Talk:Schenkerian analysis

message: (2005/11/3)
Has anyone considered to include some words about the fact that Schenker is practically unknown on the continent? "Schenkerianism" is - at most - considered to be complete rubbish, whereas students are mainly taught analysis of harmonic development after Riemann. Having read the Wikipedia article, though, especially the lines quoting Maus, I can certainly understand the unwillingness of some to simply take into account what is a major part of music analysis courses in English-speaking countries. Just in case you wonder: there is not even an article about Heinrich Schenker in the German Wikipedia version. Wicked, hm. User:Solobratscher
:Wikipedia:Be bold!. Hyacinth 02:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your hypotheses see Wikipedia:No original research. Regarding the questions, the speed and accuracy of those answers mostly illistrates the difference between the first, usually quite simple, question, and the second, quite complicated, question. Doesn't it seem possible that the theories and methods appealled to people? Hyacinth 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continental reception

message: 1)
 Schenker's magnum opus, Neue Musikalische spans...
 from Harmonielehre ... to the posthumously published Der Freie Satz 
A "Magnum opus" that "spans" starts up a question of grammatic felicities. (More to the point, I don't understand the sentence....) Anyway, can you give discrete dates for these works? Is it "Neu Musicalishes ...." (published xxxx), a (synthesis?) (compendium?) of Harmonienlehre (pub xxxx), etc.
2)
 ...The organization of this work 
see above. If you are sticking with the one-work concept, (as in Whitman's Leaves of Grass, where individual sets of poems just kept getting accumulated into the same named item). If so, would it help if you just threw some quotes are "work," or change it to "these works"? "Magnum opus" can stay singular and no one will care, or kill "magnum opus" and change it to something else.
Best to all,
Shlishke (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Magnum opus" clarification request 

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

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

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

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

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article need attention from an expert and what sort of attention does it need? Hyacinth (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're working on this article, there's a bunch of information in the article on Heinrich Schenker that is not biographical but belongs here. You might want to take a look. -- kosboot (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I"ve moved the materials from the biography of this article and totally rewrote the biographical article, based on Federhofer's book.  This article (Schenkerian analysis) is pretty awful - it sounds like it was written by angry students. -- kosboot (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

message: It seemed to me that, rather than quoting here the lead sentence of the Heinrich Schenker article, as 220.237.113.229 had done, it was preferable to stress from the outset the link between the two articles. I modified accordingly, but remain open to other suggestions. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the inserted comment should be removed entirely.  The link to the biography is enough. -- kosboot (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed it. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Schenker 

message: Summarizing his recent modification of the article, Jason Yust wrote:
:Re-introduced reference to Schenker's nationalism, which had been expunged from the article in August 2012, with additional context and citations.
I wondered whether, in 2012 or before, the article might have mentioned Schenker's nationalism. Jason Yust apparently refers to this statement, added on 22 August 2006 by an unknown contributor identified as "24.22.210.91":
:Schenker's primary theoretic aims were to prove the superiority of German music of the common practice period (especially the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Fryderyk Chopin, and Johannes Brahms) over more modern music such as that of Richard Wagner, Igor Stravinsky, and Arnold Schoenberg, and to show that most of the established music theory teaching of the time, with an emphasis on the theories of his contemporary Hugo Riemann, was misleading and useless for an understanding of the "masterworks."
The word "German", that I underline in the above quotation, has been deleted on 20 August 2012. Jason Yust himself made many important and excellent modifications to the article until the end of 2006 (see Jason D Yust), basically establishing its present organization. The list of common practice composers did not yet include the name of Chopin, which was added by another anonymous contributor ("75.69.45.147") on 11 November 2010 – an addition that may have justified the deletion of the word "German". The list of composers has been modified several times since, I think, and a request for reference has been added at some point. There has been no mention of Schenker's "nationalism" before the recent modifications of 15 August 2020.
Browsing through Larry Laskowski's Index to [Schenker's] analyses shows that composers at least once considered by Schenker include, besides the "German" ones, Berlioz, Bizet, Chopin, Clementi, F. Couperin, Josquin Desprez, Palestrina, D. Scarlatti and Smetana. These remain marginal in his analyses, but may suffice to indicate that the goal of his analyses was not to 
demonstrate the superiority of "German" music, at least not in the ordinary sense that could be given to a German nationalism. (As a matter of fact, one may wonder whether the discipline that we call "music analysis" as practiced today is not determined by some supremacy of common practice tonality; but that may be a question for SMT Talk, rather than here.)
Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Some note on the history of the article

message: Recent developments in the affair of Schenker's alleged racism (see the note published a month ago by Fire.org) probably make the whole matter too sensible to allow any American contributor publish anything about this on WP. Let me stress that that is the exact contrary to what should be expected from the US today, the possibility of free talk about racism. Censorship never is a solution. Let's leave this affair quite for a moment, lest we provoke a war on WP. But let me stress that I, as European, utterly disapprove. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep on meaning to tackle this issue in the biographical article, but I've not had enough time.  Hopefully I'll make a start soon.  I don't feel it belongs in this article. - kosboot (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

message: Why isn't "Counterpoint in Composition" by Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter included in section 5.3.2?  It was used as a textbook when I was a student (1982-1984) and later a teacher (1988-1996) at Mannes College of Music.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.0.84 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Counterpoint in Composition is about counterpoint.  You can't learn Schenkerian Analysis from the book although it is highly influenced by it.  Perhaps if there was a section "textbooks showing the influence of Schenkerian Analysis" that would be an appropriate place.  But since the article is specifically about analysis, I don't think that book qualifies. - kosboot (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textbooks