Do You Identify With Lyrics, And Ifso, How?

lyrics

LYRICS

Lyrics

Two threads with similar titles, neither of which has more than four posts and neither of which is a poll? Your point is?

Please can you stop now if you're not going to add anything to a discussion?

Depends on the song doesn't it? I don't know anyone could pick only one option.

"I go back and forth between identifying with subject and object depending on circumstances I will describe" is that option, DL!

I was hoping that people would describe their experiences, and maybe provide examples, if they went back and forth.

I think that primarily I try to find alignment with the singer.

i like lyrics with good combinations of words

Damn, I didn't think of "I just view lyrics as poetical/literary/good combination of words" - but I'd put that either under the "stories/vignettes" option or else you can just pick "other"

That's a really good point and I feel stupid now I've forgotten it.

I mostly hate lyrics. As a writer, badly/clumsily written lyrics offend me - make me angry, even. I don't care what you're singing about, just do it artfully and without cliché or awkward, shoehorned-in phrases. So I'm sort of right between "I primarily listen to music in languages I do not speak" (a category into which I would put the most indecipherable/guttural of metal vocalists) and "I primarily listen to instrumental music."

Ha, my categories are not very good here. "Guttural/indecipherable/impenetrable" can go into "languages I do not speak" just fine. Cocteau Twins, Sigur Ros etc can go in there, too.

i can't even identify the lyrics lol

this is too complicated to answer with one response.
it really depends. i guess my relationship with lyrics is complicated. most of the time i do not identify personally with lyrics.

xp Yes sorry BB. Back and forth it is. I value lyrics more with every year that passes but for a hundred different reasons. I'd say I empathise/engage with narrators/characters more than I identify with them.

Can't a listener identify with Cocteau lyrics? They might not have a literal meaning, but they're still expressing something. You can put yourself into the voice and make it mean something for you.

Considering that the "singer" and the speaker of the song are not the same thing, I think this question is largely phrased all wrong.

good lyrics can shed light on things, including myself sometimes. but it's very rare that I'll hear a lyric in a first-person way, where I inhabit the singer's voice or the objects to whom she's singing. I voted for "stories" therefore but with the proviso that stories can shed light on things.

unless the singer is Sammy Hagar, in which case I identify 100%

agree w/ LL. lyrics feel more like thoughts that resonate w/out me 'identifying' per se

Voted 'I identify with the narrator/the person singing the song'. I definitely prefer songs where I can identify with the singer. It's a lot easier for me to relate to the lyrics then. Otherwise I have to think about how the lyrics fit into the persona of the singer, or the character that the singer is performing in that song. Surprisingly, for all the characters that David Bowie's played over the years, his songs are the ones where I can identify with him as a singer the easiest. Which seems weird, when he's pretending to be a bisexual alien, or a half man/half dog in a ruined city.

I think it's complicated for me because my impulse is to really *want* to relate to lyrics, and want to be able to step inside the narrator's head and see things from their point of view. But it's often quite rare, and I have to seek out carefully lyrics where I can step into the singer's feelings. I find myself annoyed at songs where I am shoehorned into being the "you" and it's possibly even rarer where I find "you"s that I am able to relate to - but it's so much more powerful when I do. (I'm thinking of School Of Seven Bells as I write this, one of the rare bands where I find myself flipping back and forth between the singer and the "you", sometimes even within the same song.)

The originally conversation, Lex and I were talking about hip-hop and the constructions of masculinity within hip-hop, and I found it 1) very hard to identify with hyper-masculine characters and 2) found myself jolted out of any identification I attempted the moment the b-word came out, and I found myself demoted to an unpleasant "you". Heavily "masculinised" genres of all sorts, I find it very very difficult to find a way into those characters. But Lex (and sorry if I capture your argument wrongly) said that he had the opposite problem, and found it hard to relate to any of the narrators in e.g. indie because the singers were so ineffectual and wet and full of self pity, especially the men, when those were precisely the types of men I found it easiest to identify with.

No I don't want to make this yet another "OMG, hip-hop vs metal vs indie" shriekfest, but I did wonder if this was one of those things that was gendered, raced, classed etc. Is it easier to relate to singers when you find your gender, race or class more represented? And if you do find yourself represented often, do you find it harder to stretch, or do you find yourself seeking out new experiences unlike yourself? It's always strange to me when people say that they seek out unfamiliar or alien experiences that they *dont'* relate to, in music, because the vast majority of the music I'm exposed to (without trying to seek things out) is completely alien to my experience, I feel like I do actively have to seek out things I am *able* to identify with, if that makes any sense. I am having a terrible sense of deja vu right now, so I probably have stared this thread before... apologies for beating a dead horse if I am.

Considering that the "singer" and the speaker of the song are not the same thing, I think this question is largely phrased all wrong.

The overlap between singer and narrator can go all the way from nothing (I don't imagine Scott Walker as putting across 'himself' in any way) to almost total (I always see Lou Reed's songs as 'Lou out doing stuff').

I think a lot of non-hyper-masculine people listen to hip-hop precisely to indulge in the fantasy of identifying with a hyper-masculine character

I mean listen to certain kinds of hip-hop anyway

Im not big on words but if there are words in a piece of music I like spoken word or very literal words, usually sampled from someone with an interesting speaking voice. I don't like any mystery or ambiguity in the words but something quite factual, even though when put with the music I end up not really hearing the words so much after all.

A good example off top of head might be Time, by Djungl

The thing is its kind of a cheap trick and can only be done here and there so mostly I listen to instrumental music

I mean listen to certain kinds of hip-hop anyway

I was gonna say, all those people wildin' out to Arrested Development

The overlap between singer and narrator can go all the way from nothing (I don't imagine Scott Walker as putting across 'himself' in any way) to almost total (I always see Lou Reed's songs as 'Lou out doing stuff').

― And when you f--- up, you go backwards (snoball), Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:38 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well there are theoretical reasons why even a narrator who says "I am Lou Reed" is not the living breathing Lou Reed of the present but a kind of frozen, fictionalized Lou Reed of a particular moment. But yeah, there are certainly times when the narrator of a song has a much less psychic distance, or w/e, from the singer.

Considering that the "singer" and the speaker of the song are not the same thing, I think this question is largely phrased all wrong.

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:27 PM

Yes, this is poorly phrased, but by "singer" I do not necessarily mean the human being being the actor behind the character, if there is a disparity, I mean the *character* who appears in the narrative. I definitely mean "narrator" rather than "author".

I think also maybe i quite like lyrics that are about working, i guess in country or folk

I dont like so much lyrics about characters observed from afar

Also I identify with the feelings expressed in songs even where the actual facts/experiences described are far from mine.

when BB and i talked about this, it was kind of like: when we sang along to our favourite songs, were we imagining ourselves as the singer or the subject? (assuming the song has those pronouns in it at all...)

and yeah, it can differ from song to song, but what struck me was that for me it's disproportionately weighted towards imagining myself as the narrator of the song and actually, hardly ever as the person the song is addressing. appreciating phonetics/wordplay and a song's narrative are probably the next two most important.

it's a qn i've thought about for a while, also thought that when there was a kerfuffle over beyoncé singing "bow down bitches" this was unspoken at the heart of it - when it comes to rap braggadocio (which bey was using in that song) i think the idea is that listeners identify with the narrator, drawing on the artist's power to be the one telling people in their life to bow down, bitches. whereas i felt a lot of the people who needed smelling salts imagined they were being sung to, they were the people being told to bow down, bitches.

another word that needs interrogating is "identify" - i don't know what that actually means tbh. "this song strikes a chord in me because it speaks to my exact life experiences"? occasionally but not actually that often. "this song strikes a chord in me because i recognise it as telling truth about life experiences i have encountered, both in my life and elsewhere" more often, "this song is resonant in ways i can't quite explain" also common. "this song speaks to life experiences i wish i'd had"? "idealised life experiences that make me feel commonality with others?" "idealised/exaggerated life experiences that are like a superhero version of me"? etc

pertinent post that i happened to be re-reading recently on tori amos's "marianne":

Yeah i love that bit. Tori lyrics are easy to sneer at but what I always found fascinating is the way in which (and this album is maybe the pinnacle for that) her performance of them made them feel absolutely bursting with meaning and significance. Like here the way she reaches up towards "sailors" as if this is key (key to what??), and the fact that Ed is watching her every sound (??) seems like the most intimate realisation ever.

― Tim F, Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:19 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xxxp ^^^ for me there always has to be some kind of 'closeness', even if that's done through the singer's performance rather than the lyrics. ABBA's 'Nina, Pretty Ballerina' is the first example that springs to mind. The lyrics aren't specific about the narrator's relationship to the subject, but the way the singers perform the song imply that they at least know the subject fairly well.

Thank you, Lex, for explaining that so much better.

And yeah, I'm glad that you interrogated the word "identity/identify" because I do think that was the word that I struggled with most when trying to articulate this question.

I was just listening to Yeezus in the gym and somehow New Slaves was really resonating with me even though the experiences it describes are obviously not factually similar to mine. Maybe I just identify with an angry "damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't" feeling in some generalized kind of way.

OTOH, a song that randomly popped into my mind - Jim O'Rourke's Halfway to a Threeway, obviously I don't identify with the lyrics, but there's something compelling about them because of the delayed epiphany/revulsion you feel when you realize what they're slyly about.

another word that needs interrogating is "identify"

Oh, good point. I was thinking of it in terms of oh i like that, but in strict terms I dont think I identify with any

"this song speaks to life experiences i wish i'd had"? "idealised life experiences that make me feel commonality with others?" "idealised/exaggerated life experiences that are like a superhero version of me"? etc

This I think is really salient, because this is behind a huge amount of music that I have loved, especially Spacerock (Hawkwind, LOL) because really, I am not a giant Texan spacerock superhero leaping planets with my interstellar riffs, but wow, yeah, when I listen to Bob Calvert or Brandon Curtis, man, I reeeeeaaaaally wish I was?

Like, no one can listen to Lemmy and even contemplate *being* Lemmy, but listening to Lemmy and wishing you were that superhero comic book character, wow, yeah, that's a thing.

"Identify" can mean as little as "I have felt this feeling" which can be universal, and transcend even lyrics, if the emotion is strongly expressed.

Or "Identify" can mean "I have had these experiences, I have this same background, inhabit the same context".

When I said I had trouble finding things to identify with, I meant I had trouble with the latter, rather than the former.

But I guess one of the questions is also not just "do you feel like the singer or the subject" but also do you need to be able to access or conceive of yourself as being *able* to access those experiences/emotions in order to identify with a song? Or can you just identify with characters, as if in a novel, you share little reference with?

Like, what do sr8 dudes feel when listening to Beyonce? Do they identify with her, that's an interesting question to me.

Now that I think about it, I guess in addition to having a range of feelings about lyrics, I'm not particularly inclined to catalogue/analyze/share my feelings about the complexity. It's kinda private.

that's actually the crux of it for me (and also one of the reasons i've always abandoned the idea of this thread myself despite the question popping into my head periodically for YEARS)

xp

I would sometimes sing Super Bass with my car windows rolled down and the volume at a moderately high level.

excuuuse me, you're a hell of a guy, you kno i rly got a thing for american guyzzz

i mean--sigh!--sickening eyez, i can tell that you're in touch with your feminine side

Had an ex who was *obsessed* with Beyonce, but he *always* listened to her with the idea that he was her boyfriend/person that was being sung to or about. It kinda worried me that he could never make the jump to relating to her as describing his own emotions. It struck me as a lost opportunity. It gives a richer experience. (I certainly didn't always see myself as the girl in dudely songs, I saw myself as Sonic Boom more often than the druggy babe.)

I'm sorry you don't feel like sharing, but I respect your privacy, LL.

Hmm, I have never really considered how I relate to Beyonce songs. However I can certainly think of Joni Mitchell songs where I relate to the narrator.

Beginning to feel something of a sociopath as realizing I dont identify/align with narrator or subject at all.

I guess when I listen to lyrics I tend to identify with the narrator/the person singing the song, but more at the level of imaging myself performing that role, rather than actually being the person, if that makes sense? Most of the music I listen to is not performed in a very 'naturalistic' way, so it's more like watching a movie, and imaging myself as an actor playing one of the roles in the film, rather than imagining actually being the character they are playing? I'm not explaining this very well

I identify with Dusty Springfield, even though she was a lesbian woman and I'm a nominally het although now mostly ace man. I don't even know where to begin picking that apart.

in my version of the song using that line it's sung by the Frankenstein monster and it's the saddest song of all time

I identify with lyrics that make me feel some type of way

Some lyrics demand identification to be enjoyed: when Katy Perry sings "you held me down, but I got up", the pleasure comes from imagining yourself as the one challenging her adversaries; nobody who enjoys that lyric is identifying with the person holding her down. Except maybe whiney

I listened to instrumental music or music with unintelligible lyrics so I could multitask and read at the same time. I would listen to New Order repeatedly, not really being able to articulate why they were my favourite band, but every time I heard them I noticed more and more things in Bernard’s lyrics, even if I couldn’t understand them.

Then I would listen to Joy Division because of the New Order connection, but it was only later I would appreciate Ian Curtis in his own right. They would’t be the sort of lyrics that I would have consciously decided to seek out.

Then I’d listen to A Certain ration bcos of the factory connection. I couldn’t really tell you anything about their lyrics. And so it went on, one band would lead to another, getting into something new every month or so, and another band would be shuffled into rotation. I am going somewhere with this, I promise!

So now I do a lot of my listening on shuffle and somebody like John Grant will come on, who I’ve got on my iPod because it was produced by one of GusGus, and suddenly a lyric that I’d never paid much attention resonates with me so hard that I have to go back and relisten to it again and again and suddenly I’m playing the John Grant album on a loop and singing along to the songs in my head.

I find that when I’m singing something that for the duration I become the singer - not the same person, but that the song is mine, I wrote it, and even if actual details about what they are singing about doesn’t relate exactly to me it’s coded - almost like the lyrics are saying one thing, but because I’m the song I know they actually mean something different, something I didn’t know how to express any other way.

*A Certain Ratio, oops

I think, as a teenager, I used to force myself to think I related to lyrics more than I really did. For years I pretty much just listened to Jens Lekman and it's quite easy when yr a 15 old to pretend that you're a super romantic, misunderstood spurned man, and that his lyrics really really chimed with how I saw the world. in reality I was a frustrated boy who spent most of his time hating life and wanking. So I think I grew out of that kind of identification. I listen to house/techno far more than anything else these days so lyrics don't figure into the equation so much. Which doesn't mean that I don't care about them any more, just that I'm less focused on them.

I was thinking the other morning about why I love Heartland so much; I don't think we're meant to identify with them a huge amount (though if their writer wants to dispute that then I'm open to discussion)but you, or at least I, find yourself (/myself) becoming the characters somewhat...not sure what I'm getting at here other than pointing out that singing "The stony hiss of cockatrice has cast us into serfdom/I close my eyes and spur Imelda down the mountainside, for a liberated Spectrum!" is a really fun thing to do in the shower.

as far as the subject/object thing goes, i want to mention leonard cohen's "suzanne". going on the text alone, it's hard to argue convincingly that the song is more about "her" (titular suzy), than the "you" to whom the narrator addresses himself (and i'm saying "him" for only the most obvious reasons). after all, the lyrics conclude with "and you know that you can trust her / for she's touched your perfect body with her mind." this said as though "you" were ultimately the subject. but that's wrong, the song is wrong, leonard's wrong.

as far as my own emotional identification is concerned, suzanne is the only character onscreen. i see her, of course, from the song's narrative vantage and understand that she only exists (relative to me) from that vantage. nevertheless, its she to whom my heart clings. i don't care about the narrator's lovestruck woes, don't care how that narrator relates to cohen as author. i see only suzanne, and frankly wish everyone else would excuse themselves from view.

which only means that it's a good song, ftr

interesting thread, thanks BB. kind of timely for me because i feel like my whole relationship with lyrics has changed as i've gotten older, or maybe it hasn't changed and instead i've just clarified it a little more. for while i thought i was squarely in the "i don't give a shit about lyrics" camp, just hearing voice as sound without any relationship to the words, but now for me that's just not the case. it could be the type of music i used to mostly listen to when i felt that way - mostly jazz & experimental music, and the change could've been sparked over the past 5 years as i've just kind of really deepened a connection to more lyrically-based music, singer-songwriters, country music, folk music.

i probably vote the first option, that i usually identify with the singer/narrator. really fascinating to read the gendered/racialized aspects people are talking about. i'll freely admit that singers/lyricists i most strongly identify with are certainly masculine - bill callahan, dylan, neil young, townes van zandt, leonard cohen, kris kristofferson, george jones. callahan especially really changed how i relate to words and lyrics and how they're sung. there's joni mitchell too who has been a huge presence in my life recently and i do identify with her.

w/ the exception of callahan none of these voices are hyper-masculine, though, even callahan hasn't really had the super-deep male baritone until the past 8 years or so. i rarely identify w/ hyper-masculine voices whether they are coming from a machismo kind of place or are something super-deep like johhny cash. i listen to a lot of cash but it's more of an admiration and appreciation rather than identification.

pitchfork get's shat on here all the time obviously (by myself too), but i really enjoyed this piece from a couple years ago about gender and musical identification - http://pitchfork.com/features/resonant-frequency/8789-you-masculine-you/, the writer talks about grimes and bill callahan and his relationship to each of them as affected by gender. it's kind of rambling piece but there were some things that spoke to me in it.

the importance of lyrics depends on the song. if they're just used as another instrument, and the results aren't embarrassingly bad, i can let them fade into the background. but mostly i pay attention to lyrics, and they're important to me. not sure if i "identify" with the singer, but i do try to see the lyrics from the artist's perspective and my perspective. lyrics can make-or-break a song for me.

Because of my 22listens exercise, I've been thinking about places where you have to distance the singer from the narrator, like where lyrics are very obviously written from a pose or detachment. Character songs, where the character singing the song is not only not contiguous with the singer, but also kind of an asshole and it's actually critical to the enjoyment of the song to realise that this is not the persona of the song singing it, but a narrator you are *supposed* to think is kind of a jerk, and not identify with at all.

There are stupid and annoying ways to announce "I'm singing as a CHARACTER now!!!!' i.e. Damon Albarn, and then there are more effective ways to just sing as a character i.e. Ray Davies, but I'm starting to have more of an appreciation for those more subtle and difficult to tell ones, where you're left wondering, is this a narrator's pose, or is this a mask to tell the truth?

I thought of a perfect example of one of my favorite kinds of lyrics that makes it complicated to answer the original question itt.

When I was in 7th gr and buying music for myself regularly for the first time, REM was one of my favorite bands. I pretty much bought everything I could find at the mall record store because I didn't have to talk to anyone there. Dead Letter Office was one of the first tapes of theirs that I bought without having any idea what it was, and I listened to it incessantly. I didn't really understand the concept of outtakes or even covers really, and "Voice of Harold" was one of my favorite songs on there. When I finally heard "Seven Chinese Brothers", it was really disappointing because it wasn't "Voice of Harold." I've always like the Dead Letter Office version better because of the strange lyrics, which are just Michael Stipe reading the back of a gospel record iirc. I listened to it again today and surprise, I still love it.

My only point is to note that even at that age, I preferred rambling nonsense to words that make sense. Did I "identify" with this song? No, but I liked it a whole lot in part because of the lyrics, which I thought were amusing and weird (esp compared to most of the stuff I heard on the radio, this was 1987-88.)

Funny, I don't think I've ever thought to relate to the 'you' in songs, i think when my brain tries to 'relate' to lyrics, I'm either relating to the narrator or relating to the scene being described. One of my favorite lyrics is "snow drums" by Piano Magic, which is just a really brief but visceral description of a band riding in a van in the snow. But I'm definitely not immune to the power of something like springsteen going "i wanna find one face that isn't looking through me" or erykah badu going "tried to turn the sauna up to hotter, drunk a whole jar of holy water; still it won't let go"... In those cases, I think it's a place and time thing. Like, both those lyrics evoke specific periods in my life, etc, and I don't know if I would have identified with them had I been a more satisfied person at the time.

Thank you, interesting comments, both of you. It's a good perspective to hear from people who don't look for a "you" or a "me" in a song, too.

(Reminding me a bit of NV's "safe to be cracked vs shiny metal box" line of argument from 22 Listens. Like, some people actually prefer the shiny metal box with its logical incomprehensibility, to the idea of a song to be crawled inside.)

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Ha, I nearly forgot to vote in mine own poll.

I didn't see this thread originally, late to the game so sorry if my comments double up on others that are better expressed etc :)

As a teenager I know I definitely identified with lyrics much more, which is maybe more common idk...searching for shared experience, trying to not feel like you're an island/weirdo, the whole idea of being a unique individual was kind of terrifying at that age (ie 13-15...by the time I was 16 I was all about being a freaky weirdo and that all went by the wayside)

but yeah at that early age of teenagedom, it was EXCITING to hear a song that I could identify with and I would latch onto those hard. like 'omg they feel just like I do omg yaaaaaay' *clings to lifeboat*

but since then I don't think I really seek to identify with the narrator, and I think again that's more maybe because I'm not really seeking as hard to be a part of something anymore? maybe I'm not saying it the right way.

anyhoo

I definitely notice lyrics first over pretty much anything, and if they're story-telling kind of lyrics that are formulated in a way where you can get a clear sense of meaning of some kind, then I guess I treat it like I'm being told a story? so option 4 would be me

Oh, what an excellent answer! Thank you for sharing that. I, too, remember that thrill of hearing something on the radio that suddenly made me go "OMG, I am a normal human being, other people feel like this, too." I think as one ages, one becomes more reassured of one's humanity to the point where one doesn't need pop songs to reinforce it? I don't know. Maybe I'll never get there.

hmm yeah maybe!

this is a v good thread/question though, I honestly had never thought about it very deeply until today

"I feel like telling everyone to fuck off all the time," (from John Grant's "Why Don't You Love Me Anymore") pops into my head a lot. And I like the fact that the narrator is also 43.

Not sure how to answer this poll. I've always been attracted to music, not lyrics. I can't recall an instance of a song that I liked because I primarily appreciated its lyrics. In fact, in many cases, I don't even both to find out the lyrics until I *really love* the song -- this might seem strange. How could I love a song, and not even be really familiar with the lyrics? Melodies, chord progressions, beats are what stand out to me in music. To this day, I probably couldn't sing most of my favorite songs all the way through without a lyric sheet in front of me.

That said, once I actually do latch onto the lyrics, they tend to stay with me. Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is?", Randy Newman's "Lonely At the Top", Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years". In most cases, the lyrics are simple, and there isn't necessarily a message apparent, or an obvious moral. IMO most songs aren't like that, and just as I have a hard time taking anyone else's word without a grain of salt, I have difficulty with lyrics that seem to suggest something in an obvious way, or demand that I accept the given perspective on its own terms. Also, in general, I'm not interested in obscure/abstract/poetic lyrics.

Really, unless I'm drawn to the music, it doesn't matter how good the lyrics are. I can appreciate a good lyric or phrase the same way I appreciate a well-made piece of furniture, but unless my body/subconscious mind is drawn to the song, they'll fall on deaf ears.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Interesting.

*bump*

Because a lot of people are talking about this topic on the FKA Twigs thread, and it's really a super-interesting topic to me, but I think it may be of wider interest than just that thread?

At least 90% of the music I listen to is in English, yet English not being my first language I can easily turn my "inner translator" off and listen to music without paying attention to the lyrics (which to be honest they are completely stupid most of the time). I think this is one of the main reasons why Country, R&B and Hip Hop very rarely makes it to the top charts in non-english countries. Nobody pays attention to the lyrics and the music in both genres is very repetitive in order for the lyrics to take the spotlight. If you can dance to it there's an exception to the rule.

Judging by the sales numbers I guess they're huge in America but I swear nobody really cares about Jay Z and Taylor Swift over here. Rihanna is bigger than both since she has many dance club friendly songs.

Azealia Banks and FKA twigs are non existent over here.

On the other hand, in here Daft Punk has been a hit long before Pharrel collaborated with them.

I think Jaÿ-Z might have a few dance club friendly songs.

In fact I literally heard multiple Jay-Z songs at a dance club last night.

(Specifically "I Just Want to Love U" and "Tom Ford")

Did you hear them outside of an English spealing country?

In here the only Jay Z song I've ever heard in a club or a party is Empire State of Mind. Maybe a couple of his collaborations with kanye west. I mean people do know who Jay Z is but they are more aware of him as beyonce's husband than of any of his songs.

Which is apparently his only #1 hit on the US charts as well? Or am I reading it wrong:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay-Z_discography#Singles

I think the situation here in Finland is pretty much the same as what Moka describes. The only rap and country tunes that become big hits are ones with a catchy chorus and/or a dance-friendly beat, few people care about (or even know; generally Finns have a good knowledge of English, but rap slang often goes above their heads) what the vocalists are saying. And "Empire State of Mind" is the only Jay-Z tune I've heard played in a club in here too, if you don't count clubs that specialize in rap.

And ever since the early 00s Finnish rap music has been more popular than American rap... Which only makes sense, since the language the rappers use and the subjects they talk about are more familiar to Finns than those in American rap.

Which is apparently his only #1 hit on the US charts as well? Or am I reading it wrong:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay-Z_discography#Singles

This is true but unreflective of his widespread and long lasting popularity in the US. The only rap artists who have sold more here are Tupac and Eminem.

But my point is I'm not sure in what universe something like the aforementioned "I Just Wanna Love U" doesn't have "a catchy chorus and a dance-friendly beat".

So as not to derail the Pfork thread…

To those among us who heavily skew towards the lyrical side of the admittedly porous words/music divide, do you read poetry at all? If so, how often? And if not, why?

I'm a lyrics person but I don't read poetry all that much, and I prefer lyrics that sound like lyrics to lyrics that sound like poetry that then happened to get set to music. If that makes sense.

Like, during all those debates about whether Dylan deserved his Nobel, I saw a lot of people copy/pasting lyrics to try to prove they were poetry, which seemed really pointless to me - they're not going to have the same impact on the page, and if they do, what's the point of this being a song in the first place?

To those among us who heavily skew towards the lyrical side of the admittedly porous words/music divide, do you read poetry at all? If so, how often? And if not, why?

A question that might interest me is "if so, what kind of poetry?". I'm no literary scholar (and obv don't skew towards the lyrical side of that divide) but I wonder if popular song lyric might be a sort of bastion for 'traditional' poetry in the sense of more strictly metrical rhymed verse. When I do get into song lyrics, what I get from them usually does feel qualitatively and experientially different from what I get out of most modern poetry (but maybe less different from what I get out of Wordsworth?).

Half-baked thoughts

I’ve typed this so many times but lyrics =/= poetry— in fact, historically, “good poetry” suffers when set to music, and composers are generally advised to pick lesser work so as to have something that a musical setting can improve upon. Lyrics can be more oblique, take more time to transpire, can have intention coloured by the musical accompaniment, and (in the recorded medium) are performed; the specific mood created by Megan saying “enh” is something for which there is no equivalent in poetry

Good points; the comparison would seem to be limited. The relationship between music and text is definitely what I want to consider any time I've analysed songs.

I perennially cite Kathleen Hanna singing “everything you think and / everything you feel is alright alright alright alright all riiight” as being “The Best Lyric Ever” just because it’s a perfect example of simple-ish words being elevated by musical context and performance into a powerful sentiment that is unique to songwriting, like “poetry could never” because poetry is a different medium

I used to, haven't much lately but that's more a function of spare time than preference -- that said, a non-trivial amount of poetry was meant to be read aloud

The two poems I do find myself frequently thinking of in the context of rock/pop/etc. are "Dover Beach" and "The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock." "Dover Beach" because it shares so many of the preoccupations of 20th century music - I feel like you can draw a line from "Dover Beach" straight through "September 1, 1939" all the way to "Gimme Shelter" and "The Boy in the Bubble" and so on, all these apocalyptic songs about people clinging together as the world outside gets worse and worse. And then Prufrock because it seems in so many ways to be the model for what you can do with stream of consciousness and description and storytelling in rock lyrics - like, I can't imagine "Madame George" or "Desolation Row" existing without Prufrock.

I mean, this is probably obvious, but the title does say "love song"

No

at the age of 40 I still fundamentally do not get what "identifying with something" means. Do people really imagine they are characters in songs or films for that matter?

their band could be my life

Thanks, all, for your thoughtful answers (to my question – I'm mostly ignoring the thread's kick-off).

I didn't meant to suggest that lyrics and poetry are made of the exact same stuff. As soon as you set words to music, they are transformed by it (and this goes both ways, of course); they are no longer 'just words'. That said, grafting them onto a purely verbal medium (in an album review, for instance) remains a perennial possibility – lyrics can be quoted without being sung, and some lend themselves quite well to pixels or paper. So while I tend to think of lyrics in terms of consubstantiality (words and music, forever and ever), there's an underlying flightiness and a fragility to this encounter that, in many cases, makes it all too easy to divorce one element from the other, ushering us back to square one.

The musicality of poetry is an even thornier affair… Eliot, who not uncoincidentally wrote The Four Quartets and an essay titled 'The Music of Poetry', had a fine ear, especially in his earlier works (although you could argue that the perceived clunkiness of some of his later poems was deliberate – prosaic phrasing as a means of approximating high modernist dissonance). At the most fundamental level, the musicality of poetry also happens to be what makes poetry, well, poetic (pace less common strains meant for the eyes), hearkening back to the Orphic/Sapphic model: a noticeable emphasis on the phonetic potential of language and the invention of structures that override or at the very least play with conventional discourse. At its best (in my estimation, at least) poetry appears to supply its own music, which ties into fgti's comment about lesser works being more pliable from the composer/musician's perspective: the lacunae call for a semblance of completion.

I don't really know where I'm going with this…

Oh, and funny you should mention 'Dover Beach', Lily. Samuel Barber made a setting of it – it was one of his very first compositions, if memory serves.