Melody

[Dr. Dread]

I admit it: I'm a sucker for a good melody. But what makes it good? Just because I like it? And what about those melodies you don't necessarily like yet still they stick in your head. How does that happen? (Composers, I'm talking to you.) And why is it so hard to write a good melody? How do I know it's hard? Because they are so few and far between. Yet the Beatles spewed them out right and left. What gives?

And so on...

[c#minor]

Melody is a b!%ch to write on its own. I honestly don't know, i just sit down at the piano and improvise and when something comes along that catches my ear, i take it and run with it.

[Dr. Dread]

Melody is a b!%ch to write on its own. I honestly don't know, i just sit down at the piano and improvise and when something comes along that catches my ear, i take it and run with it.

Yeah, I imagine it's very "muse" oriented.

[karlhenning]

Yet the Beatles spewed them out right and left. What gives?

No reply.

[Dr. Dread]

No reply.

You don't have an answer or you don't agree?

[karlhenning]

It was simply an apt Beatles allusion, mon ami.

[Dr. Dread]

It was simply an apt Beatles allusion, mon ami.

Yes, that was the third option.  A bit of George-ism.

[Ten thumbs]

Do you mean melody or merely good tunes. There is a world of difference between a Beatles song and a melody that extends and develops to form a complete musical piece.

[Dr. Dread]

Do you mean melody or merely good tunes. There is a world of difference between a Beatles song and a melody that extends and develops to form a complete musical piece.

Probably good tunes.

[Mark G. Simon]

There are certain composers who just had the "knack" for great melodies. Schubert, Tchaikovsky and  Prokofiev are three that come to mind. No one knows how they did what they did. Counterpoint can be taught, but melody seems to be something you either have the knack for or you don't.

I can only make two observations, both of which you can see are trivial: A good melody sticks in your ear almost immediately upon hearing it. It seems to be already familiar to you, because in part it already is. There are elements in this melody which are shared by other melodies already familiar to you. Perhaps it is built out of small motives characteristic of melodies in the same style. Perhaps there are rhythmic shapes common to other melodies you know.

At the same time this melody stands out in your mind as a singularity. There are things in it which you've never heard in any other melody. It is fresh and original. I'd say the secret to writing a great melody is getting the balance between the familiar and unfamiliar elements, between derivative and original ideas, exactly right. So how do you do that? That's the mystery.

One thing I can say is that any composer who sets great store by being completely original is not going to be a great melodist.

[rappy]

I can only tell how I get the melodies I use as a composer, each composer might have a different way. Sometimes they spring into mind and before I've realized what happend I'm already humming it (in my mind). Most of the time they appear as a whole. For a long time I thought that was the way as a composers to find a tune, but then a professional composer told me that no composer would do it that way but rather "builds" a theme by arranging intervals and finding a rhythm which fits etc.
Now I think both is possible and intuitionally I would say that e. g. Schubert and Mendelssohn used the first option and Brahms, Beethoven (, ...) the second - maybe not always, but very often.

[Dr. Dread]

Thanks for the input, gents.

[Mark G. Simon]

I can only tell how I get the melodies I use as a composer, each composer might have a different way. Sometimes they spring into mind and before I've realized what happend I'm already humming it (in my mind). Most of the time they appear as a whole. For a long time I thought that was the way as a composers to find a tune, but then a professional composer told me that no composer would do it that way but rather "builds" a theme by arranging intervals and finding a rhythm which fits etc.
Now I think both is possible and intuitionally I would say that e. g. Schubert and Mendelssohn used the first option and Brahms, Beethoven (, ...) the second - maybe not always, but very often.

I would say you're right. Both inspiration and perspiration are necessary, and even if the inspiration only counts for 1%, it's still an important 1% which will render the other 99% useless if it's not there.

[karlhenning]

ultimately for me though, there is no such thing as a beautiful melody in isolation.

A pity that you are thus deaf to the charms of monophony.

But then, you're a Gordian knot of musical bind-spots, of course.

[Dr. Dread]

karl you look exactly like you speak. 

i have listened to monophonic stuff, if the writing & playing is hip i can dig it of course, but it gets kinda boring texturally though. i prefer something more layered and richer.

What's some of the richest, most melodic stuff you've heard? Bach?

[karlhenning]

Gosh, Beave, if it's hip, anybody can dig it!

[ChamberNut]

but it gets kinda boring texturally though. i prefer something more layered and richer.

Sounds more like you're describing dessert, or the thickness of your skull perhaps?

[arkiv]

usually it's more melody & harmonization, the horizontal & vertical aspects working beautifully together to create a complete and whole piece of music.

Indian classical music does not use chords.

[Dr. Dread]

Hi Dave...yes Bach would be something that I love, a tapestry of beautiful melodies working so harmoniously together.

Thought so. Thanks.

[Dr. Dread]

Indian classical music does not use chords.

What's a good recording?