Can't do some assignments

Post Reply New Topic

I'm studying music at the Bachelor level, and I can't do any assignments that I'm given that involve analyzing, summarizing, or prose-writing. The theory papers I can do in a flash, but the other ones tend to completely block me. How do you approach a piece of music you have to analyze without emotion and without extreme technicality? They want us to be technical, but not too technical. There's no middle ground for me. There are only absolutes and extremes. In my opinion, the ultimate analysis of an artwork is the presentation of the artwork. I can't get past that.

I have had an assignment for a few weeks now, and it was due on the 3rd of May. I still have it and I haven't started it yet. I've sent emails to my teacher, gotten help from books and other students, but I'm still completely blocked (I'm meant to be analyzing Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #7, Op. 83 - III. Precipitato, if anyone was curious). On the other hand, I was given a theory assignment last week during a lecture, and completed it before the lecture was over. The theory assignment requested things like, "Using Roman numerals, label these secondary dominants," which makes absolute perfect sense and possesses no degree of difficulty. "This means that, that means this, so this must mean...?" This is the kind of stuff I came to this program to do.

I like logic. Subjective analysis of an artwork should be emotionally driven. Other than the idea of merely presenting the artwork in lieu of an analysis, I'd go into an in-depth emotional essay, outlining exactly how the piece makes me feel and why, the images the piece generates, what it reminds me of, what could sound better, etc. They don't want that. They want an outline of the structure, rhythmic features, harmonic language, stylistic language, thematic material, developmental techniques, etc. You don't need to know anything about music to realize that such words and phrases are fantastically vague and meaningless, and do not compute with me. I read the assignment sheet and take in absolutely nothing, other than the fact that I'd rather go home and listen to Deep Purple with my mates.[i]

They don't want explicit detail, because somehow they can't comprehend it. They don't want, for example, "In bar 3 there is a perfect cadence." They construe this as being meaningless. I see such a sentence as a direct communication of information, and the sentence could not possibly be written in any other way. "Where?" "There." "What?" "That." Simple.

Can you get some samples of the kind of thing they want you to write?

Most definitely. I have looked at some. I didn't look at any for this particular piece, though. I fear that I won't be able to change the wording enough and be accused of plagiarism.

Try reading several, but don't save them. Synthesize, find the things they have in common. See if you can't then perceive what those other writers are saying. Then it's not plagiarism, it's research.

Here is a sample of such writing from a book called "The Art Book" concerning the painting "A Bigger Splash" by David Hockney, which you may see here:
http://www.aeolia.net/lifeofmind/david% ... splash.jpg

"Under the intense, California sun, an unseen figure creates a splash in a pool. Hockney applied paint with rollers, using small brushes for the splash, to suggest its sound exploding in the stillness. In one of his most consciously planned and evocative images, he contrasts the fleeting moment with the skilled techniqe that captured it."

Let's deconstruct this.

The writer described the ESSENCE of the scene to us through a mixture of concrete imagery and that which is suggests.
"Under the intense, California sun, an unseen figure creates a splash in a pool."

We don't see the sun, or that it's intense, but to most people the painting would give the impression of it being a hot sunny day, by the palm tree suggesting some place warm, the clear sky suggesting it's sunny, and the splash suggesting someone entered the pool. These factors together are what suggests it's hot out. We do see the pool and we do see the splash

The writer then describes the technique used to achieve an effect.

"Hockney applied paint with rollers, using small brushes for the splash..."

And then mentions the effect.

..."to suggest its sound exploding in the stillness."


The writer mentions the effort the artist has put into the painting, and the painting's significance with respect to the reputation of the artist.

"In one of his most consciously planned and evocative images..."

The writer then contrasts the time and precision of skill put into the painting by the artist, with the quick, chaotic, fleeting affect it created.

"he contrasts the fleeting moment with the skilled techniqe that captured it."


So there's a pattern here. In analyzing this painting, the writer alternates between visually describing the painting and the essence it evokes, and the technical aspects which went into creating it.