Who Co-writes?

[AtoDeficient]

. . . it's a process that involves a team of people at different points, strengths and levels, fulfilling different functions.
In a way, many home recorders are unique in this regard because so many of the team players are cut out of the process.

"Unique" is an interesting term. . . Even a "polite" term. . . I think it takes a very unique person to hear when their own one-person effort is lacking whatever the song needs in order to draw in the listener. . . I, like most everyone else, don't always have the perspective to be objective, but I always try to recognize a lame song that doesn't jump out at you. . .

If I had a general critique about what we do, it would be that IF we are going to be the sole writer and the band and the producer, then we REALLY have to be conscious, overly conscious, of just how good a song is. . . We have to think like a producer and/or an arranger and be much more objective, and try to hear the song for the first time and re-write or improve the good ones, and trash the truly lame ones. . . So many songs are out there floating around that probably shouldn't be, and fortunately only a few of them are mine. . .

 

[grimtraveller]

I, like most everyone else, don't always have the perspective to be objective, but I always try to recognize a lame song that doesn't jump out at you. . .

I cannot be objective about stuff I've written or co written or been involved in. I approach songs purely on a 'do I like this ?' basis.
That said, there's been songs that I haven't particularly liked, yet I just had to get them done.
But the other thing that really interests me is

but I always try to recognize a lame song that doesn't jump out at you. . .

because it seems that we don't always give creedence to a song's ability to creep up and grab you unexpectedly over a lengthy period of time. Just on a general basis, the songs that grab me straightaway may not end up being the ones I love ad infinitum. They often are but not exclusively. There'll always be this clutch of songs that it might take me years to like.

If I had a general critique about what we do, it would be that IF we are going to be the sole writer and the band and the producer, then we REALLY have to be conscious, overly conscious, of just how good a song is. . . We have to think like a producer and/or an arranger and be much more objective, and try to hear the song for the first time and re-write or improve the good ones, and trash the truly lame ones. . . So many songs are out there floating around that probably shouldn't be

I wonder about that. I feel ambivalent about this because I feel that something happened in the mid to late 60s that freed up people that wrote songs, namely, the gradual shift in importance of the album.
Singles and show soundtracks brought about a kind of unspoken "quality control" insofar as not just any old crap could get released by record companies. Then specifically the Beatles, then the Rolling Stones began making albums in which, as Keith Richards explains, there was no fillers, they'd work on every track as though it were a single. This spread to bands like the Byrds and Beach boys and by about 1966, albums were bristling with quality songs. But then, the demands of knocking out two albums a year as well as the adventurousness of so many British and American groups meant that to satisfy the demands of the buyers, the record companies indulged the experimental bent that many of these artists were unleashing. And you got loads of songs being written like "The gnome", "The laughing gnome", "Yellow submarine", "Boris the Spider", "Bike", "Her majesty" and stuff of that ilk that would probably never have gotten recorded in a bygone era.
What has that got to do with us on the home recording circuit ? Well, it redefined what was acceptable to stick on an album. For nearly 50 years, albums haven't had to be packed with stellar songs, just songs. The notion that even a flimsy but fun little ditty or piece of disposable "All together now" type stuff can be put out has been ingrained in the collective psyche of songwriters for ages. Punk solidified it.
I think it's better to get a song done and out, even if the creator of the song think it's weak and lame, than to not do it and have it in the vaults. Keith Richards didn't think "Satisfaction" was a worthy single. Sting says Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland didn't think "Every breath you take" would get anywhere because it was mono dimensional. There are scores of examples like that and that, I guess, is the beauty of the eye of the beholder being the one to determine what is . Besides which, "finished is better than perfect".

 

[AtoDeficient]

You make many valid points. . . More than I can quote. . . I was mainly referring to the "truly lame song" . . there are many on the internet. . . they are hard to listen to. . . Unique songs, like Boris, or the Police's On Any Other Day, are album-worthy, for sure. . not lame. . . I have nothing against the bizarre, unique, unusual, interesting. . . And maybe that's the difference- - Is the song "interesting"?. . . I hear many efforts that aren't, that's all I was trying to say. . .

 

[Xdrummer]

You've hit on a very key part of the challange we face as writers/home recorders. At various points in the process we have to be writers, arrangers, session musicians, engineers, and producers (and oft times business managers and janitors). Often we wear 2 or more of those hats at the same time (I often seem to wear 6 or 7 at the same time)

It is a rare and gifted individual who has the skills to do all those things well - and rarer still to be able to objectively assess the effectiveness of each of those self serving skills (in fact I would suggest that in music - there is no true objective measure - thus the best we can aim for is a reasonable "subjective" assessment).

That is why it can often be helpful to have another set of ears and/or another perspective (outside of family who will tell us we sound good - even if we don't) - to tell us when something is crap (because we can often be to attached to our children to acutally notice the warts on their noses).

 

[AtoDeficient]

It is a rare and gifted individual who has the skills to do all those things well - and rarer still to be able to objectively assess the effectiveness of each of those self serving skills (in fact I would suggest that in music - there is no true objective measure - thus the best we can aim for is a reasonable "subjective" assessment).

Agreed. . . But we can try. . . And we SHOULD try. . We don't have to be Masters of None. . .Maybe we can be masters of some. . . My own discipline is to write the best songs I can write, first and foremost. . . I have and probably will fall short with tracking or mixing here and there, but the good songs always seem to rise above the subtle mistakes. .

 

[grimtraveller]

I was mainly referring to the "truly lame song" . . there are many on the internet. . . they are hard to listen to. . .

I don't disagree with that. While it will always be for the listener to decide, there are some awful specimens out there in cyberspace ! I guess that's the price we pay for the opening up and availability of recording gear and the means to share the results.

Unique songs, like Boris, or the Police's On Any Other Day, are album-worthy,

I love both. "Any other day" is just marvelous on every level. But I can't stand the discordant vocal and harmony of the verses. Luckilly it doesn't last long before that priceless chorus kicks in. Stewart Copeland wrote or co~wrote some of the Polices' best songs.

Is the song "interesting"?. . . I hear many efforts that aren't, that's all I was trying to say. . .

That's an interesting criteria. Often, I'll hear a song that is nice, not offensive in any way, nice melody, non threatening playing, just nicely put together. But it doesn't grab me because it sounds like a zillion things I've heard and already liked. Yeah, interesting.......I like that.

 

[SweetDahlia]

Go in with an open mind! Co-writing can be fun fun FUN! Yes, usually a co-writer will bring their own style and ideas/format to a sesson...but that's why you're collaborating with them in the first place, right? If you can be the more flexible one in the duo, you may learn a lot (from good songwriters...or not so good ones, too ). Be relaxed about it- you don't have to make a #1 hit to have it be a success. Collaborate a lot, so that you learn how to, and eventually you'll find your people - eg. people who are EASY to make music with, who get your ideas, etc. It takes working at it though, it takes the occasional failure (eg. a song that is unfinished, a flop, etc.), and people who you just don't jam with (even though you're doing your best to be flexible). That's OK, it's totally normal and part of the process! Good luck!

 

[CrowsofFritz]

Go in with an open mind! Co-writing can be fun fun FUN!

That depends on the person. It's not really fun for me if we have huge conflicting ideas.

but that's why you're collaborating with them in the first place right?

Sometimes I collab because I have to.

 

[CharlesMingMing]

i only can write song myself only._.

 

[Fawad]

I'm willing to co-write. Well I'm a guy with a lack of ideas so it's very hard for me to write a song from scratch. but if i have to just carry on what someone else was doing , write someone else's idea. I think it might work. I'll get to learn alot. Only problem is that i'm new to song writing and I can't guarantee it'll be awesome like other writers write.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

can you please stop typing with font size this big.

 

[grimtraveller]

can you please stop typing with font size this big.

♫♪♫ok ♫ !

 

[Greg_L]

With my own stuff - never. No co-writing. My songs are mine. I'm gonna write em, play all the parts, and record them myself. No one can write my songs as good as I can, so I don't need or want any help or collaboration. They're my work and I'm the only one that has to be satisfied with them or answer for them. Mine, all mine. No one can sway me on what I want to do with my own songs.

With my band - always. We write as a team, or at least me and one of the other guys. I'm fine with it because the songs don't really mean that much to me. I mean they do a little, I like them, and I don't wanna churn out shit, but they're not like my babies or anything and I'm more compromising with something that I'm not crazy about. I'm not compromising at all with my own solo stuff. It has to be just the way I want it. With the band, I'm open to and encourage input from the other members. But really our band songs are mostly me and the singer/rhythm guitarist. We do all the writing/arranging. He takes them a little more personally than I do so I don't say too much about how he writes his parts.

 

[grimtraveller]

With my own stuff - never. No co-writing. My songs are mine. I'm gonna write em, play all the parts, and record them myself. No one can write my songs as good as I can, so I don't need or want any help or collaboration. They're my work and I'm the only one that has to be satisfied with them or answer for them. Mine, all mine. No one can sway me on what I want to do with my own songs.

With my band - always. We write as a team, or at least me and one of the other guys. I'm fine with it because the songs don't really mean that much to me. I mean they do a little, I like them, and I don't wanna churn out shit, but they're not like my babies or anything and I'm more compromising with something that I'm not crazy about. I'm not compromising at all with my own solo stuff. It has to be just the way I want it. With the band, I'm open to and encourage input from the other members. But really our band songs are mostly me and the singer/rhythm guitarist. We do all the writing/arranging. He takes them a little more personally than I do so I don't say too much about how he writes his parts.

^^^^^This.
That's the philosophy that begets so many solo albums in pro-land. When you're in a band or aggregation, you compromise so much "for the betterment of mankind" if you're involved in the writing that I suspect one needs the solo outlet so one can do precisely what one wants to do with one's own songs. Many of us would go mad otherwise.
Sting was once asked by a group of irate Lithuanians why he'd broken up such a great band like the Police to go solo. He replied "Why did you Lithuanians break away from the Russians to become your own country ?"

 

[david42]

I have got to admit I am more prolific if I have someone to write with me.

And I know I could seem fickle to a lot, too, because the way I approach writing can vary according to whatever captures my imagination.

I understand really well there should be no eagerness to set anything in stone. If there were, one of the most covered songs, "Yesterday" would still be Scrambled Eggs.

I well understand the frustration when you work with someone who thinks the first 12 rhymes you can think of, your song's finished and you're insulting them to suggest something different because that wasn't good enough.

Sometimes people have put a great deal of effort into a song and resist changing it. I have songs that all work together and someone unknowing of that may suggest an otherwise good change to a song. I tend to work best in songwriting partnerships where it works so that I ask for some help when I'm stuck and I give help when my partner is stuck. I'm really good at that kind of thing.

I'm leery of partnerships where I haven't gotten to know someone in person. I'm mentally ill paranoid delusional freakazoid uneasy about giving people uncopyrighted material if I judge it to have strong potential. I've had too much gear and instruments stolen and two songs stolen in the past so my prospects for a songwriting partner that doesn't drive me batty are pretty dim considering the small town I'm in.

 

[Music Bear]

OK... after reading all these posts; I'm ready to try collaboration. Anyone in Southern California wanna write together? I usually write smooth jazz/adult contempt/r&b type stuff but am looking to stretch my legs a bit.