Does Sound = Song? I Don't Think So...

[Anderton]

So there I was, doing some work in the studio, and kinda by accident came up with this incredibly bitchin' drum sound. I thought "Wow, I gotta write a song around this" and then I realized...a really cool sound doesn't make a song, and I better get an emotional component in there first...a theme, a concept, whatever.

 

And I started thinking about all the music I hear that sounds great, but it goes too far: The sounds are the song. While the initial impression is cool, ultimately, it's unsatisfying.

 

Maybe the real problem with all this new gear/new sounds/new instruments is not that they're a substitute for talent, but they allow creating something really catchy and interesting without any kind of core. I dunno, just random musings on a Sunday afternoon...

[Kendrix]

To me its the artful use of mutually re-enforcing music/( sound) and lyrics that makes a song magical. Its all about "Prosody"

 

So, yeah a great song requires more than a good sound.

However, not all hits are great songs.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, what Kendrix said... and I'd add that not all great songs are hits, because sometimes they sound like crap and their core is lost. I for one find it hard to listen to even a great song if the production ruins it.

 

On the other hand, if you start with a great sound you can be inspired to write a good song. I know that when I write a song I very rarely just sit down and plunk out some chords and try to think of lyrics and melody. I tend get song ideas from sounds, and I hear a whole finished production in my head, even if it's just a few seconds of it. That imagined soundscape will spark some emotion that inspires me to write a song around it. So to me, it's gotta be both.

 

There are so many records that are considered to be great songs, and they are, but if you just played them on an acoustic guitar or a piano or something without the soundscape and arrangement we associate with them, they'd suck. That doesn't make them any less great songs, it just means the writer sees their songs in the big picture and the arrangement and production are all part of what makes it.

 

You're right that today's tools allow people to appear to be writing songs that have the "look and feel" of good songs when they're really not, they're just a collection of interesting sounds. But on the other hand, they probably also enable people who are actually good composers but couldn't afford to realize their visions before, to do so now. So hopefully it all balances out in the end.

[Super 8]

I think we as a culture are trying to catch up with all this technology we're creating, and we're not really sure what to do with it yet. A lot of music is really just layers upon layers of grooves, sounds, vocals. Often it really doesn't go anywhere, it just exists because it can exist.

 

I hear in a lot of techo-oriented music, the artist establishes interesting groove, and they obviously haven't really thought much about what to do with it, so it never develops into anything.

 

So much music I hear today really just sounds like a polished demo.

[D Charles]

 

... if you start with a great sound you can be inspired to write a good song. There are so many records that are considered to be great songs, and they are, but if you just played them on an acoustic guitar or a piano or something without the soundscape and arrangement we associate with them, they'd suck.

 

 

To Craig's topic, my first thought was Lee's first point.

 

I have to disagree with Lee's second point though. This is the exact reason I think Rap Music is an oxymoron. Any great song can be played on just an acoustic or piano and the great song comes through IMO. What do you think made the whole 'unplugged' bit of the 90's work?

 

One more thought about a cool new sound; to me it's more like when I bought my first mandolin or dusted off my old sax and recorded. It seems like people are too caught up in mic's and pre's etc. these days when maybe if they picked up a 12-string or whatever, they'd get all sorts of new tones in their recordings.

[Lee Flier]

I have to disagree with Lee's second point though. This is the exact reason I think Rap Music is an oxymoron. Any great song can be played on just an acoustic or piano and the great song comes through IMO. What do you think made the whole 'unplugged' bit of the 90's work?

 

Well it worked because many great songs can be played unplugged. But not all. One of my favorite examples (because it was captured on film) is the Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil", which is one of my all time favorite songs. And it's got a great lyric, but it's a terrible bore without the production. This is very apparent in the film that was made of them in the studio. Jagger just plays the song through on acoustic, and at that point it's a slow folky kind of thing, although the lyric and the melody and chord changes are exactly the ones we know today. And it's a big yawner. The film then follows the band's progression through various different arrangements until someone hits on the samba beat, and the song takes off. If it weren't for that arrangement and production, nobody would think it was that great a song, it'd be a B side at best.

 

There are zillions of examples of such songs. Tom Petty is noted for being a great songwriter but things like "Here Comes My Girl" would never be what it is without that opening drum beat, "Breakdown" without the guitar riff, etc. His early records in particular (and those are my favorite of his) are very much records made by a band working it up together in the studio. And I love that.

 

I can't think of too many symphonies that would be great if they were just played on one instrument, either.

[blue2blue]

Like Lee, I've often been inspired -- or at least provoked by cool/interesting or perhaps just momentarily evocative sounds, or beats or textures... sometimes just a cool audio effect.

[Anderton]

Inspired by a sound is one thing. But if you're going to build a song around it, there had better be other stuff happening too.

[Anderton]

I can't think of too many symphonies that would be great if they were just played on one instrument, either.

 

Well, yes, but...I've heard some solo guitar arrangements of the Brandenburgs that are absolutely fantastic. The melody line with one contrapuntal element are all you need.

[D Charles]

Okay Lee, point well taken.

 

I think what you are talking about is an angle. That's ever so important to certain songs.

 

I still think a great melody with great lyrics against a great chord change works no matter what though.

[philbo]

There are times when a new sound inspires me to make new music I wouldn't have otherwise. I don't normally compose in the studio, but when I do that's one of the things that can pull me into a new musical direction.

 

But in a planned composition, I generally work it all out on paper beforehand. Then, while recording, time spent dinking around hunting for 'perfect sound' just kills the vibe for me. I'd much rather capture a great performance than a great sound. As an audio recording enthusiast, I appreciate cool sounds and the techniques of capturing them. (I like experimenting with the unique sounds I can get from all kinds of things, like hammers, bowls of water, scrap steel, etc.)

 

A performance can have passion, but a sound - - it's just a sound. I appreciate musical vibe a lot more - - if it's got conviction, passion and punch, but still appeals musically, then I know I'm on the right track.

[UstadKhanAli]

Isn't a song basically organized noise?

 

Or perhaps John Cage would argue even that with "4:33"!!

[elsongs]

I end to agree that a song is more than just sound, ,but then again, in the sampling era (though musique concrete paved the way first), sounds can become songs...take for example the Art of Noise, or a lot of electronic music (trance, for example is awfully repetitive but the sound of filtersweeps makes up the "song.")

[Beck]

 

Does Sound = Song? I Don't Think So...

 

 

Interseting topic...

 

I guess it depends on the genre, the audience and/or how much they

[Lee Knight]

I often wonder how great it would be to hear someone like Brian Wilson, Carol King or the Bachorach/David team write for the modern R & B market. To hear Justin Timberlake, Craig David, etc. and their production teams do up a good old fashion great pop song. But instead we get drivel driven by great sounds...

 

So I prefer the old fashion model of a tune standing on its own, then applying an arrangement to it.

[Billster]

I think there's a certain type of music which inspired and defined by the soundscape, but it isn't pop music.

 

Another example of this syndrome is music with highly technical performance requirements. There needs to be something in the way of melody, or structure, or something that grabs the average listener's ear and makes the music have more emotional impact than instrumental or vocal gymnastics.

[coyote-1]

I want to agree with you.

 

But then I look at modern pop, and I realize that so much of it is just the newest sound. It's weak on melody (or has none whatsoever); it's all about a new noise and a specific image and some booty-shaking.

 

I think you're over the hill :poke:

So there I was, doing some work in the studio, and kinda by accident came up with this incredibly bitchin' drum sound. I thought "Wow, I gotta write a song around this" and then I realized...a really cool sound doesn't make a song, and I better get an emotional component in there first...a theme, a concept, whatever. And I started thinking about all the music I hear that sounds great, but it goes too far: The sounds are the song. While the initial impression is cool, ultimately, it's unsatisfying. Maybe the real problem with all this new gear/new sounds/new instruments is not that they're a substitute for talent, but they allow creating something really catchy and interesting without any kind of core. I dunno, just random musings on a Sunday afternoon...

[Lee Flier]

 

Inspired by a sound is one thing. But if you're going to build a song around it, there had better be other stuff happening too.

 

 

Of course, I'm not disagreeing with that. God knows I wish more people now would pay attention to composition. But still, if we're being completely honest there are a lot of great songs where the sound is an integral part of what makes it great.

[rasputin1963]

I think the days are gone when a Carole King or Irving Berlin could sit at a piano and work out a very fine lyric and melody that nakedly demonstrated good prosody... before considering production/arrangement elements.

 

The fact that these AMERICAN IDOL kiddos keep returning, time and again, to put their spin on those great old songs from the Sixties is no accident; there's something so primally satisfying about good prosody that never really goes out of style.

 

I almost suspect the beguine rhythm of the Shirelles' "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?" was probably conceived after Carole King and Gerry Goffin had already cemented the melody, harmonies and lyrics into place.

[Lee Flier]

So I prefer the old fashion model of a tune standing on its own, then applying an arrangement to it.

 

I prefer whatever makes a song work and be inspiring. Whether it's a "standalone tune with an arrangement applied" or it's built from the ground up by a musician and/or band and/or producer/engineer working together to create a particular sound.

 

I really love the fully formed soundscape-as-composition. Jimmy Page was/is one of the best at that. The song, the band, and the studio were all feeding off each other and they all form a pretty inseparable whole. The composition chops are certainly there, but most people sound pretty lame trying to cover Zeppelin.

[maybeyes2]

I have to say that I always judge a song's lasting ability by how it sounds acoustically. When I write a song, I tend to listen to it acoustically before I give a go ahead in my brain. I find that the biggest test of a song is how it sounds acoustically. All the flaws seem to stick out when I play it on an acoustic guitar. Usually, it also helps me to better define the song structure. That doesn't mean the song won't sound better with all the fixin's. For me it is just a way to put the song in perspective.

 

We can do so much with sounds today that I am not surprised when people write songs around a sound. However, as Beck stated after a while the novelty wears off. I find it much more intriguing to use some of those new sounds in a solo or an intro rather than base song around it. That way the novelty doesn't become so obvious or wear out its welcome.

 

Oh well, you have my $.02. Very interesting topic as always with lots to learn from.

[slight-return]

 

Isn't a song basically organized noise?

 

 

I think Varese said 'music is organized sound'

 

not that either statement is 'right' or 'wrong', but it does bring up an interesting distinction

 

Songform is only one form in music

 

which can have some implications on the topic of the thread

[Billster]

 

Of course, I'm not disagreeing with that. God knows I wish more people now would pay attention to composition. But still, if we're being completely honest there are a lot of great songs where the sound is an integral part of what makes it great.

 

 

That's what I'm getting at when I mentioned highly technical music. Leo Kottke wouldn't sound great if he didn't have amazing ability on his instrument to go along with the sweet melodies and harmonies he composes.

 

Like you say, Led Zeppelin is a example of that kind of integration between composition and sound. Jimmy Page may not be a technician on a level with the guitar shredders of the world, but he certainly had enough technique to perform the kind of orchestrations he conceived.

 

And while we're on that area, how about Les Paul? He made hits out of tunes that were back burner items for other artists, by virtue of his sonic artistry. He also had really strong tunes that would be moving without his sonic signature.

[Lee Knight]

I prefer whatever makes a song work and be inspiring. Whether it's a "standalone tune with an arrangement applied" or it's built from the ground up by a musician and/or band and/or producer/engineer working together to create a particular sound. I really love the fully formed soundscape-as-composition. Jimmy Page was/is one of the best at that. The song, the band, and the studio were all feeding off each other and they all form a pretty inseparable whole. The composition chops are certainly there, but most people sound pretty lame trying to cover Zeppelin.

 

Agreed. I've been known to crack open a six pack, fire up the amps and tubs and end up with something cool on the spot. Or to plug a guitar into a new pedal and write a riff that becomes the backbone of a new tune.

 

I even did a couple of years writing techno art music sans any acoustic instruments and I was very much driven by sound and texture before crafting a proper song or track.

 

I guess I'm reacting to the over dependence on sounds to drive modern pop music. So Lee, of course I really do agree with you 100%, but lately, I'm inclined to explore crafting a song as its own entity before using any sounds, though I will have a mental picture where the sounds will go and how this new beast will be driven.

 

I think I'm reacting against the status quo of today's dependence on tech to create or inspire the song side of things.

[monstermaker]

 

I think the days are gone when a Carole King or Irving Berlin could sit at a piano and work out a very fine lyric and melody that nakedly demonstrated good prosody... before considering production/arrangement elements.

 

 

There are some still around but not enough.