Catchy Tunes

[Franco]

Without the rhythm and harmony, that melody's merde.

Them's fightin' words, pal.

[karlhenning]

I flat out disagree.

I'm sure a fight could be had about what a "good" melody is.

[MN Dave]

hence my sig

[Bulldog]

I don't follow this.  I'm not aware that the greater part of the wonderful melodies that flow through Bach's music are "borrowed."  They are just everywhere.  So many come to mind, the fugue in c-minor, WTCI, the choral fantasia in BWV140, the gavotte from English Suite No 3, so many movements from the Cello Suites.  The difference is that in Bach the melody does not sit center stage and take all the attention.  It is part of a greater structure.

Beethoven, likewise, wrote magnificent melodies, for instance, the second movement of Symphony 5, and 7, and 3 for that matter.  As in Bach, they were one element among many.

Well said.  Every now and then I read about the lack of compelling melody in Bach's music, and I consider that theme nonsense.  Some folks don't have much appreciation for counterpoint, but it's the musical element I most treasure.  Multiple melodies at the same moment potentially constitute the most rewarding musical experience, and they can be listened to on many different levels.

As for Vivaldi, I've never really connected with his music; I find his melodies okay but nothing that sticks in my memory.  Now Handel's a different story - a ton of wonderful melody lines that rival Bach's.

[Scarpia]

Now Handel's a different story - a ton of wonderful melody lines that rival Bach's.

I certainly agree with that.  The fugal movements from his concerti are among my favorite things in music.

[Bulldog]

Bach's melodies are at most times more subtle which can be a good thing in the long run.

Yes, a very good thing.  Unlike most of his counterparts, Bach doesn't hit the listener in the head with a great melody; he incorporates his melodies into the musical fabric.  Also, he doesn't uniformly keep repeating a great melody, often using it just once or twice in a musical piece.  For long-run listening, I find that Bach's the top dog.

[DavidW]

I certainly agree with that.  The fugal movements from his concerti are among my favorite things in music.

Really?  I find his concertos to be mostly bland.  His operas and oratorios, while highly uneven have much greater moments than those concerti.

[Bulldog]

Really?  I find his concertos to be mostly bland.  His operas and oratorios, while highly uneven have much greater moments than those concerti.

I don't find Handel's concertos bland, but my comment about his wonderful melodies was based more on his vocal works than other genres.

[Grazioso]

Actually I didn't say that I had a hard time recognizing it.  I said that I recognize subtle differences in rhythm and harmony much more readily.  Equating me to a color blind person is unforgivable.  Thanks for trolling dipshit.  As I've said I'll tolerate your taste in melody, but that doesn't mean that I'll tolerate personal attacks.

First off, you need to watch the language. Secondly, I'm not trolling or engaging in ad hominems, but rather engaging in a discussion, one in which you and I don't happen to see eye to eye. You yourself said that you have a hard time recognizing subtle variations in melodies. To equate that analogically with color blindness is not a stretch or a personal attack, nor, as I said, was it intended to be offensive--my apologies that you've taken it that way. For that matter, color blindness is nothing unusual or shameful: red-green color blindness is hardly rare, actually, and it can impact one's ability to judge art. Similarly, if one has a hard time hearing one of the elements of music well, it's likely going to affect one's ability to gauge its importance. Iirc, you said you're biased towards harmony and rhythm precisely because those are things you can hear better.

[karlhenning]

Heck, we've all got our own ears.

[DavidW]

Secondly, I'm not trolling or engaging in ad hominems,

Yes you are.  The adult thing would have been to not go for a cheap attack, nor try to defend it by pretending that you were doing anything but that.

You yourself said that you have a hard time recognizing subtle variations in melodies. To equate that analogically with color blindness is not a stretch or a personal attack

Yes it is a stretch, yes it is a personal attack.  You took a cheap shot because I shared something that nobody else on this forum has personally explored including you.  I made very clear that I do not suffer from any type of amusia, and your vulgar analogy suggested otherwise.  I'm the better man for having actually assessed my ability to respond to different musical elements, and shared openly my sensitivity to harmony and rhythm.  Do you think that you are better, that without knowing for a fact that you are as sensitive to all elements of music beyond what most people can hear?  Then you are deceiving yourself, and even if you could that is no basis for your attack.

In fact, the truth is that you misread me.  Did you know by adequate I meant that I scored the mean, no better or worse than anyone else.  How is that the same as colorblindness?  It's not.  Rhythm and harmony were areas where I scored more than one standard deviation above the mean, meaning that I'm more sensitive to nuances in those areas than most people.  Color blind?  Color blind!?  I think you owe me a sincere apology.

And you make the forum lesser by reminding people that they can't be completely open and frank less shameless posters like you take advantage of it for the sake of a cheapshot.

[DavidW]

Getting back on topic, the melodists have a strong following as indicated on the poll, but the hyperbolic statements that most people perceive melody as the most important or key feature is not supported by the poll results.  Furthermore, a requirement that only great music is melodic is now hopefully seen to be wrong headed by even the melodists.  Was the poll scientific?  No.  But is it trust worthy, should it be eye opening?  Yes. I trust that the melodists will cease to speak for everyone now, and fall back on the less offensive "for me" stance instead of "most think as I can do" kind of stance.  And we can all get back to having fun poking and prodding Bachians.

[karlhenning]

Powder their wigs but good!

[Sergeant Rock]

Getting back on topic, the melodists have a strong following as indicated on the poll, but the hyperbolic statements that most people perceive melody as the most important or key feature is not supported by the poll results.

That's one way of interpreting the data. But you could also say that melody is more important to far more people than any other single element of music. Twice as many have chosen melody over harmony or no preference. Ten times more prefer melody to rhythm (I'm sure that gap would close if you asked hip hop fans or punks).

Sarge

[MN Dave]

That's one way of interpreting the data. But you could also say that melody is more important to far more people than any other single element of music. Twice as many have chosen melody over harmony or no preference. Ten times more prefer melody to rhythm (I'm sure that gap would close if you asked hip hop fans or punks).

Sarge

Yep. If a song doesn't have a catchy melody, most people will pass it by.

[karlhenning]

Yep. If a song doesn't have a catchy melody, most people will pass it by.

Are you here using song generically to mean any piece of music? (Which is not an uncommon usage, of course.)

[MN Dave]

Are you here using song generically to mean any piece of music? (Which is not an uncommon usage, of course.)

Yep. Sorry.

[karlhenning]

No worries, mon cher.

[MN Dave]

I also believe there are those melodies that are like little time bombs, not revealing all their secrets until you've listened multiple times--perhaps in the case of layered melodies (harmonies). The trick is to know when it's one of these versus when you just don't like it--although I believe you can sense when it's one or the other.

[MN Dave]

Then again, something can grow on you just because you listen to it often.