# Does structure really matter?



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

Does the structure of a piece affect how much you enjoy the music?

Personally I don't think it should. Just because you can't put a name to the way a piece is laid out, doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy the music for what it is. This is one of the reasons why I don't understand people's criticism of the finale of Mahler 7. People say it's because it's "incorrectly" structured. SO WHAT? It's still thrilling music!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

It is important in understanding a long work - if you can't contextualize what you're hearing, it'll start sounding too abstract, like distinct, unconnected episodes. Adorno thought one of the key divisions between pop and classical music was the lack of structural awareness in pop music, and that idea has interested me for some time. 

The criticism of 'it does not properly follow sonata form' is a rather empty and at least unnecessary one to me too.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

maestro267 said:


> Just because you can't put a name to the way a piece is laid out, doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy the music for what it is.


Of course. It's not an either/or relationship. Even if you sometimes enjoy music for its clearly defined structure, there's nothing stopping you from enjoying music that doesn't have clearly defined structure. It's not like we have to pick only one way to enjoy music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

maestro267 said:


> Does the structure of a piece affect how much you enjoy the music?
> 
> Personally I don't think it should. Just because you can't put a name to the way a piece is laid out, doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy the music for what it is. This is one of the reasons why I don't understand people's criticism of the finale of Mahler 7. People say it's because it's "incorrectly" structured. SO WHAT? It's still thrilling music!


There are two different questions here.

Does structure matter? Absolutely. For a piece to do anything on an emotional or intellectual level, it has to have a comprehensible structure, no matter how ad hoc that may be.

Does the structure need to fit into a pre-defined pattern? Not at all. Mahler's Rondo-finale may not fit the classical rondo form exactly, but it creates its own coherence.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Surely structure, like any other musical element, is one of the things that determines whether or not we like a piece, but at the same time I don't think structure has to be quite so rigid as imposing definite labels upon the music (e.g. sonata, rondo, ritornello, etc.) and then making judgements as to whether the composer is doing it right.

Much early music (e.g. Palestrina masses) and much modern music (e.g. Strauss tone poems) gets termed "through-composed." That doesn't necessarily mean there is no structure at all, but rather that the audience has to work a little bit harder to decipher what is going on and how the piece hangs together.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

I personally think all a long piece needs to tie it together, is a recurring musical theme. The rest of the piece can go whichever way it wants, but if there's a recurring idea, it ties it all together. It's like going on a road, then going off at a junction in another direction, then coming back onto the main road at a later junction.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I do enjoy some music that does not appear to have a discernible structure, but I prefer music with a structure. I think that adhering to or not strictly adhering to a structure makes for better music than not having a structure at all. This structure does not have to fit a classical form, however: many modern composers have developed their own structures that have taken lifetimes to develop and are, in themselves, an integral part of the compositions based upon them. Music without discernible structure (I would have to scour my collection to find an example) tends to sound sloppy, lazy on the part of the composer, and ultimately less 'serious'. I don't mean that rhapsodic movements are less serious or sloppy, as they are often highly emotionally charged, but I think they work best within a structured piece.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Once you know the rules, you can break them. Nevertheless, structure and form should definitely be considered, and at least loosely followed.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

_Warning: layman speculation ahead. Please disable any academic killjoy pedantry wetware you may have installed before proceeding. _ 

I think structure always matters. How can one compose without some kind of structure?

I've sometimes felt in our Western culture most of the arts seem to follow a similar vague outline which, not surprisingly, mirrors the sex act in many ways. Fiction has its exposition, rising tension, climax and denouement. Paintings have their positive and negative (or yin and yang) shapes, their cold and hot, light and dark and then their center of interest or sweet spot -- or climax if you will, but this must be presented or noticed first due to the nature of a non animated painting. Then music has its exposition, development and the recapitulation of sonata allegro form could be the equivalent of the climax in the other arts. Even a fugue has its rising tension and the final entry of the subject might be considered a kind of climax.

I think even pop music has this kind of underlying structure and the musicians are very much aware of it. They just seldom get the chance to stretch out into longer forms, but they still have to worry about it to make an appealing product. I used to think my beloved progressive rock groups with their 20 minute or even 80 minute epics would through-compose the works, but later found out they would more often just jam for a long time and the producer would take bits and pieces and make the overall structure seamlessly out of those parts, so the recurring themes were certainly planned but not as planned as I might have thought. While that seemed disappointing at first, is this really that different from the way any other artist works? Do composers really write the first note, then the second and so on? Or do they more often write sections and put them together, adjusting as they go to make everything become an essential part? Unless you are Mozart, I'd be very surprised if it is not the latter. Writers work this way, and even painters work to a vague outline finishing details overall - certainly not top to bottom or left to right!

I've gone a bit astray, but to conclude: yes I think structure is important in everything whether we can put a name to the its components or not. It is what music is and what we are.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

On a smaller scale, even rhythm and harmony are structures. So, to have an example of music largely devoid of structure would be a modern piece by Stockhausen (or the 4'33"?). So, most music is very structured, even if does not have a large-scale structure or narrative (like the sonata form) and it is this relatively smaller scale structure that you comprehend or like. That is why, on some days, with all the operas out there, you can still enjoy a short rock song.

So, in short, you need structure, but what you don't need are strict rules for structure. Every good piece invents a unique one.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Stockhausen's music is some of the most highly structured music ever written (at least the non-aleatoric works). Even 4'33 is structured.

I don't know how to describe it in musical terms, but I tend to prefer works built entirely from a small, simple "cell" or musical idea. Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy and Schoenberg were masters at this. Not to say that more episodic works can't be great too.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Even 4'33 is structured.


This will inevitably lead to a debate on the definition of structure, so I want to avoid it, but some explanation might be in order.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Well, it's in three movements, and it lasts for 4 minutes and 33 seconds.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Well, it's in three movements, and it lasts for 4 minutes and 33 seconds.


Hahaha, of course. What a heist John Cage has pulled, it's unbelievable. He's the greatest non-composer in history. The epitome of wastefulness.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

shangoyal said:


> What a heist John Cage has pulled, it's unbelievable. He's the greatest non-composer in history. The epitome of wastefulness.


So what other Cage compositions do you know?


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> So what other Cage compositions do you know?


Not many. I have seen his Water Walk demonstration in a youtube video. Have heard some piano pieces, but not many times.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Well, that puts your Cage bashing post in perspective.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Well, maybe I will go and listen more some day, but I don't think my decision on him will change by much, I think he was a charlatan - in musical terms of course.


----------



## ThatClassyKid (Aug 3, 2013)

Structure is incredibly important. In a sense, structure can be used as a basis to show the composers understanding of how music works. Once established that a composer has a profound conceptualization of form he may then deviate from the norms. However, enjoying a certain piece varies from person to person. People who enjoy the strict compliance of composers to these rules will enjoy a piece that is strong structurally over those pieces that are not. Overall, appreciation of music is a spectrum, and different views only strengthen the depth of classical music as a diverse complex subject.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Structure is also important because it promotes expectations. And some of the greatest music achieves its effects by confounding those expectations.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> Well, maybe I will go and listen more some day, but I don't think my decision on him will change by much, I think he was a charlatan - in musical terms of course.


Naturally.

Conclusions that precede the evidence are always held more strongly than conclusions that follow from the evidence. Conclusions that precede the evidence always color the evidence, making it seem even more conclusive. Evidence that precedes a conclusion has no coloring, so the relationship is simply logical, not emotional.

[Thread duty: structure is inevitable. Cage pointed this out with his anecdote about hunting mushrooms, watching some deer run across the meadow, and going back to hunting mushrooms.

The perfect ABA form.

Humans seem to be hard-wired to perceive structure. Whether structure is actually there or not is, in that context, an irrelevancy. "Or not" doesn't point to anything. Structure is what we perceive because we're just made that way. Structure is what we do when we make things, too, for the same reason.

It's just what we do.]


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> Well, maybe I will go and listen more some day, but I don't think my decision on him will change by much, I think he was a charlatan - in musical terms of course.


I think so too. He was often (but not always) cooking up concepts to sell. He was pretty mediocre overall. His pieces that I did midly enjoy were the prepared piano ones, which perhaps you could try. The prepared piano pieces are what he is best known for these days.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

maestro267 said:


> Does the structure of a piece affect how much you enjoy the music?
> 
> Personally I don't think it should. Just because you can't put a name to the way a piece is laid out, doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy the music for what it is. This is one of the reasons why I don't understand people's criticism of the finale of Mahler 7. People say it's because it's "incorrectly" structured. SO WHAT? It's still thrilling music!


Yep. The most famous of these "structure-less" works is perhaps Beethoven's final movement of symphony 9. Original audiences maybe even right up to today find it incoherent, disjointed, etc. But it's sheer thrilling music, which is what matters!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Without structure there would be no such thing as functional harmony and chord and pitch hierarchies, things common to all tonal music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Yep. The most famous of these "structure-less" works is perhaps Beethoven's final movement of symphony 9. Original audiences maybe even right up to today find it incoherent, disjointed, etc. But it's sheer thrilling music, which is what matters!


It is a loose theme and variation form movement that is divided into four mini-movements each with its own structure.

Also, describing music as "thrilling" is not describing the music itself, but pointing out a reaction to the music. In my opinion the thing that matters most is the music, not the reactions from the audience.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Without structure there would be no such thing as functional harmony and chord and pitch hierarchies, things common to all tonal music.


Sure, but we don't want to go too overboard with structure, or else the music gets quite dull.

"As I always say, take chances! Make mistakes! Get messy!" 
(Don't look it up. We do get too old for her.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mstar said:


> Sure, but we don't want to go too overboard with structure, or else the music gets quite dull.


Nothing makes music dull faster than a lack of structure.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ...In my opinion the thing that matters most is the music, not the reactions from the audience.


Good luck with that notion in the real world, if you are composing new music today.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Good luck with that notion in the real world, if you are composing new music today.


I don't compose music with the intent of it being popular. I don't compose to be famous. I compose because I want to create art and I want to explore and learn about writing music. I don't _want_ to be a pretentious "composer" of Karl Jenkins and Eric Whitacre style music written to please the audience. If you don't know already, I'm interested in the inner workings of music theory, composition and performance. I'm not that interested in the psychology of what makes some music more popular than others to the everyday layman.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't compose music with the intent of it being popular. I don't compose to be famous. I compose because I want to create art and I want to explore and learn about writing music. I don't _want_ to be a pretentious "composer" of Karl Jenkins and Eric Whitacre style music written to please the audience. If you don't know already, I'm interested in the inner workings of music theory, composition and performance. I'm not that interested in the psychology of what makes some music more popular than others to the everyday layman.


"I write music so that it is popular. With the same structure. And I make big money. And tour France."

Sincerely, 
Every other pop singer on the face of this planet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

To me, structure in music is like the skeleton in a person or other vertebrate. It gives shape and provides places for the muscles to attach and exert power. Without structure, you're just another amoeba getting up somebody's nose in Louisiana.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2013)

The definition of a vertebrate is "something with an internal skeleton."

Not "important" or "unimportant." Just the definition.

Does a skeleton _matter_ to a vertebrate? Not at all. No more than having hair matters to mammals. (Or have I just opened a can of worms with all the bald members of TC?)

Perhaps the whole business of whether structure matters to music or not has only arisen because there's a sense that some music has it and some doesn't. My point was that it's not so much what the music has or doesn't have so much as it is that humans, who listen to music, will perceive structure in just about anything. (The claim that such and such a piece does not have structure is part of another situation, one in which the claimer just wants to bash something. "Lack of structure" is just on common tool for bashing.)

However, let's say for the moment that there is music with structure (it's been put there on purpose by a composer) and music without (nothing's been put there, the improv just happens). That could easily be argued as analogous to vertebrates and invertebrates. For vertebrates, lack of skeleton would be a bad thing. For invertebrates, however, it's no thing at all. They get along perfectly fine without one.

As with music....


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> The definition of a vertebrate is "something with an internal skeleton."
> 
> Not "important" or "unimportant." Just the definition.
> 
> ...


So what is it in music that you don't like? What do you think is a feature of music *you* don't like?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't compose music with the intent of it being popular. I don't compose to be famous. I compose because I want to create art and I want to explore and learn about writing music. I don't _want_ to be a pretentious "composer" of Karl Jenkins and Eric Whitacre style music written to please the audience. If you don't know already, I'm interested in the inner workings of music theory, composition and performance. I'm not that interested in the psychology of what makes some music more popular than others to the everyday layman.


I'm of the opinion that the worst and most disrespectful thing you can do to an audience is talk down to them. Assuming that if you said something more complicated, they would be unable to understand, seems to me to be the absolute most condescending and patronizing attitude an artist could possibly have.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> There are two different questions here.
> 
> Does structure matter? Absolutely. For a piece to do anything on an emotional or intellectual level, it has to have a comprehensible structure, no matter how ad hoc that may be.
> 
> Does the structure need to fit into a pre-defined pattern? Not at all. Mahler's Rondo-finale may not fit the classical rondo form exactly, but it creates its own coherence.


Coincidentally, this morning I was reading Johnny Reinhard's essay in the CD booklet for Ives Universe Symphony. It's all about structural development in the symphonic tradition. http://www.stereosociety.com/ivessymtrad.shtml


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm of the opinion that the worst and most disrespectful thing you can do to an audience is talk down to them. Assuming that if you said something more complicated, they would be unable to understand, seems to me to be the absolute most condescending and patronizing attitude an artist could possibly have.


ComposerOfAvantGarde was speaking of his/her aims in composition; you are talking of "talking down" to an audience. Do you mean verbally, or through music? If the latter, I don't make any claims to understand music, ie., comprehend the complexities of the architecture of a work, although I try to follow the structure, in order to understand the order behind it, but complex music is all the more thrilling, _because_ it is complex. I want to hear it many times in order to unlock its complexity. Such music has lasting appeal. Music that is simple is "condescending and patronizing." That, to me, is musically 'talking down' to an audience.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> Music that is simple is "condescending and patronizing."


I find this sentiment rather dogmatic, and condescending. It's just not fair to pass judgement on music this way.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

starthrower said:


> I find this sentiment rather dogmatic, and condescending. It's just not fair to pass judgement on music this way.


You are taking my statement out of context. Read the whole thing, instead of attacking a single sentence.

I said, in my final thought on simple music (and I italicize, for emphasis):

Music that is simple is "condescending and patronizing." That, _to me_, is musically 'talking down' to an audience.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

OK, we agree to disagree. And I did read your entire post. I just don't see it as that cut and dried.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> ComposerOfAvantGarde was speaking of his/her aims in composition; you are talking of "talking down" to an audience. Do you mean verbally, or through music?


Through music.



brotagonist said:


> Music that is simple is "condescending and patronizing." That, to me, is musically 'talking down' to an audience.


Not quite what I meant. I mean that if a composer intentionally simplifies what they have to say (not the same thing as saying something simple, which is fine) _because_ they think the audience will not be able to "get it" otherwise (intuitively, not intellectually, as you said), then they are talking down to the audience.

It's a good thing in music to communicate something complex in a direct, straightforward way, and far better than communicating something simple in an obtusely complex way (like Reger, perhaps?). It's also fine to communicate something simple, and the methods should match the message. On the other hand, it's poor form in my book to simplify what one communicates because you think the audience is too dumb to get what you really want to say.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> On the other hand, it's poor form in my book to simplify what one communicates because you think the audience is too dumb to get what you really want to say.


I wouldn't have thought many composers are actually guilty of this. But at the same time I would be interested if you could think of examples?

Karl Jenkins is often accused of dumbing-down classical music, which I find very harsh because some sections of his "Armed Man" are actually quite lovely. But if his goal is to move a large number of people, I think he is doing a rather good job.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

maestro267 said:


> Does the structure of a piece affect how much you enjoy the music?
> 
> Personally I don't think it should. Just because you can't put a name to the way a piece is laid out, doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy the music for what it is. This is one of the reasons why I don't understand people's criticism of the finale of Mahler 7. People say it's because it's "incorrectly" structured. SO WHAT? It's still thrilling music!


Structure matters unless you are only interested in some details of the piece here and there. And structure isn't just about putting a fancy name to a piece lol. Content also matters obviously, boring content in a clear structure won't be that great.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I wouldn't have thought many composers are actually guilty of this. But at the same time I would be interested if you could think of examples?


I think Einaudi is intentionally pandering to the lowest denominator with his music. He has a full musical training and a decent amount of technical ability, but completely squanders it. He puts picturesque titles to generic music; if one switched the titles of his pieces around at random, I doubt that an unfamiliar listener would notice.

Jenkins I think just has poor taste (that Dies Irae from his Requiem, for example). I think he believes in the music he's writing, so he's not intentionally dumbing anything down.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ I've said some critical things about music that I have later regretted (you never know who is behind all of the avatars and there's always someone who loves it). I looked up both of those artists/recordings and I heard what you meant by about the second note ;-) but the reviews, based on dozens, are almost 5* for each! Einaudi sounds like generic New Age, but Jenkins' Requiem is... I won't say it


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I think Einaudi is intentionally pandering to the lowest denominator with his music. He has a full musical training and a decent amount of technical ability, but completely squanders it. He puts picturesque titles to generic music; if one switched the titles of his pieces around at random, I doubt that an unfamiliar listener would notice.
> 
> Jenkins I think just has poor taste (that Dies Irae from his Requiem, for example). I think he believes in the music he's writing, so he's not intentionally dumbing anything down.


Ok, I haven't heard enough of Einaudi to comment but I pretty much agree with your assessment of Jenkins that he comes across as genuine enough, even if he has been guilty of a few howlers over the years.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I would guess that structure is particularly important to composers. Creating a meaningful work of any size is difficult enough, but doing it without any sense of structure must complicate things even more.

Rhapsodic works can be wonderful too, I'm sure, and often an opaque or difficult to grasp structure adds to the charm of a work. But from a composer's point of view, structured organisms must ultimately be more satisfying, because structure means that at least within the internal logic of a work everything makes sense.

In literature, structure is mainly determined by chronology, sequence or events, cause and effect. This particularly kind of logic, where one thing necessarily leads to another, does not exist in music as such. It is created by structures, however, such as the sonata allegro. It's the arrangement of musical material in such a way that one can derive some kind of logical coherence from it.

But again, overall, I think it matters more to composers than to listeners. I enjoy many works where I cannot make out any clear structure, but I'm sure there is one. It's enough when the cook knows the recipe.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I must admit that sometimes I hear something which I cannot at all understand from a structural point of view, for example the coda to Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony. It sounds like Mendelssohn has tagged this little tune on the end for want of a better place to put it, even though it doesn't really fit with the rest of symphony. I wish he had instead developed it into a full movement. When I listen to Mendelssohn I expect to hear balance, so it can be quite unsettling when he goes and does something like this.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Andreas said:


> In literature, structure is mainly determined by chronology, sequence or events, cause and effect. This particularly kind of logic, where one thing necessarily leads to another, does not exist in music as such.


You're saying there isn't a chronological sequence of events in music? That's highly questionable. It's more abstract, though not necessarily in stage works obviously.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Andreas said:


> In literature, structure is mainly determined by chronology, sequence or events, cause and effect. This particularly kind of logic, where one thing necessarily leads to another, does not exist in music as such.


Not true at all. The mind hears (Western classical) music as a series of linked events, one following the other as consequence. It would have a hard time coping with the constant influx of information otherwise.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Not true at all. The mind hears (Western classical) music as a series of linked events, one following the other as consequence. It would have a hard time coping with the constant influx of information otherwise.


There is nothing logical or illogical about any sequence of notes, themes or movements - unless, of course, one applies a preconceived structure to the sequence. Words have meaning, which can lead to illogical results. Not so in music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Andreas said:


> unless, of course, one applies a preconceived structure to the sequence.


Which of course happens all of the time. People don't want to listen to a mess of notes, just like they don't want to hear a mess of words. Things are given their own structure so that communication can be made with an audience who understands that structure.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

How about the idea that structure is not only an organising factor, something to be tolerated for the sake of understanding, but something that can be _beautiful in itself_?






In the Mozart symphony above, there is an opening theme, organised in a pretty standard way. But what about the fanfare section which follows it? This fanfare harmonically, melodically and rhythmically almost entirely devoid of invention. If this passage were to open a work it would probably become dull only a few bars in. And yet, at least to me (and probably many others given the piece's fame), the passage is quite 'thrilling' in its place, and this is largely because it acts as a counterpoint to the opening theme. This passage works by a principle of _large-scale balance_: the structure does not help make anything intelligible. It is, in fact, probably the thing which most of all makes this passage interesting.

Today we have become used to conceiving of music in literary terms, a trait which rose in strength in the 19th century (particularly with Wagner), and which Schoenberg took to its logical conclusion. His idea was that structure was something that existed purely to make the musical narrative intelligible. It was analogous to sentences, paragraphs, chapters etc. It was a successful idea, but not one which necessarily captures how all types of music work very well.

Minimalism rejects this idea of course, with quite a different approach to structure, but nevertheless it is one which can often dominate our thinking.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

In my opinion, structure is neither sufficient nor necessary for music to be enjoyable.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I think that structure is important in that it adds focus and coherence to a work. If a piece is structured, you get a sense for what the composer wants you to hear, whereas more loosely linked works may have more variety, but to me, personally, the feeling at the end is sometimes - and so what was the composer's main point? If you have recurring ideas happening throughout a symphony, take for example Haydn's symphony No. 104, where mysterious, darker passages recur throughout the overall celebratory character of a piece, and we have a strong concept at hand. The 'darker' passages can then be compared to one another in terms of orchestration or melody, to see how they were 'done', which makes it interesting to analyze a piece. For me, strucutre helps define what to listen for and what the 'main point' of a piece is.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I particularly think that it matters. As Jonathan Biss from the Curtis Institute of Music described in a course, structure is the "map of the emotions in music", and I agree.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

We can enjoy the effects of the structure even if we can't name it or even if we aren't aware of it. Similar to enjoying a ride in a car but not knowing how the engine works.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Form and structure do not matter?. Check this masterpiece of documentary, Bernstein analyzes Beethoven: 




Music without structure is like a train without railways, can't go anywhere.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Winterreisender said:


> I must admit that sometimes I hear something which I cannot at all understand from a structural point of view, for example the coda to Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony. It sounds like Mendelssohn has tagged this little tune on the end for want of a better place to put it, even though it doesn't really fit with the rest of symphony. I wish he had instead developed it into a full movement. When I listen to Mendelssohn I expect to hear balance, so it can be quite unsettling when he goes and does something like this.


I don't like that ending either. I have a similar problem with the ending of his 1st symphony, which is great otherwise.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> if his goal is to move a large number of people, I think he is doing a rather good job.


Ludovico Einaudi, by that criterion, is doing a most excellent job.

At what level you are moving people is something to be ranked and judged, and that gets quickly to heated and varied takes on what is considered worthwhile. Still, if one is going to value anything, there are then criteria to set up so that evaluation has any "meaning."


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

In terms of audience share as a criterion for determining the value of something, porn wins, always has, throughout history. Hence ranking and judging how many people are "enjoying" something is a useless exercise, unless all you're after is profit.

Defining what you mean by "enjoy" is more pertinent to this thread, as there are seemingly instinctual and primitive levels of enjoyment that even a bird or newborn baby will experience, and then there are intellectual levels of enjoyment that have absolutely nothing to do with sensual reaction, and are, usually, far more complex and interesting in their nature.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

If it has a shape, it has _form_. Ergo, the most badly-written piece of music has some _form_: whether that form is successful or not is another issue.

Music listening still relies upon listener memory: being a temporal art, if the audience did not have some capacity to recall what was heard then we could have music which had little development or connectivity and it would be well-received.

Form, as in formalist via the classical era -- sonata allegro, symphonic form, etc. is not the only form out there, and often that expectation is such a common (and strong) one that the expectation (and the listening habits from which it comes) leads to cries of "formless" for works which are operating using a very different structure.

For those who would love to think they can dispense with form, you cannot: you do not have to be slavish to old forms, but there has to be something working and in place to make a piece outside of those formats work, seem a cohesive whole, including a polystylistic and / or highly episodic work.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

The very idea of music is the "structure/form" of sound. Without structure you would have no music. It would be random noises spurting about space... that would require no human input or discernment.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Without structure you would have no music. It would be random noises spurting about space...


Lot of that going around!


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

Weston said:


> _Warning: layman speculation ahead. Please disable any academic killjoy pedantry wetware you may have installed before proceeding. _
> 
> I've sometimes felt in our Western culture most of the arts seem to follow a similar vague outline which, not surprisingly, mirrors the sex act in many ways. Fiction has its exposition, rising tension, climax and denouement. Paintings have their positive and negative (or yin and yang) shapes, their cold and hot, light and dark and then their center of interest or sweet spot -- or climax if you will, but this must be presented or noticed first due to the nature of a non animated painting. Then music has its exposition, development and the recapitulation of sonata allegro form could be the equivalent of the climax in the other arts. Even a fugue has its rising tension and the final entry of the subject might be considered a kind of climax.


A bit of a detour here, but _why is it_ that most music seems to follow what Weston says - at least to the point that there seems to be a strong analogy between music and the sex act: introduction, buildup of tension, release of tension, relaxation? I've wondered about this for awhile. Is it at bottom a biological thing?

- Bill


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BillT said:


> A bit of a detour here, but _why is it_ that most music seems to follow what Weston says - at least to the point that there seems to be a strong analogy between music and the sex act: introduction, buildup of tension, release of tension, relaxation? I've wondered about this for awhile. Is it at bottom a biological thing?


An interesting question. At least one feminist musicologist has suggested that the sex act (from the male standpoint) is simulated more widely than realized, mostly in sonata form movements. In her view, much of Western classical music depicts the sexual dominance of the male over the female. There is a famous quote about Beethoven's 9th Symphony that I won't repeat here... :devil:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Reading the OP again, I think he understands the point about structure being there all the time. I mean, everybody does have an idea about the fact that there is a structure to everything. Like there is a tonality to the work of music, or there is rhythm and a tempo, etc. What the point is after this bit of knowledge is that a very immediate and conscious understanding of the structure of the music is not important to the enjoyment of the music. In fact, to be very honest, I lose interest in music after it becomes too understandable to me. I listen to music and "get" it and enjoy it in a more subliminal and sensual way. I think sensuality constitutes those things that you understand very well, but not consciously - or more precisely you cannot point to "what you understand" but are compelled to some reaction all the same. I react to music - music that I like the most - in this way. For me, it has a narrative quality, an episodic quality, and a sensual one as well - I never knew about Exposition-Development-Recapitulation-Coda etc. before coming to TC and I could enjoy the music.

So.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2013)

Sonata form and structure does make music more enjoyable to me. I don't have to listen for it. I can feel when it is there and done right. Mozart's perfection of form and balance are what make his music most appealing to me. He made form and structure seem natural and inevitable. The form and structure of many modern composers seems convoluted and/or manufactured. The harmonies and melodies seem just as unnatural as Mozart's seem natural. Yes, structure matters, to me.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm really so over-exposed over a decades long life to sonata-allegro that I'm not interested in hearing anything much past 1900 which still holds to it closely.

"Moi, j'ai assez."

It is like becoming aware that though the scenario and characters change, you're essentially reading the same story, walking through the same damned floor plan, seeing the same play with different characters, costumes and sets.... and it is part of why I truly marvel at people being gaga over Sibelius, Shostakovich, Rubbra, and etc. latter-day-symphonists, almost as if it is "The Church Of The Latter Day Symphonists."

The form / *formula* must be comforting to folks, like moving house from one split-level ranch home into another rather than switching it up.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Don't try to reason with Sibelius-lovers, PetrB. Being one of them myself, I can assure you that it will get you nowhere.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Don't try to reason with Sibelius-lovers, PetrB. Being one of them myself, I can assure you that it will get you nowhere.


I cannot object to that: If it is love, reason is just not part of the equation


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I'm really so over-exposed over a decades long life to sonata-allegro that I'm not interested in hearing anything much past 1900 which still holds to it closely.
> 
> "Moi, j'ai assez."
> 
> ...


There's a lot of truth in this. But it is very possible to like it all. We're dynamic enough beings to appreciate many different styles. Although some surely like to affix themselves into little boxes.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of music keeps you interested these days? Are you saying you can't listen to Beethoven, Mozart, or Haydn without it turning into a bore... or did you mean the other side of 1900?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I'm really so over-exposed over a decades long life to sonata-allegro that I'm not interested in hearing anything much past 1900 which still holds to it closely.


Sonata-Allegro is still a fine principle to structure a movement around. Berg did it with Act II, scene 1 of Wozzeck, Stravinsky with his Symphony in C, and there are many other ingenious applications yet to be found.

That said, I agree that it should not be taken as a rule. I don't see any reason to use it as it was used in an earlier time, and a contemporary composer should not feel any need to write a developmental movement in a certain way rather than another simply because it is or was customary.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2013)

In classical music it's certainly nice but, for music in general, it certainly doesn't seem to mean anything. 

Exhibit A: Opeth has a fanbase.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arcaneholocaust said:


> In classical music it's certainly nice but, for music in general, it certainly doesn't seem to mean anything.


Can't agree. Examples: Stairway to Heaven and A Day in the Life, both enduringly popular, owe a lot of the effect to their structures. Not complicated, certainly, but effective. There are many other examples.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> In classical music it's certainly nice but, for music in general, it certainly doesn't seem to mean anything.


Popular music in general seems _far_ more rigidly structured than classical to me.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Can't agree. Examples: Stairway to Heaven and A Day in the Life, both enduringly popular, owe a lot of the effect to their structures. Not complicated, certainly, but effective. There are many other examples.


... and pretty much any other band worth their salt. Pink Floyd's _Animals, Wish You Were Here, and Dark Side of the Moon _lay beautifully on structure.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Might mention that some of the most revered lieder from the classical era, through Schubert at least, have simple strophic structures, no more complex than the simplest popular song of current times. But it's great when a song, then or now, can adopt a structure that multiplies its effect.


----------

