Rock Philosophy

[Big Generator]

Also - I meant "accomplished" in the sense that they weren't 'sophisticated'...as in 'he was an accomplished musician'. I agree they accomplished alot in the sense of achieving success and influence.

Otherwise I think you're agreeing with my point, aren't you?

 

[newdawnfades]

Who gets the credit for Ozzy's success? Sharon? Iommi? Randy Rhoads? I always thought Ozzy himself got huge amount of credit and respect - especially from traditional metal fans.

Those you mentioned and many others. Everybody seems to think they know Ozzy is an idiot that needs to be guided around by others nowadays just because they saw a few episodes of The Osbournes.

I think we agree on the obvious difference between uber-intellectuals and artists who draw their strength in other ways.

 

[Big Generator]

Yes - that's a good way of putting it.

Oh...on the subject of Socrates and rock...anyone remember the scene in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure where Bill and Ted travel to Ancient Greece and meet Socrates? They amaze him with this line of philosophical wisdom: "All we are is dust in the wind..."

Call me slow...but I've just discovered this is a line from a song by Kansas. "Dust In The Wind". I can't believe I've been so amused by this scene for about fifteen years years without...er, getting the joke.

 

[Martin Q. Blank]

That's what I like about you MQB...always full of surprises.

Thanks for conveniently ignoring my other post, buddy.

"You are special!"

 

[Big Generator]

Depends on how much you value lyrics. A "stupid" writer cannot produce brilliant lyrics.

As a songwriter myself, I disagree that music is instinctual in all cases. I also have a degree in English, and on the same token would disagree with the notion that literature isn't often instinctual.

It's just not a black and white issue.

I agree...it isn't black and white.

 

[Big Generator]

Also - I do value lyrics up to a point - but I don't listen to them as "literature"...and the phonetics are more important to me than the content. There's nothing worse than hearing a lyricist shoe-horn their 'big ideas' into a song if it doesn't fit the rhythm or feel of the music. Whereas the most cliched nonsense - which would undermine the credibility of any half-decent novelist - can still sound great in a song.

 

[Music Wench]

I personally think brilliant lyrics are what touches the soul. But that's just for me. I also think music can be appreciated just for the sake of the music too, however. Probably why I have such a diverse taste in music.

 

[newdawnfades]

Rarely do I listen to a song and not understand the meaning of the words that are being sung. Lyrics have to fit into the rhythm of the song, but how can you avoid it's meaning? Unless the singer is difficult to understand.

I don't think music would have the same affect on people if vocalists always sang songs using words that we couldn't understand (yes, I know there's exceptions to every rule, so no examples please) I think a few members here are taking lyrics for granted personally.

 

[Big Generator]

Rarely do I listen to a song and not understand the meaning of the words that are being sung. Lyrics have to fit into the rhythm of the song, but how can you avoid it's meaning? Unless the singer is difficult to understand.

I don't think music would have the same affect on people if vocalists always sang songs using words that we couldn't understand (yes, I know there's exceptions to every rule, so no examples please) I think a few members here are taking lyrics for granted personally.

I think this might be a misunderstanding, NDF. I wasn't saying that I didn't 'understand' or that I 'avoid' the meaning. I was talking about songs where the lyricist hasn't appropriately shaped or scanned the words to fit the songs.
Pete Sinfield is an example of this - his 'literary' ambitions led to a number of jarring and instrusive moments when he collaborated with, say, Greg Lake - and his lyrics rarely complement or enhance the music.

Sure, it's great when lyrics are unusually clever or witty (e.g."Substitute" by the Who). But my point was that cliches can work well in rock music (especially heavy rock/metal) - whereas they are always a disaster if they are used by novelists.

 

[newdawnfades]

In all honesty, bad lyrics are bad lyrics. A good vocalist can make the 'sounds' work, but when I hear the words it doesn't make the song anymore interesting regardless of how well the song sounds. I will always like the vocals just for the sake of the vocals, nothing else. That's not making it as good as it could be.

The only thing that can save cliche lyrics is good musicianship, emotion, and vocal talent. But a cliche lyric is a cliche lyric, there's no hiding that. It's going to affect the song adversely, and of course it depends on the band how much it might.

I think with metal and hard rock bands we listen to them with lower expectations in regards to lyrics. I don't know if that means lyrics don't matter as much. We just tell ourselves that metal bands don't write good lyrics but we are going to focus on other parts of their songs.

But if I throw on some folk or prog you better believe my expectations are going to rise back up to a higher standard.