I never claimed either part of the song was more important than the other, you did. I said that I value lyrics more than I value vocals, but that doesn't mean I think the vocals are any less important. I just appreciate lyricism more.
The lyrics are just as much a part of the song as the bassline or the vocals, whether they are "music" on their own or not.
No they are not, you are incorrect and adding "whether they are music or not" doesn't make it any more true.
Stand every lyricist in rock on a stage and have them sing the lyrics. The only reason it will be remotely good is because of their voices. If they sat there and read them, it wouldn't.
Then take the bands and have them play the songs without the vocalist. Sure, it will lose SOMETHING but it's not because of no lyrics, it's because of no vocals. It will still be stronger. Hence why instrumentals can make whole albums and speaking cannot.
The lyrics are not as much a part of a MUSICAL ARRANGEMENT as the MUSIC itself, I appreciate you thinking so. They're not. Go to Tool's site and read the lyrics, I'm sure it will have the same effect as the album.
I think Afro Cheese thinks of lyrics the way he does because he comes from a hip hop background. Correct me if I'm wrong. In hip hop, lyrics are MORE important than production, so a hip hop head would probably think it reasonable that rock lyrics are just as much part of the song as instrumentals. Maybe it is wrong to apply that to rock music, but this is one of those things that actually is a matter of opinion...
I was aware of his orientation with Hip Hop and took that into consideration. If he prefers lyrics to music, whilst that's a bit odd, it's fine.
Lyrics are not as important as music, it's just simple. They're lyrics, not music. Music is music, hence why the music comes first, even to lyricists. In addition, as we're discussing Tool, Maynard himself (lyricist/vocalist) says that music always come first over lyrics.
I get what you're saying.. the lyrics aren't a vital part of the musical structure or arrangement, that's correct. So looking at this from a completely technical stand, dealing only with how the song is set up, the lyrics mean absolutely nothing. Maynard could be singing "you can find me in the club, bottle full of bub.." and the music would still be the same technically.
But I was never arguing in a technical sense, cause I don't listen to music for the musical structure or arrangement, I listen to music that I think sounds good, and to lyrics that make me think or just lyrics that I find clever in some way. I was looking at it from an artistic view, not just trying to follow the guidelines of music theory 101. I happen to like Tool's instrumentals a lot more than I like Maynard's lyrics, I just don't think it's fair to say the lyrics are a lesser part of the song. Cause the cold hard reality is, a lot of people don't listen to the song just for it's arrangement, they want some words to chew on as well.
If you're only talking about the technical aspects of the song, then you're absolutely right, sorry for wasting your time. I was under the impression that we were talking about the band's actual song, the thing you put in your headphones and sit down to listen to, not just the musical structure and arrangement.
No Kool, I don't. Hip Hop MCs are judged on how well they write lyrics and perform them, not on what they play. So no, not all genres.
Exactly.
People wanting clever words and Tool having extremely complex lyrics doesn't suddenly make the lyrics as important. It's words Vs music. Music will always win. Lyrics are the lesser part of the song, that's not me demeaning the value of the words, it's me not demeaning the value of the music. Maynard, in my opinion, is the greatest lyricist of all time. Tool (as a whole) created some of the most innovative, powerful and genius music of all time, hence why they're regarded in many ways to be the best band there is. Point being, what Tool do with music and what Maynard does with lyrics are unlike anyone else. However, there are more people that could contend with Maynard's lyrics than there are musicians who could contend with Adam, Danny and Justin's music, or Maynard's vocals. Because it's the music that put Tool above others.
Prime example: I've met a lot of these kinda "Maynard is a god" Tool fans and they're stupid. When I've tried discussing Tool songs with them, they can't. Because they don't get the lyrics, but they go nuts with praise for the music. That's what matters, the music. Lyrics are just a great bonus if they're awesome. They're not equal to music. It's like listening to Danny Carey's drum solos and then reading Maynard's words and saying "Yeah that ink is as important as that transcendtal solo you just pulled off."
Words are never ever gonna be as important as the music, to say they are is demeaning to the music. Especially Tool.
For some bands lyrics are more important than, or at least equally important as, the music itself. This may not apply to Tool, but a lot of bands basically jsut use music as a way to support the lyrics/singing.
and my opinion still stands that I personally like Tools lyrics as much as the music. They are one of the few bands who actually make you think a lot while listening to them, which is a good change of pace from the more in-your-face music I normally listen to.
I hope you're not suggesting that music is just a way for singers to get their lyrics across. Bands don't form off the back of "Man, lets let this guy sing his words."
Singing isn't lyrics, lets not connect the two. I'm curious as to who these bands are though (bands that use music to push lyrics, not bands with really good lyrics.) So if you'd care to indulge me...?
That's fine, you can put emphasis on whatever you want. You can like the lyrics equally all you like.
I'm just putting forth the notion that they aren't as important as the music, not saying you can't LIKE them as much.
I've basically said everything I have to say about this.. I don't want a big argument and I don't feel like repeating what I've already said only using more words. Usually we'd just continue and write a couple essays back and forth until the desire to argue gradually fades away, but I feel like skipping that process today.
We could always agree it's a "difference of opinion" and call it quits, but I guess that's a long shot isn't it?
As far as the bands that use music to support the lead singer, I was thinking mainly of some punk rock and pop punk. A lot of times a punk song will jsut be a lead singer with power chords in the background.
Afro, I'm not trying to escalate this into a war. You know I have no problem with you at all. Just don't see why I should agree that it's a difference of opinion for the sake of it.
Well you don't have to agree it's opinion if you don't want.. I mean we already disagree on what seems like almost everything we discuss, so what's one more disagreement thrown onto the pile?
Liking the lyrics as much as the music does not equate to them being as important, they aren't.
Ink on paper isn't as evocative, powerful or important as Danny Carey pulling off a drum solo, Adam Jones playing a guitar riff, Justin Chancellor playing a bassline or Maynard's voice singing.
The Grudge scream for example, it's a sound. No words that Maynard has ever written, will ever be equal to how emotional that moment is. To deny this is ignorance.
"Importance" is relative, especially in artforms such as music and film. What one person finds to be most important in a piece of work may not be important at all too the next. Some may find that the music itself is most importance, others may find that the vocals are most important, and some may find the actual lyrics to be most important, there is no right or wrong in this case, it's a matter of opinion.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 22nd, 2005 04:30 PM
