2. music
  3. 1245276611

Music or Lyrics?

If you ask any "serious" (indie?) pop musician what's the most important aspect of their songs, I am sure they would most/all say: the lyrics. They spend so much time and effort on the words, and view this as "what they are saying," which is, to their mind, the reason for writing the song in the first place. (There was a piece by Suzanne Vega in the NY Times a couple of months back.)

But as listeners, what do we think?

For me, for most songs, the words are pretty much irrelevant. (In fact, I can't recite the full lyrics to any song, and can't even make them out on lots of the music I listen to.)

Instead, it's three things:

1. The musical hook

2. The *sound* of the voice(s)

3. The sound of the instrumentation.

In short, it's all about the music, and very little about the lyrics.

Or, to put it another way: I could imagine lots of different lyrics to many of the songs I love, and the song remains the same. But change the music? It becomes an entirely different song.

For example: Take any early passionate U2 anthem. Surely they could be written about other topics, while retaining the same music? Isn't it the music that makes the song compelling?

To be sure: With many/most great songs, we do sing along, and the words are part of our experience. But is it really their *meaning* that's important, or rather their *sound* in the context of the music as a whole? ---I think the latter, and the words could have been different and the song just as popular and compelling.

There are, I'm sure, some exceptions to this rule, where the words are absolutely crucial to making the song compelling. But not too many, I don't think.
jimjoyce25
t_bone
1,182 posts
 
Jimjoyce25, Interesting comment you make. For me, it depends entirely on what music is playing. I've always thought Bob Dylan was never about the music. Similarly, for me Rush, Boston, and ELP were never about the lyrics. The Beatles were great and are still a great listen because they melded the two so well on so many albums.

I wonder if 'lyrics-above-all' people listen to opera (which I agree is better when you understand the words, but still nice when you don't), fado, bossa nova, etc. I don't understand but a few words of Portuguese, and almost nothing in fado, but I adore listening to it.
philjolet's avatar
philjolet
2,305 posts
 
if its Joni Mitchel, Jimi Hendrix, Lou Reed or Tom Waits (all poets IMO) for instance, I listen to lyrics but in most cases I prefer not to have vocals at all. The sound of vocals is often intrusive for me...
theo's avatar
theo
2,663 posts
 
Gotta have both. I can listen to music with out words, but only for a while. I like hearing what is being said. I hate poetry untill it has a tune added.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
For pop music, the combination of music, lyrical meaning and lyrical phonetic sound (even if you didn't understand the language it's sung in) is what I listen for.

The Beatles understood this and often succeeded in incorporating all three elements in their compositions. Sometimes silly, sometimes nonsense, often with meaning, intended or otherwise.
dodgealum
1,398 posts
 
This is something my wife and I go back and forth about. She is a words person and is much more interested in what the songwriter has to say. I'm more about the music and sometimes don't know/care what message the song is sending. On the otherhand, like Philjolet, there are some artists who are so gifted lyrically that the words become as important (and in some case more important) than the music. Or better still, the words and music are crafted in such a way as to complement each other and push things to new heights of songcrafting. A few artists come to mind:

Bob Dylan
Joni Mitchell
Jackson Browne
Rosanne Cash
Bruce Springsteen

I'm sure I could come up with a few more but these are to ones that off the top of my head really bring the music and lyrics together in a powerful way.
More to discover