<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">Olli, Eytan, Frank,<br>
<br>
It seems to me that Olli's criteria are excessively "reductionist"
in that it tries to identify "points" in the score which, one
supposes, are of sufficient weight to be retained at the next
level of the reduction.<br>
<br>
Schenker describes the process as one of elaboration and, more
specifically, elaboration of a tonal space, i.e. of the disjunct
spaces between the notes of a triad, by passing notes, i.e. a
conjunct voice leading (see "Erläuterungen" in <i>Der Tonwille </i>9
or 10 or <i>Das Meisterwerk </i>1 or 2). The identification of
the elaboration therefore passes by the identification of
conjunct, or at least "fluent" lines. In this case, there is a
complete octave line in the upper voice, Eb–F–G–Ab–Bb–C–Dn–Eb
(which probably warns that the key is not Db major), but it
obviously is the 6th-line F–G–Ab–Bb–C–Dn that interests us,
supported by an almost complete 6th-line in contrary movement,
Db–C–Bb–Ab–(G)–F; these two lines form a voice exchange
accompanied by a chromatic inflection, F/Db becoming Dn/F,
elaborating a IVth degree. Embedded inside this elaboration (and
at a lower level), one may see another voice exchange,
Ab–Bb–C/C–Bb–Ab, elaborating the tonic.<br>
<br>
This leaves space (!), I think, to all three of your descriptions.<br>
<br>
</font>Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
PS. One additional point that is not extremely important: Schenker
himself would have described none of this as a <i>Prolongation</i>
(the German word, pronounce prolongatsiôn); he would have used <i>Auskomponierung</i>,
which I translate as "elaboration", to describe what happens here. <i>Prolongation</i>
specifically denotes the extension of the laws of strict composition
to free composition (Wayne Alpern should be able to tell us whether
it is a juridic term); it is made visible in the tables that present
the levels from background to foreground, the background being more
or less strict and the subsequent levels ever freer. <i>Prolongation</i>,
in Schenker, never (that I know) refers to an inscription of a chord
in a time span.<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
</font><br>
Le 17/05/2012 20:56, Olli Väisälä a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:26BCE588-EC1A-4425-B9BE-57A2498860D1@siba.fi"
type="cite">Some further thoughts on the opening of Carnaval:
<br>
<br>
Frank Samarotto's and Eytan Agmon's discussion raises interesting
questions about the criteria of determination of structural weight
in Schenkerian analysis, an issue that I have pondered a lot in
recent years.
<br>
<br>
A crucial criterion, on which most of us would probably agree, is
that in a passage of unified design, based on the repetition of a
pattern, the framing points should be strongly preferred as the
two elements with the greatest structural weight. In the Schumann,
mm. 3–6 form such a passage, especially on the basis of the
sequential right-hand part. Consequently, the IV and the V at the
endpoints of this passage are structurally superior to the
intervening chords, as both Frank and Eytan (and myself) agree.
<br>
<br>
I would suggest, however, that the criteria for determining the
next most significant element are more complex. Two principles
seem to compete here, which might be called "partition principle"
and "penult principle". Under partition principle, the elements
that occur at the points that subdivide the passage take
precedence. This principle would support Eytan's reading of the
"I" in m. 5 as overriding the subsequent V4/3 of V. Under penult
principle, the next-to-last element tends to take precedence. This
principle supports, of course, Frank's reading of a voice-exchange
between the IV and the V4/3 of V.
<br>
<br>
My analytical experience suggests that it is by no means simple to
decide which of these two principles is more powerful in each
case. Sometimes the penult has to be chosen simply because it is
indispensable for the Schenkerian syntax. But the question can
also be approached from an empirical viewpoint: are there some
particular compositonal features – for example, registral or
gestural – that might reflect the structural signficance of either
the partition points or the penult?
<br>
<br>
In the present case both the "I" and the V4/3 of V are
syntactically possible. As an empirical argument, one might note
that the V4/3 of V is registrally underlined by the bass's leap,
which deviates from the preceding motion. Hence, this aspect would
support Frank's reading of voice exchange (on which I am also
intuitively inclined to agree).
<br>
<br>
The dilemma between the partition principle and penult principle
has, of couse, much larger implications for Schenkerian studies,
and is one of the several evidential questions of Schenkerianism
that would be in need of better illumination.
<br>
<br>
Olli Väisälä
<br>
Sibelius Academy
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ovaisala@siba.fi">ovaisala@siba.fi</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Smt-talk mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>