# On melody or - all about the catchy tunes



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

It seems that melody is underrated. However, at the same time some of the greatest pieces of classical music contain incredibly catchy tunes. Of course, we can argue that these catchy tunes are not what makes these pieces great. But still, I think it's not just pure coincidence that greatest works also have some of the greatest melodies.

By the way, I could argue that melody is actually the most fundamental thing in music. All the other things are either derived from melody or they are there just to support melody. Or we have two or more melodies working together in case of counterpoint.

But the most basic thing is melody.

What requires greater genius - to create extremely good melody (or theme which is mainly the same thing) or to develop such melody through variations, add harmony, counterpoint etc?

I think that both things are very important and the later phase (development, adding harmony etc) is the thing that can be used to express many emotions and to show great technical abilities of composer.

But I am also tempted to think that more of pure genius is needed to create really good melody out of thin air. This is IMO fundamentally creative process and it is not covered by music theory as extensively as some other things. I also think that some melodies have some transcendental quality of perfection - as if they have always existed in realm of ideas, and the composer doesn't create them - he just discovers them.

It's amazing for me how extremely short and simple melodies can be extremely beautiful and striking.

That's why I also respect pop musicians. Some of them were able to create really great melodies and I am not so sure that even classical composers would be able to always succeed in it, even if they wanted.

Most of the melodies from the realm of pop and rock are useless in classical music because of their nature, but still I think that even in pop and rock some melodies do have this transcendental, eternal quality.

I'd like to hear your opinions about melody, its importance and ease/difficulty in creating it.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Adding to this, perhaps we can come up with some ideas on what makes a melody "catchy"? I'd most certainly like to know what it is about catchy melodies (e.g. opening bars of _Eine kleine Nachtmusik_) that makes them so catchy!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Rather than the word "melody," I like to use the word "idea" or "thematic material." Let's take Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto, 1st movement. It's catchy, because it has a recurring idea, particularly with the theme "F-Db-C-Bb" which is developed into another key "Ab-F-Eb-Db," and the melody blossoms out of it. It's only 4 notes, but it's one of the most famous queues in all classical music. Tchaikovsky was known as a great melodist, above every other strength (or weakness) he had, because he knew how to unfold an idea (even if it's simple). Plus, he was able to _express _it in a sonorous, mature way. Simplicity is a major factor in making a catchy melody.

There are some composers who had outstanding talent when it came to thematic material (ex. Prokofiev), yet had trouble expressing it in a sonorous or even "mature" way (often affected by their abilities with orchestration), but it's their _ideas _that made them immortal, not the _way _they expressed it. In many ways, Prokofiev's rather bare orchestration has become a part of his signature so that it has made him unique.

Indeed, the ability to make a great melody is a great gift.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Tchaikovsky writes great themes and then he ruins his works by filling rest of it with cheap tunes (see: his Symphony No. 3).

Catchy tunes are mostly shallow. Ones with greatest depth are usually clear and memorable but far from being basically catchy at the same time.

Ideal is to be able to come out with great theme when it can work, but restrain from going tuneful for the rest of the time, as it always results with lack of greater meaning and althought writing melodies requires some kind of special talent it is sort of going the easiest way for composer.



> There are some composers who had outstanding talent when it came to thematic material (ex. Prokofiev), yet had trouble expressing it in a sonorous or even "mature" way (often affected by their abilities with orchestration), but it's their ideas that made them immortal, not the way they expressed it. In many ways, Prokofiev's rather bare orchestration has become a part of his signature so that it has made him unique.


What the hell? What about his 2nd piano concerto, especially first movement, when he elaborates on the same non-catchy theme all the time in most witty ways? I get impression that you confused the name describing Prokofiev as composer that made great themes and couldn't process with their material.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Aramis said:


> What the hell? What about his 2nd piano concerto, especially first movement, when he elaborates on the same non-catchy theme all the time in most witty ways? I get impression that you confused the name describing Prokofiev as composer that made great themes and couldn't process with their material.


No, but wouldn't you admit that his orchestration is not nearly as thick as, say, Shostakovich, even when writing symphonies? That's what I was referring to. Prokofiev worked better with piano, because he composed in terms of piano a lot. But his Classical Symphony is extremely catchy anyhow, as well as his ballets, because the ideas were great.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> No, but wouldn't you admit that his orchestration is not nearly as thick as, say, Shostakovich, even when writing symphonies? That's what I was referring to. Prokofiev worked better with piano, because he composed in terms of piano a lot. But his Classical Symphony is extremely catchy anyhow, as well as his ballets, because the ideas were great.


I always considered his thick orchestration as a element of choosen style, not as his weakness - especially because composers influended by him and his contemporaries often did write in similiar way.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Rather than the word "melody," I like to use the word "idea" or "thematic material." Let's take Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto, 1st movement. It's catchy, because it has a recurring idea, particularly with the theme "F-Db-C-Bb" which is developed into another key "Ab-F-Eb-Db," and the melody blossoms out of it. It's only 4 notes, but it's one of the most famous queues in all classical music. Tchaikovsky was known as a great melodist, above every other strength (or weakness) he had, because *he knew how to unfold an idea (even if it's simple)*. Plus, he was able to _express _it in a sonorous, mature way. Simplicity is a major factor in making a catchy melody.


I think this is a really important point in getting more out of classical music. A beautiful melody in a classical piece doesn't function in the same way a beautiful melody in a popular song works (with regularly recurring refrains)-- a theme in a classical piece rarely repeats itself directly the same way as much or as often as in a popular song, and is usually built on a motif(s).

Aaron Copland makes a similar point in _What to Listen for in Music_:



> Always remember that a theme is, after all, only a succession of notes. Merely by changing the dynamics, that is, by playing it loudly and bravely or softly and timidly, one can transform the emotional feeling of the same succession of notes. By a change of harmony a new poignancy may be given the theme; or by a different rhythmic treatment the same notes may result in a war dance instead of a lullaby. Every composer keeps in mind the possible metamorphoses of his succession of notes. First he tries to find its essential nature, and the he tries to find what might be done with it-- *how that essential nature may momentarily be changed.*


So far so good-- this isn't anything new. But he goes on to say this, which is I think is really interesting:



> As a matter of fact, the experience of most composers has been that the more complete a theme is the less possibility there is of seeing it in various aspects. If the theme itself, in its original form, is long enough and complete enough, the composer may have difficulty in seeing it any other way. It already exists in its definitive form. *That is why great music can be written on themes that in themselves are insignificant. *One might very well say that the less complete, the less important, the theme, the more likely it is to be open to new connotations. Some of Bach's greatest organ fugues are constructed on themes that are comparatively uninteresting in themselves.


For myself, certainly once I've become familiar with a piece, I can't listen to the melodic line without being strongly aware of the harmony and the instrumentation in a given moment that gives it a special colour within a given moment (I don't think I was capable of doing this when I was younger). Melody is not underrated, but rather part of the *integral *whole of a piece-- the context of a melody is very important.

The melody (and countermelodies) may jump from one instrument to another and is transformed from one moment to the next-- the theme rarely remains in its original guise. Following that transformation (the "long line" as Boulanger called it I think) is very rewarding. Certainly some composers have stronger melodic gifts than others, but its what the composer *does *with those melodies in a classical composition that makes it a much more satisfying experience for me than listening out for when a catchy tune turns up.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2010)

integral

The key word.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Melody and harmony work in tandem.
In tonal music melodies are always made from scales or arpeggios and even if they are unharmonised the harmony is implied. I don't think a melody can be 'beautiful' without it's implied harmony, depending on your definition of beauty. Try and compose 3 melodies using only the whole tone scale and you soon find a great 'sameness' between them. They sound 'neutral' because there is no harmonic pull.
In the classical era melodies are usually shorter and motivic they are there to be developed and also to help define the architecture of a piece or movement.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

What do you think, would 40th symphony ever be so great and so famous without this simple (yet great and highly effective melody?










And also, what requires more genius and creativity -

a) inventing (composing) this melody out of nothing
OR
b) developing long piece of music form this melody when you already have it ?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> And also, what requires more genius and creativity -
> 
> a) inventing (composing) this melody out of nothing
> OR
> b) developing long piece of music form this melody when you already have it ?


Both. A melody is an integral part of the whole.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Writing a melody on paper is a different thing entirely to recording or performing the piece, especially if it is written for parts other than yourself.

But the melody on paper has a life of its own, in the hands of the right person.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with Copland, the melody that a composer uses as a basis of a piece can be quite mundane, even, but it's what he/she does with it that counts. A good example of this is the final movement of Janacek's _String Quartet No. 2 "Intimate Letters." _ He starts off with a quite banal folk tune, but then the directions he takes it in (how he develops it?) is pretty amazing, much more memorable than the tune itself:






& what about Shostakovich's famous D S (E-flat) C H (B) motto theme? He incorporated this very basic theme into many of his works, and all of them evoke different emotions, feelings and reactions in the listener. In the _Symphony No. 10_, the notes appear in a different order at the beginning, and then he resolves it at the end into a triumphant (over the top?) finale. In the _String Quartet No. 8_, the same theme evokes feelings of terror, chaos and even horror. & I'm not sure if I can accurately encapsulate what he does with it in the _Cello Concerto No. 1_, at times it is mundane, at others it is sublime.

It can be said that composers like Janacek, Schoenberg or Shostakovich may not have been the greatest "tunesmiths" like say Schubert, Tchaikovsky or Gershwin. But (for me) it's not necessarily the destination of the journey that is important, it is the journey itself which interests me. How do all of these composers challenge the notion of melody (or thematic development) all in their unique ways? That's what counts for me, really...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Take Beethoven's 9th symphony, final choral movement. The melody itself is pleasant and simple, but it was Beethoven's treatment of it by way of variation on that theme that made it great.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Take Beethoven's 9th symphony, final choral movement. The melody itself is pleasant and simple, but it was Beethoven's treatment of it by way of variation on that theme that made it great.


Yes, & the imprint of the Baroque masters like Handel are evident in the way Beethoven develops the theme using counterpoint. I can hear a similar thing going on in Mozart's _"Great" C minor mass_, but there he is paying his debts to guys like J.S.Bach. The way these composers treated themes was based to no small extent on what they'd learnt from previous masters. Skip to the C20th & you hear this all over the place, from Tippett's string quartets (he was profoundly influenced by Beethoven) to our very own Australian Elena Kats-Chernin, whose second piano concerto includes a quote from Chopin, transformed into a bluesey feel. So I think it helps to have a "big picture" view of how these kind of things developed, and the links between music that (at first) may seem to have nothing to do with what went on before...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Indeed, simplicity in a theme or motif is a positive benefit to the composer who is going to develop it through the course of a piece. 
Look at the famous motif of Beethoven's 5th - and how he can spin a whole movement out of it. Where as Tchaikovsky's long, searching, lyrical melodies-beautiful though they are- are more likely to be _re-stated_ as opposed to _developed_.

Beethoven's Diabelli Variations? A more mundane and commonplace theme you would be hard pressed to find, yet out of it LvB creates one of the greatest and profoundest set of variations ever (IMO). Every nook and cranny of human emotion from joy to despair from ethereal to pompous is wrought from such a simple tune.


----------

