Article on Lyric Critique

[JohnMoxey]

Hey

I hope this is ok to post here. It's free, and ontopic... and hopefully useful. Apologies if it isn't cool, I'll know for future reference.

I've just written a new article about lyric critique:

Lyric Critique

I'd love to hear any feedback/comments/suggestions you have, so please feel free to post a reply!

Cheers

John

 

[famous beagle]

Hey

I hope this is ok to post here. It's free, and ontopic... and hopefully useful. Apologies if it isn't cool, I'll know for future reference.

I've just written a new article about lyric critique:

Lyric Critique

I'd love to hear any feedback/comments/suggestions you have, so please feel free to post a reply!

Cheers

John

Firstly, I think your article could benefit from an edit or at the very least a proofread; there were a few errors in it.

Also, the link to the Common Lyric Critique Questions didn't work.

Other than that, I think there is some value to the advice, although I think it's geared toward a specific type of songwriting.

I don't think one set of critique questions can be applied to all songs and yield beneficial results---even with altering some questions. Lyrics are very subjective, and everyone has their own idea of what "good" lyrics are.

"The fact is we learn (somehow) to measure how good something is."

leaves a bit to be desired. I think it would be more accurate to say we learn to measure how much we like or dislike something.

This is besides the fact that I think judging lyrics alone as poetry without the supporting music is rarely ever going to do them justice. They're not meant to be poetry; they're meant to be sung as lyrics. Granted, some lyrics work well as poetry too, but the melodies and harmonies to which they're attached are equally as important.

I think if you're trying to write very clear and straightforward lyrics (as in most country music), then your system would be beneficial. But for the music that I enjoy (such as Wilco, Radiohead, The Beatles, etc.) the idea doesn't hold nearly as much weight. You'd have to just about reinvent a whole new set of questions for each song. And at that point, you're not really critiquing the song anymore; the song is critiquing you.

Some of my favorite lyrics are ones that where I can't tell you specifically what the author is talking about. They may just be images or thoughts that strike a chord for whatever reason. There are other lyrics that are extremely plainspoken that also strike a chord. I think it's all based on personal experience. I honestly don't think there's one song with lyrics that can be unanimously declared "good" by everyone. They're that subjective.

You and Good Friend should get together. I think y'all probably have a lot in common.

Regardless, thanks for the thoughts. It was an interesting read, even if I don't agree with most of it.

 

[JohnMoxey]

Hey famous beagle

Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I also appreciate you taking the time to post back some comments. Just like writing a song, getting feedback on an article is very useful and always appreciated.

Several people have read the article now, but no errors have been highlighted other than the broken link, which is now fixed. On re-reading it myself I found a couple of small grammatical errors and one long sentence which should be split into 3 sentences. Thanks for highlighting this.

Maybe if the link to questions had been working you would have read the questions and maybe caught more of how a set of questions (not necessarily the ones I provided) could help hone an idea. It's up to you the writer to define questions suitable to your genre. For example "Is the title memorable?".

Funnily enough I love more abstract lyrics, and I am a big Radiohead fan. My own lyrics vary from clear to abstract, yet I have both core critique questions and ones specific for writing a more abstract lyric. Maybe it depends on the level of question you are expecting, or more likely the answers.

The questions are not meant to be a definitive set. They are meant as prompts, intended to get you to view important aspects of a lyric from different perspectives.

There is no intent of judging a lyric as a poem. You are judging a lyric as a lyric. True it is not in it's finished context, but that doesn't mean I cannot review it an improve it, or assess it's suitability as a lyric.

There are lots of lyricists who do not write music. Their work is judged, at some stage, as a lyric on it's own. Meter has to work with melodic rhythm on some level. Your suggestion seems to be that component parts of a song cannot be examined and judged on their own. Sure you have to look at the whole song at some point, and I don't disagree that other elements of the arrangement are important at that point (such as harmony and rhythm) but the core of the song is the lyric, melody and chords.

I can hear a melody without chords or words and tell you I like it. Same goes for chords or lyrics. Collectively I will also know whether they go together and compliment ech other. They may need tweaked to go together, but that does not diminish the initial impression.

There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have a set of questions that help analyse more abstract lyrics, or through composed or anything else you want.

Radiohead use standard song forms, usually verse/chorus form or a variation. They employ a title, and a little less often a bridge. They use a consitent approach to verse and chorus structures. They employ a plot or theme (situation or emotional, clear or abstract), they convey a message, or muli-level messages. They often convey feeling more than anything else. Sometimes they are situational. They usually employ a rhyme scheme, though sometimes only on the chorus or on the verse. Their lyrics employ internal rhymes half rhymes, full rhymes, double rhymes, alliteration, assonance and consonance. Their lyrics are designed to draw you in, teasing you with possible meanings but the plot/theme does develop.

So knowing that Radiohead songs have that much in common with other songs allows an analysis at least at that level.

Lastly on the line you highlight:

"The fact is we learn (somehow) to measure how good something is."

Contextually the point is that we learn to appreciate by many means, formal and not. I tried to explain this with the following line:

"It may be a general feeling, or a specific detail, we still know if we like something or not."

Good Friend? Another member?

I probably won't have changed your mind, but I wanted to at least try and address your points.

Lastly, just to say thanks again for taking the time to tell me your thoughts.

Cheers

John

 

[1ply]

Thank you for your provocative post and link to your article.

I agree that the only criticism worth giving is constructive criticism. I also agree that specific constructive criticism is more helpful. Life is too short to learn only from my own mistakes. I need to learn from others' experience.

Do your article and posts feed back into the question do lyrics matter? I agree with you that they do. Your work also does not favor a constructivist method of interpretation which makes good sense to me since this method is self-refuting.

Perhaps another question could be the relationship between the thoughts in each line. Ancient Hebrew poetry did not work on the basis of rhyme and scholars have long argued over Hebrew meter with no consensus. Beauty in Hebrew poetry consisted of exploring the relationship between lines. Some English song forms like hymns are influenced by Hebrew poetry (Psalms, etc.).

There is however a danger of the paralysis of analysis. A problem that I have is that I am actually very good at analysis, synthesis and evaluation. I have been awarded a Ph.D. from Cambridge University for my work. This however creates problems when creating my own lyrics. A person can be so well trained in analysis that they do apply it to their own work when the work is still in its formative stages. Analysis can strangle the infant of creativity while still in the crib. I have been working on this but I think it still presents a danger.

I agree that performance in a public arena is helpful since we are all masters at self-deception and that we are often prisoners of our own perspective.

Rip

P.S. My postings have been less frequent because I have been very busy with additional training and my work in the prisons. I have been dealing with issues of liability insurance and the department of corrections.

 

[Whatmysay]

Your work offers great value and is well considered. As a teacher of drama and media I am constantly attempt to develop students from a passive subjective audience to active critical practitioners. Your article resonates strongly with much of that work. Agreed and understood vocabulary and a formal (framed) process of analysis are vital.

On the area of ‘framing’ the analysis; I think you could perhaps reflect more on the context of the transaction; as this is vital in how the information is consumed.

I believe that a critique is a co-creative dialogue between participants. This defines the relationship far more equitably than the usual reviewer/artist relationship – in that way the artist gives up some ownership of the song (hopefully becoming less sensitive and more responsive) and the reviewer gains more responsibility (hopefully becoming more considered and reflective).

In that context it is also vital that the song writer state the purpose of the work in some way to guide the reviewer in their analysis. I believe that ‘value’ can only be given if some sense of purpose (Audience, Form/Genre, and Content/Message) is defined. The cause of generalise responses are generalised requests. This forum offers 1000s of examples of both effective and less than effective critiques based around the specificity of the song writers’ original post.

It is interesting to compare how specific posts and responses are in the gear forums verses the ones in song writing. It is indicative of the emotions often investment in the craft of song writing as opposed to production.

My major area of concern is the nature of the Common Lyric Critique Questions. I think these are fine as a starting point, but they are tend to deal with the rational, quantifiable aspects of song writing and bias a more linear naturalistic song writing style. I’m not sure how they work of TS Elliot or James Joyce would stand up to that criteria.

If we use the same criteria as planning tools for our own work (and I totally agree with that consistency) then we must ensure that criteria challenge us to develop as artists and can be equally applicable to any style of work.

After the development of rational critical capacity, comes the ability to analyse the emotive aspects of art in a constructive manner. I can look at Whistler’s depictions of the Thames and judge whether or not it looks like Putney Bridge, or the choice of brush strokes and colour. But I also need to find away to analyse how his choice of monochrome blue makes me feel and how he could make those feelings stronger or different.

The emotive aspects – because they are so subjective must always be informed by the stated purpose of the work, as criticism uninformed will always drift into personal taste. So again it falls upon the artist to be specific if they are searching for valuable criticism.

What is most exciting about the social software evolution is that we can aggregate opinion so quickly and even if that criticism is less than informed it is still clear to see where trends develop. Like zooming out and seeing the consistent shapes rather than the little fractuals (individual comments)that make them up

As the Prosumer population matures such discussion as yours will become more important. Perhaps there will even be on-line groups who subscribe to a set of formal aesthetic values – like the French Salons that will develop and propagate their own style of art and genres beyond the ones defined by ‘old media’. If not for arts sake then for moneys sake.

I applaud your efforts to move this debate further and I look forward to the continuing development of your ideas.

 

[Monkey Allen]

I read your article. I think lyric reviewing is a very specific thing, in a way, like train spotting. And I don't mean any of the negative connotations that the pastime of train spotting has...or at least that it has in my mind. I mean it's a niche pursuit. But a very interesting one.

When I look at lyrics, I only really like to wonder about what they mean or if they tell a good story or if they are funny or I think they are clever. But it's a whole other step to sit back and say how it's done. I suppose it's a real art in itself to review lyrics.

 

[32-20-Blues]

John, I should point out that, as far as I am concerned, the analysis of lyrics in isolation from musical accompaniment is an inherently problematic field of study. Specifically, lyrics are not written to survive the rigours of theoretical examination. While the poet must rely on the coherence, validity, and artful arrangement of his words alone to engage with his audience, the songwriter has another 'tool', as it were, with which he can attempt to transmit a specific sentiment to the listener. Sound, by which I mean vocal phrasing as well as the basic arrangement of musical notes, has a part to play in conveying emotional context. Thus, lyrics can be less 'developed', for want of a better term, than poetry; the accompaniment compensates, to an extent, for a deficit in the validity of a songwriter's words.

Essentially, lyrics are not poetry; they are not a 'fait accompli', but are, instead, merely an element of an ultimate, final creation. On this basis, critiquing lyrics is the equivalent of offering a visual artist advice based on his preparatory sketches, as opposed to his finished oil-on-canvas triptych.

Moreover, your 'Common Lyric Critique Questions' fail to take account of the inherently varied nature of the songwriter's art. Without wishing to entirely discredit your thoughtfully composed guidelines, I feel it would be beneficial to draw your attention to a number of songs that would be perhaps too readily discounted by your process of judgment and evaluation.

Is there one distinct lyrical message?
How necessary is continuity of theme or narrative in any work of art? Granted, one abiding 'message' promotes ease of understanding, but is such accessibility consistently of benefit? Postmodernist scholars have declared that the era of the 'Grand Narrative' - the 'one distinct message', as you describe it - died with the emergence of Modernism at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the absence of a single, edifying statement, the artist, according to Lyotard, for example, must strive to present a series of fractured, or contingent, 'mini-narratives.' What, for example, is the 'one distinct lyrical message' of Bob Dylan's Visions of Johanna? There is an abundance of artfully crafted images, but they are hardly connected in a unified manner. On the contrary, the narrative progresses through a number of independent scenes, with little concession made to continuity. I contend, however, that the song is no less impressive by virtue of Dylan's frequent thematic digressions.

Is the title consistent with the lyrical message?
It does not have to be. A title is of less significance than many imagine. At its most basic level, it merely serves to facilitate the distinguishing of one composition from another in discussion. Obviously, a title that is wilfully incongruous with regard to the song itself is possibly not the wisest of choices, but to 'signpost' the meaning of your song in its title is to give too little credit to your audience's powers of comprehension. They will draw subjective meaning from the creation that they have been presented with; an overly explanatory title should not impinge upon that process.

Is the plot believable?
You presuppose that a 'plot' will inevitably feature in a song. Not all songs are ballads. For the purposes of this paragraph, however, I will accept your assertion that songs have a 'plot', or a central event that will be the subject of narration. To address your second assertion - that this plot should be 'believable' - I would ask you to consider the work of Leonard Cohen. Specifically, Last Year's Man deals with the detachment of a forlorn, lethargic and fatalistic narrator from 'normal' society. To emphasise this point, Cohen utilises a plot that dispenses with the constraints of chronology and is consequently impossible. The narrator, for example, numbers himself amongst the army of Joan of Arc, before declaring that he attended the wedding of Babylon and Bethlehem. Clearly, these events are not believable, but they still serve a purpose; they continually underline a growing sense of pathos, and allow Cohen's character to articulate his development to the listener. The impossible, then, can not be dismissed. If a songwriter limits himself to the probable, or even to the possible, the potential for dramatic emphasis is considerably lessened.


John, I am merely voicing some subjective observations. I applaud your effort; it is immediately apparent that you have a definite understanding of what it is that you expect from a song. Furthermore, anything that forces writers to examine their own work in more detail is obviously a good thing. Your article also prompted discussion in this forum, which is, again, a good thing. Many thanks for sharing your views; they made for some very interesting reading. You should drop by this place more often.

Best wishes for the future,
32-20.

 

[32-20-Blues]

There is no such thing as "taste".

If that was true, as opposed to a personal, idealised vision, your argument would be unnecessary. The very fact that you have to condemn 'taste' as a debilitating influence suggests that it is present.

 

[Freddy]

Edit: The post this post was replying to has been removed, so am editing this to remove any confusion.

 

[Freddy]

Edit: The post this post was replying to has been removed, so am editing this to remove any confusion.

 

[JohnMoxey]

John, I should point out that, as far as I am concerned, the analysis of lyrics in isolation from musical accompaniment is an inherently problematic field of study. Specifically, lyrics are not written to survive the rigours of theoretical examination. While the poet must rely on the coherence, validity, and artful arrangement of his words alone to engage with his audience, the songwriter has another 'tool', as it were, with which he can attempt to transmit a specific sentiment to the listener. Sound, by which I mean vocal phrasing as well as the basic arrangement of musical notes, has a part to play in conveying emotional context. Thus, lyrics can be less 'developed', for want of a better term, than poetry; the accompaniment compensates, to an extent, for a deficit in the validity of a songwriter's words.

Essentially, lyrics are not poetry; they are not a 'fait accompli', but are, instead, merely an element of an ultimate, final creation. On this basis, critiquing lyrics is the equivalent of offering a visual artist advice based on his preparatory sketches, as opposed to his finished oil-on-canvas triptych.

Moreover, your 'Common Lyric Critique Questions' fail to take account of the inherently varied nature of the songwriter's art. Without wishing to entirely discredit your thoughtfully composed guidelines, I feel it would be beneficial to draw your attention to a number of songs that would be perhaps too readily discounted by your process of judgment and evaluation.

Is there one distinct lyrical message?
How necessary is continuity of theme or narrative in any work of art? Granted, one abiding 'message' promotes ease of understanding, but is such accessibility consistently of benefit? Postmodernist scholars have declared that the era of the 'Grand Narrative' - the 'one distinct message', as you describe it - died with the emergence of Modernism at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the absence of a single, edifying statement, the artist, according to Lyotard, for example, must strive to present a series of fractured, or contingent, 'mini-narratives.' What, for example, is the 'one distinct lyrical message' of Bob Dylan's Visions of Johanna? There is an abundance of artfully crafted images, but they are hardly connected in a unified manner. On the contrary, the narrative progresses through a number of independent scenes, with little concession made to continuity. I contend, however, that the song is no less impressive by virtue of Dylan's frequent thematic digressions.

Is the title consistent with the lyrical message?
It does not have to be. A title is of less significance than many imagine. At its most basic level, it merely serves to facilitate the distinguishing of one composition from another in discussion. Obviously, a title that is wilfully incongruous with regard to the song itself is possibly not the wisest of choices, but to 'signpost' the meaning of your song in its title is to give too little credit to your audience's powers of comprehension. They will draw subjective meaning from the creation that they have been presented with; an overly explanatory title should not impinge upon that process.

Is the plot believable?
You presuppose that a 'plot' will inevitably feature in a song. Not all songs are ballads. For the purposes of this paragraph, however, I will accept your assertion that songs have a 'plot', or a central event that will be the subject of narration. To address your second assertion - that this plot should be 'believable' - I would ask you to consider the work of Leonard Cohen. Specifically, Last Year's Man deals with the detachment of a forlorn, lethargic and fatalistic narrator from 'normal' society. To emphasise this point, Cohen utilises a plot that dispenses with the constraints of chronology and is consequently impossible. The narrator, for example, numbers himself amongst the army of Joan of Arc, before declaring that he attended the wedding of Babylon and Bethlehem. Clearly, these events are not believable, but they still serve a purpose; they continually underline a growing sense of pathos, and allow Cohen's character to articulate his development to the listener. The impossible, then, can not be dismissed. If a songwriter limits himself to the probable, or even to the possible, the potential for dramatic emphasis is considerably lessened.


John, I am merely voicing some subjective observations. I applaud your effort; it is immediately apparent that you have a definite understanding of what it is that you expect from a song. Furthermore, anything that forces writers to examine their own work in more detail is obviously a good thing. Your article also prompted discussion in this forum, which is, again, a good thing. Many thanks for sharing your views; they made for some very interesting reading. You should drop by this place more often.

Best wishes for the future,
32-20.

Hey

Thanks for your time and feedback Feel free to voice away. I welcome the chance to discuss the article and offered opinions.

Just picking up on your point (not being nippy honest!), before the bulleted ones...

Can I listen to a melody, and comment on it's catchiness, or the consistency of scale, rhythm, pitch etc when judged in isolation? Of course. Contextually that view can change (chords in the wrong key etc), but as long as I know that it's ok. Can I listen to a chord progression intended for blues and say whether the progression is appropriate, or the progression is itself catchy? Of course. Rhythm? Sure. Does a song work with other songs on an album? Yes/no? Does "no" mean that it is a poor song? Does that opinion negate comments that people like the song?

So why not lyrics? After all I am aware (as a writer) that there are differences between poems and lyrics, and that there are contextual elements that are not part of a review. Context will change what works in combination.

In terms of commenting on preparatory sketches, I guess it depends on the level of the sketches, and their purpose. Artists perform detailed focus paintings as well as pencil sketches. They also do composition studies and paintings intended at trying new techniques. Do they get feedback? A working artist, depends entirely on the artist. In school, yes.

On the common questions, as I mention in the article they are intended as a starting set of questions for you, the writer/critique to add/remove/develop. The keyword in the article is "example". They are intended to prompt perspective, and to give the critiquer a framework of common ideas/concepts. Do they apply to all circumstances? No. Once I get the idea can I have a broader set of questions that apply to more circumstances? Of course.

lyrical message - Ok, in this you are confusing theme/plot with message. As I mentioned above, you can add/remove/adapt questions to the need, and the response you are looking for. You can of course weight the importance of the question, and indeed the appropriate answer.

"plot" is common songwriting parlance for vehicle. It can be a story, situation, feeling, imagery or theme of any kind etc. Basically it looks at how the lyric develops through the song. If the track is a rave track for example there may only be 4 lines, but the message is "Do what makes you happy", the plot could be as simple as "Dancing", and the lines "Do I want to dance? It makes me happy. I want to be happy. I'm gonna dance". Crap rave track, but hey, it was a thin one word plot!

The example you give also assumes that just because an artist put a song out, it was his best work. Cohen did write some crap songs. But seriously, every artist has songs with differing success that you can differentiate on more than just the marketing campaign and promotional budget. The rolling stones did something similar in "sympathy for the devil", with a tad more success, in part because the plot was the devil and his lifetime. Is it believable that Mick Jagger is the devil? No (although questionable ) But we are willing to believe it in a fictional sense. Think of it this way, you can watch two films about space. Neither of which is feasible at the moment, yet I can find one "believable", and the other not. Why? Because I identify with the characters in one and not the other. Because the dialog in one is believable, the other not. etc etc.

All I can do is provide food for thought. I cannot foresee every circumstance that every reviewer or every writer will encounter. Interpretation, adaptation and application lie entirely in reviewer/writer's court.

Maybe the difference is (speculating) that this has been read like a set of rules, or set steps that I the writer have defined. What was intended was something that laid out the benefits of lyric critique to the reviewer, using a formal approach to critique and I tried to provide an example framework. I will re-read my article to see if I can make this more obvious, and with a view to having something that reflects your concerns about the need for isolated lyric critique though the article is really focused on the benefit to the songwriter doing the review, not the one that wrote the song.

Thanks again for your time and comments.

btw. Am I missing something? Who is good friend? Did they post a reply I can't see?

Cheers

John

 

[famous beagle]

Yeah what happened to Good Friend's posts? I've seen two of them quoted here, but I can't find the actual posts.

John, Good Friend is another member here. He and I got into a bit spat on another thread regarding "rules" of songwriting and music theory. Basically, I'm kind of the mind that there aren't really any "rules" (I do know music theory, by the way), and that there's really no such thing as "good" or "bad" when it comes to songwriting. It's to subjective. He's of the mind that there are very specific traits that all "good" songs have (which he knows by the way but he's still self-admittedly an "average writer," so go figure that one out).

Anyway, he's publicly bashed my songs on here, yet he hasn't posted any of his for review. If you care to hear any of my songs, be my guest:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=328768

I'm sincerely not trying to hijack your thread here or anything. I just noticed that you had asked about Good Friend, and since he and I have a history, I thought I'd fill you in.

 

[32-20-Blues]

Hey

Thanks for your time and feedback Feel free to voice away. I welcome the chance to discuss the article and offered opinions.

Just picking up on your point (not being nippy honest!), before the bulleted ones...

Can I listen to a melody, and comment on it's catchiness, or the consistency of scale, rhythm, pitch etc when judged in isolation? Of course. Contextually that view can change (chords in the wrong key etc), but as long as I know that it's ok. Can I listen to a chord progression intended for blues and say whether the progression is appropriate, or the progression is itself catchy? Of course. Rhythm? Sure. Does a song work with other songs on an album? Yes/no? Does "no" mean that it is a poor song? Does that opinion negate comments that people like the song?

So why not lyrics? After all I am aware (as a writer) that there are differences between poems and lyrics, and that there are contextual elements that are not part of a review. Context will change what works in combination.

In terms of commenting on preparatory sketches, I guess it depends on the level of the sketches, and their purpose. Artists perform detailed focus paintings as well as pencil sketches. They also do composition studies and paintings intended at trying new techniques. Do they get feedback? A working artist, depends entirely on the artist. In school, yes.

On the common questions, as I mention in the article they are intended as a starting set of questions for you, the writer/critique to add/remove/develop. The keyword in the article is "example". They are intended to prompt perspective, and to give the critiquer a framework of common ideas/concepts. Do they apply to all circumstances? No. Once I get the idea can I have a broader set of questions that apply to more circumstances? Of course.

lyrical message - Ok, in this you are confusing theme/plot with message. As I mentioned above, you can add/remove/adapt questions to the need, and the response you are looking for. You can of course weight the importance of the question, and indeed the appropriate answer.

"plot" is common songwriting parlance for vehicle. It can be a story, situation, feeling, imagery or theme of any kind etc. Basically it looks at how the lyric develops through the song. If the track is a rave track for example there may only be 4 lines, but the message is "Do what makes you happy", the plot could be as simple as "Dancing", and the lines "Do I want to dance? It makes me happy. I want to be happy. I'm gonna dance". Crap rave track, but hey, it was a thin one word plot!

The example you give also assumes that just because an artist put a song out, it was his best work. Cohen did write some crap songs. But seriously, every artist has songs with differing success that you can differentiate on more than just the marketing campaign and promotional budget. The rolling stones did something similar in "sympathy for the devil", with a tad more success, in part because the plot was the devil and his lifetime. Is it believable that Mick Jagger is the devil? No (although questionable ) But we are willing to believe it in a fictional sense. Think of it this way, you can watch two films about space. Neither of which is feasible at the moment, yet I can find one "believable", and the other not. Why? Because I identify with the characters in one and not the other. Because the dialog in one is believable, the other not. etc etc.

All I can do is provide food for thought. I cannot foresee every circumstance that every reviewer or every writer will encounter. Interpretation, adaptation and application lie entirely in reviewer/writer's court.

Maybe the difference is (speculating) that this has been read like a set of rules, or set steps that I the writer have defined. What was intended was something that laid out the benefits of lyric critique to the reviewer, using a formal approach to critique and I tried to provide an example framework. I will re-read my article to see if I can make this more obvious, and with a view to having something that reflects your concerns about the need for isolated lyric critique though the article is really focused on the benefit to the songwriter doing the review, not the one that wrote the song.

Thanks again for your time and comments.

btw. Am I missing something? Who is good friend? Did they post a reply I can't see?

Cheers

John

Many thanks for the detailed reply, John.

I accept, to an extent, your point regarding the fact that music alone can be critiqued, and thus so can lyrics. However, music alone is an established mode of cultural expression, in the sense that traditionally it has stood alone, unadorned, as it were, with regard to words. Simply, music, in and of itself, has been considered a form of art for years. Lyrics, on the other hand, depend for a large part of their meaning upon musical context. This relationship does not function in the same manner when reversed; music may not depend upon lyrics for meaning. However, I understand exactly where you're coming from. If you feel comfortable reviewing lyrics in isolation, and if you have that ability, well obviously feel free. Speaking personally, I have dismissed lyrics on the page as inane, only to change my mind upon hearing the song.

For my own benefit - can you clarify the distinction between lyrical message and theme for me?

 

[famous beagle]

Many thanks for the detailed reply, John.

I accept, to an extent, your point regarding the fact that music alone can be critiqued, and thus so can lyrics. However, music alone is an established mode of cultural expression, in the sense that traditionally it has stood alone, unadorned, as it were, with regard to words. Simply, music, in and of itself, has been considered a form of art for years. Lyrics, on the other hand, depend for a large part of their meaning upon musical context. This relationship does not function in the same manner when reversed; music may not depend upon lyrics for meaning. However, I understand exactly where you're coming from. If you feel comfortable reviewing lyrics in isolation, and if you have that ability, well obviously feel free. Speaking personally, I have dismissed lyrics on the page as inane, only to change my mind upon hearing the song.

For my own benefit - can you clarify the distinction between lyrical message and theme for me?

I often have the same experience with lyrics. There are many times where they seem lifeless and insipid on paper but when set to music, they come alive and say something perfectly.

 

[JohnMoxey]

Hey

I do agree with you both to an extent. Similarly I would extend that to versions of a song and performance. The individual take on a song can make it work, as can the emotional interprtation by the artist during a specific performance.

A spat? Not too bad I hope. My guess is that if GoodFriend bashed your songs then he and I are very different animals. I believe wholeheartedly in positive critique, and the benefit of discussion with my peers. Not arguments. I also don't believe in rules as such. Guidelines maybe, but I'm too fond of breaking rules myself .

The point in encouraging critiquers to draw up their own questions, or customizing my examples is really to allow for differences in perspective etc. but gaining the benefits of a formal approach.

My feeling about guidelines are that they adapt according to genre, at the very least. But as a songwriter I want to learn, understand what works and why. Just because a lyric can work within the musical context, does not mean that any lyric will work within that context, otherwise we could just sing "blah blah blah". There are reasons why some lyrics work better than others, and often the reasons are genre specific.

If I, as a songwriter, can anticipate what lyrics will work for a given genre, and why, then I as a critiquer can to some extent define what I expect from a lyric written for that genre. If it is written for a broader appeal, then I can also estimate what I would expect from a broader appealing lyric.

For example: I write a song about sunshine, happiness, flowers and sportscars with a happy bouncy AABB full rhyme. Is this more or less likely (not absolute) to be appropriate for a goth song? Note the "More or less likely". We are not dealing in absolutes, but there are certain subject matters, emotions and other stuff that define goth music and lyrics and make it different from a summer hit pop song. I am completely at leave to ignore, or mix the defining characteristics I use in my lyric and song, but they may affect the audience the song will appeal to.

The thing is, if I somehow know this on some level, can I define it? If I can define it, can I use this knowledge to help make my own songs, in my own style, better. More successful. More appealing, or simply better at communicating what I as the writer want to say?

I could fumble around and hope a song comes together, but lets face it we draw on huge amounts of informal understanding to avoid doing that and give some direction to our endeavours. I am less interested (personally) in writing to a formula, or believing that there is a set "right way", but in accepting that some titles are good, some are not so good. Some work with or help the lyric, some don't. Some lyrics say a lot about nothing, others say something meaningful and stay with me for my life. Knowing all that, what makes the difference? By looking at the bits that make the difference can I learn what the difference is and use that to improve my work?

Critique helps me to do that (from my perspective). It allows me to learn, even when I am not looking at my own work. It also allows me to offer a more informed (than I was before) opinion, that may help them progress their lyric writing. It is only one perspective, and critique is at it's best when it is a positive discussion, not just a set of comments.

I have to say I'm enjoying discussing this

Message and theme:

Message and theme can be directly related or not. The message is often conveyed in the chorus and reflected in the title, and normally the main hook.

For example

Lucky - Radiohead
Message: I am hopeful that our love will change my life for the better
Vehicle: Allegory. Imagery of disasters/bad things in the past tense, happiness in the present, brilliance in the future. Imagery supports an emotional theme and assosciated to "I" the singer and "you" (specific person - Sarah). Importance of what we do now is emphasised.

Love Me Do - The Beatles
Message - I want you to love me
Vehicle - Direct conversation between the singer and the person he wants to love him.

Doe this help? It's a big subject to demonstrate effectively in apost and the examples are off the top of my head.

Cheers

John

 

[LI_Slim]

I also agree that this discussion of the process of lyric criticism could be very helpful -- especially to critics!

There's no reason why lyrics qua lyrics cannot or should not be critiqued, although it is also true that one might have a different response to same lyrics when they are performed in music. And no matter what people tell me when they read my lyrics standing alone, for me the true test is how people respond over time to the lyrics when the song is performed.

I think that people tend to disregard lyric writing as an art form, since the quality of the lyrics is so often irrelevant to the commercial success of the song.

 

[32-20-Blues]

For example

Lucky - Radiohead
Message: I am hopeful that our love will change my life for the better
Vehicle: Allegory. Imagery of disasters/bad things in the past tense, happiness in the present, brilliance in the future. Imagery supports an emotional theme and assosciated to "I" the singer and "you" (specific person - Sarah). Importance of what we do now is emphasised.

Love Me Do - The Beatles
Message - I want you to love me
Vehicle - Direct conversation between the singer and the person he wants to love him.

Doe this help? It's a big subject to demonstrate effectively in apost and the examples are off the top of my head.

Cheers

John

Very helpful, John, thanks for the clarification; vehicle is a useful term for thinking about song. 'Message', then, also corresponds somewhat to 'theme', then, but not to plot, right?

Don't worry about GoodFriend, he just has some strong ideas on songwriting (like all of us, I suppose ).

John, this has been a very interesting thread, thanks for instigating it.

 

[Good Friend]

i just

You know, i just hate famous beagle and thats all there is to it. The dude just sucks but he thinks hes great and those kinds of people are social cancer. But me, even if you hate me or the way i "critique" something, i would not say the advice that i do because its MY advice. My hope is that the things i say make a difference not because they are my opinion, but because they are facts. Which they are. Because everything i have ever said on music is rooted in biology, not theory of "taste" or what "should" be. I state what IS and thats why beagle fails as a musician and in debates about music. A good example of how he and i have argued would go like this;

ME: You know, lyrics are words. And words carry meaning like symbols in the human mind. When people hear certain words they universally cause emotions. No one derives the meaning "equally willing sexual act" from the word "rape". These are facts. When a human being hears a word it carries the strength of associations made since the beginning of their lives, and beginning of humans if you take into consideration that an individual does not create language on their own. Certain words have more power than others. "I" and "we" are strong etc. "The" or "is" are not as strong. These are biological facts and are human universals, so use them to your advantage when composing lyrics.

BEAGLE: You cant be smarter than me because i like Wilco.

Then i get all mad and people think im an asshole. But ive given solid advice that goes way beyond what "I" created. My advice is rooted in biological fact about human response to frequency and pulse (meter etc). It is not MY invention. Its the human brain.

When you come to songwriting help, do you want watered down advice, or do you want HELP to become better? Ask yourself honestly how much longer you are willing to wait to write things that impress others beyond taste and beyond genre. Beagle is almost 40 and STILL cannot write beyond teenage level. Dont let it happen to you.

 

[JohnMoxey]

Good Friend

I do not know you, but my first impression is of an angry person who doesn't care about meeting me, or discussing my topic. How would you like that welcome?

I've never read any of your critiques, and I do not know how you do them. I only said that I don't "bash" people. That's all. Not a comment on you.

I will not be put in the middle of an ongoing argument, and while I can understand you wanting to respond to comments made by others about you I feel you could have tried to respond to the topic. Most of your response is about another member, not the topic. I did not start this topic for it to be filled with angry words, and name calling. Neither are related to the subject.

To be taken seriously then discuss the subject, not the people. What has happened on another thread should stay there.

Please be resepectful while posting in my thread.

btt: and to discuss your point at the end of your post:

When it comes to songwriting advice I want advice I can use. When I advise someone I want them to consider my advice, not simply accept it or dismiss it. If I anger someone, what is achieved? They don't consider my advice. Is it better to be all or nothing, or to truly help the artist progress? It depends whether I offer advice to help, or to be right.

From experience, if someone gets angry over the advice I have offered it is often because it is uncomfortable to hear what you don't want to hear. Offering advice in a way that is sensitive to this is not diluting the advice, it is making sure it will be heard and not just listened to.

Being negative - "this is crap" - "I hate your song" - "Give up writing" - "I'm right, you're wrong" etc only serves to make the person who made the comment feel big and the writer feel small.

Neither am I overly attached to someone accepting advice. It is not my song. Simple as that. Different people have different aspirations, and taste may not be science, but if science so absolutely defined what was liked or not, would everyone not like exactly the same songs? Why would we crave variety, or even new songs? An interesting, but different, topic.

One thing nature teaches us about rules? We find a way to break them. Not so long ago Newtons theory was the absolute rule, then Einstein's, until that was superceded.

In terms of frequency and rhythmic interpretation by the brain it is of course acknowledged that the brain accepts certain bpm more readily due to the physical characterstics of the brain, and melodic phrases that fit into that bpm. Similar for frequency ranges. Out of interest, do you know how brain state affects rhythm and frequency response etc? For example mood, intoxication, wakefulness? The measurements used to identify those figures were all generated in laboratory conditions and science continues to evolve. Stock, Aitken and Watermen exploited these characteristics for about 5 years before a lot of people never wanted to hear their formulaic approach again! Catchy does not necessarily equal liked. That said they are all multimillionaires.

Maybe you could PM me as this is off topic and I don't want to distract from my original topic.

Cheers

John

 

[Whatmysay]

Good friend I admire your ‘reductionist’ approach to song written – like the great Socrates you believe there is a ‘golden’ formula for all human interaction. I also admired your adherence to ‘fact’ and your belief in it superiority over opinion.

Fact is a very interesting thing at the moment. With fMRI scientist have learnt more about the functioning of the ‘human brain’ in the last 2 years than in all previous years and are reversing many of their ideas about the way it works.

The shelf life of facts now days are very limited.

The time frame that any given fact will be correct in molecular biology is 18months; medicine 2 years and even engineering 5 years. The facts to be discredited obviously can not be identified, but people in these fields and many other work with this high level of insecurity and all understands the limitations of their ‘facts’ at any given time.

My concern with your approach is that you are dismiss opinion because it may be ‘subjective’ and unsupported by fact. How good are your facts? They may just be as subjective and as selective as the opinions you of which you are so critical. Are you widely read on the subject? Have read contradictory research and compared the data to draw your own conclusions? Are the studies you’ve read, while making statements about brain functioning, appropriate to the area of song composition? Is, as I warned above, your data current and still correct?

It is vital to the progress of our song writing that we use all sources of information to improve our work, but it is ridicules to claim superiority simply because you state fact or that the truth exist beyond you, so even if I do not like you your criticism still prevails. The same argument was used by the Nazi when they believe their action were justified by the universal truth that ‘the Aryan race was superior’.

You also seem to contradict your self at one level your mention ‘universals’ (platonic view point) talking about brain function, yet talk about how the word ‘rape’ carries different value to all listeners (constructivist view). The debate between these two views is extremely interesting both in science and philosophy – but I think they tend to be mutually exclusive? Which would you subscribe to as it is unclear?

Great writers on cognitive development offering conflicting of stand points, all supported by research are Daniel C Dennet, Steve Pinker and Steven Mithen. Noam Chomsky’s seminal work on Universal grammar is always a great starting point as is Levi Strauss’, Barthes and Baudrillard on semiotics.

Come on Good Friend get reading and get off your ‘high horse’ – you are probably well versed in certain areas of knowledge, but to use ‘facts’ as some sort of final say is immature and dangerously ‘right-wing’. Facts are as limited as opinion. A fact I know to be true is that some of my opinions will remain the same longer than certain facts may be determined to be correct.

Sorry to high jack your thread John – but you have presented your points in your paper and discussed them here (along with others), with the integrity of someone who understand the power of collaboration and discourse.

‘The trouble with democracy is that it has to entertain opinions that may well destroy it, but not to entertain those opinions will destroy democracy quicker’ Winston Churchill – and I totally agree.