Analyzing Compositions

For the more experienced here, how do you guys go about analyzing a piece of music? What do you look for? How do you record your findings? How do you apply your findings? Also feel free to post any of your own analysises.

Ouch!

This is tons hard and takes big practice really.

It depends on what piece you're analysing.

If it's a fugue by Bach, you watch for certain things. the subject, countersubject, exposition, episodes, etc.

If it's a Beethoven sonata, you watch exposition, the 2 themes, the intro (if any), and harmonic analysis.

If it's something else you check the form, then themes, etc.

As you move to the 20th century, things start to go around pitches, the golden ratio, serialism, or twelve tones, or various other stuff.

If you want, do a search on a work I wrote, and I did post it here, by the name "exeliksis". There is also a pdf with the analysis of the work on the thread. Might help you a bit. (not that it's perfect, but it's something to start)

I've been studying Schoenberg's first quartet for some time now and here's what I've been doing - I've been analysing all the myriad sections harmonically, but I've also been looking at what he's been doing contrapuntally because pretty much the entire piece is contrapuntal except for the B section in the "slow movement". And maybe even most importantly, I've been analysing the piece structurally - how does Schoenberg change and develop his theme, how does he achieve such an economy of material, how are the movements linked, how are ideas linked etc. Whenever I stumble upon something, I circle it on the score, make a note of it in my notebook and try and understand why and how he's doing it. Then later, if I write something, I'll try and apply this new knowledge and I think it's now being absorbed into my musical vocabulary so to speak.

Definitely pay attention to form - once you get to the Romantic era and later, look for motivic material in the background, because that's where the music gets much of its momentum.

Lately I've been studying orchestration a lot more, and paying a lot of attention to things like doubling, balance, woodwind part distribution, and various coloristic effects. Often the best way to do this is to try and reduce an orchestral score to a short score of 4 staves or so, where you can see the part-writing and doubling more clearly.

Write a detailed composition brief before you start. Check with that.

I've also studied a great deal of musical theory and have analyzed many, many pieces. One of the most useful things I learned was to keep everything in ratio to the piece's length. My professor always said "if you're analyzing a 3 minute piece, then you can get down to the micro level, but if you're analyzing a 20 minute piece you need to take a few steps back."

This is so true! For my last graduate theory course I took on Ravel's Daphnis et Chlo

love Daphnis and Chloe, post that paper if you can!

The way I analyze music is simple. I listen to it, and if something jumps out at me that I like, I sometimes try to use some fragment of it, whether it be a melodic fragment, chord, rhythm, etc, in my improvisation and then "absorb" that into my style. I never try to ask "why" the composer did anything. The fact that I enjoyed whatever I intuitively analyzed is enough of a "why" to use that device, for me.

Ditto for me Derek.

I try and find things I like and then rip them apart until they are a part of me.

Derek and Tumababa: have you ever considered analyzing music that you don't enjoy on a personal level; perhaps a style of music that you're not too familiar with so you can branch out some? You might find that you can grow to enjoy different styles of music once you understand how it is constructed and performed.

Also, to never ask why a composer does something seems like you're missing some potentially helpful info. For example, when I'm looking at a piece of music I might read up on the composer and find out what was happening in the composer's life. This can also be branched out into what is going on in the world when this piece was written. A perfect example is how cubism took off in the visual art world (with Picasso) and Stravinsky took this effect and made "cubes" of sound. You can learn a great deal from the person's life and lives around the composer at the time (and often slightly before and after) the piece was written. To simply sit back, never ponder "why" and just pick out parts that suit your fancy seems to only hit the very tip of the iceberg.

This is why many universities structure their humanities curriculum to look at both historical and artistic (both visually and musically) together. It gives a fuller, more rounded understanding of what happened, when it happened and *why* it happened.

Try taking some steps back and look at the wider, more interesting and more encompassing picture.

Steve, I’ll look for the paper when I get home tonight and try and post it. Thanks for the interest!

Well Nathan... I'm in my fourth year of university taking a bunch of theory electives so I get plenty of analysis of music I'm not into. Thanks for the advice though.

I think that sometimes people get too engrossed in looking at little dots on lines rather then listening to the score itself, I certainly do. Really it all depends on why you're analysing it. If it's because you're genuinely interested then you're far more likely to an in depth analysis then if some eccentric professor wants you to write an essay on it. In these instances I scour Grove looking for anything to give me a handle and go from there.

At my university there's a huge amount of "you should write with original ideas" but I'm a little cynical to that as lets face it regardless of what I write the dots remain the same and thus so does the piece. All that changes is that sometimes I like/dislike the piece a little more/less.

If you're talking about socio-historical analysis then it generally merits a little research into the historical climate eg last year I wrote a small essay on Friedenstag by Richard Strauss, not one of his most well known operas but was written during Nazi dominance so I could analyse techniques which he may/may not have used or been influenced by the Nazis, these are the essays I find most interesting... That is all

I think that sometimes people get too engroced [sic] in looking at little dots on lines rather then listening to the score itself, I certainly do

True, and at the same time, attentive listening with a critical ear is perfectly valid analysis...depending on the purpose. Don't hand in your doctoral dissertation based on this...

...lets face it regardless of what I write the dots remain the same and thus so does the piece.

:huh:

I'm not touching that one...