| Opinion: Steinman is a better poet than composer | |
|
Posted by: |
Bright_Eyes 08:32 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| I've been complaining about people who start threads about hating Susan rather than about Steinman's work. I don't want to be a hypocrite so I'm typing out something about Jim's work that I have thought about before. I do not like referring to Jim Steinman as a songwriter. The associations I have with that term don't fit the image I have of how he works. I think of him as very separate from the cynical swarm of writers who will write whatever gets the job, and would be thrilled to have a cut on the next Kelly Clarkson album. I prefer to call him a poet and a composer because he seems like he's writing first to have the poem and composition he envisioned, and second because of where it might fit in the performance and recording world. I could be entirely wrong about that, because some writers who I think are quite great say they like to imagine a particular singer to help them get started. Some also say that they need submission deadlines and specifications for motivation and direction. Maybe Jim is like them at times. I think he is better at the poet part than the composer part. I first think of the work where somebody else's lyrics were slapped onto his music. That would be The Confidence Man, Holding Out For a Hero, and Is Nothing Sacred. That stuff strikes me as clearly less interesting and more generic than the rest of Steinman's work. Then I think of the work he's done writing just lyrics. That would be Whistle Down The Wind. I don't think there's really anything missing from the Whistle songs. I like those songs in roughly the same way I like the all-Jim songs. That is probably an unfair comparison, because I honestly don't think Ray Fox is a particularly great lyricist. I know some people would compliment him as a "clever wordsmith" but I think some of these clever theater lyricists are really overrated. The clever theater lyricist can be kinda like the R&B singer who wants to show off how acrobatically he can sing. At the end of the day cleverness is not what makes the lyrics memorable. Ray Fox really is not all that big a deal to me, and the reason he's so damn accessible to fans is that he never really did anything special with songs. As a result, he has only a small and manageable number of fans who are interested in him, and some of those are really only interested in him because of the connection to Jim Steinman. The Holding Out For A Hero lyric is just OK as well. Is Nothing Sacred is quite good but it doesn't have the extra something Jim's best lyrics have. On the other hand, I do think Andrew Lloyd Webber is rather remarkable as a writer of music. So the comparison is unfair. I also think of the situations where I heard Jim's music without words. I saw the film "A Small Circle of Friends" and quite liked the music, especially the melody from Milady. But some of the other parts I recognized didn't sound all that special without words. Hearing Tanz cast recordings in languages I don't understand was also quite good but not nearly as good as hearing the songs in a language I do understand. I've also read through a lot of Steinman lyrics on paper. Sometimes this was after I hadn't heard the song in a while, so there wasn't a very fresh recollection of the song with music. I take a lot of breaks from hearing Jim's work, and listen to a lot of other stuff too. I also take breaks from listening to any music. Sometimes I avoid hearing Jim's music for long periods on purpose because I want to wait until it will sound half-new again. Anyhow reading the lyrics on paper is better than I expected. There's definitely more I remember from the words on paper than from the music without the words. There are some Steinman songs that I'm convinced I'd remember even if I never got to hear the music. Jim said in a blog entry that one of his rules is to write the lyrics first. I don't know if that's an absolute rule of his or just a general guideline. That suggests to me that his lyrics inspire the music, and might be in a way responsible for what is exceptional about the melodies. Another thing is that Jim seems to recycle his own music more than his own lyrics. So he might be more prolific with the words. Not that the greater quantity means greater quality. But it's still a reason I could think of him as better at the words than the music. On a related note, the situations where he seems he might be imitating somebody else are more in the music than the lyrics. The songs of his that sound a lot like Bruce Springsteen, or the parts of recordings that are like The Eagles or Phil Spector all imitate in music, not words. If they imitate at all, you can't be sure about influence issues. So I believe he's more unique in the words than the music. Some of the things we may like about his music might not really be Jim's work. Todd Rundgren says he made up some of the guitar stuff in Bat. Todd Rundgren arranges background vocals. Roy Bittan I believe was allowed to adjust and tweak piano parts to get the right sound. Jim's accomplishment in music might be attributable not just to his writing but to his ability to bring in other talent that can refine the music. But with the words, that's probably not the situation. Nobody really believes Todd Rundgren or Meat Loaf or anybody else wrote any of the words. That's probably all to Jim's credit. In general, I think the music tends to have more of a role than the lyric in making you interested in a song initially. When people first hear a song, they often don't understand all the words or don't follow along very carefully. But you can't avoid the notes. The music will tell you if it's catchy or not, and give you a general vibe for the song's mood and dynamics. Once they've decided they're interested, they'll hear it a few more times and pay more attention to the words. Then the words will be more important in determining if you will continue to like the song your whole life, or if you'll forget about it quickly and move on. In the movie "Music & Lyrics" Drew Barrymore's character has a way of explaining this. She plays the lyricist and the other guy writes the music. With people who are really into Jim's music the connection persists for quite a long time. They aren't very likely to say "Oh, do you remember how much we were into that song in 1983. Doesn't it remind you of what we thought sounded good back then." The songs remain with the Steinman fan and I attribute that to the words. Songs whose appeal is from the music alone are more likely to be called catchy or trendy, and become dated more quickly. Lifelong favorite songs I think become that because of the words primarily. But this is not really a solid way of defending my opinion because there are pieces of music without any words that some people continue to hold as life-long favorites. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Susan's ''lies'' - CultOfByron 10:39 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Next: | re: Opinion: Steinman is a better poet than composer - pidunk 04:46 am UTC 08/25/07 |
| Thread: |
|