Talk:Schenkerian analysis

Edits

Schenkerian Analysis bears more than one notable resemblance to Freudian Analysis, considered as a cultural phenomenon. First Schenker was Viennese and Jewish, like Sigmund Freud, and second, like Freud he held a view that behind or beneath the surface, deeper layers of structure exist, which may be revealed by analysis. Third, the ideas of both men successfully exported to the United States for reasons partly to do with Nazism, but also because perhaps of a less conservative intellectual attitude (I write from the UK, BTW).

When I was first introduced to Schenkerian Analysis, I couldn't believe how bizarre the basic Ursatz seemed, but after even a little study I found that the technique is capable of offering to address the powerful feeling of unity that exists in great works of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Austro-German art music in particular. At grammar school our lessons in music theory could help to explain how the surface variety in say Beethoven piano sonatas could have been concieved by the composer. But how did the music sound so unified with so much variety? Well, if there is a heirarchical, architectonic structure, which can be clearly represented in graphical form, at least the possibility of an explanation presents itself.

In the UK of course the ideas of Donald Francis Tovey have long held sway, and the sort of "analysis" you read in concert programmes or hear on the BBC is usually no better. A sort of half-baked rhetorical metaphor - you hear the music described as an "essay" or and "argument", and this without a nod to any justification of this stretched comparison. Schenker provided for me a refreshing alternative that recognised a deep structure, and took and approach which started from scratch as it were, and didn't borrow from a banal schoolmasterly approach to the study of classical literature.

The major drawback of Schenker's ideas is obviously that they can probably be applied only to tonal music, and not all of that. His concept that the techniques could be used to tell the difference between Good and Bad music would retain little currency today. The mere fact that the Second Viennese school was emerging around the time of Schenker's writings would be enough, and for a listener (like me) to a wide variety of "musics" (I would prefer "music"), the dominance of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms (whose music I certainly love passionately) is just not there. Not all music is great music, but Schenker's analysis cannot even start on plainsong, Stockhausen, Coltrane or gamalan.

Noam Chomsky's ideas of deep structure in human language now face very little credible opposing argument (I believe), and this is consistent with contemporary ideas of evolutionary biology. Surely the purported deep structure beneath the surface features of actual hum languages must ultimately have a genetic basic or connection. Academic study can still often remain siloed into separate disciplines, and a connection between adaptive evolution, psychoacoustics and (post-)Schenkerian analysis seems woefully underexplored.

Simon Christopher Buck 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of going off topic:

The general idea that there's deep structure in human language is of course non-controversial, but if you get more specific than that, people have tried for decades to pin down exactly what Chomsky was saying in his theories, and he isn't very consistent about it.

Chomsky invented context-free grammars - the formal languages of theoretical computer science - thinking he was inventing a way to describe human language, but we know that human language is not context-free now. He also says (it would seem -- at least his followers say this) that we are born with grammatical rules hardwired in our brain, which is widely believed outside the field of linguistics but very controversial within it. He never tested any of his statements with scientific tests, only thought experiments, so I consider his contributions to theoretical CS to have much more merit than his hypotheses about linguistics.

But if you're just referring to the recursive structure of grammar - which Chomsky drew attention to more than anyone else - then yes, that's non-controversial.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some edits on the section of the article about the symbolic notation to make it more accurate and complete. I would like to do more work on the article. I'm working on a dissertation on Schenker theory, so I'm fairly well versed on the topic.

Jason D Yust 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just rewrote the intro and intended to save the text of the old one which I did away with, but I accidentally lost it. It had some interesting things in it but gave a very misleading impression as an introduction. At some point we should include some off-shoots of Schenkerism like Lerdahl-Jackendoff, Narmour etc. but that should go in its own section near the end.

Jason D Yust 20:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All previous versions of a page are saved under "history", so there's no need to worry about (permanently) losing the text of previous versions. Nevertheless, I was wondering whether you could elaborate on why you found the previous intro to be misleading. As it happens, I have some issues with the new intro myself, so we should probably discuss this further. I am, of course, very happy to see the new work on the article.

Komponisto 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can tell, I'm new to the editing process, but I'm gradually getting the hang of it. To answer your question: one sorce of discomfort for me in the previous version of the intro is using the word "generative" to describe Schenkerian analysis at the outset. The implied reference to structural linguistics is inaccurate from an orthodox Schenkerian viewpoint, because it suggests that the prolongational techniques of Schenkerian analysis behave like formal rules, and form a complete system for analysis. Although the idea of using Schenker's ideas to define such formal systems is interesting and has been pursued by a number of theorists (Lerdahl, Kassler, Smoliar, Rahn, etc), Schenkerian analysis itself is not so rigorously defined. (And according to many prominent Schenkerians such as Schachter—I'm not saying I completely agree with them!—it is neither possible nor desireable to define an accurate generative grammar of tonal composition).

I also was bothered by the statement "Schenkerian analysis (and, more broadly, much of music theory) could be thought of as a kind of first-person psychology, cognitive science, or phenomenology". Not that it isn't true; it is interesting to think of it this way. But placed as it was prominently in the introduction, I feel it would give a very misleading impression to the naive reader. I don't think its an overstatement to say that the mainstream of American Schenkerianism (to say nothing of Schenker himself) is actively hostile to the application of cognitive science and psychology to music theory. These connections have their place in the article, just not in the introduction.

I think that most of the other content of the previous introduction is preserved though reworded: the subjective nature of the method, the idea of reduction and elaboration, and the mention of a specialized vocabulary and notational system.

I'm interested to hear your issues with the new version of the introduction. I'm sure that it can be improved.

Jason D Yust 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Before addressing the current intro specifically (which I'll do soon), allow me first to respond to your concerns about the previous intro.

The word "generative" was not actually intended as an allusion to linguistics--the word, after all, existed long before linguists adopted it for their purposes. Rather, it was meant to be taken at face value: Schenkerian analysis is concerned not merely with attributing hierarchical relationships to musical events, but also with describing how (that is, in terms of what process, or "operation") the subordinate events are obtained (i.e. "generated") from the superordinate events, thereby yielding a description of the roles played by the notes of a piece. Thus we have that some notes are neighbors, others are passing tones, etc. Although some of these ideas were around in rudimentary form long before Schenker, it seems clear to me that the idea of analyzing a work in this systematic (if not always precise) manner, with the goal of attributing at least one specific role or function to every note in a piece, is Schenker's principal claim to fame; this is why such a characterization of Schenker's theory was included in the introduction. (It should be noted that, to the extent that such an approach parallels the methodology of linguistics, it was Schenker who came up with the idea first, in the context of musical theory, even if the "discovery" of this method in linguistics was arrived at independently.)

I think this kind of introductory description is more suitable for an encyclopedia article than, say, one that is laden with music-theoretical terminology, because, unlike the latter, it abstracts the fundamental essence of Schenker's innovation out of its particular context, puts it into precise, discipline-neutral language, and allows Schenkerian theory to immediately be placed in a broader intellectual context. The philosophy I am invoking here is one that holds that introductions should convey as much information as possible while being concise--in other words that they should use abstract language, insofar as comprehensibility permits. The revolutionary nature of Schenker's contributions (which, among other things, renders them potentially interesting to people outside of music) makes the case for this type of treatment even more compelling. (I do not mean to imply that the current intro is completely unsatisfactory in this way; but I think in the previous version these considerations played a larger role. As I mentioned, I'll say more on the current intro at a later time.)

The issue of whether mainstream (or orthodox) Schenkerians would be hostile to the description of music theory as psychology etc. is a tricky one that probably depends on what one means by words like "mainstream". To dodge this issue I was careful to define what I meant when applying controversial characterizations, with the aim of reducing any controversy to one about the choice of words. Thus, when I characterized Schenkerian theory as "generative", I immediately specified what I meant: "Schenker understood musical compositions as complex elaborations of basic musical formulae", which I think is indisputable. If you think "generative" ought to mean something different, that's a separate (and less important) issue. Likewise, when I wrote that music theory could be thought of as psychology or phenomenology, I implied (or at least meant to imply) that its concern with "the explicit description and explanation of musical effects" was sufficient to yield this characterization. I think most Schenker experts would agree that Schenkerian theory is "concerned with the explicit description and explanation of musical effects", whether or not "cultural" considerations permit them to approve of my labeling this as "cognitive science". I did, however, think it important to point out that such labels could very reasonably be applied--in fact some very important musicians (possessing intimate acquaintance with Schenker's concepts in their original context), such as Milton Babbitt and Peter Westergaard, would happily do so. Their point of view, unfortunately, is little acknowledged on Wikipedia at present. Komponisto 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "complex elaborations of basic musical formulae" is accurate. I'll try to rework the intro again to bring this out more prominently, and maybe see if I can avoid some of the jargon. I still think avoiding the word generative is a good idea: the pre-Chomsky sense of the term is "capable of reproducing," which doesn't quite make sense. It is true that the word has been used for many things other than the generative grammar since the 50's, but it always has retained the sense of self-generating or generation by formula, which better characterizes the Lerdahl/Jackendoff theory than Schenkerian theory (and it is this aspect of GTTM that raised the hair of many orthodox Schenkerians, though L/J do not regard their theory as Schenkerian).

I hoped that my paragraph on the subjective nature of Schenkerian analysis would replace the idea of "first-person psychology." I understand what you mean by this, but I think "psychology" and especially "cognitive science" are words to avoid here just because of the unwanted associations. As for "the explicit description and explanation of musical effects," I'm not quite sure what this means. Schenkerian analysis, like all musical analysis, tries to describe and explain music. It's unclear to me what "music effects" means beyond "music."

I like the idea of including Milton Babbit! Maybe I'll look for a good quote in his review of Forte's "Schenkeresque" _Contemporary Tone Structures_ in the Musical Quarterly.

Jason D Yust 15:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made a few minor edits to further clarify certain definitions for the uninitiated - only a few minor things, V = dominant key area, etc. --207.38.220.42 19:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite begun

To address the concerns I mentioned below, I have started rewriting the article. My intention is to gradually replace the previous text in order not to delete any factual information. This will undoubtedly result (temporarily) in awkward transitions and quasi-incoherent writing, so the cleanup tag will continue to be appropriate.

Also, I plan to add more citations, but this may take some time. --Komponisto 09:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing I should mention is that I am by no means committed to the current organization of the article (indeed I plan to change it at some point in the process if nobody else does), so if someone knowledgeable wants to improve this aspect, they should jump right in as with everything else. --Komponisto 12:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my current proposal for a table of contents (large sections may need to be expanded into main articles):

1. Outline of Schenkerian theory

1.1 Foundations

1.1.1 Schenker's fundamental aims

1.1.2 Harmony

1.1.3 Counterpoint

1.1.4 Principle of repetition

1.2. Types of elaborations

1.2.1 Arpeggiation

1.2.2 Linear progressions

1.2.3 Neighbors

1.3. Structural levels and the Ursatz

1.3.1 The concept of structural levels

1.3.2 Ursatz forms

1.3.3 Immediate elaborations of the Ursatz

1.3.4 "Later" levels of structure

2. Examples of Schenkerian analyses

3. Reception of Schenkerian theory

3.1 Schenker's own time

3.2 Postwar United States and Britain

3.2.1 Differences of goals and methodolgy

3.2.2 Further development and extension

3.2.3 Criticism

3.3 Postwar Europe and elsewhere

--Komponisto 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started adding sections to the article, roughly following this outline, which I like. I began with "Schenker's Goals" which sets up a discussion of the Ursatz and Schenker's many prolongational techniques.

Jason D Yust 21:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Schenker's Harmony" is now complete, although more citations may be in order (also for "Schenker's goals") Eventually these sections should be more organized and we could include more internal links for terms such as "background" and "prolongation".

Jason D Yust 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs serious attention

This article has several major problems (in addition to style issues):

(1) The second sentence, "It reduces all tonal music from [sic; should be "to"] a simple progression based on the tonic triad..." is at best vague, at worst grossly misleading. The main problem is that it's not clear what is meant by "reduces". The first few sentences really ought to be something like:

brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca: I think "reduces" in this context means that analysis tries to describe a work. Perhaps it can be put this way: "It describes all tonal music as a progression based on the tonic triad." Remove the quotation marks. 216.234.170.108 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the meaning of "reduce" [1], it is not the same as "describe" [2]. I think we should choose our words as carefully as possible, because (1) it's the right thing to do anyway, (2) this is a reference source, and (3) this subject (music in general, and Schenkerian theory in particular) has already suffered a great deal from verbal carelessness. Of course, the last is certainly my own opinion, but (1) and (2) should be good enough reasons for anyone. --Komponisto 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The best word choice here for "reduce/describe" is "explain/rationalize," (though "describe" is also fine) as the binary we are dealing with in Schenkerian analysis is construction v. analysis. "Reduce" implies construction - alteration of the existing music, and as "Analysis" is contained within the practice's title, one should choose words that reflect analysis, not construction. Words such as "explain/describe/rationalize" all approach from an analytical perspective, not one of construction. --Stewie3128 09:29, 01 December 2006 (PST)

"Schenkerian analysis refers to a method of musical analysis based on the ideas of Heinrich Schenker. In general, this approach is characterized by its generative view of a musical work: Schenker understood complex musical structures in terms of successive elaborations of simpler musical structures. A Schenkerian analyst thus typically seeks to "reverse engineer" a composition by "revealing" the successive layers of elaboration. However, it is important to note that the object of study in Schenkerian analysis is the listener's understanding of a work's structure, not the compositional history of the piece."

This needs some refinement, but already it would be a much better introduction. Incidentally, I don't even think it's appropriate to mention the specific Ursatz forms until further down in the body of the article.

(2) Problem (1) is compounded by the fact that the article later contradicts itself:

"While contemporary authors such as Forte and Beach mistakenly[!] present Schenker's analysis as a process of 'reduction'..."

brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: If Shenkerian analysis isn't invertible. In other words, if the description that it yields doesn't provide enough information to construct the original work, then it is a reduction. 216.234.170.108 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the old version of the article started out by claiming that Schenkerian analysis was about reduction, and then later proceeded to declare that view (as attributed to Forte and Beach) "mistaken". There was clearly a contradiction in the text of the article. If something different was meant, then it should have been stated explicitly. --Komponisto 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet the second sentence claimed that "reduction" was exactly the essence of Schenkerian analysis! Does the article wish to make the claim that this is a way in which "Schenkerian analysis" differs from "Schenker's [own] analysis"? It shouldn't be making such a claim in this context, but if it that was the intention of the author, considerably more exposition is required here.

(3) No work of Heinrich Schenker himself is cited anywhere(!) in the article.

brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: Sprechen Sie Deutsche? 216.234.170.108 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough to know that it's "Sprechen Sie Deutsch?" (no "-e"). Yes, I missed the passing reference to Der Freie Satz. You got me. --Komponisto 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(4) The article on Carl Schachter claims that Schachter is "renowned as arguably the most influential Schenkerian analyst since Schenker himself". Whatever one thinks of this claim, it seems clear to me that Schachter is sufficiently important in the field of Schenkerian analysis for his ideas on the subject to inform the article. The same goes for other prominent Schenker experts who receive little or no mention. As it stands, the article does not seem to reflect expert understanding of the subject.

(5) Some of the sources that are cited are odd (e.g. the Middleton book on popular music - not exactly the first source that comes to mind for information on Schenkerian matters, which are mostly concerned with the "serious" or "classical" musical tradition).

brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: The subject is obscure, so I don't think that's a problem, unless you can't find them and you really need them. 216.234.170.108 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it isn't obscure at all. It has been a major field of research for several decades now. Check Grove if you need confirmation of this. An encyclopedia article on Schenkerian theory should be based primarily on sources specifically devoted to Schenkerian theory. --Komponisto 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(6) Generally speaking, the article is severely incomplete. Schenkerian theory is a huge field, with a large literature and a plethora of specialized concepts and terminology. It has also generated intensive and extensive controversy. It should be the subject of a series of related articles, to say nothing of a much expanded main article. --Komponisto 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

brewhaha@ecn.ab.ca: I think your proposed table of contents is about as detailed as I might want an encyclopedia to get. The new terms might already be around, begging for articles to use them. 216.234.170.108 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading

I added Peter Westergaard's book An Introduction to Tonal Theory to the bibliography, under "Expansions". Of course it could also have gone under "Pedagogical", as it's in the intersection of these categories, but I'm hesitant to list it twice. Any thoughts? --Komponisto 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Having added that annotation to the book [Forte, Allen and Golbert, Steven E. (1982). Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis, Hyacinth 21:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)] listed in "Further reading" I feel the need to also annotate that so far (p.40) the book is very dry, and its content resembles classroom lectures, vaguely explaining concepts while declaring their utmost importance. Hyacinth 21:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean the Forte/Golbert? The Narmour is entertaining at least, though sometimes annoyingly polemical. Komar's a good writer (he was my advisor for years ... oy... ) Antandrus 03:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. [3] Hyacinth 21:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: "The Narmour is entertaining at least, though sometimes annoyingly polemical."

As opposed to what?... Schenker's style? Schenkerians are either polemic or cryptopolemic. Haven't you read their stuff?

-Josh Broyles

I guess my basis of comparison were Middleton and Maus, and Maus makes interesting comparisons. Hyacinth 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the unqualifying tone of Narmour is, in a way, like Schenker. Narmour, though, benefits historically from have more to consider and more opportunity in which to consider it. In the later books, Narmour is able to become even more assertive, owing to a mountain of very credible sources he can cite in order to pass the credibility buck. He's like the Jared Diamond of melodic cognition modeling. - Josh Broyles

my first contribution to Wikipedia is...

1. "Schenkerian analysis is an approach to musical analysis devised by Heinrich Schenker. It generates all tonal music from a simple progression based on the tonic triad which in its simplest form is:"

The approach, in and of itself, doesn't generate ANY music, tonal or otherwise. The approach is intended to explain all tonal music AS IF generated from said progression. Schenker was actually explicit about not claiming to reveal compositional chronology, and even said that his theories should not be used for composing. Thus, if one is using Schenker's approach to generate actual music, one is not using Schenker's approach.

2. "Schenker came to understand every tonal work to be an embellishment of an Ursatz,"

'Came to understand' is a term I think is too close to 'discovered that'. One can arguably 'come to understand' anything as being anything, so I respectfully submit that the use of the term 'came to understand', as used here, is intended to mean something more than this. Why not simply say what is meant by it?

3. "giving precision to the claim that a tonal work unfolds in a particular triad or key."

This does not merely clarify the claim, but modifies it. Claiming that the outcome of World War I resulted from a conspiracy of Jewish bankers 'gives precision to' the claim that it resulted from a failure of some bankers to do what was expected or demanded of them.

4. "Schenker defined tonal music as that of the masterpieces of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. According to Allen Forte, "Schenker's major concept is not that of the Ursatz, as it is sometimes maintained, but that of structural levels, a far more inclusive idea." Schenker called these levels Schichten. He called only the Ursatz background or Hintergrund and he called the foreground Vordergrund. (Beach 1983)"

This is a good quotation, but Schenker did not invent the concept of structural levels; he merely showed one way of conceiving of them and constructed a graphic system which would pursue and exhaust a set of assumptions about structural level to graphic completion, which had not been done before. Also, the nature of the 'structure' is never clearly defined by Schenker as compositional, audio-cognitive or mere graphic pattern recognition. Schenker scholars tend to treat these things as if they are interchangeable. If they were interchangeable in the real world, though, there would be no use for music analysis to begin with.

5. "Milton Babbitt admired Schenker's work and his own work may be seen as part response, revision, and alternative to Schenker's. For example, he suggests that the properties described as natural phenomenon by Schenker be considered axioms and he also formulated a system to compose twelve-tone music that was "'equally intricate and fruitful.'"

'Phenomena', not 'phenomenon'. Good use of quotation marks on "equally intricate and fruitful".

6. "Allen Forte also responded to Schenker by providing an alternative system applicable to the analysis of nontonal nontwelve tone music. (ibid, p.162-163)"

This much implies patent similarity in the ontological underpinnings of Schenker's and Forte's approaches to the respective repertories. This is a methodoligically dangerous implication. That is: because in neither case is the thing purported to be modeled ever clearly defined, it may be convenient to assume that these two things modeled are the same. While my own opinion is not all that matters here, please allow me to assert, for the record, my own belief: A) that the thing best modeled by Schenkerian models is actually just the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance and B) that Forte's analyses are all but explicitly models either of compositional technique or of the application of specific quantifiable compositional constraints, as applied to specific works or bodies of work. 'Quantifiable' is important here; Schenker's numbers are mere ordinal taxonomy, whereas Forte's numbers have broad-reaching arithmetic significance. Moreover, whether or not one agrees with my specific assessment of the things modeled, it is completely clear that the use of numbers is different; that the numbers are used to approach essentially different properties of the things numbered (and this is not one of the stronger points to be made on this specific issue, but only the easiest one to make here without importing any graphics).

7. "Narmour, Eugene (1977). Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press."

How would everyone feel about another article, just on Narmour?

It might save me the trouble of knocking over the whole Schenkerian house of cards on the actual Sckenker page.

- Josh Broyles

1. I changed "generates" back to "reduces". Do you know the explination for how all tonal works are reducible to a single entity though never generated from it?

Absolutely: the reduction, itself, literally presupposes that the works are generated by the thing to which they are reduced. We can reduce a pig to sausage, but this by no means proves conclusively that all pigs are generated by sausage. Thanks for the change.

2. It would seem that "came to understand" means only that he developed his theories over time. Perhaps "came to describe" would be better.

That works for me. Good Wikipedians will, of course, find something even better, eventually.

3.Replaced with "making the claim that a tonal work unfolds in a particular triad or key more specific".

Excellent!

4. I don't think the quote or other text implies that he invented the concept of structural levels. Do you have information about earlier conceptions you could add?

I'll find some. I'm not at university anymore, but I still have my notes. If I recall correctly, much of what has been shown of influences on Schenker wasn't well disseminated until AFTER the quote in question was published. Please feel free to keep on me about this.

5. No comment.

6. I'm don't think "alternative" implies that degree of similarity, but I guess Maus was willing to take that risk. Please feel free to find a source which disagrees.

I don't at all mean to suggest that I could have written a better article than Maus. I'm more of an editor/cynic than a writer.

Maus may be unaware of some important pedagogical contexts to which the article will presumably be applied by readers. Moreover, the periodicals section of any good university music library presents MANY graphic examples(with accompanying text) that are at once Fortean and Schenkerian. Forte's own work is actually less Schenkerian-looking than that of many of his more Schenkerian adherents. I have seen a significant amount of insightful Fortean or quasi-Fortean analysis of works comparably amenable to Schenkerian graphic methods, but I'm unaware of any of it being broadly published. I've always thought that applying Schenker to non-tonal music was something like the reverse of talking about 'T5 operations in Monteverdi'. Please don't conclude that I'd like to see an immediate closure on the matter of the implication that has drawn my concern. It's a comparatively minor point for me to make in regard to the specific article, and I'm just happy that I'm being allowed to take part in a process whereby collective expertise and authority gradually improves things.

I still don't see how "alternative" rather than meaning different somehow implies similarity. Also, this is also used in reference to Babbitt. Hyacinth 23:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

7. An article on Narmour or his work?

Hyacinth 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Narmour as such, only his work. Narmour has been said to have softened his criticism of Schenker in recent years, but the book is sadly mostly unread by precisely the people who ought to be defending Schenker against it rather than dismissing it with a laugh (as they often do). Even more sadly, Narmour remains better known for 'hating Schenker' than for exposing an important series of ontological problems which Schenkerians have thus far declined to confront in earnest. Still more sad is the fact that all of this continues to overshadow and scare people away from Narmour's later books, The Analysis and Cognition of Basic Melodic Structures, and The Analysis and Cognition of Melodic Complexity, which expound a coherent system of analytic principles and devices objectively rooted for the most part in hard scientific research. Narmour's analyses are graphically daunting, but they tend to get right to the point; he more-or-less takes the top off of the average listener's skull to show you the gears going around while the piece is being listened to. People who prefer never to define what they are modeling will only tend to find this idea more disturbing than I have made it sound here, so Schenkerians have done a lot to further discourage the reading of these later books, on top of the basic challenge they present to readers in terms of being precise and thorough, rather than 'readable'.

-Josh Broyles

Sounds like an article or articles on his theories and methods would be great. See: Help:Starting a new page. Hyacinth 23:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put in a stub at some point and wait for the Schenker flames to burn off of it before getting down to business.

-Josh Broyles

Continental reception

(2005/11/3) Has anyone considered to include some words about the fact that Schenker is practically unknown on the continent? "Schenkerianism" is - at most - considered to be complete rubbish, whereas students are mainly taught analysis of harmonic development after Riemann. Having read the Wikipedia article, though, especially the lines quoting Maus, I can certainly understand the unwillingness of some to simply take into account what is a major part of music analysis courses in English-speaking countries. Just in case you wonder: there is not even an article about Heinrich Schenker in the German Wikipedia version. Wicked, hm. User:Solobratscher

Wikipedia:Be bold!. Hyacinth 02:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pursuant to 'be bold', I might as well add that I have hypothesized the Schenkerization of North America to be explicable by two factors:

1)The prevailing pattern of emigration of Schenker disciples to North America, where they were automatically credited as having special Europeanish insight into European music and special authority as to how European music scholars were alleged to be advancing beyond the primitive analytic methods of the backwards ex-colonials struggling to establish themselves as relevant in the 'real world' of music academia (Europe, that is).

2)A perecived but generally unstated need to de-Nazify Germanic music in the minds of American music students in the postwar era. The Jewishness of Schenker remains seemingly indispensable to mention in any discussion of Schenker's orientation to the larger culture associated with the works he selected for analysis, and the spread of North American interest in Schenker is timed historically in such a way as to correspond with scholars of Germanic music possibly finding themselves feeling a bit defensive about their subject.

Here's an experiment:

Ask as many Schenkerians as possible these two questions:

1) Was Schenker Jewish?

2) How does the second tone of the Ursatz derive from the Klang?

The speed and accuracy of the answers you'll get will do a bit to show how Schenker's political importance compares to the importance of his contribution to clear analytical thinking.

-Josh Broyles

Regarding your hypotheses see Wikipedia:No original research. Regarding the questions, the speed and accuracy of those answers mostly illistrates the difference between the first, usually quite simple, question, and the second, quite complicated, question. Doesn't it seem possible that the theories and methods appealled to people? Hyacinth 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You can see why I'm not directly manipulating articles. There's plenty I still don't know about Wikipedia, but I usually learn things best by getting involved in a tangential manner, as I've done here. I trust you to ignore me as apporopriate and to filter my personality out of anything that you post.

If you care, the answer to the second question is just as simple as the answer to the first: the second tone of the Ursatz DOES NOT derive from the Klang.

Schenker never actually directly says that it does; he merely says that the Ursatz as a whole derives from the Klang. Being that the presence of this tone and its relation to the Klang are absolutely vital to the Ursatz, upon which the rest of the theroy and analytic techique is considered to stand, I should think that the derivation of the second tone would be the very first thing people would ask about in studying Schenker (as it was in my case, anyway). I can entertain competing hypotheses as to why the music theory community would be taking practically no interest in the second question (as it should seem to have infinitely more bearing on the meaning of the analyses than does the first question), but yours is the first such hypothesis with which I am yet confronted; the question is somehow more complicated.

It does seem possible that his theories and methods would have appealed to people, but their appeal must lie more in what is implied by them than by what they actually demonstrate, which is my ultimate point here. Astrology may also hold an appeal for astronomers, but the two fields don't tend to be freely intermingled by astronomers. Not everything that is worthy of study is worthy of belief.

Just more to consider, eh? I promise I'm ready to drop this for a while soon, and I appreciate your patience.

Thanks for reading!

-Josh Broyles

BTW: I'm not going to puke my MA thesis up on Wikipedia, but I did mine on the augmented triad, of all things. I'm probably not the best judge of what is 'original research' and what isn't, but I naturally (in addition to clear original research; listener conditioning experiments), did a lot of collection of what theorists had said about the augmented triad, from which an article on the Augmented triad could probably benefit. If a responsible Wikipedian wanted to look at the thesis...

-Josh

Josh and others,
This is a valuable article. Thanks for working so hard on it. I have a few suggestions:
(1) A section on Schenkerian Aesthetics might be a useful addition to the outline.
(2) Useful sources:
Leslie David Blasius, "Schenker's Argument and the Claims of Music Theory" (Cambridge)
Joseph N. Straus, "Remaking the Past: Tradition and Influence in Twentieth-Century Music" (Harvard)(list under post-tonal extensions)
Carl Schachter, "Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory & Analysis" (Oxford)
(3) The bibliography:
A bibliographic category such as "Tonal Applications" might be useful for the bibliography; the Schachter might go here.
In the biblio, "Summaries" might be retitled "Summaries and Criticism," so as to include a place for the Blasius.
(4) I'd put the Westergaard in the category "Pedagogical Works," since it's a textbook. (I was Westergaard's teaching assistant and was pleased to see it included.)
(5) The issue of Schenkerian analysis as generative or reductive is controversial enough, and the source of enough misunderstanding, that it might deserve its own section. Personally, I think that those who insist on Schenkerian analysis as reductive are excessively hung up on the "theory" part of the phrase "Schenkerian theory." With his analyses, Schenker sought to enhance the performance and understanding of music; his analytical technique is primarily a tool for that purpose. It is wrongheaded to be preoccupied with the mechanics of the graphic-analytical process to the exclusion of the musical insights that it is intended to uncover. Music theory as a whole is probably not "theory" as scientists understand it; this issue is addressed to some extent in Blasius's book and elsewhere.
Best,
Jeff Perry, School of Music, Louisiana State University) --Jperrylsu 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Schenker's explanation of the derivation of the second tone would have to be considered question begging---if you go to Schenker expecting a philosophically worked-out system. (Narmour's first book in effect criticizes Schenker for this, but it probably isn't fair in the sense that while Schenker comes on like a "great thinker," the value of his ideas lies in the fact that he was "only" a great musician.)

For what it is worth as a perception about music (and only that), Schenker's explanation of the second tone involves two separate processes: the harmonic unfolding of the bass and what has been translated by Oster as "diatony" in the upper voice. There is also the conceptual overlay of a dichotomy between what is derived from Nature and what the artist (the composer) does with it. This last is probably the source of the problem of reduction versus generation because Schenker thinks it is Nature that does the vertical (harmonic/synchronic) generating but the artist who does the horizontal (contrapuntal/diachronic) generating while at the same also doing something like reduction as well (what Oster translates as "aural flight."

This is something of a muddle, perhaps. But I don't think it is wrong. Rather, it is that the creation of a musical structure is much more complicated that most things we are used to talking about---compare the proverbial difficulty of the centipede in describing the motion of its legs.

One idea that I find helpful first appears in Schenker's Harmony, if I remember right. Tonality should be conceived as a system of relationships between tones, in which the whole network can be reproduced at each of its interstices. In other words, the whole set of relationships around the tonic can be reproduced around each scale step, a phenomenon usually translated as "tonicization." If the relationships among the tones of the scale are three-dimensional---it would be hard to chart them all in two dimensions, certainly---then this adds at least one dimension, putting us in a realm analogous to the hypercube.

The second tone of the Ursatz, then, in Schenker's view, is in part the result of Nature's generation of overtones and in part the result of the artist's elaboration of that by giving to the generated tone (V) its own set of overtones (^2). The artist does this both for the sake of the added complexity that tonicization makes possible, but also to allow the melodic passing connection between the tones of the tonic triad the same sort of stability those tones have.

There is, after all, no reason why the processes that go into the composition and apprehension of music have to be simple. Arthur Maisel, 10 December 2007

"Magnum opus" clarification request

1)

Schenker's magnum opus, Neue Musikalische spans...
from Harmonielehre ... to the posthumously published Der Freie Satz 

A "Magnum opus" that "spans" starts up a question of grammatic felicities. (More to the point, I don't understand the sentence....) Anyway, can you give discrete dates for these works? Is it "Neu Musicalishes ...." (published xxxx), a (synthesis?) (compendium?) of Harmonienlehre (pub xxxx), etc.

2)

...The organization of this work 

see above. If you are sticking with the one-work concept, (as in Whitman's Leaves of Grass, where individual sets of poems just kept getting accumulated into the same named item). If so, would it help if you just threw some quotes are "work," or change it to "these works"? "Magnum opus" can stay singular and no one will care, or kill "magnum opus" and change it to something else.

Best to all, Shlishke (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Further reading versus cited sources

This article needs to seperate the further reading from the cited sources to ease or allow verifiability. Hyacinth (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Schenker's Goals

I believe this section of the article is wrong and should be removed and/or rewritten. Schenker did not start out to prove that German musicians were greater than others. He began by seeking deeper answers to questions about music than were currently available. Even if he tried later on to prove the supposed superiority of German music, he himself admitted that this was not true because composers such as Chopin and Scarlatti were on a level with others. Non-Schenkerians are fond of highlighting this aspect of Schenker but in the overall span of his career, it's pretty unimportant. And if one argues that it's very nationalistic, it would be easier to find dozens of writers contemporaneous to World War I who were much more vociferous than Schenker in their nationalism. -- kosboot (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Post-Tonal Theory

I've removed the category of "Post-Tonal Music Theory". Though I am quite aware that people like Salzer and Travis have tried to extend Schenkerian analysis into 20th century works, Schenker himself wrote that the basis of his theory was the interaction of consonance and disssonance based on the tonic triad. One you take that way, everything falls apart. If wanted, perhaps someone could create a separate article on post-tonal applications (all of which traditional Schenkerians would find dubious, to say the least). -- kosboot (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Schenker's views

In general, I think whatever Schenker personally felt does not belong in this article, but belongs in the biographical article on Schenker. -- kosboot (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention

Why, what, where, and how does this article need attention from an expert and what sort of attention does it need? Hyacinth (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you're working on this article, there's a bunch of information in the article on Heinrich Schenker that is not biographical but belongs here. You might want to take a look. -- kosboot (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I"ve moved the materials from the biography of this article and totally rewrote the biographical article, based on Federhofer's book. This article (Schenkerian analysis) is pretty awful - it sounds like it was written by angry students. -- kosboot (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The nature of "the structure" and the question of what the model models (if anything in particular):

I'm still unable to determine how the nature of the structure is defined. I supppose it could be something like "the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance", but no one has said either that it is or that it isn't, or how what it is differs from that. I'm not going to fuss with the article on this point, but if there's any progress to be made, here, there, or elsewhere, I'm still very eager to see that happen. Please?

-Josh Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.38.39 (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The structure of what? (Please do what?) Hyacinth (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision of the article - January 2013

I began a major revision of the article, today up to the paragraph on "Harmony". I had to remove some notions that I did not consider Schenkerian properly speaking, but I kept as much of the existing paragraphs (and of their organization) as I considered feasible.

To go on with the revision would require deciding about the structure of the article and about the repartition between this one and other, more specialized ones (e.g. "Ursatz", "Urlinie", "Prolongation", etc.).

I think that this TALK page also would require reorganization, as it becomes difficult to find important suggestions (there are some, including that for a new table of contents) in the bulk of the comments below. It is for that reason that I add these lines on top of the page: I think that most of the comments from 2006 should be archived somewhere else or, at least, at the end of the page.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder: new additions to this page go at the bottom, not the top. You might want to take this entire section and put it at the bottom. -- kosboot (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What bothers me about this article (asides from its "disgruntled student" tone) is that there are few citations. Ideally, most statements should have a citations. The trouble with this topic is that it's difficult finding a succinct summary (with a neutral point of view) from which to provide citations. -- kosboot (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the main problem is that of citations. The fact is that Wikipedia is not the place to learn performing a Schenkerian analysis, which requires at least a textbook, and probably a class and a teacher. It is the purpose of the article that is problematic: it has to give an idea of what Schenkerian analysis is, without much possibility of actually teaching it. The purpose of the Wikipedia article precisely is to propose "a succinct summary with a neutral point of view", and as such is quite unique. The best citations, not the easiest ones but certainly the most authorized, for sure, would be Schenker's own. Yet will these serve the purpose? Will ordinary Wikipedia users try to know more on such basis? Music is a tricky topic, much more so, I believe, than some of the most tricky topics of exact sciences. This is why making sense of this article is such a challenge! -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hucbald, how familiar are you with Nicholas Cooke's account of Schenerian analysis, in Music Analysis? I think his views deserve at least some treatment (he's neither totally against nor totally for SA). Tony (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Nicholas Cook's Guide to Musical Analysis? I must say I am not particularly impressed; the book is more that twenty years old anyway. Also, I'd like to first address the technical aspects of Schenkerian analysis, leaving matters of reception or philosophy for later - or for others. But Cook's account of course should be quoted in the bibliography, as so many others. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote sections 3 (techniques of prolongation) and 4 (Elaboration of the Fundamental Structure), and I think I will stop here for a while. Many things remain to be done, e.g. adding a list of Schenker's major publications (especially if they are quoted in the text), adding references to the reference list (again, especially those quoted in the text), checking the internal and external links, etc. Also, pages linked to this one may need revision (see the page "Unfolding", for instance). Above all, I would appreciate critical readings, corrections, ameliorations, etc. It would be interesting to receive comments from members of the SMT, who had expressed concern for the quality of Wikipedia articles on music theory. And I do apologize to those who had revised the article before, if I did not take enough account of their work. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "I think that most of the comments from 2006 should be archived somewhere else"

Of course. That would be immensely helpful in preventing more Schenkerians from ever being accidentally faced with the possibility of pulling that little thread that just might make everything unravel. I'll find your suggestion a lot less suspicious if you'll first go out on a limb and tell me what, if anything at all, you believe Schenker models which would be distinguishable in any way from what I have proposed; "the emphatic structure or a mnemonically optimized performance". Please note that hiding my commentary without completing this request will only serve to support my primary hypothesis; that Schenker doesn't actually model anything in particular. For the record, I am not a disgruntled student. I was done with my music theory MA a long time ago. It's unfortunate that my training in the sciences doesn't allow be to pursue a PhD in good conscience, which potentially depends on blind adherence to claims so ambiguously stated that they remain unavailable to the empirical testing to which they so richly deserve to be subjected.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.85.217 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshua, my suggestion to move the comments from 2006 (including yours) to somewhere else indeed was not a very good one. My reason was that, planning an extensive revision of the article, I was somewhat at loss to find my way through the comments on this page and to sort the ones making concrete suggestions for the article itself from the ones which, like yours, questioned the purpose of analysis at large and of Schenkerian analysis in particular. Even today, I keep feeling that these questions might better appear, say, in an article (or in a talk page) on the philosophy or epistemology of music analysis, where I'd be happy to discuss them. I don't think this particular page here is the right place for such discussion: as Wikipedia warns at the head of this page,

Why do you think Schenker should "model" anything? I have no major problem with the idea that he might model "the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance" (although I am not sure to understand what that means: why "emphatic", why "mnemonically optimized"?). Is not this more or less the idea that Snarrenberg defends in Schenker's Interpretive Practice, or at least part of it? But, once again, I don't believe that such a discussion has its place here.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindly response.

 I don't categorically reject the idea of reorganizing some of the content here. I would just hate to see it done in a way that risks sending the wrong kind of message to or about anyone. I regret that there doesn't seem to be any better opportunity provided for someone in my position at this point. If there will be one at some point, I will prefer to use it. I also appreciate that all here should probably understand themselves to be in various awkward positions in dealing with the article, itself, and, therefor, also other things connected with it. I'm sorry that I don't have any clear suggestion at this point which wouldn't be construed as inflammatory, in terms of how to deal with the content of the article proper. It's not the fault of Wikipedia's editors that Schenker, himself, introduced to the world of music theory a rich lexicon of (deliberately?) equivocable (sic) terms which, were they to be introduced to the world today for the very first time via Wikipedia, would absolutely qualify as weasel words (e.g.: "the" structure). I'm honestly not sure what ought to be done by sincerely disinterested editors for an article which can't be both neutral and objective at the same time. I don't question the purpose of analysis in general. You'll see that I'm not quick in getting around to saying much about pitch class set theory articles, for example. It's not because I think pc set theorists can't abuse pc set theory or can't abuse language, but because pc set theory has a core basis which is not intrinsically abusive. 
 Please understand that I'm not being an epistemological hard-a## because of some personal thing between me and some specific Schenkerian. My concern is that, given the comparative degrees of intellectual rigor involved, I'm so far unable to shake the impression that an article on Schenkerian analysis belongs among music theory articles about as much as an article on astrology belongs among articles on astronomy. I feel comfortable saying this because, whereas an astrologer might at least bother to defend the article either by A) agreeing to define what is modeled by astrology, or B) agreeing to state that what is modeled is or is not what someone else suggests it may model or C) at least take a clear position on whether or not it models anything at all, by contrast, Schenkerians thus far will not even do this much. 
  The reason for which I think that Schenker should model something is that the use of the term "analysis" says that it models something. Any conclusive analysis of anything ultimately provides some kind of model of some aspect or group of aspects of the thing or things analyzed. That's what an analysis is, and that's what analysis does. If Schenkerians would all agree to simply drop the word "analysis", that would go some distance toward clearing things up (assuming they don't simply replace it with some even less precise term).  So far, you seem to be the first person to take a position on having/not having a problem with my suggestion that Schenker might be used to model the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance. THIS IS PROGRESS. THANK YOU. I'm still not convinced that Schenker actually models anything more than the way that Schenker, himself, tended to parse musical stimuli for whatever reason. I only suggest what I suggest because it's the least problematic possibility I could come up with after considering the question every day for a few years. 
  If this kind of discussion ultimately needs to be moved off the main talk page, that makes some sense to me. I'd just like to see it accessibly archived in some very transparent way, such as in previous page versions. This might save future generations the trouble of simply revisiting my own thinking on their own and seeing it deleted without diligent consideration. Before that, I'm still hoping that, somehow, the main article can be restructured so as to acknowledge very real gaps between what Sckenkerism implies that it does and what it actually does. 

- Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.85.217 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I must be stupid because I can't understand what you mean when you say that Schenkerian Analysis models something. Whether it does or not is probably irrelevant: It is certainly well-established that Schenkerian Analysis (regardless of whether one accepts it or not) is a significant trend in music theory and as such, an article on it belongs in WP - just as articles on any theoretical trends (historical and contemporary) also belong in WP. An article in WP is supposed to reflect published literature about the topic. Certainly there must be a section on detractors of Schenkerian Analysis. Beyond that, you'll have to further explain what you mean. -- kosboot (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ñññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:150:127:1C3C:CD45:488F:ACC8:8B12 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) I don't claim that Schenker activity models anything. I claim that it claims to model something when it claims to qualify as meeting the definition of "analysis". If I'm to understand that the question of whether models model anything is irrelevant to their validity within the music theory community, then I don't think it should be hard for people who are not music theorists to understand that something has gone wrong within said community. I really hope that this kind of claim to irrelevance of things modeled to validity of models is not the best that music theorists will be able to muster in order to continue justifying continued study of Schenker. I don't really see a section on detractors, although one is mentioned. I understand that, given the broad continued support for Schenker, an article that shows an equal amount of support and detraction would not necessarily be less unfair in its own way to one that mentions only one detractor without explaining the essence of the criticism. An article that presents a controversial topic in a purely positive light doesn't actually become objective or neutral simply by adding some kind of note that someone, somewhere in the world might disagree a little bit. If the essence of pertinent criticism can't be included directly to the main article, might we not at least have a link to a separate article that explains the essence of the pertinent criticism? Narmour does a lot more than whine like the invoked "disgruntled student" above. He's a lot smarter than me, in fact. I promise. - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.85.217 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You would need to provide a citation (or citations) to a source (or sources) that substantiates your claim. Can you do that? -- kosboot (talk)

ññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ What I CAN do is to cite definitions of "analysis" which explain it as distinguishable from mere "interpretation"; "mere interpretation" being what Schenker graphs would seem to be when correctly understood as unsupported by the analytic criteria which Schenker texts do not actually provide, even if they much imply that they do (interpretive criteria are not necessarily analytic criteria). That the very title of the article includes a weasel word ("analysis") does pose a bit of a dilemma for editors. As to be consistent with the lack of quotation marks around other titles such in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing I suppose that we may have to accept the Schenkerian Analysis title as-is for the foreseeable future. If I have to start citing dictionary definitions of other abused words such as "the", it should cause me to reflect more thoroughly on the question of why I haven't already simply challenged the neutrality of the article. I assume there's some doubt here about what I'm trying to accomplish by not doing that. Please let me explain that I'd rather just try to find some way to agree to fix the article first. Schenker semantics have already done decades of disservice to the value of Schenker's graphic work, and it's sad to imagine a world where the graphic interpretations have been thrown out like a baby with the bath water and considered to be "debunked", simply because the texts which are supposed to explain them have explained them in ways which turn out to be nonsensical when taken apart word by word. If anyone reading this really is a Schenker fan, then please let me help you sort out the mess. What you need first is to define the exact nature of the structure considered to underlie compositions treated by Schenker. Without that, there just isn't any analysis. - Joshua Clement Broyles

(You would do everyone a big help by properly registering for Wikipedia and learning how to automatically sign your name and create section breaks.) I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia and this article. One of the fundamentals of writing for Wikipedia is the guideline WP:NOR: that is, "no original research." Instead, Wikipedia articles are entirely taken from published materials. You may think xyz about a topic, but unless that xyz point of view is found in published literature, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Further, if 15 sources say "abc" and only 1 source says "xyz" that imbalance must be recognized in the article (and it's questionable whether it should be included at all if it's one out of fifteen). So if you think Schenkerian Analysis is more interpretation and not analysis, you'll have to find sources that not only support that point of view, but find enough sources to counterbalance the many that say it is analysis. -- kosboot (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshua, you may be interested to know that Schenker himself was somewhat critical about the concept of "analysis", because he understood in the sense a chemist would, as a decomposition of a complex matter into simple elements. Schenker considered that his method shew the way to "synthesis" rather than "analysis". But I do not think that it is in this sense that you criticize the title "Schenkerian analysis". Could you tell us how YOU understand the concept? And could you also explain what you mean by "the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance"? This might help us understanding you. For the time being I am completely at loss, I even begin doubting my knowledge of English...Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

ñññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ Your English is certainly better than my Spanish or any of the other languages I have studied; I would say that it is excellent, really. I believe I was registered with Wikipedia at some point, but I'm not sure what happened after that. I didn't get kicked out at least. I'll look into it. I'm familiar with the concept of "no original research", and it's the main reason I don't tamper with the article directly. One challenge in this case will be that while there are plenty of sources defining "analysis" in way that would seem to disallow (for example) the treatment as present in the raw data things which are actually undeniably absent, such as tones which Schenker considers to be "implied" (that absent can of course be analyzed... but as absent; that present must also be analyzed as present; how should we feel if Schenker simply crossed out any note-heads he could not or would not explain? Isn't this essentially the same thing?), Schenkerians have apparently never cared about this before, and they seem to be controlling the article content thus far. Another challenge is that anyone who isn't a music theorist probably isn't going to care about this difference enough to want to do anything about it. I could try to drag a team of lexicographers and epistemologists into the matter, but I'm not confident anything would come of it. As long as there's broad apathy on the part of those not sharing the same biases as the article, it leaves me basically alone in facing this challenge. Getting Schenkerians to consider critically whether the word "analysis" is appropriate might not be all that different from getting Creation Scientists to consider critically whether the word "creation" is really appropriate. The real scientific community has not taken this kind of thing totally sitting down, and I do not see why people who consider themselves to be real analysts (of anything) should ignore this matter. But while abuse of language might be intellectually important more generally, such importance apparently gets negated by the broader commitment of people who are not music theorists to consider nothing that happens in music theory to be of any real cultural importance, ever. So please don't mistake me for someone who might be holding his breath at this point. If you can refer me to any specific Wikipedians who have treated evasion of word definitions in pre-published article content elsewhere, I will be very eager to communicate with them, thanks. Hypothetically, what might we expect as an outcome if someone with more complete qualifications could be persuaded to change words in the article from things like "analysis" to "synthesis"? I can certainly agree that Schenker's work synthesizes something, even if the question of what it synthesizes might remain open to a lot of debate. While I don't think Schenkerian technique will necessarily ever be qualifiable as analysis, I've made so little headway with Schenkerians on this point over the years that I eventually thought that it might seem more fair to simply present them with the best possible kind of opportunity to demonstrate how what they do might be understood to conform to the definition of "analysis". I figure they'll either eventually do it or eventually have to recognize that they can't. Either way, the problem would eventually be solved if they would simply agree to this challenge in the first place. Mine is certainly not the only opinion to consider here. But since you've asked, I should explain that I would have to consider Schenker graphs to be "essentially analytic" (though not necessarily the best examples of analytic procedure) if they could be accompanied by a clear statement of what the signs are ultimately intended to signify. Schenker does not deny that they could represent compositional grammar, but makes a point of not claiming that they do. Inasmuch as he tells readers not to assume that they do, he obliquely tells readers to either make some other assumption or to make no assumption at all. I consider that, unless he means that his signs do not signify anything at all, he tacitly suggests that some other assumption has to be made about their meaning; that to see meaning in them, readers must assign some meaning other than as representing compositional grammar. Other things which we might be tempted to construe them to represent could include things like "the cognitive hierarchy of the composition as realized in the mind of (x) listener", where (x) could be a norm or an ideal, or even the composer himself, as psychologically projected by Schenker. I have considered MANY possible things, and they can't all be very well matched to a Schenker graph. Schenker, the composer, and a normal listener, for example, can't be assumed to have the same cognitive process. What I eventually arrived at as something I can plausibly imagine Schenker professors being inclined to accept (if only for lack of anything even less problematic) was "the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance". What I believe this should be understood to mean is that, out of all the possible ways to structure decisions about amplitude and duration (etc.)in the valid realization of a graphic musical composition, some should result in the tone content being forgotten by listeners more quickly and other less quickly. I have read plenty of (probably unintended) support from the music perception and cognition angle for the idea that a performance which emphasizes musical events in a way that highly correlates with the way they are emphasized in Schenker graphs should, in principle, make it easier for listeners to recognize and/or recall accurately, later, what they heard. Presumably, as the listening experience also includes hearing new material in comparison ("reference"?) to what one has just heard, better memory encoding while listening should enhance the over-all perception of structural or narrative coherence. Whether we always want to remember or consider that we understand a piece of music, or should want to, is a different problem. The memory question is a simpler one. Shapes like descending scales and alternation between 2 tones a perfect fifth apart shouldn't be difficult for a Schenker professor to be able to cite (scientifically) as having privileged cognitive transparency over a lot of other shapes that could be arbitrarily derived from tonal score content, so to structure a performance so as to frame other tones as referring to these things could be very reasonably attempted as a way of making the whole composition less easily forgettable, regardless of how it was really constructed, or how normal listeners would tend to parse its content without interpretive direction from performers. A Schenker graph may or may not provide the best possible model of "the emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance", but if 2 people could at least tentatively agree that that is what the graph is being used to model, they could then have some basis to discuss how well or badly it does that. Without some such agreement (and not necessarily the one I suggest) there is really no basis from which to evaluate the comparative quality of the graph versus some other random item not clearly intended to represent anything. Moreover, a Schenker graph and a dead rat in formaldehyde are not unequally valid "analyses" of a Mozart piano sonata if we can't first decide what aspect of the sonata we intend to "analyze". For this reason, I want to make it absolutely clear that even if there were 100% consensus among Schenkerians that a Schenker graph models what I suggest it might model, I still would not consider the graph to "reveal" "the structure" of a composition. "The structure" has no meaning without qualification, and serves only as a trump card to be played in telling someone of lesser authority that what he shows is not "the structure". "The structure" exists only as a kind of graphic shibboleth to be repeated without any reflective consideration as to its ultimate signification, and the fact that I passed a Schenker class by imagining myself to be deaf supports this statement. - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.165.159 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshua, I'll try to give concise answers to your extensive comments. The questions you raise are important, but you would be wrong in believing that no Schenkerian ever raised them before.

1) Concerning Schenker's intentions, I think you should read R. Snarrenberg, Schenker's Interpretive Practice, Cambridge UP, 1997. It is not the only text dealing with the problem, but I believe it to be one of the main works specifically trying to answer the kind of questions you ask. Other books deal with Schenker's political or cultural agenda, but Snarrenberg more specifically addresses Schenker's musical intentions, which I think are your concern.

2) As to "implied" tones, there is an obvious example in the Wikipedia article hereby, the fragment of Beethoven's op. 109 analyzed under heading 3.2, Linear progressions. You will note that the text gives a detailed account of why F#2 in the bass line has been replaced by B1; it implicitly says why F#2 is somehow heard at this point. There is on Internet a paper explaining why Schenker, in his analysis of Bach's Little Prelude BWV 940, "replaces" c#5 by c5 and b4 by bb4 (Schenker, as a matter of fact, himself gave the reasons); the paper unfortunately is in French: http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr/Meeus12N.pdf.

3) About "the structure", note first that neither "fundamental structure", nor even "structure", are Schenker's own terms. He wrote Ursatz, in which Ur- denotes an origin (a "primality"), and Satz ... defies translation. "Structure" is the word used by Felix Salzer (Structural Hearing); it is not entirely wrong as a translation, but it belongs to what has been termed "the Americanization of Schenker". Note also that Schenker's idea on this point predates Chomsky's concept of "deep structure" by about a generation (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure). These are important notions that would deserve more space than is available here.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your questions are legimate questions. But it appears your interest is in discussing Schenkerian Analysis. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Find a forum where you can discuss these issues - this article is about Schenkerian Analysis as abstracted from published materials. Sure, plenty of people have ideaas - but unless they are in published form, they have no place on Wikipedia. -- kosboot (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

ñññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ Thank you for taking this matter seriously. I)The materials cited here are not accessible to me, and I doubt that they will become accessible to me in the future. Because I think that we all agree here in principle that we should be focused on improving the article, I should ask: why the points I have raised, if they are already treated in pertinent publication, are not more extensively explained within the article, or at least given to a link where they are explained? Wikipedia articles on subjects such as Scientology and fracking are not written this completely uncritically, and any acknowledgement of more than incidental controversy is not reserved strictly for their reference sections, as seems to have been done with this article. Why is this subject some kind of special exception if the material that we should suppose would balance the article is considered to be broadly accessible? II) Regarding the implied tone in 109, I agree that it is implied by what precedes it and possibly by what follows it. But such implication IS NOT REALIZED, even if Schenker analyzes it as if it were realized. That the realization occurs in the "analysis" but not in the composition perfectly illustrates a major conceptual problem which the article seems to use Schenkerian authority, itself, as a means to justify ignoring; that composers interrupt patterns deliberately as points of higher formal articulation, not merely out of some kind of laziness, oversight, or as some kind of game in which listeners are supposed to guess what missing material was supposed to take the place of the extraneous material. Moreover, as I imagine Narmour might be likely to point out, even if such pattern and such interruption were mere graphic errors unintended by the composer, they would tend to be perceived (if performed as composed) as structurally relevant by normal listeners, according to what are now scientifically established to be valid models of normal music cognition. "We" only hear what "we" hear because Schenker, or someone functioning in a similar capacity, has told us that "we" hear it (and "We" has never included me, anyway, in spite of my abnormally high scores on pertinent tests of perception and cognition). On the other hand, if Schenker really is right and Beethoven really is wrong, perhaps we should stop trying to help people resolve such questions at all and simply petition the score publisher to correct Beethoven's error, allowing the composition to better conform to the correct, uninterrupted entrainment pattern that Beethoven must have meant to write instead. Again, I have to ask why, if there is published criticism on this point, is it not more directly provided for consideration within the article? III) I understand that terms such as "the structure" are essentially correct translation of Schenker's own terms. These terms are used in the article as freely intermingled with other types of terms, and without being put into quotation marks. If I should take out quotation marks around terms attributable to Hitler or Stalin in articles where they already exist, I assume that would not go permanently unnoticed. Such quotation marks are there for a good reason, and they should also be used similarly in articles such as the one discussed here. Not to use quotation marks, or at least some other clear indicator, very much (mis)leads readers to understand that the way words are used within the attributable terminology is not a point of important controversy. Such an improperly notated article tacitly reiterates as valid any claims put forth by means of the terminology itself. This much, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to fix within this article. Quotation marks are not original research, and they would be a good start to fixing what's wrong with the article itself, if yet not fixing damage already caused to the minds of naive readers. As I must make a point of protecting Wikipedia from my own plausible bias regarding the subject, I must ask that someone else at least please begin to put quotation marks where they are appropriate. THANK YOU. - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.189.23 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshua, very shortly:

I. "why the points I have raised, if they are already treated in pertinent publication, are not more extensively explained within the article, or at least given to a link where they are explained?"

Because the Wikipedia article condenses in an extremely short format thousands of pages written about Schenkerian analysis. The points you have raised are not totally absent from the article and cannot be treated more extensively within such a general presentation. It would probably be necessary, first, to document the "controversy" to which you refer and which does not exist at the same level as that about scientology. There are people, like you, who dislike or don't understand Schenkerian analysis. But did they publish scholarly criticism? Narmour's book, mentioned in the "Further readings" of the article, is about half a century old...

II. "Regarding the implied tone in 109, I agree that it is implied by what precedes it and possibly by what follows it. But such implication IS NOT REALIZED, even if Schenker analyzes it as if it were realized."

I am afraid you are mixing here two very different things. The "implied" tone here is certainly not implied in the sense of Meyer's theory of "implication (=expectation) / realization". It is implied in the sense of the Gestalt theory which says that perception favorizes simple forms -- in this case a conjunct line. For sure, a reference to Gestalt theory might be useful in the article, but I think it would be too specialized at this stage. (I will consider the matter, however.) Needless to say, to consider such cases of "implied tones" as errors of the composers does justice neither to Schenker nor to the composers involved. The purpose, in this case, is not to explain the compositional process, but the act of perception: Schenkerian analysis claims that the act of perceiving the fragment of op. 109 as described is justified by a theory of simple forms, -- more precisely of conjunct lines. (And this, of course, is valid for Beethoven as well as for you and me.)

III. "I understand that terms such as 'the structure' are essentially correct translation of Schenker's own terms."

No, precisely. Satz, in the article, is more often translated as "composition" (as in freie Satz, "Free Composition"). It is true that the article makes use of the word "structure" in the translation of Ursatz. You should however explain what you have against that translation which usage confirmed since at least half a century. The problem, to me, resides much more in the translation of Ur- as "Fundamental". For this reason, I added a section on Terminology to the article on Ursatz. I thought indeed that such comments belonged there rather that in the "Schenkerian Analysis" article.

Yet, once again, what do you have again "Structure"? Schenkerian theory obviously belongs in the age of structuralism, and is almost contemporary with Saussure's Course. This probably should be treated in an article on "Schenkerian theory" which, I think we may agree on this point, probably becomes necessary. But such abstract matters do not belong to "Schenkerian analysis".

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ñññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ 1)There is very little appearance of open criticism of Schenker to be documented, certainly. Narmour's book comes pretty well to the point, and yet if you ask Schenkerians what it says, you'll tend to find that they've never read it. It's complete enough, though, that it deserves at least a link to a summarizing article of its own. Sadly, I have no access to the book. If I do get access to it, I will be happy to produce the article just to see how quickly it gets deleted. Other people who see major conceptual problems with Schenker culture are being systematically rooted out of academia, and, for this reason if for no other, you won't see us publishing much of anything anywhere. This talk page is about as much as I see exists as a place for anyone to say anything without it being deleted even more quickly than this will be deleted from here. 2) I consider that the 109 example abuses Gestalt theory even more than it is presented as ignoring other important meanings to the words used in its discussion. The fence in Munch's "The Scream" forms a conjunct line. By the same logic applied in the 109 example, we should seem to suppose that Munch's screaming figure merely ornaments the fence. I suppose it's unfortunate that Schenker didn't also point out to us that Munch painted great fences despite the presence of superficial foreground shapes such as screaming figures. Would not a more conjunct line than the Urlinie be the descending chromatic scale which we may understand as implied by it? 3) I don't have a problem with the word "structure". I have a problem with the word "the". The structures treated by Schenkerians are not "the" structure. "The" structure exists only in the musical score as notated by the composer or editor. These other structures introduce other types of information not provided and perhaps not intended by composers. That's not necessarily bad to do, but it does not reveal anything intrinsic or inherent to the composition, itself, as the use of the word "the" would seem to indicate. Again, I think it's reasonable by this point in Schenkerian history, to have some kind of answer as to the essential nature of what structures Schenkerians publish in reference to the compositions they have treated. And so, I have offered one as a kind of test. My own answer is either correct, or wrong in some way which should be easy to identify. Any Schenkerian who sees my question and does not answer it, I must ask why they do not answer. I think that's only fair. Meanwhile, I think you for explaining what I think is a good point to consider; that "Ur-" is the more dubious part than "Satz". As I understand "Satz", there can be no denying that Schenker shows "Satz". In fact, practically any music graphic which somehow derives every one of its parts from the original graphic composition could probably be tenuously described as "EIN Satz". I could probably derive such a structure from a composition like The Rite of Spring, but without explaining why I would want to do that (as Schenker does not explain, and as Schenkerians continue not to explain), readers would be left guessing what could possibly be the point. The only reason I can see why people aren't similarly befuddled with Schenkerian treatment of Beethoven (for example) is that the perception of a comparatively high rate of correspondence between Schenker's graphic habits and what we perceive/intuit about intended compositional grammar makes us comfortable in assuming that a point must exist as long as there would appear to be a way to make such a point. Because Schenker never says in what specific way we might apply his Beethoven graphs (especially as distinguishable from ways in which my imaginary Stravinsky graphs could be less appropriately applied), I understand that the question of "what, really, is the whole point" is a question that could be difficult to somehow squeeze into the article; more so, and especially, because it is a question that remains conspicuously unasked in any publication I have seen on Schenkerian theory. I regret not having done something about that before I got more-or-less blacklisted about 10 years ago. Sorry. 4) I think a better solution might be to simply replace the "Schenkerian Analysis" article with a "Schenkerian Theory" article. I don't think that anyone can dispute that Schenker's work was a kind of theory, any more than anyone can dispute that Astrology is a kind of theory. Meanwhile, about the earlier suggestion to apply quotation marks... may we? - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.164.150 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schenkerian analysis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that this article needs a lot of work before it satisfies the GA criteria. It is well written, and very interesting, but it is poorly referenced. There are whole paragraphs without a single citation in:

• Goals
• Harmony
• Counterpoint, voice-leading
• Ursatz
• The fundamental line
• The arpeggiation of the bass and the divider at the fifth
• Techniques of prolongation
• Voice exchange
• First order neighbor note
• Articulation of the span from I to V in the bass arpeggiation
• I–III–V
• I–IV–V or I–II–V
• I–II–III–IV–V
• Interruption
• Mixture
• Transference of the fundamental structure
• Legacy and responses

In the remaining paragraphs there are many individual sentences that also lack citations.

The Wikipedia:Good article criteria require that material is verifiable. I have no doubt that the opinions and technical points in the article are faithful reflections of material in your listed sources, but you need to say inline which source each comes from.

There are other objections, such as whether the article is supposed to be in American or English spelling, but they can wait until the key matter of the referencing is addressed. I am putting the article on hold for a week to give time for this to be done. – Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article. I began adding references as you suggested. This led me also to displace several of them: my usage had been to give references immediately after quotations, if any, while in fact they also concerned the paragraph as a whole; displacing them to the end of the paragraph makes things clearer.

I must confess being puzzled by Wikipedia's position concerning "original research". Even fully referenced, an article like this, summarizing and vulgarizing about four thousand pages by Schenker himself and a Schenkerian literature that may count hundred thousands of pages, seems to me an original research already by its very existence. This was my reason to think that the result was good and, therefore, to imagine that it might be recognized as a GA in Wikipedia. But I may very well be wrong on this point, and the subject matter may be too complex anyway to ever form a GA.

I have a slight problem with the "Legacy and responses" section, because it is a remnant of an earlier version of the article. I feel very uncomfortable removing the work of others and I do not consider this article my property, even if in its present state I wrote most of it. I will reconsider this section, unless its original author wants to review it himself (some of his or her statements refer to things unknown to me, about which I'd like to know more). But the history of this article is way too complex to allow me to find who wrote that section...

As to English vs American spelling, this is a matter that fully escapes me (English is not my mother language). If it merely is a matter of choice, perhaps American English would be the best choice as most of the literature is American. On the other hand I appreciate your concern for English English. My problem is that I cannot enough differenciate the one from the other.

If you think that the way to transforming this into a GA is too long, just tell me. My concern mainly is that the article be good, but I realize now that Wikipedia's categorization is not merely about quality in the ordinary sense.

Thanks again for your interest. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, really, if I thought this article had no chance I'd have failed it immediately. But it is a very fine article and definitely of GA quality provided the citation problem is rectified. There are minor tweaks needed ("neighbor" or "neighbour" - both are used) but I see no problem of original research as Wikipedia understands it. Boiling published sources down to an encyclopaedia-size article is what we are all about. Of course there is an element of interpretation entailed in that process, but what we look for is as neutral an interpretation as is humanly possible. It is only the lack of citations that prevents the promotion of this fine piece of work. If I may add a personal note, as a contributor to many WP classical music articles, I have never got the hang of Schenkerian analysis, and this excellent article has helped me considerably. I hope very much you will find time and inclination to undertake the task of adding the many citations needed. I'd be happy (and I don't think it would be ultra vires as the GAN reviewer) to run an Anglophone eye over the prose to check for UK/US inconsistencies. To write such an article in a language not one's mother tongue seems to me a superb achievement. If you would prefer to take more time about adding the citations, we can conclude this present GAN and you can renominate the page when you have done. Either way, I expect to see the article recognised as a GA in the not-too-distant future. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the article as it is now? I added quite a few references and I am somewhat at loss to see what I could add -- unless in the "Legacy and Response" section, of course, for which I need to do some research, and probably some changes. It would be somewhat exagerated, I feel, to have a at the end of each sentence.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tim, and Hucbald: There are more problems than that. Some of those citations are not proper citations at all. For example: "The analyst is expected to develop a "distance hearing" (Fernhören),[6] a "structural hearing".[7]" FN7 merely mentions Salzer's book in toto. Having read it three times, I do not believe that Salzer ever says that Schenker required the analyst is expected to develop "a" structural hearing. It's the other way round: Salzer uses Schenker's concepts to help students develop structural hearing; he doesn't use structural hearing to help his pupils do Schenkerian analysis.

The article in its present form is overloaded with editorializing. For examples:

• "The theory of the fundamental structure is the most criticized aspect of Schenkerian theory: it has seemed unacceptable to reduce all tonal works to one of a few almost identical background structures. This is a misunderstanding: ..."
• "One fascinating aspect of Schenkerian analysis is ..."
• "The most interesting case is when ..."
• "Even though he never discussed them at length, these elaborations occupy a very special place in Schenker’s theory. One might even argue that no description of an Ursatz properly speaking is complete if it does not include IV or II at the background level."

(And that last one makes my jaw drop. There are pieces with no predominants at all!)

As for the Legacy and responses section, I don't think you need to fear to improve it, Hucbald. It has been tagged for expansion for over 5 years, is improperly cited, and contains stuff like "the fierce philosophical opposition between Oswald Jonas and Felix Salzer set the stage for a conservative–liberal split among Schenkerians that persists to this day". I would say go ahead and make something better. The article would hardly be complete without adequate coverage of the legacy.

There is still loads of original research. For example: "Linking the (major) triad to the harmonic series, Schenker merely pays lip service to an idea common in the early 20th century.[10]" FN10 reads "The same link is made, for instance, in Schoenberg’s Harmonielehre, Wien, Universal, 1911, 7/1966, p. 16." That is not justification for saying "... merely pays lip service ..."

Citations are inconsistent as whether they are given in full in the footnotes or refer to the references. Those in the footnotes are presented inadequately: no ISBNs even for books that have them. No authorlinks or journal links. No doi's or links to abstracts ...

Sometimes the tone lapses from encyclopedic into lecturing. For example: "Schenker's project may be compared with that of Gestalt theory, contemporary to his theories, and, more genreally [sic], which the development of phenomenology and structuralism.[8]" You can say that in a lecture if you want, but in an encyclopedia (tertiary source, remember) you can only say "... has been compared ...", and only if your sources really make those comparisons. But perhaps, unless you're going to elaborate on what the comparisons tell, it's not quite nice to raise the subject in the first place, since many readers will be left behind by a sentence like that. --Stfg (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. Hucbald, although it isn't relevant to this GA review, perhaps I can help you on the Original Research policy. When you say "Even fully referenced, an article like this, summarizing and vulgarizing about four thousand pages by Schenker himself and a Schenkerian literature that may count hundred thousands of pages, seems to me an original research already by its very existence", you are using the words original and research in their everyday senses, whereas the Wikipedia term has a specific meaning that is defined in the opening paragraph of the policy page Wikipedia:No original research: we aren't allowed to "advance a position not advanced by the sources". We are, of course, positively mandated to research the sources to discover what position they advance, which we then ourselves advance by citing them. One last point: your use of "vulgarizing" worries me. It would be vulgarizing if we were to pretend that readers would gain a comprehensive understanding of S.A. just by reading the article, when obviously they won't. But an overview that avoids that pretence is not a vulgarization, surely?) --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am most grateful for your comments. I think -- and I say so without animosity nor regret -- that my nomination for this article as a GA should be removed. Not that it won't reach the standards, but because I don't want it to. I am perfectly aware that the article is full of personal opinions (let's call them "original research" if you want, although I trust that they are for the most part documented in Schenker's own writings). I am fully satisfyed with what you wrote, that "this excellent article has helped [you] considerably". I would hate to edulcorate it, removing precisely all that helped you, merely because of Wikipedia's policy.

I don't think that the article (or what I wrote in it) ever advances "a position not advanced by the sources", at least not by the primary sources, i.e. Schenker's own writings; it does advance ideas that may not be found in (American) secundary sources, though. But I can't share Wikipedia's conception of an Encyclopedia as "tertiary": happily for us all, this was not Diderot & d'Alembert's conception! I don't think it possible to convey "a comprehensive understanding of S.A.", something that nobody ever achieved (even not Schenker himself); I trust that "vulgarizing" means "making accessible by the people" (latin vulgus) and that is what the article achieved, at least in your case. I am content with that, more happy, as a matter of fact, than by any recognition or the article as a "GA" by Wikipedia's standards.

I began rewriting this article following a suggestion made by the American Society for Music Theory that "specialists" should see to the quality of the Wikipedia articles. I don't know now whether it was a reasonable suggestion, but I am glad to have helped produce the article as it is. I have been teaching Schenkerian analysis for many years (but not in the United States and, therefore, not subjected to some American misconceptions), and the article is an indirect result of that teaching. I'll leave it now to live its own life on Wikipedia, until anyone feels it necessary to improve or merely to correct it. In the meanwhile, it may still help people unterstand S.A. (And, for my part, I have enough possibilities to make it available on Internet otherwise.)

PS.

-- I am perfectly aware that there are many tonal pieces without predominant chord. I think, however, that they do not form an Ursatz properly speaking, i.e. that they do not completely, "structurally" affirm their own tonality.

-- I trust that by titling his book about Schenkerian theory Structural Hearing, Salzer did mean that Schenkerian theory was about structural hearing; but I reckon that it is a personal opinion.

-- My reference to Gestalt theory is in response to an argument wether Schenker considered auditory perception. This discussion is active whithin Schenkerian circles that I know and should probably not appear on Wikipedia before it was settled in these circles. Yet...

-- Naturklang does not seem to me synonymous to "primal triad", for reasons that should be (more or less) clear in Klang (music).

-- I am afraid I made a mess of several Wikipedia articles, but I regret none of it :-)).

One again, this all said without any animosity nor any regret. I enjoyed the whole affair enormously, up to our present discussion. I leave it now to others (possibly to SMT members) to go on.

-- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Hucbald, for that magnanimous answer. I don't accept that you have "made a mess" of this article, which, as I said above, I found really helpful to me personally. But I have to accept that Wikipedia's way of doing things differs a bit from your own modus operandi, and therefore this article is not going to be promoted to GA at this stage. I hope very much indeed that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Such quibbles as one may have about referencing etc do not detract from the value of your contributions. You will be a loss to our project if we can't persuade you to keep editing here.

As for the formalities of this GAN, I shall reluctantly post it as "failed". – Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. I cannot refrain thinking that a topic like this ("Schenkerian Analysis") raises fundamental questions about Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" policy. It would be almost impossible to reduce it to a quotation of (often conflicting) secundary sources, if the author were unable to make his own choices. And, obviously, if the author is to express personal choices, how can he do so anonymously? I am aware that these questions have caused a lot of debate on Wikipedia, and I can understand the position chosen by its editors. They, in turn, should be aware that this makes it extremely difficult to include matters that remain the object of (scholarly) controverse. The New Grove, for instance, did not take such a position and did not exclude controverse; but all its articles are signed. The whole problem, in the end, is of reconciling controverse with anonymousness.

Let me add that my references are more often to primary sources, i.e. to Schenker's own writings, which I read as much as possible in the original German. But Schenker left about 4000 pages of printed texts, and more than 100.000 (!) pages of manuscripts. Any summary of that is bound to be "personal".

I will of course go on "making a mess" of Wikipedia articles, especially on Schenker. By "making a mess", I merely mean "publishing personal opinions". If competent Schenkerians have other opinions, they are welcome, of course, and I'll read them with pleasure.

A last point: I will remove "primal triad", it is indeed a bit farfetched...

Thanks again, -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hucbald, I'd like to echo Tim's closing comment: I, too, very much hope you'll stay and use your expertise to help Wikipedia. And I hope your colleagues in the SMT will help too. Just one more comment, please. The way we handle legitimate controversy is by summarising all sides -- we don't take sides. That doesn't mean we have to publish fringe theories (and if we do, we identify them as fringe theories), but we don't omit mainstream views just because they are not our views. This is important, because we only have one article on any topic. The relevant Wikiedia policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). It's one of the five core pillars of Wikipedia. Best regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"primal triad"?

Where does this term come from? I've read a fair amount on Schenker and I don't recall ever coming across it. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are perfecly right and I should perhaps not have used it. Note that I also wrote about the "primal structure" and the "primal line", terms that are even more questionable -- not in themselves, but on Wikipedia. You'll find my reasons to use them (and my sources for "primal") in the section on terminology in Fundamental structure. I am among those who think that the usage of "fundamental" as a translation of Ur- is unfortunate (any scholar in German linguistics would confirm that it is wrong) and, after much hesitation, I decided to join the group of those wanting to reform this terminology (I am not sure not to be alone in the group, though, but I'm sure to convince others... ;-)).

The case of "primal triad" is even more complex as there is no such expression as "fundamental triad", as you may know. Schenker speaks of Der Naturklang, by which he means the complex sound formed by a fundamental and its harmonic partials, and adds that the "tonal space" is an imitation of it. About this, see Klang (music) -- which needs corrections, but that is another matter. The concept of "tonal space" is essential for Schenker's theory (and it occupies a prominent place in his writings), even if it has not been a frequent topic in Schenkerian literature. Modern Schenkerians become more aware of its importance.

Anyway, I'll remove "primal" and return to "fundamental" in the case of the fundamental structure and of the fundamental line, as Wikipedia is not the place for such matters; I'll keep "primal triad", but I'll add a commentary and a link to Fundamental structure.

Thanks for having made me aware of this problem.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If I may suggest it, rather than keeping the invented term "primal triad", why not use Schenker's original Naturklang, always italicised, and provide the definition you've just provided here? That would avoid the problem of invented terminology. The concept is somewhat iffy anyway, since there are an infinity of "complex sound[s] formed by a fundamental and its harmonic partials" (think timbre). But if it's presented as an introduction to what Schenker said, our mission here is accomplished, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

---

It's not iffy. Schenkerians quite uniformly construe Schenker's Klang either to consist of or to be derivative of the natural harmonic series. I'm not going to inflate the article, itself, with a list of such citations, although that would be telling in context of my next point here: There is pre-20th Century western diatonic music that makes use of or tries to make use of those intervals such as would be present in the lower parts of the natural harmonic series. But that is almost very specifically not the music that Schenker analyzes. Schenker's Klang would seem to have to be some kind of equal-tempered Klang not even consisting of the types of stretched harmonic intervals provided by piano spectra; instead, a Klang which Schenker offers as an apparent correction to Nature's errors. BTW: about how many "harmonic series" citations would actually be helpful in the article in order to illustrate a broad pattern of confusion by Schenkerians as to of what the natural harmonic series consists and as to which music most directly refers to said series (e.g. music that Schenker analyzes versus music that Schenker considers unworthy of analysis) ? - "UNSIGNED" AS: Joshua Clement Broyles

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.34.46 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@190.25.34.46 [Joshua Clement Broyles?], I don't think that any pre-20th Century western music ever made use of natural harmonic intervals, or even tried to: this would result in "just intonation", which was notoriously unusable in real music (see Just_intonation#Practical_difficulties, and List_of_compositions_in_just_intonation). Just intonation has been much used in pre-20th century music theory, and this probably is what you have in mind. In German, this tradition of a theoretical just intonation includes, after most theorists of the Baroque era, Leonard Euler, Simon Sechter, Moritz Hauptmann, Hermann von Helmholtz, Carl Stumpf and, in the 20th century, Hugo Riemann, Heinrich Schenker, Arnold Schoenberg, and many others. None of them ever thought of the possibility of an "equal-tempered Klang." I think that you should begin by having a look at the Klang (music) article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference to Schenker

It seemed to me that, rather than quoting here the lead sentence of the Heinrich Schenker article, as 220.237.113.229 had done, it was preferable to stress from the outset the link between the two articles. I modified accordingly, but remain open to other suggestions. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the inserted comment should be removed entirely. The link to the biography is enough. -- kosboot (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

@CursoryB:: "Schenkerian analysis is inter-subjective (rather than objective)."

This was changed from "Schenkerian analysis is subjective", which is apparently better, but first, could "inter-subjective" be briefly glossed, and second, what is the basis for disregarding the standard patterns and rules of Schenkerian analysis in either wording?

It goes on: "There is no mechanical procedure involved and the analysis reflects the musical intuitions of the analyst. The analysis represents a way of hearing (and reading) a piece of music."

I think even I could take issue with the claim that there's not mechanical procedure, and I'm not a Schenkerian expert. And the final sentence: doesn't it also function as a way of reverse-engineering the compositional process? Tony (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I too have always been slightly puzzled by this statement about Schenkerian analysis being subjective. At any rate, I didn't reproduce it in my French version of the article (Analyse schenkérienne), which is largely inspired by the English one (or, better said, which is the original version of much of the English one). For sure, the reference to Snarrenberg's Interpretive Practice remains insufficient unless page numbers were given − the idea of intuitive analysis probably pervades the book, though, with the idea, given in the title, that [Schenkerian] analysis is an interpretation.

The initial affirmation that Schenkerian analysis is subjective may have been conceived as an objection to early attempts at automated Schenkerian analyses, which all turned counterproductive. The more one reads Schenker's German, the more one realizes how he would have opposed any idea of formalizing his theories. I don't think, contrarily to Tony, that Schenkerian analysis involves mechanical procedures.

But let's come back to "subjective" and "inter-subjective". It seems to me that "subjective" easily and naturally can be opposed to "objective": a Schenkerian analysis is not inherent in its "object", in the score it analyzes, it is strongly dependent on the analyst(s) and on their interpretation − it "reflects the musical intuitions of the analyst", as the article continues. To say this does not mean that the analyst necessarily is an isolated person, a "subject", nor does it require any statement to the effect that the analysis is "not objective". It is striking that when @CursoryB: changed "subjective" into "inter-subjective", he felt the need to add "rather than objective", which makes the whole even more puzzling. (Why not "rather than subjective"?)

"Inter-subjective" apparently means that the analysis can be exchanged between several "subjects", or collectively shared between them. It is true that several competent Schenkerian analysits may come to similar, if not identical analyses, and that some of them might consider that Schenkerian analysis can produce only one "valid" analysis (an idea not widely shared. I reckon). But "subjective" never meant that it concerned one single individual "subject" (as "inter-subjective" apparently means that it may concern several "subjects" together).

One could easily say that a musical performance is "subjective" − even although one expects performers of the same piece to play roughly the same thing. Would one say that a performance in "inter-subjective"? I don't think so. − Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: I'm inclined to remove the statement. It seems so misleading and unexplained. In any case, my personal take is that Schenkerian analysis is both bound to certain accepted procedures/rules and prone to some individual decision-making by the analyst. Setting up a simple binary like that, I believe, is rather unsafe, and would draw strong objection from many music theorists if they got to this article. Is the fr.WP article better than the en.WP article? Anything there that we might borrow to improve this article? Tony (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1:It is difficult to say whether the French version is better than the English one. I wrote a good deal of both, preserving what I thought could be preserved from earlier versions. As the English version was more developed when I first began working on it, my revision includes more that survives from before.

I researched when this mention of Schenkerian analysis as subjective had been added. The paragraph was first added by Jason D Just (who I think now teaches in Boston University) on 24 August 2006; it subsequently underwent several (minor) changes. Here is a version that existed ten years ago:

"Schenkerian analysis is a subjective, not an objective, method. This means that there is no mechanical procedure for arriving at an analysis for a given piece of music; rather, the analysis reflects the musical intuitions of the analyst. The analysis represents a way of hearing a piece of music. Schenker himself was certain that a tonal masterpiece contains an inner truth-content, although few are sufficiently gifted to appreciate it. Although it is a subject of debate among music theorists whether there is ever/always/sometimes a single correct hearing and analysis of a piece of tonal music, even those who hold that there is a unique correct analysis agree that the analysis can only be arrived at and evaluated subjectively by an expert listener. Therefore learning how to do Schenkerian analysis is above all else learning a way of hearing and understanding tonal music, and it requires study and practice just as learning to play an instrument does."

As you can see, this does resonate with our recent discussion; it was later stripped down, and I kept it as it was in my own revisions of the article. A search on Google using the keywords "subjective Schenkerian analysis" gives interesting results. Let me quote the last words of Poundie Burstein's paper "Schenkerian Analysis and Occam’s Razor" (Res Musica 3 (2011):112–22; [4]):

"What I find most attractive about Schenkerian analysis is that it offers a powerful model that allows one to effectively relate subjective interpretations of nuances in a tonal composition, and for me this is reason enough to recommend it as a useful analytic tool."

(Burstein now teaches at Hunter College, CUNY; his paper contains other mentions of and references about the subjectivity of Schenkerian analysis.) I would therefore think twice before removing the paragraph as a whole. The question certainly is not without importance and remains in discussion today. Best would be to reflect some of this discussion in the article: I'll see what I can do. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Might the best solution be to acknowledge the difference of opinions - that some say it's objective (list whom), and some say subjective (list whom)? I suspect such a disagreement will not be resolved anytime soon. - kosboot (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)?

I suppose the subjective vs objective notion might be retained, but yes, just in passing. To me, it is deeply misleading: Schenkerian analysis has both components, and here we have another example of academics who argue for one side of a binary. So often this is eventually resolved as a continuum—here between the objective and subjective components. But it's not my personal take that counts: I argue only on the basis that the currently worded binary is very misleading to all but those who are well-acquainted with the arguments. Tony (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for engaging with this topic so productively. I took the meaning of 'subjective' to be an individual experience not subject to ratification or debate by others - so for instance if I tell you that I prefer Haydn to Mozart, or strawberries to raspberries, you can't argue with me because I'm telling you my subjective opinion or impressions. Schenker is not like that. We do discuss together what is feasible, what is preferable, what is musical, according to fairly well-established principles, and there is some community consensus on the outcomes. I've looked up inter-subjective and it is the following kind of nuances that I was expressing: "Intersubjectivity emphasizes that shared cognition and consensus is essential in shaping our ideas and relations." "There is intersubjectivity between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation." "It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being." (wiki, 'Intersubjectivity') "When faced with an illusion, you can ask other people if [they] see it. [...] Intersubjectivity is a way of trying to use other subjects to break the subject/object loop." (Quora discussion, https://www.quora.com/What-is-intersubjectivity) Of course the method is certainly not objective either! and I think this point is intended to be contra to the post-Forte school of Schenker drill with its connotations of feeding the music into the machine at one end and getting an analysis out of the other. So I will for now update the sentence to clarify. Hope you prefer it, and it takes the piece forwards without getting cumbersome. (PS Apologies if this is in the wrong place... I'm a professor of music theory but I have only basic skills with computer software!) CursoryB (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

References

A few queries

"The concept of tonal space is still present in Free Composition, especially §13, but less clearly than in the earlier presentation." – I think this opinion needs referencing (or removing).

"Although Schenker himself usually presents his analyses in the generative direction, starting from the fundamental structure (Ursatz) to reach the score, the practice of Schenkerian analysis more often is reductive, starting from the score and showing how it can be reduced to its fundamental structure." – Very difficult for the average musician. I can't even understand "generative" (which could be in the opposite direction, no?). Again, this is a little opinionated and unreferenced.

Tony (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to answer these two queries.

To the first may be answered that Schenker's mention of the tonal space in Der freie Satz is somewhat cryptic. Schenker says that it is to be understood horizontally, but what he means by that is not entirely clear. Jonas, the translator, apparently was not at ease with §13: he merely drops the last part of the first sentence, in which Schenker said that the tonal space "is only given and verified (beglaubigt) by [the fullfilment of the Urlinie]." There is in addition a footnote by Oster in the English translation that does not explain much. But all this may be too technical for WP.

About the second query, "generative" must be understood here in the sense of a generative grammar, the grammar which states how sentences are produced. There is a paragraph about this in a recent article by N. Meeùs ("Formenlehre in Der freie Satz: A Transformational Theory", Rivista di Analisi e Teoria Musicale 2015/2, pp. 99-113), who writes "What is a transformational theory? It certainly is not a theory meant to generate all phrases of a language, nor all compositions or forms of a musical system; it is a theory that reveals rules (it is a grammar) of the production of linguistic phrases or musical statements. It is a theory that expresses the idea that, behind the processes by which specific utterances of language or music are produced, there exists a limited set of rules that can transform a deep structure in an individual utterance. A transformational, a generative theory does not generate utterances, it merely explains how they are generated, by an "infinite use of finite means". (Ín footnote: Wilhelm von HUMBOLDT, Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues, p. 106: Sie [die Sprache] muss daher von endlichen Mitteln einen unendlichen Gebrauch machen. See Noam CHOMSKY, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, p. 8.) Such a description of course requires the hypothesis of an abstract deep structure, an Ursatz, from which the transformational rules can produce concrete individual surface manifestations." (p. 103) But once again, this is rather too technical for WP.

I hope that my short additions may clarify the matter. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hucbald, thanks for your response. Chomsky was rather pre-born when Schenker was writing. So I wonder why "generative" is brought in? I'm mindful of trying to make this article as digestible as possible for musicians, say, who don't know much about analysis. That would be consistent with WP's aims, I think. So "generative" and "tonal space"—if both either not well-expressed by Schenker, puzzling to a translator, and/or hard for you and me to understand—might be better dropped? There are plenty of other things to say, no? Tony (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Tonal space" has been used by English translators of Schenker's work. It's explained in Jonas (Introduction, page 38 in English). I agree that the word "generative" is not found in works by Schenker, and, for me, is too associated with the work of Lehrdal and Jackendoff. - kosboot (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it important to say, in one way or another, that Schenker's own analyses often start from the background (Ursatz) to reach the surface (foreground), which is the other way around from most analyses today. Chomsky did not invent the word generative, that I know, and the similitude between his generative grammar and Schenker's has been noted before. Jason Yust (http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.4/mto.15.21.4.yust.html) says that Babbitt noted it in 1965. Leslie Blasius also describes Schenker's theory as generative. See also David Caron Berry's Topical Guide, p. 17. It is unfortunate that the word is associated with GTTM – I am aware that it is. David Lewin's transformational theories also could be considered generative, in a way perhaps closer to Schenker (even if Lewin, if I am not mistaken, said that his theories should not be considered Schenkerian).

I'd be open to any other term (or any other description) that one could give foranalyses from background to foreground, but I would regret that the idea be droped completely. Perhaps more detailed references to the works mentioned above, and a more detailed word of explanation, may save the matter. On the other hand, I too am mindful to making (or keeping) the article digestible for musicians – I hope that it is, in genreal. I therefore remain open to any suggestion. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentions of "generative" apart from Lehrdal & Jackendoff. But for Wikipedia, I think it better to find a more easy-to-understand word or phrase. I'll do some thinking. As far as Schenker's display of levels: I think it was for pedagogical reasons that he gave primacy to the background Ursatz. There is no question that Schenker didn't analyze that way, and that he did what everyone else does: start from the foreground and through understanding embellishments, come to an understanding that leads one to the background. That's how he explains it in the one article (I forget which) where he begins with the foreground and goes to the background. --

Describing his earliest Urlinietafel (he did not yet name it so), in Tonwille 5, p. 8, Schenker says that it "shows the gradual growth of the voice-leading prolongations, all predetermined in the womb of the Urlinie" (Joseph Dubiel's translation, Oxford edition, p. 180). And this process Schenker merely names "elaboration", Auskomponierung. I have had a student who claimed that she could not perform a Schenkerian analysis unless in the "generative" direction: she had first to imagine what the Ursatz might be, then reconstruct the piece from there. Schenker himself writes (Masterwork I, p. 107, John Rothgeb's translation) "The question of why my representation of voice-leading strata (Stimmführungsschichten; Rothgeb didn't like "levels") moves in all cases from background (Urlinie and Ursatz) to foreground and not [...] vice versa, may be answered as follows: actually, it makes no difference." He recognizes that the direction from foreground to background "would give more consideration to the needs of teacher and student"...

So, we might perhaps write "Although Schenker himself usually presents his analyses in the direction of the compositional elaboration, starting from the fundamental structure (Ursatz) to reach the score and showing how the work is somehow generated from the Ursatz, the practice of Schenkerian analysis more often is reductive." Or even "in the direction of these elaborations," as they where mentioned just before. I still consider it important to state that Schenker's analyses are presented in this direction, and not the other way around. [I may eventually give up, but I'll need some more persuasion.] — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made a point of staying away for a while. You're welcome. Please note that the second sentence of the article already begins to weasel readers by using non-neutral terms for what Schenkerians actually do to produce a Schenker graph. Their goal is not precisely to extract anything, but, rather, to create something that can appear plausibly extracted in order to impose it upon the composition from which it could plausibly have been extracted. Moreover, the so-called "background" or "underlying structure" is, more technically, something constructed over the composition rather than literally derived from it. It actually serves as a kind of lens or filter through which Schenkerians teach themselves and each other to process their listening experience, making the structure of the composition seem arbitrarily more coherent than it otherwise might. The fact that weasel words originate either with Schenker, himself, or with early translators, is not a reason to refrain from placing weasel words in quotation marks. Better still would be asterisks leading to various contextual definitions. But, considering that most of Schenker's terms were and remain ultimately undefined, and apparently intenionally so, I understand that the asterisk thing could be a long while from now. I will look forward to seeing some good use of quotation marks first. Thank you. - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.8.42 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Plain English

I ended up here after finding a composer's tongue-in-cheek remark that he was reluctant to give his work 'a good schenkering'. My knowledge of musical theory is basic, I know what a I-IV-V progression is but beyond that I really don't understand any of this article and how it provides insight into the structure of musical pieces and can help identify ways in which they might be improved. Is there room for a plain English explanation? Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point. The lead of the article talks more about "how it came to be" rather than what it is and what it does. I don't have time this week, but maybe others will consider a better introduction. - kosboot (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The first part of the question asked by Stub Mandrel, "how [Schenkerian analysis] provides insight into the structure of musical pieces" actually concerns any type of musical analysis. The lead begins saying that "Schenkerian analysis is a method of analyzing tonal music", with a link to the general article. I don't think that the purpose of analyzing music can be explained here. [Whether it is correctly explained in the general article is another matter.] As to the second part of Stub Mandrel's question, "how [Schenkerian analysis] can help identify ways in which [musical works] might be improved", I don't understand it. I can find nothing in the whole article that could give the impression that analyzing musical works might "improve" them.

The lead further describes a specific purpose of Schenkerian analysis, "to demonstrate the organic coherence of the work by showing how it relates to an abstract deep structure". This may indeed require some words of explanation. Schenker himself certainly never doubted the existence of musical works, particularly of master works, and considered it his task to demonstrate their coherence and their autonomy. Some philosophers (e.g. Lydia Goehr, in the case of music) do question the concept of "work of art", but I don't think that this question was formally raised before the second half of the 20th century. Even today, the question does not seem to form a major preoccupation for Schenkerian scholars and I doubt that one could find any significant bibliography on the subject.

The matter is difficult, and the lead says so ("Schenkerian analysis is an abstract, complex and difficult method"). I am not sure that on could give "a plain English explanation" of it, nor that this would be the thing to do. The article should show (in plain English) the difficulties rather than pretend that there is nothing difficult. The lead can probably be improved, but this will not be simple nor easy. I am afraid Schenkerian analysis itself cannot be understood without some effort. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fairly obvious suggestion to visit Musical anaylsis for there I found, at least, a one-line explanation in (almost) plain English "One of the best known and most influential was Heinrich Schenker, who developed Schenkerian analysis, a method that seeks to describe all tonal classical works as elaborations ("prolongations") of a simple contrapuntal sequence." This is alluded to in the section 'goals' but perhaps doesn't have the prominence that suggests it is the key to understanding the technique. I assume this means that the analysis aims to identify both the underlying counterpoint structure and the ways in which it elaborated to give the overall structure of a work. Stub Mandrel (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Stub Mandrel, as I have a special interest in the Schenkerian analysis article (I proud myself to claim that I wrote much of it in its present state), I read your comment with attention. I have been sensible to your mention of "(almost) plain English", all the more so that English is not my mother tongue; but I don't think to have been responsible for that statement in the Musical analysis article and, anyway, that is not your main point. That article describes Schenkerian analysis as "a method that seeks to describe all tonal classical works as elaborations ("prolongations") of a simple contrapuntal sequence." You assume that "this means that the analysis aims to identify both the underlying counterpoint structure and the ways in which it elaborated," and you feel that the presentation of this in the section 'goals' doesn't give it the prominence that would make it "the key to understanding the technique."

The lead of our article says that "The goal is to demonstrate the organic coherence of the work by showing how it relates to an abstract deep structure, the Ursatz" – the "simple contrapuntal sequence" is here named "the Ursatz." The link between "simple contrapuntal sequence" and Ursatz may not be obvious at this point, but the lead cannot explain everything. The link is made clear in the section Ursatz that follows ("Ursatz is the name given by Schenker to the underlying structure in its simplest form"), but also in the lead itself: "This primal structure is roughly the same for any tonal work". (See also the Ursatz article.) And it is this fact, that the primal structure "is roughly the same for any tonal work," that should answer your question whether Schenkerian analysis should not aim "to identify both the underlying counterpoint structure and the ways in which it elaborated." No, Schenkerian analysis does not need to identify the underlying counterpoint, precisely because it considers it "roughly the same for any tonal work."

Schenkerian analysis presupposes the underlying counterpoint structure in an almost axiomatic way – that is, as something that needs not being discussed. This obviously raises epistemological problems of a high level, too high probably for a WP article. And dealing with that problem either here or in the Ursatz article would be far from simple. Literature about this probably is not lacking, but once again maybe too complex for WP.

My question to you therefore will be: are you (more or less) satisfied with the above comments, can you find from there your way into Schenkerian analysis? Or do you feel that we should explain this matter of the axiomatic nature of the Ursatz? This question also concerns all those interested by this article (please comment, members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory!), which I think up to now achieved a difficult equilibrium between the vulgarizing project of WP and the utterly difficult matter of Schenkerian analysis in all its philosophical and epistemological implications ... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Racist analysis?

A contributor, Jason Yust, recently added the following mention to the description of the goals of Schenkerian analysis:

Schenker intended his theory as an exegesis of musical "genius" or the "masterwork", ideas that were closely tied to German nationalism and monarchism. [Etc.]

He refers to several quotations from Schenker himself, to Carl Schachter's paper "Elephants, Crocodiles, and Beethoven: Schenker's Politics and the Pedagogy of Schenkerian Analysis" (Theory and Practice 26, 2002, pp. 1–20) and to Philipp Ewell's very recent "Music Theory and the White Racial Frame" (Music Theory Online, 26 (2), 2020). I understand that Ewell's plenary talk at a recent SMT meeting (from which this paper stems) aroused enthusiastic response, particularly following the "Black Life Matters" movement in the US. Ewell claims that Schenker's racism is "biological" and "anti nonwhite", but from my own European point of view, I wonder whether this is not mixing a present-day American problem with a historical one. There are European texts about this that predate Schachter's by about 10 years, if not more.

I find it quite revealing that Jason Yust first included Chopin in the list of composers representative of German common practice according to Schenker, then removed him. Schenker indeed recognized that Chopin's music (like Scarlatti's) was truly "German" – and this invites wondering the extent to which his German nationalism was truly racist. To consider that musical genius, be it French, Polish, Italian, or whatever, may have something "German" about it does not really correspond to what may be considered an idea of a German "biological race". But the presence of Chopin there weakened Jason Yust's argument.

But this is not my main point here. The article concerned by this talk page is about Schenkerian analysis, not only as conceived by Schenker, but also by his followers. Ideas of "genius" or of "masterwork" are common ideas in the 19th century, and I don't really see how they could be "closely tied to German nationalism and monarchism". Schenkerian analysis has been used, since Schenker, more widely that he did himself, including pop or non-European music, and this extended the list of geniuses and of masterworks. The idea that analysis itself inherently may be racist stems from Joseph Kerman's article "How we Got into Anlysis and How to Get out" (Critical Inquiry, 1980), an obvious attack against theory and analysis at large.

I agree: the bio article is more appropriate. Tony (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The question that I want to raise is this: is it Schenker who was racist (he probably was, to some extent), or is it Schenkerian analysis? Jason Yust should be aware that this question already was posed in the talk page of the Heinrich Schenker article itself, and I think indeed that it is there that the matter of Schenker's racism should be treated – because I don't think that Schenkerian analysis itself is inherently racist.

This whole matter is of utter importance and of utter difficulty. I think that anyone genuinely interested by this problem (as several of us Wikipedians are) should refrain from jumping to conclusions, and from amending articles in ways that do not allow discussion. I think to know that Jason Yust is a respected member of SMT. This does not dispense him to respect the Wikipedia usages which, in this case, should allow us to enter in dialogue with him – and should induce him to first take account of how this complex matter already has been in discussion among us. Members of SMT, years ago, unfortunately decided that they would not participate in the WP music theory project. They should not now come back here without truly participating. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can insist on full participation rather than piecemeal commentary. I'm unsure of how to position the racism issue here. Tony (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just read the Schachter article mentioned above. Although written 20 years ago, it was certainly prescient in recognizing the issues which recently have come forward. I feel the correct place to document them is in the biographical article, not the article on Schenkerian Analysis. I'm about to go on a week's vacation but I hope to add a section on these issues in the biographical article when I return. - kosboot (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Some note on the history of the article

Summarizing his recent modification of the article, Jason Yust wrote:

Re-introduced reference to Schenker's nationalism, which had been expunged from the article in August 2012, with additional context and citations.

I wondered whether, in 2012 or before, the article might have mentioned Schenker's nationalism. Jason Yust apparently refers to this statement, added on 22 August 2006 by an unknown contributor identified as "24.22.210.91":

Schenker's primary theoretic aims were to prove the superiority of German music of the common practice period (especially the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Fryderyk Chopin, and Johannes Brahms) over more modern music such as that of Richard Wagner, Igor Stravinsky, and Arnold Schoenberg, and to show that most of the established music theory teaching of the time, with an emphasis on the theories of his contemporary Hugo Riemann, was misleading and useless for an understanding of the "masterworks."

The word "German", that I underline in the above quotation, has been deleted on 20 August 2012. Jason Yust himself made many important and excellent modifications to the article until the end of 2006 (see Jason D Yust), basically establishing its present organization. The list of common practice composers did not yet include the name of Chopin, which was added by another anonymous contributor ("75.69.45.147") on 11 November 2010 – an addition that may have justified the deletion of the word "German". The list of composers has been modified several times since, I think, and a request for reference has been added at some point. There has been no mention of Schenker's "nationalism" before the recent modifications of 15 August 2020.

Browsing through Larry Laskowski's Index to [Schenker's] analyses shows that composers at least once considered by Schenker include, besides the "German" ones, Berlioz, Bizet, Chopin, Clementi, F. Couperin, Josquin Desprez, Palestrina, D. Scarlatti and Smetana. These remain marginal in his analyses, but may suffice to indicate that the goal of his analyses was not to demonstrate the superiority of "German" music, at least not in the ordinary sense that could be given to a German nationalism. (As a matter of fact, one may wonder whether the discipline that we call "music analysis" as practiced today is not determined by some supremacy of common practice tonality; but that may be a question for SMT Talk, rather than here.)

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

An American problem

Recent developments in the affair of Schenker's alleged racism (see the note published a month ago by Fire.org) probably make the whole matter too sensible to allow any American contributor publish anything about this on WP. Let me stress that that is the exact contrary to what should be expected from the US today, the possibility of free talk about racism. Censorship never is a solution. Let's leave this affair quite for a moment, lest we provoke a war on WP. But let me stress that I, as European, utterly disapprove. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I keep on meaning to tackle this issue in the biographical article, but I've not had enough time. Hopefully I'll make a start soon. I don't feel it belongs in this article. - kosboot (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

[as European, utterly disapprove.] You've made that pretty clear in your blog, Hucbald, to which you are now using Wikipedia as a mere extention, much as you are now using this page as your personal safe space, using Wikipedia more broadly as your personal publicist, and using the other editors here as your mindless minions. - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.18.142 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I had totally missed this Hucbald statement before: "make the whole matter too sensible to allow any American contributor publish anything about this on WP. (...) Censorship never is a solution. " That's actually pretty funny. -JCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.18.142 (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC) ñññ

ATTN: Simon Christopher Buck Jason D Yust Komponisto Antandrus Hyacinth Jperrylsu Shlishke kosboot Tim riley Stfg CursoryB Tony1 Stub Mandrel; wake up and smell the burnt toast. It is time that Hucbald SaintAmand and his "real life" alt were banned from Wikipedia, and their original research removed from all articles, including the "Schenkerian Analysis" article and the French language biographical article of Nicholas Meeús. You have been played. Hucbald has made every one of you his b*tch. - Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.154.35.236 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Clement Broyles, I strongly suggest you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This space should be used only for discussing the article. - kosboot (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ñññ

OK, then, let's talk about how this article has been compromised by Hucbald's alt. If your alt is also one of the cited authors, don't think I won't also eventually figure that out. My limited participation here is not really an excuse for your own editorial negligence or your favoritism. If you don't start doing the work you've agreed to do, I will start doing it for you. I think we can agree we don't want things to come to that. -Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.154.33.43 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Textbooks

Why isn't "Counterpoint in Composition" by Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter included in section 5.3.2? It was used as a textbook when I was a student (1982-1984) and later a teacher (1988-1996) at Mannes College of Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.0.84 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Counterpoint in Composition is about counterpoint. You can't learn Schenkerian Analysis from the book although it is highly influenced by it. Perhaps if there was a section "textbooks showing the influence of Schenkerian Analysis" that would be an appropriate place. But since the article is specifically about analysis, I don't think that book qualifies. - kosboot (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Query

It's a pity the quote from Schenker in the first paragraph uses "Urlinie", when only "Ursatz" has been introduced. Tony (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no such quote in the first paragraph, or at least I have been unable to find it. Urlinie appears first in the section Counterpoint, voice-leading, immediately followed by the section Ursatz where the "fundamental line" is (shortly) defined before the first quote from Schenker.

On the other hand, I see that Ursatz is translated as "primal structure" in the lead. The usual translation as "fundamental structure" (and that of Urlinie as "fundamental line") has been criticized in the Fundamental structure article. Unless anyone would object, I intend to replace all cases of "fundamental structure" and "fundamental line" in the article by "primal structure" and "primal line", merely indicating the earlier translation at the first occurrence. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ... I'm used to "fundamental" in both cases. It's widely used in the literature. "Primal" has a different envelope of meaning, though both words overlap a bit. I meant the second paragraph: how to convey "Ersatz" without requiring readers to click the link, which is distracting and segments the flow? Tony (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Here I think common usage should overule the literal translation. "Fundamental....." is used a lot in the literature. "Primal" is not (and—to me—suggests something primitive). - kosboot (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I like Ersatz mentioned above by @Tony ;–)). As discussed in Fundamental structure, "primal" is a common translation of the German Ur– in other disciplines. It is striking that more recent translations (e.g. of Tonwille and Meisterwerk) prefer keeping the German terms Ursatz and Urlinie. But changing "fundamental" may indeed be too soon for WP. After a much needed new translation of Free Composition, perhaps... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)