Does Melody Even Matter??

[jancivil]

Sorry, I failed to convey my meaning in my stupid haste:
The whole thing of a 'Max Martin' represents everything wrong with this world afaic. Because the outcome of whatever modi operandi he comes from is shit. And it's the same shit over and over. You can fabricate a story which makes it seem reasonable, it works for you, fine by me, but it's also shit.

[vurt]

Musicology in general and keep dismissing it as not a real science.

its not though is it?

[jancivil]

"... and keep dismissing it as not a real science."

I'm quite sure you're not doing science, dude. It's storytelling. I don't know why Alan Lomax is supposed to stand in for scientific endeavor. It's subjective takes from interviewing certain people, ultimately. And you abused it for your own argument. What I'm finding from the strenuous posts you come up with out of supposed musicology is it's a good excuse for not having to know about music but go on and talk as if you do anyway.

[Dasheesh]

"... and keep dismissing it as not a real science."

I'm quite sure you're not doing science, dude. It's storytelling. I don't know why Alan Lomax is supposed to stand in for scientific endeavor. It's subjective takes from interviewing certain people, ultimately. And you abused it for your own argument. What I'm finding from the strenuous posts you come up with out of supposed musicology is it's a good excuse for not having to know about music but go on and talk as if you do anyway.

because you don't have to know anything anymore jan. this thread really pissed me off when i first saw it, then i relented to the fact that it's the new reality. we have given it over to computers. the only thing being examined with interest are GUIs at this point. you hit a button and hope you are young enough to take your shirt off. it's all done for you. you don't need to know anything a all, and people just do it because they got nothing better to do and are bored from too many drugs. it's more important to be able to sell yourself as something you are not, that's where the talent is. now put aside your ego and let's just accept reality (i know, it's hard, trust me i know).

[fmr]

Are we still discussing melody and whether it does matter or not?

no, weve moved on to whether the masons can turn you in to a frog (or other amphibian) or not?

Who are the masons? Shall I "F.E.a.R."?

[vurt]

i might be one, im not sure yet.
fear is a little strong, but id suggest at least respecting anyone who could turn you in to a frog (or other amphibian), its just common sense.

[jancivil]

I remember when Miles covered Time After Time by Cyndi Lauper.
I thought it was a really good record to begin with and was delighted to see Miles must've heard something like I heard in it.

Recently I've been discovering covers like this one (I found it googling Britney Spears covers; the reason for that is I had landed on a jazz cover, quite different than the original, of Baby One More Time, which I think is a good tune by Max Martin He is a talented man, but he's so formula and facile. He's written some horrors IMO.):



So this is probably a <good tune> to begin with. A jazz kind of singer does some things with it. It's exquisite, and it is that because of technical mastery and excellence. Jazz was always about covering 'good tunes'. You can go further.

It's not going to sell much.
Is selling a lot supposed to be something other than what it is?

[fmr]

Ok, I stick to the Bernstein Video where he shows of wonderful educational skills, though among his audience seems youngsters too young to really care even if they understood. Some has a more blank expression than others. But fair enough, there are tunes, themes and motifs, and we can stick to that or whatever as long as it does not contradict any of my points about polyphony. I can not see why it should, motifs are great for supportive counterpoint, themes are good for variation and development, while tunes are good for tunes. And since I favor polyphony, they are even welcome all at once given the composer knows his shit. And that is the best I can make of it for now.

Bernstein was a great pedagog, and that video has some "precious stones". It actually shakes some pre-defined notions that still exist today, like the repetition as basis for what should be a "good melody", and that 1-2-3 rule. And his examples of Bach, Wagner and Hindemith are great to show how melody can be far from that pre-defined notion that is more or less built-in our brains, and still be melody (but then, most people would not recognize those as "melodies", I guess).

[fmr]

i might be one, im not sure yet.
fear is a little strong, but id suggest at least respecting anyone who could turn you in to a frog (or other amphibian), its just common sense.

OK, I will F.E.a.R. you:

[Dasheesh]

i would argue it works because it's a well written algorithm. you know a ghost writer writes those pop songs right? and it might even be a computer



"a good song is elastic, you can stretch it mold it into different shapes." - sting

[jancivil]

"if there's more music than that, you're doomed"

- may be practically truistic today. "Dumbed down" is an accurate assessment IME. 'It's a difference in values', is bullshit, because it tries to make it seem better than it really is. If you don't care really, you're a passive consumer, you aren't working from affirming anything, stop with the 'values'. (Why would you write like that?)

So, you would think I'd be a good part of what is actually a straw man, the edumacated musician who looks down on everybody with the simple tunes. I have technique on more than one instrument over years, and I know the mechanics of more than one area of music all the way down.
Yet, I go for melody and I can find it where it is. I don't look down on a music out of an attitude or a self-importance, there are good tunes, there are bad tunes, there is good melody and mediocre and there are shades of quality... and I call 'em as I see 'em.

I imagine I would hear certain things and not see it, Oops by Britney... Creep by Radiohead, or we get back into jazz practice; a middling but not bad tune can be formed into *good melody* via technique. The presentation may not be the best which is hard sometimes to parse from the quality of the song.

Pandering is what it is, it's not a very affirming way to be in the world IME.

[IncarnateX]

Seems like this is a really a good time to shift focus from polyphony and requiems to .......(drumroll)...

SWING AND BOOGIE WOOGIE!

Another wierd interest of mine, I give you:

THE ANDREWS SISTERS, YEAAAAH!!!!!

The perfect music when the bombs are exploding around your head, partyyyyy

The soldier’s flirt



The escapism:



And the drinking



What more are needed to be happy?

Still talking about melodies, of course, or in this case -with Bernsteins’ words- wonderful tunes.

[vurt]

woogie

what you typed is all kinds of wrong

[Bombadil]

Bernstein loved Sgt. Pepper.

[Septimon]

Recently I've been discovering covers like this one (I found it googling Britney Spears covers; the reason for that is I had landed on a jazz cover, quite different than the original, of Baby One More Time, which I think is a good tune by Max Martin He is a talented man, but he's so formula and facile. He's written some horrors IMO.):



So this is probably a <good tune> to begin with. A jazz kind of singer does some things with it. It's exquisite, and it is that because of technical mastery and excellence. Jazz was always about covering 'good tunes'. You can go further.

It's not going to sell much.
Is selling a lot supposed to be something other than what it is?

That is a Great Cover, thanks For Sharing it.