(TV) Melody Smelody / Semantics?

["Mark G. Ryan" <mgryan@cruzio.com>]

Leo,

Thanks for the quick response.  First things, first:

1. Put very bluntly, I say that John Q. Public thinks:  "you can't 
sing it, you can't dance to it, so who gives a fuck!"  Like it or not, 
I'm afraid this is pretty close to the reaction of a lot of rock-n-roll 
fans to Television.  

People do like songs they can sing, and they do like music they can dance 
to, and this has been true of European folk music for hundreds of years.  
I am willing to admit that most famous and characteristic Television songs 
are neither very singable nor very dancable.  If somebody disagrees, they 
are either a better singer or better dancer than I am (very likely), or 
they are kidding themselves.  All I can say is try it, then try singing or 
dancing to a mainstream rock-n-roll band like the Beatles or the Rolling 
Stones.

2. As I said, it's hard to define melody, and my attempt is feeble.
But it's based on the few held by most musicologists.  As Paul Hindemith
remarks "It is an astounding fact that instruction in composition has
never developed a theory of melody" (Craft of Musical Composition).  As
you know, the study of harmony and of counterpoint take the melody as a 
given.  Fux does not tell one how to write a "cantus firmus". But more 
recent studies have come pretty close to a theory of melody.  There is no 
single big name, but almost any recent (1960s or later) harmony textbook 
(except Walter Piston's) will discuss melody, for example, Elie Siegmeister's 
Harmony and Melody.  A good practical exposition, not at all academic, is 
Melody in Songwriting by Jack Perricone (the Berklee Press, 2000). 

The aspect of melody that is least understood is it's rhythm: important 
to some melodies and unimportant to others.  Rhythm is also remarkably 
unstudied: Paul Creston has written the best book that I'm aware of
(Principles of Rhythm).

3. Melody is is a very old musical element, predating chords by hundreds
if not thousands of years.  It is thus closely associated with vocal
performance. Human beings are born with the equipment to sing/hum/whistle,
but do not come equipped with strings or pianos.  Far from being arbitrary,
the limitations on melody imposed by performance requirements--range, 
connectedness, etc.--probably are rooted in human physiology and brain
function.

I am not a specialist, so please take everything I say on this subject
with a grain of salt.  A few more comments edited in below.

Mark

"Casey, Leo J" <CaseyL@VOLPE.DOT.GOV> wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I'm still pretty confused by some of your previous 
> e-mails regarding 'melody' and lack of it in 
> Verlaine's/Television's songs. (I'll grant that some 
> of your arguments have more merit as regards 
> strictly the band Television--but even here they're 
> too sweeping.)

I'll admit that.  That's the danger of generalizing, but it gets
too complicated if you try to list every exception and special case.

> 
> 1) you have presented a very technical and arbitrarily 
> narrow definition of melody; if one accepts your 
> definition then (of course) everything you 
> present/argue from it will then follow;  

Please see above.

> 
> 2)>I'll just refer to "melody" and we'll understand 
> >I mean >"typical vocal melody" or "strong/robust melody" 
> (that's not my understanding of melody, or even most 
> laypersons);

Not sure the layperson's understanding of a phenomenon should
define/determine the phenomenon.  E.g., what is the layperson's 
understanding of electricity or magnetism?

> 
> 3) you seem particularly and overly (IMHO) fixated 
> on the melody in the singer's voice; I think all 
> of us would agree that's not where Verlaine's 
> musical strength's or interests lay--but what 
> about the melodic content/impact of the 
> instruments or other 'non-singing' aspects?  
> Even if TV's vocals are not melodic a great 
> deal more of his (and to a lesser degree 
> Television's) music is more melodic than 
> you're giving it credit for;  

Please recall I am not doing music criticism. I am trying to
explain why particular music is or isn't "catchy".  This isn't
to say that it is or isn't good.  I actually don't like music 
that is dominated by melody and rhythm, which is why I like
Television.  But I am an odd ball.

> 
> *4) MELODY: 
> a) "a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement 
> of sounds; tunefulness. 
> b) a rhythmic succession of single tones 
> organized as an aesthetic whole." [Merriam 
> Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition].

I think one needs to consult musical experts on music.  Webster's
definition of gravity or magnetism wouldn't be of much use to a
physicist. 

But actually, this definition is enough to prove my point.  For example, 
Marquee Moon does not have a) (c'mon, sweet and tuneful?), but it does 
have b).  But b) is not in the vocal part.  So one cannot sing MM except 
with the full accompaniment (or even a rhythm accompaniment).  It is
also difficult to remember (compared with say, "Yellow Submarine" or 
"Satisfaction").

Singing and strumming chords will not produce a recognizable MM.
You need every last riff, beginning with Richard's telegraphic
thirds and fourths (with a rhythm like the Morris code for 't'):


		D D     D D		D D 	D D

		B B     B B		
					A A     A A	
	
	T	- -     - -    repeat   - -	- - 	repeat
	A	3 3     3 3             3 3 	3 3
	B	4 4     4 4 		2 2	2 2
		- -     - - 		- - 	- -
		- -     - -		- -	- -
		- -     - -		- -	- -
	Beat	1   2   3    4		1   2   3    4

(thanks to Jay Verkuilen for the tab).  Singing and strumming
will produce recognizable versions of most main stream rock songs.

> 
> Using this definition I would claim most of 
> Verlaine's stuff contains melodies and is pretty 
> damn melodic. 

Compared with, say, George Gerswhin's stuff? Or Richard Rogers? 
Or Burt Baccarach?  Or even Keith Richards, Paul McCartney or 
Bob Dylan?  Hardly.

> 
> 5 I think there are more counterexamples of 
> music that succeeded commercially despite the 
> singer not having a melodious voice or *'the 
> singing-part'* not having a strong melody than 
> you're willing to admit to. This success can 
> happen for a whole slew of reasons (just a 
> couple here: because the other parts of the 
> song (playing of instruments, or e.g., the 
> lyrics [think Dylan]) predominate in a manner 
> that's pleasing to the public. 

Agreed.  And I claim in most of those cases you can
definitely dance to it, that is, there is a pretty
huge beat.

> 
> You and I may actually be just arguing semantics 
> and at the risk of boring the other 98% of the 
> List, maybe we should continue any future discussion 
> on this particular topic off-list?

Oh probably I am boring everyone, but they've probably
stopped reading anyway.  :-)

I'm about talked-out on this topic.  Thanks again!

Mark
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"