[Smt-talk] has been Music theory on Wikipedia, now prolongation
Nicolas Meeùs
nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr
Sat Jul 16 09:24:18 PDT 2011
Ildar,
I did not quite follow. Do you mean that Schenker is too stupid for
Wikipedia, or Wikipedia too stupid for Schenker?
Schenker writes (/Harmonielehre/, p. 281): /In der praktischen Kunst
kommt es im allgemein darauf an, den Begriff der Harmonien durch
lebendigen Inhalt zu realisiren/, which means: "in [music], it comes
down in general to realize [to make real] the concept of the harmonies
through a live content". (E. Mann's translation, /Harmony/, p. 211,
reads"the main problem is how to realize the concept of harmony in a
live content", which although not really incorrect, seems to me slightly
biased). Schenkerfurther writes that the abstract concept of a triad
"reaches but the function of a provisionally merely sketched
proposition", .../allein bloss etwa die Wirkung einer zunächst nur
skizzierten Behauptung erreicht /("would have the effect of an assertion
merely sketched for the time being", in E. Mann's translation)/./
This idea is much in line with contemporary ideas of Husserl or
Saussure, about thoughts remaining chaotic (Saussure: "a shapeless and
indistinct mass") before they have been uttered. Harmonies, Schenker
believes, are at first ideal, shapeless, abstract entities; they must be
uttered, if only in a mental process leading from an abstract
/Harmoniebegriff /to a sound-image of it, much as thoughts are turned
into sound-images of concepts, in Saussurean linguistics. Schenker's
ideas on this are by no means anachronistic; on the contrary, they are
extraordinarily modern.
I can agree with you that a chord has no reality outside time; but
is that not exactly what Schenker says, namely that a /Harmoniebegriff
/is at firs but ideal and that it must be musically 'realized' - that
is, inscribed in time, in order to transform the concept, the
/Begriff/, into a 'real', musical chord?
As to Y–X–Y as a "model of prolongation", I can only repeat that
this would form an excessively superficial view of the process. There is
only one "Y", that which is prolonged; the prolongation does not consist
in splitting Y in two in order to insert X between the two parts, but in
letting Y grow. "X", if any, fully belongs to Y, of which it is an
organic outgrowth.
Schenker's thought is not an easy one; it certainly never is "naive".
Best,
Nicolas
Nicolas Meeùs
Université Paris-Sorbonne
Le 16/07/2011 10:21, Ildar Khannanov a écrit :
>
> Dear Nicolas and Dmitri,
> yes, indeed, there are philosophical problems with prolongation.
> "What is given is Y, at first a mere abstraction of a chord, a mere
> image of the series of harmonic partials. In order to become a musical
> chord, Y must be inscribed it time, "prolonged", which may be done by
> a mere arpeggiation – producing no subordinate chord. "
> This statement is problematic, as well. So, Schenker perceived a chord
> as something outside time and, of course, in order to be present in
> time, the chord had to be "prolonged," that is, to be inserted into a
> preexistent physical timeline. This understanding of time is so naive
> that it renders all the following system irrelevant. It is
> unforgivable for a person who lived in Europe in the first third of
> the 20th century and could read literature in German to have such a
> skewed and anachronistic understanding of time.
> Musical time does not exist outside the chord. The chord is an entity
> which constitutes musical time. If one keeps banging on a tonic triad,
> musical time does not occur. The quality of the chord may initiate the
> temporal process. However, simple arpeggiation is too weak of an
> impulse to create a large-scale temporal process. That is why rock
> musicians grow old and still cannot produce anything larger than a
> tunelet.
> As for Y-X-Y as a model for prolongation, the first Y is never the
> same as the last Y. It has been described by Hegel and supported by a
> consellation of philosophers. So, truly, prolongation should be taken
> back to the old drawing board. It is not ready for posting at Wikipedia.
> Best,
> Ildar Khannanov
> Peabody Conservatory
> solfeggio7 at yahoo.com <mailto:solfeggio7 at yahoo.com>
>
> --- On *Fri, 7/15/11, Nicolas Meeùs
> /<nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Music theory on Wikipedia
> To: "Dmitri Tymoczko" <dmitri at princeton.edu>
> Cc: "SMT Talk" <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
> Date: Friday, July 15, 2011, 4:46 PM
>
> Le 15/07/2011 19:26, Dmitri Tymoczko a écrit :
>> I've always thought that the notion of "prolongation" is
>> freighted with really serious philosophical complications. Anyone
>> who could remove these complications, and come up with a
>> non-circular definition of "prolongation," would be doing the
>> field a great service ...
> I think that Schenker's own notion of "prolongation" is without
> much problem in Schenker's own terms – which must be read in the
> original German.
>> I've actually been thinking about this issue off and on for years. My current best guess is that "prolongation" is an intentional, rather than a grammatical concept: to say "X prolongs Y" is (roughly speaking) to make an intentional claim about how the composer used X as a means of getting to (or doing) Y. This contrasts with the formal or grammatical or descriptive concepts (e.g. "V7 chord") familiar from other regions of musical discourse.
> To say that "X prolongs Y" fully contradicts Schenker's own
> description, in that is presupposes, as you say, that X preexists
> as "a means of getting to (or doing) Y". What is given is Y, at
> first a mere abstraction of a chord, a mere image of the series of
> harmonic partials. In order to become a musical chord, Y must be
> inscribed it time, "prolonged", which may be done by a mere
> arpeggiation – producing no subordinate chord. The prolongation,
> however, may involve filling in the "tonal space" (the empty
> intervals) of the initial chord and this, is special cases, may
> happen to produce a subordinate chord X. This X by no means is
> "doing Y"; it merely is a by-product of Y itself.
> I think that Roland Barthes' description of the construction
> of discourses proposes something similar, which I didn't reread
> recently enough to remind his own terms. A discourse is a
> succession of nodes, each of which may receive an ornamentation (I
> think his term is /catalyse/)//which certainly smooths the
> succession and which possibly gives rise to secundary nodes. This
> also has to do with how a discourse can develop from a deep
> structure, in Shomsky's terms.
> Schenker's conception of the "tonal space" is developed in a
> text titled /Erläuterungen/, that he published twice in the last
> volumes of /Der Tonwille/ and twice in the two first ones /Das
> Meisterwerk in der Musik –/ this fourfold publication might
> suffice to stress how important this short text was for him.
>
> Prolongation indeed is intentional – not in the sense that the
> composer used X as a means to doing Y, but that Y served as a
> means to produce X. This is the intentionality of the work itself,
> not necessarily of the composer. And, obviously, Schenkerian
> analysis has nothing in common with a mere descriptive labeling of
> chords with roman numerals. I am not sure that this can be viewed
> in terms of intentionality /vs /grammaticality, as you suggest.
> Roman numeral analysis is lexical at best, and has little to say
> about grammar; I do not see how a grammar could be conceived
> without a level of intentionality.
>> Interestingly, my digression couldn't be included in a Wikipedia article, since it hasn't been published anywhere. (Wikipedia has strict standards about avoiding "original" or "unpublished" research.) But nor could Wikipedia include a simple, uncontroversial summary of what "prolongation" means, because we in the field don't really agree about the issue at all. So about the best you could hope for is a survey of the various proposals that have been made, one that gets updated as the discussion proceeds.
> Well, I would be tempted to consider that proposals based on
> Schenker's own writings should gain preeminence, at least in
> articles devoted to Schenkerian concepts (prolongation, as a
> concept, may have an existence as a non-Schenkerian, or
> post-Schenkerian, or neo-Schenkerian concept, but that is not my
> concern here).
>
> Yours,
> Nicolas Meeùs
> Université Paris-Sorbonne
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> <http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org>
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20110716/18beef34/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list