Melodic archetypes

[cjs55]

When someone authors a piece of music, he or she decides on possible melodic choices at any given point in the song. This choice communicates a certain understanding from the author to the listener. However, to understand the code of the music requires the listener to be able to interpret the overall structure of the potential melodic options: I'll call this a melodic archetype. Melodic archetypes usually are what define genres, with small variations within the genre. Jazz swings, sure, but it's not just jazz because it swings. I could make music that swings that sure as hell isn't jazz. The melodic discourse of the music is essential to what makes jazz what jazz is.

Now, I don't particularly enjoy jazz. My interpretation of its melodic form leads it to being trite/repulsive to me. This undoubtly stems from my current world understanding which certainly conflicts with jazz's. What is the world understanding that jazz communicates to its listeners? Well, that's the reason we have music: To communicate things that words are often incapable of. I couldn't say what jazz communicates, but I can say I think it's mostly wrong (with a few exceptions).


When I listen to an album I find to be excellent, it encodes its relevant data through exploration of such an archetype. There are bands that work in the same archetype as others and simply explore it further, which can be interesting as well but never as interesting as the first. (Just as a mathematical theory may be mainly introduced by one man, but slightly corrected or used in a different manner by another. The former will be more revolutionary and important than the latter.)

But it seems that most of the trouble with popular music comes from it's focus with the aesthetic and sentimental. Very rarely does it have a sense of melodic structuring beyond the standard rock format or purely aesthetic consonance/dissonance noise (like say mars volta). This is different than jazz, which was still relying on melodic inventiveness. We'e given up even trying anymore it seems... Here our melodic options are stuck to that which have already been seen, and instead of adjusting or creating an archetype, we package the same one in different colors and pretend the new style is the same as new substance. One doesn't learn anything new from this music, instead just reinforcing status quo worldviews (quite possibly destructive) and pretending like it is glorious art because it drips so shamelessly with emotion that is universal to human beings in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, most people don't want new substance, because it's threatening to convience and requires effort to understand.

[waxwing]

When someone authors a piece of music, he or she decides on possible melodic choices at any given point in the song. This choice communicates a certain understanding from the author to the listener. However, to understand the code of the music requires the listener to be able to interpret the overall structure of the potential melodic options: I'll call this a melodic archetype.
I'm following you so far.



Melodic archetypes usually are what define genres, with small variations within the genre. Jazz swings, sure, but it's not just jazz because it swings. I could make music that swings that sure as hell isn't jazz. The melodic discourse of the music is essential to what makes jazz what jazz is.Can you define melodic discourse? I'm thinking along the lines of what we hear? What is expressed?



Now, I don't particularly enjoy jazz. My interpretation of its melodic form leads it to being trite/repulsive to me. This undoubtly stems from my current world understanding which certainly conflicts with jazz's. What is the world understanding that jazz communicates to its listeners? Well, that's the reason we have music: To communicate things that words are often incapable of. I couldn't say what jazz communicates, but I can say I think it's mostly wrong (with a few exceptions).Interesting. So, you are looking for music that renders life in some way? How does jazz not do this? Is it cliched? Are you speaking of jazz in stereotypical terms? There are some forms of jazz that I enjoy, and others that I find boring. I'm trying to understand why that might be, in terms of the kind of musical communication you suggest.



When I listen to an album I find to be excellent, it encodes its relevant data through exploration of such an archetype. There are bands that work in the same archetype as others and simply explore it further, which can be interesting as well but never as interesting as the first. (Just as a mathematical theory may be mainly introduced by one man, but slightly corrected or used in a different manner by another. The former will be more revolutionary and important than the latter.)
Well, if I understand you correctly, I would say, perhaps. However, I like the idea of "standing on the shoulders of giants." In my understanding, we may never be able to be as inventive as that first person who explored untouched depths, but we can springboard off the ideas and create music that is actually more life-rendering, more exploratory, more interesting. If not, where does the notion of progressive music come into play?



But it seems that most of the trouble with popular music comes from it's focus with the aesthetic and sentimental. Very rarely does it have a sense of melodic structuring beyond the standard rock format or purely aesthetic consonance/dissonance noise (like say mars volta). This is different than jazz, which was still relying on melodic inventiveness. We'e given up even trying anymore it seems... Here our melodic options are stuck to that which have already been seen, and instead of adjusting or creating an archetype, we package the same one in different colors and pretend the new style is the same as new substance. One doesn't learn anything new from this music, instead just reinforcing status quo worldviews (quite possibly destructive) and pretending like it is glorious art because it drips so shamelessly with emotion that is universal to human beings in the first place.Profound. I agree with you on this point. You seem to be distinguishing between style and substance. The same substance in a different style is not as interesting as a different substance altogether. The only question I raise is: What happens when we think of music in terms of broad theoretical categories? It seems that we have the same basic substance to work with.



The fact of the matter is, most people don't want new substance, because it's threatening to convience and requires effort to understand.
Yes, I think you're right. New substance -- a new framework for understanding what is being communicated through the music -- can indeed be threatening. Can't a change in style also demand our attention and challenge our notion of the status quo?

I really don't know what I think. Just raising some questions.

Thought-provoking thread, cjs55.

[cjs55]

Can you define melodic discourse? I'm thinking along the lines of what we hear? What is expressed?
I would say melodic discourse is the interplay between the interpretation of the listener of musical choices made. This is done in reference to the melodic archetype that was defined early, the potential spectrum of choices available.

Can't a change in style also demand our attention and challenge our notion of the status quo?
Absolutely, but style isn't the substance itself, but rather a support for its transmission. The two are seperate but symbiotic. Without one or the other there is nothing being communicated (in one case there is nothing to be communicated, and in the other there is no means for the communication).


Interesting. So, you are looking for music that renders life in some way?
Sort of. Not just a musical rendition of what I already know though. Something that teaches a new understanding of the world, potential avenues of thinking that I had previously not explored. This requires a new archetype to evolve in my opinion.

How does jazz not do this? Is it cliched? Are you speaking of jazz in stereotypical terms? There are some forms of jazz that I enjoy, and others that I find boring. I'm trying to understand why that might be, in terms of the kind of musical communication you suggest.
Cliched...maybe is the right word. Maybe not. I wasn't going to go into a musicologist type explanation because it might annoy people, but I'll try (this will be a fairly personal description). Jazz is mainly an avenue of personal expression over fairly consonant and 'laid back' chording (usually the listener is not very concerned with the specific chords, but rather the feel they produce). When it comes to music, I dislike that which raises individual performance and expression over the whole of the piece. I also dislike harmony that stays in the background ala jazz, something which I find results in a decrease of potential interesting melodic space. If the harmony itself is part of the melody, you've got much more cohesion and focus over melodic structure (that which I believe imparts the most information from music).

If not, where does the notion of progressive music come into play?
I think progressive is a term that gets thrown out alot. We're progressing as a society, music is progressing, but I always ask: Towards what? What is the goal?
Regardless though, I would say that music can certainly change via the evolution of melodic structure. The explanation of said structure usually doesn't take more than an album. The fact that pop music has been in the same one for years is sad. I think progressive rock is almost an oxymoron (that which makes it progressive is the part of it that has nothing to do with rock at all, which is the neoclassical composition seen in say king crimson and camel).
We still stand on the shoulders of giants, but then we can jump just a bit to the side as well...

What happens when we think of music in terms of broad theoretical categories? It seems that we have the same basic substance to work with.
Broad theoretical categories are not as useful as the experience of music itself =). Years of musical theory classes won't get you as much as years of listening to music. I'm not sure if I'm entirely understanding what you are saying though.

[Pan]

I'm not sure I follow everything your saying, but a few comments...

I don't buy the idea that genres are defined melodically... some are, certainly (bel canto opera comes to mind), but jazz certainly is not. A basic technique in jazz is to take a melody from another genre (usually a popular song, but not always) and arrange it in a jazz style... ie rhythmically alter the melody and choose different chords to give it a jazz feel. Improvisation is then done on those chords, usually leaving the melody more or less forgotten (ie it's harmonic, not melodic improv). I suspect your dislike of jazz has something to do with the lack of structured melody in 90% of it due to this process. It's certainly what I usually feel is missing from the average jazz performance.

Now, where jazz tends to lack melody (and hip-hop, rap, etc), typical easy-listening music often has very little but... just a repetitive straight-forward beat, three chords, and a sappy melody. While I certainly agree with you that the melody is often sadly lacking in inventiveness, so is the rest of the music; I don't think it's fair to blame one element for the shallowness of the whole.

As to the pioneers being more exciting, I think I'll tend to go with the most intrinsically interesting version in the end. Sure, it's interesting to know that John Field (http://www.carolinaclassical.com/articles/field.html) anticipated Chopin in many keyboard techniques and invented the Nocturne, but really, who are you going to listen to on a regular basis? Anyone listen to Jacopi Peri recently? Yet Bach did virtually nothing truly innovative... he was just really good at what was already (by his death) getting to be a very dated style. The point being that, 20, 100 years from now, no-one will care who did what first, just how well they did it.

In any case, pop music does seem to be in a rut these days... but I think that is simply because art is, as usual, allergic to the free market, and right now business executives are controlling the recording industry. I can't imagine that will last forever, though.

[Hexchild]

As I understand it cjs55 is promoting a maximization of creativity in the making of music, esp. when it comes to melodic content. I'd say the same could be applied to all artforms; for example I've been yearning for some epic movie with an original, high quality story for years.

There's obviously an inherent problem in pushing creativity all the way like that. As a single person you can only be so creative before your mind starts resisting, so although the degree of ability varies, true creativity pretty much requires a group effort, and that group needs to be diverse yet highly compatible (ie. open to each others' wild ideas). This doesn't really seem to happen all that often, and even then the group is usually quick to find a common platform on which to base their ideas. It's only natural to use an existing platform for this rather than to build a new one.

When creativity or imagination fails you it can be a great consolation to be able to fall back on both existing style and existing substance, where you already know the rules and as a group can work together without interrupting the flow. In other words, you can use 'jam sessions' to come up with new ideas. Jazz seems to have adopted this idea as its primary performance piece, placing emphasis on the ability to be creative in instant improvisation on stage. This is, I believe, why melodic structure tends to take a back seat in Jazz.

[kuranes]

When someone says that they "don't like Jazz" I suspect that it's probably "fusion" or "hard bop" they are thinking of. ( Not "swing" jazz, which was once the popular music of the country. ) It's a little hard to know how to react to the "don't like Jazz" statements, as there are quite a few very different styles of jazz, including "free jazz" which has few ( to none ) rules as to what it is. Of course, you could say "swing" is "corny" just because it harks back to the 1920's/30's, but I don't think age alone makes for a cliche.

[Pan]

I've been yearning for some epic movie with an original, high quality story for years. You mean as opposed to one adapted from a book, or just a good epic movie? Again I suspect this comes down to who calls the shots in the industry... it's one heck of a lot more sensible financially to make a Harry Potter or Spider Man or LotR (expensive as they might be) than to put the same amount of money and care into something unknown with no built-in audience.


As a single person you can only be so creative before your mind starts resisting, so although the degree of ability varies, true creativity pretty much requires a group effort, and that group needs to be diverse yet highly compatible (ie. open to each others' wild ideas). This doesn't really seem to happen all that often, and even then the group is usually quick to find a common platform on which to base their ideas. It's only natural to use an existing platform for this rather than to build a new one.
I'm not sure I agree that groups are more creative than individuals... I think a group is forced to find a common ground, and is therefore far more likely to end up falling back on convention. I don't think this is lack of imagination, but the realities of communication - a group improv situation like jazz has to have something consensual about it. Free jazz sucks - I think there's a reason the free improv concert was the low point of Spinal Tap's career :)

When I was doing composition in my undergrad, I discovered something... it's one hell of a lot of work to create a piece from scratch (ie developing a uniqie musical language, structure, etc.) and it's incredibly difficult to come up with something that sounds genuinely new anyway. It is 100x easier to start with some conventions that work and do something within the structure. I had a much easier time writing a 3-part invention in baroque style for counterpoint class than I did writing my own music. This is why I think most modern composers, once they've created a language, then tend to stick to it - you just can't write enough music to stay alive any other way. There's a reason Vivaldi wrote more music than anyone could ever listen to while Webern's entire output fits on a couple of CDs.

.

[cjs55]

so is the rest of the music; I don't think it's fair to blame one element for the shallowness of the whole.

When I say pop music, I mean almost everything being produced currently. Most music falls into the same trap, even the stuff with more grand/less mainstream intentions. Bands like say the Dillenger Escape plan or Dream Theater, which seem to attempt to be melodically inventive but really fall into the same category as most pop bands, just with more musical capabality.

I tried to get into a discussion about music the other day with a friend of a friend of mine. He knew I liked metal music so of course started talking about the speed of death metal drummers. I replied saying speed is meaningless, but what about the compositional techniques of morbid angel? He walks away confused.

[Pan]

I replied saying speed is meaningless, but what about the compositional techniques of morbid angel? He walks away confused. lol...To be honest, melodic invention isn't the first thing I think of either, when someone mentions death metal.

I really think the problem is music has hit a plateau... "serious" composers abandoned tonality almost 100 years ago, but nothing even remotely as robust has taken its place yet. Pop music is having the same difficulty - there's only so many ways to arrange notes within a tonal structure. Of course there must be ways no-one has tried yet, but there's less and less room to maneuver between things that have already been done.

Schoenberg was convinced that quarter tones were the next logical step for Western music (ie an actual system of chordal progressions and chords based on a 24-note octave) but no-one to my knowledge has used them successfully for much more than melodic ornamentation. I don't know, maybe he was right, and it just takes time for the general public to adjust the ears... but right now it looks like popular taste is headed the other direction.

[cjs55]

I would actually suggest that the best of death metal is an impressive attempt at something new and interesting (linear counterpoint and melodic pitch-axis/chromatic composition).

I think moving beyond tonality is essential in understanding/creating new music, but that doesn't mean we won't use it from time to time. I disagree that tonality is necessarily useless. Music has infinite potential when one considers the third axis (time). Relying on narrative composition can lead to an infinite amount of possible combinations (although most of them will be useless). However, how the idea of melodic archetype comes into play in that case is something to be debated (can the moving shape of a song bring another dimension to the archetype?)

[The Mathemagician!]

I haven't read through the rest of the post, just skimmed through, so I apologize if I'm repeating anything. I have to agree about the jazz comment. I don't really find it that interesting either. I'm not a big fan of improvisation. I'd take a brilliantly constructed 60 second song over any guitar/bass/drum/trumpet/clarinet/harpsichord solo or free-jazz-jam. And I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I've listened to a fair bit of jazz.

Okay, I've gotten that out of the way. One of my favourite bands happens to be um... a... jazz band. John Zorn's 'Naked City' (especially Torture Garden) seem to take all the things about jazz that rub me the wrong way and say "pfft! that's not jazz... this is!" And then come out with these 30 second explosions of brilliance. I got to see one of their two reunion shows a few years ago. oh... my... god... I'm still in shock.

I would listen to that album while making breakfast. My roommates would hate me. I just find it catchy as hell.