The Interruption-Fill and Corollary Procedures^*

Yosef Goldenberg

KEYWORDS: Schenker, interruption, form, caesura-fill, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Liszt, Wagner, Grieg, Widor, Kalinnikov

ABSTRACT: Occasionally a link is inserted between the two branches of paradigmatic interruption structure. The chief type is based on chromatic ascent from pre-interruption to the regained primary tone. This is a stock figure in classical themes, especially in slow movements, but also serves as the basis for special artistic devices. The interruption-fill poses some theoretical difficulties.

[1] Many artistic devices in classical and romantic music aim at “blurring the frontiers between different sections.”⁽¹⁾ Examples include the lack of synchronization between the beginning of the recapitulatory rotation and the regaining of a structural tonic,⁽²⁾ or the “linkage technique,” where “a new phrase takes as its initial idea the end of the immediately preceding one” (Jonas 1982 [1934/1972], 7).⁽³⁾

[2] In certain cases, the blurring effect creates phrase overlaps, and thus challenges the existence of separate sections. This is common at the local level, as with parallel periods where the pre-interruption V only arrives at the beginning of the consequent (usually in parallel with a non-tonic opening of the antecedent).⁽⁴⁾ On a large scale, the complete absence of a true tonic at the beginning of a sonata-form recapitulation might cancel the interruption in favor of an undivided Ursatz (Suurpää 2005).

[3] Sometimes, however, the borders between the musical units remain clear, but there is nevertheless some link between them. The paradigmatic situation for such links is the interruption-fill, i.e., motion that connects the two branches of an interruption structure. This may appear as a connection from the end of the antecedent to the beginning of the consequent in a parallel period, but also in larger forms based on interruption (such as sonata form and many cases of rounded binary).⁽⁵⁾

[4] I shall examine a simple instance of an interruption-fill before dwelling on the theoretical problems that emerge from it. The study will proceed with a discussion of the various ramifications of the interruption-fill before primary tone or , special artistic devices based on the ordinary interruption-fill, other formal contexts for the chromatic lead-in, other interruption-fill configurations in the upper voice and interruption-fill in the bass, and finally analogous cases of “illegal” passing motion.

The Basic Upper-Voice Interruption-Fill with Primary Tone

[5] Example 1, from Schubert’s Impromptu op. 90 no. 3, shows a paradigmatic simple instance of the most basic form of interruption-fill. The interruption-fill connects the pre-interruption with the regained primary tone . The punctuation between antecedent and consequent is preserved in the bass, and only the upper voice moves between the phrases via a chromatic passing tone ( ) that creates a passing augmented triad. Since this parallel period is symmetrical, the precise moment of the interruption is expected after four measures, and this is how Schenker presents it in his semi-rhythmic analysis in Der Tonwille (Schenker 2005 [1924], 138), albeit without the graphic symbol of a double stroke that had not yet been conceived.⁽⁶⁾ However, the last upper-voice tone in measure 4 (i.e., the chromatic passing tone) belongs to the antecedent in the metrical aspect alone. Melodically, it occurs within the interruption itself. This is not a special feature of the piece, but rather a common situation that has escaped theoretical and analytical scrutiny up to now.⁽⁷⁾

[6] Normative interruption occurs at a specific point in time, as is evident in the symbol of the two vertical strokes that is placed in a single location. When the pre-interruption V is prolonged, Schenker’s normative practice correctly locates the interruption symbol after that prolongation is over (for example Schenker 1979 [1935/1956], Figs. 34b, 35,1 and 35,2). Exceptions do occur, where the prolongation of the pre-interruption V continues after the interruption symbol (Schenker 1979 [1935/1956] Fig. 26b; in Fig. 39,2 the interruption symbol is confusingly located at the middle of the V prolongation). When there is an interruption-fill, i.e., passing motion between the pre-interruption V and the following regained primary tone, Schenker locates the interruption symbol immediately after the consonant V , and before the passing motion (addition of a seventh in Figs. 32,7 and 47,1; more substantial passing motion in Figs. 22a and 22b). This way of presenting the interruption-fill indicates that for Schenker the interruption proper precedes the interruption-fill. My own graphic presentation of the interruption-fill shows it as an interpolation between the two vertical strokes of the interruption symbol, meaning that the interruption proper continues throughout the process of the interruption-fill and, unlike normative interruption, occupies a span of time.

[7] From a Schenkerian point of view, the interruption-fill is arguably problematic. The problem is not the mere lack of rhythmic or textural articulation at the point of interruption.⁽⁸⁾ For example, the opening period of the finale of Haydns Symphony no. 92 (Oxford) (Example 2) has a normative interruption despite the perpetual motion in the upper voice.⁽⁹⁾ That period is normative since the basic voice-leading before the interruption is based on a circular prolongation (in this case, motion into an inner voice) within the pre-interruption V, ending on tones that belong to the V.⁽¹⁰⁾ Since the bass does pause at the end of the antecedent, the motion in the upper voice does “fill a gap in sound,” and it thus forms a caesura-fill in the terms of Hepokoski and Darcy (2006, 34). However, in Schenkerian terms, based on tonal procedures, the descent into an inner voice precedes the caesura and does not fill it.

[8] It should go without saying that normative prolongation of pre-interruption V does not challenge Schenkerian norms. After all, interruption proper most often occurs long after the arrival of the structural pre-interruption V . For example, in paradigmatic sonata form in major, the interruption proper takes place just before the recapitulation, after the V has been prolonged throughout the entire second group and development. This also conforms with Schenker’s notation practice discussed above (paragraph 6).

[9] The true source of the problematic nature of the interruption-fill is that the chromatic motion passes paradoxically through a “dead” space between unrelated tones, a space that ought not to exist, after the pre-interruption V (and not within a prolongation thereof).⁽¹¹⁾ In Schenker’s normative view, “The first [in an interruption structure] is not a neighboring note” [as one might think in the case of primary tone ], but rather a passing tone toward the that will only arrive at the end of the consequent (Schenker 1979 [1935/1956], 37, §91). The rule that “the first is a passing tone toward the that will only arrive at the end” should also apply to interruption structures from , where the alternative does not give rise to a neighboring note. Since they are unrelated, the pre-interruption and the regained primary tone should not be conceived as boundary tones of a normative space capable of being filled-in. Nevertheless, in interruption-fills within genuine interruption structures the pre-interruption V and the regained primary tone perform precisely this function: true boundaries of passing motion in the course of the interruption-fill. The passing motion in that space must count as “illegal.” It should be emphasized that the paradox emerges precisely because the interruption is not cancelled; if the true interruption is overridden in the first place (as in cases described in paragraph 2), no true interruption-fill can take place either.

[10] To further explain why the interruption-fill is problematic, one must understand how it differs from normative passing motion. Normative passing motion takes place within linear progressions. Usually, linear progressions fill in boundary tones that are conceptually simultaneous at a deeper level (Rothstein 1981, 87–91; Schenker 1979 [1935/1956], §115). Exceptions do occur where connective linear progressions move between different chords, as Schenker (1996 [1926], 3) notes: “linear progressions in the treble that descend signify motion to an inner voice of the original chord or the ensuing one” (my emphasis). For example, in fifth progressions from over a subdominant harmony to V , when the goal tone arrives, the initial tone changes into an implied (Goldenberg 2008, vol. 1, 11). The latter situation is always tricky, but in the case of interruption the immediate structural chord after the pre-interruption V is not at all the truly ensuing chord.

[11] Indeed, even without the interruption-fill, passing motion may take place within the space of a boundary second that does not represent a conceptually simultaneous interval. This happens in chromatic passing tones toward or from a neighbor (whole) tone. As Proctor (1978, 79–82) observes, even that situation poses a paradox, as it violates the distinction between steps and leaps.⁽¹²⁾ In interruption-fills, when the primary tone is in the same register as the preceding , the only possible fill is a single chromatic passing tone in major (in minor, the mere semitone between and simply leaves no space to be filled in). The chromatic motion from at the end of the antecedent to at the beginning of the consequent flies in the face of both the unrelatedness of these tones (this is also true of motion to ) and the step-leap distinction.

[12] The configuration of the interruption-fill cannot be reconciled with normative Schenkerian ideas. Although Schenker arrived late at the concept of interruption, and left it underdeveloped and at times inconsistent (Marston 1999), such inconsistencies in Schenker’s view of interruption hardly affect the study of the interruption-fill; Schenker acknowledged certain “free forms of interruption” (discussed in Samarotto 2004), but interruption-fills normally take place between the branches of strict interruption; Schenker was undecided with regard to the deeper hierarchy among the elements of interruption (Smith 1994, esp. 79–84), but the interruption-fill occurs at the surface.⁽¹³⁾ One theoretical issue where Schenker’s inconsistencies are indeed relevant is the status of an added seventh to the pre-interruption V. This configuration will be dealt with at a later point, in relation to motion toward a regained .

[13] Some theorists nevertheless regard the lead-in as a normative element of the surface level. Schachter (2006, 286), for example, seems unbothered by the lead-in when he argues that in “a parallel period generated by an interruption V . . . any connection from that V to the I that begins the next phrase is clearly a foreground device.” The rest of this study does not collapse if one denies the problematic nature of the interruption-fill; rather, those inclined to regard the interruption-fill as a normative phenomenon might still find my exploration of the variety of manifestations of the interruption-fill and corollary procedures useful.

More Upper-Voice Interruption-Fills with Primary Tone

[14] Even the basic passing chromatic lead-in might be emphasized by means of hypermetric expansion, as in the retransition in the Trio from Mozart’s Symphony no. 35, K. 385 (Haffner), iii (not given here). Whereas in Schubert’s Impromptu the is located within the ordinary time-span of the V, in Mozart’s Trio it occupies a complete fifth measure after four measures on the diatonic V , which in turn expand the fourth measure of the preceding hypermeasure.⁽¹⁴⁾

[15] The chromatic lead-in may combine with chromatic motion within the phrases to create chromatic continuity. Example 3 presents a case in point from the second theme (in major, of course) of Haydn’s F minor Piano Variations, Hob. XVII:6.

[16] In this theme, both antecedent and consequent start with chromatic ascents from the primary tone toward the upper , which serves in this passage as a conceptual inner voice. The chromatic lead-in combines with the ensuing third-progression into a chromatically filled melodic fourth that runs across the interruption, thus achieving smooth continuity. To appreciate this smooth moment, one must of course acknowledge the chromaticism rather than explain it away according to a strictly structuralist approach, but it is also important to acknowledge the structural point of division, without which the chromatic smoothness at that specific point loses its particular effect.⁽¹⁵⁾

[17] In other cases, the lead-in seems to generate an insertion of chromatic motion in the consequent with no counterpart in the antecedent. This is perhaps the case with the d in the Impromptu (Example 1 above). A clearer instance appears in Haydn’s Symphony no. 104, ii (Example 4), where a large expansion introduced into the post-interruption branch is based on a sequence over the very motive of the interruption-fill. With respect to form, the moment of interruption proper is preceded by a contrasting middle that stands on the dominant in a small ternary/rounded binary form. This does not affect the relationship between the lead-in and the tonal structure.⁽¹⁶⁾

[18] The chromatic succession might obscure the precise point of interruption, especially if the ascent begins earlier as motion from an inner voice.⁽¹⁷⁾ Consider the theme of the second movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata op. 2 no. 1 (Example 5).

[19] In the lead-in to the consequent, the range of a sixth is chromatically filled-in. In the repeat (measures 35–36), the chromaticism becomes even more complete (condensed in triplets). Hearing this lead-in as a sixth-progression underlines its parallelism with the opening interval of the movement, the sixth from the upbeat to the antecedent. This is the interpretation endorsed by Salzer (1952/1962, Fig. 442), and in greater detail by Cadwallader and Gagné (1998/2007, Ex. 7.11).⁽¹⁸⁾ Strictly speaking, however, the change of harmony and the division into phrases do not support a true sixth-progression, but rather a fifth-progression followed by an interruption-fill. Unlike the normative chromatic notes that are inserted into the motion from an inner voice, the last chromatic note (G ) fills the interruption and is thus theoretically “illegal.” The only alternative that would maintain a true sixth is to assume anticipation of the tonic during the lead-in.⁽¹⁹⁾ Such an interpretation could perhaps work for the initial appearance of the theme, but not in the repeat (where the passing during the lead-in does not appear on the beat).⁽²⁰⁾

[20] The basic problem of telling a sixth-progression from a combination of a fifth-progression and an additional step in the same direction can also arise in a diatonic context, as in Example 6 from the priests’s march in Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte.⁽²¹⁾

[21] In this case no interruption-fill occurs and, despite the melodic continuity, a precise point of interruption may be detected. This case is analogous to the more familiar descending melodic sixth from I , which embeds a fifth-progression (motion into an inner voice) from the ensuing V .⁽²²⁾ Even a chromatic context may include upper-voice melodic continuity across an interruption point that is nevertheless clear and unfilled. This requires a semitone between the upper-voice tones on both banks of the interruption, which is possible with an ascent to in minor, and also when the consequent (usually in parallel with the antecedent) starts with an intial ascent from . Consider Example 7, from the main theme of Mozarts Serenade K. 320 (Posthorn), iv (“Rondo”). In this theme, the melodic sixth that ascends across the interruption is divided differently from those encountered in the previous examples: it includes a third-progression from an inner voice (in fact, from one inner voice to another), a step with harmonic shift at the point of interruption, and another third-progression that forms the initial ascent of the consequent. The theme is saturated with chromatic embellishments (not all of them shown), especially in the antecedent. The scoring of this theme also supports both the division of the opening period into phrases and the continuity across that division: the soloist changes at the start of the consequent (oboe replaces flute), but the flute does play the first note of the consequent, overlapping with the oboe.

[22] The sense of continuous ascent across the interruption may be intensified if the pre-interruption chromaticism occupies more than mere motion from an inner voice. It is magnified indeed in Example 8, from Valse-Impromptu op. 15 no. 6 by Widor. This is a free and unaccompanied retransition in an otherwise fairly square piece. The ascent begins in the bass and encompasses more than three octaves; in its final portion every chromatic step is itself embellished. Theoretically, however, the final half-tone before the regaining of the tonic is the only one to occupy the non-normative position of interruption-fill. Some local embellishments of the chromatic passing tones are also unclear.⁽²³⁾

[23] Further ramifications of the interruption-fill before occur when the consequent takes place an octave above the antecedent. The shift of register emphasizes the division between the phrases, and the chromatic lead-in that usually compensates for that division must choose between the register of the antecedent and that of the consequent (unless it encompasses a ninth, see Example 24 below). Examples 9–10 show both possibilities from two Chopin pieces. In Example 9, from the Poco più lento middle section of Nocturne op. 48 no. 1, the lead-in occurs before the shift of register, and leads to the lower doubling of the regained .⁽²⁴⁾ By contrast, in Mazurka op. 56 no. 3 (Example 10), the is grouped with the consequent, not only due to its register but also because it is separated from its diatonic source by an ascending fourth-progression that serves as motion into an inner voice.⁽²⁵⁾

[24] In our last example with primary tone (Example 11), again from a Chopin Nocturne, the peculiar aspect relates to the lack of synchronization between outer voices at the location of the interruption proper. Over a tonic pedal point, the bass of the pre-interruption V only arrives at the moment of the interruption-fill chromatic motion. Thus, the normative pre-interruption V and never sound simultaneously.

Upper-Voice Interruption-Fills with Primary Tone

[25] Example 12 shows the basic formula of an upper-voice interruption-fill before reestablishment of , as realized in the theme of Beethoven’s Piano Variations op. 34. In my experience, this is the most common kind of interruption-fill, and has become a true cliché.⁽²⁶⁾ It is interesting to follow the treatment of the interruption-fill in the Variations. Variations nos. 2 and 5 omit it, no. 4 replaces it with a diatonic anticipation of , and no. 6 preserves it with an 8–7 counterpoint in the bass, whereas nos. 1 and 3 intensify it by means of parallel tenths. The following voice arrives at – , as in interruption-fills before regaining the .

[26] The – interruption-fill has room for more passing motion than that whose goal is . The passing motion moves via , which creates theoretical problems as a lead-in, even in its diatonic form: as the seventh of V, it must resolve downwards, but such a resolution would contradict the sense of interruption. In Free Composition, Schenker (1979 [1935/1956]) demonstrates this situation in both Fig. 23 and Fig. 32,7. Unfortunately, however, both graphs combine contradicting interpretations. My Example 13 attempts to separate them.

[27] If the seventh is a true upper neighbor (Example 13a), the interruption is cancelled altogether. By contrast, if the interruption structure prevails (Example 13b), the pre-interruption seventh is disconnected from its resolution. A better explanation (Example 13c, after Fig. 23 in Free Composition) regards the seventh as a passing tone from a cover tone that accompanies the pre-interruption . This reading involves a descending interruption-fill.⁽²⁷⁾

[28] The resolution of the seventh of V at the interruption-fill into makes it more apt with the regained primary tone . With primary tone , a paradox emerges (Example 13d): the seventh might be said to resolve into in an inner voice, yet the drive of the melodic ascent during the V – interruption-fill goes upwards. In any case, an unequivocal ascending interruption-fill toward arises when the lead-in continues to ascend past via . Such lead-ins may occur not only in interruption-structures from , but also when the goal serves as a cover tone or when the descent from the true primary tone only occurs in the consequent. The differences between these configurations do not