Analysis should appeal to some principles to render whatever is being analysed more intelligible. not the same as a factual descriptiondtoh wrote:Seems to me that a lot of what is passed off as analysis is just a description. Is there a difference between analysis and description. (Serious question.)
What does that mean in practical terms? Showing fingerings, showing grid notations, showing chords, showing inversions, labeling each note with it's name.brooks wrote:Analysis should appeal to some principles to render whatever is being analysed more intelligible. not the same as a factual description
Your question was general so my response had to be general. To take one of your more specific examples, simply providing fingering is not analysis. Explaining the fingering based on principles like economy of motion, consistency or intelligibility of voicings, ease of transitions, etc, is analysis. Labelling notes is not analysis, but if you point out that a given chord consists of certain harmonic intervals, and is therefore called, say, a diminished 7th chord, you have analyzed the chord based on principles of harmony within a given system.dtoh wrote:What does that mean in practical terms? Showing fingerings, showing grid notations, showing chords, showing inversions, labeling each note with it's name.brooks wrote:Analysis should appeal to some principles to render whatever is being analysed more intelligible. not the same as a factual description
I think the definition has several options because it needs to fit all the applications of the word. Number 2 and 3 certainly have nothing to do with musical analysis. I think in the musical context, number 4 is the right definition.brooks wrote:Luis, I think you may have narrowed the generally accepted definition somewhat, as I have. Looking at the various dictionary meanings, the concepts analysis and description, while not interchangeable, do seem to partially overlap. Here's Merriam-Webster, fwiw:
Full Definition of analysis:
: separation of a whole into its component parts
a : the identification or separation of ingredients of a substance
b : a statement of the constituents of a mixture
a : proof of a mathematical proposition by assuming the result and deducing a valid statement by a series of reversible steps
b (1) : a branch of mathematics concerned mainly with limits, continuity, and infinite series (2) : calculus 1b
a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations
b : a statement of such an analysis
a : a method in philosophy of resolving complex expressions into simpler or more basic ones
b : clarification of an expression by an elucidation of its use in discourse
: the use of function words instead of inflectional forms as a characteristic device of a language
I don't think this is outside of the scope of analysis, but, it may not be apparent using typical analytical symbols/tools.dtoh wrote:Thanks for all the good responses. A couple of things I would think should be in an analysis of a piece are:
1. Does the piece fit in a particular genre (more narrowly defined than CPP).
2. Why is it similar to other pieces in the genre.
3. How is it different.
Maybe this is outside the scope of analysis. I don't really know but it seems like something one (or at least I) would want to know about a piece when analyzing it.
Tks for the response. Your many posts in this forum are great. Even though I sometimes have a hard time following all of them.stevel wrote: Yes, simply analyzing chords, harmonic function, non-chord tones and the like within a single piece or even a couple of pieces from different periods in the composer's output may not tell us much about the things I've mentioned above.
But the idea of a "comprehensive analysis" on that level is not only something that would take years, but basically be a book (and many books are written like this).
In essence, we are usually taught (academically at least) to analyze from the miniscule to the majiscule, first focusing on naming chords, then on to harmonic function, cadences, modulations, phrase structure, form, and so on. At my university we have 4 semesters of theory (the last delving into 20th century techniques and pre-Tonal elements as well) but after that one takes a "Form and Analysis" class which prepares the student for a "broader scale analysis" like your 3 points.
And like I said a few posts back, it's "comparative analysis" - how's it the same, how's it different, does it fit the style, or any style, etc.