Why are some melodies catchier than others ???

[Mr Songwriter]

I realise that you're probably never going to be able to reduce something like this to a mathematical formula and that there is also quite a lot of subjectivity involved, but it does seem that some melodies are generally agreed to be more memorable/interesting/pleasing to the ear than others...and that being the case, are there any characteristics that those melodies have in common or are there any tricks that can be used to create those sort of melodies.

 

Your thoughts please.

[GreenAsJade]

If someone knew the answer to this question, they wouldn't be here in TLL, they'd be

on Hawaii or something, surrounded by gorgeous women...

 

GaJ

[mosiddiqi]

If someone knew the answer to this question, they wouldn't be here in TLL, they'd be on Hawaii or something, surrounded by gorgeous women... GaJ

 

It has been quiet around here recently.

[1001gear]

lulz...

[polishpaul]

I think the memorable melody generally has simple scale tones....roots,thirds, fifths and sixths being used a lot.

 

But the Star Spangled Banner has an "outside" note............the last note of the third bar.

 

Rhythm and note length play a large part in making something memorable, I reckon. And with something like "Somewhere over the Rainbow", the young voice of Judy Garland kind of "haunted" the melody into people's minds.

 

As you say, it's very subjective. But usually simple .

[Mr Songwriter]

 

If someone knew the answer to this question, they wouldn't be here in TLL, they'd be on Hawaii or something, surrounded by gorgeous women... GaJ

 

 

Well yes, there is that, but it seemed like the kind of thing that lesson loft people might be interested in, or have a few theories about.

 

 

polishpaul I think the memorable melody generally has simple scale tones....roots,thirds, fifths and sixths being used a lot. But the Star Spangled Banner has an "outside" note............the last note of the third bar. Rhythm and note length play a large part in making something memorable, I reckon. And with something like "Somewhere over the Rainbow", the young voice of Judy Garland kind of "haunted" the melody into people's minds. As you say, it's very subjective. But usually simple

.

 

Interesting thoughts, especially about Rhythm and note length, it's easy to focus too much on the notes themselves and forget about those two.

[jeremy_green]

Along with rhythm - which is almost ALWAYS very strong in good melodies - it is also about the resolution to the tonic note. Good melodies take you away in such a way that the return to the home note always feels great. Tension and resolution live at the core of most that is sonically cool.

[bdemon]

Yeah, very subjective, but I've always suspected a good (or at least memorable) melody is easy to whistle or hum. Can't whistle an obnoxious sweep or two hand tapping solo! Then again, maybe there's some kid on Youtube whistling Eruption.

[1001gear]

Yay mutants.

[JonR]

If these gorgeous women would leave me alone for a minute, I might be able to tell you... no, get off me for once, dammit! And you! Well, all right, YOU can stay, but just let me type this...

Honestly, it's a really pain in the ass, being so gifted and rich. I wouldn't wish it on you guys, so I'm not telling you anything.

[sigh] here's that damn Bill Gates again, wanting to borrow some money.... look Bill, just grab a couple of these women will you, will that do for now?

[polishpaul]

^^^^

 

Just booked the flight......somewhere in south London, aren't you?

 

Stick a rose on your front door ........

[JonR]

^^^^ Just booked the flight......somewhere in south London, aren't you? Stick a rose on your front door ........

Nope I'm in Hawaii. Didn't you read GreenAsJade? On my yacht offshore. Probably be gone by the time you get here.

[JonnyPac]

This is interesting. The book he quotes is good too.

 

http://jazzinsidemagazine.com/Members/wsostre/why-do-i-like-jazz

[Mr Songwriter]

Cheers for the link, good article.

 

 

Along with rhythm - which is almost ALWAYS very strong in good melodies - it is also about the resolution to the tonic note. Good melodies take you away in such a way that the return to the home note always feels great.

 

 

The resolution to the tonic thing is interesting, I've never really consciously thought about it before when I've been trying to come up with melodies, but the first three melodies I played after reading that comment all followed that pattern, so maybe it's something I'll have to look into more.

[JonR]

All good melodies are singable ("cantabile" as Mozart said). That means they are limited in range (little more than an octave), consisting largely of scale moves broken by small skips, with larger interval leaps rarer. They tend to adhere to diatonic scale notes. They rend to be repetitive: consisting of short phrases (no longer than a breath) resembling one another in some way. Singability means note durations are also fairly limited: not too long, and not too short.

Pentatonic scales (major or minor) are popular, because they are the easiest scales to sing.

Tunes like Amazing Grace or Auld Lang Syne are entirely major pentatonic.

Summertime and House of the Rising Sun are almost entirely minor pentatonic.

 

Of course, catchiness is another matter. It's possible to write a melody fitting all the above requirements - but it still might not be catchy. That requires a "hook" of some kind: and that might not be a specifically melodic thing. Eg, in the Beatles "She Loves You", the hook is "yeah yeah yeah". There's a famous hook in "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling", the phrase "woh-woh-oh" - the story goes the writers left that unfinished, planning on putting some proper words to it later; but Phil Spector recognised it as a hook and they kept it like that. The Dave Clark Five's "Glad All Over" has two drum hits as its hook - and many pop songs have similarly crude rhythmic devices as hooks.

Riffs are hooks of course, and while they are usually melodic (as well as rhythmic), they are rarely sung on the recordings - even though we can all sing famous riffs when we want.

The hook is essentially the thing that makes you want to join in, to take part. That's how it "catches", and that's why it has to be stupidly simple. That's why successful songwriters know when to stop adding stuff just to be "interesting". Amateur songwriters are always worried about their songs being "boring", and think that making them more complicated is the answer. Wrong. It's not a matter of simple vs complicated, but of weak vs strong. Strong doesn't always mean simple, but usually does.

 

Of course, "catchy" can also mean "annoying". That's when the crudity is overdone, or too brazen, or when the hook is just hammered home too much.

[HaraldSchneller]

Seems like an interesting topic.

Do you really need to be surrounded by women in Hawaii to be happy?

Anything, music included may be described by mathematical formulas, to a certain extend.

However, a map is not the city.

Some melodies are catchier than others, because they are music, not constructions.

Keep it simple.

http://www.myspace.com/haraldschnellergroup

[Mr Songwriter]

 

All good melodies are singable ("cantabile" as Mozart said). That means they are limited in range (little more than an octave), consisting largely of scale moves broken by small skips, with larger interval leaps rarer. They tend to adhere to diatonic scale notes. They rend to be repetitive: consisting of short phrases (no longer than a breath) resembling one another in some way. Singability means note durations are also fairly limited: not too long, and not too short. Pentatonic scales (major or minor) are popular, because they are the easiest scales to sing. Tunes like Amazing Grace or Auld Lang Syne are entirely major pentatonic. Summertime and House of the Rising Sun are almost entirely minor pentatonic.

 

 

Thanks, good info.

 

 

Of course, catchiness is another matter. It's possible to write a melody fitting all the above requirements - but it still might not be catchy. That requires a "hook" of some kind: and that might not be a specifically melodic thing. Eg, in the Beatles "She Loves You", the hook is "yeah yeah yeah". There's a famous hook in "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling", the phrase "woh-woh-oh" - the story goes the writers left that unfinished, planning on putting some proper words to it later; but Phil Spector recognised it as a hook and they kept it like that. The Dave Clark Five's "Glad All Over" has two drum hits as its hook - and many pop songs have similarly crude rhythmic devices as hooks. Riffs are hooks of course, and while they are usually melodic (as well as rhythmic), they are rarely sung on the recordings - even though we can all sing famous riffs when we want. The hook is essentially the thing that makes you want to join in, to take part. That's how it "catches", and that's why it has to be stupidly simple. That's why successful songwriters know when to stop adding stuff just to be "interesting". Amateur songwriters are always worried about their songs being "boring", and think that making them more complicated is the answer. Wrong. It's not a matter of simple vs complicated, but of weak vs strong. Strong doesn't always mean simple, but usually does. Of course, "catchy" can also mean "annoying". That's when the crudity is overdone, or too brazen, or when the hook is just hammered home too much.

 

 

I was thinking about this when I started the thread - is it possible to separate the melody from the rest of the song and definitively say that that is the catchy element ? (rather than say, the lyrics or the chords)...and it occured to me that it is...but not in every case - there are definitely melodies that are fun to hum/whistle/sing/whatever, completely unaccompanied, but other melodies only really seem to become interesting when you add other bits of the song.

 

The comments about hooks are interesting too, I'd never really thought of things like drum parts being hooks before, but it makes sense...hooks are probably harder to come up with as well because they need to have that novelty factor in order to catch people's ear.

[Krank'N]

I feel this depends on the listener. Our musical backgrounds go back to the cradle. We hear familiar patterns if only sub-consciously. A lot of stuff comes from primitive tribal chants and developed because of the range of the human voice and the ease which campfire songs could be learned and passed on. The childrens song "OLd Macdonalds farm" is a Druid chant. A more sophisticated listener may hear a Beatle's melody when playing OZZY backwards!

[polishpaul]

.....maybe cheesy lyrics help:

 

"In the mountain greenery where God paints the scenery...."

 

The melody to this line exemplifies a good melody........mystifyingly simple !

 

 

Here is the notation of the melody, and a midi file to it is attached at the end of this post:

 

 

...and here is a cracking good version of the song:

 

[video=youtube;iADhV0NbIF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iADhV0NbIF8

[brahmz118]

I've never felt that singability is truly the best litmus test for a good melody. I hear this concept over and over again, but the voice has certain lines that suit it, and instruments have certain types of lines that suit them. A good melody on an instrument, if limited to reproducing singable phrases, will potentially leave much of that instrument's potential unused.

 

The famous Bach cello prelude in G is extremely catchy, whether you learn the first few measures or the entire piece, and to me it meets all the criteria of a good melody. It's not really singable though. Bobby McFerrin might be able to do a passable job but it won't ever sound as clean as it does on an instrument.

 

I think singability involves 1) the ability to track something as we hear it (and trackability is not necessarily predictability) and 2) vocal reproduction. I just feel that the 2nd step is not as essential. And the 1st step is hard to explain - but it's what I do in my head when I'm processing a melody.

[JonR]

 

I've never felt that singability is truly the best litmus test for a good melody. I hear this concept over and over again, but the voice has certain lines that suit it, and instruments have certain types of lines that suit them. A good melody on an instrument, if limited to reproducing singable phrases, will potentially leave much of that instrument's potential unused. The famous Bach cello prelude in G is extremely catchy, whether you learn the first few measures or the entire piece, and to me it meets all the criteria of a good melody. It's not really singable though. Bobby McFerrin might be able to do a passable job but it won't ever sound as clean as it does on an instrument. I think singability involves 1) the ability to track something as we hear it (and trackability is not necessarily predictability) and 2) vocal reproduction. I just feel that the 2nd step is not as essential. And the 1st step is hard to explain - but it's what I do in my head when I'm processing a melody.

Good points. I agree the actual abiltiy to sing a melody is not important; but - IMO - one ought to be able to imagine being able to sing it: if one had a perfect voice with a big enough range.

I fully believe that all music involving pitched notes relates back to the human voice, psychologically. Of course, we have developed instruments that go beyond the voice, at least in terms of range (above and below) - as if to extend the expressive potential of our "inner voice".

I also believe that the more music exploits those aspects of instruments that are beyond the capability of the voice, the more disconnected most people feel from it. It becomes (literally) less human.

Doesn't make it less valid (or valuable) as music, but - relative to the topic of this thread - it makes its melodic content less "catchy".

[stomias]

The best instrumental melodic phrasing mimics the human voice.

[hugbot]

I dont think "catchyness" in itself is a particularly great goal to be honest. I think a lot of how memorable something is just to do with how familiar it is.

 

Rebecca Black-Friday is a goddamn terrible song but after hearing it about a thousand times that month it came out it was definately stuck in my head for sure.

 

Similarly i've heard a lot of songs that are "catchy" but arent neccisarilly interesting, 12 bar blues for one. You know pretty much how a 12 bar blues style melody "should" sound so when it fulfills those expecations it sounds "right", but that doesent mean that all 12 bar blues songs are great or even good.

 

What you're really looking for I think is pathos, not neccisarilly a "timeless melody"-some particular mathematical combination of notes that is pleasing at all times as if such a thing were possible, but the right melody for the context that expresses the feeling the song wants to express.

[JonnyPac]

My views are a bit odd with what I'm actually attracted to as far as a melody goes. I really like the melody to Stella by Starlight because of the way it sits on the chords under it. Each note is an extension! If the melody was removed from the chords and re-harmonized with simpler things, I wouldn't like it at all!

 

With that in mind, I enjoy rich and interesting chord progressions with melodies that "top of" the harmony. I also like unusual intervallic jumps; like P4's and so on. Wayne Shorter, Andrew Hill, Bill Evans, Monk, Eric Dolphy, and Miles really nail it in jazz for me. In pop: late Beatles, Of Montreal, Deerhoof, Andrew Bird, Blonde Redhead, Kate Bush, Jolie Holland come to my mind.

[Alex_DeLarge]

I really relate melody to voice. The catchier melodies are those I find myself singing all the time, wether it is a solo or a vocal line. At least for me.

 

Also rythym and note duration is really really important I think, especially on bass.