The Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions

Abstract

The article examines notions traditionally attached to the concept of cadence in general, retains those features finding genuine expression in "the classical style" (as defined by the instrumental works of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven), and investigates problematic ideas that have the potential of producing theoretical and analytical confusion. It is argued that cadence effects formal closure only at middle-ground levels of structure; a cadential progression is highly constrained in its harmonic content; cadential function precedes the moment of cadential arrival, whereas the music following this arrival may be postcadential in function; cadential content must be distinguished from cadential function; cadence represents a formal end, not a rhythmic or textural stop; and cadential strength can be distinguished in its syntactical and rhetorical aspects. An analysis of selected musical passages demonstrates that an accurate identification of cadence has a major impact on the interpretation of musical form and phrase structure.

Perceiving the Classical Cadence

“…As a result, the question as to whether listeners can perceive tonal closure across global time spans has received a great deal of attention in the scholarly community (Cook, 1987;Gjerdingen, 1999;Marvin, 1999;Spitzer, 2000). However, the degree to which cadences and other ending patterns may close entire formal sections (e.g., a sonata-form exposition)-a claim frequently made by music theorists (see Caplin, 2004, pp. 60-61)-was not examined in the present study.…”

“…It is also important to note that every excerpt in this study contained a cadential progression-a functional harmonic progression that precedes (and includes) the goal harmony (Caplin, 2004). Consequently, the cadential categories in this stimulus set differ from one another primarily as a result of the pitch content located at the moment of cadential arrival (or, in the case of the evaded cadences, the moment of anticipated arrival).…”

“…The classical cadence perhaps best exemplifies this point, as it is a foundational concept in the Formenlehre tradition, and it continues to receive attention and undergo refinement in the scholarly community (for a review of theories of form in the history of music theory, see Burnham, 2002). Indeed, the revival of interest in theories of musical form over the last few decades has prompted a number of studies that reconsider previously accepted explanations of how composers articulate cadences in the classical period (Caplin, 2004), that classify instances in which cadential arrival fails to materialize (Caplin, 1998, pp. 101-11;Hatten 1992;Hepokoski & Darcy, 2006, pp.…”

“…), and those cadences for which the goal of the progression is dominant (e.g., half cadences). Moreover, whereas a number of parameters may contribute to the identification and categorization of cadences and other ending formulae, theorists attend principally to melody and harmony, often referred to as among the syntactic parameters of tonal music (Agawu, 1987;Caplin, 2004;Meyer, 1989). Figure 2 provides examples from Mozart's keyboard sonatas for the five most common cadential categories: perfect authentic (PAC), imperfect authentic (IAC), half (HC), deceptive (DC), and evaded (EV).…”

“…Indeed, whereas theorists attend principally to the syntactic parameters of tonal music, in compositional practice each cadence may be realized in nearly countless ways, entailing parameters of rhythm, meter, texture, and instrumentation. Thus, cadences also differ as a result of their unique nonsyntactic or rhetorical content (Agawu, 1987;Caplin, 2004), an issue that has not been considered in an experimental setting. In Mozart's keyboard style, for example, cadences may also be characterized according to the formal context from which they were drawn (e.g., main theme, transition, subordinate theme, etc.)…”