With over 100 gigabytes of music on my computer, you could safely call me a music junkie. What seperates me from the pack is I'm a melody first guy. Most of my friends, especially the ones who are music junkies, focus heavily on the lyrics. The melody is important, but seems to be a given; it's the finely crafted words that make it an amazing song.
That's why I was happy to hear one of my favorite songwriters, Matt Hale of Aqualung and previously Ruth and the 45s, say that music always comes first for him.
Aaaaaanyway, after his afternoon's work you can hear an intricately wrought song idea with a vocal that goes 'woo-woo'. Matt has written a lot of excellent words for his songs over the years, but I don't know of any song of his that started with lyrics. Melody is his primary interest as a songwriter. Sometimes words come along with the tune, but if they don't, most of the time he'll sing a woo-woo version and ask me or Kim to turn the woos into words.
I'm sure he's not alone in his preference, but it feels like many singer-songwriters favor lyrics. Since I'm such a fan of his music, it's not surprising that he and I think alike in this regard. (As a slight aside, while I enjoy his work as Aqualung, I much prefer his poppier days as the 45s and Ruth. The 45s played the best cover of "Paperback Writer" I'd ever heard.)
Where do you stand on this debate? Are both strong lyrics and melody necessary for a great song?
08/23/06 1:04 PM
I would say equal, and I'm a lyricist. You can start with either one, but they're both incredibly necessary for a great song. I personally am not a fan of people who say "lyrics are more important" or "music is more important".
Which apparently means, Matty, I'm not a fan of you.
09/07/06 5:52 PM
I have to say, my attention span can't hold both, so I barely know any lyrics to anything. Including projects I'm involved in...I'm defintely lost in the music, but don't say one or the other is more important.
sports.
sports.
sports.