Allan Gotthelf wrote:

>It's clear to me in a general way that melody is an attribute or
>aspect of a piece of music, integrated with other aspects, like harmony,
>but isolatable for purpose of discussion.  It's also clear that it a
>relationship between notes across time, rather than at the same time
>(which is harmony).
>
>It's also (pretty) clear that a single melody is a temporal sequence of
>notes that expresses a single musical thought or idea.  It's not however
>clear what exactly constitutes a single musical idea in that sense.

I am not an expert in things musical, but I do have a philosophical
stance toward music which helps me to appreciate it.  One of the things
that perplexes me as a listener and by doing philosophy, is the "begging
the question" when it comes to the definition of things.  The Harvard
Dictionary of Music defines "melody" "in the most general sense, [as] a
coherent succession of pitches" (p.481).  Apparently this definition isn't
wholly satisfactory, given the three pages of amplification that follow.
I think I prefer Mr.  Gotthelf's definition, but I can't accept the
"bail-out" clause "constitutes a single musical idea." Why can't this
part of the definition be no less convincing as the former part of it?
If musicians can't define "melody" except in terms of "bail outs," one
has to wonder why they have to grapple with so basic an art.

D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
[log in to unmask]