Talk:Verse–chorus form

"Jailhuse Rock"
I notice Jailhouse Rock has been listed as "Simple verse". Surely it has a chorus? MFlet1 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"the chorus is highlighted"
This is true only for Contrasting verse-chorus form, but how is it possible for Simple verse form, wich does not contain a chorus? --A4 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"BYOB"
While it may not be a very accessible song, System of a Down's song "BYOB" is fairly unique in that the verses are fast and furious while the chorus is slower and more melodic, unlike most other songs of its genre. "Chop Suey!" is also like this. Maybe they should be mentioned for completeness? Just a thought. Raikoh Minamoto (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed

 * The terms "verse" and "chorus" arose out of musical theatre going back to the early part of the twentieth century. Originally, and this definition is still used by many in music theatre or those whose repertoire is derived largely from theatre and standards ( older jazz musicians, whose repertoire is largely derived from American Standards from the theatre,  use the earlier definition of the terms),  the verse was the vocal introduction and the chorus is the refrain, the familiar body of the song we identify as the song.  You can find old piano/vocal music which still use these terms accordingly -- where the refrain,  i.e., the chorus,  is the song that we are all familiar with.   For example, we often hear Tony Bennett sing the verse ( a vocal introduction in rubato tempo ) to the song, "I Left My Heart In San Francisco".  The song is the chorus.  Sometimes the music will use the term "refrain", in lieu of the term "chorus".  In the late sixties,  the terms changed in pop music probably the result of young musicians misundertanding old sheet music they had seen when they were children taking lessons.  In later years musicians, learning about songwriting,  probably pulled the terms from memory to denote the various parts of a song,  which is to say,  making assumptions about their meaning ( and it is primarily because the assumptions are logical ).  So the meaning of these terms have evolved. It is also notable that most songwriters in pop and rock music are unaware of the terms' original meaning.

I removed the above since it is an unsourced essay added at the bottom of the article. Hyacinth (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The author of this article states, "In contrast to AABA (thirty-two-bar) form, which is focused on the verse (contrasted and prepared by the bridge), in verse-chorus form the chorus is highlighted (prepared and contrasted with the verse)."


 * It must be stated if one is addressing the roots of the AABA form ( and its variants), the thirty-two bar form as was employed in popular music, often called the "jazz era" predating the fifties, as exemplified by the early composers of the musical theatre, such as Cole Porter, Gershwin, etc., the AABA form based upon the music of the earlier part of the 20th century is focused upon the chorus, not the verse, whereupon the definition the chorus was the entire AABA block,  i.e, the "head", "refrain", or "chorus".


 * Originally, unlike today in popular music, the "verse" was defined as the vocal introduction to the song, and the "chorus" was that body of the song with which everyone is familiar. A classic example of this is the song "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" where Tony Bennett sings both the verse and the chorus, the chorus being the entire 32 bar song with which everyone is familiar and the verse being the vocal intro to the song, done "freely" which is to say, without tempo. For a reference, one need only to look at an original published sheet music, the piano/vocal score, of the song and/or many of the published songs arising from musical theatre of this period.  Sometimes vocalists will omit the verse, leaving only the familiar part of the song recorded and/or performed.


 * The definition of the terms "verse", "chorus", and "bridge", evolved because modern songwriters ( pop and rock songwriters arising from the 50s onward ) wanted to use the terms to apply to each strain of the ABC song form ( and its variants ), whereupon A is the verse, B,  is the Chorus ( where one often finds the "hook" of the song), and C is the bridge which brings the song back to the beginning for a repeat or ends there.''

Another essay. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Terminology confused
Those "essays" may be unsourced, but they have the advantage of being right. The entry as it stands is extremely confusing, especially when read side by side with the entry on Thirty-two-bar form.

This sentence is misleading: "In contrast to thirty-two-bar form, which is focused on the verse (contrasted and prepared by the B section), in verse–chorus form the chorus is highlighted (prepared and contrasted with the verse)." I can't make any sense of this. How is "thirty-two-bar form" "focused on the verse"? How can the verse be "prepared" by something ("the B section") that follows it?

Similarly, in the following paragraph: "Thus, while in both forms A is the verse and B is the chorus, in AABA the verse takes up most of the time and the chorus exists to contrast and lead back into the return of the verse, in verse–chorus form the chorus often takes much more time proportionally and the verse exists to lead into it." In AABA the "B" is not the "chorus," it's the bridge. In AABA "the verse" (which presumably means what the other entry calls the "sectional verse") does not "take up most of the time," it's usually half as long as the "chorus," the AABA part, which is also confusingly called a "refrain." This "chorus" certainly does not "exist to contrast and lead back into the return of the verse"—on the contrary, the verse is frequently omitted entirely.

I'd offer to fix this, but I'd want to do it by removing the ambiguity from the words "verse," "chorus," and "refrain," and that would entail a kind of terminological house-cleaning that isn't really Wikipedian. --Village Explainer (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not Encyclopeadic
The entire article does very little to define the term. Plenty of examples. Nothing to help the reader to identify the concept in the examples, though. Article needs considerable expansion. --Davjosmes (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from, or in addition to, poorly defining the term, how is the article unencyclopedic? See Encyclopedic & What Wikipedia is not, the closest thing I could find to Wikipedia:Encylopedic. Hyacinth (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Principles. Hyacinth (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What is verse-chorus form?
What is verse-chorus form? Is it of the same form as 32-bar form, but with merely different emphasis on the chorus - as the introduction seems to say? Or is it of different form and structure? Could someone provide a definition, or a least a letter-pattern, like ABACABA? -Hyarmendacil (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How about adding the structure for each of the examples listed, e.g. "That'll Be the Day" by Buddy Holly (1957): ABABAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.166.135 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This entry requires too much prior knowledge to understand.
There is no actual explanation of what verse-chorus music form is in this entry. There are only examples presented, of which a person would have to understand the verse-chorus concept in the first place in order to make sense of this article and its resultant examples.

Perhaps, one could edit this to say something to the effect:


 * A verse is [this thing in music], and a chorus is [this other thing in music] ...

...some explanation of a verse, and some explanation of a chorus...

THEN, "a verse-chorus form is..." [that thing that was just explained.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.109.17 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is little need for a separate explanation of verse and chorus since you may simply click verse and chorus. The template flagging an article as lacking a definition was deleted, but that is quite the legitimate complaint. Hyacinth (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Too much knowledge, or for a babyboomer audience? With the newest example being a 40 year old song ? 88.159.79.148 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)