Is melody anything worth in modern art music?

:laugh: SSC

...

I wonder if anyone has realized yet that melody comes in many shapes and forms.... perhaps it's lacking in tonal-centre... perhaps it has no rhythm...perhaps it has nothing BUT rhythm...

...

:whistling:

Many of the modern things people find problems with aren't like the atonal works of Arnold Schoenberg where at least incredible difficulty is present in the composition of the piece due to the intricacy of the many parts and constant notes that are brought together, but instead mainly works where notes are seldom even played and instruments are used in percussive ways only such as sweeping across the piano keys without pressing them and blowing air through trumpets without buzzing which appeared in videos earlier linked. I prefer music that pushes the realms of complexity within a tonal setting such as this YouTube - New Trombone Collective live broadcast

I'm kinda shocked to see college students (not including Gardener and Robin) making these completely baseless comments about things they obviously know little to nothing about. I know little to nothing about feminist theory, do you think I'm going to go on some NOW message board and make depreciative and inflammatory comments about Naomi Wolf? Sure I mean....I could....but I'm going to get eRaped by people who actually think before they say things and actually know about the subject.

I think this xkcd comic is somewhat fitting.

To people like Flint, or Gardener: How..or why do you dignify some of these posts with a response? I honestly think Abraham might be the worst poster to ever come here.

If we don't, the stupidity continues. Stupidity breeds faster than intelligence.

...then joins "classical historicist" forums.

If we don't, the stupidity continues. Stupidity breeds faster than intelligence.

Be careful who you call stupid.

lets agree to disagree on the subject. if you think that the works of mozart, beethoven, brahms, wagner, tchaikovsky, edvard gried, bruckner to be the work of the past and the entire world should move on then that is in your opinion. i personally think that in there works a new forum of music could come out and thats my musical quest until death.

and for the record I'm not limited to just them because i have explored and believe me, I've went through more styles of music including incorporating ethnic instruments and experiment with different world styles.

Be careful who you call stupid.

lets agree to disagree on the subject. if you think that the works of mozart, beethoven, brahms, wagner, tchaikovsky, edvard gried, bruckner to be the work of the past and the entire world should move on then that is in your opinion. i personally think that in there works a new forum of music could come out and thats my musical quest until death.

and for the record I'm not limited to just them because i have explored and believe me, I've went through more styles of music including incorporating ethnic instruments and experiment with different world styles.

Well when it comes to composition, maybe we should move on. There just isn't any new material left in those old styles, and what is the point in repeating the past?

Well when it comes to composition, maybe we should move on. There just isn't any new material left in those old styles, and what is the point in repeating the past?

That is so ignorant... I usually don't get involved here... but let's face it: Where do we get ideas from? The past. If we don't look to what's already been done for inspiration, how can we come up with anything new?

Your theory training comes from the people that wrote in those "old styles", if you don't acknowledge that they were on to something, then you cannot call yourself a composer. Now, think... Where does pop music come from? It comes from classical music, where does classical music come from? It comes from folk music. It all stems from the very basic idea of people sharing musical thoughts.

In our world today, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say that purely old classical music is irrelevant and we shouldn't compose in it. That's like saying that every single tone row in 12 tone music has been used so there is no more use in composing there...

It's just ignorant. There are millions of combinations of notes... SURE you may have to repeat a chord or two Mozart used, but that doesn't mean you are stuck using the same melody lines. You can always use bigger leaps, use more challenging stuff, and write what you want. Pouring yourself into a piece of music is what makes it yours, and makes it a piece of art. And, if that happens to be a Mozart copy, then so be it! You have expressed yourself and your emotions. And, that is to be commended. Then, you worry about such things as form and whatnot. I just don't see how you can disregard an entire HISTORY of music, where it all came from, as pointless to try and recreate.

Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot compose? I have seen many works come through here that are purely classical, and I loved them for what they are. They might not be my style, but I appreciate them as a piece of music and commend the composer for recreating a style that is nowadays mostly ignored. It's all music... just the order you put them on the page.

Well when it comes to composition, maybe we should move on. There just isn't any new material left in those old styles, and what is the point in repeating the past?

This, I'm sorry to say, is a really stupid statement. To say that we even 'move on' in music is sort of a misnomer. The simple truth is that we all build from one syntax into another, and composers have been doing this for well over 100 years.

Let's put it into perspective that we can hopefully all agree on (if that's even possible). Traditional tonal harmony from Baroque through Romanticism in Western Classical music is, at least in a very BROAD sense (yes, I'm generalizing for SIMPLICITY to illustrate a point, gang), a syntax.

Composers were already arguing about how they could come up with anything new within that syntax, that they wanted to build their own voice without having to be confined to a tonal hierarchy or pitch center. Many of them created some successful results, even as far back as Bach who began experimenting in using 12-tone melodies in his later periods.

Now we have all these pockets of musical styles, each very individually unique to the composers we listen to in 18th, 19th, and 20th Century music. In that sense, there's no such thing as repeating the past. All these composers have done everything already... it's sort of ridiculous to say that people should stop 'living in the past'.

You're living in the past every time you use a technique or generate an idea inspired by the composers you love. So, why make such an ignorant statement? Really? Are you so sure you're living in the present yourself? Somehow, I doubt it, because none of us really are... there's no point in turning away from all of these sources of inspiration for the sake of being new.

If this person's sources of inspiration for his/her music are from music written over 100 years ago, it's no different than your sources of inspiration being music written less than 100 years ago. It's all the past, no matter how long ago it was. Congratulations, you're living in the past, too! At least now you know.

I think if every composer strove to be both original and true to themselves, there would be no need for debates about the pasta.

Well when it comes to composition, maybe we should move on. There just isn't any new material left in those old styles, and what is the point in repeating the past?

It's a valid observation, but to be honest the past is, if anything, a good source of things that you can reuse in whatever way you want. Think Berio's sequenzas or Cage's sonatas. Both are very "historical" inspired works, yet they are entirely modern. Schnittke comes to mind along with Hintemith and Schostakovich, there's a lot of stuff you can do borrowing from the past without outright copying anyone.

Moving on, in that sense, I think should be interpreted as "thinking about it in a different way" than simply "omg theyr awesum lets copypasta." And, well, it's impossible to actually repeat the pasta(!). No matter how hard people try to copy whatever style they admire, it'll never actually be that famous composer writing it so whatever comes out is already original and new. Now of course the measure by which it's original or new is totally up in the air, specially if they're copypasta-ing the way they write.

But people should compose whatever they feel is necessary. Let'em copypasta, cuz if later we feel like writing a copypasta ourselves we'll be rather hypocritical if we didn't let others and did it ourselves anyway. To me, Art is supposed to open doors, not close them and copypasta is just one of those doors.

If we don't, the stupidity continues. Stupidity breeds faster than intelligence.

More of an ignorance thing than stupid, I'd say... buuuut then there's:

Be careful who you call stupid.

LOL, yeah he's going to be careful. On the internet.

There's your answer right there.

Don't assume that what YOU like is what anyone else likes; Don't assume that anyone else lives to please YOU.

If you want more melody in new music, write it yourself. And for goodness' sake, stop whining about something you have no control over.

Who pissed in your coffee flint?

seriously, the first post of the thread asked a simple question, and you just assume that the OP is whining about melodies in modern music. Remember when you assume, you make an donkey out of U and ME. ;)

... I'm not aware of a single Lachenmann work in existence that isn't melodic.

I tried out a few of those Lachenmann pieces - where do you see melody in those? If there is melody, and it doesn't have pitch, or rhythm, how is it melody... seriously? Melody must have defined pitches and rhythms, if something doesn't have these, you're going to have to call it something else because you're gonna confuse loads of people by saying these pieces all have melody in them. I think if a composer does enough to veil any sort of melody, to conceal it or obscure it, they are defeating the purpose of having a melody in the sense of the term. Perhaps we're mistaking this word with "motifs." Anyways, I got a kick out of this following piece, mostly because I found it sad that the music was obscure enough that the audience didn't applaud at the end when the performer/composer had clearly made it evident that he'd finished. He started to prepare the music for the next piece THEN they realised he had quit playing. (and I don't think it was a series of pieces that shouldn't be interrupted) I think that kinda says something about the particular type of music he is writing, though I admit that's a rather unfounded sentiment.

Wiegenmusik - Lachenmann

Anyways, enough argument. I agree wholeheartedly with Sherief Abraham's sentiments and think that a lot of this "avant garde" just sounds like noise or cats pouncing on pianos, and I find it sad that this sort of music is embraced by many academics in the field of serious music. In fact, I'm embarrassed at it. People who prefer music that follows strictly in the style of the "past" (i.e. still composing what we call "tonal" music, like Grieg, big-huge-et-cetera) exist. And guess what? There also exist people who are concerned with the advancement of the art and creating something new and meaningful (i.e. Schoenberg creating his own "rules", Lachenmann making what I (personally) perceive as noise, random notes, etc.) Alright, so both these kinds of people exist - two often opposite ends of the spectrum. Why don't we just QUIT ARGUING ABOUT IT, quit telling each other how to write music and JUST GET TO WRITING IT OURSELVES? Go! Now! And shut up, because you know damn well your efforts at convincing others out of their own ways are futile.

Be careful who you call stupid.

lets agree to disagree on the subject. if you think that the works of mozart, beethoven, brahms, wagner, tchaikovsky, edvard gried, bruckner to be the work of the past and the entire world should move on then that is in your opinion. i personally think that in there works a new forum of music could come out and thats my musical quest until death.

and for the record I'm not limited to just them because i have explored and believe me, I've went through more styles of music including incorporating ethnic instruments and experiment with different world styles.

Right, music should stagnate at its highest point, then no works of a lower quality would exist.

Who pissed in your coffee flint?

seriously, the first post of the thread asked a simple question, and you just assume that the OP is whining about melodies in modern music. Remember when you assume, you make an donkey out of U and ME. ;)

It wasn't a simple question. It was an accusation that melody was abandoned by modernist composers (wholly untrue, especially considering the contrapuntal underpinnings of serialism), and then an assumption that modernism is representative of current art music, posed in the form of a question. It was flamebait, and we bit.

To be frank, and a little oversimplifying:

I roll with these modernist ideas. Call me overacademic, pretentious, whatever, but I take a very simple view on Noise -- ie, "broken" music; cf Attali -- more is better. It's not a perfect view, especially since it tends to simplify music history as a progression towards (or away from) something instead of a conglomeration of vaguely related paths, but I bring it up because it flies directly in the face of composers who seek a higher form of music by looking to the far-past.

It's just too crazy an world to not by constantly influenced by everything.

And as to new composers who focus on "melody:" Nico Mulhy. I can't remember who here told me to look him up, but he's pretty awesome, and mad tonal.

I tried out a few of those Lachenmann pieces - where do you see melody in those? If there is melody, and it doesn't have pitch, or rhythm, how is it melody... seriously? Melody must have defined pitches and rhythms, if something doesn't have these, you're going to have to call it something else because you're gonna confuse loads of people by saying these pieces all have melody in them.

If anyone gets confused by something like that, they should probably just go back to writing their Mozart copypasta. Besides, the definition of melody expands to include all sorts of musical styles and so on, otherwise the term is useless. Moreover, if you don't see how it applies, let me remind you that people see things in many different ways. Don't live in a box, yea?

And, har har, what is that "something else" anyway? How would you call it? Seriously, have you never heard the word melody being used to describe things? For example, I can well say "the melody of traffic," to imply the musical connotation I hear in that series of sounds.

Ps: And BY THE WAY, what makes you think Lachenmann's music has no defined pitches and rhythms? His music has quite plenty of pitches and rhythms as far as I know. Really now, if all it takes for you to accept something as a melody is for it to have defined pitches and rhythms, then well gee traffic may as well also apply. Hell, everything might apply. Pitch is everywhere in everything, as is rhythm (and even then there are arhythmic melodies, lol)

I tried out a few of those Lachenmann pieces - where do you see melody in those? If there is melody, and it doesn't have pitch, or rhythm, how is it melody... seriously? Melody must have defined pitches and rhythms, if something doesn't have these, you're going to have to call it something else because you're gonna confuse loads of people by saying these pieces all have melody in them. I think if a composer does enough to veil any sort of melody, to conceal it or obscure it, they are defeating the purpose of having a melody in the sense of the term. Perhaps we're mistaking this word with "motifs."

Well, you may be confusing people with it, but just using a different term as soon as something doesn't fall completely within what people are perfectly used to would obfuscate our terminology even more, such as if we started to call rhythms without a regular beat not "rhythms" anymore or harmonies that aren't built from thirds "harmonies". But sure, I agree that in the case of "melody" it -is- a term that's historically very strongly tied to pitch successions - but at the same time it is also a term that has a now long history of being used in very different contexts. Terms such as "Klangfarbenmelodie" are now almost 100 years old and are a part of the vocabulary of a lot of composers, so this usage is pretty much established, even if not every guy on the street will be aware of it (but they also won't be aware of a lot of other musical terminology).

The main aspect, as I mentioned before, is just the focus on musical linearity, in contrast to separated elements - and this difference is one that has occupied many composers intensively. Especially in the 1950s many composers distinctly wanted to get away from a linearly conceived music, away from processes of development and connected musical elements - towards a music where every sound just stood for itself, as a sonic object, to be able to be listened to without hierarchies, even "without context". These are, as I said, typical ideas of early 1950s serialism and Cage's/Feldman's aleatoric works. The notion of "sounds just for themselves, without a connection to the previous sounds" has of course also a bit of a political/ideological aspect in its similarity to the desire of said composers in that time to be completely independant of the music of the past (in the case of the European composers this also had to do with wanting to start completely fresh after WW2, in the case of Cage et al. it was probably more inspired by eastern philosophy, i.e. to get away from the strongly directed and deterministic idea of development that dominated Europe from the 19th century until far into the 20th century).

Anyways: These composers soon realized that this idea was not too realistic on a practical level, since no matter how independantly from each other they conceived their sounds, the listener would always unconsciously (or consciously) try to "connect the dots" and hear lines and melodies even where there actually weren't any. Ligeti wrote at length about this effect concerning Boulez' "Structures" for instance. And Cage, while he still wished for the independance of his musical objects, was still "painfully aware" that to some degree this was utopic. He for example mentioned in an interview how much he'd love never having seen/experienced anything before and being able to see a can of Coke as if he'd never seen it before.

From this point on, linear and "melodic" thought became again much more important even for these composers. The serialism even of just the late 1950s is totally different from the early one, focusing much more on whole -groups- of sounds than single ones, working with more dominant sounds and "ornaments", featuring strong and clearly audible gestures/contours, etc. Lachenmann's music also went through similar stages, and while a lot of his music certainly is very "noisy", it still tends to have strong linear connections between the elements, and the extended techniques are always embedded within a system of gestures and sound qualities which form a whole in which he moves, in contrast to being separated "effects" (as many other composers use similar techniques).

And it definitely has nothing to do with "motifs". Most music of Lachenmann (and similar composers) I'm aware of certainly doesn't have any motifs, but I still hear it as distinctly melodic.

Why don't we just QUIT ARGUING ABOUT IT, quit telling each other how to write music and JUST GET TO WRITING IT OURSELVES? Go! Now! And shut up, because you know damn well your efforts at convincing others out of their own ways are futile.

I think this forum would be a bit pointless if we weren't arguing and just concentrating on doing our own thing. What's wrong with an exchange of ideas? We may not convince others of our ideas, but at least we are raising questions about things some people would just take for granted otherwise - which keeps us thinking. I don't think it ever hurts to think about the music you (and others!) are writing, to not only approach composition from a purely intuitive side but have an intellectual process involved as well - and an exchange of thoughts (even if maybe not always as productive as we may hope) is an important part of that.

Re, SSC:

If I could call it something else while trying not to offend half the people on this site, I would likely refer to it more as "organised collections of varying sounds," with "melody" being a more specific term underneath that. Lachenmann's pieces (those that I just heard in the exception of say... that guiro imitation) had defined pitches in defined rhythms, but he has no melodies in pitches or rhythms. If he did, I would recognise them. I can recognise a "melody" used by Bach, Mozart, or Hindemith, or a tone row in Schoenberg (usually). In context, out of context, or in foreign contexts. I can hear O Tannenbaum in a foreign mode in a foreign tempo and recognise it because it is defined by the notes it roughly consists of in the rhythm it's roughly in. I can swing a Bach partita and still recognise it as that Bach partita. Mouvement in particular has nothing to do with any of this - you can't sing the melody in this. You can't hear the pitches in recogniseable rhythms, it's all abstracted to the point that I'm convinced it's not even there, provided it actually is. So then why have it? Why call it melody then? No matter how exact it is, it behaves like organised noises. I don't say traffic has melodies, I say "the noise of traffic." Who doesn't? Cars make noise, not music.

In my opinion, a person has to be able to sing something accurately for it to be a melody. Anything else is a musical idea, but not "melody." Yes, that's my opinion. I have no intentions of trying to force this on anyone else, nor do I have any intentions on standing firm on this conclusion. It's where I stand now. I have made clear how *I* view all this and am not prepared to speak on the behalf of other people in saying that everybody should agree this is what and so on. If it seems like I'm trying to, I apologise, it's not what I am trying to do.

The main aspect, as I mentioned before, is just the focus on musical linearity, in contrast to separated elements - and this difference is one that has occupied many composers intensively. Especially in the 1950s many composers distinctly wanted to get away from a linearly conceived music, away from processes of development and connected musical elements - towards a music where every sound just stood for itself, as a sonic object, to be able to be listened to without hierarchies, even "without context".

Yes, and composers are welcome to do this. They always have been, and eventually they explored that way. They explored in this opposite direction for once. I just find it misleading to think of music that accomplishes this as being on the same level as this music that focuses on a linear progression, as you mention. By level I don't mean one deserves more respect or is better, I just think they should be regarded as two different things, equally respected for what they are. Melody makes most people think of ... well, melodies. What I think when I here the word "melody" is something like a number from Oklahoma or The Sound of Music. Roughly, "tonal" music. Then there is music that consists of "melodies" that is of completely different nature, so I think it should be called something else to avoid this confusion, because (at least in my mind) it's something completely different, despite a shared idea. Similar to how a boat and a submarine accomplish a shared task - marine travel - yet they each have particularities that distinguish them from one another to the point where they're completely different.

I think this forum would be a bit pointless if we weren't arguing and just concentrating on doing our own thing. What's wrong with an exchange of ideas? We may not convince others of our ideas, but at least we are raising questions about things some people would just take for granted otherwise - which keeps us thinking. I don't think it ever hurts to think about the music you (and others!) are writing, to not only approach composition from a purely intuitive side but have an intellectual process involved as well - and an exchange of thoughts (even if maybe not always as productive as we may hope) is an important part of that.

Yes yes, you're right and I actually agree with you on all points here. I guess I'm just fed up with seeing these same arguments over and over with no end in sight.

...as with anything like this, we're come to the "gorge of unquantifiable definitions". What sounds "melodic" and musical to me is obviously vastly different for James and others. What is "melody" - no one knows, and at the same time: everyone knows.

:whistling:

I don't say traffic has melodies, I say "the noise of traffic." Who doesn't? Cars make noise, not music.

I don't. And cars make really nice music, to me. What was that about speaking only for yourself?

No matter how exact it is, it behaves like organised noises.

I actually don't think anyone here would disagree with this. They -are- organised noises. But that's just a very broad general term, especially since "organised" can mean so many different things musically.

I don't say traffic has melodies, I say "the noise of traffic." Who doesn't? Cars make noise, not music.

I don't say traffic has melodies either. But that doesn't have anything to do with Lachenmann's music, if all you connect them by is that they "contain noise" (pretty much anything we hear does). So I don't think this is very relevant to this topic, really.

And if you're really saying that noise and music are separate things, then you better never listen to unpitched percussion.

To all the people that wrote paragraphs about how stupid I am, I didn't mean that we should ignore the past. Just that in order for it to be relevant today it needs to be reinterpreted into new idioms, thus "moving on" from the old styles.

Nobody is telling you what to write or to have fun, but lets face it if you write in a purely classical or romantic style you aren't going to break new ground and it isn't going to be relevant today unless you significantly diverge from that old style.

"mel

To nit-pick some more, if you think it started with Bach, you're way wrong. See Marenzio's madrigal Solo e pensoso for an example. Oh hey, what's that that's he's using as a his melody (hint: it starts with an 'A' and ends with a "scending and descending chromatic scale")?

Also, if you guys really think "noise" in music is a new phenomenon, you really need to re-look at the history of music. Specifically from Satie on. But also all of it.

A lot of you need to open your ears and get over your bigoted views.

I didn't say it started with Bach. I said, "...even as far back as Bach..."

Nitpicker! :)

In my opinion, a person has to be able to sing something accurately for it to be a melody. Anything else is a musical idea, but not "melody." Yes, that's my opinion. I have no intentions of trying to force this on anyone else, nor do I have any intentions on standing firm on this conclusion. It's where I stand now. I have made clear how *I* view all this and am not prepared to speak on the behalf of other people in saying that everybody should agree this is what and so on. If it seems like I'm trying to, I apologise, it's not what I am trying to do..

lolwut

So if a melody is not immediately recognizable and singable, then it's not a melody? Plenty of people can listen to Mozart and just hear "pretty noise" without really ever picking up on a melody. Now, granted, those people generally are not musically inclined at all but so what? It can sometimes take me several listens before I really recognize a melody in a piece. Most people couldn't sign a tone row by Berg but his music is heavily melodic. Of for a more personal example, the latest piece I'm working on is heavily melodic yet you've said yourself that you were unable to recognize anything "melodic" half the time.

But I guess this all ties into your philosophy that any music that is not instantly understood and likable is not worth your time. So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

James... haha, I think you forget, the human voice in general can sing almost ANYTHING and imitate almost EVERY instrument. In fact, you give me flight of the bumble bee by Korsakov, and I'll bet with about a week I can sing the melody.

So, you're position is quite strong... and I will agree, traffic isn't melodic music...(THIS IS TO EVERYONE) But, there is MORE than just melodic music. Traffic to me seems like a very polyphonic piece... each is an independent line that builds to the whole, but it's not melodic. Melody HAS to be one line... if you say that Traffic has melody, you are incorrect, cause the composer doesn't have the power to bring ONE "line" up from the others, there for it is completely Polyphonic and they all contribute in musical socialism. haha.

What I said up there, that was half me joking, and me half being VERY serious. I was being serious in a playful way. ;)

... Melody HAS to be one line... if you say that Traffic has melody, you are incorrect

Don't try and present your opinions in such a cut-and-dried factual way... here, I'll fix it for you:

... Melody to me HAS to be one line... if you say that Traffic has melody, I will think you are incorrect

;)

I happen to have a different persepctive...there's no way you can say something "has to" or "must" be one way or another...

also...

[with traffic]...the composer doesn't have the power to bring ONE "line" up from the others...

When dealing with normal traffic, your statement is accurate...but what if I were to "compose" for traffic, and have "performers" placed in said traffic (perhaps with different sounding engines and horns)... I could EASILY have the power to bring one "line" up from the others.

This is getting into perception and intent... Traffic is traffic, until someone intends it to be heard as a melody or as music...

dig?

Yes, but explain to me how melody can be more than one line? Doesn't it then become harmony?