# atonal or (rather) amelodic ??? (semantically speaking!!)



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Note: the word "amelody" apparently does not exist but the _adjective_ from (amelodic) does have a reference entry:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amelodic

Anyway, what is traditionally called _atonal_ or dissonant or 12-tone music is what I personally internalize as "amelodic". IMO, compos by Schoenberg, Elliott Carter, Henze, et al, are full of tonality ... but not _typical_ melody (but are also not "non-melodic" either) . I think pop/rock music has a better vocabulary term for emotions that I perceive when I think of "highly tonal" or melodic composers like Mozart or Vivaldi or Rachmaninoff or Barber: hooks or melodic hooks or "hooky".

Just small-talk semantics here 
BOTTOM LINE: I don't think most Western written/spoken languages have accurate "codification" of how music is internally perceived or interpreted.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Since I am not a musicologist, I have no idea how to respond.

There are many composers, like Henze, that I am unfamiliar with.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

-------------------------------------


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

13hm13 said:


> Anyway, what is traditionally called _atonal_ or dissonant or 12-tone music is what I personally internalize as "amelodic".


Yes, think about it:

If you have to use 12 different tones successively the melody and the rhythm are restricted and basically killed. Most melodies and rhythms have a different number than 12 tones. In order to get to 12 tones you have to disfigure them. What a terrible concept.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

So this is the part where more educated and open minded listeners post examples of melodies that use 12-tone/serial/freely atonal pieces showing that they have a melody, only to be shut down because it doesn't sound like Brahms?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bwv 1080 said:


> only to be shut down because it doesn't sound like Brahms?


I can't find the reference, I'll post it if I do. But there was something I read by a composer, maybe Christopher Fox or Laurence Crane, where he talks about how he wants to use melody, but not use it like Brahms -- and he goes on to explain that he wants to avoid setting up the melody like it's a hero of a 19th century narrative. I always think of the last movement of Brahms's first symphony.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

13hm13 said:


> Note: the word "amelody" apparently does not exist but the _adjective_ from (amelodic) does have a reference entry:
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amelodic
> 
> Anyway, what is traditionally called _atonal_ or dissonant or 12-tone music is what I personally internalize as "amelodic". IMO, compos by Schoenberg, Elliott Carter, Henze, et al, are full of tonality ... but not _typical_ melody (but are also not "non-melodic" either) . I think pop/rock music has a better vocabulary term for emotions that I perceive when I think of "highly tonal" or melodic composers like Mozart or Vivaldi or Rachmaninoff or Barber: hooks or melodic hooks or "hooky".
> ...


"Amelodic" refers to music without melody, as the Merriam-Webster definition suggested, music which sounded like a swarm of bees. Other examples could be the works made up of long sections of atmospheric soundscapes, or long tones, or non-pitched percussion works.

However, Schönberg, Carter, Ferneyhough, and other modern composers writing in a complex atonal style do still write melodies. They may be jagged, or include leaps spanning several octaves, or other non-traditional aspects, but they are melodies nonetheless.

Another kind of non-melodic content could be the motivic cell used by a composer like Beethoven. These are typically three or four notes which are used to develop longer sections by transposing the cell to a variety of pitch levels, and applying other common compositional procedures.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

The adjectives 'Theme' and 'Thematic' would be more appropriate given the connotations and historical baggage associated with 'melody' and 'melodic'. 'Amelodic' almost sounds derogatory.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aries said:


> Yes, think about it:
> 
> If you have to use 12 different tones successively the melody and the rhythm are restricted and basically killed. Most melodies and rhythms have a different number than 12 tones. In order to get to 12 tones you have to disfigure them. What a terrible concept.


Wrong. Here's proof (that took about five minutes):


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> However, Schönberg, Carter, Ferneyhough, and other modern composers writing in a complex atonal style do still write melodies. They may be jagged, or include leaps spanning several octaves, or other non-traditional aspects, but they are melodies nonetheless.


But "melody" implies a suitabilty for singing. https://www.definify.com/word/μελῳδία

And a melody is a connection of intervals. But how can there be a connection of more than 2 successive tones if there is no tonic keytone? Isn't the entire point of atonalism to don't have this kind of connection?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"Cantabile" is what we usually use in classical as a "singable melody", not "melodic", i.e. things in the style of a song, with nothing not feasible to sing, due to complexity/speed/etc.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fbjim said:


> "Cantabile" is what we usually use in classical as a "singable melody", not "melodic", i.e. things in the style of a song, with nothing not feasible to sing, due to complexity/speed/etc.


"Cantabile" is just more explicit. A melody has to be as singable as "cantabile", but something very unsingable is not understood as a melody.

Words have meanings, you can't just go ahead and change them like you want.

PS. And "speed" is no criterion for melody. You can play a melody faster or slower, but it remains the same melody.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

fbjim said:


> "Cantabile" is what we usually use in classical as a "singable melody", not "melodic", i.e. things in the style of a song, with nothing not feasible to sing, due to complexity/speed/etc.


Here's an example of music which is exploring cantabile






It's an exploration of vocal violin playing -- she was inspired by Kurt Cobain's way of singing Tell me Where did you Sleep Last Night






There's a better performance I think by Mira Benjamin, who created the music, on a Cassandra Miller CD called O Zomer. Recommended.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

fbjim said:


> "Cantabile" is what we usually use in classical as a "singable melody", not "melodic", i.e. things in the style of a song, with nothing not feasible to sing, due to complexity/speed/etc.


What would be an example of an unsingable melody?

Is this song an example of cabtabile? It's called Canzone and it's by a famous composer so I guess it must be.






Or this, written by a very respected composer (He's a university prof) who is preoccupied by vocal technique -- certainly vocal, singable. But is it melodic?






Just in case you're thinking those examples are too modern, suppose we go to music that's about 100 years old -- Kurt Schwitters? Melodic? Cantabile? Singable?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> But "melody" implies a suitabilty for singing. https://www.definify.com/word/μελῳδία
> 
> And a melody is a connection of intervals. But how can there be a connection of more than 2 successive tones if there is no tonic keytone? Isn't the entire point of atonalism to don't have this kind of connection?


No. There is no _requirement_ that a melody must be able to be sung. There could be the idea of "well constructed" melodies according to a conventional standard would put a premium on singability. But Schoenberg's music has melodies, and melodies which can even be sung, e.g his opera Moses und Aaron.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

To my musically naive way of thinking, melody and tonality are two different things.

One may stamp out a melody using single-note tappings on a piano. The _tonality_ of the melody may not be in evidence, especially if that melody is comprised of the 12-notes of a tone row. Also, a melody may be played (or whistled) in various keys. Structurally, referencing the half and whole steps (or even micro steps) up and down that form the melody, the melody remains the same. But because the key is changed, the tonality is different.

Tonality seems tied to conservative musical practice relying upon standardized (and perhaps not even always standardized) keys or modes. I believe we tend to use the word "atonal" simply when there are no leading or guiding tones, such as tonics and dominants and sub-dominants. An atonal tone row (which may qualify as a melody) does not necessarily have structures such as tonics and dominants. When each note carries equal weight as a leader or guide (which essentially means there is no leader or guide as such), we have atonal music. But it may still be melodic music.

Simple thinking from a simple thinker, perhaps.

Strict (dictionary) definitions often confound sense and/or meaning, and we should probably be cautious when approaching any argument using them, unless the traditional definitions are agreed upon in advance. Yet, definitions change as philosophies change. Nothing wrong with that.

I occasionally whistle what I perceive to be the melody of Anton Webern's Piano Variations Op. 27. One must suppose that in order to have a set of Variations in the first place, one must have a melody (or motif) to variate. Any tonality of the work (in the traditional sense of key/modal centers) still befuddles me.

I'm sure someone will post something here which will force me to reconsider my current thinking. And that's good, too.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

SanAntone said:


> There could be the idea of "well constructed" melodies according to a conventional standard would put a premium on singability.


Yes, but more interessting is the question whether a succession of intervals understood as a connected unit requires a tonic key tone. Probably just yes. Without tonic key tone no connection, and no connection means no melody.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Aries said:


> Without tonic key tone no connection, and no connection means no melody.


According to whom? Is that something you just made up?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aries said:


> Yes, think about it:
> 
> If you have to use 12 different tones successively the melody and the rhythm are restricted and basically killed. Most melodies and rhythms have a different number than 12 tones. In order to get to 12 tones you have to disfigure them. What a terrible concept.


tone-rows have been around since the 18th century. It's just that they were used in certain contexts and only sparingly;

"In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why." <PA124>
Schoenberg: "My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner." <PA173>






"Strict Serial Technique in Classical Music" by Hans Keller is an interesting read on this topic. ( It's only 9 pages. You can read it online for free if you register)

Here's an excerpt from the article:
"we note that K 428 in E♭ is another quartet of which the youthful Schoenberg had acquired an intimate, inside knowledge. The canonic opening of the first movement's development section (Ex. 3), which exposes the twelve notes within the narrowest space, is a mature example of strict serialism: an anti- (tri-) tonal row of three notes and its mirror forms (BS, I, R, RI) revolves both horizontally and vertically underneath the rotations of its own segmental subordinate row, which is a series in extremest miniature consisting of two notes at the interval of a minor second.








This is purest Schoenberg. In a forthcoming Mozart symposium, I am in fact trying to demonstrate that the passacaglia from the chamber-musical Pierrot lunaire is actually if unconsciously modelled on this development. At the same time, the latter's technique looks far into Schoenberg's own future, down to the (pan)tonal serial technique of the Ode to Napoleon. Beside unifying the anti-harmonic passage as such, that is to say, Mozart's strict serial method has to conduct it back into its wider, harmonic context, whence the series continue to rotate down to the perfect C minor cadence, every note of which remains serially determined."






"Schoenberg now proudly described himself as Mozart's pupil - and the final movement of the Suite, the 'Gigue', comes close to explicit homage to the G major Gigue, KV 574, in which Mozart at his most neo-Baroque and most harmonically chromatic seems almost to anticipate elements of Schoenberg's serial method." < Arnold Schoenberg, By Mark Berry, Page 135 >


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Aries said:


> Yes, but more interessting is the question whether a succession of intervals understood as a connected unit requires a tonic key tone. Probably just yes. Without tonic key tone no connection, and no connection means no melody.


I think you are thinking of this too restrictively. Maybe a connection in an atonal melody is harder to hear, at first, but there will always be something that creates the effect that the melody has form and progression. It seems to me that you are getting hung up on a false dichotomy between tonality vs atonality.

A melody is not defined or determined by it being tonal or not.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Bwv 1080 said:


> > Without tonic key tone no connection, and no connection means no melody.
> 
> 
> According to whom? Is that something you just made up?


What about thinking for yourself and argueing? Does it matter who says it?

A melody is a connection of tones. Every tone to every tone. Humans carry out an automatic harmonical interpretation. Some tone will be understood as tonic key note because of a rhythmic emphasis on it or higher consonance to other tones for example. If there is no communal key note I guess there is just no connection of all the tones. Just one by one every tone is connected to the last one but not to the one before the last one. If three or more tones are connected alltogether some will be interpreted as tonal center and then it is not atonal anymore.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Thx for all the feedback folks ... quite the didacticism!

In the TS, I mentioned the concept of _hooks_ ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(music)

I don't think this concept is used in CM, but perhaps should be. I think traditionally-defined "tonal" CM has quite a bit of hooks ... but not so much "atonal".
That said, I do listen to quite the share of atonal CM, and derive immense satisfaction from the experience.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

13hm13 said:


> In the TS, I mentioned the concept of _hooks_ ...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(music)
> 
> I don't think this concept is used in CM, but perhaps should be. I think traditionally-defined "tonal" CM has quite a bit of hooks ... but not so much "atonal".


This is where I would suggest giving further listens to Schoenberg's works, because that's far from the case.

Take the initial piano arpeggiated figuration in, say, the first song of Pierrot Lunaire, and note how it gets developed in the piano and tossed between the instruments 



 A total hook.

Or take the example posted by Bwv 1080, the 3rd quartet, 



 Note the ostinato in the second violin and viola that more or less pervades the entire movement, and the beautiful lyrical counterpoint of the 1st violin and cello. Aka a hook. The notes/harmony that governs the ostinato and the lyrical singing get developed and interchanged throughout the movement.

It's true that something like Erwartung 



 doesn't posses recurring themes, but there is melodicism (overflowing in every accompanying instrument, not just in the singer) and ostinato textures (that give a sense of waiting, suspense, expectation... which is what Erwartung means: expectation!).

Schoenberg's melodies can be very angular - leaping, avoiding diatonic implication, and having a lot more sevenths, ninths, and tritones than his predecessors, but are still melodies! In the Phantasy for Violin and Piano 



 Schoenberg composed the violin part entirely before writing the piano part, and it's important to hear the violin as a principal lyrical voice throughout. The violin melody is angular but also deliberate as it holds on to certain notes, and rich and expressive. And it develops and references itself, with a spectacular climactic coda at the end that harkens back to the initial theme - a hook!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Perhaps it is understandable that what is considered to be a melody has changed somewhat over the last century, but it should be reasonable to expect that a melody fits close to the various dictionary definitions of the term and perhaps more important that a given melody is recognizable to anyone (otherwise familiar with classical music) who listens to a work without having to have it pointed out. 

I get the impression from some of the posts above and in previous threads on the subject that a melody can be whatever an individual thinks it is, including nothing more than the repetition of the same 2 notes, once described to me in another thread as a haunting melody.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

But Schoenberg's melodies _are_ recognizable to people without needing to have them be pointed out. Of course, just because you cannot recognize them does not mean that other people cannot recognize them.

The basis of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern is all melody. If anything, they are more linear and more melodically salient than their peers or predecessors.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> But Schoenberg's melodies _are_ recognizable to people without needing to have them be pointed out. Of course, just because you cannot recognize them does not mean that other people cannot recognize them..


And just because you say so doesn't mean that they can pick the same ones out independently. Even if someone can pick out what they are calling a melody, the question is, do or can others predictably and independently pick out the same sequence of notes as being 'a' or 'the' melody. Which brings up another question: Is there anything called 'the melodies' as opposed to a series of independent different note sequences, never repeated, referred to as melodies.

These are reasonable questions deserving reasonable answers. If the concept of 'melody' has been reasonably changed because some contemporary music has changed then perhaps that needs to be addressed.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

13hm13 said:


> Thx for all the feedback folks ... quite the didacticism!
> 
> In the TS, I mentioned the concept of _hooks_ ...
> 
> ...


Well, a "hook" doesn't have to even be based on pitch. A pattern of timbral changes, or a specific unpitched rhythm can work as a hook. (this happens frequently in dance music, for instance)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aries said:


> But "melody" implies a suitabilty for singing. https://www.definify.com/word/μελῳδία


I see what you mean, but I think also that this is not as straight as it seems. For instance, not everybody is able to sing, not everybody has the same range, and not everybody has the ability to nail wide intervals. Fast melodies can't be much harder to sing. Melodies with very high or low notes could be impossible for a lot or even everybody. So you can have perfectly tonal and catchy melodies that are extremely hard or basically not possible for a human to sing because of those reasons.

Also, ther are atonal lieder, so there are actually people singing those atonal lines. This is one of my favorites:


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

right, when we say "cantabile" it's not just rhythm, we're generally implying that the range of pitches, the intended interpretation, and the ornamentation involved are in the style of the human voice. I can make a melody full of double stops, trills, and high pitch spacing which are completely inappropriate for singing-that doesn't make it amelodic.

Actually the fact that "cantabile" exists as a concept implies that not all melodies are "singable", otherwise there'd be no need for that term to exist.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

also I'm against the use of dictionary definitions for this kind of thing. Dictionary definitions tend to be based on everyday, layman's usage by nature-they aren't appropriate for technical discussions in a specific field, where definitions of words might not necessarily be the same as colloquial usage


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

^^^ That’s convenient if somebody wants to change the definition(s) to meet their own demands or persuasion. Is a melody now only definable by those having technical discussions and the layman (which, in this case, might be the average listener) is not capable?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Well, rhe other problem which isn't really solved by dictionary definitions is that "melodic" seems like a subjective evaluation. Schubert, for instance, is frequently called "melodic" while the Hammerklavier fugue is generally not. I'm not sure any distinction exists between the two which isn't necessarily a subjective aesthetic evaluation.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Bwv 1080 said:


> According to whom? Is that something you just made up?


People are entitled to there opinions, they are not entitled to their facts.

I have discovered three things about trying to have a discussion about music with an anti-modernist:

1. They rarely provide any documentation to support their positions.

2. Even if one provides documentation to support their position 90% of the time their responses are bogus rationalizations.

3. They always have to have he last word.

We can probably come up with a few more flaws in their logic.

The best strategy is to try to ignore them.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

If the Hammerklavier fugue is deemed to not be melodic then that would rule out people using the term to refer to some contemporary and particularly, avant-garde music. That said, I probably can appreciate that some might find the latter music broadly and subjectively melodic, but I think that a specific ‘melody’ should be something that listeners can reliably and independently identify.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> Schubert, for instance, is frequently called "melodic" while the Hammerklavier fugue is generally not.


The Grosse fuge is actually striking in its "unconventional use of melodies", which are far more "memorable" than those of the fugal works of many of Beethoven's contemporaries and predecessors such as Albrechtberger, Sechter, Pasterwitz, Cherubini, etc.



hammeredklavier said:


> 7:30
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Maybe "melodic" isn't the right phrase to bring up here- music can of course have melodies and not be particularly "melodic". 

If I had to hack together some kind of conceptual definition, I think a "melody" is intended to somewhat stand on its own as its own aesthetic statement, while a motive, or a subject is something where the aesthetic statement comes from development of it. Of course, a melody can certainly be developed, but I think there's a useful delineation between something like the second movement of the New World Symphony, where the largo melody is clearly it's own aesthetic "statement", and say, a subject in a classical symphony which might not strike us as a very complete melody by itself (see: the first four notes of the Beethoven 5th Symphony)

And of course themes don't even have to be tonal, or based on pitch- you can make and develop a theme based on a rhythmic, or even a dynamic pattern.

Of course a composer is entitled to present any series of notes, tonal or not, as its own aesthetic statement- it doesn't mean it's particularly good or inventive.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

This movement from Le Marteau sans Maître is highly expressive, colourful and, most relevant to this thread, melodic.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Schoenberg's melodies can be very angular - leaping, avoiding diatonic implication, and having a lot more sevenths, ninths, and tritones than his predecessors, but are still melodies! In the Phantasy for Violin and Piano
> 
> 
> 
> Schoenberg composed the violin part entirely before writing the piano part, and it's important to hear the violin as a principal lyrical voice throughout. The violin melody is angular but also deliberate as it holds on to certain notes, and rich and expressive. And it develops and references itself, with a spectacular climactic coda at the end that harkens back to the initial theme - a hook!


If you're suggesting that a composer can switch back and forth WITHIN a movement, I think that's a cool thing! 
Samuel Barber -- who is one of most melodic composers I know -- does throw out atonal snacks within movements or pieces. Take for example his most popular work the Adagio for String ... at the climax those top few notes are quite atonal to my ears. It's almost as if he ran out of notes (or ran out of music theory!!) and instead of descending (melodically, tonally), he played with atonality a bit (and quite bit of his latter works had important atonal components -- like some of his solo piano works).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aries said:


> What about thinking for yourself and argueing? Does it matter who says it?
> 
> A melody is a connection of tones. Every tone to every tone. Humans carry out an automatic harmonical interpretation. *Some tone will be understood as tonic key note because of a rhythmic emphasis on it or higher consonance to other tones for example.* If there is no communal key note I guess there is just no connection of all the tones. Just one by one every tone is connected to the last one but not to the one before the last one. If three or more tones are connected alltogether some will be interpreted as tonal center and then it is not atonal anymore.
> 
> Other can argue too. But you can't trust the science anymore. It is all rigged. Think for yourself.


This is incorrect. A melody can have notes on which motion is focused and temporary points of repose without having a "tonic key note." Such notes of repose and demarcation are sufficient for melodic coherence.

To correct an earlier point: the term melody does not imply easy singability - hasn't for the last 400 years. _Lyrical melody_ might be defined that way. But melodies daunting for human voices have been written for instruments for centuries.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I see what you mean, but I think also that this is not as straight as it seems. For instance, not everybody is able to sing, not everybody has the same range, and not everybody has the ability to nail wide intervals. Fast melodies can't be much harder to sing. Melodies with very high or low notes could be impossible for a lot or even everybody. So you can have perfectly tonal and catchy melodies that are extremely hard or basically not possible for a human to sing because of those reasons.


Two things: A melody is a sequence of intervalls, not of specific pitches. You can transpose the pithes as much as you want as long as the intervals stay the same. And you can also change the tempo.

But regarding wide intervals, it is a question whether they infringe melodic principles.



fbjim said:


> also I'm against the use of dictionary definitions for this kind of thing. Dictionary definitions tend to be based on everyday, layman's usage by nature-they aren't appropriate for technical discussions in a specific field, where definitions of words might not necessarily be the same as colloquial usage


Judging the original post the layman's usage finds application in this thread.

But beside that if a term is controversal it is a good idea to stay close to the colloquial usage.

And we have the terms motif and theme. What is the meaning of melody in contrast to these? Which motifs are melodies and which are not? My feeling is that melodies focus on pitches instead of the rhythm and they are rather singable.



fbjim said:


> Well, rhe other problem which isn't really solved by dictionary definitions is that "melodic" seems like a subjective evaluation.


So you demand objectivity, so you are an objectivist?



fbjim said:


> Schubert, for instance, is frequently called "melodic" while the Hammerklavier fugue is generally not. I'm not sure any distinction exists between the two which isn't necessarily a subjective aesthetic evaluation.


Schubert is more melodical, Beethoven more rhythmical. No big question for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aries said:


> Schubert is more melodical, Beethoven more rhythmical.


I'm sure there are counter-examples to that notion.
I would say Beethoven, in the first movement of his A major sonata Op.101, demonstrates his sense and skill in writing a long melody. Whereas Schubert in the slow movement of his C major quintet D.956, demonstrates his skill in working with motifs.

I don't find Schubert masses really that "melodic" compared to Beethoven's as well. Maybe because Schubert felt more comfortable writing lieder rather than masses, -his usual melodic sense didn't really shine in his masses.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm sure there are counter-examples to that notion.
> I would say Beethoven, in the first movement of his A major sonata Op.101, demonstrates his sense and skill in writing a long melody. Whereas Schubert in the slow movement of his C major quintet D.956, demonstrates his skill in working with motifs.


Regarding the Schubert C major quintet slow movement, I don't hear it primarily motivically rather than melodically.

The main element here is a chorale in the middle three strings, supported by the second cello's deep pizzicato bassline. That sustained chorale, with second violin on top, is the main meat of the texture. The chorale is melodic - the active line isn't always carried by one instrument (like in the Death and the Maiden D minor quartet slow movement), but all voices, with the top second violin the most salient because it's at the top, have a melodic motion.

The first violin is providing accompaniment on top with a regular dotted motif and does have a certain melodic element, but that line/motif is not the leading melodic voice. Also, the dotted motif isn't really treated as a developmental motif in the usual sense - it's not placed in different textural contexts or tossed between the instruments. Notice how halfway through the "A section" the first violin plays pizzicato chords as top accompaniment anyway. The main action here is not motivic.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

13hm13 said:


> If you're suggesting that a composer can switch back and forth WITHIN a movement, I think that's a cool thing!


No*, I'm saying that Schoenberg's music, in all of his atonal works, was highly melodically driven, even though those melodies could very angular - leaping, avoiding diatonic implication, and having a lot more sevenths, ninths, and tritones than his predecessors. Those melodies were all within an atonal context, where Schoenberg, in each piece, set up his own set of relationships and expectations, because a tonic major or minor triad, with dominants and other subsidiary chords, wouldn't serve as the harmonic element that drove the piece. Melodic does not mean tonal.

* (or rather, that's not what I was aiming to emphasize. The idea and meaning of going back and forth between tonality and atonality is a different topic. I also don't think that Barber example you provided is really a good example - the highpoint chord before the silence is just an F flat major chord in high register.)



DaveM said:


> And just because you say so doesn't mean that they can pick the same ones out independently. Even if someone can pick out what they are calling a melody, the question is, do or can others predictably and independently pick out the same sequence of notes as being 'a' or 'the' melody. Which brings up another question: Is there anything called 'the melodies' as opposed to a series of independent different note sequences, never repeated, referred to as melodies.
> 
> These are reasonable questions deserving reasonable answers. If the concept of 'melody' has been reasonably changed because some contemporary music has changed then perhaps that needs to be addressed.


Discussing the melodicism of Schoenberg, and whether he wrote melodies or "melodies" (with the air quotes) unfortunately, tends to be very he-said she-said. Supporters of Schoenberg will argue that he wrote melodies. Detractors of Schoenberg will argue that he wrote "melodies", and that they're only called melodies by a technicality of definition.

So who wins? Is it a question of numbers of people? No, because the truth of a statement is independent of numbers of people. Here I'm not talking about the _reception_ of Schoenberg generally, rather I'm talking about properties of his music, in this case melodicism, which is not a question of popularity. Of course, regarding reception Schoenberg is admittedly not popular and won't likely become popular, but that doesn't mean that what he achieved musically only holds through arbitrary academic technicalities of definition.

So I can only say, you are free to believe that Schoenberg wrote "melodies" rather than melodies, but if you wish to potentially change that viewpoint or at least gain an appreciation for why others might differ (and predictably and independently differ, we're not talking about people making it up or deluding themselves into believing there's melody and not "melody", you can take my word for it!) then you gotta listen to more Schoenberg, and listen to it carefully. Listen to the examples I posted. Only by going through specific examples of Schoenberg's music can this be settled, not by a priori declarations that his music is "melodic" by way of a technicality.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Several posts have been deleted or edited because they breached the forum policies, in particular:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aries said:


> Two things: A melody is a sequence of intervalls, not of specific pitches. You can transpose the pithes as much as you want as long as the intervals stay the same. And you can also change the tempo.


sure, but what about melodies with a very wide range. In that case you could not even transpose. Does that mean that a similar line is not melodic just because singers would not be able to sing it?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

norman bates said:


> sure, but what about melodies with a very wide range. In that case you could not even transpose. Does that mean that a similar line is not melodic just because singers would not be able to sing it?


Don't buy the premise. Being a melody has nothing to do with being readily singable.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Don't buy the premise. Being a melody has nothing to do with being readily singable.


So you believe

1. Some melodies are not singable

And/or

2. Some singable things are not melodies.

Let's have an example then.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Don't buy the premise. Being a melody has nothing to do with being readily singable.


Exactly. There's an equal number of melodies written for instruments, not voices. The idea that a melody must be "singable" is irrational. That kind of limitation would exclude exploiting the specific qualities of a solo instrument, e.g. flute, which can easily execute melodies which would be difficult, if not impossible, for a singer to perform.

That said, a good singer can handle very difficult melodies, in any event.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> So you believe
> 
> 1. Some melodies are not singable
> 
> ...


1. Pick any string melody with double stops, or with ranges which are excessively high for practical singing.

2. This is a subjective point, but you can point to examples of choral fugues where most would consider the fugual subject too "incomplete" to be a melody.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

fbjim said:


> 2. This is a subjective point, but you can point to examples of choral fugues where most would consider the fugual subject too "incomplete" to be a melody.


Complete means?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> Complete means?


I think the best way to tell is via context - if it's a theme which the composer is presenting as a standalone statement, or if it's something where the aesthetic "point" is based on development of it. For an obvious example of the latter, take the first four notes of Beethoven's 5th Symphony.

Of course this is nothing like a rigorous definition, but that's expected when dealing with aesthetic evaluations.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

norman bates said:


> sure, but what about melodies with a very wide range. In that case you could not even transpose. Does that mean that a similar line is not melodic just because singers would not be able to sing it?


A melody with a very wide range implies either large intervals or intervals mainly in one direction or an extreme length, what would make it unlikely that it is really just one melody once. A very wide range makes a theme unlikely to be melodic I guess.

But there are two meanings of "melody". One is just an aspect of every motif or theme: The changes of the pitches of a specific voice with time. Every motif or theme has this aspect, even if it is just the same pitch all the time. But this aspect/the melody can be rather melodic or amelodic (second meaning). A motif or theme can focus on the rhythmic aspect, the melodic aspect or the harmonic aspect. But focusing on the melodic aspect alone does not yet ensure melodiousness. This second meaning, the "melodiousness" implies singability. And a theme can be more or less melodious, there is no hard border.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I actually think the presentation and treatment of the theme is what matters more than singability. 

This doesn't mean that eg a fugue subject can't, by itself, be a melody, but if it's treated primarily as a fugue subject in a work, and the aesthetic point of the work is the fugue, rather than the theme by itself, we generally wouldn't call the work "melodic". On the other hand, a theme which is presented as an aesthetic statement by itself is what we think of when we say "melodic" music. In a theme-and-variations structure, for example, it's important that the theme by itself can stand on its own.

And once again it's not as if this is a hard red line- of course composers are free to treat a theme both as a melody and as a subject for development. As for the actual subject, I think it's perfectly possible for a serial composer to treat a certain set of tones as a standalone statement.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

fbjim said:


> I think the best way to tell is via context - if it's a theme which the composer is presenting as a standalone statement, or if it's something where the aesthetic "point" is based on development of it. For an obvious example of the latter, take the first four notes of Beethoven's 5th Symphony.
> 
> Of course this is nothing like a rigorous definition, but that's expected when dealing with aesthetic evaluations.


I want to give you an example of a little tune which I really love and ask if it is complete, a melody, a theme or what? It's in Mozart's C major viola quintet, first at 3.21 in this performance, the link should take you straight there


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> I want to give you an example of a little tune which I really love and ask if it is complete, a melody, a theme or what? It's in Mozart's C major viola quintet, first at 3.21 in this performance, the link should take you straight there


Yeah, sure. I don't frequently listen to the quintets (or Mozart) but the form of that seems to be a solo instrument playing over a quartet, and that sort of form lends itself well to being highly melodic.

For an orchestral examples, one of my favorite highly melodic movements is the second of the Schubert 9th - with the solo oboe introducing one of the main themes of the movement. 





The point of course isn't that it's really good- it's that the theme is presented as a free-standing statement by itself - and that this movement, aesthetically, hinges on this being a compelling, beautiful theme, rather than the "goal" of the movement being based on the development of a short subject, or something along those lines.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Don't buy the premise. Being a melody has nothing to do with being readily singable.


That was my point.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aries said:


> A melody with a very wide range implies either large intervals or intervals mainly in one direction or an extreme length, what would make it unlikely that it is really just one melody once. A very wide range makes a theme unlikely to be melodic I guess.


I think that's exactly just a guess. Because when people are composing with an instrument (like a piano) and they don't have the limitation of range of a voice and melodies can be extremely hard to sing, and still being memorable. And we can "sing" those lines in our heads, but our voice isn't able to do it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> Yeah, sure. I don't frequently listen to the quintets (or Mozart) but the form of that seems to be a solo instrument playing over a quartet, and that sort of form lends itself well to being highly melodic.






 (13:31~13:49)




 (4:11~4:50)
I don't get why they're sometimes called "viola quintets"; the viola doesn't function as the clarinet would (for example) in a clarinet quintet.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

hammeredklavier said:


> (13:31~13:49)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure it is because they are string quartets with an extra viola - in contrast to "cello quintets" which are string quartets with an extra cello.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> .... Being a melody has nothing to do with being readily singable.





Mandryka said:


> So you believe
> 
> 1. Some melodies are not singable
> 
> ...


I spent part of this morning singing the melody to Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee." I thought I might audition for the chorus on this video:






Sure. They can sing _that_ melody. But can they do the "Star Spangled Banner"?

Anyway, my wife said she preferred my singing of John Cage's "4'33"".

It's a good tune, no doubt, and I'm ready for any chorus who's ready to take on the piece. I_ know_ I'm ready for Petrenko's Berliner Philharmoniker, if I could only decide on which instrument to play!






In the meantime, I'm working on another John Cage song, the "Aria". If I can only nail down the melody.






It took a while, but I finally got the melody of the opening number from Peter Maxwell Davies's _Eight Songs for a Mad King_. (The singing begins a little after 3:00 in.)






Now, if I can get that chorus above to take on the Penderecki _Threnody_, I suspect we'll all be better off understanding the concept of melody sung and unsung.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

SONNET CLV said:


> Anyway, my wife said she preferred my singing of John Cage's "4'33"".
> 
> It's a good tune, no doubt, and I'm ready for any chorus who's ready to take on the piece. I_ know_ I'm ready for Petrenko's Berliner Philharmoniker, if I could only decide on which instrument to play!


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

How singable is this






How melodic is this


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I think LvB dabbled a bit in atonality (the way that concept is academically described) ... but I'm trying to recall pre-20th century works/composers who dabbled with atonality.
It might be even be a humorous chord or a Mozart "fart" joke ...






Anyone know of more?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bwv 1080 said:


> How singable is this


Look what LangLang finds singable:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

13hm13 said:


> I think LvB dabbled a bit in atonality (the way that concept is academically described) ... but I'm trying to recall pre-20th century works/composers who dabbled with atonality.
> It might be even be a humorous chord or a Mozart "fart" joke ...
> Anyone know of more?


https://www.talkclassical.com/71178-atonal-rather-amelodic-semantically-2.html#post2078049 (Post #19)




"The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." 
< Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >
"the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)."
< Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128>


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> So you believe
> 
> 1. Some melodies are not singable
> 
> ...


Jeez, man, The relevant sentence is eleven words and you can't get an accurate quote out of it? I didn't say not singable, I said not _readily_ singable, meaning not well suited for other than highly skilled and trained vocalists. But how about this example, a scherzo full of lovely melody to my ears, but which by Aries' standard is not melodic:






Of course, really good singers with perfect pitch can sing just about anything, tonal or atonal, but that's not relevant to the exchange.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I want to give you an example of a little tune which I really love and ask if it is complete, a melody, a theme or what? It's in Mozart's C major viola quintet, first at 3.21 in this performance, the link should take you straight there


It's a melody of a particular type and it's as complete as melodies of this type tend to be. In a formal analysis it would be called a _closing theme_, meaning the last melodic statement of a movement's exposition (or recapitulation). Closing melodies tend to be static harmonically, as this one is, because closing an exposition usually involves prolonging the dominant harmony (note the cello part repeating the dominant note G) in order to make it sound like a stable point of arrival. And they also tend to be melodically tight and homogeneous, meaning little in the way of contrast, which contributes to the sense of arrival and relative restfulness.

As for completeness - it's as complete as a closing theme should be. But it would never work as one of the principal themes of a movement because of the harmonic stasis and melodic parsimony. In a sense it's sort of too complete in itself to be anything but a closing theme, if that makes any sense.

This movement is a case where I think the exposition should definitely be repeated because of the dramatic difference of the two continuations. When returning back to beginning the motion is smooth and placid. When it goes on the second time to the development, by contrast, there is extreme disjunction of mode and key to C#minor. This creates tension, a dramatic problem to motivate the development.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Singers can do some pretty amazing things, no melody is out of reach for this one.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Anyway, my wife said she preferred my singing of John Cage's "4'33"".
> 
> It's a good tune, no doubt, and I'm ready for any chorus who's ready to take on the piece. I_ know_ I'm ready for Petrenko's Berliner Philharmoniker, if I could only decide on which instrument to play!





fbjim said:


>


Sorry, but ... there's nothing there that sounds like Cage's 4'33".


----------



## Gargamel (Jan 5, 2020)

Aries said:


> But "melody" implies a suitabilty for singing. https://www.definify.com/word/μελῳδία
> 
> And a melody is a connection of intervals. But how can there be a connection of more than 2 successive tones if there is no tonic keytone? Isn't the entire point of atonalism to don't have this kind of connection?


Sentence structure helps to delineate a sense of movement, which one should call melody. Tonal melodies from the viennese classical era follow contrapuntal laws, and those contrapuntal laws are not absent in the music of Schoenberg & pupils; they're just strategically inverted, having opposite direction. There is also a contrast of big intervals vs. small intervals.

The melody does not need to be defined by the 12-tone row. It's frequently the other way around.


----------



## Gargamel (Jan 5, 2020)

Eh, but should a 12-tone subset, like a 12-tone row, also be considered as an order of tones, or should it be considered as an order of intervals to have a more clear idea of the melody? (Although the 12-tone row is constructed on an _intervallic_ structure, it cannot be properly considered an order of intervals since there may exist unordered subsets and also because an order of intervals would not necessarily constitute all twelve tones; it must be considered an order of _tones_ I guess.)


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I first heard twelve tone music when I was five years old, and I'm pretty sure I've heard that piece (or 90 second portion of a piece starting at 0:50) more than all other twelve tone pieces combined. Over the past several weeks my adult education music analysis class has been studying it.

At age five, I didn't know what to make of it. Now it sounds oddly melodic. By the way it's a twelve tone jazz fugue.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Gargamel said:


> Eh, but should a 12-tone subset, like a 12-tone row, also be considered as an order of tones, or should it be considered as an order of intervals to have a more clear idea of the melody? (Although the 12-tone row is constructed on an _intervallic_ structure, it cannot be properly considered an order of intervals since there may exist unordered subsets and also because an order of intervals would not necessarily constitute all twelve tones; it must be considered an order of _tones_ I guess.)


So is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be transposed?
I think if it is not defined as an order of intervals at least the intention is to be amelodic.
Is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be divided?
What is the advantage of a twelve tone row to a eleven tone row?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Aries said:


> So is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be transposed?
> I think if it is not defined as an order of intervals at least the intention is to be amelodic.
> Is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be divided?
> What is the advantage of a twelve tone row to a eleven tone row?


Those things are not "forbidden." As for your other question: To paraphrase Nigel Tuffnel of Spinal Tap: It's one more, it goes to twelve!


----------



## Gargamel (Jan 5, 2020)

Aries said:


> So is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be transposed?


No, the pitches are only referential. A 12-tone row can be represented numerically. For instance, the row of Schoenberg's String Quartet No. 3 is, represented in cartesian coordinates: *0*,0; *1*,9; *2*,8; *3*,2; *4*,5; *5*,10; *6*,11; *7*,4; *8*,3; *9*,6; *10*;1; *11*,7



> I think if it is not defined as an order of intervals at least the intention is to be amelodic.
> Is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be divided?
> What is the advantage of a twelve tone row to a eleven tone row?


The row taken as _itself_ doesn't predefine a melody for several reasons, such as:
* It doesn't say which pitches to state horizonally and which ones vertically
* Musical register cannot inferred from the row. (E. g. a major second is equivalent to a minor seventh.) This is also one reason why a row can't be represented as intervals; it would be ambiguous which interval is meant. (E. g. a perfect fourth is a different note upwards than downwards.)

You can divide a twelve-tone row any way you like. One of the implications of this is hexachordal combinatoriality, which later developed into trichordal combinatoriality, where the 12-tone order can be subdivided into four equal, initially unordered sets. This can't be done with an 11-tone set. I don't know why some composers (Stravinsky) would prefer an 11-tone row to a 12-tone row, but they do.


----------

