Melody.....

[Zed10R]

Peeps,

Does melody need to be connected with, tied to, or based on a rythm to reach it's fullest potential, or is it best to have a melody unrelated to the rest of the music....kinda like floating freely along, and it would make no more or less sense no matter what rythm you put under it, as long as it's in key?

Any and all input is welcome.....thanks....

 

[famous beagle]

I tend to think that when a melody sticks too closely to the main rhythm of the song, it sounds pretty boring. There are a few exceptions, like maybe "All Day and All of the Night" by the Kinks. But generally, I like to hear the melody in between the rhythmic cracks a good deal of the time.

Think about "Day in the Life" for example. On the first line, "I read the news today, oh boy..." "the news today" is syncopated and is "outside" of the basic eighth-note rhythm. That sounds very natural and favorable to me.

This is sort of an odd question, and I don't know if this applies. But it's my two cents.

 

[Zed10R]

It is an odd question and I was looking for whatever anyone felt like saying, so thanks.

There are lots of examples where the vocal lines duplicate the rythm exactly, and I agree that is for the most part boring...BUT....there is also the opposite approach where the vocal melody is so far removed from the rythm of the song that it no longer adds anything to the music...it becomes it's own independant thing floating around all randomly and dramatically, with no roots in anything else in the song. There is also the approach that a vocal melody can be achieved mostly through dynamic (IMO way overly dramatic) delivery, which I find quite annoying and in fact (actually in opinion) gets in the way and feels "lost". I'm trying to determine if those points of view, which so far seem to be mine and mine alone, makes any sort of sense or if my views on melody are limited and desperatly need work. I cannot post examples, so i'll see where this conversation leads.....

 

[Mr songwriter]

I would have thought that most good melodies are in some way related to rhythms that are present in the music (eg, the strumming patterns for the guitar) a) because it's easier for the musicians to play consistently and b) because I think most people listening to music tend to prefer 'orderly' sounds to disorderly sounds. Music is orderly, noise is disorderly.

 

[mikeh]

Interesting question.

I find myself thinking that a song is the sum total of melody, harmony & rhythem - so the melody should work within the frame of the rhythem.

The referenced Kinks song is a very good example of a melody that follows the rhythem almost too closely (even though it does work on that song).

I can't think of any specific songs at this moment - but I have heard songs that seem to have melody lines that are so complex or so busy compaired to the rhythem of the song, that it feels forced and disjointed (some of Paul Simon's melody lines - in his world music romps, often seem difficult to embrace). One of Simon's common techniques is the melody line that carries into the next bar.

I've often felt an important role of the melody, is the build, to create more energy as the song progresses to the final chorus. To do that well, the melody must respect the rhythem.

I find one of my challenges is to write a melody beyond the scope of my vocal capabilities. I'm not a great singer and when I write a melody that I can sing, I can't allow it to build enough. When I've written melodies for songs that I plan to have other singers demo - I can be more creative and write a more challenging melody.

 

[FALKEN]

you should take a listen to ravi shankar.

 

[Zed10R]

.....I think most people listening to music tend to prefer 'orderly' sounds to disorderly sounds. Music is orderly, noise is disorderly.

I agree....."orderly" is a great word for this. I prefer melodies that are orderly and directly supportive of the music underneath. Do you think it is possible that LSD (lead singer disease) could be responsible for disorderly harmonies? I know that one's sense of order is subjective, so I wonder if one's sense of melody and order can be skewed by one's own sense of importance....or inability to recognize one's own limitations....???? I'm just looking for sensible middle ground.

Interesting question.

I find myself thinking that a song is the sum total of melody, harmony & rhythem - so the melody should work within the frame of the rhythem.

The referenced Kinks song is a very good example of a melody that follows the rhythem almost too closely (even though it does work on that song).

I can't think of any specific songs at this moment - but I have heard songs that seem to have melody lines that are so complex or so busy compaired to the rhythem of the song, that it feels forced and disjointed (some of Paul Simon's melody lines - in his world music romps, often seem difficult to embrace). One of Simon's common techniques is the melody line that carries into the next bar.

I've often felt an important role of the melody, is the build, to create more energy as the song progresses to the final chorus. To do that well, the melody must respect the rhythem.

I find one of my challenges is to write a melody beyond the scope of my vocal capabilities. I'm not a great singer and when I write a melody that I can sing, I can't allow it to build enough. When I've written melodies for songs that I plan to have other singers demo - I can be more creative and write a more challenging melody.

Yes...."forced and disjointed".....that is exactly what I want to avoid. Building and creating energy is extremy important and IMO also the job of the melody.....now.....how in YOUR opinion does dynamics fit into this? IMO, dynamics is simply changes in the relationship between the instuments, vocals inluded. It is not, necessarily, volume swells and such. Dynamics can be the drums cutting to a half time feel, but NOT changing volume......or the melody suddenly taking on a different yet related pattern, but again not changing in volume.....or even simply a key change.....Yes? Is this generaly accepted?

 

[Mr songwriter]

Well one of the entries for 'Dynamics' at dictionary.com is:

'Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound.'

Which was pretty much my understanding of the term, but I suppose 'intensity' could cover quite a few aspects of the music, including things like drum patterns, slight tempo changes and also volume.

I hadn't heard of 'Lead singer's disease' before though I think I might have seen a few cases of it.

Regarding melody, I think everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a good melody, or we would all be listening to exactly the same music as one another, it probably has something to do with the music you grew up with, preference formation etc, it also probably has something to do with the natural rhythms in language, though having said that I do like the melodies in a lot of REM's early music for the exact opposite reason - they have interesting/unexpected juxtapositions of words in them (or 'Words that just sound good strung together' as Peter Buck put it) As soon as you think you've come up with a rule for what constitutes great songwriting, you then immediately think of about a zillion examples that break the rule.

 

[mikeh]

I am a big fan of musical dynamics. Often even if the melody does not in and of itself build the song, dynamics can imply a build (such as a drum beat changing or a second guitar line entering mid way through a verse).

Naturally, what Mr. Songwriter indicates "As soon as you think you've come up with a rule for what constitutes great songwriting, you then immediately think of about a zillion examples that break the rule" is correct. I like to think that there are some "rules" that when followed make it pretty hard to go wrong.

A good melody, an infectious groove and lyrics that the listener can relate to - I think just about any song that more than one person would think is "good" would have at least one of these elements. Add to that a good arrangement (which would include the build & dynamics) and perhaps the good song becomes a great song.

 

[Zed10R]

I hadn't heard of 'Lead singer's disease' before though I think I might have seen a few cases of it.

Regarding melody, I think everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a good melody, or we would all be listening to exactly the same music......

I think we all have known someone with Lead Singer Disease. The singers from Man O War and Hammerfal have it BAD. But it's all just opinion and personal preference.

Of course we all have our own ideas of what melody is. That's why I'm trying to stay as general os possible and not get inot arguing about specific genres or styles. I'm after generally accepted ideas so I can see I would benefit from applying any different lines of thinking.

And I didn't mean to discount volume manipulation as a form of dynamics. That is the most obvious form of it, and the most abused.

 

[Zed10R]

I am a big fan of musical dynamics. Often even if the melody does not in and of itself build the song, dynamics can imply a build (such as a drum beat changing or a second guitar line entering mid way through a verse).

Naturally, what Mr. Songwriter indicates "As soon as you think you've come up with a rule for what constitutes great songwriting, you then immediately think of about a zillion examples that break the rule" is correct. I like to think that there are some "rules" that when followed make it pretty hard to go wrong.

A good melody, an infectious groove and lyrics that the listener can relate to - I think just about any song that more than one person would think is "good" would have at least one of these elements. Add to that a good arrangement (which would include the build & dynamics) and perhaps the good song becomes a great song.

I am in agreement with all of that and I hope I'm not misunderstood.....I appreciate dynamics also. Most of my favorite songs use them to achieve very effective peaks that command your attention and keep you interested. Hell yeah I like dynamics. The only reason I cared to ask is because I want to be able to write balanced music. I don't want to leave out any important perspectives. I may not agree with everyone, but we all have ideas and sharing them is a great way to learn.

To sum up what I am getting from this thread:

Melody, whatever it is to you (and me), is GENERALLY better if it is related to or tied into the rythm driving it. More tie = more likely to be boring, less tie = more likely to sound forced.

Dynamics, whatever they are to you (and me), are GENERALLY best put to use as a way to build up to a peak, and come back down, in whatever way sounds good to you.

Yes??

Yes I am having some issues with my material lately......and a bit of self doubt.

 

[mikeh]

Zed10R,

Your posts indicate that you are trying to approach writing in an intellegent and inteliectual way, which I think can be very helpful if used to supplement an emotional base (meaning art must start at an emotional level, but can be enhanced with intellegence). I think all writers have an emotional base, but not all writers are able or willing to work on the intellectual side.

I've written for many years (and have written many songs), candidly, I feel I've only written one fine song and a few decent songs, the rest are crap, but one must wade through the crap to find the diamond. I've had small successes and made some money as a writer, but I still consider myself a novice, I still have self doubt and I still on occasion face writer's block. I believe that is all part of the process.

I've read many books on songwriing and have read many interviews of "successful" writers - all have many moments of doubt and only dedication, focus and hardwork allowed them to obtain success. While many fine writer's agree that rules are meant to be broken, most of the most succesfful writer's had thier best success following most of the "rules" (melody, harmony & rhythem)

Based on your posts I suspect you have the ability and willingness to create some good music. Work though your issues and self doubt - there is always a rainbow to be found!

 

[Zed10R]

Thanks mikeh. That's very cool of you.

Since you are a writer, I'll throw another question at you.....I hope you don't mind.

In each song there are individual parts that almost literally tell me what vocal line they want to have over them. I'll hear in my head a vocal line without practicing or deliberately making it happen. These parts are what I use, and I build the rest of the song around them. I have always thought of that as honest song writing because the flow is totally uninterrupted and unaltered. I also feel that it is the best I can do because if I fuck with it too much, it ends up feeling forced and I always go back to the original spontanious part.

The question is: Do you, as an experienced writer, find that it is best to do as I am doing by accepting the creative flow as it happens, or has it worked better for you to dwell on a part untill something tells you it's done? I ask because when I collaborate with people it seems to take a long time for them to "get it", but when they do, they seem to really dig it. This has happened on several occasions and I hope it is not a sign of "you suck, but everything else sucks worse so I'll work with you."

 

[The First Don]

instrumental melody is generally a waste of notes in my opinion

 

[Zed10R]

instrumental melody is generally a waste of notes in my opinion

Instrumental melody can build up expectation and tension for the vocal melody to fill. In that capacity it is very effective.

 

[The First Don]

Instrumental melody can build up expectation and tension for the vocal melody to fill. In that capacity it is very effective.

I agreee with that; but i hate it when a song is based on instrumental melody; or the instrumental melody is supposed to be the main part. I just don't like it causee its overplayed.

 

[famous beagle]

I agreee with that; but i hate it when a song is based on instrumental melody; or the instrumental melody is supposed to be the main part. I just don't like it causee its overplayed.

Hmmm ... this seems like an odd thing to "hate." So I'm guessing you don't ever listen to purely instrumental music, or you just like your vocal music to be vocal-concentrated?

I can think of many examples that have great melodic hooks that make the song so much better, IMO.

Wilco: "Always in Love," "Can't Stand It" (from the Summerteeth album)

Coldplay: "In My Place" (from Rush of Blood to the Head)

Radiohead: "Airbag" (from OK Computer)

Beatles: "When I'm Sixty-four" (from Sgt. Pepper's)

Travis: "Writing to Reach You" (from The Man Who)


IMO, those are the production touches that set apart the really professional-sounding arrangements from the plain-jane ones. Not that a song can't sound great with just a guitar and a voice, but when it's fully orchestrated those touches add so much to me. I can't imagine songs without them.

 

[mikeh]

Zed10r,

In response to you questions about hearing the vocal line and going with the flow. Kind of two different subjects. Going with the flow certainly can work if the muse is present. However, often the flow can only get you to point A or point B - then you need to start the hard work of tweaking, re-writing, etc.

Regarding going with the vocal line you hear in your head. I don't know how good of a vocalist you are or what your range is - but I have seen too many writers limit thier melody lines to "what they hear in thier head."

As a personal example, I have a limited vocal range. Many of my earlier songs had limited melody range because I wrote vocal lines as I heard them (meaning vocal lines I could perform). What helped me tremendously was hiring singers - suddenly I heard singers interpret the melody and they would add vocal dynamics, higher notes and different phrasing.

I began to write melodies that others could sing (rather then limit the melody to what I could sing). It really opened up my melody lines - a lot! So writing what you hear is fine, as long as what you hear is not limited to what you know or what you can play/sing.

 

[Zed10R]

Zed10r,

In response to you questions about hearing the vocal line and going with the flow. Kind of two different subjects. Going with the flow certainly can work if the muse is present. However, often the flow can only get you to point A or point B - then you need to start the hard work of tweaking, re-writing, etc.

Regarding going with the vocal line you hear in your head. I don't know how good of a vocalist you are or what your range is - but I have seen too many writers limit thier melody lines to "what they hear in thier head."

As a personal example, I have a limited vocal range. Many of my earlier songs had limited melody range because I wrote vocal lines as I heard them (meaning vocal lines I could perform). What helped me tremendously was hiring singers - suddenly I heard singers interpret the melody and they would add vocal dynamics, higher notes and different phrasing.

I began to write melodies that others could sing (rather then limit the melody to what I could sing). It really opened up my melody lines - a lot! So writing what you hear is fine, as long as what you hear is not limited to what you know or what you can play/sing.

AAhhhh.....I get it exactly. I am not exceptionally gifted by any means. I absolutly see the danger in limiting my thinking to only what I am capable of doing. I have already kinda addressed that by tooling around with a guitar to "play" the melody before I put words to it. I am, in a way, not limiting my self that way. I have forced myself to extend my vocal range in order to actually do some of the melodies I've "heard". But since you put it so well, I will for sure be thinking in terms that will not be limiting. Collaboration helps too....I totally see the value in getting another person's take on something. It's a fresh new idea that sparks more new ideas.

Thank you.

 

[The First Don]

Hmmm ... this seems like an odd thing to "hate." So I'm guessing you don't ever listen to purely instrumental music, or you just like your vocal music to be vocal-concentrated?

I can think of many examples that have great melodic hooks that make the song so much better, IMO.

Wilco: "Always in Love," "Can't Stand It" (from the Summerteeth album)

Coldplay: "In My Place" (from Rush of Blood to the Head)

Radiohead: "Airbag" (from OK Computer)

Beatles: "When I'm Sixty-four" (from Sgt. Pepper's)

Travis: "Writing to Reach You" (from The Man Who)


IMO, those are the production touches that set apart the really professional-sounding arrangements from the plain-jane ones. Not that a song can't sound great with just a guitar and a voice, but when it's fully orchestrated those touches add so much to me. I can't imagine songs without them.

I like classical musical to be melodic.