<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">Olli,<br>
<br>
If you felt my message in any way aggressive, please remember that
my English probably is not as good as yours. Your question raises
an important issue, and I'd really be distressed to appear to
minimize it.<br>
<br>
I myself am in visceral disagreement with the idea of Schenkerian
analysis as a process of "pruning", of eliminating "light" notes
in favor of "heavy" ones, and in considering the Ursatz made up of
the surface notes that resisted the process. (I may be wrong in
that, but I cannot refrain from associating the "reductionist"
view with GTTM.)<br>
<br>
Gregory Proctor, in an recent posting, aptly described what I have
in mind:<br>
</font>
<blockquote>For all the use of Schenker's name in this thread, the
language and apparent conceptualization is almost purely
Salzerian. The idea that one note is "more important" than another
really doesn't suit either theorist, but the notion that notes of
structure are separated from one another by notes of prolongation
is entirely Salzer. In Schenker, each level is an abstraction
which is expanded into the next abstraction until surface
counterpoint is reached. There are no gaps between the elements
depicted at that level.
</blockquote>
Your stressing of "the framing points", your "partition principle"
and "penult principle", all tend to give weight to single notes.
This, I think, is a reductionist manner of presenting things (but I
trust that your description is meant as pedagogical). When I stress
a 6th-progression from F to D, I do not mean that its framing
points, F and D, are more important, merely that the progression is
an elaboration of an abstract space delimited by these notes – i.e.
of a triad to which these notes belong.<br>
<br>
The criterion of "framing points" may be acceptable as one of the
delimitation of a tonal space. But it must be realized that what is
elaborated is not the framing points in themselves, but the <i>Stufe</i>
of which they mark the space. This raises the question of a Zug as
elaboration either of its headnote or of its final note: this is an
interesting question, which we might further discuss.<br>
<br>
The "partition principle" raises the question of how one decides
what articulates a higher level elaboration. I do not think the I
chord in mes. 5 "subdivises" these 6 measures of Schumann's
Carnaval; I think that what somehow does is the voice exchange by
two 3d-Züge in contrary motion, Ab-C/C-Ab, mes. 4-5 (but so doing, I
refuse to identify the note that subdivises).<br>
<br>
As to the "penult principle", I suppose it very much depends on the
context. Here, the penultimate chord realizes the chromatic
inflexion and transforms IV into V of V [i.e. transforms the
subdominant into a predominant; but these are words we should not
dare pronounce on SMT]. So, indeed, there is some weight in this
chord; but at the same time, it is but a chromatic inflection,
passing from IV to V...<br>
<br>
To sum up: your criteria seem to me perfect as heuristic or
pedagogical tools, and I suppose I make use of similar criteria in
my own analyses or my own teaching. But at a higher level of
reflexion, they should shade away in favor of more abstract
considerations: we should always remind our students (and ourselves)
that reductional processes are but makeshifts for unveiling
elaborations.<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 18/05/2012 16:19, Olli Väisälä a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:8755363D-FC61-4AF2-8024-6A3437A4C4C8@siba.fi"
type="cite">
Nicolas, I must confess that I do not understand your point:
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Calibri">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>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Under Schenkerian theory, the composer, of course,
elaborates structural frameworks at levels closer to surface.
However, an analyst, when trying to determine the underlying
framework, cannot help reducing out some elements on the basis
of *some* criteria. I do not understand in which sense my
efforts to explicate such criteria can be regarded as
"excessively" reductionist.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Of course, the criteria might be mistaken, but is this
really what you are suggesting? Given that you call
the 6th-progression from F to D as an entity that "interests
us" and that my discussion of criteria suggested how we can
justify the demarcation of this 6th-progression, our notions
would not at all seem mutually incompatible.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Olli Väisälä</div>
<div>Sibelius Academy</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ovaisala@siba.fi">ovaisala@siba.fi</a></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>