Importance of melody

[Scarpia]

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.

[Chaszz]

I will concede that the questions are worded a bit more towards the least common denominator respondent in this one...

?

[knight66]

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

[Brahmsian]

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.

[karlhenning]

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

QFT.

[jochanaan]

...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. 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.

[Scarpia]

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.

[lisa needs braces]

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.