rob@ctvax (09/19/85)
Funny you should mention instrumentals. My son's music teacher
asked the students to bring in 10 minutes of music, "rock" was
alright but no objectional lyrics. Here's what we put together on a
tape:
<forgot name, it was the Yngwie Malmsteen and Rising Force
Guitar Player flexidisk>
God Save the Queen Jimi Hendrix
Battle Axe Quiet Riot
Eruption Van Halen
That should blow her socks off!
Trivia time: What other song did Jimi Hendrix play a riff from during his
performance of "Wild Thing" at the Monterey Pop festival/movie?
Rob Spray
rob.ct@csnet-relay
...{convex|trsvax|nbires|cornell|ut-sally}!ctvax!robtp@ndm20 (09/20/85)
((Following composed after a long day and somewhat scatterbrained in nature.)) >I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be >better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. True, I disagree. I like both vocal and instrumental rock, from progressive to metal. I don't listen much to the words as such, but to me the vocals are another instrument. An effective singer is one who contributes well to the sound of the group. I like some lyrics. However, there are songs I like because of the music have rotten lyrics. There are no songs that I like that have rotten music and good lyrics (except for some humorous ones ("Life Sucks and Then You Die")). This is my personal bias. The vocals, as opposed to the lyrics add much. The words don't matter much (in detail, the words that catch your attention have to be at least a little interesting). There are, however, more good lyrics than you seem to credit. Are you judging just by the radio? If so, then I think you would be dissapointed at how bad the music is if the lyrics weren't there to distract you from it. The top 40 formula is words interesting enough so you don't pay much attention to the music, and music interesting enough that you don't mind the stupid words. It's a hard tightrope to walk, and the result is a big Zero. The pop stars do have a talent, but it isn't a musical talent. >1) sung by people who can't sing (often shouted, not even sung) Sometimes true, but personal preference means a lot here. I don't like jazz vocals, so I am not likely to think that most jazz singers can sing (no flames please, this is only an example), for instance Al Jareau. I know some people like scat singing, but it sounds like an epileptic fit to me. I'm sure the jazz crowd can make similar nasty comments about Jon Anderson. >2) often not understandable, no matter who sings them, due to the mix I like to think that good music is mixed well. There are exceptions. If you are listening to Top 40 stuff, I suspect you would find that the mixes are intentional to hide the fact that the singer has no talent (see your point number 1). >3) of little import or originality What about Yes? U2? Kansas? (Those are personal favorites and not an inclusive list, obviously. >4) often offensive to some people (see later) Who cares? They don't have to listen to it. Censors or would be censors should be annoyed and defied whenever possible on general principle. If you want to hear some good music with truly horrible lyrics, check out Max Webster or Kim Mitchell (same person gone solo). If you want to hear the perfect example of voice as an instrument, listen to Yes (Close to the Edge, Relayer, The Yes Album). I don't think either group would sound as good without a singer, even though you can't get into the lyrics. (You can get into Yes' lyrics, but much deep thought and meditation (not to mention a lyric sheet) is required to begin to guess what they mean.) How about some examples of songs you think would be better (as is) without the vocal track?