Ask a Question about Music Theory or History

I really enjoyed reading your notes, which have some astute observations at key points in the movement.

If you permit, I'll add a few bits and bobs of my own.

Structural Notes

Discussions of musical structure, or form, can often seem complex, but it comes down to three basic elements: Repetition, variation and contrast.

During Beethoven's lifetime the first movement commonly used "sonata" from. At it's heart, sonata form consists of two or more musical themes (tunes). There's the first tune (let's call it "A") and then the second group of tunes which we will call "B", "C", "D" etc. It's important that A contrasts with B, C, D etc. Beethoven does this by putting the themes in different keys and different moods. This is the "contrast" element of musical form.

If you're interested, theme A starts at 0:32 with the cellos. This theme is important as DeepFunk makes reference to it again. Get theme A into your brain. Get it? Got it? Good.

Now, the themes Beethoven uses in the Eroica come back again, and again, but in various disguises to keep you guessing and to make things interesting. This is the "variation" element of form. To use a jargon word, Beethoven enters the "development" section of the piece.

At 7:37 DeepFunk points out the silent to bombastic. This actually starts at 7:27. Have a listen to the cellos. Recognise the tune? Yes, it's the "A" theme (not to be confused with The A-Team Theme), but Beethoven kneads the music around like a star baker. DeepFunk refers to the build up at 10:45. Recognise the tune in the woodwind (starting with basson)? Yep. Theme A. DF mentions 11:59 as a new phase. Is the tune familiar? Bingo! Theme A, played initially by the cellos, followed by a single horn and then the flutes. At 12:40 DF observes that the whole orchestra joins in. No prizes for guessing which theme.

You have an intuitive understanding of this music, my friend @Deep Funk .

A full description of sonata form will have to wait for another day. But take this lesson away: Form is all about repetition, variation and contrast. If you remember this and apply it to your listening you'll start to master form. The icing on the cake is learning the jargon that describes the repetition, variation and contrast you hear.

 

I enjoy listening to Classical music occasionally, but I don't "understand" it. This is great food for thought!

I have thought that if I understood Classical music a bit, I would be getting more out of it. But I have been too lazy/distracted to pursue that. You have a way of making it easy. Thanks, MoatsArt!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schoenberg

Although you can click on the "atonality" link in that article for a more in depth history of the concept.

 

@Deep Funk

Here is a short continuation of my Eroica observations.

Dissonance

Very loosely, dissonance can be described as "yucky" sounds. Like fingernails down a chalkboard, or my singing in the shower. More accurately, it occurs when two or more notes are played at the same time that result in a yucky sound. Dissonance is contrasted with consonance, which are the good, expected, soothing sounds. The convention at the time was that dissonance had to be followed by consonance, much like the effect of eating a lemon and then a spoon of sugar. There's always been dissonance of some sort. Old hat really.

Beethoven took dissonance to new places at one point in the Eroica. Have a listen to it starting at about 9:20. Whoa. In the context of early eighteenth century music the sound of 9:35 would have made peoples hair stand on end. It's still a thrill to me, even though I've heard it lots of times. It makes the following tune sound even more melancholic.

The dissonance here really consists of two elements. A rhythmic element and a harmonic element. Humour me for a moment. I'd like you to go back to the start of the piece and try tapping the beat. You should find that the beat occurs in groups of three, with the first beat being the strongest. Now, use your thumb to tap the first beat and use your index and middle fingers to tap beats two and three respectively. OK. That's the normal flow of the piece.

At 9:35 the rhythm becomes jarring, much like a rhythmic analogy of dissonance. Try tapping the beat in groups of three starting at 8:30. At about 8:50 things start to get screwy, but nothing out of the ordinary. Beethoven is using "syncopation", which moves the strong beats of each group around. It becomes harder to tap. At 9:25 the rhythm gets screwier than screwing. The syncopation leading up to it makes you loose your bearings. The rhythm here gives you an unbearable sense of vertigo. On paper it should be a simple 3/4, but in its setting it is compelling and invigorating.

Speaking of invigorating, the harmonic dissonance at 9:25 is utterly spectacular. Beethoven adds one note to a not-unusual chord progression. One note - an E - and everything changes. A splinter in the brain, relieved a few short seconds later.

[Let me get a bit technical here for the music nerds. This dissonance occurs as part of a modulation bridge. Bar 280 ff is a Neapolitan sixth built on the flattened ii chord of the new key; 284 is a V7 sus 9, 286 is a V7 (9 resolves to 8); 288 is the new tonic in the key of E minor. There's nothing unusual about this sequence of chords, which is a common cadential preparation.

[Bar 280 is the climactic dissonance. Beethoven has added an unexpected "E" to the first inversion F major triad forming the Neapolitan sixth. Amazing. I don't know really how to explain it. If it's a suspension, it's been neither prepared nor resolved as you would expect.]

These posts will shortly self destruct.....

 

I'm going to offer contrasting advice to what has been given. Time is the most valuable resource we have, and given that your life is already 1/2 over (even if you make it to 100 you won't be doing much playing 80-100) do you really think it is a smart use of this resource to spend on such a time-exhaustive hobby? I'm the same age as you and it would be like if I decided to learn figure skating now just so I could do a few backflips to show off for friends and family.

I played piano as a youth and can play fairly hard pieces if I work my ass off, as in 2 hr a day and work on a single piece for 6-12 mo. And it still sounds like amateur 12 year old shit compared to what real musicians can do. I've kind of decided it's not a good use of my time. I also have a family with kids, and a job that requires time.

If you're rich, single, and have nothing but loads of time and you really really really really think it will add joy to your life and can be ok with playing Mary Had a Little Lamb after 2 years, then go for it. Otherwise it's not a wise choice.

 

I guess your point of view is affected by whether you are process or result oriented. Listen to knerian (who is exaggerating), though, and set your expectations accordingly.

 

Even if you're process oriented, there's nothing rewarding or enjoyable about the process. Learning an instrument is all about reinforcing muscle memory, over and over again, of the same tiny passage over and over and over again. It's like aiming for the rim at the free-throw line for 1 hr each day for 12 YEARS. There's nothing remotely enjoyable about the process. The only thing motivating you is the result.

So if there is a belief that learning an instrument is fun because you're constantly playing music, get that thought out of your head.

As an example, I love playing a passage because it sounds like music to me. I'll often times sabotage my progress by trying to play a passage close to actual speed before enough work has been done on it, just so i can get that "high" of paying music. Result: it will take me 10 times as long to learn a passage than if I just put my nose to the grindstone, and I'll most likely pick up a few bad habits along the way.

So if your goal is hedonistic enjoyment of music, which it sounds like it is since you're on an audiophile site, then learning to play an instrument at your advanced age is in illogical decision.

 

39 an advanced age? LOL! I do know what you mean, though.

At the decrepit age of 41 I inherited a nice guitar and have started teaching myself. I know bugger all about how to play it and realise the importance of developing muscle memory. However, I'm not particularly interested in becoming the next Jimi Hendrix or Julian Bream.

I love repetition for the sake of mastery, but don't expect mastery of the entire technique of the instrument. If I can learn a few blues scales and a modest repertoire of chords, I've got access to enough hedonistic pleasure to keep me happy.

 

I understand your point @knerian and you are probably right. Thanks for your insight as you do speak from experience. Life is so busy that sometimes I have to choose either to sleep or to enjoy this hobby. I will not have the time or energy to practice 12000 hours over 10 years to be able to play with skill.

I am very scientifically minded and use logic in most avenues of life. Music rests my mind and soul from that way of thinking and has become essential to my wellbeing. With this decision I may not be using logic or reason but I am led by the heart.

I gravitated to dedicated music listening 10 years ago listening to alt rock, rock, folk, and the greats from the pop/blues/folk/rocknroll culture since the 50s. After 5 years I got a taste of classical music and immediately got hooked. I now almost exclusively listen to and cannot have enough of it.

There is no way, in my lifetime, that I will listen to every masterpiece composed by a human being. When I feel I reached a goal, like listening to all of Beethoven's works, I look at the everest of Bach, Haydn, Wagner and Schoenberg and feel overwhelmed.

If I feel I understand the classical period, I look at the Renaissance and feel bewildered. Listening to Josquin after being Bach obsessed opened the door to another music gulf I need to understand. Modern and avande guarde music is another challenge I am trying to approach concurrently. Sometimes I hit a composer that is difficult to understand like Xenakis, Stockhausen or Boulez, but that gives me impetus to keep trying.

This music obsession, has ventured into reproducing it with absolute fideliti. Thus my wonderings into audiophilia of headphones and speakers these past 5 years. The perfect reproduction of sound has become another goal into the exploration of music. Thankfully CS and SBAF greatly led me in the right direction to which I will be eternally grateful.

However despite all this, I feel that I am still a passive receiver of information.

Could I in my lifetime reproduce, or dare I say compose, the music with my own hands? It is probably too late to be a proficient amateur musician. In childhood, there is ample time to 'waste' until you get to a point of mastery. I don't have that time. That said, if I don't try I would not know and I may enjoy the process and measly results.

My 5 year old will start her piano lessons soon, and I plan to take lessons too. It would be fun to learn with her and support her throughout. It might also be the perfect opportunity for me to see if this venture opens up my mind to another understanding of music as much as these past 10 years of listening has.

 

Deleted as requested.

 

—“The differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.” (Ericsson, Krampe & Römer, 1993)

Interestingly, I actually did a presentation on learning musical instruments and the 10,000 hour rule quite recently as part of an exercise... And one interesting finding that they noted is that there's no evidence of natural 'talent'. It's all practice and hours put in. Hundreds or thousands of hours spent unseen practicing in general, hours to get one five second series of notes absolutely perfect.

Quick math shows that if you practiced half an hour a day, it would take you some 55 years to get 10,000 hours in.
I definitely have less done than that (MAYBE 1,500 hours at the absolute maximum), and I can still play the piano quite proficiently. As in, can learn most Chopin pieces with deliberate effort and struggle. And I remember last summer looking at what I learnt as a kid growing up, year by year, and you're gonna be playing "Mary had a little lamb" chopstick style for quite some time.

If you want to make your practice most efficient, they also found that maximum effort over a short period of time trying to refine one specific thing was more effective than just playing an instrument in general. So focus on key skills.

It's not easy. But that's what makes it so special.

 

For some strange reason people think that I'm some sort of music guru. I'm not and want to set the record straight.

I started studying music at Melbourne University in 1993 with twinkling eyes and an optimistic heart and completed the degree in 1996 with much despondency. Music performance is (or was) a compulsory subject for the first three years of a BMus. I failed miserably in my second year trumpet exam. The powers that be let me continue the course, but I was ineligible to enroll in third year practical study. Demonstrating my usual stupidity, I studied a dead language at a beginner's level instead, which greatly enhanced my prospects of finding work.

I'm no musician, just a fraud. Don't listen to me. I just enjoy listening to music and write stuff here for fun. I'd prefer my posts to be soon-forgotten scraps of conversation rather than permanent reminders of my ineptitude. For this reason @Muse Wanderer , please delete your copy of my previous post on the "Eroica". I appreciate the sentiment, and am a little surprised as to how you managed to resurrect the content after I'd already deleted it.

If I post here again, it will be because I have lots of time to kill and enjoy listening to and thinking about music. Please don't try and make it more than what it is.

 

I am going to read this post many times. Thank you.

 

I never thought you were some guru or music guru. You love music, that makes us friends.

Ineptitude is human. 42 might be the answer and all you need is your towel.

@MoatsArt , I think you are awesome but my words cannot express to which extent. You are much appreciated.

 

Speaking about Eroica:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler

"BBC Music Magazine surveyed 151 conductors working across the world to come up with a top 20 great symphonies."

Only top 10 are listed in the article, but here are the top 20:

01 - Beethoven 3
02 - Beethoven 9
03 - Mozart 41
04 - Mahler 9
05 - Mahler 2
06 - Brahms 4
07 - Berlioz Symphonie fantastique
08 - Brahms 1
09 - Tchaikovsky 6
10 - Mahler 3
11 - Beethoven 5
12 - Brahms 3
13 - Bruckner 8
14 - Sibelius 7
15 - Mozart 40
16 - Beethoven 7
17 - Shostakovich 5
18 - Brahms 2
19 - Beethoven 6
20 - Bruckner 7

 

I'd like something to do tomorrow, so please ask some more questions. I'll post my answers when I'm feeling up to it. I have to be careful what I write now as I can neither edit nor delete.

Edit: Oh wait! Yes I can.... for the moment.

 

@MoatsArt

Please don't delete any more posts! We want to read what you have to say buddy!

Ok - I have a question for you. Maybe a bit of a strange one but here goes: Do you think that the current way of doing musical notation ever will be replaced with something else? What are the limitations of the current musical notation in terms of expressing all kinds of music? Some relevant searches:

http://www.hummingbirdnotation.com/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-alternatives-to-standard-written-music-notation
http://musicnotation.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gongche_notation

Are these alternative systems something you think could improve music creation in the future? Or do you feel that the current system is adequate?

 

I really enjoyed thinking about this question. Here are a few thoughts.


What are the limitations of the current musical notation in terms of expressing all kinds of music?

The current traditional western system of musical notation is generally imprecise, with the occasional exception of tempo (when indicated in beats per minute). “Isn’t the notation of pitch meticulously recorded?” No. “Accurate” pitch depends on the tuning system, style of music being played and the instruments used. What about rhythm? There are stylistic expectations that are often un-notated and rubato that loses its freedom if rigorously dictated. Dynamics? These are usually shown through the use of a few Italian words, not in SPL.

In short, musical notation is very inexact. But herein lies its beauty. Just browse through Tidal or Amazon. How many cover versions are there of “Over the Rainbow”? How many recorded interpretations of Bach’s Prelude & Fugue in D minor for organ? Yet, they are all different and mostly valid. Music is an interaction between composer, performer and audience. It’s an organic thing of beauty, not just dots on a dusty, mouldering page.

However, let me approach this question from a slightly different angle. There is a sense in which notation creates the boundaries within which a composer’s imagination works.

If you jump into the TARDIS and head back to the fourteenth century you’ll come across a style of western art music called “Ars Nova”. At this point in time there were developments in the notation of rhythm that allowed greater complexity and variety. During the previous period (Ars Antiqua) musical thought was dominated by rhythmic modes. Not only were there developments in rhythmic notation, but also in rhythms used in composition. Which came first the: The chicken or the egg?

Maybe they were both effects of the same cause, borrowing from the freedom of improvised or folk music. In any case, the new notation not only allowed, but also suggested and encouraged a new way of conceptualising music.

Do you think that the current way of doing musical notation ever will be replaced with something else? Are these alternative systems something you think could improve music creation in the future?

If there is a cataclysmic shift in the public’s musical taste, then I imagine that musical notation may need to shape-shift. There have been attempts made at other, less limiting forms of notation. However, they have gained no real traction because they serve no lasting purpose. I can’t see that musical notation will be replaced in our culture in the foreseeable future.

However, there are alternative forms of notation that supplement the current system. Guitar, lute and bass players frequently make use of tab (short for tablature) notation, which shows not so much how the music sounds, but how the music is played: which string, which fret. Teachers occasionally simplify things for beginners, often by graphically means. Rhythms can be shown as dots in a grid. Pitch can be indicated by its relative vertical position (useful for the aural training of novices).

There are all manner of notational curiosities out there, but none of them are replacements for what we have now.

Do you feel that the current system is adequate?

It’s both adequate and flexible, simultaneously reflecting and shaping music as we know it today in the West.

Sorry for the long-winded response. Should really have left this for tomorrow (it's 11:05 pm here) as now I will have nothing to do.

 

In school I had art history. Music was part of the arts and musical (an)notation was developing as composers wanted to preserve their works on paper.

Most music was - if I am correct - sung and built around a centre melody which would intertwine with other melodies and instrumentation. To keep the music more "sacred" Gregorian chant became a thing.

Here is my question: in the past musical (an)notation was focused on a main melody usually sung with some instrumentation and while the symphonic orchestra has been added how can existing musical (an)notation also cater to the electronic genres of music? Think of House, Techno and Minimal which sometimes have symphonic even Classical aspects but sometimes are nothing more but percussion patterns (with shifts) and often a bass line that lays the foundational groove.

(Keep in mind this has kept me busy since discovering the Free Funk and Fusion from the 1970ties. Which heavily influenced Disco and House.)

 

A quick response for now from someone who knows very little about electronic music.

The primary purpose of musical notation was dissemination, from composer to performer. Most electronic artists, as far as I know, perform their own compositions/arrangements rather than expecting other musicians to do so. If this is the case, there is no need for dissemination, other than the dissemination between the composer/performer and the audience.

In fact, there is a long tradition of performing and improvising musicians having no ability to read music. I don't think electronic genres of music really need any form of notation at all. I once met a composer of electronic music who deliberately chose not to learn how to read music as he believed it would stifle his creativity.