# "Rehash" & other things in the arts...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

After answering the poll, I invite you to join a wide-ranging discussion on these things (definitions from THIS online dictionary below). This can be in relation to any of the arts - not only musical, but also visual, literary, whatever.

*rehash*



> verb [riːˈhæʃ]
> (tr) to rework, reuse, or make over (old or already used material)
> 
> noun [ˈriːˌhæʃ]
> something consisting of old, reworked, or reused material


*spin off*



> Root word: spin
> ...Phrasal Verbs:
> spin off
> To derive (a company or product, for example) from something larger.


*regurgitate* (eg. in terms of an artistic creator's regurgitation of old things/ideas)



> verb.tr.
> To cause to pour back, especially to cast up (partially digested food).


*carbon copy*



> noun.
> 1. (Communication Arts / Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) a duplicate copy of writing, typewriting, or drawing obtained by using carbon paper Often shortened to carbon
> 2. Informal, a person or thing that is identical or very similar to another


*imitation*



> noun.
> 1. the act, practice, or art of imitating; mimicry
> 2. an instance or product of imitating, such as a copy of the manner of a person; impression
> 3.
> ...


*pastiche*



> [pæˈstiːʃ], pasticcio [pæˈstɪtʃəʊ]
> noun.
> 1. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Art Terms) a work of art that mixes styles, materials, etc.
> 2. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Art Terms) a work of art that imitates the style of another artist or period
> [French pastiche, Italian pasticcio, literally: piecrust (hence, something blended), from Late Latin pasta paste1]


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I voted the middle option, but really I don't mind rehash of old stuff that much if it is generally good music, as long as it is between different composers though. I can't stand when the same composer keeps doing the same things un-cleverly and doesn't do a very good job at hiding it. The un-cleverly part is quite subjective, but as an example, if you study Mahler or Beethoven, they might tend to do similar things between each piece of music (especially Mahler) but the overall result is so different each time it still comes off as fresh. I found that while listening to Penderecki's later neo-romantic symphonies, it seemed like for the fast bits he used tcertain patterns of notes every time and it got really annoying because every time I heard these patterns I consciously thought "Oh gee, he's doing this thing again?"


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

It's a well-known truism that there's nothing new under the Sun, but we can at least mix and match the old stuff to appear as new. I can't stand rehashing / carbon copying if it's the SURFACE of art that's being copied. It's just stupid. It is usually done with right intentions ("old artists did something right"), but because the new artist copies the surface and not the "soul" of the old art, it comes across as very shallow and meaningless. However, I wholeheartedly support digging of the past for the "soul"/meaning of old art, and I think it should be done more. It's just that not everybody can be Da Vinci/Shakespeare/Wagner/Eisenstein/Joyce. It's one thing to be able to see the worthiness of some old genius (not that hard), and another to be able to extract the soul of that genius to your own work of art (VERY hard). So, I think that an artist should only try pastiches when he's certain of his capabilities. Except if it's done for the purpose of comedy, intertextuality, or quoting for the sake of quoting, postmodernist style... then it's all right to carbon copy just the surface... but still, I'll give you bonus points if you can also show that you understand some of the "meaning" as well.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I voted that I usually like them if only because it can be pleasant to make the connection. It was a great pleasure to hear that one of the most recognizeable themes from Handel's Messiah (FOR - unto us a child is born) has that puzzling emphasis on the word "for" becasue he stole his own melody from one of his italian operas. He reworked and revised it brilliantly to fit in the context and inserted new phrases where it might have seemed cut in stone. 

I also enjoy Shostakovich's motif of his own name that shows up in many of his works. I don't know if you would consider a four note motif equal to an entire theme, but this is a tradition handed down from Bach, maybe even before.

The only time I recall finding the practice tedious is in Beethoven's Eroica variations. I don't know which came first but I never felt the need to hear that theme outside the context of the third symphony. Yes, it can be interesting to hear what he does with the theme in the variations, but by the time he gets to an ostinato chordal structure underneath it has all become 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall to me.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Xaltotun said:


> We can at least mix and match the old stuff to appear as new. I can't stand rehashing / carbon copying if it's the SURFACE of art that's being copied . . . However, I wholeheartedly support digging of the past for the "soul"/meaning of old art, and I think it should be done more. .


I agree. What attracts me to writers like T.S. Eliot is his reaching into the past to give meaning to the present. Or like Beethoven's use of the old ricercare to open his C# minor quartet. Some composers rehash older models unsuccessfully, but it's nice when it succeeds, as Schubert did in the third movement of his 5th symphony, which is basically rehashing Mozart's 40th, and as Brahms did in his Motet Op. 74, No. 1, based on Bach's Actus Tragicus.

Also, the brain loves the familiar. I enjoy quotes from older pieces as long as it's meant for irony, humor, or some greater effect than just being out of original ideas.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

All interesting posts there. You guys know your "rehash!" 



violadude said:


> ...I found that while listening to Penderecki's later neo-romantic symphonies, it seemed like for the fast bits he used tcertain patterns of notes every time and it got really annoying because every time I heard these patterns I consciously thought "Oh gee, he's doing this thing again?"


Yeah, I hear this kind of repetition of similar technique in Hovhaness symphonies as well, but it doesn't bother me that much, he always puts it into a different context.

I just wanted to ask you, *violadude*, and other musicians here in relation to this - is a composer's "rehashing" of techniques of their or other's works a god-send to you? In terms of I'd imagine it's easier to play something if it's virtually the same as something you've already played, learnt, know. Or does the fact that it's rehash make it less interesting or gratifying for you to play, so this cancels the "advantages" out? I think *Weston* may also have been thinking in relation to this with regards to what he wrote on LvB's _Eroica Variations _(?)...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> All interesting posts there. You guys know your "rehash!"
> 
> Yeah, I hear this kind of repetition of similar technique in Hovhaness symphonies as well, but it doesn't bother me that much, he always puts it into a different context.
> 
> I just wanted to ask you, *violadude*, and other musicians here in relation to this - is a composer's "rehashing" of techniques of their or other's works a god-send to you? In terms of I'd imagine it's easier to play something if it's virtually the same as something you've already played, learnt, know. Or does the fact that it's rehash make it less interesting or gratifying for you to play, so this cancels the "advantages" out? I think *Weston* may also have been thinking in relation to this with regards to what he wrote on LvB's _Eroica Variations _(?)...


Well, one thing I can say is that in the Baroque era, composers often used really similar patterns and sequences for their string writing. So after you play a lot of Baroque pieces (and by the time you get to college level playing, you WILL have played a lot of Baroque pieces) it becomes relatively easy to sight read a Baroque piece. Unless it's an insane solo piece with billions of double stops (Bach!).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Weston said:


> I voted that I usually like them if only because it can be pleasant to make the connection. It was a great pleasure to hear that one of the most recognizeable themes from Handel's Messiah (FOR - unto us a child is born) has that puzzling emphasis on the word "for" becasue he stole his own melody from one of his italian operas. He reworked and revised it brilliantly to fit in the context and inserted new phrases where it might have seemed cut in stone.


Take a listen to his _Concerto a due cori_ #1 to #3, HWV332 to HWV334. You'll find some pleasant surprises here and there.


----------

