Titles Part I

I heard "Falling to Pieces" by The Script and "At This Moment" by Billy Vera and The Beaters yesterday morning and it got me thinking about titles.

"Falling to Pieces" has 12 title mentions in the lyric. That's quite a few but another phrase in the song ("when a heart breaks it don't break even") also appears 12 times. Yet there's no confusion. You recognize that "Falling to Pieces" is indeed the name of the song and the main idea that ties everything together.

So how does it work? Firstly, it's the placement. The singer is describing a breakup, unsure of how to deal with it. Then he sums it up with "I'm falling to pieces...I'm falling to pieces." Pretty clear. The music also fits. In the verses, the melody falls within the singer's middle range with a rhythmic, almost rap-like drive. In contrast, when the title is sung, he goes into a very high range and sustains the notes in long phrases. You sense that he is vulnerable, which fits the context perfectly. You also sense from the change of pace from fast to slow that this is the main idea, this is what I've been talking about.

This song is a whole package. We know who is singing to whom and why. The perspective doesn't change. Because we understand what's happening we can identify with the singer. We feel the emotions. We can all relate to the situation; we've all experienced a breakup one way or another (even a young listener would have some frame of reference via other people, media). Finally, the way the music parallels the scenario so well gives the song authenticity. Either the writer calculated all this out or, more likely, this is an outgrowth and expression of real experience and emotional honesty. On second thought, I'm thinking it's both. Doesn't the strongest writing come from mining your own experiences and emotions? Things you know about. Then you've got to use the craft of writing to get that across.

I hear a lot of stuff these days where one or both seem to be lacking. I'm not sure why, but I do see a lot of listeners turning off their BS indicators, and going with whoev' and whatev'. It's all good, right? I mean, why does anything have to make sense? It's just music. It means whatever you want it to mean.

In my opinion, it's not all good. Some of it's crap. Is it any wonder that stations that play "The best of the 70s, 80s, 90s and today!" are so popular these days? Hmm.

Anyway..................

"At This Moment". Well........

This song gets to me. I don't even want to talk about title placement any more. It goes way beyond that.

Well, all right. There are three title mentions, skillfully and subtly placed. The title itself appears in three different questions that introduce the verses. That's not a song form you hear very often. (Can you think of even one other song that's like that?) I'd be willing to bet, though, that after a first listen most or all listeners would be able to come up with the title. The reason is that it works. It's a perfect summary of the main idea. The whole song is about this moment. Time freezes right when the woman he's deeply in love with tells him she's not in love with him anymore and that she's in love with someone else.

Ouch. And then he talks to her. And what he says.....it kills you. And the music..... the sax....

You need to open a new tab and just listen to it right now. If you can get through that song without weeping you have either never been in love or you're thinking about baseball.

The standard formats for songs exist because they work so well, so people tend to gravitate toward them. This song is an example of not being tied to form, not pushing a lyric into an ill-fitting template but rather letting it stand on its own unique merits. Truly exceptional songs often do that. And this one is from the heart.

Two well crafted songs, both emotionally honest and intense, two different treatments and ways to handle title. Both work. You just listen and they take you someplace.

"Titles Part II" to come.

Now, seriously, listen.

Can't Say No to Rod Stewart

The other day Jared was telling me about a Rod Stewart song with a really clear, well-crafted lyric (My Heart Can't Tell You No) that he enjoyed.

In talking about it, the juices started flowing and we both felt inspired to actually start having lyric writing/lyric analysis sessions some time soon.

We had planned this before but didn't actually get to the point of nailing down a few dates, so it didn't happen.


I hope this is the start of something!

Question...

Would a cryptic lyric suffer if it were rewritten to be clear or would the writer's idea simply be accessible to more listeners?


Sounds like a good writing exercise for aspiring lyricists!

Tea, Time and American Pie

THE SHORT VERSION...

I liked your comment. I agree, being cryptic depends on the song. Of course, that type of writing will only appeal to a minority. Probably English Major-/writer-performer-types! I like the analysis myself. It's fun. (As a side note, "American Pie" didn't become popular because of the cryptic verses but rather because it gave us a series of snapshots of a popular era and a powerful anthem that said goodbye to that time in our history. Without the "chorus" - heard seven times - it wouldn't have found a huge audience like it did.)

Is it fair to say that, if you want to appeal to a wide audience, you've got to pick a universal theme and give it a clear treatment?

To me, it all depends on your aim. What's yours?




THE LONG VERSION...

Tea: Thank you - exceeded expectations!


Time: Yeah, for some reason Papa Google thinks I'm in California.


American Pie:

So, I've been thinking about your comment and that song. I like that one, too. It doesn't come out and say certain specifics does it?

So why does it work so well? I think we've got to remember all the things the song has going for it:

Wide appeal

The beginning grabs our attention with a shocking headline everybody knew about: the unexpected death of a high profile American. Our common experience as a society is great working ground for folk artists. The ills of society, social change or, in this case, a tragedy that affected millions.

Style and Tone

McClean knew not to be blunt. Saying "I heard about his widowed bride" fills us in without using harsh words like "death" or "killed" that might have turned us off. His wording also shows us a snapshot of someone who has heard the news. We can see the action as it happens to the singer, either imagining what it might have been like for him or flashing back to where we were when we heard the news. Millions are on board and ready to hear more.

The verses then take us to different places: a high school gym, the levee, ten years after, the king, the jester..... He's created an impressionistic "photo album" of the 60s, dropping in hints of iconic figures and events of the time here and there.

The AAA Form combined with a Powerful Anthem

He chose the AAA form, very common to folk music, to tell his story. It works like a series of panels that unfold. Listeners immediately understand the structure. He knew that the poetic, abstract symbolism of the A sections would not stand on their own (imagine "Bye Bye" without the singalong parts to bind it together). So instead of ending each verse with a simple phrase or couplet refrain, he expanded it into a strong chorus-like singalong. It's part Irish drinking song, part anthem to the loss of young America's idealistic hopes. It contrasts the long abstract lines of the verse with conversational plain language in shorter lines (not to mention a great melody).



I'm sure that a listener survey would reveal the following: few people know the words to the verses, maybe a line or two; almost everyone would know the entire refrain.

So this song is working on two levels. For those who lived through the assassinations of the Kennedys and MLK and the persecution of John Lennon and others, the verses probably echo a difficult time in our history. The establishment was resistant to the hippie ideals and the altruism of the young. Then the tragedies, the loss of innocence and lives. The symbolic lines resonate with some real experience, however individual.

The rest of us are just waiting for the best singalong "chorus" in Folk Rock to come around again so we can join in. We hear it after three introductory verses. Its fun rhyme scheme and simple language make it memorable. Then we get six more of them to sing along with.

So that's why I believe it works. I challenge you to start singing that refrain in a group of people 35 or older and not get them singing along. You can't help yourself!



Back to the Cryptic

I can't help but wonder, though, what the verses are about specifically. In other words, "Hey, Don, who're you talking to when you ask, 'Did you write the book of love.....I know that you're in love with him.....' ? Are they the same people? Are you talking to me now? What happens then? Who are 'we' ten years after? And who is the jester? The players and the marching band? The king and queen? Who is Jack Flash? Who were you watching on the stage? Why were you enraged? What was revealled the day the music died?"

Who can say what it's really about? Ask ten people. You'll get ten different answers. Sure, we can mull over it in written form as a literary exercise. I think that's a lot of fun myself. But I don't really get why I'm left in the dark as a listener. I think he wrote it the way he had to write it and that's cool with me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the song!

In contrast, check out "Goodbye Norma Jean." It's also a poetic tribute to turbulent times and the loss of innocence. But because it is told as a tribute to someone in particular (someone millions recognize instantly) it is clear. In the first two lines we know who is being addressed, the circumstances (she has died), and who is singing (someone who never knew her personally, but who saw her as most of us did, as a star). The third line tells us the singer's attitude (admiration). In seventeen words we have our bearings. We can relax and enjoy the song as it unfolds. Way to go, Bern!

Art Songs, Riddles, and Sheila Davis

I'm kinda just channeling Sheila here.....hold on....here it comes....



I guess the fundamental question is: Do you want to connect to your audience?

If the answer is, "Yes" then you have to be clear. As soon as you lose your listener, you have short-circuited that connection.

Being cryptic leaves your audience behind. Listeners don't want to hear a song again and again because they didn't get it the first time. They want to listen again and again because they identify with the song's message strongly. The songs that have the greatest effect on us are the ones that speak for us, the ones we can say "Yeah, I know what you mean" to.

Let's take another look at the Werth song about "she".

Is the song about the train? About longing for earlier times? What is the attitude of the song? We don't know who "she" is or what the song's point of view is about "her" so we don't know how to feel. We feel nothing. We're left with a puzzle, a game. Not what your typical listener comes to hear at a concert. Even if we still care what's going on in this song, we'd have to hear it again to have a chance at understanding it. Hardly the hallmark of successful writing. Isn't the goal of writing to convey a message?

Here's an alternate approach to a song about a train:


Clack, clack, clack, black metal cars on an iron track

Nine hundred tons, oh where do you go?

There's more to this big old world than

This little town, I know


It's still a song about a train and wondering what's out there in the world. We know where we are and what is being talked about, not because we are told directly but because we can hear the train, see the line of cars, feel the weight of the cargo, wonder about where it might lead. Furthermore, we easily detect an attitude of the singer about feeling trapped in a small town (the train is tangible evidence that something bigger is out there). We can orient ourselves. The difference is that it is clear. We are along for the ride.


I'm not saying the lyric I've indicated here is better, just different. It does seem to me, though, that a riddle (which his text is) would be right at home in a book on word puzzles, or perhaps in a poem format. After all, the solution or resolution of tension for a listener/reader is what brings satisfaction. This requires several readings or hearings as the case may be (thus your class activity). Further study is required. What satisfaction does the listener of the Werth song experience after hearing a song that he doesn't understand? There is no "aha" moment. It goes by in real time and we are left just wondering.

A song that requires a briefing or debriefing may beg the question, "Am I working in the right format for what I am trying to accomplish?"

One final thought: If the song had to exist as a riddle, it could possibly work if the listener knew right up front what the idea was. For example:

I'm a riddle, can you solve me?...

Yeah, I know...hokey...



The next thing is: What do you want to say?