The Bad Songs

[Jim of Seattle]

One of the biggest things that separates Songfight from the rest of the music world is that there is room for Bad Songs. Honestly, until I joined this community (June, 2003) I didn't have a whole lot of experience listening to Bad Songs, other then a handful here or there in workshops and whatnot. Now I spend a significant portion of my listening hours enduring Bad Songs. (Truth be told, I used to be determined to make it all the way through every last one, but no longer do that. I have discovered the Next Track button)

I think the Bad Songs are a major part of Songfight that really isn't discussed enough. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on The Bad Songs.

The Four Types of Bad Songs
1. Poorly written songs
2. Poorly executed songs
3. Failed experiments by otherwise competent people
4. Just screwing around at our expense

Almost worse than the Bad Songs are the Mediocre Songs. The Bad Songs are so clearly bad that they instill a jolt and a quick tap of the Next Track button. But they at least hold my interest for a few seconds the way a dead bird carcass does. The mediocre songs are just good enough to keep my finger off the button, but not good enough to engage me. So I get stuck listening to and rooting for some song that just isn't getting me there for whatever reason.

(Notice that I am not calling out any bad songs specifically. Everyone hears songs hear that they hate. So leave it at that.)

[Eric Y.]

The Four Types of Bad Songs

jim, it's really funny that you bring this up. just last night i was listening to some SF! stuff and a similar thought struck me: i was pondering the fact that some songs are really bad because somebody is just screwing around, some songs are really bad because somebody doesn't care enough to spend the time to make it better, some songs are bad because somebody doesn't have the capability to record something good, and some songs are bad because somebody just lacks the ability/talent to do any better. and then there are those crossover bad songs: sometimes somebody isn't all that good, but decides to make a screwing-around song trying to sound like somebody that really is bad, and it's just bad all around. anyway, that's about all the thought i put into it...

[fodroy]

and the point?

[Jim of Seattle]

and the point?

Pooh on you. It was more my opening up a potentially interesting thread is all.

On one hand, Songfight is special because there's no bar above which a song must exist to be heard, but ultimately it's the Achilles heel as well, since although there is a gigantic backlog of great, creative, free music to be heard, there is a huge amount of Badness as well.

[anti-m]

In addition to making mediocre songs, I also spend a lot of time listening to “This American Life.â€

[fodroy]

and the point?

Pooh on you. It was more my opening up a potentially interesting thread is all.

ok. i thought you were being grumpy.

it's true that there's a lot of stuff on songfight that isn't so great, but i don't mind sitting through it when the payoff is finding the great stuff buried within the fight.

and on the other hand, i think a lot of the songs would actually sound better outside of the context of a fight. the fights are so diverse, and, especially when they're long, it can be hard to listen without a harsh judging ear. it's a lot easier to listen and enjoy when you're not trying decide who to vote for and who sucks.

[Jim of Seattle]

To me, the moral of this story is that, in order to reap the benefit of successful experimentation/risk taking/innovation… you have to suffer through some failed attempts.

(sigh) Ain't it the truth. The best thing I did for myself with regard to my SF listening is to stop comparing what I heard to what's quote-unquote "on the radio", because so much of what is for sale in music is motivated as much on what will sell as on how good it is. Now I listen to SF as if I were listening to an entirely new era of music in which stellar production values are less important, and the music is more creative than slickly executed. And there's still a lot of garbage. Even so, it's allowed me to enjoy more SF music than I used to.

Personally, I wouldn’t have considered entering Songfight myself if all of the songs were perfectly excellent – I would have been too intimidated.

Hmmm, very true as well. I'm sure a lot of people have come away feeling just that, even at the current level. And probably the other way around too, that the music wasn't good enough for them.

[melvin]

Funny post. My feeling is that bad song types 1-3 are worth tolerating if the "artist" sounds young, because we were probably all there once, and who knows what kind of genius might be developing. But what really bugs me about song type 4 is that some of these people aren't even TRYING to do anything worthwhile. To me, putting in a minimal effort and doing a really lousy job of something is infinitely worse than trying your very best, and still coming up short. In fact, the latter is often admirable, if you're honest with yourself.

It's like when you go to someone's home and they've done a really crude and garish sponge-painting job on their walls. They know it looks horrible; it doesn't even remotely resemble suede or marble or whatever texture they were trying to imitate from one of those home decorating TV shows, yet they just can't be bothered to learn the technique properly, or admit defeat, get out a roller, and cover it up. So everyone's left gagging on their Earl Grey, and thinking, "Good Lord that's ugly" until the next tenant comes along.

I think western culture in general has become too soft. Everyone seems to want a cookie just for pretending to try their best, but few people are actually willing to endure the time, pain and suffering that's typically required to become truly good at something. I'd like to see how long ShipInABottleFight would last on the Internet.

[Jim of Seattle]

I think western culture in general has become too soft. Everyone seems to want a cookie just for pretending to try their best, but few people are actually willing to endure the time, pain and suffering that's typically required to become truly good at something. I'd like to see how long ShipInABottleFight would last on the Internet.

Yeah, plus the criteria for what makes a modern song "good" can be so ephemeral. Often it's just "Does it rock?" And sometimes, given that, someone can strike lightning without a lot of pain and suffering, because the musicality sort of squirts out inadvertently and we all "get it". A hundred years ago there were different things you had to be good at that took a lot more training. There is a required immediacy and rough edge to a rock song that sometimes can get lost if too much time is taken. But there's a fine line. That guy in Spinal Tap said "There's a very fine line between profound and stupid".

[melvin]

I heard Hotel California on the radio this morning, which is one of those ubiquitous songs that usually just goes in one ear and out the other for me. But after paying attention to it for perhaps the first time in my life, I was struck by how much more detailed and finely crafted it is than, say, anything that's been popular since 1990. On one hand, I'm glad that pop music has become a more "common" pusuit thanks to technology and the power chord. On the other hand, man, they sure don't make it like they used to!

[anti-m]

I think western culture in general has become too soft. Everyone seems to want a cookie just for pretending to try their best, but few people are actually willing to endure the time, pain and suffering that's typically required to become truly good at something. I'd like to see how long ShipInABottleFight would last on the Internet.

Hah! My first inclination was to check if ShipInABottleFight already existed on the internet. (I don't think it does…sadly)

I’m torn on this issue, because I like the idea of encouraging people to make stuff, regardless of skill level. If nothing else, I think that doing so makes people better listeners/ “art consumers.â€

[Jim of Seattle]

double post, sorry

[Jim of Seattle]

man, they sure don't make it like they used to!

The catchy tune for catchy tune's sake is all but extinct. Everything is words and rhythm and "the groove" now. I'm not making a value judgement, I just think the main focus of what a song is supposed to be is shifting.

I've been listening recently to my playlist of 2000 of my favorite songs from 1920-1990, and a few things stand out in contrast to what is being done now: Rhythm is more complex and more prominent, tunes are less inventive, words are more inventive. Speaking in gross generalities, of course.

[Jim of Seattle]

[quote="anti-m"]Anyone who has taught an art class can attest to the fact that there is always at least one student who, when his or her work is criticized, will reply, “Actually, I meant for it to be that way.â€

[anti-m]

I wonder what that kid would have said had he been asked what his intent was before anyone told him their impressions.

Actually, I always ask intent first!
(Hence how I know the intent is not served by the execution)

The attitude can be summed up as "you, my audience, are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the subtleties at work in my piece."

Perhaps these students are right... but more and more... (as I get older and more stubborn) I'm thinking they're just being pissy/lazy.

--Em

[Jim of Seattle]

The attitude can be summed up as "you, my audience, are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the subtleties at work in my piece."

Perhaps these students are right... but more and more... (as I get older and more stubborn) I'm thinking they're just being pissy/lazy.

--Em

Yeah, that's a gigantic cop-out. If I say something to you and only use words you don't know, and you say to me "I don't get it", it is MY failure at communicating, not your failure for not getting it. It's a two-way street.

[anti-m]

Yeah, that's a gigantic cop-out. If I say something to you and only use words you don't know, and you say to me "I don't get it", it is MY failure at communicating, not your failure for not getting it. It's a two-way street.

Huh ... see, in that example I'm siding with the person with the big vocabulary. That's why I'm undecided on this issue, I guess!

[jb]

To my ears, a reply like "you just don't get it" is often a hurt retort from someone who really hoped you *would* get it.

[Jim of Seattle]

Perhaps the test is if the artist says "you don't get it, it's really like THIS..." and explains it, then if the listener says "Oh, NOW I see!" that's one thing, but if they say "Well, that doesn't come across to me", the artist should take the onus upon himself for it being a failure in that regard.

[Kill Me Sarah]

One of the biggest things that separates Songfight from the rest of the music world is that there is room for Bad Songs.

I tend to disagree that there isn't "bad music" out there, especially judging by numbers 1 and 3. There are plenty of talent-less people on the airwaves right now who are made listenable through professional production and plenty of good bands that try to do something different and just screw it all up. I think what is in abundance here that you won't here on the airwaves is bad production. I count myself in the group of people that you might say writes "bad music" judging by that guideline alone. But I'm also not one that think that production makes or breaks a song either way necessarily.

[deshead]

The Four Types of Bad Songs
1. Poorly written songs
2. Poorly executed songs

A subset of #2 is "good band, bad singer" songs. Those're even worse than the mediocre songs that you want to like, because they actually sound great until the American Idol reject starts whining. I'd do more reviews if we had a "learn to sing .. NEXT" smiley.

On the other hand, man, they sure don't make it like they used to!

There's a can of worms behind this, but I'll throw it out there anyway: the definition of pop has changed. That's all.

The catchy tune for catchy tune's sake is all but extinct.... the main focus of what a song is supposed to be is shifting.

True in pop music. But get away from the mainstream, and modern music is just as rewarding as anything recorded 30 years ago. For example, I love The Eagles (to further Melvin's reference from above,) but packing for a desert island, I'd dump anything The Eagles recorded to make room for any of Wilco's CDs.

[pegor]

Does the JOS taxonomy of bad songifacation need another catagory _bad production_ ?
On a local AM talk radio show this week the hosts excitedly teased the fact that they were going to play Joaquin Phoenix doing Johnny Cash "straight off of the board" from a live show - and that it would prove the accolades about his singing abilities are BS. Well, when they finally played it the host sounded kinda confused and eventually conceeded that the singing seemed much worse in his office. So just the compression (and EQ ?) that they probably throw on a live AM radio transmission can make a bad performance good. both hosts are bar band musicians and ex DJs - funny
-also-
Bad songs are the thing that indirectly make me a SF junkie. Hearing a bad song and then reading the technincal reviews that detail why a song is bad are an amazing learning tool. When you draw a picture of a face you can look at your rendering and then at the face and see where they differ and fix it. but with music it's more difficult, You can't look at a cultural aesthetic and compare it to an mp3. So SF ( reviews at least) provides the asthetic to compare to. Maybe they just compare them to the SongFight Aesthetic (whatever the F that is) but it's somthing at least.
Sorry no point just free time