Music analysis can model composition, performance, and/or perception. Further, it may describe what composers, performers, and listeners do or prescribe what composers, performers, and listeners could/should do. Compositional and performative processes are not the same as perceptual experience.
Reading aloud the poem in example 1, one cannot help but laugh as the poet compares her lover to the oddest assortment of modern icons such as Slinkys and Muzak. Even when the tone of the poem changes in the final two lines, when we learn that all of the seeming insults thus far are instead a way of praising the poet’s beloved, she chooses to call her partner a Twinkie, evoking not only humor but also nostalgia and perhaps calling into question the sexual orientation of both poet and lover. Without any knowledge about the poet, her process, or her intentions, we can enjoy this work, analyze it, and thoroughly appreciate it.
My honeybunch’s peepers are nothing like neon. Today’s spe-
cial at Red Lobster is redder than her kisser. If Liquid Paper is
white, her racks are institutional beige. If her mop were Slinkys,
dishwater Slinkys would grow on her noggin. I have seen table-
cloths in Shakey’s Pizza Parlors, red and white, but no such pic-
nic colors do I see in her mug. And in some minty-fresh mouth-
washes there is more sweetness than in the garlic breeze my
main squeeze wheezes. I love to hear her rap, yet I’m aware that
Muzak has a hipper beat. I don’t know any Marilyn Monroes.
My ball and chain is plain from head to toe. And yet, by gosh,
my scrumptious Twinkie has as much sex appeal for me as any
lanky model or platinum movie idol who’s hyped beyond belief.
Example 1. Harryette Mullen, “Dim Lady” from Sleeping With the Dictionary (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2002).
Because the poet is alive and has written and spoken about her process and intentions, we can choose to use this information to enrich our reading of the poem. We learn that, as some may have already detected, this poem is directly inspired by a Shakespeare sonnet (#130), sometimes called “Dark Lady,” that also strangely seems to put down the poet’s lover until the very end. Further, Mullen chooses to parody a Shakespeare work that itself is a parody of love sonnet conventions of his day. There are layers of meaning that can broaden our understanding of both poems. But none of this knowledge is necessary to appreciate the poem. And often we do not have access to the poet’s process and intentions such as with Shakespeare’s sonnet. We do not know specifically how or why he wrote this piece. And yet we can enjoy it. And, no artist is fully aware of her intents. The subconscious is a powerful creative force and even the artist herself cannot access the entire intended meaning. In parodying the sonnet form, why did Mullen change the usual 14 lines to 12? Why not 13 or 15? Why did she change the expected rhyme scheme in the specific way that she did? There are an infinite number of ways to parody the sonnet. She wrote in specific directions of which she is surely conscious of only some.
Composers and performers, like all artists, are always searching for inspiration and techniques that can facilitate the process of creating a work of art. Although these inspirations and techniques are interesting to study, they are not always discernable during a listener’s engagement with a work, even after a work has become familiar through repeated listenings. What we hear in a performance of a piece is the result of all of the composer’s and performer’s decisions. Yet, many of those decisions might have little to no direct impact on the listener’s perceptions. Once performed, the composer’s score becomes a sound-object that escapes the control of its creator. The work then exists purely in the realm of performance and perception. Thus, we might choose to analyze a piece of music in order to discover the methods or limitations imposed during the compositional and/or performative process, but we cannot assume that every method or limitation is of equal importance in the final sound-product.
Music analysis is often defined as the study of musical structure. But, as we have seen, there is not simply one structure to any piece of music. The composer’s structure is not necessarily the same as the performer’s or the listener’s. A performer may express a structure that does not match a composer’s intent; a listener may hear a structure that does not match either of these. And, much of the complexity of musical structure is well beyond the conscious mind of any of these musical actors. Thus, music analysis can be about any one (or some combination) of these actors. Although much of the history of music analysis shows a focus on composition, performance and perception are equally important and worthy subjects. Defining a goal of music analysis thus requires an understanding of the subject. Is this analysis about composition, performance, or perception (or the interaction between two or all of these)?
Defining the goal of an analysis also depends on whether the analysis aims to describe what has happened or to prescribe what could happen. That is, much analysis seeks to describe how a composer composed, a composer’s or performer’s style, how a listener perceives a piece, and so on. In these cases, the analysis tries to capture the “natural” process of composing, performing, or listening. On the other hand, music analysis might suggest possible paths for composition, performance, or perception. For example, a performer might write an analysis of a work, offering at least one potentially successful interpretation. This is not a description of a performance that has already happened but is advice for future performances. Similarly, an analysis might offer different ways of hearing a piece that differ from a “natural” listening. Thus, an analysis will be either descriptive or prescriptive (or possibly both).
The subject of music analysis (composition, performance, or perception) and whether it is descriptive or prescriptive lead to six potential goals of music analysis (fig. 1). A very common goal of music analysis is describing composition. This type of music analysis includes detailing a composer’s process perhaps through sketch studies, letters, and interviews as well as quantifying a composer’s style (or the style of a group of composers or even an entire era). Less common in published analyses, but very common in private lessons, are prescriptive analyses of composition. Such analyses present possibilities for how to continue or complete a piece. Similarly, analyses of performance might be descriptive, quantifying a performer’s process or style, or prescriptive, offering new ways of interpreting. The final two types of analysis are about perception, either describing what happens perceptually, cognitively, and emotionally or prescribing different hearings. The six chapters that follow capture all of the goals in figure 1. Even though a thorough study of each is not likely in a single semester, reading through all of them is suggested in order to more fully appreciate the potential scope of music analysis and how it might help us understand music.
| Descriptive | Prescriptive | |
| Composition | Compositional style
Compositional process |
Suggestions for process |
| Performance | Performative style
Performative process |
Suggestions for interpretation |
| Perception | Perceptual/cognitive processes
Emotional experiences |
Suggestions for listening |
Figure 1. The six goals of music analysis, deriving from whether the analysis is about composition, performance, or perception and whether it is descriptive or prescriptive.
A New Approach to Music Theory 