Ben Walker, who I interviewed a while ago, has written a blog post asking the question ‘Does technical thinking ruin songwriting?’.
Here’s a quote:
There’s no such thing as a conceptual songwriter. As an artist you are free to choose from all sorts of funky media and part of the game is to work outside the box and provoke thought and criticism. Songwriting isn’t like that. Composition is like that, but songwriting isn’t. As a songwriter you’ve signed up to write songs, and the popular song isn’t a very flexible form. It’s not quite as restrictive as being a sonnetwriter, but it’s closer to that than, say, a novelwriter.
There’s nothing to stop you exploding the confines of the form and writing 15-minute one-chord freeform poetry, but that’s not a song. You could argue that it is, but you’d be wrong (the word song refers to a pretty specific musical form, and let’s assume we’re talking about popular song, even late 20th Century popular song to keep things simple).
I don’t want to get into the semantics of whether we use the word ‘song’ just for short vocal forms, or for any piece of music with vocals but I do want to both agree and disagree with Ben.
I agree that no songwriter can avoid the technical aspects. Any long time reader of Songwright will know that I’m all for educated songwriters who understand the craft and know how to create well formed, interesting songs.
Where I disagree is with the apparent implication that songwriters should stick to the limits, confines and conventions of popular song forms and not try to push the boundaries and ‘think outside the box’.
Sorry Ben, that’s wrong. If you’re a songwriter, you’re a composer and if you’re not trying to do things that push the envelope, that do something new and fresh (Not necessarily revolutionary, just new, interesting, exciting) then what’s the point of writing your songs at all?
We are composers, we have a duty not to bore our listeners with conventional derivative songs. The only way to do that is to understand all the conventions and possibilities of the craft and to then try and move beyond them in a way that works.
Songwriting is a craft and an art.
Related posts:
Well put.
I took exception to Ben describing songwriting as “not art” as well.
Yeah. I agree with all the stuff about craft, and I agree you can make distinctions between songs, instrumentals, recorded improvs (Though I might use different terminology from Ben) but I just can’t agree that we should craft nice tidy conventional songs – that’s already been done to death. Push them boundaries I say.
In fact the real pleasure of this art form for me is in trying to balance the weird and the conventional.
Good point, Tom. I pitched the article as “songwriting is just a craft” because that’s the side of the argument I can understand…
There’s a part of me that knows it’s an art and that it’s about pushing the boundaries and feeling and vibe, and it’s that part that I’m trying to open up and get to know by writing about it and hearing people’s responses.
So thanks for the response (and thanks for reading in the first place!). It’s really interesting and useful for me, and I hope other flailing techie songwriters might find this conversation useful too.
yes, i really agree with your point! well said-
“There’s no such thing as a conceptual songwriter.”
To me, that line just doesn’t make sense and I mean that literally. I just don’t grok the point it’s trying to make. And because it’s the line that begins Ben’s argument, I read his argument with a skeptic’s eye.
Anyway, to argue that songwriting is craft or art is ludicrous. Of course it’s both. Most forms of art are, although all can be done with no craft whatsoever. And this is where I agree with Ben: the song is a limited form of music, that is its strength, and because it is limited, it demands craft, in my opinion. Songs made with zero craft just don’t do it for me. However, within the limited form of the song, tremendous variation is possible, just look at The Beatles’ body of work. I would even argue that these variations can be pretty subtle, yet make all the difference. Think Honky Tonk Woman. A very straightforward I IV V, yet that song STILL sounds fresh. Or Revolution, another I IV V. Or any Creedence song. In the modern day, look at Buddy Miller, Steve Earl, Lyle Lovett, even Lady Gaga. All of these guys work on old forms, adding variation and creating something new. They are all consummate craftsmen — and artists. And conceptual!
Jeff
I like your point about making subtle changes to well known formulas, Jeff. There’s a lot to be said for that, although I also like when a songwriter tears up the rule book and does something totally different (Providing it still works).
After all, the only real rule is that a song is a piece of vocal music – apart from that everythings optional, isn’t it?
Lady Gaga? really? I haven’t listened to much apart from maybe too of the hit singles, and they seemed very generic and uninspiring – her only redeeming feature was the clear love of costumes like David Bowie, Madonna Alice Cooper and Marylin Manson.