A guy in the Beatles group feels very similar to how I feel about lyrics.

He posted:

My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of lyrics"
sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.

Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much more deeply into
me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
to history, etc.

Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
drops my jaw involuntarily.

I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be more
into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to say
I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me the
important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation, syllable
metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.

Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none of them
give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first "When" does.

The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means: it's the
sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical note
is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a single
brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.

Zzzzzzzz!

On 4/5/2024 10:04 PM, Bruce wrote:
> A guy in the Beatles group feels very similar to how I feel about lyrics.
> He posted:
>
> My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of lyrics"
> sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
> the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
> hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.
>
>
> Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
> final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much more deeply into
> me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
> to history, etc.
>
>
> Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
> years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
> word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
> drops my jaw involuntarily.
>
> I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be more
> into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to say
> I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me the
> important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation, syllable
> metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.
>
>
> Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none of them
> give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first "When" does.
>
>
> The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means: it's the
> sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical note
> is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a single
> brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
> between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
> favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
> zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.
----------
'tl;dr' ????? What the hell is that?????

DianeE wrote:

> On 4/5/2024 10:04 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> A guy in the Beatles group feels very similar to how I feel about lyrics.
>> He posted:
>>
>> My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of lyrics"
>> sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
>> the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
>> hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.
>>
>>
>> Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
>> final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much more deeply into
>> me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
>> to history, etc.
>>
>>
>> Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
>> years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
>> word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
>> drops my jaw involuntarily.
>>
>> I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be more
>> into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to say
>> I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me the
>> important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation, syllable
>> metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.
>>
>>
>> Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none of them
>> give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first "When" does.
>>
>>
>> The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means: it's the
>> sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical note
>> is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a single
>> brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
>> between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
>> favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
>> zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.
> ----------
> 'tl;dr' ????? What the hell is that?????

It's something YOU will appreciate.

TL;DR is an abbreviation for "too long; didn't read." It often appears in social media posts, online articles, blog posts, text messages, emails, and comments responding to various types of content.

What about records like "Volare" or "Sukiyaki"?

Both were HUGE hits on both sides of the pond but how many folk on either side understood the lyrics?

So lyrics obviously can't be THAT important---otherwise people wouldn't have purchased these things

I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics? Were you just instigating in jest?

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:52:23 +0000, mariabus@blueyonder.co.uk (Roger)
wrote:

>What about records like "Volare" or "Sukiyaki"?
>
>Both were HUGE hits on both sides of the pond but how many folk on either side understood the lyrics?
>
>So lyrics obviously can't be THAT important---otherwise people wouldn't have purchased these things

Thanks for supporting your pal Bruce, Roger.

Lyrics can be important, it depends on the recording...

On 4/6/2024 4:10 PM, RWC wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:52:23 +0000, mariabus@blueyonder.co.uk (Roger)
> wrote:
>
>> What about records like "Volare" or "Sukiyaki"?
>>
>> Both were HUGE hits on both sides of the pond but how many folk on either side understood the lyrics?
>>
>> So lyrics obviously can't be THAT important---otherwise people wouldn't have purchased these things
>
> Thanks for supporting your pal Bruce, Roger.
>
> Lyrics can be important, it depends on the recording...
-----------
Well, this is as rare as a total eclipse: I agree with Geoff.

DianeE wrote:

> On 4/6/2024 4:10 PM, RWC wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:52:23 +0000, mariabus@blueyonder.co.uk (Roger)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What about records like "Volare" or "Sukiyaki"?
>>>
>>> Both were HUGE hits on both sides of the pond but how many folk on either side understood the lyrics?
>>>
>>> So lyrics obviously can't be THAT important---otherwise people wouldn't have purchased these things
>>
>> Thanks for supporting your pal Bruce, Roger.
>>
>> Lyrics can be important, it depends on the recording...
> -----------
> Well, this is as rare as a total eclipse: I agree with Geoff.

Wow! That damned earthquake has a lot to answer for

> Bruce wrote:
> A guy in the Beatles group feels very similar to how I feel about
lyrics.
>
> He posted:
>
> My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of
lyrics"
> sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
> the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
> hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.
>
>
> Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
> final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much
more deeply into
> me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
> to history, etc.
>
>
> Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
> years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
> word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
> drops my jaw involuntarily.
>
> I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be
more
> into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to
say
> I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me
the
> important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation,
syllable
> metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.
>
>
> Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none
of them
> give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first
"When" does.
>
>
> The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means:
it's the
> sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical
note
> is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a
single
> brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
> between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
> favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
> zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.

Interesting take, although I can't say that I really agree, Brian a a
lyricist.



This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=663065034#663065034

RWC wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:52:23 +0000, mariabus@blueyonder.co.uk (Roger)
> wrote:

>>What about records like "Volare" or "Sukiyaki"?
>>
>>Both were HUGE hits on both sides of the pond but how many folk on either side understood the lyrics?
>>
>>So lyrics obviously can't be THAT important---otherwise people wouldn't have purchased these things

> Thanks for supporting your pal Bruce, Roger.

> Lyrics can be important, it depends on the recording...

Give us an example of a recording where you think the lyrics are important.

bbug1 wrote:

> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?

If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?

If you get the Crew Cuts "Earth Angel" it's just as good as the Penguins version if you are buying it "because" of the lyrics.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:44:04 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:

>bbug1 wrote:
>
>> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?
>
>If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?
>
>If you get the Crew Cuts "Earth Angel" it's just as good as the Penguins version if you are buying it "because" of the lyrics.

No, Bruce, it's not as simple as that.

A song that is liked because of the lyrics also has to get a pass
mark as regards the sound that comes out of the speaker.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:01 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:

>RWC wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:52:23 +0000, mariabus@blueyonder.co.uk (Roger)
>> wrote:
>
>>>What about records like "Volare" or "Sukiyaki"?
>>>
>>>Both were HUGE hits on both sides of the pond but how many folk on either side understood the lyrics?
>>>
>>>So lyrics obviously can't be THAT important---otherwise people wouldn't have purchased these things
>
>> Thanks for supporting your pal Bruce, Roger.
>
>> Lyrics can be important, it depends on the recording...
>
>Give us an example of a recording where you think the lyrics are important.

Elvis - Old Shep; cornball as the lyrics might be

RWC wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:44:04 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:

>>bbug1 wrote:
>>
>>> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?
>>
>>If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?
>>
>>If you get the Crew Cuts "Earth Angel" it's just as good as the Penguins version if you are buying it "because" of the lyrics.

> No, Bruce, it's not as simple as that.

> A song that is liked because of the lyrics also has to get a pass
> mark as regards the sound that comes out of the speaker.

Then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.

Bruce wrote:

> If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?

The people who purchased Whitney Houston's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner probably would not have bought Roseanne Barr's.

--
BR

BobRoman wrote:

> Bruce wrote:

>> If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?

> The people who purchased Whitney Houston's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner probably would not have bought Roseanne Barr's.

So then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.

On Apr 21, 2024 at 11:50:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:

> RWC wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:44:04 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
>
>>> bbug1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that
>>>> are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?
>>>
>>> If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing
>>> doesn't matter, right?
>>>
>>> If you get the Crew Cuts "Earth Angel" it's just as good as the Penguins
>>> version if you are buying it "because" of the lyrics.
>
>> No, Bruce, it's not as simple as that.
>
>> A song that is liked because of the lyrics also has to get a pass
>> mark as regards the sound that comes out of the speaker.
>
> Then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.

Nobody here ever said that records are bought JUST because of the lyrics. All
they have been saying is that the various pleasures of a record will sometimes
be increased because of the lyrics.

--md

remove "xx" for email

Mark D. wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2024 at 11:50:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:

>> RWC wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:44:04 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
>>
>>>> bbug1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that
>>>>> are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?
>>>>
>>>> If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing
>>>> doesn't matter, right?
>>>>
>>>> If you get the Crew Cuts "Earth Angel" it's just as good as the Penguins
>>>> version if you are buying it "because" of the lyrics.
>>
>>> No, Bruce, it's not as simple as that.
>>
>>> A song that is liked because of the lyrics also has to get a pass
>>> mark as regards the sound that comes out of the speaker.
>>
>> Then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.

> Nobody here ever said that records are bought JUST because of the lyrics. All
> they have been saying is that the various pleasures of a record will sometimes
> be increased because of the lyrics.

I guess you missed this post from Bill:

bbug1 - Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:02
I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?

On Apr 21, 2024 at 5:25:15 PM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:

> <div id="editor" contenteditable="false">>>
>>> Then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.
>
>> Nobody here ever said that records are bought JUST because of the lyrics. All
>> they have been saying is that the various pleasures of a record will sometimes
>> be increased because of the lyrics.
>
> I guess you missed this post from Bill:
>
> bbug1 - Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:02
> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are
> purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?
> </div>
> <div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>

What does Bill's opinions have to do with mine?

--md

remove "xx" for email

Mark D. wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2024 at 5:25:15 PM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:

>> <div id="editor" contenteditable="false">>>
>>>> Then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.
>>
>>> Nobody here ever said that records are bought JUST because of the lyrics. All
>>> they have been saying is that the various pleasures of a record will sometimes
>>> be increased because of the lyrics.
>>
>> I guess you missed this post from Bill:
>>
>> bbug1 - Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:02
>> I thought you knew better than that, Roger. What about all the songs that are
>> purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?
>> </div>
>> <div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>

> What does Bill's opinions have to do with mine?

You said, and I quote, "Nobody here ever said that records are bought JUST because of the lyrics."

I just showed you that Bill has said that.

Bruce wrote:

> BobRoman wrote:

>> Bruce wrote:

>>> If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?

>> The people who purchased Whitney Houston's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner probably would not have bought Roseanne Barr's.

> So then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.

Bill did not say "JUST for the lyrics." The people who buy any version of any country's national anthem will be doing so, at least in part, "for the lyrics."

You actually get the concept more than you admit. Even you appreciate that comedy songs benefit from the lyrics. So you understand that there are categories where lyrics are important. Whether you concede that more categories exist than just that one is not important.

--
BR

BobRoman wrote:

> Bruce wrote:

>> BobRoman wrote:

>>> Bruce wrote:

>>>> If "songs" are purchased "because" of lyrics, then which artist is singing doesn't matter, right?

>>> The people who purchased Whitney Houston's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner probably would not have bought Roseanne Barr's.

>> So then it's not just being bought because of the lyrics.

> Bill did not say "JUST for the lyrics."

The just is understood with the way Bill worded it.

Bruce wrote:

> BobRoman wrote:

>> Bill did not say "JUST for the lyrics."

> The just is understood with the way Bill worded it.

"What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?"

I don't see it. If "because" was the same as "just because," Lloyd Price would have written a shorter song.

--
BR

BobRoman wrote:

> Bruce wrote:

>> BobRoman wrote:

>>> Bill did not say "JUST for the lyrics."

>> The just is understood with the way Bill worded it.

> "What about all the songs that are purchased BECAUSE of the lyrics?"

> I don't see it. If "because" was the same as "just because," Lloyd Price would have written a shorter song.

There's a reason why Bill put BECAUSE in CAPS.