tim. (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} o_song) wrote,@ 2008-04-07 15:10:00 |
|
Jamie Liddell - Wait For Me
This is my first post for some time, largely because I had a PhD thesis to write. I guess it's ewritten. I'll try and be reasonably regular from now on.
Jamie Liddell - "Wait For Me"
(3:29, 4.8mb)
Track 2, Jim, 2008.
I've decided recently that there is such a thing as good music and bad music. The difference between good and bad music, to me, doesn't have much to do with the genre of the music, the political overtones of the music, or the influences and musical references in the music (that's another story). For me, the difference lays within the ability of the musicians (and/or producer) to say, musically, whatever it is that they want to say (there is the question of whether to attribute the message to the author, or whether th message is simply the song, but that's another story too).
Most of the musicians who are typically discussed in discussions of taste (e.g., Vampire Weekend) are mostly pretty good in this sense. Musicians who don't make good music; you rarely hear about them, because the music they make is rarely worth discussing. I won't name names, but we're talking about the 75% of the other bands on the bill that never quite get a fanbase and make polite music which might appeal to fans of other bands but never quite has anything to say.
In this sense, Jamie Liddell's "Wait For Me" is undeniably good music. Lyrically, the lyrics are fairly straightforward. You don't need to get that far past the title to get the gist - e.g., that the singer is trying to convince a lover that, while he may be absent, he will be faithful, and that the lover should also be faithful. Musically, though, it's not the slow jam or acoustic folk that those lyrics suggest; instead, the song has a gleeful bounce. It's as if the singer knows that his lover will be faithful, and is, in singing about their absence from each other, celebrating the strength of their love.
Liddell's vocal performances have the kind of conviction and intensity that's typically missing from your Idol winners. And the piano playing on the track is pretty astonishing, especially the solo. But what really gets me about the song is its sheer effervescent joy for life. You can ascribe influences and sonic influences to the music (e.g., Motown, and in particular Stevie Wonder, who has a similar exuberance) and make your mind up about the politics of love described in the song, but my suspicion is that you'd be better off not worrying so much, and just listening to it as good music.
tim.
This is my first post for some time, largely because I had a PhD thesis to write. I guess it's ewritten. I'll try and be reasonably regular from now on.
Jamie Liddell - "Wait For Me"
(3:29, 4.8mb)
Track 2, Jim, 2008.
I've decided recently that there is such a thing as good music and bad music. The difference between good and bad music, to me, doesn't have much to do with the genre of the music, the political overtones of the music, or the influences and musical references in the music (that's another story). For me, the difference lays within the ability of the musicians (and/or producer) to say, musically, whatever it is that they want to say (there is the question of whether to attribute the message to the author, or whether th message is simply the song, but that's another story too).
Most of the musicians who are typically discussed in discussions of taste (e.g., Vampire Weekend) are mostly pretty good in this sense. Musicians who don't make good music; you rarely hear about them, because the music they make is rarely worth discussing. I won't name names, but we're talking about the 75% of the other bands on the bill that never quite get a fanbase and make polite music which might appeal to fans of other bands but never quite has anything to say.
In this sense, Jamie Liddell's "Wait For Me" is undeniably good music. Lyrically, the lyrics are fairly straightforward. You don't need to get that far past the title to get the gist - e.g., that the singer is trying to convince a lover that, while he may be absent, he will be faithful, and that the lover should also be faithful. Musically, though, it's not the slow jam or acoustic folk that those lyrics suggest; instead, the song has a gleeful bounce. It's as if the singer knows that his lover will be faithful, and is, in singing about their absence from each other, celebrating the strength of their love.
Liddell's vocal performances have the kind of conviction and intensity that's typically missing from your Idol winners. And the piano playing on the track is pretty astonishing, especially the solo. But what really gets me about the song is its sheer effervescent joy for life. You can ascribe influences and sonic influences to the music (e.g., Motown, and in particular Stevie Wonder, who has a similar exuberance) and make your mind up about the politics of love described in the song, but my suspicion is that you'd be better off not worrying so much, and just listening to it as good music.
tim.
