What Ever Happened To Melody?

[ernstinen]

Quote:Yeah, but it won´t become that "obvious" until you´re listening to it LOL! So true. I'm sure you're right that most "older" Beatles fans don't listen to much Nirvana (or Metallica or Morbid Angel for that matter!). Maybe my shell of a body is aging, but my mind is still active and open (I think). I just enjoy artists who take radical chances, I guess.Beethoven, anyone!? Ern

[avillaronga]

jh and Ern, good posts, I'm with you on this. When I was in college I did a research paper for a music class comparing the guitar voicings in Master of Puppets to the brass/woodwind voicing in the Tannhauser overture by Wagner, they are remarkably similar in style yet most people who listen to classical music probably would not agree. When my teacher returned the paper to me he simply smiled while shaking his head... needless to say he did not agree. I felt vindicated years later when Michael Kamen came up with the idea to do a Metallica/San Francisco symphony concert. It's always fun for me to see iTunes trying to make recommendation based on previous purchases... I either get about 100 recommendations or none. I guess it's hard to recommend something when I've gotten Beethoven, Wagner, Shostakovich, Nirvana, System of a Down, Slayer, the entire Metallica catalog when it finally came out, the entire Molotov catalog, and a bunch of Latin American stuff. I think iTunes hates me

[matto]

Quote:1. I don't believe the hook of your song moved much out side of a fith. That is flat to me. But I'm going by memory. I only listened to it once and I did not listen to the whole song.The chorus starts on the fifth and moves down to the 6th below that (coincidentally the exact same melodic range as the chorus of the number 2 entry on Glenn's list of great melodies from the past, if I recall that correctly); the melody range of the whole song is an octave and a 3rd. I don't think that's "flat" by Glenn's definition, or many of the melodies on his list would be "flat" too.Quote:2. Where did you get the idea that I thought your song was boring? I'm stricly talking about the melody, and strictly going by Glenn's definition where "flat" certainly seems to equal "boring". Maybe he never used that exact word but he used "lifeless" and "monotonous" so the implication is certainly there, no?Look...this thread is bemoaning the prevalence of "flat melodies" in today's music, and you're the only one to have volunteered an example so far, namely one of my songs (after first questioning whether I had written it in the first place). I honestly couldn't care less if you like my song or not, but you yourself said "The person who started this thread defined the term. I was using his." Well...I don't think you are. But maybe we should ask Glenn to give us a list of melodies he considers flat, so we can figure out if we're even all talking about the same thing...matto

[ggalen]

Matto,I'll do a little checking and give some examples of what I was thinking of when I meant "flat".I didn't mean tunes where an essential part of the "melody" was a harmony or chordal color that was moving around the lead note in an pleasing way (like "Help!" by the Beatles, for example).

[jh]

How about Rihanna´s "Umbrella". The melody range of that song is an octave. It´s currently the biggest song of 2007 so far, so it´s a good example of (maybe) a "flat" melody, but definitely not boring...IMHO You can write boring melody with a range of 8 octaves, it won´t be flat but it can be boring. I don´t think that "a range of fifth" alone makes the melody "flat" (assuming that "flat" equals "boring").I might be wrong, but I´m sure that there are many melodies written by The Beatles that are "flat"=range of fifth. It of course depends if we´re talking about *periods, or whole songs here.. *period = a part of a song, like chorus.

[sgs4u]

That's funny, my kids were just playing Umbrella, on the computer. Classic example of the kind of melody arrangements we're talking about. Strangely enough, the next song they picked was, Hit the Road Jack. My kids don't have a problem with enjoying either style of melody.And I have to say, that's how I LEARN my objective view.... my children(8, 5 & 2). They dance around to almost anything. Just wait 'til they start recording... Call today's melodies flat, or less interesting or anything you want. If the labels are flogging that kind of melody sound, it doesn't make me wish they'd do anything differently. There is an abundance of choice, with regards to how anyone wants their melodies to sound. and there is an abundance of opportunities for any kind of music, as long as it sounds professional, and is something a client is looking for. At 47 years of age, I can't pretend that my melodies are current, until I run them by objective opinions. If a song calls for a current melody, then I get help. Come to think of it, I get help with melodies all the time, whether or not they're supposed to be current. It's just one of the things about music, I have been forced to deal with, because I'm a TAXI member. I don't understand the debate, I guess. Quote:How about Rihanna´s "Umbrella". The melody range of that song is an octave. It´s currently the biggest song of 2007 so far, so it´s a good example of (maybe) a "flat" melody, but definitely not boring...IMHO You can write boring melody with a range of 8 octaves, it won´t be flat but it can be boring. I don´t think that "a range of fifth" alone makes the melody "flat" (assuming that "flat" equals "boring").I might be wrong, but I´m sure that there are many melodies written by The Beatles that are "flat"=range of fifth. It of course depends if we´re talking about *periods, or whole songs here.. *period = a part of a song, like chorus.

[ggalen]

Quote:[quote author=jude3 board=general thread=1192905540 post=1193116113]But maybe we should ask Glenn to give us a list of melodies he considers flat, so we can figure out if we're even all talking about the same thing...mattoMatto,I realize I don't know the name of the specific songs because once I hear them, I turn them off and don't remember much about them!I logged onto Rhapsody and hunted around for about 15 minutes. Bands that feature the kind of flat melodies I am talking about were Arctic Monkeys, Weezer, Stone Temple Pilots.I also noted that these lifeless melodies also happened in the past with heavy metal and punk bands. Didn't like it then either. What did I mean by a "flat", boring melody? I simply mean a melody where nothing interesting is going on. If you have a string of the same note, then one must add a harmony or a chord coloration that moves and creates interest.Good melodies tend to have interesting "skips", jumps to unexpected places that work and sound wonderful and new.Flat melodies are monotonous and uninteresting. A lot of today's melodies sound the same. Yes, that happened 30 or 40 years ago, but not as much as today, in my opinion.

[jude3]

Quote: The chorus starts on the fifth and moves down to the 6th below that (coincidentally the exact same melodic range as the chorus of the number 2 entry on Glenn's list of great melodies from the past, if I recall that correctly); the melody range of the whole song is an octave and a 3rd.I don't think that is correct. I would have to check, but I don't have the time.Personaly I don't think it matters. How flat could equal boring is beyond me. Logically that does not make any sense. And I don't think the poster ment that. But maybe he did. Anyway, I give up. I don't have the time for to much posting. And I certainly don't consider your song boring so please don't try to say I did.

[horacejesse]

Quote:Nowadays I think acoustic guitars get the crap squeezed out of them by overcompression. And this is before the whole mix gets the life squeezed out of it.But it does not seem strange to you that 80,000 people will rush from their caves shaking spears to suddenly defend a music that has "had the life squeezed out of it?"Really now, is there a defense for music that has had the life squeezed out of it, where the acoustic guitars sound like cheap little toys?Anyone can fall back on, "Oh, you are just getting old, you are the old phogey now, just like your parents were." Anyone can call on that old standby, so I don't put much stock in it. To use that argument might imply that music itself does not go through trends of greater and lesser periods of creativity and expression. Every other art form does, but not popular music?

[Mark Kaufman]

Wow, what an excellent thread. I think I'll jump in here for my first post and introduce myself some other time. I think Steve really nailed most of the pertinent points, really insightful post, but I'll throw in a little something from the perspective of What Sells.Although I can think of great new melodies coming from artists as far flung as The Kaiser Chiefs to Aqualung, I also think there is no great demand for it. Young listeners are interested in what grabs their attention, and melody might do that, but not necessarily so. And we all know that the music industry in general spends 99.9% of their investment money on That Which Is Hot, meaning it darned well better sell. We also know by reading dispatches that not many investors are asking for something new and different...no, they're invariably asking for something that sounds like an established, successful act. This is natural and has always been the way of things in a marketplace. Well, most of what is selling these days is all about "feel" and "beat" and "style"...and melody is something that just happens sometimes.The yearning for a melody is not common to younger people...I think most of them find the concept unnecessary and quaint. It was crucially important in the early 20th century...sheet music and Tin Pan Alley was all about the catchy melodies. And the great transitional melodymakers of the 60's had one foot in the old Tin Pan Alley and the other was stepping forward into the new worlds opened up by the early Rockers and later by Dylan and the Beatles, where all the rules were reconsidered. I can't think of one song by Irving Berlin that just shouts out good feelings to a driving beat and chord structure...no, it all hinged on melody.I don't expect a "return to melody" anytime soon, and even though I write and appreciate plenty of them myself, I really don't mind. I'd be a lot happier with a "return to substance over style"...but I'm not really holding my breath on that one either.