Tell Me :
Talk
Not satisfied with this sentence. What I mean is that the 'meaning' is not totally based on the literal - or metaphorical or whatever - meaning of the words, but it is also constituted by the the musical and delivery (singing) compotent as well. We need all of them to really get the 'meaning' - the effect on listener. I think both Dylan and Jagger are masters in this. The best ones I know. Like I argued above, I take Dylan to start with lyrical compotent, but even there he is awere of what do with it, how it fits to his mouth in the form of a song. Jagger goes opposite direction: he seems to keep not just the musical compotent but the delivery compotent - how it sounds - as well present from the very beginning in his creative process, when trying to find suitable expressions. One could say he starts with his mouth...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-22 09:41 by Doxa.
I don't think that would be a joke. But I think if they would give him the prize, I hope it would be done because of seeing him as a song-writer/lyricist, and not as a 'poet, or a 'pure' literature figure. That would be a recognation of the whole genre of making lyrics (writing words into a form of a song). But I know there are so many 'purists' in those literature circles, who don't want to disturb their precious art with such a low class commercial/popular crap. But I don't know, they have given the prize to people like Bertrand Russell, who is foremost a (world famous) philosopher, a popular essayist and a journalist, with surely no any bigger talent for words than Dylan (a far cry from Dylan's lyricism, actually)... But since he just wrote I guess that's alright for 'them'...
- Doxa
Yeah, Doxa. The comitee has made odd choices through the years. But Dylan would be another one. What I do not understand is why Dylan-fans are so interested in this literary canonization. I do not care in what media (book, song etc.) literatur occurs, what I care for is the literary quality of the texts. Isn't enough that Dylan is recognized as one of the best songwriters in the world (though consider Jagger's best work better, I simply prefer what you explained so fine as Jagger's "mouth"-way)? Does his amateurish oil-paintings have to to be exhibited in National Galleries (they did in Copenhagen a couple of years ago), does he have to have the nobelprize in literature, when there are so many far better poets writing in english?
I agree with you there that if the criterion should be 'pure' poetry in traditional sense there are many better poets writing in English than Dylan who deserve the prize more than him (so I am not one of those claiming he is one of the most most important poets of 20th Century or something, like that professor of literature cited at wanderingspirit's article). But like I said, if gets the price, I hope it will be giving for his actual merits, that of song-writer, and thereby the art of writing lyrics would be acknowledged as an important genre of literature. In the end, what it is, is basically using words poetically in a specific context (which also asks a specific talent). If there is any point in giving him the 'canonical recognization' me thinks is more like recognizing the whole genre he represents (so well and famously). So what I am asking is more like widing up the boundaries and categories of literature... Which I guess is something you are not up to... But I can't really speak in behalf of all Dylan fans... probably they, bless their hearts, just want the recognition because they like him so much (reminds me a bit like the KISS fans for years crying the band into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame)... In the end, it can't be that important...
- Doxa
But Jagger, I don't think, never aspired to be a 'poet'. Initially influenced by the blues artist he idolized, it was about putting lines in the bar of a riff or progression. He didn't overthink it... Because that, his best lyrical phrasing feels loose and natural. No one sounds like Jagger, but many songwriters can mimic Dylan.
It's not comparable. Like Bliss pointed, there was a lot of verbiage in Dylan's work for the sake of it.
Exactly. But, yes, there are others who can write like Mick, if not sound like him.
Nobody dared/wanted to try to write like Bob.
Immitators of all great artists abound, but while they may mimic Mick, and mimic the Stones style...they mostly look embarrassing. I was noticing this recently when I was watching the HBO movie about the Loud family. One of the teenage sons was a Stones fan and obessed with Mick. He had his own band, and had the hair, the 'stage' mannerisms etc...it reminded me of those cover bands that try to be Mick and its always a lame imitation. You can say that about Dylan as well. The difference, I think, is that no none has quite matched exactly what it is that Mick does - as a performer and in his music and lyrics - or have done it with any real individuality.
Whereas, there are artists who have used Dylan as an influence, as songwriters and musicians, and have been able to differentiate themselves from Bob. No one can be him, but he has a tree with many branches that have been fruitful: successful artists that have used Dylan as a blueprint.
Jagger, not so much. It isn't that he isn't influential, just inimitable. He is a thing unto himself. Just the fact that we can't put a finger on any just one thing that makes him great. With Dylan, throw a verse into the conversation, and its done. With Mick, its like so many things that add up to the one whole, and the idiosyncracies of his songwriting is part of that.
Dylan may be the most idiosyncratic songwriter ever, but its a different context. He's a 'poet'. Jagger is a fill-in-the-blank....
You can't nail it.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-23 00:48 by stupidguy2.
But it is...
The way he puts words together, phrases them..sings them, evokes emotions or displays sarcasm. Its unlike anyone else, including Dylan.
Remember when Dlyan famously said that he could write Satisfaction, implying that Mick couldn't write something else, or whatever.
No, Dylan can't and didn't write Satisfaction. But Mick has written most of Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile, with are a wonderland of evocative, cryptic words and meanings. You can't compare the two to quantify their value. Its not whether one is better, but that they are two separate creative forces. And I love Dylan.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-23 01:59 by stupidguy2.
This in particular I notice. Like the faux country bumpkin with a hint of british inflection... I don't think anyone else could sing the exact same way he does and be taken seriously. Not that I think he takes himself too seriously when he sings like that (or ever), but there is a certain charm he brings to it that I don't think anyone else could.
Ditto. That's the point. What about those nasty lines in Stray Cat Blues...you can hear Mick's winking eye...
he's daring you to take him at face value.
Can Dylan write and perform When the Whip Comes Down with that same dirty skankiness?
There are so many examples of how he can evoke different things with his words and how he delivers them. Sometimes you know he's kidding, or playing a role, and other times its straight to the heart. It's hard to define it. IMO, as a songwriter, Jagger has a more diverse set of weapons in his arsenal then Dylan.
Of course, we're talking about Jagger at his best. And think of how he can move so seamlessly from a straight-up rock and roll song, or country song to something like Slave, Miss You or Emotional Rescue. He makes the words breathe through his delivery. Its not about putting the verses of Desolotion Row next to Sympathy, or SFM, it's about how these words catch fire when Jagger delivers them. Yeah, Dylan is a poet, but Jagger is something else and im not quite sure what that something is. That's what makes him not less than Dylan, but an equal in a different context.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-23 04:01 by stupidguy2.
He is enigmatic
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 22, 2014 09:40
Quote
Doxa
The meaning of lyrics is only totally manifested or realized when all of those three components are 'in'.
Not satisfied with this sentence. What I mean is that the 'meaning' is not totally based on the literal - or metaphorical or whatever - meaning of the words, but it is also constituted by the the musical and delivery (singing) compotent as well. We need all of them to really get the 'meaning' - the effect on listener. I think both Dylan and Jagger are masters in this. The best ones I know. Like I argued above, I take Dylan to start with lyrical compotent, but even there he is awere of what do with it, how it fits to his mouth in the form of a song. Jagger goes opposite direction: he seems to keep not just the musical compotent but the delivery compotent - how it sounds - as well present from the very beginning in his creative process, when trying to find suitable expressions. One could say he starts with his mouth...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-22 09:41 by Doxa.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: August 22, 2014 11:42
Quote
DoxaQuote
OzHeavyThrobber
Funnily, even though the musical circles seem to over-emphasize the importance of Dylan's lyrics by the very cost of the music in his songs, it is different when we are heading to literature circles. Those seem to notice the crucial importance of music, of the whole context. For them Dylan primarily is a song maker, and not a poet. That seems to be the 'trouble' with those Nobel Prize speculations. (I think there are two obstacles there: (1) can Dylan be treated 'solely' as a poet; (2) if so, are his 'poems' good enough.)
- Doxa
If regarded as poetry, there are thousands of poets way better than Dylan. John Ashbery, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson just to mention a few. Dylan is a solid lyricist (but haven't matched SFTD as poetry), but giving him the Nobel prize in literature would in my eyes be a joke.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 22, 2014 12:07
Quote
GetYerAngie
giving him the Nobel prize in literature would in my eyes be a joke.
I don't think that would be a joke. But I think if they would give him the prize, I hope it would be done because of seeing him as a song-writer/lyricist, and not as a 'poet, or a 'pure' literature figure. That would be a recognation of the whole genre of making lyrics (writing words into a form of a song). But I know there are so many 'purists' in those literature circles, who don't want to disturb their precious art with such a low class commercial/popular crap
. But I don't know, they have given the prize to people like Bertrand Russell, who is foremost a (world famous) philosopher, a popular essayist and a journalist, with surely no any bigger talent for words than Dylan (a far cry from Dylan's lyricism, actually)... But since he just wrote I guess that's alright for 'them'...- Doxa
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 22, 2014 12:33
So my point is that I don't need or even want to see Dylan as a 'poet', but a forerunner and a maestro in the whole art of making lyrics. In that department he is a pioneer who has achieved more and influenced and inspired the world more than anyone else, a 'Picasso of the song' indeed. I respect him for that, not for being some damn 'poet'... There are enough talented poets in the world, but only one Dylan with that legacy...
I guess my stance is rather clear why I also don't consider Jagger quite to the level of Dylan as writing lyrics into a song (as some people here do), even though Mick also is brilliant, and one of the very best, at his best. Dylan's touch with words is just richer, deeper, larger, more original, more variant, and simply, superior. But that is just my opinion.
- Doxa
I guess my stance is rather clear why I also don't consider Jagger quite to the level of Dylan as writing lyrics into a song (as some people here do), even though Mick also is brilliant, and one of the very best, at his best. Dylan's touch with words is just richer, deeper, larger, more original, more variant, and simply, superior. But that is just my opinion.
- Doxa
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
GetYerAngie
()
Date: August 22, 2014 12:52
Quote
DoxaQuote
GetYerAngie
giving him the Nobel prize in literature would in my eyes be a joke.
I don't think that would be a joke. But I think if they would give him the prize, I hope it would be done because of seeing him as a song-writer/lyricist, and not as a 'poet, or a 'pure' literature figure. That would be a recognation of the whole genre of making lyrics (writing words into a form of a song). But I know there are so many 'purists' in those literature circles, who don't want to disturb their precious art with such a low class commercial/popular crap
- Doxa
Yeah, Doxa. The comitee has made odd choices through the years. But Dylan would be another one. What I do not understand is why Dylan-fans are so interested in this literary canonization. I do not care in what media (book, song etc.) literatur occurs, what I care for is the literary quality of the texts. Isn't enough that Dylan is recognized as one of the best songwriters in the world (though consider Jagger's best work better, I simply prefer what you explained so fine as Jagger's "mouth"-way)? Does his amateurish oil-paintings have to to be exhibited in National Galleries (they did in Copenhagen a couple of years ago), does he have to have the nobelprize in literature, when there are so many far better poets writing in english?
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 22, 2014 14:22
Quote
GetYerAngieQuote
DoxaQuote
GetYerAngie
giving him the Nobel prize in literature would in my eyes be a joke.
I don't think that would be a joke. But I think if they would give him the prize, I hope it would be done because of seeing him as a song-writer/lyricist, and not as a 'poet, or a 'pure' literature figure. That would be a recognation of the whole genre of making lyrics (writing words into a form of a song). But I know there are so many 'purists' in those literature circles, who don't want to disturb their precious art with such a low class commercial/popular crap
- Doxa
Yeah, Doxa. The comitee has made odd choices through the years. But Dylan would be another one. What I do not understand is why Dylan-fans are so interested in this literary canonization. I do not care in what media (book, song etc.) literatur occurs, what I care for is the literary quality of the texts. Isn't enough that Dylan is recognized as one of the best songwriters in the world (though consider Jagger's best work better, I simply prefer what you explained so fine as Jagger's "mouth"-way)? Does his amateurish oil-paintings have to to be exhibited in National Galleries (they did in Copenhagen a couple of years ago), does he have to have the nobelprize in literature, when there are so many far better poets writing in english?
I agree with you there that if the criterion should be 'pure' poetry in traditional sense there are many better poets writing in English than Dylan who deserve the prize more than him (so I am not one of those claiming he is one of the most most important poets of 20th Century or something, like that professor of literature cited at wanderingspirit's article). But like I said, if gets the price, I hope it will be giving for his actual merits, that of song-writer, and thereby the art of writing lyrics would be acknowledged as an important genre of literature. In the end, what it is, is basically using words poetically in a specific context (which also asks a specific talent). If there is any point in giving him the 'canonical recognization' me thinks is more like recognizing the whole genre he represents (so well and famously). So what I am asking is more like widing up the boundaries and categories of literature... Which I guess is something you are not up to... But I can't really speak in behalf of all Dylan fans... probably they, bless their hearts, just want the recognition because they like him so much (reminds me a bit like the KISS fans for years crying the band into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
)... In the end, it can't be that important...- Doxa
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 22, 2014 14:30
To be a poet it takes creation of words in various formats. Dylan is, imo, just as much of a poet as the others.
The difference is that he, to a certain extent, has to correlate those words to the music he creates. I can't see that this makes him a worse poet than other brilliant writers?
But the most important thing with Bob Dylan is that he was unique, in a time when creativity was flowing around, and really stood out daring to point at problems in the world and address them.
Mick Jagger has only touched upon the latter's surface, imo. But when he did, he did it brilliantly - in fairness.
The difference is that he, to a certain extent, has to correlate those words to the music he creates. I can't see that this makes him a worse poet than other brilliant writers?
But the most important thing with Bob Dylan is that he was unique, in a time when creativity was flowing around, and really stood out daring to point at problems in the world and address them.
Mick Jagger has only touched upon the latter's surface, imo. But when he did, he did it brilliantly - in fairness.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 22, 2014 20:01
Quote
DandelionPowderman
To be a poet it takes creation of words in various formats. Dylan is, imo, just as much of a poet as the others.
The difference is that he, to a certain extent, has to correlate those words to the music he creates. I can't see that this makes him a worse poet than other brilliant writers?
But the most important thing with Bob Dylan is that he was unique, in a time when creativity was flowing around, and really stood out daring to point at problems in the world and address them.
Mick Jagger has only touched upon the latter's surface, imo. But when he did, he did it brilliantly - in fairness.
But Jagger, I don't think, never aspired to be a 'poet'. Initially influenced by the blues artist he idolized, it was about putting lines in the bar of a riff or progression. He didn't overthink it... Because that, his best lyrical phrasing feels loose and natural. No one sounds like Jagger, but many songwriters can mimic Dylan.
It's not comparable. Like Bliss pointed, there was a lot of verbiage in Dylan's work for the sake of it.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 22, 2014 20:09
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
DandelionPowderman
To be a poet it takes creation of words in various formats. Dylan is, imo, just as much of a poet as the others.
The difference is that he, to a certain extent, has to correlate those words to the music he creates. I can't see that this makes him a worse poet than other brilliant writers?
But the most important thing with Bob Dylan is that he was unique, in a time when creativity was flowing around, and really stood out daring to point at problems in the world and address them.
Mick Jagger has only touched upon the latter's surface, imo. But when he did, he did it brilliantly - in fairness.
But Jagger, I don't think, never aspired to be a 'poet'. Initially influenced by the blues artist he idolized, it was about putting lines in the bar of a riff or progression. He didn't overthink it... Because that, his best lyrical phrasing feels loose and natural. No one sounds like Jagger, but many songwriters can mimic Dylan.
It's not comparable. Like Bliss pointed, there was a lot of verbiage in Dylan's work for the sake of it.
Exactly. But, yes, there are others who can write like Mick, if not sound like him.
Nobody dared/wanted to try to write like Bob.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 23, 2014 00:20
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
stupidguy2Quote
DandelionPowderman
To be a poet it takes creation of words in various formats. Dylan is, imo, just as much of a poet as the others.
The difference is that he, to a certain extent, has to correlate those words to the music he creates. I can't see that this makes him a worse poet than other brilliant writers?
But the most important thing with Bob Dylan is that he was unique, in a time when creativity was flowing around, and really stood out daring to point at problems in the world and address them.
Mick Jagger has only touched upon the latter's surface, imo. But when he did, he did it brilliantly - in fairness.
But Jagger, I don't think, never aspired to be a 'poet'. Initially influenced by the blues artist he idolized, it was about putting lines in the bar of a riff or progression. He didn't overthink it... Because that, his best lyrical phrasing feels loose and natural. No one sounds like Jagger, but many songwriters can mimic Dylan.
It's not comparable. Like Bliss pointed, there was a lot of verbiage in Dylan's work for the sake of it.
Exactly. But, yes, there are others who can write like Mick, if not sound like him.
Nobody dared/wanted to try to write like Bob.
Immitators of all great artists abound, but while they may mimic Mick, and mimic the Stones style...they mostly look embarrassing. I was noticing this recently when I was watching the HBO movie about the Loud family. One of the teenage sons was a Stones fan and obessed with Mick. He had his own band, and had the hair, the 'stage' mannerisms etc...it reminded me of those cover bands that try to be Mick and its always a lame imitation. You can say that about Dylan as well. The difference, I think, is that no none has quite matched exactly what it is that Mick does - as a performer and in his music and lyrics - or have done it with any real individuality.
Whereas, there are artists who have used Dylan as an influence, as songwriters and musicians, and have been able to differentiate themselves from Bob. No one can be him, but he has a tree with many branches that have been fruitful: successful artists that have used Dylan as a blueprint.
Jagger, not so much. It isn't that he isn't influential, just inimitable. He is a thing unto himself. Just the fact that we can't put a finger on any just one thing that makes him great. With Dylan, throw a verse into the conversation, and its done. With Mick, its like so many things that add up to the one whole, and the idiosyncracies of his songwriting is part of that.
Dylan may be the most idiosyncratic songwriter ever, but its a different context. He's a 'poet'. Jagger is a fill-in-the-blank....
You can't nail it.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-23 00:48 by stupidguy2.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: August 23, 2014 00:32
I agree, but it isn't his lyrics that is hardest to imitate, imo.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 23, 2014 01:54
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I agree, but it isn't his lyrics that is hardest to imitate, imo.
But it is...
The way he puts words together, phrases them..sings them, evokes emotions or displays sarcasm. Its unlike anyone else, including Dylan.
Remember when Dlyan famously said that he could write Satisfaction, implying that Mick couldn't write something else, or whatever.
No, Dylan can't and didn't write Satisfaction. But Mick has written most of Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile, with are a wonderland of evocative, cryptic words and meanings. You can't compare the two to quantify their value. Its not whether one is better, but that they are two separate creative forces. And I love Dylan.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-23 01:59 by stupidguy2.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
alieb
()
Date: August 23, 2014 02:19
Quote
stupidguy2
The way he puts words together, phrases them..sings them, evokes emotions or displays sarcasm.
This in particular I notice. Like the faux country bumpkin with a hint of british inflection... I don't think anyone else could sing the exact same way he does and be taken seriously. Not that I think he takes himself too seriously when he sings like that (or ever), but there is a certain charm he brings to it that I don't think anyone else could.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 23, 2014 03:59
Quote
aliebQuote
stupidguy2
The way he puts words together, phrases them..sings them, evokes emotions or displays sarcasm.
This in particular I notice. Like the faux country bumpkin with a hint of british inflection... I don't think anyone else could sing the exact same way he does and be taken seriously. Not that I think he takes himself too seriously when he sings like that (or ever), but there is a certain charm he brings to it that I don't think anyone else could.
Ditto. That's the point. What about those nasty lines in Stray Cat Blues...you can hear Mick's winking eye...
he's daring you to take him at face value.
Can Dylan write and perform When the Whip Comes Down with that same dirty skankiness?
There are so many examples of how he can evoke different things with his words and how he delivers them. Sometimes you know he's kidding, or playing a role, and other times its straight to the heart. It's hard to define it. IMO, as a songwriter, Jagger has a more diverse set of weapons in his arsenal then Dylan.
Of course, we're talking about Jagger at his best. And think of how he can move so seamlessly from a straight-up rock and roll song, or country song to something like Slave, Miss You or Emotional Rescue. He makes the words breathe through his delivery. Its not about putting the verses of Desolotion Row next to Sympathy, or SFM, it's about how these words catch fire when Jagger delivers them. Yeah, Dylan is a poet, but Jagger is something else and im not quite sure what that something is. That's what makes him not less than Dylan, but an equal in a different context.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-08-23 04:01 by stupidguy2.
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
alieb
()
Date: August 23, 2014 05:04
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
aliebQuote
stupidguy2
The way he puts words together, phrases them..sings them, evokes emotions or displays sarcasm.
This in particular I notice. Like the faux country bumpkin with a hint of british inflection... I don't think anyone else could sing the exact same way he does and be taken seriously. Not that I think he takes himself too seriously when he sings like that (or ever), but there is a certain charm he brings to it that I don't think anyone else could.
Ditto. That's the point. What about those nasty lines in Stray Cat Blues...you can hear Mick's winking eye...
he's daring you to take him at face value.
Can Dylan write and perform When the Whip Comes Down with that same dirty skankiness?
There are so many examples of how he can evoke different things with his words and how he delivers them. Sometimes you know he's kidding, or playing a role, and other times its straight to the heart. It's hard to define it. IMO, as a songwriter, Jagger has a more diverse set of weapons in his arsenal then Dylan.
Of course, we're talking about Jagger at his best. And think of how he can move so seamlessly from a straight-up rock and roll song, or country song to something like Slave, Miss You or Emotional Rescue. He makes the words breathe through his delivery. Its not about putting the verses of Desolotion Row next to Sympathy, or SFM, it's about how these words catch fire when Jagger delivers them. Yeah, Dylan is a poet, but Jagger is something else and im not quite sure what that something is. That's what makes him not less than Dylan, but an equal in a different context.
He is enigmatic
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
rob51
()
Date: August 23, 2014 05:10
Micks always been a one off when it comes to lyrics. Some are genius in my humble opinion while lots of others pure crap. Some stolen from old dead poets (she covered me in roses) and others totally original and just as good. I think in olden days he would have been a great old English poet himself?
Re: Jagger's lyrics.
Posted by:
alieb
()
Date: August 23, 2014 05:18
yeah i feel like at times he just doesn't really try for some reason (maybe because of the frequency of their albums) but he's obviously very smart and if he really wanted to every song he's ever released could probably be genius...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
a bigger nut , erad , ErwinH , flairville , Irix , Joce , NeddieFlanders , philrock90 , rlj1010 , stonemac , stonesmuziekfan , Tonstone , Witness
Guests:
1986
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10