Lyrics or no lyrics?

[Korenith]

Depends on the vocalist for me. I have a lot of respect for various vocal styles and if it's going to add to the music then definitely. That being said terrible lyrics can utterly ruin a song for me no matter how good the music is. It depends on the band and style they're playing ultimately. Would Opeth, Nevermore or Symphony X be as good without the vocals? Hell no. Would Long Distance Calling, Halcyon or Amogh Symphony be better with vocals? Hell no again.

 

[Knusper]

I prefer lyrics, although I have a few soundtracks.I just think that the voice is very versatile and I often like singing along (when I can).

 

[repeating integers]

I found out that I like my music without lyrics, so the music will be the most interesting part of the song.

That said, in response to the OP, I think songs should start telling stories. A 5-minute epic told in song would be a nice change from all those songs about love/break-ups, partying, and/or bragging.

I think you'd like Prog Rock.

 

[Korenith]

I prefer songs without lyrics, though it depends. If they're sacrificing instrumental values for the lyrics then I don't want to listen to that song.

And I think a lot of death and trash metal songs need to die in a fire, lyrics or not, that's not music, it's randomly hitting 3-4 instruments while screaming through a puppy's anus.

You have no concept of the skill required to play death metal tracks. I mmean seriously, like it or hate it - you have to respect the technical playing.

Alternatively, he's using a magical thing called hyperbole!

Seriously though, most of the musicians in death metal bands are skilled, but they're putting those skills to waste.

I'm going to illustrate my point with a little story:
Imagine, if you will, an artist whose technique is flawless. Now while nobody can contend this artist's skill, his art is still less than stellar: Y'see, he paints nothing but goatse pictures.
People jump to his defense, pointing out the masterful brushstrokes and the amazing composition of his art, but the fact remains, he's just painting pictures of some guy doing horrible, unspeakable things to his anatomy.
As phenomenal of a painter he may be, his work is still terrible.

Sigh. Here we go again.

Are you aware that art in any guise be it music/literature/painting/whatever is a form of expression? And what the artist chooses to express should be up to them? Probably you are, so why dismiss an entire form of expression just because it doesn't express how you feel or view the world?

Since you seem to like stories I've got a good one for you (and anybody else who dismisses ANY form of art).

There once was a man named Samuel Beckett who wrote plays and novels and various other bits and pieces. He felt that following the Second World War that the way people had been writing before wasn't the right way to express how he felt about the destruction and desolation of the human soul that followed so he changed things. He wrote plays and novels which had no plot, which had characters who didn't know who they were and never found out. He wrote plays in which nothing momentous happened and why? Because he wanted to show that nothing is scarier in life than the idea that none of the great overarching storylines like Love, Honour or whatever are actually meaningless and how can you do that without exposing the audience to the very things he wanted to convey?

That's my interpretation anyway. There are plenty of others. The point is that Beckett wanted to do something that other techniques didn't allow him to do so he went against what we normally consider the right way to produce art. Initially half the audience would leave in the intervals of his plays and highly intelligent people condemned his works as meaningless and terrible.

He is now considered one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.

So yeah you might not enjoy death metal because it's hard to get to grips with or maybe it expresses something that you just aren't interested in or don't feel. But to me a man screaming his lungs out is a much better representation of anger masked sorrow than some sobbing serenade or sweeping orchestral score. The chaos of the musical arrangements are deliberately designed to be hard listening, to force the listener to think about it rather than just follow pre-recognised patterns of melody. What does that represent? Well maybe the disjointedness of life and how things don't ever quite fit together the way we feel they should but it's again a form of interpretation.

The point is dismissing any form of art just because you basically don't like it is like telling people they shouldn't eat peanuts because YOU happen to be allergic.

 

[AbstractStream]

I feel this is a good question. It really depenns what mood I'm in I guess.
I loooove soundtracks and instrumentals but at the moment, I'm leaning towards songs with lyrics.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

I like both. Interestingly, my two favourite genres differ completely on the matter. One is Classical music - mainly piano pieces, with the occasional symphony. These have no lyrics whatsoever, and are stunningly beautiful.

My other favourite (or should that be favoured?) genre is Hip-Hop, preferably pre-2002. As I'm sure you all know (although I'll be damned if most of you don't generalise massively about this)[footnote]Ironic.[/footnote], Hip-Hop relies mainly on lyrics - and the backing tracks are less musical for the sake of it. Now, that's not to say that making Hip-Hop beats doesn't take skill - but diverging this already fairly convoluted post down that train of thought would be straying from the point.

Which is, come to think of it, that either is fine. There is a time and a place for lyrics, and there is a time and a place for...well, as Mendelssohn would call them, songs without words.

 

[God's Clown]

I prefer instrumental, it's more relaxing to me. I've always loved hearing people express themselves through an instrument of music, so that helps to.

As for Death/Thrash metal thing, I personally only dislike the singing in the songs. I don't consider screaming singing, it's screaming. They are yelling at me, why are they yelling at me? I appreciate the instruments, but the singing just detracts from it.

 

[Phlakes]

It completely depends. Sometimes lyrics ruin what would be a great instrumental piece, and sometimes it's the other way around.

 

[Ickorus]

I prefer songs without lyrics, though it depends. If they're sacrificing instrumental values for the lyrics then I don't want to listen to that song.

And I think a lot of death and trash metal songs need to die in a fire, lyrics or not, that's not music, it's randomly hitting 3-4 instruments while screaming through a puppy's anus.

I feel like im running head first into the bully circle here but I completely agree with you on all points.

There is some decent death metal out there but it's ridiculously rare and even then the screaming bugs the shit out of me.

Like you I also gravitate towards lyricless music but when a singer uses his or her voice as an instrument (See: Sigur Ros, Mar, Múm, and Two Steps From Hell for examples) I couldn't be happier with it.

I do still listen to some lyrical music if I think the singer is good or if the lyrics are unique but otherwise I don't really bother with it as it normally doesn't connect with me on the same level.

 

[Detective Prince]

Depends. Sometimes bad lyrics can kill a beautiful melody. I do listen to soundtracks and orchestral tracks a lot but I'm a fan of prog rock so sometimes there's lyrics needed but you do tend to end up of like 10 minutes of a solo. XD Which is always nice.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Lyricless for sure. I love the sound of the human voice in music, but lyrics just kill it for me - that is, I love chanting. Thus for those who have heard of her , Yuki Kajiura being my favourite composer should go without saying... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF6eNuAvLIE]

She really does write the best vocal jibberish... though I agree, awesome stuff... (really should get the MaiHime OST)...

OT: Anyway, it depends on the era of music I'm listening to, but even then... both.

Baroque - (almost) pure instrumental (not a fan of religious music, except the occasional oratorio)
Classical - either (though I favour orchestral)
Romantic - either (though I favour orchstral, once again)
Contemporary - either (a lot of OST's, rock, OCR stuff, s'all good)

 

[Something Amyss]

Lyrics, but I'm not opposed to instrumental tracks.

I like to sing along, though.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Instrumental music and music with lyrics are different styles and are therefore good in different ways. I don't see one as being better than the other.

Instrumental allows more technical musical experimentation as well as an appreciation for the pure emotional expression rather than the specific meaning of a song.

Music with lyrics has the ability to deliver a clearer message and causes the lyrics to become the most important part of a song. If a song has good lyrics, it is possible to forget that the instrumental portion is not particularly complex.

Both are great however...

The human voice is by far the most versatile instruments and is no doubt a handy tool of getting your feelings across. Music can be interpreted in a thousand different ways but the voice narrows it down MASSIVELY. If you want to express something specific lyrics help a lot.

The human voice is limited in that it has a far lower range of pitches that it can produce than instruments such as the guitar or piano. Additionally, it lacks the ability to be played/sung at the speeds of many other instruments. It has the unique ability, however, to deliver lyrical quality at the same time as melodic quality, something no instrument can do. Also, it offers more easily understood emotional depth than any other instrument.

I wouldn't call it the "most versatile" instrument but definitely a unique and important one. I think, for a piece meant to mean something specific that is not not designed for accompaniment that would explain it (video game music, plays, etc. ), lyrical music does work best. If a piece is merely meant to exhibit more general emotion or accompany another work, an instrumental piece works better as lyrics would distract from the emotion or whatever is happening in the accompanying work.

 

[Killertje]

Lyrics are annoying when I'm trying to study, so I prefer my music without them. However some songs are really good not just despite, but because of the lyrics. Those are the exceptions that stay in my playlist (all together so I can skip em when studying).

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Snip

First of all, to make it clear: it is tHrash metal. 'Trash metal' is not a valid term, but I can excuse you from that since you don't seem to know much about the genre. Now, the problem I have with what you said is how it is apparently "random instrumentation and screaming from an anus", not the direct quote but it has the same meaning. This is the ignorance I was pointing out. The bands this can be accurately applied to is in such a minority, it is barely even worth trying to think of who it could apply to besides, maybe, Anal **** (but they're a popular example). The vast, vast, vast majority of metal bands, from Polish National Socialist black metal to brutal slamming death metal are all, in some way/shape/form musically construct and written, be it professionally or amatuerly by mostly passionate musicians.

To someone who doesn't like extreme metal, listening to a band like, I don't know - Coffins from Japan, may sound like a complete random mess. But the reality is, it is well constructed music that is of a different field than the type you enjoy.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I don't listen to a whole lot that doesn't have lyrics these days, haven't even gotten my Jeff Beck out in awhile now.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Snip

Ah, I can already tell from that first sentence what this debate will be like. I can also see from the rest of your post there that this debate will yield no fruit at all and you are quite content with keeping your current view point, so it'll end here, lest we derail this thread.