People are too concerned with..........

i write about music , i rarely know any formal critical tools concerning music. Even picking up instrumentaion is difficult . I am studying Lit at uni. I am fairly decent at unpacking literature( even if i cannot spell it.) So i talk about lyrics. Maybe yr right .

But surely "superstar DJ here we go!" *is* the best bit of "Hey Boy Hey Girl"?

I'm wary of answering questions like these because I'm aware of my own bias (I don't particularly like talking about lyrics because I'm pretty lame at it). However I'll be contrary and say I don't think this is such a big problem, at least not anymore. I'm hard- pressed now to think of many current bands or artists who are held in high esteem almost solely due to their lyrics - even The Magnetic Fields only get that sort of one-sided assesment from about half the people who write about them.

And it's that sort of thing I dislike - the idea that artists should be judged first and foremost on the strength of their lyrics, or even more damaging, that artists should all take a certain approach to lyric writing (the near-inevitable implication of hyping a talented lyricist). There's still lots of talk about lyrics obviously, but I think a lot of writers are better now at approaching them on their own terms, and of realising their context within the music, and within *music* generally.

As Tom pointed out in that article of his, the big anti-critical reflex- action these days is the kneejerk celebration of heartfelt vocalists. Especially if what they're feeling in their hearts is Jeff Buckley. And even that's falling prey to a backlash.

Oh yeah, and:

" i rarely know any formal critical tools concerning music"

Like that's ever stopped anyone, anthony!

Re 'not knowing any musical literacy' - well, the simple solution is to describe what it sounds like in a way that enables you to express your perceptions but is also understandable to other people. Crits who defer to their lack of 'tools' aren't being respectful to the subject, they're just 'writing about what they know' in order to show off their immense cleverness, being the being fish in the stagnant ponds of their own brains, or just to chickenshit to take chances and comment on something they know they're not an 'expert' [i.e. talk the talk good enough to graduate to higher media profile] at. Failure of nerve, basically, although anyboody who worries about it unduly is probably underestimating how very little esteem the press is held in.

I found Catatonia really annoying with their apparent catchphrases sell records approach... Mulder & Scully, Road Rage (I ask you!!!!) etc. It's the lyrical equivalent of the guitar-riff...

Especially if what they're feeling in their hearts is Jeff Buckley. And even that's falling prey to a backlash.

There's hope yet!

I've wittered on the subject enough, but looking at Ronan's specific question -- while Jez was condemning Catatonia's approach of lyric-as-riff, it seems that such a description perfectly captures the need and use of lyrics...but is it useful for what is said or how it is said and delivered? The latter, I'd think.

Why d'you think the latter Ned? I disagree.

Oversimplifying heavily here -- I need to dash to a meeting soon -- but I've always been of the believe we react to the sound of words sung much more than the meaning of said words, intentional or not. If you want a particular example of this action, ask yourself why one person singing a specific lyric would appeal to you more than another, say.

It's actually more fans rather than critics I that I had in mind. And despite what Tim said I think I could have liked Hey Boy Hey Girl without the sample.

But what I meant was what Jez talked about. Mulder and Scully was always going to sell a certain amount based on the name. Actually Catatonia are really a good example. What I'm saying is, don't high sales of records with gimmicky lyrics show that the average person on the street often isn't concerned with anything other than vocals.

I mean look at Westlife for fuck sake, there's nothing going on there except vocals.

We react to the inflection, the hangs in the air, the bends in syllables, hooks, and ladders. Yes. But that is on the first level. I accept that when listening to music we do react to the sounds of the words and the way a particular singer emotes etc. However, I've always been of the disposition to isolate the words from the song, taking snippets here and there, sometimes the whole song. Then I'll 'analyse' and extract the 'meaning' (or my strained and highly subjective interpretation). Next time round listening to the song then it will 'mean' a lot more to me. The meaning coupled with the way it is sung etc will hit more spots. To divorce the words from the song is perhaps to do something to it that I shouldn't but I do. But I accept what you're saying (it holds true for the fact that I can never solely deduce any meaning from a song by just listening to it alone). I work better with the words in front of me. Also, your point ties in nicely with why At The Drive-In are such an excruciatingly visceral band. Ever read their lyrics sheets? *Splurge*. But listen to them, the chants, the mantra. I don't accept "but is it useful for what is said or how it is said and delivered? The latter, I'd think". Fully, that is. ;-)

I think the lyrics I'm talking about tend to have no meaning. What did Orwell say "tacked together like prefabricated hen houses". heh.

Jesus Catatonia are so good an example it hurts. This has all got something to do with people watching Beverly Hill 90210, remember how they used to only talk in special code? god I'm really rambling now.

People aren't concerned enough. I think Ned is making the distinction (that I thought I was picking up in the "She's a winner..." thread) (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that lyrics are meaningless, as when we listen to music the way the lyrics are sung (which is dictated by the actual lyrics) becomes part of the music itself. Sort of an extension of voice as instrument to lyrics as shaper of voice and that we emote etc in reaction to the way we hear the sounds. That's what I understood by this thread. (Possibly too simplistic a reading - essentially, I'm reading it as 'if you want meaning from words look to literature'.)

Alright to join two divergent conversations together:

Yeah Ronan, "Hey Boy Hey Girl" is great without the vocal sample, but as Ned notes sometimes words just have a purely aural purpose. HBHG *needs* catchphrases in order to become an anthem because it has less of a song-structure than the usual Chem Brothers fare. And I think HBHG actually works better as an anthem than as a cool-but-secret track. The reason the specific samples in HBHG work is that they're so meaningless, so of course any number of things could have been put in their place.

PS. Catatonia's catchphrase business is a bit overemphasised innit? Two singles in a row, yeah, but if anything Catatonia are more defined by their lyrical classicism (more Cole Porter than The Beatles) than anything else. Their lyrics are usually very 'neat', and I don't mean that in a bad way; the catchphrase tendency is just the most extreme and obvious manifestation of a taste for constructing metaphors and then running with them.

Theres also just issues of basic recognition for people who couldn't give a shit about music.

And in "Because I got High" it's awfully hard to argue that the actual lyrics didn't sell the record.

lyrics to "because i got high" = funny and sad --> afroman is wistfully amused at himself --> we like it when he shows us this. lyrics affect the person who sings them (unless the singer's named Bono) and this in turn affects us. tired lyrics --> bored singer --> sleeping audience, unless the singer's inspired by something besides or beyond the lyrics, a neat trick common among absolute psychos, maybe akin to a sax player inspired by aliens. my advice for singers: if you're not moved by your lyrics, find someone who is! (or start getting good at ProTools)

reading the top post on stevie nixed today - isn't that what I was getting on about upthread? except I just hadn't grasped the 'grain' word, yet. who's idea is that, adorno? if so, it ain't cryptomnesia.