Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1102

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:58:57 -0500 (EST), Christopher Bailey <cb202@columbia.edu> wrote
concerning *Subject: melodic power issues*

"""Also, is there really such a thing as melody considered "apart" from
harmony? I think this was Schenker's point---that all melodies are
ultimately arpeggiations of harmonies, elaborated of course with passing
motions, neighbour-motions, etc. etc. etc. [....]"""

I think one could as easily turn this around: harmony is nothing more than a means of
articulating - defining, perhaps - structural melodic movement. Don't have that much direct
knowledge of Schenker, but the idea of a melodies as 'arpeggiations of harmonies' seems pretty
murky to me.

Regards,
�ale

--- In tuning@y..., dcc <d.c.carr@o...> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:58:57 -0500 (EST), Christopher Bailey
<cb202@c...> wrote
> concerning *Subject: melodic power issues*
>
> """Also, is there really such a thing as melody considered "apart"
from
> harmony? I think this was Schenker's point---that all melodies are
> ultimately arpeggiations of harmonies, elaborated of course with
passing
> motions, neighbour-motions, etc. etc. etc. [....]"""

Actually, I don't think Christopher got that right. Schenker's
fundametal melody is _not_ an arpeggio -- it is a _scalar_ descent. I
think D.C.Carr's description is actually closer to Schenker's in that
for Schenker, much harmony is simply a way of structuralizing and
embellishing what is ultimately scalar melodic motion, in conjuction
with elaborations of I-V-I bass movements .