(TV) One person's 'unmelodic' is another's 'melodic' (fwd)

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

Leo,

"Casey, Leo J" <CaseyL@VOLPE.DOT.GOV> wrote:
>
> mgryan wrote:
> >Not sure the layperson's understanding of a 
> >phenomenon should define/determine the phenomenon.  
> 
> Not talking scientific definition here--I should 
> have used word 'the masses' or 'commercial public' 
> instead of 'layperson', and for better or for worse 
> according to your hypothesis they do determine the 
> result here. 

Everyone is affected by gravity, whether or not they ever
heard of Newtonian mechanics.  Likewise, melody appeals 
to everyone, whether or not they understand the phenomenon.  
There is no inconsistency.

> 
> >> 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 ..... 
> 
> Hold on, you can't have it both ways; you claim that if 
> public or "the folks" don't find it hum-able, sing-able 
> or catchy then its not melodic.

Sure I can.  Melody appeals to babies, but babies (and most
people) couldn't begin define it or explain it.   There is
no contradiction in this.

Actually, many common nouns are similar: try defining "lemon".  
This has been called the problem of "natural kinds" (e.g., by W.V.O. 
Quine).  Even ordinary things turn out to be hard to define.

(In case anybody's interested: one approach to defining "lemon" is in 
terms of "essential attributes" (e.g., yellow and sour), but it turns 
out not all lemons are yellow (like unripe ones)!  You could use a 
reference specimen ("the lemon tree in Kew Gardens") but what about 
other varieties?  And what if the reference specimen gets destroyed?  
You could define it in terms of historical precedent (the species 
named "Citrus lemon" by Linnaeous--but what if there was a mistaken 
classification (as often happens with plants)?  It's not an easy problem.)

Taxonomy used to be based on structure, but increasingly it is based
on DNA.  Likewise, musicology used to be based on received categories
and historical styles, and more and more is based on acoustics and
even statistical analysis of the music.  Of course, the science is
nearly as advanced as in the natural sciences.

> 
> No, not compared to the greats like Gershwin or the populists 
> like McCartney and Baccarach, but compared with your unproved 
> claim that Verlaine doesn't write/incorporate melodies 
> in his music, or/and it's unmelodic.
> 

Well then, it's a matter of degree.  OK, I'll accept that. But
if he ain't got melody like Gershwin, then he better have rhythm 
like Jobim. Or be funny like Spike Milligan.  Or have a gimmick 
like Sonny and Cher.  Or have a cute girl singer, like a million pop 
groups.  Otherwise, it's pretty hard to be popular.  That's all I 
wanted to say in the first place.

We are discussion how to be popular, not haw to be good!


> **What it comes down to is this:  you believe for something 
> to be 'melodic' it must either meet your/some technical, academic,
> musical definition, and/or have been accepted by the mass public; 

Well, it is useful to be able to define ones terms.  Please see 
below for the problems with the dictionary definition

> whereas  I do not believe that is the case. We are basically 
> talking past one another---we've got different ideas/definitions 
> as to what constitutes a piece of music being 'melodic'.
> 
> Using your definition, Mozart or Ravel would have to be considered 
> bereft of melodies.

Ye Gods!  How about "Twinkle, twinkle little star"?  ;-)

> 
> I'd even go so far as to say Verlaine is to McCartney or Baccarach, 
> as Mozart was to Saleri.

You're gonna make Verlaine blush.

> 
> I'll stand behind a melody being "a sweet or agreeable succession 
> or arrangement of sounds".  [note well that it doesn't say/require 
> that joe-six-pack finds them sweet or agreeable.]

This definition is inadequate in oh-so-many ways:

	"Sounds" -- does not even specify "pitches".  So if if the 
	pitter-patter of little feet is sweet and agreeable, or the 
	sound of bamboo wind chimes, it is a melody. Rubbish!

	"Succession or arrangement" allows for vertical harmonic 
	arrangements like chords--but this is not the same thing as 
	melody, surely.  

The definition is so vague, it would admit polyphony or even 
counterpoint--not part of melody on any reasonable definition.
It's more like a definition of "music".

I think melody is a "natural kind" (or at least, a cultural norm).
So, while the average person may not be able to hear certain types of
exotic jazz harmonies for example, if the average person cannot hear 
the melody, there probably isn't one. 

Dictionary definitions tell people what words "mean" in the sense of
how to use words.  They are not compendia of facts. They do not tell 
you what the words denote, nor do they require the thing denoted 
even exist (Webster defines "Santa Claus").

> 
> I'd also add that if one were to accept your thesis on melody then 
> we'd have to agree that Dave Marsh was correct about Verlaine (at 
> least as far as 'a guitarist who lacked melodic ideas'.)
> 

IMHO, that part of Marsh's statement is literally true, but unfair.
It is true that Verlaine seldom wrote fully realized melodies in 
the vocal part.  That is what I have been saying.  Instead, he used 
guitar riffs and vocal riffs to build complex harmonic structures
that he develops in unexpected ways, and which showcase his lyrics.

Actually, I don't have an adequate adequate analysis of this music,
but I'm not required to have one in order to know what it is _not_.
Probably my mistake was trying to defend the statement that it is
not particularly melodic for pop music, which ought to be self-evident.

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