Talk:Schenkerian analysis/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Schenkerian analysis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Textbooks
Why isn't "Counterpoint in Composition" by Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter included in section 5.3.2? It was used as a textbook when I was a student (1982-1984) and later a teacher (1988-1996) at Mannes College of Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.0.84 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Counterpoint in Composition is about counterpoint. You can't learn Schenkerian Analysis from the book although it is highly influenced by it. Perhaps if there was a section "textbooks showing the influence of Schenkerian Analysis" that would be an appropriate place. But since the article is specifically about analysis, I don't think that book qualifies. - kosboot (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Query
It's a pity the quote from Schenker in the first paragraph uses "Urlinie", when only "Ursatz" has been introduced. Tony (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such quote in the first paragraph, or at least I have been unable to find it. Urlinie appears first in the section Counterpoint, voice-leading, immediately followed by the section Ursatz where the "fundamental line" is (shortly) defined before the first quote from Schenker.
- On the other hand, I see that Ursatz is translated as "primal structure" in the lead. The usual translation as "fundamental structure" (and that of Urlinie as "fundamental line") has been criticized in the Fundamental structure article. Unless anyone would object, I intend to replace all cases of "fundamental structure" and "fundamental line" in the article by "primal structure" and "primal line", merely indicating the earlier translation at the first occurrence. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh ... I'm used to "fundamental" in both cases. It's widely used in the literature. "Primal" has a different envelope of meaning, though both words overlap a bit. I meant the second paragraph: how to convey "Ersatz" without requiring readers to click the link, which is distracting and segments the flow? Tony (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here I think common usage should overule the literal translation. "Fundamental....." is used a lot in the literature. "Primal" is not (and—to me—suggests something primitive). - kosboot (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I like Ersatz mentioned above by @Tony ;–)). As discussed in Fundamental structure, "primal" is a common translation of the German Ur– in other disciplines. It is striking that more recent translations (e.g. of Tonwille and Meisterwerk) prefer keeping the German terms Ursatz and Urlinie. But changing "fundamental" may indeed be too soon for WP. After a much needed new translation of Free Composition, perhaps... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here I think common usage should overule the literal translation. "Fundamental....." is used a lot in the literature. "Primal" is not (and—to me—suggests something primitive). - kosboot (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh ... I'm used to "fundamental" in both cases. It's widely used in the literature. "Primal" has a different envelope of meaning, though both words overlap a bit. I meant the second paragraph: how to convey "Ersatz" without requiring readers to click the link, which is distracting and segments the flow? Tony (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)