Talk:Prolongation

message: Make sure you always add to the end of the section and not in the middle of a section. -- kosboot (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

message: It's interesting that the article doesn't start with a derivation of the word.  I believe Schenker was the first one to use it - is that true? -- kosboot (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems in defining the terms is that in English the word "prolongation" has been standardized which did not exist with Schenker.  In Tonwille 1 (I'm using the English translation), the article "The Urlinie" begins with this sentence "In the forthcoming volume of my Kontrapunkt...in which I prove that free composition is essentially a continuation of strict counterpoint, I touch upon a fundamental phenomenon of tonal life in the section on elaboration [ Auskomponierung ], a phenomenon that I have termed Urlinie."  (p. 21).  Although Drabkin doesn't use the world prolongation, I believe that this is an appropriate source for the word's derivation - as an elaboration.  More as I find them. -- kosboot (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word certainly existed and was quite standardized in Schenker, from Harmonielehre in which it appears at least twice, with a meaning similar to that in Freie Satz. I have now summarized that in the article itself. This passage should be further expanded to explain the shift of meaning in the American usage. I presume that Salzer is the culprit, when he distinguished 'structural chords' from 'prolonging chords'.
NM62.235.238.212 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Salzer as the source for the structural business.  Now that user 62.235.238.212 has added the opening section on the term's use in Schenker (which I think is hard to understand for a novice), there should be another section on post-tonal uses (which I'm guessing was also begun by Salzer). -- kosboot (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that this matter is hard to understand. Schenker's theory is difficult - for anyone; but it never fails those willing to understand. The problem here seems to be that the "Prolongation" entry should never stand as the main entry to Schenkerian analysis: our first task may be to work on the "Schenkerian analysis" entry and to make sure that the readers coming here have gained at least a basic knowledge. Schenker's notion of "prolongation", insofar as it rests on the idea of "fundamental laws", probably cannot be extended to many uses outside common-practice tonality. The problem, then, would turn out to be one of the abusage of Schenker's concept of prolongation. I personally would be inclined to view this as a semiotic problem - depending on the extent to which the music under consideration can be considered a language; but such considerations exceed the limits of this article.[PS. I hate to have to sign with ever changing IP adresses. I tried in vain to have my French Wikipedia account recognized by the English Wikipedia, and I am extremely reluctant to create new accounts everywhere.]NM 62.235.238.212 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation 

message: I've grown frustrated with the lack of improvement made to this page despite massive discussions on the Society for Music Theory mailing list about it, and have decided to start implementing some of the changes I outlined below. I'd like to emphasize that while I am a proficient Schenkerian analyst, it is not an area I have published in and would be more than happy to defer to those who have. I'd like to invite other theorists, and other wikipedians who have contributed to this page, to aid in this effort in any way possible. It is not a job I am willing to take on entirely myself, and I expect this page to still have serious problems even after I fix it up a bit tonight. Previous authors seem to have relied more on Salzer's "Structural Hearing" for their definitions (a fine source, don't get me wrong) than Schenker's own writings, and this is I believe where the entry could stand to gain the most.  
Also remember that editing a page, especially for as sophisticated and abstract a topic as this, takes time. The page will look incomplete and unsatisfactory throughout the stages of the revision, and it may well get stuck in another state of stubby limbo (although I pray a condition better than the one it was when we first noticed it!). I'd also like to put forth that our time is better spent making substantive improvements to this and other theory pages than bemoaning the technical and/or intellectual limitations of this wiki-resource.
--Frank Lehman (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking action. Please join!

message: Improving this Page
* It has recently come to the attention to some professional music theorists that this topic is far too important, and in its way too problematic, to left as a stub. Since it is in the general interest of the music theory community to improve this page, I'll get the ball rolling with a few suggestions.
1) Integration with Schenkerian Analysis
The first question we should ask is whether this needs to be an independent article on its own. The page on Schenkerian Analysis already has a fairly lengthy subsection devoted to prolongation, and specific techniques thereof, albeit constrained within the context of his contrapuntal-tonal theory. There too, it is flagged for needing expansion. Redundancy is not bad per se on Wikipedia, but I think if we expand here, we should take care to delineate the different purposes of prolongation here and on the Schenker page. The strength of the article in its current form that it suggests a picture of prolongation as an essential musical concept that extends beyond Schenker or Schenkerian orthodoxy (whether it presents a clear or fair picture of what that concept is is an entirely different matter). Nevertheless, direct citation and explication of Schenker's own words on prolongation should be a priority for this page; currently there is nothing of the sort 
2) Problematic/Controversial Wordings 
*I wonder if the first sentence's use of "chord progression" is appropriate -- the wikipage on chord_progression itself defintes it is "a series of musical chords...that aims for a definite goal of...a tonality...In other words a succession of root relationships." Right at the start, this seems to violate, or at the very least side-step, the much more linear basis of prolongation of Schenkerian theory.
*First paragraph first sentence: probably not wise to use word "prolong" in definition of prolongation!
*First paragraph: "Contrapuntal and harmonic prolongation may be distinguished." Passive construction that does little to suggest the implications, let alone justification, for such a distinction. 
*The description of a coda w/ regards to prolongation is un-sourced and smacks of a non-sequitir.
*The paragraph on Lerdahl's senses of progression and strong/weak prolongation can be worded in a more clear manner.
3) Organization
I suggest that this article might be reorganized to have three main subsections. 
*The first can deal with Schenker's concept of prolongation. This might include delving into the intellectual background and precedents for the concept. A well-considered and explicated quotation or two of his most definitive formulation of prolongation (if we locate and agree upon one) strikes me as a necessity. 
*The second could be an enumeration of specific linear prolongational techniques, as laid out in the Schenkerian analysis page. It's here that the redundancy issue with that sister article could be most acute. At the very least, we should justify the two, somewhat under-explained images currently in this article.
*The third will accommodate contemporary views on prolongation, including the Straus/Lerdahl discussion.
4) See Also Section
As it stands, the see also section has three rather incongruous links. Surely there are more relevant and basic pages than Klumpenhouwer_network or Leading-tone_seventh_chord to the topic at hand! Tonality, Voice_leading, and Heinrich_Schenker come to mind.
--Frank Lehman (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this Page