lyricS. What are they for?
You listen to the song. You hear words.
Does it make it less alien to the human ear?
Is the human race more dependent on language than me?
When I listen to a song, even when the lyrics are crystal clear, I do not actually consider what the song is trying to tell me. It is not because I refuse to hear them, I just don't. It doesn't go in. Sometimes, I may hear a little word or two, maybe even a sentence... a few yea's, maybe a few no's, chuck in a HEY. Nevertheless, the human voice forms another rhythmic layer to the song like any other instrument. The difference being that it provides listeners with a chance to repeat it (out loud or in their heads), feel good emotionally in order to escape from the pressures of everyday-life, a mood-changer and a memory device to unlock good past times. In essence, audiences connect with the song and relate to it and others around who also enjoy the song. A good visual example would be the video to Nickelback- Rockstar.
Or infact ANY gig. Bringing people together.
Music provides a hole to sit in, groups to join, a good feeling on security amongst a wider nation of people. A social unity and a chance to make a bold statement about yourself and paradoxically become more individual.
73percent of people do not know the majority of lyrics they hear in songs they hear on a daily basis (This is a lie, I dont actually know, I always find statistics highly misleading and in that sense great to prove points of view;)
Some lyrics tell a story we can all raise our hands to and say 'Yea I've been there, done that, bought your CD'.. Lyrics express experience. The artists are usually part of the audience or in fact designing the audience. But its just entertainment right? Is it not all about the money?
The chorus is part of the structure and I would say that it is the artists one part of the song where they really try to pummel into you brain during the average 16 lines or so, their tune, their selling point, their extra chance to really get this song into your head so as you will maybe buy their song and provide that artist with a small fraction of their salary.
The vocals of any song truly has the power to control and direct the song and become a catchy hit. Have a little listen to 'Blue Velvet'- Bobby Vinton...
Tune! but you can see how dated it is :S
It does seem to become a statement on not just how you sound but also what the you look like and how you act in the presence of the audience, especially when interpreting the time of the song in relation to its evolution through time to the present day. Music is fundamentally a wave of culture. Why is David Bowie so cool? Just look at him, what a LEG.END-
Image and lyrics go hand in hand. People can be won over in a few words. However clever.
a simple 'Rock and Roll' may suffice.
Lets look at 'Rock and Roll Part One' - Gary Glitter (another bad example)...
Chorus-
"Rock and Roooll, Rock and Roll, Rock and Roooll, Rock and Roll. Rock and Roll, Rock, Rock and Roll, Rock and Roll, Rock, Rock and Roll etc."
Thrilling.
His audience now understand he is a true rock star, obviously since anyone to really state it that many times MUST be. Now, who wants to be in his gang?
Okay, it was a pop song, lyrics are certainly not taken seriously and this genre simply takes the basic formula of song and is indeed all about the money and entertaining. Of course, there is more to a lot of deeper more skillfully written stuff.
'Like a Rolling Stone' Bob Dylan (greatest songwriter around some will say)-
Poetry.. of sorts? Not particularly well sung, especially in this vid, so its definitely not important on behalf of how it sounds. Its all about the lyrics hm? Err.. wossat Bob? I didnt quite catch what you were saying...
A trademark song for the cultural change of society in the 60's. Not very well received at the time but as a piece of art, it hangs on the wall in the invisible gallery of landmark music history. People in retrospect celebrate Dylan's breaking of convention. A particularly hard battle to fight in the present time. Especially for the creative under the eyes of the commerical.
A personal favourite- Aphex Twin-Windowlicker
This more contemporary artist definitely has an interesting style of music, one that innovates and breaks formula to produce either 'music' without any drumbeat, OR a flux of very fast drumbeats that almost take on the place of lyrics.
The majority of his songs are without lyrics on account of the selling point being that it is alien-esque music. Creating and working with an unheard contrast of 'Acid house' and classical 'piano', take his album 'Drukqs' for example.
In summary, to compare music as a form of art, the visual communication side of things seems to follow parallel. You can attract attention with the most visually exciting piece. This visual piece can be completely conceptless but can be skillfully produced. It can be done well, It can be done badly, its all a matter of opinion but is the real skill successfully balancing concept and visual in order to produce a piece on a higher level than the rest of most visual communication?
Its not all about the idea.
The problem with me is as a creative person, I am constantly in love with 'the different' which is why it makes so much sense to break rules and in turn admire the works and art of those that succeed doing it; breaking the barriers guarded by the commercial. e.g. David Lynch, Aphex Twin etc.
The thing is, if the world was the opposite to how it is now then I surely would be attracted to wanting it the way it is now.
To have what you can't have.
Lyrics create a seperate dimension. You don't need to hear them when you listen but its always a nice surprise to look underneath.
