Can lyrics matter without music?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Nate on another thread:

Radio in general is so bad (for me at least) that I think the process nowadays might have to come down to looking at what's on the charts, finding the lyrics online to find out if they're any good, going to barnesandnoble.com to listen to a thirty-second snippet of the song for a brief appraisal, and then if all impressions are good go to Soulseek to download it.

I don't understand this at all. For me, I can deal with music without lyrics and music WITH lyrics and both matter, but I just can't see how lyrics -- especially these days -- can be seperated from phrasing, voice, etc. not to mention the actual rest of the song.

So, uh, how does this work?

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 29 August 2002 13:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Me, from the same thread:
Then again I might miss some instances where okayish lyrics are completely redeemed by a mind-boggling delivery, and you know I think it's actually kind of a stupid way of going about things now that you mention it.

Nate Patrin, Thursday, 29 August 2002 13:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Bob Dylan is currently in the Norton Anthology of Poetry.

Why?

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 29 August 2002 14:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Because the Norton Anthology of Poetry is crippled by insecurity I'd imagine. Unless it's an excerpt from Tarantula of course!!

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 29 August 2002 14:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Do the people who think you can't treat lyrics separately from their performance also think you can't treat stage drama separately from its performance? (A fair enough viewpoint IMO)

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 29 August 2002 14:13 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't equate the two -- drama is usually written without a particular performance in mind, and ppl. can actually just stage them in their head.

Lyrics are never written sans everything else and are usually written for a specific performer.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 29 August 2002 15:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Bob Dylan is currently in the Norton Anthology of Poetry. Why?

1) Because he's a great lyricist (not so great a, you know, poet, if Tarantula was any indication).

2) Because no one would actually buy a Norton Anthology if it weren't for a school assignment. It's considered boring, antiquated, canonical, etc. Dylan gives it an image-revamp... not that he's so popular with "the kids" now, of course, but it might be a little premature to included Eminem (plus, I mean, "I go to TRL / look how many hugs I get"?).

Jody Beth Rosen, Thursday, 29 August 2002 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

No, lyrics are impossible to appreciate without the music. Even wordsmiths like Bob Dylan or Leronard Cohen have to be looked at as part of a song, and I think most people would agree. Why do you think that Imagine or Angels are popularly regarded as having really good lyrics? It sure ain't the lyrics themselves - it's the music that takes rather shaky lyrics and makes them memorable and cool.

John Barlow, Thursday, 29 August 2002 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I've said this before but I think there needs to be a separate name for the words on the page (which are pretty much pointless to think about apart from the song) and the words as performed.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 29 August 2002 15:22 (twenty-three years ago)

I would agree with Tom. The lyrics and the music are inseparable, and more often than not without the music the Lyrics crumple (Bob Dylan included). I don't know about how Cohen's lyrics stand apart, but then again he was a poet and a writer before he even started to make music so may prove to be the exception and not the rule. Certainly there is a difference between words composed to be read and words meant to be heard. See the Trashmen's "Surfin' Bird." Also coming to find, was a funny chart in Motorbooty lambasting musicians who put out books of poetry or novels, Tarantula and John Lennon included. Priceless.

jack cole (jackcole), Thursday, 29 August 2002 15:54 (twenty-three years ago)

So does all this mean that someone who finds personal meaning in lyrics as words on paper, apart from the music, is wrong? You might not respect it, but the point of view exists, and you can't necessarily tell people how to appreciate something.


Also, does anything recorded, released or performed as a song automatically become invalid as poetry? Specifically, what if a song was originally conceived or, better yet, published as a poem? "Guantanamera" comes to mind -- originally a poem by José Mart&iactue;. I'm sure there are other examples.


I'm not trying to refute all of the above, just suggesting that the answers seem like one-sided responses to a question that should be more complicated than all that.

wl, Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:07 (twenty-three years ago)

í

wl, Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

I think lyrics can matter without music, they just rarely do (in Western pop music, anyway). But I think there have been times and places where the lyrics to songs really were poetry. I definitely don't require of lyrics that they stand up on there own as poetry.

DeRayMi, Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Cf. John Cale's versions of Dylan Thomas poems. I can't hear the originals without his melodies -- they feel like they complete the work.

So lyrics maybe can standalone. But I don't think they can tell you if you will like the music, which is maybe more where the question was coming from.

I suppose this is also by way of asserting that the power of music is stronger than the power of prose (as well as that of advertising, as earlier established)

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Functioning well on the printed page is a whole 'nother ball o' wax from functioning well as lyrics. And lyrics that work brilliantly when sung with music can sometimes be just limp when written down. Conversely, great poetry sometimes makes only so-so lyrics when set to music. However, notwithstanding all of that, it is possible to consider lyrics on their own as poetry, and in many cases, they actually do quite well. Of course, there is something lost in the translation, but there can also be things gained in the translation, as anyone who has read poetry in translation could tell you. I think part of Dylan's greatness as a lyricist is that he never tries to write poetry. He always writes lyrics as lyrics, and that's why they are so powerful. Someone like Leonard Cohen is, I think, a bit more self-consciously poetic, and sometimes his songs suffer as a result - although his lyrics may sometimes look better on a printed page.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah I think lyrics can be 'poetry' but once you start considering them as poetry you're not really talking about 'lyrics' any more, you're just talking about a poem and you maybe bring different ideas to bear on the words. And if you're reading the words 'as a poem' but in your head you're hearing the cadences and rhythms of the sung performance then you're not really considering the words as a poem I think.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Music without words == Classical == Highbrow.
Words without music equals == Spoken Word == Pretentious.
Classical + Spoken Word == ?????

Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it can be difficult if you are familiar with a song, to mentally separate the tune and the rhythm of the song from the words. This would be analogous to the case when you've read a poem in the original language and then you read it in translation. You might find yourself thinking of the original words. A good test of how well a song's lyrics work as poetry is when you read them before you've ever heard the song. I've read threads online in which people have posted their favorite lyrics, and many times I find myself enjoying the lyrics to songs I've never heard before. In those cases, they are basically functioning as poetry only.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

"bring the noise" is also in the norton anthology iirc

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, I just looked at the table of contents of the latest Norton Anthology. It appears that there is one Dylan song lyric included, and you'll never guess which one it is. OK, I'll tell you. "Boots of Spanish Leather" It's in a special section called "Popular Ballads of the 20th Century", which also includes songs by Gordon Lightfoot and Pete Seeger (sorry, no "Bring the Noise"). So he is not being considered as a real poet anyway.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:41 (twenty-three years ago)

surely that should be gordon giltrap?

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 29 August 2002 20:17 (twenty-three years ago)

It's not much of a reflection of the quality of the lyrics if they work well as poetry - I'd almost say it's dumb luck, but I don't suppose a rotten lyricist is terribly likely to incidentally write good poetry. I can't begin to judge the lyrics of my favourites as poetry because I know how they are supposed to sound, whether it's Dylan or Tom Waits or Jarvis Cocker or Eminem.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 29 August 2002 20:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Words do not matter unless the song matters to you and even then they are just another layer of sound.

sonicred, Thursday, 29 August 2002 20:29 (twenty-three years ago)

So lyrics maybe can standalone. But I don't think they can tell you if you will like the music, which is maybe more where the question was coming from.



Sorry if I kinda missed the point with my post. Not that I have any examples readily at hand, but I know that great lyrics can make a mediocre/tuneless song (as easily as awful music can ruin a song with great words, as easily as great music can redeem total cliché lyrics).



Of course, there is a really good point that it's difficult to separate lyrics from their delivery, unless you do it on a comparative level, i.e. alternate versions of the same song, or different people's covers of the same song. On that level, though, you really can't separate any one discrete element from the integrated experience of the song as a whole.



I might just be talking to myself at this point. Bye.

wl, Thursday, 29 August 2002 21:07 (twenty-three years ago)

i'm with Martin - if pop lyrics do work by themselves it's dumb luck, cause they need to be LIVE, not dead - not "for all time," as words on a page are, because nothing in this time is. (witness the awful naked poverty of Lou Reed lyrics typeset as poems. it's embarrassing, like a frequently-expressed wish to time-travel would be)

Ovid and Shakespeare tho - they never ever imagined in k-zillion years that anyone would have an interest in preserving in dead and eternal script what they've become most famous for - words meant to be spoken aloud. funny old world etc.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 August 2002 21:21 (twenty-three years ago)

i don't believe that re ovid or shakespeare, that they thought it shd only be spoken aloud

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 29 August 2002 21:24 (twenty-three years ago)

most of Shaksie's plays have tons of lines that are based on attendees' memories of performances they saw. even if he thort they looked pretty on the page he didn't do much about it (saw it as beneath him maybe, vile trade that the theater is/was?)

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 August 2002 21:30 (twenty-three years ago)

although there WAS something about the unity of voice and text in that time (which you can see in the TOTAL LACK of ANY subtext in Shakespeare - people meant what they said at the exact moment that they said it). the voice was a ritual that called forth the magical power of the words. the words when written were like a spell-book. maybe we ascribe this power to CD players now.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 29 August 2002 21:37 (twenty-three years ago)

'eleanor rigby' was in my high school poetry textbook, 'born to run' too.

i wonder if these songs had never been released with their dramatic renderings if these words would seem as inspired? especially 'born to run'.

keith, Friday, 30 August 2002 01:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Tracer & early Lukcas agreement shockah!

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 August 2002 02:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Er, Lukacs that is.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 August 2002 02:34 (twenty-three years ago)

this question is too simplistic. so the correct answer is: yes and no. depends on the lyrics and the music. it depends on the listener as well.

nathalie (nathalie), Friday, 30 August 2002 05:44 (twenty-three years ago)

(Poetry is also conflicted in whether it is meant to be read aloud i.e. "performed" or read silently to one's self from the page.)

bnw (bnw), Friday, 30 August 2002 06:06 (twenty-three years ago)

By which I mean his notion that the novel is defined by the creation of a new conception of individuality.

Also, simple questions demand complex answers!

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 30 August 2002 10:39 (twenty-three years ago)

All I know is that I can read Dylan's words on the page and be equally amazed as when they are set to music. So anyone who tells me that lyrics are inseperable from music is talking cockjuice. Words, language; the superstructure and parameters of verbage, operate along an entirely different trajectory and dynamic to music = consideration of lyrics out of context of music: valid.

Roger Fascist, Friday, 30 August 2002 11:09 (twenty-three years ago)

When reading web pages its often obvious that the writer has learned that words are written down, and has built into the words the viewpoint of a reader using paper to access the work. People learn to produce things to suit the way they imagine they will be consumed. Lots of web writing feels like paper writing (even ones that never see paper).

This is why I've always enjoyed considering the counter-intuitive statement that the writen word preceeds the spoken (though I can't recall who claims this). I do think song lyrics very often feel 'written'. It may be that the best way to assess the lyrics is outwith the 'sung context' because words are for writing not speaking or singing.

Arguably this may not always have been the case (was 'writing' alays a concept before there was anything written?) and there are some 'songs' -Diamanda Galas's Litanies of Satan for instance - that use the human voice in a non-lyric orientated way.

consideration of lyrics out of context of music = better than consideration of lyrics in context of music

Sandy Balir, Friday, 30 August 2002 12:14 (twenty-three years ago)

haha s.blair secretly <3 j.derrida shockah!!

tracer the sonnets are totally about being read on the page => hence ditto anything else he used a pen for (a bit)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 30 August 2002 12:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Roger, have you ever read lyrics by Dylan (or anyone else) that you have never heard sung, and been impressed by them only as words on the page? I can't say I have ever even tried this. Once I have heard the song, I can't read them as poetry again without those rhythms and inflections coming into it, which means I am experiencing them as sung lyrics, as I read.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 30 August 2002 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

The problem with all this is that some kind of actual barrier is being assumed to stand somewhere between lyrics and poetry. That's nonsense.

static, Saturday, 31 August 2002 23:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Song lyrics rely heavily on hard rhymes and a repeated chorus. Neither of which you will find in say 95% of contemporary poetry.

bnw (bnw), Sunday, 1 September 2002 01:40 (twenty-three years ago)

The barrier is this: it is meant to be sung, or it is not. Also -- it is thought of as something meant to be sung, or it is not.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 1 September 2002 03:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Ezra Pound to thread!

hstencil, Sunday, 1 September 2002 03:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Again nonsense. What about rap? What about religious chants? It's not as if the potential power of words as a communication tool can just be cancelled out by the means of delivery. It's a filter, an addition that may also be a subtraction, but surely not an either/or deal.

static, Sunday, 1 September 2002 03:49 (twenty-three years ago)

strike sung replace "intoned in a particular fashion accompanied by various other elements of production".

Words are not the only communication tool, nor are they necessarily the primary tool in any given instance, which blows the filter analogy to bits. What if the music is the primary tool and the words augment/filter it? Or more often, there's some subtle interplay between the two. Consider the classic "sad words/happy melody" which makes the words completely different. We could actually apply the filter analogy here -- but this wouldn't be an addition/subtraction deal -- matrix multiplication would be involved. At which point, asserting the words stand alone would be absurd, since their final meaning would be impossible to divine absent the rest of the song.

Imagine Kelly's "even when I'm with my boo/you know I'm crazy over you" From "Dilemma" as rapped by Ms. Jade (or better yet, Eve) and you'll see what I mean.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 1 September 2002 04:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But that's exactly the point - that separating the two can change the meaning entirely. That's exactly why and how they matter.

static, Sunday, 1 September 2002 04:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Hence a barrier!

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 1 September 2002 04:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Only a barrier within the limits of reading lyrics as some 'fair' gauge of whether a particular delivery will be of an anticipated quality - but who says that is what everyone does? That still doesn't mean that those words can't be something powerful on their own terms. Sometimes even more so.

static, Sunday, 1 September 2002 04:54 (twenty-three years ago)

If you take the Mona Lisa off the wall and drum it against the floor, it will make a sound. Does that make it music? If you crumple it up, does that mean it was a sculpture waiting to happen?

Sure, lyrics can and should be appreciated apart from music, but that doesn't make them poetry. That's not how they're intended or taken, anyway.

On the other hand, anyone who says lyrics aren't their own art is talking crazy. Think about Woody Guthrie's "lost" songs that were put to music only later by Wilco and Billy Bragg. Or Joe Strummer's "Janie Jones" before Mick Jones got hold of it. Or when The Source (or anyone else) excerpts great lyrics you've never heard. Just because a dress is meant to be worn doesn't mean you can't admire it without the body underneath.

Pete Scholtes, Sunday, 1 September 2002 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Before the 20th Century, poetry was music. And vice-versa.

hstencil, Sunday, 1 September 2002 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Again nonsense. What about rap?

Rap probably gets the closest to poetry. It definitely has the most inventive rhymes in popular music and the most focus on the sound of language . Still, the sheer amount of rhymes, couplet after couplet, clever or not, is way over the top were it to be written down and passed off as a poem. I'm sure there are a select few hp hop tracks that could transfer to poetry, and poems into hip hop (if only...), but again the vast majority just won't fit.

Before the 20th Century, poetry was music. And vice-versa.

Tru dat. Now where's my lyre at?

bnw (bnw), Sunday, 1 September 2002 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Rap probably gets the closest to poetry.

I agree with you, but according to many of the arguments made above, it still doesn't wash because (a) apart from the rare a capella, every rap is meant to be performed over a backing track of some sort, making the music again integral to the text, and (b) the delivery is still an essential part of how the words are received. To be too reductive, a melodic element has simply been substituted for an extra focus on rhythm.

And Saul Williams' guest spot on Blackalicious' Blazing Arrow I think makes a great case for the combo/interchangeability-at-best of poetry and hip hop. One of the finest moments on that disc, if not the finest.

wl, Sunday, 1 September 2002 15:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Words do not matter unless the song matters to you and even then they are just another layer of sound.

this is not right -- i say words used to matter a lot more as equal component than now -- songs on the radio are catchy mantras or shaggy dog stories -- escapist

rap takes escapism to the other extreme via grandiosity, perversity, fantasy and stupidly of all the almost staccato speed of rhyme word to rhyme word require -- a most silly "cred" barometer

it's all worrying considering the vietnam war produced two generations of songwriters with plenty of thought provoking essential lyrics cf: today dancing as escapism (when at least donna summer sung about something and used song models to produce harmonic progression), endless repetition of bumper sticker catchy phrases and the heavy metal induced dumbing down of rock to sub-grunge with one "grunge" idea to sing about

are people to busy to actually sit down and listen to an albums lyrics ? those subjects that should be dealt to and used to be dealt to in songs from the '60s through '80s are not addressed in music anymore -- where's the anti-war music ? are the multi-national media giants not rocking the boat for buddies ?

the music industry has become too standardised, despite indie et al (which are mostly marketing niches for university students anyway) leading me to conclude that there's more irony and wit on most madonna albums than concurrent music that had more "cred" (and that's not to slight madonna) -- who's singing politics to the people ? no-one -- centralised median learning level music per country with guarenteed political safety == $$

george gosset (gegoss), Sunday, 1 September 2002 16:29 (twenty-three years ago)

i'm currently rereading neil sheehan's "a bright shining lie: john paul vann and america in vietnam" => sheehan mentions that "where have all the flowers gone" was the leading 60s anti-war ballad, which came out of the a/w movement, which also became popular among soldiers in vietnam (he mentions it because it's played at vann's funeral, at the behest of his wife)

i've no idea how "effective" this song is as music, or what its effect is, even, in an ARTISTIC sense: unlike george, i absolutely don't accept there's been a "dumbing down" in the entertainment industry: exactly the opposite, really => and THAT'S the problem: isn't it because of an achieved level of artistic sophistication that a song like "where have all the flowers gone" (sappy words, sappy arrangement, tremendous potential our-tune force to anyone english-speaking who lost a child or a sibling to that war) wd (i.) never arise now in an "anti-establishment" context, and (ii.) would not cross out any context in which it did arise

mark s (mark s), Sunday, 1 September 2002 22:04 (twenty-three years ago)

So lyrics maybe can standalone. But I don't think they can tell you if you will like the music, which is maybe more where the question was coming from.

True, true. I can well remember the day that my idealistic fifteen year old self bought "The Singles" and on the way home looked at the lyrics sheet, "Know Your Rights" specifically: "damn, these lyrics rule" I thought "this has gotta be the best Clash Punk Rawk anthem EVER!"

Then I went home and listened to the damn thing. Oh my.

Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, 3 September 2002 01:12 (twenty-three years ago)

That's funny, 'cause I think the music on "Know Your Rights" is pretty cool and the lyrics are pat. (Might have been funnier if he'd actually tried impersonating his enemy.)

Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 3 September 2002 01:59 (twenty-three years ago)

I was trying to think where people consume ERK the same words as either/both text and performance most successfully - where we all agree that's it's worthwhile to do both - and those examples came to mind - but it's hard to think of anything with such a footprint from the modern era. ("Cats" ?!! (tho this goes the other direction so it's kind of a cheat)) Anyway I agree about things those guys used pens for - in Olden Tymz the words - to a performance, or whatever - had a formal quality that was a consequence of their writtenness. Even if no-one would ever read them it was necessary to know that the lines a character was saying were the product of a divine intelligence, that they had been selected just so. Now it seems like we emphasize how contigent dialogue is, how much it breaks down, the lack of God ordering our thoughts and interactions, the difference between what we say and what we want. I know I'm not saying this quite right. Anyway there's a bunch of Fall lyrics that work fantastic on the page - and "hey nonny no" isn't exactly riveting reading - so maybe this distinction is hooey.

Was just thinking today how distracting it must be for actors in foreign films to have everything they say displayed in translated text under their heads while they try to get the scene right...

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 September 2002 04:54 (twenty-three years ago)


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