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

[sellingthdrama]

I completely agree. In fact, on my very first listen to SFBM, I found myself singing along and knowing the words because it was all so predictable. On that first listen, I even recall thinking "now the verse" and "now the chorus" as it went on.

There is plenty to enjoy about this album and I do appreciate the positive tone of it all. I feel like I can connect with this album, but it is different. Like a lot of people, I am still left feeling somewhat empty. The raw emotion is missing. The polished - the very polished emotion is there, but one of the big reasons I've liked Live is how I connected with the raw feel of the song.

I would love to see the raw emotion combined with the positive tone. We got a some of that in TDTH (They Stood Up For Love is one of my all time favorites).

[rocknerd]

I disagre on it being predictable. I find the album to be ore inspiring. This is the first album that makes me feel happy when im in a shit mood.
Now not to say that LIVES previous albums dont do this, it is a diffarent experience.
Albums like MJ and SS are great fist pumping albums to gee me up when im down but SFBM actually makes me happy.

On the topic of RAW POWER dont you think that an album that was layed down as quickly as SFBM is the 1st album with true raw power? other then ED none of the other memvers had heard these songs and just cracked them out.

But it comes down to personal choice by the ranting on this site it seems every one wants TC2.

[Wambangalang]

I find the album to be ore inspiring

as in....when you go canoeing, the album makes the ore's row faster...?

Drop the rock from your name

[rocknerd]

as in....when you go canoeing, the album makes the ore's row faster...?

Drop the rock from your name

what ever nut stain, what do you know about rock? why dont you go and hang out with your TOOL friends so i used the wrong oar spelling is the least of my worries when there are LIVE fans like you around

[Erikk]

I disagre on it being predictable. I find the album to be ore inspiring. This is the first album that makes me feel happy when im in a shit mood.
Now not to say that LIVES previous albums dont do this, it is a diffarent experience.
Albums like MJ and SS are great fist pumping albums to gee me up when im down but SFBM actually makes me happy.

I definitely see SFBM as a "make you happy" kind of album. And in all honesty, one of my first thoughts on the album, following my first go-through, was that Ed sounds incredibly happy. SFBM is the narrative of a man who is happy where he is, spiritually and otherwise. However, I don't think the warm fuzzies that SFBM undoubtedly engenders can put this album even on the same plane as MJ and SS. In comparison, they might seem like "fist pumping albums," but that is only in comparison. Without SFBM in the picture, they are subtle and well-crafted, musically diverse, and depict true spiritual struggles.

On the topic of RAW POWER dont you think that an album that was layed down as quickly as SFBM is the 1st album with true raw power? other then ED none of the other memvers had heard these songs and just cracked them out.

The force behind the band's creativity during the process of laying down SFBM is interesting, and perhaps powerful, and has been discussed by Ed and both Chads in interviews linked on this site. However, the process differs from the product.

But it comes down to personal choice by the ranting on this site it seems every one wants TC2.

Maybe, but I'd settle for MJ2, SS2, TDTH2, or even V2 (less the rap and some keyboards).


Erikk

This post has been edited by Erikk: Aug 25 2006, 2:53 am

[Wambangalang]

what ever nut stain, what do you know about rock? why dont you go and hang out with your TOOL friends so i used the wrong oar spelling is the least of my worries when there are LIVE fans like you around

1. im not a tool fan

2. i spelled oar wrong too so touche

3. fuck off

4.

[XtasyOfDreams]

Albums like MJ and SS are great fist pumping albums to gee me up when im down but SFBM actually makes me happy.

Good call. SFBM is definitely a feel-good album. And, who doesn't like to feel good?

[i_live_life]

But it comes down to personal choice by the ranting on this site it seems every one wants TC2.

I don't want TC2. I just want something more creative.

[GvB]

Good call. SFBM is definitely a feel-good album. And, who doesn't like to feel good?

I love that "SFBM" is so happy too!
But I love "TDTH" and "V" more.
If I may choose I would ask them if their next album can be a mixture of "SFBM", "TDTH" and "V".
Okay with a bit of "TC" as well, to keep more people satisfied here.

For the people who like a dark and raw Ed better I say: have patience, in about 5 or 10 years he will get into his midlife-crisis!
That will be good to make a darker and rawer album again (but I will feel sorry for him)!

GvB.

[Erikk]

I don't want TC2. I just want something more creative.

Word.

[mrmcpheezy]

as in....when you go canoeing, the album makes the ore's row faster...?

I'm glad that, in my absence, someone else was here to jump on this.

[mrmcpheezy]

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

I could not agree more, but I think you should have used more vulgarity in this post.

B+

This post has been edited by mrmcpheezy: Aug 25 2006, 3:20 pm

[Erikk]

I could not agree more, but I think you should have used more vulgarity in this post.

B+

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.

[Lively Chick]

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.

Hilarious!