Maybe this can help some enterprising young composer. I am composing the score for a stage musical. Recently I brought one of the songs to a reading of the play with very pro actors. After playing two of my songs, one of the actresses commented, "Wow, those are beautiful songs." How'd I do it? I even surprised myself. But I have been a musician all my life in addition to being the author of the play.
In a nutshell, here's my work method: I will spend all day on a song, working real hard to find a magical chord progression, patiently, with all the tenacity I can muster 'till I come up with the right chords and melody and hook for the song. I will walk from one keyboard to another, trying to get ideas, because I can get an idea even from a sound, like the thousands of sounds I have in my little VST computer studio. When I complete the scratch version, I then go back and listen and listen again to the chord progression, still making minute improvements in the chords, endlessly comparing one chord to another. It requires a lot of listening.
You might say a beautiful melody never occurs to me. Never. I'm not that lucky. I know chords, and I depend on my music writing skills. So I can sit there until the magic happens. I will not give up until the music is finished. The few times I asked a composer to join me or be a partner, they wanted money. That didn't work and it probably never will.
How I create beautiful melodies
-
- KVRist
- 155 posts since 16 Feb, 2008
-
- Banned
- 67 posts since 15 Sep, 2008
I do the same thing, first thing i ask is do i want my progression to be 4, 8, 16 bars? It can be pretty tough coming up with a progress that moves a persons emotions the right way, one key can make the difference between a sad, happy, dissonant, euphoric, major, or minor emotion...you have to REALLY get it right if you want the emotion in your body to be transmitted to the music, this is what i usually do, i have a certain mood or emotion i want others to feel, and i arrange my chordal progression to give that emotional effect. And i do this without any official musical theory knowledge. [i know it, but i didn't learn from a school or something, i discovered it by myself] Chords are it bros...the melody you have in a song makes or breaks it right there.
What can help you is if you have a messenger service of some kind...Me and cybernetika Work on chordal progressions a lot, and we use them in a song after fine tuning for what may be days. If you have someone to check the progression on, things go by faster.
What can help you is if you have a messenger service of some kind...Me and cybernetika Work on chordal progressions a lot, and we use them in a song after fine tuning for what may be days. If you have someone to check the progression on, things go by faster.
-
- KVRAF
- 2285 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Sometimes inspiration strikes, but it seems like the greats believe in work, work, and more work... To quote Paul Reed Smith, the Beatles were better at that than anybody else; they just kept hammering at it until every note rang true. If you listen to their demos, the melodies just weren't happening, and they kept at it. (Not bad, starting with "Love Me Do," and ending with "Hey Jude," huh? Gives me hope, at least!) Or take Beethoven; his notebooks are filled with all sorts of developments of his melodies, as he remorselessly worked out variations until he found the one that felt spontaneous and artless. The Tin Pan Alley guys used the same principle.
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- KVRAF
- 3125 posts since 6 Dec, 2002 from Ljubljana/ Slovenia
Hmmm ...
the way I see it ... the melody either comes right at me or it doesn't at all. Sitting and jugling the chords rarely helps me.
Although I agree it's as much craft as it is pure art (or whatever).
k
p.s.: my friends have just finished composing an album worth of tunes for a girl singer and one said: yeah, the songs are done, we just need to write melodies and lyrics to them and that'll be it.
And I said: you mean all you did was the grooves and the chords and call it finished? Damn ... To me, that's like 30% there.
the way I see it ... the melody either comes right at me or it doesn't at all. Sitting and jugling the chords rarely helps me.
Although I agree it's as much craft as it is pure art (or whatever).
k
p.s.: my friends have just finished composing an album worth of tunes for a girl singer and one said: yeah, the songs are done, we just need to write melodies and lyrics to them and that'll be it.
And I said: you mean all you did was the grooves and the chords and call it finished? Damn ... To me, that's like 30% there.
-
- KVRAF
- 2830 posts since 2 Mar, 2003 from The only civilized county in Texas
Ok, my perspective is probably different, since I've been writing lots of quasi-classical music lately. That said....
The danger of chord progressions is that you write something that has cool chords and a poor melody. Not saying that your melodies are poor, and I've used this approach myself in the past. These days I pick up a melody instrument, open the microphone, and just start playing melodies for 20 minutes. Then I listen through it for the good bits. If there is something that I feel I've left unexplored, I tinker with that bit, again just playing against an open microphone.
Often I will have several minutes worth of melody before I even start thinking about chords. Sometimes the melody does things where I wonder "how on earth can I harmonize this", but somehow in the end it always works out, and often the melody has made some sideways jump that necessitates me to come up with creative chords.
Victor.
The danger of chord progressions is that you write something that has cool chords and a poor melody. Not saying that your melodies are poor, and I've used this approach myself in the past. These days I pick up a melody instrument, open the microphone, and just start playing melodies for 20 minutes. Then I listen through it for the good bits. If there is something that I feel I've left unexplored, I tinker with that bit, again just playing against an open microphone.
Often I will have several minutes worth of melody before I even start thinking about chords. Sometimes the melody does things where I wonder "how on earth can I harmonize this", but somehow in the end it always works out, and often the melody has made some sideways jump that necessitates me to come up with creative chords.
Victor.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 155 posts since 16 Feb, 2008
By the way, I am a former trumpet player. I never could make up a decent melody just with the trumpet. But the keyboard, for me, and the chords are the "key." It's like this: A great, captivating chord progression ( which is very hard to work out) almost writes the melody itself. The melody, harmonies, base, backup vocals, guitars, all follow the chords progression. When you add great lyrics to all this, then you have a chance at a tune that worms into peoples minds. It is a little exhausting to be so particular about chords, but I think it pays off in the end.
-
- KVRist
- 105 posts since 4 Aug, 2008 from Atlanta, GA
I think that each of these can be a great way to work. There is no one "right" way to compose music. It is Art after all.
As far as "work" is concerned, there is a saying in the art world and it goes like this: "Inspiration is for amateurs." So, The Beatles had the right idea - work, work, work. The funny thing about getting to work, though, is if you keep working long enough, inspiration will show up, too, and begin to do its magic.
As far as "work" is concerned, there is a saying in the art world and it goes like this: "Inspiration is for amateurs." So, The Beatles had the right idea - work, work, work. The funny thing about getting to work, though, is if you keep working long enough, inspiration will show up, too, and begin to do its magic.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I've only ever used the piano to compose piano music.
Sometimes I can think in terms of 'I - bVII' in mixolydian, or even the ever-popular double-plagal thing like you got in rock (via gospel) IV of IV, IV, I.
but, chords ≠ melody to me for the most part
I tend to sing to a drone. But calling a result of my own 'beautiful' is a bit subjective, if you asked me.
Sometimes maybe I get lucky, but I think that has to involve preparation.
Sometimes I can think in terms of 'I - bVII' in mixolydian, or even the ever-popular double-plagal thing like you got in rock (via gospel) IV of IV, IV, I.
but, chords ≠ melody to me for the most part
I tend to sing to a drone. But calling a result of my own 'beautiful' is a bit subjective, if you asked me.
Sometimes maybe I get lucky, but I think that has to involve preparation.
-
- KVRist
- 72 posts since 11 May, 2005
I think that this place shows a more objective way to write melodies
www.123writemelody.com
You can create some great chord progressions, but they can usually be distilled to basic tonic-dominant relationships... Write the music using those and then re-harmonize to get cool chord progressions, or more contemporary sounding changes... Anyway, just another suggestion, another approach that might help...
www.123writemelody.com
You can create some great chord progressions, but they can usually be distilled to basic tonic-dominant relationships... Write the music using those and then re-harmonize to get cool chord progressions, or more contemporary sounding changes... Anyway, just another suggestion, another approach that might help...
-
- KVRian
- 680 posts since 17 Aug, 2007
I definitely agree that starting with a chord progression can be a great way to put a song together, but it's certainly not the only way, or even necessarily the best way. There are plenty of great songs that use simple or "predictable" chord progressions but work anyway because of a brilliant melody. Likewise, there are songs that have exactly the same chord progressions as each other but sound completely different.
-
someone called simon someone called simon https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=185637
- KVRian
- 543 posts since 24 Jul, 2008 from a small city in a small country in the antipodes
mini hijack coming up...
D, A, E,
as heard countless times? I'm referring specifically to the 'IV of IV' terminology, which I'm not familiar with.
If so, in the same key, with the chords F#, B, E, would you call the F# a "V of V", like a dominant of the dominant?
hijack off, normal transmission resumes... my perspective is that I find melody and chords almost inseparable. Well, you can have a chord sequence with no obvious melodies, but to me a melody invariably suggests some chords behind it. And the chords define it to such an extent that melody feels meaningless without it.
There's always going to be exceptions, like the Debussy 'Syrinx' melody I guess. But if I heard a simple folk/pop melody sung without accompaniment, usually the chords would be there like ghosts in the background. I wonder if that's universal, or common, or just me? I guess its probably quiet common. Hence we have the easy, populist way into music: strum a chord, sing a tune...
Does that mean, in the key of E for example, this kind of progression:jancivil wrote: the ever-popular double-plagal thing like you got in rock (via gospel) IV of IV, IV, I.
D, A, E,
as heard countless times? I'm referring specifically to the 'IV of IV' terminology, which I'm not familiar with.
If so, in the same key, with the chords F#, B, E, would you call the F# a "V of V", like a dominant of the dominant?
hijack off, normal transmission resumes... my perspective is that I find melody and chords almost inseparable. Well, you can have a chord sequence with no obvious melodies, but to me a melody invariably suggests some chords behind it. And the chords define it to such an extent that melody feels meaningless without it.
There's always going to be exceptions, like the Debussy 'Syrinx' melody I guess. But if I heard a simple folk/pop melody sung without accompaniment, usually the chords would be there like ghosts in the background. I wonder if that's universal, or common, or just me? I guess its probably quiet common. Hence we have the easy, populist way into music: strum a chord, sing a tune...
-
- KVRist
- 339 posts since 12 Nov, 2008
It used to be (100 years ago) that the standard academic exercise was to take a melody and harmonize it. Take the music of Vaughn Williams. He made it an art form to take Gregorian chants and put chord progressions to them. He wasn't content to use standard chord progressions. He did it all in modes as well. I don't have the intellect to do this kind of thing. The guy was a total genius.
For me, it's all about getting started. A melody is nothing without a chord progression. I generally start with a short progression, add to it as far as I can, put it in a repeated loop and noodle over it again and again until I hear something that just sounds right. Then I try to extend the chord progression and the melodic content. Once I have a structure that can stand on its own as a phrase, I study it to try to identify some kind of motif that I can mess with. Eventually, I will end up with something that is substantial enough to drive itself forward and tell me where it wants to go. Clearly, I'm no Gershwin, who seemed to have finished masterpieces oozing out of every sweat gland. It's really quite laborious.
For me, it's all about getting started. A melody is nothing without a chord progression. I generally start with a short progression, add to it as far as I can, put it in a repeated loop and noodle over it again and again until I hear something that just sounds right. Then I try to extend the chord progression and the melodic content. Once I have a structure that can stand on its own as a phrase, I study it to try to identify some kind of motif that I can mess with. Eventually, I will end up with something that is substantial enough to drive itself forward and tell me where it wants to go. Clearly, I'm no Gershwin, who seemed to have finished masterpieces oozing out of every sweat gland. It's really quite laborious.
-
- KVRist
- 339 posts since 12 Nov, 2008
One more thing. Melody is not necessarily the crown of musical composition. There are so many other elements that can compel the listener. The melodies of Copeland or Prokofiev are generally very, very good, but not really the crowning glory. They used other devices to drive the music forward. For my money, the master of melody is Puccini. (I know, I know. "I love opera. I just can't stand all that singing.") He was certainly competent in all the other elements, but it is his melodies that makes him the king in my mind.
In my case, I think my melodies are OK, maybe even good, but they're strictly derivative. It's the underlying structures that drive my tunes.
In my case, I think my melodies are OK, maybe even good, but they're strictly derivative. It's the underlying structures that drive my tunes.
-
gambaytheunspoken gambaytheunspoken https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=23603
- KVRist
- 309 posts since 1 May, 2004
Chords, chords, chords. Debussy couldn't think straight without a piano, because there were so many new chords to discover. And he wrote some pretty melodies. Another of my favourites, and if you study his compositions closely he's really quite avant garde, is Antonio Carlos Jobim. He has the most beautiful and memorable melodies but his progressions are out of this world. For those guitarists and keyboard players out there have a look at his "Batidinha." The melody writes itself.
-
- KVRist
- 339 posts since 12 Nov, 2008
You're right about Jobim. (But then, Brazilian samba is irresistible to me). With this kind of music, where the melody is so perfectly integrated with the underlying structure, I can't help but think that it all came out as a unified whole. I don't know where that kind of talent comes from. In Jobim's case, I think that the samba rhythm and chordal structures are imbedded in the Brazilian DNA, and that Jobim probably hardly even had to think about them.
Take a tune like "Wave". What do you think came first? The melody or the chords? (I think it all came at once, but I could be wrong).
Take a tune like "Wave". What do you think came first? The melody or the chords? (I think it all came at once, but I could be wrong).