Talk:Prolongation

Make sure you always add to the end of the section and not in the middle of a section. -- kosboot (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Derivation
It's interesting that the article doesn't start with a derivation of the word. I believe Schenker was the first one to use it - is that true? -- kosboot (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree some detail on the word itself would be useful. I'm under the impression HS was the first theorist to use it in the sense we care about in this article, but admittedly am not sure (and I imagine there is probably an interesting 19th Century intellectual history to trace re: the precedents/origins of the idea, if not the term). As it stands, I have a fairly neutral way of phrasing HS's relation to the term: "responsible for developing both the conceptual framework for prolongation" -- I imagine we can do better. --Frank Lehman (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I have spent some time searching the origin of the word and came to what follows:
 * The term is unusual in German, even today. It does appear in late-19th-century German dictionaries, specifically denoting the lengthening of a delay (say, the delay for the payment of a debt), as it still does today, although several modern dictionaries merely do not list it.
 * Schenker uses it at first (Harmonielehre and perhaps earlier) specifically to refer to the extension of the realm of a law -- in this case the extension of the laws of strict composition into free composition. I did not find this acception (the extension of a law) in late-19th-century dictionaries of juridic German, but I suspect it might have belonged to the vocabulary of the law faculty in Vienna University when Schenker was there; one would have to browse to the textbooks of the time.
 * From this basic acception, Schenker extends the meaning of Prolongation to refer to the result of the extension of the law, that is to the elaborated composition that may result from the expansion of a contrapuntal structure such as that he later named Ursatz: a free composition, then, is the prolongation of its fundamental structure. This extended meaning probably appears at the time of Kontrapunkt vol. 2, but this needs further checking.
 * The Urlinietafeln of his analyses in Tonwille and Meisterwerk at times are refered to as tables of the prolongation (I have to further check this).

From the above, I get the impression that Prolongation usually refers to the elaboration of a composition as a whole; this is not incompatible with the not too clear definition in Freie Satz.

For what the present Wikipedia article describes, the elaboration of a note, an interval or a chord, Schenker would have prefered Auskomponierung (one of the very rare terms that he coined himself). The Wikipedia page, therefore, is more about what Prolongation means today in American Schenkerian practice (and in Salzer, indeed), than what Schenker himself meant.

I should be able to modify the section "Prolongation in Schenker", with quotations, within a few days. In the meanwhile, as a result of the above, I am removing the term 'prolongation' from my teaching documents, replacing it with 'élaboration' (in French).

N. Meeùs 188.130.76.24 (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the problems in defining the terms is that in English the word "prolongation" has been standardized which did not exist with Schenker. In Tonwille 1 (I'm using the English translation), the article "The Urlinie" begins with this sentence "In the forthcoming volume of my Kontrapunkt...in which I prove that free composition is essentially a continuation of strict counterpoint, I touch upon a fundamental phenomenon of tonal life in the section on elaboration [ Auskomponierung ], a phenomenon that I have termed Urlinie."  (p. 21).  Although Drabkin doesn't use the world prolongation, I believe that this is an appropriate source for the word's derivation - as an elaboration.  More as I find them. -- kosboot (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The word certainly existed and was quite standardized in Schenker, from Harmonielehre in which it appears at least twice, with a meaning similar to that in Freie Satz. I have now summarized that in the article itself. This passage should be further expanded to explain the shift of meaning in the American usage. I presume that Salzer is the culprit, when he distinguished 'structural chords' from 'prolonging chords'.

NM62.235.238.212 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) [PS. I hate to have to sign with ever changing IP adresses. I tried in vain to have my French Wikipedia account recognized by the English Wikipedia, and I am extremely reluctant to create new accounts everywhere.] NM 62.235.238.212 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Salzer as the source for the structural business. Now that user 62.235.238.212 has added the opening section on the term's use in Schenker (which I think is hard to understand for a novice), there should be another section on post-tonal uses (which I'm guessing was also begun by Salzer). -- kosboot (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that this matter is hard to understand. Schenker's theory is difficult - for anyone; but it never fails those willing to understand. The problem here seems to be that the "Prolongation" entry should never stand as the main entry to Schenkerian analysis: our first task may be to work on the "Schenkerian analysis" entry and to make sure that the readers coming here have gained at least a basic knowledge. Schenker's notion of "prolongation", insofar as it rests on the idea of "fundamental laws", probably cannot be extended to many uses outside common-practice tonality. The problem, then, would turn out to be one of the abusage of Schenker's concept of prolongation. I personally would be inclined to view this as a semiotic problem - depending on the extent to which the music under consideration can be considered a language; but such considerations exceed the limits of this article.

Taking action. Please join!
I've grown frustrated with the lack of improvement made to this page despite massive discussions on the Society for Music Theory mailing list about it, and have decided to start implementing some of the changes I outlined below. I'd like to emphasize that while I am a proficient Schenkerian analyst, it is not an area I have published in and would be more than happy to defer to those who have. I'd like to invite other theorists, and other wikipedians who have contributed to this page, to aid in this effort in any way possible. It is not a job I am willing to take on entirely myself, and I expect this page to still have serious problems even after I fix it up a bit tonight. Previous authors seem to have relied more on Salzer's "Structural Hearing" for their definitions (a fine source, don't get me wrong) than Schenker's own writings, and this is I believe where the entry could stand to gain the most.

Also remember that editing a page, especially for as sophisticated and abstract a topic as this, takes time. The page will look incomplete and unsatisfactory throughout the stages of the revision, and it may well get stuck in another state of stubby limbo (although I pray a condition better than the one it was when we first noticed it!). I'd also like to put forth that our time is better spent making substantive improvements to this and other theory pages than bemoaning the technical and/or intellectual limitations of this wiki-resource.

--Frank Lehman (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Falstaft (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving this Page
Improving this Page
 * It has recently come to the attention to some professional music theorists that this topic is far too important, and in its way too problematic, to left as a stub. Since it is in the general interest of the music theory community to improve this page, I'll get the ball rolling with a few suggestions.

1) Integration with Schenkerian Analysis The first question we should ask is whether this needs to be an independent article on its own. The page on Schenkerian Analysis already has a fairly lengthy subsection devoted to prolongation, and specific techniques thereof, albeit constrained within the context of his contrapuntal-tonal theory. There too, it is flagged for needing expansion. Redundancy is not bad per se on Wikipedia, but I think if we expand here, we should take care to delineate the different purposes of prolongation here and on the Schenker page. The strength of the article in its current form that it suggests a picture of prolongation as an essential musical concept that extends beyond Schenker or Schenkerian orthodoxy (whether it presents a clear or fair picture of what that concept is is an entirely different matter). Nevertheless, direct citation and explication of Schenker's own words on prolongation should be a priority for this page; currently there is nothing of the sort

2) Problematic/Controversial Wordings
 * I wonder if the first sentence's use of "chord progression" is appropriate -- the wikipage on chord_progression itself defintes it is "a series of musical chords...that aims for a definite goal of...a tonality...In other words a succession of root relationships." Right at the start, this seems to violate, or at the very least side-step, the much more linear basis of prolongation of Schenkerian theory.
 * First paragraph first sentence: probably not wise to use word "prolong" in definition of prolongation!
 * First paragraph: "Contrapuntal and harmonic prolongation may be distinguished." Passive construction that does little to suggest the implications, let alone justification, for such a distinction.
 * The description of a coda w/ regards to prolongation is un-sourced and smacks of a non-sequitir.
 * The paragraph on Lerdahl's senses of progression and strong/weak prolongation can be worded in a more clear manner.

3) Organization I suggest that this article might be reorganized to have three main subsections.


 * The first can deal with Schenker's concept of prolongation. This might include delving into the intellectual background and precedents for the concept. A well-considered and explicated quotation or two of his most definitive formulation of prolongation (if we locate and agree upon one) strikes me as a necessity.


 * The second could be an enumeration of specific linear prolongational techniques, as laid out in the Schenkerian analysis page. It's here that the redundancy issue with that sister article could be most acute. At the very least, we should justify the two, somewhat under-explained images currently in this article.


 * The third will accommodate contemporary views on prolongation, including the Straus/Lerdahl discussion.

4) See Also Section As it stands, the see also section has three rather incongruous links. Surely there are more relevant and basic pages than Klumpenhouwer_network or Leading-tone_seventh_chord to the topic at hand! Tonality, Voice_leading, and Heinrich_Schenker come to mind.

--Frank Lehman (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitions
I have a feeling that everyone is doing to define it differently. I disagree with Salzer's definition (which fits in with his own agenda). So here is a statement from Counterpoint in Composition. May not wind up in the article, but it's a useful reference. "'The term prolonged counterpoint and the more general term prolongation are to be understood as a broadening of concept, and not necessarily as a lengthening in time. These are inclusive terms conveying such ideas as the elaboration, development, manipulation, and transformation of underlying principles.' (1969, p. xix)."


 * Although the term originated in Schenkerian analysis, its usage is now widespread enough even in theorists who reject other aspects of Schenkerian thought (such as the Urline), etc., so I'd think it'd be best to keep Schenker strong in the lead paragraph, then show how a small section of a piece might be explained as a prolongation of a particular chord, then after that's explained show how the idea is crucial to the directed progression of the Urline that Schenkerian analysis requires. Even though that doesn't follow the history of the term, it will make it much easier for novices to follow. Will chip in where my expertise allows. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then there should be a sentence in the opening paragraph saying something like "theorists have extended the meaning to cover other music," and then have a separate section in the body of the article covering extensions of the term (much as the way Beach has structured his bibliographies). -- kosboot (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting passage from the English translation of Jonas. He's just shown examples of dissonant passing tones in 2nd species and comes out with this:  "As the tone receives its own elaboration, which came to pass naturally in the course of musical evolution, the law of consonance gains extended application--extended, that is, in the sense of prolongation."


 * This quotation must be understood in its context, which I quote from the German (I do not have Rothgeb's translation). Jonas first explains that in the case of the dissonant passing note in 2nd species, the consonance on the beat has the power to maintain its function [of consonance] through the passing motion: "the unit has been enlarged, it experienced a Prolongation . And correspondingly the law of consonance also experienced a prolongation: it works no more from tone to tone, but from unit to unit as represented, in strict writing, by the cantus firmus note. [Examples] If the [cantus firmus] note experiences its own elaboration (Auskomponierung), as the further evolution of music has concretized, the law gains extended application, but in the form of prolongation. [Examples] [...] It is one of the major contributions of Schenker's teaching that it was the first to reveal the unity of the elaboration (Auskomponierung) and the prolonged validity and function of the laws of voice leading." Das Wesen des musikalischen Kunstwerkes (1972), pp. 45-46. The last sentence is the one quoted (in J. Rothgeb's translation) i,n note 1 of the main article. NM62.235.231.22 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That'd all might (would probably be) great if you registered for a User account and did more than criticize. But if you're unwilling to create content or be named, then you make yourself inherently unreliable. Hyacinth (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hyacinth, do you realize that you answer a discussion that is more than ten years old, between people who may not be there anymore? In addition, rereading this exchange, I can see no "criticism" in it – criticism of what? Quoting Salzer & Schachter or Jonas can hardly pass as criticism. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Do yoy have anyY objections regarding aricle rather than personal attacks? Hyacinth (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Hyacinth, if your question is directed to me,
 * (1) I do not think it a good idea to delete parts of this talk page; I see that you did it again.
 * (2) I don't understand your question. I have no objections regarding any article, either published on paper or on WP. I only might have objections (which I then try to justify) against what is said in either kind of article.
 * (3) Where do you see "personal attacks"? Against who, by whom?
 * (4) You may note that this guy who ten years ago signed some of the comments above under his own name, without user account, recently published an article on "prolongation" that I think important, Prolongation, 2021, already recently mentioned in the parts of this talk page that you deleted.
 * Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)