Problem with creating melody

[Trakstar]

Try restricting melody notes to chord tones of the progression - at whatever the chord of the moment happens to be. 5 tone chords seem to work best for this - just to help compose, not that it has to sound like a chord progression in the end.

that amounts to: here is a way to do as little thought as you can. thereby learning as little as possible about creating melody.

how does 'chord tones only' not result in 'doesn't sound like a chord progression in the end'?

5 note chords at every opportunity, to have more *safe* notes for 'melody'?

Why are you giving advice on composing?

We might disagree on some things but here I am in total agreement. I was tone deaf until I learned to follow the Doh reh meh, solfeggio as you put it. When I began learning melody I had no ideas so my music teacher told me to get a theory book out. The beginning chapter was about the simpleness of melody in forms such as nursery rhymes we are taught as young children. The one mentioned was "see saw mahjo reedaw".
I didnt understand it at the time until I saw the "see saw" part of the melody contrasted against the "Mahjo reedaw". Spoken as words they have absolutely no meaning, until the way they are sung together in the melody starts to hit home the point of it all. Like I said prior to this I am still learning and there might be mistakes in the way I just tried to represent my example in the text, but Im pretty sure you can give it a better explanation if you would.

[trewq]

you are not understanding what I mean. But I don't have the time to sort it out with you at the moment

[nuVibrations]

One of the best ways to create the framework for a melody is to get familiar with the guide tones in your chord progression. A guide tone is the third or seventh of the chord you are playing over. Once you know the guide tones, try finding a chain of guide tones with the minimal amount of jumping around. Once you have your guide tone framework, try adding other tones on the weak beats.

Another great technique to layer on top of your guide tones is to create a sense of tension and release in your phrases. 3rds, and 6ths produce the least tension, unions, octaves, 4ths and 5ths are neutral, and 2nds and 7ths produce the most tension.

And once you have a good melody with a sense of tension and release, throw in an element of surprise by slightly changing the melody in a subsequent repeat of the chorus or verse.

[jancivil]

you are not understanding what I mean. But I don't have the time to sort it out with you at the moment

you said something other than what you meant? You said 'restrict yourself to chord tones'. It's not on me to imagine what you mean. If you can state that, do. It's on you to be clear.

I have no interest in argument with the person, but your statement was just that, and the only thing I can take out of it is 'chord tones for your melody'. which guarantees only safety and isn't in itself a way to gain facility with creating melody, and scarcely speaks to the issue, 'melody'.

I think it's not any good to say that as though advice.

maybe you mean these extensions of a given chord, in addition to stating the triad, is good melody? Per se. Melody writing is more subtle than this and requires some thought at this point for the OP, I'm sorry.

[jancivil]

Try restricting melody notes to chord tones of the progression - at whatever the chord of the moment happens to be. 5 tone chords seem to work best for this - just to help compose, not that it has to sound like a chord progression in the end.

that amounts to: here is a way to do as little thought as you can. thereby learning as little as possible about creating melody.

how does 'chord tones only' not result in 'doesn't sound like a chord progression in the end'?

5 note chords at every opportunity, to have more *safe* notes for 'melody'?

Why are you giving advice on composing?

Because it has worked for me.

you have good melodies out of sticking to chord tones per se do you? Please demonstrate.

it's a very simplistic thing to offer, I don't think it's going to help anybody get to a better facility with melody.

[trewq]

Try restricting melody notes to chord tones of the progression - at whatever the chord of the moment happens to be. 5 tone chords seem to work best for this - just to help compose, not that it has to sound like a chord progression in the end.

that amounts to: here is a way to do as little thought as you can. thereby learning as little as possible about creating melody.

how does 'chord tones only' not result in 'doesn't sound like a chord progression in the end'?

5 note chords at every opportunity, to have more *safe* notes for 'melody'?

Why are you giving advice on composing?

Because it has worked for me.

you have good melodies out of sticking to chord tones per se do you? Please demonstrate.

it's a very simplistic thing to offer, I don't think it's going to help anybody get to a better facility with melody.

I get lots of embedded melodies, counterpoint and modulations from using 5 tone chords or scales(those just stuck for me for a time). Modulations are the thing for a good melody IMO - you see I don't instruct this stuff And I don't know how you can succesfully modulate without working with chords, or create 'my' melodies without them. Its defeating for me to come up with a melody first and then a chord progression. They have to go together. I'm sorry if this is too simplistic to just apply and run with it - again I don't teach this stuff

Maybe you should all disregard this. maybe its my worn out ears searching for crutches! or methods. I'm not touting it as something you should do when melody writing. But of course you know methods of modulation need serious attention for it. and yes I meant to talk about extensions and methods to combine between 5 notes and 7 note scales that show the right chords to modulate with.

[jancivil]

let's look at a model, a melody where every note counts.

Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

Something that is true of music not of one culture but many, is that the perfect fifth is a solid place to land, a good repose. The perfect fourth is a new plateau that is another solid spot. This is found in European Classical and Indian Classical, both of which speak of 'dominant' and 'subdominant' levels.

the first thing this tune does is leap an octave. It gets you to the feeling its lyric wants, and it gets a melody going strong. SomeWHERE; Do _Do_

'o-ver the rain-bow': Si Sol La Si _Do_
that Si, the major seventh of the scale yearns for the top note Do. Look at it away from the lyric: Si down to Do has a lot of strength. Yet do Si Sol Si Do. It isn't really complete. Si Sol La Si _Do_. It's a simple line, but every note counts. "The Rain-Bow"; La Si _Do_ just brings this majesty. La is not part of any harmony there but is is essential to the way this melody operates.

'way UP high': Do LA Sol. the reach to La reposing at the solid Sol. that Do La suggests the IV harmony...
(La to Do, that minor third, Do down to La, is perhaps the most basic melodic expression of the human. It comes out of the voice naturally, a cry to your mama is that interval.* Here is it, inverted.)

then we get BlueBirds: La [below the first Do] up to Fa. This is the new plateau [as though to 'IV'], we have realized momentum by this simple move. Fly o'er the Rain-Bow: Mi Do Re Mi Fa. Note the strength of the Mi Do; [Mi Do] Re Mi Fa, reflecting the strength of the first time over the rainbow to the new level...

why o-oh why can't I: Re (which in this kind of melody is going to want to come home, or at least up to the concord with home, Mi, the major third of the scale, so it has a quality of tension) [Re] Si Do Re Mi Do.
the tune for the verse is completed, satisfied. Re Mi Do. It seems so simple! There can be great strength in the simple.

You can say that the Si Re aspect 'outlines' the V chord, you can notice that the penultimate Mi there is often clothed in a nice V13 chord... but here is my point with this model: YOU DO NOT NEED THESE CHORDS to support this melody. It_achieves_its_ends standing alone. It is that strong (I'm not sure even what chords the composer actually used in their sheet music. I just know the tune. Jazz people do various things with it.).

There is nothing wasted. Every note counts. A person that can write a melody of this quality knows something; they do not need a paint-by-numbers kind of guideline. They didn't rely on another's chord progression. they heard and sang a melody. One could glibly try to reduce this to 'here is stepwise motion mixed with chord tones' but that doesn't tell you anything about why it works. I have tried to.

(*: the bridge focuses on that, Sol Mi Sol Mi etc. so evocative...)

[nuVibrations]

let's look at a model, a melody where every note counts.

Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

And excellent example. And I'll bet that melody didn't just float out of the ether and into the mind of the composer (Harold Arlen) ready to engrave. Stuff that good is usually the result of multiple rounds of refinement, each adding a tiny improvement that accumulates into a great song over time. So I see nothing wrong with starting with a simple rule that gets the ideas flowing, then adding refinement later to chisel out the appearance of "effortless" perfection. The key is making an emotional map of where you want to take the listener, then always keeping that as your guide to determine which methods are working and which are not.

Once you have a basic outline of a melody, you can look at different layers of it. How does the melody work given where the accents are in the words? Vocalists tend to naturally accent a syllable when the melody leaps up to a higher note - that can make the words sound more natural when sung. Does the melody sound like it is coming to a rest at the end of a phrase? A nice setup from 7 - 1 like in the example might help make that happen. Do you care about emphasizing the current key, or are you preparing for a modulation? If you are going to modulate, you need to avoid playing the notes that strongly identify the current key as you transition to the next - and that depends on where you are modulating to. Or maybe you want a sudden modulation as a kind of fill in between major sections.

Sometimes, instead of changing the melody, you can change the chord, or the chord inversion to create a sense of tension and release. Sometimes changing both can provide an even stronger effect. And then you might go back a few notes and set up a slow tension build in order to make the release feel extra strong - like near the end of a section.

[Nanakai]

Why are you giving advice on composing?

Why are you such a dick?

Is the use of chord tones suddenly not a valid form of expression? Maybe it's exactly the kind of sound that the OP is going for. Maybe it's fun to do every once in a while. Is there any reason why someone shouldn't try restricting themselves to chord tones, other than just not appealing to your evolved and refined tastes? I guess it's all well and good to follow your ears and play whatevers to you, unless you happen to like the sound of chord tones, or diatonic harmony, or 4/4 time or who knows what else. If you're stupid enough to like any of that crap, then you suck and jancivil will take the time to tell you so.

You must be tired of typing the same crap over and over again. Perhaps you should take a break from bullying people on an Internet forum and do something not pathetic with your valuable time.

[Trakstar]

Just done some more reading on the solfege, I learned the english take on the subject being,Doh reh me, so I see that it is the way certain solfege syllables are spoken different but sound and have the same meaning in the french language. Its the same as what C,D,E,F,G,A,B in the octave of a midi keyboard displays so there is so much to learn as singing and composing melodies go hand in hand together. When I write melodies, I play the keys slowly and listen intently to how soft or hard I play them and just let the music flow. I dont follow chord structures usually, and simply play what I want the music to feel and say. If I want dramatic then its a soft piano sound with a soft smooth dull tone until the crescendo to lead it into a more vibrant and dynamic form. I thought back to when we were taught Peter and the Wolf at school. We would sit in the hall and listen to each melody play, each melody representing either Peter or the Wolf. Peters melody was of a very high octave and always vibrant, happy and full of energy to give the vision of a child playing and enjoying his young life, the instrument was a flute or similar and we would close our eyes and try to picture what it was the sound was trying to speak through its language.
The wolf was represented by a very Low octave with an instrument such as a tuba or of a very low timbre. The melody was of very deep sound, with low sweeping dynamics that came in and out to the dominant part of Peters melody. It was to give the listener the idea of the Wolf, very low and sneaky of character, watching and sneaking up upon the innocence of Peters Character. The way these melodies interacted and played with each other showed the part of a musical story and the role play between the two characters as it moved along at different paces.
This is where I try to take inspiration from, "What is it my melody is trying to speak or say". The melody is then reinforced by chords to add to the dynamism of the music. Modulations, or changing from one key to another, I always try and listen to the sounds of different chords and get a good feel for them to see how they work with what I have wrote.
There are some chords that go well with some melodies and some that dont. In simple words, I wouldn't use a minor chord to back up the part of Peters melody that was trying to display energy and happiness, but one of sadness. I have stuck to the Key of C major as I have been learning as a good starting point, but now I am trying different chords together to see what works well and what doesnt. As Ive said many times before Im still learning and this is just part of my small experience. I thought it might help.

[jancivil]

Why are you giving advice on composing?

Why are you such a dick?

Is the use of chord tones suddenly not a valid form of expression? Maybe it's exactly the kind of sound that the OP is going for. Maybe it's fun to do every once in a while. Is there any reason why someone shouldn't try restricting themselves to chord tones, other than just not appealing to your evolved and refined tastes? I guess it's all well and good to follow your ears and play whatevers to you, unless you happen to like the sound of chord tones, or diatonic harmony, or 4/4 time or who knows what else. If you're stupid enough to like any of that crap, then you suck and jancivil will take the time to tell you so.

You must be tired of typing the same crap over and over again. Perhaps you should take a break from bullying people on an Internet forum and do something not pathetic with your valuable time.

If you want to get personal about who am I in life, you can go to my signature and see what it is I do with most of my time. Beyond that I have sought to share with people quite a lot of knowledge in this board for years. Your contribution to this thread is you bashing a person. I haven't noticed you saying anything particularly useful here yet. Quite ironic, your 'why are you such a dick'. You don't appear to understand what I type, or you deliberately choose to characterize it as falsely as you can muster, in order to use an internet forum to spew bile at a person.

I took the time to demonstrate what I found in the melody of a [purely diatonic, 4/4] song [that I love] in some detail.

Are you completely incapable of understanding the points made? Are you deficient?
"Is there any reason why someone shouldn't try restricting themselves to chord tones?". The question was about getting better at melody. That isn't going to do it. I don't think that advice is helpful. I do not think that chord tones - through themselves - amount to melody. "Expression"? No. I don't think a person making a paint-by-numbers 'decision', "restrict yourself to chord tones" is expressing anything through that. "Is the use of chord tones suddenly not a valid form of expression?". SMH.

I have shown in the model I chose where the melody is comprised of tones that amount to harmonies, that imply harmonies. It's not difficult to read, either.

The OP is not the only person reading a thread in these pages. This kind of glib suggestion, 'try restricting to chord tones' I think is not so good, for music, for people trying at whatever level to gain entry to musical activity, as a whole.

This is a redundant thread, yes it is, where I have told another person (and another number of people that were not the OP that will read this in future) more or less the same things. You want melody to be easier, get some experience with melody, learn intervals by learning songs... There are a number of things a person can do. I happen to have experience as a composer of melody and I think my points are worth stating again. You seem to be one of the people wanting to justify doing as little as possible in these threads. So my posts in this regards are crap to you, so what? Do something else that suits you better. Jack off, for instance.

I don't think the dumbing down - your implication is the 'chord tones only' approach is more suitable for the EDM type of interest - is necessary. I am in fact failing to pander, talking to people as if they are adults. As opposed to you.

Do you think 'restrict yourself to chord tones' is more useful for more people than my considered, thoughtful work responding to these topics? OR IS IT JUST MORE SUITABLE TO YOUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF MUSIC.

[jancivil]

Its defeating for me to come up with a melody first and then a chord progression. They have to go together.

I think in songs such as I sought to model, melody and harmony go hand in hand.

There is a trope that has a lot of traction, I noticed in this forum particularly, that puts chords first; in certain posts it's as if melody relies on 'chord progressions' for its existence. I don't think that's a very well-formed idea.

Historically, harmony as we speak of it today, technically, was a result of melodic lines working together, 'in harmony'.

And I don't know how you can succesfully modulate without working with chords.

That seems to be a different topic than writing a melody. I didn't assume the OP was interested in modulation, which requires quite an understanding of harmonic concepts. I never said don't work with chords or anything resembling that. You said 'restrict yourself to chord tones' and I'm pretty sure that, through itself, won't produce melodies of much interest.

[jancivil]

let's look at a model, a melody where every note counts.

Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

And excellent example. And I'll bet that melody didn't just float out of the ether and into the mind of the composer (Harold Arlen) ready to engrave. Stuff that good is usually the result of multiple rounds of refinement, each adding a tiny improvement that accumulates into a great song over time. So I see nothing wrong with starting with a simple rule.

I don't think either of us knows how easy or how hard that was for Arlen.
People in jazz, though, are charged with coming up with melody on the spot. My own experience is other than what you said, I think good melody is not something worked to death.

I said this composer 'knew something' in order to spur thinking.

What simple rule applies? I just thought to offer something more than 'restrict yourself to chord tones'

[Trakstar]

I used to own a PSR1000 yamaha keyboard, and the chords were always selected with the left half of the keyboard as the accompaniment. The rest of the keyboard was for the melody playing. The accompaniment would consist of chords and harmonies with drum rhythms set in key which you could then alter with the keyboard. The accompaniment would then play in the new key and you could carry on playing along with the melody. In fact I think most keyboards have operated like this since they were invented, the chords always taking the backing part with the accompaniment and then being altered to support the melody which had the main focus or was the primary part of the compositions. When keyboardists play live they select the accompaniment and key signature which best suits which melody or music they were playing or writing. I always understood this to be the way of working with melodies and stuff_(EDIT) for Keyboards such as those like Yamaha, Casio and Kurzweil. Plus there was always a godd few selection of options for splitting the keyboard keys again so you could have one half brass and the other piano for even more variety. This is where I started before Id even heard of composing with stuff like we have today. I'd just bought a load of sampling stuff, tascam mixer that recorded onto sony minidisk and the keyboard for the main bulk of instruments and sounds and a friend told me about the new Ejay software he had just bought. Talk about finding out a little too late!. That was back in 2001

[tapper mike]

The piano has been around for ....over 300 years now. They didn't have auto accompaniment back then organs and harpsichords even longer.

While I'm a big fan of chord progression writing it isn't the only method of song writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony