A lot of music— especially metal— is known for having lyrics that sound cool and evoke a specific feeling but that don't actually have any coherence. Creek Mary's Tears tells a specific message; but for the most part Nightwish's lyrics don't.
I feel like it's wasted potential. After listening to Two for Tragedy over and over today, I feel like this song could have been way better if it actually told a story instead of just sounded nice. I understand the principle that having vague lyrics can leave songs open to interpretation, but I feel like a lot of these— like Nightwish— don't really have the right words to provide a lot of room for meaningful interpretation.
I personally think it is a symptom of not having anything real to say. It’s a lot easier to come up with a quippy hook than a meaningful thesis.
And these days one opinion can get you in hot water pretty quickly, so I would imagine some of the bigger pop stars have made the calculation that it is safer to sing about nothing than it is to stand for something.
Yeah, but anytime anyone says anything, they're making an implication about their beliefs. Even if we don't call them "political", they're still technically beliefs. For example, a tiny bit of "Elan" says "have a laugh at the orthodox!" as part of an encouragement towards adventurous actions and thinking. That's a statement, an implication of the writer's beliefs.
Furthermore, let's say Nightwish lyrics told actual little folk stories. There'd be no politics in that song about how the husband and wife are adventuring, or about how the woman's child died and they're mourning them. So nobody'd get upset at the lyrics for actually having basic coherency.
Yeah, but there are major degrees there, particularly when looking at the potential for controversy.
“I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g’ joob.” - The Beatles
“Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses.” - Rage Against The Machine
Both say something, but only one has a decent potential to alienate part of the audience. The eggman and the walrus are metaphors for the embryo transitioning over time into an old man, which is a universal experience that everyone can connect with. I would bet that both people who work forces and those who burn crosses aren’t fans of Rage Against the Machine’s song.
That said, I would consider the rage song to be the better one of the two. Sometimes, if you’re going to make a tasty omelette, you have to be ok with losing some bacon to the dogs.
Good point, but the Beatles specifically said in interview that they wrote "I Am the Walrus" to make no sense at all, in a mocking response to classrooms being asked to interpret The Beatles' lyrics. It means nothing, just like most of Nightwish.
I was curious after reading your comment since the article I had seen earlier had identified the metaphor about aging, and I ran across a pretty in depth exploration of the song that paints a more complex picture. Looks like we’re both sort of right.
https://archive.ph/lqLoQ
Part of the song was designed to be nonsensical, but there are parts that are inspired by the death of a friend, two acid trips with John and Yoko, and John said some of the lyrics that originally didn’t make sense took on a new meaning when sewn into the final song.
I could look for another example of a song without controversial messaging, but I think we both got the point that each other was getting at. Thanks for being an awesome person to discuss music with today!