Talk:Schenkerian analysis

The unfolding example

The B-flat in the unfolding

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)

The dominant seventh Roman numeral

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)

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)

Surely a scale step is 5 with a circumflex? Tony (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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. ) when denoting individual notes. See Scale-step, footnote 2. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfolding beam symbol

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)

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)

Colour-coding the original score

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)

The example is correct as is

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)