Talk:Development (music)

Incarnations
Greetings to Hyacinth -- I tinkered with your edit, reverting part of a sentence. I am going to be cautious about further edits, however, because I have done a fair amount of composing and my formulations about the process of composition may stray into the realm of Original Research. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Where else would comparisons by listeners be made? And why would those comparisons not apply to development. Hyacinth 21:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You are asking, where other than in the mind? Well, in the ears, I suppose; there is a bit of a controversy about whether music is primarily an experience of sensual beauty, in which case, Ravel and Rimsky-Korsakov would rank higher in the estimation of many than they presently do. There are both a sensual and a, shall we say, intellectual/spiritual aspect to the musical experience, and development belongs to the latter category. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sound must pass the ears to reach the mind, but still you feel the need to specify? Hyacinth 19:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Even sensations must reach the mind to be perceived. Hyacinth 03:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I should explain why I prefer the expression "incarnations of the idea." It is because none of the "incarnations" is itself the idea, but rather, the process of transformation is the idea. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems unecessary. What is developed in development? Hyacinth 19:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I am overcompensating for the notion, that I am certain is widespread, that the essence of music is a pleasing melody that evokes "feelings." I think it might be useful to find a quote -- perhaps you know one? -- from a noted composer, on how melodies are chosen to meet the requirements of a developmental idea, and not the other way around. I recognize that this is not universal practice among classical composers, but as you have pointed out, not all putatively classical music has development. --Herschelkrustofsky 19:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I meant that the point seems obvious, but I now realize that doesn't mean it shouldn't be explicit. It is not currently obviously stated in the article, you should add an explicit mention to the article, this then explains "incarnations". Hyacinth 03:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article's name
Hello. Isn't "musical development" used to describe someone's development as a musician? Suggest this article renamed "Development (music)". 212.84.100.97 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that what you think it's described as? Hyacinth (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I approve the original post in this discussion. The correct term is "development." It's even in that graphic that's on the page. I've never heard it referred to as "musical development" before, so the correct move would be to rename it "Development (music)." Regardless, this page needs some serious love and I hope eventually I can turn my attention to it and improve it as it desperately needs it with its siblings Exposition (music) and Recapitulation (music). Devin.chaloux (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Appalling. 'F' for Fail
As it now stands, this article is grossly inadequate and misleading. The 'development' at the centre of a sonata structure is in reality a 'Durchführung' -- i.e. a 'leading through' various keys. The word 'development' is a poor translation of this -- and has generated a situation in which foolish people analyse a stretch of music not according to what happens in it, but in terms of what this wrong word happens to make them think of. As every German muscologist and textbook knows, the point of a 'development section' is *not* various varietites of 'thematic modification' -- it is *tonal and harmonic instability* after the stability of the second-subject key and before the restoration of the tonic. Has no-one actually bothered to listen to what does -- and doesn't -- happen in the included extract...?!? IT'S MODULATORY, AND THAT'S ALL.

This article is too deeply confused to be rescued. It should just be deleted. Hell, it doesn't have a single worthwhile source... or any idea about the original German terminology... Pathetic... Pfistermeister (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You provide no suggestions for improvement: F for fail. Hyacinth (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Template
How about: ? Hyacinth (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Items added and template redirected to Template:Musical form. Hyacinth (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

New article
Is there any reason not to have a separate article on the Development section of sonata form? Squandermania (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)