Music vs lyrics

I continually find with prog music that when I acquire a new album I give it a cursory listen, paying attention mostly to the music/instrumentation. At that point, I may like it, but I never LOVE it until I sit down with headphones and dive into the lyrics. At that point, it goes from "like" to love, to at times tears or transported to another galaxy. When I find lyrics like that it is a very spiritual experience and I find myself talking to God and him talking back. 

< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0"> Oh definitely true. Poor choice of a word... substandard... I guess may really mean "disappoints" me. You are too right. For me the lyrics can be awesome but if the instrumentation is dry or boring it doesn't hold my interest. This has been my personal complaint about people  like Bob Dillon and Neil Simon. Well that and their vocal style I tend to be distracted by. But they are masterful lyricists. I tend to like covers of their stuff better than their original stuff. 

Edited by LirazelsOdyssey - February 09 2012 at 13:29

Yes, it is an example of my "Brain Thing".  And boy you sure do really emulate Sauron don't you?< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">

I'm not a big fan of a lot of the music on "The Lamb", but I love the lyrics.

ExittheLemming wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Bob Dillon? I get that is meant to be Dylan but Neil Simon is a play writer. Unless you mean Paul Simon. I this an example of your brain thing? How's your perennial brain thing Snowie? (notwithstanding the non sequiter) That's a disgraceful post so I'd like you to apologise - please do it NOW

Edited by Snow Dog - February 10 2012 at 04:06

I'm usually more concerned about the actual vocal quality and delivery of lyrics than I am of the lyrics themselves. A singer could be singing some of the best poetry ever, the kind that make you think; but he or she irritates me, I move on.

Eärendil wrote: The Lamb's lyrics might seem silly taken alone, but they're actually an elaborate allegory for sex/birth. http://www.genesismuseum.com/thebirthofthelamb.htm

I remember hearing an acoustic artist - keller williams? - doing a radio interview. He played a cover of ABBA's Dancing Queen to prove a point. He said something so accurate: its about the rhythm, harmony & melody. ABBA never write a non-wretched lyric - yet the songs are still great (for that sort of thing).

In general, I tend to agree that it's about the music ( melody / harmony / rhythm ) in the first place,
because if the music is boring - why should I listen ? I can read books if it's mainly for the words.
But, being a songwriter myself for more than 30 years now, I have found out that depth and emotion
of a good melody can hugely be improved by good lyrics - up to the point that, seen as a long-term-affair,
the best songs remaining are those that are strong songs in both ways.

Since I have learned this I hardly sit down to write a song anymore without really having something to say ,
and songs from the past, ones for which I didn't really care about the lyrics when I wrote them, do not really belong to my favourites anymore. It's getting increasingly difficult for me to get ready to perform them still - why should I do it ? Only because I know that some of them ( "A Summerlove", "Genevieve" ) are popular amongst my listeners ? Their popularity didn't make them "Hits" for me to this day anyway.
Sometimes I rather tend to perform a song because the lyrics are just right and I want them to be heard - and, in spite of my dissatisfaction with the music ( especially when it's a "lyrics-first-one" on which I have put the music afterwards - "The River runs bright", "The Price of Love" ), that's why those songs are feeling right for me, still...
I have experienced that, in the end, my listeners appear to like them just as much, especially those listeners who get ( understand ) the lyrics !

The point is: It's really hard to make a rule here.
It depends on how you feel - and if the singer can perform a rather stupid lyric with conviction and feel
it may be just okay. The older I get, though, the more obvious is that I tend to turn away because of stupid lyrics
far more than because of trivial music. The main reason why I don't like Mr. Dieter Bohlen's stuff -
well, the music is trivia but I wouldn't mind if only he had something to say.

So, in the end, although the music is still more important to me ( especially with other artists ),
the lyrics need to have a meaning, still. I used to say: "It's alright if somebody's singing stuff such as
I love you or Don't leave me... but either it has to come from the heart or it has to transport kind of a perfect illusion
so it's feeling that way for me."
I still think that I was right. In order to increase the chance of achieving a perfect illusion...
a great melody can surely help - for who really knows if the singer is an actor only
or really bleeding his heart out ? I can't say. But with myself... it's got to come from the inside, you know,
and if the song is older I need to make a connection to what I thought and how I felt.
I want my art to stay a product of genuine emotion and thoughts.
And I don't want to sing stupid lyrics ( or anything I feel uncomfortable about ).
This means: If I don't have anything "new" to say I usually wait for the words that want to come out until I'm  actually writing another song.

I have overcome the fear that there won't be any more since I have learned that my creativity needs
those phases of "Input" in order to reach the phases of "Output" again.
I feel strongly satisfied with most of the results ever since. I think I've found my way.
But - every musician and songwriter has to find a way for themselves.






Edited by rupert - March 24 2012 at 23:16

Lyrics are as important as rest of music, and Lamb has good lyrics. The sidelined poor youth is illustrated vividly in Back In NYC, for instance, and the story is quite evocative overall.

Edited by RoyFairbank - March 25 2012 at 19:36