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)

ñññ

From the apparent undeniability of deep structure in language does not necessarily follow that all good tonal music contains any specific discernible deep structure, much less a specifically schenkerian deep structure. You can spend the rest of your life scouring Beethoven's notebooks for any sign that Beethoven ever conceived of something like a schenkerian mid-ground, but you won't find it. Schenker structures are not derived from the compositions schenkerians treat, as deep linguistic structure is derived from natural language; Schenker structures are something extrinsic to the music and imposed upon it.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Schenker never claimed that good tonal music contains a deep structure, he merely said that analyzing tonal music should begin with considering a deep structure. The same may be said of deep structure in language: did you ever conceive of a deep structure when speaking or writing? I'd strongly doubt it. So, why would Beethoven have conceived it when composing? Schenker's structures indeed are not derived from the compositions, this is a common misconception of what Schenkerian analysis is. As the Fundamental structure article states, the meaning of Ursatz in German philosophy is close to that of "axiom". Both in linguistic and in musical analyses, the deep structure somehow is axiomatic. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2024 (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)

ñññ

Schenkerians are indeed hostile to the application of cognitive science, or, indeed, any science to music theory. To allow schenkerian claims about human cognition to be empirically tested would mean a certain end to the perception that schenkerism has any legitimate explanatory utility for tonal music. I think this is precisely why scientific evaluation of schenkerism's claims must be undertaken immediately.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2024 (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)

This talk page is about how to improve the article. It's not for discussing the characteristics of Schenkerian Analysis unless that directly impacts the writing of the article. - kosboot (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2024 (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)

ñññ

[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."] If schenkerian analysts are not trying to reverse engineer the composition, then nothing else really explains their actions. This is a problem because Schenker says his theory does not show compositional chronology; something which reverse engineering the composition would seem to practically entail. Schenkerians get around this problem by pretending that the real structure of the piece is not what the composer produced, but what schenkerians hear; as if composers are not any authority on what listeners should listen for if they want to understand the composition correctly. A consequence of this is that schenkerians teach their own way of understanding the composition as more important than what we may otherwise construct the composer to have intended based on what we know of the composer's education, or even what may be in the composer's notebooks. Moreover, schenkerians seek to remediate any other way of hearing musical structure, no matter how historically defensive, as defective. One might wonder whether they would presume to remediate the composer's own hearing of the composer's own composition.

- Joshua Clement Broyles 186.155.12.109 (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (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)

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)

ñññ

The emphatic structure of a mnemonically optimized performance would be a structure that shows as hierarchically more important those tones which, if emphasized in performance, will optimize memory encoding of the compositional content by listeners. I have no access to Snarrenberg's work. If it explains what Schenker is supposed to be modeling, then please do what you can to get that into the article. An article of this length that describes models without ever explaining what they model will always be fundamentally flawed.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2024 (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)

ñññ

I don't see why explanations of these matters couldn't be pulled out of thin air in order to put them in the article. As the GA review points out, huge sections of this article already provide no citation to support their content. At least, you should be able to get Nicholas Meeus to publish something so that Hucbald can cite it.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2024 (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)

ñññ

RE: [ 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?]

A lot has changed since 20:15, 27 September 2013

The claim that schenkerism is less controversial than scientology is now debatable.

I consider that, as Ewell's work argues that Schenkerian Analysis is, itself, worthy of further critique, Ewell's work might as well be added to the further readings list. And/or a citation from Ewell, specifically about the analysis, might be added to the main body of the article.

Also, what would be the case for not adding "Why I Am Not a Schenkerian" to the list of further readings?

https://lodewijkmuns.nl/WhyIamNotaSchenkerian.pdf

Muns makes some points similar to Narmour, which could potentially be extracted into a Criticism section for the article, along with Ewell's statements.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.29.32.27 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2024 (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)

ñññ

I stand by the point I was making. Schenkerians make appeals to the harmonic series in order to explain the "primal triad", despite that the triad that would tend to emerge from the music they analyze is a product of equal temperament. This is inconsistent.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2024 (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; [3]):

"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)

ñññ

Your Burstein quote is amusing in that it says schenkerian analysis offers a model, and yet you have denied elsewhere that schenkerian analysis models anything. What, exactly, is a model that does not model anything?

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ñññ

There is absolutely no mechanical process, and even Schenker says that his graphs do not show compositional chronology and should not be used to teach composition. The "analytic" process consists of constructing a middle ground based not on what music historians know about any compositional technique the composer was taught (such as schemata, which Schenker utterly ignores), but based on the so-called analyst's own intuitions of what the composer must really have been thinking. You can see a schenkerian in this video claiming special access to a composer's thought process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UshKRa3RARk This is the very height of interpretive subjectivity, and it boils down to pretending to read a dead person's mind. On this basis (mind reading, necromancy) schenkerians can be understood to be what anthropologists call tribal magicians, or what laypersons call witch doctors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_doctor . The only thing that creates any appearance of objective analytic procedure is that schenkerians all seem to share Schenker's intuition about all good tonal music being an elaboration of a single, specific counterpoint error. [ The Ursatz, as a two-voiced figure, violates the rules of counterpoint by presenting an octave approached by similar motion.] Students who do not share a Schenker professor's intuition or Schenker's intuition are labeled mentally defective and told they are broadly unfit to study music theory as a complete discipline; that is: they are gaslighted.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You write "The Ursatz [...] violates the rules of counterpoint by presenting an octave approached by similar motion". I'd be interested to know the name of your counterpoint teacher, he certainly has a novel view of strict counterpoint! — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ñññ

I was taught this as a rule specifically for a two-voiced texture by 2 teachers at 2 institutions, and I had to give a presentation on this rule under a 3rd teacher at a 3rd institution, where I received a good mark for my presentation. I am aware that Schenker does not always show the Ursatz as including only two voices. But the default notation of the Ursatz is in two voices. I later learned that the same principle may apply to the outermost voices of thicker textures, but I was never given a citation for that. The context in which this rule actually came up most often was a 16th Century counterpoint class taught by Allen Shearer at then California State University Hayward. The reference text was not Fux, but Fux was nonetheless invoked in order to support specific rules, such as this one. - Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.154.37.140 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2024 (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

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)

I understand that the epistemological problem is too large to be fully explained in a WP article. But if it is not even mentioned, WP is more or less pretending that the problem does not exist. WP articles on topics such as Astrology and Scientology which could certainly always address more in terms of controversy nonetheless at least include substantial passages undermining claims made by proponents of these practices. In the interest of a more balanced perspective on schenkerism, there is no reason why this article should not do the same.

Joshua Clement Broyles

186.154.37.140 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)