Dependancy, mediocratey and evolution.

[theron]

Hey,

I've always gone by the motto that "if the song can't stand alone, with just lyrics and a git(cause that is what I write with), then there is no sence in fluffing it out with other instruments and production".

O.K. So that isn't a catchy motto but, the point is I try to write solid, stand alone songs that don't depend on a Five piece band to engulf the listener or make the song shine.

I now find myself with a lot of new tools on the comp and in the ability to record tons of seperate tracks. I've never been in a band so, my songs have had to grow up in a live, one guy one guitar manner. I can't resist starting to record songs that suck if I just grab my acoustic and play it. Those ideas of drums, solo's, bass breaks, backup vocals and all the fillings are finally somewhat at my disposal. I am a tad trepid in endulging my newfound technical toys. I don't wanna start writting mediocre songs and think that they are good cause I can dress them up in home computer studio opulence. Yet, I don't want to deny the "full visions" in my musical mind.

Any thoughts on how to maintain quality songs and still entertain there "full on band" potential.

I'm sure if I had written and sung in a band, this wouldn't be such an issue. I just wanna stay hard on myself as far as personal standards on my songs but, some ideas will never come through without the aid that is at my disposal.

Wow, what an intro to a quandry.

Any thoughts?

Theron

[Henri Devill]

Hey Theron whats up bud?Your "motto" is a good way to look at it..It might be a different case with some of the "modern" styles like Rap and Trance etc. where the sonics are very important to the song{ryth over melody}If you write in the classic rock,folkand Pop I agree 100%..If you write a good tune the tune will show you what it needs to be and how to present it.Your lyrics will give you the blueprint on the production..Good production is about reinforceing the words..Think about a song as conversation..Think how would you use the inflection of your spoken word..this is a way to use music production..Instead of your voice alone you now have a pallet of sounds for inflection..Just one way of lookin' at it..Production is just a tool and it takes practice like anything..You will get better and better at it,eventualy it will not hinder your songs.After all you are in charge and they are just tools ..Interesting topic..Good luck


Don

[theron]

Thanks for the thoughts and encouragment Don. Right now, I don't have any worries about lyrics. The need to write and therapy a song provides it way I got into this twisted mess in the first place. I just find myself with big visions and the terrible ability to make them come true. I don't wanna loose "the core" , if you will, and can't really go futher untill I let go and let production become a rudimentary part of writting a song (well, some songs that manifest in the muse). I'm not bitching about the prospect. I just wanna engauge this beast with the best leash I can muster so's to make it my own.

Thanks again. I always take your advice to heart.

Theron.

[WATYF]

I totally, one hundred percent, agree with your motto.. (even if it isn't catchy.. )

but to solve the problem, just do what I do...

When I write, I finish a song (written using only my acoustic and,.. uh.. well.. my voice.. ) and then I decide if I like it right then and there... if it doesn't pass the initial "smell test", then I don't consider it to be one of my "better tunes" and don't bother "producing it". Then, every once in a while I will go through my entire song book and play em all just to see if there's any of em that I didn't quite like before that I do like now, or to see if I have any new ideas that would totally transform an existing song into something great (<---that last method is how I've written some of my best stuff.)

That way... I never waste time trying to "polish a turd". A song never even makes it to the "production" phase if it doesn't meet my initial standards of "would I want to listen to this song if it was just some guy and his guitar playin' it?"

Just whatever you do.. don't let go of your high personal standards.. even if you get stuck in a situation like the one I'm in now with that other song we were talking aboot.

WATYF

[theron]

This kind of power is funny, engrossing, dangerous, flacid, coruptive and (right now) confounding. A balance will be found. Has now one else had to deal with a simular stituation? Is my spelling that bad? Is the forum this slow always? Have I had my limit of "it's my day off and I'll do and say what strikes me" beer?

[badgas]

Good Motto, Theron.

Things get to fluffy sometimes.
Sometimes a bit of fluff can fill in a bare spot the no one else heard.


'Keep is simple' has always been my motto.

The lyric/melody is the song.
The rest is icing or fluff.

Some songs, the way I see it, need the fluff.
It depends on who's fluffing, and who's listening.

Guess that's why there is more styles of music than the ones I like.

I know what you mean when you say, ",,,I don't wanna start writting mediocre songs and think that they are good cause I can dress them up in home computer studio opulence. Yet, I don't want to deny the "full visions" in my musical mind."

That was one of my self made rules when I started.
But, I couldn't help it.
I recorded Woolton Chruch with guitars, bass, drums, organ, maracas, some horns, violins and more.
It was my first recording and I just got carried way.

Now I've changed the rule a bit.
I'm recording one unpluged. Just acoustic, or acoustic/bass/drums.
Then I'll do another recording of the same song, changing the tempo, adding another instrument or two.

The next recording, still on the same song, I'll remove some of the fluff on the second song, and add some back up vocals and something else.

I have seven Woolton Chruchs recorded, in the rough, right now, they are the same song, but each one has a different personality.

I keep going back to simplicity though.
My style.
But, just in case, I have can toss up a driving metal Woolton Church if the mood stricks.

I guess what I'm trying to say, in my usual long rambling, is don't confine yourself to anyone rule, style or anything.
Music is too flexable to be confining.

Write and play what you feel. Two or three versions of the same song, to match what ever the mood is your in, is a nice extra to have in your arsenal.

Good luck m'friend.

[gbondo9]

I like the motto. Its a good one for alot of people. But the flip side to that is that some people are more musicians than lyricists, and if you consider that (aside from content) vocals are just melodies over other melodies (guitar part/s), then recording a guitar part (G-C-D), and layering it with drums, keys, solo's, etc, etc.
what you've just done is write a song. Much like Motzart wrote songs. Much like millions of muscians write songs every day. If you are a good songwriter, then the song will sound good to people of simlar tastes.
I dont think experimentation with recording will ever be a bad thing.
What would "low rider" be without the 'chhh - chhucha -chhuaa' sounds.
OK, so mabey that was a bad example,
but writing songs CAN be about one melody (guitar) and another (vocals) mixing together in perfect complex simplicity with lyrics that mean something to the songwriter. Thats valid and good .
But can also be about harmony, melody, time signatures, keys, rythem and the beautiful thing that happens when someone who loves music mixes those onto a pallet to create an aural painting. And when your only one man, that can only be done by multi tracking.
Thats my take....
Todd

[badgas]

Nicely put, gbondo9.

[theron]

Hey Badgas,
I have taken making an acoustic "unplugged" arrangment of songs I want to fully produce. If it stands up under a tight, stripped down arrangment and can still give me that spine tingle, then I will procede with full production. A balance it thier somewhere.

Todd,

that flip side is what I don't want to loose out on in an over zealous effort to maintain a livable standard. However, it you never venture into the unknown, you'll never leave your back yard.

Thanks people.
Theron.

[Forte]

I'm so glad this topic was brought up.

"if the song can't stand alone, with just lyrics and a git(cause that is what I write with), then there is no sence in fluffing it out with other instruments and production".

I used to think the exact same way, but then I realized something. When you write a song just using a guitar and vocals you are limiting yourself. I used to play in different bands and coming up with songs was very easy. I've decided to go solo though; just me and my acoustic. For some reason though, I've discovered that it's become very hard for me to write songs like that. After some time, thought, and struggle, I realized that the acoustic and vocal approach is a very limited medium. Music is a window of expression, and any song that I've ever heard that consists of an artist equipped only with a guitar and his voice has always been somewhat on the "down beat"...dare I say boring? That isn't me. My music has always been poppy and danceable. That's how I am. Can you imagine a reggae or jazz song played on just a guitar? Could you dance to it? There's no way it could "stand alone."

Anyway, my point is, that it depends on the style of music. Unplugged though, is something different. Just because you have other instruments doesn't mean your fluffing it out, it's essential to the style of music you play. Think of it this way instead: if you can't make it sound good live, than there's no point in trying to make sound good in the studio.

Anyway, I have a question. Has anyone ever heard any catchy upbeat songs that consists of nothing but an artist and an acoustic?! Thinking back, I've never heard one! Now, I've heard "unplugged" songs, but that's it. It's driving me nuts! My style of music is very rhythmic. That's how I am. I've been able to produce some acoustic songs but they haven't been upbeat enough for me. Is it impossible? Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[tommyp]

this is an interesting thread!

it describes the essential opinion split that i have, too. Sometimes I think that a song which cannot stand up with just guitar and voice is all-round rubbish. This is the ethos that drives me to do things with just two or three channels and so on - very raw. However, sometimes a bit of BV or whatever will make a *huge* difference; and will blow the 'keep it simple' theory out of the water!

The problem is that the simple song is good and solid, but with some BVs and a bass it is so much better. However, add a harp, timpani and string quartet are added it sounds a *little* overblown. As such, I see the problem as a quality control issue rather than one of compensating for poor songs with studio trickery - you must recognise what is too much and what is not enough. The difference, perhaps, between 'minimalist' and 'empty'?

IMO, you cannot polish a turd - the key is to recognise the turd early on and flush it quick!

[theron]

Forte,

I think that lightnin' Hopkins could carry an upbeat party song with just him and his git. This might be due to my proclivity for his blues but, it is a suggestion


.tommyp,

I say that you CAN polish a turd. Thus, the danger of over production. I've become more adventuous as of late but, the risk of lossing a "core quality" remains. I think to be aware of the potential to "make it all better with production" will serve as warning enough not to lean on such crutches. And, to have the ear and inner vien to know when to unleash the power of production is another skill the song writer must learn.

Maybe that is all hogwash,,,,,,,,,,,,,
maybe I'm gettin some smarts

Theron.

[jitteringjim]

When you write a song just using a guitar and vocals you are limiting yourself.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, wrong answer.

Yep, it's easy to crank out songs in band sessions - but remember the crap you had to throw out as well? I do.

The "big boys" may write 50 songs for an album - but only 10-12 make the final cut. Out of those 10-12, maybe 3 or 4 are "really good", a few others are "kinda cool" (if you listen to 'em enough for them to grow on you,) and the remaining half is still considered "filler." So, think about the 35+ songs that didn't make the cut. Hmmmmmm.....

My philosophy is this:
If you can go out and play the tune in an acoustic setting and it stands up - you've got something going on as far as songwriting goes.

It isn't genre dependant either. I've seen punk bands play acoustic sets that rocked the house.

Anyway, I write everything to completion on an acoustic. I then just flesh it out a bit with the other elements.

Note to self - post some new material in the clinic.

YMMV

[Peter D]

I've never been a big fan of adding a lot of effects and orchestration to songs. I appreciate the skill and talent it takes to produce such projects, but they aren't the kind of music I buy or would bother listening to more than once or twice. The stuff I listen to, like the stuff I write, is pretty bare bones and stripped down, and it's usually acoustic-based.

I also agree that the test of a song's arrangement is whether it can stand on it's own in a public performance. I've seen people who can't pull a performance off without a lot of bells and whistles. Take away the bells and whistles and you've usually got a song that is badly written and performed. I've also seen some people who can hold an audience absolutely spellbound with nothing more than a 6-string acoustic guitar and well-crafted songs. The late Furry Lewis was a great example. I saw him open half a dozen shows for the Rolling Stones in the mid-70s and have complete command of 15,000 people with nothing more than his acoustic guitar and vocals.

I don't know how many times I've heard absolutely brilliant songs completely ruined by over-production and have heard and read numerous producers admit that if they had it to do over again, their would be a number of songs they would pare down to simpler arrangements. Jack Clements, Chet Atkins and many others have apologized for the production jobs they've done on albums.

I understand that a lot of people don't share my taste in music and I'm all for people having the artistic freedom to over-produce and under-produce or not produce at all, but I wish more folks would consider the songs as the art and not the technology and effects.

[Forte]

Theron: I'm also very blues influenced, but it's blues. It's more "soulful" than it is upbeat. That's about the closest I've ever come though.

Jittering Jim That's disgusting. I've always been proud of the songs I've made with different people. Maybe you've had to throw away some "crap", but I've never had such failure. The fact remains though, that when your an artist equipped with nothing but an acoustic, it's very difficult to produce upbeat dance music. Is that bad? Not at all! I've heard fantastic acoustic songs, songs that really couldn't be played any other way and be as good. The fact remains though, such songs are pretty mellow compared to some of the other genre's out there.
Is it genre dependent? Absolutely! Can you imagine a salsa song on just an acoustic? A swing song? What about a reggae song? Yeah I've heard punk bands play acoustic sessions. They may have "rocked the house" but was anybody in the pit? Does the fact that nobody was dancing or in the pit make it a bad song? Of course not! That isn't my style though. When I play a live show I want people to leave sweaty, tired, and gasping for breath - I want them to have lost their voice! Do you think anybody could pull that off with just an acoustic? Maybe if it was real hot, but don't get smart... ....
Unplugged: is there a difference? Yes. If you're "unplugged", it's still possible to have a drummer, an upright bass, a piano, congas, you name it. If all you have is an acoustic though, well how far can you go? Again, does that mean you can't make a good or even absolutely wonderful song? No no no no no no! All it means is that your kind of limited to the style of music you want to play. Think back, I know that every acoustic and unplugged session I've heard, seen, or have been to has been pretty mellow. It was good, but had a very "coffee housish" atmosphere to it. I'm being redundant, but again, I'm not saying that is bad, not at all.

Anyway guys, here's my point. There is such thing as over producing, but just because your adding more instruments doesn't mean that you've fluffed out the song. From experience, it's hard to keep a band together and it's hard to find good musicians. Sometimes though, a song won't just be as good with out that trumpet. You don't have a trumpet player? Well maybe you can play trumpet but also have to play guitar - why not dub? Why not eh? I admit I used to think the same way until I found myself unable to fully express myself with just an acoustic. So, maybe your motto should be: "If you can't make it sound good live, than you shouldn't bother making sound good in the studio." I say this because I believe a real musician shines on stage, not in the studio.

On a side note. I too believe you can polish a turd. Think about it, maybe you wrote a song that's not quite good, you can't put your finger on it, but it's just not "good enough." Does that mean it's hopeless? Of course not. Save that song - put it out why don't you? Think about all the crappy songs out there that still become hits. Just because you may not like it doesn't mean someone else won't. Hell, maybe someone will come along and cover it - they might have the insight you just didn't. If you couldn't make it be the hit they did, you wrote it and still have the rights, so might as well get paid for it?

[Roel]

I don't fully agree... (oh, and if this has been said already, forgive me for not reading the entire thread. I might do that lateron...)

There's alot of thruth in it, but there's a big flaw. While you can do alot on one chord with a band, and really get a groove going, on guitar it will be pretty boring. Look at Coltrane's impressions, based on 2 chords, starting on 16 consecutive measures of Dm. But there's alot happening, it never gets boring...

I read in a book about classical composition that you could have a melody, or a theme. A melody would be something that you could easily put words on, easily sing etc.... A theme is different, more rhytmic, mostly faster too, but not necessarily. For example, the third part of Beethovens moonlight sonata. If you try to see something similar on the contemporary 'light' music, than I'd say you can write perfectly good songs that would be impossible to play in a guitar/voice arrangement.

But otherwise, I don't see using just a guitar and voice setup as limiting... If you take this as a basis for your songwriting, you gotta let go of the guitar or the vocal every once in a while, to make room for other stuff to happen, but they are good composition tools for sure...

[Forte]

It is limiting to the style of music you want to play, not limited to the quality of the song. I see your point, but the average person only cares about the song being "fun". I can completely sympathizes with your point of view, but your looking at from the artists perspective. Do you think Eminem or Britnay Spears sell millions of records because the average consumer cares about the intricacy of the song? Now, I know some of you will argue that that isn't "real music". It is though, it's dance music. Is there artistic merit on a musical level? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it isn't music. Does that mean I like that style of music? No, but I see it for what it is: pop and dance music. Is it good? Well, it's good at what it does: selling records and getting people moving.
I can sympathizes with the average consumer, when I go to a show I don't plan on sitting on my ass and just listening to the music, that's why I bought the CD. I think my fan base would feel the same way (otherwise I wouldn't be involved in that genre of music).
Guy's, music is just a means of self expression, and not everyone can express what they feel with just an acoustic. That doesn't mean that it isn't good, or that acoustic music isn't good either.

[Roel]

Actually, I think it's alot easier to play popsongs and even dance songs on a guitar than whatever I listen to. I even saw a guy on tv once discussing music, and playing a dance tune on his acoustic.

Music is self expression, but from a writers point of view the instrumentation is not strictly bound in my opinion. A composer writes, playing is what comes after that.

It is limiting if you stay with that instrumentation, ofcourse. You cannot have the contrasts brought in by other instruments.

So I'm really talking from a writers point of view here I guess. It is limiting to play that live with just voice and acoustic, but you can get more than enough interesting stuff out of it for sure...

[Forte]

I'm really talking from a writers point of view here

When I said: "your looking at [it] from the artists perspective" that is essentially what I meant; I'm glad you agree.
You see, even though to you, your playing the song exactly the same way it would it be written on a piece of sheet music, it isn't the same to the average concert goer.
I challenge you to go to a football field and play a marching band song with just your acoustic. See if you get the same reaction with your acoustic version of "Who Let the Dogs Out". I want you to go to a dance club, play YMCA on your guitar, and get that crowd moving.

[jitteringjim]

Jittering Jim: That's disgusting. I've always been proud of the songs I've made with different people. Maybe you've had to throw away some "crap", but I've never had such failure. The fact remains though, that when your an artist equipped with nothing but an acoustic, it's very difficult to produce upbeat dance music. Is that bad? Not at all! I've heard fantastic acoustic songs, songs that really couldn't be played any other way and be as good. The fact remains though, such songs are pretty mellow compared to some of the other genre's out there.

Hmmmm... My opinions are disgusting? Didn't know that.

You've never written crap? Ok. That's cool. Give it time & you will, or either you'll go down in history as one of the best songwriters ever. I'll be looking for you on the charts.

We'll agree to disagree here. That's Ok.

Let's review the questions posed in this thread when you're 10 or 15 years older.

[Forte]

Who said your opinions are disgusting? My concern is the fact that you think so lowly of your music. Music is an art, yes, music is fun, very much so, but most importantly: music is a reflection of yourself. Unless your trying to make money out of your music, it's impossible to make a bad song. Why? It's opinion based. Someone will like your song, even if you might not. "Best songwriter ever"? How can you measure that? By financial success? You don't need to be skilled as a song writer to make money. Do I care if I'm ever on the charts? No. The only thing that makes a song popular is the fact that the general population can relate to it. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that my music is a direct reflection of me. If only a handful of people can relate to it, cool. I would feel comfortable knowing that my music reaches a unique and elite group of people. The average person is just that anyway: average. What do I care if they like my music or not?

I apologize if my remark seemed like a personal attack on you. I just don't think it's cool to think lowly of your music. If you are trying to make money with your music, and all you can produce is "crap", than the "business" just wasn't made for you - that doesn't it's "crap" though. Anyway, thanks for going easy on me. Heh, that could have probably been a lot more bitter coming from someone else. It's cool that you were so mellow about it.

[Peter D]

I just finished listening to a tape I receivied today by one of my favorite songwriters, Townes Van Zandt, titled "Rear View Mirror". It's a collection of songs from live performances over a period of time. On several of the songs post-performance orchestration, and in some cases, fiddle have been added to "spice things up", I guess. Some of it's tastefully done and a couple are downright terrible.

I guess that's what I was trying to get to in my initial post. To me it's not so much a question of over production, but maybe, tasteful production. I'm sure that the producer who added strings to some of Van Zandt's songs on this album wanted to liven things up a bit so as not to have a whole album of a guy singing and playing his acoustic guitar. I can appreciate that; I just wish he or she had used a little more discretion.

To me production goes by the same rules as songwriting and performance. Does it help or hinder the song? Good lyrics are sometimes measured by what the songwriter chose not to say rather than what he could say, just as a musiciian may choose to play a grace note or back off of a solo if it helps the song.

I know all of this is very subjective stuff, but it seems like more and more I run into co-writers, musicians and producers who are more concerned with themselves than the song. Everyone wants to get their licks in, whether they are appropriate or not.

[theron]

Everyone wants to get their licks in, whether they are appropriate or not.


The most profound thing I've learned while playing with others is to SHUT UP unless the music tells you otherwise. I really try and pay attention to what the song needs and not what I think I need. Great point Peter D!!

[WATYF]

I think the point is getting lost here... or I never knew the point in the first place... (that's prolly what it is)

I don't know if it's so much aboot "artistic expression" or "being true to yourself" or playing music "for the fun of it" or blah blah blah... I thought we were talking about have high standards aboot the music you create. I mean... should we just accept whatever crap we barf out every time we sit down and write, or should we realize that not everything we do is "divinely inspired"... or even deserves to see the light of day. Sometimes I'll write cause I'm bored.. or I'll sit down and really wish that I had somethin' cool to write, but nothin' will come, so I'll just barf out some mundane stuff and leave it at that. But regardless, we shouldn't get so near-sighted that we can't see the big picture...... Some songs just plain suck.

Now,... I maintain that there are only two types of songs... songs that were "meant" to be written... and songs that weren't. The songs that were meant to be written (and this only applies to certain genres,.. obviously not classical music or opera) should sound good if just played with vocals and a git. They should have some kind of "soul" to them or something that just makes you want to hear it again. Having said that... I think that fluff is a good thing... it can turn a song that was meant to be written into a song that you can't imagine having not been written... like those songs that impact you so much that it's almost as if they had always been written... as if whoever wrote them just saw a pre-existing idea, that had been around since the beginning of time, floating around in the air, and put it on paper and translated it to a guitar. Now,.. fluff can also serve to try and disguise a trud as being not so "turdish", but it can never make it into a truly good song.

The quality of the song is in its "soul". The fluff only makes it even better. But if it has no soul,.. then no amount of fluff in the world will change that.

WATYF

[Forte]

I was mainly addressing Theron's motto. I used to think the same way until I realized that I could not create the music I wanted on acoustic - I could outline it, but certainly not perform it live. Thinking that way will close a lot of doors for you on a musical level. For one thing, it is very genre based. I think the problem is that you are all basing that on the type of music you may listen to or like. I've been blown away by music consisting of nothing but drums. That means no guitar and no vocals at all. Perhaps some of you may not like that kind of music, but that type of stuff has been around forever. In fact, that type of rhythmic drum music has probably been around before anything else - but I digress. My point is: saying that a song "should sound good if [it is] just played with vocals and a git" is untrue. The #1 song in US right now is "Hot In Here" by Nelly. Go ahead and play it on the acoustic. How does it sound?

Now, I don't know where you got this "divinely inspired" idea from, much less put in quotation marks. Certainly not from me, I don't believe in divine powers. What's more, saying that a song was "meant" to be written is concept a refuse to accept; largely because, as I said, I don't believe in divine or higher powers. (If someone tries to turn this into a theological discussion from this point on don't expect a reply from me.) Further more, the concept of a "soul" is not something viable and largely opinion based. My other point was this: unless your trying to make money with your music (like writing a jingle, nursery rhyme song, etc.) your music can't suck. Music is just a reflection of your thoughts and feelings. On a musical level, it may suck, but that doesn't mean nobody will like it. I don't see how you can say an idea or feeling you expressed sucks. It may not be a commercial hit, but does it have to be? If that's what you mean by "soul" than I agree. Still, just because it doesn't have "soul" doesn't mean it's any good. If your writing a commercial jingle, than who cares if doesn't have soul?

Just go ahead and write your music. Don't worry if your "fluffing it out" or if other people like it - unless you want money for your music, but that's not the point. If you are trying to make money, than I can't help you there.