In an earlier post – Disentangling the entangled: Thinking about and through Musicology – I spoke of an approach to music analysis as it is required of in Queensland’s Music: Senior Syllabus (QCAA, 2013)[i]. Since then, I have also received Musicology work from both my Year 11 and Year 12 Music classes.

The Year 11 students were given a piece of music devoid of identification (composer, publisher, title etc…), and they were to establish what the period of music history it was from. You can have a look at the task sheet here – M1 – Extended Response 2017 – if you want more context, but they essentially had to write a letter to the curator of the State Library justifying the period of a recently discovered piece of music (it was a fantastic Vivaldi work, Concerto for Strings and Continuo in G Minor, R. 157: III. Allegro – and I am surprised at how contemporary it actually sounded!).

The Year 12 students examined Rezsö Seress’s Gloomy Sunday (Billie Holliday – Gloomy Sunday), which is also known as ‘the saddest song ever written’. They were to argue whether or not it deserves the ‘accolade’ of ‘the saddest song ever written’). The task sheet, with some more context is offered here – M2 – Extended Response 2017. At the end of perhaps the busiest term for the Year 12s, perhaps not the most sensitive choice of song! Many of them did, however, enjoy it and also found other great versions of it (the Portishead one is particularly good).

In my last post, I spoke of purposeful analysis and this feeding evaluation; indeed, a criteria is needed for evaluation to take place. The students need to ‘hold up’ their analysed ‘parts’ against a criteria to see if they have merit in relation to their viewpoint (if none of this makes much sense, then please read the previous post which outlines the syllabus objectives). Having a criteria that we measure up against assures that we take our analysis into the realm of evaluation; we assign merit of the analysed ‘parts’ according to a criteria. With a multitude of ‘parts’, students can then look for connections and synthesise their findings into a more coherent whole.

This is again where a criteria is useful. A criteria can offer us a frame or themes for an argument. These themes might be housed in terms of style (e.g. characteristics we might expect of Romantic music), ones expectations (what we might expect musically if the song is, for example, a sad song), or even a narrative (how the song tells a particular story through time). Grouping criteria into these themes assists making inter-elements connections (as we know, music elements are at work simultaneously).

To illustrate this using the examples from above, themes identified by the Years 11s were stylistic ones (remember, the Baroque period): continuity, flow, expansion, unfolding, unwinding, unity etc… these themes housed criteria that drew together multiple music elements (e.g. continuity of rhythmic and melodic patterns), which were then located and detailed in the score/recording (e.g. use of melodic sequences, use of imitation between parts, interlocking of string timbres, polyphony…). The Year 12s (‘saddest song ever written’) identified themes that included depression, ‘sinking’, hopelessness, solitude, disconnectedness, helplessness etc… which were constructed by their criteria (one of expectations of a sad song, e.g. minor tonality, slower tempi, homophonic texture, specific timbres, use of rubato etc…), which were then identified in terms of music elements and deconstructed (e.g. chromatic notes falling within chordal sequences, added-note chords clouding the tonality and functionality, use of solo alto voice alongside sparse accompaniment…).

Getting here wasn’t easy – analysis and evaluation of separate music elements, holding up the analysed ‘parts’ to a criteria, looking for connections, grouping findings into themes in order to support a viewpoint… – and it is a very non-linear and cyclical journey!

To help students make sense, I tried to paint them the ‘bigger picture’ through the following questions. I have made this into a separate document (Musicology Flow Chart) to try to show the ‘flow through’, but like my Musicology Analysis Template, it is near impossible! More versions to come, I’m sure!

Introductory statement

• What question has been posed?
• What will you be doing to answer the question/construct your viewpoint? (analyse and evaluate the music to justify a viewpoint in relation to the question posed)
• What evaluative criteria will you use to apply to your ‘analysed parts’? (what might you expect to see/hear?
• How will you organise your argument? (will you organise your paper by stylistic indicators, expectations, themes, or in terms of the narrative of the piece?)

Preliminary body paragraphing          

• What’s important in the music in relation to your question/viewpoint? (identify and discern only the music elements/concepts that forward your argument)
• From above, dissect and examine the music elements/s or concept/s; what are its/their features and where are they? (do this element by element, but be prepared to make connections between elements after you have completed your analysis)
• What merit can I assign to these analysed ‘parts’ when held up against my evaluative criteria? (this is like a quality check – if it doesn’t add value (merit), then discard it – you need to be discerning here)

Establishing body paragraphs

• What connections exist between your analysed ‘parts’?
• How will you synthesise your analytical fragments in to a meaningful frame (stylistic indicators, themes, expectations, narrative…)? (this may give you paragraph themes/titles/sub-headings to work with)
• Within this synthesised statement, how will you make explicit connection back to the criteria and forward to the viewpoint? (state how your analysis supports your viewpoint though connecting to your evaluative criteria)
• Organise your ‘analysed parts’ to fall under your themes (stylistic indicators, expectations, themes, or in terms of narrative). These will become your paragraph topics.

Conclusion      

• How did my analysis connect to the evaluative criteria? (restate the criteria used)
• What were my main findings in each theme/sub-heading (paragraphs)? (restate your themes and identify the main points within each)
• What is my viewpoint and how did the criteria serve to justify my findings? (so what; what did you achieve?)

The ‘flow chart’ document (Musicology Flow Chart) might assist a little more with clarity, but anyway, I hope this helps with the Musicology processes and products of your students.

If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. This is a work in progress!

[i] Music: Senior Syllabus (2013) – Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority

Picture credit: Huffington Post – http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/reuven-cohen/complexity-is-the-enemy-o_b_14575984.html