| | Good points, Rich. There's also the question of what constitutes a melody as opposed to a theme or a tune. I have a suspicion that appeals to the "old grey whistle test" are appeals to a hummable theme. I do agree that the test is fine for defining a good SONG, but not quite up to the task of defing music.
Part of the problem with the hummability criteria is you have to ask, "hummable by whom?" Some passages are so slow, with notes sustained by instruments that are capable of being played longer than the voice can hold, and some passages can be so fast that even the most versatile singer can't keep up. There's also the problem of ability: If a yound child is still struggling to keep up with "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star," he's not going to be able to pull of humming Rachmaninoff (unless he's a prodigy.) Some adults aren't up to that standard. Does that mean Rachmaninoff is not music? No, it means that the 2nd concerto is not a memorable pop song, it is something else. And what of Bach's complex counterpoint? WHICh melody is to be hummed?
The fallacy with the whistle test criteria, if I may theorize on it, (this will be worded poorly, since it's the first time I'm grappling with this thought out loud) is that it is mistaking hummability with memory. Before something is hummable, it has to make sense to the individual listener. Memory has to develop, tonal relationships have to be grasped.
|
|
