Relationship Between Melody And Harmony

I would say until... always! Harmony is there, always; even if it's not written/played, there can be harmony without melody, but not the other way around.

I also add that harmony is at the service of melody, it supports it, completes it and enriches it ...

in exchange, melody gives to harmony that variety/fantasy/richness etc. that it would not have on its own.

rstrauss wrote:

I will also add that harmony is at the service of melody; it supports, completes, and enriches it ...

in exchange, the melody gives to the harmony that variety/fantasy/richness etc. that it would not have on its own.

How would you fit the reharmonization of a melody into this discussion? (I was thinking about jazz standards, but not only those).

It is a relationship in constant reconsideration.

It is true, as others have written, that there is a close link between the two components to such an extent that a melody, in a classical tonal system, already possesses certain basic harmonic foundations intrinsically, and this would argue in favor of a systematic innateness of such a relationship.

But it is also true that the same line allows for many harmonic solutions, for which this "necessity" is no longer so obvious (parenthetically: the most beautiful proof, in my opinion, of the IV degree of composition is precisely the lied, in which one can demonstrate one's harmonic abilities. To this end, I believe—and not only I—that beyond the actual harmonization, I leave full freedom while remaining within the style and atmosphere, in the introduction, in the eventual interlude, and in the coda... often truly excellent icons emerge that further enrich the lied).

I believe that, where there are no clear signals of modulation in the melody and therefore of mutation of the original functions, there exist levels of progressive complexity (starting from the functional pillars and reaching secondary chords if not beyond) in which free harmonic choices can give different meanings to the melody.

Zedef wrote:

It is a relationship in constant reconsideration.

It is true, as others have written, that there is a close bond between the two components to such an extent that a melody, in a classical tonal system, already intrinsically possesses some basic harmonic foundations, and this would argue in favor of a systematic innateness of such a relationship.

But it is also true that the same line allows for many harmonic solutions, for which this "necessity" is no longer so obvious (parenthetically: the most beautiful proof, in my opinion, of the IV stage of composition is precisely the lied, in which one can demonstrate one's harmonic abilities. To this end, I—but not only I believe—besides the actual harmonization, allow full freedom while remaining within the style and atmosphere, in the introduction, in the eventual interlude, and in the coda... often truly excellent icons emerge that further enrich the lied).

I believe that, where there are no clear signals of modulation in the melody and therefore of mutation of the original functions, there exist levels of progressive complexity (starting from the functional pillars and reaching secondary chords if not beyond) in which free harmonic choices can give different meanings to the melody.

My reasoning got all messed up :D

Zazza wrote:

How would you work the reharmonization of a melody into the conversation? (I was thinking about jazz standards, but not only those).

The relationship is always the same ... only the values in the field change.

Ok, thanks for the initial input.

A random question, but any Gregorian melody? What close link would it have with harmony? It might seem trivial, but why should thinking about a melody necessarily make me think about harmony?

Gennarino wrote:

A random question, but any Gregorian melody? What close link would it have with harmony? It might seem trivial, but why, when thinking of a melody, should I necessarily think of harmony?

We are born and die surrounded by tonal harmony. It may seem trivial, but it is so. Therefore, we must make an effort not to think, for example, of a Gregorian Kyrie in a tonal context. And this effort is aggravated by the fact that that writing system, namely Gregorian chant, preludes precisely to the advent of the tonal system, and thus to the birth of harmony; so much so that the finalis and repercussio of that hypothetical Kyrie will be the tonic and dominant of a future four-voice Kyrie written some centuries later; there is therefore an evolution towards harmony that starts from there and draws inspiration. If you had asked, for instance, "but any dodecaphonic series?" I would honestly have been more at a loss, because that type of writing was born precisely with the purpose of overcoming the typical dialectic of the tonal system. Harmonizing the series that forms the basis of Schönberg's Piano Concerto op. 42 is probably an impossible feat, whereas "harmonizing" the aforementioned Kyrie—setting aside the historical irrelevance of such an operation—would not present much difficulty; in fact: that music moves in very narrow realms, and the cornerstones of that language are far from the complexity reached even by a single Bach prelude, so it would not be difficult to identify an accompaniment to put under it; so much so that, unfortunately, one of the tests in the organ course (complementary? I don't remember...) is or was precisely the extemporaneous harmonization of a Gregorian melody, something aberrant from a philological point of view, but not so complicated, while maintaining the still decidedly modal character of that music. All this to say that "not thinking about harmony" when faced with any melodic line is, in my opinion, an operation that must be done in a rational and premeditated manner, countering the natural tendency to subject anything that even remotely resembles a "melody" to a harmonic accompaniment, simple or otherwise.

Within the scope of tonal harmony, melody is queen and moves the entire harmonic-melodic framework. But if we proceed towards other musical-harmonic systems, the importance of melody is limited by the increasing prevalence of harmony to which the melody is subjected. I am speaking of modal harmonic systems and intervallic ones.

In this regard, I propose for your listening a "song" composed and performed by me where the melody is barely present as a predisposing trace toward harmony; rather, it all starts from the harmony and the melody is a consequence of it, or rather, it is one with it. Clearly, we are not within the scope of a tonal composition, but purely modal and at times chromatic-intervallic.

http://www.divshare.com/download/17808067-7f4