And if performance is an effective means of making analytical claims, then it should likewise be an effective means of critiquing them. 2 If we accept Lewin’s position that the goal of analysis is “to hear the piece better,” then the medium of sound is surely the most direct way of communicating analytical insights. Though Lewin goes on to acknowledge that “verbal analyses, while inevitably partial and distorted, are very useful,” his point is well worth considering. Hence, the only complete, faithful, and properly presented analyses of a piece are. , and to arrange his presentation in a way that will stimulate the musical imagination of his audience. The task of the analyst is “merely” to point out things in the piece that strike him as characteristic and important. , its goal is simply to hear the piece better, both in detail and in the large. Whatever the use to which analysis is put. One of the more eloquent arguments in favor of this view was put forth nearly half a century ago by David Lewin: Although much of the discussion has focused on ways in which analysis can inform performance, it has also been suggested that the act of performance itself can serve as a form of analysis. The relationship between performance and analysis is an important topic in music theory today. Whereas Bantock and Respighi adhere to the bipartite form of Bach’s setting, albeit with subtle and compelling modifications by Respighi, Stokowski reveals a latent tripartite form by omitting the repeat of the opening A section, he proposes a minor-mode B section followed by a modified recapitulation. These three transcribers also illuminate different aspects of the work’s form. Stokowski casts Bach’s contrapuntal setting as an ornamentation of Nicolai’s original chorale melody, which he regards as the work’s centerpiece Bantock treats the chorale melody as merely a foundation upon which to build a new musical edifice, adding his own newly composed counterpoint to Bach’s setting and Respighi undertakes a more holistic reading of the work, acknowledging both Nicolai’s and Bach’s contributions while focusing on Bach’s setting as a whole. To illustrate, the paper considers transcriptions of Bach’s chorale “ Wachet auf” by Leopold Stokowski, Sir Granville Bantock, and Ottorino Respighi, and demonstrates that these translations represent three very different readings and interpretations of Bach’s text which collectively shed light on the work’s meaning.Įach transcription proposes a different reading of the relationship between Nicolai’s tune and Bach’s setting. This paper argues that the act of transcribing a musical text for a different group of instruments also constitutes a “reading,” and that both processes of translation will inevitably shed light on certain features of a work while obscuring others. Many scholars have argued that the act of performance, as a “reading” of a musical text, can serve as a form of analysis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |