JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Mentor Questions Forum Lyric writing question??

Question ?:

How would you define "Every line must stand on it's own" ?

I have my own thoughts on this but I wanted to see if there are more options to this statement.

David:

I never met a line that was capable of standing on its own. In my opinion, if a line could stand on its own, you wouldn't need the other lines--and you wouldn't have lyrics.

That said, I abhor useless lines. Every line has got to *contribute* to the whole, or it's going to find itself out of a job.

Joe

Ok great..

If the line doesn't stand on its own you say that it must contribute to the whole.
When you say this..
Do you mean every line that does not support the TITLE or its concept is useless in a song?

Great!! I want to read more..
I'm trying to determine if this is some missing link that the PRO's Know how to do.
Other than all the basic fundamentals of song structure..

I keep fighting the idea that songs are subjective to the listener. But are they??
Or is there a secret that the pros just don't tell us...
Or is it as I have heard from one JPF FOlk that its some sort of ZEN.

DAvid



[This message has been edited by DavidW (edited 03-22-2004).]

You have about 3 minutes to tell set up a scene, introduce the characters, explain the situation, sell the emotion, tell a story, and cause the listener to want to hear the song again and again. You also have about 30 seconds to grab the listeners' attention to an extent that they will even listen to the rest of the song.

If you can accomplish all this and still have superfluous lines in your song, then you are a better man than I.

Yeah and be simple.. but not simple bad.
Take something not so unique and make it unique. ANd a hundred other phrases that we must do.

But what is the holy grail of "Every Line must stand on it's own"

More definitions please...

DAvid:

ZEN? Undoubtedly--we are all ZENners here in this vale of tears, I believe (and he or she who is without ZEN will no doubt be the first to start casting stones when they read this).

Don't know what the pros think--I ain't one, and they've never advised me (that I know of). All I know I've learned from other people or on my own. That I'm willing to promulgate advice does not mean I have any professional credentials that should make you want to listen to it.

I agree with Truman (except that I usually allow myself a little more time--I mostly can't get a coherent thought out in 3 minutes, no matter how ruthlessly I whip the words, but have a shot at 3-1/2 to 5).

I don't ask my words to support a title. (If I ask 'em to do too much, they'll join a union.) The title for me is an afterthought--it's the quick-and-dirty shorthand label I'll assign to it *after it's all written* that is basically how I think people are going to request the song. That's all it is. "Concept" is one of them "fuzzy" words I try not to use--it's a bunch of facts with the fact part taken out.

Yes, people's perception of a song is subjective, because everybody's different and has a different frame of reference. I guess the job for the Master Wordsmith is to communicate an idea coherently enough that as wide as possible a range of other people will perceive the idea the same way you do (and yes, will appreciate it, and come back, and tell their friends, and give you money, &c.)

In my opinion, it is a lot of work, but also a lot of fun. Thanks for the opportunity to pontificate.

Joe

I think it means that every line, taken by itself, should make sense.

Hmm....

For every line to stand on its own -

It needs a bone
It needs a home
A place to stand
and stand up straight
It needs to support its standing weight

What I, a man should need to stand
so should the song penned from my hand
The titles they should be the clues
The story it should be the shoes
The lines should each have single views
Headlines, subjects of the total news

A place to stand without the bone
Is just a pile on a stone
To stand up tall it will be seen
but to be noticed, it must me keen
Seen AND noticed makes it strong
That's the line to stand on my song

Should that line prove to be a sham
I will not write it Sam-I-Am

Cheers,

Rodney

------------------
http://hugheymusic.com

Y'all think too much.

Get out of the way and let your muse sing.

Then take out everything that doesn't belong.

What's left will be perfect.

Of course, it's the "taking out" part where most people fail.

It's a Zen thing.

Don't think, just write.

I'm waiting for more concrete definitons.
TrumanCoyote and Joe some have valid points.

Guildslinger you must be the one whose post I read about the "zen".

Rod ... The Alaskan weather must be affecting you up there..

I am serious about this question...
I have been breaking down some major hit tunes and I have found that there are alot of lines that stand on their own.

Example:

You can stab it with the steely knives but you just can't kill the beast.

Its not just a line it is a statement that stands on its own...


Any more serious thoughts on what is a line that stands on it's own.
How do you fill your song with these and have it make sense.

DAvid

David,
I guess in a way I'm rejecting the assumption that every line must "stand on its own." I think every line should add something, should propel the thing forward, or add an image or an idea, but if you require every line to somehow be self-sustaining, you're throwing in a restriction that doesn't necessarily have to be there. There are enough "rules" to follow without this one - but then again, I sometimes will have long sentences that "hang over" the end of a line and continue into the next line, metrically speaking, if that makes any sense.

Didn't mean to be glib or purposely obscure before, but I would question the whole idea of too much attention to this rule. Just my .02 -

G

David,

Maybe what you're looking for is lines that are in themselves catchy - and Hotel california has a whole bunch of them, ones that come to you as you're driving. They don't necessarily stand on their, in that they are part of a larger work, but they can haunt.

The master of that was, of course, Shakespeare!



------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

The word MUST does not belong in music!Except you MUST love every song that I write or I'll cry right before your eyes!


R.T

G,Michael,R.T.,

Definitely there is too many rules..
And it becomes annoying when you study a hit song that came from a writer and it is perfect in every way.
ANd then you study a hit song by a artist who is going to get a cut because their record company says "yes mr. star that sounds great"
but if the writer wrote that song it would be considered crap.
But both songs are hits regardless.
I'm not saying that the Star should not have this advantage I'm just saying it just goes to show that a non-perfect song lyrically can be delivered in such a way that it can come out a hit also..
Again ... both are hits... but one would be considered to have lines that don't stand on their own..
I guess I'm just a little jealous cause I want to break the rules a bit too..

Keep your ideas coming on lines that stand on their own...
TO compete with the pros you have to have every line stand out..

DAvid

David:

I totally agree that there are MANY crap songs that become hits that if you or I wrote, we would be shown the door. Based on my observations though (and you kind of alluded to this already), the crap songs only become hits when they are written/performed by well established artists. With very few exceptions, I've rarely seen this from folks who are at the beginning of their career or just on the verge of becoming famous.

This concept has always fascinated me because it's been my contention for a long time that the great artists have to "give" away their great songs in the beginning so they can rake in the cash on their crap songs after they've established a successful track record. Of course, this is not always true but think about your own favorite artists. I don't know about you but I'm much more forgiving of a less-than-great song recorded by an artist who I already admire but if that song had been the first song I'd heard from that artist, I'd probably roll my eyes and listen to something else. I could cite many examples of this phenomenon but I don't think I need to and it's mostly my opinion anyway.

Having said all that, I agree with most of the others. A line does not have to stand on it's own but it definately should contribute to the overall message. There are many great songs that contain lines that stand on their own but if you try to do that with every line, you'll never finish writing anything. I think the reason no one can give you a concrete answer is because what you seek is pretty much impossible to a accomplish.

Van

It's fun to talk about this stuff...but, we need to remember the main rule.

There ain't no rules !

There's nothing more mysterious than the formula for hit songs.
Remember, it's all subjective.

What Buzz calls a "crap" song may be a gem to me.
Buzz sez artists get away with crap songs later in their career...sorry, Buzz...a study of the "one hit wonders" alone proves that just isn't true.

Again...it's subjective...

If a song is successful, if people are taking it home witht them, quoting it, singina nd dancing along...who the heck are any of us to decide it's "crap"

If we could write crap like that we probably wouldn't be working that day job , now would we ?!?

I don't mean to yell at anybody...everybody has a right to call a song crap if they want...I know there's certainly alot of hits I can't figure out.

Every line must stand on it's own is just one more "rule" to get in the way of good songwriting.

Two of the hits that I find loaded with what I call "throwaway" lines are Yesterday by the Beatles and People by Streisand.

I can't remember who wrote "People"..but I think it's dreadful.

Anyway....forget rules.....write songs.....

Bob

David - You are absolutely right, my friend! 50 degrees and it's only March! The snow is fading fast and since equinox on the 21st, we have more daylight the the rest of Western Hemisphere! There's nothing so mind altering as Alaskan Spring Fever. Ain't it grand..

Hmm..there's a song in there somewhere. Anyway - In a sense, although I was having fun with it, I *was* being serious with my Seuss-like rhyme of lines. For a line to stand on it's own, it metaphorically is like a human being and possesses the same qualities if it is to stand out from the crowd of lame lines. You talked about the zen of it (or guildslinger did), and it's right there.

I agree in that your example would stand on its own, but also that it is the catchiness of it that makes it as well. Not all lines must be so catchy to stand on thier own.

What we are all dicussing and trying to define is a very relative thing, as Bob points out.

So, in summary - I was serious and having fun at the same time.

...and if it hits sixty in the next two weeks you really better hold on to your hat!

Cheers,

Rodney


------------------
http://hugheymusic.com

[This message has been edited by rodhughey (edited 03-24-2004).]

Thanks Buzz and Mr. Young,

I agree totally that it is subjective..
and it is NOT crap that is on the radio.
and I use to think "how did that crap get on the radio"

but now I ask myself...
why did it get on the radio.?..
Did it follow every songwriting rule?
Does every line stand on its own?
Was this song written by a songwriter or a Star artist that wrote the song?
What makes it universally appeal to most folks and make them hum, dance and sing along?
And


So the jist of it is a Zen or aligning of some planets..

Just write and have faith that it will come out with this zen...

If you don't like zen than I should say that it is God's calling to you ..
Or heres another reference thats often used.
Reach up and pull a hit out of the sky...

More please ...
This is fascinating ...
keep trying to unlock the mystery

DAvid

Rodney,

Metaphor-
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison.

you said:

"For a line to stand on it's own, it metaphorically is like a human being and possesses the same qualities if it is to stand out from the crowd of lame lines."

So what your saying is that to stand alone
does not do well for a song because it is not with the group.

That makes my brain hurt...

DAvid

I tend to agree with the point of view that each line need not be able to stand completely on its own, but that each line should be contributing to the whole of the song.

I don't write lyrics much anymore, focusing mostly on instrumentals now; but once upon a time, I did mostly lyric writing and let others write the music. And one thing that helped me immensely in learning to write good, meaningful, full-of-emotion lyrics was reading a few books about how to write poetry.

I mean "poetry" here in its literary sense, not just as a bunch of lines that rhyme. Poetry is conveying emotion with words. And poets have it tougher than lyricists, because poets don't have the music to fall back on -- the words must stand on their own. (Gads -- there's that phrase again!)

How many memorable songs are "memorable" because they have a catchy tune? Maybe you remember the line, but only because of the melody. And how many songs (or lines) are really memorable on their own, with or without music?

A couple of the books I read were by a guy named Judson Jerome. I forget the titles, this was years and years ago, but they were books for beginning poets, published by Writers Digest. You might want to see if you can dig up some copies, I learned a lot from them. The guy really analyzes how to select exactly the right word for each word in the poem. Because at least part of the art of poetry is using exactly the right words, in exactly the right combination, and absolutely nothing more.

You could almost say, "Each word must stand on its own." Not in the sense that it makes perfect sense all by itself ... but in the sense that each particular word is there for a REASON, and it fulfills that reason within the context of the other words.

A combination of such words then creates a line. And again, each line needs a REASON for being.

Anyways, just a couple of thoughts....

--- Ed


------------------
http://www.edperrone.com/music/index.shtml
http://edperrone.rideonmusic.com

I don't know..

Correct me if I am wrong but...
I think Bob Young said once that when he plays a gig and looks out into the audience what he see's is mainly people repeating the lyrics.

So I believe that the lyrics are the most important part and most people don't really care about the melody line.

These folks in the audience are not whistleing the melody line they are shouting out those "lines that stand on their own"

Am I right?

DAvid

Aft'noon, folks,
I guess my objection to some of the (unstated) assumptions is my disagreement with the idea that there's some secret code to unlock; some mystery which, once unravelled, will enable the writer's work to proceed without interruption, directly to radio "hitdom." AND the idea that this would be a good thing. The other idea I see traces of on these boards is the whole "rules" thing, not that rules are inherently bad, but the idea that IF I follow these rules "hits" will result, or that hits follow rules.

If everyone is following the same rules, folks, we're all gonna end up sounding pretty much the same.

Which, one could argue, is happening now, to various degrees. Trying to make something universal is, to me, a quick trip to blandville. Details are much more interesting.

I guess the luxury I have (I would argue that we all share this luxury, should we choose to exercise it) is that I'm not pursuing hits, simply writing what I feel to be good songs. If occasionally I come up with something that sounds more commercial, I treat it a little differently, and "finish it off" (final editing, choice of words, instrumentation) with that in mind.


And yes, I do believe in the Muses. (but more on that some other time. . . )


Forgive me for digressing from the original subject.

G'day!

There are tons of hit songs with bad and or unoriginal lyrics.

Take Alan Jacksons "Remember when." This has to be one of the most unoriginal songs I heard in quite some time. The song idea is very unoriginal, the lyric is one big cliche and the melody is extremely unoriginal.

Goes to show, Star power can make a lame song a hit.

The Top 40 is filled with lame unoriginal songs that are hits because of who are singing them.


Edit: That's not to say all top 40 songs are lame. Long Black Train, Spend My Time and Redneck girls (great lyric) are some of my favs.

[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 03-24-2004).]

Well stated...

Your right.. It would be all boring if everything was a cookie cutter song..

I think however in my case in order to "quit my day job" so to speak I have to crank out a few hundred of these Formulated Perfected cookie cutter tunes to get a foot in the door.
Only established writers can possibly expand into the non-cookie cutter /somewhat artistic articulate tunes.

Yeah there probably is not a real mystery but
I haven't heard Danny weight in yet.
He probably doesn't want to divulge the SECRET CODE...


DAvid

Hey this is a great discussion..

Patty Cakes,

I have to disagree..
"Remember When" is basically taking the usual
and making it unusual (RULE)
Again I think the melody line is not important.
I believe the melody line is similar to a David Gates (Bread) tune which I can't think of right off hand.

The tune works because alot of folks can relate.(RULE)

Lets break it down:

Remember When Lyrics

Remember when I was young and so were you
And time stood still and love was all we knew
You were the first, so was I
We made love and then you cried
Remember when

Remember when we vowed the vows
and walked the walk
gave our hearts, made the start, it was hard
We lived and learned, life threw curves
There was joy, there was hurt
Remember when

Remember when old ones died and new were born
And life was changed, disassembled, rearranged
We came together, fell apart
And broke each other's hearts
Remember when

Remember when the sound of little feet
was the music
We danced to week to week
Brought back the love, we found trust
Vowed we'd never give it up
Remember when

Remember when thirty seemed so old
Now lookin' back, it's just a steppin' stone
To where we are,
where we've been
Said we'd do it all again
Remember when

Remember when we said when we turned gray
When the children grow up and move away
We won't be sad, we'll be glad
For all the life we've had
And we'll remember when

The only line I can't relate to is the last
but it's coming....


DAvid

Well, IMO you just strengthened my case. All I see is cliches for the most part. Combine that with the melody and it sounds like it's been done a million times before. I think if any one of us brought this to a publisher, they'd say

"stock song, Have hundreds of them" Don't let the door hit cha....

That's my take on it anyway.

Oh, and the title is sang FOURTEEN times! That's about ten times too many if you ask me.

[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 03-24-2004).]

Patty Cakes,

Ok, but you reinforced the other points of it all being subjective.
It may have some well worn lines and a old melody. But I'm still not sure if Alan would not of done this song if he did not write it and it was pitched to him.
I think he still would of liked it..

DAvid

Well, certainly it's all subjective. I'm just saying if it wasn't Alan singing I doubt that song would make a publisher stand up and take notice. I think if that song was written by someone out here and posted for critique, I'm not so sure people would look at it in the same way.

JMO

There are tons of hit songs with bad and or unoriginal lyrics.

Nope. There may be tons of hit songs that you don't like. But someone likes them, so how "bad" can they be? The issue of originality is another matter altogether. Where is it written that a song must plow completely fresh earth in order to be a good song? It may be what YOU are looking for in a song, but the general public is perfectly happy to listen to songs that sound nice and whose lyrics speak to THEM.

Take Alan Jacksons "Remember when." This has to be one of the most unoriginal songs I heard in quite some time. The song idea is very unoriginal, the lyric is one big cliche and the melody is extremely unoriginal.

Okay then. It is not a very original song, yet lots of people seem to have been moved by it. What does that tell you? As a songwriter, what can you learn from that?

Goes to show, Star power can make a lame song a hit.

That comment is pretty insulting to the thousands of people who like the song.

The Top 40 is filled with lame unoriginal songs that are hits because of who are singing them.

Again, you seem to keep harping that it is originality that defines greatness in songwriting. There is no evidence to support your opinion.


That's not to say all top 40 songs are lame. Long Black Train, Spend My Time and Redneck girls (great lyric) are some of my favs.

Man, what a bunch of lame songs!



[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 03-24-2004).]

Great Topic,

Bob is right that it is all subjective. Bob, my point was not about one-hit wonders because as you know, one hit does not establish a proven track record. I didn't want to get into examples but here are a couple...

Elton John: Great early work and also great later work but he's gotten away with a few songs that *I* call crap... The best example is "Don't Go Breakin' my Heart" with Kiki Dee. "I Guess That's Why They Call It the Blues," and a few more I can't think of off the top of my head.

Shania Twain: She has had many solid hits but can you (or anyone else here) honestly say that some of the songs off her lastest CD are great songs? Songs like *UP* and *I'm Gonna Getcha* or whatever that song is called. These are what I call crap songs yet the album sales are huge. Anyone find it interesting that her songs have gotten worse as she has taken more control over the songwriting? Maybe it's just me but Shania's gotten away with quite a few more because she has star power.

I could go on but I hope my point on that is clarified.

Ed is also correct about melodies sometimes carrying a song. The best example I can think of at the moment is "The One I Love" by REM. That song has a great, rockin' melody IMO but the lyrics are nothing more than the exact same verse sung three times with a brief instrumental section thrown in. It's really lame as an overall song but I have to confess to enjoying the melody.

I also agree that there are too many rules and at the same time, there are no rules. That's the paradox of this business. How many times have you sent your songs to publishers who have rejected them because they don't fit a certain formula. How many times have you received a poor critique because your song doesn't fit a certain formula? Yet, how many songs and artists have become famous by going against the "conventional wisdom?"

Can anyone say Bob Dylan? There aren't a whole lot who challenged conventional wisdom as dramatically as Dylan but there are a whole lot who have become famous by going against the grain if only just enough to put a new twist on an old idea.

Bottom line, there is no magic formula yet there are certain conventions you should try to follow. That doesn't make sense does it? I know, that's why it's so damn hard to write a hit song.

Van

Forgive me, I'm not sure I quoted the post correctly, I used quotations to note my words.. I'm lame!

Boy, y'all got interested in this all of a sudden... Two thoughts:

(1) When I worked at a newspaper (another step in a long and checkered career), we had an editor fresh out of journalism school who maintained that you couldn't effectively break rules until you knew what the rules were and how they worked. I think the same applies here. There are rules. Some make more sense than others. I watch real carefully how the writers I respect voilate the rules, and what works and what doesn't--and I've succeeded in violating some rules myself a couple of times, and got away with it (i.e., I think the song worked better for it). If there's a single, overarching rule--"The Whole Of The Law," as Anton La Vey put it--it's "You do what works."

(2) About lines standing by themselves, I'm reminded of the Douglas fir tree--our native weed out at this end of the country. "Doug" firs don't have any roots to speak of, but they can grow to pretty good size--almost always in large stands. That's because they're holding each other up. They may *look* like they're standing on their own, but try cutting a few--first good windstorm will lay the rest of the stand down flat. Your "stand-alone" lines are the same way. They look like they're okay by themselves. But they had help. Every line is contributing to the whole, like I said earlier.

Joe

Tell that to Paul McCartney who wrote an entire symphony without being able to read music. Of course, it's entirely possible that some folks who did know what was going on polished it up a bit but the songwriting team of Lennon/McCartney broke a lot of rules in their time. Didn't seem to hurt their careers very much. It does seem that those who break the rules have more success when the listening public is ready for something different.

I can't read music, never wanted to. Someone once said "reading music is only good for playing what's already been written."

There are many great songwriters, composers and musicians who never followed any set rules. I myself look at rules as a limiter. When I started playing guitar at eight, I just picked it up and started "messin around" and eventually came up with things that floated my boat! I still do it the same way today and wouldn't have it any other way. I never read "how to" books or took lessons or went to seminars etc. That's fine for someone else, but I like what I do and the way I do it so phooey on rules!

JMO

Yeah, Buzz...but did you ever try to listen to that thing Paul wrote?

YIKES......

It was just a string of Romantic era classical cliches with a couple of dissonant sections thrown in to make it sound more "modern"

Yecccch !

Bob

PS.....Paul McCartney and John Lennon were very conservative song writers.....
They didn't break many rules at al...ever...
Even their "experimental" works pale in comparison to modern classical composers..

The real groundbreaking stuff was in the area of recording and production, not song construction.

that's my opinion, of course, but one that is shared by many.

Back in the 60's and 70's when alot of us had to learn those songs to play on stage, we were learningthat the Beatles were employing a clever combination of tried and true pop music formulas..alot of stuff that we had seen and heard before.
The difference was that those guys were so consistently good at it !

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 03-24-2004).]

I heard the line about "first you learn the rules, then you will be able to break them" in high school English class. All us creative types wanted to write like James Joyce or Hunter Thompson or others who "broke all the rules." The teachers always told us to first learn the rules -- i.e., proper grammar, proper sentence structure, etc. -- and then we could break those rules INTENTIONALLY and with a REASON.

I've always found that to be a good philosophy to follow in all areas. Lyric writing, musical composition, journalism, computer programming ... all of these things are CRAFTS, just like wood carving or even carpentry or architecture. And the "rules" we are talking about are not monolithic, set-in-stone commandments that you break only at risk of eternal damnation. They are basically TECHNIQUES -- no more, no less.

How to construct a proper English sentence. How to match a melody line with a set of chords. How to make four walls and a roof stand up and support themselves against the wind and rain. They are basic, time-tested, tried-and-true TECHNIQUES. When you use them, you are almost assured of getting a product that WORKS. It may not be the most original product, it may not be the most creative product, but it will do the job it's intended to do. It will convey a message (in the case of a sentence). It will convey an emotion (in the case of a musical work). It will shelter your tools (in the case of a garden shed). Etc.

By following these techniques, you learn, you practice, you gain experience in whatever medium you are using -- again, be that medium words, musical notes, or wood and nails. You learn how the medium operates. You discover that when you put "this" and "this" together, you get something pleasing; but when you put "this" and "that" together, you get something awful.

As you gain more experience and confidence, you begin to "break the rules." Which simply means you begin to "use different techniques." Some of these techniques you've picked up along the way from others. Other techniques are probably your own inventions.

Eventually you develop what's commonly referred to as "your own voice": Your unique approach to your chosen craft. This is the combination of all the rules (i.e., TECHNIQUES) that you've come to adopt and use in your craft.

The idea that "you have to learn the rules before you can break the rules" is not itself a "rule." It, too, is a technique. I've found it helpful to me in almost every area of endeavor I've tried (and there have been a lot of them!). You may or may not find it helpful, depending on your personality and your overall approach to things. It's just another technique -- a way of getting from concept to reality, from Point A to Point B.

Personally, I think the most important thing about using any technique is PURPOSE. What am I trying to do? And will this particular technique accomplish that goal?

If I'm writing a love song, I'll choose different words than if I'm writing a protest song. I'll choose different chord progressions and a different type of melody line. I will pick and choose the specific techniques I will use in any given situation because they are the proper tools to get me where I'm trying to go.

Getting back on topic: "Every line must stand on its own" is (guess what?!) a "technique." It's a technique of approaching the construction of a lyric. In some situations, it's appropriate. In others, it's probably completely inappropriate.

"The only rule is there are no rules." The "rules" as we generally understand them are nothing more than "traditional techniques." We use them initially because they are all we know when we're starting out, and they provide us with some support, some framework within which to work. As our skill develops, we can choose (note that word -- CHOOSE!) whether we continue to operate within those rules, or whether we move outside them into a different set of rules (techniques).

Listen to lyrics that "work" -- i.e., that grab you, that you remember, that move you emotionally. Someone uptopic mentioned Bob Dylan. I would add to him Kris Kristofferson, just off the top of my head. Robert Hunter, who wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead. Even (the gods help me for saying this!) ... even some rap lyrics. Pull them apart, analyze them, figure out what makes them "work," and you will find.... nothing in common. Different techniques (different "sets of rules"?), all of which work in their given contexts and for their given purposes.

The Muses and Zen are all involved, sure. But my personal opinion is that you only reach the Muses and the Zen by becoming an expert craftsperson. Which in my mind means possessing a given set of tools, and knowing exactly how and when to wield each of those tools in pursuit of a given purpose.

Wow.... Sorry about the philosophical rambling! I hope it strikes a chord somewhere...

--- Ed


------------------
http://www.edperrone.com/music/index.shtml
http://edperrone.rideonmusic.com

Wow Ed that was fantastic.
Great analogy about building a house.
I have a Golf one...
Learn the Fundamentals first then you can try those trick shots..

This is a great thread so far..

Thanks for everybody input..

I agree on the need to know (actually I would say, to internalize over time) the "rules" or techniques or whatever you wish to call the structures that have traditionally worked, in order to then smash them into little bitty bits. My previous comment about "rules" was more along the lines of "don't expect following the rules to result in a commercial hit" - which I still stand by. Commercial success and good songwriting are two different things, requiring different focus, skills and activity. But you're right in saying that ya gotta know the rules first.

We have always read to our children. We have provided a house full of books of all types, music, musical instruments, etc. At a very young age my son pulled a book off the shelf - Robinson Crusoe by Defoe. An old edition, as originally written. Now you've probably all heard of the story before, and you've seen movie adaptations of it (including the recent Tom Hanks movie on that theme) but not many people actually read the book anymore. It's tough going for a youngster - the reason being that it's written in proper, correct English. (Which most children rarely, if ever, hear or read.) He was able to slog through it somehow, and ended up enjoying it. The point of the story? He has now been exposed to the proper use of a very formal style of the English language, with all its rules, in a natural way, and with repeated exposures of this type would be able to reproduce it effortlessly.

In the same way, repeated exposures to good writing allow one to internalize the "rules" so that they become as natural as breathing. Only then can you make a conscious and informed choice to break out of the old structures and create something new, IF that's what you want. I'd be real careful about saying you don't follow rules, or that they're stupid, or whatever - if you actually want anyone to listen to what you're writing, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that you're following some rules whether you admit it or not.

Also, when I reference zen and the muses it is with the understanding that you've got to feed the muses, and that many years of listening to good music and writing and writing and listening some more and trying things out in front of people and then going back to rework - you get the idea - forms an internal set of "rules" as to what works and what does not. The "zen" part consists of being aware of these internalized rules and conscious of how you are both using them and ignoring them (and yes, I'm serious about zen) and the "muses" part consists of seizing the little phrases or bits of melody that occur to many of us all day long, and then working (yes, WORKING) on them to develop them more fully. Put all that together, and ya got something.

In other words, sitting in a room staring out the window waiting for "inspiration" to strike with Garth's next hit, if he would only recognize your genius, is a loser of a plan.

Like the old saying goes, the harder you work, the luckier you get.

G

[This message has been edited by guildslinger (edited 03-25-2004).]

Lots of interesting thoughts and philosophies in this thread. I have to say that I see a lot of beginning songwriters who develop what I call "workshop-itis". They go to songwriting workshops, read books, get pro critiques....you name it, they do it (probably shelling out plenty of money along the way). They get so hung up on following each "rule" and making sure the formula is just right that they end up overanalyzing everthing they do. In the end, it seems all they've accomplished is to stifle whatever originality and creativity they may have started out with. I think that's a shame. I do think it's important to learn the basic techniques of any craft or trade, but at some point to you've got to let go and just do it.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks who make their living from "advising and consulting" on songwriting matters that are pleased to continue selling their services, but there's no single magic formula to writing a great song. There's not some magical combination of books you will read and seminars you will attend that will suddenly unlock the golden grail of hit songwriting ability.

If there were a magic formula, I'd say that it's constant practice coupled with some level of talent that you either do or don't have.

Randy




------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=RandyB

Wow, Randy, now THERE'S a can of worms. You mean, there are actually people who don't have the talent to marry snappy, intelligent lyrics with soaring, original melodies to create something new out of the same old materials we all have at our disposal, with the result being a perfect 3 and a half minute song?

Don't let this get around, otherwise a lot of these workshops, books, and magazines, not to mention demo studios, CD pressing operations, etc., etc., etc. will go out of business!

That secret could sink the economy - it's almost un-American to utter such a thing! Imagine, the idea of one person being better at something than another person. Golly. Keep that stuff to yerself.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree. We simply don't talk about it in polite company.



G

Hey, if the Emperor's nekkid, I'm gonna say so.

Seriously, though, my remarks were actually meant to speak more about those folks who may very well have the talent to succeed. They just get so caught up in the mechanics of it all and put so much stock in other people's relative worth that their own efforts simply become counterproductive. I don't know if this stems from a lack of confidence, or what, really.

I've seen aspiring lyricists who exhibited such a natural ability to spin a tale that I felt humbled. What they didn't know was how to format a song, according to the usual conventions. Their spelling wasn't too great, etc. So, folks set about "teaching" them how to "properly" write a song lyric. Yeah, they got a little more polished looking on paper, but it's amusing to me. In my opinion, that person already had lyrical talent that far exceeded most of those who wanted to show them the "right" way to do things. To me, the saddest thing would be if this person had gotten so wrapped up in following the advice of others that the original creative spark was eventually just snuffed out.

Then there's the people who just don't have the talent. I won't go there, though (especially since I might be one of them).

Randy

------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=RandyB

I agree 1,000% with the last several posts (including that blasphemous idea that some people might be better at some things than others).

The idea of "internalizing" I think is what I was trying to say, yes. As is David's golf image of learning the fundamentals, then trying the trick shots. That's how you reach the Muse.

Or perhaps more accurately, that is how you allow the Muse to flow through you unhampered by any technical distractions or shortcomings.

Of course, any given person's mileage may vary. :-)

--- Ed


------------------
http://www.edperrone.com/music/index.shtml
http://edperrone.rideonmusic.com

Expert craftsperson, hmmm, this is very open-ended and debatable as to what constitutes and expert. I know songwriters who've taking lessons for years and are fantastic musicians, read every songwriting book ever written, do the seminar thing, pay for critiques, etc., and yet they still can't write a really good song (Imo). Yet the music world is full of great songwriters can sometimes barely play an instrument and who just go with the heart and don't think too much about this sort of thing. Wasn't it the great Harlan Howard was said country music is "three chords and the truth"? How do you explain child protegees? An eight year old that can play piano like a pro, yet never took a lesson and can hardly read, never mind read music. Of course there are varying degrees of God given talent, but it can't be argued that some people have a gift and produce amazing music with no concept of rules or techniques. I'm convinced everyone does it different. I can't read music, don't know the names of anything but the basic chords. Certainly I've learned techniques through my own experimentation, but I don't know if those techniques are written in a book somewhere or can be teached to others or would even be helpful. I've always looked at music as totally experimental. I sit down at the piano or with my guitar and mess around until I come up with something that peaks my interested. That's the way I do it and if anything I'm much more open to exploring rather then confined by what others think is right or wrong. There is no right or wrong techniques as long as you are getting a sound, a result, a song, that satisfies you. I say, write your own book, don't go by someone else's. I Posted a few of my songs couple years ago and I remember a few people saying how "well crafted" they were and that I must be a professional. I was flattered, but also chuckled to myself thinking, I don't know what constitutes a well crafted song, I just sit down and write and never gave much thought at how I do it. I do think from a lyrical perspective one can grow from life experiences, but from a melody stand point I don't know how you teach someone to write a better melody or hook.

oops

[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 03-25-2004).]

I really don't understand these seminars where they have a hit songwriters that wrote one hit song fifteen years ago and have been selling themselves as "experts" and hit songwriters ever since. Even though they've never had another charting song, only a handful of cuts and never sustained a living as a songwriter. Come on, if you are going to be a speaker at a seminar you should be songwriter who has staying power. Ten number one's, 250 cuts and 25 top-40 songs, at least that shows you know what you are doing, still doesn't prove it could help anyone else though. Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not paying.




[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 03-25-2004).]

...

I think that is just like any Teacher of anything...
You have to be able to relate to the teacher.
I't must be conveyed in a way that you understand it..
One teacher might say it one way and you just don't get it. THe next teacher says it a different way and BINGO.

I think your point about the Songwriter who had one hit in the last 15 years might be valid.
You won't see some of the most prolific Songwriters doing seminars..
They might write a book someday.
But I'm willing to bet they are working on the next song right NOW.
I'ts like a disease....
I have it and so do you....
Dianne Warren is sitting at her Piano right now penning the next movie power ballad..

Great thread and I see no reason to stop it now...

DAvid

Yeah. I guess all it proves is that they might know more than you do. And, if you are sure that you can't learn from someone who knows more than you do, you should keep that wallet shut.

Bob, I defer to you on learning the Beatles songs. I'm not quite as old as you...

I must confess that I also have not heard McCartney's symphony but I just thought it was pretty impressive that someone with no ability to read or write music could create one, even if it's not all that great.

I don't know if this is a valid analogy but some of the smartest people I've known didn't finish high school and some of the dumbest had college degrees. That may be the exception rather than the rule but it does make for some interesting possibilities.

Of course, in the end, it's still just my opinion about who is dumb or smart so what do I know?

[This message has been edited by Buzz Grudge (edited 03-25-2004).]

It proves no such thing. No one knows more about my writing than me. I'm a songwriter like them. A hit song proves nothing. There are many a songwriter never recorded who have potential hit songs in their catalogs. And many hit songs recorded that are worthless crap. I've never thought of songwriting as a learning process so much as an evolutionary one. If you feel you can learn something from them, good for you. I'm at the point in my life where I'm a peer, I write songs and I like my songs as much as anyone's and I don't need help writing them and never did. If some people need help, God bless and I hope they can get it, but everyone is not in the same boat.




[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 03-25-2004).]