Melody/harmony. I am addicted to beautiful slow movements such as the Sarabandes of the Six Bach Keyboard Partitas.

 

The melody that affects me most is the slower part of Jupiter from Holst's the Planets.

 

Very tough. Pieces like Rite of Spring wouldn't be the same without rhythmic variety. But I went with melody/harmony. Everything by Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, etc. just wouldn't be the same without it.

But frankly, I didn't really get the question. You need rhythm to have a melody, and vice versa. They kind of rely on each other.

 

True, i'll clarify in the OP.

 

Melody Harmony or Rhythm ?
I could do without Harmony if forced but for me any music must have at least one of these and if it has more, so much the better but I must add it also needs form and patterns.

 

I chose melody/harmony. I don't mind a lot of Rubato which I feel is what this question comes down to.

 

That's like asking which is more important: your heart or your liver? Music without rhythm doesn't make sense. If you look at any melody, it's got rhythm (try to just tap the rhythm of a melody you know really well, and you'll likely recognize it). Of course music without melody and harmony would be rather boring so yeah, I need both.

 

Some cases the rhythm is not very interesting to a good melody, and you can have rhythm without melody or harmony.

 

I've long been addicted to chromaticism, in which harmony is a shape-shifter. Now it's one thing, and now it's another. You feel something happening, but before you know it it's something else again. Magic.

 

Spoken like a true Wagnerian!

 

As a kid, rhythm and large orchestral blasts turned me on.

Now, a "few" years later, in the Autumn of my years, quiet introspection is the rule for me-beautiful inspirational melodies; that's what I currently crave. I've become much more introverted, whether it's movies or music.

My posts over the years have modulated from long bloviating blasts to parsimonious pithiness.

 

I think the way Western classical music is composed, both melody and rhythm take a back seat to harmony......even pieces like Rite of Spring et. al. would be more fundamentally different in their impact if the aesthetic created by the harmonies were completely changed than if the rhythm were....harmony is what determines the aesthetic or idiom, more so than rhythm, even for 'rhythmic' pieces in western classical music....

I think harmony is *the* decisive factor in what any music sounds like to an ear that has absorbed the western classical tradition.

 

Melody and harmony win it for me, but not by much.

The rhythm is like the supports on which you can construct intricate and beautiful melodies/harmonies. Both are important--I just happen to be someone who enjoys the outward architecture of a building more than the beams and pipes inside the walls.

 

Love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
Let me tell you brother
You can't have one without the other.

--James van Heusen, Sammy Cahn

 

I have the sudden urge to watch Married with Children

 

That song does seem a bit old-fashioned these days, statistics being what they are.

 

And horses and carriages being what they are.

 

This poll is missing a lot of other musical elements, melody/harmony too are only important to certain types of music

 

That is what I'm trying to get at. Do the ones where there is less focus on melody/harmony still appeal to you?

 

I probably should change my vote. I chose melody, but now that I think about it, I'm a rhythm freak. I love James Brown and Tower of Power, and mariachi bands fascinate me with their cross-rhythms. And I think Varese's Ionisation is way cool.

 

For me also melody and harmony.

 

There is no music without rhythm, People are recycling the same melodies for thousands of years just by changing the rhythm.
Harmony is the least important factor. Even the colour of music is more important than harmony - try playing harmonies on "buzzing" instruments like kazoo, zournas, some bagpipes etc - it doesn't sound very pleasing.

 

Obviously melody/harmony is more important. Rhythm is more for rock music.

 

The OP did not say what type of music but in general music has to have some sort of rhythm also it depends on how you define rhythm.

Ballet has rhythm as do symphonies, concertos, chamber, choral etc, some avant garde may do without it I don't know.

 

Western music is all about harmony, which compensates for the lack of rhythmic and melodic subtlety (you can find that more in Eastern music).

Not sure why you grouped harmony and melody together.

 

"lack of rhythmic and melodic subtlety" - what? Most Classical music is the very picture of rhythmic subtlety. Pop/rock may often be the opposite of that, but it's hardly the only form of Western music.

"Not sure why you grouped harmony and melody together."

That's a bit like saying "I'm not sure why you grouped gravity and mass together", or "I'm not sure why you grouped trade and economics together", or "I'm not sure why you grouped bacteria and biology together".

Harmony is implicit in melody. May I suggest you enroll in a course in fundamental music theory?

 

How much harmony is there in Bach’s Cello suites?
I agree that eastern music has fantastic rhythms Indian dance etc “Bollywood”
I really think that rhythm must not be interpreted as swing etc all things in nature have rhythm, seasons, your Heart, time etc etc

 

How much harmony is there in Bach's Cello suites?

It's one of the reasons they're so studied, besides showing the expressive range of the instrument; it masterfully implies two voices, have you ever studied them?

 

Melody is the most important thing to me, as I have loved singing songs with tunes from the time that I was in my cot. But like everyone else, I don't really want to do without any element.

And of course, when I dance, rhythm is the most important.

 

Melody is the most important thing to me, as I have loved singing songs with tunes from the time that I was in my cot. But like everyone else, I don't really want to do without any element.

And of course, when I dance, rhythm is the most important.

I'm not sure you would be able to dance at all to complex rhythms.

 

I'm no Rhythm King, in fact i don't even like the way Rhythm is spelt.............

 

If there's no melody, I'm not interested.

 

Harmony is implicit in melody.

It's best not to dive into discussions without adaquate training in the subject matter.

 

A melody can be harmonised in many ways, even when it's structure happens to be clearly triadic you can play with different added tones and polychords, etc. Anyway, the most important thing is harmonic rhythm.

 

That's not the point. Any composer, or arranger, can plug in any harmonies he/she/it wants into a series of pitches. Some of the greatest jazz improvisers excelled at just that sort of thing - it's part of their genius.

My basic kindergarden rudiments of music point [this is the kind of thing beginning students learn and figure out right away] is that given a series of pitches, the harmony is implicit - short of some really radicalist expirement, or some Asia or African folk idioms.

To make the [kindergarden] point even clearer, consider the following series:

C D E G E D

That's a nice little melodic fragment. What's the harmony? Is there harmony? According to most of the untrained posting here, there isn't - due to their complete lack of music knowledge.

But, in fact, the harmony of that little melody is very clear. It's pure C major.

To address your remark - "A melody can be harmonised in many ways" - sure. We may take this very melody and do all kind of things to it and with it, INCLUDING dissonant chords, dissonant counterpoint, etc. etc. etc.

For those of you who still don't see it, and still don't understand - you won't understand music theory [keeping in mind that the points here are, again, elementary kindergarden stuff]. I strongly suggest the following for most of you:

1. Listen to music and enjoy it without worrying about technical points

2. Don't reach conclusions about music based on ignorance and lack of training - and worse - carry those erroneous conclusions around with you all of your life - and still worse - allow your erroneous conclusions to infect the way you relate to music.

 

Surely melody dictates rhythm and vice versa. I mean, you can't have one without the other. There are many pieces, where the collection of notes would be bland if not for the rhythm. Mars: The Bringer of War springs to mind. There are parts in that piece that are all about rhythm. A single note being played, over and over... if not for the timing of each stab, it would be an entirely bland experience.... p.s., I'm a newbie, so go easy on me :lol:

 

I would like to know what the OP ‘Phil loves classical’ defines as Harmony, in my groves it says two or more voices/instruments at the same time providing vertical development and this is what the majority of people would understand, not one voice/instrument playing a melody or arpeggios.

 

I would like to know what the OP 'Phil loves classical' defines as Harmony, in my groves it says two or more voices/instruments at the same time providing vertical development and this is what the majority of people would understand, not one voice/instrument playing a melody or arpeggios.

I originally mean explicit harmony at the time, but it could include implicit too. The main point was to compare that with rhythm. I know you can't have a melody without rhythm, but the point was a comparison on pieces with more emphasis on melody/harmony or on rhythm. Some pieces have striking beautiful melodies with less emphasis on rhythm, like Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake scene, or Mozart's Violin Concerto No. 3 adagio. On the other hand there are pieces with more emphasis on rhythm over melody like Shostakovich's Symphony No. 8 middle movement Allegro or parts of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or some with no melody/harmony at all, like Xenakis' Pleiades.