Don't bore us getting to the chorus

[simont]

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.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

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.

[simont]

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.)

[gerald_duck]

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.

[simont]

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.

[fanf]

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.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I think that you should sing more.

[fanf]

I also don't care for lyrics or poetry.