Just a quick thought I wanted to jot off before I forgot:
We spend so much time complaining about special effects in movies, and how they could be better/cooler, whatever. (I know, 'we' is a somwhat small sampling of the population, but work with me here.)
Why?
I haven't figured out an answer to that yet; it seems to me that if a movie's story/acting/directing/etc. is good, it doesn't matter if the effects are piss-poor. Conversely, a crappy movie won't be saved by slick effects.
An interesting corollary I realized: we spend lots of time wishing effects were more 'realistic'. Why should we look for good simulations of real effects? We've got pretty damn cool special effects in nature and real life, anyways.
Have you ever just stopped and looked around you? Really looked. There is amazement and beauty and genius all around us, and in far more convincing form that 'special' effects.
4.4.06
2.4.06
Tom's Diner
Due to certain extenuating circumstances, I recently began setting my alarm to 'radio' instead of 'alarm' to wake me up. The only problem is that I need to find a station that is sufficiently annoying to wake me up, yet not so annoying that I'll destroy my alarm clock in a fit of rage at being woken up to, say, Mahler, or Eminem. I've settled on a station that's mostly talk in the morning, interspersed with the inevitable commercials and some generic current pop music. It's obnoxious, but hey, I'm not really awake when I'm listening to it, so it's all right.
All of this is a preface to my experience this morning. Sunday mornings, there isn't much talk, but rather a bunch of 'older' pop songs from a few decades ago. What woke me up today was 'Tom's Diner', a pseudo-a capella piece by Suzanne Vega (this version as a remix with DNA). I'm sure you've all heard it before, and on the surface it's a simplistic song. But something in my sleepy morning haze latched on to the song, and it took me a while to figure out why.
Sure, the beat and refrain is a bit hypnotic (to me after 5 hours of sleep, that is), but so are a lot of other popular songs. I think it is more than that, so I listened to it a few more times, and have come to my Genius Music Critic (TM) conclusions.
First, the sense of timing in the piece is superb. If you've ever heard the plain a capella version of Vega's, the pauses are exactly the correct length. I can't tell you the number of times I've cringed upon hearing sloppy 'rests' in recent music. Silence in a piece can speak even more than the music itself; I know this all too well, from years of slaving over piano pieces that required extraordinary precision.
Have you ever heard a really complex rhythm in something like a rag or jazz piece? With some careful listening, you'll realize that although the 'cadence' (to misuse a musical term) and exact phrasing are important for bringing out the rhythm, it's the precise locations of where you don't hear music that really defines the piece.
Anyhow, this piece did that exquisitely well, although the original a capella version brings it out much more obviously. If you listen near the end of the DNA remix, though, at the 'bells of the cathedral' line, they also show a sensitivity to the timing with some clever splicing of the 'bell' sound into the song.
Secondly, I noticed that Vega has a real gift in her lyrical structure. I mean, the lyrics themselves are pretty cool: a sort of 'detached', almost haunting look through someone's eyes. However, the structure of these lyrics was brilliant. Each phrase fit into the song just so, with the precisely best syllables being stressed/elongated, and a certain 'flow' that many songs lack. That's what keeps the listener moving with the song.
I have no clue whether these strengths are present in her other songs, nor do I really care. I just enjoyed being woken up to something that wasn't the same old three chords being played inexpertly on guitars with a generic drum beat and poorly written lyrics. (Not to say I don't own plenty of this sort of music, of course.)
I can't guarantee the GMC (TM) side of me will manifest here again, but it's just an interesting song.
All of this is a preface to my experience this morning. Sunday mornings, there isn't much talk, but rather a bunch of 'older' pop songs from a few decades ago. What woke me up today was 'Tom's Diner', a pseudo-a capella piece by Suzanne Vega (this version as a remix with DNA). I'm sure you've all heard it before, and on the surface it's a simplistic song. But something in my sleepy morning haze latched on to the song, and it took me a while to figure out why.
Sure, the beat and refrain is a bit hypnotic (to me after 5 hours of sleep, that is), but so are a lot of other popular songs. I think it is more than that, so I listened to it a few more times, and have come to my Genius Music Critic (TM) conclusions.
First, the sense of timing in the piece is superb. If you've ever heard the plain a capella version of Vega's, the pauses are exactly the correct length. I can't tell you the number of times I've cringed upon hearing sloppy 'rests' in recent music. Silence in a piece can speak even more than the music itself; I know this all too well, from years of slaving over piano pieces that required extraordinary precision.
Have you ever heard a really complex rhythm in something like a rag or jazz piece? With some careful listening, you'll realize that although the 'cadence' (to misuse a musical term) and exact phrasing are important for bringing out the rhythm, it's the precise locations of where you don't hear music that really defines the piece.
Anyhow, this piece did that exquisitely well, although the original a capella version brings it out much more obviously. If you listen near the end of the DNA remix, though, at the 'bells of the cathedral' line, they also show a sensitivity to the timing with some clever splicing of the 'bell' sound into the song.
Secondly, I noticed that Vega has a real gift in her lyrical structure. I mean, the lyrics themselves are pretty cool: a sort of 'detached', almost haunting look through someone's eyes. However, the structure of these lyrics was brilliant. Each phrase fit into the song just so, with the precisely best syllables being stressed/elongated, and a certain 'flow' that many songs lack. That's what keeps the listener moving with the song.
I have no clue whether these strengths are present in her other songs, nor do I really care. I just enjoyed being woken up to something that wasn't the same old three chords being played inexpertly on guitars with a generic drum beat and poorly written lyrics. (Not to say I don't own plenty of this sort of music, of course.)
I can't guarantee the GMC (TM) side of me will manifest here again, but it's just an interesting song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
