Writing from what we want to hear vs. what is unexpected

[theblue1]

Interesting framing...

I definitely write my best songs while inspired (whatever that is but I think most of us know more or less what I mean) -- but it took me a while before I could gracefully channel inspiration into song fast enough to stay in the inspired mode long enough to more or less complete a song.

After the inspiration has flitted off to wherever it goes, I then put on the editor's visor (I guess they don't use those any more) and start niggling at all the little bits that don't necessarily fit as well as they should.

It's during this phase that I also check for any cliches or worn phrases that seemed 'inspired' or at least justifiable during writing that might be replaced with something better.

I'll admit, it's not very often at all I come up with something that really gleams in one of these after-the-fire editing sessions -- but it does happen, and sometimes it really is like the last piece of a puzzle that makes it all make sense (or better sense or SOUND like it makes sense ). I recently sat down and dogged a couple lines that had been bugging me for the better part of a couple decades and found the perfect little bit that really did not just save a weak spot, but bring positive value.

(But off the top of my head, I can't remember for the life of me what song or change it was. Happily, I remember writing it into the file of the song, rather than just scribbling the change in the margin of a print out as has happened far too many times in the past. [Looked it up. It's not sparkling. But it's a lot better. ])

[pinkheadedbug]

One of the things I've learned is to kick myself out of my own grooves.

By this I mean, if it seems obvious how the song should go, I do something different.

There's always an obvious way to finish an idea but it's almost never the most interesting or productive.

I try to run an idea through all sorts of filters -- different keys, different time sigs (3/4, 6/8, 7/8, 15/8??), modulations, random chords, getting off the 8-bar grid. Mostly it's a matter of whenever I see a path I've trodden a few times before, I try to head in another direction.

It's mostly to keep my own interest levels up, to be honest. If there's nothing new to me in a song, I really can't find any incentive to play or finish it.

[banjobach]

pinkheadedbug is more in line with what I'm getting at. Not so much how you edit after you write everything down, but rather seeing where you instinctively want the song to go melodically or lyrically or whatever, but then doing something differently for the sake of cleverness or keeping yourself entertained, etc. Not so much an afterthought, but rather an active approach that you apply while you feel out your composition.

In a sense, I'm asking how often do you go against yourself because you think your initial impulse is the least interesting? I find I do a lot. And I think it's a maturation of sorts when it comes to being an artist. When I first began making music, I wrote what I wanted to hear. But now I look back at those songs as naive and poorly thought out. Now I'm striving to create something with more layers, twists, and turns to improve the longevity of its appeal.

I think to those less musically traveled and enthusiastic about the mechanics of music, this starts to seem self indulgent. Which, it can be if one doesn't try to balance it with the familiar. That's the balancing act I'm trying to convey here.

[creegstor]

I listen to what the song says it needs.

[Miharbi]

Originally Posted by banjobach

So this leads me to a question I pose to you. Have you ever felt like you needed to do a balancing act between instant-gratification songwriting and contemplative songwriting, and if so, which artist/s or people helped bring it on?

Hmm, interesting question. I think there is a balance to be struck, though "instant-gratification" vs "contemplative" is only one distinction among many. There are also times for difficulty, for digging in, for calm and rest, for laying groundwork, for going off the rails, for sustaining intensity, etc. I definitely feel that certain moments in my music are the "yummy" ones, the emotional payoffs. But they're "yummy" only because they're somewhat rare, and embedded in a context of other goals and moods that give them meaning. I think the best music stimulates on many levels - heart, mind, spirit, loins... Fiona Apple's new album is a fine example of this, I'd say... as are a lot of albums where "interesting" is among the first adjectives to spring to mind.

[banjobach]

Originally Posted by creegstor

I listen to what the song says it needs.

phrases like this strike me as vapid, because they say nothing about why we make the choices we make when it comes to writing our compositions.

My interest in music would have waned long ago had I not looked at my compositional choices and asked "why?" I think all of us have been imprinted upon from past experience by the music we were exposed to, and those prints help explain the unseen wind that blows us from one musical direction to another.

Without getting into determinism and how we essentially don't have free will, but rather our actions are the result of physical events occurring in the brain, the take away point is that by understanding to a limited extent the reasons we are pushed and pulled towards certain musical directions, we can choose against our instincts, and perhaps happen upon something more interesting that we would not have considered initially.

[creegstor]

Originally Posted by banjobach

phrases like this strike me as vapid, because they say nothing about why we make the choices we make when it comes to writing our compositions.

My interest in music would have waned long ago had I not looked at my compositional choices and asked "why?" I think all of us have been imprinted upon from past experience by the music we were exposed to, and those prints help explain the unseen wind that blows us from one musical direction to another.

Without getting into determinism and how we essentially don't have free will, but rather our actions are the result of physical events occurring in the brain, the take away point is that by understanding to a limited extent the reasons we are pushed and pulled towards certain musical directions, we can choose against our instincts, and perhaps happen upon something more interesting that we would not have considered initially.

It's not vapid. It's the truth. I have very little to do with it. I just listen. I don't make choices. I just do as I'm told. Maybe that doesn't jibe with people trying to codify something that's really uncodifiable but it's the truth and in there is hidden the secret: learn to listen to what the song wants. Most people never learn this but are happy to read reams of rubbish about things they think will help them. I mean I've been asked about my "process" many times and the truth is I don't have one. I can certainly break down the things that I do into chunks and explain them and the reasoning that may be behind why they work (though I've always found this reductionism lacks the ability to truly capture the essence a piece) but honestly none of it is anything I think about while doing it. I don't need to think precisely because I listen to the song and do as I'm told.

[banjobach]

Originally Posted by creegstor

It's not vapid. It's the truth. I have very little to do with it. I just listen. I don't make choices. I just do as I'm told. Maybe that doesn't jibe with people trying to codify something that's really uncodifiable but it's the truth and in there is hidden the secret: learn to listen to what the song wants. Most people never learn this but are happy to read reams of rubbish about things they think will help them. I mean I've been asked about my "process" many times and the truth is I don't have one. I can certainly break down the things that I do into chunks and explain them and the reasoning that may be behind why they work (though I've always found this reductionism lacks the ability to truly capture the essence a piece) but honestly none of it is anything I think about while doing it. I don't need to think precisely because I listen to the song and do as I'm told.

"listen to what the song wants."
"I do as I'm told"

What you think the song wants derives from your own intuitions. I used to write in a similar fashion as you describe. I would feel the strike of inspiration and I would fill in the blank with what seemed like the only possible way of doing it. This is a prime example of an approach that employs little to no analysis to the approach itself. Your musical instincts so dominate your songwriting process that you don't see your choices as choices anymore. There is no room for contemplation when you are convinced the song dictates itself to you. The danger here is that musical instincts can lead astray. They can lead down a predictable path, and this is no failing of the song, but of the writer, who can't understand that his instincts have flaws. Understanding the origin of musical instincts can help prevent against inadvertent plagiarism and stagnation.

This is why I say contemplative songwriting is a maturation. It goes deeper into the process, rather than letting mysterious impulses haphazardly move me through a new song.

[creegstor]

Originally Posted by banjobach

"listen to what the song wants."
"I do as I'm told"

What you think the song wants derives from your own intuitions. I used to write in a similar fashion as you describe. I would feel the strike of inspiration and I would fill in the blank with what seemed like the only possible way of doing it. This is a prime example of an approach that employs little to no analysis to the approach itself. Your musical instincts so dominate your songwriting process that you don't see your choices as choices anymore. There is no room for contemplation when you are convinced the song dictates itself to you. The danger here is that musical instincts can lead astray. They can lead down a predictable path, and this is no failing of the song, but of the writer, who can't understand that his instincts have flaws. Understanding the origin of musical instincts can help prevent against inadvertent plagiarism and stagnation.

This is why I say contemplative songwriting is a maturation. It goes deeper into the process, rather than letting mysterious impulses haphazardly move me through a new song.

Although much of what you say above is true for most people that's NOT what I'm doing or promoting that other people should do. There is a world of difference between an amateur "listening to the song" and a master doing it, and a world of difference between their "intuitions". (This is why I'm like a broken record saying "develop your intuition first") Unfortunately it's difficult to quantify how to get there for people who are still learning (or stuck) at a certain level. The plain truth is, most of what people are told to do to become better writers won't get them anywhere near being good let alone great. What I can clarify is this: "listening to the song" is most assuredly NOT just doing what comes naturally to oneself and moving in ever decreasing circles.

[Blegh the Blimp]

I never, ever go against myself in terms of my initial inspiration and interest.

If I am not interested in the song that is forming before me, then I don't complete it. The mission is aborted.

For me, the idea of anybody writing a song and then tweaking it so as to appeal to the mass of brain dead zombies who mostly buy music these days would be like a great artist painting by numbers. What's the point?

I am an arrogant pig at times, and tend to believe if I find it interesting, so too will at least some others. And if they don't, well...there are certain obscene gestures I will gladly throw at them. (nah, just kidding. I'd just assume they're all deaf and/or stupid)

[Unclenny]

I always listen to the mysterious impulses. I know they will guide me to a creative place.

Later on comes the time to apply a bit of songcrafting to get something good.

[JogolandGroup]

I do both. I have what I call "prestige" projects where I write music more deliberately and challenge myself to put some musical muscle into it, and for other projects it's just ear-candy, meant for fun. The prestige projects happen in their own time and I never rush them. Ear-candy I just crank out like a factory. But even with the ear-candy, I usually run them by the prestige office for a quick fine-tuning, and sometimes prestige songs end up in the trash.

[Bossatmusic]

I write it through on instinct, and then when the inspiration is gone, and I'm no longer blinded or compelled by it, I fix its flaws with a logical head

[bpsrepair]

Personally I like to mix the expected with the unexpected. I think it's great to supply the riff/melody that the song asks for, it's like water for the thirsty. But as a songwriter, I decide when the thirsty drink. In other words, it's a mind game. Do I want to give the listener what I've made him/her want, or do I want to keep him/her waiting? Am I trying to tease the listener or give them what they want?

It's like playing with a lover. Sometimes you gotta mix it up and be a little unexpected, but in the end you still want to get the job done. If you always go with the unexpected, it becomes the expected and gets boring.

My theory is; take 'em on a ride. Decide what you want your audience to feel and make them feel it. If you do that well, the connection will be made.

Rock on,

bps

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by banjobach

Have you ever felt like you needed to do a balancing act between instant-gratification songwriting and contemplative songwriting, and if so, which artist/s or people helped bring it on?

In ~40 years of writing music I don't think I've ever subscribed to the "instant gratification" method of songwriting.

Most composition is a conscious effort bordering on the laborious for me. But even the things I write where it feels like the entire work is born fully-fledged and all I need to do is transcribe the performance in my head before I lose it...even those works get mulled over, reasoned, thought through, "contemplated" before getting committed to paper.

It's not that I don't trust my instincts; it's that I want them to be defensible.


[edit]

Originally Posted by banjobach

In a sense, I'm asking how often do you go against yourself because you think your initial impulse is the least interesting?

Almost never...because I almost never write impulsively.

[lovenara]

For me it's 50-50,the balance thing,if you just follow your mind when it's on steroid,it can make you gone hogwild,endup as anything bad.