DOCSLIB.ORG

Yale University Department of Music

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yale University Department of Music Yale University Department of Music Review: A Commentary on Schenker's Free Composition Author(s): Carl E. Schachter Reviewed work(s): Free Composition (Der freie Satz) by Heinrich Schenker ; Ernst Oster Source: Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 25, No. 1, 25th Anniversary Issue (Spring, 1981), pp. 115-142 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Yale University Department of Music Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/843469 Accessed: 14/01/2010 20:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Duke University Press and Yale University Department of Music are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Music Theory. http://www.jstor.org me to be at least as close to the backgroundas the I-VI-I that Schenker includes in the first level in connection with a neighboringnote to 5 (p. 42, ? 108). The material of Part II, then, is not presentedquite as systematically as it might at first appearto be. I rather doubt that it can ever be sys- tematized in the way that the simplermaterials and proceduresof strict counterpoint can, but I think that Schenker'spresentation could pos- sibly be improvedupon by someone with sufficient knowledge and will- ingness to work. Despite its shortcomings, Part II remains an indis- pensable resource for anyone who wants to understandmusic. Schenk- er's totally new and highly important conception of the relation of form to tonal structure is based, to a considerableextent, on proce- dures first discussedin Part II. Contrapuntallyprolonged basses. The first middlegroundtechnique that Schenker describes is that of filling in the space between the ini- tial I and the V of the bass arpeggiation.The way he shows this process (in Figure 14) is most interesting.The first stage is a complete arpeg- giation through the third; passing tones then compose out the arpeggio creating a conjunct line from I to V. This procedure would seem to suggest that the motion from I to V is necessarilysubdivided at the III or I6 produced by the arpeggiatedbass, but this is not at all what Schenker intends. He states that II or IV (of the stepwise bass) might receive an emphasisfrom a tone of the fundamentalline that coincides with one of them. In that case the III would recede in importanceand assume a passing function-another instance of the mutual adjustment of chord, consonance, and "nature"on the one hand and line, disson- ance, and "art"on the other. And indeed except in minor, the path to V leads far more charac- teristically through IV or II than through III or I6. Each in a different way, IV and II introduce the possibility of a subsidiaryfifth relation- ship into the progressionfrom tonic to dominant and thus add to the harmonic content of the piece. In addition, the stepwise motion from I to II and from IV to V adds an intensely linearquality to the bass part. It is important to note that Schenkeruses his characteristicsinterlock- ing slurs (I-IV or I-IV) only for progressionsinvolving IV and II, not for those arpeggiatingthrough III or I6. In this way he conveys the far more intense motion to V producedby II or IV. Schenker believed that a bass part, in principle, could not receive the extensive diminutionalelaboration characteristic of the uppermost part; basses tend to move in slower values and with more disjunctmo- tion. Consequently a fully developed passing motion from I to V is not always possible; skips-perhaps from I to IV or II to V-are some- times unavoidable.Still, even the partial filling in of the fifth from I to V reveals the activity of the linear-melodicprinciple, whose tendency 130 to move by step must sometimes adjust to and compromisewith the kind of progressionappropriate to a bass. It seems to me that Part II of Free Composition contains the best solution we have to a prob- lem that has vexed theorists since Rameau: what is the basis of the progression from IV to V? The basis is contrapuntal;that is why it eluded Rameau and his followers. IV move to V as the result of a space-filling motion that composes out the leap of a fifth from I toV. One shortcomingof the section on contrapuntallyprolonged bassses is Schenker's restrictinghis illustrationsto progressionsin major. This restriction creates no difficulties in Part I, for differencesof mode have no bearing on the fundamental structure except, perhaps, for octave lines, which seem slightly less problematic in minor. But at the first middleground level, the differences already take on considerablesig- nificance. In particularthe use of III in minor requires comment. If III already appears under 5, the stretch 5-4-3 can unfold over the sustained III. At a later level the 5-4-3 can receive the support of a cadence tnicizing III, in which case the melodic line will assume the guise of 3-2-1 in the mediant "key." This possibility is unique to minor; the emphasisit gives to III is such that a IV or II6 that follows will necessarilyhave the function of a passingchord ratherthan a goal. This creates significantimplications for form, especially sonata form in minor. Later in the book Schenker shows such middlegroundprogres- sions (Figure 154/2 and 3), but he does not do so at this point, nor does he refer to the later illustrations. I should like to make one more observationabout the contrapuntal- ly prolonged basses. As Figure 16 shows,_theintroduction of II or IV provides consonant support for 4 in a 5-line, thus reducing the un- supported stretch. At the same time, however, this procedure trans- forms 3 into either an unsupporteddissonant passingtone (over IV or II) or the sixth of a 6 formation above V. In either case 3 becomes a more active tone than in the fundamentalstructure. Sometimes, but by no means always, a later level will provide consonant support for the passing 3, usually in the form of an apparent"I" interpolatedbetween IV (or II) and V. Even then, the conceptually dissonant characterof the 3 is evident to any listener who takes in the larger context. To provide at once consonant support for 4 and stability for 3 requires the use of two bass arpeggiations,as shown in Figure 19. Interruption.Schenker's discussion of this most importanttechnique is reasonablyclear, and it is made still clearerby some excellent foot- notes provided by Jonas, Oster, and Rothgeb. Schenker obviously re- garded the discovery of interruption as one of his greatest achieve- ments; it is perhapsthe most important component of his conception of form. I don't intend to write about interruptionhere, but I do wish to comment on one of its frequent by-products:the upward transfer 131 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advanced Schenkerian Analysis: Perspectives on Phrase Rhythm, Motive, and Form by David Beach
    Advanced Schenkerian Analysis: Perspectives on Phrase Rhythm, Motive, and Form by David Beach. New York and London: Routledge, 2012.1 Review by David Carson Berry After Allen Forte’s and Steven Gilbert’s Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis was published in 1982, it effectively had the textbook market to itself for a decade (a much older book by Felix Salzer and a new translation of one by Oswald Jonas not withstanding).2 A relatively compact Guide to Schenkerian Analysis, by David Neumeyer and Susan Tepping, was issued in 1992;3 and in 1998 came Allen Cadwallader and David Gagné’s Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, which is today (in its third edition) the dominant text.4 Despite its ascendance, and the firm legacy of the Forte/Gilbert book, authors continue to crowd what is a comparatively small market within music studies. Steven Porter offered the interesting but dubiously named Schenker Made Simple in 1 Advanced Schenkerian Analysis: Perspectives on Phrase Rhythm, Motive, and Form, by David Beach. New York and London: Routledge, 2012; hardback, $150 (978-0- 415-89214-8), paperback, $68.95 (978-0-415-89215-5); xx, 310 pp. 2 Allen Forte and Steven E. Gilbert, Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis (New York: Norton, 1982). Felix Salzer’s book (Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music [New York: Charles Boni, 1952]), though popular in its time, was viewed askance by orthodox Schenkerians due to its alterations of core tenets, and it was growing increasingly out of favor with mainstream theorists by the 1980s (as evidenced by the well-known rebuttal of its techniques in Joseph N.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Considerations of the Continuous ^5 with an Introduction and Explanation of Schenker's Five Interruption Models
    Further Considerations of the Continuous ^5 with an Introduction and Explanation of Schenker's Five Interruption Models By: Irna Priore ―Further Considerations about the Continuous ^5 with an Introduction and Explanation of Schenker’s Five Interruption Models.‖ Indiana Theory Review, Volume 25, Spring-Fall 2004 (spring 2007). Made available courtesy of Indiana University School of Music: http://www.music.indiana.edu/ *** Note: Figures may be missing from this format of the document Article: Schenker’s works span about thirty years, from his early performance editions in the first decade of the twentieth century to Free Composition in 1935.1 Nevertheless, the focus of modern scholarship has most often been on the ideas contained in this last work. Although Free Composition is indeed a monumental accomplishment, Schenker's early ideas are insightful and merit further study. Not everything in these early essays was incorporated into Free Composition and some ideas that appear in their final form in Free Composition can be traced back to his previous writings. This is the case with the discussion of interruption, a term coined only in Free Composition. After the idea of the chord of nature and its unfolding, interruption is probably the most important concept in Free Composition. In this work Schenker studied the implications of melodic descent, referring to the momentary pause of this descent prior to the achievement of tonal closure as interruption. In his earlier works he focused more on the continuity of the line itself rather than its tonal closure, and used the notion of melodic line or melodic continuity to address long-range connections.
    [Show full text]
  • To Be Or Not to Be: Schenker's Versus Schenkerian Attitudes Towards
    TO BE OR NOT TO BE: SCHENKER’S VERSUS SCHENKERIAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEQUENCES STEPHEN SLOTTOW have several times experienced a sinking feeling upon reading the following passage from I Free Composition (from a discussion of leading and following linear progressions): “double counterpoint therefore takes its place in the ranks of such fallacious concepts as the ecclesiastical modes, sequences, and the usual explanation of consecutive fifths and octaves” (Schenker 1979, 78). Although I retain a sneaking fondness for double counterpoint, it is largely the presence of sequences in this blacklist that evokes a nostalgic sense of loss. Schenker was contemptuous towards piecemeal analyses that merely identified different kinds of isolated entities in the music, like landmarks highlighted on a map. In a section of Free Composition entitled “Rejection of the conventional terms ‘melody,’ ‘motive,’ ‘idea,’ and the like,” he writes: Great composers trust their long-range vision. For this reason they do not base their compositions upon some ‘melody,’ ‘motive,’ or ‘idea.’ Rather, the content is rooted in the voice-leading transformations and linear progressions whose unity allows no segmentation or names of segments. (26) And, in the next paragraph: One cannot speak of ‘melody’ and ‘idea’ in the work of the masters; it makes even less sense to speak of ‘passage,’ ‘sequence,’ ‘padding,’ or ‘cement’ as if they were terms that one could possibly apply to art. Drawing a comparison to language, what is there in a logically constructed sentence that one could call ‘cement’?” (27) GAMUT 8/1 (2018) 72 © UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE PRESS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ISSN: 1938-6690 SLOTTOW: SCHENKER’S ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEQUENCES As Matthew Brown points out, “whereas Fux avoided sequences, Schenker was openly hostile to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Schenker's Theory of Music As Ethics
    Schenker's Theory of Music as Ethics NICHOLAS COOK Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/jm/article-pdf/7/4/415/193927/763775.pdf by guest on 23 August 2020 hen we read Schenker's writings today, we tend to pick out the plums and ignore the rest. We appropriate his analytical techniques and accept his insights into musical structure, performance and editorial practice, while ignoring the broader con- text of his philosophical and political views, or at best relegating them to the occasional footnote. Until recently, published editions of Schenker's writings embod- 415 ied this selective, or even censorious, approach to the extent of actu- ally deleting passages of the original that were considered unneces- sary or undesirable. Some of these deletions were concerned with purely technical issues; in his 1954 edition of Harmony (the first vol- ume of Schenker's "New Musical Theories and Fantasies"), Oswald Jonas omitted a few sections that were inconsistent with the later development of Schenker's theories, including, for instance, a discus- sion of the seventh-chord. Jonas presumably did this in order to trans- form "New Musical Theories and Fantasies" as a whole into the state- ment of a fully consistent dogma; this also explains his fierce defense of canonical Schenkerian theory against the extensions and adapta- tions of Schenker's ideas proposed by Felix Salzer and, later, Roy Travis.1 But when, in the following year, he edited Free Composition (the final volume of "New Musical Theories and Fantasies"), Jonas extended his policy of deletion to Schenker's frequent excursions into metaphysics, religion and politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Schenkerian Analysis for the Beginner Benjamin K
    Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Faculty Publications 2016 Schenkerian Analysis for the Beginner Benjamin K. Wadsworth Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs Part of the Music Education Commons, and the Music Theory Commons Recommended Citation Wadsworth, Benjamin K., "Schenkerian Analysis for the Beginner" (2016). Faculty Publications. 4126. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/4126 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCHENKERIAN ANALYSIS FOR THE BEGINNER Schenkerian Analysis for the Beginner By Benjamin K. WadsWorth introduction: schenKer in the classroom n its earliest days, and continuing throughout the 20th century, Schenkerian analysis was often taught by master teachers to highlyI gifted students. Elite musicians in this tradition included Schenker and his students, Ernst Oster and his students, and so on, creating a relatively small family of expert practitioners.1 Schenker’s Lesson Books (1913–1932) provide snapshots of the diverse analytical, theoretical, and critical activities possible in long-term, mentored relationships.2 Mentored relationships are fruitful with highly motivated students who arrive with a solid theoretical and practical background. Across the United States and other countries, however, Schenkerian courses at many universities pose challenges: This essay elaborates on research presented at the Pedagogy in Practice conference at Lee University (Cleveland, TN) on June 2, 2017. A word of thanks is due to students of my Introduction to Schenker classes at Kennesaw State (2014 and 2016), to William Marvin and Poundie Burstein for their comments on earlier drafts, and to the anonymous readers of this journal for their feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Composition, Perception, and Schenkerian Theory David Temperley
    Composition, Perception, and Schenkerian Theory david temperley In this essay I consider how Schenkerian theory might be evaluated as a theory of composition (describing composers’ mental representations) and as a theory of perception (describing listeners’ mental representations). I propose to evaluate the theory in the usual way: by examining its predic- tions and seeing if they are true. The first problem is simply to interpret and formulate the theory in such a way that substantive, testable predictions can be made. While I consider some empirical evidence that bears on these predictions, my approach is, for the most part, informal and intuitive: I simply present my own thoughts as to which of the theory’s possible predictions seem most promising—that is, which ones seem from informal observation to be borne out in ways that support the theory. Keywords: Schenkerian theory, music perception, music composition, harmony, counterpoint 1. the question of purpose* A theory is (normally, at least) designed to make accurate predictions about something; we evaluate it by examining how ore than seventy years after schenker’s death, well its predictions are confirmed. Thus, the first step toward Schenkerian theory remains the dominant approach evaluating ST is to determine what exactly its predictions are Mto the analysis of tonal music in the English-speaking about—that is, what it is a theory of. This is, in fact, an ex- world. Schenkerian analyses seem as plentiful as ever in music tremely difficult and controversial issue. In some respects, there theory journals and conference presentations. Recent biblio- is general agreement about the basic tenets of ST.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death and Resurrection of Function
    THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF FUNCTION A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John Gabriel Miller, B.A., M.C.M., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2008 Doctoral Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Gregory Proctor, Advisor Dr. Graeme Boone ________________________ Dr. Lora Gingerich Dobos Advisor Graduate Program in Music Copyright by John Gabriel Miller 2008 ABSTRACT Function is one of those words that everyone understands, yet everyone understands a little differently. Although the impact and pervasiveness of function in tonal theory today is undeniable, a single, unambiguous definition of the term has yet to be agreed upon. So many theorists—Daniel Harrison, Joel Lester, Eytan Agmon, Charles Smith, William Caplin, and Gregory Proctor, to name a few—have so many different nuanced understandings of function that it is nearly impossible for conversations on the subject to be completely understood by all parties. This is because function comprises at least four distinct aspects, which, when all called by the same name, function , create ambiguity, confusion, and contradiction. Part I of the dissertation first illuminates this ambiguity in the term function by giving a historical basis for four different aspects of function, three of which are traced to Riemann, and one of which is traced all the way back to Rameau. A solution to the problem of ambiguity is then proposed: the elimination of the term function . In place of function , four new terms—behavior , kinship , province , and quality —are invoked, each uniquely corresponding to one of the four aspects of function identified.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNOTATED GRAD GUIDE 19-20 Draft3
    DEPARTMENT OF MUSIC AND DANCE GRADUATE COURSES 2019- 2020 (8-30-19 version) Note that some of the courses listed below may not be on SPIRE and/or you may find them on SPIRE w/ different room assignments. This Annotated Guide represents the department’s latest understanding of courses, days, times and credits. Because the Registrar’s Office is so busy, it may take time for new information to appear on SPIRE. COMPOSITION & ARRANGING Fall 2019 Music 586 – MIDI Studio Tech (3 credits) Sibley-Schwartz Required for M.M. in Composition Mon, 5:30 – 8:30, FAC 444 This course provides a comprehensive introduction to computer music, with a focus on studio techniques for computer music composition, performance, and recording, as well as an overview of the history of electronic music. The required text is Curtis Roads' The Computer Music Tutorial (1999). We will use the object oriented software Max/MSP to build virtual electronic musical instruments and prototypes from the textbook. Apple's Logic Pro music production software will also be used extensively throughout the course. Topics covered include ring modulation, amplitude modulation, FM synthesis, additive synthesis, sampling, filtering, compression, effects processing, step sequencing, multitrack recording and mixing, Fourier transform, syncing sound to digital video, techniques for live electronic music performance. We will study the compositions and techniques of electronic music pioneers such as Vladimir Ussachevsky, Otto Luening, Edgard Varese, Mario Davidovsky, Bruno Maderna, Milton Babbitt, Charles Dodge, John Chowning, Pierre Boulez, Gareth Loy, and others. Listening assignments include over 25 compositions from early electronic music to the present day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Affective Role of Melodic Ascent and Other Linear Devices in Selected Song Verses of Irving Berlin
    Dynamic Introductions: The Affective Role of Melodic Ascent and Other Linear Devices in Selected Song Verses of Irving Berlin David Carson Berry Irving Berlin (1888-1989) played a leading role in the development of popular song in the U.S., and enjoyed a recognition and success that was perhaps unparalleled. He made his songwriting debut (as a lyricist) in 1907 and actively composed for at least six decades thereafter, contributing to the world approximately 900 copyrighted songs1 and becoming one of the few artists of his time to write both melody and lyric.2 Despite his influence and talents, however, his music has seldom been treated to analytic or theoretic attention; Charles Hamm has engaged in extensive historiographic work on Berlin and his oeuvre,3 but Allen Forte is one of the few who has analyzed the songs in explicitly musical terms.4 The dearth of analysis is !A song listing is provided in Steven Suskin, Berlin, Kern, Rogers, Hart, and Hammerstein: A Complete Song Catalogue (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 1990). Although some (especially early) songs may have been lost, the actual number of Berlin's copyrighted songs - which surely includes most of what he ever wrote, even birthday songs for his grandchildren - contradicts frequently encountered exaggerations which place his output as high as 2000-3000 songs. Such elevated numbers may be partly attributable to the show-business boasts of Berlin himself, who once claimed to have composed as many as five songs a day (see Laurence Bergreen, As Thousands Cheer: The Life of Irving Berlin [New York: Penguin Books, 1990], 58).
    [Show full text]
  • Prolongation of Seventh Chords in Tonal Music, by Yosef Goldenberg
    Min-Ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online, Vol. 9 – 2011 Boyd Pomeroy – Review of Yosef Goldenberg’s Prolongation of Seventh Chords in Tonal Music Reviews BOYD POMEROY Prolongation of Seventh Chords in Tonal Music, by Yosef Goldenberg. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press, 2008. 597 pp. (2 vols.) Goldenberg’s subject is a conceptual and theoretical-systemic issue of perennial importance to Schenkerian analysts: the problematic status of dissonant prolongation in Schenker’s theory, and the inconsistency between Schenker’s theoretical pronouncements, which famously deny the existence of the phenomenon, and his analytical practice, which often appears to incorporate it in striking fashion. It is not Goldenberg’s goal to resolve this conflict, which would in any case not be possible. At one point, he takes aim at “[the] trend toward reconciling statements in Schenker’s writings, which are either inconsistent with one another or which do not correspond to our own perceptions, sometimes [creating] the impression that a battle is being fought to defend the ‘holy scriptures’ of music theory” [72]). Rather, his purpose is systematically to explore, through rigorous empirical investigation deriving from a sympathetic, though not uncritical, close reading of Schenker, the possibilities and limitations of the phenomenon. Although this is (to my knowledge) the first book-length study of the topic, Goldenberg is the latest of many to weigh in on the subject. Within the Schenkerian tradition, we find represented a myriad of viewpoints on and interpretations of Schenker’s own stance (more on this below). Outside of the tradition (perhaps, more accurately, inhabiting an extended offshoot from it), have been some wide-ranging investigations of the phenomenon of prolonged dissonance (“PD”) in general.
    [Show full text]
  • A Wagnerian Ursatz; Or, Was Wagner a Background Composer After All?
    A Wagnerian Ursatz; or, Was Wagner a Background Composer After All? by Warren Darcy Heinrich Schenker's antipathy towards the music of Richard Wagner is well known. However, some of the references to Wagner's music in Schenker's earlier writings are far from disrespectful in tone. For example, in Book I of Counterpoint (1910), Schenker remarks about a passage from Das Rheingold: "Such lovely fruit of the composing-out of scale degrees!"1 Several pages later, he comments approvingly upon a chromatic passage from Tristan und Isolde.2 Yet in his later works we find the theorist railing against "Wagner's inability to achieve An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Musicological Society, Austin, Texas, October 1989. Research on the Rheingold Gesamtentwurf was carried out at the National Archiv der Richard-Wagner-Stiftung in Bayreuth, West Germany, supported by a grant from Oberlin College, during the period November 1986-February 1987. I am grateful to Dr. Manfred Eger and Herr Gunther Fischer for allowing me to examine this and other manuscripts. Thanks are also due to Professors David Beach and Robert Gauldin for their helpful comments upon various aspects of this study. heinrich Schenker, Counterpoint y trans. John Rothgeb and Jurgen Thym, ed. John Rothgeb (New York: Schirmer Books, 1987), 1:151. 2Ibid., 1:169. This content downloaded from 128.151.124.135 on Sat, 16 Mar 2019 00:22:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 2 Integral diminutions like those of the masters"3 and "his overemphasis on the musical foreground due to theatrical requirements."4 This suggests that Schenker's negative stance towards Wagner is connected with his formulation of the Ursatz theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Schenker's Conception of Musical Structure Author(S): Allen Forte Source: Journal of Music Theory , Apr., 1959, Vol
    Schenker's Conception of Musical Structure Author(s): Allen Forte Source: Journal of Music Theory , Apr., 1959, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Apr., 1959), pp. 1-30 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Yale University Department of Music Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/842996 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Duke University Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Music Theory This content downloaded from 128.195.65.121 on Sat, 12 Sep 2020 23:51:37 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SCHENKER'S CONCEPTION OF MUSICAL STRUCTURE by Allen Forte The Mannes College of Music A Review and an Appraisal with reference to Current Problems in Music Theory When Heinrich Schenker died on January 14, 1935, he bequeathed to the musical world a small number of students, a large body of work in theory, and a considerable amount of controversy. For the latter, no end is yet in sight - nor is this necessarily harmful, since dis- agreement has often been an important and stimulating adjunct to mu- sical thought. But without first establishing criteria and agreeing upon conditions, issues cannot be clearly drawn, even provisionally satis- factory conclusions cannot be reached -- in short, intelligent public discussion is impossible.
    [Show full text]