Various thoughts I’ve had about the singer Scott Walker
1. Mr Melody?
In a long, detailed interview, the singer Scott Walker goes into his musical process rather deeply (in The Believer magazine, 2013). This question and answer from part 3 caught my eye (or was it my ear?).
“BLVR: I am going to avoid asking you the hoary “What happened to melody?” question in favor of something slightly different --
SW: That’s an interesting question in itself, because I never understand that question. I personally believe the melodies are far more interesting now. They are there, in your face, in certain sections of the songs. People do complain about the melody thing, but we do hit patches of melody and beauty, as well as the other stuff. And the melodies are far better than what I did early on. I just never understand that question.”
There are some interesting things in that answer. First is that the question comes from a lot and perhaps the majority of people who like Scott Walker’s music would prefer if he did more ‘traditional songs’, with what is considered a normal melody (and since I realised Iam not quite sure what a melody actualy IS: “a sequence of single notes that is musically satisfying”). I dont support or attack that view, I just mention it.
Second, it’s odd that Scott says he does not understand that question, or I suppose he also means that view. Surely he understands the question/view, as its pretty simple. If he does not, literally, understand it, then what does that say about his thinking? That is so far removed from the way his ‘fans’ see his music? If he means he understand it, but finds it annoying or disagrees with it, then that’s less odd.
Third, he asserts that there are certain melodies in his recent music. That’s undeniable, despite their general image. But then he says that they are far better than his early stuff, by which he means his 60s work, I presume. Many folk would be astonished at that view. Better than the melody in songs like ‘Montague Terrace in blue’ or ‘The old man’s back again’, really? Even people who like his recent work, and I am one, might find it difficult to agree with that. Again, perhaps an example of how Scott is so far removed from the way his ‘fans’ see/hear his music.
And for anyone who thought this might be about the American politician
Second, it’s odd that Scott says he does not understand that question, or I suppose he also means that view. Surely he understands the question/view, as its pretty simple. If he does not, literally, understand it, then what does that say about his thinking? That is so far removed from the way his ‘fans’ see his music? If he means he understand it, but finds it annoying or disagrees with it, then that’s less odd.
Third, he asserts that there are certain melodies in his recent music. That’s undeniable, despite their general image. But then he says that they are far better than his early stuff, by which he means his 60s work, I presume. Many folk would be astonished at that view. Better than the melody in songs like ‘Montague Terrace in blue’ or ‘The old man’s back again’, really? Even people who like his recent work, and I am one, might find it difficult to agree with that. Again, perhaps an example of how Scott is so far removed from the way his ‘fans’ see/hear his music.
And for anyone who thought this might be about the American politician
And someone on the Scott Walker group on 'arsebook' noted this about the 3rd point:
"Musical taste is entirely subjective. Scott obviously believes what he writes now is better than his much earlier compositions, that is his taste. I can't say that he's wrong, because everyone is entitled to their opinion and opinions are like noses - everybody's got one. For myself, I don't agree with his opinion, I can listen to his early songs for hours on end. Whereas, everything post 70s gives me earache, but again, it's not right or wrong, it's just personal taste"
I wish it was that simple. We would all have an easier life! But, if we have a good look at what people like in music, movies, books etc we see that it does not simply fall into individual taste. We often use that as an explanation, but its not actually what happens.
There are wider sociological, psychological and even evolutionary aspects going on that seem to cut us up into specific blocks of opinion/patterns of behaviour. and it seems that it often falls into two key types: mainstream, which most folk like (80 to 95% of folk) and alternative (5% to 20% into that type, it seems to me, and I’ve noted some studies that come up with 5%). What Scott has done has become more and more limited to a small group. He started off mainstream, in the beginning of the Walker brothers, but his own inclinations were to the unusual/alternative/artistic…and he has moved more and more to that stuff.
As to why and how us lovely people seem to get split into the mainstream/alternative divide…that’s an interesting question, but a bit of a mystery. What made Scott get into European cinema when he was 15, when, as he says, everyone else was focusing on surf music?
2. Scott said that the three albums, Tilt, The Drift and Bish Bosch were part of a trilogy. He also said that he may well try something very different after that trilogy. If so, why is the most recent album Soused more or less in the same style?