Analyzing Unruly Themes

Classical Form (1998) and Clemens Khn's Formenlehre der Musik (1987) provide an instructive comparison for understanding the differences between Anglophone and German-language Formenlehre in the twentieth century.By focusing on the ways that these two theorists-both seemingly in response to their teacher, Carl Dahlhaus, and his "Satz und Periode" (1978c)-account for themes that are not obviously either periods or sentences, I illustrate how their theoretical apparatus reflects their geographical and academic contexts.Caplin's theories of thematic hybrids and compound themes demonstrate a rigorous approach to these unruly themes, showing how they are logically constructed out of phrases normally associated with either the period or sentence theme types.Khn's earlier theory of thematic Mischungen (mixtures) seeks to accommodate a flexible analytical practice, using periodic balance and sentential energy as heuristics for the analysis of novel themes.By triangulating among Caplin, Khn, and Dahlhaus, I unpack the differences and controversies between the concepts of thematic hybridity and Mischung.I argue that the two theories reflect and reveal stark contrasts between Caplin's and Khn's temporal Formenlehre frameworks as well as their overall theoretical attitudes.The article concludes with a consideration of some Romantic themes using a mixture of Caplin's and Khn's techniques.