[hrotedk]

O.K. then, Richard Strauss broached this subject in the opera Capriccio long before Hollywood gave us 'Eddie & the Cruisers' and a certain infamous "romantic comedy." How about this for a general rule-of-thumb:

The more informal the style, the greater the importance of words.

Let's walk through some examples- take the Papageno-Papagena duet near the end of Mozart's Die Zauberflöte. If spoken, it can sound absolutely banal. Add Mozart's music to it, however, and it turns into something approaching sublime. It's nearly magical how this happens.

Take something not quite as "artsy," but still semi-formal art... Lloyd-Weber's Phantom of the Opera- when you leave the theatre, reflecting on 'The Music of the Night,' are you more likely to think back on the lyrics... or the music- and that Big Tune!?

All right, a little less 'formal' now- Gilbert & Sullivan operettas. Here is where I'd say the balance starts to tip. Those of us Savoyard wanna-bes are pleased with Sullivan's music- but in our honest moments, we know they need the symbiosis of Gilbert's words in order to achieve their full impact. G&S's personal experience, too, supports this conclusion. Sullivan is a virtually fogotten figure in music, absent his collaboration with Gilbert. Further support for this conclusion can be found in the fact that when Gilbert and Sullivan split for a time, it was Gilbert who proved the more successful of the two, in the realm of Musical Theatre & Operetta.

From here, we move to the popular genres, e.g.: Jazz vocals, Folk, Rock & Pop. Woody Guthrie's 'agit-Folk' would be a near nullity, were it not for his lyrics. Commentators occasionally speak of 'anthemic' Rock... well, it's impossible for a Rock hit to be 'anthemic' without lyrics that broadly resonate with the target audience. So, in this genre, a good case can be made for the primacy of lyrics.

Disclaimer- I said that my conjectural rule was a 'rule-of-thumb,' and don't discount that occasional exceptions to the general run can be found. I'm still inclined to believe that the overarching hypothesis can withstand scrutiny, generally speaking.