Melody and Harmony

[Gamma-UT]

But when you sing a melody, can't you have at least dozens of harmonies associated to that same melody? Backgrounds may influence that... Someone classical when I hum an E tune something might say that is harmony of C, and other might say, that is harmony of Fmaj7... for instance... non?

Yes, melody doesn't mean you can't have different harmonies against a melody. Music would be pretty dull if you couldn't change the harmony played against a melody.

The only point I'm making is that the distinction between melody and harmony isn't entirely clear cut. But, being able to separate the two conceptually is a handy thing in writing music.

[Ogg Vorbis]

No, it's the presence of harmonics. Assuming we're not composing with sine waves but reasonably rich timbres, you have at least the fifth popping up quite early in the harmonic series. However, that is probably not all the story...

So what defines the difference between melody and harmony is physics (the presence of harmonics)? The lower overtones (which are more consonant) are what we conventionalize as "harmony" and the upper overtones (which get closer together and more dissonant) transform "harmony" into "melody."

Hope I am not extracting too much from your quote...but it's a more interesting theory that what I have going on...

My theory was that melody and harmony are an entirely arbitrary and subjective distinction that cannot be defined, that have no root in either nature or in human perception.

I still kind of think it's arbitrary and subjective...

[Gamma-UT]

No, it's the presence of harmonics. Assuming we're not composing with sine waves but reasonably rich timbres, you have at least the fifth popping up quite early in the harmonic series. However, that is probably not all the story...

So what defines the difference between melody and harmony is physics (the presence of harmonics)? The lower overtones (which are more consonant) are what we conventionalize as "harmony" and the upper overtones (which get closer together and more dissonant) transform "harmony" into "melody."

No. If anything the upper overtones have the built-in harmony. You don't get interesting intervals until three or four overtones in. You can clearly hear the clash of the harmonics if you play a major seventh on a sawtooth wave versus the same interval played on pure sines. The sine version will sound almost consonant, but the sawtooth version has a definite bite.

William Sethares has done a bunch of research on harmonic series to see if the scales we use are innate or learned. His conclusion is, more or less, that they are learned. But they are derived very closely from the harmonic series of things like pipes and strings.

But, if I were you, I'd forget the physics bit especially if...

Hope I am not extracting too much from your quote...but it's a more interesting theory that what I have going on...

My theory was that melody and harmony are an entirely arbitrary and subjective distinction that cannot be defined, that have no root in either nature or in human perception.

I still kind of think it's arbitrary and subjective...

I think it's possible to argue that melody is a subset of harmony. You can play melodies as parallel chords (planing), which is what Satie did on the Ogives.

But is saying the two are the same actually useful in a musical sense? In many cases, treating melody as separate to the harmony is useful. It's a lot easier than trying to argue that the harmony is changing on a note by note basis, unless you were keen to learn the name of every oddball chord ever devised. And, while melody may have no basis in nature, most people perceive melody and harmony separately when composers/musicians give them both. With the right setup (again using the way in which tonal music has sensitised people to the idea of tonality), you can even get people to accept a set of notes as two separate chords.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I think it's possible to argue that melody is a subset of harmony. You can play melodies as parallel chords (planing), which is what Satie did on the Ogives.

But is saying the two are the same actually useful in a musical sense? In many cases, treating melody as separate to the harmony is useful.

I think I'd rather look at harmony as a subset of melody. I see parallel chord planing to be "reinforced" melody. To say it's reinforced by harmony is misleading. It's just melody reinforced at intervals other than unisons or octaves.

The more I think about the word "harmony" the more meaningless it becomes. It has no substance! It defies any definition or even a rational description.

Any description of the relationship between tones can be described rhythmically and intervalically. But why categorize them into melody and harmony if there is no perceptual difference, nor any "natural" difference?

[Musicologo]

Then supose you have a note and we change the spectrum. We change the harmonics, like spectral music. Are we changing the melody (well it's only a note) or the harmony?... What are we hearing with this morphing wave being changed but still being the same note all along?...

[Gamma-UT]

Then supose you have a note and we change the spectrum. We change the harmonics, like spectral music. Are we changing the melody (well it's only a note) or the harmony?... What are we hearing with this morphing wave being changed but still being the same note all along?...

It depends on how you change the spectrum.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Then supose you have a note and we change the spectrum. We change the harmonics, like spectral music. Are we changing the melody (well it's only a note) or the harmony?... What are we hearing with this morphing wave being changed but still being the same note all along?...

Well it seems like many paths lead to Schoenberg. He coined the term "klangfarbenmelodie" to describe exactly such a thing, and yeah I agree that it is a melodic function because it is as the result of a fluid relationship between sonorities over time.

[iamdegree]

What is the difference?

Harmony is "God's voice" melody is something you hear in the back of your head when nothing else is going on lol

[rp314]

I think it's a case of context and pedagogy affecting theory. Some musical forms are easier to learn and compose by thinking contrapuntally, while others have more of a harmonic logic to them. This is mostly academic, of course. The trained musician/composer has generally acquired enough theory to do it "organically", but if a student has the desire to learn music in its various forms breaking it down seems to be a fairly practical way to go about it.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Wow, the "Thread of the Dead" from beyond the grave! Interesting memories on this topic.

I STILL don't know what defines melody versus harmony. All I can come up with is "melody is that thing that an autoharp can't do and harmony is that thing that an autoharp can only do."

Or..."I may not be able to define harmony versus melody (like obscenity) but I know it when I hear (see) it."

[garyewer09]

Melody is the linear presentation of notes, while harmony is a vertical and simultaneous presentation. Even if the notes are arpeggiated (i.e., not simultaneous), harmony is assessed vertically. Harmonies can often be implied by the melody. Melodies are usually presented within a time signature of some sort, which allows certain notes to be placed on strong beats, while other pitches occur on weak beats. Our brains will often assimilate the notes of strong beats into implied harmonies.

What's interesting is that one melody can cause one listener to "hear" a certain set of implied harmonies, while another listener can be perceiving something quite different. For example, a melody might dwell in and around the notes C and Eb, and one listener will be imagining a Cm chord, while another will hear those two notes as coming from an Ab chord. This kind of variation in the perceived harmony can result in two people, who might be singing the same melody unaccompanied, sounding slightly out of tune with each other, because a differing implied harmony will affect the tuning of the melody. For that reason, I often recommend to singers who are trying to get vocals in tune to practice with a keyboard or guitar accompaniment at first, even if the final performance is going to be unaccompanied. That way, they'll both be imagining the same implied harmony, and the vocal tuning will be better.

-Gary

[Ogg Vorbis]

Melody is the linear presentation of notes, while harmony is a vertical and simultaneous presentation. Even if the notes are arpeggiated (i.e., not simultaneous), harmony is assessed vertically. Harmonies can often be implied by the melody. Melodies are usually presented within a time signature of some sort, which allows certain notes to be placed on strong beats, while other pitches occur on weak beats. Our brains will often assimilate the notes of strong beats into implied harmonies.

What's interesting is that one melody can cause one listener to "hear" a certain set of implied harmonies, while another listener can be perceiving something quite different. For example, a melody might dwell in and around the notes C and Eb, and one listener will be imagining a Cm chord, while another will hear those two notes as coming from an Ab chord. This kind of variation in the perceived harmony can result in two people, who might be singing the same melody unaccompanied, sounding slightly out of tune with each other, because a differing implied harmony will affect the tuning of the melody. For that reason, I often recommend to singers who are trying to get vocals in tune to practice with a keyboard or guitar accompaniment at first, even if the final performance is going to be unaccompanied. That way, they'll both be imagining the same implied harmony, and the vocal tuning will be better.

-Gary

Thanks Gary,

So what I can extract from your reply is that a melody can imply a harmony so long as it contains consonant (triadic) intervals. In other words, a scale will not imply a harmony?

What about a run of C, D, Eb, C (where C, Eb and C are on strong beats).

This kind of outlines part of a triad. Would this be perceived as melody or harmony or both? What if you added G like this C, D, Eb, G? Stronger implication of harmony? Okay, how about if you filled in the F in the gap? Would that change its status as harmony?

[garyewer09]

So what I can extract from your reply is that a melody can imply a harmony so long as it contains consonant (triadic) intervals. In other words, a scale will not imply a harmony?

Yes, a scale will usually imply harmony because as part of a melody certain notes will fall on strong beats, and our minds will assimilate those strong-beat notes into implied harmony.

The scale-type melody you mention (C D Eb C) will usually imply a C minor chord, but that impression can be affected by notes immediately before or after. For example, if a note before this melody was an Ab, you'd likely "hear" an Ab chord. Adding an F or a G will only affect that if they occur on what are perceived to be strong beats. If the G happens on a strong beat, you'll hear the D and F as being on weak beats and therefore not affecting the implied harmony of Cm. If the D and F are on strong beats, other harmonies will sound more likely.

This kind of outlines part of a triad. Would this be perceived as melody or harmony or both? What if you added G like this C, D, Eb, G? Stronger implication of harmony? Okay, how about if you filled in the F in the gap? Would that change its status as harmony?

You might be confusing the terms here. It's not an issue of "do I hear this as a melody or do I hear this as harmony.." There's no question that when notes are played linearly (i.e., one after the other), you will always perceive this as melody. In that sense, even bass lines can be heard as a type of melody, if they proceed mainly by steps. But my point is that melodies will usually imply an imagined harmony, and implied harmonies usually require some sort of melody going on.

The only time when implied harmonies don't require melodies is if you take something like the following chord progression: C F G C, and only play the bass notes. Even without the harmonies, those bass notes are so typical of a ! - IV - V - I progression, that we'll imagine those harmonies even though they aren't actually there.

-Gary

[djgroovy]

Melody is the linear presentation of notes, while harmony is a vertical and simultaneous presentation. Even if the notes are arpeggiated (i.e., not simultaneous), harmony is assessed vertically. Harmonies can often be implied by the melody. Melodies are usually presented within a time signature of some sort, which allows certain notes to be placed on strong beats, while other pitches occur on weak beats. Our brains will often assimilate the notes of strong beats into implied harmonies.

What's interesting is that one melody can cause one listener to "hear" a certain set of implied harmonies, while another listener can be perceiving something quite different. For example, a melody might dwell in and around the notes C and Eb, and one listener will be imagining a Cm chord, while another will hear those two notes as coming from an Ab chord. This kind of variation in the perceived harmony can result in two people, who might be singing the same melody unaccompanied, sounding slightly out of tune with each other, because a differing implied harmony will affect the tuning of the melody. For that reason, I often recommend to singers who are trying to get vocals in tune to practice with a keyboard or guitar accompaniment at first, even if the final performance is going to be unaccompanied. That way, they'll both be imagining the same implied harmony, and the vocal tuning will be better.

-Gary

Great post and well explained.

[Ogg Vorbis]

It's not an issue of "do I hear this as a melody or do I hear this as harmony.." There's no question that when notes are played linearly (i.e., one after the other), you will always perceive this as melody.
-Gary

So Gary, I am not sure I agree with that. Let's say you play the following notes linearly... A C# E (next 8ve) A C# E

...and so on.

You said I will always percieve this as melody, but in fact I actually perceive this as a triadic harmonic structure in spite of the fact that it's linear.

Which is what I think you said in a previous post...

But I think this discussion is getting so terribly triad-centric. We're talking about I IV V or C minor chords or Ab major chords as though that's the definition of harmony.

But playing minor second clusters simultaneously (a la Lygeti) is also "harmony." It's "dissonant harmony" to be sure, but harmony nevertheless.

So I want to make sure we've got non-triadic oriented discussions of melody and harmony on the table too. Because otherwise I fear we'll devolve into saying, "triad equals harmony, else equals melody."

By the way, I hope you are appeciating this discussion as much as I am. I am really not trying to be a smart-ass or knitpicky about this stuff. I really want to know. Someday soon (I hope) I want to start to have students and I want to make sure I have these things straight in my own head before explaining it to someone else.

Plus I am curious. It seems that we're making all sort of assumptions when we discuss what "harmony" is.

Thanks for your replies.