# Why Are My Melodies So Boring?



## kamalayka

Whenever I hear a melody in my head, it sounds so predictable and boring.

Here's a brief example:

http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/fb180cd3dd09ac1c89cdc213abacabf7903b7f01

I try to write modern stuff, but it's too forced and unnatural-sounding.


----------



## Crudblud

kamalayka said:


> I try to write modern stuff, but it's too forced and unnatural-sounding.


I think trying to write in any particular style that came before you is going to sound forced and unnatural because it isn't yours. Why not write what comes naturally?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

throw a few random notes in here and there- or repeat some phases in different orders- might help


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

Ah, this was a problem for me too. The only one way to get along with it is well... throwing some random notes or study some music theory more likely Intervals and Rhythyms, to make your music to have more sense.


----------



## aleazk

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> Ah, this was a problem for me too. The only one way to get along with it is well... throwing some random notes or study some music theory more likely Intervals and Rhythyms, to make your music to have more sense.


Or both! .


----------



## Ramako

Sometimes what I write can find boring because it is a product of what I want to write.

Maybe mix some of what you don't want in there too.

People don't want what they want.


----------



## aleazk

Ramako said:


> People don't want what they want.


lol, that's a rather crazy world!. I like that.


----------



## PetrB

For starters, stop writing _tunes_ and instead try to think about briefer ideas.

Next, start listening to less "tuneful" music, i.e. if you are listening more to Tchaikovsky than, say, Beethoven or Brahms, that is only reinforcing your notion of "melody" instead of the other elemental materials of motif, harmony, those latter really the main stuff of which most classical music is made: if you do not push yourself away from "tunes" toward the other elements, without all of those elements mixed both in your thinking and writing, you end up writing "just tunes."

If your melodic material is closed, i.e. begins and ends on Tonic, maybe has a half-way point temporarily sitting on Dominant or Sub-dominant, there is not going to be much you can do with that in the way of expansion unless you re-write it or break it into smaller elements, or "cells."

Before you have a completed tune, start extracting or experimenting with harmonic content from it / with it. The various pitch-contexts can influence your ear. Some of your problem is basically imitating what you think of as melody from cumulative melodies in memory... difficult to get away from, but that too, is part of the job.

The advice to try a "random note" instead of the one you would normally go to (horizontal melodic procedure) is appropriate, as is the general admonition to "mix it up." I admonish you that both are good advice, but they are not a solution -- they are offered up because the effect of so doing will challenge your ear, your concepts of what a melodic line is, and then you can, more selectively, find "other notes" which will make your line that much less predictable.

All this holds true whether you goal is to compose a "simple" tune for a song in the pop genre (simple and effective a no-slouch bit of craft often sneezed at by those who think classical is the only worthwhile music -- let them try it, I say  or if you are wanting to write something more in the vein of classical, expanded and somehow developed music of both 'melody' and harmony.

So... mix it up a little


----------



## Op.123

kamalayka said:


> Whenever I hear a melody in my head, it sounds so predictable and boring.
> 
> Here's a brief example:
> 
> http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/fb180cd3dd09ac1c89cdc213abacabf7903b7f01
> 
> I try to write modern stuff, but it's too forced and unnatural-sounding.


I love melodies...........................


----------



## bagpipers

you dont need to write great melodies.its not the theme but what you do with.

wagner once used 350 consecutive measures of nothing but Eflat major chords.
beethoven was a horible melodist but his form was genius.
bach's genius was his counterpoint and variation.
mendelson had great melodies but his counterpoint and variation was hyper simplistic and so with mozart.


----------



## aleazk

bagpipers said:


> beethoven was a horible melodist but his form was genius.
> bach's genius was his counterpoint and variation.


Uh, what?. They wrote some of the most popular melodies out there:





, Für Elise.





, Air on the G string.

...


----------



## bagpipers

yes,but not like schubert.mendelson or mozart.there is nothing wrong with not being a great melodist.different composers have different strenths


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Uh, what?. They wrote some of the most popular melodies out there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , Für Elise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , Air on the G string.
> 
> ...


I would hardly call any of the upper voice parts in Für Elise melody, but more motivic, and coming from the harmony -- Beethoven was a harmonist first and foremost.

Air on the G string is an air, "a tune" and it was not Bach's, but lifted, like so much of his other material, and kept intact, given a nice setting.


----------



## Forte

bagpipers said:


> yes,but not like schubert.mendelson or mozart.there is nothing wrong with not being a great melodist.different composers have different strenths


This is wrong. Beethoven could write wonderful, lyrical, long, flowing melodic lines as well as anybody - he just didn't always find the need to do so, or want to. See: the 1st movement of the 4th Piano Concerto, the 2nd movement of the 5th Piano Concerto, the 6th Symphony, the Violin Concerto, the choral finale of the 9th Symphony, the 2nd movement of Op. 13, the 1st movement of Op. 78, the 3rd movement of Op. 106, the 3rd movement of Op. 109, the first and third movements of Op. 110, various movements of the _Missa Solemnis_, various examples from the late string quartets (Op. 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135), and more.

Bach's melodies are often a joy, and it's not just counterpoint and harmony that makes them great (although it's why I'd rather not listen to Pachelbel) - just refer to his choral works. The cantatas, passions, and _Mass in B minor_ have great melodies, and really in general there were no "songwriters" at the time even though there were operas.

PetrB covered it as far as melodic invention - there's really nothing better than letting your ear know it's not boss, and in the end if you like it, it's still yours.


----------



## PetrB

Apologies for not having first listened to your audio sample.

I might guess that violin is your primary instrument? If that is the case, then listen to melodic material given to any of the instruments other than strings, and you may notice there is a different character to them. That character is not merely timbrel. but has to do with the characteristic behaviors of the instrument itself, and therefore, something written specifically to suit that physical behavior and character.

Me, piano bound, took forever to write something 'just for piano,' though I have orchestral piano parts in some works from before. Lately, I sat down to write "simple piano pieces." The reason I left it for so long? HABIT -- both physical and aural, of "What kind of things come out of a piano." You want to write, generally, idiomatically for any instrument, but do not want to cave in to motor habits, i.e. letting motor habit dictate what notes you come up with.

I may be mistaken as to your instrument, but do advise listening to different instruments in melodic roles, and take some note of the musical differences the composer has given them due to their native characteristics. This will at least broaden your inner ear's imagination.

Next, read up on extending a phrase, or truncating a phrase, and look for examples. A brilliant one, complete with analysis, is in this very worthwhile documentary on the teacher Nadia Boulanger. She goes at an analysis of the theme of Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze. There is a major lesson to be learned right there. (That segment begins at 23'34'')





[ADD: I must admit to not being "A melodist" though I have come up with some successful lines -- including songs -- those do seem to arise out of harmonic activity, and even then that harmonic activity thought about and arrived at via a more horizontal way of working (vs. vertical chord progression.) END ADD]


----------



## arturo

I struggled (and sometimes still do) with this a couple of weeks ago. In my case, I was almost trying to force a 10-bar melody, or 15-bar phrase. It all ended up sounding, like you wrote, forced, and there was not a general sense of cohesiveness (for lack of a better word). It did not feel connected. One of the tricks to a solid melody is a sense of direction. I was trying to be Tchaikovsky, or Schubert, when I'm obviously not.

Some cheesy, but true, advise is to let go. Sit at the piano and fiddle around with notes until you find a set of intervals you like paired with the first rhythm that pops into your head. Writing something unpredictable that's also good is hard. Do not be discouraged. Keep trying. Just, don't try to be Schubert. It's fine if you're influenced by Schubert or whomever, and it's totally fine if your melodies end up sounding vaguely similar to one of your favorite pieces (there are only 12 tones, after all).


----------



## bagpipers

Forte said:


> This is wrong. Beethoven could write wonderful, lyrical, long, flowing melodic lines as well as anybody - he just didn't always find the need to do so, or want to. See: the 1st movement of the 4th Piano Concerto, the 2nd movement of the 5th Piano Concerto, the 6th Symphony, the Violin Concerto, the choral finale of the 9th Symphony, the 2nd movement of Op. 13, the 1st movement of Op. 78, the 3rd movement of Op. 106, the 3rd movement of Op. 109, the first and third movements of Op. 110, various movements of the _Missa Solemnis_, various examples from the late string quartets (Op. 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135), and more.
> 
> Bach's melodies are often a joy, and it's not just counterpoint and harmony that makes them great (although it's why I'd rather not listen to Pachelbel) - just refer to his choral works. The cantatas, passions, and _Mass in B minor_ have great melodies, and really in general there were no "songwriters" at the time even though there were operas.
> 
> PetrB covered it as far as melodic invention - there's really nothing better than letting your ear know it's not boss, and in the end if you like it, it's still yours.


all those things are true but not really the point.
it is not really the melodie but what you do with it.i love beethoven over all other composers and bartok is my second favorite.my favorite melodie of all time is the rondo from the d959 sonata by schubert.any composer is a good melodist but it doesnt take a great melodist to be a great composer.

the original posters frustrations are not his melodies but his counterpoint and variation


----------



## bagpipers

here is another good example.someone was so condesending as to post a link to fur elise,like i have never heard that.matter of fact i used to play that piece all the time.it is one of beethovens greatest melodies for sure.but the piece is all melodie and i got board with it by 1996.once you get used to to melodie it gets boring.my much less melodic bartok favorites i have never got bored with.and being a composer and not a performer along with having very small hands,if could never play some of beethovens more sophisticated piano works


----------



## bagpipers

bernstein once said of beethovens 5th.3 G's and an Eflat,so simple anyone could have thought of it. "MAYBE!!!"

or the straight forward pounding A minor chords in the allegretto of his seventh.simple but very potent


----------



## moody

bagpipers said:


> yes,but not like schubert.mendelson or mozart.there is nothing wrong with not being a great melodist.different composers have different strenths


The trouble is that you've been listening to that Beethoven from our parallel universe.


----------



## bagpipers

@moody.
im listening to beethoven in from our "paralell universe"

what on earth does that mean.or maybe what in our paralell universe does that mean.

the only thing i am saying to the OP is to accept your weaknesses and use them to your advantage.i suck at rythem and i also suck at phrasing.i construct melodie and counterpoint in such a way that my pedantic 1 2 1 2 rythems actualy improve not harm my music


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

forget about melody, Brahms has the worst melodies and yet composed great music. The goal is learning counterpoint at an expert level and knowing how to handle the development section of your piece.


----------



## moody

bagpipers said:


> @moody.
> im listening to beethoven in from our "paralell universe"
> 
> what on earth does that mean.or maybe what in our paralell universe does that mean.
> 
> the only thing i am saying to the OP is to accept your weaknesses and use them to your advantage.i suck at rythem and i also suck at phrasing.i construct melodie and counterpoint in such a way that my pedantic 1 2 1 2 rythems actualy improve not harm my music


It means that anyone who can say that Beethoven is not a melodist is not of this world.


----------



## bagpipers

@moody,you dont get what im saying,i love beethoven above all other composers.
im not arguing anymore about this


----------



## Ramako

When people say Beethoven isn't a good melodist, what they usually mean is he doesn't write melodies like Mozart. Is the fact he is not a 'great melodist' a deficiency of some kind? Putting Mozart's tunes into Beethoven would not improve his music I am almost certain.

What does great melody mean? Personally I find Beethoven's tunes at least as catchy as Mozart's. I frequently go round humming parts of the Eroica.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

moody said:


> It means that anyone who can say that Beethoven is not a melodist is not of this world.


And whats wrong with Mars, I ask.


----------



## aleazk

I basically don't agree with bagpipers because I don't like those kind of absolute statements. They don't add anything to the discussion. "beethoven was a horible melodist but his form was genius". So, Joe average, who has Beethoven as his favorite composer, is actually attracted to some very abstract property of Beethoven's music. Joe is not attracted to Beethoven's great rhythms, to Beethoven's great motifs, to Beethoven's great emotions, to Beethoven's great counterpoint, to Beethoven's great ... . No, because bagpipers says it, Joe is only attracted to Beethoven's form. And no one dares to say otherwise!. That would ruin bagpipers' beautiful, simple, universal one liner. At the end, people fall in love with their one liners, and they forget to check if they have any correlation with reality.
Beethoven's treatment of melody is motivic. He starts with short motifs and with that, relying very heavily in counterpoint, he constructs his textures. You can't do that with a random motif, the motif must be carefully selected in order to work. Beethoven was a genius at that.
This is my favorite movement in all of Beethoven's oeuvre: 



In that movement you can perfectly hear what I'm saying. And also the trio has a very beautiful and lyric melody.


----------



## bagpipers

i only ever meant to say that compared to schubert or mendelson beethoven wasnt as good a melodist but melodie is all that matters in music.it is what you do with the melodie and that is what i am trying to admonish the OP of.

i am not from any other planets and i love beethoven,i worship beethoven.3 G's and a Eflat so simple;anyone could have thought of it. " MAYBE" (Leonard Bernstein)


----------



## aleazk

bagpipers said:


> i only ever meant to say that compared to schubert or mendelson beethoven wasnt as good a melodist but melodie is all that matters in music.it is what you do with the melodie and that is what i am trying to admonish the OP of.
> 
> i am not from any other planets and i love beethoven,i worship beethoven.3 G's and a Eflat so simple;anyone could have thought of it. " MAYBE" (Leonard Bernstein)


I know perfectly that your intention was only to remark that melody is not necessarily the most important aspect of music (and of course I agree with this), and that the OP shouldn't be ashamed because he can't write good melodies, and you tried to bring examples of great composer who were not good melodists according to you. But there's no need for one liners. Your example was not good, and contains cliche conceptions.


----------



## Pennypacker

aleazk said:


> I basically don't agree with bagpipers because I don't like those kind of absolute statements. They don't add anything to the discussion. "beethoven was a horible melodist but his form was genius". So, Joe average, who has Beethoven as his favorite composer, is actually attracted to some very abstract property of Beethoven's music. Joe is not attracted to Beethoven's great rhythms, to Beethoven's great motifs, to Beethoven's great emotions, to Beethoven's great counterpoint, to Beethoven's great ... . No, because bagpipers says it, Joe is only attracted to Beethoven's form. And no one dares to say otherwise!. That would ruin bagpipers' beautiful, simple, universal one liner. At the end, people fall in love with their one liners, and they forget to check if they have any correlation with reality.
> Beethoven's treatment of melody is motivic. He starts with short motifs and with that, relying very heavily in counterpoint, he constructs his textures. You can't do that with a random motif, the motif must be carefully selected in order to work. Beethoven was a genius at that.
> This is my favorite movement in all of Beethoven's oeuvre:
> 
> 
> 
> In that movement you can perfectly hear what I'm saying. And also the trio has a very beautiful and lyric melody.


So basically what he was saying.


----------



## aleazk

Pennypacker said:


> So basically what he was saying.


er, no. Only if your notion of melodism is the cliche opening of Tchaikovsky's piano concerto.


----------



## bagpipers

aleazk said:


> I know perfectly that your intention was only to remark that melody is not necessarily the most important aspect of music (and of course I agree with this), and that the OP shouldn't be ashamed because he can't write good melodies, and you tried to bring examples of great composer who were not good melodists according to you. But there's no need for one liners. Your example was not good, and contains cliche conceptions.


the bernstein remark,cliche indead.this thread exists in a educational context.cliche's can be relivent if it makes a point.
there are many acceptions to many of the stereotypes i used but the goal was analogy and point making.like i cant dance and have never liked rythmic music but instead of fighting that and creating technicaly perfect music.i ran with the ball and used my pedantic 1212 rythems to my advantage.
my posts were not intended to be sublime truths of musicology but a teaching tool.i cant jump inside the head of the OP just respond in a kind and helpfull way the best i know.
look point blank; if i had better communication skills i would be teaching comp and theory at some conservatory or art school.i couldnt convince a fish to want to swim but i hope i helped the OP access his inner artist


----------



## aleazk

Ah!, I found the video, this guy is more elocuent than I:






(I stole the Für Elise example from this video, )


----------



## Pennypacker

aleazk said:


> er, no. Only if your notion of melodism is the cliche opening of Tchaikovsky's piano concerto.


Well, it isn't. But the discussion was in the context of the OP's question, and his usage of the word "melody" clearly described a "nice memorable tune". You got that also, why else would you bring up Fur Elise as an example (talking about cliche)? 
I have nothing against exaggeration to make a point, it doesn't prevent me from understanding what someone tries to say.


----------



## PetrB

ScipioAfricanus said:


> forget about melody, Brahms has the worst melodies and yet composed great music. The goal is learning counterpoint at an expert level and knowing how to handle the development section of your piece.


If you're determined to compose common practice music in the style of the 1800's, anyway.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> If you're determined to compose common practice music in the style of the 1800's, anyway.


Wouldn't a potentially more useful aim be to learn the use of the tools in Bartók's arsenal? The result needn't sound at all like his music... .


----------



## PetrB

bagpipers said:


> ...melody is all that matters in music.


I flat out controvert you: Melody is not "all that matters in music" -- regardless of any further qualifications you add to your statement to support it.


----------



## Pennypacker

I believe it was a typo, he just missed the word "not". Read the whole message.


----------



## Ramako

PetrB said:


> I flat out controvert you: Melody is not "all that matters in music" -- regardless of any further qualifications you add to your statement to support it.


I think his typing is the problem - if you look at the context I'm pretty sure he means to say its _not_ all that matters in music.


----------



## PetrB

Hilltroll72 said:


> Wouldn't a potentially more useful aim be to learn the use of the tools in Bartók's arsenal? The result needn't sound at all like his music... .


It would be most useful, no matter what style you care to write in, to get deeply conversant with harmony, of any and all eras, period. Whether it is a good "hummable" tune, self-contained and easily within the average range of the man and woman on the street, or something far more 'complicated,' tunes and motifs which are well-made are teeming with _harmonic implications_, and both laymen or very practiced listeners perceive that element, viscerally and / or intellectually: those implications are part of what makes a single line memorable.

The three or four note motif has to be, as Aleazk has already mentioned, that much more carefully determined to yield anything in the way of further material or afford interesting variants.

Many attempting composing are going at "the tune" like it is the end all and be all of a piece. It Ain't. It might be "the bit" most walk away with solidly in memory, but it is not the core of most compositions.


----------



## PetrB

Ramako said:


> I think his typing is the problem - if you look at the context I'm pretty sure he means to say its _not_ all that matters in music.


okeedoh, then we've said essentially the same thing


----------



## aleazk

Pennypacker said:


> Well, it isn't. But the discussion was in the context of the OP's question, and his usage of the word "melody" clearly described a "nice memorable tune". You got that also, why else would you bring up Fur Elise as an example (talking about cliche)?
> I have nothing against exaggeration to make a point, it doesn't prevent me from understanding what someone tries to say.


Someone said that Beethoven was a "horrible" melodist. Now, that's an exaggeration, even if your definition of melody is a "nice memorable tune". That's why I mentioned Für Elise. And, as Ramako says, Beethoven has plenty of very tuneful melodies. The rest of my comments were simply against this cliche notion of melody.


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> It would be most useful, no matter what style you care to write in, to get deeply conversant with harmony, of any and all eras, period. Whether it is a good "hummable" tune, self-contained and easily within the average range of the man and woman on the street, or something far more 'complicated,' tunes and motifs which are well-made are teeming with _harmonic implications_, and whether it is a layman or very practiced listener, those are part of what makes a single line memorable.
> 
> The three or four note motif has to be, as *Azleak* has already mentioned, that much more carefully determined to yield anything in the way of further material or afford interesting variants.
> 
> Many attempting composing are going at "the tune" like it is the end all and be all of a piece. It Ain't. It might be "the bit" most walk away with solidly in memory, but it is not the core of most compositions.


Who the heck is that guy?. Seems like me, but with the fingers all messed.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Who the heck is that guy?. Seems like me, but with the fingers all messed.


Corrected! It was definitely not all the right notes in the right order


----------



## moody

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> And whats wrong with Mars, I ask.


I thought you were more of a moon man.


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> I thought you were more of a moon man.


I believe he is known for having done some mooning in his youth, something about drive-by flashing.


----------



## Crudblud

PetrB said:


> I believe he is known for having done some mooning in his youth, something about drive-by flashing.


That was when he still had flesh to moon with, poor Eddie has been wasting away since he became undead.


----------



## rborganist

It sounds to me that modern is not your natural style; there is nothing wrong with that. But if your melodies sound predictable, try spicing up the harmonies a bit. Use some color chords (Leo Sowerby was very good at this; listen to his anthem "I Will LIft Up Mine Eyes" (Psalm 121) where he uses some chords that sound jazzy or bluesy yet without being irreverent. Try spicing up the rhythms by using dotted rhythms; look up some of the Baroque dance forms such as the gavotte, the bouree, the pavane, etc. Make use of sequences; once you have the basic melody, try repeating it a step higher (or some other interval), and then repeat it again at the same interval. Try doing a theme and variations by using augmentation (lengthen the note values) or ornamentation. Look up the modes and try writing a melody in each mode. When I need something solemn or mournful, I use the Hungarian mode in which the third is lowered, the fourth is raised, and the sixth is lowered. (If you start with C Major, for instance, change the E natural to an E flat, the F natural to an F sharp, and the A natural to an A flat, you will have the Hunagrian mode). Get a good theory textbook if you don't have one already; it will also explain what chord needs to follow a particular chord, how certain notes need to resolve, etc. (The human ear expects to hear certain things--if you use a C sharp, it expects a D natural to follow, while if you write a D flat, a C natural can follow. A piece in a minor key usually ends on a major third (called the Picardy third) because the acoustics in churches at the time were "tuned" to major, and a minor final chord would be dissonant. Composers still wrote in minor keys; they just resolved to major at the very end. So listen to good music of every kind;Sowerby and Ellington, Bach and Brubeck, Franck and Joplin, Verdi and Gershwin, Puccini and Porter. You will learn a great deal about writing melodies and how to turn something as simple as a descending scale into a thing of beauty (for example "Caro Nome" from Rigoletto).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

moody said:


> I thought you were more of a moon man.


Ah well you see moonlight is not good to the undead, Mars is more my seen. 
Not the wind on my face nor the spray of the sea, nor the warmth of a woman's flesh but a Martian now there's something


----------



## bagpipers

PetrB said:


> I flat out controvert you: Melody is not "all that matters in music" -- regardless of any further qualifications you add to your statement to support it.


i never said that,you took something i said out of context.


----------



## PetrB

rborganist said:


> It sounds to me that modern is not your natural style...


There is not anything more natural about "old style" than there is about "modern style." 
It all has to be studied, then practiced, preferably both of those, and a lot


----------



## bagpipers

use more minor seconds in harmony and then let the minor seconds resolve into paralell thirds or triads.use french sixth chords to resolve to the dominant as opposed to the more traditional german or italian sixth chord.


----------



## PetrB

bagpipers said:


> i never said that,you took something i said out of context.


Sorry, my mind gets cloudy when high or low, beginner or advanced, people put "melody" at the forefront -- call that state of mind the lightest shade of pink as derived from the blood red of _berserk_ and accept my apology,please


----------



## bagpipers

PetrB said:


> Sorry, my mind gets cloudy when high or low, beginner or advanced, people put "melody" at the forefront -- call that state of mind the lightest shade of pink as derived from the blood red of _berserk_ and accept my apology,please


it has been a confusing thread and there have been many misunderstandings so no harm no foul.art critique is so complicated being that there is often no right or wrong.
also just because he is bored with his melodies doesnt mean there boring maybe he is just to used to them.i find playing bach quite boring but that is simply because in my early days i played so much of it


----------

