Has your Fiance/Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Lover altered your taste?

...and finish with them, of course.

Oh, the deep shame.

A case of "Man, I feel like a NEW woman', maybe?

The one Shania track I have been "serenaded" with I think is rubbish - "Man! I feel like a woman!" and "That Don't Impress Me Much" were joint discoveries thankyou, although it was her who bought the album.

She has had a big impact on my music taste - probably not as big as I have on hers, though. It's not really in terms of converting each other to anything, more discovering areas we liked together. I'd have made my taste-shift towards pop, hip-hop, disco etc. without her, but it's a real bonus that she likes that sort of stuff too.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000056KXN/qid%3D1043330820/

(it's good!)

She's had less success with her classical taste (opera and 19th century romantic) whereas I'm strictly 20th century classical myself.

one day she will try and convert me to Rush, but it hasn't happened yet.

Not that there's anything wrong with that

Also, I was going to say I've done most of the "influencing" in this relationship on account of my acquiring lots of music all the time while he's usually content to find his favorites within the stacks of stuff I've accumulated. But when I think about it more... My tendency to acquire new music at a rapid rate means that I never spend that much time with anything. Even a favorite CD, after a week or so it's out of "heavy rotation" and relegated to occasional listening. In contrast, he'll latch onto a few favorites and stick with them for weeks. So we'll be talking about a mutual favorite CD and it strikes me that he knows it much better than I do, because he's given it more of his undivided attention.

I'm starting to see the value of his way of listening, and I try from time to time to pick something I already own and try to get to know it really well. Although I doubt my pursuit of the new will ever slow down much...

I've been on a few dates where I start looking at the clock around the time the other party begins to use the words "cheesy" and/or "ironic" as superlatives.

My girlfriend told me that she thinks a lot of male listeners don't always notice lyrics.

She must have talked to me at some point. What are lyrics (and can we eat them?)?

Ned, whatever you do, DON'T start listening to lyrics. You'll end up setting fire to your whole record collection.

FWIW, it seems to me that to actively count on needing a lyrical fix or anchor is asking too much of a song. Instead of thinking of it as, 'it needs this or it fails,' I prefer to think, 'if it's good and it also happens to have this, then that's cool as well.' The latter approach just seems, well, much more open and embracing, and that's what I prefer. I want the SOUNDS to move me first and foremost, otherwise why bother? We're not going to poetry readings here.

Where a band like Limp Bizkit (for instance ;-)) fails for me is that its music feels like crap to my ears, no there there. What little I've noticed of their lyrics seems fairly generic, but that wouldn't matter if the music was any damn good.

Also, lyrics have to work hand-in-hand with delivery. Limp Bizkit's "Rollin'" for instance, with lines like "1 2 3 x 2 to the 6/jonesin' for your fix of the Limp Bizkit mix" may be kinda generic, but the middle-fingery-glee of it grabs me every time.

Also, with so many indie bands were the lyrics are gibberish or whatnot, I wonder if that's why people peter out on the quicker. Without a point or specific sentiment to return to, I can see people grabbing all they can of guitar sound (x), then getting their fill of it too quick. Coherent lyrics immediately add a level of diversity to songs. Especially pop ones.

Man, juiceboxx, drop the last word of your first sentence and we'd have to reaffirm this was about MUSICAL tastes.

Anthony Miccio is secretly Tom Ewing! All is clear. ;-)

More seriously, any genre of music can theoretically comment about anything lyrically as desired, regardless of the coherence of the lyrics or not. Is the diversity you speak of actually a sonic one in the end, where instead of the quality of the lyrics as words you're considering the quality of the lyrics as in fact sounds, ones which produce an effect one way and a different effect another (to suggest a crude analogy, the difference between an electric guitar vs. one with eight digital delay pedals)?

The word 'dance' on the page/screen -- okay then. The word 'dance' sung -- hm, well, sure it could work. The word 'dance' howled in sheer perverse ecstasy and rage by Ian Curtis in "Transmission" on the final verse -- breathtaking, but the more so because of the relentless build of the arrangement to that breaking point. The effect of that word in that particular context, musically and lyrically -- really is quite wonderful and for me a clear step above, but without that delivery, not what it could be (with another delivery, it could still be something deep and evocative within me). Some other word howled entirely at that point, though -- probably I'd still be shocked, energized and still horrified at how it was sung.

Obviously this isn't meant to be a clear step-by-step breakdown of my thought on the matter...

I sure as hell don't know what element is the MOST important. But fine lyrics are a definite asset for achieving the totally kickass song. For instance, you hear a song by Killing Joke where you think he's saying "shoes glue diorama" and you're like WHY IS HE SO MAD? but if he said "I hate the president/he's such a dork!" you can go, yeah! Right on! It's just another entrypoint for the listener. Without that lyric only people looking for anger, ANY anger would get into it.

Setting aside instrumentals, what about something like (say) the Trashmen's "Surfin' Bird," the Prodigy's "Firestarter," Sticky's "More Weed!" -- all three songs that barely have any lyrics or a pretty narrow focus and yet can all be called pretty damn well kickass with core and central vocal performances. Then again we are agreed we're not sure about which or what can be exactly specified or prioritized in the ultimate combination for every listener...

you hear a song by Killing Joke where you think he's saying "shoes glue diorama"

Naturellement. Alex in NYC to thread in outraged haste. ;-)

Without that lyric only people looking for anger, ANY anger would get into it.

But is that a bad thing?

I'm not arguing that you have to like lyrics, but that lyrics are a fine reason to like a song.

and I've already gone on record as preferring blurred Liz Fraser sounds to most shoegazer indechiperabilities. I like it when the singer says "please, don't even try."

The absence of lyrics can't harm a record, really. The presence of bad lyrics can. That's the only area Ned and I really disagree, I think.

Say the fuck what?

(I'm sorry I keep calling her my SO, but I can't figure out if she's my girlfriend or not, though that may sound nonsensical.)

beyond that, nothing. Lots of movies, though.

Sur-Fries!

How else are you supposed to say "shoes glue diorama"?

With phlegm in your lungs and a song in your heart.