Do you know when it's good?

[James HE]

Well, at least i'm writing again, but I'm thinking it's all trash. I figure get in a little deeper and the good songs will start again. Hell, the way I'm feeling these days, I think I'm already in the deep end. But hey, do you know when it gets good, can't you feel it. It was good for about 5 minutes tonite until I figured out that I needed something beside the two chords! ahh, the voice was there, the melody true. But I just need something else! Or do I? hey if the songs wants just to be two chords, then it will be. But aren't two chord songs boring? (the damn II-I thing- I always get stuck in there! but it's so modal and pretty! Can you ever forgive me? )

-jhe

[jvasey]

Don't force it where it doesn't want to go!!!

If 2 chords is what you hear in your head, stay true to it. Remember your goal should be to convey a feeling or idea, and often times we sabotage this by trying to make something more intricate.

I frequently wish I could write 2 or 3 chord, but it's hard to strip away those pretensions. I think this is what they called "higher innocence" in English class.
Jeff

[smirky]

If the melody can stand on its own (I try to sing it a capella or just play it), then it's ok for me. it shouldn't sound as if the melody was based on the chord progressions, but vice versa. sorry if I repeat a previous thought of mine in another post, but I truly think that too many chords spoil a song and that less is often more (also regarding the melody).
by the way: I hate rewriting, but sometimes there's no choice ;-)

smirky

[Dougie Johnson]

Yeah..The Kinks made a career out of two chords
(I love the Kinks)
And ZZ Top's drummer has made 15 albums with one drumbeat.
U2 has made several albums with the same guitar riff.
And Britney Spears has made it with the same two breasts.

You can do it, James!!

[James HE]

Yep i did it! it found me at about 2:30 in the morning

A little bridge got added- ohhh... hey, now it's three chords!

Instead of just playing the music and singing along to get the lyrics, i just sat down and finished the lyrics, then just went with it, and man I gotta tell you it open up completely. I can't remember ever starting and finishing a song in one night, usually it has to evolve over time, but it's all there now.

I'm gonna post an MP3 so you all can hear... give me a few days.

-jhe

[Prophet_81]

You know, simplicity is a good idea sometimes. I have to disagree, somewhat, with Jeff's post.

My best advice to anyone is to do something you wouldn't normally do. If you always "stay true," as Jeff put it, you will continuously produce the same thing. I know that I don't have a completely fresh idea everytime I pick up the guitar and anyone who does is God. Try starting with an arpeggio; a riff; straight fourths; mixed meter; go to an unexpected minor or diminished; etc...

I'm not saying that you can't do great things with the "staying true" theory... Look at Tom Petty...

Like I said, simplicity and two-chord progressions are good things sometimes. As long as intentional.

To suggest an answer to your original question; I think you know it's good if it gets stuck in your head. I know when I don't like something. I make it(bored in the process) walk away in the middle of creating it, and forget it.

[Tucci]

Songwriting is a craft as well as an art. It is possible to hammer out a good song without having had any inspiration to start with. It is good to sometimes look at your song objectively and think, "It does need a little something there or a little of that there." Then you deliberately put something there.

Lennon and McCartney would actually set times for writing songs. They would sit down and hammer out a complete song during a couple hour session. They weren't always writing from inspiration. It was very much a craft to them, like building a chair.

Tucci

[James HE]

well said Tucci.

But it is just as much art. Equal parts, so sometimes it is better to throw one of them out the window. You know i wouldn't call Dylan a "crafty" songwriter- but he sure is amazing... and then there are songwriters on the other end of the spectrum, Lennon and Mcarty come to mind. The art is the raw power, the message, the emotion of the song, the craft is to make all of that work and be accesable.

TO me the craft comes second (sequentially at least), what do you guys think?

-jhe

[lazyboy]

I don't know. Sometimes the craft part breeds the inspiration. You know what I mean? When it comes on slow as you work through something. You get attached to it and you're concentrating so hard that everything else in your life just kind of slips out of your consciousness. I remember a couple of times I was hammering things out on my 4 track, just moving around getting parts down, moving onto the next thing, and all this previously unwritten stuff would be right there. If I got a phone interruption I could barely come out of that state and talk to the person on the other end. Then I'd look back and laugh at what a Mad Scientist I must have looked like. I find it hard to separate the two. I guess what I'm saying is that when I'm inspired, I feel like a skilled craftsman.

[jvasey]

I think your all tending to overstate the importance of craft.

Craft should refer to the tools you use to write. Theory background, vocabulary, and your instrumental knowledge are all parts of crafting songs. Unfortunately, without any emotional inspiration or attachment, you'll be left with nothing more than an exercise.

I've always relied on my imagination to come up with a fully developed vision of the song in my mind. The craft part is to interpret what I'm hearing in my mind, so I can play the parts, and communicate them to others.

The Lennon/McCartney is a perfect model with Lennon providing most of the emotion, and McCartney most of the craft. A look at their solo work shows that Lennon's more emotional and less crafted songs resonated with people far more than McCartney's less inspired, but better crafted songs.

Prophet- By saying "stay true", I'm refering to your original vision of the song. I'm not advocating simple songs for the sake of simplicity. If your hearing more or more exotic chords in your head, and simplifying it because of limited playing abilities, that's a cop-out. But I think adding things you don't hear in your head is just pretentious, and can obscure the inspiration. If "staying true" to your imagination continues to produce the same thing, then the problem is lack of imagination.

Jeff

[MrLip]

My girlfriend must think I'm a mad scientist too.

[lazyboy]

"The craft part is to interpret what I'm hearing in my mind, so I can play the parts, and communicate them to others." -Jeff (sorry don't know how to do that reply with quote thing)

And your saying we overstate the importance of craft? How can this be any less important than hearing a song in your head? I understand what you're saying, perhaps you think I'm referring to instrumental technique (as in weenie malmsteen). I don't mean to sound overly Edisonian but I have always been a skeptic of people who claim that inspiration is the only part of any artwork. I'm in a graduate English program and we spend a fair amount of time talking about writing. Every so often somebody will come up with some line about some kind of divine visitation that makes them write. Inspiration alone may make you smile, but it doesn't create. I'm sorry if I'm coming off harsh. Please don't take this as a personal attack.

To use a different example (one that James should dig), the gaze portrayed by the Pieta can be the focus and we understand the power and affect of it, in part, because Michaelangelo was a good craftsman. That is why we craft, to polish our vision, to make the outward expression as close to the inner sense as possible. It really is a beautiful thing. Calling it craft does nothing to take away from it. How 'bout this one: Craft is the the effort to make inpiration tangible.

Of course, you might find that the underside of my philosopher robes are completely full of shit. Its only rock and roll.

[Dougie Johnson]

I know it was good when I have a cigarette after I'm done.

[Ralphyboy]

Sometimes when the inspiration is gone{dry spell}.Craft will bring me back and I can always count on that.

[jvasey]

Perhaps I take the craft for granted. I've spent the past 11 years teaching guitar, bass, and theory. Anything I hear in my head, I can recognize and play immediately. But I also know that any song I started without a heartfelt inspiration doesn't compare to the others.

I believe a level of craft is required, and that a deficiency in either craft or inspiration can be compensated for with the quality of the other. But when it comes down to it, a well crafted song can make me think. A well inspired song makes me feel, which in my opinion is more worthy.

Here's another interesting thought in connection with your painting reference. Was the gaze of Pieta truly this powerful, or was it the will of the artist? Or put another way is any inspiration external? Perhaps there is nothing that is truly inspirational, but only the ability of the individual to perceive the mundane in an unusual way.

This would mean when your uninspired, your probably not paying close enough attention.

Just a thought
Jeff

[LI Slim]

I think that the song works when the inspiration and the craft are integrated, which depends on what's going on inside the artist/craftsman. Also, as much as it pains me to say this, there is some question about whether what popular songwriters do is "art".

Personally, I favor the broad definition. But some songwriters who are considered the most successful - that is, sell the most, make the most money - pretty much follow certain tried and true formulas. Not only that, they know how to evoke EMOTIONS on demand, using those formulas. These are highly skilled crafters, to whom inspiration is basically irrelevant. This I'm sure is an advantage, since they don't have to worry about "blocks" in their inspiration. This is no criticism of them; it sure is a nice way to make a living!

So I agree, Jeff, that having a lot of one can compensate for having less of the other. But I would look at it another way. I think the "art" part is the integration of the feelings and the technique. To kind of adjust your point, Lazyboy, I think that the art is in giving expression to what goes on internally, emotionally, spiritually. I think that stuff that we really like and continue to like for a long time both conveys some honest feeling and has a pleasing package (i.e., nice tune, I like the beat, I give it a 9). So the artist's role is to apply the craft to the inspiration in a way that speaks to people. This works best when you stay within your crafting abilities and use both sides of your brain.

So two chords? It could be right but would be unusual (most popular music visions seem to require at least 3 - I understand that you've gone to 3 as well). I strongly disagree that reworking is a bad thing; it's usually essentially to fulfilling that initial moment(s) of inspiration.

By the way, I don't accept the Lennon/McCartney myth that John was the heart and Paul was the technician. From what I can hear (and have heard), they had a lot of heart and a lot of skill. Millions of people feel deeply affected by Paul McCartney songs. John Lennon's solo stuff, when raw, was raw by design (don't forget, he and Yoko anticipated punk), sort of like Neil Young. I think those guys must have worked extremely hard to be great musicians, and absolutely fed off each other in talking about life and times.

Thanks for a fun thread.

[Edited by LI Slim on 09-27-2000 at 08:08]

[Tucci]

Lennon and McCartney both had a lot of heart and a lot of craft. Check out McCartney's first solo album. He played everything himself and there is a lot of heart there.

Another myth is that they only wrote together at the beginning. They were still colaborating as late as the "Ballad of John and Yoko".

They both worked hard at being good craftsmen but they also really loved music.

Tucci

[Dougie Johnson]

Yeah..But remember McCartney also gave us "Ebony & Ivory" and "Silly Love Songs"...

[jvasey]

Don't forget "Jet" and "The Girl is Mine"

[James HE]

"To use a different example (one that James should dig), the gaze portrayed by the Pieta can be the focus and we understand the power and affect of it, in part, because Michaelangelo was a good craftsman. That is why we craft, to polish our vision, to make the outward expression as close to the inner sense as possible. It really is a beautiful thing. Calling it craft does nothing to take away from it. How 'bout this one: Craft is the the effort to make inpiration tangible." -lazyboy

oh yes I dig I dig!!! Michaelangelo chisled away to that point, that focus. He found somthing that he thougt was inherent about that piece of marble. A lot of craft is just getting out of the way. Michaelangelo chisled David out of a block of marble that no one else would use. It was flawed, considered by all to be useless. And look what he did with it, he saw what no one else saw. He saw david in that cracked hunk and went with it.

-jhe

[Prophet_81]

You know, I think craft is important and emotion is important and many of you agree. I also believe that one is never done learning craft nor emotional expression.

I know this is a little late, but I have to retort again Jeff's theory about hearing it all in your head(which apparently determines one's level of imagination) and completely manifesting the entire composition to a 'T'.

I can't hear it all in my head and even if I could I would never stop seeking the input of others to influence me, my songwriting, and the songs themselves. I think it's proposterous to say that adding parts in or over the original idea is pretentious.

No matter what I write, I would never trade the number of times my best friend and songwriting buddy, Allen, has been able to do/add something of which I did not think that tweaked the music just right.

I firmly disbelieve that the best of ideas come from one mind.

[jvasey]

If anyone's ever listened to Todd Rundgren's Faithful, you'd probably understand my position. The first side of the album was covers of some of his favorite songs including Strawberry Fields Forever, Good Vibrations, and others. His goal was to completely recreate what he heard on the record. It was done to sharpen his skills as a player/engineer/producer, so that he would be more capable of creating what his imagination "heard".

Those who can "hear" the whole arrangement have, as I have, had times of utter frustration trying to realize that vision. Ask Brian Wilson. And I never stated that if you don't hear it like this you lack imagination, more likely your just not particularly inspired at that moment. I stated if your realizing your visions, and they all sound the same, your imagination may be lacking. Nothing to be ashamed of, that's the goal of the corporate media anyways.

Obviously if I don't have a complete vision of a song, which for me is as often as not, that's when I experiment.

And lastly, the contention that the best ideas are born of multiple minds. This is easily disproven through virtually every scientific realization of the last 1000 years. Einstein, Edison, Picasso, and Galileo didn't need any help, and neither did Mozart, Cole Porter, Elvis Costello, or Paul Westerberg.

[futuredays]

For me, the line of discussion between Jeff and Prophet81 seems to boil down to whether you believe in experimentation for the sake of experimentation. I'm a great believer in musical improvisation and exploration and making mistakes (lots) along the way. I think a lot of great music happens by accident - not always by an inner vision the way Jeff seems to be characterizing it. (I may be reading you wrong though...)

Some of my favorite music is by the 'krautrock' band Can. In fact my posting name comes from one of their albums, Future Days. Their best music is almost entirely born of experimentation and improvisation for the sake of it. If it can be said that the material was born from some inspiration, the vision was a collective one that happened at the time they were 'jamming'.

The same might be said of most jazz. All of Brian Eno's rock song albums from the 70s contained a healthy dose of experimentation with terrifically off-balance results which porbably couldn't have been mapped out in advance.

A lot of the way we make music (in modern Western society at least) seems to be based on hierarchy, with the composer's vision and force of will at the top of the pyramid. It's all about control and molding things into shape. Not enough credit is given to the value of spontaneous activity and the possibility that perhaps your "vision" will speak to you "in the moment" when you're just fooling around and do something by accident.

I don't think any of what I'm saying here negates what Jeff is saying - just thought I'd put a different spin on the discussion.

Oh, by the way, I thought I'd mention Lennon's One Day At A Time (off of Mind Games). From an emotional/inspirational point of view, it's a piece of drivel, but the melody/chords are so well-crafted that I can't help but like it. I think it's a good example (and there are many) where Lennon shows considerable craft without much inspiration.

[LI Slim]

Two issues-------

Noone operates in a vacuum. Music itself is a form of communication, which cannot occur unless at least two people are present. Even the act of performing a song live and perceiving people's reactions to it is an important way to understand how a song can be changed and improved.

Einstein, to use that example, did NOT work alone. He was part of a community of scientists that were indispensible to the development of his cosmic visions. In addition, I just read a review of a book coming out called Einstein in Love (or something like that) that focuses on his personal life. And apparently he used his first wife as a sounding board that helped him develop the theory of relativity. One could say that Einstein was jammin'.

I'm skeptical as to what extent songs can spring fully grown from one's mind. Hearing the sound and communicating the sound are fundamentally different than thinking the sound. The medium informs the message.

Having said that, there is a difference between, say, the Brian Eno and John Lennon ways of songwriting. I think that most songwriters operate from vision rather than experimentation. Neither is better and neither is mutually exclusive. We all need others.

[jvasey]

Well Put!!

While I've written or collaborated on songs both ways, my main purpose in this thread has been to try and convey how heartbreaking it can be to have a completely formed idea be sidetracked and never realize your vision.

It's like lightening striking when I get these visions, and the lyrics all appear almost simultaneously. It's these songs that I hold precious, and I hope that if this happens to others, that they have the craft, knowledge, and patience to see them through.

Jeff