# How do you train your melodic muscles ?



## G.E.

Music can definitely serve its purpose and be extremely effective without necessarily having a "catchy" melody.But I've always believed that if you want to make music that people come back to time after time,no matter what genre it is,you need a strong melody.(aside from good orchestration and other things)It can be the difference between just serving the picture in a film and making people go on itunes and search for the soundtrack album.A good melody can break any barriers and can make a person like any genre of music. 
As a kid I used to ignorantly think that orchestras are boring(I don't know why),until one day when by accident I listened to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCct_tSQ8WY

That brass melody in the beginning immediately hooked me and I loved this music ever since.

This is a somewhat abstract question because I'm not foolish enough to think that there is a 10 step guide to improving your melody writing skills.But I do know that anything can be improved and nothing comes "naturally" as some people fool themselves into believing.
I'm just curious,what do you think took your melodies to the next level(aside from the obvious answer which is keep writing music) and what do you think makes a melody more "addictive" than others?

One thing which helped me so far is ear training.Being able to play what you hear in your head is an incredibly useful skill to have.This alone made my melodies much better.


----------



## Arbee

G.E. @ Sat Mar 22 said:


> I'm just curious,what do you think took your melodies to the next level(aside from the obvious answer which is keep writing music) and what do you think makes a melody more "addictive" than others?


A few random thoughts and observations:

1 It's all about balance and contrast - tension v release, predictability v surprise, upwards movement v downward, seduction v in-your-face etc etc

2 The rhythm of a melody is REALLY important, it should be interesting just tapped out on the table. Edit: resist the temptation to syncopate the melody too much (i.e. dancing around the strong beats in the bar but not landing on them), in most cases it can just make your melody timid and unforgettable.

3 Sticking to about an octave and a half in maximum range, something a person could theoreticallty sing.

4 While there are only 12 notes, each note in a scale has a distinct colour and impact. Choosing a specific scale for a melody at the outset creates a strong melodic persona (if/when you want that of course).

5 Not overusing the tonic mid-melody, and where you do, paying attention to move the bass note so that it changes the context of the tonic to the ear.

6 Being clear about the difference between a short 4 note statement and a well developed 8 bar conversation. In my jingle days I became stuck half way due to the 30/60 sec limitation, it took me years afterwards to completely break away from the "2 bar melody".

7 Setting the melody up to succeed though clever contrasts - melodic, chordal and rhythmic - behind the melody.

8 Don't be precious about it, experiment. Some melodic ideas just come alive with a change of tempo, a change of time signature, or by being reassembled slightly differently.

I'm no expert, these are just my top few "notes to self" compiled over several decades. The challenge of course, as always, is knowing the rules and when to break them 8) 

Having said that, and after years of thinking about it, is melody really important to anyone any more? Melody seems really unfashionable and outdated right now.

.


----------



## G.E.

Thanks for the tips Arbee.Definitely some interesting things to consider.



> Having said that, and after years of thinking about it, is melody really important to anyone any more? Melody seems really unfashionable and outdated right now.



Not sure what you mean by this or if you're being sarcastic, but I don't want to live in a world where melody is unfashionable and outdated :lol:


----------



## bryla

I hear that a lot that melody is outdated. Still I hear it everywhere. 

Aside from what is mentioned, personally what I feel was the biggest step for my melodies where my love for minor seconds. In any mode, scale, tonality I am writing in I have a need to figure out the minor seconds.


----------



## Arbee

G.E. @ Sat Mar 22 said:


> Thanks for the tips Arbee.Definitely some interesting things to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, and after years of thinking about it, is melody really important to anyone any more? Melody seems really unfashionable and outdated right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by this or if you're being sarcastic, but I don't want to live in a world where melody is unfashionable and outdated :lol:
Click to expand...

No sarcasm at all, it just seems to me that bombast and groove are the flavours of the day - almost as if the world has "moved on from melody" which of course is nonsense.

.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Arbee @ Fri Mar 21 said:


> Having said that, and after years of thinking about it, is melody really important to anyone any more? Melody seems really unfashionable and outdated right now.





> No sarcasm at all, it just seems to me that bombast and groove are the flavours of the day - almost as if the world has "moved on from melody" which of course is nonsense.
> 
> .



Can you cite some examples? Are you talking about film scores? Because, I certainly hear a lot of melody in those.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Simple trick: Find all the melodies you like, think them obsessively (consciously deconstructing) inside your head so that it REALLY gets within you! Your brain will, if the work of listening to it is, come up with something new, when the context of your choice is decided...

-AS-


----------



## Waywyn

It is not the melody alone. There is a lot of other things involved.
It is as with humor. You can tell a joke and people absolutely do not laugh since it was told in just the wrong place, the wrong time and maybe in front of the wrong audience?

For sure some melodies are timeless but the best you can do is simply focus on the project, let the pictures, the story or screenshots flow and go with what comes to your mind ... and even if you got the most perfect and most awesome melody going, there are still people which will bash the f*ck out of you! Just do your thing with passion!!

In terms of training the melodic muscle, I find that I train my muscles (if there are any) with other things than music. I read about quantum physics or the universe, take a walk, observe things with different perspectives (how would a blind man do it) or try to start doing something I don't know nothing about or something which I never did before (e.g. bow shooting, taking a walk at night at a specific place, try to read an article of a topic don't have the slightest cue of etc.).

You simply won't have better musical ideas by just listening to music. I mean we all know there are 12 notes (leaving out all other tunings etc.) and we mostly all know the music theory and shit ... but to be honest your brain in a muscle and to actually CREATE something you must train it in anyway. There is no reason to slam down intervals and hum all kinds of music themes.

SERIOUSLY, buy yourself a yoghurt with a flavor you never tasted before (or chocolate or whatever), sit naked with a red hat in front of your screen and read a full article about quantum physics or the crab nebula or whatever topic you NEVER considered reading about. Your brain will impove MUCH MUCH MORE than on everything else you do. I mean seriously, I give a shit how many come up with opinions about how crazy or weird this sounds, but ... this is serious shit and you can actually read a lot about how the brain evolves and improves when doing the most unusual things!! It is just a proven fact! Seriously try it!


----------



## G.E.

Interesting perspective,Alex.I've always been somewhat of a "renaissance man" by nature and seem to thrive on constantly learning new/different things.So I get what you're talking about.It's amazing how inspiration can come from different places.



> this is serious shit and you can actually read a lot about how the brain evolves and improves when doing the most unusual things!!


I'll have to look more into this topic because you piqued my curiosity. Thanks for your insight !


----------



## JSmit

By improvising (on the piano in my case). And...by writing counterpoint excercises.


----------



## Stephen Rees

G.E. @ Fri Mar 21 said:


> (aside from the obvious answer which is keep writing music)



You already know how to do it I would say. You can tell what you regard as a good tune that has been written by someone else. Just apply that skill to honestly evaluate your own melodies and keep writing until you have a good one. Then do it again….and again…..and again….. 

Also I think there is an element of serendipity about writing a good tune. You can put the same amount of effort into writing a multitude of tunes; give them your all; bring all your creativity and craft to bear, but a few just turn out to be special whereas others are ordinary.

I don't think anyone has found out quite what the magic formula is, otherwise every tune they write (or wrote) would be brilliant, and even the greatest tunesmiths of all time wrote some tunes that were not so strong.


----------



## re-peat

The capability of coming up with ‘great’ melodies is largely a matter of talent, I firmly believe, combined with being in a sort of “blessed state” where inspiration strikes and you’re alert enough to capture it and do something with it. And I’m not talking about efficient tunes or craftily constructed scene-serving melodies — anyone committed enough to his work should be able to produce those any day of the week —, no, I’m talking about *great* melodies: spontaneous-sounding, naturally flowing eruptions of irresistible melodic inspiration (where you can't change a single detail without immediately causing major damage) that somehow find their way, century after century, into the hearts and the brains of fellow human beings. The sort of beauty that, to quote Stephen Fry, inspires one to say: “You don't analyze such sunlit perfection, you just bask in its warmth and splendor."

The second element which I mentioned (the ‘blessed state’) is actually quite important if that timeless splendor is to be achieved. Take, once again, John Williams for example. Hasn’t written a truly great melody since "Jurassic Park" in my opinion, and yet, up until the dinosaurs were resurrected from a fossilized mosquito, great melodies — _exceptionnaly_ great ones even — simply seemed to gush out of the man as if it were the most effortless thing in the world. What happened? I don’t know, the talent obviously remained the same, but for some reason, the “being in a blessed state” ceased to be and Williams turned, almost overnight, from a divinely inspired inventor of melodic "sunlit perfection" into a still unusually talented, hard-working craftsman but one whose every melody since the mid-nineties sounds somehow hard-won, laboured, unspontaneous and strangely artificial. Often still perfectly fine and still with plenty of Williamsy appeal, sure, but … no longer the un-analyzeable greatness of his pre-Jurassic days.
(McCartney, Paul Simon, Burt Bacharach, Stevie Wonder or Brian Wilson, to name just a few, are all other telling examples of this phenomenon: at one time able, with baffling ease, to turn out one glorious melody after another and then suddenly, one day, clouds appeared before the sun, or the well seemed to have run dry ... and the best they can come up with since then, are weak, undistinctive, often embarassing, echoes of their former melodic self. Odd, isn’t it?)

I don’t believe in sitting nude in front of your monitor, or reading about quantum physics, or whatever, in order to lure the Muse of Melodyland yourways. You either have a talent for remarkable melodic invention or you don’t. And if you don't, your only hope is to reincarnate into someone who does have it. (And that 'blessed state' which I keep mentioning only lasts as long as nature allows it to last.)
Williams had it, Mancini had it, Prokofiev had it, Sousa had it, Bacharach had it, Strauss Jr. had it, Bizet had it, Richard Rodgers had it, Verdi had it, Gershwin had it, Tchaikovsky had it … Broughton doesn’t have it, Newton-Howard doesn’t have it, Goldsmith didn’t have it, Strauss Sr. didn’t have it, Haydn didn’t have it, Elfman doesn't have it, Hermann didn’t have it, Shostakovitch didn’t have it … Before tumult breaks out: I’m in no way implying or suggesting that having it or not having it, is any way a reflection of one’s musical depth or greatness. (A few names in the “didn’t have it”-group actually rank higher on my list of musical greats than some in the “did have it”-category.) See, the funny thing with melodic talent is: it seems that you don’t actually have to be “a great musician” to still have that most peculiar of gifts to be able to come up with melodies of attention-grabbing quality and appeal. It’s almost as if a talent for melody stands completely apart from musical talent as such. Of all the music-related talents, the one for melody also appears to be the one to fade quickest, it seems to me. Really weird that. 

Immensely fascinating subject, I find. And we haven’t even discussed the role, weight and importance of the melodic element in relation to the (perceived) greatness of a piece of music. Does a great melody make a great piece of music? Does great music need a great melody? What exactly makes a melody great in the context of the piece in which it belongs? Is a great tune automatically a great melody?

Anyway, if, on top of having a genuine flair for melodic invention, you’re also fortunate enough to find yourself in that “blessed state” (which only seems to last a few decades at best, even with the most gifted of people), you’re able to venture beyond the merely functional, pleasing, sensuous or exciting into the truly and timeless great. 

All this to say that, in my opinion, if the muscle is there, you don’t need the red-hatted sillyness, the brain excercises or the yoghurt.

_


----------



## markwind

Waywyn @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> It is not the melody alone. There is a lot of other things involved.
> It is as with humor. You can tell a joke and people absolutely do not laugh since it was told in just the wrong place, the wrong time and maybe in front of the wrong audience?



I can appreciate this comparison alot. Also the rest of your post makes total sense. I think I read those facts before, makes complete sense to me! 

GE If I may be so bold, I don't think it might necessarily help to consider the possible answers to your questions. There is the melody from a technical point, and a subjective experiential point of view, technically it can be broken down as you know. But the subjective experience, what makes a melody more addictive then others, doesn't have a usable answer. 
In my opinion, there is far more at play then the melody and or the song itself to make something stick. It's not a science, it's a best guess scenario that might fall completely flat. And if you worry too much about something being 'catchy, addictive, emotional moving', then you probably spend energy and focus that were better spent in translating whatever feeling it is, to your piece .

One example: Say someone famous composes a piece, becomes hugely popular when it releases, everyone and their families find themselves humming bits. That piece might be said to be addictive right? Say I release that same exact piece instead, I just upload it online, share the link within my comparatively limited social network. How will people respond? Will they equally love it as much as they would if it were released by the famous person? Does perhaps the famous person induce a change to the experience of the piece ? Is the fact that I am unknown for many people pose an obstacle for them to open up and let themselves be moved by the piece (the image factor)? Or do I simply not reach the people who would be considered the early adopters and possibly enable others to like it more quickly (the social factor)?

I am not saying that these factors are determining, but they are nonetheless factors in a much larger and (too?) complex structure. This applies not only to addictiveness of melodies, but other aspects of what we do too. 
So my thinking? Focus on creating and translating whatever it is I want to tell with my piece in the best way I can at the moment I am writing it. The rest is all an afterthought. Though that might be sometimes easier said then done


----------



## G.E.

Very interesting post,re-peat.I've actually never thought of it like that.However...
I'm not familiar with John Williams's work before the 70's so I will have to put my trust in a remark which Mike Verta made.He said that Williams's melodic chops came much later after his orchestration chops.I'm inclined to believe him since it's no secret that he studied JW's work in great detail.That seems to disprove your theory about one either having it or not and it seems that it's something which develops over time.

I do agree about the "blessed state" which seems to fade after some time in all great musicians.But honestly I think that has to do with musical enthusiasm more than anything.But I could be totally wrong.It is a really interesting subject to reflect on though.
I'm also curious how would you define "talent",because that always was a controversial subject for me.Are you saying it's something you are born with ?

Mark,you do have a point.People tend to close their minds when it comes to unknown artists and they already subconsciously dislike a piece of music even before hearing it.And if the musician is famous,chances are they will love it.That explains why people like current pop music even though it's all crap.

I do think however that melody is the most important part in music and I don't think anyone will ever convince me otherwise.Pop songs prove that.Take "Let it be" by The Beatles for example.The song is just a simple I - V - vi - IV progression but the melody makes it a timeless masterpiece.


----------



## Waywyn

re-peat @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> I don’t believe in sitting nude in front of your monitor, or reading about quantum physics, or whatever, in order to lure the Muse of Melodyland yourways. You either have a talent for remarkable melodic invention or you don’t.



Fortunately it doesn't matter what you believe in or not, you can't change the science in this matter ... and it is simply a proven fact that if you do unusual things your brain creates synapses much better, therefore changes the way of thinking in a refreshing way, therefore it helps you to train your melodic creativity! (which was the initial question, by the way)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I usually go la-la-la over the harmony/rhythm until I find something simple yet effective to sing. Also, I sometimes think, "What would Thom Yorke sing?". He makes me cry, in the best way.


----------



## lux

I agree with re-peat here. I believe melody is a gift.

Once you got it, training your self exteem also helps.


----------



## Peter M.

I strongly agree with Alex. If you want to be a better musician, better at creating melodies, better at anything really, there is one thing to do. Get smarter. Always try to learn something from whatever you do. Try to be the best person you can be. Our brains are so powerful we cannot even begin to comprehend it. You cannot let yours go to waste. If it's not used, it deteriorates, just like a muscle. 

Now in a more musical sense: I started experimenting with pentatonics a lot. I've always found that the tunes I really liked and thought had great melodies were usually based on a pentatonic scale. Now this does not mean that you only get to use notes of the pentatonic scale, but the core of the melody should revolve around them. I've found that in a minor scale, the sixth degree is a bit difficult to make a nice singable melody with. 

Just watch this clip of Bobby McFerrin demonstrating the power of the pentatonic scale: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk

There is something in it that sounds very natural and logical to us, and I'm just beginning to understand it.


----------



## G.E.

Peter M. @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> I strongly agree with Alex. If you want to be a better musician, better at creating melodies, better at anything really, there is one thing to do. Get smarter. Always try to learn something from whatever you do. Try to be the best person you can be. Our brains are so powerful we cannot even begin to comprehend it. You cannot let yours go to waste. If it's not used, it deteriorates, just like a muscle.
> 
> Now in a more musical sense: I started experimenting with pentatonics a lot. I've always found that the tunes I really liked and thought had great melodies were usually based on a pentatonic scale. Now this does not mean that you only get to use notes of the pentatonic scale, but the core of the melody should revolve around them. I've found that in a minor scale, the sixth degree is a bit difficult to make a nice singable melody with.
> 
> Just watch this clip of Bobby McFerrin demonstrating the power of the pentatonic scale:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk
> 
> There is something in it that sounds very natural and logical to us, and I'm just beginning to understand it.



That video was amazing ! Thanks for sharing.I was singing along and it honestly blew my mind :lol:
I've actually been experimenting with pentatonic scales lately inspired by listening to James Horner's celtic influenced music.It's unbelievable how much power those pentatonic melodies have.


----------



## Peter M.

Yeah, since last year I truly started to believe that pentatonic scale has something with the inherent physics of our universe. You know, like a set of frequencies that make sense mathematically in some way. There's a lot of studies and research done on this. Kinda like you find the number Pi or the golden ratio everywhere in nature. I'm guessing the pentatonic scale is somewhere in those numbers.


----------



## Jetzer

I agree with re-peat (terrific post, thanks for that). It is something that you either have, or not. 

But I definitely believe that doing "weird stuff" helps developing creativity. Just do something different once in a while


----------



## G.E.

I remember watching this series a while back and this guy also talks about how the pentatonic scale is present in every culture on the planet and it's like it's embedded into our human DNA :D 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbOWi6f_IM


----------



## Waywyn

Peter M. @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Yeah, since last year I truly started to believe that pentatonic scale has something with the inherent physics of our universe. You know, like a set of frequencies that make sense mathematically in some way. There's a lot of studies and research done on this. Kinda like you find the number Pi or the golden ratio everywhere in nature. I'm guessing the pentatonic scale is somewhere in those numbers.



If you ask me, the pentatonic scale is known all over the world, plus it is a few thousand years old. It simply has to do with evolution. The same as someone reacts to hide himself in the wilderness (because the moving wind could be a tiger who would eat you and obviously you want to survive), the same someone reacts with specific notes since they are the most familiar notes throughout time (and already kind of saved inside genes). The effect is boosted when there are lots of people together in one room!


----------



## Peter M.

Waywyn @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Peter M. @ Sun Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, since last year I truly started to believe that pentatonic scale has something with the inherent physics of our universe. You know, like a set of frequencies that make sense mathematically in some way. There's a lot of studies and research done on this. Kinda like you find the number Pi or the golden ratio everywhere in nature. I'm guessing the pentatonic scale is somewhere in those numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me, the pentatonic scale is known all over the world, plus it is a few thousand years old. It simply has to do with evolution. The same as someone reacts to hide himself in the wilderness (because the moving wind could be a tiger who would eat you and obviously you want to survive), the same someone reacts with specific notes. The effect is boosted when there are lots of people together in one room!
Click to expand...


You may be right, but I've read some research on how certain cultures like really remote african tribes that had almost no contact with the western civilization still recognized and utilized pentatonics in their songs which suggests that those notes do somehow inherently make sense and sound good to everyone or as it has been said seem to be in our DNA.


----------



## Waywyn

Just one more add:

The answer: "You either have it or not" and "it is a gift" and stuff like "blessed" are highly depressing answers!

Even if some of you are convinced by this, the creator of this post asked for how to train your melodic muscles. He expressed a wish and asked for something and some of you are simply saying: Well, no hands, no cake!

I just imagine back then when I would have invited a new guitar student and after watching him play for a few minutes I would say: Go home, you don't have it! ... oh wait, something completely different, since I could still make money missusing his "nontalents", right?


----------



## markwind

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Just one more add:
> 
> The answer: "You either have it or not" and "it is a gift" and stuff like "blessed" are highly depressing answers!



Nothing depressing about it. The problem with concepts such as talent, is that it can not be predicted to exist or not exist in someone. Too many people have been found talentless in some respect and excell in exactly that later on. Whether its academics, Creativity or otherwise. 

The logic seems very true, the one about talent you have it or you dont. But it's an empty shell that _seems_ only true as long as one hasnt proven his or her talent yet. People make mistakes in judging someones potential/talent everyday, even those who pride themselves in being an expert in judging on one ability or another. It means incredibly little. Talent, if you'd even try to define it, is so complicated and individual, all kinds of reasons can hold latent talent back.

It's a typical but incredibly wrong concept that people love to get panties in a bunch for. But in the end of the day, most fail to see how incredibly complicated of a concept it is and they cheapen it's meaning to one's ability to recognize talent which is a COMPLETELY different story, and thus, saying anything of value about it is difficult if you don't correctly nuance your statements.

The question if someone is talented, is not directly connected to anothers ability to recognize it if it hasn't yet been shown. The reasons for people to hold talent back is truly countless. Further more, Talent is a scale, not a black and white thing. Talent is just another way to explain to ourselves that someone is really really good and has (developed) a (stronger) feel for it, over time we somehow misunderstand Talent to consider it something that is separate from being really good at something. How talented one is, can never ever be estimated. Whether one has a certain amount of proven talent, is a different thing. That amount is of course always up for debate and can never be settled in a discussion by opposing opinions as these are are support by subjectivity.


----------



## Peter M.

I simply do not believe that a person is born with a "talent". I cannot begin to understand what evolutionary purpose would it serve for us to have genes that make us good at music, or football, or mathematics or whatever. It just doesn't make sense from an evolutionary point of view. Geoff Colvin wrote a book on that subject called "Talent is Overrated".


----------



## Waywyn

markwind @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one more add:
> 
> The answer: "You either have it or not" and "it is a gift" and stuff like "blessed" are highly depressing answers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing depressing about it. The problem with concepts such as talent, is that it can not predicted to exist or not exist in someone. Too many people have been found talentless in some respect and excell in exactly that later on. Whether its academics or Creativity.
> 
> The logic seems very true, the one about talent you have it or you dont. But it's an empty shell that is only true as long as you havent proven you got talent yet. People make mistakes in judging someones potential/talent everyday, even those who pride themselves in being an expert in judging on one ability or another. It means incredibly little. Talent, if you'd even try to define it, is so complicated and individual, all kinds of reasons can hold latent talent back.
> 
> It's a typical but incredibly wrong concept that people love to get panties in a bunch for. But in the end of the day, most fail to see how incredibly complicated of a concept it is and the cheapen it's meaning to one's ability to recognize talent which a COMPLETELY different story, and thus, saying anything of value about it is difficult if you don't correctly nuance your statements.
> 
> If someone is talented, is not directly connected to another's ability to recognize it if it hasn't yet been shown. The reasons for people to hold talent back is truly countless.
Click to expand...


You have taken my post out of context, since the next line (you left out) made full sense: "Even if some of you are convinced by this, the creator of this post asked for how to train your melodic muscles. He expressed a wish and asked for something and some of you are simply saying: Well, no hands, no cake!"

Expressed a wish doesn't make sense by the way. I was meaning, he asked for help and advice!


----------



## G.E.

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Just one more add:
> 
> The answer: "You either have it or not" and "it is a gift" and stuff like "blessed" are highly depressing answers!
> 
> Even if some of you are convinced by this, the creator of this post asked for how to train your melodic muscles. He expressed a wish and asked for something and some of you are simply saying: Well, no hands, no cake!
> 
> I just imagine back then when I would have invited a new guitar student and after watching him play for a few minutes I would say: Go home, you don't have it! ... oh wait, something completely different, since I could still make money missusing his "nontalents", right?



Fortunately I don't buy that. :lol:

I live my life based on Malcolm Gladwell's 10 000 hours rule and I believe it's true for anything.We constantly create new neural pathways in the brain with practice and with the newly acquired connections we start to see things from different angles that just weren't obvious to us before.Anyone can get better at anything.

The only reason some are better at some things than others early on is because of their environment and experiences growing up.That doesn't mean that you still can't develop those abilities later.

Also I believe the words "gifted" or "talent" are insulting for skilled individuals.It's like all the hard work and hours they put into their craft were for nothing because everything was just given to them for free by a god or whatever else.


----------



## markwind

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> You have taken my post out of context, since the next line (you left out) made full sense: "Even if some of you are convinced by this, the creator of this post asked for how to train your melodic muscles. He expressed a wish and asked for something and some of you are simply saying: Well, no hands, no cake!"
> 
> Expressed a wish doesn't make sense by the way. I was meaning, he asked for help and advice!



Ohh my bad :D I didn't mean to argue your post, rather then argue that there is a problem with the concept Talent as posted by re-peat and serves little function to bring up. Your sentence was just the launching platform for my post rather then me trying to go against your post as a whole.


----------



## Waywyn

Got it )


----------



## markwind

G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately I don't buy that. :lol:
> 
> I live my life based on Malcolm Gladwell's 10 000 hours rule and I believe it's true for anything.We constantly create new neural pathways in the brain with practice and with the newly acquired connections we start to see things from different angles that just weren't obvious to us before.Anyone can get better at anything.
> 
> The only reason some are better at some things than others early on is because of their environment and experiences growing up.That doesn't mean that you still can't develop those abilities later.
> 
> Also I believe the words "gifted" or "talent" are insulting for skilled individuals.It's like all the hard work and hours they put into their craft were for nothing because everything was just given to them for free by a god or whatever else.
Click to expand...


I agree buddy. A good friend of mine has a ridiculous high IQ, and very impressive skills to boot in dancing and producing among other things. But saying he can do those things because of talent, well, it is insulting. Because regardless of who you are.. you have to put in the time. Nothing is easy for anyone that has ambition as we all tend to push ourselves beyond what we can do.

So what do I do to improve my melodic muscles? I take the time, and most important, i need to be relaxed. Really let myself feel what I wrote and let my imagination run free. But then again, i don't view it yet as improving my melodic muscles as it were, but rather i'm trying to remove possible inhibitions that I might be feeling, nothing like a total writers block, but a measure of inhibition. I think I have everything I need, muscle wise, i just need to learn to constantly be able access it. 

Not sure if that is similar for you . And probably in a year i'll come back, read this post and feel utterly ashamed for thinking it was so simple .


----------



## re-peat

Waywyn @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Fortunately it doesn't matter what you believe in or not, you can't change the science in this matter ... and it is simply a proven fact that if you do unusual things your brain creates synapses much better, therefore changes the way of thinking in a refreshing way, therefore it helps you to train your melodic creativity! (which was the initial question, by the way)


Alex, my beliefs in this matter matter every bit as much as yours, thank you very much. If, as you say, science and well-maintained mental excercising provide the solution for melodic poverty, where, I ask, are all those great melodies then which have come about as a result of better synapses, refreshed thinking and well-trained melodic creativity? Surely, the world, science-aware as it is today, should have been overflowing with magnificently inspired melodic invention by now, if what you say is true? I don't hear, I must say. The melodic quality I'm speaking of is still as rare as it always was. At most a handful of individuals per century seem to be blessed with this gift, and their number certainly hasn't increased in recent decades.
Judging from your earlier post, I guess you yourself must be into this brain-training drill, yes? So, if I may, you happen to have any examples of your own to show us what miracles this brain-stimulating routine has proven to be for your melodic creativity? I'm genuinely curious (if not too visibly pregnant with high expectation, to tell you the honest truth).

As for your add-on remark: a sincere, realistic answer is sometimes a depressing one. Can't be helped. Sorry if that upsets you. (I find your self-improvement "do something you've never done before and your brain will be in tip-top shape to amaze the world with sensational melodic creativity" fairy-tales far more depressing actually. From a purely musical point of view, I mean.)



G.E. @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> (...) I'm not familiar with John Williams's work before the 70's so I will have to put my trust in a remark which Mike Verta made.He said that Williams's melodic chops came much later after his orchestration chops.I'm inclined to believe him since it's no secret that he studied JW's work in great detail.That seems to disprove your theory about one either having it or not and it seems that it's something which develops over time.


Well, I disagree with Mike Verta then. (Which feels strange cause I rarely disagree with him on anything Williams-related.) Pre-JAWS Williams wasn’t particularly unique or memorable from either a melodic or an orchestrational perspective. Already very solid, absolutely, and also showing the first sparks of the volcano that was about to erupt in the mid-seventies (and didn’t stop erupting until the mid-nineties), but nothing which in itself deserves to be called ‘great music’. In my humblest of humble opinions, that is. It is in JAWS, I believe, that we witness the arrival the unscientifical, undefinable, untrainable, hors-categorie-like genius that used to be John Williams. Again, I don’t know why it started when it did any more than I know why it stopped when it did — two fortunate decades of unusually healthy synapses, I suppose —, but during those twenty fabulous years, Williams stood, I firmly believe, alone, sublimely inventive music oozing out of him the way other people loose sweat. 

_


----------



## G.E.

> Surely, the world, science-aware as it is today, should have been overflowing with magnificently inspired melodic invention by now, if what you say is true? I don't hear, I must say. The melodic quality I'm speaking of is still as rare as it always was. At most a handful of individuals per century seem to be blessed with this gift, and their number certainly hasn't increased in recent decades.



One thing which I think you are not taking into consideration is that incredible "talent" isn't all it takes to get the chance to work on projects so big that reach such a large audience.For all we know,there may be 1 million other "melodically gifted" musicians which you and I have never heard of and probably never will.I remember reading about this fun little fact, which is that it would take you about 1200 years to listen to all the songs in the gracenote database.So I think we can safely assume that we missed out on a few "gifted musicians" in our short lifetime so far.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Regarding the training aspect, nothing beats having to write a new melody or more every other day. 

I'm lucky enough to be on contract, so I have no choice (!), but if you have the discipline, go for it, and share your results in order to get feedback. I've learned a lot from directors/editors regarding melody over the years, and if you don't have that luxury, at least you might get feedback from learned members here, like Piet, Alex, Rob, Adrian, etc, etc. 

In short, listen to a lot of music, write regularly, and share your work in order to grow your melodic chops.


----------



## Waywyn

re-peat @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Alex, my beliefs in this matter matter every bit as much as yours, thank you very much. If, as you say, science and well-maintained mental excercising provide the solution for melodic poverty, where, I ask, are all those great melodies then which have come about as a result of better synapses, refreshed thinking and well-trained melodic creativity? Surely, the world, science-aware as it is today, should have been overflowing with magnificently inspired melodic invention by now, if what you say is true? I don't hear, I must say. The melodic quality I'm speaking of is still as rare as it always was. At most a handful of individuals per century seem to be blessed with this gift, and their number certainly hasn't increased in recent decades.
> Judging from your earlier post, I guess you yourself must be into this brain-training drill, yes? So, if I may, you happen to have any examples of your own to show us what miracles this brain-stimulating routine has proven to be for your melodic creativity? I'm genuinely curious (if not too visibly pregnant with high expectation, to tell you the honest truth).
> 
> As for your add-on remark: a sincere, realistic answer is sometimes a depressing one. Can't be helped. Sorry if that upsets you. (I find your self-improvement "do something you've never done before and your brain will be in tip-top shape to amaze the world with sensational melodic creativity" fairy-tales far more depressing actually. From a purely musical point of view, I mean.)




Come one man! Cheap try!!! Your post suggests as the same as saying, we know about healthy nutrition and researched so much about the science of food, so why is everyone still fat today! You are seriously better than this, re-peat!!!

All I did was provide a solution to improve your brain. You can read the serious internet and research papers of how to train your brain and you will find the typical "break your routine" approach. Move your trash bin, discover yourself by throwing the tossed paper into the "old" direction. Try to remember where you toss the paper next time. Make it sooner or faster. Learn something new and improve yourself, do unusual things and break your routine even more ... and the more you train your brain it should be obvious that you also train the potential of creating new melodies or at least find new and refreshing ways of doing it!

Also cheap try into suggesting that, since I am that much into brain training, my melodies must be miraculous?! You are better than this! If you would have said, since you are that much into brain training, I assume, you do not suffer from typical writers block or the lack of finding melodies? Then I would have agreed with a big YES, I do not know these problems!

... besides all this, I never mentioned that I had any beliefs, I just listed proven science!


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Waywyn @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Fortunately it doesn't matter what you believe in or not, you can't change the science in this matter ...



I, again, agree with Alex: We need the science and here is some of it (unscientifically presented):

First of all, I personally & passionately semi-agree about the whole "talent" deal... You have to put it in balance... Nothing's ever repeatedly easy, nor fast for the talented either, and that's the beauty of it, don't you all get it!!...

HEART & CRAFT
*
- You have to make the melodies from the past go from the conscious to the subconscious, the latter has an intelligence of its own and will offer something new after you do the work of feeding it with the "right things", and of being in an opening mood, wherever you are...*


_--> It's a democratic gift, it's about cultivating enthusiasm, focusing/studying what moved you and why (which segments [notes & bassline harmonies] within the melodic phrase), visual-aural imagination, hard meaningful work, and second-guessing yourself about your musical choices more times than anybody else would, which all 5 make for persistent good melodies... 

Mike Verta is also right, that comes from a "learning process...", as a composer, NOTHING's already granted in whatever new situation you're in!
_
John Williams has said it, Hans Zimmer probably experienced it and expressed it, oh wait..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TFAR2NpO18 (1:17)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc2ULuC--xw (13:10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5saFqDyyLAs (3:53)

Here's what John Williams has to say about "inevitability":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THMZl5OfCHQ (0:50-2:03)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CtbOfS3Tv4 (0:00-0:44)

Schindler's List wasn't a ta-daa moment for him musically, from what i've seen & read him declare...

Ok, apparently, E.T. was an exception, but he describes why...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw4Ngb5F3Hk (3:32)

The wisdom of great melodies comes very often through being your own best, experienced, yet harshest critic, and knowing exactly intellectually what it is you're writing about, and it is not to be underestimated, real music alone IS clarity of images, concepts produced in your mind, memories or imagined scenes...

As listeners, we intuitively know that great music comes from great VISION, and point of view from the artist... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSVUCysZ76A (0:05-0:52)

*Truth of the matter i think is, the best melodists are actually the greatest idealists about life & our existence...* 

They know how to get themselves moved wherever they are about anything, through their senses, but also their on-going internal dialog & trained imagination...

They are the ones which are the best self-actualizing people in life, they never take anything for granted, they persist at looking at themselves and see what's up in front of the mirror, they evaluate whether something needs correcting, what they have done or not done yet that needs to be done... They know how to look at themselves as they REALLY are, and start evolving towards the best, in small steps every day...



Back to the point: _How do you train your melodic muscles?_
We all think we know the melodies we seem to know so well because we've heard them so many times and take them for granted because of their beauty and even inevitability, and so now we think it's already time to invent something new, well think again, think humble, and ask yourself the beating question:

_Have you really taken the time to go back to your ear, your voice (humming the parts) and the piano as tools to replay (-reharmonize also..) that last melody you heard and liked and all of its components (harmony, basslines) before attempting something new?--DID YOU???-- _

Making consistent great melodies is like "jazz", you can't make it if you haven't really explored it in details first...

Then... with time, you become the composer who (to quote John Williams) starts feeling that --some things feel "a little" stronger than others...--

TRUE STORY: "This" bit (2:56) certainly does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ccTnDeJB2Y
It will help you idealize the melody master that's just waiting to come out of you!

Good luck :!: :?: 

Alexandre


----------



## Waywyn

Just as a little add:

For all of you talking about "being blessed" or "a gift" ... think big for a moment and ask yourself why there are people being born def!


----------



## G.E.

Thanks Alexandre for taking the time to post that.I think after hearing John Williams talk about how he wrote 200 variations for that simple little tune is proof that being "gifted" has nothing to do with it.



Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Regarding the training aspect, nothing beats having to write a new melody or more every other day.
> 
> I'm lucky enough to be on contract, so I have no choice (!), but if you have the discipline, go for it, and share your results in order to get feedback. I've learned a lot from directors/editors regarding melody over the years, and if you don't have that luxury, at least you might get feedback from learned members here, like Piet, Alex, Rob, Adrian, etc, etc.
> 
> In short, listen to a lot of music, write regularly, and share your work in order to grow your melodic chops.



I do try to write a new melody every day and I have a folder full of them.A nice thing about doing this is that I can always have a bag of ideas to draw from if I ever have writers block. :lol:
What I did notice doing this is that some melodies sound great on their own while others aren't anything special without a harmonic context to support them.I think the ones which can stand on their own are the ones which will also stay in people's head.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

re-peat @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Take, once again, John Williams for example. Hasn’t written a truly great melody since "Jurassic Park" in my opinion, and yet, up until the dinosaurs were resurrected from a fossilized mosquito, great melodies — _exceptionnaly_ great ones even — simply seemed to gush out of the man as if it were the most effortless thing in the world.



Hi Piet,

What are your thoughts on Harry Potter? I thought that "Hedwig's Theme" was quite a memorable melody... "Harry's Wondrous World" too. That stuff gets under my skin the same way that Jurassic Park did...

Another question (maybe more important)... did Williams' melody-writing really die out or did the world move on? 

Let me explain...

Movies these days aren't as sentimental as when Williams was writing (in his peak). Even Spielberg's movies don't appeal to me as much as when I saw them in the 80's (still GREAT cinema, great writing, and GREAT music - it's just not what I want to see these days.)

Maybe because... the world has moved on?

Film has gotten darker, more realistic. Audiences can stomach (and like) topics like "Breaking Bad"... we seem to like our heroes flawed.

Let's be honest... Christopher Reeves' Superman doesn't work for us anymore... he's just too nice. No, I'm afraid we like our heroes more gritty these days... guys like Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne and Walter White. These guys aren't sentimental at all... but they ARE genuine - maybe that's what we want?

This new breed of hero demands a different kind of music... and that's what we have today. And, you know what? I think it works! It fits the picture... it supports the story (as did all of Williams' work). What more can anyone ask?

Anyway, my point is that maybe Mr. Williams didn't "lose" anything? Maybe what really happened is that the world around him "moved on"... it changed to the point that we just aren't tuned-in to what he has to say any more...

If so, that is a sad thing, but also an honest thing... 

It will happen to all of us, eventually. The world moves on and one day, we just aren't relevant any more. Ahh, life... she's a cruel bitch... :lol: 

Cheers,
Marc


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Waywyn @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Just as a little add:
> 
> For all of you talking about "being blessed" or "a gift" ... think big for a moment and ask yourself why there are people being born def!



Because life is cruel? There is no answer to this kind of question.

Yes, some people are lucky. Some people are blessed. It is beyond reason. Life is not fair. We do not all get an equal shot at the same goals. Sorry.

All we can do is make the best of the talents (and time) we have been given. That is where hard work comes in...

But no amount of hard work can conjure up a John Williams melody. Yes, he worked hard, but that hard work merely refined the talent he already had. It was always in there... it just took some heat, adversity and lots of practice to eventually come out.

Piet (and others) are right that there is a quotient of (intangible) inspiration involved. It defies reason. But, that's the magic of music. I am OK with that.


----------



## Waywyn

marclawsonmusic @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Because life is cruel? There is no answer to this kind of question.



No, being blessed doesn't simply mean that life is cruel - it simply means that someone or something out there favors some more than others - which ends up in just a belief and doesn't hold up in a discussion like this!

But if you say that talent (or being blessed, gift of life) is a combination of focus, intelligence (in the sense of solving logical problems, being able to rearrange complex information into new), eagerness, genes, childhood environemt (e.g. parents where musicians etc.) and physical advantages (e.g. long fingers, flexible sinews etc.) then I have to agree with the definition of: talent!


----------



## Markus S

Getting back to planet earth, here are some practical tips to improve your melodic sense :

- learn a monophonic instrument, like flute, violin or singing
- improvise on a few chords playing this instrument

SING melodic scores, maybe start with choir and vocal scores. Careful not to use so much the inner voices, but you can use bass and main voice. Except for guys like Bach where you can sing any voice it will improve your melodic sense. 

Try to understand/feel how a melody flows, bounces off, rises up and falls back.

When writing melodic lines, always remember to insert breaks to breath, it's not only physically necessary for most instruments, but also musically, it structures your melodic lines.

Also it helps to sing scales, intervals upwards and downwards, there are many exercises for this in books and on the Internet, I think they call it ear training in English.


----------



## AC986

Markus S @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Getting back to planet earth,



:lol: 

Gary Player was once asked how come he was so lucky at getting close to the stick out of bunkers. He said 'the more I practice the luckier I get.' 




Markus S @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Also it helps to sing scales, intervals upwards and downwards,



Told them that a gazillion times. Won't make any difference. :lol:


----------



## AC986

I have relatively short and stubby fingers compared to the size of my hands btw. :lol:


----------



## AC986

And occasionally, given the right circumstances, I can blow bubbles out my ass.


----------



## G.E.

adriancook @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> And occasionally, given the right circumstances, I can blow bubbles out my ass.



You are obviously gifted. :mrgreen:

+1 for Harry Potter by the way.Hedwig's theme is just mesmerizing !


----------



## re-peat

*Marc,*

I don’t rate “Potter” among Williams’ better work, no. I do recognize that it’s yet another masterclass in “composing for films _à la manière de John Williams_”, sure, but the unique inspiration, the wondrous genius which made “E.T.”, “Superman”, “Hook”, “The Empire Strikes Back”, “Jaws 1 & 2”, “Temple Of Doom” such timeless classics, isn’t there anymore.

And yes, the world has moved on, and films have changed. But that never stopped Williams before, did it? The world moved on the 70's, 80's and early 90's too, quite dramatically so in fact, and films changed a great deal during that period as well. But whatever you threw at Williams during those twenty miraculous years of his, he always responded by delivering music of astounding quality, far beyond what was needed or expected, time and time again. Bad films, good films, dark films, lighthearted films, thrillers, adventure, horror, fantasy, gritty realism, superficial escapism, … it didn’t matter: the ’75-’95 Williams turned in score after score of perplexing musical richness.
So I’m not sure if the change of the world, and films in particular, offers a satisfying explanation as to why, in my opinion, Williams’ level dropped significantly sometime during, and ever since the latter half of the nineties.

The reason I think I’m right is because, in recent decades, whenever Williams is offered a chance to return to the idiom that used to bring out the best in him, he no longer finds the level of inspiration which he used to. Just compare “Crystal Skull” with “Temple Of Doom” for example, or compare “Potter” with “Hook”. The quality difference is baffling, I find. “Temple of Doom” and “Hook” abound with staggering musical invention, “Potter” and “Crystal Skull” sound tired, formulaïc and running-on-empty-like in comparison. (“Potter” is far better than “Crystal Skull” though.) Or compare the last three Star Wars films with the first three. There is not a single cue, theme or moment in any of the last three which has that same intoxicating musical magic that made the first three scores such awe-inspiring masterpieces. 
Again: it’s mostly still very solid stuff, and as effective as film music could ever be wished to be, but with only the vaguest of traces of his former brilliant self. It's good film music alright, but it used to be so much more.

I entirely agree with what you say about today’s cinema needing its own music though. And I also agree that this new music works. And works very, very well. I certainly don’t belong to the coterie of pessimists who believe that film music is in a bad shape today. I think it’s in as good a shape as it ever was. Maybe even better. There are amazingly creative, rich, stimulating and very exciting things to be heard in scores for films and television today.

*G.E.,*

Unless I misread you, you seem to say that the fact that it took Williams 200 variations of a melody before ending up with the right one, refutes my statement that writing great melodies is largely about talent, right?
Well, I think you may be overlooking something here. It takes talent, and a very special talent too, to recognize that a certain melody might indeed require dozens and dozens of preliminary stages before the perfect shape finally emerges. And it takes even more talent to know when that perfect shape has finally arrived. Just as is takes talent to hear when a melody comes to you in a near-finished form, needing little or no extra chisseling.
(And again, I’m not talking about utilitarian phrases or simple functional themes, which any self-respecting craftsman should be able to pull out of his sleeve whenever and as much as required, I’m talking about inspired, out-of-the-ordinary melodic invention.)
So, the fact that Williams was prepared — willing and able — to go through the hard work of exploring a few hundred possibilities before arriving at the jewel with which he finally surfaced, is, paradoxically perhaps, more indicative of his amazing talent than of his skill and workman-like attitude to his work. Because he knew — his talent, his integrity and his self-respect (all of these are very much intertwined) told him so — that such work needed to be done.

Talent is not just the thing which makes you find and recognize gold (and discard the silver and the bronze), talent is also the engine which gives you the drive to put in the work required, and to go the extra distance whenever it’s needed. And talent is also the urge, the hunger, the passion, the irrestible desire to seek the best possible solution for any given musical challenge. 
Without such talent, you settle for the first or second thing that comes to you which doesn’t sound too bad. Without such talent, you lazily settle for what worked yesterday and will work again tomorrow. Without talent, you elevate whatever acquired skill you may have as the foundation of the (supposed) quality of your work and attribute it musical value which it simply doesn’t have. 
Skill, or craft, on its own doesn’t make great music. Nor does talent, sure. You need both. But it is only with talent that skill can be applied with direction, purpose and meaning. And it’s only with extra-ordinary talent, and the pride and passion that comes with it, that well-directed and purposeful craft will lead to unique achievement.
Talent, a mystery in itself, is the thing which makes great music the mystery which it is. You don’t get to that point if you’re running on craft and dilligence alone.

Take Beethoven’s sketchbooks for example: page after page after page of ideas, laborious reworkings, scratchings, variations, endless structural explorations — all of which you might consider to serve your argument far better than mine — until he arrives at the point where he knows: this is it. Believe me, only a most unusual amount of talent allows (or inspires) one to go through that difficult and long-winded process in the first place, for as long as it takes, and only such talent enables you to see when you have arrived at your destination. Only true talent is prepared to discard all the solutions which don’t satisfy completely, to kill his first 199 babies before, finally, the 200th is born. Only that level of talent brings that level of merciless honesty into the work.
A lesser talented man wouldn’t have bothered, or would have found himself lost in a maze of convoluted, unfinished or bland efforts without having a clue as to which direction to proceed in, or without having the honest insight to recognize and accept that predictable, facile mediocrity is once again the course of the day.

Sure, there’s more to it than just talent, of course there is, it is often long and very hard work as well, but every decision which is made along the way, whether to move onwards or not, and how exactly things need to be developed, is essentialy talent-driven.

By the way: people being insulted by the concept of talent, or people who say that talent is overrated are invariably those who have little or none themselves.

*Alex,*

I’m no better than this, I’m afraid. Not in this discussion anyway. You insist on what you say is proven science. So I simply ask for proof. A single shred of musical evidence, one example, that shows that triggering the brain with unusual, unfamiliar stimulae leads to better melodic inspiration. Because I don't believe what you say to be true.
At best, your suggestions may raise a mediocre effort to a less mediocre one, and even of that I'm not so sure, but it will never bring true inspiration to where there is no talent to generate such inspiration in the first place.

And another thing: how is it that everything you say falls under provable science — even though you fail or refuse to provide any sort of proof whatsoever — and that every opinion which questions what you say has to be discarded as “beliefs which have no place in this discussion”?

*In closing,*

I really can’t take a single suggestion offered in this thread, on how to improve one’s melodic skills, seriously. And to be honest, I find most of them a ridiculous and completely self-delusional waste of time. Again, if you don’t have a real talent for melody, you can eat as much unfamiliarly-flavoured yoghurt as you like, do as much relaxing as you think is good for you, or learn to play as many monophonic instruments as you want, or improvise till the entire world’s flock of cattle come home: it won’t change a thing. Without talent, you are forever doomed to write talentless music. Simple as that. Call it bad luck. Life is cruel, as Marc rightly said. Nature’s mercurial nature.

And if you do have talent, you know what needs to be done. And you do it.

_


----------



## Vin

Listening and analysing my favorite melodies helped me a lot, not only for melody, but for harmony, counterpoint and orchestration as well. It's a fun way to learn and great way to get inside composer's head, you can deconstruct it note by note. 

That said, many, if not most melodies are very intelligently created following some rules: tension and release, structure (4/8/16 bars or 12 in blues), melodic shape (arcs, inverted arcs, upward, downward etc.), repetition, use of motifs, variation etc. 

Yeah, easier said than done (or understood), but when you understand those concepts, it becomes much more clear. Pick some of your favorite pieces and analyze melodies in them.


----------



## G.E.

re-peat, I don't disagree with the characteristics of talent which you describe.I'm not saying there's no such thing as talent,but it's something which you develop and not something you have at birth.Like Alex said,talent is a combination of multiple things such as being in the right environment,accumulated experiences,intelligence,deep passion for the craft,etc... Talent is complex because so many factors are involved but it's definitely not a mystery.



> By the way: people being insulted by the concept of talent, or people who say that talent is overrated are invariably those who have little or none themselves.



USUALLY it's the exact opposite of that.People who have no "talent" like to attribute someone's skill and success to "talent" as an excuse.
"Oh,he's just naturally gifted.I can't compete with that.That's why he's good and I'm not" 

Actually ,many "gifted" people at one time said something similar to "I find it frustrating that I have practiced 10 hours a day for the last 30 years of my life only to have the results of my hard work attributed to GOD GIVEN TALENT".
I don't have the time right know to give you their exact quotes but hopefully you take my word on this one.


----------



## germancomponist

"Talent" is very important, if not the most .... .

It is very good to have many practical experiences, and it is very good if you know the theory. But without talent you will never be as good as people with talent.

My 2 cents. o/~


----------



## handz

Wish I had time to read all these crazy long discussions... :-/

Anyway - I dont agree Wiliams did not any great works since JP, I believe almost every of his Fantasy / Scifi movies had some brilliant themes. But the times sadly are changing and it is "too much of everything" now so even somethign that is great may not have such impact now on society. Same as any of new movies will ever be as cult as movies from 70s/80s. 

Anyway I must agree with Piet that you have to be giftet and have that momental muse that help you. If you dont "have it" not any hard work will help you. This is what separates medicore artists / musicians from the best. And we all know it - bands, composers, made amazing works in some decade, but then never came with anything as good ever.


----------



## Goran

G.E. @ Fri Mar 21 said:


> But I've always believed that if you want to make music that people come back to time after time,no matter what genre it is,you need a strong melody.



I would strongly disagree with this particular point. There is music I come back to form time to time which has no melody at all one would call "strong" in any sense (some of the music has nothing most people would be inclined to call a "melody" at all for that matter).

F.e. a month ago I've listened to Berlioz' _Convoi funèbre de Juliette_ again after some time. What a majestic piece of music - any yet, I sincerely believe the the very least would be inclined to call any of its motivic/thematic material as "strong" in any sense of the term. Or the octet and double choir _Châtiment effroyable!_ from the _Les Troyens_ (Act I) by the same composer - one of the most disturbingly effective opera scenes known to me - and yet, nothing in there one would be inclined to call a melody.

Beethoven's _Diabelli Variations_, one of his grandest piano pieces - you would have to search thoroughly through 33 variations to find more then perhaps 3 or 5 of them which contain anything resembling a melody, let alone a strong one. 



G.E. @ Fri Mar 21 said:


> what do you think makes a melody more "addictive" than others?



This is a product of a given melody's happy combination of its "mimetic" expressive qualities and its structural multivalence. Btw, a strong opponent of "inexplicable genius" thesis here (that is, in the famous Hans Pfitzner-Alban Berg dispute on Schumann's _Träumerei _ I would side firmly with Alban Berg and against Pfitzner).


----------



## re-peat

G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> (...) but it's something which you develop and not something you have at birth.Like Alex said,talent is a combination of multiple things such as being in the right environment,accumulated experiences,intelligence,deep passion for the craft,etc... Talent is complex because so many factors are involved but it's definitely not a mystery.


So you honestly believe we can raise hundreds and thousands of Williamses, Beethovens, Shakespeares or Picassos if we want, if only we secure enough babies, put them in some special school or something, and train them to be geniusses? 

I don't think so. 
And Alex is wrong.

And I never ignored or dismissed the importance of hard work. But ... work hard with an average talent and you're a Salieri (_"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you. I am your patron saint."_). Work hard with a unique talent and you're a Mozart. 

_


----------



## marclawsonmusic

re-peat @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> *Marc,*
> 
> I don’t rate “Potter” among Williams’ better work, no. I do recognize that it’s yet another masterclass in “composing for films à la maniere de John Williams”, sure, but the unique inspiration, the wondrous genius which made “E.T.”, “Superman”, “Hook”, “The Empire Strikes Back”, “Jaws 1 & 2”, “Temple Of Doom” such timeless classics, isn’t there anymore.
> 
> And yes, the world has moved on, and films have changed. But that never stopped Williams before, did it? The world moved on the 70's, 80's and early 90's too, quite dramatically so in fact, and films changed a great deal during that period as well. But whatever you threw at Williams during those twenty miraculous years of his, he always responded by delivering music of astounding quality, far beyond what was needed or expected, time and time again. Bad films, good films, dark films, lighthearted films, thrillers, adventure, horror, fantasy, gritty realism, superficial escapism, … it didn’t matter: the ’75-’95 Williams turned in score after score of perplexing musical richness.
> So I’m not sure if the change of the world, and films in particular, offers a satisfying explanation as to why, in my opinion, Williams’ level dropped significantly sometime during, and ever since the latter half of the nineties.
> 
> The reason I think I’m right is because, in recent decades, whenever Williams is offered a chance to return to the idiom that used to bring out the best in him, he no longer finds the level of inspiration which he used to. Just compare “Crystal Skull” with “Temple Of Doom” for example, or compare “Potter” with “Hook”. The quality difference is baffling, I find. “Temple of Doom” and “Hook” abound with staggering musical invention, “Potter” and “Crystal Skull” sound tired, formulaïc and running-on-empty-like in comparison. (“Potter” is far better than “Crystal Skull” though.) Or compare the last three Star Wars films with the first three. There is not a single cue, theme or moment in any of the last three which has that same intoxicating musical magic that made the first three scores such awe-inspiring masterpieces.
> Again: it’s mostly still very solid stuff, and as effective as film music could ever be wished to be, but with only the vaguest of traces of his former brilliant self. It's film music alright, but it used to be so much more.
> 
> I entirely agree with what you say about today’s cinema needing its own music though. And I also agree that this new music works. And works very, very well. I certainly don’t belong to the coterie of pessimists who believe that film music is in a bad shape today. I think it’s in as good a shape as it ever was. Maybe even better. There are amazingly creative, rich, stimulating and very exciting things to be heard in scores for films and television today.
> 
> *In closing,*
> 
> I really can’t take a single suggestion offered in this thread, on how to improve one’s melodic skills, seriously. And to be honest, I find most of them a ridiculous and completely self-delusional waste of time. Again, if you don’t have a real talent for melody, you can eat as much unfamiliarly-flavoured yoghurt as you like, do as much relaxing as you think is good for you, or learn to play as many monophonic instruments as you want, or improvise till the entire world’s flock of cattle come home: it won’t change a thing. Without talent, you are forever doomed to write talentless music. Simple as that. Call it bad luck. Life is cruel, as Marc rightly said. Nature’s mercurial nature.
> 
> And if you do have talent, you know what needs to be done. And you do it.
> 
> _




Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful reply, Piet.


----------



## G.E.

> I would strongly disagree with this particular point. There is music I come back to form time to time which has no melody at all one would call "strong" in any sense (some of the music has nothing most people would be inclined to call a "melody" at all for that matter).



In my opinion,musicians have different tastes in music compared to the common listener. I've noticed this happening with myself and I can give different examples if necessary.One clear example of how my perception of music has changed is with dissonance.When I first learned about it, I remember thinking that it sounds horrible and couldn't understand why someone would want to use dissonance in a composition(even in proper context).But surprisingly to me,now I love it.Musicians develop a different appreciation for the subtleties of music over time which the common listener simply doesn't always have.Some do but most don't.

I remember someone saying on this forum once that Hans Zimmer makes good music because he has the ears of the common man.Which I think is very true.
There are lots of things you can do musically if you want to impress other composers.But I don't think anyone is making music for other composers.The common listener needs a good melody to hold onto.After you give him that,you can take him wherever you want to and do that other stuff also.

But that's just my own opinion based on personal observations,not a fact.It's fine if you disagree.


----------



## Greg

This could be my favorite thread of all time. /lurking


----------



## G.E.

> So you honestly believe we can raise hundreds and thousands of Williamses, Beethovens, Shakespeares or Picassos if we want, if only we secure enough babies, put them in some special school or something, and train them to be geniusses?



My answer is yes and no... An important factor in achieving greatness in any field is huge passion for whatever you are doing.The need to make music needs to be almost as strong as the need to breathe.No form of special school can make someone that interested in something by force.

However (hypothetically) you find find a way to make sure the children develop a great passion for their craft and they are willing to pursue that passion of their own free will,chances are you can create an army of geniuses. :lol:

And reaching the level of John Williams requires sacrifice which not everybody is willing to make.I've heard that Williams neglected his children,a thing which other people aren't willing to do.But you can't blame someone for having his family as a top priority.That person can still be a great composer but maybe not as great as JW. :D


----------



## Markus S

re-peat @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) but it's something which you develop and not something you have at birth.Like Alex said,talent is a combination of multiple things such as being in the right environment,accumulated experiences,intelligence,deep passion for the craft,etc... Talent is complex because so many factors are involved but it's definitely not a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe we can raise hundreds and thousands of Williamses, Beethovens, Shakespeares or Picassos if we want, if only we secure enough babies, put them in some special school or something, and train them to be geniusses?
> 
> I don't think so.
> And Alex is wrong.
> 
> And I never ignored or dismissed the importance of hard work. But ... work hard with an average talent and you're a Salieri (_"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you. I am your patron saint."_). Work hard with a unique talent and you're a Mozart.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


I find myself "re-peating" somehow on this forum. So again, there is no genius-loser value in the world. It's not black and white, there are many, many gray zones in between. So, yes you can train your musical ear, maybe you won't become instantly a Mozart, but you will get better at it.

Also all evaluation is subjective. All value you express here is true only for you, it is your personal opinion, no more, no less. The word "genius" implies somehow this is an universal or objective value, but there (luckily) is no such thing. So, if you personally find a melody of genius character or not, says nothing about the melody, but only about you and your opinion on it. 

I truly hope for yourself that you do not apply your own exorbitant standards to yourself and your music, because this would make you a very unsatisfied man. Embrace imperfection and live a happy life.


----------



## markwind

It's mildly amusing how a topic gets derailed by using a concept as flawed and vague as talent. Re-peat reasons from within a framework that he himself setup, and obviously there are people who agree to that, but it is merely a framework, regardless.

A Similar problematic concept is intelligence. A discussion on these concepts is always unfruitful if not carefully deconstructed.

Let's just carry on with the topic which is not about the role of "talent", re-peat and some others believe you either have talent or not (a reality perceived as black&white is ill-thought out in every case, it always astounds me how many ascribe to it - a lack of intelligence?), and that he believes it is a waste of time to develop "melodic muscles" if you lack it. - 

Great, Thanks for sharing your take on it, Next!


----------



## G.E.

markwind @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> It's mildly amusing how a topic gets derailed by using a concept as flawed and vague as talent. Re-peat reasons from within a framework that he himself setup, and obviously there are people who agree to that, but it is merely a framework, regardless.
> 
> A Similar problematic concept is intelligence. A discussion on these concepts is always unfruitful if not carefully deconstructed.
> 
> Let's just carry on with the topic which is not about the role of "talent", re-peat and some others believe you either have talent or not (a reality perceived as black&white is ill-thought out in every case, it always astounds me how many ascribe to it - a lack of intelligence?), and that he believes it is a waste of time to develop "melodic muscles" if you lack it. -
> 
> Great, Thanks for sharing your take on it, Next!



Actually,I'm happy the thread took this direction because this subject is very interesting to me.Even if I don't agree with re-peat,I'm very glad he brought it up.


----------



## germancomponist

I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?

o-[][]-o


----------



## re-peat

Markus S @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> (...) Also all evaluation is subjective. (...)


No, it isn’t. Taste can be subjective, yes, but recognizing that human expression or creativity can, when in the presence of an exceptionnal talent, reach a level far above the limited demarcation abilities of personal preferences, and the faculty to recognize it when it does, has nothing subjective about it. Me, I’m not too wild about Mahler — a subjective observation — but I sure as hell do recognize his humbling, extra-ordinary musical gift and genius — an objective observation.

The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that. And that makes the whole thing immediately very elitarian, I know. But I won’t apologize for it, as I’m of the opinion that great talent and art, on the one hand, and democratic egalitarian sentiments, on the other, have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Great art is created by a fortunate few for a fortunate few, for those who understand that there is nothing subjective about it. 
The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. Millions of people’s failure to grasp Eric Dolphy or John Coltrane doesn’t cast a doubt on the greatness of these two masters, it simply says that millions of people are apparently ill-equipped to enjoy the profound, life-enhancing pleasures that are to be found in Dolphy’s and Coltrane’s music.

People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation. That’s what it is.

Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel is great art, as is Beethoven’s, Picasso’s or Shakespeare’s body of work. There’s nothing subjective about saying that. Maybe my neighbour, or even my entire street, doesn’t see or hear it, but that’s their shortcoming.
Art shouldn’t be evaluated and/or discussed on a level where *everybody* has something to say about it, the level where petty subjectivities indeed may result in entertaining, passionate or tiresome conflict, no, art — great art — deserves to be discussed on a level where objective understanding, honesty, informed insight, open-mindedness and keen intelligence steer the communication. But those, I'm afraid, are not qualities that everybody is born with.

I am sorry, but that’s how it is. Objectively speaking.

And I do lead a very happy life, thank you. In a large part thanks to great art.

_


----------



## markwind

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o



Nice try


----------



## germancomponist

markwind @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try
Click to expand...


Smile, but isn't there some truth in my statement?


----------



## BoulderBrow

There's something in JW not creating singular great melodies post Jurassic Park but he's revisited so many franchises that I don't blame him, and he's pretty old! However I think Duel of the Fates is a cracker (with some great melodies albeit not a _singular _great melody - goose bump inducing none-the-less imo) 

'Great' melodies are subjective aren't they? My handful of tantrically blessed melodists would surely differ to others - memorable melodies and great melodies aren't the same thing.

Someone on this forum said that originality is over-rated - the same might be said for 'talent', - that is to say that even if only a handful of composers are exceptionally talented, the jobbing composer seems to get by ok.



> Talent is not just the thing which makes you find and recognize gold (and discard the silver and the bronze), talent is also the engine which gives you the drive to put in the work required, and to go the extra distance whenever it’s needed. And talent is also the urge, the hunger, the passion, the irrestible desire to seek the best possible solution for any given musical challenge.
> Without such talent, you settle for the first or second thing that comes to you which doesn’t sound too bad. Without such talent, you lazily settle for what worked yesterday and will work again tomorrow. Without talent, you elevate whatever acquired skill you may have as the foundation of the (supposed) quality of your work and attribute it musical value which it simply doesn’t have.



I'm not sure if talent and drive are the same thing or perhaps I know too many talented but lazy people.. Also do composers such as Beethoven and JW have 'that's it!' moments after repeated permutations of melodies or is it more of a 'that'll do, let's get some sun' affair?! I don't know..

I hate to say it, but regarding melodic muscle -the answer is must be hard, un-relenting writing and transcribing no. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it but no one does nearly enough!


----------



## givemenoughrope

re-peat @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johan Sebastian Bach. Millions of people’s failure to grasp Eric Dolphy or John Coltrane doesn’t cast a doubt on the greatness of these two masters, it simply says that millions of people are apparently ill-equipped to enjoy the profound, life-enhancing pleasures that are to be found in Dolphy’s and Coltrane’s music.



I don't disagree with the crux of what you're saying but I only take issue with the "ill-equipped" sentiment, as if it's impossible for your average listener to hear the difference between Bach/Coltrane and pop music. Like the average person can't taste the difference between fresh and a tv dinner. I think it's more so that it actually doesn't matter to them since exploring art or anything outside their own realm isn't a priority or necessity. That's a bigger problem. Or maybe they just don't like Bach or Coltrane bc it just doesn't apply to the world we/they live in right now. An even bigger problem maybe. Either way, most people are equipped to do things more complex than recognizing that Bach isn't (insert pop star).


----------



## G.E.

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o



Maybe some are.But from my point of view,that's like saying that some atheists are frustrated because they can't get into heaven. :lol:


----------



## re-peat

BoulderBrow @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> (...) Someone on this forum said that originality is over-rated (...)


That might have been me, cause I certainly do believe that. For the simple reason that there is no absolute musical value whatsoever in originality.
You won't hear me say the same thing about talent though.

_


----------



## germancomponist

G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some are.But from my point of view,that's like saying that some atheists are frustrated because they can't get into heaven. :lol:
Click to expand...


How can you try to compare this? What a joke! 

Maybe it's a sad message, but talent does exist and cannot be learned! o=<


----------



## Markus S

re-peat @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Markus S @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) Also all evaluation is subjective. (...)
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn’t. Taste can be subjective, yes, but recognizing that human expression or creativity can, when in the presence of an exceptionnal talent, reach a level far above the limited demarcation abilities of personal preferences, and the faculty to recognize it when it does, has nothing subjective about it. Me, I’m not too wild about Mahler — a subjective observation — but I sure as hell do recognize his humbling, extra-ordinary musical gift and genius — an objective observation.
> 
> The trouble is, you need to be fortunate to be born with antennae receptive enough to understand that. And that makes the whole thing immediately very elitarian, I know. But I won’t apologize for it, as I’m of the opinion that great talent and art, on the one hand, and democratic egalitarian sentiments, on the other, have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Great art is created by a fortunate few for a fortunate few, for those who understand that there is nothing subjective about it.
> The fact that hundreds of thousands of people may not like Bach, says nothing about Bach’s genius, but it says everything about those hundreds of thousands of people’s inability to recognize the monumental musical greatness that is Johann Sebastian Bach. Millions of people’s failure to grasp Eric Dolphy or John Coltrane doesn’t cast a doubt on the greatness of these two masters, it simply says that millions of people are apparently ill-equipped to enjoy the profound, life-enhancing pleasures that are to be found in Dolphy’s and Coltrane’s music.
> 
> People who say that evaluation is subjective, confuse subjectivity with the inability to recognize that great art eludes the narrowmindedness of subjective evaluation. That’s what it is.
> 
> Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel is great art, as is Beethoven’s, Picasso’s or Shakespeare’s body of work. There’s nothing subjective about saying that. Maybe my neighbour, or even my entire street, doesn’t see or hear it, but that’s their shortcoming.
> Art shouldn’t be evaluated and/or discussed on a level where *everybody* has something to say about it, the level where petty subjectivities indeed may result in entertaining, passionate or tiresome conflict, no, art — great art — deserves to be discussed on a level where objective understanding, honesty, informed insight, open-mindedness and keen intelligence steer the communication. But those, I'm afraid, are not qualities that everybody is born with.
> 
> I am sorry, but that’s how it is. Objectively speaking.
> 
> And I do lead a very happy life, thank you. In a large part thanks to great art.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


So, how do you see your writing then? Are you in awe before the masters and despise your own failed temptations to create something great, or do you aspire to "get there"? Or do you believe that you are quite on the same level already and this is somehow measurable by someone who has those mysterious anttennas for "higher art" (you in example)?


----------



## markwind

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> markwind @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smile, but isn't there some truth in my statement?
Click to expand...


No, not at all, or at least not for me personally. What does touch me, is people ability to often misjudging someone's ability or even potential talent, ive been hurt as a kid in that sense far too often by people who knew no better. The idea about talent in an objectively identifiable measure has the danger of giving power to someones interpretation without correction or verification of said interpretative ability about that specific talent. Because there is no standard, only a perceived standard that re-peat is so self-indulgent about to claim it is even objective.. yikes how far removed from reality indeed. 

All (interpreted!) perception is subjective, even more so is our reasoning about what we perceive. That some people agree on how they interpreted their perception does not make it fact, it simply makes it agreed perception within that group. (I am well aware that this sounds like a cop-out, but this does aptly fit the concept of talent and what you consider it). 

The difference between Re-peat's ability to judge talent in a musician compared to another person can not be standardised, both opinions can only be supported by arguments, those arguments can describe facts, but that does not mean the opinion itself or interpretation itself is fact - regardless how well reasoned-

This is all quite abstract, but if i need to be concrete, then i'd be writing an essay on the nature of what "talent" means. And Ive given it serious thought to be honest. How much weight that word has, is unjustified even *if *it exists as an objective phenomenon, as most are not able to judge it accordingly.


--An aspect of the problem with talent-- 
The problem you all have with using the word talent, is that you're using a vague concept, whereas a more concrete one would be someone's genetic predisposition. However, our scientific understanding is still very limited in that sense, even moreso in regards to music, so the measure or the extend by which such predisposition influences our work can not yet be accurately described. Thus it's use in judging the amount of someone's genetic predisposition in their achieved skill is a guess at best and thus never factual.

You would make a big mistake if you assume I think *everything* is learnable. I have a problem with the concept you are using, and how you are using it.


----------



## G.E.

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some are.But from my point of view,that's like saying that some atheists are frustrated because they can't get into heaven. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you try to compare this? What a joke!
> 
> Maybe it's a sad message, but talent does exist and cannot be learned! o=<
Click to expand...


Like I've said, *from my point of view* that's the perfect comparison. 
Obviously,from your point of view it's a terrible comparison because you believe in the concept of natural talent.

By the way,would you describe yourself as talented ? :mrgreen:


----------



## germancomponist

G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.E. @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people are frustrated because the fact that you cannot learn talent?
> 
> o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some are.But from my point of view,that's like saying that some atheists are frustrated because they can't get into heaven. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you try to compare this? What a joke!
> 
> Maybe it's a sad message, but talent does exist and cannot be learned! o=<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said, *from my point of view* that's the perfect comparison.
> Obviously,from your point of view it's a terrible comparison because you believe in the concept of natural talent.
> 
> By the way,would you describe yourself as talented ? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Oh yes, I do not only *believe* in the concept of natural talent. It exists or it not exists!

And yes, I am talented... . o=< o-[][]-o


----------



## markwind

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> Oh yes, I do not only *believe* in the concept of natural talent. It exists or it not exists!
> 
> And yes, I am talented... . o=< o-[][]-o



Do me a favor and help us nonbelievers. 

Prove it exists. Where is the line between talent and talentless? And how many agree with your parameters with which you identify talent? Why are others with other parameters wrong? Prove that they are wrong. Is there no scale? Are your parameters then 100% fixed? What are your parameters for defining talent?

gl

(does this discussion remind anyone of something?)


----------



## germancomponist

markwind @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I do not only *believe* in the concept of natural talent. It exists or it not exists!
> 
> And yes, I am talented... . o=< o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it exists. Where is the line between talent and talentless? And how many agree with your parameters with which you identify talent? Why are others with other parameters wrong? Prove that they are wrong. Is there no scale? Are your parameters then 100% fixed? What are your parameters for defining talent?
> 
> gl
Click to expand...


I think it makes a lot of sense to read re-peat's posts, with what I agree 100%.

What is talent, du you not know what it is? He he, you are joking, eh?


----------



## markwind

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> I think it makes a lot of sense to read re-peat's posts, with what I agree 100%.
> 
> What is talent, du you not know what it is? He he, you are joking, eh?



Ohh you're being naughty, you're merely simplifying my questions as a means to get out of what I am asking, or you don't understand what it is I am asking. If you preach objectivity of a concept, I ask for a objectively identifiable aspects of that concept. You know, scientific pursuit. You got me all intrigued into this objective concept now! Please continue . 

And yes I read his opinions, with some I agree, with others I don't. In neither case factual.


----------



## germancomponist

markwind @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it makes a lot of sense to read re-peat's posts, with what I agree 100%.
> 
> What is talent, du you not know what it is? He he, you are joking, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh you're being naughty, you're merely simplifying my questions as a means to get out of what I am asking, or you don't understand what it is I am asking. If you preach objectivity of a concept, I ask for a objectively identifiable aspects of that concept. You know, scientific pursuit. You got me all intrigued into this objective concept now! Please continue .
> 
> And yes I read his opinions, with some I agree, with others I don't. In neither case factual.
Click to expand...


How do you explain talent?


----------



## markwind

germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> markwind @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germancomponist @ Mon Mar 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it makes a lot of sense to read re-peat's posts, with what I agree 100%.
> 
> What is talent, du you not know what it is? He he, you are joking, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh you're being naughty, you're merely simplifying my questions as a means to get out of what I am asking, or you don't understand what it is I am asking. If you preach objectivity of a concept, I ask for a objectively identifiable aspects of that concept. You know, scientific pursuit. You got me all intrigued into this objective concept now! Please continue .
> 
> And yes I read his opinions, with some I agree, with others I don't. In neither case factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you explain talent?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't even try in a regular single post fashion, I would really take my time for it, perhaps weeks or months to research and wreck my brain over it. Because I believe it is not objective and thus adheres to countless of factors that influences it's use by people.

But if it's objective, it's definition might be complicated, but it should be fixed either way. Non-trained-scientists (beta or alpha), ie rest of the people, often use words like 'objectivity' in a manner that does not actually mean the same as true objectivity. It is just used as a means to express someone's conviction on a specific matter, even though they think they mean objectivity. I perceive much of the same in this topic.


----------



## AC986

There are loads of talented people in the world. But talent alone won't get you there otherwise just about anyone could do just about anything.

You need to practice and you need drive. Without those two elements you could be very talented but no one would ever know. (Cue eerie music that gradually fades out into a dissonant and uncomfortable chord that never resolves). >8o

Breaking News: join me at the Norwegian School of Keyboard Playing and find out just how really talented you are!?!?!? :arrow:


----------



## Waywyn

As I said before, if you define talent as "given" genes/memes from your parents/grandparents, physical aspects (long fingers etc.), specific early education, such as openmindness towards sound and music and least but not least intelligence defined as being able to compute logic stuff and recreate and rearrange simple or complex information into either simple or complex varied information, then YES, I agree with talent!

If you believe that talent is something a god or a higher deity has been granted/gifted to you in your lifetime, then this is simply just nonsense! Simply because the question would make sense to ask, why do some receive talent while others don't have a chance of just living longer for 3 days. Oh cool, how merciful that deity must be. Skilling some people to create awesome melodies and enjoying millions of ears, while others suffer in pain for three days until they finally die. Awesome guy ... but he loves us, right?!


re-peat: Seriously do yourself a favor and browse the web for brain training. You find tons of exercises and I could fill the whole forum with it. All I say is, if you train your brain, it is obvious that you are able to calculate faster, remember more things, refresh your approach on solving tasks and creating new things etc

... and to me writing a great melody is a process of creating something!

Just today I was watching a TED talk about a doctor who was holding a speech about what they were able to tell from analyzing 83.000 brain scans. With specific brain training (I am not talking those cheap games on the net) you can even heal people who have been considered hopeless!

Of course the topic is a slightly different one but the bottomline is the same. Brain training simply builds your brain and if you are able to compute things better it should also give you a fresh approach on writing melodies (and please please, do not come again with your stupid argument, that I said that brain training makes your melodies miraculous, ok? Thank you!)


----------



## AC986

What if you don't want to write melodies? Is that choice or because you lack talent? Or because you have no drive or did not practice and brush your teeth every night and every morning.


----------



## re-peat

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> (...) If you believe that talent is something a god or a higher deity has been granted/gifted to you in your lifetime, then this is simply just nonsense! Simply because the question would make sense to ask, why do some receive talent while others don't have a chance of just living longer for 3 days. Oh cool, how merciful that deity must be. Skilling some people to create awesome melodies and enjoying millions of ears, while others suffer in pain for three days until they finally die. Awesome guy ... but he loves us, right?!



You need to do more brain excercises, Alex, you're beginning to ramble. God — going along for a benign moment with the strange notion that the joker might exist — doesn’t enter into it. (I also don’t know why you drag the poor figment into this.) Men are simply born unequal. (As this very thread exquisitely illustrates, it seems to me.) Painfully and gloriously unequal. Life is a chaotic, unpredictable bitch. And yes, often a sadistically cruel one too. Ask Beethoven. Or Dudley Moore.
People are simply different. Some spend their life in mute imbecility (too many seem to want to spend it in noisy imbecility, though), others spread joy and inspiration, some kill, some rape, others heal, feed and comfort … Why? I don’t know. Nature, is my best guess.

How do you explain the precocity of a Barenboim, barely seven when he gave his first public concert? Brain excercises maybe? Or Mendelssohn: sixteen-going-on-seventeen and already producing the wonderfully inspired ouverture to Midsummer Night’s Dream and a phenomenally good String Octet? Music on a level that most mature and fully educated composers never reach. Why? Healthy synapses? And what about Mozart? Or Korngold? Or Saint-Saëns? A fortunate choice in fermented milk products perhaps? Or Bizet: allowed to enter the Paris conservatory well before the minimum age and composing a magnificent first symphony only a few years later. How did that happen? Dancing naked around the living room wearing a slightly unusual hat? Is that it?

Entire libraries can be filled with books discussing the music of Beethoven while most of the members here will never see the day that there’s a single paragraph written about theirs. Why is that?

Talent, that’s why. Most people have none. Many have some. And a very select few have a whole lot more.

_


----------



## Waywyn

re-peat, I clearly stated above how I define talent!

"As I said before, if you define talent as "given" genes/memes from your parents/grandparents, physical aspects (long fingers etc.), specific early education, such as openmindness towards sound and music and least but not least intelligence defined as being able to compute logic stuff and recreate and rearrange simple or complex information into either simple or complex varied information, then YES, I agree with talent!" 

My intention why I mentioned god or a deity was simply because terms such as "blessed" or "a gift" have been mentioned here, ok?

To mention Barenboim, Mendelssohn and others and bringing up simple brain training is again ignorant from you since you simply do not WANT to understand what I was saying ... I say it again: I NEVER stated that genius melodies derive from braintraining, I simply said that braintraining COULD improve your approach on creating new things! Is it so hard to see the difference between this?


Alex said: braintraining may help you on approach things a different way (therefore it may help you to get a fresh approach on melody writing)

Alex did NOT say: Braintraining makes you a genius!


I hope you got it now!!


----------



## Dan Mott

Perhaps brain training can help with motivation and concentration, which could lead to making more melodies or simply being able to focus for longer periods of time, or even enabling you to work harder and longer. However, I do not think any form of brain training will make you write amazing melodies (better melodies), or make you a better composer, but perhaps a more efficient composer. Opening up your brain to make you approach a song differently, ect.


----------



## Waywyn

Just besides the discussion:

Please check out this video:
http://youtu.be/esPRsT-lmw8

If it is possible to heal people from disorders, malfunctions or even cure Alzheimer in a specific way it should be easily possible to feature or boost the creative centre of your brain too. Of course this is just a guess but I think it is a pretty close one!


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Waywyn @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> My intention why I mentioned god or a deity was simply because terms such as "blessed" or "a gift" have been mentioned here, ok?



Hi Alex, 

From my perspective, terms such as "blessed" or "a gift" do not imply a diety or God.

Your reason is sound in that "a gift" must come from somewhere... but when you say it must come from God or a diety... I think that perhaps you might have inserted your own agenda.

A gift can come from many places... Let's forget God for a moment and just talk about nature... Yes, some cheetahs are faster than others. Or maybe some fish swim faster than others. Is that because a divine being favors one over the other? No... it's just nature... it's life.

Much the same with any "talent" human beings might have.

Talent, creativity, whatever... it's just a roll of the dice... we all are good at some things and not so good at others. A wise man knows his limitations and (hopefully) embraces his strengths.

Anyway, I wish everyone luck in this very strange thread. I never knew that talent was such a controversial subject! o-[][]-o 

Marc


----------



## Goran

There is an important consequence to the talent-as-in-born-quality-thesis (a thesis I happen to reject, and find the arguments used to support it to be non sequiturs) which should be worth mentioning though: 

If talent is an in-born quality, and this in-born quality is _the decisive factor_ in what makes music of some people qualitatively superior to that of others, then the whole great-composer-veneration _has to go down the drain immediately_. That is, in such a case, we can f.e. admire Mozart's _music_ more than that of Salieri, but - _music_ (as in the sounding end result) _only_. Not his skill, or his musicianship (_as they aren't his in any sense of being his achievement_ - they were merely bestowed upon him by nature). If the difference between Mozart's and Salieri's music boils down to the difference in their respective in-born talents, then it cannot (in any meaningful sense of the term) be stated that Mozart is a _greater composer_ then Salieri - he isn't. Because it wasn't _him_ who composed _the difference_ - the nature did, and he was (in that particular respect) its mere vessel. 

(A digression: having said that, I find this not to be a very suitable comparison in this regard, as Salieri did, contrary to popular belief, compose more then a few works Mozart would have no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of, and the whole Mozart-the-genius vs. Salieri-the-mediocrity paradigm is, imo, a grotesque distortion of the actual relation between the inherent merit of the work composed by the two.) 

In general: If talent is in-born in this sense, there is absolutely no reason to have more respect or admiration for its bearer then for any man lacking it. _In-born qualities aren't achievements._ Quite to the contrary, achievement is only that what is accomplished by a person _through its own effort and beyond of what he or she was merely born with._ Or as the late great George Carlin once put it on the subject of "being proud" of one's nationality: "Being Irish isn't a skill, it's a genetic accident".


----------



## re-peat

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> (...) since you simply do not WANT to understand what I was saying ... (...)


Alex,

I understand very well what you’re saying — a well-stimulated brain should prove beneficial to the creativity, since our creativity is generated in the brain (that’s about the gist of it, isn’t it?) — and I can see much sense and logic in that of course, but … I stop agreeing at the point where it is implied that brain excercising might in some way increase one’s talent or even compensate for the lack of it.
I just don’t buy that. (And me not buying it is the reason why, somewhat sillyly perhaps, I couldn’t resist making a bit of a caricature of that implication and what you said about: eat yoghurt, wear a red hat and sit naked in front of the tele, and you may find that your brain might surprise you.)

The reason I think you and I see things differently is because we see music fundamentally differently. I’ve noticed this before. You seem to want to rationalize, even mundanify (if that is a word?), every aspect of music and hope to want to explain the entire process, as it occurs during the creation, performance and production of it, in a somewhat clinical, down-to-earth fashion.
Now, on most any other subject, I would enthusiastically go along with this — being extremely rational and unemotional about music, and deeply allergic to the association ‘music and feelings’ — but I have to confess that music, and particulary its gestation, is a complete mystery to me and the more I learn about it, the more mysterious it has become.

Why, for instance, am I good at it and is my brother not? Even though we both are very similar, had a near identical curriculum, are passioned about the same things and share many interests. Why then, am I able, even without any formal training, to write some pretty decent music and is he completely devoid of any musical creativity whatsoever (even though he deeply, deeply loves the music of Bach, Mozart, Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Miles Davis, Sam Rivers, Teddy Wilson and John Williams). What sort of threads have I running in my brain which he hasn’t? Or is there perhaps some area in the brain to which I have access and he hasn’t? Same DNA, same upbringing, same nutrition, same school, identical environment, same traumas, … and yet there’s this one remarkable difference.
The only answer I can come up with is that, for some inexplicable reason, nature, moving as ever in mysterious ways, seems to have endowed me with a certain amount of creative talent for music, whereas my brother has to make do with a gift for passively enjoying music (to a profound degree). And if it isn’t that, I’m clueless.

And to return a little closer to the topic of this thread: I consider my talent a fixed quantity. I was given what I was given and that’s it, no more no less. I can increase my knowledge, yes, I can increase my mental well-being, yes, I can train and improve my technique, yes, but there’s nothing I can do, should I want to, about my talent, other then exploit it honestly, proudly and with integrity. Which is why I respond rather dismissively to all suggestions for increasing one’s melodic aptitude, since, as I mentioned before, such aptitude is, in my view anyway, entirely talent-based.

_


----------



## lux

While completely subscribe to all of Piet's posts here (perhaps with the exception of me diggin the Harry Potter themeology), as I have the same exact feelings, I would just add that, sometimes, the lack of self confidence, doesn't allow us to explore the full potential of what, rightly, re-peat calls "talent in a fixed quantity".

I sometimes found myself pushing people to explore their own melodic talent (or verify the existence of it). This is easier when you're kind of a hyperproducing artist, and have a constant flow of stuff, often just for the sake of it (or because you can't do without). But it's harder when writing doesn't come as handy probably


----------



## re-peat

Goran @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> (...) and the whole Mozart-the-genius vs. Salieri-the-mediocrity paradigm is, imo, a grotesque distortion of the actual relation between the inherent merit of the work composed by the two. (...)


Goran,

I am aware of that and I very much agree, but despite being historically-aesthetically quite inaccurate and terribly unfair, ever since “Amadeus”, the juxtapositioning of Mozart vs Salieri has become, there's no denying it, a great metaphor for “talent vs non-talent”. It’s hard on poor old Salieri, I know, but the metaphor — being so powerfully evocated as it was in the massively successful play and film — appears to have caught on, and now leads a life of its own. 
Just to be clear, it is strictly in its metaphorical sense that I made use of this unjust comparison. Salieri does indeed deserve nothing less but our greatest admiration.

Not quite sure about your vessel-theory though. 

_


----------



## Henning

Ok, we have two differing opinions here: On the one hand the hypothesis that the propensity for writing "inspired" melodies/musical works (in this discussion referred to as "talent") might be enhanced by stimulating the brain. On the other hand the hypothesis that this would not be possible.

As long as we are agreeing on the fact that whatever we define as talent is only something that's part of our brain activity, this whole discussion could be ended by applying the standard rules of science: observation, experimentaion and validation. 

Without such scientific approach there's only conjecture which is (at least to me) utterly pointless. I know of no such special scientific endeavours or even answers at the moment, mind. There are experiments with enhancing basic brain skills using electric shocks, drugs, etc., but all of this is yet at the beginning as far as I gather. 

Like Alex I'm kind of fascinated by this stuff and I firmly believe that our brain is quite capable of being enhanced by external stimulants. But in the end this is of course just a conjecture on my part which can only be proven by using scientific means. And though very entertaining, no forum discussion can accomplish this, I'm afraid


----------



## AC986

Henning @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> I firmly believe that our brain is quite capable of being enhanced by external stimulants.



Oh yes. 

Look at Sherlock Holmes as an example.


----------



## Goran

re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> It’s hard on poor old Salieri, I know, but the metaphor — being so powerfully evocated as it was in the massively successful play and film — appears to have caught on, and now leads a life of its own.



That is (unfortunately) very true.



re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> Just to be clear, it is strictly in its metaphorical sense that I made use of this unjust comparison. Salieri does indeed deserve nothing less but our greatest admiration.



D'accord.





_


----------



## markwind

re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> Why, for instance, am I good at it and is my brother not? Even though we both are very similar, had a near identical curriculum, are passioned about the same things and share many interests. Why then, am I able, even without any formal training, to write some pretty decent music and is he completely devoid of any musical creativity whatsoever (even though he deeply, deeply loves the music of Bach, Mozart, Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Miles Davis, Sam Rivers, Teddy Wilson and John Williams). What sort of threads have I running in my brain which he hasn’t? Or is there perhaps some area in the brain to which I have access and he hasn’t? Same DNA, same upbringing, same nutrition, same school, identical environment, same traumas, … and yet there’s this one remarkable difference.
> The only answer I can come up with is that, for some inexplicable reason, nature, moving as ever in mysterious ways, seems to have endowed me with a certain amount of creative talent for music, whereas my brother has to make do with a gift for passively enjoying music (to a profound degree). And if it isn’t that, I’m clueless.
> _



These are very difficult questions, I totally agree, but does the question and mystery not also apply to taste? Is not also a combination of who you befriend, who you meet, where you have visited? Or does the fact that you have picked up music maybe influence your brother? I'm picking at straws, I know. But inexplicably doesn't automatically point at endowment, it just means that the factors haven't been revealed - endowment is an assumption and a belief which right or wrong, of course is subjective. And for all intents and purposes, why would one care for them to be revealed anyhow? Only if one would be completely and utterly obsessed with answering why some excell in certain areas when others don't. Which most probably has a extremely varied and contextual answer for each analysis and doesn't even give you a context-less conclusion. I admit, your situation would be an interesting case at that .

I applaud technical thinking, but I think this one is a bit too complex to explain in full.
In my case I was able to identify some factors at play. For the longest time I have felt music unlike anyone in my vicinity, there is a way it influences me that can be almost ascribed as being a flaw in my personality, a hyper sensitivity that seems to be completely at home in the domain of music. And its exactly that trait that I know, that has finally pushed me into composing. Music is a literal and accessible world to me. However I needed to learn to relax, to learn to explore, not because I am inherently incapable of doing so, far from it, but because I have had a upbringing that has taught me to be differently than that. It's an inhibiting influence that I needed to delearn to a certain extent. 
I once uploaded a track, and it was badly written, badly composed, badly the whole shabang. But it was so because I was blindsighted on one little piece that made me positive about it, and the blindsightedness originated from caring to much how people will receive it, feeling extremely pressured because of other things going on in my life at the time that I wasn't able to disconnect from while composing.
What is the height of my musical abilities? I have absolutely no clue, but I feel I won't be able to know it for at least quite some years to come. And isn't that truly part of the joy of it all? Writing your greatest piece, isn't that part of it the journey? It certainly is for me. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is never-ending at that. 

---
What would it mean if Paco De Lucia would not have been given a guitar in early life? 
What would have happened if Mozart had not been given a musical upbringing? 

What it would it mean, would they then be considered talentless? Or is talent an inate thing that is there regardless of whether or not it comes to expression? How would we know? Depending on various factors there is a chance we wouldn't.

Talent is incredibly hard to grasp, even more so when its unexpressed within a person. My advice to all, is to forget it's concept. Focus on hard work, and see where it brings you - talent is only an interesting debate in hindsight: After someone's work has been left to the ages to judge. In regards to those whose exceptional abilities deserve our immense respect, they have it regardless if we apply the word talent. What people consider talent is varied between so many, people's framework by which they judge talent differs so much. It is a nice compliment to get if you get it, it means that by their standards you excell enough to say you have talent - and of course, some peoples standards you give more credit then others, but in all cases its just their personal standard. Take it at face value and move on. 

Talent is overrated.. not because of what exceptionally gifted individuals can do with alot of hard work, but because of it's incredibly diverse application.


----------



## G.E.

> Which is why I respond rather dismissively to all suggestions for increasing one’s melodic aptitude, since, as I mentioned before, such aptitude is, in my view anyway, entirely talent-based.



With all due respect,this is absurd.I'm sure you have been composing for a long time.Maybe you have more hours of composing music under your belt than I have of breathing,which why I don't want to seem disrespectful.But if you are telling me that your melodies were just as good in your first 2-4 years of composing music as they are now,I have to call BULLSHIT !

As for the comparison between you and your brother,I can't possibly draw conclusions until I really know all the details.Maybe he just enjoyed listening but never actually felt drawn to composition.Even though you say you have the same training maybe he was just going through the motion and didn't actually get much joy from composing as you did.If he really got the same joy from it, I doubt he would have given up even if he wasn't as good as you.He would still be making music now just as a hobby, even if it was bad music,just for the simple fact that he loves doing it and gets joy out of creating something.


----------



## Waywyn

re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> I understand very well what you’re saying — a well-stimulated brain should prove beneficial to the creativity, since our creativity is generated in the brain (that’s about the gist of it, isn’t it?) — and I can see much sense and logic in that of course, but … I stop agreeing at the point where it is implied that brain excercising might in some way increase one’s talent or even compensate for the lack of it.
> I just don’t buy that. (And me not buying it is the reason why, somewhat sillyly perhaps, I couldn’t resist making a bit of a caricature of that implication and what you said about: eat yoghurt, wear a red hat and sit naked in front of the tele, and you may find that your brain might surprise you.)



No, you did it again *sigh* ... all I said is that braintraining may give you a fresh approach on your already present skills.
Maybe you suddenly start to rethink a process you never though about before. Please stop implying that I said braintraining increases talent!!




re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> The reason I think you and I see things differently is because we see music fundamentally differently. I’ve noticed this before. You seem to want to rationalize, even mundanify (if that is a word?), every aspect of music and hope to want to explain the entire process, as it occurs during the creation, performance and production of it, in a somewhat clinical, down-to-earth fashion.
> Now, on most any other subject, I would enthusiastically go along with this — being extremely rational and unemotional about music, and deeply allergic to the association ‘music and feelings’ — but I have to confess that music, and particulary its gestation, is a complete mystery to me and the more I learn about it, the more mysterious it has become.


Who on earth said, that I am unemotional about music? I am one of the most emotional guys when it comes to music!
How can you say something like that??




re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> Why, for instance, am I good at it and is my brother not? Even though we both are very similar, had a near identical curriculum, are passioned about the same things and share many interests. Why then, am I able, even without any formal training, to write some pretty decent music and is he completely devoid of any musical creativity whatsoever (even though he deeply, deeply loves the music of Bach, Mozart, Monteverdi, Stravinsky, Miles Davis, Sam Rivers, Teddy Wilson and John Williams). What sort of threads have I running in my brain which he hasn’t? Or is there perhaps some area in the brain to which I have access and he hasn’t? Same DNA, same upbringing, same nutrition, same school, identical environment, same traumas, … and yet there’s this one remarkable difference.
> The only answer I can come up with is that, for some inexplicable reason, nature, moving as ever in mysterious ways, seems to have endowed me with a certain amount of creative talent for music, whereas my brother has to make do with a gift for passively enjoying music (to a profound degree). And if it isn’t that, I’m clueless.



Did you ever think about he may simply not being interested in writing music? Did you do direct comparison in writing music and his always sucked? Who said that your created melodies suck? Your dad, you or some trained teacher? Did you ever think about him "standing in your shadow" and is kind of - don't know if that is the word - daunted by you? Doesn't he even dare to write music because he feels that he is not good enough. Here we may have kind of the same thing going on as with people who are optimistic experience more "luck" in their life ... or men who are convinced that they are bad ass mofos get more girls than the ones who feel not that "pretty" or "convinced" by themselves!




re-peat @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> And to return a little closer to the topic of this thread: I consider my talent a fixed quantity. I was given what I was given and that’s it, no more no less. I can increase my knowledge, yes, I can increase my mental well-being, yes, I can train and improve my technique, yes, but there’s nothing I can do, should I want to, about my talent, other then exploit it honestly, proudly and with integrity. Which is why I respond rather dismissively to all suggestions for increasing one’s melodic aptitude, since, as I mentioned before, such aptitude is, in my view anyway, entirely talent-based.
> 
> _



I see, so after your learned your first scale or put your fingers on the keyboard or whatever instrument, you were able to write awesome stuff? It is funny when I started to play guitar and got into improvising I was just noodling stupid shit (most important thing: as fast as possible). However, when I had my first lesson with a teacher who was telling me about to breath, relax and think of rests my melodic writing improved about 50000% ... but lemme guess, if you would listen to my stuff (not feeling daunted by you at all!), you would think that there is not a single great melody present anyway!


----------



## The Darris

Wow, this thread is huge and full of some great and slightly depressing answers. I will weigh in briefly on my techniques towards melodies. 

When getting started, I address the purpose of the music I am writing. Does is really need to be extremely thematic? Or does it need to be more esoteric and minimal? Some of my favorite melodies and themes are 2-3 note motifs used over and over again with some subtle differences in their performance. Once I figure out the purpose of the piece, I start writing. For me, having a strong theory background helps me write melodies faster but I also experiment. I might have the chord progression set in stone but I will do multiple variations of a melody until something clicks for me. The click is usually the voice in my head saying, "Yeah! I love that!!" Is it wrong to be a fan of my own music? Anyway, my themes, when actually thought out and not done on the fly, tend to be snippets of the different themes I have come up with. Some of those also because counterpoint melodies and so forth. I am a huge believer in keeping all of my different variations written down to come back to when working on a piece. The main reason for this is because they are something I felt or heard in my head that fit the overall theme of the piece but just didn't work for that particular moment. 

Anyway, that is some insight to my process and how I go about it. As far as actual training. I always resort back to my musical education in theory, ear training, and harmony. Good luck G.E.


----------



## Musicologo

Sing. Anything that is singable can later be crafted into something that is catchy and that will always work. 

But it needs to be singable, to have some contrast, and then repetition. 

Start with something very simple. A phrase. SAY a phrase first and then analyze the natural rhythm and prosody of that text. 

"I'm going to the beach".

If i put it into 2/4:

(1/8-rest) 1/8 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 | 1/8
-------------I'm go- ing - to - the | beach


There you have your rhythmic motive. Use it two or three times in a row to have repetition, with very slight variation.

Then listen for the natural contour of that melody and start putting pitches into it.

When I say it with a neutral tone I can hear something like F3 - A3 - F3 - Bb2 - Bb2 | Bb2

There. You have now a piece of melody to play and fool around. 

Try other "emotional tones", saying it angry, with fear, etc...

Try other sentences, etc... Have fun.


----------



## vicontrolu

I dont consider myself very "gifted" but i do believe my melodic skills have improved over time. This thing about you have it/you dont is a bit too much of a statement.

I think the better tips are in the first reply of the thread, probably the best one in my opinion would be to do a couple of melodies every single day and analyze the ones you like most too.


----------



## aaronnt1

Basically study Tchaikovsky :mrgreen: Seriously, he wrote exactly 84.67% of all the best known classical tunes.... (maybe I exaggerate slightly)

I strongly suspect Re-peat is right with his post on the first page, that a gift for melody is intrinsic. I mean, if we look at all the tens of thousands of composers who have lived even in say the last 200 years, only a handful have been able to churn out great melodies one after another. After Tchaikovsky, Chopin, John Williams, Mozart, and some others who made careers out of songwriting for pop, you'd start to struggle to come up with other names.

There are probably more working composers alive today than at any other point in time and yet there’s not been an increase in classic melodies being written, in fact it's the opposite I would say. I can't actually remember the last truly great classic melody I've heard since John Williams in the mid 90's (though he has written tons of amazing cues, themes and sub melodies since for sure). So with music creation and the study of composition pretty much opened up to the masses now and with all the books written on the mechanics of melodic writing, where are the new truly great timeless tunes? 

I’ve always thought of the great tunes not so much as having been created by the composer as being discovered or uncovered by him. Almost as if the tunes pre-existed, were always there, but just needed to be found, like stem cells were always there, or radio waves or antibiotics. But it requires a talented person with the right set of skills and instincts to uncover them. I say this because I think one of the ways to define a classic melody is that it just sounds right, no note is wrong or extraneous and you don’t really need the harmony underneath to make it work. It would be an interesting exercise for you composition teachers out there if it were possible but I have a strong suspicion that if you were to play say the beginning of a classic melody, say that classic opening statement of Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto to a class of young music students who had never heard it before (possible in today’s world!) but then cut the melody off at a certain point and ask them to go away and try to complete it, I reckon a large percentage would be able to find most of if not all the correct notes. Because I think when it comes to the classic melodies, the notes can only really go one way and I think most of us, even non musicians can instinctively feel that. 

Someone earlier said he didn’t think people were born with melodic talent because he couldn’t see how evolution would favour that sort of talent. Well the most obvious answer would be that largely for a lot of prospective mates, talented mates stand out more than untalented mates whether it’s a talent in dancing, sport, music, comedy or some other achievement that results in recognition etc... and perhaps it’s continued from there? 

Anyway, it is strange that there seems to be a lack of great timeless melodies being written these days but it’s like any creative field in that the percentage of truly great timeless works relative to the entire output in that field is always extremely low. Perhaps there are only so many truly distinctive ways of arranging 12 notes and a regular beat? And when you consider that great melodies are not even based on all those 12 notes, just a selection of them in one or two keys (I mean who ever heard of a 12 tone classic tune right?) perhaps it’s not surprising the well of truly great melodies is drying up. Perhaps there are not many left to discover. Or perhaps we need to really delve seriously into new tuning systems, have instruments with 500 pitches, not 88, to discover new harmonies and melodic possibilities or maybe that’s like wishing for a new colour to be discovered!

Or perhaps we just need to wait for the next John Williams or Tchaikovsky to come along.


----------



## G.E.

> Or perhaps we just need to wait for the next John Williams or Tchaikovsky to come along. Smile



I'm already here..Just kidding :lol:

But seriously...
I don't understand what you people are talking about.I hear AMAZING melodies all the time from a lot of different composers.Have you all stopped listening to music since John Williams was in his prime or what? I've heard some melodies from newer composers that would put John Williams and Tchaikovsky to shame.


----------



## Arbee

Wow, what a thread!

Is talent in the DNA? Of course it is. When exposed to life's tapestry of experience, those with talent (nature) instinctively absorb and process those experiences (nurture) and express their gift via their unique wiring. This is no different IMO to gifted athletes, gifted entrepeneurs, gifted chefs or gifted scientists. Some folk are just wired to suit a particular activity or pattern of thought, just give them a start and watch them go.

Can melodic muscles be improved? Of course they can, and it could be argued that many of those with that innate talent were also exposed early in life to those techniques and soaked them up immediately and effortlessly like a sponge.

We must also remember that even the most gifted composers write a lot of uninspiring music (I played much of it on the piano as a child!) and are remembered and revered for only a small part of their life's output. This serves to make mere mortals even more depressed as they compare their own efforts with the very pinnacle, not with the average across a whole body of work.

Why do many composers (and songwriters) seem to shine for a only a portion of their careers? My observation would be that the most talented seem to focus on their strengths, not their weaknesses. This in turn can create a strong signature based on a relatively narrow pallette or set of skills (or perhaps a few distinct sets). Once a fruit of such distinct flavour has been squeezed for a while the juice will run dry.

One big difference though, I think, between the most gifted and the ordnary good, is the obsessive compulsion of the former to keep doing it which continually polishes the jewel.

I don't believe there is any cause for despair however, my observation is that people only really need one great idea in their whole life - it's just what they do with it when it arrives :lol: 

Anyway, a Sunday morning ramble to clear the cobwebs.... o-[][]-o 

.


----------



## aaronnt1

G.E. @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> Or perhaps we just need to wait for the next John Williams or Tchaikovsky to come along. Smile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm already here..Just kidding :lol:
> 
> But seriously...
> I don't understand what you people are talking about.I hear AMAZING melodies all the time from a lot of different composers.Have you all stopped listening to music since John Williams was in his prime or what? I've heard some melodies from newer composers that would put John Williams and Tchaikovsky to shame.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm...you flatter me too much! 

Seriously, please post them. I bet you're wrong though (as wrong as can be allowed in this highly subjective enterprise)!


----------



## vicontrolu

I am with G.E. here. I hear great melodies all the time. And by great melodies i mean i listen it just one time and i am able to remember them for a relatively long time, and they look totally coherent (well executed) and pleasant (appealing, nice use of tensions, etc) when i sing them. Just a couple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stdVzv ... lpage#t=44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... tWKcU#t=88


I really struggle to think about these melodies as "not great". Maybe i am not just THAT refined in my melodic taste.


----------



## Waywyn

Arbee @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> Wow, what a thread!
> 
> Is talent in the DNA? Of course it is. When exposed to life's tapestry of experience, those with talent (nature) instinctively absorb and process those experiences (nurture) and express their gift via their unique wiring. This is no different IMO to gifted athletes, gifted entrepeneurs, gifted chefs or gifted scientists. Some folk are just wired to suit a particular activity or pattern of thought, just give them a start and watch them go.
> 
> Can melodic muscles be improved? Of course they can, and it could be argued that many of those with that innate talent were also exposed early in life to those techniques and soaked them up immediately and effortlessly like a sponge.
> 
> We must also remember that even the most gifted composers write a lot of uninspiring music (I played much of it on the piano as a child!) and are remembered and revered for only a small part of their life's output. This serves to make mere mortals even more depressed as they compare their own efforts with the very pinnacle, not with the average across a whole body of work.
> 
> Why do many composers (and songwriters) seem to shine for a only a portion of their careers? My observation would be that the most talented seem to focus on their strengths, not their weaknesses. This in turn can create a strong signature based on a relatively narrow pallette or set of skills (or perhaps a few distinct sets). Once a fruit of such distinct flavour has been squeezed for a while the juice will run dry.
> 
> One big difference though, I think, between the most gifted and the ordnary good, is the obsessive compulsion of the former to keep doing it which continually polishes the jewel.
> 
> I don't believe there is any cause for despair however, my observation is that people only really need one great idea in their whole life - it's just what they do with it when it arrives :lol:
> 
> Anyway, a Sunday morning ramble to clear the cobwebs.... o-[][]-o
> 
> .




Even though it may sound a bit self glorifying, I am sure you guys get the idea behind it, but I thought it may be interesting to share and I kind of feel that this could be a bit of an important point!

When I was 8 years old my drawing skills were that good, that teachers weren't believing that I was painting those pictures. Later on I was a grade A/1 guy all the way throughout school! My parents (of course only if I would agree) decided me to put me in a private drawning/painting class which should prepare me for university to study graphic design (please keep in mind I was 14 until that time). I got trained in oil, aquarell, coal and the usual stuff such as pencils etc. ... please keep in mind that it wasn't just my parents or some teachers thinking that I was "talented", it was basically everyone I got in contact with, even graphic designers working for the Deutsche Bundesbank .... anyway, also during the time of 14 I got my first electric guitar. Even though I had a lazy start I was able to play Satriani and stuff .. the same happened, guitar teachers thought I am talented, I got featured, blabalb ...

When I was around 35 or so I joined a bow shooting guild, because I just wanted to do something outside the studio and something which had to do with stress relief etc. ... the same happened. After a few weeks I was that good and my teachers thought that I had talent and wanted to put me to competitions rightaway.


So, after all this blabla, what I am trying to say with this? That I am some superduper talented kid from outer space? Definitely and 100% for sure, NOT AT ALL!

To me it always comes back to one thing. Everytime I obverserved other people doing the same, many of them losing "grip" or interest, they lose focus, get impatient and whatnot all and sometimes they didn't even seem to love what they were doing.

I felt different, when I seriously didn't want to do anything at all, I lost interested and left it aside. You can clearly see that on my grades in school. All the stuff I liked I was good at, all the stuff I didn't liked I totally sucked a** 

However, when I ran into something which absolutely fascinated me, I was totally diving into it and literally sucked up every information I was able to grab and I am convinced that I would be also good at biology, astrophysics or other thing I would be totally interested in.


So under the bottomline, even if there is talent in the DNA, I totally do NOT believe that someone simply can't be good at lots of things because he is just talented. It surely has a lot to do with focus, interest, passion and the ability to stick to it! ... and I would go that far to say, that there are also a lot of people out there who do not dive that much into it. Besides all that there is another important factor which has to do with if you are convinced in what you do. If you think you suck at melody writing, you will suck way more than if you think that it is easy for you to write good stuff. Again, just for the record, I am NOT saying that one can get skilled by just imagine that s/he is good, I am just saying that ideas certainly flow easier!


Besides that all, what happened to my painting skills. I simply lost interest because of music!


----------



## aaronnt1

Arbee @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> Wow, what a thread!
> 
> Is talent in the DNA? Of course it is. When exposed to life's tapestry of experience, those with talent (nature) instinctively absorb and process those experiences (nurture) and express their gift via their unique wiring. This is no different IMO to gifted athletes, gifted entrepeneurs, gifted chefs or gifted scientists. Some folk are just wired to suit a particular activity or pattern of thought, just give them a start and watch them go.
> 
> Can melodic muscles be improved? Of course they can, and it could be argued that many of those with that innate talent were also exposed early in life to those techniques and soaked them up immediately and effortlessly like a sponge.
> 
> We must also remember that even the most gifted composers write a lot of uninspiring music (I played much of it on the piano as a child!) and are remembered and revered for only a small part of their life's output. This serves to make mere mortals even more depressed as they compare their own efforts with the very pinnacle, not with the average across a whole body of work.
> 
> Why do many composers (and songwriters) seem to shine for a only a portion of their careers? My observation would be that the most talented seem to focus on their strengths, not their weaknesses. This in turn can create a strong signature based on a relatively narrow pallette or set of skills (or perhaps a few distinct sets). Once a fruit of such distinct flavour has been squeezed for a while the juice will run dry.
> 
> One big difference though, I think, between the most gifted and the ordnary good, is the obsessive compulsion of the former to keep doing it which continually polishes the jewel.
> 
> I don't believe there is any cause for despair however, my observation is that people only really need one great idea in their whole life - it's just what they do with it when it arrives :lol:
> 
> Anyway, a Sunday morning ramble to clear the cobwebs.... o-[][]-o
> 
> .



Good post and I agree with much of it especially the part about how the greats were not always able to write inspiring stuff.



vicontrolu @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> I am with G.E. here. I hear great melodies all the time. And by great melodies i mean i listen it just one time and i am able to remember them for a relatively long time, and they look totally coherent (well executed) and pleasant (appealing, nice use of tensions, etc) when i sing them. Just a couple:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stdVzv ... lpage#t=44
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... tWKcU#t=88
> 
> 
> I really struggle to think about these melodies as "not great". Maybe i am not just THAT refined in my melodic taste.



Thanks for the links, I especially enjoyed the Mike Verta one!

It's great if you think a particular melody is an all time great, taste is always highly personal anyway, though one thing you can say about timeless melodies is that unlike good melodies, they undoubtedly enjoy an extrememly wide consensus that they are one of the greats. I'm not saying good melodies are not still being written here and there but there's a big differences between good melodies and the truly great ones that will be forever remembered and feel like they were always meant to be, just waiting to be discovered. And my angle is more what does it take for one person to have an abundance of truly great melodic talent which is extremely rare and why aren't more classic melodies being written, especially if we think it can all be learned and honed? Can we eventually programme a computer to write great timeless tunes - should be able to right, going by the reasoning of some?

It's been more than 120 years since someone could write at this calibre melody wise,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqCIcsUtPI#t=5m15s ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQiHLMj6es#t=8m07s (my ringtone :mrgreen ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxj8vSS2ELU#t=8m40s ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uoR76XEVPY#t=1m ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do6Ki6kMq_o ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_oP2ltuNyk ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlYBDSbTn5A#t=6m10s ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlYBDSbTn5A#t=33m ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DparHmVommQ

And that's only a handful of his melodies. Can you name anyone else since with that level and abundance of melodic talent? Maybe J Williams, though I think many will disagree with that? So what did this man have that all the many thousands of composers before and since didn't have?

I'd love to hear some of these recent melodies G.E. thinks put Tchaikovsky to shame!!!


----------



## G.E.

I definitely hum the main melody from The Race in the shower,every once in a while. :lol:

Here are a few just off the top of my head but the list could go on forever.I don't know if these are the best examples but this is what first came to mind.I'm sure I can come up with other examples as well.

http://youtu.be/s_R8N70nqBE?t=35s

https://soundcloud.com/mpatti/the-adven ... led-mockup (0:45)

http://youtu.be/pKv_wua6kFE?t=20s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4hSkWmxHrA (though this one is based on a pentatonic scale so it's hard not to sound amazing :D )

http://youtu.be/j2QXLlzsgoY?t=30s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ba8OcEvrg


----------



## G.E.

Alex,you reminded me of myself.:D
As a kid I used to draw really well.I could draw the Dragon Ball Z characters 99% accurate.I could draw other things as well but that's the only thing I wanted to draw.Everyone(teachers,friends,etc) was telling me to go to art school and I did.Later I used to make my own mangas(japanese style comic books) and stuff like that.But it turns out that after a few years I outgrew Dragon Ball Z so I also outgrew drawing.I'm still good at it but I just got bored with it so I haven't practiced in a long time.

And btw,in the beginning my drawings sucked just like ever other kid's.But I just kept at it,every day until I got really good.I first learned heads,then anatomy,then shades and details,then I started mastering architecture, different environments and so on...

By the time I was 12,I was drawing really convincing mangas.


----------



## aaronnt1

@ Alex, you sound like you are one of the lucky ones who could do well in many fields that you put your mind to! And you are also talented musically. I'm interested, do you think that if you were to really study hard, become really focused and not get distracted easily and have more passion for it (and read some more quantum physics books :wink: ) you'd be able to achieve say Tchaikovsky or John Williams levels of greatness? If not, why? If yes, then why would you not want to, do it man! The world needs you!! :mrgreen: There was a programme last year on TV about child prodigies, I don't just mean gifted kids but shockingly prodigious kid geniuses across a range of talents from maths to language to piano skills to memory etc.. Some went on to achieve great things in jobs and were in great demand and others just led ordinary lives with ordinary jobs with their talent falling by the wayside and not being utilised. Talent needs to be honed and developed and the flame needs to be kept alight for that talent to have any chance of manifesting into greatness. I think you are right that there are great people who could have been.

It is strange that John Williams didn't really seem to display (at least to the wider world) a truly great gift for melody until nearly in his 50's, perhaps there's still hope for us! And it is interesting (though not surprising I guess) that generally composers seem to write their best works in their mid to later years rather than their first 25. I wouldn't play down the fact that many if not most, composers constantly write down musical ideas and motifs from early on and will come back to them later and adapt them. I know I do. But I think you're right that there are other things at play than simply innate talent, though I firmly believe that there are people born with an innate predisposition to become a great composer or whatever that others are not born with, which of course is not to say they can't still reach a high degree of skill.



G.E. @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> I definitely hum the main melody from The Race in the shower,every once in a while. :lol:
> 
> Here are a few just off the top of my head but the list could go on forever.I don't know if these are the best examples but this is what first came to mind.I'm sure I can come up with other examples as well.
> 
> http://youtu.be/s_R8N70nqBE?t=35s
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/mpatti/the-adven ... led-mockup (0:45)
> 
> http://youtu.be/pKv_wua6kFE?t=20s
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4hSkWmxHrA (though this one is based on a pentatonic scale so it's hard not to sound amazing :D )
> 
> http://youtu.be/j2QXLlzsgoY?t=30s
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ba8OcEvrg



Thanks for the links G.E.!! 

I have to say I am really _really_ surprised that you would consider these tracks as having reached the same calibre of any of those Tchaikovsky melodies let alone put him to shame! I'm not saying at all that they're not good music or don't display talent but I really can't get my head around how you can find them better than the Tchaikovsky melodies I posted. Perhaps I completely underestimated the importance of personal taste when it comes to a classic melody, which I assumed would have transcended things like personal taste.


----------



## G.E.

> I have to say I am really really surprised that you would consider these tracks as having reached the same calibre of any of those Tchaikovsky melodies let alone put him to shame!



I've exaggerated a bit when I said that it would put Tchaikovsky to shame.Though...The examples which you have provided are all great pieces as a whole but there isn't anything remarkable about the melodies that makes them stand out from other melodies,at least to my unrefined ear. :lol: I guess it really has to do with personal taste.By the way,the examples which I gave are not considered by me to be the pinnacle of melodies.Those are just a few examples which I hoped prove that composers still write great melodies that get stuck in your head after you listen to them.



> @ Alex, you sound like you are one of the lucky ones who could do well in many fields that you put your mind to!


By the way,I'm curious...What did you put your mind to and it turned out you couldn't do ?


----------



## vicontrolu

In my humble opinion, most G.E´s links are not on pair with the finesse of the Tchaikovsky´s melodies, but i can see he was trying to post some quick examples. On the other hand Tchaikovsky melodies are less memorable, probably because they are part of a more complex piece. 

I just remembered another russian one i love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmCnQDUSO4I


----------



## Jetzer

I think that in those classical pieces it is more about the road of the melody, in which it becomes memorable and great. A journey, rather than a quick memorable note (which is more convenient in film music). 

Listened to it once it might not be memorable or moving, but in the context of the whole piece.... o/~


----------



## G.E.

JH @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> I think that in those classical pieces it is more about the road of the melody, in which it becomes memorable and great. A journey, rather than a quick memorable note (which is more convenient in film music).
> 
> Listened to it once it might not be memorable or moving, but in the context of the whole piece.... o/~



Well said. :D


----------



## aaronnt1

G.E. @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> I've exaggerated a bit when I said that it would put Tchaikovsky to shame.Though...The examples which you have provided are all great pieces as a whole but there isn't anything remarkable about the melodies that makes them stand out from other melodies





vicontrolu @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> ..On the other hand Tchaikovsky melodies are less memorable, probably because they are part of a more complex piece.





JH @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> I think that in those classical pieces it is more about the road of the melody, in which it becomes memorable and great. A journey, rather than a quick memorable note (which is more convenient in film music).
> 
> Listened to it once it might not be memorable or moving, but in the context of the whole piece.... o/~



I find these three points very interesting indeed, needless to say I disagree. Personally, whether I listen to the melodies as part of a best of CD or in the wider context, I admire and appreciate them the same and get the same kick out of them. I really can't understand how they can be deemed unmemorable... Huh, I think there seems to be far more scope for disagreement over what constitutes a classic melody than I had anticipated.



G.E. @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> @ Alex, you sound like you are one of the lucky ones who could do well in many fields that you put your mind to!
> 
> 
> 
> By the way,I'm curious...What did you put your mind to and it turned out you couldn't do ?
Click to expand...


Um, music composition :mrgreen: No... kidding! / no kidding! (you choose)!  I think I would make a pretty decent criminal lawyer or journalist but anything involving high degrees of mathematics, long equations, quick footed logic, boxing, operatic singing or underwear modelling not so much!


----------



## Musicologo

As a relativist and a Pop fan, I hear melodies all the time. There are TONS of great melodies out there. And I strongly believe I compose awesome melodies myself (I'm just not able to produce the whole context afterwards...).

The problem is not "great melodies" per se. Is the arrangement you do with them and the context in which you put them.

Virtually any "singable" melody can become a great melody in the right arrangement/ensemble/orchestration with the right percurssion sync with the right images or played in the right time... it's a whole package not an isolated parameter. 

At least I find the tchaikowsky or john williams melodies in their monophonic versions no different than thousands and thousands of other ones sticking around... it's their whole context that makes them unique.


----------



## aaronnt1

Musicologo @ Sun 30 Mar said:


> As a relativist and a Pop fan....
> At least I find the tchaikowsky or john williams melodies in their monophonic versions no different than thousands and thousands of other ones sticking around... it's their whole context that makes them unique.



I would strongly disagree with that but I don't chose to because I'm a non-relativist... :wink:

*Edit* no I think I understand what you mean, you mean without the orchestrations and harmonies etc... doh! I thought you meant the potential narrative or story behind it or music preceeding it is what makes the melody. What you mean I think is that for instance, the single Star Wars melody line played on a piano without any harmony wouldn't hit you more than say the Two Step From Hell one posted above played the same way. I would agree with that of course. Many melodies are part of their musical environment and simple melodies that don't sound much on a piano can be made into a great theme, like Start Wars for instance. If you were to play Tchaikovsky's theme from his 6th Symphony on a kazoo I doubt it would have quite the same impact! 

What I'm interested in and trying to point out is that even when we can now easily replicate all of these contexts whatever genre or style or music we are talking about, and as composers we learn this stuff every day, why is there a complete lack of melodies attaining similar heights as these greats?


----------



## Waywyn

aaronnt1 @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> @ Alex, you sound like you are one of the lucky ones who could do well in many fields that you put your mind to! And you are also talented musically. I'm interested, do you think that if you were to really study hard, become really focused and not get distracted easily and have more passion for it (and read some more quantum physics books :wink: ) you'd be able to achieve say Tchaikovsky or John Williams levels of greatness? If not, why? If yes, then why would you not want to, do it man



A few thoughts here:

What defines a genius melody? Is it a variety of notes, woven together with sophisticated chords? Is it four notes over two chords?

I can hear genius in Sting's verse melody of "When we dance" (that raised 4th, holymoly!!!) as much as I can hear genius in JW's "Schindler's List" maintheme. I can also hear genius in the melody and chord structure of Corea's "Crystal Silence" as much as I can do in "Sancte Deus". These are all completely different tracks, styles and usages of music theory, but to me it is all emotional and triggers different things.

So, which melody is not the most genius one? I can't say!
Sometimes I check videos from Andy McKee and my jaw drops, then I hear "Passion Flower" by John Gomm and it totally kills me! Sometimes I hear Mozarts Nachtmusik and think: Oh boy, is this stupid, then I hear Beethoven's 5th and think: Oh boy, this is much more stupid ... and way more simple ... but wow, it is just awesome!

So at the end, to say that someone writes the most genius melodies is like saying Allan Holdsworth plays the best solos or Van Gogh paints the best pictures!

Additionally as a provoking thought (and of course I would never never ever compare myself even to the dust collecing under John Williams' fingernails), but even if I would try to come up with something "genius", there is a lot of bias involved right from the start. One does not simply sound as great as Williams or Beethoven or whoever!!


Besides all that :D
Put a 4/4 beat under Schindlers List and it becomes a completely "stupid" (or better unoriginal) techno track with a not really that great melody! Put a 4/4 beat under Crystal Silence and it still stays an awesome melody! To me Crystal Silence would still sound awesome if you arrange it for strings only ... but also only for acoustic guitar.


----------



## re-peat

aaronnt1 @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> (...) What you mean I think is that for instance, the single Star Wars melody line played on a piano without any harmony wouldn't hit you more than say the Two Step From Hell one posted above played the same way. I would agree with that of course. (...)


I wouldn’t. Cause it’s idiotic.
The Star Wars theme was never imagined to be played on a piano without harmonies, it was conceived for an orchestral brass section, and with that brass section in mind all along. It is therefore quite absurd, and entirely bereft of musical intelligence, to make observations on that melody in a hypothetical transformation as a one-finger piano tune. The orchestration and the dynamics, as decided on by the composer, are as much a part of that melody as the notes are, and they are needed just as much in order to define that melody’s intended character. 
Williams didn’t need a melody at that point that could also work as an unaccompanied one-finger piano tune — if he would have, he’d have written a _different_ melody —, no, he needed an exciting, triumphant, boisterous orchestral fanfare-type thing. In other words: orchestral brass, full blast. So that type of brass sound was very much an integral part of the composition process, from the start. Which is why the brass is also the only section of the orchestra that is able to bring out the full character of the melody. That melody needs brass, _to be what it was composed to be_. 

A melody doesn’t just have notes, it has an identity and a character as well. And a musical function. And you can’t get to these things by looking at the naked notes alone.

Change “Gabriel’s Oboe” into “Gabriel’s Trombone” and you ruin that aspect of the melody’s indentity that is best expressed by an oboe. Which, in this case, is a rather essential aspect, I would say. Yes, you can give it to another instrument, and plenty of its abstract melodic appeal will still survive, sure, but *only* when played by the oboe is the complete compositional identity of the melody, as imagined by its composer, rendered to the full. And that’s important. That is great orchestration (and great composition as well): chosing the timbre which best expresses the musical idea it carries, at a given moment in a piece. 

There’s no understanding the opening of Beethoven’s 5th if you play it on a xylophone or on a harp. (If Beethoven would ever have intended something for solo xylophone or harp, it would certainly not have been “ta-ta-ta-daaa!”.) Part of the composition of that motif — and of the entire opening of the symphony as it happens, because in this particular case, you can’t separate the motif from its development — is the knowledge (on Beethovens part, and well in advance) what is going to happen to that motif in the course of the movement (and rhythmically: in the course of the entire symphony) after starting as an affirmative opening statement for the full string orchestra (plus clarinets, if I’m not mistaken).

See, there’s much more — much, much more — to this opening motif than just the naked notes. Beethoven devised himself a little phrase — the rhythm of which is just as important a musical nucleus as the notes are — that was in fact _pregnant with an entire symphony_. The complete symphony already exists in ultra-condensed form in those eight opening notes. And if Beethoven wouldn’t have been absolutely convinced of the potential and the eventual success of that pregnancy, he would have immediately lost interest in this motif (in the context of what he was looking for at that particular time for his new symphony, anyway).

So, you can’t just isolate one element of a motif like this — its notes, for example —, to check if it withstands isolated scrutiny, because it won’t. Taken out of context, and judged on their own, those notes don’t make for particularly spectacular music. But melodies such as this aren't imagined nor written to be ripped apart like that. Again: the opening of the 5th needs its strings, and it needs the rest of the symphony, _in order to be what it was composed to be_. Only when observed on that scale, does the melody make complete sense.

What’s described in the previous two paragraphs is also part of reason, by the way, why I consider Beethoven one of the greatest melodists — far greater than Tchaikovsky, in my opinion — and orchestrators — more than the equal of Ravel, R. Strauss and all the other acclaimed colourists — in the entire history of music. It’s that “everything is perfectly connected”-feeling in Beethoven’s music that is so unique and incomprehensibly wonderful: nothing is ever a random or lazy choice with him. Timbre is not just about colouristic appeal with Beethoven, as it is with many other orchestrators, no, it always has a structural function too, a function that helps make a phrase, and its accompaniment, part of the ever forward-moving continuity of a work. When a flute plays a melody, it _has_ to be the flute, and when a few bars later the clarinets take over, it _has_ to be clarinets. And that will lead in turn to something else that is also precisely what it has to be at that specific moment, and on and on and on, never loosing sight of the final bar, never loosing sight of the road getting there and … never sounding artifical, contrived or unlogical. Really, absolutely sublime in every musical respect. “Words fail”-territory.

_


----------



## aaronnt1

@Re-peat. 
Yes I agree with all that of course. To be clear, what I was agreeing with, which was what was being said in some previous posts was that some great melodies when out of their context i.e. broken down to a single naked piano line can sound ordinary and of the same calibre as other merely functional melodies, though I'd argue that many great melodies can still sound special on piano. I wasn't saying that because a melody like the Star Wars theme doesn't sound particularly impressive as a naked piano line it's not a great melody. Of course a great classic melody is envisioned as part of it's overall framework including instrumentation and harmonies etc... In fact I specifically acknowledged that.


----------



## Arbee

Waywyn @ Sun Mar 30 said:


> So under the bottomline, even if there is talent in the DNA, I totally do NOT believe that someone simply can't be good at lots of things because he is just talented. It surely has a lot to do with focus, interest, passion and the ability to stick to it! ... and I would go that far to say, that there are also a lot of people out there who do not dive that much into it. Besides all that there is another important factor which has to do with if you are convinced in what you do. If you think you suck at melody writing, you will suck way more than if you think that it is easy for you to write good stuff. Again, just for the record, I am NOT saying that one can get skilled by just imagine that s/he is good, I am just saying that ideas certainly flow easier!
> 
> 
> Besides that all, what happened to my painting skills. I simply lost interest because of music!


I don't think I implied that one couldn't be good at lots of things. A lot of things share common mental processes as in your case, and in my own. In many ways however I wish my DNA was more finely tuned so that I focused my life on one mission without distraction. I might then be great at one thing rather than just good at several. And the difference between good and great is exponential in my view.

.


----------



## Musicologo

Well, it seems *yet another* conceptual confusion going on.

When I'm commenting "one melody" I'm specifically commenting pitches and rhythm and phrasing, regardless of timbre or the surrounding context. I'm talking specifically about that because the op asked how to train that, I believe. 

If we want to envision everything in context, then the question should be "how to train fine orchestration" or "how to train being a great composer".

I was breaking down into a smaller set of problems, and I used my *own reference* of what "a melody" is. 

I believe one can create melodies on their own, I mean - their monophonic version, and THEN find a context to integrate them to maximize their effect (with a particular timbre, phrasing, expression, etc, etc).

So I've tried to provide a tool to train that particular skill - to invent monophonic lines of pitches and rhythms and it's just a trick like there could be many others.


----------

