The Preludes and Beyond
Chapter 5. How could analysis be deconstructed by the A-major Prelude?
Chapter 5 How could analysis be deconstructed by the A-major Prelude? Some introductory remarks on deconstruction Deconstructive thinking has been introduced by the ever-older New Musicology into the ever-newer old musicology as a way to unearth the double messages that music works unknowingly hide like hats lodging two rabbits, or rather one rabbit and one duck. It might therefore be worthwhile to study an investigation of this kind in order to evaluate the merits of deconstruction as a method of music analysis and criticism.1 Unfortunately, deconstructive writings are sometimes sophisti cated beyond readability, but there is one item that I really like: Rose Rosengard Subotnick’s painstaking analysis of Chopin’s A-major Prelude.2 Being a musicologist with an analytical bent, my 1 Adam Krims insists that there is no such thing as a deconstructive method in Derrida (he claims that there are several methods or indeed none) and certainly no general methodological commodity involving the use hierarchical oppositions; cf. Adam Krims, “Disciplining Deconstruction (For Music Analysis)”, 19th Century Music 21(1998) 3, 297-324. His critique of various attempts at “deconstructive” music analysis is thought-provoking, but there is an element of orthodoxy in his line of reasoning. Methods are sometimes founded by individuals, but they are established by scholarly practice and following, and while the benefits of having methods of humanistic study patented are questionable, the idea of protecting a non-method seems absurd. 2 Rose Rosengard Subotnick, “How Could Chopin’s A-Major Prelude Be Decon structed?”, chapter 2, pp. 39-147, in Subotnick, Deconstructive Variations:...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.