<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Calibri">It seems to me that the question remains open,
though. Burmeister did describe his project as "analysis", but was
it what we would call analysis? <br>
<br>
Analysis, for Burmeister, is the "resolution of the work in
affects and periods" </font><font face="Calibri"><font
face="Calibri">(</font><i>Resolutio carminis in affectiones,
sive periodos</i>), that is its organization as a rhetorical
discourse. The first affect/period, he says, is the <i>Exordium</i>,
calling the attention of the hearer. Then comes a variety of
affects forming the body of the work, which should remain of
moderate dimensions lest it causes disgust. And the work ends with
the <i>Finis</i>, by which the imminence of the end enters more
clearly the minds of the hearers. This is a normative description:
Burmeister's aim is of providing a model for young composers.<br>
<br>
The analysis of Lasso's <i>In me transierunt </i>consists in two
paragraphs only, without any explicit reference to the music. The
first paragraph is concerned with the mode and the ambitus of the
individual voices: the piece is in authentic phrygian mode, in
diatonic genre. The work is then described as consisting in nine
periods, the first of which is the <i>Exordium</i>, the last the
<i>Finis</i>, and the seven in between the <i>Corpus harmoniae</i>.
No attempt is made to identify these in the score (they might
correspond to the phrases of the text, so far as I can remember; I
don't have Lasso's score at hand just now). Each of these seven
periods is said to include a few specified figures (specified by
their names: hypotyposis, climax, anadiplosis, anaphora, mimesis,
pathopoeia, fuga, noëma), but it remains extremely difficult to
actually identify any of these in the score, and Burmeister
provides no indication to this effect. <br>
<br>
Is that an analysis in any modern (or less modern) sense of the
word? I really doubt so. Certainly, Burmeister's concern with the
rhetorical organization of a musical composition is a landmark in
the history of music theory and analysis; but was his an
"analysis"?<br>
<br>
*******<br>
<br>
Most of you will be too young to remember the definitive statement
(in his inimitable German accent) of Prof. Bruno Heinz Jaja,
interviewed in London by Richard Hoffnung: "Muzik began venn
Jönberg invented the tonerove".<br>
Let me paraphrase it: "Muzik analuse began venn Jenker invented
the Ursatz".<br>
<br>
</font>Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr">http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://heinrichschenker.wordpress.com">http://heinrichschenker.wordpress.com</a><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"></font><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 14/02/2013 17:54, Michael Morse a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:BAY171-W64749E4B22C1B4A2F7A05AD00F0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">
Dear Folks,
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Huge thanks to one and all for the prompt, succinct, and
very helpful replies. The line between music example,
commentary, and analysis is indeed porous, but I was surprised
and pleased to see the consensus around the Burmeister (which
I recall reading, back when dinosaurs strode the
land--presumably mounted by creation scientists? but I
digress).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again Thanks, Cheers & Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Michael</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Michael Morse</div>
<div>Trent University</div>
<div>Peterborough, Oshawa</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>