Abstract
This paper selects Neo-Riemannian theory and aims to contextualize and characterize
the developmental process of the relevant academic discipline by tracing the
complementary and competitive relationship of Neo-Riemannian theory with the
existing Schenkerian theory. Neo-Riemannian and Schenkerian theories cannot be
compared even by analytical objects. However, as observed by Julian Hook (2007,
168) who considers it a “mistake” if one regards “transformation” and “prolongation”
as antithetical conceptions, even though there is a fundamental difference between
the theories, the integration or differentiation of both theories has been suggested in
several studies (Cohn 1999, Samarotto 2003, Hook 2007, Goldenberg 2007, Rings 2007,
Baker 2008). This case study examines the effects of the methodological arguments that
advocate a new theory over an existing one. The effects are divided into two categories:
first, enabling heuristic interpretations through a hybrid theoretical framework by
quasi-integration and, second, showing the capacity of one theory by explaining
what the other theory reveals. In other words, a series of arguments arise from the
methodological difference related to the priority of “interpretation” or “method,” that is,
the theory that sets as an end objective renewing the interpretation of musical pieces,
holding the incompatibility of methods, or evoking a new theoretical model.
