Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ndm20
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ndm20!tp
From: tp@ndm20
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Instrumental vs. vocal popular musi
Message-ID: <1000016@ndm20>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 21:03:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ndm20.1000016
Posted: Thu Sep 19 21:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 04:57:31 EDT
References: <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Lines: 62
Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr.ARPA:-147700:ndm20:1000016:000:3150
Nf-From: ndm20!tp    Sep 19 20:03:00 1985


((Following composed after a long day and  somewhat scatterbrained in
nature.))  

>I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be
>better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. True,

I disagree.  I like both vocal and instrumental rock, from
progressive to metal.  I don't listen much to the words  as such, but
to me the vocals are another instrument.  An effective  singer is one
who contributes well to the sound of the group.  

I like some lyrics.  However, there are songs  I like  because of the
music have rotten lyrics.  There are no songs  that I  like that have
rotten music and good  lyrics (except  for some  humorous ones ("Life
Sucks and Then You Die")).  This is my personal bias.  

The  vocals,  as opposed  to the  lyrics add  much.   The words don't
matter much (in detail, the words that  catch your  attention have to
be at least  a little  interesting).   There are,  however, more good
lyrics than you seem to credit.  Are you  judging just  by the radio?
If so, then I think you would be dissapointed at how bad the music is
if the lyrics  weren't there  to distract  you from  it.   The top 40
formula is words interesting enough so  you don't  pay much attention
to the music, and music  interesting enough  that you  don't mind the
stupid words.  It's a hard tightrope to walk, and the result is a big
Zero.  The pop stars do have a talent, but it isn't a musical talent.

>1) sung by people who can't sing (often shouted, not even sung)
Sometimes true, but personal preference means a lot here. I don't
like jazz vocals, so I am not likely to think that most jazz singers
can sing (no flames please, this is only an example), for instance
Al Jareau. I know some people like scat singing, but it sounds like
an epileptic fit to me. I'm sure the jazz crowd can make similar
nasty comments about Jon Anderson.

>2) often not understandable, no matter who sings them, due to the mix
I like to think that good music is mixed well.  There are exceptions.
If you are listening to Top 40 stuff, I  suspect you  would find that
the mixes are intentional  to hide  the fact  that the  singer has no
talent (see your point number 1).  

>3) of little import or originality
What about Yes?  U2?  Kansas?  (Those are personal  favorites and not
an inclusive list, obviously.  

>4) often offensive to some people (see later)
Who cares?  They don't have  to listen  to it.   Censors  or would be
censors  should be  annoyed and  defied whenever  possible on general
principle.

If you want to hear some good music with truly horrible lyrics, check
out Max Webster or Kim Mitchell (same person gone solo).  If you want
to hear the perfect example of voice as an instrument,  listen to Yes
(Close to the Edge, Relayer, The  Yes Album).   I  don't think either
group would sound as good without a singer, even though you can't get
into  the  lyrics.    (You can  get into  Yes' lyrics,  but much deep
thought and meditation (not to mention a lyric sheet)  is required to
begin to guess what they mean.)

How about some examples of songs  you think  would be  better (as is)
without the vocal track?