GMG Classical Music Forum

Our previous poll on the subject, asking people to pick on element in music or give up, seemed to be conceived to achieve an ambiguous result.  I think this poll will allow voters to represent their interest in melody, compared with other elements in music.

Note added:  For the purpose of this pole you can take this definition of melody, which I found in Webster's dictionary:

a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole

Scarpia:

You might want to alter the first choice.

Quote from: Bulldog on April 23, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Scarpia:

You might want to alter the first choice.

Thanks, done.

(It originally read, "melody represents the juxtaposition of Dionysian and Apollonian architectonics.)   8)

Quote from: Scarpia on April 23, 2010, 08:56:52 AM
Thanks, done.

(It originally read, "melody represents the juxtaposition of Dionysian and Apollonian architectonics.)   8)

Dang, and that would have been my first choice.  ;D

--Bruce

I know what I'd like to see: a poll that doesn't assume the major term. Some attempt at definition, so that our choices actually make some sense. Oh, wait. I just realized what I said! I want a poll that makes sense!!

Never mind.

(I'm going to just sit in the corner now and juxtapose some Dionysian and Apollonian architectonics.)

I don't think melody is very important much less a deciding factor, but I do enjoy a well written melody.  Life is too short to get hung up on these choices.

I voted for "One among many..." in this poll, and I feel like I voted for exactly the same thing as I did with "no preference" in the other. I will concede that the questions are worded a bit more towards the least common denominator respondent in this one...  0:)

8)

Quote from: some guy on April 23, 2010, 09:20:09 AM
I know what I'd like to see: a poll that doesn't assume the major term. Some attempt at definition, so that our choices actually make some sense. Oh, wait. I just realized what I said! I want a poll that makes sense!!

Then create your own poll, but it's a lock that one or more other members will complain about it.

Quote from: Franco on April 23, 2010, 09:39:29 AM
I don't think melody is very important much less a deciding factor, but I do enjoy a well written melody.  Life is too short to get hung up on these choices.

I think I'm 100% with you on this.  But there is always time to get hung up on such things!! ;D

Quote from: some guy on April 23, 2010, 09:20:09 AM
I know what I'd like to see: a poll that doesn't assume the major term. Some attempt at definition, so that our choices actually make some sense. Oh, wait. I just realized what I said! I want a poll that makes sense!!

Never mind.

(I'm going to just sit in the corner now and juxtapose some Dionysian and Apollonian architectonics.)

The discussion of what is melody occurred on that catchy tunes thread.  I don't know what the consensus is but this poll looks complete to me, though I think holes are easily poked in all polls.  Wait, I should create another poll! *everyone groans* :D

It all depends on whether or not it is Edith Piaf singing it.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 23, 2010, 09:51:44 AM
It all depends on whether or not it is Edith Piaf singing it.

I get the impression, that for you, that would not enhance the importance of melody.

I could actually have voted for both of the following, but in the event, I selected the latter:

QuoteMelody is important, but in relation to other elements such as harmony and rhythm

Melody is one among many elements in music that I appreciate equally

Quote from: Franco on April 23, 2010, 09:53:09 AM
I get the impression, that for you, that would not enhance the importance of melody.

But who knows how I'll think about it when I'm 70?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 23, 2010, 09:56:40 AM
But who knows how I'll think about it when I'm 70?

How do you feel about Buffy St. Marie?

I'm trying to ascertain the relative importance of the goat vibrato and its impact on melody.

Quote from: James on April 23, 2010, 09:59:34 AM
this poll is just as dumb as the other one, missing the point, isolating one element ... melody comes in many shapes, sizes & guises ...  it also has rhythmic and harmonic content. Harmonies & chords have melodic contours, direction, atmospheres etc. Rhythmic phrases & patterns can be sung, feed melody with accents, provide drive, character etc. It all has to be made to work together to form something special & beautiful.

It is for you that I included the option "I am too confused to answer."   8)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 23, 2010, 09:55:08 AM
I could actually have voted for both of the following, but in the event, I selected the latter:

I agree that the two choices you cite are very similar, in the end they might be summed together.  I put it in because I am attracted to the notion that that beauty of a melody sometimes comes from its interaction with other musical elements.  For instance, is the melody that begins Bruckner Symphony No 7, first movement remarkable in itself, or only in the context of the remarkable harmonic progressions that accompany it?

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2010, 09:42:12 AM
I voted for "One among many..." in this poll, and I feel like I voted for exactly the same thing as I did with "no preference" in the other. I will concede that the questions are worded a bit more towards the least common denominator respondent in this one...

You have a point, but in the previous pole "no preference" seemed to indicate complete lack of preference between all of the various elements, melody, rhythm, harmony.  I couldn't pick it because I have a inclination towards harmony over rhythm.   I think by focusing on one aspect (melody) and scale people will be able to find a category that they feel comfortable with.

Quote from: Scarpia on April 23, 2010, 10:54:21 AM
You have a point, but in the previous pole "no preference" seemed to indicate complete lack of preference between all of the various elements, melody, rhythm, harmony.  I couldn't pick it because I have a inclination towards harmony over rhythm.   I think by focusing on one aspect (melody) and scale people will be able to find a category that they feel comfortable with.

Oh I see what you mean now, okay yeah my poll doesn't address that type of issue.  That kind of poll would be quite complex though, if you really want to get all possible rankings.

Quote from: Scarpia on April 23, 2010, 10:49:51 AM...is the melody that begins Bruckner Symphony No 7, first movement remarkable in itself, or only in the context of the remarkable harmonic progressions that accompany it?

This I think is a good example of the cogency of James' remark about the whole situation. The key here is the word "accompany." The music that begins Bruckner's Symphony no. 7 is, like all music, a totality. One can, it is true, separate out some of the elements for discussion, but the total effect of the totality comes from everything sounding together. Like totally!

I'd like to add that I would not phrase things as James has done, either. If "accompany" is false, then so is "feed" and "provide." Seems to me that we've been so accustomed by the vocabulary of theory (whether we've actually attended a theory class or not) to view music as compounded of separable elements, that we've lost sight of the most palpable and obvious things that a moment of actual listening would reveal. That music (indeed all sound) is complex. We've all heard the truism that all melody "implies" harmony. But no melody has any sort of existence at all without the thing we call rhythm, music being something that takes place in time, after all.

Back to the opening of Bruckner's 7th. This music, like all music, is at the very least (leaving the description open for the transcendental stuff, you know) the total of melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, number of instruments, (ever changing) combinations of instruments,* tempo, dynamics, harmonics, phrasing and all the various patterns of echo set up by all these sounds bouncing off of walls and ceilings and the rapt and shining faces of the patrons in the hall. All of these things, inseparable, make up what we call Bruckner's 7th.

[Wow. What a long-winded way of saying "I don't think there's any such thing as melody "in itself"!!]

*No, of course Kodaly's sonata for solo** cello does not have any combinations of instruments.

**Yes, I'm aware that it's called a sonata for unaccompanied cello.

Quote from: some guy on April 23, 2010, 12:34:52 PM
This I think is a good example of the cogency of James' remark about the whole situation. The key here is the word "accompany." The music that begins Bruckner's Symphony no. 7 is, like all music, a totality. One can, it is true, separate out some of the elements for discussion, but the total effect of the totality comes from everything sounding together. Like totally!

I'd like to add that I would not phrase things as James has done, either. If "accompany" is false, then so is "feed" and "provide." Seems to me that we've been so accustomed by the vocabulary of theory (whether we've actually attended a theory class or not) to view music as compounded of separable elements, that we've lost sight of the most palpable and obvious things that a moment of actual listening would reveal. That music (indeed all sound) is complex. We've all heard the truism that all melody "implies" harmony. But no melody has any sort of existence at all without the thing we call rhythm, music being something that takes place in time, after all.

Back to the opening of Bruckner's 7th. This music, like all music, is at the very least (leaving the description open for the transcendental stuff, you know) the total of melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, number of instruments, (ever changing) combinations of instruments,* tempo, dynamics, harmonics, phrasing and all the various patterns of echo set up by all these sounds bouncing off of walls and ceilings and the rapt and shining faces of the patrons in the hall. All of these things, inseparable, make up what we call Bruckner's 7th.

[Wow. What a long-winded way of saying "I don't think there's any such thing as melody "in itself"!!]

*No, of course Kodaly's sonata for solo** cello does not have any combinations of instruments.

**Yes, I'm aware that it's called a sonata for unaccompanied cello.

It should be obvious that all elements of music are related to each other.   But that doesn't mean we can't analyze or discuss a piece of music with respect one one attribute rather than another or find ourselves reacting to one aspect of the music more strongly than another.   In any case, it's just a little poll, and I even included the third choice (Melody is important, but in relation to other elements such as harmony and rhythm) to reflect opinions such as you expressed.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2010, 09:42:12 AM
I will concede that the questions are worded a bit more towards the least common denominator respondent in this one...

8)

?

Now don't get at him. The poor old chap is just missing Sean somewhat.

My answer to the question: it depends.

An example: Try the Bachiana Brasileiras No 5. The voice supplies the sinuous melody which is taken up by the cellos. No one would listen to the accompaniment on its own. But as well as echoing fragments of the tune, the cellos supply a marvelous variety of rhythm, which with the voice is not then just an accompaniment, it becomes a partner and counterpart.

Both elements plus colour, mood and the contrast between the stabbing cellos and the mellifluous voice make the whole. With only one element you have a, well chest of drawers....without the drawers.

Mike

I chose the 3rd option, but really, should have chosen the 4th option (melody enjoyed equally among other elements in music).

I look to different composers for those different elements (some composers stress certain elements more, or so it seems).

If I'm in the mood for tremendous rhythmic, earthy patterns in classical music, I look for a guy like Stravinsky!  If I'm more in the mood for lighter, melancholic beauty, I'll shoot for some Schubert piano or chamber music.

Not that you can't have one without the other, it's just that some composers seem to lean more towards certain elements in their music.

Quote from: Brahmsian on April 24, 2010, 01:31:15 PM
I look to different composers for those different elements (some composers stress certain elements more, or so it seems).

QFT.

Quote from: Scarpia on April 23, 2010, 10:49:51 AM
...For instance, is the melody that begins Bruckner Symphony No 7, first movement remarkable in itself, or only in the context of the remarkable harmonic progressions that accompany it?

Yes. ;D It is both a remarkable melody, and remarkably a part of the whole.

I chose "Melody is important, but in context..." and I stand by that choice.  Yes, it's very true that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," but I would add that, without quality in the constituent parts, it is very unlikely that the whole will be compelling.  Let's continue with Bruckner 7: Would the melody be as effective if it were half-buried under orchestral accompaniment, instead of the shimmering, barely-there violin tremolos that actually back it?  Would it be as effective without that signature two-octave ascent?  And from another angle, could the tremolos be written any other way and be as effective?

This brings up an important point that I, as an orchestra player, feel is too seldom addressed: choice of instrument/s and dynamics.  In this symphonic opening, Bruckner very carefully marks the melody mf but the tremolos pp, so that the theme soars far above "the earth;" also, he uses cellos and horn on the first phrase but then replaces the horn with violas on the second; a very effective highlighting of the contrast between the first phrase's powerful accent and the second phrase's more narrow focus, with the cellos as the tonal link.  Thus we have a symphony in which not only is the whole astonishing and wonderful, but the constituent parts are beautifully constructed and detailed. 8)

I won't close the voting, but it seems like time to sum up.  I started this poll because a previous one along the same lines left people bickering on how to interpret the results; is melody of primary importance to most people, or not?  The results here make it clear that most people who replied respond strongly to melody but don't consider it the dominant element in classical music. 

This is no surprise to me, since if you want to hear melodies you can have them in spades by listening to popular music.   Classical music is distinguished by the complex interplay of all aspects of music, melody, harmony, counterpoint, tone color, rhythm, thematic development and transformation, etc.

For me melody is of primary importance but so are all the other things that give melody a great context. An example is the slow movement of Dvorak's cello concerto when the orchestra blasts (it happens twice) into that one melody. Sure, the tune itself is good but it stands out because of all the work that Dvorak's does in building it up.