They obviously do matter somewhat, but when I think of classic rock songs, they seem to succeed in spite of the lyrics:
Presley’s “Hound Dog” was originally about a gigolo. Who apparently not only couldn’t catch rabbits, but cried at inappropriate moments.
The Kink’s “Lola” had kids rocking out for a tranny.
“Ah-hund she’s bu-hi-hing a stair-hair way to heav-ev-vun.” What does that even mean? Stevie Nicks is going shopping? Rich people get better deals than you in the afterlife? Plant and Page smoked too much weed?
It certainly doesn’t stop with classic rock. Like a G6, anyone? Quick, who’s more famous, the guy that wrote the music for The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute or the guy who wrote the librettos?
I’m thinking the lyrics supply a handy tag to remember a piece of music by, and gives a reason for repeated listens in some cases.
Many people listen to music without paying attention to the lyrics. I remember someone complaining about Billy Joel’s* “Online the Good Die Young” and how she liked the song and listened to it dozens of times until she realized it insulted Catholic girls, which bothered her.
It does depend on how you were taught to listen to music. I grew up on Broadway showtunes, where it was essential that you caught the lyrics (since they often were relevant to the characters or plot). But most people find the lyrics secondary.
*A great lyricist, BTW
Exactly. To me they’re as much a part of the song as anything else; some people do not even notice what the intent is.
As for Zeppelin and their ilk, I’m sure a lot of the lyrics are purposely obtuse so as to create rumours and debates as to what they really mean. Some people think decoding them will lead to enlightenment and riches: others don’t give them much thought. I’m in the latter camp on that one.
I can’t imagine enjoying “Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World” as much if the lyrics were “Put a Pizza in the Oven” for example.
"You got some mozzarella cheese,
And some olives too,
Gonna bake it till it’s hot,
Like a melted pile of goo.
And it’s important to remember that A+B does not equal C. C is an entirely different entity than either A or B or a combination of the two. You can hate A or B, or both, yet love C, and vice versa.
I guess there’s a couple of meanings to “succeed in spite of the lyrics”.
Category 1: The lyrics are just bad, but the song still either sounds good or is popular or both.
Category 2: The lyrics are fine but the subject matter is not what you would normally expect people to be attracted to.
I presume you are putting “Lola” in the latter category, because I can’t see anything particularly bad about the songwriting. “Hound Dog” seems like it could arguably fit in either category.
Some songs are instrumentals with some words thrown in to make them commercial. Some songs are poems with music added to make them commercial. And some songs are an excellent combination of both.
Who cares about the lyrics to “Foxy Lady?” Who cares about the music for “Desolation Row” or “Talkin’ World War III Blues?” But songs like “We Can Work it Out” and “Like a Rollin’ Stone” need both.
I think the value of lyrics depends on a few different thigns. One of those things is the genre as different genres put varying emphasis on the lyrics. For instance, if one is listening to a genre notorious for gibberish lyrics, like power metal, then goofy lyrics about dragons and swords that don’t make a whole lot of sense don’t really matter as long as they are well sung and the rhythm fits the music. OTOH, if one is listening to the blues, then chances are the lyrics matter a lot more, and if it doesn’t convey the same sort of emotion as the music, it can create discontinuity and ruin the song.
The intent of the artist also matters. Some songs aren’t intended to be deep and moving, they’re just supposed to be fun or are something very straight-forward. OTOH, a song that is about something deep better have quality lyrics. If you’re going to try to raise outrage about some ideology, telling a moving story, or grieving or whatever, having poor lyrics will ruin the song, but having good ones will elevate it to a whole new level.
For some artists, it seems like they think that every song needs singing, or that having some kind of catch phrase or line will help it stick out more, so they put lyrics to it simply because they don’t really even consider that they don’t have to or because it will help it sell. I would think that a song with lyrics just makes for better radio or video play than an instrumental. I’d think it helps if people can sing along or get a line stuck in their head. Also, if you have a fulltime vocalist who doesn’t play an instrument, you’re kind of obligated to include him in pretty much every song, so they probably will tend to write with that in mind.
I only normally notice the sound of the lyrics, not the actual meaning. I don’t want to derail this into a ‘silly things I thought lyrics said’ contest, but I will cheerfully think stuff makes no sense and believe I’m listening to a completely random set of words without it in any way impairing my enjoyment of the song. Of course there’s some exceptionally powerful or obvious lyrics which draw attention to themselves (as often cringeworthy ones as brilliant ones) but generally?
Meh, so far as I’m concerned, most of the time, the human voice is just another instrument.
For me, lyrics are crucial. If I cannot understand the lyrics and the song is in English, it is virtually guaranteed that I will not like the song. Which, as I think on it, as kind of hypocritcal, as I like operas in Italian & French, and my ability to understand those tongues hasn’t been used in years and is horribly rusty.
And just understanding the lyrics is not enough. They must be well-crafted, which means, among many other things, that no two non-identical lines could be exchanged without loss of meaning.
There has to be meaning, in fact. Said meaning doesn’t have to be entirely sensible, if that makes any sense; I often enjoy silly songs. But the lyrics can’t be an excuse for the the beat. The beat and the tune should be subordinate to the lyrics.
Unlike RealityChuck, I didn’t grow up on show tunes, but they’ve always been my favorite genre since I was introduced to them. It occurs to me that when I say X is a good song, I mean that X reminds me in some way of Stephen Sondheim.
Last weekend I went to a Reverend Horton Heat concert, which was amazingly loud (some of my internal organs are still vibrating) and I couldn’t pick out any lyrics except for the word “marijuana” (which is good because that’s the sum total of the lyrics for that particular song).
Depends on the genre. Sometimes the lyrics ARE the song, with the music being incidental. In other cases, the opposite is true. There is a whole sliding scale in between.
Interesting typo. It bespeaks the death of all us Dopers, I’m afraid!
As others have said, it just depends. The Beastie Boys have super-silly lyrics that rhyme and are funny…but when I listen to them, there’s no expectation of anything profound, which is as it should be.
As much love/hate as there is for Rush, I think they have excellent lyrics, even if the singer delivering them is a YMMV case. My favorite case in point is “Camera Eye”, which is more instrumental than lyrical, but the lyrics are very evocative, especially for a rock band.
What about Beck from his “Odelay” days? Like the Beasties, fat rhythms, beats, etc…and the lyrics make no fucking sense whatsoever. But that’s okay, the songs are fun.
It was originally about a man rather than a dog, but there’s nothing in the lyrics to indicate that he’s a gigolo. It sounds more like he’s a deadbeat that the (female) narrator has become fed up with. The “cryin’ all the time” line is not in the Big Mama Thornton version of the song (here’s a video of her singing it), she sings “Snoopin’ 'round my door” instead.
So what? It was the early '70s, not the '50s. (Here’s The Kinks on Top of the Popsthe year the song was released.) I don’t think a song about a transvestite would have been considered especially shocking to most rock fans of the era. Within a year or two David Bowie was going to become Ziggy Stardust and Lou Reed would have a hit with “Walk on the Wild Side”.
More sheltered “Lola” listeners probably wouldn’t have understood the song as being about a cross-dressing man in the first place. The closing lines “I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man, and so’s Lola” is open to multiple interpretations, one being simply that Lola is glad the narrator is a man. I think this is a very cleverly written and catchy song, and probably would not have been such a big hit if the lyrics had not been as good as they are.
ETA: I’d agree that “Stairway to Heaven” seems like a song that succeeded despite its IMHO very stupid lyrics.
I guess I find the lyrics of lesser importance because I have over 50 albums of Brazilian popular music and I don’t know a word of Portuguese. It started with Jobim and Astrid Gilberto and kind of snowballed. Elis Regina FTW.
I generally don’t pay attention to lyrics, they’re often poorly constructed or jammed in to fit, instead of being genuinely inspiring or interesting. But then, I think poetry is a crock. For me, it’s the music that matters. Though I do wish the music was appropriate for the lyrics, which is a rare thing. Loud music for a quiet idea seems common.
Having said that, there is one song that I have listened to the lyrics of, in order to understand it, and it’s clear thousands of others have not. And they are those people who don’t know what Meat Loaf is referring to when he would do anything for love, but he “won’t do that”. They stupidly ask “Won’t do what?” but clearly haven’t listened to the lyrics of the song because he lists the things he won’t do in the frickin’ verses! Argh!
