On the relative importance of lyrics

[Eyeball Kid]

The topic of lyrics and how much of a factor they are in liking a song or an artist has come up in a few threads recently, but I feel like the topic deserves its own thread.

In one of the album of the month threads, Matt M said this:

Originally Posted by Matt M

<snip>...my own propensity to not pay attention to lyrics. I guess my default mode is to treat vocals as just another instrument in the mix and, especially on a first listen, to completely tune out the meaning of the words being sung (even when I find myself singing along to them in the chorus).

This is the way I generally process lyrics as well. There are exceptions, usually of the singer-songwriter variety, like Tom Waits, Dylan, John Prine, etc. But even with that type of artist, if the music doesn't grab me, I won't stick with it.

For me, it even goes way beyond the first few listens. There are songs I've listened to and loved for years where I couldn't give you any more than the chorus off the top of my head. This propensity to tune out the words also makes it hard for me to appreciate some hip-hop, unless the production is really interesting. It's why I like stuff like Deltron 3030 so much.

This all got me into a lot of trouble when I was making mix tapes and CDs for my wife when we first started dating. She'd ask me why I was putting all of these depressing songs about death, breakups, and the apocalypse on them. I had no clue.

I also have a high tolerance for goofy and/or inscrutable lyrics. See: The Breeders. Paradoxically, the main reason I never got the love for Duran Duran back in the 1980s was because I hated their lyrics and thought they made no sense. It sounded like they just threw together a bunch of unrelated sentences that just happened to rhyme. Maybe it had something to do with how high the lyrics were in the mix, I don't know. Hypocrisy!

Is there anyone here besides Matt and me in the music-first club? For those of you who fall into a more lyric-centric camp: do you listen to much instrumental music? Do you play instruments yourself?** Do you like bands like Sigur Ros? Can good music overcome shitty lyrics?

**I played alto saxophone from 6th grade through 12th grade, and a little bass guitar in college. I'm also curious about musical training and how people value lyrics, and wondering if this will be a common thread for people like me.

[Judas Booth]

Hit the notes and make them sound interesting with the other instruments being played. The actual lyrics themselves are totally secondary.

[Martin Savage]

Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid

Is there anyone here besides Matt and me in the music-first club? For those of you who fall into a more lyric-centric camp: do you listen to much instrumental music? Do you play instruments yourself?** Do you like bands like Sigur Ros? Can good music overcome shitty lyrics?

You guys aren't alone. I'm right there with you guys.

And yeah, Sigur Ros is a great exemple. I have no clue what they're singing abou, but the music convey so much I feel it's unnecessary to know the lyric to get the song.

The best exemple I can claim for myself is Lisa Gerrard, the singer from Dead Can Dance. She makes a point of singing in her made-up language, which she begin to invent as she was singing as a little girl. The point is that the human voice was probably the first "instrument" to make music, and there was music before there were words.

And her music is probably the most emotionnally resonnant music I ever heard.

[Anakin's Dad]

Maybe this is why I feel like a moron in the music threads around here. I listen to a lot of music for the lyrics, the instruments are there to accentuate the mood and style of the song for me.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Judas Booth

Hit the notes and make them sound interesting with the other instruments being played. The actual lyrics themselves are totally secondary.

True. Sort of.

When they're wielded properly, they're anything but secondary, and they separate most of the greats from the almost-great.

[Martin Savage]

Originally Posted by joeypants

True. Sort of.

When they're wielded properly, they're anything but secondary, and they separate most of the greats from the almost-great.

True, but to each their own strenghts. Leonard Cohen ain't the best musician in the world, but lyrically-speaking, he's a tough one to beat. Some musicians are adept and extremely talented at both, but beside that, that's why there's bands. Split the duty of doing everything.

[Judas Booth]

Originally Posted by joeypants

True. Sort of.

When they're wielded properly, they're anything but secondary, and they separate most of the greats from the almost-great.

I'll agree with this, Joey. I shouldn't have made it a blanket statement as there are MANY bands/songs that connect with me on a lyrical level.

[Phil]

On the one hand...



But on the other hand...

[bendrix]

The Replacements' hooks got me listening to them. Westerberg's lyrics made me fall in love with them. Ditto the Afghan Whigs.

It depends on the band, but when lyrics are truly amazing, they are far from secondary.

[Eyeball Kid]

See, I'll agree with Bendrix, especially with the Afghan Whigs example. But it's a complete mystery to me why, say, a Built To Spill or Talking Heads song's lyrics will stick in my head and resonate, while others don't. At a guess, there's usually some alchemy to the mix, the melody, and the singer's voice and delivery that makes it lodge in there.

Also: Phil wins, again.

[Jeb]

As I stated in the other thread, "It's got a good beat-- you can dance to it" remains first principle for me.

But songs have words, and words have meanings. And an artist who can make both aspects work together will always reach me more completely than one who can manage one but not the other.

I'm not particularly interested in chops (even great chops) that accompany lyrical cliche or tedium; on the other hand, if I can get everything a song has to offer from the lyric sheet, that's not going to stick with me either.

And where lyrics are concerned, I'm basically OK with dumb or silly if they work with the music (cf The Ramones); however, trite, smug, self-important and sexist I have more trouble with.

[Eyeball Kid]

trite: eh, I can deal with it unless it's REALLY over the top.
smug, self-important: B-But I love Jarvis Cocker!
sexist: depends on context, but usually turns me off.

[Jeb]

Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid

smug, self-important: B-But I love Jarvis Cocker!

No law against that...

... yet.

[joeypants]

I also get what you "music second" people are getting at though. It's the sounds that always draw you in initially.

Never once have I latched onto a band after reading a lyric sheet or something without hearing them.

And for me, if the sound sucks, then I don't give a good goddamn how clever or insightful the lyrics are.

I prefer the marriage of the two, and my all time, "top shelf" bands fulfill my need to have both areas be as good as possible.

But I can and do enjoy quite a few bands based on their sound alone and pay relatively little attention to their lyrics. Granted, I can't STAND horribly bad lyrics, but if the band itself is awesome but the lyrics only so-so, I can still totally get into them.

For me, Thrice is a good example of this. I love their music, especially what they've evolved into, but I'm not overly crazy about their lyrics. I like some of the lyrics, and find others a bit trite and overwrought.

Led Zeppelin is another example. "Ooooo Yeah" and "Hey hey mama" and shit like that doesn't really tickle my lyrical senses. But they're one of my favorite bands.

King Crimson (specifically the Belew years) feature some downright groan-inducing lyrics, but they're also one of my favorites. Ditto that with Rush.

Again, for my tastes, Tool and Pink Floyd are probably my two favorite bands, and are two bands that to me, have a perfect marriage of sound and lyrical ideas/execution.

Radiohead falls into that category as well.

ETA: And there are plenty of pretty much instrumental bands that I fucking love as well. (i.e. Mogwai)

[Bobby Bear]

Originally Posted by bendrix

The Replacements' hooks got me listening to them. Westerberg's lyrics made me fall in love with them. Ditto the Afghan Whigs.

It depends on the band, but when lyrics are truly amazing, they are far from secondary.

I couldn't agree with everything above more. Nice one.

[Ryan S~]

I have a tough time separating the two. As long as the music and the lyric support each other I'm there. But in a pinch I'll take great lyrical content over great music any day.

And to answer Eyeball Kid's other questions. I am a musician and I'm not hugely fond of instrumentals.

[Timothy Q]

I love lyrics. I think good or interesting lyrics can make a good song great. There have been many times that I have loved the words to a song so much it really props up the simplest of melodies and makes me love the song. This doesn't necessarily mean the lyrics have to be deep, or profound. Sometimes I just like what a singer has to say or I agree with the viewpoint, emotion or humor behind them.

For me, I feel lyrics have just as much an impact on a song as riffage, structure or tempo.

[Ryan S~]

I just wanted to add that part of it is the performance as well. If you get a singer who's doing a great job getting emotion across sometimes the lyrics can be completely asnine and they can make them work.

[The Alexor]

I'm surprised to find such a thread on CHUD. For a while I've felt almost all discussions in the Music category end up being about the lyrics (be they good or bad).

I'm also one of those who feels the performance is more important than the words themselves but it may be because most of the music I listen to is in english wich isn't my first language.

[DanielRoffle]

The reason lyrics get discussed to a perhaps excessive extent, be it on online forums or music mags/blogs/rockcrit in general, is that basically they're the one aspect of music where everyone gets to chime in. Most people don't know much music theory, might not play an instrument, etc. and when it comes to critics, even those that do are aware that most of their audience probably doesn't and tend to avoid discussing these aspects too much, usually going for more impressionistic type descriptions (this is what most Dance music criticism is like, for instance.)

But lyrics are a different thing: everyone's analysed some poetry in high school, and it's far easier to argue over words than sounds. This does lead to some unfortunate misinterpretations of what lyrics are supposed to be - people who buy books of lyrics to read like poetry baffle me. I mean, as important as thematic concerns and such may be, the #1 priority has to be for them to work within the music, which is why Smokey Robinson is one of the greatest lyricists of all time, but if you put his words on paper it makes for some pretty shoddy poetry. It's all about the song as a whole package, and certain styles are more likely to demand well crafted lyrics than others - it's more important in Country than in, say, Funk or Disco, for instance, which is not to say that lyrics are unimportant in those genres; more a matter of knowing to rely on simple, basic concepts. "I Feel Love" has great lyrics, for its purpose.

[DanielRoffle]

Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid

Paradoxically, the main reason I never got the love for Duran Duran back in the 1980s was because I hated their lyrics and thought they made no sense. It sounded like they just threw together a bunch of unrelated sentences that just happened to rhyme. Maybe it had something to do with how high the lyrics were in the mix, I don't know. Hypocrisy!

THe funny thing about Duran Duran is that their lyrics are really ornate and sophisticated, but also make no sense whatsoever. Which is to say: they don't just throw in various simple words that rhyme (someone who actually did this: Marc Bolan, though he was frequently very funny with it, and no less good an artist), they go to the trouble of making really complex sentence structures that nonetheless turn out as total gibberish. It's sort of insane.