"Melody"

[rick-slo]

From Webster I prefer "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole" more than "a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds" being that I don't agree that a melody need be agreeable or pleasant and I do agree that a melody, at least a good one, should be organized as an aesthetic whole. That “whole” may be quite brief and repetitious or sophisticated. As to what makes a good song overall is a more complicated story.
Rick

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

...Have you come across students with this affliction regarding melody and harmony differentiation?

Hi Herb...
Not yet. One of the exercises we do is figuring out the chord progression of a song first, and next comes the melody in at least two octaves and at different positions on the neck.

I've not come across anyone who mixes harmony and melody up, but have had them hit a wall and not be able to find a note or two. Also, when songs have been around for a long time (think decades or almost a century) melodies for a given song can vary from arranger to arranger.

[Bern]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

As to what makes a good song overall is a more complicated story.
Rick

Well, that's a mystery I'm trying to figure out all my life.

[drcmusic7]

I'd like to recommend the book "This is your brain on music" by Daniel Levitin. I think it has some good insights into how we process melody and harmony... Music in general really.

It's a good read if you're interested...

Kindly,
Danny

[Andromeda]

In a recent instructional DVD on John Denver's music his former lead guitarist Pete Huttlinger praised John's gift of melody. He also bemoaned the lack of melody in today's modern music. He reported being at a gig where he was to improvise on some modern country songs. He complained that hardly any of the songs had any melody to them that he could improvise on.

Here is my question. For us old timers...who remember music from the 60s and 70s is there a subjective lack of melody in todays modern music or is it truly subjective?

I do think there is a lack of melody in todays music but I also recognize the fact that I am biased.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

...I do think there is a lack of melody in todays music but I also recognize the fact that I am biased.

Hi Andro...
Here here! That is where I'm from. Musak could be hurting for contemporary examples of music to convert to instrumentals (except from Disney) in the upcoming years.

[Chicago Sandy]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Herb...
So do you think that an aimless or repetitive series of notes - random or planned - that is pleasing to a player constitutes a melody?

Yes, even though it may not be a very effective one. Technically, a melody is what some players might call the main "lead line," or what you see notated on a lead sheet or "fake book." Just the pure single notes, with no harmony, counterpoint or chords. Where most alt-folkies and modern rockers fail, IMHO, is that for the former, the lyrics are SO all-important (even if garbled by the singer) that the melody is just a lyric-delivery device; with the aforementioned rockers, the instrumental harmony (riffs) and counterpoints--i.e., the stuff that lets the players strut their stuff--takes over.

But some of the oldies-but-goodies are guilty of this as well. If it weren't for interpreters like Collins and Baez, some of Leonard Cohen's and Bob Dylan's beloved early works would never have made it into the standard folk canon: the two singers essentially inferred a true melody from what they heard the writers play and attempt to sing. And Ian & Sylvia tend to drive me nuts--their harmonies often constitute an upper and lower harmony and omit the melody, figuring the listener can intuit the root note of each triad him-or-herself. That's why I prefer when one or the other of them does the singing and the other just shuts up and plays. I liked Joni Mitchell's early stuff (through "Court & Spark," and on a declining scale with first "The Hissing of Summer Lawns" and then "Hejira;" after that she began to let the lyrics take over without even bothering to deal with prosody--how the lyrics, rhythm and melody interact). I like classical music up through the Romantic era, but then the 20th century stuff begins to lose me, until it sounds more like an exercise in math. And bebop? Don't get me started--it's fun to see what virtuosi can do live on the spur of the moment, but on record it makes me yawn. (Same thing with "jam bands," although I don't like to see them play live, either).

To my mind, a "good" melody is consistent and repeatable without being monotonous; a "great" one will throw in some melodic or rhythmic curveballs that nonetheless fit in logically once the melody resolves itself once again. Where a lot of modern melodists come up short is that they forget the rhythmic aspect of melody and also fail to consider the listener's need to have some sort of "anchor" to give them a sense of regularity of the tune.

Some writers strike a compromise--they have no problems crafting good or even great lyrics, but cannot come up with an imaginative but still memorable melody and do not want to fall into the "free-form" trap, so they recycle melodies--their own or others'; or else they write over endlessly repeating chord progressions that don't vary within a verse or even into the chorus if there is one. (Re: "Devil Wind:"--do as I say, not as I do). I spend nearly as much time tweaking my melody lines as I did writing the lyrics, which themselves can be dictated by the melody.

[Chicago Sandy]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

But only if it were pleasing to the ear.




This brings up an affliction. I have, I believe, a deficiency akin to dyslexia regarding harmony. My mind sometimes confuses the harmony with the melody. For example, until I discovered that handicap, I would sing the melody to the Beatles', In My Life, correctly until I came to the word, remember, where I would jump to Paul's harmony note then revert back to the true melody. I have to labor to pick out the melody in songs like those of the Byrds and still don't always get it right. Have you come across students with this affliction regarding melody and harmony differentiation?

Sometimes, if I haven't listened closely enough. It usually happens when the harmony in question is higher than (and often mixed as loud as) the melody, because the human ear always perceives the higher of two notes or voices to be louder. It's really a problem with me not just with the aforementioned Ian & Sylvia, but with a lot of the Grateful Dead as well (probably because Garcia himself wasn't always sure what the melody was).

The hardest thing for me when I do backing vocal sessions is when there isn't a harmony part written out (or sung to me in advance) and the person (usually more of a writer than a performer) singing the melody is, er, "tonally challenged." There have been times I've had to sit down with the artist and go through (and sometimes notate) the melody line on the keyboard or guitar according to what's in their own head; if the artist won't re-record it (or let me record it as a scratch track over which I can harmonize), I've had to gently suggest that they decide upon and "commit" to a melody. I usually have no trouble creating a harmony over a solid pre-existing melody.

[Bern]

Aside from the technicalities of what constitutes a good melody, a good solid melody will stand the test of time.

[3rd_harmonic]

Originally Posted by RareBird

Melody is the horse that pulls the cart in a song. Music without melody is closer to engineering than song-writing. A person can begin to flesh out a song starting with a rhythm pattern--like Robbie Krieger did with the Doors' "Light My Fire"--but the melody placed above it turns the nice chunk of marble into the Winged Victory of Samothrace or the Piata. It's where the engineering ends off and the personality begins. In music as opposed to sculpture however, in order for melody to be melody it needs to be reinforced.

People admire certainty and confidence--they don't have to think about it, it's in their animal nature to respond to the assertion of power with certainty. If the artist indeed has come upon a worthwhile melody and executed it right, people not only fall immediately into yielding to it--they consider themselves privileged to behold it and can't get enough. To achieve this crystallization of a melody as a matter of confident certainty--think of the brashness of the Beatles' "She loves You"--they ain't asking, they're telling-- it becomes important to make melody a coherent fraction of a song which when repeated divides the song into an articulation of certainty that this is just right for how it should be.

Some groups posture and put forth junk but people are magnetized to the apparent confidence even if the music is engineered with the head or the groin rather than the heart. Too bad Led Zeppelin let that cat out of the bag in my opinion as I come from the day where most in the business actually believed you had to not only project confidence but have something timeless to touch the heart with too. Sorry if that tweaks any Zep heads but I'm ruined by the excellence of the Beatles, the Kinks, The Who and the beach Boys, Smokey Robinson etc etc before the cat got out of the bag on money for nothing.

thank you for your explanations on this topic.