Creating interest in tonal melodies

One of the most certain ways to render tonal music captivating or crippled is through the quality of its melodic writing. Perhaps another thread on good melodic writing would be well worth the effort.

A few words on the history of teaching melody-writing will greatly help in the discussion. Theorists in the classic era often focused on harmony in their pedagogy, considering good melody to be elusive and instinctual. Nonetheless, the masters of tonal music undoubtedly possessed a sense about how to create melodies that were varied and interesting. One particularly notable theorist who turned the tide back toward melodic understanding was Heinrich Schenker. His big idea was to go back to the baroque study of counterpoint as a starting-point for decyphering what made the "great" composers "great," from their formal integrity to their melodic interest.

As a result, I offer the first potential quality of good melodic writing:

Compound (ie, multi-voice) melody

Recently, I've been working on an arrangement of the protestant hymn tune "New Britain," commonly sung to John Newton's lyrics "Amazing Grace." The hymn tune, written by William Walker, first appeared in a collection of early American folk tunes entitled "Baptist Harmony," which was compiled in the early 1800s.

As I've been trying to find a way to set this seemingly over-used melody, I've found that sketching out a Schenkerian diagram gives me a good idea of what makes this melody work so well. Perhaps looking at voice leading can help others consider how to craft their melodies.

----

For the following break-down, please consult the jottings I made of a Schenkerian reduction and the original score from the 1800s (attached).

Discussion of melody:

1. Notice that the overall harmonic structure is a progression from I through various IV and V harmonies all the way to a final I-V-I progression at the end.

2. The skeleton of the melody, most basically, moves from tonic, G, up to scale degree 5 and back down to 1 through the intervening notes (Schenker considered this 5-4-3-2-1 line to be one of the most basic structures underlying tonal music).

3. Despite this 5-4-3-2-1 line, you'll notice that scale degree 5 doesn't arrive until the approximate middle of the hymn. The intervening motion is basically an arpeggiated leaping from 1 to 3 to 5.

4. Now, with that opening arpeggiated ascent in mind, notice the additional decoration that fills in the space before the mid-point scale degree 5:

- An inner voice motion to G and then to D with passing and neighbor notes, and

- An incomplete lower neighbor to scale degree 3 right before the mid-point 5. This is highly significant, because it parallels the ending motion to tonic. Even though the main descent is from scale degree 5, this little motion down from B to A sets up an anticipation of the final 3-2-1 descent.

5. After the mid-point 5, the main action of the melody is to dip down to scale degree 5 below the tonic. This is one big motion to an inner voice that provides an interesting contour for the melodic line.

6. Passing through scale degree 1 by means of an arpeggiation, the line jumps to the low 5 with a brief arpeggiation of additional upper notes belonging to IV. Then, the melody arpeggiates back up to scale degree 3 and descends to tonic.

7. Scale degree 4 deserves special attention. Notice that it is in parentheses in the diagram. This is because the essential skeleton descent 5-4-3-2-1 isn't actually present in the music, due to the fact that this 4 is missing. In its place, we find the low E that's part of the arpeggiation of IV in the inner voice motions. (This phenomenon of varying scale degree 4's presentation is actually not too uncommon, due to the fact that scale degree 4 typically doesn't "fit" with the underlying I-<intermediate>-V-I progression.)

In summary, note the main motions:

start on tonic --> arpeggiation up to V --> inner voice motion to D/E (instead of scale degree 4) --> re-ascent --> final descent

So there you have it! Consider how this voice-leading approach helps to make sense of the effective shape of the melody. Without thinking in this linear and contrapuntal way, how can we describe the melody? After all, it's simply a motion within a one-octave range throughout the notes of a pentatonic scale, harmonized with "simplistic" chords. However, a closer look reveals a balanced shape that maintains interest through a pleasing contour.

This is interesting. But, what of the vast repertoire of works that doesn't actually use melody in this manner? I'm referring to works that utilize motives and 'germs' as opposed to fully structured melodies.

This is interesting. But, what of the vast repertoire of works that doesn't actually use melody in this manner? I'm referring to works that utilize motives and 'germs' as opposed to fully structured melodies.

Precisely the reason for this thread. I'm asserting that multi-voice implications (not neccessarily a strict ursatz-like structure) is one way to get to good, coherent melody-writing. I'm hoping others will add their own helpful techniques.

Of course, Schenker would say that those who think of the most basic unit of composition as motivic write vastly inferior music, but he wasn't known to beat around the bush in his opinion of the most "perfect" music. Nonetheless, he does address the importance of motivic content. His theory of organic motive is quite interesting, because it incorporates the idea of structural levels, bringing out how a single few-note idea could be present at more surface and more background places.

Man, I've gotta get off this Schenker kick!

What did Schenker consider "perfect" music anyway? They never told us that at Mannes.

What did Schenker consider "perfect" music anyway? They never told us that at Mannes.

It's a sentiment you'll find easily in Der Freie Satz. In correcting the formenlehre (thematic) approach to musical structure, Schdenker constantly appealed to the musical minds who preceded him as corroboration for his new theory, insisting that a contrapuntal approach to music was the true path to greatness.

Consider the following, from chpt. 1 of Der Freie Satz:

"The fate of the art of music is especially bound to the law of its origin. Polyphony, once discovered, has become indespensable for music. So the art irrevocably belongs only to those who have ears capable of perceiving polyphony. This the historical background of music reveals."

Schenker builds on this sentiment of counterpoint's supremacy throughout the remaining introductory chapters and the rest of his oevre. These kinds of sweeping, summarical statments occur throughout Schenker's writing, underscoring his belief that the classical composers began the golden age of musical perfection.

So either Bach or Beethoven...but certainly not Berg or the Beatles.

What did Schenker consider "perfect" music anyway? They never told us that at Mannes.

Probably one of the reasons for this is that Schenker's theory is rather vague. But lots of people seem fascinated by it. And maybe for a reason, for it gives some depth to music analysis. They don't teach it here (perhaps, they introduce it to musicology majors, but I am not sure) and I don't know if studying it is mandatory in American formal training, but as I know, some conservatories and universities list it as a selective, which is probably the wisest choice - if you want it, go for it, if you decide it's better to spend your time on another thing, then go for that thing.

Probably one of the reasons for this is that Schenker's theory is rather vague and perhaps even tends to be something of a quasi-philosophy, and for me, personally, is among the most pseudo-scientific things in music theory ever written. But lots of people seem fascinated by it. They don't teach it here (perhaps, they introduce it to musicology majors, but I am not sure) and I don't know if studying it is mandatory in American formal training, but as I know, some conservatories and universities list it as a selective, which is probably the wisest choice - if you want it, go for it, if you decide it's better to spend your time on another thing, then go for that thing.

It is required at my university for MM Composition.