The article (a post really) is from a mailing list, whose archives are available to subscribers only, so I've taken the liberty of reposting it here.
Should the author have made the distinction between "songs" and "compositions," whatever it be?
[start]
the tradition of popular songwriting is all about "songs" written for
vocalists, not instrumental music.
really, it's that simple.
imo (and for this very reason) the songs of Burt Bacharach will likely have a longer artistic "shelf-life" than the music of, say, Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass.
to go a step further, in classical music, opera will always be considered the more evolved mode of expression than, say, a string quartet.
writing for the human voice makes all the difference in the world.....
sure, pop artists can choose not to use vocals.
...but in most cases, it's just an easy way out.....like a sketch for something greater that uses the song as the final form. to me, most of the time it will seem somehow unfinished or lacking (compared to artists who know how to engage both lyrics and traditional songwriting.)
this is all just my opinion, of course....but you did ask, right?
> You seem to dislike records simply because they lack a person singing on top of it.
not true!
....lately i have sung passionately the praises of GNAC (which has naught one vocal on any of its three brilliant albums.)
so i say....do yerself a big favor and chuck all the hyped and pretentious BoC stuff.
listen to GNAC.
GNAC writes better instrumental music than many of the regular "song" bands WITH vocals.
to make my point here, i'll name another: Seelenluft....who also writes some of the finest instrumental music i've heard these days.
so there....i've gone on record.
> Some types of music are just not meant to have vocals on them.
this may or may not be true. i prefer music that is original and fresh and breaking new ground; be it with or without vocals.
to me, Boards of Canada music is just more of the same old crap: very
warmed-over triphop grooves sans vocals.....which, to me, makes em even crappier.
[end]
― Lee, Saturday, 20 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
that's weird... i always thought that opera was regarded as the poor
cousin of 'real' classical music, being the bastard child of
orchestra & theatre... i have read a few disparaging remarks about
opera in this vein, but they could easily be freak examples.
there is no more direct or specific form of communication than verbal
communication, which is why it might be considered a bit vulgar(?). i
mean, when an orchestra alone can be so moving and provoke such
strong emotions in an audience, it's bringing it down to earth a bit
to have someone yelling over the top "uh oh, the statue is coming to
life".
i'm not criticing this. myself, i enjoy music with or without
singing. i don't listen to the lyrics anyway.
― minna, Saturday, 20 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
This is just obvious utter bollocks. It ignores most of the great
jazz (much as I adore Louis Prima and Billie Holiday) and most modern
dance - vocals play a very secondary role in techno and drum & bass -
as well as minority examples from most other genres too. Only
slightly more subtly, it misreads a lot of pop music that does have
lyrics, where they are more important for sound than for more
traditional lyrical content: voice as instrument more than carrier of
verbal meaning. Yes, the work of great songwriters (such as
Bacharach) will survive, but the writer is foolish to think that, for
example, Aretha's version of Burt's 'I Say A Little Prayer' will not
survive just as well. And even on an example of one of the world's
great singers on a song by that writer's exemplar, the music is not
inconsequential.
― Martin Skidmore, Sunday, 21 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)