The Song Fight Bulletin Board

eaandm wrote:EngineeringFight

An interesting line of argument, whereby the purest, most authentic song is an unrecorded lyric sheet. No mic placement, no recording levels, no playing technique or rhyme schemes - because they're for soulless technicians.

Odd how some people think mindlessness is the same thing as soulfulness.

Kapitano wrote:

eaandm wrote:EngineeringFight

An interesting line of argument, whereby the purest, most authentic song is an unrecorded lyric sheet. No mic placement, no recording levels, no playing technique or rhyme schemes - because they're for soulless technicians.

Odd how some people think mindlessness is the same thing as soulfulness.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my comments as well, but here's the deal. It's really hard to tell if a song in and of itself is good if the performance/recording blows. Think about how many Bob Dylan songs have been covered and the songs are much better by the new artist (think "All Along the Watchtower" performed by Jimi Hendrix). Or better yet, think J.J. Cale covered by Eric Clapton. Or Ringo Starr, poor guy; he can write good songs, but the song has to be phenomenal for it to shine past his voice. I bet if a bunch of his lesser songs were recorded by others, they would be awesome.

So maybe it IS the technical improvements that are necessary. The songs themselves are perhaps fine and need no comment in that sense OR we can't tell because of technical deficiencies.

Just a thought.

Kapitano wrote:Odd how some people think mindlessness is the same thing as soulfulness.

Wages wrote:I'm not sure if you are referring to my comments as well

I wasn't, but I think you're absolutely right. The words on the page are necessary but not sufficient to make a great finished product - in fact, we can all think of some classic recordings that have some bad lyrics in them.

The word "song" in "songfight" is ambigious - it can refer either:
(1) to the lyrics, performed by a singer, with parenthetical instrumentation, or
(2) to the whole thing - the lyrics, their performance, the singer's voice, the notes played by the instruments, the sound of the instruments, how they're played, the overall structure and its details...and all the mixing, EQing and effects that "purists" ignorantly think isn't an art.

When we say "I've written a song", it refers to the former - the lyrics, plus maybe some chords and notes on tempo, key etc. When we say "I've submitted a song", it usually but not always refers to the latter.

From his comment, EA&M wants to write and record poetry - and looks down on those of us who want to make music.

In the interest of full disclosure, yes, the over-emphasis on engineering does tend to annoy me, but while it's not EngineeringFight! it's also not SongwritingFight! Also, people will focus on whatever it is they're interested in. It doesn't get more ridiculously and pointlessly meta than telling a reviewer how to review. Or does it? Par example:

I have to take issue with one thing. You referred to what he is referring to as a "lyric sheet." I feel like that's a bit a short-sighted. As you've demonstrated, there is A LOT that happens between lyrics and a recorded song. I think that what he is looking at is what might be called the "essence" of a song, which is not that which can be conveyed using simply a lyric sheet, but a lead sheet. This consists of lyrics, chords, and melody. When you say "poetry," you seem to be implying that the poster is only interested in lyrics, which is not at all what I take from the post.

I happen to agree that there's a lot more to a song. Personally, I happen to place a lot of value on instrumentation. I'm more interested in and probably much better at arranging songs than writing them. Furthermore, what good is a song without a performance? And particularly in a format where one is required to submit a recording, and not a lead sheet, what good is a performance without a proper recording? What sort of crime is it, exactly, to judge music by what it sounds like?

Lord of Oats wrote:it's not EngineeringFight! it's also not SongwritingFight

That is a very good way of putting it.

It doesn't get more ridiculously and pointlessly meta than telling a reviewer how to review.

Indeed.

"I want your honest opinions. But only the honest opinions that I want to hear."

I have to take issue with one thing. You referred to what he is referring to as a "lyric sheet." I feel like that's a bit a short-sighted. As you've demonstrated, there is A LOT that happens between lyrics and a recorded song. I think that what he is looking at is what might be called the "essence" of a song, which is not that which can be conveyed using simply a lyric sheet, but a lead sheet. This consists of lyrics, chords, and melody. When you say "poetry," you seem to be implying that the poster is only interested in lyrics, which is not at all what I take from the post.

Well, first of all I referred to an "unrecorded lyric sheet", not to the different animal of the recorded vocal performance.

As for what he meant by the "essence" of the song, I think it's probably not well defined in his head, but floats between:
* the lyrics on the page
* the communication intent of the lyric writer
* the (sometimes different) communication intent of the singer
* the transitory vocal performance, and
* the more permanent recording of that performance

...but yes, I did take EA&M to mean that the lyrics are by far the most important part of the song. As to whether they're the written or performed lyrics - as I say I don't think our fellow songwriter is drawing clear distinctions.

What sort of crime is it, exactly, to judge music by what it sounds like?

I think it's the crime of listening to the art and not the artist.

glennny wrote:We improvise (glennny & Ken) until we like a groove or riff that we want to make a verse or chorus out of.

I think this is sweet. This is what we always did in corn on the cob, too. So much fun with just no pressure and all good vibes. I'd like to review but only currently have use of one hand for a week or two so if i do, it will be brief. Nice work yo...everybody. Just want to shout that out.

eaandm wrote: My 'Likes' are:

The Interchangables
Lonbobby
i.p.
Tuners Union
Wages
Benjamin Sturdevant
Chopped Liver Meat God
The Weakest Suit
Ross Durand
Boltoph

Wow! Thank you so much for the kind words! After all the reviews, I was beginning to get a little disheartened. Thanks again!

The Interchangeables wrote:Wow! Thank you so much for the kind words! After all the reviews, I was beginning to get a little disheartened. Thanks again!

Don't be discouraged by poor reviews... keep trying. I voted for you I believe... the Girl & Boy song?

Kapitano wrote:As for what he meant by the "essence" of the song, I think it's probably not well defined in his head, but floats between:
* the lyrics on the page
* the communication intent of the lyric writer
* the (sometimes different) communication intent of the singer
* the transitory vocal performance, and
* the more permanent recording of that performance

...but yes, I did take EA&M to mean that the lyrics are by far the most important part of the song. As to whether they're the written or performed lyrics - as I say I don't think our fellow songwriter is drawing clear distinctions.

I still don't feel like he is necessarily over-emphasizing lyrics. I see an emphasis on a written song, versus a performed song. I would likely call this an "abstract song." I don't think it's all that useful a device, in the modern era, but it still exists, and can be evaluated, if that's how someone wants to spend their time. I feel that this likely consists of written lyrics, written chord abbreviations, and a melody transcribed in notation. Of course, very few songs are actually written like that, and I don't find much utility or pleasure in looking at songs this way, but any conventional song can be boiled down to that.

The main problem with applying that on this site is that every song here is a performance. To some extent, one would be trying to determine the intent of the songwriter through back-formation. That's messy and ludicrous. But I guess I can't fault someone for wanting to focus on songwriting. Though I'm in favor of a more moderate and balanced approach, keeping in mind that the recording process and the songwriting process can often have so much overlap that they're not really discernible from one another, often making "the song" and "the recording" incredibly difficult to separate.

As the guy who absolutely lost the engineering fight on this one, I just want to say that's it's great to have a song appreciated for its potential. When I write reviews, I try to look past any production flaws to see the quality of the unpolished gem.

When I enter a fight, though, I prefer my songs to be seen in their best light. That means I want to polish them, and I want to learn how to polish them. So when reviewers discuss my engineering, I appreciate it. I don't even mind if they sometimes forget to notice the song.

AJOwens wrote:As the guy who absolutely lost the engineering fight on this one, I just want to say that's it's great to have a song appreciated for its potential. When I write reviews, I try to look past any production flaws to see the quality of the unpolished gem.

When I enter a fight, though, I prefer my songs to be seen in their best light. That means I want to polish them, and I want to learn how to polish them. So when reviewers discuss my engineering, I appreciate it. I don't even mind if they sometimes forget to notice the song.

While you may have lost the engineering fight this time, I voted for you... because I could see (hear) the song underneath... However... it was listenable... some people like to post unlistenable garbage and complain about "this isn't mix fight!" to which I say, I don't give a fuck if your song is like Shakespeare if I can't bear to listen to it. (I'm not talking to you btw...)

As long as the topic is open I thought I'd throw 2 cents in.

a) There are some great songs that have terrible lyrics - I think the extent to which the lyrics are important is in how they function for the intent of the song - consider "Twist and Shout" - stupid words, totally works, but highly dependant on performance

b) there are some songs that work very well with mediocre performances, like blowing in the wind can be convincingly delivered by very unacomplished guitarists and singers, but generally still works

c) the fidelity argument is, I think, BS. Does nice production make a song more palatable on first listen? Sure, But I'll bet each of us has gotten hold of some lo-fi bootleg or live thing by a band we loved and still loved listening to it even though it was highly imperfect as a recording. Heck Listen to the recordings that enrico caruso made - and those are collectors items. I do think there is a minimum, if you actually can't hear the song or make out the words because the fidelity is so bad - that is a whole other issue.

Ok - just my opinion

Ross wrote:Does nice production make a song more palatable on first listen? Sure, But I'll bet each of us has gotten hold of some lo-fi bootleg or live thing by a band we loved and still loved listening to it even though it was highly imperfect as a recording.

I totally agree - there are some lo-fi tunes that I listen to daily. However, the palatable first listen is essential for a contest like songfight. In general, the artist has one chance to impress - as most reviewers will not return to the fight for a second listen - which is understandable). Performance, intriguing lyrics, a musical hook, production, etc are all part of this initial ear-snag.

eaandm - If you're looking for votes and praise on the boards, aim to impress using every trick in your arsenal. SF reviews are based largely on first impressions, so don't expect a pat on the back if you skimp on any of the elements I mentioned above.

The snogfight tunes regularly voted as "best ever" all have above average to excellent production values. I'm not sayin'.. I'm just sayin'.

























I'm saying GTFO the internets until you learn how to record your crap and can afford $50 worth of mics and interfaces.

blue wrote:snogfight

The ladies never complain about the production values of my Snogfight entries

boltoph wrote: Cahn

soss

Caravan Ray wrote:

blue wrote:snogfight

The ladies never complain about the production values of my Snogfight entries

Maybe they would if you ever entered.

Just my luck! I FINALLY post something that people want to discuss, and I get called away to the REAL world!

Wages: Think about how many Bob Dylan songs have been covered and the songs are much better by the new artist (think "All Along the Watchtower" performed by Jimi Hendrix).

Great! SOMEBODY got it! My point exactly! But, IMHO if Bob Dylan had been trying to get recognition by submitting here, we may never have even heard of him. So to JJ Cale. Oh, and if you think Hendrix was all about the 'machinery', do a YouTube Search for >Jimi Hendrix - Acoustic< and check it out. And anybody who thinks Clapton doesn't do acoustic, hasn't been to a Clapton concert lately.

I agree, a 'good sound' is important, but to toss a well written song aside because the author doesn't have a $300 mic is missing just wrong.

But then, this thread is so old now (in net-years) that nobody will probably even read it. So, thanks to those artists who agree and to those engineers who dis-agree, thanks for proving my point.