What Constitutes a Good Meledy?

[msr13]

Recognizing this question breams with subjectivity, what makes a melody good? For example, we know the lead line to Autumn in New York, the opener to Beethoven's Fifth, and Penney Lane. Breaking these tunes down stripped of harmonic support, they still resonate with us as listeners. We recognize them. Harmony is just color.

At the same time, we know bad melody when we hear it. What qualities make it bad? In fact some great songs do not hold after the engineering and arrangements aren't there. Pardon my ambiguity.

[shakowski]

I think its about tension and release.

[mr. beaumont]

it's that perfect blend of complex enough that it's interesting, and simple enough that it's memorable...

[jseaberry]

I think it also takes historical or cultural background into consideration also; there are Arabic or Indian melodies with microtones that wouldn't sound like anything catchy to the Western ear, and blues melodies that might sound less palatable to a European ear than an American ear?

[msr13]

I think its about tension and release.

Will you say more about what you mean?

it's that perfect blend of complex enough that it's interesting, and simple enough that it's memorable...

I guess that is where the artistry comes in. I wonder where that line actually resides from a compositional standpoint... meaning, as one composes a line, it starts to seep into the composers head, becoming very familiar. That must make it impossible, or near impossible for the composer to properly assess the quality of the composition. I am asking these questions because I am trying to write and have too much humility to think anything is good, to much confidence to give up, and too little experience to evaluate effectively.

I think it also takes historical or cultural background into consideration also; there are Arabic or Indian melodies with microtones that wouldn't sound like anything catchy to the Western ear, and blues melodies that might sound less palatable to a European ear than an American ear?

Very good point. Culture does play a big role.

[82Benedetto]

Something that sounds pleasing Simple.

[amusiathread]

There is a book called "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy" that goes into this topic (as well as the physics of sound, history, and neurology pertaining to music). It uses the melody line to "the Pink Panther" as a classic example of a memorable melody. With this melody, there is repetition (memorable) which is offset by dissonance (the surprise and tension), and later completes a statement (resolve). This is a very "in a nutshell" look at what it said, but I hope it helps illustrate the idea.

[derek]

Study melodies. It seems to be all about contour. A series of half step/whole steps going in one direction, and a larger interval, usually initiating movement in another direction. The singable, memorable thing is spot on, but seems so subjective.

I have taken to just treating the melody line of standards as just dots on a page with no meaning, with students recently. This for bass students to be thinking about how they want to construct a bass line, and for guitar students on constructing a solo.

I will let you know if it bears any fruit, but since these melodies are apparently timeless, why not mimic their ebb and flow?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I was just thinking about melodies and an obvious but nerdy thing: what chord tones are the melody stressing? A lot of melodies, like All The Things You Are land on lots of thirds (2nd place: 7ths). While some songs, like Laura feature 6ths and 9ths. But then that gives Laura that ephemeral, floating, unresolved feeling. Make the melody fit what you are trying to capture? Is that obvious? Of course, there's no simple mathematical formula to crank out songs, but I thought this was a mildy interesting feature.

[timscarey]

Melody and harmony are two sides of the same coin, that can't exist without each other. While this topic is completely subjective I would like to suggest a few thinks I've noticed in my study of melody.....

Great pop melodies are almost always 99% pentatonic scale. I find that this rule is broken only in conjunction with a non-diatonic harmonic movement. ie. the first melodic line of "yesterday" by the Beatles.

While 2nds are by far the strongest melodic interval, they get old quickly and must be broken up with larger intervals. a series of large intervals (even 3rds) will loose it's melodic effect very quickly as well unless mixed in with some 2nds. The opposite is true in harmony. Harmonically speaking, 2nds are not very strong, 5ths, 6ths, and 3rds, are the best for harmony.

A good melody will usually follow a progression of "landing points" to form an overall shape or contour as Derek mentioned, take penny lane, if started on "C" this melody outlines a descending F Major 7 chord for the first 2 phrases before landing on a Bb implting a new harmonic region ...

"penny lane there is a barber showing Photographs, of every head hes had the pleasure to have known(Bb)"....

That's the progression down, in the next phrases he moves up the scale, all of the notes in between the landing points are just the color. He may have even started writing it with just those notes in mind and added the others to fit the lyrics... I've read of composers who do it that way.

Melody is a tough one to theorize about because anyone can write a good melody, it takes almost no skill at all. It's either luck or a great deal of social awareness that brings the most memorable memories to life. Adding the harmony and creating a composition in it's entirety.... that is where the musicianship comes in.... think Quincy Jones.

[Goofsus4]

anyone can write a good melody, it takes almost no skill at all.

I'd say that anyone can write a good riff, or melodic phrase. But how many people with almost no skill at all could write the complete melody to Over the Rainbow, let's say?

It would seem if anyone could do that, then there would be very little discussion on these forums about "how do I tell a story with my solo?" It would be obvious to them.

I'm thinking more like the reverse is true - that it's far easier to harmonize a truly great melody than it is to create that melody.

[timscarey]

I'd say that anyone can write a good riff, or melodic phrase. But how many people with almost no skill at all could write the complete melody to Over the Rainbow, let's say?

It would seem if anyone could do that, then there would be very little discussion on these forums about "how do I tell a story with my solo?" It would be obvious to them.

I'm thinking more like the reverse is true - that it's far easier to harmonize a truly great melody than it is to create that melody.

To write a great melody TO over the rainbow, the harmony must have already been written yes?

The reason there is so much discussion about how to tell a stroy with a solo is because we are talking about playing the guitar. There are technical obstacles involved, you have to learn how to use the tool, and that is what we a re discussing, we very rarely ever discuss actual melodic construction, we just talk about modes and where to put our fingers.

The point im making is that someone with absolutely no musical experience at all, could, with enough time, sit down at a keyboard instrument and either transcribe or come up with a melodic statement that was appealing to others. When it comes to creating a harmonic progression.... not so much, understanding harmonic motion takes experience, it's a complex thing, I've seen tons of little kids sit down at thge piano and say "look what I wrote" and plunk out a nice little melody, it happens at least 3 times a week. I have never seen anyone who hasn't played music for some time find a 3-6-2-5 just by chance. thats all im saying.

[Goofsus4]

To write a great melody TO over the rainbow, the harmony must have already been written yes?

The reason there is so much discussion about how to tell a stroy with a solo is because we are talking about playing the guitar. There are technical obstacles involved, you have to learn how to use the tool, and that is what we a re discussing, we very rarely ever discuss actual melodic construction, we just talk about modes and where to put our fingers.

The point im making is that someone with absolutely no musical experience at all, could, with enough time, sit down at a keyboard instrument and either transcribe or come up with a melodic statement that was appealing to others. When it comes to creating a harmonic progression.... not so much, understanding harmonic motion takes experience, it's a complex thing, I've seen tons of little kids sit down at thge piano and say "look what I wrote" and plunk out a nice little melody, it happens at least 3 times a week. I have never seen anyone who hasn't played music for some time find a 3-6-2-5 just by chance. thats all im saying.

Ah, I see.

I thought that songwriters often composed a melody first, then harmonized it later.

[ronjazz]

There may be as many methods to songwriting as there are songwriters. I have written and recorded a couple dozen tunes, and some just come out of the ether and land in my head, while others start with a motif or a rhythmic idea, or with a chordal series that is intriguing. Sometimes I am asked to write for a particular feel, and that presents another way into melody and harmonic motion.

[timscarey]

Ah, I see.

I thought that songwriters often composed a melody first, then harmonized it later.

Exactly,

But if you look at over the rainbow, it is both the melody and the harmony working together to make it effective... and the rhythm for that matter. I'm not arguing that writing a 1-4-5 chord progression is harder than writing the melody to Donna Lee. I'm saying that monophonic music is much easier to conceptualize without musical training than is music with multiple voices or any kind of harmonic progression. As you can't sing chords with just one person in the room, to deal in the game of harmony, you must learn an instrument.

[82Benedetto]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your entire premise. Most popular songs aren't written by analyzing scales and theory like you all so commonly do. Rather, the scales and theory are a crude attempt to categorize what sounds pleasing to the ear.

Melody can exist without harmony, and it does. Please, show me one popular song writer that is making money right now and who's songs are loved in the country, or even in the world, that is attempting to go about it by thinking "I should use this scale," or "I should offset this by using this interval."

As for "Somewhere over the Rainbow," the melody sounds pleasant and exists well without harmony. In what way is harmony necessary for that melody? And do you really think the Beatles or any of their ghost writers or managers analyzed the song like that? No. It's ridiculous, and had someone not come up with that melody by ear theory wouldn't be explaining it.

Theory has no place in composition. Theory is, in fact, a result of great compositions and melodies. When music is composed via theory you get the manufactured and unpleasant sounds of Dream Theater. When music is composed by ear with disregard for that nonsense, you get the great musicians in human history.

Logic will never replace the ear in music.

Melody and harmony are two sides of the same coin, that can't exist without each other. While this topic is completely subjective I would like to suggest a few thinks I've noticed in my study of melody.....

Great pop melodies are almost always 99% pentatonic scale. I find that this rule is broken only in conjunction with a non-diatonic harmonic movement. ie. the first melodic line of "yesterday" by the Beatles.

While 2nds are by far the strongest melodic interval, they get old quickly and must be broken up with larger intervals. a series of large intervals (even 3rds) will loose it's melodic effect very quickly as well unless mixed in with some 2nds. The opposite is true in harmony. Harmonically speaking, 2nds are not very strong, 5ths, 6ths, and 3rds, are the best for harmony.

A good melody will usually follow a progression of "landing points" to form an overall shape or contour as Derek mentioned, take penny lane, if started on "C" this melody outlines a descending F Major 7 chord for the first 2 phrases before landing on a Bb implting a new harmonic region ...

"penny lane there is a barber showing Photographs, of every head hes had the pleasure to have known(Bb)"....

That's the progression down, in the next phrases he moves up the scale, all of the notes in between the landing points are just the color. He may have even started writing it with just those notes in mind and added the others to fit the lyrics... I've read of composers who do it that way.

Melody is a tough one to theorize about because anyone can write a good melody, it takes almost no skill at all. It's either luck or a great deal of social awareness that brings the most memorable memories to life. Adding the harmony and creating a composition in it's entirety.... that is where the musicianship comes in.... think Quincy Jones.

[Goofsus4]

I actually used Over the Rainbow as an example because I just worked up a chord melody of it this week. When I play the melody, it stands alone. There is no harmonization needed for that brilliant melody to be a knock out.

I do agree that it is pretty easy to come up with interesting melodies on a piano. Much easier, in my opinion, than on a guitar. Not sure why. But I don't see many children noodling up something as complex as OTR.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Old joke:

A down-on-his-luck saxophonist gigging in London decides to kill himself. He climbs out his hotel window, sax in hand, and is about to jump when the skies clear and a rainbow appears. So he puts the horn to his lips and starts to play "Somewhere ... over the rainbow". A crowd gathers below. But when he gets to the bridge, his mind goes blank. "Play the bridge!" someone yells. He starts over, but gets stuck again at the bridge. Frustrated, he flings himself off the ledge.

Barely conscious, on the ground, he hears the ambulance approaching, "de deener-deener deener-deener deener-deener..."

[timscarey]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your entire premise. Most popular songs aren't written by analyzing scales and theory like you all so commonly do. Rather, the scales and theory are a crude attempt to categorize what sounds pleasing to the ear.

Melody can exist without harmony, and it does. Please, show me one popular song writer that is making money right now and who's songs are loved in the country, or even in the world, that is attempting to go about it by thinking "I should use this scale," or "I should offset this by using this interval."

As for "Somewhere over the Rainbow," the melody sounds pleasant and exists well without harmony. In what way is harmony necessary for that melody? And do you really think the Beatles or any of their ghost writers or managers analyzed the song like that? No. It's ridiculous, and had someone not come up with that melody by ear theory wouldn't be explaining it.

Theory has no place in composition. Theory is, in fact, a result of great compositions and melodies. When music is composed via theory you get the manufactured and unpleasant sounds of Dream Theater. When music is composed by ear with disregard for that nonsense, you get the great musicians in human history.

Logic will never replace the ear in music.

I never claimed that any great music should have been or was written USING theory. C'mon man, your putting words in my posts. I'm the one using theory to share some of my observations on songwriting, that's all. And no, melody cannot stand alone without harmony, melody has a harmonic function just as much as harmony has a melodic function. When you play somewhere over the rainbow without the chords, you are still hearing the chords in your head. The melody has harmonic implications and the chosen harmony will accommodate that. The fact that most great songwriters do it by ear is not only absolutely true, but also has nothing to do with this discussion.

reharmonize Somewhere over the Rainbow so that the long notes are not chord tones. you'll see what I'm talking about.

In fact, the idea that great songs are written by ear just supports my argument, everyone has a voice... you have to practice to make harmony.

And if you think that George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Paul McCartney, Elton John, Wayne Shorter, or any other massively influential composer wasn't highly educated or experienced in music theory... you are in denial.


Anyway, lets get back to the point. Another Major consideration in melody is the rhythm. Rhythmic development, motives, not getting too crazy too early, etc... I find that a lot of songs use only one or two basic rhythmic ideas in the melody and tweak them to fit the lyrics as needed. This was a very very common practice in the classical era, the idea of developing a simple rhythmic motive to get more mileage out of it without losing the listener.

I have to address the statement that theory has no place in composition by saying that you are not a composer, and have never been commissioned to write a piece of music, or had a grant obligation to fill. Theory is a tool, and a means of conceptualization. If you can hear in your head what a note will sound like on a chord before you play it... writing songs becomes a much faster process, I could go on but man, don't knock it till ya try it.

[timscarey]

sorry, im really into this topic.

But in response to the Beatles comments.

Listen to any of their records post "revolver"... ya hear all those strings, percussion, horns, vocal harmonies, melotron, etc...?

That was all written by George Marin, on paper, with a pencil... USING THEORY. after the songs were written. IMO that's what makes those records so amazing, granted, the melodies themselves are great but imagine all of those recordings with just guitar bass drums and 3 singers..... not the epic Beatles legacy we all know and love.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

To write a great melody TO over the rainbow, the harmony must have already been written yes? .

No.

[timscarey]

Well yeah, I mean, if your not writing a melody over the changes to over the rainbow, how can you be writing a melody to over the rainbow? That melody has already been written. I really don't understand this argument. Nothing I have posted is wrong. I was jus trying to point out some characteristics of sucessful melody in popular music, I don't see how this whole melody vs harmony thing came into play, or where this theory argument came from either. Good discussion though.

[Aristotle]

Barely conscious, on the ground, he hears the ambulance approaching, "de deener-deener deener-deener deener-deener..."

That sure wasn't a French ambulance.

[Aristotle]

In a word...balance. Good melody has the right blend of consonance and disonance, predictability and surprise, business and rest, steps and skips, highs and lows, craft and art, etc. - in the context of the accompaniment.

I remember when I first heard Justice Potter Stewart's famous "definition." I thought it was stupid. As I age, I find myslef using it more often. Good melody? I know it when I hear it.

[timscarey]

This is the point i was trying to make...

"During the period we are taking as that of harmonic common practice, nearly all of the melodies are of harmonic origin. They were either evolved from chord tones, with the addition of non-harmonic melodic tones, or they were conceived of as having harmonic meaning, expressed or implied. So the process of harmonization does not mean invention, but in a sense, rediscovery of elements already in existence." - Walter Piston

That's what I meant by two sides of the same coin.