Loomis,
"Up The Junction" is another personal favorite, but....
It's a great example of narrative lyric writing. (What I believe that Mark Knopfler was referring to as "Making Movies" when he so titled a Dire Straits LP.) "Junction" effectively tells a story and fleshes out characters in - as you note - 3 minutes. That's pretty rare. Even rarer, that story is IMO quite poignant.
I agree that that is a tremendous achievement. Few songwriters can pull that off consistently and Diffford and Tillbrook are in that select company IMO. The comments that follow are not intended in any way to diminish "Junction", because I fully agree that it's among the best songs of its type and is a great lyrical achievement in its own right.
What separates ""Fantastic Place" (for me) is that it bites off an even bigger task. Losing a loved one is probably the most painful experience most people ever live through. Over time, our society has developed elaborate rituals (like funerals/clergy) to help at these times. Therein, we are usually provided some standard advice that's supposed to help, along the lines of:
"We're here to celebrate a life as well as mourn a death."
Two unfortunate things about that advice, IME - it almost always rings hollow and it's even worse when the person has died young since there's less life to celebrate.
For me - "Some Fantastic Place" is actually a convincing celebration of a life lost too young. As such, it's - in my view - almost a singular achievement in pop music. Richard Thompson, Mark Knopfler, Dar Williams, Townes Van Zandt and Bob Dylan (among others) have penned narrative lyrics that I'd put alongside "Junction", but I know of no one who has written a "pop elegy" as effective as "Fantastic Place". Again, Just MHO.
Gpgr,
IMO, John and Paul were unparalleled as songwriters in certain respects, but not in every respect. They certainly provided an elegant solution to the problem of integrating their own brand of (relentlessly creative) harmony into rock n roll music (as opposed to, say, Brian Wilson whose solution was also brilliant but often messy/inelegant). As to the balance of their work, there are many other artists who I prefer.
My own view is that, while the Lennon/Macca achievement is justifiably recognized for its brilliance, it's not necessarily that important to me. I appreciate what they did, but I tend to look for other things in my favorite music. Just personal preference and different priorities.
BTW, I'm not arguing that I'm right here (re: "Up The Junction" vs "Some Fantastic Place" or re: The Beatles vs the rest of the songwriting world). I'm just explaining my own views on these two issues. In my book, this kind of stuff definitely falls under the heading of "To each his own" . |
But,
I'm familiar with NTTC, but I'd never heard Iris D's cover. I agree that it's the best take on that (very moving) song that I've ever heard. As you noted, it captures a certain essential melancholia of life. It's a very successful commentary on a widely shared experience IMO and an excellent example of insightful writing, as well as a beautiful interpretation by Iris.
Fantastic Place is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is a celebration at a time of sadness, which is why I find it such a singular work of art. It may be more or less moving (to any given listener) than NTTC, but I was really commenting at the audacious nature of the undertaking, as much as anything else. It's not a sad song, or a mournful one, it's actually joyful - with the pain of loss lurking unspoken beneath the lyric.
Segueing neatly to Frogman's comment. I agree that The Beatles were underwhelming instrumentalists. Not bad - but not particularly compelling, either. I used to frequently argue this subject with my guitar teacher. He felt that the guitar playing in The Beatles catalog was remarkable. I believed that the ideas and arrangements were notable, but the playing (particularly the solos) rarely impressed me. There were exceptions (Something, for one), but I rarely go back to The Beatles for their playing.
Interestingly, "Fantastic Place" includes a wonderful, short guitar solo from Tillbrook that really serves the song. This certainly isn't Hendrix, Clapton, Van Halen guitar playing - it's more in the spirit of Chuck Berry (or Dave Davies, Terry Kath, Todd Rundgren, Lindsey Buckingham, etc.), a short and eloquent variation on the melody that intensifies the momentum of the song. In this particular case, it ends with a stuttering walk up the neck of the guitar and sort of spills into a gospel flavored "middle eight". The gospel touch is just a perfect complement to the spirituality of the lyric at that moment:
(Sung to the dead)
"When I'm near you, I can see you,
When I'm near you, I can hear you,
When I'm near you, I can feel you"
IMO, this is a tremendous bit of song craft - and one more reason that I hold this song in such high regard. |
Sorry about the first word of the last post. It autocorrected from "Bfd" to "but". I wasn't taking exception to anyone's commentary with my post, merely starting off with a response to Bfd.
BTW, thanks to all for the kind words in the responses here. |
Loomis,
As per usual, I don't really disagree with anything that you've written, with one slightly different take on how a given songwriter might integrate a solo into a given song.
The solo in SFP is an example of what I meant by "playing in service to the song"'. I completely agree that it's not the most inventive thing you'll ever hear, but - IMO - sometimes the highest purpose of a guitar solo is to re-state the melody in a way that reveals a different side to it. It's almost a different art form than soloing for the sake of a unique statement in, and of, itself. In this case, I think Tillbrook 100% made the "right" decision (with the caveat, of course, that there are an infinite number of right decisions) in keeping the solo within the four corners of the melody. The song is so strong that stepping outside those constraints risks breaking the spell. As always, YMMV - particularly if you're not as enthralled with the song as I am.
I will note one beautiful structural element to the solo. Both melodically and rhythmically, it sets up the walk down which transitions to the middle eight. In my view, that's brilliant song-craft. It's a very clever solution to the always present problem of segueing to a completely new segment of a song. The middle eight (as usual) only appears once in SFP and it's quite different in feel from both the chorus and the verse, yet the solo flows seamlessly into that passage. Again, it's another way in which that solo is in service to the song.
SFP probably more powerfully resonates for me because, despite persistent efforts to improve myself in this regard, I remain a fundamentally cynical soul. I've been to too many funerals and have never found much comfort in anyone's attempt to celebrate the life of the person that has died. That sentiment just never works for me....except in that song. The lyric strikes me as completely genuine, completely heartfelt, and astonishingly joyous in the face of great sadness. Like I said, that particular formula resides as much in this listener as it does in that song. Although, interestingly, when I asked Tillbrook (Difford wasn't really participating in this game) to choose the one he was proudest of, he chose SFP. So, I guess he may share my own issues around the subject of death, hope, and faith. Who knows?
BTW, I must give you this: Your choice of the descriptor "tragicomic" for Up The Junction was spot-on. I love the couplet:
"She left me when my drinking,
became a proper stinking"
You want to smile at the rhyme (and the oh-so-British use of the modifier "proper"), but the narrator has just lost his family to alcohol. It really is that rarity - a truly tragicomic moment. |
Schubert,
Your passion for classical music is obvious when you post in threads on that subject, but....
Do you participate in pop music forums simply to explain that, by virtue of your general distaste for pop music, you are the last bastion of good taste? It sure feels that way. Divergent opinions make for interesting conversation, but your persistent dismissiveness in these threads seems to serve little purpose. Obviously, you have the right to comment wherever you please, but why bother? You might better serve yourself and this community by participating only in those discussions which involve music you actually care about. Why troll here?
Loomis,
You summed up my concept pretty well. I'm confident that I could sit and listen to Richard Thompson solo over a metronome and enjoy the experience. I also love his songwriting. However, the extended soloing on Calvary Cross or Shoot Out The Lights sort out exists outside of the songs themselves. Like I said, it's almost a different art form.
Bdp,
I always thought that NTTC was a Merle Haggard song. Live and learn. |
Loomis,
It's sad, but this is what tends to happen when someone decides to walk into the party and drop a turd in the punch bowl. It usually changes the conversation (and not for the better) and sucks the joy out of the room. Maybe that was Schubert's intention. If it was, it certainly earns him no respect, benefits no one else, and just makes you wonder why he feels compelled to do this sort of thing. |
Tostado,
You raise a fair point in that Squeeze is essentially playing on the same musical field as did the Beatles - combining the rhythmic conventions of rock n roll with a richer harmonic approach. While The Beatles can fairly claim IMO a more sophisticated and innovative legacy on that front than can Squeeze, the question of songwriting preference isn't limited by that distinction. Chris Difford is simply a remarkable lyricist.
Both John and Paul produced some memorable lyrics and Lennon is remembered in some quarters as a poet. Personal preferences differ, but IMO neither Lennon nor McCartney can touch Chris Difford for narrative lyric writing. The bulk of popular opinion might take issue with that statement, but it's my personal judgement.
Even if you're willing to stipulate the above, it's still fair to ask whether that is enough to defend the notion that Difford/Tillbrook surpasses Lennon/Macca as songwriters. In the end, the answer to that question depends upon your priorities. For me, Squeeze is good enough on the tune smithing front to make any edge the Beatles have in that realm essentially irrelevant. Again, that's just my own personal priority at play.
At the end of the day, I simply never go back and listen to the Beatles anymore. They sort of ended up as neither fish nor fowl for me. Their achievement may indeed be impressive within the bounds of what they set out to do, but i guess that I find that it more clever than it is nourishing. These days I want nourishment.
I fully appreciate their craft, but - if I need a shot of harmonically rich popular music - I'll probably fire up some Stephen Sondheim. If I want rock n roll, I'll fire up some Rolling Stones or Chuck Berry. If I want something in between, I'm more likely to turn to Squeeze, Brian Wilson, Lindsey Buckingham etc. than I am to turn to The Beatles.
I'm not about to try to convince you (or anyone else) that one band or the other featured better songwriting. I can only tell you that I much prefer listening to Squeeze these days.
As a side note, George Harrison definitely had his moments (as I noted previously, the solo in Something is among my absolute favorites) but I personally wouldn't consider him a great rock guitarist based on his work with The Beatles. After he left, Harrison made a better case for himself IMO, but The Beatles catalog offers little guitar soloing that I find worth revisiting. There's plenty of compelling arrangement of music for guitar, but only a little lead that floats my boat.
It doesn't need to be said, but YMMV. |
As to the track list you requested, here are a few that I'd start with (off the top of my head, so if anyone else wants to chime in, they may well identify a key song that I omitted):
Some Fantastic Place
Up The Junction
It's Over
Goodby Girl
Another Nail In My Heart
Pulling mussels (from the shell)
Annie Get Your Gun |
I always like a food analogy for rock n roll vs classical - but mine would be French haute cuisine vs sashimi. In one case, a chef who has mastered a ton of technique may produce a complicated dish that requires every bit of his training as well as an elaborate and often time critical game plan. There may be several steps involved in the preparation of a protein, more for a sauce, still more for accompanying vegetables and garnish. Every step must be synchronized for the desired result.
In the other case, he's essentially just cutting fish. There's not even any "cooking" (in the strict sense of the word) involved. However, the latter can produce a sublime and elegant result which reflects the aesthetic of a different culture.
They both have a place at my table. |
