Pretty cool celebrity spot in my gym today...

Agreed on the movie.

One of my absolute movies ever!

Moshkiae


Hi,

 ... all of a sudden the music is not about the notes, but how to illustrate that image ... 

OK, I gotta challenge you on this one. 


What in the heck do you think he used to "illustrate that image"? They're called notes Pedro. 


And you know what? He wrote them down. 


And you wanna know an even bigger secret? He wrote them down how they were to be played by each member of the orchestra. 


He did not say "play any note you you want any time you want". I believe they are called scores. 


And I could be mistaken on this finer point, but I believe each member of the orchestra has a copy of their parts they are supposed to play and when they are supposed to be played.

You're really pushing the limits on this one my friend.

Bapu
OK, I gotta challenge you on this one. What in the heck do you think he used to "illustrate that image"? They're called notes Pedro.

 
You are taking it personal and not catching the meat of the subject.
 
More than once Salieri is asking him which notes to write ... and he can not describe it and the film shows us ... with music ... what eventually became known as written for it.
 
That is a good example of a visual determining how/what you put together ... YES ... IT IS FLIPPING NOTES! ... THAT IS NOT THE DISCUSSION!
 
But instead of it being written, as if it were a film soundtrack composer, you follow the visual, not the concept of rock music, or jass music ... you illustrate the visual ... so you have Bernard Herrman, a Maurice Jarre, or a Beethoven, or Mozart. That's why they are known ... !!!!
 
And yes, there are many parts to make it complete, and this is where a lot of the simplistic rock music is not capable of doing, and then one day, the Beatles or someone else does it and every one is amazed. And Geoff Emmerick talks about all the crazy and fun things they did, and everyone thinks this guy has no idea what he is saying! It's not all ... happening because you thought up a riff ... the riff may have come from somewhere else ... that was not musically related!
 
I told you before ... Bapu sits down and says ... I want to do this and then writes it as he goes along. Pedro sits down and starts ... and it may have an idea or not in it ... and I won't know anything about it, until the end. Of course there are notes ... again ... the point is ... I'm illustrating something I see, and not necessarily thinking that this note follows that one nicely and that makes for a nice combination here or there ... I'm just following a feeling ... and that is the description of it ... but you do not accept this as a valid compositional method! And THAT is not to say that I don't know music or notes, and you don't know visuals ... could be both, or none of them ... but it is something that is much harder to illustrate when the only thing most folks know here is 4 lines of music, not 25! Or 30! or 50! 
 
Even in the film that is simplified for you and I.
  
 

Bapu, totally agree with your points on this one!

Moshkiae, we will have to "agree to disagree".  It is first and foremost about the aural experience, not the visuals.  That is still the case in true "concert" music today, which is a different world from Pop/music videos/film scoring (admittedly, a world in decline).

What the film depicted very well, and what sets Mozart, and Beethoven, among a very handful of others apart from the majority of us (including me, of course), is that he (as could Beethoven) was able to write down perfectly on paper what he heard in his head - no intermediary musical instrument needed.  In the movie, he was struggling to explain it to Salieri at the end, simply because his mind was outracing Salieri's.

It is also suggested that Beethoven's writing actually got better after he went deaf, as he was less constrained by an instrument - piano in this case.  If he had lived longer, based on the harmony/chord structure of his last string quartets, it is possible that most of the Romantic period would not have happened, as he would have quite possibly bypassed it all, with where he was heading in terms of music theory.

Moshkiae, seriously, one of the things that has largely been lost is the ability to simply listen to music - if there is no visual, it doesn't much count.  The culture back then, and even into the 20th century had a much stronger auditory component than it does now.  With the rise of postmodernism - particularly in its popular form, truth is first and foremost now seen as being visual, so in a way, your comments certainly fall within the norm. 

Granted, performances back then were strictly always "live" so there certainly was a visual factor - moreso with Opera, of course.

On a more personal level - although this arguably could be common in any type of group - is that what often inspires me is the excellent musicianship of my accompanist.  We can really feed off the aural sound each of us creates.  In terms of "visual" there is little there, just a person playing piano, and another playing solo double-bass.  But, when we are at our best, there can be a real emotional impact on others simply from the sound we create.

Some threads just require a bigger shovel than others.