|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jul 19, 2007 17:08:16 GMT -5
Which is more important to you in a good song, powerful lyrics or great music? Of course, having both together is the best option, but which do you feel is more important?
For me at least, good songwriting or musicianship will very often save a song with lyrics that are bland, trite, or worse. On the other hand, very few songs with music I dislike are saved by great lyrics.
A case in point for me would be Jeff Lynne of ELO fame - he has written a few songs with some very good lyrics, but typically his lyrics are merely adequate or even silly. However, many of his songs are so well-written musically or so catchy that I love them anyway*.
I have known some other people who disagree with me on this, though, feeling that lyrics are more important by far than the music. What do you think?
*note that I am not using Bob Dylan or anyone else to prove the other side of this statement
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Jul 19, 2007 18:29:50 GMT -5
Sorry Cap, I can't make an absolute, one way or the other call on this.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Jul 19, 2007 18:59:54 GMT -5
I'm with phanty here. While lyrics are very important to me, I've liked plenty of stupidly written tunes because they rocked.
Likewise great lyrics have saved sub par melodies for me.
Its a wash.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Jul 19, 2007 19:15:00 GMT -5
Both.
(Listen to Cocteau Twins.)
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jul 19, 2007 21:31:49 GMT -5
Oh you pansies. If I could vote again I'd vote "lyrics" for all of you! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Jul 19, 2007 22:23:40 GMT -5
Oh you pansies. If I could vote again I'd vote "lyrics" for all of you! ;D Opposed to free thinking, aren't you.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jul 20, 2007 11:32:27 GMT -5
Of course I was kidding. I was just very surprised to see three people in a row not choosing one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by GodoHell on Jul 20, 2007 17:18:35 GMT -5
Make that four, Cap'n.
I understand what you're after. But music soothes my soul, so I look at it like a lot of people view religion--no compromise. I want it all.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Jul 20, 2007 17:38:00 GMT -5
Music all the way.
I enjoy lots of bands & artists whose personal viewpoints I don't agree with, because their music is great.
And there are a lot of bands whose personal viewpoints and lyrics resonate with me that I wouldn't listen to in a thousand years because their music is crap.
Ideally, the two will come together, but in the event that they don't, if the music's good, I'll still enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by StreetDreamer83 on Jul 20, 2007 21:42:56 GMT -5
Music without question. It's kinda off topic but I think instrumental songs are a real lost art in this day and age. People are too busy trying to get a message out, but a lot of times music can say so much more than words ever could.
Matt
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Jul 21, 2007 1:45:14 GMT -5
Too much of a toss-up. When either one is lacking TOO much, I can't listen. I'd probably lean closer to "music," though.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Jul 22, 2007 11:16:14 GMT -5
Now see, I don't like instrumentals. I feel ripped off when a band tacks one of those on a CD, it's like a throwaway. For example, the Breeders "Last Splash". They sound okay but damn it, I want that voice!
That's not to say that great guitarist doesn't knock me out. I love watching a great guitar player. Laurence Juber does an instrumental version of Strawberry Fields that is expressive and beautiful and simply took my breath away when I saw him perform it live.
But when I buy a rock album, I want the whole package. Also when I think about songs like Elinor Rigby. It has great music and great arrangement. But without those lyrics, I don't think it would be the lasting classic it is. I would be like, "Oh yeah, that's well done, sounds nice", but it's that story that goes with that great music which makes it important.
The two combined made for a song that still moves me even after listening to it for most of my life. The music alone, nice, cool. The lyrics alone, a work of art, poetry. I'd grow tried of the music by itself, but I could read those lyrics time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jul 22, 2007 19:55:29 GMT -5
I don't agree with all that, but that's just personal. You make a good case, and I often feel many songs need words on which to hang their music.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jul 23, 2007 11:05:02 GMT -5
Now see, I don't like instrumentals. I feel ripped off when a band tacks one of those on a CD, it's like a throwaway. For example, the Breeders "Last Splash". They sound okay but damn it, I want that voice! That's not to say that great guitarist doesn't knock me out. I love watching a great guitar player. Laurence Juber does an instrumental version of Strawberry Fields that is expressive and beautiful and simply took my breath away when I saw him perform it live. But when I buy a rock album, I want the whole package. Also when I think about songs like Elinor Rigby. It has great music and great arrangement. But without those lyrics, I don't think it would be the lasting classic it is. I would be like, "Oh yeah, that's well done, sounds nice", but it's that story that goes with that great music which makes it important. The two combined made for a song that still moves me even after listening to it for most of my life. The music alone, nice, cool. The lyrics alone, a work of art, poetry. I'd grow tried of the music by itself, but I could read those lyrics time and time again. Hmmm. King Crimson? Mogwai? Man or Astroman??
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jul 23, 2007 11:07:45 GMT -5
Many instrumentals nowadays may feel like ripoffs, but I usually think of the 70s as the heyday of good instrumentals. I listen to groups like King Crimson for their primarily instrumental songs.
|
|