker to Bruckner without extensively modifying the theory or losing fidelity to the music. On the one hand, “a Schenkerian analysis that demonstrates the absence rather than the presence of an Ursa is effectively self-negating” (Horton 2004b, 93); but on the other hand, “if our aim is to show that Bruckner really composed in a Schenkerian manner after all, then we have simply succeeded in forcing him to submit to the hegemony of a single, encompassing theory” (264).(4) Consequently, recent authors have resorted to Schenker in dribs and drabs, and in a somewhat diluted form.(5) [1.3] This brings us to Schenker’s own opinion of Bruckner—a position worth taking seriously if we mean to apply the analytic system Schenker himself created. Schenker took classes with Bruckner at the Vienna Conservatory and at the University (Federhofer 1982, 198). Moreover, we know from the lesson books that he played Bruckner symphonies with his students in four-hand arrangements (Schenker 1918–1919) and from Der Dreiklang that he knew all of the symphonies by heart.(6) He appears indeed to have enjoyed quite a bit of Bruckner’s music, at least on the surface. Nevertheless, throughout his life Schenker regarded him as a lesser composer who could not muster a sense of tonal unity because of his compartmentalized thematic processes. He believed that “the very force and splendor of the individual [themes appear] to work against their synthesis.” And he accused Bruckner of “[luxuriating] in the component parts” so as to “lose all sense of form and tonality.” As a result, Schenker found Bruckner’s symphonies to be wri en in “an exalted manner, reckoned in terms of exaltation, so to speak; a symphony by him, taken as a whole, represents a kind of a potpourri of exaltations (ein Potpourri von Exaltationen)” ([1905–1909] 2005, 116).(7) [1.4] These problems of “form and tonality” have long hindered Bruckner’s acceptance into the analytic canon. As Horton has wri en, “canonical preoccupations, perhaps combined with a more general atmosphere of musicological disdain, have created a neglect among Anglo-American analysts that has only recently begun to be redressed” (2004b, 20). But Bruckner’s liminal status within the canon has had ramifications surpassing mere neglect: more generally, such “canonical preoccupations” embody the lasting half-life of Bruckner’s poor reception by his contemporaries. Just as Hanslick and Kalbeck strove to isolate Bruckner’s work from the Beethovenian symphonic tradition, the theoretical community has distanced Bruckner from analytical procedures used on more standard repertoire (Venegas 2017). Searching for a palpable musical basis for this distancing —and for a way forward from it—has become a significant distraction in the scholarship; as a result, many theoretical articles about Bruckner (this one included) are obliged to start with a lengthy prolegomenon that takes pains to justify the author’s chosen approach and that grapples with the a endant methodological pitfalls. These extra hurdles, in my view, have hamstrung analytic work on the symphonies by reinforcing the impression that they are somehow unamenable to traditional means of examination. The present study a empts to undo some of Hanslick’s handiwork, thereby helping to ratify Bruckner’s reputation as a composer of tonal music —as a composer we need not fear addressing with an analytic system rooted in tonality. I hope, in the process, to avoid further reifying the “tonal canon” that has marginalized Bruckner and a great many other composers. [1.5] Indeed, it is my belief that by resisting the impulse to discount Bruckner’s tonality, we can uncover many relations in the music that the analytical literature has by and large overlooked. This applies specifically to Bruckner’s choices of key areas within sonata form; thus, a main goal of this study is to address Bruckner’s sonata-form design in rather strict Schenkerian terms. In the process, however, we must take care to avoid a dangerous aspect of Schenker’s thought: his equation of a work’s tonality with its quality. For him, as is well known, a piece that was not tonal was bad, and Schenker used his an

中文翻译：

---

布鲁克纳交响乐作品集的主要简介

：由于其新颖的和声和形式倾向，布鲁克纳的交响乐经常受到奢侈的分析实践。申克本人是布鲁克纳的学生，他认为它们是崇高的，但最终是行不通的，和谐的混乱：“一团糟。” 达西认为布鲁克纳的第二主题在很大程度上以“错误”的调性呈现，创造了一个非传统的“悬浮场……[与……交响乐话语的主线隔离]。” 以这种观点为出发点，我表明 (1) 布鲁克纳的第二主题关键选择并没有打破传统——它们在更早、更经典的文学中已有先例；(2) 从它们中出现了不同的“轮廓”：开场动作中的 I-to-V，结局中的 I-to-III-to-V。这些剖面表明布鲁克纳认为深层结构是色彩饱和的，并且他改变了饱和度以区分运动类型。因此，布鲁克纳的彩色第二主题——远非“暂停”运动的轨迹——代表了通往主导地位的强大、充满活力的事件。第 24 卷，第 1 期，2018 年 3 月 版权所有 © 2018 音乐理论协会 布鲁克纳在这个国家的声誉是个谜。听说他是个头脑简单的农民，写了超长的、头脑简单的交响曲；此外，他还是一位“瓦格纳式交响乐家”，并且与马勒有着神秘的联系。平均聪明。. . 德国-奥地利音乐传统给音乐家留下了深刻的印象；但是当他被告知在这些国家布鲁克纳被视为与勃拉姆斯平等并且无可争议地是西贝柳斯的上级时，他认为即使在最有音乐性的国家也存在品味失常。他将布鲁克纳从自己的意识中驱逐并不是因为他不喜欢布鲁克纳的交响乐——因为他最多可能只听过第四和第七——而是因为他被各种各样的. . . 历史学家以高傲的信念写道，布鲁克纳是瓦格内尔人为了给婆罗门留下深刻印象而“编造”出来的善意恶作剧（70）。[0] 上一段是由一位英国人 (Henry Raynor) 于 1955 年撰写的，这可能会让人感到惊讶；因为，只要稍加改动，昨天就可以很容易地描述布鲁克纳在北美的招待会目前不温不火的气氛——尽管我应该补充一点，交响乐最近在音乐厅中变得更加常见。布鲁克纳的理论观点或多或少随着表演界的普遍冷漠而下降。但是，当理论家转向布鲁克纳的音乐时，大多数人都带着一种有问题的态度这样做，这在雷诺的其中一个声明中得到了很好的说明——布鲁克纳是一位“瓦格纳式的交响乐家”。. . 神秘地与马勒联系在一起。” 考虑到布鲁克纳为将瓦格纳的歌剧词汇翻译成交响语言所做的众所周知的努力，问题不在于这句话的第一部分。与马勒的关系让我感到不安：我们多久会从他们的继任者的角度考虑作曲家？我们是否通过说他与贝多芬有关来描述莫扎特？当然，在谈论音乐史时构建效果和影响链是至关重要的，但我发现布鲁克纳这种前瞻性的、现代化的方法是不合时宜的，最终也无济于事。Fringe Tonality, Schenkerian Tonality [1.1] 将布鲁克纳与后来的作曲家（施特劳斯、马勒、西贝柳斯）组合在一起的趋势代表了布鲁克纳学术界的一个重要暗流，特别是在关注音乐调性的作者中。共识似乎是，如果布鲁克纳的音乐是有调性的，那么它只是一种倾斜的、半心半意的方式。是的，布鲁克纳的交响乐以同一个调开始和结束，并且具有许多音调音乐的特征——但也许只是为了帮助听众的一种礼貌。这近似于威廉·本杰明 (William Benjamin) 表达的关于第八交响曲的观点：听者可以构建许多晚期浪漫主义作品表面上的单调性，但可能不会如此体验。更具体地说，在同一个调上开始和结束的事实可能会导致一种仅返回的体验，而不是其中的运动或延长的体验，正确地说，构成单调性。(1996, 237–38) 换句话说，音乐隐含或明确地否认了“有机音调统一”的区别，这种区别通常将单调性与其他较松散的音调变体区分开来。(1) 我们不禁想知道：属于哪种类型那么，是布鲁克纳的调性吗？[1.2] 另一方面，也许这种音乐真的最好以更严格的方式视为音调。本杰明很好地捕捉到了这种调性的最核心特征：“内在运动”，或者说 Auskomponierung，一个整合的过程，在这个过程中，一些声音主导事件被压入为阐述其他事件服务。正是在这个意义上，我将在整篇文章中提到音调。Schenkerian 分析当然有助于确认作品的音调统一性，因此可以理解为对其检查的音乐施加保守的“恢复性”（使用约瑟夫施特劳斯 [2011] 术语）的力量。然而，自相矛盾的是，申克主义的方法倾向于使布鲁克纳现代化：在第六交响曲中，蒂莫西·杰克逊在第二乐章的发展中看到了“预期的补品”（2001, 224）；（2）分析第四交响曲，爱德华·劳弗将整个第一乐章解读为 Anstieg (2001, 116)。(3) 这些和其他相当奇特的解读表明，劳弗和杰克逊认为布鲁克纳占据了申克调性的外围：一种评估，反过来，似乎让 Julian Horton（以及其他人）相信，如果不广泛修改理论或失去对音乐的忠实度，就无法将 Schenker 应用于布鲁克纳。一方面，“证明大熊座不存在而不是存在的申克式分析实际上是自我否定的”（Horton 2004b, 93）；但另一方面，“如果我们的目标是表明布鲁克纳毕竟真的是以申克式的方式创作的，那么我们只是成功地迫使他屈服于单一的、包罗万象的理论的霸权”（264）。（4） ) 因此，最近的作者们点点滴滴地以某种淡化的形式求助于 Schenker。(5) [1.3] 这使我们想到了 Schenker 自己对布鲁克纳的看法——如果我们打算应用分析系统，这个立场值得认真对待申克自己创造的。申克在维也纳音乐学院和大学与布鲁克纳一起上课 (Federhofer 1982, 198)。此外，我们从课本中得知，他与学生以四手编排（Schenker 1918-1919）和 Der Dreiklang 演奏布鲁克纳交响曲，他对所有交响曲都熟记于心。 (6) 他似乎确实很喜欢布鲁克纳的音乐相当多，至少在表面上是这样。尽管如此，在他的一生中，申克都认为他是一个次等的作曲家，由于他的主题过程分割开来，他无法凝聚出统一的音调。他相信“个别[主题似乎]的力量和辉煌与它们的综合背道而驰。” 他指责布鲁克纳“[奢华]在组成部分”，以“失去所有形式感和音调感”。因此，申克发现布鲁克纳的交响曲是“一种崇高的方式，可以说是崇高的；他的一首交响曲，从整体上看，代表了一种高调的杂烩（ein Potpourri von Exaltationen）”（[1905-1909] 2005, 116）。（7）[1.4]这些“形式和调性”问题长期以来一直阻碍布鲁克纳接受分析经典。正如霍顿所写的那样，“经典的成见，也许与更普遍的音乐学蔑视气氛相结合，在英美分析家中造成了一种忽视，这种忽视直到最近才开始得到纠正”（2004b，20）。但是布鲁克纳在经典中的临界状态已经产生了超越单纯忽视的影响：更一般地说，这种“经典的关注”体现了布鲁克纳同时代人的不良接受的持续半衰期。正如汉斯里克和卡尔贝克努力将布鲁克纳的作品与贝多芬交响乐传统区分开来一样，理论界也将布鲁克纳与用于更标准曲目的分析程序保持距离（Venegas 2017）。为这种疏远寻找明显的音乐基础 - 以及从中寻找前进的道路 - 已成为学术界的一个重大干扰。因此，许多关于布鲁克纳的理论文章（包括这一篇）不得不从一个冗长的前言开始，该前言煞费苦心地证明作者所选择的方法是正确的，并努力解决相关的方法论陷阱。在我看来，这些额外的障碍阻碍了对交响乐的分析工作，强化了它们在某种程度上无法接受传统检查方法的印象。目前的研究试图消除汉斯里克的一些作品，从而帮助确认布鲁克纳作为调性音乐作曲家的声誉——作为一个作曲家，我们不必害怕用根植于调性的分析系统来解决问题。我希望，在这个过程中，避免进一步具体化已经边缘化布鲁克纳和许多其他作曲家的“音调经典”。[1.5] 事实上，我相信通过抵制对布鲁克纳音调打折扣的冲动，我们可以发现分析文献基本上忽略了音乐中的许多关系。这特别适用于布鲁克纳对奏鸣曲形式中关键区域的选择；因此，这项研究的一个主要目标是用相当严格的申克式术语来解决布鲁克纳的奏鸣曲式设计。然而，在这个过程中，我们必须小心避免申克思想的危险方面：他将作品的调性与其质量之间的等式联系起来。对他来说，众所周知，没有调性的作品是不好的，而 Schenker 用他的