On Songwriting
On Songwriting
95% of the songs I've written have come all at once and held me to my desk and instrument until they were complete. The other 5% were pieces with many movements. An idea would spring to mind that was more like a book with chapters and each chapter could be written on any given day over a period of time. These always felt more like compositions than songs. Fast here, slow there, dark here, sparkling there. I think of songs as music and lyrics that usually take less than seven minutes to perform and maintain a recognizable "face" from start to finish. Compositions, to my way of thinking, are much more involved. A song might be something like a skit while a composition would be more like a play. It's just my way of thinking when I'm writing. A simple comparison would be Beatles songs like "Yesterday" or "Back In The U.S.S.R." compared to a more full bodied composition like "A Day In The Life". "A Day In The Life" might have been written over many days, weeks or months while "Yesterday" was something Paul heard in a dream and wrote down when he woke up.
-
Dinosaur David B
- Posts: 19020
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:21 pm
On Songwriting
And A day in the Life is a John song and a Paul song pasted together. Yeah, Paul woke up with the Yesterday melody in his head, and he was sure it was some pre-existing song he just couldn't recall where he had heard. After asking around, he was finally convinced it was his own melody. Working title: Scrambled Eggs.
And Elton John used to get handed lyrics from Bernie Taupin, and come up with the music pretty quickly. He wrote Your Song in 15 minutes. :%:
I don't claim to be able to explain where songwriting genius comes from or how to tap into it.
And Elton John used to get handed lyrics from Bernie Taupin, and come up with the music pretty quickly. He wrote Your Song in 15 minutes. :%:
I don't claim to be able to explain where songwriting genius comes from or how to tap into it.
Go big, or go home!
On Songwriting
I'd highly recommend the TV series Classic Albums to get some insight and stories on how some artists wrote particular songs on famous albums. I love getting a peek at other musicians creative processes.
Check out this site too: http://www.miketuritzin.com/songwriting/
Check out this site too: http://www.miketuritzin.com/songwriting/
On Songwriting
I am certainly no authority on this...and I'm still learning...even at age 42 and having been writing and recording music for well over 20 years.
But to me, melody is key. That's the hook. When I write something, it's almost always the thing I hear first in my head and then I just layer everything else underneath it to support it.
And although I'm mainly an instrumental artist, it doesn't mean that the guitar has to hold up everything. I'm a huge Rush and Iron Maiden fan. Bass guitar can have a huge impact on melody along with supporting the backbone of any composition, and there are a few songs where the bass is so prominent that it actually carries the melody outright. "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen is one tune that comes to mind.
But to me, melody is key. That's the hook. When I write something, it's almost always the thing I hear first in my head and then I just layer everything else underneath it to support it.
And although I'm mainly an instrumental artist, it doesn't mean that the guitar has to hold up everything. I'm a huge Rush and Iron Maiden fan. Bass guitar can have a huge impact on melody along with supporting the backbone of any composition, and there are a few songs where the bass is so prominent that it actually carries the melody outright. "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen is one tune that comes to mind.
On Songwriting
I am just starting to write songs now, in my 40s .....
This was a good read, I hadn't seen it before because I never really spend much time on the Songwriting part of the forum.
Perhaps this topic is worthy of a sticky or something of that nature for future reference?
This was a good read, I hadn't seen it before because I never really spend much time on the Songwriting part of the forum.
Perhaps this topic is worthy of a sticky or something of that nature for future reference?
-
Dinosaur David B
- Posts: 19020
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:21 pm
-
Tatosh Guitar
- Posts: 3559
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:43 pm
- Location: Mexico
On Songwriting
Wow. Great thread. And now me, the one guy who has never written a song in his life, wishes he did.
This is the type of stuff that makes me love this forums.
This is the type of stuff that makes me love this forums.
-
Dinosaur David B
- Posts: 19020
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:21 pm
On Songwriting
Amy, I have some ancillary questions based on some of the examples you mentioned.
1. What level of skill (and what particular skill is it) is required to effectively paste multiple seemingly-unrelated parts together so that it forms a successful song?
2. How much does that success depend on an already-established, loving audience that is usually willing to accept anything from you? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
You mentioned Band on the Run, but along similar lines, you could also mention A Day in the Life, and Live and Let Die from Macca, where he has routinely either pasted disjointed ideas together as in the first two, or inserted one as in LALD.
The other person who does these kinds of things frequently is Tony Iommi, who will often tacks seemingly unrelated riffs together, and his transitions -- he often just plows right into them. If he's feeling subtle, a drum fill might separate these parts.
Now clearly, both McCartney and Iommi have established, willing, receptive audiences (though you could argue Sabbath 1 (before they had that audience) is full of such twists and turns that defy common pop structure. But Iommi's riffs are often GREAT hooks, and of course, Paul is Paul.
So are these songs' success defined merely by mass acceptance? Whether it's a one chord song like Everyday People, or one of these things that feel pasted together.
3. Why do they work? Are they good songs for legit compositional reasons, or merely because we get used to them?
And while we're talking more about traditional pop form, I will use prog as an example to illustrate the point. Because this multi-song part approach is extremely common in prog. And you can say these are "pieces of music" -- suites, closer to classical to concepts than pop song form. And that's valid. But . . .
Is, for example, Heart of the Sunrise really "a great song" the very first time you hear it? Or is just mindblowing musicianship? Even the most casual listener will know they've heard something very complex. And it's neither hooky, nor catchy in the traditional sense. No one is singing along with stuff like that immediately, and the groove may not be consistent enough to even tap your foot to (hello, Dream Theater). It takes a willing listener several listens before the multiple parts start feeling familiar enough to get a real feel for where the grooves and the very subtle hooks are. But over time it becomes ingrained to the point one can know it inside out -- on many levels.
Now the Macca and Iommi stuff usually have more groove, hooks, and less twists and turns than most prog, so it's more immediately accessible. But don't the same principles apply? The first time you hear Band on the Run, you're not expecting what you get. But I was pretty sure it was a great song immediately. But I'm not sure I can articulate why. Hence question 1 above.
I once wrote a song (which you sang on and added some ideas to) called So Far to Go, that was basically two separate songs pasted together ala McCartney. Was it a successful marriage of parts from a songwriting standpoint? Or would it require a large, willing audience to validate it? Question 1 above.
btw, I still like that old song, though there are some rough spots in that old mix as I was still learning how to mix.
1. What level of skill (and what particular skill is it) is required to effectively paste multiple seemingly-unrelated parts together so that it forms a successful song?
2. How much does that success depend on an already-established, loving audience that is usually willing to accept anything from you? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
You mentioned Band on the Run, but along similar lines, you could also mention A Day in the Life, and Live and Let Die from Macca, where he has routinely either pasted disjointed ideas together as in the first two, or inserted one as in LALD.
The other person who does these kinds of things frequently is Tony Iommi, who will often tacks seemingly unrelated riffs together, and his transitions -- he often just plows right into them. If he's feeling subtle, a drum fill might separate these parts.
Now clearly, both McCartney and Iommi have established, willing, receptive audiences (though you could argue Sabbath 1 (before they had that audience) is full of such twists and turns that defy common pop structure. But Iommi's riffs are often GREAT hooks, and of course, Paul is Paul.
So are these songs' success defined merely by mass acceptance? Whether it's a one chord song like Everyday People, or one of these things that feel pasted together.
3. Why do they work? Are they good songs for legit compositional reasons, or merely because we get used to them?
And while we're talking more about traditional pop form, I will use prog as an example to illustrate the point. Because this multi-song part approach is extremely common in prog. And you can say these are "pieces of music" -- suites, closer to classical to concepts than pop song form. And that's valid. But . . .
Is, for example, Heart of the Sunrise really "a great song" the very first time you hear it? Or is just mindblowing musicianship? Even the most casual listener will know they've heard something very complex. And it's neither hooky, nor catchy in the traditional sense. No one is singing along with stuff like that immediately, and the groove may not be consistent enough to even tap your foot to (hello, Dream Theater). It takes a willing listener several listens before the multiple parts start feeling familiar enough to get a real feel for where the grooves and the very subtle hooks are. But over time it becomes ingrained to the point one can know it inside out -- on many levels.
Now the Macca and Iommi stuff usually have more groove, hooks, and less twists and turns than most prog, so it's more immediately accessible. But don't the same principles apply? The first time you hear Band on the Run, you're not expecting what you get. But I was pretty sure it was a great song immediately. But I'm not sure I can articulate why. Hence question 1 above.
I once wrote a song (which you sang on and added some ideas to) called So Far to Go, that was basically two separate songs pasted together ala McCartney. Was it a successful marriage of parts from a songwriting standpoint? Or would it require a large, willing audience to validate it? Question 1 above.
btw, I still like that old song, though there are some rough spots in that old mix as I was still learning how to mix.
Go big, or go home!
On Songwriting
Damn. I just write what comes into my head. The hardest part for me is recreating what I hear in my head into something I can share with the rest of the world. For me a moment of inspiration creates something better than any formula for songwriting.
I've written style specific songs per request for different players, bands, etc. and in those cases I use an open formula creating melody, one instruments part, then the next and the next and finish with the lyrics. This type of writing is much harder for me and I sometimes have to trash three or four tries before I come up with something good.
For me songs that come out of nowhere and feel trapped inside my head begging for release turn out to be the best of my best. I think of them as gifts that just need to be fleshed out. I don't know where they come from and couldn't really help or explain to someone else how this works. It just happens.
I've written style specific songs per request for different players, bands, etc. and in those cases I use an open formula creating melody, one instruments part, then the next and the next and finish with the lyrics. This type of writing is much harder for me and I sometimes have to trash three or four tries before I come up with something good.
For me songs that come out of nowhere and feel trapped inside my head begging for release turn out to be the best of my best. I think of them as gifts that just need to be fleshed out. I don't know where they come from and couldn't really help or explain to someone else how this works. It just happens.
-
dinomikesr1963
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:02 am
On Songwriting
Interesting. Guitar Player just put out an article called 10 Hit makers on Song writing and they are:
Jimi Hendrix (from a 1970 article)
Bonnie Raitt,
Rick Nielsen
Chris Cronell
Chrissie Hynde
Neil Finn
Duke Erikson
Robbie Robertson
Ray Davies
Keith Richards
You read all the time how so many can tell you why something shouldn't work and in the case of music, hindsight isn't 20/20. The article is worth the price of the magazine.
Jimi Hendrix (from a 1970 article)
Bonnie Raitt,
Rick Nielsen
Chris Cronell
Chrissie Hynde
Neil Finn
Duke Erikson
Robbie Robertson
Ray Davies
Keith Richards
You read all the time how so many can tell you why something shouldn't work and in the case of music, hindsight isn't 20/20. The article is worth the price of the magazine.