Rhythm or Melody?

[indy4 155]

I pick rhythm. Ever since I started taking time out of my day to listen to music, I've been attracted to rhythm. Even with the highly melody based classics of John Williams, I would consider the high point to be when the a bombastic ostinato (ie Raiders End Credits, during the transition from Marion's Theme to Indy's) or similar places. That's certainly one of the reasons I love JW's modern action music so much, as it is much more rhythm-based than his older works. "General Greivous," "Quidditch Third Year," "Chase Through Couruscant" are three cues among many that have some great moments with rhythm. And for me it extends beyond film music - the ostinato in Gustav Holst's "Mars" always affects me. Even in jazz, often times a well-placed brass hit is what makes a good tune great.

Of course it's not an easy decision, and in a few days my opinion might change. I'm happy to be able to list infinite examples of brilliant and effective melodic uses, in addition to my love of rhythm. In fact, thinking back I'm not even sure that I prefer rhythm over melody. What I do strongly believe is that rhythm is often under appreciated or looked over, and perhaps that is the ultimate motivation of my decision.

[Andy 4,138]

Impossible for me to favor one over the other. I will say that I think Williams' old-skool stuff featured rhythms and ostinatos that were more sustained throughout the composition. The low brass and bassoon 1941 ostinato, the galloping Raiders March tempo, the Shark Motif, and of course the Superman ostinato. I find that his later compositions seem to eschew that for some reason. While they may be percussive ("Ants!"), the rhythmic passages are often brief or disjointed.

But, yeah... great idea for a thread. I definitely gravitate towards film music that is toe-tappin' or pulse-pounding.

[indy4 155]

Impossible for me to favor one over the other. I will say that I think Williams' old-skool stuff featured rhythms and ostinatos that were more sustained throughout the composition. The low brass and bassoon 1941 ostinato, the galloping Raiders March tempo, the Shark Motif, and of course the Superman ostinato. I find that his later compositions seem to eschew that for some reason. While they may be percussive ("Ants!"), the rhythmic passages are often brief or disjointed.

Interesting...I agree somewhat. I think that because these rhythmic passages take center stage in the modern stuff, Williams develops them more. In Raiders or 1941 they were really there to support the melody and add boldness and strength to the work, so they could afford to stay constant. But since now they are essentially replacing the melodic motifs of the past, Williams develops the rhythms the same way he might develop a melodic motif in, say, "The Basket Game." For instance, in "Ants!," the rhythm at the climax of the cue, to my ears at least, is based on the rhythm at the beginning of the cue.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Melody any day.

[Quintus 5,399]

This is a good question. I need time to think about it.

[Datameister 2,044]

Both!

No, seriously. They're both integral parts of music, and although I understand the distinction being made here, they really are one and the same. A complex ostinato on one pitch is still a specific subclass of melody, IMO. There are passages that rely more on complex, ongoing, and/or forceful rhythms to convey most of their emotional content, and there are passages that rely more on interesting relationships between the pitches of the melody and the chords in the harmony. But they're all just...music. Different approaches that are equally appropriate for different scenes.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's hard for me to differentiate between the two, they kinda go hand-in-hand (like Datameister said).

[Henry B 50]

Both, of course...

[indy4 155]

Both!

No, seriously. They're both integral parts of music, and although I understand the distinction being made here, they really are one and the same. A complex ostinato on one pitch is still a specific subclass of melody, IMO. There are passages that rely more on complex, ongoing, and/or forceful rhythms to convey most of their emotional content, and there are passages that rely more on interesting relationships between the pitches of the melody and the chords in the harmony. But they're all just...music. Different approaches that are equally appropriate for different scenes.

I agree that we can say that the ostinato you refer to is not just a rhythm, in fact I'm sure a good deal of thought about melody goes into the creation of an ostinato. But that doesn't mean we can't differentiate between what is making that figure effective. I can say with a good deal of certainty that it is the rhythm that contributes more to the success of, say, the ostinato in "Raiders March."

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Harmony!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Rhythm and Blues.

[Morn 8]

Rhythm I think. And Goldsmith and Alex North were the best at it. But you can't convey sadness or love with just rhythm. So of course melody is great too.

[Ollie 1,059]

As far as I'm concerned rhythm and melody go hand in hand. Datameister gave a better explanation than I could.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

"Both" was not an option.

I'd go for melody. Always been more attached to it. I'm aware that people who favor melody are considered to like only the more accessible and superficial side of music, the one they could hum to themselves without worrying about technicalities and complexities.

I don't know how true that is, but feel free to accuse away.

[airmanjerm 78]

Hmm...interesting discussion!

I'd say BOTH, but since that's not an option, I may have to obstain.

A good rhythmic ostinato is nice and sweet and all, but you wouldn't listen to the entire "Raider's March" without the melody I don't think. At the same time, a good melody isn't based solely on a successful series of pitches. The rhythm has to support the pitches for it to be successful...the pitches alone won't do it. Without rhythm, a melody is just a bunch of notes, essentially a cantus firmus; it's the rhythm of the melody that drives one note to the next.

If you want to hear a fascinating piece that contains great emphasis on both rhythm AND melody, listen to Ravel's "Bolero." The rhythmic ostinato lasts through the entire work, essentially taking over the entire composition in the final few measures. But without the melody which repeats over and over, the whole work fails. Even in this music though, I'd say that the rhythm of the melody is more important than the rhythmic ostinato itself.

[A24 4,338]

Harmony!

Yeah, why is it overlooked here?

[indy4 155]

"Both" was not an option.

I'd go for melody. Always been more attached to it. I'm aware that people who favor melody are considered to like only the more accessible and superficial side of music, the one they could hum to themselves without worrying about technicalities and complexities.

I don't know how true that is, but feel free to accuse away.

Talk about ignorance (not you, but whoever believes that assumption)! Melody can be wonderfully complex, profound, and inaccessible.

Harmony!

Yeah, why is it overlooked here?

By "melody" I meant anything concerned with pitches rather than only the dominant voice in the orchestra. I realize it was poor word choice on my part, but harmony would fall under that category (and as a trombonist, I would never overlook harmony )

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm defaulting to Data's answer too.

[A24 4,338]

The rhythm has to support the pitches for it to be successful...the pitches alone won't do it. Without rhythm, a melody is just a bunch of notes, essentially a cantus firmus; it's the rhythm of the melody that drives one note to the next.

Indeed, airmanjerm! Even one single note is rhythm. A note or a sound can only exist because of rhythm. And at 60-80 beats per minute, life is a rhythm too.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

No, seriously. They're both integral parts of music, and although I understand the distinction being made here, they really are one and the same.

Not necessarily. I generally value both; nevertheless, there are pieces without melody, and I guess there are pieces without rhythm. At the moment, we're doing Geographical Fugue in our choir, a spoken chorus piece by Ernst Toch. I guess it's quite similar to rap (which I generally can't stand), but even without melody it's still a four-part (SATB) fugue. Many hate it, I think it's cool and quite impressive how Toch manages to employ rhythm so much that any additional melody would be redundant.

On the other hand, the closest thing I can think of which relies mostly on melody and employs only the most primitive rhythm is the typical Zimmerish power anthem. So I guess rhythm is more important to me after all.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Rhythm taps into our own primitive and human instincts - the beating heart, the hunt, the drive of life.

Melody represents our enlightenment - the ability to manipulate sound and frequencies into pitch as a form of expression and imagination.

For most people one can't exist without the other or else there is just meaningless noise. But then, people find meaning in different places. After all, the western view of pitch (or melody) is very different to, say, the Indonesian or Indian interpretations of pitch. And we listen to atonal and dissonant music which would be incredibly alienating to many cultures.

I go with melody. No real explanation as to why, but pitch, intervals, relationships and harmony are personally emotionally profound for me.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

"Both" was not an option.

I'd go for melody. Always been more attached to it. I'm aware that people who favor melody are considered to like only the more accessible and superficial side of music, the one they could hum to themselves without worrying about technicalities and complexities.

I don't know how true that is, but feel free to accuse away.

Talk about ignorance (not you, but whoever believes that assumption)! Melody can be wonderfully complex, profound, and inaccessible.

Well I'm not one to judge the judges, but I hate it when people feel superior just because they enojy less accessible art. I like my literature dense and my paintings abstract, and I'd rather listen to Minority Report than Poseidon Adventure, but that doesn't make me a connoisseur above Average Joe who gets a kick out Stephen King or Chagal (not that these two artists have anything in common).

Accessibility is all about the emotional response, which is a major part of art. Melody brings out the emotion in me and that's what I'd rather pick.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I think I'd have to go with melody overall. A cue can have a great melody and no rhythm and still work, because the emotion is still there. It's like when you hear a thematic quote just on one instrument with nothing else going on.

But make some sort of rhythm, with nothing going on to create a tune/theme, and suddenly it doesn't mean very much.

I've noticed recently that if I play a prolonged action sequence (especially one constructed in a MV fashion) and there isn't something going on melodically which is interesting, on the spot or seemingly spontaneous, it won't do much for me.

Take Like a Dog Chasing Cars, the most MV-ish cue I can think of right now, and I love it. It has a slowly building rhythm with a growing melody underneath it using a variety of brass instruments; then it ends with the rather heroic motif in strings and brass. It's a rhythmic cue, but it has emotion that's appropriate to the tone of the movie running all the way through it. Take the rhythm away from that piece and it would still work. Take away the melody and it would probably be a thoroughly boring 5 minutes.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I think I'd have to go with melody overall. A cue can have a great melody and no rhythm and still work, because the emotion is still there. It's like when you hear a thematic quote just on one instrument with nothing else going on.

But name me some emotional themes with (more or less) no rhythm. I can't think of any.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Well obviously there can be no melody without even a basic rhythm. Melody is by definition the combination of pitch and rhythm, otherwise the first note would never end.

You can, however, can say that some music relies more on one device than the other. For me (and a lot of others here) they find the melodic/pitch aspect more interesting and emotionally engaging. The Ark theme has a very basic, simple rhythm, but its harmony and melody elevate it far beyond that.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I think I'd have to go with melody overall. A cue can have a great melody and no rhythm and still work, because the emotion is still there. It's like when you hear a thematic quote just on one instrument with nothing else going on.

But name me some emotional themes with (more or less) no rhythm. I can't think of any.

One that leaps to mind is the opening of My Name is Robert Neville from 'I Am Legend'. No rhythm, just a trumpet melody.

Now obviously everything has some sort of rhythm, but I'm talking about where the rhythm takes a prominent place vs where the rhythm is only there to make sure the music actually has a structure. There are plenty of moments where all you have is a great melody, and only a few parts of the orchestra are forming the minimum rhythm required to make it flow properly.

I have HTTYD playing right now, and I'd describe that as a melodic score, whereas the score to the Bourne movies is definitely what I'd describe as rhythmic. The themes are not prominent, and the music is interesting because of the motifs Powell intertwines subtly with the percussion.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Hm, I may be talking about a different thing here than you. I don't know I Am Legend, but let's take Leia's theme as an example. One of the most gorgeous melodic themes I've ever heard, and that's mainly because of its melody. But it still wouldn't be anything without the rhythm inherent in the melody - the pauses between the phrases, and how fewer pauses in the second half of the melody create those long runs.

My point being: Usually, the rhythm is a part of the melody, regardless of harmonisation and accompanying rhythms.

[indy4 155]

Another good example is the theme for the "Blue Fairy" in A.I. The melody is absolutely gorgeous, but another strong point that is often overlooked is the interesting rhythm that both evokes a stronger emotional connection and helps the theme evoke and "underwater" feeling. I wouldn't go as far to say that in this particular cue rhythm is more important than melody, but they are both an important factor to the effectiveness of the cue.

Another question: would you guys consider tempo changes or meter changes a rhythmic factor? I would, seeing as both of them could be achieved by making the rhythms more complex, it's just more convenient and easy to follow for the orchestra if the meter or tempo changes.

[Datameister 2,044]

Tempo and meter issues are just that - tempo and meter issues. They're usually considered distinct from rhythm because you can easily change one without changing the other. Naturally, they all influence the way the music sounds in very important ways, and they all involve durations of the pitches...but they're distinct.

[indy4 155]

Tempo and meter issues are just that - tempo and meter issues. They're usually considered distinct from rhythm because you can easily change one without changing the other. Naturally, they all influence the way the music sounds in very important ways, and they all involve durations of the pitches...but they're distinct.

But any change in tempo or meter can be achieved by altering the rhythm of a piece. How one does it seems like a superficial distinction to me.

[ETMusic 1]

I don't think this is a fair question. The best music (in my not-so-humble opinion) is that which successful combines pitch, harmony, and rhythm into a cohesive and satisfactory whole. Sometimes a piece, movement, or cue relies more heavily on one or the other, but I find that music that touches me utilizes all three; however, I think it's also fair to say the majority of music does use all three. Of course, some composers have attempted to create music that does not (4'33" anyone?), but I find that most of that "music" is more appropriately described as performance art.

There. I avoided your question entirely and brought up a totally different discussion. "You can about your business. Move along."

[Datameister 2,044]

But any change in tempo or meter can be achieved by altering the rhythm of a piece. How one does it seems like a superficial distinction to me.

This is true...but think of it this way. Rhythm is the relationships between the durations of consecutive pitches...it's proportional. Tempo is the absolute scale upon which those proportions are created. You need both pieces of information in order to know what the music sounds like. Both fall under the subheading of musical elements that determine the lengths of the notes, and I don't think you can really call one a part of the other.

And then meter is really just an organizational system that makes life easier for the performers by breaking down the music into logical chunks. It's there just to clarify the structure of the music - a wholly different role.

[PIANOMUSICIAN1991 0]

In a way, both. Both are key to making good music. A great melody nine times out of ten has a good rhythm, it makes it catchy, the rhythm don't have to be complicated it just has to work with the notes, take 'Happy Birthday' for example! But sometimes its not melody or rhythm, its harmony.

[Wojo 2,453]

I'm going all in.

Why not ask if we also prefer dynamics or tone color as well? If you want melody without rhythm, ask your performers to simply hold out an infinitely long whole note. And listen as their tone and dynamics suffer. As soon as they change to a different note, you are introducing rhythm.

It's as silly a question as I've ever heard. It's like which part of your car do you prefer, the engine or the tires?

[Marcus 390]

Just to clarify:

The definition of melody is pitch + rhythm .