# Resources on Main/Theme writing?



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 21, 2018)

I'm at a loss here. I can't find any specific books on main theme writing? Should i focus on melody writing instead?
I feel like main themes are the hook of OSTs and a good one gets you the job. But strangely that's the are which lacks most resource of any kind. Do you know any books/tutorials about main theme writing?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 21, 2018)

Yeah..well, let me answer that quick: You should learn composition and there is no specific book tailored towards "main" theme writing (afaik I know). Imo you should look at the themes you like and transcribe them by ear and do that with many themes, so that you can get a grip on the chord progressions and build up a vocabulary based upon the transcriptions. Start with simple themes. And good melodies often outline strong chord progressions. In particular a good melody doesn´t even need an underpinning harmony because you can already guess or hear the harmony because the melody tones outline the chord progression. Learning how to write is not taught in books, you have actively to sit down and practise that. Books are reversed engineered from good music which was written before the book. So the book will not get you there. The book is useful to classify the things.


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 21, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Yeah..well, let me answer that quick: You should learn composition and there is no specific book tailored towards "main" theme writing (afaik I know). Imo you should look at the themes you like and transcribe them by ear and do that with many themes, so that you can get a grip on the chord progressions and build up a vocabulary based upon the transcriptions. Start with simple themes. And good melodies often outline strong chord progressions. In particular a good melody doesn´t even need an underpinning harmony because you can already guess or hear the harmony because the melody tones outline the chord progression. Learning how to write is not taught in books, you have actively to sit down and practise that. Books are a reversed engineered from good music which was written before the book. So the book will not get you there. The book is useful to classify the things.



So it's basically good melody writing?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 21, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> So it's basically good melody writing?



It depends on the music and style, not every maintheme is melodic. Look I don´t know your goals, and you didn´t mentioned what kind of direction you want to go, so my remark about writing themes is a general thing. So if you want to write good melodies, go and study composition. And that is not written or learned by reading books. I am referring then to my previous post!


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 21, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> It depends on the music and style, not every maintheme is melodic. Look I don´t know your goals, and you didn´t mentioned what kind of direction you want to go, so my remark about writing themes is a general thing. So if you want to write good melodies, go and study composition. And that is not written or learned by reading books. I am referring then to my previous post!



What I have in my mind is basically to write good enough themes with hooks that will get the listener's attention. As I saw this big enough element to get the job. If you have a main theme like Time, Skyrim, Star Wars ready, they will give you the job! Right? That's what I think and my main goal is to achieve similar results.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 21, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> What I have in my mind is basically to write good enough themes with hooks that will get the listener's attention. As I saw this big enough element to get the job. If you have a main theme like Time, Skyrim, Star Wars ready, they will give you the job! Right? That's what I think and my main goal is to achieve similar results.



No they will not give you the job, just because you can write good themes. You will get the job when you are cool and when you know people who think you are reliable, cool and easy to work with. Very much behind that comes how you actually write music. So no..sorry to say again, thats not the case that most talented people get always hired. Actually not at all. However good luck!


----------



## Fry777 (Aug 21, 2018)

This could turn out to be interesting to you :


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 21, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> No they will not give you the job, just because you can write good themes. You will get the job when you are cool and when you know people who think you are reliable, cool and easy to work with. Very much behind that comes how you actually write music. So no..sorry to say again, thats not the case that most talented people get always hired. Actually not at all. However good luck!



I undersand your point of view. You're right. But think about it. Let's say you have the main theme of Skyrim in your hand. And you're rejected for Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Do you really think you won't land something big with that?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 21, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> I undersand your point of view. You're right. But think about it. Let's say you have the main theme of Skyrim in your hand. And you're rejected for Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Do you really think you won't land something big with that?



I really think that.


----------



## DMDComposer (Aug 21, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> I undersand your point of view. You're right. But think about it. Let's say you have the main theme of Skyrim in your hand. And you're rejected for Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Do you really think you won't land something big with that?



Having great hooks/themes is a plus that can help put you in a different category of composers for example... but Alexander is right. It will not get you the job as there are many other factors involved. I think its great that you want to be a good thematic composer though. They are the better ones, but they are not always the ones who get the jobs or get paid the most.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 21, 2018)

DMDComposer said:


> Having great hooks/themes is a plus that can help put you in a different category of composers for example... but Alexander is right. It will not get you the job as there are many other factors involved. I think its great that you want to be a good thematic composer though. They are the better ones, but they are not always the ones who get the jobs or get paid the most.


Yes, sure I didnt´mentioned that: DMDComposer is completely right: When you suck you will anyways not get any job. So it helps beeing good.


----------



## bryla (Aug 21, 2018)

I'm digging Alan Belkins new book right now. I think it's simply called music composition.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 21, 2018)

@the OP: Not that you get a wrong impression by what I am saying: Sure when you are good, you will have better chances getting a job, but I know that clients not always search for the most talented guy when he is an ass and difficult to work with. So..imo you should focus on getting your compositional skills getting improved (PS: I even don´t know how your write..) and besides that try to be an easy and reliable guy to work with. You will find your clients not by showing how good your music is and what is in your hands, even if it is the best theme in the world, but you find them by making new friends, helping others, beeing an interesting dude (I mean be yourself). It has a lot to do with communication. Don´t sent random demos to companies, thats annoying.


----------



## Farkle (Aug 21, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> I'm at a loss here. I can't find any specific books on main theme writing? Should i focus on melody writing instead?
> I feel like main themes are the hook of OSTs and a good one gets you the job. But strangely that's the are which lacks most resource of any kind. Do you know any books/tutorials about main theme writing?



For what it's worth, I do two Farkle Fridays on Theme and Variations. And in the first one, I go in depth on how to write an 8 bar theme.


----------



## wickedw (Aug 21, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> I undersand your point of view. You're right. But think about it. Let's say you have the main theme of Skyrim in your hand. And you're rejected for Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Do you really think you won't land something big with that?



Going to go offtopic for a bit. I just want to point out that Jeremy Soule didn't just happen to have the "Skyrim" theme in hand. It's just another take on the already established "elder scrolls theme", which has been the main theme since Morrowind, which was well before the elder scrolls games became a huge franchise.

I actually prefer the Morrowind version still btw:


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 21, 2018)

Here is a little bit of explanation of what themes are, and then my process to write them. I got this technique from my teacher and mentor Sheldon Mirowitz who would nail themes faster than anybody else I know.

First we have to remember that when writing film or game music what matters is the story, so we need to have a story-based approach, especially when writing themes. Focusing on the story won't make the music any worse, quite the opposite. Actually all good artistic decisions are good practical decisions and most good practical decisions are good artistic decisions.

Themes are not only what you hear during the opening and end credits. More importantly, they are the building blocks of the whole score. To be able to use a theme as a building block it has to be thematic, meaning memorable. But thematic doesn't necessarily mean melodic. The theme can also be a rhythmic pattern, a small motive or a harmonic progression. Bernard Herrmann for example was a genius a using very small motives as themes. But if you can easily sing it it's often a plus.

Here is the process:
1 – Start writing a synopsis of the film or game. A synopsis is a set of paragraphs that tell the story, typically about one paragraph per 10 minutes.
2 – Create a sentence that explains the movie. Make sure you include all the things that REALLY matter. This sentence has to be the essence of the story. Finding the right sentence can be more difficult than you think.
3 – Find out which elements of the story need a theme. Sometimes there is just one main themes, often there will be several themes. Themes can be linked to characters, relationships, objects with a special meaning, even concepts. Again, be careful, sometimes a character that seems important is not as important as what they represent or their relationship with another character.
4 – For each theme write a set of adjectives. I would usually have between 5 and 10. Again, be very important about what's important, you can even give have "sub-adjectives". Here is an example:

Obsession
----Romantic 
--------Erotic
--------Lush
--------Passionate
----Repetitive
----Disturbed
----Threatening / Dangerous
----Sad and dark
----Mysterious

Finally you can write the theme, making sure that you can find all those adjectives inside the music. You should be able to ask someone to give you a list of adjectives based on your music and get a list fairly close.

This of course is just a technique to help the process and many composers will do it differently. But in the end they will still get to the same result. You could make a list of adjectives and find them in the themes. Take any of your favorite themes and try it: you will see it works!

The hard thing is to check all of the boxes, and it's important to be very strict with yourself and rewrite until it's the case. Also don't wait until you have the perfect inspiration. Just start writing, then take a break, listen, check against the adjectives. If it's close make changes, otherwise start over and don't be afraid to go in a totally different directions. Never have things in the music that don't fit the adjectives just because they sound cool, in the end it will make the theme worse, not better.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 21, 2018)

Writing themes — _really, really good ones_, I mean — can't be learned. The invention of melody falls completely outside all written and as-yet-unwritten theory and instruction books on music. It also requires a talent that's entirely separate from the far more common variety of musical talent which makes someone 'good at music' or even 'very good at music'. Being 'good at melody' however — again: _exceptionnaly good_, is what I mean — is something quite different, and a much, much rarer blessing.

If you've never done it before and you haven't go a clue, then I suppose someone can teach you how to arrive at basic melody ideas, yes. And maybe that same someone, or someone else, can help you to take things a little further and help you become more confident and versatile as a melody writer. Also true. And as you make progress, you might, one day, even reach the level where you're able to come up, just for pleasure or on demand, with fairly good melodic ideas. Still true.
But that's where it stops. That's as far as a teacher and/or study can take you. End of the line, if you don't have that special gift for creating _truly great, memorable melodies_. And if you do have that gift, the problem (how to write ...) would have never presented itself to begin with.

Don't believe anyone who tells you he/she is going to teach you — often in exchange for what you initially consider a reasonable amount of money — how to write *great* melodies. People who say so, are, if not charlatans and frauds, certainly deceiving you or deceiving themselves, usually both. (Unless their definition of 'great melody' is so undiscerning that it also includes the mediocre and even the bad stuff.)

_


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 21, 2018)

I have to agree, in my experience certain people have the gift of melody and some don’t and it always shows. The gifted ones can do it effortlessly and intuitively and so far I’ve never seen anything that can teach it. You can learn some basics but the magic will still be missing.

That being said, the stuff Bernard said is gold! You don’t need a magic hooky melody to make extremely effective film music. It’s more about creating the appropriate feeling and that can be learned.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 22, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> That being said, the stuff Bernard said is gold! You don’t need a magic hooky melody to make extremely effective film music. It’s more about creating the appropriate feeling and that can be learned




Undoubtedly true, but the opening poster inquires specifically about strong 'main themes', not about what makes effective film music. Besides, a tiny problem I'm having with Bernard's approach is that, in my opinion/experience anyway, a good 'theme' — and it's certainly true: it needn't be an actual melody; it could also be a chord sequence, a rhythm or even a specific sound — has to have enough 'semantic ambiguity' to be able to make it through an entire story without running into its own expressive limitations. If a theme is just 'one thing' and little else, then it's not going to be of much use for all those moments when that one thing isn't what is required.
If, for example, you write a theme for a character, I would think it much better to go for something that is pregnant with many different expressive options, rather than something that can be pinned down entirely by a list of merely 4 or 5 related adjectives. Characters usually go through all sorts of completely different situations and moods in the course of a story, and, provided they're well-written, they have multiple sides to their personality as well, so if you decide to stick with a theme for this character, you need one with which it is possible to comment musically on all of its different frames of mind and traits.

Furthermore, once you get past 'happy' and 'sad' and maybe 'dark' and 'suspenseful' and a few others — which are all fairly simple, obvious and unequivocal tags —, choosing the 'right' adjective to describe a melody (or a piece of music) is a very subjective matter, I find. One person might hear a feeling of 'being lonely and lost' in a melody, while another would call that same melody 'wistful and tender'... One listener's "hopeful yearning" might well be another listener's "conflicted and desperate"... What sounds 'impassioned' to one pair of ears, could well be heard as 'brooding insanity" by another ...

A great example of this is Mahler's Adagietto of his 5th Symphony, which Bernard mocked up so admirably, and the emotional meanings of which are about as manyfold as there are listeners. Depending on who you ask, that music will be interpreted as expressing longing, suffering, passion, resignment, lust, breath-taking happiness, deep sorrow ... or dozens of others totally conflicting descriptions. (Simply compare the movies "Tampopo" and "Death In Venice" to hear the amazingly wide range of expressive possibilities of that music.)
Another excellent example is George Fenton's wonderful main theme for "Shadowlands", which appears first in the movie to underscore soaring feelings of overwhelming love and profound happiness, only to return a few scenes later, in the exact same shape, to evoke — every bit as convincingly — extreme sadness and devastating loss. Same notes, same orchestration, same tempo, same key ... but the message couldn't be more different.

Having said all that, and arguing against myself: if you know what you're doing, it's not all that difficult to completely change the character of a theme — just about any theme — so that it comes to express something entirely different than what was originally intended. A change of harmony, phrasing, rhythm, orchestration can completely alter what a melody is meant to express.

_


----------



## lux (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Writing themes — _really, really good ones_, I mean — can't be learned. The invention of melody falls completely outside all written and as-yet-unwritten theory and instruction books on music. It also requires a talent that's entirely separate from the far more common variety of musical talent which makes someone 'good at music' or even 'very good at music'. Being 'good at melody' however — again: _exceptionnaly good_, is what I mean — is something quite different, and a much, much rarer blessing.
> 
> If you've never done it before and you haven't go a clue, then I suppose someone can teach you how to arrive at basic melody ideas, yes. And maybe that same someone, or someone else, can help you to take things a little further and help you become more confident and versatile as a melody writer. Also true. And as you make progress, you might, one day, even reach the level where you're able to come up, just for pleasure or on demand, with fairly good melodic ideas. Still true.
> But that's where it stops. That's as far as a teacher and/or study can take you. End of the line, if you don't have that special gift for creating _truly great, memorable melodies_. And if you do have that gift, the problem (how to write ...) would have never presented itself to begin with.
> ...



Fully agree here. Teaching someone how to write great themes or melodies equals in my opinion just to transfer a few cliches-in-a-box from a composer to another one. Which is something really different from being able to write a memorable theme, that's definitely a natural gift added with good pratice.

That said, if you want to develop your own skills in writing you may consider being mentored, more than being teached. Recognizinig your own melodies and ruffs, discarding nowhere-landing sketches in favour of more promising ones may be a nice exercise of pratice. Think what many great producers did with famous songwriters and bands, often helping in recognizing their best ideas and developing them.


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 22, 2018)

Wow, some harsh facts here!
It's hard to swallow a great theme won't be enough and coming up with one of them is even harder!


----------



## MatFluor (Aug 22, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> Wow, some harsh facts here!
> It's hard to swallow a great theme won't be enough and coming up with one of them is even harder!



Without adding too much: never forget that composing for media is a business. And similar to business - the better product doesn't always get the sales. There are many other factors (which some have mentioned) that weigh in to get the job. One is also - are you creating the sound they want?


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Writing themes — _really, really good ones_, I mean — can't be learned. The invention of melody falls completely outside all written and as-yet-unwritten theory and instruction books on music. It also requires a talent that's entirely separate from the far more common variety of musical talent which makes someone 'good at music' or even 'very good at music'. Being 'good at melody' however — again: _exceptionnaly good_, is what I mean — is something quite different, and a much, much rarer blessing.
> 
> If you've never done it before and you haven't go a clue, then I suppose someone can teach you how to arrive at basic melody ideas, yes. And maybe that same someone, or someone else, can help you to take things a little further and help you become more confident and versatile as a melody writer. Also true. And as you make progress, you might, one day, even reach the level where you're able to come up, just for pleasure or on demand, with fairly good melodic ideas. Still true.
> But that's where it stops. That's as far as a teacher and/or study can take you. End of the line, if you don't have that special gift for creating _truly great, memorable melodies_. And if you do have that gift, the problem (how to write ...) would have never presented itself to begin with.
> ...



Pure nonsense.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Writing themes — _really, really good ones_, I mean — can't be learned. The invention of melody falls completely outside all written and as-yet-unwritten theory and instruction books on music. It also requires a talent that's entirely separate from the far more common variety of musical talent which makes someone 'good at music' or even 'very good at music'. Being 'good at melody' however — again: _exceptionnaly good_, is what I mean — is something quite different, and a much, much rarer blessing.
> 
> If you've never done it before and you haven't go a clue, then I suppose someone can teach you how to arrive at basic melody ideas, yes. And maybe that same someone, or someone else, can help you to take things a little further and help you become more confident and versatile as a melody writer. Also true. And as you make progress, you might, one day, even reach the level where you're able to come up, just for pleasure or on demand, with fairly good melodic ideas. Still true.
> But that's where it stops. That's as far as a teacher and/or study can take you. End of the line, if you don't have that special gift for creating _truly great, memorable melodies_. And if you do have that gift, the problem (how to write ...) would have never presented itself to begin with.
> ...


A fraction too religious sounding for me to buy. Sorry Repeat.


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 22, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> Pure nonsense.





SimonCharlesHanna said:


> A fraction too religious sounding for me to buy. Sorry Repeat.



Can you elaborate?


----------



## MatFluor (Aug 22, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> Can you elaborate?



I think it's about the quasi-religious notion of "you cannot learn that, it's a gift from a higher might you either have or don't" - which is nonsense if you ask me. To answer why, in my case, I don't believe in "talent". Talent per se in my view just enables you to get to a goal faster. Apart from physical limitations, if you are not "talented" you can achieve the same as a "talented" person - you maybe just need a bit more work and it takes longer. So, while a "talented" guy goes from A to C and then D, a non-talented guy has to go A-B-C-D.

in short: it's not a gift given by some presumed higher presence - it's just a symptom of work. Creativity is a skill, not a gift. In my opinion, don't hang me


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Undoubtedly true, but the opening poster inquires specifically about strong 'main themes', not about what makes effective film music. Besides, a tiny problem I'm having with Bernard's approach is that, in my opinion/experience anyway, a good 'theme' — and it's certainly true: it needn't be an actual melody; it could also be a chord sequence, a rhythm or even a specific sound — has to have enough 'semantic ambiguity' to be able to make it through an entire story without running into its own expressive limitations. If a theme is just 'one thing' and little else, then it's not going to be of much use for all those moments when that one thing isn't what is required.
> If, for example, you write a theme for a character, I would think it much better to go for something that is pregnant with many different expressive options, rather than something that can be pinned down entirely by a list of merely 4 or 5 related adjectives. Characters usually go through all sorts of completely different situations and moods in the course of a story, and, provided they're well-written, they have multiple sides to their personality as well, so if you decide to stick with a theme for this character, you need one with which it is possible to comment musically on all of its different frames of mind and traits.
> 
> Furthermore, once you get past 'happy' and 'sad' and maybe 'dark' and 'suspenseful' and a few others — which are all fairly simple, obvious and unequivocal tags —, choosing the 'right' adjective to describe a melody (or a piece of music) is a very subjective matter, I find. One person might hear a feeling of 'being lonely and lost' in a melody, while another would call that same melody 'wistful and tender'... One listener's "hopeful yearning" might well be another listener's "conflicted and desperate"... What sounds 'impassioned' to one pair of ears, could well be heard as 'brooding insanity" by another ...
> ...



I don't know about Shadowlands (I will have to listen to it) but these are exceptions, not the rule. The Mahler's Adagietto as beautiful as it is, isn't a film theme.
If you take the most famous film themes you will see that most people would agree pretty much on which adjectives the convey, even if they haven't seen the movie. Let's take James Bond, can't we agree at least on "exciting, suspenseful, fun"? Or for Basic Instinct on "Sensual, obsessive, erotic, lush, disturbed, dark, mysterious"? (You will notice it's pretty much the list I gave before, even if it was about a different movie). Cinema Paradiso as being "nostalgic, innocent, romantic"? The beginning of Star Wars as being "Exciting, huge, military (and a romantic part which is actually part another theme)"?
It's true that there are however composers who have a more emotionally transparent approach to scoring, Thomas Newman might be the greatest at that. But even in this case, you will still be able to find all those adjectives in the music. Let's take his Six Feet Under main theme. You would probably agree that it's "very quirky, humorous and a tiny bit dark" (this are adjectives I used when I knew nothing about the show). Then if you look at what the show is about (a family who runs a funeral home), you might think that the music would be much darker, but that's because the funeral home part is just a pretext to speak about the family and their relationships, it's not the essence of the show. Again, I am not saying that there are no other ways to approach main themes. I remember myself arguing with my teacher about that, but I could never find a compelling example against his case... so I came to the conclusion he was probably right!


One thing I want to add for the OP: many main themes (during opening or closing credits), are actually constructed from different thematic material. This way they can convey different aspects of the movie (as in Star Wars where you have battles but also a love story). In the movie however these thematic materials will be used independently.
Another thing very important for main themes because they need to be remembered: repeat, repeat and repeat! There are very few exceptions but the immense majority of themes repeat several times the same thematic material (including all the ones I talked about just above). Listen to the big melodic lines, they are often themselves constructed from a smaller motif which is repeated.
Take Star Wars: short fanfare intro, then immediately the main theme, which itself repeats twice F Eb D C Bb, then the whole thing is just repeated with exactly the same melody. When the romantic theme comes you have Eb D C Bb which is obviously a variation of the preceding descending motif. Again repeat the same thing, with a different ending, and repeat again and this time it goes to a variation but it still has the descending motif in it. So basically... it repeats constantly the same material! The result is that when you leave the theater you wonder why you start whistling this melody!

As for the melodic part, it is true that some people are naturally better at it at the beginning, but it's definitely something that can be learnt!


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 22, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> Can you elaborate?



Great themes are written by composers with decades of experience, theme writing is a skill like any other - it is honed and perfected.


----------



## Vik (Aug 22, 2018)

This is a complicated topic. Not only are there many different views in terms what a good theme/melody is, and not only are there film directors which certainly don't want any 'good melodies' in their film... but if it was possible to just learn how to write a good theme or melody, why are there (according to many listeners) so many composers who write only a very small fraction of their work with something which contains good melodies? Why didn't Mahler make lots of pieces as strong as the Adagietto, why didn't Satie make more pieces as strong as his 'best' gymnopedie, and why did Chopin only make one piece like opus 28 no. 4? Why aren't there many concertos like Mozart 23? And so on.
IMO it all this is based on so many factors (some degree of learning, taste, inspiration etc), that statements claiming that 'it's all about talent' or only about learning, or only inspiration etc are very... misleading, at best. Wrong would be a better word, IMO.


----------



## Living Fossil (Aug 22, 2018)

The invention of a really great theme is something that not only can't be learned, but it also can't be simply enforced, not even by composers who already wrote some...
It's a rare event.

There is some literature about writing melodies, and some thumb rules. Hindemith wrote quite a bit on this topic.
However, as it is with creativity, while there is tons of stuff to learn, nothing can replace talent and originality.

It even gets worse. Very often, musicians with enormous musicality simply suck when they compose, while excellent composers sometimes suck at ear training and similar stuff.
Some of the pianists with the best technique end up as répétiteur, and some ambitious composers with enormous know how who lack the talent of writing memorable themes end up as (sometimes fantastic) orchestrators and arrangers.

These are sad facts and they are an eternal source of frustration, envy and brain-centered concepts among musicians.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 22, 2018)

Not a component which was mentioned before and let me add the most unacademic remark here (don´t kill me :D): But there is also a bit luck involved. Sometimes the sun shines on your head and you have simply a great day where you shit out a great idea. Sure..the better you get the more often that happens but I think there is also a little "best form" diced "with luck" factor.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Undoubtedly true, but the opening poster inquires specifically about strong 'main themes', not about what makes effective film music. Besides, a tiny problem I'm having with Bernard's approach is that, in my opinion/experience anyway, a good 'theme' — and it's certainly true: it needn't be an actual melody; it could also be a chord sequence, a rhythm or even a specific sound — has to have enough 'semantic ambiguity' to be able to make it through an entire story without running into its own expressive limitations. If a theme is just 'one thing' and little else, then it's not going to be of much use for all those moments when that one thing isn't what is required.
> If, for example, you write a theme for a character, I would think it much better to go for something that is pregnant with many different expressive options, rather than something that can be pinned down entirely by a list of merely 4 or 5 related adjectives. Characters usually go through all sorts of completely different situations and moods in the course of a story, and, provided they're well-written, they have multiple sides to their personality as well, so if you decide to stick with a theme for this character, you need one with which it is possible to comment musically on all of its different frames of mind and traits.
> 
> Furthermore, once you get past 'happy' and 'sad' and maybe 'dark' and 'suspenseful' and a few others — which are all fairly simple, obvious and unequivocal tags —, choosing the 'right' adjective to describe a melody (or a piece of music) is a very subjective matter, I find. One person might hear a feeling of 'being lonely and lost' in a melody, while another would call that same melody 'wistful and tender'... One listener's "hopeful yearning" might well be another listener's "conflicted and desperate"... What sounds 'impassioned' to one pair of ears, could well be heard as 'brooding insanity" by another ...
> ...


These are all great points and to me all fall under the category of effective film music. Again, you don’t need a magic hooky melody like would come from the beattles or Ennio Morricone. Writing those can’t be learned. A great theme simply needs to convey the desired feeling. In fact film music often is better served by extremely short themes which can be more easily manipulated and slipped into a few seconds at a time.

Also while a good theme should be possible to manipulate it to fit the emotion of any particular scene, a good theme also still needs to convey something that conveys underlying aspects of the character or thing being themed. That could be an ethnic aspect, or heroic aspect, or naivity, etc... learning to represent those things can be learned you don’t have to be a musical genius!


----------



## re-peat (Aug 22, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> Great themes are written by composers with decades of experience, theme writing is a skill like any other - it is honed and perfected.




I am truly sorry, Adam, but it isn’t. It really isn't. One either has “it”, or one doesn’t. And if you don't, there is no way to get it. (It's not too difficult to name several composers with decades of experience who couldn’t write a Great Melody if their life depended on it.)

(I agree 100%, by the way, from the first letter to the last, with everything that Living Fossil wrote. Spot on, he is.)

You can spend a whole month, or a whole year even, sitting beside John Williams at the piano, and he can teach you everything he knows about melody writing — which, I think we all agree, is a lot — but if you don’t have “it”, you still won’t come away from that encounter with any increase in ability to write something as good as, say, the “Flying” theme from E.T.
I am even 100% convinced that Williams himself can’t really explain to you how he hit upon the “rough diamond”-like state of that theme. He will be able to explain, to some extent anyway, how he turned the rough diamond into a perfectly cut diamond, because there’s an amount of craft and skill involved as well to go from “rough” to “perfectly cut”, but anything to do with the pure inspiration and creativity from which the theme sprang, will forever remain unexplained-because-inexplicable.

And again, that ability, to come up with a diamond — suddenly hearing it emerge from under your fingers, in whatever state of roughness or perfection it first presents itself, and, every bit as important: _recognizing it for what it is worth_ — that is something that can NOT be taught. Never. Totally and utterly impossible.

And there’s nothing religous about it — I may be the least religious person frequenting this place — but it is something for which I have no other explanation than the words ‘talent’ and 'inspiration'. In this case: rare, extraordinary talent & inspiration.
(And yes, like Alexander says, sometimes there may be a bit of luck involved too — something unexpected, something accidental — but you still need the talent to recognize an exceptional musical event when it happens.)

Many, many musical people have the ability to write a perfectly decent tune, sure — and that is a fairly common gift that can indeed be honed and improved through study and experience, I’m not disputing that —, but the talent that allows one to come up with something like “Flying” is of a completely different order.

Not implying that without that talent you’re a lesser musician, absolutely not, but you will have to accept that writing truly great melodies will _never_ be yours to achieve.

- - -

*Bernard*, I’d like to reply to you as well, because I still don’t quite agree with most of what you’re saying, but that’ll have to wait a bit.

_


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> I am truly sorry, Adam, but it isn’t. It really isn't. One either has “it”, or one doesn’t. And if you don't, there is no way to get it. (It's not too difficult to name several composers with decades of experience who couldn’t write a Great Melody if their life depended on it.)
> 
> (I agree 100%, by the way, from the first letter to the last, with everything that Living Fossil wrote. Spot on, he is.)
> 
> ...



I agree with you that sitting with someone who has the chops will not get you there, but you can learn those things by actively practising that (see also my initial first post). Williams melodic gift wasn´t there in the beginning. When you listen to his older works you will hear a difference that he also struggled with melodic writing. When he did his remarkable iconic soundtracks he allready had 30 years or longer of experience writing music which came a lot from his persistent practise.

I see that with myself. A couple of years ago I wasn´t there where I am now, sure I am no melody master of course but I have a littlr improved in that years. I believe that you can achieve very good results when you sit down and practise decades. Sure that is just my opinion and have your own views which is totally fine. There comes also not only the gift of melody writing in the spot but also technical skills e.g. how much you understand harmony, how good your piano skills are and what kind of background you have grown. It is a complex subject still I think and examples show me that those things are not always just a gift but can be learned. I mean it is anyways a personal thing of what kind of melody someone finds exceptional or not. Difficult topic to evaluate totally from an obvjective point of view imo.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2018)

The flying sequence from ET is one killer piece of music no doubt. But ask yourself for a second how many films have or need to have such a strong musical composition underlying them? In fact many films would be ruined by such a thing. ET was a rare example where Williams was given an opportunity to bring music to the table before the movie was even shot in many cases. The music itself is front and center and in many cases the cinematography is enhancing musical ideas that Williams brought to his buddy Spielberg after having done so many successful movies together synergistically. Hooray for them, but most movies simply do not have that kind of luxury and most long drawn out strong musical sequences tend to cause the cinematography to take a back seat to the music...the visual supporting the music more then the other way around.

Take a different Williams work as an example, Jaws. 

https://csosoundsandstories.org/two-notes-that-changed-the-film-world-john-williams-theme-for-jaws/

This theme was not about musical melody genius. Actually it had a lot more to do with the art of storytelling. One of the most well known film themes ever.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> you will have to accept that writing truly great melodies will _never_ be yours to achieve



The word never assumes that great meoldy writing is inborn, a part of you, and not a “gift of the moment”. Yes, there are some, like Williams, that seem to get a number of these moments in their career, but even he cannot will himself back to that place of great inspiration. How do you explain the one hit wonders? Those are people that got that gift of the moment, but it never happened again.

No one is born with it. And yes, no one can make it happen on command.

But getting a great moment and recongizing it for what it is are two separate things. Then honing it into something great and adapting it into many different scenes and emotions is where the craft and experience come in.

I heard Toto “Africa” is getting great airplay again. Very talented musicians who, imho, didn’t have a second hit. Yet something about that song that still grabs people today in large numbers. Personally I never liked it when it was new, but I can still see it as something that stands the test of time and was a “moment of inspiration” for them. 

Although it won’t happen for a vast number of talented musicians, I do believe it can happen to almost anyone (just look at some modern pop to find some examples of musician’s with much less talent that had a moment of inspiration- who knew “Ice-Ice baby” would be used in so many songs). But I realize popular songs and great melodies don’t always intersect.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 22, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> When he did his remarkable iconic soundtracks he allready had 30 years or longer of experience writing music which came a lot from his persistent practise.



That's a bit of an exaggeration, *Alexander*. Williams' career proper as a film composer began sometime halfway during the sixties — he did work in various capacities on a handful of films before, yes, but it's only during the second half of the sixties that he increasingly started to get noticed as a serious film composer. And me, I hear the first indications of his rare melodic talent in the score for "Jane Eyre", which is 1971, four years before it blossoms open to full capacity in "Jaws" (which has a several examples of brilliant melodic invention, and I'm not talking about the 'Main Theme').
So, to say that Williams had already 30 years of composing under his belt before the great themes started pouring out, is a bit of a stretch, I believe. Maybe a couple of years, yes, but not much more than that.
Besides, Williams started out, and was for a long time known primarily as a jazz pianist and -arranger. Not exactly the musical environment where people were anxiously waiting for him to write Great Melodies.



Dewdman42 said:


> But ask yourself for a second how many films have or need to have such a strong musical composition underlying them?



A strange argument, *Dewd*, if I may say so. As I hear it, Williams wrote phenomenal melodies for films that absolutely didn't need or deserve it — "Superman" comes flying to mind — but he also failed to come up with phenomenal melodies for movies, all of them post-1998 as it happens, that would have greatly benefited from it.
(Which brings me to something else I haven't touched upon yet, but which I'm also totally convinced of: that rare, exceptional talent for melody is something that doesn't last. It is, from what I can tell, at its peak for a decade or two at most, and then it withers. And age thing maybe, I don't know. But it does. And quite suddenly too. Countless examples of composers who astounded the word during two decades with one amazing piece of melodic invention after another, and when that period was over, the best they could, or can, come up with, are inferior, contrived imitations of their former self.)



kurtvanzo said:


> How do you explain the one hit wonders?



I can't explain _anything _that is extraordinary in music, *Kurt*. I only know that text- and theory-books can't explain it either. (If one could study to become a one-hit-wonder, I imagine we'd be hearing a lot more of them, and of one-hit-wonders-turned-multiple-hit-wonders too.) Lots of aspects of the art that can be explained and that you can study, sure. Lots of ways to improve yourself through dilligent work and unwavering commitment, no doubt about it. And anything to do with skill and technique can indeed be honed and developed, I completely agree.
But then there are these occurences of genius in music — some, like lightning bolts, flashing only for the briefest of times, others, like slowly erupting volcano's, lasting much, much longer — for which there is simply no explanation. (Williams, by the way, had absolutely no problem whatsoever, for more than 20 years, to revisit the place of great inspiration from which the "Flying"-theme emerged. That's what's so baffling. And almost just as baffling: that it suddenly stopped.)

Anyway, re: the inexplicable, I can do no better than to quote Fry on Wodehouse: "You don't analyse such sunlit perfection, you just bask in its warmth and splendour."



Bernard Duc said:


> but these are exceptions, not the rule



*Bernard*, I really don't think they are exceptions at all. Quite the contrary in fact. I can make this post a thousand times longer than it already is by simply giving examples of music the perceived meaning of which can drastically change by changing the context in which the music is heard. Or by simply changing the perceiver. And it doesn't matter whether this music is written for films or not. (Just one quick one: Beethoven's 7th, 2nd movement, was never intended to evoke what it came to evoke in "The King's Speech".)
The examples you give are all of obvious associations which many of us have when hearing some _emotionally or semantically unambiguous_ piece of music, yes, but for every single one of those, there are dozens, nay hundreds, that are far less clear-cut. Where the difference between 'nostalgic' and 'embittered', or 'gentle' and 'lonely', or 'brutal' and 'heroic' is anything but obvious and depends entirely upon how the music is used or who hears it. The key word in all of this is 'ambiguity'. It's in the nature of music that a powerful degree of ambiguity is very easily arrived at, and that it can even be inferred where none was intended.

Something as pure and innocent as a children's tune on a glockenspiel can be turned into something deeply sinister and intensely gripping if you use it under a scene in Grand Central Station where a woman struggles on the stairs with a baby carriage while around her all hell is about to break loose.

_


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 22, 2018)

douggibson said:


> I can't think of one person who seemed to be inventive with their melodies and then just flat out sucked ass at singing a pitch.


Lenny Bernstein 



re-peat said:


> *Bernard*, I really don't think they are exceptions at all. Quite the contrary in fact. I can make this post a thousand times longer than it already is by simply giving examples of music the perceived meaning of which can drastically change by changing the context in which the music is heard. Or by simply changing the perceiver. And it doesn't matter whether this music is written for films or not. (Just one quick one: Beethoven's 7th, 2nd movement, was never intended to evoke what it came to evoke in "The King's Speech".)
> The examples you give are all of obvious associations which many of us have when hearing some _emotionally or semantically unambiguous_ piece of music, yes, but for every single one of those, there are dozens, nay hundreds, that are far less clear-cut. Where the difference between 'nostalgic' and 'embittered', or 'gentle' and 'lonely', or 'brutal' and 'heroic' is anything but obvious and depends entirely upon how the music is used or who hears it. The key word in all of this is 'ambiguity'. It's in the nature of music that a powerful degree of ambiguity is very easily arrived at, and that it can even be inferred where none was intended.
> 
> Something as pure and innocent as a children's tune on a glockenspiel can be turned into something deeply sinister and intensely gripping if you use it under a scene in Grand Central Station where a woman struggles on the stairs with a baby carriage while around her all hell is about to break loose.
> ...


I think you're misunderstanding me. I am not speaking about underscore in general but about main themes.
The main theme in "The King's Speech" is not Beethoven, it is written by Alexandre Desplat and conveys perfectly the state of mind of the king. It is true that the music can convey different meanings based on the context, but it has a basic meaning without the images. I challenge you to find any of the 100 most famous themes that wouldn't fit a list of adjectives based on what the movie is really about.
Even a theme from a score that was criticized for not being thematic, such as The Social Network, will convey a very clear meaning. I am not saying that some people won't have a different perception. But if you take a group of people, most of them will give a very similar set of adjectives. It is an experiment I did several times. Trust me, I used to argue what you are arguing now, probably because I wanted the teacher to approve my themes, but he proved me wrong again and again. And made me rewrite again and again themes that I initially thought were more than good enough.

There are differences between nostalgic and embittered or gentle and lonely. Getting the theme to sound just right is extremely difficult because of that. That's why I write sometimes up to 15 themes until I am happy with one.

BTW, this is also the key to be hired, because it shows you really care about the story above all.

Also, I am more than happy to agree to disagree


----------



## ThomasNL (Aug 22, 2018)

I don't know if someone already said it but hearing a melody A LOT of times will make it become a theme. YES i agree writing a good memorable theme/melody is incredibly hard but even bad themes get stuck in your head if you listened to it every day. I mean, there is some good music for short movies but does anyone remember a theme from a short movie? It's to short to make it memorable. So i think when writing some good melodies and make them re-appear a lot of times, and doing it for a project that a lot of people will listen too will make it a memorable theme. 

I know this is an 'orthodox' opinion but i do think you shouldn't underestimate the power of memory. I mean, that is why intro tunes are usually the most memorable, because you hear them all the time. We remember the starwars theme because it is being played at the beginning and the end of every movie. We don't remember marvel melodies because it is not used often enough throughout a movie. 

Love this topic!

Thomas


----------



## re-peat (Aug 22, 2018)

Bernard Duc said:


> I think you're misunderstanding me.


Yes, there's a bit of misunderstanding going on here, Bernard. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm afraid that I can't recede from the position which holds that, once beyond the blatantly obvious, the meaning of most music is anybody's guess. Ear of the beholder and all that.

(Would make a very interesting excercise though: I collect, say, five main themes from films which you are hopefully not familiar with, you put adjectives to them and then we see if these adjectives match with what was intended. If I find enough time one of these days ... You up for it?)

Thanks for a good talk, by the way.

_


----------



## pz_music (Aug 22, 2018)

The flying theme is fantastic indeed:


If you want to become a master, then do as Williams did: Study the masters. I don't know one truly remarkable composer who hasn't put in the time to hone their craft and study the greats. And yes: you can study melodic writing just as you can study harmony or rhythm. 

My main point being: Don't feel discouraged. Study great music, understand why and how it works, write your own, rinse and repeat.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2018)

Bernard Duc said:


> BTW, this is also the key to be hired, because it shows you really care about the story above all.



This is really the most important statement of all. Film making is story telling and the art form is story telling. Themes must tell the story, more so then be some kind of brilliant musical theme that people will be humming for years to come. And I'll say it again, overshadowing the story telling by musical brilliance is more often then not, a mistake.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2018)

ThomasNL said:


> I don't know if someone already said it but hearing a melody A LOT of times will make it become a theme.



I once had a college professor in one of the early composition classes that gave us an assignment to write a short piece for 4 instruments using only the note C. Any octave ok, mix it up with the instruments, dynamics, whatever...all fine...but no other notes then C natural. I remember sitting at the piano trying to think of something interesting to do and thinking WTF! I went to the professor and asked for guidance. He basically said, take any bit of music, no matter how strange....repeat it...and suddenly you have a theme that the human brain can latch on to.

So I did this weird stuff with the different instruments hitting C in different octaves...syncopations and maybe even a bit poly-rhythmic... way outside my normal box and it was a long time ago so I don't remember now...but sure enough...repeat that scary weird thing and it sounded like a theme...something that is supposed to be remembered...not just a random musical phrase...but something that has a purpose...a musical bit where the listening brain goes..."oh hey I recognize that and I think I'm supposed to". Theme.

Part of the magic is the skill of taking small bits of a simple repeating motif and repeating it appropriately, linking it together into a longer thing. Take Indiana Jones for example. 4 notes. Play those first four notes and you know what is coming next. Those first four notes are the theme really. Williams of course links them together, repeating it at different intervals, and interjecting it with other add on stuff...and it takes that 4 note little bit and glorifies it to a state of world-famous-theme. What he does with those 4 notes is craft.


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Yes, there's a bit of misunderstanding going on here, Bernard. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm afraid that I can't recede from the position which holds that, once beyond the blatantly obvious, the meaning of most music is anybody's guess. Ear of the beholder and all that.
> 
> (Would make a very interesting excercise though: I collect, say, five main themes from films which you are hopefully not familiar with, you put adjectives to them and then we see if these adjectives match with what was intended. If I find enough time one of these days ... You up for it?)
> 
> ...


Sure, I would love to have a try when you find the time. But you have to promise me you take themes you consider actually good. Obviously you won't be able to choose the most famous themes, so you will be the only to decide if they are good or not, but I think it would be an interesting experiment. Even more if other people try it.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2018)

I think if people are honest they will come to the conclusion that certain themes grab onto their heart strings in some way due to a sentimental attachment of some kind. For example let's say there is some theme that really conveys a sci-fi feeling of wonderment and adventure. Ok.. The listener that really loves that theme probably has an extra special affection towards that sentimentality. You can learn to write a theme that conveys wonderment and adventure. The Hollywood Harmony book being discussed on the other thread dives into exactly that! Its not magic.


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 22, 2018)

douggibson said:


> What ??? How did you get that ? You must be joking......or crazy
> 
> I don't know if I consider him a great melody writer, but he sure as hell knows
> exactly what he is after. As I mentioned, the criteria is not wether their voice sounds good. They can have a awful
> tone, but there is a mental connection with tracking the music. He was on it. He knew exactly what he wanted


I agree, it was a little bit tongue in cheek. I think he was a tremendous melody writer, but sometimes he would also sing terribly out of tune. Of course, by "terribly" I mean compared to other professional musicians.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Aug 22, 2018)

re-peat said:


> (Williams, by the way, had absolutely no problem whatsoever, for more than 20 years, to revisit the place of great inspiration from which the "Flying"-theme emerged. That's what's so baffling. And almost just as baffling: that it suddenly stopped.)


Let me get this straight: According to you, you're born with fantastic melody writing gift - cant be taught. BUT you might also lose it....somehow (except you were born with it?).....

Come on Piet, surely you can see how poorly your logic here holds up.

I am more inclined to learn towards Alexander's notion that there's a dash of luck (the stars aligning) - The right opportunity, the right instrumentation needs, the right frame of mind, the right vision - all the elements fall in to place for the right someone to write something incredible - and they do. That would be a far more logical explanation for Williams' lackluster writing in the new century (well perhaps age too), not some fabled angel blessing him for a few decades.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2018)

Perhaps, Simon, but I go with Caecilia, that fickle Fabled Angel. Too much corroborating evidence, I find. And no more devoid of logic than the suggestion that the stars need to be alligned, fortuitous accidents need to happen or the elements need to fall into place before great melodies can appear. (If you can detect any logic in why the elements should suddenly have stopped falling into place for Williams from the end of the previous century onwards, I'd like to have it explained to me because I don't see it.)

And even more evidence against the idea that the ability to write great melodies is something that can be learned. Because, if that were so, than why don't we hear more of these great melodies? And why is the majority of musicians — despite a full-blown education, extensive studies and years of practice — clearly incapable of writing them? Surely, thousands of musicians (film composers, songwriters, ...) must be desperately trying to write these melodies. (Even if only for the mundane incentive of acquiring prestige and fame, not forgetting the significant material rewards they might bring their creator.)

And why have I never heard a new Great Melody in all my years at V.I.? It can't be for a lack of thoroughly educated, melody-loving and musically gifted members, because the place is practically heaving with them. But no, ... not a single whiff of a newly composed, truly great melody in 15 years. Why?

Other question: why did McCartney, who hadn't had any formal music education at all, write a few dozen amazing ones during the 60's and 70's — almost effortlessly it seemed — and then suddenly, from the early 80's onwards up till today, completely failed to add even a single one more?

Or take Johann Strauss Jr. and Joseph Lanner. Two contemporaries (well, Lanner a generation or so older), both Viennese waltz royalty, neither having received a great academic education, both aiming for their music to be as popular as possible, and yet ... Lanner's music is today all but forgotten — if you can sing two Lanner tunes at the top of your head, you're an extreme rarity — while Strauss's music is still as revered and loved as ever (if not more so) the world over, and gaining fresh audiences with every new generation that is born. Why is that? Well, in my view: Strauss had "it", Lanner didn't.

_


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Perhaps, Simon, but I go with Caecilia, that fickle Fabled Angel. Too much corroborating evidence, I find. And no more devoid of logic than the suggestion that the stars need to be alligned, fortuitous accidents need to happen or the elements need to fall into place before great melodies can appear. (If you can detect any logic in why the elements should suddenly have stopped falling into place for Williams from the end of the previous century onwards, I'd like to have it explained to me because I don't see it.)
> 
> And even more evidence against the idea that the ability to write great melodies is something that can be learned. Because, if that were so, than why don't we hear more of these great melodies? And why is the majority of musicians — despite a full-blown education, extensive studies and years of practice — clearly incapable of writing them? Surely, thousands of musicians (film composers, songwriters, ...) must be desperately trying to write these melodies. (Even if only for the mundane incentive of acquiring prestige and fame, not forgetting the significant material rewards they might bring their creator.)
> 
> ...


There are several answers to that. I am not saying that there isn't a part of natural talent (as in it is easier for some people to come with great melodies), or that there isn't a part of luck, I am simply presenting an other side of the coin (which might have more than two sides....)
One reason why some people stop writing "great" melodies is maybe simply because they want to explore a different approach, even if the general public doesn't like it as much. Composers not only enjoy exploring different styles but also different ways of addressing artistic considerations. 
Take Stravinsky, everybody knows him for The Firebird or The Rite of Spring, which are both earlier works. Many people would say it's his finest melodic writing, but then he switched to other styles and composed pieces which are much less known. I am certain that he didn't stop writing these beautiful melodies because he couldn't, he simply wasn't interested in doing it anymore. For me a work such as the Symphony of Psalms is just as exciting and genius as his ballets and if you look closely, you will find the same melodic invention in them. Composers love exploring, and often it will mean that their later output is less popular, especially if people started to expect something specific from them. Some go the other way around. Many of the most avant-garde composers from ex-sovietic countries switched later in their lives to post-romanticism or minimalism and had much more popular success. A composer that stops exploring starts feeling dead inside (at least I do).

The other reason is that the most famous melodies, while absolutely exceptional, also seem so good simply because we keep hearing them. It's known that hearing repeatedly a piece of music is enough to make the general public think it's great.

There are genius melodies that are complex and genius melodies that are simple. Different people will enjoy different melodies. The immense majority of the people will prefer the simple ones because they are easier to remember and to understand structurally. I know many people who thing the POTC main theme is one of the greatest melodies ever composed, but also many other people who think it's terribly bland and boring. I personally enjoy it, even if it's a simple enjoyment, but also I would never consider it one of the greatest melodies ever composed. It is however one of the greatest themes I know because of how perfectly it fits the movie.

And by the way Johan Strauss Jr. had some of the best teachers of the time. He did starts formal education a little bit late for his time but his father was also a great composer so I'm sure he grew up in a world filled with music. And finally his most famous pieces are all later pieces. I know he had extremely good critics for his early works but nobody would be able to sing them now (as opposed to Die Fledermaus or The Blue Danube).


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> And even more evidence against the idea that the ability to write great melodies is something that can be learned. Because, if that were so, than why don't we hear more of these great melodies? And why is the majority of musicians — despite a full-blown education, extensive studies and years of practice — clearly incapable of writing them? Surely, thousands of musicians (film composers, songwriters, ...) must be desperately trying to write these melodies. (Even if only for the mundane incentive of acquiring prestige and fame, not forgetting the significant material rewards they might bring their creator.)
> 
> And why have I never heard a new Great Melody in all my years at V.I.? It can't be for a lack of thoroughly educated, melody-loving and musically gifted members, because the place is practically heaving with them. But no, ... not a single whiff of a newly composed, truly great melody in 15 years. Why?
> 
> ...



Let me try to give an idea and answer that: Simply because I believe that most of the people here just either practise in a wrong way or they simply don´t practise at all or they underestimate the amount of work what is needed to improve your writing. By wrong way I mean: Reading books, watching online courses on YT or other plattforms or even attending universities doesn´t make you a good composer and melody writer. I know there might different opinions about that but I know some quite very good composers who work in the business and have seen both sides, the academic and the practical. And most of the stuff what they have learned wasn´t in the books or on the campus. Regarding you remark about why you haven´t heard any great melody over the years on VI...well..that is a very subjective thing for me. As I said before. What one guy loves doesnt make some other person happy. I know people who think Mozart is totally overrated. Is that true? I don´t know and I don´t care too much about what is right or wrong in terms of that stuff. I go by what I like and for me I have to say: I heard a couple of themes and tracks here which had really great melody writing. Now..maybe that was not exceptional to you who knows, and again: Maybe there comes this point of subjective view what is truely great or not. And I am not talking about modern epic watered down examples of filmmusic, but some people posted here quite nice stuff which maybe you passed or missed?

Having said that. Maybe you expect too much also? It is pretty hard, maybe even impossible to reinvent the wheel. And I think that is not nessacary at all, all the composers in history had some sort idols and influences and we still have nowadays and we copy that and build a vocabulary based on what we love and imititate. I dont know your background and how much music you write every day, but I do sit everyday at my piano and practise and write music. A lot of that is mediocre crap probably, but I think training your musical muscles is one way to improve. Sure there is no gurarentee that you become an Einstein one day but there is a chance, and if you let that chance go...that would be bad imo. With hard practise you can compensate a lot of things in life, and that is imo with music not so much different.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2018)

Bernard Duc said:


> There are several answers to that ...



Strauss's father was vehemently opposed to his son pursuing a career in music. (Johann jr. had to study in secret, with a.o. the family's great enemy Lanner, who himself was largely self-taught.) And Papa Strauss didn't just oppose, he was also extremely jealous of his son's successes — some of the anecdotes illustrating that fact are near unbelievable —, the beginning of a rift that is one of the most tragic family drama's in the history of music. (And sadly, it wouldn't be the last drama in Strauss Jr.'s life.)

I'm not of those who are of the opinion that Stravinsky's great melodic talent is only apparent in his earlier work. In fact, if I had to submit examples of Stravinsky's astounding lyricism and melodic aptitude, my choices would come from Apollon Musagète, Scènes de Ballet, L'Histoire du Soldat, Le Baiser de la Fée, Concertino for 12 Instruments, Ebony Concerto, Dumbarton Oaks, Concerto In D ("Basel"), Symphonies for Wind Instruments, the Septuor, the Octuor, the Piano Concerto and even the serial Movements. For starters. (Stravinsky happens to be my favourite composer this side of Beethoven and I'm deeeeeeply in love with just about everything he wrote. Deeply.)

And I absolutely can not agree with the suggestion that perceived greatness in melody is party the result of repeated hearing. If you really believe that, Bernard, then I'm afraid we're talking about entirely different things here, melody-wise. Then your great melodies aren't mine (and mine aren't probably yours). Repeated hearing has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on me considering one melody superior, or inferior, to another. If I ever should become so superficial and undiscerning in my musical judgements, call the nurse with the syringe.

_


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> And I absolutely can not agree with the suggestion that perceived greatness in melody is party the result of repeated hearing. If you really believe that, Bernard, then I'm afraid we're talking about entirely different things here, melody-wise. Then your great melodies aren't mine (and mine aren't probably yours). Repeated hearing has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on me considering one melody superior, or inferior, to another. If I ever should become so superficial and undiscerning in my musical judgements, call the nurse with the syringe.
> 
> _



That is not even a question of anyone's beliefs, that is a pure fact based on the nature of psychology and human perception


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Strauss's father was vehemently opposed to his son pursuing a career in music. (Johann jr. had to study in secret, with a.o. the family's great enemy Lanner, who himself was largely self-taught.) And Papa Strauss didn't just oppose, he was also extremely jealous of his son's successes — some of the anecdotes illustrating that fact are near unbelievable —, the beginning of a rift that is one of the most tragic family drama's in the history of music. (And sadly, it wouldn't be the last drama in Strauss Jr.'s life.)
> 
> I'm not of those who are of the opinion that Stravinsky's great melodic talent is only apparent in his earlier work. In fact, if I had to submit examples of Stravinsky's astounding lyricism and melodic aptitude, my choices would come from Apollon Musagète, Scènes de Ballet, L'Histoire du Soldat, Le Baiser de la Fée, Concertino for 12 Instruments, Ebony Concerto, Dumbarton Oaks, Concerto In D ("Basel"), Symphonies for Wind Instruments, the Septuor, the Octuor, the Piano Concerto and even the serial Movements. For starters. (Stravinsky happens to be my favourite composer this side of Beethoven and I'm deeeeeeply in love with just about everything he wrote. Deeply.)
> 
> ...



I don’t mean you, I mean the general public. But even myself, I know I enjoy more pieces after hearing them for several times. And I agree 100% with you on Stravinsky, but again, the general public will definitely think that Firebird has “better” melodies than the later pieces because they are easier to sing and remember, also more conventional in their structure.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 23, 2018)

You might not need a book.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> That is not even a question of anyone's beliefs, that is a pure fact based on the nature of psychology and human perception




That may be so, Adam, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with arriving at a musically informed and honest opinion of a particular melody.

I'm aware of the "familiarity breeds liking" principle — though it is perhaps also useful to note that the opposite, "familiarity breeds dislike", is an equally recognized phenomenon — but even so, _in the context of what we're talking about here_, the shallowness and brevity of any such "liking" can't ever be a serious obstacle to a genuinely musical judgement?

I've been known to succumb temporarily to the lure of a not particularly great but annoyingly earwormy tune too. You hear something ten times a week and you can't help but begin thinking "Damn, that's catchy". Yes, it has happened. But surely, such a spell is as short-lived as it is superficial and doesn't influence your more considered, long-term opinion on the quality of that melody? That's how it is with me anyway. I can't — honestly — think of a single melody (or other musical element) which I consider great simply because I've heard it enough times.

I agree however that frequent exposure to certain types of music have opened doors for me which, on my own and without that exposure, I would never have opened myself, let alone entered, but once through that door, my opinion on whatever I found was, again, entirely determined by how I always evaluate music, the "familiarity breeds liking"-factor playing no part in it whatsoever.

I'm a bit puzzled that this has come up. I would have thought, certainly among musicians, that it was totally obvious that musical appreciation is quite different from mere 'human perception'.

_


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 23, 2018)

Some interesting points all around. I think the point about some of the most simple musical ideas being perceived by the public as the most genius is important. I do think that part of the art of writing music is harnessing the creative brain, and the creative part of the brain doesn’t do well when you’re falling into habitual patterns. It does better when it’s exploring something new. The problem with simple musical ideas is that it doesn’t take long for those to become habitual patterns and boring to the composer. As I have gotten older and older I am constantly trying to find new ways to be creative with more and more dissonance. Whether I like it or not, friends and listeners generally might not be very impressed in some cases because it is getting away from simple. But I do find it difficult to get my brain into a truly creative mode when keeping it overly simple. Not impossible!

Perhaps this is why the non commercial composers have gotten weirder and weirder as time goes on, trying to be creative. A lot of modern stuff is devoid of ”magic melodies” as perceived by the public.

They aren’t really magic, they are just simple. But yet still possessing certain elements that are conveying creativity, structure and interest. There is a balancing act between keeping it simple and yet still reaching for something creatively. I believe this is why even some well known composers have been in the zone at times and other times not.

Instead of talking about this elusive zone as some kind of voodoo magic that can’t be learned we should be talking about how to get closer to it. Maybe some people will never get there. I have been to an awful lot of golf lessons and I can’t seem to get there either. Doesn’t mean it’s not learnable or that I might not even get there eventually or that at least I will get better at it. But anyway,

The op is interested in commercial music so all the references to Stravinsky are not relevant really. Cinematic musical brilliance is something else entirely. John Williams’ famous themes are at their core very simple but also very on point for the storytelling at that moment. He also possessed enough musical knowledge be chromatic enough to not be boringly diatonic. Craft. His intuitive brilliance has more to do with connecting to the story, telling a story through melody and harmony. Taking the listener on a musical journey, yet simple enough for the public consumption.

I do also think his later work is extremely derivative. I think probably he has fallen away from the creative part of the brain due to habit taking over.


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> That may be so, Adam, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with arriving at a musically informed and honest opinion of a particular melody.
> 
> I'm aware of the "familiarity breeds liking" principle — though it is perhaps also useful to note that the opposite, "familiarity breeds dislike", is an equally recognized phenomenon — but even so, _in the context of what we're talking about here_, the shallowness and brevity of any such "liking" can't ever be a serious obstacle to a genuinely musical judgement?
> 
> ...



The thing is, all of your points in the thread are rendered completely moot by the fact that no matter whether there is any innate "talent" required to write great themes, one will not find out whether they have it or not unless they work on their melody writing skills long enough to reach their skill ceiling. And since none of what you said will help the OP work on those skills, everything you have said so far was a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2018)

A skill ceiling?? In music? That's a new one for me, Adam. I don't think anybody ever knows whether they've reached their skill ceiling or not. (If you believe in such nonsense anyway.) Cause the moment you think you might have, you study or practice just a little bit more and, oopla, up goes your skill ceiling! (Only your skill ceiling though, not your ability to write great stuff.)

And I know it's far easier to dismiss, arrogantly and lazily, all my points & questions as moot and a waste of everybody's time, rather than make an effort to answer or reply to them intelligently or thought-provokingly (as some have), but still: couldn't you keep that unsympathetic, cowardly, stupid and childish side of yours to yourself, instead of spoiling a thusfar quite nice, at times very interesting and throughout friendly thread with it?

Your skill ceiling for enjoyable, constructive discussion isn't very high, is it?

_


----------



## Bernard Duc (Aug 23, 2018)

Can we all keep it nice? I think there is a lot to learn from different opinions.


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> A skill ceiling?? In music? That's a new one for me, Adam. I don't think anybody ever knows whether they've reached their skill ceiling or not. (If you believe in such nonsense anyway.) Cause the moment you think you might have, you study or practice just a little bit more and, oopla, up goes your skill ceiling! (Only your skill ceiling though, not your ability to write great stuff.)
> 
> And I know it's far easier to dismiss, arrogantly and lazily, all my points & questions as moot and a waste of everybody's time, rather than make an effort to answer or reply to them intelligently or thought-provokingly (as some have), but still: couldn't you keep that unsympathetic, cowardly, stupid and childish side of yours to yourself, instead of spoiling a thusfar quite nice, at times very interesting and throughout friendly thread with it?
> 
> ...



A skill ceiling is a foreign concept to you, yet you insist that the ability to write great themes is genetic. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Living Fossil (Aug 23, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> That is not even a question of anyone's beliefs, that is a pure fact based on the nature of psychology and human perception



Actually, there is lots of controversy going on on this topics in the scientific world.
This are areas of overwhelming complexity and many aspects have their own fields of research.
And there are lot of deficient theories floating around; since quite often scientists forget aspects that are outside of their expertise. 
There are almost no "pure [undisputed] facts" in this area, most is indeed a question of your own belief, or: on the scientific sources you know or you want to believe...


----------



## JohnG (Aug 23, 2018)

I think this is an interesting topic and does not benefit from dismissing anyone, as you have done now, several times, @AdamAlake You have some good points to make but you don't strengthen your position by denigrating @re-peat or turning up your nose if he disagrees with you. I would rather hear what you have to say to support your arguments.

Gift or Labour?

I lean more toward the "gift" end, because to me writing a theme is a sort of alchemy. You toss a bunch of ideas into your head, many of which might be somewhat contradictory, and out comes -- something. When I've stumbled over a good theme early in a project, it feels like a gift. Several times I've thought of it minutes into, or minutes after, seeing a film or even a scene or two from it for the first time, well before any analysis is consciously taking place. I always try to write it down that instant, because my experience is that, once I start the labour of getting from scene to scene, I lose the completeness of that early vision, and the excitement of that first stimulus blurs into blandness.

Having argued in favour of the gift idea, though, I'm maybe going to contradict myself, because I do agree with some of what @Bernard Duc wrote when he described making a list of emotions or ideas and then writing with that in mind. Even though I don't make lists as such -- I don't write down a list of adjectives or anything -- it's more vague and intuitive. I fear that, for me, taking a methodical path risks steering the process too far into the analytical, and I fear that won't yield material that really "gets" people.

The most successful melodies I've written for trailers (ones that have been licensed a lot of times) always started with a fairly inchoate salad of ideas, kind of swimming around, plus an intention (which I do think is important) to try to write something instantly communicative. Writing it down, even, makes it seem more thought-out than it really is. I look at a photo or a piece of film or imagine a story and it just comes out. Sometimes I start with a piano or a drum, sometimes with chords or a little motif that seems to ask for the next one with not too much effort.

Do We Need Main Themes at All?

I also question whether we really need main themes at all. Sometimes when faced with the job of working with someone else's material, it feels that almost any theme, however apparently flaccid, can be ginned into music that succeeds in a variety of emotional scenes and for many apparently contradictory purposes. One of my favourite scores, James Newton Howard's "Signs" doesn't have a theme as such, just a three-note motif and a couple of other minimalist ideas that he uses to construct the entire score, at least as I remember it. 

Maybe "Signs" argues that craft and labour, at least in some situations, matter more than an inspired theme? 

Leitmotif

The question _character_ themes, by contrast with main themes, is quite an interesting one. I confess that I have this visceral prejudice against the "Peter and the Wolf" concept of a theme for each character, something that still seems to be in the minds of people for whom I sometimes work. I confess, I actually detest them in general, for a serious drama, though I am fine with them for comedies (where I use them, sort of), children's movies, or very light ("Pirates" or "Star Wars" style) adventure films.

I've asked myself why I don't like them. What's wrong with them? And I don't have a coherent answer, just "I don't."


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> A skill ceiling is a foreign concept to you, yet you insist that the ability to write great themes is genetic.




A skill ceiling is not so much a foreign concept to me — I wasn’t familiar with the actual term, true, but it’s not too difficult to deduce what it might mean in this context (I did some reading meanwhile and it seems to originate from the gaming world, doesn’t it?) —, but wherever it comes from, the way you’ve used it here is characteristic of a way of looking at things that I’m allergic to.

And what very much is completely and utterly foreign to me, and will always remain so, is “a skill ceiling in musical matters”. (And that doesn’t even make sense when considering the actual definition of the concept anyway, but let’s pass over that). A “skill ceiling in music”? That sounds as absurd to me as a “skill ceiling in love”.

Anyway, enough about that.

Yes, I’m unshakeably convinced that a capacity for exceptional themes is innate. Or, let me put that differently: the only difference between a good melody and an exceptional one, is talent. Not skill, not experience, not knowledge, not accidents, not luck, but talent.

Take, for example (how many of these examples do I have to give, I’m beginning to wonder), the brothers Haydn; Joseph and Michael. Same home, same nurture, near identical education, and thus: virtually the same level (I almost wrote ceiling) of skill.
But, the latter is these days barely remembered, and then mostly by musicologists and historians, while the former has entered — already during his lifetime —, the pantheon of the all time greats, and it doesn’t look like he will ever have to give up his seat there. Why that difference between these two?

It's not that there is anything much wrong with Michael’s music, it’s never really bad or anything — his religious works are in fact rated quite highly —, it’s all expertly written and skilfully made to flow nicely from beginning to end, exactly the way it should. (I have his 40 symphonies on disc, only to say that I’m not borrowing this opinion from some book or website I read.)

But then there is Joseph’s music: so much more daring, more inspired, more adventurous, much more alive with sparkling invention and surprise, and much more often hitting the limits of what was musically possible in those days (and quite frequently crossing those limits too).

What accounts for that huge difference in quality between the works of these two brothers? Obviously not skill, because they had practically the same education. And it can’t be experience either since they both had successful professional careers of almost identical length.
The only answer that makes any sense to me: _talent_. Joseph having been born with quite a bit more of it than Michael.

And why has David Arnold never written a really great Bond theme? Also a telling case, if you ask me. It can’t have been for lack of wanting (he clearly adores Barry’s music), nor for lack of skill or lack of opportunity, can it? Arnold’s a wonderful musician and he can actually write a pretty good theme and a very good film score as well, but ... can he write a truly timeless jewel-of-a-melody of the quality that Barry produced by the dozen? I don’t think so. And again the reason is the same: Arnold’s gift for melody isn’t as exceptionnal as Barry’s was.

_


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Aug 23, 2018)

re-peat said:


> It's not that there is anything much wrong with Michael’s music, it’s never really bad or anything — his religious works are in fact rated quite highly —, it’s all expertly written and skilfully made to flow nicely from beginning to end, exactly the way it should. (I have his 40 symphonies on disc, only to say that I’m not borrowing this opinion from some book or website I read.)
> 
> But then there is Joseph’s music: so much more daring, more inspired, more adventurous, much more alive with sparkling invention and surprise, and much more often hitting the limits of what was musically possible in those days (and quite frequently crossing those limits too).



The biggest issue I have with your examples Piet, is that you're making *a lot *of assumptions about how these people lived, what they wanted to achieve, how hard they worked etc. Maybe Michael was gallivanting around town whilst Joseph stayed in and worked? Did Michael *want *to be adventurous, testing the limits? Maybe he wasn't given the same opportunities? etc.. you get the idea.

You know I was wondering this last night instead of sleeping - If John Williams was asked to do a blazing techno scifi soundtrack instead of using the Orchestra, would he still have written these incredible melodies? If John Lennon didn't have his mates and only a Piano, would he have created an album so memorable? My guess is *unlikely.*

IMO There's nothing magical about a melody; a great one is just the results of a person making all the right decisions under the right circumstances for the right purposes.

All this becomes moot when you consider what's *good *is very subjective. Have you heard Ariana Grande's new album??? Where's that nurse?

*By the way OP go to Scoreclub, Alain has a Memorable Melodies course - really helpful.*


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 23, 2018)

I think calling it a “gift” misses an opportunity and removes oneself from the responsibility of trying to be creative. Being creative sometimes takes effort and there is no question that we have to get into a certain frame of mind that harnesses the right brain. The right brain doesn’t think in words it thinks in abstract conceptual terms. In music we have many left brain activities we are preoccupied with but the right brain activity is what some would like to call a creative gift from the universe. 

Anyway there is an awful lot of “craft” involved in good film music but a lot of intuition from the right brain also in terms of what musical ideas will set the tone you want.

Some movies might need a theme per character but some may not. Some may need themes for objects or concepts. Just depends on what the film maker is wanting to convey. George Lucas has said from the beginning until now that Star Wars is a soap opera in space. The whole story is not about lasers and wars in space, it was about sky walker and the relationships between all the characters that would lead it all to final resolution. The hero’s journey, which is very much a spiritual quest. As such, it makes sense that characters would be the focus of the musical themes. The whole story is about the relationships between those characters.

But another film could be focused on completely different concepts that would dictate themes based on different important aspects.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 24, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Maybe Michael was gallivanting around town whilst Joseph stayed in and worked?




Michael Haydn wrote well over 800 pieces of music — that we know of (check this mind-boggling list) —, many of them full-length works for orchestra and/or choir. Hardly the legacy, I would think, of someone who spent much of his time gallivanting about town.
He held his post of concertmaster in Salzburg for over 40 years, again an indication that he wasn't a sluggard. (He was occasionaly criticized for his love of the bottle though.)



Dewdman42 said:


> I think calling it a “gift” misses an opportunity and removes oneself from the responsibility of trying to be creative.




Perhaps we should have defined 'talent' earlier in this thread. Or more precisely: exceptional talent. To me, that not just means the innate gift, but also the irresistible drive to do something with it, devote yourself completely to it, organize your entire life around it at the expense of everything (and everybody) else.

Having an exceptional talent is like having a demon inside you, one that can never be tamed, that can only be temporarily placated by setting yourself and then reaching new goals, by conquering new obstacles, by battling with new problems over and over again, by facing ever new creative challenges. It never ends. And there is never a ceiling in sight. And you don't choose to do it, no, you *have* to do it.

In other words: someone of extraordinary talent _never tries to be creative_, let alone that he or she would ever consider it a responsibility from which he/she can remove him/herself at will. The being creative and the desire to work is more like an incessant urge, or a fever, at times an illness even. Picasso's gigantic talent, and the sacrifices he made, without blinking an eye, in pursuit of making the most of that talent in the time given to him, caused enormous amounts of extreme misery and pain to the people around him, in three cases even leading to suicide.

So when I use the word talent, I'm not talking about some facility that allows you to do things a little bit better and quicker than most everybody else, I'm talking about a far more serious condition: something that can be as ugly as it is beautiful, and that is as much a curse as it is a blessing.

_


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 24, 2018)

re-peat said:


> What accounts for that huge difference in quality between the works of these two brothers? Obviously not skill, because they had practically the same education. And it can’t be experience either since they both had successful professional careers of almost identical length.
> The only answer that makes any sense to me: _talent_. Joseph having been born with quite a bit more of it than Michael.
> 
> _



This is so horribly fallacious that I am very surprised you would imply such a thing. Having the same education means their skill levels must have been equal? And having careers of similar length necessarily results in equal experience?

No wonder that "talent" is the only remaining answer to you, when you reasoning is founded on illogical assumptions.


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 24, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> I'm at a loss here. I can't find any specific books on main theme writing? Should i focus on melody writing instead?
> I feel like main themes are the hook of OSTs and a good one gets you the job. But strangely that's the are which lacks most resource of any kind. Do you know any books/tutorials about main theme writing?



To actually say something of use to the OP - research motifs, you will find that most great themes use only a few motifs as their building foundation, but they are developed in countless ways. So it will be helpful to learn more about those, how to easily identify them and develop them. For the identification part, many online resources and books can be found quickly via any search engine, just see what interests you and pick. 

As for the development part, the best and pretty much only way to learn about that, is transcription. Make a list of themes you find to be great and transcribe them one by one. This by itself will build your internal sense for what works and what does not, but you can also couple it with analysing the theme after transcribing, either by mere playing it back on the piano and listening, or from the resulting notation (you should be writing down your transcriptions in notation). Using your knowledge about motifs will then allow you to analyse the theme from a theoretical viewpoint which can be pretty useful.

In short, transcribe, transcribe, transcribe. But fear not, transcribing melodies is very straightforward.


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 24, 2018)

JohnG said:


> I think this is an interesting topic and does not benefit from dismissing anyone, as you have done now, several times, @AdamAlake You have some good points to make but you don't strengthen your position by denigrating @re-peat or turning up your nose if he disagrees with you. I would rather hear what you have to say to support your arguments.
> 
> Gift or Labour?
> 
> ...



That is not the topic, however. The OP asked about resources on improving their theme/melody writing, not whether there is talent needed, or "Do We Need Main Themes at All?". If you want to discuss that, make your own thread.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 24, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> This is so horribly fallacious that I am very surprised you would imply such a thing. Having the same education means their skill levels must have been equal? And having careers of similar length necessarily results in equal experience?



Yes and yes.

If two people go through the exact same educational system — Michael, the younger of the two, literally followed in Joseph's footsteps every step of the educational way — I don't think it is too far-fetched (or "horribly fallacious", to use your aimiable vocabularly) to assume that their skill, the craft they learned and the knowledge they acquired, is of comparable levels too.
(Actually, come to think of it, Michael was considered the better student of the two. And the better singer too. Which, according to some of you, should have made him the better composer, innit? Well, he wasn't.)

And yes again re: the comparable experience level. We're talking 18th century here, not the 21st. The jobs both brothers had, one in Salzburg, the other with the Esterhazy's, meant that both had to do very similar things for, what turned out to be, a very similar amount of time: write orchestral music, write sacred music, write chamber music, train musicians, conduct orchestras, ... Sure, they had different lives, but professionaly, they walked a similar path. Hence my assumption that their musical experience would have been very similar too.

Look, Adam, I happen to know what I'm talking about. I'm very sorry if that inconveniences you. You're obviously in this thread for no other reason than to contradict me or find flaws in my arguments. And that's fine with me. Honestly, I welcome it. (Except the surprising negativity.) But couldn't you do it a little bit better than you've done so far? Give us something to chew on, something to really think about, instead of introducing all these pseudo-facts and lazy one-liners (see your first post) into the discussion? I mean, what's the point of your being in this thread otherwise? (And don't tell me it is to make sure that we all stay on topic, because you're neither qualified nor authorized for that.)

(And I really don't know what it is that annoys you so much about me. I remember it being different not too long ago. Is is what I say? Or is it the way I say it? Or both perhaps? Either way, can't we sort this out in some grown-up manner, cause it is silly and irritating and it serves no purpose I can see, other than perhaps some weird satisfaction you might derive from the conflict.)

_


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 24, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> That is not the topic, however. The OP asked about resources on improving their theme/melody writing, not whether there is talent needed, or "Do We Need Main Themes at All?". If you want to discuss that, make your own thread.



You're technically right. But going (a little?) off-topic happens. This discussion has been a joy anyway. Thanks all!


----------



## ComposerWannabe (Aug 24, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> To actually say something of use to the OP - research motifs, you will find that most great themes use only a few motifs as their building foundation, but they are developed in countless ways. So it will be helpful to learn more about those, how to easily identify them and develop them. For the identification part, many online resources and books can be found quickly via any search engine, just see what interests you and pick.
> 
> As for the development part, the best and pretty much only way to learn about that, is transcription. Make a list of themes you find to be great and transcribe them one by one. This by itself will build your internal sense for what works and what does not, but you can also couple it with analysing the theme after transcribing, either by mere playing it back on the piano and listening, or from the resulting notation (you should be writing down your transcriptions in notation). Using your knowledge about motifs will then allow you to analyse the theme from a theoretical viewpoint which can be pretty useful.
> 
> In short, transcribe, transcribe, transcribe. But fear not, transcribing melodies is very straightforward.


I really need to work on my ear-training and transcription skills! Totally a must for a good composer!


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 24, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Yes and yes.
> 
> If two people go through the exact same educational system — Michael, the younger of the two, literally followed in Joseph's footsteps every step of the educational way — I don't think it is too far-fetched (or "horribly fallacious", to use your aimiable vocabularly) to assume that their skill, the craft they learned and the knowledge they acquired, is of comparable levels too.
> (Actually, come to think of it, Michael was considered the better student of the two. And the better singer too. Which, according to some of you, should have made him the better composer, innit? Well, he wasn't.)
> ...



There is obviously a wide range of factors at play there, following the same educational system is one of the most superficial ones - their upbringing, personal interests and tastes, the focus of their personal studies, personality traits etc. . Handwaving all of the possible variables that could influence their ability to write "great themes" (pretty subjective term in itself) into one umbrella term "talent", would be reductionism at its worst.



re-peat said:


> And yes again re: the comparable experience level. We're talking 18th century here, not the 21st. The jobs both brothers had, one in Salzburg, the other with the Esterhazy's, meant that both had to do very similar things for, what turned out to be, a very similar amount of time: write orchestral music, write sacred music, write chamber music, train musicians, conduct orchestras, ... Sure, they had different lives, but professionaly, they walked a similar path. Hence my assumption that their musical experience would have been very similar too.
> 
> _



Same applies here, even within the exact same working environment, no two individuals will have the exact same personal experience.




re-peat said:


> Look, Adam, I happen to know what I'm talking about. I'm very sorry if that inconveniences you.
> 
> _



So far, I have soon no proof of that.



re-peat said:


> You're obviously in this thread for no other reason than to contradict me or find flaws in my arguments. And that's fine with me. Honestly, I welcome it.
> 
> _



I clicked the thread to see what resources others have shared, and to share my own. I did not expect to find your thread derailing arguments, but since I did, I responded to them.



re-peat said:


> (Except the surprising negativity.)
> 
> _



I see no negativity in my posts, yet considering what the OP intended this thread to be, your posts seem to be the negative element here, as they propose an anti-educational perspective and are detrimental to the original purpose.



re-peat said:


> And I really don't know what it is that annoys you so much about me. I remember it being different not too long ago. Is is what I say? Or is it the way I say it?
> 
> _



Nothing annoys me about you, I am simply responding to your arguments. Others could see the fact that you came into the thread to derail it in name of a personal crusade as annoying, though.


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 24, 2018)

ComposerWannabe said:


> I really need to work on my ear-training and transcription skills! Totally a must for a good composer!



Transcription itself works as a form of ear-training, you do not have to worry too much about ear-training exercises in isolation. But it never hurts to do so, however.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 24, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> you came into the thread to derail it




Nothing that I've said in my opening post derails the thread. It simply expresses a _completely on-topic_ point of view that you, and some others, happen to strongly disagree with. Which, again, is totally fine with me. Pity it upsets you so much.
And given that point of view, I believe I've been as helpful as I could be and as anybody else here: (1) if totally clueless about melodic writing, yes, maybe get some help for initiation in the matter, (2) I've adviced the OP not to waste money on charlatans who promise him/her the secret of great melodic writing, (3) I've told him/her to be prepared for the possibility that melodic invention might never be the most impressive arrow on his/her musical bow. It happens. (Don't know your gender, Wannabe, hence the "him/her".)

And what followed is an at times very interesting exchange of ideas, never far off-topic, as a result of some people challenging these views, and me, along with one or two others, argumenting them. What's wrong with that? Tell me, what's wrong with musicians talking about fascinating musical subject matter, disagreeing strongly on several points, agreeing on others, and yes, occasionaly drifting a bit away from the topic that triggered the discussion?
More than one person has said that they really liked the thread, so who are you, I ask, to declare that this is a waste of _everybody_'s time?

By the way, and it's a big by-the-way, you didn't contribute anything — not a single syllable — in the way of advice, suggestions, resources or on-topic content until halfway down this page (page 4). So before accusing me of being unhelpful, perhaps you might wanna look at yourself first. (Unless of course, you consider your unpleasant barking in my direction helpful to the OP.)

Let's ignore each other henceforth, shall we, Adam? Nothing good comes from it.

_


----------



## AdamAlake (Aug 24, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Pity it upsets you so much.
> 
> _



I am not upset at all, is there a specific reason you keep insisting on that? Does it make you feel good to imagine those you argue with as angry irrational people?



re-peat said:


> (1) if totally clueless about melodic writing, yes, maybe get some help for initiation in the matter
> 
> _



Yet you provided nothing that would help the OP go in that direction.



re-peat said:


> (3) I've told him/her to be prepared for the possibility that melodic invention might never be the most impressive arrow on his/her musical bow. It happens. (Don't know your gender, Wannabe, hence the "him/her".)
> 
> _



How is this useful again?



re-peat said:


> Tell me, what's wrong with musicians talking about fascinating musical subject matter, disagreeing strongly on several points, agreeing on others, and yes, occasionaly drifting a bit away from the topic that triggered the discussion?
> 
> _



Nothing, when it happens in the appropriate place. In this thread - everything.



re-peat said:


> By the way, and it's a big by-the-way, you didn't contribute anything — not a single syllable — in the way of advice, suggestions, resources or on-topic content until halfway down this page (page 4). So before accusing me of being unhelpful, perhaps you might wanna look at yourself first. (Unless of course, you consider your unpleasant barking in my direction helpful to the OP.)
> 
> _



Countering fallacious dicouraging arguments is pretty useful in its own right, and I followed up with actual practical advice, which you have yet to provide.


----------



## bryla (Aug 24, 2018)

I for one commented briefly on the first page but keep following this thread exactly for the very interesting discussion it has bred! No need to derail that  if not in this thread I would love to hear more of everyone's views on this matter.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 24, 2018)

AdamAlake said:


> > (3) I've told him/her to be prepared for the possibility that melodic invention might never be the most impressive arrow on his/her musical bow. It happens.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this useful again?





It's useful, and very much so I believe, in that it suggests that, after discovering who you are, you accept the consequences and develop yourself accordingly, compensating for the weaknesses with strenghts elsewhere. As far as myself is concerned, I know *exactly" what my strenghts and weaknesses as a musician are. And I'm only as good as I am — assuming for one fleeting second that 'good' is the _mot juste_ to describe my best work —, _because I know that and have acted accordingly_. I've learned that over the years, and today I know precisely how my talent can be put to best use, and I also know which musical challenges I better stay away from or seek assistance for.

If, for example, I get a job that is temped with, say, Hans Zimmer or Ludovico Enaudi music, I know I'm in trouble. Because _that is not who I am_, musically speaking. And I can learn and study and practice all I want, the simple truth is that I have no affinity or flair for those idioms, and therefore anything I do in those styles will always sound contrived, inauthentic and third rate. (I have, alas, examples to prove it.)

It's the same with melody writing, I believe. If you learn that there are but few or even no melodies of distinction running through your musical veins, accept it. And discover, in yourself, other ways to express yourself musically. Find your voice. The first step is to learn who you are. The second step is to match your musical language to your musical identity. Only then will you be able to speak with your own voice. Authoritatively. Truthfully.

Hans Zimmer is a terrific example. Despite having written a few impressive melodies, he is, in my humble opinion, not a natural melodist either (the way John Williams, John Barry and Ennio Morricone are), but Mr. Zimmer has developed his many, many other musical gifts, instincts and qualities to such phenomenal heights that he can say/suggest/express/evoke everything he needs or wants to say/suggest/express/evoke in music, and *always* in a completely convincing, totally authentic, very effective and highly personal way.

I am of course aware that, as a composer for films or media, one has to have a high degree of musical versatility and be able to also assume musical identies which may have little overlap with one's own. And with that mind, it is indeed recommended to study as broadly as is possible, and with as much curiosity as you can, and also develop those sides of your musical personality which Nature may have neglected a bit when handing them to you. Absolutely. But even so, I am totally convinced that your strongest musical expression will always be that which comes from your own musical indentity and uses your own musical voice.

And that is why I believe my comment about accepting who you are, is not without relevance and usefulness in the context of this discussion.

_


----------



## Living Fossil (Aug 24, 2018)

@re-peat: Agree with your statement.

However, i think that as a composer you always have to keep the door open for unprecedented things to happen.
There are lots of musicians/composers, who although they had strengths in other areas, happened to write on few occasions pieces that are amazing yet not typical for them.
In the area of pop music there is that interesting phenomenon called "one hit wonders". Artists, who for one single time compressed the feeling of their time in a single, remarkable melody.

So, in an empirical sense, it is totally possible that somebody without talent in writing melodies happens to write an amazing one.


----------



## Gusfmm (Aug 30, 2018)

Howdy!... long time. Very entertaining conversation for the most part.



re-peat said:


> And even more evidence against the idea that the ability to write great melodies is something that can be learned.
> _


Quite agreed Piet. I don't think the following notion has been mentioned, which is very surprising: the above would be comparable to suggesting creativity can be taught and learned. Having said that, there is merit in suggesting that solid foundational knowledge of the trade facilitates and even potentiates inspired writing. As far as the esoteric alignment of celestial bodies being the source of great melodic writing... maybe I dispense such notion for the same reason I don't play the lottery for a living.

On Williams writing post 2,000- he may certainly not have been as prolific as in younger years, but I do think the spark of his inspiration has shined out there from time to time- a very moody and beautiful theme comes to mind in Across the Stars (Padme and Anakin's theme), or the more dramatic and famous Duel of Fates.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Aug 30, 2018)

Dear ComposerWannabe,

So you Wannastop be a wannabe? 

Here is, to me, one of the most profound things John Williams ever said about himself when asked about "a Pivotal moment in his life and work":

*"About a personal thing in life that may affect what my work has been, and I really don't know if this is the appropriate forum, but I will give you a straight answer. When I was about 40 years old, I lost somebody very...very...very close to me, unexpectedly, and before that point, in my life, I didn't know what I was doing... -- but after that point, in my writing, in my approach to music and everything I was doing, I felt... clear... about what it is I was trying to do and how I could do it with whatever small gifts I may have been given! It was a huuge emotional turning point in my life, let's leave it there, but one that resonates with me still... and taught me about who I was and what I was doing and what it meant... and this is a deeply emotional thing! (pauses).. In a way, that was the greatest gift ever given to me if I can put it that way, by anyone... And so that's the best answer I can give you and certainly a pivotal moment in my thinking, in me living my life and approaching the blank page, absolutely! I immediately knew where to go with this emotionally..."*

Melody, to me, is the single most incredibly important and magical element of music! So much that I consider it to be in fact a complete, holistic, discipline of the human experience, and not some additional, atomistic, "yet-another discipline to get good at"- element to study within music...

This subject is incredibly special, as this thread and number of pages proves, because the origin of greatness is, as always, endlessly debated: is it a bliss, or a science? In my opinion, it's probably both!

And if, in some hypothetically absolutist sense, we can say, that it's both, wouldn't that yet again prove how magical the connecting fabric of this world is, but anyways I'm not here to bring a definitive answer, just my modest thoughts! 

Take aside the fact that I laugh at how much we take for granted the bizarre, yet, again magical notion of music: in the sense of "being moved by sound", or "us, playing and organizing sound!" Well yes we are, but I mean... ok but how, why? Nature is funny! 

In a fun little playful attempt of mine to share with you my thoughts on perhaps the single most important subject for a musician (hey, at my core in case you haven't already noticed, I'm not a realist, so that's why on the level of importance it's so high for me "), I'll tell you the most spontaneous/sub-conscious words come which come to my mind when I think of "rare, amazing melodist": Nostalgia, dreams, imagination, aesthetics, pain, sorrow, time (past-present-future), meaning, good/evil, God, Love, loss, life/death, (im)mortality, daddy issues, compassion, intuition, intention, craft, beautiful, family, loneliness, unity, laughs, tears, power, conquest, competition, domination, obsession, humility, sensitivity, enlightenment, subjectivity/objectivity, universality, inside world/outside world...", well right now at least...!

For some reason, as I type, the word "Nostalgia" seems to be the strongest one I can think of!

I'm one of those who believe in "Training", but I believe in "Character" first! Perhaps I should abscribe the "science" part to Training / meanwhile Character being the "bliss" part"! Well, not exactly... I think the bliss part, and I guess simultaneously the science part is the "synchronicity between the person's character, the events he lives, how he reacts to them, and then between his actions"! But the problem is, I believe that, like all truly valuable things reflected in Life, Greatness in art or in character, is rare! Should it even be a matter of belief? I would say of course not, I think we all know it, yet we somehow can't prove it, other than the fact that some accomplishments seem, culturally-speaking, important enough to us that we build whole large institutions to teach them to future generations, 200 years after the fact! To get to the point, I think that truly amazing human beings are rare! And i mean humans fighting in the name of universal ideals! I'm idealizing perhaps! Not to go the elitist route, but I can't "not" stop being reminded of that memorable scene with Salieri: "Mediocrities... Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you all.." Yes it's incredibly condescending and provocative, but tell me... is it not true in some everyday sense?

You know... whoever said in that Hal Galper book: "the problem with people who don't know is that they do not know that they do not know...", well i don't know... it stuck with me a lot!

You look at Robin Williams, or Michael Jackson, Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, or even Roger Federer, can you ever "figure them out" just from the 10'000 hours worldview? Well, aside from that view, what I'm trying to say is, I actually the first and last most valuable thing these people can teach you is not Tennis, Dance, Comedy, or Counterpoint or even a deeper appreciation of those disciplines! I consider that if you "only" stay at that level of thinking and observation of these people, you are sort of trapped in superficial thinking of hyper-intellectualism that will get you on the very opposite, or at best on the very edge of where you want to be... I believe that the single most important lesson an amazing person always leaves behind is never their accomplishments, it is their Character! Because that's the most identifiable part we connect with, the person, that person is like us, and we are like that person! I believe that the most important thing when experiencing music, before thinking from a musician/analytical/listener's point of view is to "feel exactly what the work says about the artist, the person behind the artist"?

The same way one should feel grateful when witnessing the presence of a being whose actions resonate so much in a positive way that all that points to is that inspiring figure is a source of inspiration and reflection for your character...

I don't know... I listen to Beethoven's incredible lines in most of his sonatas, and I am immediately pointed to how much this person must have suffered a terrible past, full of violence, resentment, needs unfullfilled, and how that must have made him a deeply nostalgic person, or of how much this person must have wanted to be loved, or some voodoo psycho-analysis like that!

I listen to Mozart and think of how much that person must have loved Life in general, things such as playing, sharing, loving, laughing, because of what happened starting from his childhood or something, or of how sincerely "hot or cold", and moody of a person he probably must have been, whichever end of the emotional spectrum he found himself to be in his everyday life!

And then I listen to Bach, and think, my god!, the greatest melodist, perfectionist who ever lived (among other things), setting himself up for the most impossible of tasks, this person must value Existence, God and the ideal of Perfection so much that he could die for each, or any of those things to blossom and lighted so high up to the Heavens! What a high spirit!

I like to to think like that, and I'm naturally inclined to think like that, as I believe we all are, it is simply the process of making the music more human, or more spirited!

Just think about Music that you first experience, and suddenly love, just think of how much it makes you feel instantly connected, not just with the Music itself, but with the person who expresses it, and in turn, if it's the first time you hear of that artist, you will probably never forget that person! That's the connective power of Music!

Is it such an unnecessary thing to state the simple truth that Music is captured and expressed from a person and that person is made according to what Life made him or her to be...
------------------------------------------>


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Aug 30, 2018)

------------------------------------>

If you want to find out how good you are in melody, I believe you need to take a good look at yourself, your Life, find the meaning, find it everywhere, and make it really meaningful if you can't find it enough!  Ask yourself who are you, or what do you want, or how badly do you want to succeed, or how badly you want to not fail? How much do you really mean it when you write it? How much you care for all that depends on your character! My advice would be: don't separate yourself from the music, and don't act strictly on taste, but let your taste, all the way up to your open-mindedness, and your perception of self, your hunger to connect with others, your deep relationship to Time (past, present and future) be all intertwined...

Part of the "character" element I'm personally so attached to, is that a great character means great "generosity", and if you have that, as Life, should have taught you, not books (and they are crucial as a faithful servant of talent!), then you will care about your audience deeply, their lives, their shared or individual joy and pain, how much you want to please them and want to find and be receptive to those universal ideas people connect with!

If you can do that, it is still no guarantee, but I believe it is an absolutely great step in the right direction! Do not do what really pleases you, do what really moves you! Seek the meaning, that's what melody really is, meaning!

Finally, Great melody, in my unverifiable opinion, is probably like the perfect synergy between the emotional spontaneus, non-judgemental subjective side of ourselves, and the constant, rigorous, if not obsessive, but inescapable need to point at truth, universalities, and objectivity outside of ourselves, find the balance...

So... to me, this ideal of "Character", doesn't mean a perfect human being, in fact you can be quite flawed and tempestuous, but rather I mean by that a human as humanly connected to himself, his thoughts and his actions, as he can be!

If there's one science that should exist, it's the science of self!

Also, I have a suspicion that wherever you look outside, most kids are actually better melodists than adults, because while the kid is so free, the adult at some point stopped being a kid, but without the adult within yourself the kid will have trouble communicating intelligently and universally, and so how can you truly organize that blessing of spontaneity into a meaningful experience!

Finally, for whatever that's worth, I think that talent really exists, in fact I believe it exists so much it's in all of us! But perhaps our self-image and the way we react to the events in our life is not in sync with that criteria of universality of the human experience which I believe a great Melody requires, and so there comes a point when we need to rise up to the occasion, or fight our inner demons, or something else needed within ourselves, we stop being present, and the antennae goes off! So yes, I believe Greatness happens when talent meets character! But indeed, it is a rare combination when the two meet perfectly, and it is not bound to stay there forever either, perhaps! All good things are, rare!

I guess, maybe the reason why the decline of a perceived talent in someone can happen is because the intent, the meaning there is not as fiercely present as it once was, getting older, or the artist is moving on to different, more self-directed things, who knows!

Not to make an argument from authority, but John Williams, in a Charlie Rose interview, declared believing in talent himself with absolute certainty when he ascribed it to Itzhak Pearlman, sitting next to him, but he was speaking in general terms as well... The same way he called in that great Tavis Smiley interview -- Bach, Mozart & Beethoven: "The greatest sound organizers we've ever had"! --

That's why I think his "1991's Hook" is the last orchestral masterpiece of the 20th century "concert film scoring" before we received the final Film Scoring "Revelation" from Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings cycle... When you really think of it, you realize in all humility, all good things are rare, cherish them, cherish the great accomplishments, but when it comes to you, be prepared "to look within your character..."

So i humbly think it's really about Intention first, a very difficult thing to explain and observe scientifically in another human being, even more so than action, method or education! 
But the language acquired through education will definitely contribute to more variety of melodies, however, by itself it is not a precursor to a great melody, your pure mature heart is...

And of course, I almost forgot to say that exposure to knowledge and information and Music is absolutely a part of the deep cycle to eternally deeper & deeper appreciation of the human experience, so never neglect education, knowledge is a treasure!

But I would say, in some balanced way, learn your craft, but also know when to forget about the music, or when to forget about melody, don't idealize and scrutinize Music so much that you start treating it as this separate thing outside of you, because the purest things that's going to come out from your compositions are those from your instincts and intuitions, your wisdom that your unique, precious, irreplicable Life gave you, and because when the time comes to write, always, it's about you and about us!

Melody is a gift, because it is given and shared, and it is shared because the one who first shared... willed it!

And as I said earlier, I'm not a realist, so I do believe with one great melody, and maybe a couple hundred more , the truly great artist always finds a way out of this illusory, competitive mess! In an industry I don't know, but in today's tech world, how can you not??

For whatever it's worth, it is my personal observation that all great ones who already made it and of course have that ability think so as well!

Maybe the one big flaw in my reasoning is that I don't believe one can simultaneously be so great at connecting with an audience and so a-holeish at the same time, I'm sure many examples can prove me wrong, Steve Jobs comes to mind, looks like he was, but behind all that, was he really? Are they all ever, really, I don't know?



Do not underestimate the power of intention,
the start of everything!
And remember... Nostalgia!
It's a good compass! 

I know it's nothing really concrete, and all too abstract, and like "ok great, but who do I learn from now?", "well, you just trust yourself, be skeptical of your character, raise it up, raise your spirit (as the work from the masters itself is telling you to), and I believe your music will follow!

Again, I hope this didn't sound as an attempt at preaching, but this is what I would tell my limited self, as a word of encouragement!

To end in the same way I started with a John Williams quote :

_*"In my mind, it isn't the music, or the orchestra, or the composer, or the audience, it's the connective link, the nexus of all those elements that makes music, Music!..."*_

Now think what kind of a person such a quote requires!

Anyways
that's my take on it!
I hope I'm right,
if not, personally?
I'm doomed! 

Now, make us all proud of you, by making you not be a "wannabe" anymore...

-Alexandre-


----------



## kurtvanzo (Sep 9, 2018)

Here is a great video I came across explaining John Wiliams use of melody and theme. Only 10 minutes but I think explains better than any other video I‘ve seen about what Williams was doing at his peak (Star Wars, ET,) and how today’s scores are different. Worth a look...



Not to diminish what inspired ideas he had, the film, film editing, and time for these themes also plays a role. We leave so little time for this in films today. I hope there will eventually be a new turn in film making where composer have a part to play before and during picture editing, so that producers and directors can be more confident in leaving time in the film for the score to shine. Hopefully those people working at both composing and directing (like myself) can start that trend.

Doing it on bigger films (where of course it helps even more) unfortunately may always be a struggle. Corporate executives and investors don’t always see the value in score that creatives do.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Sep 9, 2018)

douggibson said:


> The more I read this thread the more I felt the whole premise is flawed.
> It's a huge mistake to separate just "melody" and try and discuss that.
> 
> This thread has pretty much lead me to think that melody *alone* is actually not very important.
> ...



That's a fantastic and important point. 

Often times I would play a melodic line that I thought was great on the piano and afterwards think....is that it?


----------



## re-peat (Sep 10, 2018)

Doug,

The Imperial March theme was never conceived to be played with one finger on a piano. It being blared out by the brass in a goose-stepping, doom-laden orchestral march was, unless I'm embarrassingly mistaken, an intrinsic part of its very conception and it is an essential element of its melodic 'being'. Put simply: its orchestration and harmony are part of its composition. Perhaps not in all of its finest details, but certainly in its broad, defining strokes. And you can't ignore that, I feel. By stripping the orchestration (and harmony) away, you rob the theme of much of what it was meant to be (almost as much as if you were to remove some notes). You present it in a state which that melody never had during its creation and was never imagined to have during its existence. As such, I think the excercise, and invitation to insight, is wholly pointless.

You can't play the opening of Beethoven's 5th on, say, a xylophone either and draw any meaningful conclusions from it regarding its thematic interest. For that theme to be _all it was conceived to be_, it needs to be heard the way it is written down to be performed during the opening bars of the symphony. Only then does its true compositional meaning, purpose and value become clear, in my opinion.

Can't agree with your theory about the 'group thing' being one of the main reasons for melodic excellence in pop music either. There has, thank God, been a lot happening in the history of pop/rock besides The Beatles and Wings and that history crawls with names of extra-ordinary melodists who worked completely alone. (It's an interesting sub-topic to go a bit deeper into though.)

I'm also not sure if I follow you when you say that melody can't be seperated from its context, as a subject of discussion. I think it can. For starters, because I believe, as I said before, that the creation of Great Melody requires a talent that is a rare surplus (of limited lifespan) on the more 'common' musical talent which many have. And secondly, because I also think that, in those cases where a melody functions first and foremost as a 'team-player' in a larger musical structure — as they often do in classical symphonies, for example — you can still 'tweeze' that melody out of its context and look at how its particular shape and character permits such functionality.

And one can definitely look at the melodic layer in Williams' work and observe the startling changes it has gone through from the mid 70's up until today (while most every other aspect of his musical language has remained remarkably the same).
I *do* agree completely though that any appreciation of Williams' work which focuses solely on its melodic content and ignores everything else, is painfully ignorant and insultingly incomplete.

_


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 10, 2018)

@re-peat Sorry, I misread your message about JW and post 1998. I was thinking "You don't like Jurassic Park"? Haha! Sorry, no sleep for the wicked.


----------



## Ashley123 (Sep 10, 2018)

I've recently stumbled upon this extensive study of most oscar winning themes: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.16.22.1/mto.16.22.1.richards.html. 

While the author didn't uncover a “1-2-3, easy to follow” recipe, I think that the paper definitely covers a lot of interesting aspect about the structure of those successful oscar winning themes. In my opinion, a theme is emotionally powerful if there’s the right combination of repetition, variation and novelty, so learning more about the structure used in famous themes will probably help you add new tools to your arsenal.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 10, 2018)

Hi @Ashley123

Your post raises an interesting question (one that may have been discussed earlier), which is the context of the film itself. If you confine any study to "Oscar winning," you're also constraining yourself to some extent within "the universe of movies that Academy members liked at the time the award was given."

*"Let's Hear It!"*

Moreover, some kinds of films lend themselves to techniques and scale that make the soundtrack much more conspicuous, while still supporting the movie appropriately. Such films are going to draw audience attention to the score as no other films can. "Star Wars" is a great example -- with apologies, it is a fairly childish story, told charmingly and well. It is like a very good comic or graphic novel, featuring bad guys, good guys, and a satisfying resolution where The Bad Are Punished and The Good Are Rewarded. There's even an actual awards ceremony at the end of New Hope, for cryin' out loud.

But looking at Score-As-Product-Placement, you couldn't put your finger on a movie that gives better opportunity to soar than Star Wars. The movie permits, even invites techniques like _leitmotif_ that make the score much more noticeable. Moreover, SW offers, as the Youtube video above noted, extended sequences of large scale that beg for a Big Musical Moment.

By contrast, most contemporary-drama-of-modern-life Thomas Newman-scored dramas simply don't invite, or even allow that kind of writing (I'm thinking of "The Adjustment Bureau," "Unstrung Heroes," or "Little Children"). I think each of those scores is terrific, but not likely to attract the attention of Oscar voters. I argue that, while many of TN's scores that _didn't_ get that much attention are fantastic, musically and within the picture, the score is just not as noticeable to the viewers as the more cartoonish and operatic "Star Wars." The films of TN that people did love each _feature_ the music ("Little Women" or "Road to Perdition" or every film student's favourite for 15 years after its release -- "American Beauty").

*Not Sure Oscar Is Your Guide*

I think that Oscar, therefore, may not be your guide -- except -- that maybe it should? Because many of us love to write for pictures that, not coincidentally, fit the Oscar mould. Pictures in which the score really is vital, is conspicuous, and offers those precious 30-second, 45-second bits where it opens up and the music can take over and make a bold statement.

I like to write for supernatural, for sci-fi or other situations in which the music simply has to "do something," not just keep a pulse. Comedies offer some of this, but unfortunately all too often the music deliberately takes the "straight man" approach or some other fairly conventional genre so it helps the gag, but not really the composer.

So maybe we should all try to write for the next Star Wars? And maybe we should hope to have the genius that JW has / had when he landed it?


----------

