<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Calibri">Ildar,<br>
<br>
You may know Schenker's writings better than I do, but I was
somewhat surprized by your statement that there would be "some
quite mean footnotes" on Sechter. To my knowledge, Schenker
mentioned Sechter only once, in (short) terms that are critical,
but that did not strike me as "mean". Can you be more specific
about what you have in mind on this particular point?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
</font><br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr">http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://heinrichschenker.wordpress.com">http://heinrichschenker.wordpress.com</a><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 5/03/2013 06:17, Ildar Khannanov a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1362460649.25852.YahooMailClassic@web125301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">Dear Dimitar and the
List,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think that Schenker's being always new is the
reflection of the fact that his theory is an
anachronism. His theory has never been contemporary to
any other theory, has never been a part of any larger
project, and has never followed any previous theory. He
has rejected Zarlino, Rameau, and Riemann. He did not
like his own school's tradition of Sechter (there are
some quite mean footnotes on this subject in his
writings). He did not consider Greeks as legitimate
theorists. All that rendered his theory eternallly
youthful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ildar Khannanov</div>
<div>Peabody Conservatory</div>
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com">solfeggio7@yahoo.com</a><br>
<br>
--- On <b>Sun, 3/3/13, Ninov, Dimitar N <i><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dn16@txstate.edu"><dn16@txstate.edu></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16,
255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>
From: Ninov, Dimitar N <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dn16@txstate.edu"><dn16@txstate.edu></a><br>
Subject: [Smt-talk] Criteria for Old and New<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">"smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org"><smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org></a><br>
Date: Sunday, March 3, 2013, 10:19 PM<br>
<br>
<div class="plainMail">Criteria for Old and New<br>
<br>
Over the years, I have come across statements
qualifying Walter Piston’s book of harmony as old,
because it has been published in 1941. Some
musicians also seem to consider archaic Schoenberg’s
Theory of Harmony (1911) and his “Structural
Functions of Harmony” (published eight years after
his death, in 1959), although I doubt if the average
theory instructor really understands the premises of
Schoenberg’s tireless and unorthodox mind.<br>
<br>
Yet Heinrich Schenker had died six year before the
publication of Piston’s harmony and no one referred
to any of his books as “old”, although he publish
his harmony book in 1906, 35 years before Walter
Piston’s book. <br>
<br>
The question of what is old and what is new is worth
tackling, but it is even more interesting to ask:
who decides that, and on what grounds? <br>
<br>
I like all of the above mentioned texts as original
and interesting readings and, although I could make
a list of what personally bothers me in each one, I
do not think that recently published books on tonal
harmony are in any manner more interesting (except
for their illustrations and colored schemes) or
deeper in analytical terms. I regard many of those
books as an attempt to arrange a puzzle in a
student’s mind whose pieces are spread among the
three fundamental disciplines of harmony,
counterpoint, and musical form. Of course, such a
puzzle cannot be arranged by picking topics from
each discipline and teaching them in one or two
class sessions.<br>
<br>
What is old and what is new? Who decides that? On
what grounds? <br>
<br>
I think there is no single answer to that, but there
seems to be a solid reason to think that a reigning
analytical system has turned into litmus for right
and wrong, pure and sinful, contemporary and
outdated. It has become a kind of “border patrol” to
which you must show your analytical passport or stay
out. It has grown into a platform of approval or
disapproval of papers, textbooks, discussions,
mentalities, and (yes) relationships. How does this
sound in a theoretical space that is supposed to
stay open for new ideas, even if they do not stem
from a reigning mother?<br>
<br>
A few years ago I was advised by an eminent scholar
that “the concept of altered subdominant chords does
not seem to be in pace with contemporary thinking”.
Oho, said I to myself, so there is a united
contemporary thinking? Just like a united front?
What a great argument to reject an idea! Before I
dared pronounce "altered subdominants" I should have
sought an approval from the Omnipresent Contemporary
Thinking! Poor Hans Tischler...he did not know that.<br>
<br>
If I turn terribly wrong on my guessing about the
litmus, I would be the happiest musician in the
world. Meanwhile, I invite colleagues to share their
opinion on what is old, what is new, who decides so,
and why.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
<br>
Dimitar<br>
<br>
Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer<br>
School of Music<br>
Texas State University<br>
601 University Drive<br>
San Marcos, Texas 78666<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Smt-talk mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
ymailto="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org"
href="/mc/compose?to=Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org"
target="_blank">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a>
<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>
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<p class="" avgcert""="" color="#000000" align="left">Aucun virus
trouvé dans ce message.<br>
Analyse effectuée par AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.fr">www.avg.fr</a><br>
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Base de données virale: 2641/6143 - Date:
02/03/2013</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>