# Beethoven's 5th and "The Death of Melody"



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

This video was recently posted in the non-Classical Music forum, and I'd considered posting it myself here and exploring this issue in a more meta-context. First, the video:





For a summary: the idea is that most modern pop music (and even film-score music) doesn't feature melody anymore, but rather "hooks," which are defined as short phrases typically with a few (sometimes as few as one) note(s) and little variation in rhythm.

My first thought when I saw this video (which was actually a while back) was that the first model for this might be the opening motif from Beethoven's 5th: four total notes, two different notes, and two different note durations. Obviously, Beethoven's 5th does a tremendous deal with this simple motif that pop music (and film scores) don't even attempt, but the issue I wanted to explore is different. Namely, is there a reason that such "hooks" have taken over melody in popularity? I think the immediate answer/response many have is that pop music endeavors to be a simple as possible in order to appeal to as many people as possible, but I think there may be more to it than that.

To get a bit abstract for a moment, there's a concept that the simplest language possible is binary code. With only one digit you can't have any difference, but with two you can construct/model just about anything (just look at computers and AI). Similarly, we could say that many of the ways we perceive and experience reality falls into various binary "poles." With music, one of those binary poles is that of pattern/surprise, or same/difference. There's actually been neuroaesthetic theories of music that most of our enjoyment boils down to how we react to this pattern/surprise dichotomy within music. Given that, it actually makes sense that the most fundamental way to express that would be with music of two different notes and two note durations. If we go back to the motif from Beethoven's 5th, this is precisely what we get: three notes of pattern (same note, same note durations), one note of surprise (different note, different/longer note duration).

So could it be that the massive popularity of that motif, even among those who don't listen to classical music, is precisely that it phenomenally encapsulates (abstractly) a fundamental idea about how we listen to and react to music? By extension, the "death of melody" in modern pop (perhaps less so in film music) could be seen as an attempt at replicating that attempt, at constructing hooks that near-instantaneously allow listeners to grasp a pattern, but then having some variation of just one (or two) note(s) and/or note duration that creates "surprise."

In another thread I'd postulated that this pattern/surprise duality could also be used to explain the appeal of development in, say, the sonata form. If the idea holds water here as well, I think it would be fascinating how that idea could both be expressed both within the smallest possible musical units and within the largest possible formal concepts.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^This, in a nutshell, was Leonard Meyer's great contribution to our understanding of how music works (on one level; there are others).


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Taking a part of somebody's melody and using it as a repeated hook in a different context is something that is easy and easy to get away with. Composing a long, rhyming melody, is not easy. Some composers prefer to end up using a good/great hook than a bad/mediocre melody.

Perhaps Beethoven, living in the shadow of Mozart, was afraid of a direct comparison in this area, and so he chose to do something else instead. In case of the beginning of the fifth, I put faith in what I read was Carl Czerny's account of the origin:
that the master was strolling in the park and heard these:




Why do the birds in question emit their tones in certain sequences is beyond me. Perhaps they want to be different from other artists.

Beethoven was, according to Leonard Bernstein, very dedicated to the principle of inevitability. So if he struggled with it while working with shorter themes, longer ones would logically be in his view even less malleable. Such was exactly the view of Bernard Herrmann, who was coincidentally hailed by some as "Beethoven of film music".

Of course there might be another explanation. While Steiner's and Korngold's background was musical theater and opera, with all the arias, songs, and overtures, Herrmann came from radio drama, where music consisted of extremely short phrases and symbolic motifs. When he had to compete with the former two composers, he decided to use the tools he had learned in his trade instead.

I just don't know what exactly could have been the "background" so understood in the case of Beethoven, however. His schooling and early work happened in a context similar to Mozart's.
Or did they?

As for the principle of surprise, independently of the conclusions in the sources mentioned by the OP, I have also reached a conclusion a couple of years ago that everything we enjoy is enjoyed because it turns out to be >= what we expected, while things we see as bad are those that are <= than our expectations. This applies to melody as well.

Whether we enjoy things that turn out exactly how we expect them depends on the initial expectation. In case of music, the line between "cliches" and "familiar positive stimulae" is especially blurred.

Great melodies are the ultimate exceedings of our expectations, because they give the impression of an uninterrupted flow of skillfulness.
Compare [1:16-1:33]:




and [0:32-0:44]:





Whereas the former is somewhat unsatisfactory, the latter is a mic drop material.

Of course, semantically, what is a melody and what is a hook in the case of Tchaikovsky is often hard to tell. 
With all these repetitions of repetitions according to his devillishly clever designs, it is as if he used fish as a catch for even bigger fish.

The argument that hooks replace melodies because they are better at capturing anything, including the audience's attention, is nonsense. It's an attempt at manufacturing a divine predestination explanation for what is likely just results of market / logistical factors. Pop is getting worse the same way mainstream cinema is in many ways getting worse---because those who are the best at business are more succesful in capturing widest possible audience than those who are the best _in __the business_.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Seems to me, the hallmark -- and selling point -- of popular music over the last 50 years is more "beat" than anything. Even the "hooked on classics" movement of the '70s tried to create three minute pop songs out of Beethoven's Fifth and others (even Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring) by putting a beat behind it. Didn't work, but for the people who liked that sort of thing, that was the sort of thing they liked.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

This is something Beethoven inherited from Haydn. Haydn was a master technician at monothematicism and building by use of little motifs. *Mozart's Haydn Quartets also have many moments like them. I don't find the comparison to modern pop music plausible because even in situations where these classical music composers are less melodic and more motivic, - they vary expression by skillful use of thematic transformation and modulation etc.

*listen to the development of the first movement (4:20), and the coda (32:30) of the final:





Certain moments in Bach are also interesting in this regard:


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It doesn't take a genius to know melody is not the benchmark of popular music any longer. This has been growing since forms like grunge and rap premiered in the 1970s -- a lifetime ago. The two forms of metal -- heavy and dance heavy -- contributed to this.

I don't listen to or buy popular music but I take spinning classes and have some understanding of what kind of music appeals to people there. There is no melody; it is beat-based.


----------



## Texas Chain Saw Mazurka (Nov 1, 2009)

There must be some forms of folk music this could be traced back to. Or maybe it's more a matter of parallel evolution than influence.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Texas Chain Saw Mazurka said:


> There must be some forms of folk music this could be traced back to. Or maybe it's more a matter of parallel evolution than influence.


African folk music, Spanish folk...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I've probably posted it a hundred times by now: Can't anyone write a good tune anymore? Apparently not. When I'm driving, classical music just doesn't work to well with the convertible top down, so I put on "classic" pop. The stuff from the '60s had real melodic invention and often sophisticated harmony and orchestration that puts today's pop music to shame. Today's country/western is just awful. There are only a few performers that still can carry a tune. Most of them have a range of 4 or 5 notes and it's really monotonous and dull. So my collection of classic C/W from the '40s - '70s fills the bill. 

Maybe music has written itself out and there's no good melodies left. The new Mary Poppins is sure evidence - not a memorable song in the whole movie, compared to a glut of them from the original. Andrew Lloyd Webber had some fine tunes, but seems to be silent nowadays. In the classical arena? Forget it. Even the much lauded and late Christopher Rouse never really wrote a good tune.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> I've probably posted it a hundred times by now: Can't anyone write a good tune anymore? Apparently not. When I'm driving, classical music just doesn't work to well with the convertible top down, so I put on "classic" pop. The stuff from the '60s had real melodic invention and often sophisticated harmony and orchestration that puts today's pop music to shame. Today's country/western is just awful. There are only a few performers that still can carry a tune. Most of them have a range of 4 or 5 notes and it's really monotonous and dull. So my collection of classic C/W from the '40s - '70s fills the bill.
> 
> Maybe music has written itself out and there's no good melodies left. The new Mary Poppins is sure evidence - not a memorable song in the whole movie, compared to a glut of them from the original. Andrew Lloyd Webber had some fine tunes, but seems to be silent nowadays. In the classical arena? Forget it. Even the much lauded and late Christopher Rouse never really wrote a good tune.


There hasnt been a single decent tune written since the 90s theme song for Titanic.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> is there a reason that such "hooks" have taken over melody in popularity?


it is not a matter of melody but that of a message the composer wants conveyed. Beethoven in question where the "ha-ha-ha-ha" opening for his 5th and its further development does the trick in fact couldn't care less about melody, this is obvious; because melody, rhythm and timbre come from the story or agenda that a composer intends to express through his music; this is how melody, rhythm and timbre are born.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Maybe music has written itself out and there's no good melodies left. The new Mary Poppins is sure evidence - not a memorable song in the whole movie, compared to a glut of them from the original. Andrew Lloyd Webber had some fine tunes, but seems to be silent nowadays. In the classical arena? Forget it. Even the much lauded and late Christopher Rouse never really wrote a good tune.


I can assure you that the "exhaustion of melodies" is a myth. Around the turn of the century there have been some real fountains of melodies. The Lord of the Rings film scores by Howard Shore, Medal of Honor video game scores by Michael Giacchino, and a certain excellent videogame score by Tilman Sillescu and Pierre Langer called "Paraworld". It is not easy to find a melody that does not sound like taken from somewhere else, but when one is educated in a lot of various music, the combinations should be good enough. Most listeners will not identify the references to a late 19th century concerto for piano and orchestra, a film score from the 1960s, and some obscure jazz tune that constitute a new melody that they have just heard.

I will give you another example: around the turn of the century (perhaps there is some third factor involved behind it) Polish pop music had a lot of melodic and instrumental/vocal thought in it. In Europe in general it was the time of the twilight of the Europop genre, which also sometimes had a good melody here and there. Sadly, recently it has really gotten bad there as well. Where does this incompetence come from, I have no clue.

Since you mentioned country / western, I will recommend you these fairly modern songs:


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

PlaySalieri said:


> There hasnt been a single decent tune written since the 90s theme song for Titanic.


Hey, it's not _that _bad. Plenty have been. Tell me the type or some other melodies you enjoy and I will find you something


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> For a summary: the idea is that most modern pop music (and even film-score music) doesn't feature melody anymore, but rather "hooks," which are defined as short phrases typically with a few (sometimes as few as one) note(s) and little variation in rhythm.
> 
> My first thought when I saw this video (which was actually a while back) was that the first model for this might be the opening motif from Beethoven's 5th: four total notes, two different notes, and two different note durations. Obviously, Beethoven's 5th does a tremendous deal with this simple motif that pop music (and film scores) don't even attempt, but the issue I wanted to explore is different. Namely, is there a reason that such "hooks" have taken over melody in popularity? *I think the immediate answer/response many have is that pop music endeavors to be a simple as possible in order to appeal to as many people as possible, but I think there may be more to it than that. *


I don't think there's any more to it than that. Pop music is a commodity - much of it can't even be said to be composed, it's just made from a "recipe book" (data bases of "effects") - and commodities need to be manufactured cheaply and sold in quantity. It's the quintessential art of advanced capitalism (no, I'm not a Marxist, just an old fart who has seen much).


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Appealing to as many as possible is the primary objective, but does not exclude quality. It is mass production that excludes quality. I think that only Vivaldi would truly swim in the current currents...
He had the supreme ability of composing catchy pieces (even if very similar to each other) endlessly.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> The stuff from the '60s had real melodic invention and often sophisticated harmony and orchestration that puts today's pop music to shame. Today's country/western is just awful. There are only a few performers that still can carry a tune. Most of them have a range of 4 or 5 notes and it's really monotonous and dull. So my collection of classic C/W from the '40s - '70s fills the bill.


There's a lot of good popular music from the 80s and 90s too, it just has a more produced sound. The issue I think is 80s and 90s music became clearly forgotten as the current music industry tried their best to "block out" past great music owned by labels to instead promote their cheaply-made new artists. This made 80s and 90s music never gain the reverence over time that 60s and 70s was able to throughout the 80s and 90s. This is the clear reason the media isn't celebrating ~90s artists, it's a conspiracy to make us forget good 'pop' music exists, when it's only really started declining in the 21st century.

Here are a couple great 80s/90s country pop melodies I really like:





 *(1989, this one has a less-produced sound to it)*




 *(1991, just a great melody through-and-through)*




* (1996)*

There's a lot of more _*upbeat, faster-paced*_ songs too. A 90s band with a fast pace I particularly enjoy is _No Doubt_.

Here are a couple more slow-paced country songs:





* (1995, another great melody and forgotten writer)*




* (1991, great singing, a less-produced sound to it)*


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I can assure you that *the "exhaustion of melodies" is a myth*. Around the turn of the century there have been some real fountains of melodies. The Lord of the Rings film scores by Howard Shore,


Is it? Odd the you cite Howard Shore, who, like other film composers, drew on their classical ancestors for melodic inspiration. The Fellowhip theme is a recognisable pinch from Sibelius 3rd.



Woodduck said:


> Pop music is a commodity - much of it can't even be said to be composed, it's just made from a "recipe book" (data bases of "effects") - and commodities need to be manufactured cheaply and sold in quantity. It's the quintessential art of advanced capitalism (no, I'm not a Marxist, just an old fart who has seen much).


I'll agree vehemently with the last part of your post, of course, but not entirely with the first. The fact that there is a 'pop' industry (there always has been - it's not an invention of the 70s/80s/90s etc) does not mean that all 'pop' artists seek to write the simplest, most easily digestible beats.

But, like the "Wagner's music is ruined by his antisemitism" meme, I guess the "all pop is trash" meme is never going to die.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> the "Wagner's music is ruined by his antisemitism" meme


it isn't ruined by that or any other thing. Wagner stands tall & strong, and its all the worse for those he disliked.



MacLeod said:


> the "all pop is trash" meme is never going to die.


as the very name of 'pop' suggests - it was supposed to be trash from the get-go.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

It's like they took poop, subtracted a letter and thought we wouldn't notice.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Is it? Odd the you cite Howard Shore, who, like other film composers, drew on their classical ancestors for melodic inspiration. The Fellowhip theme is a recognisable pinch from Sibelius 3rd.


Is it odd---that I cite Howard Shore, who, like other film composers, drew on their classical ancestors, who drew on _their _classical ancestors, who drew on _their _classical ancestors... for melodic inspiration?


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> it isn't ruined by that or any other thing.


Of course it isn't. I didn't say it was.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Of course it isn't. I didn't say it was.


and i did not say that you said it was but only referred the quote in your post.


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2019)

Zhdanov said:


> and i did not say that you said it was but only referred the quote in your post.


OK. Just wanted to be clear.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

One should not underestimate the impact of the DAW for the last 25 years or so. The DAW and samples that are used with it have insinuated their way into the composing process with the result that composers, especially those with no training, can literally move and repeat blocks of music (sound) at will, as part of their creative act - collaging together beats and instrumental sounds to create music. This concept of creating with blocks of sound is probably the biggest reason for the ubiquity of the hook because it along with the emergent conventions in pop music encourages the idea.

One can easily access drum loops, orchestral loops, bass riffs, guitar riffs and so on for this purpose, so it might not come as any surprise that one of the biggest influencers for the way modern music has developed in terms of its compositional approach are the sample companies themselves. One hears proof of this, especially with sampled orchestral music that is used in media - the instrumental articulations provided by sample companies have a direct bearing on the way music is written.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> The argument that hooks replace melodies because they are better at capturing anything, including the audience's attention, is nonsense. It's an attempt at manufacturing a divine predestination explanation for what is likely just results of market / logistical factors. Pop is getting worse the same way mainstream cinema is in many ways getting worse---because those who are the best at business are more succesful in capturing widest possible audience than those who are the best _in __the business_.


I assure you I had no "divine predestination" in mind when I wrote my OP. It's clear that music of a melodic nature has been more appealing before in pop culture, and right now we're just in a trend where it's not. I was more interested in whether there is something innately appealing about these minimalistic hooks that extends beyond their simplicity. At the very least, they seem better at capturing audience's attentions _now_.

As for the pop/cinema getting worse, I always find these criticisms hard to take seriously as they've been uttered by literally every past generation of the modern generation's art probably going back to the beginning of time. It's often accompanied by a rose-colored bias of the past and an ignorance/lack of interest in whatever it is that's being criticized.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

larold said:


> It doesn't take a genius to know melody is not the benchmark of popular music any longer. This has been growing since forms like grunge and rap premiered in the 1970s -- a lifetime ago. *The two forms of metal -- heavy and dance heavy -- contributed to this.*


Wha? Early metal had its fair share of melody, and the kind that ended up big in the mainstream first--the hair metal of the 80s--was also quite big on melody. The more rhythm-driven metal of the 80s didn't make any impact on pop music, and the rhythm-driven metal of the 90s that did--"nu-metal"--was pretty limited in its influence on the rest of pop music (metal's always been a pretty insular genre). Rap I can see, because rap/hip-hop HAS become mainstream, and has long been influencing the mainstream's approach to sound for a long while.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I don't think there's any more to it than that. Pop music is a commodity - much of it can't even be said to be composed, it's just made from a "recipe book" (data bases of "effects") - and commodities need to be manufactured cheaply and sold in quantity. It's the quintessential art of advanced capitalism (no, I'm not a Marxist, just an old fart who has seen much).


I've debunked the "recipe book" notion of how pop is composed before so I don't want to bother again; I will say that pop "music" isn't much of a commodity any more and it certainly isn't manufactured cheaply or sold in quantity. For being a commodity, most of it's offered freely these days on YouTube; artists/labels have moved away from selling the music to using the music as a promotion for merchandise and tours. It's certainly not cheap to produce if you have any idea how much the top songwriters/producers are paid and how much studio time and the equipment to do it costs. It's also not sold in quantity given that most pop stars are doing good to release an album every two years.

Anyway, that's all besides the point. Even if we say that simplicity sells in pop music, there's still the issue of why simplicity in this form seems to be selling now, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it is when we look at the mainstream popularity of that motif from Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

mikeh375 said:


> One should not underestimate the impact of the DAW for the last 25 years or so. The DAW and samples that are used with it have insinuated their way into the composing process with the result that composers, especially those with no training, can literally move and repeat blocks of music (sound) at will, as part of their creative act - collaging together beats and instrumental sounds to create music. This concept of creating with blocks of sound is probably the biggest reason for the ubiquity of the hook because it along with the emergent conventions in pop music encourages the idea.
> 
> One can easily access drum loops, orchestral loops, bass riffs, guitar riffs and so on for this purpose, so it might not come as any surprise that one of the biggest influencers for the way modern music has developed in terms of its compositional approach are the sample companies themselves. One hears proof of this, especially with sampled orchestral music that is used in media - the instrumental articulations provided by sample companies have a direct bearing on the way music is written.


Absolutely DAW has had a huge influence on how artists and producers make pop music, but even before DAW it was common to have the backing music being simple and rhythmic in character in support of melodies in the vocals. These days, the vocals are utilizing the same approach that used to be reserved for whatever was supporting them. I don't think the switch in the vocal approach can be blamed on DAW.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I assure you I had no "divine predestination" in mind when I wrote my OP. It's clear that music of a melodic nature has been more appealing before in pop culture, and right now we're just in a trend where it's not. I was more interested in whether there is something innately appealing about these minimalistic hooks that extends beyond their simplicity. At the very least, they seem better at capturing audience's attentions _now_.
> 
> As for the pop/cinema getting worse, I always find these criticisms hard to take seriously as they've been uttered by literally every past generation of the modern generation's art probably going back to the beginning of time. It's often accompanied by a rose-colored bias of the past and an ignorance/lack of interest in whatever it is that's being criticized.


Since you seem to prefer contemporary scientific vocabulary, perhaps I should have used the term 'post-hoc rationalization' instead of 'manufacturing divine predestination'. They capture attention now, because industry produces and pushes only that and people get used to a low standard. Many "casuals" do enjoy more complex music, but at the same time _do not _consider the frugal products that are pushed in their faces to be "bad".

As for film, no decade before, not even the dive in the late 1960s / early 1970s, had so little great film music, for example. I am more active on film music fora than here, and there people are interested in all sorts of film scores; we literally trace every release, look forward to them, check them out, write reviews and discuss details, etc. It's more than bad. It's a plane crash. The directors are not musical anymore, and composers are not as imaginative or ambitious as the past greats either. Even John Williams, who in interviews is always a non-judgemental saint of politeness, and secretive as only men of his generation could be, said recently that composers nowadays are "a bit flat-chested".
That, a shift of language in screenwriting into a semi-literate millenial street language, and the behaviour of actors that moves on all levels from naturally charming and classy to modern charmless and "casual", are my major grudges.

In other areas it is not as bad, of course. Great many commenters say oftentimes, that computer graphics artists are getting better results every year. The same goes for video and sound quality, sports, variety performing arts, etc. Videogames are thriving in terms of clever plots and richness.

Just not the elder arts.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Please try to learn some basic terminology and stop with this nonsense about the first theme of Beethoven's Fifth being four notes. It isn't. The four notes are a motive from which a long theme is built. Your Beethoven reference is just a hook to get this discussion onto the main discussion forum. It belongs in the non-classical section.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Fabulin said:


> Since you seem to prefer contemporary scientific vocabulary, perhaps I should have used the term 'post-hoc rationalization' instead of 'manufacturing divine predestination'. They capture attention now, because industry produces and pushes only that and people get used to a low standard. Many "casuals" do enjoy more complex music, but at the same time _do not _consider the frugal products that are pushed in their faces to be "bad".


How do you know you're not offering an "ad hoc rationalization" by claiming they're capturing attention because that's what the industry is producing and pushing, as opposed the industry producing and pushing because that's what people like? The pop industry is notoriously more interested in following trends than creating them, so the idea that they forced this change on the public strikes me as absurd, especially in an age when they have less power than ever to do that.



Fabulin said:


> As for film, no decade before, not even the dive in the late 1960s / early 1970s, had so little great film music, for example. I am more active on film music fora than here, and there people are interested in all sorts of film scores; we literally trace every release, look forward to them, check them out, write reviews and discuss details, etc. It's more than bad. It's a plane crash. The directors are not musical anymore, and composers are not as imaginative or ambitious as the past greats either. Even John Williams, who in interviews is always a non-judgemental saint of politeness, and secretive as only men of his generation could be, said recently that composers nowadays are "a bit flat-chested".
> That, a shift of language in screenwriting into a semi-literate millenial street language, and the behaviour of actors that moves on all levels from naturally charming and classy to modern charmless and "casual", are my major grudges.


Fair enough regarding film scores; I have little interest in them myself so I won't be presumptuous to judge how good/bad they are now compared to any other times. I will say that one of my favorite film scores of all time comes from this century with Clint Mansell's The Fountain; though I have less interest in the score itself and more how it enhances what I find is a very moving film.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Please try to learn some basic terminology and stop with this nonsense about the first theme of Beethoven's Fifth being four notes. It isn't. The four notes are a motive from which a long theme is built. Your Beethoven reference is just a hook to get this discussion onto the main discussion forum. It belongs in the non-classical section.


What? I said motif in my OP; no mention of theme. The Beethoven reference most certainly wasn't a "hook to get this discussion on the main forum" as the very nature of that motif and its popularity was what I wanted to discuss. The video is merely what sparked my idea about it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've debunked the "recipe book" notion of how pop is composed before so I don't want to bother again; I will say that pop "music" isn't much of a commodity any more and it certainly isn't manufactured cheaply or sold in quantity. For being a commodity, most of it's offered freely these days on YouTube; artists/labels have moved away from selling the music to using the music as a promotion for merchandise and tours. It's certainly not cheap to produce if you have any idea how much the top songwriters/producers are paid and how much studio time and the equipment to do it costs. It's also not sold in quantity given that most pop stars are doing good to release an album every two years.


What I glean from this is that the sort of melody-free, rhythmically insistent pop music we're talking about here isn't really the uncreative mass-produced product it sounds like. I find this the opposite of reassuring. At least my explanation might be considered an excuse (however poor) for artistic poverty. Knowing that the stuff is actually created by highly paid pros who are experts in avoiding melody will make my feelings of revulsion even greater the next time I go shopping and find myself subjected to what I presume to be their latest masterpieces.



> Anyway, that's all besides the point. Even if we say that simplicity sells in pop music, there's still the issue of why simplicity in this form seems to be selling now, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it is when we look at the mainstream popularity of that motif from Beethoven's 5th.


I see no connection whatever to Beethoven's pregnant motifs, from which he spun out long, complex melodies.


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> As for film, no decade before, not even the dive in the late 1960s / early 1970s, had so little great film music, for example. I am more active on film music fora than here, and there people are interested in all sorts of film scores; we literally trace every release, look forward to them, check them out, write reviews and discuss details, etc. It's more than bad. It's a plane crash.





Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Fair enough regarding film scores*; I have little interest in them myself so I won't be presumptuous to judge how good/bad they are now compared to any other times.


Really? Fabulin is entitled to his opinion, but it needs more than an insight into their interest and commitment to film music to convince me that things have got so bad that it can be described as a plane crash. Such an insight is interesting - and I'd be grateful for some recommendations of film music forums to visit - but it's no more relevant than similar claims made by those who are committed to classical more generally.

My personal view of film scores is not that they've got worse in any generalised sense, but they have changed as musical tastes have changed among directors, producers and film composers themselves. Such change is surely inevitable. I see no justification for claiming things have got worse, though they may no longer satisfy certain listeners' tastes.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

One point no-one appears to have brought up is that the popularity of Beethoven's 5th occurred when in World War II, the Allies equated the Fifth Symphony’s famous motto with the dot-dot-dot-dash denoting “V” in Morse code. The BBC regularly included this “V for Victory” message of hope in broadcasts to Nazi-occupied Europe. My parents' generation were very well acquainted with it simply because it was broadcast so often. Of course, the 'hook' is memorable and Beethoven's staggering genius put it to amazing use, but it won the hearts of people during the war as it was a message of hope.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Really? Fabulin is entitled to his opinion, but it needs more than an insight into their interest and commitment to film music to convince me that things have got so bad that it can be described as a plane crash. Such an insight is interesting - and I'd be grateful for some recommendations of film music forums to visit - but it's no more relevant than similar claims made by those who are committed to classical more generally.
> 
> My personal view of film scores is not that they've got worse in any generalised sense, but they have changed as musical tastes have changed among directors, producers and film composers themselves. Such change is surely inevitable. I see no justification for claiming things have got worse, though they may no longer satisfy certain listeners tastes.


A pile-up of high-profile composer deaths occured at the beginning of the 21st century.: Michael Kamen(2003), Jerry Goldsmith (2004), Elmer Bernstein (2004), Basil Poledouris (2006), Leonard Rosenman (2008), with:
John Barry (2011), Joel Goldsmith (2012), and James Horner (2015) following soon. In Horner's case it was a literal plane crash.

Who was left was Ennio Morricone, John Williams, Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, David Newman, Alan Silvestri, James Newton Howard, Howard Shore, Bruce Broughton, Elliot Goldenthal, Alan Menken, and David Arnold. The rising stars of this period include John Powell, Michael Giacchino and Alexandre Desplat.

*Arnold *disappeared from the scene for a while to do other projects.
*Goldenthal *turned to composing concert music.
*Elfman *lost a lot of his interest and turned his attention to concert music as well. His film scores nowadays are uninspired.
*Morricone *retired.
*Silvestri, Newton Howard*, and *Menken *ran out of ideas and compose scores that are shadows of their past achievements. Some enjoy them, but "great film scores" they are not. 
*Howard Shore*, after The Lord of the Rings, didn't get enough time, communication with the director, and not good enough film material to compose music for the Hobbit Trilogy that would be as great as the former 3 scores. Other than that, he does more low-key projects, like he always used to do.

*Zimmer *and his team did the "BWAAM" revolution around 2008 (The Dark Knight) and greatly propagated electronic music; since then music has been largely replaced by vague "sound design". There are good scores to come out of it, but 
- the reliance on DAWs by the composers, especially concerning "immediate feedback", is detrimental to their imagination. Bygone are the days when composers tended to compose at the piano and rely on their knowledge of classical / jazz music and ever-honed imagination to come up with orchestral ideas.
- how producers nowadays expect immediate mock-ups instead of giving the composers space to present themes and then perfect the music independently
- the reliance on rhytms and drums, as well as on ostinato and loop-based music in general, leads to a loss of nuance and dynamics, not to mention the loss of actual complex orchestral melodies and harmonies.

The influence of this reaches also composers like Giacchino, Newton-Howard, Desplat, Newman and Silvestri, largely because of the expectations of the directors, producers... and market research teams, who, as you know, are very knowledgeable about the art of music.

*Giacchino* is an anomaly in that he is openly lazy. Works the way one would do an average desk job, 9 to 5 and no more. He has great job security and is not challenged. His scores get worse and worse over time.

Only *Powell *and *Desplat *reliably do interesting things nowadays, within the current idiom. Of course there are newcomers, like *Goeransson *and *Hurwitz*, but they are very far from the rank of Williams, Goldsmith, Rózsa, Herrmann or Steiner. At least for now.

There is also a certain *Junkie XL*, but his scores, while not offensive by any means, are just a regurgitation of better film music from the last 3 decades.

*David Newman* is solid, but not _Alfred Newman _solid.

*Bruce Broughton *was never that great to begin with. I mention him because he has some following as a reliable, old-school composer.

So we are left with *John Williams*, the last of his kind after the losses of Goldsmith, Bernstein and Barry. In the last decade he composed pleasant, competent music for films of the very grandpy Spielberg. Plus two Star Wars scores --- the only 10/10s of this decade. The third will become the third 10/10 this December. John Williams is _87_.

All of it might not sound tragic, but add to that the fact that where medium size films used to be, now we are only having extremely high budget studio films, and very small budget arthouse films.
Blockbusters have gone a long way since the more ambitious ones of Spielberg, or those of the silver age. They go into the Zimmer territory more and more, or get one of the composers who are shades of their more youthful vigour. Disney films have also changed _against _music, which as one video essay eloquently put it, happened around the film _Tarzan_, nearly 20 years ago, because Disney wanted the films to be more hip, like those of Dreamworks.

Meanwhile small films either lack budget, or their directors try to design them around not having much music from the get go, because such is the current fashion of "realism".

There are exceptions to those trends like to any, but it is the general trends that shape a decade of film music. It has never been quite as bad as now. I hope for a better future, perhaps when yet another generation of composers joins in---one of conservative rebels, like what we see in politics, who would try to resurrect symphonic film scoring once more. There are more and more academic books on the topics of ambitious film music each year, and more and more film scores are available on the internet or as recordings, so there are materials to study.

Do you get the picture now?

Advertising for other internet fora is forbidden around here, so I will only encourage you to check out the whereabouts of the John Williams fandom.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> What I glean from this is that the sort of melody-free, rhythmically insistent pop music we're talking about here isn't really the uncreative mass-produced product it sounds like. I find this the opposite of reassuring. At least my explanation might be considered an excuse (however poor) for artistic poverty. Knowing that the stuff is actually created by highly paid pros who are experts in avoiding melody will make my feelings of revulsion even greater the next time I go shopping and find myself subjected to what I presume to be their latest masterpieces.


I don't think that's true. Many of the artists cranking out this stuff are world famous and worth a hundred million dollars or more. And a number of them aren't 30 years old yet. This not completely tuneless, rhythmic driven music is heavily influenced by the continued popularity of rap and hip-hop. I get subjected to a lot of this corporate driven pop at my gym. The new music is a fusion of rap/r&b/pop. It's cleverly and skillfully produced and I'm sure it appeals to many 12-14 year olds. But it sounds plastic and soulless to my ears. There's no grit, sweat, natural groove or heart to it. And the lyrics are inane teenage pablum. At least that's the way I hear it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There are many different ways of approaching melody in music. Some people speak of melody as if it is some sort of magic that can elevate the most banal piece of music to the sublime, or a measuring stick used to separate the wheat from the chaff. To me what makes a piece of music effective is a balance of factors, sometimes a great melody is a major feature, sometimes not so much. 

At times some composers in my view may become too dependent on melody above other factors. This can create a range of issues for me from too much predictability, too saccharine, the music wearing thin after repeated listens etc. 

As far as Beethoven's 5th it is only one of the more famous pieces of music more dependent on theme development than melodic material per se. 

In discussing the finale of one of Haydn's late trios (e flat minor H.31) Rosen explains "The whole movement appears to be built out of fragments, almost without melody of any kind, yet the continuity and lilt of dance are always there. This is the kind of work that can only come at the end of a long career."

So not only is Rosen claiming that this Haydn piece has virtually no melody, he is simultaneously pointing out it displays very advanced compositional technique. 

Earlier in the book Rosen explains that in general people tend to associate strong melodies with symmetrical 4 measure length melodic material. This is why Schubert and Prokofiev are generally pointed to as 'strong melodists' and Beethoven and Stravinsky not so much even though the linear patterns in their music are arguably just as beautiful.

So again, in my view it is a combination of factors that makes a piece of music work. Melody is just one aspect and it can be approached in different ways.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Very interesting video, despite the man compares apples with oranges...

Especially the comparison of the music from Gone by the Wind with the music is playing where Jesus dies on the cross, is, with all the respect, laughable. A love theme MUST be melodic. The music of the Jesus death agony MUST not be. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! How you can express death cries with sweet violins? And the other comparisons are also somehow childish. Queen, Led Zeppelin, Hip-Hop, Beethoven and Taylor Swift!

Melody is NOT dying. Ability to compose is dying. Human brain is already dead. Fine taste went to hell. But not the melody. As long as OUR GUYS are here (Wagner, Mozart, Beethoven, Tschaikowsky, Bruckner, etc) the melody will be present and strong. (and, believe me, they will be for EVER) If our children (because they don't have any education) prefer to listen the Shakira, (and some charlatans, to earn billions, they make their favours) doesn't mean that the melody has died. It means that we (parents and teachers) they FFFFed them, by giving them nothing which could make their brain to work properly.

And something for the conclusion> Beethoven's four notes from the 5th, is the BIGGEST achievement_ (did the guy look at the score? How the 2nd violins are taking the theme, followed from the 1st (this is REVOLUTION) and after the violas to built the character of the theme with the help of the cellos? NO! I'm FFFn sure)_ in the history of music. To built such a colossal work with only 4 FFFFFn notes, requires 1.000.000.000.0000.000... the intellectuality of the guy made this video.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> A pile-up of high-profile composer deaths occured at the beginning of the 21st century.: Michael Kamen(2003), Jerry Goldsmith (2004), Elmer Bernstein (2004), Basil Poledouris (2006), Leonard Rosenman (2008), with:
> John Barry (2011), Joel Goldsmith (2012), and James Horner (2015) following soon. In Horner's case it was a literal plane crash.
> [etc]


Well, thanks for your detailed response. However, you don't seem to have offered any evidence from either the films or from the scores to support your assertion that film music is in decline. What you've focused on is a list of your opinions about the composers themselves and some views about the film music industry. For example, I'm not sure what it says about the quality of the scores for _Up_ or _JoJo Rabbit _to tell me that Giacchino is lazy, or to simply say that his scores get "worse and worse". You don't even say what it is you're looking for in a film score. I assume that, since this thread is supposed to be about the death of melody, that composers aren't producing "big" or "memorable" tunes any more (like the good old days, eh?)

Looking at the list of film credits for, say, Thomas Newman, I can see he worked on a number of successful and (IMO of course) enjoyable films (eg _Bridge of Spies, The Iron Lady, Spectre, Finding Nemo_). Do I remember much about the scores themselves? Not really. So what?

I will agree that the premature deaths are unfortunate. I like the work of Jóhann Jóhannsson (_Prisoners_, _Arrival_) so I regret his death in 2018. Ironically, one of the most memorable pieces from _Arrival _was actually by Max Richter who has just done _Ad Astra_.

These films and scores may not be to your taste - I don't know, as you have little to say about any actual movies - but without any criteria on offer for supporting your claims for what is and isn't a great score, I don't get the picture at all. Sorry


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To get a bit abstract for a moment, there's a concept that the simplest language possible is binary code. With only one digit you can't have any difference, but with two you can construct/model just about anything (just look at computers and AI). Similarly, we could say that many of the ways we perceive and experience reality falls into various binary "poles." With music, one of those binary poles is that of pattern/surprise, or same/difference. There's actually been neuroaesthetic theories of music that most of our enjoyment boils down to how we react to this pattern/surprise dichotomy within music. Given that, it actually makes sense that the most fundamental way to express that would be with music of two different notes and two note durations. If we go back to the motif from Beethoven's 5th, this is precisely what we get: three notes of pattern (same note, same note durations), one note of surprise (different note, different/longer note duration).
> 
> So could it be that the massive popularity of that motif, even among those who don't listen to classical music, is precisely that it phenomenally encapsulates (abstractly) a fundamental idea about how we listen to and react to music? By extension, the "death of melody" in modern pop (perhaps less so in film music) could be seen as an attempt at replicating that attempt, at constructing hooks that near-instantaneously allow listeners to grasp a pattern, but then having some variation of just one (or two) note(s) and/or note duration that creates "surprise."


I don't buy this binary theory with the Beethoven's 5th motif. The notes are too quick for the brain to be surprised with the last note. In fact when you hear something like a chorus or phrase repeated, the brain tends to anticipate or expect change (thinking where do we go from here?) But related to your theory, I do think listeners are drawn to contrast. Contrast in speed, dynamics, high/low registers. Nirvana's Smells like Teen Spirit makes use of the contrast of loud and softer passages. Contrast of faster / slower parts of a rhythm (like the William Tell Overture). Contrast of high/low notes (Aqua's Barbie Girl). A memorable hook, motif or longer melody incorporates these one or more of these contrasts. So the Beethoven's 5th motif does fit the bill.

A hook or motif is not really inferior to a melody by itself, contrary to what that video was suggesting. It all depends on the patterns and development. Pop tends to have a simple progression and keep repeating it. Check out the simplicity and repetitiveness of this big hit. You can say it has a longer melody, but it is very unimaginative and just keeps returning to the same note.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> What I glean from this is that the sort of melody-free, rhythmically insistent pop music we're talking about here isn't really the uncreative mass-produced product it sounds like. I find this the opposite of reassuring. At least my explanation might be considered an excuse (however poor) for artistic poverty. Knowing that the stuff is actually created by highly paid pros who are experts in avoiding melody will make my feelings of revulsion even greater the next time I go shopping and find myself subjected to what I presume to be their latest masterpieces.


The issue is that emphasis has shifted into other areas, especially production. Many songs that are quite simple on a purely musical level are quite complex on the production side of things. Rick Beato has a good breakdown of one of Max Martin's productions that shows just how much thought and care is going into that aspect:




Not exactly easy to put all that together. Of course it's "artistically impoverished" to someone who doesn't like it and/or has no interest in this style of music; but that's a different issue entirely.



Woodduck said:


> I see no connection whatever to Beethoven's pregnant motifs, from which he spun out long, complex melodies.


The issue isn't about the "pregnancy" of the motif, nor about what he "spins" from it. One can't deny that the motif itself, even stripped completely of everything that comes after it, is immensely famous, arguably the most famous classical piece of all time in terms of mass awareness. An average person on the street who's never heard the entire movement will still be able to hum that part, or at least instantly recognize it when hummed.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Really? Fabulin is entitled to his opinion, but it needs more than an insight into their interest and commitment to film music to convince me that things have got so bad that it can be described as a plane crash. Such an insight is interesting - and I'd be grateful for some recommendations of film music forums to visit - but it's no more relevant than similar claims made by those who are committed to classical more generally.
> 
> My personal view of film scores is not that they've got worse in any generalised sense, but they have changed as musical tastes have changed among directors, producers and film composers themselves. Such change is surely inevitable. I see no justification for claiming things have got worse, though they may no longer satisfy certain listeners' tastes.


You should interpret my "fair enough" as a way of me saying "I don't know enough about the genre to dispute the claims."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't buy this binary theory with the Beethoven's 5th motif. The notes are too quick for the brain to be surprised with the last note. In fact when you hear something like a chorus or phrase repeated, the brain tends to anticipate or expect change (thinking where do we go from here?) But related to your theory, I do think listeners are drawn to contrast. Contrast in speed, dynamics, high/low registers. Nirvana's Smells like Teen Spirit makes use of the contrast of loud and softer passages. Contrast of faster / slower parts of a rhythm (like the William Tell Overture). Contrast of high/low notes (Aqua's Barbie Girl). A memorable hook, motif or longer melody incorporates these one or more of these contrasts. So the Beethoven's 5th motif does fit the bill.
> 
> A hook or motif is not really inferior to a melody by itself, contrary to what that video was suggesting. It all depends on the patterns and development. Pop tends to have a simple progression and keep repeating it. Check out the simplicity and repetitiveness of this big hit. You can say it has a longer melody, but it is very unimaginative and just keeps returning to the same note.


I had considered that when formulating the "theory," about whether the motif is too short for the binary pattern/surprise dichotomy to register. I simply don't know enough about cognitive science (or neuroaesthetics) to know whether it is or not, which is one reason I thought it worth discussing, so I'm glad someone finally made this objection. Your idea about contrasts sounds quite plausible as well and would still feed in (at least somewhat) to the binary idea, since the issue we'd be dealing with (in this case) is a binary contrast.

I actually agree with you that hooks are not inferior to melody. Part of my feeling on this is shaped by my having grown up with classic rock that is often largely built on the "hooks" of guitar riffs, which are rarely heavily melodic in nature. Yeah, I agree that song isn't very good despite it being more melodic than most pop. Do you think there's perhaps something about the nature of hooks (as opposed to melodies) that makes contrasts stand out more so?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You should interpret my "fair enough" as a way of me saying "I don't know enough about the genre to dispute the claims."


I did, but other readers may have interpreted it as assent.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> I did, but other readers may have interpreted it as assent.


F...f... fair enough?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Many songs that are quite simple on a purely musical level are quite complex on the production side of things.


yeah, these days, a piece of crap is meticulously wrapped in glitter of various kind.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> yeah, these days, a piece of crap is meticulously wrapped in glitter of various kind.


Or one can say that the glitter becomes the point of the object itself and not whatever it's "wrapping." Not exactly the first time this has happened in the arts when artistic focuses shift to different aspects, and then there's always these "death of culture" proclamations from conservatives (I don't mean that politically).

So it goes.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

A really good video I watched recently:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

PlaySalieri said:


> There hasnt been a single decent tune written since the 90s theme song for Titanic.


Are you sure?
Ben Howard - I Forget Where We Were.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Is it? Odd the you cite Howard Shore, who, like other film composers, drew on their classical ancestors for melodic inspiration. The Fellowhip theme is a recognisable pinch from Sibelius 3rd.


Which bit?.......................


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

A melody takes _time_ to hear that some listeners may no longer have the patience for, nor do they seem as interested in the sentiment or emotions that might be associated with one. I believe it's a comment on the impersonality and lack of sentiment in daily life. On the other hand, rhythmic motifs and hooks take no time at all and contemporary music is going through a phase that's placing more focus on that; it's essential to give pop music its urgency, drive and intensity.

From what I can tell, it's not that melodies are no longer being written, though there seems to less interest in them and fewer to hear-I believe that hip-hop accelerated the trend-but that it seems to take longer to _find_ them in the contemporary marketplace. The video on the death of melody is essentially more pop-oriented but I've heard modern opera being criticized for its lack of memorable, lyrical or beautiful melodies. Nevertheless, I do not believe that melody has totally died or ever will; it's too fundamental and necessary to express the more lyrical and heartfelt aspects of life that can arise from the ashes of the impersonal.

On the basis of the revenues that have been generated, I believe that strong melodies continue to exist in musicals: https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/the-15-most-popular-broadway-musicals-of-all-time.html/. The Lion King's total revenue so far has been $1,463,250,222! That's more than anyone could make in 100 incarnations, and while money doesn't mean everything, it's not that it doesn't mean something as far as what the public values.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> A melody takes _time_ to hear that some listeners may no longer have the patience for, nor do they seem as interested in the sentiment or emotions that might be associated with one. I believe it's a comment on the impersonality and lack of sentiment in daily life.


It's a comment on their impersonality and lack of lyrical tenderness in daily life, indeed.

The same people who use the word "syrrupy" when describing delicate beauty, happiness, or sensitivity.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Which bit?.......................







1st movement. About 8: 55


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> 1st movement. About 8: 55


Oh yes - I do remember being reminded of LotR though it's only somewhat similar I think.


----------

