# If music is tuneful, is it "lesser?"



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Seems like there is sometimes an intellectual preference for music that is more "rhetorical" as opposed to tuneful.

In my experience it seems that composers such as (later) Stravinsky, Schönberg, Webern etc. are often placed on pedestals for the music they produce (often lacking any traditional melody whatsoever but brimming with an abundance "theory") but composers like Tchaikovsky are looked down upon for his use of "sappy" melodies and big tunes.

Seems like sometimes enjoying a good, toe-tapping melody in classical musi is somewhat _verboten_. What do y'all think?

By the way, not all tuneful music is good and not all "tuneless" music is bad. That is not at all my position, so please bear that in mind before you personally attack me. I am just interested in the general opinion here as to the question I posed above.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Even hearing name of Stravisnky makes me sick. I don't care if it makes me classical ignorant, but I belive one thing: composer which is able to compose work like Rite of Spring is educated composer. Composer which can write great melodies is talented one.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Ahh great, now I've done it. In an attempt to correct the misspelled word (tunelful) in the original version of this thread, I've created a double. Now, there are two threads on the same subject. This ought to be interesting


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> Ahh great, now I've done it. In an attempt to correct the misspelled word (tunelful) in the original version of this thread, I've created a double. Now, there are two threads on the same subject. This ought to be interesting


Let's see whether same people will post different opinions in the two threads... time to diagnose our latent bipolar disorders here!


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Lisztfreak said:


> Let's see whether same people will post different opinions in the two threads... time to diagnose our latent bipolar disorders here!


Wow, I need to find this other thread... though it's probably been deleted by now... 

Tuneful music being "lesser"? Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Plenty of tuneful music happens to be great. Look at Mahler, Sibelius, Schubert (!), etc... Plenty of great music is tuneful. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Even hearing name of Stravisnky makes me sick. I don't care if it makes me classical ignorant, but I belive one thing: composer which is able to compose work like Rite of Spring is educated composer. Composer which can write great melodies is talented one.


There are some great tunes in Rite of Spring. Not the type of tunes you whistle during a walk in the park, but great tunes nonetheless.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

World Violist said:


> Wow, I need to find this other thread... though it's probably been deleted by now...
> 
> Tuneful music being "lesser"? Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Plenty of tuneful music happens to be great. Look at Mahler, Sibelius, Schubert (!), etc... Plenty of great music is tuneful. It's just ignorant to say otherwise.


I hope it hasn't!  There's already a fine number of posts there! And it's older than this one.

Is Sibelius really tuneful? The adjective doesn't spring to mind when I think about his (glorious) music.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> There are some great tunes in Rite of Spring. Not the type of tunes you whistle during a walk in the park, but great tunes nonetheless.


I find they're perfectly hummable - simple Russian folk tunes, based largely around anhemitonic pentatonic cells.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Herzeleide said:


> anhemitonic pentatonic cells.


Gee. Nice words.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I would say Sibelius is often tuneful, but in a very strange way.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

A few tuneful composers: Vaughan Williams, Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Liszt, Bax, Delius (though hard to hum, they do stick in the mind), Smetana, Dvorak, Saint-Saens, etc.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> I find they're perfectly hummable


They are hummable, but somehow it seems more likely to find one humming a Tchaikovsky tune I think. 


> simple Russian folk tunes, based largely around anhemitonic pentatonic cells.


I'll take your word for it, mate.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Tapkaara said:


> I would say Sibelius is often tuneful, but in a very strange way.


 Right... but that weirdness is what makes the music heavenly.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

With Sibelius, you could find your self humming ostinato string gestures, like from the 6th Symphony. How weird would people think you are to hear you doing that!?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Beethoven's a bit tougher to call "tuneful" than some other composers.

And about "Le Sacre"--I find myself whistling one of the tunes in that WAY too much for my own good...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

The Sacre is actually pretty tuneful. And I'm sure everyone in this forum has hummed or whistled the opening bassoon melody to themselves once or twice in their lives...

Dooooooo do do DO do do do doooooo.....


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Seems like there is sometimes an intellectual preference for music that is more "rhetorical" as opposed to tuneful.


I think your title is a bit misleading in the following sense. Melody, like rhythm, structure, is an element in a composer's toolbox, to be invoked whenever this serves a purpose. Most great compositions use all the tools available at the time of writing with an emphasis that reflects the purpose of the composition. So it is not an either/or, but a question of balance.

A piece that is 'only tuneful' may be initially appealing, indeed may haunt one for quite a while, but eventually it loses appeal. This is a problem I have with much of Tchaikovsky. Gorgeous tunes, but I've heard them, looked for more and found not much (I'd except the 5th Symphony, which has a better balance between melody, dynamics and structure).

Le Sacre du Printemps is an interesting example. Stravinsky made heavy use of (complex and innovative) rhythms, but mixed in just the right amount of melody (imho) to achieve his objective and create one of the great masterpieces of orchestral music. It is not 'tuneful'; melody is used very skillfully to create the effect the composer intended.

As usual, the prime example is Beethoven. He could write a tune as well as the next guy, but one would describe virtually none of his compositions as 'tuneful', not even the final movement of Op 109, whose 'tune' nevertheless continues to haunt one, not because it is so gorgeous but because of what he does with it. When the tune returns at the conclusion of the movement it sounds so, so different. The intervening variations have imbued the tune with associations that exponentiate the tune's significance in the mind of a listener.

Can 'tuneless' music have appeal? Obviously, to some people. But why would a composer not use one of the most powerful tools in his box? Recently, when Esa-Pekka Salonen left LA, he remarked in an interview that his time in LA had taught him that it was ok (!) to incorporate melody into his compositions. Interesting comment, I thought, and not only a reflection on the evolution of Esa-Pekka as a composer.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> The Sacre is actually pretty tuneful. And I'm sure everyone in this forum has hummed or whistled the opening bassoon melody to themselves once or twice in their lives...
> 
> Dooooooo do do DO do do do doooooo.....


Exactly, I was running a few days ago and those bassoon notes just sticked to my mind. Les Noces also has some big tunes, perhaps some few at the same time.

Actually, Stravinsky thought that the gift to melody was the greatest in music, he adored Tchaikovsky, Bellini, Mozart and despised Beethoben. His music is also very tuneful, and he uses several sources of melody, folk russian, baroque and clasical, church music... Some people who only grew used to a certain romantic type of melody, but Stravinsky demands newer ears and a not too lazy listener.

And I also think there are other composers who are extremely melodic, like Berlioz, Mozart, Schubert and Mendelssohn, but they were not remembered here,. That's because the problem with Tchaikovsky or the Bel Canto is not the proeminence of melody, but another one, lack of form in the former and lack of everything else in the Bel Canto.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Yosser said:


> Can 'tuneless' music have appeal? Obviously, to some people. But why would a composer not use one of the most powerful tools in his box? Recently, when Esa-Pekka Salonen left LA, he remarked in an interview that his time in LA had taught him that it was ok (!) to incorporate melody into his compositions. Interesting comment, I thought, and not only a reflection on the evolution of Esa-Pekka as a composer.


That also happened to his countrywoman Kajia Saariaho. Her music started to have melody (she was a die-hard spectralist, which means no melody at all), some didn't like it, but I loved L'Amour de Loin and that Violin concerto, both compositions sound more complete than her earlier works (like the string quartets), although I didn't hear her newest works.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Interesting how two composers (who both happen to be Finnish) have shown relectance (according to the anecdotes) in writing music with some amount of melody thrown in. 

I think there is some amount of stigma placed on melody, at least in modern music. So, seems like some composers have been reticent to step out of the "spectral domaine" out of fear their music would not be takes as seriously.

If this is the case, I think it's a cryin' shame. Perhaps there is the thought that a good tune here and there has the effect of lowering a "high brow" composition into something infintile and basic like a folk tune. Being tuneful is perhaps taking a shortcut?


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think there is some amount of stigma placed on melody, at least in modern music. So, seems like some composers have been reticent to step out of the "spectral domaine" out of fear their music would not be takes as seriously.
> 
> If this is the case, I think it's a cryin' shame. Perhaps there is the thought that a good tune here and there has the effect of lowering a "high brow" composition into something infintile and basic like a folk tune. Being tuneful is perhaps taking a shortcut?


I agree with you, but not modern, contemporary music. I heard a conversation in the university of a composer and a student of composition. The professor told he student "we the moderns were free from the binds of melody" which I think it is an extremely idiot thing to say.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

bdelykleon said:


> I agree with you, but not modern, contemporary music. I heard a conversation in the university of a composer and a student of composition. The professor told he student "we the moderns were free from the binds of melody" which I think it is an extremely idiot thing to say.


I guess when I said modern, I meant contemporary.

I agree this professor is a fool. Anyone who rights music is bound to any number of rules anyway, so why not throw a melody in there from time to time? Just strange.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> ...By the way, not all tuneful music is good and not all "tuneless" music is bad...


I agree with this. I not only enjoy the classics but also the more experimental composers like Messiaen, Carter, Varese, Gubaidulina, Henze, Berg, Piazzolla, and this list can go on. I particularly enjoy how composers like this sometimes create mood and evoke atmospheres without resorting to a tune. Or in the case of Carter, for example, he gives you snippets of tunes, and the listener has to put the puzzle together, so to speak.

I think that it is also a mistake to apply C19th notions of what music should be like to something produced later. Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring _was indeed a revolutionary piece, it inspired composers to actually put forward the question of 'what is music?' Composers have been redefining & debating this ever since...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

bdelykleon said:


> I agree with you, but not modern, contemporary music. I heard a conversation in the university of a composer and a student of composition. The professor told he student "we the moderns were free from the binds of melody" which I think it is an extremely idiot thing to say.


There is so much wrong with that statement... firstly, it is NATURAL for people to think of things in simple and orderly terms, and therefore melody is perfect for humanity. Secondly, it makes him sound extremely arrogant, and for the most part the people who sound extremely arrogant can't really have a lot to say that's truly worth listening to (unless this guy's Bernstein or something, which I very highly doubt).

It's so silly the way people argue about the "right way to compose". For God's sake, just let the people compose!!!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> I heard a conversation in the university of a composer and a student of composition. The professor told he student "we the moderns were free from the binds of melody" which I think it is an extremely idiot thing to say.


Well maybe he meant it in a positive way, that contemporary composers have more freedom in what they can do, compared to earlier generations. It reminds me of a quote by the great Edgard Varese, which I've trundled out a number of times on this site already, but it's a very insightful quote about what composers like him were aiming to do:

"I am not a musician. I work with rhythms, frequencies and intensities. Tunes are the gossips in music."

Varese had a very forceful personality, it could be compared to Beethoven's. Here I think he was saying that he was not willing to compromise what he wanted to express within the confines of a tune. What he was trying to do was free music from the confines of earlier traditions. I don't think that he was trying to impose a new dogma, but quite the opposite. I think that this type of newer expression can be very refreshing for the listener. But you have to be more open minded, and as I said above, not judge contemporary music from a C19th standpoint. That is just as pointless as judging a Picasso or Pollock by the standards of the Renaissance...


----------



## andruini (Apr 14, 2009)

Andre said:


> Well maybe he meant it in a positive way, that contemporary composers have more freedom in what they can do, compared to earlier generations. It reminds me of a quote by the great Edgard Varese, which I've trundled out a number of times on this site already, but it's a very insightful quote about what composers like him were aiming to do:
> 
> "I am not a musician. I work with rhythms, frequencies and intensities. Tunes are the gossips in music."
> 
> Varese had a very forceful personality, it could be compared to Beethoven's. Here I think he was saying that he was not willing to compromise what he wanted to express within the confines of a tune. What he was trying to do was free music from the confines of earlier traditions. I don't think that he was trying to impose a new dogma, but quite the opposite. I think that this type of newer expression can be very refreshing for the listener. But you have to be more open minded, and as I said above, not judge contemporary music from a C19th standpoint. That is just as pointless as judging a Picasso or Pollock by the standards of the Renaissance...


I agree with this. I find that while melodies and tunes are an important and valuable resource in music, I'm much more interested in sound itself.. I'm more interested in texture, in moods, if you will, and how feelings can be conveyed through that.. This is my personal opinion, though, and it is not to say that tuneful music is less worthy of attention.. I don't think anyone worth listening to holds that opinion..


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Tunes are the gossip of music, eh?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Tunes are the gossip of music, eh?


He must have said this in the 1920's (the source I got the quote from doesn't provide a date). Then, as there probably are now, there were many conservative people musically, who basically said everything after (& including) the _Rite of Spring _was rubbish. Such a person was Saint-Saens, who was Varese's teacher for a time, and we all know Saint-Saen's negative reaction at the premiere of the _Rite_. I think Varese meant this as a riposte to people like this who were limited and narrow in their definition of what music is.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Andre said:


> He must have said this in the 1920's (the source I got the quote from doesn't provide a date). Then, as there probably are now, there were many conservative people musically, who basically said everything after (& including) the _Rite of Spring _was rubbish. Such a person was Saint-Saens, who was Varese's teacher for a time, and we all know Saint-Saen's negative reaction at the premiere of the _Rite_. I think Varese meant this as a riposte to people like this who were limited and narrow in their definition of what music is.


Well, I don't think the admiration/writing of a tune is grounds for being limited and narrow in defining music. If tunes are nothing more than "gossip," well, I just cannot agree with that. That doesn't mean one should limit themselves to writing music that consists only of one catchy melody after another, but melodies are hardly gossip.

And it's quotes like this that prompted me to create this thread to begin with. In some circles, there is an aversion to the "shackles" of melody in music. I think this is just sheer pretention.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There are different kinds of melody. Of course the main type that people listen is in something like pop music. In a ballad people will look at a melody as long drawn out phrases with rises and falls. In an uptempo song there are shorter catchy phrases often. But alot of modern western pop music (and it's influence is global) I don't find that melodic, it sounds more formulaic than inventive. This is the key to me, individuality, invention and craft. 

There's a thread on what people want from modern classical music, and that to me relates to this thread as well. Of course people want a structure in music there. Structure relates to melody, whether it be the use of an interesting memorable motif and transforming it in interesting ways and juxtaposing it to another good idea - or whether it's the use of a longer melodic idea within the structure. The melody or musical idea is the thing that makes us remember a good piece after listening to it. But it has to be used well within the structure. It's probably the same with any music: pop, classical, jazz....whatever. An interesting idea is needed, but you don't want it overuse that idea or just use an idea which is relatively boring with few possibilities. You need enough good musical ideas in a piece to fill out it's length.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Andre said:


> . Here I think he was saying that he was not willing to compromise what he wanted to express within the confines of a tune.


That's a good point, the English language has two diferent words tune and melody. I don't know for sure if there is any difference between them. If there are, sorry for using the wrong meaning.

But the definition of what is a tune and what is not is hard, isn't it? I mean, in on extreme we may call tune only the big long and florid ones of italian opera, like _Casta Diva_ anything which cannot be called _cantabile_ is no tune at so gone are perhaps half or more of the standart repertoire. In the other extreme we my call tune perhaps everything, even teh most atonal, like that serenade of Ferneyhough someone posted here.

With this meaning there are still some works, even in the standart repertoire, which defie the sense of tune: the first theme of the Waldstein sonata, it is not a tune, but a repeated chord, a texture. The violin concerto also has a non melodic theme, and Haydn also has some other examples of that. But even with that, there is still a recognizable melody, a soprano in four part harmony.

When I think of freed from the binds of melody I think like the most radical spectralist: music is timbre, and there is no melody at all, no counterpoint, no parts, no discrete section of events, anything. With that understanding I'm a little bit uneasy.


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

It's no lesser no, though some would say so. The more I read about Arnold Schoenberg the more I think what an **** he was! All these elements of music are equal in value and in importance to me, a good tune is only one of them though not a pre-requisite:
1) Tune
2) Atmosphere - what emotions does it evoke?
3) Pace/Rhythm/Dynamics
4) Counter-melodies/harmonies - sometimes use of a clever counter-melody can make even a dull tune sound wonderful
5) Timbre/tone/soundstage


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

bdelykleon said:


> But the definition of what is a tune and what is not is hard, isn't it?


I've never been able to resolve this question, largely because different people seem to find different things tuneful. I've mentioned before on here a conversation I once had with a colleague which went like this:

Him: You're keen on opera? Whom do you like most?
Me: Wagner.
Him: Wagner? How do you cope with such long periods of time with no tunes?
Me. But Wagner is full of tunes. It's nothing but tunes. Whom do you like most?
Him: Verdi.
Me: Verdi? Gosh - I can't hear any tunes in Verdi.

I was reminded of this last night sitting through an interminable performance of _Don Carlos_ by Opera North. Three and a half hours sitting in an almost tune-free void, and yet another failed Verdi experiment on my part. But it's blindingly obvious that my whole where's-the-tune 'thing' is something to do with the way my particular brain handles the notes, and the fact that many people find Verdi bursting with tunes tells me their brains are wired differently.

Anyway - my question is: since we all have different abilities to detect 'tunes', and find them in different places, I wonder how it can be possible for anyone to assert that 'tunes' are lowbrow - or whatever. Whose tunes would we be talking about?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I've never been able to resolve this question, largely because different people seem to find different things tuneful. I've mentioned before on here a conversation I once had with a colleague which went like this:
> 
> Him: You're keen on opera? Whom do you like most?
> Me: Wagner.
> ...


Yeh I think it is about how the brain handles music, it's about making order from the music....really about hearing the structure of it.

Some of it I think is whether people are willing to listen to different types of music and so hear the different ways in which a musical 'idea' can be used. Then it's a matter of how memorable the idea is (how original, how much felt) to someone and whether it is used in such a way that it can sustain the length of a piece in which it is used.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Lisztfreak said:


> Right... but that weirdness is what makes the music heavenly.


He has some nicely hummable tunes in his tone poems. Not sure about his symphonies, but the likes of Tapiola(or Tapioca as I can't help calling it) and Poholah's Daughter. In fact my first encounter with Sibelius was when I heard this tune on a current affairs program called Brass Tacks. I never watched the program but loved the music. I never knew what it was and then one day I found a CD of Sibelius's tone poems and there it was!


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

Cyclops said:


> He has some nicely hummable tunes in his tone poems. Not sure about his symphonies, but the likes of Tapiola(or Tapioca as I can't help calling it) and Poholah's Daughter. In fact my first encounter with Sibelius was when I heard this tune on a current affairs program called Brass Tacks. I never watched the program but loved the music. I never knew what it was and then one day I found a CD of Sibelius's tone poems and there it was!


There are a few other works of his with tunes that stick in your mind but are hard to call big tunes. Night Ride and Sunrise, Symphonies Nos. 1, 5, 7... In the Violin Concerto, however, the tunes are less demanding and more immediate.

There are different types of melody with different composers. That is one of the things you can usually recognise the author by. Beethoven, Chopin, Vaughan Williams, Fauré and many others have a very distinct melodic style that cannot be mistaken for any other composer.

Also, what is a tune? What is melody? They say it's a musical phrase in which notes are arranged according to certain intervals of pitch.
But a tune can only be that one which is something memorable, something that flows and comes home in a way pleasant and logical to human mind.

However, some 'tunes' I remember very well aren't tunes in fact. Sometimes I find chordal progressions or a single tone interval captivating enough to be kind of obsessed with it for a couple of days. Such examples I find in Tippett, Roussel, Janáček, Alwyn and Schoenberg, to name but a few.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Lisztfreak said:


> There are different types of melody with different composers. That is one of the things you can usually recognise the author by. Beethoven, Chopin, Vaughan Williams, Fauré and many others have a very distinct melodic style that cannot be mistaken for any other composer.
> 
> .


Yes I often surprise people when I hear a composition I've not heard before or am not familiar with and I'll say Sounds like Beethoven. They just look at me as if to say,But it all sounds the same. But Beethoven is very distinct from say Mozart,who is very distinct from Haydn etc.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yosser said:


> But why would a composer not use one of the most powerful tools in his box?


Because the composer thinks that no parameter is more powerful than any other? Sacrificing melody opens up a composer's options to develop harmony, texture and rhythm. Much modern and contemporary music demonstrates this. Like Renaissance choral polyphony, the lines are autonomous, hence either every line is a melody or none is (although 'melody' often implies some kind of hierarchy is involved, with subordinate voices, so it would be more accurate to say that there is no melody).

Such masterpieces like Ligeti's _Atmosphères_, Carter's _Concerto for Orchestra_ and Murail's magnificent _Gondwana_, demonstrate how aspects other than melody can be developed without any loss to the expressive power of the music.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

bdelykleon said:


> That also happened to his countrywoman Kajia Saariaho. Her music started to have melody (she was a die-hard spectralist, which means no melody at all), some didn't like it, but I loved L'Amour de Loin and that Violin concerto, both compositions sound more complete than her earlier works (like the string quartets), although I didn't hear her newest works.


Yes, she's a great composer.


----------



## UniverseInfinite (May 16, 2009)

Hahaha, this topic is very interesting!
"Good" music is one that can "capture and manipulate" the "most" of its audience at "one" particular time.
So, how do people "define" or "account" for the "quoted" words at "any" one time? 
That is also up for debating.
Conclusion: what is "Good" or "Bad" is very "objective" to an individual "human being" at "one" particular time.
Therefore, the "debate" will be "endless".


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

UniverseInfinite said:


> Hahaha, this topic is very interesting!
> "Good" music is one that can "capture and manipulate" the "most" of its audience at "one" particular time.
> So, how do people "define" or "account" for the "quoted" words at "any" one time?
> That is also up for debating.
> ...


"What""the""hell""?"


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

HAHAHA. That post is absurd!


----------



## UniverseInfinite (May 16, 2009)

hahahahaha...


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> the first theme of the Waldstein sonata, it is not a tune, but a repeated chord, a texture. The violin concerto also has a non melodic theme,


Important to note you're referring to the opening movements. The finale of the Waldstein does have a tune, though not a particularly memorable one. The finale of the violin concerto, on the other hand (assuming you're referring to Beethoven's), has a superb tune and it is surely part of the design of the concerto that the solo instrument gets to really 'sing' only in that final movement.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Yosser said:


> Important to note you're referring to the opening movements. The finale of the Waldstein does have a tune, though not a particularly memorable one.


**** off! That finale to the Waldstein is one of Beethoven's most beautiful and haunting melodies! Daa daaaaa daa daaa daa daaa daaaAAAAAAAAAAAA!


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

Herzeleide said:


> Because the composer thinks that no parameter is more powerful than any other? Sacrificing melody opens up a composer's options to develop harmony, texture and rhythm. Much modern and contemporary music demonstrates this. Like Renaissance choral polyphony, the lines are autonomous, hence either every line is a melody or none is (although 'melody' often implies some kind of hierarchy is involved, with subordinate voices, so it would be more accurate to say that there is no melody).


If 'no parameter is more powerful than any other', then all parameters are equal. So if a composer chooses deliberately to write music that has no melodic component at all, s/he must have a strong reason for leaving out a parameter that is equal to all the others.

I'd agree that defining 'melody' gets you into a hornets nest, so best not to try. It's even more complex than beauty, which 'one knows when one sees'. The theme of the allegretto of Beethoven's 7th is surely not a tune. However, the movement itself is memorably tuneful. Beethoven is invoking a sense of melody even when his theme is not a tune.

It is of course the right of any composer to use or not use one or more tools of the trade. It seems to me, though, that the 'absence of melody' was in some schools of 20th century composition elevated almost to a religion, as though incorporating tuneful elements in a composition was heresy.

Obviously, a great composer will not feel bound by constraints of fashion. It is possible that some composers who chose to expunge melody from their tool box will emerge as 'great'. I doubt it, personally, but that's just one guy's opinion.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

This reminds of all those musical experiments in which they choose to leave out or include only one aspect of music.

Eg. John Cage 4'33
Ligeti - Atmosphéres
and some rather rhythmic works im aware of (unfortunately thats all they are).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The 'melody' is the underlying line of a piece, that could be through a long flowing melody OR it could be through the interaction of motifs between instruments that give the piece it's dramatic or lyrical arc or direction.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yosser said:


> It seems to me, though, that the 'absence of melody' was in some schools of 20th century composition elevated almost to a religion, as though incorporating tuneful elements in a composition was heresy.


It's a pity that atonalism, for example, became somewhat of a dogma during the immediate post-WWII years. I'm sure that Schoenberg and others did not originally intend that to be the case.

But even if a preference for a lack of melody or tunefulness did become a dogma, it was like a counterweight to the hundreds of years prior during which the opposite was the case. As has been discussed on another thread, people are still quite conservative, judging by their comments on pieces like Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_.

I think that the general public actually enforces the opposite dogma, that music has to be tuneful in order to be understandable. It doesn't matter if academics prefer things like atonal music, it appears that the general taste is still for music which is tuneful.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andre said:


> It's a pity that atonalism, for example, became somewhat of a dogma during the immediate post-WWII years. I'm sure that Schoenberg and others did not originally intend that to be the case.
> 
> But even if a preference for a lack of melody or tunefulness did become a dogma, it was like a counterweight to the hundreds of years prior during which the opposite was the case. As has been discussed on another thread, people are still quite conservative, judging by their comments on pieces like Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_.
> 
> I think that the general public actually enforces the opposite dogma, that music has to be tuneful in order to be understandable. It doesn't matter if academics prefer things like atonal music, it appears that the general taste is still for music which is tuneful.


I think there's a misconception that happens too often, not only around here, but everywhere it seems, that tonal music is thought of as accessible just best it's tonal. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Quite the contrary. Tonal music can be just as challenging as atonal music. In fact, you would think you're listening to an atonal piece and you're actually not.

Tchaikovsky wrote beautiful; tuneful music, but Shostakovich wrote a lot of dissonant, aggressive, spit-in-your-face music that wasn't afraid to be spiky, but it still was within tonality. Many people can't digest Shostakovich, because of that aggression or that spikiness. This is a great example, because it demonstrates two opposites of the tonal spectrum.

Where I'm getting at is just because something is tonal doesn't mean it's accessible.

People look at atonality like it's this intellectual music and it's overly complicated, but it isn't. I despise serialism, but this certainly doesn't mean I don't understand it. I think in order for you to understand something you must be open-minded. Being open-minded has nothing to do with your personal tastes, it's about giving things a chance to grow on you and happen. Unfortunately, serialism is something that will never grow on me, because I think it lacks the foundations of what make music what it is: rhythm, harmony, melody, and structure.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Andre said:


> It's a pity that atonalism, for example, became somewhat of a dogma during the immediate post-WWII years. I'm sure that Schoenberg and others did not originally intend that to be the case.
> 
> But even if a preference for a lack of melody or tunefulness did become a dogma, it was like a counterweight to the hundreds of years prior during which the opposite was the case. As has been discussed on another thread, people are still quite conservative, judging by their comments on pieces like Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_.
> 
> I think that the general public actually enforces the opposite dogma, that music has to be tuneful in order to be understandable. It doesn't matter if academics prefer things like atonal music, it appears that the general taste is still for music which is tuneful.


That's because in a three minute popular song - which is what most listen to - it's all about the tune. There isn't the time in 3 minutes to develop a long complex interaction and development of motifs. There is nothing wrong with a well crafted song though, it has it's place in the musical universe. Not all modern classical music is atonal either.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Mirror Image said:


> Where I'm getting at is just because something is tonal doesn't mean it's accessible.


and just because a piece is accessible doesn't mean that it's bad either.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Yosser said:


> Important to note you're referring to the opening movements. The finale of the Waldstein does have a tune, though not a particularly memorable one. The finale of the violin concerto, on the other hand (assuming you're referring to Beethoven's), has a superb tune and it is surely part of the design of the concerto that the solo instrument gets to really 'sing' only in that final movement.


I love that tune, one of my all time favorites. Arrau playing it a little slower than usual, is the closer to heaven we can get on earth.

But yes, I was talking of the themes of both first movements, the full-blown sonata-forms. And even in the Waldstein, the second theme is quite tuneful but not in alyrical fashion but in a chorale way, combined with the drastic change of texture, the distance in the key (it's E minor I suppose) amkes an incredible contrast.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> and just because a piece is accessible doesn't mean that it's bad either.


No of course not. I hope Andre reads my post. I await his response to that one.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

jhar26 said:


> and just because a piece is accessible doesn't mean that it's bad either.


Isn't that the truth? It's too bad that there are those out there though who would try to diminish a work's worth for being an easy listen as opposed to a "challenging" listen. There's room for both.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Yosser said:


> If 'no parameter is more powerful than any other', then all parameters are equal. So if a composer chooses deliberately to write music that has no melodic component at all, s/he must have a strong reason for leaving out a parameter that is equal to all the others.


Because it opens up a world of possiblities, as evidenced by some of the great pieces of the twentieth-century.



Yosser said:


> It is of course the right of any composer to use or not use one or more tools of the trade. It seems to me, though, that the 'absence of melody' was in some schools of 20th century composition elevated almost to a religion, as though incorporating tuneful elements in a composition was heresy.


This is fair enough, and I can't complain since these certains schools which I think you're talking about produced some masterpieces.



Yosser said:


> Obviously, a great composer will not feel bound by constraints of fashion. It is possible that some composers who chose to expunge melody from their tool box will emerge as 'great'. I doubt it, personally, but that's just one guy's opinion.


Don't worry, those in the know appreciate the masterpieces created by Ligeti, Boulez, Carter etc.

And of course, this is to ignore Renaissance polyphony, which also excludes melody, consisting rather simply of musical lines each of which having more of an equal status than in homophonic (melody and accompaniment) music.


----------



## Yosser (May 29, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> I love that tune, one of my all time favorites. Arrau playing it a little slower than usual, is the closer to heaven we can get on earth.


Well we could argue that around a bit. Beethoven wrote many sublime melodies. I agree, though, that the Rondo theme does invoke an extraordinary feeling of serenity, after the turmoil of the opening movement and the utter despair of the Adagio. The transition from the Adagio to the Rondo is surely quite magical.

What's interesting is that the same theme sounds utterly different in the concluding measures of the movement. The same notes, but (quite deliberately) the feeling created is the opposite of serene.

There are no prizes for writing a great melody in isolation. Paraphrasing Brahms: 'Any donkey can do that.' The important thing is the way in which melody, dissonance, rhythm etc. are combined to create a great piece of music.


----------

