wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/13/85)
I have been meaning to post something on this subject for a while, and just saw a news story on McNeil/Lehrer that inspires me to actually do so, and which provided more data on the subject. I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. True, there are some pop genres, like romantic ballads, where the words are the main raison d'etre for the songs. On these, I have no quarrel with the vocals, as long as they are well-sung. And on *some* rock, the lyrics ARE worthwhile, being clever, inventive, funny, and/or properly enunciated. On *most* rock, however, the vocals are: 1) sung by people who can't sing (often shouted, not even sung) 2) often not understandable, no matter who sings them, due to the mix 3) of little import or originality 4) often offensive to some people (see later) I don't listen much to rock any more; I never did to any great extent in any case, but I did for some years. I think I have determined that this is mainly due to disliking what I hear in the vocals, because I still enjoy listening to instrumental rock of various vintages. The referenced McNeil/Lehrer report was on a Washington women's group (including a senator's wife and a cabinet member's wife), who seem to have received much publicity over the past few months with a campaign to force record companies to tag albums with a rating system about sexually explicit lyrics, and to print such lyrics on the outside of record jackets for pre-buying review (I suppose by parents). This was countered by various interviews with recording-industry people (including a brief appearance by Frank Zappa) and with teenaged record buyers. These latter, most importantly, generally voiced the opinion that "no one listens to the lyrics, they just listen to the music". In effect, they endure the lyrics to get the benefit of the music. In this case, then, would not it be better for practically all concerned, except the few rock "singers" who do not play an instrument and who would be out of a job, for most rock to become intrumental music? What is gained by having lyrics anyway? The audience has stated they do not want words. Some parents or others object to the words that have been being used. The words do not add to, but actually detract from the sound. So let's drop the damn words and get back to pure music! OK, let's have the flames... Regards, Will Martin UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/13/85)
Just a quick add-on: I have just discovered that there has been some net.music discussion on the stickering/offensive lyrics topic (under the "Adult Record Stores" subject); sorry to imply that you-all never heard of it before. Nonetheless, that was peripherial to my basic anti-lyric, pro-music point (though a valid reason in the list), and I'd like to see discussion on that basic position. Regards, Will
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (09/15/85)
There is, however, a problem with this. At least since the 11th century,
religious-zealots-turned-music-critics have had a problem with certain
"riffs","chords","(musical *)phrasing" or whatever you want to call it.
The purpose of music then was supposedly to keep your mind firmly rooted in
the somber and depressing things that would happen to you if you stepped off
God's path. With the development of music as entertainment rather than a
tool for religious indoctrination, came the ancestors of jerks like Ms. Gore
of the PMCC.
I did not, BTW, see the Zappa-Gore-Osmond thing on TV last night, but
am informed that the PMCC's representative made a very poor showing for her
position.
Supposing that we all woke up tomorrow and 85% of the music on radio
was nonvocal, I am sure that these bagfarts like Ms. Gore would find something
prurient about the "beat" or "chords", and would go on to bitch and carp
about "undue gaiety" just like those jokers in the Middle Ages. I submit
that since the PMCC has had (most likely) less music training than even I
have had (which is very little) they certainly aren't qualified to make
judgements as to the musical meaning of music.
David Anthony
DataSpan, Incandrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (09/16/85)
In article <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > ... >I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be >better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. Yeah! Let's hear it for the Ventures! And Johnny and the Hurricanes! Duane Eddy! Lonnie Mack! The Chantays! Dick Dale and his Del-Tones! Link Wray! Bill Black's Combo! Sandy Nelson! Davie Allan and the Arrows! (Hey, I still have my Ventures model Mosrite... by any chance do you play sax?) >...On *most* rock, however, the vocals are: >1) sung by people who can't sing (often shouted, not even sung) Most rock singers "can't sing" in the conventional sense. What distinguishes the best from the OK is the distinctiveness of the voice... you hear them on the radio and you know immediately who it is. Could you mistake anyone else for, say, Jim Morrison? Or Mick Jagger, or Rod Stewart? On the other hand, take what's-his-name from Journey and what's-his-name from REO Speedwagon (please)... as Robert Christgau would say, "Distinctions not Cost-effective." >2) often not understandable, no matter who sings them, due to the mix "Ah Louie Louie, whoa no, ah get her way down low. Ya ya ya ya ya ya." Hey, I didn't have any trouble understanding that! :-) >3) of little import or originality True today, although not always (ie., late 60's). One notable exception is U2, who eulogized Marin Luther King *twice* on "The Unforgettable Fire" despite being a) Irish, and b) at most 7-8 years old when he was killed. Another is Bruce Springsteen, although I find it hard to listen to him without recalling the Firesign Theater's line "Honest stories of working people as told by rich Hollywood stars". >4) often offensive to some people (see later) > >I don't listen much to rock any more; I never did to any great extent in >any case, but I did for some years. I think I have determined that this >is mainly due to disliking what I hear in the vocals, because I still >enjoy listening to instrumental rock of various vintages. See introductory paragraph. (Apologies to Preston Epps, the Tornadoes, and anyone else I left out!) >The referenced McNeil/Lehrer report was on a Washington women's group >(including a senator's wife and a cabinet member's wife), Those of Sen. Gore and Treasury Sec. Baker. >who seem to >have received much publicity over the past few months with a campaign to >force record companies to tag albums with a rating system about sexually >explicit lyrics, and to print such lyrics on the outside of record >jackets for pre-buying review (I suppose by parents). Not just sexual lyrics; also drug/alcohol-related, violent, and "occult" (whatever that is). And you can bet that when we have another war to write anti-war lyrics about, that category will be added post-haste! > This was countered >by various interviews with recording-industry people (including a brief >appearance by Frank Zappa) Good for FZ! He's the only well-known rocker to come out against the labeling system - probably because he doesn't get enough airplay to have to worry about retaliation by wimpoid program directors. > and with teenaged record buyers. These >latter, most importantly, generally voiced the opinion that "no one >listens to the lyrics, they just listen to the music". In effect, they >endure the lyrics to get the benefit of the music. Probably true... anyone who thinks "Born in the USA" is a patriotic song obviously isn't listening very closely! >In this case, then, would not it be better for practically all >concerned... for most rock to become instrumental >music? What is gained by having lyrics anyway? The audience has stated >they do not want words. Some parents or others object to the words that >have been being used. Their main objection to rock is that KIDS LIKE IT - period. If rock *was* instrumental, they'd find some other excuse to complain about it. You will recall that in the early days of rock, it wasn't the lyrics that parents and other self-appointed meddlers objected to - it was that JUNGLE BEAT! (According to one survey, 34% of all juvenile delinquents had listened to negro music at least once!) >The words do not add to, but actually detract from >the sound. So let's drop the damn words and get back to pure music! > >OK, let's have the flames... > >Regards, >Will Martin Andrew W. Rogers
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (N. Edwards) (09/16/85)
In article <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > ... >I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be >better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. Yeah! Let's hear it for the Ventures! And Johnny and the Hurricanes! Duane Eddy! Lonnie Mack! The Chantays! Dick Dale and his Del-Tones! Link Wray! Bill Black's Combo! Sandy Nelson! Davie Allan and the Arrows! (Hey, I still have my Ventures model Mosrite... by any chance do you play sax?) >...On *most* rock, however, the vocals are: >1) sung by people who can't sing (often shouted, not even sung) Most rock singers "can't sing" in the conventional sense. What distinguishes the best from the OK is the distinctiveness of the voice... you hear them on the radio and you know immediately who it is. Could you mistake anyone else for, say, Jim Morrison? Or Mick Jagger, or Rod Stewart? On the other hand, take what's-his-name from Journey and what's-his-name from REO Speedwagon (please)... as Robert Christgau would say, "Distinctions not Cost-effective." >2) often not understandable, no matter who sings them, due to the mix "Ah Louie Louie, whoa no, ah get her way down low. Ya ya ya ya ya ya." Hey, I didn't have any trouble understanding that! :-) >3) of little import or originality True today, although not always (ie., late 60's). One notable exception is U2, who eulogized Martin Luther King *twice* on "The Unforgettable Fire" despite being a) Irish, and b) at most 7-8 years old when he was killed. Another is Bruce Springsteen, although I find it hard to listen to him without recalling the Firesign Theater's line "Honest stories of working people as told by rich Hollywood stars". >4) often offensive to some people (see later) > >I don't listen much to rock any more; I never did to any great extent in >any case, but I did for some years. I think I have determined that this >is mainly due to disliking what I hear in the vocals, because I still >enjoy listening to instrumental rock of various vintages. See introductory paragraph. (Apologies to Preston Epps, the Tornadoes, and anyone else I left out!) >The referenced McNeil/Lehrer report was on a Washington women's group >(including a senator's wife and a cabinet member's wife), "Parents' Music Responsibility (?) Committee", headed by the wives of Sen. Gore (R-Tenn.) and Treasury Sec. Baker. >who seem to >have received much publicity over the past few months with a campaign to >force record companies to tag albums with a rating system about sexually >explicit lyrics, and to print such lyrics on the outside of record >jackets for pre-buying review (I suppose by parents). Not just sexual lyrics; also drug/alcohol-related, violent, and "occult" (whatever that is... I guess that means anything else PMRC doesn't like.) And you can bet that when we have another war to write anti-war lyrics about, that category will be added post-haste! BTW, Dave Marsh had an interesting idea... suppose *all* rockers deliberately included something "offensive" on *every* album, thereby making the rating system meaningless? > This was countered >by various interviews with recording-industry people (including a brief >appearance by Frank Zappa) Good for FZ! He's the only well-known rocker to come out against the labeling system - probably because he doesn't get enough airplay to have to worry about retaliation by wimpoid program directors! There is an anti-PMRC group, "The Right to Rock"... sorry, but I have no details like address, etc. > and with teenaged record buyers. These >latter, most importantly, generally voiced the opinion that "no one >listens to the lyrics, they just listen to the music". In effect, they >endure the lyrics to get the benefit of the music. Probably true... anyone who thinks "Born in the USA" is a patriotic song obviously isn't listening very closely! >In this case, then, would not it be better for practically all >concerned... for most rock to become instrumental >music? What is gained by having lyrics anyway? The audience has stated >they do not want words. Some parents or others object to the words that >have been being used. Their main objection to rock is that KIDS LIKE IT - period. If rock *was* instrumental, they'd find some other excuse to complain about it. You will recall that in the early days of rock, it wasn't the lyrics that parents and other self-appointed meddlers objected to - it was that JUNGLE BEAT! (According to one survey, 34% of all juvenile delinquents had listened to negro music at least once! Q.E.D.!) >The words do not add to, but actually detract from >the sound. So let's drop the damn words and get back to pure music! > >OK, let's have the flames... > >Regards, >Will Martin Andrew W. Rogers
pfeiffer@uwvax.UUCP (Phil Pfeiffer) (09/16/85)
Why do I feel compelled to post a response to this article ??
How can we expect the net to arrive at a consensus about matters of taste ??
Given the author's disinterest in lyrics and dislike for rock vocals, his
suggestion that we do away with rock lyrics altogether is quite rational.
However, for me, lyrics are part of the soul of song, whether the song be
rock'n'roll, broadway ballad, or art song. I can list many rock'n'roll and pop
songs that I enjoy for the lyrics, or choruses, as much as for the music --
Black Sabbath's Paranoid
Neil Diamond's Turn on Your Heart Light
Jackson Browne's Lawyers in Love
Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run /and/ Born in the USA
Elton John's Sad Songs Say So Much
Eddie Grant's Electric Avenue
Thomas Dolby's Blinded By Science
Led Zeppelin's Over the Hills and Far Away
as well as many songs that have lyrics which seem mindless or like they were
thrown together for effect, e.g., the "Archie's" "Sugar Sugar" and Aretha
Franklin's "Freeway of Love" (cf. "Respect"). But even "Freeway of Love"
can be viewed as part of a long tradition of bawdy ballad, and some people
may appreciate the song for all that.
If someone had advocated doing away with song lyrics in the forties, on the
grounds that
- you only needed the music to dance, anyway
- most lyrics being written were fluff, and people needed serious
music to elevate their minds (beginning to sound like Plato, eh?)
well, maybe we wouldn't have had some powder puffs like "Wing and a Prayer"
(though I'm sure that this song was meaningful to many people, as well),
but, then, we wouldn't have had "Serenade in Blue" (whose lyrics I enjoy!)
"Stardust" (whose lyrics Fred Flinstone enjoyed! ["that fuzzy-wuzziness, that
ring-a-ding-a-ding" ... ). And on and on ....
Also, some people LIKE ragged voices. I, for one, enjoy listening to both Neil
Diamond AND Neil Young. I often enjoy listening to singers who can convey
enthusiasm and emotion, even if it sometimes sounds like they're singing in
spite of their voice! Does anyone out there remember Rod Stewart's rendition
of "You Wear it Well"?
To the three or four of you who read this far: thanks for putting up with
my emoting like this. *I* don't want to forget about lyrics, and I hadn't
seen anyone else say so, yet.
--- Phil Pfeiffer
P.S.: By the way, fiddle playing was condemned by 19th century churches
because it stirred up the blood and incited people to lustful thoughts.
Pagannini, I believe, was the great violinist who was rumored to be "in
league with the devil", because of how he could stir people with his
fiddle playing? And the author of the fiddle tune "Devil's Dream"?
P.P.S: I don't understand why we're hearing so much about rock'n'roll's
glorification of (premarital, I presume) sex but little regarding the
glorification of adultery in C&W. lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/16/85)
In article <612@grkermi.UUCP> andrew@grkermi.UUCP (N. Edwards) writes: >"Parents' Music Responsibility (?) Committee", headed by the wives of Sen. >Gore (R-Tenn.) and Treasury Sec. Baker. That should be: Sen. Gore (D-Tenn.). -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (09/17/85)
In article <1311@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >>"Parents' Music Responsibility (?) Committee", headed by the wives of Sen. >>Gore (R-Tenn.) and Treasury Sec. Baker. > >That should be: Sen. Gore (D-Tenn.). I stand corrected. The first article I read - I think it was in USN&WR - reported his party affiliation as Republican. "Democrats buy most of the books that have been banned somewhere. Republicans form censorship committees so they can read them together." - Will Stanton, 1961 AWR
tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak) (09/18/85)
>Andrew Rogers... >...in the early days of rock, it wasn't the lyrics that parents >and other self-appointed meddlers objected to - it was that JUNGLE BEAT! >(According to one survey, 34% of all juvenile delinquents had listened to >negro music at least once!) And before that there was something immoral about swing (the parents of the swing generation were used to the one-step and suchlike. Swinging the rhythm destroyed the sense of "beat' for them). I've done a lot of work in the last 5-6 years with folk music from Europe and I see all the same problems expressed differently. Some group of people develop a common aesthetic for a particular kind of music. They come across another group who've developed a totally different aesthetic. Both aesthetics (for some reason I don't think I completely understand yet) can't be allowed to exist simultaneously (one is "right" and one is "wrong"). So each group gets snagged on some group of philosophical concepts that "prove" their aesthetic is the "correct" one. If you can bring God and morals into it so much the better. Then you don't have to take responsibility for your own, narrow, human perspective ("it's God's will" and all that...). Adding my own irrelevancies..... Bill Tomczak@harvard.{ARPA, UUCP}
seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (09/20/85)
Frank Zappa is not the only rock star to come out against the rating system. Frank spoke in front of Congress yesterday (in a suit and tie, no less). Two members from Twisted Sister were also there (in their usual strange garb). Unfortunately I didn't get to hear what they had to say since I was on the phone at the time. I also heard that a number of rock stars have formed an organization to fight this thing. Names I heard were Tina Turner and Cyndi Lauper. One of my friends contends that as soon as you rate records teenagers will be sure to buy any record that has the worst rating just to make sure they catch the bad words, Satanist references and generally anti-social lyrics. To a large extent teenagers can't understand the words well enough and if they can get the words don't necessarily know what they mean. The song "She Bop" by Cyndi Lauper is a wonderful example. Has great, catchy lyrics. Great to dance to. So how many teenagers actually know what it means? How many adults know what it means?? From my informal study, most of the people I know did not know what that song was really about. Now you slap a sticker on Cyndi's ablum that says this album contains objectionable material and you can be damn sure those teenagers will find out why it's objectionable! I think the idea stinks. I don't like some of the lyrics in some of the songs out there, but I don't think you should rate albums. Next they'll want to rate books. (Maybe they don't worry about that since they don't know that their kids read Harold Robbins, etc.) I think these movements are just excuses for parents. It's so easy for a parent to say "Look how screwed up my children are! It's no wonder when they listen to this evil stuff." Most teenagers are not as impressionable as we believe. They get their value systems from their parents, not records. If you manage to keep your kids from listening to this terrible music and they still turn out to be delinquents, who will you blame next? Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb ...we got to install some microwave ovens, custom kitchen delivery. we got to move these refrigerators, we got to move these color tv's...
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/21/85)
> Frank Zappa is not the only rock star to come out against the > rating system. Frank spoke in front of Congress yesterday (in a suit > and tie, no less). Two members from Twisted Sister were also there > (in their usual strange garb). Unfortunately I didn't get to hear what > they had to say since I was on the phone at the time. [SHARON BADIAN] Dee Snider was (to be honest) surprisingly eloquent. When asked by Sen. Gore whether he thought it was reasonable that parents should have to listen to the music their children buy if they want to scrutinize it, Snider responded that "being a parent is not a reasonable thing, it's a very hard thing". He also delineated several deliberate lies (about him and about his group, Twisted Sister) told by people like Tipper Gore (the senator's wife, founder member of PMRC). > One of my friends contends that as soon as you rate records > teenagers will be sure to buy any record that has the worst rating just > to make sure they catch the bad words, Satanist references and generally > anti-social lyrics. To a large extent teenagers can't understand the > words well enough and if they can get the words don't necessarily know > what they mean. The song "She Bop" by Cyndi Lauper is a wonderful > example. Has great, catchy lyrics. Great to dance to. So how many > teenagers actually know what it means? How many adults know what it > means?? From my informal study, most of the people I know did not know > what that song was really about. Now you slap a sticker on Cyndi's > ablum that says this album contains objectionable material and you > can be damn sure those teenagers will find out why it's objectionable! Most people deliberately the (as a matter of fact) very religious element in the song. (Who do you think the "HE^" is in "I know HE^ will understand"?) I hear Donny Osmond said exactly the same thing regarding ratings: a "G" rating would be a death knell for sales, he'd "have" to include "smut" on his records in order for them to sell. (If he's so principled, why wouldn't he continue living by principles and take a cut in income?) > I think these movements are just excuses for parents. It's so easy for a > parent to say "Look how screwed up my children are! It's no wonder when they > listen to this evil stuff." Most teenagers are not as impressionable as we > believe. They get their value systems from their parents, not records. If you > manage to keep your kids from listening to this terrible music and they still > turn out to be delinquents, who will you blame next? Well said. Frankly, I would only support this rating system [ :-) ] if it also warns against "offensive religious content" of any kind. If I as a non-believer don't want my kids to hear vile filth about "God" (as found on those horrible Cyndi Lauper and Prince albums), I have as much right as these other parents to see a rating warning me about this. Of course, to avoid any indiscretion regarding particular religions, albums by both the Joyful Christian Choir and Antichrist Sex Perverts would have to have exactly the same warning (can't discriminate against different religions, can we?). -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (09/23/85)
>Their main objection to rock is that KIDS LIKE IT - period. If rock *was* >instrumental, they'd find some other excuse to complain about it. You will >recall that in the early days of rock, it wasn't the lyrics that parents >and other self-appointed meddlers objected to - it was that JUNGLE BEAT! >(According to one survey, 34% of all juvenile delinquents had listened to >negro music at least once! Q.E.D.!) I posted the above in a response to Will Martin's original posting. I've gotten quite a bit of mail on this - some of it from curious younger netters who want to know more about rock's early days, but most of it from dorkbreaths challenging me to "back up [my] assertions with some facts." Of course, had I posted "George Washington was the first President of the United States", the self-appointed net police would have responded the same way... so DIG THIS, DADDY-O!!! "Rhythm and blues may not cause delinquency, but it reflects it." -VARIETY, March 1955 "Recent newspaper headlines have emphasized the fact that the illiterate gangsters of our younger generation are definitely influenced in their lawlessness by this throwback to jungle rhythms. Either it actually stirs them to orgies of sex and violence (as its model did for the savages themselves) or they use it as an excuse for the removal of all inhibitions and the complete disregard of the conventions of decency... This is not to say that any youngster who honestly enjoys rock 'n' roll is potentially a delinquent... It is, however, entirely correct to state that every proven delinquent has been definitely influenced by rock 'n' roll, as well as comic books and the more violent movies and TV shows. When [music] is debased to the service of the lowest animal passions, it becomes a definite threat to civilization." - Music Journal, 1958 "[Rock is a] sexualistic, immoralistic plot to bring young people of both races together, [pulling] the white man down to the level of the negro." - North Alabama White Citizens' Council "It's the jungle strain that gets 'em all worked up." - Newsweek, 1956 "...a symptom of a condition that can produce delinquency". - Time, no date given "...cannibalistic and tribalistic..." - Billboard "From the very beginning, the real reason Mr. and Mrs. Clean White America objected to this music was the fact that it was performed by Black people." - Frank Zappa (who else?), late 1960's The above quotes are from Richard Nicholls' "Rock and Roll Goes Down in History", which appeared in _Rock_ (Nov. 2, 1970). As always, I'll gladly send photocopies to anyone who sends a USnail address. (I'll include another article about Spiro Agnew's 1970 anti-rock tirades upon request.) Andrew W. Rogers (Official Rock Archivist of USENET???)
rance@cornell.UUCP (Rance Cleaveland) (09/24/85)
> "Parents' Music Responsibility (?) Committee", headed by the wives of Sen. > Gore (R-Tenn.) and Treasury Sec. Baker. Uh, I liked this article, but Albert Gore is a D, not an R. A native Tennesseean on temporary assignment elsewhere, Rance Cleaveland
chris@laidbak.UUCP (Chris Granner) (09/26/85)
>I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be >better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. I was going to reply, "Au Contraire!! the only thing that saves pop music is the lyrics!" and then, "Why restrict it to popular music? Why should the divas at the Met get to sing trashy, schmaltzy lyrics by obscure 19th century poets and librettists, either -- especially the ones who vibratto the lyrics to death?" Having come to my senses while laidbak got around to putting me into an editor for preparing this posting: Sweeping Generality: most pop music lyrics are trashy, shallow and un-original. Notable exceptions include <fill in your list of notable exceptions to the above Sweeping Generality>. Where would <yourlist[n]> be without the lyrics? The value of a song (whether from opera, leider, chanson, musical, or top-40 radio) is directly proportional to the degree to which the music and the text represent a collaboration (perhaps asynchronous) between composer and poet. The same is true of the value of any multi-media presentation (the song is the Ur-multi-media artform, if you will). Notable examples include: The two Cantatas by Anton Webern/Hildegaard Jone The Brecht/Weill musicals Almost all of Harry Partch's material which includes text "Ballad" by Sal Martirano Many of Frank Sinatra's songs (esp. "One More for the Road") Genesis: "The Battle of Epping Forest", "Musical Box", most of "Lamb" I fear that the vast majority of "quality songs" (as defined above) never made the charts with the bullet... but I'd be interested in lists by others on the net. What ho? What I'm mainly looking for is the way and the extent to which the collaboration is evident. -cg (...!ihnp4!laidbak!chris) hail eris all hail discordia
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (09/26/85)
I don't think there are very many people that all vocals should be
removed from popular music. I certainly wouldn't, but the pros and cons
of vocals make an interesting topic for discussion.
I like vocals, but one thing I don't like about them is that a lot of popular
recording artists seem to use vocals to cover up repetitiveness in their music,
though probably not deliberately. You can repeat the same music over and over
again for five minutes, but as long as you change the lyrics, it won't sound too
repetitive. On the other hand, if you're going to do a five-minute instrumental
piece, you don't have any vocals to break up the monotony, so you have to make
the music much more interesting and non-repetitive than what you can get away
with in a vocal song.
I find that a lot of times when I buy a new album, if I look at the lyric sheet
before playing the album, I feel pleased if I find that there are a lot of
instrumentals and disappointed if there are none or only one (depending on the
artist). I'm sure it's because I figure it's much more likely that I'll like
an instrumental, since they have to put a few interesting twists in instrumen-
tals but they don't necessarily have to do that with the music in a vocal song.
Many artists who use little or no vocals, such as Mike Oldfield (whom I like
almost as much as Doug Alan likes Kate Bush) and Jean-Michel Jarre, have often
been criticised for being too repetitive. I admit that both of them have done
some pieces that I think are too repetitive, but overall I think their music
is much less repetitive than most of the vocal stuff that's around. But because
vocals are so effective at diverting the listener's attention from the
repetitiveness of the music, a little bit of repetition in an instrumental piece
is much more noticeable than a lot of repetition in a vocal piece.
As always, comments are welcome.
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeffmpm@hpfcla.UUCP (09/29/85)
Consider Ravel's "Bolero". This is piece that is primarily repetitious.
It is also very popular (thanks to Bo Derek?).
The rock group War used repetition of lyrics extensively. Songs like
"Gypsy Man" and others that I can't remember names for demonstrate this.
I don't know what there point was, but I liked their music.
Disco music is quite repetitive. This makes it an excellent candidate
for jazz dance numbers.
-- Mike "eclectic tastes" McCarthy
(ihnp4!hpfcla!hpfcms!) mpmchris@laidbak.UUCP (Chris Granner) (09/29/85)
In article <1695@dciem.UUCP> jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) writes: >...But because vocals are so effective at diverting the listener's >attention from the repetitiveness of the music, a little bit of >repetition in an instrumental piece is much more noticeable than >a lot of repetition in a vocal piece. (the above was extracted from a 45-line response; I hope I haven't destroyed the context of an interesting posting, but the above caught my attention in particular...) The function of repetition (in any medium) is to re-enforce a message. In western classical music, a theme or phrase may be repeated several times and still slip by the casual listener, since by and large at any given point in such a piece there are several themes or phrases occurring simultaneously, and the recombination and reconfiguration of the component themes serves to stave off the redundancy. In western popular music, the "several-ness" of simultaneous themes is a rarity (exceptions?), and so the redundancy threshold is reached far more quickly. On the other side of the redundancy threshold, the repetition of a theme or phrase can transform the musical unit into a component of a larger idea or structure; at some point the redundancy threshold makes a quantum leap when the listener becomes aware of this larger context. And of course, far below the redundancy threshold (nice bit of jargon... I just made it up), a musical event can occur, maybe only once in a piece, and such an event serves to point to, or to "get" to, some central musical event. It's certainly the case that a vocal/lyric can serve (sociologically) the same function as a large number of ideas -- in that the listener, by hearing a different lyric verse over the same music, may be distracted from noticing that the redundancy threshold has been crossed. However, the same kinds of dynamics occur in the medium of text, with subject matter substituted for theme/phrase/musical_idea. There is, in music, a much poorer history of lyrics which stave off the redundancy threshold, than in the musical material itself. I had a history teacher who explained this phenomenon by saying something like, "A text can so easily overpower a musical idea that composers for centuries have avoided setting the most complex poetry of their day...it's simply a matter of unfair competition." My opinion at the time was, "If that's really the case, then composers have simply abdicated their response to the collaborative challenge of a complex text." But getting back to repetition, here's an axiom I made up while I was teaching aural skills at the U of I in Urbana: If it happens once, it's a pointer. If it happens twice, it's an event. If it happens thrice or more, it's a component. -cg (...!ihnp4!laidbak!chris ) hail eris all hail discordia
barth@tellab1.UUCP (Barth Richards) (10/02/85)
In article <221@laidbak.UUCP> chris@laidbak.UUCP (Chris Granner) writes: >>I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be >>better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. >Sweeping Generality: most pop music lyrics are trashy, shallow and >un-original. Notable exceptions include <fill in your list of >notable exceptions to the above Sweeping Generality>. Where would ><yourlist[n]> be without the lyrics? > >The value of a song (whether from opera, leider, chanson, musical, or >top-40 radio) is directly proportional to the degree to which the >music and the text represent a collaboration (perhaps asynchronous) >between composer and poet. The same is true of the value of any >multi-media presentation (the song is the Ur-multi-media artform, if you >will). Notable examples include: > > The two Cantatas by Anton Webern/Hildegaard Jone > The Brecht/Weill musicals > Almost all of Harry Partch's material which includes text > "Ballad" by Sal Martirano > Many of Frank Sinatra's songs (esp. "One More for the Road") > Genesis: "The Battle of Epping Forest", "Musical Box", > most of "Lamb" I would add most of the lyrics from later Pink Floyd albums (ie from THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON to THE FINAL CUT) though even I admit that Roger Water's dark view of the world can get a bit too cynical for most people's tastes. Still, his lyrics are at least trying to express something more than "I like to f*ck," or "I wish I were f*cking," or "how much I'd like to f*ch her/him," or "why doesn't she/he want to f*ck me anymore," which is what the large bulk of pop music lyrics center around. I would also certianly want to add the lyrics from all the Marillion albums. Fish (the lead vocalist and lyricist) is certianly a poet and not just a grinder of words. I would especially recommend the lyrics from the MISPLACED CHILDHOOD album as being most intriguing, though, as I remember, someone gave him some help. Still that does not detract from the fact that they are original and artfully written lyrics. I also heartilly agree with you on the Genesis lyrics (Gabriel era). Any other suggestions out there? Barth Richards Tellabs, Inc. Lisle, IL
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (10/06/85)
> Disco music is quite repetitive. This makes it an excellent candidate > for jazz dance numbers. > > -- Mike "eclectic tastes" McCarthy Wrong, and wrong some more. Aerobics, maybe, but jazz dance has little to do with repetition. Just go see whatever Twyla Tharp or Alvin Ailey choreography comes to your town next. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n alle' Nou se' papiyon, n-a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
chris@laidbak.UUCP (Chris Granner) (10/07/85)
In article <44400006@hpfcms.UUCP> mpm@hpfcla.UUCP writes: > > Consider Ravel's "Bolero". This is piece that is primarily repetitious. >It is also very popular (thanks to Bo Derek?). > If you think that "Bolero" is repetitious, it went over your head (a common viaduct...). How many times can you hear "dum, dadadadum, dadadadadadadadadadum" before you get bored and start listening for something more? "if it happens thrice or more, it's a component." -cg no matter where you go there you are.
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (10/07/85)
>> Sweeping Generality: most pop music lyrics are trashy, shallow and >> un-original. Notable exceptions include.... > Any other suggestions out there? Oh come now! Sure 95% of lyrics in contemporary music are crap, but 95% of everything is crap. There are plenty of musicians who write wonderful lyrics: Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel, Pink Floyd, Roy Harper, Laurie Anderson, King Crimson, The Cure, Shockabilly, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Art Bears, Black Flag, Robyn Hitchcock, Brian Eno, Tuxedomoon, Killing Joke, Bill Nelson, B52's, The Beatles, Godley and Creme, Gong, Bauhaus, Jethro Tull, .... And the list goes on, Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
wersan@daemen.UUCP (John Slasher Wersan III) (10/09/85)
> Why do I feel compelled to post a response to this article ?? Ditto! > > --- Phil Pfeiffer > > I have to agree with Phil, some songs probably would sound better WITHOUT lyrics, but as Phil mentioned, some songs I enjoy FOR the lyrics ( ala "Born in East L.A" ). BUT.... I had this friend who absolutly loved the total vocal version of the song entitled "Leave it" by YES. This one has NO instramentals. If the original poster had his way, we would pick up said album only to hear NOTHING! :-} Great if you want to test your equipment for feedback, but not up there on the listening scale. P.S. This is only my opinion, or you might say, my taste. but then again that is why there is so many different songs, song styles (I.E HM, POP, JAZZ, ETC.). That is music is picked by taste, NO ONE says "Buy this album or I will KILL you". If everone listened to one type of music, what would parents have to yell at thier kids about!?!?!?!? -- John Wersan UUCP : {decvax,dual,watmath,rocksanne,rocksvax}!sunybcs!daemen!wersan "Any statements made are not mine, this computer has me mistaken for someone else, of lower intelligence." "The doctor said I had dain bramage... But my friends don't know what 'dat shit is"
ccs009@ucdavis.UUCP (Dennis Michaels) (10/17/85)
> If you think that "Bolero" is repetitious, it went over your head (a common > viaduct...). How many times can you hear > > "dum, dadadadum, dadadadadadadadadadum" Why did this ever get started? Its like saying paintings are better than literature.... Each has its merits, and can be appreciated in its own context: The Dead Kennedys' 'Kill the Poor' can evoke as much emotion as Bach's Toccata and Fugue..... Now mind you 'Louie,Louie' without words wouldn't be as much fun... but I can't imagine lyrics to Pachelbel's Kanon a D or to Shadowfax's music...... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dennis Michaels @ University of California, Davis ...ucbvax!ucdavis!harpo!ccs009 U.S.Mail: 609 Anderson Rd # 151 Davis , CA 95616