Do some lyrics just sound good separately from their meaning?

[DSmolken]

Max Martin has famously claimed that lyrics have to sound right, not make sense, and there's things like Ariana Grande singing "now that I've become what I really are", and plenty of very memorable English lyrics written by non-native speakers. On the other hand, if you're doing lyrical hip-hop or a Texas country song with a story and a plot, those do need to make sense.

Metalheads of a certain age remember "if you are a false, do not entry". Now that is cool, very memorable, and sounds better than "don't enter if you are false" any day. But, of course, it relies on its meaning, which comes across even with the bad grammar. Correcting it just robs it of its unintentional humor and also its vaguely Shakespearean rhythm.

In defense of meaning, I remember this from Chesterton:

Oddly enough, it is in the rational lines of Virgil or Milton, much more than in the extra-rational lines either of the Merediths or the Sitwells, that we feel the final mystery of song; the something that instantly gives delight and escapes from definition; the thing of which we say: "I cannot tell, for the life of me, why that is so good as it is." I cannot tell, for the life of me, why the line "Like Teneriffe or Atlas unremoved" is as good as it is. Yet it is perfectly straightforward; it merely mentions a cape and a mountain, and adds the somewhat superfluous information that they are not removed. The only thing I am quite sure about is that the sense depends on the sound and the sound depends on the sense. It actually would not sound the same, if another meaning were expressed by the same sound. It actually would not mean as much, if other words expressed the same meaning. It would be easy enough to try the experiment in a rough and ready way. It is obvious that, if we wrote "Like Beachy Head or Snowdon unremoved," it would not be within a thousand miles of the thing; though Beachy Head is a cape and Snowdon is a mountain. What is not quite so obvious is that the converse is also true. It might be too lightly inferred that the mere noise of the names is alone majestic. It might be even suggested that the down-rushing dactyl of "Teneriffe" has some faint echo of words like "terrible" or "towering," and that the sound is the secret. But it is not so, though the alternative experiment might be a little more elaborate to construct.

And then, this part is why I still remember something I last read over 20 years ago:

Let us have a stab at it, as Mr. P. G. Wodehouse's young man said when asked if he would be a reasonable being. Thackeray mentions somewhere, in one of his essays, that in some old cookery-book or book of etiquette he had come on the fact that men in the eighteenth century drank a wine called Teneriffe, apparently an alternative to port or Madeira. Thackeray says, I think, that it sounds like having to swallow the Matterhorn. But if it were something quite familiar, like port wine, it would sound like any other detail of the dinner-table. As for the word "Atlas," we have only to knock out the capital letter, and it means a commonplace work of reference, an ordinary book of maps. Now, suppose somebody were writing a very mild and jog-trot domestic poem in decasyllabics, rather like those poems in which Cowper celebrated the tea-urn or the cat. And suppose the particular passage explained how somebody's after-dinner table was left in a litter by negligent servants; books and wine and everything in a hugger-mugger-- His pipe and napkin, like his spectacles, Like snuff and toast and pen and ink or books, Like teneriffe or atlas, unremoved. It would not make the same noise. It actually would not sound in the ear, as a matter of mere acoustics, the same. The fact of talking only about two trivial objects would, in fact, alter the actual impact of the sound upon the ear and the nerves. Nobody would be looking for a great sonorous effect, and nobody would find it. The fact that the two objects are mountains, mysterious and remote and legendary mountains, does enter irrevocably into the merely physical process; and it is the largeness of those mountains that fills the lungs and the ear.

But can we analyze this more scientifically? I very vaguely remember running across some scientific research which claimed to find that across languages and cultures, people find names with "o" and "u" vowels more fitting for round creatures, and "e" and "i" vowels for spiky, pointy creatures. Now, that makes sense. Some vowels have lower formants than others (oversimplifying: warmer EQ), and also your mouth has to make a rounder shape to produce them. So, there is probably something to it. Some consonants also sound harsher than others, though I don't know if the universality of that has been researched.

So that's what I think... meaning is important, even if it's only what little part of the meaning comes across from barely intelligible lyrics. But there are also real aspects to the sound of phonemes, and accents and rhythms matter a lot. But I also think I only understand a tiny percentage of how all this works, and we could probably understand these things much better.

 

[David Cuny]

In this book "Songwriter", Jimmy Webb writes about an interview where he was taken to task about his lyrics (probably from Macarthur Park, but I'm too lazy to look it up). He says that, unlike poetry, lyrics aren't meant to be listened to without the music.

There are plenty of songs where the meaning is unclear, but the emotion is not.

Then again, there many songs where people think they know what it's about because it feels happy, but the lyrics tell a different story.

In general, music is about feeling, and lyrics that create that feeling - even without it being understandable - are better than something grammatically correct that rational but doesn't move you.

 

[Polkasound]

I think it depends entirely on who your target market is. Max Martin wouldn't have found any success writing for George Strait or Randy Travis. In contemporary pop and various other styles of music, young people feel the music as much as, if not significantly moreso than, the words. This allows lyricists to take cohesion and grammar much further outside the box and still produce a hit song.

I always cite Hanson's "MMMBop" as a prime example of not even needing words to have a hit pop song — a hook can work with just catchy vocal utterances. I'll bet almost everyone who remembers that song can hear the chorus in their head, but can't remember more than one or two lines of lyrics from any of the verses.

When I was young and listening to the radio, I didn't care much about the lyrics I couldn't understand or follow because I was feeling songs as a whole more than understanding their meaning. I think that's typical for a lot of music listeners.

I can still be entertained by a song if the music production outshines and overpowers mediocre lyrics, but when a song is produced for the lyrics to stand out, such as in a ballad, the lyrics will turn me off if they're not grammatically correct. For example, Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud drives me nuts because it starts out with a lyrical redundancy and contrasting tenses. But, I still fully feel the sentiment he's conveying. The song oozes with emotion.

If I were to ever cover that song, though, I'd change the lyrics slightly to make them more grammatically correct. [Speaking of George Strait, when I sing the line, "If this was a movie, we'd be right on cue," I always sing "were" instead of "was."]

When I write songs, I try my best to evoke emotion while being grammatically correct. It's not easy when a grammatical error just fits so well, but my left brain demands it of my right brain. I'm stuck in my ways in that my lyrics must be both grammatically correct and sung intelligibly. I know my older listeners appreciate it, too.

 

[Spirit Groove]

Incomprehensible lyrics, yet it's a classic song.

 

[Nekujak]

I can still be entertained by a song if the music production outshines and overpowers mediocre lyrics, but when a song is produced for the lyrics to stand out, such as in a ballad, the lyrics will turn me off if they're not grammatically correct. For example, Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud drives me nuts because it starts out with a lyrical redundancy and contrasting tenses. But, I still fully feel the sentiment he's conveying. The song oozes with emotion.

If I were to ever cover that song, though, I'd change the lyrics slightly to make them more grammatically correct. [Speaking of George Strait, when I sing the line, "If this was a movie, we'd be right on cue," I always sing "were" instead of "was."]

When I write songs, I try my best to evoke emotion while being grammatically correct. It's not easy when a grammatical error just fits so well, but my left brain demands it of my right brain. I'm stuck in my ways in that my lyrics must be both grammatically correct and sung intelligibly. I know my older listeners appreciate it, too.

Hmmmm... I definitely appreciate proper grammar, so much so, that among my friends I've been known to exhibit annoying moments of "grammar policing" , but when it comes to songs or poetry, all of that goes out the window for me, because strict adherence to grammatical rules would, in many cases, cripple the beauty, naturalness, or emotion of a lyric.

Consider some of these great songs that would suffer if proper grammar were enforced:

I can't get no satsifaction --> I can't get any satisfaction

I feel good --> I feel well

Me and Bobby McGee --> Bobby McGee and I

It ain't necessarily so --> It's not necessarily so

It ain't no use in turning on your light, babe, that light I never knowed --> It's no use turning on your light, babe, that light I never knew

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing --> It doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't have that swing

Jubilation, she loves me again, I fall on the floor and I laughing --> Jubilation, she loves me again, I fall on the floor laughing

She's got a ticket to ride, but she don't care --> She's got a ticket to ride, but she doesn't care

Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters --> Whom are you going to call? Ghostbusters

Lay Lady Lay --> Lie Lady Lie

So excuse me forgetting, but these things I do --> So excuse my forgetting, but this is something I do

I can't see me lovin' nobody but you, for all my life --> I can't see myself loving anyone but you, for the rest of my life

Hey hey mama, said the way you move, gonna make you sweat, gonna make you groove --> Hey hey mama, seeing the way you move, I'm going to make you sweat, I'm going to make you groove

From all those friends and lovers, there is no one compares with you --> From all those friends and lovers, there is no one who is comparable with you

When this old world is blown asunder, and all the stars fall from the sky, remember someone really loves you, we'll live forever, you and I --> When this old world is blown ....... you and me

Me and Julio down by the schoolyard --> Julio and I, down by the schoolyard

and so on... (bonus points if you can name all of the above songs )


Aside from leveraging common colloquialisms (exemplified to the extreme with rap and hip hop), grammatical rules often need bending so lyrics can better fit a melody, adhere to correct syllable counts, fit a rhyme, or simply make them more singable, and of course, often more memorable.

For me, as long as the meaning and emotion of the lyric is successfully conveyed, then grammar be damned - let's pull out all the stops on poetic license. Besides, it's kind of freeing to sing lyrics with blantantly bad grammer, knowing it's perfectly okay and no one is going to correct me


Funny side note... one of the songs my wife frequently sings with her Prohibition Mob vintage jazz band is called "One Monkey Don't Stop No Show". I told her she should introduce the song as "An Individual Primate Does Not Terminate The Presentation"

 

[DSmolken]

On that tangent...

 

[Polkasound]

...strict adherence to grammatical rules would, in many cases, cripple the beauty, naturalness, or emotion of a lyric.

I agree. Double negatives, for example, are so ubiquitous in our vernacular that a lot of pop/rock songs wouldn't work without them. That kind of grammatical incorrectness doesn't bother me. Some grammatical rule bending for the sake of crafting the perfect lyrics is necessary.

What annoys me is when an otherwise properly-written song takes a grammatical liberty that jumps out as completely unnecessary. When I listen to lyrics, I listen with both sides of my brain. I also write songs using both sides — the right side conjures up the story or emotion to convey, both sides work in conjunction to find the words, but the left side is the proof reader and always has the final say.

I'll admit I would not get too far as a lyricist or producer of pop music today because of how anal-retentive I am. Still, I'll continue to write and produce music, but I'll also continue to parse lyrics for grammar [and I'll continue avoiding vocalists who sing in cursive. LOL]

--

Just for fun, what song is this? "Cerulean Optical Receptors Emitting a Lacrimal Glandular Fluid While Situated Outdoors During a Meteorological Event Characterized by a Gravitationally-Influenced Precipitate of Hydrogen Oxide."

 

[David Cuny]

Just for fun, what song is this? "Cerulean Optical Receptors Emitting a Lacrimal Glandular Fluid While Situated Outdoors During a Meteorological Event Characterized by a Gravitationally-Influenced Precipitate of Hydrogen Oxide."

"Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain"

Except that should be "dihydrogen monoxide".

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

I do believe there is something about the sounds of words that can be a huge help in songs. Things like ending a line on a vowel. (Vocalists can do a lot with that). Certain vowels sound beautiful together.

I still attempt to write lyrics that make sense, but I do pay attention to the sound of words. It's better to have a lyric sound good than always be grammatically correct.

 

[Double Helix]

[. . .]
I feel good --> I feel well

This is a tricky one: "good" is a predicate adjective whereas "well" is an adverb.
Ergo, the way one feels (health-wise="good") as opposed to the acuity of one's tactile sense (="well")

I am torn when singing the bridge in "Doo Wah Diddy Diddy" (Barry/Greenwich): Manfred Mann's version (as you well know) is "I knew we *was* falling in lo-uh-uh-ve" -- articulating a flagrant subject-verb agreement error just sticks in my craw. . .
. . . not to mention the second verse: "Holding my hand just as natural/naturally as can be" (?)

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

When Max Martin had his first number one songs in the US, he didn't speak English very well. So there were some discordant things like Britney Spears's "Hit Me One More Time." He just thought that meant,give me a call or something--he didn't see any violence in the line. Or at least that was what he claimed.

He and his proteges dominate popular music. They write and produce countless hit songs in the US, South Korea, Europe, and other markets. And Martin (not necessarily all of them) writes from phonemes, not lyrics. The idea is to get the sound of the way the lyric should be first. Worry about the actual lyrics later. He is also a real stickler for each line having the same exact syllables. You can't slide through the second verse adding an extra syllable. Max needs it exact.

The result is that you can have a song that sounds lovely, but makes little sense. My favorite song by him is "I Want It That Way." You can read the lyrics as much as you want--there's no way to understand what the singer means. Is he who wants things his way? But he also says that he never wants to hear his lover say, "I Want it That Way." Maybe you can figure it out, but the song has been much-discussed in Reddit and other online place for not making sense. So much so that I heard another version was written and released that did make sense. And which flopped. Didn't have the right vowels, I guess. I bet if they could have figured out a way to make it make sense and sound good, it might have worked.

I think the sound of words have their own emotional meaning, just like music does. I don't think it's a mistake that Chappell Roan called her song "Pink Pony Club," rather than the real Abbey Food & Bar in West Hollywood, that inspired it. First you have the alliteration of the two Ps, but those four vowel sounds sound so good together. So much fun to hear and sing along with.

Of course "pink" tells us that it's gay bar (even we didn't pay attention to the line about it being "where boys and girls can all be queens"). Those three words are a great metaphor for a place in the big city that all us kids who don't feel right at home can be accepted and welcomed in.

 

[Nekujak]

This is a tricky one: "good" is a predicate adjective whereas "well" is an adverb.
Ergo, the way one feels (health-wise="good") as opposed to the acuity of one's tactile sense (="well")

I'm going to print out your post and hold it up to my friends every time they accuse me of grammar policing, and exclaim, "See! It's not just me!"

All fair points. Actually both phrases have slightly different meanings, and are both considered grammatically acceptable. In this case, I took some liberties in order to make a point. Good catch!

 

[Nekujak]

Back in the late 1990s, I bought a book that showcased lyrics from rap and hip hop songs. It was one of the most enjoyable and impresive lyric-oriented books I've encountered.

I already owned lyric anthologies from the likes of Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Paul Simon, Leonard Cohen, and Joni Mitchell, all of which I deeply admired, but most of those songs were so firmly ingrained in me, that it was impossible to read the lyrics without the melodies and music playing in my head.

Rap, of course, is much less reliant on melodic or musical content, so the lyrics can more easily stand on their own. it's really all about rhythm and wordplay.

Rap songs tend to be much more lyrically dense than conventional pop songs, which makes the writing all the more impressive. A verse from a pop song might contain anywhere from 12-40 words, while in that same space of time, a rap song often contains 3-5 times as many words, and maintains a coherent narrative! I of course realize lyric writing is not a numbers contest, but when I think about how hard I have to work to produce just four good lines, and compare that to the flood of expressive lyrics being delivered by a rapper, I'm in awe.

I find the wordplay to be extraordinary, especially when you consider many rap songs are freestyled in the moment. But whether freestyled or not, the narratives, rhyming patterns, setups and payoffs, use of street slang, and clever word tricks can be truly masterful at times. The subject matter tends to be narrowly focused on gangsta life, bravado, material wealth, and bitches and hos, but within that ecosystem, many rappers have found ways to stand out and be highly inventive, and over time, rap has also evolved to encompass a broader range of topics.

Rhythmic cadence is a vital component of rap, and is no less important than the words themselves. I remember reading a Rolling Stone interview with Eminem in which he was highly self-critical of his early albums because he felt his words didn't align with the beats as well as they should. It was something he was focusing on intently and trying to improve.

Anyway, if you're interested in venturing beyond the confines of moon-June-spoon pop lyrics, I highly recommend perusing some lyrics by the likes of Kendrick Lamar, Ice Cube, Eminem, Jay-Z, and others. It'll take you on a very different type of songwriting journey, and perhaps spark some fresh inspiration

 

[Fabien Boussat]

On that tangent...

I remember Neil Tennant of Pet Shop Boys joking about how their lyrics were always written in correct, academic, polite English. He said something like :

"We couldn't have written "Like a virgin". With us it would have been "As though I were a virgin"

That would have been a bit less impactful.

 

[DSmolken]

I'm still thinking about how the word "round" sounds rounder than the word "pointy" to people with zero knowledge of English, and how very dense rhymes which repeat certain sounds a lot probably build up a feel or vibe just by that repetition.

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

I've thought about this thread a lot, and I appreciate @DSmolken for posting it. I wondered, "why did I pick one lyric over another when they both said the same sort of thing and they both rhyme at the end?" And that question has been on my mind with the songs I'm writing right now.

And I decided that, Max Martin is right, the way a lyric sounds is the most important thing. "Sounding good" comes from a pleasing flow of vowel sounds. So as I'm writing a song now, I pick the line that has the best flow of vowel lines. And the ones that don't, I treat the same way as if I thought the line was a cliche, or didn't say what I wanted, or didn't rhyme, etc. I've got to change them.

This is why we like some doo wa diddy diddy type songs, and why we don't mind if songs don't make sense. What we enjoy is when the lyrics are musical. The ideal is when all aspects of lyric writing are working together.

And I'm not talking about internal rhymes, because singing one "oo" after another is not always that pleasing or especially easy to sing. I've found the nicest flow can go something like "ah ee oo uh." I like when there are internal rhymes from different lines in a verse, to join the ideas.

This is what I feel today, anyway, as I plug away at my attempts at songwriting.

 

[Nitrateaudio]

A lot depends on the music and instrumentation and how it's written. I always liked some of Randy Newmans later works. It benefitted from his years of working on films. The lyrics always had a dark underbelly. Even in something as cute and melodic as this.

Satisfaction guaranteed
Getting everything you need?
Hand delivered, quite discreet
‘Cause you’re on Easy Street


Any place you want to go
We’ll call ahead and let them know
Get you in through the backdoor
But you get a front row seat
‘Cause you’re on Easy Street

All your old friends
I know you love ‘em so
Gonna break your heart
But you’re gonna have to let them go
Your friends up here must be the elite
You’ll like everyone you meet

On Easy Street
Life is sweet
Accommodations can’t be beat
On Easy Street

Easy Street
Here’s your seat
Watch the world roll by at your feet
Don’t look down
That’s it

Doesn’t matter if you act a little strange
Do your worst
Don’t ever change
‘Cause no matter what you do
You think anyone up here is ever going to say no to you?
Nah

That’s it Miss B
Yes

Now you don’t know how you got here
And how the whole world knows your name
Forget about it
Relax enjoy yourself
Everywhere you go they’re glad you came

Baby you’re on Easy Street
Life is sweet
Let them worship at your feet
On Easy Street

 

[Nekujak]

I forgot to mention this earlier in the thread, but the importance of "singable" words can't be overstated.

The first few times I collaborated with professional singers, I got a swift lesson in using singable words. After working hard on a song to craft what I thought were some good lyrics, the singer would often reject specific words as "unsingable" and challenge me to do better.

Words like:
- strength
- sixth
- jewelry
- twelfth
- brewery
- film
- squirrel
- uncharacteristcially

aren't impossible to sing, but they are difficult to stretch, don't lend themselves well to phrasing, or are simply awkward. Pretty much any dense consonant clusters, short/nasal vowels, or complex syllable stress patterns are likely to be shunned by singers who are proficient at their craft.

And not only are such words difficult to sing, they're also not particularly pleasing for the listener. This all ties into the notion of crafting lyrics that create pleasing musical sounds, but don't necessarily convey completely coherent meanings.

Nowadays, even if I'm only writing for myself, I try to run my lyrics by a pro singer to get their blessing on my word choices. I find the final result to always be worth the extra effort.

 

[DSmolken]

Ha, as a lousy singer who can rap, I have a lot less trouble with things like that than a lot of good singers, even when the syllables get dense.

 

[Nekujak]

Ha, as a lousy singer who can rap, I have a lot less trouble with things like that than a lot of good singers, even when the syllables get dense.

Well, my post isn't really about the ability to sing certain words, but rather, the affect those words have on the music itself. Any singer, good, bad, or in between, can sing just about any lyric - there's really no such thing as completely unsingable words.

It's just that proficient singers, and great lyricists, are more sensitive to how each word contributes to the overall sound of the music. Experienced singers in particular, are always on the lookout for opportunities to emphasize the meaning of a lyric and add emotion to a song through phrasing. The "unsingable" words simply make that task more challenging by reducing available options, and sometimes, the words simply sound ugly or awkward.

For many years, I wrote and performed songs laced with lots of so-called unsingable words, and never thought twice about it. People seemed to like the songs and the lyric police never came after me . But once I started working with experienced pro singers, my eyes (and ears) were opened to a whole other dimension of writing and performance considerations.

Of course, like everything else in songwriting, there are no hard and fast rules. Lots of beloved songs contain unsingable words. Steadfastly adhering to so-called songwriting rules doesn't in any way guarantee a song will be good or connect with an audience. Sometimes it could be an unsingable word that elevates a lyric from mediocre to great!

But being aware of the singability of words simply provides another variable songwriters can work with, that can affect both the performance and listenability of a song.