Members r0g3r Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by Terje Why do I put rhythm in front of melody? Because it's the more basic component. You can have music, and music that is really moving, with just rhythm. Did these classical composers actually say like that, did they say or write that they put melody first and rhythm second or is that just and interpretation of their music?Cause I'm not hearing that in their music either. Rhythm comes first there too. Why is a more basic component more important? What about being more basic = being more important? Yes, the Classical composers REALLY said that about melody: "It is the melody which is the chosen of music, and it is that which is most difficult to produce. The invention of a fine melody is a work of genius." - Franz Josef Haydn "Melody is the essence of music." -Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by Nicci true. but what is the difference if this is true? Bach wrote a lot of contrapunt. Mozart worked his way from chord to chord, 'improvising' a melody in between. Stravinsky combined the two. If we go back to Bach one could state that he placed one chord after another. Therefore: every harmony is melody. Every melody is harmony. It is just a way of looking at the score. Bach and Mozart both placed Melody as the most important element, and Melody was the element of their music that they chose to highlight. Any piece by Bach or Mozart has a strong melody which can be discerned from the harmony clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted November 18, 2002 Author Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by r0g3r Why is a more basic component more important? What about being more basic = being more important? Even though you are indeed asking a very relavant question it does not really apply in this situation. Melody does not exist without rhythm. You can't speak of melody without rhythm. You can have rhythm without melody. Even though drums and percussion instruments actually do produce pitches you can play on just one drum, with just one pitch and still be playing a great rhythm, no melody. Therefore I don't see the wuotes of the old masters as contradicting what I've been saying. When they speak of melody as being the most important aspect of music they are in no way excluding rhythm. And yes, in a way, to finally answer your question, I do think that the more fundamental component is more imporatant. The component that all the others are built upon, without which the others can't even exist, is more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 I disagree. I still assert that Melody is the most important component of music. This is a widely held view among every single one of my favorite Classical composers, and I believe they were right. You can't have melody without rythm, but rythm alone lacks emotional impact. Rythm only finds it's greatest importance in it's contribution to, and support of melody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 So Terje, would you consider Pitch to be more important than melody? Since pitch is a component of melody, I suppose by your definition pitch is more important. To me, pitch only finds signifigance in music when it's combined with rythm to create melodies and harmonies. The fact that it is a basic building block of melodies and harmonies does not elevate it in importance above melodies and harmonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nicci Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by r0g3r Bach and Mozart both placed Melody as the most important element, and Melody was the element of their music that they chose to highlight. Any piece by Bach or Mozart has a strong melody which can be discerned from the harmony clearly. This is true, but u didn't respond to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dave Regio Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by evan_02 something to add: improvising around a tune's melody (as opposed to the changes) is something that most people overlook. i'm trying to do it more with my own playing and i think it helps my solos not be piles of {censored}. didn't joe pass say something like "you should always be able to hear the melody in the solo"? That is something my teacher was saying to me at my lesson. He said the nuances and idiosyncrasies of the song I would be playing over become more important as I learn standards with similar chord progressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WattsUrizen Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Originally posted by Nicci true. but what is the difference if this is true? Bach wrote a lot of contrapunt. Mozart worked his way from chord to chord, 'improvising' a melody in between. Stravinsky combined the two. If we go back to Bach one could state that he placed one chord after another. Therefore: every harmony is melody. Every melody is harmony. It is just a way of looking at the score. Mozart's music is predominantly contrapuntal. The fundamental idea of structural harmony is quite different from chords that arise from contrapuntal progressions. Yes Mozart's texture is much more homophonic than the Baroque composers, but the chord progressions arise from contrapuntal movement from thematic transformations. One could state that Bach placed one chord after another: He would look at the melody, and decide upon a contrapuntal progression which resulted in contrapuntal chords. But it is important to note that most chords in Bach's music are not structural harmonic chords, they are prolonging contrapuntal chords. Mozart is similar, but the texture is more homophonic, and there is a greater emphasis on structural harmonic chords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WattsUrizen Posted November 18, 2002 Members Share Posted November 18, 2002 Terje, when I say that rhythm doesn't give the emotional effect that melody does, I do not mean that rhythm is not able to give emotional effect. I am saying that when you combine various note durations with the various note pitches (and create melody) the effect you create is much more moving. Of course, I am talking about potentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 I personally find that pure rythm in the absense of any melodic or harmonic content really conveys no emotion. It can convey a sense of groove, but I've never had a drum beat alone induce a sense of sadness, or deja vu the way a full piece of music can. Maybe that's just me. Anyways, I think rythm is very important in music, I try my best to make the rythms inventive, and grooving. I think rythm certainly contributes to the emotion conveyed by a piece of music, but I just don't think it conveys emotion on it's own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ninjaaron Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 rythme is most important in CONTEMPERARY music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted November 19, 2002 Author Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by r0g3r So Terje, would you consider Pitch to be more important than melody? No, cause pitch alone does not create any sort of music. Hey, my tinnitus has a constant pitch but it's not music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted November 19, 2002 Author Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Anomandaris Terje, when I say that rhythm doesn't give the emotional effect that melody does, I do not mean that rhythm is not able to give emotional effect.I am saying that when you combine various note durations with the various note pitches (and create melody) the effect you create is much more moving.Of course, I am talking about potentials. Of course you are. To equate more components with more emotional content is just silly. It can be either way. But sure, rhythm and melody and harmony together has a greater potential for strong emotional content than just rhythm alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted November 19, 2002 Author Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by r0g3r I personally find that pure rythm in the absense of any melodic or harmonic content really conveys no emotion. It can convey a sense of groove, but I've never had a drum beat alone induce a sense of sadness, or deja vu the way a full piece of music can. Maybe that's just me. I think it's just you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Terje No, cause pitch alone does not create any sort of music. Hey, my tinnitus has a constant pitch but it's not music. Then you must certainly abandon the argument that because rythm is a component of melody it is more important than melody. Pitch is also a component of melody. My washing machine has rythm, but it's not music either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WattsUrizen Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Melody is sinergy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can't see melody as two pieces of cake. It's the whole thing with some of those glazed cherries on top to make it extra tasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WattsUrizen Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Terje I think it's just you And me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted November 19, 2002 Author Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 No really, before this gets totally out of hand. Of course you can't really separate any of the components of music from each other. Rhythm is and integral part of melody and melody and harmony are closely linked together. Really what my argument, my real serious argument, boils down to is this quote from Herb Ellis "Music is made out of three components, rhythm, melody and harmony. Not necessarily in that order but it wouldn't be a bad one in my estimation". And that's just the way I see it too. Rhythm comes first. It's the most fundamental part of music and the one that makes it all happen for me. But that doesn't mean I think the other parts are unimportant. I've said all I can say on this topic (which actually was about something else from the start) and I'm now leaving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 It's cool man, we simply disagree here and neither one of us is going to convince the other. There's no way I'm going ot accept the opinion of a fellow forumite (even a clearly knowledgeable one like yourself) in this topic over that of the likes of Mozart. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted November 19, 2002 Author Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Actually, from the quoite you gave I don't think Mozart is disagreeing with me. But I said I was going to shut my face... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tshapiro Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by evan_02 something to add: improvising around a tune's melody (as opposed to the changes) is something that most people overlook. i'm trying to do it more with my own playing and i think it helps my solos not be piles of {censored}. didn't joe pass say something like "you should always be able to hear the melody in the solo"? I wouldn't agree with this rule. Most of my favorite solo's don't rehash the songs melody. In fact, I'd say they are an additional melody component. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Terje Actually, from the quoite you gave I don't think Mozart is disagreeing with me. But I said I was going to shut my face... I've read several biographies on Mozart, and I assure you Melody was the most important thing in music to him. I couldn't find a better quote than that off hand though. "Melody is the essence of music" would seem to me to be placing the highest importance on melody in music, I don't see any other way that the statement could be interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Besides, if you've heard any of Mozart's music Terje, you don't need that quote to understand that Melody was the prime focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WattsUrizen Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 How's that Mozart guitar symphony going Roger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r0g3r Posted November 19, 2002 Members Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Anomandaris How's that Mozart guitar symphony going Roger? I haven't worked on it a bit. I've been a lazy bastard lately. That piece is a lot of hard work, so I really need to be in the right frame of mind to get back into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.