Hi Zensen:) Really enjoyed your post. My own belief is that simplicity is its own beauty and and piece (or song) doesnt require all the complex rhythms, not-so-commonly-used chords etc etc. I seem to prefer a clear, "pure", and accessible melodic line and accompaniment rather than one with complex devices. I think that a perfect example of "simple yet beautiful" music is Mozart's music. The melodic lines of his works are clear and accessible (for sure) but yet this is something alluring in his music to the point it almost mysterious! Allow me to quote pianost Artur Schnabel who once explaimed:" Mozart's sonatas are too easy for children, too difficult for (serious) artists"

Hi Zhi Yuan, I'm glad to hear your viewpoints on this! Proponents of your school of thought also cite traditional folk music which are so simple and yet so beautiful! For example, who doesn't like Home on the Range?

Maybe lately I've been listening to lots of Hungarian traditional tunes and have identified some common styles among them; and the way the Hungarian version is arranged has captured that exact style so aptly!

" .. when the composer himself could have used a slightly different set of notes if he had written the score using another improvised version of his work ... "

At the end of the day, would the composer still choose a final version he wants the audience to hear as the definitive?

For example, when you hear a recording published by the composer, would it be reasonable to conclude that, while he had tried many versions / many improvised versions of his work; he will still choose one definitive to be shown to the public?

Hmm, I would say it is a combination of yes and no. Someone recently mentioned the cadenza issue, which would shed some lights to it. As a classical composer myself, coupled with some of my other classical composer friends, though there is a "final version" of our works which we would set on it (and document it), we feel we are quite fine if some of the "less important notes" (e.g. the way to produce or sound out the chords at certain junctures) are changed slightly, since it won't affect its overall musicality. But once they change things that are more pivotal (such as our counter melodies), then it is a strict no-no. But having said that, there are other composers who would want 100% conformance of playing w.r.t. to what they have written precisely.

"... though there is a final version of our works ... quite fine if some of the less important notes are changed slightly ..."

Since there still has to be a final version delivered to the public, it would best represent what the composer truly wants. Otherwise, if he has felt that a slight change in some of the notes would suit better, he would have chosen that as the definitive piece. Thus, the published piece contains the intricate musical qualities, and emotions, among other collaterals; that the composer wants the world to hear and feel it.

He might hope that this song would be played in its entirety to preserve his intentions. If he has wanted other variations, he might publish his works in variations. For example, Mozart's Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman".

What the future generations would perform, is something the composer cannot predict. Musicians now can perform it in its truest form, or improvised form, and whether it can be accepted depends largely on the current state of musical taste among the population.

At the end of the day, would it boil down to who decides which is part of the composer's authoritative / canonical works, and which is not ? The publisher of the works, the patron, a panel, the composer himself ? Is it a matter of power ?

Pardon me; as I've been reminded by my Master Trainers and potential investors about this; it is better that I run through all the various schools of thoughts in determining aesthetic quality via my talk.

But in order not to whet your appetite too much, I will share the 4th school here, which is easier, reserving the 2nd school (quantitative method) at the talk, since it is rather sophisticated, requiring graphs and diagrams, etc.

The 4th school of thought hinges on the notion of nostalgia. There has been extensive research done on this field: Generally, people tend to like music that they listen to a lot during their late teens to young adulthood (20s), thereby finding these songs highly aesthetic. For example, my mum would feel pop songs in the 50s and 60s very appealing and beautiful, while those in my generation (80s and 90s) are no good. Interestingly, by the same token, I will have the tendency to find pop music in the 80s and 90s to be superior, and current hits are degenerating. Teens will feel otherwise!

The researchers attribute this to the phenomenon that during teenage and young adulthood period, we are most impressionistic about the music media we expose to, attaching lots of sentimental values to them, etc. However, as we grow older, many of us will be focusing more on developing our career, starting a family, etc. leading to the situation whereby we listen less to popular music thus feeling less receptive to the "new culture" or style.

There are several implications for this school of thought. For example, if we are organising a concert meant to let our audience indulge and enjoy the pieces, and if we know our audience are all around the age group of 70s and 80s, then probably we will choose our repertoire of oldies in the 50s and 60s (instead of say in the 80s).

So Corrine is right at the micro-level sense. But once we extend it to the macro-level, it will be a case of being beyond Person's A subjectivity vs Person B's subjectivity. Case in point: I am about to go overseas (together with a team of others) for an exchange programme at their music fraternity. And I am supposed to select a few pieces of Singaporean works that are aesthetic to perform there, so that it will well represent the cultural superiority of Singapore.

What should govern my choices? If I simply go by my personal subjectivity, that's it. It will ruin everything. Why? For example, I personally don't like the melody of Home, but this will probably go into my repertoire because of several reasons (taking into consideration on other schools of thoughts in determining aesthetics beyond my personal subjectivity).

Thus the discipline or study of Music Aesthetics has widespread practical applications. It doesn't stop at personal subjectivity differences. It goes into factors that shape mankind's individual subjectivity (one of which is nostalgia).

That's a nice suggestion for someone using the digital piano, since the percussion becomes an actual accompaniment to his playing.

At least, it is not as monotonous as a metronome for those playing on the acoustic piano, where the metronome has no musical participation, and it's purely for keeping the tempo in check.

Thanks for the insights and ideas. I am currently using acoustic upright piano. I also think that when you play the piano your mind need be calm and at peace and most likely you will get the 'right' tempo.

There are apps that can provide different kinds of drum beats in varying speeds to accompany your playing. So it doesn't have to be a boring metronome beat.

Yes Theng Beng, when we are nervous, our hearts beat faster and we tend to play faster.