JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum Is a lyric ONLY person really a songwriter?

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but I have a really hard time thinking of a lyricist (who doesn't write music) as a songwriter. IMHO, a lyric is not a song; it is a POEM. I don't know why, but it bothers me when people write lyrics and then call the finished product a song. Once it has music, then it's a song. Until it has music, it is a poem.

Shouldn't a lyricist be referred to as a POET?

Do any of you feel the same way or is mine a minority view?

That's a very good question.

I know an awful lot of poets who don't want to claim lyricists. But I see them as a branch of the poetic community. In my case, I make no bones about it. I am a poet. Although I have been known to dabble in musical composition, I'm AKA Wordsmith, not ********* .

Certainly someone can be both a lyricist and poet, as Rudyard Kipling and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were.

I tend to think there are two other parts to the distinction:

1. Lyricists often work with a partner. It was Rogers and Hart or Rogers and Hammerstein and it was Gilbert and Sullivan. Each partner plays to their strengths. Personally, part of the reason I'm hanging out here is looking for a versatile musical partner. It's either that or work a lot harder at the music end, and considering I've only begun studying poetry seriously, I hardly have the time. Maybe in a few years. Until then, I'm looking for my Sir Arthur Sullivan.

2. Lyricists often write for a broader audience and may not always seem as refined in their works as a "poet" often writing for a more academic audience and setting.

But boiling it all down, a lyrical poet is still a poet.

Oh, that's funny. It crossed out Tune Smith when I didn't have a space.

Hm?? Well a lyric is a major part of a song and what is a song without lyric? So yeah a lyricst is a songwriter where would a melody be without song (lyric)?

MY 2 CENTS S.Dee

Well, now. There are many, many songs without lyrics (instrumentals). And there are many, many songs without melodies (talking blues, rap).

I would call a person who writes song lyrics a lyricist. I would call a person who writes music a composer. I would call someone who does both a songwriter.

But if a lyricist wants to call himself a songwriter, that's okay with me.

I write lyrics and I also write songs.
Although I do not play an instrument
I put lyrics to melodies and sing the
song on cassette or cd and give to demo studio.. or I collaborate to get the music.
So... I consider myself both a lyicist
and a songwriter. Hope that explains the
mystery why some lyricists are also songwriters.. guess it's like playing the piano by ear

The accurate terms would be

Lyricist for a lyric only writer
Composer for a melody/music only writer

Many writers do both although maybe one better than the other and they would be called songwriters.

However if you have written the lyric portion of a song, you are considered one of the songwriters as is the person who composed the music.

Lyric writing and music composition are subspecialties of songwriting and if you only do one or the other then you probably do it better than someone who does both.

Whatever you want to call yourself, doesn't matter. When the song is a hit you will always be one of the writers of that song.

Peace,
Rachel

Dictionaries only reflect how words are used in society. They don't determine HOW they are suppose to be used. The meanings and references of words change all the time and people in different dialect communities use words in sometimes dramatically different ways. This is a topic I actually know something about. I am a professional linguist.

Kewl! Your name isn't Grimm, is it?

The melody AND the lyrics are of equal importance. BOTH are the songwriters!

Emily

I consider myself a "lyricist" and a "songwriter".

Here is where I bridge the lines. A songwriter is someone (lyricist or composer) who contributes to the completion of an entire song. Usually a team of writers brainstorming ideas together.

A lyricist specializes in the words portion of a song. A composer specializes in the musical portion.

So it would be safe to say that there are creative specialists when piecing a song together.

When you place the two together, you have two songwriters with a recorded demo, or in some instances, a radio ready cut.


In that respect, yes, a lyricist is a songwriter and so is the composer.

I would say that if a person is just writing lyrics, they are also a songwriter. I'll bet that many lyricists have been in situations where they've written lyrics for already existing music, and they've also written lyrics first, for someone else to put music to. Either way, they're songwriters. I would never think of denying Neal Peart or Bernie Taupin the status of songwriter. They certainly get paid more than enough songwriting royalties to just be called poets.
That's my take on it.

The point is being missed here. Words like lyricist, composer and songwriter are not titles. They are not awards. They are words that describe. If you are a person who writes song lyrics, but not melodies, which word would you choose to best describe yourself, if you wanted someone else to know exactly what it is you do?

I would choose "lyricist." There would be no confusion.

What if you wrote music, but not lyrics? Composer.

Forget choosing the word that best suits your ego. Choose the word that is the best descriptor.

If it makes you feel better to call yourself a songwriter, even if you have never written a song, be my guest.

I don't really care if I'm labeled as a songwriter or not. I write lyrics... which are specifically written to be attached to music. I'm not a poet in the literal sense, because my preferred end product is not words on paper, but words sung by a vocalist. Is a guy who designs car bodies really a car builder? Clearly, his designs won't work without an engine inside....

Corey

[This message has been edited by Corey (edited 08-23-2005).]

What about a guy who writes lyrics to a bad melody, knowing that the bad melody will later be substituted with a good melody? Because I've written song lyrics which have taken on more than one melody before I'm finally satisfied with the end product.
If you're writing lyrics, and your end intent is for those lyrics to have a melody, then you're a songwriter.

There is a difference between poetry and song lyrics; the "musical" sound to song lyrics...makes me think that a true lyricist is truly a songwriter. I do think that it takes some musical ablility to write good lyrics...the ability to make words "sing" well...

Emily

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 08-23-2005).]

(Quote) The melody AND the lyrics are of equal importance. BOTH are the songwriters
Right on Emily. I've been on quite a few boards and it's been discussed on most of them and I've never seen it settled and it won't be here. Usually it come down to Emilys statement. Most any good lyrics can be sung a cappella, Ol Man River the national anthem, America and numerous others. Good lyrics have a "natural" rhythm , though it may be "heard" a little differently. As someone said, some of the genres are hardly using any music, Just a beat.
Reminds me of a story ---In the Rodgers and Hammerstein collaborations--When they were at their zenith, of course the wives were invited to all the "best" parties. I believe Rodgers wrote the lyric parts. His wife was at a party and she mentioned Rodgers and Hammerstein and this woman said Oh, Mr Hammerstein wrote Ol'Man river and Rodgers wife said, "Oh no my husband wrote ol man river, Mr Hammerstein just did the "dum dum dumdum" Believe that's right on who wrote what but the principle's the same regardless.
How many instrumentals have you heard in the top ten lately on TV or radio? Precious few.
Course you have your classical music. But that's another category.
Nickles worth <G>
Wy

[This message has been edited by Wyman Lloyd (edited 08-23-2005).]

Not to dispute anyone who wishes to be called a songwriter, especially since it is difficult to be a lyricist without some musical talent or knowledge, but lyric writing IS a branch of poetry. It is called lyrical poetry. It is a specialized branch with specialized requirements, but it is poetry.

That said, not all poetry is good poetry. In fact, a friend of mine who is a bartender (aka philosopher) and restauranteur once told me:



So it is with song lyrics, including what you hear on the radio. Some lyrics are much worse than others.

Getting back to the point, if you are a lyricist (i.e. you have contributed words to a song, even a really bad song), then you are both songwriter and lyrical poet. One more title for your résumé.

That and $50 will fill a gas tank. Maybe.

[This message has been edited by AKA Wordsmith (edited 08-23-2005).]

Lyricists are songwriters.

Are you writing Bernie Taupin isn't a songwriter?

I'm sure his royalty checks beg to differ

Ande





------------------
Ande Rasmussen
AndeRasmussen@aol.com
http://www.AndeRasmussen.com
http://songramp.com/ande

http://www.MySpace.com/anders

Editor Of "Inspirations for Songwriters"
Message archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DIFS/messages
To receive IFS,
SEND an EMPTY email to:
difs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

When a lyricist and a composer join talents and create a song...sometimes both people have ways of adjusting the lyrics and melody to make both work together.

That's why I call them both songwriters; the real magic, to me, is joining the music and lyrics together so well..that you can't imagine one without the other.

I have heard many strong lyrics that have weak music, and many weak lyrics that are outdone by the music...and some songs where the music and lyrics don't match at all!

It is a real gift to be able to work as a team in creating a song. Many famous writing teams would tell you that their creation is synergistic....the completed song is more than just a lyric put to music!

Emily
emilysanders.net

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 08-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 08-23-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 08-23-2005).]

The real question you should ask is:

Is a song a song if it doesn't have a melody?

If you answered NO then words alone are not songs until a melody is put to them.

NEXT question:

Is a song a song when there is no words?

If you answered YES than there is a distinction between both.

Lyrics are not songs until a melody is put to them. Therefore lyricist are not songwriters unless they put a melody to the words or someone else does it.
Even in Rap there is some melody..

So a lyricist is not really a POET either.
Because the form that the words are written in are common form used for songs.
Poems are not typically written in a Song type structure. (ex. AABA)

But I do agree that a lyricist is writing in a form that is trying to adapt to the common song structures.

Bernie Taupin is not a songwriter until Elton John puts a Melody to his words.
Although he is writing lyrics in a song type structure.

But there are really no rules that suggest certain lyrics cannot be used in something different than a common song structure

DAvid

From The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics:



I repeat: A lyricist is a poet. Any lyricist who thinks otherwise is probably both a bad lyricist and a poor poet because they obviously have not studied poetry, which is their craft.

The question on this thread is whether a composer or lyricist is a "songwriter" if they only do one or the other. Unless they have teamed with a partner who has "completed" the song, they are definitely just a composer or a lyrical poet.

If one person has done both, writing both music and lyrics for a composition, that person is a songwriter.

So, that only leaves the case where a person has composed only a tune or lyrics which have been mated with the opposite created by someone else to create a song. Are these people songwriters?

What if someone comes along and puts an old poem to a tune years after the poet died? Does that suddenly make the dead poet a songwriter? Some acquaintances of mine, Tony Barrand and John Roberts, are in the process of setting some of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's poems to music and putting together a CD of these songs. If Doyle's poems have never before been part of a song, does that make him a songwriter posthumously?

This is the margin that we are arguing on. And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

From the same source:



Translation: A lyricist is a songwriter because they are writing lyrical poetry, with or without music composed for it by themselves or others. A composer can be a songwriter, even without words to go to the song.

That reminds me of various words that have been set to Pachelbel's Canon in D. Even if he wrote no songs that had lyrics for them in his lifetime, he was a songwriter because he wrote lyrical melodies.

Case closed. The authories say you're all songwriters. Congratulations.

Songwriter, of course!

Although, I always called Buddy the "word writer"!

OK, here it is:
1. A lyricist's intent is to have their words be a part of a song, thus a Songwriter! (involves songwriting structure knowledge too, there again,,,,Songwriter!

2. The composer's intent is to have his music be part of a song, thus a Songwriter!

3. A poet's intent is to have their words read by a pipe smoking bearded scholar; thus a Poet!

There you have it.

John Daubert

Well, AKA doesn't look like you closed the case. Maybe you forgot to lock it <G>
This statement-saying (not mine) just bears on the relative importance of the music and the lyric but it always made sense to me.---
"Ideally, either one ,the lyric or the music should be able to stand on their own"
Just 2 cents
Wy

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that calling him a songwriter, is less accurate, and less descriptive of what he does, than calling him what he really is: a lyricist.

It doesn't matter what you call him. But it is interesting what the world thinks he is. Just for fun, I Googled Bernie and pasted a few little bio bits below. I took them in order and didn't leave anything out. These are what I got, until I got tired of the exercise.



I did not find a single reference to him as a songwriter, although I did find references to his being in the Songwriter Hall of Fame and that he was employed by Dick James as a songwriter.

So what is the point. Nuthin'. Call him anything you want, but Bernie and Elton had two very different talents and did two very different things. To call them both songwriters would give a wrong impression to someone who was not familiar with their work. There are perfectly good words to describe those things, but, apparently, some people think it is an insult to be known as a lyricist.

Again, I am not saying BT is NOT a songwriter. He is. He is also an Englishman. He is a lot of things. And he certainly IS a very famous lyricist. Why would you not want to call him that? Why would any of you lyricists out there NOT want to be known as a lyricist? Why would you not want people to know exactly what you do?




[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 08-23-2005).]

Hmmm, what would I prefer to be called? I guess you really have to be a lyricist to understand the process one goes through when writing lyrics. Yes, lyrics are just words on a page to those who simply read the prose. But that's not what a lyricist thinks and feels during the process of composition. In order to be a good lyricist you need to be conscious of rhythm, rhyme, melodies, back beats, bridges, the whole song writing process. A lyricist may not always adapt his or her own music to the lyrics, often preferring the professional edge of another, however that doesn't mean the lyrics weren't composed without musical consideration.

When I compose a set of lyrics I 'hear' music. I am conscious of how the words will sound and will often hum a melody or sing the lyrics as I compose. I also consider introductions, fading and possible bridges and have an overall sense of how I would like the lyrics conveyed. In that sense I consider myself to be a songwriter. Now I could take the process one step further and jot down the melody thereby cementing a claim to the sisterhood of song writing but that's not part of my plan. I actually prefer input from far more talented musicians than I. I don't see how that makes me any less a songwriter, just as the musician is no less a songwriter because he or she doesn't create the lyrics! Unfortunately public perception is such that there tends to be a distinction. For a lyricist there is often a sense of shame in calling oneself a songwriter and I think that's the greatest shame of all.

But I guess that still hasn't answered my original question. What would I prefer to be called? I am an artist and yes I consider my self a songwriter although my skill is as a lyricist; as a lyricist I am by nature a poet; and as a poet then I must also be an author. Thus I could label myself many things if I were truly pretentious. At the end of the day though when all is said and done and being sensitive to the feelings of others, I prefer the term Lyrical Composer. My writing is lyrical in that I use language appropriate to song creation and I am a composer because I am the author of my composition. Thus it sums up what I do without stepping on anyone's toes! Well, at least up until now

Lyricists are songwriters.
Are you writing Bernie Taupin isn't a songwriter?

I'm sure his royalty checks beg to differ

Ande

End quote.
Gee Ande.
I expect better of someone up there like you.
You have to know full well, unless Bernie and Elton have decided otherwise, the registration with their pro will say Bernie A (the A stands for author) and Elton C (That's composer).
Giving both 50% of any royalty due and individual ownership of their own contibution to the end product.
They both ate songwriters.
One is a composer and the other is a lyricist.
If Elton didn't have Bernie or suitable substitutes, he would still be a composer.
If Bernie didn't have Elton, or suitable substutes to provide the melody, he would be a writer.
Or a poet if he strictly specalised in that field.
Unless he could carry a tune enough to sing or otherwise get a melody out himself.
So.
My take is.
If a someone's string of words is sung to a melody, by any means, they are a lyicist, and a songwriter.
If it never finds a tune, they are a writer.
I say writer because I have read prose in these very forums which I in fact sung, so poet isn't the only type of writer who can in fact become considered a songwriter/lyricist.
Two examples that come to mind of me doing the sing prose are one from Redwriter and one from Mike Dunbar.
From memory Red didn't understand what I was saying, and Mike did and thought it was a hoot.
The Capo song in Education and theory forum I think the latter was.
Or it may have been the start of the capo song.
Has been a while and it sure isn't something I think would ever go live. bar for at a writer's night.
All in the person's ability to interprit stuff.
Quite frankly, I find the act of calling yourself a songwriter when nothing you have put out has a tune to it a bit over the top.
It is at the best, a maybe lyric.
In reality it is a poem if it recites and prose if it doesn't.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

okay did we figure this out? I would really like to know what i am ? a poet? a lyracist, a songwriter? all i know is, I got the words, someone else has got the melody and yet another will sing the damn song.

To all those manfully defending the lyricist as a "songwriter"...

Yes, strict denotation in the dictionary says you can use this term, but let's face it...

Elton would be famous with or without Bernie... can Bernie make the same claim?

Quick, without Googling... who wrote the lyrics to Phantom Of The Opera... or Pet Sounds?

I'm guessing that you all have heard of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Brian Wilson, or at least the Beach Boys, without having to think for more than a few seconds.

But who wrote the words for the aforementioned and acclaimed masterpieces?

See what I mean... the lyricist is respected, but the composer is THE MAN... period, end of sentence, end of story.

The point to the above isn't that the words were unnecessary or of little worth...

Rather, given 'hit' music, damn near any words that are reasonable would suffice, and more importantly...

There are far more people who can provide words than there are composers who can make said words come alive with music.

Hence it's simple economics...

good words = plentiful and of some value, good music = somewhat rarer and of far greater value.

We all grow up being able to write... fewer learn to play an instrument... and fewer still learn to compose for many instruments.

Yeah, 'lyrics are important' all right, but quick... sing an entire two verses of "My Favorite Things"... or "White Christmas".. ACCURATELY... C'mon, you've heard these songs dozens, if not hundreds of times... what's wrong? You can only remember a line or two, beyond the hook/title? Gee, I thought someone said lyrics were just as important as music?

But I bet you can whistle or hum those songs in their entirety!


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 09-02-2005).]

Ah, Robert. I knew this wouldn't elude you forever Now we just need Bob Young, ha

Bill

Declaim yourself proudly as what you are: a lyricist.

Of course, you may call yourself a pizza if you want to. But if you are not a pizza, that would seem an odd choice.

Not really needed... these points that I've been making (for what is it now... well over 7 years?) have yet to be refuted... by him or anyone else... though he and his ilk have taken great pains in the past trying to shoot down the messenger rather than the message.

I'll gladly refute the points myself when I see an ad in the back of a magazine that says: "Send us your music... We'll add our words to it and make it a REAL SONG for just $49.95!"

Or when I step into an elevator and hear Lyrak.

From "Off The Charts: The Song Poem Story"...
For over 50 years, a small, strictly amateur music industry has thrived on the fine-print ads that appear in alternative newspapers and music-industry magazines, inviting would-be songsmiths to send in their lyrics (and perhaps even "earn royalties") when their songs--and we use that term loosely--are set to music, recorded by seasoned musicians, and returned to their creators as a kind of one-shot fantasy fulfillment of dreams that will never come true. What drives Meltzer's film is a uniquely American combination of pathos, fringe-dwelling ambition, and free expression by assorted misfits and "regular folk" who seek elusive immortality by turning their lyrical musings into trash-art that's simultaneously fascinating and pathetic.

"The market for 'lyrics-only' is nonexistent." - Jimmy Webb, in his book T.u.n.e.s.m.i.t.h


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 09-02-2005).]

While I see your point Robert, I wonder just what Elton would in fact be famous for without words?
he is just another piano banger who doesn't mind making a public specticle (pun intended) of himself enough to become a public figure after all.
heck neither of them could come up with anything totally new for the Dianna Funeral and had to blow any credability they may have hd with Goodbye Norma Jean
Any writer who can't find both a composer and a performer, is destined to remain a writer unless they feel stongly enough about their words to learn how to put them to music and get them put there.
Urban girl.
If you have never had anything you have written composed to and sung by any means at all, you are a writer.
If you have had just one of them noised, you may call yourself a songwriter, but to discribe yourself accuratly so folks know exactly what part of a song you are, call yourself a lyricist.
If composers did the same thing it would be good too.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

Jimmy knows a whole lot Robert but he uh, wasn't quite right on this one. The last cut I had was from a "lyrics only" submission
This is the link----
http://www.atlantamusicgroup.com/JohnBreen2.html
The song is "You Will Go". Also the first single off the album. Two co writers on it but that's getting to be nearly par for the course these days. They give the credits on the album altogether there somewhere Granted, Jimmy is "mostly" right but to be perfectly correct he would have to insert "nearly" in front of nonexistent.
(Quote" The market for 'lyrics-only' is nonexistent." - Jimmy Webb, in his book T.u.n.e.s.m.i.t.h
Wy


[This message has been edited by Wyman Lloyd (edited 09-02-2005).]

I'm with you fellas !

Tony

Not to much confusion with this..

If you write lyrics only you are a lyricist!

If someone puts those lyrics in a song you are now a songwriter!

Bernie writes lyrics/poems etc.. Elton writes melodies
and music etc... They are Co-Writers "Your Song" can't have one without the other..

And They Are GREAT Ones at That!


Peace
Sub

Well, sub, hard and fast statements usually get you in trouble. The last song on this album is done a capella. there's no music at all It's a "song". Good lyrics and a good singer can make a song work without any music. I like it as well as any song on the album. I suppose you could say he made it a song when he sang it, but that's quite a stretch. In good lyrics there is a natural rhythm. They're inherent in the lyrics. As far as I can see they're a "Part" of the lyrics. All he did was sing that.
And yes I did hear an a capella song on Cmt not long back. There was also an instrumental I believe farther back. Far as I can see they were both "songs"
As has often been said (quote)Generalizations are almost always wrong.
Wy

Hi,

I don't know if i really understand what you mean?

I figure it's a lyric then it was sung it's now a melody.
Melody is Music.. Even without any other instrument but a voice. This is no stretch..
Read it's a poem / sung it's a song or tune. It could have been whistled but then the lyricist is out and they wouldn't be considered a co-songwriter. Still seems pretty simple to me.

Peace
Sub

Wy,

Just to add to what Sub is saying. If you wrote a lyric and sang it without musical accompaniment you would have to be called the songwriter because you would have provided the lyric and the melody to which those lyrics were sung.

Take the famous composer Burt Bacharach who did all his composing away from an instrument then he went to his instrument and found accompaniment for his melody. In the first instance he was acting as a composer and in the second instance as an arranger.

It is possible to be a composer even if you do not play an instrument because the act of creating a melody can be done with the human voice which is an instrument. If you sent an accapella recording to a demo studio they would arrange it and provide musical accompaniment for the song however you would retain the copyright as the sole songwriter. If however your melody is changed somewhat in the process of arranging then the person contributing the changes would have a right to expect a co-writing credit on the song.

Hope this helps,

Rachel

I don't see any of the good adlib singer's names in the credits other than artist for their bends of standards.
Ella, all the Bilies, Frank. Louis, all did it so well too.
I think singer's choice is exactlly that, and while it is great to have a singer with enough creativity in them to stylise a song to suit them, they would have a hard time convincing me it had earned them a place in the collab stakes.
Arranger sure, but not collab on the writing credits.
I have never had anybody who bent one of mine to suit their style ever ask for a cut of the write.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

Ahem... he was speaking of being able to make a reasonable and consistent living... not getting the occasion indie cut that generates enough royalties, at best, to treat your mates to a pizza and a beer. Just about everyone here has done at least that!



Apparently you didn't see the point. Where did I say that Elton's alternative was to not have words to his songs? What I said was he'd be famous with or without Bernie, because there would always be a competent lyricist available to provide resonable words, as his post-Bernie days have proven. He still sells out his concerts regardless of whose words he puts to his music... has Bernie enjoyed the same success?

I reiterate... the lyricist is respected, but the composer is the MAN... it's not even a debate.



A cappella may be taken to mean 'singing without music' (literally 'in the chapel' from the Italian; interestingly enough, the Germans use Kapella as meaning 'band', so one might say "without a band")... but think about it... it's not a bunch of people reciting, for that would be a poetry recital... there's music in the sound of the voices and the harmonies (when more than one person is singing), and it's merely the voices taking the place of actual instruments... indeed, the voices are the instruments, and there's plenty of music therein.

You can't use the a capella argument to say "words are important", because look at something like Gregorian Chant... are you telling me that most people know what is being said? They don't even understand the language, yet find the sound of the a capella voices quite enchanting and inspirational! Even at the other end of the spectrum, barbershop quartet... no instruments, plenty of music through the voices, and the words often actually mundane (Sweeeeet Adeliiinnne, for you I piiiiine!).

Bad example, if you're trying to make an argument for words over or equal to music.



[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 09-06-2005).]

Robert,

I'm not going to get into the basic debate here. I would just like to say one thing. Elton John is not famous because he's a composer/songwriter. He's famous because he's a performer. Just like Elvis, Sinatra and scores(pardon the expression) of others. Had his songs been performed by someone else, very few people woould know his name. Phil Vasser and Brad Paisley are stars in their own right, performing their own material. How many people could name songs they've written but were recorded by others? With few exceptions, probably mostly in the worlds of theater and classical music, songwriting is not the road to fame.

Bill



[This message has been edited by lijemtu (edited 09-04-2005).]

You missed it Robert.
I said without words not without Bernie.
Elton needs words to do what he does.
If he could not perform at the level he does, he would be lucky to feed himself as just a composer I am sure.
Not a whole lot of call for instrumentals in the pop field.
It is the artist that is seen as the man by the masses.
And Noel. Ya know. I know that song, and never realised it didn't have any music a la instruments in it
I do remember most of the words and the melody.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

Why would you ask this question? You dig through decades of pop music and come up with one silly, forgettable example of a record with no melody and then cite it in an attempt to prove a point?

What does it prove?

Call it a song. Don't. Call it a frankfurter. What difference does it make?

You KNOW what a song is. I do, too. We all do. We don't need definitions and nobody has to prove anything.

Robert,

You've been chanting this mantra for a long time. You and I have clashed on the issue before, respectfully, for the most part. I think, in the post above, you have stated your case reasonably. You have softened your stance a bit, and I must say I agree with most of what you say.

Where I will take issue is in what you offer as "proof." You cling to the idea that the person who is more famous has done the more valuable work. That just does not hold water, and I think you know that. It is not true in any other field and it is not true in music, either. You know that, too. There are many great musicians who are way less famous than Kenny G. The composer is THE MAN because it has been that way dating back to classical. That line has blurred considerably in the last century. You know that, too.

Someone else on this thread nailed it: Elton is more famous than Bernie not because he wrote the music and BT wrote the words. Elton is more famous because he is the PERFORMER. All those fans didn't give a rat's arse who wrote what. They liked his voice, his energy, his outfits, his personna...and the songs, too.

The Lyrak thing...I hope you are being facetious. IF so, props. Very clever. But if you are sincere, you are missing the mark. The very point of Muzak is to provide mindless, boring background that will not distract or engage the listener. That is part of the reason they leave out the lyrics, any why the arrangements are so insipid. I think the Muzak experience refutes your point more than supports it.

Here's something to think about. From the 1940's up until I was a young adult, there were several popular monthly magazines that featured song lyrics (they may still exist...I don't know. I think the advent of printing lyrics on album sleeves doomed those mags, and the internet killed them dead). It seems thousands of people were enthralled with merely reading song lyrics, but I don't recall any popular magazines that featured sheet music. I don't think they print the score on CD booklets, either. Silly arguments? You bet. Prove anything? Nope. It's about as valid as your Lyrak comment.

Why do people remember melodies but cannot remember words? Maybe because the melody is "more important." Maybe. But, how about maybe because a melody is repeated 3, 4, 5, 6 times in a song, but every lyric verse is different? People do remember choruses, don't they? Repetition makes things stick.

Any moron can sing the melody to Mr. Tambourine Man, but how many know all the words? Is the melody "more important" to the allure of that song? I dunno.

I know the melody to The Star Spangled Banner because I have heard it a million times. I do NOT know the words to the third stanza because I have heard it only a few times. But I know the first stanza like a son-of-a-gun. Repetition.

Your points are valid, but you are trying way too hard to offer proof for that which is unprovable.

I'll state my point once again, and I think we agree more than not: sometimes music is more important; sometimes words. It depends on the song, the genre, the listener. Most of the time, the two work in concert and should not be separated. I completely agree that the competent composer is far less common than a competent lyricist. By a LONG shot. But I think the truly excellent lyricist is just as rare as the excellent composer.

Well, you ignore tens of thousands of hit songs (who is rubbishing what?) and pick ONE silly novelty song and call it evidence. I guess it is. But not very convincing. I prefer to think that the exception proves the rule. But I don't know nuttin'.

Gee. The things folks get all hot about.
And yes it does have a melody.
And that melody is, bar for the end turn arounds the same note all the way through unless my ears are decieving me.
And that has happened.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

Okay, Wirdaz...I see. You are talking about instrumental accompaniment, and not "music" per se. It is true that "Don't Worry..." has no instruments in it, but it certainly is VERY musical. It has all the elements of music: melody, harmony, rhythm. It's just that the instruments used are human voices instead of traditional instruments. What you were saying makes sense now.

[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 09-05-2005).]

Coming to take me away has an almost identical beat as The They're Changing Guards At Buckinham Palace, Christopher Robin and Alice song Noel.
The latter has more notes in the melody is about the only differance.
They are both songs.
Both have music no matter how they are performed.
Hadn't rung that Be Happy didn't have any backing music either.
Don't think I have a copy of that to listen to.
This debate is geting real exciting now.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm