[Smt-talk] Subdominant versus Predominant

Wed May 9 17:29:57 PDT 2012

Dear Nicolas,

I aologize for a mistake with beaming 1, 3, 5. I wanted to say that Schenker prioritizes scst3 in the bass line over scst 4. In the following examples:
Examples 14, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 5b, 
Examples 15, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 
Example 16, 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b,4a,
Example 18, 1abc, 2ab, 3ab, 4ab, FC, Longman 1979 Schenker marks scst3 as a “quarter note” or “half note,” which is the status, next to a beamed note, while all the subdominants are given only a note head. He provides RN's I6 and III under each scst3. In so many examples, scst 3 receives higher priority than scst 4 in the bass. Why? Because Schenker himself called it bass arpeggiation:

quote: I-V-I bass linearizes the tonic triad through a disjunct apreggiation, by moving from the root to the upper fifth and back again. Schenker referred to this motion as bass arpeggiation (Bassbreshung). In Free Composition Schenker initially represents Ursatz without an intermediate harmony, although in later examples he shows how they may function in relation to I and V. The occurrences of certain intermediate harmonies—as in the case of IV moving to V—introduces stepwise motion in the disjunct bass arpeggiation (I-V-I). In fact, the introduction of melodic motion intensifies the motion toward the dominant. Ultimately, however, Schenker regarded intermediate harmonies as subsidiary to the tonic and dominant scale steps. p. 118. Analysis of Tonal Music. A Schenkerian Approach.
Allen Cadwallader and David Gangné. Oxford UP, 1998. end of quote

Of course, the questions arise immediately: who said that playing scst1 and scst5 in the bass consecutively creates “arpeggiation”? I asked my wife, a harpist, She said 1 and 5 do not constitute arpeggio because they do not comprise a chord. Just in case, I quote: 
Arpège. Terme italliene francisé (arpeggio): literal: jeu de harpe. C'est le'exécutions successive des notes d'un accord, du grave a l'aigu ou vice versa. 296. Encyclopédie de la Musique. Fasquelle, Paris 1958. End of quote.

And, in general, how it can be that I and V “linearize tonic triad” and, at the same time, they represent two different harmonies (Tonic and Dominant)? These are small things, of course. 

You wrote: Schenker does consider that the other notes are hierarchically less important, but I think that this hierarchy may be considered possible – unless you believe that there exists only one truth. You say that in real progressions (why "real"?) T, S and D have equal status; but how can you be sure of that, equal status for whom?

My question: who told you, or Schenker, that “other notes are hierarchically less important”? They are not less important, neither they present “ structural functions less deep than the V.” This is a figment of your imagination. 

In general, one can “arpeggiate I and V” and embellish it ad nauseam. It will never create a meaningful harmonic progression. 

As for caricature, while you were fending off my attempts to question some aspects of Schenker's thinking, Schenker managed to turn into a monstrous caricature the whole history of music theory. If you and I were Schenker's contemporaries, he would have turned us into a caricature. He would turn you into a dwarf, and I would be simply pulverized to molecular level: we both speak languages other than German and come from the countries of Entente. Volker Schoendorff responded to that by depicting the “avengers of German genius” as dwarfs themselves. 

Best,

Ildar Khannanov
Peabody Conservatory
Johns Hopkins University
solfeggio7 at yahoo.com

--- On Tue, 5/8/12, Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr> wrote:

From: Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr>
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Subdominant versus Predominant
To: "Ildar Khannanov" <solfeggio7 at yahoo.com>, smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 4:37 AM

Ildar,

I am frightened to see how Schenker is reproached things that he never wrote. I find it is extremely difficult to continue this discussion if we do not refer to the same texts. In my editions of Schenker at least, he so to say NEVER beams 1, 3, 5 in the bass (see below).

You may be aware that Schenker did not draw analytical beams before his analysis of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, in Das Meisterwerk III, 1930. Neither there, nor in Five Graphic Analyses, do the bass beams clearly represent the main progression in the bass. It is therefore Free Composition only that concerns us – which already raises the question whether this book can be considered representing Schenker as a whole.

Examples 14, 15, 16 and 18 of FC illustrate various forms of the Wege des basses zur Oberquint at the firs level of the middleground; they show first the bass alone (example 14), then under lines from ^3 (15), from ^5 (16) and from ^8 (18). The bass beams always denote what for Schenker is the main arpegiation, I–V–I. He does consider that the other notes are hierarchically less important, but I think that this hierarchy may be considered possible – unless you believe that there exists only one truth. You say that in real progressions (why "real"?) T, S and D have equal status; but how can you be sure of that, equal status for whom?

The notes other than the dominant in examples 14-18 are marked with Roman numerals, I6, II, III or IV. Whenever the figure is I6 or III, it is put between parentheses; whenever the figure is II or IV, it is underlined by the double curve denoting the oscillation between Unterquint and Oberquint. This all makes clear, I believe, that the subdominant (II or IV) is considered the most important degree after the dominant itself, and certainly more important than III.

In the other examples in FC, the bass beam, if any, usually joins I–V–I. There are very few exceptions:
– example 40.2 includes I6 in the beam, but the numeral is written between parentheses. Schenker most probably understands it as a continuation of the initial I; and he underlines the following II–V–I progression with the usual double curve.
– examples 40.9 and 104 beam I–IV–V–I, and example 46 includes the same degrees under a secundary beam.
– example 89.2 beams I–III–V–I. This, unless I am mistaken, is the SOLE case, in the whole of Schenker's writings, where III is included in the bass beam. 
You are right that IV or II often are indicated as eighth notes; but the flag is intended to stress the note (Schenker also uses half notes with a flag).

You seem to consider that Bassbrechung means I–III–V–I: this certainly is not Schenker's idea. I am afraid that the person you name "Schenker" is not the same as mine. Yours is the result of an American normalization that followed the translation of freie Satz, and of which the recent translations of Der Tonwille and Das Meisterwerk should mark the end or at least a correction.

Nicolas Meeùs
Université Paris-Sorbonne

Le 7/05/2012 23:48, Ildar Khannanov a écrit : 

Dear Nicolas,

[...] On every Schenkerian graph, on all three levels, the notes in the bass which he randomly selects always comprise the arpeggiation of the tonic triad. It is always 1, 3, 5 that are beamed together. If there is 4, it is notated with the " single eighth note,' that is, with the note with the stem and the flag. In all graphs it means that the Subdominant it downgraded to the "lower structural level' than Tonic and Dominant.[...]

So, there are problems with the idea of continuity in Schenker. Everybody likes continuity, but the model of Bassbrechung is simply wrong: it does not describe the practice of harmonic progression. In real progressions of music of Baroque and Classico-Romantic period T, S, and D have equal status. 

Best,

Ildar Khannanov
Peabody Conservatory
Johns Hopkins University
solfeggio7 at yahoo.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20120509/7ba1085f/attachment-0003.htm>