Have they?
mark
have fancy textures and modulation killed melody?
-
- Skunk Mod
- 21249 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from Pony Pasture
Meaningless question, IMO. Melody can't be killed. Individual musicians and listeners can prefer predominantly melodic or harmonic or rhythmic or textural sounding works, but the underlying principles will remain.
The worm turns, what goes around comes around, do not remove tag under penalty of law, the song remains the same, rust never sleeps.
The worm turns, what goes around comes around, do not remove tag under penalty of law, the song remains the same, rust never sleeps.
Last edited by Meffy on Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2938 posts since 18 Jul, 2005
A question broader than most oceans, but I'd say it's a doubtful proposition when applied to most genres of music.
-
- KVRist
- 294 posts since 27 Dec, 2003 from Woodland Hills, UT
Very broad indeed- but I think the question is valid, at least for those of us who produce music with lots of fancy textures and modulation.
The complexity of sounds produced by modern synthesis can definitely make lazy musicians lazier while at the same time allowing their work a certain "ear candy" quality that can dazzle the uninformed listener. Given the drivel that passes for most popular music, I doubt the listener would know the difference.
I don't think it's "killed" melody, but it has helped generate and propigate some new genres of music that don't rely on standard concepts of melody. I think we can all name a few. I'm certainly guilty of creating something melodically uninspired, but really cool sounding due to all the fluff going on around the periphery. If we're honest with ourselves in our musical endeavors, good stuff will come out, usually. In my case, I'm not totally convinced, but I'm only an amateur.
David
www.davidlinn.com
The complexity of sounds produced by modern synthesis can definitely make lazy musicians lazier while at the same time allowing their work a certain "ear candy" quality that can dazzle the uninformed listener. Given the drivel that passes for most popular music, I doubt the listener would know the difference.
I don't think it's "killed" melody, but it has helped generate and propigate some new genres of music that don't rely on standard concepts of melody. I think we can all name a few. I'm certainly guilty of creating something melodically uninspired, but really cool sounding due to all the fluff going on around the periphery. If we're honest with ourselves in our musical endeavors, good stuff will come out, usually. In my case, I'm not totally convinced, but I'm only an amateur.
David
www.davidlinn.com
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 164 posts since 2 Dec, 2004 from japan
I was just sitting listening to some oldies stuff - mostly motown - and the question popped into my head .... would we have this music if we'd skipped the early phase of rock/pop history and went straight onto a modern synthesizer+sequencer combi? I say modern because the eighties were laced with melody too.
I'm not making any judgements or criticisms. Although I do prefer a good melody to a good texture myself.
mark
I'm not making any judgements or criticisms. Although I do prefer a good melody to a good texture myself.
mark
-
- KVRAF
- 6596 posts since 21 Jun, 2004 from Secret Underground Hideout
i've wondered this myself.
i'll get inspired by synth sounds and create melodies. so, for me, no.
i'll get inspired by synth sounds and create melodies. so, for me, no.
-
- KVRist
- 378 posts since 28 Jul, 2002 from Somewhere in between
Meaningless IMO, there is lots of old and 'traditional' music where there's hardly a melody to be heard.
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
We could roughly define melody as the arrangement of discrete tones over time. That is as close a definition I can muster without subjective colouring (as in old chestnuts like "the perception of pleasant arrangements of musical notes," "a parade of notes, one following the other meaningfully," or "a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of musical tones."
In this sense, melody can be found in most sound/music composition, even the dreaded texture. A microtonal melody, for instance, is still a melody. There is also probably more overtly melodic works being published and performed today than ever before (there is simply more of everything these days, and don't forget the archivist/regressionist set). So no, textures have not killed melody, and could not. That would mean that textures have obliterated the relationship of sound with sound over time.
So the question that remains is: have former approaches to melody changed? Of course they have as they have always done. You could also ask: which approach do you prefer and why? That might get some good anecdotal results.
These threads pop up now and again and will inevitably morph into some ill-considered shitfest, because there's always going to be folk who insist that definitions are about them and their limited experience. If you define things by personal standards only, you don't define anything, more you just draw a line in the sand. So textures don't fail at melody, rather they avoid certain kinds of approaches to melody. Not the same thing.
Are textures good at blues riffs? Not really, or at least not often. That sort of thing. These theory/experimentalism/music/structure/blahblah arguments always go wrong because we don't all assume we only stand for part of the whole from the outset. Keep an eye out, some dickhead will come along shortly and kill any useful discussion with some "That ain't music, I want the sweet melodies" idiot remark.
Chipchipcheerio,
Steve
In this sense, melody can be found in most sound/music composition, even the dreaded texture. A microtonal melody, for instance, is still a melody. There is also probably more overtly melodic works being published and performed today than ever before (there is simply more of everything these days, and don't forget the archivist/regressionist set). So no, textures have not killed melody, and could not. That would mean that textures have obliterated the relationship of sound with sound over time.
So the question that remains is: have former approaches to melody changed? Of course they have as they have always done. You could also ask: which approach do you prefer and why? That might get some good anecdotal results.
These threads pop up now and again and will inevitably morph into some ill-considered shitfest, because there's always going to be folk who insist that definitions are about them and their limited experience. If you define things by personal standards only, you don't define anything, more you just draw a line in the sand. So textures don't fail at melody, rather they avoid certain kinds of approaches to melody. Not the same thing.
Are textures good at blues riffs? Not really, or at least not often. That sort of thing. These theory/experimentalism/music/structure/blahblah arguments always go wrong because we don't all assume we only stand for part of the whole from the outset. Keep an eye out, some dickhead will come along shortly and kill any useful discussion with some "That ain't music, I want the sweet melodies" idiot remark.
Chipchipcheerio,
Steve
-
- KVRAF
- 6596 posts since 21 Jun, 2004 from Secret Underground Hideout
that's how i define melodyshamann wrote:"the perception of pleasant arrangements of musical notes," "a parade of notes, one following the other meaningfully," or "a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of musical tones."
-
- KVRAF
- 4074 posts since 28 Apr, 2004
and lots of modern synth music with good melodies.amoebe wrote:Meaningless IMO, there is lots of old and 'traditional' music where there's hardly a melody to be heard.
-
- KVRAF
- 6596 posts since 21 Jun, 2004 from Secret Underground Hideout
are artsy farts considered melodic?
shamann wrote:idiot remark
-
experimental.crow experimental.crow https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6258
- KVRAF
- 6895 posts since 9 Mar, 2003 from the bridge of sighs
alright ...
nobody leaves this room , until we find out who killed melody ...
nobody leaves this room , until we find out who killed melody ...
-
- KVRAF
- 25042 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
I thought it was Vurt... ?normal wrote:alright ...
nobody leaves this room , until we find out who killed melody ...
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111327 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
arent they in some cases just slow melody?
