Lately I've been writing about what songwriting means to me, my process and viewpoint on a lot of aspects of the art. Some random scribbling on subways and while falling asleep at night (read: morning). This is an addition to The Library is on Fire Manifesto:
On Songwriting
The Song
Be concise. It took me a long time to figure out that the best way for a song to exist is by making it as short as it needs to be, and no longer. More often, the shorter, the better. Most of the time a song should only be about 2 minutes long. The reason I say this is because of melody. Melody follows a certain path - its a series of notes strung together in a way that is pleasing to the listener. In this way, music is a lot like poetry. The killer lines are just that - lines. In a song, the killer melodies are often brief as well. Of course some music (Classical, etc.) moves in and out of different melodies in long form. But, most of the time the memorable parts are those small pieces of melody (Think of the 1812 overture, or Beethoven's 5th. One can distill the "choruses" or main melodies of these pieces, the easily memorable ones, which are usually about 20 seconds long. These are essentially the "hooks" of these movements) repeated a few times for mnemonic effect. The best songs are usually between 1:30 and 3:00. Whoever said "Don't bore us, get to the chorus", aside from being a pretty bad poet, was pretty much correct.
This isn't a rule, but seems to be the case most of the time. Long form, and drone, can be used for similar effect to short songs (Oneida would be one such example, and a lot of Eastern music). But the melody, when distilled, usually comes down to a short series of notes. If a song requires more time, it is usually to build an effect (dynamically or otherwise).
I believe in brevity in structure. Want to repeat a chorus? Sure. But isn't it always more interesting when you hear the first chorus 1/2 then the second chorus all the way through? Its like foreplay. When I say brevity and that a song should only be one to three minutes long, look at some of the more mediocre songs out there (youtube Creed or Nickelback for great examples of this). Most songs that are 5:30 should be 3:15 or maybe even shorter.
I measure the success of a song (and therefore the band playing the song) by how memorable the song is a day later after I've initially heard it. Can I remember the melody? The hook? I've seen a lot of unsuccessful bands out there.
Don't be swayed by image or a cool "tone" of a band. Sure, the lead singer might be pretty or the sound might be in vogue, but are the songs good? As Devo said, "Artists and musicians are generally good looking guys and gals who couldn't hold a real job. Art and music is sometimes the ruse by which these people perpetuate their selfish hoax." A rock show is a social event, and as such, if you're having a good time and being entertained, then the event is doing its job. That is why it is important to separate the event from the artist. I've been to plenty of good shows where bad bands were performing.
Generally, those who accomplish more tend to be the most humble. Be weary of anyone who is boastful in more than a passing way.
As such, if you are good and you know it, have the confidence to say so - but don't dwell upon it. Walk softly, etc.
When I write, songs generally tend to come in clusters - some songs come 2 or 3 at a time, and are like siblings. They may have the same underlying idea fleshed out throughout 2 or 3 songs.
Track order on an album is like writing a poem. The really good line should come pretty close to the beginning, but the best line - the kicker - should come at the end. A killer title usually demonstrates the quality of the work overall.
Its ok to admire someone's songwriting to the point of enveloping it, making it your own. Most of the time your influences will be convoluted enough through your own particular style of playing or voice so as to make the influence only a trace (that is assuming you've found your own voice and aren't aping someone else's style wholly). But sometimes you have to remind yourself that you weren't the one who wrote that song or those songs, even if you identify with them so completely. Doing so will make you forget how much more you still have to accomplish in conveying your own point of view.
There will be periods of creative inactivity. This often follows great activity. This can often be depressing for the artist. Often times, the longer this period, the more the artist will question their ability (Have I lost it? Did I ever really have it in the first place?) This seems to be a natural occurrence, but can be damaging if the artist cannot find a way to escape this inactivity.
A good solution to this sometimes is trying your hand at a different genre or medium. Sometimes even cooking can break a period of inactivity.
Sometimes (what I feel is) my best work is written with haste. If I sit down to write, knowing that I have somewhere to be in an hour, the work takes on a sense of urgency that often produces quality work. This is a strange occurrence.
My particular way of working most of the time is to come up with music first, then vocal melody, then lyrics. I think it was Peter Gabriel or someone (I had a discussion about this with Kevin March from GBV, when talking about Pollard's way of writing) that said the lyrics to a song are more about the sound of the words as opposed to the words themselves. This is true in my case. A great songwriter can bridge the gap between the meaning of the words and the phonics, the sound of the words. An equally great songwriter knows when to place importance of the sound over the meaning of the words. A lot of times the most interesting stuff (vocal melody wise) is what happens first out of your mouth right after coming up with the music - like baby talk, the words and melody drift out of the fog in a magical way. A tape recorder is invaluable for this, because (in my case) most of the time these unintelligible swashes of wordsounds are instantly forgotten.
Sometimes the lyrical melody comes first. I get the sense that someone like Burt Bacharach often works this way. A killer line can spark a song almost wholly into its inception. This is a great way to work if you can catch it and distill the lyrics before they vanish into the ether.
Business always runs slower than creativity. Pace yourself, or you may find yourself sick of your songs before your album is even released.
At times, the songs you are least emotionally invested in ultimately become your favorite ones. Maybe that's because there are so many love songs out there. A lot of times it can feel like a played-out genre. But as long as people keep feeling, love songs will have relevance in peoples' lives.
When writing about a personal aspect of your life in songwriting, its OK to not get the facts straight. But tell the truth. Unless it doesn't rhyme.
The best way to start writing a song is to have a theme or title in mind - a place to start. Most of the time, though, the song itself starts with a riff.
Its ok to think that a certain riff or melody is a ripoff. Most of the time, by the time you execute the song in a band setting, the riff will sound different enough so people won't notice. But if every riff or melody you write feels like a ripoff, you're doing something wrong.
Some interesting insight and ideas, most of which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I agree that good music has to stick in your head after the first listen. Sometimes the best music takes awhile to "bake."
For example, I thought Alien Lanes was terrible after the first few listens. The songs all seemed unfinished, and it wasn't until I'd heard it numerous times that I began to love it. Same with A Series of Sneaks by Spoon. Two albums off the top of my head that I love that I didn't "get" the first time.
I'd also put a lot of records by Sonic Youth in that category. Sometimes spending some time with the music improves it, and these are often the records that have the most staying power (for me anyway).