Musical Spectrums: The polar differences between instrumental and lyrical music

So something occurred to me yesterday, and this might just be something that only occurs to me, but I seem to enjoy each extreme more then I enjoy the balance of both.

For example, I always thought that I just didn't like vocals in music much, but I realized, thats not entirely true cause I have deep respect and appreciation for artists such as Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Robyn Hitchcock, Tom Waits, etc... all mainly lyrical musicians...

So then why is it that once a lyricist takes his music a bit further instrumentally, I reject it?

My current thought is that I find music is like information. If you have music that has complex/intricate instrumentation, your mind is going to want to focus on it. But when you add complex/intricate lyrics, for me, you start walking on a very tight rope.

Music that tries to balance between both spectrums is very hit and miss for me. I have no idea how or what makes this balance a "hit" but I do know that if its a "miss" its usually because one aspect is distracting and then my mind doesn't know where to focus.

Does anyone else find themselves spending more time (probably on the instrumental side of things) on one spectrum then somewhere in between?

Please add whatever you'd like (serious or not)... I am just bored and trying to pass the time.

The music I listen to with vocals is very limited.

I'm not against vocals/lyrics/singing at all. That would just be silly. The thing is, though, most of what's written lyrically is just complete crap that has no bearing or relevance to my life or view of it. Another thing about lyrics is that I like to interpret the music for the music sake, and when there some nonce that's singing all over it, the mystery is gone unless the lyric writer is on par with E.E. Cummings or Robert Frost. Like, what do I care about some idiot that bangs on a guitar singing about how some girl fucked him? I don't!

But I digress. I realize that there is music with lyrics in it, and yeah I listen to some. I respect artists like Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, etc but I just can't seems to listen to it all the time like I can with instrumental music. Like I was trying to get at in the last paragraph, I guess music with singing just usually isn't as cerebral in comparison to music that has singing. I can be, but usually is not.

Then again, I'm sure there's plenty of instrumental music that doesn't exactly exercise your brain either.... =P

i primarily prefer instrumental music but now and again vocal music is refreshing, probably why i'm a closet pop enthusiast

  Deslouriers said:

The music I listen to with vocals is very limited.

 

I'm not against vocals/lyrics/singing at all. That would just be silly. The thing is, though, most of what's written lyrically is just complete crap that has no bearing or relevance to my life or view of it. Another thing about lyrics is that I like to interpret the music for the music sake, and when there some nonce that's singing all over it, the mystery is gone unless the lyric writer is on par with E.E. Cummings or Robert Frost. Like, what do I care about some idiot that bangs on a guitar singing about how some girl fucked him? I don't!

 

But I digress. I realize that there is music with lyrics in it, and yeah I listen to some. I respect artists like Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, etc but I just can't seems to listen to it all the time like I can with instrumental music. Like I was trying to get at in the last paragraph, I guess music with singing just usually isn't as cerebral in comparison to music that has singing. I can be, but usually is not.

 

Then again, I'm sure there's plenty of instrumental music that doesn't exactly exercise your brain either.... =P

Yeah but its interesting that lyrical music is far more mainstream (besides dance music I guess). Maybe thats actually not that interesting, but more interesting is what that says about us (and I am guessing the large majority of WATMM), being completely opposite. Why we have taken this path may have to do with us just having more passion with music...(?)... but that seems pretty egotistically/pretentious...

What put me on this path of electronic music appreciation...? and why is it, that most of my friends who share almost identical tastes in other things (food, movies, etc)... don't grasp my musical tastes.

Is it something about my upbringing? Is there something that we all share in common that gives us this appreciation for the music of WATMM...?

  IRARI said:

i primarily prefer instrumental music but now and again vocal music is refreshing, probably why i'm a closet pop enthusiast

this is so exactly how I feel it's scary

I think you're forgetting about ... say half of all music out there. You're basically saying there's IDM and then pop (radio) music.

The majority of instrumental music comes out of Universities. And before you say, "Oh that's not mainstream, though," think about all of the television, all of the commercials and all of the movies with music that comes from classically trained musicians that come out of school. So, in reality there really isn't that much of a majority for one type or another, they're just used in different settings. Radio music is for setting up on altar and worshiping because your own life is too miserable to meaningless to find your own meaning for it, and instrumental is for whatever you want it to be.

Radio music probably just seems more mainstream to you because it's crammed into your face day in and day out by people that want to sell you shit. And people that buy shit listen to the radio/tv/whatever so that's what they like.

Anyway, perhaps you should ask the countless orchestral musicians and composers why there is such a chasm between fans of either side of the spectrum.

On a side note, I was in a band at one point and the material on any given album was like, 20% tracks had vocals, the rest did not. I think that's a pretty happy medium. :)

wat

  dr lopez said:

twat

ftfy

  Deslouriers said:

I think you're forgetting about ... say half of all music out there. You're basically saying there's IDM and then pop (radio) music.

 

The majority of instrumental music comes out of Universities. And before you say, "Oh that's not mainstream, though," think about all of the television, all of the commercials and all of the movies with music that comes from classically trained musicians that come out of school. So, in reality there really isn't that much of a majority for one type or another, they're just used in different settings. Radio music is for setting up on altar and worshiping because your own life is too miserable to meaningless to find your own meaning for it, and instrumental is for whatever you want it to be.

 

Radio music probably just seems more mainstream to you because it's crammed into your face day in and day out by people that want to sell you shit. And people that buy shit listen to the radio/tv/whatever so that's what they like.

 

Anyway, perhaps you should ask the countless orchestral musicians and composers why there is such a chasm between fans of either side of the spectrum.

 

On a side note, I was in a band at one point and the material on any given album was like, 20% tracks had vocals, the rest did not. I think that's a pretty happy medium. :)

Yes, but these mediums aren't promoting music, the music is being used to compliment/promote something (probably with someone talking over it).

So I am not buying your example completely. Yes I am probably overlooking a good amount of instrumental music, because its not in my face as much on a day to day basis... but if you look at last.fm or something... when does the first completely instrumental musician pop up in the top charts? Probably not till like the 50's or something...

  karmakramer said:

So something occurred to me yesterday, and this might just be something that only occurs to me, but I seem to enjoy each extreme more then I enjoy the balance of both.

 

For example, I always thought that I just didn't like vocals in music much, but I realized, thats not entirely true cause I have deep respect and appreciation for artists such as Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Robyn Hitchcock, Tom Waits, etc... all mainly lyrical musicians...

 

So then why is it that once a lyricist takes his music a bit further instrumentally, I reject it?

 

My current thought is that I find music is like information. If you have music that has complex/intricate instrumentation, your mind is going to want to focus on it. But when you add complex/intricate lyrics, for me, you start walking on a very tight rope.

 

Music that tries to balance between both spectrums is very hit and miss for me. I have no idea how or what makes this balance a "hit" but I do know that if its a "miss" its usually because one aspect is distracting and then my mind doesn't know where to focus.

 

Does anyone else find themselves spending more time (probably on the instrumental side of things) on one spectrum then somewhere in between?

 

Please add whatever you'd like (serious or not)... I am just bored and trying to pass the time.

bollocks. when i was six i heard a flute solo that spoke words to me. good melodies always do that.

http://nevenen.bandcamp.com/track/lonely-old-lou

can you hear the lyrics??

"most people hate you... but what can you do, for lonely old lou?"

only reason there aren't vocals is i'm not much of a vocalist.

Not into this thread.

then gtfo

  hahathhat said:

  karmakramer said:

So something occurred to me yesterday, and this might just be something that only occurs to me, but I seem to enjoy each extreme more then I enjoy the balance of both.

 

For example, I always thought that I just didn't like vocals in music much, but I realized, thats not entirely true cause I have deep respect and appreciation for artists such as Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Robyn Hitchcock, Tom Waits, etc... all mainly lyrical musicians...

 

So then why is it that once a lyricist takes his music a bit further instrumentally, I reject it?

 

My current thought is that I find music is like information. If you have music that has complex/intricate instrumentation, your mind is going to want to focus on it. But when you add complex/intricate lyrics, for me, you start walking on a very tight rope.

 

Music that tries to balance between both spectrums is very hit and miss for me. I have no idea how or what makes this balance a "hit" but I do know that if its a "miss" its usually because one aspect is distracting and then my mind doesn't know where to focus.

 

Does anyone else find themselves spending more time (probably on the instrumental side of things) on one spectrum then somewhere in between?

 

Please add whatever you'd like (serious or not)... I am just bored and trying to pass the time.

 

bollocks. when i was six i heard a flute solo that spoke words to me. good melodies always do that.

 

http://nevenen.bandcamp.com/track/lonely-old-lou

 

can you hear the lyrics??

 

"most people hate you... but what can you do, for lonely old lou?"

 

only reason there aren't vocals is i'm not much of a vocalist.

I don't typically hear words, I usually just get feelings or visuals in my head from music. Perhaps another reason I find vocals more distracting then complimentary.

Plus instrumental music allows each listener to interrupt their own meanings... which is nice.

  karmakramer said:

Plus instrumental music allows each listener to interrupt their own meanings... which is nice.

Yeah, that's what I was really trying to get at at some point or another. :stuart:

I think vocals and/or lyrics can make or break a song/band

music is music. i've heard "vocal music" (what does this even mean?) and "instrumental" music that have both had the same effect on me. if it's good it's good. it's all just different tools used to express emotion or ideas.

i don't really like the concept of this thread, actually

Basically what you just said is analgous to saying that some random little crafty knick knacks that american southern mom's like to put all throughout their house is the same as a van Gogh or Rembrandt.

They're both visual art, and you can like both because "if it's good it's good", but you can't deny that they're two entirely separate things, just like music focusing on singing and instrumental music are two entirely separate things.

  zaphod said:

music is music. i've heard "vocal music" (what does this even mean?) and "instrumental" music that have both had the same effect on me. if it's good it's good. it's all just different tools used to express emotion or ideas.

 

i don't really like the concept of this thread, actually

well I think a better term is "lyrical" cause "vocals" can be used as an instrument.

And I disagree that its all the same... for example if we look at another medium such as film, there are two spectrums as well I think. There is visual story telling and then there is dialogue driven story-telling (voice-overs... telling instead of showing)...

The differences lie in reaction and how the viewer/listener interpret the material. You may reach similar emotions and feelings from two totally different sounding songs, but typically "instrumental" music or "visual story-telling" allows for a wider variety of interpretations.

man I just realized I was mis-spelling interpret... sorry about the confusion lol

good is good.

People are really stoned on Watmm lately

I don't want to get into a war of what's better... cause its all subjective... just wanted to have a discussion about both styles.

but film and music are two different mediums and despite the fact that you can edit a film to music, maybe pace it in a "musical" way, there's no way to compare those two forms of expression. music is far more pure, even when it is shallow and manipulative, like, i guess you might say in "lyrical" music where there is no depth to the lyrics and the music fits into a standard structure. film is just totally different...i don't see how you can compare visual story telling with something as elemental as music.

i also think you're confusing structure and ability to communicate, (maybe mood?) with differences between music with vocals and music without vocals. for instance, a song by radiohead, say, "lucky" communicates a lot of information to me. there's the level of the lyrics, which are ominous and sort of visceral and sad, and then there's the music itself, which matches the lyrical "story", although in that song there isn't really a linear story, more of a mood. then there's production, in particular the ebowed guitar at the beginning that creates a whole level of associations, the sort of swooping guitar line that closes the song, etc. now compare that to something like "xtal", which is far more simplistic, communicates a different mood (something whimsical in this case, maybe carefree), and yes there's a vocal sample in that song so it isn't the best example....both songs are successful at achieving what they need to achieve, produce an emotional response. so what's the point of making the comparison? take any two artists at the top of their game and the only thing that remains is good music. it's just splitting hairs, over analyzing. it's silly.

CHOLESTEROL

good or bad?

  zaphod said:

but film and music are two different mediums and despite the fact that you can edit a film to music, maybe pace it in a "musical" way, there's no way to compare those two forms of expression. music is far more pure, even when it is shallow and manipulative, like, i guess you might say in "lyrical" music where there is no depth to the lyrics and the music fits into a standard structure. film is just totally different...i don't see how you can compare visual story telling with something as elemental as music.

i also think you're confusing structure and ability to communicate, (maybe mood?) with differences between music with vocals and music without vocals. for instance, a song by radiohead, say, "lucky" communicates a lot of information to me. there's the level of the lyrics, which are ominous and sort of visceral and sad, and then there's the music itself, which is matches the lyrical "story", although in that song there isn't really a linear story, more of a mood. then there's production, in particular the ebowed guitar at the beginning that creates a whole level of associations, the sort of swooping guitar line that closes the song, etc. now compare that to something like "xtal", which is far more simplistic, communicates a different mood (something whimsical in this case, maybe carefree), and yes there's a vocal sample in that song so it isn't the best example....both songs are successful at achieving what they need to achieve, produce an emotional response. so what's the point of making the comparison? it's just splitting hairs, over analyzing. it's silly.

And Radiohead (although not a big fan) manages to walk that tight rope quite successfully, probably because Yorke's voice in most songs is as you said moody in style... And this is exactly my point. Moving to the abstract allows for more interpretations...

I don't get how its silly to discuss music on a music forum honestly.

the smiths

aka having your cake and eating it also