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

[kurdy]

There are some still around but not enough.

There are still a lot of them around, but the kind of music they make would now be classified as "adult". Which apparently means it's too old-fashioned for the young people to dig.

But let's not forget; country music is one of the most popular kinds of music around. Whether you like it or not, it's the one genre that is almost completely reliant on the old-school methods of songwriting. Weird production tricks would almost be a novelty in country.

[Bruce Swedien]

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...

 

 

I think that the Sound of a Song is merely the beginning of the experience....

 

If the song grabs your attention, and the sound is superb, than you have something unique... AND you will want to listen to it over and over again.... That is important!!!

 

Brucie the Platinum Viking......

[Hard Truth]

I get annoyed with people who say things like "its all about the song" or "it must have a memorable melody" or "you have to be able to play it solo on guitar or piano." These trusims may apply to making something accessible to the masses, but they don't apply to the full range of musical experiences. I have spent many enjoyable hours listening to (for just one well-known example) the Beatles Revolution #9 and other music that is not based on melody.

 

Pop music has been limited primarilly to a narrow handful of lyrical themes and musical moods. Compare pop music to movies-movies would be pretty boring if they were limited to happy, upbeat movies and sad stories of lost love. Most folks accept that movies can also be humorous, thought provoking, horrifying, scarey, informative, disgusting, erotic etc. Its too bad most people won't accept music with a similar range of moods and styles.

 

If, like me, you define music as the creative control and manipulation of sound for the creation of artistic and pleasurable experiences for the listener, then you can enjoy a wide variety of music.

 

If you define music as only the use of acoustic or electro-acoustic instruments tuned to the twelve tones of the western chromatic scale to create melodies for artistic and pleasurable purposes, you will miss enjoying a lot of great music from other cultures, many types of experimental/new music and music created using new technologies. Your loss.

[UstadKhanAli]

If we're talking about Western pop music, sure, I guess you can apply these things to it to say that it needs to have composition or whatever.

But it's, in my opinion, a narrow view.

Isn't Javanese gamelan music just as much about songs as they are about the composition (which, btw, are some of the world's most sophisticated and beautiful compositions)? Where does that leave African songs, that have been passed down for hundreds of years? Where does that leave composers such as Elaine Radigue, Tom Recchion, and others? Where does that leave a lot of dub songs? Where does that leave Laotian music? Where does it leave Indian classical music? Where does it leave, quite frankly, MOST of the world's music? Are we going to ignore all those and say that they are NOT songs because it doesn't fit into our neat little definition of what a song is?

To me, songs are organized noise, music organized sound (and sure, it may be defined as having singing, but that doesn't change what I'm saying). To me, watching people make these hyper-distinctive definitions of what constitutes a song is like watching someone try and catch a greased pig.

[kurdy]

If you define music as only the use of acoustic or electro-acoustic instruments tuned to the twelve tones of the western chromatic scale to create melodies for artistic and pleasurable purposes, you will miss enjoying a lot of great music from other cultures, many types of experimental/new music and music created using new technologies. Your loss.

 

 

I agree that it is limiting to believe that music must have certain characteristics in order to be any good, but we are talking about "songs" here. A song is defined as a piece of music with a melody and lyrics that are sung. There are other types of music that serve different purposes, and that doesn't make them any less valid a musical form. Chopin has written some beautiful music. But you wouldn't necessarily walk down the street humming one of his pieces.

 

As a music listener, it's good to expand your horizons and be open to all different forms of music. That I can agree with. However, looking at it from the perspective of a songwriter, and not as a listener, I personally would want my music to connect with the average person. I look at really successful songwriters like Carole King, or Paul McCartney, and I imagine what a joy it must be knowing that so many people around the world really connect with something they created. It must be a wonderful feeling. Why cut myself off from that possibility by creating music that the majority of people won't understand? I mean, I don't question anybody else's motivations for doing that, but it just isn't something I can relate to.

 

And that doesn't mean an artist has to dumb themselves down. There's still room for both intelligence and accessiblity in pop music, I believe.

[Dean Roddey]

Obviously just a cool sound won't make a good song. But I'd be willing to bet that many, many a good song came about when someone sat down and just came across a really cool sound or riff or melody or chord progression and was inspired to use that as the core of a new tune. The trick is always finding other things that are are good that go with it, so that it doesn't turn out to be a one trick pony type of song. That's actually a problem for song writing in general, to have parts that contrast but do so in a very complementary way, and don't just sound like a string of individual cool ideas or sounds.

[Jimbroni]

sound doesn't equal song, thats a given.

 

But what does equal a song?

 

I think a song is musical entity that envokes something inside the listener or artist.

 

I believe songs exist independent of the artist who creates them. In fact, I wonder if anybody actually creates songs as much as they discover them.

[Hard Truth]

Kurdy wrote "we are talking about "songs" here. A song is defined as a piece of music with a melody and lyrics that are sung."

 

I agree that with Kurdy's definition of "song" many of the limitations and philosophies that people advocate start making sense. The problem is that for many, "song" has come to mean "piece of music." So we might not all be discussing the same thing when we argue about "songs."

[slight-return]

Are we going to ignore all those and say that they are NOT songs because it doesn't fit into our neat little definition of what a song is?

 

 

 

Ignore ? certainly not, definition wouldn't imply that one ignores other musical construction nor that there is an inherent value definition of one particular form of construction over another

 

 

 

 

So, as with the ICM example, we might have a gayaki style or a tantrakari style where one would be in more a "sung" (with an instrument behaving in a voicelike manner) fashion with the other having the instrument behave non-vocally -- having one style, however, doesn't negate validity or value of the other

They are merely different things.

 

narrow definition doesnt have to lead to narrow thinking, rather the definitions can give us reference points to compare, contrast, challenge and otherwise examine identity

 

I think Hard Truth expressed clearly one of the potential misunderstandings in the discussion

 

The problem is that for many, "song" has come to mean "piece of music." So we might not all be discussing the same thing when we argue about "songs."

[alfonso]

A bad song can make a fantastic production unbearable....

Ok, out of provocations, it's just to say that there is a particular rule in what can make sounds a source of pleasure or not, that's the mental processes it will induce.

Basically we are taught to appreciate harmonic relations, even a single melody in its timeline builds an harmonic evocation.

The difference of the same drum solo made on a well tuned kit or on a detuned one is enormous, the first one will be appreciated by anyone, no matter the age or culture, the second one will be an acoustic disgrace even for a deaf punk.

There are several levels in which harmonic relations are displayed, the lowest is the basic timber difference, a plucked string sounds so much nicer than a common stone only because its sound is composed by a series of waveforms in a very strong harmonic relation, conforming to our mind inbuilt patterns.

Music became progressively more complex, playing more sounds at the same time requested a better musical technology...why? Because to respect our mental patterns for harmonic relations all the sounds played together have to produce pleasant and mathematically precise harmonic relations. This is an higher level than the previous one. A major triad on a well tuned instrument is incomparably better than the same thing on a medium value classical guitar with new strings tuned only once 20 minutes ago.

But the better technology and the centuries of musical traditions brought us in developing full bodies of changing harmonies, chasing melodies and complex structures. This is an even higher level of harmonic relations.

All these levels are very important.

But they have a different impact on our mind. The lower level, the timber "micro harmonies" act on a low mental level. The higher the harmonic level, as it is when a cultural element defines it, the higher the mental level. There is where the cultural or sub-cultural differences make...the difference.

People like different things, but all will agree if there is something wrong at a lower level, like a poorly tuned instrument. Lower levels are more universal. Not enough though. I personally love microtunings, I occasionally play a Saz and I find a third almost a quarter between the major and the minor one as a form of perfection....my old grandfather, who was Greek and should have been much closer than me on anatolic scales, was an opera lover and hated those scales at the point of walking away from the radio set when I was a kid fiddling with AM stations in the Mediterranean.

To bring all this to an "on topic" point:

We can get pleasure at several levels, but each one can ruin the others. My opinion is that, higher the level of something good happening, higher the pleasure.
I'm absolutely of the idea that "Imagine" played voice and piano, through a small radio set, broadcast from an AM station where it's played on an old cassette deck is a much more satisfying experience than a super production with the best of the best performing, recording, mixing and mastering something like the thousand emo-garage-jodel-vintage songs imposed today, heard through the best surround system.

Let's say that if a song is beautiful also played very simply and heard on a "veiled" little speaker, its a better song than the one that only works through a great system. Or to say better, it's better in its higher level, the more evolved one.

If I was a "songs" producer I would only hear demos through a 70's Phillips mono cassette deck with dirty heads and a filthy capstan roller.

I say that being a fanatic of sound, I worship the sound, half of my working life is spent on sound generation algorithms, but a good song is more than this.

[Phil O'Keefe]

If a sound inspires you, then great! If a sound accents the song, supports the song and frames it in the best possible light; accentuating the musical and emotional content, then great! But I agree - great sounds do not, in and of themselves, a great song make.

 

If it's a great song, I think you can usually (but maybe not always) convey the essence of it with just a voice and acoustic guitar or piano. Great sounds help, but they have to be supporting something "more" - and IMHO, a great recording starts with a good song, passionately / emotionally presented. If that's not there, all the studio fixes, sonic production magic and arrangement tricks in the world will just result in a shiny turd.

[rasputin1963]

I remember once I was playing cocktail piano at a party in the 80's. Someone asked me to play "Thriller".

 

I had to explain to this lady why the song wouldn't translate to solo piano. ["Y'see, that record is groove-based, not exactly melody based, and..." but by then her eyes are glazing over, and I've just made an enemy at the party.]

 

The 1980's are kinda the first decade of pop which produced records which a solo cocktail pianist could not (convincingly) replicate.

[alphajerk]

okay, i couldnt read this all right now... too much wine to focus on anything, but a cool drum sound is like a new set of guitar strings. sometimes when you do that all this {censored} comes out of you for some reason. its inspired sometimes. maybe that sound makes you play a certain way. of course the sound doesnt make the song, but it might make the inspiration for a killer song.

[Tedster]

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...

 

 

Hmmm... a couple of thoughts without having first read the other posts...

 

First...a new sound can inspire one to write something interesting. I was at a buddy of mine's house in Michigan a few weeks ago. He was playing me some stuff that he'd done. He said "This tune, I used a sampled clarinet sound for the solo". Of course, the rocker in me was skeptical...y'know, clarinet solos don't belong in rock songs...but it freakin' worked! I was a believer. So, even if you don't write a whole new song around a sound, you can use it to support parts of a song.

 

Not that I think you should do that for its own sake, mind you, that leads to boring, forced-sounding crap. But if the new sound inspires you, flow with it.

 

Second, not every song needs a "emotional core". The radio is full of catchy songs without them...and, conversely, there are some very emotional but very boring songs out there too.

 

Just a gut reaction on a cloudy Kansas City morning...

[tradivoro1]

Well, I guess if you go back to an older concept of music, back from the days when people wrote music on paper... You wrote music first, then orchestrated... And orchestration could be a piano and voice, just guitar, a chamber ensemble, etc... But the music was that original conception of harmony and melody, and lyrics if applicable... The sounds came second...

I think what's happened to music is that because in the last 25 years, songs that are more sound oriented but not that good minus the sounds, became very popular. These have created the standard nowadays of what a song should be, so we have people writing songs, minus the sounds, that aren't that good... If that makes any sense...

I'm definitely of the mindset, first write a good song on a piano or guitar, and make sure it's great in just that format... Then orchestrate.. Part of the orchestration is having a good singer...

Anyway, my two cents...

[kurdy]

I think what's happened to music is that because in the last 25 years, songs that are more sound oriented but not that good minus the sounds, became very popular. These have created the standard nowadays of what a song should be, so we have people writing songs, minus the sounds, that aren't that good... If that makes any sense... I'm definitely of the mindset, first write a good song on a piano or guitar, and make sure it's great in just that format... Then orchestrate.. Part of the orchestration is having a good singer... Anyway, my two cents...

 

 

True, although I don't think it's a phenomenon in all current music. There are only a few genres where this kind of approach to music is prevalent, mainly rap/hip hop, and dance/electronic. Producers create cool tracks or "beats" first, and have rappers come in and make them into songs. Quite recently, I read an interview with a rap/hip hop mogul, and he mentioned that the type of music he deals doesn't have very much of a shelf life. It isn't meant to. It's all about urgency, and what's happening right now.

 

Outside those particular genres, I think such an approach become even less prevalent than it was in previous decades. The 80s were all about weird electronic sounds being turned into songs; everybody was using synths and drum machines; you'd be hard pressed to find a song on the radio without them, whether rock, dance, R&B, even some country. But ever since then, for the most part, the tide seems to have turned back to music being made with real musicians.

 

Here's what I think is the bottom line. There is nothing wrong with using a cool sound or drum beat or whatever to inspire a great song. Many songwriters have done it successfully. It's the end result that counts. However, with inexperienced songwriters, it can easy to be seduced into thinking something is great, simply because it sounds kinda cool. Often, it's simply a safer bet to write a song that's solid to begin with. Then you can add whatever cool sounds you'd like afterwards.

[Lee Knight]

A lot of beat driven music relies too heavily on sounds in my opinion. Think how Prince's Kiss would still sound cool if he were at a campfire singing and clapping his hands to hit and slap. It would still be Kiss.

Now picture the latest Justin T tune.

Which one of those two songs is the more enjoyable experience to listen to in full bloom. For me: Kiss.

Which one of those will still be listened to 30 years after it's release? For me: Kiss

Sounds don't make the song. They might make a temporary record but not a song. And that's... OK, but it's not greatness. Why did we stop reaching for greatness?

[philbo]

A lot of beat driven music relies too heavily on sounds in my opinion. Think how Prince's Kiss would still sound cool if he were at a campfire singing and clapping his hands to hit and slap. It would still be Kiss. Now picture the latest Justin T tune. Which one of those two songs is the more enjoyable experience to listen to in full bloom. For me: Kiss. Which one of those will still be listened to 30 years after it's release? For me: Kiss Sounds don't make the song. They might make a temporary record but not a song. And that's... OK, but it's not greatness. Why did we stop reaching for greatness?

 

 

I take your point about good song vs. good sound, but Gawd... If I'm listening to Prince 30 years from now, please come euthanize me, because it'll mean I don't have the consciousness left to do it myself.

[Lee Knight]

I take your point about good song vs. good sound, but Gawd... If I'm listening to Prince 30 years from now, please come euthanize me, because it'll mean I don't have the consciousness left to do it myself.

Well, in 8 years it will have been 30 years.

[Jimbroni]

Well, in 8 years it will have been 30 years.

Ouch!!