Must a melody end with the root note of the scale ?

[fmr]

So,
music theory is good, but don't be tied down by the rules.
?yes

There are some things that need to be clarified, IMO. Music theory aims to explain the basic stuff about music, nothing else. There are other disciplines that develop further on the music subject, like musical analysis, which study subject is mainly what has been done (not what should be done), by composers throughout the centuries.

Therefore, by studying it, musicians usually become able to fully understand all the inner workings of the pieces studied, and why we reached some point, where from and how could it possibly go from it. And that's not all. There's also aesthetics, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc.

If someone approaches music theory (alone) with the hope that, by studying a little of it, they will become composers overnight, they couldn’t be more wrong. It's like trying to become a mathematician by just learning the multiplication tables.

What I wrote about melody is just because melody is a very simple and immediate approach to music. That's the primary dimension of music, the one we can build up with just our natural instrument (the voice), therefore, there's no need to complicate what's simple. Now, when we go from the melody to the development, to the building of a musical piece, arrangement, etc., then there's a lot that can be said and done.

And there isn't a right way and a wrong way to harmonize it (if harmonizing it is what we want). There are several styles of harmonizing, and each one will produce different results.

My advice would be to start with the melody alone. Then try out very simple and sparse chords, and feel free to experiment with consonances and dissonances, to see where it leads you.

If you have enough skills, try to listen to some of the songs (or pieces of music) that you like the most, and decompose them into their elements to see how they were done, and what makes them good to your ears. That's the best theory you can learn, and that's how composers have been training since ever.

[nighteye]

Thanks fmr, I'd read on those subjects.

read harmony a bit, but not too well.
I'll read all.

[Krakatau]

If you allow me a comment around the main topic, i suggest you to have a listen to some modern adaptations of manding musics from western africa (likely the only ethnic group in africa playing with an heptatonic rather than pentatonic scale BTW) example :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eprSUk8h7T0

What shines to me is that the more insistent notes (or achieving notes in phrases) sounds transitory in the harmony (listen to the synth's repeating riff insisting on 3th degree !!!)

They are some truly unique arrangement to diatonic boundings within these manding musics (salif keita is a major example)

[nighteye]

Thanks Krakatau, I'll get the mp3.

I'm on a very limited data plan.

[Nystul]

There is some terminology confusion in the original post. Keys don't have a particular root. Roots are note that a chord is built from. In the key of C major, the note C is called the "tonic". So what you were really asking is whether a melody must end on the tonic.

The answer to that question is no. There are musical ideas based on that concept, ending the piece or section with both the bass and the melody resolving to the tonic. It can give a strong sense of finality. But there are other ways to make the piece sound like it is finished. Pop music doesn't tend to make a big deal out of ending a song in general, either. Sometimes you just have a vamp or a loop that just repeats and fades out. Or you get to the end of the chorus and it stops abruptly (which will usually be on the tonic but not always).

[nighteye]

Thanks for your response Nystul, I learnt something new today, the difference between tonic & root.

[MadBrain]

Theory is, at the very heart, a suggestion. You could sorta paraphrase it as "If you try this, it will probably sound good. At least, Mozart did it, Miles Davis did it as well, and it sounded great in their music". A lot of jazz theory is "you could use a Dm chord here. Or a Dm7. Or a Dm9. Or a Dm11. Or a Dm6. Or a Dm add9. Or probably a Bb. Or probably a Bbmaj7. Or try an Abm7 (tritonic substitution), with the corresponding melody modifications, and see if you like it. Or maybe try F or Fmaj7 (the relative major)." Basically it's all about giving you a lot of options.

The negative rules such as "don't use parallel 5ths" really mean something like "It will probably sound a lot better without the parallel 5ths". If in your case the parallel 5ths do sound better, use them as much as you like, but what theory says is "a lot of composers have tried it, and it pretty much always sounded wonky, so you should try something else as well".

(at least, that's how I see it)

[fmr]

The negative rules such as "don't use parallel 5ths" really mean something like "It will probably sound a lot better without the parallel 5ths". If in your case the parallel 5ths do sound better, use them as much as you like, but what theory says is "a lot of composers have tried it, and it pretty much always sounded wonky, so you should try something else as well".

(at least, that's how I see it)

The rule about not using parallel 5ths (and 8ves) is only applied to polyphony (contrapunt), and it has a reason, since if and when you use parallel 5ths/8ves you actually loose one voice (polyphony is about having a certain number of voices - usually four, but can be more - that go independent of each other.

After the end of polyphony, with the advent of accompanied melody (Monteverdi), this rule was no longer necessary, although, when creating the continuum (on the harpsichord) which was done improvising, usually keyboardists avoid such parallel movements, and also this was avoided when composers created music with melody and BC (for the exact same reasons explained above). Even in jazz (and I am no jazz expert) voicing is at least as important as the chords - and using a proper voicing makes all the difference.

All things and rules have a context, they don't exist just because someone remembered, out of the blue, to "forbid" something, and therefore should be contextualized to be understood (first) and obeyed or disobeyed (second). Doing things just because you can is not a good lead, IMO.

[jancivil]

You're right about melody being "one note at a time" but I feel it limits your thinking when it comes time to write a melody.

I think I know what you want to say, but I don't know how dealing with tones linearly per se 'limits' any musical thinking.

Chords do not need a melody though, but often create them.

Just through themselves?

I can sing the ABCs, it doesn't require chords but it implies specific chords (harmony). Same with the folk tunes, cello suites, solo violins, they all imply a chord structure to which is often interpreted by the player and sometimes very strict, especially when dealing with classical harmony. The melody often outlines the chord which will best fit.

Those do do that (for the most part; not all folk tunes in the world 'imply a chord structure'). Personally I find outlining chords a poor way to get to melody and kind of asking a cart to pull the horse thinking.

If you are dealing with pitch you are dealing with the implication of chords and tonality.

I'm not. I haven't thought directly in terms of chord name for my own compositions in YEARS. I write harmony linearly or as sonorities I decorate or elaborate.
I'm very interested in melody, lines do fit other lines "in harmony" but I haven't done a chord progression per se in an original composition in a long time.

The prevalence of 'chord' in your experience does not mean that all music needs be chordal or that chords through themselves are building blocks for melody. There are, Fernando already touched on this, musics which specifically eschew or don't concern with chords at_all. And quite more involved melodically, being interested in that as an end in itself.

[jancivil]

"Music Theory" is not the same thing as theory in science terms. It is a description of principles which have been observed to work in a musical convention, understood to work if these conventions/this style is what you're after. It's kind of like 'theory' in that if no one agrees it works it's not useful. But things are known to work before there is a description of them and observed procedures out of that.

IE: "no parallel fifths" works for a certain type of result in a certain context and convention. It is not objectively true for every music.

[RickRASTER]

I'm not. I haven't thought directly in terms of chord name for my own compositions in YEARS. I write harmony linearly or as sonorities I decorate or elaborate.
I'm very interested in melody, lines do fit other lines "in harmony" but I haven't done a chord progression per se in an original composition in a long time.

The prevalence of 'chord' in your experience does not mean that all music needs be chordal or that chords through themselves are building blocks for melody. There are, Fernando already touched on this, musics which specifically eschew or don't concern with chords at_all. And quite more involved melodically, being interested in that as an end in itself.

I'm not saying all music is chordal, I'm saying when you deal with tonality and polyphony chances are you are going to run into harmony. The original poster of this topic is not some avant-garde composer, they are simply asking if they should end on a root note or not. I'm making an assumption that they are working on a song that is relevant to popular modern music.

[RunBeerRun]

Music theory is a headache. I went thru it all with a guitar teacher named Mary, who was into jazz music, so she was well aware of the rules & how to variate intelligently.

[jancivil]

I'm not saying all music is chordal, I'm saying when you deal with tonality and polyphony chances are you are going to run into harmony. The original poster of this topic is not some avant-garde composer, they are simply asking if they should end on a root note or not. I'm making an assumption that they are working on a song that is relevant to popular modern music.

If you are dealing with pitch you are dealing with the implication of chords and tonality.

I'm assuming the OP is rather a beginner and chances are around here they're interested in 'electronic music'.
I'm glad you've modified your statement from the original. For instance, one could be dealing with modality and not chords [modality not being tonality], through the simple choice of a mode to work with, and this in itself does not mean it's avantgarde or not relevant to popular music. These <pitches> in some order may impel one to put chords to it, or not.

What does Pink Floyd Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun do with chords? Nothing. The line does go up a fourth and reiterate on that level, but it's a modal line doubled on organ.

[MadBrain]

Music theory is a headache. I went thru it all with a guitar teacher named Mary, who was into jazz music, so she was well aware of the rules & how to variate intelligently.

To me it's more like a box of chocolates, full of flavors and cool things you can put in your songs.

[jancivil]

'music theory' is more principles to understand, in context, in order to cut down on wasted guesswork and dumb choices.
There are people that don't 'know music theory' that in fact are using principles they have gotten by osmosis and experience - knowledge - that cuts down on poor guesses by the same token. Thinking it's a book of law and you're now litigating by the book is not really it.