Perhaps the most important question a composer can ask himself. But is there an answer?

I've been playing through Tchaikovsky's Seasons this morning, thinking about the quality of his ideas and what good ideas are. It is my main preoccupation these days.

I have been looking at some great melodies and thoroughly analyzing them: Gabriel Fauré's Pavane, Bach's Air on the G String, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata and more. I've come to a few very, very general (but actually quite helpful) conclusions about great melodies.

Great melodies feel natural, as if they always existed. Nothing seems forced or "compositional" about them. They do this by...

Using a variety of rhythms
If a melody has, for example, only quarter notes and half notes and is always in direct concordance with the meter, the result is usually stiff and lacking in variety. The variety of rhythms doesn't need to be large, just enough to make the music flow with a feeling of spontaneity.

Avoiding direct repetition or sequencing.
This is tough, because I love Bach sequences, but not Beethoven's sequences or Tchaikovsky's for that matter. What makes them different? I think it could be that Bach's music is contrapuntal/imitative at the core, so sequences fall neatly into his language. They feel natural and give great satisfaction to the listener.

But Tchaikovsky is a melodic composer and his sequences often feel like he is "going through the motion" as he leads us to a new section or a return of the melody. In his Seasons I find that he uses the sequential device in his weaker pieces like Carnaval while there are none in his famous Barcarolle.

In the hit parade of great melodies I have looked at and listened to, none incorporate an overt sequence, not even the Bach Air.

To be continued...