Define What Makes a Good Song

[ido1957]

I know this is pretty subjective, but when you hear a favorite song, what qualities make it a good song or your favorite. Name names to give examples.

For example - I like Get Back by the Beatles because it has a catchy but simple rhythm.... It's simplicity also lends itself to jamming bluesy lead breaks....

I'm looking for a list to keep in mind when writing to try and improve my songs...



__________________
My Songs are here

[mawtangent]

I think something happens on a chemical level in our brains...I will be listening to a song for the first time (maybe only halfway paying attention) and then something happens (maybe just for one moment in the song) and it hits me (probaby like when the drug starts coursing through the addict's veins) and I think "hey, I like that...I will have to listen to that song again."

I think that is why (80% of the time) when I play my new-found favorite song for someone else they are ho-hum (their "chemical" make-up just isn't engineered to process and break-down this particular type of song).

[Nick The Man]

Originally Posted by mawtangent

I think something happens on a chemical level in our brains...I will be listening to a song for the first time (maybe only halfway paying attention) and then something happens (maybe just for one moment in the song) and it hits me (probaby like when the drug starts coursing through the addict's veins) and I think "hey, I like that...I will have to listen to that song again."

I think that is why (80% of the time) when I play my new-found favorite song for someone else they are ho-hum (their "chemical" make-up just isn't engineered to process and break-down this particular type of song).

yeah... ....... yeah...... YEAH!!!

[songright]

Robert Jourdain, Mus!c, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination, William Morrow Press, 1997. Great read on the chemical reaction that you speak of. Seriously, this book covers a wide variety of topics, and insights into what it is about certain sounds that we like.

[TerraMortim]

one that means something to people (period)

[mikeh]

I think TerraMortim hit it on the head. While there can be opinions on proper song writing structure and discussions about the scientific theories of audio stimuli - a song has to appeal to the listener.

It could be the lyrics or the melody of the groove. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Oancient1]

Assuming that one wants to reach typical listeners and NOT other songwriters and musicians, in no particular order:

1. Simplicity in construction - especially in the rhythm. Yes impressed musicians with Siberian Katru and the like, but relatively simple Roundabout is the one that most people remember

2. A memorable lyric with a good hook that the intended audience can relate to -- any classic Eagles lyric can be an example

3. Something upbeat -- memorable early Eagles ballads fit nicely between the upbeat stuff. Their recent pile of mushy oh-so-sensitive-lyrically crap is a great example of how even good musicians can bore an audience.

4. Originality - the listener should not immediately recall similar songs from the past. Am example would be inappropriate here I think.

Tom

[TerraMortim]

Originally Posted by Oancient1

Assuming that one wants to reach typical listeners and NOT other songwriters and musicians, in no particular order:

1. Simplicity in construction - especially in the rhythm. Yes impressed musicians with Siberian Katru and the like, but relatively simple Roundabout is the one that most people remember

Except for people who like complex music. Yeah, people tend to like simplicity, but that doesn't make it a good song.

Originally Posted by Oancient1

2. A memorable lyric with a good hook that the intended audience can relate to -- any classic Eagles lyric can be an example

What about instrumental music? Songs like Louie Louie? Or even songs like I am The Walrus or Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds by the beatles, surely those aren't very easy to relate to lol Sometimes the lyrical sound and a great instrumental hook can be just as good as having meaningful lyrics.

Originally Posted by Oancient1

3. Something upbeat -- memorable early Eagles ballads fit nicely between the upbeat stuff. Their recent pile of mushy oh-so-sensitive-lyrically crap is a great example of how even good musicians can bore an audience.

upbeat is in no way an indication of the worth of a song, or it's worth to the listeners. What about In The Air Tonight? That was a pretty famous and well loved song (I know some people hate Phil Collins, but fuck them, it's a really good song..period) Do, remember that the Eagles were a one hit wonder for the majority of people.

Originally Posted by Oancient1

4. Originality - the listener should not immediately recall similar songs from the past. Am example would be inappropriate here I think.

Sometimes familiarity if used right can be a powerful tool as well..if it's too out there, unless it's really done cleverly, it can confuse most listeners.

Keep in mind I do really agree with some of your points, generally such as originality lyrics that mean something to people etc... but I think it's a little more complex than just that, and this kind of leaves out certain genres...what's good songwriting in one genre could be really bad in another. So yeah, you're correct, but that isn't really all there is to it, and sometimes the exact opposite is true. What I find is that in reality, the people who write good songs that mean a lot to people, are usually just able to do it without thinking about it too much.. kind of just following their intuition, going with what feels right....not sitting with a checklist and a labcoat analyzing it for it's "hit song" points.

[IloveJesus]

"Good" is a subjective word. A good song, therefore, exists in any song or none at all, depending on who is listening.

Effective is the word you want, and that begins with a specific goal.

If you set a goal for a song, and you reach that goal, your song was effective.

The question then becomes, what is your goal? If your goal is to reach mainstream pop radio, then essentially your song should be able to be heard once or twice and then sung or hummed by a listener.

And, yes, they should want to play it again right away.

"Whip It" by Devo is a perfect example. Everyone liked it. Catch, original, and hooky.

[rayc]

Either the RIFF or the melody depending on the type of song & It's utlra, uber on the money when they combine.

[Whatmysay]

My first response when someone asks what makes a good song; I ask what do you mean by ‘good’? It is such a relative term. In most critical theory evaluation of art forms usually defined around

Commercial – that one is easy it is all about money and some producer/writers obviously hit upon formulas that seem to work, for a while.

Critical – this one is hard because if we choose the general public then commercial success is proof that we’ve succeeded. My concern with these criteria is ‘who are the experts and should they be trusted?’

Artistic – this can be about how you have shaped the form rather than the content. Do we adhere to the genre’s characteristics or challenge them?

But it still gets back to TerraMortims point – that it has to mean ‘something to the listener’, I guess this just defines why the listener might be listening and how their judgements are informed.

I like the idea of memes (Richard Dawkin’s idea of information packets based on a gene) existing in an infoscape and surviving or not. If you think of ‘80s pop songs as info-organisms, then they would be made up by memes of synthlines, 808 drum machines, lyrics about finding love while running from government conspirators, Chorus/Flange/Delayed guitar and lots of ‘verb on the snare – as an info-organism it died as the popscape shifted, but many of those memes now make up new song-organism!

If we look at what has persisted (e.g. Vs. Ch structure, beat) then we could start to designate what are the core memes of all song and what are the temporary adaptations that may lead to success in a particular infoscape.

Originally Posted by songright

Robert Jourdain, Mus!c, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination, William Morrow Press, 1997. Great read on the chemical reaction that you speak of. Seriously, this book covers a wide variety of topics, and insights into what it is about certain sounds that we like.

This book is great book, another one similar is Music and the Mind by Anthony Storr. This put forward some interesting ideas about the place of music in our development and why we are attracted to certain types of music and not others.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Music-Mind-A...0627978&sr=8-1

[DAS19]

A good song is written not worrying about if its gonna be a good song or not.

[IloveJesus]

Originally Posted by DAS19

A good song is written not worrying about if its gonna be a good song or not.

This is a very good point. If you write a song, record it, and are satisfied with your work, then you are a success.


But here's an interesting note: go ask 100 random people if they like Madona enough to buy her album, and the vast majority will say no. As the same question with 99% of the bands out there and you'll get the same answer. No.

BUT, if three percent say, "Yeah, I'd buy their next album), then that would be 9 million album sales in the United States alone.

So, if you play your song for 100 people (and they don't know it's yours), and only three percent say, "Wow, where can I buy that song?", then you are a success.

It doesn't take much.


But look at it from the record company's point of view. From the time it takes for them to sign you to getting the packaged product in the store, they've spent millions. They want to be sure it'll be successful.


That said, songwriting is the best way to make money in the business for your average Joe. Jsut write some hits.

Nothing to it.


That's what I am doing now. Formulaic hit-writing. I'll be sending stuff off to publishers pretty soon. I don't care if they want it or not. I'm just stoked to be doing it.

[TerraMortim]

Originally Posted by DAS19

A good song is written not worrying about if its gonna be a good song or not.

almost always the case...sometimes you might have a hunch when working on it... but yeah..if you set out to write some textbook good song, it will be terrible.

[famous beagle]

Originally Posted by TerraMortim

Except for people who like complex music. Yeah, people tend to like simplicity, but that doesn't make it a good song.



What about instrumental music? Songs like Louie Louie? Or even songs like I am The Walrus or Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds by the beatles, surely those aren't very easy to relate to lol Sometimes the lyrical sound and a great instrumental hook can be just as good as having meaningful lyrics.



upbeat is in no way an indication of the worth of a song, or it's worth to the listeners. What about In The Air Tonight? That was a pretty famous and well loved song (I know some people hate Phil Collins, but fuck them, it's a really good song..period) Do, remember that the Eagles were a one hit wonder for the majority of people.



Sometimes familiarity if used right can be a powerful tool as well..if it's too out there, unless it's really done cleverly, it can confuse most listeners.

Keep in mind I do really agree with some of your points, generally such as originality lyrics that mean something to people etc... but I think it's a little more complex than just that, and this kind of leaves out certain genres...what's good songwriting in one genre could be really bad in another. So yeah, you're correct, but that isn't really all there is to it, and sometimes the exact opposite is true. What I find is that in reality, the people who write good songs that mean a lot to people, are usually just able to do it without thinking about it too much.. kind of just following their intuition, going with what feels right....not sitting with a checklist and a labcoat analyzing it for it's "hit song" points.

Ummm ... I'm not sure I understand. The Eagles, a one-hit wonder?

Now I'm not a huge Eagles fan, but I was just wondering which one hit you were talking about?

Life in the Fastlane
Desperado
The Best of My Love
Hotel California
Already Gone
Tequila Sunrise
Take It Easy
Lyin' Eyes
New Kid in Town
One of These Nights
Peaceful Easy Feeling
Take It to the Limit
The Long Run
Victim of Love
Witchy Woman
Heartache Tonight
I Can't Tell You Why
Seven Bridges Road


Well that's all the huge hits I can think of right off the top of my head, though I'm sure there's more. So which one hit were you talking about?

[bilco]

I can be grabbed by any of these things and consider the song to be good to great:

*Riff - Boys of Summer, Don't Fear the Reaper, just about any Stones song, Paranoid
*Great Lyrics - City of New Orleans, Good Old Boys Like Me, Free Man In Paris, New York State of Mind, Old Coyote Town
*Melody - Yesterday, Piano Man, Fields of Gold
*Sentiment I can relate to - As Time Goes By, Scotch and Soda, Our Love is Here to Stay

bilco

[true-eurt]

What is a good song to me... is one that has a good performance...catchy beat...good lead guitar...good song line.

What is a great song to me...one that can move me to dance mode...party mode...cry mode...feel good mode...sexy mode...love mode....hate mode...in other words, one that was performed with deepest of emotions and their all put into it. I want to be there...to feel what they feel..to know what they know...and to embrace that moment in their life...just as they are doing in song. I want to meld into it without having to think about whether it is a good song or not...to find myself lost in it, not caring what anyone else thinks as it becomes a part of me while it is played....doesn't matter what the words say...or if there are even words there...because if they are there, it won't matter what they are saying...but how they are sounding...what emotion is being put forth. I don't even care if the performance was not spot on...I prefer live anyway to studio recordings...and the human side of it all as it is happening at that very moment, without going back and fixing it...sometimes that can be disasterous I know....but it can also be the most awesome experience one can have as a musical listener...

[gvdv]

Originally Posted by mawtangent

I think something happens on a chemical level in our brains...I will be listening to a song for the first time (maybe only halfway paying attention) and then something happens (maybe just for one moment in the song) and it hits me (probaby like when the drug starts coursing through the addict's veins) and I think "hey, I like that...I will have to listen to that song again."

I think that is why (80% of the time) when I play my new-found favorite song for someone else they are ho-hum (their "chemical" make-up just isn't engineered to process and break-down this particular type of song).

I agree with this.

And I have also had an experience in the last few years which has totally changed and expanded my experience of music so that what mawtangent wrote is sometimes part 1 of a 2 part process for me.

Specifically, I always thought that if music gets to your gut in some way (lyrics, music etc.), i.e. if you experience it viscerally, then that's what counted.

However, over the past few years I bought two sitars, took lessons, and got into Hindustani (N. Indian) music (it's all George Harrison's fault), and the effort that I had to make to understand this intellectually has actually changed my experience of it. At first, I didn't understand it - like that bit at the beginning of 'The Concert for Bangladesh' where Ravi Shankar and Ali Akbar Khan are tuning their sitar and sarod and the audience claps and Ravi Shankar says, "If you enjoyed the tuning, I hope you'll enjoy the concert just as much" (paraphrase).

Now, I can tell that that's just tuning, and I actually prefer the strictest type of classical music, which is hardest for Western ears (typically) to appreciate.

The end result is that I now enjoy this just as mawtangent described. But the process of getting to that was something that I had previously denied being too intellectual.

Just my musing.

[Whatmysay]

You could look at this question from 2 philosophical standard points.

Platonic: There is a perfect formula for writing the perfect song that through rational experimentation and aggregation of experience we will eventually understand. That’s really old school – now sit down and listen to the expert and I will enlighten you.

Constructivist: That meaning is transient and based on the context in which we find ourselves. So it is better to write well for your self and hope that a lot of people are in a similar context and resonate with your work.

I think what you are referring to gvdv is the second. Your previous knowledge of the sitar was limited by cultural exposure, but as it grew and your ability to make meaning from the work increased your engagement.

Obviously everyone has had their ‘heart broken’ so in a world where we all make our own meaning it would be a better bet to write about that. That said however a couple of billion Indians just love Ravi.

I think it was stated above that a good song could be considered good in terms of whether or not it achieves its purpose – Does it impress the girl next door enough to get her to out with you? Does it sell a billion? Does it do both?

[Scoot]

My personal opinion .... A good song to me must have great guitar playing (not necessarily fast guitar playing - but meaningful guitar playing) I am a Pink Floyd addict (Dave Gilmour rocks) so all Pink Floyd songs just hit me in the right spot. I guess music that makes "you" feel good !!!
Anyway back to the beer fridge for me

[TerraMortim]

Originally Posted by famous beagle

Ummm ... I'm not sure I understand. The Eagles, a one-hit wonder?

Now I'm not a huge Eagles fan, but I was just wondering which one hit you were talking about?

Life in the Fastlane
Desperado
The Best of My Love
Hotel California
Already Gone
Tequila Sunrise
Take It Easy
Lyin' Eyes
New Kid in Town
One of These Nights
Peaceful Easy Feeling
Take It to the Limit
The Long Run
Victim of Love
Witchy Woman
Heartache Tonight
I Can't Tell You Why
Seven Bridges Road


Well that's all the huge hits I can think of right off the top of my head, though I'm sure there's more. So which one hit were you talking about?

The only song that was really the type of hit that most people, these days would know of is Hotel California...less people might know Desperado, but it's somewhat doubtful. Most of those songs might have been somewhat flash in the pan hits but the only song that made it through the test of time was Hotel California. Hell, I even know some of their material, and have never heard of some of those songs...some yes, but some just don't ring a bell. Not to say they're terrible songs, I just wouldn't use the Eagles as an example of people who write good songs every time, just because there is primarily one song that stands out to most people. A quick flash in the pan hit is a bit different, and has a lot less to do with the quality of songwriting than a song that stands the test of time.

[Scoot]

Originally Posted by TerraMortim

The only song that was really the type of hit that most people, these days would know of is Hotel California...less people might know Desperado, but it's somewhat doubtful. Most of those songs might have been somewhat flash in the pan hits but the only song that made it through the test of time was Hotel California. Hell, I even know some of their material, and have never heard of some of those songs...some yes, but some just don't ring a bell. Not to say they're terrible songs, I just wouldn't use the Eagles as an example of people who write good songs every time, just because there is primarily one song that stands out to most people. A quick flash in the pan hit is a bit different, and has a lot less to do with the quality of songwriting than a song that stands the test of time.

With all due respect TerraMortim, those songs to me are all hits in my childhood and teenage years. Perhaps the Eagles weren't your kind of thing or you were not around at the time to really appreciate them compared to the bands in the same era but those guys are "still going" aka Pink Floyd, The Stones etc. I rate them up there as superb songwriters and musicians.

Some people may say the same of Led Zep - their only classic being Stairway to Heaven ?????

Anyway I may not agree with what you say but I do agree you have the right to say it.

[gvdv]

Originally Posted by Whatmysay

You could look at this question from 2 philosophical standard points.

Platonic: There is a perfect formula for writing the perfect song that through rational experimentation and aggregation of experience we will eventually understand. That’s really old school – now sit down and listen to the expert and I will enlighten you.

Constructivist: That meaning is transient and based on the context in which we find ourselves. So it is better to write well for your self and hope that a lot of people are in a similar context and resonate with your work.

I think what you are referring to gvdv is the second. Your previous knowledge of the sitar was limited by cultural exposure, but as it grew and your ability to make meaning from the work increased your engagement.

Obviously everyone has had their ‘heart broken’ so in a world where we all make our own meaning it would be a better bet to write about that. That said however a couple of billion Indians just love Ravi.

I think it was stated above that a good song could be considered good in terms of whether or not it achieves its purpose – Does it impress the girl next door enough to get her to out with you? Does it sell a billion? Does it do both?

Whatmysay,
You've got me pegged good and proper. Can't agree with your more.

And interestingly, my psychotherapy practices has a post structural/constructivist base.

GVDV

[gvdv]

Does anyone here feel there is a difference between a good song and good record (i.e. performance or performance of a sound)?

To me, a good song evokes a mood or in some way engages me - maybe because of the lyric or emotiveness of the music - beyond having an interesting sound, riff or performance.

Led Zeppelin fall into the good record category for me - sounds and riffs that engage me for the duration of the record but have absolutely no meaning for me beyond that. The Beatles, on the other hand, not only gave classic performances, melodies, riffs and so on, but wrote songs that articulate emotion, make me think, feel and experience on many different levels.

Does anyone else draw this distinction?

[Nicole_Rose]

what's good is subjective. depends on what you like and what genres you like, and what culture you're from. millions of people like trashy country. i hate country. but the stuff still makes it to the top of the charts. i'm reading a book by a producer, scientist, and music theorist, Daniel J. Levitin. it's called "This Is Your Brain On Music" it talks about that a fair bit. you all might find it an interesting read.