Writing bad songs

  • Thread starter Thread starter ido1957
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grim,

In an effort to bash my post, you've missed the point of it.

A good song connects with the listener, a bad song doesn't. Plain and simple. Debate that.

That stuff about the masses was more about how record sales, an indicator of how many listeners a song might connect to, is not an indicator to how good that song is. I think that you would agree that there are people who have more complex tastes in music. Not better tastes, just more complex, and you're probably one of them. I don't need to actually know a lot of people to understand what the top selling records are. Just saying that how good a song is, that is subjective.

A good song connects with the listener, a bad song doesn't. This is the point. It's the song's purpose. I don't think it's debatable, which is probably why it's the one statement you didn't address.

No need to cherry pick my post to paint me as a small minded elitist music listener. Because I'm not.

A good song connects with the listener. A bad song doesn't.
 
A safe comment to make a vague over-generalized point. Yawn. By that logic every song is good because someone somewhere will inevitably like any song.
 
Grim,

In an effort to bash my post, you've missed the point of it.
I didn't. I understood it {I took note of what you said about subjectivity} and I don't think it's a bad post at all. Quite the opposite actually. It throws up lots of ideas for comment and some of those ideas are contained in nuances that may not be readilly obvious.
That I may disagree with some of it doesn't mean I was bashing it.
A good song connects with the listener, a bad song doesn't. Plain and simple. Debate that.
I did. In surprizingly few words, for me. I took what you said about good songs connecting and bad songs not connecting and pointed out that the descriptions could {and I'd go further and say pretty much always will} refer to the same song and as such, that kind of makes defining good songs vs bad songs a futile excercise.
That stuff about the masses was more about how record sales, an indicator of how many listeners a song might connect to, is not an indicator to how good that song is.
I don't dispute that. Sales of a song or album can tell you all manner of things. But what I've said in these debates is that there can't really be any inherent goodness or badness in a song. A song is a song is a song.
But there's a slight contradiction to your point because actually, high sales could be used as an indicator of how good a song is ~ if such a thing could actually be gauged.
I just happen, like you, to think not.
I think that you would agree that there are people who have more complex tastes in music. Not better tastes, just more complex, and you're probably one of them.
Well, yes on all counts. I would also hazard a guess that many of those complex heads also like simple, bland, unchallenging stuff too. My own collection contains the insane free jazz rock of Amalgam with their pieces that run to 2 sides of a record and Low flying aircraft, the soul R&B of Angie Stone and Erykah Badu, the pre teen pap pop of Jimmy Osmond and the Partridge family to Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Bob Marley & the Wailers !
I don't need to actually know a lot of people to understand what the top selling records are. Just saying that how good a song is, that is subjective.
I never argued against that last point. It can only be subjective. Which therefore means there cannot be any universal criteria or yardstick other than "I like it".
A good song connects with the listener, a bad song doesn't. This is the point. It's the song's purpose. I don't think it's debatable, which is probably why it's the one statement you didn't address.
My whole post addressed it.
Miroslav thinks "Yellow Submarine" is a piece of childish nonsense. I think it's a deep song that shows the kinder, understanding side of the LSD enhanced counterculture.
He feels "Obladi oblada" is a piece of crap that can't be taken seriously. I think it's a groundbreaking piece both musically and lyrically as it gives a tremendous insight into the influx of Black people into Britain after world war 2 and how the culture was changing as a result.
Are they good or bad songs ?
That's why I can't think in terms of good and bad.
Furthermore, if I was to, there are loads of songs that I can't stand, but which I can easily acknowledge as "good".

Earlier, I asked the question, is there anyone out there that considers any songs as bad songs, but still likes them ?
Thus far, no one has answered that.
No need to cherry pick my post to paint me as a small minded elitist music listener. Because I'm not.
I don't paint you as anything. Yet the point still remains. I've seen lots of people over the years making negative comments about what "the masses" like or how shallow "they" are but the makers of such comments are never included among "the masses".
The simple fact is, we do not really know that many people, relative to how many people there actually are. Even in our towns and cities, much less on a larger scale. But many of us do comment as though we do.
I don't know you, I know absolutely nothing of your tastes so I make no assumptions about you. But I can respond to some interesting points you've made, whether I agree with them or not.
 
Greg,

Safe and vague point? Maybe. How about simple and concise? Simplicity is underrated, and complicating a subject like this just propels it into the realm of the subjective. Then there's no real tangible support to anyone's opinion. Keeping the point simple at the lowest level of a song qualifying as good was exactly my intention. Anything after is a question of how good the song is, again, subjective. You seem to be very intelligent judging by you're previous posts, so sorry if i bored you, but I don't think the answer to a question of what makes a song good needed more than what I gave. I know that you don't like the idea that every song is possibly good because someone will inevitably like them, but in a way, it's true. I'm not gonna knock someone for a song they put hard work and time in to write and record just because I don't like the song, and I'm not gonna knock the fans of those songs. They've got a good thing going between them. Which brings me to...

Grim,

Maybe Greg is on to something. Maybe you and I view songs the same way, it's just a difference in labels. Maybe all the songs are "good". It's just that the "bad" songs, the ones that don't connect to anyone, never see the light of day. They're the ones the great songwriters wrote, but will never play or sell. They're the ones that don't make it past conceptualization. Or they're the ones sitting in the catalogues, unused, at those songwriting think tanks in Nashville, where producers and artist took turns checking them out and said "No thanks, not feeling it." Those are the bad songs. Don't get me started on the ugly ones.

BTW, you're totally misunderstanding me about the masses thing. I see your point about the fraction of the population thing, but I do know what millions of people that I don't know like when certain records go multi platinum. Unless there's some rich guy buying up the same record over and over again, those record sales are a pretty good indicator on what the masses like, of which I'm included. But there's a great many people that don't search out music the way you and I might. Nothing wrong with that, they might not have the time, energy, or they just don't care to. But they will just take what's given to them on the radio, and like it because it's catchy and easy to listen to. My wife is like that, and I don't think any less of her for it. Music is just not as important to her. But she does like the music I find, usually more than the stuff she hears on the radio, and will often ask me how I found it. She literally just doesn't care to make the effort. These are the people that these record labels target with the way they market their music and artists. To the masses. You can't deny their tactics. Turn on a top 40s station, and it's the same songs every hour, over and over again. Maybe thirty songs total the entire day. Well forty, I guess, just feels like thirty... Again, I did state earlier that sometimes a song becomes popular because it is that good, whether I like the song or not.
 
Ever consider the intentions of the songwriter? The audience they're trying to reach, if any? If I were to write a song for my wife with a bunch of nuances and inside jokes that only she would get, and it put a smile on her face, I would consider that a successful song that she connected to. It doesn't matter if no one else gets it, but if they find their own interpretation and it connects with them, bonus. Maybe it's on it's way to becoming a "better" song.

What if I wrote a punk song, obviously targeting a punk audience, but it just doesn't catch on. No punk fan gets it. No connection. Is that song a failure? I think it is. Now if that same song transcends genres to where even though the punk community blows it off, it catches on because of pop sensibilities (ahem...Green Day), that's another story. I'll never truly know what audience they were trying to cater to, but I think that makes for a good song now. If they were going for a true punk song, then they got lucky that it connected beyond that genre. If they were looking to break into the mainstream, then they obviously nailed it.
 
Greg,

Safe and vague point? Maybe. How about simple and concise? Simplicity is underrated, and complicating a subject like this just propels it into the realm of the subjective.
I agree with you there, and that's why your self-described simple and concise point is just as irrelevant as anyone else's more abstract point. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm saying that making the most basic and generalized point because it's simple and safe doesn't make you any more right than someone who has a convoluted point.

You seem to be very intelligent judging by you're previous posts,
Well that's true, I am

I know that you don't like the idea that every song is possibly good because someone will inevitably like them, but in a way, it's true.
I think any song is good if the author of the song thinks it's good. Someone liking it or not is irrelevant. What if it never gets released for consumption? Suppose some guy writes a very heartfelt and emotional song about his kids, or wife, or mother, and no one ever hears it because it's personal? The guy wrote it for himself. Is that song automatically bad because no one will ever hear it to like it? If I write a song, a song that I feel is honest and pure and true to myself and I think it's good, there's not one single motherfucker on this planet that can tell me it's bad and be right about it. Even your safe "simple and concise" point has huge holes in it. So to take it even further, I think there are no such things as good or bad songs. There are just songs, and people will like what they like or like what they think they're supposed to like.
 
Miroslav thinks "Yellow Submarine" is a piece of childish nonsense. I think it's a deep song that shows the kinder, understanding side of the LSD enhanced counterculture.
He feels "Obladi oblada" is a piece of crap that can't be taken seriously. I think it's a groundbreaking piece both musically and lyrically as it gives a tremendous insight into the influx of Black people into Britain after world war 2 and how the culture was changing as a result.
Are they good or bad songs ?
That's why I can't think in terms of good and bad.

:)


The problem with this whole discussion is that there's no guideline for how songs are being judged and/or by whom.
If someone puts up a song for others to listen to....then by all means, there can be a good and bad song, as judged by the listeners.
If the songwriter is the only person that will ever hear the song....then he/she is the only judge, and he/she judges as the listener.

Now, if the songwriter thinks that everything he/she writes is good, and then he/she also posts it up for others to hear but then rejects anyone saying it's bad....well, OK....whatever. :D

The notion that there can never be a bad song, so long as one person on the planet likes it.....is pretty thin IMO.
If someone posts a song for others to listen to it, and then has 10 million people saying it's a bad song, and just one person saying it's a good song...the songwriter is free to believe it's a good song based on that one person's view...but most folks would say that the songwriter is just living in denial.
It's kinda' like the parents who think there's no point in keeping score for school sports, and that it's all about the kids just having fun, and that everyone is a "winner" and there are no losers at the end of the game. :p
 
Last edited:
I've been following this thread, contributed early on and may even be the person the original poster referenced (I did indicate in a seperate thread that I believe a writer has to write "bad" songs to learn how to write "good" songs (whatever good vs. bad may mean to that writer).

Certainly good vs. bad is subjective - and many of the posts in this thread are politically and conceptually correct (it is up to the intent of the writer, in the ear of the beholder, blah, blah, blah).

But put all the warm fuzzies away - I can't help but think that only a truly naive, foolish writer (or someone in deep denial) can really believe that everything they write is "good" - or for that matter that the 1st song they wrote is better that the 30th song they wrote (assuming the writer actually devloped better skills and appreciation of melody, harmony, rhythem and words along the way).

Now I'm presenting this view in large part on the general (and perhaps naive) assumption, that most people who write songs have a general desire to utlilize interesting chord structure, an engaging melody, hopefully lyrics that are somewhat intellegent and a general arrangement that prevents the listener form getting board after the 1st 90 seconds of a song. Is a given writer has the attitude "screw the world" I'm writing only for my agenda - and if that agenda does not include some desire to grow, learn or at a mimimum adapt - then certainly everything that writer writes achieves the basic agenda and is "good"

If the writer is primarily interested in expresing aingst regardless of melodic content or is satisfied hanging on a C chord for 4 minutes - that is fine ....... but if that writer keeps writing and eventually discovers other chords beyond C and perhaps learns how to wirte a melody beyond a 4 note range and perhaps gains an appreciation for a well told story with clever lyrics - I have to suspect that writer will look back at the one chord song of aingst and think ..... the stuff I write now is better. Or maybe, I'm an idiot for spending the last 40 years trying to improve as a writer and musician:(
 
C'mon....I've seen you even go for some of the fallen fruit....a bit bruised , but still good for pies.
 
Greg,

Lemme get this straight.

You say if the author of the song thinks the song is good, then it's a good song? By that logic, I say every song is a good song because the author will inevitably like the song. Except... you say there are no good or bad songs.

You wrote something else about other people's convoluted opinions... can't remember... Sorry, writing this on my phone, so the quoting the post thing...

Miroslav hit a lot of great points. In a perfect world all songs would be created equal, everyone's a winner, gold star stickers for everybody!

But we live in the real world. Songs will be judged to be good or bad, by people other than the song's author. If you want to just write songs for yourself and never put it out in some capacity for the world to hear, then those songs can't be rated good or bad by the outside world. Now I can see why someone would write a song just for themselves... could be therapeutic, an exercise in melody or harmony, or it could be so politically incorrect that he wouldn't dare offer it to society. To each his own. But is that why most people write songs? Solely for themselves, never to be heard by anyone else. Really?

Now Grim pointed out that there was no way I could possibly know what the masses were thinking, which he's mostly right. He just misunderstood the motives of why I brought them up. But I do understand musicians, and songwriters. I've worked with quite a few on different projects and collaborations. Nothing big. But everyone one of them intended for their songs to be heard. Not everyone of them were necessarily trying to hit the top 40, but I don't think they would have minded if they reached a large audience. It's out there to be rated, and I commend them all for having the balls to face the public scrutiny of their work.

You had a great example of a guy writing a heartfelt song about his family. If that song was for himself, then nothing else matters. But what if that song was FOR his family, and only his family? No one else's opinion outside the family mattered. What if his family was kinda "meh", or worse hated it? Is it still a good song just because he believed he authored a good song?
 
Greg,

Lemme get this straight.

You say if the author of the song thinks the song is good, then it's a good song? By that logic, I say every song is a good song because the author will inevitably like the song. Except... you say there are no good or bad songs.

You wrote something else about other people's convoluted opinions... can't remember... Sorry, writing this on my phone, so the quoting the post thing...

Miroslav hit a lot of great points. In a perfect world all songs would be created equal, everyone's a winner, gold star stickers for everybody!

But we live in the real world. Songs will be judged to be good or bad, by people other than the song's author. If you want to just write songs for yourself and never put it out in some capacity for the world to hear, then those songs can't be rated good or bad by the outside world. Now I can see why someone would write a song just for themselves... could be therapeutic, an exercise in melody or harmony, or it could be so politically incorrect that he wouldn't dare offer it to society. To each his own. But is that why most people write songs? Solely for themselves, never to be heard by anyone else. Really?

Now Grim pointed out that there was no way I could possibly know what the masses were thinking, which he's mostly right. He just misunderstood the motives of why I brought them up. But I do understand musicians, and songwriters. I've worked with quite a few on different projects and collaborations. Nothing big. But everyone one of them intended for their songs to be heard. Not everyone of them were necessarily trying to hit the top 40, but I don't think they would have minded if they reached a large audience. It's out there to be rated, and I commend them all for having the balls to face the public scrutiny of their work.

You had a great example of a guy writing a heartfelt song about his family. If that song was for himself, then nothing else matters. But what if that song was FOR his family, and only his family? No one else's opinion outside the family mattered. What if his family was kinda "meh", or worse hated it? Is it still a good song just because he believed he authored a good song?

Do you actually want me to answer all of these questions? Because I gotta be honest, debating this with some nobody on the internet knowing that you will never change my mind or make me think differently is not that interesting for me. It was for a little while, but.....What do I get out of this? Maybe I'll come back to it later. You don't know me or anything about me, so who are you to question me? You follow the cliche logic of mass acceptance and I think that's stupid and insecure. If you think you have the formula for what makes a good song or bad song, then knock yourself out. I don't care.
 
Greg,

Yes, I would like you to answer these questions. You're right, I don't know you. That's exactly why I'm asking the questions I'm asking, to find out your opinion on my counter points to the points and examples you pointed out. Now if you just wanted to air your points without the risk of someone counterpointing, then maybe you shouldn't have posted anything after my first post. You countered me first, after Grim, so second. But I'm ok with that, I'm open to enlightenment from someone else's point of view. In fact, I even amended my first statement of, a song is good if it connects to the listener, with the idea that a songwriter has a specific listener or listeners in mind. This was due from the ideas Grim brought up, and even more from what you and Miroslav posted.

Now, if there's no chance I could change your mind about this, then why even debate it? You chose to challenge my opinion (recently amended), I'm merely defending it, which is my interweb nobody's right. It's not my fault that you might choose to write songs and posts for yourself to alone appreciate. What do you get out of this? Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that your opinion is good because you authored it, and if the author thinks it's good... BTW, what makes a post good, and what makes a post bad? Or are there no such things as good or bad posts? So subjective, I digress...

I never said I had a formula for what makes a good song. I just started it at the simplest qualification, which is the connection to the listener. So you inferring my stupidity and conformity without you knowing me, because you will not, cannot answer my questions... As a listener, your post is a bad one. I know that's subjective.
 
I've already pretty much laid out how I feel about this. It's pretty clear...I think so anyway. Re-read the thread if there's something you don't understand. You don't have to agree with me though. In fact I'd rather you don't. Patting myself on the back.
 
Ok, just reread your post. Nothing new, got everything the first time. Soooo.... why are you still replying if all of a sudden you don't care. Leave this thread so we can have a healthy, open minded debate, which is something you clearly admitted to not being capable of regarding this subject.
 
I'm capable of debate, I just need better participants. If you know any, send em over.
 
And I did read this entire thread before posting at all. It was intriguing, which is what compelled me to post in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top