The formula for a "hit song"

[Hakea]

Nevertheless I feel that there is a dimension that must be considered. Where does this 'love for their work' come from, the passion that motivates them to pursue a particular interest?

Hi gecko zzed,

I'm in agreement with all your points.

The old "nature versus nurture" debate has been going on for centuries, and has a long way to run yet. The research I mentioned was done by a guy called ...umm.. Ericsson??? or similar (I'll see if I can find the reference later). He was clear about admitting that physical factors definitely make a difference and can't be denied. His interest was in researching to what degree is 'talent' or 'genius' born and to what degree is it 'made'. The article I read looked at the generally 'talented' and also guys like Mozart, Bill Gates and Tiger Woods to see how the ideas stacked up.

I agree with you that there must be genetic differences. I'd say that the question is really about what form that takes. Some kids are just 'brighter' than others or think in more often in visual and spacial ways, and so on. But is there a 'talent gene' or a 'music gene' or it it something more global - such as an ability to make connections faster, concentrate more readily, see patterns more easily, etc. I'd say that the latter is more likely.

Gotta go right now, but there's some interesting research on the 'music brain' being done too. Later..

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Hakea]

Chris
That was a thoughtfull and well written responce , You have illustrated your point very effectively.
Im inspired to pursue some extra theory knowlege
Perhaps the moderators of this fine site would consider a forum for theory discussions alone?

Thanks mate. I'm chuffed that you took the time to read it.

Chris

 

[Hakea]

As an example, I have two kids. They shared a common family and developmental environment. One has a strong interest in, and is gifted, musically. The other has a strong interest in, and is gifted, in sporting activities. Both can do bits of the other, but not as proficiently. What causes one to pursue a particular interest, and the other another, when they emerge from the same pond? I believe that, irrespective of any environment and opportunity, there are 'resonances' that cause people to have an affinity for a particular activity, and, further, that this resonance is a genetic product.

Good example. If I might take that further by giving an extended version of how it's panned out for two other brothers.

I have a brother who has been a good friend for 60 years. He's 2 years younger but we shared the same bedroom and the same schools all through childhood, and had similar interests. But we were different too. I was apparently seen as the 'bright' one. I routinely topped the class, won a Maths scholarship, got great scores on IQ type tests, and generally looked like an academic 'natural'. Nick ambled through school without either being the dunce or the scholar. When he left school he went to Art College and ended up with a dogsbody job in a local carpet factory. He played a bit of guitar then too. The dreamy 'arty' one it was said. What happened during our working lives turned out to be quite interesting however.

I didn't know what to do next, so I did labouring jobs like working on farms (our Dad was a farmer), travelled a bit and so on (I worked coast to coast across the USA in the 60s for instance). I eventually ended up with an engineering qualification, but didn't use it for long (a short stint as Area Manager for Western Queensland for International Harvester was where it ended in the midi 70s). Then I went back to noodling my way through a series of jobs - mostly self employed small businesses. So the 'brainy academic' type ended up doing things like co-founding a Graphic Design and Photography business, growing long hair and generally misbehaving while we did promo photo work and album cover design for the emerging Mushroom Records, a short walk from where we lived in Melbourne. Stints on fishing boats, working in kitchens, making furniture, doing renovations, starting a business selling mostly Classical music on CD (with some Blues and Jazz) etc. followed at regular intervals....

Meanwhile, the dreamy 'arty one' had got interested in planes. We both had liked planes but Nick got the bug. Dad had trained as a pilot for WW2, so was persuaded to buy an old Chipmonk trainer (for two thousand pounds) and Nick got his private licence on it. Exam after exam followed, none of which he ever failed - commercial licence, instructor's, rating for this that and the other. He eventually retired as an International jumbo jet Captain and now flies a 'vintage' style plane in a small aerobatic team, does a bit of instructing, and is also hand building a full scale flying replica of a WW1 biplane, from scratch, using original plans. You could not possibly have picked that life by looking at the schoolboy. He just had the luck to be in an environment where something took his fancy, fired up his motivation, and had somebody who could back his start.

He lives, not in a hippie haven, but in a rather grand looking house overlooking Port Phillip bay, which he was able to afford to have completely done for him. I also live in a beautiful house - but home made, on 5 acres of bushland - because I couldn't afford much money but I could afford time. So that fired up my motivation and I designed and built it myself from the ground up (including hand making all the doors and windows the old fashioned way). I've got something closer to the arty abode. You wouldn't have picked my life by looking at the boy either. But we've both enjoyed what we did.

Nick musical journey was pretty much messing about with guitar at Art College and drifting away from it, while mine was being forced to take a few dire piano lessons at primary school, which put me off theory and music lessons for 40 years. But I'm back on track now, and loving both playing, and learning theory. Motivation is everything.

On forums, when new players ask what the regular players priorities were I say there's only one rule - Start, then don't stop. Discover what motivates you to pick the instrument up every day. Don't worry too much about working through dreary old lists of tasks and reasons - find out why you can't bear the thought of NOT being able to play! But, ah, where's the motivation gene? What's the spark that fires it up? Why does the flame flicker for some and not others...

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Aled_King]

Thanks mate. I'm chuffed that you took the time to read it.

Chris

Thanks for that well written response. I am dipping a toe into theory as I feel it will be helpful in opening up more musical options in my songwritting. After reading you post, and reading about how helpful it can be; I think I need to take the plunge.

Do you have any good sources to help learn theory? I'm using some online guides at the mo. Beats actually doing work at work,

 

[dogonjon]

song form

Hit song or not all songs have a form whether it's a simple verse/ chorus over the same two chord vamp or an elaborate I, IV, V, ii, iii, vi, with modulations, breaks, alternate verse and chorus, bridge and middle 8. Simple or complex the hit is made by the artist's interpretation and their ability to connect to the music and convey that to the audience. A good songwriter knows the artist's strengths and weakness's and crafts songs that exploit their strengths.

 

[Hakea]

Do you have any good sources to help learn theory? I'm using some online guides at the mo. Beats actually doing work at work,

You bad man...


Yes, I can recommend a couple of good online sites. One has a free theory course you can work through, and another has an excellent theory forum with some very friendly and helpful guitar players, including a couple who've written theory books.

I can also recommend some books, which I've found useful. Rather than hijack this thread any more though, I'll stick something on the end of your "What do you need to know to start?" thread.

I just need to check the forum rules about what you can and can't recommend. It can be considered poor form to spruik other sites or look like you're pushing books (although in this case neither are really rivals to a recording site). I also need to double-check a few other things. But I'll try and add something today or over the weekend.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[gecko zzed]

Hit song or not all songs have a form whether it's a simple verse/ chorus over the same two chord vamp or an elaborate I, IV, V, ii, iii, vi, with modulations, breaks, alternate verse and chorus, bridge and middle 8. Simple or complex the hit is made by the artist's interpretation and their ability to connect to the music and convey that to the audience. A good songwriter knows the artist's strengths and weakness's and crafts songs that exploit their strengths.

You highlight the importance of having a knowledge of context. In the case of a writer composing for a specific artist who as an established following, the writer is in a better position to cast the song in a particular way.

If you don't know this, you are flying blind . . . hoping that someone will latch on to your creation because there is some kind of resonance there, and make it their own (emotionally).

Being able to "connect to the music and convey that to the audience" is important, but I think that the power ultimately sits with the audience. The audience itself needs to "connect to the music", and that may not be completely in the hands of the artist.

For example, consider how many performers there are who pick good songs, genuinely believe in the material, and give heartfelt performances . . . then consider the number of songs that actuallly get anywhere.

We sometimes think of "connection" at an intellectual level, but often it is more visceral than that. Elsewhere in this post, discussion centred around the merits (or otherwise) of Macarena. This song is an intellectual and melodic lightweight, and its performance, as seen on assorted video clips, is not substantially different to a myriad of others. Yet somehow it captured the imagination of a huge number of people and became a hit.

The audience cleary "connected to the music", and we can identify elements of the song that helped that connection: catchy hook, catchy melody, catchy dance steps, and a reasonable dose of novelty. But why this song and not others that have similar attributes?

 

[SEDstar]

...

I was/am a stereotypical geek, just TRUST me on this, 'kay? I have serious "geek creds", LMAO...

long story short, I always I was good at math and science oriented pursuits... and was stunted in things like... working on an engine, electronics, or... music.

Music was, after all, an ART form, and I was a science dude, eh? My best friend in college (we were math/comp sci majors...) played guitar. Kepty up at it off and on, and good GOD you should hear him play now, hes in early 40's... sounds sort of like george lynch in places, and does some cool classical stuff now, too.

Several years ago, I got the "bug" I was going to learn basic compositional skills. Man, since my early 20's I had been TRYING to get into music, and everyone did me a GREAT dis-service. I kept hearing this, for 20 years...

"WHoa man, you like... play with sounds, you know... and like, if you dont like it, you, like... change them man, until like, you know, they're cool, you know. You like, feel it and stuff, mannnnn... you like, know?"

which made me feel, for like 15 or 18 years, I couldnt do it, because it was "art" and I was all "science". Riiiii-ightt....

so i start gtting into it, even though i cant DO IT, and I sart reading basic music theory. On WIKIpedia, of all things. Turned out to be a GREAT treasure trove of technical information, actually. Once I started to do SOMEthng, I realized I could study it JUST like comp sci, or calculus and statistics, engineering... whatever...

so, I am visiting my buddy down south years back, and he's jamming with his band at the time. The lead singer lady and him start having one of those "music calculus" conversations... arguing over the relative minor of the whosits, and all that stuff. She's adjusting her lead sheet "on the fly" in her booth, he's dictating what her and him decide on technically to the bass and rhythm players...

I suddenly realized all those 15 years of his "play with sound dude, recognize the paterns, dude..." was all CRAP. He knew a TON of high end music theory, and was discussing what I call "music calculus" with the singer, and it was CLEAR even to a rank newb, who was actually the "brains in the outfit"... HER and HIM... the rest were "along for the ride" more or less.

I took him aside and nicely gave him HELL... fo rmisleadign me all those years. What does he say? "WHoa, sorry dude... I didnt want you to think I was like, a geek or something. Sorry."

A GEEK? jesus H christ, we were taking calculus and graduate programming courses, we were BOTH GEEKS!!!!! (lmFao...)

I have SINCE noticed really good lead guitar players really DO KNOW tons of music theory, there's just this thing where they pretend they dont... its like music theory is the best kept secret in the industry or something, LMAO.

NOW... is there "ear" involved... SURE IS. some people have "perfect pitch" (I do not...lol) I am beginning to hear intervals, and guess at scales and such... but I have figured out I do not have "perfect pitch", and pitch is about the greatest gift a musician can have.

I believe "pitch" is that "natural" thing, that you either have or dont have... but the rest is just all work. You can accomplish the same thing by ear, OR, by theory... prolly some combination of the two, is best.

but in NO WAY is learning high end music theory and classical composition going to "harm" a person with perfect pitch in any way...

its just like high school... people are afraid they arent going to be considered "cool" if they read big books... which is asinine. I thought there was somethign wrong with me, I couldnt just "do it" by ear... as soon as I started learning basic music theory... *bang* I started slowly moving forwards. I can see NOW that if i did have perfect pitch (a genetic gift...) I wouldnt need to know "on paper" scales and chords and progressions... I could just "hear them" easily and replicate what I wanted to do...

but all the music theory would come much more easily if one has "pitch", though. Good christ, I spent like 6 MONTHS trying to figur out how I could get my left hand on piano to be "an integral part" of the melody, instead of just "dropping in chords" like basic left hand piano playing... once I read "counterpoint", suddenly I saw what I was trying to do, and it started to make sense...

*shrugs*

One of the grea masters, I forget which one... was definitely quoted as saying that in no uncertain terms, he did not consider himself any kind of "genius" like people were claiming. He steadfastly maintained, that he was of average intelligence, he just had it all explained to him at a young age... worked exclusively AT IT hiw whole life, and naturally made regular progress. He claimed his best students were not "genius" in any way he could tell, they simply listened to anythign he said, and did the work...

... then THEY replaced him as "the master"

and that comes right from "the horses mouth" so to speak.

I could just CRY when I realize how much time I WASTED between the ages of 22 and 35 thinking I wasnt "artistic enough" to "do it". If someone would have taken me aside, and explained to me to study it like statistical analysis, for instance... I could have been doing what I am doing NOW when I was 26, and had 14 years more experience and theory undr my belt by now...

*shrugs*

but, everyone views music differently... heck, I finally started to "grok it" properly when I realized it was all just "set theory", a good bit of it, and all of a sudden it started to make sense to a guy who used to do calculus and statistics.

when people on my "other" music site started saying "wow... see, NOW your really starting to FEEL it man.. see? you really FEEL it now, man...cool!"

I just shake my head... I am not "feeling" anything... I am slowly acquiring basic compositional skills and basic music theory slowly and "adding them" to my *bag of tricks*.

*shrugs*

Here and there, one piece stands out of several, and thats the one I present to people to hear it. I dunno... if you wanna say "I really FELT that one, maaannnn....", okay, but... I dont feel like thats it.

the more basic music theory I acquire, and begin to slowly use... the more I can "hear it" in music I always liked my whole life... bit by bit, I am acquiring the skill set I need. I have/had a buddy, who plays guitar... he plays "by ear man", and quite frankly I am sad... he hasnt done a THING in the last 5 years, while I am starting to actually "compose" a little. he's got a pretty good ear, and can play pretty decent... but he "hit a wall" by refusing to do music theory.

I have made great strides in the short 4-5 years I started "from ground zero", and am starting to gain ground faster now... all from music theory.

I keep saying... "Wikipedia is your friend". *shrugs*

but... "Do what thou wilt". If you insist on believing all these people that say "you just gotta, like, really FEEL it, man..." dont be surprised when you are pretty much doing the same thing 10 years from now... just learning how to play OTHER peoples songs.

I am seriously deficient in "harmony theory" and am starting to read about that now..... more booklearning, all to good effect...

 

[Hakea]

I was/am a stereotypical geek, just TRUST me on this, 'kay? I have serious "geek creds", LMAO...

Hi SEDstar, from a fellow geeky type. Loved your post.

I have SINCE noticed really good lead guitar players really DO KNOW tons of music theory, there's just this thing where they pretend they dont... its like music theory is the best kept secret in the industry or something, LMAO.

That 'cool' thing about not being seen as theory geek is quite odd, but it's definitely there. The funny thing is that you'd never hear anybody say "I really wish I'd never learned to read books, man. All that written word stuff messes with my head when I try to chat with my buddies.... Man, I even used an adverb yesterday, that soooo sucks...."

Yet you hear people who can't read music seriously spinning a load of crap about how it could stunt their creativity.

NOW... is there "ear" involved... SURE IS. some people have "perfect pitch" (I do not...lol) I am beginning to hear intervals, and guess at scales and such... but I have figured out I do not have "perfect pitch", and pitch is about the greatest gift a musician can have.

You're well on the way with that 'ear training'. I need to do a whole lot more yet. Got the CD, Got the little software game.... just not doing the work yet. I'm a bad man...

You probably know this, but I don't think that 'perfect pitch' and a 'good ear' for music are the same thing. One is more about structure and relationships (ear) and the other is about precision at a single point (pitch). The first is relatively easy to train up, the other isn't.

Perfect pitch is being able to tell instantly what pitch any sound you hear is. It can even be something of a curse, because so many sounds can sound irritating because they sound 'wrong'. Obviously all those slightly out of tune instruments can bug them (and most tuning involves some sort of compromise at one end or the other, and is not quite 'perfect'.) but even all the everyday sounds have some sort of pitch too.

Seeing that you are a known geek, you’d probably enjoy a couple of books that I read recently. One was “This Is Your Your Brain on Music” by Daniel Levitin, who is a researcher on the subject.

Levitin's Book

If I remember correctly he did some research on pitch and memory. He found that true perfect pitch is indeed very rare, but that an ‘average person’ can still get surprisingly close when it’s something they know and like. When asked to sing a favourite song, a high percentage of his subjects got surprisingly close to the correct starting pitch, timing and song duration, of the version they knew. However, determining what part of the brain they used, and how they could deliberately develop the pitch memory skills further was an ongoing puzzle. Apparently we mostly remember by thinking in 'relative pitch' (i.e remembering the intervals when we all sing Happy Birthday, no matter what note we started on).

Another book was Oliver Sacks’ “Musicophilia”. There’s a chapter called ”Papa Blows His Nose in G” about people with full on perfect pitch. I think you’d enjoy it. I got one from the library and bought the other.

After reading about ear training and perfect pitch I thought I’d try an experiment. I sat at the keyboard, closed my eyes, shifted the chair a bit to destroy any prior visual orientation, and hit a white note at random to see if I could tell if it was a B or an E or whatever. Total fiasco! I had NO idea. I could just about tell what octave they were in, but as for picking the name of the pitch - not a chance. So then I began noodling up and down (because I am a compulsive noodler). I stuck to the front part of the white notes only, because if I hit the black ones their layout would give the game away. Within seconds I knew which note was which, even though my eyes were still closed.

Woohoo! Music voodoo! maybe I have some arty mojo after all...

Not really, just a simple trick, once you spot how it's done. But I was thrilled to find out that I could do it. I've tried it many time since, and never failed to guess quickly and correctly, with my eyes shut. It's even become one of my melody writing tools - do it with my eyes closed and listen without any visual distraction.

Anybody reading this who can't pick how I can name any note quickly and accurately with my eyes shut, without having perfect pitch? Clue further down. Try to work it out first...

Cheers,

Chris

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Clue 1: Even with my eyes shut, a bit of noodling up and down soon identifies one particular note for me. Every time. Once I know that one I can obviously name all the others by feel (i.e counting across). What's the note and why is it so easy to pick? A little basic theory helps....

 

[SEDstar]

...

trick question? there would be two of them... all the other white key to white key transitions would be a full tone (2 semitones)... you cross B to C, or E to F youd hear they were very "close" to each other...(only 1 semitone apart)

then, just hit every other white key up from it... you'd better be able to hear C major sound out on one of them, LMAO

 

[Hakea]

you cross B to C, or E to F youd hear they were very "close" to each other...(only 1 semitone apart)

Great answer, but it wasn't what I used.

What actually happened was that those explanations about 'keys' in the theory book suddenly came to life. All that stuff about "resolve to..." or "centred around the root note" or whatever the heck it was....

The white keys are the C Major scale, so as I noodled up and down, the melody just kept wanting to work it's way back to one particular sound (i.e. resolve back to C). It really stood out in a way that just reading about it doesn't. So I'd have a quick noodle, and where the improvised melody stopped was the C. Every time. No matter what the random starting position had been.

Some weeks later, I has another thought (not many brain cells left now, so I try and ration their use.... I can't afford to wear the last few out too quickly...).....

Sure, the white notes are a C Major scale, but exactly the same notes are also an Aminor scale. Why didn't I ever finish up on an A instead of a C? Is the pull of the mighty Major key so strong that I couldn't overcome it? Could I start thinking in a 'minor key' way? Was there such a thing? Well, I did succeed in using the same method to end on an A, but it took lot of practice. I like to think that I learned some useful things about meolody along the way. But even if I didn't, it was fun to do.

Chris

 

[Whatmysay]

I am possibly only reiterating earlier points of this thread but what I find when people start stating the cases for naturals – is the list often includes song writers who have been market as ‘naturals’ when in fact they posses greater technique and theory.

Also the list of naturals is often shorter then naturally gifted musicians who have enriched their innate talent with greater knowledge of music theory (Neil Finn, Burt Bacharach).

No knowledge is wasted and anyone who believes formal training in any art form corrupts you as an artist often speaks from ignorance. Any formal training will impose it formality on you, sometimes for years, but eventual the individual will emerges wiser and with more creative options than any ‘natural’.

Burt

 

[dementedchord]

Sure, the white notes are a C Major scale, but exactly the same notes are also an Aminor scale. Why didn't I ever finish up on an A instead of a C? Is the pull of the mighty Major key so strong that I couldn't overcome it? Could I start thinking in a 'minor key' way? Was there such a thing? Well, I did succeed in using the same method to end on an A, but it took lot of practice. I like to think that I learned some useful things about meolody along the way. But even if I didn't, it was fun to do.

Chris

had you been asking about it now i would have suggested you start with the harmonic minor... that leading tone makes all the difference... i would suggeat now though that you extend your experiments into the other modes... especially dorian (re-re) which has serious use in jazz... and phrygian (mi-mi)


as to perfect pitch... i used to think it really exisits... but have changed my mind since then... after taking a minor part in an argument over at the sound on sound site a few years back... i knew a guy in college that seemed to have it... in frosh theory the prof would come in and if all were not attentive he would go to the piano and play a strange sequence and not resolve it... this guy 90% of the time could walk over and play the requisite chord in the correct voicing at that... when you consider though that the pitch of A was not always 440hz... and most couldn't tell if ir were higher or lower then it becomes obvious that it's a matter of memorizing a pitch and then working off of that... for me the pitch is Eb and Bb... one of favorite tunes is billie hollidays god bless the child the intro of which falls from Eb to Bb... so all i have to do is sing it... i do work sometimes with a guitarist that never has to use a tuner... and i've never known him to be off...

 

[Whatmysay]

Karajan the famous classical conductor supposedly could hear ‘bum’ notes played by individuals in an orchestra, when he was supposedly to old to hear at that particular frequencies (given average ear hair deterioration).

Now this might be ‘spin’, but I have read of musicians who have partial or completely lost hearing, that under fMRI still appear (in their brain at least) to hear music when played to them.

While this might suggest we listen with more than our ears, I think it also suggests that perhaps memory might have more to do ‘perfect pitch’ than some sort of ‘tuner’ hard-wired into some people’s brains.

To me it is more amazing that some people may be more predisposed to this sort of memory than others. My point is that if it is a learnable capacity then there must be a spectrum with ‘perfect pitch’ at one end the equally mythical ‘tone deaf’ at the other.

It is liberating to stop thinking about gifts and deficits, because it means that given the right learning environment all can develop their abilities from different starting points. Too many people are put off ever attempting a richer engagement with music because of these sort of beliefs.

In less developed cultures and with children below about 8/9 y.o.s there is never any doubt that they are musicians, artists or performers. They are all aware that some are better than others, but never does anyone’s ability exclude them from full participation.

To bring it back to the thread – such thinking might also suggests that while certain progressions may resonate in our brains more than others – there is perhaps no single formula for a hit, just a ‘cloud’ where success is more likely.

 

[Hakea]

had you been asking about it now i would have suggested you start with the harmonic minor... that leading tone makes all the difference... i would suggeat now though that you extend your experiments into the other modes... especially dorian (re-re) which has serious use in jazz... and phrygian (mi-mi)

.

Thanks for the tips dc. I'll try them out.

I guess the reason that I stuck with the natural minor for that experiment was that the Harmonic and Melodic minors bring in sharps or flats, which rather gives the positional game away on the keyboard if you have to reach for a black note. However, if you don't mind knowing where you started, and what the layout is, then noodling around using other scales always seems to be a great way to find out how they differ from other scales, and what the musical point of them is. Blues scales, gypsy scales, all those modes and stuff - all interesting - but so many to try and so little time...

Cheers,

Chris

 

[dementedchord]

my bad... i guess i missed the game when i scanned your post... thought you were just haveing a hard time recognizing minor as a "key" unto it's self...

 

[Frankie Rage]

Any formal training will impose it formality on you, sometimes for years, but eventual the individual will emerges wiser and with more creative options than any ‘natural’.
Burt

Unfortunately, I think there may be many who never emerge from that formality, as they don't have the innate talent.

On the other hand, irrespective of a lot or a little theory, I think talent will out, no matter what. You could also argue that the less talent you have, the more theory you need.

But the good news is that with a lot of practice and a good knowledge of theory just about anyone can become a "jobbing" musician/writer.

It won't make you a great artist though, unless you already have that innate ("natural") talent.

That's my view anyway!

 

[Walter Tore]

I had Roger Slovine, then head of BMI, on my tail for a couple years. He wanted to bring me to Nashville, wine and dine with top songwriters and learn the formula. I gracefully declined several times. He told me when I got tired of my Spontobeat lifestyle ($100 dollar a night gigs and day jobs often) and wanted to join my Nashville buddies in the good life, to give him a call. He said I had great ideas, but they went all over the place, to long, and the musicianship of my band was no good. He wanted to back me up with top Nashville musicians, have me just sing and blow harp, make a regular album of my"nashville formulated" songs, and he would personally take me to the top labels. He told me it would be a done deal. All I had to do was play the game. So, IMO, the "formula" is a simple one-write songs like everyone else who has a hit. Walter

 

[Frankie Rage]

I think I might have been tempted by that Nashville offer Walt.

Anyway, at least you were asked!

 

[Walter Tore]

I think I might have been tempted by that Nashville offer Walt.

Anyway, at least you were asked!

It is funny because after saying no with no doubts in my heart, I would second guess myself days later. I am glad I didn't do it. I would rather bag groceries than do the same song, the same way over and over, and on top that, to spend days, weeks, months, writing a song???? That sounds like hell to me. I am glad I said no Robbie Robertson wanted me to do the color of money soundtrack, but it was the same thing- rehearse a song, they would tell the feel of the riffs, etc... Walter