Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A part that is written entirely aside from the music and later added.Not part of the songwriting process.
-AC
Yes. Though not always I assume.
No, part of the songwriting process. It is part of the song, it is even the major part that is usually referred to by saying "songwriting".
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Lyrics and vocals are entirely different, what are you on about?The two can exist without each other. You write words on a page, they can be lyrics, you use your voice as extra instrumentation and it can be music. You put the two together and they work well, but they are not one and the same thing.
Such an idiotic point to follow up with, too. "They'd sound different regardless of the vocals.". Would they? How would they sound with nobody to say them? They wouldn't sound...any way would they? Why? Because they are just words, not music, not sonic presentation...words.
They become useful with a voice to say them, the voice doesn't become useful with lyrics, it can be used anyway.
A) Bright Eyes are shit.
B) So what? Them putting more priority on lyrical preference doesn't mean it's a part of the songwriting process, and you prove that yourself. "They write the lyrics first...AND THEN write the song (Separate) around them.".
They are totally different.
-AC
when you read a word, do you not hear it in your head? isn't that a word sounding without vocals? regardless, in the field of music, lyrics and vocals are inseperable. what would vocals be without lyrics? a sort of humming? lyrics wouldn't even exist in the music world were it not for the way they're eventually sung.
Originally posted by manorastroman
when you read a word, do you not hear it in your head? isn't that a word sounding without vocals? regardless, in the field of music, lyrics and vocals are inseperable. what would vocals be without lyrics? a sort of humming?
Fantomas have no lyrics, but they do have vocals.
Originally posted by manorastroman
lyrics wouldn't even exist in the music world were it not for the way they're eventually sung.
I don't think that really aids your point. Many vocalists just sing the vocal melody they have written, with no nod at all to the correct pronunciation of many words.
Originally posted by manorastroman
when you read a word, do you not hear it in your head? isn't that a word sounding without vocals? regardless, in the field of music, lyrics and vocals are inseperable. what would vocals be without lyrics? a sort of humming? lyrics wouldn't even exist in the music world were it not for the way they're eventually sung.
No, it's not a word sounding without vocals. It produces no sound.
I'd have imagined you knew that, I'm shocked you didn't.
What would vocals be without lyrics? Do you even know about music? Notes and melodies are not words, that's what music is, that's how people in music determine HOW those words will be vocalised, but writing a melody line or a melody structure that is void of any words, but can still be produced by the voice alone.
I suggest you start doing a little more research. Vocals are entirely separate from lyrics, that's a fact.
Precisely, lyrics wouldn't exist in music without a voice to say them, vocals could and would still exist.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it's not a word sounding without vocals. It produces no sound.I'd have imagined you knew that, I'm shocked you didn't.
-AC
shockingly scientific, and another example of willful misunderstanding. what do you call it when you hear a word in your head? it has "sound", even if it doesn't have sound waves.
fantomas is in the experimental minority of those who use vocals as melodic instruments. generally speaking, vocals/lyrics, though not the same thing, are inseperable.
and how does the fact that lyrics depend on vocals imply that lyrics aren't a part of songs?
Originally posted by manorastroman
fantomas is in the experimental minority of those who use vocals as melodic instruments. generally speaking, vocals/lyrics, though not the same thing, are inseperable.
The problem is, an exception proves it to be just that, a generalisation.
To say they are inseparable is also excessive, since as I mentioned, the lyrics are often squeezed into the vocal melody.
Additionally, songs are covered with different lyrics in place. If they were 'inseparable', the vocals would be fundamentally changed, though it's obvious that they are not.
Originally posted by manorastroman
shockingly scientific, and another example of willful misunderstanding. what do you call it when you hear a word in your head? it has "sound", even if it doesn't have sound waves.
I love the way you did what you claim I do; Picked parts that you could reply to.
The rest just decimates your argument too much. It doesn't have a sound, no audible manifestation, therefore it is not a sound. Simple science. You imagining that it has one because you KNOW it does if you say it, and imagining what the sound is when it's been said previously, is what makes it feel like a sound. It's not a sound, though. Fact.
Originally posted by manorastroman
fantomas is in the experimental minority of those who use vocals as melodic instruments. generally speaking, vocals/lyrics, though not the same thing, are inseperable.
Just because they are a minority that use vocals as instruments with no lyrics, it doesn't mean that is somehow a radical alternative. It's just uncommon. It does, in fact, prove that lyrics and vocals are able to be separated, just that a lot of people choose not to.
Originally posted by manorastroman
and how does the fact that lyrics depend on vocals imply that lyrics aren't a part of songs?
Because vocals are more often than not, written first, as priority, as a NEED, as music.
Lyrics are written independently and ADDED to the song. An overall part they may be, but they are not part of the songwriting process. They become part of a final product.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I love the way you did what you claim I do; Picked parts that you could reply to.The rest just decimates your argument too much. It doesn't have a sound, no audible manifestation, therefore it is not a sound. Simple science. You imagining that it has one because you KNOW it does if you say it, and imagining what the sound is when it's been said previously, is what makes it feel like a sound. It's not a sound, though. Fact.
that's why i put sound in quotation marks.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just because they are a minority that use vocals as instruments with no lyrics, it doesn't mean that is somehow a radical alternative. It's just uncommon. It does, in fact, prove that lyrics and vocals are able to be separated, just that a lot of people choose not to.
people such as bob dylan, the subject of my original statement.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because vocals are more often than not, written first, as priority, as a NEED, as music.
how can vocals be "written"? i'm not sure what you mean here.
Originally posted by manorastroman
that's why i put sound in quotation marks.
Why not just not say it?
Originally posted by manorastroman
people such as bob dylan, the subject of my original statement.
No, you misunderstand the point. He uses the two together, they are still different things, just being used together with more of a focus on one than the other. It doesn't change the factual value of either.
Originally posted by manorastroman
how can vocals be "written"? i'm not sure what you mean here.
Musical notes. They're not music either, they're just written representatives.
My point being, anything becomes music when it becomes a sound and only a sound. Therefore, lyrics or written, textual representations of music are not MUSIC.
The difference is that music existed first.
-AC
Wow, what a tussle!
I'm really confused how "fans of music" are making the claims they are about an uber-artist like Dylan...
What more could one want in an artist than what Dylan brings to the table? The fact that 30 albums down the road he's releasing stuff like "Love and Theft" is incredible.
...and sorry to get into this again...but if there was as good an example as any of someone who I'd say doesn't make crap music...it's Dylan. His lyrics are solid, his music is solid...he makes solid albums and has solid live shows. What more can an artist offer than that consistency of quality?
And so what if his music doesn't do it for you...you gotta respect the accomplishments I think.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriJust wondering what you think about the opera (might have been a concerto...) that Mozart wrote without evefr playing?
My point being, anything becomes music when it becomes a sound and only a sound. Therefore, lyrics or written, textual representations of music are not MUSIC.The difference is that music existed first.