Wonderful piece! I do have to question the time signature in the finale (should be 6/4, not 3/2 - it's clearly a compound time of two dotted minims), but that's just a technical gripe I have with a piece that just sounds great.
Without question a much better composition for me, much more melodic content. I always fealt as though the essence of a composition is it's melody and every melody has an intrinsic pulse.
I do want to say the violin sonata I like how adventurous it is meloically it very different so in a way I like both for different reasons although if I had to choose I think I like this better. When people ask this one or that one I say both, I feel that I'm happy we have both to be honest.
I think pure melody is simple and easy to define, the test is if you can hum or whistle it and is it memorable, it as simple as that, of course it can be developed and variations can be presented and improvising on the theme and modulating and sequencing, there is a lot of things you can do with it but melody in its purest form is simple and easy to define. I've always thought when I listen to Beethoven - not always but a lot of the time I hear patterns and sequences more than melody itself where as Mozart I've always thought of as someone who deals with melody not just patterns. Of course melody is a sequence but is so much more than a mathematical pattern, I also think math can be used to expand and develop and provide logical extensions of a melodic pattern. My top 10 composers of all time includes John Coltrane who used to practice out of Slonimsky's thesaurus of musical patterns and he always seemed to find ways to make it really sing when he improvised, Miles used to say he was the only one I could hand a sheet of chords and not make it sound like he was playing scales. Are you familiar with the book Expansions by Gary Campbell? Fascinating topic when does playing patterns end and melody begins? Coltrane was the master of this and generated melody out of thin air without thinking, I think it became second nature for him like the sound just came out. I think that's why Mozart has always and will always be popular, he was a dealer of pure melody same thing with the Beatles extremely melodic.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[1/2] แก๊ง 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้บุก CAMPปลิ้นครั้งนี้ห้ามเสียอาการ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6WUjXHe1TM/mqdefault.jpg)
Wonderful piece! I do have to question the time signature in the finale (should be 6/4, not 3/2 - it's clearly a compound time of two dotted minims), but that's just a technical gripe I have with a piece that just sounds great.
This makes you hope that loads of other chamber music escapes the dusty vault of oblivion.
It needs more light and air in it.
I do not hesitate to say I found this to be even more melodic than the violin sonata.
+scottbos68 Yes indeed, and I think it is a better work overall. What do you think?
Without question a much better composition for me, much more melodic content. I always fealt as though the essence of a composition is it's melody and every melody has an intrinsic pulse.
scottbos68
Yes and (good) melody of a composition is one of the elements that is the hardest to define.
I do want to say the violin sonata I like how adventurous it is meloically it very different so in a way I like both for different reasons although if I had to choose I think I like this better. When people ask this one or that one I say both, I feel that I'm happy we have both to be honest.
I think pure melody is simple and easy to define, the test is if you can hum or whistle it and is it memorable, it as simple as that, of course it can be developed and variations can be presented and improvising on the theme and modulating and sequencing, there is a lot of things you can do with it but melody in its purest form is simple and easy to define. I've always thought when I listen to Beethoven - not always but a lot of the time I hear patterns and sequences more than melody itself where as Mozart I've always thought of as someone who deals with melody not just patterns. Of course melody is a sequence but is so much more than a mathematical pattern, I also think math can be used to expand and develop and provide logical extensions of a melodic pattern. My top 10 composers of all time includes John Coltrane who used to practice out of Slonimsky's thesaurus of musical patterns and he always seemed to find ways to make it really sing when he improvised, Miles used to say he was the only one I could hand a sheet of chords and not make it sound like he was playing scales. Are you familiar with the book Expansions by Gary Campbell? Fascinating topic when does playing patterns end and melody begins? Coltrane was the master of this and generated melody out of thin air without thinking, I think it became second nature for him like the sound just came out. I think that's why Mozart has always and will always be popular, he was a dealer of pure melody same thing with the Beatles extremely melodic.