Jump to content

The Inverse Relationship b/w Technical Singing Abilities and Lyric-Writing Abilities


DukeOfBoom

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Y'all are COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETING the original hypothesis.

The original hypothesis establishes a relationship between lyric-writing abilities and DEGREE OF VOCAL TRAINING. Vocal training is NOT necessarily synonymous with being a good singer. Many great singers that you hear on recordings started out as good naturals, and their experience made them into great singers. The hypothesis does not apply to them. It DOES, however, apply to singers who went through immense amounts of vocal training to get to do the super high-highs and all that.

And for the record, Jagger's lyrics blow mccartney's out of the water. Few songs come close to Paint It Black. Certainly not Hey Jude, not anywhere close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
And for the record, Jagger's lyrics blow mccartney's out of the water. Few songs come close to Paint It Black. Certainly not Hey Jude, not anywhere close.

As I mentioned, I, too, generally prefer Jagger's lyrics over what I understand are McCartney's. But, contrasting the brilliant and gut-wrenching "Paint It Black" with the sophomoric and soporific "Hey, Jude," though, seems to me an easy grab at low hanging fruit. I think that among McCartney's better work is stuff like "Yesterday," "Michelle," "Eleanor Rigby," "She's Leaving Home," and more -- but it's hard for me to remember which are mostly Sir Paul's and which are John Lennon's words -- to be sure, stuff like "I'm Only Sleeping," and "Rain," just kill me. Such fine combinations of music and words. (I'm pretty sure "Sleeping" is John's, though, since it seems to be about drugs, firsthand. ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to the OP: A correlation between good/bad singers/writers with an anecdotal juxtaposition to their cultural diversity, to boot? Now there's a Kevlar party in the making. I'll just watch this one.

 

 

 

Well, unfortunately, I shouldn't really be posting here anymore because the moderator said I am more or less unwelcome. However, if you fellow songwriters were to hear me out, I would certainly substantiate my argument that Jews, relative to the entire songwriter pool, disproportionately and consistently write the best, and often the most meaningful, lyrics. Not just one-hit wonders, but time after time, they write lyrics that leave me saying to myself, "damn, that's good" - more so than any other demographic.

 

These include: Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Mark Knopfler, Billy Joel, Lou Reed, Robbie Robertson, Joey Ramone and Paul Simon. These guys have time and time again written lyrics that are substantially greater than the deluge of superficial crap out there. Intererstingly, Billy Joel is probably the best technical singer out of the bunch, and that's not saying much. So these guys fit into my model of technical singing ability vs lyric writing ability.

 

On the other hand, I would add that Jews are also responsible for the travesty of Christmas songs that pollute the airwaves year after year, given that about 75% of all Christmas songs were written by Jewish songwriters. Fo' real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Speaking of that, look at all the 60's girl group songs written by men.

 

(Of course, a lot of them sound like they were written by men and reflect the deeply ingrained sexism of previous eras. But it didn't stop those songs from becoming hits and further warping the young minds of proto-feminists I would be going out with and trying like hell to figure out in a few years. In fact, even some of the beloved Carol King's songs are real groaners, even as they're enjoyable. "Will you still love me tomorrow?" Please. Man up, girl.)

 

 

 

By the way, I scribbled down the phrase, man up, girl, a couple years ago and wrote a few inconsequential and ultimately stupid rhymes around the notion but never got a whole song out. It's the meme-o-zeitgeist that got away, for sure. Now the phrase -- and the thought-it-would-be-delicious irony of its use by women is getting worn and tired. A little more tarnish and it'll be stale enough to become the basis for a Britney Spears song in a year or two...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's sad to say the notion that amateurs have something special that institutionally trained or expert practitioners lack is a pretty common sentiment sprouting on internet forums of all varieties, not just music. Clearly it suits a lot of people on the internet for this to be true, because the net is an environment where amateurs are not restricted in their contributions.


But the reality is that it is usually just a sentiment, not a proven fact: Of course nominal "amateurs" frequently produce expert-quality stuff, but it simply isn't true that experts generally don't produce expert-quality stuff, or are somehow less imaginative. There is no reason to think that someone becomes less imaginative solely because they have a high level of involvement with something. Naturally some professionals occasionally get jaded (or create duds, or have low points), but this could be for any number of reasons.


The opening post hardly presents a fair appraisal (with it's cherry picked examples and diminutive scope); actually he could have just left the graph out and made his unfounded claim to just as good effect. I could produce a list of song writers who are also expert singers as long as my arm. What's more, I could do a similar graph to demonstrate that, generally speaking, a good songwriter's craft
improves
with practice and diligence, which goes against the claim made in the OP. Generally speaking, the pattern is that good songwriters start off pretty decent and improve. The idea that one should start off being a great songwriter and gradually over time somehow lose their songwriting flare
specifically
because of their practice as a singer doesn't make a lot of sense.


The comment about instrumentalists is totally unfounded. With sufficient background checking it is possible to establish that the vast majority of people who contribute to pop-rock, overall, have received some sort of serious training or have practiced so diligently as to have reached an expert standard, in whatever it is they do be it playing or some involvement in the production process. Where someone with little or no experience has a major success this is usually the exception rather than the norm.


I don't mean to be provocative by my reply, but I see this style of comment again and again, and quite frankly it's willfully ignorant.

 

 

What's the big idea coming around here and talking like you know stuff?

And stuff...

 

EG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...