Melody vs. Harmony. Where to begin?

[Classicala]

Hello my fellow composers,

I'm wondering what thoughts any of you have on starting ideas for a piece with melodic ideas vs. harmonic ideas. I think that my most interesting pieces have usually begun by composing interesting harmonic lines or chord progressions and then it is usually fairly simple to fill it in with a theme that fits into it. If I start with a melody I often find it difficult to put interesting harmony to it. On the other hand, if I write the melodies first, those melodies are usually more interesting (especially rhythmically interesting) than the one's I write to fill in a harmony line. So which way of starting do most of you usually use? Is there a way to strike a balance so that both melody and harmony are equally interesting?

[Boneman]

This is one of those chicken and egg questions I think. I like to start with a melody.

[Thorolf]

I begin the creative process in any way you can and cannot think of...

I also have no problem with coming up with a zillion ways to make counterpoint/harmonic ideas to anything. But your post makes me want to point out that a good way to start finding chords to a melody, is to start with a bassline, or just some simple countersubject, often just a few tones.



Regards

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Classicala

Hello my fellow composers,

I'm wondering what thoughts any of you have on starting ideas for a piece with melodic ideas vs. harmonic ideas. I think that my most interesting pieces have usually begun by composing interesting harmonic lines or chord progressions and then it is usually fairly simple to fill it in with a theme that fits into it. If I start with a melody I often find it difficult to put interesting harmony to it. On the other hand, if I write the melodies first, those melodies are usually more interesting (especially rhythmically interesting) than the one's I write to fill in a harmony line. So which way of starting do most of you usually use? Is there a way to strike a balance so that both melody and harmony are equally interesting?

Traditionally, melody comes first. But, in the classical period for instance, there would be an understanding of the basic harmonic structure that would end up supporting it as well.

Coming up with chords first is a Jazz and Pop idea. I think one of the biggest difficulties composers have is that they often learn pop music first and learn how to make chord progressions (and Jazz and Pop studies are HEAVY on progression) first. Then they tend to have a "progression-oriented" way of thinking that's hard to get out of.

To compound the problem, somewhere along the line they study Music Theory, which also places a lot of emphasis on functional chord progressions. Many exercises in theory texts are like "write a melody to the following progression...". So we get stuck with "melodization of harmony" rather than "harmonization of melody".

Now, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. However, most people who are interested in "classical" music are interested in "CLASSICAL" music - basic the Common Practice Tonal Era (Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods). Composers during those periods did not really add a melody to a chord progression (there are certainly exceptions, like Passemezzo works) - they conceived of a Melody within a Harmonic construct.

Of course the problem is, people don't understand this style of music well enough, and all they can do is write something that uses the cliches of the style, without the real meat of the style.

I think in order to "stike a balance" as you put it, you need to conceptualize the music as a "whole", and not "melody versus harmony" (I know that's not what you meant by versus). You need to think of it like a story - you have a character (melody) and a setting (harmony). You don't usually describe the character and setting separately - you put the character in the context of the setting - they interact - one influences the other - they're a team - one doesn't do much without the other.

As a side note, if you don't already do this, it might help to listen to music in which harmony plays a less important role. Gregorian Chant (which is melody only) or Countrapuntal pieces (like Fugues, Canons, etc.) where harmony is more resultant of the interactions of multiple melodies, or music from the Renaissance where harmony is a factor, but the idea of how it "progresses" is not quite like music from the CPP onward.

Of course there are many other types of music - different cultures, 20th century art music (Ligeti, Stockhausen,etc.) where the concepts of harmony and melody might be completly ignored, or heightened, or approached in different ways. Listening to these can help you break out of ruts and focus on what's really important in your music - even if it is traditional melody+accompaniment.

Best,
Steve

[chckn8r]

Hey Classicala,

Like everyone here said, it's a bit of both.

Steve makes a great point in that current contemporary music has a very strong emphasis on harmonic or chord progression for the genesis of a musical piece, which can have its' own strengths, but also doesn't necessarily mean that a good melody will come about (or at least I find it more time consuming to fit melody to harmony then the other way around). But I DO like it when a killer riff on a chord progression just pops!

I tend to lean more towards the melodic starting point - mainly because of the need for strong thematic material in my work. People can compose for media using a number of different approaches, but I like tie key characters or situations to individual melodies and modify the harmony, tempo, meter, mood, etc. to reflect the different emotional needs of the film.

D

[reith]

Originally Posted by Thorolf

I begin the creative process in any way you can and cannot think of...

I also have no problem with coming up with a zillion ways to make counterpoint/harmonic ideas to anything. But your post makes me want to point out that a good way to start finding chords to a melody, is to start with a bassline, or just some simple countersubject, often just a few tones.


Regards

I think there are two kinds of people - not quite polarised so there's a diffusion between: those who "have the knack", who easily assimilated harmony, etc, and who can compose by thinking something up then going through a relatively easy phase of refinement to arrive at a finished work. If they are going to compose orchestrally, they do so from the start of the work even if it gets written in short-score. They might even try it out on a keyboard.

And those who have to learn in a more structured way in which case the question of which comes first might be important. These are the potential composers who have to develop an aural imagination/sense of adventure rather than rely on and refine what they already have.

In my limited understanding, it is the latter who will eventually develop a more controlled and artisan approach to composition, who will be able to work through problems with an awareness of what they need to do. I may be wrong! Their work will probably not be as adventurous as the former - like comparing Schubert to Beethoven. Both good in their ways but Beethoven had the daring where Schubert didn't.

Open to debate, I suppose.

[Forte]

I think this is a debate which springs out of the historical development of music. First we had sing lines – melody only (think Gregorian chant). Next came polyphony where you kept a single melody, but added a second melody (not a true harmony so much at that time) to fit with the first melody line. Then composers started adding a third or fourth melody part. (Think Renaissance music such as Palestrina.) Harmony as we consider it didn’t truly become part of the general musical conscience until relatively recently – around the early Baroque, but even then it was very loose, such as a harpsichord realization (and / or other continuo instruments like the early cello or lute) where the true “music” was the melodic line(s) and the continuo instruments were just helping out a bit, functioning much in the same way we use a drum set in modern popular music.

Once you get to the classical period you begin to find more interest in true harmony as we know it, but the music is still very much dominated by melody the majority of the time (like Haydn and Mozart). It wasn’t until Beethoven and others (such as Berlioz) started breaking the “rules” of classical harmony that the strict melody and accompaniment began to lose some of its hold on the musical establishment. By the time the true Romantic era composers rolled around (such as Wagner, Brahms, Schumann), harmony began to take it’s place almost equal to the melodies – they were so intertwined that they were often inseparable. Think of all the instances in Wagner’s music that the harmony seems to be the driving factor and the leitmotifs are just snippets of melody flowing from the harmonic progressions. The late romantic and post-Romantic composers such as Mahler, Anton Bruckner, and Richard Strauss took it one step further towards harmonic dominance while still maintaining strong melodies. When you get to pure minimalism you have reached the point where the harmony and rhythm ARE the melody – it is merely a sonic, aural “experience” with no true “melody” in the traditional sense. (I ignore serialism and aleatoric music in this list because those are more about avoiding traditional harmony or practice just for the sake of avoiding them…)

So perhaps we could argue that how one goes about composing – starting with a melody or starting with a harmonic progression – could be more a by product of their particular “style” than anything else. So if you a neo-classicist, you probably start with a melody in mind more often than not. If you are more of a Romantic, you may very well start with the harmonies and try to fill in from there so that the mood and emotion are “correct”. Clear as mud?

[chckn8r]

Originally Posted by Forte

So perhaps we could argue that how one goes about composing – starting with a melody or starting with a harmonic progression – could be more a by product of their particular “style” than anything else. So if you a neo-classicist, you probably start with a melody in mind more often than not. If you are more of a Romantic, you may very well start with the harmonies and try to fill in from there so that the mood and emotion are “correct”. Clear as mud?

Sounds like a decent theory, however, I find that, at least in my work, melody typically comes first as strong themes are required to give music in picture cohesion. Musical styles and harmonies are applied as necessary to evoke appropriate moods and emotions - the melody may have to be adjusted to fit the harmony (say if I switch from ionian to a whole tone scale) and rhythmic details may be shifted around...

[Thorolf]

I’d like to clarify: What strikes me about music is as diverse as the music I listen to: It can be the sound, the shape, rhythm, melody, chords: As long as the idea is striking, it can be anything! Likewize with my own ideas: They can be any one or any combination of the above. But it always sounds a crystal clear musical persona, that I can’t easily get rid of…



Regards

[ttw]

I like to start with a short figure and see how it can be manipulated. One that I like to use is an ascending arpeggio (Mannheim skyrocket) followed by a descending scale passage. (I "borrowed" the idea from Mozart and others.)

Such a figure has several advantages. It starts with a wide range figure to show off a soloist. It can be used in a sequence. It can be used to establish a key (arppeggiate a subdominant (IV, Aug6, ii, etc.) followed by a dominant (V, V7, V9, vii0, etc.). The scale part can be extended or used as a chain of suspensions, etc. The figure transposes easily.

Of course, one could swap the arpeggio and scale or invert either one or play the thing backwards.

In a "classical" environment, one can use the arpeggios and scale passages in "bravura" type writing to show off the soloist and still be using thematic material.

The same figure can be rhythmetically varied or melodically ornamented. The same figure can be shifted from strong to weak beats.

Lastly, the "public" can whistle the tune as they exit the concert hall.