Talk:Musical argument

Relation

• A musical argument is a means of creating tension in musical form through the expressive content:

vs

• A musical argument is a means of creating tension through the relation of expressive content and musical form:

Jerome Kohl, I undid your edit to the article, changing it from the version above back to the version below. Your edit summary argued that the above version more accurately reflected the quotes which follows. However, the quote does read "the musical form relates to an expressive content". Additionally, in the version above the means by which the tension is created in musical form through expressive content is left unspecified, while in the version below a means is indicated. Hyacinth (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, if that's how you read it. I don't see the dialectical tension between content and form in Merten's quotation, myself. But why does the quotation require interpretation at all?

I have to say that I am astounded at how difficult it is to find a proper definition of this expression, which is used so freely by so many writers, especially in relation to sonata form. It is plain that Merten's definition has little to do with what Tovey meant (the purposeful unfolding of musical structure), but a quick perusal of Tovey's essays fails to produce anything remotely approaching an actual definition for something that he seems to assume everyone will understand without explanation. I'm afraid for that reason that the link from the Sonata form article is liable to confuse, rather than assist the unprepared reader. Carol Krumhansl approaches but stops just short of a definition (as an aspect or equivalent of musical "discourse") in "A Perceptual Analysis of Mozart's Piano Sonata K. 282: Segmentation, Tension, and MusicalIdeas", Music Perception 13, no. 3 (Spring 1996), pp. 401–32.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I posted my comments above not in hopes of starting an edit war (thus my use of discussion and my having given reasons) but rather in hopes of being convinced by you.

I'm pretty sure that the quote needs, if not an interpretation at least some sort of introduction. While I think I would have little problem with a quote without context serving as the lead to an article I believe that many people would.

I myself have noticed how difficult it will be to create this article, and that is why I have put it off until now. While one may not be able to find clearly presented definitions, one may be able to glean bits and pieces from context. Hyacinth (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I may yet try to show you why I think your interpretation is wrong, but I think there are more important fish to fry first. I agree that an article really cannot use a quotation as a lede. Perhaps as things proceed, a more suitable opening paragraph can be developed. In the meantime, I take encouragement from your suggestion of using contextual quotations for clarification.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)