Memorable Music: Method or Mystery?

So I'm not a very well-read individual where it concerns the technical or biological aspects of memory storage within the brain. I've seen arguments about it where it concerns music, though. I recently listened to a piece where a melody seemed to jump all over the place, a piece that 10 seconds after listening to it I was unable to remember (any of it). It just didn't give me anything to associate parts of it with other parts and was slightly too complex for my ears to absorb, process, and store what I was hearing.

I listened again. Same problem. I had heard the piece and not even a minute elapsed before the melody of the song had completely escaped my memory. Some might say, "Well, maybe you didn't like the song." Maybe. If that's the case, why am I able to remember material from pieces I don't "like"? Sure, we can say liking something sometimes makes it easier to absorb, process, and store what we hear. But I don't like For John Cage by Morton Feldman. I can recall the opening notes of the work, still. I can bring to mind other tunes that don't appeal to me, so is it some mysterious process that occurs?

OR, is "memorable" music some how constructed differently? Is it memorable for reasons other than liking or not liking it? I happen to think that there is at least -something- to say about music that is memorable that has nothing to do at all with liking or not liking it. I happen to believe a great deal of this has to do with the simplicity and referential treatment of granular portions of a piece that help us, at least aurally, form connections that eventually help us absorb, process, and store what we hear.

So, I'm looking for feedback from the community. Is Memorable Music a product of something entirely mysterious to us, something we can't point to specifically? Or is there something methodical in the creation/composition of music that structurally helps us process and store what we hear?

And here's the -kicker- question... does music even need to be written for the purpose of being remembered after hearing it? Why or why not?

So I'm not a very well-read individual where it concerns the technical or biological aspects of memory storage within the brain. I've seen arguments about it where it concerns music, though. I recently listened to a piece where a melody seemed to jump all over the place, a piece that 10 seconds after listening to it I was unable to remember (any of it). It just didn't give me anything to associate parts of it with other parts and was slightly too complex for my ears to absorb, process, and store what I was hearing.

I listened again. Same problem. I had heard the piece and not even a minute elapsed before the melody of the song had completely escaped my memory.

You remember a 'comprehensible' melody because it shares various melodic fragments with hundreds of other melodies you've heard before. Memory is all about links. A current theory is that, technically, everything that ever happens is stored... but you can only "remember" it if you can find something that links into it. This happens volunatarily and involuntarily.. like how a smell can trigger memories etc. etc.

And back to your melody, I bet that a singer very well trained in solfege would have a better memory of it than ordinary mortals because each interval they hear is strongly linked to memories of each particular interval they sing in training, and both of these will be linked to a very strong *contept* of each interval in their brain. And so when it comes to recall, they have another source of links to the original melody.

Some might say, "Well, maybe you didn't like the song." Maybe. If that's the case, why am I able to remember material from pieces I don't "like"? Sure, we can say liking something sometimes makes it easier to absorb, process, and store what we hear. But I don't like For John Cage by Morton Feldman. I can recall the opening notes of the work, still. I can bring to mind other tunes that don't appeal to me, so is it some mysterious process that occurs?

If you attribute importance to something while it is occuring, this seems to produce stronger links, which allows the memory to be more easily accessed. This is why you can often remember trivial details from an event when you were really scared. So if you aren't enjoying something, you're likely to be paying it less attention and therefore the memory recall will be worse. (well, I'm stating this scientifically but this is mostly based on empirical data)

OR, is "memorable" music some how constructed differently? Is it memorable for reasons other than liking or not liking it? I happen to think that there is at least -something- to say about music that is memorable that has nothing to do at all with liking or not liking it. I happen to believe a great deal of this has to do with the simplicity and referential treatment of granular portions of a piece that help us, at least aurally, form connections that eventually help us absorb, process, and store what we hear.

Liking or disliking is only one indirect factor.

Simplicity means that 1) it is slower, and therefore you have more time to process it. 2) you are more likely to possess memories of similar melodies, or ones that share motifs or intervals. A complex melody is less likely to match previous aural memories.

So, I'm looking for feedback from the community. Is Memorable Music a product of something entirely mysterious to us, something we can't point to specifically? Or is there something methodical in the creation/composition of music that structurally helps us process and store what we hear?

The way memory actually works is a total mystery to neutorscientists! The only data they have is observing the way people work (i.e. observing the effects of memory, rather than HOW it works).

And here's the -kicker- question... does music even need to be written for the purpose of being remembered after hearing it? Why or why not?

Intension on the composer's part isn't necessary for its effects. Just think music that makes you laugh because it's bad, despite the sincerity of the composer.

Take a listen to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20030529.shtml Click the "Listen Again" link. I love this show! I seem to remember discussions better when spoken rather than written... but that's another issue.

why am I able to remember material from pieces I don't "like"?

Memory has to do with making connections in your brain. The more associations you have with any experience, the stronger your memory will be because your brain has made more connections to that memory. For example: if someone's practiced the piano all of their life, they will not easily forget how to play. Sure, you might forget individual pieces every now and then, but your brain has thought out playing the piano so much, you'll remember something.

The same idea applies to liking or disliking a piece. If it had just been a piece that you didn't have any feelings towards, you would forget about it. But, because you feel so strongly about "For John Cage", your brain has made more connections to that piece and you remember it more.

Now, this theory works for remembering a piece in general. But it might not adequately explain why you forgot that first melody you described since you didn't like that either. Maybe because the only thoughts you could associate with that complex melody were utter confusion. You can't remember the words of a foreign language because you can't understand it.

It just didn't give me anything to associate parts of it with other parts and was slightly too complex for my ears to absorb, process, and store what I was hearing.

I agree with you're saying: seemingly random melodies are unforgettable, unless we can understand it, thereby making more connections.

Your main question is what makes memorable music. As I've said, liking or disliking a piece can help you remember it, but the main idea is about making connections. If you find yourself humming a catchy tune, your making connections and strengthening your memory. The same goes for playing music. The physical sensations of hitting the notes of a piano when playing a piece adds more details to the memory of that piece. Quick little conclusion, the more connections you make about a piece, the more memorable it is to you.

One last quick idea: repetition. You're more likely to remember a section that gets repeated. If a composer like Beethoven repeats a 4 note motif throughout a Symphony (no. 5, perhaps ;) ) that too will strengthen your memory of the motif and the piece.

And here's the -kicker- question... does music even need to be written for the purpose of being remembered after hearing it? Why or why not?

By itself, music does not need to be written down to be remembered after hearing it. There is not a logical connection between writing down music and someone's memory of music since the written material does not have to be, and often isn't, involved in someone's listening experience. Now, if it was written down, it could be transmitted more easily to more people (like monks transcribing chants and teaching it to more students and future generations). That way, a piece could be remembered for hundreds of years. But, for that song you hear on the radio, a written score is unnecessary for you to remember it.

Overall, memorable melodies mystify me. I don't know all the ingredients to make one, but I know it has something to do with repetition and making connections in your brain.

Peace,

-John

DJ, we're on the same wavelength.

thanks dude lol

I don't have the experience to comment on technical aspects of brain function and memory storage, but I do think there's a lot to be said about parallel cases. That is, once you start to absorb and understand a style it becomes much easier to remember new pieces with similar characteristics. It's simple to filter out music we don't understand or connect with, and such music tends to be less memorable. There's also something to be said about repetition. I think repetition forces us to absorb and store musical ideas, as long as we don't tune the repetition out. And it's easier to remember something short and sweet rather than long and verbose. By "sweet" I mean easy to sing. If we can easily mimic a piece of music with our voices or by whistling then we can physically reinforce the music.

And here's the -kicker- question... does music even need to be written for the purpose of being remembered after hearing it? Why or why not?

I don't know if this is a kicker, more like a matter of philosophy. Music, to me, need not be written for the purpose of being remembered for any particular content, like melody. What is more important is the remembering of the idea of the music. That is, remembering that a piece of music made you feel a certain way or presented sounds in an intriguing way. It's more about enjoyment of the moment rather than being able to reenact the moment (in or out of your head). I have to go but maybe I'll write more on this later.

I'll refrain from entering discussion with follow up thoughts on the topic so others who haven't commented yet have a chance. I'm still on the fence. :)

I'll refrain from entering discussion with follow up thoughts on the topic so others who haven't commented yet have a chance. I'm still on the fence. :)

What are you on the fence about? (reply at your leisure :D)

Man, I'm going to reply again since I want to see more of my avatar :sleep:

Ahhhhhhh

Mmmm, you're making me hungry and I just ate!

So back to music written for the purpose of being remembered after hearing it. While I would like my music to remain in the heads of people who hear it and while most artists like the idea of their work being remembered after they are gone, I don't think music needs to be composed with the intention of having it remembered. For motivic music (like a Beethoven symphony or a John Williams score) I think the composer tends to write on the basis that the listener will remember the motive(s). The work itself is based on that idea. Would the scene in E.T. where Elliott flies on a bike with the moon in the background be as compelling if Williams didn't build the listener up with motives to this musical climax?

On the other hand, what about the composer of aleatoric music, or music with random aspects? I have to doubt aleatoric music is written with the intention of having others remember what they've heard, in a strict sense. This music, in my experience, is often for effect. The composer may even only have a vague idea of how it will sound.

Often when I hear contemporary concert works I do not remember the music (melody, exact rhythm, chord progressions) but I tend to remember unique orchestration and how I feel about particular moments. When I first listen to unfamiliar music I tend to experience moment by moment and see what sounds I enjoy rather than actively trying to piece together a unified whole (sometimes an understanding of unity, if it is there, comes together naturally). But I often need multiple listens to see the big picture if there is one (sometimes all you have to go by is a compositional procedure). I'm starting to digress, but I was heading to the point that some composers (like John Cage or Takemitsu) write for the moment rather than for long-lasting specific memory. My own music has started to go this way. In the past I always wrote what I considered catchy, accessible melodies and now I am more tempted to write freer flowing lines with more lenient counterpoint and harmony. It's an aesthetic, I think, that I've started to inherit from limited Japanese studies and from playing a flute traditionally associated with meditation. I've become interested in wind performers' breathing and in giving more control to performers of my works. So for some of my works I don't intend for others to be humming my melodies or pounding out my rhythms, but I don't think I can ever give up melody that's appealing to me (even if it's not accessible), rhythm (even if it's open to interpretation), and, of course, unity. However, I do intend for my music to be an enjoyable experience for me, and hopefully a memorable experience for others. I don't always care whether or not specific elements of the music are remembered.

So, as a more direct answer to your question, I will say no because for some composers the experience of the music is more important than a listener's remembrance of specific musical elements. But I suppose this could be debated in other ways since the definitions of words in your question (like what it means to remember and what things get remembered) are open to interpretation.

What are you on the fence about? (reply at your leisure :D)

I'm on the fence about whether music -should- be memorable. But more than that, I want the discussion to move forward since, in past threads I've begun, once I start a topic then return to discuss it, the thread dies. It's like I'm cursed with the bookending spell where once I open the can of worms and then jump in, the worms all leave and the discussion ends.

I know, maybe I'm just paranoid. I just want more people to contribute before I jump back in, just in the hopes that when I do the thread will be active enough that my re-entry won't kill it...

I doubt that makes ANY sense. :P

and by thanks, i meant thanks for bashing my music lol. i know you meant mine.

and by thanks, i meant thanks for bashing my music lol. i know you meant mine.

No one is bashing your music, BDW. The only person referencing -YOUR- music in this thread is you.

Furthermore, in posing the question of whether or not music -should- be memorable, it's obvious I'm open to insight from others and in search of opinions about music generally, which in no way points a finger at you.

So, sorry if you felt I was bashing your music. That was not my intent here at all.

If there's enough interest I can ask this question to some of the neurologists I know from the whole cognitive science side. Maybe they have something to add.

That would be cool. I just hope they can explain their views without overwhelming me with terminology. If you can get some of them to post, that would be neat!

you said you heard something at a specific time which is right after you commented my music about not being memorable lol. whatever.

you said you heard something at a specific time which is right after you commented my music about not being memorable lol. whatever.

Until you point out the post where I mentioned you, your work, or supplied a link to it on the forum, I'll simply chalk all this up to you trying to stir the pot.

Notice, I never actually said the piece in question that I'm discussing in this thread was -bad- or anything of the sort. I simply reduced this down to music being memorable.

Stop trying to derail this thread with an argument. Thanks!

-AA

No problem, but as I've said..it's pretty obvious and you trying to pretend it's not is really disgraceful to yourself and YC, OJ. Just own up to it, it's not like you bashed my piece anyway. And it's almost as obvious as your replies are in this thread without quoting me every single time.

-BDW

No problem, but as I've said..it's pretty obvious and you trying to pretend it's not is really disgraceful to yourself and YC, OJ. Just own up to it, it's not like you bashed my piece anyway. And it's almost as obvious as your replies are in this thread without quoting me every single time.

-BDW

Since you insist on arguing this point, I'll show in detail how you're taking this entirely out of context.

Here is your original post.

any tips for the melody?

Here was my response.

The melody is all over the place for me. I'm having a hard time with remembering it. I'm typing this now, and I'm unable to recall anything I just heard.

My tip would be to go back to your lyrics. Find the most important phrase or collection of words in the lyrics and use that to come up with a motif. Use that motif to create your melody. Right now you're just sort of playing piano and singing parts of scales with this, I think.

So, maybe if you find what's important to you in the lyrics, you might find a musical idea that could unite the song and make the melody memorable in the process.

Remember that simplicity is your friend where it concerns melody. Right now, I feel like your piano accompaniment is easier to remember than your melody. It should be the other way around.

Just some thoughts... hope some of them help.

Notice how I'm not -bashing- your piece in my post. I'm offering you "tips for your melody" like you asked for... so I take issue with your tone here in asking for feedback and then turning around claiming that I'm bashing your music. This is quite immature behavior on your part.

------------------------

Now, read my Opening Post of this thread and quote where I am -bashing- your piece, please. Point out where I'm telling the community that it's your piece I'm referring to... and please be sure to look at how many posts I've made on the site. Yours is not the first piece here I've listened to where I find it difficult to remember what I just listened to... unlike other works here where I'm quite capable of remembering them after the first couple of minutes.

BUT that's not even the point. I'm not even offering a judgment on this piece. I'm simply asking the community whether memorable music should be the goal, and if so, is constructing memorable music methodological or uncanny? Do we know of a way that we can write a piece so that it is memorable, or is it just a mystery to us where the variables are too numerous to account for any sure-fire way of making music memorable?

NONE of this is -bashing- your music, BDW. If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

Ok, here's what should have happened:

BDW: You're talking about my piece.

AnitA: No, I'm not.

END

Irrelevant!

Let's get back to the topic!

AntiA, did you get a chance to listen to that radio show? It's a perfect summary of current memory theory for the layperson.

DJ: It's a pretty long interview and I'll have to spend hours listening to it a few times to actually -remember- what they're saying about memory. No pun intended, of course.

I don't really think I have any objections to what they're saying, either. How do we apply this to memorable music, though?

Really? 10 seconds?

Well, I think that if a piece is memorable, it has to be interesting and have changes. Sometimes the like factor comes into play, but I've had times where I had a horrible rock tune stuck in my head. I could right off the bat sing the bassoon solo at the beginning of Rite of Spring, because not only do I like it, I find it interesting. If you were to ask me to sing something from a Mozart symphony, I wouldn't be able to do it, because I don't find it interesting and don't really like it.

So I think that interesting isn't always like, and with a bit of the like factor, that's what you will remember.

Another thing is, what if the piece, you find, is really horrific? What if it's purposely horrific? I think that if something is bad enough, you might remember it too. Like, when I get a rock tune that I've heard when someone else had it on or at a restraunt or someplace stuck in my head, it's because I thought it was really yucky.

So, it's either that you find it interesting, like it, or think it's horrible where you remember it, I think.

Oh you mean how do you make a tune memorable?

Well I'd guess these are the steps to follow:

1) Comprehensible - Tonal and in a normal metre. Definitely in a clear major or minor key, or maybe a church mode. This means that the listen doesn't need to remeber it note by note, but rather they can remember the tonal structure: e.g. "tonic, dominant, sub dominant, dominant, tonic", which is much easier to remember than 5 'random' pitches.

2) Repetition. Give the listener a few chances to process it. This is why the exposition is repeated in sonata form, since the rest of the movement is a bit meaningless unless you have a clear idea of the main themes of the exposition.

3) Spice. The 2 above steps might blend it TOO well with previously heard melodies, so something a little different will allow it to stand out and force the listener to focus... and better attention aids better rememberance. In my opinion, this was the driving force behind the development of Western Harmony from the Renaissance to the Romantic, as previous interest-points becaome cliché, they had to find new ones.

However, this step appies to all areas of music, not just harmony.

4) Make sure the listner is interested and paying attention. I can't tell you how to do this, it's the hard part... Even if you follow all the above steps, a casual listener won't remember the theme very well.

Essentially you have a memorable melody if it is well within the bounds of previously-heard-music, but just different enough to be distinct. Of course, since everyone has a different level of experience in music, one person's memorable tone row is another person's blank hole.