Taking Sides - Lyrics vs Music

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
what do you get off on more? a beautiful lyric (define as you wish) or actual sonics of a track (which can include the sound of the singing voice)? for me it tends to be the latter and always has been - presumably because i prefer to keep meaning detached/more ambiguous and apply it to things of my own choosing in some vain attempt to establish more individuality (can you do this with lyrics just as well?).

this is not just about the idea of lyrical sentiments putting people off liking a piece of music, but may relate to your character on a deeper level...i wonder if sociable types find lyrical references more resonant than sonic ones and loner types the opposite or if it's all too grey to determine such things.

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the music more.

But sometimes the lyrics can get your attention.

Aja (aja), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I prefer the packaging to either

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

MUSIC

lyrics

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Definitely music. I don't even know the words to some of my favorite albums, let alone what the singer/writer is trying to say. Plus, for some weird reason, my mind can't handle printed poetry.

Melson (ArchCarrier), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Music

Lyrics

mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

i'll be surprised if everyone says music given the attention and priority given to lyrics in so much criticism...perhaps it's logical to an extent to focus on the lyrics that much because there are more writers than musicians doing the actual criticism?

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Nail hit on head. Besides which, only lyrics can be relevant, not music. The words I read said so so they must be true. Er.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

perhaps it's logical to an extent to focus on the lyrics that much because there are more writers than musicians doing the actual criticism?

well, yeah!, plus it's a whole lot easier to describe words than to describe music. you can, in fact, just write the words right there in your review. you can't write the music in your review (unless you're at some fancy-pants guitar-player magazine maybe).

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes it's hard to avoid lyrics. I listened to a lot of instrumental music once, but hardly ever do now. I can't reason it out. Possibly I like the sound of voices more than the words.

ENRQ (Enrique), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Music















         Lyrics


Except where the artist in question can actually write GOOD lyrics and very few can

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

i can forgive bad lyrics. i do it everyday. bad music on the other hand...

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

... 'tis true

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Besides which, only lyrics can be relevant, not music

ooooh, explain more please :) i mean i can see how it could be more difficult to value music in terms of relevance but what do you mean by relevance? relevance in western society/culture ('Where Is The Love' was relevant maaaan - or was it?)

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

"The music brings the people together"

Aja (aja), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think I've ever heard an album with bad music saved by good lyrics, but I've heard plenty of albums with bad lyrics saved by good music.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Josh in Chicago OTM. Many's the time I've sung an absolutely horrid song b/c I couldn't get the tune out of my head, na na na na na na na na

Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

ahum, to me it's the alchemy/friction/interaction between music and lyrics that does the trick, so no preference either way...

detroit delinquent (nathalie), Thursday, 19 February 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

WIthout great beats nobody's checkin your lyrics

illcentric sounds (illcentric sounds), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Scott Seward and Josh in Chicago otm.

Lyrics are the musicians (semi-)concious stab at 'meaning'. Of course, the music affects the meaning of the lyrics (and vice versa) but the words are where the a general meanign is made more specific (or changed - eg 'happy' songs with 'sad' lyrics). So that is why lyrics receive more 'critical' attention.

But I think that a lot of time the lyrics are ignored in favour of 'this rocks/this is shite/this is classic/this is what the band have to say/this is the story behind the making of the music'.

Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think I've ever heard an album with bad music saved by good lyrics

Some would say Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen. Not me though, I hate those old bastards.

fcussen (Burger), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

what a fucking dopey thread title

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

A majority of the music I own actually has no lyrics (techno, post-rock, MBV/Cocteaus-like stuff where the voice is just another instrument), which must be indicative of something.

Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

taking sides hammer vs nail

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Funnily enough I hate all those instrumental rock bands - to me they just sound like their singer got stuck in traffic on the way to the studio

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

have you heard kenny process team dada?

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Nah, I like the name tho

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

They sound like the magic band (i mean really LIKE 'em).

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Hammers rule.

Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Another vote for the music mattering more than the lyrics...

...BUT, as true as that seems for me, it's not that simple. In part because an evocative line from the lyrics of a song can lodge in my brain and inspire or haunt me just as forcefully as a melody or groove or texture.

More fundamentally still: pop music needs songs, and songs need lyrics. I love some wordless genres -- techno and such -- but pop songs remain a huge part of what I listen to. I've been thinking a lot lately about how essential words and singing are to pop -- how you can't substitute an instrumental line for the vocals without a "muzak effect" in which the substance of the music is somehow diminished.

I really don't think it's just down to the sonics of the voice. (I can confirm this for myself by imagining wordless vocals in place of the actual singing in a pop song.) It has more to do, I think, with the rhythms of language, which are naturally more irregular than the rhythms of music. So lyrics make demands on the music, forcing it to accomodate more interesting rhythmic shapes. Take away the lyrics, transfer these same rhythms to an instrumental line, and the danger is that those same rhythms seem unmotivated and therefore "cheesy."

So if I reformulate the original question as: which can you tolerate more, pop music with the lyrics subtracted, or pop-music lyrics isolated from the music, well, it's a more pointed question I suppose. But thinking about it in those terms -- despite my instinctive "music > lyrics" vote -- I'd have to say neither is really satisfactory without the other.

Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

why would you care about lyrics isolated from the music?

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, somebody does -- they're published that way (Cohen/Dylan/McCartney et al)!

But it was really just a thought experiment to make my point that these two facets of pop are inseperable.

Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

It's the MUSIC, maaaan.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

okay paul i think we're making the same point and i misunderstood you

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

(xpost, but yeah I think we're not disagreeing)

Also reflects what it's like to read all the "post your favorite lyrics" threads here on ILM -- none of it really seems moving or powerful in isolation. That fact alone would argue, maybe, that music > lyrics, but my point was: taking the lyrics away from the music also impoverishes the result, maybe just as much.

Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Really, the only time I pay much attention to lyrics is if they're seemingly nonsensical (like Pavement or Beck), or if the singer is so commanding in his/her delivery that they're impossible to ignore (and in some cases fun to sing along to) (like Morrissey). But yesterday, a co-worker was like, "What's that Postal Service song where he's singing about such-and-such?" And man, I like that record, but I had no idea what he was talking about.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

(At the same time, because Amateurist and Paul in SC are making good points, I wouldn't want Ben Gibbard to NOT be singing on the record, and I do like catching phrases here and there. I'm just not particularly intent about it.)

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

i didnt make any good points!

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

There are some great lyricists, but that don't mean much if the tune is rubbish. There is some great music with terrible lyrics, this doesn't bother me at all.

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

not even bono?

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

"not even bono?"

yeah, but he didn't actually write Do They Know It's Christmas?

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

here's a question:

is thre any notable rock band that has a greater divide between gripping music and horrifying lyrics as u2 so often does?

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

U2 often has fine lyrics, I think. Moreso on their Achtung Baby/Zooropa/Pop phase (the latter especially, I think).

I'm gonna go with music though. I think it's true about writers citing lyrics because, well, it's easy to reference, even if within the framework of the song it's not so much the lyrics themselves but how they're delivered that matters. Which is why lyrically weak U2 like "Walk On" or Marvin Gaye can be lifted above the material as it is on paper, via the performance. I've always felt that great music can redeem bad lyrics, but terrible music can't be saved by a great lyric (unless there's some example I'm not thinking of)

Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)

House music has horrible lyrics a lot -- it's one of my problems with the genre.

U2 are the house music of rock. (Or maybe not, I honestly haven't listened to much U2 in ages.)

Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:12 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah i guess that'strue

but why i balk is because in a great song the lyrics and music are working in tandem, in any song with lyrics in fact

i can't listen to black metal largely because the subject matter embarrasses me

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

The incongruity between the plodding prettiness of the music and the standing-on-a-cliff-edge-beating-your-bare-chest lyrics is what I love about U2. best example: 'I still I haven't found what I'm looking for'

fcussen (Burger), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah well he is good at conjuring up empty grandeur

i want to reach out
and touch the flame

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

that lyric took on more meaning when the Pet Shop Boys covered it

Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 19 February 2004 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I really don't think it's just down to the sonics of the voice. (I can confirm this for myself by imagining wordless vocals in place of the actual singing in a pop song.) It has more to do, I think, with the rhythms of language, which are naturally more irregular than the rhythms of music. So lyrics make demands on the music, forcing it to accomodate more interesting rhythmic shapes.

I think this is a great point.

Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Thursday, 19 February 2004 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

that lyric took on more meaning when the Pet Shop Boys covered it

why do you think that Gear! ?

Bono's written some great great lyrics, and some bad ones - who hasn't?

stevem (blueski), Friday, 20 February 2004 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Two songs with grate vocals but with lyics I can't decipher:

MBV: 'To Here Knows When'
Outkast: 'BOB'

NERQ (Enrique), Friday, 20 February 2004 15:14 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.