The Song Fight Bulletin Board

This argument never really leaves. See also: the debate that breaks out whenever someone submits an instrumental that more than two people like but don't vote for "because songs need words."

Hmm. I wonder if anyone's had the nerve to restart the "rapping isn't singing so raps aren't proper songs" argument.

Or the "Synth bands aren't really bands because the machines write the music" idiocy.

Kapitano wrote:Or the "Synth bands aren't really bands because the machines write the music" idiocy.

Idiocy is a little harsh ...

Reïst wrote:

Kapitano wrote:Or the "Synth bands aren't really bands because the machines write the music" idiocy.

Idiocy is a little harsh ...

If someone told you your guitar wrote your songs for you, what would you call them?

Apart from insane, I mean. And ignorant.

Kapitano wrote:

Reïst wrote:

Kapitano wrote:Or the "Synth bands aren't really bands because the machines write the music" idiocy.

Idiocy is a little harsh ...

If someone told you your guitar wrote your songs for you, what would you call them?

Apart from insane, I mean. And ignorant.

I can't wait for when they invent guitars that come with pre-set rhythms and arpeggiators. I'll put my feet up and let the little bastard write songs for me just like the synth players do.

fluffy wrote:This argument never really leaves. See also: the debate that breaks out whenever someone submits an instrumental that more than two people like but don't vote for "because songs need words."

Since there is no hard fast definition of song connected to the is site - seems like it is the listener's prerogative to decide if they think an instrumental or a rap is a song.

Kapitano wrote:

Reïst wrote:

Kapitano wrote:Or the "Synth bands aren't really bands because the machines write the music" idiocy.

Idiocy is a little harsh ...

If someone told you your guitar wrote your songs for you, what would you call them?

Apart from insane, I mean. And ignorant.

I'd call it ignorance, but that doesn't equate to idiocy. There's a different level of physical tangibility between a synth and a guitar, so it's understandable that some people would disagree with you depending on their own definition of music. Mind you, I dig synths - so there was no need to provide an object lesson to broaden my understanding.

Personally I would define a song as the sum of writing, performance, and recording (production). I'm here because I want to make better songs, which to me means improving in all three areas. So I appreciate a review that suggests improvements in any of those directions.

Sure it's frustrating when you think you've written a great song that is harmed by poor production and all the reviews focus on is those production flaws, but shouldn't the takeaway message from that be that if you work on the production, the song will shine through?

It seems silly to me to get all in a huff because someone had the nerve to suggest how you could- in their opinion- improve your art. If your music is already exactly the way you want it, and you don't care what anyone else thinks, then why bother reading the review threads?

Reïst wrote:There's a different level of physical tangibility between a synth and a guitar, so it's understandable that some people would disagree with you depending on their own definition of music.

It may or may not be true that pressing keys on a synth is less tactile than plucking strings of a guitar, but even if it is, there's two obvious problems with the analysis of these people.

First, what's important in music is the aural experience of the listenener, not the tactile/kinesthetic experience of the musician. If you judge the quality of a performance by the experience of the performer...you'll probably rate the one where they took the most drugs and couldn't play at all.

Second, if an electric guitar is more tactile than a synthesiser, then an acoustic guitar is more tactile than either - it vibrates more when you play it. Which would make an acoustic guitar the most "musical" instrument, which is absurd.

Reïst wrote:I dig synths

And I dig gitars - electric and acoustic. I'm just completely useless at playing them, and far more interested in ways to fake the sound in a week than in spending years to get good.

irwin wrote:Sure it's frustrating when you think you've written a great song that is harmed by poor production and all the reviews focus on is those production flaws, but shouldn't the takeaway message from that be that if you work on the production, the song will shine through?

Indeed, and vice versa - if my production's great but the song sucks, I want to know.

I only sing on my own tracks because they need a vocal and it's a lot of hassle to get someone else to do it. And I write songs because I need something to sing for that vocal.

But, seeing as I've decided to write a song, I'm going to try to write a good song!

So far no one's complained about my lyrics or singing style - aside from "it's not my kind of thing" - so presumably they're not that horrible. But it would be nice if someone told me

(1) what they don't like about it and
(2) why they don't like it.

irwin wrote:If your music is already exactly the way you want it, and you don't care what anyone else thinks, then why bother reading the review threads?

Because however good you think you are...it's always good to have someone else echo it back to you. That's what imaginary friends and gods are for, but real people do it better.

Kapitano wrote:First, what's important in music is the aural experience of the listenener, not the tactile/kinesthetic experience of the musician.

That's a pretty bold claim. Why is the experience of the listener more valid than the experience of the performer?

Reïst wrote:Why is the experience of the listener more valid than the experience of the performer?

That's an interesting question - because it's quite fundamental and not easy to answer.

First of all, I said nothing about one experience being more "valid" than another.

Second, the audience has a listening experience, while the performer has both a listening and a performing experience. The performer is part of the audience as well as on stage - they get information (feedback) about their performance both from the tactile and kinesthetic response to their playing, and listening to the result, so their self-monitoring has many aspects.

And yes, they can in one corner of their mind just sit back and enjoy the music.

Now, whatever else music may be, it's sound experienced and interpreted by the listener. Not the methods used to produce that sound by the performer, nor the mental state of the performer.

The performer's experience as a performer - the way that string vibrates, the response of that key, the pressure and shape of the lips on that mouthpiece, and indeed the response of the audience - is what enables them to perform at all, so it's obviously important. And it has it's own pleasures.

But it's not what the sheet music notes, not what the recording device records, not what the audience hears, not what the performer or composer wants the audience to experience, and...not the aim of making music, even for oneself. Playing an instrument is a means not an end, and if a different instrument or a different player produces the same end, nothing about the music has changed.

Reïst wrote:Why is the experience of the listener more valid than the experience of the performer?

Presumably, there are more of them.

Kapitano wrote:First of all, I said nothing about one experience being more "valid" than another.

Kapitano wrote:What's important in music is the aural experience of the listenener, not the tactile/kinesthetic experience of the musician.

While "valid" was absolutely a hastily chosen word, you clearly stated that the tactile/kinesthetic experience is not important. You said it, not me. And that's what my question was about.

Kapitano wrote:The performer's experience as a performer - the way that string vibrates, the response of that key, the pressure and shape of the lips on that mouthpiece, and indeed the response of the audience - is what enables them to perform at all, so it's obviously important. And it has it's own pleasures. But it's not what the sheet music notes, not what the recording device records, not what the audience hears, not what the performer or composer wants the audience to experience, and...not the aim of making music, even for oneself.

Wow, you know what every performer or composer wants? You know my aims as I play music, just for the hell of it - for me? I'm wildly impressed that everybody thinks just like you. Why do I make music? Please enlighten me.

I'm unconvinced that music can be pidgeonholed into your neat, tidy understanding of human motives and reasons. Because that's a messy subject. Sorry if I'm ranting, but your claims baffle me.

Reïst wrote:While "valid" was absolutely a hastily chosen word, you clearly stated that the tactile/kinesthetic experience is not important. You said it, not me. And that's what my question was about.

It's necessary for the performer to have tactile/kinesthestic experiences, and these experiences form some of the pleasures of performing as opposed to those of listening - which the performer also gets.

I said that the tactile experiences of the performer are not part of the listener experience - even when the listener is also the performer, because in that situation the performer is acting in two roles simultaneously.

It does admittedly get a bit fuzzy because the experiences of the performer-as-listener influence the behavior of the performer-as-performer - they modify their playing on the basis of what they hear, as well as what they feel. There's some "crossover" between the two roles the performer is playing.

But...does this mean the performer is more "in tune" with the music? Does it mean they feel it more? I would say no, because an audience member is quite capable of being deeply moved by a piece of music, even when the performer is thoroughly bored of what they're playing and they're on autopilot.

You may say a singer (for instance) who is emotionally unengaged with the song can't convincingly put emotion into their singing. I think that's false both empirically and logically. Empirically we've all seen singers who seemed to pour out emotion for precisely the duration of the song, then snap back to normal in the break before the next one. And logically, if you've got a two hour set of songs veering wildly between themes of falling in love and losing it, you'd have a nervous breakdown before you're halfway through.

It's difficult to sing well about heartbreak when your heart really is broken.

Reïst wrote:Wow, you know what every performer or composer wants? You know my aims as I play music, just for the hell of it - for me? I'm wildly impressed that everybody thinks just like you. Why do I make music? Please enlighten me.

I'm unconvinced that music can be pidgeonholed into your neat, tidy understanding of human motives and reasons. Because that's a messy subject. Sorry if I'm ranting, but your claims baffle me.

I'm not talking about motives for making music, so obviously I'm not claiming that everyone's motives are identical to my own. I don't even know what all my own motives are, and it doesn't seem important or useful to find out.

You enjoy the process of live performance, even when the audience is just yourself, yes? So if you couldn't hear the music, but only feel the sensations of making it, would you still make it?

Now, if you could only hear it, but for some reason were unable to play an instrument anymore, would you still listen to other people making music?

These goalposts are on wheels!

Would it simplify things if the mods just said, "No, we will not change the name to 'Production Fight' ?"

Goes without saying, Ross.

The direct answer to the question actually asked is yes, we could. productionfight.com, .net, and .org are all available. But we aren't going to.

So, can we change the name to "performance fight"? Because I can't stand that the performance of any part of a song might influence the listener. You know, like how people hear really scratchy old cylinders of Caruso and say "oh my god that's such a good performance!"

Believe it or not, performancefight.com, .net, and .org are all available. But..... no.

That new avatar of yours is super-duper freaky, Spud.

Can we change the name of the site to avatarfight?

I want to know how Spud gets his ever-changing avatar.

"Fistfight.com" is...a christian association? Huh? http://fistfight.com/kingsclub/index.html

"Foodfight.com" is...an animation studio. http://www.foodfight.com/

Do I want to know what "Cockfight.com" is?