# The quality of a theme is not related to the numer of notes



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

I've noticed that some persons think that if the theme A is more complex (more notes) than the theme B, then the quality of the theme A is greater. I don't know how much is diffuse this naïve idea, but it exists, so I think that it must be discussed.

I would like to offer a reasoning about the subject with a comparison: I will compare scores with text.


Is the quality of a sentence related with the number of letters and words? No!

This text, for example, has a quality because I have selected the right letters, and therefore the text has a meaning. Without the right letters, the text wouldn't have any meaning.

The next observation is that there is an order in this text. I'm not chatting. I'm writing a coherent text about a determined subject. I won't speak about weather in this text, because it has nothing to with the topic.

All the sentences are related between each others.

Each sentence adds something new: I won't repeat things that I've already written.

Imagine if an english teacher teached to children that if they would want to produce a text of quality they would have to use as many letters or words as possible and not simply choosing the RIGHT letters and WORDS in order to write a meaningful text. It would be absurd!


Now, how do we tranlsate the concepts above when we speak about music?
It's simple: a theme of quality is the one in which the composer has selected the RIGHT notes. Not as many notes as possibile, but the RIGHT notes.

The next theme of the melody is elegantly connected to the previous one? Does the flow of the melody between a theme and an other one sound natural, or does it sound like a "forced collage"?


Mozart is right in the film "Amadeus" when he answers with "This is absurd" to the observation of the king, who says that there are too many notes in his work.
Some persons think that, on the other hand, the observation "there are too few notes" would be a sensible critic, but it would be equally absurd.
The observation of Mozart is correct "There are just the notes that are required. No more, no less!".

If you add notes, it's a different thing. If you remove notes, it's a different thing. Not better, not worse. Different. The problem is that the composer wants to say exactly what he has written, so you can't tell him that he had to say something else. If you want to say something different, then compose your own piece!







So, finally, why was Mozart a talented composer? Because he was able to choose the RIGHT notes, and so to exclude all the notes that were not necessary, because the flow of the melody between a theme and an other one sounds natural, because there is an order.

What are the RIGHT notes? The ones that, when combined together, express something meaningful.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

We discussed this before. A good theme is one that contributes, together with harmony, counterpoint, rhythm and instrumental texture, to a good composition. It's as simple as that.
Beethoven's themes may usually not be as beautiful as Mozart's or Schubert's, they're good because they suit his compositional style and serve as building blocks for his works.
It has nothing to do with number of notes, expressiveness or even the pure quality of a melody, judged on it's own. It's about what the composer does with it. Take every 3rd rate salon composer from the 19th century, producing the prettiest tunes, but without the talent or motivation to turn them into good music.
Or take Bach, quite the tune-smith, who built the amazing contrapuntal masterpiece that is The Art of the Fugue on what's probably one of his dullest themes.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Beethoven was a great tunesmith. Schubert and Bach, not so much.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Beethoven was a great tunesmith. Schubert and Bach, not so much.


Well, that's quite the original opinion... usually people claim it's the opposite.
But my point is that they're all great because they had the ability of creating great music with melodic material that may be not interesting seen in isolation but which in their hands turned into valuable building-blocks.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

The OP is just another rant in disguise against music that is more complex than CP music.
_"There are just the notes that are required. No more, no less!" _still applies, not that our Hans' ears thinks so.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

RobertJTh said:


> Well, that's quite the original opinion... usually people claim it's the opposite.
> But my point is that they're all great because they had the ability of creating great music with melodic material that may be not interesting seen in isolation but which in their hands turned into valuable building-blocks.


Indeed! I do remember we've posted about it:



Ethereality said:


> Beethoven was a wonderful melodist, sometimes due to knowing how to use harmonic inversions. Ironic or not? Melody therefore is more of an interdependent component within the larger definition of music, where there is no standard melody but a melody's quality ultimately depends on the unique context of the rest of the music. Therefore to define a great melody depends on _everything_, if it fits with form, timing, instrumentation, dynamics, etc. and not necessarily just harmony but the whole musical idea.
> 
> Inversions and melody. *2:00 - 2:25*


I think if you chose one composer, I could counter a better melody by Beethoven than each one you post.

The only ones that would cause Beethoven trouble imo would be Chopin, Uematsu, perhaps Puccini, and some good pop musicians I don't know of. Mozart and Tchaikovsky, he outperformed melodically. Schubert and Bach on the other hand, aren't even on the map for me. This might tie back to HansZimmer's point.



mikeh375 said:


> The OP is just another rant in disguise against music that is more complex than CP music.
> _"There are just the notes that are required. No more, no less!" _still applies, not that our Hans' ears thinks so.


If one composes a perfect and inventive sequence of notes, something a computer might be able to do as it's only a probability of 10 to the tens, with the right rhythm and simple modulation, you could argue that that's not complex in of itself. Sure. On the other hand, we can't be sure how many would conclude there are many things better, ie. composing a piece from a development and interchange of motifs, their relations and contrasts, but now we're getting more into Brahms and Bach territory.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> The OP is just another rant in disguise against music that is more complex than CP music.
> _"There are just the notes that are required. No more, no less!" _still applies, not that our Hans' ears thinks so.


You shouldn't read things that are not written.


----------



## Scherzi Cat (8 mo ago)

I’m pretty sure that whether a melody is good is a subjective judgment. So, arguing whether Beethoven or Mozart is a better melodist, is a useless endeavor. 

That being said, Mozart was a much better melodist than Beethoven.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Many of Mozart's compositions sound natural to my ears, like they were dictated by God or something. This isn't true, as we know from how mightily Mozart had to labor over the Haydn quartets, but he was able to create a finished product that sounds effortless. I find this is true for many of his major-key compositions; the minor-key works are more dramatic and less slick to my ears. With Beethoven, the laboring and internal struggles are brought closer to the foreground. The beginning of the 32nd piano sonata, with those jagged falling diminished sevenths, is a good example, or even the mighty Fifth Symphony. It doesn't sound effortless, even taking a major-key work such as the Pastoral Symphony or the _Hammerklavier_ sonata. But Beethoven had a greater focus on motivic development, fragmenting the melodies into smaller chunks. So I would in general agree that I like Mozart's melodies more, but I don't think that's necessarily a judgement against Beethoven. They are just so different that it is hard to meaningfully compare them in this way, or at least that is my view.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

One could argue that Mozart is a bit typical of late 18th century kapellmeisters in terms of melody-making; the Classical neatness of precision and symmetry. Compare with Paisiello and Haydn, for example. "Il fanatico in berlina" (which is related to Bel Canto imv) and "Andromeda e Perseo" are also full of what I consider as memorable melodies.
In such a context, Beethoven can be seen as more "original".




Questo vago giovinetto




Quelle ch'esposta


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

RobertJTh said:


> We discussed this before. A good theme is one that contributes, together with harmony, counterpoint, rhythm and instrumental texture, to a good composition. It's as simple as that.
> Beethoven's themes may usually not be as beautiful as Mozart's or Schubert's, they're good because they suit his compositional style and serve as building blocks for his works.
> It has nothing to do with number of notes, expressiveness or even the pure quality of a melody, judged on it's own. It's about what the composer does with it. Take every 3rd rate salon composer from the 19th century, producing the prettiest tunes, but without the talent or motivation to turn them into good music.
> Or take Bach, quite the tune-smith, who built the amazing contrapuntal masterpiece that is The Art of the Fugue on what's probably one of his dullest themes.


I think that you're argument is not valid, because it's based on the false premise that the melodies of Beethoven are not good.

I think that Mozart was a better melody maker IN AVERAGE, but in the big works of Beethoven (symphonies + concertos + the only one ballet + the only one opera) and in the romances there are very good melodies.
I mean, for someone like me who is mostly focused on melodies there is food in Beethoven's music.

Furthermore, your idea that the music of the salon composers was not good is strongly opinionated. If they were really able to write nice melodies, as you put it, then their music was good.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Ethereality said:


> Indeed! I do remember we've posted about it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking of the sixth symphony of Beethoven, I think that exposition of the first movement has a thrilling melody too.

The first time I heard it I immediately felt in love especially with the part between 1:35 and 2:24. I don't understand the persons who say that the melodies of Beethoven have no real merit in the quality of the compositions.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that you're argument is not valid, because it's based on the false premise that the melodies of Beethoven are not good.


Read my post again. I didn't say that.


> Beethoven's themes may usually not be as *beautiful* as Mozart's or Schubert's, they're *good* because they suit his compositional style and serve as building blocks for his works.


----------

