# The misrepresentation of written music



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

I couldn't stay away from the forum too long- there are more than a few guys here I highly respect and enjoy conversing with and getting their perspectives on the various aspects of music making. So I am posting this as sort of a general response or musing based on a number of exchanges that actually dance around this very topic.

What I mean by this thread is, it would seem to me that some people have a dislike or aversion to anything that is too pre-meditated when it comes to music equating it with heartless, elitist academia. That somehow the act of writing out, pondering over, and revising a composition sterilizes it and renders it ineffectual as far as its emotional content is concerned. I might be wrong, but I have seen evidence of this in more than a few threads in the time that I have frequented this forum. I would like to add a little perspective on this.

First, we have pieces like Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro, Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, Faure's Requiem, Mahler's Song of the Earth , Saint Saens' Organ Symphony, and the list goes on and on as a result of the commitment of pen/pencil to paper, not realtime improvisation. As much as it's a romanticized ideal that these revered composers were struck by a lightening bolt of inspiration, many of their pieces that have become entrenched as masterpieces were actually products of a lot of blood, sweat and tears. Most recently, a fellow forum member suggested that all of the technical components of the compositional process are not important in the end. Well maybe to the listener, but if these pre-meditated ideals weren't fully massaged by their respective creators, we wouldn't have these classics that have endured over centuries. We'd have Brittany Spears who didn't even make it out of a decade. Well, that's probably too much of a polarization but you get the gist. 

I spent most of the day today on the road listening to these various classical pieces and, in some cases, like Faure's Cantique De Jean Racine, it sounds as though they were touched by the hand of God when it comes tò‡#   Áà•‡#   Áà–‡#   Áà—‡#   Áà˜‡#   Áà™‡#   Áàš‡#   Áà›‡#   Áàœ‡#   Áà‡#   Áàž‡#   ÁàŸ‡#   Áà ‡#   Áà¡‡#   Áà¢‡#   Áà£‡#   Áà¤‡#   Áà¥‡#   Áà¦‡#   Áà§‡#   Áà¨‡#   Áà©‡#   Áàª‡#   Áà«‡#   Áà¬‡#   Áà­‡#   Áà®‡#   Áà¯‡#   Áà°‡#   Áà±‡#   Áà²‡#   Áà³‡#   Áà´‡#   Áàµ‡#   Áà¶‡#   Áà·‡#   Áà¸‡#   Áà¹‡#   Áàº‡#   Áà»‡#   Áà¼‡#   Áà½‡#   Áà¾‡#   Áà¿‡#   ÁàÀ‡#   ÁàÁ‡#   ÁàÂ‡#   ÁàÃ‡#   ÁàÄ‡#   ÁàÅ‡#   ÁàÆ‡#   ÁàÇ‡#   ÁàÈ‡#   ÁàÉ‡#   ÁàÊ‡#   ÁàË‡#   ÁàÌ‡#   ÁàÍ‡#   ÁàÎ‡#   ÁàÏ‡#   ÁàÐ‡#   ÁàÑ‡#   ÁàÒ‡#   ÁàÓ‡#   ÁàÔ‡#   ÁàÕ‡#   ÁàÖ‡#   Áà×‡#   ÁàØ‡#   ÁàÙ‡#   ÁàÚ‡#   ÁàÛ‡#   ÁàÜ‡#   ÁàÝ‡#   ÁàÞ‡#   Áàß‡#   Áàà‡#   Áàá‡#   Áàâ‡#   Áàã‡#   Áàä‡#   Áàå‡#   Áàæ‡#   Áàç‡#   Áàè‡#   Áàé‡#   Áàê‡#   Áàë‡#   Áàì‡#   Áàí‡#   Áàî‡#   Áàï‡#   Áàð‡#   Áàñ‡#   Áàò‡#   Áàó‡$   Áàô‡$   Áàõ‡$   Áàö‡$   Áà÷‡$   Áàø‡$   Áàù‡$   Áàú‡$   Áàû‡$   Áàü‡$   Áàý‡$   Áàþ‡$   Áàÿ‡$   Áá ‡$   Áá‡$   Áá‡$   Áá‡$   Áá              ò‡$   Áá‡$   Áá‡$   Áá‡$   Áá	‡$   Áá
‡$   Áá‡$   Áá‡$   Áá ‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%   Áá‡%


----------



## mf (Jan 27, 2010)

The issue is quite simple: you want your music played by musicians, you write it down and hand it to them.
No existential dilemma, psychological depth, or aesthetic paradigm are involved; just plain down to earth practicality.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

Sigh. I really had hoped we'd get away from this ideology of "I don't want to analyze music" or analysis kills enjoyment. Maybe I didn't articulate my initial post correctly....


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 27, 2010)

dcoscina @ Wed Jan 27 said:


> Sigh. I really had hoped we'd get away from this ideology of "I don't want to analyze music" or analysis kills enjoyment. Maybe I didn't articulate my initial post correctly....



Heh, I have sheet music for Edward Scissorhands that I've never analyzed because it would ruin the magic!

I agree with uselessmind. When I listen to music all that matters is if I like it. I don't hate classical music because it's too pre-meditated or something I just hate it cause it's boring and does nothing for me.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 27, 2010)

I like Beethoven and I understand that he uses more than one key. I think that's one reason I like it. And more than one "loud" thingy -- this adds variety so that each loud thingy is different from the other loud thingys.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

fair enough choco.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

JohnG @ Wed Jan 27 said:


> I like Beethoven and I understand that he uses more than one key. I think that's one reason I like it. And more than one "loud" thingy -- this adds variety so that each loud thingy is different from the other loud thingys.



Heh heh. Stirring the pot eh John? 

Rock on dude. I like when Beethoven uses that extra loud thingy that goes to 11 for that extra push over the cliff.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 27, 2010)

dcoscina,

I don't know what problems you exactly have with written or not written music but I am honestly happy I don't have them. You seem in a way to be centered around this problem ... it must really be a burden for you (I am serious).

That being said ...

as somebody that reads and writes music fluently (and enjoys composing in notation, not exclusively but most time) I think that maybe you don't do notated and well-developed music the best favour. It seems you want to prove something but on the other hand instead of proving it (by writing great music) it rumours in yourself in a nearly self-destructive way. And the only reason I am writing this is that you might feel much better if you could overcome that in one or the other way ... I sincerely wish for you that you someday can transform all your energy into a positive, productive drive.

It seems that you are serious about writing substantial music and probably the development of music as an art form is a matter of heart for you. I appreciate that very much since I feel the same. Now if you could stop being "against" anything _(anything)_, and instead do your thing, bring out what is inside you with all the power that you've got, that would be great for sure.

Best regards,
Hannes


----------



## JohnG (Jan 27, 2010)

Actually, upon re-reading his latest salvo on this topic, I didn't see Dave writing anything much except how much he likes the written-down music. And in any event, one has to define the argument somehow, so I think this quasi "I feel sorry for you" response is inexplicable.

But on this topic generally, just read a hilarious post at Soundsonline:

_"Why do you guys care so much about harmony/chord theory?
I've got a death metal background and once you understand how to play a chromatic and a diminished scale, you are pretty much set.

But everyone in the classical music scene (and jazz scene) warbles on about chord theories etc. I was always under the impression that you just played for a couple years and learnt the feel of the sounds and structures.

BUT I was just thinking "the music is a lot slower in most other music" and it just occurred to me that most of you are composing for a dozen instruments at a time, not just a guitar riff and maybe a harmony. 

Does the chord theory stuff mean you can switch your brain off a bit when you are composing? Repeating themes and ideas?"_

Just excellent.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

Sorry guys.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 27, 2010)

David?

PLEASE don't be sorry (again, ever again! :D)

Are you talking about the superiority of classical (orchestral or other) music against pop? Cause in your OP it sounds like this.

I will agree with some sentiments in your post, rather than the general idea of comparison (which seems to be there, although not fully expressed).

I believe that inspiration plays a small part in the creation of masterworks. Especially in the case of Beethoven, a lot of his musical themes are just... arpegges and nothing more. But while the same could be said for Czerny, the latter created some 200 ugly etudes, while Beethoven created 1 sonata (moonlight) which is of amazing beauty! Music theme? Arpege x 4 in C#m, etc, etc (oversimplified), with a note playing at 16ths against triplets. But it's stunningly beautiful!

All masterworks in classical music took a lot of things to be created, but not exactly inspiration. The myths about Mozart sitting down and working on a full symphony in a matter of minutes is probably that: a myth! 

In more contemporary music (Bartok, Boulez, etc) things get even more intelectual. I hope many members remember the analysis posted here of "music for strings, percussion and celesta". It wasn't done in random, nor just out of pure luck! It was created as such, in order to achieve a very specific point in the form (that of the ultimate rising in the 5/8ths of the work and then reverse the whole thing). Up to a point I buy that and I agree. After a certain point (when people take random numbers and create music, or whatever other random shit you can think of) I find it too much. I mean, yes, absolute serialism sounds like a cool idea for one single work, on a whole idiom and bunch of works. Same for orchestras playing 3 different pieces at the same time (Stockhausen), or anything else.

If you want a comparison (between classical and non) I'd say that there are a few things which make it DIFFERENT (not higher quality or whatever).
1. Time spent on a composition. It's very frequently less time consumed in pop music.
2. The art of notation it self, and the use of performers leads to the addition of many members of incredible (!) musicality to work together. A composer, the conductor and 80 members of the orchestra. This is A LOT of talent/musicality gathered in one place for a single work of music.
3. Which also means that the composer does not bother, the least, for production values and studio techniques. Pop music on the other hand are hands deep into such notions.

If you ask me, on a personal level, I find contemporary classical music to be suffering from autism. Things have changed and people refuse to change, refuse to listen. The art of recording has been stuck into just grabbing the best quality of what's been heard, while in pop music everything can be done. And even if contemporary classical music is spread via recorded means, we steal find joy in a 'pure recording' and other bullshit, like it makes any difference anymore! (for the record 2 of my pieces for my PhD were created via samples alone and both were very happily accepted and discussed as alternative means to creating music, almost in the center of my viva, as one of the main research questions...). No matter how we complain about the lack of realism and the difference between samples and real recording, they are both recording and thus both are obnoxious childs of music itself!

[/taking it too far]

Hannes: I doubt this is what David, means and needs. The guy is serving as a music journalist mostly, rather than a 'pure composer' (like myself for example), and additionally he is making a very strong point. If he manages to prove to a bunch of hardcore geeky vi users that there is great value in written music that should be passed on, used and spread, then ... YAY!

Thank you for your thread David. Always happy to read your thoughts!


----------



## uselessmind (Jan 27, 2010)

dcoscina @ Wed Jan 27 said:


> Sigh. I really had hoped we'd get away from this ideology of "I don't want to analyze music" or analysis kills enjoyment. Maybe I didn't articulate my initial post correctly....



Well i didn't write analysing kills enjoyment.

I was simply writing about your (and my) impressions why arguments about good or bad music and analysis in this forum go often a certain way.

I can listen to music without analysing wich is fine. Sometimes though while listening the student in me notices how clever or well done something in a piece of music is or why it probably was done this way.
And sometimes the composer in me adds or extends lines and musical ideas or gets inspired to write something new himself.

So when you talk about techniques and stuff the student and the composer in me will probably listen.
And in this case it is not about good or bad or heartless music etc.

But when you talk about good or bad music you talk to the listener in me. And if you say a piece of music is bad when i think it is good (wich isn't about one aproach vs the other) then you will get disagreement.

And often pointless arguments that lead nowhere when there could have been really interesting discussions.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

I think Nikolas best explained what I was trying to convey. Thanks Nikolas.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 27, 2010)

Inspiration is not the mother of invention or any of Bach's inventions for that matter. The composer writes because he must. Something may take hold of him and lift him into other spheres but he/she isn't going to wait for that. In fact the gestalt of composing for many is _problem solving._ Beethoven would challenge himself by predetermining a set of musical goals of form, content, style and whatever. He would then set out to totally dominate these challenges and completely overcome them with his personality and musical sensibility. Always blazing a trail while redefining music in the process.

The issue of study and analysis is moot as far as the large percentage of great composers. They all did it. I don't want an uneducated surgeon filled with inspiration removing my appendix. I want a guy who has studied and practiced a whole lot. In fact it is against the law for someone to practice the art of medicine who hasn't made a big study of it and perhaps should be for some music practitioners as well.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 27, 2010)

Dave, I have to say it: God bless ya man! Once again, this crystalizes what I was trying to put forth.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 27, 2010)

It's really just _Old-School_ thinking Dave ; )


----------



## re-peat (Jan 28, 2010)

nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> (...) Especially in the case of Beethoven, a lot of his musical themes are just... arpegges and nothing more. (...)


Perhaps you might want to rethink some of that, Nikolas. Beethoven’s themes are, more often than not, meticulously sculpted melodic cells, written — and herein lies their unique power — not to draw too much attention to themselves (like Tchaikovsky’s melodies invariably do for instance), but to be the strong motivic threads in the tapestry of his music (both horizontally and vertically). The arpeggio-based melodic material which you mention, is there as well of course, but often (although there are exceptions), it is of an even more functional nature: being derived from or leading towards more vital motivic content. (If I had to name one composer who regularly used arpeggios as the basis for melodic material, it would be Bach. Certainly not Beethoven.)

I never understood why Beethoven is considered a weak melodist. I think he’s actually one of the greatest melodic inventors of all time, if not the greatest. It’s true that that are many composers who are able to write more superficially emotional, ear-catching, passionate or sensual melodies (Tchaikovsky is a good example, or John Williams), but the thing is: the melodies from these composers are often complete, self-centered musical entities by themselves and as such, much less suited to act as the multi-dimensional, architectural elements which Beethoven needs (and comes up with).
One might call the Tchaikovsky-variant of melody _‘ego-centric melodies’_ (“Just look at me, how beautiful I am.”), whereas Beethoven’s themes are _‘musically altruïstic’_ team-players. (All of this is a crude generalisation, of course. Both types of melodies can be found in most composers’ output.)

The inevitable weakness in ‘ego-centric melodies’ however, no matter how shatteringly beautiful they may appear at first, is the fact that, sooner or later (depending on their quality and on how much you’ve been exposed to them), all their beauty becomes fully disclosed often to reveal that there’s nothing much of substance underneath it. That’s the moment when a melody (even a great one) becomes boring. It’s fully explored and there’s nothing left to discover anymore. A fate which even the most ravishingly beautiful tunes can’t escape ... (Also the reason why ‘pop tunes’, even the very best ones, tend to become a bit boring if you hear them often enough: there’s nothing ‘behind the tune’, their only appeal is that superficial layer of melodic attractiveness.)

The more tune-y a melody, the higher the risk of it loosing its musical appeal after a while. Which brings us back to Beethoven’s unique musical understanding: with absolutely perfect musical instinct, he comes up with these themes that have, on the one hand, enough ‘ego-centric’ melodic appeal not to sound vulgar or banal, and yet don’t have too much tune-y-ness in them so as not to run the risk of loosing their power and impact over time. On top of which they're also perfect building-blocks. In-cre-di-bly difficult to write that kind of musical material. It requires pure, incomprehensible, un-analyzeable genius, I believe.

_


----------



## lux (Jan 28, 2010)

where's this "meditated and articulated music hatery" you guys talk about? Serious?

and the antithesis between popular and classic music is something even my grandma passed over several years ago. Are we still there?

fortunately musicians still grow up passing a good number of passages. One is still refuse for disciplined music.

Some grow up old without any acceptance for disciplined music. And they become Keith Richard. Some embrace disciplined music and become something else. 

Both cases i had great emotion listening to the Stones or Tchajcovsky and cant see what the problem is.

I think we are too young to start ranting here and there about the good old times and how better we are compared to the rest of the world. I think we're no better or worse than before honestly.


----------



## Rob (Jan 28, 2010)

... deleted because probably I didn't understand what the topic was :D


----------



## nikolas (Jan 28, 2010)

re-peat: My comment on Beethoven was aimed to compare him and Czerny (silly comparison either way), but to prove the point that it's work and not inspiration that counts.

I play the piano and I can remember lots of different sonatas which do not really have a melody per se, but usage of arpegges. Tempest (Dm), Appasionata (Fm), Moonlight (C#m), No.5 (Cm) and others which I can't recall.

It's a whole different world to talk about motives (5th Symphony, or the 31st of Mozart (the well known bloody ringtone EbDD EbDD EbDDBb...) and to talk about melody. Beethovens' power (for me) is his harmonic use, and of course the motific development.

I hope you can realise that we agree (especially since I'm not a melodist myself), but you took my point the wrong way!


----------



## mf (Jan 28, 2010)

> Beethoven, a lot of his musical themes are just... arpegges and nothing more.


Missing the forest for the trees here.




> I can remember lots of different sonatas which do not really have a melody per se, but usage of arpegges. Tempest (Dm), Appasionata (Fm), Moonlight (C#m), No.5 (Cm) and others which I can't recall.


The melodies and themes in those works are so poignant that render the arpeggios as mere decorations.




> Czerny ... created some 200 ugly etudes


Sometimes, beauty is in the mind of the beholder, and ugliness just as well.




> All masterworks in classical music took a lot of things to be created, but not exactly inspiration.


Inspiration, as external influence (being it a modal idiom, harmonic patterns, folk dance rhythmic patterns, melodic shapes, etc), is essential to the creative process, especially in classic music.




> The myths about Mozart sitting down and working on a full symphony in a matter of minutes is probably that: a myth!


Or probably his musical thinking process was so seamless and fast, and his capacity to focus on it was so sharp and powerful, that he could build up complete works inside his head at light speed, and then simply taking them down on paper, like a copyist.




> the 31st of Mozart (the well known bloody ringtone EbDD EbDD EbDDBb...)


That was the well known bloody 40th.




> we steal find joy in a 'pure recording' and other bullshit, like it makes any difference anymore! (for the record 2 of my pieces for my PhD were created via samples alone and both were very happily accepted and discussed as alternative means to creating music, almost in the center of my viva, as one of the main research questions...)


A PhD in composition is something to be proud of, and "we steal find joy" is a beautiful freudian misspelling.




> a 'pure composer' (like myself for example)


Yes but do you use arpeggios?




> I hope you can realise that we agree (especially since I'm not a melodist myself), but you took my point the wrong way!


Taking points the wrong way should never prevent people from agreeing. That said, I agree in advance that I took all your points the wrong way, while hoping you'll agree that you took this point, and every other point for that matter, the wrong way.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 28, 2010)

dcoscina @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> (...) That darn Amadeus film actually did classical composers a disservice IMO. It makes music creation look easy and fun.(...)



No, it didn't. On the contrary, I would say. Its central theme is the frustration of mediocrity: being able to recognize greatness, yet unable to create it. A most depressing predicament, for anyone who aspires to be a composer, except the most talented or opportunistic ones. And its portayal of Mozart may have been historically somewhat incorrect but, paradoxically, all the more accurate for it, because he *was* _exceptionnaly_ gifted.

I always thought that 'Amadeus' should be mandatory viewing as part of any music education. I don't know of any other movie that cuts so deep in the complex matter of "struggling with one's talent (or the absence of it)".

_


----------



## david robinson (Jan 28, 2010)

hi,

the more i learn, the more i leave out.

best,
john r.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 28, 2010)

Do you have an issue with most of my post, I take it, mezzoforte, right? 

* forest, trees... says you. Again you missed my point.

* I don't know how much more I can make it clear... What is the great melodic theme in moonlight? I agree that it's a fantastic sonata, one of my favorite, etc. But what is it that makes it a great theme? The very short dotted 8th-16th motif? Perhaps. but still...

* Czerny wrote more than 200 I'm sure, so there's plenty of room for beautiful or whatever. Mentioned it earlier: silly comparison to showcase a point and nothing more.

* I will correct myself: "All masterworks in classical music took a lot of things to be created, but not *ONLY* inspiration.". There. Any better now?

* Mozart issues: Whoops (hasty writting on the 40nth... whoops sorry, but well done on identifying it from my short melody mentioning) and the rest about myth: Try finding some tangible proof. I don't see any reason to counterclaim my 'probable' mentioning.

* Mentioning the PhD is again there to prove a point, steal is one of my usual tpyos and your quote makes little sense, but brought a smile to me, when I saw my misspeliing (2 ss?).

* Arpeggios or not, in comparison to Dcoscina and that's all.

* Silly mentioning about points and stuff also make little sense... Taking into account that you discussed the forest and the trees you seem to have missed both the forest and the trees in an effort to crosspost me and nothing else. hmmm...


----------



## Ed (Jan 28, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 27 said:


> hen I listen to music all that matters is if I like it. I don't hate classical music because it's too pre-meditated or something I just hate it cause it's boring and does nothing for me.



I know what you mean when you say that, but not all "classical music" is the same. A lot of it could be film music if you chose carefully.

Of course the kind of music I'm talking about some people claim is not really "classical" at all.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 28, 2010)

choco, try Alexandre Nevsky Canata by Prokofiev. It's actually cited as one of the biggest influences on modern film scoring. It's a terrific work too.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 28, 2010)

Thanks Dave and Nikolas- this is exactly the intended point of this thread. To pull away the cloak of illusion over the art and craft of composition.

To come up with a theme is perhaps more inspirational. But to work with that theme or motif and developing it through various means is pure technique. Is it no wonder why some of us feel we're missing an essential ingredient in today's film scores in particular? It's hard work let's not kid ourselves. But it seems like today there's more work involved in production of the music rather than the actual music itself. I'm probably over-simplifying things to be sure. But I would say this issue of technique has always been omnipresent even when there were no synths or sample libraries. Those with the combination of creative inspiration AND the monster technique to shape those ideas are why we have guys like Herrmann, Rosza, Korngold, Steiner, Goldsmith, Williams, etc. 

I know this has gotten a little off topic but the kernel of it still gets back to the writing.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 28, 2010)

dcoscina @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Thanks Dave and Nikolas- this is exactly the intended point of this thread. To pull away the cloak of illusion over the art and craft of composition.



I wonder whom you are talking to since this is a forum of composers. Literally every posting member here writes music (well except choco maybe, I don't know). Are you really concerned anybody here could be too naive about the process of composing?

I am still wondering what the sub-text of your message is. Could it be that you are actually inconsciously searching for the indegrients that you officially declare as insignificant? Hazardous thought.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 28, 2010)

dcoscina @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> To come up with a theme is perhaps more inspirational. But to work with that theme or motif and developing it through various means is pure technique.



Sorry moderators, I accidently hit on the 'report' knob. Nothing bad here :mrgreen: o=< 

Since I am at it: Developing a theme through variations has been overrated _by far_ and is boring without inspiration and real creativity. Actually I think this has been one nail in the coffin of classical music of the less inspired kind. 

In that point am totally with choco or whoever turns classical music off once it is not a real discovery journey any more. Gibberish and mannerism (I mean the principle, not the era) are the neckbrakers of music imo. Yes, I am gross about that. =o


----------



## re-peat (Jan 28, 2010)

dcoscina @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Thanks Dave and Nikolas- this is exactly the intended point of this thread. To pull away the cloak of illusion over the art and craft of composition.


_Que?_ 

I share Hannes' disappointment, I must say. Had hoped something a little less obvious would have come out of this. 
As Sir Arthur Strieb-Griebling used to say: "It's a wonderful opportunity. Seize it! "

_


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 28, 2010)

dcoscina @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> choco, try Alexandre Nevsky Canata by Prokofiev. It's actually cited as one of the biggest influences on modern film scoring. It's a terrific work too.



Ok, I'll listen to that since Elfman likes Prokofiev.




Ed @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 27 said:
> 
> 
> > hen I listen to music all that matters is if I like it. I don't hate classical music because it's too pre-meditated or something I just hate it cause it's boring and does nothing for me.
> ...



Yeah, I know there's some stuff out there that I'd probably like but it's faster for me to just condemn classical as a whole so I can go downstairs and eat my canned Beefaroni 30 seconds sooner.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 28, 2010)

Well a forum thread is a live organism. I do hope that my initial post had various implications to be discussed (and other posts as well of course). So... Regardless of the main point of this thread, I don't see a reason why other things and notions cannot be discussed futher!

Hannes: I turn off any genre of music that doesn't click to me. And I find most stuff rather predictable (guilty of being self obsessed and self high browed...)


----------



## re-peat (Jan 28, 2010)

And, Choco, what about >>*this*<<, from Prokofiev's *"Scythian Suite"*? Boring? 

_


----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 28th January 2010 said:


> Gibberish and mannerism (I mean the principle, not the era) are the neckbrakers of music imo. Yes, I am gross about that. =o



Do you mean by this "worshipping 'Great Works' of the past blindly or unduly or without regard to how one actually feels about them, merely because some professor says they're good therapy, like vitamins?"

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 28, 2010)

I don't think David is intending to slight anyone else here he just seems to appreciate those who share a similar viewpoint which is not uncommon in art and politics.


----------



## mf (Jan 28, 2010)

nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Well a forum thread is a live organism. I do hope that my initial post had various implications to be discussed (and other posts as well of course). So... Regardless of the main point of this thread, I don't see a reason why other things and notions cannot be discussed futher!


Right.



nikolas @ Wed Jan 27 said:


> Especially in the case of Beethoven, a lot of his musical themes are just... arpegges and nothing more.





nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> I play the piano and I can remember lots of different sonatas which do not really have a melody per se, but usage of arpegges. Tempest (Dm), Appasionata (Fm), Moonlight (C#m), No.5 (Cm) and others which I can't recall.





nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> What is the great melodic theme in moonlight? I agree that it's a fantastic sonata, one of my favorite, etc. But what is it that makes it a great theme? The very short dotted 8th-16th motif? Perhaps. but still...


Take a listen:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4004765/bpsop2721.mp3


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Jan 28, 2010)

choc0thrax @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Yeah, I know there's some stuff out there that I'd probably like but it's faster for me to just condemn classical as a whole so I can go downstairs and eat my canned Beefaroni 30 seconds sooner.



:lol:


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 28, 2010)

re-peat @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> And, Choco, what about >>*this*<<, from Prokofiev's *"Scythian Suite"*? Boring?
> 
> _



Ehh, kinda boring. Impressive amount of notes though. I have trouble liking anything pre Star Wars. 8) The main exception is Vaughan Williams, I like his stuff. Is he considered classical at all??


----------



## The_Dark_Knight (Jan 28, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RFq7cOV ... re=related

Montagues and Capulets

skip ahead to 1:30

This version kinda sux. PROKOFIEFF IS RUSSIAAAAAA


----------



## The_Dark_Knight (Jan 28, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3kf8cqRoks

prokofieff 3rd - 3rd moment.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 28, 2010)

re-peat @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> ...The inevitable weakness in ‘ego-centric melodies’ however, no matter how shatteringly beautiful they may appear at first, is the fact that, sooner or later (depending on their quality and on how much you’ve been exposed to them), all their beauty becomes fully disclosed often to reveal that there’s nothing much of substance underneath it. That’s the moment when a melody (even a great one) becomes boring. It’s fully explored and there’s nothing left to discover anymore. A fate which even the most ravishingly beautiful tunes can’t escape ... (Also the reason why ‘pop tunes’, even the very best ones, tend to become a bit boring if you hear them often enough: there’s nothing ‘behind the tune’, their only appeal is that superficial layer of melodic attractiveness.)
> 
> The more tune-y a melody, the higher the risk of it loosing its musical appeal after a while. Which brings us back to Beethoven’s unique musical understanding: with absolutely perfect musical instinct, he comes up with these themes that have, on the one hand, enough ‘ego-centric’ melodic appeal not to sound vulgar or banal, and yet don’t have too much tune-y-ness in them so as not to run the risk of loosing their power and impact over time. On top of which they're also perfect building-blocks. In-cre-di-bly difficult to write that kind of musical material. It requires pure, incomprehensible, un-analyzeable genius, I believe.


I'm a little confused by this, re-peat.

I suspect I've misunderstood something, because what you've said makes perfect sense except that it implies you don't actually enjoy listening to music for the pleasure of experiencing it; rather, your dismissal of tuneful melodies as only superficially satisfying says to me that your interest in a piece of music lasts only as long as it takes for you to thoroughly "understand" the intricacies of its construction — whether it's the Beethoven arpeggiated melodic cells or something else.

I put "understand" in quotation marks because I believe that ultimately all interpretation of music is wholly subjective, and therefore saying that anyone thoroughly "understands" any piece of music at all seems strange. Surely you haven't considered it from every possible perspective? I'm not saying anyone would want to either, I just find it odd and honestly a bit sad that so much of the world's musical repertoire is so unsatisfying to you. I can't imagine what that must be like.

Perhaps I'm just an easily amused idiot, but I can listen to the works of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky (and many many MANY others, including contemporary songs) as many times as I like and I can't honestly say that I feel any less enchanted by them as time goes on — why would I? Especially for the ones where I've happened to read through the score while listening, I may feel that I have a firmer grasp of how everything was achieved and how the intricacies of the composer's methods have come together to produce the work, but I hardly find that such knowledge robs the piece of any of its interest or long-term value, as you implied. If anything, it highlights those qualities.

Again, I may have totally misinterpreted, so please clarify if I have (maybe I was just put off by your altruism metaphor...  ), I just wanted to chime in because I was a little unclear on what your actual position is. Do you enjoy music qua music, or do you enjoy the experience of decoding music on a technical level? If both, then why would the latter have any effect on the former?

I'm also more than a little hesitant to attribute anything at all to "pure, incomprehensible, un-analyzeable genius", but that may just be my cynicism kicking in. xD


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 28, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Hmm ... after re-reading this thread I still stay with what I wrote.
> 
> It is my innermost conviction that besides all analysis, ability to deconstruct and reconstruct and whatnot ... we need a raw creative-positive virility to cut the Gordian knot.
> 
> ...



Yes, I think it's so much better to celebrate and promote primal instinctual behaviour. It's gotten us so far as a species. :roll: 

At the risk of sounding elitist, what in the holy hell is wrong with wanting to push the envelop more? I know I'm not a great composer, but I am striving to be better. I try atypical harmonic resolutions, I try writing in compound meters but make it sound flowing and melodic, I study more orchestration, I attend more orchestral concerts. I listen listen listen to a lot. I study scores. And on top of that, I try to wrestle with this damn technology in the hopes that it will make it easier for me to get all these ideas and fully formed pieces in my head out into the real world the way I hear it. I ain't Mozart so it takes longer to get it out there, and even then, stuff is missing. 

BTW- there has been some interesting posts and POVs on this thread. thanks gents.


----------



## mf (Jan 28, 2010)

Mathazzar @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> re-peat @ Thu Jan 28 said:
> 
> 
> > ...The inevitable weakness in ‘ego-centric melodies’ however, no matter how shatteringly beautiful they may appear at first, is the fact that, sooner or later (depending on their quality and on how much you’ve been exposed to them), all their beauty becomes fully disclosed often to reveal that there’s nothing much of substance underneath it. That’s the moment when a melody (even a great one) becomes boring. It’s fully explored and there’s nothing left to discover anymore. A fate which even the most ravishingly beautiful tunes can’t escape ... (Also the reason why ‘pop tunes’, even the very best ones, tend to become a bit boring if you hear them often enough: there’s nothing ‘behind the tune’, their only appeal is that superficial layer of melodic attractiveness.)
> ...


Re-peat has a great flair at making this kind of subtle yet pertinent distinctions. Here he differentiates superficial attractiveness from beauty of character. It's like the difference between sexy and classy. The former is trying to seduce you, for its own advantage; the latter kindly invites (and inspires) you to grow.

Beethoven is one of those classy artists. It blows my mind away every time I zoom his stuff in. "Pure, incomprehensible, un-analyzeable genius," that's what he is. Mozart too. Hard to figure out how their musical minds worked, but every little glimpse of it brings me close to rapture. Btw, yes, there is such thing called "musical understanding" - besides subjective pleasure there is also objective enlightenment. Music does make sense, actually.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 28, 2010)

re-peat @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> I never understood why Beethoven is considered a weak melodist. I think he’s actually one of the greatest melodic inventors of all time, if not the greatest.



Perhaps the greatest of them all I agree. I think people are referring to lyrical tunes when they say _melody._ Even so Beethoven writes stunningly beautiful lyrical melodies as in the slow movement of his 9th. In fact every single tune in that entire work, whether a main, subordinate, transitional, closing or ending tune/melody is like a single masterpiece from Michelangelo. 

His counter melodies are equally masterful. It's just that (as re-peat pointed out) Beethoven often writes germs or cells deliberately for the purpose of development which requires a less lyrical approach (lyrical melodies he often treats as theme and variation which require longer melodic phrases.) Bach did the very same. His fuge 'melodies' (subjects) are not at all lyrical for the most part but pregnant for musical treatment.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 28, 2010)

mf: At double/triple the tempo and orchestrated poorly? I don't think so, sorry! :D

You know I'm not insulting anyone by what I said, I can't see really what you're trying to prove for the shake of me. You want Beethoven to be the brillianr melodist that Verdi was, by all means have your say. What I said was that his very amazing music was based not on the such utterly awesome melodies he wrote, but in his harmonies and his development. Why on earth is it so difficult that you have to keep on chiming on this? Unless you're a relative of Ludwig in which case you might know more!  heh...


----------



## mf (Jan 28, 2010)

nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> mf: At double/triple the tempo and orchestrated poorly? I don't think so, sorry! :D
> 
> You know I'm not insulting anyone by what I said, I can't see really what you're trying to prove for the shake of me. You want Beethoven to be the brillianr melodist that Verdi was, by all means have your say. What I said was that his very amazing music was based not on the such utterly awesome melodies he wrote, but in his harmonies and his development. Why on earth is it so difficult that you have to keep on chiming on this? Unless you're a relative of Ludwig in which case you might know more!  heh...


Let me recap:

_"Beethoven, a lot of his musical themes are just... arpegges and nothing more."
"sonatas which do not really have a melody per se, but usage of arpegges. Tempest (Dm), Appasionata (Fm), Moonlight (C#m)"
"What is the great melodic theme in moonlight? I agree that it's a fantastic sonata, one of my favorite, etc. But what is it that makes it a great theme?"_

Now, let me explain: You were lost. You were only hearing arpeggios and nothing more. So I simplified those obtrusive arpeggios back into chords (less distracting). Also, you insisted you're unable to hear the themes there. I thought, maybe it's too slow for you, maybe the notes are too far from each other and they don't connect to each other inside your mind. So, to bring the notes closer, I doubled the tempo and, to make the themes and the counter-melodies more easily detectable, I have assigned them to some instruments less percussive than the piano and capable of playing sustained, connected notes. By no means an "orchestration," just a quick 'n dirty mockup of the first Moonlight googled midi file. That track is nothing but an exercise for your ears, having only one purpose: to point out to you the themes in that sonata, which you previously failed to hear. Did you hear them now? You don't say it in your post, but I incline to believe you did. That's all that counts.

A little piece of advice: avoid the Beethoven subject. And Mozart too, if possible. For your own sake, that is. You don't seem to get that music, and your inconsiderate remarks and sweep statements on those subject matters don't ring well with your academic title. Speak of what you know, Shmuckhausen, Xenakis, and what have you - I won't pop in with "nonsense, it's just noise, can't hear those bogus themes you're talking about."


----------



## nikolas (Jan 28, 2010)

Mate, a little piece of advice back to you:

I don't care about your advice or your thoughts about my ears, me being lost, about your excersizes or anything like that. It's just a forum and just an opinion. Maybe a IMHO would be appropriate from my behalf but it's not much more. An opinion. 

You don't know nothing about me so keep your personal remarks at yourself.

I'm trying to tone down every time and you keep trying to tone up every time.

For those who know me, know very well that I can listen to advice, and I actually seek it from time to time, but in this case you've decided to make it personal, in which case... oh well...

EDIT: Actually I have to admit that after calming down for a sec, I find what you say rather funny (apart from the whole personal remarks which remain insutling, but never the less). You are playing some kind of Beethoven melodies vs elses' game, like a kid or something. You are seriously trying to prove that very issue, so hard that you had to go and get a midi file, play it x4 in speed (I said 3 I think, but anyhow), arrange the instruments in order to pin point something which isn't there exactly in the first place. I'll give you another example for you to understand what you did: Take a 12-tone track, remove 5 of them and vuala! You end up with a tonal work! There's the hidden tonality of 12-tones! :D

Point at hand: I'll keep saying what I said about SOME of Beethovens WORKS and still keep remainding you that it was used AS A BLOODY EXAMPLE in a SILLY COMPARISON with other works by Cerny to illustrate a point. Get it now? Or will you send me the whole Naxos collection to prove me wrong perhaps? :D


----------



## mf (Jan 29, 2010)

nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> in order to pin point something which isn't there exactly in the first place. I'll give you another example for you to understand what you did: Take a 12-tone track, remove 5 of them and vuala! You end up with a tonal work! There's the hidden tonality of 12-tones!


No that's not what I did but your own misunderstanding of it. Your 12 tone little story doesn't have anything to do with our case. You're just blowing smoke, imho.
What you miss here is that I did NOT remove or add anything there; also, that the themes that I underlined actually have ALWAYS been there, only that you said and insisted that you fail to hear them. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you; I tried. 
I still suspect it's some sort of self pride that prevents you from acknowledging those themes there; if that is the case then there's nothing I can do about it.

edit 
Try to remove 5 tones from a 12 tone piece and see if what remains sounds tonal to you. The difference between these two idioms is not 5 tones. One can write tonal music using 12 notes just as well as writing atonal music using 7 notes. No, there is no hidden tonality in 12 tone music, but there are unhidden themes shining in each and every sonata Beethoven has written.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2010)

For me to recap: If you take any piece of music, play it at x4 speed, reorchestrate it and extend the notes (sustain) you are not really proving anything at all. Yes the higher notes of the arpege could be perceived like some kind of melody, if you want to read it so much, but at x4 times slower speed, on the piano, etc, they are hardly noticable at that, especially with the high G# played and the repeated arpgeges. Moreover, for me at least, the particular work does not work because of that melody you describe, but because of other elements.

What I'm saying is that it's not working like this in the original version. 

Oh well... we don't seem to get each other. I just still don't see the point of your personal remarks, since I'm not insulting anyone (as far as I can tell, but who knows...)

Let me see if I can tone it down further so this silly debate can end: There are various works from various composers, where melody does not seem (<-as general as it may get) to be the predominant part, or something that one will go out and hum. Still some of these works are masterpieces in their own rights. And it appears that other elements are responsible for what makes them a masterpiece. The harmonies, the rhythm, the development, etc. The initial cell, the initial spark could have different shape, colour or physic, than a melody for various composers I think.

Shall we call it a quits, or maybe take it to PMs? I hardly think this extended version of a thread needs any more derailing...


----------



## mf (Jan 29, 2010)

nikolas @ Fri Jan 29 said:


> I hardly think this extended version of a thread needs any more derailing...


Now you don't like it, it's derailing. You forget that you called for it:



nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Well a forum thread is a live organism. I do hope that my initial post had various implications to be discussed (and other posts as well of course). So... Regardless of the main point of this thread, I don't see a reason why other things and notions cannot be discussed futher!


What I could easily call derailing is your stubbornly maintained claim that there's no melodic theme in that piece, and I find that bizarre for someone who have studied music at PhD level.
Just crossed my mind, maybe you are more of a visual type of person, so maybe you will SEE those themes in the score. What I see there is a bass line underlining an arpeggiated harmonic progression. Do you see anything else there? If you do, what do you think that is?


----------



## Synesthesia (Jan 29, 2010)

nikolas @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Moonlight (C#m),



Hey Nikolas,

I disagree here, above is the most obvious example, surely the moonlight has one of the great melodies, a beautiful yearning simplicity? The arps are just decoration.

Just my 2p!

Cheers

Paul

EDIT: whoops. mf beat me to it.. :lol:


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2010)

Oh man! You are really trying, aren't you? Before a midi file, with VI instruments (it's the VI-Control after all), now the score... I'm still waiting for the naxos collection! :D

Let's take it from a completely different angle: You know I hold a PhD in composition, my name and various other tibits I'm sure (since I talk too much). How about sharing a few stuff about yourself, about your music, about your gigs, your professions. Not that it counts too much to any point given but I was kinda wondering that's all. Especially since you ARE using my personal information in your posts, in nice or not so nice ways, why shouldn't I do the same... 

Thank you for the score, btw. Although I own all the Beethoven sonatas and a wide (very wide) range of piano works in scores, thanks. It goes to show how much you want to (stubbornly I guess?) prove your point.

I'll admit that I always keep in mind that I could be wrong. I also keep in mind that language barriers could have a burden on a discussion.

So.

In the 1st movement you get 3 (or 4 let me explain later) layers. The bass line, the arpeggiated harmonic progression and the top voice which as I mentioned in very early is: "... The very short dotted 8th-16th motif? Perhaps. but still... "

Now, one could put together the top notes of the arpeggiated harmonies to create yet a 4th layer (E, E, F#, E, D#, E) and so on. 

For me, personally, on a personal level, imho, none of the 4 above elements create a strong enough melodic element. YES it's there (so, yes, you could say that there is a melody), but it's not what it's so powerful and amazing in this sonata. And I find the sonata (the whole sonata) stunningly beautiful, for every single cell, every single bar, every single harmonic beat, everything!

EDIT: Paul: Honestly thanks for your post. 

Maybe I'm just deaf, or maybe I'm looking for different qualities on a great melody, or whatever... I'm honestly ready to be ridiculouded: Is the melody you are talking about (not talking to Paul only) one of the above 4 layers I discussed? Or something else I'm completely oblivious!?!?!?!

Sincerely worried now!


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 29, 2010)

It's not really derailed. We're still talking about music just moved onto a different avenue. I'm enjoying reading these different perspectives actually.


----------



## mf (Jan 29, 2010)

nikolas @ Fri Jan 29 said:


> Or something else I'm completely oblivious!?!?!?!
> 
> Sincerely worried now!


Yes, you still miss it. Hint: the theme is mostly in half notes and quarter notes, mainly in the top voice.
Or, perhaps easier: disregard the second staff and forget about arpeggios. What remains is the theme.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2010)

So, the... "... The very short dotted 8th-16th motif? Perhaps. but still... " (which of course is NOT a theme on its own but the beginning duh!) , the top voice, the top layer. Otherwise I just give up cause I haven't the slightlest clue of what you're talking about here!

As I've told you in other forums as well, reading the full posts makes things easier I reckon, as well as checking once in a while on what the other guy meant.


----------



## mf (Jan 29, 2010)

Yes, that dotted rhythm is just the beginning, now go on, follow through, the theme is there, mostly in top voice, mostly in half notes and quarter notes. You're very close, come on!


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2010)

YAY! We found common ground! YAY!

It's so nice of you to spell out what I'be been talking about earlier on. It's also great that you provided the score, the recording and everything else. I have to appreciate passion when I see it and your posts clearly show passion! 

And there I was going insane thinking that other people see and hear what I can't... :D

Well, I'll be honest, I still find that the particular work works because of the arpegges and the harmonic progression (and also the deep bass), rather than the melody. Or I am not allowed to have an opinion?

I find that, as far as melodic elements are concerned, something like this seems more "melodic" (to the lack of a better term): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OloXRhesab0 (around 2:00 for those not patient enough).

I'll also admit that I was wrong about derailing: We are still really talking about the misrepresentation of written (texts)! LOL


----------



## mf (Jan 29, 2010)

Great! Now, if you like that piece more for the arpeggiated harmony, that is your own personal preference. What I was talking about, the fact that there IS a melodic theme there, that is not a matter of opinion, and you can't deny it and just get away with it. I'm glad that we can both see and hear that theme now.

Rossini is not my cup of tea but I give him there are some catchy tunes there, the superficial attractive ones re-peat was talking about earlier, before our derailment. So let's bring this thread back on track:



Dave Connor @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> re-peat @ Thu Jan 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood why Beethoven is considered a weak melodist. I think he’s actually one of the greatest melodic inventors of all time, if not the greatest.
> ...


There is of course harmonic inventiveness, amazing motivic developments, and many other great features in Beethoven, but what blows me away is the absolute beauty and sheer power of his themes, especially the slow ones. Like the one Dave Connor mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKRM4VYEuuQ The 2:50 moment alone is a Sistine Chapel. In my humble opinion.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 29, 2010)

Interesting exchange.

One distinction, if I can crudely label it, between, the "Verdi" and "Cerebral" schools represents a valid dividing line, I think, to us as composers. I say valid, because the Verdi-type adherents get pretty short shrift in many circles today, especially, even emphatically, in the concert world. This gap is part of what's being discussed in this thread, though sometimes obliquely.

I'm baldly defining the "Verdi" camp as having hummable tunes and being approachable by many people with only modest effort. On the other hand, I'm defining "Cerebral" as featuring more textural / less man-in-the-street likable, little or no tune-and-accompaniment, few foot-tapping rhythms, and so on.*

I think rejection of new, assimilable-by-everybody orchestral music or opera is terrible for music, for orchestras / players, and for the enjoyment of humanity. It has locked out, and continues to risk locking out, a generation of potential concert-goers from orchestral music. It trains them to hate modern orchestral music.

At my university, Tchaikovsky was given virtually no air time, despite the fact that he remains one of the most popular composers ever (and yes, I've heard about his reported distaste for his own "Nutcracker"). Verdi, the same -- almost total dismissal. The old saw that Verdi treated the piano and orchestra like "an 88-string guitar" and that he was (shudder) popular was hastily dispensed to us, so that we could move speedily to "real" composers like Alban Berg (whose music I love but is not exactly a crowd-pleaser).

Dismissing popular composers is pernicious, because that scorn is passed along to those seeking training in music composition / criticism / history -- whatever. Nikolas is unusual, as a PhD, in his willingness to embrace a large range of material, from the avant-garde to the more pedestrian.

This problem is acute, in my judgment. The few to write music that not only passes the sieve of academic criticism but, despite that accolade, manage to gain some popularity -- John Adams or Phillip Glass -- write little that seems likely to bring joy to an exhausted bourgeois (who can actually afford the ticket) looking for a little enjoyment and gratification on the weekend. Even the Great Unwashed deserve something a little more thoughtful than pop music on Saturday night. Instead, they are clubbed year after year with "modern" pieces that only a tiny elite can comprehend. So even these concert-going people are trained to hate modern art music. Is that good?

I like the Cerebral stuff as many here do as well, undoubtedly. But we need popular champions in every field if the field is to prosper. Besides, I -- secretly -- suspect some composers fear to court any popularity, because by so doing, they put themselves at risk.

So anyway, I am not going to try to clarify all these points as much as might be desirable to defend against quibbling; I realise there are areas that I've glossed over that offer points to rebut. And Arvo Part is an example of someone who arguably fits both the Verdi and Cerebral camps, and Beethoven trumps almost everything because he's Beethoven. But I do think that disdain for approachable music is an important problem for composers because it limits our access to audiences. And that's bad, I think.

Last, thank goodness for film music. Maybe at times some film composers pander too much, but I am glad for their at least preserving a little longer the orchestra in the popular imagination. Even if Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga outsell us all.

*Of course, the distinction is not binary; there's a continuum, but I believe there's an "I know it when I see it" distinction that is important.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2010)

Actually any work has a 'theme' (unless it's a cat hitting random keys on the piano), but not every work has a melody, right? It was my fault for talking about 'melodic themes' that are non existant, when this was not what I mean, so I appologize for that! 

(Rosinni is not my cup of tea either, and I already mentioned I'm not really a melodist... but he does write catchy 'tunes' (how much lower will we degrade I wonder??? 'tunes?!?!! :D))

EDIT: Posted before I had a chance to see Johns' post!


----------

