Ok, Please explain this

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Jon Slaughter

2005-01-14 17:19:19 UTC

I've been having some questions about rhythm for some time now, and now I
have a good example, atleast I think, that represents my problem.

I came up with this melody the other day while just messing around:

http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-1.mid
(The melody is repeated, the second one has a slight change)

and I tried to "harmonize" it
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-2.mid

Now, the problem I'm having that if you listen to the 7-1, the last one
sounds bad, IMO... while the first one sounds "right"(well, maybe this is
just to my ears, but...).

The only difference is that the I use a dotted eighth on the 3rd note from
the last and on the second melody in 7-1 I use just an eighth. Though, when
just listing to 7-1 out of context it doesn't seem as bad, but still sounds
like the second to last note is occuring to early. Why is this? The only
reason I can come up with is that its because in the second one, the last
note comes inbetween a beat, but I turned the 3rd last note into a half note
and removed that 2nd to laste so I get two halves, it sounds ok, but not as
good. The problem is, I really don' t know what is going on. I could call
that 2nd to last note an anticipation of the last note, but that seems to
just be covering up the real problem I have.

I guess what I'm asking is that is it true to say "You can't really fool
your ears."? Its like the ear knows if something is going to sound bad if
it happens even before it happens? Atleast to my ears I expect that 3rd note
to be atleast a dotted eighth. and I also seem to expect it not to be a half
note too. I've tried playing around with adding notes and removing then,
but nothing seems as good as the original.

What it seems is, that somehow I've setup some some precondition in the
first part of the melody so that my ear expects the second part of it to be
a certain way? I'm not sure if this is true for anyone elses ears, but if it
is, then there should be some reason?

http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-3.mid

Contains the main melody and several variants. It seems that the most
natural is the first one, then the second might be the last one. Anyone have
any different opinions?

The reason I'm asking is that the majority of my melodies seem to have the
same problem... where notes don't seem to fit with the rhythm. I don't think
its not necessarily anything wrong with the melody notes themselfs, but now
I'm thinking maybe they just dont' fit the rhythm(for whatever reason).

Anyways
Thanks for any help

Jon

Steve Latham

2005-01-15 21:52:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jon Slaughter
I've been having some questions about rhythm for some time now, and now I
have a good example, atleast I think, that represents my problem.
Now, the problem I'm having that if you listen to the 7-1, the last one
sounds bad, IMO... while the first one sounds "right"(well, maybe this is
just to my ears, but...).
The only difference is that the I use a dotted eighth on the 3rd note from
the last and on the second melody in 7-1 I use just an eighth. Though,
when just listing to 7-1 out of context it doesn't seem as bad, but still
sounds like the second to last note is occuring to early. Why is this? The
only reason I can come up with is that its because in the second one, the
last note comes inbetween a beat, but I turned the 3rd last note into a
half note and removed that 2nd to laste so I get two halves, it sounds ok,
but not as good. The problem is, I really don' t know what is going on. I
could call that 2nd to last note an anticipation of the last note, but
that seems to just be covering up the real problem I have.

Jon, I don't think it's "wrong", but I think the problem is that the melody
begins and sets up a context of mostly quarters halves and eighths all
occurring in metrically strong positions and in even groups. The second time
around, the rhythmic change causes a syncopation - it sounds very unexpected
at that point. Plus, we're conditioned to hear something else at this
point - usually if your first phrase implies a hlaf cadence, the second
phrase would have an authentic cadence (you ended on scale degree 2 both
times).

Well, you've also got three measure phrases here, which again, aren't wrong,
but a little unusual. After hearing the first, I sort of expected the second
to end on Scale Degree 1, and when it ended with the syncopated figure on 2,
I was kind of "left hanging". A lot of times, when Haydn or Mozart wrote an
irregular length antecedent phrase, they would very often make the
consequent not the same, but "fix" the irregularity by adding extra
measures. I hear on beat four of the measure you have SD 4 | 3 4 3 2 (8ths)
1 (half note on beat 3) || - or something like that.

When you "harmonized" it, you did make an extension to get back to the Tonic
as I'm speaking of.

Post by Jon Slaughter
What it seems is, that somehow I've setup some some precondition in the
first part of the melody so that my ear expects the second part of it to
be a certain way? I'm not sure if this is true for anyone elses ears, but
if it is, then there should be some reason?

Yes, exactly. You know, it sounds funny if you start with a Mozart sounding
piece and then three bars in switch to a really jazzy style. Usually the
result is humorous (if the audience thinks it's intnetional) or shows poor
skills. Everytime you start a piece, you'r setting your audience up to
expect something. That's where I think Mozart Haydn and Beethoven excelled:
they were extrememly good at setting up expecetations in the listener, and
then toying with those expectations. It keeps the listener interested. You
know in a horror movie, after we've seen the ending where they guy they just
killed springs back to life, then it's expected. Filmakers have had fun with
this by parodying that. Movies like "Scary Movie" would totally not work if
it were'nt for this whole genre of films that have set up what we are to
expect. Usually you can tell in the first 5 minutes if a film is going to
completely follow your expectations once they've been set up (making the
film a boring re-hash) or if it's going to constantly double-cross you
(which again, while fresh, can get expected), or not meet your expectations
in either humorous or sneaky ways.

Post by Jon Slaughter
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-3.mid
Contains the main melody and several variants. It seems that the most
natural is the first one, then the second might be the last one. Anyone
have any different opinions?

I think they're all fine, except 5 and 6 - the original syncopated one, and
the extended one. The others do not bother me at all. Thr problem is of
course that once you've set up this idea, the syncopation sounds funky, and
the extension - while I think on the right track - doesn't quite blend with
what's come before.

Post by Jon Slaughter
The reason I'm asking is that the majority of my melodies seem to have the
same problem... where notes don't seem to fit with the rhythm. I don't
think its not necessarily anything wrong with the melody notes themselfs,
but now I'm thinking maybe they just dont' fit the rhythm(for whatever
reason).

Well, again, you've got the three measure phrases. Not that that's wrong,
but you might want to try 4 measure phrases instead. Check out your
Kostka/Payne and try to work out an antecedent/consequent pair. The melody
should (or usually does) end on SD2 in the antecedent phrase (implying a
half cadence) and then on SD1 at the end.

You can also end your antecedent on SD3 (or less commonly, 5), then implying
a weaker authentic cadence (like V6-I, V -I6, etc.) reserving the stronger
Perfect Authentic Cadence until the end.

You might also look up "Masculine" and "Feminine" cadences - they refer to
whether you end on a strong or weak beat (Masculine is of course strong, and
these are older, existing terms, so despite the unfairness the terms may
represent, they do come from an earlier time and are still used). I think
the definitions and some examples of these would be really instructive.
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory22.htm
http://www.fredonia.edu/som/murphyp/PhraseStructure.htm

Best,
Steve

Jon Slaughter

2005-01-21 13:17:32 UTC

Permalink

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Jon Slaughter
I've been having some questions about rhythm for some time now, and now I
have a good example, atleast I think, that represents my problem.
Now, the problem I'm having that if you listen to the 7-1, the last one
sounds bad, IMO... while the first one sounds "right"(well, maybe this is
just to my ears, but...).
The only difference is that the I use a dotted eighth on the 3rd note
from the last and on the second melody in 7-1 I use just an eighth.
Though, when just listing to 7-1 out of context it doesn't seem as bad,
but still sounds like the second to last note is occuring to early. Why
is this? The only reason I can come up with is that its because in the
second one, the last note comes inbetween a beat, but I turned the 3rd
last note into a half note and removed that 2nd to laste so I get two
halves, it sounds ok, but not as good. The problem is, I really don' t
know what is going on. I could call that 2nd to last note an anticipation
of the last note, but that seems to just be covering up the real problem
I have.

Jon, I don't think it's "wrong", but I think the problem is that the
melody begins and sets up a context of mostly quarters halves and eighths
all occurring in metrically strong positions and in even groups. The
second time around, the rhythmic change causes a syncopation - it sounds
very unexpected at that point. Plus, we're conditioned to hear something
else at this point - usually if your first phrase implies a hlaf cadence,
the second phrase would have an authentic cadence (you ended on scale
degree 2 both times).

Well, you've also got three measure phrases here, which again, aren't
wrong, but a little unusual. After hearing the first, I sort of expected
the second to end on Scale Degree 1, and when it ended with the syncopated
figure on 2, I was kind of "left hanging". A lot of times, when Haydn or
Mozart wrote an irregular length antecedent phrase, they would very often
make the consequent not the same, but "fix" the irregularity by adding
extra measures. I hear on beat four of the measure you have SD 4 | 3 4 3 2
(8ths) 1 (half note on beat 3) || - or something like that.
When you "harmonized" it, you did make an extension to get back to the
Tonic as I'm speaking of.

Yes, exactly. You know, it sounds funny if you start with a Mozart
sounding piece and then three bars in switch to a really jazzy style.
Usually the result is humorous (if the audience thinks it's intnetional)
or shows poor skills. Everytime you start a piece, you'r setting your
audience up to expect something. That's where I think Mozart Haydn and
Beethoven excelled: they were extrememly good at setting up expecetations
in the listener, and then toying with those expectations. It keeps the
listener interested. You know in a horror movie, after we've seen the
ending where they guy they just killed springs back to life, then it's
expected. Filmakers have had fun with this by parodying that. Movies like
"Scary Movie" would totally not work if it were'nt for this whole genre of
films that have set up what we are to expect. Usually you can tell in the
first 5 minutes if a film is going to completely follow your expectations
once they've been set up (making the film a boring re-hash) or if it's
going to constantly double-cross you (which again, while fresh, can get
expected), or not meet your expectations in either humorous or sneaky
ways.

I need to learn how to setup those expections ;/ it doesn't seem to be wasy
since there are many paths to get lost on ;/ or atleast be able to do the
expected, as I think I do to many unexpected things and it just all sounds
confusing.

Post by Steve Latham

I think they're all fine, except 5 and 6 - the original syncopated one,
and the extended one. The others do not bother me at all. Thr problem is
of course that once you've set up this idea, the syncopation sounds funky,
and the extension - while I think on the right track - doesn't quite blend
with what's come before.

Post by Jon Slaughter
The reason I'm asking is that the majority of my melodies seem to have
the same problem... where notes don't seem to fit with the rhythm. I
don't think its not necessarily anything wrong with the melody notes
themselfs, but now I'm thinking maybe they just dont' fit the rhythm(for
whatever reason).

Well, again, you've got the three measure phrases. Not that that's wrong,
but you might want to try 4 measure phrases instead. Check out your
Kostka/Payne and try to work out an antecedent/consequent pair. The melody
should (or usually does) end on SD2 in the antecedent phrase (implying a
half cadence) and then on SD1 at the end.
You can also end your antecedent on SD3 (or less commonly, 5), then
implying a weaker authentic cadence (like V6-I, V -I6, etc.) reserving the
stronger Perfect Authentic Cadence until the end.
You might also look up "Masculine" and "Feminine" cadences - they refer to
whether you end on a strong or weak beat (Masculine is of course strong,
and these are older, existing terms, so despite the unfairness the terms
may represent, they do come from an earlier time and are still used). I
think the definitions and some examples of these would be really
instructive.
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory22.htm
http://www.fredonia.edu/som/murphyp/PhraseStructure.htm

Well, after reading about phrasing where it talked about balance, symmetry
and such, and then realizing that in one song I was playing around with

Original by Haydn:
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/acc1hrm2.mid

Mine:
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/HaydnMod.mid
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/HaydnMod.mid

I saw that how the phrases interacted a little(the ending notes really stood
out more than I would have expected... and so the ending note of one phrase
would need to "fix" with the ending of the next it seemed.

I suppose maybe since I haven't attempted to create any real piece of
music(this piece being the closest I've ever done, by far), I've not
realized how music comes alive with phrases, sections and piece. I've always
figured that if the notes in the phrase were not perfect, then theres no way
the phrase or the song could work... simply because I would listen to a
phrase or half a phrase of someone like bach or beethoven and it would sound
very good, then i'd try to do my phrase or half phrase and it would sound
bad. Not sure why exactly, I always figured it was something I wasn't doing
write in the phrase and no matter what form I used it would always be bad
because that phrase was bad... not sure if this is completely the case, but
maybe having good form can help out a bad phrase so you get an ok song?

Post by Steve Latham
Best,
Steve

Thanks,
Jon

Steve Latham

2005-01-21 22:33:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jon Slaughter
I need to learn how to setup those expections ;/ it doesn't seem to be
wasy since there are many paths to get lost on ;/ or atleast be able to do
the expected, as I think I do to many unexpected things and it just all
sounds confusing.

[snip]

Post by Jon Slaughter

Post by Steve Latham
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory22.htm
http://www.fredonia.edu/som/murphyp/PhraseStructure.htm

Well, after reading about phrasing where it talked about balance, symmetry
and such, and then realizing that in one song I was playing around with
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/acc1hrm2.mid

OK, here we go again. Problem: it's not a nice, symmetrical antecedent and
consquent phrase in your typical 4+4 arrangement. Again, not that that's
bad, but it makes it difficult to have a yardstick to work from.

What you've got here is a 4 measure phrase: I I V I with an imperfect
authintic cadence (the melody ends on SD3),
then another 4 measure phrase alternating V I with an IAC (suspension idea
in the melody not ending on tonic note),
and another 4 measures (you might could say the last half is 8 becuase of
the overlap and lack of distinction, but the third phrase begins motivically
like the first part of the second phrase. The final third phrase does end
with a PAC (or stronger AC). Thus you have a 4+4+4 arrangement where it's
Antecedent, Antecedent, Consequent, or what K/P would call a "three phrase
period" or "phrase group".

Haydn by the way was a master at irregular length phrases and groupings, and
did them so smoothly that in most cases (like this one) it's difficult to
make a distinction sometimes.

Post by Jon Slaughter
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/HaydnMod.mid
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/HaydnMod.mid
I saw that how the phrases interacted a little(the ending notes really
stood out more than I would have expected...

Well, did they? It sounds like you heard this as two 6 measure phrases,
rather than 3 four measure phrases.

Post by Jon Slaughter
and so the ending note of one phrase would need to "fix" with the ending of
the next it seemed.

Well, what's happening here is the ending of the first phrase on SD3, sets
us up to expect a PAC at the end of the next phrase, but Haydn, being Haydn,
gives us that little suspension idea instead, and then extends the ideas
with another phrase where we finally do get the conclusion. So he sets up
expectations according to what his listeners were familiar with, but then
kind of fooled them. This is why a deceptive cadence works in tonal music.

[snip]
not sure if this is completely the case, but

Post by Jon Slaughter
maybe having good form can help out a bad phrase so you get an ok song?

No, no, not at all. You don't want any bad phrases any more than you want a
bad chord.
The problems are Jon, that it's not just the phrase - it's a combination of
elements. What you're trying to do is make a sentence. You've learned how to
spell words, but your orders are off (chord succession), your capitalization
is off (inversions), and your punctuation is off (cadences and phrases).
It's great that you're learning these things. You love a lot of great music
and are trying to use the works as models. Problem is (as far as learning is
concerned), you seem to gravitate to the "cooler" pieces - which may sound
cooler because of the unusual things they do - but it's harder to learn from
the exceptions than the "rules". That's why, stilted as it may be, theory is
taught from a "rules" perspective because these are the things that happen
most of the time.

Tell me again what pieces you have. Do you have any collections of sheet
music? I know you said you had some Beethoven Sonatas, but what else do you
have? Give me a run-down of books you have with what pieces are in them.

Steve

Jon Slaughter

2005-01-22 02:09:22 UTC

Permalink

Post by Steve Latham

Post by Jon Slaughter
I need to learn how to setup those expections ;/ it doesn't seem to be
wasy since there are many paths to get lost on ;/ or atleast be able to
do the expected, as I think I do to many unexpected things and it just
all sounds confusing.

[snip]

Post by Jon Slaughter

Post by Steve Latham
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory22.htm
http://www.fredonia.edu/som/murphyp/PhraseStructure.htm

Well, after reading about phrasing where it talked about balance,
symmetry and such, and then realizing that in one song I was playing
around with
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/acc1hrm2.mid

OK, here we go again. Problem: it's not a nice, symmetrical antecedent and
consquent phrase in your typical 4+4 arrangement. Again, not that that's
bad, but it makes it difficult to have a yardstick to work from.
What you've got here is a 4 measure phrase: I I V I with an imperfect
authintic cadence (the melody ends on SD3),
then another 4 measure phrase alternating V I with an IAC (suspension idea
in the melody not ending on tonic note),
and another 4 measures (you might could say the last half is 8 becuase of
the overlap and lack of distinction, but the third phrase begins
motivically like the first part of the second phrase. The final third
phrase does end with a PAC (or stronger AC). Thus you have a 4+4+4
arrangement where it's Antecedent, Antecedent, Consequent, or what K/P
would call a "three phrase period" or "phrase group".
Haydn by the way was a master at irregular length phrases and groupings,
and did them so smoothly that in most cases (like this one) it's difficult
to make a distinction sometimes.

Well, did they? It sounds like you heard this as two 6 measure phrases,
rather than 3 four measure phrases.

Post by Jon Slaughter
and so the ending note of one phrase would need to "fix" with the ending
of the next it seemed.

Well, what's happening here is the ending of the first phrase on SD3, sets
us up to expect a PAC at the end of the next phrase, but Haydn, being
Haydn, gives us that little suspension idea instead, and then extends the
ideas with another phrase where we finally do get the conclusion. So he
sets up expectations according to what his listeners were familiar with,
but then kind of fooled them. This is why a deceptive cadence works in
tonal music.
[snip]
not sure if this is completely the case, but

Post by Jon Slaughter
maybe having good form can help out a bad phrase so you get an ok song?

oh great... you know how good my grammar and spelling is... don't tell me
that music is the same ;/

Post by Steve Latham
It's great that you're learning these things. You love a lot of great
music and are trying to use the works as models. Problem is (as far as
learning is concerned), you seem to gravitate to the "cooler" pieces

Well, ofcourse, cause I want to make cool music. Its a natural gift I have
to start at the end and try to work my way to the beginning ;/

Post by Steve Latham
- which may sound cooler because of the unusual things they do - but it's
harder to learn from the exceptions than the "rules". That's why, stilted
as it may be, theory is taught from a "rules" perspective because these
are the things that happen most of the time.

Well, I might expect to much from myself at this point and maybe that is
inhibiting my ability to become better. But I don't really know what to do.
I'm trying to figure this stuff out but I'm just not getting it... Can't
understand why seems so easy, yet so difficult to do anything that sounds
good. Maybe I need to go back to basics and just work through lots of
problems(seems so boring to do that though).

Post by Steve Latham
Tell me again what pieces you have. Do you have any collections of sheet
music? I know you said you had some Beethoven Sonatas, but what else do
you have? Give me a run-down of books you have with what pieces are in
them.
Steve

The books from Goetshius(they are very theory oriented):

Applied Counterpoint
The Structure of Music
The theory and pratice of Tone relations
Lessons in Musical Form
Elementary Counterpoint
The larger forms of muscal compositions
The homophonic forms of musical composition
...

Melody in songwriting - Jack Perricone (a nice book that is pretty good on
the theory side and has details I've not seen in any other books)
Tonal Harmony - Sefan Kostka...
Treastise on Harmony - Rameau
Structural Functions in Music - Berry (I've not read much of this as it
doesn't make much sense... I think it uses schrenken analysis which I don't
know much about)
The analysis of music - White
The Classical STyle - Rosen
Fundamentals of Muscical Composition - Schoenberg
Counterpoint - Kennan
Thoery of Harmony - Schoenberg
Principles of Orchestration - Rimsky-Korsakov
Fundamentals of musical acoustics - Benade.
I have maybe 15 books on music history and about 50 misc stuff on like
guitar, sigh reading, etc...

The sheet music I have:

The Omnibus Part 1 & 2 (misc collection from the greats)
Beethovens symphonies 5-9 score
Bach's well tempered clavier book 1
Chopins preludes and etudes
George Gerswin
Schubert sonata
Chopins complete piano scores
Schuberts complete piano scores
Bach works for piano and 4p chorals

ofcourse some misc stuff but I think thats the main stuff.

Thanks

P.S. Don't put to much time in this... You've already done a great deal and
I don't want to trouble you any more than you want.

Joey Goldstein

2005-01-22 02:26:43 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, I might expect to much from myself at this point and maybe that is
inhibiting my ability to become better. But I don't really know what to do.
I'm trying to figure this stuff out but I'm just not getting it... Can't
understand why seems so easy, yet so difficult to do anything that sounds
good. Maybe I need to go back to basics and just work through lots of
problems(seems so boring to do that though).

Maybe it sounds better than you think it does?
I thought your little excerpt sounded nice.
Just keep writing. The more you do it the more likely it is that you'll
hit on something you like more. The types of things that will make your
music sound good to you won't be found in any books or be reducible to
anybody's theory about music. All you have to do is like it. Keep
working at it till you like it.

--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca

Jon Slaughter

2005-01-24 19:38:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Joey Goldstein

Well, Maybe I am expecting to much at first... I tend to do that. I guess I
just need to try to compose some longer pieces even if they might not be
that great. I just get discouraged when I do something that doesn't sound
good and I don't know why or how to fix it. I suppose I just need more
experience and more vision.

Post by Joey Goldstein
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca

Steve Latham

2005-01-22 02:51:14 UTC

Permalink

"Jon Slaughter" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:***@corp.supernews.com...

[snip]

Post by Jon Slaughter
oh great... you know how good my grammar and spelling is... don't tell me
that music is the same ;/

I think it's grammar and spelling are - seriously though, the point is, if
you'd like to write a novel, it's not just about grammar - it's about
storyline, character development, pacing, and so much more than just the
letters on the page. The first step is realizing that those are important
aspects, and the next step is going about learning as much as you can about
those things, hopefully with the end result of improving your skills.

[snip]

Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, ofcourse, cause I want to make cool music. Its a natural gift I have
to start at the end and try to work my way to the beginning ;/

That's Ok, we all do that.

Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, I might expect to much from myself at this point and maybe that is
inhibiting my ability to become better.

No, you are getting better. You just have to realize that it might cause you
frustration, and when it does, be able to step back and say maybe I'm not
ready for this, but at least I got X Y and Z out of the experiment.

But I don't really know what to do.

Post by Jon Slaughter
I'm trying to figure this stuff out but I'm just not getting it... Can't
understand why seems so easy, yet so difficult to do anything that sounds
good.

It may sound easy, but it's really not. That's one of the things I always
complain about. Non- musicians tend to think (especially because of MTV)
that musicians are no -talent posers. The skills we're dealing with are not
too different than the skill set it takes to become a computer programmer.
Again, I'd recommend you check out Beethoven's sketchbooks. He didn't have
an easy time composing even when he could hear. Not everyone is magical like
Mozart. Since you, like the rest of the world, were not born with this
incredible musical precocity, then you are put in the position of having to
learn it tooth and nail like the rest of us. I've mentioned this before
too - all the greats took lessons with others. Even Mozart.

Maybe I need to go back to basics and just work through lots of

Post by Jon Slaughter
problems(seems so boring to do that though).

You're right, and I know it is. Another "short cut" is exposure. I've
learned all of the "rules" for Bach Chorale style, but I could never write
what I would consider an even passing similarity. But after playing through
them on piano, I've sort of intuited as Matt always says nuch more than I
could by trying to memorize rules and exceptions. but also it's about
awareness. Before, I wasn't aware of the music - I just read through it or
played it. Now, I'm able to really listen to it and analyze it
simultaneously (better keyboard skills!) and it's coming quicker all the
time.
[snip]

Post by Jon Slaughter
The Omnibus Part 1 & 2 (misc collection from the greats)
Beethovens symphonies 5-9 score
Bach's well tempered clavier book 1
Chopins preludes and etudes
George Gerswin
Schubert sonata
Chopins complete piano scores
Schuberts complete piano scores
Bach works for piano and 4p chorals

Schubert Complete?
Can you tell me what's in that?

Post by Jon Slaughter
P.S. Don't put to much time in this... You've already done a great deal
and I don't want to trouble you any more than you want.

No trouble, and I hope maybe I providing something that's beneficial to the
newsgroup. Besides, I'm a music geek and I like analyzing music - it helps
me to learn and see things from different perspectives too.

Steve

Jon Slaughter

2005-01-24 19:35:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Steve Latham
[snip]

Schubert Complete?
Can you tell me what's in that?

Works for 4 hands, dances, Piano Sonatas and some misc stuff.

Joey Goldstein

2005-01-21 15:51:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jon Slaughter
I've been having some questions about rhythm for some time now, and now I
have a good example, atleast I think, that represents my problem.
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-1.mid
(The melody is repeated, the second one has a slight change)
and I tried to "harmonize" it
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-2.mid
Now, the problem I'm having that if you listen to the 7-1, the last one
sounds bad, IMO... while the first one sounds "right"(well, maybe this is
just to my ears, but...).
The only difference is that the I use a dotted eighth on the 3rd note from
the last and on the second melody in 7-1 I use just an eighth. Though, when
just listing to 7-1 out of context it doesn't seem as bad, but still sounds
like the second to last note is occuring to early. Why is this? The only
reason I can come up with is that its because in the second one, the last
note comes inbetween a beat, but I turned the 3rd last note into a half note
and removed that 2nd to laste so I get two halves, it sounds ok, but not as
good. The problem is, I really don' t know what is going on. I could call
that 2nd to last note an anticipation of the last note, but that seems to
just be covering up the real problem I have.

It sounds fine. You do realize I hope that you've modulated into the key
of G major somewhere around bar 5. I.e. your "melody" is all diatonic to
C major but your accompaniment has some prominanetly placed F#'s in it.
What you're hearing is probably the less than smooth passage back into C major.

Also, your "melody" is a bass line. Yes, bass lines should be melodic,
especially in contrapuntal music. But in your piece what comes out in
the listener's ear as the melody will be in the higher registers. Your
"melody" is completely buried in your accompaniment.

Post by Jon Slaughter
I guess what I'm asking is that is it true to say "You can't really fool
your ears."? Its like the ear knows if something is going to sound bad if
it happens even before it happens? Atleast to my ears I expect that 3rd note
to be atleast a dotted eighth. and I also seem to expect it not to be a half
note too. I've tried playing around with adding notes and removing then,
but nothing seems as good as the original.
What it seems is, that somehow I've setup some some precondition in the
first part of the melody so that my ear expects the second part of it to be
a certain way? I'm not sure if this is true for anyone elses ears, but if it
is, then there should be some reason?
http://www.geocities.com/jon_slaughter/Music/play7-3.mid
Contains the main melody and several variants. It seems that the most
natural is the first one, then the second might be the last one. Anyone have
any different opinions?
The reason I'm asking is that the majority of my melodies seem to have the
same problem... where notes don't seem to fit with the rhythm. I don't think
its not necessarily anything wrong with the melody notes themselfs, but now
I'm thinking maybe they just dont' fit the rhythm(for whatever reason).
Anyways
Thanks for any help
Jon

--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca