Melody vs. Harmony vs Rhythm?

[jaygNY]

All -

 

At a recent guitar lesson, we briefly discussed melody vs. harmony vs. rhythm. I thought I understood where the instructor was going with the discussion, but when I was later reviewing my notes, it was obvious to me that it didn't click.

 

From dictionary.com:

 

Melody:

A rhythmically organized sequence of single tones so related to one another as to make up a particular phrase or idea.

 

Harmony:

Simultaneous combination of notes in a chord.

 

Rhythm:

A group of instruments supplying the rhythm in a band.

 

I guess my confusion is all the overlap between members in a band. If we take a 5-person band (singer, lead guitarist, rhythm guitarist, bassist, and drummer), how do they each contribute to the above 3 concepts?

 

The band creates a song(Melody?). The rhythm and lead guitarist play together to form harmony? The singer and the rest of the band also play together to form a (possibly) different harmony. Drummer/Rhythm guitarist/Bassist all contribute to rhythm. Is all this correct?

[Blue Strat]

I'm kind of in the middle of working out that concept myself. I'm working with a piano and bass at church on music for the choir. I'm playing strictly rythym (chords), the bass is playing mainly rythym with a few rythymic variations thrown in, and the piano is playing harmony with my chords as well as the lead parts (the melody).

[Guitarzan]

after showing my keen sense of Rythym, i leave the show with Harmony and Melody!! yeah baby!!

[Funk Jazz]

take a classic jazz quartet:

 

sax - melody

piano - harmony (accompaniment or comping)

bass - harmony (sort of an outline of the harmony)

drums - rhythm

 

the piano and bass outline the chords of the song, the saxophone plays the melody (the head), while the drummer provides rhythmic pulse in time with piano and bass.

 

then, the players take turns improvising (melody created on the spot) over the chords (harmony) while they all retain the rhythmic feel or pulse.

 

it's a simplistic example, but i hope that helps.

[henryrobinett]

Hm. The song isn't necessarily the melody. Melody is a single line of successive notes that can often be sung but doesn't have to be. It can be played by a guitarist , sax player,, or even a bass player, though not normally.

 

Harmony can be played as chords by a guitarist, keyboard player, banjo player, ukelele or can be another melodic instrument like a second vocal singing a second supporting part or a second guitar melodic line, etc..

 

Rhythm is played by everybody. Melodies are structured in time, which is rhythm. Chords fall in time, which falls in time, which is rhythm. Drums of course play rhythm almost exclusively.

 

You can't consider each member of a band holding either melody, harmony or rhythm only, as each member should be responsible for all of them or at least a couple at a time. Or at least CAN be. Drums generally don't play melodies unless they sing or have tuned their drums specially. Bass players sometimes play a melodic bass line.

 

A song most definitely has all three, unless it's an unusual form, like a Chinese folk song, or chinese opera, gamelan, etc..

[jaygNY]

Bluestrat,

Im glad that Im not the only one confused by this concept! Since I had zero training in high-school and college, many of these concepts don't make a lot of sense to me. With that said, I think it's pretty important to be able to speak the language of other musicians fluently and correctly...

 

FunkJazz,

So - In your hypothetical Jazz band, if you were to add a singer, could the singer and the sax player add 2 completely different melodies to the same song? If so, would the two individual melodies form a harmony? What if the bassest/pianist added a solo? Would that be considered adding to melody?

[henryrobinett]

Melody also outlines the harmony. A song that has more than one chord has a harmonic structure. It does even if it has only one chord unless it's not western music. Harmony can have several voices that each are melodies. This is called contrapuntal.

[Blue Strat]

I'm still a little confused on what harmony is exactly. Melody can be defined as the lyrical parts of a song, yes? Rythym is keeping time, and I'd assume that harmony is the combination of the two?

 

Let's say we've got a rock band.

drums - rythym

bass - harmony

rythym guitar - harmony

lead guitar - melody

vocals - melody & harmony?

 

Is there anything wrong with my concept of harmony?

[musicalhair]

I have a problem with the three definitions above because the melody and harmony are defined as characteristics of sound-- well sort of anyway-- but rhythm gets defined as part of a band.

 

Melody might be defined as any meaningful succession of notes, that what the counterpoint book I'm goofing around with says.

 

Harmony is the blending of notes playing simultaneous or at least overlapping.

 

Rhythm is the relationship between sounds in time.

 

For example, D, G A, A, B are the first notes to How High the Moon, the first motif of the melody. You can sing the melody and that is the melody, under most circumstances it is something you can sing. You can't tap it out, that would be the rhythm of the melody, but to not sing the melody in the right rhythm would be singing a different melody.

 

Now, How High the Moon has chord changes. You can't sing chord changes, you can sing like decent voice leading through chord changes following one of the "voices" in them, but that is harmony. You can only sing part of a harmony, (I'm reminded of "what is the sound of one hand clapping") When someone comes in and plays a melody like on a flute or a single note line on guitar and you play something different than the exact notes he's playing then you're adding a harmony to it. If you play exactly the same thing then you're only doubling the melody.

 

Now, take those chord changes to How High The Moon and start playing them but don't play the melody. Someone might hear it and think you're playing "Ornithology" by Charlie Parker as he wrote that melody over the How High the Moon changes.

 

In one sense, the differences between those too tunes are melody and the similarities are harmony.

 

Now, play those chord changes but play them in a Bossa Nova style, that is rhythm, play them straight 8's, that is another rhythm-- same chords different pattern of sound over time.

[Chipotle]

Sounds like your teacher has read Aaron Copland's book. There's one more element, tonal color or texture.

 

Like Henry said, I wouldn't get too caught up in the drums=rhythm, vocals=melody rigidity to the concepts. Every instrument/voice can enrich all four elements. Melody is a sequence of single notes. Harmony is the way that two or more notes played at the same interact with each other. Rhythm is the pattern of notes in relation to time. Tonal color or texture is the combination of multiple sounds/instruments or the tone of single sounds.

 

Copland wrote about these elements of music as a way for the listener to understand and interpret music. In the sense that if one were trying to understand a piece of music, they could have a methodology to interpret what the composer was trying to convey. What's happening in the music? Is there a melody to grab hold of, is there a dense harmony, an interesting rhythm, is there a wonderful combination of sounds? It's essentially an objective set of criteria to try and analyze a piece of music. As a player, it may be useful to try and understand the concepts to ensure that you always analyze what you're doing to make sure that you're making a musically interesting statement.

 

The other thing I realize is that it's so hard to put some of these musical concepts into words. I think those that can do it are real heros, though. It sounds like you found a good teacher...now if only I could...

[fantasticsound]

I agree with several responses here, most notably Musicalhair.

 

The problem is your instructor's definition of rhythm. There should be no mention of the band in the basic definition, as it doesn't require a band to set a rhythm against that of the melody.

 

He's describing the typical use of certain band members to create a rhythmic bed for everything else to rest on. Once you go beyond non-keyboard percussion instruments (which do contribute to harmony, but for the sake of arguement and can be separated from other melodic and harmonic instruments for most music), other instruments use chords to create a bed for other elements to lay on. They contribute to harmony, but I believe the definition the instructor is looking for revolves around something other than playing chords in the same key as the melody.

 

If the melody is the most basic motif's of a song, then harmony, as your instructor seems to be defining it, involves complementary linear note choices that, when looked at individually with the accompanying melody note, usually create a partial chord that is recognizable.

 

A really bad analogy would be a school of fish or flock of birds led by a single fish/bird of a different color. That lead fish/bird would be your melody. It leads the song/school/flock and the others follow, not necessarily in the same exact spot as the lead, but in formation. I'm not comfortable relating rhythm under a melody and accompanying harmony with this analogy, for modern music.

 

In classical music, the entire orchestra contributes to either melody and/or harmony and creates the rhythm. That type of rhythm would fit the analogy as the timing of movement of the entire school/flock would be the rhythm. In modern music we superimpose a rhythm under the melodic/harmonic structure. Notice drums are rarely used to denote the basic rhythm in classical music, whereas they are almost indispensible in rock, jazz, etc.

 

This is why I find Funkjazz's description to be inadequate. I don't think you made it clear that this is just one of many examples, and not the example of definitions within a jazz band.

[Dave da Dude]

So in your "typical" folk song (what I'm very familiar with) that can have just one instrument (the acoustic guitar) and a vocal; does the guitar and vocal do all of the above?

 

Dave

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Dave th Dude:

So in your "typical" folk song (what I'm very familiar with) that can have just one instrument (the acoustic guitar) and a vocal; does the guitar and vocal do all of the above?

 

Dave

Yes!

 

Generally, the bulk of what constitutes rhythm is driven by the guitar. The bulk of the melody is represented by the vocal. If you play something other than strummed chords under the vocal melody (which do still constitute harmonic structure), then most probably that would be harmony to the vocal. (Rather than doubling the melody.. although that, too, is harmony. )

[Tele Kinesis]

A guitar by itself can provide all three at once.

Say you're playing chords and have some chord changes. The fact that you are playing all those chords to somewhat of a beat during a time period provides rhythm. It also supplies the harmonic structure, because of the relationship of the notes that make up the chords. If you are fingerpicking, it's relatively easy to play single note lines related to the harmonic structure of the chords. Just use a free finger or two to bop around in, say, a single note at a time, with each note somehow related to the chord changes. There's the melody.

Rhythm moves the song forward 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4

Harmony connects several notes at or near the same time to provide a structure for---

Melody. this is the thing that usually first catches your ear, and makes a tune hummable.

All of these are connected.

Unless you play rap. Then you can just throw out the melodic and harmonic ideas altogether, and just use rhythm. (Well, they may throw a second bass note in there somewhere, just to keep it from getting static).

 

Tele

[A String]

Let me take a half assed stab at this...

 

Rhythm -

The skeleton of the song. That driving, chord, drum etc., structure playing in the back ground. (Doesn't have to be chords or drums).

 

Melody-

The part of the song most of us whistle or hum. This can be a vocal line or a guitar line. You could also have a bass guitar playing it, or even a drum solo following a melody line. The important thing is, the melody is a pleasing structure that is added to, and follows the musical structure of, the rhythm.

 

Harmony-

Harmony is a complimentary structure that mimics the melody in a scale oriented fashion. That is to say, it can be as simple as following the melody exactly with a third, or as complex as being a secondary melody line (As long as it is in a complimentary key e.g. a third or fifth etc.)

 

Wow, those are tough ones to explain.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Chipotle:

Like Henry said, I wouldn't get too caught up in the drums=rhythm, vocals=melody rigidity to the concepts. Every instrument/voice can enrich all four elements.

And like musicalhair said, the same melody notes with a different rhythm make a new melody. The same chords with a different melody create a new harmony.

 

Take the star spangled banner for example. It's often heard before a sporting eventperformed by one person singing alone. We have all heard wonderful renditions, where your mind can hear the chords and rythm just from the singers performance. And we have also heard the tune butchered where we can't tell what the hell is going on or if its even music.

 

Try this: Mary had a little lamb. The rythmic structure of the melody is: long, short, short, medium, short, short, long. Jumble up the length of the notes, and you have the same notes, but no one is hearing nursery ryhmes anymore.

 

If anyone is interested I have the mother of all reharmonization exercises that I did to a civil war folk song once upon a time. I did three different takes: Straight, jazz reharm, and a different chord for each note of the melody. If anyone is interested, I'll dig into the archive and convert it to some mp3's I can post.

[Funk Jazz]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

This is why I find Funkjazz's description to be inadequate. I don't think you made it clear that this is just one of many examples, and not the example of definitions within a jazz band.

that's also why i added the simplicity disclaimer, as jaygNY was looking for basic conceptual help.

 

sometimes i see people ask a simple innocent question and get a doctoral thesis for an answer.

 

just doing my part to keep it simple.

[Chipotle]

Originally posted by billster:

Originally posted by Chipotle:

Like Henry said, I wouldn't get too caught up in the drums=rhythm, vocals=melody rigidity to the concepts. Every instrument/voice can enrich all four elements.

And like musicalhair said, the same melody notes with a different rhythm make a new melody. The same chords with a different melody create a new harmony.

No, if the sequence of notes is the same, you've got the same melody with a different rhythm. If the chords are the same but the melody is different, you've got new harmonies, but you would probably say the two are harmonically similar due to the same chords beneath them.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Chipotle:

Originally posted by billster:

Originally posted by Chipotle:

Like Henry said, I wouldn't get too caught up in the drums=rhythm, vocals=melody rigidity to the concepts. Every instrument/voice can enrich all four elements.

And like musicalhair said, the same melody notes with a different rhythm make a new melody. The same chords with a different melody create a new harmony.

No, if the sequence of notes is the same, you've got the same melody with a different rhythm.

What I mean is that that the rhythm is an integral part of a melody. Listen, take the melody notes of "Take Five" and just play them as alternating quarter and eigth notes -- it doesn't sound like Take Five anymore.

 

If the chords are the same but the melody is different, you've got new harmonies, but you would probably say the two are harmonically similar due to the same chords beneath them.

I disagree - harmony is a function of the melody interacting with the chord. Does a D in melody over a C major chord give you the same feeling as an E in the melody? Maybe two different melodies over the same chords will sound related because of the presence of the same chords, but you can really go to left field in terms of melody/chord relationships and have quite a different emotional impact.

[Werewolf by Night]

I had skipped over this thread for a while now, because I mistakenly thought it was one of those "melody is more important than rhythm" sort of things, y'know, the "vs."-bit threw me off!

 

I think that things can be somewhat boiled down to considering the relationship of one instrument/player/part to another.

 

Any given part can be found to have melodic and rhythmic qualities all by itself; if polyphonic- voicing more than one note at a time- it also has harmonic qualities, all by itself. If monophonic- one note at a time- but also particularly rich and dense in timbre, and thus rich in harmonic overtones, a sense of harmonic content can be found, too.

 

There really is no such thing as a musical example that is only purely one of these, and has absolutely no qualities of the other two.

 

When you think about it, it approaches the failing attempts to define the concept of the Holy Trinity of Christian theology...

 

Now... add another musical instrument/player/part... This additional part has rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic qualities all by itself, just as the first part does; but adding the two together creates something else entirely. The rhythmic and harmonic relationship between the two creates a whole that is greater than the sum of the music's- the "song's"- parts.

[musicalhair]

And like musicalhair said, the same melody notes with a different rhythm make a new melody. The same chords with a different melody create a new harmony.

No, if the sequence of notes is the same, you've got the same melody with a different rhythm.

Actually, the rhythmic values given to each note is an integral part of the melody. Now if you have a melody that is mostly straight 8's and you swing them, that is the same melody but if you play G D A A B (How High the Moon's melody's first motif) as starting on the fourth beat where G and D are 8th notes, the two A's as quarter notes and the B as a half note then you are out of How High The Moon.

 

A melody is more than just the sequence of notes, the sequence of notes might be called the cell or something in serialism and maybe that idea can be used here. From a single sequence of notes more than one melody can be made, some may sound obviously deriviative, some wouldn't count because they're too close (like the swung 8ths verse straight) and to take an entire melody (like How Hight The Moon) and rearrange the rhythmic values would just be plain unfair and maybe illegal. But the concept of melody must include the rhythm of the notes. Where that line gets drawn between variations on old melody and new melody is: well, I'm not sure, but it is somewhere.

[NMcGuitar]

I'm still giving thought to a constructive answer to this thread. It really is a lot more difficult than I would have thought.

 

In the meantime, I wanted to weigh in on the thoughts regarding the same sequence of notes with a different rhythm making a new melody. I agree completely.

 

Try this: Play (sing, hum, whatever) the first 7 notes (the first phrase) of the old hymn "Rock of Ages". Now, play the first phrase of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer". They are the exact same notes, just with a different rhythm.

[Werewolf by Night]

Originally posted by NMcGuitar:

"Try this: Play (sing, hum, whatever) the first 7 notes (the first phrase) of the old hymn "Rock of Ages". Now, play the first phrase of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer". They are the exact same notes, just with a different rhythm."

Excellent example, Neil!

 

I recall laughing my @$$ off when a hardcore Deadhead dude that I was aquainted with was absolutely freakin' out over a live 'Dead medley of "Hey, Mr. Fantasy" and "Hey, Jude" (he may have had a little, uh, help in the freakin' out department, chemically speakin'...). He kept blurting out, "It's Mr. Fantasy... it's Hey Jude... they're GOD, MAAAN!!" I tried to show him on a guitar, "Naaa... they're THE SAME CHORDS!!"

 

Naa... naa... naa... na, na-naa-naaa...

[miroslav]

Originally posted by NMcGuitar:

I wanted to weigh in on the thoughts regarding the same sequence of notes with a different rhythm making a new melody. I agree completely.

 

Try this: Play (sing, hum, whatever) the first 7 notes (the first phrase) of the old hymn "Rock of Ages". Now, play the first phrase of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer". They are the exact same notes, just with a different rhythm.

Yes...melody is not just about notes.

 

As I see it.

 

a melody requires rhythm to exist as a melody

 

but rhythm doesnt necessarily require a melody to exist as rhythm

 

and harmony can exist without either melody or rhythmjust hit one chord and you have harmonybut no melody or rhythm.

[Chipotle]

No, rhythm is an integral part of music, however it is not an integral part of melody. We are, well at least I am , trying to look at music by dividing it up into four basic elements; rhythm, melody, harmony, and tonal color. It's like atomic theory; the large mass of music is made up of various smaller pieces. Obviously, you can't play anything without at least three elements. They're all integral to each other. You can't play a note without it having some kind of rhythmic value. You can't play a note unless you have something to generate the sound which has a tonal color to its sound. You can't make harmony without two voices which each will have melodic, textural, and rhythmic components to them.

 

If you think of notated music, melody is the space between the notes vertically on the staff. You can change those notes to wholes, halfs, quarters, play it in double time, add ritards, tempo changes, but you have not altered the melody. Dramatic changes in the rhythm of the notes may make each sequence of notes unrecognizable from the other, but the melody is the same. Just because rhythm changes make it so they don't sound the same doesn't mean you've changed the melody. Play that sequence of notes an octave higher and it's still the same melody. Play it against two different chords, it's still the same melody. Play every note in the sequence a half step higher and it's still the same melody.

 

You can take that melodic idea and develop it with changes in rhythm. You can play it softly on the piano or on a distorted guitar to change the tonal color. You can compliment the melody with a bass line to get some harmony, but the melody hasn't changed.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Chipotle:

No, rhythm is an integral part of music, however it is not an integral part of melody. We are, well at least I am , trying to look at music by dividing it up into four basic elements; rhythm, melody, harmony, and tonal color.

I'm sorry. This is very rude because I'm in a great hurry and haven't even read the rest of this post. I can't disagree with this statement more. Rhythm is definitely and integral part of melody.

 

Later!!!!! I'/llbe back and read the rest of your post!

[Werewolf by Night]

But a melody without a rhythmic sequence of some sort... is a chord.

 

Hit a chord... just one... and it still has a rhythmic value.

 

And any rhythm, expressed out loud, will have some pitch and timbre to its beats, no matter how percussive.

 

Any given example of a tibre will contain some harmonic overtone components, thus having harmony, melody, and rhythm within itself.

 

Note that none of these are really constricted by any given system of dividing up the octave- "wrong" notes really only imply the "wrong" system is referenced to.

 

None of these exists in a pure, solitary state on its own.

 

It is the relationship of various elements of any given piece of music as percieved by the mind that determines its musical qualities.

 

Granted, I'm going out on a philosophical interprative limb here, but there is some fundametal truth underlying it all.

 

"Music" does not, cannot exist in a vacuum. "Music" occurs in the mind; either the mind of the maker, or the mind of the listener, or one that is both. If you hear random wind, traffic, and animal sounds, and even have your own heartbeat underneath it all, you may experience it all together as "music".

 

Blah blah blah... I'll shut up now! Sorry!

[Chipotle]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Originally posted by Chipotle:

No, rhythm is an integral part of music, however it is not an integral part of melody. We are, well at least I am , trying to look at music by dividing it up into four basic elements; rhythm, melody, harmony, and tonal color.

I'm sorry. This is very rude because I'm in a great hurry and haven't even read the rest of this post. I can't disagree with this statement more. Rhythm is definitely and integral part of melody.

 

Later!!!!! I'/llbe back and read the rest of your post!

Ahh, you can disagree if you like. The fact that I know that I'm right is enough for me.

 

Seriously, it's a hang up in the nomenclature. In popular usage, melody includes its related rhythmic content. For example, If you're a sax player and someone says, "Play the melody from take five." You're going to give him the rhythm, too probably. If he just said, "Play Take Five" you'd probably play it exactly the same way.

 

If he said, "Play the melody, but only use quarter notes." Could it be done? If he said "Play the rhythm from Take Five," could you clap the notes in proper time without the melody?

 

Essentially, if you were to humor me and accept that music can be divided into the four elements I described for the purpose of analyzation, as well as abandon your current definition of melody as being a sequence of notes in time, can you not separate the duration of the notes in time as "rhythm," and the pitch of the notes as "melody?"

 

That's really the essence of the distinction I am trying to convey.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Chipotle:

No, rhythm is an integral part of music, however it is not an integral part of melody.

OK...don't take my word for it...

 

...here it is verbatim from Webster's:

 

melody

 

Mus. A rhythmic sequence of single tones organized so as to make up a particular musical phrase or idea.

ANY familiar melody that you can think of...that you can hum...is unique and identifiable as such...because of its individual notes...AND...the rhythm associated with those notes.

 

As you can see

both elements (notes/tones & rhythm) are needed for a melody to exist...and that is why you CAN assemble a series of identical notes...with two different rhythms...and come up with unique melodies...

 

...otherwise...if melody was JUST about notes...we have would run out of unique melodies a long time ago!!!

[musicalhair]

Hey Chipoltle, I think I know what your getting at, but lets make a distinction between a series of notes and a melody. Notes don't have to have a specific rhythm, when we look at-- I think their called-- harmonic reductions where they show harmonically what is going on, the rhythm gets dumbed down and the musical context is lost while the focus shifts to the harmony. With respect to melody to simplify it down to it's "frequency" component without the rhythm would be like to show the scale used or the note sequence used but that stops being the melody and becomes note choice, or interval sequence or something.

 

I think what you're saying is valid with respect to the characteristics of sound or music but, melody is always defined with the rhythm as being part of it, I really think your more talking about note choice.

 

So based on an example given above, "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" and "Rock of Ages" (not the Def Leppard tune, which I spent too much time trying to see the similarities to Rudolph) don't have the same melody or don't start with the same melody or melodic motif, but do (apparently, I don't know Rock of Ages all that well to confirm that the above example is on the money, but ASSuME-ing it is...) have the same melodic sequence or cell or Melodic Sequins.