Do lyrics actually matter?

if I didn't know better I'd swear I wrote all of that. couldn't agree with you more.

the only lyricists that I feel go above and beyond, whose words actually play a more central role than the sound of their words, are scott walker, leonard cohen and amanda palmer.

Welcome to the club, Mark.

yeah, well, bad lyrics can fuck up a song real fucking quick though.

(Ned will be along shortly, I suppose.)

kinda like
bad lyricspost can fuck up a songthread real fucking quick though.

Astute point, my error-prone friend.

yeah, well, bad lyrics can fuck up a song real fucking quick though

hmm I'm not so sure. Examples please? I'm trying to think of songs where the music is really good but the song is totally ruined because of the lyrics. It's hard, because like I said, if the music is so good my attention is hardly ever drawn to the lyrics. It's only when the music tends to be bad/mediocre/not worthy of much attention that I then notice crappy lyrics.

Take Radiohead, as I mentioned in my post. Like a lot of people do, I tend to think Yorke's lyrics can be pretty silly. But I tend to think their music, for the most part, is pretty interesting and thus I'm not really drawn to noticing how silly the lyrics really are. (Most of the time you can't even understand what Yorke's saying). In a bad Radiohead song, say, "Sit Down Stand up," the lyrics are pretty lousy but I'm only drawn to notice them because the song itself is kind of lousy. I'd say this is really the case for most songs where the lyrics are so bad they "ruin" the song.

m the g, you're a Cardiacs fan aren'cha? Tim Smith's lyrics, with their indecipherable meanings and poetic flow, further mystify and deepen the experience, IMO.

Do drums actually matter?
Do guitars actually matter?
Do keyboards actually matter?
Do brass sections actually matter?

For example, how about that middle part in "Buddy Holly" (Weezer). The lyrics are so bad that it really does mess up at least that part of the song.

(x-post)

Do drums actually matter?
Do guitars actually matter?
Do keyboards actually matter?
Do brass sections actually matter?

Not quite sure what you mean by this. I was talking about lyrical content vs. sonic content. I don't see lyrical content as really analogous to anything listed there, which all seem to part of the sonic content.

*be

yea i get it. um i think they matter because lyrics are sonic

saying THAT versus THIS sounds different. so even if ur trying to extrapolate the sonic from the lyric, u can't REALLY. for instance even if you don't know what the word is, u can still think the sound "aaa" sounds good within the instrumentation.

also if i KNEW the singer was saying something really stupid cuz of the lyric sheet, i wouldn't be abl eto like the song as much

saying THAT versus THIS sounds different. so even if ur trying to extrapolate the sonic from the lyric, u can't REALLY. for instance even if you don't know what the word is, u can still think the sound "aaa" sounds good within the instrumentation.

yea that's interesting, guess it's true -- maybe ties in a lot with delivery, too, i.e. the interesting sonic part of how artist x delivers a certain lyric depends on the content of that lyric

yuppers

i must say i do feel a bit disappointed when i can't understand the lyrics, after like a few listens.

The level of the vocals

(Ned will be along shortly, I suppose.)

Hi dere.

Some things definitely OTM:
I don’t give a flying fuck about the lyrics if the music works. but also But sometimes some of the really most amazing moments of a song’s words burrow in deep because for me they really are great. I can’t put my finger on what makes a truly great or memorable lyric any more than I can define a great or memorable song — and the two elements need not always be in sync, that greatness for both, for me to enjoy the song.

Thanks for that, Ned, I really enjoyed the essay.

Yer welcome.

I don't know how anyone could deny that their favorite songs would cease to be their favorite songs if the original lyrics were switched with shit about carpet cleaning and rotting vegetables.

Sounds like most Pixies songs to me!

My position is still: all I demand of the lyrics is that they not ruin the song for me (one way or another). But that doesn't mean I don't sometimes appreciate lyrics that do more than just not ruin the song.

Two of my favorite lyricists are Joni Mitchell and Stephen Malkmus. I don't always know or care what exactly they're singing about, but I like their playful use of language. I like being able to sing along with poetic phrases like "wreck my stockings in some jukebox dive" or "blind date with a chancer, we had oysters and dry lancers." I like that they care about words and the sounds of words, even I never stop to think about the overarching meaning of their songs.

"blind date with a chancer, we had oysters and dry lancers."

Funny, just reading that made me remember the entire lyrics to that song and I was thus able to hear the whole thing in my head, thanks! Like I mentioned, I like Malkmus's lyrics too.

SOMETIMES

lock thread

Yeah, occassionally I feel like a bad music reviewer for not trying harder to "get" what the lyrics are about, but fuck it— it's rare that I care what the lyrics are about. I like turns of phrases and moments, but I think that looking for a coherent narrative in a pop song too often takes me out of the "now" that I'd like to be in while I enjoy the music.

Country and folk music, however, I tend to feel do better at narrative threads.

SO i just recorded this great thing, and now i'm worried u can't UNDERSTAND WAT I"M SAYING, and that is so argh annoying!

THANKS

Depends. I find Bright Eyes lyrics insufferable. I find Iron & Wine's lyrics moving. I don't pay attention to Journey's lyrics.

I'm trying to imagine some of my favorite Smiths songs if they had shitty lyrics.

Lyrics don't matter to me, really. I mean, once I get into a song and I realise the lyrics are great, it may bring a new dimension to the song, but if I dislike the melody great lyrics aren't enough for me to like the song. Not to mention the opposite way: A great melody with some incredibly stupid lyrics I will still enjoy because of the melody.

I'm trying to imagine some of my favorite Smiths songs if they had shitty lyrics.

it's all about CADENCE

Not totally. Morrissey's cadences sometimes suggest that he's singing something witty. If what he was singing was actually banal it would wreck the song (for me at least.) That's not to say these are folk songs, the music and the voice would be pleasant to listen to regardless.

I think Curtis has something with the cadence thing, I'd say the same about Lloyd Cole. His lyrics are brilliant, but they're rendered *genius* the way he delivers them.

Lyrics are pretty important to me. I love to work them out, where relevant, I love to know what they are. I'll often favour a song for its content if that fits my mood or I want to express something.

That said, that isnt always the case, I mean the Cocteau Twins are my favourite band and with Liz it is all about delivery, not the words themselves - even when they're a known quantity it doesnt matter much.

Artists I do love lyrically: aforementioned Lloyd Cole, theThe, Depeche Mode, the Chameleons, Throwing Muses.

For example, how about that middle part in "Buddy Holly" (Weezer). The lyrics are so bad that it really does mess up at least that part of the song.

I must have heard Buddy Holly at least 100 times and I couldn't recite the lyrics to the middle eight of the song from memory, but I do think that part kicks ass musically. It makes the song.

Have we really got this far without someone mentioning Skrewdriver? OK I will - Skrewdriver. Obviously whether they are worth listening to regardless of lyrics is v debatable.

What about a group like Anal Cunt, where we've had threads going "roffle roffle roffle these lyrics are awesome" and then everyone pretty much agrees that none of the music is worth listening to?

Yeah Anal Cunt. Also - GG Allin - I am for some reason totally fine with rampant misogyny and other misanthropy as long as it doesn't cross into rape and racism. E.G. Die When You Die is an awesome cover of Destroy All Monsters' You're Gonna Die until you get to the verse where he sings "the KKK put the n*****s out to die". Can't get along with that, sorry.

GG was quite rapey

Yeah, he was. But I can deal with most of it apart from the songs which are flat out "I'm gonna rape you". I mean you can play Bite It You Scum to your friends.

Reviews of Radiohead, always did this, I remember, when again most of the time I have no idea what Thom Yorke...

To be quite honest that's a bad example, as their lyrics are really subpar. I always think of Radiohead's lyrics as being penned by a first year philosophy student: being willfully dense so you don't really get that they are bad paintings, something which, for example, Eminem does do very well. He paints a very clear image with a few strokes. Of course not in all songs, I'm sure you'll be able to quote a few Eminem lyrics that are crap as well. I'm talking about, say, "His palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy There's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghett." which seems very descriptive. Or what abut Umbrella which is such a trite song because of its words (and really mediocre imagery).

I love lyrics and actually if they are absent (in the music) then I can rarely keep my attention. I love it when words and sound come together, either to go hand in hand or to collide.

I prefer:

I don't got that bad of a mouth do I?
Fuck, shit, ass, bitch, cunt, shoobie-a-doo-wap
(Woops!)
Skee-bee-ba-bee-wop, on Christopher Reeves
Sonny Bono, skis horses and hittin' some trees
(Hey!)
How many retards will listen to me?

It is curious that in all this thread very little actual lyrics have been quoted.

I'm working on it, Trayce

They call me Dr. Worm.
Good morning. How are you? I'm Dr. Worm.
I'm interested in things.
I'm not a real doctor,
But I am a real worm;
I am an actual worm.
I live like a worm.
I like to play the drums.

Some of my favorite lyrics are quite simple:

Chatterton suicidé
Hannibal suicidé
Démosthène suicidé
Nietzsche fou à lier
Quant à moi
Quant à moi
Ça ne va plus très bien

Chatterton suicidé
Cléopatre suicidé
Isocrate suicidé
Goya fou à lier
Quant à moi
Quant à moi
Ça ne va plus très bien

Chatterton suicidé
Marc-Antoine suicidé
Van Gogh suicidé
Schumann fou à lier
Quant à moi
Quant à moi
Ça ne va plus très bien

*sigh*

*cough*

This reminds me of a time when this guy told me he couldn't stand Dagger by Slowdive because of the lyrics. Despite the fact I actually like the lyrics, and that guy in particular is one absolutely huge asshole, who is very much full of shit, and generally does not know what he's talking about (and I should mention came from a hip-hop background), I found it really quite odd how someone could throw away a song - even if it was sonically enjoyable - based on the lyrics.

I've always seen it as a big content vs. form issue, and I think music, to me at least, is often little or at times nothing more than form. While I'm not debating that there is often some genuine meaning behind many songs, but I'm very reluctant to accept that music and lyrics are one, as lyrics can exist on paper, and music can't. This, I guess is a reverse argument of the issue of sonics in poetry.

And let us not forget music in foreign languages, or something like scatting, where music is appreciated on a purely formal level. By the asshole in the first example's logic, you wouldn't be able to appreciate say, French rap, or Reggaeton (although I'd be hard-pressed to appreciate it if I did speak Spanish), or Opera, if you only spoke English for instance, and to me, that's just ridiculous. For me, lyrics usually use music as a vehicle for making ideas expressed more accessible; rap, or say the Smith's or Bob Dylan are a great example. Nevertheless, I love words, they're formal properties are great and complement music well (and music also complements words, but not ideas) that's why I love Hip-House so much (and don't listen to it for the ideas behind it, heh).

I disagree with this as well. Many, many song lyrics are not intended to be broken apart from the music they accompany. I remember Yo La Tengo saying this very thing in an interview--they didn't print their lyrics in the CD packaging because they weren't like poems.

Musicians use lyrics in a variety of ways. To make an across-the-board statement about the nature of lyrics seems pretty risky to me.

explain how you think that poetry and lyrics differ as a communicational tool.

Um, lyrics are accompanied by music. Poetry is read or (preferably) spoken.

Do I need to continue?

yes.

The music and the vocal delivery (including the timbre of the voice) add their own layer of context and meaning. Consider Jim O'Rourke's lyrics on "Memory Lame," which on the surface read as pretty misanthropic but become sort of hilarious with his deadpan vocals and the jaunty, sunny orchestral arrangement.

Lyrics are a form of poetry. They're poetry designed to function in a specific musical context. That this form of poetry is composed at least in part as music and relies on that and other music to achieve its effect doesn't make it not poetry.

sigh....

OK, let's use a couple of examples. I love "Heartbeats" by The Knife. I think it's probably the best song of the 2000s. One reason it's so great is that while its lyrics are highly expressive and quite sad, its music is upbeat and exuberant, to an almost comic degree. That push-pull messes with our expectation of what kind of music accompanies sad lyrics, and vice-versa. The lyrics on their own would read basically as lament. The music makes them more ambiguous--potentially more positive for some lines, heart-wrenchingly tragic for others.

Less well-thought out, but more recent for me is "$1000 Wedding" by Gram Parsons. This song moves along slowly and quietly but rises dynamically a couple of times. It's not just a sad narrative ballad, and the dynamic changes that aren't immediately apparent from reading or speaking the lyrics are made apparent by the music. This gives the song a greater sense of liveliness and realism--some of the events Parsons describes really jump out at you.

To conclude, accompanying music can change the meaning and effect of lyrics. A poem, read on the page, lacks this intervention except as the reader imagines it. A poem, spoken by someone, has the potential for this effect but I'll maintain that it's different from tempo, melody, mode, and dynamic changes built into music.

xpost I could maybe get behind that. It seemed like Richard was relying on a reductionist "lyrics = poetry" argument in order to make claims about what lyrics do based on what other forms of poetry (the kind we usually call "poetry") do and not taking into consideration the differences.

I'd also perhaps argue that if we widen our notion of what poetry can be, then it's foolish to say that poetry "is not only about the sonic qualities of the words," since I'd wager that some poetry (and not just lyrics meant to accompany music) certainly is about just that.

Lyrics are a form of poetry. They're poetry designed to function in a specific musical context. That this form of poetry is composed at least in part as music and relies on that and other music to achieve its effect doesn't make it not poetry.

Yeah, this is true if we use the broadest-sense definition of poetry. I think where we need to be careful is in assuming that all lyrics can exist outside of their musical context and not be seriously altered.

epic poetry was sung for mnemonics right? like Homer? anyway less of difference before the printed word I imagine. and surely a very fuzzy line between "spoken" poetry and say acapella singing ---

Yes yes it's the old "define yr terms" argument - but it's quite clear to me that lyrics exist in a different context and function in a different way to poetry, so any definition of poetry which also managed to encompass lyrics would be rather impoverished.

Poetry
1. the art of rhythmical composition, written or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts.
2. literary work in metrical form; verse.
3. prose with poetic qualities.

These could all describe lyrics - but only incompletely and ineffectively.

And, xpost to reacher, there may be a continuum between lyrics and poetry but that doesn't diminish the distinction between them.

I'm terrible w/lyrics, as far as remembering them. Even my favorite songs, songs I've heard hundreds of times, in most cases I couldn't be counted on to deliver a very good karoake version that didn't devolve into nonsense syllables at some point. For me, this question gets a pretty easy "yes if you want them to, no if you don't" answer.

DOMINIQUE LEONE,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Dontforgetthelyricslogo.png/250px-Dontforgetthelyricslogo.png

I try not to but it just happens!

if all things turned to vapor they could still be distinguished by their smell

OK, let's use a couple of examples. I love "Heartbeats" by The Knife. I think it's probably the best song of the 2000s. One reason it's so great is that while its lyrics are highly expressive and quite sad, its music is upbeat and exuberant, to an almost comic degree. That push-pull messes with our expectation of what kind of music accompanies sad lyrics, and vice-versa. The lyrics on their own would read basically as lament. The music makes them more ambiguous--potentially more positive for some lines, heart-wrenchingly tragic for others.

all this may be true, but would you argue that the lyrics were chosen for completely for their sound and not their content?

Most poetry is, at least in part, about the sonic qualities of the words. To hear William Burroughs read his poetry is not the same as reading it. Most poetry gains something when read aloud by a voice that understands it - spoken word forms entirely depend on that.

I don't get why any of this at issue. Lyrics in music can reasonably be considered a form of poetry, but they can't be judged without taking the music context and effect into question. Just like you can't judge a guitar part without hearing the rest of the song.

P.S. Definition of poetry posted above is antiquated. Doesn't account for non-rythmic, non-metrical forms. Doesn't account for concrete/experimental poetry.

Edit: "...not the same as silently reading it yourself".

(xpost to the PS) ...doesn't account for lyrics. Yes you can draw a circle that includes rhythmic and non rhythmic and metric and non metric poetry and lyrics too, I'm sure in many cases it would be a usefool demarcation. But other ones are possible. Generally I prefer the ones where lyrics and poetry are in separate circles. Like I said it's just the "define your terms" argument.

As an aside: great lyrics usually make shitty poetry, great poetry would (at least sometimes) make shitty lyrics.

"usefool" wtf?!

I think the question isn't so much one of definititions, but of implications. People don't like the suggestion that lyrics might be considered as poetry, because it seems to imply that they can be judged as most poetry is now judged: as words on paper. And that almost never works for lyrics.

Anyway, are we saying that lyrics are always good if the song as a whole appeals to us? 'Cuz I love Om, and I think the vocals in their music sound GREAT! But I also think their lyrics are poor - portentious gibberish. They work 'cuz you mostly can't make 'em out, and 'cuz the odd phrase you can make out ("the aeronaut toward the object form" or whatever) suits the mood. They may be ritually or spiritually significant, can't comment on that, but they aint' good

There could not have been a better example to illustrate your point. I cannot bring myself to read Om's lyrics even though they are all clearly printed in the liner notes. I will not ever because I know they are "poor - portentious gibberish", but I love the way certain phrases come out in the song.

Do you think there is poetry that could be equally as poor when written down, but would work when spoken aloud?

yes, there's a lot of it. particularly when the author him/herself is reading it aloud.

A hell of a lot of very successful spoken word pretty much sucks in the "words on paper" sense. By successful, I mean well-regarded, slam-winning, popular.

obv. picking up on tone is an important aspect of poetry and lyrical appreciation. i fail to see anyone should make the argument that poetry is just ink confined to paper while lyrics are the embodiment of living, breathing emotional expression just because there's music there.

this conversation is getting too exhausting because of the non-alignment of preconceptions about terminologies. ima bail out now

i fail to see anyone should make the argument that poetry is just ink confined to paper while lyrics are the embodiment of living, breathing emotional expression

I fail to see anyone making that argument in this thread. Is it cos I quoted an outdated and stuffy definition of poetry?

But the couple of responses before that - good to know. Not an aspect of poetry I was particularly aware of.

A lot of what I like about poetry is how it looks on the page, how the words are visually juxtaposed with one another, whereas a lot of what I like about music is the sonic moods and textures it creates, so in that sense, lyrics and poetry have almost opposite functions for me.

That's a fair distinction. I expect you're not alone in that.

I read a fair amount of poetry, and when I do, I try to read it aloud, slowly, emphasizing the sound and rhythm of the language. Goofy as hell, but I want to hear and feel it as much as read it. If I don't do this, I often find written poetry rather dull and impenetrable - even stuff I like.

Argh, dudes, no matter how much you want to get all "poetry is a composition for the human voice" about it, there is a major and obvious split these days between

(a) poetry being distributed and consumed almost entirely on paper, and designed accordingly, and

(b) lyrics being distributed and consumed almost entirely as audio recordings, and designed accordingly

Acting like the two are in any way equivalent is as ridiculous as mistaking a movie for a book.

That's absolutely true. There is a valid distinction to be made, and for the most part, the two things are quite different, both in form and function.

But I'm not sure what we gain by insisting on the distinction. We all understand that lyrics don't exist in isolation, that they succeed or fail in a primarily musical context. We know that lyrics can look like crap on paper and still work beautifully in a song, or vice-versa. And I hope we accept that lyrics aren't a solely musical element, that they have at least a quasi-literary identity.

Given all that, why should we worry about whether or not someone calls lyrics a kind of poetry?

Nabsico, what are the implications of "consumed on paper" to you? How do you account for most of human history when poems were memorized and recited aloud because people weren't literate? Am I totally missing something?

all this may be true, but would you argue that the lyrics were chosen for completely for their sound and not their content?

I don't understand this at all. Of course not.

Yes: you are totally missing the words "these days."

P.S. What is gained by reminding ourselves of this distinction is -- as I said above -- a chance to push ourselves to find more ways to talk about lyrics the way they actually function and the way people actually respond to them (rather than always winding up talking about them as texts, simply because we don't have enough of a framework / vocabulary / history encouraging us to talk about them as they are).

Wow, I totally did miss those words. Sry, bro.

X-post: When talking or writing, we do tend to praise lyrics that sound good in a language-only sense and condemn those that don't. But that's an inevitable result of the difference between language and music - and the fact that most of our communication is linguistic.

If you quote a lyric that sounds good in isolation, people say "damn, that's some great lyrics!" If you quote something that only works with music backing it up, they say "um, yeah, I guess you had to be there."

Maybe that's unfortunate, but it's also just the way things are.

talking about, explaining, discussing =/= "quoting

I get that, and agree. But it doesn't surprise me at all that the lyrics that get the most praise are the ones that work best as words on paper. Nor do I see anything wrong with that.

I see something terrifically wrong with that, because it's as if we're endlessly discussing symphonies by discussing which halls have the most comfortable seats.

It's also just a missed opportunity, and I think it's one that might have some small negative rub-off on the music itself. Look at reviews of any random small-time new rock band, and you'll usually find the issue of lyrics cordoned off into a space by itself, as if the songs and melodies exist whole and then it's a whole separate question of what words one decides to slot in -- which is actually the case/process with plenty of acts. But compare with reviews of hip-hop, where the content of the rapping and the actual tone and presentation of the voice are much more often treated as totally intertwined: they're part of an entire expression of a personality, the things said and the way they're said. You don't separate DMX's lyrics from the persona he's putting forth in the way he delivers them, the voice he has.

Stuff like this does get talked about with rock bands, a little bit, but it's usually discussed in terms of the person's voice, as the quality of the singing voice: one ringer has a rambling shout, another has a preacher's exhortation, another has a sinister deadpan. But of course those things are absolutely tied to what's being said, and when you break them down too far into technical categories -- vocals, lyrics, etc. -- you can wind up making a lot less effort to try and capture or talk about the overall personality that's coming through, or the type of human presence in there. That's a missed opportunity for sure, and it's something I'm always glad to see people trying to dig into. It's hard and risky to try, without question -- you risk getting overly impressionistic, veering too far from the hard data of descriptions and comparisons and into a far more subjective place, where you're talking about What Sort of Person you seem to be hearing in there -- but it's absolutely worthwhile, because it forms this huge under-discussed part of how people actually relate to music.

So I think you don't get very far talking about (e.g.) Malkmus lyrics without talking about the Cheshire-Cat way he sometimes delivers them. I think people should talk about stuff like the difference between singers who kinda of "act out" the delivery of what's being said, versus singers who are observing and reporting it. I think people should talk more about the non-word parts of lyrics, their quality and what they accomplish -- the pauses and lacunae, the gasps and trills. Critics always feel free to shoot for this stuff when they're talking about something old, something they've lived with for a while: suddenly overwhelming amounts of impressionism come out in the service of capturing the personality that's accreted around the words and performance. But we're really bad at talking about this stuff up-front, because there's no good recent history of doing it with rock music. I wish there were.

To be fair, I think critics are good at talking about these things when someone makes them an issue, when they're a big focal point (as they are in hip-hop, where you can't NOT get at them) -- but I feel like the toolkit for dealing with them in general is slightly lacking.

I'm not sure I see the same deficiencies in critical writing you do. Maybe that's where we disagree, 'cuz I agree in priciple with everything you just said.

FWIW, I do notice that fans fetishize certain lyrics/lyricists as poetry. Course, critics are often little more than fans with a bullhorn, so there's tons of thoughtless analysis out there. But for the most part, decent critics seem to pay fair attention to the relationship between the written lyric, the performance and the persona.

Or maybe I'm insufficiently demanding.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Nabisco here. Malkmus is the key for me - much as I loved Pavement's songs, I always dismissed the lyrics as just a grab-bag of words, not much thought or meaning behind them. I may or may not have been wrong - I think I was wrong, but that's beside the point. The delivery - and not just the delivery but how the whole package of words and music fits together - is at least as if not more important than the semantic content.

"The delivery - and not just the delivery but how the whole package of words and music fits together - is at least as if not more important than the semantic content."

But we're all saying that, Ledge - pretty much everybody who's contributed to the thread. As I understand it, nabisco is faulting conventional critical thought for failing to pay enough attention to the complexities, and I'm not sure about that.

I do see where problems can arise. For instance, I think Malkmus' best lyrics work beautifully as stand-alone poetry. Therefore, perhaps it's tempting in discussing them to oversimplify the way they actually function. Still, I'm not sure I see the big problem.

The literary aspect of the lyrics doesn't "matter" per se, but if the singer has nothing literary to say, nothing happens. It's a nasty little feedback loop: songwriting.

For example, Mark E. Smith. In very few of the songs do I know what he's talking about in any meaningful sense. That is, when it comes to the words, the song has no cohesiveness, no structural integrity. Nonetheless, he has said more than most other songwriters. And maybe one of those days, they'll all make sense. Why not? I know the Fall fanatics have certainly delved into it. Already, I'm thinking of exceptions to what I just said. "My New House," "Disney's Dream Debased," "Iceland," "Spoilt Victorian Child." Then again, I know I've read explanations for a lot more than these, but the supposed meanings didn't stick in my memory. The melodies and his voice do.

It <I>is</i> all about sound, and much like someone said here, I often only notice the lyrics when something that sounds stupid catches my attention. Still, a singing voice is making sounds that even if they're just sounds end up sounding like words, and if the singer has no words he wants to put out there in the form of a song, he isn't going to get far. Unless he wants just to do word-less experimental stuff and sound-poetry. Great!

Not to sound immodest or anything, but please read my essays on songwriting, sound-poetry, etc. at Sweet Pea Review.

well gee I guess I fucked up the html on "is." You get the point.