Old terminology in modern context

Since the other thread got closed for no good reason and the topic is still interesting, how about starting a new one with a more open stance. Here's a few questions that I think would be interesting to discuss:

1) How does terminology like "melody" and "harmony" apply within a modern context? Should it apply at all? Should we ditch it and come up with new terminology? If so, on what would we base it on?

2) If using old terminology in new context means redefining it, to what extent can this be useful? Like, for example, analysis?

3) Do these definitions and terminology have any impact in the way you write or think about music? (IE, melody should be X, so I write X.) And, if we agreed to change them to fit a new context, would that significantly alter how you write or view music?

Ok. I dig!

1) Well. I feel that music has been an ever evolving process, on this we can agree. We have come to the point where, in our endeavors for something "original", we have defied the concept of strict rules. This has been happening since music began! In the Classical period, composers sought something new, so they evolved through Baroque, through the Romantic period, and music has just kept expanding. There were things done in the 20th century that someone in the Classical period might have "killed" themselves over. Dissonances unresolved, electric guitars... haha. Just joking. But, in all seriousness, I think that we called Melody and Harmony BACK THEN. And, we called it melody and harmony in the Baroque period... and in the Romantic period... and in the 20th Century. It's all the same, just the convention has changed. We have a more open idea of what we can call harmony and melody. Personally, I don't see any reason to change the definition or change the words since nobody else has ever done it. I think it does still apply... I really do think nothing has "changed", just a natural evolution.

2) I think we can apply new concepts and ideas to old terminology. Think about it... an ornament in Classical music has a COMPLETELY different definition of the Baroque period. But, we identify them as the same thing, right? It's played differently. We should work to apply old ideas to new ones. An example is being done in newer works like this: A popular addition to a chord is a 9th. To many people, it sounds pretty and is a nice addition to a chord. It has become socially acceptable to name the chord a 2 chord. So, if a chord read "C D E G", we could say it is a C2 chord. Not a Csus2 which is "C D G". BUt, if we were to do analysis on it... we might have to alter the figured bass type of expression. That would take more work. we would have to find out what chords are most common and name newer non chord tones. But hey... like I said, that's a lot of work. I think that we are in more of an expressionist period... and experimentation is part of our musical society. As we come up with new techniques, hopefully it will level out.

3) No. This is really simple for me... I don't tend to confine myself to a "method". But, I use theory to help me when I need ideas... I always know I am safe using a V-I cadence... I know what inversions to use if I need to... but no, I don't use anything to "define" what I write. On the other hand, I would be more than willing to participate in a conversation on how we might update theory to better our sound in general. But, we should take into account those who don't WANT newer theory or ideas... These classic lovers who enjoy the complex simplicity that is Classical Music. And, I enjoy it too! I don't want to see Music Theory as a starting point changed... I feel as though we should try and update it, sure... but not change it.

I'll post my take on it before I address anything else:

1) I think that old terminology overall is context-sensitive when it comes to modern music. I can definitely see "melodies" in pieces which by some definitions have none, but I also think that the term here is lacking. I wouldn't probably use it in a serious analysis in that way.

My problem is really, in retrospective, trying to apply a term to a piece because it "sounds like it has a melody" without really knowing if it should as well be called a melody anymore or maybe it's something entirely different that perhaps serves the same "function" (horizontal/timeline progression of notes and/or sounds.)

Though for quick reference, or so someone can understand what you're talking about casually, I don't think it's too bad to refer to something as "melodic" or having a melody, even if further explanation is probably required to see how that might apply.

2) If adapting the term "melody" to fit a modern context, whichever it may be, is to be meaningful it has to have a defined function that helps understand the music being talked about or explained. In this case, maybe it would be better to ditch terminology altogether and treat each case without resorting to having to redefine everything again and again (which is the norm anyway.)

But, finding a way to fit this terminology in an analysis context could be helpful. Again, it comes down to maybe being able to say something about X piece in a way that is easy to grasp by relation alone. For example if you point at traffic and say it sounds like a "melody" to you, the implication is clear even if the actual technical meaning of the word is stretched. In situations like these the implication and purpose of the statement perhaps are more important than the technical correctness of the word.

I suppose stretching the meaning as necessary is not such a bad idea, and better than totally redefining the words to fit anything.

3) For me, no. If I could make more broad use of old terms for new pieces though it may be easier to explain some things to others without digressing too much, but I can't say I'd see things any differently. Maybe others would though.

I think I started the short chain of posts that locked the other topic, so sorry about that, but hey. Ad hominem "arguments" are justified if the person being targeted is disrupting the flow of conversation due to their behavior. But that's the last I'll say on that.

I think "melody" is almost as flexible as "music"... but even so, I think a safe and sufficiently general definition might be: a sequence of pitches that serves as a focal point and memorable part of a piece of music. Counterexamples might be an improvised solo or a fill, but still. Many things can be melodies, including atonal and serialist stuff, but I think a good melody is one you can sing, a catchy melody is one you can't stop singing, and a great melody is one you can't stop singing because you don't want to.

Sleep now, more later...

1) How does terminology like "melody" and "harmony" apply within a modern context? Should it apply at all? Should we ditch it and come up with new terminology? If so, on what would we base it on?

The paradox here is that adding new terminology would be both proactive and counterproductive. First, NO, 'melody' and 'harmony' don't apply globally to music if we consider these terms in some concrete way, which we should if we are using them to define components of the abstract concept of music. But coming up with new terminology is only confusing because of the similarities that do exist between what generally falls outside the realm of the common terms. What results is a meaningless term for anything that doesn't fit the mold... a placebo term that takes up space and mental energy in considering it within the abstract universe of music.

Which is why new music terminology seldom survives if it can't be used to describe something simple and concrete, which wouldn't be a problem even if context was necessary when using the term. It's just that in casual discussion (like discussions here at YC) the context is often ignored while the terminology is used either absolutely or universally without any concrete meaning to support it's appropriateness. I.E., if you're going to call a tone row a melody, it's not enough to say, "Well, you have to be more open-minded..." There should be a context in which a tone row is a melody that transcends the intended result, not just an arbitrary statement followed up with, "Be more open-minded, listen to/learn more about 20th Century music." But therein lies the rub, because it falls on interpretation of the listener/student/critic/peer/judge to not only agree with the truth of your statement but to apply it comprehensively in all circumstances, creating this endless chain of circular logic in discussions that rely on such terminology.

The terminology only has one real path... to exponentially expand in complexity and application until the term itself carries absolutely no meaning - without an even larger, more complex degree of provided context to clearly and absolutely express what we mean when we use the term. We already have to reference dates, composers, styles, genres, performance settings, and a huge laundry list of other details in many cases before we can even drop the 'M' (Melody) bomb or 'H' (Harmony) bomb. By that point, it's hardly even necessary to have such terminology, as the context is so clear it overshadows any meaning the terms 'Melody' or 'Harmony' would even carry, making the terms unnecessary in most instances where this subjectivity is so infectious in discussions.

Since we have no single basis on which to establish terminology as contemporary music has become much more personalized and abstract, there's really no basis for establishing universal terminology for this era of music. The list of exceptions to new terms could quite possibly exceed the length of many of the definitions. In all likelihood, we're stuck with what we have.

2) If using old terminology in new context means redefining it, to what extent can this be useful? Like, for example, analysis?

'Old' is relative... if you're talking about redefining terminology from Gregorian Chant, I really doubt it's going to cause a real problem. Redefining melody and harmony isn't going to accomplish much in the short term. Maybe 200 years from now, when melody and harmony aren't even terms people use or concepts people bother dealing with, maybe that's when it would be best to redefine them. Honestly, I don't see the point, as so much terminology would be necessary to clearly convey meaning.

The English language is insufficient to handle the level of detail necessary to clearly communicate absolute meaning in music today, and context clues are only as helpful as the knowledge-base of those you carry on discussions with... so I'd say there's little to do in the way of 'redefining' terminology at this stage of music history. But I've been wrong before, and if you have ideas, by all means share them so we can (dis)approve of them. :)

3) Do these definitions and terminology have any impact in the way you write or think about music? (IE, melody should be X, so I write X.) And, if we agreed to change them to fit a new context, would that significantly alter how you write or view music?

It would complicate things in discussion, but not creatively. I can see trying to argue a point while trying to implement 'new terminology' and it still become entirely insufficient in communicating my thoughts. But creatively, I'm really not going to care.

1) In general, music is more or less melodic, not melodic or amelodic. Generally, when pieces become less melodic, they gain in another aspect of music, for example they become more rythmical, or more harmonical. Some pieces may concentrate very little on melody, rythm or harmony, and become very "sound/timbre based". Just because some music becomes quite detached from melody, doesn't mean we should abondon the term melody.

As for the actual question, "How does terminology like "melody" and "harmony" apply within a modern context?", I really don't see the problem in distinguishing terms such as melody, atonality, dissonance, etc. If that's a problem, you should distinguish between such terms before attempting to alter or "ditch" them.

2) As said above, I don't see what needs to be redefined. Maybe an example could help me?

3) The way you think about music changes as you evolve in your understanding of music. No matter what consensus there is about, for example, the term "melody", if you ask an amateur composer to write "a melody", it will most often be tonal, and quite often be in C. An experienced composer/musician will have no problem writing either a tonal or an atonal melody, or real life sounds that sound vaguely melodic. My point being, it matters little if you create a new term, or expand old ones. The music will be the same. So I guess that was a difficult way to say "no, I don't think so".