Deconstructing SFBM Options

[Erikk]

Recent posts in the best/worst album thread about SFBM have led me to this thread. I generally don't like to propagate negative comments about my favorite band, but I feel this needs be said.

I referenced in some other thread a while ago that we can chart Live's albums by Ed's apparent spiritual development. I don't think this is a secret. This seems to have climaxed on TDTH (that is why I like it so much). V was weird, but yes, as some people have said, diverse. I liked it. But BOP and SFBM are increasingly and disturbingly homogenous; the songs are predictable even on first listen and almost formulaic. I'm not even talking about lyrically. While I do think that there was a serious decline in the depth and complexity of the lyrics, I think that may be a product of Ed "coming to something" spiritually, and I think lyrics are generally harder to objectively critique. But I'm talking about musically.

Hence, the SFBM formula. Almost every song follows this formula:

(Intro; some songs)
Verse 1
Chorus
Verse 2
Chorus
Bridge (or Instrumental Break)
Hushed recapitualtion of either verse or chorus, leading to climax
Chorus (usually with variation) to end.

Songs that follow this exactly:
The River, Mystery, Get Ready (instrumental at end also), Sofia, Love Shines, Home, You Are Not Alone, Night of Nights (instrumental at end also)

Slight Variations:
Wings and Where Do We Go From Here - the hushed recap to climax is instrumental

Exception:
All I Need - no hushed recap

Now, this fact alone does not make SFBM a bad album. It places the emphasis on the melody, as Ed has said of the album. The combination of predictability and melody-centered short tracks are what we should expect from a pop album.

But seriously, try to make a formula like this for any of Live's other albums. I tried, and came close only with BOP. So when we talk about great Live albums, I have trouble understanding the argument that SFBM constitutes a superior musical achievement than any of Live's first four virtuosos. Melody is nice, and the melodies from SFBM are catchy and occasionally interesting, but melody alone without interesting and diverse songwriting does not make a great album.

Thoughts?


Erikk

[Alex]

Hmm, maybe you're right.

SFBM is fucking formulaic and is god damn opposite of intense, so you shitlickers who think that SFBM is the "real" Live and that the other fuckin' four albums are just "fist-pumping" or "depressing" clearly don't understand how bands progress and what a great album is and you can fist-pump on my dick till I splooge on your ignorant face.
For those offended by the above paragraph, please refer to original post.

I like this guy

SFBM is formulaic, and predictable. If you don't agree, you obviously don't know the first thing about music.

[gotigrz]

yes, SFBM is mostly based on standard:

verse1, loud chorus, verse 2, loud chorus, something different, loud chorus...

but, they sound good. and, listen to about 90% of what you hear by other bands and you'll hear the same thing. it all depends on what instrument you want to emphasize on.... SFBM is def. not a album focused on the guitar. listen to gracey's drums..... awesome. i guess that's why i like SFBM so much... i love to rock on the drums. now SS is def. a guitar rockin' album... i love it, also. but, i can't play the guitar.

just my $.02