The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Because I haven't had time for FAWM (I only have 4 songs recorded thus far), tomorrow, from 6 AM to 4 PM, I will be writing and recording a song-an-hour.

Everything so far can be heard here: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default ... dID=804436

First song finished - nine more to go.

Two finished - eight more to go.

Go go go! Looking forward to hearing 'em.

Three songs finished, though frankly if I weren't doing this experiment the current song would go unheard.

Yeah, that happens. Push on through!

Charles (KA)

Four songs finished. Six to go!

Hit it and split it!

Five songs finished! This one's a songfight entry too.

Six finished. I'm ending this song a bit early so I can help Niveous.

Seven finished. This one I'm actually quite happy with - the goal was to create the sort of song that gets sung at high school graduations, a la the overused songs Good Riddiance (Time of Your Life), Graduation and Closing Time. Not in that order.

EDIT - of course the vocals inevitably sound horrid after I post that I'm happy with the song. still, I'm already well into the next one.

Eight done. Two more until I have to get to homework.

Wrote two in an hour, now I have ten. Yay!

Wow. I'm actually really impressed ... I should try this.

Reïst wrote:Wow. I'm actually really impressed ... I should try this.

IMO, this type of behavior should not be encouraged. At the very least, not published.

<font size="1" color="gray">Before anybody insists I explain, I will explain. IMO, these are 1 song IDEA an hour and hey, I don't discourage THAT. However, this is a quality over quantity issue. Even if Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, *Your favorite artist here* could pull this off, would it still be all that listenable? Take another 10 hours (or the same 10 hours) putting effort into ONE good idea. The results will be vastly different / better.</font>

Hoblit wrote:

Reïst wrote:Wow. I'm actually really impressed ... I should try this.

IMO, this type of behavior should not be encouraged. At the very least, not published.

<font size="1" color="gray">Before anybody insists I explain, I will explain. IMO, these are 1 song IDEA an hour and hey, I don't discourage THAT. However, this is a quality over quantity issue. Even if Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, *Your favorite artist here* could pull this off, would it still be all that listenable? Take another 10 hours (or the same 10 hours) putting effort into ONE good idea. The results will be vastly different / better.</font>

This was an experiment to see if something of this sort was worthwhile. Although it was successful and fun, I can definitely say that I am never doing this for a long, long time. The songs are all unpolished and flimsily-played because I had to rush to complete them. Around half might be worth working into a 'real' song, and maybe two of them would be good songs. That's not a bad amount at any rate, and this is definitely a fun experience to have. I'd encourage most people here to try this if they're otherwise out of ideas.

There's no way I'd release these recordings as a commercial release in any way, shape, or form.

I imagine I could do 10 songs in 10 hours and all 10 of them would be up to my normal quality.

Heck, an hour isn't far off from my usual effort. 20 minutes to put together a beat, 10 minutes to write lyrics, and 30 minutes to perform the vocals/mix it with the music.

Hoblit wrote:

Reïst wrote:Wow. I'm actually really impressed ... I should try this.

IMO, this type of behavior should not be encouraged. At the very least, not published.

<font size="1" color="gray">Before anybody insists I explain, I will explain. IMO, these are 1 song IDEA an hour and hey, I don't discourage THAT. However, this is a quality over quantity issue. Even if Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, *Your favorite artist here* could pull this off, would it still be all that listenable? Take another 10 hours (or the same 10 hours) putting effort into ONE good idea. The results will be vastly different / better.</font>

I'm not going to insist on anything. I'm just going to flatly disagree with you. A song doesn't need ten hours to be good. It only needs as much as it needs. If Mr. LSK were insisiting that these were the definitive recordings, or that these were even good songs, you might have a bit more of point. Of course, how much work any of these might need can't necessarily be determined at first. Here's what I can tell you: almost completely inexplicably, pointless and strictly imposed constraints almost always amount to better songwriting.

Lord of Oats wrote:

Hoblit wrote:

Reïst wrote:Wow. I'm actually really impressed ... I should try this.

IMO, this type of behavior should not be encouraged. At the very least, not published.

<font size="1" color="gray">Before anybody insists I explain, I will explain. IMO, these are 1 song IDEA an hour and hey, I don't discourage THAT. However, this is a quality over quantity issue. Even if Paul Simon, Bruce Springsteen, *Your favorite artist here* could pull this off, would it still be all that listenable? Take another 10 hours (or the same 10 hours) putting effort into ONE good idea. The results will be vastly different / better.</font>

I'm not going to insist on anything. I'm just going to flatly disagree with you. A song doesn't need ten hours to be good. It only needs as much as it needs. If Mr. LSK were insisiting that these were the definitive recordings, or that these were even good songs, you might have a bit more of point. Of course, how much work any of these might need can't necessarily be determined at first. Here's what I can tell you: almost completely inexplicably, pointless and strictly imposed constraints almost always amount to better songwriting.

and nowhere in my post did I imply that any song needs to have imposed constraints on time nor did I suggest that a brainstorming idea was a bad one, I even noted that my opinion had room for this type of thing to be accepted. If anything, the idea itself , 10 songs / 10 hours is in itself , constraining. I simply suggested that the idea of recording 10 songs in 10 hours as a goal and the fact that he's published his experience should not in fact be encouraged. I went on to suggest that the end product of 1 song per 10 hours would be vastly different. (and in my opinion BETTER... probably better? My opinion states that between writing, recording, and producing the song, 10 hours would better for the overall production per song)

fluffy wrote:http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2005/09/v ... ons_c.html

LOL...
the first 5 tracks are hilarious...

1.Twist and Shake
2.Shake and Roll
3.Stomp and Scream
4.Scream and Holler
5.Jump and Thump

Same formula, different results... LOL, that’s funny.

EDIT..LOL that whole freaking album is funny as hell... folk music rocks! \m/

I'm all for things like this. Writing 10 songs in 10 hours* is likely to force you past any preconceived ideas, and it's a good way to hear a little of your true voice. And the condition that the work is to be released also seems fundamental to the process; without it, one would be even more inclined to let things slide.

This seems like an extremely valuable exercise for my songwriting process, and I wish I had time to do it often. I would not encourage people to come and listen to it and expect a polished body of work though.

*My closest experience to this is the Album-A-Day project.