ChristopherSchlegel

Who is we? I think you may be disappointed to find that many people are in fact creating the exact music they want to create. But you may find it trite, banal, & view it as a crass attempt to generate "money at the expense of art". I think your use of the word "force" in this context is inappropriate. The music industry is still generally a free-market institution. You (or any artist) are perfectly free to create whatever art/music you want. However, IF (big IF) you expect the "music industry" (record co's, distribution networks, ad agencies, radio & A&R personnel) to pay attention to you & help "push" YOUR music, you will have to do something that enough people desire in order for them to find enough incentive for profit in it. In as far as any cynicism that creeps in I think Evan ("Tryptonique") addressed that issue very well here. Is that a rhetorical question? Of course not, no artist SHOULD. Are you in a position where it is a viable option?

I addressed this earlier on this thread; so I'll just quote myself!

At least listen to the samples. But watch out, man! Tatum's technique does in fact approach Lisztian proportions. Yikes. Now THAT is always a good idea for an aspiring composer. I listen to some Beethoven every day; even if just a piano sonata movement on the ride to work. & I make sure to study some Beethoven at least every week; pull out the scores to syms or anything else. Email away any time. I work with MIDI all the time; it's a great tool.

If you are a serious student of composition & value Beethoven I will gladly interact with you. Tatum has recordings in a band setting: First of Tatum Group Masterpieces at TowerRecords My faves are the solo masterpieces done on Pablo: First of 8 Tatum Solo Masterpiece CDs at TowerRecords Warning, though! Since they are solo piano, there are no drums. But, you might find value in them simply because of Tatum's amazing sense of rhythmic variation. Ha! Good stuff...I'll spend the rest of my life trying to live up to the titan standards of excellence provided by the master craftsman. If you are able to see continual improvment & progress, though, that's all you can really ask for, huh? You can hear one of my symphonic works here: Schlegel Sym 6 Also, I have tons of other stuff posted if you are interested. Do you have any of your compositions posted on the web?

Is that really a problem for you? Is this addressed to me? You can post any Q's or comments to me here or on the music theory thread. Alternately, you are welcome to email me or send me a private message. That is a good observation & true in many cases. I have always thought of Art Tatum as the pinnacle of re-interpretation of the jazz standard. Beethoven is my absolute favorite...in spite of his professed Christianity. Was this just an amused side note? Or do you think there is some larger issue involved here?

This is a fascinating discussion. Mostly I have just enjoyed reading, but I did want to add a little. An acquaintance of mine is a professor of philosophy & I have conversed with him several times about the "current day take" on Kant (& Hegel, etc.). Apparently Kant is often referred to as he was in some historical texts: a "transcendental idealist". This is supposedly because he was trying to answer Hume, reconcile rationalism & empiricism, & thereby "transcend" above both. Kant refers to his philosophy as Transcendental in CPR. I have read Kant (CPR, & other works) which sure is not easy. Sometimes it seems like he is using ideas that could be subjectivism; other times intrinsicism. But his conception of a priori seems many times to mean "knowledge that has no basis in experience/observation". That seems quite intrinsic. Of course my professor acqaintance (like many people) either doesn't know about or disregards Ayn Rand's re-evaluations of historically accepted terms & definitions. That makes it very difficult to converse about these ideas since I am approaching them from an Objectivist perspective. I am only an amateur at technical philosophy so please correct me if I am off the mark on any of this.

That would have been neat to see. The final SOG total was USSR (36) - US (16). Me, too!!! Hey, good for you! I'm pretty much stuck w/o watching for now. Make up for it though by playing pick-up games with friends on weekends at a local rink. We play in-line (roller blades) 'cause there isn't any ice facility near where we live (out in the boonies in TN). Closest facility is 2.5 hours away in Nashville & ice time is expensive. Hockey is an interesting combination (paradoxically) of the intensely physical & sublimely elegant.

Yes, I saw it as soon as it was released for home-viewing. I am biased in that hockey is my favorite sport. So, I enjoyed it a great deal. The filming of the playing sequences is particularly good & provides a good sense of what it's actually like in the midst of the action. Unless you've played or sat down by the boards at a game it can be difficult to "get a feel" for how hard & fast the game moves. Kurt Russell was good as Brooks. The actor that played goalie Jim Craig was also good. Of course I don't really know how well he "acted" like Jim Craig the actual person; but it was a good performance. Especially since he was crucial to the team's victorious run. He really was a hero as he had to stand on his head (i.e. play really well, in fact, play the game of his life) when the US beat the USSR. I also enjoyed the scene when he confronts Brooks about the "test". Glad you liked it. Are you a hockey fan? Too bad there's no season this year.

When I first did the "petals" puzzle the other day I had the sound turned off. I went there again to show a friend & the sound was up on his PC. To my delight & surprise was a MIDI piano version of "Red Barchetta" playing in the background. That's nifty.

In a way, yes. If you play a WHOLE scale you will hear "happy" from major & "sad" from minor. Of course it gets more detailed than that because any given melody does not necessarily use all the notes from a scale; some melodies use notes from each scale. But, depending upon which scale a melody (or part of a melody) is BASED will result in this effect. Just as importantly, the harmonies (resultant chords) formed/implied by the use of various scales give a more complete picture. Major chords are more consonant (lower ratios=pleasant) & minor chords more dissonant (higher ratios=unpleasant). Unisons (octaves, C to next higher C) are the most consonant interval (1:2), the fifth (C to G) is the next (1:1.5), the MAJOR (C to E) third next (1:1.25). The MINOR third (C to E flat) is (5:6). So the notes of a MAJOR chord (C-E-G) form a combined ratio of (4:5:6) & a MINOR chord (5:6:7). Dominant 7 chords, diminished chords, & contain a lot of dissonance, so they are typically used to build tension toward the end of a phrase. Then comes a major chord (or even minor) to release the tension because they are more consonant (or conversely, less dissonant). Here's a way of symbolizing it: 1. consonance-solid sound 2. less consonance-less solid sounding 3. dissonant sound-tension builds 4. more dissonant-MORE tension 5. consonance returns-tension released When HC & FC are used their function is to provide the Q&A phrasing. One w/o the other is also widely used. For example, some melodies are based on modes & therefore do not necessarily contain "traditional" cadences. But there can still be a sense of direction to the melody. When a five chord happens without resolving to a one chord it is not necessarily "bad"; it can provide tension that is not resolved. I think you are confusing half-cadence with half-step & full-cadence with whole-step. Half- & whole-steps are interval distances between notes. Cadences are musical chord sequences (involving at least two voices) moving to a harmonic close or point of rest, thereby providing a sense of harmonic direction or completion. The ratio between the frequencies of any two notes a half step apart is 1.05946309436. Using the musical alphabet, if C is 435Hz then: 435 times 12th root of 2 (1.05946309436) = approx. 460Hz (or the note C sharp) HC is ending a phrase on the five chord (using scale notes 5, 7, 2) (& 4 if it is a full dominant 7 chord) meaning that the melody notes should be one of those scale notes. FC is ending a phrase on the one chord (using scale notes 1, 3, 5) meaning that the melody should be one of those scale notes. This site is good at describing/playing cadences: http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/ap...ce/cadence.html "Black & white notes" are merely results of the way a standard piano is layed out. The ear/mind does not care if a black key or white is played. What matters are the intervals between the notes (sequentially in a melody, concurrently in a harmony)regardless of whether or not they are accidentals (sharps, flats, black keys). The "change in frequency" is definitely where the meaning comes in (along with how consonant versus dissonant, dynamic level, timbre, etc.). Again, I think you are confusing half-cadence with half-step & full-cadence with whole-step. The 12th root of 2 is a half-step interval & the 6th root of 2 is a whole-step interval. But both scales have EQUAL amounts of half-step & whole-step intervals. The crucial difference is WHERE in the scale they occur. Listen to the scales again & keep these formulas in mind (WS=whole step, HS=half step): Major scale formula: 1 - WS - 2 - WS - 3 - HS - 4 - WS - 5 - WS - 6 - WS - 7 - HS - 1 Minor scale formula: 1 - WS - 2 - HS - 3 - WS - 4 - WS - 5 - HS - 6 - WS - 7 - WS - 1 Major has a WS between scale degrees 2 & 3; minor has a HS. This is part of the reason they are perceived respectively as happy/sad, pleasure/pain. In some cases that might be possible, but I don't think it is that simple. I think it has more to do with how well (or not) all of the elements are integrated. To use an extreme example, a piece that had ONLY dissonant intervals (melodically & harmonically) would more likely have a malevolent sense of life. It would also help in classifying it this way if it had screetching timbres, too! The intervals in the scale & their resultant harmonies definitely make minor sadder sounding than major.

That was fun! Thanks for posting it.

I want to address the characteristics of various scales & modes. These can be the determining factoring in the emotional quality of a melody. The characteristics of any given scale is determined by the intervals between the notes of the scale. The primary scales (major & natural minor) as well as the natural modes are a result of various mixtures of 5 whole step & 2 half step. The major scale is identified by this formula: 1 - whole step - 2 - whole step - 3 - half step - 4 - whole step - 5 - whole step - 6 - whole step - 7 - half step - 1 In the scale (or key) C major this results in all white keys on the piano; or only the letters of the musical alphabet: c-d-e-f-g-a-b-c It sounds like this: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...cmajorscale.mid The major scale is identified by this formula: 1 - whole step - 2 - half step - 3 - whole step - 4 - whole step - 5 - half step - 6 - whole step - 7 - whole step - 1 In the scale (or key) C minor this results in a mixture of white & black keys on the piano. c-d-e flat-f-g-a flat-b flat-c It sounds like this: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...cminorscale.mid Minor is actually a derivitive scale of major. It is achieved by starting on the 6th note of the major scale. For example if you start in C major: c-d-e-f-g-a-b-c Then regard it's 6th note (a) as the first note of a scle (actually it's 6th "mode"), you will get the A Minor scale: a-b-c-d-e-f-g-a Modes are a means of achiveing a different scale formula by giving each note of the major scale a chance to be regarded as the beginning note: Major is also called Ionian: c-d-e-f-g-a-b-c 2nd mode is Dorian: d-e-f-g-a-b-c-d 3rd mode is Phyrgian: e-f-g-a-b-c-d-e 4th mode is Lydian: f-g-a-b-c-d-e-f 5th mode is Mixolydian: g-a-b-c-d-e-f-g 6th mode is Aeolian: a-b-c-d-e-f-g-a (also, the "relative" minor; as in relative to major) 7th mode is Locrian: b-c-d-e-f-g-a-b Thus each mode has it's own unique sound because the whole steps & half steps are shifted. The reason Helmholtz (& others going back to the Greeks that correctly identified these intervals) regarded the major as the most stable scale formation is due to acoustical properties (i.e. the physics of sound & the physiology of the ear). In between two octaves (a C note & the next highest C note) the ratio in wave frequency is always 2 to 1 (2:1). Thus if a given C is identified by being a periodic wave at 526 Hertz; the next highest C is exactly double this at 1052 Hz. It is always 2:1 because this corresponds to human hearing physiology. The curvature of the cochlea (the snail shell shaped part of the inner ear) is the reason humans can identify two pitches at a ratio of 2:1 as a strong unison sound and thus called the octave and furthermore the reason that both pitches have the same letter name in scales. This is a crucial fact in the intervallic structure of music. If the cochlea was a straight tube we couldn’t identify the octave as a unison sound and the musical alphabet would have to be organized differently (possibly with no repetition of letters). In order to get the degrees of the scale to "fill out the octave" the Greeks relied on basic ratios. After the 2:1 ratio of the octave, we cut it in half (split the octave in half) by a ratio of 1.5:1. This results in the fifth. Next is 1.25:1, which results in the major third, etc. This occurs because of the logarithmic nature of the major scale on a frequency scale. Human hearing is of course also very logarithmic in structure. Remember that the cochlea is not only curved but also a pattern of circular diminishing tubular shape (thus the snail shell analogy). The placement of the little hairs (cilia) on the tube walls is crucial because sound waves move these little objects and this movement is what triggers the nervous tissue that gets translated into electrically impulses that the brain identifies as “hearing sounds”. The overtone series is also logarithmic in nature with wider intervals at the bottom and with the intervals becoming progressively smaller as the pitches climb higher. The Greek system with it's ratios was called Just Intonation. It was found to be limited it that one could not transpose from one key to the next. Those familar with the history of equal temperament tuning already know this story. The point is that even though the ratio theory had to be "fine tuned" it is still the basis for our tonal musical systems. Also, in equal temperament the ratios that still maintain the closest relationship to basic ratios the Greeks identified is of course the octave, fifth & third. One of the basic applications of frequency ratio analysis of intervals is verification of the fact that the more consonant or “solid” sounding ratios are the lowest numerically or simplest. For example as ratios between notes in a melody & chord progressions get more complex, dissonance tension is built. As the ratios fall in complexity back to the more stable sounding consonant, simpler ratios tension is released into more consonant sounds. As as example, this is "Ode to Joy" in major with basic chords: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...ojoyinmajor.mid Since the melody only contains the first through fifth notes of the scale the only note we have to alter is the third if we want to change the meldoy from major to minor. But what a difference that one note makes: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...ojoyinminor.mid Hopefully by listening to these examples one can clearly hear the difference between the "joyful" effect the major scale creates & the "sorrowful" effect the minor scale creates.

I forgot to mention this earlier. That is a neat quality to look for also. When a composer can do something that seems unexpected & at the same time inevitable it is wonderful.

Great! Thanks for the heads up. This is an excellent source of potential help aimed right at what I do not yet know. Thanks.

I do think it is possible to increase that ability to a degree. But there has to be an upper limit. In my post earlier today I addressed what I think of as upper limits.

That is a lovely piece. Sibelius's orchestration skills are frequently breathtaking & this is no exception. I don't think slower tempos are necessarily unjoyous. Obviously it is one way to imply a sad/mournful mood. But it would have to accompanied by a minor scale/mood in order to be effective. A slow tempo with a major scale/mood might suggest seriousness or solemnness, but in a "happy way". I think this piece is more in that category.

I don't think it's that simple. For example, the first time Beethoven presents the "Ode to Joy" theme in the finale of the 9th it is by the cellos - very quietly & very low in pitch. Alternately, consider the infamous "Psycho" shower scene violins. They are extremely high-pitched but not suggesting pleasure or happiness at all. I think the characteristics of the scale being used (implicitly or explicitly) are more indicative of pleasure/pain. Major scales (& modes) are generally more pleasurable/happy versus minor scales (& modes) are more painful/sad.

The defintion of melody I outlined was fairly wide in one sense. It allows for a great deal of leeway in the virtually limitless ways in which concrete elements (which notes, rhythms, etc.) can be applied in creating a melody. In some ways, the qualification of "perceivable as a self-contained entity" is dependent upon the ability of any given individual to identify it as such on their own. It is very elastic but not infintely so. The parameters would have to be limited by the epistemological limit of the human mind. Thus we may need more specialized help in defining that aspect. By saying "healthy variety", I mean at a minimum it should have some variety. It should not have only one note, or only step wise motion, or only skip motion. It should not have only one rhythmic element; it should have at least two different rhythmic values present. Again, there must be a limit to amount of variety. Too much would make it disintegrate into unintelligability. I don't know where that limit is, a serious philosopher working with a physiologist might be able to idenfity this. The central (in my estimation) & thus most important characteristic of a melody would have to be that it implies harmonic motion & as a consequence is goal-directed. The easiest (most direct) way to accomplish this is in the form of the "question/answer phrases". This is where I suggest the use of half-cadence & full candence. A melody does not necessarily have to contain these explicitly; they can be implied. In many of Beethoven's pieces, for example, he presents half-cadence after half-cadence moving from key to key. Thus, he prolongs the resolution only finally providing a full candence at the end of the piece. The point is that there should be at minimum at least two chords. Implying the tonic & the dominant chords is the most direct manner of implying motion. Since can be difficult to discuss without reference to actual music I have compiled several examples. Consider the first part of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme as a complete unit: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicTheory/odetojoy.mid Now let's remove all variation of rhythm making all the notes of the same rhythmic value: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...joynorhythm.mid Notice that melodically it still contains harmonic goal-directed motion. But making all the half notes quarter notes results in a kind of loopy effect & makes it less effective. It is still a melody but variation of rhythm enhances one's ability to perceive it as a "unit" that starts, goes somewhere & definitively ends. Without rhythmic variation it is not only monotonous but actually more difficult to "hear" the melody. I have read some things that suggest the evolution of melody is in some ways a result of mimicing speech patterns. Perhaps the book mentioned could help clarify this. If we have a linguist on the forum they may be able to help futher with this line of inquiry. Next let's remove the goal directed component harmony. In it's bare-bones presentation there are only two chords referenced in the melody - the tonic (the "one" chord being a chord built on the first note of the key/scale) & the dominant (the "five" chord being built on the fifth). Beethoven actually uses more chords than this in harmonizing the melody, but this is a simplified version for easier analysis. What you will hear in the next example is the only the notes of the melody that are part of the tonic chord; if a note was part of the dominant chord I did not include it. By doing this it is possible to hear what I mean about goal-directed motion being provided by harmonic changes & motion. No harmonic variety equals no goal-directed motion. http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...oynoharmony.mid It possible for your mind to "insert" (imagine) the necessary harmonic background though even when listening to this example. So, to go a step further, this example simply bangs away on the tonic chord under the melody making it harder to imagine harmonic motion: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...armonyatall.mid Notice this could conceivably be the beginning statement of a melody that then went to another chord. Also, notice this could be considered a "theme" of sorts. It could be a melodic fragment that will be used in various ways throughout a larger composition. On it's own, even though it is pleasant, it doesn't really do much or "go anywhere". Also consider the idea of the half cadence/full cadence. First the melody with only half cadences: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...cadenceonly.mid Notice that is sounds as if stuck in a loop, endlessly open with no definite end. Now with only full cadences: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...cadenceonly.mid Notice it definitely ends. But without the half cadence first the ending is not fully prepared (or "set up"). It sounds like a melody on it's own but this is due to the fact that there is some harmonic motion going on in the phrase to begin with. The important point here is that certain notes of scale/key imply certain chords. Implying the right note (at the right time) is crucial in giving the melody a sense of direction. Obviously, by "right note" I do not mean there is only one option or choice available at any given time. Sometimes the choices are virtually limitless; other times, though, they are. It depends what the composer wants to accomplish. An extreme example would be at the end of a piece; if you want to end a piece definitively your only melodic option is the root note. On the subject of tempo I have the melody played very fast: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...ojoytoofast.mid Since you know it is supposed to be the "Ode to Joy" you might actually be able to identify it after a few listens. So let's make it absurd: http://www.truthagainsttheworld.com/MusicT...ywaytoofast.mid I am not aware of any pieces that move faster than eighth notes at 300 beats per minute (bpm) that are discernable. Most of the faster pieces I have ever heard top out at around 250 bpm. The absurd example is 32nd note triplets at 250bpm. This works out to about 50 notes per second. I can play about 20 notes per second in a linear pattern & about 40 notes per second in arpeggiated patterns (sweeping technique!). But if the info is not relatively simple it gets hard to identify. If I am just repeating a single scale or chord it's easy. If it's more complex harmonically it's harder to discern. For example, listen to any of Coltrane's "sheets of sound" solos, Alan Holdworth or Shawn Lane guitar solos. What I have tried to show here is that many different elements are responsible for a melody qua melody; not just one. In my estimation the goal-directed harmonic implication of any given musical line is the most important, but even this is still dependent upon the other elements to give a melody substance.

You're welcome. I should thank you; I've been meaning to start a thread aimed precisely at this topic. I just wanted to lay down a basic outline/framework from which to precede. So, taking this "bit by bit" is an excellent idea & exactly what I intend to do. Wow. Those are great questions & ones I wish to discuss. There is nothing to excuse! Since I have already interacted with you on music I look forward to breaking this down and thoroughly discussing it. You seem like an intelligent person, so there should be no problems...& you already like Beethoven! I intend to put together several musical examples to which we can refer in the course of this discussion. It will take a couple of days for me to get enough free time to pull everything together the way I want to make it effective. Talk soon.

In a related series of events... I work as an IT Tech at a college. In yesterdays mail I received a bizzarre little document with the following title: "Microsoft Tennessee Class Action Settlement" It goes on to state: "If you resided in TN & purchased certain MS OSs or MS Office products from a company other than MS between '95 & '02, you may be eligible to file a claim." Under "What is this lawsuit about?" it reads: "A lawsuit filed in TN claims that MS violated TN's antiturst & unfair competition laws & thereby overcharged consumers for certain of its OSs, & Office products. Microsoft does not admit it did anything wrong & contends that it developed & sold high quality & innovative software at fair & reasonable prices. In settling this action, MS has agreed to provide vouchers to the TN users of its software." Further on under "Why is there a settlement?": "The Court did not decide in favor of the Plantiffs or MS. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. In this way Plantiffs & MS avoid the uncertainty & cost of a trial & those included in the Class will get an opportunity to receive vouchers on a claims-made basis." Apparently the total amount to be awarded to those that "apply for vouchers" in TN will be $64 million. In the event that not enough people ask for that grand total the remainder will be given to the TN Commissioner of Education & used "by TN schools". It is extremely discouraging that such blatant PARASITES can get away with such activity.

Let us first isolate the most essential components of music: melodic/thematic content, harmonic content, rhythmic content. There are of course other elements. Some secondary components to consider could include: sectional/structural form, timbre & dynamics. Melodic/thematic content From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of melody: 1 : a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds 2 : a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole The second definition is more narrow & precise. But still not enough. Let's go a bit further. A melody is a succession of musical notes (pure, properly intonated tones) constructed in such a manner as to be perceivable as a self contained unit. A good melody should have these characteristics & in addition should be goal-directed by implying a harmonic context/framework. It can also be useful to add further qualities in order to refine our definition. A good melody should also have a healthy variety in vertical dimensions (up & down motion, variety of interval steps & leaps) as well as horizontal dimensions (rhythmic values). It can be helpful to have a single high point & or low point but it is not always necessary. Any number of nursery rhymes & childrens tunes are good examples of bare-bones good melodies (i.e.: "Mary Had a Little Lamb", "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star", "London Bridge is Falling Down", etc.). They are good examples because they have clear, direct succession of tones, they imply a harmonic progression (even if only one notes at a time is used!) & as a consequence of implying harmonic content, they are goal-directed. There is a healthy variety in various dimensions. For example, they typically have a "question" phrase that ends on a dominant (half-candence) & then an "answer" phrase. This is usually a variation on the first phrase starting similarly but ending on the tonic (full candence). Harmonic implication as a means of providing a goal is essential. Sometimes a melody is broken down into smaller parts (or phrases or sections) that are altered, variated, used in different manners. These are typically known as themes, motifs, variations, etc. For example, the melody may be fully stated once, then broken down into smaller components. These smaller components are then used in various ways to create variations, developments, new sections, themes, sometimes whole new melodies. Harmonic content From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of harmony: 2 a : the combination of simultaneous musical notes in a chord 2 b : the structure of music with respect to the composition and progression of chords 2 c : the science of the structure, relation, and progression of chords These are all very good! However, they do not specify what that structure is & how it relates (i.e. "with respect to"). I did a whole post on Harmony here http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=64204 For this post I will summarize. The foundations of Tonal Harmonic Theory are based on voice leading & on triadic harmonies built from diatonic scales. I am going to assume the reader has some knowledge of music at this point. Harmonic structure, per se, has a beginning, a middle (some motion) & an end. The goal is the cadence. The degree to which any piece (or part of a piece) serves to move toward it's goal (or not) is the degree to which it has successfully integrated it's harmonic content with it's other components. Side note: if a piece or theme does not have a proper cadence, it does not resolve. It is not necessarily "bad" to not resolve or avoid a proper cadence. Sometimes, if done effectively it can add a great deal of tension/suspense (among other possible effects). But the fact remains that if you are going to use tonal tools (scales, chords, etc.) you are by definition using an integrated system of information with a specific nature (i.e. there is a root note, there is a heirarchy of importance among the notes, the cadence is the goal, etc.). The premise underlying all of harmony is voice leading. Voice leading is regarding all the notes that comprise a chord as one note of a "voice". As you move to the next chord you regard each note as moving to the next corresponding note in that next chord. "Smooth" voice leading is the "goal" of well-constructed music. Many theorists & composers also regard voice leading as not merely a chordal analysis tool but an essential way of creating independent & yet interweaving melodies. This is very true in Bach (& Beethoven!). For although at any time you can isolate a chord based on all the notes that are sounding at one time, the more important thing is that each voice carries it own melodic thread. So if you have (like Bach did in many of his classic 4 part chorales) a piece that all the way through uses four note chords it is constructed in a way that if you follow say the top note of every chord ("the top voice") you will find a complete melody; & likewise for the other 3 voices. There has been a great deal of nonsense spread about "the rules of music" (usually in regards to counterpoint & harmony in general) being "arbitrary human conventions". Then, there is a long list of composers that "broke/bent/ignore/re-wrote the rules". It does not help that some of the very specific classical rules of counterpoint voice leading are not essential to the nature of tonality. These exceptions are frequently held up as examples of why throwing out all the rules is a good idea. Most of the rules exist for a reason; some of them exist for very good reasons; some are non-essential. I can get into this in depth later if someone is interested. Rhythmic content Musically, Rhythm answers the question "When?" On a small scale, it deals with the length of the melody notes relative to each other (& ultimately to all the other notes in the piece). On a larger scale it encompasses the tempo(s) & meter(s) of a piece. A healthy variety of rhythmic material is usually desirable, as in other components. The specific characteristics of any given meter should be integrated (i.e. work with & not against) the other components (melody, harmony). The tempo should be within a suitable range of human cognition. I know that last sentence seems a bit Over Obvious. Unfortunately, it does need to be said. There are pieces (mostly computer-rendered) that go so fast the human ear & mind literally cannot comprehend what is happening. On the other end of the spectrum (but the same counterfeit coin) there are pieces that are written such that one note is supposed to be played every 50 years. "Modernists" are always up to something irrational. There has been a great deal written in musical history texts about musical rhythm & dance. There is probably a lot of interesting info from which to learn if it was approached in an objective manner. I don't know much about it from that angle though. I know Rand had interesting things to say in The Romantic Manifesto. Perhaps someone on the forum can contribute. Sectional/structural form This relates to the manner in which all the sections (or melodies if more than one) are structured in what particular order. Again, the purpose is to create a satisfyingly integrated whole. For example, in classical music, the "gold-standard" of structural form was Sonata-Allegro. In the widest sense this consisted of an Exposition (statement of themes 1 & 2, or more), Development (variation on themes), Recapitulation (restatement of themes 1 & 2, more). The form was highly plastic, though, allowing many different possibilities for variation & alteration. There were other forms: Rondo, Minuet & Trio, etc. Larger forms were the symphony, the concerto, etc. There are some modern day musicians who claim to "hate the rules" of all that "stuffy classical" music. First, it is ironic; think about any standard pop song's structure: verse & chorus, optional bridge/solo, repeat verse & chorus. This (on a much smaller scale) exactly mimics sonata-allegro form. Aren't they a rebellous lot? Next, the richness in integrated components (themes, harmonies, rhythms, etc.) of the simplest Haydn piano sonata (for example) is well beyond anything any pop song has ever achieved. Don't get me wrong here. There is some pop music which I think has great value; there is some pop music I personally enjoy. I am not saying it is all useless or evil. By it's nature, I think it has to be more brief & to the point (i.e. use less musical tools & info available to a composer). Finally, consider the vast majority of what exists as pop songs. How much variety in form & structure has been achieved in that genre compared to classical with it's "overbearing & striaght-jacketing rules"? Please, stop, it hurts. Anyway, there's more structural form variation & integration in ONE Beethoven sonata than in the last 50 years of pop music. Timbre Timbre (pronouced "tam-ber") is characteristics of the sounds employed by a piece. For example an oboe has a woody, nasal tone, a violin can have a lyrical, flowing, singing tone (or a hoarse, scratchy tone). The composer's intentions are carried out in this regard by which instrument(s) he of she specifies to play the notes of the piece. This is a very important issue in ensemble playing. Especially when scoring for orchestral resources. As usual, the timbres involved in the piece should be (everyone say it together!) integrated with the other components of the piece. So, a delicate melody should be played by an instrument capable of expressing the proper context. A theme (or harmony) of "noble" quality might be best represented by brass (particularly a french horn). The electric guitar is a very interesting case (one that especially fascinates me, I am primarily a guitarist & grew up playing electric guitar). It has the ability to "sing" expressively like a violin, the ability to sound glass-like transparent with a clear ringing bell-tone like a harp. It also has the ability to sound incredibly ugly & noisy like an industrial machine that is disintegrating. Side note: Timbre & scoring is one aspect of Beethoven that really gets me. Often it is pointed out that Beethoven was "deaf, but still wrote great music". Well, that's true & must have been hard for him to deal with emotionally. But, having said that, I can write music all day long without hearing a note of it, & I know how it will sound. Any decent musician can do this. What I consider amazing is how, years after having gone deaf, he could still imagine, conceptualize & project how to orchestrate. It is easy enough to write down on paper a C major chord. What gets difficult is: which note of the chord do you assign to which instrument to get the proper effect? Without being able to actually hear the possible combinations? Beethoven wrote his last 3 symphonies under those conditions (among other works, like the C-sharp minor quartet). That is mind-boggling! Dynamics Dynamics relate to issues such as volume, attack, decay, etc. One more time, (all together!) the dynamics involved in the piece should be integrated with the other components of the piece. This includes elements such as crescendos and diminuendos, as mentioned by tommyedison. These are what I would consider to be valid criteria by which to objectively identify the characteristics of a piece of music. I am, of course, only a musician/composer. I can offer suggestions & ideas as to how these musical elements are perceived & processed by a human mind. But, ultimately, we may need more specialized help (are there a psychologist & a physiologist in the house?). There are a number of decent texts & sources on the physics of sound & human hearing out there. I have read about 10 such books on this topic. I did read Helmholtz's "On the Sensation of Tone as a Physiological Basis for a Theory of Music" years ago. I may have to find another copy of it & re-read. There are a number of decent websites that summarize & reference it. Now that we have established some foundation premises about the components of music, perhaps we can use them to delve into why/how/where any specific piece (or one/some of it's components) has a good or bad sense of life. Christopher Schlegel

Excellent point. There is no overall plot or large scale integration between the segments. I did enjoy some of it, though. My fave segment was the Gershwin one. The animation was wonderful & used Al Hirschfeld's style to great effect. All the characters & actions were nifty to watch. And in the middle of it there is a pan down a New York street, up a building, into a window, & there's Gershwin playing the piano just like the classic Hirschfeld portrait.

You are welcome, I am glad to have helped. Please keep in mind, even though I have criticized, I do regard a small amount of Debussy's music as quite beautiful; in particular some of his piano solo works (Preludes, Images & Arabesques). Perhaps because these works were smaller in nature they required a taunter, stricter, more purposeful structuring. In any event, if you like "Claire de Lune", you might also appreciate some of these other works.

I am a fan of MS products. They especially do not deserve this. Side note...Has anyone noticed that the MS anti-trust cases have a new twist? Historically, you could be tried for anti-trust if you were: price gouging, price undercutting, or price fixing. To my knowledge MS is the first to be tried essentially for giving away products for free (IE in the US; Media Player in Europe). And, yes, it is quite unfortunate they are complying/capitulating.

Debussy was a very talented composer & performer. He was at times quite capable of creating beautiful music. In evidence are his shorter piano pieces (including, as mentioned, "Claire de Lune") as well as some of his preludes for solo piano. Some of his orchestal work is quite brilliant but not always convincing from the perspective of melodic/thematic construction, structural form & (especially) harmonic content. Even though he was said to have "chaffed" at the label "Impressionism" musically, it is all too easy to place him in that category (especially since he was highly influenced by Faure). Many times he seems more concerned with "orchestral color", texture, timbre, etc. at the expense of substance. Examples include "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun" & "La Mer". As I said in a paper I did for a Music History class, "Faure & Debussy both wrote good music, but often they did so only eight or sixteen measures at a time and buried it in their compositions between vast sections of strange miasma". Which is to say there is not always a great deal of integration in their works. Integration of all characterists of the components is a virtue in any art form & music is no exception. When you listen to an extended piece, such as "La Mer", for example, you will hear a brief, beautiful melodic fragment surrounded by extended, fragile harmonies. This will go on for about 8 to 16 measures & then the entire idea will disappear. It will be replaced by another interesting idea that might be somewhat related to the last idea; or it might not be related at all. If an idea (a melodic fragment, statement, theme, motif, etc.) does resurface it will do so in some unbalanced manner; in other words, Debussy was consciously avoiding any "historically accepted" notion of standard form. Sometimes this works to his advantage & you get to hear something beautiful & unexpected; other times it merely leaves the listener confused. A great deal of this probably depends upon the individual listeners aesthetic sensibilities. While Debussy was said to have been a "great harmonic innovator" I personally think Liszt was far better practitioner of advanced & extended harmonic structures. While Debussy did not actually disregard tonality, he frequently "bent the rules" to the point where his "chord progressions" weren't really progressions (i.e. goal-directed entities) but rather static sturctures of remotely-related chords strung together in order to create "an interesting effect". Again, Liszt was a genius at advanced harmony, but, never sacrificed goal-directed structures in the process. I have been told by some musicians (some academics...) I am inaccurate in my "harsh" criticism/analysis of Debussy's harmonic approach. So, straight from the horse's mouth... from http://www.claude-debussy.com Impressionists, especially Debussy, regarded chords as entities in their own right, intended to arouse a sensation apart from any context. Impressionism released the chord from its function in regard to the movement and goal of the music. Chords could be freely altered. Chords no longer required preparation or resolution in conventional harmonic patterns. Writers describe this as the "emancipation of sound." Harmonic patterns were free to move in nontraditional manners. This blurring of traditional tonal progressions may be analogous to the Impressionist painters' technique of avoiding hard edges and sudden, sharp contrasts. This is, in fact, an accurate description of Debussy's approach. Some of his works were more logically sturctured than others, though. So, it's often hit or miss as to whether or not any given piece is something I will enjoy. Christopher Schlegel