Don't bore us getting to the chorus [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Sun 2008-03-09 12:49
Don't bore us getting to the chorus

So the other day Stephen Fry wrote a long blog post about pop versus classical music, and his specific reason for preferring the latter. I've seen a couple of posts discussing whether he was right, but reading the post has reminded me that when I was a child I also preferred classical music for a specific reason, but the reason was completely different.

The thing I disliked about pop music when I was young was that there wasn't enough music in it. Specifically, the same verse and chorus section tended to be repeated several times throughout a song, pretty much exactly unchanged except for the lyrics sung over the top of it. But, at the time, I just wasn't very interested in lyrics compared to music; so I tended to feel shortchanged by four minutes of pop song compared to the same length of classical music, because the latter tended to have more different music packed into its four minutes whereas the pop would only have one minute's worth of tune repeated over and over.

(The observant will notice that this isn't really about classical music; it's about instrumental music. And, indeed, I eventually worked that out for myself: the first modern musician to really hold my interest was Jean Michel Jarre, largely because his music was instrumental.)

I got over it in the end. I now like lyrics as much as the next person, and I have no fundamental problem with repetitive tunes any more as long as the lyrics make them worth my while.

But musical and lyrical variety don't have to be mutually exclusive; even in verse-and-chorus structured songs, it's possible to have melodic or harmonic evolution between successive instances of the verse and/or chorus, and the occasional song which manages that still makes me particularly happy. There needn't even be very much of it, as long as it's done well: for example, there's a two-note change between two choruses in the Sisters' ‘First and Last and Always’ which has always struck me as just right. And the subtle tweaks to the tune between successive verses of Steve Vai's ‘The Silent Within’ make me rather fond of the song in spite of the fact that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it at all otherwise.

LinkReply
[personal profile] gerald_duckSun 2008-03-09 14:25
I'm generally suspicious of song lyrics. All too often they're an excuse for mediocre music, and seldom are they really worth listening to. Nine times out of ten, even in music I like, I ignore them as a mere vehicle for the vocal performance.

Then again, I seem to like much less poetry than most people, too.

Evolutions between verses don't have to be melodic or harmonic: rhythmic and orchestrational changes are also very worthwhile.


But the main problem with pop music is that a lot of it is instantly-forgettable claptrap written for the lowest common denominator, which is stupid people with poor aesthetic judgment. Classical music has never been part of the vernacular, so is free of that influence, but I'm sure you'd find past centuries beset by folk music every bit as awful as the average piece of modern pop. Most of it is rightly forgotten — as too will be most modern music, with a little luck.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontSun 2008-03-09 14:59
Nine times out of ten, even in music I like, I ignore them as a mere vehicle for the vocal performance.

... whereas, conversely, I have very little appreciation of vocal performance beyond noting whether it's adequate to the job. People who can't sing in tune, or refuse to, consistently irritate me (and I seem to have an above averagely demanding idea of "in tune" – I've been known to turn my nose up at music that everyone else raves about for this reason); but it's rare (although not entirely unheard of) for me to think someone's singing is particularly good.

("Refuse to sing in tune" annoys me particularly when it's the standard approach within a certain genre. My classic example of this is Metallica's "Nothing Else Matters": I like the song itself, but Metallica's performance of it really annoys me because the voice does a lot of wavering and portamento and, well, posturing when it would be so much more effective to just stay on the note and put the point across directly. As far as I can tell this singing style is fairly common in metal.)
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] gerald_duckSun 2008-03-09 18:11
So you don't appreciate the artistry in the vocal performances of, for example, Frank Sinatra, Shirley Bassey, Sarah Brightman, Freddie Mercury, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Carreras/Domingo/Pavarotti?

If you hear the same piece sung by two different singers, provided they're both in tune you're indifferent to the distinctions between them?

How does this compare with your attitude to instruments? Do you care about the quality of the instrument a piece is played on? What about the quality of the playing?

The quality of a singer matters quite a lot to me.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] simontSun 2008-03-09 23:59
Most of the names on your list I either haven't heard, haven't knowingly heard, or haven't heard for long enough to form an opinion. Freddie Mercury is the major exception, since it would be hard to have missed Queen.

I think you've exaggerated what I said far beyond what I intended it to mean. It's entirely possible that I appreciate the artistry in the sense that if someone not so good covered a Queen song I might think there was something missing (see "not up to the job"). However, I don't listen to it and have it consciously strike me that a particularly good piece of singing just happened, in the same way that it does strike me when (say) a particularly good bit of tune goes past.

I probably do appreciate instrumental playing more; comes of having tried it fairly seriously myself, I suppose.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] fanfSun 2008-03-09 19:06
I presume you don't mean failing to sing in tune like Saint Etienne...

I think this is similar to my dislike for opera, especially the operatic female voice. They completely wreck the music in the pursuit of enough vocal welly to be heard over a full orchestra.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comSun 2008-03-09 21:01
I think that you should sing more.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] fanfSun 2008-03-09 19:01
I also don't care for lyrics or poetry.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.comSun 2008-03-09 15:06
Fascinating. I'm almost exactly the opposite. I enjoy music for the lyrics and the expression with which they are sung, and see the music itself as almost entirely a vehicle for the lyrics. I use "good/bad song" almost synonymously with "good/bad lyrics" (with exceptions for fun cheesy music which is good to dance to even if the lyrics are rubbish).

I have always preferred "pop" (i.e. vocal - I made the same false dichotomy you did) to "classical" (i.e. instrumental) for that reason.

I'm not a very musical person (I struggle to carry a tune when singing, and don't play an instrument apart from simple one-finger melodies on the piano) but I do love words and poetry.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] sunflowerinrain.livejournal.comSun 2008-03-09 16:03
As a proponent of vocal "art" music, I had to read this twice and I'm still not sure I follow it. Perhaps it's just never crossed my mind to confuse instrumental and er, "classical"[0] because I sing "classical"[1] music.

Anyway, I agree that much[2] pop music is unsatisfying because there is so little in it - an opinion I formed at an early age. You hear a tune and think "mm, that's good", and then the second time you hear it you wonder where the rest is. Play it three times and you have 3-course dessert. I don't think that many pop lyrics add a lot, tbh: art music is usually poetry set to music or part of the drama of an opera, and there are words you can really get into. I recommend I Fagiolini's The Full Monteverdi for a good, rich, but digestible dinner.

[0] Musogeek pedantry moment - *and the other types of art music*[3].
[1] It hurts, it hurts. Strictly speaking I rarely sing classical music.
[2] Yes of course there are many exceptions.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontSun 2008-03-09 23:47
Perhaps it's just never crossed my mind to confuse instrumental and er, "classical"[0] because I sing "classical"[1] music.

Yeah, that'd probably have helped. I was a violinist; much easier to get the two confused in that situation :-)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.comSun 2008-03-09 18:41
Needle In A Bruise (Mesh) I think is my favourite example of between-verse variation. In particular there's an odd - but IMO effective thing - where they have a couple of lines of silence in the second verse on the vocals, but the instrumentals carry on as if someone was singing rather than going into an "instrumental".
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] vyvyan.livejournal.comSun 2008-03-09 19:13
I like some classical music - if it is instrumental (ideally one instrument!), fast, dramatic, and in a minor key. I like some pop music - if it is instrumental (or basically instrumental) with one instrument dominating, fast, dramatic, and in a minor key. I don't care for orchestras, vocals, lyrics, happy tunes, or "full" production sounds. Thus my favourite music includes Chopin and Beethoven solo piano works, and Slayer and Machine Head tracks with lots of guitar solos. I agree with you on the repetition bit, but then again, a lot of classical music (especially Mozart for some reason) sounds very repetitive to me.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comSun 2008-03-09 21:00
Much of the point of pop music is to be easy to sing along to while getting dressed.
Link Reply to this
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]