This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

Talk with other musicians and industry professionals.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#103811 by Dewy
Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:17 pm
Also - in the industry "pretty good" & "good" are not good enough.

There's a lot of songs which are good or pretty good; but that doesn't cut it, anymore.


I agree with most of the original post except the quoted statement. In Argument I offer Limp Bizkit.

My understanding of what you are trying to say is that, anything you think is good enough can be done better. This I can agree with... but I also want to say the F# instead of G that Brian May laments about in Fat Bottom Girls has never bothered anyone I know. (trying to find a link to that songfact... will post when I find it)

Several things... the out of tune guitar on Aerosmith's "Dream On"... anything by Dylan or Mr. Young... so I have to disagree on the whole. Sometimes a song or artist is taken and accepted on the basis of how the song elicits and emotion, or how the audience (listener) can relate to it.

A Case in point... I have no Idea what the hell they are talking about in the lyrics of "Plush"... but several of the lines I do relate to... and they are communicated very soulfully to the audience.

I seriously doubt ZZ Top thought LaGrange or Tush would be hits... they just threw something at the wall and walked away from it.

So... While there are "Constructs of Perfect Art" ("Drift Away" took over 30 days to record and master ) There is also the Rule of Ear... which is "sometimes, a song just needs an audience".

I applaud you and anyone who continues to grow, and constantly reviewing and researching. Nothing wrong with that. But if you ever re-record any of your work... always keep both copies.

#106235 by Hayden King
Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:30 pm
I don't know how to give advise on this one... If I like it, it's good. that's as far as I go with it. I write em for me, not "them"! I do think you can overwork a song and lose the original intent though.

#106335 by RhythmMan
Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:59 am
True.
But a lot of folks don't seem to put very much effort into 'new' songs, eh?

#108857 by Chippy
Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:08 pm
Agreed!

Bassmandre wrote:If u don't like it, why write it?

#114033 by FU
Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:56 pm
I think this type of thinking can be both beneficial and/or hazardous.
I mean, there have been times when we cut a tune and it is snapshot of the band when it's cut. We re-cut 4 of the songs of our first EP for our first full length and to me, honestly, it sounds like we are covering ourselves. It's not better, perse. Just a "bigger" rock version of the songs. To the causal listener, the quality of the EP was not great. but the performances and banter on the record became "the norm". Sometimes the quirky little mistakes on the first few takes are what make a good song great. Other times, better chops (or bashing the song out on stage for 6 months) shape the song and improve it. I definitely advocate the stage approach for more rocky, precise(guitar wise) harder music. it allows the song to coalesce rather than being a pinchloaf patchwork of overdubs.
Overthinking seems to be many bands' main problem.

#119216 by D
Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:33 pm
I think the major disconnect is continually going back and replaying or re-writing a tune is very methodical... but I agree with the spontaneity and the idea that the musician and/or band has a certain interest in the song and puts more into the execution of the song rather than the perfection of a song.

If you weren't happy with the song in the first place then obviously it wasn't being done written... but I find if you go back with a lot of time between then and now, you lose the edge and soul of what you were focused on and intending.

I suppose what I'm adding in here is that if the song is itchy in your ear, just make sure when you scratch that bastard you make it count...otherwise you might be playing it perfect, but removing YOU from the song.

I have old recordings I listen to that are downright sloppy and ridiculous...but the intent behind it is so bold and strong that sure it has it's mistakes but when I hit those certain notes, or shift the rhythm within the bar to switch the feeling or tempo...it's gold. And to recapture that... I'd just be emulating it if i kept going back and polishing my turds hehehe

Check this out, 'scuse the language boys!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i_XN26SS4E

This is pure truth from one of the most naturally talented guitarists I've had the joys of watching over the years. RIP DIME!

#119937 by Paul Daly
Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:16 pm
fisherman bob wrote:You can also over-analyze a song to death. Did you ever hear of paralysis by analysis? When songs get played to death they lose their spontaneity. When something sounds hot NOW, record it NOW. You might improve it later, BUT the band's enthusiasm for the song might wane. This enthusiasm translates to the recording, just as the enthusiasm playing live rubs off on the audience. Sure you want a song to get technically better, but not at the expense of completely taking your excitement out of the recording. There's just the right time to rec
ord a song, DON'T let that right time slip away...

Going thru same , both rythem man & fisherman bob are correct ! having fun shows better than virtuosity in most circles . I rarely play a song the same way twice , allways getting better ! :D

#120039 by RhythmMan
Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:57 pm
Same here; when I perform a song, I perform it the way I feel at the time, so my songs live and breath . . .
Songs don't need to be poured into cement molds . . .
When performing with my group, I stay within the parameters of the songs, but I can accent them differently and influence the feel of the entire song.
. . . nice to hear and old song turn into a new and spontaneous song . . .

#120095 by Starfish Scott
Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:16 pm
Count me in on the Bassmandre side.

IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, don't write it.

The term "SELL OUT" comes to mind.

#120114 by philbymon
Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:10 am
The sell-out has one thing that I really am envious of - he SELLS!

If you can write in any genre, even in ones that you don't care for, you are a composer. Get it?

Remember how they used to commission entire operas? Would you call any of the long-hairs 'sell-outs?' I think not!

Would you call a portrait painter who gets a commission to paint a garden a 'sell out?' I wouldn't. I'd call him "ballsy enough to step out of his usual."

Drop it already with the nasty labels.

Just my useless .02

This is from the guy who just played a gig in a genre I have no connection to...for the money, yes, AND for the experience. I wouldn't call me a 'sell out,' either. I think of myself as rather ballsy.

I might even try to write a lil something in the genre, just to challenge myself, to see if I can...even though I don't much care for it. Sell out? Or developing or accomplished composer?

#120133 by Starfish Scott
Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:40 am
A sell out to me means someone that writes/plays/performs something just for the $.


I.e> If'n I don't like it, I won't play/write/perform it.

My heart just would not be in it, thus it's painful because it's not your inner voice.

I need $, just not bad enough to give up my pride and morals.

Besides the world embraces garbage like Lady Gaga.
You going to turn over on your belly because the world wants you to?
Nah it's on my own criteria or not at all.
Last edited by Starfish Scott on Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests