Melody In Music

[byrne]

Indeed, the first discussion I ever remember having with you was about this very subject, and I brought up the idea of certain sound-progressions causing certain reactions in every human mind. I still don't have proof for this, but these days I presume it's more a case of people having been similarly socially conditioned within their culture over a period of time, which I think is what you may have suggested back then.

Heh, I remember that. Certain sound progressions will have to a degree certain reactions within peoples minds - depending on context. I think I disagreed with you that time on the basis that you implied that this would be some sort of generic reaction. (perhaps i read wrongly, can't remember exactly what happeend, was ages ago) Some patterns will provoke certain feelings within people, but there will be some context to this reaction, like in Nick's example of the composer Gustav Mahler. However, the more generic you define the sound progression, obviously the more generic the reaction will be.

Does anyone have problems with catchy melodies? That may seem like a rather odd question, but there seems to be an almost allergic reaction to pop hooks among more underground listeners. I value pop music because I also see music as entertainment in addition to art, but I feel that many don't share this view. Can a melody define the artistic worth of a piece of music? Can a melody be too accessible?

Let me start by saying that is music really music without melody. Like the zillion posts before, me, melody relative, what is melodic to one, may not be to another. I think then the complete removal of melody from 'music' would have to render it not music at all .. rather a sequence of completely unrelated sounds.

'Catchy' melodies obviously are also subjective. I think simple music (simple as in the creative inspiration, thought, composition, ability in musicianship and 'heart') will be 'instantly catchy' (depending on the listeners preference) but becomes shallow and unfulfilling. A general rule I tend to guide my purchases by, is the more 'instantly catchy' music is, the less value it is likely to hold in the long run and thus the more precaution there is before purchase.

I remember I bought GHUA on the basis of a few intense, fast and 'catchy' chugging riffs. That ended up being one of the shittiest purchases of my life.

I believe pop-music is written to be temporarily catchy, much like cheap production goods. They appease the user/listener till it wears out and they desire a change. There is no real value to the music. Thus, I don't like 'catchy' music in that sense.

However, good music will be better the million'th time you hear it, than the first 10 listens. What may have at first not seemed 'catchy' will be by the end (in its own way, ie: it might not make you want to jigg about, but it will be appreaciated and enjoyed).

I think I've said enough, heh. I'm just not sure all I said, flows that logically. But I'm sure you will get the idea, as I cbf'd editing.

 

[stefan86]

I believe pop-music is written to be temporarily catchy, much like cheap production goods. They appease the user/listener till it wears out and they desire a change. There is no real value to the music. Thus, I don't like 'catchy' music in that sense.

However, good music will be better the million'th time you hear it, than the first 10 listens. What may have at first not seemed 'catchy' will be by the end (in its own way, ie: it might not make you want to jigg about, but it will be appreaciated and enjoyed)

Very good point. I really think it depends on the individual listener what is appreciated too. People who study music and live and breathe music obviously do prefer more "advanced" and progressive music where they can discover new things even the 5 millionth time they listen to an album. And the opposite is of course people who only think of music as entertainment and don't listen as often. And when an entertainment-first listener goes metal he'll certainly prefer accessible and more "simple" bands, at least in the beginning. Well I'm not gonna go into a long rant about it, but thats basically what I wanted to say.

 

[FatesEnemy]

I agree as well.Pop music is like bubble gum.Its Sweet and good at first but after awhile it looses its flavor.Pop thrives off the moment, one catchy tune after another.Its a reoccuring cycle.Atleast it appears that way to me.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Oh okay. I agree, to an extent, but I wouldn't call that objective. It may be true that certain symbols invoke the same images in every member of the same culture, but it's still a product of socialization, i.e. if you played the same music to someone who has grown up in isolation on a desert island, they would not have the same interpretation of it as us.

Yeah, but I feel that metal is written for Western culture and when measuring its 'objective' quality I put it in context to this cultural template - the same way I try to have objective values by putting them in context to the planet. This is probably what you'd call 'looking at things objectively from a subjective basis'. Black metal is of course meaningless to someone who's grown up on a desert island, just like it's meaningless to Christians or parrots.

I'll talk more about this later but I'm at school and can't concentrate (you'll notice a decline in quality of any posts I make during the afternoon).

 

[no country for old wainds]

Can a melody define the artistic worth of a piece of music? Can a melody be too accessible?

Well, it's often 'entertainment people' who throw around terms like 'originality' when saying why they like bands. I'm no different, pop melodies are predictable and have been done a thousand times before, thus they bore me. I value progression and evolution, I like to hear things that haven't been done before yet sound logical (note, I use the term 'innovation' for this, while 'originality' can apply to all things illogical too, and therefore isn't something I necessarily value). I also don't like listening to music which expresses populism and values that I loathe.

 

[Cendre]

Melody can be a positive thing as well as a negative thing.

Bands with melody in a positive sense: Dissection, Katatonia, Dismember, Death, The Crown
Bands with melody in a negative sense: In Flames, Soilwork, Norther (insert any lame-ass melometal shit with maidenriffs here)

Do you mean + or - depending on feelings, or your personnal taste ?
Please explain.

 

[stefan86]

Well it does depend on feelings as well as my personal taste, obviously. I think a band like Dismember, for instance, truly uses melody in a good way. Because Dismember are melodic, but they are still no doubt a Death Metal act.

But I don't like when heaviness or the substance of the music is compromised to make space for the melody, and thats what a band like Soilwork does.

But it all comes down to personal taste in the end.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Melody is pretty cool.

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

Melody is, with all musical tools, something to be used but not overused. If an entire song is based on the same basic melodies, like most pop stuff, it becomes repetitive and sickening. It's like...frosting. Melody is chocolate frosting you put on a song to sweeten it, but if the whole thing is nothing but frosting, you get sick. So you have to leave some room for the, uh, pastry, or at least use different flavors of frosting.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Melody is, with all musical tools, something to be used but not overused. If an entire song is based on the same basic melodies, like most pop stuff, it becomes repetitive and sickening. It's like...frosting. Melody is chocolate frosting you put on a song to sweeten it, but if the whole thing is nothing but frosting, you get sick. So you have to leave some room for the, uh, pastry, or at least use different flavors of frosting.

Yeah, think of DEATH METAL, or whatever, as the pastry, and the POWER METAL INFLUENCE/BASE as the frosting. Too much frosting and no one will notice the pastry anymore.

 

[Necro Joe]

Mmmm frosting....

 

[Naggamanteh]

Nothing wrong with melody, but what's up with this blinkered view that melody is essential? There are people who listen to music with no melody and they enjoy it, that will do for me.

 

[no country for old wainds]

John Cage is such an asshole.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I like noise. It has no melody 99% of the time. I still like it. End.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Can a song contain, like, I dunno, one or two decent melodies, or do they always have to be compounding?

A song like Black Sabbath's Paranoid is based on two or three simple melodies, a 1-4-5 bassline(kinda), and seems to have lasted a good 30 years almost. I still find something new everytime I listen to it. Can good melodies get old? Pop is bubblegum(I never got that analogy until this thread, actually...you chew gum and the flavor goes away, just like a song...nevermind), I agree, but what about those classic pop songs like Girls Just Wanna Have Fun or Dancing Queen?

 

[Episteme]

I like John Cage, more of his actual melody based songs than his pretentious attempts at making music.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I thought it was 4'33? Either way, it's supergay.

 

[Episteme]

Is that the one where he recorded silence? o_0

 

[no country for old wainds]

Or raging homosexuality, depending on how you look at it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

In order to be music I think it should actually make some kind of sound, coherent or not.