Songs that are pretty cool till you listen to the lyrics...

Mattykins

Mattykins

Cute Member
Well, I made my daily commute (all 4 miles) to work today...last day using the car, break out the bike for the rest of the summer. And a song came on that I thought was pretty catchy. Addicted -- Saving Abel. So I was thinking, you know, this might make a cool flirty song when brought acoustically. ((AKA: mission for later))

So I get home and started listening to it on youtube, then looked at the lyrics and then I realized the truth behind this once thought love song...it's about a guy getting a blowjob. Well there went the idea of acousticizing it.

I just found it funny how we listen to, and jam out to, music about rape, sex, killing, all that fun stuff and have no problems at all with it. Animal by Nickelback is a perfect example as well.

//End thoughtful statement of the late evening before I sleep.
 
Your example reminds me of "The Only One" by the Cure. Lyrically it has it moments, but at times it slips into pretty similar content.
 
I totally get this. I'll hear a song and think "Oh, that would be a good song for [ ]" and then I read the lyrics and realize it couldn't be worse.
 
In regards to that Saving Abel song, I agree - in fact, I bought the edited version of the song, where they changed the "when you're going down on me" to "when you're rolling round with me." It's still sexual, but leaves a bit more to the imagination.
 
I found myself listening to Sid Vicious version of "My Way" at around lunchtime on the radio one day and for no good reason (and for the first time) paid attention to the lyrics - particularly the first verse -

Lets just say that I don't think Sinatra used those lyrics. The fact that it was on the radio at 3 in the afternoon meant noone at the radio station had either.

Lyrics to this version here :

http://www.actionext.com/names_s/sid_vicious_lyrics/my_way.html
 
Makes Me Wonder, by Maroon 5... used to sing it al the time... then i read the lyrics.... i mean, yeah its all about sex and whatnot... but they hide expletives in the song, so hidden so, the radio doesn't even edit them...

im just not a fan of the song anymore
 
It's akin to people playing "Every Breath You Take" at their weddings. "Look, ma! I married my stalker!"
 
JasonFox said:
It's akin to people playing "Every Breath You Take" at their weddings. "Look, ma! I married my stalker!"
Click to expand...


Ha ha.

That reminds me of the mix cd I was making for a pre-wedding party my friends were throwing for me and my wife. I picked a bunch of my favorite songs without thinking about the lyrics. My wife heard the disc and freaked out. Unfortunately most good rock songs deal with break-ups, cheating, and overall heartbreak. I guess starting out the disc with the Stones "Under My Thumb" was a poor choice.:laugh:
 
A big fuss about nothing. It is a rare song or performer where the lyrics matter. Most of the time, people don't pay attention to the lyrics, and that's as it should be - the meaning of the lyrics was never meant to be important, they function as raw material for the singer's voice and nothing else... hence many songs even have nonsense lyrics or sloppy enunciation - they are not MEANT to be listened to for comprehension, but for musical effect. So why obsess over them? And why would you want to spoil a song for yourself by examining that which was not MEANT to be examined? Personally, there are songs I've listened to hundreds if not thousands of times, and I couldn't tell you what they are about. I listen to the music, not the meaning of the lyrics. YMMV.

Now, no doubt there are some songs and some performers where the meaning of the lyrics is very important, and the artist has made a conscious decision to emphasize them and they are an integral part of their overall artistic effect, and in that case you do listen to them carefully for the meaning. But these are rare.
 
Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen . . .

Me, I find it hard to get into ANY performer if the lyrics aren't meaningful.
 
Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen . . .

Me, I find it hard to get into ANY performer if the lyrics aren't meaningful.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I think an album is in it's best form when theres a) sort of a theme to it and b) it's engineered properly with a distinctive sound to fit the music. The Joshua Tree is a great example of this, probably the best overall album in the 80's and arguably top 20 of all time, every song on it has that same distinctive sound and this really pushes the music and I find helps the the listener actually listen to the lyrics. If you got an album that's all over the place it's going to be difficult to get into it. If the music is confusing to listen too then your not going to hear the lyrics.

Also, Nickelback shouldn't count as good lyrics, not to insult anyone but their music sucks in my opinon and Chad Kroeger is a douche.

One of the better albums I've listened to in the past year is Wilco's Sky Blue Sky, fantastic and has a great sound to it. It can be listened at here - http://wilcoworld.net/records/sbs.php check it out, great album.
 
David Jimerson said:
Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen . . .

Me, I find it hard to get into ANY performer if the lyrics aren't meaningful.
Click to expand...

No question Bob Dylan and perhaps Bruce Springsteen are examples of artists where the lyrics matter a great deal. In Dylan's case, in addition there is another reason: his voice is very poor technically speaking, and his vocal technique is nothing to write home about - so the only way he can make a case for singing is if his lyrics are outstanding and meaningful... and they are. He's a poet of rare talent. Dylan is an example of a gifted songwriter who managed to make it as a performer despite not having the chops performance-wise. Which is why covers of his songs are often outstanding (and better than the originals as done by Dylan) - because that's his primary strength (songwriting), and not performance - whereas songs of strong performers are the opposite - they are seldom covered as well as the original (because it's the performance which matters, and if it's hard to top, well, it'll be hard to top!). So yeah, Dylan had to have great lyrics, otherwise he'd have no grounds for performing at all. Which doesn't take away from his persona, his historical importance (the issues he raised), the amazing and moving lyrics and music.


Of course, to each his/her own. Yes, there are those artists who add A LOT because of their lyrics, and could hardly exist at all without them (Morrissey comes to mind). On the other hand, I do not find it hard to get into the music of artists where the lyrics are not at all important. And even for huge stars and huge bands - are the lyrics in fact so great (as one can agree wrt. Dylan)? Clearly, obviously NOT. Who in their right mind is going to claim that the lyrics is what made or contributed to the success or the GENIUS of the music of The Beatles? Quite the opposite in fact. Songs which made them huge have lyrics so forgettable and so trite as to be the definitive counter-example to Dylan ("I wanna hold your hand"!). And who is going to argue that the Beatles cannot be enjoyed, or are not an important or creative or successful band? So, you can't get into the Beatles? Because if you can, it ain't because of the lyrics, that's for sure! And so on for many huge, successful and highly artistically regarded performers and bands. And what would explain the success of these performers abroad in countries where their lyrics are not understood at all? Music is the key - it is the "language", not the lyrics... they still enjoy HUGELY the music without a clue about the lyrics.

I'd almost argue the opposite. I'd say that lyrics may make it HARDER to get into a band or performer... as this thread is proof of! You could enjoy the music and the performance if you DIDN'T know the lyrics - and the moment folks here found out the lyrics, it spoiled the music for them! This by the way is in part the secret of why a lot of music is successful across borders - when you don't understand the lyrics, it's easier to imagine something cool/profound being sung. And that's how you get fans in foreign countries for bands and performers which puzzles the heck out of their native populace ("Yeah, but he's big in Europe"! "Go figure!").

Finally, I'd argue that lyrics are a very dangerous and fragile thing - they either better be outstanding (Dylan, Morrissey et al.), or completely neutral... no inbetween. When you listen to a song 1000 times, there's a great danger that you can burn out on the lyrics - music and melody are a lot more durable than lyrics. I can listen to great lyrics a 1000 times, or I can listen to neutral lyrics a 1000 times, but not to lyrics anywhere in between.

Anyhow, good discussion - and different strokes for different folks :)
 
OldCorpse said:
No question Bob Dylan and perhaps Bruce Springsteen are examples of artists where the lyrics matter a great deal. In Dylan's case, in addition there is another reason: his voice is very poor technically speaking, and his vocal technique is nothing to write home about - so the only way he can make a case for singing is if his lyrics are outstanding and meaningful... and they are. He's a poet of rare talent. Dylan is an example of a gifted songwriter who managed to make it as a performer despite not having the chops performance-wise. Which is why covers of his songs are often outstanding (and better than the originals as done by Dylan) - because that's his primary strength (songwriting), and not performance - whereas songs of strong performers are the opposite - they are seldom covered as well as the original (because it's the performance which matters, and if it's hard to top, well, it'll be hard to top!). So yeah, Dylan had to have great lyrics, otherwise he'd have no grounds for performing at all. Which doesn't take away from his persona, his historical importance (the issues he raised), the amazing and moving lyrics and music.


Of course, to each his/her own. Yes, there are those artists who add A LOT because of their lyrics, and could hardly exist at all without them (Morrissey comes to mind). On the other hand, I do not find it hard to get into the music of artists where the lyrics are not at all important. And even for huge stars and huge bands - are the lyrics in fact so great (as one can agree wrt. Dylan)? Clearly, obviously NOT. Who in their right mind is going to claim that the lyrics is what made or contributed to the success or the GENIUS of the music of The Beatles? Quite the opposite in fact. Songs which made them huge have lyrics so forgettable and so trite as to be the definitive counter-example to Dylan ("I wanna hold your hand"!). And who is going to argue that the Beatles cannot be enjoyed, or are not an important or creative or successful band? So, you can't get into the Beatles? Because if you can, it ain't because of the lyrics, that's for sure! And so on for many huge, successful and highly artistically regarded performers and bands. And what would explain the success of these performers abroad in countries where their lyrics are not understood at all? Music is the key - it is the "language", not the lyrics... they still enjoy HUGELY the music without a clue about the lyrics.

I'd almost argue the opposite. I'd say that lyrics may make it HARDER to get into a band or performer... as this thread is proof of! You could enjoy the music and the performance if you DIDN'T know the lyrics - and the moment folks here found out the lyrics, it spoiled the music for them! This by the way is in part the secret of why a lot of music is successful across borders - when you don't understand the lyrics, it's easier to imagine something cool/profound being sung. And that's how you get fans in foreign countries for bands and performers which puzzles the heck out of their native populace ("Yeah, but he's big in Europe"! "Go figure!").

Finally, I'd argue that lyrics are a very dangerous and fragile thing - they either better be outstanding (Dylan, Morrissey et al.), or completely neutral... no inbetween. When you listen to a song 1000 times, there's a great danger that you can burn out on the lyrics - music and melody are a lot more durable than lyrics. I can listen to great lyrics a 1000 times, or I can listen to neutral lyrics a 1000 times, but not to lyrics anywhere in between.

Anyhow, good discussion - and different strokes for different folks :)
Click to expand...

The commercial success of the Beatles, at least in the early days, came in large part from the bubblegum pop they released (and even their name is a corny '60s-type pun), songs that they themselves made fun of. But the songs which elevated them to "genius" status, in the eyes of most, are the ones which had the meaningful lyrics coupled with the music.

People tend to go ga-ga over Lennon's "Imagine" because of its "message" (which he himself called "the Communist Manifesto set to music"); though it sounds lovely, it wouldn't have the popularity without the lyrics.

Nowadays, if an artist covers a Beatles tune, they usually pick one of the lyrically-rich ones. And they should, because those are the Lennon/McCartney songs which elevate the singer.

Now, I do agree that lyrics can spoil a song, and I can cite many examples. But I don't really have a problem with that. I can't ignore what someone's saying just because I'd prefer to like the tune. My brain doesn't work like that. There are, of course, exceptions; I don't have a clue what Outkast is saying in "Hey Ya," other than shaking it like a Polaroid picture, and it's possible -- though I don't know -- that I'd find something objectionable in it, but I appreciate the musicality of it and would prefer not to have it spoiled. But I also find that songs in genres I don't care for become appealing if I like the lyrics -- like "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy," which is lyrically great, but I hate country.

As you say, though, everyone takes what they want out of their experiences.
 
OldCorpse said:
A big fuss about nothing. It is a rare song or performer where the lyrics matter. Most of the time, people don't pay attention to the lyrics, and that's as it should be - the meaning of the lyrics was never meant to be important, they function as raw material for the singer's voice and nothing else... hence many songs even have nonsense lyrics or sloppy enunciation - they are not MEANT to be listened to for comprehension, but for musical effect. So why obsess over them? And why would you want to spoil a song for yourself by examining that which was not MEANT to be examined? Personally, there are songs I've listened to hundreds if not thousands of times, and I couldn't tell you what they are about. I listen to the music, not the meaning of the lyrics. YMMV.

Now, no doubt there are some songs and some performers where the meaning of the lyrics is very important, and the artist has made a conscious decision to emphasize them and they are an integral part of their overall artistic effect, and in that case you do listen to them carefully for the meaning. But these are rare.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!!

Thomas J. O'Hara said:
"Baby Got Back" by Tag Team

all this time I thought it was about the love of his life coming back home to him! :)
Click to expand...

LOL Good one man!
 
A big fuss about nothing. It is a rare song or performer where the lyrics matter. Most of the time, people don't pay attention to the lyrics, and that's as it should be - the meaning of the lyrics was never meant to be important, they function as raw material for the singer's voice and nothing else...

This is one of those rare instances where the statement is so ridiculously wrong that I don't have to provide any examples for rebuttal.
 
A big fuss about nothing. It is a rare song or performer where the lyrics matter. Most of the time, people don't pay attention to the lyrics, and that's as it should be - the meaning of the lyrics was never meant to be important, they function as raw material for the singer's voice and nothing else...
Click to expand...
This is one of those rare instances where the statement is so ridiculously wrong that I don't have to provide any examples for rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

Most musicians write the music first and I think the majority would tell you that's probably the easiest part, adding lyrics and to match the feel of the song is probably the toughest thing in songwriting to do. Which I find really odd how in bands, one person will write the music bring it to the singer who will add lyrics. It's an odd way of doing things but in some situations you'll end up with great partners that can feed of each other (Page and Plant , Bono and the Edge, and so on), but I think for the most part, the initial song writer tends to come up with their own lyrics. I don't think Paul McCartney ever wrote lyrics for John Lennon and vice versa, even though it says Lennon/McCartney above every song, you can tell who wrote the song by who's singing it (besides from Ringo). It goes to show though that some situations like the team of Elton John and Bernie Taupin do work, it's pretty remarkable the way they write their music. One of the greatest song writers in history cannot for the life of him come up with lyrics to match any of his music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top