Lightning Bolt -- guess the tracks!

[LetMeSleep]

god damnit, fuck you all

Now I have Ty Cobb in my head.

[stip]

i am off to bed so you have some time to think about this.

[harmless]

When you watch movies do you not listen to dialogue?

Nice try

you have all those visuals that can convey meaning, and the sound of the actors voice. If anything, the dialogue should be even less important because you have that visual element. If the presence of sound makes the meaning of words matter less, then the more senses we add the less important they should be

No

that's not a very impressive response. Perhaps if you set it to music it would matter less.

Your ridiculous comparison doesn't even deserve a serious response. It's that absurd.

why?

You really think stripping a song of lyrics, and stripping a movie of its dialogue is the same thing, has the same effect on the overall presentation? You really think that a movie, sans dialogue, can stand on its own the way a song can sans lyrics?

Is this CHUD vs. silent film?

In silent film they have to put up shots of cards with words on them to help string scenes together.

That choice wasn't made in every silent film. I haven't seen many but the only one I've seen in which that happened was the film-within-a-film on The Three Amigos.

[stip]

god damnit, fuck you all

Now I have Ty Cobb in my head.

don't worry. If the chorus offends you just change all the fucks to fcuks. It won't ruin the song as long as it still sounds angry

[harmless]

Can we guess the tracks now?

[philpritchard]

I don't know why we're arguing about this, or why stip's comparison was ridiculous, or why anyone cares either way. Basically, a 'song' has lyrics. A 'piece of music' or 'composition' does not, necessarily (e.g. classical / orchestral). If I go into a 'song' hearing lyrics, I'm going to consider them a crucial part of the music, and therefore criticise them if I don't like them. But if I don't, I won't.

Simples.

Logical middle grounds make for horrible arguments.

[Norah]

When you watch movies do you not listen to dialogue?

Nice try

you have all those visuals that can convey meaning, and the sound of the actors voice. If anything, the dialogue should be even less important because you have that visual element. If the presence of sound makes the meaning of words matter less, then the more senses we add the less important they should be

No

that's not a very impressive response. Perhaps if you set it to music it would matter less.

Your ridiculous comparison doesn't even deserve a serious response. It's that absurd.

why?

You really think stripping a song of lyrics, and stripping a movie of its dialogue is the same thing, has the same effect on the overall presentation? You really think that a movie, sans dialogue, can stand on its own the way a song can sans lyrics?

usually no, but I think it depends on the song and the movie. And my point is not that they are equally important, but that both ARE important, and I would like to know why this is such an absurd proposition in a movie and not in a song.

So you think just as many movies would still be watchable without the dialogue than there are songs that would still be listenable without the lyrics?

Movies, for the most part, are a medium to tell stories, and the dialogue is an integral part of that. And sure, there are plenty of "story songs" out there where the music is simply a vessel for telling a story with words, but that's just a small slice of the pie. Most songs, the music can exist as its own piece of art without the lyrics, even if the lyrics are really good and important. You can't say that about movies.

[harmless]

I don't know why we're arguing about this, or why stip's comparison was ridiculous, or why anyone cares either way. Basically, a 'song' has lyrics. A 'piece of music' or 'composition' does not, necessarily (e.g. classical / orchestral). If I go into a 'song' hearing lyrics, I'm going to consider them a crucial part of the music, and therefore criticise them if I don't like them. But if I don't, I won't.

Simples.

Logical middle grounds make for horrible arguments.

I don't care about offering an objective argument that others can make their own opinion. I'm just putting forward my own.

[harmless]

So you think just as many movies would still be watchable without the dialogue than there are songs that would still be listenable without the lyrics?

Porn?

[philpritchard]

Most songs, the music can exist as its own piece of art without the lyrics, even if the lyrics are really good and important.

The lyrics can exist as their own piece of art without the music, even if the music is really good and important.

[Norah]

So you think just as many movies would still be watchable without the dialogue than there are songs that would still be listenable without the lyrics?

Porn?

[Norah]

Most songs, the music can exist as its own piece of art without the lyrics, even if the lyrics are really good and important.

The lyrics can exist as their own piece of art without the music, even if the music is really good and important.

I never said they couldn't.

[philpritchard]

I don't know why we're arguing about this, or why stip's comparison was ridiculous, or why anyone cares either way. Basically, a 'song' has lyrics. A 'piece of music' or 'composition' does not, necessarily (e.g. classical / orchestral). If I go into a 'song' hearing lyrics, I'm going to consider them a crucial part of the music, and therefore criticise them if I don't like them. But if I don't, I won't.

Simples.

Logical middle grounds make for horrible arguments.

I don't care about offering an objective argument that others can make their own opinion. I'm just putting forward my own.

Oh I know. I just happen to agree and feel like your opinion is a logical middle ground. Both arguments seem king of ridiculous to me.

[harmless]

I don't know why we're arguing about this, or why stip's comparison was ridiculous, or why anyone cares either way. Basically, a 'song' has lyrics. A 'piece of music' or 'composition' does not, necessarily (e.g. classical / orchestral). If I go into a 'song' hearing lyrics, I'm going to consider them a crucial part of the music, and therefore criticise them if I don't like them. But if I don't, I won't.

Simples.

Logical middle grounds make for horrible arguments.

I don't care about offering an objective argument that others can make their own opinion. I'm just putting forward my own.

Oh I know. I just happen to agree and feel like your opinion is a logical middle ground. Both arguments seem king of ridiculous to me.

[philpritchard]

Most songs, the music can exist as its own piece of art without the lyrics, even if the lyrics are really good and important.

The lyrics can exist as their own piece of art without the music, even if the music is really good and important.

I never said they couldn't.

I never said you said they couldn't.

[Norah]

Most songs, the music can exist as its own piece of art without the lyrics, even if the lyrics are really good and important.

The lyrics can exist as their own piece of art without the music, even if the music is really good and important.

I never said they couldn't.

I never said you said they couldn't.

Let's just agree that wins is a stupid stat and quit while we're ahead.

[stip]

I'm sure you can imagine watching a foreign film and being moved by it even if you don't understand what's being said.

The point about story telling is a good one. On the other hand, I think many pearl jam songs (we're not talking about AC/DC here, although apparently the bon scott albums were like hearing Shakespeare talk about marx they were so brilliant) ARE trying to tell a story, even if it is a bit abstract.. The extent to which they aren't is the extent to which the lyrics matter less. I don't care that much about the lyrics in Go because Go really is all emotion and force. The same thing can be said for got some, although it is an inferior song. But Thin Air is telling a story, and so the words matter.

And look, once a singer uses a word they are answerable for it the same way that a musician is answerable for a note they play. Melodies can be hummed, after all. Songs can just be wordless vocalizations.

[harmless]

Most songs, the music can exist as its own piece of art without the lyrics, even if the lyrics are really good and important.

The lyrics can exist as their own piece of art without the music, even if the music is really good and important.

I never said they couldn't.

Poetry. Most songs' lyrics now don't survive on their own as poetry, because it's mostly a written form, but lyrical poetry started as exactly that; it was accompanied by music. It's slowly become pretty much an entirely written and read form. I think the fact that I spend a lot of my time writing poetry and about poetry makes me care more about lyrics in songs. They're crucial to me, whereas to someone else they might not be. I don't expect rock songs to contain poetry, but if they stick out as bad to me it'll really diminish the song.

[stip]

mia is crying so I'm off to bed for real. Good night, RM

[Norah]

Yeah, but when you're watching a foreign film with no way of knowing what's being said you're using the visual clues to fill in the story, the story that would be conveyed with the words if you knew what they were.

When you listen to an instrumental version of a song that's traditionally heard with lyrics, you can be moved with it completely on its own, without filling in any blanks, and even get something completely different out of it than what the words would convey.

Movies vs music in this regard is apples and oranges.