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...
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.
Quote from: c#minor on April 28, 2009, 09:59:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 28, 2009, 08:28:27 AM
Yet the Beatles spewed them out right and left. What gives?
No reply.
It was simply an apt Beatles allusion, mon ami.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 28, 2009, 10:14:58 AM
It was simply an apt Beatles allusion, mon ami.
Yes, that was the third option. ;D A bit of George-ism.
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.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 29, 2009, 05:41:34 AM
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the input, gents.
Quote from: rappy on April 29, 2009, 11:35:35 AM
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.
Quote from: James on April 30, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
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.
Quote from: James on April 30, 2009, 04:22:00 PM
::)
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?
Gosh, Beave, if it's hip, anybody can dig it!
Quote from: James on April 30, 2009, 04:22:00 PM
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?
Quote from: James on April 30, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
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.
8)
Quote from: James on April 30, 2009, 07:05:10 PM
Hi Dave...yes Bach would be something that I love, a tapestry of beautiful melodies working so harmoniously together.
Thought so. Thanks.
Quote from: epicous on April 30, 2009, 11:22:24 PM
Indian classical music does not use chords.
8)
What's a good recording?
Quote from: epicous on April 30, 2009, 11:22:24 PM
Indian classical music does not use chords.
No matter; as long as there's lots of "stuff" going on, James thinks it's hip ;D
Why all this sniping in my glorious thread? :'(
The kernel of truth beneath all that noise, is that with many great melodies, the greatness is in the melody's intersection with other musical dimensions. Take a point of imitation from a Tallis motet, pick it out from that contrapuntal environment, and employ it as a monody against strumming chords, and maybe, as a melody, it's not so hot. Take a Bach fugue subject, and even though it starts out with a strong profile, the demands of the fugal texture affect the subject 'as a melody' . . . it isn't composed with an ending, but it spins out in noodling to prepare for the next entrance of (the start of) the subject. In either case, the quality of the melody's 'construction' is partly determined by the musical context.
One of my points here, is that this isn't the Whole Picture for melody, that in fact there is a rich vein of the literature which is melody all on its own, so to speak, in the body of plainchant. And that on eway for a composer to test his ability to compose a melody, is to write a plainchant. To a disinterested listener, the plainchant is "boring," because there isn't anything "going on" apart from the melody . . . so, one might also say that plainchant is a good test of a listener's abilities (heck, if you cannot listen, focused, to a single unaccompanied line, how can you focus on any complicated texture, eh?)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:37:17 AM
The kernel of truth beneath all that noise, is that with many great melodies, the greatness is in the melody's intersection with other musical dimensions. Take a point of imitation from a Tallis motet, pick it out from that contrapuntal environment, and employ it as a monody against strumming chords, and maybe, as a melody, it's not so hot. Take a Bach fugue subject, and even though it starts out with a strong profile, the demands of the fugal texture affect the subject 'as a melody' . . . it isn't composed with an ending, but it spins out in noodling to prepare for the next entrance of (the start of) the subject. In either case, the quality of the melody's 'construction' is partly determined by the musical context.
One of my points here, is that this isn't the Whole Picture for melody, that in fact there is a rich vein of the literature which is melody all on its own, so to speak, in the body of plainchant. And that on eway for a composer to test his ability to compose a melody, is to write a plainchant. To a disinterested listener, the plainchant is "boring," because there isn't anything "going on" apart from the melody . . . so, one might also say that plainchant is a good test of a listener's abilities (heck, if you cannot listen, focused, to a single unaccompanied line, how can you focus on any complicated texture, eh?)
Ah. Very interesting. Thanks.
A melody is just a string of notes after all, eh? Maybe if you broke a plainchant down into pop song size bits, it would go over better. Or perhaps it is hard to sustain a good melody for such a length? But then we're back to what makes a "good" melody.
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 01, 2009, 05:40:46 AM
A melody is just a string of notes after all, eh? Maybe if you broke a plainchant down into pop song size bits, it would go over better.
That recalls the best-selling recording of monks singing chant, over a drum-machine. That's already 'something else' (FWIW).
QuoteOr perhaps it is hard to sustain a good melody for such a length? But then we're back to what makes a "good" melody.
Right . . . and I am suggesting that there is no one musical context which can serve as any touchstone to the question.
Maybe it's sinful to write a good hook. ;D
Let me propose a slight detour . . . What would you say Dylan's best five melodies are, Dave?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:47:33 AM
Let me propose a slight detour . . . What would you say Dylan's best five melodies are, Dave?
I'm not an expert on Dylan yet, just a recent fan. I can't answer comfortably however I will throw one song out there: "Mr. Tambourine Man".
Well, I cannot speak to that . . . I don't know that I've heard it straight through. All I recall of it is about the first half of the chorus . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:54:59 AM
Well, I cannot speak to that . . . I don't know that I've heard it straight through. All I recall of it is about the first half of the chorus . . . .
How about Beatles songs?
"Yesterday"
"Hey Jude"
"Hello Goodbye"
Etc.
Well, my point with the Dylan question was on the lines of, one can be a popular and respected songwriter or composer, apart from the question of melody.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 06:00:50 AM
Well, my point with the Dylan question was on the lines of, one can be a popular and respected songwriter or composer, apart from the question of melody.
Oh, this I agree with. I like melody but also some of that which is not.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 06:00:50 AM
Well, my point with the Dylan question was on the lines of, one can be a popular and respected songwriter or composer, apart from the question of melody.
In fact (and I may have stated this somewhere else before), I got into Dylan not through his music but his book.
Now, about "Hello, Goodbye" . . . I remember the song well enough (and it was on the radio last week), but . . . is it a memorable melody? A great melody?
"Hey, Jude" is much stronger, I think.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 06:14:58 AM
Now, about "Hello, Goodbye" . . . I remember the song well enough (and it was on the radio last week), but . . . is it a memorable melody? A great melody?
"Hey, Jude" is much stronger, I think.
What makes one weaker?
Actually, my favorite Beatles melody might be "The Long And Winding Road". Notice these are all by McCartney? ;D
"Something" is better, still.
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 01, 2009, 06:15:35 AM
What makes one weaker?
Do they both strike you as roughly as good as one another? 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:47:33 AM
Let me propose a slight detour . . . What would you say Dylan's best five melodies are, Dave?
I ain't Dave
but 4 of them are on
(http://dkpresents.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/511zfx3ko5l.jpg)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 06:20:08 AM
"Something" is better, still.
Do they both strike you as roughly as good as one another? 8)
"Hey Jude" may be better, now that I think about it.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 01, 2009, 06:23:22 AM
I ain't Dave
but 4 of them are on
My fave! (so far)
Glass did a Bowie symphony. Maybe he should have done a Beatles symphony. ;D
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 01, 2009, 06:23:22 AM
I ain't Dave
but 4 of them are on
System here blocks the image. So, which album? 8)
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 01, 2009, 04:26:00 AM
What's a good recording?
I don't have recordings, I check online videos.
This is light classical:
http://www.youtube.com/v/7QuDEx3_Ygo
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:37:17 AM
The kernel of truth beneath all that noise, is that with many great melodies, the greatness is in the melody's intersection with other musical dimensions. Take a point of imitation from a Tallis motet, pick it out from that contrapuntal environment, and employ it as a monody against strumming chords, and maybe, as a melody, it's not so hot. Take a Bach fugue subject, and even though it starts out with a strong profile, the demands of the fugal texture affect the subject 'as a melody' . . . it isn't composed with an ending, but it spins out in noodling to prepare for the next entrance of (the start of) the subject. In either case, the quality of the melody's 'construction' is partly determined by the musical context.
One of my points here, is that this isn't the Whole Picture for melody, that in fact there is a rich vein of the literature which is melody all on its own, so to speak, in the body of plainchant. And that on eway for a composer to test his ability to compose a melody, is to write a plainchant. To a disinterested listener, the plainchant is "boring," because there isn't anything "going on" apart from the melody . . . so, one might also say that plainchant is a good test of a listener's abilities (heck, if you cannot listen, focused, to a single unaccompanied line, how can you focus on any complicated texture, eh?)
I suppose that judging a melody is about as subjective as it gets. Hindemith had his rules for writing melodies, as have others, but really it all comes down to what strikes an individual listener as memorable, moving, beautiful, and these are not objective, imo.
For myself, I reject the notion that the best melodies are only found among the works of the Western Classical Music Canon and that a melody from a popular song can never equal one from Schubert, or Puccini, Tchaikovsky ...
The thing about pop songs, is that I find it is the combination of the words and melody which creates a piquant emotional effect and may cause the melody to seem more effective than it might be if heard instrumentally, sans lyrics.
One melody I find extremely beautiful and moving is one
William Walton wrote for his score from the film of Henry V,
Kiss her Soft Lips
Quote from: Franco on May 01, 2009, 08:07:46 AM
I suppose that judging a melody is about as subjective as it gets. Hindemith had his rules for writing melodies, as have others, but really it all comes down to what strikes an individual listener as memorable, moving, beautiful, and these are not objective, imo.
For myself, I reject the notion that the best melodies are only found among the works of the Western Classical Music Canon and that a melody from a popular song can never equal one from Schubert, or Puccini, Tchaikovsky ...
The thing about pop songs, is that I find it is the combination of the words and melody which creates a piquant emotional effect and may cause the melody to seem more effective than it might be if heard instrumentally, sans lyrics.
One melody I find extremely beautiful and moving is one William Walton wrote for his score from the film of Henry V, Kiss her Soft Lips
Thanks, Franco. I'll have to pull that one up and see if I agree.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 06:32:03 AM
System here blocks the image. So, which album? 8)
Blood On the Tracks
Quote from: epicous on May 01, 2009, 07:01:36 AM
I don't have recordings, I check online videos.
This is light classical:
http://www.youtube.com/v/7QuDEx3_Ygo
I'll check it out later.
I got the Walton title a bit wrong - it is Touch her Soft Lips and Part - and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK9vYOmyi1g) is a YouTube clip featuring it.
Whilst the modern popular song has produced many good melodies the medium is somewhat hamstrung by the need to be dance music. There is therefore a tendency to have answering eight bar phrases. With the use of phrase contraction and extension, melismas etc it is possible to create a much more potent emotional atmosphere. Indeed these devices are essential if one is to set most modern poetry rather than 'lyrics'.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on May 01, 2009, 08:28:11 AM
Whilst the modern popular song has produced many good melodies the medium is somewhat hamstrung by the need to be dance music.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone dance to "Hey, Jude."
(Just saying.)
Ravel's Boléro . . . there is one magnifique melody.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 08:33:49 AM
Ravel's Boléro . . . there is one magnifique melody.
How does that go again? And again? And again?
;D
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 01, 2009, 08:12:18 AM
Blood On the Tracks
Hey,
Dave! You're MCM, now! 8)
I don't think I've ever heard that album. Looking at the tracklist, I don't recognize any of the songs. (Merely recusing myself from the question.)
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 01, 2009, 08:35:44 AM
How does that go again? And again? And again?
;)
It's memorable enough that it sticks in your mind . . . and subtle enough, I defy you to sing it straight through from memory.
. . . and there, again, is another part of the riddle of melodies. (I'll use that for a title:
The Riddle of Melodies.)
Of course, you're MCMI, now . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 08:40:30 AM
Of course, you're MCMI, now . . . .
You Romans and your funky numbers. Er...letters...
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 08:32:46 AM
I don't think I've ever seen anyone dance to "Hey, Jude."
(Just saying.)
True but I'm generalizing.
Back to basics.
Definition time: Melody is
• tune: a succession of notes forming a distinctive sequence
• the perception of pleasant arrangements of musical notes
How do you identify a "melody?"
And how do you define "beautiful melody"—isn't that subjective as well as cultural?
Does every musical piece have a melody?
A group of 2 drums with indefinite pitch and 3 different sounds each one, in a polyrhythmic work, can project an interesting melody?
I think yes.
Quote from: epicous on May 01, 2009, 07:01:36 AM
I don't have recordings, I check online videos.
This is light classical:
http://www.youtube.com/v/7QuDEx3_Ygo
Why do you call this "light" classical? Its a standard raag form. The tanpura is electronic, but that does not matter.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 02, 2009, 03:24:53 PM
Why do you call this "light" classical? Its a standard raag form. The tanpura is electronic, but that does not matter.
I don't call this "light" classical, the performer himself calls this light classical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QuDEx3_Ygo
Quote from: epicous on May 02, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
I don't call this "light" classical, the performer himself calls this light classical.
OK but to say Shivranjani is a light raga is not to say that it is "light" classical. Ragas have different moods associated with them
QuoteRaga Shivranjani is a very melodious raga and is sung during late evenings. As the name suggests, this raga is used to compose tunes to please the fearsome Lord of destruction, Shiva. This raga is extremely popular among instrumentalists. This raga is known to evoke the moods of romance and sorrow. Aroha and avaroha notes of the raga Shivranjani are very close to raga Bhoopali except that in raga Bhoopali, the GA note is shudha whereas in raga Shivranjani, the GA note is komal which is represented as lower case ga. Also vaadi and samvaadi notes are different in raga Shivranjani compared to raga Bhoopali. These differences set apart raga Shivaranjani from raga Bhoopali. Obviously, both ragassound totally different. Sometimes liberty is taken with raga Shivranjani and shudha Gandhar (Ga) may be used by some musicians.
Raga Shivranjani is originally from South Indian Classical music later adapted in Hindustani Classical music. As per one expert vocalist in South Indian Classical music, the original Classical raga Shivranjani is a janya of Vachaspati, the 64th melakarta, which is different from the raga Shivranjani of Hindustani Classical music. But lately, in South Indian Classical music, this raga is being sung in a similar way as in Hindustani Classical music. In reality, raga Shivapriya or Shankarapriya of South Indian Classical music closely resembles with Hindustani Classical raga Shivranjani. There is a composition in this raga with the lyrics "Va velava" by late Dr. S. Ramanathan
http://dr-narasinha-kamath.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/04/i-mere-naina-raga-shivranjani-i.htm (http://dr-narasinha-kamath.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/04/i-mere-naina-raga-shivranjani-i.htm)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 02, 2009, 06:50:56 PM
OK but to say Shivranjani is a light raga is not to say that it is "light" classical. Ragas have different moods associated with them
Your enlightenment is right.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 02, 2009, 03:24:53 PM
The tanpura is electronic, but that does not matter.
No, it does matter. Very much. Here's how a real master does it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_S_78C-42A
Screw modernity. It only seems to breed artificial mediocrity.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 03, 2009, 06:20:05 PM
No, it does matter. Very much. Here's how a real master does it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_S_78C-42A
Screw modernity. It only seems to breed artificial mediocrity.
The tanpura (i.e. the drone) was electronic, not the tabla
bwv 1080, I think Josquin confused sarangi with tambura.
Tambura is the plucked instrument played vertically.
http://www.youtube.com/v/3G714HQttHk