Thoughts About Lyric Content

[JanJohansen]

Hi friends

I've noticed that some people think that if you write a love song which mainly contains emotions, they're often asking questions like what happened or why the singer feel this way. Alistair mentioned in one of his reviews that you don't have to know too much of the literal background to those feelings and just accept/relate to them without this background. This is something I also strongly believe in. In some cases where the singer want to make each member of the audience feel like the singer is singing to each individual person alone, there can't be any story behind the emotions. If it is a story behind the emotions, the listener won't feel like the singer is singing to him or her alone if what's happening in the story has not happened to the listener, which often would be most of the audience. However the emotions the singer expresses are emotions each individual in the audience can relate to, and will therefore make them think about their own individual circumstances which causes these strong uiversal emotions. Anyway, does this makes sense? I think Ray Charles knew that when he sang his heart rendering version of the Don Gibson's standard 'I Can't Stop Loving You' which is one of many standards which expresses only emotions without a story. See below:

I CAN'T STOP LOVING YOU

I can't stop loving you

I've made up my mind

To live in memory

Of the lonesome times

I can't stop wanting you

It's useless to say

So I'll just live my life

In dreams of yesterday

Those happy hours

That we once knew

Tho' long ago

Still make me blue

They say that time

Heals a broken heart

But time has stood still

Since we've been apart

Be interesting to know what other thinks about the subject.

Jan

Edited January 16, 2008 by JanJohansen

[Carnival]

Jan, it's an excellent topic. There are times when I think the reviews ask for story that is completely outside the intended scope or message of the song. They are asking, in effect, for a different song.

But there are other times when the song screams for more 'story'

We need to get our story straight. What do we mean by 'story'? Basically it means "who, what, when, where, and / or why?"

But beyond this, it has two subtly different meanings. One is for the physical facts to be laid out more clearly. This is the request that sometimes grates on the lyricist, who has no intentions of rewriting his lyric to satisfy a reviewers random request.

But the other kind of story is the fulfillment of the one the lyricist set out to tell. The elements of a song have to be self-supporting. Who decides? A consensus of listeners. Since we don't have that level of access and communicaiton with a large body of listeners, we rely on reviewers.

With regard to love songs as you mentioned, when writing directly 'to' your love, sometimes a lyric just doesn't connect because it is goes TOO FAR in speaking directly. If you were really speaking to your love or ex-love or whomever, it's a fair assumption that the person would know what you were talking about - your shared background, etc., so you would never need to address it. The only thing that is important is your message, which in your mind, shines against the backdrop. But your audience lacks that context and cannot see the backdrop in your mind. You may think your lyric conjures it up, but perhaps it is insufficient. So in that type of lyric, you need to 'step back from the topic', because you are too close, and fill in enough context or story so that we know enough to relate to your words. In this type of lyric, the context becomes the story. When context is lacking, we can't relate well enough to your words to get their full emotional impact (which is what we are going for in songs) so we ask you to fill in the details of the story. It doesn't have to be the who, what, why, when, where details. It doesn't have to blow the mystery. It just has to set it up better, so you can knock us down better.

You might feel that you are 'fudging' on the integrity of the lyric to include context for the listener, that you wouldn't if you were really talking to your lover. It's partly a matter of how skillfully you do it. And it's partly a matter of remembering that songs are art, not real life. Making art more life-like does not necessarily make for better art. Understanding your medium, including its limits, is what makes for better art, better songs.

Your posted lyric, I CAN'T STOP LOVING YOU, for example, does a fine job of telling the story. It gives us all the context we need to appreciate your words. Nicely done.

Norm

[john]

Hey

I have to say it depends.

To me a lyric has to have an emotional connection with the audience on some level. Where a story element is introduced it should be resolved somehow.

This all ties back to ambiguity allowing the listener room to identify with the lyric and personalise their understanding of it. Ambiguity of emotion on the other hand leaves lyrics kind of wishy washy.

Looking at "I can't stop loving you":

I can't stop loving you

I've made up my mind

To live in memory

Of the lonesome times

I can't stop wanting you

It's useless to say

So I'll just live my life

In dreams of yesterday

Those happy hours

That we once knew

Tho' long ago

Still make me blue

They say that time

Heals a broken heart

But time has stood still

Since we've been apart

I have to say this does have a story element to it. (don't confuse detail level with story). Each verse resolves within itself, but there is also a thread running through it and a development of the theme.

Just to pour emotions out, unstructured, without connection doesn't really work. To leave them hanging as unconnected emotional statements is not recommended. As soon as you start bringing them towards a unifying theme the individual lines work together creating a more powerful whole.

To me it is best to decide on a theme, be that a stotyline, or an emotional theme. Don't mix up song plot and a storyline (many do). Songs can do without a storyline (in the traditional ballad format) but they cannot avoid a song plot, or at least good lyrics can't.

Just my two cents

Cheers

John

[john]

hey

An example of an excellent writer who does this really well is Thom York from Radiohead. He gets around the details of stories by judicious use of metaphors and allegory, which for me are really useful tools for emotionally powerful lyrics that are full of potential for people to identify with, but with lots of room for personalising it.

Cheers

John

[Alistair]

hey

An example of an excellent writer who does this really well is Thom York from Radiohead. He gets around the details of stories by judicious use of metaphors and allegory, which for me are really useful tools for emotionally powerful lyrics that are full of potential for people to identify with, but with lots of room for personalising it.

Cheers

John

Ooh, what a good thread Jan! I have to say that I don't remember saying what you quote me as saying but I agree all the same so I'll take the credit anyway.

On the context / no context thing, there is a form of language known in training circles as being 'artfully vague'. This differs from just simple vagueness because the words are chosen carefully to have as much potential meaning for as many people as possible, thta is people relate to them in their own way. For example

'When you are with the one you love, feeling how you feel for them, think about that emotion, how good it feels...' etc etc. Many people can relate to that in their own wayand it can strike home emotionally. I don't think the lyric necessarily has to explain the why and wherefores even if the context is supplied, sometimes causing the listener to ask why and to fill in the backstory for themselves is sufficient impact for the song.

Now I am someone who generally struggles to articulate emotional context beyond the obvious in my lyrics although I am working on it.I have had some successes (one of my lyrics, Theory of Everything, has moved a friend to tears - not because it is so bad before you say so) but, while emotion has a huge part to play in lyrics, it is not necessarily the only aim of a lyric to get an emotional response IMHO. Emotional content is not only love, sadness, regret of course, the traditional emotions of love songs. Lyrics can legitimately appeal to the intellect, to reason, and wield the power of argument too. Most of those that do are probably not hits and are probably written by Sting ( The Russians love their children too---) but protest songs appeal on a level that is not just emotional, they appeal to reason and values. It's difficult to disconnect emotion but it's not the only show in town is what I am trying to say. I think that sometimes on Songstuff we value emotion above all else and sometimes too much (I say this as a very rational person so feel free to disagree).

[john]

Hey Al

I disagree I think the reason for the focus on emotional content and connection is because of the type of lyrics that are being presented, and because emotional appeal is the strongest pull, the strongest hook. Everything has emotion attached to it, even if that emotion is ambiguity. It may not be the main focus of specific lyrics, but it will be present. Add to that it's usually me that bangs on about it lol To be honest I think we cover all bases from thematic integrity to emotional integrity and structural integrity, plus analysis of the various lyrical mechanisms, but maybe that's just me!

Cheers

John

[Alistair]

John

You bit! . I think you'll see that I am saying you can't take emotion out of lyrics or our reaction to them but I sometimes feel it gets overplayed. Structural critiques are on a different plane, I think. You are particular strong in your critiques of lyrics that don't quite cut it on the emotional plane. That's fine, that's the lens you are looking through. I'm just trying to put another, complementary perspective into the discussion.

[john]

Al

I got that

I'm just particularly strong on my critiques fullstop

Wasn't it you who mentioned putting on a flameproof suit to get one of my critiques? I'd rather mention my observations/suggestions and let the lyricist consider them. Personally I think my focus on that as a viewpoint is more down to the fact that it seems to be the hardest part to get right.

The whole point in us sharing and critiquing is to get different perspectives, to learn and to share learning. If everyone came from the same perspective it would be pretty dull and not very informative. The point is I completely welcome the fact that your view things differently, and have a different emphasis on your writing and reviews. You are the authority on your perspective. I may approach some issues like a terrier with a bone, but a critique is not a simple comment and leave it, it is a conversation. My main reason when I am like that is not necessarily "I am right", more a "I didn't explain that well in my first post" thing

Oh yeah... I'm right you're wrong! <- note winky emoticon

Cheers

John

[Alistair]

No, I don't think it was me who mentioned the flameproof suit (but no doubt you'll find the post now!)

I think we are actually fully in agreement, just from different perspectives, which are all good

[typo]

closely aligned perspectives that disagree lol

[john]

[Lazz]

Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein wrote a song called 'My Favourite Things'.

It has no story.

Oh - it has its place in a story alright - there is quite an acceptable reason for it to pop up as it does in "The Sound Of Music".

But it's just a list of things.

[john]

Hey Tom

I knew someone had said it!

I'm not all that bad!

Who's for toastin'?

Cheers

John

[JanJohansen]

Good morning friends

I'm pleased this subject has caught your attention and it has given me little more insight into the different thought processes we have. Typo, love your line:' closely aligned perspectives that disagree lol', very funny. I think most of us agree with John that whether the lyric has an emotional theme, a literal/figurative story or a combination of both, they all have to evoke emotions in such a way that the listener feels fullfilled at the end. All I wanted to get across was that a song can have an emotional theme only without having a literal/figurative story as a backdrop and still hit the parts that no beers can reach. Further I think that all creative art can be technically very good but artistically very poor and visa versa, but that's another issue which we might consider when we are reviewing someone's work.

Have a nice weekend.

Jan

Edited January 19, 2008 by JanJohansen

[typo]

interesting... i have two main trains of thought opposed to each other.

1. we do review creativity as well as technicality, but technicality doesn't really have a raw natural expression without learning. on the boards more often guidelines aren't followed due to lack of awareness. creativity is more inherently understood. yes there are ways to measure it, but it's generally gut feel/reaction. that's why "guidelines" are more obviously highlighted. technical aspects of a lyric are easier to spot over the more woolly creative comments. i don't want to explain with every critique that my technical comments are related to guidelines, and that they are only guidelines not rules, and that i only mentioned them to give them the chance to think about something they could have missed, or that i hope they will take the comments constructively. we are all grown up, can't we all just agree that when a writer doesn't follow a guideline that it is ok to point it out to them to give them that perspective without the preface? maybe it's a compliment to the creativity of the people who use the boards

2. by tearing apart blissful ignorance in introducing formal concepts to songwriting it could ruin, not help, the writer

lol

[AnneC]

My free opinion (you get what you pay for )...

I think the best thing we can do in a critique is to ensure coherence and form, not try to impose our thoughts on what the lyrics should be. Not every song will appeal to every listener, just as no two persons' experiences are alike. Yes, as songwriters we'd like to appeal to as much of our audience as possible but it can quickly become a case of "trying to please all the people all the time". Ultimately each song that is heard by a wider audience than our closest friends and has an emotional element will be geared toward a niche of listeners with whom it strikes a chord (pardon the pun). In addition, it can be a case of a song being "right now but not right later" depending on the current mood of the listener. We've all heard songs we thought were brilliant once and later thought they were utter crap, or vice versa.

As writers we bring our own thoughts and images to the table but they may be perceived as something completely different by our audience, especially when we add music to the mix as it can evoke feelings all on its own.

Wow, I know how to ramble, don't I? Yeesh.

[john]

Hey

Good point on the like now, dislike later.

Cheers

John

[Carnival]

I think the best thing we can do in a critique is to ensure coherence and form, not try to impose our thoughts on what the lyrics should be. Not every song will appeal to every listener, just as no two persons' experiences are alike...

Your observations are excellent. Like all the others, they seem to fit illuniate another aspect of the discussion. That said, to put critiques of content and emotion off-limits based on the concept that we all like different things, is a slippery slope, and if it applies to emotion and content, then why not to coherence and form. Your incoherence might be my soaring freedom, etc.

Typo made some excellent points about some things having to be understood, and we shouldn't have to refer back to explanations of the 'guidelines' with every criticism. Another quideline that pervades these forums (intentionally) is that we are critiquing with an ear toward writing commercially viable music. If you want to write wonderful music, there are absolutely no rules. If it sounds wonderful so one person, and everyone else hates it, it can be considered a success.

But if you want to write commercially viable songs, it is reasonable to look at the elements that are common to those songs, including phrasings, content, subject matter, rhyme schemes, etc. Before your song gets on the radio and we find out if people like it, it first has to be 'approved' by experts, who would include record labels, publishers etc. These persons look very closely at the content, subject, mood, feel, message, theme, etc of the song in determining whether it is a commercially viable song. It's helpful to have other experts, many with professinal experience, to comment on these issues before you take them to a record label and try to get them to invest some $$ in your project.

I can write songs that are coherent and techincally perfect, knowing full well that no one in their right mind would ever publish, record, release or buy it. The feedback fro others on the emotional content of our work is critical.

[JanJohansen]

Hi friends

Norm mentioned that the song has to be approved by experts. I hope that's right, but I have a friend who is a successful songwriter who has made a few music documentaries for BBC and he told me that songs were approved by marketing experts and not the old fashioned A&R people and consequently the quality of songs had suffered. I have no idea if this is true, but it would be interesting to hear the views of people who knows a lot more than me about the industry.

Jan

[typo]

depends on the company. even so a&r men have always been filtered through the marketing side. they've also been focused on signing acts that will sell for a loooooong time.