Reviewing a concert for class. My professor wants "technical analysis" but I just want to feel the music.

[Tamman]

Music theory class. We have to review a live performance with "technical analysis." Focus on harmony, structure, technique. Leave emotion out of it.

I went to a jazz concert last night. It was incredible. The saxophonist played a solo that made me cry. Not because of his technique (which was flawless) but because of what he COMMUNICATED. The feeling. The soul. The story.

Now I have to write 3 pages about chord progressions and key changes. About things I can measure instead of things I felt.

I know theory matters. I know technique matters. But is that really what music IS? Is that what we should be teaching? How to measure art instead of how to feel it?

My draft is technically correct. It's also dead. No life. No soul. No music.

How do you analyze without killing the thing you love?

 

[DonBrown]

I think you're misreading the assignment slightly. "Leave emotion out" probably means don't just say "it was beautiful and moving." That's too vague. They want you to say WHY it was moving. And the WHY is technical.

The saxophonist didn't just play notes. He played specific notes at specific times with specific articulation. That's technique. That's also the thing that made you cry.

So write about the technique that created the emotion. Describe the harmonic tension that resolved unexpectedly. Describe the rhythmic displacement that made your chest tighten. Describe the timbre shift that sounded like a human voice.

That's analysis. That's also love.