|
Post by Dr.Quack on Jul 24, 2003 18:19:04 GMT -5
I'm talking of it's music. Let's put it this way, imagine a piece with an awsome melody, but really sucky development on that melody. Is that better than a piece with an awful melody, but a really thourough development on that melody?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jul 24, 2003 21:55:11 GMT -5
A bit of everything.
But a lot of it is the performer putting human emotion into the math of the notes. Lots of people don't understand that, they think music is just playing with no mistakes...ha!
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Quack on Jul 24, 2003 23:02:07 GMT -5
Yeah, but if you have crappy music, a good performance won't do much.
Although likewise, if you have good music, a crappy performance will screw everything up.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jul 24, 2003 23:11:40 GMT -5
Yep. Agreed. But, whereas a good performer can make even a crappy piece shine a LITTLE bit, a good piece cannot fix a bad performance, unless it is absolutely phenomenal, and even then I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Quack on Jul 25, 2003 11:54:21 GMT -5
Do you know what's intersting?
There is a school of musicologists who believe that the institution of performance is an evil disease, and that music should be for study and not for stage.
What a bunch of blowhards.
|
|
|
Post by Salome on Jul 27, 2003 1:18:41 GMT -5
funny, it sounds almost like something u would agree w/
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Quack on Jul 27, 2003 18:54:55 GMT -5
funny, it sounds almost like something u would agree w/ And how did you come to that conclusion??
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jul 28, 2003 0:48:22 GMT -5
Because you tend to defend opinions which others tend not to.
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Quack on Jul 28, 2003 12:16:32 GMT -5
I don't defend oppinions because others don't!
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jul 28, 2003 13:07:45 GMT -5
Did I say that? I merely note that you usually take the side that nobody else does for some strange reason.
|
|
|
Post by Salome on Jul 29, 2003 11:55:04 GMT -5
henry, stop being random... MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!! delete random pointless posts please.
on subject... i dont think anyone is willing to admit that they are wrong... its not easy
|
|
|
Post by musicalbabe on Aug 31, 2003 20:05:07 GMT -5
wow...archagon sounds similar to richard with the point that there must be human emotion involved with the math of the rhythms and notes. and i wouldn't really say that jeff might agree with the 'focus on the study and not the performance' idea. i can see how one would come to that conclusion though. on a slightly different note, my vote is for harmony. a good melody can be quite boring without a nice harmony line. maybe that's why i enjoy singing alto and playing second clarinet parts...
|
|
|
Post by Salome on Aug 31, 2003 20:14:24 GMT -5
i agree harmony is important, but if its really badly done, the quality of the piece doesnt make a difference (u should listen to my sight reading)
|
|
|
Post by musicalbabe on Aug 31, 2003 22:08:46 GMT -5
i suppose. there are more important things than harmony, i guess. but with a well written piece of music and at least a semi-talented group of individuals to perform it, my preference is in the harmony. i do agree that there must be a core melody and ability for harmony to come into play, though. good point.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Sept 1, 2003 11:38:20 GMT -5
i put down melody, but in truth, its a good combination of almost everything
|
|