should we keep things general or get specific?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stonepiano
  • Start date Start date
stonepiano

stonepiano

Member
my brother, a graphic artist, and I have been having
major conceptual arguments about the best way to
approach songwriting, which is what I do.

He says an audience wants the ideas and imagery
in any given song to be generic and universal so
all can relate to it. I say good songwriting is specific
and concrete in its imagery not necessarily applicable to all.

He thinks writing specific songs will alienate the audience
and I'm thinking writing about generic sentiments comes
off as trite.

What do you guys think? Do you write about specific
things/people/events using names and places or do
you stay pretty much in the hypothetical to broaden
a song's appeal?

just curious....
stone
 
It really depends on the genre and song. Most of the music I like tends to be very generic, almost to the point where I think there's no way in the world it can have any meaning at all, but is rather working interesting words and phrases phonetically that conjure imagery. Some people may not like that, believing lyrics are the most important part of the song, but I'm obviously not one of them.
 
vurt,

good to hear your opinion. I always like hearing what you have to say.

I suppose genre is somewhat of an issue, but I guess I'm thinking mostly in terms of songwriters who want to say something with their lyrics. If you don't particularly want to say something, you're dealing with a different style of writing.

I think this all stems from something I read in a songwriting book a long time ago that said something like, the trick you have to say whatever you're trying to say without coming out and saying it...something like "I love you" but you can't use the word love. shit like that.
ah well, somebody hop on my train of thought, would ya?
 
In my main genre of choice, R&B, the more specific the better. For example when Erykah Badu sings "you better call Tyrone", although she says a specific name, that name is merely symbollic, but the use of that name makes the picture clearer for the urban audience to see.

I would say it depends on the genre, but I tend to get specific and name places, people events etc so my audience get the picture.
 
Personally.......

I enjoy a tune that has a meaningful lyric.....
regardless of genre.......

a specific story......
that's me though.........

if you have a following....and connections....
you'll make a million regardless of the cheese factor.....

a killer melody helps though...just look at Smashing Pumpkins....
 
Stonepiano

Great question and very interesting replies – tempted me to make my first post here, so – tentatively – here goes.

I think the best song lyrics are those that connect with people, which means addressing things that are universal, if that’s not too pompous. Some writers do this by writing about them directly – Lennon’s Imagine, for example. Others use smaller stories as metaphors for the bigger things. Think of Springsteen writing (in Reason to Believe) about an old man dying alone in a shack and Mary Lou waiting at the end of the drive for her vanished husband, when really he’s singing about the pointlessness of religion. This I think is what Trak was saying.

There’s also the point Vurt made about words being so general that they have no meaning at all. I try to write like this but my experience, FWIW, is that what you think people will hear and what they actually do hear are different.

So I thought that some of my lyrics are virtually meaningless:

“When the love is over
And you float back down alone
You’ll wonder why you pretended
That someone would see you home”

But people who’ve heard them reckon they know exactly what they mean.

Don’t want to overstay my welcome as a newbie so I’ll shut up now.

Garry
 
Hmmm....

The reason I wince at the idea of lyrics that leave little or nothing to the listeners own experiences and imagination is because so few people can pull it off. Enter Joro's "Cheese Factor". It really has nothing to do with what they might be trying to say, but their ability to say it in an interesting way, like you said Stonepiano.

Take three people - #1 travels though time in his homemade time machine, #2 is a case of personal human triumph against the severest of odds, and #3 has spent his whole life watching TV and smoking dope.

Who would you rather hear a song from? Personally I would ask #1 to take #3 onto his machine with a trash bag of weed and report back in a month, but my point is that any one of these hypothetical characters are perfectly capable of writing one shit rag of a song. I guess it all comes down to junior high creative writing styles, and we all know how few people could really pull off the specific, from the heart stories/poetry.

Writers like John Prine and Johnny Cash immediately come to mind as those who pull this off effortlessly. There are more, of course, but not many. To me, there's nothing worse than either 1) someone singing lyrics that tell a great story very badly, or 2) someone telling a stupd self-indulgent story. News flash songwriters: most people don't give a flying shit about your relationships, your emotional state, or your night terrors. If you want to fool them into caring, you had better make it interesting! I can turn on the boob toob anytime and hear a badly told story.

This is not to imply that "generic" writing is easy. First though, I really don't like that term for what I'm talking about - generic. I'm thinking something more like 'obscure', or 'abstract'. I think of this style much more as paint over a sound canvas, and it can be every bit as difficult as a well penned, to-the-point tune. Robert Pollard has an inherent ability to write like this.

There's a place for each and each present their own set of difficulties, but I would rather hear someone fail in abstract than with specificity. At least that way I won't know when I'm having cheese rubbed on my neck :D

By the way...
Welcome to the boards, Garry!
 
"should we keep things general or get specific?"

I think you may be overthinking this. Why not do both? Writing is an art, and art stretches the artist as well as the audience. STRETCH! Write an intimate love song, then write a silly meaningless ditty. Write from the viewpoint of the opposite sex, from the eyes of a child, an old man, etc. Write a historical song, using names, places, etc. These will all become parts of your personality as a writer; your children, so to speak.
You may find that you love your silly little ditty child just as much as your intimate love song/child.

Write On
 
Buffalo Bob said:
[BI think you may be overthinking this. [/B]
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've ever been accused of that!

Seriously though, I disagree. Sitting down and letting the ink fly how it may is of course the best way to improve, but the question Stonepiano poses is very legitimate and deserves more attention than it probably gets from a lot of songwriters. It's what it all comes down to, the words. When writing anything, concerns of clarity and conciseness should be the second component addressed, right after you have decided what the message is you wish to convey.

I'm constantly amazed by poorly written correspondence I read at work, and most of the time it has nothing to do with writing abililty or intelligence, but simply no focus or planning. Basically, they just don't think about what the hell they're doing or who their audience will be.

With music, it's even harder because you've got to somehow convince the listener that you have a message in there somewhere worth finding. We have no choice at work.
 
"Letting the ink fly"?

When did I say that? Never mind. Obviously I have little to offer on the topic of songwriting, so I'll just shuffle off.
 
Little sensitive, Bob?

"little to offer..." When did anyone say that?
 
another new one

Garry, a great response for a first. Welcome to the active portion of the board! totally valid viewpoint, btw. Lennon's obviously a hero to anyone who ever sat at a piano/guitar with a pad of paper trying to say something. I mean, it doesn't get much more generic than In My Life. I read those lyrics and can't imagine anything more vague...but it obviously works.

And BuffBob, You're on the StonePiano train of thought. I actually have two bands for both kinds of music here in Chicago. One's a serious heartache/political type folk duo and one's a total raunch fest called The Pubic Hares. :p

Vurt, your example had me enjoying an extreme guffaw. Good point, but like Buff said, why not try both?

Don't you just love those no-right-answer questions...

Also, a new idea to introduce; I've always found singing from a different character's POV allowed me to bare a little more of my soul. Like I can't write, "I'm so sad, I'm so lonely," but I can certainly write, "A man sits lonely," or I'll often assume a different name like, "David sits sadly."
I feel it helps trigger the listener's imagination instead of judging the performer as conceited or whatever. Does anyone else see the value in that?

good posts guys. Keep it up.

Stone:D :cool:
 
you guys snuck that shit in underneath me! :D damn it all.

Buff, I said I agreed with you, for what it's worth.

stone
 
Re: another new one

stonepiano said:
why not try both?
Click to expand...

I'm all for trying both, but eventually you have to find you're good at and run with it!

"A man has got to know his limitations"
-- Clint Eastwood
 
How can one "know his limitations" without exploring the boundaries of one's talent? I write songs, short stories, musical drama and am currently at work on my first novel. None of these disciplines excludes the other. On the contrary, they compliment each other. Of course, some will be better, some worse. The point is that a writer writes, and analysis can have a chilling effect on creativity.
Anyone who can write a good song can probably write a passable story or play, they are just different branches of the same tree. The relative quality of your work will be the limiting factor (either it sucks or it doesn't), so why limit yourself from the beginning?



"When you hang a man, you'd better take a good look at his face"

Clint Eastwood
 
buffbob, what's your name? You sound strikingly familiar....

I obviously write songs.... (lost track at about fifty)

also write short stories...(quasi-published in college, 2000)

have had a musical (kind of a Fiddler meets West Side meets Urinetown) in development for two years...

and a novel I started six months ago....

And I use basically the same skillset and the same functioning creative mind to do it all. If you can tell a story....

A good question I come back to for myself and you might share some insight on is this; do you ever feel like you're spreading yourself a little thin? I'm afraid, but not completely sure, my work suffers from the lack of total attention each art form I practice receives. If I weren't writing so much music to sing at bars, the play would get done, etc, etc. What do you think? Do you find yourself trying to constantly catch up and switch mindsets? Actually, for me, part of the fun is in switching mindsets...

Looking forward to your answer.

stone
 
We just may have been separated at birth! Is that you, brother Stone?:D

As for spreading myself thin, it used to worry me. Then I realized that it's really a split-personality thing. I get bored very easily, and having several different projects going at the same time keeps me interested. I started on the musical because I had written several songs that were "too theatrical" to pitch as popular songs, so they go into the play. I love writing the novel because it's just such bloody fun creating characters and bringing them to "life". It's almost a God-like feeling.
I know what you mean about "switching mindsets". Most of the time, I am a very confused person because of it.:cool:

"kind of a Fiddler meets West Side meets Urinetown"

"If I were a rich man rumbling with the Sharks, I could piss on the critics"
:D
 
stonepiano

Only partially agree re the third person POV - think of Eleanor Rigby or Walk on the Wild Side (there are two extremes for you!) - they don't make you feel the lyricist is referring to himself. Takes away the impression of egocentricity though, as you say. But then again, as you can only write about what you know.....

Buffalo, definitely agree re the complementary nature of different creative activities. I've been making a living writing books for a long time; although they are business books, the discipline of communicating ideas in a simple and accessible way applies in both cases. But most of us can only operate at professional level in a narrower arena - I'd be living in a cardboard box if I had to make a living from songwriting!

Thanks for the kind welcomes.
 
Garry Sharp said:
Only partially agree re the third person POV - think of Eleanor Rigby or Walk on the Wild Side (there are two extremes for you!) - they don't make you feel the lyricist is referring to himself. Takes away the impression of egocentricity though, as you say. But then again, as you can only write about what you know.....
Click to expand...

ok. I see what you're saying but I'm not saying ALL the third person narrative songs are really a clever disguise for the lyricist. I have songs about farmers and I've never been more than twenty minutes from any city center. (unless we don't count Norwich as a city. Lived there for a year:D) I was just suggesting it as a "sometimes" device.

and Vurt, it sure does smell funny in here....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top