Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Reply to William Rothstein

A Reply to William Rothstein degree theories (Weber being the other), a second time, also briefly, in connection with chromaticism in late romantic music, and a third time at greater length in relation to the harmonic practice of classical music, the latter two being the main points of contention. In all three cases, the article’s comments on Schenker are integrated into a broader account of the topic; the aim was never to pause and give a full or rounded account of his theories, which would have been largely beside the point, though I believe the comments I do make are accurate and incisive. In any event, I intended no slight in casting Schenker in a supporting role: as far as I’m concerned, the magnitude of his achievement goes without saying, and the force and influence of his ideas are evident throughout the article. Still, while Schenker certainly factors in the historical development of the concept, I don’t read his writings as presenting a theory of tonality. I believe, rather, that what Schenker bequeathed to us, at least in his later writings, was primarily a theory of voice leading, which is different, and no less of an accomplishment. Indeed, the extent to which his http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Music Theory Duke University Press

A Reply to William Rothstein

Journal of Music Theory , Volume 46 (1-2) – Jan 1, 2002

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/a-reply-to-william-rothstein-TVoXqY32Uh
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2002 by Yale University
ISSN
0022-2909
eISSN
1941-7497
DOI
10.1215/00222909-46-1-2-347
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

degree theories (Weber being the other), a second time, also briefly, in connection with chromaticism in late romantic music, and a third time at greater length in relation to the harmonic practice of classical music, the latter two being the main points of contention. In all three cases, the article’s comments on Schenker are integrated into a broader account of the topic; the aim was never to pause and give a full or rounded account of his theories, which would have been largely beside the point, though I believe the comments I do make are accurate and incisive. In any event, I intended no slight in casting Schenker in a supporting role: as far as I’m concerned, the magnitude of his achievement goes without saying, and the force and influence of his ideas are evident throughout the article. Still, while Schenker certainly factors in the historical development of the concept, I don’t read his writings as presenting a theory of tonality. I believe, rather, that what Schenker bequeathed to us, at least in his later writings, was primarily a theory of voice leading, which is different, and no less of an accomplishment. Indeed, the extent to which his

Journal

Journal of Music TheoryDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.