Folk melodies from a culture that the listener isn't familiar with often sound unpredictable.

So someone from that culture would find it predictable and therefore (for them) it would contain an "explicit" melody?

Wow—this seems like a very in-depth question without much in-depth investigation beforehand. Have you heard much Scandinavian folk music outside of this video? Also: although there are plenty of commonalities among the musics of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, there are also a lot of differences, and it's hard to make generalizations about an umbrella that includes hardingfele, jojk, sung traditions, Swedish fiddle tunes, harmonium, etc etc

These musics aren't all that far removed from the main Western tradition; it's not like engaging Gamelan or Carnatic music. But in general, when engaging a new music culture, it's a good idea to immerse yourself in its terms and tools at first, and then look for parallels to your familiar musics, than to immediately try to fit it to the modes of playing and listening that you're accustomed to expect.

Yes, I have listened to Scandinavian music outside of this video but clearly I am not an expert; hence my questions. I chose this specific video so that we would have a specific piece of music to refer to and not be overwhelmed by the various genres and sub-genres that exist.

Btw, I should say that most of my experience has come via artists that are creating "world beat"/fusion music rooted in folk tradition rather than a purely traditional approach. But this sampler album gives an idea of just how diverse even those roots can be.

@Andy Bonner OK, I listened to the first 2 minutes of Väsen - 30-års jiggen (12) and I can easily detect the skeleton of an explicit melody and can even roughly whistle it. But not the first minute of the video I provided. I find these genres much different.

The fist minute of the example given has a fairly obvious melody in a dance-instrumental style with ornamentation and variation. It's probably not something most people would want to sing. In fact the video seems to continue in that style.

I think it's not so clear what the real question is here. You seem motivated by your inability to follow the melody in your given example, but are you really asking- Is there a melody in the example given? (Yes) Is the melody repetitive and/or predictable? (Yes to repetitive, unclear to me on predictable) Is a melody required in this style of music? Should it be repetitive or predictable? Does it have to be?

Also, I don't think your understanding of melody as having to be memorable, predictable, or easy to understand is strictly true even in western music, although these attributes are certainly valued in popular music.

@PiedPiper I think we are making progress on this question. I agree, that the 1st minute is danceable. But so is a drum groove. Can a drum groove be a melody? I say no. When you say "not something most people would want to sing", I also agree. So are we concluding that the 1st minute contains no melody?

I don't know how you define 'melody'. I hear one in the first minute.

@Edward: I sharpened my question to hopefully clarify. The original was too broad. We seem to have differing views on the defintion of a melody. Can you state yours?

@PiedPiper. I gave my definition of melody above. Can you provide yours?

@PiedPiper Minute? I'm hearing one starting somewhere in the first two seconds.

@Divizna In the first minute means seconds 0 to 60.

@Steve I don't have a definition of melody, but I recognize one when I hear it.

@PiedPiper That's unfortunate. Crisp definitions are everything when it comes to communications. Otherwise you're speaking French and I'm speaking Spanish :) And isn't music chock full of definitions?

I still think the question can be sharpened some more. Are you using Scandinavian folk music "as an example" as you say, or is this a question specifically about Scandinavian folk music? And do you want an answer that explains the example given (like Laurence gave), or does a complete answer need to explain how Scandinavian folk music uses melody in general?

I think the wikipedia definition of melody is pretty accurate: "a linear succession of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity." Although I'd add that it needs to be prominent in the music to be the melody; otherwise, that definition also describes a typical bass line.

@Edward, Bear with me as I'm not sure I follow. Depending on the tradjectory of this question I could be interested in the broader question of how melody is or isn't used in SFM. But we seem to have our hands full with just restricting the discussion to the 1st 60 seconds of my example. So I'd like to remain restricted, if possible.

@Edward, Another increment of progress! Your/Wiki's definition is a good starting point for English-English communication. I think we both agree that more flesh is needed for those bones. Here is what my AI assistant tells me "The word melody refers to a “sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds”. It is a linear succession of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity ." But even this needs more "flesh". But I find the terms "sweet" and "agreeable" on the right track. If it can't be sung [easily] is it sweet? "Linear" is also an interesting descriptor.

. . . the reason I think "linear" is interesting is that Lawrence points out that it doesn't fit nicely into 4 or 8-bar phrases. So does that make it nonlinear? I'm thinking yes.

@Steve Interestingly enough, the term "sweet" (which makes things extremely subjective, no matter if statistically agreeable) has absolutely nothing to do with "melody". The "agreeable" part is also ambiguous: what would be an non agreeable succession?!? Linearity also has nothing to do with the bar number of phrases, it just means that it's intended as a variation of individual notes in times, as opposed to changes in relation to the vertical elements (harmony) of multiple note at the same time. That's another demonstration of how current generative AIs are completely unreliable sources.

@Steve That explanation mixes together the technical term of melody with the other extended meaning it often has: it's probably using the Merriam-Webster as primary source, with "melody" listed as often used in an aesthetically pleasing meaning; unfortunately it is not able to make a distinction between the two (a common failure of AIs, and a reason for which they should always be used with awareness), and that distinction is quite important; a melody is still a melody, even if it's awful.

@musicamante. Duly noted on the subjectivity of "sweet" and "agreeable". Sometimes subjectivity is all we have until it's replaced with something objective; which is where it appears we are. Of course Wiki and today's AI are not flawless. But I'm still not hearing YOUR definition of melody. And I'm thinking "linear" is somehow useful.

Here is another thought. Is it possible that to an American ear with an American understanding of melody can disagree with a Scandinavian ear who has a Scandinavian understanding of melody? If so, can anyone consult with a Scandinavian musician and get his/her definition of melody? Just a thought . . . Another thought is does no one have an American text book on music theory that can be consulted for a definition? What if the phrasing is not just nonlinear, but purely random? Would that still be a melody?

@Steve You're confusing the meaning of melody (which is agreed upon, no matter the country of origin) with the capability of someone to be able to recognize a melody, which is what I wrote in reply to your comment of the current answer. While it's true that some music pieces (or music from unknown cultures) could have a "less distinctive" melody, even to trained ears, that doesn't change the meaning "melody", which is a sequence in time of single (possibly different) notes, normally more recognizable from the other pitch-based components of a music piece (harmony) due to the fact that it's »

@Steve » normally the highest pitch, is played by the most prominent and distinctive instrument (by timbre or dynamic), usually has a more complex rhythm than the harmony and varies more frequently than it. The fact that an element of a music piece is memorable doesn't make it a melody, just like the ability to hum/whistle it, and vice versa. Consider the "aweem away" part from "The lion sleeps tonight", which can be easily sung and is probably the most memorable element of that song: is it melody? The "sweetness", memorability or ability to sing/whistle something are not primary elements of »

@Steve » what makes an element of a music piece the melody. Some melodies are just bad or too difficult/long to be memorized, or cannot be hummed/whistled due to their complexity. Or the listener may not be used to that music style and then cannot recognize them as such, which seems your case. I (as others did here) can clearly recognize melody on the video above since the first few seconds. It may not recognizable/memorable/singable by you, but that doesn't make it less of a melody.

@musicamante. I understand your definition is "a sequence in time of single (possibly different) notes, normally more recognizable from the other pitch-based components of a music piece (harmony) due to the fact that it's normally the highest pitch, is played by the most prominent and distinctive instrument (by timbre or dynamic), usually has a more complex rhythm than the harmony and varies more frequently than it. "That is quite broad. Do you have a reference source?

@Steve I summarized a commonly accepted description, if you want to know more, a good starting point can be the references/reading notes in the Wikipedia Melody article. There's no point in going further about this in comments, because that's out of the point and off topic: you were asking if there can be no melody in the example you gave, and many of us already told you that there is. If you want to know more about the concept and perception of melody, that's a related, interesting, but also different question, and you may consider asking that instead.

@Steve Note that other elements can make the melody, and the term is also used for more detailed aspects of the "melodic part" (with even more specific meanings). Still, before asking about all that, I suggest you do some research here, looking for existing posts that may even indirectly answer you. Eg.: In a song, what helps people distinguish between the main melody and the harmony?, recognizing the motif, Why is it easier to remember a melody as opposed to a simple interval?

If you can’t hear a melody in the example I’m really not sure what to tell you. The melody is about 80% of the audible sound. There’s two lines of notes, one is the melody and the other harmonizes. Then there’s a strummed instrument adding harmony and rhythm. The melody is front and center and quite loud. I’m wondering if there’s a problem with your speakers or maybe your ears.

@Todd Wilcox. I don't think there's anything wrong with my hearing or my speakers., this a definition thing. If I adopt musicmante's definition, almost any sequence of notes could be a melody; random or otherwise and that doesn't make sense in an established theory. The AI bot and Merriam-Webster makes much more sense to me. A friend just contacted me who has a copy of Music Theory Remixed by Hudson and he says they talk about "singability" in regards to melodies which agrees strongly with the dictionary and what the AI came up with. Something isn't adding up. But thanks anyway. We can end.

The fact that you don’t find the melody clearly audible and singable baffles me. Maybe here’s a definition of melody to consider: the loudest thing you hear in the first minute of the video is a melody. Whatever that sounds like to you, that’s what a melody sounds like to you. If it sounds very different from what you’re used to calling a melody then it might help to include an example in your question of something that is clearly a melody to you.

“when I expect it to resolve to a specific note or chord it often doesn’t and surprises me in a good way” - the part of the music that doesn’t resolve to the note you expect is the melody. The melody is the part of this music that creates the expectation in you and it’s also the part that is not meeting that expectation and surprising you. If you took the melody out of the example, you would have no expectation and no feeling of unfulfilled expectation. You are being surprised in a good way by the melody.

OK, I now know this is a definition thing. Clearly I can hear the loudest thing and for a short time I can actually hum along with it. But then the regularity breaks down and I'm out of sync as it proceeds on a note much different than what is expected from the prior phrase. To be sure, this does NOT happen to me with hundrends of songs across several genres. Lawrence alluded to why this is with his answer. I am hearing something that you say is the melody. But I'm still left without a crisp working definition that would prevent random noise from being classified as a melody. Make sense?

This might help. Take the Row, row, row your boat song. Which we all agree is a melody. Enter that sequence of notes into a computer program and then one by one randomly change those notes. At some point you will reach a point where you have destroyed the melody and produced garbled noise. How does your definition of melody identify the cross-over from melody to noise? Or could it be that you consider noise a melody?

@Steve the dictionary definition is for generic meaning in common language, and is ambiguous, imprecise and insufficient, other than misleading if you want a technical and accurate explanation. The AI response is irrelevant as unreliable. "Almost any sequence of notes could be a melody; random or otherwise": yes. As already said, the memorability, beauty, sing/whistle reproducibility are NOT required aspects of melody in the musically technical meaning. The fact that you consider "noise" a sequence of notes you are not able to reproduce/follow is just an opinion.

The scandinavian folk music I have played certainly has melody. It is usually violin or something similar and possibly accompanied by guitar or accordion or more traditional instruments. I think a lot of them were made for dancing, although I think more of living rooms or camping when I think of them :-)

This page has some sheet music folkwiki.se

I believe you are supposed to be ery free in expression

At least I experiment with dynamics and ornaments but I am just a normal person and not a professional

@Steve Nope. If all you do is substitute other notes into "Row, Row, Row Your Boat", you never reach a point where you have noise instead of a melody. Sure, the melody sucks to sing after a certain point, but it's got notes, they're all long and distinct enough, and even if you eventually turn it into a repeated 12-tone row, that is a melody too.

Compare Giratina's theme from Pokemon Platinum, which, except possibly for the "easily understandable" part, still fits your previously given definition of "A sequence of notes played in a specific order that is memorable and recognizable as a separate element in a song. These notes are also easily understandable by the listener such that quite often it can be hummed or whistled at some later time after listening to the piece."

Plenty of fans recognize remixes of Giratina's theme in later Pokemon games. Yes, I've been nuts enough to sing Giratina's theme multiple times.

@Dekkadeci This is absolutely bizzare to me. I hear you saying that any stream of notes whatsoever, no matter how unpleasant, discordant, unmusical, random, noisy, nonrepeatable, nonunderstandable and downright bad that in your mind it still is a melody. Who told you this? Would Beethoven, Mozart, Mark Knopfler and Paul McCartney agree? Would Music Schools around the world agree? Please, do tell, who told you this?

@Steve Yes, they would all agree when talking about the technical definition of melody. They may not like it, they may consider it "noise" (a "cacophony"), but that wouldn't change the fact that it is a melody, because as we all have been saying to you beauty and easiness of reproducibility/memorability, while relevant to some extent, are not the primary aspects to identify an element as "melody".

A smelly, three legged dog with one eye and without a tail is still a dog, even if you find it ugly. A painting of a deformed face with eyes popping out, nose and mouth out of place and unnatural skin color is still a portrait of a human face (take Picasso) even if you disdain that painting.

If you look for definitions of melody from reliable sources, you will always find out that the aspects you consider as primary are, in fact, optional, even if certainly important. Take the definition from Berklee Online: «The two basic elements of music that define melody are pitch and rhythm. Melody is a succession of pitches in rhythm.» The definition then goes on with another phrase, which must be read carefully:

«The melody is usually the most memorable aspect of a song, the one the listener remembers and is able to perform». The word usually is of utmost importance: it clearly says what it also and often can be, meaning - and therefore not excluding - that a melody can also not be the most memorable aspect, nor one the listener remembers or could be able to perform.

The Oxford English Dictionary has a more comprehensive list of possible meanings (and their usage) of the word "melody", including the commonly perceived one you are probably more akin to, but if we look for the specific, technical definition - which is the aspect that helps to answer the question "does SFM have melody", then the third is a good one:

So, while we all agree that the generic meaning of "melody" in a common and generic context almost always implies a melodic element that is also memorable/reproducible (and, possibly, pleasant), if the question is about "does piece XYZ have a melody" then we must resort to the technical definition.

Have you ever heard of dodecaphonic or twelve-tone music? It's a composition technique developed in early 20th century, "ensuring that all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are sounded as often as one another in a piece of music while preventing the emphasis of any one note". You can hear an example (one of the first establishing the basics of the technique) here: Arnold Schönberg - Fünf Klavierstücke, op. 23

That will probably sound difficult to listen and appreciate (considering your admission in not finding appealing some forms of jazz, which I suppose are probably part of the free jazz branch). That technique makes things a bit difficult in the context of understanding harmony and melody, but while there're points in which it may be hard to distinguish elements, in most of those pieces the melody can be clearly heard and read, at least to a trained ear (eg, the first 5-10 bars of the first piece)

There has been a lot of miscommunication on this thread because of a lack of common vocabulary. That's why definitions are so important. What appears to be apparent is there is a technical definition/context of melody (you/"Spanish") and there is a common definition (AI/dictionary/me/"French"). I stated my (common) definition in the original question. I'm still waiting for who told Dekkadeci that any random, chaotic, nonunderstandable set of notes can be an acceptable melody.

I've reported 2 extremely reliable sources, one from a well known dictionary (Oxford), the other from a world-renowned music institution (Berklee), both of which clearly imply what you still don't want accept. You are asking about "recognizing an element as melody", then you can not just settle for the common and generic definition; you must look for the technical one, if a dictionary provides one, then that is what you should refer to, otherwise you should go for specialized sources.

1. a "random" sequence of sounds can be a melody? Yes, because how the sequence is generated doesn't change what makes it a melody; 2. a chaotic sequence of notes can be a melody? Yes, because the "chaotic-ness" is almost always a subjective matter: you may find chaotic something that is a perfectly ordered sequence to somebody else (the 12-tone music above was and is considered as such by many - including high profile musicians);

OK, here is the Oxford def. "A series of single notes arranged in a musically expressive or distinctive sequence". But a series of random, nonunderstandable notes is NOT notes arranged in a musically expressive or distinctive sequence because they are random and nonunderstandable. Can you understand this? "Musical expressiveness" requires design, composition and arrangement. Randomness does not.

3. "nonunderstandable" is again a matter of individuality and personal capabilities, the fact that not anybody is able to "understand" a melody is completely irrelevant.

Yes, it is an individual thing and Beethoven, McCartney and thousands of others have figured that out. I agree, randomness CAN result in a melody, but only if you're lucky. I'm talking about design and composition not luck.

Please, @Steve, read more carefully: there is an "or". The fact that a sequence is randomly generated does not exclude that it can be distinctive. Also, I specifically wrote that you must look for the technical definition. The phrase you posted above is followed by the (Music) section, which is the way dictionaries use to add a further and more specific definition for terms that require a more appropriate explanation in certain fields.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with this, and you're still thinking in terms of aesthetic, which, AGAIN, is not a requirement. If I write a small program that should just print me out 16 random notes (and eventually rests), that would ALWAYS be a melody, because it adheres to the main principle of a sequence of notes and rests. How it's generated is completely irrelevant. How it's aesthetically pleasant is completely irrelevant. How it's reproducible/memorable is completely irrelevant.

My main point is that music theory and associated definitions go back a long time. Way before you, me, StackExchange or even Beethoven. It's a mature, tested, tried and improved over the centuries for the purpose of creating music for human consumption. I'm not aware of randomness or noise playing a large role in it's development, for good reason.

Let me go one step deeper and more fundamental. Music (in my mind) is designed, recorded and performed to serve a purpose; battle cries, patriotism, entertainment, therapy, money, message-sending, etc. It's designed (in my mind) for a the purpose of someone seeing value in it. Music is not noise.

You're going off topic. No one here is discussing the purpose/role of music, composition, its perception, significance or something else. Those are important and interesting aspects, but are not relevant for the point at hand: you are asking about a structural element which can be individualized in a larger structure, based on aspects that are impartial and empiric (even scientific) and are completely unrelated to aesthetic, history, culture and so on.

A square is still a square, no matter if you draw it by hand, if it's drawn by a machine, projected by a light, or casually created by a bunch of rocks on the beach: does it have 4 sides? does it have 4 right angles? Then it's a square. And the same goes for the technical term "melody". I really don't know how else we can explain this to you.

Yes, I am going off topic because the original topic involved SFM to which I learned that there was little agreement on "melody". Then to make sure we have ANY overlap in understanding I need to confirm that we have a common understanding of what MUSIC is. And if we fail there, the next level down is SOUND.

Maybe you perceived little agreement; after reading all the comments, I honestly cannot see any fundamental discrepancy (considering that the context of comments limits the ability to be more accurate), and, most importantly, almost anybody wrote that they were able to clearly recognize a melody, meaning that even if they may have slightly different "ideas" of melody, they all agree on the elements that allow them to recognize it, even without being completely aware of the process.

Maybe this can help. Should I qualify "melody" with, useful? Understandable? Consistent with the chord progression? Consistent with the tempo? Consistent with the genre? Etc. Melody for me is not some abstract technical spec that doesn't care whether it works in the song or not. Rather, melody is a physical, important aspect of the piece. And music worth anything, especially music that survives generations had to have followed non-random rules.

That's your opinion and, as said, that's completely fine. But that is not the specific definition. Interestingly enough, all your questions in your last message can be answered with no.

FWIW, I am becoming more "liberal" in my understanding of melody. In other words, I recognize that just because I can't detect a melody doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. That said, there has to be limits on what is and what is not a melody. If not, then why does the word exist? It exists to descibe something other than harmony and rhythm.

If the "melody" is inconsistent with everything else, how can that be a true melody??? Music is a language. All languages have rules. If you break enough of those rules your audiance will not understand you and you are transmitting garbage. Few people will tolerate garbage.

Imagine for a minute if Beethoven messed up big time on the melody of Fur Elise. Can you not imagine such a messup that we would not have that great classic today? Conversely, how many pieces of music have been lost to the dustbinof history because of such rules that wer broken? I say millions.

Again, you are still focusing on aesthetics and historical significance. The technical definition of melody (what is used to identify such an element) has absolutely nothing to do with that. You probably want some examples. Take this rendition from Stravinskij's Petrouchka, and skip to 33':35" youtube.com/watch?v=esD90diWZds Start by listening the first few seconds with the woodwind and horn players, then listen to what the solo trumpet plays.

Put another way. Who cares if it's theoretically possible to build a house out of air; yes air. It IS possible to chill it into a liquid and then continue chilling until it freezes. Now you have a solid building material. But here's the catch, nobody CARES because you can't phisically do it. It's not useful, consistent, viable and it doesn't work in practice.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a house.

The point "consistent with the genre" also makes absolutely sense: if I write a melody that is not "consistent" with the genre of the rest of the accompaniment, it doesn't make it less of a melody. On the contrary, I may choose to do exactly that because I want to create a specific effect on the listener, maybe for dramatic or comedy purposes. Then, you may not get the "sense" of what I did, still doesn't make that sequence of notes less of a melody because of your perception.

Ok, I listend for about 3 minutes. From zero to about 1 minute I hear phrases (no melody) then I begin to detect a melody. Around 2 minutes the melody becomes stronger and I can hum it. Overall, I like it. Whatever rules that are out there, I'd say they followed them.

What's important in that piece is exactly the section from 33'35" to the first few seconds of the trumpet, which is in a completely different tonality than the rest of the orchestra.

If you could build one house out of air and the owners moved in they would quickly find that (yes it may be a house as you point out) but it doesn't work. It quickly thaws and then boils. Like I say, millions of similar "houses" have been built out of "air" and all of them were failures and are lost to history. They didn't follow the rules.

According to your definition, that wouldn't be a melody. But it is, and you probably recognized it, as it's quite clear and prominent.

But those would still have been houses, and, in fact, you are calling them such. I really don't know what else to say, you're fixating on perception aspects that have absolutely nothing to do with the semantics of a technical definition, which is clear, has been given more than once to you, with reliable sources and examples. Your meaning of "melody" is your opinion, it's not a definition.

I think afer all this back and forth, we may be getting somewhere. Beauty, usefulness, cohesiveness, longevity, value, and melody to some degree is in the eyes and ears of the beholders. Humans, not definitions determine value. But some definitions are better than others. In the engineering world, someone coined "All models are wrong, but some are useful".

My wifey is calling, need to sign off. We're not fully reconciled but at least we each know a little about where the other is coming from.

Exactly. While many "models" are then common and shared, they are not unique and valid in all cases. But, in the engineering world, a technical definition of a primary structural element would still be shared and empirically recognizable by anybody having sufficient meanings to understand it.

Well, not so much, I'm not from Spain :-P

@Steve Replying to your "Music (in my mind) is designed, recorded and performed to serve a purpose; battle cries, patriotism, entertainment, therapy, money, message-sending, etc." - These were all composed for albums or video games; let's see how much you like these:

youtube.com/watch?v=BhRaL_m15p8 ("Fight Against Smithy, Who Likes Transforming", composed for Super Mario RPG)

youtube.com/watch?v=uAxEE9RvqNM (Instrumental version of "The Succession of Flesh", by the band Cognizance - I have tried to sing this before)

youtube.com/watch?v=_GSxPpJr9pc (The final boss theme for Drawcia Soul, composed for Kirby: Canvas Curse)

virt.bandcamp.com/track/boss-fit-to-be-crowned ("Fit to Be Crowned", composed for Shovel Knight: King of Cards, typical of Jake Kaufman's later boss theme style)

@Steve Replying to "I'm still waiting for who told Dekkadeci that any random, chaotic, nonunderstandable set of notes can be an acceptable melody." - Listen to enough video game music (especially boss themes) and try to sing along with them and you get used to it. These four pieces of music above aren't even the nastiest, most atonal, or most arrhythmic music I've ever heard. "The Succession of Flesh" gets worse with its vocals IMO, and the others I'd rate at less than 3 out of 5, though.