Talk:Fundamental structure

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fundamental structure/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It would be better for this stub not to exist at all than in its present form. Middleton is a bizarre principal source - if not Schenker's own Free Composition, than at least one of the main textbooks available would be better. Is anyone working on the Schenker stuff on Wikipedia at the moment?

Last edited at 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC) ñññ

  What the article conspicuously lacks is any justification of the Ursatz as a two-voiced contrapuntal object. 
  The Ursatz, as such, includes an octave approached by similar motion; this is not allowed in two-voiced counterpoint.
  The reason why this matters is that the entire technique of schenkerian analysis takes as its premise that the compositions "analyzed" must all be compositional elaborations of the Ursatz. Why would so many good composers choose as the basis of their work such a singular and very specific contrapuntal error? The obvious answer is that they didn't, and that the rest of any theory that assumes they did is a baseless theory.

- Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.12.109 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]