Sit or Stand - Writers Forum

FootballStar20 · 10-10-2005, 03:05 AM

(Verse 1)
So when did it break loose
and spread itself through your body
turning you into the horrid sight
we can all obviously see here?
I think it was when you gave up
and your will decided to quit.
I think that’s when it took you
held you down and stripped your soul.

(Pre-Chorus)
Welcome to the hall of judgment dear.
Won’t you please have a seat?

(Chorus)
It's cold in here
and all is wrong.
Don’t hide behind
what you can’t make true.
We see through it.
Lies have no purpose here.
Welcome to judgment day dear.
Please, have a seat.

(Verse 2)
So I see you didn’t lead a life
following all of what was expected.
You nearly sinned your life away.
You should be more then thankful
that there was service every Sunday.

(Pre-Chorus)
Welcome to the hall of judgment dear.
It’s time for you to take your seat.

(Chorus)
It's cold in here
and all is wrong.
Don’t hide behind
what you can’t make true.
We see through it.
Lies have no purpose here.
Welcome to my judgment day dear.
Sit down now.

(Bridge)
The time has come dear.
You can decide now.
Is this worth it all.
Is He with His promises
worth all of this suffering.
Judgment day has come.
You judged yourself
now you decide.

(Pre-Chorus)
Welcome to the hall of judgment dear.
It’s time to sit or stand.

(Chorus)
It's cold in here
and though all is wrong
nothing can be made perfect
You can see that now.
Make your mistakes.
Let your resolve shine through them.
Your judgment day has come and passed.
You decide to stand.

(Edit: Fixed typos and fixed bridge)

Mystery · 10-10-2005, 09:26 AM

Okay, first off before you say things about me not having the right tune in my head, im gifted with this kind of stuff, so bear with me.

You break rhymin too much, what this means is that most people come with the expectation to see good rhymes dropped when they come, moreso someone Like me, because I can see the good rhymes, plus you let the rhyme fade before hitting it. This in turn, breaks the entire songs rhythme, itll sound VERY akward to sing.

Secondly, allot of the concepts here are broken
"and your will decided to quiet"
This doesnt fit, wills break, they dont quieten down.
I think you ment
"ITS cold in here"
The chorus is basically repeating the first verse with different words, same meaning, this is where I lost interest.
its quite, not quit.
"following what was expected", all of just makes it sound wrong, maybe its just me.
Than, not then.
Sunday kind of breaks the rhyme.

Thirdly, your terminologies are screwed, no such thing as a "pre-chorus", its called a "bridge"
Verse, bridge, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, breakdown, endverse.
The "bridge" is kind of akward, but its okay.

FootballStar20 · 10-10-2005, 12:29 PM

-I don't rhyme. I just think that if you come into writing thinking you need to rhyme you're song will lose it's effect because you will be spending too much time worring about rhyme and not thinking about what you're trying to do with the song. Whenever I rhyme I also create forced rhymes which is the worst thing you can do. But you can sing this song just fine with the music I created and the melody I came up with. A song doesn't have to rhyme to have rythem. It just depends on how you do it.

-The quiet thing was a typo. I changed it to quit which is what I intended to do.

-The verses are looking back at the woman's life and seeing where she failed. The chorus is in the present in the area where she is judging herself.

-I'll skim through the rest of the song to look for the rest of the typos.

-You're right, my terminology is basically non-existent. I'm basically doing this based on what I know from my listening to music and talking to different musicians I call friends. But according to this page (http://www.irenejackson.com/structure.html) my terminology isn't that screwed.

Thank you for spending time reading my lyrics.

Mystery · 10-10-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FootballStar20

-I don't rhyme. I just think that if you come into writing thinking you need to rhyme you're song will lose it's effect because you will be spending too much time worring about rhyme and not thinking about what you're trying to do with the song. Whenever I rhyme I also create forced rhymes which is the worst thing you can do. But you can sing this song just fine with the music I created and the melody I came up with. A song doesn't have to rhyme to have rythem. It just depends on how you do it.

-The quiet thing was a typo. I changed it to quit which is what I intended to do.

-The verses are looking back at the woman's life and seeing where she failed. The chorus is in the present in the area where she is judging herself.

-I'll skim through the rest of the song to look for the rest of the typos.

-You're right, my terminology is basically non-existent. I'm basically doing this based on what I know from my listening to music and talking to different musicians I call friends. But according to this page (http://www.irenejackson.com/structure.html) my terminology isn't that screwed.

Thank you for spending time reading my lyrics.

Your missing the point, you can post all the links you want, but in the ENGLISH LANGUADGE, certain things are said certain ways.

Next, no, every single verse sounds like its being repeated in the chorus.

Finaly, No, you cannot have rhythme without rhyme, both are HEAVILY connected. Like I said, dont pop the "with the melody" line, im pretty good with melodys n stuff, this song is very edgy at most points and just blatantly rhythmless at most.

FootballStar20 · 10-10-2005, 02:05 PM

ok. say what you want dude.

Pawn · 10-10-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystery

Finaly, No, you cannot have rhythme without rhyme

That is completely, utterly, wildly incorrect. It is a statement flying so blatantly in the face of centuries of literary expression that I wonder at what ignorance could possibly have possessed you to write it. Please, if you're going to give advice, particularly with such a unilateral tone, be certain of your ideas.

Mystery · 10-10-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawn

That is completely, utterly, wildly incorrect. It is a statement flying so blatantly in the face of centuries of literary expression that I wonder at what ignorance could possibly have possessed you to write it. Please, if you're going to give advice, particularly with such a unilateral tone, be certain of your ideas.

I am certain of my "ideas".
There is a very good REASON, rhyming is there.
Rhythme is UNOBTAINABLE on a level WITHOUT IT.

The ignorance that said this? about three to four hundred other muscisians and lyricists I talk to over the net and in real life.

FootballStar20 · 10-10-2005, 04:06 PM

Man, you are set in your ways aren't you?

There's no use in trying to convince you of something for I see it will get us no where. I'd just like to say one thing. Arrogance is just ignorance dressed up in confidence. Think about it.

Pawn · 10-10-2005, 05:52 PM

Rhythm (lose the e) refers to the meter and flow of literature. In prose, it predominantly concerns the make-up of sentence structure and length that determines the pace and feeling of a piece. In poetry, rhythm is most gauged through sylabble counts linked in any number of ways: much of contemporary and classic poetry and prose is unrhymed, usually because the author feels either that that particular flow is unsuitable for the piece, or that their meaning is better unconstrained to the requirements of the limited number of rhyming words. Rhymes generally happen in schemes, which many feel add an element of contrivance to their work which is best unused.

In lyricism, rhyme is a particularly redundant factor. While obviously it has many uses and can add significantly to the flow of a piece, it is far from a necessity. You can find countless thousands of examples of songs where the lyricist has chosen to manipulate vocal phrasing in such a way as to add rhythm to their piece independant of rhyme.

The uninformed arrogance of your words is my concern as a writer, not a Moderator. However, if you continue in this vein I will have no qualms in censoring your unrepentant offensiveness.

Mystery · 10-11-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawn

Rhythm (lose the e) refers to the meter and flow of literature. In prose, it predominantly concerns the make-up of sentence structure and length that determines the pace and feeling of a piece. In poetry, rhythm is most gauged through sylabble counts linked in any number of ways: much of contemporary and classic poetry and prose is unrhymed, usually because the author feels either that that particular flow is unsuitable for the piece, or that their meaning is better unconstrained to the requirements of the limited number of rhyming words. Rhymes generally happen in schemes, which many feel add an element of contrivance to their work which is best unused.

In lyricism, rhyme is a particularly redundant factor. While obviously it has many uses and can add significantly to the flow of a piece, it is far from a necessity. You can find countless thousands of examples of songs where the lyricist has chosen to manipulate vocal phrasing in such a way as to add rhythm to their piece independant of rhyme.

The uninformed arrogance of your words is my concern as a writer, not a Moderator. However, if you continue in this vein I will have no qualms in censoring your unrepentant offensiveness.

Pawn, I want you to download/get hold of a song called "iron maiden - dance of death". For the first minute or so of the song, is the double guitar vocals intro. I want you, no one else, to go and try REPLACE the rhyming in that intro, with vocal manipulation, and PRODUCE THE SAME quality of rhythm that the start has.
Youll soon realise the sad part of it, vocal manipulation only goes so far.

What you do to keep a constant rhythm, and not have to rhyme, is put in lines with words starting with the same letter(forgot terminology), or words that have very similar parts in them(Forums, dorms for instance, not a rhyme, but they sound somewhat identical). The manipulation of voice is also usualy dragging on letters in words to produce a similar sounding letter to give off the effect of a rhyme. The most effective use of this, is probably in hip hop music, I constantly hear them do it.

Of course, as a writer, im ASUMING, you dont know much about music. Let me explain the next piece to you, when you have to speak what someone is saying with words, when your holding a guitar, you have to stand on a certain metre, a certain pattern, the manipulation of voice breaks this pattern. No rhyming will make the pattern of music sound almost distant from the words.
This is why 'solos' dont have words to them, there is no way in hell the vocalist could keep up with solo's like the one from Iron maiden - Aces high. Of course if you want to try "manipulating" your voice to replace the rhyming in that song to give it the SAME, not under, not worse, not even slightly less quality, rhythm, Id really love to see you try, for someone whos been writing music(not just lyrics, I've been putting together the whole songs) for 4 years, I wasnt able to. Neither was my vocals teacher.

Then theres the next part. A guitar cannot replicate a voice. Allot of muscisians will tell you that your instrument becomes your voice after a while. Thats true, but no matter how much you try your instrument cant achieve certain things a voice can. Try the start of hallowed be thy name of IM, the guy holds a note for allot longer than the last plucked note holds. A guitar string cannot vibrate enough to hold that. It cannot have the "up and down" effect of his voice.

Now, for the final part, don't try and terminologize an art until you've experienced what your talking about, I've put music to over 200 lyrics to date, I've put the vocal dynamics to over 200 songs to date, I've actually "experienced" enough to know the theory apart from the practise, and Like I said, rhyming, is there for a VERY good reason. And its used by 90% of artists, for a VERY good reason.

Thank you for your attention, im seriously leaving this boards, everyone and there mother believe they know EVERYTHING because they saw it in a textbook. Heres a tip for you, until you've tried it, everything seems real/right.

Ben · 10-11-2005, 09:11 AM

How do you know he hasn't tried it? I'm pretty sure that Pawn playes guitar, and probably knows a lot about music. But you'd have to ask him.

FootballStar20 · 10-11-2005, 09:49 AM

You're arrogance makes me want to just puke mystery. Honestly, it's that bad. You'd think if you knew so much about music you'd enjoy seeing somebody doing something different because it'd make you look at what was being done differently. Granted what I'm doing isn't that different. I've heard bands do it before. But you seem to think no one does it.

Do you believe in humility? Modesty? Are they in your vocabulary? I can't tell from reading anything you've posted on this thread.

No matter what you say, no matter how many lyrics you've written, no matter how many musicians you know (even if it's 400 or whatever crap you were trying to feed everyone), and no matter how experienced you are you will never know everything about lyrics or music. To say you know everything is to prove complete ignorance. Humble yourself, maybe you'll find there is more for EVEN you to learn.

Finally, if you want to leave these boards, go for it. We could deal with less rude, arrogant, jack-ass comments here.