The author does not find it possible at present to agree with all the recommendations made in the above report, but the summary is printed in full for the sake of completeness.
The Music Teacher's National Association has also interested itself mildly in the subject of terminology reform, and at its meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1908, Professor Waldo S. Pratt gave his address as president of the Association on the subject "System and Precision in Musical Speech." This address interested the members of the Association to such an extent that Professor Pratt was asked to act as a committee whose purpose it should be to look into the matter of reforms necessary in music terminology and report at a later session. In 1910 Professor Pratt read a report in which he advocated the idea of making some changes in music nomenclature, but took the ground that the subject is too comprehensive to be mastered in the short time that can be given to it by a committee, and that it is therefore impossible to recommend specific changes. He also took occasion to remark that one difficulty in the whole matter of terminology is that many terms and expressions are used colloquially and that such use although usually not scientific, is often not distinctly harmful and is not of sufficient importance to cause undue excitement on the part of reformers. Quoting from the report at this point:—"A great deal of confusion is more apparent than real between note and tone, between step and degree, between key and tonality. No practical harm is done by speaking of the first note of a piece when really first tone would be more accurate. To say that a piece is written in the key of B♭ is more convenient than to say that it is written in the tonality of which B♭ is the tonic. The truth is that some of the niceties of expression upon which insistence is occasionally laid are merely fussy, not because they have not some sort of reason, but because they fail to take into account the practical difference between colloquial or off-hand speech and the diction of a scientific treatise. This is said without forgetting that colloquialism always needs watching and that some people form the habit of being careless or positively uncouth as if it were a mark of high artistic genius."
Professor Pratt's report is thus seen to be philosophic rather than constructive, and terminology reform will undoubtedly make more immediate progress through the efforts of the N.E.A. Committee with its specific recommendations (even though these are sometimes admittedly fussy) than through the policy of the M.T.N.A. of waiting for some one to get time to take up the subject in a scholarly way. Nevertheless the philosophic view is sometimes badly needed, especially when the spirit of reform becomes too rabid and attaches too great importance to trifles. A judicious intermingling of the two committees in a series of joint meetings would undoubtedly result in mutual helpfulness, and possibly also in a more tangible and convincing statement of principles than has yet been formulated by either.
APPENDIX E
Sonata Op. 31, No. 3 by Beethoven
Analysis by Arthur E. Heacox,
Oberlin Conservatory of Music
Transcriber's Note: The original book contains only the first movement of the sonata. Click on the "Enlarge" link below each page image to view a larger version of that page. To listen to the music, click [here].
First Subject 17 measures, E♭ major, as follows: 8 meas. presentation, one meas. link, 8 meas. repetition oct. higher. Rhythmic elements are A, B, C, all presented in first 8 meas.