Not much change, relatively, in the development of melody since the Early 1800s

[bob_32_116]

But... What is melodic?

What's the point of anyone responding to that question, when PeterG is just going to say "Oh but I don't care for any of that stuff, it's boring", or "I have no emotional or cultural connection with it"?

This thread is no longer about the development of musical history, it's become simply a discussion about what the OP likes and what he doesn't. Nothing wrong with discussing that, as long as he realises that's what he is doing.

[PeterG]

Bob, I wrote this from my own personal listening experience, which is that Beethoven connects to modern melodies to my ear, whereas earlier composers don't connect for me, so in that context what musical historians say about Bach is irrelevant for me and for my musical experience.

But Beethoven is just my example, my own personal start point for connecitng old and modern music, for others it may be Bach or Elgar or Gershwin or Berlin, but all of that really misses the point, and misses the reason why I started the thread, which is to discuss how current and future melodic music might possibly be able to evolve melodically.

A lot of the 20th C stuff was totally devoid of melody, not just classical but some jazz, electronic etc.

Melodic - tuneful or melodious; not the harmony, not the rhythm

Melody - a pleasing succession or arrangement of sounds, the main them or the air in a composition with accompaniment; not tuneless accompaniement, not tuneless playing of instruments, not tuneless creation of sounds.

[bob_32_116]

A lot of the 20th C stuff was totally devoid of melody, not just classical but some jazz, electronic etc.

Much of it was, but I would not say that about the Impressionists, who were turn of the 20th century.

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of Beethoven as a composer, just saying I disagree with your assertion that there has been no real evolution or revolution in melody since then.