Re: Living together in civility

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:31:18 -0500
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s
Size: 3,008 bytes

In article <email-address-deleted>, Roger Ford
<email-address-deleted> wrote:
> >
> You really think these people sat down and agonized about all this
> stuff when they wrote these songs? Yeah riight!
Writers agonize more than you seem to think. I think that's what Jim
was trying to say.
> Anyway you still have'nt answered my other question ----if the way
> these lyrics pan out is really so important to the finished record
> then why is Rusty York's "Peggy Sue" at least comparable with Holly's?
>
> Same lyrics,pretty much same delivery and don't tell me Holly's voice
> is tons better because it really is'nt. York had a decent voice and
> made some fine records but this is'nt one of them.
>
> But by your reckoning his version should be not very far behind the
> Holly----yet there is a huge yawning chasm between the two versions (I
> assume you do know this version before you set out on all this???).
> You've given me even more ammunition here too----why is the Ravens (a
> well respected group on here) version of "That'll Be The Day" so
> completely shitty compared to The Crickets?? And better yet why is
> Holly's second version (as The Crickets) so very much better than HIS
> OWN original version that has the SAME SINGER singing the SAME
> LYRICS???
In fact, I don't know Rusty York's "Peggy Sue," but I certainly know
the Ravens' take on "That'll Be The Day," and I agree that it's crap.
> Why could'nt Webb Pierce using exactlly the same lyric line as Don &
> Phil come anywhere near them on "Bye Bye Love"?
>
> None of these people I mentioned are shit artists so their
> interpretations of these lyrics should stand a lot higher than they
> do---but they don't.
>
> Because in the end its the OVERALL SOUND of the record that counts.
Of course it's the overall sound of a record that counts the most. I
never denied that. (As usual we have ended up arguing over relatively
small differences of opinion.) I was trying to persuade you that the
lyric is PART of the overall sound. You seem to see lyric and sound as
somehow separable, and I don't. A different lyric would create a
different sound.
My general position is that lyrics are often of more importance than
you seem to think. I believe that lyrics can be important in at least
two ways. First, a lyric can be important because of what it SAYS, and
how that relates to the sound and mood and feel of the record as a
whole. Second, and this is what I was trying to get at in the recent
post, a lyric can be important because of the way it SOUNDS, certain
combinations of vowels and consonents allowing a singer to do things
with his voice that other combinations of vowels and consonents don't.
Do song writers pay attention to such things? I believe that the better
ones do.
Question: when you're not actually listening to music, and you "play" a
song in your head, do you find yourself singing the lyric to yourself
or reproducing the "overall sound" of the record?
--
--md
Remove xx to respond