[Smt-talk] Classical Form and Recursion
Ioannis Rammos
rammos at nyu.edu
Mon Mar 30 02:47:08 PDT 2009
On 29 March 09 at 21:46, Dmitri Tymoczko wrote :
> I completely agree that most present-day Schenkerians are
> compatibilists. Schenker and Salzer (and maybe Beach and Rothgeb)
> weren't/aren't. So there's been a pretty big shift here -- with
> hardly a single music-theoretical publication about the subject. In
> fact, the only relevant writing I know of is an excellent
> unpublished paper by Bill Rothstein, who's also a compatibilist. I
> wish he'd publish it, because I think it's a really important issue.
I think that a distinction between early and late Schenker is
warranted here. While "canonized" Schenker (i.e. later Schenker, that
of "Free Composition" and, in many ways, "Das Meisterwerk in der
Musik") is a stern "anti-compatibilist", earlier Schenker seems more
willing to grant paradigmatic elements some degree of autonomy. His
notion of "Synthese", whose abandonment after "Der Tonwille" Lubben
laments in his 1995 dissertation, reflects what we could
retrospectively refer to as younger Schenker's relative ("motivic")
"compatibilism".
Richard Cohn's "The Autonomy of Motives in Schenkerian Accounts of
Tonal Music", in Music Theory Spectrum 14.2 (1992), provides a partial
account of various shifts between "compatibilism" (Dmitri Tymoczko's
term) and its opposite extreme, although the article is primarily
critical in intent.
Ioannis
---
Ioannis Rammos
Doctoral Candidate
New York University
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list