29 Sep '09 08:48>1 edit
In the end they're just poor poetry, weak philosophy or simplistic political commentary.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhen I think about Jayzee, Rhiana, and all these other R'n B, Rap other rubbish (sorry but it is rubbish), I'll agree whole heartedly with your statement.
In the end they're just poor poetry, weak philosophy or simplistic political commentary.
Originally posted by NatsiaIt's just not an adequate format for neither of the three. Even if the writer comes up with something half-decent, it's a stretch of the imagination to think he would not do better had he not been constrained to writing music lyrics.
When I think about Jayzee, Rhiana, and all these other R'n B, Rap other rubbish (sorry but it is rubbish), I'll agree whole heartedly with your statement.
Do I believe it to be true for everyone, though? No.
Originally posted by PalynkaBy what standards, though? Who's work are you using to justify your statement or are you just making a statement for the lulz?
It's just not an adequate format for neither of the three. Even if the writer comes up with something half-decent, it's a stretch of the imagination to think he would not do better had he not been constrained to writing music lyrics.
Originally posted by NatsiaWhen you compare those writers to those that were writing lyrics, whose texts pale in comparison? Lyrical flow or not, they were unconstrained to write the poem as they wished.
By what standards, though? Who's work are you using to justify your statement or are you just making a statement for the lulz?
There are some fantastic poets who have incredibly lyrical styles to their writing, look at Keats, Byron, Poe.
Not to mention writers like E. Welsh, C. Palahniuk, B. Ellis who all have more than a hint of a lyrical flow (this is ere...
(Unless they spite me because I just said that, I wouldn't put it past any of them).
Originally posted by PalynkaNot always, there's the matter of taste (as in poetry) and we've had enough aesthetic discussions in the past to know that there's no objective basis for suggesting that one piece of written art is better than another. As social commentary they can capture a feeling that people can resonate with, they can sometimes have imagery which creates a story in only a few lines. That story might be interesting or important to some people. Even as philosophy they can capture an essence, even if they're not explicating it fully.
But I meant within the context of the piece. Extricate the words from the song, look at them as text (as in the other thread) and they become weak.
Originally posted by PalynkaGiven that, I have to agree (on the fact that without the music, they will loose some of what gives them their punch) and disagree, personally I think it must be incredibly difficult to write around the constrains of the timing and structure of a song, and I don't think it was a fair statement.
When you compare those writers to those that were writing lyrics, whose texts pale in comparison? Lyrical flow or not, they were unconstrained to write the poem as they wished.
I'm doing this partly for the lulz (as I like to annoy), but mostly because I do believe many people take music lyrics too seriously.
Originally posted by StarrmanLike I said, social commentary is simplistic and takes a form very close to propaganda, with its combination of aesthetics and repetition. 'Resonation' is a product of that. A similar argument could be made for the philosophy in lyrics. In the end, it's just a longer fortune cookie.
Not always, there's the matter of taste (as in poetry) and we've had enough aesthetic discussions in the past to know that there's no objective basis for suggesting that one piece of written art is better than another. As social commentary they can capture a feeling that people can resonate with, they can sometimes have imagery which creates a story in onl ...[text shortened]... racted from the music. My question would be why would you want to evaluate them separately?