Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Lyrics: For Suckers

Hot damn RIGHT, fools, I am back! I was gone because I contracted a rare disease only carried by a rare species of flower that resides only on the side of one cliff in Peru. It happened while I was hanging upside-down from that cliff trying to photograph another, equally rare flower. The disease-carrying flower can sense things by their proximity and uses the disease as a method of propagation. Damn thing blew up in my face, fools. It's all true.

It's OK, because I have been cured by a native tribe in a remote part of Indonesia. They ferment 30 different indigenous roots from their area with rainwater that has been filtered through the lava rock of a nearby volcano. The "patient" is made to drink the final product after being the center of a ritual dance meant to summon the dead ancestors of everyone involved. The ghosts then have an orgy while the dancers watch. The entire process takes 90 days, which is two days less than the time that I have not posted here. After a quick flight on the Concorde, I am hella jet-lagged, fools.

One of the things I have been meaning to say is the lyrics, indeed, are for suckers. To me, they simply aren't important. This realization has some exceptions in individual songs or in three (count 'em) artists: Prince, Tom Waits, and Iron and Wine. They have lyrics that are, at times, so profound and insightful that they can't be ignored. Tool comes close, but even with their particular brand of badassery, I could get by without the lyrics.

The voice is simply another instrument in my opinion. It provides melody and harmony and doesn't necessarily have to be saying something to be effective in making the song better as a whole. For example, check out Cocteau Twins. Elizabeth Fraser sings, by her own bio's admission, lyrics that are "mysterious" and "indecipherable." You know what, though? It doesn't matter a single bit. Their songs are lush and full despite ol' Mushmouth Liz's refusal to sing in English, or any other language for that matter.

A song, for me, has to have good music in order for me to care about it. The lead singer could be singing about clubbing baby seals while the background singers cooed about the beauty of the Republican Party for all I care. If there is wonderful music there, too, I will give the song a good hard listen.

But then there are songs that can't get it together musically, and don't seem like they even try. Sometimes this is because of poor writing, poor arrangement, or complete lack of talent. Other times, it is because the singer fails to use his or her voice to convey to me what is most important about the song. The best example of this is (flame on!) Bob Dylan. The words to his songs are oh so beautiful and oh so deep, supposedly, but they sound like well, somebody shitty is singing them. Such a trainwreck for a voice, but he is undoubtedly one of the most successful artists of all time.

All because of the suckers.

Seriously (and I know this is an extreme example), I would actually rather listen to "It Wasn't Me" by Shaggy than hearing any song by Dylan. AND SHAGGY SUCKS!!!! AND I KNOW IT!!!! Not to mention his music is below us all in terms of its composition and artistry. But hell, it's better than having to listen to Bob Dylan. "Great" lyrics are fine and all, but the price shouldn't be so heavy.

I wish I had a time machine, fools. Dylan, U2, and The Doors would feel my wrath.

No comments: