Thoughts On David Lewin’s “Behind The Beyond: A Response To Edward

T. Cone” and Kofi Agawu’s “How We Got Out Of Analysis, And How To Get

Back In Again”

By William Antoniou

I’ll start by saying that reading material on the subjects of Theory, Analysis and Criticism of

music is difficult for me. It always seems like an attempt to quantify creativity, which I believe to be

futile. It goes against the grain of everything I believe in as composer to produce an objective

“explanation” of any form of art, because it is impossible to do it without incorporating one’s

subjective feelings on the music itself, without being influenced by one’s personal taste. It is my

opinion that the only person who can actually give a genuine explanation of the reasoning and

intent behind a piece of music is the person who wrote it.

That’s not to say that there isn’t value in attempting to “decode” what a composer has done.

As composers we learn the most by listening, and discussing what we’ve listened to. However, I find

it somewhat diluted to assume that one can apply principles of music theory to understand a

composer’s creative process.

I began reading David Lewin’s “Behind The. Beyond: A Response To Edward T. Cone.” As

this article is a response, and due to the disdain it shows for Edward T. Cone, I would call it a

rebuttal of sorts, I can’t offer a fully formulated opinion of my own as I have not read Edward T.

Cone’s previous article. What I can say is that David Lewin, for the most part, does not agree with

him. This is abundantly clear. However, what I did find very interesting about the article is Lewin’s

attempt to differentiate Theory, Analysis and Criticism.

My understanding of Lewin’s contention, in plain terms, is that Theory is an accepted set of

structural principles, to which the composer will consciously adhere to before embarking on
composing a piece. Lewin sites Beethoven Eroica as an example, saying that the Theorist would

contend that Beethoven’s creative approach begins from a place of generality, and is then altered for

the specifics of the piece he is writing. In other words, the composer approaches writing music

within certain set musical parameters, and then may or may not break away from those parameters

for each piece. I would argue that this may be true for some, and not true for others. Perhaps if

Beethoven were alive, he would tell us himself. Until he is reincarnated, I would prefer to just enjoy

his music, and not speculate about what his internal creative process was.

This brings me to nest part of Lewin’s article, in which he discusses Analysis. In this case, I

believe that learning from, and appreciating, in an academic setting, is incredibly useful and

important. This is because we are having the discussion after the fact. We are discussing what the

composer did, not what we believe the composer intended to do. I would say that Lewin and I are

in agreement for the most part in this matter. As he puts it, Analysis is more about “hearing” the

piece, and pointing out elements that are characteristic for each individual piece. I will reiterate -

this is how composers learn the most from existing works.

Lewin then discusses Criticism. I am fully in agreement with his contentions here as well.

Criticism is a vastly important, and inevitable part of Analysis. As Lewin says, Theory and Analysis

cannot be used to support Criticism, as what one likes or doesn’t like is subjective. It is neither right

nor wrong to like or dislike something. However, Theory and Analysis can be used to “focus” one’s

criticism, or as Lewin says, “qualify” it. I wholeheartedly agree with this. We can all have our

opinions, and we can all like and dislike as we please, but it is important that we are able to explain

why we like or dislike something, and in the case of music, we should be able to do this in musical

terms. Being able to do this, in turn, makes us better at criticising our own work, and therefore,

better at improving our own work.

At the end of the article, Lewin states his conclusion, and makes, arguably, the most basic

and important point of the article. To say that Theory and Analysis are imperative, or irrelevant to
composition are equally ludicrous statements. They can certainly help a composer develop

technically, but they should not box a composer into a set way of thinking or creating.

Kofi Agawu’s “How We Got Out Of Analysis And How To Get Back In Again” offers other

interesting points on the principles of Analysis. Agawu quotes Riezler, and specifically gives time

discussing Adorno’s idea of “truth content.” I find this idea to be self-contradictory. On the one

hand, Agawu supports Adorno’s idea that the analysis should not be distracted by the intentionality

of the piece, but should only stick to the elements within the piece itself. Or, as Agawu would say,

external or internal factors.

Yet, I don’t see how it is possible for an analyst to find the “truth content” of a work without

knowing why the piece was written or what inspired the composer to write it. The idea that the

external factors are irrelevant in music Analysis, to me, is arrogant. It contends that simply by

hearing the notes in the piece we can derive everything we need to learn from the piece. This might

work for stand alone pieces of music, but it certainly doesn’t work for Music Theatre, or Opera, or

Film Music.

Agawu then discusses Analysis of performance. If I’m being candid, I don’t think much needs

to be discussed here. Performance, can, and should be quantified and defined by purely technical

parameters. It is an objective art. There is in fact a “right” and a “wrong” way to perform music.

There is certainly space for interpretation on the part of the performer, but there the score is a set of

structured rules that the performer painstakingly practices to learn, master and then execute.

Ultimately I would say that Lewin’s arguments are closer to my own opinions. Regardless,

it’s was worth reading Agawu’s article as well, if for no other reason it helped me understand why I

disagree with so many on these topics. I also must admit, that Agawu’s article is incredibly dense for

my liking, and is much harder to understand than Lewin’s. Objectively, Lewin is much better at

communicating his points to the reader.

 If I were to offer a general opinion of my own, I would reiterate: The most important thing

is that we listen, and learn from what we listen to. Arguing and writing articles about what the

“best way” to listen is feels frivolous and unnecessary to me.