I totally agree, and don't mean to imply otherwise. Nor do I necessarily think that your song should be a narrative one, or that it should follow a specific structure. However, I do believe that how we process surprise mitigates the potential impact of your song – and that's how my previous Squirrel-centric post applies. Not saying you should turn it into a mystery.Teplin wrote: do I think it's the only way, or always the best way? No. ... The right tool for the right job, I say. Your structure is a good tool in a songwriter's belt, but it's not the right tool for everything.
To rephrase my thesis a bit, you hit us with the surprise hook, and our brains start paying attention because they're trying to learn something. But the hook is immediately resolved, and our brains realize they can relax. I believe this is why I started to lose interest after a couple minutes, and I'm trying to give you something more useful than "meh, I got bored in the middle." You've gotten very positive reviews overall so far though, so your wit alone carries it for most people. This isn't lost on me, and I'm by no means saying you didn't succeed in what you were trying to accomplish. I'm asking if it could be made more universally appealing via structural altercation -- without detracting from what you want to achieve. I think it could, but I don't know how, and I certainly can't pin down a workable structure. But the lack of movement after the surprise hook is what lost it for me, and I feel there's something more universal involved there than simply my personal preference.
The kittens and unicorns don't get a free pass, per se, but they don't fall into the same trap because the twist-surprise factor is out of the equation. You'd then be singing a different type of song. Note that I'm not saying it'd be a superior one – you'll get more votes with your song as is than you would with kittens and unicorns. (Based on my working assumption that the kittens and unicorns voting block is small.)Teplin wrote: Why do kittens and unicorns get a free pass?
But when you pull the surprise thing, you can just as easily run afoul of the same problem with kittens and unicorns. E.g. "Condemned to black, to burning, to hell / surrounded by evil beings set on my destruction/ like cuddly puppies." Someone might be able to pull that concept off and have it be funny... for a minute. But these single concepts are difficult to stretch into a full song. Hell not being what you expected, with it climaxing in the ninth circle of cuddly puppies -- that's easier to keep people's interest for three and a half minutes.
Totally, and I think your reference to stand up comedy is apropos here. But we may be looking at the same thing from different vantage points. My thought would be that very few comedians just string together jokes and punchlines (or insults) these days. Instead, they tell stories. Many funny things happen along the way, but the punchline (or perhaps more accurately, the climax of the story) does come at the end.Teplin wrote: Unlike a movie, a comedian who takes 20 minutes to get to their first "twist" is in danger of losing the interest of their audience.
Few comedians will lead off with "I love airline food... like I love a spork in the eye." He's only get a few few lines to hit airline food before the routine becomes stale for some members of the audience. We figure out where he's going pretty quick, right? That could be an effective first line if the comedian backtracked and launched into a story of a recent airline trip where a variety of hijinx occurs, culminating with airline food hilarity at the end. That's very different routine than a string of funny things you hate about airline food. But I think it appeals to a greater audience, which is why it's become the dominant paradigm in stand up comedy.
And maybe that's a better analogy of why it doesn't work for me. I dunno, I'm just trying to figure out why it fell flat for me.
