This document compares transformational theory and Schenkerian theory as approaches to tonal analysis. While transformational theory has generated some antagonism with Schenkerian theory, the document argues they differ in analytical technique, theoretical content, and goals. Schenkerian theory proposes contrapuntal structures underlying pieces, while transformational theory uses a graph-based approach. Rather than seeing them as competing theories, the document proposes they represent distinct styles of analytical thought about music.
This document compares transformational theory and Schenkerian theory as approaches to tonal analysis. While transformational theory has generated some antagonism with Schenkerian theory, the document argues they differ in analytical technique, theoretical content, and goals. Schenkerian theory proposes contrapuntal structures underlying pieces, while transformational theory uses a graph-based approach. Rather than seeing them as competing theories, the document proposes they represent distinct styles of analytical thought about music.
This document compares transformational theory and Schenkerian theory as approaches to tonal analysis. While transformational theory has generated some antagonism with Schenkerian theory, the document argues they differ in analytical technique, theoretical content, and goals. Schenkerian theory proposes contrapuntal structures underlying pieces, while transformational theory uses a graph-based approach. Rather than seeing them as competing theories, the document proposes they represent distinct styles of analytical thought about music.
All new approaches to tonal analysis must at some point situate themselves with respect to the Schenkerian tradition, the lingua franca of tonal theory in the Anglo-American academy. Th e need to do this with transformational approaches is perhaps more pressing than usual, as developments in neo-Riemannian theory have generated a degree of antagonism between adherents of the two methods. In this section I will briefl y compare the methodological characteristics of transformational and Schenkerian approaches with the aim of demonstrating that they diff er in important ways in terms of analytical technique, theoretical content, and methodological goals. I will ultimately propose that any tension or competition between the two methodologies is misplaced and unnecessary. Such a tension suggests that Schenkerian and transformational theories represent two versions of the same kind of music theory—that their claims are equivalent and competing. I will instead argue that they are not competing forms of the same kind of music theory, but represent distinctly diff erent styles of music-analytical thought. Figure 1.7 presents a Schenkerian sketch of the fi rst four measures of the Prelude to Bach’s G-major Cello Suite, useful for comparison with the GIS analysis in section 1.2.6. Th e sketch shows a three-voice contrapuntal structure underlying mm. 1–4: a composing-out of the tonic Stufe in G. Th e Kopft on 3̂ (B3) is decorated with a complete neighbor C4, while the inner voice horizontalizes the fourth between D3 and G3 through stepwise motion. Th ere are some evident visual parallels here with Figure 1.2 , in particular with 1.2(f). But the two analyses diverge notably in their content and in the nature of their analytical claims. Figure 1.7 proposes an interpretation of the structure of the opening of the prelude, suggesting, for
A Comparative Review of The Complete Musician by Steven G. Laitz, Harmony in Context by Miguel Roig-Francolí, and A Musician’s Guide to Theory and Analysis by Jane Piper Clendinning and Elizabeth West Marvin.pdf