Catchy Tunes

[Franco]

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

[Scarpia]

Yes 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.

[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.

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.

[eyeresist]

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).

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.

Hilarious!

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. 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.

[Ten thumbs]

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[karlhenning]

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."

[WI Dan]

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.   

[DavidW]

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.

[DavidW]

Hilarious!

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.

[Franco]

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.

[DavidW]

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.

[Sergeant Rock]

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.

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   (Your poll results may vary.)

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

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

[DavidW]

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.

[Franco]

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.

[Scarpia]

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.

[matti]

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.

[DavidW]

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.

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.

[karlhenning]

. . . 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.