# Great melodists and what it means



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Who are some of the greatest melodists of classical music that come to mind? It would also be interesting to discuss what it means to be a great melodist.

These come to my mind first:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Chopin
Wagner
Brahms
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius

At least I cannot think of anyone a better melodist than them.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Ravel needs to be on that list.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Manxfeeder said:


> Ravel needs to be on that list.


I actually thought of him as the next on my list! So I am with you on that.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Rimsky-Korsakov


I love Beethoven's music, and he was undeniably a musical genius, probably the greatest musical genius of all time, but I am not sure melodies were his strongest point.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

1:11, 1:49, 3:42 (the elaborations/transformations on the melody and the sense of longing they create):




(Quel viso adorato beato (Andromeda e Perseo))




(Vesperae in F: V. Memento mei)

you can hear glimpses of Mozart's Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen and K.449 concerto (iii) in this:




(Symphony No. 17 in E Major, P. 44: IV. Allegro con spirito)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

haziz said:


> Tchaikovsky
> Dvorak
> Rimsky-Korsakov
> 
> I love Beethoven's music, and he was undeniably a musical genius, probably the greatest musical genius of all time, but I am not sure melodies were his strongest point.


Is it possible to be "the greatest musical genius of all time" and melodies not be a strong point?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Malcolm Arnold
Albert Ketelby
Eric Coates
Leroy Anderson
Alexander Borodin
Edvard Grieg
Edward Elgar
Scott Joplin
Ralph Vaughan Williams

...and many others. Writing a great tune is a real gift that the Divine Spirit seems to have denied so many composers today. Some composers seem embarrassed to write tunes and many just can't. Film composers do better than practically anyone. Pop/Rock/Hip Hop/Country-Western: tunes are dead.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Is it possible to be "the greatest musical genius of all time" and melodies not be a strong point?


yes, if one is considerably stronger in other points. Bach was one of the greatest composers, and opera was not his strong point, Wagner was one of the greatest composer and no genre except opera was his strong point 
I think almost everyone means something different with "melodist" but a core notion seem to be recognizable, hummable melodies. Maybe this is not sufficient but at least necessary. Wagner and Sibelius would not be the first (or third) that come to my mind here, rather e.g. the Italian opera composers: Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini. Also Vivaldi, Handel, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff. But it's rather futile. Brahms, Bruckner or Schumann also have lots of great melodies, and so on, it's very vague in any way.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> yes, if one is considerably stronger in other points. Bach was one of the greatest composers, and opera was not his strong point, Wagner was one of the greatest composer and no genre except opera was his strong point
> I think almost everyone means something different with "melodist" but a core notion seem to be recognizable, hummable melodies. Maybe this is not sufficient but at least necessary. Wagner and Sibelius would not be the first (or third) that come to my mind here, rather e.g. the Italian opera composers: Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi, Puccini. Also Vivaldi, Handel, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff. But it's rather futile. Brahms, Bruckner or Schumann also have lots of great melodies, and so on, it's very vague in any way.


Are you perhaps suggesting that the Sibelius Violin Concerto shows no melodic talents whatsoever?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> Are you perhaps suggesting that the Sibelius Violin Concerto shows no melodic talents whatsoever?


That's an example of the 'exception fallacy' which is meaningless.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The violin concerto is comparably melodic (but easily beaten in that department by a real potboiler like Bruch, I think the strongest point of the Sibelius VC is creating "atmosphere" and melodies are secondary for that and I admittedly also think that the piece gets a lot less great after the first movement), so is Tannhäuser but the strongest pieces of Sibelius (such as 4th, 7th, Tapiola etc.) are not somelodically enticing and neither is Wagner, IMO. Of course, they are not totally unattractive melodically. But one act of many Mozart or Verdi operas has more hummable melodies than 3.5 hour Parsifal.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> That's an example of the 'exception fallacy' which is meaningless.


I proved with just one example that Sibelius is a masterful melodist. No mediocre melodist could ever create this Violin Concerto. If you know and understand anything about classical music you need to admit that much. My point most certainly is not meaningless but suits this thread well.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> The violin concerto is comparably melodic (but easily beaten in that department by a real potboiler like Bruch, I think the strongest point of the Sibelius VC is creating "atmosphere" and melodies are secondary for that and I admittedly also think that the piece gets a lot less great after the first movement), so is Tannhäuser but the strongest pieces of Sibelius (such as 4th, 7th, Tapiola etc.) are not somelodically enticing and neither is Wagner, IMO. Of course, they are not totally unattractive melodically. But one act of many Mozart or Verdi operas has more hummable melodies than 3.5 hour Parsifal.


In my musical world hummable is not a synonym for a good melody. "Good singable tune" is not the definition of a good melody.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I would add Prokofiev to any cumulative list. Respighi also. And Respighi's mentor, Rimsky-Korsakov And let's not forget another Rimsky protege, Young Igor Stravinsky.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

The passage at 1:07 strikes me as nostalgic, melodically-




(Symphony No. 37 in D Major, P. 29: II. Andantino)




(Ach lieder, ich bin eizig schuld)

The melodies after the series of dissonance, 1:05-




(Symphony in B-Flat Major, P. 18: III. Finale)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> I proved with just one example that Sibelius is a masterful melodist. No mediocre melodist could ever create this Violin Concerto. If you know and understand anything about classical music you need to admit that much. My point most certainly is not meaningless but suits this thread well.


Giving one example only speaks to your opinion and does not prove anything. And you don't need to get offensive, I can assure you that I've known and understood a lot about classical music for many, many decades and as much as I know and love Sibelius' music, I see no need to admit anything based solely on that example.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have trouble with the concept because my personal definition of melody is fairly synonymous with tune, while I consider most CM to be centered on themes which are not necessarily melodies.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> Giving one example only speaks to your opinion and does not prove anything. And you don't need to get offensive, I can assure you that I've known and understood a lot about classical music for many, many decades and as much as I know and love Sibelius' music, I see no need to admit anything based solely on that example.


How come you find me offensive? It was you who yet again commented my post in an unconstructive way. I have not questioned anybody's competence in music. Why would I do that? It seems that I have upset you because you seem to want to challenge me with smart-*** comments like "one example doesn't prove the universe". Where have I said it does? It proves what I have said it proves: no mediocre melodist could compose the Sibelius Violin Concerto. Try to argue the opposite, please.

It is a fact that in our cultural context the Sibelius Violin Concerto is a very fine example of advanced melodic expression and structure and technical expertise. Twinkle twinkle little star is not as great a melody although somebody's opinion on the "I like this/I don't like this" -level might differ.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I never said that you are offensive, only that the implication you made about me ('If you know and understand...) was offensive as it questions my competence if I disagree with your opinion. And yes, it is just an opinion and not a proven fact. And that's the end of my involvement here.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> I never said that you are offensive, only that the implication you made about me ('If you know and understand...) was offensive as it questions my competence if I disagree with your opinion. And yes, it is just an opinion and not a proven fact. And that's the end of my involvement here.


It is a fact that in our cultural context the Sibelius Violin Concerto is a very fine example of advanced melodic expression and structure and technical expertise. Twinkle twinkle little star is not as great a melody although somebody's opinion on the "I like this/I don't like this" -level might differ.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'm glad to see Tchaikovsky, Samuel Barber, and Erich Korngold on everybody's lists. Some composers seem to exist only for great melody making, and I don't oppose that at all.

The thing about melody is: a melody is often enhanced by its harmonic accompaniment. Some of what seem like "great melodies", to me, are really rather so-so without the supplied harmonies we generally see these melodies couched within. An ear worm for me is the melody of Elmer Bernstein's _To Kill a Mockingbird_ score. It seems a beautiful melody that just improves with each repetition. Yet, if one takes away the accompanying harmony, the melody itself seems lackluster.

I wonder how many such melodies there are which we appreciate only because of their harmonic surroundings. If we truly want to talk melody and only melody, I think we have to look at the single melodic line devoid of any harmonic embellishment. Yet, is this all there is to melody. Is not that harmonic embellishment part of the story, too?

I listened this afternoon to Gato Barbieri's album _Apasionado _which features his "Last Tango in Paris", a piece with a fine melody, but one that is quite simple without the harmonic embellishment, and perhaps quite uninteresting without the harmonies.

On the other hand, something like the main theme of the Chorale of Beethoven's Ninth can be sung by a mass choir without any harmonic embellishment at all and, in my opinion, still manage to impress as a fine melody. The truly great melody composers certainly give us this effect -- their melodies do not need harmonies to impress.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I counter all these great melodists with the greatest counter-melodist.

Aha! Ha! En garde.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

SONNET CLV said:


> On the other hand, something like the main theme of the Chorale of Beethoven's Ninth can be sung by a mass choir without any harmonic embellishment at all and, in my opinion, still manage to impress as a fine melody. The truly great melody composers certainly give us this effect -- their melodies do not need harmonies to impress.


Beethoven was oftentimes a wonderful melodist because he knew how to use harmonic inversions. Ironic or not? Melody I guess is more of an interdependent component within the larger definition of music--where there is no standard melody, but a melody's quality totally depends on the unique context of the rest of the music. Therefore to define a great melody depends on _everything_, if it fits with form, timing, instrumentation, dynamics, etc. and not necessarily just harmony but the whole musical idea.

Inversions and melody. *2:00 - 2:25*


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> In my musical world hummable is not a synonym for a good melody. "Good singable tune" is not the definition of a good melody.


So what is? How does Sibelius "beat" Donizetti or Verdi for "good melodies" in your opinion?
If Sibelius is supposed to be a "great melodist", I'd be hard pressed to think of any moderately well known composer between 1600 and 1930 who is NOT a great melodist... 
His motives are usually rather simple, stark, often not that memorable, sometimes rather trite. This doesn't automatically make him a weak composer (although certain prominent critics/composers thought so). But I think Sibelius is probably a better example than Beethoven or Haydn for making memorable music out of often/usually rather unassuming building blocks.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I counter all these great melodists with the greatest counter-melodist.


O RLY? Who is the greatest counter-melodist?


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Who are some of the greatest melodists of classical music that come to mind? It would also be interesting to discuss what it means to be a great melodist.
> 
> These come to my mind first:
> 
> ...


Ever heard of a guy called Handel who might have been the greatest of them all?

Then there is that guy called Purcell


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> O RLY? Who is the greatest counter-melodist?


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think almost everyone means something different with "melodist" but a core notion seem to be recognizable, hummable melodies. Maybe this is not sufficient but at least necessary.


I believe well-crafted melodies are essential in establishing moods that convey us through the "journey" that the composer has conceived, as well as orienting the listener to the composition as it develops dynamically. A great classical melody has the potential to make a connection with the listener's core being (what I've taken to describe as one's "psyche", as I've explained in a recent essay).

My impression is that effective, memorable melodies have become less integral to contemporary compositions. This makes me wonder if music schools are emphasizing melodic skills less and emerging composers aren't adequately valuing the art of melody.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> In my musical world hummable is not a synonym for a good melody. "Good singable tune" is not the definition of a good melody.


Can anyone name an example of something that is a good singable tune but not a great melody?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> So what is? How does Sibelius "beat" Donizetti or Verdi for "good melodies" in your opinion?
> If Sibelius is supposed to be a "great melodist", I'd be hard pressed to think of any moderately well known composer between 1600 and 1930 who is NOT a great melodist...
> His motives are usually rather simple, stark, often not that memorable, sometimes rather trite. This doesn't automatically make him a weak composer (although certain prominent critics/composers thought so). But I think Sibelius is probably a better example than Beethoven or Haydn for making memorable music out of often/usually rather unassuming building blocks.


That is a tough question and I do not have the time or energy or will to answer it thoroughly at this time and place. But here is probably my simple view on the matter:

1. The roots of most good melodies are in singable tunes at least in some prospect.

2. A good melodist can be a creator of simple catchy singable tunes

3. A good melodist can also be a creator of complex melodic-harmonic-rhythmic-dramatic-expressive structures where melodic movement is one of the driving forces

4. I think the composer who is able to move freely and in great quality and quantity in both the 2nd and 3rd fields and achieve wide recognition in a musical community based on those achievements can be considered a great melodist

5. All the great melodists I mentioned on my original list meet the requirement of point 4.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Open Book said:


> Can anyone name an example of something that is a good singable tune but not a great melody?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> That is a tough question and I do not have the time or energy or will to answer it thoroughly at this time and place. But here is probably my simple view on the matter:


Who are examples of poor melodists based on your criteria?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Who are examples of poor melodists based on your criteria?


In the canon of the western classical and modern concert music, there are not many obviously poor melodists. But some are better than others. There are composers whose focus are in other aspects of music.

For example, I would not describe Mendelssohn, Liszt, Bruckner, Mahler or Shostakovich melodic geniuses -- but who cares? They all composed excellent and convincing music that leaves nothing to desire.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> In the canon of the western classical and modern concert music, there are not many obviously poor melodists. But some are better than others. There are composers whose focus are in other aspects of music.
> 
> For example, I would not describe Mendelssohn, Liszt, Bruckner, Mahler or Shostakovich melodic geniuses -- but who cares? They all composed excellent and convincing music that leaves nothing to desire.


Mendelssohn not a great melodist? I assume this is not the guy who wrote the Wedding March, etc?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> Mendelssohn not a great melodist? I assume this is not the guy who wrote the Wedding March, etc?


When I think of Mendelssohn melodies, I think more along the lines of his Lieder ohne Worte and E minor violin concerto 




Liszt - Transcendental Etudes and the B minor sonata


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> In the canon of the western classical and modern concert music, there are not many obviously poor melodists. But some are better than others. There are composers whose focus are in other aspects of music.
> 
> For example, I would not describe Mendelssohn, Liszt, Bruckner, Mahler or Shostakovich melodic geniuses -- but who cares? They all composed excellent and convincing music that leaves nothing to desire.


i was searching this thread for Mahler to see if anyone had mentioned him but up until now, no. I consider many of his songs very hummable and memorable, like "St. Antonius Fischpredigt".

Bruckner's symphonies just sprout little melodic bits all over the place between orchestral tuttis. Usually it's some enchanting melodic figure in the woodwinds but I don't think they repeat themselves or are developed so maybe that's why they are not memorable. And they are short. Maybe they are not considered real melodies?


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> When I think of Mendelssohn melodies, I think more along the lines of his Lieder ohne Worte and E minor violin concerto
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So the second movement of the violin concerto is not a great melody? You appear hard to please!


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

mbhaub said:


>


Good example. Someone needs to analyze why that is so. I can feel it but can't explain it.

Still, anything catchy and hummable and memorable is a cut above the run of the mill song that isn't. How do you come up with something memorable when most random sequences of notes aren't?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> For example, I would not describe Mendelssohn, Liszt, Bruckner, Mahler or Shostakovich melodic geniuses -- but who cares? They all composed excellent and convincing music that leaves nothing to desire.


I think it's subjective. For instance, if Mozart's methods strike you as "pleasant", you can value Beethoven's or Wagner's more, for example. Although, for instance, there's a chance if you value Mozart's methods, you might also do:




Die Wahrheit der Natur, Ein Singspiel MH 118 (1769)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

marlow said:


> So the second movement of the violin concerto is not a great melody? You appear hard to please!


I think it's great -it's what I meant in Post#35


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Did Schubert or Sibelius write better melodies than Jerome Kern or George Gershwin?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

marlow said:


> Mendelssohn not a great melodist? I assume this is not the guy who wrote the Wedding March, etc?


Yeah, Mendelssohn was a good melodist, but not of the same stature as the ones mentioned in my list. He comes close, though, in making my list.

Then again the point of this thread was not pitting composers against each other. Hammeredklavier asked me to put forward some excellent names, so I did. Maybe I shouldn´t have.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think it's subjective. For instance, if Mozart's methods strike you as "pleasant", you can value Beethoven's or Wagner's more, for example. Although, for instance, there's a chance if you value Mozart's methods, you might also do:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If Michael Haydn was a great melodist, so was his brother. To me they have similarities.

I've noticed that you champion Michael Haydn (can't miss it) and I agree with you that he is a very underrated composer, based on my recent hearings of his symphonies. Some beautiful, well-constructed works.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

IMO, when it comes to composers of the CP era, there may be melodists better or not quite as good as other composers, but there are no poor melodists. A poor melodist would not have anything of substance to build on in any given work.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mbhaub said:


>


This is one of the great works in all of music. The kids are extremely talented musicians bringing us sound from instruments without touching the strings, the keys and the drums. And that is the only pink violin Stradivari ever made.


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

Waehnen;22329211. The roots of most good melodies are in singable tunes at least in some prospect.
2. A good melodist can be a creator of simple catchy singable tunes
3. A good melodist can also be a creator of complex melodic-harmonic-rhythmic-dramatic-expressive structures where melodic movement is one of the driving forces
4. I think the composer who is able to move freely and in great quality and quantity in both the 2nd and 3rd fields and achieve wide recognition in a musical community based on those achievements can be considered a great melodist
5. All the great melodists I mentioned on my original list meet the requirement of point 4.[/QUOTE said:


> Among the truly great composers, I have difficulty in thinking of any that lacked crucial melodic skills. To the list of all those that have been explicitly mentioned so far, and on the basis of exquisite melodies that just pop to mind as I write this, I'd particularly add (with salient example compositions) ...
> 
> Mussorgsky (e.g. Pictures at an Exhibition, Night on the Bare Mountain)
> Berlioz (e.g. Symphonie Fantastique)
> ...


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Therefore to define a great melody depends on _everything_, if it fits with form, timing, instrumentation, dynamics, etc. and not necessarily just harmony but the whole musical idea.
> 
> Inversions and melody. *2:00 - 2:25*





Waehnen said:


> 3. A good melodist can also be a creator of complex melodic-harmonic-rhythmic-dramatic-expressive structures where melodic movement is one of the driving forces


And this kind of reminds me of the Andantino of Sibelius' 3rd. One of the most beautiful and moving melodies, but only when catered to the harmony and instrumentation it's intended for.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Wagner
Bruckner (on the strength of his slow movements)
Myaskovsky (same as Bruckner)
Bax
Atterberg
Tchaikovsky
Glazunov 
Rachmaninoff
Rimsky-Korsakov
Melartin
Sibelius
Barber
Hanson
Massenet
Lehar
Puccini
Khachaturian
Delius
George Lloyd (maybe)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Open Book said:


> Can anyone name an example of something that is a good singable tune but not a great melody?


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

MarkW said:


> I have trouble with the concept because my personal definition of *melody is fairly synonymous with tune*, while I consider most CM to be centered on themes which are not necessarily melodies.


That's what I thought melody was too


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

A great melodists was Irving Berlin even though he couldn’t read music.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> The violin concerto is comparably melodic (but easily beaten in that department by a real potboiler like Bruch, I think the strongest point of the Sibelius VC is creating "atmosphere" and melodies are secondary for that and I admittedly also think that the piece gets a lot less great after the first movement), so is Tannhäuser but the strongest pieces of Sibelius (such as 4th, 7th, Tapiola etc.) are not somelodically enticing and neither is Wagner, IMO. Of course, they are not totally unattractive melodically. But one act of many Mozart or Verdi operas has more hummable melodies than 3.5 hour Parsifal.


The opening minute or two of the Sibelius violin concerto are wonderful -- the rest of the first movement is utter dross to the extent it's hard to believe that the composer of some of the most original symphonies ever penned could have produced it -- even by the standards of his relatively early works. Vacuous virtuosity with only the the odd tranquil redeeming moment.The slow movement does have a certain atmosphere -- I agree on that -- but it's not created by the melodies themselves.

It all goes to show how subjective this all is. I would put Janáček without question at the top of the list and yet his melodies are very much context-dependent and for the most part not easily hummable like an Italian opera tune. He'd probably be followed by Bruckner. In general, the greatest melodists are also the greatest composers by my definition but it doesn't work 100%. I'd put Schubert as a far more consistently inspired melodist than Beethoven and yet the late quartets by the latter are arguably an even more important achievement. There are a number of absolutely sublime melodies -- I mean up there with the greatest--written by lesser or even unknown composers.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

And Schubert has rather little songlike melody in some of his most important late works, such as the outer movements of the G major quartet or the first of the C major symphony that works mostly with very simply rhythmic cells after the introduction.

I think in too many case the isolation/abstraction of certain aspects (such as "great melody) tends to lead astray and often miss what is actually great, moving and convincing in the actual piece of music.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

I would tend to agree here and again it brings back the question of how you define melody. For me perhaps the most inspired passage of music ever written is the beginning of the coda to _Jenůfa_. Although I identify the melody, in other words purely the sequence of notes with attendant rhythm in the main line, as the most important factor, as much as anything is simply the dramatic context here and contrast to what has just happened in the opera. Many people would probably define it more of a motif than a melody. If one does accept this as a melody, then melody is far and way the most important quality I look for in music and in my own (generally rather late/post-romantic inspired) compositions.


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

dko22 said:


> ... again it brings back the question of how you define melody....


Here's a definition to consider, from William R. Clendenin, formerly a professor of music at the University of Colorado, as quoted from his book _Music: History and Theory_ (1965):



> In one sense melody might be considered a pleasing succession of tones. But this is hardly a broad enough definition, as different historical periods have advanced quite different opinions as to what may be considered "pleasing" .... Perhaps, then, a more comprehensive definition of melody is that it is a succession of tones related to one another and to the whole in such a way as to express a satisfying and coherent musical idea or entity.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

By calling it an "entity" then that suggests a clear finishing point which can be distinguished from what follows. And I'm happy to go along with that.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Mozart
Schubert
Dvorak
*Puccini*
Chopin
Tchaikovsky
Mendelssohn
Rachmaninov
Grieg
Brahms (That wasn't a typo.)
Prokofiev
Lennon/McCartney


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I think if one is interested in melody apart from its harmonic setting, Gregorian chant is a good place to start -- for melodic flow and phrasing as well as for singing. In a melody it sometimes matters to me how it "feels in the throat," even if I'm only listening. Of course many world musics have a wealth of melodic interest. As for western music of the 18th-19th centuries, although melody is not technically formulated to the degree that harmony is there are lots of principles and rules of thumb to learn -- it is not simply mysterious "inspiration."

Bartok is a fine melodist but where there is folk music influence that will take a lot of sorting out. Stravinsky was not a good melodist from what I've read -- the tunes in Petrouchka include Russian popular songs that wouldn't have been known in the west. I first came across that point in Arthur Rubinstein's autobiography.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Czech Tony knocked out some bangin' choons.


----------



## NicoleEB (9 mo ago)

Schumann and Mozart are my two favorite melodists. In my relatively uninformed opinion one thing which makes me separate a great melodist from a great composer is the extent to which their horizontal ideas can stand on their own, or, their themes are potent and satisfying in their own right. I think in this way a great melodist obviously has a problem ahead of himself when it comes to organizing his work, the less internally rich and colorful musical material naturally lends itself to and invites expansion, while also being homogeneous and spartan enough that musical coherence is more easily attained. I think one sign of Schumann's great melodizing is that his works often have highly partite, clearly enunciated contrasts. The music has to be put together in discrete blocks like a rondo, instead of a sonata allegro, because the melodic ideas are self contained and modification would be required to allow for freer structure. When Mozart wanted to construct a massive sonata allegro, like in K515, look at the opening theme he chose. But, I am not a good musician, or anything like that, just someone with an opinion, and I consider everything I said here to be really tentative.


----------

