Every time I write an instrumental, I am constantly asked: where are the lyrics?
I agree that lyrics help convey the exact meaning of a song, but ... what happened to leaving something to the imagination?
In short: are lyrics necessary to a song, or can we leave something to the imagination by omitting them and letting the listener find their own meaning in an instrumental track?
Every time I write an instrumental, I am constantly asked: where are the lyrics?
I agree that lyrics help convey the exact meaning of a song, but ... what happened to leaving something to the imagination?
In short: are lyrics necessary to a song, or can we leave something to the imagination by omitting them and letting the listener find their own meaning in an instrumental track?
Where is the line? :-)
No, lyrics are not a necessary for an instrumental.
Around 95% of my songs are instrumentals.
I like to write a little story intro for my instrumentals to try to put the listener in the same frame of mind that I had when writing it. Even then some listeners come up with a better scenario!
Instrumentals use to be a dominant force in popular music during the big band era and continued up until the early eighties. But instrumental music has lost the exposure it use to receive on radio, television and the movies. The best media for instrumentals today is background music for games.
An instrumental is not a song....it's a music composition. If one is calling a particular effort a new 'song' then (generally, by definition) lyrics would be expected/obligatory.
I've written about 1/2 dozen instrumentals in four decades of writing. They were all written deliberately for concept/story line album projects. Not because I felt they would actually stand on their own merit. A couple of them are on my soundclick page. (Cruzin' 1998 - Guitars In The Storm 1997....decades before BIAB became a wonderful tool to add to my writing arsenal)
I'm not interested in writing compositions because I don't think I'm good enough to compose anything that would actually retain the listeners interest throughout without sounding dull.....I guess we are our own worst critic.
I prefer to concentrate on picking a good, non-chiche subject with good lyrics/imagery and a convincing vocal performance of a song. I'm still a work in process.
I feel that writing a 'song' has (generally) more appeal for most listeners to remain interested and engaged with the effort for 3+ minutes. Of course, that might be a bit presumptive because I have no fan (singular) base to support that reasoning.
Both have their appeal to me depending on what head space or environment I'm in.
An instrumental is not a song....it's a music composition. If one is calling a particular effort a new 'song' then (generally, by definition) lyrics would be expected/obligatory.
This. ^^
Musical compositions may come in many forms, but they do NOT need lyrics. Music that contains a lyric may still not be called a "song". I think of songs as having a "tune" that is sung using "words" (even if those words are nonsense).
And then...leaving the lyrics out of a SONG results in an instrumental version of the SONG--maybe straight, maybe jazzed.
One is not inherently better than the other. They simply are what they are.
However, on THIS forum, given the ease with which a user with BIAB can create a "piece" without a lyric and singing, it is the "value added" contributions that garner the most "respect" (and rightfully so). SOME pieces without lyrics/singing have the 'feel' of being backings for some future addition more than others, even if the expectation for hearing a "song" is not there. Otherwise, we'd hear little other than "backings" that seem to lack some "thing" that makes them special.
That "thing" might also be instrumental. Or it may be in production.
It COULD be simply expectation in a listener that makes people ask "where is the lyric?", or it could be something lacking in the piece itself. You have to decide for yourself what you want the piece to be.
I've easily got two dozen "pieces" that need that extra something. Since I don't play a solo instrument, that is probably going to need to be a lyric and vocals. But I also have about three times as many stalled and/or failed projects that just. didn't. work. to my own satisfaction and never, ever will.
An old friend on another music-making/sharing site said once: "I make the music I want to hear because I get tired of waiting for other people to do it." That resonated with me and continues to be my own philosophy. I do what I want to do. I succeed or fail based only on my own appreciation for what's done. If I don't care much for it, nobody else will ever hear it.
I share what I share 1. To be part of a community of sharers. and 2. in the earnest hope that somebody else might appreciate it some fraction of how much I do.
Have fun. Do what you want. Take criticism and questioning only for what they are worth. And live with it.
However, on THIS forum, given the ease with which a user with BIAB can create a "piece" without a lyric and singing, it is the "value added" contributions that garner the most "respect" (and rightfully so). SOME pieces without lyrics/singing have the 'feel' of being backings for some future addition more than others, even if the expectation for hearing a "song" is not there. Otherwise, we'd hear little other than "backings" that seem to lack some "thing" that makes them special. That "thing" might also be instrumental. Or it may be in production.
I share it to 1. Be part of a community of sharers. and 2. in the earnest hope that somebody else might appreciate it some fraction of how much I do.
Have fun. Do what you want. Take criticism and questioning only for what they are worth. And live with it.
I'm biased as I played in bluegrass bands for decades. I would guess that a third of our set lists were instrumentals. And for this genre the instrumentals were expected to have a well defined melody and the soloists were expected to stick to that melody or not venture out too far That's one aspect of my like of instrumentals.
However, I've also listened to rock and blues since I was a kid and certainly got exposed to jam bands in the 60's. So I'll add, from a personal perspective, that if the instrumental does not have a particularly strong (or perhaps any melody) then what can capture me is sheer virtuosity in the solos, i.e., not hackneyed licks, etc.
Then there is another dimension and that is songs that capture me by the feel from, I guess, a wholistic perspective, e.g., a moody or ethereal feel, etc., but not necessarily a lot of soloing.
Pardon the ramble...it's a bit like "how long is a string?" I'm outa here before I proofread this because I'd likely disagree with it!
I'd say this wholly depends on the genre of music you're working on. I listen to equal parts instrumental music and music with vocals/lyrics. If vocals or lyrics don't enhance the song in any way, I would say it is safe to say they can be omitted.
For example, many great pieces of classical or jazz hold their weight just being an instrumental. The emotions they convey is tangible without any words being said. Other genres like rock/pop/country are inherently more repetitive, so those lyrics/vocals do add a lot, to break it up and add an element that would otherwise be lacking.
Both are good. I do love me some repetition sometimes. I'm just as in love with On The Corner. Just my food for thought.
My POV is that an instrumental should have a well defined musical hook/melody that is unique and present throughout the song.
Pop and rock used to have a number of instrumental songs on the radio but in country and most rock, it's the vocals and the lyrics that are the defining thing.
I love a good instrumental and I'm currently in the mental stages of thinking about and pondering on how I want to put the musical idea I have in my head currently, down in a tangible form. I know it will not have lyrics.
While I think instrumentals should have a well defined musical hook.... there are exceptions. Not a word in this and it really doesn't repeat very much..... not in the form of verses and choruses ..... but it's jazz, so I'm not really looking for those things. There are themes evident throughout.
Talk about amazing talent.
If you stuck with it..... how many of you caught the fleeting glimpse of the christmas song My Favorite Things... in there?
I really don't care what you call it, if it makes me happy by listening to it.... I'm good with it.
I often listen to instrumentals, probably more than vocal songs and I listen to a lot of music, switching from genre to genre. I can think of hundreds of fantastic instrumentals that have been successful. From jazz bands through most of the early 1900s, most classical, Bach, Beethoven, etc. trance, dance, electronica, etc. Eddy Van Halen's guitar solos come to mind. Lots of bluegrass tunes, and there's so much more out there. If you love or love making music without vocals then do it well and they will come to listen.
Currently I listen this a lot(see below) and I'm simply amazed at how three people can make this sound so very good. Be warned, this is Celtic type music.
I don't think a song needs lyrics necessarily. I feel it entirely depends on the depth of the song. If the instrumental has a lot of variances and an audible story line to it, lyrics are always going to be needed. I think if you're wanting to paint a really specific visual that lyrics would be handy, though.
Really depends! I don't think this is a year or no answer, really, but one that is very nuanced and will differ form person to person.
Thanks everybody! Sorry for the late reply, I've been away for a while. I didn't know so many of you would chip in with your thoughtful replies!!! Thank you!!! It's an interesting topic, I find, and your thoughts have genuinely helped.
If you have something you want to convey to your listener (an idea, an emotion, information, a perspective, etc.) you have to convey it. Otherwise, you create confusion instead of art. If you WANT to create an abstraction whose intent is to elicit interpretation from the audience, then do that. But be honest with yourself. What is REALLY your intention? Do you really have something to say, or do you really want to create an abstraction? Too often, writers say one thing, but secretly mean the other.
If we HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, it takes talent, skill, experience, and hard work to communicate that to a listener. It is quite possible we will fail. It is those failures that make the successes so sweet.
If our intent is to display a blank canvas and let people interpret as they wish, that is artistically valid (some would argue), but how can we fail at that? Or succeed? Where is the risk? Where is the bravery? Where is the commitment to an idea?
I have coached a lot of writers and I have heard this debate many, many times. Writers will tell me they don't want to spoon feed the audience. They want the audience to make up its own mind. Fine. But when I question them--when I dig a little--I find that almost 100% of the time, the writer actually has something he wants to tell his listener or reader. So, the truth is, the writer does not want to spoon feed (a valid objective) but has no confidence in his ability to convey his message using nuance and subtlety. So, it's a cop out. Be honest. If you have something to say, say it! Then take the lumps or enjoy the accolades. Why else do you write?
More than 99% of my own music is instrumental, just to establish that right away so you know where I'm coming from. I'm also a pretty poor singer, which has a further deterrent, I'm sure. So, like some here have already gone into, I've opted for the "make what you will from it" approach when presenting my songs (which I still firmly call songs!), or at the most share the basic conceptual backstory for its creation, if there is one that I feel is needed to be established beforehand for a specifically intended effect. Generally speaking, though, I favour that freedom of interpretation, and the feedback I get often surprises me when people see something in my songs that I had not. Even myself when listening to music, rather than having things strapped into to just "that story", as it were, I often find it a more rewarding experience to not know. A good example, I absolutely can lose myself in the work of people like forum user Adachi from Japan, not 'despite' I'm not understanding the lyrics but because I don't understand the lyrics! However, I was "cursed" with being the son of someone who was a renowned lyricist in his days (which is just too big of a shadow to live under and thus an even bigger deterrent, I might add), but that has also given me an appreciation of the ideology of the storyteller, where the tune serves more as the "necessary packaging" with the lyrics absolutely the vital element as the focal content. A valid standpoint too, particularly if words is what you're the most comfortable with.
So I think there is perhaps not a strict 'yes' or 'no' answer to the initial question? It so much relies of the intent, and to some extent abilities, of the artist.
Personally I think instrumentals are fine, the music can convey the mood alone. Everything I do is instrumental. I can write lyrics at a push, but I cannot sing to save my life. If I did sing then people would be asking if I had an instrumental version.
Excellent points by the forum members above. I'm thinking a few of a few specific scenarios related to the question. Some songs with lyrics can be played without lyrics and achieve a different but equally compelling result - take for example Jimi Hendrix's rendition of The Star Spangled Banner. You can bet the farm no one at that performance questioned it being instrumental, although it I concede it was written with lyrics.
Also, there are things you can do with melodies that no singer could possibly handle, or that would be so difficult to perform that most singers could not perform it well.
It also relates to the purpose of an artistic work. Words, including sung words, generally convey a very specific message, which at once narrows the focus of a piece of music or other performance art, but also allow subtle nuances of expression that the voice can convey in a unique way. A singer can bring out the emotions in the words and music in very unique ways.
There's also the fact that a song with a vocal provides an easy way for the listener to focus, so the vocal (and the singer) often becomes the centerpiece of the song. If the singer happens to be well known or have a particularly strong voice, this can make a good song into a great song in a way that an instrument would have difficulty in achieving (in general). I think it's generally easier for people to be engaged by words/vocals, than instruments simply because it is human nature. This does not mean that it is better or more valuable than a purely instrumental song.
I'll just touch on the performance aspect here since I think the main topic is the composition and not the performance, but in this arena there are many advantages to having words/vocals. It's just going to be a lot easier to get listeners with lyrics and also easier to get a performer or band to play your song, unless they are an instrumental group. There's a practical aspect to it as well, so any composer is going to be influenced by the fact that words will help in getting their music "out there" to the broadest audience.
By no means am I saying that lyrics are more important or valuable or effective in a song. It all depends. There are countless instrumental songs which I adore, and I listen to both.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this last input does rather sound like you're trying to promote the notion that a vocal makes any song "stronger" just because it's a voice in there? If that is what you're getting at then I have to counter with (at least) a couple of examples to the contrary:
"Birdland" (by Weather Report) was originally an instrumental song, which then the Manhattan Transfer quartet bravely attempted to apply lyrics to and perform with vocals - Now, technically skilled as they are as singers, I defy anyone to suggest that their version is in any way better than the original (or even more 'accessible' if you must). Absolutely not!!
"Garden Party" (by Mezzoforte) was also originally 'just' an instrumental. Then a record label that signed them tried to 'remake for the market' that song by having the band create an entirely new segment in where they should squeeze vocals - which then didn't even have lyrics, that's how desperate they clung onto the notion that for 'marketing purposes' (your radio argument?) a song had to have a voice! - It ruined the song of anything that had made it brilliant and just made it bland and boring. That record company didn't stop there, btw, actually hired them a singer and ordered the band to make songs with vocals that could be on a single to promote overseas, one of which became "This is the night", another bleh of a piece that had nothing of what had made the band brilliant and unique in the first place. In fact, it nearly killed the band as they stopped working together soon after that whole experiment tanked, and didn't pick it up again until years of distancing themselves from that awfulness.
I could go on, trust me, but I think the point is made so I'll spare you
@Icelander - I agree with your point. If my post came across as indicating that vocals/lyrics were in any way superior or makes a song stronger, then let me correct that here.
The one thing that I believe is a hard truth, is that today's music fans, in the United States at least, on the whole are much more interested and likely to listen to and engage in a song with lyrics.
