About rating songs

[japanesebaby]

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. )

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... ):

[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.

[revolt]

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...  ).

[japanesebaby]

'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.

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.

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. 
anyway.

[japanesebaby]

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:



but instead you get something like this:



(i'll save you from the visual representation of the bad sex part!)

[revolt]

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:



but instead you get something like this:

So, basically, what you're saying is that SIZE matters? 

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. 

[japanesebaby]

So, basically, what you're saying is that SIZE matters? 

haha. well, i guess that's one way of seeing it but maybe not the one i meant...

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. 

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.

[revolt]

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.

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.

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.  

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...

[revolt]

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?

[japanesebaby]

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.

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.)

[revolt]

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.

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.

[revolt]

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."

[japanesebaby]

well no wonder i never liked the rolling stones 

[japanesebaby]

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.)

[revolt]

well no wonder i never liked the rolling stones 

Is that a distaste for 60's bands in general or just a specific Stones dislike?

[revolt]

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...