colloquium - can analysis be taught question

7/23/2019 Colloquium - Can Analysis Be Taught Question

1/13

Wileyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

il y

Colloquium: Can Analysis Be Taught?Author(s): Jonathan CrossSource: Music Analysis, Vol. 4, No. 1/2, Special Issue: King's College London Music AnalysisConference 1984 (Mar. - Jul., 1985), pp. 183-194Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854241Accessed: 21-10-2015 12:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 193.136.113.58 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:15:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/854241http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/854241http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/13

COLLOQUIUM:

CAN

ANALYSIS

BE

TAUGHT?

REPORTED BY

JONATHAN

ROSS

The

focaleventof

KCLMAC 84 was a

colloquium

n

the

teaching

f music

analysis:

whethert

could

e

taught

nd,

f

o,

howthiswas to

be achieved.The

teaching

f

nalysis

t an

undergraduate

evel nd the

elationship

f

nalysis

o

the

differentlements f a

first-degree

ourse

were

discussed

n

detail.

How

analysis

s

taught

oth

n

schools

nd

at

postgraduate

evel

nd

the

mportance

of

nalysis

or

erformers

ere

mong

ther ssues

raised.

The

colloquium

was

divided nto wo

parts.

The first

onsisted f tatements

from

hree

istinguished

nalysts:

Arnold

Whittall

utlined

is

ideal'

under-

graduateoursesee below),Derrick uffettiscussed ow nalysissactually

taught

n British

niversities

II)

and

Richmond

rowne

urveyed

he ituation

in

America

III).

The

second

part

was devoted o an

open

discussion f more

general

ature,

haired

y

Professor

Whittall.

I

Arnold

Whittall

egan by

stating

hat

division xists

mong

researchersn

music

theory

nd

analysis

n

their

ttitudes

owards

eaching:

hose

who see

teaching

s a

necessary

vil to

be

'endured

imply

n

order o

buy

time or

hat

research', nd thosewhoactually refer eaching o research.Bothtypesdo

agree

hat

he

ubject

an be

taught

ut see

ittle

oint

n

attempting

o

explain

the

general

rinciples

n which

heir

eaching

s

based.

A

far

more

ignificant

division

xists,

however,

between hose who

believe

analysis

an be

taught

using

principles

nd

techniques

f

analysis

xpounded

n

textbooks r their

equivalents,

nd those

who

prefer

o work

primarily

rom he

core.

Certain

minimum

onditions

ave to be met f

analysis

s to be

taught

s a

distinct

ubject,

ssuming

here

re

people

able

and

willing

o teach t.

The

subject,

he

erm

analysis',

mustbe

clearly

efined. his

might

mply

hat t

s

also

necessary

o make

clear

definitionf

what s meant

y

the

other lements

of a syllabussuch as 'history' r 'stylistic omposition'.The relationship

between

nalysis

nd

all

other

spects

f

syllabus

mustbe

clearly

nderstood.

The

contributionf

analysis

o

the aims of the

nstitution ith

espect

o the

education

f ts

pupils

must

lso be

explicit.

n

summary,

Musical

education s

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

985

183

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

JONATHAN

CROSS

aboutthe

tudy

f

compositions

n order o enable he tudent o

deepen

his

or

herunderstandingfthosecompositionss expressed hrough xperience f

those

ompositions'. nalysis

lays

central ole n

achieving

his

im.

Education,

even

musical

education,

s

concerned

with a

training

f

the

intellect

nd,

through

he

ntellect,

f

sensibility,

ven

though

music's

basic

materials

isplay logic

which s

significantly

ifferentrom

onceptual ogic.

The tensionsbetween he

two,

between

xpounding

rinciples

nd

testing

practices,

mustbe

exploited.

he British

iew hat

practice

s

respectable

nd

theory

ot'

results,

he

speaker

laimed,

from oo narrow

conception

f

the

nature f rules'.

Only

f

he

omplementary

elationship

etween

anguage

s

a

'set of

rules to be

defined

nd the

nfinite

ariety

f

theiruse'

is

understood

would situationrisewhereconceptual ogic nd musical ogic re notplaced

in a

mutually

estructive

onfrontation'.

A

critical reaof

oncern

s that

f

musical ducation n the

econdary

chool.

Whittall

xpressed

his

disquiet

at

the

general

evel of musical

literacy

n

candidates or

niversity

r

college

ntrance. he small

lassesor evenone-to-

one

contact ound

t

pre-undergraduate

evel hould

present

n

deal

opportun-

ity

for

heoretical

nd technical

raining.

or most

tudents, owever,

music

study

means lass

study:

. .

.

education nvolves he

development

f

ollective

ways

of

thinking

o interactwith

nd affect hose

ways

of

feeling

which re

inborn,

personal,

private,

but which still

benefit rom ritical

esting

nd

conscious xploration'. hiscollectivityhouldbepositivelyxploited.

The

teaching

f

principles

n

the

early tages

houldnotbe

avoided,

but the

student

must be

guided

to make

the

right

progression

rom

principle

o

practice.

The

role of textbooks

mustbe

considered

arefully.

rom

the

start,

such

teaching

materials

might

e

drawn

from ctual

compositions,

lthough

complete

nalyses

re not the

main concern t

the

principle-acquiring'

evel.

The

gradual

acquisition

f

techniques,

however,

might

ventually

ead to

a

complete

analysis.

The

advantage

of

this

approach

is

that,

since these

techniques

erive rom

heories bout

the

nature

f

such

elements s

tonality,

modality,tonality,

motivic

rganisation

nd form

rather

hanfrom

heories

aboutthenature f

compositional

tyle

nd the

workings

f

nspiration),

t will

lead

the

student

owards

n

understanding

f

those

heories.Whittall

nsisted

that

both

student nd

teacher

need to be

critically

wareof

which

nalytical

techniques

re

destructively

echanical

nd

whichhave

systematic

ualities

not

rendered

meaningless

y

actual

pplication'.

There

re twomain

ypes

f

undergraduate

nalysis

ourse

aught

n

Britain.

One takes

ccount f he

odifiedmethods f

particular

heorists;

he

ther

akes

certain

et

works s

tsbasic

material.

he

degree

f

differenceetween

hese wo

courses

depends

on

the

extent o

which

student

xamines score s a

work

which asalready een nalysed. here s agreat ifferenceetweentudyingn

analysis

f score nd

combining

his

pproach

with

n

opportunity

ouse

that

analyst's

echniques

nthe

work. articular

nalytical

rinciples

anbe

acquired

without

osing ight

f

real

music';

the

trict

pplication

f such

principles

n

response

othe

musicneed

not

betray

musical

ogic.

184

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

1985



4/13

COLLOQUIUM:

CAN ANALYSIS

BE

TAUGHT?

To considerome f

he

ractical

roblems

hich

might

rise n

teaching

analysis,hittallent n oprovidesketchfhow heubjectstaughtthis

own

nstitution,

ing's

ollege

ondon. he

first

ear

f he

ndergraduate

course

s

deemed

preliminary'

nd

s conducted

s

lectures,

eminarsnd

tutorials

n

weekly,

wo-hour

ession.

hefirstwo ermsntroducetudents

to elements

f onal

nalysis

ith xercises

n

simple

inear

echniques

nd

voice-leading

otation;

n

the hird

erm,

he lementsf

welve-note

heory

and

hemotivic

nalysis

f

welve-note

usic

re

xamined.

hefourthnd

fiftherms

ead

oMinor evel orwhich

he tudent

roduces

portfolio

f

three

ifferent

rojects:

here

s little

ime o buildon

thefirst

ear's

foundations,

o

teaching

s

mostlyy

utorial.

he

portfolio

ontains

nalyses

of mall ieces usuallywohort,onalmovementsnd ne tonaltema

'classic'

welve-note

iece).

tudents

re

ncouraged

o

discuss

heirhosen

analyticalechniques

n

a

commentary,

long

with

eneral

attersuch s

form,exture,

hythm

nd

hrase-structure.

nthe ixtho

nintherms

Major

Level)

nalysis

ecomesn

option

nwhichtudentsre

nstructed,

y

eminar

and

utorial,

n

formal,

otivic

ndharmonic

nalysis

s well

s

simple

oice-

leadingnalysis.

ossibilitiesor he

nalysis

fnon-twelve-note

tonal orks

are

contemplated,

nd ometimesectures

re

given

n

the

heoreticalnd

historical

ackground

o

certain

echniques.

uch

course

rovides

ood

preparation

or

ostgraduate

tudy

n

heory

nd

nalysis.

Whittallrieflyaised numberf otherssues: he ackofadequate

background

aterial

or tudents'

heoretical

nd

analytical

tudy;

he

problems

f

xamining

usicf transitional'

ature,

nd

arly

usic;

nd

he

question

f

whetherhe sort f course

e outlined as too

blatantly

preparation

or

ostgraduate

pecialization.

owever,

he

major

roblem

s

the

relationship

etweenuch

n

analysis

ourse nd theother

spects

f an

undergraduateyllabus. nalysis

annot

e

taught

t

undergraduate

evel

'unlesshewholeourse

f

whicht

forms

art

ecognises

ts alue nd

ccepts

the

remises

nwhicht s

ntroduced'.

armony

nd

ounterpoint

xercises,

for

xample,

houldontainlements

f

trict

ounterpoint

nd

igured

ass o

enable n nteractionith he nalysisourse. heteachingfhistory ight

alsoneed o

change,

ince here

s a

stronguspicion

hat

ndergraduate

history

ourses

re

till

eing

aught

in

ome,

f

ot

ll,

British

nstitutions

which ubstitute

nadequate

echnical

ommentary

or

proper,

istorical

account

f he ocial ontextfmusic

nd

he ife

nd

work f

omposers

nd

interpreters

..

I can see ess and ess

need

for he

old kind

f

music

appreciation

ourses

asquerading

s

history

n

n

ge

when oth he istorical

and

analytical

ranches

f

musicology

xist o

complement

nd

not to

contradictne nother'.ntellectatherhan

motions

ust e

placed

t

the

centre f education.

student's

riticalacultiesanbestberefinednd

sharpenedndegreeourses heremore istoriographicpproachohistory

complements

more echnical

pproach

o

analysis.

n an deal urriculum

there ould e need or

Analysispplied istorically',

here orksentral

to

period

r

opic

'SetWorks')

ould econsideredn he

ight

fhow

hey

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 4:1/2,

1985

185



5/13

JONATHAN

CROSS

have

been

analysedby

critics,

historians

nd theorists.

nly

time

and

staff

availability ightimit hepossibilitiesf uch course.

In

conclusion,

Whittall tated: British cademicmusic

tudy

eeds

nalysis

as a

strong, ssentially

heory-basediscipline,

oncernedwith

fundamental

techniques

s

they

ave

developed

argely

n

ourown

century.

nalysts

eed

to

affirmhat

heir

ubject

s

not

ust

research ool

but fundamental

ducational

element;

nd even when

the results

f their esearch

eem

mostremote

rom

what

pre-research

tudents

might

be

expected

o

enjoy

or

even

understand)

they

should never

forget

hat

their status as

musicians

requires

them

to

contribute

s

positively

s

circumstances

ermit

o that

constant,

oncerned

reshaping

f

pedagogical

rinciples

which s

musical

ducation.The

greatest

danger oday, s I see it, s notthat here s a widespread elief hat nalysis

cannot e

taught;

ut

that ven

hose

who,

n

principle,

cknowledge

hat

t

can

be

taught

re

not

prepared

o

think

hrough

he

mplications

f

llowing

t o be

taught.

Here,

above

all,

s

the

present

ause

for oncern

and the

mmediate,

exciting

hallenge'.

II

Derrick

Puffett

ade

the

following

tatement:

'Mypaperhasthe title On theTeachingofMusicalAnalysis", titlewhich

seems

o

assume hat

nalysis

can" be

taught.

ndeed,

my

first

eaction o

the

general

itle f

this

Colloquium

s

to ask:

"If it

can't

be

taught,

what re we all

doing

here?

Why

hold a

colloquium

on a

topic

so

elusive that

t cannot

be

communicated?" ut

these worries

re

misplaced.

Analysis

unlike,

say,

composition

is a

truly

cademic

subject,

nasmuch

s

it

has no

existence

outside of

an

academic,

or

at least a

pedagogical,

ontext.

The

person

who

analyses

music

for is or

herown

pleasure

oes so for

elf-instruction.

his was

always

rue,

ut t

has become

more

o now hat

nalysis

s

recognised

o

nvolve

not

only

he

study

f

music but

also

the

study

f

analyticalechniques.

uch

techniques whether hoseofSchenker,

choenberg

r

pc-set

heory

are

so

many

killsto

be

learned;

nd if

teaching

s

defined

s

the

"imparting

f

skills",

hen

eaching

as a

necessary

ole

o

play

n the

tudy

f

nalysis.

his s

perhaps

specially

rue

n the

Schenkerian

phere,

whereoral

traditions

so

important.

As

Edward Laufer

has

pointed

out,

although

Schenker,

n his

writings,

lucidates

lassical

works nd

ndeed

the

very

nature

ftonal

music,

he

"nowhere

ays

howto

go

about

making

uch

nalyses.

One

had to

study

with

himor

with

pupil.

t

is

certain

ven

now,

especially

ow,

with

Schenker'

o

wildly

n

the

ir,

that ne

cannot

hope

to

arrive t an

adequate

understanding

f

Schenker'sthoughtunless one has studied withsomeonesomehow nthe ine of

descent. A

study

on one's own

of

...

[Free

Composition]

r of

Salzer's

and

Schachter'sbooks

cannot

replace

personal

nstruction".*

So the

esson

seems to

*

Review

fFree

Composition,TS,

Vol.

3, 1981,

p.

158.

186

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

985



6/13

COLLOQUIUM:

CAN ANALYSIS

BE

TAUGHT?

be:

even

if

certain

ubjects

perhaps

composition?)

annot

be

taught,

nly

learned, nalysismust e taught.

'But fthe

question

s:

"Can

analysis

e

taught

n British

niversities,

iven

the

imitations

f our standard

hree-year

ourses,

he imitations

f students

and

the imitations

f heir

eachers?",

hen think he

nswer

must

e:

hardly.

To takethese

points

eparately:

nyone

who has

taught ndergraduate

usic

in this

ountry

ill

urely

now he

feeling

hat hree

ears

s not

ong nough.

Perhaps

t seems

ongenough

t

the

time,

but afterwards

ne

thinks

f

all

the

interestinghings

ne could

have

done,

given

bit

onger;

nd

the

nteresting

things,

n

my experience,

usually

have to

do

with

analysis.

For all the

breathtaking

dealismof

ArnoldWhittall's

alk,

with

ts vision

of an under-

graduate oursewhere nalysis, istory,ndharmonyndcounterpointre n

correct

alance,

knowofno

course

n

this

ountry, xceptpossibly

is

own,

where uch

balance

s

actually

chieved.

Atanother

niversity,

here

taught

for

manyyears,

nalysis

neverheld

more han he

most

marginal

lace

n the

syllabus,

with

single

inal

aper

where

student

might

e asked

o

nalyse

wo

movements

f

Schumann

ymphony.

n

practice

his

aper

was never

ctually

"taught", except perhaps

n

a tutorial r two

in which

past papers

were

discussed.

The

only

way analysis

tself ould

be

taught

was

surreptitiously,

whether

n

harmony

utorials r under

the coverof "music

history".

f

one

taught

t n

place

of

one orthe

ther,

he tudents

aturally

elt

ggrieved;

nd

f

onearrangedxtra essions hecollegesdidn't iketopayfor hem.Eitherway

one

had an

unsatisfactory

ituation

or

else,

of

course,

one

simply

had

to

acquiesce

and

pretend

hat

nalysis

idn't

exist).

mention

hisbecause t is

part

of

my

own

teaching xperience,

but I

suspect

that

many

from ther

universities ill

have

experienced

he same. Short

of

changing

he

entire

structure

fthe ourse

a

desire

not

universally

hared

y

one's

colleagues

therewas not he

emotest

ossibility

f

eaching

nalysis

n

the

way

utlined

y

Arnold

Whittall,

r

by

Forte-Gilbert

Introduction

o

chenkerian

nalysis]

ome

to that.To broaden he

discussion

gain,

the

teaching

f

analysis ccording

o

"principles",

nd

the

steady,

methodical

workthiswould

nvolve,

would n

manymusicdepartments eana wholesale eductionntheamount f other

subjects

a

proposition

imply

ot

cceptable

o a

largeproportion

fBritish

music cademics.And

whenAmerican ritersuch s

John othgeb

nd David

Beach

set

outtheir ideal

curricula",

esigned

o

prepare

tudents

or dvanced

analysis,

deas

emerge

which

eem

positively

urreal ftransferred

o a British

context.

othgeb,

or

xample,

isualises at

east

ne full

year

f

tudy

f trict

counterpoint

nd

figured

ass,

with

ittle f

ny

reference

o

nversion

heory

r

Romannumerals.

uring

he econd

year,

harmony

an be

introduced,

hiefly

as

an

analytical

oncept.

The

first

tep

would

be to

direct he tudent's

ttention

to certainfeatures f the figured-bassxerciseswith which he is already

familiar.

.

. In this

way

the student s first ntroduced o the

unfolding

f

sonorities;

nly

fterwards the

progression

f

so-unfolded

onorities ddres-

sed.

The

irrelevant

nd nonsensical ndiscriminate

pplication

of Roman

numerals o vertical tructures

s not

allowed

to rear ts

ugly

head,

and the

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

1985

187



7/13

JONATHAN

CROSS

students not

sked

t

the

beginning

f

tudy

omake

ubtle

discrimninations

f

whichhe is incapable".* n principle agreewith verywordofthis; tseems

wholly

dmirable. ut when consider

henature

fmostBritish

music

ourses

-

as

they

re

and

not s I

might

ike hem o

be

-

I

am forced o the

onclusion

that

nalysis,

n

all its

difficulty,

s

most

properly subject

for

postgraduate

work,

r at

eastfor

pecial ptions

mong hird-year

tudents.

'How

can

undergraduates

in

courses ther han

he ideal" ones

of

which

we have

heard so much

-

be

expected

to

understand

he

complexities

f

present-day

nalysis,

omplexities

hichhave

taxed omeof hemost

powerful

minds f

this

entury?

find

t

easy

to

get

students o

read

Schoenberg;

can

interest

hem n

Dahlhaus,

Rudolph

R6ti

nd Hans

Keller;

can

even

get

hem

thinkingboutSchenker.But I do notdeceivemyselfhat here s muchreal

understanding

here. How can

therebe? The

students

imply

do

not have

enough

ime.As for

not

etting

oman

numeral

armony

rear ts

ugly

head",

it s

too atefor

hat:

most

f

them ome o me

talking

f

hord

a,

Ib

and so

on,

though hey

on't

usually

do

so

after he

first eek. How

can

we forestall

his

when

he

damage

has

already

een

done? don't

blame

he chools

though

t

is

noticeable

how

little

preparation

n

analysis

most

university

ntrance

candidateshave

been

given

here,

surely,

s a

place

wherethe

study

of

Set

Works

might

ncourage

more

detailed,

nalytical

pproach

han

ften

eems

to be the

case).

I

blame

the

pigeonhole

mentality

nforced n

children f 16 to

18bythepressuref tudyingor oomany xams. t s the amementalityhat

leads them o

think f

musicalforms

s so

many

moulds

nto

which

music

s

poured

and

this n a

country

whichhas

neverhad a

Formenlehre

radition ).

Another

roblem

s

lack of

ear-training.

ut the

biggest

bstacle

where he

teaching

f

analysis

s

concerned

s

simple

ack of

knowledge.

How can

one

teach

voice-leading

echniques

o

students

who know

very

ittle

music,

who

perhaps

know

nly

ne

Beethoven

tring uartet,

r no

more han

half

dozen

of

his

piano

sonatas?

urely

his s

to

get

hings

he

wrongway

round.

t's

not

wish

to

enforce

senseof

the

normative a

case of

upplying

ew

moulds

o

replace

the

old

-

that

makes

me

want

students o

get

to

know

more

music.

Perhaps t ssimply convictionhat

etting

oknow

music,

ven

uperficially,

is as

important

s

analysing

t.

But

also I think

hat

nalytical

udgements,

however

igorously

hey

may

be

argued,

re

ikely

o

come

out

wrong

f

hey

re

not

upported y

wide

knowledge.

very

nalyst

must

be an

historians

well.

'This

brings

me to

the

hird

nd

thorniestf

my

hree

oints:

he

ompetence

of

our

university

eachers.

hope

offend o

one f

suggest

hat

he

omplexity

of

nalysis

s

a

discipline

and

also

our

growing

wareness,

n

this ide

of he

Atlantic,

f

that

omplexity

finds

ewer nd

fewer

eachers

who

are able to

cope

with

t. Thisis

not uch

a

great

roblem

where

ndergraduate

eaching

s

concerned, hough fby someaccidentJohnRothgeb's"ideal curriculum"

were

mposed

on

every

niversity

epartment

vernight

e

might

ll have to

brush

up

onour

species

ounterpoint.

ut t

s

a

real and

growing

roblem

n

the

supervision

f

postgraduate

tudents.

Whatdoesa

department

owhen

t

*

'Schenkerian

heory:

ts

mplications

or he

Undergraduate urriculum',

TS,

Vol.

3, 1981,

p.

149.

188

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

1985



8/13

COLLOQUIUM:

CAN

ANALYSIS

BE

TAUGHT?

receives an

application

from

someone

who

wants

to

study

an

advanced

analytical r theoretical opic?Not everydepartment as a fullypaid-up

Schenkerian

n

ts

taff,

n which

ase

somebody

s bound

to

suffer,

sually

he

student.What

do we

do with uch candidates?

We

can't send

them ll

to the

United

tates.

'I

hope

I have

painted

sufficientlyepressing

icture

or

veryone

o be

feeling

bit

worried.

or

only

by

recognising

he eriousness

f he

problem

the fact hat

nalysis,

lthough

t can be

taught,

ften s

not

taught

or

else

s

taught nadequately)

can we

begin

to

move towards

he situation

where

analysis

lays

healthy

nd

significantart

n

undergraduate

ourses

hrough-

out the

country.

Those of

us

who

are

university

eachers

have a

clear

responsibilityere:wemust ll dowhatwecan,within ur owndepartments,

to

bring

boutthe

enlightened,

integrated" ype

f

music

ourse

hatArnold

Whittall

as described.

We

can also

help

tocreate he

limate

or

uch

change

by eeing

o

t

that

ur

Faculty

ibraries

ake he

major

nalytical

nd theoretical

journals,

nd that

urstudents

ead

them.)

Analysis

as been

the

poor

relation

of

music

history

or

too

long.

If

every nalyst

must be a

historian,

istory

without

nalysis

s

hollow,

a

subject

for

Reader's

Digest

rather

han

for

a

university

ducation.

hope

that

n thediscussion

erewe

may

onsider

what

the

specific

ontent f

an

analysis

ourse

should

be; for,

f we are to have

analysis

ourses,

we mustbe

clear that

t is

analysis

we are

teaching

nd

not

musichistoryndisguise.Then, and only hen,willwe be able to affordhe

luxury

f

teaching nalytical principles"

nd

"techniques".

'In

the

meantime,

n "ad hoc"

method

of

teaching

nalysis

need

not

necessarily

e

an

unintelligent

ne. We can select

pieces

thatwill lead

to a

general

broadening

of the student's

knowledge,

so

far as

repertoire

s

concerned,

s

well

as

being

nalytically

nteresting:

e all have

our favourite

pieces

for

uch

purposes

one of

mine

s the

MozartG minor

Quintet

I

find

that

relatively

ew

undergraduates

now

the

Mozart

quintets),

work

which

challenges

he student's

ssumptions

n almost

very

direction.

eethoven's

piano

variationsre lso

good

teaching

material.

makeno

apology

or

hoosing

wholepiecesrather hanfragments,ndmasterpiecest that.What nalysis t

this evel s

designed

o

develop

s the tudent's

owers

f

observation,

otthe

mastery

f

ny

given nalytical echnique.

Analytical

echniques

an be

taught,

but

usually

hrough

he

medium

of

harmony

nd

counterpoint:

ne

can

say

quite

lot bout

Schenker,

ithout ven

mentioning

is

name,

while

orrecting

a

piece

of

pastiche

Mozart.

f this s

analysis

without

ears,

t least

t is not

analysis

without

music. nterestedtudents an

always

ead

up

on Schenker

n

their wntime

or

go

on to do a

postgraduate

ourse).

'The

responsibility

hat

we,

as

teachers,

ave to our students

quite apart

from ur

responsibility

o

Higher

Education

n

general

nd to

analysis

is to

keep

abreast

withthe

development

of

analysis

as a

subject (no

small

demand)

and

constantly

to review

our

teaching

in the

light

of

that

development. Any

teacher,

after few

years,

findshim- or herself

etting

tale,

always falling

back

on the same

examples.

Analysis

s the

perfect

ntidote

tothis. It is a

painful

and

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

1985

189



9/13

JONATHAN

CROSS

difficult

usiness,

keepingup

witha

complex,rapidly

growing

ubject

and

seeing ne's most herishedllusions allingway;but t ssomething eshould

all

go

through

or he ake

ofour

tudents,

ho

rely

n us for

uidance.

For

our

own

sakes,

oo;

for nce

we

stop eaching

urselveswe areno

onger apable

of

teaching

nybody.

That is

why

analysis

if

you

will

pardon

the

double

negative

cannot

not e

taught'.

III

Richmond

rowne

ave

n account fthe

position

f

theory

nd

analysis

n

the

USA

today.

Theviewof henature f nalysis, ow t shouldbetaughtnd how trelates

to the

teaching

f

performance

nd

history

as

changed

adically

ver he ast

quarter-century.

wenty-five ears

ago

there

was no serious

training

f

theorists:

oday's

theorists

tudied as

composers

and

taught

themselves

analysis.

lowly

he

discipline

merged

more

learly

nder

he

guidance

f

uch

leaders s AllenForte.

The

typical ndergraduate

ourse

t an American choolofmusic

astsfour

years.

A

large

number f

students

pend

a furtherwo

years tudying

or

master's

egree

nd

many

f these

proceed

o doctorates.

hus,

there s more

time available than n Britain.

The

standard

f

training

f students t

pre-

undergraduateevel selementary,othefirst woyears f course re devoted

to

rudiments

not,

n

any

ense,

analysis'.

The nature

f

undergraduate

heory rogrammes

n American niversitiess

not set

by

theorists;

he

goals

of

the

course

re aid

down

by

the school.

Any

theory

ourse annot

reach he unwrittenaws'

of

what s and s not elevant o

themain imsof

the chool. Yet for

eachers

f

theory

n a

large

music chool

there s

little nteraction ith eachers

f

other

isciplines.Opportunities,

or

example,

or theoristo

teach

n

analytical ractice

n

relation

o

performance

are seldom

provided.

The USA

produces

large

number

f

up-to-date nalytical

extbooks f

a

highstandard.The best teachers n the bestschools do not use textbooks,

according

o

Browne,

lthough

ood

textbooks re a

useful

eaching

id. He

went

n: 'A

student s 90% what

he's

going

o be when

you get

him and 92%

whathe's

going

obe when

you're

hrough

ith im

and that

% is

a

lot f

you

do it

right'.

The aim of

teaching nalysis

o most

students s

not

to

produce

analysts

s

such but to

enable students o

change

their

outlook on

their

performances,

heir

eaching

f

performance

r their

valuation

f

performan-

ces

in

theform

fcriticism.

Browne

xpressed

is

doubts

thatwhat

s

generally

lassed

as

ear-training,

that s, the isolated work on intervals nd patterns,s of anyvalue at all.

However,

he did affirm is belief n musicas an auralart. The score s an

inadequateway

of

notating

musical

ctivity,

nd the

studentmustbe

weaned

away

from

he score to

perform

nalysis urally.

n the courses hat

Browne

teaches,

ven n

twentieth-centurynalysis

ourses,

hort

ieces

are

initially

190

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 4:1/2,

1985



10/13

COLLOQUIUM:

CAN ANALYSIS BE TAUGHT?

addressed

urally

nd

the student s

expected

o define he

processesbeing

heard. Such elements s pitchesand intervals re never discussed. If the

student

begins

mmediately

ith

the

score,

he or she receives

distorted

image

of the

music

as,

for the most

part, pitch-interval

nformations

strikingly

bvious.

At the ime fthe

formationfthe

Society

orMusic

Theory,

when

many

n

the

USA

were

trying

o set

the

climatefor

theory

o

emerge

s a

separate

discipline,

rowne

ublished paper,

whose itle e

adopted

s his

concluding

remark

ere:

If we're all

theorists,

hy

ren'twe

all Theorists?'

To

this

he

provided

he

Cageian

reply:

If

you

want

to

be

a

Theorist,

o

ahead:

I'm not

going

o

stop

you '

IV

During

he

discussion

which

ollowed

number f

key

ssuesweredebated.

1: Communication

Jean-Jacques

attiez

University

f

Montreal)

aised

he

problem

f ommuni-

cating

certain

esoteric' kinds

of

analysis. Analyses

uch as his

own were

difficulto understand

hen

poken

oa class

or

conference

nd

yet

were

quallydifficult o read. He wondered whetherProfessorForte shared similar

difficulties.

llen orte

Yale)

replied

hat t

was a matter f

etting

he

nalysis

in

some

meaningful

ay.

He

questioned

heextent o

which

graphic

otation

for

chenkerian

nalyses

r

pitch-class

et nomenclature

ere

totally

ccurate

or sufficient

n themselves ut

acknowledged

herewas

room or

evelopment.

From he

Chair,

ArnoldWhittall

King's College

London)

pointed

ut

that,

n

a

class,

communication etween

teacherand students

n

the basis

of their

musical

understanding

as

fundamentally

ural;

any

other

approach

was

always econdary.

2:

'Techniques'

ersus

Intuition'

A

first-yearndergraduateCambridge)

utlined he

analysis

ourse

he had

followed.He

appreciated einggiven

he

opportunitynitially

o write

bout,

play

and discuss

music,

before

ny

formal

echniques

were

mposed

upon

it.

The Chair tated hat

ne shouldnotassumethat

herewas

a

conflict etween

the intuitive nd technical

pproaches

to music: the

two elements om-

plemented

ne another.

A number

f

peakers

xpressed

oncern hat tudents

might

ail o be able to

apply

certain

nalytical

rinciples

utside he

specific

works heyhadbeenstudying. he Chairreiteratedhat hecentral ssue was

one of a balance between

rigorousness

nd

comprehensiveness,

etween

strictness nd

generality.

tudents

were

always

free to

accept

or

reject

techniques:

what was

obligatory

as

a

knowledge

f what was involved n

making

ucha decision.

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 4:1/2,

1985 191



11/13

JONATHAN

CROSS

3: TheRoleofHarmonyndCounterpoint

Robert ascall

(University

f

Nottingham)

tated hat he

eaching

f

harmony

and

counterpoint

n

universities as an outdated

ractice.

ts

only

ustification

was

that herewere

eachers

xperienced

n

teaching

twho

gained nsights

nto

music

hrough eaching

t

and who were ble to communicate

hose

nsights

o

students.

However,

he believed

t

to

be a more

mpoverished ay

of

finding

insights

ntothe

masterpieces

f musicthan

nalysis.

errick

uffett

Univer-

sity

f

Cambridge) greed

hat

omposition

nd

analysis

were

ntirely

ifferent

activities,

nd that

oingpastiche

omposition

ould

not

get

ne to theheart

f

a composer' s well s analysis ould;buthe nsisted hatnothingouldreplace

the

xperience

f

pushing

otes

round n

paper'.

Pascall

said that

harmony

nd

counterpoint

ere irst

ntroducedn

England

as a

means of

teaching

omposition. omposition,

e

felt,

hould be

taught

structurally.

ore

recently, armony

nd

counterpoint

ad become

tylistic-

ally

oriented nd had been used to

gain insights

nto

history.

He not

only

abhorred he

synthetic

ature f such an exercise

ut felt

hat t

provided

no

concept

f

ong-term

tructuralssues.

Nattiez

tated hat n

ntuitive

bility

o

write

ood stylistic astiche

was

very

ifferentrom n

explicit

heoreticalnd

analytical

nderstanding

f

how the music

worked.

Pascall

suggested

hat

analysiswas practised ythinkingwhereasharmonynd counterpoint ere

practised

yguessing.

ulian

Rushton

University

f

Leeds)

mentioned

hat,

t

his

university,

pecies

counterpoint

as

taught

o enable

students o

'push

notes roundon

paper'

without

nterference

y

the

style

f

composers

whose

quality

he tudents ould

never

hope

to

match.

4:

The

Teaching

f

Music

n

Schools

A

number f

peakers

xpressed

heview hat herewas

ittle

oint

n

changing

undergraduate

urricula o

take

more ccount f

nalysis

nless he

way

music

is

taught

nschools ouldalso be re-examined.ebastian orbes

University

f

Surrey),

who had

been

responsible

or

evising

ertain

A-level

pre-matricula-

tion]

music

yllabuses,

aid he

was

disturbed

y

many spects

fmusic

eaching

in

secondary

chools.The

amount

ftime

vailable o devote

o

any

one

aspect

of

the

syllabus

was

extremely

imited nd made

it

difficult o

implement

changes.

tudentswere

narrowly

ather han

broadly

rained,

working

owards

specific

killsor

examination

rades.

Also

the

problem

f

choices

at

A

level

meant

that

candidates for

university

ntrance

might

be

unable

even to

harmonize

single

note.

To overcome

his

difficulty,

ttempts

ad been made

to ntroduceomeconcept fharmonicnalysis tA level.

A

polytechnic

ecturer

uggested

hat

dvances

n

the

teaching

f

creative

music in schools

were

deologically pposed

to

taking onceptual

hinking

about

music

eriously.

enny

ughes

Leeds), however,

id not

see thetwoas

being necessarily otally

ivorced.

Michael Russ

(Ulster

Polytechnic)

igh-

192

MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

1985



12/13

COLLOQUIUM:

CAN

ANALYSIS

BE

TAUGHT?

lighted

he

increasing

ivision between

cademic

musicians

nd academic

educationalists. e suggested hat nalysts houlddo moreto attract chool

teachers

o their niversitiesor in-service'

raining

ourses.

5:

Analysis

nd

Performance

Pascall

urveyed

he

growing

rend ver he ast

uarter-century

or

erformers

to attend niversitiesather hanmusic

olleges.

He

felt he

universitiesad a

special

role

to

play,

not

only

n thematter f

performanceractice,

utalso in

encouraging erformers

o

study nalysis

o

provide nsights

nto

the inner

substance nd

significance

fmusic'.The Chair

uggested

hat

difficultyay

n

transformingnalytical nsights

nto an actual

performance. olin

Beeson

(Royal

Northern

ollege

of

Music)

commented hatthe conservatoiresad

recently

een

tailoring

heir ourses

o

take

more

ccount

f cademic ontent.

A

student

erformer

eeded to be able to think bout music

ntelligently

or

himself. oderickwanston

Royal

College

of

Music)

pointed

utan irreconcil-

able division etween

he

nalyst's

ationalisticiew

ofhow musicfunctioned

and

the

performer's

nstinctive

pproach.

6:

Analysis

nd

Experience

Eric Clarke

City

University)

aid that tudents

ad

tobe

shown hat n

analysis

couldnotreproduceheir xperiencef themusic, hat ooking ta Schenker

graph

was different

rom

ctually

istening

o

a

piece.

However,

herewas

a

positive elationship

etween

he wo: student's

xperience

f hemusic ould

be

changedby analysing

t

or

by studying

n

analysis

f

t.

David

Fanning

(University

f

Manchester)

poke

ofthe

rreconcilability

etween

nalysis

nd

experience

hen hemusical vidence ad been lanted

owards hedemonstra-

tionof a

particular heory.

he Chairnotedthat heteacher ad

to

approach

this

ssue

n

themost

positive pirit.

V

At

the nd of he

discussion,

ans Kellermade

series f

points

which erved

o

recapitulate

omeofthe

mportant

ssuesraised

during

he

olloquium.

'The

question

whether

analysis]

s teachable

r

not

depends

obviously

n

two

extreme ariables:

one,

the

teacher;

wo,

the

student. 've come

across

many

ituations,

specially

owthat teach

nstitutionally,

here thas

proved

not

teachablebecause one of thosetwo

variables,

r

both of

them,

werenot

suitable or he

purpose.

...

'Unfortunately,

he

contemporary

usic

tudent,

specially

he

ontempor-

ary nstrumentalist,

oes notknow

ny

music.As soon as

you

don'tknow

nymusic,

you

can't be

taught

nalysis.

Why

not? Because the

only

music that

exists smusicthat s

part

f

your

profound

musical

xperience.

ou can

only

analyse

music hat

xists,

ence

you

can

only nalyse

music hat s

part

f

your

profound

musical

experience.

...

MUSIC

ANALYSIS 4:1/2,

1985 193



13/13

JONATHAN

CROSS

'The

question

of class

teaching

s,

in

my

opinion,

to

be

responded

to

negativelyecause, ince ne hasto teach nalysisn terms f he tudent's wn

instinctive

nsight

nto

piece

of

music,

t

follows

nevitably

hat

lass

teaching

of

nalysis

s

impossible.

'I

would

..

like o

add

that

ou

hould

not,

please,

onfuse

escription

ith

analysis,

specially

o far s the elements f sonata

form re

concerned.

his

morning

vinced his

ype

fconfusion'.

194 MUSIC

ANALYSIS

4:1/2,

1985

colloquium - can analysis be taught question

Documents