# what is a great melody?



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

*The melody and the importance of memorability*

Technically a melody is just a succession of notes, but when we talk of of great melodists and great melodies we put value on other aspects. But how much the memorability of the melody is important when we decide that a melody has value? Obviously there are many horrible melodies that can be easily memorized (a lot of pop stuff is based on this trick), but still is it possible to say that a elaborate line is a great melody if it does not have that quality?


----------



## Open Lane (Nov 11, 2015)

For me, a great melody either tiggers the memory of a specific time/place or becomes associated with a new one.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I should think that memorability is an integral, necessary attribute of melody.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

This is a question even composers and songwriters can't answer, else they'd all be making great melodies.

For me memorability is important allowing me to enjoy the development, variations or whatever, but I also like other elements such as unpredictability, a quality one recognizes even after memorization. For examples, _Ah! vous dirai-je, maman_ (that we in the USA would call "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" or "The Alphabet Song") is highly memorable, but so predictable as to be fairly boring. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme is only a smidgen more unpredictable, yet he uses it to good effect by running it through a variety of musical acrobatics. Robert Schumann's Piano Concerto, movement 3, is an example I've always thought is a highly unpredictable melody yet one that is also easily memorized. To this day, every interval leap, every sudden change in rhythm, every phrase one might think will repeat but doesn't, thrills me like a joyous roller coaster ride.

So a great melody often walks a tightrope between memorability and some other quality (unpredictability being only one I enjoy).

There are reasons other than melody to enjoy a work. I am not at the point I can easily memorize melodies in serial works for instance, but I can still enjoy them by absorbing them in smaller fragments, their motifs or phrases. Of course it's fairly arbitrary where or if motifs and phrases become melodies.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Weston said:


> This is a question even composers and songwriters can't answer, else they'd all be making great melodies.
> 
> For me memorability is important allowing me to enjoy the development, variations or whatever, but I also like other element such as unpredictability, a quality one recognizes even after memorization. For examples, _Ah! vous dirai-je, maman_ (that we in the USA would call "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" or "The Alphabet Song") is highly memorable, but so predictable as to be fairly boring. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme is only a smidgen more unpredictable, yet he uses it to good effect by running it through a variety of musical acrobatics. Robert Schumann's Piano Concerto, movement 3, is an example I've always thought is a highly unpredictable melody yet one that is also easily memorized. To this day, every interval leap, every sudden change in rhythm, every phrase one might think will repeat but doesn't, thrills me like a joyous roller coaster ride.
> 
> ...


About the bolded sentence: absolutely, I can mention many works that I like where there isn't any memorable melody. 
But it's also clear that if I appreciate a work of Webern isn't because I consider him a great melodist, and I think that part of this is exactly because there aren't memorable melodies (certainly not in the sense of something that pops up in my mind even without any effort to memorize it, like it happens with what I consider great melodies)


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

In the classical world, it's more a case of what makes a great theme than great melody. Not all great themes are melodies (first movement of the Eroica, for instance), and not all great melodies make good themes.


----------



## nbergeron (Dec 30, 2015)

Tension is a pretty important part of it for me. I don't have the theory vocabulary to express this well, but melodies without tension sound like advertising jingles or children's songs. Ninths for example are so darn satisfying.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Great melody is a simple concept,

(1) Consistently popular over a long period of time, decades to centuries
(2) can be memorable, might even be whistled very often in the shower for example
(3) Has been studied and variations composed of, no matter how weak that variation is as a composition, by many composers. For example, Beethoven wrote variations on themes by Handel etc. etc.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> (3) Has been studied and variations composed of, no matter how weak that variation is as a composition, by many composers. For example, Beethoven wrote variations on themes by Handel etc. etc.


Are you saying it can't be a great melody if no one has composed variations on it?

In fact, I would argue that the type of melody one would base variations on isn't necessarily one which meets your first two criteria.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MarkW said:


> In the classical world, it's more a case of what makes a great theme than great melody. Not all great themes are melodies (first movement of the Eroica, for instance), and not all great melodies make good themes.


I'm not following any of that. IMO, virtually all the great classical works of the 18th & 19th centuries have great melodies. And the Eroica starts out with one. Besides, Webster defines a theme as 'a melodic subject of a musical composition or movement.'


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

_

Edit: After reading violadude's post, I am tempted to clarify that the above is probably considered a "theme," but for my simple, non-trained ears, I consider as equally, a "melody."

And thus, continuing, maybe we should clarify a "melody" from a "theme." My understanding is that, probably, all themes are melodies. But not all melodies are themes._


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I'm not following any of that. IMO, virtually all the great classical works of the 18th & 19th centuries have great melodies. And the Eroica starts out with one. Besides, Webster defines a theme as 'a melodic subject of a musical composition or movement.'


Musically speaking, it's usually the case that great melodies don't make for great thematic development, because a good melody is already satisfying in and of itself. This is why composers like Beethoven, who put a lot of focus on thematic development, usually write write great themes more often than writing great melodies, especially in 1st and last movements, unless the last movement is a variation, in which case usually requires a good melody.

Conversely, composers like Schubert and Tchaikovsky who are often considered great melodists, wrote compositions that are considerably less "theme development" oriented.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

So far as I know Tchaikovsky was the greatest creator of melody.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> Great melody is a simple concept,
> 
> (1) Consistently popular over a long period of time, decades to centuries
> (2) can be memorable, might even be whistled very often in the shower for example


I guess that means Love Me Do, Blue Velvet, and I Can't Help Falling In Love are great melodies.

What about Air For The G String or Arabeque no.1? I bet not many folks whistle those in the shower.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> (3) Has been studied and variations composed of, no matter how weak that variation is as a composition, by many composers.


A great case for jazz standards being the greatest melodies


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Just to be clear, you are giving the word melody an interpretation that can't be supported by its traditional definition. That being said, your bigger point -- that much great music employs thematic material that can be spun out in distinctive ways -- is valid. (Almost by definition. If most music sounded pretty much the same, it wouldn't much matter what you listened to.) How a composer selects and deals with themes is part of what makes his music distinctive.

A "melody" is petty much a self-contained unit, like (simplistically) "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" or (better) the "Joy" theme from the Ninth. A theme can be anything from a motif (the "fate" theme from the Fifth, the horizontal triad from the Third) to a string of lyrical phrases (Brahms' Second) that need working out. Few sound like each other (Brahms' and Schumann's Thirds excepted). Also there are unexceptionable themes that no one would use but for their connotations (B-A-C-H, for instance).


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2016)

Weston said:


> This is a question even composers and songwriters can't answer, else they'd all be making great melodies.


Are you sure that is what they are all aspiring to? I'm not.

Melody is of course but one element of music. The assertion of its primary importance reminds me of those who would say that in the visual arts, it's all about "beauty."


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I think greatness can shift with time and place. A lot of people think Mozart's melodies are great, but many of them sound to me like they are for children and I'd fall asleep if I had to listen to them. I've heard melodies that use only two notes and have sort of an ostinato-quality to them that I thought were great and kept my attention.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think greatness can shift with time and place. A lot of people think Mozart's melodies are great, but many of them sound to me like they are for children and I'd fall asleep if I had to listen to them. I've heard melodies that use only two notes and have sort of an ostinato-quality to them that I thought were great and kept my attention.


Well if Mozart's melodies are for children, the latter type of melodies you describe must be for....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Are you saying it can't be a great melody if no one has composed variations on it?
> 
> In fact, I would argue that the type of melody one would base variations on isn't necessarily one which meets your first two criteria.


No, you are suggesting something based on what I did not write. There may well be other criterias but the three I wrote are what I tend to observe historically.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> No, you are suggesting something based on what I did not write. There may well be other criterias but the three I wrote are what I tend to observe historically.


so let's say a time machine brings you back in the eighteen century, Mozart has composed a melody the day before, that is not a great melody just because it's just one day old, it's not popular and there aren't variations based on it?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Well if Mozart's melodies are for children, the latter type of melodies you describe must be for....


People who no longer like transporting their aesthetic sensibility to 200 years ago so they can enjoy a piece.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

I hope some folks will come up with some good thoughts on this topic, because I have often wanted to know the answer to this questions. 

I have a few thoughts on the question of melody, and would love some feedback. According to Caplins wonderful book "Classical Form" I think the following is true:

1) A motive, or motif, is a short musical statement, usually one or two bars, that is distinctive and may or may not be used to "build a complete melody"

2) A complete melody is a complete musical statement, usually 8 bars in the common practice era, and may be made up of one or more motives. In the common practice era, the statement was complete because it ended with a cadence of some type.

So what makes one of those things good?

1) The balance between repetition and new material. Too much repetition and it becomes a caricature or a childrens song. Too little and the human brain has nothing upon which to organize the music.

2) The harmony. Sometimes it is the harmony that makes us like a melody that otherwise is fairly routine. Tchaikovsky the Waltz of the Flowers come to mind. The opening few bars uses a Common Tone Diminished Seventh harmony that is so distinctive that without it we would find the melody dull.

3) The Arc. The best melodies have an emotional arc, with a climax in the melody. Often this is at the highest note, since our brains tend to just find that natural. Example the melody from the 2nd movement of the Dvorak 9th. Very clear emotional arc.

4) Repetitive rhythmic patterns, but not too much. More repetition seems acceptable in rhythm than in pitches. Beethoven's Fifth.

That all I got for right now. Looking forward to reading others thoughts.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

well defined rhythms


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Here's a marvelous, shapely, highly rhythmically exciting, and complete (!) melody.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

norman bates said:


> so let's say a time machine brings you back in the eighteen century, Mozart has composed a melody the day before, that is not a great melody just because it's just one day old, it's not popular and there aren't variations based on it?


Mozart's melodies are great, and over the decades and centuries, proven so. Eine kliene Nachtmusik K525 is an all time classic, it may be over heard but to those who hear it for the first time today, the melody strikes. It's charming, all five movements.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Mozart's melodies are great, and over the decades and centuries, proven so. Eine kliene Nachtmusik K525 is an all time classic, it may be over heard but to those who hear it for the first time today, the melody strikes. It's charming, all five movements.


And your answer to the question?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I've probably put the wrong title to this thread, since I was interested in particular in the role of memorability in our perception of the value of a melody, and what is that makes a line memorable.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MarkW said:


> A "melody" is petty much a self-contained unit, like (simplistically) "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" or (better) the "Joy" theme from the Ninth. A theme can be anything from a motif (the "fate" theme from the Fifth, the horizontal triad from the Third) to a string of lyrical phrases (Brahms' Second) that need working out. Few sound like each other (Brahms' and Schumann's Thirds excepted). Also there are unexceptionable themes that no one would use but for their connotations (B-A-C-H, for instance).


Since a couple of people have made this error: Neither the opening triadic idea in Beethoven's Eroica nor the opening four notes of his Fifth Symphony is a theme. The proper term in both cases is motive (or motif). The opening theme of the Eroica is at least 36 measures long and that of the Fifth, 21 measures.

The reason I said "at least 36 measures" in the case of the Eroica is that many theorists parse themes in tonal/harmonic terms, so that the point at which the principal idea returns and we begin to move toward a new key is, by their lights, the beginning of a transitional passage. Others, like Denes Bartha, would include the restatement of the initial idea in m. 37 as part of the theme proper and only hear the beginning of the transition when a new melodic idea takes over.

Theme is not equivalent to melody, since themes often comprise disparate elements without any kind of unified linear cohesion.



DaveM said:


> I'm not following any of that. IMO, virtually all the great classical works of the 18th & 19th centuries have great melodies. And the Eroica starts out with one. Besides, Webster defines a theme as 'a melodic subject of a musical composition or movement.'


One can't use a general dictionary for technical terms in music. The concept of theme is more complex than this and the definition is misleading because it implies that a theme is a single idea with linear continuity whereas, in real life, it might not be.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Here's a marvelous, shapely, highly rhythmically exciting, and complete (!) melody.


Last note in bar 6 should be an F natural!

(No, I don't know the piece that well, just noticed this score has F# in the row twice and checked.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I suspect we can talk about the characteristics that make for a _good_ melody - contrast, continuity, balance, harmonic and rhythmic interest, tension, a sense of direction and purpose, memorability - without being able to say with much specificity what makes a good melody a _great_ one. The "formalist" approach would like to judge art without reference to that elusive thing called "meaning," but no matter how far we go at understanding and admiring the skill with which music is put together, we miss even the significance of form if we intuit no meaning which motivates and directs it. It isn't hard for a musically knowledgeable person to talk about what makes music "good." It's much harder to say what makes it "great." Artistic greatness is inextricable from meaning, and a great melody is one that takes us, with seemingly miraculous deftness and inevitability, beyond our expectations and understanding to a place which we seem to recognize immediately, even though we've never been there before, and which we can never forget. It's amazing how apparently simple great melodies can be, but then that's often a part of their greatness. We experience something extraordinary, and yet it seems utterly natural and right.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Since a couple of people have made this error: Neither the opening triadic idea in Beethoven's Eroica nor the opening four notes of his Fifth Symphony is a theme. The proper term in both cases is motive (or motif). The opening theme of the Eroica is at least 36 measures long and that of the Fifth, 21 measures.
> 
> The reason I said "at least 36 measures" in the case of the Eroica is that many theorists parse themes in tonal/harmonic terms, so that the point at which the principal idea returns and we begin to move toward a new key is, by their lights, the beginning of a transitional passage. Others, like Denes Bartha, would include the restatement of the initial idea in m. 37 as part of the theme proper and only hear the beginning of the transition when a new melodic idea takes over.
> 
> ...


Generally I agree about the 5th. Beethoven was certainly a master of making much out of little.

I do think that structurally the first five measures can be heard as functioning as a brief introduction. The presentation of the main idea seems to me to end with the cadence to G major in bar 20. The rest of the material up to the second theme being transitional by development of the principal motive.

What do you think makes this motivic group, or theme or melody so good. Any thoughts?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Since a couple of people have made this error: Neither the opening triadic idea in Beethoven's Eroica nor the opening four notes of his Fifth Symphony is a theme. The proper term in both cases is motive (or motif). The opening theme of the Eroica is at least 36 measures long and that of the Fifth, 21 measures.
> 
> The reason I said "at least 36 measures" in the case of the Eroica is that many theorists parse themes in tonal/harmonic terms, so that the point at which the principal idea returns and we begin to move toward a new key is, by their lights, the beginning of a transitional passage. Others, like Denes Bartha, would include the restatement of the initial idea in m. 37 as part of the theme proper and only hear the beginning of the transition when a new melodic idea takes over.
> 
> ...


There's no rule against using a general dictionary in this case if the quoted definition fits. The definition does not imply anything other than the fact that a theme is a melodic subject. That subject may be simple or complex.

I'm glad you clarified the fact that the opening notes of the Beethoven 5th is a motif. At least, that subject can be set aside.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

How melodies are good:

1. If someone you know/respect tells you it's a memorable melody
2. If someone you know/respect tells you that it's a good melody for other reasons
3. You convince yourself through recommendations that it is memorable and good
4. You listen to it with this preconception and find it substantiated
5. You listen to it with this preconception and convince yourself to have faith in others even if the music doesn't substantiate it for you
5. For the pieces you never heard anyone endorse, you convince yourself beforehand through bravery or open-mindedness
6. For the pieces you never heard anyone endorse, the music convinces you of its memorability and/or worthiness


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It is intriguing how the human mind has the ability to fill in that which isn't there but which we know should be. A case in point which I am currently listening to, Rodion Shchedrin's Carmen Suite for strings and percussion ... in the Torero section (Toreador Song), he removes almost all of the melody and just leaves the underlying beat, and yet we mentally hear the full melody. Now I know that is partly memory working but it is because of how we do pattern matching.


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

Open Lane said:


> For me, a great melody either tiggers the memory of a specific time/place or becomes associated with a new one.





Strange Magic said:


> I should think that memorability is an integral, necessary attribute of melody.


I concur. 
I concur.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> There's no rule against using a general dictionary in this case if the quoted definition fits. The definition does not imply anything other than the fact that a theme is a melodic subject. That subject may be simple or complex.


The word subject is a poor choice for a technical definition because its primary use in music is for the central idea of a fugue. On the other hand, if one is using the word subject in its non-specialist sense, as the definition you cited clearly is, then it is misleading because the indefinite singular article implies one subject, whereas themes often comprise multiple subjects. The opening theme of the Eroica, for example, has two different branches that are developed throughout the movement as separate entities (subjects), as do the opening themes of the "Tempest" and "Appassionata" Sonatas and the String Quartets Opus 59 no. 3 and Opus 95, among numerous others. These themes are not complex subjects, but complex constructions comprising multiple subjects.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

M


Huilunsoittaja said:


> How melodies are good:
> 
> 6. For the pieces you never heard anyone endorse, the music convinces you of its memorability and/or worthiness


Number 6 is the only one that counts for me, as I find that I am the best authority there is on what constitutes a good melody.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Generally I agree about the 5th. Beethoven was certainly a master of making much out of little.
> 
> I do think that structurally the first five measures can be heard as functioning as a brief introduction. The presentation of the main idea seems to me to end with the cadence to G major in bar 20. The rest of the material up to the second theme being transitional by development of the principal motive.
> 
> What do you think makes this motivic group, or theme or melody so good. Any thoughts?


For me there are three elements that make this theme so good. First, and most obvious, is the simplicity and elemental power of the main, generative motive, defined as it is by a sharp rhythmic profile; Thus, memorability in spades and the capacity for endless recombination as a building block of larger passages. Of course, there is nothing original about this observation, which has been made by everyone and their mom for more than two centuries. Second, the phrase structure of the theme embodies a dramatic process with structural implications. After the statement of the motto or "Fate" motive in mm. 1-5, the subsequent units of the theme subdivide like this, the numbers standing for the measures in each unit:

4 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 /

This is a process of foreshortening, by which energy is dammed up and focused on the next explosion of the motto, in m. 22, a tightening coil of tension. This forward-directedness and focus on a big future downbeat is echoed at the micro and macro levels. On the smallest scale, the "Fate" motive itself is an elemental forward thrust, beginning on the rhythmically weakest part of the measure and driving toward the downbeat. On the macro level, the development section undergoes on a broader scale a process of foreshortening quite like that in the theme itself (as illustrated above). Toward the end of the development we find a brooding wheeze of single measures, back and forth between strings and winds, focusing energy on the big downbeat of the recapitulation in the same way the foreshortened units of the theme focused it on m. 22. Thus the theme defines and presages crucial elements of the structure in a dramatic way on the smallest and largest scales.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

EdwardBast - I agree. The most fascinating thing to me is that despite the extreme repetition, Beethoven manages somehow to keep it sounding fresh. I think the bar grouping you mentioned is one element that keeps the excitement growing. Of course the harmonies are flawless, as usual with Beethoven, but nothing really unusual. The harmonic rhythm does accelerate along with the bar groupings you mentioned, and that must also be a factor in building energy. 

My mother had a small collection of classical music, and would very rarely play some of it. When I was 7 years old, this was the piece of music that made me fall in love with Classical music. It is still one of my favorites 55 years later.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2016)

'Melody' seems to be one of those musical terms that some people define with more attributes than, IMO, are essential. Whilst I would agree that most people, when asked, will probably _recall _the melodies they most like (thereby confirming that memorability is essential in their evaluation), memorability is not essential to a pure definition of melody, which the OP confirms.

How about Debussy's Etudes? Great music? Well, if you're not already a fan, you might say no, but there are plenty who would argue that his Etudes are some of his best pieces. Great melodies? That's another matter altogether.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Klassic said:


> So far as I know Tchaikovsky was the greatest creator of melody.


Either him or Schubert in my opinion.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EarthBoundRules said:


> Either him or Schubert in my opinion.


What about Schoenberg?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Too much emphasis on memorability. Most people can't even hear melodies, much less recall them. And these are brain functions on the part of the listener. Memorability is not an intrinsic element of music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> a great melody is one that takes us, with seemingly miraculous deftness and inevitability, beyond our expectations and understanding to a place which we seem to recognize immediately, even though we've never been there before, and which we can never forget. It's amazing how apparently simple great melodies can be, but then that's often a part of their greatness. We experience something extraordinary, and yet it seems utterly natural and right.


I was trying to come up with a good description of what makes a good melody, but couldn't come close to improving on yours. All I can add is that sometimes (not always), just as in popular music, there is a 'hook' where, on hearing a piece for the first time, you think the melody is moving in a certain direction, when all of a sudden there is a twist that is unexpected, but extremely satisfying. It catches you and you want to hear it again and again.

Anyway, if someone asked me to describe melody in classical music, I wouldn't try to explain it; I would simply play the opening of the 2nd movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata and all questions would be answered. How could someone ever have composed something like that? It's beyond understanding!

And then, there is the opening of the 5th movement of Symphony 6 (Pastoral)...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

starthrower said:


> Too much emphasis on memorability. Most people can't even hear melodies, much less recall them. And these are brain functions on the part of the listener. Memorability is not an intrinsic element of music.


Most people can't hear melodies? Really? Most of the world's music consists of sequences of tones. Are you saying that most of the world's people can't hear these sequences, and distinguish one sequence from another?

In cultures without written music, and even those with it, music is shared by being remembered. And music is enjoyed, not merely as an immediate sensory experience, but through the recognition and recall of melody.

This does indeed involve brain functions of the listener - basic functions. The brain functions at the most elementary level by organizing sense data - by seeking and grasping patterns. Musical perception involves pattern perception in time, and memory is essential to it. Certain patterns, whether visual or auditory, are intrinsically more memorable than others; they "make sense" to the brain, and when patterned sequences of tones make sense, the result is memorable music. Sequences of tones which don't form patterns comprehensible to the brain are difficult to remember. Every performing musician knows this, and part of becoming a better musician is learning to perceive patterns at different levels of organization, resulting in greater ease of memory.

I know there have been studies (though I can't cite them) of people's ability to remember melodic sequences (naturally people's skills differ) and of what kinds of sequences are more memorable. Memorability is as intrinsic to music as it is to any phenomenon with which the mind deals, and for the same reason: pattern comprehensibility - the existence of perceivable relationships between the components of experience.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Most people can't even hear melodies, much less recall them.


Second Woodduck. Even Milton Babbitt speaks (albeit with contempt) of "the whistling repertory of the man in the street." This is absurd.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2016)

So if it doesn't have a memorable melody (memorable to someone with a reasonable capacity to follow, recall, predict more than Three Blind Mice), it isn't music?

That sounds absurd too.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Even if it's "Three Blind Mice," it has a melody that people remember. I've read that one of the purposes of repeats of melodies in music is "the pleasure of recognition," which makes sense to me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Even if it's "Three Blind Mice," it has a melody that people remember. I've read that one of the purposes of repeats of melodies in music is "the pleasure of recognition," which makes sense to me.


Er, yes, Ken, I get that. Perhaps I'm getting confused (or other people are). The OP asked to what extent memorability is significant in deciding what is a great melody. You and Woodduck appear to be extending that by asserting that memorability is not only significant in determining what is a great melody, but that it is essential to music. In other words, if it doesn't have a melody; and that melody isn't memorable, it isn't music (never mind 'it isn't _great _music'.)

Earlier, I suggested that there are pieces that we would all agree are music, but where the memorability of the melody is less significant - I offered Debussy's Etudes. I've lost count of the times I've listened to these pieces, but I doubt I'll ever get to the stage of whistling more than a fragment. However, as I'm listening, I do know what's coming next, and the ability to follow, as opposed to recall is significant to me in my enjoyment.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> *So if it doesn't have a memorable melody* (memorable to someone with a reasonable capacity to follow, recall, predict more than Three Blind Mice),* it isn't music?*
> 
> That sounds absurd too.


I don't think anyone has said that.

Memorability is important, because if you can't remember what you just heard, what you're hearing now won't make sense. Memory is necessary to pattern recognition.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I certainly didn't mean that! I haven't read this thread from the inception, I was merely responding to a statement that (apparently) people don't hear or remember melodies.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think anyone has said that.
> 
> Memorability is important, because if you can't remember what you just heard, what you're hearing now won't make sense. Memory is necessary to pattern recognition.


I don't think anyone disagrees with that 'at a basic level' as you said earlier. But we're not seriously having to point this out are we? I'm sure there's a medical term for someone who has such poor memory that they can't follow or recall a simple meoldy, but I don't suppose that's what starthrower was referring to (though I'm not sure what they _were _referring to) so I didn't see the necessity to point out the obvious. That's why I inferred you were going beyond the basics and seemed to be talking about memorability of melody as intrinsic to music - not our capacity to recall and follow as being intrinsic to our basic perception of it.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Tchaikovsky is said to have argued with a friend who wagered that the composer could not write a melody based on the notes of the scale in an octave in sequence. Tchaikovsky asked if it mattered whether the notes were in ascending or descending order, and was assured it did not. This resulted in the _Adagio_ from The Nutcracker's _Grand pas de deux_, which, in the ballet, nearly always immediately follows the _Waltz of the Flowers_.

View attachment 82216


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with that 'at a basic level' as you said earlier. But we're not seriously having to point this out are we? I'm sure there's a medical term for someone who has such poor memory that they can't follow or recall a simple meoldy, but I don't suppose that's what starthrower was referring to (though I'm not sure what they _were _referring to) so I didn't see the necessity to point out the obvious. That's why I inferred you were going beyond the basics and seemed to be talking about memorability of melody as intrinsic to music - not our capacity to recall and follow as being intrinsic to our basic perception of it.


I don't think it's safe to assume that anything is obvious! I'd have thought that a statement like "Most people can't even hear melodies, much less recall them" was obviously absurd. I was responding to that statement (and quoted it for the purpose). I felt that an adequate response could not be made without discussing the role of memory in perception.

I did say that "certain patterns, whether visual or auditory, are intrinsically more memorable than others; they 'make sense' to the brain, and when patterned sequences of tones make sense, the result is memorable music." This doesn't mean that if music doesn't have particularly memorable melodies it isn't music, or even that it can't be good music. Melody isn't the only component of music (there's harmony and rhythm, and sometimes sounds of other kinds). But most music is to a great degree melodic - constructed of sequences of tones - and is more satisfying to most listeners if those sequences stick in the mind. The brain is "happy" when it remembers: the memorability of musical ideas makes longer sequences and more complex patterns built upon them easier to grasp (and thus more memorable as entities in themselves), and we have more time for what we've heard to take on meaning and affect us. I think it's safe, and in accord with both reason and experience, to say that most of the music that people value and acclaim as excellent has a high degree of memorability, and that one of the marks of music we consider mediocre is that it seems "anonymous" and without features that stick in the mind.

I think we should distinguish between "memory" as recognition, and "memorization" as the ability to reproduce at will (for example to sing a song from memory). Memory varies in its thoroughness, and memorization is only the most thorough form of remembering.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dsphipps100 said:


> Tchaikovsky is said to have argued with a friend who wagered that the composer could not write a melody based on the notes of the scale in an octave in sequence. Tchaikovsky asked if it mattered whether the notes were in ascending or descending order, and was assured it did not. This resulted in the _Adagio_ from The Nutcracker's _Grand pas de deux_, which, in the ballet, nearly always immediately follows the _Waltz of the Flowers_.
> 
> View attachment 82216


A wonderful example of Tchaikovsky's ability to make deeply affecting melodies out of simple materials: the art that conceals art.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To be a great melody it has to be enjoyable - to move the listener to enjoyment - and to be memorable. There is also a certain sublimity can can enrapture the listener and is found in the best melodies.
For me Mozart is the greatest melodist that ever lived. As an exercise listen to Cosi fan Tutte and here this principle time after time. Astonishing!


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Please help: I was typing a response and I was logged out before I was ready to post it; I saw that my text was being auto-saved but how can I find it? TYVM


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

At the risk of seeming to be pouring cold water on the discussion, I would say there's really not much point in trying to reach a consensus about what constitutes a "melody". A melody is, after all, a sentence that is made up of musical tones as opposed to a literary sentence that is made up of a series of words. One person would argue that a literary sentence must contain a subject and verb, etc., and so forth and so on, but another person would view something as small as the one-word exclamation, "Hey!" as a viable sentence. That being the case, that other proverbial person might also view a one-note figure (such as, perhaps, the opening massive B-flat chord at the beginning of every Star Wars movie) as a viable melody in and of itself. I would not agree with that person, but I have to recognize that there are those who would make such an argument.

So the bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that a melody is anything in music that has coherent, expressive meaning, which will be different for each person's point of view.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

A great melody is one that leads the listener by the hand through Elysian Fields of wonder.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Too much emphasis on memorability. Most people can't even hear melodies, much less recall them. And these are brain functions on the part of the listener. Memorability is not an intrinsic element of music.


I think you're underestimating the pleasure due to it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> So if it doesn't have a memorable melody (memorable to someone with a reasonable capacity to follow, recall, predict more than Three Blind Mice), it isn't music?
> 
> That sounds absurd too.


no one is saying this. Even because a melody (when there's a melody) is just a part of the whole. 
But memorability to me seems definitely a desirable quality for a melody.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dsphipps100 said:


> So the bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that a melody is anything in music that has coherent, expressive meaning, which will be different for each person's point of view.


No. A chord is not a melody. A single note is not a melody. "Linearity" is an essential feature of anything called a melody in music of the common practice period - and popular and folk music since the beginning of time. The term means slightly different things in different styles and its meaning must be understood in relation to the other terms used to describe linear events within a given style. In common practice music, a melody is distinguished from configurations like motives, figures, and phrases in that it is a more complete and self-contained utterance. Normatively, in music of this era, it means a linear unit on the order of a period or sentence with at least one full cadence or stopping point. One could make similar distinctions for other styles, but I think the point is clear.

The term melody can also be used in a different sense to define the whole category of linear events within a style, as in: The melodic dimension of music comprises motives, figures, phrases, periods, sentences and, of course, melodies proper as described above.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Melody (def'n): an earworm :tiphat:

(ok, not all melodies are earworms but all earworms are melodies, and some come from the strangest places)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

norman bates said:


> no one is saying this. Even because a melody (when there's a melody) is just a part of the whole.
> But memorability to me seems definitely a desirable quality for a melody.


Yes. Agree completely.

But, addressing the more general point about memorability: Sometimes melodies are intriguing and get under ones skin precisely because they defy memory in interesting ways - especially if they simultaneously make one want to sing them while proving difficult to grasp as wholes. The opening melody of Boris Godunov, because of its irregular phrasing, is of this type, as are a number of melodies by Shostakovich. And then there are many gorgeous melodies by Prokofiev that are intriguing but difficult because of the way the harmony twists the musical space through which they pass. The opening theme of his second piano concerto (not the motto in the orchestra, but the one the piano starts with) with its modulations by tritone from one phrase to the next, is a good example - lovely and lyrical, but not so easy to walk away from singing. So I guess inducing the desire to remember a melody is sometimes as important as its actual memorability.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> No. A chord is not a melody. A single note is not a melody. "Linearity" is an essential feature of anything called a melody in music of the common practice period - and popular and folk music since the beginning of time. The term means slightly different things in different styles and its meaning must be understood in relation to the other terms used to describe linear events within a given style. In common practice music, a melody is distinguished from configurations like motives, figures, and phrases in that it is a more complete and self-contained utterance. Normatively, in music of this era, it means a linear unit on the order of a period or sentence with at least one full cadence or stopping point. One could make similar distinctions for other styles, but I think the point is clear.
> 
> The term melody can also be used in a different sense to define the whole category of linear events within a style, as in: The melodic dimension of music comprises motives, figures, phrases, periods, sentences and, of course, melodies proper as described above.


Can you definitively prove that your definition is the axiomatically correct definition? No? I didn't think so either.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dsphipps100 said:


> Can you definitively prove that your definition is the axiomatically correct definition? No? I didn't think so either.


The definitions of "melody" offered by EdwardBast are commonly accepted definitions. In the broad sense, a sequence of tones in music; in the narrower sense, a sequence of a certain kind as defined within a style, which he describes.

Anyone can refuse to accept the common definition of anything. Where does that get us?

Definitions are not "axiomatic." An axiom is a proposition accepted as a basic premise which makes further reasoning or discussion possible. We don't have to accept common definitions of melody, but if we contest them we're responsible for offering some we think serve understanding better, and supporting our choice. "Anything in music anyone finds coherent or expressive" is not a definition but an anti-definition; it merely destroys distinctions which already exist, undermining understanding rather than clarifying it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dsphipps100 said:


> Can you definitively prove that your definition is the axiomatically correct definition? No? I didn't think so either.


This is not a case where "axiomatic" knowledge applies. One learns the proper usage of terminology by study, reading, and conversation with knowledgable people. All of the terms used to describe linear events in music: motive, figure, theme, melody, subject, counter subject, leitmotif, ritornello, row, and so on, have standard usages with respect to particular styles. I mentioned two standard meanings for the concept of melody, the general one used in distinguishing the basic parameters of music, as in rhythm, harmony, melody, timbre etc., and a more specific definition that corresponds pretty closely to the colloquial one under discussion when someone asks, for example, "What is a great melody?" You are of course free to use whatever terminology you want in whatever way you want. But it helps general communication and understanding when folks recognize and can employ standard usages for common terms.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> The definitions of "melody" offered by EdwardBast are commonly accepted definitions. In the broad sense, a sequence of tones in music; in the narrower sense, a sequence of a certain kind as defined within a style, which he describes.
> 
> Anyone can refuse to accept the common definition of anything. Where does that get us?


That was my whole point earlier, that there can be no consensus regarding the definition of "melody".


Woodduck said:


> Definitions are not "axiomatic."


Again, that was precisely my point earlier. I would not agree with a person who considers a one-chord figure to be "melodic", just as you have said, "definitions are not 'axiomatic' ", so who are we to deny that person their personal view of what makes a "melody"?


Woodduck said:


> "Anything in music anyone finds coherent or expressive" is not a definition but an anti-definition; it merely destroys distinctions which already exist, undermining understanding rather than clarifying it.


The "distinction", per se, is vis a vis a random note/sound which, for the proverbial listener, has no intrinsically coherent or expressive meaning. How many notes does it take for a sound (or collection of sounds) to suddenly be considered "melodic"? It's obviously more than zero, but does it need to be any higher? Who has the authority to make that decision?


EdwardBast said:


> This is not a case where "axiomatic" knowledge applies. One learns the proper usage of terminology by study, reading, and conversation with knowledgable people.


All of whom are merely expressing _their_ own personal opinion/preference, whatever their position/background might be.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

How about the four-note figure at the beginning of Beethoven's 5th? Is that considered a "melody"? It's certainly thematic and motivic. Or what about the repetitively descending 5ths at the beginning of Beethoven's 9th? Is that "melodic"? Or, to turn this completely on its head, what about the two-note figure at the beginning of the movie, "Jaws"? You sing that figure in the presence of anybody alive in the 70's ("Da-DUM"), and I almost guarantee they'll know exactly what movie you're referencing just by the sound. And that's just two notes. And then there's the three-note ascending fifths/fourths (C-G-C) at the beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra, which is almost as recognizable in our general culture as the Jaws theme...

So where does the line get drawn? Who has the authority to make that decision for any one listener other than the listener themself?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Best definition I know comes from the Great Tempter (himself a lesser melodist - though still a very good one - albeit a greater composer than Gershwin):

"It seems to me beyond doubt that Gershwin was an innovator. What he has done with rhythm, harmony and melody is not merely style. It is fundamentally different from the mannerism of many a serious composer. Such mannerism is based on artificial presumptions, which are gained by speculation and are conclusions drawn from the fashions and aims current among contemporary composers at certain times. Such a style is a superficial union of devices applied to a minimum of idea, without any inner reason or cause. Such music could be taken to pieces and put together in a different way, and the result would be the same nothingness expressed by another mannerism. One could not do this with Gershwin's music. *His melodies are not products of a combination, nor of a mechanical union, but they are units and could therefore not be taken to pieces.* Melody, harmony and rhythm are not welded together, but cast."

Emphasis mine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dsphipps100 said:


> That was my whole point earlier, that there can be no consensus regarding the definition of "melody".Again, that was precisely my point earlier. I would not agree with a person who considers a one-chord figure to be "melodic", just as you have said, "definitions are not 'axiomatic' ", so who are we to deny that person their personal view of what makes a "melody"?The "distinction", per se, is vis a vis a random note/sound which, for the proverbial listener, has no intrinsically coherent or expressive meaning. How many notes does it take for a sound (or collection of sounds) to suddenly be considered "melodic"? It's obviously more than zero, but does it need to be any higher? Who has the authority to make that decision?All of whom are merely expressing _their_ own personal opinion/preference, whatever their position/background might be.


I'm afraid you didn't understand a single thing I said, and so you are just repeating yourself as if I hadn't said anything.

Maybe it's because you have your own definitions of the words I used.

That's what happens when definitions are just "personal opinion."


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The definitions of "melody" offered by EdwardBast are commonly accepted definitions. In the broad sense, a sequence of tones in music; in the narrower sense, a sequence of a certain kind as defined within a style, which he describes.
> 
> Anyone can refuse to accept the common definition of anything. Where does that get us?
> 
> Definitions are not "axiomatic." An axiom is a proposition accepted as a basic premise which makes further reasoning or discussion possible. We don't have to accept common definitions of melody, but if we contest them we're responsible for offering some we think serve understanding better, and supporting our choice. "Anything in music anyone finds coherent or expressive" is not a definition but an anti-definition; it merely destroys distinctions which already exist, undermining understanding rather than clarifying it.


Woodduck,

WOW!!! Such insight as you share I rarely find even in peer-reviewed academics journals - BRAVO!!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2016)

norman bates said:


> no one is saying this.


No, but I did query whether that is what Woodduck and KenOC were saying - see my 'doubtful' post #50 and Woodduck's explanation. The reason I mistakenly inferred the conclusion I did was because of this:



Woodduck said:


> Musical perception involves pattern perception in time, and memory is essential to it. [...]
> 
> Memorability is as intrinsic to music as it is to any phenomenon with which the mind deals, and for the same reason: pattern comprehensibility - the existence of perceivable relationships between the components of experience.


Woodduck clarified what he meant, and that's fine.



EdwardBast said:


> I guess inducing the desire to remember a melody is sometimes as important as its actual memorability.


This is one of the reasons I like Prokofiev, for sure.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

_Melody, in music, the aesthetic product of a given succession of pitches in musical time, implying rhythmically ordered movement from pitch to pitch. Melody in Western music by the late 19th century was considered to be the surface of a group of harmonies. The top tone of a chord became a melody tone; chords were chosen for their colour and sense of direction relative to each other and were spaced so that a desired succession of tones lay on top. Any melody, then, had underlying chords that could be deduced. Thus, a good guitarist, analyzing mentally, can apply chords to a melody.

But melody is far older than harmony. The single line of melody was highly developed-e.g., in medieval European and Byzantine plainchant, in the melodies of the trouvères and troubadours, and in the ragas and maqāmāt (melody types) of Indian and Arab music. Combining several lines of melody at once is polyphony; varying a melody in different ways in simultaneous performance is heterophony; combining melody and chords is homophony.

A melodic line has several characteristics that, taken together, describe it:

1. It has contour, an overall line that rises, falls, arches, undulates, or moves in any other characteristic way. For example, the first line of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean" rises with a leap, then descends more or less stepwise. Melodic motion may be disjunct, using leaps, or conjunct, moving by steps; motion helps form the melody's contour.

2. Melody also has range: it occupies a certain space within the spectrum of pitches the human ear can perceive. Some primitive melodies have a range of two notes; the soprano solo in the "Kyrie Eleison" of Mozart's Mass in C Minor (K. 427) has a range of two octaves.

3. It has a scale. In musically sophisticated cultures, scales are formally recognized as systems of tones from which melody can be built. Melody, however, antedates the concept of scale. Scales may be abstracted from their melodies by listing the tones used in order of pitch. The intervals of a melody's scale contribute to its overall character. When children sing the ditty found throughout Europe, "It's raining, it's pouring" (g-g-e-a-g-e), they sing a melody that uses a scale of three tones; two intervals are used, a wide one (minor third) and a narrow one (major second). The harmonic minor scale of western Europe contains an interval not found in the major scale-an augmented second, as A♭-B-which contributes to the distinctive quality of many minor melodies. African and European melodies sometimes consist of chains of intervals, e.g., of thirds or fourths.

Composers and improvisers draw from a number of melodic resources:

1. A theme is a melody that is not necessarily complete in itself except when designed for a set of variations but is recognizable as a pregnant phrase or clause. A fugue subject is a theme; the expositions and episodes of a sonata are groups of themes.

2. Figures or motives, small fragments of a theme, are grouped into new melodies in the "development" of a sonata. In a fugue, they carry on the music when the subject and countersubject are silent.

3. In a sequence, a figure or group of chords is repeated at different levels of pitch.

4. Ornaments, or graces (small melodic devices such as grace notes, appoggiaturas, trills, slides, tremolo, and slight deviations from standard pitch), may be used to embellish a melody. Melodic ornamentation is present in most European music and is essential to Indian, Arabic, Japanese, and much other non-Western music.

Some musical systems have complex formulaic structures called modes or melody types with which melodies are built._

http://www.britannica.com/art/melody


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dsphipps100 said:


> How about the four-note figure at the beginning of Beethoven's 5th? Is that considered a "melody"? It's certainly thematic and motivic. Or what about the repetitively descending 5ths at the beginning of Beethoven's 9th? Is that "melodic"? Or, to turn this completely on its head, what about the two-note figure at the beginning of the movie, "Jaws"? You sing that figure in the presence of anybody alive in the 70's ("Da-DUM"), and I almost guarantee they'll know exactly what movie you're referencing just by the sound. And that's just two notes. And then there's the three-note ascending fifths/fourths (C-G-C) at the beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra, which is almost as recognizable in our general culture as the Jaws theme...
> 
> So where does the line get drawn? Who has the authority to make that decision for any one listener other than the listener themself?


The Beethoven "Fate" motive: It is a motive, it is a part of a theme, a generative part, which is why it is called a motive, but it is not a melody. (Using the term melody in the broader sense, one could say it is a melodic element or an element of melody.)

Jaws: Also a motive.

The Strauss: Also a motive.

(Motives are smaller constituent parts from which melodies, themes and other linear configurations are commonly constructed. They are often sequenced, transposed, inverted etc., and otherwise manipulated in generating or building larger units like themes or melodies.)

None of the examples you cited are melodies in the sense of the term relevant to this discussion. This is not complicated. This terminology is standard as are the usages. The line has been drawn by the consensus of the thousands of musicians, theorists, critics and everyday listeners who use the terminology and who have used it for a couple of centuries. We invite you to join us and will assist you with any further definitions about which you have questions.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

The problem I have with "memorability" being a crucial element of the definition of a good melody is that it relies too much on the reaction of the individual to the melody. Any "true" definition of a good melody, in my opinion, should be contained to the actual qualities of the melody itself i.e. A good balance of upward and downward motion, a good balance of steps and leaps, each note or set of notes propels itself to the next note or set of notes.

If the definition of melody is determined by someones reaction to it (how well one remembers the melody, how well one can hum a melody), what does that mean? Because some guy can't remember a melody then it's not a good melody? That's ridiculous. There are lots and lots of completely tone deaf people that couldn't remember a melody to save their life. And then what does that mean for the people that can remember the melody fairly easily? Then it all of a sudden a good melody again? Sorry, that's too subjective a definition for my taste.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> The problem I have with "memorability" being a crucial element of the definition of a good melody is that it relies too much on the reaction of the individual to the melody. Any "true" definition of a good melody, in my opinion, should be contained to the actual qualities of the melody itself i.e. A good balance of upward and downward motion, a good balance of steps and leaps, each note or set of notes propels itself to the next note or set of notes.
> 
> If the definition of melody is determined by someones reaction to it (how well one remembers the melody, how well one can hum a melody), what does that mean? Because some guy can't remember a melody then it's not a good melody? That's ridiculous.


Of course that's not the idea.
I would not say that this scene is beautiful but it's memorable for sure 





This to say that we probably call memorable something that is interesting, in a way or another.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The greatest of all melodies seem somehow miraculous or transcendent to me. Even when stripped of all accompaniment and harmony line, or played on a different instrument. They're the ones that can reach you even if you just listen to a person picking out the tune on a piano just using one finger.

Five from classical music:

Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, 2nd mov
Dvorjak, 9th Symphony Largo
Chopin, Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2
Bach, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring
Debussy, Clair de lune

(maybe I'll turn to opera and pop later)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> The problem I have with "memorability" being a crucial element of the definition of a good melody is that it relies too much on the reaction of the individual to the melody. Any "true" definition of a good melody, in my opinion, should be contained to the actual qualities of the melody itself i.e. A good balance of upward and downward motion, a good balance of steps and leaps, each note or set of notes propels itself to the next note or set of notes.
> 
> If the definition of melody is determined by someones reaction to it (how well one remembers the melody, how well one can hum a melody), what does that mean? Because some guy can't remember a melody then it's not a good melody? That's ridiculous. There are lots and lots of completely tone deaf people that couldn't remember a melody to save their life. And then what does that mean for the people that can remember the melody fairly easily? Then it all of a sudden a good melody again? Sorry, that's too subjective a definition for my taste.


But a definition of a "good" melody is going to have to be subjective anyway.

"A *good balance* of upward and downward motion" = subjective.
"a *good balance* of steps and leaps" = subjective.
"each note or set of notes *propels itself* to the next note or set of notes" = subjective.

Surely when assessing a subjective quality such as "good" or "great", one absolutely needs to take into account people's reactions. (And not, as it happens, the reactions of _individuals_).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In remembering, sitting here in this chair, a whole slew of memorable melodies, through all sorts of music, it again reinforces the importance of memorability as a core attribute of melody. I may remember many melodies quite imperfectly; I may even fail to remember the melody at all, at first, especially if the piece is new to me, but upon hearing just the few initial notes it often all comes flooding back. A melody must be memorable either directly in itself, or be memorable as having triggered pleasurable feelings upon past hearing, though we can't remember it in the present.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Most people can't hear melodies? Really? Most of the world's music consists of sequences of tones. Are you saying that most of the world's people can't hear these sequences, and distinguish one sequence from another?


There's different kinds of melodies. Most listeners can follow very catchy melodies, which is why pop music appeals to most people. Instrumental melodies, especially when a soloist is improvising and not repeating simple sequences, can be a stumbling block to many listeners. Adding rhythmic complexity and unorthodox phrasing can make it harder still. These melodies require concentrated and repeated listening sessions. But nevertheless, the melodies are there to be absorbed, enjoyed, and retained with a bit of effort.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

norman bates said:


> Of course that's not the idea.
> I would not say that this scene is beautiful but it's memorable for sure
> 
> 
> ...


Hilarious!
********


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Bad melody: 




Iffy melody: 




Good melody: 




Great melody: 




No melody:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> But a definition of a "good" melody is going to have to be subjective anyway.
> 
> "A *good balance* of upward and downward motion" = subjective.
> "a *good balance* of steps and leaps" = subjective.
> ...


Sure, but the examples I gave of my criteria for what makes a good melody are limited to the substance of the melody itself so I think they work better as definitions of "good melody". Even if memorability is something ultimately desirable in a melody, it's a criteria that lies too far outside the core of the subject to work for me as part of a definition.


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

Open Lane said:


> For me, a great melody either tiggers the memory of a specific time/place or becomes associated with a new one.


Great answer. I can connect.


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

dsphipps100 said:


> How about the four-note figure at the beginning of Beethoven's 5th? Is that considered a "melody"? It's certainly thematic and motivic. Or what about the repetitively descending 5ths at the beginning of Beethoven's 9th? Is that "melodic"? Or, to turn this completely on its head, what about the two-note figure at the beginning of the movie, "Jaws"? You sing that figure in the presence of anybody alive in the 70's ("Da-DUM"), and I almost guarantee they'll know exactly what movie you're referencing just by the sound. And that's just two notes. And then there's the three-note ascending fifths/fourths (C-G-C) at the beginning of Also Sprach Zarathustra, which is almost as recognizable in our general culture as the Jaws theme...
> 
> So where does the line get drawn? Who has the authority to make that decision for any one listener other than the listener themself?


For Beethoven, seek the relation with the following notes. Then the contrasts.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Bad melody:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I'll be... a point of agreement: Abba can write a better melody than Schoenberg (just kidding )! Seriously, though, Dancing Queen is one of my favorite songs, particularly as sung in that video. And, oh that Agnetha! I had a major kid-crush on her.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> [...] Sometimes melodies are intriguing and get under ones skin precisely because they defy memory in interesting ways - especially if they simultaneously make one want to sing them while proving difficult to grasp as wholes. [...] And then there are many gorgeous melodies by Prokofiev that are intriguing but difficult because of the way the harmony twists the musical space through which they pass. [...] So I guess inducing the desire to remember a melody is sometimes as important as its actual memorability.


It's Prokofiev I have in mind when I think of longer melodic lines that throw down the gauntlet to the memory (of this listener at least). I really like the melodies in his 5th Symphony - mostly in the 2nd and 3rd movements - precisely because they do not seem to be comprised of very short, repeated phrases...and as I was having trouble thinking about how to compare with LvB's melodic approach, I wondered at what point a repeated and varied motif becomes a 'melody', or whether all melodies can be broken down into smaller pieces (the repetition and variation has been more artfully concealed, perhaps)?


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2016)

violadude said:


> the substance of the melody itself


Prompted by discussions elsewhere, (and not wanting to start a whole new thread) I'm wondering if this is actually a critical point. What matters about 'melody' is less what it contains (what I assume violadude means by 'substance') and more how it is varied and the context in which it is set. However, while I think it's easy to show how composers can make a lot of music out of a little melody (by which I merely mean in this instance, a short sequence of notes), it's much less easy to show that the sequence is less important than the setting, not least because known melodies that I might use as examples are too familiar - and come with baggage - and I can hardly pick out 'unknown melodies' and show how they work.

An example of how picking apart the rainbow leads to losing sight of the beauty of the whole?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Something the musically challenged can hum in the shower and it still sounds good.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

kartikeys said:


> Great answer. I can connect.


And I second this one :tiphat:


----------

