Your friend is right.  Of course technically, any notes stung together in a normally pleasing and musical way is a melody, but I think he means Gabriel's vocal complements (not to mention his lyrics) are far too complex and experimental to be easily recalled, sung, understood or immediately appreciated by most people and many musicians too.   Gabriel's later solo work is much more 'melodic' in that way.   Neither approach is better--  one could say Genesis' progressive era was compositionally superior, but artistically any of Paul Simon's work is just as good as any of Peter Gabriel's.

^ But Yes and Pink Floyd did often have distinct and memorable melody, Genesis not so much.

I think that's a bizarre criticism of Genesis... They've got plenty of melody. Try singing the vocal line of Dancing With The Moonlit Knight without any words; I think it's quite pretty on its own. Or imagine the vocal line from the beginning of Supper's Ready played on flute... actually you don't need to imagine because that's how the 2nd movement ends. It's a strong enough melody that it can effectively be adapted instrumentally.

I think a good way to imagine "melodic" music is to look at something that's not very melodic. For example, the song "Mr. Brightside" by The Killers; popular song, gets played on the radio all the time. Imagine if the vocal part on the verses was played on an instrument... It would be one note over and over again. There's no really shape to it; it's all a flat line.

I suppose that's ultimately a matter of opinion.
 

It's not that those cuts weren't quite memorable as pieces of music, it's that they were entirely forgettable as well-edited, professional songs that are of high quality and at the same time digestible.   I think of anyone from Joni Mitchell to the Police to Black Sabbath.

Atavachron has addressed where your friend's POV comes from and it is similar to George Starostin's approach also.  If I recall, he too didn't necessarily rate the melodies of Genesis very high.  

I think it is more apt to say they don't really have melodic MOTIFS delivered by way of vocals in their tracks. If you take Dancing with the Moonlit Knight, it doesn't really stick with the Can You Tell Me Where My Country Lies vocal melody.  Rather, that refrain itself keeps developing and morphing.  "Dance right on through the night/Join the dance" is the only real motif here and it only makes two appearances in the entire track.  Similar is the case with Cinema Show.  Just for comparison, Beethoven's Symphony No.9 has more repetitions of the motif in the first three or more minutes itself than does Dancing with the Moonlit Knight. 

You can see the difference already when they get to Trick of the Tail.  Squonk in particular has a much more catchy hook.  In a way, what Banks said is not wrong. It took getting Gabriel and eventually Hackett too out of the way for Genesis to start writing the pop songs that maybe he and Collins were always capable of. 

So is it good or bad?  Depends purely on what you want from music.  I am comfortable with both approaches.  Gentle Giant too have a very non cyclical approach to writing vocal melody and their melodies too are often way too complicated to be memorable by themselves. Writing catchy melody with ample number of re-iterations isn't the be all end all either.  I mean baby baby o baby baby, if you get the drift. 

But qualitatively, it is possible to say Yes were stronger at writing melody because their music wasn't any less progressive than Genesis for it. Similar is the case with King Crimson.  The vocal motif of Starless is in essence quite simple and memorable though the track per se is very complex.  The guitar motif of Starless is also simple yet effective. So I don't know that Genesis ever completely figured out this aspect of prog.  Where you take a simple idea that could be used in pop music too and snowball it into something gigantic. This is pretty much the Keith Emerson definition of prog (and Tarkus again is a good example of it).  They (Genesis) preferred complicated noodle instead.  But it's still a nice noodle methinks.

I think the question worth exploring though is whether Gabriel somewhere constrained Banks from writing as memorable a melody as he could have in his own right.  Because there is a marked difference in the approach to writing melody once Gabriel gets out of the way.

Thank you rogerthat for articulating things better than I ever could (Gentle Giant a good comparison).   Interesting that Gabriel, once he warmed-up as a solo artist, matured, and got more more focused, also began doing more specific motifs, 'songs' if you will. 

Great topic BTW, ripe with potential for discussion & debate.

^ True they were more disciplined than early Genesis ~

The song "That's All" comes to mind immediately.

True, I was thinking more of songs like Panurge.  But even so, yes, there is a lot more repetition of the melody. The melody itself is often very complicated though. 

I think if you watch all the interviews with the band on the making of all the albums--I have numerous times--

seems Banks was always a huge force in the band---and Peter mostly put his foot down on the lyrical part of the music not the music melody per se---I mean the band acts like they wrote all the music and Peter just came in and wrote his lyrics all over it.

I think the best way to describe "melody" was that if you could whistle it, that (usually) was the melody of the piece of music.

However, in the 20th century, a lot of music went around and around such a way as to make the "melody" difficult to find, and rock music, in its simplicity, still lives by melody way too much, making most of the music formulaic and repetitive, if not boring. As a further example, take a look at a lot of jazz, where a "melody" might be there but is very hard to bring out by itself. Some folks even said that the only melody in Miles was when he opened his mouth, which is strange, but those are the bits that we remember him by!

BTW, I would hardly even come close to mentioning GENESIS as a good example of ... far too commercial with a jingle on the side (so to speak) to make it look like it was better composed than it really was. There is, way better composed material out there than GENESIS was able EVER to come up with!

Try Gentle Giant instead and stop thinking about "melody". Just close your eyes and listen!

Traditionally, the guy writing the lyrics has some role in the vocal melody too.  It's possible of course that Gabriel simply fitted lyrics to Banks melodies, in which case maybe Banks own approach to writing melodies evolved over time.  Which is also consistent with what he has said.

King Crimson Van der Graaf Generator Genesis(PG era)  Jethro Tull  ELP  Yes  Pink Floyd  later Genesis(PC era)

So according to this scale I made PG era Genesis falls somewhere in the middle but maybe leaning towards VDGG slightly on the melodic scale. Although I didn't include them Gentle Giant would probably fall somewhere between VDGG and PG era Genesis.

King Crimson is an odd example in terms of being non-melodic. For some of the material, that's quite true; Larks Tongues, Fracture, Red... A lot of riffing in weird scales rather than melodies.

But when those guys wrote a song; they wrote a song. Not necessarily poppy songs (although I think my Killers example earlier on proves that poppy and melodic are completely different things). Songs as in chord progression + melody. Embellish it with some Mellotron, some saxophone, a bit of guitar to make it interesting, maybe add a strange interlude to create some drama, but the underlying song is strong.

I would argue that songs like Epitaph, Moonchild, Cadence and Cascade, Prince Rupert Awakes (first movement of Lizard), Formentera Lady, Exiles, Fallen Angel and Starless are melodic in quite a traditional sense. And it's not like these are one or two cherry picked songs from each album that have nothing to do with the rest of their music (like if you picked Lucky Man to demonstrate ELP as a melodic band).

I'm with you on this one. Genesis music was quite melodic, if not that catchy (though that coudl be argued too). Hard not to see the melody on those great albums.

Well, then we can say the same thing about any other well known 70's prog band then. 

Yep. I find Genesis melodic also and think it's weird someone would suggest they weren't. As much as I love Yes I wouldn't say they were really any more melodic than Genesis over all. Topographic Oceans or relayer more melodic than SEBTP or A trick of the tail? Nope but I like them all for different reasons. Different bands focused on different things at different points in their career. I suppose you could say Genesis and Yes both focused more on hooks(and thus melody)in the eighties but that doesn't mean their earlier stuff was always not accessible. 

Well Genesis had a major secret weapon in the eighties, and I'm sorry but that weapon's name was Phil Collins. Just listen to an album like No Jacket Required, you'll know.

Yes I understand I mentioned that album, my prog card is on its way back(return mail) as we speak.

Cannot agree more with this.  When they did write conventional melody, they wrote really top notch stuff.  Even later with Belew.  Frame by Frame or I am a Dinosaur are wonderful melodies.

But even Invisible Touch, Mama or That's All isn't melodic in the way Owner of a Lonely Heart or You Can't Hurry Love is.     

Lyrics by Banks though, which is kind of the point.  

But assuming he's not a musician, the friend probably meant that although he can obviously hear musical notes being sung in a certain pattern, they evaporate just as quickly and leave no discernible impression.   And again, he would not be incorrect.

the misunderstanding is on your side. as I already pointed out "melodic" just means "of, relating to or having melody" while "melodious" is "having a pleasant melody" (what you apparently meant by "melodic")

I think this is extremely simplistic and not something that anyone that composes music will even consider when they first put something together. You follow the thoughts in your head ... and might ... MIGHT ... later make some changes to clarify one bit or other, but in general, to think that someone whistles their song first and then make sure they take out the melodies, because PG can't sing them anyway ... he can play them, but not sing them!

It's weird that someone will actually think that someone can pinpoint each and every note of their piece of music BEFORE even putting down a couple of lines for a staff! That's just plain bizarre, and often the way to create music that is weird and does not have connections to its themes at all, and its intention is to alienate the listener, not having him/her looking for a "melody".

We're looking at PROGRESSIVE MUSIC as if it were POP MUSIC (as in top ten!) ... one is full of melody because it is what the public identifies with the fastest, and a lot of the "progressive" folks went the other way, much closer to modern music in the 20th century ... which would mean that "melody" was not going to be at the forefront of the music!

But we're discussing this as a top ten crapper ... and yes, you gotta have the melody or the song is done and sunk! But folks here discussing some of this stuff as pop music and top ten examples is scary, and pretty much shows how little some folks really know about PROGRESSIVE MUSIC ... what's the point of it if it is the same as the other?

Don't ask these folks ... !!! And thanks Angels for your help, although I think that some folks are not wanting to look at the definitions because it tears apart their music ideas!

To play the devil's advocate, there are a few Genesis songs where melodies are quite awkward, and the lyrics can get too dense for their own good. For example: Wa. tcher. Of. The. Skies. Watcherofall! Hisisaworld alone no worldishisown! Plus songs like Hogweed and Salmicis that try to fit in too many sci-fi/mythological references to really flow well.

It always seemed to me sci-fi classic Day of the Triffids must've been loosely inspired by the general Hogweed problem in the U.K.

So...this is an interesting point of discussion.  Just try isolating the vocal melody of the first verse of Cinema Show ("Home from work") and singing or playing it, just that, without the chords and do the same for Close to the edge and think about which melody stands out more.  

On the one hand, I agree with you that there are patterns that make PG Genesis memorable.  I am even going to go out on a limb and say there is something that makes it memorable in absolute terms and not just from an individual taste perspective because there was something that did contribute to their ascendancy from Trespass through to SEBTP/Lamb and widened their popularity.  When a band achieves popularity in a ground up way like Genesis without being helicoptered and dropped on the audience's head by major label bullies (Guns N Roses), there is usually something powerful within the music and it's not just random even though post modern, politically correct style of argumentation encourages us to think it's the latter.  BUT those patterns aren't melodic but harmonic. I think Genesis has strong harmonic patterns that can be identified as their signature and which also strike a chord (pun intended) with the listener.  They wrote some of the best harmony out of the big name prog rock bands, especially for music that rarely strayed into dissonance.  In THAT sense, they were deeply melodic because their music remained consonant and yet came across as unusual and remarkable.  That takes amazing skills but it's all in the harmony. 

This isn't about PG Genesis but still a great analysis of how intricate their prog era music was and without feeling intimidating or inaccessible.

^ And just so everyone's on the same page: by "harmony" rogerthat does not mean when two instruments and/or voices play the same lines together in harmony, but rather when two or more different musical parts intertwine together--  a sort of counterpoint if you will.

Excellent summation.

Which they did brilliantly.

Edit: Forgot that it was a video attached to you'r post. I will have to watch it some time later

Cristalline melodies.

And, in my opinion, it's the best album.

Considering the state of most modern popular music, that is not enough.  With Genesis, just SIT AND LISTEN.  If you do, the magic will happen.  This is music for music's sake.

^ He doesn't have a tin ear, he has a common one and a common taste in music.  Nothing wrong with that.

You do know that the funny story is that this is the reason why GENESIS ended up getting costumes and other things for their shows, right?

Everyone was falling asleep! And rock audiences do not come to the shows to fall asleep. Rock audiences, like us all here, come to the show to get some version of a minor excitement/orgasm, so we can take care of the girlfriend, or glass of wine later! We might like the show and remember it, but heck ... I didn't see anyone in Seattle come out of King Crimson whistling a tune from them! 

It's MUSIC, not a tune! Can you dance to it? .... YES is the answer, however it would not be a live concert ... it would be something some very advanced dance folks would do, and many of them are doing it and experimenting with all kinds of music ... except that the audience here does not believe that kind of experimentation a valuable anything in the story of the arts, and specially dance. In fact, around here, many love to trash theater, dance and everything else as non-existent and with no value whatsoever ... one of the most aggravating things about the fan-ology of it all! 

Do I go to a KC concert to listen? Yes and No. I go because I know these are some of the best musicians of my time, and I wish to pay a tribute to their ability and artistry ... why? Because "listening" to some simplistic music (watcher of the bullblue!), that has lyrics to TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SEE, is not the same thing as going to see a major symphony do Mahler's 3rd Symphony in its entirety ... and there you can imagine many things more, and not be told some inane idea and story of what it is supposed to be about.

Please get off the immature idea that the "lyrics" tell you what to think ... in reality, it is sort of like a child's story, and we all know what we think of those when we grow up!

So you talk about a heightened sense of musical ability, but you dare to mock me for enjoying advanced music myself. Then attempt to "insult" my post with cheesy lyrics, mistaken it for the "Lydian" mode when it is in fact not?

^ Well after all the Lydian-loving threads you have to have a sense of humor about it.  Not mocking your tastes, just having a bit of fun.  If you post you may get responses, so deal with it.

Crimson is probably my favorite prog band and they even have less 'melodic' tunes than early Genesis.

If I want to hum along with a song...I'll put on the Beatles.

;)

Certainly has been the most musically stimulating discussion around here in months ~

Misenum hasn't visited since the 27th, wonder what he thinks .

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

There were stories that GENESIS simply was not cutting it, and after their tour with OSANNA, who was doing a lot of costumes and some theatrical stuff, they started doing costumes and creating stories. Before that, as is the case in "From Genesis to Revelation", the band was just a bunch of songs.

The main idea, that some theatrical concepts and thoughts would help the show, is not new, and has been around for millennia, so GENESIS (the band, of course!!!!!) inventing it, is a joke! And many of those ideas and thoughts have always been around Europe, in its history of the Dramatic Arts. 

I just find it annoying, and silly, when people think that the band invented that stuff, and were the audience or not falling asleep, is not my wording ... it actually came from MELODY MAKER, who did not like GENESIS before and found them pretentious, until all of a sudden they had some costumes and ... wow ... a new band ... the world has been created by the English again!

lazland wrote: ... Gabriel, and the band, for that matter, although they tired of it by the end, wanted their concerts to be a fusion of the music and the visual aspect of the music. Art, theatrical, and progressive rock. Pretty simple really. ....

The idea for adding visuals to a stage show, in GENESIS' case, was a way to augment their presentation, but the last thing they wanted to do was another PF behemoth ... when some major money was being centered on the staging, instead of the music and its value. GENESIS, was a band that was pretty much a family and they would not be able to afford such extravagant expenses on staging ... but, the weird and funny thing ... they could have had film very cheaply, since video was already being used, and while not as good as the regular film at the time, it was considerably better than it was before.

IF, there was a problem, I think that the timing to create a film "story" or "visual" was prohibitive ... something that Steven Wilson, kinda does automatically with some of his work, even if some of it is rather generic and not quite about the song itself. AND, then to figure out how to make it shown on screen, would have been something of GREAT VALUE for SEBTP and TLLDOB, both great albums, but very diverse and wide in their possible story telling. TLLDOB is perfect for a film. TOTALLY. But it would require a complete change of the presentation, and it probably would not look like a rock show that fans can come over to applaud the guitar solo and the girls can woodle and coodle the lead singer!

That would have been a problem in 1975, as it is now ... the audiences "demand" this and that, and you will be damned if you do something else. Few bands could over come this, unless their reach was already so huge in both Europe and America ... that they could ignore it and create their own show, and not worry about anything else. Pink Floyd should get some credit for that ... in LA the DSOTM shows got a good review, but also there were many comments that the film and a lot of the visuals were too much, specially the lights aimed at your eyes!

The only audiences that are a problem, are the majority of rock audiences. ANY band, TODAY, trying to do something theatrical, is going to get smashed ... because many folks in this group here, are going to trash it, and not appreciate the attempt to put something together. There are exceptions, like Kate Bush, but even in her show she limited it to some of the songs, and mostly dress changes ... but generally, her stuff is almost purely VISUAL and for me, (not the same as the PA folks!) more of it would not be enough! But while some folks in London loved it for 20 shows, in America, LA, TN or NY ... it would get laughed at and not appreciated, unless someone could revive Bob Fosse to do all the dancing stuff a lot sexier and nuttier!

THERE HAS BEEN, for many years, a huge battle between a show and its presentation. YES tried it, with just lights ... and it worked for a few years. GENESIS had to use some costumes, but after a while they were interfering with the music and the continuation of the shows ... but this also stipulates that the design and concept was not thought out well, and the scene changes conflicted with the performance. FIX IT. 

But, in the early 70's the whole lighting thing, was losing its edge ... completely ... the media made sure that the shows at the Fillmore were dead and no one would ever see them again ... and it ended up giving way to what PF did and only a handful of bands even tried ... most just gave up on lights, and even today, 99 out of a 100 shows, that lighting is ridiculous ... that guy is on the flute and the light is on the guitar ... the lighting person doesn't even know the music.

It was no different then, when I was in theater doing technical stuff and lights specially. And I wanted to do a few bands, but they were afraid of too many lights and a "show" ... only to end up seeing Pink Floyd hammer their heads for their stupidity!

GENESIS gave up on their "show" and "visual" presentation, for whatever reason. I think PG wanted more, but what he did at first (I saw the first tour ... with Random Hold, I think!), was nothing ... just a dark outfit with a flashing light over his heart! WOW ... biggie, man ... biggie .... I never bothered with PG again, though I have the albums until Sledgehammer only.

 

As far as I am aware, the dressing up came about so that Gabriel had something to do during the long instrumental passages. It's true they weren't the most visually stimulating band before that (Hackett and Rutherford sat down most of the time) but I doubt audiences were falling asleep.

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..

Yeah.  And by no means was the costume thing something the band had always thought about.  It was Gabriel who did it of his own volition, surprising even the band, by first wearing a fox mask on stage and when it was received well, he took the idea forward and it became legend.  A lot of things, particularly great things, in music happen by accident and this is one such.  The polite official version of events is due to bad PA systems in the early days of Genesis, the audience had difficulty understanding Gabriel's lyrics.  So costumes became a part of the event both to entertain them and also to drop clues about what the song was about.  So mosh's summation, while unflattering in tone, is not entirely off the mark.  I don't often agree with him but we should indeed not indiscriminately bash him; he does have a point this time. 

I do respect KC a lot for the very reason he described.  They made it very, very difficult for the audience to find a hook in the music.  Ergo, those who still came to the shows necessarily had to be committed to just listening to the music...without demanding that the singer strut the stage like an alpha male or wear weird outfits.  The audience had to put up with the main man in KC being a bespectacled, scowling countenance crouched over his guitar.  That is the purest form of connection between musician and audience and I say this as somebody who obviously loves the Gabriel Genesis albums whatever mosh may have to say about that. 

 

Indeed, Carpet Crawlers also springs to mind, one of their finest.

Anti-european?

Right. But everyone knows that is definitely not me!

2dogs wrote: ^ Oh he makes some interesting points though. It doesn’t hurt to be reminded we all live in our own bubbles and some are very different to the majority on here.

And that is my point. I did not, EVER, dislike GENESIS, and I have all the albums to the live one after PG. 

But the attitude that some folks take towards it, in my estimation, is not right ... there are a lot of bands all over Europe who did better music and stage shows, and they will never get any credit for it, because some folks think that other countries can not possibly do rock music and theater! 

For me, PG, is an unfinished product that really should have stayed with GENESIS and done one, maybe two more albums ... but I have a feeling that the other guys were getting tired of PG ... otherwise they would have shown up at each other's shows once or twice and given the fans a huge orgasm! My take is that PG missed out on the chance to take his material to a higher level, artistically, than he did as just a pop song writer and hit maker! I really think that is his situation today ... he wants to do some things, that he is sure will not be liked by many fans.

For me, he is no longer an "artist" ... he's just a pop song writer! That means ... cheap melodies for your ears and mine, right? 

^Yes my impression is that most people have approached the opening post much like you do after you finished stating that he is wrong and why over here. In a "I think I can understand what he means" kind of way. Not because anyone else really agrees that he is correct thinking that there is no melody in Genesis music. Sometimes when I hear some band or artist that obviously wants to make catchy, commercial pop songs, but lacks the songwriting skills to pull it off - I can think similar things like "sorry guys but where's the melody?" although I know it was just a weak pop-tune and not non-melodic sounds from a percussionist drum-circle.

yes indeed

Of curse Genesis are melodic. PG era Genesis has many melodies and per piece which is probably where there is the misundertstanding ;) Earlier Genesis are epic and have detailed multi sectional suites.

Much of the accompanying music (keyboards are very melodic, very intricate and sadly, not simple for a straightforward tune. It also had driving rhythms and searing guitar. But fear not melody fans - they learned how to bring this sort of thing to the masses... One tune at a time...

It's an interesting process; first learn how to play and write music, progress these ideas into highly involved pieces then undo the intricacy in suite form into things people can sing. .. Songs, that's it... This is where an album such a Trick comes into it's own. On the cusp of a crest... And any melody queries should be directed right to that heavenly album...

My thoughts are that the history of music shows, for the most part what FLOWS within it, that makes it attractive. Melody, is the easiest one to locate and work on/with .... thus, it becomes something like ... if you find something in it, it becomes "melodic" to you and how you see music ... other wise it is not. 

The hard part is soon buying into FAUST hitting a cement mixer and mixing other noises to it ... everything is melodic in one way or another?

If so, we're just spinning wheels and will never be able to agree on anything!

;)

twseel wrote: 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.

Exactly.   That's really what the OP was asking, and ultimately what this discussion is about .

Really strange bunch of comments ... think about this.

You get a DAW, and you have a series of notes you want to play ...

You play the notes .... missing something.

Sit on it for 3 days.

Add an organ or synthesizer wash behind it.

Sounds better ... too lonely.

Adds a flute as if it were on harmonies

Song takes shape

Goon walks in and hears this bunch of stuff and says ... cool ... I got some lyrics for that ... 

Lyrics added and singing arranged

...

play it back ... the original notes you created are not even the "melody" and it is what you started with that led to something.

It's weird to think of one bit as a "melody" when in reality it might not even be the actual melody that drives the piece of music, as is the case in a lot of classical music ... but rock music ... ohhhhh my gawd ... we have to repeat the same theme to remind the fans what the song is about!

And I still do not hear anyone humming Stairway to Heaven ... past the first sentence! Where's the melody? In Robert's voice! Not in the song!

Hmmm ... that would suggest that popular music is trying to get everyone back into the kindergarten, to learn something about nothing?

I guess it wouldn't say much about progressive music then .... but when people are looking for the top ten bits and pieces ... .... whatvaaaaaaaahhhhh, right?