Instrumental vs. vocal popular music
Will Martin
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: wma...@almsa-1.ARPA
Will Martin
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
Dataspan Inc
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, Inc
Andrew W. Rogers
> ...
>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
N. Edwards
In article <14...@brl-tgr.ARPA> wma...@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
> ...
>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
Phil Pfeiffer
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.
l...@teddy.uucp
>"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) l...@mit-mc.arpa
Andrew W. Rogers
>>"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
rob@ctvax
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!rob
tp@ndm20
((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?
s.e.badian
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...
Rich Rosen
> 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
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 W. Rogers
>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???)
Larry J. Huntley
>
>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.
Ain't it the truth. I think you overstate the case by the use of "little";
I have NEVER heard ANY (negative) discussion about the glorification of
drinking, hell-raising, lusting, cheating, and all-round good clean fun
that is the norm in C & W. Of course, I don't remember anyone trying to
ban Beethoven's "Eroica", either. As Ellen Burstyn says to Alan Alda in
"Same Time Next Year": "It's a sign of age, you know; concern about the
declining morality of youth."
'brd
--
Larry J. Huntley Burroughs Corporation
Distributed Systems Group MS-703
10850 Via Frontera San Diego, CA 92128
(619) 485-4544
When in Reality, do as the Realists do.
Rance Cleaveland
> 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
Marcel F. Simon
> >glorification of (premarital, I presume) sex but little regarding the
> >glorification of adultery in C&W.
>
> .... As Ellen Burstyn says to Alan Alda in
> "Same Time Next Year": "It's a sign of age, you know; concern about the
> declining morality of youth."
>
I could not agree more. I have always wondered if the people who decry the
glorification of drug use in rock while nostalgically reaching out for Cab
Calloway and Louis Armstrong realize that when Cab sang "You've got to bang
a Gong / to run with me", he was talking about cocaine; or that Louis'
famous "St James Infirmary" is about identifying a lover who has OD'ed,
or that his "Song of the Vipers" glorifies pot smoking.
All these tunes date from before 1935.....
Marcel Simon
Jeff Richardson
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!jeff
m...@hpfcla.uucp
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!) mpm
Chris Granner
>...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 Richards
>>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
Damballah Wedo
> 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' "
Doug Alan
> 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
nes...@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
John Slasher Wersan III
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"