*edit: conversation originally started here: http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,5344.msg54199.html
jb
Quote from: Bloodflower on July 19, 2008, 19:21:06
EDIT: This is my opinion of the 2004 sessions.
Lost - 9/10
Labyrinth - 9/10
Before Three - 8/10
Truth Goodness and Beauty - 9/10
The End of the World - 9/10
Anniversary - 10/10
Us or Them - 2/10
alt.end - 7/10
[I Don't Know What's Going] On - 3/10
Taking Off - 6/10
Never - 2/10
The Promise - 9/10
Going Nowhere - 10/10
Why Can't I Be Me? - 6/10
Your God is Fear - 10/10
This Morning - 10/10
Fake - 6/10
Average [Session] = 7.35
Average [Album] = 7.08
In my opinion, that is the rock bottom-est they've been since 1979.
Judging by your ratings, it seems to me that you LOVE the majority of the songs from those sessions. 10 out 17 get ratings between 8 and 10, and only one of those is an 8. If you didn't rate some of the other songs so poorly (and I think you are exagerating there...) you'd easily get a higher overall rating...
Quote from: revolt on July 21, 2008, 11:02:40
Judging by your ratings, it seems to me that you LOVE the majority of the songs from those sessions. 10 out 17 get ratings between 8 and 10, and only one of those is an 8. If you didn't rate some of the other songs so poorly (and I think you are exagerating there...) you'd easily get a higher overall rating...
That's right but also seems to be a general problem as one hardly finds ratings below 6/10 in the media. That scale needs to be cut at the lower half, so 8/10 is a 3/5.
Anyway, here's my rating of the 2004 session:
Lost - 9/10
Labyrinth - 5/10 (unfortunately more sound than song)
Before Three - 10/10 (Best single that wasn't a single)
Truth Goodness and Beauty - 8/10
The End of the World - 6/10
Anniversary - 7/10 (great beginning, but the chorus sucks)
Us or Them - 4/10
alt.end - 7/10 (at least live a killer)
[I Don't Know What's Going] On - 5/10 (this one has "B-Side" written all over it)
Taking Off - 6/10
Never - 1/10
The Promise - 5/10 (very overrated song)
Going Nowhere - 7/10 (standard)
Why Can't I Be Me? - 6/10
Your God is Fear - 5/10 (uninspired at best)
This Morning - 7/10 (in my oppinion overrated too by most fans, like everything with a disintegration-esque sound)
Fake - 6/10 (nice pop song, nothig special)
Overall 6,11
It takes a nine or ten for me to love something. And just for perspective's sake, here's what I'd rate Wish:
Open - 10/10
High - 8/10
Apart - 10/10
From the Edge - 10/10
Wendy Time - 5/10
Doing the Unstuck - 10/10
Friday I'm in Love - 9/10
Trust - 10/10
A Letter to Elise - 10/10
Cut - 10/10
To Wish Impossible Things - 10/10
End - 10/10
This Twilight Garden - 10/10
Play - 10/10
Halo - 9/10
Scared As You - 10/10
The Big Hand - 10/10
A Foolish Arrangement - 10/10
Average [Album]: 9.33
Average [Session]: 9.5
The 2004 album could have made a killer EP, or even a great short album. But way too much from that session should have been set afire.
my two cents on rating songs:
Quote from: Bloodflower on July 21, 2008, 19:43:30
It takes a nine or ten for me to love something. And just for perspective's sake, here's what I'd rate Wish:
i understand your point Bloodflower. but doesn't the perspective actually depend on what approach we take on our rating? what i mean is, one can rate songs trying to base it on more or less "objective" aspects like songwriting, production etc. - that kind of quality. or you can purely rate songs intuitively, based on your emotional response.
as long as we base it on the latter, the ratings are "merely" opinions (which is NOt to say opinions weren't valuable, of course they are - but the discussion based on emotionally charged opinions is bound to be different than a discussion based on more "fact-like" opinions.)
an example, if i may:
'(i don't know what's) going on'. the song is generally bashed for being a crappy song. probably because most people don't find anything to reflect there(?). maybe some other reasons. but looking into certain songwriting aspects of the song, i think it's pretty obvious that song is actually one of the strongest ones on the whole album. it's that song and 'the end of the word' that have most wit, that are clever (in a positive sense of the word). and actually, this is not merely an emotional opinion but something that can be "proved" (although i HATE to use that word and i ask you not to get stuck with that word - just file it under my limited english skills or something). because it all depends on which aspect we are looking into, we need to define it better. if i try to rate '(i don't know..)' merely emotionally, then maybe it's not among my top 10 cure songs. but if i look at it simply sturcturally, the way the song has been put together, the way it's constructed, the way it works structurally - then it's a really good song - a LOT better than something like 'the promise' which from the structural point of view is simply a damn boring song and nothing more. then again, it does have some other qualities. so...
so i guess what i'm trying to say here is that "rating" is rather abstract thing, unless it's a bit more defined - notjust to others but to ourselves too(!).
what aspects do we really look into, what qualities of the song do we really use as the basis for our ratings?
there are things that can be discussed objectively and things that really can't and we should be able to keep those two apart. without that discussion i think we can endlessly debate whether this song is better than that or whether someone is right or wrong when he/she rates something the way he/she does.
(ps. perhaps it might be good time to create a new topic for this discussion? after all, this is the 'sleep when i'm dead' thread... ;))
ps2. i don't find ratings live recordings overly difficult, as long as rating is based purely on the technical merits/the lack of them of the recording. but i've always found rating albums/individual songs (on studio recordings) that way extremely hard - and perhaps not even necessary, in the end. surely i could post a list of 'disintegration' songs here and we might find that i'd be bound to rate all songs 10 or at least 9, simply for emotional reasons - what would that really tell me, not to mention to anyone else? imo, nothing much. that i kind of like the album. sure. but i could just as well say "i like disintagration a lot!", that would serve the same thing, imo. that's rating based on my emotional response to that music and that's something very subjective and something so completely in the realm of "opinion only".
but, sitting down and rating those same songs purely for songwriting wise/for their structural (i mean musical structure, form etc.) values/etc., that would be something pretty different. and a really challenging excercise! because you'd HAVE to be able to look past your emotional responses and all the numerous ways you're attached to those songs emotionally - simply look at the musical matter there, as objectively as you could. very difficult for sure but a very good excercise too, imo. AND i'm convinced that if i'd bother sit down and do that, then i think some much more interesting data would surface. not just a row of "mute" nines and tens.
and if more people did this, would our ratings still differ? of course they would. so i don't mean there's some universal way out there that should work for everyone. of course not. but at least we'd have something that could be discussed more objectively because we ourselves would know a bit better why exactly we rated something 9 and something 6, we'd be forced to think about it more. and then it would be easier to discuss and compare our ratings, without them simply staying on the vague level of being "just my opinions".
anyway, i don't want to veer off any more. but let's discuss on if we feel like it and let's then split this topic if needed.
on-topic, about 'sleep when i'm dead' i've nothing more to say than what i've already said: very scary.
Well said, japanesebaby. But I doubt that there are objective criterias to rate a song, apart from technical stuff like "Beats per minute" or "Total number of chord changes". Rating a song will ALWAYS be from a subjective point of view and therefore be based on emotions. A very easy song in terms of songwriting (let's say "Boys don't cry") can work perfectly for most people and a rather clever, complex one won't.
What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.
If people can describe why they love/dislike a song without only using emotional terms then we are the closest we can get to what you'd prefer. But the oppinion by itself will always be emotional. We just have to hide that. ;)
Quote from: Lostflowerboy on July 22, 2008, 08:35:12
But I doubt that there are objective criterias to rate a song, apart from technical stuff like "Beats per minute" or "Total number of chord changes". Rating a song will ALWAYS be from a subjective point of view and therefore be based on emotions. A very easy song in terms of songwriting (let's say "Boys don't cry") can work perfectly for most people and a rather clever, complex one won't.
What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.
If people can describe why they love/dislike a song without only using emotional terms then we are the closest we can get to what you'd prefer. But the oppinion by itself will always be emotional. We just have to hide that. ;)
yes i know what you mean and i agree that there is no universal way to rate anything (thank god there isn't! that's the whole point, i think).
but i don't think it's quite that black and white and i still don't agree that everything's just based on emotional responses only. there's an area in between emotional responses and counting chord changes (which i don't find interetsing at all myself, by the way) and that "inbetween territory" is what i find most interetsing to explore.
here's an example: i think it's pretty easy to find bands/styles of music which you can't really say you like but which you still sort of rate high because you can clearly hear there are values there. for instance, i could pick frank zappa or opeth: i don't really connect to their music on an emotional level, they leave me very empty that way. BUT i can easily list a lot of things in their music that i really rate high (and i don't mean just "they know how to play their instruments"- that's just one small thing among many).
maybe i'll write that list later, to keep this short. ;) but what i mean is that not everything "valuable" in music is based on direct emotional responses. yes, music without emotion is dead so emotion is the heart of music, there's no doubt about it. but zappa's music is not without emotion just because i can't really find a way to connect to that particular emotion myself - so there are other qualities in all good music than just the emotional responses they create in us. and some of the qualities do extend beyond "mere" opinions.
an extreme example: one doesn't have to like classical music but i doubt it that anyone can say that mozart was/is crap. imagine someone saying that mozart is crap merely because "i don't like his music, it doesn't create much emotional response in me"?
we can agree that the person saying so is correct as long as he's describing his own opinion on mozart based on his emotions. but i think he's certainly wrong when/if he says that's all that there is. what about the structure, form of the music he wrote? what about th arrangement/orchestration? what about the treatment of melody? the treatment of rhythm? the interaction of the two? what about the harmony? what about... etc. - in short, i don't think you
have to be emotionally thrilled
yourself before you can start registering this kind of qualities in music. i mean, you can still hear that the person who made the music was fully into what he/she was doing without feeling the same yourself.
so what i mean is that it's perfectly possible to find and discuss qualities in music without "letting the emotional side interfere", AND that doesn't mean we should simply sit and count chord changes (which, like said, i find totally uninteretsing - because it's not the
number of chords that matters but the chords
itself, and how they were used...).
Quote from: Lostflowerboy on July 22, 2008, 08:35:12
If people can describe why they love/dislike a song without only using emotional terms then we are the closest we can get to what you'd prefer.
i do believe we'd then be closest to having a conversation that would extend beyond mere debates like: "i like this!" > "i like that!" > "i'm right, you're wrong!" > "hey guys everyone is entitled to their opinion peace&love" > the
end of conversation....
Quote from: Lostflowerboy on July 22, 2008, 08:35:12
But the oppinion by itself will always be emotional. We just have to hide that. ;)
well, of this i do disagree. because i could discuss zappa or opeth for a long while and find myself praising them for many reasons and on many levels - but at the end of the day i still wouldn't be emotionally thrilled about their music.
@japanese baby:
I really respect your point of view, and do agree on most parts. Well said, by the way.
So I think it's mainly down to a question of attitude. I personally don't find it reasonable to give Zappa a 9/10 because I deeply respect his music, even if it doesn't touch me at all. If it's about rating a Cure album in a Cure forum, personal emotions are well enough in my oppinion. ;)
Quote from: Lostflowerboy on July 22, 2008, 08:35:12
What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.
Not really. Much of the difference between live takes from the same song comes from the EMOTION and the INTENSITY with which the song is delivered... And those are not "technical aspects", I think.
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 09:23:14
i could discuss zappa or opeth for a long while and find myself praising them for many reasons and on many levels - but at the end of the day i still wouldn't be emotionally thrilled about their music.
Zappa I can understand, because his music is generally emotionally detached. It is something to be admired (if indeed it is to be admired) on a more purely intelectual level, if such a thing exists. But Opeth!? Most of their music is really emotionally charged, I fail to understand how can someone listen to them with enough attention so that they can say that their music deserves praise and then, at the same time, not feel some sort of emotional response to it...
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 10:50:07
Quote from: Lostflowerboy on July 22, 2008, 08:35:12
What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.
Not really. Much of the difference between live takes from the same song comes from the EMOTION and the INTENSITY with which the song is delivered... And those are not "technical aspects", I think.
yes, actually i didn't mean it as "a method" of comparing live takes but i was particularly talking about listening to some individual song (be it live or studio take).
comparing (live) performances is a complete different thing to me.
i simply meant an analytical way of listening where you can choose where to focus, if you need to.
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 10:57:20
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 09:23:14
i could discuss zappa or opeth for a long while and find myself praising them for many reasons and on many levels - but at the end of the day i still wouldn't be emotionally thrilled about their music.
Zappa I can understand, because his music is generally emotionally detached. It is something to be admired (if indeed it is to be admired) on a more purely intelectual level, if such a thing exists. But Opeth!? Most of their music is really emotionally charged, I fail to understand how can someone listen to them with enough attention so that they can say that their music deserves praise and then, at the same time, not feel some sort of emotional response to it...
i think you might misunderstand me. what i've tried to say all the time is that there are different modes of listening to something. and not every listening mode
has to be emotionally charged ANd that you can actually choose what listening mode you use. at least you can learn to choose it. you can consciously teach yourself to pay attention to different aspects on music and focus on those aspects. but that doesn't make the other aspects disappear, it doesn't mean you neglect paying attention to them: it's just a temporary choice that you can make. and that has nothing to do with whether the music itself is emotionally charged or not - that's a whole different thing :!:. it's just about your own choice, what mode of listening you choose to utilize.
i'm pretty aware (correct me if i'm wrong, anyway i base this on some previous conversation on people elsewhere) that many people tend to use only one listening mode and don't really consciously try to change it. btw that's also why people are often fast in deciding whether or not they "like" some music or not - because they base their judgement on their "instant mode", their quick response. well there's nothing wrong with that, that's not my point. it's not a question of what listening mode is the best or more valuable than other. that's completely irrelevant. but all i can say is that it's actually very refreshing, trying to change your mode sometimes and consciously trying to listen to different things that you usually do, even on music that you know very well. just put on some cure album and give yourself an excercise, make yourself pay attention to some aspects that you wouldn't normally focus on. like ignore the melodic patterns and just listen to the rhythmic composition on all parts alone. or, focus on the use of registers and the way it's utilized in the arrangement (IF it is). it's really difficult to say what listening mode is fruitful with which songs - it depends on what you're listening...
anyway, just try to take a different point of view to it.
so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all emotionally charged every time just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave ;)) - but that doesn't mean i am not
aware of the emotional power, that i totally eradicate it somehow. of course it's there and of course i know it, i register it and i can hear it. but i don't have to let it engulf me so that i am unable to focus on some other aspects whenever i need to. let's say that i can very well listen to opeth in that "detached mode" if i want to. and it's actually interesting.
i suppose it's my way to listen to music, trying to dig into it in ways that i haven't thought of yet. sometimes these experiments don't reveal you anything, sometimes it can be a revelation. some people are happy with staying with their one mode and like said, there's nothing bad in that. but still i'm pretty convinced to say that the kind of proof for any really good music (the proof of whether it's really good music or not) is this "multi-dimensional" aspect. when you come across with music (or other art) that really cannot be approached but from one single angle, where you can hear everything worthwhile during the very first/first few listenings - that's always of disappointing discovery. it means it's flat and has no depth whatsoever. actually imo it doesn't even matter if it had instant emotional impact on you - because it's still flat in the end.*) but if you can vary your approach consciously and notice new dimensions, it's got to be good - even if it really didn't instantly inspire any huge emotional response in you.
*) edit: that's the trick that most crap disposable music out there is based on: it's beased on making a strong initial impact on the listener on the very first lisetning so that people will rush and buy the recording. then they get home and after listening to that a few more times they get bored and that's it. and so the next week they need to buy a new album... repeat and fade....
that's how all shit crap flat numb music manages to sell millions and millions - because people don't stop and listen any more closely, just go with the flow after that initial little adrenaline peak they got from it...
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 11:30:36
i think you might misunderstand me. what i've tried to say all the time is that there are different modes of listening to something. and not every listening mode has to be emotionally charged ANd that you can actually choose what listening mode you use. at least you can learn to choose it. you can consciously teach yourself to pay attention to different aspects on music and focus on those aspects. but that doesn't make the other aspects disappear, it doesn't mean you neglect paying attention to them: it's just a temporary choice that you can make. and that has nothing to do with whether the music itself is emotionally charged or not - that's a whole different thing :!:. it's just about your own choice, what mode of listening you choose to utilize.
i'm pretty aware (correct me if i'm wrong, anyway i base this on some previous conversation on people elsewhere) that many people tend to use only one listening mode and don't really consciously try to change it. btw that's also why people are often fast in deciding whether or not they "like" some music or not - because they base their judgement on their "instant mode", their quick response. well there's nothing wrong with that, that's not my point. it's not a question of what listening mode is the best or more valuable than other. that's completely irrelevant. but all i can say is that it's actually very refreshing, trying to change your mode sometimes and consciously trying to listen to different things that you usually do, even on music that you know very well. just put on some cure album and give yourself an excercise, make yourself pay attention to some aspects that you wouldn't normally focus on. like ignore the melodic patterns and just listen to the rhythmic composition on all parts alone. or, focus on the use of registers and the way it's utilized in the arrangement (IF it is). it's really difficult to say what listening mode is fruitful with which songs - it depends on what you're listening...
anyway, just try to take a different point of view to it.
so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all amotionally charged every time - just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave ;)). but that doesn't mean i am not aware of the emotional power, that i totally eradicate it. of course it's there and i know it - i can hear it. but i don't have to let it engulf me so that i am unable to focus on something else if i wawnt to.
I understand what you mean. I have sometimes chosen that 'anaytical' mode of listening as far as some Cure songs are concerned, for instance.
A very simple thing you can do (and that I have done) is chose a single instrument - the bass guitar or the drums, for instance - and then focus your attention on that for the whole of the song. In this way you can get a better picture of what each musician contributes to a song. It's also the thing to do if you're trying to learn how to play the song.
You can also complicate it a bit more and focus on the way some instruments interact - bass guitar and drums, or rhythm and solo guitar, for instance.
Or you can try and detect what specific feature of the song gets your emotional response. Sometimes there's even only a small transition note there that makes all the difference - in "Open" and "Bloodflowers" (which are not masterpieces for me) such a thing happens with the bass guitar line...
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 11:42:21
i suppose it's my way to listen to music, trying to dig into it in ways that i haven't thought of yet. sometimes these experiments don't reveal you anything, sometimes it can be a revelation. some people are happy with staying with their one mode and like said, there's nothing bad in that. but still i'm pretty convinced to say that the kind of proof for any really good music (the proof of whether it's really good music or not) is this "multi-dimensional" aspect. when you come across with music (or other art) that really cannot be approached but from one single angle, where you can hear everything worthwhile during the very first/first few listenings - that's always of disappointing discovery. it means it's flat and has no depth whatsoever. actually imo it doesn't even matter if it had instant emotional impact on you - because it's still flat in the end.*) but if you can vary your approach consciously and notice new dimensions, it's got to be good - even if it really didn't instantly inspire any huge emotional response in you.
*) edit: that's the trick that most crap disposable music out there is based on: it's beased on making a strong initial impact on the listener on the very first lisetning so that people will rush and buy the recording. then they get home and after listening to that a few more times they get bored and that's it. and so the next week they need to buy a new album... repeat and fade....
that's how all shit crap flat numb music manages to sell millions and millions - because people don't stop and listen any more closely, just go with the flow after that initial little adrenaline peak they got from it...
The thing is, you can also chose to analyse "crap' music. Celine Dion's songs have a structure too, they have arrangements that can be stripped down to their main elements and then appreciated, and so on... (actually , Dion's 90's albums are produced by Jannick Top, Magma's genius bassist, so even if they are crap there must be some 'science' to it...)
The thing is, unless it is part of your profession, it is probably difficult to endure this analytical listening mode in the cases where you don't like the song... At least for me, if I really don't like a song, it will be a torture to have a listen just to detect its technical aspects. And since I am not a masochist, that's something I will not subject myself to. :-D
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 11:30:36
so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all emotionally charged every time just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave ;))
You can actually manage to escape the slavery of emotions only to find yourself captured by the claws of reason... It can happen, you know? ;)
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 13:26:09
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 11:30:36
so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all emotionally charged every time just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave ;))
You can actually manage to escape the slavery of emotions only to find yourself captured by the claws of reason... It can happen, you know? ;)
sure. actually, either one (emotion or reason) can be a just as terrible master, if you're stuck with it and let it enslave you... but both become bearable when you have the possibility to choose and move between the two at will.
so it's all about the choice - and whether or not you are aware that you have a choice...
(in a way, our habits of listening to music are just one example of the many many forms of voluntary enslavement we've submitted ourselves into...)
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 11:49:53
You can also complicate it a bit more and focus on the way some instruments interact - bass guitar and drums, or rhythm and solo guitar, for instance.
Or you can try and detect what specific feature of the song gets your emotional response. Sometimes there's even only a small transition note there that makes all the difference - in "Open" and "Bloodflowers" (which are not masterpieces for me) such a thing happens with the bass guitar line...
Backing up a bit... I know people who find Disintegration boring (esp the late middle) because the songs are similarly paced and mainly based on the same riff. You have to give Simon a lot of respect for playing "The Same Deep Water As You" for 9 minutes (watch his hands on Trilogy). The million layers of "Fascination Street" are also based on the same bassline.
"Open" is a very dark song lyrically, but sounds much more "pop" than a lot of Disintegration, so it's probably dismissed by a lot of people as being more shallow.
As for "Bloodflowers"... the lyrics don't really do much for me, but the solo just grips and doesn't let go. It's not technically difficult, I've sat at home and played it, but the combination of tone and melody evokes a HUGE emotional response. To the point where I get chills just hearing the intro (and drums through a flanger. Awesome).
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 11:49:53
Or you can try and detect what specific feature of the song gets your emotional response. Sometimes there's even only a small transition note there that makes all the difference - in "Open" and "Bloodflowers" (which are not masterpieces for me) such a thing happens with the bass guitar line...
The detail I was talking about concerning 'Bloodflowers' is the bass inflection at 39 seconds into the following recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXUl6QU07VM
It's the way it modifies the main bassline that had been heard twice up to that point that really does it for me.
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 12:03:06
The thing is, you can also chose to analyse "crap' music. Celine Dion's songs have a structure too, they have arrangements that can be stripped down to their main elements and then appreciated, and so on... (actually , Dion's 90's albums are produced by Jannick Top, Magma's genius bassist, so even if they are crap there must be some 'science' to it...)
i think the "science" is that those songs are written by professionals who can write a decent song (in that sort of genre) anyday, anytime, insideout and upsidedown. so there's surely professionalism there, i don't deny it. but the way that's been utilized, that's another thing... celine dion songs are not crap because they lacked coherence and structure. they are probably very tight in that respect - but also totally uninteresting because they are just repeating the same models, never taking any risks, never experimenting with anything... and that's what makes them stillborn, imo.
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 12:03:06
The thing is, unless it is part of your profession, it is probably difficult to endure this analytical listening mode in the cases where you don't like the song... At least for me, if I really don't like a song, it will be a torture to have a listen just to detect its technical aspects. And since I am not a masochist, that's something I will not subject myself to. :-D
well it's not my favorite pastime either. ;) life is short and if i choose to listen to music (be the mode analytical or not) i'd much rather listen to GOOD music than BAD. :-P
but experimenting on listening to good music is what i do like. there are always some layers to be discovered there...
Quote from: firecrasher on July 22, 2008, 14:00:28
Backing up a bit... I know people who find Disintegration boring (esp the late middle) because the songs are similarly paced and mainly based on the same riff. You have to give Simon a lot of respect for playing "The Same Deep Water As You" for 9 minutes (watch his hands on Trilogy). The million layers of "Fascination Street" are also based on the same bassline.
that's true. people miss a lot (if not even most of it) on 'disintegration' if they are not prepared to dig into the arrangemental details and "orchestrational colors" of those layered textures. to me the beauty of those textures is that you can actually be both instantly emotionally moved by those layered colours without any analysis whatsoever but also find them just as fascinating when digging into it in analytical detail. that's the marvellous thing about it for me, that it's so strong on both fronts.
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 14:11:50
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 11:49:53
Or you can try and detect what specific feature of the song gets your emotional response. Sometimes there's even only a small transition note there that makes all the difference - in "Open" and "Bloodflowers" (which are not masterpieces for me) such a thing happens with the bass guitar line...
The detail I was talking about concerning 'Bloodflowers' is the bass inflection at 39 seconds into the following recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXUl6QU07VM
It's the way it modifies the main bassline that had been heard twice up to that point that really does it for me.
I will explain this more clearly. It's possible that I'm entering geek/nerd mode here, but I'll give it a try, anyway... :-D
The main bass melody of 'Bloodflowers', that which constitutes the basis of the song, is a sequence of 4 notes, each of them played 8 times, and the 4th note is equal to the second, like this:
A A A A A A A A
B B B B B B B B
C C C C C C C C
B B B B B B B B
(Mind you, these are just letters, not the standard representations of DO-RE-MI, etc. Anyway, if any of you knows the exact notes played on that song, feel free to post them here).
You can hear this sequence roughly between second 12 and second 22 of the posted You Tube link recording.
Now, this complete sequence is played 2 times just as it is, and then on the 3rd time it comes, the last 2 notes are different:
A A A A A A A A
B B B B B B B B
D D D D D D D D
E E E E E E E E
That 'D' note is unexpected in that it is lower than the C you were anticipating, which gives the melody a sudden poignant touch. It's like you are at the beach walking in the sea, treading already familiar waters, and suddenly you lose foot. It's no big problem if you can swim, of course, but in the heat of the moment you might find yourself in trouble, if only for a moment.
Now, the whole 'magic' of it does not end here. The melody continues after that E, always on notes that are lower than the starting A, until it comes to its final note - let's call it an X. The thing is, the melody does not really resolve on this X note, that is, when you hear the whole melody you feel that somehow it is not 'complete'. This X only resolves on the A that constitutes the first note in the melody. That is, the end of the melody IS THE BEGINNING of the melody. This is a 'perpetual motion' kind of song.
Conclusion: 'Bloodflowers' was literally conceived to LAST FOREVER. Is this the devil's work or what? :-D
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 15:40:58
Conclusion: 'Bloodflowers' was literally conceived to LAST FOREVER. Is this the devil's work or what? :-D
If you can wait till tonight I'll do my best to musically take it apart for you. One of the odder things about being a musician is that you hear things differently. Part of your brain is thinking about how the song is played or the frets or chords, and in my case it's impossible to turn that analyzation off. The song can mean more to you, because once you know how to play it, it's kind of yours too... sometimes you'll like a song a lot more after you learn it... but you probably lose some of the general enjoyment... and you'll wind up at concerts staring at Robert's hands to make sure you're playing it right. (That's not a bad thing!)
Quote from: firecrasher on July 22, 2008, 18:52:35
One of the odder things about being a musician is that you hear things differently. Part of your brain is thinking about how the song is played or the frets or chords, and in my case it's impossible to turn that analyzation off.
as a fellow musician i do relate to this, although i don't "suffer" from it (either).
what comes to the kind of music in question here, i suppose my "blessing" is that i don't play guitar so i don't need to focus on people's hands at the concerts. ;) instead, i do use a lot of solfege, figuring out the chord sequencies that way, without looking at how it's being played. i can consciously turn the "solfege mode" off if i want to, so that i'm not paying attention to it (as it takes a lot of CPU power, so to speak). and although i can turn it off, i cannot imagine hearing music without being able to resort to it if i needed to. anyway, i can't turn off most part of the analysation either.
i suppose the more you do it the more integral part of your hearing (your way how musical ideas/things take shape in your mind and how you grasp them) it becomes.
(btw i always find it really distorted how some people claim that amalysation can "ruin" your musical experience and how analysing is somehow "bad" and "unmusical. instead, it opens new doors but i never found that it closed any of the ones that were already open.)
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 22, 2008, 19:09:26
as a fellow musician i do relate to this, although i don't "suffer" from it (either).
what comes to the kind of music in question here, i suppose my "blessing" is that i don't play guitar so i don't need to focus on people's hands at the concerts. ;) instead, i do use a lot of solfege, figuring out the chord sequencies that way, without looking at how it's being played. i can consciously turn the "solfege mode" off if i want to, so that i'm not paying attention to it (as it takes a lot of CPU power, so to speak). and although i can turn it off, i cannot imagine hearing music without being able to resort to it if i needed to. anyway, i can't turn off most part of the analysation either.
i suppose the more you do it the more integral part of your hearing (your way how musical ideas/things take shape in your mind and how you grasp them) it becomes.
(btw i always find it really distorted how some people claim that amalysation can "ruin" your musical experience and how analysing is somehow "bad" and "unmusical. instead, it opens new doors but i never found that it closed any of the ones that were already open.)
Analyzing isn't bad or unmusical, it's just... there. Do you also subconsciously analyze in a situation like live music at a restaurant, or if you go out to a club? (This weekend it made the combination of "Billie Jean" and "Laid" (by James) even more bizarre. Then they threw in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and I thought my head was going to explode. :shock:)
Anyways, are there any Cure songs in particular that have meant more to you, either emotionally or musically, after you really started to dig into them? Some songs that sound quite simple really aren't. The riff for "In Your House" is quite difficult to reach, but "Push" is extremely easy. Part of Robert's genius is making complicated patterns sound simple, and simple patterns hard to reach (esp. if you're small-handed), and they're all still fun to play. It's hard to be mopey and play the solos on Mint Car.
Quote from: firecrasher on July 22, 2008, 19:23:12
Part of Robert's genius is making complicated patterns sound simple, and simple patterns hard to reach (esp. if you're small-handed),
Ha ha, that reminds me that Robert once confessed that as a child he switched from piano to guitar because he thought that at guitar his little sister could not possibly beat him - her hands were too small... :-D
Quote from: firecrasher on July 22, 2008, 18:52:35
Quote from: revolt on July 22, 2008, 15:40:58
Conclusion: 'Bloodflowers' was literally conceived to LAST FOREVER. Is this the devil's work or what? :-D
If you can wait till tonight I'll do my best to musically take it apart for you. One of the odder things about being a musician is that you hear things differently. Part of your brain is thinking about how the song is played or the frets or chords, and in my case it's impossible to turn that analyzation off. The song can mean more to you, because once you know how to play it, it's kind of yours too... sometimes you'll like a song a lot more after you learn it... but you probably lose some of the general enjoyment... and you'll wind up at concerts staring at Robert's hands to make sure you're playing it right. (That's not a bad thing!)
Well, that would be great really. I actually learnt the basic rudiments of music as a child but since I never went on with it it's fair to say that I have forgotten most of it...
Sorry I was out car shopping last night and got in late. I'll try again tonight. I started on the piano but haven't had much formal musical education for years (you honestly don't need it if you play rock guitar). But I can give you keys, chord changes, notes etc. The fellow Cure-obsessed friend I'm kind of seeing has a degree in classical composition so he can probably take it further if you'd like.
Quote from: firecrasher on July 23, 2008, 13:53:02
Sorry I was out car shopping last night and got in late. I'll try again tonight. I started on the piano but haven't had much formal musical education for years (you honestly don't need it if you play rock guitar). But I can give you keys, chord changes, notes etc. The fellow Cure-obsessed friend I'm kind of seeing has a degree in classical composition so he can probably take it further if you'd like.
Thanks a lot, but I wasn't asking for something as serious as that... Just the correct keys for that main bassline melody would be fine.
Quote from: revolt on July 23, 2008, 14:00:32
Thanks a lot, but I wasn't asking for something as serious as that... Just the correct keys for that main bassline melody would be fine.
The bass notes are
C# B A F#
C# B A B
C# B
E F#
A B
I made up a pdf tab of the intro for you with PowerTab, it also has Robert's 6 string bass. I'm attaching a screenshot as well, and there's a midi too.
Quote from: firecrasher on July 24, 2008, 02:07:00
Quote from: revolt on July 23, 2008, 14:00:32
Thanks a lot, but I wasn't asking for something as serious as that... Just the correct keys for that main bassline melody would be fine.
The bass notes are
C# B A F#
C# B A B
C# B E F#
A B
I made up a pdf tab of the intro for you with PowerTab, it also has Robert's 6 string bass. I'm attaching a screenshot as well, and there's a midi too.
Thanks! The attached pdfs already go somewhat beyond me, since I've never learnt guitar tablatures... I was just a small boy who played a recorder, like a few other small boys and girls in my musical class.
Quote from: revolt on July 24, 2008, 12:10:01
Quote from: firecrasher on July 24, 2008, 02:07:00
Quote from: revolt on July 23, 2008, 14:00:32
Thanks a lot, but I wasn't asking for something as serious as that... Just the correct keys for that main bassline melody would be fine.
The bass notes are
C# B A F#
C# B A B
C# B E F#
A B
I made up a pdf tab of the intro for you with PowerTab, it also has Robert's 6 string bass. I'm attaching a screenshot as well, and there's a midi too.
Thanks! The attached pdfs already go somewhat beyond me, since I've never learnt guitar tablatures... I was just a small boy who played a recorder, like a few other small boys and girls in my musical class.
You're welcome! The notes on the staff are there too, which is why I made it :)
Quote from: firecrasher on July 22, 2008, 19:23:12
Do you also subconsciously analyze in a situation like live music at a restaurant, or if you go out to a club? (This weekend it made the combination of "Billie Jean" and "Laid" (by James) even more bizarre. Then they threw in "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and I thought my head was going to explode. :shock:)
yes i'm very familiar with this. there has been times when i've been almost manic/obsessed with "solfeging" everything, starting from those beeping alarms of the walk/don't walk sings that they have for blind people to any music i hear: the melodic lines, the chords, the intervals, the bass lines etc.
i know what you mean by music "becoming your own", when you learn how to play it/how it's been put together. the best way i've found to describe that sensation is that it's like stepping inside the composition: for me "only" listening to something (without analyzing) is like watching a picture or a painting of a building's facade, a two dimensional image. finding out how it's been put together is like stepping inside that building and exploring it in three dimensional environment. at least for me that's not just a metaphor but i do get a very strong sense of 3D, of being literally inside the musical structure.
anyway, going back to the issue of how to rate songs (so that i don't drive Janko mad by starting to talk about splitting the topic - hehe. but thankfully we're not in the news section anymore so relax... ;)):
Quote from: Bloodflower on July 19, 2008, 19:21:06
[I Don't Know What's Going] On - 3/10
The Promise - 9/10
i'd be bound to turn that the other way round, with '(i don't know..)' getting 9/10 and 'the promise' 3/10.
imo, here's why:
'(i don't know..)' is a well constructed song that has a clever "what you thought was an intro becomes a chorus" looping that keeps the song rolling and give it that extra momentum/nudge on a crucial structural moment. it also has details like the rhythmic play/irregularity that keep the same "rolling on" thing happening on a surface level. and all that works as long it's kept under 3 minutes - which is what happens too. so, it's a well thought of song and certainly has it's place on the album.
(this song is actually one of the very few songs where i can say i'm pretty happy with jason's drumming, thanks to these details.)
now, of course 'the promise' is a complete different sort of song, completely differently constructed, so it shouldn't be judged by the same reasons. that's certainly true, one needs to take a different aspect on it. but for me the problem with 'the promise' (and several other songs on 'the cure' too) is the lack of layers. so, it's not supposed to have a clever structure, it's supposed to be repetitive - that's fine as long as there's something else to compensate the lack of momentum (momentum that a less repetitive structure would provide). like mentioned above, for instance many of the songs on 'disintegration' are similarly repetitive so nothing wrong with that. but just compare those with a song like 'the promise': the magnificant layering (and "orchestration" rising out of this) on 'disintegration' very well compensates and kind of takes over the repetitiveness so that it becomes totally natural and balanced state of those songs. it works so well that you don't even want those songs to be less repetitive - because that would destroy the wonderful layering of course! just listen to 'fascination street': all those layers need time to unfold, in order to create themselves - and so it's given that time by making it all happen within this repetitive structure. and the result is perfectly balanced, terrific.
but i really cannot find such compensational elements on a song like 'the promise' : it's repetitive but only becomes more or less tedious because nothing's really happening. there is no other musical element that would take over and provide our ears the necessary "food" while we're dwelling within the repetitive system. people who get bored with 'disintegration' are looking into the wrong place if they are waiting for catchy choruses and trippy chord changes etc.- but they are looking into the wrong place and missing the area where the action takes place (= the arrangements, orchestration, the layers). i really do think this can be said without hiding behind the shield of subjectiveness/"my opinion only". 'disintegration' IS great because of this quality, and it's there regardless of what opinions people might have. it's there waiting to be found and realized. ok, it's perhaps not everyone's thing and not everyone has to get all excited about it - but the point is that it is there nevertheless.
but with stuff like 'the promise' i'm afraid there's a much more real danger of getting bored for a "real" reason. what musical aspects/elements are we supposed to look into in that song? what's the driving musical power there? there's a little bit of this and little bit of that, certainly enough for it not to be a total crap song. BUT there's nothing that rises above all else in a manner similar to 'fascination street' for instance. there's no undisputed guide line. and even though that still doesn't make it utter crap, it does make it considerably weaker composition. :!:
ok maybe someone can say 'the promise' is somehow meant to be somewhat tedious, "just looks at the lyrics" etc etc. perhaps it's an explanation. but at least i feel there's something lacking there, purely in the realm of
musical aspects. for me the lyrics alone/the "message" created by the lyrics cannot really alone compensate if the sheer musical input isn't strong enough in its own. i feel like there's an attempt in 'the promise', to compensate this lack of this musical input with some sort of "sheer power". but that's just not working for me. in order to display such power, you need to have something to contrast it with, something to which it is being mirrored (black isn't black if there's no white around, black without white could just as well be grey and noone would perhaps really give a damn.)
so, if i was given number 3 and 9, i'd rate '(i don't know...)' 9/10 and 'the promise' 3/10.
'the promise' is indeed a very overrated song, i agree with Lostflowerboy about that. similarly '(i don't know...)' is genuinely too underrated. both things have always made me wonder why.
*) IF i was given those numbers. ;)
Japanese Baby: that's a clever anaylises you are doing of both songs, but I think you are missing at least one crucial element in each of them...
'I don't know what's going on' is a pop song. And the single thing that mostly matters in a pop song is its CATCHINESS. No matter how well constructed the song is, no matter how clever the lyrics are, no matter how tasteful the instrumentation, if the basic melody (or melodies) is not catchy enough, the song kind of fails, as a POP SONG. And this song in particular is only mildly catchy. You will memorize it if you listen to it enough times with enough attention but - unlike 'Lovecats', 'Catterpillar', 'In Between days', 'Boys don't cry', 'Friday', etc, etc - it's not the kind of song that instantly gets stuck in your head and that you find yourself whistling or singing all day even if that is not yoour intention.
'The Promise' is a very different beast, of course. And it's also quite different from the Disintegration type of song. It's a song based on a slow groovy bassline, that slowly build and builds until eventually it reaches a climax. It's like sex, really. There's no need for any layers here, it's just one basic impulse that will drive you to satisfaction if you let yourself surrender to it (hehe, hope I'm not being too kinky here).
And there is a fundamental contrast there to be appreciated, yes: that between the quiteness of the beginning and the maelstrom of the finale. And across the song you also have these sort of intermediate or semi-climaxes that eventually prepare you for the big finale. And if you want a song where Jason's drumming truly shines - well, it's this one!
I think that the only issue that prevents 'The Promise' from being a complete success is that Robert's lyrics and vocals are somewhat too whiney in this context. (Yeah, whining and sex are not a good match... :-D ).
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 12:00:10
'I don't know what's going on' is a pop song. And the single thing that mostly matters in a pop song is its CATCHINESS. No matter how well constructed the song is, no matter how clever the lyrics are, no matter how tasteful the instrumentation, if the basic melody (or melodies) is not catchy enough, the song kind of fails, as a POP SONG. And this song in particular is only mildly catchy. You will memorize it if you listen to it enough times with enough attention but - unlike 'Lovecats', 'Catterpillar', 'In Between days', 'Boys don't cry', 'Friday', etc, etc - it's not the kind of song that instantly gets stuck in your head and that you find yourself whistling or singing all day even if that is not yoour intention.
but... i'm not at all convinced '(i don't know...)' aims to be that kind of pop song. why exactly should it have be a pop song? but actually, i think you
indirectly hit the nail on the head here because this is
exactly why people generally bash the song, by the way. because they try to fit it in the same category with 'the lovecats' , 'friday...' etc. but i think this is a mistake, really. it's not a pop song that fails because it doesn't have a catchy enough melodies. someone wrote somewhere in the thread above that '(i don't know...)' "screams b-side all over it", and i think that's more like it. it's one of those really good "underdog songs" that are often hidden on the b-sides. yet sometimes they make it on the album too (like in this case). and i'm sure we can all easily list several of these songs - and just have a look at a bunch that comes to your mind and ask yourself "would they have been that good had they been A-sides? (=if they'd been "meant" to be pop songs, i mean)". no, i don't think they would have been successful. they are successful
because they are not put into the spot light like that. for instance, 'it used to be me': would have been a great album track for sure but an a-side? no. but a really great song. and so on and so on.
i think '(i don't know...)' is in this category, if in any. certainly not in a pop song/potential single category.
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 12:00:10
And it's also quite different from the Disintegration type of song. It's a song based on a slow groovy bassline, that slowly build and builds until eventually it reaches a climax. It's like sex, really. There's no need for any layers here, it's just one basic impulse that will drive you to satisfaction if you let yourself surrender to it (hehe, hope I'm not being too kinky here).
no you misunderstood me a bit. i didn't say 'the promise' fails "because it's lacking layers". i never said all good songs must have layers. of course not, that's just one element among many to among which one can choose from. i said it's lacking
something, it lacks some kind of musical element that would keep that slow build up and running. the sheer repeat of a groovy bassline isn't enough to keep it motivated enough.
so if that song is like sex then i'm afraid it's bad sex - and god, you know how that is... uhhuh - no thanks. :? :-D
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 12:00:10
And there is a fundamental contrast there to be appreciated, yes: that between the quiteness of the beginning and the maelstrom of the finale.
sure there is, yet the sheer volume increase is not compelling enough imo. there are a lot of songs out there that also rely on the same "volume increase scheme" as part of their dramaturgic arc but it still needs something else. otherwise it's like... watching a drag race without decent engines (while having bad sex at the same time?).
ok maybe that's slightly exaggerated. :-D
anyway.
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 12:30:52
otherwise it's like... watching a drag race without decent engines (while having bad sex at the same time?).
i mean it's like you came to see something like this:
(http://images.superchevy.com/events/sucp_0603_01_z+super_chevy_show_ohio+jet_car_drag_race_launch.jpg)
but instead you get something like this:
(http://www.minimotosgo.com/img/drag.jpg)
(i'll save you from the visual representation of the bad sex part!)
:-D
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 12:38:03
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 12:30:52
otherwise it's like... watching a drag race without decent engines (while having bad sex at the same time?).
i mean it's like you came to see something like this:
(http://images.superchevy.com/events/sucp_0603_01_z+super_chevy_show_ohio+jet_car_drag_race_launch.jpg)
but instead you get something like this:
(http://www.minimotosgo.com/img/drag.jpg)
So, basically, what you're saying is that SIZE matters? :-D
Anyway, we should't judge things too quickly. Maybe all that smoke coming from the first 2 cars means that their engines broke and in a matter of a few seconds they are going to be out of the race... And maybe that tiny little motorcycle will get to the end of the race in good enough time. :-D
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 13:11:23
So, basically, what you're saying is that SIZE matters? :-D
haha. well, i guess that's one way of seeing it but maybe not the one i meant...
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 13:11:23
Anyway, we should't judge things too quickly. Maybe all that smoke coming from the first 2 cars means that their engines broke and in a matter of a few seconds they are going to be out of the race... And maybe that tiny little motorcycle will get to the end of the race in good enough time. :-D
what comes to the pics/songs in question:
my point was that if i was sold a ticket to see revving engines and smoke and that stunning crescendo of a drag race, it's a kind of thing i'd then expect to see it taken to the extreme. otherwise the effect isn't quite as convinceing. what i mean is that using a build-up effect as a songs' dramaturgic arc AND basing it on a sheer volume increase, this is a very difficult medium. seriously, it is challenging. let's take an example.
let's take a famous example from the field of classical music
(AND i'll use this example even if someone will say "but that's a completely different field of music!". because i really do think it's a valid comparison, despite the difference of genre. when talking about a general ideals of a balanced composition, the genre doesn't matter - at all. i could actually just as well use an example from visual arts/movies but musci is more approriate. so, don't pay attention to the genre, just to the general outlines):
listen to maurice ravel's 'bolero': an orchestral piece that consista of the same melodic patters repeated over and over and over again, for approximately 10 minutes. and that's also 10 minutes of sheer crescendo, constant volume increase from the very faint beginning to the damn loud end. very similar ingredients to what we are discussing here. the interetsing question to study is: how does ravel make it work? if you look into it you'll notice that whereas the big arc created by the volume increase certainly IS the backbone of the song's dramaturgic structure in certain ways, it's NOT the volume increase that actually keeps the music alive, what keeps you interested. what is it that keeps us interested there? the ever changing surface "colors", the way the repeated block of melody is being re-colored by the constant change of orchestration.
again, i'm not saying the cure song should utilize similar kind of tools - of course not. so don't get stuck with the orchestral colors, i'm not demanding specifically that in every case. but the point is that there must be something there. because the overall structure (=the big dramatic arc - in the case of 'the promise', that means that built-up towards the end) works ideally
only if there's something in the surface level too, something in the level of detail(!) that will keep catching our attention (because we don't promarily listen to overall designs/structures, we listen to details, that's where we first tend to pay attention).
so, they must be
both a successful overall grand design AND a successful surface design - the design must work on both levels if the piece really aims to be successful and coherent. i think i'd dare to say that this applies on all art.
this is an interesting issue i think about, and a very important one.
'the promise' lacks some (musical!) surface attractions that would keep it rolling, that would keep us thoroughly captivated (musically!). and let's not forget that musical design works hierarchically: when/if we are not convinced by the surface level design, we also easily lose the grasp of the overall design too. thus the grand design loses a lot of its power, its full hypnotic potential. :!:
so it's about the question of design and the interaction between the design on several different levels, it's not about which category the song might fall into, whether it's a pop song or something else. because things such as categories/genre definitions don't define (any) good music - music is good (or bad) on its own, regardless of such things.
so back to the two songs under discussion:
'(i don't know...)' is a successful pievce of music because the design works on several levels: the overall design is tight and it's backed up by surface details that relate to the background in a meaningful way.
'the promise' is an ambitious bulk of a song that aims for a overall built-up performed on a grand scale BUT it fails on the surface level. and therefore it ends up being less successful. it aims to present revving engines but on the surface i see a tiny little motorcycle.
or, you know it's like a double image, when your right eye is being shown a different image than your left eye: the foreground image being something else than the background image.
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 12:30:52
but... i'm not at all convinced '(i don't know...)' aims to be that kind of pop song. why exactly should it have be a pop song? but actually, i think you indirectly hit the nail on the head here because this is exactly why people generally bash the song, by the way. because they try to fit it in the same category with 'the lovecats' , 'friday...' etc. but i think this is a mistake, really. it's not a pop song that fails because it doesn't have a catchy enough melodies. someone wrote somewhere in the thread above that '(i don't know...)' "screams b-side all over it", and i think that's more like it. it's one of those really good "underdog songs" that are often hidden on the b-sides. yet sometimes they make it on the album too (like in this case). and i'm sure we can all easily list several of these songs - and just have a look at a bunch that comes to your mind and ask yourself "would they have been that good had they been A-sides? (=if they'd been "meant" to be pop songs, i mean)". no, i don't think they would have been successful. they are successful because they are not put into the spot light like that. for instance, 'it used to be me': would have been a great album track for sure but an a-side? no. but a really great song. and so on and so on.
i think '(i don't know...)' is in this category, if in any. certainly not in a pop song/potential single category.
Well, the song goes at midtempo and is light both musically and lyrically. There's nothing harsh or agressive about it, there is no sonic experimentation of any kind, there is no intensity, there is no mood or atmosphere to get into. It can only be called POP. And since there is no special "serious" element to it, the only thing that could possibly make it good/great would be the catchiness of the melodies.
And I think this one is as much a potential single as 'Mint Car'. Both are light pop fare that goes easy on the ear but lack really good hooks. 'Going On' might be slightly better overall and more interestingy structured, yes, but basically both songs can be put in the same category. And both would not really be good B-sides, because from Cure B-sides we expect more substance than this.
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 12:30:52
i didn't say 'the promise' fails "because it's lacking layers". i never said all good songs must have layers. of course not, that's just one element among many to among which one can choose from. i said it's lacking something, it lacks some kind of musical element that would keep that slow build up and running. the sheer repeat of a groovy bassline isn't enough to keep it motivated enough.
so if that song is like sex then i'm afraid it's bad sex - and god, you know how that is... uhhuh - no thanks. :? :-D
Comparing 'The Promise' to bad sex is probably the nastier piece of Cure criticism I have ever read. Even that NME Pornography bashing (how does it go... "Seldom have three young people achieved so little with such panache" or something?) sounds tame in comparison. :shock: :-D
Anyway, I think the fact that the song has as a central feature a CRESCENDO means that the words "sheer repeat of a groovy bassline" are not appropriate to describe it. It's not merely a repeat, since the intensity increases (and decreases also, since this is not a purely linear thing). Now, on paper this might not sound particularly interesting, I admit, and I also can undestand that someone could get bored with the song if they refuse/can't surrender to it. This could be called a sort of Dionysian experience, a dive into the primordial forces of nature. You have to let yourself go with the flow to be able to enjoy it. Hope I'm not being too pretentious here...
Bolero is a masterpiece, I agree. And it could also be called a piece of Dionysian art. The thing is, even if Ravel is a genius orchestrator (which he is, no doubt about it), I think it is really the suggestive power of that melody and the way the intensity increases that make it such a hugely poweful music piece. When you are really getting into the whole sound of it, raving with the experience, the magnificent details in the orcherstration don't really matter, because they get blurred. In a Dyonisian experience DETAILS DON'T MATTER AT ALL.
Of course, when you are ANALYSING the music, that is, when you are letting your Apolloninian side conduct you, than the abundance of rich orchestral details will make it a much more interesting task. Then you will perhaps be able to love the music with your head, when in the previous mode you were loving it with your body or with your heart.
Again, I hope I am not being too pretentious here. I think that maybe the fact that you seem to be unable to disconnect your "analysing mode" when listening to music prevents you from getting all the pleasure that is hidden there... Am I wrong?
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 14:00:03
Bolero is a masterpiece, I agree. And it could also be called a piece of Dionysian art. The thing is, even if Ravel is a genius orchestrator (which he is, no doubt about it), I think it is really the suggestive power of that melody and the way the intensity increases that make it such a hugely poweful music piece. When you are really getting into the whole sound of it, raving with the experience, the magnificent details in the orcherstration don't really matter, because they get blurred. In a Dyonisian experience DETAILS DON'T MATTER AT ALL.
true about the hypnotic power of ravel's melody.
and i very much agree with you to certain extent, but i still wouldn't say details don't matter at all. or, let me put that differently: tthey are not the thing that hits you, that affects you most directly there - but that doesn't mean there were no details. they might be an integral (and important) part of the composition after all, even though they are not in the foreground what comes to the effect of the composition.
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 14:00:03
I think that maybe the fact that you seem to be unable to disconnect your "analysing mode" when listening to music prevents you from getting all the pleasure that is hidden there... Am I wrong?
i'd say you are wrong (and no i'm not just saying it because i want to deny it in general). like disucssed in the thread above, i don't see how analysing could "prevent" from enjoying something in art. true, i can't turn it off completely which means it's always there and i am conscious of it. i mean that i cannot become unaware of it - that's not the same as saying i have to utilize it on everything i hear. because i don't. i can very well listen "un-analytically" and it's not an effort or a pain to me. it's just a choice.
it doesn't mean there was something that has taken over me and somehow dictated me how i "must" hear something, that it would "force" me to listen to music with some kind of "narrowed view". it's just something that can broaden the view.
i hope i don't sound like boasting with some kind of skill - that not at all my intention. and surely we all have different ways to feel/experience music and art. one can say some of us are more inclined to "feeling" whereas some of us to the "reason" (so to speak). but imo that mostly applies to our
instant reactions, how we hear things for the first time (i mean, what is our "natural" way to respond to something new). but there's nothing that says that we have to stick to this instant impressions. we can consciously broaden our impression of something, change our point of views and approaches - that will also change our responses. and besides, we are not robots but sensitive, feeling beings.if this wasn't true, we could say that everytime each of us hears 'just like heaven' we'd hear it exactly as we heard it the very first time. of course that's not true. our reponse is actually different everytime - because we are different.
this gives us huge potential - and that's where we come back to the listening modes: we can either let our currect state of mind dictate the way we hear things, or, we can consciously try and focus on certain things/certain aspects. both are possible - it's our choice, what to focus on.
but the claim that analytic listening somehow "ruined" something for you, that it could somehow confine you and somehow make you less capable of connecting with your emotional side/emotional responses to music and art. well i think this is very false statement.
i am surely NOT comparing myself to mozart & co. here (god forbid that!) but just think of it this way: mozart was surely a very "analytic" person - well, his music alone proves it. so was beethoven, etc. etc. etc. or, let's not label these fine people as "analytic persons" (because that sounds confined). instead let's say they were certainly
able to listen analytically, if and when they wanted to. they were very aware or things that fall into the realm of "analysis". did they create music that was somehow less emotional or overly analytic in nature? i don't think they did, quite the opposite.
so it's not a prison, it's a possibility.
(ps. let me just add that i really do enjoy this sort of conversation here.)
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 14:27:58
i don't see how analysing could "prevent" from enjoying something in art. true, i can't turn it off completely which means it's always there and i am conscious of it. i mean that i cannot become unaware of it - that's not the same as saying i have to utilize it on everything i hear. because i don't. i can very well listen "un-analytically" and it's not an effort or a pain to me. it's just a choice.
My claim there was that to completely enjoy music on a certain mode (the Dionysian mode, as I called it, but we could call it something different, it doesn't really matter) you have to BECOME UNCONSCIOUS of yourself. If you can do this - and I'm not really saying you can't, it's just that from your previous comments I was having the impression that maybe this was something difficult for you - than, yes, your analytical skills are not a "prison", to use your term.
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 14:27:58
but the claim that analytic listening somehow "ruined" something for you, that it could somehow confine you and somehow make you less capable of connecting with your emotional side/emotional responses to music and art. well i think this is very false statement.
i am surely NOT comparing myself to mozart & co. here (god forbid that!) but just think of it this way: mozart was surely a very "analytic" person - well, his music alone proves it. so was beethoven, etc. etc. etc. or, let's not label these fine people as "analytic persons" (because that sounds confined). instead let's say they were certainly able to listen analytically, if and when they wanted to. they were very aware or things that fall into the realm of "analysis". did they create music that was somehow less emotional or overly analytic in nature? i don't think they did, quite the opposite.
so it's not a prison, it's a possibility.
I think that with true artists, specially those who have had advanced formal education, like Mozart and Beethoven, both skills really come together when they are creating. I mean, to compose a complex classical music piece, such as string quartet or a symphony, you certainly have to possess analytical skills to the highest degree. To structure and orchestrate the whole composition is not a task for everyone. And I think specially Beethoven must have been a titan in this respect, specially considering that many of his greatest music was composed when he was deaf and had no possibility of testing how his ideas would sound in practice.
But at the raw moment of inspiration, I think that that "going with the flow" might have been the most crucial element for some of their compositions. This is just a guess, since I am in no way capable of technically analysing their compositions (well, I have a basic idea of what "sonata form" or a "lied-like structure" are, but that's just about it), but specially some pieces of later Beethoven (I'm thinking late piano sonatas, for example) have some almost-improvising quality to them, as if he was writing things simply as they came to him, giving the impression that he actually is not analysing or structuring anything at all... Of course, this could be just an impression.
By the way, I have jut found out a quote from Mick Jagger that kind of seems appropriate, considering one of your previous comments. He says:
"To a musician, there is no such thing as bad sex. Bad sex is no sex."
:-D
well no wonder i never liked the rolling stones :-D
;)
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 17:26:58
My claim there was that to completely enjoy music on a certain mode (the Dionysian mode, as I called it, but we could call it something different, it doesn't really matter) you have to BECOME UNCONSCIOUS of yourself.
certainly so.
another saying (from i don't remember whom though) is that the importance/meaning of analysing things is to do it in advance so that at the very moment of the performance (or, in this case why not the act of listening too) you can forget everything you learned through analysing and just let go. that's the whole goal of analysing things, actually: to try to get a bit deeper into the "flow".
the act of analysing itself must never be the goal or the end of things. it's just a means to get a bit deeper into the material.
(and the truth is, i think it really works that way, not just in theory but in practise! because out there, everything flows, really.)
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 18:47:13
well no wonder i never liked the rolling stones :-D
;)
Is that a distaste for 60's bands in general or just a specific Stones dislike?
Quote from: japanesebaby on July 25, 2008, 18:58:00
is that the importance/meaning of analysing things is to do it in advance so that at the very moment of the performance (or, in this case why not the act of listening too) you can forget everything you learned through analysing and just let go.
I totally agree with that, by the way. And that goes not only for playing / listening to music but for a whole of other things in life.
Actually - here I go philosophising again ;) - this apparent paradox is one of those essential paradoxes that defines life, i think.
What really makes us all HUMAN is the fact that we have memory, the fact that we can REMEMBER. Without that, we wouldn´t be able to write or speak, we wouldn't even be able to maintain any sort of relationship with one another.
And yet, to be able to do most things in life, hell, simply to be able to go on with our lives, we must at the sime time learn to FORGET. Without forgetting what exactly they are doing with their fingers at the moment that they are doing it, musicians wouldn't really be able to play well. Without forgetting that love is simply a series of chemical reactions going inside of us all love would become virtually unbearable/impossible. Without somehow forgetting all the little nuisances (and also the big ones) that trouble us everyday, our "needles" would be stuck forever in the same "vinyl groove" and we would actually be "playing" the same snippet of "melody" to death for the rest of our lives...
Quote from: revolt on July 25, 2008, 13:42:27Even that NME Pornography bashing (how does it go... "Seldom have three young people achieved so little with such panache" or something?)
Actually, I have to correct this. The piece of criticism I was referring to is from Steve Sutherland of Melody Maker and is about the Pornography TOUR (not the album). It goes like this:
"Seldom have three young people in pursuit of a clutch of aimless atmospheres achieved so little with such panache".
And he goes on: "The Cure – that's a joke. More like a symptom."
And he describes the Cure as "three updated Al Stewart bedsitter boy students squeezing their pimples and translating Camus prose into Shelleyan stanzas".
(All these quotes can be found in the 'Never Enough' biography).
4:13 Dream 7/10
Underneath The Stars 7/10
The Only One 6/10
The Reasons Why 8/10
Freakshow 4/10
Sirensong 4/10
The Real Snow White 7/10
The Hungry Ghost 8/10
Switch 7/10
The Perfect Boy 6/10
This Here And Now With You 3/10
Sleep When I'm Dead 7/10
The Scream 8/10
It's Over 8/10
A Boy I Never Knew 7/10
NY Trip 3/10
All Kinds Of Stuff 3/10
Down Under 3/10
Without You 3/10
The Cure 4/10
Lost 3/10
Labyrinth 9/10
Before Three 5/10
The End Of The World 5/10
Anniversary 8/10
Us Or Them 3/10
alt. End 7/10
I Don't Know Whats Going On 2/10
Taking Off 3/10
Never 3/10
The Promise 8/10
Going Nowhere 8/10
Fake 8/10
This Morning 8/10
Strum 8/10
Your God Is Fear 7/10
Bloodflowers 6/10
Out Of This World 7/10
Watching Me Fall 7/10
Where The Birds Always Sing 5/10
Maybe Someday 6/10
The Last Day Of Summer 8/10
There Is No If.. 7/10
The Loudest Sound 6/10
39 6/10
Bloodflowers 6/10
Spilt Milk 6/10
Coming Up 4/10
Possession 7/10
Just Say Yes 4/10