schenkerian analysis


  • [8] Because the first principle of the elaboration is the filling in of the tonal space by passing notes, an essential goal of the analysis is to show linear connections between
    notes which, filling a single triad at a given level, remain closely related to each other but which, at subsequent levels, may become separated by many measures or many pages as new triads are embedded in the first one.

  • 3, the vocal melody unfolds two voices of the succession I–V–I; the lower voice, is the main one, expressing the tonality of major; the upper voice, is doubled one octave
    lower in the right hand of the accompaniment: In his later writings (from 1930 onwards), Schenker sometimes used a special sign to denote the unfolding, an oblique beam connecting notes of the different voices that are conceptually simultaneous,
    even if they are presented in succession in the single line performing the unfolding.

  • Simplified version of the analysis of the “ground-harmony” in Czerny’s School of Practical Composition, 1848 The first step of the analytic rewriting often takes the form
    of a “rhythmic” reduction, that is one that preserves the score, but “normalizes” its rhythm and its voice-leading content.

  • The example shown here may at first be considered a mere elaboration of an F major chord, an arpeggiation in three voices, with passing notes (shown here in black notes without
    stem) in the two higher voices: it is an exemplification of the tonal space of F major.

  • Ursatz[edit] Main article: Ursatz Minimal Ursatz: a line supported by an arpeggiation of the bass0:00 Ursatz (usually translated as “fundamental structure”) is the name given
    by Schenker to the underlying structure in its simplest form, that from which the work as a whole originates.

  • Chords arise from within chords, as the result of the combination of passing notes and arpeggiations: they are at first mere embellishments, mere voice-leading constructions,
    but they become tonal spaces open for further elaboration and, once elaborated, can be considered structurally significant: they become scale-steps properly speaking.

  • [39] Elaboration of the F major chord0:03 One aspect of Schenkerian analysis is that it does not view the work as built from a succession of events, but as the growth of new
    events from within events of higher level, much as a tree develops twigs from its branches and branches from its trunk: it is in this sense that Schenkerian theory must be considered organicist.

  • It would appear that the difference between the divider at the fifth and the dominant chord properly speaking really depends on the level at which the matter is considered:
    the notion of the divider at the fifth views it as an elaboration of the initial tonal space, while the notion of dominant chord conceives it as a new tonal space created within the first.

  • However, as a consonant combination, it defines at a further level a new tonal space, that of the dominant chord, and so doing opens the path for further developments of the

  • Although Schenker himself usually presents his analyses in the generative direction, starting from the Ursatz to reach the score and showing how the work is somehow generated
    from the Ursatz, the practice of Schenkerian analysis more often is reductive, starting from the score and showing how it can be reduced to its fundamental structure.

  • The neighbor note of the first order is the harmony supporting it often is the IVth or VIth degree, which may give rise to a section of the work at the subdominant.

  • The elaboration of the resulting chord may give rise to a section in minor within a work in major, or the reverse.

  • The interruption is the main form-generating elaboration: it often is used in binary forms (when the first part ends on the dominant) or, if the elaboration of the “dividing
    dominant”, above V, takes some importance, it may produce ternary form, typically sonata form.

  • [56] That is to say that any phrase in a work could take the form of a complete fundamental structure.

  • At first, he mainly relied on the size of the note shapes to denote their hierarchic level, but later abandoned this system as it proved too complex for contemporary techniques
    of musical engraving.

  • Linear progressions may be incomplete (deceptive) when one of their tones is replaced by another, but nevertheless suggested by the harmony.

  • [24] Schenker first conceived the Urlinie, the “fundamental line”, as a kind of motivic line characterized by its fluency, repeated under different guises throughout the work
    and ensuring its homogeneity.

  • He later imagined that a musical work should have only one fundamental line, unifying it from beginning to end.

  • [32] One aspect of graphic analyses that may not have been enough stressed is the desire to abolish time, to represent the musical work as something that could be apprehended
    at a glance or, at least, in a way that would replace a “linear” reading by a “tabular” one.

  • [1] The intervals between the notes of the tonic triad in the background form a tonal space that is filled with passing and neighbour tones, producing new triads and new tonal
    spaces that are open for further elaborations until the “surface” of the work (the score) is reached.

  • One might even argue that no description of an Ursatz properly speaking is complete if it does not include IV or II at the background level.

  • Local “tonicisation” may arise when a scale-step is elaborated to the point of becoming a local tonic, but the work as a whole projects a single key and ultimately a single
    Stufe (the tonic).

  • [23] Fundamental line[edit] Main article: Fundamental line The idea of the fundamental line comes quite early in the development of Schenker’s theory.

  • This may happen not only in ascending (a case usually described as a “line from an inner voice”), but also in descending, if the inner voice has been displaced above the upper
    line by a register transfer, a case known as “reaching over” (Übergreifen, also translated as superposition or overlapping).

  • Schenker decided only in 1930 that the fundamental line should be descending: in his earlier analyses, initial ascending lines often are described as being part of the Urlinie

  • One indirect advantage of rhythmic reduction is that it helps reading the voice leading: Czerny’s example hereby transforms Chopin’s arpeggios into a composition in four (or
    five) voices.

  • “[19] Melodic fluency, the preference for conjunct (stepwise) motion, is one of the main rules of voice leading, even in free composition.

  • Unfolding[edit] Main article: Unfolding (music) Unfolding (Ausfaltung) is an elaboration by which several voices of a chord or of a succession of chords are combined in one
    single line “in such a manner that a tone of the upper voice is connected to a tone of the inner voice and then moves back, or the reverse”.

  • It is the bass line that governs the passage as a whole: it is the “leading progression”, on which all the other voices depend and which best expresses the elaboration of
    the E major chord.

  • Therefore … the overtone series … is transformed into a succession, a horizontal arpeggiation, which has the added advantage of lying within the range of the human voice.

  • [11] Linking the (major) triad to the harmonic series, Schenker merely pays lip service to an idea common in the early 20th century.

  • [26] In many cases, the head note is reached through an ascending line (Anstieg, “initial ascent”) or an ascending arpeggiation, which do not belong to the fundamental structure
    properly speaking.

  • However, the meeting of the fifth (C) in the bass arpeggiation with the passing notes may also be understood as producing a dominant chord, V, arising from within the tonic
    chord I.

  • Schenker recognizes that “there are no rules which could be laid down once and for all” for recognizing scale steps,[14] but from his examples one may deduce that a triad
    cannot be recognized as a scale-step as long as it can be explained by passing or neighboring voice-leading.

  • At the same time, if the chord tones themselves are involved in lines from one chord to another (as usually is the case), lines of lower level unfurl between lines of higher

  • [55] Transference of the fundamental structure[edit] The forms of the fundamental structure may be repeated at any level of the work.

  • [22] The theory of the fundamental structure is the most criticized aspect of Schenkerian theory: it has seemed unacceptable to reduce all tonal works to one of a few almost
    identical background structures.

  • “Every transferred form [of the fundamental structure] has the effect of a self-contained structure within which the upper and lower voices delimit a single tonal space”.

  • [27] First-order neighbor note[edit] Schenker stresses that the head note of the fundamental line often is decorated by a neighbor note “of the first order”, which must be
    an upper neighbor because “the lower neighboring note would give the impression of the interruption”.

  • [31] Even so, Schenkerian graphs represent a change of semiotic system, a shift from music itself to its graphical representation, akin to the more usual change from music
    to verbal (analytic) commentary; but this shift already exists in the score itself, and Schenker rightly noted the analogy between music notation and analysis.

  • These are sometimes referred to generically as “adjacencies”; 2) passing notes, which pass by means of stepwise motion from one note to another and fill the space in between,
    and are thus sometimes referred to as “connectives”.

  • [12] He confirms that the same derivation cannot be made for the minor triad: Any attempt to derive even as much as the first foundation of this [minor] system, i.e., the
    minor triad itself, from Nature, i.e., from the overtone series, would be more than futile.

  • [25] The initial note of the fundamental line is called its “head tone” (Kopfton) or “primary tone”.

  • Both the fundamental line and the bass arpeggiation are bound to return to their starting point and the fundamental structure repeats itself, eventually reaching its goal.

  • [33] This type of reduction has a long tradition, not only in counterpoint treatises or theory books,[34] but also in the simplified notation of some Baroque works, e.g.

  • [43] Schenker describes lines covering a seventh or a ninth as “illusory”,[44] considering that they stand for a second (with a register transfer): they do not fill a tonal
    space, they pass from one chord to another.

  • He did this by developing a theory of hierarchically organized levels of elaboration (Auskomponierung), called prolongational levels, voice-leading levels (Stimmführungsschichten),
    or transformations (Verwandlungen), the idea being that each of the successive levels represents a new freedom taken with respect to the rules of strict composition.

  • Insofar as chords consist of several voices, arpeggiations and passing notes always involve passing from one voice to another.

  • Modern Schenkerians usually prefer the term “prolongation”, stressing that elaborations develop the events along the time axis.

  • [17] One aspect of strict, two-voice writing that appears to span Schenker’s theory throughout the years of its elaboration is the rule of “fluent melody” (fließender Gesang),
    or “melodic fluency”.

  • This often occurs in Sonata forms in minor, where the first thematic group elaborates degree I, the second thematic group is in the major relative, degree III, and the development
    leads to V before the recapitulation in the tonic key.

  • The explanation becomes much easier if artistic intention rather than Nature herself is credited with the origin of the minor mode.”.

  • [49] Register transfers are particularly striking in piano music (and that for other keyboard instruments), where contrasts of register (and the distance between the two hands)
    may have a striking, quasi orchestral effect.

  • Roger Sessions published in Modern Music 12 (May–June 1935) an obituary article under the title “Heinrich Schenker’s Contribution”[67] where, after having recognized some
    of Schenker’s achievements, he criticizes the development of the last years, until Der freie Satz (which he admits is not yet available in the US) and concludes that “It is precisely when Schenker’s teachings leave the domain of exact description
    and enter that of dogmatic and speculative analysis that they become essentially sterile”.

  • Initial ascent, initial arpeggiation[edit] The starting point of the fundamental line, its “head note” (Kopfton), may be reached only after an ascending motion, either an
    initial ascending line (Anstieg) or an initial arpeggiation, which may take more extension than the descending fundamental line itself.

  • In the canonical form of the theory, it consists of the Urlinie, the “fundamental line”, supported by the Bassbrechung, the “arpeggiation of the bass”.

  • [27] Arpeggiation of the bass and the divider at the fifth[edit] Main article: Bass arpeggiation The arpeggiation through the fifth is an imitation of the overtone series,
    adapted to man [sic] “who within his own capacities can experience sound only in a succession”.

  • This primal structure is roughly the same for any tonal work, but a Schenkerian analysis shows how, in each individual case, that structure develops into a unique work at
    the foreground.

  • One of the aims of the analysis is to trace how the work remains subject to these laws at the deepest level, despite the freedom taken at subsequent levels.

  • XVI:29, where the (incomplete) dominant chord appears at the very end of bar 3, while the rest of the fragment consists of arpeggios (with neighbor notes) of the F chord:[40]
    0:00 Arpeggiation, neighbour note, passing note[edit] Arpeggiation is the simplest form of elaboration.

  • The fundamental structure is a two-voice counterpoint and as such belongs to strict composition.

  • Elaborations take the form of diminutions, replacing the total duration of the elaborated event by shorter events in larger number.

  • [29] Schenkerian notation Graphic representations form an important part of Schenkerian analyses: “the use of music notation to represent musical relationships is a unique
    feature of Schenker’s work”.

  • Schenker distinguishes two types of filling of the tonal space: 1) neighbor notes (Nebennoten), ornamenting one single note of the triad by being adjacent to it.

  • Allen Cadwallader and David Gagné propose a description of Schenker’s system of graphic notation which, they say, “is flexible, enabling musicians to express in subtle (and
    sometimes different) ways what they hear and how they interpret a composition”.

  • The goal is to demonstrate the organic coherence of the work by showing how the “foreground” (all notes in the score) relates to an abstracted deep structure, the Ursatz.

  • Schenker himself, in the foreword to his Five Graphic Analyses, claimed that “the presentation in graphic form has now been developed to a point that makes an explanatory
    text unnecessary”.

  • It avoids successive leaps and produces “a kind of wave-like melodic line which as a whole represents an animated entity, and which, with its ascending and descending curves,
    appears balanced in all its individual component parts”.

  • This resemblance of local middleground structures to background structures is part of the beauty and appeal of Schenkerian analysis, giving it the appearance of a recursive

  • Schenker uses a special sign to denote this situation, the double curve shown in the example hereby, crossing the slur that links IV (or II) to V. That IV (here, F) is written
    as a quarter note indicates that it is of lower rank than I and V, notated as half notes.

  • [21] In conformity with the theory of the tonal space, the fundamental line is a line starting from any note of the triad and descending to the tonic itself.


Works Cited

[‘o Schenker described the concept in a paper titled Erläuterungen (“Elucidations”), which he published four times between 1924 and 1926: Der Tonwille vol. 8–9, pp. 49–51, vol. 10, pp. 40–42; Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, vol. 1, pp. 201–205; 2, pp.
193–197. English translation, Der Tonwille, vol. 2, pp. 117–118 (the translation, although made from vols. 8–9 of the German original, gives as original pagination that of Das Meisterwerk 1; the text is the same). The concept of tonal space is still
present in Free Composition, especially §13 where Schenker writes: “By the concept of tonal space, I understand the space of the horizontal fulfillment of the Urlinie. … The tonal space is only to be understood horizontally.”
o ^ Free Composition,
§ 21.
o ^ Schenker writes: “In the distance between the Urlinie and the foreground, between the diatony and the tonality, the spatial depth of a musical work expresses itself, the distant origin in the utter simple, the transformation through subsequent
stages, and the diversity in the foreground” (Im Abstand von der Urlinie zum Vordergrund, von der Diatonie zur Tonalität, drückt sich die Raumtiefe eines Musikwerkes aus, die ferne Herkunft vom Allereinfachsten, der Wandel im späteren Verlauf und
der Reichtum im Vordergrund.). Der freie Satz, 1935, p. 17; Free Composition, p. 5 (translation modified).
o ^ Robert Snarrenberg, Schenker’s Interpretive Practice, Cambridge Studies in Music Theory and Analysis 11, 1997.
o ^ Free Composition,
pp. xxi-xxiv, 158-162. Der Tonwille, English translation, Vol. I, 17.
o ^ For a complete list of the works discussed by Schenker, see Larry Laskowski, Heinrich Schenker. An Annotated Index to his Analyses of Musical Works, New York, Pendragon, 1978.
Influential early exponents of Schenker’s theory in the United states, Adele T. Katz and Felix Salzer, opposed Schenker’s musical conservatism and expanded the analytical method to more modern repertoire. See § Early reception in the US
o ^ Das
Meisterwerk in der Musik, vol. II, pp. 17-18, 192 (English translation, p. 1-22, 117)
o ^ See Schenker’s “instructional plan” described in his Introduction to Free Composition, pp. xxi–xxii. The steps of this plan are: “Instruction in strict writing
(according to Fux-Schenker), in thorough-bass (according to J.S. and C.P.E. Bach) and in free writing (according to Schenker), that finally combines all studies and places them in the service of the law of organic coherence as it reveals itself in
the Ursatz (Urlinie and bass arpeggiation) as background, in the voice-leading transformations as middelground and ultimately through the foreground.” (Translation modified following Der freie Satz, 1935, p. 2.)
o ^ Der Tonwille 1 (1921), p. 23;
2 (1922), pp. 31 and 35; Der Tonwille, English translation, vol. I, pp. 22, 77 and 82. The term has been taken over by Wilhelm Furtwängler, Wort und Ton, Wiesbaden, Brockhaus, 1954, pp. 201–202.
o ^ Felix Salzer, Structural Hearing, New York, Boni,
o ^ Free Composition, § 1. See also Harmony, § 13.
o ^ The same link is made, for instance, in Schoenberg’s Harmonielehre, Wien, Universal, 1911, 7/1966, p. 16.
o ^ Harmony, § 23
o ^ Harmony, § 79.
o ^ Robert E. Wason, Viennese Harmonic
Theory from Albrechtsberger to Schenker and Schoenberg, Ann Arbor, London, UMI Research Press, 1982/1985.
o ^ Matthew Brown, Explaining Tonality. Schenkerian Theory and Beyond, Rochester, University of Rochester Press, 2005, p. 69, reproduces a
chart showing that the “tonality of a given foreground can be generated from the diatony of the given background through various levels of the middleground”.
o ^ Heinrich Schenker, Counterpoint, vol. I, p. 12: “In the present day, when it is necessary
to distinguish clearly between composition and that preliminary school represented by strict counterpoint, we must use the eternally valid of those rules for strict counterpoint, even if we no longer view them as applicable to composition”.
o ^
N. Meeùs, “Schenker’s fließender Gesang and the Concept of Melodic Fluency”, Orfeu 2/1, 2017, pp. 160-170.
o ^ Counterpoint, vol. I, p. 74. J. Rothgeb and J. Thym, the translators, quote Cherubini from the original French, which merely says that
“conjunct motion better suits strict counterpoint than disjunct motion”, but Schenker had written: der fliessende Gesang ist im strengen Stile immer besser as der sprungweise (Kontrapunkt, vol. I, p. 104) (“the fluent melody is always better in strict
style than the disjunct one”). Fliessender Gesang not only appears in several 19th-century German translations of Cherubini, but is common in German counterpoint theory from the 18th century and might go back to Fux’ description of the flexibili
motuum facilitate, the “flexible ease of motions” (Gradus, Liber secundus, Exercitii I, Lectio quinta) or even earlier. N. Meeùs, Schenker’s Fliessender Gesang and the Concept of Melodic Fluency, Orfeu 2/1 (2017), pp. 162-63.
o ^ Counterpoint,
vol. I, p. 94.
o ^ The canonical Ursatz is discussed in Free Composition, §§ 1–44, but it was first described in Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, vol. III (1930), pp. 20–21 (English translation, p. 7-8). The word Ursatz already appeared in Schenker’s
writings in 1923 (Der Tonwille 5, p. 45; English translation, vol. I, p. 212).
o ^ Free Composition, pp. 4–5.
o ^ Schenker himself mentioned and refuted the criticism, in § 29 (p. 18) of Free Composition
o ^ Counterpoint, vol. I, 1910, quoted
o ^ Free Composition, § 10.
o ^ Free Composition, § 106.
o ^ Jump up to:a b Free Composition, § 120.
o ^ Free Composition, § 16.
o ^ William Rothstein, “Articles on Schenker and Schenkerian Theory in The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians, 2nd edition,” Journal of Music Theory 45/1 (2001), pp. 218–219.
o ^ Beach 1983, ch. “Schenker’s Theories: A Pedagogical View”, p. 27.
o ^ H. Schenker, Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln (Five Analyses in Sketchform), New York, Mannes Music School,
1933; Five Graphic Analyses, New York, Dover, 1969. The Foreword is dated 30 August 1932.
o ^ On this most interesting topic, see Kofi Agawu, “Schenkerian Notation in Theory and Practice”, Music Analysis 8/3 (1989), pp. 275–301.
o ^ William Rothstein,
“Rhythmic Displacement and Rhythmic Normalization”, Trends in Schenkerian Research, A. Cadwallader ed., New York, Schirmer, 1990, pp. 87–113. Rothstein’s idea is that ornamentations such as retardations or syncopations result from displacements with
respect to a “normal” rhythm; other diminutions (e.g. neighbor notes) also displace the tones that they ornate and usually shorten them. Removing these displacements and restoring the shortened note values operates a “rhythmic normalization” that
“reflects an unconscious process used by every experienced listener” (p. 109).
o ^ Kofi Agawu, “Schenkerian Notation in Theory and Practice”, op. cit., p. 287, quotes Czerny’s representation of the “ground-harmony” of Chopin’s Study op. 10 n.
1 (in his School of Practical Composition, 1848), reproduced here in a somewhat simplified version.
o ^ Edward Aldwell, Carl Schachter and Allen Cadwallader, Harmony and Voice Leading, 4th edition, Schirmer, Cengage Learning, 2011, p. 692.
o ^
Allen Cadwallader and David Gagné, Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach, New York, OUP, 3/2011, pp. 66–68.
o ^ Op. cit., p. 384.
o ^ Harmonielehre, p. 281; English translation, p. 211.
o ^ William Rothstein, “Rhythmic Displacement
and Rhythmic Normalization”, Trends in Schenkerian Research, op. cit.
o ^ See, examples 5 a and b, pp. 3 and 4.
o ^ Heinrich Schenker, “Elucidations”, Der Tonwille 8–9, English translation,
vol. II, p. 117 (translation by Ian Bent)
o ^ “Erläuterungen”, Der Tonwille 8–9, English translation, vol. I, p. 117 (translation by Ian Bent).
o ^ Free composition, p. 78, §221.
o ^ Free Composition, pp. 74–75, §§ 205–207. Schenker’s German
term is scheinbare Züge, literally “apparent linear progressions”; Oster’s translation as “illusory” may overstate the point.
o ^ The matter of the elaboration of seventh chords remains ambiguous in Schenkerian theory. See Yosef Goldenberg, Prolongation
of Seventh Chords in Tonal Music, Lewinston, The Edwin Mellen Press, 2008.
o ^ Drabkin, William (2001). “Reaching over”. In Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John (eds.). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers.
ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5.‎. See also Nicolas Meeùs, “Übergreifen,” Gamut: Online Journal of the Music Theory Society of the Mid-Atlantic, vol. 8, iss. 1, article 6.
o ^ Free composition, p. 50, §140.
o ^ For a detailed study of “unfolding”,
see Rodney Garrison, Schenker’s Ausfaltung Unfolded: Notation, Terminology, and Practice, PhD Thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, 2012.
o ^ Drabkin, William (2001). “Register transfer”. In Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John (eds.). The
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5.‎
o ^ See David Gagné, “The Compositional Use of Register in Three Piano Sonatas by Mozart”, Trends in Schenkerian Research, A. Cadwallader
ed., New York, Schirmer, 1990, pp. 23–39.
o ^ Free Composition, §§ 236–237.
o ^ Free Composition, §106.
o ^ The cases described in the following paragraphs are discussed in Heinrich Schenker, “Further Consideration of the Urlinie: II”, translated
by John Rothgeb, The Masterwork in Music, vol. II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 1–22.
o ^ Free Composition, §§ 87–101.
o ^ Free Composition, § 193.
o ^ Free Composition, p. 87, §242.
o ^ Matthew Brown, Explaining Tonality.
Schenkerian Theory and Beyond, Rochester, University of Rochester Press, pp. 96–98.
o ^ Letter of June 1, 1927. See David Carson Berry, “Schenker’s First ‘Americanization’: George Wedge, The Institute of Musical Art, and the ‘Appreciation Racket'”,
Gamut 4/1 (2011), Essays in Honor of Allen Forte III, particularly p. 157 and note 43.
o ^ Benjamin Ayotte, “The Reception of Heinrich Schenker’s Concepts Outside the United States as Indicated by Publications Based on His Works: A Preliminary
Study”, Acta musicologica (CZ), 2004 (online).
o ^ Berry 2003, p. 104.
o ^ Martin Eybl, Ideologie und Methode. Zum ideengeschichtlichen Kontext von Schenkers Musiktheorie. Hans Schneider, 1995.
o ^ Philip A. Ewell, “Music Theory and the White
Racial Frame”, MTO: A Journal of Music Theory 26/2, September, 2020. doi:10.30535/mto.26.2.4
o ^ David Carson Berry, “Schenker’s First ‘Americanization'”, op. cit., pp. 143–144.
o ^ David Carson Berry, “Victor Vaughn Lytle and the Early Proselytism
of Schenkerian Ideas in the U.S.”, Journal of Schenkerian Studies 1 (2005), pp. 98–99. Theory and Practice 10/1-2 (1985) published for the 50th anniversary of Schenker’s death other early American texts, including an unsigned obituary in The New
York Times (February 3, 1935); Arthur Plettner, “Heinrich Schenker’s Contribution to Theory” (Musical America VI/3, February 10, 1936); Israel Citkowitz, “The Role of Heinrich Schenker” (Modern Music XI/1, November–December 1933); Frank Knight Dale,
“Heinrich Schenker and Musical Form”, Bulletin of the American Musicological Society 7, October 1943); Hans Weisse, “The Music Teacher’s Dilemma”, Proceedings or the Music Teachers National Association (1935); William J. Mitchell, “Heinrich Schenker’s
Approach to Detail”, Musicology I/2 (1946); Arthur Waldeck and Nathan Broder, “Musical Synthesis as Expounded by Heinrich Schenker”, The Musical Mercury XI/4 (December 1935); and Adele T. Katz, “Heinrich Schenker’s Method of Analysis” (The Musical
Quarterly XXI/3, July 1935). See also David Carson Berry, A Topical Guide to Schenkerian Literature: An Annotated Bibliography with Indices (Hillsdale, New York, Pendragon Press, 2004), section XIV.c.ii., “Reception through English Language Writings,
Prior to 1954”, pp. 437–443.
o ^ The Musical Quarterly 21/3 (July 1935), pp. 311–329.
o ^ Adele Katz, Challenge to Musical Tradition. A New Concept of Tonality, New York, Alfred Knopf, 1945. The book is divided in nine chapters, the first describing
“The Concept of Tonality”, the eight following devoted to J. S. Bach, Ph. E. Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky and Schoenberg respectively. On Adele Katz, see David Carson Berry, “The Role of Adele T. Katz in the Early Expansion
of the New York ‘Schenker School,'” Current Musicology 74 (2002), pp. 103–151.
o ^ Reproduced in Critical Inquiry 2/1 (Autumn 1975), pp. 113–119.
o ^ Critical Inquiry 2/1, p. 118.
o ^ The Musical Quarterly 32/2, pp. 301–302.
• Beach, David,
ed. (1983). Aspects of Schenkerian Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300028003.
• Berry, David Carson (2003). “Hans Weisse and the Dawn of American Schenkerism”. Journal of Musicology. 20 (1): 104–156. doi:10.1525/jm.2003.20.1.104.
• Schenker,
Heinrich (1908) [1904]. Ein Beitrag zur Ornamentik, als Einführung zu Ph. Em. Bachs Klavierwerken, mitumfassend auch die Ornamentik Haydns, Mozarts und Beethoven etc (in German). Vienna: Universal Edition.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1906). Harmonielehre
[Harmony] (in German). Stuttgart, Berlin: J. G. Cotta.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1954) [1906]. Oswald Jonas (ed.). Harmony. Translated by Elisabeth Mann Borgese. Annotated by Oswald Jonas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-73734-9. OCLC
• Schenker, Heinrich (1910). Kontrapunkt [Counterpoint] (in German). Vol. I. Stuttgart, Berlin: J. G. Cotta.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1922). Kontrapunkt [Counterpoint] (in German). Vol. II. Vienna, Leipzig: Universal Edition.
• Schenker,
Heinrich (1989) [1910, 1922]. Counterpoint. Translated by John Rothgeb; Jürgen Thym. New York, London: Schirmer Books. ISBN 0-02-873220-0.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1921–1924). Der Tonwille (in German). Vol. 1–10. Vienna: Tonwille Verlag.
• Schenker,
Heinrich (2004) [1921–1924]. William Drabkin (ed.). Der Tonwille. Vol. 1–10. Translated by Ian Bent e.a. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1925–1930). Das Meisterwerk in der Musik (in German). Vol. 1–3. Münich: Drei Masken
• Schenker, Heinrich (1995–1997) [1925–1930]. William Drabkin (ed.). The Masterwork in Music. Vol. 1–3. Translated by Ian Bent e.a. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1956) [1935]. Oswald Jonas (ed.). Der freie
Satz (in German). Vienna: Universal Edition.
• Schenker, Heinrich (1979) [1956]. Oswald Jonas (ed.). Free Composition. Translated by Ernst Oster. New York, London: Longman.
Photo credit:’]