1. Everyone else will be, you don’t want to follow the crowd do you?
2. Love is a cliché – songwriters have been writing about love for centuries
3. Love songs aren’t moving – the shallowest of songs are the ones that say ‘I Love You’. I don’t know why it is that so profound an emotion should be so unconvincing when put into words, but I’ve never heard a love song that convinced me of the singer’s sentiments
4. There are more interesting subjects to write about. Why not hate, or mystery? Why not a song about the sasquatch or the ancient Sumerians?
There is no excuse for laziness. There just isn’t.
Now, let’s get a few things straight.
1. Songwright.co.uk isn’t about the songwriting business. I’m not interested in whether a song makes money, I just care about the craft being done well.
2. Amy Winehouse has no redeeming features. She could never sing, she has never recorded an above average song, and she has apparently squandered the life she was so lucky to be given. She made some money for some people, but that doesn’t stop her sounding tinny and unpleasant, or looking so vile and unwashed.
3. Copying has to be done well if you’re going to do it.
What I’m building up to is the sheer waste of recording and video budget on the well-below-average song ‘Do You Want The Truth Or Something Beautiful’? by Paloma Faith
The woman’s voice and to an extent her look have clearly been chosen for their similarity to Winehouse. That’s offensive, but I suppose it’s not suprising.
What really annoys me is that the song just isn’t good enough. I wanted to hear it, because I saw a TV ad that mentioned the title and played literally one line of the song. That one line sounded good, I liked the title, so I fired up the laptop and found the video on youtube. After listening to half the song my blood was boiling.
This song isn’t good enough.
If one of my pupils had written this, I would give it top marks and say ‘well done’. For a secondary school pupil it’s a good song. From a pro? No way. The verse is forgettable, but the chorus is something worse: it’s a bridge. It promises, it says we’re going somewhere, we’re going to get a chorus… here it comes…
And then it doesn’t.
And later there’s a middle 8, and it isn’t very good, and yeah it goes to the dominant 5th and the chord progression kind of makes sense. But so what? Where’s the emotion? Where’s the suprise? Where’s the art?
I know the pop music machine has given up, has chosen immediate and bland because it can’t do interesting and musical. But I don’t want this lazy crap being released. I’m not just saying I don’t want to hear it, I don’t want it to even be recorded.
I’m not in favour of any kind of censorship except self censorship. What I want is for songwriters to be critical of their own work, and to realise that you should only be making public the truly good songs.
This isn’t good, it’s dull copycat music. It’s lazy and there’s no excuse for it.
Whilst watching performances by Westlife (I know, I know) and Jack’s Mannequin, several songwriting thoughts occurred:
If You’re Following a Formula, Tweak It
The Westlife song followed the pop ballad formula perfectly – short verses, soaring anthemic chorus, contrasting bridge, drop chorus then a key change chorus to finish.
But it followed it to the letter. Result? Too predictable! There’s nothing wrong with using a standard formula, but you’ve got to understand what you’re using. Bonjovi’s Living on a Prayer uses that formula too, pretty much. But when they come to the key change they skip a beat out of one bar, then leap up a minor third. Simple, but different enough to make it interesting.
A good arrangement and a personal story is no substitute for a melody.
Listen to that Jack’s Mannequin song. Stop it. Can you remember it 5 seconds afterwards? I’d be suprised if you can, because while the poor guy has a great sob story to sing about, the fact is he doesn’t know how to write a melody. I hate to be critical, but frankly it just isn’t good enough. Yes, the song is well arranged, yes he has something ‘real’ to sing about, but it’s a dull song. In fact it’s more dull than the Westlife song.
In fact, writing about yourself is very difficult
No matter how depressing the real life situation, writing baldly about yourself is difficult to pull off without coming across as juvenile and self-obsessed. The listener wants to be moved, and the way to do that is to write something universal or something that people can empathise with. If you’re lyrics are just a mirror for yourself, then keep your songs in the bedroom.
Uncharacteristically negative as this post might be, I think there’s more here than personal prejudice. If you are lazy with your art, you deserve to be called out. Both Jack’s Mannequin and Westlife’s songwriter’s are lazy.
Admittedly, they’re making more money from songs than me, but still, economic success is not artistic success.
This morning on the today program I heard an interview with Nick Troop, a songwriter who claimed to be doing a psychological study of songwriting to investigate psychological health or… something.
A brief investigation took me to Nick’s websites, and the first thing to point out, as Nick does, is that his analysis is not supposed to be scientific, and not supposed to be taken to seriously. It’s a bit of fun, although I’m sure it would be interesting to genuinely investigate the interaction between psychological health and songwriting.
His website ‘The Gospel According to David Bowie‘ analyses Bowie’s songs from a number of different angles. Unfortunately where I think he misses a trick is that he’s only analysing the lyrics. He even talks about the difficulty of analysing Low because it has so few words.
When I was still studying I wrote a dissertation on genre in heavy metal, which brought me into contact with a lot of pop music analysis. Almost all of it is useless, for the simple reason that it refuses to engage with the actual music. Sociology related to pop music seemed to have similarities (though I read far less of that), and I can’t comment about psychological work related to pop music, except to point out that lyrics are a small part of popular music, and most certainly not the primary conveyors of meaning.
I’m a little dissapointed that Nick hasn’t teamed up with a musicologist to properly analyse Bowie’s music.
Bowie, as far as I am aware, has written only one song that is directly about his personal life (the excellent Jump, They Say). His lyrics have always been distant, and he has rarely worn his heart on his sleeve. The whole point of Bowie’s music has been to explore the interplay of character, theatre, artifice. He has also often written for other people, with all the implications that might have for self expression, and made use of various word randomising techniques which suggest a minimal regard at times for the literal meaning of the words. He has also referred to his deliberately commercial 80s albums as his ‘pension plan’ and written accordingly. I’m not sure how one could ever tell which of Bowie’s lyrics literally reflect his emotional state, and which are pastiche or parody, or simply far less to do with his own psychology.
And more importantly, lyric writing is not songwriting. If you want to analyse Bowie’s music, and you’re not going to talk about the gospel chord changes in Word on a Wing or Space Oddity, the use of improvisation and the use of the studio as a tool, his showcasing of excellent soloists, the riffs of Carlos Alomar, the tension between Bowie’s and Eno’s approach to arrangement… then really you’ve missed so much I wonder what the point is.
I know, I know, Nick Troop is only having fun and I’m not saying his articles aren’t interesting. I just think Bowie’s songwriting has always been about much more than his lyrics.
PS. Nick Troop is also a pretty good songwriter in his own right. Have a listen to the tracks on nicktroop.com
Martin says his first pet hate in songwriting is rhyming. Specifically:
1. Rhyme is not a substitute for meaning
2. A good, clever or complex rhyming scheme is not a sufficient or necessary condition for a song being good
My own pet hates are Beatles rip-offs and old fashioned harmony. Though I suppose I could have gone for my real big, genuine number 1 hate – Anything Bob Dylan has written. Ever.
Of course, I probably shouldn’t admit to disliking Bob Dylan. But I do. Passionately.
Anyway, ignore me and go and read Martin’s blog.
After trying valiantly, but only moderately successfully to voice my disatisfaction with songwriting being described as ‘communication’, I feel I’ve little choice but to leave you with the thoughts and comments that other’s have sent me:
T.C.Elliot, whose songs can be heard here and here, said:
To me a rock or a carving or a beautiful sunrise is nothing if it does not communicate something more than what it is…What makes a picture of a sunset art instead of a document of a particular time and place? Does it communicate something more to you than merely a photographer was here at such and such time/place?
You wrote, “but I’m not sure that’s really what art does. ” and I think I agree. The purpose of art is not to communicate. It’s intention is not to communicate. A person does not get on the phone just for the act of communicating. But without communication that phone serves no purpose. For me for an object to be art it must have a message
Neil, who is also known as Lemonstar (listen to his music here) said:
Communication and expression. Thinking about my relationship with the music writing process and my motivation for trying to be creative I’ve come down to the following view. For me, generally, time spent writing music = time for reflection =(i.e. this leads to) therapy ( resolution) = motivation (action) = purpose (happiness). Often I’m helping my self to make sense of what I think or feel – I’m trying to communicate (talk) with myself first.
Nolan from the Charming Youngsters, on the other hand (who by the way have a song that begins ‘I knew a dinosaur that followed me home from the grocery store) said:
Arguments can be made for and against both sides. I know that personally, I’ve written from both approaches. However, the music I record and perform live is there to communicate, whereas the expressive music is mostly for myself.
These replies got me thinking about my own songwriting and why I do it. It’s been a long time since I felt the need to write directly about my feelings or use songwriting as a kind of therapy. However, my music does mean a great deal to me, and I certainly feel compelled to write.
Why do you write? Is it to express yourself? To communicate with others? A mixture of the two?
Interesting post over at Eric Beall’s Songwriting and Publishing blog. He talks in his post about songwriting as a form of communication, and contrasts this with music as a kind of personal expression.
He admits that songwriting very often begins as a form of personal expression, and this passage had me nodding in agreement:
In fact, when meeting with developing songwriters, the theme of personal expression comes up more often than anything else. There are lengthy explanations of the situation or relationship that brought the song about, then usually a long, introspective and hopefully in the end, cathartic lyric. Then finally, there is a defensive reaction to any suggestions or criticisms along the lines of “well, I’m not trying to be commercial– this is what I wanted to express”.
He then goes on to suggest that successful songwriters need to develop beyond that stage, to the point where they consider matters of craft, and the more objective ways of judging a songs success.
I agree with him here, but as I have written before, I’m not happy with this being called communication. I can write a song that causes us both to share an emotional journey. Calling that communication doesn’t quite work, communication need to be more specific than music can be.
I know it sounds like I’m splitting hairs, but I’d rather call music art, and accept that art is something different to self expression or communication.
What do you think?
And have you joined my mailing list? You get songwright articles sent to your inbox, you get access to my ebook on songwriting for the guitarist, and you don’t get any spam:
Twice in recent days I’ve come across the notion that music is a form of communication. One was on an interesting thread over on this website, the other was in the new Uk national curriculum for music.
Communication is deliberately passing on an idea to someone else. By making music, can I communicate? Well, obviously if there are words I can pass on whatever those words are, and the mood of the song will dictate how those words are percieved. An earnest piece of music and the lyrics will be taken literally, a light hearted mood and they might be taken with a pinch of salt.
But if all I was doing was communicating the message of the words, why bother with the music?
Music allows me to add an emotional element in a visceral and moving way. It has an emotional language that anyone bought up in the same musical culture can understand. It can be used to communicate an emotion to others.
But we all know that not everyone takes the same message from every piece of music. We’ve all known people who would agree on the basic meaning of various musical gestures but who violently disagree on the meaning of one particular piece. If music is just communication, it surely isn’t very good at getting it’s message across.
And why do people listen to the same music over and over, when they don’t feel the need to watch the same communicative news bulletin more than once. Why do you listen again, when you’ve already got it? Why is it necessary for some fans to proclaim their fanhood to the world, why can a musician be hugely moved and entertained by their own music making even when no-one else in the world can hear them?
Music is art, and art is not communication. It can be communicative, but often it is obscure, indeterminate, obtuse, vague, indecipherable, open to interpretation. Art is the mind at play, a wonderful by-product of our evolution.
Music is playing with patterns of sound, sometimes without saying a thing. Sometimes it communicates, but more often not, and almost always listeners disagree over what it says.
At least, that’s what I think on the subject. If you have an opinion, especially if you have a different opinion, let me know.
The real songwriter writes what moves him.
The real songwriter hones his craft.
The real Songwriter knows conventions, but isn’t bound by them.
The real songwriter respects the listener.
The real songwriter builds on the work of others.
The real songwriter uses chords and melodies you’ve never heard.
The real songwriter develops.
The fake songwriter writes for others.
The fake songwriter never learns.
The fake songwriter repeats the work of others.
The fake songwriter has no respect for the listener.
The fake songwriter never strays from convention.
The fake songwriter uses chords and melodies you’ve heard before.
The fake songwriter stagnates.
