LYRICS OR THE MUSIC - THAT IS THE QUESTION

[AtHopesEnd]

Well if this was once already a topic I apologize, as I stated in my CMA post, when I listen to a new song, I always try to focus on the musical aspect of it first and then go back and listen and try to figure out the lyrics and the meaning of the song.There have been many songs where I totally love the music but then the lyrics totally turn me off of it and some where the music is so-so but the lyics have alot of meaning behind them and I am like wow,thats a good song ... so my question is this, What attracts you to a song or what is more important the first time that you decide wether or not you like a particular song....is it the music or the lryics?

[byndrsn]

For me it really depends upon the song.

There are songs that grab me right away with the melody and the lyrics are only an afterthought. And then there are those where I hear the lyrics and am so involved in the story that I couldn't even tell you what kind of a beat went with it.

I will have to say though that lyrics means a whole lot more to me than the music.

[bassist_25]

I think that the majority of songs written feature mediocre lyrics. I'm not expecting Charles Dickens, but I like to hear a well-crafted song.

Oh man, now I'm starting to sound like Metalrules. "That song sucks; it has a time-frame problem. Writers don't put much craft into their composing. Jimi Hendrix wasn't a good guitarist....."

[tornandfrayed]

I think that sometimes a melody will grab you and imbed itself in your head. A lot of times the melody sticks and the lyrics suck. I think that depending on the situation either can be relevant. When I buy a disk and sit down to listen to it, then both are equally important. Often I won't look for a lyric sheet until I have heard something several times then if I cannot figure it out I will look further if I am interested enought.

Also, I think that most will agree that the strongest material that I know of was above average both musically and lyrically. As a writer I always focus on what the music and melody make me feel. I don't write without music, if I did then I would be a poet. I write songs and really like to have a base to start with musically that makes me feel one way or another.

[Craven Sound]

Lyrics shmyrics, it's all in the music!! Somedays I find myself tuning into the local NPR stations to listen to classical and jazz. It's a nice change when the rest of the dial is garbage. The lack of lyrics really helps clear the head, get thoughts out that may otherwise be cluttered by words.

[red]

BOTH

[FatVin]

The obvious answer is YES!

A great song is intelligent thought provoking lyrics set to interesting memorable music. But that is a rare bird indeed.

You gotta have one or the other. Great lyrics set to a simple tune can really make the lyrics stand out, Dylan, Waits, Nelson a lot of really great songs written by truly great songwriters can go this route.

Sometimes you have a cool riff and you can write simple lyrics around it, the Stones are great for this. Keith calls it the vowel movements method.

you play the riff and make vowel sounds till you find the words that fit

, i.e.

ahhh iiii ooooh......ah it oooh.......aaar it uhhh........Start it up, yeah that's a good one.

As a songwriter, THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. sometimes it's a lyrical thought that I write music around, sometimes it's a riff I write lyrics around. I've written songs that I'm very proud of using both methods

so the answer is YES!

[esa]

I think that the majority of songs written feature mediocre lyrics. I'm not expecting Charles Dickens, but I like to hear a well-crafted song.

Oh man, now I'm starting to sound like Metalrules. "That song sucks; it has a time-frame problem. Writers don't put much craft into their composing. Jimi Hendrix wasn't a good guitarist....."

::rolls up newspaper and beats ya a few time:: nuuuuuuu! flashbacks!!!



Actually.. it's a little of both but mostly the beat. Kinda funny really... All this time spent infront of speaker...I think my hearing aint what it used to be... SO, sometimes I can't hear all the words a song sings. But you turn up bass in the car..that drop beat.. rhythm.. all of it...that to me is key.

[DMFJ03]

It has to be a generous blend.

[lonewolf]

Either one can catch my attention, but like Paul said, there is more good music out there with mediocre lyrics than vice versa. That's why I especially like the progressive classic rock bands like Kansas, Styx and Rush. They do both very, very well.

A side note for Nu-Metal fans. Satan actually sounds more like Charles Nelson Reilly.

[redawg]

I'd probably have to say the music attracts me first. I don't know the lyrics to alot of my favorite songs that I've liked for years. I listen to mostly Tool and Slipknot. Not real easy to pick out many of the lyrics right away from those bands. Alot of Evanescence too. Love her vocal melodies and the way she phrases her lines. When I read the lyrics, I like the songs even more, especially if I can relate to them.

[DMFJ03]

A side note for Nu-Metal fans. Satan actually sounds more like Charles Nelson Reilly.

See, it is smart ass comments like this that piss me off.

[bassist_25]

Actually, I think Glen Benton is the foremost authority on what Satan's voice sounds like.

I've always pictured Satan to have a hip, Allen Ginsbergy type of timbre to his voice. I wonder if that would make Jesus Jack Keroauc.

[lonewolf]

A side note for Nu-Metal fans. Satan actually sounds more like Charles Nelson Reilly.

See, it is smart ass comments like this that piss me off.

[songsmith]

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there...---->JMS

[Punkinhead]

Actually, I think Glen Benton is the foremost authority on what Satan's voice sounds like.

No doubt. I saw an interview from him in which he states."If I can get even just one person to give his soul to my lord Satan through our music, then I have done my job."

I was sitting going, I know it's an image but, DAMN!

And then there was the time where he told the Jesus talk show host that he was gonna hit him so hard that he'd smack the Christ right out of him...

[Mysterytrain]

Another one...

[sstuckey]

Music hands down. Some of the best tunes ever written have NO vocals what-so-ever. I don't think I can even recite 1/3 of the lyrics on some of my favorite all-time songs. But I'm also the anti-vocal, which puts me in the minority, so again before I get bashed... this is just MY opinion.

[lonewolf]

My opinion is that lyrics are those boring passages between solos.

[Banned]

My opinion is that lyrics are those boring passages between solos.

I do like this phrase, but I just had this conversation today with a friend. I think it is a shame that all of the Motown musicians who created all the great music of Motown in the 50's and 60's and 70's made peanuts. They made $10 a day for their studio work, and Smokey Robinson and Diana Ross made millions just because they wrote some words to go with that music.

Don't you think it should have gone a little more 50-50?

[songsmith]

I've been a part of many co-writing projects... I ALWAYS insist that if you contribute at the time of writing, you get an equal share, even if you only kick in a word or line. To me, that word or line may have been the stepping stone to something that makes the song what it is, so it has value. That said, the studio players were contributing work-for-hire, meaning they agreed to just the amount paid per day, which is still pretty sh*tty in the grand scheme, but they agreed to it. Where I differ, is somebody like Willie Dixon, who wrote the vast majority of the song, arranged it, produced the cut, played bass on it, and put it out there on the market, and then STILL doesn't get paid. The dude practically carried blues music on his back, and couldn't get any love (or money). There are STILL people cutting his songs, and listing "traditional" on the writing credits. If you don't know who he is, look him up, he's one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century.
As for words vs. music, it's like asking which is better art, poetry or painting? They're both really profound things that millions have studied for entire lifetimes, and neither can ever be "mastered." It's like asking, if you had to eliminate one of your children, which one would you get rid of? We don't have to choose! I couldn't imagine a world where one or the other didn't exist!

[Banned]

I like your post Johnny, but those musicians took the only deal available to them, $10 a day. If they complained, there were probably musicians lined up at the door waiting for a chance at their $10.

My question is, why was (is) the system set up to screw the people who make the music, but vastly reward the song writer and or singer?

[Merge]

Because without the writer, the session players wouldn't have a job.

[songsmith]

I think because bandmembers come and go, in any situation. Even so, I'm with you, I think they should get something more, and I certainly believe race and other factors are involved in Willie's case, but the truth is, there's ALWAYS somebody waiting to screw you over in the biz. Elvis, IMHO, was the King, but he sure as hell didn't invent rock & roll... he just happened to be a good-looking white guy who could sell "black" r&b to the largest market: white folks. Arthur Crudup wrote "That's Alright," a classic, and by the mid 60's was a farmhand again. They just ripped him off.
I know it's little solace, but time will likely be kinder to Crudup than Elvis, as he didn't OD while taking a poop.