We're currently having issues with our e-mail system. Anything requiring e-mail validation (2FA, forgotten passwords, etc.) requires to be changed manually at the moment. Please reach out via the Contact Us form if you require any assistance.
So, this is half-question and half-sanity check. I...think...I have this sort of worked out, but I wanted to get a read from those who know more than me.
I'm trying to work out how the concept of melody relates to overall song form.
Let me define how I'm thinking of these concepts:
Melody: A pattern of pitches, of particular durations, arranged over a span of time. A general starter length for a melody is 8 bars. Melody is governed by considerations related to tension building/release, generally dictated by departure from and return to a tonic note. In a similar vein, a melody can, as a guideline, be divided in half into "question" and "answer" halves, with the initial question half building tension (with a sort of feeling like asking a question), and the latter half resolving the tension (i.e., answering the question). (Everything after the first sentence was paraphrased from this excellent 1/2 hour video.)
Song form: There are many of these. Let's take for example something like Verse/Chorus/Bridge, common in current popular music (i.e., verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, verse, chorus).
Now, how do I put these concepts together?
The initial thought I had after the video was that clearly, you would have a single melody that starts at the beginning of the song and carries through to the end. But that won't work, because obviously songs are much longer than 8 bars. Do we stretch the melody to cover the whole thing, then? No, thinking of the songs I can recall offhand, they don't sound like that's what they're doing. They sound like multiple discrete melodies, one per instrument for each section, repeated at different times.
Also, this seems applicable enough for your lead (in this case, a vocal), but what if your song has other items in it--maybe there are drums and some chords, at the least, happening as well. Do they have their own melodies that have to fit with the main one? Well, there can be a sort of tension/release feeling to the chords, but it seems like a chord progression can be quite short, or it can be longer. So the degree to which the video's melodic principles apply to chords seems...variable. I've heard chord progressions that seem to depart from and return to a tonic note, and I've heard ones that don't. Drums are in sort of a similar position. They aren't generally tonal, but there can be a tension/release element to them also...maybe.
With all that as a basis, my current thinking is that:
The primary melodic element in a song is the vocal. (In a non-vocal composition, this would be whatever the lead instrument is, but we're talking about songs here.)
At any one time, there should only be one primary melody happening. (Or, if there is a melody in another instrument, it would have to be that instrument shadowing the primary one, possibly peeking out on its own at various unintrusive times. It should probably also be quieter.)
When the vocal isn't in the spotlight, another instrument may take center stage in its own melody.
Each segment of the song (verse, chorus, bridge) may be characterized by its own lead melody.
Generally, chord progressions and percussion patterns can be thought of as simple repeating patterns that don't have to follow the melodic guidelines for tension/release/resolution outlined in the video. Though I suppose if they were to hit the tonic at the same time as your lead at the end of the song, that would be a good thing?
The song as a whole also has tension/release considerations, because you probably want the song to finish with a feeling of resolution that it doesn't find at the end of its verses/bridge. I suppose you would approach this melodically by only allowing the chorus melody to actually resolve to the tonic. The verse and bridge melodies could end on other notes so that the song will continue moving forward in search of resolution.
Apologies for the text wall. If anyone has thoughts on any of the above, I'd be very interested in reading them!
That video is really only discussing melody as it relates to the classical era and a sizeable chunk of the romantic era. If you want to compose like Haydn and Mozart, then the information that it presents is a good starting point, but nothing more. Of course, it's entirely possible to transplant classic-era melodic practices into the modern era (I do), but it's important to know that it's not the end-all-be-all of melody writing.
Well... only if you want one primary melody. The development of western harmony was the direct result of experimenting with vocal polyphony, or writing for multiple simultaneous melodies. And you occasionally hear this in pop music, such as near the end of that He-Man song by 4 Non Blondes.
Or for an older example, in the below video, from the beginning to about 0:55, each of the three singers takes it in turn to sing three different short melodies. However, from 0:56 to about 1:11 all three melodies are sung again, but layered over top each other in polyphony.
Thank you! I think this might be indicative of the disconnect I've been seeing while researching. When you look up music theory online, the predominant material you come across are resources related to the more classical theory. On the other hand, you also have YouTube videos where folks expound on making music with little to no theory knowledge...but nevertheless go on to, easily or with more apparent difficulty, make triad chords out of major thirds and perfect fifths. Of course, it's not necessarily that they're being dishonest or anything--having grown up in a particular culture, the "rules" of its music are likely in your ear to such an extent that you'll instinctively follow many of them because you think it sounds good. That's where your "ear" comes from. It just makes it hard to know exactly how many of the older practices people still follow. I'll have a look at some more current music and get an idea from there.
interesting discussion - here's my unconnected ramblings on this:
The musical 'rules' and the song form are derived from the compositions, not the other way round. A good (experienced) composer doesn't follow any rules. He/she writes what he/she finds musical, and then the theorists analyse the music and find the 'rules'. As a beginning composer it is of course a good thing to follow some rules in harmony and form, but eventually you just write what you feel like - even if it most often conform to some rules anyway. Sometimes, you end up creating something entirely new though.
The verse/chorus/bridge form has slowly evolved as a good way to keep a song interesting. Some Bob Dylan songs has just verse-verse-verse etc. and nothing else (called strophic form), but you have to have a really good lyrics to pull that off, and even then it easily gets boring.
Today you often have: verse-prechorus-chorus-verse-prechorus-chorus-bridge etc. and often even an extra instrumental part that is not exactly like any of the other parts (at least many Japanese pop songs fits this, I've analysed a lot). Earlier pop-songs often only had verse-chorus and maybe a bridge.
A melodic idea is said by some to be a string of notes that FEEL connected and closed. I've often wondered what the theoretical relationship is between verse-chorus (in melodic terms, not lyrical), but except that they preferably contrast and that the chorus often has a stronger, more recognisable/singable melody, I don't know. I guess if the composer says that they fit together, they do. I think Frank Zappa once said, that some otherwise unrelated parts fit together as a song, because HE SAYS SO... - But if you want most people to follow your musical ideas, it might be a good idea to adhere to some well known form.
I think maybe calling it the "melody" is the reason for the disconnect. I understand that's how it normally is referred to because of classical music, but in modern music there is quite a bit more happening that can't be neatly summed up in the chord progression and melody paradigm. This is especially true for genres of music that don't follow the pop formula (true EDM for example).
I want to try and run through my thought process from the beginning, so bear with me even though you probably know half of this already:
A lot of songs have a lead element. The lead element is the parts played by the lead instruments that the listener is meant to focus on. The lead section usually plays elements that are simpler, like melodies. If we are talking specifically about vocal music this does make some degree of sense since it is rather difficult for one person to sing more than one part at the same time. But it is worth noting that the lead section in all music doesn't need really to consist of a melody, and an instrument playing a melodic part doesn't need to be constrained to the lead section.
An example would be the way arpeggios are used in electronic music. An arpeggio is a really simple melody of staccato'd notes that is extremely short and repetitive. Generally speaking, they are used more as ambience than anything else. They usually play over the lead section as well. In fact I can think of more than one type of ambient instrument that could be described as a melody. Even some vocal samples might be used that could be described as such that aren't lead elements.
Most songs also have a "hook" which is the catchy part everyone remembers. Usually it's the vocal melody in the chorus in the case of pop-formula music because that's how pop music is written. If you start looking outside of that style it tends to become a little more ambiguous what exactly the hook is or if the song should even be considered to have one.
Consider "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" by Skrillex, which is considered something of a baseline for modern dubstep.
The whole song is basically just three sections that repeat once + an intro and outro. One might argue the drop is where the hook is supposed to go. I feel like more people remember the melody that plays in the breaks in between. There's also a vocal chop in the "riser" section before the drop, which is usually where most artists put the true chorus of EDM music, so you might even argue that's where the hook is "supposed" to go. But like with most true EDM, the formula makes it somewhat ambiguous.
However, in the case of pop music, the hook is usually clearly defined, and the rest of the song is designed around creating dramatics for it. The idea of suspense/release is used to create a buildup for it with the intro, the verse, the buildup etc. Sometimes the hook is reincorporated into those using different instruments to create a sort of call/response action. That actually is super common in cases of true EDM where the drop is unambiguously meant to be considered the hook, like in a lot of house music.
The hook is often played by a lead section. Often times its a vocal. Usually it's a melody. It does not strictly need to be any of those to be the hook though. It just usually is because those are the things people find catchy and memorable a lot of the time and it's simply easier to do it that way.
So if we accept these two considerations of songwriting practice and apply them to the OP:
The initial thought I had after the video was that clearly, you would have a single melody that starts at the beginning of the song and carries through to the end. But that won't work, because obviously songs are much longer than 8 bars. Do we stretch the melody to cover the whole thing, then? No, thinking of the songs I can recall offhand, they don't sound like that's what they're doing. They sound like multiple discrete melodies, one per instrument for each section, repeated at different times.
Also, this seems applicable enough for your lead (in this case, a vocal), but what if your song has other items in it--maybe there are drums and some chords, at the least, happening as well. Do they have their own melodies that have to fit with the main one? Well, there can be a sort of tension/release feeling to the chords, but it seems like a chord progression can be quite short, or it can be longer. So the degree to which the video's melodic principles apply to chords seems...variable. I've heard chord progressions that seem to depart from and return to a tonic note, and I've heard ones that don't. Drums are in sort of a similar position. They aren't generally tonal, but there can be a tension/release element to them also...maybe.
A song will generally have multiple lead sections in it, one that is the the songs hook, and more that are necessarily different in order to distinguish a section of a song as being different. The hook is going to be given a section where it is played in it's unadulterated form (like the chorus) and the rest of the song will support this by generating tension and anticipation for it. It's fair to call these melodies since they are 90% of the time but this property isn't exclusive to music with melodic hooks, since not all of them do, even though they can still be considered to have one.
Things like chord progressions and drums are typically distinct from the hook of the song. They are used as supportive sections. A series of chords can be used as a hook and so can a drum solo, if you use them as your lead element. But a lot of the time they aren't used this way.
The primary melodic element in a song is the vocal. (In a non-vocal composition, this would be whatever the lead instrument is, but we're talking about songs here.)
At any one time, there should only be one primary melody happening. (Or, if there is a melody in another instrument, it would have to be that instrument shadowing the primary one, possibly peeking out on its own at various unintrusive times. It should probably also be quieter.)
When the vocal isn't in the spotlight, another instrument may take center stage in its own melody.
Each segment of the song (verse, chorus, bridge) may be characterized by its own lead melody.
Generally, chord progressions and percussion patterns can be thought of as simple repeating patterns that don't have to follow the melodic guidelines for tension/release/resolution outlined in the video. Though I suppose if they were to hit the tonic at the same time as your lead at the end of the song, that would be a good thing?
1. I would again describe this as the lead section, since this can be anything really. Vocals are common but there are plenty of examples of music with non-vocal hooks. "Primary" is pretty much always ambiguous and it's up to the songwriter to decide if there even is going to be a primary instrument. Even the hook instrument may not be used outside of it's designated section. It's sometimes hard to pin it down, but not always, depending on the intention of the songwriter.
2. It's common for this to be the case since it is usually considered distracting for a bunch of competing lead elements to be doing their own thing at the same time. Not every section has something that you would think of as a melody, but they generally only have a single point of focus which is determined by mixing and by keeping background instruments playing parts that support the rhythm more so than the lead idea. That's not to say you can't find examples otherwise, but those are kind of rare, since a lot of people prefer to follow this trend you are describing of having a single point of focus at any given point.
3. This is also common when it applies. The really common and obvious example is in the bridges of rock music when sometimes the lead guitar will do a solo.
4. This is true, but might be easier to understand why when you consider what a hook is and why pop music is written in the specific way it is.
5. The "chord progression" is kind of an abstract concept and refers mainly to the scale that you compose in. A melody written atop an instrument conveying said chord progression will generally do it's job as long as the two stay within the same key and scale, regardless of how independent they are in terms of the way they are written. Scales are cool like that. Typically the instrument conveying the chord progression is used to help support the rhythm the writer wants the listener to feel, whereas the melody is used to create a hook and doesn't need to also be supporting said rhythm.
Usually the way the two interplay with one another as they are going about doing their own thing is what creates a lot of the interesting dynamics that people envy. It's nearly impossible to mathematically describe why they sound good, and usually these are just byproducts of the process rather than intentional design.
Percussion patterns are also doing the job of supporting the rhythm. Drums are written the way they are because this is almost exclusively what they do.
Both the percussion and the chord progression are written using some concept of tension/release/resolution, but it's not the same way the melody does it because both of these are written in a way that is rhythmically oriented and more in the background/supportive.
The musical 'rules' and the song form are derived from the compositions, not the other way round. A good (experienced) composer doesn't follow any rules. He/she writes what he/she finds musical, and then the theorists analyse the music and find the 'rules'. As a beginning composer it is of course a good thing to follow some rules in harmony and form, but eventually you just write what you feel like - even if it most often conform to some rules anyway. Sometimes, you end up creating something entirely new though.
And I think this is a good way to describe the problem with trying to mathematically analyze why the things sound good. Music Theory has the power to describe what role a melody is playing in any given work, but not really the reason why it works there. If you attempt to define a ruleset for what a good melody is somebody will find a way to contradict it, either by not using the ruleset and finding a good idea anyway, or by following the ruleset and having it produce something uncanny and undesirable.
It might be possible to describe what a good melody is logically, but the reason nobody has is because people don't write music logically. Experienced songwriters are not actively thinking about any of the things I just stated above (well, pop songwriters lets say). This might be a shallow opinion, but music theory is a way to describe the way instruments are played rather than a way to describe what music is. You need it to tell you what the things in the DAW do or whats written on the sheet of music, and it extends into describing what the components of structuring a song are. You need it as a beginner who does not understand how music works. But eventually your repertoire of ideas that you know you like grows to the point where you don't need to address the piano book to find an idea that you can spin into a song. Because that's the way ideas work: You don't create them, they occur to you, usually as the result of inspiration. And the way people get inspirations and new ideas is completely unique from person to person, even if the results kinda sound the same.
So this is why the answer to the question of what makes a melody work in a given format is a bit abstract. Attempts to describe it in a classical format describing everything as either "chord progression" or "melody" make it hard to apply to modern music. But any given genre you pick will have some philosophy to the way it's written that won't evenly apply to any other genre.
I think of melody as more of a description of what an instrument is doing, separate from it's role in the song. The lead instrument(s) can do something like that or not, whichever. The lead instruments are used to play various sections, generally revolving around a hook, and some other ideas meant to produce tension for said hook.
I don't know how well this really addresses the question, these are just my thoughts. I don't inherently disagree with a lot of the thoughts you have on how the melodies work, I just thought I would try to clarify some of the reasoning behind the things you notice and what exactly is supposed to be going on in pop music.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
