Quote:
Originally Posted by goodridge_winners
...yea, but if you composed the stuff before it, would you be happy if someone told you that is was non-interesting, and then at 1:45 it was awesome. My point is that the immediate notes shouldn't be crap, and even if they are not as interesting as the part at 1:45, they shouldnt be a waste of the composers time. He may indeed need to build it up, but that can be done well.
Plus if the 1:45 part had of caught my ear due to everything else before it, then the stuff before it must have been thought out well enough for me to have lasted as long as 1:45.
|
If I compose everything before 1:45, I would inform whomever told me the music was non-interesting prior to that point that 1:45 is only interesting because of everything before it.
You're right. The immediate notes should not be "crap" but something is crap only within context. I can take a random measure from an atonal composer and without context say, this is crap! However, when placed into the proper place in the music, it can become magically wonderful.
It should be said that even though it doesn't catch your attention, it might catch someone else's attention. I am not a fan of Mozart, but people say his work his brilliant. I don't care. I understand why his work his brilliant, but it doesn't catch my attention. Using your definition and your logic, then his work isn't very good. We know that's a lie. His work is masterfully crafted and my opinion doesn't change that.
In the same way, just because the first measure doesn't make you feel anything doesn't mean that someone else won't feel something from it.