# melody, harmony, sound, rhythm: what do you dig the most?



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

i'm curious about that. I like harmony a lot, so a lot of my favorite composers are those who use elaborate and complex harmonies. And it's probably the reason of the fact that i don't like particularly composers like Mozart.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I voted for harmony, but I couldn't exactly do without the other elements! What's wrong with Mozart's harmony, by the way?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Good melody is worthless without interesting harmonic background, rhythm is worthless if doesn't come along with harmony, timbre and colour doesn't mean anything if you have no great music to paint it with them, harmony is the only thing of these which can be interesting of it's own right but without the other mentioned qualities it can't achieve much either.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Good melody is worthless without interesting harmonic background, rhythm is worthless if doesn't come along with harmony, timbre and colour doesn't mean anything if you have no great music to paint it with them, harmony is the only thing of these which can be interesting of it's own right but without the other mentioned qualities it can't achieve much either.


this is an interesting article about this idea:
http://www.willcwhite.com/2011/01/top-10-harmonic-melodists/
_
I don't believe there is such a thing as a Good Melody. I almost don't know what such a thing would mean, because for me, a melody is nothing without a good harmony. Or perhaps I should say, "harmonic progression". Harmony's great, but what's the use of a good harmony without a beautiful melody to glide upon it, to argue against it, to define it, to sing it?

So when people speak of 'the Great Melodists', I think they're really talking about those people who are masters of uniting beautiful melodies with complimentary harmonies, not just writing tunes._

and it's is absolutely true, but i prefer to listen to szymanowski than mozart, even if the second is recognized as one of the greatest melodists


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Webernite said:


> I voted for harmony, but I couldn't exactly do without the other elements! What's wrong with Mozart's harmony, by the way?


i don't want to say that there's something wrong, but most of the time to me it sounds too simple under this aspect.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I love cake, but I would have a hard time eating a bowl of flour, a cup of sugar or a raw egg.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'd considered asking a question like this, and, with these options, went for melody as just a tad more important to me than harmony.

However, in terms of all the basic components there are in a musical piece, I would have to choose _structure_ as the most important. What I like most about a good piece of music (and what I think displays true craftsmanship), is whether or not the piece takes you along a convincing 'narrative'. In that sense, particular melodies and harmonies don't matter - so long as there is some musical idea that you can take hold of, which is (comprehensibly) transformed in some interesting way; that's what I want to hear.

This is particularly why I was bowled over by Bruckner's 5th for the first time yesterday!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I'd considered asking a question like this, and, with these options, went for melody as just a tad more important to me than harmony.
> 
> However, in terms of all the basic components there are in a musical piece, I would have to choose _structure_ as the most important. What I like most about a good piece of music (and what I think displays true craftsmanship), is whether or not the piece takes you along a convincing 'narrative'. In that sense, particular melodies and harmonies don't matter - so long as there is some musical idea that you can take hold of, which is (comprehensibly) transformed in some interesting way; that's what I want to hear.
> 
> This is particularly why I was bowled over by Bruckner's 5th for the first time yesterday!


Interesting point and now i want to listen the 5th. Who are the composers (aside the obvious Beethoven) who you consider the greatest under this aspect?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

norman bates said:


> Interesting point and now i want to listen the 5th. Who are the composers (aside the obvious Beethoven) who you consider the greatest under this aspect?


I'm not sure I'd necessarily apply the label to a composer, as I don't think it's a trait that is a staple across anyone's entire oeuvre (not that I've come across, anyway). Rather, I think certain pieces just happen to excel at it. Of course, it also depends on what kind of narratives you like!

To pluck some random pieces out of the air, I think it's true of Balakirev's _Islamey_. Also, on a very simple level, with Borodin's Second Symphony (with the first movement, the narrative is very simple, but it is built in such a way to make the final restatement of the main theme absolutely cathartic). Of all the Brahms that I would characteristically turn towards, I would say that the first movement of his First Piano Concerto is an exemplar in this respect.

The more I think about, the more I think that most essential part of the narrative is how everything comes together in the end. It's not necessarily always clear where the narrative is taking you, but there are some endings that feel so wonderfully inevitable, and make you hear everything up until that point afresh, with a fabulous hindsight.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I'm not sure I'd necessarily apply the label to a composer, as I don't think it's a trait that is a staple across anyone's entire oeuvre (not that I've come across, anyway). Rather, I think certain pieces just happen to excel at it. Of course, it also depends on what kind of narratives you like!
> 
> To pluck some random pieces out of the air, I think it's true of Balakirev's _Islamey_. Also, on a very simple level, with Borodin's Second Symphony (with the first movement, the narrative is very simple, but it is built in such a way to make the final restatement of the main theme absolutely cathartic). Of all the Brahms that I would characteristically turn towards, I would say that the first movement of his First Piano Concerto is an exemplar in this respect.
> 
> The more I think about, the more I think that most essential part of the narrative is how everything comes together in the end. It's not necessarily always clear where the narrative is taking you, but there are some endings that feel so wonderfully inevitable, and make you hear everything up until that point afresh, with a fabulous hindsight.


thank you. I confess i haven't listened neither the piece of Balakirev nor the Borodin's symphony, but i'll do as soon as possible.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

norman bates said:


> this is an interesting article about this idea:
> http://www.willcwhite.com/2011/01/top-10-harmonic-melodists/
> _
> *I don't believe there is such a thing as a Good Melody. I almost don't know what such a thing would mean, because for me, a melody is nothing without a good harmony.* Or perhaps I should say, "harmonic progression". Harmony's great, but what's the use of a good harmony without a beautiful melody to glide upon it, to argue against it, to define it, to sing it?
> ...


This is interesting. There's just one place where I might differ a little from the person you're quoting, and it might just be a matter of the way they're saying it. What about the case of unaccompanied music for monophonic instruments (say, a solo sonata for clarinet)? There's a case of melody standing alone, and it can be quite beautiful. Such compositions can stand on their own, without accompaniment, and still be interesting and complete-sounding because they usually have "implied" harmonies or harmonic progressions, which gives them some sort of trajectory. But a melody doesn't have to be _actually _harmonized (in the sense of there being more than one tone sounding at a time) in order to _work,_ it seems to me.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Strong harmony. Otherwise you might as well go listen to "baby don't hurt me no more" music.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Meaghan said:


> This is interesting. There's just one place where I might differ a little from the person you're quoting, and it might just be a matter of the way they're saying it. What about the case of unaccompanied music for monophonic instruments (say, a solo sonata for clarinet)? There's a case of melody standing alone, and it can be quite beautiful. Such compositions can stand on their own, without accompaniment, and still be interesting and complete-sounding because they usually have "implied" harmonies or harmonic progressions, which gives them some sort of trajectory. But a melody doesn't have to be _actually _harmonized (in the sense of there being more than one tone sounding at a time) in order to _work,_ it seems to me.


Do you think, though, that with a melody that isn't harmonised by an accompaniment, there is still a simple, suggested harmony for each note in the melody depending on their context?


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Do you think, though, that with a melody that isn't harmonised by an accompaniment, there is still a simple, suggested harmony for each note in the melody depending on their context?


Maybe. I'm not sure. Not _every_ note, because even in pieces with true harmony, not every note belongs to the chord that sounds with (or immediately before or after) it. Some are passing tones, etc. I think the extent to which implied harmony exists is largely dependent on whether the composer is thinking tonally. But I think our ears will try often try to interpret it that way, if only because we are always searching for patterns in everything, which is why I'm not sure melody can really be divorced from harmony; I'm not convinced that they are entirely distinct elements of music.

I don't really have answers, I'm just thinking, it's all a bit muddled.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I guess I'm first to vote for tone color. It's what makes a piece what it is. I don't even have to know what the melody of a piece is in order to me to like it: if the first notes have a certain tone/atmosphere I like, it'll be an automatic response to love everything else, melody, harmony and rhythm included. I guess how I can explain tone color is 1) arrangement/orchestration 2) dynamics/expression 3) actual color, as in notes chosen.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Strong harmony. Otherwise you might as well go listen to "baby don't hurt me no more" music.


erm I wouldn't necessarily say that that song has a very good melody either...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I was trying to think of which one of these elements could stand on their own as a piece in and of itself e.g. a series of harmonies being a piece.

Then I realized...you can't have anything without sound/tone color...so uuhh none of them can stand on their own, it's physically impossible.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I dig the VOLUME TO THE MAX!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I dig the VOLUME TO THE MAX!


I'm sure your neighbor would "dig" if you politely turned that volume back down...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I'm sure your neighbor would "dig" if you politely turned that volume back down...


SORRY I CAN'T HEAR!!!

okay...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Meaghan said:


> This is interesting. There's just one place where I might differ a little from the person you're quoting, and it might just be a matter of the way they're saying it. What about the case of unaccompanied music for monophonic instruments (say, a solo sonata for clarinet)? There's a case of melody standing alone, and it can be quite beautiful. Such compositions can stand on their own, without accompaniment, and still be interesting and complete-sounding because they usually have "implied" harmonies or harmonic progressions, which gives them some sort of trajectory. But a melody doesn't have to be _actually _harmonized (in the sense of there being more than one tone sounding at a time) in order to _work,_ it seems to me.


even if the harmony is implied is still harmony, and if a melody stands alone without accompaniment a lot of times (i would dare to say always) it's a proof that there's great harmony. In a sense i've always thought that a monophonic composition of this kind is in a sense the "perfect" composition just because of this reason.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> I was trying to think of which one of these elements could stand on their own as a piece in and of itself e.g. a series of harmonies being a piece.
> 
> Then I realized...you can't have anything without sound/tone color...so uuhh none of them can stand on their own, it's physically impossible.


think of Bach: a lot of his pieces are played by a lot of instruments, so tone color in this case is not the first element. While it's difficult to think to Daphnis et Chloe withouth the orchestration of Ravel. Same for Varese.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I call ** on this poll. Melody is harmony. Harmony is rythm. Rythm is melody.

*edit: Did the forum seriously censor Belgian Syrup?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Rasa said:


> I call ** on this poll. Melody is harmony. Harmony is rythm. Rythm is melody.
> 
> *edit: Did the forum seriously censor Belgian Syrup?


harmony is rhythm?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

norman bates said:


> harmony is rhythm?


in fact it is, sometimes - when you have full bar filled with chords in 16ths then the you shape the rhythm by deciding when the harmony changes. For example: time signature is 4/4 and you make first four chords the same, then make the other four descending from above. It's not the same rhythm as if the first two chords were diffrent and the later six would be one chord repeated.

I HAVE WRITTEN SILLY THING, HAVEN'T IT?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I HAVE WRITTEN SILLY THING, HAVEN'T IT?




Anyway, i really can't see as Harmony can be rhythm (or rhythm can be harmony). If you take C, E and G you can play in any rhythmic form you want but it remains always a C major.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

norman bates said:


> harmony is rhythm?







There is no rythm in this except where it is marked by harmonic changes.






The harmony is the predominant rythm that creates the motion rather then the Quaver semi semi

( by the way, how awesome is the internet?)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Rasa said:


> There is no rythm in this except where it is marked by harmonic changes.


i don't see this as a convincing example. I mean, if you take the first group of notes and you replay them withouth changes the rhythic effect would be the same (though the piece would sound inevitably boring). Now, it's clear that a piece of music is not just melody or harmony or rhythm or tone color, but for example i recognize the other members of the "harmonic ears club". 
When one is talking of his favorite composers and mentions Debussy, Scriabin, Messiaen, Delius, Ives etc i know that he's someone who really likes that particular aspect of the music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Actually some composers and sound engineers have theorized that pitch and rhythm are the same thing. Because if you take a pitch and slow it down enough you start hearing beats, which make a rhythm instead of a pitch.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

norman bates said:


> i'm curious about that. I like harmony a lot, so a lot of my favorite composers are those who use elaborate and complex harmonies. And it's probably the reason of the fact that i don't like particularly composers like Mozart.


I demand different criteria depending on the century...Melody is more common in the XVth, XVIth, XVII, XXVIIIth centuries...it is kind of essential...For the XXth and XXIst I'd say sound, tone and rythm...like the rite of spring, the marvelous mandarin, Schönberg...etc

Am I wrong?

Martin, wrong very often


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> Actually some composers and sound engineers have theorized that pitch and rhythm are the same thing. Because if you take a pitch and slow it down enough you start hearing beats, which make a rhythm instead of a pitch.


that's true, but i think that withouth slowing down a lot a major third it's a bit difficult to perceive it as two different rhythms


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

without rhythm most music would be boring


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...
> The more I think about, the more I think that most essential part of the narrative is how everything comes together in the end. It's not necessarily always clear where the narrative is taking you, but there are some endings that feel so wonderfully inevitable, and make you hear everything up until that point afresh, with a fabulous hindsight.


That's kind of why I like Brahms' concertos so much. A sense of an epic journey is there - esp. in the long first movements - but there are also these little detours onto the "backroads," but eventually you do get back to the "main road." He was a master of this kind of musical journey, he really was, esp. in those concertos...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Vesteralen's* perfect analogy makes sense to me -



Vesteralen said:


> I love cake, but I would have a hard time eating a bowl of flour, a cup of sugar or a raw egg.


- as well as what *Aramis* & *violadude* are saying in relation to music, they're basically saying the same thing in a more concrete way. These things are all interlinked.

...but if you push me against a wall, here's my "ranking." I think melody comes out on top for me nowadays, as well as rhythm. If you asked me a year back, I would have said harmony & tone colour, as I was into a kind of "modernist" & "experimental" musics phase, & those types of music have quite unique harmonies & colours compared to what came before. Now I'm more back to basics, I really like music to just be straight and not muck around with too much extraneous complexity just for the sake of it. Then again, I think my current composers on high rotation, eg. Piazzolla, Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Boccherini, Rodrigo, etc. kind of fused them all together so well, but all composers at that level, "worth their salt," could do it as well, it's their day-job so to speak...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Sid James said:


> *Vesteralen's* perfect analogy makes sense to me -
> 
> - as well as what *Aramis* & *violadude* are saying in relation to music, they're basically saying the same thing in a more concrete way. These things are all interlinked.
> 
> ...but if you push me against a wall, here's my "ranking." I think melody comes out on top for me nowadays, as well as rhythm. If you asked me a year back, I would have said harmony & tone colour, as I was into a kind of "modernist" & "experimental" musics phase, & those types of music have quite unique harmonies & colours compared to what came before. Now I'm more back to basics, I really like music to just be straight and* not muck around with too much extraneous complexity just for the sake of it*. Then again, I think my current composers on high rotation, eg. Piazzolla, Castelnuovo-Tedesco, Boccherini, Rodrigo, etc. kind of fused them all together so well, but all composers at that level, "worth their salt," could do it as well, it's their day-job so to speak...


Oh, about the bolded text: i don't like at all harmony when it's complex for the sake of it. I'm very picky about it, i like to hear "strange" complex chords if i can hear that those chords are used to create particular atmospheres. 
By the way, i was thinking that harmonies are the only possible reason to listen a composer like Sorabji. His pieces are extremely lenght, often there's no a recognizable melody. And often it's the same rhythm and the same for the structure, music that sound like a random flow of notes. But the harmonies are great


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

i like rhythm in both the harmony & melody


----------



## Kayla (Oct 21, 2011)

I vote for harmony and melody. I don't want to make it seem music can be divided as many parts and then evaluate which part is the most impotant. It makes sense. If I just divide it into parts, and if anypart of it attracts me and then I'll like that music and at this moment the music part make sense.


----------

