Re: Unanswered Question #1

On Apr 5, 11:22 am, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:ajlev3hmg3359s6hibgc64khi5q131vh1h@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:02:56 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[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