Re: Unanswered Question #1

"Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ajlev3hmg3359s6hibgc64khi5q131vh1h@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:02:56 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>

>
> It says that each analysis is correct on it's own terms, and the 
> preference
> for one should not mean a rejection of what the others have to offer.. 
> Then
> he goes thru the pro's and con's, which, at a glance ,are beyond me
right
> now, to tell ya the truth.

Agreed. We can glean information from looking at things in various ways. 
But, there is also typically an assumed goal in the analysis of CPP era 
works (or works you're comparing to them) that compares them to the body
of 
work at large. Saying X work "modulates all the way through" might point
out 
how the piece differs largely from other, more typical, non-modulating 
works. However, it may not tell you much about how the work fits in with
the 
rest of the music - and in many cases, how it is simply an elaboration of
a 
basic principle. In a sense, this is what Schenker was about - and while 
reducing everything to V-I motion might be a little too uninformative, the

principle is still there - most Blues pieces, are, if not simply a 12 bar 
pattern, an elaboration thereof. Analyzing works that seem to stray from 
this formula may enlighten us to how they're really simply an elaboration
of 
that basic framwork, and are really much more similar than we at first 
thought. While such an analysis might elminate how the piece does differ -

which is im****tant - that doesn't seem to me to be the point of your
typical 
analysis. Therefore, such "oddities" are typically pointed out in text
with 
a verbal analysis, rather than in a reductive analysis of the music.


Best,
Steve