Since I am not a musicologist, I have no idea how to respond.

There are many composers, like Henze, that I am unfamiliar with.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Anyway, what is traditionally called atonal or dissonant or 12-tone music is what I personally internalize as "amelodic".

Yes, think about it:

If you have to use 12 different tones successively the melody and the rhythm are restricted and basically killed. Most melodies and rhythms have a different number than 12 tones. In order to get to 12 tones you have to disfigure them. What a terrible concept.

 

Wrong. Here's proof (that took about five minutes):

 

So this is the part where more educated and open minded listeners post examples of melodies that use 12-tone/serial/freely atonal pieces showing that they have a melody, only to be shut down because it doesn't sound like Brahms?

 

only to be shut down because it doesn't sound like Brahms?

I can't find the reference, I'll post it if I do. But there was something I read by a composer, maybe Christopher Fox or Laurence Crane, where he talks about how he wants to use melody, but not use it like Brahms -- and he goes on to explain that he wants to avoid setting up the melody like it's a hero of a 19th century narrative. I always think of the last movement of Brahms's first symphony.

 

"Amelodic" refers to music without melody, as the Merriam-Webster definition suggested, music which sounded like a swarm of bees. Other examples could be the works made up of long sections of atmospheric soundscapes, or long tones, or non-pitched percussion works.

However, Schönberg, Carter, Ferneyhough, and other modern composers writing in a complex atonal style do still write melodies. They may be jagged, or include leaps spanning several octaves, or other non-traditional aspects, but they are melodies nonetheless.

Another kind of non-melodic content could be the motivic cell used by a composer like Beethoven. These are typically three or four notes which are used to develop longer sections by transposing the cell to a variety of pitch levels, and applying other common compositional procedures.

 

However, Schönberg, Carter, Ferneyhough, and other modern composers writing in a complex atonal style do still write melodies. They may be jagged, or include leaps spanning several octaves, or other non-traditional aspects, but they are melodies nonetheless.

But "melody" implies a suitabilty for singing. https://www.definify.com/word/μελῳδία

And a melody is a connection of intervals. But how can there be a connection of more than 2 successive tones if there is no tonic keytone? Isn't the entire point of atonalism to don't have this kind of connection?

 

The adjectives 'Theme' and 'Thematic' would be more appropriate given the connotations and historical baggage associated with 'melody' and 'melodic'. 'Amelodic' almost sounds derogatory.

 

"Cantabile" is what we usually use in classical as a "singable melody", not "melodic", i.e. things in the style of a song, with nothing not feasible to sing, due to complexity/speed/etc.

 

"Cantabile" is just more explicit. A melody has to be as singable as "cantabile", but something very unsingable is not understood as a melody.

Words have meanings, you can't just go ahead and change them like you want.

PS. And "speed" is no criterion for melody. You can play a melody faster or slower, but it remains the same melody.

 

To my musically naive way of thinking, melody and tonality are two different things.

One may stamp out a melody using single-note tappings on a piano. The tonality of the melody may not be in evidence, especially if that melody is comprised of the 12-notes of a tone row. Also, a melody may be played (or whistled) in various keys. Structurally, referencing the half and whole steps (or even micro steps) up and down that form the melody, the melody remains the same. But because the key is changed, the tonality is different.

Tonality seems tied to conservative musical practice relying upon standardized (and perhaps not even always standardized) keys or modes. I believe we tend to use the word "atonal" simply when there are no leading or guiding tones, such as tonics and dominants and sub-dominants. An atonal tone row (which may qualify as a melody) does not necessarily have structures such as tonics and dominants. When each note carries equal weight as a leader or guide (which essentially means there is no leader or guide as such), we have atonal music. But it may still be melodic music.

Simple thinking from a simple thinker, perhaps.

Strict (dictionary) definitions often confound sense and/or meaning, and we should probably be cautious when approaching any argument using them, unless the traditional definitions are agreed upon in advance. Yet, definitions change as philosophies change. Nothing wrong with that.

I occasionally whistle what I perceive to be the melody of Anton Webern's Piano Variations Op. 27. One must suppose that in order to have a set of Variations in the first place, one must have a melody (or motif) to variate. Any tonality of the work (in the traditional sense of key/modal centers) still befuddles me.

I'm sure someone will post something here which will force me to reconsider my current thinking. And that's good, too.

 

Thx for all the feedback folks ... quite the didacticism!

In the TS, I mentioned the concept of hooks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(music)

I don't think this concept is used in CM, but perhaps should be. I think traditionally-defined "tonal" CM has quite a bit of hooks ... but not so much "atonal".
That said, I do listen to quite the share of atonal CM, and derive immense satisfaction from the experience.

 

In the TS, I mentioned the concept of hooks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_(music)

I don't think this concept is used in CM, but perhaps should be. I think traditionally-defined "tonal" CM has quite a bit of hooks ... but not so much "atonal".

This is where I would suggest giving further listens to Schoenberg's works, because that's far from the case.

Take the initial piano arpeggiated figuration in, say, the first song of Pierrot Lunaire, and note how it gets developed in the piano and tossed between the instruments

A total hook.

Or take the example posted by Bwv 1080, the 3rd quartet,

Note the ostinato in the second violin and viola that more or less pervades the entire movement, and the beautiful lyrical counterpoint of the 1st violin and cello. Aka a hook. The notes/harmony that governs the ostinato and the lyrical singing get developed and interchanged throughout the movement.

It's true that something like Erwartung

doesn't posses recurring themes, but there is melodicism (overflowing in every accompanying instrument, not just in the singer) and ostinato textures (that give a sense of waiting, suspense, expectation... which is what Erwartung means: expectation!).

Schoenberg's melodies can be very angular - leaping, avoiding diatonic implication, and having a lot more sevenths, ninths, and tritones than his predecessors, but are still melodies! In the Phantasy for Violin and Piano

Schoenberg composed the violin part entirely before writing the piano part, and it's important to hear the violin as a principal lyrical voice throughout. The violin melody is angular but also deliberate as it holds on to certain notes, and rich and expressive. And it develops and references itself, with a spectacular climactic coda at the end that harkens back to the initial theme - a hook!

 

Perhaps it is understandable that what is considered to be a melody has changed somewhat over the last century, but it should be reasonable to expect that a melody fits close to the various dictionary definitions of the term and perhaps more important that a given melody is recognizable to anyone (otherwise familiar with classical music) who listens to a work without having to have it pointed out.

I get the impression from some of the posts above and in previous threads on the subject that a melody can be whatever an individual thinks it is, including nothing more than the repetition of the same 2 notes, once described to me in another thread as a haunting melody.

 

But Schoenberg's melodies are recognizable to people without needing to have them be pointed out. Of course, just because you cannot recognize them does not mean that other people cannot recognize them.

The basis of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern is all melody. If anything, they are more linear and more melodically salient than their peers or predecessors.

 

But Schoenberg's melodies are recognizable to people without needing to have them be pointed out. Of course, just because you cannot recognize them does not mean that other people cannot recognize them..

And just because you say so doesn't mean that they can pick the same ones out independently. Even if someone can pick out what they are calling a melody, the question is, do or can others predictably and independently pick out the same sequence of notes as being 'a' or 'the' melody. Which brings up another question: Is there anything called 'the melodies' as opposed to a series of independent different note sequences, never repeated, referred to as melodies.

These are reasonable questions deserving reasonable answers. If the concept of 'melody' has been reasonably changed because some contemporary music has changed then perhaps that needs to be addressed.

 

right, when we say "cantabile" it's not just rhythm, we're generally implying that the range of pitches, the intended interpretation, and the ornamentation involved are in the style of the human voice. I can make a melody full of double stops, trills, and high pitch spacing which are completely inappropriate for singing-that doesn't make it amelodic.

Actually the fact that "cantabile" exists as a concept implies that not all melodies are "singable", otherwise there'd be no need for that term to exist.

 

also I'm against the use of dictionary definitions for this kind of thing. Dictionary definitions tend to be based on everyday, layman's usage by nature-they aren't appropriate for technical discussions in a specific field, where definitions of words might not necessarily be the same as colloquial usage

 

^^^ That’s convenient if somebody wants to change the definition(s) to meet their own demands or persuasion. Is a melody now only definable by those having technical discussions and the layman (which, in this case, might be the average listener) is not capable?

 

Well, rhe other problem which isn't really solved by dictionary definitions is that "melodic" seems like a subjective evaluation. Schubert, for instance, is frequently called "melodic" while the Hammerklavier fugue is generally not. I'm not sure any distinction exists between the two which isn't necessarily a subjective aesthetic evaluation.

 

Schubert, for instance, is frequently called "melodic" while the Hammerklavier fugue is generally not.

The Grosse fuge is actually striking in its "unconventional use of melodies", which are far more "memorable" than those of the fugal works of many of Beethoven's contemporaries and predecessors such as Albrechtberger, Sechter, Pasterwitz, Cherubini, etc.

7:30

The ending of Grosse fuge (where all the tension resolves) is some of the most sincerely emotional music ever written for the string quartet imv.

 

If the Hammerklavier fugue is deemed to not be melodic then that would rule out people using the term to refer to some contemporary and particularly, avant-garde music. That said, I probably can appreciate that some might find the latter music broadly and subjectively melodic, but I think that a specific ‘melody’ should be something that listeners can reliably and independently identify.

 

Maybe "melodic" isn't the right phrase to bring up here- music can of course have melodies and not be particularly "melodic".

If I had to hack together some kind of conceptual definition, I think a "melody" is intended to somewhat stand on its own as its own aesthetic statement, while a motive, or a subject is something where the aesthetic statement comes from development of it. Of course, a melody can certainly be developed, but I think there's a useful delineation between something like the second movement of the New World Symphony, where the largo melody is clearly it's own aesthetic "statement", and say, a subject in a classical symphony which might not strike us as a very complete melody by itself (see: the first four notes of the Beethoven 5th Symphony)

And of course themes don't even have to be tonal, or based on pitch- you can make and develop a theme based on a rhythmic, or even a dynamic pattern.

Of course a composer is entitled to present any series of notes, tonal or not, as its own aesthetic statement- it doesn't mean it's particularly good or inventive.

 

This movement from Le Marteau sans Maître is highly expressive, colourful and, most relevant to this thread, melodic.

 

Several posts have been deleted or edited because they breached the forum policies, in particular:

Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.

 

I actually think the presentation and treatment of the theme is what matters more than singability.

This doesn't mean that eg a fugue subject can't, by itself, be a melody, but if it's treated primarily as a fugue subject in a work, and the aesthetic point of the work is the fugue, rather than the theme by itself, we generally wouldn't call the work "melodic". On the other hand, a theme which is presented as an aesthetic statement by itself is what we think of when we say "melodic" music. In a theme-and-variations structure, for example, it's important that the theme by itself can stand on its own.

And once again it's not as if this is a hard red line- of course composers are free to treat a theme both as a melody and as a subject for development. As for the actual subject, I think it's perfectly possible for a serial composer to treat a certain set of tones as a standalone statement.

 

How singable is this

How melodic is this

 

How singable is this

Look what LangLang finds singable:

 

I think LvB dabbled a bit in atonality (the way that concept is academically described) ... but I'm trying to recall pre-20th century works/composers who dabbled with atonality.
It might be even be a humorous chord or a Mozart "fart" joke ...

Anyone know of more?

 

I think LvB dabbled a bit in atonality (the way that concept is academically described) ... but I'm trying to recall pre-20th century works/composers who dabbled with atonality.
It might be even be a humorous chord or a Mozart "fart" joke ...
Anyone know of more?

https://www.talkclassical.com/71178-atonal-rather-amelodic-semantically-2.html#post2078049 (Post #19)

"The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
< Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >
"the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)."
< Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128>

 

Singers can do some pretty amazing things, no melody is out of reach for this one.

 

Eh, but should a 12-tone subset, like a 12-tone row, also be considered as an order of tones, or should it be considered as an order of intervals to have a more clear idea of the melody? (Although the 12-tone row is constructed on an intervallic structure, it cannot be properly considered an order of intervals since there may exist unordered subsets and also because an order of intervals would not necessarily constitute all twelve tones; it must be considered an order of tones I guess.)

 

So is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be transposed?
I think if it is not defined as an order of intervals at least the intention is to be amelodic.
Is it forbidden for a twelve tone row to be divided?
What is the advantage of a twelve tone row to a eleven tone row?

 

I first heard twelve tone music when I was five years old, and I'm pretty sure I've heard that piece (or 90 second portion of a piece starting at 0:50) more than all other twelve tone pieces combined. Over the past several weeks my adult education music analysis class has been studying it.

At age five, I didn't know what to make of it. Now it sounds oddly melodic. By the way it's a twelve tone jazz fugue.