ABSTRACT
Analysis, the act of taking apart to see how the thing works, is a vital and potentially empowering practice. No one who has extended our understanding of African musical language has managed without analysis. Studies of rhythm, multipart procedures, melody, and the dynamics of performance are inconceivable without contemplation of events and processes at different levels of structure. Yet analysis remains a contested discipline. Within European musicology, for example, analysts are routinely attacked for their myopia, 1 not attending sufficiently to context, employing anachronistic methods, and imposing "universalizing discourses" on heterogenous musical objects and processes. 2 These matters are equally pertinent to African musicology. But there are others as well. How does one define the object of analysis when there is no score, no written trace for traditional and (most) popular music? What constitutes an appropriate metalanguage? Does a coherent theory emanate from among the people themselves, and if so, should it be given priority over metropolitan theory? What, finally, is the value of analysis? Can it aid performance, listening, composition, history, or is it an autonomous practice?
