# Best Melodists



## Op.123

Which composers do you think wrote the best, most brilliant, beautiful melodies and which didn't.

*Best melodists*

*Schumann* - Main theme from the 1st movement from his piano concerto.
*Schubert* - Main theme from the 1st movement from his 21st piano sonata. 
*Tchaikovsky* -First theme form the 1st movement form his 1st piano concerto.
*Chopin* - Second theme from the 1st movement from his 1st piano concerto.
*Mendelssohn* - Main theme from the 1st movement of his 2nd violin concerto.
*Mozart* - Main theme from the 2nd movement of his clarinet concerto.
*Rachmaninoff* - Main theme from the 2nd movement from his 2nd piano concerto.
*Dvorak* - Main theme of the 3rd movement of his 9th symphony. 
*Saint-Saens* - The swan from the carnival of the animals.

*Not quite as good melodists*

*Brahms
Beethoven
Bach*


----------



## LindnerianSea

I think Dvorak and Saint-Saens are two greatly underrated melodists. Still, I think Rachmaninoff deserves credit on your initial list.

I somewhat feel reluctant to associate anything 'bad' or 'worst' about the three 'B's up there... but yes, I cannot disagree that they were not notorious in melody per se.


----------



## Vesteralen

You're losing me on this one, Burroughs. Just because a composer was known for their strong developments does not mean that they were poor melodists. The Finale to the First Symphony, the slow movements of the piano concertos, some of the lieder, the piano trios - Brahms was a great melodist (is that a word?) I can think of great melodies from Beethoven and Bach as well.

I do agree with Lindner that some composers were fabulous melodists (like Dvorak, Saint-Saens and Rachmaninoff), but any pre-20th century composer (and many after that as well) were able to write an appealing melody now and then - even Bruckner.


----------



## Art Rock

From your choice of six, I would discard Schumann, and add Puccini.

Both Bach and Brahms wrote excellent melodies.


----------



## realdealblues

Pretty much all the composers I listen too...Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Dvorak, Haydn, Vivaldi, Handel, Bruckner, etc. etc. Melody is 99% what I listen for.


----------



## Op.123

Art Rock said:


> From your choice of six, I would discard Schumann, and add Puccini.
> 
> Both Bach and Brahms wrote excellent melodies.


No. Schumann is a great melodist. listen to his song Widmung or his symphonies.


----------



## Garlic

Great 20th century melodists: Schoenberg, Berg, Boulez, Messiaen, Stravinsky, Bartok

Bach, Brahms and Beethoven were great melodists - they don't drag a great melody out until you're sick of it, they develop it like hell from the word go


----------



## Weston

Some outstanding melodists for me are the French folk: Faure, Debussy, Ravel. I'm not sure why. They just seem to have a knack for it. 

Of the composers I like, I was about to jokingly say the worst at melody is Ligeti, but that would be wrong. His works too can have melody, just often blurred to the point of making them difficult to pick out on a casual listen.

The "worst" melodists then might be other 20 century composers I haven't grasped yet, Boulez, Crumb, etc.


----------



## Mahlerian

The only non-Romantic composer on your "best" list is Mozart. Doesn't that indicate that your metric is weighted too heavily in a particular direction?



Weston said:


> The "worst" melodists then might be other 20 century composers I haven't grasped yet, Boulez, Crumb, etc.


Some of the sung passages in _Le marteau_ are with me wherever I am.


----------



## Weston

Garlic said:


> Bach, Brahms and Beethoven were great melodists - they don't drag a great melody out until you're sick of it, they develop it like hell from the word go


I agree with this, and it demonstrates an idea I neglected to add to my post, that _themes_ can be more important to classical than melody depending on the context. I think of themes as being a little shorter than melody (not sure why, just in general) so that they can be more easily broken down into motifs and developed. Or perhaps I'm thinking of phrases, not themes. Anyway they are all nearly interchangeable.


----------



## Guest

As predicted, Schumann tops the list...


----------



## Op.123

arcaneholocaust said:


> As predicted, Schumann tops the list...


Well what can I say... I *LOVE* Schumann.


----------



## Mahlerian

Weston said:


> I agree with this, and it demonstrates an idea I neglected to add to my post, that _themes_ can be more important to classical than melody depending on the context. I think of themes as being a little shorter than melody (not sure why, just in general) so that they can be more easily broken down into motifs and developed. Or perhaps I'm thinking of phrases, not themes. Anyway they are all nearly interchangeable.


I think the definitions vary depending on who's using them, but according to Schoenberg in one of his books on composition:

Motif: a brief musical idea as short as two or three notes, not complete in itself
Theme: an extended musical idea that requires development
Melody: an extended musical idea that is closed and does not require development


----------



## Op.123

Weston said:


> I agree with this, and it demonstrates an idea I neglected to add to my post, that _themes_ can be more important to classical than melody depending on the context. I think of themes as being a little shorter than melody (not sure why, just in general) so that they can be more easily broken down into motifs and developed. Or perhaps I'm thinking of phrases, not themes. Anyway they are all nearly interchangeable.


Yes, melodies aren't the only important things, but this thread is just about the greatest melodists. Not the greatest developers or the greatest symphonists.


----------



## Guest

I should say though...I think the Grieg concerto has melodies every bit as enjoyable for me as the Schumann concerto.


----------



## Garlic

Mahlerian said:


> I think the definitions vary depending on who's using them, but according to Schoenberg in one of his books on composition:
> 
> Motif: a brief musical idea as short as two or three notes, not complete in itself
> Theme: an extended musical idea that requires development
> Melody: an extended musical idea that is closed and does not require development


This is very interesting, I've always thought melody was just a sequence of notes that sounds good, including development sections. Are Schoenberg's definitions generally accepted?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Burroughs said:


> *Not quite as good melodists*
> 
> *Brahms
> Beethoven
> Bach*


Oh wut nowwww.... ut:

Then why do people like them so much??? 

:tiphat:

I would put in my extra thought: Russians were melodo-centric, if I can make up a word for this purpose of description. After they had a good melody, _then _they did stuff with it. Rachmaninoff once said something along the lines that music was purposeless if it could not have a strong sense of melody above all else. Amazingly, as with a few Russians like Glazunov, he could make a (rather long-winded) melody which is composed of 2-4 themes or motifs, and then rearranges the motifs and get a new melody, but it's a real _melody_, not just a development of themes, if you know what I mean. Then, he could immediately pull out one of those motifs and just focus only on that, before moving to the next motif, etc. It's musical chemistry.


----------



## Art Rock

Seriously, what's the point in starting a subject with "Which composers do you think wrote the best, most brilliant, beautiful melodies and which didn't."

and then just list (and add) your own preferences?


----------



## Cheyenne

Seriously though, Brahms a bad melodist?


----------



## Op.123

......................................................



arcaneholocaust said:


> I should say though...I think the Grieg concerto has melodies every bit as enjoyable for me as the Schumann concerto.


*dislike*


----------



## Cosmos

Best melodists in my opinion:
Vivaldi
*Mozart
Chopin*
Liszt
*Tchaikovsky*
Saint Saens
*Rachmaninov*


----------



## Weston

Mahlerian said:


> I think the definitions vary depending on who's using them, but according to Schoenberg in one of his books on composition:
> 
> Motif: a brief musical idea as short as two or three notes, not complete in itself
> Theme: an extended musical idea that requires development
> Melody: an extended musical idea that is closed and does not require development


Bingo! Yes, exactly. I am comfortable with these definitions.



Burroughs said:


> Yes, melodies aren't the only important things, but this thread is just about the greatest melodists. Not the greatest developers or the greatest symphonists.


Don't worry. I like the thread. I was just trying to find ways to not get on edge about Beethoven not being a great melodist. Of your list, I would have chosen the main theme of the_ final _movement of Schumann's piano concerto as an example of a great melody. It's rhythmically complex, wanders all over creation before before even thinking about repeating itself, took multiple listens to memorize and seems to shout for joy. It's the first thing that came to my mind on reading the thread title.


----------



## Blancrocher

Weston said:


> I was just trying to find ways to not get on edge about Beethoven not being a great melodist.


Beethoven was a fabulous melodist--he just had a stubborn streak and dribbled his melodies out grudgingly. Who else but Beethoven would open his 24th piano sonata with such a heart-melting melody and then not deign to repeat it. It's enough to drive me mad!


----------



## Op.123

Weston said:


> Bingo! Yes, exactly. I am comfortable with these definitions.
> 
> Don't worry. I like the thread. I was just trying to find ways to not get on edge about Beethoven not being a great melodist. Of your list, I would have chosen the main theme of the_ final _movement of Schumann's piano concerto as an example of a great melody. It's rhythmically complex, wanders all over creation before before even thinking about repeating itself, took multiple listens to memorize and seems to shout for joy. It's the first thing that came to my mind on reading the thread title.


Yes it would fit just as well but I like the melody of the first movement a lot more.


----------



## Borodin

John Williams
Tchaikovsky
Koji Kondo
Mozart
Dvorak
Grieg


----------



## Tristan

I'm not really clear on why people say Beethoven is a bad melodist. "Spring" violin sonata anyone? Symphony No. 9 finale? Symphony No. 6? Choral Fantasy? Piano Concerto No. 5 finale? There are a lot of excellent melodies in Beethoven's oeuvre.

My favorite melodists are often Russian composers, because I find Russian composers as a whole are excellent melodists: *Tchaikovsky*, *Rimsky-Korsakov*, *Glazunov*, and *Rachmaninov* are near the top of my list. As are *Verdi* (I think he is a great melodist, even if it is opera, along with *Puccini*), *Dvorak*, and *Mozart*. And of course one of my personal favorites, *Weber*


----------



## Borodin

Tristan said:


> I'm not really clear on why people say Beethoven is a bad melodist. "Spring" violin sonata anyone? Symphony No. 9 finale? Symphony No. 6? Choral Fantasy? Piano Concerto No. 5 finale? There are a lot of excellent melodies in Beethoven's oeuvre.


And that catchy little number in Symphony 3-4.


----------



## IBMchicago

I think that the best melodists were those composers with a greater depth of understanding of the human voice -- Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Saint-Saens, etc. And throw in a few additional composers who aren't known for vocal work (Chopin and Tchaikovsky). I wouldn't include Beethoven in that list, but I do find some of his melodies in his slower, more pensive, less frantic music irresistable.


----------



## Op.123

IBMchicago said:


> I think that the best melodists were those composers with a greater depth of understanding of the human voice -- Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Saint-Saens, etc. And throw in a few additional composers who aren't known for vocal work (Chopin and Tchaikovsky). I wouldn't include Beethoven in that list, but I do find some of his melodies in his slower, more pensive, less frantic music irresistable.


I think Chopin had a very good understanding of the human voice.

Here, watch this.


----------



## neoshredder

Mozart 
Schubert 
Schumann
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Grieg
Strauss
Sibelius


----------



## ssdei

Burroughs is definitely on the right path!

My contribution:

Peter Tchaikovsky - the 4th symphony, second theme.


----------



## Petwhac

Saint Saens was responsible for two of the best melodies I know. One instrumental and one vocal.
Jessie Norman gives one of the greatest performances.


----------



## DrKilroy

Vaughan Williams also requires a honorable mention.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## peeyaj

In my estimation, the top 3 great melodists in classical music were: (no ranking)

* Schubert
Mozart
Tchaikovsky*

These composers overflow with melodic invention, which at times points at criticism. In Schubert's case, he was criticized as prioritizing the melody over the thematic development on his music, while Mozart and Tchaikovsky were labeled as "*too sweet you will get diabetes".*

The second rung on the ladder will be:

*Rachmaninoff*
*Mendellsohn*
Handel
Beethoven
Vaughan-Williams
*Rossini*

In LvB's case, his melodies were memorable ( the Allegreto of 7th symphony, the 2nd movement of Pathetique sonata) but they were not that as "catchy" as some of Mozart's ( the 2nd movement of Piano Concerto no. 21). The soaring melodies of Vaughan Williams (Lark Ascending) were generally better than his idol, Sibelius ( 2nd movement of Violin Concerto).

In any case, being a great melodist doesn't make you dramatically a better composer.. It is just one of many aspect of music that someone can appreciate. 

Here's my favorite melody as of now:


----------



## Couchie

Wagner... endless melody, anyone?


----------



## IBMchicago

Burroughs said:


> I think Chopin had a very good understanding of the human voice.


I would absolutely agree. I think I read somewhere that Chopin's favorite musical genre was opera and that singing deeply influenced his performance and composition.


----------



## Op.123

IBMchicago said:


> I would absolutely agree. I think I read somewhere that Chopin's favorite musical genre was opera and that singing deeply influenced his performance and composition.


That is all absolutely true.


----------



## Joris

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I would put in my extra thought: Russians were melodo-centric, if I can make up a word for this purpose of description. After they had a good melody, _then _they did stuff with it.


Otherwise it's not Music of course


----------



## Ravndal

You be trippin'.

Brahms is perhaps my favorite melodist.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Schoenberg wrote some strikingly beautiful melodies! Farrenc is by far the greatest melodist of the 19th century!!! Also, melody pays a very important role in the music of Elliott Carter.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Mahlerian said:


> I think the definitions vary depending on who's using them, but according to Schoenberg in one of his books on composition:
> 
> Motif: a brief musical idea as short as two or three notes, not complete in itself
> Theme: an extended musical idea that requires development
> Melody: an extended musical idea that is closed and does not require development


This definitely makes sense as a motif can be extracted from a melody. The melody itself can't really be developed because it is complete in itself....but if you take a small part of that melody you can do a lot of things with it!


----------



## LindnerianSea

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> This definitely makes sense as a motif can be extracted from a melody. The melody itself can't really be developed because it is complete in itself....but if you take a small part of that melody you can do a lot of things with it!


The definition really helped me to understand why Tchaikovsky and Schubert are often called the 'kings of melody' - both show very little interest in development !


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

LindnerianSea said:


> The definition really helped me to understand why Tchaikovsky and Schubert are often called the 'kings of melody' - both show very little interest in development !


Yes! And Beethoven once wrote that he would often have trouble coming up with a well structured, catchy melody, but hear what he can do with developing a motif!


----------



## Celloman

Burroughs said:


> *Not quite as good melodists*
> 
> *Brahms
> Beethoven
> Bach*


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think that Brahms is one of the greatest melodists. Some of his melodies just keep going and going. Beethoven and Bach are also great. But yes, I would definitely include Schubert and Chopin in that first list.


----------



## ericdxx

I'm trying to think which opera-arias sound best on the piano. The best I can think of are:

Wagner - Vater allmätchtiger
Puccini - Recondita Armonia
Puccini - Nessun dorma

Do you have any more suggestions?


----------



## Dustin

I don't think any of the big names are lacking in melodic talent so I'll just state which ones I think stand out above the rest. Nothing surprising here, for me it's Mozart and Schubert.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Grieg and Tchaikovsky come to mind for me.


----------



## CypressWillow

IBMchicago said:


> I would absolutely agree. I think I read somewhere that Chopin's favorite musical genre was opera and that singing deeply influenced his performance and composition.


He wrote 19 songs, set to texts by Polish poets. Here is number 12, the accompanist is Garrick Ohlsson:


----------



## PetrB

George Gershwin
Harold Arlen
Frank Loesser
Cole Porter
Richard Rogers
Frederick Loewe

John Lennon & Paul McCartney

etc.


----------



## Bas

Mahlerian said:


> I think the definitions vary depending on who's using them, but according to Schoenberg in one of his books on composition:
> 
> Motif: a brief musical idea as short as two or three notes, not complete in itself
> Theme: an extended musical idea that requires development
> Melody: an extended musical idea that is closed and does not require development


Trying to learn here: 
So in the case of Beethoven 5 you can say that the famous "shot short short long" is the theme?


----------



## Mahlerian

Bas said:


> Trying to learn here:
> So in the case of Beethoven 5 you can say that the famous "shot short short long" is the theme?


No, that's a motif. It is not in itself a complete idea. The theme is the entire first section of the exposition up to the modulation.


----------



## neoshredder

How about the Beach Boys (Brian Wilson) since Lennon and McCartney were mentioned.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> How about the Beach Boys (Brian Wilson) since Lennon and McCartney were mentioned.


_I did not really intend to suggest opening up the thread to listing popular composers in the context of a classical category question._

I intended to make a point on the subject, and what is and isn't understood about it, and its extreme relative unimportance, or at least minority presence, in classical music.

Via Mahlerian's post, with the definitions of motif / theme / melody
*"Melody: an extended musical idea that is closed and does not require development"*

I thought to give the clearest examples, and all those names in my list are great composers of popular songs -- all from what is generalized as "The Great American Songbook," (the two limey lads excepted) and all one or another genre of popular music -- cited as great composers who were really almost completely all about melody.

Popular music is where you find those "extended musical ideas that are closed and don't depend at all upon development." In fact it is hard to find a popular song that is not nearly all about melody.

The point was so much classical music depends on development and variation that a majority of it involves motif and themes: "Melody," in its exact meaning, is found very little in the bulk of classical instrumental repertoire (songs, more of an exception, of course).

The most precise meaning of melody is rarely used by people, so we read comments like Beethoven has great melodies, where so much of his music is motif or theme based -- meaning not a melody in sight.

ADD: 
Q: Where is "the melody" in the first movement of Beethoven Symphony No. 9? 
A: There isn't a one 
Finale of Mozart's "Jupiter?" -- same drill.


----------



## Muse

__
https://soundcloud.com/


----------



## Leon

for me, the most beautiful theme is love theme from Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet fantasy overture. And the second theme from third moovement of second and third rachmaninoff piano concertos. Those two are best romantic melodist in my humble opinion


----------



## Winterreisender

In my opinion Beethoven is the greatest melodist out there, on the strength of melodies such as: 

Symphony 6 mvt. 5
Symphony 7 mvt. 1 (although the symphony as a whole is perhaps the most melodic symphony I can think of)
Symphony 9 mvt. 4 (greatest melody ever?)
Piano Concerto 4 mvt. 3
Piano Concerto 5 mvt. 2

And countless other memorable melodies from violin sonatas and piano sonatas. Indeed he sometimes goes in for shorter 'motifs' rather than fully developed melodies as such, but I think the above mentioned pieces demonstrate Beethoven's exceptional gift for melody.

Naturally Schubert is excellent as well on the strength primarily of his Lieder. And I enjoy Mozart's terrific melodies such as the finale of the Jupiter symphony


----------



## Dustin

PetrB said:


> George Gershwin
> Harold Arlen
> Frank Loesser
> Cole Porter
> Richard Rogers
> Frederick Loewe
> 
> John Lennon & Paul McCartney
> 
> etc.


Sorry to piggyback on your list there but I also LOVE the melodies of G. Gershwin, Cole Porter, Richard Rodgers, and Harold Arlen, among several other excellent Great American Songbook composers.

Blues in the Night, I Wish I Were in Love Again, A Foggy Day, I Get A Kick Out of You...the list goes on and on.

Sorry, I had to mention that even though this is a classical forum.


----------



## PetrB

Dustin said:


> Sorry to piggyback on your list there but I also LOVE the melodies of G. Gershwin, Cole Porter, Richard Rodgers, and Harold Arlen, among several other excellent Great American Songbook composers.
> 
> Blues in the Night, I Wish I Were in Love Again, A Foggy Day, I Get A Kick Out of You...the list goes on and on.
> 
> Sorry, I had to mention that even though this is a classical forum.


Genius, expert, extremely talented, and that was the point, those composers wrote the "melodies" -- self-contained, not needing really, any development. Yes, they were brilliant, and they wrote melodies which are the accurate definition of melody

Someone above just cited Beethoven, without realizing even those longer melody-like lines are built on harmony first, not the isolated and self-standing "melody." 

That is why I brought these songwriters up in this thread. They are all actual "melodists."


----------



## spradlig

I would vote for Tchaikovsky as Best Melodist but I find the given example cheesy. I prefer virtually every other melody he has written. Just as a random example, the main melody of the slow movement of his second piano concerto.

This is personal taste, of course. No flames, please.


----------



## hpowders

Yes. For me also. Tchaikovsky was the best melodist. Listen to the great oboe melody at the beginning of movement two, Symphony No. 4. Also, the andante cantabile movement from String Quartet No. 1. Also the French Horn solo at the beginning of movement two, Symphony No. 5.
Also the solo violin melody from movement two of the Violin Concerto.


----------



## Albert7

Schoenberg and Webern and Berg were all wonderful melodists. Webern especially got to the point rather quickly.


----------



## Woodduck

The greatest melodies are the ones which, once we know them, we can't imagine having never existed. They seem to have been discovered rather than composed.

Mozart, Schubert, and Tchaikovsky were amazing at discovering such inevitable and indispensable melodies.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Schubert, Mozart, Bach, and Tchaikovsky come to mind.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Ravel, up to date no one has manage to surpass him on the matter of elaborated yet naturally flowing and memorable melodies. Other melodists of the time and after tend to underperform in one of those parameters.


----------



## Cesare Impalatore

Pergolesi, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Rossini, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Verdi and Bizet come to mind first when it comes to the pure power of melody.


----------



## hpowders

Mozart was a great melodist. Some of his greatest melodies sound so simple to compose, yet none of his contemporaries could do it.

Prokofiev was another great melodist. His Romeo and Juliet is filled with wonderful melodies. My favorite Prokofiev melodies open the second movement of the Third Piano Concerto and the second movement of the Second Violin Concerto-the solo violin over pizzicato strings.


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> The greatest melodies are the ones which, once we know them, we can't imagine having never existed. They seem to have been discovered rather than composed.


That's a good way of putting it. I was listening to Schubert's String Quintet yesterday and I think the second theme of the first movement might be the ultimate example of this, for me.

I'd almost say there are two different kinds of great melodies: those inevitable ones that sound like the composer discovered them, and the more idiosyncratic, surprising kind.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> That's a good way of putting it. I was listening to Schubert's String Quintet yesterday and I think the second theme of the first movement might be the ultimate example of this, for me.
> 
> I'd almost say there are two different kinds of great melodies: those inevitable ones that sound like the composer discovered them, and the more idiosyncratic, surprising kind.


Yes. I think Prokofiev, mentioned above by hpowders, was a melodist of the second sort. He also brings to mind that often the power of a melody lies partly, or even mainly, in its harmonization. It's the interaction of elegant melodic contour and harmonic adventurousness that makes many of his melodies so striking.

Great melody can also be the result of the successful elaboration or extension of an idea. Bach was a master of this, and so was Wagner; one can hear the prelude to _Tristan_ and many other long stretches of Wagner's music as exactly what he called it: endless melody. This is the opposite pole from the sort of "closed" melody we hear in most opera of his time, and of course he was at first accused of lacking melody.


----------



## silentio

For me, best melodists are:

Mozart
Schubert
Handel
Tchaikovsky 
Bellini
Verdi
Rossini
Gluck
Bach (yes, he is)
Monteverdi
Schumann
Dvorak
Wagner
Rimsky-Korsakov
Poulenc

See somethings in common? They are very well-versed in vocal writing.


----------



## Albert7

Add Liszt and Feldman to the list of wonderful melody writers.


----------



## silentio

_--duplicated post--_


----------



## 20centrfuge

Garlic said:


> Great 20th century melodists: Messiaen, Stravinsky


I love Messiaen and Stravinsky, but by and large, I wouldn't put them in the Melodist category. What melodies are you thinking of?


----------



## 20centrfuge

I would argue that a true melodist tends to compose music that is *based* on a melody, where a non-melodist comes up with other compositional ideas (harmony, structure, small melody fragments (a germ), or other ideas (math)), and *THEN* comes up with a melody that can work. Sometimes a non melodist comes up with a great melody, but this is the exception and not the rule for them.

Two outstanding Melodists were Gershwin and Prokofiev. Think of Rhapsody in Blue! Think of the ballet Romeo and Juliet, or symphonies 5, 6, or Pedro y El Lobo, or Lt. Kije

Shostakovich tweren't a true Melodist. Rachmaninoff was.
Beethoven is deity, sure, but on the whole, I wouldn't consider him a melodist. Mozart was a melodist through and through.
Brahms seemed, to me, to sometimes be a melodist, and sometimes be a non-melodist.

Schubert-melodist
Stravinsky-non-melodist

90% of living composers are NON MELODISTS, which to me is a shame, on the whole


----------



## 20centrfuge

silentio said:


> For me, best melodists are:
> 
> Mozart
> Schubert
> Handel
> Tchaikovsky
> Bellini
> Verdi
> Rossini
> Gluck
> Bach (yes, he is)
> Monteverdi
> Schumann
> Dvorak
> Wagner
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> Poulenc
> 
> See somethings in common? They are very well-versed in vocal writing.


Tchaikovsky-possibly the greatest melodist EVER!


----------



## 20centrfuge

peeyaj said:


> In LvB's case, his melodies were memorable ( the Allegreto of 7th symphony, the 2nd movement of Pathetique sonata) but they were not that as "catchy" as some of Mozart's ( the 2nd movement of Piano Concerto no. 21). The soaring melodies of Vaughan Williams (Lark Ascending) were generally better than his idol, Sibelius ( 2nd movement of Violin Concerto).
> 
> In any case, being a great melodist doesn't make you dramatically a better composer.. It is just one of many aspect of music that someone can appreciate.
> 
> Here's my favorite melody as of now:
> ]


You make a good argument for Beethoven as a melodist. Perhaps I was wrong.


----------



## Marilyn

Mozart, Vivaldi, Tchaikovsky - great melodists..


----------



## Albert7

Beethoven is a great melodist... Izzy really relished his Fifth Symphony in fact tonight.


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> Add Liszt and Feldman to the list of wonderful melody writers.


I was singing a Feldman tune in the shower this morning. I had to break it off when I ran out of hot water. I figure I can sing the whole thing in about fifteen showers, but I'm dreading the electric bill.


----------



## Albert7

Bach another master melodist...


----------



## EdwardBast

20centrfuge said:


> Shostakovich tweren't a true Melodist. Rachmaninoff was.


Shostakovich was an unconventional melodist, but he was a great one. His mastery in this area is often missed by listeners who aren't used to melodic thought on the broad scale and in the contrapuntal depth at which Shostakovich usually operated. A good example is the "principal" theme (not the motto with which the movement begins) in the first movement of his Tenth Symphony, which the clarinet begins at 2:40 in the following performance:






The melody takes 2:30 to unfold, several big sentences culminating in a grand final statement of the main idea around 5:00. Most listeners, it seems, just don't encompass this unfolding as a single span of melodic thought - don't recognize it as the same kind of multi-armed theme Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff are known for. The reasons, I suspect, are (1) that from the first phrase there is important countermelody that expands and develops as the main line does, with the result that the second half of the thematic statement sounds like a mini-development section, and (2) that the melody moves throughout the orchestra rather than staying in a single instrument or section.

Even clearer examples are found in the first movement of his Fifth String Quartet:






The principal theme is a unified arc that takes 1:20 to unfold, but listeners tend to mistake the passage beginning at :21 as a transitional passage, when in fact it is just a contrasting phrase based on the main motive. If one makes this mistake, then what precedes it sounds like a series of discreet and short-winded repeated motives. One needs to think in broader spans to understand what is going on.

The second theme (1:26) is beautiful, broadly lyrical, and nearly as complex as the first. It begins with seven bar phrases and at times has two important simultaneous countermelodies. This sort of "polymelody," something Rachmaninoff excelled in as well, is pretty standard in Shostakovich, with later arms of a theme often appearing first as counterpoints to the opening phrases. The melody proper continues until 2:08.

What is perhaps most remarkable about this quartet example, and which illustrates a general trait of Shostakovich's style, is that _it is virtually all melody_; there are almost no parts that serve a purely harmonic or accompanying function. There are countermelodies, ostinato figures, fragmentary repeated motives, doublings at the third of other melodies, slowly moving pedal melodies, but it is all melody all the time. He might not be a "true melodist," but he is arguably among the purest melodists.


----------



## QueLaMusicaMeLibere

I thought I'd add a couple that not necessarily everyone will have heard. They are:

*Reinhold Gliere (especially his first and second symphonies, his cello duets, and his harp concerto)
*Any of Alfred Schnittke's film music, such as The Story of an Unknown Actor and Agony
*Moritz Moszkowski (especially his Piano Concerto in E Major)
*Kurt Atterberg (especially his Piano Concerto in B Flat Minor)
*Wiklund's (especially his sumptuous Piano Concerto in E Minor)
*Johann Rufinatscha (especially his fourth symphony)

Personally, while a strong melody is not the only thing I look for in classical music, it's still a huge selling point. In my opinion, musical talent is a dime a dozen if you compare it to the few really good melodists that history has spawned over the years (and not just classical composers- The Beatles, Yes, Billy Joel and Seal all spring readily to mind, though my ear is far from trained).

(By the way, this is my very first post on this forum so if I made any kind of mistake, please let me know)


----------



## Casebearer

Mahler was a great melodist. Listen to his Lieder.


----------



## Tallisman

Dvorak and Schubert seem to me to be the foremost churners-out of beautiful melody. Not sure why Brahms is on there - the opening melody of his first piano trio was one of the most rapturous melodies I had ever heard...


----------



## DeepR

For the record I add Scriabin who I consider a great melodist as well. He came up with most wonderful romantic melodies in some of his earlier music and in some moments I think he's equal to or surpasses Rachmaninoff in this area.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I actually think Bach, Beethoven and Brahms were great melodists. In fact, I can't think of a single composer that is considered one of the 'greats' that wasn't a great melodist - it's one of the main aspects that attract people to music in any genre, after all.


----------



## Tallisman

I do, however, agree that Beethoven was not generally a great melodist. Of course, being a well-rounded genius, he did have some flashes. As Bernstein says in this illuminating video:


----------



## helenora

Mozart, Strauss, Tchaikovsky - the best 3


----------



## StraussCalman

Shumann
Shubert
Sain-Saens
Bach


----------



## hpowders

Bach was the finest melodist, not surprisingly, since he was the greatest composer.

Honorable mention: Mozart and Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Pugg

helenora said:


> Mozart, Strauss, Tchaikovsky - the best 3


Add Verdi and it's even better .


----------



## T Son of Ander

Some of my favorites are Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Haydn, Wagner. For me, one of the things I really like is a composer who can come up with a slow melody that I don't get bored with even before it's over. The main melody in the Tannhauser overture is a great example (about the first minute).


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Mozart = nope; great hooks/riffs and rhythmical accompaniments, but his melodies are cliche or non-existant. 
Bach = great use of other people's melodies;
Tchaikovsky = one of the best, but outside of the melody and the buildups + climaxes his music is lacking;
Brahms = because of his idiomatic writing, his melodies sound better than they actually are ;
Elgar = another good melodist;
Handel = improving other people's music;
Mendelssohn = ripping off Mozart, but with better melodies;
Rimsky-Korsakov = good orchestrator, but his best melodies are folklore based, not his own invention;
Verdi = good melodist;
Vivaldi= good, but not original at all;
Bizet = great;
Dvorak = another riff/hook based composer;
Bartok = using folklore melodies from different countries;
Saint Saens = inconsistent; some wonderful melodies, some awful;
Stravinsky = melodies from Russian folksong anthologies;
J. Strauss = good to great melodies (for dance music);
Rossini = great;
J. Williams = writing variations upon some of the best melodies in the repertoire.


----------



## Bettina

BabyGiraffe said:


> Mozart = nope; great hooks/riffs and rhythmical accompaniments, but his melodies are cliche or non-existant.
> *Bach = great use of other people's melodies*;
> Tchaikovsky = one of the best, but outside of the melody and the buildups + climaxes his music is lacking;
> Brahms = because of his idiomatic writing, his melodies sound better than they actually are ;
> Elgar = another good melodist;
> Handel = improving other people's music;
> Mendelssohn = ripping off Mozart, but with better melodies;
> Rimsky-Korsakov = good orchestrator, but his best melodies are folklore based, not his own invention;
> Verdi = good melodist;
> Vivaldi= good, but not original at all;
> Bizet = great;
> Dvorak = another riff/hook based composer;
> Bartok = using folklore melodies from different countries;
> Saint Saens = inconsistent; some wonderful melodies, some awful;
> Stravinsky = melodies from Russian folksong anthologies;
> J. Strauss = good to great melodies (for dance music);
> Rossini = great;
> J. Williams = writing variations upon some of the best melodies in the repertoire.


What melodies did Bach take from other people? Do you mean his use of Lutheran chorale melodies in his cantatas and organ preludes?


----------



## jegreenwood

I think Domenico Scarlatti deserves a mention.


----------



## helenora

BabyGiraffe said:


> Mozart = nope; great hooks/riffs and rhythmical accompaniments, but his melodies are cliche or non-existant.
> Bach = great use of other people's melodies;
> Tchaikovsky = one of the best, but outside of the melody and the buildups + climaxes his music is lacking;
> Brahms = because of his idiomatic writing, his melodies sound better than they actually are ;
> Elgar = another good melodist;
> Handel = improving other people's music;
> Mendelssohn = ripping off Mozart, but with better melodies;
> Rimsky-Korsakov = good orchestrator, but his best melodies are folklore based, not his own invention;
> Verdi = good melodist;
> Vivaldi= good, but not original at all;
> Bizet = great;
> Dvorak = another riff/hook based composer;
> Bartok = using folklore melodies from different countries;
> Saint Saens = inconsistent; some wonderful melodies, some awful;
> Stravinsky = melodies from Russian folksong anthologies;
> J. Strauss = good to great melodies (for dance music);
> Rossini = great;
> J. Williams = writing variations upon some of the best melodies in the repertoire.


Baby Giraffe from your list and preferences I can conclude that your taste is somewhat Mediterranean and operatic with exception of J. Strauss.

What is your opinion about R. Strauss?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Well, I haven't listened too much R. Strauss - my impression is: lyrical or expansive/epic melodies, but not something that can have mass appeal. 
About the remark about Bach - yes, he arranged and orchestrated other people's melodies, but on top of this his own inventions sound too much like the models that he used to study - Vivaldi, Telemann, Corelli, Scarlatti etc. This is called overfeeding -( Borges has a short story about a guy who liked Don Quixote too much and in the end he basically managed to rewrite it instead of writing something similar ). I'm talking about the melodies in isolation, not about the orchestration, counterpoint, development, harmony - in these areas Bach is probably better than his friends and mentors.


----------



## helenora

BabyGiraffe said:


> Well, I haven't listened too much R. Strauss - my impression is: lyrical or expansive/epic melodies, *but not something that can have mass appeal.*
> .


i think it's very true.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> What melodies did Bach take from other people? Do you mean his use of Lutheran chorale melodies in his cantatas and organ preludes?


Perhaps he/she is thinking of the Bach organ transcriptions of Vivaldi concertos.


----------



## Art Rock

Grieg deserves a mention as well.


----------



## 20centrfuge

It feel like the ability to craft an unforgettable, sing-able, and interesting melody is the mark of genius in a composer.

Some of my favorites and those with the knack for creating MELODY, were

Prokofiev,
Tchaikovsky,
Mozart,
Gershwin,
Elgar,
John Williams.

Seriously, John Williams can craft a melody as well as anyone in history. He may not have chosen the path of a true art-music composer...etc., etc., yadayadayada...


----------



## 20centrfuge

I am sometimes dismayed that melody amongst living composers seems less important to them than it was to previous generations of composers. I get the impression that "melody" (amongst a lot of the avant-garde) is seen as an afterthought and that complexity, rhythm, and orchestration, get much more attention.


----------



## Klassik

20centrfuge said:


> Seriously, John Williams can craft a melody as well as anyone in history. He may not have chosen the path of a true art-music composer...etc., etc., yadayadayada...


Nobody can steal..err..borrow a melody the way John Williams can!


----------



## DeepR

From which classical piece is E.T.'s Flying Theme "borrowed" then?
That's one of my favorite melodies and a huge earworm.


----------



## Klassik

DeepR said:


> From which classical piece is E.T.'s Flying Theme "borrowed" then?
> That's one of my favorite melodies and a huge earworm.


Probably someone on his "team" if not another established classical composer. Don't get me wrong, I like John Williams' music and he wrote his share of traditional classical music, but I kind of refer to "John Williams" the way I'd refer to a pop band where you never really know where the music is coming from. Of course, several well-respected composers "borrowed" a melody here and there. I still say Beethoven ripped the the Ode to Joy from Mozart's K.222!


----------



## Merl

Dvorak knocked out some top choons.


----------



## jegreenwood

20centrfuge said:


> It feel like the ability to craft an unforgettable, sing-able, and interesting melody is the mark of genius in a composer.
> 
> Some of my favorites and those with the knack for creating MELODY, were
> 
> Prokofiev,
> Tchaikovsky,
> Mozart,
> Gershwin,
> Elgar,
> John Williams.
> 
> Seriously, John Williams can craft a melody as well as anyone in history. He may not have chosen the path of a true art-music composer...etc., etc., yadayadayada...


If you're going to include John Williams, I would also add Richard Rodgers. Not my favorite of the great Broadway composers, but the best melodist.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> Perhaps he/she is thinking of the Bach organ transcriptions of Vivaldi concertos.


Since he believes Bizet is great and most other composers suck or are thieves, I wonder why you brought up "thinking."


----------



## Woodduck

BabyGiraffe said:


> About the remark about Bach - yes, he arranged and orchestrated other people's melodies, but on top of this his own inventions sound too much like the models that he used to study - Vivaldi, Telemann, Corelli, Scarlatti etc. This is called overfeeding -( Borges has a short story about a guy who liked Don Quixote too much and in the end he basically managed to rewrite it instead of writing something similar ). I'm talking about the melodies in isolation, not about the orchestration, counterpoint, development, harmony - in these areas Bach is probably better than his friends and mentors.


Bach's music is a vast, continuous, and overwhelming flood of striking, memorable, inspired melody.


----------



## ibrahim

Tristan said:


> I'm not really clear on why people say Beethoven is a bad melodist. "Spring" violin sonata anyone? Symphony No. 9 finale? Symphony No. 6? Choral Fantasy? Piano Concerto No. 5 finale? There are a lot of excellent melodies in Beethoven's oeuvre.


Lewis Lockwood in his biography of the composer insists that LvB was a great melodist. Not sure why people downplay his melodic giftedness -- perhaps it's a way to say "melodicism is only but a part of lvb's charm."


----------



## BabyGiraffe

ET's temp was stuff from Howard Hanson and Williams had to imitate him. There is some copy-paste action. Probably he used other sources too. 
I like this guy, but he is not very original (he uses other people's music even in his own symphonies).
I think that only the Holst estate tried to sue him (and Hans Zimmer).


----------

