Talk:Structural level

	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.

Jessica Wiskus

The reference to Jessica Wiskus' paper (footnote 2) is somewhat puzzling: unless I am mistaken, she does not quote Free Composition (which, in addition, is not a translation of the 1935 edition of Schenker's book), she merely refers to a paper by Lee Rothfarb, "Energetics", The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, Th. Christensen ed., CUP 2002. This paper, in turn, mentions Free Composition only once in passing and more often quotes Schenker's Harmony and Counterpoint. Clarification would be useful. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of more than one level

My attempts to add an image of more than one structural level, as requested above, failed. I had done it, but a bot said that it was too big, considering that Free Composition (from where it was taken) is still covered by copyright. I therefore reduced it, as suggested, but another bot removed it saying "Removing {{{{Non-free reduce}}}} since file is already adequately sized." I cannot argue with bots who don't agree with each other and who give contradictory information. The file is available, in case somebody else wants to try: File:Free_Composition,_Figure_49.png. The caption that I had written must be available in the history of the page.

File:Free_Composition,_Figure_49.png

Another possibility would be to take it from Der freie Satz 1935, available on Internet. The written information (mainly the title of the piece) would then be in German, and it is not evident to me that that version is copyright free. But, once again, I for one won't fight against bots. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a second try, with an image published by Schenker in 1923 and therefore most probably out of copyright. Let us hope on the comprehension of the bots. (Note also that even the reduced version of the first image was removed above because while such reduced versions might be acceptable in the articles themselves, they apparently are not in the talk pages; but another bot had thought otherwise...) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]