You don't need an amazing melody

Please excuse me if this is a little groggy, I'm running on low.

Yesterday I was freaking out in my composition lesson because my string quartet suddenly seemed overwhelming. I was listening to his criticism and suddenly felt like my intro theme, the BIG INTRO was not effective enough. I suggested changing it, in a moment of insecurity. His reply was (paraphrase),

"No, no, the beginning is fine. You don't have to have some amazing knockout melody to write a great piece. All the greats are known for their creativity in developing even the most simple idea into an incredible whole, not for catchy melodies. The nice melodies are fine, but that should not be your focus."

This is the best constructive criticism I've received in a long time. I mean, it's not like I didn't know that but to hear it out loud from a teacher somehow gave it great worth to me. I don't know what I'm even trying to say here. I mean, it just gave me so much inspiration, among other topics dicussed. I need to STOP FOCUSING ON NICE LITTLE PRETTY PHRASES and start manipulating my original lump of gray clay into a 1000 shapes!!

This probably seems obvious to some of you. However, I just somehow got a lot of inspiration from the whole lesson. It's like I was blocking out what I knew to be true. Also, I love Bartok right now, and I've gotten NO sleep, and this is just a mess. :happy:

EDIT: I just read this, and it sounds completely obvious somehow. I don't know how to describe what it was about the lesson that gave me so much inspiration. I apologize. It was something about the WAY he said it.

Wow, That rings true for alot of music

thank you for posting this very wise piece of Info

hah yea I agree, I guess you had a spark of intuition....

I say that because usually intuitive things are balantly obvious when you communicate them, but the application and meaning of being aware of that intuition is very far reaching and somewhat abstract in nature.

anyways I completely agree alot of major works and peices are built on such simple ideas they just play around with so much, but its so neat how they use the ideas.

The following is JUST my opinion and I don't think anybody "SHOULD" agree with me at all:

That's interesting---I generally feel quite differently on this issue. For me music is all about being floored by gorgeous melodies. If the music isn't doing that...I generally don't like it very much. For example---I can't stand any of Mozart's or Beethoven's string quartets. The ones I like have a handful of moments that have a knockout melody. The rest of those pieces sound like a pile of carefully arranged legos or something like that.

I'm trying to think of some music that I like that doesn't sport awesome melodies.. .... .... .... ................... .... uhh....nope...can't think of any

..the more I read about the opinions and ideas of traditional composition professors---the more I thank my lucky stars I never went into music academically. If I did, the vast majority of my time at such an institution would be spent saying: SCREW YOU, I LIKE IT THAT WAY. *I* AM THE COMPOSER, ROT IN HELL YOU ARROGANT POMPOUS OVERACHIEVING TWIT. And somehow I don't think that sort of personality would do so well academically...

please understand these are just my opinions...thanks

well I think those amazing melodies are amazing and simple alot of times, the idea I think giselle was getting at is not to overcomplicate things.... I think there is like an einstein quote or something that says, "Make things as simple as possible, but not too simple", this isn't a direct quotation but the point remains.

You know what this means? It means I can be the next Stravinsky. I've always had a fair amount of trouble getting melodies... the fact that I have only seven complete pieces to my name is proof of that. On the other hand, once I get something I like, I can twist it in endless ways and find all sorts of interesting ways to display it. The pieces often write themselves. Also, the rate at which I'm improving my knowledge of methods of setting themes is astounding, when you consider where I am today and that I've only been writing for about a year and a half. Taken to its logical conclusion, I'm very excited to see where I'll be in ten years!

Neat stuff. Thanks for sharing it, giselle. Actually, I think I've been pondering this very thing a lot lately. Time to go hunting through some of my old fragments and develop some of 'em! :D

I guess it all depends on what your goals are. I'm gradually realizing a great number of composers, including on this website, think about music more like an engineering project than an art---they are fascinated by architectural niceties and precisions rather than whether a piece is beautiful or moves you. I don't understand this and it is not how I do things---but in music there are no rules so you're all quite entitled to go on crafting musical gears that mesh nicely. I think perhaps the reason I don't think about composition this way is I satisfy my engineering side of my personality WITH engineering---I feel allowed, as it were, to be completely irrational in my art.

Oh, I agree completely. I want to write music I'd love to listen to every day for the rest of my life, not music some professor would be stumped by. Technical prowess is just one more thing that can help realize my musical inspirations. I want to be able to write like Stravinsky, not so I can be on the top of the musical food chain, but so I can be one of those fortunate few who can write down whatever musical fantasy they conjure up in their minds. What a privilege that would be, yes?

Has anyone heard Opeth? One could say of their music that there is no architectural development---it is just one flooringly gorgeous melody/awesome riff after another. I have always enjoyed this style of writing the best---it is sort of like an ever changing landscape, or an adventure---not by any means malformed however. Opeth are towering, towering musical geniuses. I feel they are much...MUch better than Mozart was at writing music....I'm not supposed to have that opinion though, am I? =)

You are about to be flamed. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'm not much of an Opeth fan but I do like a lot of heavy rock. All my friends in high school were metal heads so I guess it rubbed off on me.

I LOVE PRIMUS!!! Les Claypool has an astounding musical mind. I read an interview with him where he said

that he writes his music from his unconcious mind. Which makes sense to me. Whenever I do my best writing

or improvising it's because my concious mind is shut off and I just let it flow.

If I'm having trouble tapping into this part of my brain for some reason, I'll just think of what I expect the music to do next, and then I'll do the opposite. Makes for good results.

Anybody else feel the same way?

To some people, gorgeous sounds and moving harmonies are just sometimes not enough to make them love a piece of music. I cannot sit and listen to a piece of music, no matter how beautiful, unless it does something of interest, like something different, new, intelligent. Technicalities mean a lot more to some people, including me. That is why things like minimalism and serialism and some avant-garde music appeal to other people. And of course you are not going to understand why, because you appreciate different things in music. I understand that some people just love to hear beautiful melodies and chords, and that does it for them. This is why I don't like (most) any music from before the 20th century!! Because on the whole, I've heard most techniques before, and there is usually nothing to interest me. Of course, there are a lot of beautiful and moving sounds, but that's not enough for me.

So, no. I don't think one needs an amazing melody to compose a piece. But, you must make sure that the piece is coherent in itself, that there are recurring ideas and motives, so the piece isn't just one big smattering of ideas. Which I guess isn't always bad..., but you could just make each idea into its own seperate piece, and have a suite! :D

-Danny Elfman is a big fan of Primus, and Danny Elfman is awesome. So maybe I should check Primus out.

Wow, lots of feedback! I thought I sounded like a kook when I wrote that! :D

I'm just going to reply to Derek since he keeps getting poked around.

Derek, I understand what you're saying. Sometimes I get tired of the whole technical, technical, technical aspect of evaluating music.

I've written some music that doesn't really develop any kind of motif, and focuses solely on effects, dynamics, and emoting certain things without using any kind of obvious structure, just little mini-ideas. I love some of the stuff that has been written that way, and LOVE a lot of contemporary and 20th century stuff.

Lately I've been wanting more though - what I find to be genius is someone who can apply a fascinating, sometimes immediately indetectable structure and recall a couple of ideas so creatively that when I hear the piece without listening for that kind of thing, I am floored by the incredible music just in and of itself. Later, when I listen more, the less obvious comes to light and I am even MORE floored. I'm also not big into Beethoven's string quartets (especially the the ones earlier in his life, later on they get more interesting to me). That has more to do with personal taste though - he certainly had his own style that set him apart, but also he worked his butt off to develop his pieces well. Otherwise he wouldn't be as famous as he is.

I like some crazy stuff, but upon further looking, my favorites are the ones that have nuances that pull the whole piece together (besides a few rocking Webern pieces that are just darn cool sounding - but even those have some very hidden connections).

You should check out some of Bartok's music. He's got such a great style. Often, an entire piece will be

built off a single motif, but the way he ALLOWS(notice I said allows, not makes) the motif to develop and....

MUTATE

...just blows me away.

Hey Nick.... have I got the band for you to check out. They are seriously make the most chaotic and random music I've ever heard. Their songs last 30-40 seconds and each is a tapestry of random musical "moments". They're called "The Locust" and I'm sure you would absolutely HATE them. You should check 'em out.

Wouldn't it be great if you could combine both great melodies with interesting formal structures? That's why I love John Adams!

But the two different areas both appeal to me, but to different parts of my personality. Sometimes, I want to hear a longing, soulful melody so I'll put on Rachmaninoff or Chopin. Sometimes I want energetic music so I'll listen to Beethoven. Sometimes I feel 'stuffy' and I'll put on a Bach Cantata. Sometimes I want mystery and intrique, so I'll listen to Debussy or Scriabin. Othertimes, if I want sensuous music I'll listen to Ravel or Sorabji. Or if I want to be technical I'll put on some Stravinksy.

I think either approaches are valid - there's a lot to be said about writing great melodies, and some melodies have moved the world in strange ways - look at Japan and it's obsession with Ode to Joy. But there's a lot to be said about structure too, there's something satisfying about music that is architechurely marvelous, it's like its alive and breathing or something. But don't assume writing great melodies doesn't take intelligence - it's a highly delicate art and few have the patience or skill to do it. The same can be said about formal procedures as well.

You should check out some of Bartok's music. He's got such a great style. Often, an entire piece will be

built off a single motif, but the way he ALLOWS(notice I said allows, not makes) the motif to develop and....

lol, read my first post again, at the bottom above the edit - I was kind of groggy but made a random mention when I started the thread.

You are exactly right. (also in the recommended music thread...apparently I just start to like something and can't stop blabbing about it :D )

I guess it all depends on what your goals are. I'm gradually realizing a great number of composers, including on this website, think about music more like an engineering project than an art---they are fascinated by architectural niceties and precisions rather than whether a piece is beautiful or moves you. I don't understand this and it is not how I do things---but in music there are no rules so you're all quite entitled to go on crafting musical gears that mesh nicely. I think perhaps the reason I don't think about composition this way is I satisfy my engineering side of my personality WITH engineering---I feel allowed, as it were, to be completely irrational in my art.

Lol I am actually an engineering major.... but I agree I think music is about create an entire world of ideas that you can catch unto with the vibe and general feeling of the peice, in composition a beautiful melody can easily motivate this all, but as far as motifs, I also like it when people take a simple statement and play around with it, esp if that simple statement is a beautiful melody, its like starting with something simple and building it into an entire world... it develops like a person in a story may develop a personality and expereince different stuff... I think its dynamic and interesting and well talking about building music is going to sound like architecture lol, cause you are talking about building something, but what you build is completely in my opinion where the whole art aspect comes in.

lol, read my first post again, at the bottom above the edit - I was kind of groggy but made a random mention when I started the thread.

You are exactly right. (also in the recommended music thread...apparently I just start to like something and can't stop blabbing about it :( )

WELL!!! Seems I am an ignoramus......

...but for an interesting juxtaposition, listen to the second movement of his second piano concerto.

It's so gorgeous I can't handle it.

WELL!!! Seems I am an ignoramus......

...but for an interesting juxtaposition, listen to the second movement of his second piano concerto.

It's so gorgeous I can't handle it.

Thanks for the suggestion, I will listen to it when I go to the music library this weekend!

Prease to lite amazing merody not fol amazing piece.

Oh, sorry. Extending it into the Engrish realm...

BTW, Chris, as for what you're advocating, two words: Lloyd Grade. :) But we can take that up in another thread, since I'd rather leave this one for at least vaguely on-topic discussion...

Here, I'll pull a Rimsky-Korsakov:

Melody-amazing for it's writtens have not been need of amazement piece.

Piece of amazing and write to a melody, amazing a rite does not need you.

Write no need of you, piece of amazing and melody are amazing and write too.

Melody's amazing Ann writes not needy, you piece of amazing and write two.

Melody's amazing Ann writes to needed knot; it's a piece of amazing sand.

Piece amazing and right to need; Ed is not melody, amazing Ann.

Melody's amazing Ann writes to pieces! Amazing she needs, don't you?

Heh. That was fun. :)

(In case anyone's wondering, to create this I reversed the order of the lines as well as the order of the words in each line, and then messed with it a little to make somewhat reasonably structured sentences.)

"You don't need an amazing melody to write an amazing peice".

Agree wholeheartedly. Beethoven's 5th first movement comes to mind. And some of his piano sonatas I'm thinking of - the melodies, without development, interesting harmony, counterpoint etc - some of them would hardly stand on their own.

But...

Awkward melodies make for awkward music.

And...

Awkward harmony ruins beautiful melodies.

And...

It's an asset to be able to write both good melodies and treat them, as well as more non-lyrical material in ways that are both musically interesting and pleasing.

Wouldn't it be great if you could combine both great melodies with interesting formal structures? That's why I love John Adams!

But the two different areas both appeal to me, but to different parts of my personality. Sometimes, I want to hear a longing, soulful melody so I'll put on Rachmaninoff or Chopin. Sometimes I want energetic music so I'll listen to Beethoven. Sometimes I feel 'stuffy' and I'll put on a Bach Cantata. Sometimes I want mystery and intrique, so I'll listen to Debussy or Scriabin. Othertimes, if I want sensuous music I'll listen to Ravel or Sorabji. Or if I want to be technical I'll put on some Stravinksy.

I think either approaches are valid - there's a lot to be said about writing great melodies, and some melodies have moved the world in strange ways - look at Japan and it's obsession with Ode to Joy. But there's a lot to be said about structure too, there's something satisfying about music that is architechurely marvelous, it's like its alive and breathing or something. But don't assume writing great melodies doesn't take intelligence - it's a highly delicate art and few have the patience or skill to do it. The same can be said about formal procedures as well.

Good thoughts there Nightscape. I think I may have miscommunicated however---my point is not that form isn't as important as melodies, but that one can develop one's own forms. You needn't use sonata-allegro or fugue or anything "established" from the past. The whole idea of self-reference can be used to come up with your own form. So...i'm not so sure I really disagree with anobody here except that I tend to like to think about music in a totally intuitive manner based entirely on the sound. I don't find it very useful to verbalize endlessly about dominants and parallels and sonata allegros and who knows what else. My ear and nothing else is what I use to evaluate music. Schoenberg i'm sure was a "smarter" composer than I am, but I like listening to my own music and indeed, most people on this site waaaaay more than his.

And I forgot to mention this, you're dead on about melodies. I find it the most challenging thing to do in music. Think about how many possibilities there are JUST for 3 notes in succesion...the rhythms you could use with them, how they are repeated, how they are articulated, how long they hold...when you reach a melody of 10 (randomly chose that number) or more notes in length the possibilities are for all practical purposes endless. To get a feel for what makes melodies "talk" and have a really satisfying, beautiful sound to them take a LOt of experience and patience as you said---not something just anybody can spin out. I can see you're aware of this---I still have your "White Rose" composition on my itunes playlist---it is very lovely.

Also....I guess I'm just dense or something...but though Beethoven's 5th symphony is based upon a noticable motif, I actually think of THE WAY HE SPINS IT OUT *AS* a melody...I actually see this as no different from a beautiful melody----the fact that it just so happens to repeat a motif is immaterial in my opinion---the ability to make a STREAM OF NOTES sound THAT GOOD is what takes talent.

But...

Awkward melodies make for awkward music.

And...

Awkward harmony ruins beautiful melodies.

I dunno if I agree with that. How can a harmony or

melody be awkward?

I dunno if I agree with that. How can a harmony or

melody be awkward?

I discovered the answer to that this morning when I was working on my string quartet ;) ;)