# The Problem With Simple Melodies.



## Daniel James (Jul 6, 2014)

Is they tend to sound similar 

http://youtu.be/YJm6b-o2pTM?t=45s

http://youtu.be/S7S0oPaoN7M?t=2m55s

http://youtu.be/YjMgc9SNUEk?t=4m20s

I'm not judging or anything, I like the melody in all 3 context, but surely I can't be the only one who hears it  Are there anymore uses of this one? I swear I heard it somewhere else and I want to add it to my itunes!

-DJ


----------



## G.E. (Jul 6, 2014)

This is just that kind of melody which anyone who messed around on a piano for more than 5 minutes probably came up with by accident.I know I did.Nice find though. :D


----------



## Izolus (Jul 6, 2014)

I can see what you mean .

It's a thing with 1 m3 4 5, and anything like that sounds like what I can only describe as being pretty delicious.

Truth be told I'm probably going to start using that now you've pointed it out. Darn you :D


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 6, 2014)

Izolus....I have used it before, I don't see the harm....like you say, its delicious 

-DJ


----------



## clarkus (Jul 6, 2014)

But is it a melody, really? If a melody is something one goes around humming, I don't quite see it. This kind of thing is a bit more like a bass line handed off to the horns.

I think what this material is, inarguably, is "commercial." Tchaikovsky (or John Williams) it's not.

I wonder if there is something about the Epic, Taiko-drum-laden score that doesn't leave room for anything but the primitive and grandiose. Perhaps this is the original template for this:

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


----------



## Izolus (Jul 6, 2014)

clarkus @ 7th July 2014 said:


> But is it a melody, really? If a melody is something one goes around humming, I don't quite see it. This kind of thing is a bit more like a bass line handed off to the horns.
> 
> I think what this material is, inarguably, is "commercial." Tchaikovsky (or John Williams) it's not.
> 
> ...



You have a point there, it could be described as a glorified bass line or even something that's there to add melodic texture to the rhythmic backing. No matter it's fun to see how each song plays with the device .

As you said, the Taiko stuff doesn't leave much space so it's likely due to that, and since it's an easy thing to make epic then it makes life easy. I think I might be looking too in to this, I get rambly when tired .

On a very random note, that Castlevania song is really good, I'm probably gonna listen to the rest of 'em!


----------



## clarkus (Jul 6, 2014)

But is it as good as Carmina Burana?


----------



## Izolus (Jul 6, 2014)

Now that is a very good question


----------



## Neifion (Jul 6, 2014)

It's funny that when I heard the first one from Two Steps From Hell, I thought "this sounds like something Steve Jablonsky would do." Then I clicked the second link. :lol:


----------



## Peter M. (Jul 7, 2014)

Well it's a fairly common chord progression. As far as I can hear it's just i|VI|iv|I| The second piece goes to the dominant instead of I at the end which is kind of more interesting. This along with the good o'le i VI III VII is the standard for making epic tracks. And I don't think that the melody is really something to worry about stealing. It's more a couple of phrases which everybody use. Change up the rhythm a little bit, or reharmonize and nobody is going to notice.


----------



## Udo (Jul 7, 2014)

A lot of it falls in that very popular category called Contrivia >> highly contrived trivial music.


----------



## AC986 (Jul 7, 2014)

This is a good interview about melody and playing in general. The guy being interviewed is a very very very good keyboard player and knows a bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m0rLLSSLpM

Talking of good keyboard players btw and melody lines with improvisation, Rachel Flowers is just about as awesome as it gets IMO. Absolutely FFFF Awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUXqYc9nGE


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 7, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> This is a good interview about melody and playing in general. The guy being interviewed is a very very very good keyboard player and knows a bit.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m0rLLSSLpM
> ...



+1 on that. I heard her play Tarkus and then doused my B-3 with kersosene and set it on fire. (Ok, it was an old disc of B4' but you get the idea). Man, can she play.


----------



## AC986 (Jul 7, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> adriancook @ Mon Jul 07 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good interview about melody and playing in general. The guy being interviewed is a very very very good keyboard player and knows a bit.
> ...



Larry this is the first time I was aware of Rachel today. I am in the middle of having lunch while working on a track and am checking out some of the other videos.

I may douse myself with kerosene and leave any remaining to gear to the family.

That organ solo is one of the most difficult and probably one of the best ever written and she just plays it …….

Try and at least make it look hard Rachel!!! :lol:

Edit. If you had just played me the track without visuals, I would have said that's a live performance of ELP with Emerson playing really well and on top form. I would pay to see that. The rest of the band are great btw.


----------



## musophrenic (Jul 7, 2014)

Funny you should mention that DJ. This is a three-track similarity that struck me similarly  It just seems to be one of those things that sticks. It's not as exact as the ones you shared, but I always got the feeling that the same spirit pervaded them (in a good way).

http://youtu.be/8KGxrSOUGZ8?t=2m20s

http://youtu.be/Y1fiJMQV8Mc?t=1m24s

http://youtu.be/w39InSdzoZ4?t=1m5s


----------



## KEnK (Jul 7, 2014)

I wouldn't call it a melody either.
To me it's only a root progression- not even a motive.

I'm not personally interested in the epic thing or trailer music
and this is why.

From a melodic or harmonic standpoint, it's equivalent to a hip hop beat.

It's all the same.

my 2 ¢

k


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 7, 2014)

The problem is too many do not know the difference between a "simple melody" and a motif. They are not synonyms.


----------



## Kejero (Jul 7, 2014)

Daniel James @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> I swear I heard it somewhere else



I had the same feeling. My first thought was Oblivion, but I don't think that's it. It's obvliously related though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4DPRFx_Uac#t=274 (around 4m38)


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 7, 2014)

musophrenic @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Funny you should mention that DJ. This is a three-track similarity that struck me similarly  It just seems to be one of those things that sticks. It's not as exact as the ones you shared, but I always got the feeling that the same spirit pervaded them (in a good way).
> 
> http://youtu.be/8KGxrSOUGZ8?t=2m20s
> 
> ...



Haha a perfect example of what I mean. IF you are going simple, chances are it exists somewhere else already 

And Jay....its kind of both. I mean the definition of melody is: "A melody (from Greek μελῳδία, melōidía, "singing, chanting"),[1] also tune, voice, or line, is a linear succession of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity. I"

In this case it fits as the melody because its the main upfront entity. The whole buuuBaaaaaaaa buuuuBAAAAaaaaaa buuuuuBAAAAAAAAAAA. Def a motif too but I am pretty sure it fills the requirement of a simple melody too. I mean you can pull that out from the track and still see it as a melody separate from the backing track.

Also I am fully aware they they don't all sound identical...but you cant honestly tell me you don't hear that they are similar. Which was the point I was making about simple melody.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 7, 2014)

Daniel, sorry if this offends you, but all working composers over the age of 40 that I have known could easily differentiate between a "melody" and a"motif. regardless of a dictionary definition and part of the malaise of today's composers is the lack of that understanding.

I know, I am old and cranky


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 7, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Daniel, sorry if this offends you, but all working composers over the age of 40 that I have known could easily differentiate between a "melody" and a"motif. regardless of a dictionary definition and part of the malaise of today's composers is the lack of that understanding.
> 
> I know, I am old and cranky



Haha well you maintain that air of superiority over me then, I am not to bothered. To me its a melody, and it doesn't change the point of what I was saying about simple ones.

-DJ


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 7, 2014)

i guess the real question would be what would the director call it  
and if he says melody, would you stop him and correct him..


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 7, 2014)

gsilbers @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> i guess the real question would be what would the director call it
> and if he says melody, would you stop him and correct him..



Haha I am guessing not because most wouldn't give a fuck what its called as long as it sounds good 

-DJ


----------



## clarkus (Jul 7, 2014)

DJ is asking if simple melodies, at least in this context, need to sound similar ("The problem with simple melodies...")

I posted the Carmina Burana link as an example of a crazily memorable melody that is quite simple, and in a simple harmonic setting.

I have been wondering aloud if these big, percussion-driven scores make melodic simplicity essential. I think they may, unless one clears out the texture and uses the perc. more sparingly. And that's a different kind of writing.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 7, 2014)

clarkus @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> I have been wondering aloud if these big, percussion-driven scores make melodic simplicity essential. I think they may, unless one clears out the texture and uses the perc. more sparingly. And that's a different kind of writing.


I think not.
Look at traditional African or Korean Music for example-

Both can have far more involved percussion parts
than the endless 8ths of "the trailer piece".
And both do have far more involved melodies than the
whole note bass part we're discussing here.

It's a stylistic choice.
A purposeful limitation.
Lots of pop forms and pieces these days are far more derivative than ever before. 
There is a drive for everything to sound just like "_____"
It's a commercial decision.

k


----------



## H.R. (Jul 8, 2014)

Here is another one exactly like the first post.. But it's older, so Michael McCann may be the source :D : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfhDeNF0n3g (1.24)

Recently I was listening to Calvary soundtrack by Patrick Cassidy and the first track is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1xFZwv3RI

The Dark Knight anyone? I know TDK has been used as a temp a lot but this one is the fresh one.


----------



## Consona (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> The problem is too many do not know the difference between a "simple melody" and a motif. They are not synonyms.


Yea, DJ's examples are motifs, not melodies.




H.R. @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Recently I was listening to Calvary soundtrack by Patrick Cassidy and the first track is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn1xFZwv3RI
> 
> *The Dark Knight anyone?* I know TDK has been used as a temp a lot but this one is the fresh one.


Definitely.


----------



## clarkus (Jul 8, 2014)

Hi, KENk - This is eminently debatable, and I don't want either of us to get lured into one of those endless threads. I'll just say that I think there's something to my thesis and I am not quite convinced by your counter-examples. 

I'm familiar with African drum ensemble music (and Gamelan, which should also serve as an example). I appreciate that you are treating all music as fair game to explore "what works," and when I say orchestral writing is different, it is not a cultural prejudice that is speaking. 

Orchestral writing has big swaths of harmonically driven information to be absorbed. The horns, winds, strings, piano, and tuned percussion are chiming in and making listeners aware (as in the examples Daniel James has posted) of minor tonic, the major four chord, and what ensues from there. When orchestral writing becomes dense with percussion and brass, it coincides with a paring-down down of melodic material, and a paring down of the multiple layers one is asking the listener to absorb: that's advice any composition teacher would give their student (I teach composition). Occasionally there are flurries of notes that coincide with an onslaught of percussion and brass, but when you look at any given score, this is usually a matter of a few bars, leading to a still point or to "A hit" as they say in film-scoring. The tendency for strings to play in octaves (rather than sectionally) in "Epic" scores is ALSO just a function of the need for the sections to be heard above the din, and not register as a confused and muddy mass. Stephen Scott Smalley, who orchestrated Mission Impossible and others, talks about this in his excellent weekend seminars. 

With all that said, I do think there are good simple melodies, and bad simple melodies. I am talking here about what is memorable ... One could say that's open for debate, too, but I offer Carmina Burana as an example of "Simple / memorable." Another great example would be the second theme in the Firebird Suite, which dogs the same five notes over & over with all sort of rhythmic variation. It's an ear worm of the best kind.

Gads, I've got to get back to work ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Consona @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 07 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is too many do not know the difference between a "simple melody" and a motif. They are not synonyms.
> ...



Of course! A motif is "a short succession of notes producing a single impression; a brief melodic or rhythmic formula out of which longer passages are developed:."

It is melodic, but not really a melody. Trained people know the difference.

Anyway, just listen to a simple melody like Randy Newman's "Ill Be Home." Doesn't sound remarkably like another (although there is no tonal passage you can write that is not similar to others.)

So yes, you can indeed write a simple melody that while reminiscent of others does not have to distractingly like another. But with a simple motif it is harder.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 8, 2014)

The examples given in the OP, to my ears, are simply missing a melody. Something on top that would actually 'say' something, tell a little story, have a little tension, then release; call and response. These sound like a preparation for a melodic passage, or the epilogue after a melody has been stated.


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

Lol I forgot how pedantic composers are xD

Also lol Jay I have noticed a large majority of your posts here are more about filling said pedantic quota and less about discussing the actual topic. Lighten up man, I mean correct terminology or not you got what I meant. Try to have some fun talking about the topics and spend less time about proving your extensive musical superiority over us mere peasants 

-DJ


----------



## clarkus (Jul 8, 2014)

There's a song in that somewhere . . .


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Daniel James @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Lol I forgot how pedantic composers are xD
> 
> Also lol Jay I have noticed a large majority of your posts here are more about filling said pedantic quota and less about discussing the actual topic. Lighten up man, I mean correct terminology or not you got what I meant. Try to have some fun talking about the topics and spend less time about proving your vast musical knowledge and experience superiority over the slightly dense among us
> 
> -DJ



Sorry but if you cannot be precise in your definitions, we have no way of knowing if we are all discussing the same thing.

Words matter.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 8, 2014)

Friends, do not argue! Not about this! It Is not worth it!

I think all readers here know what you meant, Daniel. 

But Jay is also right, of course. 

And no, I will not post again my joking "let us have a beer or a red wine..." 

0oD


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Daniel James @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol I forgot how pedantic composers are xD
> ...



Let it go Jay, you knew exactly what I was talking about...just...let it go. Wooooosaahhhh wooooosaaaahhhhh

-DJ


----------



## Consona (Jul 8, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> The examples given in the OP, to my ears, are simply missing a melody. Something on top that would actually 'say' something, tell a little story, have a little tension, then release; call and response. These sound like a preparation for a melodic passage, or the epilogue after a melody has been stated.


This exactly. 


Some staccatos, some long notes and some percussion, for me it's really boring stuff.

It's interesting how HZ can make somewhat minimalistic scores but they have some character, like Batman or Superman scores, nothing hyper-melodic, but you can instantly recognize the film it belongs to. These transformers and marvel films soundtracks, they sound so samey, imo. Hours of soundtrack music that feels like ctrl+c --> ctrl+v.

I know a lot of PC game OSTs where every minute is full of great ideas and melodies and composers of these soundtrack are fairly unknown, it's really a shame. They should dethrone these _ctrl+c, ctrl+v_ guys. :lol:


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 8, 2014)

Consona @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> I know a lot of PC game OSTs where every minute is full of great ideas and melodies and composers of these soundtrack are fairly unknown, it's really a shame. They should dethrone these _ctrl+c, ctrl+v_ guys. :lol:



+1


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Daniel James @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel James @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> ...



Sooner or later you will have to learn that what I have advised you on is true but nobody can improve in an area they are not willing to admit needs improvement, so I will indeed let it go other than to say the premise is spurious because as others have agreed here, those are motifs, not melodies.


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Daniel James @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> ...



shhhhh you have already demonstrated your superior intellect, just let it go Jay xD if my incorrect use of terminology is my downfall I will let you know....just let it go. Breath. lol

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

As you now have demonstrated, it has nothing to do with intellect, it is about maturity.

Good day, sir.


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> As you now have demonstrated, it has nothing to do with intellect, it is about maturity.
> 
> Good day, sir.



Hahahaha Jay, let it gooooo. Every got what I was talking about. There is no need to keep banging on about it, other than to prove how right you are. Just let her go XD

-DJ


----------



## Imzadi (Jul 8, 2014)

There's a grey line between motifs and melodies and I think it might depend on the context.

Most of the time these "melodies", especially in modern scores, are just short motifs. We are so used to them and so many temps are from minimalists (melodically speaking) scores from Zimmer, etc. that Directors want something similar, but that doesn't mean that now they are officially called melodies...They are still short motifs. 

Regarding the transformer/2 Step from hell Example, the brass motif is definitely acting as a melody, even though is so simple. It's right in front, it tells a story and it has a A/B section. 

On the other hand I do find it laughable how some people believe that NOT writing melodies is the "cool" thing to do or it has more merit just because they are many hybrid scores out there that lack a main theme. They tend to be boring and have very little emotional content. 
Zimmer is the master doing this in the right way IMO. He is a great melodic writer, but can disguise the themes in a way that they become very unobtrusive and serviceable, but at the same time tell a story and can be very emotional when they need to. People seem to ignore this and just want to copy the rest of the elements.

Long story short: Don't be afraid of a melody. You don't need to write Schindler List for your next score, but knowing how to write a strong theme it will help to make something with more content.


----------



## snowleopard (Jul 8, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Talking of good keyboard players btw and melody lines with improvisation, Rachel Flowers is just about as awesome as it gets IMO. Absolutely FFFF Awesome.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUXqYc9nGE


Thanks for sharing! Super impressive!


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Jul 8, 2014)

According to the vast arrays of definitions for "melody", if I personally were to agree with any particular sides, i would then be both right & wrong so it seems... Who cares i still agree with Jay's opinion... 

In my undeniably atrocious thread "on the origin of talent & great art, melody, etc...", i had an idea which came up while i was writing it that says there could exist a paradox where music in some cases is truly indefensible, you either like it or not, and good luck convincing it's good or not, and so then in this case (depending on your taste & opinion of a particular piece while again looking at all the definitions of melody which exist) you could see how it probably influences your idea of what "melody is", and on the other side of the paradox: the idea that music is indeed defensible in its greatness or mediocrity according to your own level of musical maturity & litteracy, which if-you-are-to self-proclaim-it-then-publically/sociably-unadmitable-it-would-be", yet is nevertheless real within you and valuable in the discussion for shaping perceptions and taste if both parts are open to give and receive in the right humanly strategic way...

The way i see it, some people see greatness simply in how art makes them feel, (which is absolutely fine and defensible to me), others see greatness in how art makes them feel and in how they feel it will endure in time, and this 2nd element, this ability, i believe takes indeed maturity and training to be able to make such predictions, whether you're in the realm of creativity or critique...

My personal interest is when, as Leonardo Da Vinci once said, "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication", the only kind of simplicity of the likes of a master, where a process of persistence & slow-discovery was surely involved and where a great ironic sense of artistic detail & finesse was required to get to that point...
I choose to agree more with Jay, because i recognize and care that society seems to be in a war with mastery, and the ability to truly question things, and i want to promote the latter...
In an other funny way, if one piece of music only set one person's mind on fire, in the whole-wide world, and inspires him or her to write music, or do some moral good, it can't be that bad either, because music did its ultimate job which is to move you, emotionally and perhaps literally physically, so why have an opinion in the farthest end after all...

*DJ - -* I think, to my ears you could also look at the great TRON score from Daft Punk to add to your iTunes list, as you stated. Something at the end of the main theme reminds me of these 3 tracks you shared in this thread, thanks for those, by the way...

Not sure what I'm mostly bringing to this topic, though...
Alexandre


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> According to the vast arrays of definitions for "melody", if I personally were to agree with any particular sides, i would then be both right & wrong so it seems... Who cares i still agree with Jay's opinion...
> 
> In my undeniably atrocious thread "on the origin of talent & great art, melody, etc...", i had an idea which came up while i was writing it that says there could exist a paradox where music in some cases is truly indefensible, you either like it or not, and good luck convincing it's good or not, and so then in this case (depending on your taste & opinion of a particular piece while again looking at all the definitions of melody which exist) you could see how it probably influences your idea of what "melody is", and on the other side of the paradox: the idea that music is indeed defensible in its greatness or mediocrity according to your own level of musical maturity & litteracy, which if-you-are-to self-proclaim-it-then-publically/sociably-unadmitable-it-would-be", yet is nevertheless real within you and valuable in the discussion for shaping perceptions and taste if both parts are open to give and receive in the right humanly strategic way...
> 
> ...



Haha that's all good, and I full hear your points. Jay may very well be right. To me it is what I would call a melody. But if in all honesty only somewhere like here would anybody ever really care what I refereed to that melody/motif/lead line as. I can't think of any other situation where somebody would completely ignore the original point I was talking about just to tell me I called it the wrong thing when they knew exactly what I was talking about, most would focus on the context of the situation but naaaa you can always rely on VI Control to go places you didn't even see coming hahaha.

As to your talk on simplicity I always wonder what someone would define as simple, I mean some of the track that have been posted in this thread have very simple melodies (let it go Jay  ) but the tracks surrounding the in the mid and backgrounds are doing some really creative, complex things. So I wonder if the perception of simplicity is something that is subconsciously based on the foreground elements. I mean at the end of the day its totally irrelevant, Joe Punter will like what he likes and dis like what he dislikes regardless of if he is told many reasons by 'someone who knows better' why the music is bad. Haha sometimes as composers we need to step away from our own kind and talk to normal human beings to get perspective on music in general and what we ourselves truley like...not just what we 'should' like.

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Never mind, People either get it, or they don't, I give up.


----------



## Imzadi (Jul 8, 2014)

A lot of the "simple" stuff out there is just plain lazy... 

If you are going to base your composition in a "simple" motif or if you plan to repeat it 50 times, it better be damn good!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 8, 2014)

Nothing wrong with calling a rose a rose. A motif is a motif, a melody is a melody, and an arrangement is an arrangement. Conformity is conformity as well.


----------



## G.E. (Jul 8, 2014)

Melody and motif is the difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.Wait what ? Never mind...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

G.E. @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Melody and motif is the difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.Wait what ? Never mind...



Nonsense, merely semantics, pedantic of you to say so, we all know what you meant :lol:


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> G.E. @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Melody and motif is the difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.Wait what ? Never mind...
> ...



Totally different Jay. You knew exactly which part of the music I linked to was being talked about. Stop pretending you don't lol. You just wanted to let me know I got it wrong, not for the first time either  And like I say if it lets you feel important keep reminding us every other post, go for it, but for now, regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise, we all know what part of the song we are talking about. For the love of god just let it go xD



> Never mind, People either get it, or they don't, I give up.



Lol I get it, I really do..... I just really don't care. Like I said, only here would something like this even be an issue. Can you set me up an example where an incorrect use of terminology as pedantic as this one would ever be a REAL problem? And I mean one that justifies your intense campaign to have your story heard haha 

-DJ


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 8, 2014)

Daniel James @ 8/7/2014 said:


> Lol I get it, I really do..... I just really don't care.



R U serious?!!!


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Daniel James @ 8/7/2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol I get it, I really do..... I just really don't care.
> ...



Lol I hear it as a melody. I'm willing to accept its a motif. I just really don't care lol. Like I say I can't see any situation, ever, where its going to be an issue.....except on Vi of course. Like I say, you all got what I was talking about, the correction of terminology is just being picky.......because YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT XD. It really doesn't matter haha 

Also lol its like you read the first half of that quote and just stopped. I explained already why I dont care.

-DJ


----------



## Izolus (Jul 8, 2014)

Woah this thread is getting popular .

To me it's a motif, but at the end of the day what it's called isn't that big of a deal. I think the lesson to be learned here is that if you wanna use something that's commonly used then try and add variety.

As Ned said earlier these are lacking something on the top, and that would probably help these tracks sound unique. Also another good thing would be to mix it up and stuff and try messing around with the motif/melody.

As mentioned in this same thread, I get rambly when tired, so goodness knows if my message is of any use .


----------



## rJames (Jul 8, 2014)

Lol, I don't care about this thread,ha ha.

I can't really,lol, take it seriously, haha. Lol, I could care less ha ha. I need to make sure,lol, you know I don't care, ha ha.

Why are we discussing this. Ha ha?

Lol, I am above this petty discussion, ha ha.

Please don't respond to me, haha or I'll have to deny that I care again. Lol.


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

rJames @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Lol, I don't care about this thread,ha ha.
> 
> I can't really,lol, take it seriously, haha. Lol, I could care less ha ha. I need to make sure,lol, you know I don't care, ha ha.
> 
> ...



I was saying I don't particularly care about what we actually call the melody/motif. I never said I didn't care about this thread or people constantly telling me I got it wrong. I like having little back and forths here. I would rather it be about the actual topic but whatever is fine. Its what I have come to expect from VI.

I didn't say I am above anything. I was saying that people know what I was talking about regardless of what its called. At that the act of pointing out that I used the wrong terminology was petty as we knew what we were talking about. 

I like having little fights with Jay, they are only half hearted and he knows I am not totally serious most of the time (we have certainly had a few, right Jay  ), I just enjoy the mental work outs, and the fun of getting into a debate (even if I am losing)

Yes I say haha and use emoticons alot but there is no need to be a prick. Your post served no purpose other than to have a stab at me so why don't you just stop there and fuck off. haha  lol twat

-DJ


----------



## rJames (Jul 8, 2014)

Yes, you use lol and ha ha a lot.

You also protest too much. You coulda just let it go. that's my suggestion for next time someone helps you with terminology.

Its really no big deal, until you kept denying that it mattered to you...all the while brushing it off with a lol here and a ha ha there.

Sticks and stones...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Easy to be a tough guy and call people names from a computer screen.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jul 8, 2014)

Is it not a *melodic* motif? 
Best of both worlds? No? ~o)


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

rJames @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> You coulda just let it go.



Lol Touche'



> Its really no big deal, until you kept denying that it mattered to you



No no the subject matters to me and I care about it. The fact we are talking about it still, matters. I was saying the actual term we use itself doesn't matter. I more than happy to be wrong as we know what we are talking about. I mean in all honesty was anybody really confused with what was similar about the linked tracks?



> Easy to be a tough guy and call people names from a computer screen.



The guy is taking the piss out off me for no other reason than to do so. I had to retort. I'm not trying to be a tough guy, I am not a big fan of someone having a dig at me when its irreverent to the topic. I mean if the post had asked why I keep putting haha or lol in a regular way I wouldn't ahve responded as such...he was just making it feel personal.

Also I use lol or haha when the sentence I am saying or have just said is half hearted, saves explaining down the line that something you said was either a joke or not with all sincerity. (well clearly its backfiring by this point)

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Nonetheless name calling is the last resort of those who cannot make a cogent argument without doing so.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2014)

Acting in a mentor-ish way towards someone who doesn't want your mentoring is a fool's pursuit.

Deciding you know everything that needs to be known by your 20's is self-evidently silly.

Commenting on either form of behavior is a waste of everyone's time. :wink:


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Nonetheless name calling is the last resort of those who cannot make a cogent argument without doing so.



No no its the response of someone who had a nerve struck more likely. I have never dealt well with being made fun of. Arguments and debates on a neutral level I can deal with (and enjoy to a degree) but when it gets personal its like flashbacks to high school all over again lol. 

Besides his post was intended to be personally provocative, it wasn't a point from which to form an argument or a debate. Responded with an equally pointless post.

Assuming the original thread will no longer happen and you still seem in the mood for a debate.....Could you answer my request for a situation where the terminology of a melody/motif being correct would actually be a _real_ problem? 

-DJ


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

My last piece of advice: you are no longer in High School, get over it.


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> My last piece of advice: you are no longer in High School, get over it.



Lol come on, the post aimed at me was just as pathetic as my own xD I mean imitation, mocking me, trying to twist what I am saying. I was stooping to the level on which I was poked. And why is this your last piece of advise? we havn't finished yet!

(I edited a request into my post above yours)

-DJ


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> My last piece of advice: you are no longer in High School, get over it.



Thanks for being so so you, big guy.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > My last piece of advice: you are no longer in High School, get over it.
> ...



I would have hated to disappoint you. There is a comfort in consistency, no.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 08 said:
> ...



Consistent intestinal gas is merely distressing. To me, anyway. YMMV.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 8, 2014)

Sorry to cause you distress.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2014)

Lurker- Eze!


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

So, under the assumption the main topic has long gone. Perhaps Jay, you can carry on that thought as to what kind of situation, getting the terminology wrong would be a big problem?

For the record I don't care too much which it actually is (as I have said a few times haha) I still see it as a melody. But I do care about the ramifications and important of small terminology errors and why this whole thread took this turn.

-DJ

Edit: Meant to click edit not report.


----------



## Lex (Jul 8, 2014)

Daniel James @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> So, under the assumption the main topic has long gone. Perhaps Jay, you can carry on that thought as to what kind of situation, getting the terminology wrong would be a big problem?
> 
> For the record I don't care too much which it actually is (as I have said a few times haha) I still see it as a melody. But I do care about the ramifications and important of small terminology errors and why this whole thread took this turn.
> 
> ...



I'm not Jay, but here's my take on it. If you don't understand the difference between a motif and a melody chances are you'll have a very hard time learning to write, and more importantly, develop melodies. 

alex


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

If any mods are reading....I am pretty sure I lost the debate here. Haha shit I am out of practice. I'll try harder next time. I most certainly damaged my argument the most around the time I started name calling. Even though I was thoroughly defeated I did learn something....learn to react better to being made fun of. Also, judging by that last spear in the chest by lex, if you make one slip of people will assume all sorts of things about your personal ability as a composer, regardless of your portfolio...which is fair, I must try harder to be more precise about my wording when dealing with other composers.

I had fun debating with you guys and congrats on the victory  but I most certainly concede this one! Feel free mods to lock/delete this one.

-DJ

p.s @ rJames I apologize, no need for name calling, I most certainly lost it for a second. Like I said above. I'll work on that.


----------



## Lex (Jul 8, 2014)

Daniel James @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Also, judging by that last spear in the chest by lex, if you make one slip of people will assume all sorts of things about your personal ability as a composer, regardless of your portfolio...which is fair, I must try harder to be more precise about my wording when dealing with other composers.



I didn't assume sh*t, was just commenting on not caring about the difference between a motif and a melody and what could be a "big problem" getting terminology wrong, hence the quote.

For all I know you could be a melodic genius.

alex


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 8, 2014)

Lex @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Daniel James @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, judging by that last spear in the chest by lex, if you make one slip of people will assume all sorts of things about your personal ability as a composer, regardless of your portfolio...which is fair, I must try harder to be more precise about my wording when dealing with other composers.
> ...



Sorry didn't mean to phrase that to look like it was specifically about you. That last post by you just reminded me of the point I made. Any way its all done now. I am no melodic genius, I'm not particularly intelligent about music terminology, I am what I am. And by this point I am thoroughly defeated in this thread, so take the victory and enjoy 

-DJ


----------



## rayinstirling (Jul 9, 2014)

Yes quit now Dan,

In the words of that great Glaswegian philosopher William Connolly. The definition of intellect in music is: someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without seeing the Lone Ranger." :lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jul 9, 2014)

Wow, late to the party here. In essence, the original point of the thread is pretty simple - "these three tracks have the same tune". And hey - they do.

What happened next was this:



EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Daniel, sorry if this offends you, but all working composers over the age of 40 that I have known could easily differentiate between a "melody" and a"motif. regardless of a dictionary definition and part of the malaise of today's composers is the lack of that understanding.
> 
> I know, I am old and cranky



And why did that post derail the whole thread? Because it exposes the fault line between the traditional, classically trained composers and the new self-taught ones. And there will always be a tension there. The traditionalists will always have right on their sides - they are classically trained after all. And moreover, there will be this tendancy - of which Jay does seem to be quite the exponent - to proudly look down upon the new brigade. Then on the part of the new brigade (into which I'd certainly include myself even though I don't meet the age criteria), we have a communal chip on our shoulders that we're not taken seriously and can get pretty touchy about it.

We've had threads before on this fault line - I'm pretty sure I've started at least one - and I think it will always remain a tension here. In conclusion, for all those that have ever felt inadequate or touchy about not being classically trained, I will paste this link for anyone who has never read it, which is a piece written by Danny Elfman post-Batman who was publicly patronised and criticized by Micah D Rubenstein. It remains my favourite piece of writing on film music. Sorry the text is orange on black, push on through, it is so, so worth it....

http://www.bluntinstrument.org.uk/elfma ... dMag90.htm


----------



## AC986 (Jul 9, 2014)

*DANIEL HAVE YOU ASKED JAY ABOUT LEIT MOTIFS YET????!?!!?!*


>8o


----------



## Consona (Jul 9, 2014)

Hey, Daniel.

I think you can write very good melody lines, I really do.

And I think there's no need to call this discussion defeat or victory. Some guys here were trying to point out that what you've called _simple melodies_ could be _motifs_, it's not such a huge deal, is it? I wasn't aware of this distinction for a long time myself, I've just stumbled on some youtube video which was about difference between motifs and melodies and now my thinking is richer due to this. The more distinctions you can name, the more complexity and details you can see in things. So there's nothing wrong about adopting some new concepts.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 9, 2014)

Daniel James @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> (...) And by this point I am thoroughly defeated in this thread (...)


No, you’re not. You simply bumped into Headmaster Asher, nature’s final word in tedious pomposity. Always a slighty irritating experience, as several of us here can testify.
There’s nothing much wrong with your original point ― expressing mild amazement at the similarities between melodies/motifs in a particular style of music ― and for others to insist on a semantic distinction between ‘motif’ or ‘melody’ as a way to weaken your stand, is indeed quite silly. And completely irrelevant, for starters.

Come to think of it, someone could actually make the exact same point as you did, and equally justifiably so, about the frequent re-occurence of virtually identical motifs in the works of Mozart, Haydn, Schubert and Beethoven. I say 'justifiably', because certain melodic cells, phrases, arpeggiated figures, orchestral effects, harmonic progressions, rhythmic devices, etc … tend to become very much part of a musical style, at which point their compositional origin and ownership no longer matters because these elements have by then been completely transfigured, so to speak, into the generic language of that musical style and/or idiom.
This has occured all through musical history: in baroque music, in classical music, in jazz music, in blues, in pop, in easy-listening, in dance and electronic music, in film music of the Golden Age and, obviously, in today’s film music as well. Nothing wrong with it.

I don’t share your suprise at this though in the context of the examples you gave, because it seems to me that fishing in as small a musical pond as all these composers which you linked to, do, can’t but result in a musical harvest that is pretty interchangeable from one composer to the next. (Seriously, all these composers out of the HZ-school, I can never tell which is which. But I can imagine that someone, uninitiated, could say the same the thing about Haydn and Mozart.)

Having said that, apart from all the music (the music which you linked to) being excrutiatingly dull and tiresome, I don’t consider any of this problematic per se. There is, after all, genuine power in banality and predictability. The fact that these motives are generically so strong and instantly recognizeable, lends them an effectiveness ― and an instant dramaturgical potency ― which would be difficult to arrive at, as quickly, by any other means. In other words: even though musically completely uninteresting (in my view, anyway), the use of this type of melodic or motivic simplicity has reason and sense to it.




AlexandreSafi @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> (...) as Leonardo Da Vinci once said, "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" (...)


On the subject of simplicity: simplicity is, in itself, not a quality. (Nor a weakness.) It only becomes a quality when it is judged perfectly in the context of the expression and the stylistic idiom that it is part of. And the exact same thing goes for complexity.

Simplicity is a strength when present in music that needs to be simple. It is however a major weakness when present in music that requires a degree of complexity. (Best don’t attempt to emulate the musical stylings of a John Williams if you lack the skills and the talent to fully exploit the power of musical sophistication.)
By the same token: complexity and sophistication are strengths, essentialy so even, in music that needs these characteristics to best express its musical identity. But inject them into music that is best left simple, and you’ll end up with pretentious, tiresome, self-conscious drivel.

Had Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” only existed as a black-and-white line drawing sketch, none of us would know about La Gioconda, and even if we did, we certainly wouldn’t revere it as an important work of art. The reason it is an iconic masterpiece, is because it is at the same time as complex AND as simple as it needs to be. Perfectly so. (And that is an important characteristic of all great art.)

Same with music. A Bach fugue can only be a Bach fuge when there’s a serious amount of musical complexity involved. Without it, you can’t have a Bach fugue. And a Satie pianopiece can only be a Satie piece if things are kept simple, sparse and totally free of elaborate sophistication.

Or: make “The Sacre” any less complex than it is, and it stops being “The Sacre”. (But: make it any more complex and it stops being “The Sacre” as well.) In other words: “The Sacre” is both as complex and as simple as it needs to be. Mess with the level of either (simplicity or complexity), and you damage the piece. 

Every piece of music, and the style which it adopts, defines its own level of simplicity and complexity. Judge either of these wrongly, and you end up with a fundamentally flawed work.

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 9, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Wow, late to the party here. In essence, the original point of the thread is pretty simple - "these three tracks have the same tune". And hey - they do.
> 
> What happened next was this:
> 
> ...



Guy, I see your point, but I think the issue here is somewhat different. 

The thread derailed as the result of a pompous and unnecessarily patronizing tone and the usual subsequent snarky responses. Only my opinion of course, but one is never too old nor too young to learn to speak to each other with respect regardless of the issue at hand. 

There is such a wealth of musicianship and technical knowledge on VIC, and an astonishing amount of rudeness. I know it's the InterWeb and all but I really hope for more civility, and I guess I'll just remain a crank about it.


----------



## Consona (Jul 9, 2014)

What I see as a "problem" is not simplicity but unimaginativeness.


----------



## clarkus (Jul 9, 2014)

Walter Piston's books on counterpoint and harmony makes some distinction between what is a motif and what is not, but I got no sense he felt this was a crucial point. 

What he does spend a lot of time talking about (and so did my teachers) is development. There are pages and pages in Piston of excerpts from pieces by fantastic composers from Bach to Faure to Wagner to Ravel. What Piston is interested in (and we should be too) is what can be done with an idea. 

Good composers (and improvisers) take a few notes and grow something from it. Or take a long line, siphon off a few notes, and work with those. There's a pretty long list of things you can do to transform and vary one's chosen material. One of my teachers talked often about developing the potential of the music you've chosen. If there were italics available here, I'd put "developing the potential" in italics.

A two minute cue (or Title) doesn't allow for much development. But scoring a film, there's plenty of opportunity. Being able to come up with ten different disguises for the same melodic material, to gradually turn it into another music altogether that still bears the genetic traces of the original, then turn it back again when you least expect to hear its return ... that's some of what's great about being a composer. That's worth paying some attention to.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Wow, late to the party here. In essence, the original point of the thread is pretty simple - "these three tracks have the same tune". And hey - they do.
> 
> And moreover, there will be this tendancy - of which Jay does seem to be quite the exponent - to proudly look down upon the new brigade. Then on the part of the new brigade (into which I'd certainly include myself even tho



Guy you are wrong, I do not look down on untrained composers. There is always someone who knows more than the previous guy and there are people who are far more trained than I am.

I look down on people who when presented with an opportunity to learn more, reject it because they think it doesn't matter.

All he had to say was something like, "Oh, I see. OK, t thanks for that, good to know."

One of the most useful responses in the world when presented with something you did not know: "GOOD TO KNOW"

I use it all the time when informed or corrected. I recommend others try it.

Oh, and Piet, you conveniently ignored the fact that several others chimed in and agreed it was a fairly important distinction.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 9, 2014)

I didn’t ignore anything. I simply observed that the nadir of this thread was quickly reached the moment you decided to wear your annoying “Nestor Of Trained Musicians”-disguise again.

Besides, I fully agree that it makes a lot of sense to distinguish between melody and motif. (As my many previous exposés on the subject of melody clearly show.) But I also think that insisting on that distinction in this particular thread, and use to manoeuvre Daniel into a tight corner with, is silly, pedantic, snobby and completely besides the point that Daniel intended to discuss in the first place.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

[quote="re-peat @ Wed Jul 09, 2014 ...hing we definitely share is mutual disregard.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> (...) Your problem is not with the way the distinction was made, it was with who made it. (...)


Partially true. In the sense that how and why a point is made, is entirely determined by the person who makes it.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

re-peat @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Your problem is not with the way the distinction was made, it was with who made it. (...)
> ...



Here we agree.


----------



## clarkus (Jul 9, 2014)

If at any point you guys get tired of this, we could discuss something else. I was suggesting musical development. But, I dunno, you pick. Ping-pong? Chicken-wire? Brazil?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

clarkus @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> If at any point you guys get tired of this, we could discuss something else. I was suggesting musical development. But, I dunno, you pick. Ping-pong? Chicken-wire? Brazil?



ROTFL!


----------



## Dan Selby (Jul 9, 2014)

Jay, it's really hard to fathom that you can't seem to be able to see that it's not what you said but how you chose to say it. If you had engaged with Daniel differently you might well have got the "good to know" response you seem to feel was owed. If your first entry into a conversation with a stranger is to be rude and condescending it is hardly surprising if you get a negative reaction, regardless of the merit of what you are trying to say.


----------



## rJames (Jul 9, 2014)

Daniel James @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> [
> 
> No no the subject matters to me and I care about it. The fact we are talking about it still, matters. I was saying the actual term we use itself doesn't matter. I more than happy to be wrong as we know what we are talking about. I mean in all honesty was anybody really confused with what was similar about the linked tracks?
> 
> -DJ



Actually, the only thing that does matter about it IS the term. FWIW I am with you. Because film music is changing, a motif is the only melody present. I have written entire cues where I've been told there is NO melody. I just cleverly (sarcasm) hid the motif in every bar and in every section of the orchestra.

But in order to discuss music with musicians and composers (which you are doing here) its better to use the correct terms. 

You derailed the thread by responding (in a very condescending way) over and over again that the term doesn't matter. Pretend that you are in a face to face conversation with me and during my argument I constantly laugh at you.

I am sorry that I posted in the way that I did but sarcasm is my middle name after all. In my opinion, you don't serve your argument at all by laughing at the end of every sentence.

Ron


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

Dan Selby @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Jay, it's really hard to fathom that you can't seem to be able to see that it's not what you said but how you chose to say it. If you had engaged with Daniel differently you might well have got the "good to know" response you seem to feel was owed. If your first entry into a conversation with a stranger is to be rude and condescending it is hardly surprising if you get a negative reaction, regardless of the merit of what you are trying to say.



If you read my first post the tone was milder. It was only after I got the "it doesn't matter haha" type response that my tone changed


----------



## Daryl (Jul 9, 2014)

clarkus @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> If at any point you guys get tired of this, we could discuss something else. I was suggesting musical development. But, I dunno, you pick. Ping-pong? Chicken-wire? Brazil?


Well if you like I could start a discussion about how long pimples are making average table tennis players into match winners.

D


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Jul 9, 2014)

Beautiful case on "simplicity" Piet! I enjoy your contribution!

My case on this subject as it relates to art is "simply" as follows:
Simplicity is the genius of essence and rational inevitability...

If complex it is, great art it still can't be if it's not supported by its opposite force, the simplicity without... The What and the How... The "How" as the mechanics, and the "What" as what allows us to immediately grasp it. Simplicity is not always the absence of complexity, but is in fact sometimes indeed encouraged and supported by complexity, sometimes this support is in extroverted-fashion and other times introvertedly, but in the end i truly believe simplicity in its logical inevitability and spiritual essence is what rules always so we can call "anything" truly great... 

In some cases, "simplicity" becomes not even something you can describe with words, but which you can only feel, 'cause...you know... that's what music does...

Maybe some of you will find these L.Bernstein & Jonathan Ive perspectives "on art & Beethoven" interesting:
http://techlinhas.com/2013/09/jony-ive- ... bernstein/

And yes personally, i don't see these 3 tracks as giving us a lesson in true simplicity, which i'll agree immediately with all trained musicians does not come easy, but hang on...perhaps this has more to do with the "I" and my worldviews who perceives this music, rather than what the music is itself, independently of me, then how can i define truth and what this music is, anyways...

"Music--it's all in the eye of the beholder and it isn't..."
I believe both have to co-exist...

*In Daniel James's defense,* i don't believe the inability to define terminology will hurt his quality of writing "a sequence of single notes that is musically satisfying" to him or his audience, to quote the simplest and perhaps to some the laziest definition of melody i could find, only his lack of passion will, which i don't see happening anytime soon, just like for all of us, thankfully...


----------



## Dan Selby (Jul 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Dan Selby @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay, it's really hard to fathom that you can't seem to be able to see that it's not what you said but how you chose to say it. If you had engaged with Daniel differently you might well have got the "good to know" response you seem to feel was owed. If your first entry into a conversation with a stranger is to be rude and condescending it is hardly surprising if you get a negative reaction, regardless of the merit of what you are trying to say.
> ...



And yet here we are. Three pages later. Basically I'm saying what Larry said, just not as well. Next time I'll perhaps just +1 his post... or probably not say anything and just come here slightly less often.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

OK, I admit that the response annoyed me and I got snarky as a result. Sorry for that. 

I confess that these days I suffer what I consider to be foolishness less gladly but I will try harder not to let that bleed into my posts.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2014)

In thinking a bit more about this thread, two examples came to my mind, examples which are amongst my favourite musical pieces, and which happen to be at opposite ends in terms of construction: The Goldberg Variations' theme, and the 8-note motif which opens Beethoven's Fifth. Bach's is a very long melody, with all kinds of detours, and which yields an amazing amount of melodic material in the ensuing variations; Beethoven's 4 or 8-note motif (depending on how you wish to subdivide it), OTOH, is as simple as it gets, and yet it also yields a large number of variations, due in no small part to the composer's prodigious writing gifts. 

And so both long and complicated, and short and simple can help us generate a great amount of variations, material, provided that we have the writing tools/experience. But if Beethoven had simply repeated the same motif over and over again, just changing the timbral complexity here and there, simply going from thin to thick and back in terms of arranging, we would probably not remember the 5th today.

Finally, for me, writing a melody is a bit like a writing a story. If you can't tell a good story, if you don't know how to invent a tale that will keep people's interest, then chances are you won't be very good at writing melodies, or at least non-generic ones.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 9, 2014)

Well stated Ned.


----------



## Ozymandias (Jul 9, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Bach's is a very long melody, with all kinds of detours, and which yields an amazing amount of melodic material in the ensuing variations



It doesn't though, does it...? The variations are on the bass line and chord progression. Been a while since I've listened to it, admittedly, but a quick look at the wiki page seems to confirm this.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 9, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Finally, for me, writing a melody is a bit like a writing a story. If you can't tell a good story, if you don't know how to invent a tale that will keep people's interest, then chances are you won't be very good at writing melodies, or at least non-generic ones.



Exactly this!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2014)

Ozymandias @ 9/7/2014 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Bach's is a very long melody, with all kinds of detours, and which yields an amazing amount of melodic material in the ensuing variations
> ...



:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story!!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2014)

PS: would you settle for Bach's_ Chaconne in D minor,_ from the _Partita #2_ for violin solo?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2014)

Or, this one?...


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 9, 2014)

What a cool find, Ned!


----------



## José Herring (Jul 9, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Or, this one?...




Takes more skill and talent to do this than is demonstrated by any of the horrid "epic" tracks listed in the OP.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2014)

Now, now. Let's remember that one man's horrid is another man's awesome.


----------

