On May 28, 2007, at 7:28 AM, Ken Moore wrote:
"Dean M. Estabrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I perceive that there is a hang up on this thread, that we gotta
have a leading tone present to qualify for tonality. Tonality can
also be established by just plain harmonies or single chords. If
you have a perfect fifth, or perfect fourth in a vertical
aggregate, you have, according to Schenker, a tonal center present.
That's one authority who carries little weight with me. Schenker
was not a total fool, but he was invincibly ignorant of the
acoustics on which he purported to base his theories, unscholarly
in some of his arguments, and a chauvinist in his musical tastes.
Moreover, his later supporters include some with similar ignorance
of, or contempt for, the facts of acoustics and psychology.
(see http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/schenk/index.htm, Section 9,
Paragraph 3, for two examples).
Then how about Hindemith? He said the same thing about the 4th - we
tend to hear the top note of a P4th as the acoustic root of the
interval.
Schenker is much maligned (by, among others, you) but like Freud, he
wasn't so much right or precise as revolutionary. He opened some
doors and changed the way we (well, I) thought about music. Sure he
was weak on some things, but I think his essential points stand.
The two big criticisms you make of him are not really fatal to his
ideas, I think. The biggest one is his assertion that our perception
of harmony comes from the harmonic series. Behaviour of a closed pipe
or bells notwithstanding, the major triad IS the overwhelming sound
that most vibrating objects produce in their harmonics. In a closed
pipe, eliminating the even-numbered partials STILL leaves us with a
major triad, so Schenker's assertion stands. Much more damaging to
this theory is how do we hear a MINOR triad as being so resonant and
basic, when the harmonic series doesn't produce one until much higher
in the series? Your points about different-sized thirds and seconds
are not germane, as we can hear many different-sized intervals as
still being major thirds, minor thirds, or any interval really. Out-
of-tuneness obviously adds to our sense of dissonance (as you noted
through Helmholtz), but I still think the essential idea of our sense
of consonance being based on the harmonic series is sound. One very
interesting point you made but did not follow through on, that a
culture with music based on inharmonic resonances would have a
different scale and harmony; gamelan music is an excellent example.
Obviously Schenker had no knowledge of this, and of course in this
style his harmonic theories go out the window.
The other weakness that you point out, that he chose his examples
based on their adherence to his theories and ranked the "masters"
according to who fit into his analysis the best, well that's just
stupidity (his, that is, not yours!) Every analyst picks examples
that illustrate their points, but to assert that failure to fit in
with the theory is a sign of poor art or craft, well, that's just ego
talking. Actually, a big point that I make with my students is that
it's the moments when things seem to fall OUT of the norm that music
starts to get interesting. Analysis can help point out those moments,
and why. Theoretical analysis is only a tool, not a way of life
(which some of my theorist colleagues don't seem to agree with!)
Schoenberg mentioned that his biggest problem with Schenker's
analyses was that he left out all the parts that he (Schoenberg)
found the most interesting. That is an excellent point, and only
supports my view further; that any one approach is not THE right way.
Each approach is only a spotlight that illuminates some dark corners
and leaves others unrevealed.
Christopher
Yup, Schenker was a chauvinist. But then, aren't we all in some way?
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
