Mike76

I've never talked about suites; besides, progressive music is hard for me to digest. However, I find that if there is also an intelligent instrumental break in the already predictable sequence of verses and chorus, (not, for example, the usual solo borrowed from hard rock), the song gains in personality. The instrumental part can even replace the melodic function of the chorus, as is the case with "Are Friends Electric?" by Numan or the simpler "Narcotic" by Liquido. For my tastes, I appreciate those who seek less conventional solutions. Of course, a bit of taste is also required; if "Don't Look..." had a didgeridoo solo instead of a guitar one, it would become more bizarre but not better, quite the opposite.

It's been a few years since I listened to "What's.." but I certainly don't have a good memory of it. For example, I don't recall that great heterogeneity of styles, except for the usual ballad-fast song alternation that everyone seems to do. So if I understood correctly, you like "Don't Look..." for its sobriety, for expressing the melody without any tackiness. It's fine for the 60's solo, which is indeed quite different from those placed in the middle of Pausini's songs (although to annoy you I could say: is Bublè great for having revived a way of singing that had been put in the attic of pop?), but I would have a bit more to critique regarding Mr. Noel's interpretation; anyway, de gustibus... Fortunately, I don't remember "ti scatterò una foto" from our Ferro, but I know that there's always worse.

"Monkey Gone to Heaven" I wouldn't dare to call it genius, but it is certainly not as predictable as the songs of the poor Oasis. Between genius masterpieces and banality, there are countless shades, and Monkey lies within that spectrum.
However, it seems to me that we are saying the same things: "Create something original by remixing and reshaping rock stereotypes," you say, but can't that SOMETHING be that "brave instrumental part" that I invoke? But above all, what would that "SOMETHING original that remixes rock stereotypes" be in "Don't Look Back in Anger" for you? A sixties guitar? A copy-paste of the piano from "Imagine"? The rhythm section that you don't see as banal but that to me is "whatever"? The singer's voice that you find particularly virtuosic? Don't take it personally; I don't want to irritate anyone; I just want to understand what you find special about Oasis compared to any random pub band.

And anyway, you're breaking down a door I've already opened for you. I'm not disgusted by all the songs (verse-chorus) X2, I've already given the example of Depeche, but if you don't push yourself to try a different structure, you have to compensate with a more daring instrumental part; otherwise, you end up with a song like a thousand others. The instrumental part of "Don't look back in anger" is limited to supporting the voice and really fails to evoke even the slightest interest.

Yes, okay, the Ubu, but they try to make the melody grotesque, distorted, "drunken," and usually it takes up little time compared to the total duration of the piece, which is why their choruses become almost a punch in the eyes (ears), like a fuchsia polka-dotted tie worn with a gray suit.

Oooops what an idiot... I messed up the copy & paste! I meant to say that "Don't look back in anger" is as brilliant and exciting as an Elton John track. I know "Monkey Gone to Heaven," I don't find that brilliant either, but it certainly doesn’t deserve to be compared to the good Elton. At least the chorus is more "contained." I know the Pixies a little but I've never delved deep into them; years ago I was almost going to buy "Doolittle," but then I left it in the store, perhaps because I wasn't fully convinced on a compositional level. Maybe I was wrong, even Devo didn't convince me on the first listen.

I said I would agree with you, but not entirely because the statement that "melodies are never banal in themselves" cannot ALWAYS be true. I challenge arrangers and producers all over the world to elevate a track by DJ Francesco or Max Pezzali. Pezzali's melodies would be banal even if sung by Dave Gahan or Trent Reznor, just as his songs would be even if produced by Albini or Howie B. Don't you agree?

@Lux: first of all, I affirmatively answer your first two questions. Then I would partially agree with you on the point you make about melody. Indeed, songs by Depeche Mode like "Everything Counts" or "Stripped" have a rather insistent, highly melodic and catchy chorus, we might even say banal, yet they are pieces I adore precisely because, as you say, they have a great original and polished sound that elevates the melody, makes it expressive, and turns that song into "unique," not standardized. The banality of the verse-chorus structure is redeemed in these cases by the genius of the sound (besides the singer's skill). I would also agree with you on the fact that it's impossible to say "scientifically" whether one melody is worse or better than another. To prove that your theory isn’t unfounded, one could say that the covers of certain classics are inferior or superior to the original tracks while following the same melodic lines. For me, how the melody is expressed matters a lot. The winning melody for "Bitter Sweet Symphony" comes more from the instrumental accompaniment than from the vocals; for "Imagine" (which doesn’t have a distinctly separate chorus from the verse), it comes from the whole. While I’m far from being a fan of Verve and Lennon, I find that the songs in question have sought melody in a less predictable way than the myriad of tracks that rely on the usual vocal melody in the chorus raised a few notes higher than the verse.

Is the melody of "The 15th" not better than "Don't Look Back in Anger"? I don’t know if you’re right or not, but let’s put it this way: it’s the Wire that makes the melody of "The 15th" more interesting because they don’t express it through the usual easy anthem but rather through THAT guitar, THAT synth, THAT vocal line. The Oasis certainly don’t shine with compositional originality, nor do they redeem themselves with an extravagant sound; if they then assign the melody to choruses sung by a guy with a stuffy nose who drags the vowels and throws in a handful of borrowed notes, I really struggle to appreciate them. "Monkey Gone to Heaven" is as genius and thrilling as an Elton John track. This is obviously my opinion; you might say the same for Depeche, Cure, or Human League.

This album kind of gets on my nerves, especially because of Manzarek...

@Lux: Oasis plagiarized (or if we want to play devil's advocate, "paid homage to") "Imagine" with that piano riff, period. I agree that the rest of the song develops in a completely different way (and definitely worse, I'd say). In this case, the plagiarism is an embellishment that opens up a banal song; it doesn't ruin it, I would still find it ugly, but it makes me laugh that they recycled one of the most famous melodies in the history of music; they could have at least looked for something less well-known. Even if the operation were "a sincere tribute to Lennon," as Ilcisco says, it doesn't change my mind about the quality of the track. If we want to find a well-done little plagiarism, I'd prefer "Bitter Sweet Symphony" by The Verve, another sad and insignificant band, but at least on that occasion, they managed to create a memorable melody without flaunting easy karaoke choruses that, as you know, are a bit hard for me to digest.