They can't be so easy to write or there'd be a lot more rich musicians around. What are your thoughts on catchy melodies and how important they are in music?
They are important for advertising so that you remember their ad, they are not important in music imo. :)
Catchy tunes aren't important? Hm. Lovely melodies? Righteous riffs?
Catchy Tunes is surely the right thread for this . . .
And now, some Beethoven, sponsored by tamponcrafts:
http://www.youtube.com/v/EjEV5si59W0
Kimi loves catchy tunes, especially those composed by Daddy, like "Sweet Little Kimi".
0:)
Quote from: springrite on April 19, 2010, 09:45:59 AM
Kimi loves catchy tunes, especially those composed by Daddy, like "Sweet Little Kimi".
I don't know that one.
Of course they are important for music. The da-da-da-dom from Beethoven's Fifth is about as catchy as it gets. But more to the point, it is part of the craft of writing a good pop tune to create melodic hooks, or transitional riffs, that lodge in a listeners mind and get them to sing along. Just about every song by Led Zeppelin on their first two records has an guitar riff that most people of a certain age can sing, or remember the song by. The same can be said for countless other rock/pop songs.
I've been told that a good pop song can be learned by a first time listener by the time the chorus comes around the second time, and I have witnessed this happening when stuck in traffic and seeing in the car next to me someone hearing (as I was too) the Tears for Fears song "Shout" for the first time and begin singing along (and pounding the steering wheel) - very happily, I might add - with the chorus, second time around.
There is something exhilarating about a good pop song, it enters your brain and gives you a thrill just to hear it, and dance along, or tap or sing along. The best pop music offers something for me that classical music doesn't, and it is this quality.
For sure, pop music is lightweight ephemeral stuff that is not built to last - but not everything is supposed to be built to last, some things are good and worthwhile and great passing fun.
Yeah - Catchy Tunes - right on, baby!
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 09:46:49 AM
I don't know that one.
Wait till I sell it to Huggies, or Mattel. Then everyone would know.
Well said, Franco. :)
Even your classical warhorses have catchy tunes.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 06:53:24 AM
They can't be so easy to write or there'd be a lot more rich musicians around. What are your thoughts on catchy melodies and how important they are in music?
Melody is one of the foundational elements of music, and catchy melodies can have an enormously powerful emotional and even physical impact on listeners. Witness the phenomenon Franco describes, and the fact that most of the classical warhorses are notable for, among other things, melodies that lodge in your head for a lifetime. The most-beloved classical composers have also been some of music's most gifted melodists: Mozart, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Dvorak, Verdi, Puccini, et al. And a composer who can't write good melodies can never, imo, be truly great. That would be neglecting a key component of the craft and one of the thing most listeners seek most avidly.
OTOH, a catchy tune isn't as vital in classical music since form, harmony, dynamics, tone color, etc. tend to be refined to a much higher degree than in popular music genres and can carry the weight of the work in the absence of a memorable tune. (Cf. jazz, wherein rhythm, harmony, personalized improvisation, etc. can suffice to make a great piece/performance, with melody pushed the sidelines.)
Quote from: Grazioso on April 19, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
Melody is one of the foundational elements of music
Even music for unpitched percussion ensemble?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 19, 2010, 10:13:30 AM
Even music for unpitched percussion ensemble?
The exception that proves the rule :D
Great post, Grazioso!
My point of course is that if there is music without Melody-capital-M, then melody as an element is hardly foundational. It can be important when it is present, but . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 19, 2010, 10:23:57 AM
My point of course is that if there is music without Melody-capital-M, then melody as an element is hardly foundational. It can be important when it is present, but . . . .
I needz it. ;D
Quote from: James on April 19, 2010, 10:32:00 AM
A composition can have many 'catchy' features.
I need my catchy dynamics.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 10:29:29 AM
I needz it. ;D
(I know there's a cute photo of a cat that goes with this . . . .)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 19, 2010, 11:18:04 AM
(I know there's a cute photo of a cat that goes with this . . . .)
:D
I just wanted to clarify that I meant that catchy tunes are not necessary for good music, but I agree that pop music is certainly popular due to catchy tunes. :)
But I completely disagree with Grazioso post, melody is but one aspect of music, and melodic classical is not necessarily catchy, nor is it a requirement that music be melodic for it to be great. There is so much great music that has a complete absence of catchy tunes, and what does it matter? Music is to be listened to, to be played, to be experienced... not to be memorized.
If you agree with Grazioso's thesis that the ability to compose catchy tunes is necessary for greatness than you must favor Telemann over Bach, Rossini over Schubert and Beethoven, Glass over Carter, Elgar over Sibelius and Bartok, Rachmaninoff over Shostakovich... pretty lame. :-\
:D
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 01:00:10 PM
If you agree with Grazioso's thesis that the ability to compose catchy tunes is necessary for greatness than you must favor Telemann over Bach, Rossini over Schubert and Beethoven, Glass over Carter, Elgar over Sibelius and Bartok, Rachmaninoff over Shostakovich... pretty lame. :-\
:D
Bach, Schubert and Beethoven had catchy tunes galore.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 01:15:36 PM
Bach, Schubert and Beethoven had catchy tunes galore.
Bach borrowed tunes more than wrote them. Beethoven, like Haydn, used simple motifs to develop on, once or twice they are catchy usually not. None of them including Schubert had the gift of crafting pretty and catchy tunes like Rossini, Vivaldi and Telemann.
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 01:26:34 PM
Bach borrowed tunes more than wrote them. Beethoven, like Haydn, used simple motifs to develop on, once or twice they are catchy usually not. None of them including Schubert had the gift of crafting pretty and catchy tunes like Rossini, Vivaldi and Telemann.
Lies.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 01:28:25 PM
Lies.
Embrace them for what they truly are! Masters of harmony! Don't give into hero worship, that way you turn into JdP! ;D
I'm just saying, I hear tons of melody in those composers' works. :)
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 01:00:10 PM
I just wanted to clarify that I meant that catchy tunes are not necessary for good music, but I agree that pop music is certainly popular due to catchy tunes. :)
But I completely disagree with Grazioso post, melody is but one aspect of music, and melodic classical is not necessarily catchy, nor is it a requirement that music be melodic for it to be great. There is so much great music that has a complete absence of catchy tunes, and what does it matter? Music is to be listened to, to be played, to be experienced... not to be memorized.
If you agree with Grazioso's thesis that the ability to compose catchy tunes is necessary for greatness than you must favor Telemann over Bach, Rossini over Schubert and Beethoven, Glass over Carter, Elgar over Sibelius and Bartok, Rachmaninoff over Shostakovich... pretty lame. :-\
:D
I don't think you read my post very carefully, considering how badly you misrepresent it ;D
As for the comparisons you make, the funny thing is that most of the supposedly less tuneful composers you list are the ones whose tunes stand out more in my mind! I do still maintain that to be a truly great composer, one needs to have mastery over all the major elements of music, including melody, and also that a great composer should be able to move a listener emotionally, and a good melody has tremendous power to do just that, eliciting goosebumps, tears, etc. There's much more to music than that, but it's a big part.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 19, 2010, 10:23:57 AM
My point of course is that if there is music without Melody-capital-M, then melody as an element is hardly foundational. It can be important when it is present, but . . . .
Point taken, and perhaps my choice of word was poor, but while music technically need not have melody, it's a major building block that can add inordinately to it. It's certainly a key--and widely expected--part of most Western music, be it classical or popular forms. Heck, you could totally omit harmony, too, but that would be like cooking without any salt or spices--technically possible but not really what most want!
Quote from: Grazioso on April 19, 2010, 02:35:51 PM
I don't think you read my post very carefully, considering how badly you misrepresent it ;D
Really? Let's try this again then. :)
Quotethe fact that most of the classical warhorses are notable for, among other things, melodies that lodge in your head for a lifetime.
No, you do not speak for me. The melodies in the great works are not only not that memorable they do not lodge themselves in my head.
QuoteAnd a composer who can't write good melodies can never, imo, be truly great.
How horrible! How judgmental! How superficial! And how easy to defend! Why I simply say "hey what about Webern?" And you say "he writes such wonderful melodies! you'll never defeat my logic that way!" Repeat for any composer you please to. Only a fraction of great composers are known for being keen tunesmiths, and many tunesmiths of past are not considered great. This is what I was replying to, and I did not misrepresent you.
QuoteThat would be neglecting a key component of the craft and one of the thing most listeners seek most avidly.
What listeners? How can you speak for them all? Not everyone listens to music the way that you do, and in fact only a fraction do. Some are drawn to rhythm first, others harmony first, some melody first, some are only moved by an overall impression not dictated by any one factor. Do most listeners seek melody avidly? No. Not even in the world of pop, just as many are drawn to the beat more than they are a melody.
Quoteand also that a great composer should be able to move a listener emotionally,
Nope, disagree as I've said before (in another thread) that is limiting and superficial purpose to impose on great art that transcends such limitations. 8)
Quoteand a good melody has tremendous power to do just that, eliciting goosebumps, tears, etc. There's much more to music than that, but it's a big part.
Well melody has ZERO power to do that for me, without development and a sense of overall narrative there would no sense of tension or drama and I would have no emotional response. If simply the melody can do that for you, well you are an easy audience and you can even find satisfaction with minimalism (or should I say patience). But I crave more, many people perhaps most people crave more. :)
Quote from: springrite on April 19, 2010, 09:45:59 AM
Kimi loves catchy tunes, especially those composed by Daddy, like "Sweet Little Kimi".
What tone row is that one in?
Anyway Grazioso, I'll just tolerate your opinion that melody is moving to you, and you consider it essential to you. And let's leave greatness out of the picture or sweeping descriptions of what people need other than you, and then I'll be perfectly happy. :)
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 04:15:09 PM
No, you do not speak for me. The melodies in the great works are not only not that memorable they do not lodge themselves in my head.
:o
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 04:30:28 PM
:o
Moohahaha!! That's right! >:D I don't listen for a good tune. >:D
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 04:36:38 PM
Moohahaha!! That's right! >:D I don't listen for a good tune. >:D
You must hate pop music. :)
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 04:38:15 PM
You must hate pop music. :)
Nah, it's easy I listen for the beat. It's also a mistake to think of pop as only catchy tune + chorus. :P :D
You know there was an online test I took awhile back to see how sensitive you are to differences in melody, rhythm and harmony and I was really strong on rhythm, good on harmony and merely acceptable on melody. So what I like, is also what I'm most sensitive to. Makes sense. :)
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 04:44:44 PM
Nah, it's easy I listen for the beat. It's also a mistake to think of pop as only catchy tune + chorus. :P :D
You know there was an online test I took awhile back to see how sensitive you are to differences in melody, rhythm and harmony and I was really strong on rhythm, good on harmony and merely acceptable on melody. So what I like, is also what I'm most sensitive to. Makes sense. :)
So, you're tune-deaf. ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 04:46:25 PM
So, you're tune-deaf. ;D
Well I can recognize a tune, but correctly identifying if another one is a subtle variation by melody alone or the original again is harder on me than others. Don't get me wrong, I can pass an amusia test 100%, but the harder tests are tricky for me.
Well, fortunately there are many elements to good music. 0:)
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 04:52:48 PM
Well, fortunately there are many elements to good music. 0:)
Well my wallet would be significantly heavier if there was only that one element. ;D
Anyway let's settle this gmg style-- with a poll! Wait I didn't have Beethoven as an option. ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 04:38:15 PM
You must hate pop music. :)
A lot of successful pop music has negligible melody.
I mean, who here thinks that Bob Dylan can carry a tune? ; )
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 04:52:48 PM
Well, fortunately there are many elements to good music. 0:)
QFT
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 19, 2010, 06:06:40 PM
A lot of successful pop music has negligible melody.
I mean, who here thinks that Bob Dylan can carry a tune? ; )
And if you think he can, listen to this--
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PZE0VC9-L._SS400_.jpg)
Cringe ;D
That's a good record.
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 01:26:34 PM
Bach borrowed tunes more than wrote them. Beethoven, like Haydn, used simple motifs to develop on, once or twice they are catchy usually not. None of them including Schubert had the gift of crafting pretty and catchy tunes like Rossini, Vivaldi and Telemann.
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.
And I have no idea what "tunes" you are talking about in Vivaldi.
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 01:00:10 PM
There is so much great music that has a complete absence of catchy tunes
No there isn't.
Classical music fans despise "catchy tunes", but they just love their "strong thematic material". :)
what's the difference between a melody and the long line. Could it be a melody which is outstanding but doesn't stand out? It's all a matter of sensing patterns...and some really do strain one's sensing apparatus but when accomplished it turns into a melody nevertheless!
What would be the minimum number of notes required to create a "melody"?
Quote from: Dan on April 20, 2010, 12:48:08 AM
What would be the minimum number of notes required to create a "melody"?
Well, I'd say it takes only two notes to make something which is "melodic".
Quote from: eyeresist on April 20, 2010, 12:51:18 AM
Well, I'd say it takes only two notes to make something which is "melodic".
Thanks for your response, eyeresist, but are you saying that there is such a thing as a
"2-note melody"?
(Not trying to be difficult, just looking for a definitive answer, if there is one to be had.)
Quote from: Dan on April 20, 2010, 01:34:40 AM
Thanks for your response, eyeresist, but are you saying that there is such a thing as a "2-note melody"?
(Not trying to be difficult, just looking for a definitive answer, if there is one to be had.)
Jaws starts off with two notes. Might be as close as you get to an example.
If all it takes is two notes to be melodic, then any music with intervals has melody.
I like that, because then the insistence that music have melody doesn't bin hardly any of the literature ; )
Quote from: MN Dave on April 19, 2010, 06:22:31 PM
That's a good record.
Dude, you dig zombie movies, too : )
Quote from: Dan on April 20, 2010, 12:48:08 AM
What would be the minimum number of notes required to create a "melody"?
Beethoven wrote one note, repeated it twelve times, and created one of the most simple yet "catchiest" melodies in music: the beginning of the main theme of the Allegretto, Seventh Symphony.
Sarge
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 20, 2010, 03:04:40 AM
Dude, you dig zombie movies, too : )
Not especially. What's your point?
I'd agree that it takes at least two notes to make a melody and that it takes a special talent to create a memorable melody.
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 04:44:44 PM
Nah, it's easy I listen for the beat. It's also a mistake to think of pop as only catchy tune + chorus. :P :D
You know there was an online test I took awhile back to see how sensitive you are to differences in melody, rhythm and harmony and I was really strong on rhythm, good on harmony and merely acceptable on melody. So what I like, is also what I'm most sensitive to. Makes sense. :)
No offense, but it's odd of you to be commenting on the importance of melody in (classical) music when you say you have a hard time recognizing/differentiating it. That would be like a color-blind person stating that color isn't that important in Van Gogh or Monet's work, mostly just the composition or linear elements.
And to quote my original post, since you willfully overlook this part ;)
QuoteOTOH, a catchy tune isn't as vital in classical music since form, harmony, dynamics, tone color, etc. tend to be refined to a much higher degree than in popular music genres and can carry the weight of the work in the absence of a memorable tune.
That part of why I love classical music: it doesn't rely just on catchy tunes or driving 4/4 rhythms, but instead it tends to develop thematic material over long stretches, play with and vary rhythm, build complex harmonies, etc. You can find catchy rhythms or melodies in lots of pop music genres, but classical offers a bunch more.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2010, 03:54:04 AM
Beethoven wrote one note, repeated it twelve times, and created one of the most simple yet "catchiest" melodies in music: the beginning of the main theme of the Allegretto, Seventh Symphony.
But the thirteenth and fourteenth notes are the kickers! ; )Well observed, Sarge.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 20, 2010, 04:16:00 AM
Not especially. What's your point?
Tellin' you all the zombie troof, here I'm is, the zombie wolf.
Quote from: Grazioso on April 20, 2010, 04:35:31 AM
No offense, but it's odd of you to be commenting on the importance of melody in (classical) music when you say you have a hard time recognizing/differentiating it. That would be like a color-blind person stating that color isn't that important in Van Gogh or Monet's work, mostly just the composition or linear elements.
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.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 19, 2010, 06:48:15 PM
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.
Case in point that wonderful melody in bwv 140-- not Bach. Really it's not Bach. In fact that is one of his most memorable tunes and it wasn't him. I'm not saying that he didn't write his own melodies alot of the time (well if I did then I take it back) but nothing illustrates the point more than taking a great work and saying "hey look at this genius!" about a melody not penned by the master. What makes the bwv 140, and well all of his works great, is not melody but harmonization.
Quote
And I have no idea what "tunes" you are talking about in Vivaldi.
Please he might not have the sophisticated interplay between rhythm and counterpoint that Bach has, nor the brilliant dynamics in evolution of a theme, but his themes overall are MUCH BETTER. He is really a master of melody, and not many can stand as high as him in the baroque era in that regard. Certainly not Bach. I don't know why so many struggle with showing any level of respect to Vivaldi's music in anyway. :-\
Quote from: eyeresist on April 19, 2010, 07:17:15 PM
No there isn't.
Classical music fans despise "catchy tunes", but they just love their "strong thematic material". :)
Who are these "classical music fans" and why do you speak for them? As I've said if I'm proved wrong in the gmg poll I started, then so be it and I'll admit it, but until don't speak for everyone as if they share your personal preferences. :)
Quote from: DavidW link=topic=16192.msg407945#msg407945Please he might not have the sophisticated interplay between rhythm and counterpoint that Bach has, nor the brilliant dynamics in evolution of a theme, but his themes overall are MUCH BETTER. He is really a master of melody, and not many can stand as high as him in the baroque era in that regard. Certainly not Bach. I don't know why so many struggle with showing any level of respect to Vivaldi's music in anyway. :-\
Just because Bach has other things going for him doesn't mean his melodies are not good. I can't think of a single melody of Vivaldi that can compare with the melodic inspirations of Bach.
Bach's melodies are at most times more subtle which can be a good thing in the long run.
Le quattro stagioni is just a river of catchiness.
And Bach himself appreciated Vivaldi's gifts, or he would not have transcribed so many works del maestro veneziano.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 20, 2010, 05:34:52 AM
Just because Bach has other things going for him doesn't mean his melodies are not good. I can't think of a single melody of Vivaldi that can compare with the melodic inspirations of Bach.
Well heck sometimes Bach does write a good melody, but rarely. Vivaldi, Telemann, Handel are always melodically inventive and that's probably why they are so popular, they were good tunesmiths with a knack for Italian style proto-galant, that simpler homophonic sound goes hand in hand with melody. Bach's heavy, germanic style of thick, textured counterpoint is usually not as melodic in comparison. And the audience at the time felt that way, many had written that Bach's music was challenging and complex but rewarding. He drew an audience but just never attained the same popularity of some of his contemporaries.
Re: "2-note melody"Quote from: ukrneal on April 20, 2010, 02:42:23 AM
Jaws starts off with two notes. Might be as close as you get to an example.
I would have thought of those two notes as a "motif", rather than a "melody". Are these terms interchangeable? (Or am I wrong to call that a "motif", to begin with?)
I've always thought that the term "melody" referred to something a little more substantial and, well, .... lengthy, but I am just a layman listener, searching for clues. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/smiley.gif) Thanks.
I think Bach wrote great melodies in every work he composed.
For example, I consider the subjects of his fugues great melodies, exhibiting various strengths: refined melodic arcs, rhythmic variety, and they have the added strength of offering excellent contrapuntal potential being just as good played backwards or inverted. Most are very "catchy" and easily recognizable and very singable. And in his fugues there's not just one great melody, but two or three - complementing each other and offering contrast and support at the same time.
Not too shabby, IMO.
Okay, Rachmaninoff it isn't (his melodies are so good they've been made into pop songs) - but to say that Bach did not write great gobs of catchy tunes is not what my ears tell me.
Quote from: DavidW on April 20, 2010, 05:49:08 AM
Bach's heavy, germanic style of thick, textured counterpoint is usually not as melodic in comparison.
Well, and one of Bach's sons IIRC (I should go back to Evening in the Palace of Reason and double-check just who it was) annoyed Old Bach by building a sort of musical slide-rule demostrating the automated nature of counterpoint . . . .
Quote from: Franco on April 20, 2010, 06:01:43 AM
I think Bach wrote great melodies in every work he composed.
For example, I consider the subjects of his fugues great melodies, exhibiting various strengths: refined melodic arcs, rhythmic variety, and they have the added strength of offering excellent contrapuntal potential being just as good played backwards or inverted. Most are very "catchy" and easily recognizable and very singable. And in his fugues there's not just one great melody, but two or three - complementing each other and offering contrast and support at the same time.
Not too shabby, IMO.
The discourse is trending to a point I've made repeatedly in the past, viz. that many of us talk about melody (and especially great melody) as if it were somehow a fixed quantity; but each musical era decides for itself (oh, indulge my pathetic fallacy here, friends) what a great tune is.
And a good melody for a six-voice fugue is going to have traits quite different to those of a Rakhmaninov romance.
QuoteBach's heavy, germanic style of thick, textured counterpoint is usually not as melodic in comparison.
Or you could say Bach's music is even more melodic in comparison because he wrote not just one melody but one or more counter-melodies too. More melody for the price of one. Bach, the true melodic master...at least in quantity ;D
Edit: Just saw Franco's post above. Really, I did not steal your idea, dude. But you obviously said it first.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2010, 06:19:25 AM
Or you could say Bach's music is even more melodic in comparison because he wrote not just one melody but one or more counter-melodies too. More melody for the price of one. Bach, the true melodic master...at least in quantity ;D
Is that like saying the meat must be of higher quality, because there are six sauces layered over it? ; )
Sarge likes quantity, he is a Mahlerite after all. ;D Oh wait, that applies to me too... :-[
:D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 20, 2010, 06:10:34 AM
The discourse is trending to a point I've made repeatedly in the past, viz. that many of us talk about melody (and especially great melody) as if it were somehow a fixed quantity; but each musical era decides for itself (oh, indulge my pathetic fallacy here, friends) what a great tune is.
And a good melody for a six-voice fugue is going to have traits quite different to those of a Rakhmaninov romance.
Nah.
Quote from: DavidW on April 20, 2010, 05:49:08 AM
Well heck sometimes Bach does write a good melody, but rarely. Vivaldi, Telemann, Handel are always melodically inventive and that's probably why they are so popular, they were good tunesmiths with a knack for Italian style proto-galant, that simpler homophonic sound goes hand in hand with melody. Bach's heavy, germanic style of thick, textured counterpoint is usually not as melodic in comparison. And the audience at the time felt that way, many had written that Bach's music was challenging and complex but rewarding. He drew an audience but just never attained the same popularity of some of his contemporaries.
This post makes me wonder if you've ever listened to Bach at all. Bach didn't limit himself to a "heavy germanic style of thick textured counterpoint." He certainly created dense textures in some music, but also enjoyed writing in the French and Italian style, which overflow with wonderful melodies. I can't imagine that anyone who has heard the second movement of Bach's concerto for two violins, or the cello suite in E-flat, could say that Bach did not write extraordinary melodies.
I'm sure a fight could be had about what a "good" melody is.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 20, 2010, 06:53:27 AM
Nah.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 20, 2010, 07:21:25 AM
Double that and you've got yerself a melody!
Multiply it several times and you have yourself a
great melody:
Nah nah, nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey jude
;D :D 8)
Sarge
Quote from: MN Dave on April 20, 2010, 07:42:55 AM
I'm sure a fight could be had about what a "good" melody is.
Well, I've given several examples in post above, perhaps other peoples impressions will be different.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2010, 07:48:21 AM
Multiply it several times and you have yourself a great melody:
Nah nah, nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey jude
;D :D 8)
Sarge
By the melody-meister himself: Paul McCartney.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 20, 2010, 07:50:23 AM
...perhaps other peoples impressions will be different.
hence the fight. ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on April 20, 2010, 07:52:01 AM
By the melody-meister himself: Paul McCartney.
Without the rhythm and harmony, that melody's merde.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 20, 2010, 07:53:31 AM
Without the rhythm and harmony, that melody's merde.
I flat out disagree.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 20, 2010, 07:53:31 AM
Without the rhythm and harmony, that melody's merde.
Them's fightin' words, pal.
:)
Quote from: Scarpia on April 19, 2010, 06:48:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 20, 2010, 08:04:16 AMNow 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.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 20, 2010, 05:36:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 20, 2010, 08:09:36 AM
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.
Quote from: DavidW on April 20, 2010, 08:15:46 AM
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.
Quote from: DavidW on April 20, 2010, 05:20:43 AM
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.
Heck, we've all got our own ears.
Quote from: Grazioso on April 20, 2010, 06:10:39 PM
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.
QuoteYou 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.
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. ;D
Powder their wigs but good!
Quote from: DavidW on April 21, 2010, 06:18:59 AM
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
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 21, 2010, 06:44:45 AM
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.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 21, 2010, 06:57:33 AM
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.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 21, 2010, 07:07:33 AM
Are you here using song generically to mean any piece of music? (Which is not an uncommon usage, of course.)
Yep. Sorry.
No worries, mon cher.
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.
Then again, something can grow on you just because you listen to it often.
Three of my favorite melodies:
"Evidence" - Thelonius Monk: remarkable for its rhythmic surprise
"Nefertiti" - Wayne Shorter: fantastic in how the entire original Miles Davis Quintet performance the horns repeat the melody over and over and the drums/bass/piano improvise around it
"Wave" - Antonio Carlos Jobim: a great melody that is deceptively hard to sing
Quote from: DavidW on April 21, 2010, 06:03:35 AMYes it is a stretch, yes it is a personal attack.
The analogy may have been overreaching, but I saw no intention to make what would be perceived as a personal attack.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2010, 03:54:04 AM
Beethoven wrote one note, repeated it twelve times, and created one of the most simple yet "catchiest" melodies in music: the beginning of the main theme of the Allegretto, Seventh Symphony.
And the chord at the beginning of the Opus 53 piano sonata . . . repeated for a total of 14 times . . . not what we'd normally call melody.
Quote from: Dan on April 20, 2010, 01:34:40 AM
Thanks for your response, eyeresist, but are you saying that there is such a thing as a "2-note melody"?
(Not trying to be difficult, just looking for a definitive answer, if there is one to be had.)
Well, we'll have to refine our terminology - "melody" in the sense of a complete self-contained "tune; versus "melodic phrase", a more versatile entity which I assume this thread is discussing.
I'm sure a "2-note melody" is possible, but it probably wouldn't be very enjoyable.
As for what differentiates a melodic phrase from a sequence of notes which is
not melodic, it must come down to the subjective values of memorability and aesthetic pleasure. The effect of the notes is more important than the theory behind the notes (IMNSHO).
Quote from: DavidWEquating 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.
Hilarious!
Quote from: Scarpia on April 20, 2010, 05:34:52 AM
I can't think of a single melody of Vivaldi that can compare with the melodic inspirations of Bach.
I think you got those two names the wrong way round. :D The memorable melodies of Bach are so rare that I suspect he must have stolen them from someone else. Good Lord, I'm agreeing with DavidW, someone call a doctor.
Quote from: eyeresist on April 21, 2010, 08:56:27 PM
Well, we'll have to refine our terminology - "melody" in the sense of a complete self-contained "tune; versus "melodic phrase", a more versatile entity which I assume this thread is discussing.
There certainly is a difference. The first catchy tunes that come to out attention are usually nursery rhymes. I bet most of you can remember many of these easily enough. Our musical tastes are now more sophisticated but we mustn't forget that for most people the tune is supreme. Presented with the most wonderful melodies any of you know they will say to you "Why don't you play something with a tune?". For them there is a difference indeed. They generally mean an old tune that they know and yet they will take on new tunes from popular culture.
To be fair what we consider as melodic music can be far more difficult since much may depend on subtle (or even radical) changes in harmony and counter melodies interacting with the principal melodic line. Whilst I value these aspects highly, I can see why they leave the uninitiated cold.
I think that the various ways in which tune is being used here, tune needn't be self-contained. I.e., it includes fragmentary musical objects.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 22, 2010, 02:32:29 AM
To be fair what we consider as melodic music can be far more difficult since much may depend on subtle (or even radical) changes in harmony and counter melodies interacting with the principal melodic line. Whilst I value these aspects highly, I can see why they leave the uninitiated cold.
That's fallacious. The deeper elements of the music, in fact, can immediately spark the "uninitiated," too. It is an absurd 2-D assertion to claim that only the "catchy tune" means anything to the "musically uninitiated."
Quote from: eyeresist on April 21, 2010, 08:56:27 PM
As for what differentiates a melodic phrase from a sequence of notes which is not melodic, it must come down to the subjective values of memorability and aesthetic pleasure. The effect of the notes is more important than the theory behind the notes (IMNSHO).
Nicely put. Thanks again. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 21, 2010, 06:44:45 AM
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
But you know that is a dishonest way of interpreting the results. For every person that chose melody first, there is another person that wouldn't. Those that put melody on special grounds are indeed fighting several categories, and not one individual like harmony. To compare them individually does not make sense.
To make a comparison imagine if we had a favorite composers poll and Beethoven individually had at least 3 times as many votes as any other composer. By your logic he is a winner, and clearly a gmg favorite BY FAR. But what if his total percentage was only 30%? Would he still be viewed as completely dominating a poll in which 7 out of 10 would not pick him as a favorite? From that perspective he is more popular than any other individual composer but a claim such as "most people strongly prefer Beethoven to any other composer" would be seen to be false. :)
Quote from: eyeresist on April 21, 2010, 08:56:27 PM
Hilarious!
Quote from: Scarpia on April 21, 2010, 07:47:24 AM
The analogy may have been overreaching, but I saw no intention to make what would be perceived as a personal attack.
Okay I was really over the top, I admit it. I think that he simply misinterpreted my post, and I was offended by it. I should have clarified my post and then moved on instead of assuming that he meant to insult me. I'm sorry Grazioso.
Quote from: DavidW on April 23, 2010, 06:52:03 AM
To make a comparison imagine if we had a favorite composers poll and Beethoven individually had at least 3 times as many votes as any other composer. By your logic he is a winner, and clearly a gmg favorite BY FAR. But what if his total percentage was only 30%? Would he still be viewed as completely dominating a poll in which 7 out of 10 would not pick him as a favorite? From that perspective he is more popular than any other individual composer but a claim such as "most people strongly prefer Beethoven to any other composer" would be seen to be false. :)
I think if Beethoven scored three times as many votes than any other composer, then yes, I think one could truthfully say that most people strongly prefer Beethoven to any other composer. Say, there were 100 votes and Beethoven's tally was 30 to his next closest competitor with 10, that is a pretty lopsided outcome, IMO. The fact that Beethoven's 30 votes out of 100 is 30% is irrelevant, since all other composers would score 10% or less, an even less impressive result.
7 times out of 10 at-bats a hitter is called out, yet a .300 hitter is considered a success.
No Franco, by any other I mean over all others and not any specific. I was not careful enough in my wording.
The whole point is that you are not comparing against any specific other choice, but to all of them. I shouldn't have bothered with an analogy, it's clear enough as it is. Can one say that melody is strongly preferred by most people? NO. Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if individually melody outperforms harmony, individually melody outperforms no preference because as a whole melody does not outperform the other aspects of music.
The dichotomy is between melody and other, not melody and harmony nor melody and rhythm. The dichotomy can only be drawn between melody and whatever is not melody.
Quote from: DavidW on April 23, 2010, 06:52:03 AM
But you know that is a dishonest way of interpreting the results.
Dishonest? Not at all. Just another way, and a legitimate way, to interpret the data.
Quote from: DavidW on April 23, 2010, 06:52:03 AM
From that perspective he is more popular than any other individual composer but a claim such as "most people strongly prefer Beethoven to any other composer" would be seen to be false. :)
Well, if you don't like my conclusion let me try another: The vast majority of those who contributed to the poll either voted for melody or no preference, meaning, that even those who voted the latter consider melody to be just as important as any other element and obviously have as strong a preference for it (unlike those who specifically voted harmony, tone color or rhythm).
My conclusion? Melody rules even among the no preferencers ;D
(Your poll results may vary.)Sarge
Quote from: DavidW on April 23, 2010, 06:52:03 AM
To make a comparison imagine if we had a favorite composers poll and Beethoven individually had at least 3 times as many votes as any other composer. By your logic he is a winner, and clearly a gmg favorite BY FAR. But what if his total percentage was only 30%? Would he still be viewed as completely dominating a poll in which 7 out of 10 would not pick him as a favorite? From that perspective he is more popular than any other individual composer but a claim such as "most people strongly prefer Beethoven to any other composer" would be seen to be false. :)
Is your definition of "most" a number over 50 per cent? If it is, then yes, I would agree it would be false. But my definition of most (confirmed by Websters) is "the greatest in amount or number." In that case, yes, most people like Beethoven. Most people prefer melody (in other words, the greatest number of people in the poll chose melody over the other choices).
Perhaps that's the difference between you and Grazioso: you two were defining most in different ways. Hence the conflict.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 23, 2010, 07:37:32 AM
Is your definition of "most" a number over 50 per cent? If it is, then yes, I would agree it would be false. But my definition of most (confirmed by Websters) is "the greatest in amount or number." In that case, yes, most people like Beethoven. Most people prefer melody (in other words, the greatest number of people in the poll chose melody over the other choices).
Perhaps that's the difference between you and Grazioso: you two were defining most in different ways. Hence the conflict.
Sarge
Well okay, but... by most I mean 70% minimum, and that seemed to go hand in hand with Grazioso's claim that those that are not good at writing melody are not great composers. The direction you're moving in would not cause you to make such a claim. In my hypothetical Beethoven poll, nobody would claim that anyone else besides Beethoven is not great (not even JdP).
The thing is that you lump the no preference crowd with the melody crowd, but a no preference crowd can overlook a less than pleasing melodic line if together with the other elements the music as a whole is still great. The melody crowd would not be so forgiving, since they admitting prefer melody over the other elements. And that is why it is not legitimate to lump them together as you have done.
What I'm really replying to is the assertion that music is only great, if it has great melody.
Quote from: DavidW on April 23, 2010, 07:58:38 AM
What I'm really replying to is the assertion that music is only great, if it has great melody.
Well that assertion is obviously wrong, IMO, and needs no convoluted argument to refute.
Elliott Carter.
I think the poll was posed in a way that was destined to result in an ambiguous result (barring 100% response for "melody"). Many people were frustrated by the fact that they had no choice put to describe one element of music as all important, or give up. I have started a new poll which I think will allow people to describe their interest in melody more naturally.
I'm late, and I have no intention nor interest to page through this humongous thread. Therefore I am, of course, most likely stating the bloody obvious: melody, rhythm and harmony are always there, simultaneously. What would the recitative in LvB's Op. 31 no. 2 be without the harmony that was built for the recitative to enter. What would the recitative itself be without the rhythm within it? Play the notes not minding the time measures - there will be absolutely no tension at all.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 23, 2010, 08:28:19 AM
Many people were frustrated by the fact that they had no choice put to describe one element of music as all important, or give up. I have started a new poll which I think will allow people to describe their interest in melody more naturally.
Then many people can't read. :D
Quote from: DavidW on April 19, 2010, 04:53:38 PM
And by "most" I mean "more than" and NOT "to the exclusion of all else".
I chose the four options based on Copland's classification which has never to my knowledge been challenged on this forum, I then added a "no preference" option for it to be considered logically complete. How is that a deliberate attempt to create a poll with mixed results?
You can refute my interpretation of the poll results, you can refute Copland's classification, but your accusation that it was constructed in order to draw a null result is laughable.
Quote from: matti on April 23, 2010, 09:06:11 AM
. . . Play the notes not minding the time measures - there will be absolutely no tension at all.
Jn Cage & Morton Feldman might just like it that way, of course.
Quote from: DavidW on April 23, 2010, 09:19:51 AMI chose the four options based on Copland's classification which has never to my knowledge been challenged on this forum, I then added a "no preference" option for it to be considered logically complete. How is that a deliberate attempt to create a poll with mixed results?
You can refute my interpretation of the poll results, you can refute Copland's classification, but your accusation that it was constructed in order to draw a null result is laughable.
I don't have any quibble with the classifications. My problem is that it required people to make a binary choices, I like melody, I like harmony, or I like all things equally (no preference). Are there people who are in between who don't feel comfortable with picking all or nothing? I decided it would be interesting to probe the levels of primacy of melody. The poll can be repeated for rhythm, harmony, tone color, or whatever aspect of music people might be curious about.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 22, 2010, 03:59:32 AM
That's fallacious. The deeper elements of the music, in fact, can immediately spark the "uninitiated," too. It is an absurd 2-D assertion to claim that only the "catchy tune" means anything to the "musically uninitiated."
Maybe uninitiated was the wrong word - I mean the ordinary man or woman with little interest in classical music and in this respect I assure you that from extensive experience there is much truth on my assertion.