Full disclosure -- about 95% or more of the music I write is instrumental. I suspect this may be because I'm a guitarist and not much of a singer, so I suppose I'm naturally inclined toward instrumentals as opposed to songs. But this doesn't directly connect with the topic, really.

I'm curious about this because I'd like to hear from others as to how it works for you. For me, I tend to build chord progressions and then find melodies that work within them. I have built simple harmonic progressions and complex ones and I've been able to construct melodies that work well within each sort of framework. But as I listen to music I like -- which often are songs -- I wonder if the composer thought of the melody first and then found a way to support it with a chord progression, or if the composer did as I do and wrote a melody that fit the progression. Some songs I listen to, I honestly don't think I could have come up with that melody based on a chord progression alone. These songs almost always don't rely on the popular cliche'd progressions, either: I IV V, I VI II V, etc.

Of course, many great songs with memorable melodies have been written using these same, time-worn progressions. But I'd have to say in virtually every instance, the melody was arrived at within the context of the progression. Or perhaps there might have been a split going on? A portion of the song's melody was derived from the progression and another portion forced a progression to be built around that section of melody?

Hey, I'm just throwing stuff out there. I'm curious, really, on the process you go through when creating a piece of music. I think that, when one sits down to write a piece, the first thing one must do is decide whether to lay out a harmonic progression or to come up with a melody (or at least some melodic motifs). So, care to comment?

Best,
Michael

My Music:
https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums