Primordial melodic line & "form"

I am a new composer. I have recently contacted one of my former college professors from my old college (BGSU in northwestern OH) who is also a composer. He is taking me on as a student via e-mail and wants me to learn about primordial melodic line and "form". I have never taken one single class of actual composition, however know a great deal about music theory. While I was in college, I studied and graduated with a degree in music (choral/vocal) education. I graduated over 10 years ago, and the best of my knowledge have not learned about "primordial melodic line" or "form" (with a lowercase "f")... My professor told me to also make a list of things to remember before starting a composition.. So far, I know that the primordial melodic line always descends, however, I don't know exactly what a primordial melodic line is, and how to find it. He also stated something about the STRUCTURAL melodic line, and I am having a difficult time finding that, too. My music is NOT contemporary - in fact, he said it is post-romantic in nature, so I don't know the first thing about writing 21st century music.. I know, I have a lot of questions, but any help on ANY of these would be soooooo greatly appreciated!!!

*Summary*

1) What is primordial melodic line?

2) How do I find it?

3) What is "form" with a lowercase "f"

4) What is a good "checklist" of things to remember before composing music?

5) What is a STRUCTURAL melodic line - and how do I find it?

6) What is the "secret" of writing more contemporary music rather than "19th century" music?

ANY help would surely make my day!.. I have researched on the internet about a few of these things, and found a few things of musical "Form" which I already have a good grasp on, however, "form" with a lowercase "f" (meaning some "pattern"?) is unavailable. Also, I tried looking primordial melodic line by Schenker and it is in the Oxford library and I have to enter my credit card # (which I don't have one) to purchase the book.. I know his method is fairly recently considered, so I don't know how to go about finding out the information being as I am in dire financial straights..

I am a VERY beginning (pre-first year) level of composition, so if you give answers, try explaining it as if you were explaining it to a 5 year old... =) Thank you all for your time and help!!!

-Rhea C.

My five cents on the topic:

1) I have never heard of the term primordial melody (and English isn't my native language). It might be a Schenkerian term, but I am not into Schenker, so I cannot help from this point of view. Aside from that, one possibility for the meaning, as I see it, is raw or unelaborated melody.

2) See 1.

3) For me, form is just form. The only difference between form and Form, as I understand it, is that the former is directly related to the musical form, while the latter designates the name of the university classes related to studying the subject.

4) I have some things in mind, but I think this is highly personal and I don't agree with those who try to define and impose on others any universal checklist rules for approaching composition. Actually, this would be my response (perhaps, more elaborated) if someone wanted me to do that.

5) Perhaps, the term is related to the melody in a global, structural plan - the way it unfolds through the piece and how important / prominent points in the piece are connected melodically.

6) The secret of modern writing is not writing like in the past - that is, not strictly obeying (sometimes completely forgeting) the traditional harmony, counterpoint and form as you have studied them. Also, listening to and studying 20th century music, learning more about contemporary compositional techniques, etc.

I don't "know"

I don't "know"

Why did you even take the time to bother to type that?

1) What is primordial melodic line?

If I remember correctly, in Schenkerian Analysis it is the most "natural" melody of the music, or, the "main melody". In counterpoint, it is the melody that defines the key (in conjunction with the bass) and serves as the most basic building block of melodies. Melodies are usually "embellished" or "prolongated" around these primordial melodies. An example would be a Cantus Firmus in simple species counterpoint. The other counterpoint lines can vary around it as much as they want but are all relating TO that Cantus. Though I would consult someone more knowledgeable on Schenker because I'm not entirely sure.

2) How do I find it?

That's hard because its different in every piece and sometimes its not so obvious. Consult a Schenker guy.

3) What is "form" with a lowercase "f"

I'm assuming forms like Sonata form and Rondo form?

4) What is a good "checklist" of things to remember before composing music?

1) What do I want? 2) What are my intentions of writing? 3) How can I take those wants and intentions and put them to the paper? 4) Do.

5) What is a STRUCTURAL melodic line - and how do I find it?

A melodic line that serves a structural purpose as opposed to a purely melodic one. For example, a melody that ascends in a scale to reach a particular point and then come back down, that's structure. The melody creates a rise and fall where the rise is the top of the structure within the melody. As above, a Cantus Firums could also be structural. It has a beginning and end and an Arc or Bowl shape. These shapes are structural and define how the pieces moves.

6) What is the "secret" of writing more contemporary music rather than "19th century" music?

There isn't one. Furthermore I doubt anyone can firmly put a finger on what "contemporary music" is. However, if you really want to venture outside *tonality*, then discard Schenker completely. His entire system is based on the fundamental concept of the tonic-dominant relationship. Take this away, as you do with atonality, and the whole things collapses in on itself.

Is primordial melody something of an official English term that is in use in USA?

Structural melody - since Tokke's description here is close to mine, maybe I should clarify that I was actually refering more to things such as step progression. But I don't know if this term is officially used to denote that.

As for Schenker... Frankly, I think this is a waste of time. I am yet to see people who has been able to get enough practical usefulness out of this pseudo-scientific thing (no offense, Schenkerists).

Is primordial melody something of an official English term that is in use in USA?

Structural melody - since Tokke's description here is close to mine, maybe I should clarify that I was actually refering more to things such as step progression. But I don't know if this term is officially used to denote that.

As for Schenker... Frankly, I think this is a waste of time. I am yet to see people who has been able to get enough practical usefulness out of this pseudo-scientific thing (no offense, Schenkerists).

Well, if you're going to be strict about a scientific approach, you'll be unhappy with 95% of all methods music theorists commonly use to analyse music. Functional harmonic analysis etc. is just as "pseudo-scientific" as Schenkerian analysis, but it still has showed its usefulness empirically for the analysis of some music. And its uselessness for other music. This applies to all methods of analysis: It gives useful results for some things, but is pretty much meaningless for others.

Finding useful means of analysis for a particular piece may be the most central point about analysing music in the first place. Applying the method then is usually a lot easier.

Agreed. However, not all methods are equally 'pseudo-scientific' and unfounded. For example, some psychoacoustical theories and researches tend to address and support Riemann's functional theory, as well as Hindemith's, to a degree, they take into account chord salience, roots, sonance, etc. and develop methods for evaluating them. While Schenker's methods and ideas somehow remain in the shadows - they seem more vague. In short, it appears as (quasi-)philosophical and as mystical as it can be when compared to other methods I am aware of. However, after all, maybe some psychological and psychoacoustical foundations could be argued for the Schenkerian analysis regarding the various layers or importance and hearing in music.

Well, a philosophical approach can be perfectly valid for analysing some music as well.

I'm not saying that particularly to defend Schenkerian analysis. I know almost nothing about it and I never actually needed it. But I'm careful about outright dismissing a particular method of analysis, just because people can't explain it well, or because it doesn't appear to be suited for a lot of music. Most forms of analysis are much too rigid if you simply apply them without consideration and will rarely really do a particular composition justice. But it can still be worthwhile to be aware of them to get some ideas of how one -might- analyse music, and then draw from that, no matter how scientific or "mystical" the particular method may be.