Well no it's not, because as you said, we're defining by art.
This artform is music. Not literature, not spoken word, not poetry.
Words are merely a guest in this artform. Music is the host.
It's called music for a reason. If you buy a story on tape, the story is more important because the medium is spoken word. The artform isn't about music.
Music, for those slow on the uptake, is about music. Words are an addition, factually. They are not the primary.
In some music, words are the primary form of experssion and art. Many people like the music because of the lyrics, they enjoy listening and deciphering the meaning of the words. Much of the time, the words spoken paint a very strong visual image that goes with the sound of the music. I don't think tool would be nearly as intriguing or fun to listen to if it were just music without any speech or lyrics to paint a picture to go with the song.
There's some music that is purely vocal and there is no instruments, and it works because of two things. 1. A good voice. 2. lyrics that people are interested in and intrigued by.
It's perfectly logical to some. Words make the mind think, they form images in our mind, and these images can greatly enhance the music and push it's staying power by a huge amount. I'm not saying that a shitty song is going to be good purely because of the words used, but I'd also say that a shitty song wouldn't be made good with simply good music, if the words were really really dumb.
Granted, to me music is more important, I agree with you about that, but this doesn't change the fact that it's merely an opinion. If someones says they enjoy listening to a certain band because of the lyrics, I'm not about to falsely claim that they're factually wrong.
Keep in mind, a fact is undeniable, provable and absolute. This is not a fact, since I'm able to debate it with any form validity whatsoever. I don't really understand why you're claiming that it is.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Sep 23rd, 2005 at 05:04 AM
So music with no instruments just a voice, and the number one reason for it being good is the voice? Proven point. Thanks.
Many things that aren't logical are logical to some. Doesn't make it logical though.
I don't agree with how much you are saying the lyrics enhance a song but you're still only proving that lyrics add. Which was always my point. Not sure what you're getting at.
How many times have I said before that liking the lyrics as much, isn't wrong? Many. My POINT is that the lyrics, liking them as much or not, aren't EQUALLY as important as the music.
You are continually missing so many points I've made, then missing my original one and going on a tangent that agrees with me anyway.
You don't understand why because as shown above, you didn't understand my point. You obviously skipped all of the posts I wrote in which I said to Red "If you like the lyrics as much or more, that is fine. Nothing wrong, but to claim they are as important as the music is ignorant. Because they are not." And he agreed.
Don't dispute a point that you think I'm making, it doesn't work like that. We're not making different points. You claim lyrics enhance or add, right? Whilst we don't agree on the degree to which they add, we agree they add. What are you trying to disprove?
My point is that lyrics aren't equal to music, I've proven why. So have you.
My numbering of these two attributes wasn't meant to equate to 1 = most important and 2 following in importance. I simply meant that there are two reasons why this type of music works, some may think that it's primarily because of the good voice, while some may think that it's because of the lyrics.
What I'm getting at is simply that the words spoken can and do have a greater impact on some people then the music, and they can see them as more/equally important then the music, and can enhance a song to some people just as much as the music, and that this is all opinion. Simple as that.
Again, this is your opinion. If it's fact can you prove it too me to an absolute degree? You saying it's fact doesn't make it so, which, ironically is what you were pointing out to RG last night/today in your discussion with her. You're more or less doing the same thing, stating your opinion on a subject as a hardcore undeniable, provable fact.
I have missed none of your points. You're claiming that the lyrics are factually, undenyably, not as important as the music. Is this not your point? This is what I've been disagreeing with. No?
I read your posts.
I'm trying to disprove your incorrect use of the word "fact" and "prove", and also the idea that this somehow isn't an opinion.
Again, you haven't proven anything. You know why? Because something like this can't be proven to an absolute degree either way, you have not proven it. You've given evidence and reasoning as to why you feel this way, but that does not prove it to be factual. Someone could still think that the lyrics is just as important to a song as the actual music, that would be their opinion.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Sep 23rd, 2005 at 05:42 AM
Ok, so let's take that notion. The man is a shit singer, the words are awesome. How does that work out? As good as an excellent singer singing them? I don't think so.
They can see what they want, believe what they want. Doesn't make it true, because people who believe the words are more important than the music are wrong. Because they are an accompaniment, which by definition means they aren't as important.
She was saying ghosts are real, fact, but I can't prove it. I'm saying the lyrics aren't as important, fact and gave many examples to you. The singer analogy up top, quotes from actual musicians (including the ones we're discussing), the attributes of the two areas. Lyrics accompany music, in music. Hence why it's music. People are free to enjoy the lyrics more, sure. They are entitled to believe the lyrics are equally important or more so, just like people are entitled to believe Britney is talented. The fact that she isn't is plain.
You said that I can't claim somebody is wrong if they LIKE the lyrics more. So you did actually miss the point where I said "No, they're not wrong for liking them more." Simple really. You were debating against me for a point I agreed with.
Once again, you are missing my point. Someone COULD believe that and they would be well within their right to. That's their opinion, but opinion can be wrong, as we've already proven in other threads.
I've proven what I am saying. "Lyrics are equal", "No they're not", "Why not?" *Insert every single scenario, quote, theory and analogy that I've posted, even your own*.
You obviously are of the belief (gained from parts unknown) that I am denying people the right to believe things. I'm not, but belief is that, belief. I don't BELIEVE the music is more important than the lyrics, it actually is. For reasons already stated.
Like I said above. One singer on stage, EXCELLENT lyrics that everyone loves. Right? Ashlee Simpson sings them, then Gavin Hayes of Dredg sings them.
Same words, same meaning. Same quality of performance? No. Why? Because Gavin is an amazing singer. Singing = sound. Sound = audio. Audio = Not visual. Hence why words on a page, no matter how powerful, will never be equal to the music.
By your rationale, the performance of Gavin and Ashlee would be the same. "No they wouldn't" I hear you say. Well why? If you are trying to claim to me that saying lyrics aren't as important ISN'T fact, then by doing so you are automatically claiming that someone who says Ashlee's performance was as good as Gavin's, purely due to the words read, would be right. When we both know, she would be wrong. Gavin's performance would be better, the lyrics would be better. Why? Because the man using them is an incredible singer. A horrid singer has the ability to make lyrics pointless, regardless of how potent the words are.
Thereby proving that lyrics are an addition to the music.
Of course not, but to some people the words spoken may be more important then the quality of the singers voice. I wouldn't agree with them, but I wouldn't claim them to be factually wrong, especially since taste is subjective.
You're right, it doesn't make it true, it makes it their opinion, never said otherwise. I've been saying this whole time that this whole thing was a matter of opinion. Yeah?
Keep in mind, RG gave some evidence to back up her claims, photos and what not. While these obviously don't prove her claims, and to use they're pretty weak, they're something, they could be seen as evidence by some. Just as all of the things you mentioned above are evidence to back up your reasoning, all of which are valid, however, they don't PROVE your point to be a FACT, which is the only thing that I've been disagreeing with this whole time.
They wouldn't be the same, obviously. They'd be obviously different in presentation and would appeal to different audiences, but again, this would be a matter of opinion. I'm sure some people would like Ashlee Simpsons version more, I wouldn't claim them to be factually incorrect, I'd simply disagree, while recognizing it as merely a difference in opinion.
You must keep in mind, taste is subjective. People listen to music for different reasons, and it's all a matter of opinion.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Sep 23rd, 2005 at 06:41 AM
Well if you're going to hear a singer, that's your aim, to hear a singer, obviously his voice is going to matter. If you want to hear words read, you go to a reading. You are equating two things that aren't connected. You don't go to hear a shit singer if you know he's shit. Lets say you loved...I don't know, the lyrics to a Dredg song, right? Well lets suppose they aren't Dredg lyrics, just random lyrics, right? It's advertised that those words will be sung by Britney Spears, or Jeff Buckley. You go to which one? The second, don't you? Why? Because he's the better singer (sound). If the words were equally important, it wouldn't actually matter which one. They'd both be as effective.
No, because what I'm saying isn't just my opinion.
By definition, what I am saying is true. You can deny it all you like, but the examples I gave happen to be based on truth and provable nature. Which I have done.
You are missing the point yet again. They can like whatever version they want, but if they are there for the words and they've never heard Gavin or Ashlee (who can't sing live, Gavin can) what one will they like better? You can go on and say "Don't know, matter of opinion" but we both know that if you have no prior knowledge of both, you'd easily prefer Gavin because he can actually sing. Like who would win in a fight between a man and a bear. You could sit there and be theoretical but the answer is clearly the bear. Just as in this case, the answer is Gavin's would be better. So to recap: If you go JUST for words, no prior knowledge of the singers, then by your rationale, they should like both. They would clearly like Gavin's more though wouldn't they? Because he's a singer.
So, if they like that performance better because of the sound, that would mean that, shock horror, the words (regardless of how powerful) rely on something else to make them better. To make them more than words.
So as I've said many times before, words are not as important as music, in music because it's music. Lyrics are an accompanying attribute, they are not equal. You can like them equally all you want, but the fact that they aren't equal is proven time and time again.
Hes saying its an opinion though...if 50000 people think the same way you do and 1 person thinks the opposite, that dont make that one person wrong. It's subjective. 10000 facts to back up an opinion dont change the "fact" that its still an opinion.
It does change it though doesn't it? Because if I'm proving what I believe with fact, be it situational or other, it means it's a fact. If I'm saying what I believe then not backing it up with undeniable evidence, it's an opinion. I've used that evidence. Situational.
You're the guy that believed at one point in time it was a fact that the Earth was flat. I don't think you have much say here.
To use your analogy, if 5000 people agree with me that if you jump off a skyscraper, you'll die...and one person is stupid enough to say "You won't." That isn't subjective, you will die.
lol I never said the earth was flat... I said they believed it was a Fact.
And your right. It isnt an opinion. If I jump off I will be in serious jeapardy of dying (depending on how high up...doesnt take much though.). What does that have to do with lyrics or the singer being more important? It is subjective.
This analogy is flawed and invalid because it is biased towards your point of view and attempts to twist my point to favor yours. Obviously, if both singers are singing the same lyrics, and they're on such blatantly different levels vocally, then the person will like the better singer by default. This does not prove that the singers voice is factually more important then lyrics. That's like saying "well, if you took an episode of the simpsons and turned the animation into shit, made everyone poorly drawn stick figures or whatever, and showed it to someone, then showed them the same episode, but with the normal, higher quality animation, they'd obviously prefer it with the better animation, thus animation is the most important attribute of the simpsons." Obviously, this isn't the case. By creating an analogy that makes one attribute equal to both artists, and then obviously having one artist vastly superior at a different attribute, you're skewering the analogy by making an invalid comparison that is unfair and blatantly biased.
Let's say gavin and ashley switched lyrics. Gavin sang ashley's shitty lyrics with his great voice, and Ashley sang gavins superior lyrics in her shitty voice, different people would come to different conclusions as to who the better artist is, some would say gavin, and some would say ashley, this is because some people have different opinions as to what is more important in a song. And neither would be factually wrong.
Let me quote something you were saying to RG earlier - "What you need to understand (and I thought you did, because you agreed) is that no matter how strong you believe something, doesn't alter the fact that you only believe it. Doesn't make it true."
This is the case here too.
You keep saying that, but again, I've seen no valid, factual proof from you. I've seen evidence and reasoning, which is all well and good, but only backs up your opinion, it doesn't prove it as fact. Perhaps I've overlooked this proof, if this is the case, please point it out to me and I'll gladly take a look at it.
B) I realize it isn't always the case. Unless the two sides have differences in opinions. Neither side would be wrong, nor would they be right. Thats what an opinion is.
For Instance if 5000 people say Earthquakes are mainly caused by Plate Tectonics and one person says its when fat people fall down...obviously the 5000 are right. Thats a Fact though.
Now if 5000 people say red is better and 1 says Blue is, neither are right or wrong, because it is subjective. It's an opinion.
You can't prove to the individual person's taste which is more important....If they think Lyrics are the most important aspect ,then they aren't wrong. It's their opinion.
It was a drastic analogy but it proves my point well. If the lyrics are equally important to the music, it shouldn't actually matter who's singing it if the words are what you love.
That's not the case at all, because you flipped the roles of my analogy, but I'll use that analogy. Comedy is the main part of The Simpsons, the humour. The animation adds to it, correct? It's not the main part, right? If the characters were lumps of talking shit, but had the exact same comedy, it would still be funny. Not as funny, but funny. If you looked at The Simpsons animation on it's own, a picture of them just sitting there, you don't think "Hahaha look at what Homer could be saying, so funny." Because while the animation adds to it, it's not IT. Just like a song without lyrics will still be awesome. Maybe not as awesome, but awesome.
So which would be better, in that event? Gavin still right? Because he sounds better. Proof also being At the Drive-In. Very, very good band, horrible lyrics. If lyrics were as important, their shows would be shit. I'll use your analogy again.
If they switch lyrics, Gavin singing Ashlee's shit and Ashlee singing Gavin's material, which would a die hard lyrics fan enjoy more? Gavin's because it sounds better. Not even the most die hard lyrics fan is gonna listen to a 20 year old pop fool who has no talent, regardless of her lyrics. Let's bring THIS on though. Keep what you just said, but add a third choice, right? You hear Ashlee sing Gavin's words, you hear Gavin singing her words, you then have BOTH lyrics sheets to read. What is the better one? Gavin's performance? Yes, because lyrics on their own aren't as powerful as lyrics sung and great lyrics sung shit, mean shit. So again, lyrics are proven to be an accompanying attribute.
The fact that I believe it strongly isn't what's making it true though, therein lies the difference.
I keep showing you it and I keep getting the impression you are disagreeing for the broader sake of it. Like the guys in the comics forum in debates such as who would win, Wolverine or Hulk?
"Well if Wolverine did...." No. The answer is Hulk, clearly. Why? Because it just is, isn't it? You can theoretically come up with a way for Wolverine to win if you sit there and try so hard, but if they met, it'd last 5 minutes minimum. You can theoretically try to say "Well if the lyrics...etc" all you want. The answer will still be that in the medium of art, specifically music, the music is most important.
What if Gavin's lyrics were just these two words... John boy. in every song no matter what he sang the words JOHN BOY over and over. But he sounded great and the music sounded the same...would that make a difference?
Besides people have gotten by on great lyrics and not so good a voice before...or an unconventional singing voice that you either love or hate. i.e. Billy Corgan. My Girlfriend says his voice gets on her nerves the longer she hears it, but I like it. I love his lyrics though. Now others might hate his lyrics and like his voice. So its all a matter of opinion. Someone might like Ashlee simpson better than Gavin, its not impossible. Even though we all here think Ashlee sucks from what I see :P....
Edit: No their opinion wouldnt be wrong. Its just different.
I'd rather listen to him sing that than Ashlee Simpson because I listen to music for music, not for lyrics.
Yes but for someone to say Ashlee Simpson is a better singer than Gavin Hayes would be wrong, wouldn't they? Let's not bother with "But if they think..." no. They'd be wrong. We ALL know this, let us not deny it.
Secondly, Billy Corgan isn't always a great singer. He is quite a good lyricist but the reason he is a legend is because he is a pathetically talented musician. Not because he's a quite good lyricist. Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness isn't a legendary album because of words.
I wasnt arguing what brought Billy Success though A.C. =)
Also with Ashlee and Gavin, Obviously they sound different, and obviously to us Ashlee is crap. That doesn't mean someone can't like her better. Also I didnt say they would be right if they thought she had more talent and range etc, because that's measureable.
Someone wouldn't be wrong for enjoying Lyrics more then the Music. Hell everyone can like Lasagna for the noodles, but that dont mean I can't like it for the meat and cheese.
I'm starving btw...hence the food analogy lol.
__________________
Last edited by Pezmerga on Sep 23rd, 2005 at 08:16 AM
I don't care if anyone LIKES something better than something I like. That's fine. People can like Ashlee better all they want. I never disputed that. To claim she is better isn't actually true and they'd be wrong, as we agree.
Again, for the millionth time; Someone LIKING the lyrics more is fine with me.
Someone claiming they ARE more important, would be wrong. I've given evidence as to why they aren't more important and nobody has disproved it.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 23rd, 2005 04:22 AM
