There's always a big handful of internet experts that swear songwriting has to be this complex introspective meaningful display of musical poetry that speaks to and moves people
Well, that's
one side of it. To deny that that element exists is the height of ignorance in the face of such overwhelming evidence, often from songwriters themselves. The very fact that there is such a mountain of stuff out there in which songwriters discuss their work, stretching back close to 50 years demonstrates that for tons of people, "songwriting often is this complex introspective meaningful display of musical poetry that speaks to and moves people." Even Little Richard, Chuck Berry and
BB King talk about their work sometimes in those terms.
But it is equally the height of ignorance to dismiss the other side and state that there is only one set of criteria to which well crafted songs can fit. Sometimes writers just want to say nothing meaningful and deep, their "stories" or verses may not even match up by verse 3 or whatever. But they are aligned to some super music, they melodically fit brilliantly and people are still singing those songs 50 and 60 years later. To say those are not good songs is, in my opinion,
ricco~doodleous. It runs both ways.
You don't have to like a song to have the opinion that it is good.
It's also daft when the statement "just because it's popular doesn't make it good" is paraded. I've done it myself, for years. But you know what ? It does make it good. I hate to admit it, it sticks in my craw to admit it, but to those multitudes that dig it, it's good.
Even if my songs are the worst of all time, my idea that songs can be well crafted and badly crafted stand.
And you'd be right.
In your mind. Many agree with you. I still stand by my assertion that the multitracking age has shifted the goalposts in regard to what constitutes good songwriting. A lot of
the elements that go into a finished recording are simply not evident at the songwriting stage and by necessity cause one to alter one's judgement.
there is also objectivity, not just subjectivity. When those bad IDOL singers go on in the beginning of the show, they are so god awful. EVERYBODY knows it, they are put on the show for laughs.
Why is it that everybody knows they suck? Because they they don't hit pitch, they have no
control, they sound like dying cows, it doesnt take a genius to figure it out.
No, it doesn't, but I think being able to gauge whether someone can sing and judging the writing of songs are two very different things. There are lots of singers whose voices I cannot stand. But I'd have to concede they can sing. There have been many borderline singers that folk will mention like Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, John Lydon et al, but for all their roughness and perhaps sometime pitchiness, you can recognize the supposed melody of the songs they sing. With those Pop Idol "singers" you merntion, you can't. And that's pretty easy to recognize. If someone is trying to sing G C D E, it's undeniable if they don't. So subjectivity is pretty irrelevant there because it's relatively measurable.
Songwriting quality is not. It is driven by one's opinion and what one finds acceptable and often what one has been taught which one has never moved away from.
I think many people have a real problem, understandably, with the notion of the paradox. How can both sides of the debate be right ?
Well, they can. If it's only a "Man up and pick a side" thing, well, goodnight and have fun.