Concept and execution

Hello fellers, this thread is an attempt to discuss the characteristic that is a common habit of a musician, which is to listen to music and study it as he or she listens. Most people will listen to a song and upon repeated listens (or even on the first listen) begin to decode the many elements that altogether compose a work of art. This habit can be done to gain a further appreciation for the composition, or to study it in hopes of implementing such methods and styles into one's own compositions, or for whatever reason, really - it does not matter much.

One can begin to analyze music in many ways - whether it is for the purpose of furthering the knowledge of its harmonic, rhythmic or melodic components. One such way to get into these three things, in a rather rudimentary fashion, is to break down a musical piece into a simple idea that illustrates what I tentatively call the "intent" - the very heart of the music in its most basic form, or a rough sketch of an unfinished portrait, if you will. Until now you've listened to what you’ve no doubt thought about already before, but bear with me a bit further and I'll try to illustrate my ramblings in the best way that I can with the following example.

For this example we'll take the first 20 seconds of the following youtube video, or the first two Melodic passages of Chopin's "Quatre Mazurkas" Op. 6 No. 1 . Here's the video:

Now notice the first melodic passage of the Mazurka (0:00 - 0:13) and you will agree that such performance is equivalent to this following score:

Now this above image I will call for now M-1. Let's consider M-1, with its innermost measures that compose IT, in turn, labeled i, followed by 1, 2, 3, and 4. In this composition, and later on in this composition as it alternates themes and whatnot – this one melody shown in the picture above is ubiquitous, and for good reason: it has a majestic, classical sound to it. Forgive my poor description of the melody, but to discuss the elegance and aesthetic beauty of this song here would be beyond the scope of this thread; either way, we proceed.

Now let's compare this score (which is basically the first 13 seconds of that one youtube video), with the one immediately below it:

Do you begin to see what I mean with taking a song, and recognizing the innermost basis of it? It’s as if the composer begins with a common mould, or mass. Take a quasi-spherical, red-brown mass – a sculpture’s starting point with which he will give rise to a compelling figure. At first, he shapes this mold to the point of having some sort of recognizable theme behind it: a figure of a person, or of a face, etc. – but it isn’t until the sculptor has finished subtracting, modifying, adding, and transforming that he makes that figure one of a Greek warrior in battle, or a face which expresses distress, or anything he may wish and decide upon as he goes along.

I am so inclined as to think that it is similar with music, as when the composer begins with a piece of music he does so with a common mass, and through the process of subtracting, modifying, adding, and transforming that mass he makes what was once a common mass, a truly and full-fledged piece of artwork that truly stands out.

One more image, corresponding to the same melodic passage I've yet focused on, will help me finalize my point:

I think you'll notice by now that what I mean is that behind a polished and finalized product, or composition, there is but a simple idea lurking behind it. Take the chord progression image - C#7 to F#m to E7 to A. Surely, if you listen to and perform classical music you might agree that this kind of chord progression is so pervasive in classical music that you might dismiss it as commonplace. Though, take the final form of the song and see for yourself that it is anything but common (when performed with the correct articulations);

In measures 1 and 3 (see first image) the combination of this rhythm:

acting together with the notes chosen by Chopin to act as syllables, as in a song made with lyrics -

all these things are but few of the infusions of beauty that make this beauty what it is- and I am tempted to think that most music is this way - that where may be a beautiful, intricate song, there is also a simple, elegant concept that lurks beneath it. Even though the concept is part of the story, the execution - or final product - is where the "polish" resides, or what makes the song stand out. This polish, this detail, is what saves the song from being perceived as commonplace and elevates it into grandeur and style. Or as we like to say sometimes: the devil is in the details.

And that leads to the whole point of this thread: would you agree that, to make a good song, one needs to go back to playing very simple things – and then convincing oneself that in this simplicity there is an enormous potential yet waiting to be discovered? To begin with playing with a simple idea, a simple concept – and then to be convinced of its simplicity, such that one begins to see beauty and potential in it, so that in the addition of complexity, the song develops within its full gamut of potential, making it sound beautiful – is this valid?

For me, to go any length further with these words would now be unnecessary, but do expand and enlighten me upon this subject, of which up to now I have revealed I know little.

Study Schenkerian analysis.

Srsly. I read a bit and instantly thought Schenker.

A way of simplifying music to appreciate it better

:ermm: But there's so much flowery language that it took me a while to decode what you'd written :lol: I do like your creativity though :)

Do you begin to see what I mean with taking a song, and recognizing the innermost basis of it? It’s as if the composer begins with a common mould, or mass. Take a quasi-spherical, red-brown mass – a sculpture’s starting point with which he will give rise to a compelling figure. At first, he shapes this mold to the point of having some sort of recognizable theme behind it: a figure of a person, or of a face, etc. – but it isn’t until the sculptor has finished subtracting, modifying, adding, and transforming that he makes that figure one of a Greek warrior in battle, or a face which expresses distress, or anything he may wish and decide upon as he goes along.

So basically, what you mean by that is he/she taps out the melody to the piece without the accompaniment first of all, right?

And that leads to the whole point of this thread: would you agree that, to make a good song, one needs to go back to playing very simple things – and then convincing oneself that in this simplicity there is an enormous potential yet waiting to be discovered? To begin with playing with a simple idea, a simple concept – and then to be convinced of its simplicity, such that one begins to see beauty and potential in it, so that in the addition of complexity, the song develops within its full gamut of potential, making it sound beautiful – is this valid?

For me, to go any length further with these words would now be unnecessary, but do expand and enlighten me upon this subject, of which up to now I have revealed I know little.

And this basically means that a melody's sound is greatly affected by the accompaniment you decide upon, right?

I'm awful tired, and maybe this is all over my head though :sleep:

I wouldn't limit concept and execution strictly to simplicity evolving into complexity. There are several approaches. For example, my approach isn't necessarily related to simplicity evolving into complexity at all in some cases. Some of my work is constructed with a germ of an idea that I flesh out within the various dimensions of sound, like melodic/linear, harmonic/sonoric (or sonority), rhythmic/temporal, and so on and so forth. Many times I will approach my music with the idea of some "event" that will take place, and from that event I'll derive other ideas that either lead into it or follow it. Eternal is one such example of this... see my signature for a link to where you can go listen and view the score.

I didn't start with a "simple" idea, I didn't really try to make my idea more complex either. I just tried to craft it in such a way that the various moments of the work either leading to an "event" or follow it are just as dimensional as the event itself. It's hard to lay it all on the line and say Chopin started at measure 1 with this simple structure, then he started making it more and more complex... yeah, it could have happened this way, OR he could have started anywhere in the piece and extracted elements from one or more moments of the work to begin the piece with a simple abstraction from the more complex idea he imagined at the beginning of his writing process. Who knows?

You're not necessarily "wrong" that music can be examined in the way you describe your analytical viewpoint. I think it's helpful to see simple structures become more complex structures through the progression of a work. But the practical application of this observation/understanding is only ONE way of conceptualizing a work in the process of composing. It doesn't even have to start with an event. It can start with a motif or gesture, a rhythmic pattern, a sound effect, or just about anything else. In short, we can't necessarily reduce ourselves to this notion of "simplicity" evolving into "complexity." It can be just as effective to begin with something complex and reduce it to something simple through the progression of a piece, from a compositional standpoint. That's the "craft."

I briefly glanced at what Wiki had to say about Shenkerian analysis and it seems like I’ll be having my hands full for a while. I don’t know why, but I got a vibe that every major idea has been already laid out but is just waiting to be executed or mixed with another idea. This could be BS.

I do appreciate you reading my post at all, SergeofArniVillage – sometimes I’ll get carried away with words and make seemingly bloated descriptions :D But yes, you were right in pointing out the idea behind all the words. I think accompaniment and context deserve an entire focus of study in their own right, don’t you think?

I wouldn't limit concept and execution strictly to simplicity evolving into complexity. There are several approaches. For example, my approach isn't necessarily related to simplicity evolving into complexity at all in some cases. Some of my work is constructed with a germ of an idea that I flesh out within the various dimensions of sound, like melodic/linear, harmonic/sonoric (or sonority), rhythmic/temporal, and so on and so forth. Many times I will approach my music with the idea of some "event" that will take place, and from that event I'll derive other ideas that either lead into it or follow it. Eternal is one such example of this... see my signature for a link to where you can go listen and view the score.

This is I think a much wholesome approach to the matter of composition. My “method” or technique described above is far too linear to be considered musical, and may be best left for an analytic/appreciative standpoint. By comparison, your method seems multi-linear, or three-dimensional, so that when you mention a germ of an idea I imagine a seed and a mental description of what that seed is, and full knowledge of what that seed represents. And then there are other seed-lets (events) whose flow is moderated by the links, or branches, that unite each seed-let– so that there is cohesiveness between event and event and the music doesn’t sound like it strays too far from its underlying source, or, the master seed. And besides the musical concept there is a conceptual/abstract motive behind each seed, like “a dog running,” through which your music is inspired. Or it may be the other way around, a few notes might remind you of a dog running. Nothing is linear, things may not happen in a given order – is this kind of what you mean? I like it.

The problem is, I’ve never really properly composed any one song in my life. All of the song-bits I have composed have been but moments, or ideas that can develop into songs, but that I cannot connect. Specifically, I’ve a collection of a couple hundred song-bits (an idea repository, if you will) that have been conceived through short and long term “improvisations” at the piano, and I think the problem with my inability to finish them is that (besides not knowing much about composition) there is little intelligence to them, only an aesthetic pleasantness or drive about them that constitutes the reason for which they are still on my hard drive.

I think it’d be a good idea to start having an actual reason to continue, to have ideas branches out of the original ideas, and even words or concepts attached to them – something I’ve not tried at all. I listened to Eternal and found it very emotionally evocative, though was mystified as to how its inception was born, having read the description and all. I think the best kind of music is the one you can’t analyze, wouldn’t you agree? ;)

Analysis by reduction always misses the perspective of music not being something you can strip parts off simply like that. Even if there's a hierarchy of elements and their roles, implying that you can do away with any of them is foolish, specially since sometimes characteristics on the "outside" parameters may be the most striking. In the end it's hopelessly incomplete since you can never take elements as they are and you must always modify and strip away things. I don't think you can analyze a musical experience by taking away aspects of that experience, unless you're specifically looking for something. As a whole though, it's a waste of time.

Plus, when you get to modern music, there's stuff you can't even isolate elements from the whole in any form of hierarchy (serial music for example where every element is just as important.)

And really, analysis always depends on what you want to get out of it and every method has to be tailor-made to what the piece is and what the purpose is. There's no other way.

Analysis by reduction always misses the perspective of music not being something you can strip parts off simply like that. Even if there's a hierarchy of elements and their roles, implying that you can do away with any of them is foolish, specially since sometimes characteristics on the "outside" parameters may be the most striking.

Oh, I agree. In “filtering” certain elements of a song to highlight, examine, or analyze them I don’t necessarily mean that I am doing away or discarding the other elements – especially because these other elements also bear a significance to the identity of the song. The post above was mostly made in an analytical/reductionist viewpoint, but I did go too far in my assumption that an idea evolves from simple to complex.

In the end it's hopelessly incomplete since you can never take elements as they are and you must always modify and strip away things. I don't think you can analyze a musical experience by taking away aspects of that experience, unless you're specifically looking for something. As a whole though, it's a waste of time.

It is an incomplete way to see things, but I do see some use to it. For example, in studying chord progression I might like to see how a composition goes from C major to G major and go, “Ok, this is the end product, this is how this chord progression changes throughout the song. Appreciation +1.” Now how the artist went about piecing the various bits of melody, rhythm, and myriad musical elements to form a song is probably useless, since these things are in no way set in stone and there are many different ways to compose a song.

Plus, when you get to modern music, there's stuff you can't even isolate elements from the whole in any form of hierarchy (serial music for example where every element is just as important.)

Is that one Mazurka up above modern music? If not, I wouldn’t really know about that since I don’t think I listen to serial music... I will have to check it out, though, now that you mention it.

And really, analysis always depends on what you want to get out of it and every method has to be tailor-made to what the piece is and what the purpose is. There's no other way.

Not sure what you mean by this – do you mean to say that every method of composition has to be tailor-made to what the piece is and what the purpose is? If you do, then we are of one mind.

But now that we’ve touched the topic, what’s your general take on analysis?

I find your analysis a little convoluted. The opening four measures are a sequence that can be found in baroque figured Bass and, as you said, quite commonplace.

The is F # minor. So the opening four measures are V7 (with the tonic interestingly serving as an anticipation), i, V7/III, III

As you mention what is interesting is how Chopin handles it. Especially knowing Chopin's two favorite composers and the ones he went to for models were Mozart and Bach. In this phrase you hear/see the influence. Chopin takes the F# E# and D C# heard in the opening melody as a motivic unit and employs it as a countermelody in the alto to the sequential repetition of the melody a third higher. Note too how in the chords in measure 2 and 4 exploit the potential E# and E cross relation (though here it isn't a true one), Finally the chromatic sequence of harmony which proceeds after this phrase is a development of the F#, E# (or E), D, C# motive by chromatic motion. Finally the descending 4 note motive implied by the first statement of the phrase (F#E# D,C# later F# E, D C#) can be viewed as an inversion of the melody's upward motion. So within these four measures, Chopin creates mirror voice leading while later employing the descending line and the potential cross relations to expand the harmonic palette of the piece.

Oh and one final note - the third beat C# in the low bass msr 1 to F# first beat msr 2 low bass - the inversion of the downward 5th motion is "reflected" in the upward motion of C# to F# in the first beat of measure two. This "mirror" game is repeated later in the phrase.

So what bearing does this have on the execution? Well, you need to know what a mazurka is to be sure you stress the 3rd beat. Chopin helps you out with the suspension and voice leading, the only caution is not to accent too much the low bass notes in the left hand first beat. Also, understanding how the right hand is put together gives a clue to the touch and articulation requires - the clarity required for a baroque fugue and the melodic line bel canto (which is derived from early baroque opera). The difference? The folk influence is much stronger and the textures are more idiomatic to the piano (though the lineage comes from Mozart sonatas) than ever before as well as the harmony being far more chromatic.