OPINION: Garth Brooks' "She's Every Woman"
Charles A. Alexander
Just heard Garth Brooks' "She's Every Woman"for the 1st time. What a
wonderful piece of work. Great melody, poignant lyric. Also, the title is
not rammed down your throat a gezillion times aimlessly. Yet, it still holds
the listener's attention. (The line "She's Every Woman" appears I
think once.)
I think however, if an unknown songwriter presented this to a
publisher or producer, I doubt if it would have been picked up (shields up !!).
Some of the reasons (excuses ??) offered would have been:
1) The title only appears once.
2) There's no recognizable (lyrically) chorus.
3) Lyrics too sophisticated for the average listener. (Have always
hated this one. To my mind, implies a lower IQ on the part of the public.
Yeech!)
I don't mean to say that I could have written this song. I'm just
saying that if an unknown wrote this piece, all other things being
equal, they would have a better chance of winning the lottery (oh, maybe
that's the same thing :) ) than getting the song placed.
Does anyone have any opinion on this?
FYI - The song was written by Garth Brooks & Victoria Shaw. Does anybody
know how much Garth Brooks contributed to the song ? Who is Victoria Shaw and
what's her story ? Where can I hear more of her stuff ?
Thanks
- Charles
Peggy Bertsch
: Just heard Garth Brooks' "She's Every Woman"for the 1st time...
: ...
: I don't mean to say that I could have written this song. I'm just
: equal, they would have a better chance of winning the lottery (oh, maybe
: that's the same thing :) ) than getting the song placed.
This could be true. I really do believe that once you've established that
you know the rules, it is more acceptable to break them. Unknowns sometimes
have the disadvantage of being perceived as someone who didn't know the rules,
rather than someone who *knew* them but chose -- for the sake of a particular
song -- not to worry about them. There is (IMO) somewhat of a slight -- maybe
even subconscious -- bias or predisposition to not expect much from an unknown,
and therefore industry types *expect* to find "problems" with the songs. But
I don't think it makes or breaks a song. You might have to search longer for
someone without that bias, but those people are out there. A great song never
died on the shelf just because the writer was an unknown -- assuming that
writer did his/her job in getting the song out there.
: FYI - The song was written by Garth Brooks & Victoria Shaw. Does anybody
: know how much Garth Brooks contributed to the song ? Who is Victoria Shaw and
: what's her story ? Where can I hear more of her stuff ?
I would say Garth contributed his fair share. An NSAI videotape called
"The Write Track" shows Garth in a co-writing session with Pat Alger, and
it appeared to me that Garth was certainly carrying his weight and knew what
went into writing a song. He and Victoria have teamed up before (on "The
River") and Victoria has several other big hits to her name (I'm pretty sure(?)
she teamed up with Chuck Cannon on JMM's "I Love the Way You Love Me", and she
writes with Gary Burr ("In a Week or Two" is one of theirs, I think) among
other top Nashville writers). Victoria released an album of her own last year,
and I know I heard "Cry Wolf" on occasion on the radio as the first single,
but I don't think the album (or any of the singles) "broke" very big. It was
a major label release (I'm thinking Sony, but I'm not sure of that...) so it
should be possible to find at a record store with a good selection.
I've seen Victoria several times at the Bluebird doing "In The Round" shows
(most recently with Gary Burr and Michael the ex-Doobie McDonald), and she
is pretty good -- great voice, plays piano, her share of hit songs. I've never
heard a song of hers that quite blew me out of my chair (a la Burr's "I Would
Be Stronger Than That" or "Silence is King"), but that's more a function of
my personal tastes than her songwriting abilities. I definitely respect her.
I think "The River" and "She's Every Woman" have a quality that sets them
apart from most of the lowest common denominator stuff that saturates the
country radio airwaves, and I give her (and Garth) high marks for that.
As if they care what I think :-)
--peg
Peggy Bertsch
: In article <4aj8m5$3...@hpax.cup.hp.com>, pber...@cup.hp.com (Peggy
: Bertsch) writes:
: >(a la Burr's "I Would
: >Be Stronger Than That" or "Silence is King"),
: Gary Burr is one of the BIG talents on the scene today. "Silence Is King"
: is great. I'm so glad to see songs of this quality showing up on country
: albums.
Did someone finally cut this? I've only heard Gary do it live on occasion,
but every time I see him play I just *wait* for him to do this song -- I think
it's Gary at his best. To be honest, I'm not really blown away by most of
the songs that Gary has had major radio success with, but these two songs in
particular have made me into a Gary Burr groupie :-) I never heard Faith
Hill's version of "I Would Be Stronger Than That" -- finding it hard to
believe she could improve on Maura O'Connell's version -- but if there's a
decent cover of "Silence is King" out there, I'd really like to get my hands
on it.
--peg
JEricL
>(a la Burr's "I Would
>Be Stronger Than That" or "Silence is King"),
Gary Burr is one of the BIG talents on the scene today. "Silence Is King"
is great. I'm so glad to see songs of this quality showing up on country
albums. Also, our own Reese Wilson, with Tony Martin tune, "Let The Good
Times Roll", is another great one. What is being done in country today, is
really just good songwriting. Hell, Streisand could do "Silence ..." 8>).
Eric
JEricL
> lowest common denominator stuff that saturates the
>country radio airwaves,
I know what you mean by this, but I, being the defender of the LCD as it
were, think that most writers I've heard don't come up to this LCD
standard. It's only LOWEST common denominator if you're good enough to
write the great stuff. For most of the rest of the world, they should be
so lucky as to reach the LCD standard.
Eric
JEricL
JEricL
Bertsch) writes:
>Did someone finally cut this? I've only heard Gary do it live on
occasion,
>but every time I see him play I just *wait* for him to do this song -- I
>think
>it's Gary at his best. To be honest, I'm not really blown away by most
of
>the songs that Gary has had major radio success with, but these two songs
in
>particular have made me into a Gary Burr groupie :-) I never heard Faith
>Hill's version of "I Would Be Stronger Than That" -- finding it hard to
>believe she could improve on Maura O'Connell's version -- but if there's
a
>decent cover of "Silence is King" out there, I'd really like to get my
hands
>on it.
>
>--peg
>
>
Peggy,
"Silence Is King" is hidden away on the Tanya Tucker album "Soon". "Let
The Good Times Roll", is also on this album. It is one of the best albums
out there as far as song selection goes, IMHO.
About Gary Burr ...... 8>)
The thing that separates him from most writers on the scene, is simple.
Melody.
Gary writes real melodies. He is a songwriter in the "old-fashioned" sort
of way. He is always surprising me with a chord change, or a great melodic
line. "Silence" is a good example of this. It AIN'T your average Nashville
song.
I think the importance of this melodic part of country songs is not
recognized by a lot of people. When I went to a song camp here in
Nashville, James Dean Hicks was one of the teachers. He is a great
songwriter. He played a song he had written called, "True Love Needs A
Little Rain", recorded back in the 80s by the Oak Ridge Boys. If you had
asked me for an opinion of this song, before I was told, I would have bet
my life that it had been written "words first". James said that it was
written entirely melodically first. Lyrics were only written afterwards.
I think Gary Burr writes this way more.
Melody has a different master than words. It has it's own heart. It's own
momentum, or "opinion" as it were. If one allows melody to find itself,
and then find words to go with it, you will end up with more, surprise,
.... "melodic" songs, IMHO.
In fact, the more I get into this country songwriting thing, I find that
the most obvious mistake most writers make, is sort of "wandering",
aimless, melodies. Sometimes the words are pretty good, but the music lets
them down.
Anyway, don't tell me you don't like "I Swear", please 8>).
Another writer in this town, who makes a fabulous living writings songs,
who also is strong on the melody side, is Tom Shapiro. His songs stand
out, because they HAVE melodies. So many country songs are sort of one
note after the other without thought. Tom is so successful that it's
almost mandatory to have, AT LEAST, one Shapiro tune on every album that
comes out 8>). In fact, if there were a Mr. Nashville Songwriter, it could
easily be Tom these days.
Some recent Shapiro contributions:
"Better Things To Do" recorded by Terri Clark
"Take That" (Burr,Shapiro) recorded by Lisa Brokop
"She Never Lets It Go To Her Heart" recorded by Tim McGraw
One of my favorite Shaprio tunes, is "Only The Wind", recorded by Billy
Dean.
BTW, Tanya's performance on "Silence" is one of her best IMHO. 8>)
Eric
Lianne McNeil
Charles,
I enjoyed, and agree with your critique of "She's Every Woman." I'll be
glad to offer my twist on it, as well. :-)
>I think however, if an unknown songwriter presented this to a
>publisher or producer, I doubt if it would have been picked up (shields up !!).
>Some of the reasons (excuses ??) offered would have been:
>1) The title only appears once.
>2) There's no recognizable (lyrically) chorus.
>3) Lyrics too sophisticated for the average listener. (Have always
> hated this one. To my mind, implies a lower IQ on the part of the public.
> Yeech!)
Sophisticated is putting it nicely.
I hate it for that reason -- no, I don't actually hate it -- just on a
scale of 10, I'd give it a 5, and that's because of the melody.
To me, some of the lyrics are "muddy," or not very clear. (There was a
discussion on the country music newsgroup not long ago about the meaning
of the "when it comes to temptation she's on both sides of the fence" lyric.)
I also feel that Garth tried to pull in all the extremes he could think of,
and homogenize them into one woman. My gut reaction is: "Bleaaaack!" (I
admit that I interpret it personally, and feel insulted by the lyrics.) I
don't want to be considered to be something like a tossed salad, or a
hodge-podge of a stew.
"Sun and Rain, Fire and Ice," give a feeling of instability, or
unpredicatability, like the woman is unreliable. That's an old insulting
stereotype of women. I find it condescending. (This is IM-Personal-HO.)
However, I do really like the melody.
>FYI - The song was written by Garth Brooks & Victoria Shaw. Does anybody
>know how much Garth Brooks contributed to the song ? Who is Victoria Shaw and
>what's her story ? Where can I hear more of her stuff ?
I don't know much about Victoria, but she has co-written several songs
with Garth. I've heard that she has a great voice, too.
Lianne
--
+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+
Lianne or Jim McNeil jam...@hevanet.com
"Lord help the fool who said, 'You'd better quit while you're ahead.'
A dreamer born is a hero bred, on earth and up in heaven." -- MCC
Peggy Bertsch
: In article <4aj8m5$3...@hpax.cup.hp.com>, pber...@cup.hp.com (Peggy
: Bertsch) writes:
: > lowest common denominator stuff that saturates the
: >country radio airwaves,
: I know what you mean by this, but I, being the defender of the LCD as it
: were, think that most writers I've heard don't come up to this LCD
: standard. It's only LOWEST common denominator if you're good enough to
: write the great stuff. For most of the rest of the world, they should be
: so lucky as to reach the LCD standard.
: Eric
I guess I should be a little more precise....there are some really good,
well-written songs on country radio. I'll admit that I don't *buy* a lot
of country music because my tastes lean so far to the contemporary folk
flavored, singer/songwriter market, and only a handful of artists who have
had mainstream country success have that sort of left-of-country appeal that
causes me to want to spend the money on a CD -- but that doesn't mean I
don't appreciate a well-written song. Among my favorites that I would never
buy is "Bubba Shot the Jukebox" :-)
But then there are songs that even the *writers* will admit were completely
crafted, not really inspired at all, but they fit the mold of what gets played
on country radio, so they just wrote them from a very "dry" place -- they just
manufactured the lyric. They might even purposely manipulate the listener
because this or that "sells", so they throw in plot lines or something for
that reason. I know some very successful writers, with lots of hits to
their names, who really don't like the songs they had some of their biggest
hits with. They just aren't real proud of them. But they know that those
songs pay the bills, so they write them anyway. I don't begrudge them making
a living, and I certainly respect their talents in *getting* a #1 single
(it's not easy to do), but I find myself wishing I could hear the songs the
*writers* are most proud of, rather than the songs that somebody at the record
label thought would make the best single, and become the next big line dancing
smash at all the country dance clubs. *That's* what I mean by LCD.
"Silence Is King", as great as it is, will never be a radio single. I'd love
to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will. And that's sad to me. Because
as someone who isn't inclined to buy a Tanya Tucker record, I might've never
known that song had even been recorded. And a lot of people who have never
had the opportunity to hear Gary Burr play that song who are *also* not
inclined to buy a Tanya Tucker record -- they won't even know that song
*exists*. And that's *really* sad to me.
--peg
Seth Jackson
: In article <4aj8m5$3...@hpax.cup.hp.com>, pber...@cup.hp.com (Peggy
: Bertsch) writes:
:
: > lowest common denominator stuff that saturates the
: >country radio airwaves,
:
: I know what you mean by this, but I, being the defender of the LCD as it
: were, think that most writers I've heard don't come up to this LCD
: standard. It's only LOWEST common denominator if you're good enough to
: write the great stuff. For most of the rest of the world, they should be
: so lucky as to reach the LCD standard.
Eric, this is well-put. It's a point that's hard to understand until
you've done a lot of work trying to reach that standard.
One of my favorite quotes from the very quotable hit songwriter Lou
Stallman, "Everybody can write deep and meaningful songs, but it takes
genius to write a dumb piece of s**t!"
--
Seth Jackson
Peggy Bertsch
: JEricL (jer...@aol.com) wrote:
: : In article <4aj8m5$3...@hpax.cup.hp.com>, pber...@cup.hp.com (Peggy
: : Bertsch) writes:
: :
: : > lowest common denominator stuff that saturates the
: : >country radio airwaves,
: :
: : I know what you mean by this, but I, being the defender of the LCD as it
: : were, think that most writers I've heard don't come up to this LCD
: : standard. It's only LOWEST common denominator if you're good enough to
: : write the great stuff. For most of the rest of the world, they should be
: : so lucky as to reach the LCD standard.
: One of my favorite quotes from the very quotable hit songwriter Lou
: Stallman, "Everybody can write deep and meaningful songs, but it takes
: genius to write a dumb piece of s**t!"
I had a post blown away where I tried to explain a little more about my
perception of the old LCD, so I'll try again...
I'll admit that I don't tend to buy a lot of country music. Most of what I
hear on the radio is not in the pocket of what I want to listen to over and
over again. Certain artists -- Trisha Yearwood, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Hal
Ketchum,... -- *do* fit in that pocket for me, and I don't think twice about
buying their CDs, but for the most part, I don't hear much I'd want to plunk
down $10-15 to *own*.
But despite my buying habits, I *do* appreciate good writing of any kind. And
there are a lot of well-written songs on the radio that I have great respect
for, even if I don't have the CDs in my home collection. And some of these
songs don't hold any great meaning -- they're just fun. I think "Bubba Shot
the Jukebox" is a great example of fun country songwriting with mass appeal...
but it isn't LCD. It's a really good, clever piece of writing that doesn't
feel bland or manipulative -- at least not to me. I'm also not surprised that
"I Like It, I Love It" managed to hold a #1 spot for more than one week (that's
really rare these days), because it's just plain hard not to tap your foot and
sing along with that song -- which says a lot for the writers and the
producer(s), as much as for Tim McGraw...even if I have no desire to buy my
own copy of that song.
The LCD, however, is about knowing that there are professional songwriters
who have had great success and don't even *like* a lot of their songs that get
recorded and become #1 hits. I had some very telling conversations lately
with a couple of upper echelon Nashville writers, and they talked about how
this has become a business for them, a matter of supply and demand economics,
and they write whatever they need to write to get a cut. It pays the mortgage,
and the car payments, and the orthodontia bills for their kids...things I
completely understand, we all have to make a living, but it frustrates me to
think that they have all this talent, and are not challenged to make the most
of it or produce a product that *they* are proud of. They're not challenged
because the record companies go for the LCD songs, maybe *because* they're LCD
songs -- broad appeal and easy to market.
What I don't understand is why, when a song that has some body and depth --
like "All These Years" (Mac McAnally/recorded by Sawyer Brown) -- manages to
climb all the way up the charts, the record companies don't notice and say
"Well, maybe there *is* an audience for this kind of stuff!" Instead, songs
like that tend to be treated as exceptions, one-in-a-million hits.
I just don't think they are. If there were more songs on the radio like that,
(IMO) people would respond the same way. And there *are* songs like that
being played out on writer's nights all over Nashville -- they just aren't
getting cut, or if they get cut, they're not being released as singles. That's
what bothers me. *This*, IMO, is the LCD problem. Sometimes I think the
radio audience doesn't know what they're missing, and if they did, they'd
demand more. But it's a catch-22, since they'll never know unless those
other songs get on the radio...
I have a *lot* of respect for anyone who writes a song and gets it cut and
gets a single out of it. Not easy to do, for *any* writer. All the "LCD"
stuff I'm talking about had to be good enough to make it's way through that
maze. And as Seth and Eric pointed out, that's a worthy achievement. But as a
listener (who's *aware* of what else is out there), I just want more.
--peg
JEricL
Jackson) writes:
>One of my favorite quotes from the very quotable hit songwriter Lou
>Stallman, "Everybody can write deep and meaningful songs, but it takes
>genius to write a dumb piece of s**t!"
Seth,
This is, of course, the "street" version of my comment 8>).
Eric
JEricL
Bertsch) writes:
Peg,
I understand what your saying, I think. I perceive it a little
differently. I am sometimes amazed at how much good stuff is on the
market. I mean, go in to a major record store these days, and you could
listen your entire life and never hear it all. And some of it is really
good. I know there is much more average stuff than good to great, but
there is a lot of really good stuff out there.
I think that one big influence on what songs get to market, is the artist
factor. Someone has to present the song. If the writer can't do it well
enough, or more often doesn't have a recording contract, he/she must rely
on someone eles to present it. This someone else has to pick songs that
they feel comfortable singing, and that they think will please their fans.
This narrows the focus, and acceptability, of the material they record.
This is just a commercial fact of life all songwriters must live with. So
a lot of those great "outside" songs just don't make it through this
filter. Your main alternative is to record or produce these great songs
yourself. And see if they find a market.
So, (deep breath 8>) ), while we all appreciate the great songs that don't
get cut by major artists, I think it's pretty easy to understand why they
don't get cut.
If you want to be a commercially successful songwriter, you just have to
write to the market your selling to. It's that simple. If you aren't
concerned about getting recorded by major recording artists, then don't
worry about it.
I know I'm sort of belaboring the obvious. But to me, complaining about
the constraints of a particular market, while trying to write for it, is
sort of contradictory. It's sort of like submitting an extremely
well-written pornagraphic short story to "Boy's Life" magazine, and then
complaining because it is rejected as being "unsuitable for our
readership".
On the plus side, actually, a certain amount of great, not typical country
stuff, makes it onto country records these days. Songs like "Silence Is
King" by Gary Burr and Jim Photoglo, and "Southbound" by Mac Macanally,
and "Let The Good Times Roll", by Reese Wilson and Tony Martin, to name a
few. So some producers are willing to take a chance on just plain great
songs.
Eric
DanTheBand
know how much Garth Brooks contributed to the song ? Who is Victoria Shaw
and
what's her story ? Where can I hear more of her stuff ?
-Ms. Shaw is one of Nashville's best (and most successful) writers. She
also
co-wrote Garth Brooks hit "The River" (arguably one of GB's best songs on
any
album) and penned John Micheal Montgomery's hit "I Love The Way You Love
Me".
She has her own solo album out called "In Full View". She is also a
respectable
singer. She has appeared on tour w/ Garth as a back-up singer.
Her album is pretty nice, but none of the songs on the album are of the
caliber
or the ones mentioned here.
Seth Jackson
>What I don't understand is why, when a song that has some body and depth --
>like "All These Years" (Mac McAnally/recorded by Sawyer Brown) -- manages to
>climb all the way up the charts, the record companies don't notice and say
>"Well, maybe there *is* an audience for this kind of stuff!" Instead, songs
>like that tend to be treated as exceptions, one-in-a-million hits.
>I just don't think they are. If there were more songs on the radio like that,
>(IMO) people would respond the same way. And there *are* songs like that
Now I understand what you mean. I agree with you. What I disagree with
is the notion that a lot of people have that the stuff on the radio is
garbage, "formula" stuff that anyone could write and have hits with if
they just had the right connections. It's just not true. Especially in
country.
In other genres, you can get away with some pretty weak stuff in terms
of songwriting, but you've got to have *something* going if you're
gonna get your stuff on the radio. In LA, the competition is among
producers more than writers. When you hear stuff on pop or R&B radio
stations, the words might be awful, and some of the songs don't even
have melodies, but man, those tracks are *killer*! It's hardly
something anyone could do.
JEricL
Jackson) writes:
>>I just don't think they are. If there were more songs on the radio like
>that,
>>(IMO) people would respond the same way. And there *are* songs like
that
>
>Now I understand what you mean. I agree with you. What I disagree with
>is the notion that a lot of people have that the stuff on the radio is
>garbage, "formula" stuff that anyone could write and have hits with if
>they just had the right connections. It's just not true. Especially in
>country.
>
>
Seth,
I agree completely. While we all know that some bad stuff gets on the
radio, the majority of the songs there are very good. The evidence is
overwhelming in this regard, in my opinion.
I might go so far as to say, this is one of the MAJOR misconceptions that
serious writers need to put behind them.
Eric
Greg Skinner
>I agree completely. While we all know that some bad stuff gets on the
>radio, the majority of the songs there are very good. The evidence is
>overwhelming in this regard, in my opinion.
What do you mean by "good" and "bad?"
>I might go so far as to say, this is one of the MAJOR misconceptions that
>serious writers need to put behind them.
What do you mean by "serious?"
JEricL
Skinner) writes:
>What do you mean by "good" and "bad?"
>
>>I might go so far as to say, this is one of the MAJOR misconceptions
that
>>serious writers need to put behind them.
>
>What do you mean by "serious?"
>
>
Hey, really intellingent reply 8>).
We could spend a lifetime and not define these terms. But the human race
is stuck with using a least a certain amount of abstraction, or you
couldn't say anything without having 25 pages of footnotes to explain it.
We'll never agree on what a good song is. It ain't gonna happen. We can't
define it. At the same time, I think this truth is a little
"self-evident". If you don't think songs like "Somewhere In The Vicinity
Of The Heart", "Not On Your Love", "One Boy, One Girl", "She Can't Be
Really Gone", "Always Have, Always Will", to name a few, are "GOOD", then
even if I tried to define it, I would be wasting my time.
Does this mean that you can't come up with a list of "bad" songs, that are
on the radio. No. Of course not. But that is just arguing for the sake of
arguing in my humble opinion.
Serious writers are ones that are serious about their work. It is
important to them. They try to do their very best at it.
Pop quiz next week.
Actually, I'm probably wasting my time by replying to you. Your post was
so "not serious, not thinking", that I doubt if any of this will matter to
you.
Perhaps if I substitute "commercially successful" for "good", this might
lead to a more concrete discussion. One in which we didn't quibble over
semantics, but actually discussed substantitive aspects of the craft of
songwriting.
Eric
Greg Skinner
>Perhaps if I substitute "commercially successful" for "good", this might
>lead to a more concrete discussion. One in which we didn't quibble over
>semantics, but actually discussed substantitive aspects of the craft of
>songwriting.
Are you trying to say that for something to be considered "good"
songcraft it must be commercially successful?
JEricL
Skinner) writes:
>Are you trying to say that for something to be considered "good"
>songcraft it must be commercially successful?
>
>
Greg,
Let's just quit wasting our time. I explained myself pretty well in the
previous message. Do you have anything to offer to the discussion except
questions?
You define good anyway you like. It's a free country.
Eric
JEricL
Greg Skinner
>Let's just quit wasting our time. I explained myself pretty well in the
>previous message. Do you have anything to offer to the discussion except
>questions?
I was hoping to stimulate discussion and thought, not flames. Anyway,
here's what I think.
"Good" music is largely a matter of opinion of the listener. A
sizable number (or identifiable body) of people may prefer to listen
to some identifiable type of music, in which case it becomes
"popular". If it so happens that this music can be sold to these
people at a profit, it becomes "marketable". A group of people who
write an identifiable type of music might be considered "crafters".
It seems that in most business these days (not just music), "good" has
almost become synonymous with "marketable".
--gregbo
JEricL
Skinner) writes:
>>"Can't Be Really Gone" Recorded by Tim McGraw
>
>I just gave this one a listen. For those unfamiliar with this song,
>it's about a woman who has apparently left the singer, but because
>she's left her things around the house in the usual way, it's hard for
>him to believe that she's left.
Greg,
I'm happy to see you've entered the fray 8>).
"Can't Be Really Gone" is a Gary Burr song. His songs tend to be a little
"outside" for country. But this is also his strength. His songs are
usually NOT you standard country song. I agree with some of your
observations about the lyrics. However, I think the way he discusses the
objects, displays some of his feelings about the departed person.
Another real strength of Gary Burr's songs, are the melodies. Again, they
are not your standard country melodies. They are more like adult
comtemporary. Having said that, I think the melody is very nice in this
song. Subjective, I know. But almost any discussion of melody is going to
be subjective. The sort of sudden resolution of the melody, the "she can't
be really gone" line at the end of each verse, bothered me a little at
first, but it has grown on me.
I think this song is not an all time classic, but it is an above average,
mainstream, chart song. Especially when considered, "words AND music".
<<"That's As Close As I'll Get To Loving You" recorded by Aaron Tippin
In this song, the singer tells us about someone he believes he isn't
going to get a chance to get close to. He doesn't really explain why
he feels this way. I might guess from the second verse that this is
someone who's left him for someone else, but nothing is clearly
spelled out. The track is an uptempo number (the type that might get
your fingers snapping and feet tapping). The singer delivers the song
in a very compelling manner.>>
This song, I actually like a little less than "Can't Be Really Gone",
lyrically. It seems more contrived to me. It is, though, well-written, and
professionally crafted. I think my main objection to this song, is just
not identifying too much with the singer of the song. This is not a
songcraft issue, but a subjective personal one. I think this lyric is
subject to the same criticism that you have of the other song. The lyrics
don't give us enough insight into the singer's relationship with the
object of his desire. It seems to be a superficial, lust, sort of thing.
But I think this is a "good" song, in the way I have talked about good
songs in this thread. From an objective standpoint, it is well done.
Eric
JEricL
Skinner) writes:
>I was hoping to stimulate discussion and thought, not flames. Anyway,
>here's what I think.
I don't see what I said as flames. I see what you posted as sort of "cross
examination".
Now, I don't object to replying to questions, I enjoy discussing these
things. I just like to have some substance to reply to.
I would prefer discussing specific songs, in a thread of this type, rather
than engage in abstract, subjective, musings.
Your post was more political, than it was about music. It was sort of an
attack on capitalism, more than a musical discussion.
Eric
For instance, do you think any of the songs I mentioned are "good"? If
not, why not pick one and give us an intelligent, insightful, review to
support your belief. Here's a list to pick from.
"Somewhere In The Vicinity Of The Heart" Recorded by Shenandoah
"One Boy, One Girl" Recorded by Collin Raye
"Little Rock" Recorded by Collin Raye
"Can't Be Really Gone" Recorded by Tim McGraw
"She's In Love With The Boy" Recorded by Trish Yearwood
"On A Bus To St. Cloud" Recorded by Trish Yearwood
I happen to think these are "good" songs. If you aren't happy with these,
pick one of your own and tell us why it is either "good", or "bad".
Eric
Greg Skinner
>For instance, do you think any of the songs I mentioned are "good"? If
>not, why not pick one and give us an intelligent, insightful, review to
>support your belief. Here's a list to pick from.
>"Can't Be Really Gone" Recorded by Tim McGraw
I just gave this one a listen. For those unfamiliar with this song,
it's about a woman who has apparently left the singer, but because
she's left her things around the house in the usual way, it's hard for
him to believe that she's left.
I think the song painted a generally good picture of the articles left
around the house. I also thought the bridge provided some contrast to
the verses and chorus because instead of giving descriptions of the
woman's articles, it conveyed the singer's feelings about the
situation.
That said, I didn't like it much. It was OK, but not particularly
compelling. I could tell what was going on, but I was not
particularly moved by it.
>I happen to think these are "good" songs. If you aren't happy with these,
>pick one of your own and tell us why it is either "good", or "bad".
"That's As Close As I'll Get To Loving You" recorded by Aaron Tippin
In this song, the singer tells us about someone he believes he isn't
going to get a chance to get close to. He doesn't really explain why
he feels this way. I might guess from the second verse that this is
someone who's left him for someone else, but nothing is clearly
spelled out. The track is an uptempo number (the type that might get
your fingers snapping and feet tapping). The singer delivers the song
in a very compelling manner.
I enjoyed this song much more than the previous one, despite not
coming away with an understanding of why the singer feels the way he
does. The rhythm and style of singing make up for these deficiences,
IMO.
--gregbo
Seth Jackson
>I enjoyed this song much more than the previous one, despite not
>coming away with an understanding of why the singer feels the way he
>does. The rhythm and style of singing make up for these deficiences,
>IMO.
This comment would be an indication to me of an inferior song. You
seem to be saying that you like the performance of the song more than
the song itself. A good performance and arrangement can often make a
mediocre song sound good. A good song stands on its own.
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>g...@shellx.best.com (Greg Skinner) wrote:
>>I enjoyed this song much more than the previous one, despite not
>>coming away with an understanding of why the singer feels the way he
>>does. The rhythm and style of singing make up for these deficiences,
>>IMO.
>This comment would be an indication to me of an inferior song.
Why do you feel this way? Personally, I don't have to understand the
hows or whys of song lyrics to enjoy a song. For me, it's a
combination of many things -- the singer's treatment of the lyric, the
production, the arrangement, etc.
>You seem to be saying that you like the performance of the song more
>than the song itself. A good performance and arrangement can often
>make a mediocre song sound good. A good song stands on its own.
From an intellectual point of view, a good song may stand on its own,
but people may still not enjoy it unless it's sung by someone who can
breathe life into the lyrics.
--gregbo
Seth Jackson
>>>does. The rhythm and style of singing make up for these deficiences,
>>>IMO.
>>This comment would be an indication to me of an inferior song.
>Why do you feel this way? Personally, I don't have to understand the
>hows or whys of song lyrics to enjoy a song. For me, it's a
>combination of many things -- the singer's treatment of the lyric, the
>production, the arrangement, etc.
>>You seem to be saying that you like the performance of the song more
>>than the song itself. A good performance and arrangement can often
>>make a mediocre song sound good. A good song stands on its own.
>From an intellectual point of view, a good song may stand on its own,
>but people may still not enjoy it unless it's sung by someone who can
>breathe life into the lyrics.
The performance of the song and the song itself are two different
issues. As a songwriter, I can appreciate a good song even if it's
performed poorly. I understand that many people can't enjoy it unless
its sung by someone who can perform it well. They're not songwriters,
and therefore they don't listen the same way songwriters do.
Naturally, a good performer is going to be more enjoyable to listen
to, but the greatest performance doesn't change the substance of the
song itself. A great song is great independent of the performance.
--
Seth Jackson
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>The performance of the song and the song itself are two different
>issues. As a songwriter, I can appreciate a good song even if it's
>performed poorly. I understand that many people can't enjoy it unless
>its sung by someone who can perform it well. They're not songwriters,
>and therefore they don't listen the same way songwriters do.
>Naturally, a good performer is going to be more enjoyable to listen
>to, but the greatest performance doesn't change the substance of the
>song itself. A great song is great independent of the performance.
It seems as if you're saying that only songwriters get to decide what
songs are "great".
Seth Jackson
>In article <4cg760$s...@marina.cinenet.net>,
>Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>>The performance of the song and the song itself are two different
>>issues. As a songwriter, I can appreciate a good song even if it's
>>performed poorly. I understand that many people can't enjoy it unless
>>its sung by someone who can perform it well. They're not songwriters,
>>and therefore they don't listen the same way songwriters do.
>It seems as if you're saying that only songwriters get to decide what
>songs are "great".
No. What I am saying is that songwriters are more likely than others
to appreciate a song because of the way it's written as opposed to the
way its performed.
The song and the performance are two separate things. I'm having
trouble understanding why this is a controversial point.
--
Seth Jackson
Greg Skinner
>>but people may still not enjoy it unless it's sung by someone who can
>>breathe life into the lyrics.
>issues. As a songwriter, I can appreciate a good song even if it's
>performed poorly.
What do you mean by "performed poorly?" What I was trying to get at
was that some songs that may be "picture perfect" (give a full
description and motivation in their lyrics) might be sung by someone
who does not emotionally connect with the lyrics, or the composition
may not fit the text, so the song may not be enjoyed by some (perhaps
most) of the listeners.
People might marvel at the clarity and depth of the *lyrics* but not
enjoy the *song* (which has the additional components of melody,
harmony, and rhythm).
--gregbo
Greg Skinner
only have time for a few at the moment. Stay tuned ...
In article <4cjp10$o...@degas.ICSI.Net>,
Michael Krumrey <Disc...@icsi.net> wrote:
>The writer can only perfect HIS/HER art, the singer can only perfect
>HIS/HER talent, and the two will on occasion combine to make
>something that fits YOUR enjoyment criteria. If I want to work to
>fit my talent to your criteria, I must disect others hits.
If you're talking about me personally, if you want to fit your talent
to my criteria, first you must find out what my criteria are. My
criteria might not be found in the hits of the writers you are
studying.
>If I dont then I might never write a song that makes the top ten.
On the other hand, if you are trying to fit your talent to the
marketplace, dissecting the hits of those who have had commercial
success may give an indication of why those songs became commercially
successful.
>As an artist I cannot comprimise who I am, but I must allow the
>commercial influence to mold some of my work. This is where I see
>Seth's point, as a writer we break the song into components (LYRICS,
>MUSIC, PERFORMANCE) we try to see where it could be made better (my
>interpretation of better is more commercial in this case since we are
>all trying to earn a living from our art)
Who's "we"? Not everyone who is participating in this newsgroup is
trying to make a living from writing songs, and some people who are
trying to make a living from writing songs are also trying to write
noncommercial music where the criteria include that people enjoy it,
or understand what they are trying to say.
>We are all willing to change a word, line, chorus, melody, title,
>whatever it takes to make this song commercially viable.
I have seen plenty of posts here where the writers objected to
suggestions that they change parts of their songs, even if it would
make the songs more commercially viable.
--gregbo
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>What I am saying is that songwriters are more likely than others
>to appreciate a song because of the way it's written as opposed to the
>way its performed.
>The song and the performance are two separate things. I'm having
>trouble understanding why this is a controversial point.
I agree with what you are saying but that does not negate my point.
Non-songwriters are influenced by performances; they determine (at
least in part) whether or not singles or albums are purchased, songs
are requested on the radio, etc.
--gregbo
Seth Jackson
>In article <4cg760$s...@marina.cinenet.net>,
>Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>>The performance of the song and the song itself are two different
>>issues. As a songwriter, I can appreciate a good song even if it's
>>performed poorly.
>What do you mean by "performed poorly?"
I mean that it's performed by someone who is not a good performer. Or
a poor performance is given by someone who normally is a good
performer. I mean any of things that one can mean when they use this
phrase.
What I was trying to get at
>was that some songs that may be "picture perfect" (give a full
>description and motivation in their lyrics) might be sung by someone
>who does not emotionally connect with the lyrics, or the composition
>may not fit the text, so the song may not be enjoyed by some (perhaps
>most) of the listeners.
I don't think I'm getting how you are relating this to the point being
discussed. What I'm saying is that in a scenario such as the one you
just described, the song itself may be great, but it was not performed
well. That doesn't make it a bad song.
By the same token, a mediocre song can be produced, arranged and
performed with all kinds of energy and bells and whistles such that it
is actually quite enjoyable. That doesn't make it a great song.
>People might marvel at the clarity and depth of the *lyrics* but not
>enjoy the *song* (which has the additional components of melody,
>harmony, and rhythm).
Now we're getting into the sticky issue of what constitutes a song.
From a legal point of view, only the melody and lyrics are considered
essential, i.e. copyrightable elements. Most of us would probably
consider the chords and the basic rhythm/feel to be part of it, too.
I'd even consider an instrumental lick to be part of a song if that
lick plays a key role, e.g. the guitar lick in "Layla".
But the fact that it was recorded in a 64-track studio with 5 drummers
and the latest and greatest effects and samples, a guitarist who can
play 128th note triplets up and down the scale, a singer who can break
glass with a 5-octave range, and the London Philharmonic backing up on
strings, thus making it the Nuber One Hit Of The Decade, are not part
of the song itself, but rather part of the production.
--
Seth Jackson
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>What I'm saying is that in a scenario such as the one you
>just described, the song itself may be great, but it was not performed
>well. That doesn't make it a bad song.
>By the same token, a mediocre song can be produced, arranged and
>performed with all kinds of energy and bells and whistles such that it
>is actually quite enjoyable. That doesn't make it a great song.
In my original analysis of the song "That's As Close As I'll Get To
Loving You" performed by Aaron Tippin, I said that I enjoyed the song,
despite the fact that the lyrics did not paint a crystal clear picture
of what was going on, nor did they provide justification for the
feelings portrayed in the song. You replied that this was a sign of
an inferior song. I am questioning why the song is inferior based on
those criteria. I also think that the label "inferior" (in this case)
is something that is unlikely to be assigned by anyone who isn't a
songwriter or a very critical judge of lyric clarity.
I have heard it said that good songs are those that can be sung by
anyone. I disagree. I feel that there are songs that can be sung by
anyone and there are songs that are tailor made for certain people.
If a song can only be sung by some people, it can still be enjoyed by
many.
>Now we're getting into the sticky issue of what constitutes a song.
>From a legal point of view, only the melody and lyrics are considered
>essential, i.e. copyrightable elements. Most of us would probably
>consider the chords and the basic rhythm/feel to be part of it, too.
>I'd even consider an instrumental lick to be part of a song if that
>lick plays a key role, e.g. the guitar lick in "Layla".
When most listeners talk about the songs they enjoy, I believe they
are considering all of these factors. (I certainly do.)
--gregbo
Seth Jackson
>In my original analysis of the song "That's As Close As I'll Get To
>Loving You" performed by Aaron Tippin, I said that I enjoyed the song,
>despite the fact that the lyrics did not paint a crystal clear picture
>of what was going on, nor did they provide justification for the
>feelings portrayed in the song. You replied that this was a sign of
>an inferior song. I am questioning why the song is inferior based on
>those criteria.
Because if the song were written better, it *would* provide
justification for the feelings portrayed in the song, which would make
the situation more believable, which would create more of an emotional
impact for the song.
I also think that the label "inferior" (in this case)
>is something that is unlikely to be assigned by anyone who isn't a
>songwriter or a very critical judge of lyric clarity.
No, it's probably not. I'm not sure why that matters. *We* are
songwriters, and among ourselves, it would make sense to discuss songs
from that perspective.
>I have heard it said that good songs are those that can be sung by
>anyone. I disagree. I feel that there are songs that can be sung by
>anyone and there are songs that are tailor made for certain people.
>If a song can only be sung by some people, it can still be enjoyed by
>many.
Like many things, that's an oversimplification. I think one element of
a good song is that it has a strong, singable melody. Of course, there
are genres of songs where this criterion may be less important or not
important at all. I think it's certainly true in the case of most
commercial genres.
>>Now we're getting into the sticky issue of what constitutes a song.
>>From a legal point of view, only the melody and lyrics are considered
>>essential, i.e. copyrightable elements. Most of us would probably
>>consider the chords and the basic rhythm/feel to be part of it, too.
>>I'd even consider an instrumental lick to be part of a song if that
>>lick plays a key role, e.g. the guitar lick in "Layla".
>When most listeners talk about the songs they enjoy, I believe they
>are considering all of these factors. (I certainly do.)
The message I seem to be getting is that you believe it's better to
view songs from the point of view of the general listener as opposed
to the perspective of the songwriter. That view seems odd, considering
that we are in fact songwriters talking about our craft.
--
Seth Jackson
Lianne McNeil
that.) I'm finding myself agreeing with points that both of you have made.
I haven't analyzed the songs you've been discussing enough to jump in,
though I'd love to. (And I guess I am. :-) I do have a comment about the
song mentioned below; and if it won't disturb your concentration, an
information question.
g...@shellx.best.com (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <4co6gq$5...@marina.cinenet.net>,
>Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>In my original analysis of the song "That's As Close As I'll Get To
>Loving You" performed by Aaron Tippin, I said that I enjoyed the song,
>despite the fact that the lyrics did not paint a crystal clear picture
>of what was going on, nor did they provide justification for the
>feelings portrayed in the song. You replied that this was a sign of
>an inferior song. I am questioning why the song is inferior based on
>those criteria. I also think that the label "inferior" (in this case)
>is something that is unlikely to be assigned by anyone who isn't a
>songwriter or a very critical judge of lyric clarity.
The situation described in "That's As Close As I'll Get To Loving You,"
is one in which subtlety and nuance are the means of communicating (or
flirting), and it makes sense to me that the lyrics might continue that
theme on by not being exactly explicit. Which, in my viewpoint, could be
a sign of excellence in this particular case.
Unfortunately, I haven't heard the song enough to analyze it thoroughly.
Do you know who wrote it? I know Aaron Tippin tends to write his own
songs, but every once in awhile does one that someone else wrote.
>I have heard it said that good songs are those that can be sung by
>anyone. I disagree. I feel that there are songs that can be sung by
>anyone and there are songs that are tailor made for certain people.
>If a song can only be sung by some people, it can still be enjoyed by
>many.
>>Now we're getting into the sticky issue of what constitutes a song.
>>From a legal point of view, only the melody and lyrics are considered
>>essential, i.e. copyrightable elements. Most of us would probably
>>consider the chords and the basic rhythm/feel to be part of it, too.
>>I'd even consider an instrumental lick to be part of a song if that
>>lick plays a key role, e.g. the guitar lick in "Layla".
>When most listeners talk about the songs they enjoy, I believe they
>are considering all of these factors. (I certainly do.)
Can I add this in here?
What constitutes a good song, certainly is rather indefinable. One that
is one of my favorites is Hank Williams' "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry."
That has become a country standard. And to me, it's an excellent example
of a great song.
The melody is simple. It's a very basic I-IV-V chord progression. The
lyrics are smooth and seamless.
It's only when I look at the words literally that I have a problem:
"Did you ever see a robin weep
when leaves began to die
That means he's lost the will to live..."
Really now! Robins don't weep! But still, I think it's a great song.
Lianne
--
+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+
Lianne or Jim McNeil jam...@hevanet.com
My opinions are David Wier's (c.1996 DMW). Anyone else interested must
first contact him & ask if my opinions may be borrowed for further publication. http://www.airmail.net/~dwier/
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>g...@shellx.best.com (Greg Skinner) wrote:
>>In my original analysis of the song "That's As Close As I'll Get To
>>Loving You" performed by Aaron Tippin, I said that I enjoyed the song,
>>despite the fact that the lyrics did not paint a crystal clear picture
>>of what was going on, nor did they provide justification for the
>>feelings portrayed in the song. You replied that this was a sign of
>>an inferior song. I am questioning why the song is inferior based on
>>those criteria.
>justification for the feelings portrayed in the song, which would make
>the situation more believable, which would create more of an emotional
>impact for the song.
Why *must* the song provide justification for the feelings portrayed
in it? If the singer is providing the emotional impact (which IMHO he
is), the message has been communicated to the listeners.
>>When most listeners talk about the songs they enjoy, I believe they
>>are considering all of these factors. (I certainly do.)
>The message I seem to be getting is that you believe it's better to
>view songs from the point of view of the general listener as opposed
>to the perspective of the songwriter. That view seems odd, considering
>that we are in fact songwriters talking about our craft.
I guess I am not that fussy about covering all of the tiny little
details in songs.
--gregbo
Peggy Bertsch
: Unfortunately, I haven't heard the song enough to analyze it thoroughly.
: Do you know who wrote it? I know Aaron Tippin tends to write his own
: songs, but every once in awhile does one that someone else wrote.
I think this was a three-way co-write, and I don't *think* Tippin was involved
(but don't quote me). There is this annual invitation-only songwriter retreat
in France every spring (at least, the last couple), where writers and artists
from all different musical genres switch off in groups of two or three and
write every day. Most have never met each other before (although there is a
lot of name recognition), and they get together -- sometimes a pop with a rock
with a country writer -- and just see what happens. One of the "That's As
Close..." writers (Paul Jefferson) is a friend of a friend, and I had heard
this song came out of the retreat in France. Paul has a forthcoming debut
(country) album, but this was his first cut -- and it went all the way to #1.
Not bad :-)
--peg
Charles A. Alexander
(..stuff deleted)
> with a country writer -- and just see what happens. One of the "That's As
> Close..." writers (Paul Jefferson) is a friend of a friend, and I had heard
> this song came out of the retreat in France. Paul has a forthcoming debut
> (country) album, but this was his first cut -- and it went all the way to #1.
> Not bad :-)
>
> --peg
Hi Peg,
I just got back from Nashville and i met one of Paul Jefferson's close friends
and co-writers. A guy named John Michaels. Real nice fellow. Anyway he had
a copy of the CD to be officially released in April and two songs on it
"Check Please" and "I Will" seem to be potential #1's. "I Will" will probably
be played at every wedding in the south and then some. I met John Michaels
through another writer friend of mine, Pam Belford (If I Know Me, When Hell
Freezes Over).
Paul Jefferson sings on a lot on Jon Ims' demos and Jon seems to think (as does
Almo Sound) that Paul's gonna be a star...
- Charles
Larry Collins
>It's only when I look at the words literally that I have a problem:
>"Did you ever see a robin weep
>when leaves began to die
>That means he's lost the will to live..."
>Really now! Robins don't weep! But still, I think it's a great song.
Sometimes you just have to accept a flawed song. Today I heard "The
Ballad Of The Alamo", by Marty Robbins. It was a GREAT effort by
someone who probably saw the John Wayne movie and got inspired. but
obviously has never actually been to San Antonio.
The song speaks of a lone cowboy sitting on a horse, up on a hill
overlooking the ruins of Tha Alamo, where "a century before, you could
hear the bugles blowing and hear the cannons roar".
Well, The Alamo sits smack in the middle of the oldest part of
downtown San Antonio, on ground that's utterly flat for 5 miles in
every direction, and the battle was fought in 1846, so that cowboy's
horse didn't mind all the cars and airplanes a hundred years later.
It's interesting that he picked up the fact that Santa Ana had the
"Deguello" played on bugles during the final assault, AND that it
signified "No Quarter", that all defenders were to be killed, and yet
he places The Cowboy on a non-existant hill, in a time period just
after World War II, in the business district of a town that had over
50,000 residents.
Man I really like that song, but there's a LOT of "Poetic License" in
it, probably due to it's being based on the John Wayne movie.
You really CAN analyze a song you like to the point where you can't
enjoy it...
BTW, if anyone else saw that movie, and cares, two written accounts of
the battle have been found in the last 5 years which indicate that
Davey Crockett actually DID make a stand on the North Walll of the
Alamo, (Just like The Duke!) but wasn't killed.
One account says that Santa Ana beheaded him with a saber shortly
afterwards, and the other says that Crockett was brought before Santa
Ana in a tent, and hacked to pieces in front of him by the three
officers that brought the prisoner in, and it made the writer of the
diary toss his cookies!
Seth Jackson
>In article <4cvt30$f...@marina.cinenet.net>,
>Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>>Because if the song were written better, it *would* provide
>>justification for the feelings portrayed in the song, which would make
>>the situation more believable, which would create more of an emotional
>>impact for the song.
>Why *must* the song provide justification for the feelings portrayed
>in it? If the singer is providing the emotional impact (which IMHO he
>is), the message has been communicated to the listeners.
A song "must" not do anything. But if it did that, it would clearly be
a better song, which is the topic we're discussing. The singer and the
song are two separate issues. It seems that you are not willing to
separate the two.
>>The message I seem to be getting is that you believe it's better to
>>view songs from the point of view of the general listener as opposed
>>to the perspective of the songwriter. That view seems odd, considering
>>that we are in fact songwriters talking about our craft.
>I guess I am not that fussy about covering all of the tiny little
>details in songs.
Your opinion of what constitutes a "tiny little detail" is obviously
different from mine. Regardless of how one defines that term,
songwriters who are determined to master their craft *are* fussy about
them. If you're not interested in that, then there's no point to this
discussion.
--
Seth Jackson
Seth Jackson's Songwriting Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/speaker
The Online Home of "Country Notes" for Los Angeles area songwriters
Seth Jackson
>In article <4d3glo$q...@hpax.cup.hp.com>, pber...@cup.hp.com (Peggy Bertsch) writes:
>I just got back from Nashville and i met one of Paul Jefferson's close friends
>and co-writers. A guy named John Michaels. Real nice fellow. Anyway he had
>a copy of the CD to be officially released in April and two songs on it
>"Check Please" and "I Will" seem to be potential #1's. "I Will" will probably
>be played at every wedding in the south and then some. I met John Michaels
"Check Please"? Hmmm, I wonder if this is the same guy I saw at
Davis-Kidd Booksellers the last time I was in Nashville? The guy I saw
did a song by the same name, and it was a great song. I talked to him
afterwards, and he also has a CD coming out soon. I forgot his name,
but he was also a real nice fellow.
This guy had another song "W-O-M-A-N", which seemed like another
potential smash.
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>g...@shellx.best.com (Greg Skinner) wrote:
>>Why *must* the song provide justification for the feelings portrayed
>>in it? If the singer is providing the emotional impact (which IMHO he
>>is), the message has been communicated to the listeners.
>A song "must" not do anything. But if it did that, it would clearly be
>a better song, which is the topic we're discussing.
Perhaps if I rephrase my statements you will be able to understand
them better.
You say, "If the song lyrics were clearer and more informative, it
would be better."
I ask, "Why is this so?"
You reply, "Because if they were more clearer and more informative, it
would be better."
... and we continue to go around in circles.
If you would explain *why* making lyrics clearer and more informative
makes songs better, instead of just stating it as fact, we might get
somewhere. I have never, in any songwriting book, class, or seminar,
heard anyone say that a song *must* be made clearer or more
informative to its listener with its lyrics to improve its quality.
I have heard it said that this can strengthen a song in some, perhaps
most cases, but it is not a requirement.
--gregbo
Charles A. Alexander
>
> "Check Please"? Hmmm, I wonder if this is the same guy I saw at
> Davis-Kidd Booksellers the last time I was in Nashville? The guy I saw
> did a song by the same name, and it was a great song. I talked to him
> afterwards, and he also has a CD coming out soon. I forgot his name,
> but he was also a real nice fellow.
>
> This guy had another song "W-O-M-A-N", which seemed like another
> potential smash.
> --
> Seth Jackson
>
> Seth Jackson's Songwriting Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/speaker
> The Online Home of "Country Notes" for Los Angeles area songwriters
>
Well...I met John MIchaels at Davis-Kidd. But, it sounds like you might
have met Paul Jefferson. I don't know much else about him except that
he's a good guy. I've never met Paul though.
Man, this meeting people stuff is real cool. And they're real nice people
to boot. Bob DiPiero and Pam Tillis walked into Davis-Kidd's cafe and I was
more excited about being in the same room as Bob DiPiero than I was about
seeing Pam Tillis. That's another thing about Nashville it's OK if you're
a musician/artist/writer etc. and they don't molest you even if you're famous.
They don't ask you if you have a real job!
And this has nothing to do with songwriting but if you're in Nashville, you
HAVE GOT TO check out a revue called "Comboys LeCage." IT's a total riot!
- Charles
SongDoc
>... and we continue to go around in circles.
>If you would explain *why* making lyrics clearer and more informative
>makes songs better, instead of just stating it as fact, we might get
>somewhere.
man... you two need to co-write a few...
i understand where seth is coming from, greg.
his school of songwriting believes that clarity in lyric equals a
better song because that's what the market he's writing for demands.
in country, if you get too subtle, if you have obscure references and
unclarified points of view, the song's a near impossible pitch.
so... seth justifiably feels that a better song is a song that the
listener can understand the meaning of without guessing.
in other forms of popular music, clarity is obviously not the rule of
thumb. skimming the stations, i often hear great *sounding* songs
that lyrically make no sense. great melodic hooks with less than good
lyrics annoy the heck out of me. what a waste! besides the music or
production, there's no payoff, emotionally or intellectually. *for
me*. but lots of people don't listen to songs with the same ears we
do. some just get off on the beat, the guitar sound. so it sells.
that's the way it is with new artists... and that's fine. generally,
as they mature, so does their writing.
>I have never, in any songwriting book, class, or seminar,
>heard anyone say that a song *must* be made clearer or more
>informative to its listener with its lyrics to improve its quality.
>I have heard it said that this can strengthen a song in some, perhaps
>most cases, but it is not a requirement.
of course no one will say "you must" do anything. it's each writer's
choice. there are no requirements in songwriting. anyone's entitled
to write less than well crafted songs.
greg... this is just one of your "devil's advocate" things again,
isn't it...?
don
Seth Jackson
>In article <4d9i2a$7...@marina.cinenet.net>,
>Perhaps if I rephrase my statements you will be able to understand
>them better.
>You say, "If the song lyrics were clearer and more informative, it
>would be better."
>I ask, "Why is this so?"
>You reply, "Because if they were more clearer and more informative, it
>would be better."
>... and we continue to go around in circles.
Oh, is that what's been happening? If so, then the reason is probably
because I can't imagine that my statement requires any explanation.
>If you would explain *why* making lyrics clearer and more informative
>makes songs better, instead of just stating it as fact, we might get
>somewhere. I have never, in any songwriting book, class, or seminar,
>heard anyone say that a song *must* be made clearer or more
>informative to its listener with its lyrics to improve its quality.
>I have heard it said that this can strengthen a song in some, perhaps
>most cases, but it is not a requirement.
You, not me, are the only one who used the word "requirement". We were
talking about a specific song, not "all songs". I was responding to
your description of this particular song.
I think what I said was straightforward and clear, and that you are
simply trying to pick it apart.
Greg Skinner
>his school of songwriting believes that clarity in lyric equals a
>better song because that's what the market he's writing for demands.
>in country, if you get too subtle, if you have obscure references and
>unclarified points of view, the song's a near impossible pitch.
>so... seth justifiably feels that a better song is a song that the
>listener can understand the meaning of without guessing.
The song in question ("That's As Close As I'll Get to Loving You,"
performed by Aaron Tippin) reached #1 on the Billboard country chart,
so it must be satisfying its market in some way. It was also not
written by him (as far as I know), so Mr. Tippin (or his associates)
must have understood what was meant by the lyrics, or at least felt
that it was a good song for him to sing, because he could bring
something to the song.
>in other forms of popular music, clarity is obviously not the rule of
>thumb.
There seem to be a lot of unclear popular country songs as well. It
doesn't seem to affect their marketability. There are also a lot of
popular non-country songs where a lot of attention is given to the
lyrics.
>of course no one will say "you must" do anything. it's each writer's
>choice. there are no requirements in songwriting. anyone's entitled
>to write less than well crafted songs.
... as is determined by some school of songwriting (as you put it).
>greg... this is just one of your "devil's advocate" things again,
>isn't it...?
No.
Peggy Bertsch
: In article <4d9ihd$7...@marina.cinenet.net>, spe...@cinenet.net (Seth Jackson) writes:
: >
: > "Check Please"? Hmmm, I wonder if this is the same guy I saw at
: > Davis-Kidd Booksellers the last time I was in Nashville?
: Well...I met John MIchaels at Davis-Kidd. But, it sounds like you might
: have met Paul Jefferson. I don't know much else about him except that
: he's a good guy. I've never met Paul though.
Paul is kind of tall, short dark hair, more of a GQ look than a new country/
"big hat" look :-) "Check Please" is a real crowd pleaser...I know it had the
Bluebird audience rolling when I saw Paul do it there. Paul lived in Northern
California before moving to Nashville, and has definitely been paying his dues
as a demo singer (and, of course, writing) while waiting for his shot. A
Nashville songwriter I know (who lives in No. CA and "commutes" to Nashville
4-5 times a year) has also used Paul on his demos for a while, and really
thinks highly of Paul's potential. It's so hard to tell, though...so much of
it is industry politics, and how much money the label puts into promotion.
It's just so hard to break a new artist these days. But it would be nice to
see someone like Paul be one of the "lucky" ones...
: Man, this meeting people stuff is real cool. And they're real nice people
: to boot. Bob DiPiero and Pam Tillis walked into Davis-Kidd's cafe and I was
: more excited about being in the same room as Bob DiPiero than I was about
: seeing Pam Tillis. That's another thing about Nashville it's OK if you're
: a musician/artist/writer etc. and they don't molest you even if you're famous.
Yeah, I love Davis-Kidd...great bookstore and a great place to bump into
other writers :-) The last two times I was in there I ended up in
conversations with Hugh Prestwood and Allen Shamblin. Nashville seems to
have such a different feel than L.A. Not that the L.A.-based community
isn't nice (I haven't spent enough time there to pass that judgement :-), but
the people I *have* met from the L.A. arm of the industry seem so much more
guarded than their Nashville counterparts. How many L.A.-based publishers
do you know who would tell a room full of aspiring songwriters (and this
happened at an NSAI seminar once) that his home phone number was listed,
and he didn't mind if we called -- provided we didn't inundate him with tapes,
as he preferred maybe an offer to go grab a beer :-) And this guy is a very
serious "player" who went on to head (I think) A&R at Decca Records. Great
guy with great song sense, too. The kind of guy who is in the music business
for the right reasons, IMO.
I guess Nashville wasn't named the "friendliest city in the U.S." for
nothing :-)
--peg
Seth Jackson
>The song in question ("That's As Close As I'll Get to Loving You,"
>performed by Aaron Tippin) reached #1 on the Billboard country chart,
>so it must be satisfying its market in some way. It was also not
>written by him (as far as I know), so Mr. Tippin (or his associates)
>must have understood what was meant by the lyrics, or at least felt
>that it was a good song for him to sing, because he could bring
>something to the song.
I've heard the song in question many times, but I've never paid close
attention to the words. This whole discussion started when *you*
reported that the lyric does not justify the singer's feeling towards
the woman. Now you're arguing that the lyric is clear enough for Mr.
Tippin to understand. So, I guess I don't understand your point.
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>g...@shellx.best.com (Greg Skinner) wrote:
>>The song in question ("That's As Close As I'll Get to Loving You,"
>>performed by Aaron Tippin) reached #1 on the Billboard country chart,
>>so it must be satisfying its market in some way. It was also not
>>written by him (as far as I know), so Mr. Tippin (or his associates)
>>must have understood what was meant by the lyrics, or at least felt
>>that it was a good song for him to sing, because he could bring
>>something to the song.
>I've heard the song in question many times, but I've never paid close
>attention to the words. This whole discussion started when *you*
>reported that the lyric does not justify the singer's feeling towards
>the woman.
I reported that the lyrics do not make it absolutely clear what is
going on or why. However, I didn't feel that I *needed* more
information to enjoy the song. For me, the way it was being sung was
enough. At that point, you disagreed, and indicated that this was a
sign of an inferior song.
>Now you're arguing that the lyric is clear enough for Mr.
>Tippin to understand. So, I guess I don't understand your point.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting it as a possibility.
My general point is that songs don't have to be well crafted (whatever
that means) to be enjoyable.
--gregbo
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>Obviously, there are some genres of songs where clarity of story is
>not necessary or even desired, but in country music, and a song such
>as the one in question, if we don't know what the singer feels the way
>he does, then the lyricist has not done his job in communicating the
>song's emotional message.
Here is another take on this. Suppose the lyricist deliberately
intended not to clarify the singer's feelings. Has the lyricist still
not done his job? Maybe the lyricist has done something other than
what you think he should have done ...
It's too bad the lyricist is not here on this newsgroup, to let us
know why he did what he did.
>Your original comment was that the lyric didn't communicate this, but
>that the *singer* made the song enjoyable. Thus, my comment that this
>was an indication to me of an inferior song.
Well, I guess we just have different opinions of inferiority. Oh
well.
--gregbo
Seth Jackson
>In article <4drmnq$g...@marina.cinenet.net>,
>Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>>Obviously, there are some genres of songs where clarity of story is
>>not necessary or even desired, but in country music, and a song such
>>as the one in question, if we don't know what the singer feels the way
>>he does, then the lyricist has not done his job in communicating the
>>song's emotional message.
>Here is another take on this. Suppose the lyricist deliberately
>intended not to clarify the singer's feelings. Has the lyricist still
>not done his job? Maybe the lyricist has done something other than
>what you think he should have done ...
If there was a good reaon for not clarifying it, then of course he did
his job b not clarifying it. In the case of this song, I can't imagine
what the point would be of keeping us in the dark.
You *are* palying Devil's advocate, right?
>It's too bad the lyricist is not here on this newsgroup, to let us
>know why he did what he did.
It would be interesting to hear his view on the song, but I don't
think it's necessary to have the lyricist involved in the discussion
to evaluate the song. Is there a reason why you think it's better that
you don't know why the singer feels the way he feels? Does it increase
the emotional impact of the story, or does it detract from it?
>>Your original comment was that the lyric didn't communicate this, but
>>that the *singer* made the song enjoyable. Thus, my comment that this
>>was an indication to me of an inferior song.
>Well, I guess we just have different opinions of inferiority. Oh
>well.
It would appear so.
Greg Skinner
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>g...@shellx.best.com (Greg Skinner) wrote:
>>Here is another take on this. Suppose the lyricist deliberately
>>intended not to clarify the singer's feelings. Has the lyricist still
>>not done his job? Maybe the lyricist has done something other than
>>what you think he should have done ...
>If there was a good reaon for not clarifying it, then of course he did
>his job b not clarifying it. In the case of this song, I can't imagine
>what the point would be of keeping us in the dark.
>You *are* palying Devil's advocate, right?
No. I think it's important to consider several factors and
possibilities when analyzing a piece of music (or lyrics). Although
this song may have some common elements with a class of songs that
tell a story in sufficient detail that the listener isn't left
with loose ends, I don't think it should be negatively judged if it
doesn't do this.
>>It's too bad the lyricist is not here on this newsgroup, to let us
>>know why he did what he did.
>It would be interesting to hear his view on the song, but I don't
>think it's necessary to have the lyricist involved in the discussion
>to evaluate the song. Is there a reason why you think it's better that
>you don't know why the singer feels the way he feels? Does it increase
>the emotional impact of the story, or does it detract from it?
I didn't say I thought it was better. I said that hearing the singer
sing the lyrics was sufficient for me to understand what was meant,
without having the lyrics tell me everything.
I think it would be interesting to hear the lyricist's views to see if
the writer feels the song needs additional work of the type you
describe, or if he feels he accomplished what he set out to do.
--gregbo