Fundamentals[edit]

Goals[edit]
Schenker was convinced of the superiority of music of the common practice period (especially
the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang
Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Fryderyk Chopin, and Johannes
Brahms).[4] This led him to seek the key to an understanding of music in the traditional
discipline of counterpoint, the type of theory the Masters themselves had studied. Schenker's
project was to show that free composition (freier Satz) was an elaboration, a "prolongation", of
strict composition (strenger Satz), by which he meant species counterpoint, particularly twovoice counterpoint. He did this by developing a theory of hierarchically organized levels of
elaboration (Auskomponierung), called prolongational levels, voiceleading levels
(Stimmfhrungsschichten), or transformations (Verwandlungen), the idea being that each of
the successive levels represents a new freedom taken with respect to the rules of strict
composition.[5]

Because the first principle of the elaboration is the filling in of the tonal space by passing
notes, an essential goal of the analysis is to show linear connections between notes which,
filling a single triad at a given level, remain closely related to each other but which, at
subsequent levels, may become separated by many measures or many pages as new triads
are embedded in the first one. The analyst is expected to develop a "distance hearing"
(Fernhren),[6] a "structural hearing".[7]

Harmony[edit]
The tonic triad, that from which the work as a whole arises, takes its model in the harmonic
series. However,

the mere duplication of nature cannot be the object of human endeavour. Therefore [...] the
overtone series [...] is transformed into a succession, a horizontal arpeggiation, which has the
added advantage of lying within the range of the human voice. Thus the harmonic series is
condensed, abbreviated for the purposes of art".[8]
Linking the (major) triad to the harmonic series, Schenker merely pays lip service to an idea
common in the early 20th century.[9] He confirms that the same derivation cannot be made
for the minor triad:

Any attempt to derive even as much as the first foundation of this [minor] system, i.e., the
minor triad itself, from Nature, i.e., from the overtone series, would be more than futile. [...]
The explanation becomes much easier if artistic intention rather than Nature herself is
credited with the origin of the minor mode.".[10]
The basic component of Schenkerian harmony is the Stufe (scale degree, scale-step), i.e. a
chord having gained structural significance. Chords arise from within chords, as the result of
the combination of passing notes and arpeggiations: they are at first mere embellishments,
mere voice-leading constructions, but they become tonal spaces open for further elaboration
and, once elaborated, can be considered structurally significant: they become scale-steps

properly speaking. Schenker recognizes that "there are no rules which could be laid down
once and for all" for recognizing scale steps,[11] but from his examples one may deduce that
a triad cannot be recognized as a scale-step as long as it can be explained by passing or
neighboring voice-leading.

Schenkerian analyses label scale-steps with Roman numerals, a practice common in 19th- and
20th-century Vienna, developed by the theoretic work of Georg Joseph Vogler and his student
Gottfried Weber, transmitted by Simon Sechter and his disciple Anton Bruckner, the classes of
which Schenker had followed in the Konservatorium in Vienna.[12]

Schenkers theory is monotonal: the Ursatz, as the diatonic unfolding of the tonic triad, by
definition cannot include modulation. Local "tonicisation" may arise when a scale-step is
elaborated to the point of becoming a local tonic, but the work as a whole projects a single
key and ultimately a single Stufe (the tonic).[13]

Counterpoint, voice-leading[edit]
Two-voice counterpoint remains for Schenker the model of strict writing. Free composition is a
freer usage of the laws of strict counterpoint. One of the aims of the analysis is to trace how
the work remains subject to these laws at the deepest level, despite the freedom taken at
subsequent levels.[14]

One aspect of strict, two-voice writing that appears to span Schenkers theory throughout the
years of its elaboration is the rule of "fluent melody" (fliessender Gesang), or "melodic
fluency". Schenker attributes the rule to Cherubini, who would have written that "fluent
melody is always preferable in strict counterpoint"[15] Melodic fluency, the preference for
conjunct (stepwise) motion, is one of the main rules of voice leading, even in free
composition. It avoids successive leaps and produces "a kind of wave-like melodic line which
as a whole represents an animated entity, and which, with its ascending and descending
curves, appears balanced in all its individual component parts".[16] This idea is at the origin
of that of linear progression (Zug) and, more specifically, of that of the Fundamental Line
(Urlinie).

Ursatz[edit]
Main article: Ursatz

The minimal Ursatz: a line scale degree 3 scale degree 2 scale degree 1 supported by an
arpeggiation of the bass
About this sound Play (helpinfo).
Ursatz (usually translated as "fundamental structure") is the name given by Schenker to the
underlying structure in its simplest form, that from which the work as a whole originates. In
the canonical form of the theory, it consists of the Urlinie, the "fundamental line", supported

by the Bassbrechung, the "arpeggiation of the bass". The fundamental structure is a two-voice
counterpoint and as such belongs to strict composition.[17] In conformity with the theory of
the tonal space, the fundamental line is a line starting from any note of the triad and
descending to the tonic itself. The arpeggiation is an arpeggiation through the fifth, ascending
from I to V and descending back to I. The Urlinie unfolds the tonal space in a melodic
dimension, while the Bassbrechung expresses its harmonic dimension.[18]

The theory of the fundamental structure is the most criticized aspect of Schenkerian theory: it
has seemed unacceptable to reduce all tonal works to one of a few almost identical
background structures. This is a misunderstanding: Schenkerian analysis is not about
demonstrating that all compositions can be reduced to the same background, but about
showing how each work elaborates the background in a unique, individual manner,
determining both its identity and its "meaning". Schenker has made this his motto: Semper
idem, sed non eodem modo, "always the same, but never in the same manner".[19]

The fundamental line[edit]

Main article: Fundamental line
The idea of the fundamental line comes quite early in the development of Schenkers theory.
Its first printed mention dates from 1920, in the edition of Beethovens Sonata op. 101, but
the idea obviously links with that of "fluent melody", ten years earlier.[20] Schenker first
conceived the Urlinie, the "fundamental line", as a kind of motivic line characterized by its
fluency, repeated under different guises throughout the work and ensuring its homogeneity.
He later imagined that a musical work should have only one fundamental line, unifying it from
beginning to end. The realization that such fundamental lines usually were descending led
him to formulate the canonical definition of the fundamental line as necessarily descending. It
is not that he rejected ascending lines, but that he came to consider them hierarchically less
important. "The fundamental line begins with scale degree 8, scale degree 5 or scale degree
3, and moves to scale degree 1 via the descending leading tone scale degree 2".[21] The
initial note of the fundamental line is called its "head tone" (Kopfton) or "primary tone". The
head note may be elaborated by an upper neighbour note, but not a lower one.[22] In many
cases, the head note is reached through an ascending line (Anstieg, "initial ascent") or an
ascending arpeggiation, which do not belong to the fundamental structure properly speaking.
[23]

The arpeggiation of the bass and the divider at the fifth[edit]

Main article: Bass arpeggiation
The arpeggiation through the fifth is an imitation of the overtone series, adapted to man [sic]
"who within his own capacities can experience sound only in a succession".[24] The fifth of
the arpeggiation coincides with the last passing note scale degree 2 of the fundamental line.
This at first produces a mere "divider at the fifth", a complex filling in of the tonal space.
However, as a consonant combination, it defines at a further level a new tonal space, that of
the dominant chord, and so doing opens the path for further developments of the work. It
would appear that the difference between the divider at the fifth and the dominant chord
properly speaking really depends on the level at which the matter is considered: the notion of
the divider at the fifth views it as an elaboration of the initial tonal space, while the notion of

dominant chord conceives it as a new tonal space created within the first. But the opinions of
modern Schenkerians diverge on this point.[25]

Schenkerian notation[edit]
Graphic representations form an important part of Schenkerian analyses: "the use of music
notation to represent musical relationships is a unique feature of Schenker's work".[26]
Schenkerian graphs are based on a "hierarchic" notation, where the size of the notes, their
rhythmic values and/or other devices indicate their structural importance. Schenker himself,
in the Foreword to his Five Graphic Analyses, claimed that "the presentation in graphic form
has now been developed to a point that makes an explanatory text unnecessary".[27] Even
so, Schenkerian graphs represent a change of semiotic system, a shift from music itself to its
graphical representation, akin to the more usual change from music to verbal (analytic)
commentary; but this shift already exists in the score itself, and Schenker rightly noted the
analogy between music notation and analysis.[28] One aspect of graphic analyses that may
not have been enough stressed is the desire to abolish time, to represent the musical work as
something that could be apprehended at a glance or, at least, in a way that would replace a
"linear" reading by a "tabular" one.

Rhythmic reduction of the first measures of Chopin's Study op. 10 n. 1. Simplified version of
the analysis of the "ground-harmony" in Czerny's School of Practical Composition, 1848. About
this sound Play original (helpinfo) or About this sound Play reduction (helpinfo)
The first step of the analytic rewriting often takes the form of a "rhythmic" reduction, that is
one that preserves the score, but "normalizes" its rhythm and its voice-leading content.[29]
This type of reduction has a long tradition, not only in counterpoint treatises or theory books,
[30] but also in the simplified notation of some Baroque works, e.g. the Prelude to Hndel's
Suite in A major, HWV 426, or early versions of Bach's C major Prelude of Book I of the Well
Tempered Keyboard. One indirect advantage of rhythmic reduction is that it helps reading the
voice leading: Czerny's example hereby transforms Chopin's arpeggios into a composition in
four (or five) voices. Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter write that the first rewriting should
"produce a setting that is reasonably close to note-against-note."[31] Allen Cadwallader and
David Gagn suggest a special type of rhythmic reduction that they call "imaginary continuo",
[32] stressing the link between the rhythmic reduction and a notation as a melody with
figured bass. Basically, it consists in imagining a figured bass line for the work analyzed, and
writing a chordal realization of it.

Schenker himself usually began his analyses with a rhythmic reduction that he termed
Urlinietafel. From 1925 onwards, he complemented these with other levels of representation,
corresponding to the successive steps leading to the fundamental structure. At first, he mainly
relyed on the size of the note shapes to denote their hierarchic level, but later abandoned this
system as it proved too complex for contemporary techniques of musical engraving. Allen
Cadwallader and David Gagn propose a description of Schenker's system of graphic notation
which, they say, "is flexible, enabling musicians to express in subtle (and sometimes different)
ways what they hear and how they interpret a composition". They discuss open noteheads,
usually indicating the highest structural level, and filled-in noteheads for tones of lower levels;
slurs, grouping tones in an arpeggio or in linear motions with passing or neighbor tones;

beams, for linear motions of higher structural level or for the arpeggiation of the bass; broken
ties, for repeated or sustained tones; diagonal lines to realign displaced notes; diagonal
beams, connecting successive notes that belong to the same chord ("unfolding"); etc.[33]

Techniques of prolongation[edit]
Main article: Prolongation
The meat of a Schenkerian analysis is in showing how a background structure expands until it
results in the succession of musical events on the surface of the composition itself. Schenker
refers to this process under the term Auskomponierung, literally "composing out", but more
often translated as "elaboration". Modern Schenkerians usually prefer the term "prolongation",
stressing that elaborations develop the events along the time axis.

Schenker writes:

In practical art the main problem is how to realize the concept of harmony in a live content. In
Chopins Prelude, op. 28, No 6, thus, it is the motif

About this sound Play chord (helpinfo) or About this sound Play arpeggio (helpinfo)
that gives life to the abstract concept of the triad, B, D, F-sharp.[34]
The elaboration of the triad, here mainly in the form of an arpeggio, loads it with "live
content", with meaning. Elaborations take the form of diminutions, replacing the total duration
of the elaborated event by shorter events in larger number. By this, notes are displaced both
in pitch and in rhythmic position. The analysis to some extent aims at restoring displaced
notes in their "normal" position and explaining how and why they were displaced.[35]

Elaboration of the F major chord About this sound Play (helpinfo)

One aspect of Schenkerian analysis is that it does not view the work as built from a succession
of events, but as the growth of new events from within events of higher level, much as a tree
develops twigs from its branches and branches from its trunk: it is in this sense that
Schenkerian theory must be considered organicist. The example hereby may at first be
considered a mere elaboration of an F major chord, an arpeggiation in three voices, with
passing notes (shown here in black notes without stem) in the two higher voices: it is an
exemplification of the tonal space of F major. The chord labelled (V) at first merely is a
"divider at the fifth". However, the meeting of the fifth (C) in the bass arpeggiation with the
passing notes may also be understood as producing a dominant chord, V, arising from within
the tonic chord I. This is the situation found at the beginning of Haydn's Sonata in F major,
Hob. XVI:29, where the (incomplete) dominant chord appears at the very end of bar 3, while
the rest of the fragment consist of arpeggios (with neighbor notes) of the F chord:[36]

About this sound Play (helpinfo)

Arpeggiation, neighbour note, passing note[edit]
Arpeggiation is the simplest form of elaboration. It delimitates a tonal space for elaboration,
but lacks the melodic dimension that would allow further developments: it "remains a
harmonic phenomenon".[37] From the very structure of triads (chords), it follows that
arpeggiations remain disjunct and that any filling of their space involves conjunct motion.
Schenker distinguishes two types of filling of the tonal space: neighbor notes (Nebennoten),
ornamenting one single note of the triad by being adjacent to it. passing notes, which pass
by stepwise motion from one note to another and fill the space in between. Both neighbor
notes and passing notes are dissonances. They may be made consonant by their meeting
other notes (as in the Haydn example above) and, once consonant, may delimitate further
tonal spaces open to further elaborations. Insofar as chords consist of several voices,
arpeggiations and passing notes always involve passing from one voice to another.

Linear progression ("Zug")[edit]

Main article: Linear progression
A linear progression (Zug) is the stepwise filling of some consonant interval. It usually is
underlined in graphic analyses with a slur from the first note of the progression to the last.
The most elementary linear progressions are determined by the tonal space that they
elaborate: they span from the prime to the third, from the third to the fifth or from the fifth to
the octave of the triad, in ascending or descending direction. Schenker writes: "there are no
other tonal spaces than those of 13, 35, and 58. There is no origin for passing-toneprogressions, or for melody"[38] Linear progressions, in other words, may be either third
progressions (Terzzge) or fourth progressions (Quartzge); larger progressions result from a
combination of these. Linear progressions may be incomplete (deceptive) when one of their
tones is replaced by another, but nevertheless suggested by the harmony. In the example
below, the first bars of Beethovens Sonata op. 109, the bass line descends from E3 to E2.
F#2 is replaced by B1 in order to mark the cadence, but it remains implicit in the B chord. In
addition, the top voice answers the bass line by a voice exchange, E4-F#4-G#4 above G#2(F#2)-E2, in bar 3, after a descending arpeggio of the E chord. The bass line is doubled in
parallel tenths by the alto voice, descending from G#4 to G#3, and the tenor voice
alternatively doubles the soprano and the bass, as indicated by the dotted slurs. It is the bass
line that governs the passage as a whole: it is the "leading progression", on which all the
other voices depend and which best expresses the elaboration of the E major chord.[39]

About this sound Play reduction (helpinfo) or About this sound Play original (helpinfo)
Schenker describes lines covering a seventh or a ninth as "illusory",[40] considering that they
stand for a second (with a register transfer): they do not fill a tonal space, they pass from one
chord to another.[41]

Lines between voices, reaching over[edit]

Passing tones filling the intervals of a chord may be considered forming lines between the
voices of this chord. At the same time, if the chord tones themselves are involved in lines from
one chord to another (as usually is the case), lines of lower level unfurl between lines of
higher level. The most interesting case is when the lines link an inner voice to the upper
voice. This may happen not only in ascending (a case usually described as a "line from an
inner voice"), but also in descending, if the inner voice has been displaced above the upper
line by a register transfer, a case known as "reaching over" (bergreifen). In the example from
Schuberts Wanderers Nachtlied below, the descending line GFED at the end of the
first bar may be read as a reaching over.

Unfolding[edit]
Main article: Unfolding (music)
Unfolding (Ausfaltung) is an elaboration by which several voices of a chord or of a succession
of chords are combined in one single line "in such a manner that a tone of the upper voice is
connected to a tone of the inner voice and then moves back, or the reverse".[42] At the end
of Schuberts Wanderers Nachtlied op. 4 n. 3, the vocal melody unfolds two voices of the
succession IVI; the lower voice, BbAbGb, is the main one, expressing the tonality of Gb
major; the upper voice, DbCbBb, is doubled one octave lower in the right hand of the
accompaniment:

About this sound Play reduction (helpinfo) or About this sound Play original (helpinfo)
In his later writings (from 1930 onwards), Schenker sometimes used a special sign do denote
the unfolding, an oblique beam connecting notes of the different voices that are conceptually
simultaneous, even if they are presented in succession in the single line performing the
unfolding.[43]

Register transfer, coupling[edit]

Register transfer is the motion of one or several voices into a different octave (i.e. into a
different register). Schenker considers that music normally unfolds in one register, the
"obligatory register", but at times is displaced to higher or lower registers. Register transfers
are particularly striking in piano music (and that for other keyboard instruments), where
contrasts of register (and the distance between the two hands) may have a striking, quasi
orchestral effect.[44] Coupling is when the transferred parts retain a link with their original
register. The work, in this case, appears to unfold in two registers in parallel.

Voice exchange[edit]
Main article: Voice exchange
Voice exchange is a common device in counterpoint theory. Schenkerians view it as a means
of elaborating a chord by modifying its position. Two voices exchange their notes, often with

passing notes in between. At the end of the example of Beethovens Op. 109 above, the bass
and soprano exchange their notes: G is transferred from bass to soprano, while E is
transferred from soprano to bass. The exchange is marked by crossed lines between these
notes.[45]

Elaboration of the Fundamental Structure[edit]

The elaborations of the fundamental structure deserve a specific discussion because they
may determine the form of the work in which they occur.

Initial ascent, initial arpeggiation[edit]

The starting point of the fundamental line, its "head note" (Kopfton), may be reached only
after an ascending motion, either an initial ascending line (Anstieg) or an initial arpeggiation,
which may take more extension than the descending fundamental line itself. This results in
melodies in arch form. Schenker decided only in 1930 that the fundamental line should be
descending: in his earlier analyses, initial ascending lines often are described as being part of
the Urlinie itself.[23]

First order neighbor note[edit]

Schenker stresses that the head note of the fundamental line often is decorated by a neighbor
note "of the first order", which must be an upper neighbor because "the lower neighboring
note would give the impression of the interruption". The neighbor note of the first order is
scale degree 3scale degree 4scale degree 3 or scale degree 5scale degree 6scale degree
5: the harmony supporting it often is the IVth or VIth degree, which may give rise to a section
of the work at the subdominant.[46]

Articulation of the span from I to V in the bass arpeggiation[edit]

The canonic form of the bass arpeggiation is IVI. The second interval, VI, forms under scale
degree 2scale degree 1 the perfect authentic cadence and is not susceptible of elaboration
at the background level. The first span, IV, on the other hand, usually is elaborated. The main
cases include:[47]

IIIIV[edit]
This is the complete arpeggiation of the triad. Once elaborated, it may consist in a succession
of three tonalities, especially in pieces in minor. In these cases, III stands for a tonicisation of
the major relative. This often occurs in Sonata forms in minor, where the first thematic group
elaborates degree I, the second thematic group is in the major relative, degree III, and the
development leads to V before the recapitulation in the tonic key.

IIVV or IIIV[edit]

Bass elaboration I-IV-V-I About this sound Play (helpinfo)

Even though he never discussed them at length, these elaborations occupy a very special
place in Schenkers theory. One might even argue that no description of an Ursatz properly
speaking is complete if it does not include IV or II at the background level. Schenker uses a
special sign to denote this situation, the double curve shown in the example hereby, crossing
the slur that links IV (or II) to V. That IV (here, F) is written as a quarter note indicates that it is
of lower rank than I and V, notated as half notes. There exists here an unexpected link
between Schenkerian theory and Riemanns theory of tonal functions, a fact that might
explain Schenkers reluctance to be more explicit about it. In modern Schenkerian analysis,
the chord of IV or II is often dubbed the "predominant" chord, as the chord that prepares the
dominant one, and the progression may be labelled "TPDT", for TonicPredominant
DominantTonic.

IIIIIIIVV[edit]
The dominant chord may be linked to the tonic by a stepwise linear progression. In such case,
one of the chords in the progression, II, III or IV, usually takes preeminence, reducing the case
to one or the other described above.

Interruption[edit]
The interruption (Unterbrechung) is an elaboration of the fundamental line, which is
interrupted at its last passing note, scale degree 2, before it reaches its goal. As a result, the
bass arpeggiation itself is also interrupted at the divider at the fifth (V). Both the fundamental
line and the bass arpeggiation are bound to return to their starting point and the fundamental
structure repeats itself, eventually reaching its goal. The interruption is the main formgenerating elaboration: it often is used in binary forms (when the first part ends on the
dominant) or, if the elaboration of the "dividing dominant", scale degree 2 above V, takes
some importance, it may produce ternary form, typically sonata form.[48]

Mixture[edit]
Schenker calls "mixture" (Mischung) the change of mode of the tonic, i.e. the replacement of
its major third by the minor one, or of its minor third by the major one. The elaboration of the
resulting chord may give rise to a section in minor within a work in major, or the reverse.[49]

Transference of the fundamental structure[edit]

The forms of the fundamental structure may be repeated at any level of the work. "Every
transferred form [of the fundamental structure] has the effect of a self-contained structure
within which the upper and lower voices delimit a single tonal space".[50] That is to say that
any phrase in a work could take the form of a complete fundamental structure. Many classical
themes (e.g. the theme to the set of variations in Mozarts K331 piano sonata) form selfcontained structure of this type. This resemblance of local middleground structures to
background structures is part of the beauty and appeal of Schenkerian analysis, giving it the
appearance of a recursive construction.[51]

Legacy and responses[edit]

Europe before World War II[edit]
Schenker himself mentioned in a letter of 1927 to his student Felix-Eberhard von Cube that his
ideas continued "to be felt more widely: Edinburgh [with John Petrie Dunn], (also New York
[probably with George Wedge]), Leipzig [with Reinhard Oppel], Stuttgart [with Herman Roth],
Vienna (myself and [Hans] Weisse), [Otto] Vrieslander in Munich [], yourself [von Cube] in
Duisburg, and [August] Halm [in Wickersdorf, Thuringia]."[52] Von Cube, with Moritz Violin,
another of Schenkers students, founded the Schenker Institut in Hamburg in 1931.[53]
Oswald Jonas published Das Wesen des Musikalisches Kunstwerkes in 1932, and Felix Salzer
Sinn und Wesen des Abendlndischen Mehrstimmigkeits in 1935, both based on Schenkerian
concepts. Oswald Jonas and Felix Salzer founded and edited together the short-lived
Schenkerian journal Der Dreiklang (Vienna, 1937-1938).[54]

World War II brought European studies to a halt. Schenker's publications were placed under
Nazi ban and some were confiscated by the Gestapo. It is in the United States that
Schenkerian analysis knew its first important developments.

Early reception in the USA[edit]

George Wedge taught some of Schenkers ideas as early as 1925 in the Institute of Musical
Arts, New York.[55] Victor Vaughn Lytle, who had studied with Hans Weisse in Vienna, wrote
what may be the earliest English-language essay dealing with Schenkerian concepts, "Music
Composition of the Present" (The American Organist, 1931), without however really crediting
Schenker for them.[56] Weisse himself, who had studied with Schenker at least from 1912,
immigrated to the United States and began teaching Schenkerian analysis at the Mannes
School of Music in New York in 1931. One of his students, Adele T. Katz, devoted an article to
"Heinrich Schenker's Method of Analysis" in 1935,[57] then an important book, Challenge to
Musical Tradition, in 1945, in which she applied Schenkerian analytical concepts not only to
some of Schenker's favorite composers, Johann Sebastian and Philipp Emmanuel Bach, Haydn
and Beethoven, but also to Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky and Schoenberg: this certainly
represents one of the earliest attempt to widen the corpus of Schenkerian analysis.[58]

The opinions of the critics were not always positive, however. Roger Sessions published in
Modern Music 12 (May-June 1935) an obituary article under the title "Heinrich Schenkers
Contribution"[59] where, after having recognized some of Schenker's achievements, he
criticizes the development of the last years, until Der freie Satz (which he admits is not yet
available in the US) and concludes that "It is precisely when Schenker's teachings leave the
domain of exact description and enter that of dogmatic and speculative analysis that they
become essentially sterile".[60] The most raging attack against Schenker came in the
"Editorial" that Paul Henry Lang devoted in The Musical Quarterly 32/2 (April 1946) to the
recently published book by Adele Katz, Challenge to Musical Tradition, which he opposed to
Donald Tovey's Beethoven, also published in 1945; his attacks also target Schenker's
followers, probably the American ones. He writes:

Schenker's and his disciples' musical theory and philosophy is not art, its whole outlook at
least as expressed in their writings lacks feeling. There was seldom a colder spirit than
theirs; the only warmth one feels is the warmth of dogmatism. Music interests them only
insofar as it fits into their system [...]. In reality music serves only to furnish grist for the mill
of their insatiable theoretical mind, not for their heart or imagination. There is no art, no
poetry, in this remarkable system which deals with the raw materials of music with a virtuoso
hand. Schenker and his disciples play with music as others play chess, not even suspecting
what fantasy, what sentimental whirlpools lie at the bottom of every composition. They see
lines only, no colors, and their ideas are cold and orderly. But music is color and warmth,
which are the values of a concrete art.[61]
After World War II[edit]
Translations[edit]
Schenker left about 4000 pages of printed text, of which the translations at first were
astonishingly slow. They are today all translated in English, and the project Schenker
Documents Online is busy with the edition and translation of more than 100 000 manuscript
pages. Translations in other languages remain slow.