Importance of Words to Music, a lyrical and melodic inquiry! Options

[bryden42]

think that there are some songs and artists whose music is poetry (Pink Floyd!)

If I want in depth heavy lyrical content that needs listening too, then i'll go... NIN.

... yeah?

so I stand by my original statement that you cant really compare them.

Well, I did. So you can.

So your not down with NN?

[Wookiee]

In an interesting twist to this, it can also be argued that songs (seperate to music in that they involve singing, and therefore lyrics) can, and have existed, and excelled, without music.

... What? A song is not a song without music. Something sung a capella is still music. It has notes and a melody and a rhythm and a structure. And that is what is important to a song, otherwise it is simply prose. There's no interesting twist here. You're just an idiot.

Alternative and rock, as well as R+B, often have something to say with their songs, in which case the lyrics are completely the most important part of it.

Few bands have anything to say, really. There are no great important messages to impart. They are musicians and lyricists, and they are playing songs, and if the songs were no good, if the music was rubbish, the supposed message would matter even less than it would on paper, unread by anybody.

So your not down with NN?

I don't mind old NIN. And about a third of The Fragile. But not for the lyrics. At all.

[Tarantio]

You're just an idiot.

That's nice. Taking this seriously, are we?

I'd disagree that no bands have anything to say, insofar as I have listened to a lot of what some bands did have to say. Rage, Manics, hell, even Blur have had a message to get across at some point. And as cheesy and lame as it is, all the artists that perform at charity concerts definitely have something to say, even if their lyrics don't have anything to do with that at the time. I can't agree with their methods or their results, but its better than sitting on their collective arses and doing absolutely nothing.

EDIT: quick aside, dictionary.com's word of the day is indefatigable. Nice.

[Wookiee]

You're just an idiot.

That's nice. Taking this seriously, are we?

Nicely sidestepping my point there about how painfully wrong you are. Top marks for that.

I'd disagree that no bands have anything to say, insofar as I have listened to a lot of what some bands did have to say. Rage, Manics, hell, even Blur have had a message to get across at some point. And as cheesy and lame as it is, all the artists that perform at charity concerts definitely have something to say, even if their lyrics don't have anything to do with that at the time. I can't agree with their methods or their results, but its better than sitting on their collective arses and doing absolutely nothing.

My point about Richey Edwards' manifestos still stands, as does my disdain for Rage. And I maintain that without the actual songs, the music, what any band has, or thinks it has to say, is worthless. I don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this concept; if it's a song, the music is the most important element, otherwise it simply isn't a song.

[pgrmdave]

That seems to me like you're using important in a different manner than I was. To the definition, yes - the music is needed otherwise it isn't a song. However, that's like saying that the most important part of a question is a question mark, because otherwise it isn't a question. While that is true, it's s slight difference from what people typically think of as important. I've been looking at it more as "What gets the message across better, and in a more artistic manner?". Taken that way, it does become much more difficult to say, especially given songs that tell distinct stories (Alice's Restaurant) or have very specific meanings (Let's Impeach the President). While it is clear that lyrics don't matter to most music (because most music doesn't have lyrics), that doesn't mean that every song has music more important than the lyrics, nor does it diminish the value of lyrics.

[Wookiee]

That seems to me like you're using important in a different manner than I was. To the definition, yes - the music is needed otherwise it isn't a song. However, that's like saying that the most important part of a question is a question mark, because otherwise it isn't a question. While that is true, it's s slight difference from what people typically think of as important. I've been looking at it more as "What gets the message across better, and in a more artistic manner?".

I see exactly what you're saying, and can't fault your logic at all. We are clearly approaching this from different angles, each as valid as the other.

Tarantio is still a knob.

[Oni Usagi]

To me the meaning of the words is usually less important than melody of a song. I usually don't notice the meaning of the lyrics of songs until I've listened to them quite a bit. Even if I know the lyrics to sing along I don't necessarily notice what they mean. However the voice can be a very important part of the melody, even more so than the instrumental part. I have the instrumental and original version of several foreign songs, to which I don't know the meaning of the lyrics. In most cases the instrumental versions seem empty, this may just be because I heard the vocal version first, but I suspect it has to do with whether or not the song was written with the intention of having lyrics.

There are also songs in which the lyrics are more important to the song for their meaning. To me this primarily includes songs with comedic lyrics. The song Kill a Kitten has a melody that I kinda like, but I probably wouldn't listen to it if it had "normal" lyrics. On the other hand I find the lyrics of quite a few Billy Talent songs enjoyable but would probably still listen to the songs if they had different lyrics because I like the music.

Basically, I agree that one is not necessarily more important than the other all the time.