do you like movie soundtracks? Or even classical/orchestral music?
I would say I like quite a few movie soundtracks. I am a massive Star Wars fan, so of course think John Williams is a genius. I guess I love iconic soundtracks from iconic movies. Besides Star Wars, of course you have things like Indiana Jones, James Bond (pretty good one in 1985
), Back To The Future, Jaws, etc etc etc. Normally if you love the movie, then you will often love the music associated with that movie.
So yeah - I'm a movie fan (like most people) and so am a soundtrack fan as well.
As for classical/orchestral music - I think it is great. I could only listen to it in small doses mind you, as after a while it would probably start to bore me. But if you put on an hour of the greatest classical music ever written, then I could happily sit there for an hour and not look at my watch once. I would just close my eyes, and be enthralled by the beautiful instrumentation, the composition, how the instruments fit all together, and just enjoy the sound and emotion the composer wishes to convey.
Would I want to do that every day though? No, probably not. I know that a lot of the music is genius, and it takes an incredible amount of skill and knowledge to compose music comprised of many different instruments, but after a while I want to nod my head a little. Maybe even shake my hips. And that's where Duran Duran comes in
I know that's not entirely a fair question since they are all completely different genres. But I wanted to know if it's the lack of vocals that you find unappealing or or a lack of vocals in a rock/pop song. Like, do you think a pop song consists of drums, guitars, bass, keyboards and vocals, with vocals being the most important ingredient, and therefore is utterly incomplete and lacking without vocals?
I think that's a great question! And you're right - for me there is a big difference between soundtracks/classical music, and rock/pop songs. They are completely different creatures, so as a result they have completely different "rules".
Movie soundtracks have one job - help people enjoy a movie. They do that by adding to a scene, and enhancing it. Often they'll use happy music for happy scenes, or sad music for sad scenes. Often times music will tell the tale better than having a character spell it out via dialogue - this makes it more personal. If YOU work out that the scene is sad by the music, then that is better than having a character explain to you why the scene is sad and that you should feel that way. Remember movies are about how you feel while you watch them - you shouldn't have a movie director walking you through each scene telling you how to feel. Music helps achieve this.
As a result, soundtracks don't need vocals. Could you imagine watching Jaws, and as soon as the iconic "duunnn dunnn … duuuunnnn duun" starts up, then you have the popular singer of the day belting out "Jaws is a giant shark, about to eat that lady".
Wouldn't work. The movie made that piece of music frightening. Before you saw Jaws, if you heard that music on its own you'd probably think - well that's pretty cool, it starts out slow, and quickly builds to a crescendo, yeah I could see that working in a movie somewhere. It's exciting, like something is about to happen. But it wouldn't stop you swimming in the ocean.
And in a symbiotic relationship, the music made the movie frightening. They worked hand in hand - as soon as you heard that music - you knew shit was about to go down. You couldn't see Jaws (it was brilliant that they don't introduce him properly until the second half of the film), but you knew he was around there somewhere. After you see the film, then yeah - that movie with its music could stop you swimming in the ocean if you heard it.
Put on the Jaws theme now. And tell me you don't get some sort of feeling from listening to it. Possibly strong feelings, determined by how old you were when you saw Jaws, and how much it affected you when you watched it.
That's what a great movie soundtrack can do. That's the beauty of orchestral music - it doesn't need lyrics to convey emotion.
However, pop/rock is different. I listen to that music to be entertained by the entire package, and for me - the entire package includes a vocal melody. We have seen how important a good vocal melody is - for example the music of Taste The Summer is really cool. However, how Simon sings the song ruins the experience for me, so that is why I never listen to it any more.
Maybe it's because I'm a drummer, but I like a faster, almost "percussive" type of vocal melody. Don't get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with the odd, extended note, to add emotion to the song, and to show the listener that the singer has a strong voice. You don't buy a Celine Dion or Whitney Houston album only hoping to hear faster, rap like tracks. You know there will be plenty of ballads full of major keys.
But I prefer a faster vocal style, like something you'd get from The Red Hot Chili Peppers. I also like REM, so prefer Michael Stipe to sing a quicker, percussive sort of melody as well. I don't like REM songs where his vocal melody is too drawn out either, just like with Simon Lebon.
And I don't discriminate - I will always skip REM instrumentals and regard them as a complete waste of time - just like I do with Duran Duran
As for the rest of your response regarding songs having a certain je ne sais quoi and there's no real rhyme or reason as to why you love one song and hate another: I absolutely understand. There's something about DD's stuff from mid-Big Thing through RCM that I simply cannot express or articulate. I'm being very broad because obviously I don't hate everything during those years and in fact do like a good bit of it and love a few here and there. I don't know if it's really simply the production styles either. I think it's more elemental--there's something about the songwriting or song structures or something that just doesn't appeal to me. And something that they started doing again with AYNIN and continued with PG that seems to have fixed it.
It's especially noticeable to me with Astronaut because there's a quality in the songwriting there that for me makes it sound like Warren never left. Obviously Andy is not doing all the fancy experimentations with the guitar sound, so it's not the aesthetics of the guitar sound that I'm referring to. If somehow I didn't know about the reunion, I would have honestly thought it was still Taylor Rhodes LeBon Cuccurullo.
Go figure.
Wow, that's really interesting Lou. I myself have never noticed such a thing - sure I like some albums more than others, but I have never really noticed a major shift from Big Thing through to RCM. For me, it's just been that some albums have worked, but some haven't. And I put that down to the band's decisions and implementations at that time.
So many things can influence a group of people. Who is heavily involved in the project? What is his/their current headspace like? How does this gel with the others? What about the producers? What style of music do they want to make? How much pressure is associated with this album? Etc Etc.
Can you give examples of the songwriting and song structures that particularly don't appeal to you between Big Thing and RCM? And how do they differ from the debut album, Rio, S&TRT, Notorious, AYNIN, and Paper Gods?I think that's very interesting