Red Mosquito

Nope I find these lyrics fun, weird, dark and the cadence in the delivery is great.

This is a GREAT PJ song , one that I would gladly put on a hard rock PJ playlist.

harmless wrote:Guys, if you're going to write a song with lyrics, they're a crucial part of the song and can justifiably be critiqued. If a song fails, the lyrics are just as open to critique as everything else, and lyrics may well be the reason a song ultimately succeeds or fails. The idea that lyrics are an optional extra I find arrogant and naive. Music designed to be instrumental is obviously exempt and shouldn't be brought into the argument.

Nobody is saying anything like that. If the bass sucks I might not care, but a bass player will. It doesn't change how open to critique that part of the song is, it just falls lower on my list of priorities.

IlluminEddie wrote:but I feel one can't have a real connection to a song without lyrics.

now that is just absurd

IlluminEddie wrote:I suppose non-lyrical music can move someone

Hahaha, oh man.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

benton netty wrote:Somebody better dig up Mozart and have him write some lyrics or no one's ever gonna like his shit.

I'll just quote myself:

One can certainly enjoy music without lyrics and I suppose non-lyrical music can move someone, but I feel one can't have a real connection to a song without lyrics.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that you can't have a proper connection with any song without lyrics? I dunno man, that's silly. If a song is designed to be instrumental, you can't critique lyrics; it doesn't preclude emotional attachment. But if a song includes lyrics, those lyrics are fair game for critique as much as the guitar work.

No, it makes sense. I'm saying there's no real clear portal to the writer's emotion without lyrics. Sure, music can be dark, light, etc. But, that's it. Those elements - a dark musical tone, for example, can certainly move someone, including myself. But, you can't truly connect with the writer or truly understand their emotion. Lyrics provide the opportunity for that to occur.

Also, how much I prioritize lyrics, or any other aspect of a song, changes with the type of music I'm listening to, and often for different reasons.

I feel like every song will make its' own case on what is or is not important to the listener. If the music is so good that it overwhelms average or mediocre lyrics, or the lyrics work in such a way that they are good for the song, if not good on paper, than fine. I don't need to understand what Michael Stipe is saying on Murmur to know it's great, but that's the parameters that the music has set.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

harmless wrote:Guys, if you're going to write a song with lyrics, they're a crucial part of the song and can justifiably be critiqued. If a song fails, the lyrics are just as open to critique as everything else, and lyrics may well be the reason a song ultimately succeeds or fails. The idea that lyrics are an optional extra I find arrogant and naive. Music designed to be instrumental is obviously exempt and shouldn't be brought into the argument.

Nobody is saying anything like that. If the bass sucks I might not care, but a bass player will. It doesn't change how open to critique that part of the song is, it just falls lower on my list of priorities.

No, yeah, I think you're totally justified in feeling that. But it wasn't you that I felt was making an objective point that lyrics are just less important. Maybe no one was, in which case... yeah. Fine.

I love the weird atmosphere of the song

It reminds me very much of the insane demented vibe from "The Whip Hand" by The Mars Volta

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJxfPjlZIWw

harmless wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

harmless wrote:Guys, if you're going to write a song with lyrics, they're a crucial part of the song and can justifiably be critiqued. If a song fails, the lyrics are just as open to critique as everything else, and lyrics may well be the reason a song ultimately succeeds or fails. The idea that lyrics are an optional extra I find arrogant and naive. Music designed to be instrumental is obviously exempt and shouldn't be brought into the argument.

Nobody is saying anything like that. If the bass sucks I might not care, but a bass player will. It doesn't change how open to critique that part of the song is, it just falls lower on my list of priorities.

No, yeah, I think you're totally justified in feeling that. But it wasn't you that I felt was making an objective point that lyrics are just less important. Maybe no one was, in which case... yeah. Fine.

No one was.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Also, how much I prioritize lyrics, or any other aspect of a song, changes with the type of music I'm listening to, and often for different reasons.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. There are genres and styles which pride themselves on lyrics, so when they're weaker... And vice versa: there are styles where lyrics don't have to be great (rock), so when they are (Pearl Jam, sometimes) they stick out in a great way.

harmless wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

harmless wrote:Guys, if you're going to write a song with lyrics, they're a crucial part of the song and can justifiably be critiqued. If a song fails, the lyrics are just as open to critique as everything else, and lyrics may well be the reason a song ultimately succeeds or fails. The idea that lyrics are an optional extra I find arrogant and naive. Music designed to be instrumental is obviously exempt and shouldn't be brought into the argument.

Nobody is saying anything like that. If the bass sucks I might not care, but a bass player will. It doesn't change how open to critique that part of the song is, it just falls lower on my list of priorities.

No, yeah, I think you're totally justified in feeling that. But it wasn't you that I felt was making an objective point that lyrics are just less important. Maybe no one was, in which case... yeah. Fine.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... =15&t=2213

cutuphalfdead wrote:

harmless wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

harmless wrote:Guys, if you're going to write a song with lyrics, they're a crucial part of the song and can justifiably be critiqued. If a song fails, the lyrics are just as open to critique as everything else, and lyrics may well be the reason a song ultimately succeeds or fails. The idea that lyrics are an optional extra I find arrogant and naive. Music designed to be instrumental is obviously exempt and shouldn't be brought into the argument.

Nobody is saying anything like that. If the bass sucks I might not care, but a bass player will. It doesn't change how open to critique that part of the song is, it just falls lower on my list of priorities.

No, yeah, I think you're totally justified in feeling that. But it wasn't you that I felt was making an objective point that lyrics are just less important. Maybe no one was, in which case... yeah. Fine.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... =15&t=2213

I don't see any huge gulf between sung and instrumental music; the voice just acts like another instrument to me in the former.

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

benton netty wrote:Somebody better dig up Mozart and have him write some lyrics or no one's ever gonna like his shit.

I'll just quote myself:

One can certainly enjoy music without lyrics and I suppose non-lyrical music can move someone, but I feel one can't have a real connection to a song without lyrics.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that you can't have a proper connection with any song without lyrics? I dunno man, that's silly. If a song is designed to be instrumental, you can't critique lyrics; it doesn't preclude emotional attachment. But if a song includes lyrics, those lyrics are fair game for critique as much as the guitar work.

No, it makes sense. I'm saying there's no real clear portal to the writer's emotion without lyrics. Sure, music can be dark, light, etc. But, that's it. Those elements - a dark musical tone, for example, can certainly move someone, including myself. But, you can't truly connect with the writer or truly understand their emotion. Lyrics provide the opportunity for that to occur.

Yeah but I don't care about the writer's emotion when I listen to lyrics. I'd argue that most people don't. All they want is to have that emotion successfully evoked for them, and that is often contrived fakery. It's just as easy to evoke emotion and feeling through lyric-free music.

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't see any huge gulf between sung and instrumental music; the voice just acts like another instrument to me in the former.

yeah, this. some of my favorite vocals parts arent even words. or when david byrne yells "hey!" a bunch of times in 'and she was', thats the best part of the song. im not sure what people arent getting here.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:Ed said it isn't autobiographical.

When? Where?

Seems very autobiographical to me.

I think it was in the Mark Richards interview. He said that it wasn't about himself, because he didn't know his father so has nothing against him.

OK I looked it up....

He said, "I didn't even know my father, so it's certainly not autobiographical".

He went on to say, "he wasn't even around long enough for me to hate him like that. It's really based on, in a way it's based on evolution. In the evolution in this case is you were given a certain set of genes, that you were given by the previous generation. You know they talk about cloning humans, well that's what we are. It seems we are almost exactly a clone of these two people and it almost usually comes out just about equal and you get some fucked up genes, and hopefully some good ones and then it's just making decisions based on using your positive strengths and not succumbing to any of the dark, fucked up shit that might just be in your DNA, that might just make it more conducive to being an adulter, or being a criminal, or literally being insane. So, I think that's just a bit of a diatribe on having to deal with the cards that you were dealt in a strand of DNA."


This is what I originally posted:

This is cool lyrical song. I was wondering if this was a religious reference when I first heard. The Father being God. Still not sure.

If it's direct about Ed and his Dad, it makes more sense. If this is what it's about, it's obviously about his Dad's depression/mental illness and how Ed has it also or has had it in the past. In my opinion, this song is about regrets with lyrics he wrote in the past (State of Love and Trust, for example, or any song related to his poor mental health) and blaming them on his Father not being there or being an f'd up person. I think Ed's at a weird stage of life where he realizes his children will soon look at his past (songs like State of Love and Trust where he talks of taking himself out) with a slight embarrassment towards his mental state. This is Ed's way to say it's not his fault.... which seems just about normal for him. I do think the anger is legit here and not staged. I just think it's narcissistic in it's nature. Just about the norm for Ed.

Probably a mix of these two things served as the motivation. I'm quite sure he wasn't directing all of that towards his Dad. But, maybe he used Father as a metaphor for everyone's Dads and so on. In a sense, it probably is somewhat autobiographical and that brings in the other parts which I mentioned in the quote.

Maybe... I don't know, all I was saying is that if Ed says it's not about him, it's probably not about him. If he used his feelings about his own father as inspiration, that's expected... like method acting. But that's not anything unusual, even in fiction writing. There's a fine line, we just don't know where he draws it here.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

benton netty wrote:Somebody better dig up Mozart and have him write some lyrics or no one's ever gonna like his shit.

I'll just quote myself:

One can certainly enjoy music without lyrics and I suppose non-lyrical music can move someone, but I feel one can't have a real connection to a song without lyrics.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that you can't have a proper connection with any song without lyrics? I dunno man, that's silly. If a song is designed to be instrumental, you can't critique lyrics; it doesn't preclude emotional attachment. But if a song includes lyrics, those lyrics are fair game for critique as much as the guitar work.

No, it makes sense. I'm saying there's no real clear portal to the writer's emotion without lyrics. Sure, music can be dark, light, etc. But, that's it. Those elements - a dark musical tone, for example, can certainly move someone, including myself. But, you can't truly connect with the writer or truly understand their emotion. Lyrics provide the opportunity for that to occur.

Yeah but I don't care about the writer's emotion when I listen to lyrics. I'd argue that most people don't. All they want is to have that emotion successfully evoked for them, and that is often contrived fakery. It's just as easy to evoke emotion and feeling through lyric-free music.

I think you make a good point. So, let me rephrase - "there's no real clear portal between the writer's emotion and the listener's emotion without lyrics". It's more of a communication with lyrics. Without, it's not. Music can still paint colors - black or white without lyrics, which can affect the listener, but it can't have a real conversation with the listener without lyrics. It's like a sense (smell, touch, etc.)

In short - lyrics are really powerful. They are how I got into this band. In general, Ed's a better lyricist than the general public gives him credit for.

Eeeeeh... OK. Truce.