Academic discussions on music from all aspects have existed since ancient times. Aristides Kuntillian in ancient Greece (about 2nd ~ 3rd century) tried to divide music into three parts: theory, technology and performance. If we really want to study music in different categories and systematize it, then musicology will be formed. From the second half of19th century, the Musicology Yearbook compiled by F. Klussander in 1863 is generally regarded as the beginning of modern western musicology. In the preface of Volume 1, Chruzander emphasized that music research should have the same level of accuracy and rigor as natural science and humanities.
1885, Austrian musicologist g Adler published his paper "the field, method and goal of musicology", which divided various categories belonging to musicology into two major departments. The first department is historical musicology, including the general history of music and various professional histories; The second part is systematic musicology, including the principles that can be applied to different fields of music, such as the principles of studying harmony, rhythm and melody, music aesthetics and music psychology, music pedagogy and teaching methods, and the comparative study of music ethnology and folklore. In addition, the auxiliary disciplines of these two departments are listed, such as philology, biography, history, literature history, pantomime and dance history of the history department. Acoustics, physiology, logic, etc. His classification became the basic basis for the classification of German-Austrian systematic musicology in the future.
Up to now, there are many systems of musicology, among which H. Riemann divides musicology into five departments in Introduction to Musicology, namely, acoustic physics, acoustic psychology, musical aesthetics, musical theory and musical history research (comparative musicology). The characteristic of Riemann system is that it emphasizes music history and music theory, and holds that music aesthetics is a speculative subject in theory, while music theory is actually closer to applied music aesthetics. H j mozer (1889 ~1967) classified musicology in four aspects, namely: ① philosophical musicology, that is, musical aesthetics. ② Natural science musicology, including acoustics, acoustics physiology, acoustics psychology and music technology. ③ Folk musicology, including comparative musicology and musical instruments. ④ Musicology of spiritual science, that is, the history of western music. As for the narrow sense of music theory, it is classified as practice theory, which is juxtaposed with the above items. Mozer's system is characterized by linking musicology with general art and paying attention to music history.
Since World War II, the most popular system in the West is H.-H. Derlager (1909 ~ 1968). The classification he proposed in 1955 is: ① Music history, including notation, musical instruments, etc. ② Systematic musicology, including music acoustics, music physiology, music psychology, music aesthetics, music philosophy, etc. ③ Ethnology and Folklore of Music; ④ Sociology of music; ⑤ Applied musicology, including music pedagogy, music therapy, music criticism and music technology. In addition, the American Musicians Association once defined the object of musicology as the study of physiological, psychological, aesthetic and cultural phenomena in 1955, and considered the classification method according to this principle. Because of the different emphases, the classification methods of musicology are different.
Edit this paragraph | Go back to the first 2. The specific disciplines of musicology can be systematically divided into:
Music Aesthetics Music Sociology Music Psychology Music Ethnology Comparison Musicology Music Education Music Therapy Music History Music Archaeology Music Morphology Law Music Acoustics Music Creation Music Performance Music Appreciation Music Review
Edit this paragraph | Go back to the first 3. Music Analysis Before commenting on various contemporary western music analysis theories, it is necessary for us to make a comprehensive investigation on the nature and historical development of music analysis. The problems involved are the most critical problems in the field of music analysis, which exist in the exploration of all music analysis theories and methods. The answers to these questions are far from clear and definite. As long as music analysis continues to develop, people will constantly ask questions about these questions.
Edit this paragraph | Back to the top 1. Object of Music Analysis Among the methodological reflections on music analysis seen so far, the most systematic and authoritative one is the serial Analysis written by the British musician [Ian D. Bent (1938-) for the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. My comments will be based on Bent; But it is not limited to Bent's idea.
When defining the essence of music analysis, the first problem we encounter is to determine its object. On the surface, this seems to be no problem: the object of music analysis is naturally music works. However, if we dig deeper, this answer will be difficult to satisfy.
Music is "not a liquid or solid that can be perceived and measured as in chemical analysis", because of the special properties of its materials. Therefore, the object of music analysis must be carefully examined; Either the music score itself; Or (at least) the sound effect projected by the score; Or the composer's inner voice when creating; It is also the result of the performer's deduction; Or the audience's diachronic experience of a performance. All these categories may be the objects of analysis. "Bent's argument goes straight to the heart of the problem, and he forces us to frown and meditate. What needs to be emphasized is that this kind of deep reflection well is not a boring intellectual game. Although music analysts don't necessarily answer clearly, and we don't necessarily have a clear awareness of these issues in the analysis practice, in fact, the choice of analysis objects has been going on, and this choice has always had an impact on the analysis itself.
Of course, music analysis does not need to answer the philosophical proposition of "the way music exists" like music aesthetics. As an empirical/practical discipline, analysis pays more attention to the answers closely related to its own reality. Bent's questioning established several normal ways of music existence in a very practical tone: the score text, the sound represented by the score text, the composer's inner idea, the sound realized by the player and the sound experienced by the listener. Obviously, these ways of existence of music are interrelated, but they are not the same. As we all know, music score is just a conventional symbol, which is far from the actual sound in some aspects. It is far from enough to accurately record every detail of music. Our acoustic imagination of music score may be different from the composer's inner voice or the performer's deductive result. Therefore, Music Analysis claims that it is its duty to study works, and what is a "work" still needs careful consideration.
Bent thinks that "all these categories may be the objects of analysis", which seems a bit too indulgent. Theoretically, all aspects of the existence of music should be carefully analyzed. However, theoretical inference is greatly discounted in concrete practice. For example, how do we know the composer's initial inner thoughts? How can we analyze this idea objectively and clearly? It seems that apart from the relatively reliable basis of leaving the manuscript, we can only speculate from the spectrum of the completed work. Please note that the * * * same factor of the legacy manuscript and the finished work in this respect is: music score. It seems that the most convenient, reliable and common research object of music analysis is music score. The reason is self-evident, the score has real "perceptibility and measurability" that other music modes do not have.
The composer [pierre boulez] once bluntly defined music analysis as "a serious study of music score itself". Because music analysis is a rational and systematic means to understand music, it must take score, the most rational way of existence in music, as the cornerstone of stability. However, music, as a living art, can't be completely "rationalized" in many aspects and information, at least the score can't fully and clearly reflect music. Therefore, music analysis must always be alert to the tendency of "music score is supreme", and in the process of analysis, we must try our best to consider those musical dimensions that music score can not reflect. Moreover, even in the face of music scores, the analysis depends on the ears/hearing full of music, and we can't just believe the results seen by our eyes. Otherwise, the analysis will distort or even mislead our actual music experience. It seems to be full of logic and logical thinking, but in fact it is far from the point and full of fallacies, and some analytical theorists just fall into this trap.
Although there is no doubt that music analysis focuses on music score, there are great differences in the understanding and attention of music analysts to music score itself. Because of their different views on music, the emphasis of music score analysis is also different, which leads to their own music analysis theories and methods. Bent said, "... analysts ... as long as they agree that the score provides a reference point from which they can reach their different sound ideas." "The same object and different results are undoubtedly an important reason why music analysis attracts people's attention.
Edit this paragraph | Go back to the first 2. If the task of music analysis can seek common ground while reserving differences for the object of music analysis, then there are different views on its task. Bent never even answered this question directly in his long speech. When discussing the characteristics of music analysis and comparing it with other music disciplines such as aesthetics, composition theory, history and criticism. Bent sometimes insinuates on this issue. He pointed out with considerable certainty that analysis means "breaking down a certain music structure into simpler components and exploring the functions of these components in the structure." ..... Its starting point is the phenomenon itself rather than external factors (such as life facts, political events, social conditions, educational methods and all other factors surrounding the phenomenon). "
In Bent's view, music analysis is mainly engaged in the decomposition, description and comparison of the structure of works. The analysis focuses on the internal structure of the work, trying to grasp music only in the way of "pure music", temporarily excluding consideration of any factors other than music. It analyzes the composition of music one by one, carefully identifies and compares various elements, and then clarifies the relationship and influence between these elements and the overall structure, and finally obtains an understanding of the organizational rules in the music structure (but a work or a group of works). Analysis is characterized by its objectivity, integrity and systematicness. Bent even asserted that "analysis tends to strive for the nature of natural science".
If the analysis can really achieve the rigor and logic of natural science, the mystery and mystery of music will probably disappear. However, judging from the beliefs of the existing advocates of music analysis theory, Bent's assertion is not much different from the facts. Although analysts also admit that there are some mysterious and unexplained aspects in music, they all think that their own systems or methods touch the essential laws of music structure. We will comment on the success or failure or correctness of their theories one by one in the following chapters. Here, let's take a look at what the analyst wants to achieve by looking for rules in the music structure. Only in this way can we have a clearer understanding of the task of music analysis.
The expression "looking for laws" has a strong natural science color. The reason why we know a thing or a phenomenon is precisely because we have grasped its internal organizational law or formation law. "The so-called" law ",that is," law ",is the essential connection and inevitable trend of the development of things. It has the characteristics of universality and repeatability. It is objective and inherent in the thing itself. People can't create, change and destroy laws ... The task of science is to reveal objective laws and use them to guide people's practical activities. " Perhaps it is in this "scientific" spirit and belief that analysts claim that they have found the law of the internal structure of music. And this law is nothing more than their respective theoretical framework and model.
At this point, we have a question: Are these theoretical frameworks and models really the laws of music structure? If it is a rule, why are there different opinions and contradictions? Music works are a humanistic social phenomenon. Is the "law" in the sense of natural science applicable? Music is created by people. Is its "law" objective and unchangeable? Under such layers of questioning, we will soon realize and wake up that the so-called "discovering and revealing laws" in music analysis is a bit bold and presumptuous. The explanation provided by the analyst is at best a hypothesis, a theoretical hypothesis that needs to be tested by musical experience.
However, we can't dismiss them as deception or fabrication just because they are assumptions and assumptions. Epistemological research of modern philosophy has constantly proved that theories, including all scientific theories, are actually some hypotheses that need to be improved or even falsified. However, although the hypothesis will make mistakes, we can't live without it for a moment. This is because, in the process of understanding things and exploring the truth, if there is no hypothesis-theory gives us great support in conceptual framework and implementation tools, we will be at a loss or even have no clue when facing complex objects. Therefore, it is easy to understand why analysts always have an indissoluble bond with music technology theory, and why music analysis is always divided into different camps with different theories and methods. Theory is the premise of analysis, and analysis is the concrete implementation of theory.
Therefore, we encounter a subtle but important disagreement: whether the analysis provides an example for theory or a deeper understanding of specific works. At this point, analysts have different opinions. Extreme theorists even think that analysis is a branch of music technology theory and should not have an independent position. Although the analysis should dissect the works as deeply and comprehensively as possible, the ultimate task of the analysis is to provide practical examples for the "laws and rules" expounded by the theory. The scientific and systematic nature of theories and methods is the primary consideration, and the analysis of works serves the theory. On the contrary, analysis has its own independent character, which takes the theoretical framework as the starting point and the ultimate goal is to truly explain and illustrate the structural characteristics of a single work. Theory is only the starting point, and the end point should be individual and concrete works. Obviously, theory should serve analysis, not the other way around. Theories and methods should take into account the personality of specific works and make adjustments at any time, rather than sticking to the integrity of the theory and tailoring it to suit the needs of the individual. The famous composer and musician [Edward T. Kone (19 17-) said with great challenge: "Through careful study, excellent works will naturally reveal the analytical methods needed to understand themselves."
As a musician whose mission is to study history, I sympathize with Cohen's position. If music analysis only proves the pre-existing theory and does not dissect the work convincingly, this analysis is of limited value in my opinion. On the other hand, Cohen's argument is worthy of sympathy, but it lacks effective feasibility. As mentioned above, without the support of a theoretical framework, it is actually impossible for people to engage in specific analysis. If, as Cohen said, every excellent work should have its own unique analysis method, then the field of music analysis will collapse and cease to exist.
In fact, Cohen is far from being so absolute as he claims in his analytical works. Although his articles are famous for his unique insights and profound opinions on specific works, he has never been a simple and passive descriptor-observer. On the contrary, in his analysis, he not only often touches on the key points of theory, but also deliberately spends his energy on the substantive construction of analytical theoretical problems. In fact, the tension between theoretical principles and specific works will always exist, and perhaps what music analysis should strive for is the "dynamic balance" between them. We should take theoretical principles as the premise, but we should also be prepared to constantly adjust, supplement and even change theoretical principles in the face of the vividness and complexity of specific works. Of course, this is only an ideal. The history of music analysis shows that this "dynamic balance" is not easy to maintain.
Edit this paragraph | Go back to the first 3. The historical development of music analysis before the 20 th century-also on the origin and limitations of music analysis.
The simple way to master a subject is to know its development history. For music analysis, a brief description of its historical development can not only provide us with the necessary background knowledge to enter this field, but also enable us to understand the essential problems discussed in the previous two sections to a great extent. The specific historical context will give these problems more practicality and distinctive features.
Generally speaking, the history of analysis belongs to the history of music theory, because before music analysis was established as an independent way of seeking knowledge at the end of 19, many of its sprouts were hidden in the works and documents of music theory.
My brief description does not intend to be exhaustive, but focuses on the central clue of how it was gradually produced and developed from music theory before this century. At the same time, the historical origin and theoretical premise of musical form analysis, which is widely used at present, are specially investigated.
Bent traced back to the "prehistory" which was analyzed quite early —— A.D. 1 1 century, and the monks of Carolingian dynasty began to quote real music to explain and distinguish modes. However, in a strict sense, real analysis refers to the description and explanation of individual works, which happened quite recently. "The emergence of analysis, like many other musicology disciplines, is closely related to the gradual development of" [composition] ". A' work' is not only regarded as a written music score, but also as something created by a specific individual and expresses that individual's personality in some ways. " It can be seen that the emergence and finalization of the modern concept of "work" is an important preparation for the emergence of analysis. From this point of view, the French-Flemish music theorist ending in 1435- about 15 1 1 deserves special mention. He distinguished improvisation from music score by using the terms composition and synthesizer, thus determining the spectrum.
During the transitional period from Renaissance to Baroque, the rhetoric theory of speeches in ancient Greece and Rome greatly influenced the theoretical speculation of music.
People began to borrow the principles and terms of rhetoric into music, forming the concept of "form" in music works. Among them, the German theorist and composer [Joachim Burmeister (1564- 1620) is particularly important. In 1606, he not only gave a clear definition of music analysis for the first time in history, but also made a detailed analysis of a five-part classic song "in me transierunt" by Lasso, a composer who died recently, "successfully determined the structure of the work and explained the method of composing". Throughout the Baroque period, the principles of rhetoric had a far-reaching influence, but theorists were more interested in rhetoric to guide the composer's practice than to help analyze the existing works.
From17th century to18th century, there are more and more examples of citing and analyzing actual works in theoretical literature, but theorists still won't analyze a work because it has aesthetic value and is respected. In most cases, analysis is to provide practical guidance for students who compose or perform. Therefore, these teaching materials are mainly simple and fragmentary examples, similar to our current teaching materials such as harmony and counterpoint. It can be said that although analysis already exists, it has no independent consciousness.
With the arrival of the Enlightenment, philosophers/thinkers have become more and more aware of the unique characteristics of aesthetics and art. The concept of "art" in the modern sense has been generally accepted at the end of 18-that is, art, especially works of art, whose main function is to arouse people's pleasure and beauty. The source of aesthetic feeling is not the moral or social content of art, but the perfection of the form of works.
The "modernization" of aesthetic concept has greatly influenced the thought, creation and theory of music. It is also from this time that people gradually realize that great music works are not only the product of history, but also can transcend history and have eternal charm. On the other hand, finding a reliable creative way through the analysis of great works has become the main driving force for the development of theory.
Therefore, since the end of 18, the works of famous composers have been constantly quoted in theoretical literature to explain some specific harmony organization, phrase structure or form design. Some documents, such as the Belgian theorist Momini [J-J·-J de Momini, 1762- 1842], still have amazing depth and length in analyzing the first movement of Mozart's string quartet K.42 1 in D minor. As far as analytical history is concerned, there are more and more serious discussions on actual works, especially masterpieces by masters, leaving a rich legacy for future generations, and its influence has not been exhausted until this century. The musical form analysis that we are generally familiar with and widely used in music teaching today is the product of this inheritance.
Tracing the origin and complicated history of music analysis is not our main concern here, but we can try to examine the formation and ideological premise of music analysis from two aspects, so as to gain a historical perspective of this analysis method that we are used to, and then understand the dissatisfaction and transcendence of this analysis method in the 20th century.
A core pillar in musical form analysis is the "model" of various musical forms. Generally speaking, what musical form analysis does is to "set" a given work into a predetermined model, and specify the ownership and characteristics of the given work according to the predetermined model. This method provides a set of effective standards and frameworks, which enables people to simplify complicated practical work, eliminate differences and retain similarities. Although it is true that many works are difficult to fit the existing models, there is no doubt that the music model is a simple analysis tool.
However, it should be emphasized that the original intention of Music Model is not to analyze and understand the music of the past, but to provide reference for the writing of new works. Since the end of 18, composition teaching has become more and more divorced from the original word-of-mouth teaching method and gradually turned to "industrialized" school classroom teaching. Therefore, teachers need a textbook-style work structure model to guide students' actual creation in teaching. Stimulated by this need, various standardized music modes are stipulated so that teachers can guide students to "imitate".
In this tradition, Austrian theorist Koch [H.C. Koch,1749—1816] is a far-reaching and significant founder. In his important book, Verthase Einer An Leitung Zur Composition (1782- 1793), he proposed that firstly, the blueprint and the most prominent features of a work should be made in the model, and the artist should complete the conceptual design according to this model, and then elaborate every detail of the work. He also accurately and clearly defined the blueprints and characteristics of the following modes: Gavett, Bray, Bologna, minuet, March, chorus and so on. Obviously, Koch's "mode" not only has the meaning of "form", but also involves genre, rhythm, rotation and many other aspects.
After entering the19th century, the theory of "music mode" has been further developed and finalized. This clue passed through the Czech theorist Lecha [A. Reicha, 1770- 1836], the German theorist Marx [A. B. Marx, 1795- 1866] and the Austrian Cherny [K. Czerny]
It should be pointed out that in the long historical development of music model theory, the views of various theories are not consistent, and sometimes even diametrically opposed. What I mean here is not the argument that there are different opinions on the musical form of a work, but the debate on more fundamental issues such as the effectiveness and rationality of the musical form model. As we mentioned before, the concept of musical form held by Koch, the founder of musical form model theory, is actually very broad and flexible. Marx also tried his best to avoid the "Proclus" nature of the form-cutting the foot to fit the shoe and forcing it to submit, so he emphasized the artist's originality and the inseparability of form and content. On the other hand, Cherny believes that music forms, like natural species, are immutable. He even asserted: "The work must belong to an existing species; ... there are only a limited number of different forms of music. " /kloc-This internal conflict in the musical form theory in the 20th century has shown that, although musical form analysis has a wide and fruitful influence, its shortcomings and defects are increasingly exposed with the deepening of people's understanding of music.
After entering the 20th century, professional musicians began to attack the music mode theory of19th century from all angles. From the aesthetic essence of musical works, the musical mode ignores the uniqueness of each individual work. I'm afraid we are not more interested in their works. But their differences. The central framework of musical form theory is various fixed structural patterns, and the corresponding problems considered by composers in their creation are not necessarily pre-existing patterns. Historians have increasingly found that the definitions of19th century's so-called "sonata form" and "reunion form" are not in line with the actual situation of Haydn's, Mozart's and Beethoven's creations-for example, Haydn's sonata form often has no comparative "minor part" (or "second theme"). More insightful researchers point out that musical form analysis "mainly involves the surface of music, lacking analytical tools to explore the deeper intrinsic motivation of music itself or the unique quality of a particular work."
The theory of pattern structure in musical form analysis has been increasingly questioned by all sides, and other aspects of this analysis method have not been spared the same criticism. If the pattern structure theory in traditional musical form analysis is used to examine the overall formal framework of the work, then its explanation of the specific material of the work mainly focuses on two aspects: phrase organization and harmony interpretation. After critically describing the theoretical development of musical form model, our historical review of the second half of musical form analysis will give us a more complete and clear picture.
In fact, the description of "several bars" and "X+Y" in the current musical form teaching also comes from Kauchi, the founder of musical form model theory. As the spokesman of classical music thought, his phrase structure theory established a set of reasonable "music grammar" and provided a complete set of descriptive terms. Concepts still in use today, such as Einstein, Satz and Period, are precisely defined in Koch's theory. He deeply observed and thought about the connection and combination of phrases, and thus put forward the concepts of symmetry and proportion, as well as the expansion and compression of phrases, which greatly influenced the development of music analysis theory in later generations.
Koch's phrase theory was developed together with his musical model theory in the19th century. A careful study of this development shows that theorists/analysts at that time did not only passively describe the simple addition or juxtaposition relationship between phrases and paragraphs, but tried to explain the internal logic of phrase organization and the time motivation of phrase execution. Among them, German scholar Riemann may have made the most unique contribution. Riemann established the concept of "[Motiv]" according to the "weak-strong" psychological feeling of music rhythm, and developed a set of terms and expression symbols to determine the continuous logic of music sentences. Riemann's theory has not lost its meaning in the rhythm and beat, the weakest link in music analysis. However, it can be learned that his theory of phrase structure has not been fully and completely inherited in the later musical form analysis.
Perhaps musical form analysis is a method mainly used in general teaching or general music description, so the original complex theory is gradually "diluted" and simplified with the passage of time, so that people can master and operate it. The development of the whole phrase structure analysis theory reflects such a trajectory. This may be the misfortune of music analysis. On the other hand, some simple methods and means were quickly absorbed by music analysis, and became a prominent analytical tool in orthodoxy, which still plays a great role today. I especially refer to the interpretation of harmony materials in musical form analysis: Roman numeral harmony notation.
This method of harmony analysis, which we are very familiar with today, is first of all a relic of the practice of baroque digital bass. Although digital bass, as an auxiliary notation for playing practice, was not an analytical tool at first, it was used for reference by later generations because it can clearly tell us the interval combination in chords. However, digital bass cannot distinguish and summarize the essence of chords, explain the relationship between chords, and explain the harmony-tonality center of music. Therefore, the German theorist [Gottfried Weber (1779-1839) developed the Roman mathematical notation to overcome the above problems, thus creating a new era of harmony analysis. The influence of Weber's tradition is enormous, and we just need to recall what we have learned and acoustics.
In this way, the anatomy of phrase organization and the harmony analysis of Roman numerals have become two main means to explain specific materials in music analysis. They support the framework of music model, which in turn is influenced by music model. As we all know, the structure of phrases is closely related to musical patterns, and harmony is an important factor in determining musical paragraphs. It seems that the internal structure of a work has been basically mastered by judging the ownership of musical patterns and adding numbers to the charts of phrase organization and harmonic materials.