Talk:Heinrich Schenker

Students

I've removed Hindemith, Klemperer and Schoenberg as students. Although Hindemith and Schoenberg read some of Schenker's work, there's no evidence that they were actually students. Klemperer did meet with Schenker a handful of times, but I don't believe that qualifies him to be considered a student (and he's not listed in any of Schenker's personal lesson plans). -- kosboot (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm also concerned that Furtwängler has been 'annexed' by the Schenkerian lobby: naturally, they want the greatest exponent of Schenker's preferred repertoire to be 'on the team'; but I'm not certain that WF's concrete engagement with Schenkerian method and dogma hasn't been over-estimated. Do you have anything to contribute on this issue? I'd be interested to know your thoughts. Pfistermeister (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That Furtwängler studied with Schenker is well-known in Schenkerian circles. I think the onus is on you, Pfistermeister. Furtwängler himself wrote on how he sought out Schenker after reading his monograph on Beethoven's 9th Symphony. He's mentioned multiple times in Schenker's diary (take a look at the Federhofer "biography"), had a decent amount of correspondence with him, is mentioned in his lesson books. So what evidence do you have that shows he was not a student of Schenker? -- kosboot (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What could such negative evidence consist of? A diary entry saying "Furtwängler came to see me this afternoon -- but of course he's not really a student"?? And: 'Schenkerian circles' are not the places to find people prepared to downplay Furtwängler's connection with their movement. My suspicions also come from the fact that while I can easily imagine the very famous and very mature Furtwängler wanting to visit and talk to HS, I cannot possibly see him turning up for 'lessons'... And isn't that what 'studied with' implies?? I have over the years been very bothered by Schenkerians' beliefs about their hero's supposed impact on Furtwängler: I have even been present when people listening to one of the latter's Brandenburg Concerto recordings have said to me: "See?? You can hear the Fundamental Line!!" In short, I perceive an embattled theory's attempt to annexe a towering cultural figure for its own self-validating ends. From my point of view, Furtwängler's 'student' status is something that needs very specific support from the Schenkerian side! Pfistermeister (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm not being nasty. It's just that Schenkerians are actually making a very, very big claim... Pfistermeister (talk)

The documentation of Furtwängler's relationship to Schenker is there. As you admit, it's clear that you have a personal issue with Schenker. You are basing your opinions on just feelings - and that has no place on Wikipedia which places an emphasis on verifiable documentation and is emphatically not a venue for discussions or disputations. Go ahead an doubt all you like, but the evidence is there. Perhaps you should spend some time and examine it, and only after that examination, form an opinion. -- kosboot (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am merely struck by the complete absence, from this page or anywhere else, of anything that proves or demonstrates 'student'. Can I in the nicest way challenge you to put something in the article that illuminates the issue by means of 'verifiable documentation'? You say 'the evidence is there'; but what I've seen only looks like 'evidence' to a Schenkerian partisan. The issue needs dealing with in an objective way, and so far there is no detail. Pfistermeister (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that whatever I put will not be acceptable to you. I can't put actual documents on Wikipedia. Again, you doubt - so you should be the one to do the research. Thus far you shown absolutely no knowledge of sources. -- kosboot (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between a "student" and a "pupil".  A "pupil" pays for lessons or courses of instruction.   A "student" freely reads, studies, audits, absorbs, has conversations with his/her peers and/or authorities, then proceeds to either adopt or reject the information the student has obtained through his/her studies.  The Furtwangler-Schenker letters and diary entries show a peer-to-peer relationship existed between the two men, with Furtwangler requesting and being instructed by Schenker in Schenker's theories, i.e., Furtwangler was indeed a "student" of the Schenker method, and did in fact understand and use Schenker's method of analysis during his career.  In the Furtwangler bio included in the Furtwangler-Schenker correspondence and diary documentation[1] the bio's author (Christof Huff) states that "Schenker gave Furtwängler advice about analytical details, and the latter readily accepted and sought this advice, though he never became Schenker's pupil." K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And also that Furtwangler tried to assist Schenker in getting a teaching position at the Vienna Conservatory (unsuccessful) and that Furtwanger paid for publication of volume 3 of Das Meisterwerk in der Musik (Oster mentions the receipts in his article "Re: A New Concept of Tonality?"). -- kosboot (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Freie Satz "incomplete"?

The article states that Der freie Satz was incomplete. It was not completely proofread, but Schenker did complete the text, so I've removed that word. -- kosboot (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven editions

Has editing of the main body of this Wiki been disabled? The bit about the Beethoven editions is incorrect; they contain analytical notes but analyses proper. There are Dover repros of the original editions that show analytical commentary only, not full analyses. Will someone change this? Blap Splapf (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Books

A 2007 book by Nicholas Cook presents a wider historical perspective on Schenker's life and work than hitherto, quite distinct from the positivistic application of a small sub-section of Schenker's ideas and methods that became institutionalised in post-war Anglo-American academia.

The above was removed from the article since, "if you're going to talk about books, make a list of them; adhere to NPOV". I don't know what that means, but I have little idea what the quote is trying to say since, as the reason for removal points out, it doesn't compare it to any of the books which it is supposedly better than. Hyacinth (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. The above statement makes a claim that is not supported by other literature. To single out a recent book in the current small article seems inappropriate unless you mention it in the context of other books. -- kosboot (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:SOAP. -- kosboot (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Vienna

When did Schenker move to Vienna? ҃҃҃17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was studying in Vienna by 1888. - kosboot (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Schenker arrived in Vienna in 1884, to begin his studies in law at the University in the fall-winter semester. 62.235.207.98 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Urlinie

The statement that "Schenker's original conception of the Urlinie was of a line that rose from ^1 to reach its top note exactly midway through the piece, and then descended back to ^1" is pure fantasy: there is no such description of the Urline in any of Schenker's writings. The original conception was that some melodic lines (usually by conjunct movement, but not necessarily the most conspicuous ones) where at the origin (Ur) of the subsequent melodic developments of the work: it is, in a way, a motivic conception. It is only in his late writings (1930-1935) that Schenker said that the line should be descending, and supported by the characteristic harmonies I-V-I. 62.235.207.98 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Biography or not?

This article should be a biographical article; information about his theory should go into the article Schenkerian Analysis. Unless someone comes up with a good reason, I intend to remove the sections on the analytical method and put them in the appropriate article. -- kosboot (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Developments after Schenker's death? That is not about Heinrich Schenker but is more appropriate for the article Schenkerian Analysis. -- kosboot (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose to remove the sections about the theory to Schenkerian analysis. If anyone has objections, let's discuss. -- kosboot (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

I made a minor change in the list of Schenker's writings: the text about Eugen d'Albert in Die Zukunft 9 does not include "Eine Lebenskizze", which is by Eugen d'Albert himself. Schenker's text, titled merely "Eugen d'Albert", starts on p. 33. This is unimportant, but the faulty reference is often found in texts about Schenker (including another fault, "Lebellskizze" instead of "Lebenskizze"). Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian?

Someone added the category of Jewish Ukrainian musicians. When Schenker was born, his town was part of Poland. Scholarly literature states that Schenker grew up knowing four languages, but Ukrainian was not one of them. I am therefore removing the category. - kosboot (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I once spoke of Schenker in the Conservatoire in Kiev and mentioned that he was born near Lvov (Lemberg). My hearers did not seem impressed and hardly were prepared to consider him Ukrainian. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

When Schenker was born, his town was part of Poland - Poland didn't exist at the time of his birth as the independent state. The place of birth (Vyshnivchyk) was (and is) an ethnic Ukrainian territory and not Polish. Vyshnivchyk was not a big town, hence it was unlikely he was growing isolated and didn't know Ukrainian language at all. Besides, Ukrainians were often referred as Rusyns or Ruthenians, which may have mislead researchers, as well. Finally, Schenker is present in other lists referred to Ukraine, therefore his inclusion to Category:Jewish_Ukrainian_musicians is highly recommended. Unas964 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Schenker is not at all Ukrainian but identified mostly with Galician Jews. We know he and his family spoke Polish; nothing is ever mentioned about his speaking Ukrainian or Russian. Remember that although today the town is in Ukraine, it was not thought of such in Schenker's childhood years. - kosboot (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

nothing is ever mentioned about his speaking Ukrainian or Russian -- noone talked about Russian language: it is completely unrelated to the issue. Instead, Ukrainian birthplace location can be used as cross-reference for those interested in the history of Ternopil_Oblast, which could help to navigate in Wikipedia. I presume such paradigm is beneficial especially when it comes to such diverse historical region as Austria-Hungary was. "Galician Jews", "Austro-Hungarian Jews" and "Ukrainian Jews" - all look relevant (Polish and Russian are not).
Unas964 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Geographical names?

I've noticed many Ukrainian towns/cities are inconsistently named in this article: some in Polish way (Wiśniowczyk, Podhajce), while others in German (Lemberg). Didn't check other geographical names, therefore recommend to check all them thoroughly.
Unas964 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

They're named that way because that's the way Schenker would have known of them. (I'll refrain from making an editorial statement about how history is corrupted by nationalism.) - kosboot (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. There would be no reason to use "Lemberg" instead of "Lvov", was it not that it is the name that Schenker himself used and that will be found in his (and other) writings. Geographical names, and geography itself, has been quite mobile in these areas in the 20th century. When I mentioned in the Tchaikovsky Conservatoire in Kyiv, some 20 years ago, that Schenker was born in what in his time was Austria-Hungary, but was now Ukraine, few of the hearers (particularly among the elder ones) appeared to consider this an interesting information. But, like kosboot, I should better refrain from comments on nationalism. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

How the proposal to verify geographical names can be connected to nationalism? There could be only two options: use current names (completely unpractical for cross-references to contemporary documents) or the names assigned in that time. I have doubts Austria-Hungary widely approved Polish names hence pointend at the examples (e.g. German Wikipedia version gives "Podhayce" instead of "Podhajce").
Btw, "Lvov" is the most inappropriate name of the largest city in Western Ukraine (Galizia during the period): it's mere transliteration of Russian "Львов".
Unas964 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with all that you have stated. It appears to me you are unaware of Schenker's biography and your opinions are not based on history but a desire to put a Ukrainian mark where there is none at all. - kosboot (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You must have chosen the wrong thread to answer: here, I discuss geographical names used in the article and not Schenker's biography. Diverse opinions help to find the optimal solution if treated as a dialogue. You may have the point that Schenker nas no affiliation with Ukrainian people, but the fact remains that he was born on Ukrainian land. Therefore it is essential to give relevant name of the location, whether it is Wiśniowczyk or Vyshnivchyk, Podhajce or Pidhaitsi.
Back to geography - I found at least one other major inconsistency in the description of the tour with Johan Messchaert. Czech name "Ústí nad Labem" is used in the same sentence, as German "Brünn". German name for the former, Aussig or Außig, will match the shared formula (as in the case of Lemberg). I would also refrain from using Italian form "Trieste" instead of German "Triest".
Unas964 (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And you are totally unaware that the notation of Ukraine did not exist in that town in that time. It was Poland. Another example of a famous person born in that town is the soprano Marcella Sembrich who, not Jewish, always thought of herself as Polish, never Ukrainian. - kosboot (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the "notation of Ukraine" didn't exist, as well as the "notation of Poland". Both Polish and Ukrainian territories were occupied by different countries at the time. But that doesn't mean Poles and Ukrainians didn't exist either. The region Galicia where Vyshnivchyk is located was constituted by Ukrainian majority: it's their ethnic territory, which eventually and logically became a part of independent Ukraine, after centuries of Polish, Austrian and Soviet occupation. It wasn't monoethnic, of course, and there lived a lot of Poles and other nations. Lviv, for instance, was mostly Polish-Jewish. I see no contradiction in Marcella Sembrich and Heinrich Schenker born in Galicia, as well as other non-Ukrainians.
But, again, what does it have to do with geographical names?Unas964 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ewell, racism, Jackson

The current tempest about Jenker and the UNT journal of his methods and theory should be included at least a little bit. See, e.g., https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/unt-professor-sparks-controversy-over-racism-in-music-theory-world-11932353 Kdammers (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say not by itself but in the context of what other people have said about those ideas of which we find distasteful. Personally, I've gone through a lot of Schenker and a lot of his contemporaries - and I feel he was pretty mild compared to what one finds in the newspapers of the time. (Losing World War I had a massive effect on Austrian public opinion.) But I've found only one article that talks about his political ideas and beliefs in the context of his times. Another belief I've held is that Schenker himself was an outsider (having come from what was Poland at the time) living in Vienna. A number of people have verbally agreed with this idea, but I've yet to see it in print. - kosboot (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My own feeling is that while this article has no reason to enter the "tempest" between Philip Ewell and Timothy Jackson, Schenker's nationalism and racism must be mentioned.

After that, one might wonder whether he was the only one (certainly not, as Ewell himself stresses, mentioning Fétis, Riemann, Schoenberg, Webern, also Max Weber), whether he was mild compared to others (some of the authors just mentioned certainly were worse), etc. He obviously was utterly frustrated by all sorts of circumstances. One must also keep in mind that he was Jew and that, had he not died in 1935, he most probably would have shared the fate of his wife in Theresienstadt.

I don't think that this is the place to discuss Ewell's keynote, as published in MTO 26.2], or the answers in the JSS. Let me say however that Schenker's criticism in Der Tonwille 1 of almost anyone who is not German (the English, the French, the Italians, the Slavs, the Polish, the Czech, the Japanese, etc.) and his praising of great men of various origins (Moses, Christus, Buddha, Confucius, Laozi, Luther, Leibniz, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) do not appear typical of a biological racism against nonwhites.

But WP is not the place to settle such problems. Schenker's racism and his nationalism must be mentioned, perhaps with links to the publications mentioned above, but thats all, IMO. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked up this article hoping to understand this controversy better Skrelk (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope with the holiday weekend I'll be able to add something in a day or two. - kosboot (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

- ñññ Stop letting Hucbald use Wikipedia as his personal propaganda tool. Do this or I'll be doing it for you soon. Thanks. -Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.154.33.43 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

After today's big NYT article I'll try to write something. The article brings up a difficult: Dealing with Schenker is relatively straightforward. But it overlaps with the question is whether Schenkerian Theory is racist (I don't believe so and have yet to see any "proof" that it is). Hopefully I'll have enough by tonight that I'll notify the talk page of that article and those authors can deal with that question. - kosboot (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kosboot. Did you see this: [2]? It includes some interesting remarks. An important one is that music probably is hierarchic by nature – and, therefore, that most music theories in the world deal with hierarchies. This, however, may not help you much in this article on Schenker – it more probably would concern the Music theory page.

My feeling is that lines are beginning to move in this Schenkergate affair: contrasting voices begin to be heard (including that in the NYT), which hopefully means that the whole matter eventually will appear as an accident limited in time. I don't think that the WP Heinrich Schenker page is a place for arguing about the Schenkergate. What should be done here merely is saying a word about Schenker's nationalist (and possibly racist) ideas. The Schenkergate debate should happen elsewhere – for instance on some website of the SMT or of one of its sub-groups, was it not that everybody there for the time being seemss frightened up to the point of remaining silent. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for briniging that to my attention, Hucbald! Yes, the more I think of it, this (biographical) article on Schenker need only address Schenker's remarks. Whether the theory is "white" is really for the article on Schenkerian Analysis. One issue that I've long contended is that, as bad as Schenker's writings may be, they are much worse than most typical writers of the time which some believe was brought about by defeat in World War I. The problem is finding sources that state that. - kosboot (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kosboot, I don't see how the article on Schenkerian analysis could discuss whether his theory is "white" – nor even whether it his racist. There are no references to be given – unless one not clearly argumented claim, by a single person. The only "argument" available is that Schenkerian analysis evidences a tonal hierarchy (which is obvious) and that this reflects Schenker's conception of a social or racial hierarchy (which by no means is obvious). The fact is that music itself probably (or almost) always is hierarchic, at least for two reasons:

• Centricity, as evidenced not only by tonal music, but also by all kinds of so called "modal" musics (from Gregorian chant to maqāmic, Indian, Indonesian and other musics). All these musics "aim for a definite goal", as Schoenberg (speaking of harmonic music) wrote in Structural Functions.
• Consonance vs dissonance, which may come close to being a universal of music – even if the difference really becomes important only in polyphonic music. But there are melodic consonant and dissonant intervals.

and perhaps for several other reasons, but I see none that could be imputed to Schenker, or that could be documented to result from his theories. This all would make interesting matters to debate, but WP is not the place for such debates, and the SMT – which would be the best place for it – remains utterly silent and blocks discussions. Despite what has been claimed, there are enough secundary sources, including American ones, to document Schenker's nationalism (and racism). There are none, that I know, to document the racism of Schenkerian theory. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem accurate to reprint Timothy Jackson's assertion that Ewell's argument is based on "mistranslation." Jackson makes two points about mistranslation in his article, but neither is a translation that directly addresses Schenker's views on racial hierarchies. Nor are the "mistranslations" (which are actually subject to debate) central at all to Ewell's argument. The first is a translation by William Drabkin about Schenker's views of Nazism with regards to Marxism, not race (or even anti-Semitism). The second is a translation of Schenker's biographer (not Schenker himself) regarding Schenker's views of "German national culture" as opposed to "race." Again, this says nothing about Schenker's views regarding the "mongrelization" of peoples, nor of "lesser" peoples, which is Ewell's entire, indisputable point. 67.246.73.246 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "It does not seem accurate"? The article says that Timothy Jackson answered Ewell (by saying that his interpretations are based on mistranslations, etc.). This would be inaccurate only if Jackson hadn't said that, which is not the case – besides, he is not the only one. Both Ewell's claims and Jackson's (and others') answers are part of the controversy: to purport that there is no controversy certainly would not be accurate. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mention of racism in the lead

An anonymous editor has recently been trying to include a mention of Schenker's racism in the lead, which has resulted in a "minor" edit war. Most of the references to media coverage of the topic are fairly recent and there appears to be some WP:RECENTISM going on here. The first mention of racism is peppered with no less than 12 references, which looks absurd and smacks of WP:Citation overkill (which is often a red flag). Furthermore, commercial links such as Amazon, some of which are currently being used as references, rarely constitute quality sources.

Others' input on this is most welcome. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I amended the lede to something that I think is fair and balanced. Also, two citations are enough. Schenker's views on race are now notable in classical music circles and this needs to be addressed. But he still remains better known for his musical analysis and that needs to be represented accordingly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely hesitant to exclude the fact entirely—primarily because it has been increasingly present in mainstream scholarship in the last fifty years and will undoubtably remain so for some time. This being said, I don't know that 2020 is a huge catalyst for the topic, the issues have been brought up for some time now, though I think the current alteration is better that the "controversial for..." version. Aza24 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd never heard about Schenker's personal views on race until late last year, despite being a subscriber to a number of musicological journals and getting sent a lot of related books. Probably I'm not the only one in a similar situation. That his views were certainly discussed and written about prior to 2020 there is no doubt, but I think it's fair to say that they did not reach the attention of a wider readership beyond (and even within) academic music circles until last year. However, I'd be glad to amend the closing sentence of the lede to something less time-specific. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I re-wrote the majority of this article years ago. At first I was perturbed by the anonymous insert. But, remembering that Wikipedia is always mutable, and as User:CurryTime7-24 says, this is how people feel in 2020 and the main reason they might come to this article, I'm content to let it stand for now. I might enter a quote from Schachter's article saying that he feels it's possible to separate Schenker's beliefs from his theories because they have no bearing on them (a belief with which Ewell disagrees, but I disagree with Ewell's implication). - kosboot (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Although I am very much in favor of the publication of Schenker Documents Online, at times I wonder whether it does not go too far in unveiling Schenker's intimacy. Unless I am mistaken, he mentioned this idea about self-gouvernance only once in a private correspondence to August Halm (1922) that is now made public. I don't think Schenker ever used the term "mongrelization" (which does not seem to have a German translation): to give it between quotes is misleading. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It was only after World War I that Schenker began to verbalize his nationalism. Having gone through a major portion of Schenker's Nachlass, my feeling is that: 1) Schenker's statements were mild compared to the contemporary press (which Schenker read avidly); 2) this is a personal feeling, but I suspect that Schenker was sometimes so vociferous because he himself was a foreigner (although he probably would have justified it in some far-fetched manner) and Jewish in an environment that, although populated with many Jews, still saw routine rejection of Jews in many parts of society. I've seen these opinions expressed in only a single article (which I can't recall). Additionally, while Schenker sometimes expresses nationalistic ideas in a number of places, his racial feelings I think were expressed in his words only once, whereas he quoted others. While a quotation might be seen as an endorsement, I feel it's open to question what level of endorsement. It's a complex issue and today's black-or-white conversations are not helpful to achieving a nuanced understanding of the issues. - kosboot (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If someone is going to include something in the lead, please make sure it is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.184.26.105: it would be easier to take your opinion in account if you told us in what you think the phrase in the lead is not accurate, or if you suggested an alternative. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.184.26.105: What exactly is "inaccurate" about that section of the lead? It makes no mention of Ewell at all. At any rate, the fact remains that it wasn't until after the 2020 protests that Schenker's remarks about race became known outside of academic circles (in great part because of the cited articles, which were published well after spring 2020). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't until the 2020 protests that Schenker's theory became known outside of academic circles, while his remarks about race had been read and commented in academic circles long before. The protesters easily claimed that his remarks about race were not known, making fuss about something that in no way was new. See the list of references quoted below, #Did_modern_Schenkerians_ignore_or_whitewash_Schenker's_racism? – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is it duly balanced, given the prominence of his theories, to have it in the lead rather than the body of the article? Tony (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe not. I think if one were to collect all of Schenker's published writings one would find it infrequent that he expresses racists ideas - ideas which were very prevalent at the time. But many people in today's world want to see this kind of issue highlighted. It's the problem of judging other times based on contemporary understanding which is a misuse and misunderstanding of history. - kosboot (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think issues with Schenker's views are being taken increasingly seriously in the mainstream theory community. Over nine hundred theorists signed the open letter after the JSS kerfuffle decrying the tone of the journal. SMT doesn't publish membership numbers, but that's a pretty significant fraction (probably more than half) by any reasonable estimation. The lead doesn't need to litigate the whole thing, but given that controversy over his views on race is literally the ONLY REASON Schenker has received any coverage outside of the specialist press, not just recently, but probably *ever*, SOME mention of the topic belongs there. PianoDan (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Good and convincing point. - kosboot (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with all this is that Rasse, for Schenker, had not the meaning that it took in modern (American) English. In 19th- and early 20th-century German (as in French), it meant something like "lineage" (possibly also "breed"). In Der freie Satz (1935) for instance, Schenker uses the word only in a paragraph in chapter 3 of Part 1 (in Free Composition, this would be Section 3 of Chapter 1; but the paragraph is missing, as it already had disappeared in the 1956 German edition). Schenker speaks there of the "German race" (Germanische Rasse) and writes: "no, who creates such linear progressions certainly must be German, even if perhaps foreign blood flows in his veins. Here the wide-spanning accomplishment is more proof than any racial science". This text has often been translated, e. g. by C. Schachter ("Elephants, Crocodiles, and Beethoven", note 12, p. 17) or by Nathan Fleshner (The Musical Psyche, p. 24).

In view of this, I am not sure that Schenker's views are taken "increasingly seriously": more often, modern views result from misunderstandings. As an example, Schenker's German Erkennt meine Lehre die Züge als ein Hauptelement der Stimmführung, so ist die Musik dadurch allen Kirchen, allen Menschen gleich zugänglich geworden ("When my theory recognizes linear progressions as a fundamental element of voice leading, so is music therefore similarly made accessible to all churches, to all humans", Der freie Satz, 1935, p. 6) is translated if Free Composition (p. xxiii) as "Since the linear progression, as I have described it, is one of the main elements of voice-leading, music is accessible to all races and creeds alike" – this is the only usage of the word "race" in Free Composition, and it is not in Der freie Satz. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting hairs over what he meant a hundred years ago doesn't MATTER. Andrew Jackson's views on race are viewed as odious NOW, and whether or not they were typical at the time does not change that fact.

I'm going to cut and paste something I wrote on the JSS talk page. These are all quotes from Schenkerian scholars, in the journal DEDICATED to the man, in an issue whose entire point was defending Schenkerian analysis.

• "Henrich Schecker was a passionate and prolific writer... several of his writings contain racist comments" - David Beach
• "I take as fact the disturbing and mutually reinforcing relationship between Schenker's much-disseminated music theory and his less-discussed belief in white racial superiority." - Richard Beaudoin
• "[Ewell] is quite right to deplore Schenker's racism." - Charles Burkhardt
• "Heinrich Schenker made distasteful statements and embraced unsavory cultural prejudices." - Alan Cadwallader
• "Ewell provided abundant examples of Schenker's blatant racism from both his Nachlass and published materials." - Suzannah Clark
• "Such statements [by Schenker] could only be seen as 'designed to provoke hatred, sometimes of a specifically racial nature.'" - Nicholas Cook
• "Schencker viewed the world through a hirearchical lens that was racist (and more)." - Rich Pellegrin
• "The facts are not seriously in question: Schenker was a deeply flawed and conflicted character whose virulently nationalist and racist views are unpalatable by any standards". - Boyd Pomeroy

And the articles I took those from were not cherry-picked. Those eight quotes are from the first nine articles.

Whatever the context of those views a hundred years ago, it is simply indisputable NOW that Schencker's views on race have received increased attention in the 21st century. PianoDan (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Or to put it more simply - there is so much discussion on Schenker's views on race, in the public as well as specialist sphere, that the discussion itself has clearly reached Wikipedia notability, regardless of how one perceives its accuracy. PianoDan (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What Schenker meant by race does matter. When he used the term race he meant national race, not white supremacy. He was talking about the French, the English, the Italians, etc.--those peoples who defeated Germany in WWI. As Barry Wiener demonstrated in his JSS article, Ewell took Schenker out of context to make it look like Schenker was a biological racist when he wasn't one. With that said, the Schenker controversy does need to be included, but it needs to be included accurately. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Accurately" does not, however, mean cherry-picking. Are there flat-earthers? Yes. Should a discussion of flat earth theories mean giving equal weight to both sides? No.

Barry Wiender asserted that there was a meaningful distinction to be made between Schencker's views and the modern understanding of white supremacy, and he offered supporting evidence for that assertion. (He didn't demonstrate anything - this isn't mathematics.) And Richard Beaudoin, in the same issue, asserted that Schencker DID have a belief in white racial supremacy.

You could present both of those views, and say you've achieved "balance." This would be the same as presenting the view of a flat earth partisan and a scientist and saying you've achieved "balance." Accurately presenting the controversy would also involve pointing out the weight of support for each side, and there seems to be fairly overwhelming support (as demonstrated above) even among Schencker scholars for the contention that Schenker was racist. Not to mention (again) the huge number of signatories to the SMT open letter. PianoDan (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How much space should Wikipedia devote to flat earthers in an article about the geography of the world? None at all.

As your quote shows, Beaudoin based his view on Ewell, not on Beaudoin's original research.

Wiener shows that Ewell quoted Schenker out of context. His article gives Ewell's quote, then Schenker's full quote. When you examine the full quote, you can see that Schenker was talking about national peoples, not races. Thus, Wiener doesn't argue that Schenker is not a white supremacist, he proves he isn't. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Beaudoin quote doesn't mention Ewell at all. (Nor do the ones from Beach, Cadwallader, Cook, Pellegrin, or Pomeroy.) Perhaps you are confusing him with Burkhardt? At any rate, you're still cherry-picking. PianoDan (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Because You left that part out! Full quote: "Following Ewell (2019c), I take as fact the disturbing and mutually reinforcing relationship between Schenker's much-disseminated music theory and his less-discussed belief in white racial superiority." - Richard Beaudoin 24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair point. On the other hand, "Following Ewell" doesn't mean, "blindly following Ewell," it means "I am convinced by the arguments Ewell presented."

Also, out of curiosity, I went and looked up Wiener. What, precisely, makes his opinion on this topic noteworthy? Unlike most of the other scholars I quote above, he doesn't have much of a research history. While ALL of those articles are tarred by the lack of peer review in the journal, at least most of those authors have an established academic record to point to. Beaudoin, for example, is a professor at Dartmouth.

You've latched onto the least noteworthy author in the volume. At least, other than "anonymous." PianoDan (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Schenker Polish-born ?

@kosboot, you wrote today in the article that Schenker was "Polish-born." I see that you already mentioned this above, in the discussion about whether Schenker was Ukrainian. It seems to me that Lemberg (or Wisniowczyk or Podhajce) ceased to be Polish in 1772, when the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was created, and came back to Poland only in 1918. What is the meaning of "Polish-born"? Is it a matter of nationality, of mother tongue, or what? Would it not be less controversial to say that Schenker was Galicia-born? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually for people like Schenker who was born in a place that has undergone geographic transformation, I don't like any identification. But I agree with you that identification of Galicia is probably the best solution. - 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. As to "Austrian from Galicia," one might argue that "Austro-Hungarian from Galicia" would be better. (The same with "Austrian Galicia", at the beginning of Heinrich_Schenker#Early_years_and_education. Let's avoid the problem, and keep to "Galician-born." Something else, in order to improve my English: does one write "an Galician-born Austrian music theorist", or "a Galician-born ..."? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the latter, changed now. Thanks to you both for this. Aza24 (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Did modern Schenkerians ignore or whitewash Schenker's racism?

@CurryTime7-24 writes in the summary of his recent modifications of this page that he is "an admirer of Schenker’s work, but was not familiar with [Schenker's] personal views on race." The claim (by Ewell) that modern Schenkerians "whitewashed" Schenker's racism easily is contradicted by the Schenkerian literature. I quote here from Meeùs' Open Letter on Schenker's racism:

• Célestin Deliège’s Fondements de la musique tonale, Paris, Lattès, 1984 (²Delatour-France, 2020), devoted its pp. 47-49 to the “ethical objection” against Schenker’s theory.

• Hellmut Federhofer, one of the most ardent advocates of Schenker in Europe, discussed Schenker’s Politik, among which his racism, in a long section of Chapter V, Schenkers Weltanschauung, of his Heinrich Schenker. Nach Tagebüchern und Briefen in der Oswald Jonas Memorial Collection, Hildesheim, Olms, 1985, pp. 324-330.

• William Rothstein, “The Americanization of Heinrich Schenker”, In Theory Only 9/1 (1986), pp. 5-17

• In his short book Heinrich Schenker. Une introduction, Liège, Mardaga, 1993, Nicolas Meeùs commented both on the probably excessive devotion of Schenker’s disciples to their master and their silencing his politic and social ideas (p. 10), and on his nationalist excesses in the Erläuterungsausgabe of Beethoven’s op. 101 (pp. 16-17).

• Martin Eybl devotes a full book to the question: Ideologie und Methode Zum ideengeschichtlichen Kontext von Schenkers Musiktheorie, Tutzing, Hans Schneider, 1995. [Timothy Jackson rightly argues that this book wrongly is quoted by Ewell in support of his argument.]

• Carl Schachter, "Elephants, Crocodiles, and Beethoven: Schenker’s Politics and the Pedagogy of Schenkerian Analysis", Theory and Practice 26 (2001), pp. 1-20.

• William Drabkin, "Heinrich Schenker", The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, Th. Christensen ed., Cambridge University Press 2002, pp. 812-43.

• Suzannah Clark, "The Politics of the Urlinie in Schenker’s 'Der Tonwille' and 'Der freie Satz'", Journal of the Royal Musical Association 132/1 (2007), pp. 141-64.

• Nicholas Cook, The Schenker Project: Culture, Race, and Music Theory in Fin-de-siècle Vienna, Oxford University Press, 2007.

And there are several others. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the bibliography. This is very useful. I hope my edit summary was not misunderstood. I did not mean for my admission of ignorance about Schenker's racial/political views to lend weight to Ewell's argument. Rather, my point was whether there was any "whitewashing" or not, such controversies tend to be secondary, if that, in my personal appreciation of artists and academics. In general, these are not topics I follow. There are probably many other musically literate people out there like myself who think similarly. Therefore, contrary to Hucbald.SaintAmand's edit summary, not everybody may know the details about these controversies. However, having learned of them, I do feel that they are more than notable enough to mention in the lead and body of Schenker's article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24, you are right that the controversy should remain secondary. Let's hope it will soon shade away. For the time being, however, as Stephen Soderberg wrote on the discussion forum of the Society for Music Theory (this page, October 3), members of the SMT are "making complete fools of [them]selves." Rather than facing such criticism, the SMT closed its forum. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Over on the Philip Ewell Wikipedia entry,PianoDan is trying to eliminate all criticism of Ewell. He doesn't even want to note that Jackson and Wiener have criticized Ewell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page to discuss the article on Schenker. PianoDan (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relevant policy: WP:TALK#TOPIC PianoDan (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Barry Wiener Source

As I have been reverted, I'll bring the discussion here. (And I'll bring up one at a time for clarity.)

First, the unambiguous one.

Barry Wiener's article does not meet WP:RS. It was published in JSS Issue 12, which had no formal peer review process. In order to include it, we would have to therefore establish that Dr. Wiener is an authoritative source in his own right.

Dr. Wiener has only three published articles on any topic, with a total of two citations between them. None of the three are on Schenker. He has an h-index of one, which is absurdly low, even in the low citation field of music theory.

By what criteria does this article possibly meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source? PianoDan (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Particularly because of this sensitive topic, the citation to be a very dependable reliable source. - kosboot (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @CurryTime7-24. The Wiener quote is relevant here. I have stated my reasons extensively on the Journal of Schenkerian Studies Talk page. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

IP, I don't know what you're taking about, what "Wiener quote"—when is he quoted? I will say that referencing Weiner next to Agawu and McWhorter makes little sense—these last two are far better known and more authoritative. Aza24 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiener source.

I'll own that typo - I accidentally put "quote", not "source" in my edit summary. PianoDan (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I ask again PianoDan: What is your connection to Ewell?24.184.26.105 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusing someone you disagree with of a COI without any solid evidence is an unproductive and rude. If mere conjecture is a standard (which it is not) then you yourself might just as easily have a connection to the Schenker Journal. Please stay on topic. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about whether the Wiener quote is relevant. It's whether it comes from a very reliable source and it does not. - kosboot (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the interpretations of WP:RP by kosboot and PianoDan. Wiener's opinion was just that: an opinion. Since when do op-eds need to be subjected to peer review? Alex Ross, for example, is a cited source here even though he is neither subjected to peer review by The New Yorker, nor is he (to my knowledge) a noted expert on things Schenker and Schenkerian. I'm concerned that some editors are misunderstanding the point of the section mentioning the present controversy relating to Schenker's alleged views. This isn't the place to continue the debate, or to "prove" or "debunk" any one viewpoint, but to merely present to the reader a balanced and impartial view thereof. Quoting/sourcing Wiener and others who share his opinions is a necessary part of maintaining that, just as much as quoting/sourcing Ewell and those who agree with his views. It would be different had Wiener self-published his opinion on Medium, Substack, on some random mimeographed 'zine, or some blog, but he didn't. It was published in a notable academic journal about Schenker and his teachings. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If we want to present a balanced view of the current thoughts on Shencker's views on race, then we should do THAT. Dr. Ewell (whom I have never met, and to whom I have no connection) raised the issue most visibly recently, but there's no shortage of scholars even among Shenckerians who regard those views as appalling.

With such largesse of opinions to choose from, we should choose the ones with the most importance behind them. Alex Ross is a music writer of extremely high visibility and stature - he's a Pulitzer finalist, for Pete's sake. Kofi Agawu has a zillion publications and a Dent medal.

What has Wiener done to warrant inclusion in this company? What makes his opinions worthy to represent that side of the debate? Let's be clear - JSS Issue 12 does NOT count as a "notable academic journal" by Wikipedia standards. It was not peer reviewed, and was determined to have been essentially a case of gross academic misconduct by the UNT investigating committee. Quoting it to talk about the journal itself is barely defensible. Quoting it in any other context is definitely not.

References

PianoDan (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If you know of any anti-Ewell opinions that you feel are worthier than Wiener's or that better illustrate his specific point, I urge you to please quote and cite them here (especially before removing the citations from Wiener and Jackson). As for what makes Wiener worthy of inclusion here, his response to Ewell was published in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, a notable and credible source on this subject. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works - if a citation is inappropriate, it should be removed, whether or not there is a better one available.

This discussion is purely about the Wiener cite - I'll start another discussion for Jackson when this one's concluded.

Wiener's point is not inherently worthy of inclusion. In order for something to be included at all it either has (as a baseline) to be in a published in a reliable source or from an authoritative speaker. Once it clears that bar, THEN you worry about if there are better choices, otherwise it comes out whether or not there is a replacement.

By what criteria are you asserting that JSS Issue 12, which is on record as not peer reviewed, is notable or credible? THAT'S the metric you need to meet, and it's not met here. PianoDan (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, but what you declare to be "inappropriate" and "reliable" seems based on your very personal interpretation. I'd agree with you had Wiener self-published his response or the Journal of Schenkerian Studies were clearly a no-name publication staffed with crackpots expressing fringe views, but this isn't the case. According to the website of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, it "is a peer-reviewed journal"; the issue in question, while clarifying that the editorial board itself takes no position in the debate, does not mention anywhere that they dispensed with the usual peer review process. However, you say they went on record that this issue wasn't peer-reviewed. May I please see where their editorial board said this? Even so, both Ewell and his detractors are ultimately engaged in an op-ed debate. Why does an op-ed need to be peer-reviewed? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The link I posted above (below? Things are getting messy) from the UNT investigation made clear that there was no peer review for this issue. In addition, the judge in the case that was cited below explicitly stipulated that there was no peer review.

And while op-eds to not need to be peer reviewed for publication, information presented in Wikipedia DOES need to meet standards for reliable sources. The mere existence of an op-ed does not make it worthy of inclusion here.

The JSS issue in question included a contribution from an anonymous contributor. Would you suggest that including their contribution would meet Wikipedia standards? If not, what has Wiener done to make him any more notable? Merely publishing in this issue can't be enough, or else "anonymous" should be quoted here as well. And that's CLEARLY an absurd proposition. And yet Wiener has scarcely more demonstrated relevance to the topic than anonymous. PianoDan (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Wiener's article is notable because he went back to the original Schenker quotes in German, and he showed that Ewell quoted Schenker out-of-context. Ewell quoted snippets of Schenker's quotes to make it look like Schenker was a biological racist, when he wasn't. The full quotes demonstrate that Schenker was talking about national peoples--the French, English, Americans, etc., not racial groups. He disliked these peoples because they had defeated Germany in WWI.

There is no way to get a true view of the Schenker controversy without Wiener's article.24.184.26.105 (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Really? The only possible way to present a balanced view of Schenker's views on race is to include quotes from this one scholar, out of all of the possible sources in the world? It's completely impossible to write a valid encyclopedia article on this topic without citing this precise scholar, who doesn't have a single peer reviewed article on the topic?

I find that exceptionally hard to fathom.

The point of an encyclopedia is to represent the content of reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:RS carefully, and see if you can make an argument based on actual Wikipedia policy. Those are what govern here, not cherry picking content that happens to fit what one may WANT to see in the article. PianoDan (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And to clarify further - the CONTENT of an article in no way makes it notable. That's not what WP:RS says. A source is reliable if it has "a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

If only the CONTENT of an article were necessary, I could go write one tomorrow and put it on my blog. Of course, I still couldn't cite it here, because promoting your own scholarship directly on Wikipedia is a massive violation of WP:COI, but even absent that, it STILL wouldn't be notable, because my blog does not have a reliable publication process, nor am I regarded as authoritative in relation to this subject. PianoDan (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read the judge's denial of the motion to dismiss in the Jackson case. He strongly criticizes the UNT Committee. The judge states, in part, "This case stems from the suppression of academic scholarship at the University of North Texas (“UNT”)." "But as the Plaintiff in this matter is now aware, pressures from offended constituents can overshadow promises of academic freedom." "The Journal sent a call for papers to members of the Society for Music Theory, including Professor Ewell (Dkt. #1 ¶ 44)." https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-wright-6 24.184.26.105 (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, as I told you in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies talk page, Dr. Wiener presented “Race, Nation, and Jewish Identity in the Thought of Heinrich Schenker” at the Annual Meeting, Association for Jewish Studies, Chicago, IL last December. These papers, including Dr. Wiener's, are to be published this summer.24.184.26.105 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If they are to be published this summer, then it is WP:TOOSOON to include them now. And even then - that's a total of ONE publication on the topic - it still does not make Dr. Weiner an authoritative source per WP:SOURCEDEF.

Your text from the court case does not change the fact that the journal was not peer reviewed.

You need to present an argument that actually aligns with Wikipedia policy to make this case here, and you still haven't. PianoDan (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(In fact, on reading that document you so helpfully linked, the judge explicitly stipulates that no peer review took place on that issue.) PianoDan (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to that document. I appreciate it as I hadn't come across it earlier. You may need to help me here as the legalese employed isn't entirely clear to me, but it seems to me that the decision from the judge favored Jackson and his pursuit of damages against UNT. I'd be grateful if you could show me where the judge himself found that the peer review process had been suspended for the entire issue. What I read appears to affirm that it was the defendants who said this was the case; the judge merely quoted and summarized their argument. Since Jackson is disputing these accusations and is seeking redress, it might be best to wait until a final decision is delivered. It also appears, at least to me, that peer review was suspended not for the entire issue, but only for the anonymous author. If this is correct, then it would mean that Wiener was peer-reviewed after all. Again, if I misinterpreted the judge's remarks, please let me know. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly - in section 13, "Injury in Fact", where the judge summarizes his response to that portion of the claim: "In its Report, the Panel reprimanded the Journal for publishing an anonymous author and foregoing the peer review process. Plaintiff testified that at least one other UNT journal had engaged in identical scholarly practices without reprimand of any sort."

The Plaintiff (Jackson, here) admitted that his journal engaged in the "identical scholarly practice" of foregoing peer review. The Defense certainly hasn't challenged this admission on Jackson's part, so the judge is accepting this as a factual part of the record.

There is absolutely nothing here or anywhere else that indicates the anonymous submission was treated differently in terms of review than any other paper in the journal. PianoDan (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I respectfully request that as we are NEARING the bottom of the topic, that we now put further conversation fully at the end, to return to a vaguely chronological record? PianoDan (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Jackson's and Wiener's charges that Ewell fraudulently distorted quotes to make it look like Schenker was a racist when he wasn't one is a central part of the Schenker controversy. If WP can't include the whole debate, then we should delete the whole section. As @kosboot said above, "I believe not. I think if one were to collect all of Schenker's published writings one would find it infrequent that he expresses racists ideas - ideas which were very prevalent at the time. But many people in today's world want to see this kind of issue highlighted. It's the problem of judging other times based on contemporary understanding which is a misuse and misunderstanding of history. - kosboot (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022"

You are interpreting Wikipedia rules too strictly. As the Wikipedia Five Pillars page states, "Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

@Hucbald.SaintAmand and I included the Wiener and Jackson sources, not to show they were true, but to show that these opinions exist in the Schenker Controversy. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The SPIRIT of the rules is that things that are not noteworthy do not belong in Wikipedia, and things that ARE noteworthy can be proven to be so.

There is no proof that Wiener's opinion is noteworthy. It doesn't matter what the opinion IS if there's no support for it being important. PianoDan (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also to remember is that if a majority of editors feel something doesn't belong, it gets reworded or deleted. - kosboot (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What SHOULD the "Views on Race" section look like?

(For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedure - if you wish to continue to contribute to the discussion of Wiener's notability as a source, put it in the PRIOR section, not here.)

As we have now spilled an ABSURD amount of virtual ink on removing a single, manifestly non-notable citation, I think a better conversation to have is, "What should this section look like overall?" For starters, "Controversy" isn't a good name for the section. What is of primary interest here in THIS article isn't the controversy over Schenker's views - it's the views themselves. Remember, this article is NOT about Dr. Ewell, or Dr. Jackson. It's about Schenker, his views, and their overall context in modern scholarship. I would suggest "Views on Race" as a more apt title. (Wikipedia policy also discourages sections simply titled "controversy".)

In an ideal world, where all editors were working together to come to a consensus in good faith, I think a good organization would be about three paragraphs of approximately equal length.

• A neutral summary of Schenker's views.
• Modern criticism of those views and the implications of those views for users of Schenker's methods, from notable scholars such as Ewell and Clark.
• Citations to notable scholars who either a. dispute that Schenker actually was racist (Jackson, mainly), or b. feel that his racism wasn't relevant to his analytical methods (McWhorter, Agawu, Shachter). Ideally, this would involve quotes actually talking about Schenker, unlike the current ones.

This would be a reasonable balance, I feel, given that even among the Schenkerians in JSS 12, there was overwhelming acknowledgement that Schenker's views were problematic. (Cue "but he wasn't REALLY racist" from the usual quarters. Please read those quotes above again - almost every article in the journal acknowledged the fact.) And again, nearly a thousand SMT members signed the open letter decrying the attacks on Ewell's plenary. While that letter, self-published as it is, may not be citable as a source on the page, it can CERTAINLY inform us as editors as to what the current zeitgeist is in the music theory community.

However, the problem with this suggestion is that it is unlikely that such a thing as a neutral summary of Schenker's views is achievable in the current editorial environment - there is simply too much insistence on overweighting the minority view.

As such, a less desirable, but hopefully achievable version might look like two, longer paragraphs, essentially paragraphs 2 and 3 from the above list, but weighted at WORST evenly between the two.

"Schenker was not racist" is a fringe position, deserving of no more than a sentence at best - almost no one of note other than Jackson makes this claim. "Schenker's racism is not relevant to his analytical methods" is a position supported by notable scholars, but based on the SMT signatory list, now a minority position. "Schenker was racist, and the problematic aspects of his racism need to be carefully considered" is the majority view, and should command at least equal time to the other two to fairly reflect the current understanding. PianoDan (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

As I have said before, Ewell intentionally distorted Schenker's quotes to make Schenker look like a racist, when he wasn't one. Jackson and Wiener have proven this in the articles you want to remove. Ewell is an academic fraud!! WP should not be furthering his dishonesty.

Also, the SMT letter says nothing about Schenker. It only concerns JSS. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the humanities work. This is not physics - scholars don't PROVE things. They make arguments, which they attempt to support. The notability of those arguments is based on their adoption by other scholars, which is generally measured by citation counts. Wiener has almost no citations (and none at all in this area), and is therefore not notable. Jackson does have a substantial number of citations, and is therefore a notable scholar. As such his view should be noted, but accurately contextualized.

Dr. Ewell and Dr. Clark are ALSO broadly cited, and as such, their views are also worthy of note.

Accusing Dr. Ewell of fraud is neither constructive nor appropriate in this venue. If you can't argue in a civil fashion, consider finding another hobby? PianoDan (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The accusation of fraud against Ewell (eg as here) among others concerns his quotations from Martin Eybl's book on Schenker (Ideologie und Methode Zum ideengeschichtlichen Kontext von Schenkers Musiktheorie, 1995). It may be relevant to note that Eybl also is among the signatories of the European open letter that had earlier been mentioned in this discussion.

In any case, the idea of replacing the "Controversy" section by one on "Schenker's Views on Race" is not a good one because although there is a huge number of references on the subject, there is little agreement between them. I had already mentioned some of them above, #Did_modern_Schenkerians_ignore_or_whitewash_Schenker's_racism?, but if one reads each of these carefully, one soon realizes that, even if they agree that Schenker's views are problematic, they do not agree on how they must be understood. Wikipedia certainly is not the place to enter such a debate. A section on "Schenker's Views on Race" might say that his views were problematic, but there is no reference concerning that problem as such, which can only be deduced from a comparison of the references. This, in other words, would have to be an "Original Research". — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should quote the few passages in his published writings where Schenker actually mentions race. - kosboot (talk)

Good suggestion, but wouldn't that involve original research? 24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Could we stop quoting that self-published polemic from Fruehwald? Speaking of sources with no notability whatsoever. Fruehwald's only (barely) cited musical publications are thirty years old, and don't relate to this topic. *I* could put a paper on SSRN tomorrow, with just as much validity. Even Wiener has a better claim to be a reliable source. PianoDan (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as the European open letter goes, let's have a look:

"[Ewell writes] “American music theory is based on the racist idea that whites are superior to POC, a sentiment stated explicitly by significant music theorists like François-Joseph Fétis and Heinrich Schenker in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” There is no question that Schenker and Fétis stated this sentiment a century or two ago, but we fail to understand how and why modern American music theory could and should still be based on such old-fashioned ideas."

Even in this letter, "there is no question" that Schenker stated the idea that whites are superior to POC.

I fail to see how this in any way supports your point.

PianoDan (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kosboot: If you want quotations from Schenker, I can point you to a thoroughly peer-reviewed source in MTO from a faculty member at CUNY. :) PianoDan (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviewers do not check the accuracy of quotations. At no point in the publication process did MTO check the accuracy of Ewell's quotes. The only ones who did this were Jackson and Wiener. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some passages where Schenker uses the word Rasse (searched with OCR in most of his publications, also "race" in the translations):

• Vor Früchten einer so unendlich schön entwickelten Kunst, wie es die Kunst der Musik ist, stehend, wagt man es anzuraten, bei noch völlig musikunmündigen Rassen und Nationen angeblich neue Systeme zu suchen, wo sie doch überhaupt noch selbst keine haben? – Kontrapunkt I, 1910:43 ("By the same token, in view of the benefits of so beautifully developed an art as music, how can anyone dare to suggest that we look to musically inferior races and nations for allegedly new systems, when in fact they have no systems at all!" – Counterpoint I, 1987:28.)
• die Tonkunst dagegen aber nach Jahrhunderte langer Entwicklung eine in ihren letzten Ergebnissen unteilbare, von Nation zu Nation, von Rasse zu Rasse, von Jahrhundert zu Jahrhundert auf denselben Gesetzen unwandelbar ruhende Kunst bleibt, die, wenn sie einmal gestorben, eben der ganzen Menschheit und nicht bloß einer bestimmten Nation weggestorben ist! – Beethovens Neunte Symfonie, 1912:XXVI ("Music on the contrary remains after centuries of development an art indivisible in its last outcomes, resting immuable on the same laws from nation to nation, from race to race, from century to century", my translation.)
• John Rothgeb, in his translation of the commentary in the Erläuterungs-Ausgabe of Beethoven's op. 101, writes "... bringing about the disintegration of soul, dignity, honor, and culture of their own race", 2015:16, but the German original only says dadurch Seele, Würde, Ehre, Kultur des eigenen Volkes zu zersetzen, 1920:25.
• In the Erlauterungs-Ausgabe of op. 111, Rothgeb translates (2015:11, note 8): "Indeed, even whole nations and races so lose themselves completely," but I do not have the German original.
• Mit Washington und Lincoln noch weit, weit hinter allen europäischen Völkern und Rassen zurückstehend, Der Tonwille 1, 1921:15 ("Still in the era of Washington and Lincoln, lagging far, far behind the European nations and races", 2004:15). The expression "race" appears also in 2004:16, but translating the German Menschheit (1921:16). See also Der Tonwille 3, 2004:121, where "human race" twice translates Menschheit; also 2004:133, 136, 160, etc. There are also several similar cases in The Masterwork, where "race" translates Menschheit or Menschengeschlecht (vol. I, 115, 117; vol. II, 124; vol. III, 71.
• ln den weiten Spannungen der Züge lebt sich das Werk der deutschen Musik-Genies aus. Die Kraft der Spannungen und Erfüllungen darf geradezu als Blutprobe angesehen werden, als ein Gut der germanischen Rasse. In diesem Sinne ist z. B. die Frage, wohin Beethoven zuständig sei, unwiderlegbar entschieden: er ist nicht, wie man es haben wollte und noch haben will „... nur halb ein Deutscher”, nein, wer so Züge schafft, muß ein Deutscher sogar dann sein, wenn vielleicht auch fremdes Blut in seinen Adern rollte! Hiefür ist das bestimmte weitgespannte Vollbringen mehr Beweis als der aller Rassen-Wissenschaft. – Der freie Satz, 1935:18-19 ("In the large tensions of the lines lives the work of the German music genius. The power and the accomplishment of the tensions may dowright be considered as blood test, as a benefit of the German race. In this sense, for instance, the question where Beethoven would belong is irrefutably answered: it is not, as one would have had it and still would have it, '... only half a German', no, who creates such conjunct lines must indeed be German, even if perhaps foreign blood flows in his veins! For this is the determined extended accomplishment more proof than that of any science of race." This text appears to be missing both in the 2d German edition and in Free Composition.)

I really don't think that I missed many cases (I'd be interested if others found otherwise); the situation might be different in Schenker's private correspondence. Anyway, this all, to me, indicates that Ewell was, say, ... mistaken... (I won't say anything about his peer reviewers), and that Schenker was not a biological racist. But once again, this is not for a WP article, I am afraid. —Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan. One more time: When Schenker was talking abnout race he was talking about national peoples, not racial groups like Blacks. Have you carefully read the Jackson and Wiener articles? If you had you would realize this. And science and the humanities are alike in some ways. For example, they both abhor academic fraud. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

One more time: Wiener has no reliability as a source, no matter how many times you bring him up.

@Hucbald.SaintAmand Since you were interested if others found otherwise, here's a few quotes from Ewell's MTO article:

"In Schenker Documents Online (SDO) (Bent, Drabkin, et al., n.d.), a simple search for the word “race” yields 57 results, nearly all by Schenker about human races."

So it seems your search probably wasn't terribly thorough.

Ewell continues:

"He speaks of “less able or more primitive races” (2015, online “Literature” supplement, 21n13) and “inferior races” ([1910 and 1922] 2001, vol. 1, 28), as well as “wild and half wild peoples” (SDO, OJ 1/15, September 8, 1914, transcr. Marko Deisinger, trans. William Drabkin).(13) He speaks of whiteness in relation to the “animal” Japanese, that the “white race” will need to adapt in order to “annihilate” the Japanese “animals” (SDO, OJ 1/15, August 20, 1914, transcr. Marko Deisinger, trans. William Drabkin)"

Further on:

"In “Von der Sendung des deutschen Genies” (The mission of German genius), from Der Tonwille, Schenker expressed horror at the mixing of races in “Senegalese marriage relationships” ([1921–3] 2004, vol. 1, 5 and, specifically, 5n15) and “intermarrying black racial stock witha French mother” (18). This is of paramount importance because white frame authors, on the rare occasion that they deal with the topic, have generally tried to call Schenker’s racism cultural, and not biological (see, for example, Cook 2007 and Schachter 2001, 4-5), insofar as linking Schenker to biological racism would ally him with some extremely unsavory eugenicist figures in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In other words, by calling Schenker’s racism cultural instead of what it was, biological, the white racial frame seeks to shield Schenker from unwanted criticism."

Gosh - that sounds AWFULLY prescient. PianoDan (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, Ewell was quoting Schenker out of context. You need to actually read the Jackson and Wiener articles. Have you?

So Ewell said that prominent Schenkerians have stated that Schenker's "racism" was not biological. Others, like Eybl said this, too. This is what I have been saying all along. So there is a majority supporting the argument that Schenker's racism was not biological. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to answer your points briefly.

1.) The section itself doesn't really examine Schenker's views so much as the the varying interpretations of his remarks and disagreements on whether one ought to consider that his views also impinged on his musical theories. The debate suggests there are enough people who either don't care one way or another, feel that they are merely reflective of the values of his time and place, or at least don't believe that they merit that he and his work are meted out some kind of contemporary damnatio memoriæ. Moreover, I don't think a "neutral summary" of his remarks is possible, at least at this moment, precisely because there is considerable ongoing debate about their meaning and context. Therefore, I think "Controversy" is an accurate heading.

2.) Opinions that disagree with Ewell (is there somewhere that confirms that these are indeed "minority views?") are not being being given priority over Ewell (at least not in my edits, please feel free to check them). For a stretch of a few months, I think only Ewell's views and sources supporting them were presented in this article. The inclusion of dissenting views (I think added by the IP editor) are fairly recent. However, if the balance is indeed askew, please feel free to join and help fix this.

3.) Returning to a discussion we had earlier, I believe your interpretation of "notability" is very personal. Having read over and over again the cited legal document, it seems that the judge was only summarizing and paraphrasing the plaintiffs' allegations against that particular issue of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. "The Panel" he referred to therein was the one UNT had convened to investigate the journal. The judge was neither referring to himself nor agreeing with the plaintiffs' allegations. The wording cited is also sufficiently ambiguous to render unclear whether peer review had been suspended for the entire issue or only for the contribution from the anonymous author. Because of all this, Wiener is still an important and acceptable source here. However one may feel about his resumé, a reputable academic journal (unless proven otherwise in court) accepted and published his viewpoints. As the IP editor mentioned already, Wiener is apparently also the only view that dissents with Ewell who specifically illustrates how Schenker's remarks may have been taken out of their original context.

4.) As I mentioned before, I'm concerned that some (perhaps without realizing it themselves) are using this article as a proxy battleground on behalf of their partisan beliefs. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1. In general "Controversy" is a poor heading just from a stylistic standpoint, and it violates WP:CSECTION

2. As I pointed out - over 900 theorists signed the open letter. That's a SUBSTANTIAL fraction of the discipline. (It's REALLY not that large a field)

I absolutely am interested in improving the article via editing, but given that everything I add is likely to be reverted instantly, I figured it was better to have the discussion FIRST, and skip that annoying step.

3. I think you may be confused about who "Plaintiff" is in this case. The Plaintiff IS Jackson, and has made no allegations against his own journal. Rather, he defends the lack of peer review in JSS 12 by using a WP:WHATABOUT argument - "This other journal did it, so it's OK that we did it." The only person with an incentive to claim the journal WAS properly constructed, is instead admitting that it wasn't.

Secondly - the fact that Wiener seems to be an isolated voice is not an argument FOR including him.

4. Let's discuss the article, not the editors, please. PianoDan (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "Defendants," but my point still stands. Please do feel free to add whatever is necessary to remedy any possible imbalance of perspective, but don't eliminate any contrary views. There is enough ambiguity about Wiener that your rationale in removing him is understandable, but your attempt to also remove Jackson was not helpful and appeared to rely on a highly idiosyncratic and overreaching interpretation of WP:RS. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The policy in question was actually WP:RSP, which is a different argument, but I'm not going further into that one right now. PianoDan (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm fine with changing the section back to a modified version of its original title, which was "21st century controversy over Schenker's racism." Perhaps something like "21st century debates on Schenker's racial views" or some such. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan, you write that "[my] search probably wasn't terribly thorough" and you mention the following:

• 57 results for "race" in MTO. Indeed, but I had said that "the situation might be different in Schenker's private correspondence." I won't check these 57 results now, I might do so later.
• You quote Ewell saying that Schenker "speaks of 'less able or more primitive races' (2015, online 'Literature' supplement, 21n13)." This is from the Erlauterungs Ausgabe of op. 111. Indeed, I missed this one when quoting this edition (my 4th quotation above). The full text is "And what, incidentally, is the World War of today, with which we are all so preoccupied, but a thousandfold-intensified curse of that equality-delusion of the less able or more primitive races and nations?" (note "races and nations" – Ewell apparently missed "nations"!). As I wrote above, I don't have the German original for this one.
• You continue Ewell's quotation: "... and 'inferior races' ([1910 and 1922] 2001, vol. 1, 28)." This is my first quote above, from Kontrapunkt I. Schenker had written völlig musikunmündigen Rassen und Nationen, "wholly underage races and nations" – Ewell once again missed "nations."
• In Tonwille 1, Schenker indeed mentions Senegalenschwägerschaft (1921:5), translated as "Senegalese marriage relationships" (2004:5) – a more exact translation might be "Senegalese affinities." Note 15, which adds "This is perhaps a reference to the intermarriage between Europeans and Africans in the French colony of the Senegal," is a note by the translators. There is no question of "race" here, nor any expression of "horror" as Ewell claims.
• And in Tonwille 1, 1921:18, Schenker writes niemals könnte je eine angelsächsische oder französische, italienische Mutter einen Moses, Christus, Luther, einen Buddha, Konfuzius, Laotse im Leibe tragen, auch keinen Bach, Mozart, Goethe, Kant (die französische nicht einmal nach der Einheirat der Schwarzen in das Gloire– und Espritgeschäft, translated (2004:18) as "no Anglo-Saxon, French, or Italian mother could ever carry in her womb a Moses, a Christ, or a Luther, a Buddha, a Confucius, or a Lâo-Tzse, nor yet a Bach, a Mozart, a Goethe, or a Kant. (Not even after intermarrying black racial stock with gloire-esprit could a French mother achieve this!)." The translation of Schwarzen into "black racial stock" might be questioned and what Schenker means with das Gloire– und Espritgeschäft ("the business of Gloire and Esprit") is unclear.

I let you decide whether this is cultural or biological racism, whether Ewell, on such a difficult topic, should not have been more careful and at least have tried to turn to the original German texts instead of relying on translations, etc. Let me add that the most questionable of Schenker's texts, usually expressing his anti-French, anti-British and anti-Italian "racism" (?), belong to the years during or following WWI (the op. 111 edition in 1915 and Tonwille 1 in 1921). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And, there are even more examples of Ewell's "mistakes" in the Wiener article. I believe that only one conclusion can be drawn from Ewell's "mistakes", and WP should not repeat his fraud. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I checked mentions of Rasse in Schenker's documents published in Schenker Documents Online (I had mistakenly written MTO above, but I obviously meant SDO). I chose to look for the German term instead of the English one in order to avoid cases where "race" means, say, a contest of speed. SDO says that there are 34 documents using Rasse (against 56 using "race" in the translation), but the term may appear several times in one single documents: I found 48 cases in the 34 documents. I must confess my astonishment at the conclusion: so to say none of these uses the term in a biological context. Schenker's racism mainly is nationalism – and remains therefore criticable –, but it is not biological. Here is what I found:

• In three cases (not counted in the 48 to be described), Menschengeschlecht is translated as "human race".
• In 8 cases, Schenker speaks of Nation oder Rasse, which I'd describe as "generic race".
• The only usage of Rasse that could be considered biological mentions "the white race" (die weiße Rasse), opposing it to the Japanese and English races: the opposition white/Japanese may seem biological, but white/English much less so.
• One might also consider that the 11 mentions of "Jewish race" are biologic, but the fact that Schenker himself was Jew places them in a particular context.
• For the rest, all mentions of races concern "national races": Slavic (7), Germanic (5), English or Anglo-Saxon (4), Italian (3), Japanese (2), Latin (2), Romanic (2), French (1), Hungarian (1) and Russian (1).

So, once again, it seems to me that Ewell's reading of all this may have been, say, superficial, and that his conclusion that Schenker was a biological racist, say, lacks nuance. And the peers who validated his papers and the SMT members who supported him in an open letter may have been a trifle too ... enthousiastic.

My review has been as thorough as possible, but I might have missed some aspects: I remain open to other opinions. In the meanwhile, however, I really think that our WP article should avoid entering such a discussion. The fact is that there is today a controversy about what must be understood from Schenker's racism: we may report the existence of the controversy, but certainly not further enter it ourselves. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You are correct Hucbald. I have seen a paper by Barry Wiener, which is coming out this summer, that comes to the same conclusion that you do. None of Schenker's uses of "Rasse" are in a biological sense. Schenker was not a racist. He was a German nationalist who hated the nations who defeated Germany in WWI. There is no valid evidence in the Ewell paper that Schenker was a biological racist. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@24.184.26.105, yes, I also saw that paper. The problem is that WP is not the place to further discuss this. The main purpose of my quoting Schenker is to show that we cannot document Schenker's view on race, by lack of clearly valid references, that the most we can do is to say that there is a controversy about it. The SMT blocked any discussion of the problem, when they recently closed their SMTDicuss web page after their position had been criticized (I much liked Stephen Soderberg's statement that the SMT members are "making complete fools of [them]selves"). We might continue discussing this on talk pages, but there will be no possibility to document the discussion on the pages themselves. Similarly, there is no point in documenting on WP each step of the Jackson affair against the UNT. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me add that my mistake perhaps has been to consider WP in English as the international WP, while some may consider it American. The problem here is one of vocabulary. Other music theorists have also been accused of racism, among others the Belgian François-Joseph Fétis (1784-1871) who indeed in his old age may have uttered apparently even worse statements than Schenker. The real problem, however, is of understanding what race, in French, ras, in Dutch or Rasse, in German, may have meant before the 1870 war, or WW1, or WW2. The present Russian war in Ukraine makes us once again aware of the extent to which wars may change the meaning of these words. Very few readers here are aware that the English words "racist" and "racism" do not predate the 1930's (see Online Etymology Dictionary). "Race" may mean "nation", but it may also refer to, say, an aristocratic elegance. Even professional historians (not to mention Ewell himself, who is a theorist rather than a musicologist, or the SMT members, who fail to see the implications) have been tricked into misunderstanding this. Recent events in the US (BLM) obviously were bound to increase the misundertanding. Barry Wiener and even Tim Jackson may not be fully aware of all this, which goes way farther than a mere consideration of music theory. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This conversation is gradually becoming less productive. I highly suggest that editors stop interpreting the work of Schenker, Ewell etc. through their own lens. We are here to relay an academic dispute, not join in it ourself... Aza24 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A significant new article has just appeared that should be included in this section. Georg Olms Verlag has just published Barry Wiener’s article ‘Race, Nation and the Jewish Identity’ in New Horizons in Schenkerian Research, edited by Allen Cadwallader, Karen M. Bottge, & Oliver Schwab-Felisch. This article places Schenker’s thought in the context of being a Jewish academic in Austria between the wars.

I changed the section title because the existing title is not accurate. There is a controversy as to whether Schenker was a biological racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimt1973 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your rationale makes no sense. The title "Schenker's views on race" does not imply either side to be correct. The wordy and excessive alternative you changed to is nothing but problematic with its use of "controversy" and "allegedly". Section titles are supposed to be straight forward and to the point. Aza24 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You should allow other editors to weigh in before reverting. Both Eybl and the new Wiener are important to the present discussion. Ewell relied on Eybl more than any other source. Wiener puts Schenker into the proper context--a Jew in Vienna between the wars. Ewell doesn't even mention that Schenker was a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimt1973 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

First off - there is a Wikipedia policy on section titles, we don't have to guess at the right answer. WP:CRITS makes clear: "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy."

The one way I AM second guessing the title is wondering if we should take out the word "Schenker" entirely. It's an ARTICLE on Schenker, so I suspect "Views on race" would be more encyclopedic. PianoDan (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Secondly, "allowing other editors to weigh in before reverting" is NOT really common practice. Rather, the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle, while not official policy, is the more common approach. You made a bold change. You were reverted. Now there's a discussion. Your edit history shows that you've been on Wikipedia less than a week, so why not take some time to read a few essays on how consensus is achieved on here? Or perhaps pick a less fraught topic to wade into for your first major edits? PianoDan (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a problem in this section (and in the lead), when it says that Schenker's views on race "have drawn increased scrutiny in the 21st century.[2][3]." The documents to which notes [2] and [3] refer actually have little (if anything) to say about Schenker's views on race, they mainly concern the dispute between Ewell and the JSS, which is a different matter. The other references (at present notes 57 to 61) do concern Schenker's views on race, but they are from the 20th century.

The criticism of "citation overkill" may refer to the fact that there are five separate footnotes (the five references originally were given in one single note). It certainly is not true that these references "mostly cite one another" – but that is another matter. The fact is that, at present, there are so to say no references concerning "increased scrutiny in the 21st century" or, better said, there is only one, Ewell's criticism which, as the section further explains, has itself been criticized.

The section as a whole appears more concerned with Ewell and the JSS (and with Ewell's claim that a hierarchical theory of music is intrinsically racist) than with Schenker's views on race.

In all this, the only point worth mentioning is that the discussion, since the 20th century, is about whether Schenker's views were biological or merely nationalistic. The WP article obviously should not enter the discussion, but it should report it. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The claim that some distinction between "biological" or "nationalistic" racism is the center of the contemporary controversy over Schenker is utterly unsupported. To answer your comment below - why is the mainstream press coverage of this important? Because that's what makes it NOTABLE. If Ewell had written a single journal article, and then Jackson responded in a journal with a circulation of thirty copies, then these issues would be much less critical to include in Wikipedia.

But it WAS covered in the New York Times, and countless other mainstream outlets. Nearly a thousand members of the profession signed a letter in support of Ewell's position. (This is more ten times the signers of the European open letter, so you can stop bothering to bring that one up - the SMT letter is more than enough to establish notability.)

And the massive coverage mainstream press, which is what makes this issue notable... didn't ONCE mention obscure points of German translation from a century ago. Rather, they focused on the same question which the vast majority of the SPECIALIST coverage ALSO addressed - "Does the fact that Schencker was indisputably racist affect how we ought to discuss his theoretical framework?" THAT's the issue.

Once again:

• "Henrich Schecker was a passionate and prolific writer... several of his writings contain racist comments" - David Beach
• "I take as fact the disturbing and mutually reinforcing relationship between Schenker's much-disseminated music theory and his less-discussed belief in white racial superiority." - Richard Beaudoin
• "[Ewell] is quite right to deplore Schenker's racism." - Charles Burkhardt
• "Ewell provided abundant examples of Schenker's blatant racism from both his Nachlass and published materials." - Suzannah Clark
• "Such statements [by Schenker] could only be seen as 'designed to provoke hatred, sometimes of a specifically racial nature.'" - Nicholas Cook
• "Schencker viewed the world through a hirearchical lens that was racist (and more)." - Rich Pellegrin
• "The facts are not seriously in question: Schenker was a deeply flawed and conflicted character whose virulently nationalist and racist views are unpalatable by any standards". - Boyd Pomeroy

These are all Schenker SCHOLARS, writing about Schenker in a journal on Schenker. (Not peer-reviewed, but most of them have sufficient academic backgrounds to be relevant.) None of them are arguing that Schenker is not racist. They are not drawing some weird distinction between types of racism. They are arguing what to DO about that fact.

These hairs that Fruehwald and you keep trying to split are a distraction. PianoDan (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Schenker was not a racist in the contemporary meaning of the term--genetic racist. Eybl, Jackson, and Wiener make that clear. Schenker was a German nationalist, which also had a range of meanings in his lifetime. To say that Schenker is a biological racist, like Ewell does, is wrong. It requires interpretaion by WP editors, which violates WP policy.Klimt1973 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The Beaudoin, Burkhardt, and Clark (and maybe the others) quotes derive directly from Ewell. They are not separate sources. Jackson, Eybl, and Wiener demonsted that Ewell incompletely and deceptively quoted Eybl and Schenker to make him look like a biological racist, when he wasn't one. I could make you look like a biological racist through deceotive quotation, even though I don't think you are one.Klimt1973 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry - are you SERIOUSLY claiming that Charles Burkhart, possibly one of the foremost American Schenker scholars, is basing his impressions of Heinrich Schenker on a paper from 2020? Seriously? That's utterly laughable.

Suzannah Clark, former chair of the Harvard Music Department is to be dismissed because she agrees with Ewell?

These arguments are nonsense on their face. It's hard to think of MORE authoritative sources than these.

Also, to say "X is wrong because I don't think it is true" is again to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Please carefully read WP:VNT.

PianoDan (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Did Burkhardt and Clark say this before Ewell's article? No!Klimt1973 (talk) Klimt1973 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I can't get past how hilarious this is. You're claiming that Charles Burkhardt, who has been studying Schenker for going on seventy years now, attended an SMT talk and decided based SOLELY on this one presentation to adopt an entirely new belief on the theorist who was the focus of his entire career? Does this sound like the sort of thing that is even remotely plausible?

But OK, just for absolute laughs, let's assume the utterly ludicrous proposition that this scholar, who has been described by Nicholas Cook as "bringing to fruition the project that Schenker had initiated," saw Ewell's plenary, and based on that ONE talk decided that Schenker was racist.

You know what - I think he's in a better position to judge the quality of that evidence than most other folks. Certainly he's a more authoritative source than a lawyer who self publishes "how to lawyer" books or someone who graduated less than a decade ago and has only a handful of publications on the topic. PianoDan (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite a place where Burkhardt said this before Ewell? Klimt1973 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: "Also, to say 'X is wrong because I don't think it is true' is again to misunderstand how Wikipedia works." Well, Piano Dan, you should perhaps reread this... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this? I thought the issue of how to present this subject was settled months ago. Looking at a wall of text over here and my eyes are bugging out. Can somebody give me a short and sweet rundown of what the matter is this time? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia pages are not static? Klimt1973 made an edit, Aza24 reverted it, and now we're discussing. That's how this works. PianoDan (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you made the first edit.Klimt1973 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing from IP editor

There is a new IP editor who seems bent on single-handedly deciding the ongoing debate about Schenker's views on race and whether or not he was racist. Don't want to get drawn into an edit war, but am notifying other editors who are participating in previous debates about this matter. @Aza24, Hucbald.SaintAmand, PianoDan, and Toccata quarta: since this is a matter you all have discussed here. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What's one more anonymous editor with a singleminded focus on pushing a particular point of view with regard to Schenker? At least this one is in line with the overwhelming consensus among actual recent scholarship. PianoDan (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

So long as you claim to know "the overwhelming consensus among actual recent scholarship," we won't be able to solve this debate. I, for one, am not aware that there exists such a consensus, particularly in recent Schenkerian scholarship – for, despite what you may think, Schenkerian scholarship is alive and well. Can you be more specific? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe his views on race should feature in the lead. Do we have anti-semitism in the lead of the article on Wagner? Indeed, many artists and scientists have held racist (and sexist) views, but the articles on them rightly express this (if at all) somewhere in the body of the article. What matters more, in these great creators, is their creation, not their odious personal habits or views. Tony (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tony1 The difference is in how Wikipedia works. There's LOTS of secondary source coverage of Wagner that doesn't talk about his racism. On the other hand, virtually 100% of Schenker's secondary source coverage is on this topic. (See WP:PSTS for a summary of the differences.) If someone is coming to this article who isn't a specialist in the field already, it is likely because of the article in the New York Times, or the Chronicle of Higher Education, or Adam Neely's video, etc etc. Like it or not, his views on race have, as of now, BECOME one of Schenker's primary sources of notability in 2022. PianoDan (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand I've already posted a list of quotes - nearly every article in JSS 12 agreed that Schenker was racist. McWhorter LEADS the article quoted here by referring to Schencker as an "open racist." (But we don't have that excerpt in the article, for some reason.) I'm done arguing with you and anonymous that words don't mean what they mean. Racism means racism, but it seems to be more important to be credulous of a barely published scholar with no track record in the field than the chair of the Harvard music department. PianoDan (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Most Schenkerians admit that Schenker somehow was racist – however, they have divergent opinions about the meaning of the word before 1935. Our new anonymous contributor, 69.193.28.19, tried to replace "Schenker's view on race" by "ardently racist views" or by "racist and ethnonationalist views" (I wonder what "ethnonationalist" might mean) and you consider her or him to be in line with some overwhelming consensus. Harvard's music department website says that its chair is Ingrid Monson, who according to her list of publications did not publish anything since 2008, nor anything on Schenker.

The point is not there. You believe in an "overwhelming schorlarly consensus," while I keep thinking that the matter remains controversial. You claim that "virtually 100% of Schenker's secondary source coverage is on this topic," which I very strongly doubt – or, better said, I know it is not true. You claim that "Schenker's views on race have become one of Schenker's primary sources of notability in 2022," while I know of several recent Schenkerian publications that are not at all about that. Could you be more explicit about all this? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I misspoke a bit on "primary" vs. "secondary," although you could certainly tie yourself up in knots about whether JSS is a secondary source for Schenker's views while a primary source for Jackson's, Clark's, etc. However, in terms of coverage in the non-specialist literature, there is simply no contest. There is no coverage of Schenker in the non-academic press that doesn't mention his views on race - that's literally the only reason he has any coverage at all.
• Suzannah Clark was chair of the Harvard music department from 2016-2019
• English language writers, writing NOW in English for English language readers, use English words to mean what they mean in English. "Racist" means "racist. When Clark, and McWhorter, and Beaudoin, and all the other say "Schencker was racist," they are NOT using 100 year old German colloquialisms. They are saying now, today, in English, that Schenker was racist. It's the HEIGHT of WP:OR to say that modern writers aren't giving modern words their modern meanings. PianoDan (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion is pointless. Modern scholars usually admit that Schenker somehow was racist. The controverse is what it meant to be "racist" (the word did not even exist then) before WW2 – especially for a Jew. You mentioned a scholarly consensus, but now you write of "non-specialist literature." I am not sure that WP readers inquiring about Schenker are so interested in his coverage in "non-academic press." You refuse mentions of articles that you say are not peer-reviewed, but you want us to read non-specialist literature. I really am confused. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Ewell is not a Schenker specialist. On his webpage, he states, "My research specialties include race studies in music theory, Russian music theory, Russian opera, modal theory and history, twentieth-century music theory, and hiphop and popular music." 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Mea culpa. I referred to WP:REFSPAM in my last edit summary, when I meant to refer to WP:CITEKILL. The five separate citations halfway through the first sentence in the (newly retitled) "Views On Race" section are clearly not commercial solicitation. However, they probably ARE over the line for the latter Wikipedia policy. Given that those sources mostly cite one another, a reference to the one or two most recent would probably suffice to verify the claim, which is what citations are for. PianoDan (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Schenker fracas 2022... the story continues

Just to make it easier for everyone to follow this back-and-forth, I initiated this thread to discuss the latest Schenker quarrel. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The fracas is there once again... An anonymous IP contributor wants us to modify the mention of "Schenker's view of race" into "Schenker's well known virulently racist views," while we somehow agreed that Schenker's view was not so well know, at least by WP standards. If this anonymous contributor were to read this, she or he should perhaps first read several sections above on the same topic. We obviously don't agree on the matter, but we at least reached a gentleman's agreement. The matter remains much discussed today and there are other places than WP where her or his advice could be uttered – there, as here, though, it would need references and sources. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The IP edits definitely were not acceptable per MOS:RACIST. Things should be cooling down now, though, as the page is under temporary protection from IPs and new users. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)