1. The object of analysis

Analysis traditionally relied on the assumption that pieces of music are aesthetic objects amenable to scholarly contemplation. However, music presents itself as a plural phenomenon, consisting not only in traces (e.g. a score) but also in actions (performance, perception).

Is it tenable, in these conditions, to continue assuming that musical works are objects
for analysis?

How can musical activities or processes be captured and rendered analytically
amenable?

Or can research dispense with the objectification of music?

Could the aim, the scope, the nature of analysis itself be modified by the consideration
of different types of musical works?

2. Historically and Culturally Informed Analysis vs Structuralism

Recent trends of historically informed analysis and new repertories (non-Western music, jazz, ‘popular’ music) call for renewed approaches.

To what extent do these approaches require evaluation procedures rooted in
knowledge of historical and cultural contexts?

Don’t they threaten the notion of the autonomy of music?

And are they compatible with the idea of closure, of internal coherence, that seems
inherent in a structural analysis?

What can be the particular role of music theory and analysis in the investigation of the
relationship between music itself and its context?