It's the Melody

[Doug Beaumier]

Hit songs today, by and large, are hits because they get sex-symbols to sing them, not because they're great songs.

Right on, Donny! The four or five multi-national corporations that dominate the music industry today are selling sex appeal and cliche' formula music. Corporate profit is the only consideration. It has nothing to do with quality music anymore. The stuff is so dumbed-down now, it's unlistenable, in my opinion... country and pop. In 20 or 30 years most of today's radio playlist will be long-forgotten.

[Leslie Ehrlich]

No, it's all about sex appeal and image, nowadays. Anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty out of touch with reality, IMHO.

In rock music today, image and sex appeal no longer matter. Instead, it's all about being 'cool'.

[Mat Rhodes]

Who in their own right mind goes into business intending to lose money or break even?

Any steeler who can't see his own reproductive organs and who thinks that singing even moderately well, staying in good physical shape, writing songs (or just choosing the "right" ones written by another songwriter) that sell, managing a career, managing a personal life all at the same time requires no talent, no ability, no discipline, and no effort is far more out of touch with reality. You people act as if this was a scenario like that of Sylvester Stallone's in "Rhinestone".

None of you may like Kenny Chesney's music. I don't either except "That's Why I'm Here", the one that put him on the map back in the late 90's.

But to crush and criticize anyone's success just because their music is not like the golden stuff you grew up with is simply un-Christian. Talent, whatever form it may come in, is not yours to ridicule.

I'd argue that Kenny Chesney has had to work doubly hard with far more business acumen than your heroes ever had to deal with in the early-to-middle of their careers.

[Brint Hannay]

Forgive me if I've posted this before--I've meant to several times--but a bandmate and I had to make a 20 hour each way road trip with the equipment van last November (the other lucky #$%@s got to fly to the gig), and we listened to the country radio stations along the way, neither of us having listened to country radio for years prior. Very soon it became a game, not only to call out the next cliche in the lyrics of songs we'd never heard (truck, barn, Daddy, my little boy/girl, pray, angels, beer, honky tonk, America, preacher...), but to sing the "melody" of verse and chorus as they came up for the first time, which we could come pretty close to nailing after a while (bounce back and forth between root and fifth of the tonic chord over changing chords, with some forays of pentatonic notes--4-3-1 is sure-fire--in between, and the occasional leading tone for spice...). The lack of melodic imagination being used in "modern country" music is stupefying.

[Doug Beaumier]

I agree! Most of the country (and pop) on the radio today is packaged formula music, nothing more than a product, pumped out over and over again, the same formula. It is Not quality music, and it has nothing to do with artistry and nothing to do with Melody. It's all about image, and corporate sales. Fresh, new sounds and new ideas are rejected by the suits that run the industry. They want the lowest common denominator, the same mindless stuff that continues to be spoonfed to the public and continues to generate sales. Now let me tell you how I really feel!

[b0b]

What gets me is, why does anyone care about this stuff? We all seem to agree that it lacks some of the basic elements of real music. There's still plenty of good music being made, and it's not hard to find.

I don't eat at MacDonalds very often. It's a poor substitute for good food, but it's everywhere and it's consistent. If I need a meal and Macdonalds is there, I'll eat it.

[David L. Donald]

Decades later I still occasionally wake up
with that danged 'Loves diaper jingle'
going through my head.

Sure it's a great catchy melody,
but it still SUCKS!

[Brint Hannay]

b0b, I'm not sure if you're asking Why do the fans of this stuff care about it or Why do we Forumites care about it.

If it's the latter, to pursue your analogy, it's one thing to go to your favorite restaurant for real food and ignore McDonald's, but it's a different thing when you go to your favorite restaurant and find that it's been turned into a McDonald's!

Of course you just have to find a new favorite restaurant, but it's hard not to lament the closing of what used to be a good place, and its replacement with a junk food franchise.

[Walter Stettner]

Let me add someting about songwriting: Many of the all-time greats started their career as songwriters, many of them were (are) as important as authors of numerous hit somgs as they were (are) for their vocal talents. Hank Williams, Merle Haggard, Mel Tillis, Bill Anderson, Willie Nelson,...The last three were already well-known writers before they had their first success as singers.

Today the writing is mostly done by professionals who use dictionaries and, of course, the relevant black lists of words that have to be avoided if you want to sell the songs to a company....

Kind Regards, Walter

[Mat Rhodes]

Since this is a subject about melody and not necessarily subject matter of the song, I'm interested in knowing what made the melodies of yesteryear better than the ones of today?

Is it more notes and more range?

Even what's defined as "crap" today still has a melody. Someone sings it (or plays it) and there are notes - hopefully more than one. There are still verses and choruses. Maybe an occasional solo break. Song structure hasn't changed all that much. Neither have chord progressions. There are only so many chords to choose from that won't make a country artist sound like a jazz or avant garde artist.

Perhaps many folks just don't like the subject matter or the rhythmic style that modern country has taken. That still doesn't address this issue of melody.

Are the old melodies better because they came before the newer ones? John asked a good question: Have most of the good notes and sequences been used up? I think so. I don't think there are too many original melodies left that aren't some kind of plagiarism of someone else's work. If you dig deep enough, you could accuse anyone of ripping off someone else musically.

[Doug Beaumier]

From the original post…

...the pedal steel is basically a melodic instrument. It fits best in songs where there is in fact an actual melody under all the lyrics.

Good melodies are few and far between in today's music. Steel guitarists who are looking for great melodies to play on steel will not find many in today's hits. You’ll hear a lot of drums, kick a$$ rhythm sections, sequencers, computers, keyboards, Stratocasters, a little bit of pedal steel buried in the mix, and a "singer" chanting some lyrics, but you Won’t hear much of a melody in those lyrics. Where are the strong melody lines that translate well to steel guitar, and would stand alone as great instrumentals? They have all but disappeared. They are no longer important. The music has changed.

Look at the Top 40 Country playlist and try to pick out a few songs that you could play as INSTRUMENTALS on your pedal steel. See what I mean?... there aren’t many. That’s because the Melody is not as important in today's music. Rhythm sections and "groove" now trump melody. Just like tight jeans and cleavage trump talent.

[Leslie Ehrlich]

There is always a post going about modern (urban) country music, and the absence of the pedal steel in the mix. I think I have at least part of an answer that may make sense. First you have to accept the axiom, that the pedal steel is basically a melodic instrument. It fits best in songs where there is infact an actual melody under all the lyrics.

I missed this portion of the original post. I'd have to disagree that PSG is inherently a 'melodic' instrument. How many country songs heavily depend on PSG to provide that much needed 'hook' to make a song popular? I can't think of any off the top of my head. One thing I dislike about PSG in country music is that many players don't play the same lick, riff, or fill twice. If anything, they're just noodling around in the background and trying to 'pretty things up' here and there. To me, that's embellishment, not being melodic.

[erik]

These last two posts really sum it up. Steelers who complain about melody are just judging based on their own preference to play an instrumental, whereas most steel work in songs is an embellishment off the melody. These two elements do not determine the quality or listenability of a song.

[Doug Beaumier]

I agree that the role of the pedal steel is to support and embellish the song. I'm just saying that today's Top 40 Country melodies are weak, and to prove that... try playing one on your pedal steel. Then go back and play one of the classic hit melodies from years past. There is no comparison. That's not to say that a PSG player should play a lot instrumentals, I'm just pointing out that today's melodies are mostly bland, and the rhythm section and the groove of the song is more important.

[John Steele]

I have to agree with Doug B.- especially about the rhythmic elements.
If you take a song written by someone like Willie Nelson, (say, Three days, or Crazy) and look at the melody alone, they completely outline and suggest the chord pattern. You wouldn't even need a chart, because the melody is inextricably woven into the chord progression.
You just can't say that about alot of the current country and folk writing.
Also, the phrasing is alot different... there are no more 2 bar holes to fill. Maybe it's written for people with short attention spans, I don't know.
Recently I've been working with some alt. folk and country writers/performers. If I didn't have charts, I could never figure out what they wanted based on the melodies alone. Sometimes they seem completely unrelated.
That's not a value judgement. It's often good music, but it's definitely <i>different ! </i>
-John

[David L. Donald]

Embellishment off the melody
is called counter melody.

Sometimes harmonized, such as in
horn sections, string sections and steel parts.

It has very often been integral over the years
to making a good song also be a catchy hit.

This has sometimes been relegated to just a hook between sections.
But also can be seen as a blues or country guitarist playing between section of vocal.

Lately there is more emphasis on a sampled effect
or easily played effect then a counter melody,
this of course is sad.

What made Lloyd Green so in demand was his
repeatable, harmonized counter melodies
behind the melody.
Sadly the market or those that deem to dictate to it,
doesn't seem to want that these days.

[Doug Beaumier]

I guess as music changes, the supporting role of the steel guitar has to change with it. So that’s why Robert Randolph doesn’t sound like Lloyd Green!

[Pat O'Hearn]

Have most of the good notes and sequences been used up?

Interestingly enough Composer and Author Nicolas Slonimsky actually did seriously tackle that very question.

In the introduction to his 1947 Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns he writes:

“There are 479,001,600 possible combinations of the 12 tones of the chromatic scale.
With rhythmic variety added to the unbounded universe of melodic patterns,
There is no likelihood that new music will die of internal starvation in the next 1000 years.”

(unless the majors have a say so)

[David L. Donald]

Ah, but the rub is:

How many of those permutations,
can be asimilated by your average
16 year old record buyer...?

Not many listen to Arnold Schoernberg or even Mahler.

Never heard Britany Spears use a M7b5 so far.
At least Christina Aguilera is head in that direction.

[Doug Beaumier]

Have most of the good notes and sequences been used up?

Wow, this is deja vu all over again. When I was a little kid in the 4th grade I asked our music teacher if songwriters would ever run out of possible note combinations! She said "Goodness, no!" I was worried about this way back in 1959!

On a more serious 'note': I think there are many great melodies yet to be written. The question is... will we hear them on Top 40 Country/pop radio?

[Dave Mudgett]

I'm with Slonimsky - the math is easy. In fact, I think I went through that type of calculation in a forum post a couple of years ago. For all intents and purposes, there will always be interesting unexplored territory, and writers will be exploring it. Whether it makes the mainstream isn't important to me.

IMO, mainstream popular music has always been a regression to the mean - there have been times when the mean was doing a bit better than it is right now, to my tastes. The only hope is that the mean eventually starts improving. I'm not optimistic for the near-term future, but it's pretty hard to make long-term predictions. Seems to me there's nowhere to go but up somewhere along the line here.

BTW, Matt - some of us curmudgeons here do write songs, and some even sing. As far as entertaining the masses, I have no interest in it, for the reasons I just described. Sorry man, I'd rather do math and engineering for a living, and play the music I like to people who are interested in it than try to force-fit something I'm not interested in. But I do agree with you that all music writers use ideas from earlier generations of music writers, much the same way as scientists use ideas of earlier generations of scientists. But I believe that even within the constraints of a particular style, there are still lots of new and interesting melody variations.

One more point: as a style of music progresses, compositional originality is not necessarily the only issue. I honestly think it's more of a commercial issue - music producers want to keep royalties to themselves. But once copyrights pass into the public domain, that all changes. Nobody questions why musicians continue to seriously perform the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and other classical composers. I think this has already started to happen with a lot of mainstream jazz from the mid-20th century, and more recently with blues and earlier rock styles. Not everything has to be "revolutionary" to be good and of musical interest.

[Donny Hinson]

What gets me is, why does anyone care about this stuff?

Bobby, my guess is we're pretty much dumbfounded that so many people find this stuff so appealing. Music created just to make a profit, without thought for the artistic aspects, is just like the Mickey D's burgers or the rubbery hot dogs you get at the county fair. Sure, everyone knows "leather-burgers" and "rubber-dogs" ain't worth braggin' about, but the number of people that crave and defend this new schlock (calling it "good music") is nothing short of stupifying.

Nothing wrong with eatin' junk food once in awhile. But braggin' about it? Well, that's something else entirely.

I take solace in the fact that even if some of these lackluster singers and songwriters do make a hundred million dollars a year, not one dime of it came from my pocket!

[David L. Donald]

Lyrically it meets some cultural need and resonance,
that is geared to those so much younger than ourselves
here in forumland that we can't grasp it.

There is also the peer presure thing,
'I gotta like what my friends like',
I need to fit in,
and by extention some variation of what
their friends like, a few degrees separated.

Secondly there is the age old need to have
music DIFFERENT than the parents music.
Period!
Makes no difference how it's different,
but it MUST be different.

Then there is the component of street slang and mannerisms,
and it's adoption by the average 13 year old,
and eventual diffusion in the greater under 30 age group.

Then comes LACK of exposure to other musical forms,
through peer preasure and the 'personal differtentiation' need,
to actively IGNORE the earlier generation's musics.

Even if it is made to the lowest common denominator,
it HAS an audience because of the above factors,
and a few others.

Eventually these folks grow up
and add other kinds of music,
while keeping some of their 'youth
period's' music, integrated with the
older forms.


You can see this in rap / hip hop / Rnb / jazz
mixed together, by older neo/post hip hop artists.
AND
bluegrass / rockabilly / 50's rock / 70's rock/
post hip/hop rap via Roger Miller/ and some classic country
all mishmashed together
and called 'new country'.

It ain't your dadddy's music,
it ain't hardly YOUR music,
its for a new generation,
that has been exposed to things you never dreamed of,
and want DESPERATELY to NOT copy YOU, if it can,
and have THEIR own thing, all to themselves.

If A typical steeler is 50-60 years old,
that is 2 generations AT LEAST removed
from the current music scene's development.
Quite the disconnect eh?

If you can not understand it... well....
that IS the idea.

[Donny Hinson]

When I was quite young, I started out playing straight guitar. My band went from Ventures and Duane Eddy stuff to British rock in the early and mid '60s. Some of those songs from the start of my musical experience (like "Satisfaction") hold a very special place in my memory; they were special to me. But I never once (even back then) misconstrued them as "good music".

[Joe Miraglia]

I've had people come up to me at times and say, "I never liked that old Country music,It all sounds the same.That 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4.G to C to D over and over." What is wrong with people today? , not liking Country Past? Joe