I mean, think of it...

When we listen to a song, how often do we listen to it for the lyrics? Really, it's the music that we groove to. Sure, it's nice when we learn all the words to a song so we can sing along with it. But really, isn't it the rhythm, the melody and in many cases, the sheer pleasure of hearing a particular instrument being played really well (guitar, drums).

Thoughts? Opinions?

Agreed entirely : tune first, lyrics later (maybe) unless they're decidedly not run of the mill (eg Mark Edward Smith's)

Me too. A lot of lyrics are plain bollocks, but may be the perfect for the piece. If the tune's crap in the first place, it's pretty academic.

I am always astonished to the point of anger that people will say lyrics don't matter. Of course they matter, just because they're mostly shit, doesn't mean they don't matter. It's a discipline that requires time and effort, and a degree of natural skill to do well. A time and effort that most don't seem to be bothered to put in, a skill that most don't have.

That's why most music is utter shit. Along with the music being utter shit of course. That's why 99% of things generally are shit.

That's why this end of year lists are so crap. You found 50 albums worth listening to, did you, you foetid time-servers at The Observer? And you put A Bigger Bang at 50? What fucking for? For fucking what? For the fact that it was released. Fuck off.

'd rather not have lyrics them if they are just going to be shit.



Felix - what's this song about? er, nothing.

They may matter, but they don't have to make sense, which is what I mean by bollocks. Shit is different.

Oh no, they can be, sort of, nonsense, although they should have a strange coherence (as with many Fall lyrics). But so many don't even try and do that. And anyway, good nonsense is hard to write.

Felix - like a one-eyed cat, looking in a sea-food shop.

Although, the question was whether lyrics are incidental to the music. No, they are integral. And the words in them are important.


Felix

Horses for courses - I know plenty of people who "don't really listen to the words". Fair enough. For me the two have equal importance - if something has toe-curling lyrics that don't fit, I won't listen to it, no matter how good the music might me (cf. the new Kate Bush LP)

But I don't understand it. It's like saying, oh, I'm not bothered about plot or direction in films, or portrayal of characters in a novel, or organisation of shapes in a landscape.


Felix

But if it's abstract or intentionally chaotic, organisation and coherence may be unimportant or even counter-productive. I was using "tune" fairly liberally, sometimes it may be just a succession of sounds that may logically be bollocks but for some reason add up to an enjoyable whole. Lyrics may be the same - they may be perfect in the context but meaningless in isolation. I think too often we try to read meaning and importance in where there is none.

And what if you can't understand what's being sung at all? It may be in a language you're not familiar with, but that doesn't invalidate your enjoyment of the piece. And frankly given most lyrics even of songs I do like, I don't rate total incomprehensibility (which may be intentional anyway, even if there's no language issue) as that great a loss. In my experience I'm little less likely to find useful wisdom or emotions that are of particular immediate relevance to me on a corn-flake packet.

On reflection, I think lyrics generally are a small part of the whole. I've always found groups more interesting than solo projects, and I think that's because of the band chemistry in which the lyricist may provide 20-25% of the end product. It's the interplay that's important, but it's nice to have lots of different and perhaps not obviously related things going on rather than just a lyric-fronted rock mush.

The human voice is another instrument. Essential to the overall feel of a song.
If the lyrics are funny, clever, moving, etc all the better

The FHR tour included one or two instrumentals :whistle: Were we demanding more? I don't think so

I agree with you, sort of. I don't think they should coherent or obvious, and I don't like lyrics sheets. Lyrics, pace Dylan fans, are not and should not be poetry. But that ability to create an effect out of words gives the spin to the song's trajectory.

Lots of great reggae, for instance, is sometimes not particularly comprehensible, but the lyrics are ace, part of the fabric of the song as a whole.

But the mystery should have something behind it, some sort of creative idea, otherwise it's like having a graph with no y-axis. Nothing wrong with instrumentals, but when you have got someone who is using language badly or in a banal way, it detracts from the music.

I like words that put a chill up your spine, as Smith said.


Felix

Yes, I think it's true that lyrics can be evocative without being narrative... I suppose that's true of most post-1979 Fall. Mrs dave might still be interested if anyone has an instrumental Container Drivers, though.

Merry Christmas to Mrs Dave from me

:lol: Thank you most kindly, SD... damn, me player won't open it, I'll have to tinker with me settings... it's saved, though - where's it from?

The wrong format probably. try this one instead.

It's from, er, Berlin 23/05/81

Find this a little odd on a Fall site. The thing that always pulled me to the Fall was the word play personally.Granted if the music is billy bollocks you may not want to listen , but there have been many times listening to Fall stuff where the music was not up to what I expected but still enjoyed the lyrics.Then again...

Yes, got it! Huge thanks, she'll be most chuffed. I can't imagine what could have been wrong with the er, sung versions.

This could be useful for the "Introduction to the Fall" thread... "Yes, they're all pretty much in a... similar vein... you can buy the entire back catalogue with confidence". :lol:

Maybe it's partly a reflection of the huge range of Fall output over the years, so that people have been drawn in at different periods by different Fall styles/moods... I still relate best to the early black puddin' & bingo lyrics because they're iconoclastic toward the culture that I found so oppressive. For others it's the Byzantine impenetrability of the Hex era, the moderated complexity of the Brix years, the more introspective mood of the early '90s or the seesawing of styles that's followed. So while there's a continuous thread, the lyrical content of any era may be less important to many individuals than the music itself. But then most people seem to put more importance on the lyrics than I do, so I could be talking complete cobblers.

On second thoughts, I think it's because there's usually four of them and one of him. Safety in numbers, that's my motto.

That said, just wait till one of those "What's this song about?" threads gets going. :lol:

It's interesting looking at changes in The Fall lyrically rather than say musically or in terms of line up or even cover art.

The only immediate observation I would make is that the lyrics have got a lot sparer.

Also he talks about square meals more.

Pumpkin Soup and mashed potatoes
What if all the world were carroted and mashed?
Pacifying joint, with carrots and beef.

I think Eleni must be a dab hand at the baby belling.


Felix - gourmand

There are plenty of bands and artists I don't listen to simply because I think their lyrics are shit.

So obviously I'm bothered.

I've changed my mind a few times already since I started reading this thread. I think that the lyrics are important, and the way they are sung is important. I'm just not that fussed with what the singer is trying to say.

I think that is the only way that I can reconcile all my views on the subject. :wacko:

Rather than take the Fall, which is another matter all together, I think of the example of one D.Bowie. He was my first music hero, and I used to know all the lyrics, which I would sing passionately to all of the songs when I was 15. I didn't know what he was getting at, but I thought that lines like, "I'm a space invader, I'll be a rock n rolling bitch for you" were really good to blare out at full volume.

Later I discovered that he just wrote lines that he liked, and re-arranged them at random, so in fact, no, they didn't make much sense. Much preferable to songs of angst as written by the likes of Dylan to this listener though.

Did you just basically say that Bowie is a better lyricist than Dylan?

Lyrics first for me, they turn interesting instrumentals into something special.

Good lyrics with a crap tune do nothing for me. In this case I prefer a book.

Of course in theory every song should consist of equally excellent music and lyrics (e.g. most Fall tracks).

"I am the son, and the the heir, of a shyness that is criminally vulgar". I wish he hadn't sung that. Also 'some girls are bigger than others'. Two beautifully arranged pieces of music not at all helped by the lyrics.

I think a lot of songs work through a mixture of the groove and a couple of phrases that stick in the mind. Apparently Ian Curtis had a notebook in which he wrote down phrases that he heard or passed through his mind that he liked. Then he'd join them together to make a 'song'.

('Heart and Soul'.) Verses like like that greatly added to the appeal of Joy Division, but the song as a whole doesn't seem to make much sense.

John Peel went off the Cocteau Twins partly because they stated to sing in their own made up language. I don't like The Boredoms for the same reason.

isn't it important to address another apparent (i use apparent because it is doesn't exist in reality) dichotemy: that between the sound of the voice and the lyrics?

and both of these to the song (which is surely a dynamic entity, impossible to 'dissect' since once you do this you are not talking about the song itself anymore but some imagined 'part' of it: this 'dissection' might suit critics but the song only ever actually exists as a whole not as some assemblage of lyrics, voice, instrumental sound)

so, for example, there are many singers whose songs i enjoy not because of the lyrics which i find worthless but because of some attraction that their voices have for me and for the way these voices figure in the songs as totalities. conversely, there are singers whose lyrics may be good but, for some reason, i find thier voices off putting, and, in extreme cases, i because the sound of their voices has certain connotations which i cannot abide (for example, robbie williams voice has connotations of a certain 'englishness' and the culture that goes with it that i ,as an irish person, find intolerable, the same going for eminem and the version of america that hovers in an around the sound of his voice)

roland barthes readers can all now go and re-read 'the grain of the voice' which is the best commentary on this aspect of songs that i have read to date!

i also think that you might be overlooking another thing here: listening to music is obvioulsy not the same as interpreting texts (and so i always find it interesting to think about the ways in which we respond to songs which might involve us carrying out these two very different operations simultaneously)

there are other points i would make but i don't want to hog space here!

Ah.... no. I was saying that the lyrics arn't usually the most important thing for me. Dylan's lyrics may have been far more considered than Bowie's, and subsequently more meaningful, but I preferred Bowie's nonsense.

No offence meant; blame me for being a philistine.

Bowiethebudgie.

This is true. And isn't the real reason we're music fans because of how a song "sounds", as opposed to what it says?

I certainly appreciate a great vocalist anyday -- one who can complement the music being played behind him. A voice with a raspy quality to it, to complement a rock song, for instance, or a smooth vocalist singing to some classic R&B. And if I can make out the words, great! But they won't necessarily be important to me if I don't like the music underneath.

Sure, for every John Lennon's "Imagine" there's a Busta Rhymes' "Gimme Some More". Sure, we all know the former's touchstone lyrics because they were nice. But I submit that the melody was even better. In Busta's case, for the life of me I could never understand what he sang, but I have to admit that I actually like the song because of the rhythm.

I would even suggest that the very reason we're first hooked to a song is because of its music, not it's lyrics. No, Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" will never reach the pantheon of "Imagine", in terms of its lyrics. But the reason I fell in love with the song is because I can groove to it.

You can't really groove to lyrics. Not in the same way, anyway. I've never tapped my feet, whistled along with or snapped my fingers while reading the lyrics to "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35". But when I hear it on the radio, I find myself bobbing my head to it. I frankly don't care what he's saying in the lyrics. Everybody could be getting boned, for all I care. It's just fun to listen to because of its rhythm.

Don't different people listen more to different parts of the song though?

I always listen to the vocal line first. That's what I consider to be the "song". The vocal melody and lyrics. If I don't like the singer I don't like the band.

Others would disagree. They will be more interested in the instrumental arrangement. These are the type of people that will happily listen to instrumentals with no vocals. That's something I would find very boring.

no trouble Vvillager, I wasn't offended.

You bleedin philistine!

'Tis so. First time I heard this one band I had no idea who it was and couldn't remember anything about the lyrics apart from something or other about repetition (promising, since I'm not even keen on the subject phenomenon myself), but I knew I'd heard the most amazing thing ever - and it had been the moment that voice (and accent) kicked in that nailed it, though it was the whole ensemble that carried it. Keyboards too, now that was really taking the piss back then.

The Homosexuals spring to mind as wonderful practitioners of lyrics that rate as charming bollocks in my book - but Bruno's voice was a perfect complement to the other jangly goings-on. One reason I could never rate New Order or the subsequent Madchester arse was the weak vocals - f'fucks sake, get somebody who at least sounds like they're making some kind of effort. Mind you, the lyrics were usually pretty shit too. But not everybody can be the Desperate Bicycles.

Hey, hog away! The place isn't exactly overflowing at the moment!

Yes, I think so. It's part of what makes it so difficult to describe what you're hearing, and a reason why people who share your appreciation of x and y just think your beloved z is utter crap. But it makes it all the more interesting. And it's why I never trust a recommendation. :lol:

I'm in the music first, lyrics second camp. I've started listening to African music recently, and being monolingual I can't make head or tail of what that is all about, but I still like it.

I can imagine really shit lyrics putting me off.

What you really want is music and lyrics of a great standard, feeding back into each other. Elastic Man being my favourite example of that. I just tried to write down the many ways in which that song is lyrically perfect but I'm not up to this morning.

Just been listening to the Container Drivers' awesome "Searching for the Skylon": as well as being a beautifully-composed and -executed instant pop classic, I find it a tearjerkingly poignant evocation of the faded optimism of the post-1945 world.

Now what interests me here is that I haven't a clue if that's got anything to do with what the very fine lyricist intended, and while I'd be interested to know, I'm not that bothered if it was just about Festival-goer naivety and pseudo space-age architectural junk.

And to me that's another feature of a meister-lyric - that without being wilfully obscure or meaningless it should be able to evoke things that weren't necessarily there in the first place- in other words, it doesn't just lay down a bland representation, but invites the listener to create meaning or implication. That's quite a gift.

Sometimes I get that with MES, more often not - I haven't a clue what Blindness is about and it doesn't move me to much in the way of contemplation, which would be a problem if I fretted about it deeply. Luckily it's a stonker of a tune, so who gives a shit? :lol: