Melody without harmonies?

Hello. All the songs I have composed so fatr have not had melodies, just been ambient or experiemntal pieces. I bought a compsing book and it said how important a melody is and that you should write the melody before anything else.

The book said that a good melody is one that has the right balance of tension and resolving and predictablity and unpredictability.

I have been trying for ages to think of a catchy melody, but nothing original comes to mind. Also, how can a melody possibly be catchy before the other parts make the song good?

Also, how do you people create a melody and think "this is a good melody" without having any other music to make it good?

That's the trouble with books on creative subjects, they can wreak havoc with a student in the early stages because things don't always work the way books tell you.

A melody might be important depending on the kind of music you're writing. Some music uses very small melodic fragments (motifs).

Ok, assume that it is.... It can appear in several ways: as a result of a chord progression you've discovered; it may come by itself (which is why it's important to learn to write down (in simple terms at least) what's in your head.

As to the "right balance" tension/resolution... these are where elementary theory helps - it'll take a bit of work but worth it, believe me. Learn the degrees of the scale (and how to write a major and minor scale); learn the names of these degrees because you'll notice people referring to them here: the dominant, the subdominant, submedient and supertonic are important to start with. Eventually you'll find some nice chords of your own.

You'll also need to learn to change key and back (or on further) to related keys.

Until you're comfortable with melody writing, work your tune into 2 lots of 4 bars (or 2 of 2; or 4 lots of 4 bars, including the notes at the end of the phrase. Try a simple one with 4 bars in 4/4 time. Use your intuition - you'll find things fall naturally into this pattern....most times.

A good exercise is writing tunes for a solo monophonic instrument - the voice is a good start.

Also, study the melodies of the composers you like - check how many bars a melody takes - use your intuition to listen for when it closes, when it gets halfway etc (these are most often "cadences" or cadence points). Then pull it to pieces, see how it's done.

good luck,

:pinch:

M

music should not have rules. a melody will rear its little head if it needs to

Well, schoenberg in his book "Fundamentals of Composition" states that "no melody should be thought of without its harmonical background", but he doesn't say the opposite, so I guess you're free to do whatever you want :w00t:

And generally, you CAN do whatever you want, as long as that's what you want to do and you believe it expresses you and yada yada yada.

pretty much all melodies, in some way or other, imply the harmony that accompanies them.

if you are usually working with just harmony and ambient harmonic structures, you have a unique point of view. It's not all that difficult to build melody around pre-established harmony.

a few pointers on how you could proceed:

• select a point of "climax" (it doesn't have to be a big climax, just what seems like the point where your melody will be at its strongest point
  
• sketch out a first draft of levels - where the melody will lie within the harmony
  
• select points where your melody can have dissonance to contrast it against your harmony (ie: non chord tones)
  
• start to build your melody
  

what I'd recommend is that you post here a brief sample of some of your harmony (write something new for us) and we can all together add a melody to it. That way, you'll see different perspectives on adding melody to your harmony.

If you are interested in this particular method, that was how the "Prairies" movement of my 2nd symphony was composed. I established a harmonic pattern first, then built my melody from the ground up. To hear the effect, listen to the opening of that movement here: II - "Prairies"

I'm trying to put together an example of harmony, then adding melody, going through the steps I outlined above. Stay tuned, hopefully I'll have it posted by tomorrow.

here is a quick and dirty method to work on melodies from pre-established harmony.

The first thing is, obviously, to have your harmonic framework done. In the example I'm using here, I've created a short harmonic progression in quartal harmony. I start out in 5/4 simply because that's one of my favourite time signatures... besides, it helps to break the monotony when looking for ideas to start with something that is a little off kilter :thumbsup:

So, you've established your basic harmonic framework

(see image 1 below)

you can hear the harmonic progression HERE

Now I look for high points, harmonic repetitions, cadences, etc... points where you know your melody will need to DO something special, or points that will allow you to do something special TO the melody.

(see image 2 below)

Now it's time to start writing out a simple melody. If you outlined the places where we could create repetitions, then part of our work is done already, since we will just repeat part of the phrase we compose.

That being said, blatant repetition can work, but if you're smart about it, the lsitener won't realize there was a repetition if.... you find similar harmonic passages in your framework that are NOT identitical. For example, in this example here we realize that the opening chords repeat at the 3rd and 4th measures but a perfect 5th away. So this is an ideal place to place an "outline repetition". That is, you don't repeat the same notes, but you repeat the outline of the phrase.

(see image 3 below)

You can achieve the same effect in other places even where there is no actual harmonic repetition or "echo". For example, in this example, we repeat the ending phrase as well during the cadence. This sort of repetition at the end of a long theme helps to bring the listener along to the conclusion, in a way the repetition says "this is the end of the phrase".

Remember that all repetitions will be immediately noticable to the listener, so they must be used judiciously.

You can listen to our first draft of the melody HERE

Now comes the fun part!

Once the basic harmony and melody are established, it's time to bring in the variations. There are all sorts of ways to vary melodies, and they should all be part of the composer's craft.

In this case, I decided that the initial time signature was just not long enough for me to stretch out my melody, so I altered it to 3/2 (basically just adding one quarter note to each measure). This gives me a little more breathing room.

I also start to vary the repetitions! That's right, don't just repeat verbatim. Find little ways to make each repetition of a motif or phrase unique in its own way.

It's important to know where in the theme you are as well. If you are in the initial statement of the theme (the first few measures) then it's probably not a good idea to make your theme too florid. Why? Because you won't have anywhere to GO to when it's time to really vary your thematic material.

So here are the variations on our little theme

(see image 4 below)

and to hear our mini-masterpiece, click HERE

I hope this can help you in even a little way. It should help to at least open doors for you when it's time to compose.

For myself, I find that I use a bit of this method (starting from harmony) and a bit of the opposite (starting from a thematic strand). But it's up to each composer to find the way that is most comfortable for him/her.

I could soapbox about this for hours, but seeing as QC has written up a really lovely little tutorial in how to fake musical understanding, I won't.

Oops, too late, already started.

If you don't hear melodies in your head, then don't try to write them. All these methods for taking an x and producing a y are at best artificially induced methods of composition that will never lead to anything worthwhile. The process of musical composition is never so simple that it boils down to an easily-articulated, manageable list of steps. QC's method might help you better understand why certain melodies and harmonies go together well, but you won't be writing any meaningful melodies with the above process. These sorts of exercises, along with any sort of analytical work, may or may not help you become a better composer; in any case they should not be confused with the creative process itself.

The problem, I believe (to stay on topic), is two fundamental assumptions you've made:

1) All music must have a melody.

2) The melody is the most important aspect of a piece of music.

The fact is that thousands of pieces written in the 20th century, and indeed a lot of music from the Romantic period, could easily disprove either of the above assumptions. The music you write should be the music that comes out of you, not what some book by some 'composer' (usually, but not always, a talentless hack who couldn't make a name through actual music-writing so decided to write a book) tells you is right or wrong. There are no absolutes in the creative process.

All that said! I'm now going to contradict myself. Try QC's method with your own harmony. See if it helps you produce nice results. If it does, awesome! Stick with it. If not, do not feel that the problem is your fault. Montpellier said it really well: no composer, beginner, master, or anything in between, should think for one second that there is are right and wrong ways to going about writing music. The final arbiter is you: your instincts, and your knowledge of what works best for you.

well, thank-you for what I guess could pass as a sort of compliment...

I don't believe that writing melody is the be-all and end-all of composition, however, acquiring certain crafts helps to smooth the way to an end result. Only your own talent and musical skill can make a difference as to what that end result will be.

The cynical approach, while maybe more fashionable, isn't always what helps a student composer learn craft.

I'm sorry Aerlinndan thinks my little "tutorial" is one in "faking musical understanding". I see it as one tool, one in an arsenal of many. Unlike him, I believe that being able to "construct" music is one step to understanding the technical aspects of musical creation. The same way one learns the craft of counterpoint, or 4-part harmony, or all the various 20th century techniques of composition, all of which, unless they come from your heart, are nothing more than methods of musical construction. However, once you have acquired the proper tools, then and only then are you in a position to express yourself to the limits of your capabilities.

Beau_RL, I recommend you try your hand at it. If it helps you on your way, then I'm glad I could help. If somehow it doesn't feel right to you, then it probably isn't. Whichever way you end up steering, don't let yourself be bullied into choosing a path that does not speak to you.

I hope my comments didn't offend you personally, QC. I guess it's just a personal soapbox of mine, and I didn't mean to catch you in the crossfire. Besides there is a big difference between you and me. You're a composition teacher, aren't you? As such you have to be thinking of methods to help your students gain a better sense of compositional craft. And, well, I'm just a student, so the only composer who I'm responsible for is myself. I dunno. Maybe one day I'll come around. :-)

Wow, Qccowboy, I actually quite enjoyed the tutorial piece you posted. It would work extremely well in a soundtrack situation.

Something I've been wondering is: is it "wrong" to not have a distinct melody? As montpellier said, a book "can wreak havoc with a student in the early stages". I was once harshly criticised by some random musical genius on another forum for not apparently having a melody in one of my attempts. That bothers me a little, because I had thought that the piece did have one; it just wasn't as memorable as, say, the Schindler's List theme. Well hey, I can't help it if I'm in the possession of close to zero musical talent, so is it really so bad to have music that lacks a distinct melody?

Qccowboy's melody wasn't a tune I would find myself humming after one listen, but it was still powerful stuff. Does a good composer always strive for a catchy, Nobuo Uematsu-style melody, or is it enough to simply have a few motifs, a chord progression or a riff, as long as the piece sounds like it has a direction?

No, Zephyr, a melody is NOT absolutely necessary.

It really depends on what you are doing musically.

Sometimes, textures and fragments are enough to give an atmosphere to something.

That being said, I think that there CAN be times where the harmony is so simple and the treatment simplistic, that the listener will wonder why there ISN'T a melody.

A lot of film music is done as underscore, and that rarely requires actual thematic development. However, that doesn't mean a composer doesn't need to understand how to create melody and thematic material to be able to write film score! Underscore is not MEANT to stick out and be noticed, it's meant to do exactly as its name says: underscore. However, notice that when the dramatic moment in the film comes up, you DON'T get just chords underneath. You get SOME sort of dramatic thematic material that the ear latches on to and understands as being "this is the big theme for the dramatic moment".

A lot of times, it can be something considerably more subtle - motivic development that serves as underscore, where fragments of themes are woven together delicately to create textures and moods. If one is paying attention, one realizes that the fragments are there. This is actually the most difficult thing to achieve with great success, and normally comes after years of study and technical training.

I can cite one example of a classical piece that has a main theme that is really only two chords. However, what the composer has DONE to those two chords is absolutely brilliant. In Bohuslav Martinu's Double Concerto (for strings, piano, and timpani), the Adagio movement has as main theme simply two chords: the first minor, which is then repeated as a major chord, then a sort of leading-tone chord, and the return to the first chord, this time with an added 2nd to it.

This seemingly simple material is developed into one of the most tragic slow movements of the 20th century. And it returns as the climax at the very end of the last movement of the work, for an effect that is earth-shatteringly tragic and shocking. Simple material - stroke of genius putting it together.