|
This has got me thinking of all the different ways in which a song can be perfect. I see a lot of votes for lengthy, epic, cinematic songs (A Day in the Life, various Pink Floyd, etc) so that seems to be a predictor of "probability of perfection." Also, songs that seen or feel definitive in some way, which explains the Smiths and Joy Division (and "Good Morning Captain," "Marquee Moon," etc.) and then there are the oddball entries like Braniac, Pavement, Boris, etc. which all seem to represent more of the individual, while those landmark songs often feel like they represent the individual's idea of what s/he might think is an "appropriate" or expected answer.
I really enjoy reading these replies straight through, without stopping to glance over at who said what. This is kind of like porn for me.
But are we answering subjectively or objectively? Speaking just for ourselves, based on our life experiences, or are we providing answers that we feel will be shared/agreed with/common? Either type of "perfect" would be able to carry a thread by itself. The "objective" perfect tells you about culture (e.g., "A Day in the Life," which is probably the first thing that pops into the heads of an entire generation when asked this question. But the subjective kind of perfect is where the real story is.
For instance, why in the hell would anyone call the Cure's "Plainsong" perfect? It's essentially nothing more than a lead in... an intro... To an album that is so full of notoriously "perfect" ( type O) songs that "Plainsong" might as well not even be on the album as far as the legacy of Disintegration is concerned. I mean, who calls "Providence" a perfect song? Or "revolution #9"?
Well, I do. "Plainsong" is perfect. More so than any other Cure song. And without it, Disintegration would lose about 30% of its eerie atmospheric beauty. So why the hell is that song so powerful to me, when most people probably skip over it?
That's what I like about this thread.
|