Talk:Verse–chorus form

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "the chorus is highlighted" 

message: 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)
thread_title: "BYOB"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology confused 

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

text: Also Wikipedia:Principles. Hyacinth (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Encyclopeadic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What ''is'' verse-chorus form? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This entry requires too much prior knowledge to understand.