Who is out there?
James
slowed down considerably. "is there anybody out there?"
james
JT
"James" <worthl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181747480....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> The activity on this group used to be very active. Seems like it has
> slowed down considerably. "is there anybody out there?"
>
> james
>
>
Is there anyone at home?"
JT
Julien BH
> "James" <worthlamb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Relax, relax, relax...
I need some information first.
James Lambert
Can you show me where it hurts"
--
James Worth Lambert and the Lying Dogs
http://www.whatthehey.com
"Julien BH" <juli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181758752....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Simon
Rick Paul
news:1181747480....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> The activity on this group used to be very active. Seems like it has
> slowed down considerably. "is there anybody out there?"
Yeah, it's definitely a slim shadow of what RMMS was like back around 1996
or so -- I think that's about when I first found it. I'm still around, but
mostly only lurking, unless a post catches my interest and I have time to
respond.
Rick
--
=======================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: www.RickPaul.info
MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
=======================================
Julien BH
> "James" <worthlamb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
WOW 6 posts here in 2 days, that pretty much clears the question. This
groups is dead...
aluode
I probably killed the group.. Anything I touch..
..I think a lot of people went to other groups..
There are a lot of big music / dj forums out there like dogs on acid,
kvr and forums
on the big music hosting sites.. I imagine that is where a lot of rmms
people have
dissapeared.
Antti
Rick Paul
news:1181884662.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I probably killed the group.. Anything I touch..
Ah, so you're the guy! ;-)
> ..I think a lot of people went to other groups..
I think that is certainly part of it. At one point, RMMS was *the* main
songwriting forum on the net. But that was before the Internet started to
explode in terms of the number of people with access. Prior to that point,
most people who were on the net had at least a basic degree of competence
with tools like SMTP- and POP-based e-mail programs, NNTP-based newsreaders,
FTP programs, IRC chat programs, and so on. That was more or less mandatory
to be on the net at that point, because the web was pretty limited at the
time -- it could display text and pictures, but that was about it. There
weren't web browser-based forums and the like. The equivalent of those
existed in the AOL world and other similar commercial on-line services. But
people who were on the "raw" net had to use an assortment of tools,
depending on what they wanted to do.
As the capabilities available from within a web browser became more
powerful, suddenly you could use one catchall program to do most everything,
and there wasn't any learning curve to, for example, interact with other
people in a web forum. No news servers to have to configure in an NNTP
newsreader, new interface to learn, etc. At that point, pretty much anyone
newly coming into the scene would be more likely to go to the web forum side
of things since they might not even know of the existence of newsgroups, no
less how to deal with a newsreader. Of course, now facilities like Google
Groups provide a web-based interface, but that's a somewhat newer
development, and lots of web forums have developed in the meantime.
I suppose others who were already here also might have moved over to web
forums in the same way people patronizing a bar might go elsewhere if they
find the new happening place is somewhere else, and their friends are
starting to go over there. Of course, then there are some of us diehards
who don't like the environment of the new place, and would rather hang
around in the less crowded, but comfortable, bar than the new blaring disco.
;-)
Personally, I've tried web forums a number of times, hoping to be able to
stick with some of the interesting ones. However, I have always found the
interfaces to be painfully slow to navigate, especially if your MO is to
skim a very large amount of material, browse a lesser amount, and thoroughly
read an even smaller subset, some of which you might reply to. It just
takes too long to get in and out of articles then get back to the index with
web forums. Even the best web forum interfaces are still painfully slow
compared to a newsreader that can download all the new headers in one shot,
then get any individual articles almost instantly if you choose to browse
those, and not have to reload the index each time you're done reading an
article. Even those that keep an index visible still seem to take forever
to load the individual articles compared to a newsreader. Bottom line is I
don't have enough time to waste on wrestling with non-optimal interfaces, so
I stick to a few newsgroups, and a few mailing lists, and then visit the web
forums only when I'm looking for something specific in one of those.
> There are a lot of big music / dj forums out there like dogs on acid,
> kvr and forums
> on the big music hosting sites.. I imagine that is where a lot of rmms
> people have
> dissapeared.
I'm not so sure, at least in terms of the "old RMMS" that I remember. Not
many from that crowd were into loops, softsynths, etc. The bulk seemed to
be either traditional songwriters, who might, for example, write songs for
other artists to do in genres like country and pop, or folkie-style
singer-songwriters, and probably a bit of rock thrown in here and there, as
well as the odd other genre or two. There were also some publishers. I
originally met several of my songwriting collaborators here, but that was
back in the mid-to-late 90's, especially 1996-1998. After that, it was
increasingly through mailing lists, especially the old Orbison list, which
has since more or less split into Talk2Songwriters and SongSource, and
perhaps also AdvancedLyricWriters -- all now at Yahoogroups. (Of course,
some also just approached me through my web site, but I'm talking about the
songwriter hangout-type places.)
I think a more likely "disappearance destination" for the types I'm
remembering is likely to have been either Yahoogroups mailing lists (which
also have web interfaces), some of the more popular songwriting web forums
(TuneSmith and Just Plain Folks come to mind), and just "general
disappearance" due to getting more active in some other area of their lives,
be it day job oriented or even just getting more active in their
songwriting, or other music-related, careers. Sometimes a bit of all of the
above, I suppose.
That said, though, the numbers you posted in another thread were quite
interesting, and fairly different from my initial gut instincts. In
particular, in terms of pure volume, RMMS seems to have gone through massive
expansion, even past the heydey I'd been thinking of. I suspect my lack of
recollection of that may have had something to do with the changing nature
of the posts during that period, where it got to be a lot less about actual
songwriting-oriented, and songwriting business-oriented, discussions, and
more on a combination of people posting songs they were just hoping others
would listen to, perhaps also an influx of critique requests that weren't so
much about wanting real input but more about getting people to listen to
their songs, and other music-, but not songwriting-, oriented discussions
that might not have been of as much interest to the more traditional
songwriters, especially the ones who were fairly serious about pursuing
careers in that field. Call it the "influx of the amateurs", if you like.
;-)
I know that probably sounds a bit snobbish, but I do have the sense that,
prior to the big explosion, a fair share of the participants in this group
were either already professionals or were seriously pursuing songwriting, or
something related to it, as a profession. When that is the case, you tend
to get a good share of on-topic discussions, sharing of tips, asking of
relevant questions that cause people to think about something that interests
them as well, etc. Of course, no one can keep up with everything, but that
keeps the signal-to-noise ratio fairly high, so you know the time you devote
is likely to be worthwhile more often than not. But when the volume
explodes, and the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher, it starts taking a lot
more time and effort to separate the stuff of interest from the background
noise, and someone who is getting busier may just not have the time or
patience to devote the effort. I know, personally, that, over time, there
was less and less I considered of interest here, but the newsgroup interface
is such that I also find it very quick to scan, and there have never been so
many posts here that it got beyond what I could handle skimming, so it was
no big deal to just keep it among my groups and keep my eyes out for
anything of interest.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>"James" <worthl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1181747480....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> The activity on this group used to be very active. Seems like it has
>> slowed down considerably. "is there anybody out there?"
>
>Yeah, it's definitely a slim shadow of what RMMS was like back around 1996
>or so -- I think that's about when I first found it. I'm still around, but
>mostly only lurking, unless a post catches my interest and I have time to
>respond.
>
>Rick
Same here.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
James
difficult software (pro tools) and hardware (Mbox), I later found my
computer equipment was lacking. I have since purchased an IMAC with
a presonus Firepod and I am using the Cubase LE that came with the
firepod. This is an incredible difference. It is easy to learn,
with virtually unlimited tracks, I can leave all of my equipment set
up and when I am in the mood I can turn everything on and work for 45
minutes or an hour where before I had to drag out my analog and
headphones and I would only record when I had a full afternoon. I
was blaming pro tools for my headache of trying to learn computer
recording and it really was my equipment. I plugged in my IMAC and
the firepod, Mac all ready had the drivers, I went to Garageband and
changed the inputs and boom, everything worked. I about feel out of
my chair.
So now I am trying to get back in the discipline of songwriting so
I have something to record. And this group has been a good muse.
Hopefully we can get generate more interest.
On Jun 15, 4:34 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:18:34 GMT, "Rick Paul" <rickp...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"James" <worthlamb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1181747480....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >> The activity on this group used to be very active. Seems like it has
> >> slowed down considerably. "is there anybody out there?"
>
> >Yeah, it's definitely a slim shadow of what RMMS was like back around 1996
> >or so -- I think that's about when I first found it. I'm still around, but
> >mostly only lurking, unless a post catches my interest and I have time to
> >respond.
>
> >Rick
>
> Same here.
> --
>
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Julien BH
I would have though that with the new arrival of groups.google they
would have been lots more people, but all I see it lots more SPAM :(
Says a google user...
Irene Jackson
read, because there just isn't as much activity anymore and frankly, I
haven't been writing as much!
There was another post about making rules as to how many songs you had to
critique before you could post one in here (like Garageband), but that won't
happen. You will always have more people wanting feedback for their own
songs than there are those wanting to give it.
It could be that Usenet just doesn't draw people the way it used to because
of so many other messageboards and blogs and such out there. I think that
might be part of it.
RMMS was a great group in its heyday. Not sure if it's possible to create
that again. But there will always be songwriters looking to exchange ideas,
information and critiques...that'll never die :-)
IJ
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
"James" <worthl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181747480....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
SimonR
I don't know about you but I find it difficult to find time to listen
to all the great stuff that happens here. And often when I do, I find
that what I wanted to say has already been said and it's never cool
getting on the "I was just about to say that" wagon!
However, for me as a non-professional I also sometime feel as if I am
overstepping my experience when attempting to review stuff. Does anyone
else have the same feeling ?
I don't like the idea of imposing a quota, it makes it feel like one of
those ftp download sites. But I do think it's encumbent on anyone
wanting reviews to at least try to listen to a few others and make at
least one constructive point be it good or bad. It should just be a
voluntary code so to speak. One unwritten. The RMMS Voluntary Code?
In another thread David Cox is saying he is working on an application
that will perhaps save some time and energy whilst reviewing songs. I
think it sounds like a good idea. But I wonder if it could ever be put
into practice. There are just so many different viable responses that I
have a feeling that as soon as you get more than say 15 responses. they
become difficult to find and typing becomes quicker and easier. I think
it's a good idea fundamentally though.
This newsgroup has taught me many things. I sincerely hope that the
stalwarts do not forsake us.
Best wishes and the best of luck to all.
Simon R
Pepe Papon
>Hi Irene and y'all, (token American greeting for all of you in my new homeland)
>
>I don't know about you but I find it difficult to find time to listen
>to all the great stuff that happens here. And often when I do, I find
>that what I wanted to say has already been said and it's never cool
>getting on the "I was just about to say that" wagon!
But the, "I agree with <so and so>" comments are helpful. It helps
the writer know that the particular opinion is shared by more than one
person.
>However, for me as a non-professional I also sometime feel as if I am
>overstepping my experience when attempting to review stuff. Does anyone
>else have the same feeling ?
Don't let that hold you back. Giving feedback on songs teaches us as
much, or maybe even more, than receiving it. By learning to critique
other writer's songs, you learn to critique your own.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
David Cox
<SimonR> wrote in message news:2007061921...@news.giganews.com...
> Hi Irene and y'all, (token American greeting for all of you in my new
> homeland)
>
> However, for me as a non-professional I also sometime feel as if I am
> overstepping my experience when attempting to review stuff. Does anyone
> else have the same feeling ?
Yup. But there are zillions of people with the same level of experience that
buy, or not, the songs. I just give my minute part of their reaction.
....
> In another thread David Cox is saying he is working on an application that
> will perhaps save some time and energy whilst reviewing songs. I think it
> sounds like a good idea. But I wonder if it could ever be put into
> practice. There are just so many different viable responses that I have a
> feeling that as soon as you get more than say 15 responses. they become
> difficult to find and typing becomes quicker and easier. I think it's a
> good idea fundamentally though.
Testing will tell how many different reactions are possible in one run. My
idea was that it would be possible to do multiple passes if necessary. One
may be focussing on the vocalist, the next on the lead guitar, the third on
the drums. It could display a psuedo mixer panel..
I could be smart-mouthed and point out that a keyboard player easily manages
over a 100 different responses to what is going on.
Sean
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:26:06 -0400, SimonR wrote:
>
>> Hi Irene and y'all, (token American greeting for all of you in my new homeland)
>>
>> I don't know about you but I find it difficult to find time to listen
>> to all the great stuff that happens here. And often when I do, I find
>> that what I wanted to say has already been said and it's never cool
>> getting on the "I was just about to say that" wagon!
>
> But the, "I agree with <so and so>" comments are helpful. It helps
> the writer know that the particular opinion is shared by more than one
> person.
>
>> However, for me as a non-professional I also sometime feel as if I am
>> overstepping my experience when attempting to review stuff. Does anyone
>> else have the same feeling ?
>
> Don't let that hold you back. Giving feedback on songs teaches us as
> much, or maybe even more, than receiving it. By learning to critique
> other writer's songs, you learn to critique your own.
Exactly. You develop critical listening skills. EVERYONE is qualified to
say "I like that song" or "I don't like that song." The trick is to be
able to answer the question "Why?" When one can sensibly answer the
question "Why do you like that song?", one can apply parts of the answer
to one's own songwriting. And, of course, when one can sensibly answer
the question "Why don't you like that song?", one can avoid doing the
same thing in one's own songwriting.
Rick Paul
news:ijah73lu6otf5dli8...@4ax.com...
>>However, for me as a non-professional I also sometime feel as if I am
>>overstepping my experience when attempting to review stuff. Does anyone
>>else have the same feeling ?
>
> Don't let that hold you back. Giving feedback on songs teaches us as
> much, or maybe even more, than receiving it. By learning to critique
> other writer's songs, you learn to critique your own.
Just to add to what Seth has said, for someone looking for critiques,
especially a more experienced writer who has a reasonable command of
songwriting craft, often the thing being sought isn't so much songwriting
tips as it is how someone else interpreted his/her song. It's easy to get a
bit too close to a song when you're writing it, and just start assuming some
of the background information that has been part of the development of that
song, but which may or may not be exposed in the lyric. A collaborative
song has a natural level of feedback built into it due to the collaborative
process, but a solo written song doesn't get that same level of feedback, so
you never really know how someone else will react to it until you try it out
on someone else, be it via critiques, live performance, or whatever. And
most forms of trying it out don't get you any explanation of why someone did
or didn't like it, or interpreted it far differently from what you'd
intended.
That said, I rarely give critiques in this forum, and I don't think I've
asked for one here in many years. Partly that is that I just don't have
time for all that many critiques, so I've limited my critiquing to a very
small number of relatively low volume lists on Yahoogroups, and I also get
any needed critiques there. And it is also partly that most of what I have
seen on here when I have time to check things out seems to be the sort of
personal stuff that could only work for an artist (i.e. it would be unlikely
to be covered by another singer or band). In that context, there isn't
really anything that is off limits, because the song is going to get
recorded if you write it and decide to record it. It's not competing with a
zillion other songs and market pressures as it would be in a genre like
commercial country or pop. (And, if you happen to write in such genres
without being the artist yourself, it's going to be more of a business
consideration of hooking up with a band or artist who is looking to co-write
with you than a song viability consideration anyway, since the likelihood of
having a true outside song used, no matter how good it is, isn't great.)
snabbu
Cheers
Gary
"James" <worthl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181747480....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
aluode
> I am not here realy I just popped in
>
> Cheers
>
> Gary
Good to see you not being here Gary.
:D
Antti
aluode
> I know that probably sounds a bit snobbish, but I do have the sense that,
> prior to the big explosion, a fair share of the participants in this group
> were either already professionals or were seriously pursuing songwriting, or
> something related to it, as a profession. When that is the case, you tend
How about this analogy; the chatter of teachers crossfading into
chatter of students?
> to get a good share of on-topic discussions, sharing of tips, asking of
> relevant questions that cause people to think about something that interests
> them as well, etc. Of course, no one can keep up with everything, but that
> keeps the signal-to-noise ratio fairly high, so you know the time you devote
> is likely to be worthwhile more often than not. But when the volume
> explodes, and the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher, it starts taking a lot
> more time and effort to separate the stuff of interest from the background
> noise, and someone who is getting busier may just not have the time or
> patience to devote the effort. I know, personally, that, over time, there
> was less and less I considered of interest here, but the newsgroup interface
The teachers left and only us students remained, repeating our
mistakes..
> is such that I also find it very quick to scan, and there have never been so
> many posts here that it got beyond what I could handle skimming, so it was
> no big deal to just keep it among my groups and keep my eyes out for
> anything of interest.
>
> Rick
I think the only way rmms could be revived is if some real world
music
teachers would join the group and give some brutally honest critique
on
our stuff. But then again, why would any well paid teacher do that
for
free?
Antti
snabbu
While I'm not here I thought I'd just do a quick work up
of something I've been working on.
How's your writing going anything happening?
Cheers
Gary
"aluode" <anttino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183246251.7...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
snabbu
> I think the only way rmms could be revived is if some real world
> music
> teachers would join the group and give some brutally honest critique
> on
> our stuff. But then again, why would any well paid teacher do that
> for
> free?
>
> Antti
I used to worry about being brutally honest.
You know some people don't want to hear that they just want to hear nice
song or whatever.
Which if you've spent some conciderable time writing and recording it is
fair enough. It's a bit disapointing when someone tells you the truth and
it's not what you expected. It's a lot of work doing a critique.
Cheers
Gary
Rick Paul
AdvancedLyricWriters e-mail lists on Yahoogroups. I try not to be brutal,
but I do try to be completely honest, which may well be called brutally
honest. ;-) What I mean, though, is I call it like I see it -- and keep in
mind, there is nothing saying I'm correct since music is pretty
subjective -- but try to do so in a helpful way.
For example, saying something stinks isn't helpful, even if it may be true.
(And, of course, stinkiness can be subjective.) Similarly, just saying
something didn't work for me, while slightly less brutal, isn't very
helpful. (Neither, for that matter, is simply saying, "I loved it," in some
cases, especially if there are a lot of conflicting opinions.) On the other
hand, saying something like, "I couldn't follow the story, and am confused
by who is doing what to whom," (with specifics from the song filled in), or,
"such and such a word felt like a road bump," (then giving any reasons that
may have contributed it, whether related to singability considerations,
character consistency issues, syllable emphasis issues, or whatever) would
be more helpful. As would saying, "I really liked this because I could
identify with the emotion of this character in this situation," or, "I like
the way this takes this situation from a new perspective."
But critiques are indeed a lot of work. First you have to go through the
lyric to get your subjective reaction to it, because we do experience songs
subjectively. Then you have to look at your subjective reaction, and figure
out why it did or didn't work, or partially did and partially didn't. Then
you have to find a way to express that.
One of my key criteria for whether I'll critique a song (i.e. in a public or
semi-public forum) is whether I think I have anything useful to offer. For
example, I might not critique songs in genres where I really don't feel
comfortable, because what works in that genre might not work for me, and,
for example, critiquing a speed metal song by country or pop song criteria
would be pretty pointless. Similarly, I rarely critique "artist songs"
(i.e. the types of songs that aren't likely to be cut by someone else, only
the songwriter himself/herself), because it is first and foremost an
artistic statement, and the only one who really has to identify with it is
the artist. Of course, whether the public can may then be a big question
mark, and, if I were producing such an artist, I might well get involved in
trying to give inputs on the songwriting front, but it's mainly the artist's
integrity that is on the line there. I also look at whether I think the
writer is likely to benefit from the critique. Sometimes you just see a
pattern where someone asks for critiques, but you can tell from their
argumentative responses to those critiques that they were really just
fishing for compliments. What's the point of critiquing stuff like that?
Or you critique multiple songs over time for a writer, but the writer keeps
making the same mistakes you've mentioned in most every critique. You start
feeling like you're beating your head against the wall, so why bother?
Of course, then there is purely the time factor, and that there is no
compensation to offset that. That particular notion tends to lead me to
doing critiques in a few targeted forums, where the balance of quantity,
quality, willingness to learn, etc. match with what I can, and am willing
to, offer. I have done a few "for pay" critiques, but, even there, I tend
to have similar criteria for the ones I do for free, because pretty much no
one would be willing to pay an unknown songwriter enough to make it worth
the actual rate I might charge if I were to just quote them hourly rates.
;-) Also, sometimes it just isn't worth the person's money, because they
need to go down another route first, before wasting their money on
critiques. For example, going through a songwriting course (my favorite
self-study one on the lyrical front is Sheila Davis' "Successful Lyric
Writing"), or learning to speak English. :-) Actually, I'm not totally
kidding on that last one. I've been approached a number of times by
non-native English speaking lyricists who are writing English lyrics, where
the language barrier is extremely clear from the lyrics. It's very hard to
be helpful in that kind of scenario, because each line has the potential to
be awkward simply because the writer isn't comfortable with the language, no
less creating art in that language. Then again, I've seen similar issues
with some people who do speak English, or at least some form of it, as their
native language. :-)
Rick
--
=======================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: www.RickPaul.info
MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
=======================================
"snabbu" <sna...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:46873142$0$19339$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
snabbu
I agree with most of this, one thing the " artist song " issue.
I feel that song writing is communication, so even artist songs still have
to conform to some rules of communication.
Otherwise they are pointless other than the writer to sing to himself. So
if the words don't make a lot of sense they still have to sound right for
example.
My decision to critique or not is based on if I think there is something
there, if there isn't there is no point. And quite often there isn't.
It is quite often a thing with a critique that it can really improve a song
as there is this forest and trees thing. You don't see something and
someone points it out and you go "of course and give yourself a whack in the
head"
I remember doing a song challenge here and I had done the song as an AB
structure and one of the verses had a slightly different form as the the
seeming repetition etc. Paul Carne sugested I write another melody for it,
modify to taste and use it as a bridge
which lifted the song 100 percent. So it's a well worthwhile thing to do.
However some critiques are just plain wrong in my opinion so it must be
confusing if you don't have the knowledge to know what is a good idea or
not. In the same song another respected critiquer wanted me to change the
structure as the bridge is in the wrong place ie it is not bookended by
choruses but goes straight on from a verse. I know this is what it says in
all the conventional wisdom but in this case it was right for dramatic
effect. So a lot of people read something and just blindly apply it because
Sheila or Pat said so in their books.
You are right in this thing of repetative mistakes getting up your nose. I
think in that case there is no intention on the part of the writer to
improve it's just a look at me thing.
I also agree it's alot of work.
Cheers
Gary
"Rick Paul" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GvVhi.2942$tj6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
aluode
> Hi Antti
> While I'm not here I thought I'd just do a quick work up
> of something I've been working on.
> How's your writing going anything happening?
>
> Cheers
>
> Gary
Hi Gary.. I am in Georgia with a laptop that has some old projects,
plus I have made
a handful of songs.. The songs I have on the site right now.. I kind
of like them, but
they are lacking the abba hooks and I do not look like Björn even
though I am growing
my hair long again. :D
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=678627
Antti
aluode
> "aluode" <anttinorthw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I think brutal honesty is good as long as it is not a attack on the
person.
When it comes to truth, I think we can all see the truth on our
streaming
statistics. Mine usually fall down to zero pretty soon after the song
is out.
Meanwhile the best people of this group have their songs on country
top 100 lists...
Maybe there should be rec.music.makers.songwriting.amateurs and
rec.music.makers.songwriting.pro out of which the latter one would
be moderated (but then again who would like to moderate such a
group)..
I do not do critique too much these days because I feel that I do not
really have much to say. Most of you guys know more than I do.
Antti
Rick Paul
> I feel that song writing is communication, so even artist songs still have
> to conform to some rules of communication.
I agree with that, as well. However, the communication can be a lot more
oblique in that case, so the rules of communication may be different. For
example, try reading some of Kurt Cobain's lyrics, and you'll note they are
not generally the sort of thing that (sober) person can make literal sense
of in a listen or three. Yet they somehow spoke to millions of people. How
do you critique something like that? "This could be more conversational."?
:-)
> My decision to critique or not is based on if I think there is something
> there, if there isn't there is no point. And quite often there isn't.
Of course, that in and of itself is subjective. Then, too, there may be
times when I don't think there is much of anything there in the lyric
itself, but there is some potential in some aspect of it, if it were taken
in another direction. And that might be worth mentioning.
> However some critiques are just plain wrong in my opinion so it must be
> confusing if you don't have the knowledge to know what is a good idea or
> not. In the same song another respected critiquer wanted me to change the
> structure as the bridge is in the wrong place ie it is not bookended by
> choruses but goes straight on from a verse. I know this is what it says
> in all the conventional wisdom but in this case it was right for dramatic
> effect. So a lot of people read something and just blindly apply it
> because Sheila or Pat said so in their books.
That is true enough, but, by the same token, all of this is subjective. If
we were to all set out writing the same song, we might all write it very
differently. Even if we were all given the same lyric to rewrite, we might
all end up with something very different. There isn't necessarily any right
and wrong in this, just individual preferences.
Sometimes a comment of the sort you may not be based on "rules", but on a
critiquer's reading of what you are saying and what he/she feels may be more
effective. You may have your reasons for doing things the way you did them,
but it may not be working for that critiquer. Does that mean it is wrong?
Or right? Not really. But it may be the difference between whether your
song appeals to people whose tastes are similar to that critiquer's tastes.
Ultimately, though, it is your song, and you get to decide how it comes out,
and, indirectly, who it appeals to and who it doesn't.
To put it another way, I often look at critiques as a form of test marketing
a song. Each critiquer is representative of some demographic.
Unfortunately, we often don't know what that demographic is, but their
reaction can give us some sense of how people with similar backgrounds may
react to the song. Then we have to decide if that reaction is what we are
going for, and if the people who may have that reaction are an audience that
is important to us.
Just to use an extreme example, say you write a praise and worship song for
Evangelical services, then post it here for critique. I don't know the
composition of htis group, but I'd guess there are plenty of people on this
group that aren't in your target demographic for that type of song, and some
of those won't relate to what does and doesn't work in that kind of setting.
For example, some might complain that repeating the same line four times in
a row weakens the song, which it would (at least in most cases) if it were a
song destined to be in the country market. But in praise and worship music
a lot of repetition is often necessary to allow the congregation to learn
the song quickly. (One reason I tend to not be a big fan of much of the
praise and worship music I've heard, even some of the more successful ones.)
Is the critique wrong in this case? Not really. In the general songwriting
sense, it is a valid critique. But that isn't taking into account where you
are targeting your song. Essentially, the critiquer, and others who might
not relate to a song based on the repetition, aren't in your demographic, so
their reactions aren't likely to be worrying in this case.
snabbu
"aluode" <anttino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > I think brutal
> person.
>
> When it comes to truth, I think we can all see the truth on our
> streaming
> statistics. Mine usually fall down to zero pretty soon after the song
> is out.
>
> Meanwhile the best people of this group have their songs on country
> top 100 lists...
>
> Maybe there should be rec.music.makers.songwriting.amateurs and
> rec.music.makers.songwriting.pro out of which the latter one would
> be moderated (but then again who would like to moderate such a
> group)..
>
> I do not do critique too much these days because I feel that I do not
> really have much to say. Most of you guys know more than I do.
>
> Antti
Because you can sit here and get all fired up by an idea or a concept which
you think is cool
then you play it to someone who thinks it's drivel. This reality check
prevents you from expending useless energy on dud projects.
Which is a good thing.
Cheers
Gary
snabbu
Hi Rick
In regard to Kurt Cobain's Lyrics
I think that the lyrics don't matter that much sense wise for the most part
it's the sound of the thing. The only thing he does do
is has an attitude statement as a hook. Example "here we are now entertain
us"
In fact far too much emphasis is placed on lyrics in critiques. (pop song
genre) Lyrics are secondary to melodic hooks and tension and release in the
harmony. The groove. It is only after these elements have interested the
listener that the lyrics come into play underpinning the song. "How do you
in a row" :-)
Actually I have to admit I never understood what all the fuss was about with
Nirvana I just didn't get it. Old age I guess.
Praise songs are interesting in that it is such a cringe worthy genre, I
mean looking at Darlene's stuff from up the road here, who I think you get
there more than we do here. She has a format and she does it very well. I
can listen to her do her thing a couple of times a year without wanting to
hide under the seat in embarrassment for her. This is not the case with the
majority of praise.
I have a thing about sheep and shepherds in praise songs. So if you can
write one that's a sheep free zone already I'm a fan.
There aught to be a rule about banning the word "grace" from praise songs as
well. Repetition is not a sin. You need to look at the technique required
for the lyric to do the job in it's genre. In praise it must be easily
learned stick to one concept and hammer it, and it needs to be anthemic as
you say. It interests me to write in hard genres, which I consider to be
country I mean you need to be hackneyed and fresh in the same breath so that
is really hard. I think praise is a step up from there to write a decent
one of those that you wouldn't have to put a false name on would be really
difficult. I have seen one I think on this news group in eight years. So I
would say that people here critiquing a praise song should be able to
intellectually put themselves in a space so they can analyse what the
lyric's function is and comment accordingly even if it isn't their thing.
It's no different than critiquing a dance song where the lyric has a totally
different function again.
I think people get hung up on repetition I mean this chorus works well for
me for example.
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love
Love is all you need
I guess that is a no no some other guru wrote in a how to write songs book.
Cheers
Gary
Michael J. Anthony
sna...@optushome.com.au says...
> I have a thing about sheep and shepherds in praise songs. So if you can
> write one that's a sheep free zone already I'm a fan.
LOL!
> In praise it must be easily learned stick to one concept
> and hammer it, and it needs to be anthemic as you say.
It's interesting that some love songs double as "worship" songs. They
come from the same emotional space. Not necessarily anthemic. Intimate
works.
--
Michael J. Anthony
Duckmares are coming
www.michaeljanthony.com
David Cox
>
> Hi Rick
...snip
> Well I know what Messer's coin and Cox would say " Kurt too many hello's
> 12 in a row" :-)
ahem, it is I that wrote:-
My name, my name, my name, my name
my name, my name, my name, my name
my name, my name, my name, my name
my name is only fame
and I live, I live, I live, I live
I live, I live, I only live
I live, I live, I only live
I live in the floodlights flame
.....
Simon
I have to say I agree to a large extent. I think modern pop and rock
music is not necessarily about the lyrics. That's not to say lyrics
always mean nothing. But I think the sound of the music with the
"sound" of the lyrics is very important. They have to gel.
Remember the story to Sussudio by Phil Collins. He used the word to fit
in whilst trying to find a melody . It stuck. Now we all think it's a
girls name. OK, so it's not that modern anymore. OK. I'm old. Time is
passing quicker.
I personally listen to music and find that the majority of the time it
is more important to my music 'taste buds' that the song makes me feel
a certain way. Hence my terrible memory for lyrics I guess.
Having said that. The lyrics for a praise song are probably more
important than I like to think. After all isn't the message the
important thing in that instance? However, not being of the persuasion
of particularly believing in a supreme being and nor do I believe
everything I read in books, I'd find it hard to critique a song of
praise based on the lyrics.
Oh, I'm rambling. Nurse!... Nurse!
SimonR
And just because that person thinks it's drivel, doesn't mean it IS.
Music is so subjective
Antti, lets not try to push the pros away to another group ! I
personally learn a lot here.
As for 'brutal' honesty, I think there's ways and means. Only honesty
is required. Leave the brutal crap for the likes of Simon Cowell. (My
lookalike) (apparently)
And Antti, as someone told me recently on this group, don't let lack of
experience stop you critiquing. Your opinion counts as much as anyone
elses in this subjective world. And it hones your abilities to
critiquie your own music.
How's Atlanta treating you ? You ready to go home yet ?
Rick Paul
> I have to say I agree to a large extent. I think modern pop and rock music
> is not necessarily about the lyrics. That's not to say lyrics always mean
> nothing. But I think the sound of the music with the "sound" of the lyrics
> is very important. They have to gel.
This is really a response to multiple posts (from Gary, Simon, and Michael),
but the above snip is probably the main context about which I'm replying.
I would tend to agree that the music is initially more important than the
lyrics, in terms of luring us into a song. The sound of the lyrics, and the
words the lyrics say, have to avoid jarring us out of the mood, but the
meaning isn't hugely important on the front end, in most cases, because we
can't understand them that quickly anyway -- there is just too much
information to process in one or two listens. Country music may be one key
exception here, though, even there, the music likely carries a greater share
of the load on the first few listens.
That said, though, I think that the difference between a song that has the
potential to go on to be a classic and one that seems like it has most of
the same stuff going for it, but doesn't quite have that special something,
can come down to the lyrics. In the classic definition of a classic song,
we would be talking about songs that get recorded and performed many times
over by many different artists -- e.g. "Over the Rainbow", "Yesterday",
"Summertime", etc. That typically means many different artists relating to
the lyrics of the song, to be able to feel like the song is something they
would say. It also tends to mean the song's having enough lyrical depth to
survive multiple interpretations, though I would add that what I'm talking
about here doesn't necessarily involve lyrics with depth in all cases.
For example, I'd classify "Louie, Louie" as a classic song. It's certainly
a classic party song that gets played over and over by different cover
bands. There's not a whole lot of depth there. ;-) In fact, it may seem to
sound a bit like a nonsense lyric (I won't necessarily argue that it isn't)
in parts. But, IMHO, it is still a masterful lyric. Consider the chorus,
which is really the only part we tend to remember:
Louie Louie, oh no
Me gotta go
Aye-yi-yi-yi, I said
Louie Louie, oh baby
Me gotta go
Seems pretty lame on the surface, right? But now try stripping away all the
consonant sounds and just singing the vowels:
ooh-ee, ooh-aye, oh oh
ee ah-uh oh
aye-aye-aye-aye, aye eh
ooh-ee ooh-aye, oh ay-ee
ee ah-uh oh
Doesn't really lose much, does it, because the thing that most greatly holds
our ear is the patterns of open vowels. Add in some additional ear candy in
the form of alliteration and the rhythmic hard consonants of "gotta go", and
we're largely talking pure ear candy. The words make sense sufficiently to
not jar you out of the music and the sound, but the meaning is relatively
unimportant with all this ear candy going on. IMHO, this is the sort of
thing that makes the difference between this and some equally catchy tune
that doesn't have this kind of stuff going on in the lyrics. Just consider,
for example, that the lyrics to that same chorus were the following:
Louie Louie, baby
You drive me crazy
Each day and night, oh yeah
Louie Louie, honey
I love you, baby
Even with the same melody going on, I can't imagine this one would have gone
anywhere. It's got nowhere near the sound magic going on that the original
one has.
As for Nirvana, I have to mostly profess ignorance of their stuff. Somehow
they came along at a point in time where I wasn't paying attention to what
was going on in the music world like I did both before and after, and I
heard much more about them than I ever heard of them. I do like to use them
as an example of the artist-type stuff, though, because Cobain does get a
lot of respect, or even reverence, on the lyrical front, yet his lyrics seem
to be largely unintelligible if you look at them as conversational language
or by conventional lyrical standards. Obviously his stuff worked for a
large number of people, but I have a hard time imagining its faring very
well in a traditional lyric critique. I'm just trying to imagine what Jon
Ims might say. ;-)
Context is important, though, and that also gets to what I was trying to get
at with the praise and worship music. If you don't get the context, it's
hard to critique it, because what works there can be quite different from
what works in other contexts (and vice versa). Of course, there have been
songs that have been comfortable in multiple camps. I tend to think of
those as being the cream of the crop, but I'm not sure someone who really
was into praise and worship music would make the same choices. But I also
think lyrics are exceedingly important in that context. If I think about
one of the big songs of that sort that crossed over to Top 40-type
consciousness, "I Can Only Imagine", that is a wonderful song, but it is
largely carried by its lyric. It is certainly passable on the musical
front, and catchy enough, but, having sung it, I wouldn't call it anything
truly special on the front. It's magic really comes from the lyric, and the
profound consideration underlying its lyric, and how that is implemented in
the lyric.
Ultimately, the songs that become important to us over time tend to speak to
us in some way that touches our lives. That tends to come from the lyrics,
even if the music plays an important role in reinforcing those lyrics and
calling our attention to the song in the first place.
David Cox
chewed digested and sustain us.
"Rick Paul" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fDmii.3082$rR....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Michael J. Anthony
rick...@earthlink.net says...
> the thing that most greatly holds
> our ear is the patterns of open vowels.
> Add in some additional ear candy in
> the form of alliteration and the rhythmic
> hard consonants of "gotta go", and
> we're largely talking pure ear candy.
Yes I think all of that is important to some degree. The vowel sounds,
the consonants, the rapidity of the consonants, their relative hardness
and the basic track of the song all need to be assessed as one. In
particular, I think it's important to assess how one word rolls into the
next. Putting a word that ends with the same letter next to a word that
starts with the same letter disturbs the natural flow, eg. "bright
tone". There's probably a whole set of rules you could devise, but
basically my rule is "Listen to it and make sure it flows off the
tongue." If it's something that's easy to say, I think the audience will
enjoy it more and maybe remember it better.
"Craters lay where homes had been, we saw the twisted cars"
is a line I wrote yesterday that fits all my definitions of good flow.
> > not jar you out of the music and the sound,
I guess that's what you're saying too.
> Context is important, though, and that also gets to what I was trying to get
> at with the praise and worship music. If you don't get the context, it's
> hard to critique it, because what works there can be quite different from
> what works in other contexts (and vice versa).
I think the issue of obscurity is what sinks esoteric music in general,
like filk. The songwriter has to decide if he's happy preaching to one
specific audience to the exclusion of the rest. I'm sure most writers
would prefer to leave a way for the mass audience to access the subject
matter, if they had a choice.
David Cox
very powerful image, but I can hardly say it, let alone have any prospect of
singing it. I would be very happy to be proven so limited, and I am looking
forward to hearing the rest.
David F. Cox
"Michael J. Anthony" <Contact_me_thr...@please.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.20f43a7df...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
Michael J. Anthony
says...
> > "Craters lay where homes had been, we saw the twisted cars"
>
> very powerful image, but I can hardly say it, let alone have any prospect of
> singing it.
Hahahaha, roger that. No excuses. It's better in the original Klingon
;-)
snabbu
"David Cox" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xEgii.12839$vA3....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> "snabbu" <sna...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:46897a64$0$19339$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> Hi Rick
> ...snip
>> Well I know what Messer's coin and Cox would say " Kurt too many hello's
>> 12 in a row" :-)
>
> ahem, it is I that wrote:-
>
> My name, my name, my name, my name
> my name, my name, my name, my name
> my name, my name, my name, my name
> my name is only fame
>
> and I live, I live, I live, I live
> I live, I live, I only live
> I live, I live, I only live
> I live in the floodlights flame
LOL
Gary
snabbu
<Simon> wrote in message news:2007070300...@news.giganews.com...
It's a thing of the job the lyric is doing like in a dance song there is no
story it's just conveying an emotion
"Love to love you baby" in that context is fine. It has no story no
beginning no ending and is repetitive to a mind numbing degree but in the
context of dance it works. So with praise you just have to ask yourself
does this row my boat ashore. Is a good sales pitch, will it fill the
plate. etc. and Nurse I'll have one of the blue one's :-)
Cheers
Gary
snabbu
> This is really a response to multiple posts (from Gary, Simon, and
> Michael), but the above snip is probably the main context about which I'm
> replying.
>
> I would tend to agree that the music is initially more important than the
> lyrics, in terms of luring us into a song. The sound of the lyrics, and
> the words the lyrics say, have to avoid jarring us out of the mood, but
> the meaning isn't hugely important on the front end, in most cases,
> because we can't understand them that quickly anyway -- there is just too
> much information to process in one or two listens. Country music may be
> one key exception here, though, even there, the music likely carries a
> greater share of the load on the first few listens.
This is what I mean by the lyrics underpinning the song this happens after
you have been drawn in by the other elements and give the song enough
interest to have a long life.
In regard to what those lyrics do to hold interest it may be that it is 25
percent meaning 25 percent prosody, 25 percent imagery and 25 percent how
they sound. I mean it is quite possible to write a nonsense song that has
no meaning but works because
it has some of or all the other elements.
Example: I think this sounds great, and has isolated strong images which
really don't make a lot of sense together.
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, and let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
goo goo g'joob
Mister City P'liceman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying. I'm cry------------ing,
I'm crying. I'm cry------------ing.
Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your Knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
goo goo g'joob
Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain.
I am the eggmen, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob
Expert texpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you? (ho ho ho, he, he he, ha, ha, ha)
See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snied.
I'm crying.
Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower.
Elementary penguin singing Hare Krishna.
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus,
goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob
So probably you have to look foremost at how a thing sounds overall.
But this is probably only applicable to pop and folk I mean what was Leonard
Cohen on.
With country there probably needs to be all the story elements that are
bandied about.
Where what who how beginning end and middle etc. etc.
I think the context of praise stuff is what is it trying to achieve.
With all critiquing it is a big help if the writer says what the genre and
feel is.
I mean if he/she says this is slow country and the rhyme scheme is rhyming
couplets you can say immediately it is not going to work you need to de
rhyme it or alter the scheme, otherwise you may let the scheme pass
uncorrected. The writer could then spend hours trying to make the song work
and be unable to get the grannies out of it because as sure as night follows
day it is going to drag. Leaving the listener wishing it would end soon.
Cheers
Gary
Michael J. Anthony
sna...@optushome.com.au says...
> does this row my boat ashore. Is a good sales pitch, will it fill the
> plate.
>
That is a clear metaphor mixing violation, Gary ;-)
snabbu
> In article <468ac969$0$844$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> sna...@optushome.com.au says...
>> does this row my boat ashore. Is a good sales pitch, will it fill the
>> plate.
>>
>
> That is a clear metaphor mixing violation, Gary ;-)
Only if your names Michael :-)
Sean
(snip)
> Having said that. The lyrics for a praise song are probably more
> important than I like to think. After all isn't the message the
> important thing in that instance? However, not being of the persuasion
> of particularly believing in a supreme being and nor do I believe
> everything I read in books, I'd find it hard to critique a song of
> praise based on the lyrics.
I'm an atheist, but my brother is an evangelical Christian (Western
Canadian style, so he's not a Bush loving loony.) Anyway, once I went to
one of his church gatherings, held in a rented school room, and when I
was reading the lyrics to this song they were all singing, I noticed
that the grammar of thing made them sing something that was quite the
opposite of what they meant to be singing. I can't remember the details,
but it was along the lines of them singing "Our Lord doesn't care what
we do, he has other fish to fry..." (That's not what they were singing,
but it was sort of like that.)
I pointed it out to my brother, and he, greatly embarrassed, pointed it
out to the congregation. They'd been singing these stupid lyrics,
opposite to their beliefs, for ages. They were shocked by this new
revelation. But the point is, the song had words and phrases like
"Jesus," "our Lord," "salvation," "heaven," and all of that, and it had
that certain hymn-ish lilt, so they had happily been hollering it out
without ever twigging to the misprint on the page that had them singing
something quite stupidly opposite to what they though they were singing.
So, if you want to write a "praise" tune, just throw in a few
"salvations," and so on and you'll have a hit.
Simon
That's a great storry on a number of levels.
Michael J. Anthony
> So, if you want to write a "praise" tune, just throw in a few
> "salvations," and so on and you'll have a hit.
Yep, there is a fixed lexicon of about 100 words and if you use
"variable mortgage" or "umbrella" or "pole vault" the audience will
probably stop in their tracks. OTOH, listen to "Every Grain Of Sand" or
the other songs in Dylan's religious period and you'll find that he uses
the whole dictionary.