What is the purpose of the analysis?

It can be useful to get ideas on a certain "topic"

The question is very strange, to tell the truth, but the answer is very simple (at least for me):

the analysis is necessary to understand and the more complex the "object" of our interest is, the more accurate the analysis will have to be, to allow us to understand it deeply. Perhaps you could tell us what you do in the musical field, to contextualize the discussion and to give us the possibility to better understand your concerns and to suggest an approach that is truly useful to you.

I can add to Carlos that analysis allows you to have a global vision of what you will then go on to interpret, and during the analysis stage, the performer usually also decides the dynamics, the tempo of execution, etc. ... if we are talking about an orchestra, Carlos can confirm here, analysis is also aimed at understanding how to blend the instruments together, recognizing where the 'melos' lies, etc. ... in plain words: it is necessary.

Good question.

There are multiple answers, and they change depending on the type of musical piece you are analyzing, how you analyze it, and probably also from the "school" of thought you believe you belong to...

The most generic definition is probably "musical analysis is that activity that seeks to reconnect any discourse about music to specific characteristics of the music itself". That is, if I want to say that "Fra Martino campanaro" is a beautiful piece, I must do so by reconnecting this statement to specific characteristics of "Fra Martino campanaro".

The definition is generic because when I speak of specific characteristics, I can refer to practically anything: melody, harmony, form, but also text, the metronome, or the sonogram of the singer's voice singing that piece. The elements that can be taken into consideration in an analysis are countless, with methodologies of various natures. But the thing that should always be kept in mind (and many forget) is that a musical analysis should always be linked to a musical DISCOURSE. That is, listing a series of chords, in itself, is not a musical discourse. First, you list the chords and then you explain how they work, what their particularities are, and why they fit so well in that piece. Analysis provides DATA for an aesthetic-type discourse, and this link is the most difficult to discover; it is the beautiful and creative part of an analytical discourse.

From this, one should also understand how analyzing a difficult piece is, absurdly enough, much easier than analyzing an easy piece: a very complicated succession of chords is in itself "richer", allowing us to venture into complex discourses, even if they were only discourses related to harmonic and melodic functions. Analyzing simple pieces with banal chord structures (or always the same ones, as in blues and jazz, for example) is much more difficult. One risks not knowing what to say, or perceiving a beauty by ear that we cannot reconnect to the characteristics of the piece. The same goes for ugliness, eh... I always tell those who criticize Allevi that justifying the ugliness or inconsistency of an Allevi piece through analysis is extremely complicated. This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest limits of musical analysis today. The link between analysis and aesthetic discourse is unprovable and unfalsifiable; that is, with analysis, I can say whatever I want, ESPECIALLY in a positive discourse. This is also the reason why analysis should always be accompanied by very precise historical knowledge. Not just technical, eh. In the eyes of an analyst, a piece by Clementi might seem as complex as a piece by Mozart. But knowledge of contexts, of the artistic values that history has assigned to various authors, of reception, and much more can help to "correct the aim" of analytical evaluations.

It is not easy at all, and it is one of the reasons why there are repertoires for which musical analysis struggles immensely to find keys of interpretation. Baroque music is widely unanalyzed, for example.

P.S.

after reading the messages from Carlos and RStrauss, I would add that obviously musical analysis also serves interpretation. Here, the musical discourse is in a certain sense limited; interpretation can only highlight certain things of a score or a piece, and it is not based solely on analysis (it is also based on practical issues, technical limits, inspiration of the moment, etc., etc.). But the role that analysis has in interpretation is the same as the role it has in a discourse.

Aside from quoting previous interventions, since we are in the composition section, I would just like to add that from my point of view analysis is also necessary to understand and "reconstruct" the composer's creative process.

It has a high formative power, stimulates creativity, and allows one to master techniques.

Furthermore, I also find it interesting that practice of subjecting the same work to different analytical methodologies and evaluating the results.

First of all, thank you for the excellent answers; I wouldn't have dared to ask for better. You are truly talented, compliments!

That being said

Carlos wrote:

The question is very strange

I wouldn't say strange; I have tried a few times but I struggle a lot and after a while I give up... if one is not capable, it can require a lot of energy, and before "spending it" I wanted to be more aware of the real benefits of this practice.

Furthermore, I often read about analyzing, analyses are linked, etc., and curiosity pervades me.

Carlos wrote:

Maybe you could tell us what you do in the musical field, to contextualize the discussion and to give us the possibility to better understand your concerns and to suggest an approach that is truly useful to you.

I like playing, but I don't know what to do with the few things I gain from analysis attempts... so in order to do more, I wanted to better frame the issue.

Gianni22 wrote:

I wouldn't say strange, I've tried a few times but I struggle a lot and after a while I give up...

This is another matter, but your question "what is the analysis aimed at" is strange because, even without limiting ourselves to musical discussion, any analysis (even of a poetic text) is done to understand how the text was constructed and to identify the devices that the author has employed to achieve their result.

Gianni22 wrote:

I like playing, but I don't know what to do with the few things I gain from analysis attempts... so in order to do more, I wanted to better frame the issue.

Crystal clear. First: what do you play? Then: it depends on how you perform the analysis. If you even doubt that analysis is useful, perhaps you are not approaching it in the right way; therefore, either you were taught it so-so or you haven't actually grasped the true utility of an analysis process done properly...