grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
The road goes on forever.......
I have a book on the evolution of progressive rock called "The music's all that matters". If only that were true. It rarely is.
In a public forum we will naturally reference people that a wide body of members and lurkers may have heard of. Which means "famous" or well known artists. There's little point in me telling you about the songs of my mate Esther or my mate Micky P. or those of my buddy Shetu.
But the question isn't aimed at well known writers. It's aimed at us on this site. There's a guy called Supercreep here who the world at large has never heard of or probably never will be aware of. He writes some of the greatest songs I've heard. Armistice writes some brilliant pieces. Rayc has knocked out some excellent work as has RAMI. There are a lot of people on this site that in my opinion write or have written some fantastic stuff, every bit as good in some instances as those "successful" artists that much of the world knows.
But there's a context.
My assertion is that if you write songs, you can reach a point where there's nothing left to learn.
Everyone that writes songs learns at some level how to do it, some very consciously and studiously, some more unconsciously and instinctively.
My assertion does not apply to every person at every point in their writing existence. The second part of my opening post hasn't really been picked up on yet, but that's because one has to be at the point where they don't feel there's anything more to learn regarding songwriting in order to relate when that point was reached.
I'm not at all saying that anyone can write songs. But those that have an interest can at the very least try to see where they go with it. Obviously some will find it harder than others but whether one finds it easier and is prolific or whether one writes rarely and finds it hard has little to do with the quality of the songs written.
For me, the writing of the song is like the sex that brings about the conception of the child and the preparation over 9 months for the arrival of that child. Arrangement, performance and recording is like the labour and birth of the child, the mixing is like the upbringing.
If on the other hand your song reeks of BS to you but you didn't want it to, then your problems aren't really to do with songwriting per se ~ although they might be.
Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by "an authentic song" ?
Many writers of what many would regard as great songs over the last half century are totally disparaging of those same songs......
I've even made up languages in my songs !!
!
There are songs from all over this planet that simply do not conform to our {in the greater scheme of things} sometime limited Western standard.
Furthermore, if that is one's aim, how do you quantify that ? "Great" tends to be a subjective love term that the admirer applies.
In a 1968 interview with Mick Jagger, Jonathan Cott calls the lyrics of "Get off of my cloud" great {I agree}. Jagger replies "Oh no, they're crap."
Welcome to the site !
I think most of us are keenly aware of that.
I have a book on the evolution of progressive rock called "The music's all that matters". If only that were true. It rarely is.
My general stance on songwriting is that songwriting per se is overrated. A song in it's raw form is precisely that. It takes a number of things working together within an overall process to reach the point where something exists that people are prepared to shell out money on and buy. That basic song may not have much going for it. The way it's arranged, performed and mixed is what transforms it. Then let the marketing begin !
Not in the slightest particular.
In a public forum we will naturally reference people that a wide body of members and lurkers may have heard of. Which means "famous" or well known artists. There's little point in me telling you about the songs of my mate Esther or my mate Micky P. or those of my buddy Shetu.
But the question isn't aimed at well known writers. It's aimed at us on this site. There's a guy called Supercreep here who the world at large has never heard of or probably never will be aware of. He writes some of the greatest songs I've heard. Armistice writes some brilliant pieces. Rayc has knocked out some excellent work as has RAMI. There are a lot of people on this site that in my opinion write or have written some fantastic stuff, every bit as good in some instances as those "successful" artists that much of the world knows.
Has anyone seriously argued that ? Some have said seminars and workshops won't teach you much. I disagree with that notion by the way. Seminars, workshops and writing circles may actually be just what a person needs at a particular juncture.
But there's a context.
My assertion is that if you write songs, you can reach a point where there's nothing left to learn.
Everyone that writes songs learns at some level how to do it, some very consciously and studiously, some more unconsciously and instinctively.
My assertion does not apply to every person at every point in their writing existence. The second part of my opening post hasn't really been picked up on yet, but that's because one has to be at the point where they don't feel there's anything more to learn regarding songwriting in order to relate when that point was reached.
That presupposes that Paul McCartney or Merle Haggard were somehow endowed with "talent" that may not be available to the common person. But it doesn't work like that. Songwriting didn't come easily to a lot of these people in the beginning. Paul McCartney was a trumpet player who dropped the trumpet only when he realized he couldn't sing and play at the same time and that girls wouldn't be likely to look lustily at a trumpet player. Most of the songs he wrote or contributed to before 1962 when the Beatles made their first record have not been heard by anyone other than those he worked the songs out with or whatever drunken teenagers or drunken revellers in Hamburg that they may have aired the songs to. He worked on writing songs.
I'm not at all saying that anyone can write songs. But those that have an interest can at the very least try to see where they go with it. Obviously some will find it harder than others but whether one finds it easier and is prolific or whether one writes rarely and finds it hard has little to do with the quality of the songs written.
It involves all that you've mentioned ~ and more.
Funnilly enough, I never did. But I did like what I wrote. But I liked certain parts more than others ~ and I still am that way in many cases.
I'm not so sure it's about the greatness of it. It's more a case, I think, of whether one likes what one has written. In a band situation, if one likes their song, they're more likely to push for it to be developed. In the home recording situation many of us find ourselves in where one person wears many hats, as the writer, the likability of the song is no different, but there's no one to prevent you from developing the song.
For me, the writing of the song is like the sex that brings about the conception of the child and the preparation over 9 months for the arrival of that child. Arrangement, performance and recording is like the labour and birth of the child, the mixing is like the upbringing.
But reeks of BS to whom ? The listener ? That's always going to be the listener's personal prerogative to pass judgement.
If on the other hand your song reeks of BS to you but you didn't want it to, then your problems aren't really to do with songwriting per se ~ although they might be.
Could you elaborate a little on what you mean by "an authentic song" ?
What do you actually mean by that ? If you've written what you regard as a believable song but I happen to think otherwise, is the song believable ?
Many writers of what many would regard as great songs over the last half century are totally disparaging of those same songs......
I make stuff up all the time !
I've even made up languages in my songs !!
The "right frame" is determined only by the actual writer of the song. If X has written their song outside of your box, you can't tell that writer to
!There are songs from all over this planet that simply do not conform to our {in the greater scheme of things} sometime limited Western standard.
Personally, I've simply never thought in those terms. Improvement has always been retrospective. I've never sat around thinking "I must top that song !". I just write whatever I'm writing at that time. When I look back over a lengthy period, I can see certain improvements. But then, I've done a lot of learning down the years.
For me, this question, if anything, applies to my abilities to record and my mixing !
Both obsession and the quest to hit that vague target called "greatness" strike me as pretty much killing the joy, enjoyment and fun of a hobby.
Furthermore, if that is one's aim, how do you quantify that ? "Great" tends to be a subjective love term that the admirer applies.
In a 1968 interview with Mick Jagger, Jonathan Cott calls the lyrics of "Get off of my cloud" great {I agree}. Jagger replies "Oh no, they're crap."
You could do it that way. On the other hand, you don't have to be at it every day. A couple of times a month or a week and you may still improve.
