Does anyone actually like big finales?

Nothing is more impressive to me than a clean tight ending. Washouts sound like folks couldn't come up with anything better. I play with a guitarist who drives me nuts with them. We'll nail an ending clean and he has to put a "button" on it. We had it, why did you have to do that?

Of course there are places in a show where it's appropriate. Especially the old trick of starting up the song again. That always lifts a room.

Then there's the times when a good old space jam just takes over:

http://youtu.be/_3iexwhUQ6c

This was a goodbye show at a little dive that's been the home of the blues and live music in San Jose for some 30 years. These guys started there when they were still underage. They all have different gigs now, but the can still stretch out an ending. After a rousing Jeff's Boogie, including a part where the guitar player does Linus and Lucy solo, they go off on the ending. Around 13:15.
 
... the whole point of the drawn out ending is to release the rhythmic tension that has been built up throughout the piece. Now there are certain songs where if you just stopped short on the last chord you give the impression that the song isnt really finished because there is too much rhythmic momentum and tension built up to simply end there. In those cases the type of ending you are describing becomes indispensable for releasing that tension and bringing the song to a satisfactory conclusion.

Thanks MJ - makes sense to me. So, as with everything in music, you have the choice of tension or release. Sometimes you may want to jar the audience with an abrupt end (eg. The Beatles' She So Heavy or King Crimson's Lament), or you might want to let it all out at (eg. A Day in the Life).

As you suggest, there's no formula big endings = good / bad ... if it's overdone by rock stars bloated with hubris then that's a drag, but in principle every musical device has its place.
 
Back
Top