Center for Writing Excellence

Claire Boge

Long Writing Assignment for Students

2005 Workshop on Improving Student Writing

Center for Writing Excellence

Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching

INTRODUCTION FOR FACULTY TO THIS LONG WRITING ASSIGNMENT

MUS 302, ANALYSIS OF POST TONAL MUSIC

When I introduce myself as a music theorist, people nearly always ask me “what instrument do you play?” Although I usually answer that I was trained on piano, I also feel the need to explain how music theory differs from music performance. Theory is the study of how music makes meaning through its syntax, and performance is the non-verbal communication of that meaning to an audience. The two are related and impact each other in very real ways.

Writing about music’s meaning and performance could well seem to be counterintuitive, since both the reception and communication of music is non-verbal. Yet, it is in writing about it that the non-verbal concepts appear to solidify. Music analysis, a component of music theory, lies at the core of that verbal activity.

MUS 302 is the sixth and final semester of Music Theory required of music performance majors. The repertoire covered is classical post-tonal music; its historical context covers much of the twentieth century. Students spend much of the semester learning a new analytical technique – that of pitch-class sets (PCsets) – in order to better understand this relatively unfamiliar music.

This long assignment is a synthesis of three class projects completed during the semester: first, a project in reviewing a book on thinking and problem-solving (James Adams, ConceptualBlockbusting); second, a verbal/technical analysis of a string quartet by Anton Webern, a “modernist” composer of early 20th-century Vienna (the analysis uses the technique of PCset theory); and third, the recreation of the verbal/technical analysis in an artistic medium other than music (students have at various times used photography, quilting, architecture, painting, poetry, flower arrangements, jewelry, and the like). The final paper requires reflection and synthesis of the individual projects already completed, and asks students to suggest how their insights can be successfully communicated through performance.

It is in the process of explaining how the technical and creative projects interact with each other and with the piece that students come to the knowledge of how their performance influences analysis and vice-versa. Having once merged theory and practice, the two can never be untwisted from each other again, and the goal of developing artist-performers who think is one step closer.

This project is an extensive revision of one already used in the class. Changes I have made as a result of the CWE workshop include adding a page of goals and objectives for students, creating and clarifying content and purpose for each section of the paper, and developing a schematic diagram of how the group project components of the course fit into the individually-written long project.

LONG WRITING ASSIGNMENT FOR STUDENTS

The entire semester has been building to its culmination in this, your final project: a 10-15 page paper (longer if necessary) in which you which will present a pitch-set analysis of a post-tonal piece, recreate your technical analysis in a non-musical artistic language, and discuss the impact that such intellectual exercises can have on the work’s interpretive musical performance.

You have already completed drafts of the final paper during your two presentations of Webern’s string piece, Opus 5, IV (group PCset analysis and individual artistic recreation). Now it is time to reflect on your work, to put your stamp of individuality on it, and to put it into the perspective of your life as a performing musician.

Assignment objectives:

to prove mastery of the two analytical methods covered during the semester,
to demonstrate facility with both critical and creative thinking, and
to explain how learning a piece of music intellectually as well as kinetically aids in the interpretive performance of the work.

Assignment structure:

Set the context of the piece
Explain the structure of a post-tonal piece through the application of PCset theory
Recreate the technical analysis in an artistic language other than music
Explain the connections between your PCset analysis and your artistic recreation
Suggest specific ways that a piece’s structure intellectually and creatively impacts your own musical performance (or has directed one of the six different recorded interpretations played in class).

The paper fulfills two practical functions:

it provides you with a product you can use in an employment portfolios or graduate school application, showing a different kind of writing than the traditional music history research paper;
it enables you to show the individual contributions you have made in preparatory group projects during the semester, to show how your analysis of the piece has changed by interacting with other groups’s analyses, and to demonstrate your unique artistic voice through non-musical talents, hobbies, or interests

Overall Learning Objective: to become comfortable with spending as long a time understanding a piece analytically as you spend perfecting its technical performance, and to merge the intellectual and intuitive understanding into a more interpretive performance, communicating both the composer’s intent and your own analytical insights to your potential audience. By studying a musical work from all perspectives, you will be better able to sustain your own passion and interest in the work over the long span of time it can take to bring it from your initial read-through to your polished performance. When the piece is difficult, it can take years to perfect, and much like analysis it is never completely done -- but that does not mean it is not worth the attempt. If Yo Yo Ma can spend 45 years perfecting the Bach Cello Suites, you have the time!

OVERVIEW OF THE SEMESTER'S WORK

Weeks 3-9 Group Presentation #1 PCset Analysis of Anton Webern, funf Staze, Opus 5, Movement IV (with handouts and written draft)		Weeks 10-13 Individual Presentation #3 Artistic Recreation of your PCset Analysis (artwork, with written draft)

	Weeks 14-15 Final Paper 10-15 pages, summarizing both class presentations, with reflection and application

	Weeks 1-2 Metathinking *Conceptual Blockbusting* (long paper)

PAPER GUIDELINES

You may write your paper in three primary sections (one for the PCset analysis, one for the poetry, and one for the implications) with an added introduction and conclusion, or you may integrate all together in your presentation (this option is more challenging to write, but ends up as a better paper). Specific suggestions below are given for the three section option.

Because you already have written drafts of this material, and have already received guidelines for the specific content of each section, I want simply to suggest some reminders about how your paper should be written and illustrated. Please refer back to the appropriate presentation guidelines for detailed content guidelines, and to the handout “writing analytical papers” for suggestions about flow and micro-organization.

Introduction and backmatter

Set the stage by referring to the work’s historical or personal context, and choose a binding metaphor, illustration, or quotation. Remember to use it throughout your paper, especially as you transition from one section to another.
Include your annotated score, extensive charts, analytical graphs, and anything else you could not include in the paper as backmatter. Don’t forget your bibliography and acknowledgements.

Section 1: PCset Analysis

(please refer to the presentation guidelines forPCset analysis presentation)

This section should be about 6-7 pages in length.
You may write more, but don’t settle for less.
You will be surprised how much writing it takes to explain your points in prose.

Begin your paper by writing up your group’s PCset analysis of the piece, adding your own voice to the mix by changing whatever has been influenced by other groups’ analyses or additional readings you have done.

You might wish to begin simply by listing the points you want to make. Organize them by beginning with the salient points, and progress to the more subtle ones. Then turn each point into a topic sentence and spend the rest of the paragraph explaining your point through your analytical details. Make sure for every point you make that you refer to specific measures in the score or any charts or graphs you have included at the end of your paper -- or better yet, insert small specific illustrations in the text to illustrate each point.

Make sure to include everything; just because everybody else did something similar does not make your point invalid – in fact, it reinforces it more. Never underestimate the obvious; what seems pathetically apparent to you may not be apparent to someone else! Use your “idea” as a way to keep your writing focused and your narrative consistent.

Section 2: Artistic Recreation and Relationship to PCset analysis

(please refer to the presentation guidelines for artistic recreation presentation for more specific details about the content of this section)

This section should be about 4-5 pages in length (not including the actual recreation).
You may write more, but don’t settle for less.
Remember that your artistic recreation is not graded, only how well you connect it to your technical analysis.

Even but a tiny glimpse into the world of analytical poetry has lead us to discover that there is much more to it than a mere collection of random subjective reactions—although those very reactions often function as the germinating narrative seed of the final fusion of poetic (subjective) and analytic (procedural) thinking. This portion of the paper focuses on the re-creation of your analysis into a different a different artistic medium and your explanation of the relationship between the artistic re-creation and the analysis.

Try to place yourself in the position of first hearing and write a narrative on this movement, like we did in the class project on the second piece of Schoenberg’s piano pieces. Then compose a poetic representation of the piece (or another artistic representation of it). (If you’re stuck on where to begin, use the Barkin works as a model.) Take your time to make certain that you have created a product which is truly reflective of both your PCset analysis and of your aesthetic experience of the piece.

Explain your re-creation’s structural construction, including how specific relationships discovered in your PCset analysis are represented in your “poem”, as well as what might not have been discussed technically which is also present in your poem. Also address how your narrative interacts with your final poetic piece.

Section 3: Applications and implications

This section should be about 2 pages in length.
You may write more, but don’t settle for less.

In the final section of your paper, you will discuss ways to integrate the intellectual study of this piece with interpretive performance choices. Two suggestions are provided, but you may also use your own ideas here. Do not feel bound by the guidelines at this point.

You might, for example, wish to discuss the issue of artistic choice, such as

Which of the six recorded analyses we heard was your favorite and why?
How did the quartet’s interpretive choices influence your PCset segmentation and your artistic recreation?

Or, you could discuss implications of the project, such as:

What insights did you get during your PC analysis that caused you to change your segmentation? What things would you want to do differently now?
How does the experience of composing a poem help bridge the gap between analysis and performance in general? How, specifically, might you use a poetic analysis in preparing or performing the piece?

Conclusions

It is always a good idea, when closing a technical paper, not to simply restate your introduction but to return to your binding metaphor to tie things up into a nice package. Do not opt out on this. Otherwise, it is like giving a present in a paper bag.

Finally, you might want engage your reader with ideas that might carry the study further. End your discussion by bringing up questions you have that you have not yet been able to answer. It shows your reader (and yourself) that a thorough understanding of music analysis -- like the perfect performance -- is a never-ending pursuit, but one which is worth the chase!

* * * * *

Reminders

Please use your spell- and grammar-checkers. Doublespace and use at least 12 point type with one-inch margins.
This work may for some of you be your last actual course paper, so take pride in it and in yourself! And enjoy the experience of sharing your discoveries with future readers of your work. ;-)

Reminder:

The paper grade scale is based on three criteria:

1) accuracy of content,

2) clarity and elegance of presentation, and

3) originality.

Each element is accorded equal weight. All three elements must be present and well done in order to receive the grade of “A”, at least two of the three for a grade of “B”, and at least one of the three for a grade of “C”. Papers with inaccuracies will be lowered one letter grade. Papers which contain no technical information, or which do not follow the general analytic techniques covered in class will not be considered passing. In addition to clarity and elegance, materials will be graded on how well they are backed up with empirical evidence from the musical work and on how logically they stand (no contradictions among different evidences). Merely stating facts will not earn the highest marks in category #2.

Miami University

Center For Writing Excellence

Conclusions