Schenkerian Analysis

[thalberg]

Who here has taken Schenkerian analysis?  Has it improved your playing?  Do you agree or disagree with it?

[cygnusdei]

I find it quite useful, particularly for finding naked pictures of Leif Ove Andsnes.

[thalberg]

Yes this one was in my Schenker textbook:

[Bob]

(raises hand) I have taken Schenkerian Analysis... and I'm not giving it back.

Yes, useful.  I think it's something even an untrained person could understand, and possibly more relevant than some of the chord theory stuff I took. 

I don't know if it has exactly found it's way into my playing, but more that it's affected my understanding of a piece of music.  Basically, you can take anything and either stretch it ou more or shrink it down into something more simpler. 

Helpful for seeing what the composer might have been thinking.  Helpful for seeing patterns in music that aren't always apparent at first glance.

My teacher wasn't great, so I ended up kind of doing my own thing.  Took the ideas and simplified music myself.  Probably not exactly correct and following Schenker's plan exactly, but.. pretty practical for me.

[amanfang]

Schenkerian Analysis is overrated.     

[Bob]

I think someone's taking the idea of simplifying things a little too far with that pic.  Ugh....

[counterpoint]

If you analyse a piece of music to the bones, it will look bare naked as well 

[Bob]

The naked man is in the foreground, so that's the first thing to remove.  You can also see it moves from earth to man and back to earth, so you can eliminate the man from the next level.  The small tree in the far back can go too.

That leaves bank, river, cliff, with some sky over head.

At the next level down, I'd say it's just earth, river, earth.

And then just earth.  The picture starts and ends with earth.  The piece is earth.

[counterpoint]

I wonder what the aim of an analysis is. Perhaps it is not to explain a work, but to prove a theory. Is it too barefaced to say, that the analyst is not interested in the work as long as it does not proof his theory...? 

[Bob]

I think it's just to understand and explain what's going on.  If that's possible.

But I do see what you're saying too.

I found Schkerian analysis to be a little more "organic" than other types of theory I studied.

[thalberg]

The naked man is in the foreground, so that's the first thing to remove.  You can also see it moves from earth to man and back to earth, so you can eliminate the man from the next level.  The small tree in the far back can go too.

That leaves bank, river, cliff, with some sky over head.

At the next level down, I'd say it's just earth, river, earth.

And then just earth.  The picture starts and ends with earth.  The piece is earth.

This is clever and funny. 

[gerryjay]

 my answer must be divided in three parts, as follows:
 1) as many kinds of analysis, the schenkerian one is very useful. you deal in depth with the structural relationships of the music, and thus enhance your comprehension of the work and the language and style of that work. notice that a pure schenkerian analysis is, as counterpoint said, a matter of proving the theory, not explaining the music. however, the tools of this analysis, and the work of the theorists who came after schenker himself (the so-called neo-schenkerians) are fundamental to any musician interested in understanding what music is about.

[gerryjay]

 2) this part of the answer is just to apologize to bob for what follows...it's a joke dude.

[gerryjay]

The naked man is in the foreground, so that's the first thing to remove.  You can also see it moves from earth to man and back to earth, so you can eliminate the man from the next level.  The small tree in the far back can go too.

That leaves bank, river, cliff, with some sky over head.

At the next level down, I'd say it's just earth, river, earth.

And then just earth.  The picture starts and ends with earth.  The piece is earth.

 3) mr. bob proves his complete non-understanding of both the picture and schenkerian analysis. furthermore, i would say that he doesn't even understand the man represented by the picture itself.
 the man is at the same time naked and covered, and thus he assumes a non-natural posture represented by his gesture. this way, the first thing to remove is what covers himself. then, all that is only figurative must go, and to shorten, what remains is exactly the man upon the landscape.
 since this is only representative of a wider concept of nature, and the man in the nature, it must go as well, and we assume now that the man is standing in the middle of nothing. the paradox created is only an illusion because given the fact that we don't find a relationship between this so-called man and mankind as a whole, we must say that it is not conform to what we expect to find in a broader sense, proving that this seminaked man that you discarded so easily is in fact the prove that we face an absurd example of lie, and furthermore (ommiting some complex relationships that you probably would not understand) that we face a picture that represents something that is nothing, or in other words, that this picture is not a picture at all.

[mcgillcomposer]

I am a bit skeptical of it to be honest. Yes, it has some very interesting implications, but what is the use if it is not audible, except in very short pieces? When it comes to analysis, why not stick with relationships one can actually perceive with the ear? I get a kick out of those who go on about the macrostructural melodic shape of, for example, der Rheingold.

[general disarray]

Amen, brother.

[thalberg]

I am a bit skeptical of it to be honest. Yes, it has some very interesting implications, but what is the use if it is not audible, except in very short pieces? When it comes to analysis, why not stick with relationships one can actually perceive with the ear? I get a kick out of those who go on about the macrostructural melodic shape of, for example, der Rheingold.

I find it useful for the concepts that are audible.  My playing sounds better when I know how to bring out voice exchanges, linear intervallic patterns, and key structural moments.

Sure the background is seldom audible, but the middle ground is what makes it worth the trouble IMO.

[dan101]

As a composer, I found it interesting. However, as a pianst, it hasn't really had an impact on my interpretations.

[thierry13]

Anybody would mind explaining me what exactly is schenkerian analysis and what's the difference with normal music analysis ...?

[thalberg]

Anybody would mind explaining me what exactly is schenkerian analysis and what's the difference with normal music analysis ...?

"Normal" music analysis is based on the theories of Rameau.  He is the one who came up with the idea of chord inversions and roman numeral analysis. 

Schenkerian analysis was developed by Heinrich Schenker.  It focuses more on linear events rather than the "vertical" approach of normal theory.  Schenker came up with ideas you may not have heard of--for example voice exchanges, linear intervallic patterns, harmonic prolongations.

Schenkerian analysis is reductionistic.  You start with all the notes--this is the foreground.  You decide which ones are structurally important and which are not.  The structurally important ones make up the middle ground.  Then you decide between three basic models--does the piece basically progress from scale degree 3 to 2 to 1, or does it start on 5, or does it start on 8.  I has to be one of those types.  This is called the background.  Or Ursatz if I'm not mistaken.

People criticize it for being reductionistic--as one composer said when shown a Schenker analysis "where are all my favorite notes?" 

Some criticize it for being subjective--who can say which notes are the structurally important ones?

However, consonance/dissonance relationships should support all decisions, eliminating some of the subjectivity.  And as for the reductionistic approach, the learning comes from the process of analyzing more than from the final background conclusion.  I think the middle ground is the most valuable part.

Murray Perahia uses Schenkerian analysis in his interpretations to find out what is structurally most important.

Schenkerian analysis is hotly debated in some circles and can cause major political problems in educational institutions.

[thierry13]

If Perahia swears by it, it's worth giving it a try !  Such a great pianist ...

[gerryjay]

 i would take care with the label "normal".

 although thalbergīs post is correct, i might add something.

 nowadays, there are so many distinct approaches, used isolate or conjunct, that think of gradual harmonic analysis (the one thalberg pointed out, and the one that is most commonly teached in harmony courses) as the normal, or only method is a very narrow look at the analysis universe.

 thierry, if you want an introduction to hardcore analysis (including schenker's), probably the best book is nicholas cookīs a guide to music analysis. although superficial (regarding the actual theories), it requires a very solid musical theory background, otherwise itīs hard (or even impossible) to read.
 after this one, the path leads to the authors themselves: schenker, reti, meyer, forte. in the case of the former, go for five graphic analysis, harmony and der freie satz. well, after that and tons of music analysed, you would have a slight idea of what him was all about... 

 ps: itīs highly reccomended an unabridged knowledge of german language, and reading his original works, even better if you get the manuscript source... 

 ps2: if all you want is a general notion of his theories, there is a site that can help you a bit. 

[gerryjay]

Schenkerian analysis is hotly debated in some circles and can cause major political problems in educational institutions.

a teacher i had used to say: "schenker discussions easily ends on pugilate".