# When Structure Takes Priority



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If someone asked you to make a top 10 of the most musically structured pieces of all time, I'm going to guess Beethoven's 3rd would end up in 90% of the lists. It's hard to doubt how tightly and nicely structured, fluidly ordered this work is. However, we've also noticed on Talk Classical, much appeal for the later works of Brahms if not common critiques that his Classical-esque structures don't always get to the level of fluidity as Beethoven's like the Eroica. That is to say, his works are easily and equally great, and although hinge on other tremendous talents, some say "the dots don't alwayd get so well-connected as Beethoven" or "as tightly connected." Thus, Brahms would have to hinge on extra components that make his music so valuable. So my question to you is this. What would a work sound like if this situation were flipped? If the close structure of a work was so enthralling and wondrous, but every other quality that makes us normally enjoy classical music, was missing: The question really is, is this possible, to hear brilliant structure and little else captivating? Or, is it impossible to separate a close-knit structure from the overall output a work evokes? If it is possible, then what kind of work would that sound like, to you? Is there anything that may come to mind?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> What would a work sound like if this situation were flipped? If the close structure of a work was so enthralling and wondrous, but every other quality that makes us normally enjoy classical music, was missing?


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> What would a work sound like if this situation were flipped? If the close structure of a work was so enthralling and wondrous, but every other quality that makes us normally enjoy classical music, was missing: The question really is, is this possible, to hear brilliant structure and little else captivating? Or, is it impossible to separate a close-knit structure from the overall output a work evokes? If it is possible, then what kind of work would that sound like, to you? Is there anything that may come to mind?


What comes to mind?

Something with a fugue, perhaps.

Maybe this:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> ..So my question to you is this. What would a work sound like if this situation were flipped? If the close structure of a work was so enthralling and wondrous, but every other quality that makes us normally enjoy classical music, was missing: The question really is, is this possible, to hear brilliant structure and little else captivating? Or, is it impossible to separate a close-knit structure from the overall output a work evokes? If it is possible, then what kind of work would that sound like, to you? Is there anything that may come to mind?


If I understand the intent correctly ... Bolero


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Ethereality said:


> If someone asked you to make a top 10 of the most musically structured pieces of all time, I'm going to guess Beethoven's 3rd would end up in 90% of the lists.


I am not sure. Just to give one example, the intermezzo in E minor in the first movement comes along quite accidentally. And how does the first movement force the second one to be a funeral march?

The question is, what kind of structure is required. If it is structure by some non-musical ideas, then Strauss' Heldenleben is fully structured. If we ask for inner logic, I would go for *Sibelius #5*. This symphony is actually thoroughly planned, this holds even if know the history of the process of composition with several stages. However, the result is as stringent as you could expect a 30-minutes piece of music.


Becca said:


> If I understand the intent correctly ... Bolero


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> is this possible, to hear brilliant structure and little else captivating? Or, is it impossible to separate a close-knit structure from the overall output a work evokes? If it is possible, then what kind of work would that sound like, to you? Is there anything that may come to mind?


Good composers tend to be able to notice a neat structure that is being used to sequence rather meh musical cells or materials, and then redeploy said structure with superior content - or write excellent music to whatever existing form is given to them, whether as an academic exercise or a temp track:

*Ex.*









I would say it is certainly possible to notice how well a certain kind of progression between passages works, or how a certain duration of contrasts is a template that would also be potent in other contexts.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> ...The question really is, is this possible, to hear brilliant structure and little else captivating? Or, is it impossible to separate a close-knit structure from the overall output a work evokes? If it is possible, then what kind of work would that sound like, to you? Is there anything that may come to mind?





Becca said:


> If I understand the intent correctly ... Bolero


Nobody loves the Ravel _Bolero_ more than I do ... except for, perhaps, Bo Derek, who made a lot of money from and gained some film-star recognition for her appearance in the movie _10_ which served to promote Ravel's composition in a "memorable" (to say the least) or, perhaps more accurately, a "not easy to forget" scene featuring the actress* ... but I wonder if Ravel's _Bolero_ really has "brilliant structure and little else captivating". The structure is rather simplistic, with only the orgasmic key change near the end providing much of a surprise. Rather, the orchestration and instrumental color prove captivating throughout, along with that repetitive rhythm so aptly (and I suspect exhaustively) supplied by the snare drummer.

______
* Derek and others involved nearly destroyed any reputations _10_ promoted in the somewhat sequel film titled _Bolero_, presumably to capture something of the essence of the rather successful and acclaimed _10_, producing, to quote from Wikipedia, "[a] box office flop, the film was critically panned, earning nominations for nine Golden Raspberry Awards at the 5th Golden Raspberry Awards and "winning" six, including the Worst Picture. Many have considered this to be one of the worst films ever made and also one of the most controversial ones ever made. It won at the CVF Awards for "Worst Picture" (Golan-Globus), "Worst Actress" (Bo Derek), "Worst Actor" (George Kennedy), "Worst Supporting Actress" (Andrea Occhipinti), "Worst Director" (John Derek), "Worst Screenplay" (John Derek)", and "Worst Musical Score" (Peter and Elmer Bernstein).


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I was sure that someone would take exception to my suggestion  Actually I consider the manner of orchestration to be structural - but that's just me.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I've thought about it all day and am unaware of a case where perfect structure elevates a so-so piece of music to "must hear" status. But it can enhance our appreciation of an already terrific piece that employs it (Brahms 4 finale, Beethoven 8 menuetto, Brandenberg 4 finale).


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I would rate Brahms’ fourth above the Eroica with regard to structure.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The Eroica was considered so free and unconventional wrt to form when it was new that people described the first movement "more like a fantasy".


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Totally serial music is basically all structure. In theory, all aspects of a piece of serial music are generated from one (or a few) basic cells. Composers like Boulez and Stockhausen went pretty far down this path, but ultimately they both rejected it as a dead end compositionally even if they continued to use certain aspects of the technique for the rest of their careers.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> Nobody loves the Ravel _Bolero_ more than I do .... but I wonder if Ravel's _Bolero_ really has "brilliant structure and little else captivating". Rather, the orchestration and instrumental color proves captivating throughout.


You haven't LIVED until you've heard Bolero transcribed for bagpipe.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

You call that living??


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Nobody loves the Ravel _Bolero_ more than I do ... but I wonder if Ravel's _Bolero_ really has "brilliant structure and little else captivating". Rather, the orchestration and instrumental color prove captivating throughout.





NoCoPilot said:


> You haven't LIVED until you've heard Bolero transcribed for bagpipe.


Pondering the idea of a squealing, whining, blaring-out of the music of Ravel's _Bolero_ from a sack ensconced hurdy-gurdy gives me a sense of solace over the notion that "to not live" may prove rather wonderful and, at a minimum, sonically charming ... in comparison.

It also conjures up one of my favorite moments in Shakespeare, from a Shylock comment in _The Merchant of Venice_:

Some men there are love not a gaping pig,
Some that are mad if they behold a cat,
And others when the bagpipe sings i'th' nose
Cannot contain their urine; 

I have nothing to say after Shakespeare.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Botschaft said:


> I would rate Brahms' fourth above the Eroica with regard to structure.


Well this is certainly an interesting discussion; how many ways can we define structure. The way I pictured is how every part of the Eroica is easily memorable from start to finish, but with the caveat that the Eroica has a lot of 'notes', or in computer science 'tokens' of information, so its actual quality of structure is exponentialized based on its large number of easily memorized tokens, not length. I distinguished the structural component from all the other components that make a piece actually effective or valuable, so that structure is just pattern learnabity regardless of quality. For example, picture a piece that just repeats a half note G 100,000 times: It contains many tokens that are easily memorable, but poor quality aside, is it really as easily memorable as a distinguishable work like the 3rd? With the latter, we know exactly what's coming and when it ends. With 100k counts, it's harder to keep track. If a pianist spends even 1 year learning both works, eventually the Beethoven will be easier to play in one's sleep. Performing the G will take much more concentration. These feats of memorization can be internally structuralized with faster, steadier count:


----------

