Mike Leghorn:

>Oh, I forgot, Beethoven's 3rd is so plain and simple -- it's a tribute
>to Napolean, and nothing more.  I should know better than to allow my
>imagination to participate in my listening experience, and I should know
>better than to share my thoughts and insights.  (I can be sarcastic too).

You got angry, and that was not the purpose of my response.  That was just
a joke, and not on your expense.  I wanted you to laugh it too.

>What was I thinking?!? I guess I let my imagination get the better of me
>again.  Next time I try to understand music, I'll simply consult the
>authorities, rather than try listening to music.

When I write that "I don't see" your point, you should know that this
means that "I want to see" your point.  I don't attack your opinion, I
just want more details, for example:  is this an intuitive opinion (which
is perfectly legitimate)?, why the connection with that particular work?,
how would you describe more exactly this connection?.  Sorry, but questions
like that are almost unavoidable when you write in a discussion list.  The
other options are b) none make comments, c) people answers "I agree.  You
got it" and all of us throw flowers, and this list becomes pityless boring.

>I have no idea why. Why is it so important to know why?

I asked "why do you say that?".  There's a big difference between saying
"these two melodies are almost identical" and saying "A took this melody
from B".  The first assertion may be a legitimate product of your ears and
your musical intuition.  The second one can't hardly be a product of pure
intuition.

>I was very excited when I heard and discovered this similarity, and I was
>excited about being able to share my discovery with this group.  However,
>much to my disappointment, it seems like the ideas I've offered have
>encountered nothing more than sarcasm, hostility, and general
>closed-mindedness.

If someone answers to your message with a joke, I can hardly think that
this means "hostility".  "Hostility" is lack of jokes and lack of amenity.
The problem here is that you are confusing "similarity" with "borrowing".
None will deny the first, but I have distrusted the second.  If you have
more arguments, information or details to evaporate my distrust, would
you mind to share them with me?.  I promise (without any sarcasm, I swear)
that if you give me a single argument to proof that Beethoven could have
*borrowed* those notes from that particular section of Mozart's work, I'll
write a message to the list saying "Sorry, Mike, I didn't know that.
Thanks for the information".  When someone in this list tells me something
new or interesting (which occurs frequently), I print the message and I
keep it in a big folder for my own information and profit.  That folder is
open to your contribution.

>Btw, it's not just four notes, it's eight notes.  Listen (if that's
>possible) to the first eight notes of Beethoven's op. 132, then listen
>to the 3rd movement of Mozart's 41st (the middle, trio section).

I never listen to music.  I prefer to consult the authorities, which is
more comfortable (and cheaper, by the way, given the price of some CDs).
However, promise me that you won't get angry if I tell you something:  in
those passages, the melodic direction is the same, but the intervals are a
bit different:  semitone- major 6th- semitone (in Beethoven's op.132), and
semitone- minor 3rd - semitone (in Mozart's 41).  To that detail (besides
rhytm and tempo differences) is due the different flavor that these two
passages have.  Magister dixit.

>If you aren't struck and impressed by the similarity, then I recommend
>that you take up another interest besides music.

Well, I was thinking on tennis lately.  However, If you refuse to listen
the difference between a 6th and a 3rd interval, I would dare to recommend
you the same ;-)

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]