.

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

 

I think you're making a lot of strange assertions and bizarre conflations. How is any of the music you state in the beginning any more or less prone to a Melody (Blessed Be) than orchestral music? You say that orchestral and instrumental music gets your benefit of the doubt, which I wouldn't be surprised is an opinion shared by at least a good amount here; you're of course completely free to have that view, but I wonder if there's another reason for it beyond melody?

 

I don't wish to claim that your emotional response to the music you listen to isn't genuine, but when you conflate the lack of a Melody with mere "technique", I wonder as well how that mentality shapes your listening experience whenever you immediately encounter something that doesn't check Melody off the list.

 

Thank you for sharing your perspective so freely, especially for being such a new member.

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Loert 2,510]

How long have you been listening to music consciously?

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Answers to these kinds of questions are rarely illuminating.

[Loert 2,510]

My feeling is that for some reason you are holding on so strongly to your "axioms" of Tchaikovsky and JW that you have become too discriminatory. I am not suggesting that you must listen to Boulez and Penderecki and love it (I do not love it all). I am also not saying that good melody is unimportant. But singling out melody like this is unhealthy, because music is not all about melody. So if you say this:

 

2 hours ago, Fabulin said:

In the end, it is all about melody for me.

 

...then there isn't much for me to convince you without you probably thinking that I'm trying to change your mind.  

 

Nevertheless, a couple of comments:

 

2 hours ago, Fabulin said:

For example: old Korngold scores are a mine of... well, gold, but it still takes a Goldsmith or Williams to really turn them into full melodies, and not melodic misfires or borderlines. On a larger scale, something like that happens to me with Bach's music. It is as if Bach came so near every conceivable melody, that one can get paranoid from hearing the roots of entire centuries of later melodies in it, but somehow... said Bach was not interested in actually following any of it. Why? Why on earth? (am I crazy if I ask that?)

"He couldn't" is out of question here. Giacchino could... many could (if tasked to do so).

 

What do you mean by "following any of it"? To me Bach's musical lines sound perfectly acceptable (understatement of the year!).

 

2 hours ago, Fabulin said:

It is frustrating sometimes: I can hear why Brahms is  supposed to be better (technical variety?) than Shostakovich, and if we compared the symphonies, Brahms indeed knows more cool tricks than the Russian, but what does Brahms have on the latter's Suite for Variety Orchestra? a Lullaby? (Again, am I crazy?)

 

That's a curious way of looking at it - I would rate Shostakovich's and Brahms' symphonies far higher than the Suite for Variety Orchestra or Lullaby, so comparing their abilities based on those pieces is a bit bizarre!

 

What do you think about this piece?

 

 

[SteveMc 2,674]

@Fabulin, there is more to music than melody.  Yet melody is still central to music.  Melody comes out of the essence of music, as it were.  Bach really lays that essence bare.  There is melody in his work, even if it is not long-lined and lyrical, which I gather is what you view as the melodic ideal.

I'd recommend that you listen to music not from the perspective of melody, but from sound, how sound interacts and resolves in a piece, composition, or song. 

Melody is part of that, but not the only part.  

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

4 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

As of now, I have listened to around 2/3 of Shostakovich's music, omitting some numbered pieces of a kind I know I do not enjoy (e.g. String Quartets). He is one of my favorites.

 

You really can't say you won't like Shostakovich's string quartets just because they're string quartets. His quartets are like nothing else.

[Fabulin 3,510]

2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

You really can't say you won't like Shostakovich's string quartets just because they're string quartets. His quartets are like nothing else.

 

 I have heard a few of Shostakovich's string quartets. That is why I said "numbered pieces of a kind I know I do not enjoy".

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

Well, you did say that you omitted listening to pieces of the kind that you know you don't enjoy.

 

Anyway, if you don't like the sound of only four strings playing together, I suggest checking out the arrangements for string orchestra by Rudolf Barshai.

[Fabulin 3,510]

1 minute ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Well, you did say that you omitted listening to pieces of the kind that you know you don't enjoy.

haha I really did not know how to phrase it better. I said that I "omitted some numbered pieces..."

[Loert 2,510]

25 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

About the recalled Brahms piece... it sounds generic.. it could be any 3-digit number piece of any of more famous XIX century+ composers. Around 3:30 I hoped it would turn into something like this darling:

 

 

 

What? That Chopin piece has a totally different mood.

 

I do not know what else to say other than that you are obviously very concerned about the quality of a melody, up to the point where you seem to be willing to dismiss entire pieces of music as a whole if you can't find your preconception of a melody in there.

 

I too am concerned about the quality of a melody but I also realize that some composers don't set out to write pretty melodies, you know? At least not all of the time. Some are more concerned about good counterpoint, or orchestral textures...there are many things one can do with sound.

 

But I am not going to attempt to change your taste as that will be a waste of time.

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

3 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

haha I really did not know how to phrase it better. I said that I "omitted some numbered pieces..."

 

Yes, but the implication of the first part of your sentence is that you omitted listening to some numbered pieces. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

10 minutes ago, Loert said:

 

I do not know what else to say other than that you are obviously very concerned about the quality of a melody, up to the point where you seem to be willing to dismiss entire pieces of music as a whole if you can't find your preconception of a melody in there.

 

I too am concerned about the quality of a melody but I also realize that some composers don't set out to write pretty melodies, you know?

 

Indeed (a point I made in my first reply). I think it's very important to approach any given piece of music "anthropologically", if you will. Every musician has a different background, different goals, and different viewpoints that they attempt to communicate. While with an art form as abstract as music, it's not always possible to easily discern these, it's definitely possible to go with a listening--not just hearing--mindset: "What are you trying to say to me?" It's almost like a kind of dialogue that gets lost if you go in with, "Oh, you have (or don't have) _____? Well up yours, jackass!" 

 

 

On a personal note, while a lot of the music I write tends to be melodic, I actually consider Melody to be sometimes overrated, at least in the kind of exalted tones it receives such as in this thread. 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

5 hours ago, Fabulin said:

I have spent quite a few years searching for new music, and I suppose I can appreciate rock, rock & roll, rock-metal, power-metal, jazz, lounge, big band, soul, blues, pop, disco, reggae, folk and some of the modern song too (with a density per year not so different from the  music of previous decades) if it is good... and that anything that is orchestral or just instrumental get's the benefit of doubt.

 

But why do I like some pieces over others? What makes me say something is good?

 

In the end, it is all about melody for me. From what I compared with both musically educated and not musically educated friends, I am hypersensitive when it comes to melodies. A melody can be played with the London Symphony Orchestra, or it can be played on trashcans, but if said melody is really good, I naturally imagine it orchestrated or rearranged for some instrument solo. Music devoid of melody, on the other hand—is for me like a comedy about a corporation with cube offices, where everyone pretends to be working. Yeah, it is music, philosophically speaking.

 

But then, how do I really know what is more melodic and what is less so? And... whether I really do know? Whether I really can know... (if anyone can know).

 

For example: old Korngold scores are a mine of... well, gold, but it still takes a Goldsmith or Williams to really turn them into full melodies, and not melodic misfires or borderlines. On a larger scale, something like that happens to me with Bach's music. It is as if Bach came so near every conceivable melody, that one can get paranoid from hearing the roots of entire centuries of later melodies in it, but somehow... said Bach was not interested in actually following any of it. Why? Why on earth? (am I crazy if I ask that?)

"He couldn't" is out of question here. Giacchino could... many could (if tasked to do so).

 

Maybe I am not educated enough to appreciate the more nuanced complexities of music, or I was so attuned in childhood to the melodic peaks of Tschaikovsky and JW, that I compare everything to them like to an axiom.

 

Whenever I hear or read interviews with JW, JG, Giacchino, Zimmer, or someone else responsible for a melodic soundtrack, I can't help but notice, that they are often so blasé about it. As if melody was something completely optional, not very interesting, or not what made any of their music good.  

 

It is frustrating sometimes: I can hear why Brahms is  supposed to be better (technical variety?) than Shostakovich, and if we compared the symphonies, Brahms indeed knows more cool tricks than the Russian, but what does Brahms have on the latter's Suite for Variety Orchestra? a Lullaby? (Again, am I crazy?)

 

I can appreciate technique for the sake of training, but unless there is melody... "Without a song or a dance, what are we"?

 

What are your insights on this? 

 

who dis

[Nick Parker 3,040]

2 minutes ago, TGP said:

 

who dis

 

sry forgot to tell u its me

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

12 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

All these years I have compared melody of music to the attractiveness of partners. It is not really a competition, but they need to have at least a bit of it. Now comes the twist: the most comparable would be..

 

White girls are ugly. I can appreciate that they can have some nice features, but the moment I see a girl with light complexion, I immediately turn my attention elsewhere, to dark skinned girls. I don't care if their face looks weird, or their body shape is chubbier, as long as I see that melanin, I'm good to go. 

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

4 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

White girls are ugly. I can appreciate that they can have some nice features, but the moment I see a girl with light complexion, I immediately turn my attention elsewhere, to dark skinned girls. I don'tcare if their face looks weird, or their body shape is chubbier, as long as I see that melanin, I'm good to go. 

 

Why are you so racist today?

 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Why are you so racist today?

 

 

Skin Color, Quality, and Taste - a conundrum  

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

Inside a riddle.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

Inside a riddle.

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,033]

I've never seen those films. Are they as bad as they seem?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Pee Wee's Big Adventure is a classic, light-hearted and childlike in its playfulness yet with a mature backbone of wit and charm; a natural result when you have someone like Phil Hartman on the team. One of Tim Burton's best films.

 

I feel about Big Top Pee Wee the same way that @Fabulin feels about music with no Melody.

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

[Loert 2,510]

53 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

However, is it unfair that the less than masterminded pieces will not be among the best ones? Especially with centuries worth of competition? That is why in the first post I asked, whether it is unusual, that I think very good compositions should aim at it.

 

I think you just have a very different way of looking at music than I do.

 

What would you say about the Rite of Spring, do you think that has good melody? Stravinsky used centuries-old melos in there which can be found in almost every bar.

 

If you don't value that then I can only assume that you're not really talking about melody in general, but a particular kind of melody which aligns with your taste, in which case your questions really become almost impossible to address exactly. Or you are also conflating "nice-sounding" tonal harmony with your melodies, which Rite of Spring doesn't have.

 

In any case, I do not agree at all with your position that music without melody feels like it is going nowhere in particular. But again, I get the sensation that you're not on here to have your opinion challenged. So I will not bother anymore (no offense today was a long day and my brain is exhausted).

[Fabulin 3,510]

.

 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

[Fabulin 3,510]

1 minute ago, TGP said:

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

At least you've got a sense of humor dude.  That's always a relief with new posters.  Rock on with your perplexing musical views.

[Fabulin 3,510]

Just now, TGP said:

At least you've got a sense of humor dude.  That's always a relief with new posters.  Rock on with your perplexing musical views.

 

Thanks for the warm welcome!