Do you know when it's good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James HE
  • Start date Start date
You know, I think craft is important and emotion is important and many of you agree. I also believe that one is never done learning craft nor emotional expression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two issues-------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff
 
mad scientists are underrated, Being a mad scientist in the music world is what makes you special. it differentiates the dedicated lyricist/songwriter from those who just sing, or play other people's works, such as almost every pop band on billboard.............. I'm a mad scientist and I'm alright....I think
 
Yeah! That's what made Brian Wilson, George Martin, Zappa,
and Thomas Dolby so cool.
 
DEFINE ....GOOD

great thread,

seems to me, that music for the last several years anyway, has been about expression. Almost like anything goes. I think it is refreshing as hell....but, hey, that may just be because I probably have never written what I consider to be a well crafted song.

I may be wrong, but arent the lame old days of intro, verse, chorus, verse, break, chorus and out over. and the fat well produced or crafted stuff is so predictable. I find myself listening to stuff by Wyclef Jean and totally digging it. I mean, basically it's just some loops, some mediocre musicianship...but yet, it's extremely creative...he's funny as a bastard..and, it is music...his music.

And someone mentioned...I think Prophet_18 about collaboration. This is so key. We can record and do everything ourselves to death...then, it starts to sound a little inbred. Man, I have taken my computer and stuff three or four states away to spend a weekend with some musical buds..just adding some parts here and there..and it always puts a new spin on my stuff.

It's about stretching...trying new stuff. I detuned a part from a country tune the other day...added it as a loop to a song I was doing...and it brought it together like you read about.

When David Byrne from Talking Heads said Stop Making Sense years ago...he was talking about music...and how it doesn't have to be slick and smooth.

And David Bowie used to write lyrics, and then intentionally mix the words up...like that line...dance..in the serious moonlight..from one of his tunes..I mean..what the hell does that mean...dunno, but that line sticks in my head...Dance..in the Serious Moonlight.

He just stopped making sense...

sometimes, we get so wrapped up in creating the most incredibly crafted song...that we lose the soul. Listen to Maria Carey...as talented as they come...but her shit...yawn.

Just let it out..it's all good

thanks fer listening
Akimboman
 
it's not over 'till

I think that there's room for both non-traditional and traditional forms. I think it's possible to do creative things with music and words in even the simplest and most common structures. That's one of the things that's so great about music...........
 
Craft vs. Inspiration

This is a great thread on what songwriting is-- craft or inspiration. I think of "craft" as being the technical tools that allow you to translate inspiration. If you are a talented artist, then the skills of your craft are embedded in your subconscious.

Art is freshest when it is born of pure inspiration. If you're painting, you are using technical skills to convey an artistic idea. You can lean more on the technical or more on the inspirational. But regardless, the more you dip your brush into inspiration, the more moving that painting will be.

What is inspiration? I can't even describe it-- sometimes when I'm improvising on the guitar along with my blues CDs, I go into a near trance where I start playing beyond I perceive to be my technical "abilities". It's a very fragile musician's high where my soul communicates directly through my guitar, seeming to bypass my mind and go straight to my fingers. My mind gets surprised and tries to regain control and anticipte--that kind of thinking only breaks that "trance".

Songwriting is a form of music making that is less spontaneous than improvising, but I think takes on the same characteristics. My best melodies, chord progressions, hooks, and lyrics are written when my mind is kind of half there.

Pete
 
You guys are great. I'd just like to share my idiotic way of songwriting with ya.
Get a little baked. Hear the instrumental in your head. Get a little more baked. Lay down the instrumental. Get REAL baked. Gather ideas in your head about how you want your vocals to sound and write them down. Wake up the next day at 3pm and fix the parts of the instrumental that you messed up when you were out of mind. Take your speakers into the bathroom and start thinkin' of lyrics while you're takin' a shower and doing other morning activities. Then sit down and pound out the whole song (without getting baked), you'll know it sucks if you can't finish it. Record your vocals. Listen to the song over and over for days. You'll find parts that you get sick of, replace them. Repeat this process 10-15 times till you have an album.
Well there it is. My newest way of writing songs. I guess I won't know if it works till I release tha album.
 
LI Slim - 'He and Yoko anticipated punk'

How did Lennon anticipate Punk? Not in any of his music that I've ever heard so it must have been something he said.

Punk developed from the original "generation X" kids in Britain starting around '74-'75 and hitting the charts in '76. They were expressing disillusionment with the establishment but on a more selfish, practical, day-to-day, less idealistic way than the hippies. They didn't want peace, they wanted a job! They were protesting many issues such as:

* High youth unemployment caused by economics and demographics.
* The stodge in the music charts such as Genesis, ex-Beatles, the other sad old rockers, and the feel-good escapist glam rockers.
* Nationalism and the establishment typified by the Queen's Silver Jubilee at a time when youth had little to celebrate about being British.
* Ongoing violence in Northern Ireland. The protests were either in support of an obviously victimized Catholic minority or to say "Give them what they want because we don't care if they stay British." The livid ranting of the Rev'd Ian Paisley on the telly was not a good advertisement in mainland Britain to justify young British soldiers dying defending the Protestants if he typified a Northern Irish Protestant.
* The re-emergence of the right-wing National Front party and skinheads. Ironically the emergence was caused by the same economic factors as Punk but this time pointing the finger at immigrants, non-whites, Jews, and homosexuals. The skinhead version of Punk was Oi!.
* A serious generation gap that treated them far worse than the hippies. It's ironic that hippy Richard Branson signed the Sex Pistols and saved Virgin records. Sex Pistol lyrics are full of phrases that were in common use at that time especially those expressions that were used by the older generations when criticizing the younger generation.

Now that's a bunch of issues to inspire a generation of songwriters!

Somehow people like Lou Reed and Iggy Pop became labelled as punk outside Britain but I never understood that - they were from the wrong generation and they didn't play Punk Rock! Punk acts gobbed at (spat greenies) and were gobbed-on by their audiences. Their fans did the Pogo and fought each other and the Teddy Boys (Rock'n'Roll rockers still hooked on Elvis and Haley). Public toilets were stripped of the chains from their high-level cisterns ("bog-chains" for jewellery). Piercing meant a bottle of vodka, an ice cube, a box of matches, and a sewing needle. Ear and nose rings were safety pins. Clothes were torn and decorated with Tippex (correcting fluid) and yet more safety pins. Glue was the drug of the day. The hardware store was the pusher on the corner. The music was loud and obnoxious. My Father told me it was offensive. Er, yeah Dad, it's meant to offend; if it doesn't, it's not Punk Rock! "The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle" is a great documentary of those times if you look beneath the hype.

The best by-product of punk was the mass of New-Wave that rode on its back - Blondie, Sham 69, The Stranglers, The Police, The Pretenders, and the whole Mod-revival and ska scene that followed.

I wasn't a Punk Rocker in those days but I'm proud to be part of the Punk generation because it heralded the greatest era of British pop music since the Mersey Beat. Maybe that's the connection with John Lennon.

Cheers,
Mike.
 
Anticipation..........

Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band anticipated punk. I think John deserves partial credit (or blame, if you like) for that. It was released in 1971.

I'm not saying it spawned punk, or that it was generated from common cultural origins, or that it taught people how to unleash anger at concerts. But musically, it aniticipated punk. Listen to the spare, energetic beats and the raucous style and the primal scream vocals. Punk.

John and his evil woman were way, way ahead of the curve on this one. True, they didn't need jobs, but the music was thoroughly alienated from what was becoming mainstream rock.

I certainly agree that punk spawned new wave.

I don't know if Lou Reed was an early, old punk, but he did have a sparse, dark style. Didn't the punkers think of him as a kindred spirit?

Peace out...
 
Hate to burst your bubble iqi, but while the word punk may have been coined in the UK, the music was originally American. All the British punk bands were several years after the fact, and the real originals were the Stooges and New York Dolls. Even the Ramones, who were in the 2nd wave of US punk predated the Pistols by 3 years.
Jeff
PS, No I'm not American.
 
Punk Rock

A good excuse to buy some CDs. Any other recommended listening besides the Stooges, New York Dolls, and Ramones?

I'm quite happy to revise my opinion of the history of punk but please bear in mind that Brits tend to user narrower classifications in music so results may differ. For example, to me Rock'n'Roll means Elvis and Bill Haley but I know that in N.America it's not that specific.

I can believe the roots of Punk being in the States even if I wouldn't necessarily class those bands as playing Punk Rock. The word "punk" is not a common term in English English so I can imagine some conservative DJ in the states using it to deride one of the early bands and the label sticking. If nothing else the British music press would have found it a convenient label to classify the new sound without any worries about confusion between "punk" and "Punk". I guess that's why Americans called them "Punkers".

It's interesting how genres of music evolve in time and place. Songwriters hear styles from different sources and localize it or blend influences, fans who would never have listened to the original music pick up on the new sound and before you know where you are, there's a new musical movement. That's why I like diversity in music and favour any radio station that plays a wide selection rather than limiting themselves to a single genre.
 
Oops, I hit submit too quickly.

I just wanted to add an apology for taking everyone off-topic. Next time I'll start a new thread.

Cheers,
Mike.
 
mmppppphhhhh~~~~~~ooooooorgunstaputah!!!! I take it this is not a classical or jazz songwriting forum? I'm sorry I may be lost, but is this a songwring forum? For the 21st century? You folk need to get with the times, dig? I've got just 2 words for you: DECOMPOSE. I'm not talkin bout a waltz or a polka, neither (less o'course you're into that sort of thing). I'm talkin reverse action, try it baCKWARDS!! 2 CHORDS is more than enough if you know what you're doing with them. And leave J. Lennon out of this, he's already decomposed, and would turn in his grave if he heard y'all talkin like that. The right 2 chords has sent me into space many a time! Free James Brown!
 
YOU PEOPLE ARE ON CRACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JUST WRITE THE FUCKING SONG AND BE DONE WITH IT.

YOU CAN ALWAYS WRITE ANOTHER ONE OR TWO CHORD SONG SOME OTHER DAY!

OH YEA.....

FOR ANY OF US TO COMPARE OURSELVES TO JOHN & PAUL IS INSANE.

THEY WERE COMPOSING FREAKS UNLIKE ANYONE ELSE.
SO GIFTED THAT IF ANY OF US COULD WRITE EVEN ONE SONG AS GOOD AS THIERS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE HERE AT THIS STUPID WEBSITE.

PEACE
 
craft shmaft

I believe many songwriters, myself partially included, are "those who cannot do, teach!' players who haven't the talent to play or the guts to really learn an instrument. Almost everyone started out wanting to play. Am I right? then they realize it takes 25 years PLUS talent to play like clapton and they decide to write songs.
I write when I am inspired. Only.
Conveying a message? Well I hope I am articulate enough to do that. I believe if I write from inspiration, articulation being naturally included, MY message will be conveyed to whoever listens. RELATED to is the key I believe we all want our songs to be. If I write inspired, and only when I am inspired, I end up with a few good songs a month. Sometimes dry for 4 months. But never pressured and always real.
I always come up with a title or 'feeling' first. Such is the case with my newest "they got to me when I was young", the mood being a question of who I really am, Myself? or what they taught me to be. I had the idea, sat down with the j2 and the song wrote itself through my heart.
Of course, you gotta hang your heart out there and sing it like you mean it, but then, another thread calls.

Crying in the light is not the thing to do. (no flow)
Is that really how I feel? Or what they taught me to?
If none of this is real, then I could find a place to run.
But they got to me, when I was young.

Is it like casting the revealing light on the id only to realize the id owns the electric company?
Still lost,
rj

P.S. Hey pete anon, you got it! The craft should be second nature (with experience in music) and the song more like talking. My Dad plays guitar like this. No real thought, just feel. He plays like we talk. I play like I am talkling to the cops with a bag of dope in my back pocket.

I write like I am talking to my soul mate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top