Is the song, the sung musical genre, eternal?
March, 17; 2021. By
On this occasion we come to emphasize the certain immutability that a musical genre with a lot of tradition has, it is the popular song, which these days is the genre, without any doubt, most listened to by the world population.

Thus, we can say that this genre, distilled from popular music, and whose beginnings can be dated in the Middle Ages (discarding the ancient age because there is little record of the music of that historical moment), continuing through the Renaissance and arriving to this day, it is the king genre in music nowadays. Great musicians like Paul McCartney of The Beatles or others, mainly from the English spoken music scene during the 20th century as we all know, have helped shape this genre.

The song, at the musical structure level, is composed of several stanzas that alternate with a single chorus that is repeated between the stanzas; this being the basic structure, because there may be an introduction, bridges between the stanza and the chorus, third parts and even final codas. But it is this structure, that of verse / chorus / verse 2 / chorus and so on the one that best defines the musical genre, which is always sung. Before, in the Renaissance, there could be many stanzas; now the typical duration is set at three minutes and thirty seconds where there are usually only two stanzas and a chorus, plus a third part frequently instrumental, which is located behind the second chorus.

As we know, music is a frank art, in the sense that we either like it or we don't like it, and that it directly attacks people's emotions, hence the fact that the structure of the song has not been altered significantly since its appearance. This makes us think that we could be facing one of the few things in this world that are closer to the immutable, appreciating this fact as something interesting.

So, musicians of the world, do not make efforts to compose many songs; as they say in Spanish, "it is better to arrive on time than to be around a hundred years", therefore, it is better to have a great success than hundreds of songs. And let's not kid ourselves, the history of music is only interested in the big themes, it is not interested in secondary things (in this sense it is very frank as well), so the importance of a music composer lies in the amount of successes that can insert into music history. Usually it is just one (the now famous "one hit wonder"); if we manage to sneak in some more then we will become part of the history of music. If we have six or seven or more like Paul McCartney then we will have a prominent place. As an example we can mention the English Renaissance song Greensleeves, which although coined 500 years ago or so, its melody and lyrics come to us with an overwhelming clarity, compared to many other secondary songs.

And then, what about all those compositions that get out of this musical genre as we know it, that experimental music of today? What will happen to those? Well, we fear that although at a certain moment they may sound a lot, they will not be incorporated into the history of music. Gentlemen musicians, do not try too hard to innovate, what we want are good songs!
Links mentioned in People