Ian Quinn
In ``The #IV(bV) Hypothesis: Testing the Limits of Schenker's Theory of Tonality,'' Matthew Brown, Douglas Dempter, and Dave Headlam argue against the position that Schenkerian theory is circular, self-confirming, and arbitrary. Their primary strategy is to show that Schenkerian theory can be modeled as a generative system that produces, in their words ``all and only tonal compositions'' --- that Schenkerian theory cannot be used to generate, say, post-tonal music, pre-tonal music, or non-Western music. They further propose that Schenkerian theory is an empirical theory of tonality, and that it models the judgments of unbiased and suitably qualified auditors as to whether or not a given composition is tonal. Unfortunately, it is questionable whether these unbiased and suitable qualified auditors exist; furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that any demarcation (quasi-empirical or otherwise) of a class of tonal compositions ---which is necessary for the authors to show that the theory has clearly defined explanatory limits --- is bound to be both arbitrary and circular. Linguists of the structuralist era faced similar problems when trying to define and explain languages like Standard English; they have been dealt with by the conceptual shift to Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Careful consideration of whether something like Universal Grammar is possible in music theory suggests (a) that Brown, Dempster, and Headlam might be mistaken in searching for a ``Standard Tonal'' language, and (b) that a purely data-driven, empirical theory of tonality (even under a multi-dialect view of tonality) may not be possible at all. Nonetheless, a form of the Brown-Dempster-Headlam argument can still be used to take the steam out of the anti-Schenkerist critique.