G
Greg_L
Banned
Yup. That's it.
Yup. That's it.
Supercreep
Lizard People
There is a simple answer: No.
Songwriting is an art. You have to start at the beginning.
The beginning is familiarity with an instrument and it's range. Your voice is an example, your guitar is another.
When you're comfortable enough with your instrument to be creative with it, songs don't usually come pouring out. You have to work hard at it.
What this means in a practical sense is that you have to practice your instrument. When you hear something you like, don't forget it. Eventually you will come up with something that goes with it. Sometimes it takes fifteen minutes to come up with the companion parts to a song that make it come together. Sometimes it takes fifteen years.
The solution is to play more. Write more. Sing more. You will wind up with many many incomplete fragments of songs. But sure enough, the ones that belong together (ones that are compatible in terms of tempo, key, range, and feel) will aggregate.
You just have to be flexible enough to allow it to happen, and also intuitive enough to know when you're wasting time and should work on something else. Don't force it. Just put aside the bit you're working on and start working on something else. It's not unusual to have hundreds of irons in the fire.
So let's say you've got a song written. What next?
Melody. Melody is king. Find a melody that works and refine both the music and the melody until both are working together to become more than the sum of their parts.
Then you've got a song.
Frankie Rage
getting on with it anyway
It's all interesting stuff to me. All the opinions. I do believe it's useful to know music theory and to study your art/craft. But there is no one recipe for success as a songwriter. Not every Phd in Music can write a good song (perhaps they wouldn't even want to?). And some so called "three chord wonder" songs like "Summertime Blues", for example, by Eddie Cochran are massive hits that span the generations. In theory, anybody could have written that, it's so simple.. But could they, though? There's the rub!
rayc
retroreprobate
"Nothing I'm saying is really very profound. Just common sense... at least it should be."
And so began the careers of many a Megalomaniac.
And so began the careers of many a Megalomaniac.
Frankie Rage
getting on with it anyway
M
Mr. Honesty
Banned
to the OP
and also anyone else in this forum who wants to learn how to make better music... ignore Greg L's advice that dude is the cancer of music. People like him who encourage others to just slap down anything and call it beautiful just because it came from a human being are a dime a dozen in the world of songwriting. His advice is empty, its serves only his own laziness and guaranteed lack of skill/talent. Misery loves company. Never believe anyone who tells you songs are pure inspiration. Cause thats total BS.
Inspiration only goes so far. Wouldnt anyone here agree that every man on earth is "inspired" in some way? Inspiration alone is worth jack. Yes thats right you heard it here. I dared to claim that music isnt hanging out with a beer spitting out anything you feel. Theres alot more to it than that. In fact, most successful music comes from years and years and years of stress and hard work.
The reason people like to believe that music comes not from composition skill but from raw magic is because that ruins the illusion. Also, its no wonder those without ability claim that that ability doesnt exist. I cant tell you how hilariously upsetting people like Greg L are to me. The internet is filled with misinformation well disguised as logic and truth. See, Greg L sets up a stick man argument, its sublte, but he uses your desire to feel free and pure against you. His views and his delivery of those views are intended to make you feel like if you study music from a book you are suddenly a no talent hack who will crank out drivel and cookie cutter art. Meanwhile at the core of proper musical instruction is toital and utter dedication to powerful, impactful musical tools. True musical instruction and study gets to the heart of what makes music work. Its intent is immediacy only. And yet here Greg L is telling us that if we learn something from a book we have sold out instantly to the world of cookie cutter bland garbage.
Greg L is the exact viewpoint you should never have if you want to improve. The proof is in his lack of helpful advice and his very obviously self centered, self serving point of view.
So, to the OP, yes definitely try to study music. At first people will think you are crazy but in time they will be jealous. I promise.
and also anyone else in this forum who wants to learn how to make better music... ignore Greg L's advice that dude is the cancer of music. People like him who encourage others to just slap down anything and call it beautiful just because it came from a human being are a dime a dozen in the world of songwriting. His advice is empty, its serves only his own laziness and guaranteed lack of skill/talent. Misery loves company. Never believe anyone who tells you songs are pure inspiration. Cause thats total BS.
Inspiration only goes so far. Wouldnt anyone here agree that every man on earth is "inspired" in some way? Inspiration alone is worth jack. Yes thats right you heard it here. I dared to claim that music isnt hanging out with a beer spitting out anything you feel. Theres alot more to it than that. In fact, most successful music comes from years and years and years of stress and hard work.
The reason people like to believe that music comes not from composition skill but from raw magic is because that ruins the illusion. Also, its no wonder those without ability claim that that ability doesnt exist. I cant tell you how hilariously upsetting people like Greg L are to me. The internet is filled with misinformation well disguised as logic and truth. See, Greg L sets up a stick man argument, its sublte, but he uses your desire to feel free and pure against you. His views and his delivery of those views are intended to make you feel like if you study music from a book you are suddenly a no talent hack who will crank out drivel and cookie cutter art. Meanwhile at the core of proper musical instruction is toital and utter dedication to powerful, impactful musical tools. True musical instruction and study gets to the heart of what makes music work. Its intent is immediacy only. And yet here Greg L is telling us that if we learn something from a book we have sold out instantly to the world of cookie cutter bland garbage.
Greg L is the exact viewpoint you should never have if you want to improve. The proof is in his lack of helpful advice and his very obviously self centered, self serving point of view.
So, to the OP, yes definitely try to study music. At first people will think you are crazy but in time they will be jealous. I promise.
fat_fleet
Swollen Member
temper, temper.
Toddskins
Member
MP3 and video finished
I created another thread for the song and video link.
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=286218
I created another thread for the song and video link.
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=286218
rayc
retroreprobate
Sorry Mr Honesty - Greg has runs on the board at least. We've heard his songs. I wish I could write songs like he does - great fun, excellent playing, singing & recording. What he does works for him & that's the point isn't it? What works for the individual.
Greg's process hasn't developed whilst writing neo Yes prog or Eno ambience. It's a wham bam process for wham bam music - you know the stuff that got people's juices flowing in their teen years (well the years before we felt the need to be too serious & sit'n'listen rather than dance).
Nick Cave travels to an office & sits there with a desk & piano 8 hrs a day (& his non Grindermen songs since doing so reflect it I might add: structured, considered, thougthful & adult).
Many artists jam away untill ideas develop.
I have my ways - & the results aren't too flash but I've evolved a process that works for me.
You are obviously up for a rant - good, get it off your chest but you were ill informed, unfair and unheralded - back yourself up with some results of your labours & processes as well as by looking/listening to the work of those youo criticize.
You've also misses the kurnel of Greg's point - worrying & fretting doesn't replace the divine spark. It'll embellish it, enhance it, modulate & develop it but the creative spark is crucial. Fret to heavily over the rest and you may block the spark - even snuff it out.
The essential point remains - what works works.
One can be taught. That may present one with the skills & theory but that still doesn't make a good song.
Oh & "powerful, impactful musical tools" sounds like something that should be in a power point presentation in silicone valley mate.
Greg's process hasn't developed whilst writing neo Yes prog or Eno ambience. It's a wham bam process for wham bam music - you know the stuff that got people's juices flowing in their teen years (well the years before we felt the need to be too serious & sit'n'listen rather than dance).
Nick Cave travels to an office & sits there with a desk & piano 8 hrs a day (& his non Grindermen songs since doing so reflect it I might add: structured, considered, thougthful & adult).
Many artists jam away untill ideas develop.
I have my ways - & the results aren't too flash but I've evolved a process that works for me.
You are obviously up for a rant - good, get it off your chest but you were ill informed, unfair and unheralded - back yourself up with some results of your labours & processes as well as by looking/listening to the work of those youo criticize.
You've also misses the kurnel of Greg's point - worrying & fretting doesn't replace the divine spark. It'll embellish it, enhance it, modulate & develop it but the creative spark is crucial. Fret to heavily over the rest and you may block the spark - even snuff it out.
The essential point remains - what works works.
One can be taught. That may present one with the skills & theory but that still doesn't make a good song.
Oh & "powerful, impactful musical tools" sounds like something that should be in a power point presentation in silicone valley mate.
Frankie Rage
getting on with it anyway
There is an element of Theory vs. Creativity in some of the opinions in this thread.
Whilst I think a good grasp of (at least) basic music theory is useful, I believe it's not essential.
I know that some theorists hate the idea that talent comes into it! I can understand why though, after all, it's great to think that all I need to do is learn music theory (maybe a degree in music?) and then do a lot of work grafting away in my garret and then, out of my boiling cauldron, "hey presto!" I am able to write a hit song...
Wouldn't that be wonderfully "easy"... ? Geeks worldwide would be able to turn straw into gold (discs)...
But it's not that "easy"...
There is also the marketing of your song. A vastly underrated part of the process. Right place, right time, knowing the right people, right artist performing it, ad infinitum and etc. There is a lot to get right if we are talking about having commercial success with a song.
And I believe that you do need "talent", and that talent and marketing is a lot more important than music theory in obtaining commercial success with a song, whether you "theorists" like that idea or not!
Fx
Whilst I think a good grasp of (at least) basic music theory is useful, I believe it's not essential.
I know that some theorists hate the idea that talent comes into it! I can understand why though, after all, it's great to think that all I need to do is learn music theory (maybe a degree in music?) and then do a lot of work grafting away in my garret and then, out of my boiling cauldron, "hey presto!" I am able to write a hit song...
Wouldn't that be wonderfully "easy"... ? Geeks worldwide would be able to turn straw into gold (discs)...
But it's not that "easy"...
There is also the marketing of your song. A vastly underrated part of the process. Right place, right time, knowing the right people, right artist performing it, ad infinitum and etc. There is a lot to get right if we are talking about having commercial success with a song.
And I believe that you do need "talent", and that talent and marketing is a lot more important than music theory in obtaining commercial success with a song, whether you "theorists" like that idea or not!
Fx
Last edited:
D
dogonjon
New member
Slippery slope
Contemplation and meditation have given me a unique perspective to creativity that complies with the mythology. Your songs are a partnership between the Muse and you. You do what you feel you have to do in a compulsive manner. You don't try to do or be anything for anyone else. Once you have found your true inner self, you explode with creativity. The path is clear though your eyes will see others laboring and hating, you will be performing effortlessly and loving every minute of it. The Muses are everywhere and they only want to find the means to bring their vibrations into our realm. The problem is that artists often must self medicate to become sensitive to the Muse. At the same time there is denial and self deception that they are the creater of the Muse. Within this conflict the depression and paranoia about their own shortcomings and lack of creativity prevents them from translating the Muse efficiently from the ethereal to the material realm. The celestial voices can be a profound religious experience or symptomatic of mental illness so it's a slippery slope to be sensitive to the Muse and still live some sort of normal life. You need to have boundaries to define where the Muse ends and you begin, that's why theory is so important. You create structures, use your tools and instruments to craft the inspiration into art.
Contemplation and meditation have given me a unique perspective to creativity that complies with the mythology. Your songs are a partnership between the Muse and you. You do what you feel you have to do in a compulsive manner. You don't try to do or be anything for anyone else. Once you have found your true inner self, you explode with creativity. The path is clear though your eyes will see others laboring and hating, you will be performing effortlessly and loving every minute of it. The Muses are everywhere and they only want to find the means to bring their vibrations into our realm. The problem is that artists often must self medicate to become sensitive to the Muse. At the same time there is denial and self deception that they are the creater of the Muse. Within this conflict the depression and paranoia about their own shortcomings and lack of creativity prevents them from translating the Muse efficiently from the ethereal to the material realm. The celestial voices can be a profound religious experience or symptomatic of mental illness so it's a slippery slope to be sensitive to the Muse and still live some sort of normal life. You need to have boundaries to define where the Muse ends and you begin, that's why theory is so important. You create structures, use your tools and instruments to craft the inspiration into art.
Chili
Site Moderator
Have you actually listened to any of his originals?? They're pretty fucking good!!
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Whether they are good or not is largely immaterial.
There are many ways of creating songs: sometimes by just pouring out what enters your head, and sometimes by working hard at it and applying compositional techniques. The fact that you can do it one way doesn't invalidate the other way.
I think Mr Honesty's gripe was more about the perceived insistence that there was only one way.
Greg L comes up with great songs . . . but so what? There are many more inspiration-based writers producing material that has no magic or charm.
Chili
Site Moderator
Hey GZ, I disagree with your assessment. When Mr. Honesty, says something like:
I am lead to believe he is the one who thinks there is only one way to write a good song. Of course, we all know that's not true, just like you said.
On a side note, I feel more satisfied with the songs I wrote that just came out than the ones I worked hard on. I am always left with a feeling that I never quite met my objective with those songs. With the songs that just come out, I enjoy them for what they are and don't put much thought into what they could have been.
S
SEDstar
Active member
...
I HAVE noticed that recently, stuff that "almost put itself together" (IE, I did it quickly...) tends to be better received than stuff I "forced out".
that is not to say that just "doing it" was better than plamnning it more... I liken it to this analogy...
if you have ever taken a car engine apart? When you are trying to put it back together, thats like putting a composition together. If everything is going quickly and smoothly, its likely being put together correctly.
transversely, if you are constantly stumped, and hitting constant blocks along the way... eh, maybe its not a good melody system to begin with? Kinda like when you trying to put somethign together, if it doesnt go easily, you are likely missing something, have something bass-ackwards, or the wrong marts in the wrong order...
for the record... I lean heavily towards the theory and c ompositional technique. I feel "a lot" of what we call "talent" is the results of work and study.
2 schools of thought...
1) "Its better to be lucky (talented?) than skilled."
2) "good fortune is usually with he who has the most cannon" - Napoleon Bonaparte.... and also, "What many men call 'luck', is merely what happens when preparation meets opportunity"
also... genius is 1% INspiration and 99% PERspiration.
I find the main common thread to BOTH sides of the argument, is the "compulsion". IE, we HAVE to keeep doing it. There is no hobby on the face of the earth, that doing it for years does not make you better. If you have average intelligence, you can "make" yourself "talented" by putting the TIME in. YOU choose what balance of study, and learn-by-doing works best for YOU.
some people can only learn by doing. some do well with study. Its still "studying music" in the end, either way you do it. And I dont care if you do it by ear, or with a more structured approach.
PS - if anyone think that classical music instruction makes for "boring, predictable crap for the masses"?? Listen to some Pink FLoyd albums. There is definitely some classical (classical = progressive) influence there.
you just cant DO that, without studying it.
I HAVE noticed that recently, stuff that "almost put itself together" (IE, I did it quickly...) tends to be better received than stuff I "forced out".
that is not to say that just "doing it" was better than plamnning it more... I liken it to this analogy...
if you have ever taken a car engine apart? When you are trying to put it back together, thats like putting a composition together. If everything is going quickly and smoothly, its likely being put together correctly.
transversely, if you are constantly stumped, and hitting constant blocks along the way... eh, maybe its not a good melody system to begin with? Kinda like when you trying to put somethign together, if it doesnt go easily, you are likely missing something, have something bass-ackwards, or the wrong marts in the wrong order...
for the record... I lean heavily towards the theory and c ompositional technique. I feel "a lot" of what we call "talent" is the results of work and study.
2 schools of thought...
1) "Its better to be lucky (talented?) than skilled."
2) "good fortune is usually with he who has the most cannon" - Napoleon Bonaparte.... and also, "What many men call 'luck', is merely what happens when preparation meets opportunity"
also... genius is 1% INspiration and 99% PERspiration.
I find the main common thread to BOTH sides of the argument, is the "compulsion". IE, we HAVE to keeep doing it. There is no hobby on the face of the earth, that doing it for years does not make you better. If you have average intelligence, you can "make" yourself "talented" by putting the TIME in. YOU choose what balance of study, and learn-by-doing works best for YOU.
some people can only learn by doing. some do well with study. Its still "studying music" in the end, either way you do it. And I dont care if you do it by ear, or with a more structured approach.
PS - if anyone think that classical music instruction makes for "boring, predictable crap for the masses"?? Listen to some Pink FLoyd albums. There is definitely some classical (classical = progressive) influence there.
you just cant DO that, without studying it.
S
SEDstar
Active member
Ps...
PS - I found that WIkiPedia was an INVALUABLE resource for music theory... hint hint...
any term you dont understand, you just "clik" on it, and read THAT one...
when you run out of Wikipedia stuff to grasp, you will be far enough along in basic composition, you can let your ear guide you, and will be "hearing" techniques in classical on the radio and in well-composed/arranged songs.
I was worried I didnt have "any ear", as i couldnt replicate any melody I heard from memory.
after a couple years, I started to here and there, when its in my favorite scale.
Hells Bells, I approached music theory more or less from a "set theory" standpoint, as I was a math and comp sci engineering type back in the day... som that worked best for me to "get me started"
the "ear" takes care of itself in a couple years all by itself. I am finding myself more and more guided by ear, and finding its generally "just fine" when I check where my ear "put" it...
I can offer you NO, NONE, NADA help with lyrics, and putting them to music. I will end up being the composer, someone else's job is to do lyrics, LMAO
PS - I found that WIkiPedia was an INVALUABLE resource for music theory... hint hint...
any term you dont understand, you just "clik" on it, and read THAT one...
when you run out of Wikipedia stuff to grasp, you will be far enough along in basic composition, you can let your ear guide you, and will be "hearing" techniques in classical on the radio and in well-composed/arranged songs.
I was worried I didnt have "any ear", as i couldnt replicate any melody I heard from memory.
after a couple years, I started to here and there, when its in my favorite scale.
Hells Bells, I approached music theory more or less from a "set theory" standpoint, as I was a math and comp sci engineering type back in the day... som that worked best for me to "get me started"
the "ear" takes care of itself in a couple years all by itself. I am finding myself more and more guided by ear, and finding its generally "just fine" when I check where my ear "put" it...
I can offer you NO, NONE, NADA help with lyrics, and putting them to music. I will end up being the composer, someone else's job is to do lyrics, LMAO
lifelyrics
Training wheels on
Revisiting the original post, here:
I have a couple of thoughts for the original question:
Figure out what you most want to express...
Is there music in your head? Make some music, and give it some cohesiveness: Beginning, Middle, and End. Think about how it makes you feel when it's finished. What does it make you think about? See if words fit together, and you may have lyrics to go with your song.
Do you have a story you want to tell, or a rant, or something you want to express with words? Start writing, and do the same thing. Make it pull together with a beginning, middle and end. After it's finished, how do you feel when you try to sing what you wanted to say? Play around with melodies to your words. See what comes together. Build harmonies (chords) for your melody.
You're going to need to like what you're doing, any way you go about it, especially if you plan on playing it for other people. You will have to practice it so that you can play/sing it consistently, which means you will do it/hear it over & over before you're ready to share it with anyone, and then, even more if it's well received! Do you ever think about how many times performing musicians play the same songs over and again, for years? (Unless, of course, you're like Walter Torres!)
I have a couple of thoughts for the original question:
Figure out what you most want to express...
Is there music in your head? Make some music, and give it some cohesiveness: Beginning, Middle, and End. Think about how it makes you feel when it's finished. What does it make you think about? See if words fit together, and you may have lyrics to go with your song.
Do you have a story you want to tell, or a rant, or something you want to express with words? Start writing, and do the same thing. Make it pull together with a beginning, middle and end. After it's finished, how do you feel when you try to sing what you wanted to say? Play around with melodies to your words. See what comes together. Build harmonies (chords) for your melody.
You're going to need to like what you're doing, any way you go about it, especially if you plan on playing it for other people. You will have to practice it so that you can play/sing it consistently, which means you will do it/hear it over & over before you're ready to share it with anyone, and then, even more if it's well received! Do you ever think about how many times performing musicians play the same songs over and again, for years? (Unless, of course, you're like Walter Torres!)
T
Toasta Whales
New member
I think it is very important to visualize the song before you actually start composing the different sections. Have a musical/sonic concept in mind and let your skill and imagination construct the parts for you. If you lack skill, just keep practicing and write music that is easy for you to write. If you lack imagination don't write songs.
Frankie Rage
getting on with it anyway
There are a lot of interesting points in this thread.
Thank you to ALL posters (from me, anyway..) it's certainly opened my eyes a bit wider.
Thanks, one and all!
Frankie xxx
Thank you to ALL posters (from me, anyway..) it's certainly opened my eyes a bit wider.
Thanks, one and all!
Frankie xxx
M
Mr. Honesty
Banned
listen man
To everyone saying i said theory beats "talent", learn how to read. Where did i write anything about theory beating "talent"?
Screw theory. Theory is not what breeds song ideas, or quality writing. Never has or will. Every person i ever knew who was a theory maniac sucked at music horribly and never improved.
This forum is nuts man. Ive been coming here literally for years and reading these posts about what makes a great song etc and its just crazy. Some of this stuff that people swear by is one notch away from believing in the easter bunny or santa.
People make too much out of opposing viewpoints, like its MY views against Greg Ls. But its not, its simply logic and reality vs fantasy. The reality is as such: when a songwriter improves... what is "improving"? His "talent"? Ridiculous. Its his experience. He learns to capitalize on his previous successes and learn from his failures. Thats not "talent". Its experience.
I have to listen to alot of top 40 of the last 50 years at my job. It plays in the background endlessly. Some of the songs are fantastic, some i cant stand, but all of them have been big hits and all of them are loved by many many people in some way or another. After awhile i started learning alot about how songs are the same. Such as like 75 percent of those songs the highest note in the songs melody occurs before the songs theme phrase comes back around. Now, only an idiot would think that starting to write only songs that have melodic climax before the main hook comes back is an "instant fix" or "instant hit". But its things like this that you really can learn from. Once i realized how many have that trait, i started listening closely at the ones that didnt have that trait, and wondering how the song manages to be jsut as much a success without that trick. And this is one of thousands of similarities and patterns you can find in all kinds of music. THIS is what you should be studying and looking at, not memorizing theory books.
My problem with people like Greg L, is that its just rotten useless misinformation that keeps people unmotivated and in the dark as to how to go about learning something new. I dont believe that "everyones got their own method". Of course they do. Of course people all have their own method. And some peoples method spawns great well written art and others spawn throwaway garbage that barely passes for entertainment let alone art. If some kid came to me and said hey its my dream to be a great songwriter, id be a miserable liar if all i had to offer him is "dont try too hard buddy, just write whatever and cross yer fingers". Cause thats just a lie. I guarantee you, whether someone has learned conventional songwriting method or not, their best most liked songs will always be the ones that conform to conventional techniques the most.
To everyone saying i said theory beats "talent", learn how to read. Where did i write anything about theory beating "talent"?
Screw theory. Theory is not what breeds song ideas, or quality writing. Never has or will. Every person i ever knew who was a theory maniac sucked at music horribly and never improved.
This forum is nuts man. Ive been coming here literally for years and reading these posts about what makes a great song etc and its just crazy. Some of this stuff that people swear by is one notch away from believing in the easter bunny or santa.
People make too much out of opposing viewpoints, like its MY views against Greg Ls. But its not, its simply logic and reality vs fantasy. The reality is as such: when a songwriter improves... what is "improving"? His "talent"? Ridiculous. Its his experience. He learns to capitalize on his previous successes and learn from his failures. Thats not "talent". Its experience.
I have to listen to alot of top 40 of the last 50 years at my job. It plays in the background endlessly. Some of the songs are fantastic, some i cant stand, but all of them have been big hits and all of them are loved by many many people in some way or another. After awhile i started learning alot about how songs are the same. Such as like 75 percent of those songs the highest note in the songs melody occurs before the songs theme phrase comes back around. Now, only an idiot would think that starting to write only songs that have melodic climax before the main hook comes back is an "instant fix" or "instant hit". But its things like this that you really can learn from. Once i realized how many have that trait, i started listening closely at the ones that didnt have that trait, and wondering how the song manages to be jsut as much a success without that trick. And this is one of thousands of similarities and patterns you can find in all kinds of music. THIS is what you should be studying and looking at, not memorizing theory books.
My problem with people like Greg L, is that its just rotten useless misinformation that keeps people unmotivated and in the dark as to how to go about learning something new. I dont believe that "everyones got their own method". Of course they do. Of course people all have their own method. And some peoples method spawns great well written art and others spawn throwaway garbage that barely passes for entertainment let alone art. If some kid came to me and said hey its my dream to be a great songwriter, id be a miserable liar if all i had to offer him is "dont try too hard buddy, just write whatever and cross yer fingers". Cause thats just a lie. I guarantee you, whether someone has learned conventional songwriting method or not, their best most liked songs will always be the ones that conform to conventional techniques the most.