The Song Fight Bulletin Board

boltoph wrote:For some people, #2 EQUALS #1. Myself included, because that's the kind of music I like.

And even those of you that prefer the more "avant garde" non-commercial approach to music: the songs that will gain mass appeal will be the ones that bend more in the direction of commercial music, or as JB said, "panders to the likes of the audience".

Consider your audience.

Note that I didn't say for #1 "Make music you know everybody else will hate, just to be artistic. Then expect everyone to like it."

There's a difference between making music you like because you like it, and making music that you think other people will like, but which doesn't satisfy you. If the two line up, then you're doing #1 aren't you? You're not pandering, you're making what you want to make and it just so happens that your taste is in line with the mainstream.

It's the intention that matters. Try not to take my post quite so cynically.

jb wrote:Try not to take my post quite so cynically.

Aww, what fun would that be?

One of the best things about the Pixies was that the combined all that sort of mainstream glory and production, with something fiercely original.

It's a challenge to retain originality and spice, while being mainstream enough to grab the attention of enough listeners to actually make a career. But look at winners of songfights like Snow Fort, and Bad Attraction. Originality manages to exist in spite of mainstream quality.

That said, even Ghandi fought to win... in his own way...

I haven't lost a fight yet.

I submit songs with the hope that my entry will entertain some people.

I try my best to make the entries good, and winning feels nice when it happens, but it's hardly the reason I submit songs now.

I think it helps that I have won before. "Need Stilts" was the first victory that felt like an actual win (not a friend flood), and I have been on a winning team enough times now that it's not really a heartbreaker if I don't win now.

If I HAVE lost, I do appreciate it when I lost because the winning song was just a better entry. Losing to a crappy song's friend flood does suck, but it goes with the territory. My first win was probably only because I told my friends about songfight.

Does that make sense at all? Sometimes my english is not so pretty good.



ROCK!

Glenn (DR FUNK)

I write a song if the title inspires me. If I'm inspired, the song turns out how I want it too. Not necessarily the best it could be, but generally it's close to my vision for it. If I'm not inspired, then it turns out like Clouds were Touching the Ground or S___ rock. I'm not necessarily fighting to win, although it would be nice. It's more of a way for me to improve my songwriting and recording.

For this week's challenge, we've recorded 6.5 songs, with lyrics for 3 more on deck. The first 4 or so I was really stretching myself to make good, but I stopped at good. Now we're just recording to reach 11 entries if we can.

But funny thing: playing not (entirely) to win has yielded songs that sound at least twice as good as typical HM entries. I think it's because I'm not futzing with the mixes so much, I'm not being anal about performance (redoing tracks because this or that is a little off), I'm not adding instruments just to fill out the sound (not double-tracking is surprisingly powerful sometimes! who knew?).

For future entries I have resolved to write the whole song, plan the instrumentation and even the basic mix before recording. All this parametric EQ and compression that flattens and dulls the sound is avoidable if you record quickly and work smart. Is that playing to win? I think so. You tell me.

You're going to have an entry for each? This is going to be a sweet fight!

OK, so if so many people are actually trying to win, why are there so many bad songs every week?

Because you're in five groups?

Lunkhead wrote:OK, so if so many people are actually trying to win, why are there so many bad songs every week?

Because of your personal taste firstly. Also, a lot of the standard 'oh this is crappy beepy with bad rapping' are by one-off entrants. 'Regulars' tend to be pretty... regular with their songs, which means they're not usually bad. It's the one-offs that produce the crappiest, and sometimes the best, songs.

In my opinion anyway.

Because you're in five groups?

Ah, probably. That and the fact that you haven't been submitting songs, j$. (note winky emoticon indicating that I am not serious, since apparently no one noted the one in my last post)

Seriously, though, I know it's all subjective, my tastes, etc. etc. Never mind me, move along, nothing to see here.

Hey, I forgot to put an emoticon after my last post ...

A few thoughts:

1) It's nice to win a SongFight, in precisely the same way it's nice when a complete stranger tells you they like your song better than some other random song, but don't tell you why.

Voting is democratic, but democracy applied to personal taste is meaningless. If voting in SF would be abolished, only an unnecessary excuse for songfighting would be lost.

Unless you're such a neurotic individual that impressing a bunch of strangers gives you a sense of validation.

2) Think of the last 10 songs that were Number 1 in any pop chart. How many of them do you think were <i>so much</i> better than the 9 they "beat"? Most likely, none.

3) SongFight gives two benefits. First, it lets people hear new music. Second, there's a dialogue between reviewers and submitters - the more useful reviews (admittedly a small minority) help the submitters develop their skills.

Without the reviews, SF would be nothing more than a periodically changing ragbag of hastily written songs with no quality control. Download, listen, push a button to vote, forget and do again next week.

Kapitano wrote: Unless you're such a neurotic individual that impressing a bunch of strangers gives you a sense of validation.

I don't agree with where you were going with that.

If you are a chef, you want total strangers to enjoy your food. If you are a baseball player you want the fans to cheer you as you hit your homerun. Whatever we do in life, we do it for the validation. Otherwise, it's meaningless.

Rone Rivendale wrote:

Kapitano wrote: Unless you're such a neurotic individual that impressing a bunch of strangers gives you a sense of validation.

I don't agree with where you were going with that.

If you are a chef, you want total strangers to enjoy your food. If you are a baseball player you want the fans to cheer you as you hit your homerun. Whatever we do in life, we do it for the validation. Otherwise, it's meaningless.

Oh, puh-leeze. The majority of things that we do in life, we don't need to be validated for. Van Gogh blabhhblahblahlbhalbhalhblah one painting in his lifetime. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but he wasn't being validated. Was his art meaningless? Seriously, fuck that.

He made his art because he wanted to and because he thought it was good. Validation is meaningless.

I just passed a stool that looks exactly like Russel Crowe. But I won't post a photo for validation. It's really just something that is special to me.

The fact that Van Gogh wasn't being validated during his lifetime doesn't mean he didn't need or want to be. It just meant he wasn't getting any. Validation, at least in terms of critical or commercial success.

And the fact that my own incredible musical genius won't be recognized for another twenty-eight centuries, is, y'know, depressing sometimes. Ya cain't always get what you need, I guess...

Charles (KA)

P.S. - Ray - maybe you don't need the validation. But maybe Russel Crowe does. You ever think of that???

erik wrote:He made his art because he wanted to and because he thought it was good. Validation is meaningless.

How do you know this? (the first part about Van Gough, the second part is merely your opinion and one I personally don't agree with).


I am curious if the first part is your opinion, or a "fact" you have derived from some validated source.

I think we start arguments that aren't really there.

WeaselSlayer wrote:I think we start arguments that aren't really there.

[channelling Yoda]
Very wise young Luke is...old beyond his years
[/channelling Yoda]

Leaf wrote:

erik wrote:He made his art because he wanted to and because he thought it was good. Validation is meaningless.

How do you know this? (the first part about Van Gough, the second part is merely your opinion and one I personally don't agree with).


I am curious if the first part is your opinion, or a "fact" you have derived from some validated source.

You're right, by golly, I have no idea if he made his art because he wanted to. He could have made his art without having any real desire to do so. I have no idea whether he thought his art was good. He could have kept making all those paintings without thinking they were good.

My point was, he wasn't getting alot of validation in life. If you need a source, here is a Wiki pedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_va ... umous_Fame

If you need a better source than Wiki pedia, I will admit that I don't really care to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt to someone who disagrees with the notion that validation is not the only reason for every human action.

I am totally going out on a limb here when I say that since he wasn't being validated a whole hell of a lot during his life, then there must have been some other factor driving him.

My Puce songs are done 100% to win*. My non-Puce songs are done 10% to win and 90% to just-get-something-recorded. Winning is fun, but I've found that keeping your eyes on the prize is time-consuming at best and paralyzing at worst. Because of this I probably won't submit as Puce again, at least not until I have some serious free time on my hands.

Plus if you win too many fights you run the risk of going loco.

* Of course they are also done 100% for me. But I like pop, so it works out nicely.