# Must music be memorable? Reasons to re-listen to contemporary music.



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

Let's face it, listening Chris Dench's piano sonata won't ingrain it's melodies into my mind in the same way a Mozart sonata does, but it certainly does provide me with an experience that I simply love more. I haven't listened to any of Mozart's keyboard or keyboard+violin sonatas in a long time even though I do love them a lot, btw, so I'm certainly no Mozart-dissing edgelord......(or am i?:devil

But listening to any contemporary music (well, particularly the works with the more 'avant-garde' status) certainly gives me a highly memorable experience, even if I don't remember specifically how the music actually _goes_. This highly memorable experience often makes me want to go back and listen again, and by listening again I tend to hear things in the music that I may not really have paid attention to the first time around. It's like the music has some kind of multi-dimensional quality that we can explore differently each time we listen to it, or that it gives a different impression on different people listening at the same time in a performance. This is probably one of its greatest assets, or it is at least to me, and I have a feeling that it's one of the biggest reasons I am so compelled to explore contemporary classical music is that I get to relive the musical experiences I love the most whilst also discovering something new in each listen.

Does anyone feel this way about the music they love best?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I feel about the same way, but I bet you would guess that about me! Of course that's part of why Feldman is my favorite. What's unique about his music is that there are some melodies that are repeated, but it's almost never repeated in the same exact way, which is an awesome combination of memorable melodies and unique composition. A lot of people act like his style is minimal, but it really isn't if you pay close attention. Of course that doesn't mean people should like his music. I am a pretty big fan of actual minimalism though. Usually the rhythms are what is catchy, then the melodies and harmonies change throughout the piece in a very interesting way.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

Hell yes. Feldman's later works especially, aside from being truly unique and sublime listening experiences in their own right, have a very intuitive feel to their gradually developed/altered variations of the main gestures. It's certainly not as predictable as Reich's idea of music as a gradual process, whereby the music develops and changes based on an unchanging rule, making the music much more predictable once you recognise and hear what that rule is.

Not just Feldman, whose unpredictability seems to be based around a more intuitive development of gestures rather than a process, but also other works by other composers that I find are more revealing from moment to moment. A lot of music which happens to be more densely packed with ideas gives me an experience where I can almost explore the music with my ears in whichever way I want. The overall sound is there, and it's wonderful to listen to, but there are always the finer details that make up that totality that really make it worthwhile to come back and relisten for different things in the music.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I'm loving that Boulez piece! It's probably my favorite of his that I've heard so far.

Maybe it's a "music theorist" type mindset, but I definitely love music that is unpredictable, which seems to be the opposite of the typical opinion. I like music that requires multiple listens to really understand it and can be interpreted in different ways each time. I like to be surprised by art rather than being able to understand what going on right away. I pretty much like every style of classical music and broad styles of non-classical music still though.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> me a highly memorable experience, even if I don't remember specifically how the music actually goes. This highly memorable experience often makes me want to go back and listen again, and by listening again I tend to hear things in the music that I may not really have paid attention to the first time around. It's like the music has some kind of multi-dimensional quality that we can explore differently each time we listen to it, or that it gives a different impression on different people listening at the same time in a performance. This is probably one of its greatest assets, or it is at least to me, and I have a feeling that it's one of the biggest reasons I am so compelled to explore contemporary classical music is that I get to relive the musical experiences I love the most whilst also discovering something new in each listen.


I feel exactly the same with baroque music, there are many pieces I return to often and never get bored. Like JS BACH cantatas, his violin and cello sonatas, Biber and Muffat violin sonatas, etc. I never say there will be zero good contemporary composer to be found, it is up to your endeavour. Several of them would be enough for your whole life devotion, since being contemporary, there are more than listening to be done, visiting their travel routes, their favorite restaurants, following up their latest works(awaiting) etc, if you can afford the cost that will be fun. Even though I a out of your circle, I respect your choice.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

...............


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Must music be memorable?
"Memorable" is a double-edged sword, in a sense. A piece of music can be memorable because you enjoy it. Then again, it can be memorable because when you heard it for the first (and only) time it produced in you an intense sense of disgust and hatred for its blatant ugliness, amateurness, silliness, stupidity, whatever … and you swear you never want to hear the piece again. But it proved memorable because you will not forget hearing that dribble, that trash!

So, what are we really talking about here? Is it music's value as an art form? What is the purpose of art? Is it to prove memorable (again, a double-edged sword)? Or is it to _provoke_ memory (a response), one way or another. For I would think that a piece of music that is so unmemorable that it makes no impression at all and is easily forgotten is a weak work of art, one that provoked nothing. No response in you at all. You might as well stare a the grass, or a boulder.

We use the expression "That's music to my ears" when talking of a wide range of things that tend to please us. Art that pleases us is a good thing. It is memorable. But often so is that which doesn't please us. One might argue that in the category falls the art we simply can't forget (because it did provoke some sort of negative response) and the art that is not really art (to us) at all since we_ can _forget it.

As I type, I'm recalling so much music that has proved memorable to me, for both the good and the bad responses provoked. I also know I've heard a lot of music which I cannot actually recall in my aural memory. It passed through my ears on a certain day but left no impress in my brain. Alas …

Part of the reason I listen to contemporary music is to hear something new and intriguing that will provoke a response, hopefully one of pleasure. But if the music is so awful that it provokes a negative response in me I may not be able to forget it. And that is a goal of great art, too -- to spur the mind into remembrance.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

SONNET CLV that is quite an interesting take on the word 'memorable' and actually not one I was really thinking of when I wrote the OP, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts and you've given me some more to think about.

Particularly when it comes to _provoking_ a memory. You wrote 'a response' in parenthesis, so am I to take that you are using that word synonymously?


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

shirime said:


> A lot of music which happens to be more densely packed with ideas gives me an experience where I can almost explore the music with my ears in whichever way I want. The overall sound is there, and it's wonderful to listen to, but there are always the finer details that make up that totality that really make it worthwhile to come back and relisten for different things in the music.


I love feeling lost in music, voyaging strange seas without memory mooring me in familiar waters. Equally I love knowing pieces by heart, playing them in my head when I can't sleep, or whilst being bored by jejune relatives  It's great to have both experiences.

Sometimes I wish I could unlearn the standard repertory and hear it anew. Your description of Sur Incises is how I feel about Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, a piece of bottomless beauty and depth IMO. You almost need 4 brains to take it all in. That vertical density of ideas competing for focus, yet still sounding right when the mind zooms out and listens holistically--I'll never tire of it. Ditto his best quartets and the Symphony of Three Orchestras.

I don't find easy-listening works ephemeral or shallow though. There's a whole book dedicated to Haydn's F# minor symphony--instantly memorable music, yet analysis unfolds new layers of wit, harmonic legerdemain, connections to other works etc. which can sustain lifelong engagement. And the question of how to perform it has an endless answer. As a cellist, the last 2 pieces I've performed are Saint-Saëns' A minor concerto and Peter Maxwell Davies' Naxos quartets. I don't need to say which took longer to internalise, but there's no less substance in the concerto, and I've not exhausted its depths despite forced over-exposure!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Yes, it must be _played_ memorably


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

Euler said:


> I love feeling lost in music, voyaging strange seas without memory mooring me in familiar waters. Equally I love knowing pieces by heart, playing them in my head when I can't sleep, or whilst being bored by jejune relatives  It's great to have both experiences.
> 
> Sometimes I wish I could unlearn the standard repertory and hear it anew. Your description of Sur Incises is how I feel about Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, a piece of bottomless beauty and depth IMO. You almost need 4 brains to take it all in. That vertical density of ideas competing for focus, yet still sounding right when the mind zooms out and listens holistically--I'll never tire of it. Ditto his best quartets and the Symphony of Three Orchestras.
> 
> I don't find easy-listening works ephemeral or shallow though. There's a whole book dedicated to Haydn's F# minor symphony--instantly memorable music, yet analysis unfolds new layers of wit, harmonic legerdemain, connections to other works etc. which can sustain lifelong engagement. And the question of how to perform it has an endless answer. As a cellist, the last 2 pieces I've performed are Saint-Saëns' A minor concerto and Peter Maxwell Davies' Naxos quartets. I don't need to say which took longer to internalise, but there's no less substance in the concerto, and I've not exhausted its depths despite forced over-exposure!


Euler I think you expressed it better than I did! 'Vertical density of ideas competing for focus, yet sounding right when the mind zooms out ane listens holistically'-what an excellent description. 

How did you go learning the Naxos Quartets? Im not actual all too familiar with them myself.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

That stuff is really a typical idea from the 50s high modernist period. In this radio interview from the 1950s, Boulez pretty much explains it explicitly: https://archive.org/details/C_1958_03_XX (btw, awesome archive material, if ask me... thanks internet  )


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Nothing is definite about Art in terms of what it should/shouldn't be. Just love what you love, that's what it's all about.

Happy listening, .


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

shirime said:


> How did you go learning the Naxos Quartets? Im not actual all too familiar with them myself.


Can't remember :devil:
I jest...as ever would've liked longer to prepare, we played all ten and each is a world in itself. Happily the best performance was the 9th which is probably my fave


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2018)

aleazk said:


> That stuff is really a typical idea from the 50s high modernist period. In this radio interview from the 1950s, Boulez pretty much explains it explicitly: https://archive.org/details/C_1958_03_XX (btw, awesome archive material, if ask me... thanks internet  )


I'm a pretty old fashioned guy myself.


----------



## bfBrian (Aug 12, 2018)

Personally, I'll feel unfulfilled if I listen to a piece and can't walk away whistling some bit of melody.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

bfBrian said:


> Personally, I'll feel unfulfilled if I listen to a piece and can't walk away whistling some bit of melody.


That's what For Philip Guston is for! It's such a beautiful little melody, the first melody that plays. Then it expands into a universe full of only beauty and mystery. Then the finale lays you gently back on earth.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2018)

bfBrian said:


> Personally, I'll feel unfulfilled if I listen to a piece and can't walk away whistling some bit of melody.


That a very unusual perspective.................surely the overall experience of hearing a piece of music, whistle-able or not, is going to have a greater impact on someone than whether there's a tune in it that can be imitated with your mouth?


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> That's what For Philip Guston is for! It's such a beautiful little melody, the first melody that plays. Then it expands into a universe full of only beauty and mystery. Then the finale lays you gently back on earth.


To be fair, I do whistle parts of this piece from time to time.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> I'm a pretty old fashioned guy myself.


I'm afraid so  ... omg, are you just listening to lots of Boulez interviews and then just transcribing them here?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> That a very unusual perspective.................surely the overall experience of hearing a piece of music, whistle-able or not, is going to have a greater impact on someone than whether there's a tune in it that can be imitated with your mouth?


It seems pretty usual to me. For someone who isn't personally immersed in music study and music theory, I feel like the greatest impact would be a catchy melody, then being impressed by the rest of the complexity of the piece, not that that's an any less valid form of appreciation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> It seems pretty usual to me. For someone who isn't personally immersed in music study and music theory, I feel like the greatest impact would be a catchy melody, then being impressed by the rest of the complexity of the piece, not that that's an any less valid form of appreciation.


Hmmmm...

What I mean by it being unusual is that whenever I read someone's opinion or review if a concert or piece of music or performance that really affected them, they often use emotive language describing the emotional impact, the interpretation, the overall experience of listening to the music rather than saying 'the melodies were very catchy.'


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> It seems pretty usual to me. For someone who isn't personally immersed in music study and music theory, I feel like the greatest impact would be a catchy melody, then being impressed by the rest of the complexity of the piece, not that that's an any less valid form of appreciation.


I'm not sure it has to do with that supposed lack of immersion in music theory and study, since I know people immersed into that but which have that melody criterion. I think it simply has to do with having conservative taste and a conservative notion of what music should be. Conservative means having a preference for forms and elements from the past rather than for what is being done today. So, by definition, just conservative. I wouldn't call it less or more valid than other view, mainly because I don't really care about that discussion. I do have less conservative views myself, and I think I have some more or less objective reasons to defend some of them if necessary, which I discussed in other threads.

For this particular notion, the music that makes the most valuable impact on me tends to be the one that evokes some new state of mind, which offers me a new, to me, imaginery of mental moods, percepcions, images, etc. A nice melody is just one very small subset of the music that does that for me. The rest, which is the major portion, tends to be more 'abstract', usually without melody, or with different degrees of that notion. I can actually more or less remember the moods, and that is the thing which makes me to want to go back to listen to the piece, not the particular details, which often I simply can't remember.


----------



## bfBrian (Aug 12, 2018)

shirime said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> What I mean by it being unusual is that whenever I read someone's opinion or review if a concert or piece of music or performance that really affected them, they often use emotive language describing the emotional impact, the interpretation, the overall experience of listening to the music rather than saying 'the melodies were very catchy.'


It would be very unusual for music without melody to make me emote. Without a melody my mind will wander and I'll end up making a shopping list, or thinking about math or engineering. At that point, the music might as well not be playing. I appreciate the interplay between the melody and harmony, or between multiple melodies, but often times what affects me most is when all the harmony cuts out and a solo instrument plays a simple melody unaccompanied or with greatly simplified harmonies. For example: Saint Saens Piano concerto 5, 2nd movement, when the piano and violins take turns playing a simple melody:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

No, it doesn't need to be memorable, just well done. There can be more memorable music that isn't particularly well done like the much-requested Diamond Music by Jenkins, Pachelbel's Canon in D, or some movie themes like Love Story.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

bfBrian said:


> Personally, I'll feel unfulfilled if I listen to a piece and can't walk away whistling some bit of melody.


I'm a sucker for a good tune, the more so if the composer has worked towards it in some way rather than merely blurting it out. But I would be missing rather a lot if I elevated possessing a good tune to being a prerequisite of a satisfying piece of music. I would also probably be more time than I would like with pop music. Of course, within this forum there are a wide range of people most of whom have areas of classical music which they do not listen to and perhaps other areas where they are very knowledgeable. That's a good thing!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I think music that isn't memorable at all has failed, almost by definition. That doesn't mean you're going to be able to recall it note for note, but you'll remember something, and I mean something specific about the music, not just the way it made you feel. I think there are a lot of things in _Sur Incises_ that are instantly memorable, even if you couldn't recall them as precisely as a Schubert melody. The same is true of a Bach fugue, or medieval organum.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

bfBrian said:


> Personally, I'll feel unfulfilled if I listen to a piece and can't walk away whistling some bit of melody.





Fredx2098 said:


> … For someone who isn't personally immersed in music study and music theory, I feel like the greatest impact would be a catchy melody, then being impressed by the rest of the complexity of the piece, not that that's an any less valid form of appreciation.


I'm wondering if the melody must prove whistleable upon first hearing , or if one may hear the work a few times to allow the melody to sink in enough to be whistled.

Of course, I can whistle Webern's Piano Variations. I even attempt to whistle Penderecki's _Threnody_ on occasion.

To continue with the _Threnody_ …. I would suggest that it is a highly memorable piece of music when heard for the first time. Whether one liked it or not it likely remains something you'll remember hearing. I've heard the piece dozens of times and have studied the score. It is recognizable to me as a structure, not just as a series of odd orchestral noises. Of course, it took a few listens to sink in. But I was fascinated by my first hearing. Few "catchy melodies" there, but I was caught. I was also fascinated by the Tchaikovsky 6th when I heard it for the first time, because of those "catchy melodies", none of which I would have been able to whistle immediately after my first hearing. But again as with the _Threnody_, repeated hearings and study have bolstered my appreciation.

I've had similar experiences of being fascinated by a work on first hearing with pieces as diverse as those composed by Bach, Mozart, Verdi, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis and Ferneyhough. Sure, catchy melodies will spark your interest and appreciation, but so will catchy orchestration, dynamics, timbres, musical structures. Nearly everything I've ever heard by John Cage has fascinated me, capturing my interest immediately. To date about the only piece of his I can whistle is 4'33", though I wouldn't want to do so in front of a live audience armed with, say, tomatoes.

Finally, I'll just add the thought that whistling is not the only way a memorable piece can be accessed. I can't whistle that drum solo from Iron Butterfly's "In a Gadda da Vida", but I have often mouthed it, pulling together all the resources of my jaw, lips, tongue and vocal chords. Still, it's much better heard on the stereo. Which means only that a rhythmic pulse can prove catchy, too. Have any of you not been immediately impressed by those slamming chords at No.18 in Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_? You know which chords I mean. The passage is unforgettable.

So, there's much to consider here.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I think music that isn't memorable at all has failed, almost by definition. That doesn't mean you're going to be able to recall it note for note, but you'll remember something, and I mean something specific about the music, not just the way it made you feel. I think there are a lot of things in _Sur Incises_ that are instantly memorable, even if you couldn't recall them as precisely as a Schubert melody. The same is true of a Bach fugue, or medieval organum.


Or a Gregorian Chant.
I must admit, most Gregorian Chant sounds all the same to me. I lack the experience (and the time spent studying this form of music) to be able to distinguish one chant from another. And I'm not really a _great _fan of Gregorian Chant. But it does prove memorable in the sense that when I hear a piece of Gregorian Chant I can tell that it is Gregorian Chant (as distinguished from other types of chant or other types of music in general. But then I have this same experience with Hip-hop and Rap music, neither of which I am even a mild fan of.)


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm a sucker for a good tune, the more so if the composer has worked towards it in some way rather than merely blurting it out. But I would be missing rather a lot if I elevated possessing a good tune to being a prerequisite of a satisfying piece of music. I would also probably be more time than I would like with pop music. Of course, within this forum there are a wide range of people most of whom have areas of classical music which they do not listen to and perhaps other areas where they are very knowledgeable. That's a good thing!


I believe it was Brahms who suggested that anyone can write a good melody. It's what one does with that melody that makes for a good piece of music. Brahms likely would be disgusted by many a current melody writer who seems to feel, from the presentation of their "music", that it's enough to slam down the melody and then repeat it till the tape runs out. One of the great glories of "classical music" (whatever that type of music is!) is that it provides various forms (Sonata Form, Rondo, Theme and Variations) that allow for the exploration of various facets of a melody (or theme). I like to side with Brahms.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> No, it doesn't need to be memorable, just well done. There can be more memorable music that isn't particularly well done like the much-requested Diamond Music by Jenkins, Pachelbel's Canon in D, or some movie themes like Love Story.


I suspect that there is much here that could be contested. For instance, what makes "Diamond Music" not well done in comparison to Vivaldi, whom I suppose you would consider "well done"? And the Pachabel Canon in D? What might make the Canon _not well done_ is that it violates strict rules of Canon. I remain a long-time fan of the Jean-François Paillard Chamber Orchestra arrangement of the Pachelbel Canon (which I first heard on that famous Musical Heritage disc the mail order company used to give away as a gift to subscribers). I think the piece is extremely well done. Maybe it isn't exactly note for note as the orchestration of the original lays down, but it is highly effective. It certainly did its job in building a large subscription base for MHS! And for accompanying many a bride down the aisle!

I also am unsure as to what makes a movie score unwell done? Is it that it overpowers the action on the screen rather than subconsciously supports it? I greatly enjoy listening to the _Ben Hur_ soundtrack, which I have on a fine LP. It's effective as pure music. But I also think it is effective in the film as well. I don't know what that chariot scene would be like without Rozsa's "Parade of the Charioteers" rumbling past our ears. Heck! Even André Rieu is incapable of spoiling _that_ piece!






As for the Love Story music, I don't think it's so bad at all. (For some odd reason I seem to have a copy of the soundtrack in my LP collection. I think I picked it up at a flea market. I should probably listen to it one of these days.) At least the famous theme is enjoyable. I play an arrangement of it on my guitar. My own arrangement. That makes it memorable enough for me.

What might make a film score "bad" is that it (1) does not do a good job of supporting the action on the screen, or (2) it overwhelms the action on the screen, distracting from it. Again, film music is a strange construct. Great film music will enhance one's appreciation of the emotional (moody) aspects of a film, whether in quiet moments or fast-paced ones, without actually calling attention to itself and distracting the ears of the movie viewer from what is occurring on the screen. The best film music is simultaneously able to enjoy a separate concert life, divorced from the film it was composed for. Richard Addinsell's _Warsaw Concerto_ receives a lot of bad press, it seems. But the piece is rather wonderful, both in the context of the movie or in the concert hall. Apparently Addinsell was told by the producer of Dangerous Moonlight to produce a piece in the style of Rachmaninoff. Addinsell's skill allowed that to happen. Had he instead produced something that sounded like Mozart, or Brahms, or Schoenberg he would have failed at the assignment. So, is the _Warsaw Concerto_ good art, or bad?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

shirime said:


> Let's face it, listening Chris Dench's piano sonata won't ingrain it's melodies into my mind in the same way a Mozart sonata does, but it certainly does provide me with an experience that I simply love more. I haven't listened to any of Mozart's keyboard or keyboard+violin sonatas in a long time even though I do love them a lot, btw, so I'm certainly no Mozart-dissing edgelord......(or am i?:devil
> 
> But listening to any contemporary music (well, particularly the works with the more 'avant-garde' status) certainly gives me a highly memorable experience, even if I don't remember specifically how the music actually _goes_. This highly memorable experience often makes me want to go back and listen again, and by listening again I tend to hear things in the music that I may not really have paid attention to the first time around. It's like the music has some kind of multi-dimensional quality that we can explore differently each time we listen to it, or that it gives a different impression on different people listening at the same time in a performance. This is probably one of its greatest assets, or it is at least to me, and I have a feeling that it's one of the biggest reasons I am so compelled to explore contemporary classical music is that I get to relive the musical experiences I love the most whilst also discovering something new in each listen.
> 
> Does anyone feel this way about the music they love best?


As usual, another good and thoughtful post by shirime. As usual, he illuminates something about contemporary music; that it need note be remembered as melodies, but can be remembered as an immersive experience. I can usually tell Berio when I hear him, or Boulez...Elliott Carter, even. I've come to recognize the textures of his Variations for Orchestra, even though it is full of what I would call "gestures," not melodies per se...


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I think I agree in principle. There is definitely a sense of recognising 'sound shapes' rather than tunes to whistle. Yet as in the other thread I always draw a line; some so-called 'music' takes the p***. It's like stoking the furnace to listen to it crackle and calling it 'blacksmithing'. I'm not having it.


----------



## bfBrian (Aug 12, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> I'm wondering if the melody must prove whistleable upon first hearing , or if one may hear the work a few times to allow the melody to sink in enough to be whistled.


I had to work on my whistling skill before I could do a decent job of this:





(Carmen)

I didn't mean for whistling a tune to be taken completely literally. It was more of a metaphor for walking away with an appreciation for a nice melody that stuck in your head (imperfectly sometimes), and also with the desire to hear it again, or re-create it on your own.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

bfBrian said:


> … I didn't mean for whistling a tune to be taken completely literally. It was more of a metaphor ...


Of course. But some of us are Toots Thielemans fans. And we take our whistling seriously!


----------



## bfBrian (Aug 12, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course. But some of us are Toots Thielemans fans. And we take our whistling seriously!


Looks like serious business. The only other time I've seen someone conduct whistling was during my high school's musical. That was from the actors though, not the pit orchestra or anything like that. I'm a little disappointed that the whistling simply mirrors the guitar though.


----------

