# Melodies: Challenging vs Catchy



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Which do you prefer? To bring this back to my current favorite composer, I think Mozart wrote catchy melodies for the most part, except the Requiem which I find more challenging.

I'd define a challenging melody as one that doesn't strike you right away, but you grow to like it over time.

I think I like both, but lean towards catchy. Part of me believes when something grows on you, you just become familiar with it, and have learned to accept it with all it's flaws where a catchy melody is the real winner.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I don't feel any melodies are challenging. I think music not based on melodies *can be* more challenging to appreciate. They can both be appealing in different ways.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

A good melody is good whether it’s catchy or not. Catchiness doesn’t make a good melody.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I prefer catchy melodies by a wide margin, as do most people. There's a reason that music by Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Puccini, Borodin, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Albert Ketelby, Arthur Sullivan, Leroy Anderson, Richard Rodgers and such is so very, very popular: they wrote great tunes! Prokofieff could write a spiky melody as well as anyone, but it's his singable, great tunes that makes him one of the 20th c most loved composers. And it's why some people have a tough time with Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Stravinsky and their like: they understood that a melody can be a musical cul-de-sac; they're deadly in a symphony but fine for symphonic development.

It always makes me happy when I conduct a pops concert and I end with a march or two, by Sousa, Goldman, King, Fillmore...great marches have great tunes, audiences of all ages love them.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

The trouble with music is, it's ephemeral. It's not like a book, where you can reread a passage, or art, where you can stare at it. 

In a live performance, especially in a new piece, you hear a phrase, then it passes away. So the most effective music needs to be connective in some way - not necessarily "catchy" but at least compelling enough that there is a reason to want to hear it again.

I guess that means I'm not so much a fan of "catchy," but I want something compelling.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

Melodies help music to be more *tangible*

To answer your question, I like neither catchy nor challenging melodies, but I like melodies that surprises me. Beethoven's 15th quartet got a lot of them


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

for me the part that you can hear between 4:31 - 6:55 is the best music ever written


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

It's best for a work to have catchy "hooks" to keep you listening to the rest of the piece. An example is the climax of the finale of LvB's 15th string quartet-- from there, I learned to appreciate the less catchy melodies in the string quartet.

Another is the main theme of Brahms' Symphony no. 1 finale (the one that bears similarities to the Ode to Joy theme).


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> I prefer catchy melodies by a wide margin, as do most people. There's a reason that music by Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Puccini, Borodin, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Albert Ketelby, Arthur Sullivan, Leroy Anderson, Richard Rodgers and such is so very, very popular: they wrote great tunes! Prokofieff could write a spiky melody as well as anyone, but it's his singable, great tunes that makes him one of the 20th c most loved composers.


The ability to create a beautiful, cloying, memorable melody is a powerful gift. Being able to use it adroitly in a complex composition is an equally powerful gift.

I think the lack of such abilities is a major drawback of too many contemporary composers, and probably explains why why their audiences are so minuscule. I have the distinct impression that many instructors of modern courses in classical-style music composition have forsaken teaching the art of good melodic construction.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I generally like "catchy" tunes as well. However, the music of some composers I quite like (Bartók, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Janáček) aren't particularly "catchy" in the usual sense, but there is something "hooky" which makes up for it. I think these composers had a bit of the "showman" in them and found ways to make the audience love them anyway despite not being tunesmiths. As for Beethveon not being catchy, never really saw it that way. He had more than his share of good tunes but he knew a hook when he heard one and used it to the hilt even when the melodies weren't as strong. A lot of music these days isn't very catchy OR hooky. That starts to become a problem for me at one point.

And oddly enough, even when composers that DO give us "catchy" tunes up the yin yang (Rossini, Johann Strauss, Bellini) audiences seem to instinctively crave something a bit more and turn their noses up at it if it's TOO sweet and catchy. Those composers aren't near as popular as the ones that did more with what tunes (or at least hooks) they had, like Beethoven and Brahms (although they could let it rip when they needed to).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't feel any melodies are challenging. I think music not based on melodies *can be* more challenging to appreciate. They can both be appealing in different ways.


That's a poor melody then, a music not based on melody.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Catchiness is from a clear melodic pattern, the best example is the Green Sleeves, I would say, the catchiest melody in the world. I can sing it from music textbook score myself, the tune is easy to identify. But non-cathiness is complex in many factors, polyphony is one og them. Galileo` father Vincenzo Galilei claimed that Polyphony can not move people emotionally but offer an aural pleasure(I feel that way too). Monteverdi`s madrigals and motets are far more easier to please beginners than most of his contemporaries` for the catchiness of Prattica Seconda, it is this catchiness that asked for criticism from Artusi. 

I would consider catchiness is an important factor in music, but challenging factors can make music more imposing in other terms, like psychological, that is thw basis what many rumored "subliminal" messages about music founded on.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm for balanced in music. Both catchy and challenging melodies should occur in a composition and should be balanced and contrasted against each other.

Many early composers like Bach were great at this, but I think modern composers are too ignorant of creating catchier sections as a contrast to the challenging stuff. It makes a lot of music tiresome.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

Ariasexta said:


> Galileo` father Vincenzo Galilei claimed that Polyphony can not move people emotionally but offer an aural pleasure(I feel that way too).


I also felt this way when I attended the performance of Bruckner's 8th


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I find it a false dichotomy because for me a bit of challenge is often what makes melodies catchy. They catch in my mind because there's some element that makes them difficult to resolve, process, or easily play back in ones head. For example, the principal theme in the first movement of Prokofiev's Second Piano Concerto comprises balanced, lyrical, and relatively simple phrases, but there's a modulation of a tritone between them that presents an issue for playing it back. To get it right I need to hear in my head the accompanying parts that shift the key as well as the tune. That bit of trickiness is a teaser that keeps my mind working to assimilate the tune.

Another example is the second theme in the first movement of Shostakovich's Fifth Quartet. It has a kind of rhythmic hinge, a measure that's heard as simultaneously both weak and strong metrically — weak with respect to a phrase that's just ending, but strong with respect to the one that follows. Something similar but more complex happens in the opening theme of Boris Godunov — something Rimsky-Korsakoff apparently couldn't easily grasp, since he butchered it in his revised version of the opera. The intrigue of these ambiguities is a big part of what makes these melodies beautiful to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Tarneem said:


> for me the part that you can hear between 4:31 - 6:55 is the best music ever written






 - another wonderful late Beethoven melody


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

Nawdry said:


> The ability to create a beautiful, cloying, memorable melody is a powerful gift. Being able to use it adroitly in a complex composition is an equally powerful gift.
> 
> I think the lack of such abilities is a major drawback of too many contemporary composers, and probably explains why why their audiences are so minuscule. I have the distinct impression that many instructors of modern courses in classical-style music composition have forsaken teaching the art of good melodic construction.


This is an excellent comment, perhaps the best in this thread so far, although mbhaub's is also very good. It gets right to the core of the problem with contemporary music. Beautiful, memorable, and "catchy," melodies are no longer being written, with extremely few exceptions.

I have heard various explanations for this unfortunate situation. One is that beautiful, memorable melodies are obsolete, and that music has progressed on to more important things. Also, several seemingly well-educated people have told me that it's no longer possible because "all the good melodies have already been invented and used."

I would agree with Nawdry that the harsh truth is that contemporary composers just don't have the ability to create great melodies and weave them 'adroitly' into complex compositions. It is an exceedingly rare gift. If they could do it, they would. But they can't, so they don't. It can be vastly easier and faster to write pieces with little or no memorable melody and melodic structure.

Part of the problem may lie with the current music education system. As with Nawdry, it is my understanding that many, or most, music composition instructors today do not encourage their students to develop strong melodic skills. In fact, I was amazed to discover that many actually discourage it. I suspect that the reason is largely because such instructors themselves lack melody creation skills, unlike during the common practice era, when many composition students could study under the tutelage of the greatest melodists of all time.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Catchy





Challenging


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's a poor melody then, a music not based on melody.


How can music without a continuous melody be judged at all on melody, though.  It's like saying an SUV is a poorly constructed sedan.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> How can music without a continuous melody be judged at all on melody, though.  It's like saying an SUV is a poorly constructed sedan.


I think of a lot of Satie's piano works. Lots of them were just chord based compositions really lacking in strong melody, but the chord progression does produce some glimpse of a melody when there isn't a main one in the forefront of it all.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

neofite said:


> This is an excellent comment, perhaps the best in this thread so far,


It's only an excellent comment if you think the subject of the thread is bashing "contemporary" music.

IMO, Edward Bast's post is most germane. It begins to explore what a melody is (or can be), and exemplifies some of the things that make more subtle and complex melodies at least as attractive as the immediately catchy.

The first movement of Beethoven's 5th must be one of the most famous pieces of music with the least interesting "melody" ever written. What this shows is that, unsurprisingly, melody cannot really be divorced from its context. I like to hum a good tune like everyone else, but I don't listen to classical music just to listen to catchy tunes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Forster said:


> It's only an excellent comment if you think the subject of the thread is bashing "contemporary" music.
> 
> IMO, Edward Bast's post is most germane. It begins to explore what a melody is (or can be), and exemplifies some of the things that make more subtle and complex melodies at least as attractive as the immediately catchy.
> 
> The first movement of Beethoven's 5th must be one of the most famous pieces of music with the least interesting "melody" ever written. What this shows is that, unsurprisingly, melody cannot really be divorced from its context. I like to hum a good tune like everyone else, but I don't listen to classical music just to listen to catchy tunes.


I think you are talking about dissecting a work to it's counterpoint and other varied details other than the leading melodies. That's all fine, but what leads the common ear to want to break down music in that way? A great hook, that's what!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think you are talking about dissecting a work to it's counterpoint and other varied details other than the leading melodies. That's all fine, but what leads the common ear to want to break down music in that way? A great hook, that's what!


"The common ear"?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Forster said:


> "The common ear"?


One that isn't as advanced in listening, a perspective I admire. Such a person's responses feel more honest a lot of the times to me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> One that isn't as advanced in listening, a perspective I admire. Such a person's responses feel more honest a lot of the times to me.


There's nothing wrong with either common or advanced ears that aren't pretentious about their preferences. Personally, I like both "catchy" and "challenging."

But my point was that this is not a binary choice, because "melody" isn't as simple as you make out.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Which do you prefer? To bring this back to my current favorite composer, I think Mozart wrote catchy melodies for the most part, except the Requiem which I find more challenging.
> 
> I'd define a challenging melody as one that doesn't strike you right away, but you grow to like it over time.
> 
> I think I like both, but lean towards catchy. Part of me believes when something grows on you, you just become familiar with it, and have learned to accept it with all it's flaws where *a catchy melody is the real winner.*





Captainnumber36 said:


> I think you are talking about dissecting a work to it's counterpoint and other varied details other than the leading melodies. *That's all fine, but what leads the common ear to want to break down music in that way? A great hook, that's what! *





Captainnumber36 said:


> *One that isn't as advanced in listening, a perspective I admire. Such a person's responses feel more honest a lot of the times to me.*


You present your view transparently, but how would you explain the link between catchiness and honesty? What about songwriters/composers? Are songwriters that make pop songs catchy more honest in exploiting the catchiness of a hook than composers/songwriters who write challenging melodies?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You present your view transparently, but how would you explain the link between catchiness and honesty? What about songwriters/composers? Are songwriters that make pop songs catchy more honest in exploiting the catchiness of a hook than composers/songwriters who write challenging melodies?


Well, I am talking more from the listener's experience. You are talking more from the composer's viewpoint, but I'm not interested in that, unless the convo goes somewhere interesting with that. I think an honest composer creates what's in his/her heart.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Give me a catchy melody anytime!


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Give me a challenging melody anytime!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Which do you prefer? To bring this back to my current favorite composer, I think Mozart wrote catchy melodies for the most part, except the Requiem which I find more challenging.
> 
> I'd define a challenging melody as one that doesn't strike you right away, but you grow to like it over time.
> 
> I think I like both, but lean towards catchy. Part of me believes when something grows on you, you just become familiar with it, and have learned to accept it with all it's flaws where a catchy melody is the real winner.


What I find is that catchy melodies wear out their welcome -- for example, I don't want to ever hear this again -- it has worn out its welcome






but challenging melodies are real ear worms for me, love them. Listen to Moses sing _Einziger, ewiger, allgegenwärtiger_ 45 seconds into this.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> What I find is that catchy melodies wear out their welcome -- for example, I don't want to ever hear this again -- it has worn out its welcome
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What about treasured catchy ones like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or Scarborough Fair? Not all catchy melodies are created equally!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What about treasured catchy ones like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or Scarborough Fair? Not all catchy melodies are created equally!


I thought we were talking about CM melodies?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Challenging for me. 

The catchiness of a melody is probably near the bottom of the criteria I enjoy in music. 

Not just classical, but jazz and progressive music also.

I love music that does not reveal everything, without a bit of (highly rewarding) 'work'. And sometimes, melodies can be implied, not explicit.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think Mozart wrote catchy melodies for the most part,
> I'd define a challenging melody as one that doesn't strike you right away, but you grow to like it over time.


You can just get straight to the point (ie. "Beethoven is Better"), btw. I know what you try to say everytime (I've known you long enough to).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Forster said:


> I thought we were talking about CM melodies?


Sure. Blue Danube. Fur Elise. Moonlight. Ode to Joy.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> You can just get straight to the point (ie. "Beethoven is Better"), btw. I know what you try to say everytime (I've known you long enough to).


Not my intention. It's really to see where ppl lay, and why.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think challenging melodies are just harder to understand, but you can grow just as tired of them as catchy ones.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Bach primarily comes to mind when I read your definition of challenging melody. They're not typically thought of as memorable "tunes," but these pieces were the most persistent ear-worms that I ever had.










To me the 8th Contrapunctus isn't any less melodic than Tchaikovsky, though it did take me a lot longer to make sense of it. A lot of Bach's material is complex in a layered and angular way that makes it hard for me to understand at first, but once I grasp it, the melodies inside will remain interesting for much, much longer than more traditional ones. I'm still not sure I'd say I _prefer_ them, though.

I don't tend to think of "challenging melodies" as ones that I needed more time to like, but ones that are more prolonged or with more moving parts that make them work, or that achieve fluidity with a controlled awkwardness or irregularity. The opening melodies in Mozart's Piano Trio in G Major always did that for me, how they seem to veer or trip in an unexpected direction with every other step they take, while still seeming "right" the whole way. Compare that to the opening melody of his 27th piano concerto, which seems melodic in a more self-evident and conventional way to me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think challenging melodies are just harder to understand, but you can grow just as tired of them as catchy ones.


What you call catchy melodies that the common ear likes (as in top 40 pop) has little depth to me, and more challenging melodies have more depth. For me something with more depth is more satisfying than something relying more on a hook with less depth.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> What you call catchy melodies that the common ear likes (as in top 40 pop) has little depth to me, and more challenging melodies have more depth. For me something with more depth is more satisfying than something relying more on a hook with less depth.


Let's just say the best melodies grab your ear and have depth. That's probably true, no?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let's just say the best melodies grab your ear and have depth. That's probably true, no?


What grabs my ear I don't necessarily find good or has depth. For me it's involuntary. Like tunes for commercials or ring tones. Some I'd really like to get them out of my head. But that's just me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let's just say the best melodies grab your ear and have depth. That's probably true, no?


I can't speak for Phil, but let's just say you're just talking nonsense. You refuse to countenance the idea that "melody" is _not_ simply _either _catchy _or _challenging, or the idea that melody can't be divorced from its context.


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

Schubert's music is founded on lyricism: even his most sophisticated and profound pieces, like string quartet in D minor D.810, are full of melodies which stick with your heart. That's one reason why I like his music and other composers with this similar gift for melody.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

There are melodies that only a few can compose. They are not relatively short phrases, but longer and drawn out. The following example follows the faster, louder first movement. The second movement follows with a wondrously beautiful opening.The first long remarkable melody rather than being repeated by the piano is followed by the piano playing yet a different long melodic phrase. There are other numbingly beautiful melodic slow movements by Beethoven, but this is near or at the top.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

goes from the catchy to the challenging, @0:43


----------

