[goldenground]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Yes, the vocal could be that, in the same sense that the vocal on RTTG is ceaseless and exhaustively expresses exactly how many flowers there are to cut down. You can't see (or hear) an end in sight, it goes on and on. So, I get your point.



That's where I disagree, because I don't think the vocal is done TO the music. The music does not match. It is unrelated. It does not enhance meaning or message to me and seems to have a different vibe than the words or the phrasing. There's a conflict to my ears.

I think for me, even if words have no meter or structure or syllable count, they still have to have a rhythm. That rhythm is what makes the sadness or the death or the pathos. Lindsey once said about Stevie that it's where she stops that counts. Pausing creates a rhythm as does inflection, making your voice high or low, to mimic or suggest the emotion.

I think Starshine does that very nicely. She stops and doesn't say "wrong." She gets us to say "wrong" in our head several times, before she actually says it on the record.

The way you say things, fast or slow or in sudden stops makes a beat that is a type of music in and of itself. That's why I mentioned These Strange Times, because it really does have a beat, in Mick's voice alone. I guess, for me, Mabel Normand just lacks that beat in the vocal and doesn't marry the music that's been attached to it.

Michele

I'd have to strongly disagree here. I think the music flows completely with the vocal. The inflection is most definitely there, and it moves with the music. I like the fact that there's no official chorus, it gives that verse "You change sides" a much bigger impact and then lets the stream of consciousness carry you once more. She pulled it off brilliantly in my honest opinion.