Does technical thinking ruin songwriting?
I’m quite a technical songwriter. I have methods of writing. I can justify my choices of rhyme, structure and language. I studied songwriting. When I hear songs I analyse them. I see songwriting as a craft (ie. something you can learn and improve with practice).
A lot of songwriters I know don’t see it this way at all. They see songwriting as a pure form of artistic expression that can be ruined by overthinking. They see justification of musical choices as a weakness, as if you’re bowing to the demands of the imagined audience instead of being authentic and true to the soul or emotional message of the song.
It’s difficult to think about this objectively. The fact that I’m even writing this puts me firmly in the thinking camp. A feeling songwriter wouldn’t write about songwriting. They would just write songs. I’m sure a carefully balanced approach is best, but I can’t do that.
So I’m going to be entirely subjective and tell you why I think songwriting needs to be approached as a craft. I hope some of you feelers might be able to help me see your side of the argument.
Songwriting is a craft, not an art
There’s no such thing as a conceptual songwriter. As an artist you are free to choose from all sorts of funky media and part of the game is to work outside the box and provoke thought and criticism. Songwriting isn’t like that. Composition is like that, but songwriting isn’t. As a songwriter you’ve signed up to write songs, and the popular song isn’t a very flexible form. It’s not quite as restrictive as being a sonnetwriter, but it’s closer to that than, say, a novelwriter.
There’s nothing to stop you exploding the confines of the form and writing 15-minute one-chord freeform poetry, but that’s not a song. You could argue that it is, but you’d be wrong (the word song refers to a pretty specific musical form, and let’s assume we’re talking about popular song, even late 20th Century popular song to keep things simple).
Given that you’ve chosen to write in such a specific musical and lyrical form, it makes sense to understand that form as deeply as possible. To study the greats. To analyse and practise and learn, until you can write so fluently that the form becomes transparent to the listener and the message, the emotion, the feeling is transmitted as purely as possible.
As a listener, there are lots of things that can make you aware of the form, and distract you from the message:
- boring bits, where a song goes on too long, repeats too much or is too formless to follow easily
- uncomfortably dissonant moments
- surprising and unprepared musical moves
- embarrassing lyrics, cheesy rhymes and empty clichés
- unnatural turns of phrase
- words wrongly stressed
Any feeling songwriter can point out a bad song. If you can recognise a bad song from a good one, you must know on some level what makes the bad songs bad. And once you know that you can avoid the bad things in your own writing and do more of whatever makes the good songs good. All feeling songwriters do this more or less consciously. So how is there still this idea that thinking about the technicalities of songwriting can ruin the feel of a song?
Are thinker and feeler songs different?
At this point, I imagine a feeler would point out that we’re talking about different kinds of song. I’m talking about heartless, muso, technically brilliant Nashville-style thinker songs, they would say, while they are talking about good, authentic, passionate songs. They may even raise an eyebrow and mention Steely Dan or drop in a quick Beatles/Stones comment.
While it’s true that I’m partial to some ‘classic’ songwriters like Ben Folds, Carole King, even occasionally Neil Diamond, most of the music I listen to and love is good, authentic, passionate music – The Band, Janis Joplin, Hendrix, The Small Faces and all that. And all of this real, true, passionate music is played over carefully crafted song forms.
Songs and recordings are not the same thing
If I were a feeler reading this, I’d probably start listing great tracks that have almost no song structure. There are loads. So I think it’s important to remember that we’re talking about songs here, not recordings. There’s a track on the Ben Folds Five demos and outtakes album Naked Baby Photos called For Those Of Ya’ll Who Wear Fannie Packs that’s just a recording of them jamming Rage Against the Machine in soundcheck. It’s a great recording, and I used to listen to it all the time, but it’s not a good song. At all.
Maybe that’s the answer. Good songs require thinking, and good recordings are about feeling. Does that ring true to any of you feelers? Or am I overthinking the whole issue? ;)
Tagged with: songwriting
Related posts
If you enjoyed reading this, why not subscribe to the RSS feed? ;)
12 Comments, Comment or Ping
Lisa
Couldn’t this argument be opened out, to include writing and art (as in visual art) too? There’s a similar issue, that a trained artist or writer could in essence produce a great piece of work, but even without that knowledge people create great writing and art, based on feeling, rather than technicality.
In the form of writing, sure ‘technically’ speaking, a good writer should understand the conventions of sentence structure and word formats. But the best writing, often breaks these rules, in fact the most innovative and ground breaking work often deliberately breaks down these rules and manipulates them (think Joyce’s Ulysses) . From a personal viewpoint, I think, that over technical thoughts behind writing, can stifle the expression behind them, ruining them in the same way you wonder if song writing can.
Likewise with art, take Van Gogh chair painting. I suspect many artists, especially those trained in a technical sense would discuss the inaccuracies in the painting, find the faults in terms of angles and such likes. Yet, the painting itself is still regarded as a masterpiece, due to the feeling it evokes. So again, the issue of emotion and technicality blur and override each other. I guess in many sense, art has to be about feeling foremost, otherwise blue squares, which get featured in the Tate Modern fail on both fronts, as I cannot comprehend how these are technically accurate, which means their power must lie in feeling…
Like you highlight, I personally think any sort of art, is about balance (which is why I dispute blue squares being called, good art). Too much though on technicalities can ruin the emotion, but too much emphasis on emotion can produce songs which lack the power to impress others.
I don’t think it’s about recording entirely though, I’d rather watch a live musician, able to pack their songs with power, but with certain flaws in the technical department (i.e. not hitting notes or wrong chords or plain wobbly verses) over a technically correct, but emotionally devoid performer any day.
The verdict for me? Follow your heart but use your head. Neither on it’s own is enough…I’m not sure that agrees or disagrees with your point or though really. But I do think, whether you believe it or not, it’s probably unlikely that anyone is 100% a technical songwriter, or vice versa, I suspect those who are good at any art form, have an understanding of both, regardless of whether they’re consciously aware of it.
Jul 19th, 2010
Ben Walker
Lisa: I agree entirely with what you say, but I would (predictably) spin it a little differently.
To achieve the balance, the artist has to use her gut feelings and her technical skills, right? In my experience, most feelers deny (or are unaware of) using their technical writing skills. Of course, they do use them – they use all sorts of clever rhyme schemes, they make lyrics scan to melodies, they use and break standard forms – but they like to claim it’s all based on feel.
Thinkers, on the other hand, consciously use their technical skills and (assuming we’re talking about artists of a reasonable quality) they use the form to express much the same feelings as the feeler does.
So both types do exactly the same thing when they write a song but the feeler isn’t allowed to name the techniques she’s using, making it very difficult to rewrite and improve what she’s done, or to communicate with others. She’s limited to a trial and error technique.
None of this is to say that feelers don’t make some great art. But by denying the craft they limit themselves unnecessarily. Unless, of course, technical thinking does in some way restrict the pure creativity of the feeler…
Jul 19th, 2010
Lisa
In some senses yes, though I suspect the feeler maybe hasn’t yet learnt what technicalities it is that are being utilised, it’s not perhaps a deliberate ploy to deny they’re being used, but more a lack of conscious awareness.
Much as on a psychological level, people react without knowing why, artists do the same. Later we may realise with actions there was a cause, or subconscious feeling at play, but often not until later. Likewise with art.
I know as a writer, people wouild tell me I was good, but I didn’t know why. This made it impossible for me to replicate, meaning my work was hit and miss, I went with feelings which sometimes produced some great stuff and sometimes some shit. Now, having studied my chosen art form, I see that some of my ‘good’ writing contained technical things which made them good, interesting use of abstract metaphors perhaps, or weird oxymorons.
The crux I guess, is that even as a feeler, I was using technical methods on an untrained instinctual basis. Which I guess is what allows feelers to utilise both technical and feeling styles of song writing, without one clouding the other, because they’re less consciously aware of the technical. I guess a bit like when you’ve learnt to drive a car, you just do it, without thinking about ‘how’ you do it.
As for rewriting or improving a feelers work, this is where I get a bit defensive of my own accord, because whilst some of my writing might be sloppy in places, or less technically accurate, to edit any of it, is in essence removing the gut feeling that created it in the first place. To refer back, I guess one has to wonder what would have happened in Van Gogh repainted the leg on the chair (which is from a technical viewpoint too long), it may have ruined the emotion behind the hole painting.
Jul 19th, 2010
Lisa
whole painting even. That was not a technical error to highlight a point about feeling and how void of emotion I personally find Van Gogh’s work ;)
Jul 19th, 2010
Ben Walker
Thanks, Lisa. That’s a really useful insider’s view. My learning process was completely the opposite (learned all the technical skills then looked for something to write about).
Interesting. I can understand exactly where you’re coming from, and I think that’s a very common point of view. But having read books, articles and blog posts about writing (which probably qualifies me as an overthinker ;) the one piece of advice common to all writers is “Rewrite.” I picked up Zinsser’s On Writing Well on the way out of the house as a random example. Here’s what he says:
Of course, Zinsser is an über-technical dude and an extreme example, but I know when I embraced the painful rewrite my lyrics went from crap to quite good.
I’m not expecting to find an answer to all of this but I’m enjoying the exploration, and it’s nice to be challenged on this stuff.
Agreed. I think this is the crux. But when you are trained, it’s possible to create a situation in which you ‘forget’ the technical. You allow yourself to write freely and instinctually without letting the critical part of your brain kick in, knowing that you will come back later with your inner critic and craft something wonderful out of the freeform splurge. That sort of process seems to be the basis of most taught creative methods, and it’s something I use all the time.
So I guess we’re back to square one. Both types do the same thing but in a different order, or on a different conscious level. Apart from the rewrite. Maybe that’s the difference… ;)
[I'll give up on my lame effort to degender my examples. As you rightly pointed out, I accidentally made it worse.]
Jul 20th, 2010
Markus Rill
Hey Ben,
I’ll be referring mostly to the original article, haven’t read the comments in their entirety. Obviously, the right balance of feeling & thinking will make a great song.
In my experience, a song often starts from the gut (an idea, a spark, a feeling – a line or two) and then the thinking, the pondering starts. I often have a lyric line that goes together very well (for me) with a certain melody but I don’t know where it wants to go, where it needs to go. I’ll think about what I got and what’s missing but there’s also an element of trying to feel out where it wants to go. James McMurtry – a songwriter I greatly respect – says that songs have a will of their own and you can’t make them bow to your will. That makes perfect sense to me. Sometimes you come up with a line that you feel so strongly about, you don’t want to change it. That often means I need to work on the other parts to have that line make sense.
Do you as a self-described thinker ever get that feeling? Do you ever trust inspiration and go with the flow? I do that but then I realize I have to build the rest of the song around accordingly.
I often help & analyze other writers’ songs, mostly their lyrics. And, God knows, they use “feeling” as a justification for tons of things that don’t add up or don’t make sense. And often enough they accept it when I point out certain flaws or inconsistencies but refuse to work on them for fear they mess with their “inspiration”.
Generally, I think I’m way more of a feeler when it comes to the music and more of a thinker where the lyric is concerned. I have met great songwriting teachers whose original songs seemed way too contrived for me. So I assume a little bit of gut feeling has never hurt no song.
One more thing: Songwriting is more of a craft than an art form? I beg to differ. There are plenty of confines in short-story writing, poetry writing, prose writing, painting. I’m not with you on that one!
Best, Markus PS: Very engaging blog post!
Jul 20th, 2010
Ben Walker
Markus,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I found your comment very interesting. Your experiences are familiar to me, but I interpret them a bit differently (I’m starting to spot a pattern here…).
I’ve read and heard lots of writers (song- or otherwise) say things like the James McMurtry quote you mentioned:
I get what he’s talking about and I think it’s valuable to hear writers talking in this way. I am often inspired by the way writers see what they do as magical or inevitable.
The trouble is, I don’t believe it. I believe that they believe it, but I think the years of studying musical analysis and techniques of composition have left me with a very critical attitude to any sort of “inspiration” theory. Incidentally, I’m also profoundly atheist and a firm believer in the magic and wonder of science. So I probably shouldn’t even try to be an artist!
That apart, I’m cheering and whooping when you write:
And I agree that crafty songs can be horribly contrived, and that gut feeling is always worth listening to. I just have to resist the temptation to whip out the A3 manuscript pad and perform a Schenkerian analysis on my gut. ;)
Jul 21st, 2010
Markus Rill
Hey Ben,
if you’re critical of “inspiration” in general, how do you start a song? And: don’t you ever stumble upon a guitar lick, don’t you ever come up with a line that seems to come out of the blue? I honestly can’t imagine how to start a song without some kind of spark. I’ve often read that writing is “10 percent inspiration and 90 percent work”. While percentages may differ, I can subscribe to that. But I do wonder what you get if there’s no inspiration at all? I find this very interesting because most people I meet are the opposite (and sometimes accuse me of being too much of a craftsman).
Jul 21st, 2010
Jeff Shattuck
Wow, this is most literate discussion I have seen around this topic EVER. Awesome!
My two cents:
To sum up, songwriting is both art and craft and the best songs start and end with emotion.
But, “best” is an individual and subjective word. For example, I LOVE Iggy Pop’s song I Wanna Be Your Dog and think it’s one of his best, one of the best rock songs ever, really, but many, many others would argue it’s a big noisy shit! And they’d be right, because that’s their point of view and no amount of rational dialog is going to change that.
Two more cents:
jeff http://www.cerebellumblues.com
Jul 21st, 2010
Ben Walker
Markus: I must be more careful with my wording… I start every song with inspiration. I’m not critical of inspiration itself (it’s easily explained and not impossible to replicate), I just don’t have much patience for attributing inspiration to magic, God, muses, nature, spirits, the wind, dreams etc. Thanks for prompting me to clear that up… ;)
Jeff: Thanks for the response. I’m glad you’ve found some viewpoints to agree with among the comments. I’m also impressed by the level of intelligent comment. This was great:
I agree entirely (with your point and your choice of song). “Best” is subjective. And thanks for the links – I’ll check those out! ;)
Jul 21st, 2010
Jupiter
Get a producer to do the thinking, the editing, the cutting, someone you trust but not yourself. The first thing you write is where the magic is, if you think to much and start taking things out of what you write, you will flatten out all the original gut, impulse, spark, passion and originality of the song. Best, in my opinion, not to think. Just let the heart do the writing and the music to flow out. I’m not an atheist or a thinker. Boom. (Sorry for softening the tone of the intellectual debate but I’m not a thinker in any way! ;-).
Jul 21st, 2010