Genesis and Melody

Saperlipopette! wrote: HackettFan wrote: Everyone here has a strange notion of melody. Melody is comprised of single notes, but it always has a harmonic relationship to a given chord progression. Even if a chord progression is not actually being played, a melody will suggest a chord progression. Melodies are note sequences driven by arpeggios. Blues leads are not melodic because the same five notes are good irrespective of the progression behind it. If it's in the same key, then it's good. To put it another way, a Blues lead does not normally suggest specific a chord progression. Genesis did not do a lot of blues. They constructed melodies quite frequently from chords, chords that were extraordinarily innovative. I think "everyone" would have had a differnt notion of melody if it wasn't for: Misenum wrote: Awhile ago a friend of mine said he didn't like Peter Gabriel era Genesis because in his own words, "Genesis just doesn't have any melody in their music". I never quite understood what he meant by this as I don't have enough knowledge to determine just by listening if a song is melodic or not. I'm a big fan of Genesis and was wondering if anyone could explain whether or not their music tends to be melodic or not. What exactly makes a song melodic and how does that affect someones enjoyment of that particular piece of music? ... which isn't about discussing the wikipedia definition of "melody" - but something else

I would think it would be about music theory. Any guitarist who asks the question of how they can play more melodically, and many do, will get an answer back telling them to learn to follow the chords. The answer to the OP's first question is Genesis' music does tend to be melodic; it is not bluesy, it highly conforms to the chordal structure, dissonance is occasionally there but strategic in setting the mood or causing tension prior to resolution.

As far as the OP's second question, an answer to that would not get at his real quandary, which is 'Why does my friend THINK there is no melody in Genesis (in the face of the fact that he is clearly wrong)?' I suspect that his friend hears things that do not go as he expects by the conventions he knows, because anticipation is such an integral part of music in governing our acceptance not simply of good notes versus bad notes, but also our acceptance of satisfying notes versus unsatisfying notes. Related to that, Genesis' music may not be completing or staving off its cadential resolutions in a timely and predictable manner, and the next go around of a given progression may be totally morphed by harmonizations (which perhaps morphs any accompanying melody as arpeggios also get harmonized) - In other words it's not doing what his friend wants it to do. Or maybe his friend desires something to negate the grandiose effect of the organ and mellotron. Beyond that I do not have the clinical training to say.

Unlike some other posts I think Genesis used plenty of motifs. Motifs, however aren't always a matter of repeating verbatim the same musical phrase. One can extend a motif by harmonizing it or changing its metricality and so on. That being said, if a listener is just used to more theme and less variation, I could see how that would affect his (or her) acceptance/recognition/acknowledgement of a melody.

chopper wrote: richardh wrote: Most of Lamb is amazingly melodic. I've got some of it stuck in my head right this moment. I've got sunshine in my stomach..   Indeed, Carpet Crawlers also springs to mind, one of their finest.

 

Hmm Genesis sure have some great gripping melodies but I can see where the problem with their pop appeal lies compared to the other classic prog bands: their transitions can be quite jarring, often intentionally, but it makes it harder to remember afterwards how this or that piece continues after that one catchy melody, making you less prone to just start singing it. Their sound was also a bit more messy and unpredictable in general than what Jethro Tull, Yes and especially Pink Floyd were doing. It works well for the overall listening experience and the intensity but it probably made them lag behind in pop appeal.

Well actual classical music had given up on melody by the 1960s although “progressive” rock music generally seemed to be more influenced by what had been done in the 1700s and 1800s .

2dogs wrote: Well actual classical music had given up on melody by the 1960s although “progressive” rock music generally seemed to be more influenced by what had been done in the 1700s and 1800s .