Welcome!
Just a few a ground rules first...

Promotion, advertising and link building is not permitted.

If you are keen to learn, get to grips with something with the willing help of one of the net's original musician forums
or possess a genuine willingness to contribute knowledge - you've come to the right place!

Register >

- Close -
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: Melody vs Arpeggio

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24

    Melody vs Arpeggio

    Hi
    Would you consider notes played at the time (1:31m)in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dfGt1u6wgQ

    as a melody in C#minor or arpeggiated chords First chord could be C#minor (notes played C#,G#,A,C#)but there is A which don't belong to the C#minor thats why I am not sure.
    Second bar could be an a arpeggio of F#minor (notes played F#,A,G#,E)

    Thank you.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by ssyniu View Post
    Hi
    Would you consider notes played at the time (1:31m)in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dfGt1u6wgQ

    as a melody in C#minor or arpeggiated chords First chord could be C#minor (notes played C#,G#,A,C#)but there is A which don't belong to the C#minor thats why I am not sure.
    Second bar could be an a arpeggio of F#minor (notes played F#,A,G#,E)

    Thank you.
    A melody.

    Melodies may be made of chord tones, but that does not specifically make them Arpeggios.

    However, you're walking a fine line with this example. Some might not call it a "melody" becuase it doesn't meet the traditional definitions of such.

    This again is where "Traditional Terminology and Concepts for Common Practice Period Music" begin to break down or not apply.

    This is what I call, a "Point of Interest".

    It is typical of a pattern created by an "Arpeggiator" but slow enough that is has more "melody-ness" than your typical Arpeggios, which tend to be more of a "flourish" or "elaboration" of a harmony.

    We don't call Accompaniments that use broken chords "arpeggios" in most cases - especially something like "Alberti Bass".

    I mean, it is, in the strictest definition, an "arpeggio" when the notes of a chord don't appear simultaneously. But we only typically call them that when that's the "main" point of its existence. It it is instead a "pattern" of some sort, the pattern may be more important.

    For example, this pattern here is more "Ostinato-like" than anything. But it's also not a "traditional" Ostinato in that the pattern varies.

    So it's really "none of the above" and "all of the above" at the same time - it's its own thing, with all of these elements combined.

    Since it sounds like and might have even been made with an "Arpeggiator" most people would call it an Arpeggio for lack of a better term (or because of ignorance) especially in this genre.

    But IMHO it's more of a "melody" or "melodic pattern" - I suppose we could call it "Melody-Arpeggio" or "Arpeggiated-Melody" or something of that nature.

    But to me, it's thing your ear gets pulled to as the "Most interesting point" which is why I use "point of interest" for elements like this in non-traditional music.

    BTW:

    If the notes of a chord are FOUR different notes (in tertian order) it's some type of chord beyond a Triad - a 7th chord (but other possibilities exist).

    F#-A-C#-E is F#m7


    C#-G#-A-C# is not in tertian order, but it could be:

    C#-E-G#-A

    or

    A-C#-E-G#

    There is no formal name for the former though C#m(b6) would be the best bet. However many jazz-informed people say this doesn't exist and it is instead an inversion of the latter construction, an A Major 7 (AM7) chord. They'll say since the other one doesn't "exist" and it's common to drop the 5th of a chord (the E in this example) it fits.

    But I'm sorry, not all music is jazz.

    Nor is it CPP Tonal Music.

    If C# is heard as the foundation of the chord - the root, then it needs to be called "C# something".

    But since these aren't really traditional Arpeggios, it really doesn't matter.

    This is really a set of accompaniment elements - one is a chord, the other a *melodic* element that is the focal point of the accompaniment, at least until some other focal point (singing for example) comes in.
    Last edited by stevel; 07-07-2016 at 06:08 PM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Hey Steven Thanks a lot for your reply

    "Melodies may be made of chord tones"

    So not always melodies are made of chord tones.I could play something else if I like the way it sounds but staying in key with chords but not playing exactly the same notes as the chord tones?Is it possible(I am sure anything is possible) but is it something out of "norm"or maybe very uncommon or its not happening that the melody is out of the key (not playing the chord tones and using tones outside of the chosen key).

    "However, you're walking a fine line with this example. Some might not call it a "melody" becuase it doesn't meet the traditional definitions of such.

    This again is where "Traditional Terminology and Concepts for Common Practice Period Music" begin to break down or not apply."

    Interesting so was there a place in CPP music for being spontaneous.

    "This is what I call, a "Point of Interest"."

    Right ok so called "hook" maybe... or maybe not "hook" probably is more like chorus.

    "We don't call Accompaniments that use broken chords "arpeggios" in most cases - especially something like "Alberti Bass""

    I am not sure about this one but probably because I don't fully understand what accompaniments in this case means.
    My understanding of accompaniment is when someone accompany vocalist with the instrument.

    "There is no formal name for the former though C#m(b6) would be the best bet. However many jazz-informed people say this doesn't exist and it is instead an inversion of the latter construction, an A Major 7 (AM7) chord. They'll say since the other one doesn't "exist" and it's common to drop the 5th of a chord (the E in this example) it fits.

    But I'm sorry, not all music is jazz."

    Interesting, I always thought that jazz is using "unusual" and complex chords.Is this type of chord is used in rock music or funk??
    Jazz don't have a name for this chord but is this "unusual" chord in different genres?

    They teach this chord

    http://chord-c.com/guitar-chord/C/sh...or-flat-sixth/

    Steve I have one more question regarding this style of music. Looking at this example, he is playing a melody over a melody.And I was reading about the counterpoint,but I would bet this guy he doesn't know about counterpoint.What way he is writing he's melodies is he playing "anything" that sounds good to him using notes from chosen key?What do you think?

    First melody is the first thing he plays and the second is at 1:26.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQhMf8xzA7A

    Thank Very much Steven.

    All the best to you.
    Last edited by ssyniu; 07-09-2016 at 09:02 AM.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    [QUOTE=ssyniu;156038]
    So not always melodies are made of chord tones.
    Wow, no offense, but this tells me you don't play music. You're trying to learn music from reading about music. You really need to learn to play music. If you think melodies must consist of chord tones, you have no experience playing any music.

    Melodies RARELY come from chord tones only. They sometimes do but talking about billions of pieces of music in existence, melody is much more likely to be notes from the key (or mode) rather than from a chord. In fact, Western European music is the only style that even developed chords and no other cultures had it until recently. Some cultures still use primarily melodic rather than harmonic approaches to music. For the first 1,000 years of written music, there was NOTHING but melody. Chords didn't even exist.

    When composers started adding chords, melodies still worked as they always had - the chords "went with" the melody, not the other way around.

    There were periods of time where melodies were "more likely" to consist only of chord tones (or mostly of chord tones) but in general, melodies consist primarily of notes from the key (or mode). They may outline chords in some places but too much of it can sound childish in the same way playing up or down a simple scale can.

    But if you just learn to play a bunch of melodies, you'll understand what a melody is.

    Interesting so was there a place in CPP music for being spontaneous.
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    In CPP music, people did improvise, though in performances in the Classical Period, it was limited primarily to Cadenzas in Concertos. The Baroque period allows for a lot more improvisation during performance.

    Composers could also extemporise music, but once they wrote that down we feel it is the composer's wish the music be played that way.

    But written music is also full of "spontaneity" where, though written out, it sounds like something spontaneous is happening. But all written and recorded music can be that way.


    Right ok so called "hook" maybe... or maybe not "hook" probably is more like chorus.
    A hook is more like a chorus.

    What this stuff is is a "texture" or "background" or an accompaniment. It sets the mood for other things to happen over. It's not very interesting on its own. When it first appears it can be, but once it gets going - things like this - loops - patterns that repeat, etc. tend to become more like a background than a foreground.


    I don't fully understand what accompaniments in this case means.
    My understanding of accompaniment is when someone accompany vocalist with the instrument.
    "The accompaniment" is what the instrument that is accompanying the vocalist would be.

    But don't you think this is going to accompany a vocalist/rap?

    IOW, just becuase any singing hasn't started yet (or hasn't been recorded - you're looking at works in progress instead of finished pieces all the time, which is not very useful at this stage) doesn't mean that this is not "accompanimental" in nature.

    It's no different than someone strumming some guitar chords as an intro to a song.

    "The accompaniment" can refer to both the part that accompanies a soloist, and any music written to be "accompanimental" in nature - i.e., not a melody.

    Pianists commonly play both the melody and the accompaniment on a single instrument.





    Interesting, I always thought that jazz is using "unusual" and complex chords.Is this type of chord is used in rock music or funk??
    Jazz don't have a name for this chord but is this "unusual" chord in different genres?
    Well, the problem is, you think non-jazz uses "simple" chords, and it doesn't.

    "Pop" music in general may use simpler chords than CPP music and Jazz. But there is a huge amount of crossover. I wouldn't expect the stuff you've been posting to use many complex harmonies though. On some level, it's being made by people who don't know anything about music. All they learn are some very surface elements (oh, you make melodies from the notes of the chord) and start making music. I'm not saying it's not good necessarily, and it works for them, but there's a lot more to music than this.

    If that's all you're interested in, that's fine, but the questions you ask make me thing you want to know more about it than that.

    C-Eb-G-Ab would be an unusual chord in most genres. It happens in later Romantic Period music into early 20th century music, and it happens in more "modern" music where modes are treated like keys and in pandiatonic styles. It's also something guitarists come up with as "cool sounding" because they'll often remain in one key or mode and play an open string or strings while moving notes on other strings that create some parts of the chord that are "traditional" shapes (regular triads for example) but it'll have this other note that sounds good, but doesn't "fit" any traditional naming scheme.


    They also teach plain old major and minor triads too I'm sure, but that doesn't mean they appear frequently in that style of music!

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    Steve I have one more question regarding this style of music. Looking at this example, he is playing a melody over a melody.And I was reading about the counterpoint,but I would bet this guy he doesn't know about counterpoint.What way he is writing he's melodies is he playing "anything" that sounds good to him using notes from chosen key?What do you think?

    First melody is the first thing he plays and the second is at 1:26.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQhMf8xzA7A

    Thank Very much Steven.

    All the best to you.

    Well this is a good example. A "beat".

    People who make "beats" are making accompaniments. They've mis-used the term, but it is what it is.

    They're using loop-based (or cycle-based) recording to "build" a pattern that will serve as an accompaniment for something else typically.

    In the past, a rock band would use Guitar, Bass, and Drums to do this.

    Now, people use a synthesizer set to loop record, and add their "drum" part (the high hat at the beginning), their "guitar" element (the first "melody") then he adds a "bass" element (the chordal hits).

    This process can go on forever until it gets really dense. He adds in a flute sound at 1:26.

    These are not really "melodies".

    The more proper term for them is a "motive", or a "motif" (ever wonder why Yamaha called their keyboards that?).

    A musical motive is an "identifiable" musical element that usually has an obvious pitch contour and rhythmic identity. Beethoven's 5th Symphony - the opening "dun dun dun dah".

    That's a motive (motif is usually reserved for things associated with other non-musical elements, such as something that signifies a heartbeat, or a specific character, also called by its full name "leitmotif" which can also be like "Darth Vader's Theme" from Star Wars - every time Darth Vader's getting ready to come on screen or they want you to think about him even though you don't see him, there's a musical cue that plays the motif from his theme).

    There are all kinds of "official" words here, but this "beat-making" style really consists of creating musical "ostinati" (the plural of ostinato) comprised of various other musical elements which could include chords and chord progressions, rhythmic elements (drum beats, stabs, etc.), melodic elements (either motives or full-blown melodies), etc.

    Since usually loops are fairly short, any melodic elements tend to be shorter, which generally makes them more like a musical motive.

    However, one understanding with motives is that traditionally, they're compositionally important. The piece is "built" from them (Beethoven's 5th Symphony is not unlike a "beat" where he takes this short motive and combines it in various ways to build a piece - but his doesn't "loop").

    Still, we use the term generally to apply to any short, melodic, and identifiable but of music material that seems to "stand out" as its own thing.

    One of the difficulties of combining a bunch of motives simultaneously like this is either they all fight for dominance, or one rises to the fore, or you build this texture where they all contribute to the sound, but none stand out. Any of those are OK. But if you get too many in there, it can get muddy or defeat the purpose.

    "Counterpoint" is a specific style of combining melodies.

    We may however use the term more generally to mean "something working against or in opposition to something else" - like someone might express an opinion on TV and a newscaster might say, "As a counterpoint to what Senator So and So just said..."

    So someone might say the flute "melody" at 1:26 is a "counterpoint" to the other "melody" that started the thing off.

    But it's not really what "Counterpoint" is when most people discuss it in music, In broad terms, it is, but that's not typically what we'd call it.

    There's another term that's similar that we're more likely to use when one melody is played against another, called "Countermelody".

    With Countermelody, the two melodies are more independent. They "go together" but each one could stand on its own without the other. One is sometimes "primary" and the other "secondary. Very often, a piece will have a melody, then another melody in another section, then they'll be combined later. Paul McCartney's "Silly Love Songs" has a section where they do this brilliantly (and most of the other instruments stop so you can really hear it).

    IF - IF mind you - IF I considered the first thing a melody, and then the flute thing a 1:26 a melody as well, I would say that the initial thing forms a Countermelody with the Flute (because when it comes in, it seems to be the more important of the two).

    But the first is really again, more like a motive and less like a melody. It has "melodic aspects" to it, but is more rhythmic in nature - it's notes that are almost acting like percussion (or a "bass line" that's not necessarily a "melody").

    The flute thing at 1:26 is much more melodic and I'd call it a "melody" or wouldn't really argue with someone who called it that. However, once things like that get repeated in loop-based production they tend to be more like a "motive".

    Think about it like the difference between a "phrase" and a complete sentence.

    A "melodic phrase" might be an apt description of the flute thing.

    But really, this is more of a combining of melodic and rhythmic motives to form a "beat" - a background or accompaniment over which some other point of interest (vocals typically) can live. That doesn't mean there aren't "Points of interest" within the beat - and building it little by little like this has a tendency to make things "important" as they enter, but then move to the background as some other new element enters.

    Honestly, I'd prefer we call these things "elements" because that better describes what they are. A rhythmic element, a melodic element, a harmonic element, and so on.

    As far as writing it - yes, he's picking sounds and trying them, then once he finds a sound he likes, he comes up with an idea then records it.

    Most of it is all in one key - the Flute part has a chromatic note in it - an Ab "blue note" - the key is otherwise D Minor.

    He may or may not know anything about counterpoint but it's not really "part" of this style - this style is all about "building" the beat by adding various elements (motives if you like) to it. He probably knows enough about a key or mode to pick the right notes and knows what's going to "work". He hits a few odd things at some point but that may be an accident as he's moving from buttons to keys. He probably understands enough about a blues scale to know that the Ab won't sound totally out of place - but it could have been a happy accident too. Sounds pretty intentional.

    You also have to remember that this is not the first piece of music this person has written. It may sound "spontaneous" and in some ways is, but most stuff like this consists of elements people have tried before in other contexts, or have played them enough to know that they'll work together - IOW this is someone with a lot of experience under their belt making music in this way.

    This is why you have to play so much - the more things you encounter, and try, the more you'll begin to understand what's more likely to work together and what may not.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Wow, no offense, but this tells me you don't play music. You're trying to learn music from reading about music. You really need to learn to play music. If you think melodies must consist of chord tones, you have no experience playing any music.

    Melodies RARELY come from chord tones only. They sometimes do but talking about billions of pieces of music in existence, melody is much more likely to be notes from the key (or mode) rather than from a chord. In fact, Western European music is the only style that even developed chords and no other cultures had it until recently. Some cultures still use primarily melodic rather than harmonic approaches to music. For the first 1,000 years of written music, there was NOTHING but melody. Chords didn't even exist.

    When composers started adding chords, melodies still worked as they always had - the chords "went with" the melody, not the other way around.

    There were periods of time where melodies were "more likely" to consist only of chord tones (or mostly of chord tones) but in general, melodies consist primarily of notes from the key (or mode). They may outline chords in some places but too much of it can sound childish in the same way playing up or down a simple scale can.

    But if you just learn to play a bunch of melodies, you'll understand what a melody is.

    Yes.I see your point.Learn music by playing the music.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    If that's all you're interested in, that's fine, but the questions you ask make me thing you want to know more about it than that.
    You are right.I was posting other types of music as well before.I am definitely not interested only in this type of music I was curious because programming music is very common thing in todays music.And I like to understand how music is changing over the years,decades,thats why I liked when you were writing about music history I found it interesting.Now I know about tonality and post tonality all very important information to me to be able to understand music, i fell like its important to learn history but I am curious about present as well.But definitely I want to learn more than that,thats why I was asking about other types of music.I am interested in blues,funk,soul,pop but not only its hard to actually specify for me what type of music I want to learn,I want to learn about music in general. I will try to find someone who will be able to teach me some songs.
    I will use this book in the mean time :

    http://www.alfred.com/Products/Hit-t...-00-37344.aspx

    I am also trying to deconstruct songs,maybe just simpler parts of the songs initially,because full songs could be to hard at the moment.

    Thank you for your help.
    Last edited by ssyniu; 07-11-2016 at 06:43 AM.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Well this is a good example. A "beat".

    People who make "beats" are making accompaniments. They've mis-used the term, but it is what it is.

    They're using loop-based (or cycle-based) recording to "build" a pattern that will serve as an accompaniment for something else typically.

    In the past, a rock band would use Guitar, Bass, and Drums to do this.

    Now, people use a synthesizer set to loop record, and add their "drum" part (the high hat at the beginning), their "guitar" element (the first "melody") then he adds a "bass" element (the chordal hits).

    This process can go on forever until it gets really dense. He adds in a flute sound at 1:26.

    These are not really "melodies".

    The more proper term for them is a "motive", or a "motif" (ever wonder why Yamaha called their keyboards that?).
    "ever wonder why Yamaha called their keyboards that?" Actually I did :-), but as you can see I am a bit lost in terminology,thanks for clarifying that.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    A musical motive is an "identifiable" musical element that usually has an obvious pitch contour and rhythmic identity. Beethoven's 5th Symphony - the opening "dun dun dun dah".

    That's a motive (motif is usually reserved for things associated with other non-musical elements, such as something that signifies a heartbeat, or a specific character, also called by its full name "leitmotif" which can also be like "Darth Vader's Theme" from Star Wars - every time Darth Vader's getting ready to come on screen or they want you to think about him even though you don't see him, there's a musical cue that plays the motif from his theme).
    This Beethoven's 5th Symphony is a great.The way he "expand" this initial motive.I heard 5 symphony before but I never look at it this way as a "expanded" motif. The whole piece is build "around" this motif when the "beat" example is more of few motifs combined together (plus chord stabs and drum beat). So Can we say that the rest of instruments(in Beethoven's 5th symphony) is a accompaniment to the main motif as a main point of interest???.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    There are all kinds of "official" words here, but this "beat-making" style really consists of creating musical "ostinati" (the plural of ostinato) comprised of various other musical elements which could include chords and chord progressions, rhythmic elements (drum beats, stabs, etc.), melodic elements (either motives or full-blown melodies), etc.

    Since usually loops are fairly short, any melodic elements tend to be shorter, which generally makes them more like a musical motive.

    However, one understanding with motives is that traditionally, they're compositionally important. The piece is "built" from them (Beethoven's 5th Symphony is not unlike a "beat" where he takes this short motive and combines it in various ways to build a piece - but his doesn't "loop").

    Still, we use the term generally to apply to any short, melodic, and identifiable but of music material that seems to "stand out" as its own thing.

    One of the difficulties of combining a bunch of motives simultaneously like this is either they all fight for dominance, or one rises to the fore, or you build this texture where they all contribute to the sound, but none stand out. Any of those are OK. But if you get too many in there, it can get muddy or defeat the purpose.
    Yes so thats the biggest "challenge" I suppose,when making this type of beat to be able to combine motifs and still making it coherent .??? I see the difference between "my example" and Beethoven's 5th Symphony.In the beat making video he is combining few motives together when Beethoven in his symphony has one leitmotif "expanded".

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    "Counterpoint" is a specific style of combining melodies.

    We may however use the term more generally to mean "something working against or in opposition to something else" - like someone might express an opinion on TV and a newscaster might say, "As a counterpoint to what Senator So and So just said..."

    So someone might say the flute "melody" at 1:26 is a "counterpoint" to the other "melody" that started the thing off.

    But it's not really what "Counterpoint" is when most people discuss it in music, In broad terms, it is, but that's not typically what we'd call it.
    I think I can "recognise" counterpoint in Beethoven's 5th symphony its happening at 0:07 second melody is mimicking the first one ???I found this example it is showing Beethoven's Große Fuge which has a lot of melodies combined together:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s0Mp7LFI-k

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    There's another term that's similar that we're more likely to use when one melody is played against another, called "Countermelody".

    With Countermelody, the two melodies are more independent. They "go together" but each one could stand on its own without the other. One is sometimes "primary" and the other "secondary. Very often, a piece will have a melody, then another melody in another section, then they'll be combined later.
    In this video he is using the same notes from previous melody to build new one(he starts doing this at around 11:30)And he is calling this contrary countermelody.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnAxoIdIS0o


    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Paul McCartney's "Silly Love Songs" has a section where they do this brilliantly (and most of the other instruments stop so you can really hear it).
    I couldn't hear this, is it happening at around 03:05 piano with guitar???

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap87QgZKTNw

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    IF - IF mind you - IF I considered the first thing a melody, and then the flute thing a 1:26 a melody as well, I would say that the initial thing forms a Countermelody with the Flute (because when it comes in, it seems to be the more important of the two).

    But the first is really again, more like a motive and less like a melody. It has "melodic aspects" to it, but is more rhythmic in nature - it's notes that are almost acting like percussion (or a "bass line" that's not necessarily a "melody").
    I am not sure what does it mean "rhythmic in nature" so melody doesn't have to be played with great "timing" doesn't have to lock very much with metronome, metronome is only for drummers???

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    The flute thing at 1:26 is much more melodic and I'd call it a "melody" or wouldn't really argue with someone who called it that. However, once things like that get repeated in loop-based production they tend to be more like a "motive".

    Think about it like the difference between a "phrase" and a complete sentence.

    A "melodic phrase" might be an apt description of the flute thing.

    But really, this is more of a combining of melodic and rhythmic motives to form a "beat" - a background or accompaniment over which some other point of interest (vocals typically) can live. That doesn't mean there aren't "Points of interest" within the beat - and building it little by little like this has a tendency to make things "important" as they enter, but then move to the background as some other new element enters.

    Honestly, I'd prefer we call these things "elements" because that better describes what they are. A rhythmic element, a melodic element, a harmonic element, and so on.

    As far as writing it - yes, he's picking sounds and trying them, then once he finds a sound he likes, he comes up with an idea then records it.
    Ok I understand.Thank You

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Most of it is all in one key - the Flute part has a chromatic note in it - an Ab "blue note" - the key is otherwise D Minor.

    He may or may not know anything about counterpoint but it's not really "part" of this style - this style is all about "building" the beat by adding various elements (motives if you like) to it. He probably knows enough about a key or mode to pick the right notes and knows what's going to "work". He hits a few odd things at some point but that may be an accident as he's moving from buttons to keys. He probably understands enough about a blues scale to know that the Ab won't sound totally out of place - but it could have been a happy accident too. Sounds pretty intentional.

    You also have to remember that this is not the first piece of music this person has written. It may sound "spontaneous" and in some ways is, but most stuff like this consists of elements people have tried before in other contexts, or have played them enough to know that they'll work together - IOW this is someone with a lot of experience under their belt making music in this way.

    This is why you have to play so much - the more things you encounter, and try, the more you'll begin to understand what's more likely to work together and what may not.
    I don't know how to explain myself here.You know now that I don't play but i think its my preference. I need to understand "few things" before I will start to play its like "natural learning flow" for me i like to understand more music before learning to play.I think its a trust thing i am afraid that someone will tech me wrong,when I am asking for help someone who is advertising himself as a music teacher and she doesn't know what transcription is???Honestly I had situation like this and I repeated myself but she still didn't know.
    On the other hand I understand why you recommending playing as a best tool to learn.

    This post was grate signpost Steven. Thank You for pointing me out few more topics (counter melodies,motifs) to learn in music.

    All the best.
    Last edited by ssyniu; 07-12-2016 at 10:22 AM.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by ssyniu View Post
    "ever wonder why Yamaha called their keyboards that?" Actually I did :-), but as you can see I am a bit lost in terminology,thanks for clarifying that.
    Well I'm not positive that's the reason, but it is a nice tie-in with the style, whether they intended it or not.
    So Can we say that the rest of instruments(in Beethoven's 5th symphony) is a accompaniment to the main motif as a main point of interest???.
    Hard to say (and that's probably what makes it so interesting). We can say that most of the material "comes from" this main motive. Sometimes though, that motive is combined in quick succession to form a melody (what someone would sing if you asked them to sing the opening movement from the 5th after the first two big statements of the motive in unison).

    But listen again -the motive happens 3 times in succession on different pitch levels as a "melody" at the beginning.

    Then, it happens inverted (upside down - the last note goes up instead of down) in the bass later in the piece (in the 2nd theme)!

    I think we hear this last bass statement as more "accompanimental", but it's also really sort of an "answer" or "response"

    Later though, we hear the motive again played in a similar location in the phrase in another part.

    da da da DA da da da DA da da da DA (bum bum bum ba) - the parentheses is the other part.

    What's also fascinating about this is that each successive statement of the original motive that becomes this melody can be taken as 3 individual units or as a whole - it's all of the following:

    1 Statement, 2 answers (and a 3rd inverted answer in the bass which is more answer-like)
    4 voices in imitative counterpoint.
    1 melodic statement (3 units long) and 1 "accompanimental" answer.

    Beethoven takes this motive and presents it in 3 different voices which the moving part becomes a "line" - melody - while the held last note of each motive becomes the harmony (and thus accompaniment) each time a successive motive enters.

    It's really quite brilliant in its economy.

    But I should say, it's got nothing to do with "instruments" but what we call *parts*. It's not unlike 4 part counterpoint.

    If you listen to it again, check out how the 2nd theme begins "short short short long long long" (which is actually 3 short beats and 1 long held note, just like the main motive, "augmented"!) and how it has the inverted motive in the bass as an "accompaniment" to that melody (though it sort of could be a countermelody even though it's more just a motive).

    And I don't know if you know this, but the whole symphony - all 4 movements are built on this idea to some degree.

    This will take you to a PDF when you click it, and it's not a good scan, but this should give you clues as to where to look (or listen) to find the motive in ALL of the movements. One of the most obvious is the 2nd theme of the 3rd movement where he kind of hits you over the head with it. Short Short Short Long Short Short Short Short Long Short Short Short Long ta da da da (which is, like the 3+1 statements of the 1st movement).

    http://www.lasalle.edu/~reese/Beetho...ph_5_notes.pdf




    Yes so thats the biggest "challenge" I suppose,when making this type of beat to be able to combine motifs and still making it coherent .??? I see the difference between "my example" and Beethoven's 5th Symphony.In the beat making video he is combining few motives together when Beethoven in his symphony has one leitmotif "expanded".
    Correct (though the words motive, motif, and leitmotif have specific meanings in music so really here it's just "motive").




    I think I can "recognise" counterpoint in Beethoven's 5th symphony its happening at 0:07 second melody is mimicking the first one ???I found this example it is showing Beethoven's Große Fuge which has a lot of melodies combined together:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s0Mp7LFI-k
    Beethoven 5 is a bit trickier to tell because the opening is "contrapuntal" in nature, but it's not "true counterpoint" as the voices are not really moving "against" each other. But it straddles the line which again is probably part of why it's so fascinating. Later in the piece, there are many more steady moving notes against other steady moving notes interspersed with the main motive - that's more like real counterpoint.

    A Fugue is considered THE epitome of counterpoint!

    Fugues have a "Subject" which is a "melody" often made up of smaller motives. Composers liked to do this because they could take their subject and break it up into smaller components and treat them contrapuntally. In fact, Beethoven 5 is sort of like hearing just 1 motive out of a Fugue Subject treated contrapuntally without ever hearing the actual Fugues Subject!

    A Fugue starts with a statement of the Subject, often by itself so we can really hear it.

    Then it enters in another part. When the 2nd part enters with the Subject, the first part that just finished the Subject plays a "Counter Subject" (also called an "answer" colloquially) which sometimes itself can have important motives that get worked out later in the piece. The Counter Subject and Subject are "in counterpoint" to each other.

    In some ways, they are like Melody and Counter-Melody, but their relationship is more "tied together" than that. They will appear together throughout the piece. You might hear one or the other alone, or parts of one or the other alone, but they are, in effect, 2 sides of the same coin.

    Likewise, most of the material comes from the S and CS, wheras when you're dealing with M and CM, the other musical material comes from other sources and they are "just" melodies that happen to appear together.

    Another aspect about a CS is that it is "dependent" on the Subject, whereas a CM can more stand on its own.

    And, in Fugues, we call them Subjects and Counter-Subjects as their "proper" name (IOW, we use only those terms in Fugues, and we don't use them in other types of pieces).

    Fugues can be in 2 parts, 3 parts, or 4 parts, and even 5 or more.

    A Fugue often has a single Subject and Counter-Subject, but, some have 2 or more - we call them a "Double Fugue" or "Triple Fugue".

    Beethoven's "Grosse Fuge" movement is a Double Fugue (on a huge scale).

    BTW, after Bach's lifetime, writing Fugues was "passé" so most Composers only did it as an academic exercise or for specific purposes. It became pretty rare to use a Fugue as an independent movement of a multi-movement work. More often, a composer would use "Fugal Techniques" or write a "Fughetto" (a little Fugue) within a movement rather than a stand-alone work.

    But you can see how Beethoven (and Mozart and Haydn) were inspired by Bach's contrapuntal writing.



    In this video he is using the same notes from previous melody to build new one(he starts doing this at around 11:30)And he is calling this contrary countermelody.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnAxoIdIS0o

    Well, he's calling it that, but is that what it is?

    It's the same problem as before - really they're both taking on an "accompanimental" role. Neither is very "melodic" in its own right - we even think of "bass lines" as accompanimental in nature.

    I would say it's more contrapuntal in nature - the added part is a "counterpoint" to the bass line.

    Usually a melody is more "identifiable" than that, and a countermelody is also "identifiable".

    The *repetitiveness* of your typical "loop-based production" often "reduces" what might otherwise be a "melody" proper to more of an accompanimental role.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    I couldn't hear this, is it happening at around 03:05 piano with guitar???

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap87QgZKTNw
    You seem to be stuck on instruments.

    If a singer is singing THAT is the melody.

    At 3:05, Paul McCartney is singing the "primary" melody "How can I tell..."

    Ar about 3:19, Linda McCartney is singing "I Love You" against what Paul is singing (which he continues to sing).

    She is singing a melody from earlier in the song (the chorus).

    These are both very "recognizable" because we heard Paul's in isolation, and Linda's earlier in the song.

    In a stroke of genius, later in the song around the 4:00 mark, they do this:

    Paul sings "I Love You"

    Linda comes in with a *new and different* melody (which is a counter melody)

    Then Paul enters again (overdubbed) with the melody that Linda sang the first time around - they've switched roles.

    That is another "countermelody".

    However, when the texture gets so dense that we might not be able to follow one "primary" and one "secondary" counter-melody, we tend to think of it more as "counterpoint" and this really is an example of counterpoint (so were just the original two) but unlike counterpoint which usually is "written together" we tend to think of instances like this were a "melody heard on its own earlier as a stand-alone melody" (the chorus, I Love You) when combined with a 2nd melody (previously heard or not) as melody and counter-melody rather than "counterpoint". They are "in counterpoint" to each other, and they are "contrapuntal in nature" but most people are going to say it's Melody and Counter-Melody because that's what they are - melodies.

    Interestingly, they are "looping" too but again, they are more individually melodic, especially since we've heard them before.

    In fact, the 2nd time it happens, Paul doesn't enter with the original Counter-Melody until the 3rd entrance - and the reason we pick up on that is because we heard it before.

    If they had done it like they did the first time (maybe just switching who sang what) the 3rd entrance might have not been understood as clearly as a new melody because we wouldn't have heard it before. Genius.

    Now, which melody we hear as "primary" depends on a lot of factors. In the first time, we probably hear what Paul is singing as the "main" melody and "I Love You" as the counter melody because firstly it enters 2nd, and secondly it's longer, slow moving notes, so sounds more like an "accompaniment" to what Paul is singing.

    But later, when the roles are reversed, Paul starts with the long notes. That tends to make it sound like the things that entered 2nd are "counter" (and it's true we haven't heard Linda's part before so it would be the "counter" part) but when Paul comes back in with the thing that was the "primary" melody before - is it now?

    That's what makes it fascinating.

    And that's kind of the point - this is something more than just a "silly love song". It's a brilliant composition.

    I want to add that, in the 2nd break, while Paul is singing, there is a Saxophone "lick" in there. It is a "melody" or it is at least "melodic in nature" and that would make it a "counter melody" but it only appears briefly and is not as "important" as to what is about to come - so we don't typically call that a counter-melody.

    However, if it was something that continued along with the voices, then yes, we probably would.

    In some sense, it really has to do with how "important" the part is - is this a main character in a movie, or just one of the people on screen who make the background patrons at a restaurant.




    I am not sure what does it mean "rhythmic in nature" so melody doesn't have to be played with great "timing" doesn't have to lock very much with metronome, metronome is only for drummers???
    Two different things.

    "Rhythmic in nature" means the element is more about rhythm than it is about pitch.

    Metronomes are for everyone, but no one should be a slave to the metronome either. Everyone needs great timing so they can play in time well, and when they do play out of time, it's because they meant to, not because they have crappy timing!


    I am asking for help someone who is advertising himself as a music teacher and she doesn't know what transcription is??
    "Transcription" is the wrong word.

    Think about what it means in non-musical contexts - it means to take something from one medium (such as speech) and "convert into writing" (trans- and scribe).

    We do absolutely "transcribe" music - we can take a piece we hear and "transcribe" it - write it down.

    Jazz players are big on this - it's part of their learning process - they learn by "transcribing" the works of others (in part).

    The resulting piece of written out music is a "transcription".

    Now, any music teacher should in fact know what a "transcription" is.

    But it may be that they're confused as to how you're using the word. It sounds like to me, you're "trying to learn how to play music".

    "Transcription" is not what that is. So maybe once you use that word, they get stuck trying to figure out what it is you want, and if you tell them what they think means "learn to play" it further confuses them to the point they can't make any sense of it.

    The only time you should use the word "transcription" in music is:

    1. The act of listening to music by ear, and writing it down (verb, transcription (act) or transcribe (act))
    2. The resulting written music from that act. (noun, the physical result)

    Beyond that, its use is specific enough not to worry about in any general context.

    You can still learn to play "by ear" without reading music.

    If you want to draw an analogy, we all learn to speak our native language "by ear" long before we learn to "read" and "write".

    You can get by quite well in many instances without being able to read or write, but, at some point, it becomes a hurdle - like obviously how could you learn anything remotely from someone on the internet if you couldn't read and write?

    But what you're trying to do is lean about Grammar before you've even learned to speak the language by ear.

    I suppose, if we learn a foreign language in school, we're often taught it "on paper" at the same time is "by ear" - but a lot of people don't really learn anything that way. You have to speak it and use it daily.

    But look at the way these guys are learning - they're taking a SOUND and "playing" that sound. They do what "sounds good" first. Music is ABOUT SOUND. Just like speech is. You have to learn to "speak" the language of music before you learn to "spell" and "read" the language of music. Again, like a Foreign language they could be done at the same time (this is what traditional Piano lessons do - but usually the student has at least HEARD some music before).

    I suppose I could become an expert in French Grammar, but, I mean really, what good is it if I can't speak the language - mispronounce everything - cant' understand people. I suppose I could read and write French without actually knowing how to pronounce it - but you don't seem to be reading and writing (written down) music.

    I mean, would you learn to paint without painting? Or would you go on the internet and ask people if this particular existing painting exhibits the Golden Mean because you read that paintings use the Golden Mean or you heard some guy on some video say he used Acrylic paint so now you want to know everything there is to know about Acrylic paint before you've ever even tried to paint anything?

    I'm exaggerating of course but I think maybe the teachers you've spoken to, or possibly other posters on forums like this might get that impression.

    Don't stop learning - what you're doing is OK, but make sure you HEAR what these things are, not just simply define them in words or as concepts.

    That reminds me of something - when I taught Music Theory, I took this for granted, but what I realized after a few years of teaching and being frustrated why students couldn't "get" a lot of the things - The PRIMARY reason they didn't understand music theory is because they never went home and PLAYED and thus HEARD what was being taught. A secondary reason was that they didn't "practice it" - they didn't APPLY it nor could they "discover" it in their daily playing.

    Many schools require students to be able to play at the piano, and theory instructors require students to play examples relevant to the lessons. Some still don't "get it" but being able to HEAR and to PUT INTO PRACTICE the things you're doing make a huge difference.

    Play, hear, listen, and understand.

    Best,

    Steve

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Well I'm not positive that's the reason, but it is a nice tie-in with the style, whether they intended it or not.


    Hard to say (and that's probably what makes it so interesting). We can say that most of the material "comes from" this main motive. Sometimes though, that motive is combined in quick succession to form a melody (what someone would sing if you asked them to sing the opening movement from the 5th after the first two big statements of the motive in unison).

    But listen again -the motive happens 3 times in succession on different pitch levels as a "melody" at the beginning.

    Then, it happens inverted (upside down - the last note goes up instead of down) in the bass later in the piece (in the 2nd theme)!

    I think we hear this last bass statement as more "accompanimental", but it's also really sort of an "answer" or "response".
    Yes I can hear this -i think- if you are talking about the music that is happening between beginning and 0:17)?

    at 0:07 we can hear
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    motive that is happennig 3 times in succession on different pitch levels as a "melody" at the beginning
    ????

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Then, it happens inverted (upside down - the last note goes up instead of down) in the bass later in the piece (in the 2nd theme)!
    So like in first inversion???(happening at around 0:12)???

    I am not sure what do you mean by "theme".Firs melody qeestion = one theme? Or all questions in succession before the "inverted ones"

    I will ask this maybe over again:

    From the beginning(I will be asking just about the part of music between 0:00 to 0:17)

    What I hear is:

    Main motive repeated 2 times???(0:00-0:06)
    and then Question 2 times(0:06-0:11) (first theme???)
    and than 3 answers (0:11-0:17),(second theme?)but last(third answer)is more "highlighted "/"stressed".(Is this is the "last bass statement as more "accompanimental"")

    So music between 0:06-0:17 is a melody(with questions and answers) that is created out of main motive????



    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    while the held last note of each motive becomes the harmony (and thus accompaniment) each time a successive motive enters.
    Not sure about this one.


    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    But I should say, it's got nothing to do with "instruments" but what we call *parts*. It's not unlike 4 part counterpoint.

    If you listen to it again, check out how the 2nd theme begins "short short short long long long" (which is actually 3 short beats and 1 long held note, just like the main motive, "augmented"!) and how it has the inverted motive in the bass as an "accompaniment" to that melody (though it sort of could be a countermelody even though it's more just a motive).

    And I don't know if you know this, but the whole symphony - all 4 movements are built on this idea to some degree.

    This will take you to a PDF when you click it, and it's not a good scan, but this should give you clues as to where to look (or listen) to find the motive in ALL of the movements. One of the most obvious is the 2nd theme of the 3rd movement where he kind of hits you over the head with it. Short Short Short Long Short Short Short Short Long Short Short Short Long ta da da da (which is, like the 3+1 statements of the 1st movement).

    http://www.lasalle.edu/~reese/Beetho...ph_5_notes.pdf
    Thank you for pdf link.





    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Correct (though the words motive, motif, and leitmotif have specific meanings in music so really here it's just "motive").
    I have used the term leitmotif as to call this motive as a "leading motive".???






    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Beethoven 5 is a bit trickier to tell because the opening is "contrapuntal" in nature, but it's not "true counterpoint" as the voices are not really moving "against" each other.
    "Against each other"???(do you mean no contrary motion)???
    But in parallel motion voices are moving together so not against eachother and its still counterpoint in parallel motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    But it straddles the line which again is probably part of why it's so fascinating. Later in the piece, there are many more steady moving notes against other steady moving notes interspersed with the main motive - that's more like real counterpoint.
    Chord Straddles??? So if the chord is C, you would leave out the middle note -- E -- and just play C and G.????

    This motive is so "catchy"probably thats what makes motives (in general)grate .I must admit that I hear this motive in my head over and over again :-).

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    A Fugue is considered THE epitome of counterpoint!

    Fugues have a "Subject" which is a "melody" often made up of smaller motives. Composers liked to do this because they could take their subject and break it up into smaller components and treat them contrapuntally. In fact, Beethoven 5 is sort of like hearing just 1 motive out of a Fugue Subject treated contrapuntally without ever hearing the actual Fugues Subject!

    A Fugue starts with a statement of the Subject, often by itself so we can really hear it.

    Then it enters in another part. When the 2nd part enters with the Subject, the first part that just finished the Subject plays a "Counter Subject" (also called an "answer" colloquially) which sometimes itself can have important motives that get worked out later in the piece. The Counter Subject and Subject are "in counterpoint" to each other.

    In some ways, they are like Melody and Counter-Melody, but their relationship is more "tied together" than that. They will appear together throughout the piece. You might hear one or the other alone, or parts of one or the other alone, but they are, in effect, 2 sides of the same coin.

    Likewise, most of the material comes from the S and CS, wheras when you're dealing with M and CM, the other musical material comes from other sources and they are "just" melodies that happen to appear together.

    Another aspect about a CS is that it is "dependent" on the Subject, whereas a CM can more stand on its own.

    And, in Fugues, we call them Subjects and Counter-Subjects as their "proper" name (IOW, we use only those terms in Fugues, and we don't use them in other types of pieces).

    Fugues can be in 2 parts, 3 parts, or 4 parts, and even 5 or more.

    A Fugue often has a single Subject and Counter-Subject, but, some have 2 or more - we call them a "Double Fugue" or "Triple Fugue".

    Beethoven's "Grosse Fuge" movement is a Double Fugue (on a huge scale).

    BTW, after Bach's lifetime, writing Fugues was "passé" so most Composers only did it as an academic exercise or for specific purposes. It became pretty rare to use a Fugue as an independent movement of a multi-movement work. More often, a composer would use "Fugal Techniques" or write a "Fughetto" (a little Fugue) within a movement rather than a stand-alone work.

    But you can see how Beethoven (and Mozart and Haydn) were inspired by Bach's contrapuntal writing.
    Thank You very much Steve. Maby I will brake it down this post and comeback to the rest(fugues)later.
    Last edited by ssyniu; 07-14-2016 at 01:38 PM.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by ssyniu View Post
    Yes I can hear this -i think- if you are talking about the music that is happening between beginning and 0:17)?

    at 0:07 we can hear ????
    Let's use this version so the timing will be consistent:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z4KK7RWjmk

    What you hear at the beginning is the main motive.

    This motive consists of a pitch element (or pitch contour) that involves one pitch going down to a different pitch.
    This motive also consists of a rhythmic element of three short notes followed by one long note.

    The first thing we hear - the 4 note motive is often called a "statement".

    The second thing we hear is a re-statement of the motive at a different pitch level (it's all down a step). This is called a "sequence" but here it's less about material being sequentially treated than it is the double statement of the motive so that we really get it in our heads.

    One might say there is also a harmonic element to the motive because since it moves a 3rd it could be two notes of a triad. It does, but we really don't hear that at the beginning. And if we did, we might think it was implying other chords - such as Eb and Bb, rather than Cm and G7 - in other words, there's just not enough harmonic implication to make any judgements on that.

    What we then hear, at :15 in the video I linked to, is a "main theme". There are certain types of movements in classical music and the first movements of symphonies are called "Sonata Allegro" or "First Movement Form" or "Sonata Form" (the first movement was typically an Allegro, and often in this form in String Quartets, Sonatas, Symphonies, Concertos, etc.)

    So we're going to call this first "theme" the "Principle Theme" ("Primary Theme" is used, as is "1st Theme" and so on).

    The Principle Theme goes from :15 onward.
    The Secondary Theme starts at :50.

    In the secondary theme, the opening motive is heard in the basses, but it goes UP in pitch rather than down as the original form.



    So like in first inversion???(happening at around 0:12)???
    Nope, "inversion" here means pitch countour going the opposite way. The inversion of the melodic motive:

    C - D - E

    is

    E - D - C it goes down in pitch (not simply backwards though in this example it does that too - that's called Retrograde).


    Main motive repeated 2 times???(0:00-0:06)
    Well there's 1 statement and 1 repeat :-) From :09 to :14 in the video I linked to.

    and then Question 2 times(0:06-0:11) (first theme???)
    No. Then at :15 the main motive is played 3 times in a row. From :15 to :18.

    That Motive now forms a melody - those three in a row is a "melody".

    "Themes" are longer than motives and "melodies" in general and we also say they have more "purpose" in the piece. Nonetheless, these 3 successive statements of the motive form a melody that is part of the Principle Theme.

    Really it goes to about :27, then we hear one more interjection of the original motive, then the Principle Theme idea begins again, but is expanded and treated differently, until it ends with before :50.

    S for Short and L for Long:

    SSSL is the motive.

    The "melody" at :15 is 3 successive motives:

    SSSL SSSL SSSL

    The melody is "divided up" among different string members with each group playing a motive and holding the last "L" long note.

    What this causes is the long note that is held each time overlaps with the next motive in another string group (this would be considered "oblique" motion as one part sustains a note and the other moves). This happens 3 times so by the end, the held notes for a chord.

    This is somewhat unusual for melodies as more often a single instrument or group of instruments all play it together. Here he's tossing it around in 4 note groups to different players.

    and than 3 answers (0:11-0:17),(second theme?)but last(third answer)is more "highlighted "/"stressed".(Is this is the "last bass statement as more "accompanimental"")
    The Second Theme begins at :50. It consists of the main motive plus an extension (the "flowing" notes beginning at :55).

    During that extension the basses play the original motive, inverted (so it goes up in pitch rather than down in pitch).





    I have used the term leitmotif as to call this motive as a "leading motive".???
    It really is associated with Opera (especially those of Wagner) and the Tone Poems of the later 19th century. A "leitmotif" is really a musical idea associated with a character - in Star Wars there was "Luke's Theme" and "Leia's Theme" and "Darth Vader's Theme" - the melodies in those that identify them is a leitmotif.

    Using it in works like this is inappropriate. It's a motive.






    "Against each other"???(do you mean no contrary motion)???
    But in parallel motion voices are moving together so not against eachother and its still counterpoint in parallel motion.
    No. Just playing at the same time.

    Chord Straddles??? So if the chord is C, you would leave out the middle note -- E -- and just play C and G.????
    No. The music straddles the line - it's somewhat contrapuntal and somewhat melody + accompaniment. It's sort of both at the same time.
    This motive is so "catchy"probably thats what makes motives (in general)grate .I must admit that I hear this motive in my head over and over again :-).
    That's exactly right.

    But remember, very often a motive is PART of a longer melody and it's the melody that's catchy. We might say that a catchy melody will likely have catchy motives in it as well, but that's not always true. Sometimes melodies are catchy just based on something they do - "Joy to the World" just runs down a scale. But there's really no "motives" in it and really it by itself is not a motive.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Let's use this version so the timing will be consistent:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z4KK7RWjmk

    What you hear at the beginning is the main motive.

    This motive consists of a pitch element (or pitch contour) that involves one pitch going down to a different pitch.
    This motive also consists of a rhythmic element of three short notes followed by one long note.

    The first thing we hear - the 4 note motive is often called a "statement".

    The second thing we hear is a re-statement of the motive at a different pitch level (it's all down a step). This is called a "sequence" but here it's less about material being sequentially treated than it is the double statement of the motive so that we really get it in our heads.

    One might say there is also a harmonic element to the motive because since it moves a 3rd it could be two notes of a triad. It does, but we really don't hear that at the beginning. And if we did, we might think it was implying other chords - such as Eb and Bb, rather than Cm and G7 - in other words, there's just not enough harmonic implication to make any judgements on that.

    What we then hear, at :15 in the video I linked to, is a "main theme". There are certain types of movements in classical music and the first movements of symphonies are called "Sonata Allegro" or "First Movement Form" or "Sonata Form" (the first movement was typically an Allegro, and often in this form in String Quartets, Sonatas, Symphonies, Concertos, etc.)

    So we're going to call this first "theme" the "Principle Theme" ("Primary Theme" is used, as is "1st Theme" and so on).

    The Principle Theme goes from :15 onward.
    The Secondary Theme starts at :50.

    In the secondary theme, the opening motive is heard in the basses, but it goes UP in pitch rather than down as the original form.



    Nope, "inversion" here means pitch countour going the opposite way. The inversion of the melodic motive:

    C - D - E

    is

    E - D - C it goes down in pitch (not simply backwards though in this example it does that too - that's called Retrograde).




    Well there's 1 statement and 1 repeat :-) From :09 to :14 in the video I linked to.



    No. Then at :15 the main motive is played 3 times in a row. From :15 to :18.

    That Motive now forms a melody - those three in a row is a "melody".

    "Themes" are longer than motives and "melodies" in general and we also say they have more "purpose" in the piece. Nonetheless, these 3 successive statements of the motive form a melody that is part of the Principle Theme.

    Really it goes to about :27, then we hear one more interjection of the original motive, then the Principle Theme idea begins again, but is expanded and treated differently, until it ends with before :50.

    S for Short and L for Long:

    SSSL is the motive.

    The "melody" at :15 is 3 successive motives:

    SSSL SSSL SSSL

    The melody is "divided up" among different string members with each group playing a motive and holding the last "L" long note.

    What this causes is the long note that is held each time overlaps with the next motive in another string group (this would be considered "oblique" motion as one part sustains a note and the other moves). This happens 3 times so by the end, the held notes for a chord.

    This is somewhat unusual for melodies as more often a single instrument or group of instruments all play it together. Here he's tossing it around in 4 note groups to different players.



    The Second Theme begins at :50. It consists of the main motive plus an extension (the "flowing" notes beginning at :55).

    During that extension the basses play the original motive, inverted (so it goes up in pitch rather than down in pitch).







    It really is associated with Opera (especially those of Wagner) and the Tone Poems of the later 19th century. A "leitmotif" is really a musical idea associated with a character - in Star Wars there was "Luke's Theme" and "Leia's Theme" and "Darth Vader's Theme" - the melodies in those that identify them is a leitmotif.

    Using it in works like this is inappropriate. It's a motive.








    No. Just playing at the same time.



    No. The music straddles the line - it's somewhat contrapuntal and somewhat melody + accompaniment. It's sort of both at the same time.


    That's exactly right.

    But remember, very often a motive is PART of a longer melody and it's the melody that's catchy. We might say that a catchy melody will likely have catchy motives in it as well, but that's not always true. Sometimes melodies are catchy just based on something they do - "Joy to the World" just runs down a scale. But there's really no "motives" in it and really it by itself is not a motive.

    Hi Steve
    Yes I do hear themes now,i had a problem initially to understand the "pitch contour" but I think I got it, it describes pitch movement pitch can repeat,go up or down.Thanks Steve for that detailed explanation.
    It was a grate and very interesting.
    All the best and thank you again

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    You seem to be stuck on instruments.
    Yes it looks like ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    If a singer is singing THAT is the melody.
    Yes I knew that but I just didn't thought about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    At 3:05, Paul McCartney is singing the "primary" melody "How can I tell..."

    Ar about 3:19, Linda McCartney is singing "I Love You" against what Paul is singing (which he continues to sing).
    Yes,grate stuff I do hear this no problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    She is singing a melody from earlier in the song (the chorus).

    These are both very "recognizable" because we heard Paul's in isolation, and Linda's earlier in the song.

    In a stroke of genius, later in the song around the 4:00 mark, they do this:

    Paul sings "I Love You"

    Linda comes in with a *new and different* melody (which is a counter melody)

    Then Paul enters again (overdubbed) with the melody that Linda sang the first time around - they've switched roles.

    That is another "countermelody".
    I can hear it. Thank you


    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    However, when the texture gets so dense that we might not be able to follow one "primary" and one "secondary" counter-melody, we tend to think of it more as "counterpoint" and this really is an example of counterpoint (so were just the original two) but unlike counterpoint which usually is "written together" we tend to think of instances like this were a "melody heard on its own earlier as a stand-alone melody" (the chorus, I Love You) when combined with a 2nd melody (previously heard or not) as melody and counter-melody rather than "counterpoint". They are "in counterpoint" to each other, and they are "contrapuntal in nature" but most people are going to say it's Melody and Counter-Melody because that's what they are - melodies.
    This is a harder bit but probably because my knowledge about counterpoint isn't good enough, I need to explore more about the counterpoint.


    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Now, which melody we hear as "primary" depends on a lot of factors. In the first time, we probably hear what Paul is singing as the "main" melody and "I Love You" as the counter melody because firstly it enters 2nd, and secondly it's longer, slow moving notes, so sounds more like an "accompaniment" to what Paul is singing.

    But later, when the roles are reversed, Paul starts with the long notes. That tends to make it sound like the things that entered 2nd are "counter" (and it's true we haven't heard Linda's part before so it would be the "counter" part) but when Paul comes back in with the thing that was the "primary" melody before - is it now?

    That's what makes it fascinating.


    And that's kind of the point - this is something more than just a "silly love song". It's a brilliant composition.

    I want to add that, in the 2nd break, while Paul is singing, there is a Saxophone "lick" in there. It is a "melody" or it is at least "melodic in nature" and that would make it a "counter melody" but it only appears briefly and is not as "important" as to what is about to come - so we don't typically call that a counter-melody.

    However, if it was something that continued along with the voices, then yes, we probably would.

    In some sense, it really has to do with how "important" the part is - is this a main character in a movie, or just one of the people on screen who make the background patrons at a restaurant.
    "But later, when the roles are reversed, Paul starts with the long notes. That tends to make it sound like the things that entered 2nd are "counter" (and it's true we haven't heard Linda's part before so it would be the "counter" part) but when Paul comes back in with the thing that was the "primary" melody before - is it now?"

    Aren't they sound equally important (at 04:18).

    Its a song about how they love each other,both "characters" feelings are equally important.Is it possible for two melodies to be equally important on some stage???Maybe they found that balance in this song?? (both melodies("statements") finally are equally important) ,I think its called "climax" in music.

    Thank You again Steve Interesting example.






    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    Two different things.

    "Rhythmic in nature" means the element is more about rhythm than it is about pitch.

    Metronomes are for everyone, but no one should be a slave to the metronome either. Everyone needs great timing so they can play in time well, and when they do play out of time, it's because they meant to, not because they have crappy timing!
    Ok Thank You




    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    "Transcription" is the wrong word.

    Think about what it means in non-musical contexts - it means to take something from one medium (such as speech) and "convert into writing" (trans- and scribe).

    We do absolutely "transcribe" music - we can take a piece we hear and "transcribe" it - write it down.

    Jazz players are big on this - it's part of their learning process - they learn by "transcribing" the works of others (in part).

    The resulting piece of written out music is a "transcription".

    Now, any music teacher should in fact know what a "transcription" is.

    But it may be that they're confused as to how you're using the word. It sounds like to me, you're "trying to learn how to play music".

    "Transcription" is not what that is. So maybe once you use that word, they get stuck trying to figure out what it is you want, and if you tell them what they think means "learn to play" it further confuses them to the point they can't make any sense of it.
    I remember saying to this lady after Ive noticed that she couldn't understand me that I am looking for help with finding key of the songs.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevel View Post
    The only time you should use the word "transcription" in music is:

    1. The act of listening to music by ear, and writing it down (verb, transcription (act) or transcribe (act))
    2. The resulting written music from that act. (noun, the physical result)

    Beyond that, its use is specific enough not to worry about in any general context.

    You can still learn to play "by ear" without reading music.

    If you want to draw an analogy, we all learn to speak our native language "by ear" long before we learn to "read" and "write".

    You can get by quite well in many instances without being able to read or write, but, at some point, it becomes a hurdle - like obviously how could you learn anything remotely from someone on the internet if you couldn't read and write?

    But what you're trying to do is lean about Grammar before you've even learned to speak the language by ear.

    I suppose, if we learn a foreign language in school, we're often taught it "on paper" at the same time is "by ear" - but a lot of people don't really learn anything that way. You have to speak it and use it daily.

    But look at the way these guys are learning - they're taking a SOUND and "playing" that sound. They do what "sounds good" first. Music is ABOUT SOUND. Just like speech is. You have to learn to "speak" the language of music before you learn to "spell" and "read" the language of music. Again, like a Foreign language they could be done at the same time (this is what traditional Piano lessons do - but usually the student has at least HEARD some music before).

    I suppose I could become an expert in French Grammar, but, I mean really, what good is it if I can't speak the language - mispronounce everything - cant' understand people. I suppose I could read and write French without actually knowing how to pronounce it - but you don't seem to be reading and writing (written down) music.

    I mean, would you learn to paint without painting? Or would you go on the internet and ask people if this particular existing painting exhibits the Golden Mean because you read that paintings use the Golden Mean or you heard some guy on some video say he used Acrylic paint so now you want to know everything there is to know about Acrylic paint before you've ever even tried to paint anything?

    I'm exaggerating of course but I think maybe the teachers you've spoken to, or possibly other posters on forums like this might get that impression.

    Don't stop learning - what you're doing is OK, but make sure you HEAR what these things are, not just simply define them in words or as concepts.

    That reminds me of something - when I taught Music Theory, I took this for granted, but what I realized after a few years of teaching and being frustrated why students couldn't "get" a lot of the things - The PRIMARY reason they didn't understand music theory is because they never went home and PLAYED and thus HEARD what was being taught. A secondary reason was that they didn't "practice it" - they didn't APPLY it nor could they "discover" it in their daily playing.

    Many schools require students to be able to play at the piano, and theory instructors require students to play examples relevant to the lessons. Some still don't "get it" but being able to HEAR and to PUT INTO PRACTICE the things you're doing make a huge difference.

    Play, hear, listen, and understand.

    Best,

    Steve
    Thank you Steven for you help.
    I really appreciate it.
    All the best to you.
    Last edited by ssyniu; 07-18-2016 at 08:48 PM.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by ssyniu View Post
    Yes it looks like ;-)







    This is a harder bit but probably because my knowledge about counterpoint isn't good enough, I need to explore more about the counterpoint.


    Aren't they sound equally important (at 04:18).

    Its a song about how they love each other,both "characters" feelings are equally important.Is it possible for two melodies to be equally important on some stage???
    Yep, that's counterpoint!

    Counterpoint is really the combining of 2 or more melodies where there is a "balance" where all voices are equally important and where they all blend into a "sonorous whole".

    In other words, you should still be able to follow each melodic line "horizontally" but you should also be understand the harmony they're creating "vertically".

    Counterpoint achieves this by avoiding things like too much parallel motion - which tends to negate the individuality of each part, or certain intervals which "draw unnecessary attention to" certain notes or harmonies, etc.

    And I used the word "melody" above but really a better word would be "melodic line" because we tend to think of "melody" as being the most important thing usually (or the thing people can follow, etc.).

    Counterpoint has a more or less equal emphasis on the horizontal aspect (individual melodic lines) and vertical aspect (harmony).

    We call this "Polyphonic Texture".

    Watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jGkGvTJK7A

    Another texture is "Homophonic Texture" which is more commonly heard as "Melody With Accompaniment" which is the music most people are most familiar with:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpscshv3Exk

    Most good music usually combines textures within a piece, a movement, or even a section, but much good music can also be just a single texture throughout.

    What makes "Silly Love Songs" a bit more "artful" is that while it - like most pop music - is primarily a Homophonic texture, there are these polyphonic sections.

    As the video kind of illustrates, "melody with counter-melody" is kind of a grey area between Melody with accompaniment, and polyphony.

    So there is sort of this broad category where things might have elements of both textures (and others!) going on within a single piece or section.

    We tend to call the piece what the majority of the piece is and say "and here's a contrapuntal section" rather than saying just becuase a piece exhibits some counterpoint at some point during the piece it's "counterpoint" as a compositional procedure for the piece.

    Beethoven 5 - is it counterpoint? Is it polyphony? Is it Homophonic? Is it Melody + Accompaniment? Listen to the piece - there's an oboe solo - that's monophony just melody. It has EVERYTHING! And what's more, the way Beethoven wrote, some of the things are like "two things at once" - they're both "contrapuntal" and "homophonic" at the same time, which is kind of impossible, but yet, he kind of pulls it off!

    And just a side note - remember that we bring our own listening prejudices in so where I might hear something as a "melody with subsidiary melody" you might hear the same thing as "two equal melodies". A lot of that is just due to conditioning and experience. And in some cases, there is no right or wrong, which is part of what makes music so fascinating!

    I think, when you encounter a new term, you want to define it for yourself, which is outstanding, but you tend to want a very specific, narrow definition, but truthfully there's a lot of grey area around many of these terms, and many of them are used for multiple meanings (like "inversion"). So just remain open-minded as you learn.

    Best,
    Steve

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24
    Hi Steven.
    I was trying all day yesterday to make countermelody and post it here just to ask if I am doing the right thing.
    https://soundcloud.com/ssyniuy/counterpoint
    It was hard to add contrapuntal melody to the fixed melody and make it sound good with the first melody.I know that contrapuntal melody is about consonance and dissonance,I was trying to use those intervals(octave,perfect fifth(for consonance)Second,fourth,seventh(for dissonance)third ,six as well)i was writing in the key of C major and I started and finished both 8 bar melodic lines on C note.Can I use parallel key to make the countermelody or I should stay in one key signature.what Bach or Beethoven or Paul McCartney where doing key wise where they writing contrapuntal elements and staying in the same key or key signature(what are the tricks to write good countermelodies apart from avoiding parallel motion).
    thank You for all your advices and especially for this "crash course" on counterpoint.Now I need to learn the practical side of it.
    All the best and thank you again.
    Last edited by ssyniu; 07-25-2016 at 06:37 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Melody to complete song, but fix melody first
    By urucoug in forum Composition, Arranging & Analysis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2015, 12:48 AM
  2. Arpeggio patterns
    By duster in forum Improvisation
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 12:51 AM
  3. when to play which arpeggio ?
    By abminor in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-22-2009, 04:17 PM
  4. Help on Arpeggio
    By Guitarperson88 in forum Guitar Technique
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-21-2004, 11:59 PM
  5. Arpeggio Help
    By Lowthorpe in forum Guitar Technique
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-22-2004, 07:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •