Catchy Tunes

[MN Dave]

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.

Bach, Schubert and Beethoven had catchy tunes galore.

[DavidW]

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.

[MN Dave]

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.

[DavidW]

Lies.

Embrace them for what they truly are!  Masters of harmony!  Don't give into hero worship, that way you turn into JdP!

[MN Dave]

I'm just saying, I hear tons of melody in those composers' works. 

[Grazioso]

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.

I don't think you read my post very carefully, considering how badly you misrepresent it   

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.

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!

[DavidW]

I don't think you read my post very carefully, considering how badly you misrepresent it   

Really?  Let's try this again then.

the 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.

And 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.

That 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.

and 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.

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.

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.

[greg]

Kimi loves catchy tunes, especially those composed by Daddy, like "Sweet Little Kimi".

What tone row is that one in?

[DavidW]

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.

[MN Dave]

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.

[DavidW]

Moohahaha!!  That's right!   I don't listen for a good tune.

[MN Dave]

Moohahaha!!  That's right!   I don't listen for a good tune.

You must hate pop music. 

[DavidW]

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.

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.

[MN Dave]

Nah, it's easy I listen for the beat.  It's also a mistake to think of pop as only catchy tune + chorus.

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. 

[DavidW]

So, you're tune-deaf. 

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.

[MN Dave]

Well, fortunately there are many elements to good music.  0:)

[DavidW]

Well, fortunately there are many elements to good music.  0:)

Well my wallet would be significantly heavier if there was only that one element.

Anyway let's settle this gmg style-- with a poll!  Wait I didn't have Beethoven as an option.

[karlhenning]

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? ; )

[karlhenning]

Well, fortunately there are many elements to good music.  0:)

QFT

[DavidW]

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--



Cringe