My Melodies

16 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

...the rhythm of the melody is an important consideration in making one that the audience is apt to remember.

So all this to say that you think rhythms matters when you're writing a melody? Yep, it sure does.

16 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Your reasoning is "It's cuz it's famous" and acting like there's no way there could be a correlation.

Ah see, correlation does not imply causation. The point is this: whatever it is you're offering is possibly (I can't know for sure since you don't want to explain what it is) a method of analysis so you can copy trends that you think made certain melodies more popular than others. Be this rhythm, pitch, implied harmony or tempo. That is to say, analyzing and then copying as to maximize a particular effect.

I know you're not replying to this (RIGHT?), so I'll put it out there as a general question:

Isn't just copying melodies you like a great method to study them and internalize what makes them work as to then be able to reproduce them in a similar but not quite the same fashion and with similar effects?

3 hours ago, SSC said:

I don't see how recognizing very famous music through their rhythms means anything at all

2 hours ago, SSC said:

So all this to say that you think rhythms matters when you're writing a melody? Yep, it sure does.

Pick one.

25 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Pick one.

They're not mutually exclusive. Specifically, one is a question aimed at your statement of method, the other is just acknowledgement of something I think everyone and their mom already figured out a long time ago. I mean, we can probably recognize "happy birthday" by the rhythm too, but I would hazard a guess and say that most people don't consider THAT the pinnacle of melodic writing.

Tempo, rhythm, contour/gesture, the precise notes, it all plays a significant role if people remember or not. (If they like it or not is a different question.) Quite a complex interaction. 

25 minutes ago, Jan-Peter said:

Tempo, rhythm, contour/gesture, the precise notes, it all plays a significant role if people remember or not. (If they like it or not is a different question.) Quite a complex interaction. 

 

I think it's really complex mostly because you don't usually write a melody by itself, you usually have other things that are happening simultaneously, like for example other melodies in counterpoint. So there's a lot to be said about musical context too. Sometimes a very simple melody can be remarkable by the stuff going around it rather than by itself, or sometimes the melody itself isn't really the point, but rather what is done with its composite elements (like Beethoven for example.)

7 minutes ago, SSC said:

I think it's really complex mostly because you don't usually write a melody by itself, you usually have other things that are happening simultaneously, like for example other melodies in counterpoint. So there's a lot to be said about musical context too. Sometimes a very simple melody can be remarkable by the stuff going around it rather than by itself, or sometimes the melody itself isn't really the point, but rather what is done with its composite elements (like Beethoven for example.)

 

Yes, precisely, and this point you are making I tried to make clear to TD too: if you want to make something profound or 'otherworldly' it is not just the melody but everything that surrounds it. If you are aware of the context something happens in you can really go deep into something. Without context things get onesided.

If you happen to be on YouTube a lot (and I guess you all know what I mean) there are a million clips with x amount of tips to get the perfect blablabla...  I understand if this raises peoples eyebrows... People like the quick way into anything these days...

The fact that TD tried to make something profound, tried to make something 'otherworldly', has already value. But people want to succeed as easy as possible, it seems. I don't think however this is how art works. Partly art exist because people kept on knocking on her door, apart from any knowledge of technique. That's bravery

1 hour ago, Jan-Peter said:

People like the quick way into anything these days...

Yes, indeed. This whole thing about writing melodies was never even a topic of discussion when I was studying composition since it was understood that after enough style copies and analysis you would be able to come up with whatever you needed. If not, then you lacked analysis and actual practice. I mean, if you care about writing anything other than tropes and cliches but even then you still need to study those tropes and cliches to be able to copy them. There are no shortcuts in the end.

1 hour ago, Jan-Peter said:

The fact that TD tried to make something profound, tried to make something 'otherworldly', has already value. But people want to succeed as easy as possible, it seems. I don't think however this is how art works.

I guess it depends on how you define "success." But I agree that it's has value that TD is trying to map out their perception to tangible musical elements. It's a great start into getting deeper insight into how to write music in general.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

This whole thing about writing melodies was never even a topic of discussion when I was studying composition

Oh wow, so you're a product of the "education" system. No wonder you never learned how to write a melody. Something which Mozart referred to as "the essence" of music. 

Not really surprising you're a casualty of the schools, given your general opinions about things, but I'm telling you man: If those albums of yours are the "after" photo of going to college or whatever

You should really request a refund. 

4 hours ago, Jan-Peter said:

Yes, precisely, and this point you are making I tried to make clear to TD too: if you want to make something profound or 'otherworldly' it is not just the melody but everything that surrounds it

Right, so a melody played as a solo could not be "profound" or any of these other terms?

The OP's question is specifically about melody and his melodies are so far, indeed, lacking. What has value in his post is not that he seeks to create something "profound", but rather that he is open to the idea of objective improvement. Something the court jester does not believe is possible.

But we're going to tell him to focus on the other aspects to create something good? That's cart before horse, my guy.

Anyway, in regards to the "analysis" claims the court jester is on about now: It's analogous to saying "immersion is the best way to learn a language" as an adult

Much like telling OP to focus on the other elements than that which he is specifically focusing on, it fails to provide any real answer

It also fails to acknowledge the importance of comprehensible information. Something which an adult language learner doesn't get like a child does. I've probably heard every word in the Filipino language by now. I still don't know what any of it means. But if someone were to point at something, and then say the word, then I might get it because it is making the information comprehensible.

A beginner could analyze a million scores and learn very little because they have no idea what they're actually looking at; what's going on.

Possible to learn this way? Technically. A good way? Not really, for most. For a lot of people, it could take years to identify basic concepts.

It is far more in the students interest to actually have someone who already understands these concepts they wish to learn teach it to them.

Assuming he's telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt it, Clown Academy telling its pupils that if they want to compose a melody, they should just go study on their own (why the hell are you going to school if they're telling you that?) and instead spending time teaching you how to play this vapid game of figuring out what some serialism noise "means" in regards to dismantling "the patriarchy", is not helpful.

To the OP, or to anyone else.

On 12/26/2021 at 3:51 AM, Transcended Dimensions said:

Now, I'm going to clarify a few things. Firstly, when I say I wish to compose astonishing music, I simply mean music that many people will love (music that has many likes and few dislikes).

When a listener, lots of listeners, love a particular kind of music it's because they're accustomed to it and nothing much about it is likely to astonish them - music that's, to them, conservative enough just to like without searching deeper or asking why. It's when something out of the ordinary happens that listeners get astonished. Whether the astonishment turns to love is a different question.

So you could get someone new to your music (or any style or piece for that matter) who is astonished because they've suddenly discovered something. They may go on to love it....then again they may get tired of it as many do with popular music.

On 12/25/2021 at 7:51 PM, Transcended Dimensions said:

Firstly, when I say I wish to compose astonishing music, I simply mean music that many people will love (music that has many likes and few dislikes

Aside from throwing you a bone as a starting point to improving your melodies, which I got attacked for by the dregs, I will be the only person so far to actually answer this question and get straight to the point. Which is kinda my entire thing in teaching other people about music and I've come to the realization after 20 years that, it's such a rare thing it's worth charging for, but:

Composing good music is about mastering the craft, and the craft over thousands of years has been refined with the specific aim of creating something beautiful. It is successful in this regard and you must learn it. Without a strong grasp of this objective study, the composer's artistic "vision" or whatever is rendered basically irrelevant.

This is especially true of melody, which is the single most-important aspect of a composition.

Obviously, this is too big of a study to encompass in a single lesson or forum post: But it is this which you must pursue. Anyone telling you anything other than this, is not going to help you. Especially if they're going on about "subjectivity".

There are real ways to make your melodies, and music as a whole better, and will help you achieve your goals of creating something pleasing to majority of people across a diverse chasm of "taste".

One thing you'll want to start with, is the rhythmic structures and patterns of your melodies. Which so far are lacking coherency and recognizable patterns — and of course, there are specifics of how to go about achieving this.

Things which used to be common knowledge but have now become esoteric as they, according to posters in this very thread, are simply not taught by academia anymore.

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Composing good music is about mastering the craft, and the craft over thousands of years has been refined with the specific aim of creating something beautiful. It is successful in this regard and you must learn it. Without a strong grasp of this objective study, the composer's artistic "vision" or whatever is rendered basically irrelevant.

This is especially true of melody, which is the single most-important aspect of a composition.

Obviously, this is too big of a study to encompass in a single lesson or forum post: But it is this which you must pursue. Anyone telling you anything other than this, is not going to help you. Especially if they're going on about "subjectivity".

This is starting to sound dangerously close to a religious dogma (well, it is coming from a raving ideologue after all.) Anyone saying anything other than your opinion is not going to help? Wow.

So let's see the incredible advice you give:

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

One thing you'll want to start with, is the rhythmic structures and patterns of your melodies. Which so far are lacking coherency and recognizable patterns — and of course, there are specifics of how to go about achieving this.

Things which used to be common knowledge but have now become esoteric as they, according to posters in this very thread, are simply not taught by academia anymore.

Oh yes, what ancient wisdom! What incredible insight! Oh Lord how misguided have we all been until AngelCityOutlaw came forth with the message: rhythm is important lol.

Jesus, I know it's funny, but it's also kind of sad. All this crap and that's the best you can say? Concentrate on rhythms and patterns? What are you going to say next, oh great guru of amazing genius? That note pitches are also important?

Hubris. Nemesis.

1 hour ago, SSC said:

So let's see the incredible advice you give

The OP needs the advice, and so do you.

If it's so simple, and you actually understood what goes into making a melody identifiable without information of pitch: You'd be telling us and the OP's music would already demonstrate that he understands it.

You don't.

Better yet, you'd be posting your work to back up your claims. You don't. Instead, it becomes "subjective" at that point, although you're so sure everyone else is objectively wrong.

But, I'll solve that problem shortly.

1 hour ago, SSC said:

All this crap and that's the best you can say?

I specifically said here that I am not going to go into a huge detail about writing melodies when I have a short book to teach beginner composers like yourself on it. I know that you have trouble with basic economics. Had you not gone on this long-winded tirade against me, accusing me of being a low-skill retard (when you openly admit that you never studied melody writing but are still convinced you know what you're talking about; they call that "dunning-kruger" btw) I would have simply left this topic at my first post.

There are a lot of things that go into composing a strong melody. I have suggest but ONE of them to the OP, you fuking moron.

Now let's put your money where your big mouth is.

Here is the most recent track on your YouTube.

Wow man, yeah Bach's got nothing on you.

9 straight minutes of NO MELODY, dissonant chords just repeating the same notes over and over. You clearly understand rhythm too! 

The worst part is: I don't think this "piece" of yours is a joke, either.

How about your most recent rock tracks that you're charging 10 Euro for?

https://ytmh.bandcamp.com/track/dangermind

For comparison, here are my most recent rock and guitar tracks.

You'll notice that mine sound like actual music instead of just chords with static velocities or distorted mumbling over guitars with poor tone and a complete inability to bend or play with vibrato.

Given these examples, I will leave it to OP and viewers to make up their mind as to who of us is more worth listening to when it comes to composition, production and performance.

You should make instructional videos sharing your musical wisdom and tell your subscribers — all 28 of them — about your albums you want 10 Euro for.

Take some music lessons, perhaps from myself, and maybe you'll finally make one someone will buy.

@SSC and @AngelCityOutlaw this bickering is going to drive away the OP 😕  Let's refocus on the original question.

@Transcended Dimensions, from my personal experience, writing a good melody is a lot like writing a book.  In order to write "properly" you must know grammar.  But grammar alone will not help you write the book, it just validates you as an author.  Writing a good story comes from the imagination.  The same applies to melodic writing in my opinion (I feel like I need all kinds of qualifiers here in order to prevent another argument 😂).

So I personally wouldn't focus too much on "grammar" when coming up with a good melody.  Usually something you can "hum" to, is a good start.  Think about Indiana Jones.  Great example, you can hum to it, its catchy, and it's not even that musically complex.  But we all know the theme.  John Williams just has an excellent imagination, and that comes with practice.

The reason why I like Chopin so much is because he too also was great at melodic writing.  Most of his piano pieces are quiet poetic, and you could tell he put a lot of time into each of his pieces.

6 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Given these examples, I will leave it to OP and viewers to make up their mind as to who of us is more worth listening to when it comes to composition, production and performance.

So, are you saying the only thing you can come up with as better than the music I made (which is a lot more than you usually post, but since you're so terribly afraid of looking like the fool you really are, you will never admit it) are your little 3 minute radio jingles there?

Man, that "clown school" is looking like it could be for you too, huh? At least then you'd not embarrass yourself this hard, or who knows. I don't honestly know if any education can save you from your indoctrination at this point. Oh well enough of this.

5 hours ago, chopin said:

Let's refocus on the original question.

Sorry, will do.

^^^ AngelCityOutlaw has a point all the same, I believe.

Yes, you can throw any kind of sounds together and reception will depend on the listener expecting something to be communicated (which is cultural and refinement over the centuries but also ties in with neurophysiological functions - the harmonic series. The dominant is the third harmonic, closely related to the fundamental. This is why popular music in the far east, if based on traditional melodic structure, tends to follow western CPP when harmonised). Or otherwise - listeners who have cultivated an ability just to listen but without expectation. The latter are few and far between. Always possible, though, to acclimatise to a piece of music or style that on first approach doesn't cohere. People like the work of Webern and Fernyhough, not for reasons of 'understanding' the theory or commentary that usually accompanies such work but just repeated listening - or some emotional contact striking up with the evolving sound.

The latter: repeated listening either means work or being unable to avoid repeated hearing. A sudden emotional awareness might count as astonishment but this arises from the listener rather than the composer (almost always).

Distasteful as it might be to the O/P, the real answer is to study the scores of great melody writers then gradually carry what's learned into their own style and medium. Copy bits and pieces out if necessary. It's a necessity and if to be carried into the realm of metal, to study what the great metallic composers have done. Get enough knowledge of CPP to be able to analyse the whys and whats of the chords and progressions used; when to use accented passing notes etc. I really can't see any other way.

.

.

3 hours ago, SSC said:

So, are you saying the only thing you can come up with as better than the music I made (which is a lot more than you usually post, but since you're so terribly afraid of looking like the fool you really are, you will never admit it) are your little 3 minute radio jingles there?

Cope (seethe) harder

2 hours ago, Quinn said:

Distasteful as it might be to the O/P, the real answer is to study the scores of great melody writers then gradually carry what's learned into their own style and medium.

But surely he is then looking for something that is tangible? 

Things that connect the great melodies of the great melody writers?

This is why I don't see the value in saying "just study scores" because that should be a given. Studying scores you like should just be a default thing.

The entire purpose of music education is (or at least was supposed to be) to pass on to new composers that knowledge you're expecting them to glean from score study and save them a lot of time instead of forcing them to start at square one and rediscover the wheel all the time.

Why not just give them those answers? The harsh reality is, the only reason I can see people not defaulting to that is because they don't know themselves.

As an example, it would put someone who wants to write like John Williams "Heroic" themes a lot more on the right path to talk about the kinds of voice-leading and disjunct motion, rhythms, etc. of those melodies than it is to just say "study John Williams". 

Earlier, there was some screeching about "correlation = / = causation", a common Clown Academy talking point meant to discourage pattern recognition entirely.

What this fails to account for is the existence of control groups, which expose that the correlation is indeed the causation.

When one batch of melodies is generally agreed to be good and they all share X traits, but the second group of melodies generally agreed to suck don't contain those traits: It is because of the traits shared in the former group. And we have a LOT of music to examine over literally centuries that developed into a specific craft and frankly, a science unto itself.

OP will find that there is consistency, outside of pure stylistic considerations, between what makes a great Metal tune and a great Romantic piece. They require no explanation, no particular "context" or exposure to be enjoyed by most people: They just know it's good right away.

That's what one needs to master if they want to write music. Not pursue abstract and "emotional" concepts that (allegedly) appeal to a very small minority of people but is typically met with visceral disgust from the rest of the people. 

And OP explicitly stated he is not out to appeal to said minority. 

That really sums up my feelings on this whole thread.

24 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

And OP explicitly stated he is not out to appeal to said minority.

The first post I made in the thread included a couple of videos that demonstrate very well how movie soundtracks craft out typical "emotional" tropes out of chord changes, and along with that there are also examples of melodies. Both videos I think demonstrate this really well.

2 hours ago, Quinn said:

Distasteful as it might be to the O/P, the real answer is to study the scores of great melody writers then gradually carry what's learned into their own style and medium. Copy bits and pieces out if necessary. It's a necessity and if to be carried into the realm of metal, to study what the great metallic composers have done.

100% agreed.

bro to reduce anything to a formula is to make it utilitarian and that is not art.

1 hour ago, Left Unexplained said:

bro to reduce anything to a formula is to make it utilitarian and that is not art.

My stance is that music is both as anything which is a craft necessarily, and pretty much by definition involves a merger of formula/technique and unique aesthetic sensibilities (art). Neither is truly whole without the other.

All of the great artists, living or dead, mastered both.

1 minute ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

My stance is that music is both as anything which is a craft necessarily, and pretty much by definition involves a merger of formula/technique and unique aesthetic sensibilities (art). Neither is truly whole without the other.

All of the great artists, living or dead, mastered both.

 

29 minutes ago, SSC said:

The first post I made in the thread included a couple of videos that demonstrate very well how movie soundtracks craft out typical "emotional" tropes out of chord changes, and along with that there are also examples of melodies. Both videos I think demonstrate this really well.

then boom you guys agree cuz I was talking about this^

On 12/31/2021 at 1:25 PM, Left Unexplained said:

then boom you guys agree cuz I was talking about this

I think we reached consensus a while ago, despite ACO's hilarious outbursts (he's just an incoherent mess when it comes to me, I'm THAT important to him apparently) I think there's a wealth of material you can study that gives you all the pragmatic means to get stuff sounding in various ways, so it'd a good idea to start there. Beyond that's it's like quinn and jan-peter said, you need to actually put the effort into studying stuff to get better.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all. Hell I even said that ACO's opinion on rhythm being important is valid, despite being a little on the superficial side. But yeah.