Kyle Major said in reply to me:

>I would be extremely careful in what is deemed superfluous in music.
>Often, especially in more modern works, texture becomes more important
>than individual notes and traditional melodic lines.  Some of the chamber
>works by Xenakis come to mind, perhaps Stockhausen is a good example too.
>I believe that if I removed a single note from one of these works none of
>us, including myself would notice.  But these notes are not necessarily
>performing a "melodic" or "harmonic" function in the traditional sense.
>However, the notes are not superfluous but are vital for the rhythmic
>density and ultimately the feel of the piece.

You've got me with 20c music there.  But don't modern composers work with
a system like the schoenberg tone scale? This would provide the bounds
necessary to comply with the "not too many notes criteria".

>I also somehow doubt that anyone would rule out a Haydn piano sonata
>because of octave doubling in the melodic line.  In a way, this doubling
>seems superfluous.  But it exists for a certain textural effect and perhaps
>for balance.

I would cartainly not rule out any Haydn piano sonata on these grounds.
Really it's another topic, but Haydn wrote for the instruments had
available, the sound they made and the prospective venue.  (His trios
are sometimes critcised because the cello doubles the piano.  but this
was because the sound output from the early pianos wasn't sufficient)

This all shows that really the criteria list has to be taken a little
light-heartedly and that there's a huge amount of subjectivity in it.

>I don't intend to create a big argument here, but I am curious what Bob
>D. feels is superfluous.  I think 5 piccolos in a symphony would be
>superfluous.

See my other reply regarding Mozart 41!

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]