29 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaWhen I think about Jayzee, Rhiana, and all these other R'n B, Rap other rubbish (sorry but it is rubbish), I'll agree whole heartedly with your statement.
In the end they're just poor poetry, weak philosophy or simplistic political commentary.
Do I believe it to be true for everyone, though? No.
29 Sep 09
Originally posted by NatsiaIt's just not an adequate format for neither of the three. Even if the writer comes up with something half-decent, it's a stretch of the imagination to think he would not do better had he not been constrained to writing music lyrics.
When I think about Jayzee, Rhiana, and all these other R'n B, Rap other rubbish (sorry but it is rubbish), I'll agree whole heartedly with your statement.
Do I believe it to be true for everyone, though? No.
29 Sep 09
In the end, music will only be an effective medium for political and philosophical commentary if it reaches out to people that had not thought about it until then. The subliminal effect of lyrics/music/peer group will convince these people of a world view that was basically repeatedly propagandised to them in musical form.
If your political/philosophical views coincide with some of your favourite musicians, maybe it's time to rethink about why you agree with them.
29 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaBy what standards, though? Who's work are you using to justify your statement or are you just making a statement for the lulz?
It's just not an adequate format for neither of the three. Even if the writer comes up with something half-decent, it's a stretch of the imagination to think he would not do better had he not been constrained to writing music lyrics.
There are some fantastic poets who have incredibly lyrical styles to their writing, look at Keats, Byron, Poe.
Not to mention writers like E. Welsh, C. Palahniuk, B. Ellis who all have more than a hint of a lyrical flow (this is all IMO, so please feel free to rebut) to their writing.
The two bands mentioned in Starrman's thread thus far also have incredibly well written lyrics, Jim Morrison, Maynard Keenan, Ben Gibbard....
To say that all lyrics are a half arsed effort to write poetry is so wrong and highly unfair.
Trolling highly successful on this thread. You're going to get a really angry Hopscotch, Darv and probably a Starrman in here...
(Unless they spite me because I just said that, I wouldn't put it past any of them).
29 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by NatsiaWhen you compare those writers to those that were writing lyrics, whose texts pale in comparison? Lyrical flow or not, they were unconstrained to write the poem as they wished.
By what standards, though? Who's work are you using to justify your statement or are you just making a statement for the lulz?
There are some fantastic poets who have incredibly lyrical styles to their writing, look at Keats, Byron, Poe.
Not to mention writers like E. Welsh, C. Palahniuk, B. Ellis who all have more than a hint of a lyrical flow (this is ere...
(Unless they spite me because I just said that, I wouldn't put it past any of them).
I'm doing this partly for the lulz (as I like to annoy), but mostly because I do believe many people take music lyrics too seriously.
29 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaNot always, there's the matter of taste (as in poetry) and we've had enough aesthetic discussions in the past to know that there's no objective basis for suggesting that one piece of written art is better than another. As social commentary they can capture a feeling that people can resonate with, they can sometimes have imagery which creates a story in only a few lines. That story might be interesting or important to some people. Even as philosophy they can capture an essence, even if they're not explicating it fully.
But I meant within the context of the piece. Extricate the words from the song, look at them as text (as in the other thread) and they become weak.
The other thread is about what people believe the song-writer was intending, not how good his lyrics are on any objective basis or extracted from the music. My question would be why would you want to evaluate them separately?
29 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaGiven that, I have to agree (on the fact that without the music, they will loose some of what gives them their punch) and disagree, personally I think it must be incredibly difficult to write around the constrains of the timing and structure of a song, and I don't think it was a fair statement.
When you compare those writers to those that were writing lyrics, whose texts pale in comparison? Lyrical flow or not, they were unconstrained to write the poem as they wished.
I'm doing this partly for the lulz (as I like to annoy), but mostly because I do believe many people take music lyrics too seriously.
NYARG.
29 Sep 09
Originally posted by StarrmanLike I said, social commentary is simplistic and takes a form very close to propaganda, with its combination of aesthetics and repetition. 'Resonation' is a product of that. A similar argument could be made for the philosophy in lyrics. In the end, it's just a longer fortune cookie.
Not always, there's the matter of taste (as in poetry) and we've had enough aesthetic discussions in the past to know that there's no objective basis for suggesting that one piece of written art is better than another. As social commentary they can capture a feeling that people can resonate with, they can sometimes have imagery which creates a story in onl ...[text shortened]... racted from the music. My question would be why would you want to evaluate them separately?
A corollary of the value of lyrics being contextualized in the song is that a textual analysis is an exercise in futility. Moreover, the pure relativism of its aesthetic value would mean that the author's original meaning should actually be irrelevant. If you don't think that way, then you must agree that there is at least some degree of objectivity in its value.