[1.] Perhaps Schenker is a "transdiscursive" author in the Foucaultian sense. FollowingDr. Renwick's analogy of 'othodox' and 'unorthodox' it seems quite possible that this is the case.

[2.] In A Guide to Music Analysis, Cook claims that the analysts of the early and middle twentieth century were strongly influenced by the concept of 'unconcious perception.' Following along paths similar to Psychoanalysis and Structural Linguistics, the primary task of music analysis was to explain something about how the listener experienced the music - not only on the conscious level, which was relatively simple, but ultimately on the unconcious level of perception. The contoversy over Wagner's "Tristan chord" is an excellent example of this. The chord has been defined as a collection of motives, an altered diminished 7th chord, as a II7 of a minor, as a IV7 of a minor - there is a strong theoretical basis for all of these interpretations. The controversy then is not of a purley structural nature -none of these interpretations are wrong in themselves - but of a interperative nature: which of these interpretations the listener experiences when listening to Tristan und Isolde.

[3.] While Cook's claim is constestable, it does appear to be consistent with Schenker's methods of peeling back the layers of the composition until you come to the Urlinie or the fundemental structure. Further to this, it brings about the whole notion of all 'music' (in the Schenkerian sense - ie. Bach to Brahms) contains the same or extremley similar structure at its purest level, capturing the true 'essence' or perhaps even 'origin' of the piece. This is 'Orthodox Schenker' manifest.

[4.] It could also be argued (as it is more frequently) that the analysts did not really care about what listeners heard, but veiwed music as a seperate entity from listeners or, more specifically, as an object. In this case, the controversy over the "Tristan Chord" would not be about what the listener experiences, but probably over what Wagner intended it to be. Upon further examination, however, these two view can be seen as congruent to one another, in that they are both deterministic. [Notice the extremely clever distinction between "listeners" and "the listener."] As much as the music has become a determined object, so has the listener's experience in the previous view. Thus 'the music' and 'the listener' have become two ways of describing the same thing.

[5.] What is 'Unorthodox Schenker'? Alex has suggested that the importance of Shenker analysis is in the process rather than the goal or result. Cook expounds upon the whole notion of music analysis as process in A Guide to Musical Analysis. "If musical analysis is a process whereby the analyst's experience of the music is modified, then the series of graphs or tables should not really be thought of as 'the analysis'."(pg.229). There are two important ideas here. The first is that the music is necessarily modified by the analysis. [This is, of course, contadictory to an important postulate of scientific observation: that the observation itself should not affect the studied object lest the data be rendered useless.] The second is that the graphs or tables or whatever is used "do not have any intrinsic value or meaning, but they aquire these by virtue of the musical experience which they engender." (Cook, pg. 229) In a single sentance, Cook takes apart the 'Orthodox' Schenker view.

[6.] Yet Cook still favours Schenkerian analysis over other analytical methods in spite of its "manifestly spurious theoretical foundations" (pg 231), because of all of them, he feels that it allows the most "interaction between aural experience and analytical rationalization"(pg. 231) The important term here is "aural experience" and whether it is viewed as being universal, or as a multiplicity. If it is the former, then musical analysis becomes a science, and its task is to seek out an 'authentic' determinate interpretation of the music. If it is the latter, then analysis becomes composition (even performance itself!) and its task is to create music. If this sounds ludicrous, then consider this: when violinists/pianists/singers perform from a score they are not expected to restrict themselves to transcribing the notation into pure sound (like a typist taking dictation), but are expected to interpret it. Is this not what Schenkerian analysis is? To take the notes on the page and arrange them into some sort of musical coherence?

[7] This is what I think the Schenkerian 'process' is all about if I may be so bold as to elaborate (in a future document) this term, which several of us in mus701 have made use of.

Back to Mus701 Homepage