Writing bad songs

[ido1957]

Someone mentioned on another forum that you have to write a lot of crappy songs before you can write anything good. I disagree. There's too many guys here that from the start write consistently good tunes. And who decides what is good anyway?
What do you think?

 

[Greg_L]

I think they're full of shit. A "bad" song is subjective and no one is so good that they can judge either or. One person might not like a song, and someone else may love it. Who's right? What makes a good song? What makes a bad song? There is no answer, therefore there are no good or bad songs. There are just songs.

 

[DM60]

I think they're full of shit. A "bad" song is subjective and no one is so good that they can judge either or. One person might not like a song, and someone else may love it. Who's right? What makes a good song? What makes a bad song? There is no answer, therefore there are no good or bad songs. There are just songs.

Not to get into a philosophical war, but I +1 this. If there were someone who could pick a "good song", that person would be pretty rich.

 

[Xdrummer]

Cetainly good vs. bad is subjective - however, that being said I happen to agree with the concept that you have to write a lot of poor songs to learn how to write a good song. Now for the purpose of this conversation, I consider a good song a work that has a strong melody and a creative chord structure, which supports well articulated lyrics which relay a story or emotion that can reach out to a listener. Something which clearly builds from start to middle to end - something with a very memorable chorus and if a bridge is used, something which is elavated by the bridge.

Of the approxiamtely 300 songs I've formally written (not counting all the partial chord progressions and aborted lyrical attempts), I consider maybe 20-25 to be "good" songs and a couple of those are very good. The rest are weak - conpared to what I believe my current skill level and command of the craft are capable of.

It is not a coincidence that I consider my ratio of "good" vs. "weak" songs to be much more acceptable the longer I've been writing - because I've learned from my own mistakes, improved on my skills and have had more time to analyse the writing of people I respect as song writers. I can now look back at songs I wrote earlier and compare to stronger material I now write. I also have learned when to give up on a song that is not developing, rather than trying to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse.

I my case, I submit what I consider my "good" songs to publishers - they in turn act as a very real and often very stark reality check - which in turn forces me to continously write to a standard that can pass the scrutiny of people who make a living trying to identify "good" songs.

We all have to develop some gold standard, some way to honestly assess our writing with some level of artistic intregrity. I think any writer that truly believes everything they write is "good" is naive and is doing disservice to themselves and to the craft.

 

[DM60]

Cetainly good vs. bad is subjective - however, that being said I happen to agree with the concept that you have to write a lot of poor songs to learn how to write a good song. Now for the purpose of this conversation, I concider a good song a work that has a strong melody and a creative chord structure, which supports well articulated lyrics which relay a story or emotion that can reach out to a listener. Something which clearly builds from start to middle from end - something with a very memorable chorus and if a bridge is sued, something which is elavated by the bridge.

Of the approxiamtely 300 songs I've formally written (not counting all the partial chord progressions and aborted lyrical attempts), I consider maybe 20-25 to be "good" songs and a couple of those are very good. The rest are weak - conpared to what I beleive my current skill level and command of the craft are capable of.

It is not a coincidence that I consider my ratio or "good" vs. "waek" songs to be much more acceptable the longer I've been writing - because I've learned from my own mistakes, improved on my skills and have had more time to analyse the writing of people I respect as song writers. I can now look back our songs I wrote earlier and compare to stronger material I now write. I also have learned when to give up on a song that is not developing, rather than trying to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse.

I my case, I submit what I consider my "good" songs to publishers - they in turn act as a very real and often very stark reality check - which in turn forces me to continously write to a standard that can pass the scrutiny of people who make a living trying to identify "good" songs.

We all have to develop some gold standard, some way to honestly assess our writing with some level of artistic intregrity. I think any writer that truly believes everything they write is "good" is naive and is doing disservice to themselves and to the craft.

I believe you have to write a lot of songs to hone your skills, get better at your craft, to pin point what you are trying to do. But that is different from good vs. bad. I think the more you write, the better you become for what you are trying to achieve. A Top Petty song sound like a Top Petty song. Is it good or bad is not the really the point. But, we can all say, Tom's style is distinct and he knows how he wants to approach it. If you write hip hop or rap. Dude, I really don't know the difference between good from bad.

Which really brings up maybe what the thread should be about, what is the difference between a popular song and one that isn't? Maybe that is a better title. That would still be dependent on who the focus audience would be.

I write probably bad songs by most people's standard. But I have an idea what I want to do, who I am trying to get to listen and I will craft my songs until I get it to the point where I think I have them where they need to be. That means write and write, then write some more.

It is so subjective, terms like these just make circle arguments. Like arguing about where does the Universe begin and where does it end. My brain just locks up.

 

[Greg_L]

Cetainly good vs. bad is subjective - however, that being said I happen to agree with the concept that you have to write a lot of poor songs to learn how to write a good song. Now for the purpose of this conversation, I consider a good song a work that has a strong melody and a creative chord structure, which supports well articulated lyrics which relay a story or emotion that can reach out to a listener. Something which clearly builds from start to middle to end - something with a very memorable chorus and if a bridge is used, something which is elavated by the bridge.

Of the approxiamtely 300 songs I've formally written (not counting all the partial chord progressions and aborted lyrical attempts), I consider maybe 20-25 to be "good" songs and a couple of those are very good. The rest are weak - conpared to what I believe my current skill level and command of the craft are capable of.

It is not a coincidence that I consider my ratio of "good" vs. "weak" songs to be much more acceptable the longer I've been writing - because I've learned from my own mistakes, improved on my skills and have had more time to analyse the writing of people I respect as song writers. I can now look back at songs I wrote earlier and compare to stronger material I now write. I also have learned when to give up on a song that is not developing, rather than trying to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse.

I my case, I submit what I consider my "good" songs to publishers - they in turn act as a very real and often very stark reality check - which in turn forces me to continously write to a standard that can pass the scrutiny of people who make a living trying to identify "good" songs.

We all have to develop some gold standard, some way to honestly assess our writing with some level of artistic intregrity. I think any writer that truly believes everything they write is "good" is naive and is doing disservice to themselves and to the craft.

That's all fine for you, but it in no way applies to anyone else. I think that everything you've outlined here is like a how-to for writing a bad song.

 

[gecko zzed]

There's a region along the good-bad scale that represents just differences in taste. One person's good song is another person's crap song. For example, thousands of people like 'imagine', but it leaves me unmoved.

With songs, it is nearly all down to personal preference. But there are some songwriters who have the ability to latch onto the personal preferences of many more people than usual. Either they are lucky, or they have a special skill in reaching that wider audience.

In any trade and profession we observe that the more knowledge, training and expertise you have, the better at your caraft you will be. I can't see why this would not also apply to songwriting.

 

[famous beagle]

That's all fine for you, but it in no way applies to anyone else. I think that everything you've outlined here is like a how-to for writing a bad song.

But who are you to say it's bad?

 

[famous beagle]

There's a region along the good-bad scale that represents just differences in taste. One person's good song is another person's crap song. For example, thousands of people like 'imagine', but it leaves me unmoved.

With songs, it is nearly all down to personal preference. But there are some songwriters who have the ability to latch onto the personal preferences of many more people than usual. Either they are lucky, or they have a special skill in reaching that wider audience.

In any trade and profession we observe that the more knowledge, training and expertise you have, the better at your caraft you will be. I can't see why this would not also apply to songwriting.

Because any type of art is usually not measured by a scorecard.

Of course, you could apply scorecards to it, if you'd like. For example, you could measure a musician's worth based on album sales or critical reviews or Grammy awards. But by those merits, you'd have to concede that someone like Celine Dion sings some of the "best" songs ever. I, for one, wouldn't concede that.

But really, it's not just music or art that's subjective. Even in sports, where statistics play a much more direct role, you have some people who favor certain players over others just because ... because of their style, their personality, their versatility, etc. It's really all subjective when you get down to it.

 

[Greg_L]

In any trade and profession we observe that the more knowledge, training and expertise you have, the better at your caraft you will be. I can't see why this would not also apply to songwriting.

Because there's a measurable, noticeable difference between a good plumber and a bad plumber. Plumbing is not subjective. A mechanic either fixes your car or he doesn't. A surgeon saves your life or you fucking die. What's the yardstick for good songwriting? Sales? Mass appeal? I guess that's it for most people, but I personally don't buy it because I have no faith in people en masse. I'm repulsed by some of the shit that sells millions of copies. Is it bad? To me, yeah, but I'm not the decider. I don't blame miley cyrus, I blame the idiots that buy that shit. Something as subjective as songwriting can never be measured as good or bad unless you attach dollar signs to it, and not everyone is driven by money. To me a good song doesn't have to be complex or simple, deep and meaningful or silly. It can be anything. What are some of the commonly regarded "best songs ever"? Imagine? Yesterday? Like a Rolling Stone? Fuck all that shit. I'd rather listen to Surfing Bird. As you said, it's all simple personal preference.

 

[Greg_L]

Because any type of art is usually not measured by a scorecard.

Of course, you could apply scorecards to it, if you'd like. For example, you could measure a musician's worth based on album sales or critical reviews or Grammy awards. But by those merits, you'd have to concede that someone like Celine Dion sings some of the "best" songs ever. I, for one, wouldn't concede that.

But really, it's not just music or art that's subjective. Even in sports, where statistics play a much more direct role, you have some people who favor certain players over others just because ... because of their style, their personality, their versatility, etc. It's really all subjective when you get down to it.

Yes, all of what this guy said.

 

[ido1957]

Not everybody has to write 100 songs to get one good one. If that's the ratio a person has then he either has too high of standards or he just writes crappy songs period.

 

[rayc]

taste & criteria.
If we were to look at a song according to a set criteria then we might light up the score card but it may well still be less than good in the view of many.
The US & Australia have gone that way in Education - we mark story writing by a set of criteria that doesn't include it being interesting, creative, derivative etc - instead the criterion that makes or breaks it on a score level may be the use or not of metaphore, the frequency of spelling errors or the number of included modal phrases etc etc.
Kids write (& are trained to write) dross that ticks boxes and are rewarded as having written award willing stories/poems etc. fact is the story is poften a dud bag rthat carries the required componenets.
I LOVE the Residents 70's work, I love the Sex Pistols pre album singles and THE album and I Love Scott Walkers 1st 3 albums reconcile those on a good/bad subjective song writing bassi & I'd be institutionalized.

 

[Greg_L]

Surfin Bird. There aint jack shit to that song, but if someone don't like it, they're musically retarded.

 

[famous beagle]

Surfin Bird. There aint jack shit to that song, but if someone don't like it, they're musically retarded.

Damn

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 7 characters.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

I think it took until my third attempt at actually writing a song before I wrote one that I think was "good."

It is completely subjective; however, practice can make you more skilled. As you write more songs, you understand how songwriting works better and have more tools at your disposal. A better songwriter will have more options in how they write a song.

 

[Dogbreath]

Yup.
I think it's all subjective.
I like 5 Finger Death Punch but I also like Bob Segar. Somebody else would think my tastes are retarded but I would point them in the direction of someone who likes Surfin Bird.

 

[Greg_L]

Surfin Bird by itself is better than everything from 5 Finger Death Punch and Segar combined.

 

[Dogbreath]

G'mornin Gerg.

 

[Telegram Sam]

To me a good song doesn't have to be complex or simple, deep and meaningful or silly. It can be anything. What are some of the commonly regarded "best songs ever"? Imagine? Yesterday? Like a Rolling Stone? Fuck all that shit. I'd rather listen to Surfing Bird. As you said, it's all simple personal preference.

I think you've exposed a chemical element to judging the quality of art. If I like a song, it gets me high. I think the mechanism is peptides. Your own brain releases peptides on different stimuli than some others. Not good or bad. I'll bet Miley Cyrus' fans are operating (and handing over their cash) based on pure hormones. The music that I like generally has some sort of beat or rhythm to it that latches into my brain. Electric guitar does it too. For myself Killing Joke - Requiem comes to mind (or Donald Fagen - I.G.Y. ). It makes me feel good, and that is one of the biggest reasons that I like it so much. This is a gross oversimplification, because chemical pathways are incredibly subtle. A tone, or a melody can do it just as well.