![]() 28 or "Schubert highlights the Bb by the shift in accompaniment texture", p. And when he mentions Schubert, he often means "the piece" (for instance when he states that "Schubert did not automatically reach for the musical form which would set the text comfortably", p. He discusses how "the piece" (not Schubert!) projects simplicity, etc. 49 of the Bard-Schwarz and Cohn's edition) and when at times he mentions "the poet", he really means "the poem". ![]() While he is very much interested in the poem, he names the poet only once (p. But he is not empirically concerned with the actual reception of the music by this audience – unless to the extent that his discourse can modify their hearing of the piece. He is very much concerned with conceiving his analysis as a discourse, as a piece of rhetoric intended to convince an audience. Lewin declares some concern for his readers, on the one hand, undergraduate students and amateurs, and for the composer's intentions, on the other hand. I think, however, that one of its characteristics (despite his own claims) is that it is an "autonomous" analysis, "a pure analysis by a pure specialist of analysis", to quote a text by Jean Molino in preparation of the first European conference on music analysis, in 1989. This analysis by Lewin really is quite a unique case. Taking a step back: When DL is doing close analysis like the above, what kind of model or procedure is he An interesting question, Isaac, but I am not sure it is one of the "model" utilized. ) How are we to understand statements like this? What is the "backup" or "support", or is any needed, or is this an inappropriate question? And then he makes some statements about this sequence ("pulling the rug out from under", "apparently perverse". In these sentences, Lewin is pointing at a small sequence of notes from the music. Not only does this contradict our expectation, it does so in the most apparently perverse fashion: we expect the b to move up a half-step instead it moves down a half-step. Instead, measure 12 pulls the rug out from under b♮, baldly substituting b♭ instead. Consider these sentences from the essay (many other passages like it): So what is going on here? Is DL effectively analyzing only a small aspect of the music? Is DL's experience of the music distorted? Or is mine? On the other hand, the essay seems to be far-removed from how I actually experience the music. ![]() On the one hand, the essay seems to be an astute analysis of the music, and to some degree it enhances my understanding of the music. For what it's worth, I personally have two big questions about DL's Essay: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |