# There aren't enough melodies left



## Musicologo (Mar 11, 2015)

I know this subject has been debated many times, and many times the answer was: yes there are, the possibilities are endless because of so many combinations, bla bla bla.. 


Well, that argument is wrong and I'm here to try to say why i think it is wrong.

The problem is:

1) only a small percentage of the combinations result in singable/usable melodies. Therefore a massive percentage of "therorically possible" melodies are never used. And people keep resorting to the same ones.

(http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sweet-anticipation)
Singable/usable melodies usually have smooth contours, are based on small steps, solved by contrary motion. Most theretical melodies are not singable because they involve consecutive leaps or leaps larger than human voice is able to do. something like C4-Bb4-A3-D5-D#4 is a theoretical possible melody but virtually unusable in the contexts we're used to. The subset of usable melodies is a small, small percentage of the theoretical total possible because there are many physical and psychological constraints involved.



2) A melody is not unique as notated. ANY variation of that melody will be perceived AS THE SAME melody. And this is the main issue. If one just transposes the melody, it will sound the same. So even if we're talking about one octave up or below, span, that reduces the amount of available melodies to a factor of 24 less.

(http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=601)

3) a massive amount of rhythmic changes will not affect the perception as well. If one just changes the rhythms proportionally (x2, x3, x4 or even x0.5, x0.75 etc) it will be perceived as the same melody.

4) Furthermore even if the changes are not entirely proportional, if one changes just slightly some of the pitches or rhythms, but the melody retains their "overall contour" IT will be perceived as the same melody...

5) Even if you change the timbre, instrumentation, arrangement, it will be perceived as the same melody...

So, bottom line. As long as you have a "look alike" contour and "more or less" proportional rhythms, it will be perceived as the same melody. So, there aren't really that many melodies left...

EXAMPLE: These are "different" melodies (even visually they are). However they are in fact the same melody - when you hear them, you'll perceive them as the same melody. And countless other variations you may do.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/The%20Same%20melody.png (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... melody.png)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14207055/The%20same%20melody.mid (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/142 ... melody.mid)

I went through my archives of fado, and sheet music editions of XX century (a couple thousand scores) during my PhD Thesis and worked on them. Most of them are derivatives from one another... here in Portugal they are seen as "variations" or "slightly different fados"... but what I am tryng to say is,

Based on what happened with pharrell williams case, any judge following those lines would sue 90% of this repertoire because they all "seem derivative" from one another...

And the same happens in pop music. I've listened to countless and countless songs that borrow motives from these old scores... I mean there are literally thousands and thousands of melodies in the domestic market entertainment... most of these songs are not recorded nor played nowadays, and I'm sure most modern composers are not using them as sources, however, because perceptually there are not that many variants, you end up seeing recurring motivs popping out everywhere.

I'm almost sure any melody you write nowadays is a variant of something with a similar contour/motif of something from the past.

Until now we've been using different timbres, arrangements, developments, forms, lyrics, etc to differentiate the works. But if what is registered with PRO's most of the time is just a lead sheet (melody and chords), how will anyone prevent from being sued?...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2015)

Taking up your points one by one:

1) Nah.
2) Specious. Not reasoned well enough
3) Not true
4) Circular reasoning. Because you assumed your number 3 is correct then number 4 is only correct because of that. But your number 3 is not correct.
5) True. But why not just write another melody?

Look, Mozart's Marriage of Figaro sounds nothing like Beethoven's 6th symphony. Why? Because they where original composers. Petrouska sounds nothing like Brahms symphony no. 3, ect...

So because you assumed your number 1 was correct, you then reasoned all your other points, which only follow because you assumed no.1 was correct. But, it isn't correct.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2015)

Also, it's happened in pop music because the 4/4 nature of pop music and the sheer number of pop tunes produced has pretty much exhausted all the possibilities within that frame work. But that frame work is limited.

Open up the frame work and it will open up a bunch of new possibilities. But, that's what has been proven to sell to the masses so those patterns stay in place. That is, 4/4 verse, verse, chorus, verse, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus out. It's what happens when you let commerce take over the arts.


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 11, 2015)

Jose, I'm sorry, then you did not understand my arguments. I'm leaving now musical scores and a midi file to illustrate what I am talking about. For me, A, B, C are the same melody. And this happens to me all the time when listening to music. I'm hearing the "same melody" over and over here and there, because they are just small variations of each other. 

I can give you an extreme example, of how just a tiny snippet can ruin a musical experience for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QIL3iuHgc

1.10'-1.20 "Eu quero ver o por do sol"... that melodic motif, that is iconic, and its recurrent all over this song. It's the trademark of this song.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkYdipj3WnM

0.28-0.38 "Agora vou sair" the same melodic motif, iconic, appears here. It is just a snippet. 

However, what is troublesome is that the same snippet is recurring in both themes. it is repeated at least 10 times in each of the songs and it's the "core" of what makes these songs likable.. 

So, for my experience as a listener, when I hear the second song, I'm always going back to the first one even though they are 99% different.


So, it's more of a matter of - that bit that really matters, is not unique...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2015)

I feel that your illustrations will only follow to support your line of reasoning rather than looking at it from all perspectives.

If I can take your midi file and come up with something complete different. Then you'll see what I mean.


----------



## tokatila (Mar 11, 2015)

Was watching the bachelor finale yesterday. Don't ask why. 

When the runner-up was going home, the music was playing melody from Terminator. True story.

If someone writes here for the Bachelor, prepare to be sued. 8)


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2015)

Musicologo @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Jose, I'm sorry, then you did not understand my arguments. I'm leaving now musical scores and a midi file to illustrate what I am talking about. For me, A, B, C are the same melody. And this happens to me all the time when listening to music. I'm hearing the "same melody" over and over here and there, because they are just small variations of each other.
> 
> I can give you an extreme example, of how just a tiny snippet can ruin a musical experience for me.
> 
> ...



You are posting dance tracks which again already have a limited scope as far as structure and meter and possible harmonic combinations. So of course the "composition" is going to lead to similarities.

But that Filipa is easy on the eyes :lol:


----------



## jmiliad (Mar 11, 2015)

If you indeed fell that "caged" try exploring new paths like other notes than the usual (smaller values than semitones), new instruments, electroacoustic and acousmatic music, unorthodox performances and technics. 

Maybe what your'e looking for is not in the tonal melodic music.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Mar 11, 2015)

Musicologo

It seems as if you talking about musical perception a lot - and totally disregard the actual tools used for writing impressive themes and tunes, and the important terms in which the theme becomes highly recognizable, easily remembered by the masses, and as such - NOT prone to becoming "derivative", or just a variation.

People hear a theme, and if they like it, they almost never experience it as new "find" - on the contrary, its a feeling similar to meeting a long time friend again, or suddenly remembering a fact you always knew. Good theme sounds RIGHT. Spot on. Like it always was there, and you glad having found it again.

The weight of being unique, recognizable, lovable and emotionally charged - usually fall on just a few MOST important notes. And we know that 80% of the listeners can`t tell between those, and all the rest of less important notes in the piece, so why analyze them all? 

Genius idea will jump straight out on you from any sheet or score, or while listening, and you definitely can`t deny sheer wealth of those genius ideas in the literature, and most probably that there are more to come.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2015)

Musicologo, within specific parameters there is truth in your statement, notably in pop music. Some of the reasons for this are:

1) Melodies that can be sung by the general, untalented and unwashed public will tend to fare better, meaning that the complexity of intervals and rhythms is limited.
2) Working within a diatonic framework of 4 or 5 possible chords will limit creativity.
3) Working with a regular 4/4 beat further limits the possibilities, particularly if one that is too complex will lose fans.
4) The instrumental framework and construction/make-up of the "band" is another limiting factor.

Put all of these together and your melodies are likely to have similarities to each other at times.

However, melody in a wider sense is more than just the order of notes. One also as to factor rhythm and arrangement into the equation. For example (as I think John mentioned in another thread) listen to the first 5 notes of the themes from Star Wars, Kings Row and ET. They are identical, and all of these pieces are tonal orchestral pieces, but they are not the same melody. There are similarities between the first two, but even though SW and ET are by the same composer, the themes are very different.

It's part of the composer's bag of tricks to be able to arrange a theme in any style or manner that he/she chooses, and this can't be discounted when thinking about whether or not pieces are too similar.

D


----------



## bbunker (Mar 11, 2015)

First of all, I disagree with your basic premise. I think your assumptions are flawed.

That being said, I think your argument about those two pieces is flawed because you suggest that the melodic fragment is what makes the piece 'likeable' or is the most distinctive part of the piece. I think you've got it backwards - it's passage work.

I just imagine you doing a similar study of 18th century 1st movements of Sonatas, and freaking out because the left hand keeps doing this "1-5-3-5" pattern. Or the second movements always cadence on a 7-1 held out over a downbeat dissonance.

I don't think the most important melodic information is in the material that's the same. That D-Bb-A-G-F in the Filipa Baptista could be changed to D-Bb-G-A-F, and the song would be identifiable as the song. Or Bb-A-G-F-A. Or Bb-D-F-A-F if you want to get a bit jazzy. It's all just passage work. It'd still be the same song. If there's that much plasticity in that one part that's the same, then I think saying it's essential to the song is a severe stretch.

It's like saying "To be or not to be" instead of "Being or not being." Those two are the same, even though the words are different, whereas "To be the best of all possible worlds" is a very different idea, even though it begins with the same two words. If I repeated the "To be" 5 times in a song written on either of those texts, it wouldn't change the fact that each one is identifiable as separate ideas, does it?

Mozart and Kuhlau both used a heck of a lot of the same scale phrases in their Sonat(in)as, but you can definitely tell the one from the other. Doesn't that tell us something?


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 11, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNIbXLUDzd8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8OAteCw0aY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CduA0TULnow

This is what I'm talking about. These 3 things are aLL THE SAME, in my conception and in legal conception.

They are ALL different, they all have different moods, rhythms, pitches, form, instrumentation, etc... but in the end - their "identity" is the same, because of the "melodic hook" (this was the term escaping me).

For most people the melodic hook defines the entire work.
The melodic hook is like your general face. Even if you have 10 years more, 100 pounds more, dye your hair, put different clothes and glasses, people look at you and say "oh, it's you!". 

And as long as 2 works share the same melodic hook, or even just a sound-alike melodic hook it doesn't even have to be the same, that can ruin the experience for me (or enhance it if I see them as parody or clever citation, the point is - an association is created).

And it's becoming more and more difficult to come up with different melodic hooks (or different faces!) because combinations seem exhausted. And I don't find that entirely pleasant or easy to work around.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 11, 2015)

Jeez. Weird argument you're trying to make.

First of all, you seemed to miss my point completely. I was suggesting that you weren't identifying the 'hook' properly, that instead you were identifying the connective tissue around the hook.

And...let me see if I get this straight:

you're complaining because three arrangements of the same tune are "ALL THE SAME?" (your emphasis)

I'm baffled. What would you expect three arrangements of the same song to be? Are you seriously using arrangements of the same piece as an argument that there's no new melodies to write?

That's like pointing out two identical twins to make the argument that people all look the same.


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 11, 2015)

Why are they the same tune? Just because they share the name, or because they share the same "melodic hook"?...

If you want to understand my argument then yes, I claim that sometimes different, unrelated songs, they seem more like "arrangements" of the same tune than separate entities...

The case of "Lilás" versus "filipa" is an extreme case to me, but I posted it for you to understand how "bad" can this association effect be... MY hear identifies filipa's song as an arrangement of the previous song. When I listen to Filipa's song I can't dissociate it from the other tune. You say that the snippet I provided is just a tissue, well, for me it's what stands out immediatly because of my memory and past knowledge.

The case of pharrell williams seems another evidence of this trend. Some people just by listening to the cowbell rhythm and some "kind of related" bass groove said "well, this song is just an arrangement of marvin gayes" song...

And that kind of thing is happening all the time to me: I listen to a song and I feel it's not a "new song", I just feel it is an arrangement or a variation of a previous unrelated song. And sometimes all they have in common is a tiny melodic hook. Still it's a strange feeling and it ruins my musical experience.


----------



## Goran (Mar 12, 2015)

Stop listening to 4/4 pop songs and start listening to f.e. Nono, Xenakis, Feldman or your compatriot Nunes. You will:

a) feel much better in general 

b) won't have any more "ruined musical experiences"

c) _last but not least_, you will stop giving a f**k about "melodies" (both ear healing and horizons widening effects of which cannot be overemphasized)

(On a serious note: really, do it - it can help shift your perspectives and it will certainly refresh your approach to tonal 4square music)

and... a)-c) weren't entirely "unserious" - ime there is a very important element of truth in all of them


----------



## Smikes77 (Mar 20, 2015)

This guy has got the answer.

Don`t worry about running out of melodies!

http://gizmodo.com/5962375/is-it-possib ... -new-music


----------



## lucky909091 (Mar 20, 2015)

Great, great, great. Thanks for the link.


----------



## SergeD (Mar 20, 2015)

You are right about 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

But music is also bound to soul and soul has no limits in creativity

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA2pjMjpBs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEDA3JcQqw


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 20, 2015)

jmiliad @ 11/3/2015 said:


> If you indeed fell that "caged" try exploring new paths like other notes than the usual (smaller values than semitones), new instruments, electroacoustic and acousmatic music, unorthodox performances and technics.
> 
> Maybe what your'e looking for is not in the tonal melodic music.



Wow! Acousmatic music gets a nod on VI-C! Cool.


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 20, 2015)

> This guy has got the answer.
> 
> Don`t worry about running out of melodies!
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5962375/is-it-possib ... -new-music



My post was to demonstrate how the arguments on this video are mostly flawed.
If you still think this video is right then you didn't understand anything about my arguments. 

This video just says there are many, many combinations of pitches and rhythms. All I'm saying is that most of them are both unusable and redundant, and will not be perceived as different.

2. Soul?? what kind of argument is that? what are you calling soul? The timbral and expressive techniques you can attach to a melody? Like changing the vibrato, the gestural energy, etc?? For sure you can out of the same melody interpret it in an infinite number of ways with several nuances, but for legal purposes, it will still be the same melody, just interpreted in a different way!...

Theoretically you can do all your career with one single melody then. Just change its "character", good luck with that...


3. Ned, that was the only argument so far that made sense: move away from discrete pitches into continuum, from traditional instruments to chimeras, etc... that implies a whole new way of building music with different units. But still, I don't know if I am able to build "aesthetically pleasant" works with those building blocks. 

I've studied deeply acousmatic music and electroacustic and most of the vanguard music of the XXth century. I don't like most of them - it doesn't push my buttons, and I haven't found an effective way to create meaningful works, that have appeal to people who have spent their lives relying of the shared conventions and grammars of tonality, out of the building blocks of acousmatic music...

I think the likes of "Breaking Bad" OST, or Zimmer's gravity are pushing a bit on that direction, but while appreciating the creativity the outcome for me lacks... "melody"... oh well... we're running in circles...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 20, 2015)

There are no rules. Anyone can add melodies/melodic content to abstract music.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 20, 2015)

Musicologo @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> 5) Even if you change the timbre, instrumentation, arrangement, it will be perceived as the same melody...
> .



- Changing the articulation/phrasing can extremely change the perception of a melody

- changing the harmonisation can turn even an extremely well known tune into something that will not be identified even by people who know it really well.
Try to understand and experience the extreme relevance of harmonic - and even contrapunctic - context first before you try to develop theories about the lack of melodic possibilities. 
You can create thousands of different _perceived_ melodies by just changing the harmonic context even of a _one_ note melody (i.e. melodies that consist of a repeated single pitch, even in the same octave).


(and btw: keep in mind that in larger compositions melodies are rather building blocks)

ps. and i have to add that i think that joseherring understands your arguments better than you. Instead of thinking that he doesn't understand you, you should try to understand what he writes, because his argumentation has much more substance. I think you can learn a lot of him.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 20, 2015)

OK, here's a simple explanation for why your basic premises are flawed. Here are three sonatas (well, one sonatina, but who's keeping track?!?), all in the same key, by three different composers. The Mozart and the Kuhlau are EXACTLY the same for the first three beats of the exposition. As in...exactly the same notes, in the same places, in the same octave. Do they sound the same?

No, of course not. Because beginning with the same musical 'word' doesn't mean that the musical 'sentence' is the same, or that the musical 'paragraph' will have any relation at all. Or, would you suggest that the Kuhlau and Mozart are somehow copies of each other, or further proof of how melody had reached some kind of dead end, and that everything that happens after that opening gesture is meaningless?

And then the Haydn begins with exactly the same melodic material, with the ascending tonic triad in root position, but the positioning of the notes is changed, as well as their rhythmic logic within the phrase. I don't hear any relation to the other two pieces, but by your logic of the 'supreme dominance' of melody, I should.

And...I just picked these three because they're in the same key so it's easiest to hear. If you've got a really boring weekend to fill up, try to catalog every piano sonata from 1750-1825 that starts with some kind of arpeggiation of the tonic triad chord. 

Kuhlau, Op. 20 No. 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_yAvwpR6w

Haydn, XVI; 15:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu8ARer8hT0

Mozart, K 545:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcUh-ggBfzI


----------



## Smikes77 (Mar 20, 2015)

Musicologo @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> > This guy has got the answer.
> >
> > Don`t worry about running out of melodies!
> >
> ...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 20, 2015)

Musiclogo you are just wrong.

You based your arguments on flawed premises.

Your only examples are the stupidest of dance music.

That you are still arguing your points just makes you look idiotic. And yes, I meant that.

Best of luck to you, but one thing is for certain, due to the limited scope of your musical reasoning, I suspect that you'll be giving up music outside of a year and I also suspect that you'll never enjoy it or be able to really make anything of a career.

I almost feel sorry for you as you seem like you might be pretty young. So to come to such limiting conclusions at your age is just too bad. You should be thinking about how to push music in new directions and discover new things and not on inventing reasons why melodic invention is limited. All of which are just wrong.


----------



## SergeD (Mar 20, 2015)

Musicologo @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> > 2. Soul?? what kind of argument is that? what are you calling soul? The timbral and expressive techniques you can attach to a melody? Like changing the vibrato, the gestural energy, etc?? For sure you can out of the same melody interpret it in an infinite number of ways with several nuances, but for legal purposes, it will still be the same melody, just interpreted in a different way!...


As you probably know, all matter and life is built upon the only 3 basic elements of an atom. 

The soul care little about technical aspects. For example, what did Jimmy Page with Blues is amazingly creative. Unfortunately I'm not enough gifted on that side to give any advice  

"Music For 18 Musicians" could be a good path to get out of yourself.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 20, 2015)

Why are you guys wasting time with this oxygen thief?


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 20, 2015)

When I am being personaly and publicly insulted and misunderstood then this discussion has ended for me. It makes no sense to try to discuss simple numeric facts about X and people talking about Y, Z and then insulting me.

Thank you all for the valuable input, I will think further about the subject in private if I feel I need more input.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 20, 2015)

Musicologo @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> When I am being personaly and publicly insulted and misunderstood then this discussion has ended for me. It makes no sense to try to discuss simple numeric facts about X and people talking about Y, Z and then insulting me.
> 
> Thank you all for the valuable input, I will think further about the subject in private if I feel I need more input.



People went out of their way to understand you. Then a few of us took up each point in detail and yet you still refused to change your opinion, or line of reasoning. At that point, I just concluded that you didn't want to be understood you just wanted to post an opinion and have people agree with you. Then you take it personally when it's pointed out that your opinion is just foolish. That's not a personal insult. If anybody had come to the conclusions you have based on the information you gave then posted the examples you posted, they would be foolish too.

If I had posted something like your post, I hope that there would be people out there that had guts enough to say, I was being idiotic. It would force me to reevaluate my conclusions. Which is what you should do. Look at it again, with the purpose of understanding instead of justifying a limited argument.

If you expand your musical understanding beyond what can be done in your DAW's default settings you might be able to understand where a few of us are coming from. But, until you do, I must follow the advice of rayinstirling above.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 20, 2015)

I'll just throw this out there, Musicologo. I just saw your answer back about the three Britney Spears arrangements, and I think this is a place where you could use some self-edification!

While you're doing your thinking in private, listen to some jazz. Take something really vanilla, like Autumn Leaves, and listen to maybe 50 different versions. It won't take that long, and there's a ton of great recordings of that tune.

You'll find that every version of the main melody is slightly different. Some are straighter, some are more rhythmically fluid, and some bear only an obscure relation to the original melody at all. Sometimes the melody at the end of the tune is different from the one at the beginning. But they are all the same composition - the same songwriter is credited for it every single time, in the same way that you could 'arrange' Britney Spears for any ensemble and it would still be the same piece of music. Maybe think about how arranging the same piece of music for different ensembles might bring out different characteristics of the same piece. A woodwind group will bring more clarity and focus at the expense of blend and dynamic range, while a brass group will do the opposite. What stays the same, and what changes? Is each arrangement a new piece? And how is each one no different at all?

I think, should you honestly reassess some of these things, that you'll get a lot out of the process.


----------



## Smikes77 (Mar 21, 2015)

Musicologo @ Fri Mar 20 said:


> When I am being personaly and publicly insulted and misunderstood then this discussion has ended for me. It makes no sense to try to discuss simple numeric facts about X and people talking about Y, Z and then insulting me.
> 
> Thank you all for the valuable input, I will think further about the subject in private if I feel I need more input.



I think naivety is playing a large part here, and you`re right in thinking about it in your own time.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Mar 21, 2015)

Can nobody put forward a controversial idea on this site without people resorting to sneering, vitriol and insults?

It is possible to disagree with someone without being a prick about it, you know?


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 21, 2015)

I think what may be missing here is: The difference between a motif and a melody. A motif is a very short melody or the snippet of a melody, something that expresses a musical idea. In search of alternate descriptions: licks, riffs and hooks in jazz/rock/pop are often what traditionally would have been described as motifs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_%28music%29

Usually a melody consists of several motifs, plus there may be connecting notes between them.

Now if we would make a list of say four-note motifs then that would be quite finite, so we will often find similar motifs in different songs. And I would agree that "Eu quero ver o por do sol" and "Agora vou sair" share the same motif but not the same melody.

I think your reasoning was: What happens if (pop and especially e-dance) music consists less and less of melodies and more and more from motifs that are repeated over and over (as it happens)? 

I have asked myself the same question but I leave that special question to those that like this sort of music  I am working as a DJ now and then and can say that the growing trend to repeat short motifs endlessly over the whole song (and that in all voices) is really wrecking my nerves. :-D


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 21, 2015)

My comment wasn't based on this one thread. Musicologo has a history of spurious nonsense.
Report me and have me banned if you so wish.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't believe I have such amazing powers.

Also, the comment wasn't solely directed at you or just this thread, but a growing (and tedious) trend here on VI Control.


----------



## Anders Wall (Mar 21, 2015)

You can always run a search on your melody:
http://www.peachnote.com/

Best,

Anders


----------



## muk (Mar 21, 2015)

Firstly, I think you're mistaking similarity for sameness. And your point that only a small fragment of all possible melodies is usable is also flawed. Who says what is usable and what not? And even if you would grant that only some were usable, the answer would still be: there is an almost infinite number of possible melodies, but we are WILLINGLY RESTRAINING ourselves to only use a small part of it. If you don't like the results (melodies popping up repeatedly), then for heavens sake just lift the artificial restraint.

But even more, what does it even matter? I mean, it's not just about the melody, it's what you male of them. Look at the first theme of the first movement of Beethoven's 3. symphony. It's just a broken major-chord with a specific rhythm. Almost any composer - and lesser ones than Beethoven - could have thought of that. It's what he created with this and out of this melody that makes the piece a truly unique, outstanding masterwork of art.

Now, if you are arguing that classical music is different, and that pop has narrower limitations, again paragraph two applies: if it bothers you, simply lift some of the artificial boundaries and you're good to go.


----------



## tokatila (Mar 21, 2015)

WallofSound @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> You can always run a search on your melody:
> http://www.peachnote.com/
> 
> Best,
> ...



Hey, thanks for that!

My "unique" melody:

Piano Quartet No.2, Op.2 (Mendelssohn, Felix)
Mendelssohn, Felix 
Symphony No.5, Op.67 (Beethoven, Ludwig van)
Beethoven, Ludwig van 
Cadenzas to Mozart's Piano Concerto No.13 (Manookian, Jeff)
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 

I guess the OP is correct after all.
:mrgreen:


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 21, 2015)

In trying to understand the OP:

I might be wrong as far as I remember the underlying question was 'composing by algorithm' or 'every music can be composed by algorithm'. Now it turns out that this is running into practical problems because those algorithms may only produce what seems (from the viewpoint of those algorithms) to be deviations of already known works. As a conclusion the 'composing by algorithm' seems to become useless, and therefore all composing seems to become useless alltogether (if I correctly understand the reasoning).

Is that correct so far?

If so, it would be an example of how one can loose something very precious by dissecting it too intellectually. It is like the dissection of a beautiful flower into chemical components: Once the dissection is done, the thing itself is out of reach. The creativity is gone, the fun is gone, the musicality is gone, the juices don't flow anymore. It is a practical example of the intellect winning over intuition and creativity.

So I think the real question is not whether the dissection is correct or not, but rather how to bring the innate creative juices into flowing again? How to dampen the overthinking, loosen up and come to spontaneity and musicality? Playing jazz seems to be a good advice here.


----------



## muk (Mar 21, 2015)

Hannes, that is a bit of a cliché. Of course it can be true in some cases, but it might just as well be the other way around.
There is music I didn't connect to when listening to it. However, analizing it thoroughly and reading about it I found delightful intricacies, a complex, highly interesting structure etc. All of this completely eluded me when listening to it before. It's only after I put in the effort to explore the piece intellectually as well as emotionally that I started to develop a great fondness of the music. And now I can listen to it with 'different ears', enjoying very much what I hear.
So, while it is certainly not wrong what you wrote above, I think it is only a part of the picture. And, depending on the case, the exact opposite can also be true.


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 21, 2015)

I'm gonna go with no.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 21, 2015)

muk, a very valid point that you make here. I should have been more precise. Of course I too have been benefitting hugely by musically analyzing masterworks, as most have here I guess. It is utterly important.

But analyzing as I know it is an individual learning path in order to learn from examples, distill principles out of that and use them then for own creativity. It is like analyzing a flower by looking at it and learning from the structure, contemplating about all the parts isolated and in combination (and sometimes even looking more at the relationships between the elements than the elements themselves), but still letting it live and bloom instead of milling it to atoms. 

However I guess what the OP has in mind is an algorithm aided approach. Number crunching. It seems different to me than what I do even if I can not really put my finger on it.


----------



## muk (Mar 21, 2015)

Ah, I see. Somehow I missed that your example of dissecting a flower into chemical parts was aimed at the specific case of applying algorithms, and not about analizing in general. In this particular case I find your example very fitting.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 21, 2015)

Musicologo, you should talk to Beethoven about his 5th…, and see what you get out of it!

I love reading your threads, I love that you are part of this community, you undeniably make people think, but I humbly think you should ask yourself what really is your ultimate goal in achieving this academic work… 
I fear this attempt will not improve the reputation Academia holds among artists…

For me it boils down to this, just because a painter has used and combined every possible visible color doesn’t mean he “finished” the art of painting! Quite the contrary, he’ll only realize he’s only beginning to discover its power & secrets, and beginning to move people!

Yes, the number is finite, but I believe, especially now, we’re very far from having reached it…

"Synthetic imagination" is not to be underestimated, it never wears off! Fashion also seems to be going backwards these days, and it works!

Abstract universalisms are always philosophically, and here musically, more powerful than originality!

This thesis probably, but hopefully not, puts a serious lack of “faith” in the future of music, the artist and his intention in the process of creating great music, which is the ultimate goal and not even melody is always a necessity in creating great art…

No man, or even a group, as courageous an endeavor it is, can really define/categorize what’s usable/singable or not. Melody, when you really think of it, is just a label, ‘cause when you think you’ve archived everything, you’ll find the next kid sing something you thought didn't have that "singable" quality, or the next Zimmer (Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar), the next Williams (Jaws, anyone!), the next Stravinsky (“RoS--Eb7/Fb—polychord”) producing the most meaningful context with probably even a ridiculous minimum of notes, and produce chaos in one’s worldview, yet still make the whole world go ‘round with music, which is again all that it’s about…

It’s not about quantity of notes, it’s about quality of the note(s)…

People aren’t living any more of a lie, just because they’re singing or using something that’s been done before, but done just in a different way, which is why I believe copyright can philosophically & artistically be hurting the artist’s courage to stick to musical universalisms…

Music is a language, remember?! There will always be certain words or combinations, like Love, or "I hate you", timelessly more powerful than others…

But of course, in a community of creative musicians, when you try to achieve this, you can only become the “bad guy”, you even reminded me of the great villain in the LEGO movie, sorry it’s not your fault though, it’s just my brain, not a projection of who you are…

Again, see Beethoven’s 5th…
I can just hear him say with a fat cigar and holding a pencil, ready to scribble the next page: “Dude, it just don’t effin' matter!...”





Good luck on your thesis though! (No sarcasm, promise!)
Best,
Alexandre


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 21, 2015)

Anders and Tokatila, THANK YOU!
Hannes and AlexandreSafi THANK YOU!

Finally someone making more sense of what I'm trying to say. 

And now I can say: QED. 
http://www.peachnote.com/

This is exactly what I am talking about. Any "random" original melody I invented, already exists several times... This shuld be no harm, if people would take into account orchestration, deviations, timbral nuances, etc... BUT

I reinforce the first post: it's not so much about "creativity" per se it's about "how creativity is defined in the copyright laws!!! with your PRO, most times you just have to register a MELODIC line and a few chords" see what happened to pharrell williams... and what MAY start happening more and more often...

It's not a creativity issue, it's a LEGAL one.

Hannes, and others...

I will just leave this site here, for you to see more developments in this area:

http://www.flow-machines.com/leadsheetgeneration/


----------



## bbunker (Mar 21, 2015)

I'm not really sure what the flowcomposer link is meant to suggest. What I learned from it is that if you tie together one-measure motifs from a dozen tunes by any composer arbitrarily, that the result sounds horrid.

If anything, it shows how overall shape and concept is far more important than any individual motif. The ascending three-note phrase that begins "Embraceable you" could be in any song, but the way that he uses it in sequence, then elides it into a new piece of melodic material in the 3rd measure, then repeats the same idea with different harmony, could only have come from that tune.

Link together a bit from one song, and a bit from another, and you get a monstrous average of songs that isn't even vaguely like any song written by the composer they're taken from. Kind of like statistically the "average" human has less than 2 legs but more than 1. If I tried to build a human out of that statistic, the results would be somewhat less than human. So, doesn't that prove how much more weight the structure of motivic information, the way that small bits of melodic data are processed, is given over those individual bits?

Since you're dissecting pieces into small elements, it begs the question of what 'atomic level' to stop at. You look at small motives and suggest that we've run out of melodies; why stop there? Why not break every piece down into its individual chromatic notes. "This piece begins with a G. PLAGIARISM! A "G" was used by 27,498 composers before her." Is that more absurd? Why?


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 21, 2015)

Well in that case, thanks to your last post, specifying the intent of your subject on the big "Legal" issues, i now totally understand where you come from! Thanks a lot for the links, by the way! I personally love this kind of thread!
But if i interpreted "flowcomposer" the same as *bbunker*, i hope you don't end up working for the "legal system" at some point! :D 

-A.S.-


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 21, 2015)

bbunker, answering specifically to your question of "where to stop at", in terms of legal issues, usually what is registered with PROs in terms of a "common song", is mostly what you see in the flow machines link: 8-16 measures melodies. That is the "average amount" of a melody. And anything that can be very similar will probably be considered plagiarism.

In terms of human perception the issue goes back the thread to what hannes called "motive"/"riff"/"hook"... usually the identity of a commercial song is conveyed by a small set of notes:

«Intervals formed by the succession of two tones—also called melodic or sequential intervals—are the basis for melody. Melody, in turn, plays a profound role in music. Large sequential intervals, when they are followed by a change in direction, form the basis for “gap-fill” melodies (Meyer, 1973), and melodic “leaps” are perceived as points of melodic accent (Boltz & Jones, 1986; Jones, 1987). Conversely, melodies that consist of a sequence of small intervals sound coherent and cohesive (Huron, 2001).

Sequences of melodic intervals comprise the “fingerprint” of music, and copy-right infringement cases usually focus on melody and rarely on harmonic, rhythmic, or timbral attributes of music (Cronin, 1997,1998; Frieler & Riedemann, 2011; Mu ̈llensiefen & Pendzich, 2009). In the well-known court action by Keith Prowse Music (KPC) against George Harrison, alleging copyright infringement for his hit song “My Sweet Lord,” crucial legal arguments hinged on a sequence of two descending intervals. The contentious intervals had been used in an earlier popular song “He’s So Fine” by the Chiffons, along with other melodic details (Southall, 2008).» 

Thompson, William Forde, 
"Intervals and scales", in "The Psychology of Music", 3rd ed, 2012

Also, I refer this article:
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... .html?etoc

and this:
http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=209

there are numerous references around... I can recall that "melodic short term" memory (what we use when hearing a song for the first time and develop our expectations) rely on very few notes... a melody longer then 7-8 notes probably won't work. most hooks have 3-7 notes...


Now, a confession to Hannes, about jazz and all that: I have fado, which is "improvisatory" practice as well... I don't mind composing and playing fados a muzzak for hours... the only issue is, even when I'm convinced I'm doing something "new and fresh", when I present to my mum she will tell "oh, that sounds like..." or "isn't that the song from...?"... again: because the music I like and enjoy relies in a very constrained framework. Well, most commercial music and music that sells does...

The problem? To escape that one has to get out of that framework.

Once I get out of that framwork usually two things happen: I don't like the sonic result of what I'm doing - I can't relate to it.

When I do, most of my friends or "clients" don't, because they can't relate to it or does not resemble anything they are used to hear...

Now, how to escape from this? Not an easy task, probably a mix between "finding your own style" and at the same time "liking it" and at the same time "pleasing others with it"...


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 21, 2015)

Musicologo @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> Anders and Tokatila, THANK YOU!
> Hannes and AlexandreSafi THANK YOU!
> 
> Finally someone making more sense of what I'm trying to say.
> ...



In this light, I get your point :D


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't care if we've run out of melodies... I still need to write the ones in my head. 

To hell with the rest of it.


----------



## skyy38 (Feb 3, 2016)

tokatila said:


> Was watching the bachelor finale yesterday. Don't ask why.
> 
> When the runner-up was going home, the music was playing melody from Terminator. True story.
> 
> If someone writes here for the Bachelor, prepare to be sued. 8)



Not if the music super was doing his/her job and got clearance for that snippet to be used.
But again, that Terminator snippet might have just been a sound or style alike.


----------



## dreamnight92 (Feb 8, 2016)

Many times I make a piece then pubblish and immediatly need to detele it because someone makes me notice that there are another song that have the same theme...but I didn't know because I had never listened to this other song before!


----------



## Morodiene (Feb 11, 2016)

Stravinsky said the best composers steal. So how much can you get away with before it's a copyright infringement? I know nothing about that, but I think it would have to be considerably "stolen" material before it could be proven an infringement. So if it's a few notes that remind someone of something, I think that's fine. But if it's 8 bars of the same theme, then perhaps you need to rewrite it.


----------



## ricz (Feb 13, 2016)

Apologies if the following is a bit misty-woo-woo and rambly, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Here are some thoughts. Engagement, rebuttals and conversation most welcome!

I'm not sure composers can do anything but steal. We as artists are all the product of our experiences--what we've heard, what stuck with us because it moved us, what inspires us. This is the material we have to work with in creating our own musical expressions, and it's unsurprising that similarities arise or "theft" occurs. 

Melodies, harmonies--organized frequencies, whatever we want to call them--are transmitted over time because they speak to people and lodge themselves in the consciousness of an individual. Obviously developments in critical music theory, analysis and "tonal colonialism" have given us more tools to constrain the concept of music to a set of defined tones, rhythmic constructions, etc… but none of this necessarily has anything to do with the germ of a musical idea. Who knows what that is? We know something about the harmonic series, resonances and so forth that informs some of the standard ways we think about musical progression (tonic / dominant / etc)…but I digress.

Anyway, the brain can organize and categorize this information however it wants and the best we can do is to take these fragments and relationships and reassemble them according to our own tastes and experiences. Just like performers practice scales, arpeggios and figures in order to facilitate the nitty gritty of performing music (muscle memory), I think composers do quite the same. We internalize motives, rhythms, harmonic relationships etc... and we reassemble them using analytical tools and frameworks we have acquired by listening and learning (and, for some by trying to be successful.) These are reinforced by the pervasiveness of music as a public utility--much of what we here provide--and stylistic tropes that are reinforced by institutions and tastes.

The litigiousness of artistic ownership and the fact that people feel that their work is precious--I get it, but I feel like it's often covertly more about money and success than anything else. You gotta eat, I get it, and our art is how we get a piece of the pie. That's a discussion for a different forum, I'm sure. Anyway, the concept of homage in art (perhaps particularly music) has been almost entirely lost because of the way we monetize music and intellectual property. Everyone wants primacy in capitalizing on an idea. Being "caught" operates as a fear tactic that can suppress artistic expression. The fact that music is a reproducible commodity that many feel is, again, a public utility / right no doubt has a lot to do with this. I think it can be selfish. The fact that musical ideas are copied, transmogrified, re-imagined is a testament to their strength and resonance across time. Somebody 'copied' your melody? Great job! A) It worked. B) You copied it from somebody else either verbatim or by piecing together information your brain cared to hold onto from your life's experiences B2) It's timeless. C) It's probably math anyway. 

The important thing is that musical language continues to be transmitted and that we continue to sing, dance, tell stories, discuss and be moved by it. I'm sure in 100 years somebody will write DDD G____ D_____ again… I hope we aren't still in the same fear / profit driven framework then as we are now.

If any of you read this, I appreciate it. I didn't edit it, which may have been a mistake.


----------



## elpedro (Feb 13, 2016)

ricz said:


> Apologies if the following is a bit misty-woo-woo and rambly, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Here are some thoughts. Engagement, rebuttals and conversation most welcome!
> 
> I'm not sure composers can do anything but steal. We as artists are all the product of our experiences--what we've heard, what stuck with us because it moved us, what inspires us. This is the material we have to work with in creating our own musical expressions, and it's unsurprising that similarities arise or "theft" occurs.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you have stated here, music is a language that is transmitted and evolves through personal "re-assembly", when you look at the origins, our current tonal system of 12 tones was instituted by pope Gregory, centuries ago, to facilitate and standardize the expansion of that empire called the church.12 tones that replaced a multitude of tonal systems....that's it in a nut shell 12 tones....ideas come and go, cultural preferences merge, and nothing by definition can be called "new". We all write our individual preferences out of a common "pool or pools" of ideas, based on 12 tones....And yes, we have to earn a living (good luck with that in the music industry!), so we can copyright our individual reconstructions from the common pools....


----------



## TimCox (Feb 17, 2016)

Musicologo said:


> 3) a massive amount of rhythmic changes will not affect the perception as well. If one just changes the rhythms proportionally (x2, x3, x4 or even x0.5, x0.75 etc) it will be perceived as the same melody.


An example against this (if I understand you correctly) would be the Star Wars main title, instantly recognizable. So if rhythm changes (and shifting back to a couple notes) wouldn't matter then why don't people call the start of the Top Gun theme a ripoff? Same series of notes but it's not even perceived as such. Rhythm is just as important to the idea of melody as the notes are themselves. A great example of this would be "What A Wonderful World" very classic song, instantly recognizable and world famous. The main melody is also "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star."

So what does this say? I think the perception of melody and the usage of notes is entirely dependent on so many factors and can't be summarized into 5 bulleted points. Music is very much like the written word and people are still writing unique books/stories/etc.


----------



## ricz (Feb 17, 2016)

A great example of this would be "What A Wonderful World" very classic song, instantly recognizable and world famous. The main melody is also "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star."

OMG. I never noticed this until you mentioned it. How cool is that? A perfect illustration.


----------



## TimCox (Feb 18, 2016)

ricz said:


> OMG. I never noticed this until you mentioned it. How cool is that? A perfect illustration.


I'm pretty sure my brain melted when I figured that out, lol


----------



## Morodiene (Feb 18, 2016)

I often will play Happy Birthday for my students with all the wrong rhythms and ask them to guess the name of the song. They never get it - I always have to tell them what it was and play it for them correctly to prove it.

I don't think we're in danger of running out of melodies. There is still hope for us


----------



## Musicologo (Feb 18, 2016)

I don't think my point was understood. Like I can dress John Doe with 1000 different clothes we still look at him and say "it's john doe", you can dress the same melody with 1000 different rhythms that we still say it is the same melody AS LONG as the proportionality, or even better, the gestalt is kept.

Example: Are these 4 melodies? Statistically they are and 1000 more are possible going the same reasoning... I could register them with a PRO and say "hey I've made 10 000 new melodies" slightly changing the rhythm or the pitches. and they are indeed different when notated, because, well, they have differences!...

HOWEVER they are perceived as THE SAME melody all the time to any reasonable listener and I'm sure they would fail any "plagiarism" test with human listeners. Casual listeners would say: nah, they're all the same!...

So, what I want to illustrate is that the number of "available" or "perceived" melodies is in fact much much much smaller than just adding up all the possible combinations of rhythms or pitches, because a LOT of them will overlap, and indeed be perceived as "the same"...

Where to draw the line between "they are different" and "they are the same", I refer back to the studies and bibliographies already presented by Dianne Deutsch. It is basically an issue of "gestalt"/"contour"/"shape"/"timbral variation"....








So in the end perhaps I should change the title of my issue to: There are not enough innovative singable Gestalts /Melodic gestures left!... Perhaps it's more precise than just "melodies"...

You still doubt it? Put all your melodies here:
http://www.peachnote.com/
And tell me how many have never been used before.


----------



## TimCox (Feb 19, 2016)

I put in the B melody to one of my pieces and the only way it had a result is after it removed a note. Does that mean I have a 100% unique melody? No. But I don't know how much stock I put in peachnote


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 20, 2016)

It's true the point about if we strictly talk about melodies on paper, and no dressing what-so-ever, we could find tons of similarities between them, probably just as valid 2 centuries ago, but since the undressed quantized melody has never been of much importance to composers, knowing it's everything else that gives it the character, I'm not sure of the point of this.


----------



## Musicologo (Feb 20, 2016)

Guy Bacos said:


> It's true the point about if we strictly talk about melodies on paper, and no dressing what-so-ever, we could find tons of similarities between them, probably just as valid 2 centuries ago, but since the undressed quantized melody has never been of much importance to composers, knowing it's everything else that gives it the character, I'm not sure of the point of this.



The point has already been made several times during all my posts. What you register with your PRO is often a leadsheet with the "quantized version of a melody". And that is the piece of evidence that has historically used in courts in plagiarisms cases.

Besides, it has been demonstrated that even if the "dressing" and "everything else" is what matters for most composers, for most legalists and listeners, it is actually the "melody" that matters. So, if I find that your most recent film music with 100 tracks and exotic timbres has an 8 bar lead line which quantized version is very similar to a quantized version of a saxophone monophonic line that I've done 10 years ago, then I sue you and win in court.

Remember that all this discussion started because of the case with Pharrell Williams. As soon you have money, virtually all your songs might be "legit sue cases" based on these kind of assumptions.

So I guess in the end I'm just questioning the basis of the entire copyright system and the way musicians are being paid nowadays with the system of royalties and PRO's, etc... With so much overlap, I'm starting to wonder how a chef or a cook would survive if they lived with the same "rules"...

- hey, Just make me a meal!...
- Sure, here you have a brand new dish made with my fresh ingredients and with all my labour, craft and love.
- hey, but that' a recipe very look alike with the recipe of chef accross town. I'm going to pay him instead and you'll be sued for stealing his recipe and lose all your assets.
- But I don't even know that chef, I had no idea of what his recipe is! I just made this one up, and all work and craft and ingredients are mine!...
- Sure... because it's a coincidence the proportions and ingredients are alike with so many possibilities in this world? come on!...
- There are many possibilities but most of them don't taste good, don't make sense or are unedible... the ones you like and are used to eat in an american restaurant are not THAT much!...
- Yes, but the seasoning is what matter!.. You can make them all different!...
- Oh really? I add a pinch of cayenne pepper, and present it in a fancy large white plate with a mint flower on top of it, and now it's a different dish? You no longer recognize it as the chef accross town dish?...

I guess you all got the point by now...


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 20, 2016)

Musicologo said:


> The point has already been made several times during all my posts. What you register with your PRO is often a leadsheet with the "quantized version of a melody". And that is the piece of evidence that has historically used in courts in plagiarisms cases.



I think you need to be more specific. If we are talking about pop music, yes, there are tons of plagiarism cases, and the score is just a simple lead sheet. But can you support your point by proving this is the same thing happening or happened in classical music or orchestral music in general with scores much more complex than a lead sheet? I'm not sure john Williams would appreciate his score being reduced to a lead sheet.


----------



## Musicologo (Feb 20, 2016)

Guy Bacos said:


> I think you need to be more specific. If we are talking about pop music, yes, there are tons of plagiarism cases, and the score is just a simple lead sheet. But can you support your point by proving this is the same thing happening or happened in classical music or orchestral music in general with scores much more complex than a lead sheet? I'm not sure john Williams would appreciate his score being reduced to a lead sheet.



I'm going to deliberately be provocative in this one: most movie scores are fancy lead sheets. Harry potter score "is" 8 bars of hedwigs theme. ET score is 8 bars of flying theme. What counts is "what remains in your memory" after several hours or days of watching the movie... And most of the time, for the typical John doe is some singable bars of a melody. The rest evaporates into the oblivion... I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Creating those memorable 8 bar melody that sticks forever is what is really difficult in my opinion. All the rest can be pretty much the effort of really hard labour, craft, and sometimes by arrangers, orchestrators, etc, and not even by the original composer.

This was to stress this point: If someone decides to rip off a famous composer, I guess they would be sued IF they rip off those 8 bar melodic moments... while if they rip off the "complex hardous laboured background" most of the time they get away with it and it's even seen as an "hommage" or a clever "stealing"!... so, what counts most of the time is the melody (or some very specific timbral technique, recurring ostinati-like trait, etc...). Something that "sticks" and it is clearly distinctive...

But I conceed, most of this reasoning applies mostly to songs and short-form cues rather than scores.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 20, 2016)

But you haven't answered my question. I'm asking you to give me specific official cases involving orchestral works
of composers successfully suing other composers, in which the score was reduced to a lead sheet of an 8 bar melody the way you claim the system is for all music.


----------



## Musicologo (Feb 21, 2016)

Personally, I don't recall any. The Pharrell Williams case scared me for the _possibility of becoming a trivial thing_ with the exponential increase of scores around the world (that we cannot know or even track or imagine if we're inadvertidly using the same notes), combined with automatization of ID fingerprint...

I can easily foresee one day you uploading your own score somewhere and suddenly "this score was removed for copyright violation" because an algorithm detected similarities with score 364734673 from a random guy in 2009 in an ad that you never heard about.

Perhaps this might never lead to suing anyway, but it might lead to something else, if we, again, think of youtube fingerprint ID technology or tunesat: suddenly based on automatic algorithms the royalties of some people start going to other people because of false positives or attribution of copyright to another random guy that registered their sound first.

So, its more a bunch of "legal/digital first world problems" that are not so out-of-the-box to imagine to occur in the mid term. Time will tell...

AND, to wrap up with the first post: the nagging sensation that whatever incredible melody you're creating now from scratch, already exists somewhere, and if somehow you have the incredible luck to make it a hit and win a million dollars, then some random guy from the 70's or 80's will claim "their share"  So I guess one will only find one has a problem If and when one becomes rich...


----------



## wpc982 (Feb 21, 2016)

Someone muses, "*I'm not sure composers can do anything but steal. We as artists are all the product of our experiences--what we've heard, what stuck with us because it moved us, what inspires us. This is the material we have to work with in creating our own musical expressions, and it's unsurprising that similarities arise or "theft" occurs.*" 

I have to say such comments always shock me, seem to me as very unusual, maybe a sign that humans are in fact divided into a few different species. In my hundreds of compositions, I can individually remember and count on one hand, probably, the number of times I have consciously studied and imitated another piece of music. One by Schubert, one by Mozart, .. can't at the moment remember any others. And the resulting compositions sound nothing like their models. 

That's one response to this thread. The other is that imitation, even criminal imitation, does certainly exist and does not rely on a simple melodic identity.

And last, 'be influenced by', sure --- someone talks about cowbell in an online forum like this one, and I may find myself reaching for a cowbell to achieve a sound that needs to be made -- that kind of thing happens all the time.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 21, 2016)

One can steal a melody but one cannot steal a style. I challenge anyone to replicate the exact style of the great composers, it is impossible, one can do cheap imitation of Bach or Chopin, but to the trained ear, it does not have that magic, just some cliché patterns. The only ones who could imitate Bach or Chopin would be Bach and Chopin themselves, in film music, JW's style is instantly recognizable. So I'm not worried about this. It's like saying, the world is getting so populated that one day you will mistaken your brother or sister for someone else, I don't think so.

As far as plagiarism discussions, this is an important difference between pop music with lead sheets, or the Pharrell Williams case, and classical music and orchestral music in general. Let's hope ALL music will never be downgraded to an 8 bar melody on a lead sheet for legal comparisons in which an algorithm detected similarities with score 364734673 from a random guy in 2009 in an ad that you never heard about.

Who cares if Debussy used a very similar melody than Beethoven, and Beethoven himself stole it from Bach, and Bach himself borrowed it from a gregorian chant etc.?


----------



## TimCox (Feb 22, 2016)

From the pop standpoint, yes JW is 8 bar phrases, but I think it's a disservice to his work to say that it IS E.T., Jurassic Park, etc. I Get what you meant by it but I had to go off topic and fly that in there!

I think, in some cases, the court of public opinion _very much_ berates composers for sounding similar. John Williams regularly gets accused for plagiarism from his Star Wars work because (especially in Episode IV) it sounds very close to the _temp score_. Top that off with the common mistake of orchestration vs composition and you get people claiming there's whole uncredited cues he didn't write when the person in question clearly stated it was their _orchestrations_ in the sequence.

In pop music, at least from the side of listeners, this doesn't happen nearly as much. I actually find that very interesting because it's such a widely listened to genre. The Pharrell case brings up another very interesting ruling in court: A giant part of the case in question was that the rhythm, spirit, and even some crowd noise was recreated from the source material. The melody itself wasn't the biggest part of the case. Now if a sound, a rhythm, and some "Hey's" can be considered enough to close a case with music, what's safe? It's so very representative of the "youtube generation" and our legal system that nobody had ever batted an eye at this vs this...absolutely the same chord changes, arrangement, punches, pause into the verse. I challenge you to sing one song over the other, besides a couple discrepancies; it works almost seamlessly. So what is the legal definition of a work anymore?


----------



## almound (Feb 22, 2016)

Your whole thread seems to revolve around this situation: our increasingly litigious society (with its outmoded copyright laws run amok) smashes head on into a modern obsession with over-simplified rhythmic noise (further reduced to lead sheets). 
One obvious solution is not to over-simplify your music.
However if I read you correctly, you seem most concerned about copyright laws. Then publish and post using the Creative Common License (noncommercial). If I mistake you and you are not worried about copyright law, then what's your point about similar-sounding melodies? 
The old masters often "borrowed" one from another. As is often said, composition is the art of taking common every day material and making something special out of it. That is how one musician differentiates their work from others. 
Another thing, the first composition lessons I took had me thinking up 15 melodies per week, one in each key. Why? To get me used to composing new melodies. Yes, one can methodically and systematically compose new melodies, just like one can methodically and systematically compose a fresh orchestration. 
And here's a tip: Mozart's melodies remain so memorable (and unique) because they often extend throughout a range of a couple octaves (sometimes more!).


----------



## Guy Bacos (Feb 22, 2016)

TimCox said:


> From the pop standpoint, yes JW is 8 bar phrases, but I think it's a disservice to his work to say that it IS E.T., Jurassic Park, etc. I Get what you meant by it but I had to go off topic and fly that in there!
> 
> I think, in some cases, the court of public opinion _very much_ berates composers for sounding similar. John Williams regularly gets accused for plagiarism from his Star Wars work because (especially in Episode IV) it sounds very close to the _temp score_. Top that off with the common mistake of orchestration vs composition and you get people claiming there's whole uncredited cues he didn't write when the person in question clearly stated it was their _orchestrations_ in the sequence.



I think it should be mentioned, it's not because you have a lawsuit that it means anything. In the US, there are more lawsuits than stars in the sky. The other day, I came across this unsettled lawsuit over a Beatle song, I couldn't believe it, the jazz song had nothing in common with the Beatle song, it was beyond ridiculous. It will stay unsettled, no doubt.


----------



## TimCox (Feb 22, 2016)

Guy Bacos said:


> It will stay unsettled, no doubt.


Except now, those issues will be on youtube discussions forever and ever (even if it's non-existant) >:/


----------



## Jon K (Feb 23, 2016)

I think its also important to think of melodies as the product of rhythm rather than notes when you do that the possibilities become more infinite


----------



## ricz (Feb 23, 2016)

wpc982 said:


> Someone muses, "*I'm not sure composers can do anything but steal. We as artists are all the product of our experiences--what we've heard, what stuck with us because it moved us, what inspires us. This is the material we have to work with in creating our own musical expressions, and it's unsurprising that similarities arise or "theft" occurs.*"
> 
> I have to say such comments always shock me, seem to me as very unusual, maybe a sign that humans are in fact divided into a few different species. In my hundreds of compositions, I can individually remember and count on one hand, probably, the number of times I have consciously studied and imitated another piece of music. One by Schubert, one by Mozart, .. can't at the moment remember any others. And the resulting compositions sound nothing like their models.
> 
> ...



I should clarify that I'm not talking about conscious theft rising from conscious study and imitation, but rather that the creative process draws upon material your brain has stored from your experiences. Your brain may be recompiling fragments into new things, but every musical expression you have ever heard that has made an impression on you serves as the basis for your creativity.


----------



## skyy38 (Feb 29, 2016)

TimCox said:


> An example against this (if I understand you correctly) would be the Star Wars main title, instantly recognizable. So if rhythm changes (and shifting back to a couple notes) wouldn't matter then why don't people call the start of the Top Gun theme a ripoff? Same series of notes but it's not even perceived as such. Rhythm is just as important to the idea of melody as the notes are themselves. A great example of this would be "What A Wonderful World" very classic song, instantly recognizable and world famous. The main melody is also "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star."
> 
> So what does this say? I think the perception of melody and the usage of notes is entirely dependent on so many factors and can't be summarized into 5 bulleted points. Music is very much like the written word and people are still writing unique books/stories/etc.



Top Gun Anthem is a rip-off of Star Wars?
I don't think so!


----------



## TimCox (Feb 29, 2016)

skyy38 said:


> Top Gun Anthem is a rip-off of Star Wars?
> I don't think so!


I didn't say that, I said the same series of notes occurs (albeit in a different key). Based on the OP's original post it should be heard as the same melody, but it isn't


----------

