MTO 23.3: De Clercq, Embracing Ambiguity in Pop/Rock Form

Embracing Ambiguity in the Analysis of Form in Pop/Rock Music, 1982–1991 Trevor de Clercq KEYWORDS: Form, popular music, rock music, verse, chorus, bridge ABSTRACT: A central concern for theories of form in pop/rock music is the division of a song into sections and, consequently, the categorization of these sections according to a standard set of section labels. Psychological research on categorization shows that it is inherently a perceptual process, one that involves graded membership and fuzzy boundaries. Thus in contrast to prior theorists, who often a2empt to minimi/e ambiguity in the analysis of form in pop/rock music, I confront ambiguity directly, organi/ing and describing many of the common types encountered. I focus e4clusively on the time period 198 –1991, 1hen verse5chorus form can be considered to have achieved 1idespread currency. After providing an illustrative e4emplar, I discuss three types of ambiguity common to this decade, each based on the main section role involved: 16 verse ambiguity, 1hich typically derives from 1eak section di7erentiation8 6 chorus ambiguity, 1hich usually involves a blend of more than one section role8 and 36 bridge ambiguity, 1hich often results from di7erent hierarchical meanings of the bridge label. Received December 2016 :olume 23, Number 3, September 2017 Copyright © 2017 Society for Music Theory Introduction ?1.1] ,he analysis of form in pop/rock music traditionally involves partitioning a song into various discrete sections, such as verse, chorus, and bridge. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this process is not al1ays straightfor1ard, since t1o di7erent analysts sometimes provide t1o di7erent interpretations of the same song. For e4ample, the form of the A2 song BOne” D1991) has been analyzed in at least t1o di7erent 1ays, as sho1n in Example 1a . Endrinal D 2008 , 148) vie1s the song primarily as an alternation of verse and chorus sections, 1hereas Farris D 006 , 98–99) vie1s it primarily as a succession of verse sections only. D1) We may naturally 1onder, therefore: What factors underlie this and other instances of disagreement in the analysis of form in pop/rock musicH ?1. @ E4amining the song B%ne” more closely, 1e can Ind evidence both for and against the readings that Endrinal and Farris o7er. D 6 On one hand, the passage that Endrinal labels as a 1 of 20 chorus D Example 1b 6 sounds rather chorus5like in contrast to the preceding material. Most notably, the melody rises into a higher register along 1ith a corresponding lift in the harmonies to the relative maJor, 1hich are features that theorists have associated 1ith verse5chorus pairings. D36 On the other hand, there is very li2le if any te4tural change bet1een the Irst eight bars and the second eight, 1hich dampens our sense that these si4teen bars cleave into t1o separate sections. Another factor involves the lyrics. In particular, many e4planations of form in pop/rock music observe that the lyrics of a verse typically change each time its music reappears, 1hereas the lyrics of a chorus typically do not De.g., Stephenson 2002 , 134–358 Evere2 2009 , 145). As Example 1c sho1s, the lyrics for each iteration of EndrinalLs chorus section are considerably di7erent, 1ith “one” being the only signiIcant 1ord shared among all four instances of the passage. Overall, therefore, the di7erences in interpretation observed here appear to derive from conMicting perceptual cues 1ithin di7erent domains Dharmony, melody, te4ture, lyrics6, each of 1hich has the potential to conIrm or contradict a given reading. In short, the form of the song is ambiguous. ?1.3] ,o some, the lack of agreement on the form of this song may seem like a rare occurrence—too rare to deserve closer aention. Neal, for e4ample, 1rites that “the mere act of labeling sections of a song is li2le more than a rote e4ercise, one that is easily and fre.uently taught to undergraduate students of popular music” D 2007 , EE6, implying that partitioning a song into sections and applying standard form labels is usually a clear5cut process. And it may be so, if done alone. But in my o1n e4perienceNboth in analyzing songs and reading otherLs analysesN3 Ind form in pop/rock music to be a very subJective topic. DForm in common5practice era music is no di7erent, considering the panoply of approaches that have been o7ered to describe the form of the Irst movement of a sonata.6 DE6 It is impossible to .uantify the true e4tent of subJectivity in the analysis of form in pop/rock music, of course, although some recent 1ork sheds light on the issue. In a study by Bruderer, McKinney, and Kohlrausch D 2006 6, for e4ample, listeners 1ere asked to label structural boundaries in si4 full5length popular songs. ,he authors found that, of all the boundaries identiIed, only a fe1 1ere agreed upon by all participants. In a similar study by Smith D 2014 6, trained musicians independently labeled structural boundaries in a large and stylistically diverse corpus of recordings. Allo1ing for one or t1o bars of lee1ay, participants agreed on the location of segment boundaries about 77% of the time. D5) More recently, I e4amined the e4tent of section5label agreement in the corpus of rock songs I created 1ith David ,emperley D de Clerc. 2017 6. When grouping section labels into general categories Dverse, chorus, bridge6, I found that our section labels matched 67% of the time, given any particular moment in the corpus. ,hus 1hile analysts may not often 1ildly disagree on the form of a song Dafter all, even Endrinal and Farris agree that roughly half of B%ne” contains verse material6, 1e can e4pect to regularly Ind a good deal of variation from one interpretation to another. ?1.E@ If structural boundaries and section labels in pop/rock music are often ambiguous, ho1 should a theory of form in pop/rock respondH D6) One approach 1ould be to try and reduce this ambiguity by more strictly deIning the standard section labels, taking care to he1 to these deInitions in analytical practice. Farris, for e4ample, states that the passages Endrinal labels as the chorus in B%ne” are “clearly not choruses” due to the lack of strict lyric repetition D 2006 , 98). In other 1ords, lyric repetition is an essential .uality of a chorus, and 1ithout this feature, a section cannot be a chorus. Similarly strict approaches to section categorization can be found in the 1riting of other theorists. Endrinal himself, for e4ample, 1rites that the middle passage Daround (11, Example 2a 6 of the song BElevation” DA , 2000) “cannot be called a PbridgeLC because it lacks transitional function D 2008 , 78). Osborn analyzes “DonLt Stop BelievinL” DJourney, 1981) in much the same 1ay, stating that 1hile most people 1ould hear the Inal passage Dbeginning around 3: 1, Example 2b 6 as the chorus of the song, it is B not a chorus” Demphasis in the original6 because it occurs only at the end of the song D 2010 , 19). In each of these cases, the author implies that a particular feature—e.g., lyric repetition, transitional function, recurrence in the song—is an 2 of 20 essential element for applying a section label. In the Ield of cognitive psychology, this outlook is commonly referred to as a “classical” categorization scheme D Murphy 2002 , 12–16), 1hereby membership in a category, such as “chorus” or Bbridge,C is an all5or5nothing aﬀair, hinging on the e4istence of one or more essential .ualities. For both Endrinal and Osborn, this outlook gives rise to the coinage of ne1 section labels, such as “interverse” D Endrinal 2011 6 and “terminal climaxC DOsborn 2013 6, so as to account for song sections that do not conform to certain aspects of conventional section labels. Our approach to ambiguity, therefore, has the po1er to shape the analytical systems 1e devise. ?1.5] An alternative theoretical frame1ork 1ould be to accept the ambiguity of these section labels as an intrinsic part of the analytical process. Indeed, research 1ithin the Ield of cognitive psychology De.g., Rosch 1973 , Rosch 1978 , Smith and Medin 1981 6 has sho1n that classical categorization—a deInition5based approach that relies on essential elements for category membershipN*oes a poor Job of modeling the 1ay that humans naturally conceptualize and understand the 1orld around them. D7) Instead, the categories that humans use, and the concepts those categories represent, are be2er considered to be graded Dor fu//y6, 1ith certain members more central than others. Ambiguity, in other 1ords, is not Just a fundamental component in the analysis of form in pop/rock music but is fundamental to all mental tasks that involve categorization. For e4ample, the debate among pop/rock theorists about 1hat harmonic entities do or do not .ualify as instances of “dominant” is evidence that the categorization of harmonic function is a fu//y process Dsee, for e4ample: Doll 2009 , Biamonte 2010 , Nobile 2016 6. But although previous authors have conceded that form labels in pop/rock can often be unclear De.g., Stephenson 2002 , 133), no published 1ork has yet closely investigated the types of ambiguity typically encountered and the mechanisms by 1hich these types of ambiguity arise. D8) I believe this to be an essential task for understanding form in pop/rock music, as I have found that many if not most 1ell5kno1n songs, especially those that have achieved great critical acclaim, involve ambiguous formal structures. In other 1ords, part of the appeal of these songs may derive from the interesting 1ays in 1hich they manipulate the conventions of form. ?1.6] In this paper, I embrace ambiguity in the analysis of form in pop/rock music, organizing and describing many of the common types of ambiguity that are encountered.

Load more