Catchy Tunes

[MN Dave]

That's a good record.

[Scarpia]

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.

[eyeresist]

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".

[max]

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!

[WI Dan]

What would be the minimum number of notes required to create a "melody"? 

[eyeresist]

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".

[WI Dan]

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.)

[mc ukrneal]

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.

[karlhenning]

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 ; )

[karlhenning]

That's a good record.

Dude, you dig zombie movies, too : )

[Sergeant Rock]

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

[MN Dave]

Dude, you dig zombie movies, too : )

Not especially. What's your point?

[MN Dave]

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.

[Grazioso]

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.

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 

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.

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

Not especially. What's your point?

Tellin' you all the zombie troof, here I'm is, the zombie wolf.

[DavidW]

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.

[DavidW]

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.

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.

[DavidW]

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.

[Scarpia]

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.

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.