What Makes "Over The Rainbow" So Great?

I'm not certain about the "two notes" that are referred to but I always notice the first two, in which the second note is an octave higher than the first note and the following notes descend. Mel Torme's "The Christmas Song" (popularized by Nat King Cole) does the same thing.

I listened to part of his explication~ it reminded me of someone describing a wine as complex, with an opening splash of blackberry and a finish of caramel- The analysis is a little overwrought. Was Arlen really thinking in that way when he wrote it? I doubt it, any more than a painter thinks about the overlay critics impose in interpreting the painting. It is a great song. I wish I knew why certain pieces of music hit our buttons- there is something to creating tension and resolving it, at least in classical, jazz and rock. And great melody, which is sometimes sorely lacking in modern pop music. That era-- which I think of as 'standards'-- is a wonderfully rich vein for popular music.

I managed to hear the playback after my initial post above and agree with many of the points that it is a timeless song with a great melody. I feel though that things just fell into place because of song writing experience. I've read that listening to a run or a scale is somehow very satisfying to human senses. It adds some melancholy I find. It is also easy to play and also is also easy to compose as it comes across so naturally.
I also believe that music has much in common with comedy as that timing is what makes it work. Those same notes can be played in the same order with the duration of notes changed and you have a different song.

While we are in a Harold Arlen mood, how about Ill Wind? Another brilliant song. Favorite rendition? I know the Billie Holiday version is always given credit, but somehow, I find it too affected. I actually like the Lonette McKee version in the film, but know it was covered by Ella, Dinah and a long, long list of others. Favorite performance of this one?

FWIW, some of the best songs sound like you've heard them before, and I'm not talking about something that is obviously derivative, but along the lines you are describing,- the melody is simple and captures something we've heard in our 'mind' before.

It was a very interesting discussion. I like NPR, however, the discussion was very teleological. It is easy to deconstruct something tried and true after it has been put together and used for almost 75 years and find symbolism or reasons for its being the way it is.

English professors and musicologists do it all the time. Very often, when asked about symbolism, authors have stated that their novel is "just a story" and people attach meaning to them. Composers write what they write [if they are good at it] because they are brilliant and know what sounds good, so when you deconstruct it, you say it was a stroke of genius, which it may well be but my point is they don't say to themselves, "I have to finish on the ethereal high note of Oz that I used as the second note in the song," while they are writing it. As Fast/Forward said, "I feel though that things just fell into place because of song writing experience."

While Over the Rainbow is an undisputed classic, I doubt the composer thought about the notes in the same manner as the people in the interview discussing the song as he was writing it.

Yes, I know, I'm a prosaic, cynical soul. Oh, sorry, there really isn't a soul.

jazdoc said:

I always like this kind of musical analysis. Even if Arlen was not consxiously doing what was discussed, only someone with great musical training and ability to translate emotion into song and visa versa could unconsciously create something so perfect.

I recently read "A Love Supreme" by Ashley Kahn which is obviously about the making of the album. It was fun listening to the album while reading along with the book. During the first movement "Acknowledgement", Coltrane repeats the melody 23 times in different keys before chanting the mantra. Elvin Jones' comment was that this was Coltrane acknowledging that God is all around us...wow!

Click to expand...

I'm completely the opposite and I thought the article was full of crap. I do agree strongly with your second sentence and IMO it should just be left at that. Maybe I'm just too simple-minded.