The Songwriter Forum - songwriting reviews, tips and chat
Songwriter Forum => The Writing Process => Topic started by: Martinswede on July 02, 2017, 07:42:47 PM
-
Hi all buskers and mere mortals!
The best songwriting advice I've got so far is to re-write. To make writing a process and not just some spontaneous and funny thing that I do when I feel like it. This has made me work on the songs much more/longer and I've gotten more of a multi-dimensional view of it. At this point I can't say if I've gotten better but it sure feels more like a home cooked meal.
Are any of you familiar with the experience that you finally kind of got it?
Some insight in that it is not impossible to get better if you just change your point of view and that what held you back was in no way written in stone? (Mostly anxiety).
All of this is just semi-religious ramblings but I'd say that if I can get a better writing flow going then many others should be very capable of the same.
Martin
-
I think the discovery that there is such a thing as "song craft" can be quite an eye opener
Some feel that it "ruins" the spontaneous nature of songwriting and that apply "rules" is wrong
However, song craft is so much more than that and there are lots of techniques to ensure your song packs the biggest emotional punch possible
A good time for my mantra:
Songs are written
Good songs are "re-written"
Great songs are re-writes of good songs
-
I hear your mantra Boydie and know it has great worth, especially in modern commercial writing but I think some writers instinctively nail the lyrics, harmony and melody pretty much first time round. They craft their lyrics as they go, ensuring that the lyrics skilfully embrace rhythms and chord progressions. Maybe they tweak their songs a little but I think they have written so many good songs that's their craft is exceptionally advanced and their task is not a difficult one. I'm thinking of people like Roddy Frame. He's no longer a writer who resides in the charts but he is for me one of the most advanced writers on the planet. His writing gets better and better despite a lifetime in the music industry. He doesn't appear jaded or that he's running out of ideas. His powers don't seem to fade. He simply improves and explores his craft with each new album.
Production plays such a big role in modern chart success. It is in my opinion, something quite different to writing, though many would argue that it is now an integral part of being a songwriter. I can't help differentiate the two disciplines. To me, production is like a suit of clothes that a song wears. I also think it's a skill that many writers may hand over to someone else. Their business, as I see it is writing songs: lyrics, harmony and melody, I think it's great when a seasoned songwriter can demonstrate their craft with a single instrument, to accompany their voice. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Paul
-
Bullshit, songwriting is not a art nor a craft, its the flow.
The writing process, Bullshit 8)
-
Which is your ear - lyrical or musical? Maybe lyrical writers have a process and musical and doubly-gifted writers have a flow.
-> I know nothing. I'm just a girl with keyboard and some spare time.
-
I know nothing. I'm just a guy with acoustic and some spare time 8)
-
Tell me is this Bullshit or reality 8)
-
Tell me is this Bullshit or reality 8)
:D
Not fair using a Hollywood production and asking for someone to out themselves as a loon by commenting one way or the other.
Squeal! Squeal like a pig!
Great scene. Love the older man clog dancing to their jam.
-
Ar damn i never thought of myself as a loon 8) and yes you're right "Hollywood production" 8)
-
As I understand it, the boy there really did play that piece so you win the prize. He's got the flow down.
-
I think working on a song for a time is a good thing...not necessarily what I'd call a rewrite, but a refinement. I listen to the song over and over....literally and playing through my head when i'm not physically listening. i'm looking for improvements I could make maybe in a lyrical or musical phrase.....maybe just one better word.....a better transition between parts...a bigger chorus...whatever. I might never find it but it's got to be worth the time surely.
I don't subscribe to the idea that a song can be dashed off in an afternoon. The whole general idea maybe but not as a finished song. The notion that a song is better because it's spontaneous and delivered with emotion doesn't carry weight for me. I don't think even very good seasoned writers go about it like this. If they do, and they come up with something great then they're very lucky indeed.
I'm glad you've come to this point Martin. You've posted some good ideas which wouldn't need much to make them better. Surely the songs are worth spending time on?
Just my opinion of course.
-
One of the most interesting thing about writing is adding to it.
It can tell a hell of a story, and song of flow 8)
-
I'd say since I no longer go from start to finish in a chronological order of how the song will be played I can work on verse/B/Chorus simultaneously instead of finding a word that rhymes with 'cucumber' or what ever. That used to get me stuck. My beginners mistake nr 1.
The word flow seems to describe a process that has its own engine. You let the music come to you. But unless there is a potential copyright issue ahead that flow and inspiration is You. Giving up the idea that you'll ever get that flow again might be the best way to start learning how to work with your writing.
'Great songs are re-writes of good songs'. There can be no defined line between working and re-writing except that at some point the writer thinks he/she is finished and then changes his/her mind.
-
I don't know where the "production" thing came from - I am talking about just the "song"
I would class refining lyrics as you go along, changing a lyric, "tweaking" the song, "adding to it" - all as re-writes
I do appreciate there are many different approaches to writing - but there are some definite themes within the "cries for help" posted in this forum, which does appear to lead to a "recommended" process for those that don't have their own "flow" yet
I think the most common "issue" we see is people struggling to complete a song and end up with a gazillion half written songs
The advice here is to just write the song - get it finished
Don't get hung up on perfect rhymes, imagery or melody etc. Just get it finished
This is often the easy bit
As some have mentioned the "re-writing" can often happen simultaneously with the writing but there is a school of thought that say you should just "go with the flow" at the creative / writing / ideas stage and get everything down - don't let the "critical" part of the brain join this party
Once you have "the song" then you can concentrate on making it "better" - which may involve re-writing all or parts - or it may even involve deciding you like the original, raw, version - the fact that you have stepped back and consciously considered it arguably still counts as a re-write
This leads to the other common issue - when is a song "finished"
In reality a songwriter rarely sees a song as finished - it is just at its latest "re-write" version
-
The 'production' thing came from my humble attempt to engage in this conversation and define what the writing process is!
Paul
-
I wasn't having a "pop"
It is just that "production" is often seen as a bit of a dirty word and people often only associate it with commercial / modern pop
I actually happen to agree with you 100% that production is now becoming part of the writing process - not just in the pop/EDM genres but across many genres
However, in this instance I am referring to the "pure" aspect of writing the actual song - ie sitting down with a notepad and piano, guitar etc.
-
I dont have as much interest in the production side and I'm not very good at it...had I found it more interesting, I'd perhaps learn more about it and improve my understanding of it all.
I found the same at school...if I was really interested in something, and had some ability at it...I tended to gravitate towards that, possibly at the expense of subjects I didn't enjoy as much and consequently wasn't as good at.
Perhaps we all tend to play to our strengths somewhat?
-
Tell me is this Bullshit or reality 8)
It's real as it was played and recorded. I remember when it was in the charts and didn't buy it. Would I buy it now? I don't think so. To me it sounds like variations on Yankee Doodle. Much to admire in the playing but...
This highlights one of the major problems with songwriting; what is considered a good song. Of course there's no answer as it varies. Some great songs find a small audience, whilst poorer songs find a bigger audience.
To write well means understanding music theory (even if its just having a well developed ear), an idea of how songs are structured (verse, chorus, bridge), which chords sound good together, which notes go well (or not) with the chord that's playing, how to develop a melody over several bars, how lyric writing works with the music, and lots of other things.
All great songwriters follow a similar method. Unless they have a musical education it usually starts by re-writing some of their favourite songs. The greater control over the basics of songwriting, the more likely the melody of Yesterday will come to you in a dream.
Finally for some songs the production is far more important than the chords and melody. Whilst the acoustic version of Strawberry Fields is great it pales against the fully produced single. the same, in my opinion applies to For the Benefit of Mr Kite.
Just my opinion which may or may not be valid.
Keith
-
The word writing does in many ways show that the composer/songwriter/artist/performer/producer all work with the same goal. To make a great song. Both technology and new ways of thinking has given new meaning to the creativeness one can have with sounds.
The audience, the writer too, listens to new things in music. Since the production capabilities of 10 years ago are now almost for free I'd say the concept of production isn't that commercialized any more. Anyone can do it just for fun with their own material. Of course there is a market for music and you can in different ways aim towards it. Or not at all like the DIY by the way. What remains is the question of how much that can be done with just a spark of creativity.
The music I write is in many ways dead. The lyrics can be appreciated as they are but until I communicate it the music is just letters above the lines of the lyrics. It has to be recorded or passed on(maybe the right expression, likely the wrong one). Preferably played by people who are good at it. I would never claim that I can do the best performances or interpretations of the music I write but at the moment I'm the only one who knows the music.
Martin
-
I am guilty of rewriting lyrics obsessively, and most of those rewrites involve trying to fit the words to a rhythm or melody in my mind. If I can't think of the words in a way that fits a consistent rhythm or melody, they need more work. I've not yet tried it with music. For one, I'm not much of a musician. For two, not being much of a musician I find it exceedingly difficult to play and sing or think of lyrics at the same time. They're two separate processes for me that involve total concentration for each.
I find I'm improving on hearing melodies mentally while writing and/or rewriting the lyrics, but not so the other way around. Not yet. This probably leads to a lot of unfinished songs on its own, because without the musical chops to work out a chord progression and melody, there is no finished song. It's just words on a page that may or may not have that potential. And now you know why I'm here - to find those of you who can bring the lyrics to life with your musical ears since mine apparently withered from lack of exposure. ;)
Also, I agree on production being an integral part of the writing process. To me, that's the final emphasis of how the song was interpreted and written. Highlight this part, downplay that, we want a higher emotional impact here so tweak the sound in this manner, bring in more melodies, etc. It's every bit as much of an art as the rest of the writing process. I don't see how flow applies in that instance, unless you're so well-versed at it that you go at it as if it's second nature. And in that vein, a person needs to be a master of their craft to some degree before flow even becomes a part of the process.
There was a very interesting book written on this by a man named Daniel Pink, and the title of it is, "Flow." It's more so a book written for business management informing them of how they can structure the work environment and lead their employees to this state on-the-job, as that's where the highest level of productivity lies. A good, thought-provoking read for anyone interested.
-
To me the point of creating something is because you want to try to do it your self. Emphasis on trying. If sitting down and writing a song is as easy for you as to write a shopping list then writing songs would be considered one of your inherit abilities. But how do you know what's good if there is no experimentation no putting ideas against each other. A song is in a way just a theory. There is no ultimate test for the theory and there is no need for one. The complexity of reality is test enough. Most are bound to be forgotten but a whole lot more are not even displayed in their full potential. Songs might be discarded before all options have been tried. It's just impossible to determine quality without good reference points. So my advice is that you listen to music as a musician. Writing about music should be a good perspective for this I think. At least the short class I took was very helpful.
Cheers,
Martin
-
To me the point of creating something is because you want to try to do it your self. Emphasis on trying. If sitting down and writing a song is as easy for you as to write a shopping list then writing songs would be considered one of your inherit abilities. But how do you know what's good if there is no experimentation no putting ideas against each other. A song is in a way just a theory. There is no ultimate test for the theory and there is no need for one. The complexity of reality is test enough. Most are bound to be forgotten but a whole lot more are not even displayed in their full potential. Songs might be discarded before all options have been tried. It's just impossible to determine quality without good reference points. So my advice is that you listen to music as a musician. Writing about music should be a good perspective for this I think. At least the short class I took was very helpful.
Cheers,
Martin
Undoubtedly sound advice and an approach that will help immensely in the future. I'm reading a book now called the Addiction Formula that goes into what makes Hollywood productions work so well and how to apply that to music to pull in your audience and keep them engaged. I'm writing to tell stories lyrically, for the most part, and think of the music as a sideline to dress it up or make it more compelling. This book focuses on telling stories without lyrics - just using the musical composition. I'm really looking forward to getting to the end of it and trying out the techniques discussed.
On that note, I feel that music is more forgiving and flexible in development than the lyrics. It can be altered down to fractions of beats, where as the lyrical content needs a more comprehensive, coherent structure to flow smoothly. I hope that makes sense. I'm having trouble putting the idea into words, and this is my native language.
For me, songwriting isn't a natural process that comes out of nowhere. It's very much an intellectual exercise, and the more I read about how to go about it, how to structure it, where to add this element and that, the more it guides my approach in helpful ways. I think in the end these studies will lead to more commercially viable songs, and that is one of my objectives. I want to tell stories. I want them to be heard, celebrated, contemplated. I want them to touch hearts and make people think. I want to know how to get to the heart of a matter and communicate it lyrically and musically in a way that sticks with the listener. Most of all, I want it to bring a measure of financial success that allows me not to have to worry about my future survival, nor that of my children.
Socially and politically, the world is at a turning point, and this is the time to put those alternative messages out there to be heard, digested, to bring consideration for humanity back to the center. If it can motivate people to get active in creating change, all the better.
Wow. I think that right there just defined in concrete terms what I'm all about as a writer, which was the first step in getting focused. Thank you for this conversation.
-
Hi Jenna!
I checked Addiction Formula on amazon but I don't think it's a book for me.
Are you familiar with the modes in ancient Greek music? The idea that certain modal scales and musical structure gave certain emotions. A fondness for rhythms and melodies and scale structures/chords seems to be present in most humans. Music can stir emotions but I'd say what emotions is not individual as much as cultural. To learn modern conventions one must first define, inclusively or exclusively, what 'modern' is.
If music says feel, lyrics say about this. Storytelling to a melody was used in (yes) Ancient Greece to make long stories more memorable (and to keep the audience). The whole song structure of pop/folk uses the concept of telling a story and making it memorable through repetition. A song that is too complex is just harder to remember. A cell phone ringing often plays a melody that annoys but if you've heard it once it's likely there to stay.
The social/political situation and the common need for information is always a good reason for culture.
-
I am familiar with the concept, and understand the modes as a different tonal center of a key, but that's as far as my knowledge on the subject goes. I'd not know a mode if it came up and asked me for a whirl on the dance floor. I can usually figure out the key of a piece given a few moments and a familiar instrument to play, but it's not automatic for me. Figuring out the modes are a ways off for me.
Agreed on the emotions stirred being cultural, if not downright human nature. Some sounds are hardwired in to generate certain behaviors. We don't learn them. They're innate reactions. One example of this is a wild turkey. The babies of a wild turkey are innately wired to respond to the mother's call. If you had a recording of it, they'd come running to you. They don't know the difference. If you had hatched a group of poults away from the calls of the mother in an incubator, they'd still come running to the sound of a mother turkey's call. Their brains are wired to respond to that sound by moving nearer to it.
If humans of today experience the same emotions triggered by modal scales as in the days of ancient Greece, does that mean we're simply wired that way? Or is it because we've been exposed to them in connection with stories highlighting those emotions in tandem? It remains a mystery.
I do like the idea that to develop a particular emotion in a song, all that's required is to use this mode, or start your chord progression with this scale degree. You want to add some tension here, these chord progressions can help you create suspense, dread, excitement, etc. To lower the energy, stick with the lower bass notes. It's all becoming fairly fascinating. Some of it I want to say is common sense, not in an intellectual sense, but in an emotional sense - when you're playing it you can feel it - that tension building, the release back to home base, etc. It just follows that you'd take advantage of those properties in designing the journey you're building for your listener.
I have to say that I'm glad to be reading the book. It gives me another way of looking at songwriting that goes straight to the point, and it distills the details of which chord progressions work well for this situation, for that emotion, which keys for this and that, etc. It's not easy to find that information all in one place online.
-
There is very little knowledge about the ancient modes but it is agreed that they are not the same as those used today. The confusing part is that the modal scales of today has borrowed names from Greece and the Greek language.
I would say that all the components of music though they can be described in just the same way are just a small piece of what sounds can be. A response to certain sounds humans can make has a lot of survival-sense to it. A general response to rhythm and melodies could be more of a feel good thing. It's in many ways not the subject of musicology but rather neuroscience.
-
Maybe that's what makes it so interesting. I think of the baby in the womb during development of the nervous system. Inside of the mother it hears and feels the rhythm of her heart, the rhythms of her walking movements, the tones and inflections of her voice, and all the while the nervous system is developing its hard wiring in this environment. I've heard it said that we naturally respond to the question-answer format, at least here in the western world. I'm not sure how true that is in the East where the language is so different from what we speak here. They also have very different musical scales. But what of rhythm?
Interestingly, there's a course on this at Coursera about to start: Music as Biology: What We Like to Hear and Why . . .
"About this course: The course will explore the tone combinations that humans consider consonant or dissonant, the scales we use, and the emotions music elicits, all of which provide a rich set of data for exploring music and auditory aesthetics in a biological framework. Analyses of speech and musical databases are consistent with the idea that the chromatic scale (the set of tones used by humans to create music), consonance and dissonance, worldwide preferences for a few dozen scales from the billions that are possible, and the emotions elicited by music in different cultures all stem from the relative similarity of musical tonalities and the characteristics of voiced (tonal) speech. Like the phenomenology of visual perception, these aspects of auditory perception appear to have arisen from the need to contend with sensory stimuli that are inherently unable to specify their physical sources, leading to the evolution of a common strategy to deal with this fundamental challenge."
-
It sounds like an interesting course.
I once heard it described that western music worked vertically while Eastern music worked horizontally. Maybe it was referred to the musical sheet and tonality but in many ways it could describe rhythm as well.
It was of course a generalization that can only fully be understood by understanding the cultural insecurity that reigns in my home country. And that it was referring mostly to classical western, eastern and Indian music.
While you can play a rhythm without a tone, you can't play a tune without a rhythm I'd say.
-
I am familiar with the concept, and understand the modes as a different tonal center of a key, but that's as far as my knowledge on the subject goes. I'd not know a mode if it came up and asked me for a whirl on the dance floor. I can usually figure out the key of a piece given a few moments and a familiar instrument to play, but it's not automatic for me. Figuring out the modes are a ways off for me.
Agreed on the emotions stirred being cultural, if not downright human nature. Some sounds are hardwired in to generate certain behaviors. We don't learn them. They're innate reactions. One example of this is a wild turkey. The babies of a wild turkey are innately wired to respond to the mother's call. If you had a recording of it, they'd come running to you. They don't know the difference. If you had hatched a group of poults away from the calls of the mother in an incubator, they'd still come running to the sound of a mother turkey's call. Their brains are wired to respond to that sound by moving nearer to it.
If humans of today experience the same emotions triggered by modal scales as in the days of ancient Greece, does that mean we're simply wired that way? Or is it because we've been exposed to them in connection with stories highlighting those emotions in tandem? It remains a mystery.
I do like the idea that to develop a particular emotion in a song, all that's required is to use this mode, or start your chord progression with this scale degree. You want to add some tension here, these chord progressions can help you create suspense, dread, excitement, etc. To lower the energy, stick with the lower bass notes. It's all becoming fairly fascinating. Some of it I want to say is common sense, not in an intellectual sense, but in an emotional sense - when you're playing it you can feel it - that tension building, the release back to home base, etc. It just follows that you'd take advantage of those properties in designing the journey you're building for your listener.
I have to say that I'm glad to be reading the book. It gives me another way of looking at songwriting that goes straight to the point, and it distills the details of which chord progressions work well for this situation, for that emotion, which keys for this and that, etc. It's not easy to find that information all in one place online.
Late to the convo, but I wanted to step in and offer a different perspective on some of your comments to nudge you in a more helpful direction.
I get what you mean about understanding the modes as different tonal centres of a key. But I don't think this is a helpful way of understanding the concept or relating to the function of modes. The two most common modes are the major and minor scales. They don't have different tonal centres. D major and D minor share D as their tonal centre. D lydian though *looks* (on a piano keyboard) like a C major scale, except you start and finish on D. But if you're playing in D lydian, D is your tonal centre (not C). What's changed is the *flavour* of your scale. The notes you'd choose to form chords to accompany your melody. This is true for all the modes.
If you're interested in going deeper, I suggest subscribing to Rick Beato's channel on youtube - he's got loads of great stuff on modes. I think he's going to be an interesting character for you, because he's important in answering your second point about in-utero exposure to sound. Before and after his son was born, Rick played the music of Ayden Esen to him (I think I spelled it right). You need to hear this music to appreciate the education he was giving his (unborn) son. It's incredible stuff. Anyway, the musical 'knowledge' and reaction of his child is striking. This video tells the story
The ideas about using different scales, chords, modulations and so forth to create certain atmospheres and human reactions though is well documented. Musical composition courses are full of this stuff. I'm not sure about using lower bass notes to lower the energy though - low notes contain more energy (which is why they need plenty of space to avoid sounding muddy), but I guess it's all about how you use them. Lower notes usually darken the colour though, maybe that's what you're getting at.
Going back to Boydie's mantra that great songs are re-writes of good songs (which are re-writes of songs), I largely agree.
BUT, with one important caveat: experience. I've begun to appreciate the unique energy of first thoughts. When you pick up your instrument or piece of paper, and begin to create something, it often has a strong energy that's hard to hold onto. I know I've had this experience lots of times, where I've tried to hold onto it, but by the time the song's finished, it's gone. Usually, the song suffers as a result. While I think my best song is one of the ones I worked longest and hardest at, I also have a 'top 5' song which fell out of my brain and fingers in 20 minutes, fully formed. I rewrote one or two lines later on. But the energy of the song definitely stands out.
So while you could deliberately choose to start your song in the mixolydian mode for a particular emotional resonance, there's also a good argument to say you should just sit down with that emotion, and see what falls out of your body. Chances are, it will be worth noticing.
-
Thank you Mr. tone for the theory!
I often fail to translate theory from Swedish.
With some knowledge about how chords and intervals interact exploring modes can be
interesting. But IMO it soon stops to sound like pop music. (If that's what you want).
The important part is the concept of a tonal center. And how to relate to it.
-
Late to the convo, but I wanted to step in and offer a different perspective on some of your comments to nudge you in a more helpful direction.
I get what you mean about understanding the modes as different tonal centres of a key. But I don't think this is a helpful way of understanding the concept or relating to the function of modes. The two most common modes are the major and minor scales. They don't have different tonal centres. D major and D minor share D as their tonal centre. D lydian though *looks* (on a piano keyboard) like a C major scale, except you start and finish on D. But if you're playing in D lydian, D is your tonal centre (not C). What's changed is the *flavour* of your scale. The notes you'd choose to form chords to accompany your melody. This is true for all the modes.
If you're interested in going deeper, I suggest subscribing to Rick Beato's channel on youtube - he's got loads of great stuff on modes. I think he's going to be an interesting character for you, because he's important in answering your second point about in-utero exposure to sound. Before and after his son was born, Rick played the music of Ayden Esen to him (I think I spelled it right). You need to hear this music to appreciate the education he was giving his (unborn) son. It's incredible stuff. Anyway, the musical 'knowledge' and reaction of his child is striking. This video tells the story
The ideas about using different scales, chords, modulations and so forth to create certain atmospheres and human reactions though is well documented. Musical composition courses are full of this stuff. I'm not sure about using lower bass notes to lower the energy though - low notes contain more energy (which is why they need plenty of space to avoid sounding muddy), but I guess it's all about how you use them. Lower notes usually darken the colour though, maybe that's what you're getting at.
Very good explanation and info. I think it was referring to making a darker sound, but I don't recall if it distinguished between the two so clearly. I'll have to go back and reread it.
His little Dylan is incredible. Thanks for the link. Added to my subscriptions.
The idea of modes is still a little muddy for me, but I'm sure that it will come once I start playing them. It sounds like something that's better learned through the emotional connection with them than intellectual. I get the part about starting and ending on a different note in a key changing the flavor of the key. Maybe that's what makes it hard to tell which key a song is in sometimes. I've noticed that some of them it's easy to pinpoint the starting notes and others aren't exactly that simple once you do, there's something 'off' about them. The chords to the key aren't matching up right when trying to nail them down by ear.
-
A good time for my mantra:
Songs are written
Good songs are "re-written"
Great songs are re-writes of good songs
Been keeping a tab on this thread as I have found it fascinating to read all your comments about song writing. Really interesting stuff. This one above by Boydie has really stuck with me!
I've recently been listening to old demos of tracks by one of my faves (GnR - a bit love hate I know..) and it surprises me how much a song is re written before the final song is ready. Take a group of talented people, stick them in a room for enough time and they will write songs. Practice and play these songs many times and they will become refined. Demo them and you have a good song. Take them to a studio and have them sliced and spliced and worked on by a pro producer. Take and retake, tweak where necessary, pare down and refine the solos and with the right chemistry bam you have a great song. Obviously the processes change depending on genre but there ain't one song I have written where I haven't had to go back and edit. These words have inspired me to re work some old song and although the process is slow and difficult it has also been fun and rewarding.