# What is a melody? Or "When is a melody not a melody?"



## Guest (Oct 28, 2019)

I was prompted to ask this question by the current discussion (recently revived here) the composer who most defines the Romantic period. I don't think there has been a thread specifically asking this question (well, not one you can find using TC's flawed search facility, so by all means put me right if you know where such a discussion is).

Yes, I can look up "the answer" in Wikipedia, but we all know that opinions matter too and besides,



> "many extant explanations [of melody] confine us to specific stylistic models, and they are too exclusive."


Kliewer, Vernon (1975). "Melody: Linear Aspects of Twentieth-Century Music", _Aspects of Twentieth-Century Music_, pp. 270-301. Wittlich, Gary (ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall cited at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I suppose the word means no more than "a sequence notes". Perhaps the sequence needs to be memorable in some way but I'm sure there have always been melodies that are very forgettable. Perhaps the sequence needs to be of a certain length (e.g. >8 notes). Words like melodious, though, make it seem that a melody needs to be more than merely a sequence.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> *I suppose the word means no more than "a sequence notes".* Perhaps the sequence needs to be memorable in some way but I'm sure there have always been melodies that are very forgettable. Perhaps the sequence needs to be of a certain length (e.g. >8 notes). Words like melodious, though, make it seem that a melody needs to be more than merely a sequence.


I'd modify that to say that _a_ melody (with the article) is not the same as melody. _A_ melody is a sequence of notes constituting a perceptible entity. You could pick out a random melodic segment or sequence from a piece of music but you wouldn't necessarily have "a melody." Remembering that distinction should save us a fair amount of argumentation.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

A good melody in the sense of a tune is something that has an easily distinguishable _unique identity_. In other words: is a memorable pattern. This requires a combination of melody, harmony, and rhytm.

There is a lot of grey zone of just _to what degree_ is a certain melody memorable. It's not qualitative.

Melody in the broader sense (just like there are two meanings of classical music) is basically an aspect of music craft focused on getting most important tones in the composition to follow one another smoothly and achieve some basic effect.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2019)

I always find myself puzzled when people agonize over something that can be answered by looking in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster says "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole." (Of the two definitions given, this is the one that seems to apply to music, rather than to sound in general.)

We can debate whether any given "melody" constitutes an aesthetic whole, but the definition itself seems clear and uncontroversial to me.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> We can debate whether any given "melody" constitutes an aesthetic whole, but the definition itself seems clear and uncontroversial to me.


It's also worth asking--though perhaps harder to answer--*how* any given "melody" can constitute an "aesthetic whole" at all.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2019)

amfortas said:


> It's also worth asking--though perhaps harder to answer--*how* any given "melody" can constitute an "aesthetic whole" at all.


A self-contained passage. In a song or aria it is typically clear what the melody is. In something like a symphony there are self-contained melodies and transitional passages (bridge, coda, development) which are connectors. I don't find it practical or important to define a melody with more precision than that.

It seems to me the definition is sufficiently clear. In any given piece of music some judgement will have to be made. That's the way it works.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Standard music consists of 3 dimensions of tone: melody, harmony, and dynamic. 

Because harmony consists of multiple tones in a single space, we say harmony is "tone over space", ie. multiple frequencies at one time.

Melody on the other hand is "tone over time." Therefore melody is multiple tones over time, and that is why melody can and does sound like harmony, ie. an arpeggio. 

Melody cannot be multiple tones at once. That is harmony, but when we say a piece has multiple tones in a space and through time ie. a standard score without dynamics, then it is using both melody and harmony.

If this is the case, a melody can be found in any note in the harmony. For example, if 3 triads played are in 3 measures, we will find 27 different melodies.

In a more theoretical sense, melody can be singled out as one sequence played by a part. These are most exemplified as a main focus of the philosophy of Mendelssohn and Mozart where a single tone of notes over time are first conceptualized, then the rest of the music (sub-melody and harmony) is written to supplement the melody. Many other composers tend to conceptualize harmony more first, and in the case of Bach, his philosophy is about combining both emphases, where two or more separately weaving melodies always find harmony in counterpoint (melodic countering/balance).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> ...melody can be singled out as one sequence played by a part. These are most exemplified as a main focus of *the philosophy of Mendelssohn and Mozart where a single tone of notes over time are first conceptualized, then the rest of the music (sub-melody and harmony) is written to supplement the melody.* Many other composers tend to conceptualize harmony more first, and in the case of Bach, his philosophy is about combining both emphases, where two or more separately weaving melodies always find harmony in counterpoint (melodic countering/balance).


I do not agree with this. Musical form in the Classical era is always predicated on a harmonic foundation. The idea that the structure of a sonata, rondo or variation movement "conceptualizes" melody in isolation and then "supplements" it with chords is ridiculous.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The problem is, what you're probably reading to yourself is, (a) that melodic-line predominance is_ all _of Mozart and Mendelssohn's philosophy, which isn't what my post reads at all, and (b) that they did not conceptualize harmony more than their vital melodic ideas, or simply conceptualize both at once. But to say this idea wasn't most beloved to them, would be a misunderstanding of their major compositional philosophy. There's a reason the two are often compared throughout time. Also, you said "chords", where as I said they often supplement a primary melodic thought with harmony and sub-melody, in the case of Mozart, that is counterpoint. Compare and contrast this with Bach's most prominent technique that does not adhere as often to melodic monarchy, but to melodic democracy, similar sometimes to Mozart. Hence Mozart is more in the middle of Mendelssohn and Bach yet very much encapsulates melodic-dominant thinking, again, not as an end-all be-all within a piece.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2019)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I always find myself puzzled when people agonize over something that can be answered by looking in the dictionary.


I thought I pre-empted this point in my OP. I am not asking what a melody is (and, by implication, what melody is, minus indefinite article) because I'm a complete idiot with no idea who needs only look in a dictionary to be satisfied. I'm asking what it is in practice, in real life, in the works of those who practise the art (etc).

Already, we are faced with the dilemma of the inter-relationship with harmony. The purist wants melody to be a single tone at a time (over time). "Melody *cannot *be multiple tones at once." says Ethereality (my bold). Is that because all the best examples are that pure? Or because that's what the Greeks taught us? Or because that is what the dictionary definition means, exactly?

And whether a melody is 'bad' or good' may be irrelevant in attempting to define what melody is, unless what is bad about a melody is that it doesn't conform to Merriam-Webster. Apparently, The Blue Danube is a bad melody (see the thread I referenced in my OP) _because _it's repetitive, even though memorability (clearly helped by repetition) is offered as a key component of melody.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> The Blue Danube is a bad melody (see the thread I referenced in my OP) _because _it's repetitive, *even though memorability (clearly helped by repetition) is offered as a key component of melody.*


Mmm the bolded of course has nothing to do with the technical definition of melody. However good/bad is another topic addressable in this thread, and my subjective reason why I, personally, wouldn't label _The Blue Danube_ as "great" is because it is far _too_ repetitive both melodically and harmonically with extremely similar motifs 6x in a row, 6 measures in a row doing almost the same thing. That's just a quick personal reasoning, however,

An utterly brilliant melody by comparison is _Spring Song_ by Mendelssohn, because the melodic line offers much more logical development as it is further called-responded, yet solidifies essential rhythmic repetition, leaping up and down like a slide quite specific to what moods it wants to hit on, yet making several resolves and giving butterflies at just the right moments, and the harmonic foundation throughout is _not just_ forward predictable like Danube, but makes itself clever by playfully and passionately varying its meta-rhythm to the effect of new melodic responses, forming a kind of perfect counter using simple traditional harmony, then the secondary melody is a lovely counter-development of the first harmonic structure, downbeating with the 5th in I, followed by the 5th in V, creating a rich sound and then changing its resolution there to V! It's genius, by structural mimmickry at 0:33. Each note of a melody is dependent on its surrounding harmonic adjectives ↕ as well as its surrounding melodic adjectives↔. More theory needs to be studied on melody, both in counterpoint and lead-writing.

I can analyze all _Spring Song's_ beauty and cleverness for pages, but individuals will simply have much more difference of opinion on good/bad melody, vs just agreeing on the factual definition of melody, which is essentially a dimension of tone (time) independent from another dimension of tone: harmony (space). It's not 3 dimensions of music, but 3 dimensions of tone in music. I could explain why I don't think _Hungarian Dance_ by Brahms is a great melody either, and why certain melodies are great, but it's all just _personal_ to taste.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"I, personally, wouldn't label The Blue Danube as "great" because it is far too repetitive both melodically and harmonically with extremely similar motifs 6x in a row, 6 measures in a row doing almost the same thing."
---
That is not a fair or reasonable assessment of this renown waltz. It is simply not viewed that way. The repetitions are part of its _charm_. It's _dance_ music, not a concert piece... a waltz, and the repetitions emphasize its lilting 3/4 rhythm and time signature. It's bigger than the sum of its parts and the melody cannot be assessed objectively in the way that you're trying to do. It sounds like a very bad music critic named David Wright is writing your shortsighted opinion... It's a famous waltz and one that's considered beautiful and elegant. It's celebrated in Vienna.

About this popular waltz:



> . It has been one of the most consistently popular pieces of music in the classical repertoire... New Year's Eve party without the "Blue Danube" Waltz at midnight? Or the New Year's Concert? How about one of the many balls in Vienna and throughout Austria and the whole world? Without "Danube so blue…" carnival in Vienna would not be complete...
> 
> The "hit" by Johann Strauss, Jr. celebrated its 150th birthday on February 15, 2017... In nearly all Strauss biographies it is beyond doubt that the "Blue Danube" Waltz was celebrated from the very beginning. The "Neue Fremdenblatt" newspaper wrote on February 17, 1867: "The opening number of the second part was a decisive hit [Schlager]" - the first documented use of the German word "Schlager" ("schlagen" also means "to hit"). After the performance, the Männergesang-Verein gave Johann Strauss a golden ducat as an "honorarium."...
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> Mmm the bolded of course has nothing to do with the technical definition of melody.


Nothing to do with _your_ technical definition perhaps. I was referring to another poster who had 'offered' the idea of memorability as key to melody.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

*@Larkenfield* Sorry but whether _The Blue Danube_ appeals to its niche audience and _ Spring Song_ is less publicly used due to its softer passionate nature, is of very little import to the less superficial quality of the melodic structure. Making this into "pop is better because it's more popular," I can easily counter with more critically-backed quotes on Mendelssohn's melodic prowess in Songs Without Words. Your reasoning of its superiority is good ol' fashioned nonsense, "because the other reminds you of a cartoon," "because it's played less." I never said _The Blue Danube_ is bad, but like a national anthem, we all know the tendency to choose simplistic over well-crafted, like in the case of Star Spangled Banner vs America the Beautiful. _The Blue Danube_ is much too rhythmically simplistic as well, and offers very little advanced form. It's great for playing aloud and garnering a niche dance audience, but nothing even remotely as creative in melodic development and theory, and that's not an extreme minority opinion whatsoever. Mendelssohn is way more critically regarded than J. Strauss in his melodic talents, and_ The Blue Danube_ is flashy, niche pop that's been somewhat overplayed. However I formed my own opinion in the above post, semi-critically, instead of chickening out my mind to selective authority quotes, and I urge you to actually do so as well. "It's bigger than the sum of its parts and the melody cannot be assessed objectively in the way that you're trying to do" is not an acceptable critique, but if you'd like to post nothing, your opinion, or unnecessary quotes that get an X for surface-fluff, neither are informative to MacLeod's question. If you're looking for pop appeal, over-repetition and rhythmic plainness, I say again, it's not a bad melody, but you can also examine the melodies in depth and reason quite easily as to why Spring Song has more technical mastery.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> An utterly brilliant melody by comparison is _Spring Song_ by Mendelssohn,


Mendelssohn again? There must be other composers whose melodies satisfy you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> The problem is, what you're probably reading to yourself is, (a) that melodic-line predominance is_ all _of Mozart and Mendelssohn's philosophy, which isn't what my post reads at all, and (b) that they did not conceptualize harmony more than their vital melodic ideas, or simply conceptualize both at once. But to say this idea wasn't most beloved to them, would be a misunderstanding of their major compositional philosophy. There's a reason the two are often compared throughout time. Also, you said "chords", where as I said they often supplement a primary melodic thought with harmony and sub-melody, in the case of Mozart, that is counterpoint. Compare and contrast this with Bach's most prominent technique that does not adhere as often to melodic monarchy, but to melodic democracy, similar sometimes to Mozart. Hence Mozart is more in the middle of Mendelssohn and Bach yet very much encapsulates melodic-dominant thinking, again, not as an end-all be-all within a piece.


You may very well know what you mean by what you write, but a sentence like _"these are most exemplified as a main focus of the philosophy of Mendelssohn and Mozart where a single tone of notes over time are first conceptualized, then the rest of the music (sub-melody and harmony) is written to supplement the melody"_ is, as written, simply not true, or even meaningful. I'm quite certain that Mendelssohn and Mozart did not write according to any "philosophy," that they did not "conceptualize" a "single tone of notes" - an oxymoronic phrase - and that they did not write harmony in order to"supplement" melody. Your statement is, as written, really nonsensical, and to the extent that it makes any sense, it's wrong.

For a composer (in the Western tonal tradition, and to a great extent in other musical traditions as well) harmony is implicit in melody, not brought in to"supplement" it. A given harmonic sequence can support any number of melodies, and a given melody may be harmonized in different ways, but in the process of composition melody normally proceeds on a basis of harmonic orientation and movement. This is true of Bach, it's true of Mozart, and it's true of Wagner.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Sorry I did make a mistake defining melody as the temporal dimension of tone. Duration/rhythm is the temporal (horizontal) dimension and pitch is the spacial (verticle) dimension, and melody is indeed dependent on both dimensions, as well as is harmonic theory. My apologies. Still we can see theoretical rhythm as the most fundamental aspect of music, of the earliest beats and literature, of Mozart, Bach and Mendelssohn, without which there would exist only harmony and no movement. Rhythm that is absolutely fundamental, that can be as simple as a time signature and not complex, and is a main focus of Mozart--melody is very rhythmic.

Without rhythm/movement first, there is no music. Harmony and dynamics are secondary, because they're dependent on rhythm/movement to act.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Blue Danube was one of the first music pieces that the word Schlager (eng. _hit_) pertained to. The appeal of its melodic structure has proven to be universal and timeless, and, if I have to add my two cents, out of perhaps 150 waltzes I've heard so far, only a dozen were better.

There sure must be some better targets for criticism.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I'd modify that to say that _a_ melody (with the article) is not the same as melody. _A_ melody is a sequence of notes constituting a perceptible entity. You could pick out a random melodic segment or sequence from a piece of music but you wouldn't necessarily have "a melody." Remembering that distinction should save us a fair amount of argumentation.


It might, but you'd still need to say what melody is so we're all clear about the distinction.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> It might, but you'd still need to say what melody is so we're all clear about the distinction.


Melody refers to a basic parameter of music (others include harmony, rhythm, and timbre) comprising linear successions of notes. Look at a four part chorale by Bach. The soprano, alto, tenor and bass parts are all melodic in the general sense. _The melody_ is the top line originally composed as a setting for the text.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Melody refers to a basic parameter of music (others include harmony, rhythm, and timbre) comprising linear successions of notes. Look at a four part chorale by Bach. The soprano, alto, tenor and bass parts are all melodic in the general sense. _The melody_ is the top line originally composed as a setting for the text.


Thanks...but it was the distinction Woodduck was making between 'melody' and 'a melody' that I'm trying to figure.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

A melody also involves emotional manipulation over a more extended timeline than say a motif. Rise and fall, impetus and repose, climactic moments, crescendo, diminuendo, pauses and so on are all drivers in the service of creating a melody, as is motivic development.
Melody can also give the music a sense of purpose, a feeling of travel and arrival. It can also be conversational in the sense that a musical narrative can be developed, one that can bind large forms and even give them their purpose.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Melody! At its simplest, it's essentially a single line sequence of notes that have personality and character. I reject most complicated explanations that reject what's remembered in the mind as beautiful, fundamental or essential when all else is forgotten.






The Adagio from Mahler's 10th is essentially one continuous melody from beginning to end that's passed from one section to another. That's what's remarkable about it.






One starts with recognizing what a fundamental melody is and then one can notice its absence when it's not there, keeping in mind that not everything in music is absolutely cut and dried. Allowances must be made where a particular feature of the music can't always be easily labeled and forced into a category just like not all human experience can be forced into a category and easily labeled. But typically, the single line of a melody is easily identified and followed. It's readily apparent in most vocal music can because it's rather difficult to sing more than one note at a time.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have often found that people new to CM confuse -- through no fault of their own -- "melody" with "themes" or "thematic material."
The dah-dah-dah-DAAHHH of the first movement of Beethoven's fifth is a theme. The flowing theme of the second movement is a melody -- as is the main theme of Brahms' Second. One stands on it own, the other is more of a building block. And to expect the basic material of much CM to be "melodic" sets up a lot of misunderstanding.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Music that is melodious follows a certain pattern you can see on a score. Check this, the score to "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes":









If you follow the notes you'll see the melody follows a closely-knit up and down rhythm in eighth and quarter notes with few octave or half-octave leaps, kind of like steps on a ladder.

If you were to expand this to a quartet singing two notes apart to form an octave for every beat, you'd have harmony and melody.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

MarkW said:


> I have often found that people new to CM confuse -- through no fault of their own -- "melody" with "themes" or "thematic material."
> The dah-dah-dah-DAAHHH of the first movement of Beethoven's fifth is a theme. The flowing theme of the second movement is a melody -- as is the main theme of Brahms' Second. One stands on it own, the other is more of a building block. And to expect the basic material of much CM to be "melodic" sets up a lot of misunderstanding.


I find this a spurious and pointless distinction. The eight note statement at the beginning of B5 I is a melody. It is a very elemental melody which doesn't seem very interesting until it is varied. The more lyrical second theme of B5 I is also a melody which has more interest of it's own. Beethoven, nevertheless, uses it as subject of variation. The same can be found in Bach Fugues. Sometimes the theme is a very short, elemental unit. Sometimes it is a long "finished" melody. Bach finds ways to use both varieties as the subject of imitative counterpoint.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

larold said:


> Music that is melodious follows a certain pattern you can see on a score. Check this, the score to "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes":
> 
> ...
> 
> If you follow the notes you'll see the melody follows a closely-knit up and down rhythm in eighth and quarter notes with few octave or half-octave leaps, kind of like steps on a ladder.


From this I conclude that a six year old could write a computer program that automatically writes melodious music by reproducing simple patterns in the score.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

I reiterate, according to Merriam-Webster a melody is "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole."

It is black and white. The grey area is the question of what constitutes a _good _melody, and going on and on about different _kinds _of melody. There are not clear distinctions to be made on these subjective issues.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Music that is melodious follows a certain pattern you can see on a score. Check this, the score to "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes":

View attachment 126024


If you follow the notes you'll see the melody follows an up and down rhythm in eighth and quarter notes. If you were to expand this to a quartet singing two notes apart to form an octave for every beat, you'd have harmony and melody.

This is a reason 12 tone music can't have melody: none of the tones (12 of them) can be played until all the others are played. Melody relies on repeating a certain set of notes relatively quickly.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

larold said:


> This is a reason 12 tone music can't have melody: none of the tones (12 of them) can be played until all the others are played. Melody relies on repeating a certain set of notes relatively quickly.


And how is the tone-row itself not a melody?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> A melody also involves emotional manipulation over a more extended timeline than say a motif. Rise and fall, impetus and repose, climactic moments, crescendo, diminuendo, pauses and so on are all drivers in the service of creating a melody, as is motivic development.
> Melody can also give the music a sense of purpose, a feeling of travel and arrival. It can also be conversational in the sense that a musical narrative can be developed, one that can bind large forms and even give them their purpose.


Same distinction, the only difference being indefinite versus definite article.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Baron Scarpia said:


> And how is the tone-row itself not a melody?


As I understand it, the tone row in serial technique is not a melody but a resource out of which a composer builds a piece. It could be heard as an entity, but normally it isn't.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MarkW said:


> I have often found that people new to CM confuse -- through no fault of their own -- "melody" with "themes" or "thematic material."
> The dah-dah-dah-DAAHHH of the first movement of Beethoven's fifth is a theme. The flowing theme of the second movement is a melody -- as is the main theme of Brahms' Second. One stands on it own, the other is more of a building block. And to expect the basic material of much CM to be "melodic" sets up a lot of misunderstanding.





Baron Scarpia said:


> I find this a spurious and pointless distinction. The eight note statement at the beginning of B5 I is a melody. It is a very elemental melody which doesn't seem very interesting until it is varied. The more lyrical second theme of B5 I is also a melody which has more interest of it's own. Beethoven, nevertheless, uses it as subject of variation. The same can be found in Bach Fugues. Sometimes the theme is a very short, elemental unit. Sometimes it is a long "finished" melody. Bach finds ways to use both varieties as the subject of imitative counterpoint.


Dictionary Definitions:
Melody: musically satisfying sequences of notes collectively.
Theme: a melodic subject of a musical composition or movement.
Motif: a short succession of notes producing a single impression; a brief melodic or rhythmic formula out of which longer passages are developed.

The opening 4-8 notes of Beethoven's 5th constitute a motif. That is not a new concept. (It has been pointed out several times elsewhere on this forum.) It is the building block on which the entire rest of the movement is constructed including virtually all of the melodic elements such as the one that follows directly after the first 8 notes. To call those 4 or 8 opening notes a theme or a melody is an oversimplification of what a theme or a melody is.

The terms, melody and theme, appear to be often very close in meaning. In film music, a theme can be a simple melody that repeats when a given character appears, such as the opening melody by the piano here which occurs almost every time the daughter of Clint Eastwood's character appears in the movie Absolute Power (music composed by Clint Eastwood, btw):






Or a theme can be an entire melodic track such as in Cora's Theme in The Last of the Mohicans:






Edit: on further review, the various definitions of the word 'theme' would seem to include the concept of a motif, but IMO in classical music, the term 'motif' is far more appropriate, particularly since in music, in general, such as in the film music examples, the use of the term, 'theme', is closer to a melody. (Some of the main post above was edited)


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> As I understand it, the tone row in serial technique is not a melody but a resource out of which a composer builds a piece. It could be heard as an entity, but normally it isn't.


Well, no, you are of course right, serial composition does not consist of someone sitting there playing the tone row over and over. The composer makes melody out of it, along with its transpositions, inversion, retrogrades, etc. My point being just that serial music is not absent melody, maybe absent melody that some people like or recognize.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Dictionary Definitions:
> Melody: musically satisfying sequences of notes collectively.
> Theme: a melodic subject of a musical composition or movement.
> Motif: a short succession of notes producing a single impression; a brief melodic or rhythmic formula out of which longer passages are developed.


It seems to me that a theme or motif is just a variety of melody that lends itself to being used in a certain way. Whether a melody is a "motif" or a "theme" depends on how it is used.

Now I really regret letting myself be drawn into pointless semantics...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_Benjamin Britten: *MELODY*

Melody is the LINEAR/HORIZONTAL presentation of pitch (the word used to describe the highness or lowness of a musical sound). Many famous musical compositions have a memorable *melody* or *theme*.
-
*THEME*: a melody that is the basis for an extended musical work
-
Melodies can be derived from various *scales* (families of pitches) such as the traditional *major* and *minor* scales of *tonal* music, to more unusual ones such as the old church *modes* (of the Medieval and Renaissance periods: c. 500-1600), the *chromatic* scale and the *whole tone* scale (both used in popular and art-music styles of the late 19th and 20th-century periods), or *unique scale* systems devised in other cultures around the world.

Melodies can be described as:
• *CONJUNCT* (smooth; easy to sing or play)
• *DISJUNCT* (disjointedly ragged or jumpy; difficult to sing or play)._
_____________________


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Each composer's relationship to melody seems to say a great deal about their music or to those individuals who love them...

_"Music creates order out of chaos: for rhythm imposes unanimity upon the divergent, melody imposes continuity upon the disjointed, and harmony imposes compatibility upon the incongruous" -- Yehudi Menuhin

"Every soul is a melody which needs renewing" -- Stephane Mallarme

"Music is the melody whose text is the world." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

"The heart of the melody can never be put down on paper" -- Pablo Casals

"Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody is not its goal, and yet if a melody has not reached its end, it has not reached its goal. A parable" -- Nietzsche

"Perhaps all music, even the newest, is not so much something discovered as something that re-emerges from where it lay buried in the memory, inaudible as a melody cut in a disc of flesh. A composer lets me hear a song that has always been shut up silent within me" -- Jean Genet

"Friends do not live in harmony merely, as some say, but in melody" -- Henry David Thoreau

"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears" -- Gian Carlo Menotti

"A melody is not merely something you can hum" -- Aaron Copland

"The principle of the endless melody is the perpetual becoming of a music that never had any reason for starting, any more than it has any reason for ending" -- Igor Stravinsky

"A pretty girl is like a melody That haunts you night and day Just like the strain Of a haunting refrain She'll start upon A marathon And run around your brain" -- Irving Berlin

"The song is ended / But the melody lingers on" -- Irving Berlin_
---
_Personal favorite: "Melody is music, the basis of music as a whole, since a perfect melody implies and calls into being its own harmonic design. Melodic invention is the composer's vital, most melodic aim" -- Rachmaninoff_


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2019)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I reiterate, according to Merriam-Webster a melody is "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole."
> 
> It is black and white.


Oxford has a slightly different black and white.



> A sequence of single notes that is musically satisfying; a tune


but also



> The aspect of musical composition concerned with the arrangement of single notes to form a satisfying sequence


This presumably deals with 'a melody' versus 'melody'. Both beg the question, "To whose satisfaction?"

Merriam Webster also has:



> a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds


but nothing comparable to Oxford's second definition.

It's not black and white at all.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Mmm the bolded of course has nothing to do with the technical definition of melody. However good/bad is another topic addressable in this thread, and my subjective reason why I, personally, wouldn't label _The Blue Danube_ as "great" is because it is far _too_ repetitive both melodically and harmonically with extremely similar motifs 6x in a row, 6 measures in a row doing almost the same thing. That's just a quick personal reasoning, however,
> 
> An utterly brilliant melody by comparison is _Spring Song_ by Mendelssohn, because the melodic line offers much more logical development as it is further called-responded, yet solidifies essential rhythmic repetition, leaping up and down like a slide quite specific to what moods it wants to hit on, yet making several resolves and giving butterflies at just the right moments, and the harmonic foundation throughout is _not just_ forward predictable like Danube, but makes itself clever by playfully and passionately varying its meta-rhythm to the effect of new melodic responses, forming a kind of perfect counter using simple traditional harmony, then the secondary melody is a lovely counter-development of the first harmonic structure, downbeating with the 5th in I, followed by the 5th in V, creating a rich sound and then changing its resolution there to V! It's genius, by structural mimmickry at 0:33. Each note of a melody is dependent on its surrounding harmonic adjectives ↕ as well as its surrounding melodic adjectives↔. More theory needs to be studied on melody, both in counterpoint and lead-writing.
> 
> I can analyze all _Spring Song's_ beauty and cleverness for pages, but individuals will simply have much more difference of opinion on good/bad melody, vs just agreeing on the factual definition of melody, which is essentially a dimension of tone (time) independent from another dimension of tone: harmony (space). It's not 3 dimensions of music, but 3 dimensions of tone in music. I could explain why I don't think _Hungarian Dance_ by Brahms is a great melody either, and why certain melodies are great, but it's all just _personal_ to taste.


I'm curious what you think about other masters who are widely regarded as good melodists, namely Schubert, Chopin, Tchaikovsky. Do you think they generally wrote good melodies?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MarkW said:


> I have often found that people new to CM confuse -- through no fault of their own -- "melody" with "themes" or "thematic material."
> *The dah-dah-dah-DAAHHH of the first movement of Beethoven's fifth is a theme.* The flowing theme of the second movement is a melody -- as is the main theme of Brahms' Second. One stands on it own, the other is more of a building block. And to expect the basic material of much CM to be "melodic" sets up a lot of misunderstanding.


That's a motive. The theme is much longer. Other aspects of the theme are developed beyond the four-note motive.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

Fascinating radio program about this on BBC Radio 3 called:

What is a melody? Or "When is a melody not a melody?" It discussed sounds that trick the ear to find out how they are used in music. There is a part where a spoken sentence is played on loop and the auditory illusion of melody arises. John Cage features. Melody is subjective 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07m1k4c


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

A melody has to be good enough to want to repeat it and develop it, perhaps by 'thematic transformation' (embellishing it in different ways), or by changing counterpoint, harmony, dynamic, which is called 'development'. In my opinion pure development by the meaning of the word--and what comes naturally to every composer, generally in childhood--is variation, like Bach's Chaconne, which is basically one melody followed by another until a climax is reached--absolute pure creativity, which develops before intelligence/reason.

To make it simple, something that you could write variations on is a good example of a true melody, and variations should always sound purely melodic.

Many other types of development aren't melodic in nature but contrapuntal and complexity based. The more brainy you make your music the less melodic it becomes, and I think that's what critics meant when they called Brahms non-melodic; that's a pretty good example; and speaks to the genius of Brahms's logic, rather than the creative genius of Mozart and Beethoven, even if all three have both.


Creativity and intelligence are two different things and they show up in music differently.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

1996D said:


> A melody has to be good enough to want to repeat it and develop it, perhaps by 'thematic transformation' (embellishing it in different ways), or by changing counterpoint, harmony, dynamic, which is called 'development'. In my opinion *pure development by the meaning of the word--and what comes naturally to every composer, generally in childhood--is variation,* like Bach's Chaconne, which is basically one melody followed by another until a climax is reached--absolute pure creativity, which develops before intelligence/reason.
> 
> *To make it simple, something that you could write variations on is a good example of a true melody, and variations should always sound purely melodic.*
> 
> Many other types of development aren't melodic in nature but contrapuntal and complexity based. The more brainy you make your music the less melodic it becomes, and I think that's what critics meant when they called Brahms non-melodic; that's a pretty good example; and speaks to the genius of Brahms's logic, rather than the creative genius of Mozart and Beethoven, even if all three have both.


The bold portions are nonsensical. Melodies of the kind you describe are no truer than any other kind. Your concept of pure development is arbitrary.

Logic versus creative genius is a false dichotomy.

Melodic versus contrapuntal is also a false dichotomy, since counterpoint just means more than one melody.

Your description of thematic transformation bears little resemblance to its accepted definition and the term is in no way coextensive with development. The terms mean very different things.

Creativity and intelligence are not at odds.

Who called Brahms non-melodic?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> The bold portions are nonsensical. Melodies of the kind you describe are no truer than any other kind. Your concept of pure development is arbitrary.
> 
> *Logic versus creative genius is a false dichotomy. *
> 
> ...


Of course they are different, many intelligent people have very little creativity and vice versa. Children are often creative and they're not at all intelligent. I remember when I was a child and still have what I composed back then--the creativity is there just as it is now--even if I'm a hundred times more intelligent now. Listen to early Mozart and you'll see that the creativity is just as good as his later works, he simply matured intellectually, and this shows in counterpoint and overall craftsmanship.

Creativity and intellect are completely unrelated, even if it's hard to tell when you think which is which. With creativity you just do things without knowing how, and while in intellectual pursuits it may be similar, it's much more paced and you have stop and reason. Creativity is explosive.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> Creativity and intellect are completely unrelated, even if it's hard to tell when you think which is which. With creativity you just do things without knowing how, and while in intellectual pursuits it may be similar, it's much more paced and you have stop and reason. Creativity is explosive.


Don't use phrasings like "completely unrelated" unless you are discussing statistical data from experiments.

Creativity comes from hyperactive associative / comparative processing, is fuelled by knowledge, and depends on following through and polishing one's designs. How is that not intellectual?


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I like the loose definition that a melody is a musical thought.

A piece can contain many musical thoughts, or revisions modifications and mutations of a stated thought.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Fabulin said:


> Don't use phrasings like "completely unrelated" unless you are discussing statistical data from experiments.
> 
> Creativity comes from hyperactive associative / comparative processing, is fuelled by knowledge, and depends on following through and polishing one's designs. How is that not intellectual?


It's more like the drive that fuels something that ends up being intellectual, but you can't call the drive itself intellectual, because a child doesn't have the brain power to be intellectual no matter how gifted. There are certain things that take time to mature--the brain must physically develop--yet the creativity is still there very early. I know for a fact that they are different because of my own experience, but anyone can listen to early Mozart and get my point.

If creativity was intellectual then the most creative would also be the most intelligent. I like the example of Oppenheimer and Einstein, both at the top intellectually, but one is much more creative than the other, yet not necessarily smarter. Or in music Liszt and Beethoven, the former's B minor sonata has planning that matches any composer but it's the latter than has the creativity--it is he who began the romantic movement all on his own, discovering a much larger portion of music for all to follow. If Liszt was as creative as Beethoven Wagner wouldn't have been necessary, he would've advanced music on his own.

Creativity might be the source of genius but it doesn't come alongside great intelligence, thus they are separate.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

1996D said:


> *If creativity was intellectual then the most creative would also be the most intelligent. *I like the example of Oppenheimer and Einstein, both at the top intellectually, but one is much more creative than the other, yet not necessarily smarter. Or in music Liszt and Beethoven, the former's B minor sonata has planning that matches any composer but it's the latter than has the creativity--it is he who began the romantic movement all on his own, discovering a much larger portion of music for all to follow. If Liszt was as creative as Beethoven Wagner wouldn't have been necessary, he would've advanced music on his own.


Of course, the first sentence quoted above is quite simply untrue. It can only apply to a 100% correlation between intelligence and creativity (which no-one has claimed). It is quite possible to say that intelligence is _necessary _for notable creativity but is not _sufficient _for it. And your examples seem to argue against your position. In the first (Einstein and Oppenheimer) you have two very intelligent people, one of whom may have been more creative than the other. The Liszt-Beethoven example is logically the same - both were musically very intelligent but one may have been more creative than the other.



1996D said:


> Creativity might be the source of genius but it doesn't come alongside great intelligence, thus they are separate.


They may be separate but I think a considerable degree of intelligence will be needed for exceptional creativity to bear fruit. Of course, there are many types of intelligence.

To support your case that intelligence and noted creativity are unrelated you will need to provide an example of a noted creative who was also an idiot. If your thesis is correct there should at least be one or two.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Of course, the first sentence quoted above is quite simply untrue. It can only apply to a 100% correlation between intelligence and creativity (which no-one has claimed). It is quite possible to say that intelligence is _necessary _for notable creativity but is not _sufficient _for it. And your examples seem to argue against your position. In the first (Einstein and Oppenheimer) you have two very intelligent people, one of whom may have been more creative than the other. The Liszt-Beethoven example is logically the same - both were musically very intelligent but one may have been more creative than the other.
> 
> They may be separate but I think a considerable degree of intelligence will be needed for exceptional creativity to bear fruit. Of course, there are many types of intelligence.
> 
> *To support your case that intelligence and noted creativity are unrelated you will need to provide an example of a noted creative who was also an idiot. If your thesis is correct there should at least be one or two.*


There are athletes that are very creative in every sport, but it'll be hard to prove they're idiots. Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant don't seem to have above average intelligence, yet on the court they used to have a creative answer for everything. You can't say it's physical because both were known to have an x factor as the source of their greatness rather than their athleticism and skill.

Tom Brady also seems to have answer for everything and is known to be a poor athlete. He's not more intelligent or talented than the other top QBs yet he's considered the best ever.

Creativity without elite intelligence still shows results in less abstract fields, it is I believe, the source of all genius.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

1996D said:


> Of course they are different, many intelligent people have very little creativity and vice versa. *Children are often creative and they're not at all intelligent.* I remember when I was a child and still have what I composed back then--the creativity is there just as it is now--even if I'm a hundred times more intelligent now. Listen to early Mozart and you'll see that the creativity is just as good as his later works, he simply matured intellectually, and this shows in counterpoint and overall craftsmanship.
> 
> *Creativity and intellect are completely unrelated,* even if it's hard to tell when you think which is which. With creativity you just do things without knowing how, and while in intellectual pursuits it may be similar, it's much more paced and you have stop and reason. Creativity is explosive.


Children are not intelligent? Speak for yourself and yours. I suspect your definitions of "intelligence" and "creativity" are idiosyncratic. What do you mean by these words?

Creativity is applied intelligence. Of course they're related.



JeffD said:


> I like the loose definition that a melody is a musical thought.
> 
> A piece can contain many musical thoughts, or revisions modifications and mutations of a stated thought.


It's way too loose. Rhythms are musical thoughts; harmonic progressions are musical thoughts; formal designs are musical thoughts; motives are musical thoughts.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_And how is the tone-row itself not a melody? _

Because it includes certain incidental notes -- flats, sharps and naturals. Try using a 12 tone row to create a melody and you'll find that easily enough.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Children are not intelligent? Speak for yourself and yours. *I suspect your definitions of "intelligence" and "creativity" are idiosyncratic. What do you mean by these words?
> 
> Creativity is applied intelligence. Of course they're related.*
> 
> It's way too loose. Rhythms are musical thoughts; harmonic progressions are musical thoughts; formal designs are musical thoughts; motives are musical thoughts.


I'd write a book about it but I think Nietzsche already has it covered, he calls it the 'creative will to power'. But if people like you still think that creativity is just intelligence maybe the subject does need to be rewritten about, perhaps in different words, with different examples and with more science to back it up. It's not crucial at this very moment and perhaps it will never be--knowledge about these things takes the romanticism and mystery out of great accomplishments.

Creativity is after all quite unconscious and self driven in its nature and this gives it great romanticism.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> I'd write a book about it but I think Nietzsche already has it covered, he calls it the 'creative will to power'. But if people like you still think that creativity is just intelligence maybe the subject does need to be rewritten about, perhaps in different words, with different examples and with more science to back it up. It's not crucial at this very moment and perhaps it will never be--knowledge about these things takes the romanticism and mystery out of great accomplishments.
> 
> Creativity is after all quite unconscious and self driven in its nature and this gives it great romanticism.


What you call romanticism (laziness) is what keeps normies from becoming great artists. They can only conceive that art is easy. "Hard for me, but it must have been easy for Beethoven, because he was so Batman". How preposterous is the idea that he had 3 counterpoint teachers, or worked on basic ideas of a symphony for years, trying out combinations one note up, one f****** note down.

The same with Tolkien, or Tolstoy. Years of work? What years of work? 7 revisions? What 7 revisions? They were just wizards! Ideas sprung out of holes in the ground. How stupid would it be if they actually had read hundreds if not thousands of books to get as knowledgeable and erudite as they were...

Likewise, George Lucas didn't create the Star Wars plot from films he watched and books he read in the library. He didn't write multiple drafts or have input from 5 different people... He is just a genius, who came up with it all while snoring in a hammock.

And Einstein? Don't get me started. It's so naive to think that he actually logically developed the mathematical and physics ideas from some papers he read. He supposedly failed maths at school! And then an apple fell on his head, and... wait, was it his, or Newton's? Ah, who cares.

Let us just look up at these overhumans in awe of the great mystery of where did their contributions come from.

Because creativity is unrelated to anything, as we all know.

Good luck with your book!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> But if people like you still think that creativity is just intelligence


No one has said that "creativity is just intelligence." But creative ability and general intelligence do appear to correlate to a high degree. The ability to make the mental connections which result in original achievements is certainly a function of intelligence, and the creators of the most innovative and profound works also tend, so far as we can tell, to be people of exceptional general intellect. Is this really surprising or debatable?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No one has said that "creativity is just intelligence." But creative ability and general intelligence do appear to correlate to a high degree. The ability to make the mental connections which result in original achievements is certainly a function of intelligence, and the creators of the most innovative and profound works also tend, so far as we can tell, to be people of exceptional general intellect. Is this really surprising or debatable?


Of course it takes both to achieve greatness, I'm just saying they're not connected. I think I can prove it too, whether it will have a positive impact or not is what's debatable.

Taking the mystery out of it makes greatness appear more human, which may not be a good thing. Nietzsche made it a point to keep the distance between people with his wording and I think that was beneficial.

The question lies in whether or not with this present 'equality' culture it will be constructive to open the lid on how much people are different talent wise, and actually scientifically prove it, breaching the romantic illusion of art and inspiration. The ability to work is a talent, it's the will to power--closely related to creativity--it might actually be the same thing but exponentially greater in magnitude, and it's not acquirable.

@Fabulin Your worries are unfounded, people simply don't have the potential. You also perfectly embody the present thought of this society.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> Of course it takes both [creativity and intelligence] to achieve greatness, I'm just saying they're not connected. I think I can prove it too...


Please do. ..............


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2019)

I don't think 'creativity is applied intelligence'. But then, I don't think there is only one kind of intelligence or of creativity. I'm more inclined to Gardner on this than Nietzsche!

Trying to find how we got here from a discussion on melody, I agree with 1996D's point (#43) that a composer's instinct for variation is probably a prerequisite for the development of a memorable melody, and for the use of that melody as part of a whole composition. The rest of the thesis on creativity/intelligence is not really relevant here.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> @Fabulin Your worries are unfounded, people simply don't have the potential. You also perfectly embody the present thought of this society.


Potential is there. Follow-up is not there!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nobody has mentioned rhythm. The rhythm of a melody is what gives it identity, and its general contour, moreso than specific pitches. I can bang out "Mary had a little lamb" with my fist, and you'd still recognize it, by its rhythm and contour!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Nobody has mentioned rhythm. The rhythm of a melody is what gives it identity, and its general contour, moreso than specific pitches. I can bang out "Mary had a little lamb" with my fist, and you'd still recognize it, by its rhythm and contour!


Rhythm may add to a melody's character, particularly in popular music, but it is the specific sequence of notes that gives it identity which is why you can bang Mary Had A Little Lamb out with you fist and still recognize it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I always find myself puzzled when people agonize over something that can be answered by looking in the dictionary.


Dictionaries aren't actually as authoritative as you seem to believe.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> I don't think 'creativity is applied intelligence'. But then, I don't think there is only one kind of intelligence or of creativity. I'm more inclined to Gardner on this than Nietzsche!
> 
> Trying to find how we got here from a discussion on melody, I agree with 1996D's point (#43) that a composer's instinct for variation is probably a prerequisite for the development of a memorable melody, and for the use of that melody as part of a whole composition. *The rest of the thesis on creativity/intelligence is not really relevant here.*


The ability to create melodies depends on creativity and it's what separates the great composers from the rest. To say that they were more intelligent would be incorrect, even if they were, because most great musicians, conductors, and musical scholars, are very intelligent yet can't compose to save their lives.

That would make someone like Horowitz an ant in comparison to a composer and that's simply not true--his ability to understand the music in depth means he has the ability to understand the composer himself. He is then just as intelligent just not creative enough to write his own music.

Beyond that composition is best left a mystery, it keeps it romantic.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2019)

1996D said:


> The ability to create melodies depends on creativity


Yes.



1996D said:


> To say that *they *were more intelligent would be incorrect.


To say that *who *were more intelligent?
Did somebody say this?



1996D said:


> I think that beyond that the art of composition as is all art is best served by remaining *a mystery to most.*


You mean that a select few can be let into the secret? Or just that only a few would ever understand? Or never mind "the most", you're real point is that creativity is best left as a mystery, end of?



millionrainbows said:


> Nobody has mentioned rhythm.


Actually, they have. But so what? Does the 'mentioning' of rhythm help to exemplify what is and what is not a melody?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

If the mind is an ocean creativity is swimming sideways while intelligence is swimming into depths. If you have both then you should be able to swim deep and explore the sea floor. If you only have creativity then you remain swimming in the surface and if you're only intelligent you can only reach a few things at depth.

That's really the best I can put it: composers have both. Creativity is an enhancer to intelligence.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1996D said:


> Beyond that composition is best left a mystery, it keeps it romantic.


WHY

Tell me, how can the hiding of knowledge or lack of exploration do us---humanity---any good?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

science said:


> Dictionaries aren't actually as authoritative as you seem to believe.


So, where do you go instead?


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2019)

[Deleted] .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious what you think about other masters who are widely regarded as good melodists, namely Schubert, Chopin, Tchaikovsky. Do you think they generally wrote good melodies?


Yes, generally their melodies were good enough for their larger purposes of expression. But I think melodies like Meditation by Massenet and Puccini's O mio babbino caro are the gems as stand alone melodies because they weren't needed to be part of the structure of form.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2019)

science said:


> Dictionaries aren't actually as authoritative as you seem to believe.


Walking the dog and noticing the crows in the park prompted this analogy. Here's Oxford's definition of a rook.



> A gregarious Eurasian crow with black plumage and a bare face, nesting in colonies in treetops


Is that sufficient information to be able to spot it in the wild? What about this one for a crow?



> A large perching bird with mostly glossy black plumage, a heavy bill, and a raucous voice.


That could apply to any number of birds in the family Corvidae.

See, I know the lingo, but what does it look like in the wild?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Walking the dog and noticing the crows in the park prompted this analogy. Here's Oxford's definition of a rook:
> A gregarious Eurasian crow with black plumage and a bare face, nesting in colonies in treetops


And no mention of the chess piece!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Melody mash-up! Bach was used mostly as filler here.


----------

