It's always nice to see one's work mentioned in places where it's relevant. Surveying the field of post-Schenkerian studies in North America and the UK, William Drabkin notes the following (836):
Not surprisingly, the attempt to render Schenker's work accessible has also led to new developments in his theories. Although Schenker himself stressed that his work was artistic, not scientific, succeeding generations of theorists felt the need for it to be more internally consistent. One sees not only a more scientific approach, as early as Forte's seminal essay of 1959, but also numerous attempts to come to terms with ambiguities and inconsistencies in the theory. Both the sanctity of the two-voice Ursatz and the primacy of the descending 3-2-1 Urlinie have been challenged,51 and theorists now generally accept the possibility that a piece may admit more than one valid Schenkerian reading.52
Footnote 51 cites my three 1987 articles, one of David Beach's responses to them, and Geoffrey Chew's "The Spice of Music," which appeared in one of the first issues of Music Analysis (1983). Chew, blending Schenker and Kurth, argues in favor of the primacy of the leading-tone progression, something with which I can certainly sympathize, although I do not think he works it all out in the clearest possible way.
I am pleased to hear the tone of voice in the word "sanctity" -- it shows that Drabkin can retain a critical attitude and has not merely fallen into the old "Schenker's right and you're not" trap that held back serious critical work for quite a long time in the 1970s and 1980s (even later in some retrograde instances). On the other hand, he keeps his place among the (most) traditionalist Schenkerians with "although Schenker himself stressed that his work was artistic, not scientific" [the clear implication being that we should avoid criticizing that position] followed by "theorists felt the need for it to be more internally consistent" ["felt the need" suggests desires rather than objectively necessary action; that is, Schenker seems reasonable while later theorists seem to be reacting on emotion. This is the academized Schenker of the 1978 Free Composition translation, the pale shadow who would have been at home in a Friday afternoon sherry party -- more likely the real Schenker would have despised all the pale academicians at said party]. Alas, (a) Schenker apart from his ideology is an emasculated and pointless Schenker; (b) Schenker said it was a theory and no amount of dodging about art vs. science or culture vs. politics will avoid the responsibilities that come with that claim [which is why I agree with Matthew Brown's agenda -- just not his method or his results]; (c) the theory as offered was (and I think still is) shot through with "ambiguities and inconsistencies."
Footnote 52 cites four items, including Carl Schachter's "Either/Or" and Drabkin's own "Consonant Passing Note." Drabkin misrepresents Schachter in that the article is concerned with locating the correct choice among alternatives, not assuming that both are intrinsically acceptable. Drabkin's essay, which is grounded in a case study -- Schenker's exchange with his student Felix-Eberhard von Cube about an analytic exercise -- does not so much acknowledge alternate readings as say the "verdict" should be left open on the problem of the subdominant that is separated from the dominant by a consonant triad.
References.
Drabkin, William. "Heinrich Schenker." In Thomas Christensen, ed. The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, 812-843. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
