How would you go about making melody on this?

[Functional]

So here's an interesting puzzle that I've not managed to handle and at least some other people, with more experience than me, seem to struggle with too

The first part of this quip I've made. I asked a simple question: "Because line cliches are so cool, what if you had two?"

And the result is this: https://vocaroo.com/11uDFyJglb2i

I'd love to list the chords but sadly I'd get half of them wrong because I don't think they're meaningful anyway beyond the tonic and the turnarounds, just products of voiceleading. Play a simple A-C#-F# and then keep chromatically descending the A and F#, with the last chord (before the dominant) getting an extra A into it. The second part is in a different key and easy to work with, but the first part is a whole other world and my mind just blanks there. I've tried.

One suggestion I had was to use the existing implied chromatically descending topline as the melody itself. He probably meant to embellish it a bit more. I haven't tried that and I'm not sure how easy that is for singers. But would there be any other alternatives that I should try? Because even if I did that and it would work, the next problem is trying to add in other textures. Which would either be outlining what there is already (that stable third degree or the chromatic descents) or... I'm back in this situation.

[NERF_PROTOSS]

imo there's no problem labelling chords here, the harmonic rhythm + arp pattern are clear enough, I'd just look at it as an F# minor thing instead of an A thing.

(chopin starts on the first inversion in uh an E minor piece I can't remember the name of, but I do remember radiohead ripped the melody for exit music)

so something like
| F#m/A | C#/G# | C#dim/G | D#m7b5/F# or F#m6 (by F#m6 I mean F#m with an added sixth), then with an A in the bass then a cheeky brief E7? back to the top |

everything is pretty solidly F# minorish except the diminished triad - my personal preference is to recontextualise it as an incomplete A7 and just play A mixolydian over it, which is pretty inside-sounding to me. ymmv

[jancivil]

---

[Functional]

Def can see why they would call that the melody, but it's very plain to remain as is for too long IME.

I think they meant that it should be just embellished more and the current topline should just be the landing notes mostly, rather than literally.

there's way too much lingo and technical thinking for melody writing there for me, it has to be natural and felt, heard.
Melody writing can't quite be boiled down to terms like harmony can, and as far as I can tell can't really be taught

Usually the process of writing melodies comes relatively naturally for me these days even on some of the less conventional stuff. Here sadly things blank out. Normal solution: just get over it and move on. But honestly I like this so much otherwise that it'd be nice to do something with it anyway even if it has to be bruteforced. Made this months ago already, and it keeps constantly coming back to my mind.

I'd just look at it as an F# minor thing instead of an A thing.

Huh, that makes a whole lot of sense. I did indeed think of it as A - which was slightly weird because pedaling through the third degree seemed far too... easy. It tends to so often happen on the fifth specifically - which would be the case if F#m is seen as the tonic.

First round at least the E7 is actually trisubbed, so Bb7 technically. Funny thing that because it would be III7 (aka trisub of bVII7). Even if nothing else, I've always wondered if III7 has any real applications without ending up as some kind of V7 to fix its inherent problem (mediant motion in bass). I guess one way to "fix" it is to use first inversion in a minor tonic -> you get the halfstep down motion in bass. That's something I'll definitively use elsewhere too; even my friends are tired of my subV addiction. In case you're not aware, III7 belongs to family of dominants. bII7, III7, V7 and bVII7 are all "connected" by the fact that if you remove their roots and add b9 to each one, you get the same exact full dim structure. But bVII7 always sounded so bad in minor (for me anyway) and III7 has that voiceleading problem.

I'm not sure yet how far this will take me, but that definitively seems helpful analysis as far as getting ideas go. The "dim triad" in particular seemed such a bummer in trying to make even fragments work melodically, so thinking of it as A7 (which never occurred to me - I was thinking maybe m7b5, or the fulldim) might help a good deal, so thanks for that

ps. nerf terran

[jancivil]

BTW: "Do" there in my suggestions is F#. I didn't go to the end, what I heard is in F# minor.

[Functional]

BTW: "Do" there in my suggestions is F#. I didn't go to the end, what I heard is in F# minor.

Yup, I figured by the "Me" since nowhere is C used and connected the dots based on previous response

Apparently I can't write in major even when I try

[NERF_PROTOSS]

Huh, that makes a whole lot of sense. I did indeed think of it as A - which was slightly weird because pedaling through the third degree seemed far too... easy. It tends to so often happen on the fifth specifically - which would be the case if F#m is seen as the tonic.

First round at least the E7 is actually trisubbed, so Bb7 technically. Funny thing that because it would be III7 (aka trisub of bVII7). Even if nothing else, I've always wondered if III7 has any real applications without ending up as some kind of V7 to fix its inherent problem (mediant motion in bass). I guess one way to "fix" it is to use first inversion in a minor tonic -> you get the halfstep down motion in bass. That's something I'll definitively use elsewhere too; even my friends are tired of my subV addiction. In case you're not aware, III7 belongs to family of dominants. bII7, III7, V7 and bVII7 are all "connected" by the fact that if you remove their roots and add b9 to each one, you get the same exact full dim structure. But bVII7 always sounded so bad in minor (for me anyway) and III7 has that voiceleading problem.

I'm not sure yet how far this will take me, but that definitively seems helpful analysis as far as getting ideas go. The "dim triad" in particular seemed such a bummer in trying to make even fragments work melodically, so thinking of it as A7 (which never occurred to me - I was thinking maybe m7b5, or the fulldim) might help a good deal, so thanks for that

ps. nerf terran

yeah that's Bb in the bass on E7 the first time, I was wondering if my ears were broken. and absolutely III7 to I has always been a bit weird harmonically, I haven't tried to spend much time with it. one example I have is here @ 0.16, it's preceded by m7 a half step up, so very tritone subby (this is a Jon Brion song, pretty sure Brad is sticking closely to the original changes when he's playing the melody first time through)



about bVII7 sounding not as strong in minor, imo it's because it sounds a lot (to me) like a minor plagal thing - if you're in minor already, that just makes bVII7 a bit plain and with slightly weaker bass motion than iv i or ii i. But in major it's a strong enough idea that you can even play it instead of V7 or over V7.

as far as sometimes having to brute force stuff goes, something I find helps is to try and intuit rhythmic phrases first and just forget about the notes. if it's a strong enough idea the notes ought to just bubble up. protoss OP

[Functional]

I specifically didn't say "strong" because it's not just that - I think it sounds awful and few other people I've asked about say the same (making me think it might not just be me). bVII as a weak dominant or a predominant? Sure. bVII6 (the extension - I hate having to specify this always just like you did too) as an expansion of tonic harmony? Sure. bVII7 as anything but some secondary function? No.

Nice example you got, love that. I'm not 100% sure, but this one also seems to go D7 -> Bb7 in at about 0:57~ forward:

Guess I'll try starting from those rhythmic phrases!

[jancivil]

there are few cases where I would say "N6" if it's a triad with an added sixth. Sylistically if it is an add6 it's, well, stylistically that sound, a very unambiguous major triad with some added corn.
It was very popular in pre-bop jazz and in pop. That's pretty much gone; most of the time it's really a first inversion 7th chord, ie., "bVII6" is v6/5. "I6" is vi6/5. (there was a thread here, 'C6 or Am7 first inversion' that blowed up real good)

Here I indicate figured bass with a small font like that.

[jancivil]

I saw looking at 'melodic minor' that Rameau et al were calling the tonic of minor "La" which just pisses me off.
Leading tone of D minor is Do# in that case FFS.

Do Re Me Fa Sol La or Le, Te or Ti, it's not rocket surgery. Do = tonic.

[Functional]

there are few cases where I would say "N6" if it's a triad with an added sixth. Sylistically if it is an add6 it's, well, stylistically that sound, a very unambiguous major triad with some added corn.
It was very popular in pre-bop jazz and in pop. That's pretty much gone; most of the time it's really a first inversion 7th chord, ie., "bVII6" is v6/5. "I6" is vi6/5. (there was a thread here, 'C6 or Am7 first inversion' that blowed up real good)

Here I indicate figured bass with a small font like that.

Generally unless there is some obvious function, I tend not to really care about whenever it's called bVII6 or v something. bVII6 is pretty accessible to most people (with the exception that people who are used to figured bass notation might get confused) so I just go with that. Figured bass, especially that classical style (rather than indicating bass with like, Vb3) is just so rarely anymore used in most communities I'm in. Most of them see it archaic outside of specific context like concrete functional analysis

[Functional]

I saw looking at 'melodic minor' that Rameau et al were calling the tonic of minor "La" which just pisses me off.

Yup... there have been also some instances of like doing this: vi | V | IV | III | vi

For some people, minor just doesn't exist. Of course, flamenco musicians have their own thing to say about that. Reminding me about an anecdote of a classical guitarist playing in a concert with an orchestra and their final performance was a flamenco tune. It ended on the E - of course. Which was too much for the guitarist who had to rush back home to play Am on his trusty guitar.

[jancivil]

---

[jancivil]

regardless of the objection to the classicalness of figured bass... we can well say 'Am/C' just like a pop cat. I'm saying add6 is a particular sound and seeing it connotes that for those of us who know it. I'm not going to go dogmatic on it.

I couldn't care less who thinks of figured bass as archaic, the real reason for it (as opposed to Schenker, eg.) is to show voice-leading, where it's indispensable. If it's too much, I sure don't have a problem saying Am/C and all that. Some pop composing is concerned with voice leading and it's the right tool for analysis. It's not used for lead sheets with chord names, but it has a clarity and a purpose that misses (whether it makes a difference specifically or not).

[Functional]

we can well say 'Am/C' just like a pop cat.

We can but then we run into the problem that this only works if you specify the actual chords. To induce a mild headache for you; we can't say v/G because that looks like most cursed thing ever

But I personally like a system that is like, "v/b3" for this purpose. Not many people use it though, so I tend not to use it outside between friends because I don't wanna argue about it. It also requires that small text as soon as you bring in secondary functions because V/7/V/3 looks cursed versus V7/V3