And I would say that "leaping" is precisely the word needed here. As one example among many, here is Brown's treatment of the rising Urlinie notion. These "contradict the law that melodies reach maximum closure when they descend ^3-^2-^1. Since ^8 lines satisfy this and our other laws, it is hard to see how they can be rejected as Neumeyer suggests" (75). Since Brown derives his "laws of tonal motion" in such a way that they conform to Schenker's theory, then of course only melodic shapes descending through ^3-^2-^1 can be accepted. I'm not sure this even rises to the level of circular reasoning, though that is what Catherine Pellegrino calls it:
[Brown] dismisses David Neumeyer’s extensions of Schenkerian theory through a curious bit of circular reasoning. Brown introduces some of Neumeyer’s alternative prototypes, including one in which the Urlinie rises from the fifth scale degree to the tonic, but then dismisses them on the basis that they do not conform to Schenker’s prototypes, which descend to the tonic. If they conformed to Schenker’s prototypes, it would hardly be necessary to propose them as extensions of Schenker’s theory, would it? Oddly enough, Brown accomplishes this logical feat just before dismissing another critic’s charges that Schenker’s own theories involve circular reasoning. (92)
At one point, Brown says that "Schenkerian [harmonic] derivations are simply more accurate than functional explanations" (61). For this, one of his reviewers, Matthew McDonald, takes Brown to task:
Two problems arise here. First, ‘accurate’ is once again an inappropriate description of Brown’s interpretation. His ideas about chord generation rely on what is clearly a heuristic model for harmonic analysis: the notion that harmonies other than the tonic ‘derive’ from melodic motions. Such derivations might well be understood as useful explanatory tools, but they can be considered accurate only if one maintains a mystical belief in Schenker’s theory as a representation of musical reality; and such accuracy could never be demonstrated scientifically (or, to use Brown’s terminology, it is not ‘falsifiable’). Chords are not derived from melodic notes, they are composed by human beings. One can conceptualise such derivations, but this is an interpretative act, not a scientific judgement. (234)
Although I, too, have an interest in what can be called theoretical foundations of linear analysis, the MTS article should make it clear that my goal is to inform interpretation, and, implicitly, that I regard Schenkerian analysis as a mode of interpretation, not a scientific model. "Theory," in my sense, is Bordwell's "semantic field" (post) -- another way of saying an organized mode of discourse -- and my interest is in reconfiguring constructs within that field for the sake of enriching interpretative practice.
With respect at least to the idea of Schenkerian analysis as fruitful interpretative practice, I am firmly in Carl Schachter's camp.
Reviews of Explaining Tonality:
Anson-Cartwright, Mark. Journal of Schenkerian Studies, 2 p141-148. 2007.
Clark, Suzannah. Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 132(1) p141-164. 2007.
Drabkin, William M. Music & Letters, 89(2) p252. May, 2008.
McDonald, Matthew. Music Analysis, 26(1-2) p217. Mar-July, 2007. McDonald's review of Explaining Tonality is on the mark, but I think he is rather too harsh on the other book reviewed, by David Beach.
Pellegrino, Catherine. Notes (Music Library Association) 63/1 (2006): 90-93.
References:
Brown, Matthew. Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian Theory and Beyond. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2005.
Neumeyer, David. "Thematic Reading, Proto-backgrounds, and Transformations." Music Theory Spectrum 31/2 (2009): 284-324.
