Jump to content

Identifying


grace_slick

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I guess there are things that we would do differently (because that's the way the world turns), and things that could be improved upon.
These are 2 quite different axioms.

If we take a popular group that is constantly pronounced as the greatest songwriting group of all time, there have always been things that I would have done differently.
And there are some things that might be improved upon.
John wasn't satisfied with everything they did, and I sometimes wonder if they are the same things that I think could be improved upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hmm, maybe I should clarify what I meant by "mistakes". I don't mean they're actual MISTAKES. I just meant they are things I would consider mistakes in MY songs in that for my own specific musical tastes, I would try to avoid doing those particular things.

Anyway, yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Missteps?

:p

My main thing is repetition. I don't ever want to write the same song twice.
Some bands can pull it off, but I was hugely influenced by Bob Dylan.. David Bowie.. I want to always do something new - even if I fall flat on my face.
So yeah - when I hear a song by a band/artist and I immediately recognize it.. it sort of reminds me to always go somewhere counter intuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I have a very open appreciation of the music I hear. Even the stuff deemed unacceptable by those that know better... I tend to see all the right choices made along with the wrong. If there is a "right". I guess that means it falls within my taste parameters or not. But back to that word "choices". Art is comprised of thousands of choices. Every step of the way, the creator is faced with a fork in the road, And the Scarecrow points there... not actually it's that way... wait a minute... hmmm...

These choices eventually end up as something, this thing, and we hopefully get up the balls to says, "OK, I mades me choices. And here it is." That why a lot of green songwriters tend to say things like, "Well, it's not really ready to show you, I need to re-string my guitar and... uh..." It's like putting your nuts on the chopping block and hoping you can charm the guy in the black hood with the ax.

So, are there choices artists make that I would chose differently? Of course! If there weren't I wouldn't be doing this. But at the same time, I tend to admire anyone truly trying to create something. Whether it be the poppiest pop or the hippest underground {censored} you've never heard of. Art is choices. And it's difficult, until it's not. Then it will probably get difficult again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As a novice "sorta" songwriter I often find myself listening to songs with the mindest of "would I be proud of this song if I had written it?" I also find myself noticing song structure more, and if a song "works" as a written piece, or if something odd or 'contrived', like a weird bridge, chord change, or something like that, occurs in the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by rsadasiv View Post
A work of art defines its own rules, and thus by definition can never contain a mistake.

At least that's what they were teaching when I was getting a degree in Literary Criticism. redface.gif
I would tend to agree within the limited parameters of the creative aesthetic. Each work, ultimately, defines itself. It may set up its own game, but if it wants someone to play that game, it's got to make the game play interesting. It's got to draw in and hold the audience -- or it is, in that primal relationship, something of a failure.

We all clearly have aesthetic reactions that vary widely from work to work (and from person to person with regard to different works). Sometimes those reactions follow patterns familiar to us from and defined by our own reactions (an abrupt key change disturbs our appreciation of the music, a lyric phrase broken for a breath rest in an 'unnatural' feeling spot) and sometimes we're 'pleasantly surprised' when our intellects flag a bit in aesthetic annoyance, yet the bad bit doesn't end up subverting the song for us. (For the next guy, of course, it might.)

When I'm writing a song, I don't have conscious rules in mind. I'm following some fleeting shadow of a whisp of a feeling, vibe, or sometimes an actual idea that can be expressed succinctly in words (usually not). Rules get in the way. However, we all (at least I think we all do, close enough to all for me) have absorbed and, to varying degrees, often work within the bounds of certain, not necessarily consciously defined rules and habits that tend to guide our process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by rsadasiv View Post
A work of art defines its own rules, and thus by definition can never contain a mistake.

At least that's what they were teaching when I was getting a degree in Literary Criticism. redface.gif
I would tend to agree within the limited parameters of the creative aesthetic. Each work, ultimately, defines itself. But, while it can define its own game on that side of the ultimate creation/appreciation equation, if it wants someone to play that game, it's got to make the game play interesting. It's got to draw in and hold the audience -- or it is, in that primal relationship, something of a failure.

We all clearly have aesthetic reactions that vary widely from work to work (and from person to person with regard to different works). Sometimes those reactions follow patterns familiar to us from and defined by our own reactions (an abrupt key change disturbs our appreciation of the music, a lyric phrase broken for a breath rest in an 'unnatural' feeling spot) and sometimes we're 'pleasantly surprised' when our intellects flag a bit in aesthetic annoyance, yet the bad bit doesn't end up subverting the song for us. (For the next guy, of course, it might.)

When I'm writing a song, I don't have conscious rules in mind. I'm following some fleeting shadow of a whisp of a feeling, vibe, or sometimes an actual idea that can be expressed succinctly in words (usually not). Rules get in the way. However, we all (at least I think we all do, close enough to all for me) have absorbed and, to varying degrees, often work within the bounds of certain, not necessarily consciously defined rules and habits that tend to guide our process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by blue2blue View Post
I would tend to agree within the limited parameters of the creative aesthetic. Each work, ultimately, defines itself. It may set up its own game, but if it wants someone to play that game, it's got to make the game play interesting. It's got to draw in and hold the audience -- or it is, in that primal relationship, something of a failure.

We all clearly have aesthetic reactions that vary widely from work to work (and from person to person with regard to different works). Sometimes those reactions follow patterns familiar to us from and defined by our own reactions (an abrupt key change disturbs our appreciation of the music, a lyric phrase broken for a breath rest in an 'unnatural' feeling spot) and sometimes we're 'pleasantly surprised' when our intellects flag a bit in aesthetic annoyance, yet the bad bit doesn't end up subverting the song for us. (For the next guy, of course, it might.)

When I'm writing a song, I don't have conscious rules in mind. I'm following some fleeting shadow of a whisp of a feeling, vibe, or sometimes an actual idea that can be expressed succinctly in words (usually not). Rules get in the way. However, we all (at least I think we all do, close enough to all for me) have absorbed and, to varying degrees, often work within the bounds of certain, not necessarily consciously defined rules and habits that tend to guide our process.
TBH, the restrictions of New Criticism are a big part of why I bailed out of the field. wink.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never liked the way Elton John extends the word "Spain" in "Daniel". It's awkward to sing and makes it pretty clear that the music and words were written separately and forced to fit. I would have re-written the line to fit the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by blue2blue View Post
I would tend to agree within the limited parameters of the creative aesthetic. Each work, ultimately, defines itself. It may set up its own game, but if it wants someone to play that game, it's got to make the game play interesting. It's got to draw in and hold the audience -- or it is, in that primal relationship, something of a failure.

We all clearly have aesthetic reactions that vary widely from work to work (and from person to person with regard to different works). Sometimes those reactions follow patterns familiar to us from and defined by our own reactions (an abrupt key change disturbs our appreciation of the music, a lyric phrase broken for a breath rest in an 'unnatural' feeling spot) and sometimes we're 'pleasantly surprised' when our intellects flag a bit in aesthetic annoyance, yet the bad bit doesn't end up subverting the song for us. (For the next guy, of course, it might.)

When I'm writing a song, I don't have conscious rules in mind. I'm following some fleeting shadow of a whisp of a feeling, vibe, or sometimes an actual idea that can be expressed succinctly in words (usually not). Rules get in the way. However, we all (at least I think we all do, close enough to all for me) have absorbed and, to varying degrees, often work within the bounds of certain, not necessarily consciously defined rules and habits that tend to guide our process.
TBH, the restrictions of New Criticism are a big part of why I bailed out of the field. wink.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by LCK View Post
Hi, Grace,

I do this all the time! Even with songs written by some of my songwriting idols.
I actually think this is a really GOOD thing! If you can listen objectively to songs and find things you'd do differently or "improve" on even in songs written by your idols, that shows...something. lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know what you mean about learning from the perceived mistakes in the songs you listen to.....

...but I LOVE hearing that sort of stuff. It makes the music a living thing for me. These days much of what we hear has had all of the mistakes gridded and autotuned out. I listen for the mistakes in my material and decide if they are musical and serendipidous enough to add to the song.

Quote Originally Posted by ShadowsofBirds View Post
My main thing is repetition. I don't ever want to write the same song twice.
I hear that.cool.gifwave.gifwink.gif

Quote Originally Posted by blue2blue View Post
When I'm writing a song, I don't have conscious rules in mind. I'm following some fleeting shadow of a whisp of a feeling, vibe, or sometimes an actual idea .
Ah, yes. Should music be following rules?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't correct my idols' work. I do think about/study what works, though. If it doesn't work, I don't listen. So, the mistakes are not memorable.

But I remember in the book "The Craft of Lyric Writing" by Sheila Davis, that she showed some examples of early drafts of songs that became popular and you get a sense of how everyone struggles with the same issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by grace_slick

View Post

Apparently one of the first people to leave in mistakes purposefully were The Beatles. Artistic license. I like that. cool.gif

 

When you're twelve layers of 4-track bounces in and you realize you hit a stray note on the first track you laid down - It's a good time to invent artistic license. :p
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...