When I was younger, while I have always enjoyed instrumental music, my preference was always for music with sung lyrics, and I only ever heard lyrics sung in English. Thus I was always able to understand the lyrics (well, almost always - some singers by virtue of their delivery and/or accent were rather unintelligible to me at times). I used to love to learn the lyrics to every song I listened to, so that I could sing along, if I wanted. I liked to think about what they meant, and if they weren’t obvious, to try and work out what they meant. Back in pre-Internet days, the meaning of lyrics was not easily discovered, so it was more of less working it out for oneself. I loved it when lyrics told a story, over a song, over a series of songs, or over a whole album.

But for years now, I’ve not cared at all about lyrics - which I recognise is potentially quite offensive, because I know how much thought and effort some composers put into their words. The reason is simple, though. I now listen to music from all around the world, and more often than not, in a language not English. I have no way of knowing what the lyrics are, so the vocals for me are now just one more instrument in the mix. But I have also often found this doesn’t make a difference to being able to follow a concept, or even knowing what a song might be about. The way a vocalist sings can imply a lot of meaning, without knowing what the words are.

It is the music, however, that I’ve found really tells the story on many an occasion. I have listened to several purely instrumental concept albums that tell the story better than many vocal concept albums. I think I’m at a point these days where I prefer either an instrumental album, or an album with foreign vocals, to one where the vocals are in English. This feeling is compounded by how often I struggle with a group because of the vocalist. I avoided Yes for years because I can’t stand Jon Anderson’s voice. The Yes albums with Jon I like, I like in spite of his vocals, and I would far rather Yes were an instrumental band. I love King Crimson’s Lizard, but Jon Anderson completely ruins the first part of the piece for me with his god-awful voice.

Likewise, for many years I just couldn’t get into any form of extreme metal with harsh vocals. Someone might play something, and I’d think it was ok until the vocals kicked in. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I hated extreme metal, but I certainly avoided it. However, I knew there was some really good music in there, if I could just open my ears. It was Opeth who were eventually my way into extreme metal. I still don’t like harsh vocals, but I can tolerate them - and I now have a good deal of extreme metal in my collection. But, again, it’s in spite of the vocals.

Pedro mentioned he thought he had about 20 different languages in his music collection, which inspired me to see what I have in mine. I’m sure to have missed some, because to come up with the list, I was simply flicking through my iPad. So not only would it have been easy to flick past an artist or band which has foreign language vocals, but if they’re not on my iPod, I won’t even have thought about them. There are also several bands that have their own made up language, but rather than list them separately, I’ve just combined them. That will probably upset some people, but hey - upsetting some people seems to be inevitable in any discussion on PA!

(Also, it should be noted that languages such as French, Portuguese and Spanish can be very different depending on where in the world they are spoken, so bear that in mind when you come across them. Similarly, there are about 12 “main” Indonesian languages, and something like 700 Indonesian languages overall. And I’ll be honest, I have no idea which of the Senegalese languages is being sung in my collection either, so apologies too for not being more accurate, there. My inclusion of Indonesian and Senegalese is probably, therefore, as offensive as when Pedro said he counted Welsh, Irish and Scottish as English. I can only apologise for my ignorance here. Sorry.)

Belarusian 

Catalan

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Faroese

Finnish

French

Georgian

German

Hebrew

Hungarian

Icelandic

Indonesian

Invented languages 

Irish (aka as Irish Gaelic or Gaeilge)

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Mandarin

Māori 

Norwegian 

Polish

Portuguese 

Romanian

Russian

Samoan

Sanskrit

Sardinian

Senegalese

Spanish

Swedish

Ukrainian 

I initially thought I’d have a longer list, but as I was scrolling through my iPod I realised that although I have music from all around the world, often they are still singing in English (so while, for example, I have a few Bulgarian bands on my iPod, the lyrics are sung in English). I do wish more bands and artists would sing in their native language, as to my ears, it always sounds better than English.

Good question! About 1/3 of what I have is instrumental. Chances are this is far higher than what you find in most other collections. As a default I don't care about lyrics, although I'm not against having voices. In fact, the human voice is a great instrument and I love having a good vocalist. On the other hand, a vocalist I don't like can ruin music more to me than much else, so instrumentals always play it safer and have an easier job to make me like them, although a great vocalist may help music to reach my personal super top status (instrumentals are there, too, if not maybe at the relative frequency of 1/3). Consequently I voted for "depends on the vocalist".

This also means that I don't care much in principle for the language, as I don't need to understand the lyrics to enjoy the singing. I like to hear some languages more than others though (sorry my Danish friends!). 

There are exceptions though. There are some lyrics that drag me in, and some I get interested in over time. So the content of the lyrics can occasionally have a positive impact and I even may end up finding them important in the odd case (Talk Talk's Colour of Spring is a great example, Animals is another one, and some of Peter Hammill's stuff). I also have far more stuff from my native Germany in my collection than from any other non-English speaking country, and in fact more German stuff appeals to me lyrically, probably because German lyrics connect more directly to my emotions and other languages need more brain impact (if they work at all - that's actually only English and to a limited extent Italian and French). Surely I cannot claim that German lyrics are better or even that German sounds any better than other languages! There is also far more German stuff that I hate because of cringeworthy lyrics I'd probably let a song in another language get away with more easily. So lyrics can matter to me, even though often they don't.

Nice read, Nick! I will not follow up with a list - I'm too lazy for that - but looking at yours and thinking what is in my collection things add up quite quickly... So, yes, many different languages in my collection too and I like to hear foreign languages.

I'm afraid, however, that I am unable to choose one of your poll options. It all depends... Music comes as it comes, with or without lyrics, and I don't have a preference for one or the other. I like hearing foreign languages (I'm constantly surrounded by one, since I don't live in my native country), but I don't mind when an artist/band is singing in another language than its/their native one, as long as the accent is not too disastrous. Most Dutch bands (my native language) sing in English, but I don't mind either hearing artists/bands singing in Dutch. As Dutch we are constantly confronted with foreign languages: English, especially, but also many others. It's a small country with a small linguistic reach and on TV most of the programs/films are subtitled (instead of dubbed), so we hear those foreign languages and are more used to it than people in some other countries with dominating languages such as English, Spanish, French... I live in France now since 20 years and it is quite surprising how little we are confronted here with other languages, compared to the Netherlands, and how few people can speak another language than French.

Back to music, I like to hear singing in all kinds of languages and I don't mind not understanding the lyrics if they're sung in a language I don't know. I don't mind Frank Bornemann from Eloy sings in English (despite the accent) and I even think that it would sound less good in German, while I also love some German bands that sing in their mother tongue.

The contents of the lyrics only become important when the lyrics are good. I mean, there are a good bunch of silly or just bad lyrics out there, but when the music is good, that's fine with me. The melody, the voice, the music are more important than the quality of the lyrics. But when music and singing are good and the lyrics too, than it is event better! The vocals are, as - indeed - just another instrument are also important for me. There are many bands/artists whose music I like very much but I don't like to listen to because of the vocals (e.g. Il Balletto di Bronzo), or even singers whose singing quality is outstanding but I can not listen to longer than a couple of tracks because their voice is fatiguing me (e.g. Björk on most of her albums). I'm generally put off by growling in music, but sometimes it fits well and I can stand it or even like it in a particular song...

So, I could vote for all of your poll options... It all depends...

Instrumental;

Foreign Language (which effectively is no different to instrumental to me);

Vocals, but not necessarily lyrics; AND

Depends on the vocalist.

Lewian’s answer seems to almost wholly reflect my own views. There are definitely exceptions where the lyrics really hit me, and/or draw me in, and/or are really effective and interesting, so that I’m not sure I’d enjoy the music so much without those English lyrics. But those are definitely exceptions.

Bands like Magma prove that no one needs to know what is being sung, for lyrics to be meaningful and affective. And Francesco di Giacomo had one of the most expressive and impressive voice ever in prog. Like Magma vocals, di Giacomo’s were effectively for me, just one more instrument in the mix - but what a gorgeous and powerful instrument.

I have found more and more, though, that instrumental music and/or music with foreign language vocals, allows me to envisage far more easily and effectively what a piece is about, than if it is sung in English. An aural equivalent, I guess, of the old saying - so that, if a picture tells a thousand words, a piece of music paints a thousand pictures.

Choose more than one, then? There’s not just one answer that’s right for me, either. That’s why I made it a multiple vote poll.

Kees wrote: Most Dutch bands (my native language) sing in English, but I don't mind either hearing artists/bands singing in Dutch.

I have a lot of Dutch artists and bands in my collection, but all are either instrumental or sing in English. I wonder if this is related to a later point you make, that some music is probably better suited to English sung lyrics than the native language. Romance languages are very musical by nature but, no offence intended, Dutch and German are not so musical to the ear. The only German language albums in my collection are angular and avant, where the language suits the music, and indeed I think sounds far better than if it were to be sung in English. But, Eloy (who you mentioned) is not the sort of music where the German language would fit so well, perhaps?

Yes, it is maybe the guttural nature of the German and Dutch languages, but there are some Dutch and German dialects that are smoother and softer. It is maybe a question of "fitting better" specific types of music, but somehow I'm not really convinced by this (is it more because of habit and what we are more used to?). Another example: Arab is another guttural language, but the singing can be very beautiful too...

I love (too) hearing the Roman languages, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Romanian... all of them.

An important point that I'd like to add to what I had written before is that the positive impact of lyrics relies on fitting the music and being sung in a way that fits the message/emotion they convey. When I'm listening even their meaning should ideally become "one" with the music.

A great vocalist singing terrible lyrics.

A great vocalist singing great lyrics written by someone else.

A great vocalist singing great lyrics written by them.

Not sure I made myself clear here, but in a nutshell I'd say "it depends on the vocalist" has nothing to do with how much I enjoy or don't enjoy lyrics. I couldn't care less for Bob Dylan's singing, but the man CAN WRITE A LYRIC.

It doesn't necessarily matter what the lyrics are either - a prime example being Jon Anderson (e.g. the whole of the CTTE album) - most of the time I've got no idea what he's on about, but the passion he conveys is undeniable.

Which I understood as band/singer singing in their native language. I wish everyone did that instead of taking the easy way of English as the international language of rock music. This of course means non-native speakers of English only. If necessary, translations or summaries can be included with albums or on websites. 

I can't stand growled or screamed extreme metal vocals nowadays (I listened to that stuff earlier), but anything else is fine with me, depending on the style of music. 

As for the lyrical content, I'm fine with anything that's well written. Except most blatant preaching (whatever the subject) and most syrupy love songs. 

Hi,

Thanks a bunch.

nick_h_nz wrote: ... Pedro mentioned he thought he had about 20 different languages in his music collection, which inspired me to see what I have in mine.  ...

It was the variety of languages that got me interested in it all. However, I had already been seasoned at home by dad's very large classical music collection (over 2K LP's and at least 35 operas, probably more!), and the different languages. I had heard Boris Christoff in Russian, I had heard Renata Tebaldi do Italian, and I had heard Maria Callas do Spanish, so in the end, I was not surprised when I heard things from different countries in the late 60's and early 70's.

As an example, when Manticore released the BANCO album in English, the first thing I did was go with my friend to Moby Disk (famed import store for many years in Van Nuys) and make sure that I got the Italian version, because I felt that it would be better. Same thing for PFM, with the combined couple of albums, and the Italian felt much better and more on tune for my ears. And in Brazil, pop radio in the middle 60's was very vital and strong with a lot of political overtones, and I often mention the song "Carcara" which to me was more valuable at the time, than what Coppola did later visually ... her song was political. Coppola's was a show off of how cinema could blow away your ideas and expectations but did not have the imagery and strength that Maria Betania's song did.

Again, the language was not the problem.

Lyrics:

This is a very tough area for me, because I come from a house of over 35K books of Portuguese, Brazilian and Spanish Literature. I remember reading Castaneda around 1975 or 1976, and the only thing I disagreed with was ... not all paper was designed for the bathroom! And I knew that some lyrics were valuable and important, despite the usual popular idea that some songs are "better" than others because the word love is used! Or because they have a story.

With all this in mind, the movies (my first and greatest love!) helped show that some lyrics were not important, and I remember watching my first Godard film, and all in all, his idea for lyrics is for them to be "anti-lyrics", which is something that most rock bands can not do, although some folks like FAUST did a bit of it, but then got serious when folks thought it was just fun and play in the sandbox!

And then, here comes a bunch of French folks, and they had a distinct flavor for trashing the language and how to use it. Reading Genet was different. Then all of a sudden, I read "Naked Lunch", and realized that words were AN IMAGE that we end up believing, however, the EXACT SAME PHRASE in different languages brings out different meanings (Peter Brook's book "Tip of The Tongue") which I was already aware of because he had done a totally far out version of "Midsummer's Night Dream" and a year later did a play that was all words, but the visuals accented them so strongly that you left the building stunned. MARAT/SADE is about the words, and Ian Richardson, Patrick Magee and Glenda Jackson take this whole thing to a stratospheric idea of what it all means ... and the words in the play are powerful ... "I AM the Revolution" "No, you are just another idiot who thinks he can change the world!" ... and all of a sudden you see The Beatles start to write better songs about their lyrics.

Poetry is weird, but within the rock context, it is even better, and rarely will you not "get it", whereas the lyrics in many a song, including "progressive" are merely bagatelles compared to the really powerful stuff out there in the literary world. Somehow rockers and pop'rs think that all literature is the craps, and really, you gotta really (eventually) realize that the pop'rs are just trying to get some attention, and even many of their words are not that important. Hearing Roy Harper is far out ... it's not about the music, it's about his words! Hearing Jim Morrison, is a lot more about his words and wording than anything, however the lyrical content is very challenging at times, when you are faced with whipping the horse's eye, and you will go around the world several times and still not have an idea! And that's not really to say that it has a meaning, but you and I know that Jim was not exactly an empty goon rock'n'roller.

For a lot of these reasons, a lot of the better known "progressive" moments don't grab me, but this is the part that folks think I'm being a turkey for. I don't blame DE for saying what he does, but Ian's words are very hollow, and sometimes just mean! His best ended with PP and MIAG, in my book, although there always were some neat songs here and there, but it's all they were. Nice songs. ELP had great lyrics and many written by Pete Sinfield who gets laughed at many times, and yet his touch is all over the early KC and other bands. My thoughts are/were that we did not want another Donovan, and his new age styled mysticism under the cover of hipness.

Thus, language for me is simply a way to say something, and it is not always the main point of the whole thing. In fact, one of my favorite bits in film is in a Godard film that you can only see in a film class.  It starts with a couple sitting on 2 stools in a bar, and the camera is watching them from behind. All of a sudden the camera starts moving to the left and continues and we see everything else in the bar, and a bit of their conversation, and it goes on for a while, as he comes back and then continues his adventure of looking around! The point was, for me, that we don't really care anyway! AND, our minds do the same thing over and over and over again, not having the ability (I call it the Zen) to concentrate on something for a longer period of time than the prescribed Hollywood 2 or 3 minutes!

Acting has helped some rockers and DB and MJ are two very good examples. You remember how and what they said, and this moment about DB is in Edgar Froese's book! DB wanted him on the album, however he could not find his "voice" within what he had, and the producer stopped the rehearsal, and took every one out, and left DB on the piano alone. He had not found "his voice" in his words! These are not the only ones. Robert Plant will not discuss acting, but in his early days, and most of the LZ material he is acting out the words literally, specially if you had the bootlegs of all the early LZ stuff! And then you get to Christian Decamps (ANGE) and he is a true and tried actor and lovely to listen to. He knows what he is saying and why!

It makes a huge difference, as opposed to so much stuff that supposedly has meaning and is not scratching the surface of nothing except some ideal. And ideals and ideas DO NOT (always) TRANSLATE TO AN AUDIENCE, if you EVER have been in a stage production and found the Saturday Night audience, different from the Friday Night audience! But rock music keeps giving you this idea that supposedly it is important and valuable, and compared to a lot of other artistic things, it is not.

This is a topic that can not be discussed in one or two words. There is too much to it, and I doubt seriously that we can come up with some sort of consensus about the whole thing. In different cultures these are relate to differently. And the next thing we are going to say is that Japanese and Chinese theater is crap because we don't get it!

Lovely thoughts you mentioned and I have been writing for 2 years a book on improvisations, and the one thing that is toughest to discuss? Lyrics, since they are not exactly the "truth" as actors like to speak of on stage and film. The best know the difference. The rest is just pop music to my ears!

That’s another reason I prefer foreign language vocals. How good or bad the lyrics are becomes irrelevant. They could be the corniest, cheesiest lyrics in the world, but I will never know it. And yes, definitely if the music is good enough, I can enjoy it in spite of the vocalist. I couldn’t listen to Yes otherwise! 🤢🤮

And while most of the time I have neither the time nor inclination to find out what is being sung, occasionally the music and vocals makes such an impact, I do make the effort to find out what is being sung about - even if Google Translate comes up with something that is inevitably not as poetic, or potentially wrong. Now that is a sign of how powerful vocals can be, and it has happened only a couple of times - but it has happened.

Lyrics, it depends. If they're really bad, the music better be really good. And then if they're really good, the music better not suck.

But, one thing I did do, was order the poll options in a fashion that I thought would gain the greatest responses at the top and bottom, curving into the least responses in the middle. Although the curve isn’t as symmetrical as I expected, it is still there - which greatly impresses and delights me, because it means people answered as I expected them to.

I really want to thank everyone who has posted here, though, and not just voted - as it has been really interesting reading the different opinions people have, and the different reasons for having those opinions.

Both lyrics and vocals are important, bad lyrics and bad vocals (and vocals I dislike) can ruin the music. 

I generally prefer instrumental music, though I'd say that 50% of my fave albums are are sung and come with intelligent lyrics

When I go for non-instrumental music, it's clear that the texts (lyrics ) must appeal to me - and are even a central part of the attraction, almost as much as the singer's voice. Floyd, Caravan, VdGG and Jethro Tull, part of the attraction is the lyrics.

Though I may sometimes enjoy listening to AC/DC, even, in their best songs (Whole Lotta Rosie), I couldn't cite more than two lines in a row.

It's already the case enough in English, but essential in French  - and to a lesser extent Spanish.

Now, of course I have no idea what my fave Finnish band is singing about, but I don't supose that it's about BF losing GF.

^This

 Speaking of lyrics.  Most folks say that they can't make sense of Jon Anderson's lyrics. I equate Anderson personal abstract spiritual iconography to Wassily Kandinsky's.  Anderson's 70s lyrics equate with Kandinsky 1910-1913 period, bookended by Compositions IV through VII.  Whereas Anderson's 80s-90s period equates with Kandinsky's Compositions VII through X.      

Hi,

This was something that was specially stated in the days that Joe Cocker came up. No one liked his voice, but all of a sudden you knew he could hold and command a performance. And later when he juiced up the broadcast of an event, his lyrical side exploded into a massive hit.

There, really, is not such a thing as "bad vocals", although I will consider that the guy that toured with YES on Chris' last tour, was really poor and could only use centuries old stock hand expressions to try and make the words better, when he obviously had really not a very good idea what it was all about. He did not make YES better on that night ... and I would not have used him ever again. That is "bad vocals" for me. I have no issues with different interpretations, but this was like the beginning acting class for someone that never acted before, in the university courses in theater. It was that poor, and you hoped there was better somewhere, but I doubt that it would have been in YES.

One other thing that is difficult for many progressive listeners, is when something is totally theatrical, and we may like DB, but how many of those fans will ever consider listening to BAAL ... not many, and most can not even comment on it, except maybe to say that DB was wasting his time! I sincerely doubt that, and it might have helped him learn how to interpret a lot of his words and music again!

One great example, is the theatrical use of lyrics by Christian Decamps (who also writes them!), and how well defined and staged these are for a lot of their music, and he knows when to accent it and when to downplay it like a great actor would. But we do not think he is good, because he does not sing in English. He uses his very own language to an effect that is more theatrical than it would be a rock singing song ... but this is not something that "progressive" music listeners do not seem to enjoy or appreciate.

The other example is the "copy" of an original. Many other folks have trashed Chappo (Roger Chapman) for his abilities and he can rock and belt them with the best, and then do a Gypsy Moon out of this world! And many disliked PFM's use of Bernardo Lanzetti for a lead singer, in what was, in reality, a very good album, even if we might prefer what he did with Acqua Fragile, which was really good, nice and very enjoyable.

Lastly, comes the way that lyrics were done and used in Amon Duul 2 ... that a lot f folks don't like. Renate goes from soft to bitch in 10 seconds, Lothar goes cynical in 3 seconds, Kris sings his words even if the meaning of them is twisted and no one knows what they mean, and in essence, any thing that goes completely away from the westernized mode and idea of "singing", which was all on par with the dictum that "krautrock" had of not doing anything with western music ideas or designs.

Lyrics are, and might not be, the end all of it, and the sad thing is that we will not like it a lot when we can not understand them at all, which makes it worse, but as "progressive" music listeners, we really need to grow up PAST THE IDEA of likes and dislikes. There is a lot of appreciation for something that is done differently, and we're deciding on not liking many of them because they were done DIFFERENTLY.

I like well written lyrics...so I prefer English since I don't speak any other language  but I have a fair selection of non English prog.

I am an avid  reader of various styles of fiction also so words work for me.

I have to admit, that while I expected the middle two options to be the least popular, I honestly didn’t expect them to get so few votes in comparison to the other options.

I guess I should reiterate that back in the day, I would have probably gone for the two middle options - not because I didn’t want to hear foreign language lyrics, but simply because they never even came close to crossing my radar.

I’ve always been a voracious reader, devouring works of fiction and non-fiction. As a child, my mum and dad never had to worry about what to get me for birthdays or Christmas. Books, books, and more books. So, of course, it follows that I paid a lot of attention to the lyrics, and loved reading them where they were available in the cassette booklets. I knew all the words to all the songs on all the albums I owned.

I’ve always listened to instrumental music too, though the ratio of instrumental and music with vocals has definitely shifted over the years. These days, virtually all music is “instrumental” to me, as I very rarely pay attention to the lyrics/vocals anymore. The vocals have become just one more instrument in the mix - and this is largely because I started to explore music from other countries, where the lyrics were sung in the native language. Not having any idea of what was being sung, meant that I was listening to the voice as an instrument.

There are times when I’m so struck by the vocals in a song, that I feel the need to find out what is being sung, but this is rare. I know in a way it is doing a bit of a disservice to the lyricist, and could be construed as discourteous and offensive. I don’t mean to be that way, and I fully appreciate how much some lyricists put into their words. I do actually feel guilty at times, when I know that the lyrics are actually important, and I’m making no effort to listen to them.

Same for me. If both lyrics and music are good it's better, but with great lyrics I can even give up to great music. Leonard Cohen and Woody Guthrie are good examples.

Coming from a literary house ... is extremely different, and difficult. I don't look at "lyrics" as any more important than the rest, and I have been a listener to a lot of opera for many years before this discussion.

The "meanings" are tough ... since the expressions are not universal, and the different languages all over the world have a tendency to interpret things their way, not in a way that we all would "get" and "understand" ... and this is something that the Internet has helped a lot when it comes to "progressive or progrock" music all over the world ... and all of a sudden our discussion is about how we relate to it all ... 

The conventional theory for many years, is that the music illustrated the words, and this could be seen in many operas for a long time, and when radio came along for everyone (after WW2 for sure! But was there in the 1930's), the idea that the music illustrated the words, kinda took a beating and changed. Music became just a song, and a few years later the new scene that helped create the 1960's and eventually gave in to "progressive" from "art rock", was all about NEW EXPRESSIONS with a new emphasis on new ways of showing and presenting the music, which had a lot more classical ideas in it, than what it was to eventually become, which was just another song and no connections to anything but itself.

The hard part, and we learned that in theater and film from the 1960's on, the words and the music were not in sync, the way we thought they should be, and a lot of different scenes, made a point of using that contrast to a very far and away idea or concept for our minds. But, today, the words and the music are NOT, NECESSARILY, in sync with each other and I am not sure why ... since it is possible that there is a disconnect with today's music ... when it comes to music history ... somehow, for me, just "songs" are not as meaningful, with any lyrics ... as a lot of stuff was for a long time.

"Lyrics" are not sacred; thus, they are not any more important than the rest of the piece they are a part of ... but we always studied a lot of poetry way back in school (gaddd ... do they have schools today???) .... and somehow, we were made to believe that Prufrock was more important than Bob Dylan, and Neal Morse ... and now we have a problem ... how do we interpret and look at the more modern poetry in terms of "lyrics" ... are lyrics a poem? Is a poem a bunch of "lyrics" ... 

And things get confusing!

The idea, these days, is to smash the thoughts and designs that have been there for years ... I'm quite OK with that, and sometimes, you get surprised, when what you hear goes everywhere ... and doesn't stop ... and you get up from the couch sweating and wondering ... what is that all about? 

AND, sometimes, you think that the lyrics are the answer ... don't get fooled again! It's just another instrument in the grouping of things.

I like a lot of instrumental music, the vocal style is very important to me, lyrics can be very giving.

Hi,

I like this ... though I can't exactly say that this is my motto ... I can handle Jon as well as I can T. S. Eliot and what seems like a run-on sentence/comment, takes on a different meaning later, or adds to a completely different suggestion and thought.

At one time, NOT EVERYTHING was known and posted, and the likes of academia was able to define what might be good, or bad, and in general we all accepted that since we didn't know any better. Fly on 50 years later, and the Internet brings you everything, and now lyrics are making poetry look bad ... and we don't know, or care to find a difference, or how we really feel about it all, except one thing ... most folks go for their only knowing ... I suppose ... which is their favorite. Now, it is when I sit back and wonder how Ian Anderson stands next to some well-known poets ... I like Ian's lyrics, but I am not sure I ever thought of them as poetry at all. And all of a sudden, Ian is a step down on my mind based on what I have read and learned ... in my years at University, I was still doing a lot of literature, even as a Director in the Theater Department ... I made sure I took all 6 of the classes of theater literature ... even if only for basic knowledge, and for me ... appreciation, because I can see the history of theater in a lot of those books ...

But I think, wonder, if rock's history has gone too fast, and it has not had the time to make a solid statement beyond the obvious sales that define this band or that band as the best or the one with the most ... which is a bad idea that tends to dismantle any thought of discussion of its content.

Lyrics, I suppose, are just as important as the rest of the work ... since we know, sadly enough, that there are some outstanding words that have been ignored and left behind, because we did not care for the band.

I can only hope that this whole thing grows past the fame part of it, so the material can be studied correctly and evaluated, not to suggest that one is better than the other, but to give us a better idea of what the band is really about. In this sense, I do not find Jon Anderson, bad, but I think that he has gotten way too full of himself in order to be more honest and caring about his words, but his comments about fans telling him what things meant, are sad, and sometimes done in really poor taste, even if he is tired of folks doing that to him.

In the end, the "lyrics" are supposed to be a part of the whole thing ... so specifying that they are important or not, is almost the same as suggesting that the rest is not as good, or better ... and at that point this discussion will suffer, and not get anywhere.

Lastly, the different languages often bring about some translations that are just horrendous, and IO can point this to a lot of my own dad's translations of various works, including poetry, when some of these are just insane and out of it in my book , but because they were done by someone with 100 degrees of education, they are supposed to be "valid" translations and then accepted as the "it" ... and I have to tell you that I have even had a stomach ache, for my older sister's translations ... she translated a small play I directed by dad (The Death of the Pope) and I had to change half the stuff so it could be used and said on stage ... it was on the literal side of things, but it was impossible to understand and get anywhere with it! 

I find the same thing similarly in translations from Italian and French and Spanish, and it is one of the main reasons why I do not purchase the translated albums. Some things come out OK, but they are not great ... Peter Hammill did the translation of Felona and Serona if I remember correctly, however, in my ears it did not sing smoothly as the Italian did ... that's not a surprise at all ... and likely one of the reasons why sometimes we don't end up enjoying something or other.