We think of melody as –the leading part of a composition-, as the single top line of an instrumental composition, or the vocal line of a vocal work, supported by the accompaniment and the bass. The lack of melody — the anti-romantic revolt is an important aspect of modernism of the 1920’s. In Stravinsky’s early atonal style we find the use of discrete motive formations that retain their identities (imagine different birds singing at once, their individual songs retain their identity) even as the whole creates its own sound picture. Stravinsky’s melodies do not lead as much as they seem to accumulate and then explode. This tendency continued in the work of Varese and Shapey. True, melody can be construed as a tonal technique, yet non tonal works can have melody as well.
A Radical approach — ditch the Melody.
Some of Stravinsky’s techniques can be found in the early work of George Antheil. His first violin sonata is an entry into modernism by a work which omits melody (as well as tonal harmony). Don’t I mean omits traditional or tonal melody? No I don’t. Melody the leading part of a composition is omitted, and why not? Does a composition need melody to be successful? Generally, melodies are made up from small motives. These motives can remain as a unifier if the melody is removed. Why then, are these new angular formations not a new kind of melody? I would argue that the lack of contrast between the countrapuntal parts interferes with the idea that it becomes a new kind of melody. The parts here are interchangeable. Perhaps they are not contrapuntal parts at all, but what we now call layers. The nature of melody is that it is not restricted to any register but it is always contrasted against the other parts. A simple rule is if it sounds like a melody it probably is. Shenker argues for a two-part main texture, a bass and a melody with the difference between them being that the bass leaps and the melody moves stepwise.
Instead of melody in Antheil’s “Sonata No. 1 for Violin” we find motor rhythm/ostinati, which are an expansion of the accompaniment figures. The ostinato (ground bass) is a contrapuntal variation technique however, it is not used in this manner by Antheil but is rather a discrete element that that keeps their identities and are combined and repeated “a la Stravinsky.” Of course motives can still operate as a unifying feature. By placing ostinoti with motor rhythms into all parts the melodic formations are denied.
Our notion of melody is from the Romantic era it is no wonder composers looked to older contrapuntal music to find a new way.
Without melody for delineation, parts can be defined by timbal differences, that is by the use of different instruments. A violin will sound different from a piano even if the materials are the same. This works well for instrumental music but always not always for the voice especially where textual understanding is important. Mr. Antheil’s opera “Transatlantic” shows these weaknesses. The use of motor rhythms in the vocal parts limits the possibility of expression, and the poor scansion (mostly syllabic or one to 2) not only makes the words impossible to understand but also sounds silly. (It makes one wonder why an opera company would commission a work from a composer with no vocal experience). Other composers such as Bach and Handel who use similar melodic formations for both vocal and instrument music do not have this problem. They carefully craft text settings incorporating melismas and the use of recitative for action.
Antheil’s text setting in “Translantic” make the story incomprehensible. Is this what he intended?
Find five recent composers who don’t use melody.
Compare L’histoire with Antheil’s Violin Sonata No. 1.