The Bad Songs

[jack]

in my opinion, a song is automatically good if it makes somebody want to cover it.

[Jim of Seattle]

Perhaps it would be even better if it were submitted at the same time as a new fight. As soon as someone submitted a song to the fightmaster, FM would in turn send it to the coverer, who would make their cover. Then the regular fight would be there and the even-steven cover fight would also be there. Then there could be a vote for the even-steven fight on the boards running at the same time as the real votes. I'd be up for that.

[Bjam]

When you decide on something, say so in a prefight thread or a new thread. Sounds fun.

[anti-m]

The only potential problem I see with a cover / lo-fi / high-fi fight is that you are inevitably not only measuring "production," but also interpretation and performance. (As Leaf pointed out.)

And, for my money, interpretation and performance also influence how much or little I enjoy a song.

But I agree these ideas for either a cover fight or an "each according to his equipment" utopia are interesting... so carry on!

--Em

[Dan-O from Five-O]

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.

I've recalculated Leaf's figure's and what he really meant to say was:
34% - Production matters
33% - Production doesn't matter
33% - Here's a better way

Yey, production wins.

I think his main point was we'll never get a consensus.

[frankie big face]

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.

I would also be willing to do this. I even found a fight I think would work well. Obviously, all of these songs will sound like me and I will keep it to just FBF+G (it's a new genre!). I'll also maintain the tempo of the original, but strip it of all vocal harmonies, synth patches, effects pedals, whatever. I'll make every song in the same style and limit it to my voice and guitar.

I would also love to participate in a fight with restrictions on production. But not one that requires me to use a $10 PC microphone. Since I don't have one. Or a PC.

[Kill Me Sarah]

It seems that you're focus on production not being important is directly related to your (apparent) lack of production skills.

I think the inverse is actually true. My lack of production skills are directly related to the fact that I don't think that production is what makes the song, and so I haven't devoted as much time to it as I have to songwriting itself. I'm still working and re-working songs I wrote when I was 16 (about 10 years ago), but the recording of those songs hasn't improved dramatically with time, only my ability to play them in varying ways.

[Bjam]

I don't care much for production of my songs. But it still pisses me off if they sound real crappy, because however awesome it may sound rocking out in my room, it's gonna get that same awesome vibe from someone listening to a tinny recording. Especially if it's recorded real crappily.

However! Because of SF, my production's improved, just because I now know how to mic my guitar properly, use a mixer, use Cubase, sing into a microphone, pan things funky, multiple layers. Because of my experience my production has improved. Not that the songs have. But that whole "do it 100 times, you might get better at it". Yeah, it kinda works.

There's my off topicish 2 cents

[Dan-O from Five-O]

It seems that you're focus on production not being important is directly related to your (apparent) lack of production skills.

I don't think that production is what makes the song,

On this point we are abundantly clear.

Look KMS, I'm really not trying to pick a fight or be the same dick I introduced myself to you as, but I've read you're Dylan and Lennon demo analogies and my point still stands, you're not them. Why should anyone get past your poor production to find the gem inside?

Look at it this way, you have a bowl called Songfight. And in that bowl they put 1 scoop each of vanilla, chocolate and strawberry ice cream that we'll call the songs. Now on the chocolate and strawberry scoops, someone puts fudge or caramel topping, nuts and bananas, whipped cream and sprinkles. We'll call that "production". And on the vanilla someone else puts shit which we'll call "poor production". Which flavor is someone more likely to eat?

And what would make someone want to scrape the shit off to get to the delicious vanilla ice cream that lies underneath? In fact, how is someone to know the ice cream is there in the first place?

Again, not trying to be a dick, I'm just proposing an altenative way of looking at it.

And your entry this week sounds better BTW.

EDIT: I specifically sought out your song without thought to the others in the fight to see if it had improved. And it did. Follow the path of Bjam and you'll be alright.

[erik]

My lack of production skills are directly related to the fact that I don't think that production is what makes the song

You know what? Good for you. Continue making music that sounds like you want it to sound. Don't listen to people who tell you that you are shitting all over your songs, because until you think you need to change your sound, it's none of their business.

[jack]

think of production as the personal hygiene part of your song.

[tonetripper]

The song is king. Great songs don't need great production, but it sure helps in translating the greatness even more IMHO.

Bad songs in my mind have nothing to do with production per se, they are just badly written. Even performance will not inhibit the ability to hear a well written song. I've heard many a bad song on the radio with great production.

That being said I'm a junkie for Songfight! Here you get some of the greatest genuine energy in songwriting and production. When the two meet in the best of ways it's like getting presents from the music gods. Like finding little gems of goodness for free on-line and independent. There is a lot to be learned from the musicians and artists who inhabit this cyber-space.

[fodroy]

think of production as the personal hygiene part of your song.

i don't floss, and i've never had a cavity.
my roommate only bathes twice a week, and he has a girlfriend. i don't.

that's all.

[Kill Me Sarah]

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

1) For me, this debate mainly concerns people who write music with their voice and an instrument (initially at least). No one can argue that production is of utmost importance if you're referring to purely electronic music.

2) No, nor does the fact that if he recorded it in a single take and some of it sounds a bit rough mean that he's written a bad song.

3) I was making two separate statements here. I meant "playing it right in front of me" from a performance perspective, not from a playback quality perspective. The PC mic suggestion was to level the playing field equipment-wise and thus, recording-quality-wise.

I've read you're Dylan and Lennon demo analogies and my point still stands, you're not them. Why should anyone get past your poor production to find the gem inside?

What's that got to do with anything? I'm not touting the greatness of my songs. I'm saying that good songs are good songs with or without production. My own song wasn't ever used as an analogy.

And your entry this week sounds better BTW.

I know, you guys are influencing my production for the better in spite of me

[frankie big face]

KMS, regarding your previous Lennon comment: I would suggest that if you think everything John Lennon ever wrote and recorded is brilliant, you probably lost your objectivity. Lennon was a genius, no question, but he was also an artist who took a lot of chances and wrote a few bad songs. I don't know if your point was to say that if he recorded Jealous Guy really poorly and was drunk when he sank it, it doesn't diminish the greatness of the song or if you were saying everything he ever recorded is awesome despite the recording quality and/or performance (I'm too lazy to seek out your original post), but either way, I think you've got some rose-colored Lennon specs on.

Your Neutral Milk Hotel example is way better, imo, because that album is brilliant despite severely flawed production and, at times, performance. However, I think the transient nature of the SongFight listening experience would have killed NMH's chances of getting a positive review here. That album succeeds with multiple listens and as an entire work.

[erik]

What's wrong with the production on Into the Aeroplane Over the Sea (or whatever it's called)? I ask with an air of curiousity, not one of defensiveness.

[jb]

Yeah man, I love the saturation, the clipping, the just plain fucking SHREDDING that guy does on that album. There's an aesthetic to the "bad" production style. You hear it every so often on albums, when the artist had plenty of opportunity to do it "right" but chose not to.

On the second song on that album (I'm bad with titles, ironically), when the bass comes in it is just WAAAAY too much for the tape, and it's fucking awesome.

Urge Overkill's "Saturation", for another example, just crawls up my butt and starts digging around until I can't stay in my seat. In a good way.

[frankie big face]

What's "wrong" with it is everything John just said in his first paragraph. It's awesome, but would probably get a C- in some audio dork review of its production. I love it and think I'll put it on right now.

[Kill Me Sarah]

KMS, regarding your previous Lennon comment: I would suggest that if you think everything John Lennon ever wrote and recorded is brilliant, you probably lost your objectivity. Lennon was a genius, no question, but he was also an artist who took a lot of chances and wrote a few bad songs. I don't know if your point was to say that if he recorded Jealous Guy really poorly and was drunk when he sank it, it doesn't diminish the greatness of the song or if you were saying everything he ever recorded is awesome despite the recording quality and/or performance (I'm too lazy to seek out your original post), but either way, I think you've got some rose-colored Lennon specs on.

Your Neutral Milk Hotel example is way better, imo, because that album is brilliant despite severely flawed production and, at times, performance. However, I think the transient nature of the SongFight listening experience would have killed NMH's chances of getting a positive review here. That album succeeds with multiple listens and as an entire work.

Actually, I don't know that I ever made reference to Lennon originally. I talked a bit about Dylan, but I think someone else's Lennon and my Dylan comments were confused I honestly don't have enough knowledge of Lennon's solo catalogue to form an opinion on it one way or the other.

I agree with your NMH comment which was what I was driving at earlier - that several of my favorite songwriters wouldn't have a fighting chance on SF! because of their poor production.

[Kill Me Sarah]

Yeah man, I love the saturation, the clipping, the just plain fucking SHREDDING that guy does on that album. There's an aesthetic to the "bad" production style. You hear it every so often on albums, when the artist had plenty of opportunity to do it "right" but chose not to.

On the second song on that album (I'm bad with titles, ironically), when the bass comes in it is just WAAAAY too much for the tape, and it's fucking awesome.

Urge Overkill's "Saturation", for another example, just crawls up my butt and starts digging around until I can't stay in my seat. In a good way.

I find it a little amusing that if a production junkie happens to like a song that has terrible production, that must then mean that the artist "had plenty of opportunity to do it 'right' but chose not to" as opposed to it possibly meaning that the artists didn't know HOW to or chooses to not know HOW to.

[anti-m]

several of my favorite songwriters wouldn't have a fighting chance on SF! because of their poor production.

...But that's the thing -- A fighting chance? Garsh golly, everyone has a fighting chance at songfight! There's no gate at the door, no entrance fees. No "your production must be THIS HIGH to take this ride."

The folks on these boards run the gamut as far as musical tastes and proclivity. If a song uniformly elicits reactions of “poor productionâ€

[fodroy]

nmh's production is perfect, imo. perfect. i would hate to hear "in the aeroplane over the sea" produced professionally. well, i wouldn't hate it. i would listen to it once and then go back to the other version.

what i like about lesser production is that it has the ability to bring the song closer to the listener. instead of having it buried under a bunch of filters and reverb and fancy mics, it's just there. it's ready to punch you in the side of the head. and no, i'm not saying lo-fi makes a song good, but it does provide another level of intimacy for a well written song.