From: speterse%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty)
Subject: Re: Nirvana
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:36:19 MDT
Organization: The Erland Cult

In article <leo.717760142@galaxy> leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl writes:

>Nicely put. But surely you realize that this works both ways? There
>may be people out there who feel that *Metallica's* lyrics directly
>connect to their mind or heart, even though they might agree with you
>that the lyrics are "turgid, pretentious and overwrought".

Of course.  My beef is with the people who claim that song lyrics
aren't worthwhile UNLESS they are explicitly about "Deep" "Philosophical"
"Issues".  If there genuinely exists someone to whom the lyrics of
Metallica or Rush (or sometimes Ozzy) honestly speak, I'll question
their taste (under my breath, most of the time), but more power to
them.

However, when someone says that he's compared Nirvana to "known greats"
like Rush, and, like, Rush is obviously deep and intellectual because 
they sing about about important things like the space program, and 
the conflict between Reason and Emotion, and the novels of Ayn
Rand, and, like, Nirvana is obviously stupid and uninteresting
because they don't--that guy's a philistine, pure and simple.  

(What makes this all even more pathetic, is that if you actually
LISTEN to Nirvana, it's clear that they ARE tackling some of the
big issues.  "Teen Spirit" and "In Bloom" are about mindless
conformity (just like "Subdivisions"), "Lithium" is a first-person
account of a psychological breakdown, "Something in the Way" is
about being homeless and living under a bridge.  Then again, I
suppose that if you're a Rushfan, then you just KNOW that any band
with an MTV hit has to suck--without even listening to them.  

Then again, what can you expect from someone who only listens to
music to prove to himself that he's smart enough to understand the
lyrics?  Truly pathetic.)


>90 % of all pop/rock lyrics are either too stupid ("hello (16x)") or
>too pretentious ("lying next to you in silent lucidity") not to be
>embarassing when separated from the music. But is precisely the 
>combination of music, performance, and text that can not only make
>me forget that the lyrics are garbage, but which can make trite
>lyrics seem positively brilliant, within the context.

Exactly!


>> Nirvana may not be the most articulate lyricists in the world, but
>> at least they understand that the words gotta scan with the music--
>> something that Rush and Metallica never managed to figure out.

>This is really the comment that prompted my follow-up. I don't believe
>for one second that you'll be able to define "scan with the music"
>any better than other people have been able to define "commercial"
>in past discussions, and I take exception to your casual dismission
>of Rush and Metallica on these grounds of their words not 'scanning'
>with the music.

I don't think it would be easy to do, but I think it's possible.
English is a stressed language, so is the (musical) language of
most pop/rock songs; and I believe that one could analyze a song,
identify the stresses in the music and in the lyrics and determine
with reasonable "objectivity" how well the lyrics scan in the context
of the music.

One of the things I dislike about a lot of prog-rock is the fact that
the lyricist is so in love with all his Groovy Thoughts, that he can't
bear to make any concessions to the music (which is often as not written
by musicians who are so in love with their groovy technical licks, that
they can't be bothered to make any concessions to the words).

--
    "From your signature it is obvious that you are a homosexual"
soren f petersen           :        i AM NOT          :    --Doc
speterse@peruvian.utah.edu :  THE university OF utah  :
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there"  --Tiffany