The Bad Songs

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:33 am

I still think it's entirely valid for an artist to create stuff for himself with no regard to an audience. Often this is where the new stuff comes from, this is the unchartered territory, and this is only a risk if there are specific expectations about how it will be perceived by anyone other than the artist. Also, it isn't necessary for an artist to explain himself to anyone, or even provide a reference point. This has nothing to do with "success" or "failure" unless the intent was to convey some message to an audience. Often this intent is not present, as the artist is just as likely to be expressing himself to himself. Sure, it helps an audience to get inside the artist's head and all that, but it ain't necessary from the artist's point of view. And it's perfectly valid for an audience to walk out and dismiss it. But just because it isn't commercially viable or popularly accessible doesn't make it any less artful. It may in fact make it more so.

And on another note: There is little difference between a 12 tone composer who creates soulful arrangements (rare) and a blues artist who does the same with I-IV-V (also very rare). In both cases my personal ideal response would be "that was great...oh! and it's 12-tone?!" or "Man, it's just I-IV-V, but he totally goes beyond that!"

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:36 am

Yeah, I did, but well, that was a long time ago. When I first wrote I didn't have a lot of experience listening to bad songs, I thought about my college days, and also my days in musical theatre, but specifically I guess I meant that I haven't had a lot of experience listening to REALLY bad songs in a recorded format. But thanks for paying attention!!

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:30 pm

Jim of Seattle wrote:Erik, then by your standards, I could say that "Welcome to Windows" was actually a scathing satire of the corrupt telephone pole repairman training area groundskeeper industry, and if you didn't get it it's your problem.

Actually, I sort of agree with your side of things, but it's all too easy for a crappy artist to fall back on an excuse such as "You just don't get it". I had to endure an awful lot of awful 12-tone crap in college by people who covered up their lack of talent by writing utterly inaccessible music, then turning around and saying the problem was our lack of sophistication rather than his lack of talent.

Well, those people were being jerks. I'm not trying to condone jerkishness. What I'm saying is that not everyone whose art is misunderstood is being a jerk. There is a difference between saying "If you don't get my art, that's your problem, you unlearned heathen" and saying "If you don't get my art, that's not a problem. I'm comfortable with some people not understanding my art."

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:35 pm

I completely agree with that. The big issue is telling the difference. Sometimes you can't, and you have to guess. But usually it's pretty easy to make that distinction.

And often, the artist themselves can't tell the difference. That's when it gets really sticky.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:58 pm

Agreed. Let's rerail this train:

Jim of Seattle wrote:One of the biggest things that separates Songfight from the rest of the music world is that there is room for Bad Songs.

I think you're right in that there's a lot more tolerance for bad songs here compared with other places. I think part of the reason for that is the temporal nature of songfight: everyone can at least try and get behind a song, as long as they know that they'll never have to listen to it again, and that new songs are coming down the line in a timely fashion.

Like, the exact opposite is afternoon rush hour radio. You'll have to hear the same songs over and over and over again, and you won't be hearing completely new songs next week. The change is gradual. Hell, I still hear that damn Killers song from time to time. Die already.

What's interesting, I think, is that while drivetime radio is so different from Songfight, bad songs still exist there. Like, that "Humps" song is really awful. Badly written, badly executed. But it totally thrives on the radio. It thrives because of its awfulness, I think. Like the first time you hear it, you are just shocked. The second time, you laugh. And then somewhere along the line, you sing along. Even though you think it's bad.

Nelly has a new song called "Grills", I think, that is just awful. And I hear it all the time. That goddamn "What the hell is on Joey's head" song by Nickelback, that is terrible too. And that one is all over the place.

I think there is something about repetition that makes us stop listening critically, which is why SF like their reviews, I think, because a first impression after hearing a song only a handful of times is going to be much different than the opinion you have of it after hearing it every day for a month.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:07 pm

erikb wrote:I think there is something about repetition that makes us stop listening critically

Erik on commercial radio's secret sauce.

I could comment that it's the same with religion and politics. But I wouldn't want to be accused of always making things political or whatever...

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:16 pm

That is a big difference indeed, but the criteria are also really different. For example, flawless production and execution are pretty much givens on the radio, which eliminates any song that is bad for those reasons. It costs something like 1 million dollars for a record company to get a song played on pop radio these days, which completely blows away any chance you're going to hear something that isn't custom fit to move product. Which means you'll never be particularly challenged, unless that challenge is minutely calculated.

If repeated listenings is a criteria to judge the quality of a song by, then Songfight fails as often as commercial radio. I like a lot of what I hear on Songfight, but often when I start up my "good SF songs " playlist on the Ipod, I hit the Next Track button often, because though the song is "good", it doesn't bear a lot of repeat listenings.

So yeah, the temporal nature of Songfight makes a big difference, and also almost qualifies its product as a different form of music altogether.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:18 pm

This may be neither here nor there, but I was listening to Neutral Milk Hotel in my truck the other day and I got to thinking that they, along with other favorites of mine like The Mountain Goats, would probably, production-wise, get hacked to bits if they'd posted their songs to Song Fight. And yet most of them are critically acclaimed (in the indie world anyway) and have considerable followings (again, in the indie world). The Mountain Goats actually recorded a lot of their stuff straight into a casette boombox if I'm not mistaken. Which is why when I'm listening to SF songs, I don't really judge a song by it's production except to say maybe this instrument needs to be louder, or the voice needs to stand out more, etc. Slick production can be nice, but I think some writing styles lend themselves more to lo-fidelity.

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:39 pm

I think those are pretty rare exceptions. In fact, I would go one step further, and risk angering the SF gods even further, that there is usually a pretty strict correlation between production quality and writing quality. While there are plenty of so-so songs executed really well (I use the word "executed" to encompass both performance and production), I think really awful songs executed well are pretty uncommon. And really good songs executed poorly are also rare, though occasionally that does happen.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:12 pm

The lack of a negative correlation is not the same thing as a positive correlation.

Post by **Spud** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:01 pm

Jim of Seattle wrote:...risk angering the SF gods even further, that there is usually a pretty strict correlation between production quality and writing quality...

Um. Yeah. Don't know where to start.

This is Song Fight. Not production fight.

Like every other endeavor on the planet, presentation, unfortunately, is 95% of the equation. Unfortunately, we are not all highly qualified music scouts here, and are easily fooled by good production masking sorry writing skills. Too bad, if you ask me, which you didn't.

Jim wants to know what is the value of virtuoso skills. I will tell you. The value is that it gets people to listen to your stupid song, that's what. You might have the greatest song ever written, but if you can't play it worth beans, who's gonna know? Especially here, where if you clip you must be a dick, and therefore incapable of writing a decent song.

Just sayin'

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:09 pm

OK, since everyone is begging to get back on the point about artists trying to explain their art...

we just watched the Christo movies about his Pont Neuf and Islands projects, which also touched on the Reichtag as well. Talk about trying to convince an audience! The hoops he jumped through to get the necessary approvals for these were amazing. Facinating study of the intersection of art and politics.

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Spud wrote:
Jim of Seattle wrote:...risk angering the SF gods even further, that there is usually a pretty strict correlation between production quality and writing quality...
Um. Yeah. Don't know where to start.

This is Song Fight. Not production fight.

Like every other endeavor on the planet, presentation, unfortunately, is 95% of the equation. Unfortunately, we are not all highly qualified music scouts here, and are easily fooled by good production masking sorry writing skills. Too bad, if you ask me, which you didn't.

i agree fully with you in principle spud, but unfortunately, 99.9% of the living world (or maybe 95% of anyone listening to songfight) will never have the chance to hear and see the mighty octothorpe live. recordings don't do you guys justice. i could make the same argument about the grateful dead but that's a whole nother retarded argument.

my point is that production IS important, at least to me, because all i get is the aural experience, no visual. sure the content (lyrics, arrangement, execution) is pretty important too but the package it comes in is just as important if i'm expected to like the experience of listening to it. i can ignore trite lyrics, overlook pitchiness, and even excuse clipping, as long as the clipping doesn't "ruin" the experience of listening for me. but bad production will make me stop listening while the others might not.

so yeah, it's SONGfight but given the medium we are dealing with, production is a big part of song.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:35 pm

Personally I often approach Songfight and songwriting in general these days as much from a production stand as a songwriting one, since it's all the same process for me. I usually hear a song develop in a pretty mature state, rarely as simply lyrics, melody and harmony (although you've heard my G&G tunes). I hear the textures and delivery, so that my produced version is not essentially a cover of the bare bones song I crafted for the title, it is the song as presented to me by the muse. Sure various specifics are last minute add-ons and such (the exact arpegios etc.) but the essense of the song (or portions of the song as they arrive) are a packaged deal. And I generally do the mix and the rest of the production activities as I go as it is every bit a part of the sound in my head.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:42 pm

If production is all that, then i'm pretty sure I'll never win one of these. Honestly, I don't much care though. It's sad that some people aren't going to want to adjust their speaker volume or listen a little more carefully just because my song doesn't sound like it was mixed by Mariah Carey's studio team, but the greatest joy I've gotten so far here is having a few people (a very few) say that they liked my song and that it had potential. If I thought production was going to be the final basis by which my songs are judged, I wouldn't bother at all. I already can easily spend 10 hours working on a song of dubious production value simply because I re-work it so many times. But I am doing SF because I know there are people like me out there that are pushing thru the slickly produced, under-written songs and looking for the un-polished, hidden gems disguised behind people who are more concerned about writing a good song. After all, most of the slickly produced stuff you hear on the airwaves is NOT produced by the artists that made it.

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:47 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:If production is all that, then i'm pretty sure I'll never win one of these.

novelty goes a long way too. also, good band names sometimes work wonders. just ask the iron clef

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:53 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:If I thought production was going to be the final basis by which my songs are judged, I wouldn't bother at all. ... After all, most of the slickly produced stuff you hear on the airwaves is NOT produced by the artists that made it.

I don't know who you were responding to but I was simply stating how I write and develop my songs, not how I judge others' songs. Your last point is a good one, however, as I think self-produced songs have a distinct quality to them, and I guess that was part of my point...how I produce my stuff is very important to me and influences tremendously how and what I write. It also makes me crave collaboration, however. And sometimes makes me think if I'm off on some other tangent from everyone else in this thread.

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:54 pm

yah... what jack and roymond said. I can't seem to separate songwriting from production. It's an integral part of how I write music. I guess we all look for those things in a song that we strive to achieve in recording/writing one. It really boils down to what do you want to hear? Some people want to hear polish, some do not. Both are valid I guess, as long as there are people who want both/each.

But I think care needs to be taken not to assume the generalization that I (perhaps incorrectly, sorry if I'm wrong) got from KMS, that well produced music is generally weaker written than the rough gems that aren't. Surely the same law of averages applies to both well and poorly produced or written songs...there will always be some of each. My filter looks for the well produced and well written song. Obviously the songs here that fit that bill will be different for me than anyone else, if indeed anyone else is looking to find stuff like that too. And I'm very sure that well produced songs get disregarded by listeners as poorly written as often as poorly produced songs are disregarded as poorly written. It's a matter of personal taste, right?

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:59 pm

TheHipCola wrote:yah... what jack and roymond said. I can't seem to separate songwriting from production.

I don't know how you can not separate them. I think about it linearly. I don't record a song AS I'm writing it, so the production is what takes place after the song is already written. It has nothing to do with the writing process, at least in my case

TheHipCola wrote: But I think care needs to be taken not to assume the generalization that I (perhaps incorrectly, sorry if I'm wrong) got from KMS, that well produced music is generally weaker written than the rough gems that aren't.

I didn't mean to imply that. My assertion is that the standard of well produced music that most of us have, which is that which we hear on the radio, is not generally a benchmark for very good songwriting from a creative standpoint. Most of what is on the radio is pretty much cookie cutter and bland. But you're right, there are kids making awful recordings of the same cookie cutter and bland music in their garages.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:59 pm

jack wrote:
Spud wrote:
Jim of Seattle wrote:...risk angering the SF gods even further, that there is usually a pretty strict correlation between production quality and writing quality...
Um. Yeah. Don't know where to start.

This is Song Fight. Not production fight.

Like every other endeavor on the planet, presentation, unfortunately, is 95% of the equation. Unfortunately, we are not all highly qualified music scouts here, and are easily fooled by good production masking sorry writing skills. Too bad, if you ask me, which you didn't.
i agree fully with you in principle spud, but unfortunately, 99.9% of the living world (or maybe 95% of anyone listening to songfight) will never have the chance to hear and see the mighty octothorpe live. recordings don't do you guys justice. i could make the same argument about the grateful dead but that's a whole nother retarded argument.

I don't think Spud's saying not to appreciate production. He's saying that good production does not signify good songwriting.

ephedream · Post by **ephedream** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:02 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:If I thought production was going to be the final basis by which my songs are judged, I wouldn't bother at all. ... After all, most of the slickly produced stuff you hear on the airwaves is NOT produced by the artists that made it.

Well, it seems to me that this be the DIY era, so are you waiting for some producer to translate your unearthed chunk of raw precious metal into radio friendly fodder? I think there's some value in trying to use the tools that are soooo amazingly available and affordable for home use to try and get there on your own, using your own artistic vision and controlling that end of the process. Why not?

I guess it could be argued that less time spent producing means more time reworking that prechorus run, or tightening the lyrics in the middle 8, but I also will suggest that production is such a grey area that both of those things could easily fall under that label. How do we seperate them? Where is the line?

Wicked thread people...sorry to pollute it bein' new here and all. Back to your stuff...nuthin' to see here. Hope to jump in the ring this week.

.e

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:03 pm

erikb wrote: I don't think Spud's saying not to appreciate production. He's saying that good production does not signify good songwriting.

I agree. Sure I'd rather hear a good song well produced that one recorded on a boombox. But ultimately, I'd most like to just hear a <i>good</i> song. And I'd rather hear that good song recorded on a cheap boombox, than a really un-original, played out song that has been produced flawlessly.