Problems with melody in songwriting

[BoneDigger]

When writing a song, they often tend to come out sounding similar, regardless of the key. So, when writing, do you guys tend to work out a melody and then add words, or is the melody more based on the words? I'm just trying to get a better handle on writing melody lines that are somewhat unique and catchy. Admittedly, writing the words isn't that awfully hard for me, but writing a catchy melody is very difficult for me.

[rick-slo]

Listen James Taylor, Jackson Browne, etc.. Most of their songs sound similar with the same chords, same type of riffs, etc..
Branch out on the chords and chord progressions you are using. Consider rhythmic changes. Listen to some alternative
music sources.

[Hotspur]

For me songs start with a seed - a hook. I don't know how to craft my way into a hook - so either I have one or I don't have a song.

That hook usually is melody and lyrics together - it's usually just a few measures.

From there, I try to develop out the melody - and I don't worry about words. It's about listening to where the song wants to go. I'll have my guitar in my hands and I'll try various chords to see what happens, but generally if I listen really hard there's a place the melody and chord progression wants to go.

Words are great, but nonsense syllables are fine, too. Lyrics are the easiest part for me, and they're easiest once I already have a melody.

[mr. beaumont]

I've written tunes a lot of different ways, but the best of them have ALWAYS started with melody.

[DukeX]

Song writing methods vary greatly, so there is no "correct" way.

Currently, I write the words and melody at the same time, not always, but almost always. The subject, point of view, and emotional slant of the song help guide both the lyrical and melodic direction as well as the genre.

[DupleMeter]

Sometimes you have to force yourself to write differently. As others have siad, there is no right or wrong way to write...but honing the creative process is always a part of it if you want to grow in a creative way.

I often get a requests from one of my publishers for a song that sounds a certain way or has a specific feel because they have a need for that...and I like that because I have to follow the instructions if I want to have my music placed. It kind of reminds me of college when I had songwriting assignments that had to adhere to certain parameters.

Other times I will say something like "I'm going to write a song and I'm going to start on the IV chord, and not get to the I chord until the chorus" or "I'm going to use chromatics in the melody and then figure out a way to harmonize them gracefully". You know, challenge myself to do something I wouldn't naturally do.

The other thing that helps is to listen to different styles of music. I'll go from Ella Fitzgerald to Sylva McNair to David Wilcox to traditional Eastern European Folk music. It's so fascinating to hear both the similarities and the differences in how melodies & harmonies are treated in different styles...and it broadens your horizons to new possibilities.

HTH

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Sometimes you have to force yourself to write differently. As others have siad, there is no right or wrong way to write...but honing the creative process is always a part of it if you want to grow in a creative way.

I often get a requests from one of my publishers for a song that sounds a certain way or has a specific feel because they have a need for that...and I like that because I have to follow the instructions if I want to have my music placed. It kind of reminds me of college when I had songwriting assignments that had to adhere to certain parameters.

Other times I will say something like "I'm going to write a song and I'm going to start on the IV chord, and not get to the I chord until the chorus" or "I'm going to use chromatics in the melody and then figure out a way to harmonize them gracefully". You know, challenge myself to do something I wouldn't naturally do.

The other thing that helps is to listen to different styles of music. I'll go from Ella Fitzgerald to Sylva McNair to David Wilcox to traditional Eastern European Folk music. It's so fascinating to hear both the similarities and the differences in how melodies & harmonies are treated in different styles...and it broadens your horizons to new possibilities.

HTH

Great post by a professional.

Some folks think that form, structure, and other parameters impede creativity. Others use it to spark creativity and grow as songwriters.

[Mr. Jelly]

Here is a creative trick to get a person out of a musical rut. Write some lyrics that rhyme in different places than your norm. Such as rhyming two words in the first line then two lines with no rhymes and a rhyme in the last line. Put chords to it that you like and make sense. It should get you off center.

[Todd Tipton]

Originally Posted by DukeX

...Some folks think that form, structure, and other parameters impede creativity. Others use it to spark creativity and grow as songwriters.

This too is a great post. I'm reminded of a couple of different experiences.

It has been said that if all one had were pencil and paper, it would roughly take 11.5 years to copy everything Bach wrote. With or without sleep? I don't remember. Lets just say it would take a very long time. Bach's music is not unlike many counterpoint homework assignments I used to have back in undergrad. My assignments were usually 4 to 8 measures long. It would often take me a couple of hours to finally get it "right." And even when it was finally right, it was very boring to listen to. Compare that with the wealth of great music Bach wrote. Had I been a composer in the time of Bach, I would have surely wrote a fraction of the music he wrote and almost all of that would have been the most boring material you could imagine. I would surely have been forgotten. Not to imply that I would have ever been remembered in the first place...LOL

In a different example, many times I hear players talk about certain music in a disparaging way because the form and structure are very simple. Almost always with this comes their confidence and ability to write music such as this. They mistake being able to understand the form and structure with being able to create something truly great within that form and structure.

I love all sorts of music. As do many people here. In spite of everything I listen to, one of the things that never ceases to amaze me is a great song using 3 or 4 chords, and a common form of intro, verse, chorus, etc. In my ears, the form is almost forgotten as I am taken on the magical journey of the great song.

I confess that I misread the post I'm quoting. In my mind I read something like, "Some folks think that form, structure, and other parameters are the ingredients to great music. Others use it as merely a vehicle." This clearly isn't what DukeX said at all. Regardless, I decided to leave my reply.

More to DukeX's point, I'll share something a bit more relevant. Don't misunderstand, I am not a composer, great song writer, or anything like that by any stretch of the imagination; its just not what I do. However, there have been times I've written something. Less times than I have fingers, I've created something I thought was worthwhile. Every single time I did, there was something there. Even if it was free form, there was still a form. There was structure. There were parameters: "I can do X, but I can't do y." That sort of thing. I couldn't imagine trying to create something without those parameters.

I was talking to a composer once when he made the point that the hardest thing to ask a composer to do is to just write anything. No rules. No guidelines. No parameters. He said that the first thing a good composer would do in that situation would be start making their own rules. His point was, that when we are confined to a narrow set of parameters, that is what it really takes to get the creativity started. Obviously, this is anecdotal. But this was at least one person who not only agreed with what DukeX was saying, but also viewed it as a necessity.

Something relevant to the original poster: I know of many composers that fall into a certain category: they have written some truly amazing pieces, yet most of their other work is, shall we say, less than stellar. I think the melody is key. Many, many people have a very difficult time with this. In my humble opinion, a great melody is the single most difficult thing to do. I might recommend taking a close listen to some of your favorite melodies. Start investigating what makes it great. And I don't mean analyzing the theory. Particularly the melodic contour. When does the melody get higher? When does it get lower? When are there large leaps? More importantly, when something is most exciting to you in a melody that you love, try to figure out what that is. What is happening. Experiment with trying to do some of the same things. And experience has taught me that less is more. Sometimes we find a great section that really makes the melody, and then try to apply the same tricks too often, not unlike a comedian going on too long with a joke. It kind of ruins it. I'd venture to guess that most of what you wrote is great. It might just need a little surprise in just the right spot.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by BoneDigger

When writing a song, they often tend to come out sounding similar, regardless of the key. So, when writing, do you guys tend to work out a melody and then add words, or is the melody more based on the words? I'm just trying to get a better handle on writing melody lines that are somewhat unique and catchy. Admittedly, writing the words isn't that awfully hard for me, but writing a catchy melody is very difficult for me.

The trick to catchiness is rhythm, not pitch. Play the rhythm of a familiar melody on one note, you're more likely to recognise it than if you play the right notes with a different rhythm.

The order of composition (melody, chords, words) can vary, but melody has to rule in the end. Melody is both pitch and rhythm, of course, and words need to fit logically, without unnatural or awkward rhythmic emphases (accents on weak syllables). So if you can build on the natural spoken rhythms of your lyrics - exaggerating and simplifying them to make musical rhythms - that can help.
I find words often have to be edited to make them fit. I will do that more often than keeping the original form of words and working out a melody that fits them. IOW, I prioritise melodic strength over lyrics. It's easier to find an alternative way of saying something (with the right number of syllables and a rhyme) than it is to find a good melody to fit the way you might say it in speech. Of course, if you're lucky, the two coincide from the start.

There's that nice story of 'Yesterday', where Paul McCartney found the tune in his head, but had no words. He made up some "place-holder" words while he worked on it: "scrambled eggs, oh baby how I love your legs". The phrasing is clear and strong, and that's what matters; that, and the shape of the melody, is the hook. The good words can come later. (I've often felt with some REM songs that Michael Stipe just kept the nonsense words he started with....)

I also like the quote of Bob Dylan's, when asked what aspect of his work he was most proud of: "making the words fit". Not poetry or melody (or literature!), but a kind of simple, unpretentious carpentry. I.e., strength of structure is perhaps the most important thing. When you make a chair, the first essential is it must be strong enough to sit on, and reasonably comfortable. How it looks is secondary. That's what "design" means: function first, aesthetics later. When I look at great songs, that's what strikes me first - they are sturdy, they "stand up". At least one aspect of them, IOW, is simple.

[macmanmatty]

When I write a song the words and melody are married IE they both come at the same time. I write the words with the melody. Next, I go to a piano or guitar and figure out what those notes actually are. Then I group those notes into chords to come up with the chord progression. Then since that song is soooo good, I then write another song just like it and throw them both away.

That last part was a joke but any songs I write that have words have the melody written at the same time. Now I do have some singles IE unmarried melodies but I never have any unmarried words. I have tried to but I can't ever put any words I like to my unmarried melodies. So they remain instrumentals.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by JonPR

The trick to catchiness is rhythm, not pitch. Play the rhythm of a familiar melody on one note, you're more likely to recognise it than if you play the right notes with a different rhythm.

I can't say I agree with that. I think in terms of: catchy = singable (or humable). Rhythm is a big part of that, but note choice is the foundation.

Once the melody is in place then you can get into playing with rhythms. Every class I ever had on writing, whether it was songwriting, writing for band/orchestra or film scoring the message was always: start with a good melody.