definition of songwriting?

[bball_1523]

What do you say is songwriting? Like is it the traditional structure of intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, interlude, chorus, outro?

 

Or is it something else?

 

I always see it as something subjective and that there is no "good" songwriting standard.

[bball_1523]

that is a very interesting definition that I had never known existed. Thanks for sharing, that really clears things up for me.

 

Now who created this craft? And why is it established?

 

Also what are perfect examples of songwriters and songs that elaborate the craft of songwriting?

[bball_1523]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael its been an evolutionary process- everything from really old childrens rhymes to old drinking songs, hymns, and the classic English "ballad" forms (which were like long story-songs) have contributed to what we would call "songwriting". The structures we are most familliar with now are "pop" song structures (This does not mean "pop" music as a genre, but as in "popular" music which includes everything from Heavy Metal to Country to R&B and pop etc..) that kind of grew out of the late 19th century. Any library has books on songwriting, but there is always some subjectivity in any creative endeavor. Like writing a book or a short story, the individual writer is going to handle all of the various components differently to tell the story, but there has to be certain things in place at various points to make the story "work" or at the least suggestions can be made to make certain aspects of the story stronger, etc... Songwriting is really no different, except that as "music" the lyrics, melody, and ultimately even the arrangement can make songs that fall well outside of what could be considered structurally weak constructions very pleasing and enjoyable music to listen to...just like well structured and crafted songs can be just unlistenable because you don't enjoy the style of the music (e.g. like I can't stand Celine Dion type stuff really- but to deconstruct the song, I can see that the song is well crafted and everything "agrees"- working together to form a cohesive whole (the lyrics make sense, they support the main idea, etc..) but it doesn't mean that I like it...there is a difference between liking a song and understanding that it is put together well... OR on the flip side, I like R.E.M, but honestly, the lyrics are nonsense in some songs, and Stipe can;t even remember what he sang, so I can like the music but say that the song, from a lyrical standpoint is rather weak...) Almost any songwriter you can think of is working within these guidelines on a regular basis.

 

 

I'm wondering why it is so accepted as a craft or standard? I man shouldn't the judgement of anything for of songs be up to the listener?

 

So when you were talking about REM's lyrics, are you saying that according to the craft of songwriting the lyrics do not fit in well or are you saying in the general structure of music?

 

Would you say there's a wide difference between a composer and songwriter?

[bball_1523]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael No, Im saying that lyrics like: yes wrist armband tomorrow call you nice and then fly adam coat try beside no I can May work just fine when you hear the song as some kind of "music" but from a "songwriting" perspective they are weak, they have no real purpose, they don't really convey anything, etc... Of course as I said, maybe people think that is the greatest thing about them, but it's like if you went to a movie and it was 3 hours long with no real structure- it wouldn't have the same effect as say, a well plotted and acted story that gave you a sense of theme and main idea that you could take something away with you. You can write whatever you want, people {censored} in a jar and call it "art"- but honestly, what are you communicating with that? that anything can be labeled "art"? OK- but once we "get" that...what is there in experiencing that for us? Again I'll bring up the novel or story writing example. Why do stories have to unfold a certain way? Well- they can unfold lots of ways, but without A, it's hard for the audience to understand B which leads to understanding C etc... I gaurantee that almost any songwriter you can name from any band or genre follows these structural conventions- even if they don't know it. Post a song and I'll show you. Here is an example of what I'm talking about: I took a short story writing workshop in college. We were all instructed int he rules and conventions and blah blah blah.. OK- but for my example I will use two students that were "out there"- One guy wrote these long, complicated stories involving multiple characters, drug induced blackouts, violent sex, mental illness, and evnetually murder. The stories were long (maybe 50 pages or so- long for a class like this)- the other girl wrote long (30 pages or so) complicated stories with mental illness, shifts in conciousness, multiple characters with multiple personalities, etc... What was the difference? Well the first guy was a strong writer, he scattered his clues throughout the narrative to keep you turning pages and piecing them together so that you actually could follow what was going on. He wrote excellent dialogue, he wrote excellent descriptions, and he knew how to work the "story arc" structure into his own bizzare tales. The girl wrote nonsense. She had subject and verb agreement problems and pronouns (he, she, etc..) that you didn't know who they belonged to. In other words, while you started out wanting to finish the story...you couldn't. There was just no way to follow it. It was like trying to read the phone book for a plot. By time she got around to submitting her second story (bigger and more complex than the first) She was abbreviating everything, writing in all lowercase letters and spelling things wrong as what she defended as a "style". She also said she was "playing with language." Now by this time, you were investing a lot of time into reading this and you got nothing out of it. As I said, it was hard to read- to follow- to try and make some kind of sense out of it. so many people didn't even bother with her story at all. There was nothing holding it up. no structure that we could latch onto. She was one of those "it's art! There is no wrong way!" people. OK- that's true. She can write whatever she wants...but no one is going to give a {censored}. She claimed she was trying to convey some kind of meaning...well, then you have to give us SOMETHING to go on. B

 

 

that's an interesting take and it does sound reasonable and I also agree with the art part, lol. But of course there will always be people that like the art right?

 

I don't recall if you told me this or not, but what is the difference between a composer and a songwriter?

[bball_1523]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael Check out some books at the library on "songwriting" and you will start to get the drift of what I'm talking about. It's not just my "take" on things really, as I said there is an established craft that has some structures, forms, and other conventions that make it...well... a craft! Songs have a lyrical component. Compositions don't necessarilly have one- BUT a "composer" can be someone that "composes" songs. The real difference between whether something is a song or not is the presence of a lyrical component. This is NOT a judgement against instrumental music or those that write it- but instrumental music compositions are not "songs" they are compositions, tunes, "pieces" etc...

 

 

what about classical music? How does that fit into all of this?

 

by the way I'm asking all of this because I'm taking a class on this subject this school semester.

[bball_1523]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael Well classical pieces aren't "songs"- they are compositions. Even with a libretto, classical has it's own set of definitions and things.

 

 

would you say the definition of a "song" is also subjective and/or has multiple meanings?

 

by the way thanks for helping me out with all of this so far, I really appreciate your time and effort.

[Toxicpotatoe]

I think that a lot of this discussion is moot. It doesn't matter whether you call it a song, a composition or performance art. You just have to ask yourself, does it accomplish what you want it to accomplish? If you want to sell the song, especially, if you want to get someone else to record it, you might want to pay attention to how great songs are written. On the other hand, if you have an artistic vision that you want to convey, you should go for it, but you take the risk that no one else will get it.

[songrytr]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael Then you have missed the point of the entire discussion.

 

 

I don't see how he has. I think the idea anyone "doing their own thing" bums you out as you seem to be well into the "craft" of it (which is NOT a bad thing).

 

 

But the purpose of the board is to help people accomplish the goal of creating what they want to create.

 

 

What if what they want to "create" isn't necessarily what fits the form of the "craft"? If they're not looking for it to please other listeners what's the harm in exploring?

 

 

You seem to be of the mindset that most people here are, that you should post what ever you want and everyone should just stand back and pat you on the head for creating something. If that's all you want, then fine. OK. Why post in this thread then?

 

 

I think you've misunderstood TP. For the record, he is quite astute in assembling within the craft. At the same time, I believe he understands that the end result he looks for when he writes (and the satisfaction that comes with it) is not neccessarily the same as anyone else who attemps to create their own music.

 

 

But, for example, you want to write a song about a particular topic that conveys a certain feeling or mood or emotion or whatever, then it is assumed that your goal is to convey that to OTHER PEOPLE. If you only want to convey that back to yourself, no one is stopping you, no one can critique you, and no one can tell y ou that {censored}ting in a jar isn't "art". But if you are putting out something that no one understands or that they only slightly understand, then you might want to reconsider the way you are presenting it so that it has a stronger and broader impact (in other words it communicates what you wanted to communicate much more clearly- thus fullfilling your original intent).

 

 

As one who is quite the stickler for form and format (hook and hookier), I agree with what you're saying here. However, I admit that what serves me well when I write (practically and emotionally) can't be assumed to be the path for *every* person that picks up an instrument (or pen) and makes something up.

 

And I think you can agree with me that there have been some major exceptions that have done very well with listeners who have been conditioned to the "format."

 

But yes, for the most part, listeners WANT format. And, I think, for the most part, creators want listeners.

[bball_1523]

you know in the end I'm all for what composing is all about and not having a set format, but I do understand the craft of songwriting now and won't deny that probably the majority of music listeners pay attention to it. But when I make my own music, I'm not expecting a bunch of people to understand and like my own personal formats, but I wouldn't mind someday having even a small fanbase that enjoys my music, and I think there's plenty of musicians I listen to that either don't use the craft or add to the craft, composing something out of the ordinary.

[elbow]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael Then you have missed the point of the entire discussion. No one is saying that you shouldn't create what you want to create. Go ahead. But the purpose of the board is to help people accomplish the goal of creating what they want to create. You seem to be of the mindset that most people here are, that you should post what ever you want and everyone should just stand back and pat you on the head for creating something. If that's all you want, then fine. OK. Why post in this thread then? .... ... .. You dig?

 

 

I participate some on the thread.. I have offered some suggestions to people on their songs, been critical, and been praising.

 

I have also posted a lyric, and not received much feedback. I'm definitely not seeking a "pat on the head" either. I really want some feedback.... does it hang together, make sense, is it outa whack somewhere, it sucks, whatever.. If it does suck (and it probably does) what could I do to improve it? I want to learn from others and offer my knowledge to others... take it or leave it, it's free.

 

Frankly, I don't see a lot of collaboration. Is it because people don't want to be critical, don't care, or what?

 

I know this thread was originally not about this topic, but it has kinda struck a chord with me.... maybe I'll write a song about it, post it, and get a "pat on the head"... or nothing.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by bball_1523 you know in the end I'm all for what composing is all about and not having a set format, but I do understand the craft of songwriting now and won't deny that probably the majority of music listeners pay attention to it. But when I make my own music, I'm not expecting a bunch of people to understand and like my own personal formats, but I wouldn't mind someday having even a small fanbase that enjoys my music, and I think there's plenty of musicians I listen to that either don't use the craft or add to the craft, composing something out of the ordinary.

 

Absolutely...and through the years we've seen some significant musical movements that grew out of something experimental.

 

Back in the 60s Jamaican DJs got the idea to make up their own rhymes over the instrumental parts of rock-steady hits. Soon the producers were providing a "version" - or a instrumental B-side - for that specific purpose.

 

Eventually this style migrated to the states and in 1980 a little indie label released "Rapper's Delight" and changed the whole idea of song format and structure.

 

It stuck too.

 

Bottom line: if you're enjoying what you're writing go for it!

 

[songrytr]

 

Originally posted by BryanMichael 1. When someone starts out saying that the entire preceding discussion is "moot" then I don't think I'm misunderstanding them.

 

 

Even though he has a point? Sure, you might think it's productive to smash everyone over the head with format and function, but it really makes on come off like a pompous know-it-all.

 

I don't think you would consider yourself a know-it-all, would you?

 

 

2. I've said repeatedly that people should and can create whatever they want- If you've read my posts, you would see that.

 

 

Umm...I don't think an entire review of your posts here (no matter how much you think of them yourself) are a prerequisite to responding to your discourse above.

 

You very well might say that "repeatedly," but in this thread I didn't see too much evidence of that.

 

What I have seen of your posts was mostly in another thread where you rewrote a lyric for a guy who asked for a critique. That's bold.

 

 

3. None of this "bums me out"- I can give two {censored}s what you write!

 

 

Well...after that outburst, I can regretfully assure you the feelings mutual. I took care with my earlier post as I thought you were someone who might enjoy a deeper dialogue. Instead you're more interested in writing me off.

 

That's OK.

 

 

This thread was started by someone that is intersted in what "songwriting" is- and it is not just my "opinion" that songwriting is something very specific with the first three things I posted being the basis of what is considered songwriting. This set of criteria is not something that I just made up- there is an entire field (books, college classes, and even governement definitions on what you can actually copyright) that contribute to what that definition is.

 

 

Apparently you have assumed (incorrectly) that I'm not aware of this. In fact, if you are indeed as studied as you claim to be, you may have read a few of my words on the subject.

 

 

You can call your little instrumental excursions "songs" if you want to...but they aren't songs, by any definition but yours-if that's all that matters to you, then great! You've succeeded in finding your audience! It's YOU.

 

 

So why do you feel it neccessary to bag on MY songs? Have you heard them? Perhaps you have...but they aren't the "little instrumental excursions" you think they might be.

 

 

The thing is, that most people want feedback on how to mke their songs stronger, consistent, etc... or at least they claim they do, but they hide from all criticism (constructive or otherwise) by claiming artistic liscence.

 

 

I think bball_1523 is more interested in exploring his own preferences for now. You seem to want to warn him away from it because it's not "the craft." I don't happen to think it's productive to force new writers into a box before they're ready to get in it.

 

 

Again, I don't know how many ways i can tell people that they can {censored} in a jar and call it art. Go ahead! In fact...please do! The more {censored} in a jar that is put out there the better!

 

 

You so obviously think your stuff is awesome, and that anyone who isn't traveling the same endeavor path as you isn't valid.

 

That reeks of arrogance and eliteism. Sorry. But it really does.

 

The creative process means different things to different people. It's fine to encourage folks to pay attention to classic form and function, but don't try to snuff out a new flame if they're adverse to your advice. The ones that really grow to love it will find those frames and brackets soon enough.

 

Does it accomplish what the writer wants to accomplish? If the answer is yes, what do you care?

 

See you in the books...or on the radio.

[kurdy]

This is Merriam-Webster's definition:

 

song--a short musical composition of words and music

 

...so it's even in the dictionary. Generally, for a piece of music to be a song, it has to be short, it has to have a melody, and it has to have words that are sung to that melody. Otherwise, it isn't really a song. This isn't just someone's opinion.

 

 

I think bball_1523 is more interested in exploring his own preferences for now. You seem to want to warn him away from it because it's not "the craft." I don't happen to think it's productive to force new writers into a box before they're ready to get in it.

 

 

Actually, bball_1523's original question was "What is songwriting". And Bryan Michael gave him the answer.

 

Let me try to use an analogy--many people consider dolphins to be fish. But they are actually mammals. No matter how many people call them "fish", dolphins are, and will always be mammals.

 

Same goes for songwriting. You can call something a song, and if it doesn't fit the criteria to qualify as one, it's still not a song. This doesn't make a piece of music any less artistically valid. (Read the previous sentence over again three times) But if you were to call it a song, you'd be incorrect. Plain and simple.

[songrytr]

Originally posted by kurdy You can call something a song, and if it doesn't fit the criteria to qualify as one, it's still not a song .

 

According to books, yes.

 

Commercially in the real world (and as percieved by non-scholars), no.

 

[blue2blue]

 

Originally posted by bball_1523 What do you say is songwriting? Like is it the traditional structure of intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, interlude, chorus, outro? Or is it something else? I always see it as something subjective and that there is no "good" songwriting standard.

 

 

I grew up on 'classic' songwriting from Cole Porter to Lennon & McCartney and I have a lot of respect for some of the longstanding conventions of the craft -- ignore them at the peril of your own writing.

 

Yet some of my favorite songs are rambling or seem to defy attempts to fit them in anything approaching a conventional structure.

 

For instance, one of my favorite tracks in recent years has been Black Eyed Peas' Shut Up. Not to say it doesn't have internal structures and flow... but it defies easy dissection, for sure.

[kurdy]

Originally posted by songrytr According to books, yes. Commercially in the real world (and as percieved by non-scholars), no.

 

True. And I realize my definition is rather simplistic, but I was just trying to drive home the point BM was trying to make--that songs are something specific--they have their own "rules" that you can choose to follow or not.

 

And I think that's what's key here. As they say, "Rules are meant to be broken, but you must know the rules first". You are much better knowing and thoroughly understanding the craft you are participating in--so if you do choose to break a few of the rules, or using "artistic license", you're doing it judiciously, and with full awareness of why you're doing it. In such a case, you're in control of the craft.

 

But if you're breaking a rule, because you didn't know it existed to begin with, then you're just doing it out of ignorance. In effect, you're most likely not conveying the message you intended to convey with your music. That's why having guidelines and "format" and "rules" are so valuable and important for songwriters.

[songrytr]

 

Originally posted by kurdy That's why having guidelines and "format" and "rules" are so valuable and important for songwriters.

 

 

Agreed.

 

However, people who are new to the exploration of their musical creativity can often find the "academics" of the craft to be grumpy and stodgy. If someone really wants to nail the craft, all the knowledge is out there for the learning.

 

It also helps to have an academic background in art theory, color theory, etc. if you are planning to be a serious visual artist...but all that you really need to explore your muse are a pencil and paper.

 

Not everybody wants - or needs - the box in order to gain fulfillment from the process...and insisting on these things from a creative newbie can indeed be a real turnoff.

 

And for the experienced and disciplined writer, it's important not to lose sight of those horizons beyond the established convention - especially if your participating in today's commercial market where a "song" can include any number of exceptions to the rules (as in Mr. Blue's example).

[Toxicpotatoe]

By calling the discussion moot, I meant that it doesn't matter what you define a song to be. I definitely do think that form and structure are important. You need to pay attention to what is important in the genre, but If you're writing jazz, you don't need lyrics. If you're writing rap, you don't need melody. If you want to say those things aren't songs that's fine, but does that mean that people writing in those genres shouldn't post here?

[kurdy]

I guess the problem with a forum like this is everyone here likely comes from different musical backgrounds and has different influences. If you come from a pop background, and are critiquing someone who's specialty is progressive and experimental music, and vice versa, you'll likely miss the boat, because you won't have the necessary background to know what to make of the other person's creation.

 

It's really difficult to know where another person is coming from, if their influences are obscure. Pop is everyone's frame of reference, so that's the point of view that is often taken when critiquing people's work. What other point of view are you going to take, unless you are familiar with the other person's musical influences, however obscure they may be?

 

Unless you as the "critiquer" are someone with similar aims and goals regarding songwriting, as the "critiquee", then the critique itself is pretty useless.

 

And yeah--it does depend on the writer's aim. Particularly with lyrics, I suppose if you're trying to get across a particular message, then it's best to follow the rules, make sure you're using the right grammar, pronouns, conjunctions, etc., so as to make sure what you're saying is clear and not confusing to the audience. But if you'd rather be abstract and poetic (an approach I've begun to appreciate more and more), then maybe the rules aren't as crucial, because then it's more about the interpretation (anybody heard of "I Am The Walrus"?). That said, it still never hurts to keep the rules in mind.

 

 

If you want to say those things aren't songs that's fine, but does that mean that people writing in those genres shouldn't post here?

 

 

And yeah, that's a good point too. In some ways, it would be quite impractical to have a separate forum for every kind of music there is. "Songwriting" serves as an umbrella term that everyone understands, even if it may not be the "technical" definition.

[Phil O'Keefe]

WARNING: Biased opinion post ahead!

 

Having worked extensively as a producer for both Songrytr AND Toxic Potatoe, I can tell you that both of these guys are not likely to toot their own horns - but I can. These guys are both absolute WORLD CLASS writers. Both have a very keen understanding of form and structure. Songrytr's writing is more powerpop oriented and TP's is a bit more modern folk oriented, and lyrically they tend to take somewhat different approaches, with TP being a bit more intellectual, introspective and sometimes slightly opaque with his lyrics, and Songrytr being a bit more approachable, but by no means any less intelligent and insightful... both have messages in some of their songs, and while they know structure and form, they're not slaves to it either - they know when and how to use - and to break - the "rules". But those are conscious ARTISTIC decisions that they occasionally make, and are never done out of laziness or lack of understanding of good song form and songwriting craft. Songrytr has worked for NAS (National Academy of Songwriters) and ran one of the largest songwriting contests in the USA until this year, while Toxic Potatoe was a songwriter finalist at the Kerrville Folk Festival, and the winner of the Tucson Folk Festival this year.

 

They're hardly noobs or unknowledgeable regarding the subject.

 

Which leads me to this:

 

Then you have missed the point of the entire discussion.

No one is saying that you shouldn't create what you want to create. Go ahead. But the purpose of the board is to help people accomplish the goal of creating what they want to create.

 

Which is good... I don't see any reason why different POV's can't be discussed, nor different positions, approaches and methods suggested. "What people want to create" is ultimately up to the individual.

 

You seem to be of the mindset that most people here are, that you should post what ever you want and everyone should just stand back and pat you on the head for creating something. If that's all you want, then fine. OK. Why post in this thread then?

 

Because it's an open discussion on a topic they happen to be pretty darned knowledgeable about? They ARE trying to help people - or at least have a discussion and offer their POV on the topic. And really, what qualifications do YOU have to say that they shouldn't post? Or that your POV is more valid?

 

Again, they've both had an impact, and industry recognition of their skills as writers, and IMO, will continue to do so. Can I ask for a list of your qualifications to advise people on songwriting craft that make you feel that you're better qualified than they are to dispense information on the subject? How many placements do you have? Any awards? Ever gotten any royalty checks from songs you've written? I'm not saying you don't have those things - I'd just like to know a bit more about who I'm having this discussion with.

 

Art is in the ear of the beholder. If you like something, that's great. If you want to follow traditional methods and so forth, that's great too. Believe me, as a producer and studio owner, I get to hear lots of things that IMO don't "cut it" insofar as traditional songwriting craft. And it does tend to bum me out - for me, it all starts and ends with the song, and I'm all for the promotion of improved songwriting skills! But as you noted, that doesn't make the art of someone who chooses a different path any less valid to them, or potentially, to some of their listeners though.

 

This is an open forum, and everyone is welcome here. I personally don't like seeing any comments made that are intended to discourage polite, reasonable discussion... and IMO, the tone of your post does tend to come off slightly "self-superior" and condescending. If you're into songwriting, then why not welcome new members who are, via polite and reasonable comments, trying to join into the discussions?

 

Debate and discuss the topics, but please don't try to discuorage participation from other people.

[Toxicpotatoe]

Who needs to "toot his own horn" with friends like Phil to do it for him. (BTW, Thanks, Phil, the check is in the mail).

[Aaron Cheney]

Same old diatribe, different day....

 

I seem to be a lot like BryanMicheal (my perception only...I don't presume to speak for Bryan) in that I'm an analytical thinker. I like systems, and I like things to work according to systems. I personally love the challenge of being creative within a perscribed set of boundaries. I don't mind breaking the rules when moved to, I just like to know that they are there.

 

To get back to the original question, defining "a song" can be tough. The definition of art is always a pretty slippery target. One man's art it painting the Mona Lisa, and another's is painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. "Art" can never be fully encapsulated.

 

I try really hard (and it's difficult for me) not to get caught up in arguments about nomenclature and semantics. It's a fruitless labor. What I strive for is an understanding of songwriting. I still want to know the "rules" and the craft, but even more I want to know why things work, wether those things coform to the "rules" or not.

 

In the course of that pursuit, I've come across a lot of things that rarely seem to work. Stuff that kills songs dead. My biggest frustration on BBS's like this comes when a poster asks for advice on a song riddled with song killers, and then rages about there being no "rules" in art when he is given advice. To me, that is the surest sign of musical immaturity.

 

A

[songrytr]

Originally posted by BryanMichael Songwrytr- You can go try to un-{censored} yourself.

 

You're all class, Bryan.

 

And yes, I'm going to call you on your arrogance - and there's no need to know anything any more about you beyond your posts in this thread to do so.

 

But really, for you to go all profane - AND get my screen name wrong (even though it's right in front of you, Mr. Scholar) shows that you're indeed struggling to defend the pithy and condescending place to which you confine yourself with your own words.

 

Calling the discussion "moot" is NOT a way to encourage further discussion- It implies that any further discussion is useless, not worthy of further exploration.

 

Really? Seems to me it transformed this thread into one of the more active ones in the forum. Perhaps you resent the undoing of your little teacher/student orientation with bball? Did Toxic Potatoe commit a mortal sin to intrude on the BryanMichael master class?

 

I've encouraged this person to check books out from the library among other things to further their knowledge- I "re-wrote" someone's lyric in another thread- yep. And I also apologized for doing so, but I did it because I thought the lyric was good, but could be stronger.

 

Once again, a BOLD move for someone who claims himself not to be an expert.

 

I spent a lot of time with that person's lyric giving them my opinion, something that I don't remember you doing in that thread, you know INVESTING TIME in helping another writer.

 

Time invested does not necessarily equal a fair, even or qualified critique. To me it looks like you invested more in building up yourself more than anything else.

 

A critique is not a rewrite.

 

Please link to that thread- show everyone here how much of a pompous ass I am, how much I "discouraged" that writer....

 

There's no need. In other words, you've made that need moot by the very tone of your most recent post.

 

When you or I are writing songs on par with a Costello or a Webb we can both certainly claim a bit of clout to lord our opinions around in a haughty manner. Until then, let's both keep in mind that there are probably more than a few songsters in our repsective locales that can smoke us both like cheap mexican weed. OK?

 

Encourage and suggest to new creators, but don't overwhelm them and shut them down with academic superiority. It only makes one look insecure and defensive.

 

[songrytr]

Originally posted by BryanMichael "A re-write is not a critique"

 

...and there's your first misquote.

 

Instead you came into this thread to "bring me down a notch"

 

Another misquote - as a part of another misguided "claim" on your part.

 

I came into this thread in response to your pithy reply to Toxic Potate, who obviously pushed your buttons by suggesting that you might be blowing smoke.

 

And, as I supported TP as much, you get all bent and surmise that I'm here to "bring you down a notch."

 

Guess what? It's not all about you, Sunshine. In fact it has nothing to do with you.

 

I responded only to WHAT YOU HAVE SAID and I read EVERY WORD! You on the other hand seem to feel fine and fully justified attacking me even with the FULL ADMISSION that you didn't bother to read all of my posts.

 

Don't go and tell me that you've read all my posts, or that you know what my motives are in this thread. Obviously, you can't get past yourself to the big picture.

 

Let me just say this, I've had enough trouble in my musical career dealing with professional assholes, I don't need to waste my time slugging it out with amateur assholes.

 

How do you stand yourself, then?

 

Again, ByranMichael, your silly and juvenile namecalling only makes you look like a whiny wannabe who can't get over the fact that a couple of folks might think his condescending manner might not be the most productive method of advising new creators.

 

Nobody demanded you to "waste your time" with us "amateur assholes." So get over it. We really don't care if you're a slave to format but when you lord it over others around here we're probably gonna call you on it.

 

[songrytr]

Originally posted by BryanMichael Toxicpotatoe then goes and tells me that everything I posted was not worthy of consideration (the connotation of moot)

 

You mean: Your connotation of it within the context of the thread.

 

Instead of getting all pissed off at TP, I explain that they have missed my point and then elaborate on it. You appear and attack me.

 

You said, in response to TP: "Then you have missed the point of the entire discussion."

 

I responded to that in kind without attacking you.

 

It was only after you came back at me from your high horse that you came up with this gem:

 

"I can give two {censored}s what you write!"

 

Poor, poor, maligned BryanMichael!

 

 

I don't know what your true motives are- but you have succeeded in proving to me that I should just continue to work with people privately. Thanks for confirming that.

 

If you want to blame me for your leaving this place (and by your implication making it a lesser forum for you action), go right ahead.

 

But the truth is that you got your poor nose bent out of joint so you're going to run home with your ball.

 

That's really sad. But you made your own bed. Nobody ran you off. OK?

 

Sleep well.