Jon Anderson extracts the michael from his own lyrics in "Going for the One" ("but they're so hard to find in my cosmic mind").

Metallica's first album.

 Whoa!!     Hold on there Fuxi.  

With some lyrics people will argue heavily whether they are bad or good. Here a nice example:

Some Questions about Hats

"Can one wear uncanny hats?
Can one weather hats?
Can one wear feather hats?
Concentrate on irate hats
Radiate from hats
When sated, vacate hats
Doors of open water elicit ooh & aahing
Can the wet attract a hat?

Can hats favor fire?
Can a hat aspire to higher things?
Can one pit hats against vicious things?
Pernicious things?
Liquorice fish with wings?

Can hats favor fire?
Can a hat aspire to higher things?
Can one dismiss hats as simple things?
Vapid things?
Scant, evanescent things?"

Now are these bad or good lyrics? Or what?

BaldFriede wrote: With some lyrics people will argue heavily whether they are bad or good. Here a nice example: Some Questions about Hats "Can one wear uncanny hats? Can one weather hats? Can one wear feather hats? Concentrate on irate hats Radiate from hats When sated, vacate hats Doors of open water elicit ooh & aahing Can the wet attract a hat? Can hats favor fire? Can a hat aspire to higher things? Can one pit hats against vicious things? Pernicious things? Liquorice fish with wings? Can hats favor fire? Can a hat aspire to higher things? Can one dismiss hats as simple things? Vapid things? Scant, evanescent things?" Now are these bad or good lyrics? Or what?

Maybe as  Primus song. Probably works better as a song, or some bizzare grammatical exercise.

And I am really surprised people were saying Genesis's "Wind and Wuthering" (an excellent title, it does mean something) song lyrics are bad. They are some of the best, in my opinion, even "All In a Mouse's Night." Sure, its goofy, but I still find it clever.

Please explain why the lyrics of "The Eleventh Earl of Mar" are so bad, because I find them very good, way above the norm.

And, to me, "Blood on the Rooftops" is one of the lamer songs on the album, though still good. The best, by far, is "One for the Vine," a song I put in my top ten, musically and lyrically.

And "Blood on the Rooftops

BaldFriede wrote: With some lyrics people will argue heavily whether they are bad or good. Here a nice example: Some Questions about Hats "Can one wear uncanny hats? Can one weather hats? Can one wear feather hats? Concentrate on irate hats Radiate from hats When sated, vacate hats Doors of open water elicit ooh & aahing Can the wet attract a hat? Can hats favor fire? Can a hat aspire to higher things? Can one pit hats against vicious things? Pernicious things? Liquorice fish with wings? Can hats favor fire? Can a hat aspire to higher things? Can one dismiss hats as simple things? Vapid things? Scant, evanescent things?" Now are these bad or good lyrics? Or what?

Well, I've got to say that they're very deep. But when deep unlocks a true inner meaning, I like it. That seems to me like it involves thinking, but doesn't get you anywhere once you do the thinking.

Genesis is a good example of great, deep thought-provoking lyrics.

Here comes the bishop, all dressed up
he's got eyes in the back of his head
One wave of his funny old stick -
there's a band of light across your eyes!

I'm sorry people, but as far as lyrics go, this is plain terrible. The story is set early in the 18th century, isn't it? My grasp of Scottish history is not that strong, but one thing I DO know is that, in those days, no-one would have spoken of a bishop's "funny old stick"...

As for ONE FOR THE VINE, it's got a delightful main melody (although I'm always put off by the rattling percussion during that instrumental bit in the middle) but, once again, the lyrics are amateurish. The point of view keeps changing from the third person singular to the first, and back again - makes me wanna shout to Phil: Come on man, MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

But it must be added that such lyrics are by no means as awful as Jon Anderson's hippy-dippiest moments.

BaldFriede wrote: With some lyrics people will argue heavily whether they are bad or good. Here a nice example:<h1><b style="color: black; : rgb255, 255, 102;">Some Questions about Hats</h1> "Can one wear uncanny hats? Can one weather hats? Can one wear feather hats? Concentrate on irate hats<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span> Radiate from hats<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span> When sated, vacate hats Doors of open water elicit ooh & aahing Can the wet attract a hat? Can hats favor fire? Can a hat aspire to higher things? Can one pit hats against vicious things? Pernicious things? Liquorice fish with wings? Can hats favor fire? Can a hat aspire to higher things? Can one dismiss hats as simple things? Vapid things? Scant, evanescent things?"Now are these bad or good lyrics? Or what?

I wonder if the author of these lyrics was inspired by a well-known poem by Langston Hughes which is also full of rhetorical questions. Somehow, the cadence seems similar:


What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

OzzProg wrote: A good example of this would be Aisles of Plenty by Genesis; the lyrics are meaningless, but just sound so damn cool in the song.

fuxi wrote: As for ONE FOR THE VINE, it's got a delightful main melody (although I'm always put off by the rattling percussion during that instrumental bit in the middle) but, once again, the lyrics are amateurish. The point of view keeps changing from the third person singular to the first, and back again - makes me wanna shout to Phil: Come on man, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. But it must be added that such lyrics are by no means as awful as Jon Anderson's hippy-dippiest moments.

Since when has tense change been a rule in a poem? Since when has poetry had rules at all (aside from be Modernism)? Plus, the tense change makes since.

"Fifty thousand men were sent to do the will of one.
His claim was phrased quite simply, though he never voiced it loud,
I am he, the chosen one.

In his name they could slaughter, for his name they could die.
Though many there were believed in him, still more were sure he lied,
But they'll fight the battle on.

Then one whose faith had died
Fled back up the mountainside,
But before the top was made,
A misplaced footfall made him stray
From the path prepared for him.
Off of the mountain,
On to a wilderness of ice.

This unexpected vision made them stand and shake with fear,
But nothing was his fright compared with those who saw him appear.
Terror filled their minds with awe.

Simple were the folk who lived
Upon this frozen wave.
So not surprising was their thought,
This is he, God's chosen one,
Who's come to save us from
All our oppressors.
We shall be kings on this world.

Follow me!
l'll play the game you want me,
Until I find a way back home.

Follow me!
I give you strength inside you,
Courage to win your battles--

No, no, no, this can't go on,
This will be all that I fled from.
Let me rest for a while.

He walked into a valley,
All alone.
There he talked with water, and then with the vine.

They leave me no choice.
I must lead them to glory or most likely to death.

They travelled cross the plateau of ice, up to its edge.
Then they crossed a mountain range and saw the final plain.
Still he urged the people on.

Then, on a distant slope,
He observed one without hope
Flee back up the mountainside.
He thought he recognized him by his walk,
And by the way he fell,
And by the way he
Stood up, and vanished into air."

The bold is basically dialogue, or thoughts of the main character (except the first which is the original king), though there are no quotes. . . maybe that threw you for a loop, but no rule says there need to be quotes. It's pretty clear what the intention is. The tense shift has a purpose, and it is not a particularly hard poem to understand.

The cyclical story of these lyrics is ingenious. The way this poem (as it works very well alone, without music) is structured is brilliant. There is nothing "amateurish" about it.



Edited by ~Rael~ - February 26 2009 at 08:11