Rank by: melody, groove, lyrics

I was reading an article about Buddy Holly recently, and the author stated that songs are made from "melody, groove, and lyrics." The point of the article was that Holly was an early champion of melody in the USA, and that his early death was partly responsible for our taste in popular music here in America, which tends toward groove over melody.

While I'm not sure if any of that is true (well, I do think it's true that melody is historically in short supply on the USA charts compared to the UK), I think it's interesting to think of "melody, groove, lyrics" as the elements of popular music.

So I will try ranking some of my favorite artists by those 3 attributes. I will also throw in "cachet." Won't you join me? Here are those attributes defined, as I understand them:

Melody: this is the main melodic line, the "written" song, as carried by the lead instrument (usually vocals), and indicted by chord changes. When ranking melody, I sometimes wonder "would this song work if performed solo by a singer on guitar or piano?"

Groove: to me, the groove is the performance of the song, the interplay among the rhythm section and the leads, the tempo, the guitar tone, the mix... basically everything that brings the written "song" to life. This would also include the arrangement for studio recordings that go beyond a classic four piece. To me, the difference between melody and groove can be indistinct... a groove can certainly contain melodic elements. But one of the keys to groove is that it is ineffable: unlike the melody, which can be whistled or written down, you've got to hear the *whole* groove to get it.

Lyrics: disclosure... I don't know or care what 90% of the songs that I listen to are "about." But I know the lyrics! Even when they don't provide meaning, lyrics provide mood and context (they also very critically give something for us non-musical fans to do, badly, while we are listening!) Also... the chatter of language, the vowels and consonants and syntax, can provide something to the "sound" of a recording that has little to do with either rhythm or melody.

Cachet: this would be everything else that gives a group their identity... How do they dress? Right place, right time? Cover art? Dominant popularity? Tantalizing obscurity? Nostalgia effect? Starman makeup?

Edit: when ranking, feel free to consider any "amount" of the artist's output that you define... the whole studio discography, just the singles, how they sounded live, or whatever best defines the act for you. Oh and 0-10!

 

Here we go with my favorite act, Led Zeppelin. I'm ranking them by their whole studio discography.

Melody: 7/10
Groove: 10/10
Lyrics: 6/10
Cachet: 10/10

While I think that Zep are underrated as songwriters, groove is why you're spinning the records. And I don't think it's a coincidence that you don't hear as many Page/Plant covers as Lennon/McCartney. Still, songs like Going to California and That's the Way reveal great songwriting and good lyrics. And does any band have more cachet?

 

Laura gets a 10 on all counts.

 

Steely Dan

M. 9
G 10
L 11+
C 10

 

Steely Dan post 2000

M 7
G 10
L 9
C 9

 

Maybe a strange entry for some, but Neil Diamond did really well with melody, groove, and lyrics. Some people might argue the lyrics, but the way they suit the melodies he wrote paint a perfect feel for the subject of the song. I'd probably give him only a 4 or 5 on cachet, but when the songs really work what does that matter?

 

Yes, I also feel this way about Dan. If you consider thier pre breakup run of albums, they have a good claim to "best studio discography ever."

 

For the songs of his that I know, I agree. His best tunes often work a great groove. Cracklin Rosie is one of my all time favorite songs. For me, I think he suffers less from cachet and more from a patchy discography. I think Touching Me, Touching You is a pretty great record, tho. It's the only one I know well, other than the early hits (which are super ace).

 

Jimmy Webb

Galveston
Where's The Playground, Susie?
Wichita Lineman
The Moon's A Harsh Mistress
The Highwayman
Christiaan No
Piano
All My Love's Laughter
Just This One Time
.....

Certainly I would say when he hits his stride, he's incomparable.

M 10
G 10
L 10
C 10

 

Speaking of Buddy Holly... I only know his 2-CD "Collection," but it's got a bunch of material...

Melody: 7
Groove: 8
Lyrics: 7
Cachet: 10

Although he's know for songwriting, I can't go too high on the melody score because some of his lesser-known songs have a standard rockabilly melody, and he also suffered from "pre Beatles syndrome"... in other words he had amazing singles (of I was just grading the 20 or so best songs, melody would be a 10!) but the album tracks were sometimes afterthoughts. Still compared to the other rockers from his era, his was obviously a songcraft pioneer! (And underrated for groove... Even his vocals are groovy.) Orbison gives him a run for his money, tho!!!

 

My goodness... I didn't know he wrote all those. That's a bunch of killers.

 

The Cure (79-92)

Melody: 6
Groove: 8
Lyrics: 6
Cachet: 8

The Cure are one of my favorites but I'm trying to be objective with these rankings, and I'm also considering the whole studio discography from 79-92. I think that Robert's skills as a melodist and lyricist are overrated a bit by fans, but The Cure's ability to work a groove is underrated by everyone. Their best material, which are IMO 17 Seconds, Faith, and Pornography, are almost nothing but groove and style (I mean, just try to cover "Siamese Twins" on acoustic guitar), but they are always compelling, propulsive listens. In fact, I think that The Cure (along with maybe Bauhaus, who were essentially an experimental jazz combo fronted by a beat poet) brought more of a soulful groove to "dark" postpunk than any of their peers, and that includes rhythm-section-turned-band New Order (sure they're rhythmic, but are they always groovy?).

On the other hand, Smith's best singles are models of melody... Inbetween Days, Just Like Heaven, and even bsides like 2 Late are absolutely infested with earworms. It would be easy to compile 15 Cure songs from that period which would be 10/10 for melody.

 

Buddy Holly was an early champion of melody? Surely, we are only talking about rock and roll music here.

If not, a ridiculous assertion.

Playing along:

Beatles:

M 10
G 10
L 8
C 10

 

It's ridiculous even if we're just talking about rock.

Also, re the first post in this thread, melody isn't indicated by chord changes. Typically, chord changes are correlated to melodies in fairly predictable ways, and in some opinions, including my own, whatever melody notes we're dealing with, they should be considered when naming the chords if we're doing analysis, but the chords do not indicate the melody.

At any rate, I'd peg the basic elements as (just listed in alphabetical order):
Counterpoint
Dynamics
Envelope
Harmony
Melody
Phrasing
Pitch
Pitch-set or "key"
Rhythm
Rhythmic flow (which is where the "groove" aspect enters the picture)
Song and sub-part form/structure
Tempo
Texture
Timbre
Time signature

Some of those are composed of others. For example, melodies are a series of single pitches, in phrases, present in a way that they're texturally emphasized.

I suppose we could include lyrics, too, although I don't think of lyrics as a musical element per se.

 

There should probably be terms for "pitch flow" and something like pitch complexity relative to on-the-button well-tempered pitch content, too (including, and maybe primarily, for more complex harmonic content), but "pitch flow," for which I'm thinking about nuanced pitch fluctuations --little glissandi, purposefully slightly flat or sharp variations, and so on, is something I'd have to explain anyway, since it's nothing like a standard term, and I don't even have a non-standard term yet for the second idea. Basically, these are like the pitch-content equivalent to "groove" and/ or "rhythmic flow."

 

More categories! You read my mind!

Led Zeppelin again:

Counterpoint: 9
Dynamics: 10
Envelope: 6
Harmony: 2
Melody: 7
Phrasing: 8
Pitch: 10
Pitch-set or "key": 10
Rhythm: 10
Rhythmic flow: 10
Song and sub-part form/structure: 5
Tempo: 8
Texture: 7
Timbre: 8
Time signature: 10

 

Yeah the author was saying that Holly was one of the first of the 50s rockers to put an emphasis on melody and songcraft... Not one of the first musicians ever to do so.

But I don't know if that's true or not... Even though Elvis didn't write much material, a lot of the material that he chose was pretty melodic. And then you've got Orbison who also wrote his own songs. His best-known (to me anyway) material is IMO even more melodic than Holly (but also not very rocking).

 

Billy Joel (77-82)

Melody: 9
Groove: 4
Lyrics: 8
Cachet: 7

For me, Joel is all about melody and lyrics. This means that sometimes his attempts to groove are a little dorky and unconvincing ("It's Still Rock n Roll to Me," "You May Be Right") but that his tunes and lyrics are indeniable. A lot of his songs feel to me like the token "rock song" in a Broadway production.

 

True about Roy, but he didn't hit his stride until after Buddy.

 

I just looked that up a minute ago and you're right... Looks like all of his big tunes were post 60. I had always thought it was a little earlier.

 

The comment doesn't really make any sense. All popular music, with the recent exception of hip-hop (but even then I'm oversimplifying it as an exception) has featured melody, and melody, by virtue of being melody, is emphasized. Trying to quantify something as more or less melodic is pretty nonsensical.

And all music with lyrics is concerned with songcraft.

It's fine if someone likes Buddy Holly a lot more than most other artists of his era. But to try to claim that he was doing anything significantly unusual theoretically is absurd.

 

The Ramones

Melody: 0
Groove: 7
Lyrics: 4
Cachet: 10


Why their Cachet is what it is is far beyond me.

.

 

Yes, you are right... Every melody is melodic, of course, and all songs have a melody. I guess for me, when I hear a basic rockabilly melody from someone like Carl Perkins (who I also like very much) and then I hear Holly, it sounds different to me, although I am at a loss to explain why.

 

I agree that their cachet is way too high for what they are, but I would give them a 6 or 7 for melody, at least for the 10-15 songs that I know. I don't know their albums very well tho...

 

i saw a guy doing a break down of taylor swift's shake it off ... for interest i watched it. essentially what it boiled down to, in his description, was that the melody was brilliant and very catchy. to me the problem was when the melody was separated ... it was a nursery rhyme ....