Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Analytical practice is too often discussed only by those who are instinctively critical of it or insufficiently familiar with it. This may seem a big claim, yet if the external assault on analytical practice has achieved something like critical mass within the last two decades, too frequently it has remained at the level of the general, the undifferentiated, even the caricature. More than twenty years after its original publication, one can still sense the impact of Joseph Kerman's intervention, and not least his claim that `analysts have avoided value judgments and adapted their work to a format of strictly corrigible propositions, mathematical equations, set-theory formulations, and the like ± all this, apparently, in an effort to achieve objective status and hence the authority of scientific inquiry'.1 Certainly analysis has always met with a degree of suspicion among those who remain wary of its alleged quasi-scientific pretensions or who dislike its propensity for adopting prohibitively complex modes of presentation. In a lecture given in 1969, Theodor Adorno observed that `the word ``analysis'' easily associates itself in music with the idea of all that is dead, sterile and farthest removed from the living work of art. One can well say
Music Analysis – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.