I really don't follow your point here. ANY act of analysis is analysis. (...) Anything that involves analysing is analysis by nature- regardless of what particular type.
I can't agree with your opinion that
an act of analysis is simply an act of analysis. Analysis is nothing until you define its background. There is no actual meaning in saying anything in an analysis if you don't rely on a clear basis. But that is a whole new discussion, let's get over it because it is not our topic.
I still have no idea whatsoever as to what analytical procedures you are referring to with the term "semiotic analysis". I see a subset being referred to but I have not the slightest idea as to what characteristics define the style or procedures of analysis that go into the subset.
The better way to get acquainted with that is reading an analysis by Nattiez, or Tarasti. There you will find the trend in its most perfect presentation. Notwithstading, perhaps I can contribute a bit.
Semiotics refers to symbols and how they can mean different things. I believe that talking about how different Schubert's G flat Impromptu might likely be played were it written enharmoically in F sharp (likely being far less subdued than usually played) would be an a type of semiotic analysis.
Well, that's not an example. The exact notation is immaterial to semiotic analysis, because it is not concerned about the graphic but the acoustic dimension. It is almost impossible, but let me try to present a semiotic analysis as an example. Let's pick up...well, let's pick up the impromptu you just mentioned (D. 899 n. 3).
1. The first thing is to slice the score until we reach the smallest chunks with a defined existance (so, we will not treat notes, but sets of notes). It is of uttermost importance to realize that there is no defined way to do that: every analyst will do that in a different way, because defining these little pieces is already a matter of interpretation.
2. I think that the first element is the first beat (considering we have a double binary here), i.e., the first b flat on the melody with the notes below (arpeggio and bass with its doubling). I mean, this is the main unit of construction of this impromptu, and I'd now write it in the right and top of a clear score.
3. Everything that is related to this unit I'll write below it, trying to show the correspondences. In this particular case, it will result in a huge vertical list, because almost every single unit of this impromptu is directly related to this primordial one. If I was in a more radical day, I could say that every single note is directly related, but let me open up for the sake of this example.
4. Let us consider, then, that the development of a bass melody from bar 25 on is something new in this discourse. Well, then I must identify the fundamental unit of that and write it to the right of the first unit. I mean, everything until now was written down in the first column, in many lines. Only now I'm starting the second column, using its first line. I proceed putting on the second column every entry of this second unit of construction.
5. And that's it for the first part of the job. Not even for this example I can figure out another unit, so we can go on. What we have now is a score with many chunks that cannot be read in a traditional way, because we removed time from the equation. In semiotic terms, we are talking about the work itself, with neither intentions nor perceptions.
6. A parenthesis: although a motivic analysis may look similar in the graphical aspect, there is a fundamental difference. We are not talking about motives here, because the word
motive implies development and this is an assumption of the way the composer did write the work that go beyond our current proves.
7. Now, it is time to understand the rules that connect every unit to the fundamental unit, and different units one to another. This is quite a mess, because it is normally presented as a list of compositional procedures, but there are no standards. In a sense, it is useful, because you may pinpoint the aspects you want to. In this Schubert example, I consider the rest of the first compass as a time compression to propel forward the movement (alteration of durations), while the second measure completes the notion of stillness (maintenance of the first unit with a slight change of harmony).
8. After you complete this second task, it is time to evaluate the work and to answer the three basic questions.
What did Schubert want to express? What does this impromptu means? What an audience will understand of this work of art? Without working through the analysis, it is impossible to answer, but as an exercise let me evaluate these two first measures.
9. Schubert limit himself to the bare minimum: a long breadth melody, a sustaining bass, and an inner part that fills the gap. All the impromptu is made of that, with no constrasts, no developments. On the other hand, there is no need to contrast because this basic material is already made of an intense contrast (though it sounds like a quiet beggining) between the impossible long line (how to connect the full archs of this melody on a fortepiano?) and the incessant, almost annoying arpeggio. Writing this down makes impossible to me not to think about his personality: a serene outside with a boiling inner self.
10. The impromptu itself is, by definition, the development of a very simple material. The idea is to create a piece that seems improvised though it is not, so it must not resemble an overcomplicated thinking. Thus, the use of a minimum material. The first two measures introduces this material for further exploration.
11. Finally, the listener experience. How do I respond to a performance of this impromptu? What do it means to me? Exploring this a bit more, how do my audience respond to a performance of this impromptu? What do it means to them? I feel a sensation of peace and rest every time I listen to this impromptu. As far as I know its original environment (the other three impromptus of the set), this impression is enhanced.
I hope this is more clear now, and this exercise was of a little help. As I said before, the most powerful aspect of semiotic analysis is its open end: there are many options and possibilities. Nevertheless, I must find and understand my own. That is what interpretation is all about, and music analysis is a way to work that.
Best regards,
Jay.
Topic: do you know any shortcut in piano learning road?