george1146561 wrote:You've made that opinion clear, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that almost every "original" pop song, from any genre, is "originally" created by the band and/or arranger taking the bare bones of a song and adding bits to it. If different people add different bits, how is that really all that different from bandmates adding bits?
How is it different? That easy: they had a reference point to start with. The original writer did not. It started with an idea, that was fleshed out until it became a song. Anyone can jump in after that. anyone.
Did you not read what I wrote about how Ray Thomas and Mike Pinder added extra bits to Justin Hayward's "Nights in White Satin"?
Can't say I did.
Can you honestly say that not a single hit record that was written by a professional songwriter who, at best, might have recorded a demo personally, but the song only became a hit after producers and arrangers worked on it? Do you honestly claim that Jackie DeShannon's original rinky-tink demo for "Bette Davis Eyes" was greater than the one Kim Carnes sang on?
Yes, if you're talking about the song. No, if you're talking about the production.
The song was either good or great at conception. Recording and arrangements don't do much unless there is something worth building on.
Did you ever hear the Mars Bonfire original demo of "Born to be Wild"?
Can't say I've heard of Mars Bonfire
Since you place such importance on record sales and how a song charts, which of these is greater, the original or the hit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOXvoeX2qGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQK0d72Jom8
Audra Mae's version sounds more authentic to me but it seems obvious that a recording artist with the full backing of a record company would have a better chance of making it a hit. Still....what does it sound like if Miranda tries to sing a song that hasn't been written?
That next duo of songs you present were more of a challenge. Couldn't handle but about 10 seconds of either. There is only a key change and singer making them different. The first one has the generic female opera voice and the second is sung by chipmunks. Neither were a "hit".
If I could handle listening to this 80s rehash, the lyrics/melody/rhythm would decide whether it was a great song or not, speaking for myself only. Has nothing to do with sales or charts. I don't begrudge anyone else for loving it. I just did that in the 80s already.
You can keep repeating the error that just because someone did it first, that means it was more "creative", but you've presented no evidence or examples to support that view.
Because it is a truth that is self-evident.
People build beautiful structures every day. Had God not created the earth, they would have no foundation to start with.
Any good PROFESSIONAL songwriter should acknowledge the input of the musicians and arrangers who flesh out a song, and "finish" it. I've done the acoustic troubadour thing, and listened to far too many troubadours and singer/songwriters who really needed a band and an arrangement to truly bring out the best in their songs. It's the height of egotism to presume that only the writer deserves any credit for a finished song.
Every song starts with an idea. If the idea is great, then there isn't a whole lot that can stop the song from being great, ala Dylan.
The musicians who contribute to that idea deserve credit for helping the production of the song, but not necessarily the song itself. There are, of course, exceptions where maybe a melodic hook is all that "a" particular listener is interested in, but that is no different than liking solar windows when they aren't on a house.
Without the original song it's just a random exercises of scales and the Japanese would rule the charts.
.
i
i'm calling BS. you took a swipe and you got called out for it. 
