Does good music require a melody? Does the melody have to be something memorable that we can sing or whistle after having heard it? And what exactly do we mean by “melody?”
Let’s take these questions one at a time, but in reverse order:
1. What is melody?
Compare these definitions of melody:
-
Oxford Dictionaries:
- A sequence of single notes that is musically satisfying; a tune.
- The aspect of musical composition concerned with the arrangement of single notes to form a satisfying sequence.
- The principal part in harmonized music
- Musical sounds in agreeable succession or arrangement.
- The succession of single tones in musical compositions, as distinguished from harmony and rhythm.
- The principal part in a harmonic composition; the air.
- A rhythmical succession of single tones producing a distinct musical phrase or idea.
- A pleasing series of musical notes that form the main part of a song or piece of music.
- A song or tune
- A sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds; tunefulness.
- A rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole.
- A pleasing succession or arrangement of sounds.
- A rhythmically organized sequence of single tones so related to one another as to make up a particular phrase or idea.
- Structure with respect to the arrangement of single notes in succession.
- The leading part or the air in a composition with accompaniment.
- A succession of notes forming a distinctive sequence; tune.
- The horizontally represented aspect of the structure of a piece of music.
- The perception of pleasant arrangements of musical notes.
- A rhythmical succession of musical tones organized as a distinct phrase or sequence of phrases.
- Musically satisfying sequences of notes collectively
Dictionary.com:
Merriam-Webster.com:
More from Dictionary.com:
Well, the range of definitions is impressive! The closest thing to a common denominator in these definitions is that melody is a sequence (or succession, or series) of notes (tones, sounds). [The word sequence in these definitions simply means succession, not a musical sequence.]
I find it both surprising and odd that so many definitions include words like satisfying, agreeable, pleasant, and pleasing; it seems problematic to attach an emotional response to the definition of melody.
If a melody is musically dissatisfying to someone, does that mean it's not a melody? Melody can be described in many ways — satisfying or dissatisfying, good or bad, aimless or purposeful, pointillistic or linear, chaotic or predictable, sparse or dense — without changing the fact that it is still a melody. One person's "bad" or "dissatisfying" melody may be another's "good" or "satisfying melody, but in either case, it's a melody. Subjective terms do not belong in the definition.
My feeling is that a sequence of notes is a somewhat functional, albeit imperfect, definition of melody, because it allows debate on the relative merits or satisfaction-level of melodies without invalidating a melody or entire composition just because we don’t find it pleasant or satisfying.
The problem, unfortunately, is that this definition — a sequence of notes — doesn't really tell us very much; is any sequence of notes a melody? This is debatable of course, but I suspect most people would say, for example, that a succession of pitches randomly selected from the 88 notes of a piano, with random durations, spaces in between, and dynamics, is not the kind of musical line we associate with the word melody. But perhaps for some people it is.2. Does a melody have to be memorable?
Again, a problem with this question is that “memorable” is a subjective term; what I find memorable, you might not, and vice versa. Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, is memorable. The melody to Scriabin, Prelude, op. 74 no. 2 (below), although very beautiful, perhaps less so (this is very short – only slightly longer than a minute – so, if you don't know this lovely miniature, please have a listen):
There are types of music, such as pop or musical theatre, in which it is particularly important that the melody be memorable. More generally, it seems likely that most compositions that we enjoy have memorable melodies, but, at least in classical music, the entire piece is not likely to be equally memorable.
Symphonic development sections, for example, don’t need to be memorable; they just need to take the listener for a ride (sometime a wild one) to places where fragments of melodies sound familiar, but are used in unfamiliar contexts and often unstable harmonies. Most people probably find it challenging to leave a symphonic performance humming the development section, but we don't hold that against a great symphony. For music geeks like me, classical development sections can be enthralling to hear and study, even if more memorable (and more complete) melodies come in the exposition (first section).3. Does good music require a melody, memorable or otherwise?
Well, here we have to backtrack a little; if the question is, does good music require a "sequence of notes," then it seems that the answer is usually yes: Good music typically has notes, and they are typically in a sequence of some sort. (Well thanks, Captain Obvious, you may be thinking…)
But even here there are exceptions, such as John Cage’s 4’ 33” (Spoiler alert: It has no notes), and non-pitched electronic music, particularly musique concrète.
So let’s revise this question, because doing so will get us closer to the objectives of the composition project at the end of part 2 of these Exploring Music with No Melody blogs:
3®. Does good music require a strong, singable “tune” in the foreground?
— See part 2 for the continuation of this discussion, with lots of music videos.
Posts
19 comments:
It is interesting to think about the definition of melody; it is one of those things which seems like a simple concept until you try to define it. If all melody is is a sequence of notes, then what would we be writing for our assignment? Non-pitched music on a piano and one other instrument? Sounds challenging, and with three pieces made with different styles, perhaps impossible. Yet - how do you improve the definition? As you indicate, subjective aspects like enjoy-ability probably should not be included in an objective definition of melody.
What do melodies have in common with each other other than a sequence of notes? Who gets to decide what is a melody? I think we can all agree that 4' 33" doesn't, but who gets to decide which sequences of notes constitute melodies, or not? What is a sequence of notes that is not a melody?
It's amazing how complicated something that you take for granted can become when you spend some time thinking about it.
Melody is indeed a slippery thing to define, and thus it may be more useful to talk about the degree to which a piece is “melodic” rather than whether or not there is a melody. Though some music is clearly melodic and other music clearly not (as evidenced by examples in class and on this blog), there are significant grey areas where the musical interest moves away from a singable theme to harmonic, rhythmic, colouristic, or other aspects of a piece, but does not abandon “melody” entirely. Many people apply the “I know it when I see it” test to melody, resulting in different conclusions from all parties when it comes to pieces in this grey area; however, I would expect that most individuals would be able to come to an agreement on the relative degrees to which given pieces of music are melodic. Regardless, it is clear that music is produced and enjoyed at all points on the spectrum. Looking at the far end, the non-melodic end, we realize that if “good” music had an inherent need for melody, then drum lines, much dance music, and many well-loved classical compositions would have to be labelled as antithetical to good music. And yet, many such pieces not only exist but are quite popular, both in art music and popular music. These pieces may lack a hummable tune, but maintain the interest of listeners through other means. While the vast majority of music the average person consumes is very melodic, non-melodic pieces continued to be created and well-received, while not every melodic piece is universally praised. It appears therefore that the quality of music is largely dependent on factors outside how melodic it is.
A pretty tune that sticks with the listener is what I always what I considered melody, until I started reading some of this blog, and how we discussed it in class. Melody to me needed to be consonant and pleasant because that's what I always preferred hearing. My horizons have been broadened and now I can see a melody for what it rue is meant to be, simply a piles of notes strung together in the composer's chosen order. Like you said in your blog, "One person's 'bad' or 'dissatisfying' melody may be another's 'good' or 'satisfying melody,'" and as a composer I can respect that idea now, and that sometimes a melody or music in general won't be what I particularly like, but it is someone's favourite style of music. A good melody is a powerful tool, and when used right it will both impress and shock people, either for good or bad.
I also agree that melody is a hard concept to define. While terms like "Memorable" and "Pleasing" complicate the definition further, I find the strongest issue with solidifying the concept of melody is the role it plays in a composition. Often times, "the most important part of a harmonized line" as one definition states, is not the "written melody" for the "melody instrument". In other words, the melodic line does not appear in the soprano, in a singable range as with most concepts of melody. For example, in Miles Davis's So What, the most memorable line is not the "melody" (a mere two notes), but in the bass line. Other definitions such as "A sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds; tunefulness" are further complicated because I interpret "agreeable" to mean consonant. In my opinion, some of my favourite melodic lines result from carefully crafted and purposeful tensions in a line. While that tension is eventually resolved to a consonance, the creation of that tension is what holds my interest in the tune. There are simply too many subjective terms in these simple definitions for a complicated topic matter.
The sound of music is relative. Who is it to say that this sounds agreeable, pleasant or satisfying? If you listen to music from different cultures that have different tuning systems, rhythmic styles and vocal/instrumental delivery and technics, to our ears it may sound wrong or unnatural to follow. We may not detect a melody for that matter. I don’t think good music requires a melody. There is a lot more to music than the focus of that element. We can create moods and atmospheric textures with no melody and still create an impression. If you can make an impression it makes the music memorable and something to talk about. Like your example of John Cage 4’33, there are no notes but it made an impression that many people talk about to this day.
Personally, I don't believe that a piece of music has to have a 'memorable' or 'pleasing' line that qualifies as a melody. The definition of music has expanded beyond conventional systems, and I believe the definition of a melody has as well. There are any number of elements that could possibly constitute a piece of music, and likewise, a melody can consist of any number of elements. I also believe that music doesn't necessarily need to have a 'melody' per se. As the parameters of what qualifies music expands, I believe we have to expand our conception of what qualifies a melody.
I think melody is something that is important for most music, but it is not always necessary. I have heard a lot of good music without any melody, and I found that it was mostly written to create an atmosphere and to accompany something, such as a film. Melodic music is usually more memorable, but listening to ambient music can be just as rewarding if it is well written. Also, there is a lot of melody-based music that does not have a "nice" melody. Sometimes melodies can be unpleasant to listen to but still very interesting and beautiful in a way.
It's strange to read the many different definitions of melody found on these dictionary websites. I agree with you that it is very strange that many of these definitions contain emotional words and associate feelings with the very definition of melody. I do suppose however, as you do mention later in the post, that in pop and musical theatre, this concept of pleasing, memorable melody is important, so I do suppose that the definition rings true in some ways. I just recently was working on a piece that has no melody, as you know, and the ways that I chose to eliminate melody from the work would perhaps not be valid under some of the definitions you mentioned in your post. If we are to say that any succession of any notes is a melody, then the path to achieve a piece of music with no melodic content whatsoever becomes challenging. If we take pointillism for example, the successions of notes that are used are typically far from hummable or memorable, yet the succession of notes still provides the basis of a melodic idea and would most definitely fit some definitions. On another note, I find myself thinking about percussion music - specifically works written for non-pitched instruments, like snare drum solos, or multi-percussion solos. Here, many definitions of melody would not be valid in describing the characteristics of the notes in these pieces, but again, there is still a succession of notes occurring (even more so with multi-perc, as there are several timbral effects that can create melody). For me, a melody is something that can't really be a definite thing. There are so many examples of where attempted definitions fail to cover all the grounds of melody as a whole that it is a bit unnecessary to try to characterize it as a single entity.
It is indeed very surprising that many dictionaries used the emotional terms such as "pleasing", "satisfying" and "sweety" when defining melody, as they are all subjective and have no wide agreed standard and definition themselves. Although I think it is just because there isn't good definition to what is melody, just as there isn't good definition to what is good music and what is bad music. But I do not think it all matters that much, just like we build our own taste about good and bad music, we can very much have our own definition or classification of what is to be considered "melody". To me, I think to be memorable is necessary for the notes sequences to be called melody. Just as people with different music taste, listening experience and institutional background will listen to different kinds of music and thus react to them differently, they will perceive a given piece differently and may or may not catch the "tune" out of it. For example, someone like me who has more of a classical background would probably remember more of a synphony than a rock music listener. On the other hand, someone who loves atonal music would definitely catch more out of this Scriabin Prelude as "melody" than I do.
When you ask the question “does good music require a strong, singable “tune” in the foreground?” the important word in there is “good”. What constitutes “good” music is entirely subjective and changes not only between individuals, but between days, months, and years as people’s personal preferences change. For some people, melody is by far the most important element of music. These people often enjoy almost any commercial popular music as melody is virtually always important in pop music. Due to their musical preferences, most of these people would not consider modernist music without a melody to be very “good” music. This is because to them, it doesn’t fulfill the same role as the music they enjoy. I think this shows why many of the dictionary definitions for melody include words like “satisfying”. For the majority of people, a melody is meant to satisfyingly evoke an emotion. This could be a slow sad melody, or something upbeat and major like Pharrell’s "Happy". When such a listener is presented with a string quartet by Shostakovich, the feeling stirred in them is usually not one of satisfaction, as they are not accustomed to the style and are not able to understand it in a fuller context (this is not always the case, but it often is). These are pieces clearly with melodies, so when such a listener is shown something like Morton Feldman’s static minimalism, it’s no wonder that they might not consider it to be “good” music. To them, the quality of a piece is intrinsically linked to the memorability of and satisfaction given by its melodies.
Now this explains why the definitions often include that wording, but it doesn’t fully answer your original question.
Music with a melody often has a wider appeal. This does not mean that all music with a melody should be considered “good” music. Also, just because it has a wider appeal, it does not mean that music without a clear melody can’t be considered “good” music. I consider a lot of music without a clear melody to be “good” music, especially when it comes to musique concrète works. For people who consider melody to be incredibly important, taking it away can ruin a piece for them. For people who evaluate music in a somewhat less-biased manner, music without a melody can still be very compelling, interesting, evocative, complex, and worthwhile music. For me, these things are more relevant in deciding whether or not a piece is “good” than whether or not it has a memorable melody.
After finishing writing a piece with no melody, I now have a new perspective on music. I have listened to pieces with no melody, such as calming synths to help me relax or sleep, but never defined them as "music with no melody". Whilst writing a piece with no melody, I realized the different things that can occur when not confined to a melody. Music doesn't have to be something you just sing along to, it can also serve many other purposes. Maybe even not having a melody in the first place. The piece of music just... exists. And it's beautiful.
The topic covered in this post is one that I think I would have looked at differently before my experience of being tasked with writing music with no melody. I think that the idea of a good catchy melody being essential to a piece of music is something I feel most people would agree with, even myself before thinking about this would have agreed with. However after thinking about this for a bit of time it occurred to me that so much of the music, especially avant-garde music from the likes of Varèse or minimalist music from Reich, as completely devoid of what would be considered a melodic line and yet much of this music as seen as being great and in my opinion and is a lot more enjoyable than a lot of music which features extremely catchy melodic lines.
I think the idea that "good" music requires a melody is a highly outdated way of thinking. Plenty of modern popular songs have little to no melody present, and yet are highly appealing to mainstream audiences, so it doesn't seem like a turn-off for most people. I also don't think a piece has to be singable to be memorable. For example, the first piece in Ligeti's Musica Ricercata consists almost exclusively of the note A, in increasingly complex and intense rhythms. The majority of people probably wouldn't have it stuck in their heads, but the piece is distinct enough, perhaps due to the lack of melodic movement, that most would remember listening to it.
This is a very subjective topic so I will say this, Messhugahh barely has any melody at all and revolves around different complex rhythmic subdivisions/ phrases or riffs. The riffs are typically harmonically uninteresting (depending on how you see it) but what it lacks it makes up for in groovy and mind blowing rhythmic subtleties in feeling. Same I would say but to a lesser extent would be Leo Brouwer, I love most of his compositions but they aren't always about melody but about rhythmic patterns that change in a gradual and sometimes minimalist way that completely lacks anything of a melody yet I quite often want to listen to those pieces. I agree with the saying that these terms are somewhat outdated and someways remind me of the classical eras definition of what a great melody is and the importance of melody is in music. The only time I would be more on the side of a beautiful and somewhat classical melody is when one is composing something that is purposefully melancholy. Melody that is clear and repeats certain ornaments in this way can be effective and beautiful but I do believe this limits our abilities to create "good music".
I do not think that music needs a “melody” to be good. I will start with the disclaimer that I usually prefer to listen to music with a catchy melody in my spare time. I love pop and musical theatre, both of which are genres that typically have catchy melodies. However, music can also be enjoyable without a melody. There are 2 different sides of this coin that come to mind for me.
One example of this kind of song is Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do” (2017). It could be argued that there is no melody, as there isn’t really a sequence of notes. She is pretty much speaking the chorus, which is still a very valid way to make music (see: rap music). However, the hook is catchy and memorable because of the rhythm. Based on a tune by Right Said Fred, the rhythmic motif of the chorus is snappy and easy to remember. Although, by this definition of melody, there is none present (the chorus is lacking a sequence of notes), the song is still memorable because of the rhythm. I am left wondering if there is some important rhythmic aspect left out of our current definition of a melody.
Another very different example that came to mind is “Microplastics” by Manuella Blackburn (2021). Blackburn describes the piece as “an acousmatic work derived solely from plastic sound sources.” This is an electronic music composition made entirely of sounds from plastics and plastic-sorting facilities. This piece is arguably made in the style of Musique Concrête, and again, features no distinct melody. Differing from “Look What You Made Me Do”, “Microplastics” does not contain a super catchy rhythmic motif to make up for its lack of melody. However, despite its lack of both melody and rhythm, I really enjoyed this piece when I first heard it performed a few months ago. I thought it was excellent, and I am evidently still thinking about it as I am writing a blog post about it. Therefore, I would like to agree and say that music doesn’t necessarily need to have a melody to be “good”.
Look What You Made Me Do (Swift 2017): link text
Microplastics (Blackburn 2021): link text
this was me^ sorry about that!
Here's the post again incase it gets out of order:
I do not think that music needs a “melody” to be good. I will start with the disclaimer that I usually prefer to listen to music with a catchy melody in my spare time. I love pop and musical theatre, both of which are genres that typically have catchy melodies. However, music can also be enjoyable without a melody. There are 2 different sides of this coin that come to mind for me.
One example of this kind of song is Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do” (2017). It could be argued that there is no melody, as there isn’t really a sequence of notes. She is pretty much speaking the chorus, which is still a very valid way to make music (see: rap music). However, the hook is catchy and memorable because of the rhythm. Based on a tune by Right Said Fred, the rhythmic motif of the chorus is snappy and easy to remember. Although, by this definition of melody, there is none present (the chorus is lacking a sequence of notes), the song is still memorable because of the rhythm. I am left wondering if there is some important rhythmic aspect left out of our current definition of a melody.
Another very different example that came to mind is “Microplastics” by Manuella Blackburn (2021). Blackburn describes the piece as “an acousmatic work derived solely from plastic sound sources.” This is an electronic music composition made entirely of sounds from plastics and plastic-sorting facilities. This piece is arguably made in the style of Musique Concrête, and again, features no distinct melody. Differing from “Look What You Made Me Do”, “Microplastics” does not contain a super catchy rhythmic motif to make up for its lack of melody. However, despite its lack of both melody and rhythm, I really enjoyed this piece when I first heard it performed a few months ago. I thought it was excellent, and I am evidently still thinking about it as I am writing a blog post about it. Therefore, I would like to agree and say that music doesn’t necessarily need to have a melody to be “good”.
Look What You Made Me Do (Swift 2017): Look What You Made Me Do
Microplastics (Blackburn 2021): Microplastics
I find this discussion of melody really interesting. I think one of the reasons it's difficult to define a melody is because it is difficult to define music itself. The idea that pleasure is a defining characteristic of a melody is problematic because pleasure is a subjective emotion and only one of the many emotions a melody could provoke.
I think that if a melody is going to be composed of notes that “agree” with each other or create a “satisfying” sound when one is played right after the other that you’re not going to get very many melodies that will move you, that will make you feel something deep, if that makes any sense. A lot of the time, the most emotionally charged melodies are the ones with emphasis put on the dissonance between notes rather than the consonance. I also don’t think that a melody has to be memorable because, as stated in the post, what is memorable to one person may not be to another. Some melodies might not be memorable because there are plenty of pieces out there where the melody is a little hard to pick out, although that might have something to do with the performer in some cases but even so, it does not mean that a piece with an unclear melody, for lack of better words, is any better or worse than another piece of music that has a clear melody. There are some great atmospheric and minimalist pieces out there that are very memorable that do not have a melody. And then there’s John Cage’s 4’33” as mentioned in the post which is also very memorable.
I can't say I completely agree with this one! The main reason for saying this is that I feel like melody is a lot more broad than what was described by the dictionaries. The best definition of melody I have heard in my entire life is "Whatever catches your ear's attention" I think this can not be more true because there is so much in music that can be melodies than just a series of singular pitches played over x period of time. Timbre is clearly a what catches your attention in many many pieces that don't have a sequence of foreground melodies pitches, yet because your ear is completely drawn to the color timbre, to me that becomes the melody of the piece.
Post a Comment