The Polyphonic Ursatz

Channan Willner

Apocryphal stories are not only the best; they are the most revealing, too. No one

knows whether Schoenberg ever did exclaim, “Where are my favorite thirty-second

notes?” when he read through Schenker’s analysis of Beethoven’s “Eroica Symphony.”1

But the story does express the sentiments of many who feel that there is something

missing from Schenker’s drastically concise background reductions. That elusive

something may turn out to be a different component of the analyses for each of us, of

course. For me, it is the pair of inner voices that supports the outer voices of the

fundamental structure. The absence of inner voices from Schenker’s depictions of the

fundamental structure is something of a lacuna in a system that otherwise works quite

beautifully. See Example 1, which shows several ways of reading the Allemande from

Handel’s D minor keyboard Suite (Book I, 1720). At a, the structural upper voice is the

soprano, and it descends from a high F, the structural 3^. . At b, the structural voice is the

alto, and it descends from the lower A, the structural 5^ . Common to both graphs is the

omission of obbligato voices from the Ursatz. (In place of “inner voices” I use the more

appropriate term “obbligato voices,” after an essay on reduction by William Rothstein.2)

I am not the first to quibble about the fate of obbligato voices at Schenker’s hand,

nor the first to attempt redressing the issue by restoring these voices. David Neumeyer

1
For a slightly different version, see Babbitt 1991, pp. 130-31.
2
Rothstein 1990b, pp. 101ff.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 2

has already blazed an “obbligato trail” with his three-part Ursatz, which allows for the

structural descent of both soprano and alto.3 Example 2a, of which more later, revisits

the Handel Allemande and incorporates the two upper voices, following Neumeyer’s

models. Felix Salzer often added inner voices to his background graphs, if without

making an issue of the matter.4 Wayne Petty has pointed to the possibility that an

obbligato tenor might on some occasions assume the function of the bass during a sonata-

form development;5 Charles Burkhart has called attention to a quasi-structural obbligato

movement by the tenor at the distance of an octave above the tonic of the bass;6 Brent

Yorgason has demonstrated that inner voices may display “Urlinie envy” and may in fact

assume the role of the Urlinie itself in the course of the piece;7 Carl Schachter has noted

that the Urlinie might be submerged well below several obbligato voices arpeggiated

high above;8 and Eric Wen has demonstrated that the Urlinie frequently migrates to the

bass.9 Here I should like to collate these theorists’ observations and to take the further

step of transforming the three-part Ursatz into a polyphonic Ursatz—if not one in which

all four voices are equal, nor one in which the tenor part embodies a genuine structural

voice.10 I emphasize that this is more of an empirical than a theoretical proposition, since

the background structure does indeed remain two-voiced at the very deepest level. The

obbligato voices realized by the alto and by the tenor unfold a little closer to the surface

3
Neumeyer 1987b.
4
Salzer 1952/1962. See, for instance, the background sketches in Vol. 2, examples i-viii
and many others throughout.
5
Petty 1999a.
6
Burkhart 1973.
7
Yorgason 2003. I thank Brent Yorgason for making a copy of his paper available to me.
8
Schachter 1994.
9
Wen 1999.
10
In responding to Neumeyer 1987b, Steve Larson skeptically posits a similar possibility;
see Larson 1987, p. 26.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 3

than the fundamental two voices do. But in practice, as an aural and as an analytical

experience, this is a distinction without much of a difference, at least in what concerns

the alto.11

Emblematically, it is often difficult to decide which of the two upper voices is

more structural: the soprano or the alto? Despite the soprano’s prominence, it’s actually

the alto’s descent that usually provides the scaffolding over which the thematicism of the

piece rests, at least in the Baroque repertoire, if not in later music. When the alto is

structural, the soprano represents an obbligato voice superimposed above it. Example 2b

illustrates this structural norm: It shows how the soprano’s 3^ –2^ –1^ descent in Handel’s

Allemande bows to the alto’s 5^ –4^ –3^ –2^ –1^ descent. The Allemande is reproduced in

Example 3; the two passages that are boxed in the Example are the ones we shall be

looking at. The brackets in Example 3 call attention to the Allemande’s most important

thematic feature, namely the progressive enlargement of its opening turn figure, bb1-a1-

g1-a1.12

To analyze the two boxed passages we need to preview the relationship between

the bass and the tenor. In theory, the structural status of the bass would appear to be

unequivocal. But in practice—throughout the tonal repertoire and especially in the

contrapuntal textures of the Baroque—the bass does let the tenor take over its line for

long periods of time, either while it remains standing tacitly below, or while it moves

forward silently in slow and stealthy steps that are implied by the larger voice leading of

the piece. Example 4 illustrates one of the reasons why the bass might go into hiding and

11
Unlike the distinction between a long-range voice and a local part, which Eric Wen has
already addressed in his admirable study. See Wen 1999, pp. 277-79.
12
Kamien 1983b describes progressive motivic enlargement.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 4

become a hidden bass: the prevention of long-range, underlying parallel fifths between

the bass and the tenor.13 When the voices ascend, Handel usually averts these fifths by

unfolding them from the bass up—or, more rarely, from the bass down—and letting the

tenor move first (Example 4a). This creates a long-range intervallic 5-6-5 progression

between the two voices (also known as a 5-6 exchange or a 5-6 progression for short).

The procedure is shown in Example 4a in its more common, ascending form; the lowest

staff of the Example shows how the tenor may temporarily dip below the bass through

intervallic inversion. I’ll discuss this progression later, when we attend to the contents of

the second box.

When the tenor and the bass descend (Example 4b), Handel lets the bass

move first (top staff, Example 4b) but often varies the progression in such a way that a 5-

4-5 rather than a 5-6-5 succession between the bass and the tenor obtains at levels closer

to the surface (middle staff, Example 4b). In this instance—this is the subject matter of

our first box—two linear progressions come into play, linking both the bass and the tenor

with the adjacent obbligato voices (the first part of the bottom staff, Example 4b). They

also introduce a last-minute transfer of the tenor to a register below the bass (the second

part of the bottom staff, Example 4b), covering up the underlying progression almost

completely. Indeed, owing to the tenor’s descent to the lower register, the progression’s

point of origin is obscured.14

13
For a detailed account of this feature see my “Bach, Handel, and the Hidden Bass”
(forthcoming).
14
Beginnings and endings of progressions are often covered up in this way in the high
Baroque repertoire, rendering one’s analysis all the more complicated. And, to
compound one’s difficulties, there is the frequent overlap of progressions (which,
however, merits a separate study; see Wagner 1995).
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 5

(Another common reason for hiding the bass and exposing the tenor, which I

mention here for the sake of comprehensiveness, is the need to insert a parenthetical

cadential prefix—a rising third—between the subdominant and the dominant in order to

add time and lend substance to a cadential progression (Example 5a). The prefix, which

can be enlarged over the span of many measures, originates with the tenor or, less often,

with the alto, and appears at the bass register.15 Still another reason has to do with the

realization of a long-span polyphonic dialogue between the bass and the tenor when they

move in parallel thirds or sixths, often against similarly parallel motion in the opposite

direction between the two upper voices (Examples 5b and 5c). When, during such

dialogues, the tenor voice has its say, the bass must of necessity rest.16)

* * *

The two passages boxed in Example 3, with whose contents we shall now be

occupied, span the opening eight measures of the Allemande and a group of nine

measures near the end of the piece (bars 17-25). In the course of the opening measures,

all voices descend a step from the key of D to the temporary key of C; in the course of the

later passage, the two upper voices, both displaced registrally, carry out much of their

structural descent. Within the second box the bass rises from the mediant to the dominant,

but only with a good deal of help from the tenor.

Looking at the first box we can see how a1, the alto’s structural 5^ , is established

as the primary structural tone in bars 1 and 2; and we can see how the high f2, the soprano

line’s primary tone ^3, is established in bar 3 (both 5^ and ^3 are prominent in the

foreground and middleground sketches in Examples 6 and 7). By the last complete

15
Rothstein 1991, p. 327, fn. 50, and Rothstein 2007; see also Bach 1949, p. 256.
16
In Willner 2000 I discuss such situations in detail.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 6

measure of the boxed passage, bar 7, the alto has moved down to g1 and to g#1, and the

soprano, suspended as it were all the way from bar 3, has regained its high f2—only to

fall, appoggiatura-like, to e2 just before the box closes (bar 8a). In between, the

Allemande’s melodic line traverses a zig-zag dialogic journey from the soprano’s high

ambitus down to the alto’s middle register, lingering around the alto’s g1 and improvising

an enlargement of the Allemande’s opening turn figure, bb-a1-g1-a1, over the sustained

bass tone C (bars 5b-8a; see the upper brackets in Example 6a). These events, which

culminate with the arrival of G# and our first glimpse of the dominant, A minor, in bar 8,

are presented schematically in Example 6a. The Example discloses that although the alto

and the tenor both move from A to G, an octave apart, each part maintains its own

contrapuntal profile. Their near-identity in pitch—and their difference in behavior—runs

through much of the Allemande. This is typical of alto-tenor relationships in four-voice

textures across the high Baroque.

The bass and the tenor, as they move down from D and A to C and G, engage in

the dual task of averting their impending parallel fifths and accompanying the upper

voices. It is here that the tenor intervenes and takes over from the bass for the first time:

Its fall from A to G becomes the main event of the progression, and it is placed under the

longer bass movement from D to C (see the curved arrows that run from a to A and from

G to g in Examples 6a and 6b). The bass ascends from the opening D to an inner-voice F

across bars 1-2 (see again the tonal reductions in Example 6, which are more detailed

than the schematic sketch in Example 4b or the middleground graph in Example 7). To

describe the progression more closely from the beginning of the Allemande: At this point

(bar 2b) a long descent begins. It connects the inner-voice F, through an intervening D
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 7

(bar 3b), with the tones A and G at the end of bar 4. That is where the tenor’s G, sounded

an octave below its proper register, enters. An ascending fourth, G-C, then links G with

the bass’s C across bar 5. Example 6b shows how between the aforementioned tones D

and A the progression also offers a 7-6 suspension series in support of the dialogue

between the descending upper voices (bar 4). It then goes on to show how the alto, the

tenor, and the other incidental obbligato voices add local enlargements of the

Allemande’s opening turn figure, Bb-A-G-A, once the bass C has been reached (bars 5b-

8a; see the lower brackets in Example 6b).

* * *

Because the bass line is by its nature disjunct at any level, its tendency to call

upon the tenor for help (by way of exchanging roles and registers) inevitably leads to

substantial disjunction in the tenor line as well. At levels close to the foreground, and at

the foreground, the tenor—impersonating the bass—is likely to simulate the bass’s

signature movements, often for the entire duration of its masked appearance. Across the

span of a complete movement, with the tenor stepping into the shoes of the bass at

irregular but frequent intervals, the line the tenor draws will consequently not describe a

goal-oriented or even a stepwise structural thread. By its very nature it is a migrating

obbligato part—now linear, now disjunct—a “utility part,” called upon to accomplish

specific contrapuntal tasks.

Before we move on to the second box of Example 3, let us look at the tonal

reduction in Example 7. The reduction explains the way the first box fits into the larger

scheme of things during the first reprise, and it charts the path which the second reprise

takes to reach the mediant, F, at bar 17—where the second box begins. By the time the
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 8

key of F has been reached, the alto and the soprano have regained their principal tones, a1

and f2, and they have returned to the two distinct registers with which we associate with

them. However eventful in the foreground, the connecting passages (those between the

boxes) move slowly and cautiously; their middleground reduction (Example 7) discloses

only modest neighbor-note figures and unfoldings. During the time taken up by the

connecting passages, the background structure rests as it were, patiently waiting for the

middleground to complete its falling arpeggiation from the opening tonic to the mediant

via the dominant at the double bar. Once the mediant, F, has been reached, the

background springs into action.

Our focus will now be on how the bass in the second box rises from F to G and to

A in bar 23—from the mediant to the subdominant qua supertonic in first inversion, and

to the dominant—and on how the tenor helps the bass to articulate this ascent. I shall also

address the upper voices’ concurrent structural descents, if more briefly in order to draw

a more comprehensive picture of the tenor’s role in the larger scheme of things.

As they did earlier, the bass and the tenor engage in a horizontalized dialogue

whose purpose it is to forestall the evils of impending parallel fifths. The step-by-step

series of sketches in Example 8 discloses that the bass F in bar 17 tries to continue on to

the G that ultimately arrives at the downbeat of bar 23 (see Example 8a). The arrival of

G is delayed by an arpeggiated detour, this time upwards, to the tenor’s intervallic 5-6

motion (Example 8b; recall Example 4a). The tenor extends its 5-6 motion, C-D (bars 17-

21), by dwelling on a chromatic passing tone, C#, and on an introductory upper neighbor,

D (Example 8c). To elaborate the progression and to give it length, both D and C# are

first realized higher up by an obbligato voice in the one-line octave (bars 18, 19, and 20;
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 9

see the 8va sign in Example 8c).17 Notice that the tenor no longer moves at the distance of

an octave from the alto, as it did in bars 1-8. The tenor has migrated down a sixth from its

previous “station” at A (which it occupied during the entire first reprise) to a new station

at C (compare the tenor line in Example 7b with the tenor line in Example 9b). This is

what I meant when I indicated that the tenor migrates from one tonal area to another, in

utilitarian fashion, in order to accomplish a specific contrapuntal task.

Let us now take a closer look at the components of the “grand detour” of bars 17-

23. First, the connective arpeggio F-A-D in the middle of bars 17, 19, and 20 reaches up

to the tenor’s final D (Example 8d). The arpeggio fills much of its ascent by step as it

climbs, and along the way it simulates the subdominant, at bars 18a-19a, the dominant at

bars 19b-20a, and the tonic, at bar 20b (Example 8e). The connective voice leading then

reverses its direction: The complementary arpeggio D-Bb-G brings us down from D to

the long-awaited G, filling in its descent by step at the downbeats of bars 21, 22, and 23

(Bb, A, and G, Example 8f). The descent outlines a genuine subdominant, but the need

for tonal variety promotes a colorful substitution of the subdominant by a supertonic 6/3

at the turn of bar 23. The completion of the progression at the dominant’s A, in the

middle of bar 23, enables Handel to expand the Allemande’s opening turn figure at

several levels, as if the figure were the subject for learned improvisation (see the bracket

in Example 8f).

17
The D, which occupies bars 18 and 19, appears before the C# of bar 20. It serves to
mitigate the harshness of the tenor’s underlying C-C#-D chromatic progression. Schenker
explains this principle in Free Composition (Schenker 1935/1956/2001), §249 (pp. 91-
92), Figure 114. The way C-C# is intensified by the neighboring D here parallels the
intensification of G-G# by the neighboring A in bars 5b-8.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 10

On top, the Allemande’s main concern is with the soprano’s climactic fall from

bb2 to g2 in bars 18 and 19, an opportune enlargement of the Allemande’s characteristic

turn figure minus its closing tone (see the bracket in Example 9a; a glance ahead at

Example 10a discloses that both Bb and G are ornamental tones placed above and next to

the soprano’s structural F). Once g2, a local neighbor note that feigns to be a structural

neighbor note, has been sounded, the soprano’s high register is all but abandoned (see the

ellipsis sign in Example 9a). The soprano’s later continuation to F and to E takes place in

the one-line octave, right above the aforementioned Bb-A-G (bars 21-22-23). Only the

brief excursion to e2 and d2 at the turn of bar 25 hints at the presence of the soprano’s

earlier tessitura, and the brevity of the excursion confirms our preliminary impression

that at the deepest level the soprano is but a superimposed obbligato voice.

What the alto and the bass do vis-à-vis the connective thread Bb-A-G in the large

octave is still more remarkable. The falling third Bb-A-G in the low register and its

continuation to the dominant on A at the middle of bar 23 not only expands the

Allemande’s opening turn figure but also takes over the alto’s structural line. A

comparison between bars 17 and 23—and a look at the heavy beam between the staves in

Examples 9 and 10—reveals that the alto’s fall from A to G (5^ to 4^ ) has been entrusted to

this space-filling, thematically cathartic enlargement. The melody above the enlargement,

however beautiful, is simply a sequential accompaniment of the type frequently found at

corresponding locations in binary dance-suite movements; fortuitously, it also

accommodates the soprano’s structural descent.18 At bar 23, both the alto and the bass

18
The rhythms of the melody’s passagework—and the pointed sharpness of its off-the-
downbeat rising leaps—are a gloss on the rhythms and leaps at the turn of bar 3 and the
middle of bar 3.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 11

converge upon G. While the bass then proceeds to A, in the middle of the measure, the

alto reclaims its proper register, in the one line octave.

Once the bass A has been established, only a few issues remain for the Allemande

to work out. These include the completion of the alto’s descent—in both its proper

register and again in the register of the bass—and the bass’s gradual reclamation of the

tonic. Like many pieces in binary form that have reached their climax with an expanded

sequence late during the second reprise, the Allemande has neither the time nor the space

to deal with much more than the tonic’s reassertion (see Example 9 and 10).

As for the tenor, after reaching the D of its 5-#5-6 motion at the middle of bar 20

and continuing up to E (bar 23), it does not stop its ascent: It climbs further, up to G (bar

24b, Example 9b). At this point something special happens: The tenor tries to reclaim its

former station at or around A by hanging on to the G, a long-range passing tone

connecting the A of bar 17b with the closing tonic’s upper third, F (bar 27, Example 10).

The tenor now begins to move restlessly between A and G on the one hand and D and E

on the other; see the straight lines that connect these maneuvers in Example 9b. Only at

the very end of the Allemande does the tenor comes to rest, on F.

Taking in the entire Allemande, as depicted by the comprehensive sketches of

Examples 10 and 11, we can see how the tenor prolongs A but migrates down to C, D,

and E for a substantial stretch (bars 17b-23a) without any contrapuntal procedure to link

the tenor’s two distinctly different areas of operation (see Example 10c). On the whole,

the tenor projects a 5^ -6^ -5^ -4^ -3^ line which, despite its focus on ^5 , is interrupted halfway

by the excursion to C-D-E. If we put the tenor together with its three companion voices

we’ll see readily why a structural graph, one that is very close to the background of the
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 12

Allemande, would be largely meaningless without a representation, however sketchy, of

the migrating obbligato tenor;19 see Example 10a. Because the tenor is more of a disjunct

“service part” than a truly homogeneous contrapuntal voice, and because as such it

wanders through the texture, its inclusion problematizes the sketch and the theory

underlying the sketch. Intended to reduce and to clarify, the sketch in fact runs the dual

risk of becoming too cluttered and veering too far off from what Schenker meant by

“background.” The addition of the tenor brings with it polyphonic details that are usually

omitted even from the deep middleground (let alone the background) graph, but in so

doing it pushes the graph back in the direction of the foreground.

And yet tonal music—and Baroque music above all—is polyphonic to the core:

not two-voiced, nor three-voiced, but four-voiced. Leaving out those parts of the

scaffoldiing that support one’s favorite thirty-second notes does alter the meaning and the

sense of one’s analysis. It also changes one’s aural picture of the music. It consequently

hampers the realization of the structural reduction’s mandate: To provide a visual and

experiential emblem of the music’s scaffolding at the very background. Nonetheless, this

task can be accomplished—by summing up, however cryptically, not only the movement

of the alto and the soprano but also that of the tenor. See the proposed background graph

in Examples 11a and its more drastically reduced companion graph in Example 11b.

Such a blunt summary, of necessity, reduces the tenor line down to a 5^ - 4^ - 3^ descent (as

in Example 11b), or (hypothetically) to a 5^ - 6^ - 5^ neighbor-note motion (Example 11c),

19
Not to mention the obbligato soprano line.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 13

or (again, hypothetically) to a 5^ - 6^ - 7^ - 8^ ascent (Example 11d).20 Despite the omission

of some of the tenor’s middleground forays (especially in Examples 11c and 11d), the

visual summary succeeds in making the tenor’s presence known loud and clear, without

compromising the clarity of the graph.

Ultimately, the significance of the two principal obbligato voices and the reason

for retaining them in the background rests with the purpose they serve: They provide the

tonal means by which the two lines of the background structure open up, arpeggiate, and

unfold at the later levels. Searching for a metaphoric image one might say that they are

the wings that allow the bird to take off and fly.

Letting the Ursatz remain in a state of polyphony points to the dependence of all

voice leading—from the foreground to the background—on invertible counterpoint.21 I

already emphasized that the migration of the alto’s structural descent to the lowest

register (as in bars 21, 22, and 23), for all the structural drama it enacts, is a very common

phenomenon. So is the alto’s second migration, to F in the lowest register, in bar 25 (see

20
Owing to difficulties in resisting the tendency of 6^ in minor to fall back to 5^ , and to
related difficulties of raising 6^ chromatically over long spans of time, this progression
does not lend itself to composing out on a large scale in the minor mode. Examples
nonetheless can be found throughout Bach’s suites, sonatas, and partitas for various
instruments. Most movements of the D minor Suite for Violoncello Solo, for instance,
close with a motivically charged ascending Urlinie. Rothstein 1991, pp. 306-7, and
Schachter 1996, pp. 333-41 (especially 338-39) take up the question of levels raised by
David Neumeyer’s notion of the ascending Urlinie; see Neumeyer 1987a.
21
Specifically, invertible counterpoint at the octave. Franck 2006 demonstrates brilliantly
how invertible counterpoint at the 12th may affect the disposition of the structural voices
of the Ursatz under fugal circumstances, and how it may take part in composing out the
Ursatz. I thank Peter Franck for making a copy of his paper available to me.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 14

the alto’s beam in Examples 9 and 10).22 The polyphonic Ursatz sets the proper stage for

presenting and interpreting this invertible counterpoint in its larger context, and for

gauging the invertible counterpoint’s all-encompassing significance vis-à-vis the

obligatory registers of the two structural voices.

As it stands, Schenker’s austere and somewhat aloof two-voiced background

structure resembles a formal portrait of a senior Royal Family—the monarch and his

queen—without their siblings. The polyphonic Ursatz, by including both the prince and

the princess, adds a much-needed human and familiar touch to the tonal hierarchy.

22
By the same token—and this applies to all tonal structures—the bass may migrate
temporarily up to the soprano’s register. In the Classical and Romantic symphonic
repertoire (and above all in those that borrow from the Baroque repertoire), a lone tone
played by the double basses may take over the soprano’s wandering Kopfton, and a lone
tone played by the flutes may represent a structural bass tone. Retaining the obbligato
voices alerts us to these essential but frequently overlooked inversional situations.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 15

List of Works Cited

Aflame with Music: One Hundred Years of Music at the University of Melbourne, edited by
Brenton Broadstock and Naomi Cumming. Parkville: University of Melbourne Centre for
Studies of Australian Music, 1996.

Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, edited by David Beach. New Haven and London: Yale
Univeristy Press, 1983.

Babbitt 1991. Babbitt, Milton. “A Composer’s View,” Harvard Library Bulletin, New
Series 2/1 (Spring, 1991) [=Musical Librarianship in America, edited by Michael Ochs]:
123-132.

Bach 1949. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Versuch uber die wahre Art das Clavier zu
spielen (Essay on the True Art of of Playing Keyboard Instruments); first edition, translated
and edited by Willliam J. Mitchell. New York: W.W. Norton, 1949.

Burkhart 1973. Burkhart, Charles. “The Polyphonic Melodic Line of Chopin’s B-minor
Prelude,” in Norton Critical Scores: Frederic Chopin, Preludes, Opus 28, edited by
Thomas Higgins (New York: W.W. Norton, 1983): 80-88.

Essays from the Third International Schenker Symposium. Hildesheim and New York:
Olms, 2007.

Franck 2006. Franck, Peter. "A Fallacious Concept: The Role of Invertible Counterpoint
within the Ursatz," paper read at the New England Conference of Music Theorists, the
Hartt School of Music, University of Hartford (April, 2006), and at the annual meeting of
SMT in Los Angeles (November, 2006).

Kamien 1983a. Kamien, Roger. “Analysis and Performance: Some Preliminary

Observations,” Israel Studies in Musicology 3 (1983): 156-170.

_______ 1983b. Kamien, Roger. “Aspects of Motivic Elaboration in the Opening

Movement of Heydn’s Piano Sonata in C-sharp Minor,” in Aspects of Schenkerian Theory:
77-93.

Larson 1987. Larson, Steve. “Questions about the Ursatz: A Response to Neumeyer,” In
Theory Only 10/4 (December 1987): 11-31.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 16

Neumeyer 1987a. Neumeyer, David. “The Ascending Urlinie,” Journal of Music Theory
31/2 (Fall 1987): 275-303.

_______ 1987b. Neumeyer, David. “The Three-Part Ursatz,” In Theory Only 10/102
(August 1987): 3-29.

Petty 1999a. Petty, Wayne C. “C.P.E. Bach and the Fine Art of Transposition,” in Schenker
Studies 2: 67-89.

_______ 1999b. Petty, Wayne C. “Chopin and the Ghost of Beethoven,” 19th-Century
Music 22/3 (Spring 1999): 281-299.

Rothstein 1990a. Rothstein, William. "Letter to the Editor: 'The Americanization of

Schenker Pedagogy'," Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy , 4/2 (Fall 1990): 295-300.

_______ 1990b. Rothstein, William. "Rhythmic Displacement and Rhythmic

Normalization," in Trends in Schenkerian Research: 87-113.

_______ 1991. Rothstein, William. "On Implied Tones," Music Analysis 10/3 (October
1991): 289-328.

_______ 2005. Rothstein, William. “Italian and German Metrical Types in Music of the
18th and 19th Centuries,” paper presented at the workshop, Communicative Strategies in
Music of the Late 18th Century, Bad Sulzburg, Germany, July 2005.

_______ 2007. Rothstein, William. “Transformations of Cadential Formulae in the Music

of Corelli and His Successors,” in Essays from the Third International Schenker Symposium.

Salzer 1952/1962. Salzer, Felix. Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music. New
York: Charles Boni, 1952; reprinted, New York: Dover Publications, 1962 and 1982.

Schachter 1994. Schachter, Carl. "The Prélude from Bach's Suite No. 4 for Violoncello
Solo: The Submerged Urlinie," Current Musicology 56 (1994): 54-71.

_______ 1996. Schachter, Carl. “Schoenberg’s Hat and Lewis Carroll’s Trousers: Upward
and Downward Motion in Musical Space,” in Aflame with Music: 327-341.

Schenker 1935/1979/2001. Schenker, Heinrich. Free Composition (Der freie Satz).

Volume 3 of New Musical Theories and Fantasies, translated and edited by Ernst Oster.
New York: Longman, 1979; reprinted Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2001. “Text based
mainly on the 2nd German edition (ed. Oswald Jonas, Vienna: Universal, 1956), but the first
edition (Vienna: Universal, 1935) was also consulted.”

Schenker Studies 2, edited by Carl Schachter and Hedi Siegel. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
 The Polyphonic Ursatz, p. 17

Structure and Meaning in Tonal Music: Essays for Carl Schachter, edited by L. Poundie
Burstein and David Gagné. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2006.

Trends in Schenkerian Research, edited by Allen Cadwallader. New York: Schirmer Books,
1990.

Wagner 1995. Wagner, Naphtali. “No Crossing Branches? The Overlapping Technique in
Schenkerian Analysis,” Theory and Practice 20 (1995): 149-176.

Wen 1999. Wen, Eric. “Bass Line Articulations of the Urlinie,” in Schenker Studies 2: 276-
297.

Willner 2000. Willner, Channan. “Domenico Scarlatti and the Hidden Voice Exchange,”
paper presented at the annual meeting of SMT, Toronto, 2000.

_______. Forthcoming. Willner, Channan. “Bach, Handel, and the Hidden Bass.”

Yorgason 2003. Yorgason, Brent. “The Melodic Bass: Submerged Urlinies, Shadow
Urlinies and ‘Urlinie Envy’,” paper presented at the annual meeting of Music Theory
Midwest, Bloomington, Indiana, 2003.