From Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, p.4, emphasis mine:
[Joseph N. Straus]: What was the nature of your early work with Salzer?
[Carl Schachter]: I studied counterpoint with him. He didn’t like to talk about harmony as a discipline in itself, but we did all kinds of melody and bass settings and things of that sort, both written and at the keyboard. I had two years of analysis class with Salzer; I also studied music history with him. He was a very comprehensively educated musician, and so he taught everything other than subjects like orchestration or dictation or sight-singing. My basic musical training was with him.
Could that be because “harmony” is not in fact a legitimate “discipline in itself”?
(Note, by the way, how this undermines Scott Spiegelberg’s claim that his take on Schenker is the same as Salzer’s, since Spiegelberg very clearly does like to talk about harmony as a discipline in itself.)
May 29, 2008 at 12:05 pm |
“Snarky” is a snarky little word that I don’t often feel the need to use, but posts like this require it. I have really learned a lot here, and have purchased and devoured Westergaard’s book; you have a lot to offer. Why can’t it be enough to be right? Why must everyone else agree?
May 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm |
You’re probably right; I suppose it’s a neurosis of mine. But hey, this is a blog; what would it be without the occasional “snarky” post?
In any case, not to worry: considered, thoughtful debunking of harmony (among other things) will resume soon enough.
May 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
Fair enough – blog well taken.