Post a controversial music opinion

Make the argument though!

I strongly disagree that MBV and VU were more unique than the Beatles.

To sound like Pink Floyd you needed expensive equipment and studio that most bands don’t have access to. You could start a band in your garage that sounds like VU

It would be hard for anyone to live up to the critical regard in which the VU are held but I do like their records.

xp But the studios & equipment didn't exist because of Floyd, whereas VU's sound/approach was pretty unique to them.

I think the idea that influence = bands that sound like another band is the most basic shallow way to look at influence

like once I was recording and the engineer was saying "i swear i hear a difference in drummers that came up before or after hip hop being mainstream" - he didn't mean it in the way that meant these bands were doing some sort of hip hop/rock thing (likely many of them weren't consciously influenced by hip hop at all) but just some underlying rhythmic sensibilities that he could place in how they approached their instruments and rhythm in general.

I don't know if you're still on the VU thing - but many/most artists citing VU as influence don't sound exactly like them, that's what makes the case strong. It's not just about a few slavish copies like Luna or whatever, you hear bits & pieces of VU throughout a huge swath of music that followed, and those artists also talk about how VU inspired them.

yes I agree w/that def. VU has influenced ppl in many different ways

wasn't speaking in particular, I just think in general influence is talked about in very X=Y type ways

Lyrics are the least important element in rock music.

― but also fuck you (unperson), Tuesday, March 1, 2022 11:49 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes I listen to Bob Dylan for the harmonica

Lol

yes I listen to Bob Dylan for the harmonica

Listening to Bob Dylan, that's your first mistake right there.

Also, isn't Dylan way less reverent about the words than his fanbase?

I doubt he regards them as the least important element.

Re influence, the composer Sarah Hennies posted this video on Twitter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXbMB9R5-0

and said "Imagine seeing this video and thinking there is a need to start your own rock band."

Dylan comes to me as sound first, though: the adrenalinized rush of nonsense to match the guitars.

And I like the sound of his voice.

I was wondering who would be first to say they listen to Dylan for the soundscapes.

I...don't think this is so strange?

Dylan came through to many listeners as a whiny sarcastic sound

Same with the Beatles, Stones, Marvin Gaye. These are cool-sounding acts before I even penetrate the surface

The Doors are far more enjoyable to listen to than Pink Floyd

“Most of the time” is one of my favorite Dylan songs and the soundscape is definitely a part of it.

Dylan does seem more popular among English-speaking listeners than sarcastic singer-songwriters who work in other languages for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUULBlDcju4

Jorge Ben is cool too, yeah xpost

i'm trying to remember if theres any famous, foundational stories about bob dylan where his sound had a way bigger impact on audiences than his lyrics...

https://i.imgur.com/3bzKWg5.gif

This conversation is weird to me because I thought most of us reject acts because we recoil from their sound, especially their vocalists. I can't endure, say, Alicia Keys, Betty Davis, Animal Collective, etc. because as singers they have no power to compel me to listen closely to their pretty good lyrics.

It's true that the electric band arrangements make me much more willing to listen to Dylan's lyrics than the solo acoustic arrangements but they do still function as arrangements of songs. The instrumentation is there to support a singer who is singing words in strophic song forms built around stanzas of text. I don't see a serious case for the lyrics being the least important element, esp when there is so much music with no lyrics that listeners could choose instead but don't.

im not even a big dylan fan but for me he's like the foundational touchstone for the realization that lyrics themselves arent as important on their own and that tone, meter, delivery, repetition, musical setting, etc can all give deeper meaning to what would read like meaningless word salad on the page. i suspect that everyone on this thread has listened to a bob dylan rock & roll music album more recently than theyve read Tarantula

I wasn't familiar with the word "strophic" before, but if I'm understanding it correctly, it's that quality that actually makes the semantic content of the lyrics less important, or at least more elusive, for me (though I agree, I would never say they are the *least* important element). That said, I think "lyrics" is maybe not as stable a concept as one might assume (xp w/ One Eye)

I don't see a serious case for the lyrics being the least important element, esp when there is so much music with no lyrics that listeners could choose instead but don't.

"It seems preposterous now, but at the time, people seemed overly concerned about the literal meaning of our lyrics. I know we never discussed it among ourselves. Lyrics seemed a neccessity, so we had them, but the subject matter was an extension of our interests — not part of a political or aesthetic battle plan. The lyrics were subject to change at whim once the subject had been decided on anyway. Anybody who thinks we overstepped the playground perimeter of lyrical decency (or that the public has any right to demand "social responsibility" from a goddamn punk rock band) is a pure natural dolt, and should step forward and put his tongue up my ass. What we sing about is none of your business anyway." — Steve Albini, liner notes to Big Black's Pigpile

See also: the songs on Obituary's Slowly We Rot where John Tardy is just growling and making noises, the entire career of Eye Yamatsuka, the Trashmen's "Surfin' Bird"...

That comment was about Dylan. Obv lyrics are not of the same importance in vocal music that doesn't have lyrics or that has backgrounded or extremely simplified lyrics.

lyrics themselves arent as important on their own and that tone, meter, delivery, repetition, musical setting, etc can all give deeper meaning

Most of these things still have to do with lyrics (unless you mean "meter" in the strictly musical sense, in which case, way to play in 4/4, Bob). "Lyrics" does not mean words in isolation from music! Tarantula does not afaik consist of lyrics.

And even in Big Black's case – notwithstanding the lovely imagery in that Albini quote – he at least correctly recognizes that lyrics were a "necessity." I bought a Big Black album once (years ago); if it had been instrumental I probably would have sold it back, as opposed to what the bass sounded like or whatever.

(I since have sold it back, but at least I listened to it a few times back in the day)

And tbc the majority of my listening is instrumental, in large part bc I do think lyrics are important in most music that has them.

Someone is going to need to provide receipts on Pink Floyd being more influential than VU beyond just that they were more popular so more people heard them.

I will take Future Games and Bare Trees over all or nearly all Floyd albums.

It's "thin, wild mercury music" not "thin, wild mercury words."

good music, good lyrics - ideal
good music, bad lyrics - works
bad music, good lyrics - doesn't work
bad music, bad lyrics - obv the worst

love Steve but I think he's full of shit wrt Big Black
he certainly cultivated a pretty distinctive lyrical identity for a band with supposedly tossed off lyrics

Lyrics can also be important for reasons other than literal meaning.

xp lol yes for real. few bands were more serious about having a "political or aesthetic battle plan" than big black

I'm just saying lyrics were important to BB

What we sing about is none of your business anyway." — Steve Albini

I don't even know what this means, you made the record and sold it dude

Of course it's bullshit. But it's bullshit in the same way Dylan was bullshitting when he called (calls) himself a "song and dance man." Kidding on the square, I believe, is the expression.

xp to Alfred, I get that about Alicia Keys. She sings flat, always, with such consistency, she's always exactly flat by the same amount. I've theorized that she wears her headphones a specific way in the booth, like, one ear half-off, which can cause the pitch in the playback to sound lower than it is, idk. She's always flat.

As for Stevie Wonder, whatever I guess. However you feel about Bruno Mars, that's how I feel about Stevie Wonder. I like corny music, except when I don't, same as anybody else

I kind of agree with M@tt but OTOH "A/B Machines" is one of the best Sleigh Bells songs, the lyrics to which are "Got my A machines on the table / Got my B machines on the floor / *incoherent scream*"

bad music, good lyrics - doesn't work

It's hard to come up with an example of this, tbh

I like the Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, the Doors... and Stevie Wonder, I'm quite happy.

i mean the main reason the doors lyrics falter is bc they have a reputation that doesn't match the reality, that isn't the band's fault. they are also v pretentious, which is. but i think i'm maybe overstating it if i call them "bad," as the occasional isolated line does sound really good to me, and i've been quoting the "peace frog" lyrics in the licorice pizza thread ever since i saw the movie

for the most part the "do lyrics matter" conversation is v dull to me, and has been rehashed here thousands of times. the answer is always: depends on the band

It's hard to come up with an example of this, tbh

weren't we just talking about Velvet Underground