Talk:Schenkerian analysis

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The unfolding example

[edit]

The B-flat in the unfolding

[edit]

Above the current unfolding example (pasted below), the commentary is as follows:

"... the vocal melody unfolds two voices of the succession I–V–I; the lower voice, B♭–A♭–G♭, is the main one, expressing the tonality of G♭ major; the upper voice, D♭–C♭–B♭, is doubled one octave lower in the right hand of the accompaniment".

This description makes it seems that the upper-voice B-flat came from the semiquaver B♭4 found towards the end of beat 2 of the penultimate bar in the vocal part. However, when considering the harmonic rhythm, I think that semiquaver B♭4 is a non-chord tone; it is an escape tone of the previous semiquaver A♭4. Thus, when doing reduction, that semiquaver B♭4 will be reduced into that semiquaver A♭4 at the foreground level. Hence, if you take that B♭4 into the unfolding structure, you are essentially taking a foreground decoration into a middle ground structure, and it's obviously not logical to have a note being a decoration at a shallower level and a structural note in a deeper level at the same time.

Having said that, I'm not saying that the unfolding doesn't exist. In fact, I think there must be an implied B♭4 at the down beat of beat 3 of the penultimate bar. This is because the C-flat is a chordal seventh in that V7 chord, which requires resolution. Thus, it makes sense for it to resolve downward by step to B-flat when the harmony resolves to the tonic triad. Retrospectively, this would also make the semiquaver B♭4 at the end of the beat 2 of the penultimate bar an anticipation.

Is there any way to make this point clear in a concise way in the article?

Reduction
Original

----星球统领 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ñññ
[it's obviously not logical to have a note being a decoration at a shallower level and a structural note in a deeper level at the same time.] Where has it ever been demonstrated that the process of constructing the middle ground is essentially logical?
- Joshua Clement Broyles -
ñññ 186.154.39.188 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dominant seventh Roman numeral

[edit]

Should we change the Roman numeral V to V7 given that the chordal seventh C-flat is in this chord? Or is there an Schenkerian rule preventing V7 being recognised as a chord?----星球统领 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ñññ
It is my understanding that "scale steps"(Stufen), strictly speaking, are not chords in Schenkerian theory. This is confusing because some Schenkerian analysts freely use Roman numerals to indicate both actual chords and to indicate "scale steps". V7 is always a chord, but V might either be a chord, or might be a "scale step". This is one of my least important complaints about Schenkerism, but thanks for bringing it up.
- Joshua Clement Broyles -
ñññ 186.154.38.218 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a scale step is 5 with a circumflex? Tony (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the Roman numeral V in the example, one should realize that numerals are not meant to replace the score or the graph (nor to be read instead of reading the music above them). However, Schenker's own usage is not entirely consistent in this respect: compare for instance Free Composition, Fig. 13 with Fig. 62.6. Also, scale-steps most often are indicated by Roman numerals (e.g. V, as here), but would be ciphered by careted Arabic numerals (e.g. scale degree 5) when denoting individual notes. See Scale-step, footnote 2. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ñññ
I had not meant to distinguish chords from individual tones, but to distinguish literal chords from scale steps as mere "organizing force", which is consistent with what is stated in the Scale-step article you have linked. I have seen "V" used either to indicate a literal chord, or as an "organizing force", but I have seen "V7" used only to indicate a literal chord. Have I missed any important example of "V7" being used in the abstract, as "V" is so often used?
- Joshua Clement Broyles -
ñññ 186.154.39.188 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfolding beam symbol

[edit]

Just a thought: Should we illustrate the zigzag beam symbol in this unfolding example? Or do people think that's not so necessary? ----星球统领 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schenker himself published a graph of the whole song (Free Composition, Fig. 37a) but did not use the oblique beam, probably because the succession is too obvious. Unless I am mistaken, the first example of the oblique beam in Free Composition is in Fig. 40.3. By the way, are you aware of the Chinese translation of Der freie Satz by Chen Shi-Ben, Beijing, People’s Music Publications, 1997? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colour-coding the original score

[edit]

I thought it might make the graph more easily comprehendible if we could change to colour of the note-heads to non-black/white colours in the original (surface) score for the notes involved in this unfolding; And perhaps change the bottom line B♭–A♭–G♭ to one colour, and change the top line D♭–C♭–B♭ to another colour. This is probably quite unnecessary in a real Schenkerian Analysis, but here on Wikipedia, we are trying to make the information more accessible to people with limited knowledge of the topic. And I think colour-coding our examples is one way we can make it easier to understand for people who are not experts in Schenkerian Analysis. What do people think? ----星球统领 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The example is correct as is

[edit]

I am the author of the example, which is the reason why I am not much for modifying it. These are my arguments:

  • The descent D–C–B♭ is doubled in the tenor part of the piano and there is no doubt there about B♭ being a chord tone.
  • Anyone able to read the music realizes that the V chord is a 7th. I don't think Schenker would ever have ciphered the obvious. (Ciphering, like Schenkerian graphs, is meant to explain the score, not replace it.)
  • As to colouring the score, I think that the problem is similar: there should be no need to show the obvious. Have a look and the Unfolding article, where the colour-coding is awful.
  • The unfolding sign is nowhere shown in the article; it is mentioned, but not shown. The text makes it clear that it appears only late in Schenker's own writings and is therefore not always used.

Let me add this: Larry Laskowski, in his Index of Schenkerian analyses, reads (p. 142) Schenker's reference to his Fig. 37a, at the end of §143, as meaning that "an unfolding does not occur in m. 7-8" of Schubert's Wandrers Nachtlied. But what Schenker writes in §143 merely is "Compare Fig. 45 [...] also with Fig. 37a, measures 7-8." Fig. 45 shows an unfolding in Beethoven, Sonate op. 22, 3d mvt., which is almost identical with m. 7-8 of Schubert, so that Schenker's refering to it on the contrary may mean that our example indeed shows an unfolding. But I discover now that this passage of §143 is among those that have been modified between the 1st (1935) and the 2d (1956) edition of Der freie Satz. I will need some time to sort this out. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help from ChatGPT

[edit]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"🔍 1. Internal Inconsistencies There are few outright internal contradictions, but certain tensions can be seen in the way the article toggles between descriptive and normative stances: Objective vs Subjective Claims: 

The article sometimes presents Schenkerian analysis as a theory of how tonal music actually works, while elsewhere noting that it reflects Schenker's personal ideals about musical structure. This inconsistency can cause confusion between:

Descriptive musicology (how music behaves), And prescriptive aesthetics (how Schenker thought music should behave). Universal Application vs Selective Application: 

The article initially implies that Schenkerian analysis can apply to all tonal music, but later mentions its more effective use only in specific Germanic repertoires. These claims are not reconciled.

🧪 2. Methodological Flaws in the Presentation of Schenker’s Theory The article faithfully outlines the core aspects of Schenkerian theory but doesn't critically assess methodological shortcomings in the theory itself. Some key gaps: Lack of falsifiability: 

Schenkerian analysis lacks a clear empirical testing methodology. The theory is interpretive and does not offer predictive hypotheses. Yet, this weakness isn't highlighted.

Circular reasoning in hierarchical analysis: 

The analysis begins with a presumption of deep structure, and then builds a reading of the piece that fits that presumption. This is an example of confirmation bias baked into the method — not addressed in the article.

Overdependence on “intuition” or “expert judgment”: 

The article doesn’t critique the reliance on analysts’ subjective decisions about which notes are structural. No mention is made of attempts to quantify or standardize these decisions.

Omission of non-Western or post-tonal considerations: 

The article does not discuss how Schenkerian analysis might (or might not) apply to non-Western, non-tonal, or popular music — a common critique of the method. The scope of the theory is never clearly delineated.

⚠️ 3. Logical Fallacies While the article itself is mostly encyclopedic in tone, it implicitly reflects some logical fallacies tied to Schenker’s original theory, without calling them out: Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam): 

By quoting Schenker's reverence for "masterworks" and framing his approach as unveiling "truths," the article skirts critical distance. It doesn’t clarify that these are philosophical or aesthetic value judgments, not analytical conclusions.

No True Scotsman Fallacy: 

Schenker and his followers often claim that only masterworks exhibit the structures Schenker describes — when pieces don't fit, they are reinterpreted or dismissed. This is a logical fallacy and is not problematized in the article.

Hasty Generalization: 

Schenker's belief in a single Ursatz (fundamental structure) is universalized to all tonal music without sufficient justification. The article reports this uncritically in parts, then softens it later — but never points out the lack of support for the generalization.

🧠 4. Signs of Bias (Including Cognitive Bias) A. Bias in Schenker's Own Theory (Underrepresented in the Article) Ethnocentric Bias: 

Schenker's writing reflects strong biases toward German/Austrian repertoire, especially Beethoven and Bach. The article mentions this only lightly and underplays Schenker’s elitist and racialized rhetoric (e.g., his anti-Semitic, nationalist, and anti-modernist views).

Survivorship Bias: 

By focusing on so-called masterworks, Schenkerian analysis may ignore less “successful” music that doesn't fit the model. This is a major blind spot, not addressed in the article.

Confirmation Bias: 

Schenkerian analysts often "read in" structural features that confirm the theoretical model. The article doesn’t raise this common critique of Schenkerian pedagogy.

B. Presentation Bias in the Article Neutrality Bias: 

The article may be too neutral, failing to properly engage with the controversial or ideological dimensions of Schenker’s writings — particularly his racist and hierarchical views. This is a lack of contextualization, not neutrality.

Anglophone Bias: 

The focus is on how Schenkerian analysis was received in the English-speaking world, with figures like Allen Forte. Less is said about contemporary critiques from non-Western, feminist, or critical musicology scholars.

Academic Bias Toward Canonical Theory: 

The article reflects a status quo bias by prioritizing Schenkerian analysis as a standard tool, while marginalizing alternative approaches (e.g., post-tonal set theory, cognitive musicology, cultural analysis).

🧩 Final Thoughts The Wikipedia article is informative but not critically complete. It presents Schenkerian analysis as a valuable tool in music theory without adequate treatment of its philosophical and ideological baggage or its methodological weaknesses. The absence of critique risks presenting the theory as objectively superior, rather than historically and culturally situated."

posted by Joshua Clement Broyles 186.29.180.212 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed this. ChatGPT's walls of text are unlikely to hold any genuine insight on how to improve an article. ⫷doozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 17:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately cut it down to content I thought was useful.
I just don't see any point in pretending I'm not using AI.
Joshua Clement Broyles 186.29.180.212 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]