Melody Writing Techniques?

[Anorax]

I literally come up with melodies using my voice. I'll sing over my chord progression and see where I go with it. Most of my best melodies come out of absolutely nowhere. But just about every song I've ever written, vocal or not, has just come very randomly to my head and I've begun singing it out loud. Then I sing it into my phone and save it and hold on to it until I'm at my computer and throw together an idea and get it working.

I hate thinking too hard about things. Like "hmmm... I'm sitting at my piano and today I shall write a song... I'm going to wait for inspiration now... I will now play a brilliant song I just came up with by sitting here". Nope. Tried it once and it's bs. I come up with my greatest ideas when I'm literally sleeping and dreaming, or I'm like in an elevator or I just start beat boxing or I hear an ambient noise and start making up music to it. Or I'll sit at my keyboard and literally just start playing random crap and see it where it goes.

Too often I'm at the "stuck at the piano" part

That is exactly what I do sometimes. I get a simple melody in my head in some form, and I improvise while walking around in my room, and when it sounds coolest, I'll sing it again and write that out, tweaking it some more in the MIDI.

About the bolded bits. Apparently I'm not the only one to just get ideas at random times However, my problem is I can never get them down on paper or in a computer before they're gone and

changed into something new (and usually less exciting) entirely. It's the fixation of the idea I struggle with, not getting the idea in the first place.

Also, how did we get to Paul McCartney again?

[Garrett Williamson]

No, but getting at the essence of Paul McCartney is feasible.

Or maybe it's because I've been reading Plato's The Republic.

Seriously though, anyone who learns objectivity in music can be musically talented, even if they don't actually know music theory. For example, I'm not knowledgeable enough at music theory to analyze chords or melodic contour and whatnot, but I get when a chord sounds cool, or when an arrangement that depends a lot on harmonic complexity sounds awesome. When I finally started branching from that notion and developing a process to write chord progressions intuitively for my own contexts, that's when that appreciation for harmonies came.

Personally, I believe there are people who just won't hit it like others will and some just have it and others don't, but that while that can often be just because that person naturally has or doesn't have it, lots of people may not have it at first but can learn it and be really great eventually if they work hard enough and really strive to understand it and nail it.

Honestly, this is my ultimate suggestion. And it's always my suggestion. For like every single musical question.

Listen to jazz and take it in. And even if you don't totally enjoy it, have an appreciation for it because most of our music nowadays goes all the way back to jazz. Jazz was the pop of the early and mid 20th century.

[timaeus222]

Listen to jazz and take it in. And even if you don't totally enjoy it, have an appreciation for it because most of our music nowadays goes all the way back to jazz. Jazz was the pop of the early and mid 20th century.

I totally get where you're coming from. In fact, probably my main influence is jazz---that is, if shifting from classical to jazz in piano lessons counts. Jazz is like the foundation for complex chords.

Apparently I'm not the only one to just get ideas at random times However, my problem is I can never get them down on paper or in a computer before they're gone and

changed into something new (and usually less exciting) entirely. It's the fixation of the idea I struggle with, not getting the idea in the first place.

Absolutely; at some point, everyone gets ideas that they don't write down in time, and it's ultimately down to whether or not you figured out that idea while you were at your computer or, say, a college chemistry laboratory (that literally happened to me twice before). This article I once read was really helpful to improving my workflow. Points I, IV, and V were especially helpful to me, while II and III, I'm sure, will be helpful at some point.

Edited January 27, 2014 by timaeus222

[MockingQuantum]

I'm with you on the jazz. Just grabbing one chord out of one well-constructed standard can really give you a different way at looking at a bit of harmony.

I love the feedback-- it's all great, though it's taught me (unsurprisingly, I suppose) that I'm doing all the right things in learning better melody technique, I just need to do them more often, forever.

Though I guess that's sort of the nature of music!

[Nabeel Ansari]

Jazz is like the foundation for complex chords.

This is so incorrect on so many levels.

Yes, jazz takes pride in its distance from functional harmony, but complex chords (diminished, leading tones, 9ths, 11ths, modal modulations, etc.) and dissonances were explored by composers long before jazz was a thing.

Jazz has its own section of chord theory, yes, but it doesn't envelope "complex chords" at all.

That being said, jazz chords ARE a good starting point for learning and writing more colorful harmonic movement, so yes, I recommend learning/listening to it as well.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Neblix

[timaeus222]

This is so incorrect on so many levels.

Yes, jazz takes pride in its distance from functional harmony, but complex chords (diminished, leading tones, 9ths, 11ths, modal modulations, etc.) and dissonances were explored by composers long before jazz was a thing.

Jazz has its own section of chord theory, yes, but it doesn't envelope "complex chords" at all.

Chill out. I said it's "like" the foundation of dot dot dot. I didn't say it "just was".

[Garrett Williamson]

Jazz has handled chords in a different way than classical music though, and like I said, it's honestly the foundation of so many of our popular genres of music today. Classical is extremely useful to know as well; some of the best artists out there were classically trained. But above everything, I personally believe jazz is da one.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Sweet baby Gsus, this is starting to get stupid. Chord progressions are chord progressions. A lot of "classical" music was polyphonic, but it still had an underlying, implied chord progression.

Also, it hardly takes much skill to learn and use the chord extensions and stuff used in jazz. If I play A m7 and then A m7 sus4 it's not even a progression. It's a fancy of way of saying "I created melodic movement of a whole step from C to D".

Chord theory is chord theory. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here and say this: Academic types over-hype the SHIT out of Jazz music by throwing around fancy chord names and improperly explaining what "modes" are and how to use them. Much the same way that "classical" music elitists make counterpoint sound far more complicated than it is. This is all done in an attempt to make these genres somehow seem more significant or requiring super deep musical knowledge to pull off.

[Garrett Williamson]

Sweet baby Gsus, this is starting to get stupid. Chord progressions are chord progressions. A lot of "classical" music was polyphonic, but it still had an underlying, implied chord progression.

Also, it hardly takes much skill to learn and use the chord extensions and stuff used in jazz. If I play A m7 and then A m7 sus4 it's not even a progression. It's a fancy of way of saying "I created melodic movement of a whole step from C to D".

Chord theory is chord theory. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here and say this: Academic types over-hype the SHIT out of Jazz music by throwing around fancy chord names and improperly explaining what "modes" are and how to use them. Much the same way that "classical" music elitists make counterpoint sound far more complicated than it is. This is all done in an attempt to make these genres somehow seem more significant or requiring super deep musical knowledge to pull off.

Yeah well I think listening to mainstream pop as your core influence in music is also some serious crap, and if anyone thinks otherwise... that's a little embarrassing, honestly...

Honestly I stand by what I said. We aren't over-hyping anything, jazz is what it is and I think it's some of the best influence out there.

I DON'T think, however, that we should get all specific as to what chords to use in which areas. That's up to the songwriter. Music is freedom. He/she should have all the freedom he/she wants when writing a song. But the more chord knowledge you have, the more freedom you have.

Also, "Gsus"... I see what you did there...

[SnappleMan]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about melody writing techniques? Stop arguing over jazz theory like a couple of second year music majors!

You don't need to read music in order to write music, but if you limit yourself to 100% feel and intuition you become a slave to your repertoire and habits. Conversely if you don't explore the benefits of feel and performance you become a slave to the rules of harmony and "mistakes" of improper voice leading. In both cases you doom yourself to melodic repetition.

Also, Paul McCartney has always had the benefit of working with either other band members (Beatles) or the worlds top producers (post Beatles) to straighten him out when he abuses his repertoire.

As far as writing melody goes, I used to start by writing progressions and then playing melodies over them. This seemed like the right thing to do but it never sounded that great. It's not till recently that I've started writing melodies and then throwing the progression underneath. But really this is a natural evolution of my style because I've become so aware of chordal movements and progressions that I already know how a melody is moving and what it's meant to move over.

It helps to be aware of tensions and dissonances, and the bass really plays a more important role than you think. Study NES music and get a feel for what's really happening in only 3 channels of monophonic tones. The triangle (commonly used as bass) channel plays a dual role of reinforcing the root and applying crucial counterpoint when necessary. Applying this to polyphonic writing you can start trying to emulate that effect by having your bass play the chord progression (keep the root as a pedal tone) having the lead reinforce just the root and tensions, and having a third instrument playing counterpoint to the lead while avoiding the root and tension.

"BUT SNAPPLEMEN IN MELODY WRITING YOU SHOULD AVOID TENSIONS AS THEY'RE USED TO REINFORCE SCALES AND CHORDS!"

Shut up. You can do whatever you want in music. It comes down to experimentation, teach yourself how your brain works melodically. You can stick to traditional rules of harmony and melody and write incredible music, or you can deviate entirely and write incredible music. To me the key in melody writing is to understand the relationships between notes and registers and the concept of implication and reinforcement.

That being said, I suck at writing melodies, it's the hardest part of songwriting for me, and I'm working round the clock to improve it.

[Nase]

You don't need to read music in order to write music, but if you limit yourself to 100% feel and intuition you become a slave to your repertoire and habits. Conversely if you don't explore the benefits of feel and performance you become a slave to the rules of harmony and "mistakes" of improper voice leading. In both cases you doom yourself to melodic repetition.

that's very well observed.

though i suppose there is this fabled mode of purely intuitive writing/playing coupled with high awareness of what's happening, where every other mistake becomes a happy accident and you learn from it and take it on board. effectively slowly expanding your repertoire on the go.

it's near impossible to keep that flow going forever though, which is why the left brained absorption method is useful.

[SnappleMan]

Well I noticed that all the intuitive virtuosi that I looked up to as a kid all eventually have a moment where they'll say in an interview "Yeah I thought it was about time I taught myself some theory to blahblahblah". It doesn't matter how intuitive you are, after a while you're going to start reaching limits you didn't know you had, and then it's time to expand your brain.

[Nase]

probably true, but it's nice to think you can cheat your way around that as much as possible XD

saying that only half-jokingly, cause as much as i know that every so-called genius knows the trials and merits of hard work, i'm convinced that there is also some 'genuine' cheating involved.

the cheat codes simply being modes of thought and awareness that are available to anyone if they cared to rewire their brain a bit.

we all teach ourselves some theory eventually, even if it just comes from our own trial and error playing stuff.

a great way to not keep regurgitating your old stuff without taking a theory lesson is listening to other musicians, of course. even better, playing with them.

victor wooten is a good example of a virtuoso that evidently went that route. (ok, bass player, i know, but listen to him. he knows a bit about melody and harmony.)

Edited January 27, 2014 by Nase

[SnappleMan]

You say that as if him being a bass player should discredit him as a songwriter or musician.

[Nase]

nah, i say that because bass players can often scrape by with less theory and harmonic/melodic knowledge than, say, guitar players. in a band context.

they sit right between guitarists and drummers as far as that goes. playing bass is about notes too of course, but the groove is arguably more important.

of course, that says nothing about his songwriting capabilities per se.

people are usually more than the roles they assume in groups or organisations of any kind. and in wooten's case, that's pretty damn obvious.

but anyway, stuff's getting OT

[SnappleMan]

Actually I don't think it's getting OT. What you said presents a good argument with regard to melody. How much of it is actually in the bass? And is it a bass players job to support the melody or the progression?

Ask yourself this: Do you get more of a melody when you hear just drums+bass or drums+chords?

And how much of the bassline is rooted in the melodic movement? Progressive and even some metal music in the 70s and 80s had bass players putting tensions in the bass to support the harmonic movements of the melodies and not just sticking to roots. I don't think there can be a discussion about melody without going deep into the context of the rhythm. I could say that the melody for a song is A D A A E G but without the rhythm it has no context of movement and therefore no "melody".

[Nase]

true, bass can provide counter-melody, and when it harmonizes with the melody it stands out more than with chords because the bass has its own rhythmic movement.

relevance? only thing i can come up with: there is no right or wrong thing to tackle first in a tune, everything is interdependent. the melody might be hiding somewhere in that bassline (or beat, even) you just made.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Actually I don't think it's getting OT. What you said presents a good argument with regard to melody. How much of it is actually in the bass? And is it a bass players job to support the melody or the progression?

Ask yourself this: Do you get more of a melody when you hear just drums+bass or drums+chords?

And how much of the bassline is rooted in the melodic movement? Progressive and even some metal music in the 70s and 80s had bass players putting tensions in the bass to support the harmonic movements of the melodies and not just sticking to roots. I don't think there can be a discussion about melody without going deep into the context of the rhythm. I could say that the melody for a song is A D A A E G but without the rhythm it has no context of movement and therefore no "melody".

(I'm writing this to explain what I currently understand and am inviting corrections)

As far as I understand from studying voice leading, the "soprano" and "bass" voices are the most important melodic focuses.

I don't mean in chorales only, I mean in all music inclusively; the "outer voices" (could be vocalist and bass guitar, or synth lead and arp bass, or violin and contrabass) are the most recognized by the ear in a texture. This is a "usual" thing, though.

Since the bass is closely tied to both the harmonic movement and the rhythm, it has an important pairing with the melody. If a bassline doesn't contain chord tones (and I mean at all, it can use non harmonic tones but should emphasize chord tones), it's not really doing its job, in my opinion. An accented bass note will be defining the entire song's chord's inversion at that particular beat in time, and if you use a non chord tone it might sound awkward. If you're going for a dissonance/tension, then it's fine, right?

Edited January 27, 2014 by Neblix

[SnappleMan]

Well the matter is are you really going for dissonance or is that how the melody sounds to you? It's assumed that a properly written melody sticks to an adequate scale that matches the chords, but I think all that really counts is the beginning and the end of a phrase. The middle can be anything you want and it'll still make sense as long as it resolves properly.

Douhecbag

I bet you read that as douchebag. Visual word recognition is the concept that you can read words (in English at least) correctly even if their middle letters are jumbled. I hear music in the same way.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I'll have to digest this over time.

[Nase]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd30vKiWjFU&t=41m50s

strangely relevant (and guess who's in there lol)

[timaeus222]

...I've started writing melodies and then throwing the progression underneath. But really this is a natural evolution of my style because I've become so aware of chordal movements and progressions that I already know how a melody is moving and what it's meant to move over.

It helps to be aware of tensions and dissonances, and the bass really plays a more important role than you think. Study NES music and get a feel for what's really happening in only 3 channels of monophonic tones. The triangle (commonly used as bass) channel plays a dual role of reinforcing the root and applying crucial counterpoint when necessary. Applying this to polyphonic writing you can start trying to emulate that effect by having your bass play the chord progression (keep the root as a pedal tone) having the lead reinforce just the root and tensions, and having a third instrument playing counterpoint to the lead while avoiding the root and tension.

Emphasizing this part. That's basically what I said, but elaborated. This is what I call helpful.

[Garrett Williamson]

How much of it is actually in the bass? And is it a bass players job to support the melody or the progression?

Bass should obviously have a general support for the chords. Melody depends, from the way I see it.

Above all else, though, bass works with the drums. But we all knew that, so I'll just shut up and act like I never said anything.

[timaeus222]

...I think all that really counts is the beginning and the end of a phrase. The middle can be anything you want and it'll still make sense as long as it resolves properly.

Since the bass is closely tied to both the harmonic movement and the rhythm, it has an important pairing with the melody. If a bassline doesn't contain chord tones (and I mean at all, it can use non harmonic tones but should emphasize chord tones), it's not really doing its job, in my opinion. An accented bass note will be defining the entire song's chord's inversion at that particular beat in time, and if you use a non chord tone it might sound awkward. If you're going for a dissonance/tension, then it's fine, right?

The triangle (commonly used as bass) channel plays a dual role of reinforcing the root and applying crucial counterpoint when necessary. Applying this to polyphonic writing you can start trying to emulate that effect by having your bass play the chord progression (keep the root as a pedal tone) having the lead reinforce just the root and tensions, and having a third instrument playing counterpoint to the lead while avoiding the root and tension.

Example time. This is something that follows the logic presented here, just for some context. I started with the melody and drums, and built from the ground up with the bass, then the e. piano, then the strings, then the C64 arp.

0:31-0:46 is the focus of this illustration of melody following a bass line and harmony here. The bass mostly plays the bottom note in the particular chord inversions as Neblix said (0:31-0:44), and what's between the beginning and end of a phrase can be whatever makes sense, like SnappleMan said (the e. piano chords, for example, are especially playful with their movement). At 0:44-0:46, the bass plays around with the Circle of "Thirds" and goes down a major third, goes back up a minor third, then down a major third, and this could be considered the counterpoint which SnappleMan was pointing out.

Edited January 28, 2014 by timaeus222

[SnappleMan]

Example time. This is something that follows the logic presented here, just for some context. I started with the melody and drums, and built from the ground up with the bass, then the e. piano, then the strings, then the C64 arp.

0:31-0:46 is the focus of this illustration of harmony here. The bass mostly plays the bottom note in the particular chord inversions as Neblix said (0:31-0:44), and what's between the beginning and end of a phrase can be whatever makes sense, like SnappleMan said (the e. piano chords, for example, are especially playful with their movement). At 0:44-0:46, the bass plays around with the Circle of "Thirds" and goes down a major third, goes back up a minor third, then down a major third, and this could be considered the counterpoint which SnappleMan was pointing out.

Good post. <3 I think that's a great example of what makes a decent melody. To some people who don't get theory that might be confusing but all you have to do is listen to the song and it'll make sense to you.