Confusion and controversy tend to reign whenever the term ‘analysis’ is used in relation to musical performance. Some authors regard analysis as ‘implicit in what the performer does’, however ‘intuitive and unsystematic’ it might be, while for others, performers must engage in rigorous and theoretically informed analysis of a work's ‘parametric elements’ if its ‘aesthetic depth’ is to be plumbed. It cannot be denied that the interpretation of music requires decisions – conscious or otherwise – about the contextual functions of particular musical features and the means of projecting them. Even the simplest passage – a scale or perfect cadence, for instance – will be shaped according to the performer's understanding of how it fits into a given piece and the expressive prerogatives that he or she brings to bear upon it. Such decisions might well be intuitive and unsystematic, but not necessarily: most performers carefully consider how the music ‘works’ and how to overcome its various conceptual challenges. That process is in many respects an analytical one – but what that means requires explanation.

The aim of this chapter is to explore the dynamic between intuitive and conscious thought that potentially characterises the act of analysis in relation to performance. After surveying some of the literature in this domain, I shall describe a mode of analysis which might benefit rather than constrain performers. This will be illustrated in a case study of Chopin's Nocturne in C♯ minor Op. 27 No. 1.