I have looked through several threads in the theory board which talked about analyzing music. I have a vague idea of what analysis is, but could someone please explain what exactly it means to analyze music? Is it just studying the form, harmony, rhythm, etc. of the piece or is there more involved? Are there specific questions one should ask when analyzing a piece? From what I know of it, analyzing sounds fun and since I'm fascinated by music theory, I'm thinking I might give it a try. Thanks!
It is important, however, to make the distinction between an open and a closed system. A closed system (e.g. serial music) is one in which the composer has a definite restriction as to what he may write. For example, once a tone row is chosen, the composer is bound by certain rules as to what note can be placed where. In an open system (e.g. traditional tonality, intervallic harmony, bitonality, etc.) this restrictionis not in place. The composer may choose any harmony at any given time, but all must come together to form a coherent piece in the end.
To analyze music written in a closed system, obviously you require a working knowledge of the EXACT system the composer used (e.g. the tone row, the mathematical formulae, etc.), in an open system, you must be more intimately familiar with its functioning. For example, it is not enough to know the 'traditional' voice-leading of a IV7-V progression - you must know WHY the traditional voice-leading is as such, and why a composer might deviate from this.
In addition to this, you must be able to define musically audible events that have a special importance in the working out of a composition. For instance, take Beethoven's Op. 31, No. 1 sonata. In the first movement, the opening gesture leads to various places throughout the piece. The most important thing to note is how Beethoven uses the same gesture to lead to divergent locations, and HOW he modifies it at certain points, and why this works. This requires a solid musical craft - so I would suggest that you study harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration under a good teacher.
Since most of the music we play was written in a recognizable and definable tradition, you should always start with the basics of Western harmony: scales, triads, cumulating levels of counterpoint, modulation (in terms of harmony), voice-leading, common forms.
In the classics, and the canon of repertoire, there is so rich a context, and so much literature, that you can really analyze from the outside in. For instance, you can have a definition - right or wrong - of "sonata form," and then analyze movements of Beethoven or Haydn as they compare to this outer factor. For most modern pieces, I would guess, there is not a way to do that, and they have to be understood on their own terms.
I think this is really debatable, because the only possibility of serial music being closed in the way you define, is if you write serial music according to the literal theory. But I can't think of a single composer who ever did it, except Hauer, and he was a failure. Schoenberg sometimes presented the whole row at the beginning, sometimes not. Webern sometimes used all twelve pitches in a row, sometimes not. The level of variety is complex enough to not always be able to tell what comes from what. This is a common pet peeve of mine, because I feel like anytime someone talks about serial music, they are really talking about the theory, not the actual music that has been written.
I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said, "You can't write octaves in serial music." Maybe Schoenberg wrote that, but so the f^@& what? He wrote octaves.About your first statement, Schoenberg wrote that the tone row as a whole probably isn't, and in fact shouldn't be, audible to the listener. If then you use the tone-row and its permutations as a basis for analysis, you are in fact analyzing according to what is not noticeable to the ear, which you remarked earlier was not fruitful.
From my own experience playing serial music, tone-row analysis is useful for the player, in order to orient himself better, but I don't think of the main serial composers (I am considering Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, and Stravinsky) as relying on twelve-tone rows alone to determine their music. In other words there are so many other factors, that are audible, that contribute to an analysis which is enlightening to the listener.
I think I can categorize this under my theory of "inside out." Although op.31 no.1 is a sonata, and can be thought of like that (outside in), because there are familiar gestures scattered around, that is always the best starting point for analysing from the inside out. Once you can identify anything that repeats, the question always becomes the differences.
Topic: Analysis 