The Bad Songs

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:14 am

anti-m wrote:Imagine a writer who has fabulous ideas, but can't spell, and has a terrible grasp of grammar--

Actually, I think that's an excellent analogy. Production:Songwriting as Editing:Storywriting. Someone's inability to spell shouldn't affect whether or not they can write a good story, because after the story has been written, they or someone else can go in and edit it, but the running the story through spellcheck isn't what makes the story good.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:21 am

a bebop a rebop wrote:Ever seen them play Kid A acoustic?

Touche

I think the points you make are valid, but I also think that electronic music is an entirely different beast when it comes to songwriting. To write electronic music necessitates the use of a lot of the same equipment that is used to produce it, so they come more bundled than tradional songwriting and production, since traditional songwriting can boil to nothing more than a person writing (literally) a song on a piece of paper. (Full disclosure: that person probably won't be me because I ride the short bus when it comes to knowing/understanding music theory)

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:34 am

TheHipCola wrote: I don't "get" a lot of lofi type stuff, because my gut tells me it's a copout from trying to sound better. The truth may be that I need to spend more time with that idiom to understand what it's all about.

I had wanted to respond to this last night and forgot. Some lo-fi recommendations:
Two Headed Boy - Neutral Milk Hotel
No Children - The Mountain Goats (I think this is from the first album of theirs that WAS produced)
By Your Side: CocoRosie (I'd be curious what Bebop thinks of this one.)
Any song by Alltime Quarterback (Ben Gibbard of DCFC's early solo recordings - these are the pinnacle of lo-fi).

frankie big face · Post by **frankie big face** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:48 am

This is a really good thread, even if it has veered way off course. We've had "Songwriting vs. Production" threads on this board many times. Jim's thread was about how many bad songs he now chooses to listen to as a result of SongFight, which is definitely a less-interesting discussion, but whatever...

I would like to rebuke the comment that tweaking lyrics and adjusting chords is part of the production of a song. As someone who writes the entire song before recording a note, I consider everything I do up to the recording process to be songwriting. It's a skill I've worked hard at and I'm proud of what I'm able to do before I reach the recording stage. I think Erik's right when he says (roughly) that the songwriting stage continues until I can communicate the song to someone else and they can reproduce it. Whether that's via notation or not is irrelevant and I would guess most of us rarely notate the music we make here. But I still do occasionally, especially if I have limited time to record and I'm collaborating with a reader (like JB or Brick Pig).

I understand where TheHipCola (I think it was him) is coming from when he separates tweaking lyrics or changing a Bb chord to a Bb9 chord from the songwriting process, but I think production is the wrong word. What he is really descirbing is arranging. Like, if I take one of my songs and give it to Jim of Seattle, he will probably use some jazzy substitutions (like Bb9!) and make it his own. He might even change a line in the lyric to suit his purposes. But that doesn't mean he co-wrote the song! It just means he arranged it and there is a ton of difference (both artistic and legal).

I do think for a recording musician, especially those who record pop or rock music, the arranging process and production process are often intertwined. It's rare that I (I want to say "we" but don't want to put words in other people's mouths) have every part worked out before recording and, in fact, I mostly improvise things like bass lines or (god forbid) guitar solos. So, in that sense, the arrangement and production are intertwined. But again, the song itself doesn't usually change.

Here's yet another analogy: presumably, when Stephen King writes a book, he has to go back and make some edits at the end. I don't think that's part of the production process. He's still writing the book. If he moves some chapters or chapter segments around, it's still kind of the writing process, but you could say he's arranging it. When he sends it to his editor and the editor corrects spellings or other minor issues, the editor does not get co-writer credit. When does production begin? When the fine folks at Bantam Publishing (or whomever) start pumping out pages and stringing them together for selling. That's production.

As to the value of one or the other, I won't try to continue my analogy, because I think we can all agree that the medium matters. I could probably send you the hand-written pages from Steven King's notebook (okay, he probably uses a word processor or typewriter, but work with me here) and you could enjoy the story just as much as if you'd purchased the hardcover first edition. It's obviously a different thing for music and the presentation is important. However, a good song will always be good even if recorded poorly (there are many many examples of this) and even if performed poorly (this is much harder to wrap your brain around, but I can think of a few examples).

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:10 am

Hadn't considered arrangement as another part of this process. Hmm. I can see that. Although I think it does matter how you start the writing process, if you write everything and then start recording, you will easily be able to separate all these "tasks", but if you start by doing them all at the same time, (as I do) they aren't as easily defined, and can blur into one big process. The production class I took at music production college many years ago would argue that arrangement falls under the production banner. Just saying. I'll stop there too. Sorry Jim!!!

Jim of Seattle · Post by **Jim of Seattle** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:32 am

All I was really saying way way back was that there seems to be a correlation between songwriting quality and production quality.

I think in general, someone who has spent a long time honing their songwriting skills has also developed chops on some instrument and has also spent a number of years acquiring a better ear for production and arrangement, not to mention they are more likely to be in a position in their life to be able to afford more expensive equipment to better satisfy their more sensitive ears.

It would be really interesting to hear a fight where every person were required to record their song in mono, sung by a solo voice accompanied by a single instrument, no vocal harmony, no drums, no effects, no "production". Of course, the quality of the recording equipment would vary, but I think (am not 100% positive) that the same people who usually lead the pack would still lead the pack. (Or better yet, have a fight where everyone submits their song to a single person who then does covers of every one of them with the exact same arrangement and production!)

Modern pop/rock is primarily a recorded art form. Cole Porter wrote a song down on paper, and then a thousand artists recorded it in their own style. The song was "finished" when he was done writing it. Bohemian Rhapsody as a piece of art represents a specific recording made at a certain time by a certain clump of folks. It was not finished until it was recorded, because that was Queen's vision all along.

So yes, it's SONGfight, but there's no strict definition of what constitutes a SONG anymore.

So who wants to cover every single song in a fight in an attempt to prove or disprove the point, eh???

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:41 am

Pick out the fight, I'll do it. A smallish one, with a clear "winner" that most people aren't totally familiar with every song from, would be ideal. One data point won't prove or disprove anything, but it might be fun.

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:52 am

That's a very cool idea Jim.

stueym · Post by **stueym** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:52 am

Jim of Seattle wrote:It would be really interesting to hear a fight where every person were required to record their song in mono, sung by a solo voice accompanied by a single instrument, no vocal harmony, no drums, no effects, no "production".

Hell yeah I'd be up for that !!

Jim of Seattle wrote:(Or better yet, have a fight where everyone submits their song to a single person who then does covers of every one of them with the exact same arrangement and production!)

So who wants to cover every single song in a fight in an attempt to prove or disprove the point, eh???

Okay but please not one of these 26 song marathons we have been having recently!

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:57 am

Smallish fights with clear winners:

http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?key=snow_fort
http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?k ... e_actually
http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?k ... o_remember

(Sorry if that last one is bad form on my part ... But the fight had a great mix of styles and production, and ran the gamut from pop to indescernable nonsense.)

Post by jb » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:00 am

Funny Enough For You
http://www.songfight.org/songpage.php?k ... gh_for_you

JB

ephedream · Post by **ephedream** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:27 am

Thats a nifty idea JoS. I think I'd wanna lean more to the different people submit mono songs than one person doing all of them, just so that the representation would be unbiased. Like, could/would one person give each song the same treatment (number of tries to get it right etc...), and keep their own taste out of the equation? I'd like to hear what all the dif'rent folks are able to do with the same set of restrictions (mono, one instrument, one voice).

melvin · Post by **melvin** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:48 am

I'd be up for the mono/one instrument/one voice challenge. Neat idea! Would I be allowed to play my Onemanbandophone? Kidding.

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:02 pm

I'd be up for it too, but I propose we take it a step further. Not only in mono with one instrument and one vox, but also recorded live onto a $10 PC mic which everyone probably already has. Volume can be amplified but the track can't be altered in any other way and the final recording must represent a single take.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:09 pm

I propose one step further: you must record the songs in a bus station restroom onto a cellphone.

I mean, c'mon. I'm going to record mine using my regular equipment, and use as many takes as I need to get the recording right. The single instrument may not represent a single take.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:17 pm

Lots of stuff here and I won't comment on much. But:

kill_me_sarah wrote:It's sad that some people aren't going to want to adjust their speaker volume

Well, there is a difference here - "adjust" != turn all the way up and still can't hear it well. If you handicap yourself so much that many people turn you off before hearing your "gem", the main person you're hurting is yourself. It's not that hard to normalize your recording before sending it in. And it'll only help.
Here, this took about 30 seconds.
new version
Normalize, convert to stereo... though it would sound better to record in stereo to start with.
Not a bad song, really.
-bill

Kill Me Sarah · Post by **Kill Me Sarah** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:24 pm

erikb wrote:I propose one step further: you must record the songs in a bus station restroom onto a cellphone.

I mean, c'mon. I'm going to record mine using my regular equipment, and use as many takes as I need to get the recording right. The single instrument may not represent a single take.

I'm just trying to think up the lowest common denominator that will put everyone on an even playing field. Some people only have a $10 PC mic, so they're still going to be at a production disadvantage to people with better equipment. If this fight is intended to remove the production factor then it's only fair to adjust it to what everyone has. I suppose the one take thing is less important, but my reason for that is that part of production can also be cleaning up sloppy vocals or sour notes after the fact. I think you get the truer sense of someone's songwriting ability when you hear it exactly as though they were playing it right in front of you.

And thanks for the normalized version of my song! I have, since that fight, learned how to do it myself, but it was too late for that particular fight.

Post by jb » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:25 pm

What kind of dumb challenge is this? It's just asking for guy/guitar or guy/piano songs. So it's the ol' Pete Townshend "a song's no good if you can't play it on a guitar by yourself while snorting coke off the back of a hooker".

Deerhoof's "Milkman" probably would not be successful in this challenge, but it is awesome nevertheless.

Here's an example of an original people wrote off, but which is actually a good song (in my humble opinion):

http://www.songfight.org/music/birds_of ... OurOwn.mp3

Here's my cover of it, which it seemed like people responded to mostly with "hey, who knew there was a song under there, lemme go listen to the original": http://johnorama.com/songs/JBB-10-BirdsOfOurOwn.mp3

Or how about this one, where I made a decent song but an atrocious recording of some lyrics some chick sent me, and Brick Pig covered it beautifully?

Me: http://www.songfight.org/music/is_it_co ... itcold.mp3
Blech.

BP: http://www.aaronondek.com/cover/CF01/br ... ItCold.mp3

Post by **Spud** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:43 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:I think you get the truer sense of someone's songwriting ability when you hear it exactly as though they were playing it right in front of you.

There are so many contradictions here. I think things are getting very confused.

1) Your statement may be (somewhat) true for the g&g acts, but what about those who write their songs on the computer - is it not possible to write a good song using midi (or other methods), and have never played a thing?

2) I would rather hear Erik's song after he has tweaked it a bit, to make it, you know...sound good. Just cuz he doesn't have the chops to get it right in a single take - does that make him a bad songwriter?

3) I am pretty sure that if I record with a $10 mic and you play it back, it will not sound like I am playing it right in front of you.

SPUD

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:53 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:[ I think you get the truer sense of someone's songwriting ability when you hear it exactly as though they were playing it right in front of you.
.

Sorry, man, have to disagree with that, at least in the way I'm reading it. All that you get from that is a sense of someone's performance ability. It has nothing to do with writing, at all.

Writing a song..writing a story.. Look, if a mute wrote a wicked story,but couldn't narrate it, does that make them a poor writer??? Of course not. I seems to me... and this a MAJOR assumption so don't take it too personally, but this is how it's coming off TO ME: It seems that you're focus on production not being important is directly related to your (apparent) lack of production skills. This thread is bloody fantastic... however, as the master (some times unintentionally...but hey) of throwing a thread off topic.. I'd like to point out that good songs and bad songs can have good and bad production. I don't believe there is any ABSOLUTE relationship that can be proved or debated.

I have restrained myself (much to many's absolute disbelief, I'm sure) from commenting here... but I can't take this anymore!!

You know what I want to know? ( and maybe others will too.. )

We all know what songs WE think are good or bad.

But how do you explain songs that resonate UNIVERSALLY with most humans? The big hits as it were. Of course, you can spout off about the various disguises like marketing and production and sex and the derivatives. (and maybe some should.)

But seriously, that stuff doesn't REALLY last... I'm talking the ones that STICK LIKE GLUE.

For example, having played in a ton of cover bands, I've played many songs in a variety of styles.

Why do people (around here anyway) love the following tunes so much??

Brown Eyed Girl (Van Morrison)
Taking Care of Business (Bachman Turner Overdrive)
Johnny B. Goode (Chuck Berry)
Old Time Rock and Roll (Bob Seger)
Any CCR...
Any Beatles...

I know this stuff doesn't hit everyone, but it hits alot of everyone. And it sticks. Why?

These questions about good/bad seem way more important to me than wasting time debating whether production matters. IT MATTERS. Anyone can see that.

Screw the challenge above, I got a better one.

Write a song, and produce it like total crap (be proud of that if you wish) then produce it really well.

I'm sure a third of the people will rave about the merits of one, a third will like the other, and a third will tell you both suck and here's a better way!!

... uh.. kay, I'm done.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:09 pm

kill_me_sarah wrote:I'm just trying to think up the lowest common denominator that will put everyone on an even playing field. Some people only have a $10 PC mic, so they're still going to be at a production disadvantage to people with better equipment. If this fight is intended to remove the production factor then it's only fair to adjust it to what everyone has.

Right, but it's not a competition to see who can make the songs sound the best with the least equipment. It's an experiment to see how much production affects people's opinions of a song. Asking one person to record all the songs from a fight cancels out the differences in production values because now all the songs are produced (and possibly arranged) in the same way. Someone else's setup can be better/worse than yours, and the experiment can still have merit.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:13 pm

Leaf wrote: Why do people (around here anyway) love the following tunes so much??

Brown Eyed Girl (Van Morrison)
Taking Care of Business (Bachman Turner Overdrive)
Johnny B. Goode (Chuck Berry)
Old Time Rock and Roll (Bob Seger)

People like 1-4-5 songs. Seriously.

Leaf wrote:These questions about good/bad seem way more important to me than wasting time debating whether production matters. IT MATTERS. Anyone can see that.

Screw the challenge above, I got a better one.

Write a song, and produce it like total crap (be proud of that if you wish) then produce it really well.

I'm sure a third of the people will rave about the merits of one, a third will like the other, and a third will tell you both suck and here's a better way!!

If production really mattered, than more than 1/3 of the people would like the better produced song.