# In popular music, what's more important to you, lyrics, or music itself?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

For me it's music. Perhaps that's why I also like classical.
For a lot of my friends that's lyrics. Perhaps, that's the reason why classical music doesn't have wider appeal. People want lyrics, meaning, poetry. Classical music usually provides just music... even if it has words, it's usually set to words of another poet, librettist etc... In popular music, many hardcore fans search for meaning in lyrics and identify with parts of it.
I do agree that lyrics are important, but I sometimes overlook them.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

It is also the music for me. Often, the lyrics are inane anyway. I listen to a lot of music in languages that I don't understand; in those cases, the lyrics become irrelevant to me aside from the sound of the language. I'm sure many of those lyrics are inane too, but I have no way of knowing for certain unless I look for translations, and I'm far too lazy to do that. As for the ones in languages that I do understand, sometimes I wish I didn't understand them. There is far too much third-rate mushy love poetry that seems to be designed to make me sick.

There are exceptions - sometimes, a pop song will actually have something worthwhile to say in the lyrics, and the poetry might even be well written. Still, the music carries it for me, and the occasional quality lyrics are merely a bonus.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Without reading printed lyrics (which I rarely do), I find popular song lyrics often indecipherable or, if I recognize the words, I find the lyrics meaningless (to me) or obscure or opaque. But the music is the draw, and clear lyrics are icing on an already tasty cake.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Without reading printed lyrics (which I rarely do), I find popular song lyrics often indecipherable or, if I recognize the words, I find the lyrics meaningless (to me) or obscure or opaque. But the music is the draw, and clear lyrics are icing on an already tasty cake.


As English is not my first language I have the same problems with lyrics in English. A lot of it I can't decipher just by listening without reading the lyrics. I can enjoy a song without knowing/understanding the lyrics, but I have also found that my experience of a song can change (for better or for worse) once I do read and pay attention to lyrics.

There are also certain artists, mainly from Serbocroatian speaking lands, and from Italy, which I enjoy mainly for their lyrics, but they are a minority. Mostly singers-songwriters.

So, even though I find music more important to me personally, I really respect those people who pay closer attention to lyrics, especially if the lyrics in question are actually worthy of such attention. But even seemingly easy-going and meaningless songs can provide interesting ideas or social commentary upon closer inspection.

There's another very common phenomenon in popular music. There are many happy and cheerful sounding songs which have rather sad or otherwise disturbing lyrics. I am not sure how to look at it. On one hand it can be considered a failure of a song, because there is a clear disharmony between music and lyrics. But on the other hand cheerful music could be considered just a vehicle to get the message across.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

One of my best friends is a big fan of hip-hop. Easily, lyrics are more important to him. I guess I would need to delve into lyrics to be able to understand this year Pulitzer award winner. Without the lyrics, hip-hop loses most of its value.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

Musical aesthetic is what draws me to all of my preferred styles; maybe it's a taste I've acquired, or maybe I'm predisposed to preferring instrumental music, but I whilst I understand why some people often need lyrics as a tool for relating to music, that is not a necessity I relate to. I think perhaps it's a predisposition - at primary school karaokes, I remember being particularly excited for the little interludes when I saw "[instrumental]" appear on the screen. That said, I think the requirement of lyrics for some people in part can be chalked up to familiarity due to people's more frequent exposure to songs than instrumental music (although Bourdieu might suggest that instrumental music like classical music is a cultural preference related to socio-economic staus/aspiration, although this is only part of the story.)

But yeah, the instrumental stuff impacts my experience 100%. A great piece of music could have the lyrics "I love nazis and paedophiles don't deserve to be persecuted", and I'd probably still listen to it (though maybe in private....).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

If lyrics were the big drawer for me, I'd read a book.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I've been a songwriter for too many decades now and I can't separate lyrics from music in a *good song.* A good song has to mean something and it has to have music that helps convey what the songwriter wanted to say. So for me it has to be the proper wedding of music and lyrics. If a song is just about lyrics, then it's a poem. If it's about the music then it's non programmatic music and not a song.

I'll have to recuse myself in the voting.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

Room2201974 said:


> it has to be the proper wedding of music and lyrics. If a song is just about lyrics, then it's a poem. If it's about the music then it's non programmatic music and not a song..


This is definitely true. However, what I find interesting is what element might initially draw a person to a great song; what's the first thing that catches a person's ear?

In support of your view, I might argue to some extent that the musical aesthetic is the most important aspect in terms of creating the initial impression of the song, as no musical aesthetic comes without its cultural baggage. As such, just the very sound of a song might act as a cultural signal for the style and the range of subjects it might potentially deal with (which the lyrics may be consistent with or may subvert). This is all established before a person even has chance to process the lyrics. I'd say the extra weight the music carries in this sense, and how it is used, is what primarily separates a song from poetry, and how well this has been exploited is arguably the point at which a song becomes a song, rather than poetry set to music or instrumental music with words.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The question of lyrics in a language not understood by the listener came up in ZJovicic's post #4. I listen avidly to several song traditions--flamenco, Gharnati, West African pop--wherein I have no specific idea of what is being sung about, but it is, to me, clearly a song. The same is true of things like Villa-Lobos' BB #5, Canteloube Songs of the Auvergne, etc. It is always better to have lyrics available, and it is always better to have great lyrics (Bob Dylan), but musical pleasure is where you find it.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

****** said:


> This is definitely true. However, what I find interesting is what element might initially draw a person to a great song; what's the first thing that catches a person's ear?
> 
> In support of your view, I might argue to some extent that the musical aesthetic is the most important aspect in terms of creating the initial impression of the song, as no musical aesthetic comes without its cultural baggage. As such, just the very sound of a song might act as a cultural signal for the style and the range of subjects it might potentially deal with (which the lyrics may be consistent with or may subvert). This is all established before a person even has chance to process the lyrics.


What you describe is true, but it's really more of a definition of how and why we may be attracted to a song. The music may initially draw us in, but that doesn't make it more important than the lyrics. Good songs exist outside of our cultural milieu. Good songs exist whether or not we personally are attracted to them in some way.

YMMV, however, whenever I strain songs through my Sturgeon's Law filter of what makes a song "work" for me, I find that I'm left with tunes that show a remarkably high incidence of "union of music and words."


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I notice most people pay attention either only on lyrics or on music, i like to know and love the both.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

Room2201974 said:


> The music may initially draw us in, but that doesn't make it more important than the lyrics.


Certainly not, since both elements are prerequisites for a song to be regarded as a song, so in that sense, they share equal importance. But since the thing which distinguishes song from poetry is basically the exploitation of musical semiotics for the expression and reinforcement of a message, their weighting might arguably be 55/45 in favour of the use of "musical" language. If a song has nonesense lyrics (like in Koenjihyaakei's music, where they literally make up words, never singing a note in an established language), is it a song just because it has a human voice in it, or is it an instrumental? I think most people would still argue for it being a song, because of how the presence of a singer/singers affects the instrumental hierarchy (placing the singer at the top of the texture, generally), but also because of how this is exploited pretty much entirely as a musical device with any literary device basically being absent (in any conventional sense, at least). In other words, lyrics always need accompanying music to qualify as a song (even in a solo accapella situation, where there is still a deliberate process of musical composition) but a song, arguably, doesn't necessarily need lyrics to be a song, thanks to the power of semiotics.

Not to sound too argumentative, I basically agree, but am quite interested in the finer points!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

They're both important in general, but I can think of songs I like that have great music and mediocre lyrics, but not the other way around.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Definitely the music is most important, but if I don't like the lyrics I won't listen to it.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Art Rock said:


> They're both important in general, but I can think of songs I like that have great music and mediocre lyrics, but not the other way around.


Bob Dylan, live in concert, anytime in the past 30 years or so.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> Bob Dylan, live in concert, anytime in the past 30 years or so.


Re Dylan: I just started reading _Why Bob Dylan Matters_ by Harvard U. Classics prof. and lifelong Dylan fanatic Richard Thomas. Looks to be a really insightful look at the phenomenon of Bob Dylan's amazing lyrical gift. Thomas teaches a Dylan seminar at Harvard every fourth year. The book is fresh, written after Dylan's receiving the (well-deserved) Nobel.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

The poll results are no surprise. We are in a forum called Talk Classical. Most of us here are musicians and all of us love various types of music. I have yet to read a thread here where a poster has identified themselves as a lyricist. There is no sub forum called "Libretto's, Lyrics and Raps!" Of course most would think that the music is more important! Our friends at TalkLyrics.com might disagree however.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Good lyrics can improve a song, but bad lyrics do not detract from an otherwise good song.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Re Dylan: I just started reading _Why Bob Dylan Matters_ by Harvard U. Classics prof. and lifelong Dylan fanatic Richard Thomas. Looks to be a really insightful look at the phenomenon of Bob Dylan's amazing lyrical gift. Thomas teaches a Dylan seminar at Harvard every fourth year. The book is fresh, written after Dylan's receiving the (well-deserved) Nobel.


Finished the book. The author notes that Dylan/Zimmerman was a member of his high school's Latin Club and absorbed enough of the classical Roman writers and their Greek predecessors/models to develop a lifelong habit of mining bits and pieces of Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Catullus and weaving them into his lyrics. Thomas quotes another favorite of his, T.S. Eliot, to legitimize Dylan's gift: "Immature poets borrow; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." (I note here that Led Zeppelin, in my opinion, stole material also in this best, Eliotesque sense.)

Dylan freely took what he wanted and needed from many others: Rimbaud, Robert Burns, an obscure Confederate poet named Henry Timrod, many more--it seems Dylan reads widely, and as ideas and usages engage his imagination in the poetry and prose of others, he is triggered to weave their imagery or language into his own art, following the practice--says Thomas--of artists from time immemorial. On another occasion I've posted on _The Trying-Out of Moby Dick_ by Howard Paton Vincent, where Melville's wholesale inclusion of the work of others into that immortal classic is thoroughly documented.

So, for me, who applauded here Dylan being awarded the Nobel for literature, Thomas' book provided much of the background accounting for much of what gives Dylan's lyrics the breadth, freshness, and power that so appeals to me and also appealed to the Nobel committee.


----------

