Print PDF
Favorite
Email
Step 5Craft!
Lots of folks pride themselves on their songwriting speed, but they tend to be the same folks that have songs with parts that are boogered-up.
I agree that the stuff that "flows" out in half an hour is often some of the best stuff. But I'm also constantly hearing unfinished work. Here's why: most of the time, the inspiration happens and you end up with two great lines that rhyme, and crap in between that is only there to get from Fantastic Line #1 to Fantastic Line #2. Your job as a songwriter is to fix the crap without overshadowing or otherwise screwing up the inspiration, or even better, to magnify the inspiration. This is more craft than art, but it's crucial and it's the difference between timeless and transformative songs and just good songs.
I read somewhere an interview with Glen Frey, where he talks about how he does this "2 line at a time" thing, with those "placeholder" words to glue the good stuff together, but that Don Henley could always come in and put meaning into those in-between words, and take the song to new heights. Of course of the two, Henley has come out with more stuff that is annoyingly over thought, too cerebral. And we've all heard songs like that; too cerebral, no inspiration. Music written with all head and no heart, all thinking and no feeling.
Again, It's all about balance, just like anything else. Heart with head: you get the inspiration in your guts, but if you just leave it alone, then you're the only one who's going to really get it. If your performing (or recording) for others, you owe it to them to give them a way in, and that's done with your head. Sometimes you luck out, and the inspiration already translates to the listener, but you have to figure out when it does and when it doesn't, and you owe it to the song to make it as great as possible, right?
After you write a song and it's at it's first "plateau" of completion, give it some time, then try to listen objectively, and see if you still like the song the way it is. Most of the time, the lame bits show themselves, and are easily fixed in a way that helps the song; a small word here and there, minor tweaks...
Another item to consider: balancing the general with the specific: For example, you're a guy and you wrote a song about a girl that broke your heart. Does the song suffer if you play the "pronoun game," making the song gender-neutral, so that a girl who just broke up would also relate? Or a guy who broke up with a guy? A girl with a girl? A guy with a beloved chicken? If the answer is "yes, the song would be worse off," then by all means, don't change that element. But if the song's power is left intact (or increased by singing straight to the person: saying "you broke my heart" instead of "she broke my heart"), then what's the harm in making the switch? You've widened the possible impact of the story, without messing with the emotional center of it.
Play the profanity card carefully! James Blunt really should not have done it in his ""You're Beautiful". He used the f-word when he could have just kept telling the story, and it detracts and distracts from the song. In contrast, Ani DiFranco's "Untouchable Face" uses the f-word like a million times, and it works. Know that "that word" you've included in your song will receive extra attention. Does that throw off your song, or make it better?
Let songs simmer for long periods of time before you stamp them "finished," no matter how quickly they were written in the first place. Get over the "I wrote it in 15 minutes" ego thing. If you wrote it in 15 minutes and it's good, imagine how great it would be if you went back and fixed the tiny things that detract from the power? If you kill the inspiration in that process, then you've blown it...
...But I think you've screwed up just as bad if you leave dumb stuff in the song. Tragic, isn't it: a good song with the potential to be great, that makes it into the world complete with a bunch of little obstacles to it's greatness. It will fizzle, when it could have been one of "those songs."
I agree that the stuff that "flows" out in half an hour is often some of the best stuff. But I'm also constantly hearing unfinished work. Here's why: most of the time, the inspiration happens and you end up with two great lines that rhyme, and crap in between that is only there to get from Fantastic Line #1 to Fantastic Line #2. Your job as a songwriter is to fix the crap without overshadowing or otherwise screwing up the inspiration, or even better, to magnify the inspiration. This is more craft than art, but it's crucial and it's the difference between timeless and transformative songs and just good songs.
I read somewhere an interview with Glen Frey, where he talks about how he does this "2 line at a time" thing, with those "placeholder" words to glue the good stuff together, but that Don Henley could always come in and put meaning into those in-between words, and take the song to new heights. Of course of the two, Henley has come out with more stuff that is annoyingly over thought, too cerebral. And we've all heard songs like that; too cerebral, no inspiration. Music written with all head and no heart, all thinking and no feeling.
Again, It's all about balance, just like anything else. Heart with head: you get the inspiration in your guts, but if you just leave it alone, then you're the only one who's going to really get it. If your performing (or recording) for others, you owe it to them to give them a way in, and that's done with your head. Sometimes you luck out, and the inspiration already translates to the listener, but you have to figure out when it does and when it doesn't, and you owe it to the song to make it as great as possible, right?
After you write a song and it's at it's first "plateau" of completion, give it some time, then try to listen objectively, and see if you still like the song the way it is. Most of the time, the lame bits show themselves, and are easily fixed in a way that helps the song; a small word here and there, minor tweaks...
Another item to consider: balancing the general with the specific: For example, you're a guy and you wrote a song about a girl that broke your heart. Does the song suffer if you play the "pronoun game," making the song gender-neutral, so that a girl who just broke up would also relate? Or a guy who broke up with a guy? A girl with a girl? A guy with a beloved chicken? If the answer is "yes, the song would be worse off," then by all means, don't change that element. But if the song's power is left intact (or increased by singing straight to the person: saying "you broke my heart" instead of "she broke my heart"), then what's the harm in making the switch? You've widened the possible impact of the story, without messing with the emotional center of it.
Play the profanity card carefully! James Blunt really should not have done it in his ""You're Beautiful". He used the f-word when he could have just kept telling the story, and it detracts and distracts from the song. In contrast, Ani DiFranco's "Untouchable Face" uses the f-word like a million times, and it works. Know that "that word" you've included in your song will receive extra attention. Does that throw off your song, or make it better?
Let songs simmer for long periods of time before you stamp them "finished," no matter how quickly they were written in the first place. Get over the "I wrote it in 15 minutes" ego thing. If you wrote it in 15 minutes and it's good, imagine how great it would be if you went back and fixed the tiny things that detract from the power? If you kill the inspiration in that process, then you've blown it...
...But I think you've screwed up just as bad if you leave dumb stuff in the song. Tragic, isn't it: a good song with the potential to be great, that makes it into the world complete with a bunch of little obstacles to it's greatness. It will fizzle, when it could have been one of "those songs."
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
 |
Add Comment
|
