In this chapter, our focus is to evaluate the capabilities of the eclectic method and its sensitivity to the levels of musical significance. We continue our discussion of the importance of maintaining openness to achieve philosophical understanding. The “eclectic method must be penetrable; it must allow any level of musical significance to pass through or penetrate its questioning structure and add to the listener/analyst’s database” (page 179). It is important to eliminate prejudice and past influences and remain open to new meanings. There are three general approaches to analysis discussed in this book: phenomenological, conventional and Hermeneutic. These three categories must be allowed to function independently in order for a distinction between explanation, description and interpretation to be made. We must be permitted to ask questions about the work and also to answer questions about the work.
The eclectic method is comprised of ten steps: historical, open-listening, musical syntax, sound-in-time, musical representation, human feelings, onto-historical world of the composer, another open-listening, performance and meta-critique of the entire analysis. The purpose of step one is to place the work in its historical setting as well as examining the composer’s total oeuvre. Step two aims to promote openness, allowing the listener to hear the work from an entirely unbiased viewpoint. In this step, one should suspend any analysis of the work. In step three, the listener/analyst brings traditional musical syntax to the table. In this step, one suspends any phenomenological or hermeneutic data and focus on conventional Roman Numeral analysis. In step four, a “phenomenological description of the sound-in-time is performed. This shifts the previous, more traditional Roman Numeral analysis to one that is more literal. Step five beings the first level of referential meaning by providing an analysis of the work’s text. Step six discusses the work’s depiction of human emotion. This clarifies the concept of “virtual feeling” and demonstrates how music converts the actual into the virtual. Step seven is the final level of referential meaning. In this step, we employ hermeneutic analysis in order to explore the onto-historical world of the composer. Step eight returns to step two, an open-listening of the work. This time, we approach the open-listening with a more informed ear, using the “six strata of musical significance—factual history, syntax, sound-in-time, representation, virtual feelings, and onto-historical world” independently from one another (page 185). The six are brought together to further our experience of the vast array of the levels of musical significance. Step nine is a performance of the work, with a performance guide provided. The purpose of this step is for the listener/analyst to better understand the work in making interpretive decision in preparation for the performance. Suggestions to better the technical and musical aspects of the work are presented in the performance guide. Step ten is a meta-critique of all the steps. The focus is the reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis through the eclectic method.
As everything finally comes together, I can’t help but wonder if this is all just too much. Personally, I dislike in depth analysis. I do enjoy making informed decisions, but there is something about applying one’s own, natural intuition to a work. It makes it unique, because everyone is so inherently different. Reading about the history of the composer is helpful, and placing the work in its historical period is necessary. But all the same, we are in our own time period now. Why can’t we apply what we feel now, in the present day, to the piece, regardless of its historical style?
Knowing when a specific note, chord or scale is foreign to the key signature is particularly beautiful when acknowledged. There is a reason (hopefully) why a composer placed a certain dissonance or adds elements that are out of character to his work. But identifying every key change and every leading voice simply strips away the magic for me. Yes, it is informative. But necessary? I’m not sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment