Tips For Practicing Writing Melodies

[Soundwoofer]

I read somewhere that you can find inspiration by looking around you, like the shape of a mountain chain.

[beatflux]

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely and just focusing on the rhythm.

Super Mario, Star Wars, etc. are all identifiable just by their rhythm.

Great Observation.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely and just focusing on the rhythm.

Super Mario, Star Wars, etc. are all identifiable just by their rhythm.

Great Observation.

Thanks, but I can't take credit for the observation as it has been well-known and taught for hundreds of years.

To examine the concept further, most strong melodies also follow a consistent, repeated rhythmic pattern, with phrases usually being in multiples of 8; periodic and sentence structures being most common.

Such as in Pirates of The Caribbean



Old folk songs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOyPLSVam4

and in probably the most recognizable classical piece of all time

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

So yeah. If you want to practice writing melodies. Start by establishing a strong rhythmic and phrase structure and work outwards from that.

[jancivil]

Rhythm can't be missing from music or you would have notes that have pitch but no duration

Inaccurate in any practical sense. The perception of rhythm only exists if the note is contrasted against another duration, whether that is silence or if the note is re-articulated against itself.

I'm struggling not to be blunt but I'm about to waste a lot of verbiage, straining, so...
That's just nonsense. Duration can absolutely be known about a single line. The rhythm of one part can absolutely be known, including music with no pulse, it's done all_the_time.

Density 21.5.png

So if that assertion is true, this was impossible.
Conveniently, a meter is established but it's not so the performer has metronomic reference.


We may notate rhythm absent a meter; there may be ambiguities owing to not relating to a pulse but in practical terms duration in notation is rather ill-defined compared to the realization of that writing, in virtually all cases; compare to working with actual durations using blocks in a piano roll application: the players reading a score and/or the director have to fill in durations as a matter of course.

(For instance, a staccato marking: how short is it really? There is a whole range of how short in practice - and we find this in sample libraries now - while the markup is just the one sign. So in relative terms, duration is already ambiguous until executed.)

[jancivil]

Satie liked to write with no bar lines, not that it's rhythmically abstruse or very involved but it may promote an open sort of attitude to the thing.

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely and just focusing on the rhythm.

Super Mario, Star Wars, etc. are all identifiable just by their rhythm.

Great Observation.

Thanks, but I can't take credit for the observation as it has been well-known and taught for hundreds of years.

That's an opinion or a statement of a view you hold, it's not an observation of any fact. I tend to be skeptical of the claim this is known as pedagogy for centuries, especially in that rhythm in the classical music realm is just not given much emphasis, in my experience or research.

My first objection to the assertion is that it unnecessarily segregates rhythm from pitch: in the more practical sense, one could obtain a total understanding of the rhythm of the motif of that movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, ignoring pitch as you recommend, and then die not having the real sense of that melody worth a damn. The motif is memorable for the combination of rhythm and its intervals. You would go around saying dee dee tee DAH with no tones because you're tone deaf, isn't it.

Then, the integration of pitches and rhythm, ie., the weight of tones (ie., their pitch, low to high, the energy of this; the faster treatments of the motif don't happen in the bass register for instance) and intervals in time is, according to your advice, deliberately set aside as though for later. I see you value your own opinion that highly, but I'm not buying. I don't think this is good, to be honest.

EG: In my own opinion, the Pirates thing is anything but strong melody; it is an example of your preference for repetition but to me in 2019 that's a statement of a stick-in-the mud conservative worldview, as is the statement as to form; that's totally neutral rather than some clear sign of quality.
At any rate it isn't acceptable as a statement of fact or an instance of that view being an observation of a known fact.

[Jace-BeOS]

you said:

"The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely"

No, what I said was:

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely

I'm not sure it's me that's arguing for the sake of arguing...

You totally seem to be, from where I’m set reading this exchange...

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Satie liked to write with no bar lines, not that it's rhythmically abstruse or very involved but it may promote an open sort of attitude to the thing.

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely and just focusing on the rhythm.

Super Mario, Star Wars, etc. are all identifiable just by their rhythm.

Great Observation.

Thanks, but I can't take credit for the observation as it has been well-known and taught for hundreds of years.

That's an opinion or a statement of a view you hold, it's not an observation of any fact. I tend to be skeptical of the claim this is known as pedagogy for centuries, especially in that rhythm in the classical music realm is just not given much emphasis, in my experience or research.

My first objection to the assertion is that it unnecessarily segregates rhythm from pitch: in the more practical sense, one could obtain a total understanding of the rhythm of the motif of that movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, ignoring pitch as you recommend, and then die not having the real sense of that melody worth a damn. The motif is memorable for the combination of rhythm and its intervals. You would go around saying dee dee tee DAH with no tones because you're tone deaf, isn't it.

Then, the integration of pitches and rhythm, ie., the weight of tones (ie., their pitch, low to high, the energy of this; the faster treatments of the motif don't happen in the bass register for instance) and intervals in time is, according to your advice, deliberately set aside as though for later. I see you value your own opinion that highly, but I'm not buying. I don't think this is good, to be honest.

EG: In my own opinion, the Pirates thing is anything but strong melody; it is an example of your preference for repetition but to me in 2019 that's a statement of a stick-in-the mud conservative worldview, as is the statement as to form; that's totally neutral rather than some clear sign of quality.
At any rate it isn't acceptable as a statement of fact or an instance of that view being an observation of a known fact.

Maybe instead of vehemently arguing this, for god knows what reason, you should actually bother to go and try the method.

Start with a rhythm, find one you like, then start adding the pitch to it. Eventually, people get the hang of it and just start doing both at the same time.

A strong rhythmic foundation is a vital aspect of every strong tune. The fact that Star Wars or the 5th Symphony can be identified easily even when the pitch is omitted is a testament to how essential its pulse and rhythm is to its identity. In fact, if you changed the pitch of the motif from the 5th Symphony, I guarantee you that most people would be like "It's kinda like the 5th symphony but with the wrong notes".

It's actually akin to what makes a good character design. The philosophy in art, is that a good character design is generally one that is also easily-recognizable in silhouette.



Rhythm is the silhouette here.

I personally don't care if you disagree with this, because a simple observation of the most iconic and enduring pieces through time shows that they all have this in common.

Advice is cheap, the OP can either take it or leave it. But I do have reason to believe, that people who would disregard it make up the bulk of those today who seem incapable of writing a melody using any articulation aside from the legato patch on strings that has given way to endless waves of manufactured, nearly-identical "trailer" music and the like in recent years.

and I trust that the OP aspires to a higher standard than that.

[Forgotten]

you said:

"The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely"

No, what I said was:

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely

I'm not sure it's me that's arguing for the sake of arguing...

You totally seem to be, from where I’m set reading this exchange...

Maybe read it again? The poster denied saying what I quoted and in their defense quoted exactly the same thing.

I was accused of arguing for the sake of arguing, but I hardly think that pointing out that a denial of saying something then supporting it with the same quote is something I should just accept as an effective counter-argument to the points I previously made.

[Jace-BeOS]

I am personally way more musically motivated by/focused on rhythm and sound than by melody. The notion of removing pitch from the equation to aid in the process of creating a melody really interested me.

I appreciate this discussion here. I wish it hadn’t degraded into argumentation. Discussions of music theory on this site often degrade into argumentation over whose philosophy is “correct”, in a realm that I’m pretty confident has a lot of variety in opinions as to ways to go about a thing. Music is math in theory, but it is also philosophy in approach.

It sounds like there are certainly multiple approaches worth considering.

[Jace-BeOS]

you said:

"The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely"

No, what I said was:

The best way to learn how to write strong melodies is to start by omitting the pitch entirely

I'm not sure it's me that's arguing for the sake of arguing...

You totally seem to be, from where I’m set reading this exchange...

Maybe read it again? The poster denied saying what I quoted and in their defense quoted exactly the same thing.

I was accused of arguing for the sake of arguing, but I hardly think that pointing out that a denial of saying something then supporting it with the same quote is something I should just accept as an effective counter-argument to the points I previously made.

From my reading, you’re critiquing part one of a two-part statement, arguing against it in isolation, when BOTH parts make the complete idea that the poster is trying to convey.

[Forgotten]

so you don’t think it’s valid to accept part of an argument and disagree with another part?

That aside, the main thrust of my argument is that I (and I’m pretty sure most people) don’t agree that the best way to learn to write melody is to completely ignore the pitch of notes. I bolded the text as I have above and despite my bold text I was told “that’s not what I said”. However, that’s exactly what was said.

[jancivil]

"you’re critiquing part one of a two-part statement, arguing against it in isolation, when BOTH parts make the complete idea that the poster is trying to convey"

- argumentative. and I'll say why I say so:

Not only did they state and reiterate that *the* best way to learn melody is

to start by omitting the pitch entirely

they expounded on it and tried an appeal to the authority of the weight of history for it; and then the contention is supposed to be supported by this godawful movie theme, which perhaps does resemble that remark. Again, the famous Beethoven lick is specifically memorable for the major third interval in that rhythm. So the putative complete idea (which as stated I agree with) disagrees with the assertion! It's more two different statements than a "two-part statement". So, for the wider readership, I am saying don't heed that one.

I'm all about rhythm, I don't know what philosophy someone is pushing that one thinks needs to be adhered to here.

"in the process of creating a melody", ok but that has yet to be illustrated. It could be interesting but that Pirate thing not so much. The statement was THE best way to learn to create melody is to do this. Not that there are multiple valid approaches worth considering.

[Forgotten]

The statement was THE best way to learn to create melody is to do this. Not that there are multiple valid approaches worth considering.

Exactly the same part of the argument that I have an issue with, particularly as the supposed ‘evidence’ to support it is not demonstrated outside of this thread.

The superlative implies consensus, and it certainly isn’t the case that composition is commonly taught this way.

[jancivil]

It's not demonstrated, period. We should accept that both Beethoven and whichever hack wrote that Pirates thing learned melody by isolating rhythm/ignoring pitch content by the strength of an attitude? Well it may possibly be somewhat true for the latter, since the melody doesn't do more really than follow some totally predictable chords. WEAK.

[jancivil]

I don't know what's right or wrong with that approach, the objection remains 'the best way to learn melody is...'.