Writing songs for the average listener

[IHATEMUSIC]

Originally posted by HuskerDude Van Halen were a second rate garage band with a fast guitarist. They weren't challenging anyone other than over-competitive guitarists. Smooth "Jazz" is about as challenging as walking and chewing bubblegum. Any of the challenging music out there in the past 20 years, (Sonic Youth, The Pixies, decent hip-hop, etc...) you dismiss as trash, indicating that you're having a hard time "catching up" yourself.

 

 

i think what is the crux of the issue here is that powell is thinking in terms of songs ARRANGED in ways that demonstrate above-average musical virtuosity in terms of performance. he seems uninterested in above average or challenging use of ideas, emotions, conceits, structures w/ regard to form and content.

 

hence the ridiculousness of making his argument on a songwriting forum, which is obviously concerned w/ the song before it is subjected to the ego-enhancing arrangementmania of meglomaniacal "virtuosos."

[Yngtchie Blacksteen]

Why is there a thread about this in GJ?

[JohnSchreimann]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell And they said there wasn't another intelligent opinion to be found on this thread. -wp

I think you're backpeddling because you know the initial statement was pointless and not true of anyone to begin with.

Why don't you quit being the supervillian/martyr? A few people joke around on Pollard's forum... because they know how to get you going. No one genuinely hates you or your playing. I couldn't honestly give two {censored}s what you do. And I'm sure everyone else would agree.

[JohnSchreimann]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell I'm not backpeddaling at all. My initial post is completely valid. You should write what you feel and let people come to you. Contrived stuff isn't the way you should go about it. Music is supposed to be about expression. Do you really disagree with that? As for that little group of ankle biters, I haven't even read that forum. All I know about it is what people have told me. If that's what that level of person finds "entertaining", hey, have at it. -wp

 

which band or artist is not expressive?

Help me out here.

[ShatteredMindofBob]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell When Nickelback puts out the same exact song two years later... -wp

 

 

...and does anyone on here listen to Nickelback?

[JohnSchreimann]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell When Nickelback puts out the same exact song two years later... -wp

 

Well then you've finally figured out how much corporate rock sucks... and you're arguing with the wrong people.

[Mr.Bojangles]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell Why aspire to be average? -wp

Wes, any form of mass communication, including songwriting, consists of two main components: the idea, and the expression of the idea. EVERY innovative, successful musician has expressed an original idea in a way designed to appeal to a mass audience. What you are suggesting is that musicians should express their ideas through methods so obscure and trying that nobody except masochists would get it.

There is no shame in the populist expression of an idea, so long as the idea itself is interesting and unique.

[Mr.Bojangles]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell Two words. Allan Holdsworth. Okay, two more. Al DiMeola. Okay, three more. Jean Luc Ponte.

You ignore the conventions of genre. Within their genre, the musicians you have listed HAVE appealed to a greater audience whereas, say, Michael Angelo has not.

Holdsworth is a brilliant melodic improviser. Michael Angelo plays notes really fast. See what I'm getting at?

Originally posted by Wes_Powell Not really. Look at the guys I listed above. They're not trying to do stuff that's over the average John Q. Public's head. They just do what they do. Thank God they don't dumb it down. Who needs talented guys like that playing Oasis level stuff when they're capable of so much more? -wp

I think you underestimate the extent to which these musicians mind their audience. No, they don't dumb it down, but they play in such a way that their ideas can be received by the listener. That's what I was trying to get at in my original post: No successful musician or songwriter has ever written without an audience in mind -- no matter how much they say "I write for me, and whoever else likes it, likes it."

[Mr.Bojangles]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell Why aspire to be average? -wp

One more thing: remember that populism does not imply relative quality. If you really want to prove your point, post a song you wrote that's half as catchy as Weezer, R.E.M., The Pixies, or any other "inferior" pop band. That is, if it's really so easy.

[Bernie Franks]

If you're not writing for anyone but yourself, why do you let the idea leave your mind in the first place? If you were honestly writing for yourself, you'd keep it to yourself.

[da_witch]

I don't know what the {censored} you are all talking about Holdworth, Meola, Angelo, but all of them have done stuff that appealed to the greater audience.
Hello, anybother remember Nitro? Angelo with his 4 necked guitar and I can assure you, it appealed to the bigger audience. Ya know he is doing stuff for Pink at the moment?

[Gainon10]

To write for other's to enjoy, it requires empathy. It requires understanding and feelings.

If you just look at other's with contempt, that's how your music will sound.

Empathise with people and see into their hearts and reach out and touch it.

If you cannot, then it is you who are lacking. And all the notes on earth cannot cover that weakness.

[Mr.Bojangles]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell I don't agree with that totally. I think they find out who their audience is but I don't think musicians of that caliber sit down with a formula and attempt to appeal to a certain group the way a politician does with his positions on issues. -wp

 

 

I think the only people that do do that are the ones getting played on MTV and the radio.

 

Holdsworth never dumbed down his creative output, but neither did The Pixies. Both, however, wrote and played from the perspective of a listener. Even if they didn't have a specific audience in mind, they would hear their music as someone other than themselves might hear it.

[BryanMichael]

WOW- interesting thread, I'll bite.
FIrst of all there is a difference between "songwriting" and "arranging" Rock musicians have enjoyed the position of being admired for several things all at once, making them more like musical theater performers than anything else:
1. Songwriting
2. Performance ability (skill at singing/playing)
3. Arranging (in the above, I meant "arranging" in a traditional way-in this sense I mean "setting a mood" for a performance that can be quite simple, but complements the theatrics of the performance)
4. Theatrics (their live show which has included in the past: costumes, pyrotechnics, light shows, makeup, dancers, etc.etc....)
and probably a few other criteria.
The thing is that a great performance or cool riff (the riff is an arrangement component) can make a poorly constructed song into a "good song" by some standards- but it still is a poorly constructed song.

How is that again?
Well-what I see on this board all the time is a conflict of definitions and terms and then the outright disregard for any type of idea of what is going on underneath the surface of most songs (that's the very post-modern artistic interpretation wherein the artist thinks that anything they produce is "art" ) and a respect for an established CRAFT.

Explain, Bryan!
Well, lets use some examples from the board and recent discussions. Staind, Radiohead, and for fun let's use "country music" as a whole (meaning the popular music that is on CMT) since pop/country/r&b are where the independent songwriter can still make a living writing for others and these songs most closely follow the "craft".

First of all, as a songwriter (meant as one who is involved in the CRAFT- not one who is a free-for-all artist) you have to recognize a song OUTSIDE OF IT'S STYLE AND ARRANGEMENT- In other words, you can't think of a Britney Spears or Garth Brooks song as pop or country right off, just as "pieces of furniture" which may or may not have sound structural integrity and aesthetics-
You can do the same with Radiohead and Staind if you like- or something like "Yesterday" by the Beatles. Strip the song down to chords, melody, and lyrics. THAT IS IT- that is a song. That is songwriting. Everything else is arranging. That cool guitar riff? ARRANGING. That descending bass line? ARRANGING. That 52 piece orchestra swell and breakdown in 7/8 time with the shredding solo? ARRANGING. As I stated, Rock musicians usually get taken in as a whole-the arrangement and playing ability (or perceived ability...) is taken into account when looking at the music (as well as the other factors mentioned) But to understand where alot of people are coming from when they refer to "songwriting" you have to be able to break it down into the bare components.
NOW- looking at something like Radiohead, there is a prime example of a band that has provn they can write well structured songs and also create bizarre, obscure, challenging music (that doesn't mean it isn;t satisfying- but I would hardly call it "good songwriting) For example- alot of the music on the Bends was what can be seen as "good songwriting" whereas most of HTTT is not. THIS IS NOT A VALUE JUDGEMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE MUSIC IS GOOD, JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS STANDARDS FOR GOOD SONGWRITING WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CRAFT ITSELF.
THe same with Staind. I think I've only ever heard one song by them "It's been awhile" and whether or not you LIKE the song becasue of it's style, arrangement. the sound of the guys voice- whatever- technically, it meets the criteria for GOOD songwriting.
COuntry music and R&B performers constantly put out songs that fit that criteria as well- DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE MAY FIND IT UNLISTENABLE POP CRAP.

So how in the world is something a "good song" if it is unlistenable pop crap!? While great 'artists' music is not considered "good songwriting"-I'm confused!??

Well- as I stated, we are dealing with definitions within the CRAFT- not opinions on style of music here. THAT IS THE BIGGEST DIFFERNCE I SEE ON THIS BOARD- people that are trying to critique or judge a song based on the criteria of the craft and those that want to debate the merits of style.

So what makes a 'good song' then?
In general, SOME of the things that make a 'good song' are
1. consistancy of narrative
2. Growth from verse to verse
3. Some originality in expressing the idea
4. CHoruses that re-enforce the theme or clarify the idea of the song
5. Titles that serve the theme/idea
6. Universality-

and other things- THESE ARE GUIDELINES, NOT 'RULES' in the strict sense- but almost any musician out there creates songs that fit these criteria- Metallica, Sting, Garth Brooks, Britney, Radiohead, the Strokes, etc... really, you'd be surprised if we broke them down. You have to get outside of STYLE to understand songwriting.
This doesn't mean that:
A- every 'good song' is one I'm going to like and want to listen to.
B- Obtuse, strange, noise and strange disjointed lyrics cannot make for great music and great listening.

Holdsworth isn't a songwriter.


.02
B

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell So you're basically saying that all songwriting is all about is lyrics and the music is simply arranging background stuff to perform this amazing poetry over? I hope that's not what I'm supposed to get out of this. -wp

 

 

Again, we're dealing with Definitions:

A "song" is lyrics/chords/melody. PERIOD.

If a riff is the most integral part of the song, well I guess that can be included in the "melody" part.

 

Everything else is music and arrangement.

I'm not putting that part of it down- it's just not what is really considered in the CRAFT of writing a song. The song is the structure that all that other stuff hinges on.

That's why alot of people here are posting lyrics- it's one of the three components of songwriting at it's core- When you sit down to write a "song" all you really need is a guitar or keyboard or anything that creates chords. Everything else can come later.

That again doesn't mean that you can't write a song around an amazing riff, it's just not part of the core craft unless you want to consider that part of the melody composition part.

 

B

[JohnSchreimann]

Would you do open mic night, Wes?

[JohnSchreimann]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell What kind of open mic? Probably. Depends. -wp

 

Just you and an acoustic.

 

Just so you know... I probably wouldn't... I'm just asking.

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell Let's deal with these one at a time starting with this one. I take it from your definition that you don't think instrumental pieces are songs. Is that correct? But you think poems...or lyrics... are songs. Correct? I'd disagree with both those points. I also define arrangement as the order the music is put into with regard to sections that are different than each other and the instrumentation used therein. So, basically, I define a song as a finished piece of music, the lyrics, chords, melody, etc. components of the song (if applicable), and the arrangement the instrumentation and order the sections are arranged in. I guess everyone defines songs differently. Which is fine. -wp

I think instrumental compositions are just that- compositions. They lack a lyrical component, which would make them a song.

lyrics and poems are two different things. Poems are created to exist as they are. Lyrics are created as a component of a song-
When someone posts a lyric on the board, we have no way of knowing if they have a melody or anything else to go with it, but it is assumed that they do since this is a songwriting board-

A lyric without a melody or at least composed with the intention of having a melody added to it (some people can write in isolation-but it is the marriage of the word to the melody that ultimately makes it a "lyric" and not just some poem...) isn't really a lyric.

I went to all of this trouble because it was obvious from all of the previous posts that you are working under a different paradigm-
The definitions I offer are based on those used in the standard , longstanding tradition of the craft of songwriting-they are not solely my own definitions- go to Nashville, read a book on songwriting (there are tons) check out an issue of Sing Out! (folk magazine) or try other songwriting boards- that's the language we speak when we speak of songwriting.

In no way have I discounted music that doesn't fit into those structures- I am a huge REM fan (non-sensical lyrics) and I like other music that doesn't always fit those criteria strictly, but the songs that tend to endure generally follow a narrative structure in the form of what I cited as 'a good song' above. It's purely academic, not a qualitative judgement- that's what my point was.

Compositions without lyric are not subject to the same types of narrative criteria- which is why they are not usually looked at as "songs".

B

[PFB]

I really respect musicians like Journey, Van Halen, REO Speedwagon, Winger, Nickleback,Toto, Boston, etc. who could be writing stuff too complicated for the "average Listener", but understand that music is about making money. The "average listener" is who you have to appeal to in the business of music.

I would strive to emulate Journey, rather than people like Steve Earle, Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy, The Gourds, DBT, Kasey Chambers, Gillian Welch and a whole bunch of other people who don't stack up to Journey in record sales.

[JohnSchreimann]

Originally posted by Wes_Powell Why wouldn't you? -wp

Because a real musician like myself has to be paid for his time.

[sevenroy]

So music is all about making money?

I guess I'll be selling all of my instruments, then.

[PFB]

How about defining the term "average listener"?

Am I to think that it is someone who only buys music they've heard on top 40 radio or MTV? Does it include classic rock fans who own no music made after 1978? How many CDs does the "average listener" own? How many CD's does the "average listner" own that do not have lyrics?

Lyrics and Poems are the same thing:eek: . That's another new "fact" I've learned from Harmony Central. I guess most "average listeners" don't like instrumental, but love reading poetry.

[JohnSchreimann]

Originally posted by sevenroy So music is all about making money? I guess I'll be selling all of my instruments, then.

Selling them to make money right?

[siliC0N]

Ahhhh, but above average music does not necessarily have to mean blindingly fast guitar/ piano solos/ leads and infinitly complex beats. A well written, simple song is (in my opinion) far superior to a song that is complex to the point that it is hard to listen to. It is not normally the "uber guitar" songs that repeat in your head all week against your will. It is the relatively simple, catchy songs that do that. Holden from catcher in the rye said it best "Sometimes when a musician gets too good, he just starts showing off. Then hes not good anymore" or something along those lines. I try to write for everybody. If my parents, my wife, and my neighbors son think its good, (three age groups far apart in musical taste) then its probably a pretty good song.

[BryanMichael]

Originally posted by PFB How about defining the term "average listener"? Am I to think that it is someone who only buys music they've heard on top 40 radio or MTV? Does it include classic rock fans who own no music made after 1978? How many CDs does the "average listener" own? How many CD's does the "average listner" own that do not have lyrics? Lyrics and Poems are the same thing:eek: . That's another new "fact" I've learned from Harmony Central. I guess most "average listeners" don't like instrumental, but love reading poetry.

I don't understand the second part about Lyrics and poems being the same-
I clearly said they were different entirely-
Or was this post not diected at me?