At last the Geir Hongro Challenge!!

Aesthetically the whole thing is like a very tidy room or a little machine: even in just that one set of phrases there are a bunch of well-connected and very pat mechanisms that connect to one another really neatly and efficiently. (I can think of at least four other tricks in that first phrase that aren't even discussed above: the heavy on-beat accenting, for instance, and the use of certain words to drop between it -- NICE IF WE were OLD-ER.)

ii. The melodies on "God Only Knows" are actually not very good at all, though the song is still great insofar as the arrangement and organization of things. The verse is basically a repeating pattern that just shifts to accommodate the complex chord structure, and while it's semi-thrilling how each new chord forces the melody higher and higher -- like the introduction of the chord sets up a challenge and you wait to see how Wilson will respond to it -- it's also a little bit irritating, like watching someone set up a ramp and then watching someone else bicycle over it. It's done really well, but very few surprises.

Wilson melodies basically all work off of one trick, which is working up or down a scale, juxtaposing sort of complicated winding-downs with stepping-ups, and sometimes not letting you know which way something's headed until a few steps in. The "God Only Knows" chorus does this pretty well -- "God only knows what" hesitates then goes up, "I'd be without" winds down, and then "you" scoops neatly up again. But, very much like the verses, the phrases are sort of disconnected and don't link up as interestingly as elsewhere. It's a bit too pat; it doesn't flow; it's tidy, but it's easy to be tidy when it's just a bunch of boxes in a row.

(And no, I don't think "God Only Knows" is a bad melody by any stretch, but it seemed more fun to approach this by comparing the best-known songs off of a particular record with really strong melodies.)

i. 'miracle man' by elvis costello has a great melody because it is constantly anticipating the movement of the chord progression.

lyrics & chords from the first verse:

i could tell by the nights when i was lonely and
IV I
you were the only one who'd talk, i could
IV vi
tell you that i liked your sensitivity, but
IV I
you know it's the way that you walk
ii V

what you notice if you listen to the melody in those lines is that he is always basing the melody around a different chord. when he sings 'i could tell by the nights' he is actually articulating the V chord. when he sings 'you were the only one who'd' he is alternating between the fifth and sixth degrees of the scale, but when the vi chord becomes the root, he stays around the fifth degree and avoids the sixth. finally, when he hits the line 'you know it's the way that you' he plays with the fifth and sixth degrees of the scale, but when he sings 'walk' he ends on the sixth, rather than the fifth which would be in unison with the chord underneath it. he does this through the whole song, thus making it a classic exercise in how to use color tones, and how to create tension in the melody that is effectively resolved without sounding overly consonant.

ii. david bowie's 'rebel rebel' has a bad melody, because all he's doing 90% of the time is singing the chord progression, mostly in the same rhythm as the guitar. it's boring, and does very little of interest harmonically. (ok, the song is great, but it's technically a bad melody, and that was the purpose of this exercise, right?)

I mean, this sort of taking-apart is the primary problem with G's "Melody First" campaign: it's like looking at paintings and saying "the only thing that matters is the use of cadmium red," or saying "this is a good car because the brakes work well," even as the car sits engineless in a junkyard. Even when such an element is important, it's only really important in its relationship to a million other things -- which I think Geir fully understands, to be honest.

Note that I am counting melody and harmony as two things that are closely related and a good song is a combination of both. If I am to choose, I will probably say that harmony is even more important than melody.

"The Riddle" is great because it changes key all the time, all those surprising key changes means the listener is always surprised by new things happening harmonically.

As for a bad song, the most obvious one would be more or less any 50s rock'n'roll song, for instance (and this is just an example anyway, I could have mentioned almost any of them) "Good Golly Miss Molly". "Good Golly Miss Molly" is a terribly boring song because it:

- Has only three chords, all of which are in major, meaning all harmonic excitement is gone because there is nothing surprising happening harmonically
- Is based on a harmonic scheme that was probably invented some time in the 30s and then used way too many times - the 12 bar blues scheme. The first 12 bar blues song - whatever it was - may have been a great one, but the rest all sucked because they were plagiarizing the original without bringing anything new to the song in the way of harmonies.

No, it is just yet another evidence that (melodic) pop will always remain better than rock.

Personally I think the flaw in Geir's thinking is that he shouldn't be listening to pop at all. If "God Only Knows" is better than "Wouldn't It Be Nice" because it has "more melodic and harmonic complexity" -- i.e., there are more different notes, basically -- he should be listening to classical music, which is all about melodic and harmonic complexity in precisely the way he always wants pop to be all about those things. Not to start analyzing Geir too much (sorry Geir), but I think the fact that he listens to pop at all instead of classical indicates that he does need a lot of stuff beyond that complexity -- that he cares about where rhythm went post-1920, that he cares about the way the current pop-song format can speak socially, that he gets into all of the things rock'n'roll brought into popular music.

He just hits a wall when those things get carried farther down the line into, say, hip-hop. Which is why I think it's completely dishonest to say it's a matter of melody and harmony for him -- that's like saying "I like colors that are toward the left end of the spectrum, therefore green is best." I'd be a lot more comfortable if he admitted that he wants a certain balance of all these things, and finds that balance in e.g. Nik Kershaw, and doesn't at all like to stray from the very specific balance he calls home.

Plus I cannot stand the typical "classical" way of singing, and I prefer vocal music. Thus I need a kind of melodic/harmonic music that is based on microphone singing rather than classical vocals.

The basic song style shouldn't change, while the backing track should always use new technology to create exciting modern sounds.

The part that's slightly annoying -- and this is constructive criticism, Geir -- is when he pops into a thread on hip-hop or something and restates his objections to it. I mean, Geir, I think many of us understand the way you look at music -- it's not hugely complicated or anything -- and we can just take it as given that you wouldn't like hip-hop. It's interesting to hear your take on different things, but it can sort of rile people when you just say "this is bad" and go on arguing that for a while. It's sort of rude, you see, because it's disrespectful of their opinions: we know certain stuff doesn't fit your criteria, but it basically hurts people's feeling when you just say it's "bad," instead of thinking about what their criteria are and why they might like or dislike different things.

"shakespeare's sister": because it doesn't.

Even the part about his mother?

"Anarchy in the UK" by the Sex Pistols has leaden verse melodies that "go" nowhere, and a drawn-out, "anthemic" chorus with no rhythmic or melodic tension leading up to it or taking place within it. VERY VERY BORING! http://www.geocities.com/alfonzobelushi/vyvscumbagcollege.jpg

He just forgets that everyone has a different set of qualities that excite them like that. He's confused his feeling with a universal feeling. We all privately think like Geir. We all search out music that conforms to a particular set of standards that we have set up (even if we don't realize it, and haven't set out to identify EXACTLY what these standards are). The only problem is that he is trying to impose his standard upon our tastes, and upon all music.

Okay, sorry, that was really muddled.

(Apologies, Geir, if I am offbase)

I don't think I'm willing to accept that. < /deliberate unreasonableness>

Yes = crap.

For instance, since this is R.E.M. day - in "Stumble" (the last song on "Chronic Town"), the second half of the verse bassline throughout most of the song is all one note, with a dip to a slightly higher note at the end of the phrase (bum-bumbum-bumbum-bumbumBUM). But then, at the end of the song (after the beatnik/be-bop bridge), the bassline changes, just slightly - it's still mostly that same one note, but now it jumps to a different, even higher note at the end of the phrase, and in a slightly different place: bum-bumbum-bumbum-baBUMbum. This used to KNOCK ME THE FUG OUT.

I mean, cripes, the Velvet Underground. The scratchy-guitar/ringing-guitar/piano/bass melody of "Waiting for My Man" is one of my favorite things.

I guess Geir's disparagement of the blues, though (except that "first" 12-bar song) shows that indeed a rigid structure of repetition does nothing for him. But, boy, it sure describes a lot of the music that makes me loopy.

bad melody: pretty much any progressive rock. For example Yes' Roundabout. It's just too complicated and has more than three chords. Which makes it suck. Switching key changes too often completely ruins the consistancy of the melody. A nice predictable and simple melody is always better.

O GAWD! i lurrrrrve this sentence!

is that your theory, jess? ;-)

ii. Hmm, a bad melody... This is harder to do, as I have a tendency to forget bad melodies. One I detest is the Beatles' "Long and Winding Road". I guess it's easy to pick on Paul McCartney, since he's penned so many brilliant tunes, but this one really isn't. It's just like the title says: long and winding. As anyone who has driven on such a road can attest, the experience is not pleasant. I think this is a good example of how an attempt to be "classical" can lead a good pop songwriter astray. This seems like an attempt to write a long, complex melody, but it ends up connoting nothing so much as grim determination, like a marathon runner nearing the finish line, but for the listener it's much easier just to reach for the skip button.

You've just defined prog.

ii. (will come back to this part later; can't think of anything now)

The whole song feels like someone presenting a children's television show, wheeling out a big box and going "oooo, kids, what do you think is in the box?" And then the box opens and it's the puppet sidekick, OBVIOUSLY, and if you're like five and the puppet sidekick is really cool there's an element of satisfaction in that -- but when the puppet sidekick is a fucking plug-ordinary McCartney vocal that WOW AMAZING basically just fits the chord under it, you sort of want to slap the hell out of him for acting all David Copperfield when he whips it out.

Maybe you need to make an effort not to look for the working if you're musically literate (unlike me).

And where did I see that I am against rhythm?

Rhyuthm should be present, I only feel it is unimportant and shouldn't dominate too much.

It is fairly obvious that somebody who has done theoretical music studies for years and years is clearly musically superior to somebody who just picked up a guitar yesterday (no point arguing here, because this is an objective fact!), and who out of the two is most likely to write complex songs with lots of chords?

Paul McCartney, however, also has written a couple of really bad songs, "Helter Skelter", "Yellow Submarine", "I'm Down" and "She's a Woman" being the worst.

btw i haf picked my "bad melody" but am v.busy today sadly

It is fairly obvious that somebody who has done theoretical music studies for years and years is clearly musically superior to somebody who just picked up a guitar yesterday (no point arguing here, because this is an objective fact!)

And, no, Paul McCartney didn't have much of a formal musical education, but he still knew his way with complex harmonies just like those who had. Which is more important anyway, the guy is obviously highly musically skilled despite his lack of formal skills.

I think these rules and principles are actually highly malleable to whatever result Geir wants. He loves McCartney, so the objective fact that he is clearly inferior to all graduates in music is quickly dismissed.

My point was that a graduate would probably make the same kind of music McCartney does, if he tried to create popular music.

Well, as for my attitude towards non-melodic music styles, that is fine as long as I escape them, and as long as they don't threaten the existence of melodic music.

Thus, I would have had nothing against hip-hop if hip-hop was a cult thing that would never ever hit hitlists, and if no hip-hop acts would get recording contracts otherwise given to more talented melodic musicians.

The moment hip-hop became commercially dominant, hip-hop became dangerous to true music.

Greatest ILM quote ever.

Incidentally, have you studied any music theory? Because the language you use to describe what you like is totally bereft of it (well, actually I remember one reference to major and minor). You might be able to make a better case for your favorite music if you used formal tools to describe what makes it appealing to you. Because the point of this thread is for us to say that when you think song A is "more melodic" than song B, we may very well think you're wrong. < /ftt>

also, you should check out "Terrapin Station" by the Grateful Dead.

And we've all been there, right?

One I don't: Cheeky Girls, also maybe for later. Possibly also Sorry by Monsta Boy.

But then again: If it was played properly, and with the same chords as on the original version, it would.

It's more patronizing in terms of encouraging the mass of ILM to join in with their demonization of someone who seems like a perfectly decent, if repetitive chap.

It's finally patronizing in its admission that it's all ultimately about humiliation.

AKA it's robots and dinosaurs all over again. It stems from a basic prejudice I think that some deludanoids listen to music in the "wrong" way and we must re-educate them.

(just to make the point crystal clear even to pro-deludanoidists like jerry, i think geir is a knowledgeable and likeable — bcz unflappable — poster whose stolid cheery intransigence seems to wind a lot of ppl up a lot, as a result of which they try to get under skin of the unflappability by opposing him testily, rather than getting under the skin of what he's thinking and saying...)

What baffles me is that people still start threads attempting to rationalise taste, like Richard Dawkin thinking all he needs is time and sufficiently loud shouting to convince people that religion is idiocy. As has been humorously pointed out before, GH isn't really that far away from, say, The Pinefox in terms of the things he likes. The difference being, the PF is a writer of great skill and imagination and GH... isn't. And if you start objecting to people on the quality of their writing, the whole of ILx starts to look pretty objectionable.

PF long ago started a thread on a very similar topic, but, despite his being a writer of great skill and imagination, no one much answered it: Geir may or may not be a "bad" writer in some abstract off-board sense — but he gets ppl going on ilm, which means they post to threads he contributes to and think about things and stuff, and i wanted to pimp off the way in which he is actually therefore a pretty *good* writer (in the context of ilm), to pursue the PF idea (which i actually had in mind when i started this thread, and which i wz always sorry didn't go anywhere)

"What baffles me is that people still start threads attempting to rationalise taste": what, are you saying some people approaching conversation in the "wrong" way, and we must re-educate them?

(ps i just realised and checked: nathalie's blog is down => "oh no!! fite!! oh no!!" is also currently offweb...)

(see Nipper posts passim about the played-outedness of C v D/S&D etc etc You could, of course, respond that this thread was intended an invitation for people to be more imaginative in their thinking, but I think the way its phrased necessary lends itself to turning into just another ganging-up on an individual)

Maybe (and Kurt Cobain was never a bad songwriter anyway), but Nirvana would never ever have done so many radical key changes throughout one song that Kershaw does in "The Riddle" in particular.

Verse 1:
I've got [A]two strong [B]arms, [C#m]blessings of [D]Babylon
with [Bm]time to [G]carry on and [F#m]try for [E]sins and [A]false al[B]arms
[C#m]So to A[D]merica the [D#]brave
[Bm]wise [A]men [D]save

Chorus:
[E]Near a [F#m]tree by a [E]river is a [A]hole in the [B]ground,
where an [F#m]old man of [E]?arran? goes a[D]round and a[A]round
And his [F#m]mind is a [E]beacon in the [A]veil of the [B]night,
for a [F#m]strange kind of [E]fashion there's a [D]wrong and a [A]right
But I'll [Bm]never [A]ever [D]fight [E]over [F#m]you [E]

Verse 2:
I've got [A]plans for [B]us, [C#m]nights in the [D]scullery
and [Bm]days in[G]stead of me, I [F#m]only [E]know what [A]to dis[B]cuss,
[C#m]oh, for [D]anything but [D#]light
[Bm]wise [A]men [D]fighting [E]over [F#m]you
[E]It's not [A]me you [B]see,
[C#m]seasons of [D]gasoline and [D#]gold
[Bm]wise [A]men [D]fold

Chorus:
[E]Near a [F#m]tree by a [E]river is a [A]hole in the [B]ground,
where an [F#m]old man of [E]aron[?] goes a[D]round and a[A]round
And his [F#m]mind is a [E]beacon in the [A]veil of the [B]night,
for a [F#m]strange kind of [E]fashion there's a [D]wrong and a [A]right
But I'll [Bm]never [A]ever [D]fight [E]over [G]you

Bridge:
[C]I've got [F]time to [Bb]kill, [A]sly looks in [D]corridors with[G]out a
[F]plan of yours,
a [Esus]blackbird [E]sings on [Am]Blue[G]bird[C]hill
[D]thanks for the calling of the [Bb]wild [D#]
[Cm]wise [Bb]men's [D#]child [F]

[Middle Part with bagpipes etc.]

Chorus:
[F]Near a [Gm]tree by a [F]river is a [Bb]hole in the [C]ground,
where an [Gm]old man of [F]?arran? goes a[D#]round and a[Bb]round
And his [Gm]mind is a [F]beacon in the [Bb]veil of the [C]night,
for a [Gm]strange kind of [F]fashion there's a [D#]wrong and a [Bb]right
But he'll [Cm]never [Bb]ever [D#]fight...
[F]Near a [Gm]tree by a [F]river is a [Bb]hole in the [C]ground,
where an [Gm]old man of [F]?arran? goes a[D#]round and a[Bb]round
And his [Gm]mind is a [F]beacon in the [Bb]veil of the [C]night,
for a [Gm]strange kind of [F]fashion there's a [D#]wrong and a [Bb]right
But he'll [Cm]never [Bb]ever [D#]fight [F]over [Cm]you [Bb] [D#]
[F]No he'll [Cm]never [Bb]ever [D#]fight [F]over [Gm]you.

Incredible use of key changes all the time.

Most of those factors you list are usually matters of coincidence, while advanced key changes tend to be result of a careful intellectual process during songwriting. Thus, I would definitely see key changes as a higher level of complexity and musical skill than dynamics etc.

Polyrhythmics may be interesting though, but then mainly if used in an intellectual way, which was often the case with progressive rock. If rhythm is supposed to be complex and musically skilled, then it has to be so complicated it isn't possible to dance to it anymore.

Trouble is that there is nothing there, and then, nothing to look deeper into.

And as someone who has composed & performed music that has included complex polyrhythms, I must point out that it's infinitely harder to make complex polyrhthms that can be danced to...anyone who knows how to put dots-&-slashes on a page can make complex polyrhythms, but to make complex polyrhythms that the listener can feel is something completely different.

Hows that. Didn't even use any fancy words, but I think this works.

Bad melody: in Beck's "Static", the vocal melody line for the majority of the time simply follows the chord changes, and as the chords continue to change on the one at the beginning of each measure, it creates a quite bland and stiff vocal line.

Good Melody: Outkast’s “Ms Jackson” because it made me realise all this. That melodies need not be ‘super’ but can be supple, subtle things.

I try to stay out of the Geir H. thing because I find his views so alien to mine--he's wrong, or simple-minded, or deliberately obtuse, or something that I fail to find very interesting. At the same time, of course I like the Byrds and the Zombies, great melodies, but that's not all there is even in the realm of pop music, not to mention jazz, European "serious" music, etc. So Geir likes what he likes, fine, but I see absolutely no rationale for it, not that he needs to give one. Enjoy Crowded House and Genesis, I'll be listening to Stax and to Sly Stone and James Brown.

Plus Geir apparently hasn't thought about what he's saying too much--take the blues. Unhinge the blues from its rhythmic framework and the whole thing falls apart, see the absolutely essential Oxford book "Origins of the Popular Style." So it's not a question of melody vs. rhythm or the rest of it--I find it, sorry, incredibly simple-minded or obtuse or wrong-headed (perhaps it's deliberate) to think in this manner.

Geir has supplied a telling insight into the limitations of his own listening habits: He is incapable of seeing anything in music BEYOND THE SURFACE. A blues song to him is three chords, case closed. That a beat might have meaning (or completely transfigure a melody); that a simple three-chord song (say "Learning the Game" or "This Must Be the Place") might be capable of complex, even profound, effect -- all this is simply beyond Geir's capabilities. I don't know is Geir likes movies but if so, I'll bet he hates Jean Renoir, the Lumieres, Ozu, Ford -- artists who create depth from the simplest of images, the most modest of camera setups -- as surely as he hates Louis Armstrong, Bo Diddley, and Stax/Volt. (I can practically hear him complain about the lack of ideas and editing in Le Crime de Monsieur Lange, compared to Dune.) In short, Geir has no idea how music (at least 20th-century music) works.

"White Car in Germany" by the Associates has a jaw-dropping melody. The opening root-5th-octave synth bass line leaves you wondering whether the song is in a major or a minor key. It settles seemingly into a major key when the lead synth enters with the chorus(although the ever-present opening synth dribble (not the bass line) occasionally hits a flat 2nd, adding a lot of strange tension), but the opening vocal begins with a minor figure, coinciding with a similar shift in the backing track. The first time I heard this, I found it very odd and disorienting; it was hard to grasp the melody at first, but when I did I was floored. Another cool thing is the way that MacKenzie begins the third line of the verse on a major 2nd.

Some might say the melody's shortcoming is its resemblance to a line that should be played on a synth -- rhythmically, this might be a fair judgment, since the chorus is pretty much all quarter notes, and the verses aren't that much more complex -- but this only illuminates its strengths more clearly. MacKenzie's vocal is so amazing, too, in terms of delaying lines ever so slightly, shading the stately melodic line with vibrato, etc., that you hardly even notice the melodic line's rhythmic simplicity. In fact, I only noticed it just now when I was trying to come up with something to say about it.

(For other good melodies, see also -- well, pretty much anything by Rankine/MacKenzie ever.)

2. Bad melody

The melody of Richard Marx's "Right Here Waiting For You" is incredibly dull and lifeless. The same criticism about the melodic line's too-simple rhythm could be leveled here; the difference is, Marx actually sounds like a synth -- scratch that, a $40 Radio Shack Casio if it had a "creamy-voiced tool" setting. He just goes from one note to the note closest to it on the scale -- no leaps to create interest/imply striving/falling/whatever. The first "I will be right here waiting for you" actually ends on a 5th after climbing stepwise down the scale! It's the limpest thing ever.

Not Level 42. Dunno too much about Kajagoogoo, but I have the impression they got more musically complex after Limahl went solo.

Meet the 80s....

Good melody - "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"
so perfect that any change kills it for me (see
Joan Baez). Still, the arrangement and performance
are vital icing on the cake; any rendition by
pro-tooling sessionsists would sound awful.

Bad melody - 75% of all Jim Morrison vocal melodies. The
Doors still kick ass, of course, but for different
reasons.

Re: "Meet the 80s..." true, but it _was_ the decade of Firehose,
Talking Heads, and _Skylarking_, all of which had organic
production. It was a tough decade, though, and a lot of
great songwriters produced sonically shitty product.

awaiting return of mark s.....

Revive! Ain't nothing like the good old days...

I don't see the point in clubs for indie fans at all. At least clubs where you are supposed to dance. Indie fans don't dance.

― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 14:18 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

he meant 'can't' - these language barriers...

Indie fans don't dance, they just pull up their pants and do the rockaway

No, it is just yet another evidence that (melodic) pop will always remain better than rock.
― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 5 April 2003 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

Correct, but English melodies are about a hundred times inferior to the Arabesk pop of müslüm gürses. Listen to Tanri istemezse and you will realise that the entire corpus of white pop music is not nearly melodic enough. and that is just one song. Key changes mask a lack of talent.

12 tones are too mathematically limited. To have absolute melodic supremacy you need complete resolution, and 12 tones do not fully resolve.