what goes into a good melody?

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

jopy wrote:Can music theory say if anything is good? [...] Neither set of descriptive terms can really describe how good either a melody or harmony is.
You mentioned some very essential points. I don't think music theory would have considered Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" as being a "good song". Nevertheless, it is. IMHO, even one of the best songs ever written. The same goes for Meat Loaf's "Bat out of Hell" or Rainbow's "Stargazer". I could continue this list with numerous other examples, but it all comes down to the fact that writing songs that go beyond average requires much more than an academic study of note progressions. It requires some kind of magic (to quote Queen), some kind of larger-than-life approach, and some kind of "knowing" that the melody in your head has just those ingredients. It requires spirit and soul, or whatever you may call it. And sometimes it's only the magic of the moment that creates a brilliant melody in your head. So, be sure to save it somewhere, otherwise it might be lost forever.

I don't think there are, or will be, any mathematical or academical approaches enabling everyone to write brilliant songs just from having studied what kind of notes or harmonies were used by famous artists.

It's either in your blood...or it's not. By which I mean "good" or "perfect" melodies, not average ones...

Post

George Martin, producer of the Beatles, on writing melodies. From his book, All You Need is Ears:

Image

Post

Skorpius wrote: I don't think there are, or will be, any mathematical or academical approaches enabling everyone to write brilliant songs just from having studied what kind of notes or harmonies were used by famous artists.
Completely agree, but just take a moment, and reflect about what makes those examples you gave (which I subscribe as being great songs, the first even one of the greatest), something special. Is it just the melody? I don't think so. Besides, Bohemian Rhapsody, like many Queen songs, melodically is somehow strange, except for the ballad part. The fact is that "the whole" just works. But it's "the whole", not the melody.
Skorpius wrote:It's either in your blood...or it's not. By which I mean "good" or "perfect" melodies, not average ones...
There is no such thing as "perfect melodies". Sometimes, it's the imperfections that make them attractive, the unexpected turn point, the altered note where the melody rests, the sustained sound, the pause...

And don't underestimate the power of observation. Composers (musicians, songwriters, whatever you want to call them) always learned by imitating those they admire. Even the greatest.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

So many replies, I've read them all and while many I find helpful I don't necessarily have something meaningful to ask or comment on, so sorry if I don't reply to your comment.
Tricky-Loops wrote:Another important point is that a good melody has enough repetition, so that the listener can get familiar with it, and enough variation to grab the listener's attention. To achieve this balance is the most difficult thing. Most melodies nowadays are too repetitive because it's so easy to copy the same loop in your DAW over and over...
I've noticed this to some degree, I've seen people try to compensate with adjusting the note velocity. I'm somewhat guilty of too much repetition in the last track I made but I tried to mix it up with changing the the notes in some way (say instead of 4 quarter notes in one measure I might change it to 8 16th notes with 16th note rests inbetween). Only after I had "finished" the track did I think back on it and hate the very terrible melody I had created but most people only really commented on them thinking it didn't have enough bass. Actually I wouldn't even call it a melody exactly.
AusDisciple wrote:My advice there is if you can come up with something that you enjoy, chances are someone else will enjoy it too.
I tend to find that people enjoy it more than I do sometimes. This is particularly true of tracks that I either made very quickly as a joke or I didn't take too seriously, and most recently with a half done WIP demo where I was trying to get suggestions on atmospheric effects (all I got was that they hadn't a clue but that they loved it). I don't know if that is just that the music I am influenced most by by requires a higher attention span (which most people don't have, but the rewards are worth that extra attention) or if people just prefer the genres that influence my ideas for the less serious tracks... but I do know of artists who hated certain songs that everyone always wanted them to play that was way different than their main style. Usually they are more catchy for some reason I've found.
fmr wrote:This is a "one million dollar question". My answer would be: What are good melodies to YOU? When you have the answers, get them, analyze and dissect them, see how they raise (usually there's an accumulation of tension until reaching the climax, around 2/3 of the time, and then slowly decaying, but this isn't by any means a rule), how they develop, etc.

Personally, one of the finest examples of melody is the Ave Maria of Charles Gounod, which was written over the Prelude in C Major by J S Bach. In spite of being conditioned by the pre-existent piece, Gounod created a wonderful melody, which marries perfectly with the arpeggiated accompaniment.
Most of the genres I am taking influence from do not seem to rely too heavily on melodies, which is why I am motivated to do something different that is a bit more melodic (although I know of some exceptions). All of the styles that influence me actually being either closely or relatively closely related I find that the hardest thing to really do, is make a complex and subtle melody that sounds awesome as opposed to mixing elements from different genres. This is in part for my own desire to hear such a thing, as I can't find too many examples of it yet it seems like the perfect thing to do for both what I have in mind and what I wish I could hear in more of the tracks that come out these days.

The mention of arpeggiated notes is actually something I think I should comment on as arpeggio is a very essential part of many goa/psytrance melodies (2-3 mins is a good example of it used for dramatic effect).

I kind of wish to do something kind of like the two songs I linked but a bit more complex melody wise. (although I doubt I could ever do something as awesome as the stuff that Man With No Name makes, in terms of the entirety of his tracks).

I will look up the piece you mentioned, I actually enjoy Bach more than any other classical artist and Gounod's melody with the arpeggiated parts could give me a better understanding of how to marry the two in different ways.

Post

I'm with Captain Beefheart here: "listen to the birds".

Another way to put it is: a melody has to be sing-able.

Entirely subjective, of course. And I wouldn't look to music theory, either. It can be helpful if you're wanting to expand your horizons, to see how melodies can traverse over different scales and so on (like most beginners on the guitar, after banging away on C-G-F will discover Bb as they become more "adventurous" and go "oh wow, that sounds cool!"). But try to work within a simple structure first and make it work. Forget analysing, open your mouth and sing.

Post

From a compositional perspective the best melodies seem to be the ones that write themselves.
Almost like they come from somewhere else.
If too much thought goes into the process the melody will sound contrived and overcooked.

Post

kurodo wrote:From a compositional perspective the best melodies seem to be the ones that write themselves.
Almost like they come from somewhere else.
If too much thought goes into the process the melody will sound contrived and overcooked.
Completely agree here. It's that magic moment when you sing along to an instrument (in my case guitar) and suddenly a song is born. Or at least a part of it. Now the hard part is working this idea into a full blown song with verse, chorus and whatnot and trying to make it all fit together in a natural way. The even harder part is writing lyrics, but that's maybe just me...
Next question: what goes into good lyrics? :hihi:

Post

fese wrote:It's that magic moment when you sing along to an instrument (in my case guitar) and suddenly a song is born.
That's usually the moment when my neighbor makes his TV louder, so that he cannot hear me singing anymore! :P
Next question: what goes into good lyrics? :hihi:
Ask Robin Frederick - her book "Shortcuts to Hit Songwriting" is mainly about writing good lyrics! :love:

http://robinfrederick.com

Post

I didn't read any of the previous posts but here's my two cents.

What melodies do you consider good? Do you have a list of songs that you particularly like?

If so, then examine those. Then you'll know what makes a good melody.
Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Post

maybe a good melody at some core level really doesn't depend upon harmony, but good harmonies turn a good melody into something truly great. i think people tend to underestimate how inseparable harmony and melody become once we know the song. whenever you hear someone whistle something you know, your brain more or less provides you with the context.
rest assured, you've heard countless people in your life whistling something random that, in an alternate universe, is a #1 platinum selling single. but unless you, in a stroke of genius, hear an accompaniment that really makes it shine, you probably don't pick up on its potential.

so yeah, even though good melody is awesome and mysterious and definitely a bit of a holy grail...it's also kind of overrated. :)

Post

Quick caveat though: if a melody is too singable, it sometimes means someone else has done it before...

As some of you'll know George Harrison, no less, was ordered to surrender his money earned from ''My Sweet Lord'' and give away a percentage of the dollars he made off his 1970 first solo album ''All Things Must Pass'' to Bright Tunes Music, who held the rights to The Chiffons' 1963 hit ''He's So Fine''.
Harrison was ruled to have “subconsciously” copied The Chiffons's melody.
(Later, Harrison bought the rights to ''He's So Fine''!).

Plenty of other examples too - eg, The Beach Boy's ''Surfin USA'' ripping off Chuck Berry's ''Sweet Little Sixteen''.


So melodies shouldn't be over-complicated. They should have the 'person in the street being able to whistle it'.
But sometimes there's a reason why they come so easily to mind!

Post

countless people in your life whistling something random that, in an alternate universe, is a #1 platinum selling single. but unless you, in a stroke of genius, hear an accompaniment that really makes it shine, you probably don't pick up on its potential.
That's one approach but it sure doesn't add up to any truism per se. It actually seems to tell a story about melodies that in themselves are not striking and that you believe in harmony as a salve.

I'm interested in melody in itself, harmony may or may not have anything to do with it. Once we know which song? So you're not aware of melody that has no harmony and does not imply or deal in harmony at all? It might be entirely separable from, or never once considered harmony. I'm not subject to the hegemony you speak of, happily for me.

There are great tunes totally tied to the harmony, for me example to give is Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
It may be that in most western concert music the melody is overrated, I mean the actual melody is memorable in its relationship to other things.
But take Ravel's Bolero. Yeah, it moves from C to E after a time, but the tune is what is is, a vivid memorable melody qua melody.

Objectively melody can be other things. Whether or not anyone else is interested here, Indian musicians spin melody for days that is just melody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or4YiorPpp0

Post

Doug1978 wrote: /singable

So melodies shouldn't be over-complicated. They should have the 'person in the street being able to whistle it'.
The person in the street is the be all and end all of what should be, eh. Thank you, no. Chances are high she's tone-deaf and has only heard pop crap.

I'm a musician and I am interested in music itself.

Post

^^ me thinks you doth protest too much, Mr Tone-Deafy :p

Post

funny, i wanted to post something about ragas in response to doug. wanted to say that copyright of melody alone is silly and all melodies should be treated as folklore, sort of like ragas.

worthwhile example countering me, anyway. i think the difference is, when we're talking about melody, we're usually looking at it as this central building block of a couple bars. maybe a better word for that in western language is "theme".
point i was trying to make is that as such it's really only a potential. not unlike a raga. that potential can then be fleshed out in the x-axis and the y-axis. i kind of dismissed very x-axis heavy music there.

i think that process of fleshing out, of development is what matters in music, no matter where you go from the starting point. in that sense i think that melody, as a starting point or building block, is overrated.
Last edited by nasenmann on Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”