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

Learn More →

A Response to Gordon Sly and Edward Laufer: An Alternative Interpretation of the First Movement of Mozart's K. 545

A Response to Gordon Sly and Edward Laufer: An Alternative Interpretation of the First Movement... As someone who has written a less than positive review or two, I suppose I had it coming, but I was nevertheless unprepared for William Rothstein’s sarcasm concerning an article of mine in his review of “Articles on Schenker and Schenkerian Theory in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians” in a recent volume of this journal (Vol. 45, No. 1 [Spring 2001], 204–26). While I am more than willing to accept honest criticism, I find his comments both irresponsible and wildly heedless. I am writing to correct the record and restore some semblance of balance to the issues he raises. The article in question is the entry on “Tonality” in the second edition of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London, 2001), Vol. 25, 583–94; it has since been reprinted in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge, 2002), 726–56. It surprised me to learn that the tonality article had been included in the review, since Schenker figures in it only occasionally; that’s a large part, it would appear, of what Rothstein objects to. To put things in perspective (something Rothstein does not bother to do), I mention Schenker a http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Music Theory Duke University Press

A Response to Gordon Sly and Edward Laufer: An Alternative Interpretation of the First Movement of Mozart's K. 545

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

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/a-response-to-gordon-sly-and-edward-laufer-an-alternative-dRBMnsMtry
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2002 by Yale University
ISSN
0022-2909
eISSN
1941-7497
DOI
10.1215/00222909-46-1-2-364
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

As someone who has written a less than positive review or two, I suppose I had it coming, but I was nevertheless unprepared for William Rothstein’s sarcasm concerning an article of mine in his review of “Articles on Schenker and Schenkerian Theory in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians” in a recent volume of this journal (Vol. 45, No. 1 [Spring 2001], 204–26). While I am more than willing to accept honest criticism, I find his comments both irresponsible and wildly heedless. I am writing to correct the record and restore some semblance of balance to the issues he raises. The article in question is the entry on “Tonality” in the second edition of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London, 2001), Vol. 25, 583–94; it has since been reprinted in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge, 2002), 726–56. It surprised me to learn that the tonality article had been included in the review, since Schenker figures in it only occasionally; that’s a large part, it would appear, of what Rothstein objects to. To put things in perspective (something Rothstein does not bother to do), I mention Schenker a

Journal

Journal of Music TheoryDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.