Fluctuating Tonality and Monotonality in Schoenberg’s Op. 6, No. 8 “Der Wanderer”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Briefly yet tantalizingly outlined in his Theory of Harmony, interpretation of Schoenberg’s concept of fluctuating tonality has proved fruitful in the discussion of his late tonal repertoire, leading to scholarship such as Christopher Lewis’s 1987 article “Mirrors and Metaphors: Reflections on Schoenberg and Nineteenth-Century Tonality.” In this paper, I review Schoenberg’s descriptions of fluctuating tonality and of monotonality, and examine the interaction between these concepts through a close reading of Schoenberg’s “Der Wanderer” (Op. 6, no. 8). The analysis features adapted Schenkerian methods used in conjunction with traditional Roman numeral and root/quality analysis. Rather than suggesting a background principle of paired tonics as argued by Lewis in his analysis of “Traumleben” and “Lockung” (Op. 6, no.1 and no. 7), I interpret fluctuating tonality as a surface- to middleground-level phenomenon that can obscure the tonality of a composition that ultimately remains monotonal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".