I'm gonna have to agree with the equally viable folks. Unless I'm misunderstanding this is about whether melody has to come first in the compositional process?jancivil wrote:So, where has melody been simply the result of *sorting* notes from chords, and... additions? I'm sure it's been done, but which memorable melodies were done just like this I wonder.D.Josef wrote:You just need to "sort the melody out" eventually, selecting notes from the chords for the lead voice, adding passing notes, etc.
you have 'adding passing notes etc'... what is that? Part-writing? Do you want the parts to work melodically or is it just some sorting routine, such as a puzzle...
I think your 'equally viable' is going to be hard to support. Feel free to show that...
You can compose melody first, or harmony first, or rhythm first, keep in mind, it will greatly affect your product.
Anyways, given that improvisation is composition quickly and composition is improvisation slowly.
Just last night I was at a jam session with some folks and the tunes that began on djembe or began on guitar were equally memorable. either way, I took what was there, and then improvised a melody to fit over the foundation. (Which was basically a "sorting out" process in my head that happened in real-time subconsciously... but i can only do that because I've had lots of practice coming up with melodies in studio work where the whole track's already been finished and my part's the last one.)
Yes, our improvisations it would have been different if I had started with a melody and forced the guitarists/drummer to fit to my melody... but it was all equally memorable... or viable if that's the word we're using.
The better and more flexible you are at coming up with melodies, the less necessary it is to start with them.
Similarly, if you are really flexible with harmonies, and it's more difficult for you to come up with melodies, it makes sense to start with melody and then fit chords.