Thread: If music is tuneful, is it "lesser?"

Originally Posted by Herzeleide

Because the composer thinks that no parameter is more powerful than any other? Sacrificing melody opens up a composer's options to develop harmony, texture and rhythm. Much modern and contemporary music demonstrates this. Like Renaissance choral polyphony, the lines are autonomous, hence either every line is a melody or none is (although 'melody' often implies some kind of hierarchy is involved, with subordinate voices, so it would be more accurate to say that there is no melody).

If 'no parameter is more powerful than any other', then all parameters are equal. So if a composer chooses deliberately to write music that has no melodic component at all, s/he must have a strong reason for leaving out a parameter that is equal to all the others.

I'd agree that defining 'melody' gets you into a hornets nest, so best not to try. It's even more complex than beauty, which 'one knows when one sees'. The theme of the allegretto of Beethoven's 7th is surely not a tune. However, the movement itself is memorably tuneful. Beethoven is invoking a sense of melody even when his theme is not a tune.

It is of course the right of any composer to use or not use one or more tools of the trade. It seems to me, though, that the 'absence of melody' was in some schools of 20th century composition elevated almost to a religion, as though incorporating tuneful elements in a composition was heresy.

Obviously, a great composer will not feel bound by constraints of fashion. It is possible that some composers who chose to expunge melody from their tool box will emerge as 'great'. I doubt it, personally, but that's just one guy's opinion.

This reminds of all those musical experiments in which they choose to leave out or include only one aspect of music.

Eg. John Cage 4'33
Ligeti - Atmosphéres
and some rather rhythmic works im aware of (unfortunately thats all they are).

The 'melody' is the underlying line of a piece, that could be through a long flowing melody OR it could be through the interaction of motifs between instruments that give the piece it's dramatic or lyrical arc or direction.

Originally Posted by Yosser

It seems to me, though, that the 'absence of melody' was in some schools of 20th century composition elevated almost to a religion, as though incorporating tuneful elements in a composition was heresy.

It's a pity that atonalism, for example, became somewhat of a dogma during the immediate post-WWII years. I'm sure that Schoenberg and others did not originally intend that to be the case.

But even if a preference for a lack of melody or tunefulness did become a dogma, it was like a counterweight to the hundreds of years prior during which the opposite was the case. As has been discussed on another thread, people are still quite conservative, judging by their comments on pieces like Beethoven's Grosse Fuge.

I think that the general public actually enforces the opposite dogma, that music has to be tuneful in order to be understandable. It doesn't matter if academics prefer things like atonal music, it appears that the general taste is still for music which is tuneful.

Originally Posted by Andre

It's a pity that atonalism, for example, became somewhat of a dogma during the immediate post-WWII years. I'm sure that Schoenberg and others did not originally intend that to be the case.

But even if a preference for a lack of melody or tunefulness did become a dogma, it was like a counterweight to the hundreds of years prior during which the opposite was the case. As has been discussed on another thread, people are still quite conservative, judging by their comments on pieces like Beethoven's Grosse Fuge.

I think that the general public actually enforces the opposite dogma, that music has to be tuneful in order to be understandable. It doesn't matter if academics prefer things like atonal music, it appears that the general taste is still for music which is tuneful.

I think there's a misconception that happens too often, not only around here, but everywhere it seems, that tonal music is thought of as accessible just best it's tonal. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Quite the contrary. Tonal music can be just as challenging as atonal music. In fact, you would think you're listening to an atonal piece and you're actually not.

Tchaikovsky wrote beautiful; tuneful music, but Shostakovich wrote a lot of dissonant, aggressive, spit-in-your-face music that wasn't afraid to be spiky, but it still was within tonality. Many people can't digest Shostakovich, because of that aggression or that spikiness. This is a great example, because it demonstrates two opposites of the tonal spectrum.

Where I'm getting at is just because something is tonal doesn't mean it's accessible.

People look at atonality like it's this intellectual music and it's overly complicated, but it isn't. I despise serialism, but this certainly doesn't mean I don't understand it. I think in order for you to understand something you must be open-minded. Being open-minded has nothing to do with your personal tastes, it's about giving things a chance to grow on you and happen. Unfortunately, serialism is something that will never grow on me, because I think it lacks the foundations of what make music what it is: rhythm, harmony, melody, and structure.

Originally Posted by Andre

It's a pity that atonalism, for example, became somewhat of a dogma during the immediate post-WWII years. I'm sure that Schoenberg and others did not originally intend that to be the case.

But even if a preference for a lack of melody or tunefulness did become a dogma, it was like a counterweight to the hundreds of years prior during which the opposite was the case. As has been discussed on another thread, people are still quite conservative, judging by their comments on pieces like Beethoven's Grosse Fuge.

I think that the general public actually enforces the opposite dogma, that music has to be tuneful in order to be understandable. It doesn't matter if academics prefer things like atonal music, it appears that the general taste is still for music which is tuneful.

That's because in a three minute popular song - which is what most listen to - it's all about the tune. There isn't the time in 3 minutes to develop a long complex interaction and development of motifs. There is nothing wrong with a well crafted song though, it has it's place in the musical universe. Not all modern classical music is atonal either.

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

Where I'm getting at is just because something is tonal doesn't mean it's accessible.

and just because a piece is accessible doesn't mean that it's bad either.

Originally Posted by Yosser

Important to note you're referring to the opening movements. The finale of the Waldstein does have a tune, though not a particularly memorable one. The finale of the violin concerto, on the other hand (assuming you're referring to Beethoven's), has a superb tune and it is surely part of the design of the concerto that the solo instrument gets to really 'sing' only in that final movement.

I love that tune, one of my all time favorites. Arrau playing it a little slower than usual, is the closer to heaven we can get on earth.

But yes, I was talking of the themes of both first movements, the full-blown sonata-forms. And even in the Waldstein, the second theme is quite tuneful but not in alyrical fashion but in a chorale way, combined with the drastic change of texture, the distance in the key (it's E minor I suppose) amkes an incredible contrast.

Originally Posted by jhar26

and just because a piece is accessible doesn't mean that it's bad either.

No of course not. I hope Andre reads my post. I await his response to that one.

Originally Posted by jhar26

and just because a piece is accessible doesn't mean that it's bad either.

Isn't that the truth? It's too bad that there are those out there though who would try to diminish a work's worth for being an easy listen as opposed to a "challenging" listen. There's room for both.

Originally Posted by Yosser

If 'no parameter is more powerful than any other', then all parameters are equal. So if a composer chooses deliberately to write music that has no melodic component at all, s/he must have a strong reason for leaving out a parameter that is equal to all the others.

Because it opens up a world of possiblities, as evidenced by some of the great pieces of the twentieth-century.

Originally Posted by Yosser

It is of course the right of any composer to use or not use one or more tools of the trade. It seems to me, though, that the 'absence of melody' was in some schools of 20th century composition elevated almost to a religion, as though incorporating tuneful elements in a composition was heresy.

This is fair enough, and I can't complain since these certains schools which I think you're talking about produced some masterpieces.

Originally Posted by Yosser

Obviously, a great composer will not feel bound by constraints of fashion. It is possible that some composers who chose to expunge melody from their tool box will emerge as 'great'. I doubt it, personally, but that's just one guy's opinion.

Don't worry, those in the know appreciate the masterpieces created by Ligeti, Boulez, Carter etc.

And of course, this is to ignore Renaissance polyphony, which also excludes melody, consisting rather simply of musical lines each of which having more of an equal status than in homophonic (melody and accompaniment) music.

Originally Posted by bdelykleon

I love that tune, one of my all time favorites. Arrau playing it a little slower than usual, is the closer to heaven we can get on earth.

Well we could argue that around a bit. Beethoven wrote many sublime melodies. I agree, though, that the Rondo theme does invoke an extraordinary feeling of serenity, after the turmoil of the opening movement and the utter despair of the Adagio. The transition from the Adagio to the Rondo is surely quite magical.

What's interesting is that the same theme sounds utterly different in the concluding measures of the movement. The same notes, but (quite deliberately) the feeling created is the opposite of serene.

There are no prizes for writing a great melody in isolation. Paraphrasing Brahms: 'Any donkey can do that.' The important thing is the way in which melody, dissonance, rhythm etc. are combined to create a great piece of music.