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.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

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.

[sunflowerinrain.livejournal.com]

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.

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

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".

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

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.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Much of the point of pop music is to be easy to sing along to while getting dressed.