The Song Fight Bulletin Board

from someone really not qualified to give advice of any form.

As I think has been summed up in various other discussions at various other times, there are poorly written songs, poorly performed songs, and poorly recorded songs. And some songs are more than one of these. I am probably plagiarizing the thoughts of other, better commentators here.

Poorly written songs, nothing will save. If people think your lyrics are stupid, no amount of musical inventiveness will get their vote or good reviews. If you use a cliche chord progression without having a good REASON to use it, people will just think you're not creative. (Reasons are things like: if your song is blues, there are only so many chord progressions that sound authentic in that genre. But if you do that, the lyrics and playing better be good because all ears will be on them. And some reviewers hate genres like that, and will tell you so.)

Poorly performed songs are a real pity. Because they might be well written, but no one will know because no one will be able to hear the good song under the bad performance. If instruments are not in tune with themselves or with each other, singing is off key, things are not in time with each other, you will get bad reviews. Period. These are the things that really make your song sound unprofessional.

These are the things that separate you, the hobbyist, from even the shittiest professional band. Even the worst band you've ever heard gets this stuff right, because if they have a record deal or a gig at anything other than open-mic night, they at least have someone who makes them practice. Even the most poorly recorded teenage hardcore no-hit-wonders of 1981 have this. Even the most stoned out, aimlessly noodling hippy jam-band have this.

If your music is so written that most people can't tell if it is being performed correctly or not, you're in trouble. Like if you use such a strange rhythm that nobody can tell whether an instrument is on the beat or not, then nobody is going to be able to tell whether you're a master of your esoteric genre or just fucking around. If this really describes you, no shitting us here, then songfight is probably not for your type of music, because it's possible that what you do should not technically be described as a "song".

Finally, is recording and production. The majority of reviewers are willing to forgive a good song, played well, but recorded with merely adequate quality. This is, after all, why people like bootlegs and live albums.

Examples of bad recordings/mixes, bad enough to get you bad reviews and lose you votes, include: not being able to hear the vocals clearly enough to know if you like the lyrics or not, some instrument so loud that it drowns out the others without some legitimate reason for it being like that (and if you have a good reason, we'll know..), background noise as loud as the music.

A really bad recording or mix can cancel out the good points of your song, assuming your song has them. But no amount of recording fidelity will make a poor performance good.

I realize I routinely violate all of these myself... but then I *know* why I get bad reviews and I know when I deserve them. This is aimed at people who get the bad reviews and don't understand why.

Sums it up pretty well!

Now I feel really guilty!

jeff robertson wrote:fFinally, and least importantly, is recording and production. The majority of reviewers are willing to forgive a good song, played well, but recorded poorly. This is, after all, why people like bootlegs and live albums.

I'm sure people say but I'm not so sure it's true. Certainly of my own songs I've noticed that those that were well produced but not perhaps the best I've written have fared markedly better than those that were poorly produced but better songs.

I think the key thing about bootlegs/live albums is that they're recordings of songs that people already know. I wonder if any band has ever put out a live album of songs that were all new, and if so how well that was received?

For what it's worth, I'm not at all willing to excuse poor production because in this day and age there's just no excuse for it. The production doesn't have to be great, but there's a minimum bar that if you can't be bothered to hop over, I can't be bothered to listen to you.

obscurity wrote: I think the key thing about bootlegs/live albums is that they're recordings of songs that people already know. I wonder if any band has ever put out a live album of songs that were all new, and if so how well that was received?

The MC5's "Kick out the Jams" was a live *debut* album, of songs nobody ever heard of from a band nobody heard of, and is one of the most influential rock albums of all time.

obscurity wrote: For what it's worth, I'm not at all willing to excuse poor production because in this day and age there's just no excuse for it. The production doesn't have to be great, but there's a minimum bar that if you can't be bothered to hop over, I can't be bothered to listen to you.

I don't disagree with that statement, but the bar is lower for production that it is for performance.

obscurity wrote:I wonder if any band has ever put out a live album of songs that were all new, and if so how well that was received?

the first jane's addiction cd was taken from a couple live shows. personally, i think it's on par with their two following studio cds.
for most of the songs on the live cd, there were never any studio versions released. granted, i believe that a lot of touch-ups were done in the studio on this cd before it was released, but it is still billed as a live album, and since it was their first cd, the songs were all new. as to how it was received...i'm not sure. i did not listen to them at the time the first cd was released, i'm pretty sure it was received positively, because it's a pretty good cd.

edit: the latest tanya donelly cd was both live and all new songs. i know she's not popular anymore, but i thought the cd was really well done.

I think obscurity meant "new" to the performers, as in, they hadn't played/rehearsed them much prior to recording them live. Those are basically the conditions under which people record for SongFight! You're recording a song that you've just written, and for many people not really played/reheasred much (or at all, if you're a one man band type situation where you're doing all the different parts and therefore couldn't have played the whole song live).

Lunkhead wrote:I think obscurity meant "new" to the performers, as in, they hadn't played/rehearsed them much prior to recording them live.

I think he meant that live albums succeed because they consist of songs that the audience already knows. And I provided a counter-example, although I do agree it is really rare.

Meanwhile, I've edited my original posting to be slightly harsher about recording quality.

jeff robertson wrote:

Lunkhead wrote:I think obscurity meant "new" to the performers, as in, they hadn't played/rehearsed them much prior to recording them live.

I think he meant that live albums succeed because they consist of songs that the audience already knows. And I provided a counter-example, although I do agree it is really rare.

Meanwhile, I've edited my original posting to be slightly harsher about recording quality.

Actually, I think his point is the forgiveness for the 'lack of listenability' in production of a bootleg which notoriously lacks in production. Not just live stuff. As to say that we'll forgive the lack of production if we know the song and can appreciate a live or alternative version of it

If Pink Floyd wrote and recorded a brand new album LIVE at an outdoor venue without anyone previously hearing the material, it would PROBABLY be better received than if the Sex Pistols had done it and somebody got it taped on their 'ghetto blaster'. I use the extremes here because Pink Floyd is a much tighter band currently than the Sex Pistols ever were. I do this to show you that it may be the combination of variables that make something 'listenable'. I'm fairly certain that if you recorded Pink Floyd on a ghetto blaster and recorded The Sex Pistols NOW in the same studio that Green Day produced American Idiot in... you might still argue which one is more 'listenable'.

I use Pink Floyd as an example because most of their earlier years they played songs for a full year live before they'd put them to tape. (with some obvious exceptions)

Hoblit wrote:I use the extremes here because Pink Floyd is a much tighter band currently than the Sex Pistols ever were.

Interesting choices. The Sex Pistols' debut is actually one of the better produced, better sounding records in the whole history of punk. At least to my ears. Especially compared not to Green Day but to contemporaries like the Ramones. The band may be sloppy at times, but the recording ain't. It's produced like a god damn Queen album.

The Ramones first album is a pretty ghetto recording. Compared even to their stuff of a couple of years later, it's cheap sounding. But it's ok because the band is tight.

I honestly don't know if I'm making my point, or yours, or if we even disagree. Just throwin' shit out there.

Funny, right now I'm listening to a Pink Floyd bootleg "ROIO" song that never made it onto an album... found some mp3s on the net a while back
-bill

Hoblit wrote:

jeff robertson wrote:

Lunkhead wrote:I think obscurity meant

I think he meant

Actually, I think his point is

Wow, I'm pretty bad at making myself clear at times aren't I? :)

Hoblit's pretty much summed it up tho'. Remember we were talking about good/bad production so I assumed the phrase 'bootleg/live recordings' meant recordings that had production values equivelant to your typical live album, IE, not very good. It's not so much live vs studio but well produced vs poorly produced. And I think people much more prepared to listen to a poorly produced track if it's of a song that they already know and like, and I think that's why live albums and bootlegs sell.

Mind you, this could just be me projecting my personal preferences, 'cos god knows I can't bear to listen to most live recordings.

jeff robertson wrote:Poorly written songs, nothing will save. If people think your lyrics are stupid, no amount of musical inventiveness will get their vote or good reviews. If you use a cliche chord progression without having a good REASON to use it, people will just think you're not creative.

You can do SO much to save a poorly written song, most notably great production and hackneyed arrangement hooks (clearwater pause, megaphone vocals, turntable solo, and cool sounding synths are the ones that pop into my mind immediately).

There are so many artists who write words that suck ass when you read them aloud. But when you sing them against the backdrop of their awesome music, it sounds great.

You can cover a cliched chord progression with a kick-ass arrangement, or a unique melody.