Contentious Theory of the Day: "Bad Singers Make Better Lyricists"
Over on the Guardian website at the moment, there’s a thread asking punters to nominate their favourite lyricists for inclusion in a booklet to be given out at some future juncture.
Dylan and Cohen seem to be topping the suggestions thus far.
(As an aside, there is an almost tedious inevitability about this result. It’s not that I’m suggesting it’s wrong, just that it’s been done to death, and if the Grauniad were to put out booklets on great lyricists, it would be lovely if they were a bit more leftfield for once – but then that probably wouldn’t shift more papers, which is the whole reason why they want to do these booklets in the first place...)
Here’s my contentious theory: less good singers make better lyricists than great singers.
If you can impart feeling through vocal technique – and I don’t mean those with the vocal equivalent of Steve Vai as evinced by certain diva-types and their technically-difficult, emotionally-bankrupt, chin-wobbling trill-fests – is it more likely that your lyrics will be a bit more mundane?
If you’re less gifted in the technique department, does it spur you to create better words to impart your meaning? To Dylan and Cohen, we could add Waits and Waters, for example. Celebrated for their words, but not necessarily for their vocals, and certainly not for their singing. Could we add Andrew Eldritch and Nick Cave, representing the gothic contingent..? I would say we can. I can’t believe I’ve not mentioned Lou Reed yet! Oh, and Ian Dury.
This is not - obviously not - going to be a hard and fast rule. Not everyone who sings like the aforementioned is going to be a lyrical genius. Being able to sing does not preclude also being lyrical genius (Paul Simon comes immediately to mind), but maybe it makes it more likely.
Of course, none of this contentious theory takes any account of those singers who sing other people’s words, but I would say few bands would pick a non-writing singer who couldn’t.
Maybe the issue is that if you sing like Waits, Dylan and Cohen etc, you’d better have some damn good lyrics to convince people to listen to you.
- More from Fraser M.
- Login or register to post comments








Or possibly ...
... people become singers for one of two reasons: They are either wonderful singers or they write wonderful songs. Only occaisionally do the two co-incide (and here I'll give Thea Gilmore as an example).
True, however...
...if you knew your voice sounded like someone wiping their arse on a rusty hacksaw blade, why not write the songs and give them to someone else to sing?
Because it's your baby
and you don't want another breaking it.
Well
that's just selfish! ;)
Darn it
The Guardian link has gone. I was going to check if there was room for Pete Sinfield. Few Brits have written lyrics to songs for the likes of King Crimson, ELP, Cher & Bucks Fizz.
Is the Reverse True?
Any examples of great singers who are rotten lyricists? None spring to mind immediately.
Why do you think. . .
you've ever heard of Bernie Taupin?
Hmm...
Not sure if I'd classify Elton as a "great" singer though - he is is an example of a (sometimes) decent songwriter who can't (or won't) write lyrics, which perhaps should be the subject of another thread.
Easy
Chris Martin.
Easy
Chris Martin.
There are a lot of lyricists who sing well
(Or is that singers who lyricise well)Especially now stentorian vocals are the new falsetto. I am thinking Nick Cave, Jackie Leven, Robert Fisher and, yes, the gift of the golden voice, Leonard Cohen.
Cave and Cohen
were explicitly included in the OP as examples of people who can't really sing (which, I should be at pains to point out, doesn't mean they aren't good vocalists).
I know but was wishing to convey my disagreement with that.
Tho' I take your point about effectiveness versus technical ability.