Discussion: Being a better songwriter OR player?

[troyguitar]

You can still have the great player perform great songs (even if they were composed by someone else)

and THAT is why playing is more important unless your goal is to be a pro songwriter and have other people play your stuff for you

If you want to perform and/or record, you should want to be the best player you can be. Why just be "OK"? You might as well hire someone else who is great to play your songs at that point.

 

[Slunk Dragon]

Another songwriter, here. Shredding and good solos have always been incredible, to me. But, I can't help but feel the songs are what pulls you in, sucks you into the band, and makes you blow all your money away.

But still, I have respect for the shredders, they can play licks I can only dream of.

 

[asetic]

Another songwriter, here. Shredding and good solos have always been incredible, to me. But, I can't help but feel the songs are what pulls you in, sucks you into the band, and makes you blow all your money away.

But still, I have respect for the shredders, they can play licks I can only dream of.

Pikes pikes pikes pikes pikes

 

[metalstrike]

Ideally both.

 

[Matyrker]

Weird question.

If you're only a great composer, you won't actually make use of it every day. Writing will take a long time, you won't be productive (qualitatively speaking) and only write a few things you're really proud of, or just waste your best ideas prematurely and regret it all your life. On the other hand, you have the mind of a great composer, which is intellectually beneficial. You'll eventually be frustrated with your musicians, their interpretation and your inability to play what you write, unless you're into electronic music.

If you're only a great virtuoso, you might just grab a guitar when you want and enjoy your skills. However, you'll end up playing other's music, and most probably have a restricted repertoire, being more and more picky about what you play, or just be an improviser, though being a good one implies to be a good composer, so... you might not be really good at it. You'll be frustrated by your lack of imagination unless you have the chance to work with people you admire and reciprocally.

I have actually experienced part 2 of your answer before. Dude could rip, but had problems with what we played as a band.

 

[DudeManBrother]

I know for me; I typically write music in guitar pro. No guitar with me. Just a general idea in my head. Then I use theory to elaborate on that idea, and write three or more new ideas out of the original concept. Then, I'll try to write something very different. Usually with a key change, and do the same thing with that, create multiple expressions of one core concept. The real fun is putting these into song form. I love using the theory part of my brain, figuring out the best way to modulate between keys, and the musical part to finesse the note selections with melody arrangements and cadence. Once I've listened to the song enough times, made any changes after multiple listens etc, I'm finally ready to learn how to play it. Then I enjoy learning whatever techniques required to play my song. The better I become at composition, the better guitar player I seem to become as well.

 

[noise in my mind]

I like what the little taco girl says.

 

[Korbain]

I'm for song writing as main priority.

In saying that, i do experiment with different techniques/styles with each new song i write lol I think that should be a given for anyone though who writes music, improve with each song you do

In the end though, i'd rather spend more time being good at writing music than spending hours learning crazy technical guitar skills. Patience is not my virtue

 

[JohnIce]

and THAT is why playing is more important unless your goal is to be a pro songwriter and have other people play your stuff for you

If you want to perform and/or record, you should want to be the best player you can be. Why just be "OK"? You might as well hire someone else who is great to play your songs at that point.

I enjoy playing my own music You might want to factor in the time it takes to get great (and the hours each week needed to stay great which is often an even bigger problem) compared to how badly you just want to play music. Maybe the urge to play is just more important than making it sound perfect? It definitely is for me. Some people like to just learn what they need and get on with making music. Punk was founded upon that idea.

If hiring someone better to play your songs is something you're willing to do, then you're not that far away from going all the way and editing your records to be locked to the grid and auto tuned to 100% pitch. Session players was the protools of the 70's and 80's, after all. I wouldn't want to make records that way.

 

[Locrain]

Which brings Kurt Cobain to the table.
Good songs aren't necessarily technically complex. A melody, a catchy tune, that works. Mind you, some simple when heard things are hell to play, too.

And, face it, if songs were *really* difficult, you wouldn't have 20 years old guys playing them.

Kurt Cobain is a perfect example of why this is a ridiculous thing to say:

Nobody wrote a good song just by playing chords. All of those timeless "classics" heavily relied on good vocal control and vocal melodies.

Cobain was a hack, but wrote some great songs. For the record, I don't like Nirvana.

Edit: I can't even believe there is even an argument about this. Unbelievable. And on a metal forum, go figure.

 

[asetic]

Edit: I can't even believe there is even an argument about this. Unbelievable. And on a metal forum, go figure.

I know right? We are metal, we dont even count as "reaaaaaaaaaaaal music"

 

[Matyrker]

I know right? We are metal, we dont even count as "reaaaaaaaaaaaal music"

"Devil's music"

 

[Locrain]

I know right? We are metal, we dont even count as "reaaaaaaaaaaaal music"

No, because metal, specifically, has the stereotype of having a pretty high concentration of guys wheedling away in their bedrooms with amazing dexterity and physical skill, and almost perfect technique, while unable to hack together a decent song, or even understand and appreciate what that means. It's not a belief I particularly subscribe to, but I don't think this thread has done a lot to shake the stereotype.

It's really perfectly encapsulated in your belief that you can not be a good songwriter without being a skilled musician. I can't even believe that someone would make that argument, to be honest.

Maybe we have different definitions of "good" as it relates to songwriting, and "skilled" as a musician. Do you consider Kurt Cobain to be a skilled musician? What about Bob Dylan? I do not listen to either of them, as I can empathize with Troy's argument; I do not enjoy listening to music that is not sung well. But to argue that they are not great songwriters would be crazy. It would at least put you so far outside the norm that you should really qualify statements like this:

You need to be a skilled musician to be a good song writer.

Neither Cobain or Dylan are anything skilled musicians in my opinion. I guess you might disagree...? But they do write good songs, as defined by you, here:

...good songs...have the potential to appeal to most people on a professional level.

Would you argue that Cobain and Dylan were "skilled" musicians? Or that they did not write "good" songs? Because it has to be one or the other, otherwise what you're saying is really hard to follow...

 

[asetic]

No, because metal, specifically, has the stereotype of having a pretty high concentration of guys wheedling away in their bedrooms with amazing dexterity and physical skill, and almost perfect technique, while unable to hack together a decent song, or even understand and appreciate what that means. It's not a belief I particularly subscribe to, but I don't think this thread has done a lot to shake the stereotype.

It's really perfectly encapsulated in your belief that you can not be a good songwriter without being a skilled musician. I can't even believe that someone would make that argument, to be honest.

Maybe we have different definitions of "good" as it relates to songwriting, and "skilled" as a musician. Do you consider Kurt Cobain to be a skilled musician? What about Bob Dylan? I do not listen to either of them, as I can empathize with Troy's argument; I do not enjoy listening to music that is not sung well. But to argue that they are not great songwriters would be crazy. It would at least put you so far outside the norm that you should really qualify statements like this:

Neither Cobain or Dylan are anything skilled musicians in my opinion. I guess you might disagree...? But they do write good songs, as defined by you, here:

Would you argue that Cobain and Dylan were "skilled" musicians? Or that they did not write "good" songs? Because it has to be one or the other, otherwise what you're saying is really hard to follow...

Oh boy, okay time to tear this apart then. First of all I want to bring it to everyone's attention that it doesn't matter which side anyone on this thread takes because we are never going to come to a universal conclusion due to differences in musical backgrounds. I'm about to speak some blasphemy here. I think both Kurt Cobain and Dylan are boring writers. Not just because of their poor performance skills but simply because their compositions are dismal. You can throw me all the argumentum ad populum arguments you want, "oh they sold millions of records so your opinion is invalid!". No I don't care about how many records they sold. A good PR team can sell anything. In my and only my personal opinion, I think they are both boring musicians and I could never sit through a full song of theirs. There is currently no difference between Bob Dylan and Taylor Swift (Yes I am aware Max Martin ghost writes a lot of her stuff but for the sake of example gonna use her) in terms of songwriting skill. The abilities to write proficient music, and write music that's intended for mass consumption should not be confused. Proficiently written music as opposed to trendy mass consumption music will ALWAYS, OBJECTIVELY BE SUPERIOR MUSICALLY.

Our music industry works in decade long trends (60's,70's,80's etc...) Whenever a decade passes the majority of what was considered good gets thrown out the window and forgotten. The reason CLASSICAL music is still on the grid is because its harmonically and rhythmically perfect from a TECHNICAL standpoint (i doubt Bach wrote his partitas jamming on a squier starter kit at his local fu**ing guitar centre). However despite all I've said, at the end of the day ALL music is still music. It doesn't matter what style or genre, everyone has their own little niche.
IMO If you want to write great music I think understanding your craft is very critical to creating well written compositions. Sure you can grab your 50 dollar Yamaha acoustic and write a chorus hook in the major scale in under 5 minutes...or you can actually do something to push the art in your OWN way in the direction that YOU want. Not the way the average record label pushes their roster now.


EDIT:

If you are SO bent on writing "good music" then the first question should be what qualifies as "bad music" for you. Then it's simply a matter of doing whatever you can to NOT include any of the elements that "bad music" has.
All in all I know I'm biased because I tend to lean more towards (cringe worthy term incoming) music for musicians so that should be taken into account. In reality the average person is far more interested in hearing cool sounds, rather than "masterful writing" so that should be kept in mind as well.

 

[asetic]

No, because metal, specifically, has the stereotype of having a pretty high concentration of guys wheedling away in their bedrooms with amazing dexterity and physical skill, and almost perfect technique, while unable to hack together a decent song, or even understand and appreciate what that means.

Please DO enlighten me then what is a decent song and how does one understand/appreciate one of those?

 

[JohnIce]

Oh boy, okay time to tear this apart then. First of all I want to bring it to everyone's attention that it doesn't matter which side anyone on this thread takes because we are never going to come to a universal conclusion due to differences in musical backgrounds. I'm about to speak some blasphemy here. I think both Kurt Cobain and Dylan are boring writers. Not just because of their poor performance skills but simply because their compositions are dismal. You can throw me all the argumentum ad populum arguments you want, "oh they sold millions of records so your opinion is invalid!". No I don't care about how many records they sold. A good PR team can sell anything. In my and only my personal opinion, I think they are both boring musicians and I could never sit through a full song of theirs. There is currently no difference between Bob Dylan and Taylor Swift (Yes I am aware Max Martin ghost writes a lot of her stuff but for the sake of example gonna use her) in terms of songwriting skill. The abilities to write proficient music, and write music that's intended for mass consumption should not be confused. Proficiently written music as opposed to trendy mass consumption music will ALWAYS, OBJECTIVELY BE SUPERIOR MUSICALLY.

Our music industry works in decade long trends (60's,70's,80's etc...) Whenever a decade passes the majority of what was considered good gets thrown out the window and forgotten. The reason CLASSICAL music is still on the grid is because its harmonically and rhythmically perfect from a TECHNICAL standpoint (i doubt Bach wrote his partitas jamming on a squier starter kit at his local fu**ing guitar centre). However despite all I've said, at the end of the day ALL music is still music. It doesn't matter what style or genre, everyone has their own little niche.
IMO If you want to write great music I think understanding your craft is very critical to creating well written compositions. Sure you can grab your 50 dollar Yamaha acoustic and write a chorus hook in the major scale in under 5 minutes...or you can actually do something to push the art in your OWN way in the direction that YOU want. Not the way the average record label pushes their roster now.


EDIT:

If you are SO bent on writing "good music" then the first question should be what qualifies as "bad music" for you. Then it's simply a matter of doing whatever you can to NOT include any of the elements that "bad music" has.
All in all I know I'm biased because I tend to lean more towards (cringe worthy term incoming) music for musicians so that should be taken into account. In reality the average person is far more interested in hearing cool sounds, rather than "masterful writing" so that should be kept in mind as well.

Heh wow... 6 years on this forum and I've never seen a post I disagree with on so many arguments at once

Answering it would take all day so I won't. I did like the old faithful "people who like different music than me are tricked by PR people" argument though, always a nice touch

 

[asetic]

"people who like different music than me are tricked by PR people" argument though, always a nice touch

Never said that so be careful in what you take away. It is also very naive to believe that "in your face" marketing strategies don't play a role in gauging how "good" a song is. I respect your opinion, but in this day and age thinking that simply writing a "good song" means success, and no mainstream success means a song is "bad", is extremely flawed logic.
Good song does not equal commercial success, and the inverse as well.

 

[asetic]

Seems to me like you're grasping at straws. The only argument you've had so far to backup your claim is that there was about a 0.0001% number of musicians out of millions who made a career writing in their garage off raw talent. Regrettably I'm not one of those people. And you're not one of those people. There are 3 modern approaches to writing music that exist right now:

1. Improv until you make it
2. Sit down with a pen and paper and write from theoretical knowledge.
3. Come up with melodies inside your head and play them through your instrument.

Two of those methods require you to be a proficient player in order to effectively transcribe the melodies going on in your head onto the neck in an accurate and time efficient way. Jimi Hendrix didn't shred but he spent tens of thousands of hours sitting around playing scales and working on his technique and feel. I could name a thousand more guitarists who did the same. MY method is guaranteed to work. YOUR method will MAYBE work if you're lucky. That's all there is to it. Now before you put words in my mouth again, NO I am not saying only practice technique and stop writing. But completely abandoning the pursuit of pushing your personal limits as a musician, and focusing purely on "writing" will get you nowhere in the end. Except maybe a score composer gig if you're into that.

 

[Humidfume]

I think they go hand in hand until a point, then they separate for a while and then they connect again etc...

I've found that at first I wanted to be technically proficient, so I aimed at that, then I was lacking soul, feel and songwriting so I fixated on that, then I wasn't good enough to play what I wanted so I aimed at gettin gbetter, which gave me more tools to write with so then I wrote a lot of music and my lead skill fell while my other skills for rhythm climbed etc.

I think it's an eb and flow they both need each other and there's just no choice that regardless of how loosely i believe they are still connected.

It's just a case of how good is good enough for you. Once you're happy with your performance skills you'll naturally stop working on that and carry on writing music. Though it still depends, do you play to create or play to copy? Each path leads to a different goal with common ties.

 

[Rev2010]

Oh boy, okay time to tear this apart then.

Wow, just wow. Would've been more interesting if you did actually make an effort to "tear" the arguments apart but you failed abysmally. First, you refuse to consider the success of so many musical artists that aren't great players, regardless how many millions they've sold. You chalk it up to PR campaigns but that is ridiculous, if the music still didn't touch or identify with so many people it wouldn't have sold. It might not connect with you or be up to your standards but it was for millions. Then you try to use classical like Bach. The reason they are still be listened to today is greatly in part to being the origin of *written* music. Do you think all music prior to notation sucked and that's what it's not around? No, it's because these artists, for one, played for royalty! They played IN PERSON for Kings and Queens as a form of entertainment and made lasting names for themselves. But they wrote their music down and it survived, in part due to their notoriety. If their notation hadn't survived chances are we wouldn't know many of them today.

Look, it's clear you believe that being a virtuoso is the only key to being a great and remembered songwriter, but you're just wrong and the evidence is so against you. Proverbially - you can say we never went to the moon all you want, fact is we did go to the moon. Because you're goal is to be the best player you can be doesn't change the fact that in the music world the *listeners* prefer good songs to great playing. It's the reason why Steve Vai or Yngwie can never sell as many albums as Nirvana, or Korn, or Metallica.


Rev.