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.
But the question was what key is this piece in, not how does it
compare to the CPP! It was pointed out from the beginning that this
piece was written in the 30s, the 1930s to be specific. This is not
exactly the heyday of the CPP. You may assume that the goal in
analysis is to compare the work to the CPP. I do not and certainly I
don't think that I am very special in looking at a piece as to what it
is. From the initial scan of the piece I knew that it did not look
like a CPP piece. There were several hints and that is why I asked
immediately when was this written and the answer was clearly given. It
was written in the 20th C. I would not assume to compare a 20th C.
composer to CPP.
I would typically assume to look at each piece of music and analyze it
in the manner that best suites this piece of music. If I see a piece
that has a key signature and there are some accidentals and I see that
they are following the CPP rules of harmony I might proceed on that
assumption until something looked strange. In this piece, you see a
Dmaj/Bmin signature and the first and last chord is F#maj! I would
naturally assume that this piece is not typical and look deeper into
the piece to see what was going on. I certainly would not naturally
assume that this was a typical CPP composition! Then I see a Phrygian
melody. This answers the key signature, but still doesn't say CPP. If
I would naturally assume anything, it is that it probably is in some
mode, possibly ethnic and could be from that timeless period called
folk or ethnic music.
So I would assume to look at a piece like this, see what harmonies and
melodic elements are there and deal with the facts at hand. I would
certainly NOT typically assume to compare it to CPP. Since a lot of
this tune can be put into CPP it certainly would have been one of my
areas of interest, but not more or less so than folk music, as it
turned out Spanish Flamenco, modern modal concepts and anything else
that I could see as a possibility. Then I would try to frame an
analysis that fit the piece. Only if there was an assignment and asked
to analyze this piece and compare it to the CPP era would I typically
assume such a limited approach. And even then, I would think that the
assignment itself was a clue that the piece is NOT CPP as if it were,
then a comparison would not be indicated.
So please don't presume to put limitations on the rest of us. If you
want to compare everything to the CPP that is fine. Maybe you are
specializing in this era, but I, and I think many others are not. It
is a very im****tant era of musical unification for the Western world,
but it certainly is not the all and end all of our musical heritage
and certainly is not the only standard for functional harmony. Mozart
and Beethoven and Brahms and other late classical and Romantic
composers may more typically be viewed in this manner, but certainly
not all tertian based music.
>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
Of course if one decides to analyze a Jazz tune like "In a Sentimental
Mood" by Duke Ellington by comparing it to the Blues format you
mentioned above because it has a blue note in the melody at one point
and that it has a sad, , then I can understand this analogy of
analyzing the Pujol as a comparison to the CPP. I would also expect
the same relevant results as in both cases, you may see that the piece
does not fit the framework of the comparison. In these cases we can
see that the Ellington piece is not the Blues and that the Pujol piece
is not CPP. If that is what you mean, then I agree. In either case,
however, nothing says what the piece really is, only what it is not.
LJS
|
