(TV) One person's 'unmelodic' is another's 'melodic'

["Casey, Leo J" <CaseyL@VOLPE.DOT.GOV>]

As I admitted in my last e-mail, 
I'd have to agree you are more right 
than wrong if you limit your generalizations 
to just Television songs, [even here I'd claim 
your 'un-melodic theory' fails to explain 
away the melody(ies) in "Days", "Glory", "Careful" 
(though I hate it), "1880 or So" and maybe even 
"Carried Away"], but your arguments don't 
extend to Verlaine's non-Television oeverve. 

>Not sure the layperson's understanding of a 
>phenomenon should define/determine the phenomenon.  

Not talking scientific definition here--I should 
have used word 'the masses' or 'commercial public' 
instead of 'layperson', and for better or for worse 
according to your hypothesis they do determine the 
result here. 

>> 4) MELODY: 
>> a) "a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement 
>> of sounds; tunefulness.  b) a rhythmic succession of 
>>single tones organized as an aesthetic whole." [Merriam 
>> Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition].

>I think one needs to consult musical experts on music.  
>Webster's >definition ..... 

Hold on, you can't have it both ways; you claim that if 
public or "the folks" don't find it hum-able, sing-able 
or catchy then its not melodic.

> Using this definition I would claim most of 
> Verlaine's stuff contains melodies and is pretty 
> damn melodic. 

>>Compared with, say, George Gerswhin's stuff? Or 
>>Richard Rogers? Or Burt Baccarach?  Or even 
>>Keith Richards, Paul McCartney or 
>>Bob Dylan?  Hardly.

No, not compared to the greats like Gershwin or the populists 
like McCartney and Baccarach, but compared with your unproved 
claim that Verlaine doesn't write/incorporate melodies 
in his music, or/and it's unmelodic.

**What it comes down to is this:  you believe for something 
to be 'melodic' it must either meet your/some technical, academic,
musical definition, and/or have been accepted by the mass public; 
whereas  I do not believe that is the case. We are basically 
talking past one another---we've got different ideas/definitions 
as to what constitutes a piece of music being 'melodic'.

Using your definition, Mozart or Ravel would have to be considered 
bereft of melodies.

I'd even go so far as to say Verlaine is to McCartney or Baccarach, 
as Mozart was to Saleri.

I'll stand behind a melody being "a sweet or agreeable succession 
or arrangement of sounds".  [note well that it doesn't say/require 
that joe-six-pack finds them sweet or agreeable.]

I'd also add that if one were to accept your thesis on melody then 
we'd have to agree that Dave Marsh was correct about Verlaine (at 
least as far as 'a guitarist who lacked melodic ideas'.)

	Leo
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"