Is melody anything worth in modern art music?

Morivou - What are you apologizing for?

Oy! Sorry again, I misread your meaning of TASTE. I thought you were referring to opinion. lolz.

Its funny that people are still arguing about music -- tonal, atonal, noisy, not noisy -- as if "music" has anything to do with "melody".

I think you all need to reread that definition, which, by the way is from Webster's dictionary, and tell me where in there it mentions pitch, duration, tonality, "humability", or musicality. In fact, tell me where it says anything other than "sounds".

So yeah, to all you people still arguing that there is no melody in Lachenmann and or other "modern music", READ THE DEFINITION.

And stop being retarded.

Well, it isn't the only definition. I've read up on it a bit on Oxford's Grove Music Online (which -is- after all specialised in music), which explores the subject with many historical definitions, and most of them indeed base their definitions on pitch successions, the very early ones even on song. In short, Oxford does give the definition "A succession of notes, varying in pitch, which have an organized and recognizable shape.", which is pretty much along the lines James used it. And webster's second definition is: "2 : a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole" (and of course the term "tone" has many meanings itself). Other dictionaries define it differently again.

My main point is just that since Sch

You're the type of person I'm talking about. The evidence I have is that every non-composer I have talked to that loves classical music dislikes atonal music. Even ones who are heads of conservatories.

...

Classical music should not be a "You have to be this intelligent to listen" medium. Music fails if it becomes that.

By the way, Schoenberg, one of the first atonal composers, is not atonal? I'm glad I found that out :P

I LOL'D. But Schoenberg didn't consider his own music "atonal", and he thought the term was retarded. No, instead he talked about "floating in tonality." This is like Debussy not liking the term impressionism to describe his music, nobody cared.

And by the way all my 53000 friends listen to atonal music all the time (and they're ALL directors at prestigious conservatories and universities around the world) so you're wrong according to my EVIDENCE here! lololol.

Gardener,

Music dictionaries are no good -- especially that one. Lets not forget that Grove is the reason that people now believe Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier was composed to show off 12-tone equal temperament despite the fact that there was no way of tuning an equal temperament, and the fact that that clavier is "well tempered" (meaning in a well temperament). Aside from that, anyone can just buy their way into Grove and write whatever they want. Don't trust Grove, its one of the biggest mistakes you can make.

I'm aware of the second definition Webster gives, but there's a reason its not first. Also, "tone", like you said, doesn't necessarily mean pitch.

I'd say its pretty clearly defined.

Dictionaries are not sources of solid information, especially in cases of jargon or technicality.

Melody transcends tonality. Melody can even transcend pitch.

Don't get that? Check out some of the the early 2000s chinese music on ubuweb. That "cars-driving-by" piece that was mentioned as not existing? I think Neu or Kraftwerk did it. Check out [crap i'm getting the name wrong, but it's close; maybe tape? whatever, the point remains] Etude for Digital Delay.

It's a bit of a dubious analogy, but compare "melody" and the concepts that have been presented to the concept of subject in visual art. If subject could only be the "visually pleasing," then the Flemish masters who focused on "real life" and the grotesque. A piece that comes to mind is of a swan brutally killed by a dog.

Another example, though much more recent, is the photographer Weegee.

In other words:

IF melody is a key part of music

AND IF music is art

AND IF art can reflect life,

AND IF life has both the beautiful and the disgusting

THEN melody can be a key part in reflecting the disgusting while still remaining a melody.

[bonbonbon in the autobahn]

AND BURRESS CATCHES THE BALL! 17-14 GIANTS WIN GIANTS WIN GIANTS WIN!!!!!

Music dictionaries are no good -- especially that one. Lets not forget that Grove is the reason that people now believe Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier was composed to show off 12-tone equal temperament despite the fact that there was no way of tuning an equal temperament, and the fact that that clavier is "well tempered" (meaning in a well temperament). Aside from that, anyone can just buy their way into Grove and write whatever they want. Don't trust Grove, its one of the biggest mistakes you can make.

True, but that is the case for most other dictionaries out there as well. I frankly don't think there's any dictionary out there that you can inherently trust - mostly based on the fact that almost no facts in there are actually researched from sources by the authors, but usually just gathered from secondary sources (or put more bluntly: paraphrased or even copied from other dictionaries, which soon becomes quite evident if you look for relatively obscure topics in encyclopedias/dictionaries). The fact that pretty much no dictionary cites sources (for lack of space) should make it pretty clear that they are definitely not to be trusted blindly.

I do have an opinion on the matter of melody...

Though I find the view rather bigoted when someone argues that 20th Century music has no melody and is, therefore 'bad' or otherwise inferior to other musical styles, I think melody serves a purpose in most music. Of course it's a thin red line to cross to say that 'atonal' works have no melody, but the reality is that many of them don't have linear content that would make sense to call a 'melody'. Agreement with this will often vary based on one's own perception and personal definition of the term 'melody', but I'd like to think we can keep the discussion simple and not over-complicate it with games of semantics.

Melody is considered by many people to be something that is memorable to the listener, something that transcends the notion of organizing pitches across a horizontal, linear span of time. I've listened to a great deal of music from the 20th Century... many of the atonal works preceding 1950 intentionally obscured linear content as to eliminate 'melody' in the general sense, and it's obvious in the orchestration/composition of the work that the composer DID NOT WANT a melody. And I believe this is really what the poster is trying to respond to... that intentionally obscuring linear content to 'undo' melody is counterproductive.

I agree with this... one does not have to 'avoid' creating melody in order to create something interesting. Many of the works I appreciate, especially music by John Corigliano, John C. Adams, and many others across the spectrum of musical styles in the 20th Century, contain melodies that would otherwise baffle the uneducated listener. Still, though perplexed, the melodic content is there and is relatively easy to identify. These melodies may not take the more common "arch" shape of traditional music, but that's only a bonus for me because I appreciate the originality and am generally more interested in the work as a result.

For this reason, my personal taste favors 'melody' in music, and I'm even more pleased when the melody is more interesting and original. That being said, there's a line I draw in what I will consider a 'melody', and here are some of my criteria:

1) Does the figure have shape? One pitch strung along a rhythmic pattern is an ostinato, not a melody... and one sustained pitch is a pedal. Let's keep it real. Three sustained/ostinated pitches held over a few minutes of music, even though they might have shape, are not melodic in any discernible way.

2) Is the figure discernible from harmonic, contrapuntal material (is the line 'intended' to be melodic, or did it just appear as a result of vertical organization?)

3) Is it memorable? Note: I didn't say it had to be easy, but if I heard the figure again, would I remember it?

4) Does the orchestration indicate the material is intended to be 'melodic'? This is often a good indication for me either way.

5) Random pitches in an obscure rhythmic pattern, for me, is generally not melodic... a 12-tone row is not melodic unless the voice (or voices) carrying the melodic content are convincing (i.e., lyricism, accentuation, etc). I have my doubts that Webern's Op 22 Variations contain anything one could rationally call a melody... especially that short little diddy on the piano where the hands cross each other across the whole range of the piano (yeah, it's fun to watch and cool to hear, but a melody? not a chance...)

And these are all pretty loose criteria for deciding whether a particular linear arrangement of pitches could be considered "melodic" material. If a line could go either way, I usually give the benefit of the doubt that the composer intended for the line to sound like melodic content until I'm told otherwise.

Sometimes composers just don't like melody, and that's fine. I can accept that some people don't appreciate that aspect of music as much as others. But what I can't stand is to hear someone say, "Oh, well it does have a melody, you just have to be intelligent to understand it..." Really? No. I wholeheartedly disagree. If you, as a composer, want to have a really obscure melody, then there are ways to make that interesting AND convincing at the same time. But if you're just going to make excuses that people just don't understand you as an artist, I'm going to say (for your benefit as a composer) that you're full of scraggy and that what you intended did not come across to me (or others if I know of others who agree).

Some people 'fake it 'til they make it' and talk a big ego trip about how music is subjective and wholly a matter of individual taste. Well, this is partly true, but there's a line to draw in the sand where we have to say, for our own benefit, that didn't work, it didn't come across the way I intended, and be able to accept that not everything we do works the way we hope it will. We're NOT ALWAYS RIGHT ALL THE TIME, and even the musically uneducated opinions of others can help us maintain perspective on our objectives in the process.

This poster takes issue with some of the compositions that 'win' in competition and says they don't have melodic material. Well, I don't know if the compositions have or don't have melodic material because I have not heard these works. But if it's the case that compositions without melodic content are favored over compositions with melodic content, then there's really no doubt in my mind that subjective valuation in music is faltering into favoritism for a few styles over a broad spectrum of multiple styles.

And that's really a frustrating thing to deal with, so I think this whole discussion has some merit in the sense that if these works are being favored for not having melody, some 'academics' out there are judging based on taste instead of on quality of the work. It's happened before, so to the poster, I'd recommend you submit your works to other competitions if you're being completely hosed by the judges. There are just SO MANY contests out there... you shouldn't have a problem finding a few with more objective standards in judging your work. Keep writing and just keep your head up... a contest is just no indication of your abilities, positive or negative... it's about the subjective standards judges use in evaluating and comparing your work to others. It's a numbers game and very rarely an evaluation of your skills as an artist.

My being in choir has put me decidedly in favor of the point being asked.

...some 'academics' out there are judging based on taste instead of on quality of the work.

...

There are just SO MANY contests out there... you shouldn't have a problem finding one with more objective standards in judging your work.

I LOL'd.

So, AA, show substantial difference between taste and perceived objective "quality" of a work, thx.

Composition competitions ARE purely based on the judges' taste, it's no secret to anyone. In fact, that's also why I thing such competitions are garbage. You're just suggesting there that he enter one where the judges have similar tastes to him, lol.

Old dead horse is old.

I LOL'd.

So, AA, show substantial difference between taste and perceived objective "quality" of a work, thx.

Composition competitions ARE purely based on the judges' taste, it's no secret to anyone. In fact, that's also why I think such competitions are garbage. You're just suggesting there that he enter one where the judges have similar tastes to him, lol.

Old dead horse is old.

There's really no way to know what the tastes of judges are and whether they will look beyond their own preferences to gauge the quality of a work independently from their own personal preferences.

I think what I was trying to suggest was that this individual simply look into more contests than the one where s/he was overlooked. It's a numbers game, as I said. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but there's really no substantially 'correct' or 'incorrect' way to write for these things.

In a sense, I think what I'm also indicating is that one can judge a work based on effect and overall impact as opposed to just judging based on style. I don't know of a composer personally that would judge in this manner other than myself (or I would suggest a contest to enter), but in theory, it's possible for someone to look at the collective works of many composers/styles and come to some agreement on the effectiveness of one piece over all others, no matter what the array of styles may be.

But I will have to agree with you that composition contests are garbage... except there's money involved, so there's at least some incentive to try. Taking it personally or going off on how contemporary music has no melody isn't really the answer. I'm just trying to encourage the poster to see the big picture and move past his frustrations to be more productive.

As always, I'm happy to entertain you, SSC.

-AA

...look beyond their own preferences to gauge the quality of a work independently from their own personal preferences.

But how? If they're not judging based on their own preferences, then they'll judge based the preference of someone else. Judging requires a set of standards and parameters, who decides what those are?

But how? If they're not judging based on their own preferences, then they'll judge based the preference of someone else. Judging requires a set of standards and parameters, who decides what those are?

I imagine anyone worth their education in music should know the style dictates the standards and parameters. The preferences of the individual in the judging process are not relevant or applicable. But as we all know, there's no 'set standard' in place for judging compositions in a contest. Should there be? I think so, and the standard I would use is one that awards the most creative composer within the style the composer decides to work with... I think that would be a good start.

I imagine anyone worth their education in music should know the style dictates the standards and parameters. The preferences of the individual in the judging process are not relevant or applicable. But as we all know, there's no 'set standard' in place for judging compositions in a contest. Should there be? I think so, and the standard I would use is one that awards the most creative composer within the style the composer decides to work with... I think that would be a good start.

So what's "most creative?"

this is a real dilemma. I have thought about this, and although I am far from a person of knowledge in music history and musicology, here are some thoughts on this:

The increasing movement away from melody might be because of it's enormous order, and in a way taking speech into an art form (melodies= musical sentences).

I was very confident in the notion of music as a way of expressing intense emotions, or a way of dealing with them. Recently, I've had times that i play a single note on the piano, and it seems like too much, like it can't possibly describe what I'm feeling. It sounds synthetic. A supposed synthesis of human thought. Not only that, but also thinking that maybe (god forbid) what I'm feeling is not that important. It's regular.

This is parallel to the thought about all the world suddenly wondering whether life has a meaning. Think about it: music is a planned thing. It basically says that there is meaning in life. If you believe in music, you believe in god (not necessarily religious) in this form or another.

Unless, you devise random music. music of chaos. which is quite hard to listen to, because it basically says that there is no logic to it. It is hard to perceive and live with chaos.

To sum up, in music we search for meaning, therefore a reflection of ourselves that has meaning: helping us finding meaning in ourselves. whether it's deep emotions woken up by music's power, or a meditative order.

and with all this mind turmoil, look at the link bellow with a little smile. the composer in this video, took all this heavy talk with a light head: let's take speech, and harmonize it with cute little chords! :)

have a nice day

Dor

Note that you can write a very organized piece of music that has no traditional-styled melody anywhere in it and, likewise, you can write a rather traditional melody with totally random backing. Both cases are "in between" what you're saying is order or chaos. As for the god thing I have no idea what you're talking about.

so:

about order: another thing I'd like to say, that from my point of view, order has a acoustic quality only if it is not perceived as an analytical approach to music, of creating order just for the sake of it, but rather as a tool for bringing the acoustic state of mind of the piece out: whether it's the fate- like recurrence of themes in Beethoven's 5th' or the meditative value of the Bach's inventions and well- tempered clavier. My

point being- order is a key thing in music, but up to a point. as Schoenberg said (although i don't like his music too much currently)- "You need to love the way it sounds."

---------

about god:

When i say 'god', i mean the absence of random: "god does not play dice." (a. Einstein). When you identify with a certain piece of music you compare the "ordinary" world, your world, with music. "Identify", meaning you find the same pre- planned occurrence of music, in your own life. you find the god-like planning in your life.

Please kill this thread ...ooooh preetty please!!!!!!!!!!

I second what Flint says.

And atonalism is nothing new, for your information

Atonalism is not something that is the product of contemporary times... it's been around for almost a hundred years.

^^^^^ This

I imagine anyone worth their education in music should know the style dictates the standards and parameters.

[...]

I think so, and the standard I would use is one that awards the most creative composer within the style the composer decides to work with... I think that would be a good start.

I imagine anyone worth their education in music should know that most contemporary composers would look at you strangely if you told them any style dictated them any standards and parameters…

Most composers I know don't go actively out to "write in a style". They certainly tend to write by standards and parameters they have set for themselves, which may be influenced by "styles" and can lead to the perception of a style, if it repeats in enough different pieces, but that's hardly a criterion for quality. (And personally I've always preferred the music of composers who didn't just take comfort in a style they found.)

But maybe the term "style" was simply a poor choice of words and you just meant "a set of standards and parameters a composer may decide on"? That makes a little bit more sense, but in that case you are saying "if a music conforms to the standards the composer has set for it well (and "creatively", whatever that means), it is good" - making the actual decision for this set of standards (or what you call "style") irrelevant. In other words: "If you meet your goals, whatever they are, you're great".

According to that model of judging competitions I therefore would enter a piece in my newly proclaimed style "write a F#".

Either that, or you are actually talking about styles in a much more fixed way ("what musicologists have determined to be a style and written books about it") - in which case I really think you should reconsider taking something like "style" into account here…

Please kill this thread ...ooooh preetty please!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I find the question in the topic title quite interesting. It's just too bad that it already became apparent how fixed certain prejudices are already in the first post. If the topic was approached from a more neutral, general side it might actually have yielded one or two interesting results.

I imagine anyone worth their education in music should know that most contemporary composers would look at you strangely if you told them any style dictated them any standards and parameters…

Most composers I know don't go actively out to "write in a style". They certainly tend to write by standards and parameters they have set for themselves, which may be influenced by "styles" and can lead to the perception of a style, if it repeats in enough different pieces, but that's hardly a criterion for quality. (And personally I've always preferred the music of composers who didn't just take comfort in a style they found.)

As a general principle, I've come to accept that there is no individual style that does not come from or otherwise 'germinate' from an existing style or more than one style meshed together. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousands of different ways musical taste can shape into a truly unique sound, but a contest in composition should take into consideration the 'execution' of one's personal sound in consideration of the styles which influence it.

This certainly isn't meant to put music in boxes with labels, but if there is clearly a style or styles are apparent in the work, the execution of the work should be considered based on some basis of pre-existing material. The creative aspect, what the composer does as an exception to the style(s) or extraordinarily well within it/them, should also be taken into consideration. The ultimate point I'm making is that taste has nothing to do with either of these aforementioned items that COULD be used in the judging process.

But we all know that personal taste is the overwhelming factor in most cases, which is nothing more than pure dumb luck. It's really no different than writing a Pop song, doing all the things that 'Hit' songs have, and not ending up with a 'Hit'. It's pure dumb luck based on people's tastes, and the only way to get around that is to just be persistent in submitting scores to contests until something wins. It's a numbers game, like I said.

The ultimate point I'm making is that taste has nothing to do with either of these aforementioned items that COULD be used in the judging process.

Taste has everything to do with it, unless your standard of judgment can be as well done by a machine. Just compare notes until "the best match to X style according to X criteria (picked at random by a machine) wins." Remember, everything you're talking about should be able to be done without a person if it has nothing to do with taste or their personal opinion. Machines are great at working with raw data, so there you go.

But obviously you're just missing the point. You can't separate taste from art judgment unless you're not talking about art anymore, just raw data comparison. Even then you have to arbitrarily decide which is "better" since there's no absolute purpose (and purposes can ALSO be assigned arbitrarily.) Unfortunately this has all been said ad nauseum before; if you didn't get it then, you won't get it now.

Taste has everything to do with it, unless your standard of judgment can be as well done by a machine. Just compare notes until "the best match to X style according to X criteria (picked at random by a machine) wins." Remember, everything you're talking about should be able to be done without a person if it has nothing to do with taste or their personal opinion. Machines are great at working with raw data, so there you go.

But obviously you're just missing the point. You can't separate taste from art judgment unless you're not talking about art anymore, just raw data comparison. Even then you have to arbitrarily decide which is "better" since there's no absolute purpose (and purposes can ALSO be assigned arbitrarily.) Unfortunately this has all been said ad nauseum before; if you didn't get it then, you won't get it now.

Sure, SSC. Whatever you say. I'm not interested in debating this point with you or anyone else who just arbitrarily accepts, without question, that every discussion about art EVER is completely and totally subjective (there's really no reason to have ANY discussion about music and therefore no purpose for this forum, if that's the case). Contests can be judged differently is all I am saying (as in, judges COULD factor in more objective criterion should they choose to do so...) and yes, there are actual algorithms out there that do the sort of thing I am discussing (and upon more complex variables than musical style), though they have not been applied specifically to the field of music composition contests. I see no reason why they could not be... if you really want to leave it all up to computers to decide. I'm actually still for judges with composition expertise to judge these contests, but not if all they're going to do is decide based on personal taste. I say you're better off leaving it up to a machine if judges aren't going to put any further effort into the process, or just put an end to all contests period.

Either way, I really just don't care enough about this discussion of taste to say anymore about it.

Sure, SSC. Whatever you say. I'm not interested in debating this point with you or anyone else who just arbitrarily accepts, without question, that every discussion about art EVER is completely and totally subjective (there's really no reason to have ANY discussion about music and therefore no purpose for this forum, if that's the case).

Eh? Talking about which guitar is bigger is also a discussion about music that can be totally objective! Or how about which piece has the most notes in 4 minutes? That can also be relatively objective (so long as we agree on what "notes" are.)

But you're talking about judgment. "Good or bad" judgment. THOSE will never, ever, ever be objective no matter how much you cry about it. And, if you do want to claim they can be, you are welcome as you have always been to put your money where your mouth is and actually make a coherent argument for it.

As I said back then with the test of time fiasco, you have some Nobel prizes waiting for you if you do come up with a way to objectively (no people involved) judge "good" from "bad" art.

And:

here are actual algorithms out there that do the sort of thing I am discussing (and upon more complex variables than musical style)

Oh really? Algorithms to decide which music is superior? Where are they? How do they work?

For someone who has no interest in discussing, you sure talk a lot crap.