Music What is the True Value of Music?

[Shahil]

What is music worth??

I was just pondering...

I'm a REALLY big music fan - I love almost every type. Although I live in South Africa, I watch the charts from around the globe just to hear what is new and what these artists are trying to say. After all, music is an artform which gives artists a platform to make their voices heard to a wide-ranging audience.

Anyway, what I want to know is: What is all the music worth? Should we really be listening to what's being said in the lyrics of songs? When a teeny-bopper band sings about love, do we listen to them? Should we build temples to praise the literary power of Michael Stipe or Dylan? And, should we "build our lives" around the message that a song gives? A lot of people become engrossed in songs - like it was written exclusively about their particular issue. Is this wrong or what?

My viewpoint kinda comes from Oasis "Don't Look Back In Anger"

Please don't put your life in the hands/ Of a rock 'n roll band/ Who'll throw it all away

There is a paradox there, isn't it?

Any views??

 

[meteor]

there are great quotes in songs. I can say that I'm very much times just singing the songs in my mind, and i enjoy it. Two of my favourite quotes are
"if I'm killed by the questions like a cancer
then i'll be buried in the silence of the answers
by myself"
from the song "By myself" of Linkin Park

or "and all the routes we have to walk are blinding
and all the lights that light the way are blinding"
in the song Wonderwall by Oasis

music is fun

 

[jimmy p]

Music is my life. I found it is one of the only things that I deeply care about. I always have a CD on somewhere.

For me, a lot of the lyrics in songs I listen to, I try make connections with so that it will mean more to me. And also, I try to feel the music. To me a good artist will really connect the song and the music. With most teeny bopper songs, they sing about love but the music isn't right. A song like Poison's "Life goes on" is a good example of the mix. The lyricist wrote some moving lyrics about love when the other person is gone, which coincided with a tragedy where the guitarists long time girlfriend died in a car crash. The two linked together well and produced a powerful and emotional song.

I don't build my life around music, I build music around my life.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Anyway, what I want to know is: What is all the music worth? Should we really be listening to what's being said in the lyrics of songs?

I think it's OK to listen to music and enjoy the effects, as long as you realize they're just effects and not truths.

 

[hypnagogue]

Appreciating lyrics can only enhance your enjoyment of the music. Good lyrics are like poems set to music. You don't always have to agree with the message of a poem to enjoy it. If you want to get the full experience of the music, you should listen to the lyrics, and if they strike a chord with you, all the better-- if not, that's fine too. You don't have to model your life after art in order to appreciate art.

 

[chroot]

You can't really say what music, as an entire art form, is worth. Some music is garbage, and some music is simply awe-inspiring. Of course, different people will judge a given piece differently. And thus we get launched into the old inherent beauty vs. perceived beauty philosophical argument.

Strangely enough I don't seem very adept at understanding the lyrics in many songs. I simply can't tell what words the singer is actually saying! So I honestly rarely pay much attention to lyrics, and just enjoy the instrumentals.

- Warren

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Strangely enough I don't seem very adept at understanding the lyrics in many songs. I simply can't tell what words the singer is actually saying! So I honestly rarely pay much attention to lyrics, and just enjoy the instrumentals.

- Warren

same here.
especially in metal bands where you can't understand the singers who wish to scream out loud.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Strangely enough I don't seem very adept at understanding the lyrics in many songs. I simply can't tell what words the singer is actually saying!

Aside from bad enunciation, the majority of lyrics don't actually mean anything. He mentioned Michael Stipes of REM above. Stipes specializes in lyrics that seem like they must mean something, but actually don't.

"That's me in the corner!
That's me in the
Spot
Light,
Losing my religion.
Trying to keep
my eye
on you.
But I don't think that I can
Do it.
Oh no, I've said
Too
Much.
I've set it up."

It sounds extremely pointed and meaningful, but actually says nothing at all.

I'm not sure, but I think the Beatles started this, and it's especially apparent on The White Album.

 

[hypnagogue]

A lot of Stipe's lyrics are red herrings, and that song is somewhat ambiguous, but it doesn't mean nothing at all. It's about obsession from afar, and the emotional conflicts involved (in the mold of 'Every Breath You Take'). 'Losing my religion' itself is an actual term that means something like 'at my wit's end.'

In any case, lyrics don't need to tell coherent stories to be worth listening to. The imagery the evoke or the poetic nature in which they're thrown together alone might be enough to make them worthwhile. Case in point, even if you think 'Losing My Religion' has no meaning, you can still appreciate the beautiful couplet 'The lengths that I would go to / The distance in your eyes.'

 

[zoobyshoe]

A lot of Stipe's lyrics are red herrings, and that song is somewhat ambiguous, but it doesn't mean nothing at all. It's about obsession from afar, and the emotional conflicts involved (in the mold of 'Every Breath You Take'). 'Losing my religion' itself is an actual term that means something like 'at my wit's end.'

In any case, lyrics don't need to tell coherent stories to be worth listening to. The imagery the evoke or the poetic nature in which they're thrown together alone might be enough to make them worthwhile. Case in point, even if you think 'Losing My Religion' has no meaning, you can still appreciate the beautiful couplet 'The lengths that I would go to / The distance in your eyes.'

No, I think it actually means nothing at all. It may be that he meant for it to mean something, but if so, he didn't succeed.

I don't think he did want it to have a specific meaning, though, because the more of a rohrshach quality any song has the more people can impose their own personal meaning on it.
Many, many singers and groups do this, but he is particularly good at it. The lyrics to "Man In The Moon" are another example. The song seems like it must have such a specific meaning, but it actually doesn't mean anything in particular. It's the old Eisenstein technique: put two things together and present them to people and people will assume they are connected. Andy Kaufman, Moses, Newton. Connect the dots as you please.

Don't get me wrong. I really like a lot of REM songs. I have several of their tapes. They evoke a definite mood, are imbued with an attitude, and there are definite images in the lyrics that are evocative:

"Here's a truck stop, instead of St. Peters'"

That line really cracked me up. I didn't mean to give the impression that REM was a bad group, and not worth listening to. I just meant to point out the peculiar phenomenon of how their lyrics so strongly seem to mean something, without actually meaning anything.

 

[hypnagogue]

They do mean something, even if some room is left for interpretation. Even the most vivid and straightforward piece of prose leaves things to the reader's imagination.

What conditions must be met for a set of lyrics to mean something anyway? And what makes you a better judge than any other listener, let alone the author?

I'm not taking offense to anything you're saying, I'm just puzzled over how you can insist that the song has absolutely no meaning. It might be a loose sketch, but even a loose sketch has some meaning.

 

[zoobyshoe]

They do mean something, even if some room is left for interpretation.

This is what the concept of a rohrshach test is all about. The more room for interpretation the less meaning a thing actually has.

What conditions must be met for a set of lyrics to mean something anyway?

The authors intended audience must be able to understand it as the author intended it.

And what makes you a better judge than any other listener, let alone the author?

I didn't say I was a better judge than any other listener. I think Stipes intended for these songs to be obtuse but to seem like they weren't. I don't think he is presenting a message, but an attitude. The less specific he is about the message, the more people who can buy into the attitude.

I'm not taking offense to anything you're saying, I'm just puzzled over how you can insist that the song has absolutely no meaning. It might be a loose sketch, but even a loose sketch has some meaning.

It has a meaning in the sense that "the medium is the message". They have atmosphere and mood, but the lyrics, which seem to have some meaning just beyond your reach, don't.

If you look at "Night Swimming" and "Everybody Hurts" it's clear that he is perfectly capable of writing coherent songs, whose meaning isn't obscure. Why aren't all his songs that way? I don't think he wants them to be.

 

[hypnagogue]

Even though the song has some ambiguous lines, I think the core idea of the speaker's infatuated, unspoken obsession over an unrequiting person makes itself pretty evident. I think anyone who has the lyrics written out in front of them would be able to figure that out, provided knowledge of the colloquial term 'losing my religion.'

 

[zoobyshoe]

Consider this, Hypnagogue, consider this: the hint of the century. Consider this: the slip that brought me to my knees. What if all these fantasies come (something) around? And now I've said. Too much.

 

[hypnagogue]

I didn't say every part of the song was unambiguous. Consider relevant excerpts:

The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eyes
Oh no I've said too much
I set it up

That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no I've said too much
I haven't said enough

Every whisper
Of every waking hour I'm
Choosing my confessions
Trying to keep an eye on you
Like a hurt lost and blinded fool
Oh no I've said too much
I set it up

 

[zoobyshoe]

Those lyrics are clearly abut a boy trying to keep up with his distant, controlling father's expectations.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm sorry. Those lyrics are clearly about a girl in crisis over her alcoholic mother.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Whoops, wrong again. I just realized its about a father trying to deal with the shame of his daughter's bipolar disorder.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry. This is obviously about a war survivor taking care of a war buddy who came back not quite right in the head.

 

[hypnagogue]

All those interpretations have a common thread, don't they? The speaker's preoccupation with a person who is unrequitingly distant, with the added complication of the speaker's being hesitant to say what's on his mind to this person. Maybe a bit abstract, but still not completely formless.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry, I meant to say this song is clearly based on Les Miserable and is Jean ValJean singing about the heartless prosecutor stalking him through his life for the crime of having stolen a loaf of bread.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry. I believe this is based on Kafka's The Trial where the character is held pending a trial on charges they refuse to reveal to him.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Actually, this song is clearly inspired by The Silence of the Lambs and is an expression of Clarice Starling's anxiety in her confrontations with Hannibal Lecter.

 

[hypnagogue]

Would you argue that the following piece of text is meaningless?

"Jimbo was a tall man, about 6'2". He had a big crooked nose, a handlebar moustache and a scar running from his forehead to his cheek. His hair was a shaggy mess, and his eyes shone with intensity."

Pretty straightforward in its meaning, right? Nonetheless, you could draw infinitely many portraits of Jimbo that follow that description. Words don't have to be so precise as to rule out all but one interpretation in order to be meaningful. They just need to provide some set of constraints on the interpretation. A meaningless lyric would set no constraints on the interpretation. Clearly, however, we can't interpret this song as being about a happy cat enjoying his meal, or even a scorned lover who comes to reconcile his differences with his love. Any interpretation must fit the general constraint of a speaker who is obsessed with a certain person who is emotionally distant from him, but who hesitates to express what he wishes to say, and so on. There is a story going on here, even if it is painted in very high level terms without specifying the particulars.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree that there are billions and billions of interpretations we could rule out, such as the happy cat, but that still doesn't necessarily get us an idea of what it does mean.

I don't get your obsessed lover interpretation from it at all. The specific part you quoted is the closest to that, but every other interpretation I suggested for those lines fits just as well. If we include the rest of the lyrics, the part you quoted just becomes more ambiguous. I have always had the impression that the person speaking in the part you quoted was afraid of the "you" he addresses, the way one is afraid of someone dangerously unpredictable. To me the "you" is not someone the speaker wants to possess, but an emotional burden they wish would clear up: a monkey on their back. The relationship of a lover, or would be lover never occurred to me.

I agree there are parameters built into the song such that we can rule tons of things out. But I don't agree with you on what can be ruled in. That being the case, and since we are neither of us insensitive to language I think it is because Stipes knows how to write lyrics that sound like they mean much more than they actually do.

 

[hypnagogue]

I always interpreted it in the 'lover' fashion, but I've been careful to omit that from all but my first interpretation. I just mean obsessed as in preoccupied with in some kind of strongly emotional manner. On that account, my general description agrees with all the particular cases you came up with.

I think it may not seem to mean much due to the level of abstraction on which the story is told. I grant it that we can't be sure if this obsessive emotional attachment is that of a lover, or a child to his father, or whatever. But we also can't be sure in exactly what way Jimbo's hair is messy, or whether or not his scar runs over or around his eye, and so on. The difference is that the latter specifies its meaning on what seems to be a more immediate and tangible level. But conceptually, the story about Jimbo is imprecise about the specific instantiation of his generalized physical features in just the same way the lyrics to Losing My Religion are imprecise about the specific instantiation of the generalized emotional relationship that it describes. I think the only way to justify your position would be to say that e.g. the word 'hair' has more meaning than the word 'relationship,' which I don't take to be true.

 

[BoulderHead]

I think it's easy to read into lyrics meaning the writer didn't intend, but I'm not opposed to this, either (could add meaning to the otherwise meaningless). I saw a film of a musician describing being approached by a fan who carried on about the depth and beauty of the lyrics to a song he had performed. The musician told the fan something like "it was just a song, man". I think it can be difficult to always be sure of the meaning (various rock songs come to mind, but it's by no means limited to this genre) and it helps to hear the artist explain. I thought music videos might have been dealing with this problem, but I haven't seen enough of them to know whether they help to clarify, or simply add more confusion to the meaning. Many times I put my own, private, meaning to a song. At least many songs express to me a personal meaning which may be independant to the meaning it's creator had in mind.

To address the original post; I am moved by music, certainly, but I don't let it control my life. Music can be an escape and can play the emotions, but I wouldn't censor it.

What is music worth??

It is worth a very great deal to me.

[edited for additional comment}

 

[zoobyshoe]

But conceptually, the story about Jimbo is imprecise about the specific instantiation of his generalized physical features in just the same way the lyrics to Losing My Religion are imprecise about the specific instantiation of the generalized emotional relationship that it describes. I think the only way to justify your position would be to say that e.g. the word 'hair' has more meaning than the word 'relationship,' which I don't take to be true.

Actually no. There is no Jimbo story. What you posted about Jimbo wasn't a story, just a description.

If you are presenting the Jimbo description and the song as examples of descriptions, then Jimbo wins hands down. One is a description of a man's appearance, the other a description of someone's emotional reaction to someone else. I am much clearer about Jimbo's appearance.

Here are the complete lyrics to the song:

Oh Life!
It's bigger,
It's bigger than you,
And you are not me.

The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eye.
Oh no, I've said too much.
I've set it up.

That's me in the corner.
That's me in the spotlight
Losin' my religion.
Tryin' to keep up with you.
And I don't know if I can do it.
Oh no, I've said too much.
I haven't said enough.

I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing,
I think I thought I saw you try.

Every whisper,
Every waking hour
I'm choosing my confessions.
Trying to keep my eye on you,
Like a hurt, lost, and blinded fool...fool.
Oh no I've said too much.
I've set it up.

Consider this:
Consider this:
the hint of the century,
Consider this:
The slip that brought me to my knees.
What if all these fantasies
Come flaming around?
And now I've said
Too much.

I thought that I heard you laughing.
I thought that I heard you sing.
I think I thought I saw you try.

But that was just a dream
That was just a dream.
That's me in the corner!
That's me in the spot light!
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you.
And I don't know if I can do it.

Oh no I've said too much.
I haven't said enough.

I thought that I heard you laughing.
I thought that I heard you sing.
I think I thought I saw you try.

But that was just a dream
Tryin', cryin' lyin' tryin'
That was just a dream
Just a dream.
Dream.

It all sound very much like it means something, but doesn't.
I really get a much better picture of what Jimbo looks like than what the relationship of the speaker in this song is to the "you" he addresses.

 

[hypnagogue]

I really get a much better picture of what Jimbo looks like than what the relationship of the speaker in this song is to the "you" he addresses.

There are an infinite number of particular instantiations that satisfy both accounts. Why is one more precise than the other?

I believe you think the Jimbo account is more precise because it specifies details on what is, sensorily, a more immediate level of description. The Jimbo account places most of its constraints on low level details, whereas the song places most of its constraints on high level details. So really, they are both equally precise, but just on different levels of analysis. We are left in the dark about the low level details in the song, but in the Jimbo account we are equally left in the dark about the high level details. Why do Jimbo's eyes shine with intensity? Is he a naturally intense person, or did he get that way from his scarring incident, or is he having a manic episode, or is he pining for his homeland, or what? On a physical level of analysis the Jimbo account has more meaning, but on a conceptual / emotional / subjective level of analysis the song has more meaning. I don't see any reason to privilege one level of analysis over the other.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There are an infinite number of particular instantiations that satisfy both accounts. Why is one more precise than the other?

"Consider this: consider this: the hint of the century! Consider this."

Consider what? What is the "hint of the century"?

"That's me in the corner! That's me in the spotlight! Losin' my religion."

Even if we translate "losin' my religion to mean "At my wits end" as you maintain it means, what is all this about being in the corner and being in the spotlight? "At my wits end" is fairly specific, but added to the other two the picture is less rather than more clear. The association of corner with spotlight with being at one's wits end, goes nowhere, and means nothing in particular. The only real clue I have to what these things might point at is from the tone with which he sings it, which conveys anxiety/desparation to my ears. Since the lyrics mean nothing to me, he could have done the same singing "Dum dum da da dum dum".

I can go through the whole song that way.

I believe you think the Jimbo account is more precise because it specifies details on what is, sensorily, a more immediate level of description. The Jimbo account places most of its constraints on low level details, whereas the song places most of its constraints on high level details.

Now your use of the terms "low level" and "high level" details strikes my eye. I haven't run into this terminology before, and my first thought is that you are borrowing it from a preexisting discipline of which I am unaware.

That being the case, I can't automatically buy into the determination that some details are of a nature such that they are "lower level" than others. Why lower or higher? Who has made this judgement that some details are deemed "lower"? When people start descriminating things into classifications such that some are placed "lower" than others, it strikes me that there is a set of arbitrary values at work, and I'm certainly not sure I'm in accordance.

So really, they are both equally precise, but just on different levels of analysis.

This is what I disagree about. The song (the lyrics) is extremely imprecise on all levels. It is not precise on any level except if you propose he did not want it to be precise. In that case it could be called a successful attempt at imprecision. I think it is, but even more: imprecise yet precise-sounding.

I don't see any reason to privilege one level of analysis over the other.

That isn't what I'm doing.

If we take the song "Everybody hurts", I think it would fall into the category of "high level detail" of which you speak. Quite differently than "Losin' my Religion", though, it isn't vague or imprecise. I haven't listened to it recently, but I don't recall any physical, sensory descriptions of anything in it. Yet, I know what it's about, and I wouldn't think to have used it as an example of the kind of meaningless song I was bringing to Warren's attention. It's meaning is too clear and unmistakable.

"Losin' my Religion" might be described as collection of sentences that, while they do not as a whole, have a coherent meaning, all share the property that they all can be sung effectively in a tone of anxiety/desparation.

It is very much like the rohrshach test used by psychiatrists: "There is a saying: `People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' What does it mean?"

Now that saying sounds pretty specific, but the more you examine it the vaguer it becomes and the more and more possible meanings it might have. This was a boon to psychiatrists when they realized how vague it was while sounding specific at the same time, because they realied that they could use it to take the psychological pulse, so to speak, of the patient. The way people answer that question, the sort of answer they give, can tell a psychiatrist a great deal of useful information about the person's mind, and neurological functioning. Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist is asked that question, or a similar one.

"Losin' my Religion" is even vaguer, on all levels, than the glass houses saying, and yet sounds twice as specific.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hey, Hypnagogue, did you realize there's a PF member named "Jimbo" when you wrote that?

Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums - View Profile: Jimbo
Address:https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=100

I hope for your sake he doesn't accidently look exactly how you described him.