Do Lyrics Even Matter?

[Jack Russell]

I've puzzled over some lyrics i've been writing in a new tune. More often than not, they don't really mean anything. Why? Well, because I tend to come up with a melody first, and then write words for the melody.

Which leads me to wonder: Do lyrics matter at all? If the music and melody are dead on and good, then who cares what words you use?

A case in point:

Here's the song I'm working on (Untitled):

"Clouds in the blue forgotten--crushed in a velvet sky
windless ages blow us away, floating beyond the universe
shattered bridge of agony, depth charge crushing sound
diving down, the seeker goes on into the void

listen to words that float in the sea
green undertow rolling sound
undulating silent screams, ghosts live underground
following the anchor chain, 20 fathoms down

[Chorus:]
Some day she will rise above the ocean
another love lost in the graves of empty pages
she will rise above the ocean surface
and I will fade into the sand down in the rocks

Frozen in shards of ice on the bow
the wreckage is far below
underneath the searchlight beams, steel and broken bone
tangled razor knife-edge wire, crazy worlds unknown

[Repeat chorus]

[Coda]
Out of the haze comes the ray of the day
from the skyline far below
and the edge of the gray breaks beyond what remains
of the time lost afterglow
The cellophane age is a song in the rain
where the starlight hits the snow
and the alien rage speaks to all of the reign
of the time-space rock and roll"

So, does this mean anything at all? Does it matter?

 

[Rstiltskin]

My Hot Steaming Brain!!! Its Gonna Blow!!!!

I've puzzled over some lyrics i've been writing in a new tune. More often than not, they don't really mean anything. Why? Well, because I tend to come up with a melody first, and then write words for the melody.

Which leads me to wonder: Do lyrics matter at all? If the music and melody are dead on and good, then who cares what words you use?

A case in point:

Here's the song I'm working on (Untitled):

"Clouds in the blue forgotten--crushed in a velvet sky
windless ages blow us away, floating beyond the universe
shattered bridge of agony, depth charge crushing sound
diving down, the seeker goes on into the void

listen to words that float in the sea
green undertow rolling sound
undulating silent screams, ghosts live underground
following the anchor chain, 20 fathoms down

[Chorus:]
Some day she will rise above the ocean
another love lost in the graves of empty pages
she will rise above the ocean surface
and I will fade into the sand down in the rocks

Frozen in shards of ice on the bow
the wreckage is far below
underneath the searchlight beams, steel and broken bone
tangled razor knife-edge wire, crazy worlds unknown

[Repeat chorus]

[Coda]
Out of the haze comes the ray of the day
from the skyline far below
and the edge of the gray breaks beyond what remains
of the time lost afterglow
The cellophane age is a song in the rain
where the starlight hits the snow
and the alien rage speaks to all of the reign
of the time-space rock and roll"

So, does this mean anything at all? Does it matter?

space time
aliens
wordplay (rain, reign)
is it a razor, knife edge, OR wire?
oceans
graves
ageless
universe
agony
seas
depth charges
ghosts
anchors

what? at the end of a scrabble game someone made a bet you could'nt make a song out of all the words?

I agree with you about cliche's, except that country music is now nothing but!!

my brain, my brain!

 

[dragonworks]

not really
http://www.amiright.com/

 

[bewildered]

the problem with poets and lyricists is that they try to hard. too many metaphors, too crpytic. keep it simple, use metaphors sparingly.

 

[zed32]

yeah i can't say that i have any idea what your song is about, but im sure when put to music, nobody will really know. i mean, have you heard the song "Can't Stop" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers? i think its a great song but i'll be damned if i knew what the hell he's talking about in that song. the vast majority of the songs i write are based on dreams that i have. i just use vague terms to describe the events that happened in my dream, and often times when i go back and read the song, i find it can be interpreted in many different ways, so that leaves it up to the listener. if i ever described to anyone what my dream was really about, then they'd probably laugh at the way i wrote a song about it haha. the funny thing is, if i actually sit down and try to write a song about something that happened to me in real life, it almost always ends up super cheesy, full of cliches, and sounds over-poetic (i invented my own term here, hehe). that's why it's easier for me to write songs about off-the-wall stuff, it keeps me away from using specific descriptions and leaves the lyrics open to interpretation. so shoot i say as long as the music is good, the lyrics aren't a big deal.

 

[Jack Russell]

space time
aliens
wordplay (rain, reign)
is it a razor, knife edge, OR wire?
oceans
graves
ageless
universe
agony
seas
depth charges
ghosts
anchors

what? at the end of a scrabble game someone made a bet you could'nt make a song out of all the words?

I agree with you about cliche's, except that country music is now nothing but!!

my brain, my brain!

LOL!!! You are absolutely right. I'm all over the place. Actually, truth be told: the first half of the song above is about a German U-boat, found in the Atlantic with bones in it, then I felt compelled to make a 'trilogy' out of it. Part II kicks in and all I could think of was aliens and stuff. The third part of the trilogy is yet to be written. Um...maybe I should cut the two songs and concepts apart?

This is pretty hysterical now that I think about it.

 

[Jack Russell]

yeah i can't say that i have any idea what your song is about, but im sure when put to music, nobody will really know. i mean, have you heard the song "Can't Stop" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers? i think its a great song but i'll be damned if i knew what the hell he's talking about in that song. the vast majority of the songs i write are based on dreams that i have. i just use vague terms to describe the events that happened in my dream, and often times when i go back and read the song, i find it can be interpreted in many different ways, so that leaves it up to the listener. if i ever described to anyone what my dream was really about, then they'd probably laugh at the way i wrote a song about it haha. the funny thing is, if i actually sit down and try to write a song about something that happened to me in real life, it almost always ends up super cheesy, full of cliches, and sounds over-poetic (i invented my own term here, hehe). that's why it's easier for me to write songs about off-the-wall stuff, it keeps me away from using specific descriptions and leaves the lyrics open to interpretation. so shoot i say as long as the music is good, the lyrics aren't a big deal.

That's sort of my approach as well. But as you can see i have some work to do to hone down the lyrics to something that means anything.

 

[famous beagle]

IMO, I don't think the meaning needs to be obvious at all. I think a little mystery is good now and then. There's nothing wrong with straightforward lyrics (there's some good songs I can think that are like that), but I tend to prefer things that are a little different.

However, having said that, sometimes it's a matter of becoming a little pretentious if you're not grounded at all. I hate reading lyrics without hearing them in context, but that's all I have to go on here. And I would say they sound just a little bit pretentious.

Like I said, though, it's out of context. I'm guessing that if I read some of Radiohead's lyrics out of context they might sound that way too. I don't know.

Some of my favorite lyricists are: Adam Duritz (Counting Crows), Jeff Tweedy (Wilco), Rivers Cuomo (Weezer), Thom Yorke (Radiohead), etc.

In that list there are examples of both straightforward (but very clever) lyrical writing (Weezer) and very "out there" writing (Radiohead).

I'm kind of losing focus as to what my actual point was. I guess in response to your question, I would say they don't have to mean anything, but I think there's a difference between an ambigous meaning and being pretentious.

Again, I haven't heard your lyrics in context, so please take this comment with a grain of salt.

 

[Jack Russell]

IMO, I don't think the meaning needs to be obvious at all. I think a little mystery is good now and then. There's nothing wrong with straightforward lyrics (there's some good songs I can think that are like that), but I tend to prefer things that are a little different.

However, having said that, sometimes it's a matter of becoming a little pretentious if you're not grounded at all. I hate reading lyrics without hearing them in context, but that's all I have to go on here. And I would say they sound just a little bit pretentious.

Like I said, though, it's out of context. I'm guessing that if I read some of Radiohead's lyrics out of context they might sound that way too. I don't know.

I'm kind of losing focus as to what my actual point was. I guess in response to your question, I would say they don't have to mean anything, but I think there's a difference between an ambigous meaning and being pretentious.

Again, I haven't heard your lyrics in context, so please take this comment with a grain of salt.

Thanks.
Fair criticism and good observations. Like I said, I write a melody first, then find words to fit it. The first draft (which is what these are---or maybe third? ) tend to be nonsensical and yes, pretentious, and I go for phrases and words quickly that are easy to sing. Then I work to focus in on meaning. But at that point, I yawn, stretch, grab a beer, turn on some mindless t.v., and wonder if anyone gives a shit about what I'm doing. Hahahaha!!!

Having no hits on the radio or royalties rolling in for years can do you in pretty quick-like when you are working on the "precise meaning" department.

I marvel at Radiohead's lyrics. I think they are as off-the-wall as anything out there, but they are brilliant also.

 

[HapiCmpur]

I defy any songwriter to write a song that "means" something. What I am saying here is that even if the lyricist tries very hard to be direct and obvious about his or her meaning, listeners will interpret the song through the lenses of their own experience. They will imbue the song with meanings of their own, and there's nothing the artist can (or should) do about it.

There may be times when a lyricist's intended "message" and the listener's interpretation are pretty similar, but that is probably pretty rare. Back in the '70s, for instance, several friends of mine were convinced that Bert & Ernie were singing about drugs on Sesame Street's Rubber Ducky LP.

I also remember hearing an interview (long ago) in which Don McLean insisted that the lyrics of American Pie don't mean anything. He was lying through his teeth, of course, but I think he was making two points. First, the artist has no control over how people will interpret his or her work. Second, only a very foolish artist would try to interpret his or her work for the audience. That's just going to piss them off if they don't agree with the "correct" interpretation, and it's also likely to shorten the song's lifespan dramatically.

Once you're pretty sure you know what a song's "about," it becomes a lot less interesting to listen to. Similarly, lyrics that are too obvious and direct don't keep you coming back for more. Obscure lyrics, on the other hand -- especially those that appear to allude to other subjects -- will tend to have much greater staying power.

 

[tryptophan]

Once you're pretty sure you know what a song's "about," it becomes a lot less interesting to listen to. Similarly, lyrics that are too obvious and direct don't keep you coming back for more.

so you don't feel that a song like, say........ sympathy for the devil...... is worth coming back to?

there's nothing wrong with making points in songs. there's nothing wrong with writing deliberate lyrics. what kind of music are you making, that you have no control over how it will be received by other people? you have TONS of control. stupid people wont read into things severely, pretentious people will find meaning where there's none, but the average joe will get the message if you're writing songs that are meaningful. unless you're writing lyrics that require a decoder ring to decipher. personally, that kind of music turns me off.

 

[Jack Russell]

I defy any songwriter to write a song that "means" something. What I am saying here is that even if the lyricist tries very hard to be direct and obvious about his or her meaning, listeners will interpret the song through the lenses of their own experience. They will imbue the song with meanings of their own, and there's nothing the artist can (or should) do about it.

I agree, well...mostly.

There seems to be a limit to how far into abstract expressionism a writer can go and not leave the majority of his liseners behind.

I am a big fan of Peter Murphy. He is one of the most abstract writers out there, and I do get a kind of sub-surface meaning that is strong in his work. However, there are times when I get frustrated with his lyrics.

Even one of his most 'straightforward' songs, Indigo Eyes, can be hard to decipher:

(Indigo Eyes by Peter Murphy, an excerpt):

"Fire burning in a hill, the lines are rocky rough
red angels wait to pick remains
the cindered shoulder of confused men
separate from their awe
the playmate sings like Orphee in some thunderworld
asking to be faith in light, to be exemplified...
with grey desire he looks out mad, his soft grey indigo eyes, asking"

The song, to me, is about Jesus on the cross. Yet other people have no idea how I get that out of it. And yes, if PM said it wasn't about anything, then that would sort of spoil it for me.

 

[FunkDaddy]

If your lyrics suck than the music better be really REALLY good.

 

[HapiCmpur]

so you don't feel that a song like, say........ sympathy for the devil...... is worth coming back to?

I don't know. What's it about?

there's nothing wrong with making points in songs. there's nothing wrong with writing deliberate lyrics.

I never said there was. You must have misinterpreted my meaning, eh?

What I said is that you can't count on people to interpret the song they way the artist intended it -- and that's assuming that he or she intended anything at all.

you have TONS of control.

I disagree. In fact, I think you have no "control" at all. The most you could say is that the artist has some influence, but influence is a poor and distant cousin of control. I can't even control how my wife interprets it when I ask her if she's ready to leave the house yet. Sometimes she says "Yes" and sometimes she snarls "Quit rushing me!" The most I can do is try to influence her reaction with my choice of words and my tone of my voice, but even that isn't a guarantee of direct communication.

stupid people wont read into things severely, pretentious people will find meaning where there's none, but the average joe will get the message if you're writing songs that are meaningful.

I'm not looking to piss you off here, but there's a big difference between saying that something is "meaningful" and agreeing on what it means. You and I would probably agree, for instance, that the song "American Pie" is rife with meaning, but then we could argue for six weeks over the meaning of a specific line or verse and not get anywhere. And then that raises a good question: Could we settle our dispute by asking Don McLean? I say no. Don McLean doesn't own the meaning of "American Pie." No one does. And I commend him for not answering questions about it.

For what it's worth, I don't know a single songwriter (Don McLean included) who isn't trying to communicate something with his or her lyrics, but that's a far, far cry from saying that the audience is receiving the message that the artist thinks he or she is sending.

I am a big fan of Peter Murphy. He is one of the most abstract writers out there, and I do get a kind of sub-surface meaning that is strong in his work. However, there are times when I get frustrated with his lyrics.

Yes, I get the same feeling after listening to too much Dylan, REM, or the Talking Heads.

The song, to me, is about Jesus on the cross. Yet other people have no idea how I get that out of it. And yes, if PM said it wasn't about anything, then that would sort of spoil it for me.

Good example, JR. I know a lot of people who hear what sounds to me like a simple love song as a song about god's love or about a parent's love for a child. Knowing what the artist was really thinking about as he or she penned those lyrics isn't going to make anybody happy, and it is likely to make at least one of those people like the song less.

If your lyrics suck than the music better be really REALLY good.

Better yet, it should be very, very danceable.

 

[Folkie]

You have music and you have poetry and you have songs. Good music doesn't always require lyrics (think classical--Prokofief-Symphonie Fantastique, for example). It has meaning and tells a story, but without words. I would think that most people today listening to music have no clue what the story behind it is (I had to have it explained to me--I'm not that good a musician.)

Then you have poetry, which can move the listener without music--or even rhythm or rhyme or meter. Alot of poetry needs to be explained as well--images are too obscure, meanings are taken from some pretentious or over intellectualized source ("Oh, yeah, that's refering to Bedering's 'The Fornication of Lucia's Goat'--isn't it obvious?") On the other hand, if a person can relate to it, to them it's good and understandable. (I couldn't really relate to yours BTW, without the music behind it. Sorry.) For example, "Once there was an elephant who tried to use the telephant...." Most people can relate to it. Or "Do not go gentle into that good night--rage, rage against the dying of the light." Understandable without too much difficulty.

Then you have songs. The superb ones combine understandable, relatable lyrics with music that enhances them and vice versa. (Old Friends by Paul Simon, for example.) You can get more out of them every time you listen to them from EITHER the music or the lyrics. Good ones you can relate to, but they can get tiring after a while. Bad ones, that only you would understand, are best sung in your shower.

Then, finally, you have songs where the emphasis is on the tune OR the lyrics, but not both. (e.g., dance stuff or something with lyrics like "Sha-na-na-na sha-na-na-na-na Sha Boom...Yip yip yip yip get a job." Alot of Dylan stuff is like that, to me.) The music's the important thing there, the lyrics are just another instrument. (Not that I like opera, but when I listen to it, I have no clue what they're singing--the voice is an instrument, like a clarinet.)

Or folk or country where the story is the important part--the tune can vary. (Do you realize how many versions of Frankie and Johnny are out there? Or the blues? A billion blues tunes with basically the same chords and structure and melody--But the lyrics are different.)

So, anyway, in my mind, it all depends on who you're directing it to as to which part you emphasize. The one you wrote above, for the right audience (probably intellectuals) could be considered a lyrical masterpiece. If, however, you're playing it to a dance club or in a bar, ain't nobody gonna listen to the words till they're too drunk to dance, at which point the words will make perfect sense to them. (Likewise, it probably won't sell for a romantic mood piece.)

Someday you should force yourself to try it the other way round--write some lyrics and see if they don't inspire a melody. Just a thought.

 

[tryptophan]

hapicampur, you seem like the type of person who makes art really dull. my dad used to over-analyze things and subject them to painful scrutiny, to the point where i'd be thinking, "jesus christ, shut up." guess the joke's on me.

 

[Jack Russell]

You have music and you have poetry and you have songs. Good music doesn't always require lyrics (think classical--Prokofief-Symphonie Fantastique, for example). It has meaning and tells a story, but without words. I would think that most people today listening to music have no clue what the story behind it is (I had to have it explained to me--I'm not that good a musician.)

Then you have poetry, which can move the listener without music--or even rhythm or rhyme or meter. Alot of poetry needs to be explained as well--images are too obscure, meanings are taken from some pretentious or over intellectualized source ("Oh, yeah, that's refering to Bedering's 'The Fornication of Lucia's Goat'--isn't it obvious?") On the other hand, if a person can relate to it, to them it's good and understandable. (I couldn't really relate to yours BTW, without the music behind it. Sorry.) For example, "Once there was an elephant who tried to use the telephant...." Most people can relate to it. Or "Do not go gentle into that good night--rage, rage against the dying of the light." Understandable without too much difficulty.

Then you have songs. The superb ones combine understandable, relatable lyrics with music that enhances them and vice versa. (Old Friends by Paul Simon, for example.) You can get more out of them every time you listen to them from EITHER the music or the lyrics. Good ones you can relate to, but they can get tiring after a while. Bad ones, that only you would understand, are best sung in your shower.

Then, finally, you have songs where the emphasis is on the tune OR the lyrics, but not both. (e.g., dance stuff or something with lyrics like "Sha-na-na-na sha-na-na-na-na Sha Boom...Yip yip yip yip get a job." Alot of Dylan stuff is like that, to me.) The music's the important thing there, the lyrics are just another instrument. (Not that I like opera, but when I listen to it, I have no clue what they're singing--the voice is an instrument, like a clarinet.).

As usual, you are on the money, Folkie with making sense of stuff. I agree with you. I'd just add that words combined with melody = levels of meaning, which is what good songcraft is all about.

The one you wrote above, for the right audience (probably intellectuals) could be considered a lyrical masterpiece..

Well, I assume you mean the lyrics I posted at the top of the thread. In that case thanks for the compliment! I have a long way to go with this tune, IMO.

Someday you should force yourself to try it the other way round--write some lyrics and see if they don't inspire a melody. Just a thought.

Actually I used to write words first. The first "music" I created (in my teens) consisted of my poetry set to the sound of out of tune instruments and noise taken from sitcom t.v. at random. I was very arty, and it sounded like hell. Haha!!! In other words, I had written poetry before I could even tune a guitar. Now, I'm trying for a more "tuneful" melody.

 

[HapiCmpur]

You have music and you have poetry and you have songs. Good music doesn't always require lyrics (think classical--Prokofief-Symphonie Fantastique, for example). It has meaning and tells a story, but without words.

Hmmm. If someone listens to Symphonie Fantastique without knowing that Berlioz had a particular story in mind when he composed it, can we say that he or she missed the "meaning" of the piece? I certainly hope not.

I would think that most people today listening to music have no clue what the story behind it is (I had to have it explained to me--I'm not that good a musician.)

I don't think this has anything to do with how good a musician the listener is. If Igor Stravinsky listened to Symphonie Fantastique without having read Belioz's notes on it, he would have no way of even guessing the story on which it was based. Likewise, if you listened to Appalachian Spring without knowing its title, I'm sure even Aaron Copeland would forgive you for not being able to guess its subject matter. (Although he might be dismayed if you didn't enjoy it.)

hapicampur, you seem like the type of person who makes art really dull.

You've decided that because I disagree with you that it's all right for you to insult me? Is that it?

Hey, I'm really sorry if I've dined on one of your sacred cows, but you really haven't offered up much in the way of evidence to support your view now, have you? Instead, you've stooped to baseless accusations. I'm also sorry to hear that you are of the opinion that thinking carefully about one's art causes one to produce dull art. Best of luck with that attitude.

 

[Jack Russell]

A Bit of a Tangent, but....

Lots of good observations on this thread. Here is another thing along the same lines, if you all would be patient and indulge me.

Another tune I'm writing began as a bass/drums/guitar piece with no words or melody. I played it for my wife and she loved it. She said it was beautiful and that I should not fuck it up when I write the words and sing it. So, the pressure is on.

I didn't know what to write about. However, my wife suggested that the tune has so much emotion that I should write about our dog, which we lost last year. This was an emotionally devastating loss for both of us. The dog was our baby, and we still miss him terribly.

So, that is what I am doing. I've taken this story of deep loss of a pet and, as I work on the music, I find myself breaking down in tears. It is a very strong emotion.

But, to the point: I want to write in plain language this feeling of loss, but I must be abstract. I can't write a narrative about taking a dog to the vet to be put to sleep, because that would be absurd and stiff. My goal is to write it in such a way that the listening can identify with the feeling itself, from the music first, and then from the abstract hints in the words, so they can empathize with their own loss of...a pet, a friend, a lover... If I can do this, I'll have success. But it is very hard.
__________
P.S.: Ironically, I must leave now to go to a friend's funeral. Later....

 

[tryptophan]

hapycampur, smoke a joint. i never said you make dull art. i've never seen your art.