Theory question about how to properly analyze the relationship between melody and harmony.

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

I've been blowing up the forums with all of my nood theory questions lately lol, in that spirit I have another one. This one pertains to the relationship between melody and harmony. Does the melody affect what we perceive the harmony to be?

This is kind of an ambiguous question so I will give an example. Lets say that I have a broken chord progression playing under my melody. There is one bar where the chord is C major in root position and during this bar the melody is on the B note a 7th above the root of the chord for the entire bar. As a listener do I perceive this as a Major 7th chord, or do i perceive it as a C chord with the melody simply hitting the B note above it? Or both?

Like most thing in music it probably depends on context but I've always found it difficult to analyze music in this regard. To put it more succinctly, should the entire song be looked at as a chord progression, or should I analyze both harmony and melody while taking note of the relationships between them, but still treating them as unique elements?

Hope that makes sense. Like I said, I appreciate everyone putting up with my basic theory questions and being supportive of my questions here at KVR. I look forward to answering the same questions when they are posed by others in the future.

Post

Well, in and of itself I don't find a necessary dichotomy in that example.
I will say that I have found dealing with lines as not tied to a given *chord* very compelling compositionally. There are types of composition such as a Chaconne where the very idea is a repeated chord progression, or in rock the same kind of thing so the question is like yours, is it desirable to consider the notes in our lines as not married to a chord name or what. That's a musical question, ie, it is all contextual, there is no one answer.

In linear, aka contrapuntal writing there is a certain freedom afforded us in that we may take 'non-harmonic' tones as entities apart from chords-as-solid-objects, like blocks, and do things like simply ignore resolution or hold them in abeyance as it were. So that there is a weaving texture rather than solid shapes with definite single colors. But if there is a definite idea of 'chord' we'd tend to be cognizant of the relationship of dissonances to the chord-idea.

I usually don't work in chords, for a perhaps extreme example for you.

Post

I can only speak for myself, since everybody perceives music differently depending on what they're used to listening to. I would only hear the B as the top of a major seventh chord if the B was sustained, with at least the root on the bottom and a third somewhere above it.

If the B were only being "passed through" as part of a melody, I can see how it wouldn't really change the nature of the chord, in other words, the chord would be perceived as a C chord.

In answer to your second question, I think it depends on how "vertical" or "horizontal" the piece is overall. The more vertical, the more I would analyze it as a chord progression.

Post

All of the above, plus:

It depends on the style of music. If you're doing functional (i.e., moving towards the One True Tonic) harmony, the chords are as important as the melody, and if they don't support that functional paradigm, fussy people (such as instructors) will be displeased and your grade will suffer thereby. If you're writing jazz, people tend to hear 2-5-1 (normally iimin7-V7-I, but variants abound) and melody is secondary anyway... but the core is still fundamentally functional. Still, in jazz you have more freedom, and can get away with things like having the melody on the root of the chord, transforming a iiimin chord into a IMaj7 or a IV into a iimin7 or something that's actually interesting. If you're writing something less (or non) functional however, you have even more freedom, and the melody can easily affect what we perceive the harmony to be, primarily because there's no functional structure to the harmony, no imposed order that must be obeyed. (It's a deeply challenging art, and one few seem able to master -- but hey, there's a reason why working without a net is so impressive.) Now go make some music!
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!

Post

The distinction between hearing a tone as belonging to part of the chord and the alternative is not that great. In the example of the B over a C chord, whether you consciously hear it as a Cmaj7 chord or not doesn't change the fact that the B plays more or less the same role, even if only for a split second or however long the note lasts. Your mind will hear the relationship between that B and the C major even if, depending on context, it isn't very well stressed.

But like other have said, the types of music where it is significantly useful to think about every overlapping tone combination as a separate chord are a relative minority. That isn't to say those tone combinations aren't important, because they absolutely are, but from a compositional standpoint (and from a listening one) it isn't particularly productive. If you've got a melody that's a full bar of 16th notes, thinking about that bar being composed of (potentially) 16 chord changes will just drive you crazy, even if on some level that is what's happening.

Post

Well the chances are just about 100% that the OP is talking about a solid C major chord in which case it's a C^7 for all intents and purposes.

The thing brought in by 'janac' is context-dependent and will be located in rhythm and texture. I doubt anyone perceives a B with a solid C major block, or C major sonority that sustains for any length of time as anything I would not call a C major 7th chord-thing. It'd have to be rather ambiguous not to be.

Post

I don't really deal in assumptions. I think what I said covers all the bases.

Post

Hi there..


As you said its an ambiguous question which will illicit a range of ambiguous answers.

Heres my take...

If the B note is played with a differant timberal reference. . Ie a differant instrument to what is generating the chord I would interprete that note musically as a leading note moving towards a cadence or resolution.

If the note is played rhythmic together with the chord simultaneously and with the the same timbre... ie same instrument then I would percieve it to be part of the chordal structure.. ie C7. It also depends the content of th phrase in which you are playing.. ie.. is it a chordal movement, is it a stab, or is it a sustain ie a pad or is it a tensioner... leading to a resolution.... clear context will give clear answers though.

Anyway that just my take on it.. enjoy your music further!

Post

goldenhelix wrote:I don't really deal in assumptions. I think what I said covers all the bases.
& Thank You Captain Obvious for that contribution anyway. I mean given what had been said already, you're kind of late to the party.
Nota Bene: I wasn't referring to anything you did here. As to your snot-dripping '... deal in assumptions', I have context and remember what people told me:
YoungCrocket elsewhere here recently wrote: I generally compose electronic music. Mostly melodic dubstep at 140 or 70 BPM. My question pertains to the different types of chord progressions used in electronic music.

How should I approach writing my chord progressions? (sorry, I know this is a broad question) I've watched multiple tutorials and read quite a bit on the subject, but I'm having a hard time coming up with good practices to follow. From what I've seen in electronic music, the progressions are generally 4, 8, or 16 bars long.
It's called drawing inferences, son. Don't be foolish.

Post

goldenhelix wrote:The distinction between hearing a tone as belonging to part of the chord and the alternative is not that great. In the example of the B over a C chord, whether you consciously hear it as a Cmaj7 chord or not doesn't change the fact that the B plays more or less the same role,
Yeah, no, those bases were covered already. Yet more than one run was scored as runners made their way around the bases anyway.

"[in linear writing] we may take 'non-harmonic' tones as entities apart from chords-as-solid-objects, like blocks, and do things like simply ignore resolution or hold them in abeyance as it were. So that there is a weaving texture rather than solid shapes with definite single colors. But if there is a definite idea of 'chord' we'd tend to be cognizant of the relationship of dissonances to the chord-idea."

There will be times where the notion of a block chord is not true enough to stick with. Writing as I am for, you know, anybody that chances upon the thread I like to be clear and thorough.

Post

Analyzing every vertical structure will lead to weird chords, if the style features any chromaticism. You should analyze the notes of the melody, the countermelody (if there is any), the notes of the chords, the notes of the bass, the overall tonal plan: are there any patterns backgrounds patterns (many pop songs repeat 4 chords; you can reduce whole symphonies to 3 chords as tonal centers and also movements in a similar way).

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”