Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 09:56 AM CDT

This is an interesting thread. Thanks for posting, Lennon...

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 09:58 AM CDT

No,ref meeting Drakonis,don't think I have had the pleasure yet.

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:17 AM CDT

Many people seem to confuse composition with performance.

Playing covers is mostly performance - there is a small component of composition there because, despite the best intentions, a band cannot possibly have exactly the same voices, instruments, and equipment that the original performers had. They make do with the best they can gather up.

The composition aspect comes in, because whether the performers know it or not, they balance their resources just right to convey to their audience the impression that they are hearing the original.

I have always preferred the studio recordings of my favorite bands over their own live recordings - in a sense, most bands can't even even cover themselves all that well. (I know, there are exceptions.)

Doing good covers is hard work, and requires great skill. But this skill should not be confused with composition skills.

At the risk of starting a flame war:

Bob Dylan is a great example of someone who has written lots of great songs. He is a great composer in my opinion. I love lots of his songs - if they are played by other performers. But his own performance of his own songs generally turns me off. He can't carry a tune (sorry). Don't confuse composition with performance. They are two different things.

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:23 AM CDT

When it comes to performing, I had a (mostly) cover band for a while, and the covers definitely did loads better live than our originals. It's just the way it is. I think one can't underestimate the value of playing them live if you want to be a popular, money making band. It's also important to throw in your originals too though so you're not labeled 'covers only'.
When it comes to writing and recording, I recently had an opportunity to do a cover of Failure's 'Frogs' that's going to be on a tribute CD due in July (!PLUG!). Even though we changed it up quite a bit and really made it our own, every other song I've written and recorded was a more intense and rewarding process and experience.
It varies from song to song - some are more difficult to cover than others - but overall I don't find covering songs more challenging and certainly not more rewarding then writing my own. Sure covering Bohemian Rhapsody note for note would be a daunting intensive task, but in the end, even if you did achieve that what do you have? a cover of Bohemian Rhapsody. People will probably still prefer the original. I guess when it comes to covers the reward lies in how you can change it up and 'make it your own', but again, how long does that reward really last? In the end it's just a cover. I was really pleased with our Failure cover, but I never listen to it anymore. I listen to my original stuff every day.
I guess I see the value in covering songs for gigging bands. It's what people want to hear. But to say doing original music is 'taking the easy way out' is totally backwards. Maybe your friend knows something about writing music I don't?? Cool thread.

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:42 AM CDT

Quote by: SmokeyVW Many people seem to confuse composition with . Bob Dylan is a great example of someone who has written lots of great songs. He is a great composer in my opinion. I love lots of his songs - if they are played by other performers. But his own performance of his own songs generally turns me off. He can't carry a tune (sorry). Don't confuse composition with performance. They are two different things.

Oh dear lord ,then its not just me,and I'm sure he's taking the piss with that mouth organ.................his songs are pure poetry,his music sublime,he wouldn't get away with it today though.
(ducks down a bit rapid,looks round,then belly crawls towards where SmokeyVW better be covering him!!)

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:49 AM CDT

I appreciate everyone's response as I knew this group would offer several different interesting opinions. When my friend first said that to me I just about became unhinged. Then I thought I'd like to see what others think. I, too, think they are two different disciplines and a direct comparison is both impossible and unfair. I love original music. I love the songwriting process. I love when someone posts a song on MJ and has paragraph upon paragraph explaining their song and how/why/where, etc they wrote it. So though I understand why covers are necessary for the average touring band, I usually see them as a necessary evil (or something that can be a fun little exercise every now and then).

I guess I just get a little frustrated by the thought that songwriters just "throw songs together". I don't approach it like that and I know you guys don't. He's hard headed and doesn't let me explain that songwriting is more laborious than "How much tail will this get me?".

The other part that bothers me is the insinuation that a band isn't successful until they're making truckloads of cash and having their songs transcribed by Guitar World magazine. But that's another conversation altogether.

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 10:50 AM CDT

As others have noted, to be realistic, you would have to apply a degree of difficulty standard, similar to what is used in judging various Olympic sports. Competently covering Wild Thing as opposed to say, Roundabout, are two entirely different things.

In my band days (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), the natural progression was from doing cover material to original material. It was not unusual for us to hear a new song on the radio, record it and work up a decent cover to be played the same night.

Of course, that music was often simple and uncomplicated. Fortunately, as it grew more sophisticated, so did we... at least musically. So covers were really an easy chore... and most often a good learning experience. When you already have all the pieces prepared for you --- the arrangement, the voicings, the harmonies, lyrics, etc., the most difficult part is duplicating the nuances and the *sound* of the songs.

Still, that discipline was a good experience that enabled us to transfer the knowledge we gained to later help prepare our original material. The broader your experience in working on cover tunes, the more you realize the endless possibilities available for your own interpretations. It forces you to see music through so many different minds... and ears.

But transferring that knowledge and experience to create something of your own that truly resonates with listeners, is really a far more difficult task. ANYONE can write a song, but few can write a good song. Fewer still can write a hit song.


--- Joe

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 12:20 PM CDT

"He's hard headed and doesn't let me explain that songwriting is more laborious than "How much tail will this get me?".

Haha I know the type.

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 12:22 PM CDT

Fascinating thread. You're all right. But music is such an open form that objectivity only goes so far.

I played lead guitar in working cover bands for about seven years in yon olden days. Started jamming with guys in the neighborhood and worked my way up to playing with some very talented performers. Started with hard rock (because that was fun) and ended up playing club music (because I needed to earn a living). Covered everything from Zeppelin, Bad Company, Deep Purple, Budgie, UFO, Crack the Sky, to Stevie Wonder, Steely Dan, the Doobies, to Donna Summer, the Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind, and Fire, to Peaches and Herb, and most everything that was on the pop charts in the late 70s.

We played about 40 songs per night, five nights a week. A typical set covered a lot of ground stylistically speaking. The band was keyboards/guitar/drums/bass/vocals with the capability to do ballads, disco, soft rock, funk, and three-part vocal harmony. None of us were virtuosos, but paraphrasing Tommy Lee Jones, "We were a working band. And that says something." Across town, van Halen was emerging as the most popular "originals" act.

The musical skills that were applied were: (1) choosing songs that we could reasonably cover (2) choosing songs that the clientele would like (3) arrangement (4) attention to dynamics (5) the art of compromise (6) extensive sound checks and adjustments appropriate to the venue (7) adding our own personal touches (8) knowing how to count in synch (9) taking raised eyebrow signs from the bass player, who never got lost (10) showing up on time (11) not drinking too much (12) not killing each other.

We could cover "Star Love" by Cheryl Lynn, flip a bunch of switches, and go into "Josie" by Steely Dan, then follow with "Brick House" by the Commodores. So, the other thing was having the versatility in both personnel and equipment to cover a broad range of styles. Needless to say, it was very educational, even if I didn't care for a lot of the music we played.

We had talent, especially our vocalists and keyboardist. BUT the talent was of a limited kind. None of us wrote music. THAT is a whole different thing.

Anyone can "write" a song, yes. Even I can. But writing a song that does one or more of the following:

-- gets people moving
-- touches emotions (happy, sad, humorous, triumphant, contemplative, ...)
-- gets people humming the tune
-- lyrically says something of substance
-- successfully treads new ground

is very difficult and strangely elusive. People who can do that, I consider to be blessed with a "gift." People who can do that AND perform it well, that's who I spend my money on (after applying the subjective taste criteria filter, of course).

Most bands that I like these days have one inspired writer who is surrounded by technically proficient musicians. There are those few who have it all, and they strike awe (someone mentioned Paul Simon). Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, so they say, but sometimes I wonder about that.

Re:Songwriting Is Easy?
Monday, May 19 2008 @ 12:53 PM CDT

Quote by: Roca_Atomica Fascinating thread. You're all right. But music is such an open form that objectivity only goes so far. I played lead guitar in working cover bands for about seven years in yon olden days. Started jamming with guys in the neighborhood and worked my way up to playing with some very talented performers. Started with hard rock (because that was fun) and ended up playing club music (because I needed to earn a living). Covered everything from Zeppelin, Bad Company, Deep Purple, Budgie, UFO, Crack the Sky, to Stevie Wonder, Steely Dan, the Doobies, to Donna Summer, the Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind, and Fire, to Peaches and Herb, and most everything that was on the pop charts in the late 70s. We played about 40 songs per night, five nights a week. A typical set covered a lot of ground stylistically speaking. The band was keyboards/guitar/drums/bass/vocals with the capability to do ballads, disco, soft rock, funk, and three-part vocal harmony. None of us were virtuosos, but paraphrasing Tommy Lee Jones, "We were a working band. And that says something." Across town, van Halen was emerging as the most popular "originals" act. The musical skills that were applied were: (1) choosing songs that we could reasonably cover (2) choosing songs that the clientele would like (3) arrangement (4) attention to dynamics (5) the art of compromise (6) extensive sound checks and adjustments appropriate to the venue (7) adding our own personal touches (8) knowing how to count in synch (9) taking raised eyebrow signs from the bass player, who never got lost (10) showing up on time (11) not drinking too much (12) not killing each other. We could cover "Star Love" by Cheryl Lynn, flip a bunch of switches, and go into "Josie" by Steely Dan, then follow with "Brick House" by the Commodores. So, the other thing was having the versatility in both personnel and equipment to cover a broad range of styles. Needless to say, it was very educational, even if I didn't care for a lot of the music we played. We had talent, especially our vocalists and keyboardist. BUT the talent was of a limited kind. None of us wrote music. THAT is a whole different thing. Anyone can "write" a song, yes. Even I can. But writing a song that does one or more of the following: -- gets people moving -- touches emotions (happy, sad, humorous, triumphant, contemplative, ...) -- gets people humming the tune -- lyrically says something of substance -- successfully treads new ground is very difficult and strangely elusive. People who can do that, I consider to be blessed with a "gift." People who can do that AND perform it well, that's who I spend my money on (after applying the subjective taste criteria filter, of course). Most bands that I like these days have one inspired writer who is surrounded by technically proficient musicians. There are those few who have it all, and they strike awe (someone mentioned Paul Simon). Genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, so they say, but sometimes I wonder about that.

I'm the guy who mentioned Paul Simon. (Actually studied with him 'way, 'way back. Most successful classmate: Melissa Manchester.) I thought your post was quite interesting: nicely reasoned and well expressed. And it sounds like you had a very good, extremely versatile band.