Why does so much classical music lack quality melodies?

[jbmajor]

I'm talking about stuff that is more emotionally stirring than just technically impressive.  It seems that so many pieces are far too long and drawn out (particularly concertos and some sonatas) to hold one's attention for very long. 
Granted there are exceptions:  Some Rach preludes, Chopin etudes and nocturnes(no.2 in Eb major in particular); Liszt's La Campanella is also a very good exception.  Beethoven's sonatas (such as Moonlight and Appassionata)are also good, but you could remove about 3/4 of their content and still gather as much if not more enjoyment from them.  Why not put more effort into making the whole thing memorable and highly melodious rather than sacrificing this by focusing so much on the length of the piece?  (Actually I shouldn't talk; it's hard enough to come up with a great melody, let alone continually reinvent and sustain it over the length of an entire piece).

Maybe I'm just thinking along the lines of the fact that a piece(or song) doesn't have to be technically difficult to be moving and memorable.  I think melody and harmony should take precedence over technicalities no matter how difficult the piece.

[Goldberg]

Perhaps you should consider "technical difficulties" not necessarily as explosive displays of virtuosity (although certainly there is room for that as well) but as a way of creating an aural *effect* on the piano. It's mostly about what kind of sounds the pianist can make...all the orchestral instruments he can imitate. That usually involves advanced knowledge of physical technique, and in my opinion, composers were right to make their pieces as difficult as necessary to make them what they (mostly) were: masterpieces. Technique is often looked down upon, for some reason...but in fact "music" and "technique" need to remain very closely linked. To me, music involves the melody, phrasing, etc...and technique involves the means through which the music is expressed. For example, La Campanella wouldn't be quite the same if, in the beginning, only the "bottom" right-hand notes were played along with a bare left-hand accompaniment. What if the "trills" section were replaced with lazy single-octave jumps?

In some cases, yes, only technical display is present. Most of the time, however, the difficulty of any given piece serves a purpose. Simplicity of technique does not guarantee a masterpiece; nor does impossibly difficult writing. It is also important, in regards to the pieces' lengths, that the "omissible" sections you speak of typically serve as worthy transitions from sections to sections (if I am certain I know what you're talking about) and without them, the pieces would undoubtedly seem choppy.

Still, if you want to avoid pieces without high technical demands (and almost endless "music" as you say), look no further than the works from the Baroque and Classical eras--most of the great pieces of those ages have modest technical demands but take years to master, substance-wise. 

[Nightscape]

I'm talking about stuff that is more emotionally stirring than just technically impressive.  It seems that so many pieces are far too long and drawn out (particularly concertos and some sonatas) to hold one's attention for very long. 
Granted there are exceptions:  Some Rach preludes, Chopin etudes and nocturnes(no.2 in Eb major in particular); Liszt's La Campanella is also a very good exception.  Beethoven's sonatas (such as Moonlight and Appassionata)are also good, but you could remove about 3/4 of their content and still gather as much if not more enjoyment from them.  Why not put more effort into making the whole thing memorable and highly melodious rather than sacrificing this by focusing so much on the length of the piece?  (Actually I shouldn't talk; it's hard enough to come up with a great melody, let alone continually reinvent and sustain it over the length of an entire piece).

Maybe I'm just thinking along the lines of the fact that a piece(or song) doesn't have to be technically difficult to be moving and memorable.  I think melody and harmony should take precedence over technicalities no matter how difficult the piece.

Are you familiar with the work of Britany Spears and N'Sync?

I'm sorry, I know that was mean, but I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here.  It sounds to me like you want a memorable, catchy melody to be presented in a piece, then you want it to move on to another catchy, memorable melody without developing the first melody.
This sounds a lot like the typical Opus One of most budding composers to me.   I suppose that the problem with this approach is you are not giving a melody a fair chance.  Take a look at Beethoven's 5th symphony for example.  The opening motif (short-short-short-long) is used countless times throughout the symphony.  It's one of the reason's its so great.  What would it be like if you only heard it once, and then it went on to something else?  It would only be a mediocre work then.

If you only want to listen to mediocre, simple, music, then you shouldn't be bothering with classical music.  Classical music takes a lifetime of listening to understand and appreciate, and it's definatly worth it.  The term 'quality melody' is highly subjective.  To me, some of the technical difficulties in the music IS emotionally stirring.... for example, look at "Scarbo" by Ravel.  Are there any catchy, memorable, highly emotional melodies in it? No.  The music is based on three motives - rather unassuming ones too.  Yet Scarbo is so utterly effective because it employs and masters all of the elements of music, not just melody.  When you say that melody should take precendence, you limit the type of music you can listen to.  To me, that kind of music is so much more boring than classical music.

[jbmajor]

Ok, to state more clearly what I meant:  I was trying to compare classical too much to modern music, ie Billy Joel, Elton John, Coldplay, etc. 

But as Goldberg and Nightscape128 pointed out, it isn't meant to be similar.  I'm still trying to grasp all of the intricacies of classical music, and what sets it apart from everyything else. 

My thanks to both of you for helping to clear up my misinterpretations and revealing more of what classical music really is.

[Spatula]

where is bernhard when you need him?!?! dammmit 

[mound]

where is bernhard when you need him?!?! dammmit 

hah! I hope the rest of the great folks on these forums aren't getting sick of all the attention Bernhard gets 

The next classical piece you decide to conquer, do what Bernhard suggests, before going to the piano, re-write the score as an outline - do just what you said, take away all the "stuff" that you don't believe is necessary and then learn that outline.  This will give you the core of the harmonic and melodic motion in the piece. (This is a great part of the learning process anyway, so do it regardless.) Once you've learned that outline, see if you still feel like it's enough, as is.  Hopefully, knowing what the complete piece should sound like, you will be eager to go fill in the blanks.  If not, well, perhaps classical music isn't a good fit for you 

-Paul

[rlefebvr]

It's not that it lacks quality melodies, it's just that you are not used to the same kind of melodies and thus are having trouble hearing it in classical music.

The problem with classical music is the same with a Stephen King book.....everything and I mean everything gets published. Truth is, a lot of it is not music, but exercises disguised as music. Important for the pianist, not so for the listener. Once you are able to distinguish between the two you will find the "classics" have a huge list of beautiful pieces with melodies in it. Just don't expect it to be the so called simple ones of modern music.

I could list, but there are too many by too many composers. Could be a good question for another thread however.

A list of classical music with the best melodies...now that could be a great thread.

[BoliverAllmon]

where is bernhard when you need him?!?! dammmit 

hah! I hope the rest of the great folks on these forums aren't getting sick of all the attention Bernhard gets 

NEVER!!!!

[Spatula]

where is bernhard when you need him?!?! dammmit 

If not, well, perhaps classical music isn't a good fit for you 

-Paul

Excuse me? 

[BoliverAllmon]

read the entire message. it makes sense.

[Daevren]

Because western classical music picks form and harmony over melody.

[BoliverAllmon]

it is just more complex, therefore more difficult to hear and understand the melodies.

boliver

[rohansahai]

Because western classical music picks form and harmony over melody.

That's a good point! Western music provides beauty from harmony more than the melody! For instance, play the Cmaj, Fmaj, Gmaj and then C again. There's no melody in it but it still sounds good! That's the secret of it. Don't search for melodies everywhere. Understand the harmonies!

[Tash]

the whole topic of this thread threw me off- like since when did classical music lack quality melodies? the bril thing about classical music is that it develops its melodies, shows a little more creativity than merely repeating the same melody over and over again with maybe a change in lyrics. if you cut out the middle of a piece then it'd be boring cos it'd be over before you got into it

[mound]

where is bernhard when you need him?!?! dammmit 

hah! I hope the rest of the great folks on these forums aren't getting sick of all the attention Bernhard gets 

NEVER!!!!

Yes BoliverAllmon, we all know you hate Bernhard. 

[Floristan]

Because western classical music picks form and harmony over melody.

Yes, and the balance of form, harmony, melody, rhythm, and counterpoint varies from piece to piece, composer to composer.  Some composers, like Bartok, have very strong rhythmic components to much of their music and write melodies that are not "songs."  Bach often gets everything balanced just right; no single element is more important than the others.  Tchaikovsky is a melody machine, but not so great in his development sections, which seem to wander on aimlessly sometimes.  Beethoven uses mere snatches of melody from which he produces incredibly intricate developments and variations.  Brahms's melodies, especially in his later work, go on for twice as long as one expects and are often not "tuneful."  Melody is just one element, and often not the most interesting element, in classical music.

[hodi]

the tchaikovsky piano concerto no.1 is really drawn out
it starts great and than it goes nowhere.
overall it's not such a bad concerto, but it has no direction imo.
that's one of the good examples of "drawn out" music

[Spatula]

the tchaikovsky piano concerto no.1 is really drawn out
it starts great and than it goes nowhere.
overall it's not such a bad concerto, but it has no direction imo.
that's one of the good examples of "drawn out" music

yeah I agree ...1st movement..just needs more of a focus on the theme...

[Goldberg]

Yeah I've been listening to that concerto quite a bit lately and I've come to the conclusion that there are only two parts of the piece that I actually like: the beginning horn introduction (that's just really awesome) and the main theme of the last movement.

In my opinion, whoever told Tchaikovsky that he needed to do a massive overhaul on the concerto (in the famous antecdote) was absolutely right...

[Brian Healey]

It's funny, many of what people consider to be classical masterpieces are simply elaborations or variations of existing folk melodies (that is, existing at the time the composer wrote the piece). Also, I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that classical music lacks quality melodies. I think it has more to do with the fact that a large percentage of the classical repertoire is so overplayed that it just sounds tired. For instance, Beethoven's "Fur Elise" has a nice melody to it, but I could die happy without ever hearing that piece again.

Speaking of Beethoven, he's the king of "drawn out" in my opinion. Purists will probably flame me for this, but during just about every Beethoven composition I've heard, in the back of my mind I'm thinking "Good Lord! Just end it already!" The guy was a genius, but he was also quite long-winded when it came to composition.

[Goldberg]

Haha, I wouldn't really call Beethoven "drawn-out," but he certainly ends several of his pieces way too many times. Sort of like the last installment of LOTR...when are the "endings" going to stop coming??


But, really, I mostly enjoy Beethoven..

[Floristan]

Speaking of Beethoven, he's the king of "drawn out" in my opinion. Purists will probably flame me for this, but during just about every Beethoven composition I've heard, in the back of my mind I'm thinking "Good Lord! Just end it already!"

  LOL.  That's how I felt at "The English Patient"  -- just die already!  Sometimes it's almost comical with Beethoven...you think that's it, but no...Blam Blam Blam BLAM...and then you think THAT'S it, but NO...Blam Blam BLAM - Blam Blam Blam BLAM BLAM! 

Those occasions are more than made up for by the pieces you wish would never end, like Op. 111.  IMHO.

[Goldberg]

Oops-looks like I misread your post a little, Brian. Now I see what you were referring to, so yes, I would agree with calling Beethoven "drawn-out." I thought you were talking about pieces with "overlong" development sections rather than pieces with a hundred of different endings.


The LOTR analogy (and the English Patient one by Floristan) still stands.

[Brian Healey]

Don't get me wrong, I love Beethoven's music in general, but sometimes I find myself pulling the old "looking at my watch" move.

[Spatula]

I agree somewhat with Brian..

I keep falling asleep during his 2nd movements for his sonatas....like take appassionata or the tempest for example...yawn...snore...wake me up when we get to the rondo.

[Spatula]

Not to say I hate 2nd movements...some are the most beautiful works...I still love Griegs PC 2nd movement as much as the rest of it. 

[claudio]

my teacher recently tried to convince me that some piece by c.ph.e. bach
was valuable to study. he played it for me like it is written down an it
sounded awful, technical and boring.

he then played it again, using some left hand basso continuo tricks, that i
still have no clue about but that apparently everybody knew at that time
and was therefore not written down ... wow ... they gave the piece a realy
beautiful and interesting jazzy feeling.

maybe we are just playing some pieces the wrong way. anybody out there
who has a suggestion what these basso continuo tricks could have been?

[waldstein]

Mozart
Mozart
Mozart

 No one in world has ever created melodies better than him.

I think since you love melodies so much, start working on Mozart - should keep you busy and interested for aleast 5 years (and then you will start liking the others also).

[erik-]

Classical music if full of quality melody ! Just take Chopin's music !
There was a French song writer, Serge Gainsbourg, very popular in France, who was known for writing wonderfull melodies. Actually many of his songs had their  melody taken directly from Chopin, Grieg, Dvorak, Brahms and others.

[legend]

those who arent able yet to comprehend longer and more complex melodies - should quite simply - listen more.

[super_ardua]

Classical music is about devolopment of melodies.

Do you notice most good books have a simple plot,  but yet are overpowering because of the writer's skill

[legend]

i would if i read books

[cziffra]

I THINK it was Vaughan-Williams who said he learnt a hell of a lot more about fine melody construction through church hymns than he ever would have through all the world's finest fugues. 

Interestingly, Avril Lavigne's musical background consisted largely of church hymns.

Is that what you mean, jbmajor?

[sznitzeln]

Not to say I hate 2nd movements...some are the most beautiful works...I still love Griegs PC 2nd movement as much as the rest of it. 

I think you do hate 2:nd movements in general. Appassionata has a very beautiful second, and so does many other beethoven sonatas...