To Be or Not to Be: Schenker's Versus Schenkerian Attitudes Towards Sequences

Abstract

have several times experienced a sinking feeling upon reading the following passage from Free Composition (from a discussion of leading and following linear progressions): "double counterpoint therefore takes its place in the ranks of such fallacious concepts as the ecclesiastical modes, sequences, and the usual explanation of consecutive fifths and octaves" (Schenker 1979, 78).Although I retain a sneaking fondness for double counterpoint, it is largely the presence of sequences in this blacklist that evokes a nostalgic sense of loss.Schenker was contemptuous towards piecemeal analyses that merely identified different kinds of isolated entities in the music, like landmarks highlighted on a map.In a section of Free Composition entitled "Rejection of the conventional terms 'melody,' 'motive,' 'idea,' and the like," he writes:Great composers trust their long-range vision.For this reason they do not base their compositions upon some 'melody,' 'motive,' or 'idea.'Rather, the content is rooted in the voice-leading transformations and linear progressions whose unity allows no segmentation or names of segments.( 26) And, in the next paragraph:One cannot speak of 'melody' and 'idea' in the work of the masters; it makes even less sense to speak of 'passage,' 'sequence,' 'padding,' or 'cement' as if they were terms that one could possibly apply to art.Drawing a comparison to language, what is there in a logically constructed sentence that one could call 'cement'?"(27) I