Which Are More Important, Music Or Lyrics?

[Si Hunt]

Or more specifically, do lyrics matter? The prosecution has implied that they don't - that the music is everything, or at least most of the force of popular music. Is this correct?

The defence says not. Lyrics are the heart and the soul of a song to me. It's true that, as Abba once said, "Nothing can capture the heart like a melody can", but you only have to listen to a song in another language (or by Tori Amos, same thing) to appreciate that it's the lyrics that speak to you.

For example, "Dear John" is a song Kirsty MacColl wrote when she was in the throes of divorce, depression and pretty much at how lowest ebb. The tune is quite pretty, but really just an acoustic accompaniment to the lyrics, which convey how utterly miserable and at the end of her tether she is.
"Seems we have a bad day every day," she sings as her voice audibly begins to crack. "I just want to sleep my life away."

It's the power of such simple, yet moving lyrical lines that make Kirsty's songs for me. The force of a line like "Do you think she knows that you share my bed?" for example, just hits you in the face. What would these songs be without the words? Still great hummable pop songs, but missing much of their power.

Then there's Bob Dylan, which I know most of you don't get, but he's basically invented a way of selling poems as music by writing them into songs. So yer average Bob Dylan song is an amazing poem, set to some old folk tune old enough that no-one can realise he's pinched it. So maybe the question is really "what are poems without lyrics"? Empty sheets of paper!

What do you think?

Si.

[SiHart]

Lyrics married to a good tune.

While I'd agree that the melody is imporatnt, for me lyrics are just as important to. A good song should have a decent lyric, something that speaks to you as much as the melody does. I've always been a keen listener to lyrics and they can make or break a song for me. When you get a song writer as talented as Neil Finn for example who can write a lovely tune and marry it up with just the right poetic words, then you've created something really special I think.
There's some terribly crass rubbish out there. I know this will probably sound irrational, but if there's a good tune let down by the lyrics I tend to stop enjoying the song. There is something to be said for letting the music wash all over you if you can, but sometimes a poor lyric can really take me out of that.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy instrumental pieces- often they can make your heart soar or be really exciting too, but I just love it when you have the perfect match of melody and lyric. Nothing beats it!

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

I think the key to understand why is in noting that music has many different "uses". At one end of the scale, some music is made just to dance to. At the other, some music is made solely to convey a lyrical message. In between, most music evokes an emotional response through either the melody, the lyrics, or a combination of both.

Si.

[Wayne]

Ultimately of course both are important, But my question on the Manics thread, (which might've been the impetus for this thread) is still one that i'd be interested in hearing the answer to:

Just a gneral comment, not specifically about the Manics, but i've never really 'got' the importance of lyrics.
For me, it's ultimately the melody that makes a good song. You can have the most amazing poetry in the world (or something) but if it's not a very good tune then it's all for nothing.
Of course i realize that lyrics have some importance. There's no point writing a great tune & using the lyrics to 'Baa Baa Black Sheep', but can these lyrics by this presumably ex-member really make or break the music that the other members have written?
I don't get it. You tell me!

Can this Richey lyrics be that good as to make or break this new album?

In the end it works both ways. As Mr Hart says, it's a marriage, but there's another side of the coin to Mr Hunt's "Dear John" example. I don't know that particular song but i'd bet my bottom dollar that it's a combination of the actual notes, & of course the way that Kirsty McColl sings them that carry the emotional weight of that particular lyric. If you set that lyric to the tune of 'Agadoo' (or something) then the emotional impact of the words would just not be there.
The lyrics are the vehicle that translates the emotional context into everyday languange, but it's the notes that are being sung that fuel the vehicle & singer that sings that drives the vehicle.

As for Bob Dylan, this is not a cheap dig, but he's a good example of why lyrics are less important. (To me anyway) Personally, i'm was more impressed when read his lyrics in the Bob Dylan song book than i was when i heard the songs themselves. But obviously that's just personal taste.

[Si Hunt]

I don't know that particular song but i'd bet my bottom dollar that it's a combination of the actual notes, & of course the way that Kirsty McColl sings them that carry the emotional weight of that particular lyric.

Yes, but there's still the difference between someone singing sadly, and what they are singing sadly about. Suppose, for example, someone had changed the words so Kirsty was singing about burning some toast, but told her to sing in exactly the same way. It wouldn't have half the effect.

If you set that lyric to the tune of 'Agadoo' (or something) then the emotional impact of the words would just not be there.

True, but if you then read the lyrics without any music, they'd once more be powerful. But would they be more or less powerful than without the original music? You might say that because the words without any music were more powerful than with their "Agadoo" accompaniment, it was proof that the lyrics were more important than the music.

As for Bob Dylan, this is not a cheap dig, but he's a good example of why lyrics are less important. (To me anyway) Personally, i'm was more impressed when read his lyrics in the Bob Dylan song book than i was when i heard the songs themselves. But obviously that's just personal taste.

Again, you seem to be making a judgement on the music being more important because the lyrics are better WITHOUT it than with it... doesn't this tend to suggest the music is less important, if it can bring down an otherwise wonderful lyric?

In this case I suspect it depends on the quality of the music (or the vocal). To which with a lot of Bob stuff you have a point. But listen to his croaking, weathered reading of "Make You Feel My Love" (recently covered to inferior effect by Adele) or "Things Have Changed" and tell me (i) that the music can possibly be more important to the song than the groundbreaking lyrics or (ii) that the song could possibly be better written down than sung by his Royal Bobness. The tired words need his bruised, smokey voice to give them meaning.

Si.

[Wayne]

Again, good points about the effect of foreign lyrics, or about burning toast or whatever.
I think we're just proving each other that each of our arguments can work both ways. As far as pop/rock or whatever goes anyway, it's always gonna be a stalemate argument.

Right, i'm off to listen to some jazz or classical.

you seem to be making a judgement on the music being more important because the lyrics are better WITHOUT it than with it...

Well, Bob is a special case.

[Dave Lewis]

Ultimately of course both are important, But my question on the Manics thread, (which might've been the impetus for this thread) is still one that i'd be interested in hearing the answer to: can this Richey lyrics be that good as to make or break this new album?

I don't think it's a case of making it or breaking it; Manics fans will buy it, Richey fans will probably buy it, and anyone who isn't interested in the band won't, I imagine, be bothered in the slightest. But I suppose the critical reception will depend on both the quality of the words and the music that the Manics use to back it up with; it's equally as likely that the words will be a lot of bleak, depressing drivel backed up by some sparkling new tunes as it is that they are some genius dark poetry let down by the rest of the band doling out some forty-year old dadrock-by-numbers.

I like the Doors' An American Prayer album and I was even quite partial to Free As A Bird and Real Love by the Beatles; so I'm bound to like the Manics' own version of musical necrophilia.

[Philipnet]

Neither.
And Both.


I listen to a lot of dance music and that is generally 'music'; i.e. a melody/tune/score piece that is without words.

For me, there is a distinct difference between pieces that have vocals/lyrics and those without. Yet, off the top of my head, I can list a few pieces in both categories that I would rate as very evocative and compelling to listen to:

With lyrics:

• Motorcyle / As The Rush Comes
• Above & Beyond - No One on Earth
• Matt Darey / Liberation

Without lyrics:

• Cafe Del Mar / Energy 52
• Art Of Trance / Madagascar
• Cygnus X / The Orange Theme

Each piece, and the many others I like, all have their own unique characteristics and reasons why I like them. Having vocals/lyrics in a piece does not make me more or less likely to like a piece; I judge each piece using a far more complicated system that I probably couldn't put into words.

[Si Hunt]

I get awfully nostalgic when the tinkley piano bit in "Set You Free" by N-Trance comes on, as I'm sure does everyone who was aged between 16 and 18 in 1994.

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

I get awfully nostalgic when the tinkley piano bit in "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis comes on, as I'm sure it does everyone who has taste.

[Milky Tears]

My pants tingle whenever I get a swatch at Phil Collins and his baldy napper.

[Dave Lewis]

I once ****** him *** as an apology.

[Captain Tancredi]

The vast majority of popular music is surely based around humdrum lyrics which go down well worldwide or translate easily, because popular music is written for the lowest common denominator, hence popular. And music which sounds good, catchy or just different enough to be noticeable.

But clever or witty lyrics make an awful lot of difference- whether it's Cole Porter, Morrissey or the Divine Comedy, it makes the song sparkle. I'm glad Si mentioned Kirsty MacColl, as the song which keeps coming back to "in these shoes?" (sorry, don't know enough to know if that's the actual title or not) had had a bit of airplay on Radio 2 in the mornings lately. In a moment of abstraction getting into the shower one day, it occurred to me that what would sound even better would be Jacqueline Pearce reading the lyrics over a backing track, but that's the way I think at 6.15 in the morning.

[Si Hunt]

"In These Shoes?" is indeed the correct title, a song which was picked up on massively by TV and advertising at the time but still somehow avoided becoming a hit, such was Kirsty's lot.

Si.

[Matthew T]

I get awfully nostalgic when the tinkley piano bit in "Set You Free" by N-Trance comes on, as I'm sure does everyone who was aged between 16 and 18 in 1994.

Si.

It makes me cum!

True fact - I'm in the video! Somewhere

As a another dance music fan I have to say tune, melody and rhythm are most important to me, as lyrics are often nonsensical and sometimes downright dire. My favourite dance tune (Seven Cities by Solar Stone) is wholly instrumental but totally beautiful.

[Philipnet]

My favourite dance tune (Seven Cities by Solar Stone) is wholly instrumental but totally beautiful.