not logged in
| re: Opinion: Steinman is a better poet than composer | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 04:46 am UTC 08/25/07 |
| In reply to: | Opinion: Steinman is a better poet than composer - 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. Neither do I, because his works are or seem, and I believe intended to be larger than just "songs", and as music pieces are opi (plural for opus?), I may think that he is an opuswriter, but more clearly of course, there are all those opis (plural of opi?) to consider. No really I am serious. Okay. I consider Jim to be a composer, and though it is a common vernacular to refer to him as a songwriter, I use the word only for the common understanding that he writes songs, as opposed to opi, because that would be crazy to call him an opiwriter. I'm sorry...I'm in a mood over this word. A semantics attack! Oh hurry with that thesaurus! Jim is a composer because of the works that he has made on the stage, in terms of their having been parts of stories, and operas, and those were only parts of the projects. The levels of the productions does bring out the most splendid elements of what music can be in our contemporary age. Calling him a songwriter would just not cover all of that. But, as to your topic point, I would not consider him a better poet, although he is a marvelous poet, indeed, much moreso than I ever had a clue of before......he's more in the opi zone with me. > 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. Jim has stated publicly in interviews and such that he does envision the song as a story for a movie not yet produced. So, the project of the song is the whole of it, and one reason why he was challenged in having to write words rather than music, because that was half the production. So, if he accidentally wrote a piece and ALW liked it, it probably got into the show, such as what I think of "A Kiss Is A Terrible Thing To Waste" version two. Often I read the lyrics, and don't hear the whole message without the music, and so I have written in past posts, that he is a poet in music, as well as words, with music being part of the poetry itself. The music, the production, is all part of the poetry. In this sense, not in the traditional sense, I would definitely consider him a poet. A fine poet laureate of contemporary angst. > > I think he is better at the poet part than the composer > part. I think he is all-around poetically inclined, and that talent translates itself in all the forms of the expression, right down to the last cymbal. > > 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. As half of the song is to the lyrics, so are too the music is half to the song, like they are just plain meant to be fused together. I often feel that way about the combined effect of lyrics and music and the productions as well, that Jim does. When he writes the whole thing, produces the whole thing, it is like no other experience one's ears and soul can be treated to, even one's heart. > > 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. I feel that Jim's personality melded with ALW's in such a way as to form a cooperation between each other that made this so. Publicly he stated that they worked well together. > > 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. Right on point. > > 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. I really like Holding Out For A Hero in Shrek, because the story was so fitting to it, but the character singing it didn't quite mesh with the song itself. Separating that character from the lyrics, I like hearing the song for what I hear in it, taken by itself. Is Nothing Sacred is one of the most depressing songs I've ever heard. It sort of says what it has to say, but the whole concept is not my idea of having a good time. > > On the other hand, I do think Andrew Lloyd Webber is > rather remarkable as a writer of music. So the comparison > is unfair. Remarkable, as compared to whom? An excellent writer of music, I would agree, but I am thinking of so many remarkable writers of music that I have some trouble fitting ALW into category with.......I think that if ALW were Jim incognito (I'm not saying it!) I would say that Jim had a few bad days and didn't really go at it full throttle, and I consider Jim to be a remarkable writer of music, so I tend to be a purist in my opinions. > > 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. The only music without words by Jim I know is that piece that shows up in various places and is called The Storm in the album Bad For Good. Totally symphonic, and an opus, indeed. I wish I'd heard that piece you are referring to. >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 agree about that. I was not able to really think of listening to it at all without first knowing what it was in English, which thanks to carpe-jugulum I have been able to hear. Good or bad, edited or not, whether something is lost in the translation or in the direction, knowing what the story is, what the songs are, is the most important part of listening to, and when possible watching, one of Jim's productions. He does not do things without purposes. He may not show you the obvious, but there is something being shown. He is a thinker's composer. > > 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. That's an interesting concept and one that I could understand. > > 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. For me, somehow the words on the paper don't really "reach" me, don't "show" me, don't "tell" me, what the words and the music/production together do. I think oftentimes that a song is about one thing, just with the words, and then I find it is about something else, when it is combined with the music. Quite a metamorphosis, it is to see the caterpillar of words turn into the butterfly of the whole song. But these caterpillars are splendid caterpillars, not like the creepy things that crawl on a hundred legs. > > 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. I would have to think it is a general practice rather than a rule or a guideline. I can't see any words for The Storm, so if there were lyrics written, what an interesting thing that would be. It would be a little bit like The Future Ain't Like It Used To Be, only a whole lot more saturnal. > > 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. He's redundant enough when he gets around to the other side of the equation :-) > > 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. He does imitations really well, and accents, and all kinds of things. But I think that Springsteen and he have had a few beers together. > > 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. I agree, and also feel that where Jim's aura is allowed to be, he influences a project in a very positive way, and I would give him credit for that too. > > 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. I agree with this also, but I also find that music can often be a good representative of the quality of the words. I have rarely but at times heard introductions to songs that I loved, starting up to songs that I actually hated. A few rock songs are like that. But generally, the words and music have a way of complimenting each other. That is probably why people don't really pay attention to the lyrics, because they "trust" the song, to be what they want the song to be, based on the music. When they get to hearing the lyric, then they have to find that "trust" and make it work for them, if they continue to like the song. > > 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. Clearly people make their own impressions of what the song is meaning to them, and they don't change that impression....but it is a little unusual that they would not be curious, about something's actual origins. A wonderful post, and thanks for all the thoughts, which are definitely on the mark. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Opinion: Steinman is a better poet than composer - Bright_Eyes 08:32 am UTC 08/24/07 |
| Next: | re: Opinion: Steinman is a better poet than composer - Willis 12:52 am UTC 08/25/07 |
| Thread: | |