I always figured it was his own spin on Tenacious. Just a guess. Or maybe, like Kareem, he's just too lazy to get his ass downcourt on the fast break.

[bold added]

Not helpful to you. But you are an individual. As are others. And we are all, potentially, quite different.

I think what can be off putting to people are the broad statements of those who confuse their own viewpoint with the universal or the objective.

What works or doesn't work for YOU, applies to you.

It doesn't apply to me. And it probably doesn't apply to the next guy in line.

You'll note that I never made any broad statements about how peer critique (for instance) would be helpful to everybody -- because I have the experience to realize that creatives encompass a broad, even bewildering array of views and attitudes and such a generalization would be foolish.

I mean. . its a fact that songwriting boards don't thrive like other music board topics.

There are classical and dubstep etc etc boards with millions of posts (https://www.talkclassical.com, https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/)

For whatever reason (I've hypothesized on a few), songwriting boards don't really pull the same interest as other topics.

This of course doesn't mean certain people may find them helpful. But its not like the "doesn't work" is completely subjective. . its an observation of what exists.

Whether or not they "thrive" as well as other topics has no relation as to whether or not they "work" for some people...and the latter can ONLY be subjective.

Understood
We all have experiences and mine are not superior to anyone's so I would naturally not qualify them as such.

The characterization or interpretation of my post is not entirely correct here but I was expecting this type of response. That's just fine.

For sure.

I guess I've had the thread title in mind with the angle I've approached the conversation. There really aren't any compared to a lot of other topics. Why not? They're not actually all that exciting or helpful In general of course, observing the existing general human trends. All is subjective and general trends open to evolution.

You seem oddly ready to conflate fan forums with the sort of avocationally/professionally oriented peer work groups I've been describing. It's a peculiar mistake to make, I have to say. Fans and creatives tend to be very different types. And, of course there are thousands if not millions more fans than there are true creatives.

And, like others, I don't tend to see much correlation between popularity and innate value to a given individual.

Well, I am sorry if I mischaracterized your ideas in any fashion -- and you should feel free to clarify if you like.

You know, I'm not promoting such writers' groups so much as sharing my observations after a decade of active involvement in such a forum community. As you'll recall, earlier in this thread I also shared observations on why such groups can be difficult to sustain.

Frankly, I find it rather odd that people found it necessary to argue at length with those observations -- particularly since I went out of my way to qualify them as certainly not applicable to everyone.

But what are you going to do, huh? That's the bloody Internet for you.

No arguing here. It may be, due to your background, that this touches a certain spot for you. No worries....I enjoy your posts tremendously.

I am really flying blind here but my guess is you are more diversified than me in art in general. I don't spend too much time positively rationalizing something I find uninteresting.

An old girlfriend used to drive me batty when reacting the same way after every horrible movie we'd see: "Well, that was interesting."

To the future!

Well, the 'certain spot' is a decade of first hand experience.

Me, I have seen a lot of horrible movies... and most of them are really horrible... but, I also have to say that -- every once in long awhile -- you do see a horrible movie that is kind of interesting.

I guess I think of a thriving community full of active topics that fill up the first few pages when I think "good forum." Semantics. It makes sense that smaller peer oriented type groups could be beneficial for songwriters, as you need either individualized attention with individual goals in mind to give good feedback, or an established baseline of some kind (the "share your work" section of a genre forum where things are being held to genre standards) to not enter into "nothing but subjectivity land" which theoretically can offer no feedback.

I've gained a lot from this forum over the years, so even though its less active I think there's a lot of high quality information to gain here. Maybe not directly or instructionally (other than terrible.dee singlehandedly saving this place with his unbelievably amazing posts that newbie's lazy asses are expected to dig for ), but when I dove more into the ongoing conversation I took home quite a lot I'd probably not otherwise be aware of, and it definitely shaped my development in positive ways.

Well... while, on general principle, I'll take quality over quantity in most matchups -- there IS such a thing as 'critical mass.'

A forum has to have at least a few active members to sustain itself. And a viable 'community' is probably going to need enough 'attractive' ability to make up for natural attrition (as other members develop other interests or move on in one way or another).

But, anyway, the sort of peer critique workshop group we had been discussing a bit earlier is only one way a songwriting discussion forum can might serve its members. And, of course, it need not be formalized; ad hoc feedback requests do pop up in general discussion; but, that said, there are ALWAYS loads of people who want to GET feedback [or maybe just listens]... but getting them to GIVE feedback -- can be a bit of an uphill.

The anonymity in these forums is exactly why they are ineffective. However, without the safety blanket of anonymity, folks would have to provide a bio that would no doubt help to qualify any feedback provided.

Of course the forum membership grand total would peak at 2.5 people......

I guess, being online since the dial up BBS days of the mid-late 80s, I'm pretty used to anonymity.

I have to say that I tend to judge people by what they write. It's pretty rare when I look up someone's bio, even if it's right there in their signature area.

I mean, if the discussion is technical, the facts are usually pretty easy to pin down (and probably have been for years, despite the inevitable blue-is-red contrarian contingent).

And if the discussion is aesthetic, I'm a lot more interested in what the party is positing than in his highest previous chart position. I mean, I've been around the music scene for a long time now. And for decades, since the 60s, at least, I've been kvetching about the crap that collects at the top of the charts. Not to say that there haven't been some killer tracks at or near the top of the charts but... to my ear, there are also truckloads of product.

So I guess the obvious question is (given the really unmatched experience):
Are your songs better?

I think knowing someone's track record helps in establishing a baseline on where the advice sits. Not much more though.

Like if Paul McCartney were here giving advice, it'd be amazingly helpful to have a Beatle's take, but I'd also take it as the perspective of an aging Beatle and slot it appropriately based on my own goals. Knowing his track record would help slot the advice. His word wouldn't be gospel because of who he is, but it'd give the necessary anchor to the advice.

I remember a literature class I took talking about the world of the author, the world of the story they create, and the world of the reader (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3333119?seq=1). All three worlds offer completely different views of the work. Its a similar thing with songwriting.

Than what?


I can only give you a subjective, personal perspective, of course... if we're talking about comparing to stuff at the top of the charts that I hate, well, that pretty well tells you what you a lot of what you need to know. Flipping the coin to the stuff that has made it to the top of the charts I do like, I'd say it's 'competitive.' But, of course, still considering myself as the audience, I have to say that I have the advantage of knowing what I like and, occasionally even knowing how to get it. Are my songs 'competitive' in the general marketplace? I'd give that a clear cut 'no.' But, then, not all THAT many of my favorites have been competitive in that marketplace, either. I'm almost always shocked when something I already liked takes off with the public.

Now, if you're asking whether my songs are better than they were before I started consciously trying to improve my writing craft, there's no question. But then, they were dog waste when I started (as I think I mentioned). Just writing and playing and writing more and playing more pushed that along. But, for sure, what I picked up in prose writing classes definitely helped inform that ongoing process.

I think this is well-observed and quite sensible.


The last bit, from your lit class, that's golden, a very valuable insight. It might seem obvious, but it's really worth rolling it around in one's mind. (And, hey, it should reduce to a Venn diagram very nicely!)

You are making more of the question which I expected but, what I mean is:
Are your songs better?

It's a simple yes or no. The answer, given your background, vast experience and gained knowledge over the decades should be unequivocally yes.

Why do you hesitate? Are you unsure? Certainly your expertise creates amazing songs which outshine some 20-something charting now, right?

Well... uh... I think that takes us back to my qualifying question: better than what? Better than yours? Better than Burt Bacharach's or Cole Porter's? Better than the kid down the street?

I wasn't being coy... I just needed clarification on what you were asking.

Lol
Wow. This is hard.
You must believe you have songs that are better than what you indicated earlier....the charting songs.

I was asking you in the context of your own words.

So, yes then?

Taking the last line ("Why do you hesitate? Are you unsure? Certainly your expertise creates amazing songs which outshine some 20-something charting now, right?") as a de facto answer to my question, better than what?, I guess first I'd have to give a good, serious listen to the top-20-something. I'd also have to decide on what kind of 'better' we're talking about, some attempt to (somehow) 'objectively' rate the song based on some aesthetic/compositional framework?

Me, I neither write from such a framework, nor use one to consciously rate or rank others' songs -- so that would be a foreign exercise, a can of worms I might never get to the bottom of.

Since my innate, immediate reaction to and appreciation of my own songs -- and others' songs -- is generally almost entirely subjective (how does it make me feel; did the lyrics grab me in some way, did the melody ingratiate itself with me), it's well worth considering that I start out with some small advantage in such a comparison: I have a feel for what I like, and I'm the one writing the song, so I can tinker it to my pleasure. The 12 person songwriting team behind the latest top of the pops tune doesn't have that advantage. (And THEN, there IS the whole production/packaging thing. I wish I could be a bit more open-minded, but as soon as obvious tuning hits my ears, my hand smacks out to the skip button... a reaction left over from my youthful days with a push button car radio... when Three Dog Night or Billy Joel or KC and the Sunshine Company came up, my index finger would shoot out and punch it off. Clearly, while the packaging may entirely put me off the whole, it is NOT fair to 'judge' the songwriting on production decisions -- particularly those 'dictated' by attention to commerciality of style.)


Honestly, I'm not really sure WHAT you're trying to get at here, unless it's simply to try to get me to rank my own work against music I have little interest in or regard for. By that rating, hell, I like a LOT of my stuff more than the last stuff I heard at the top of the charts. That doesn't mean I think it's objectively 'better.' Nor does it mean I imagine it is in any way, 'commercial.' (For that matter, little of my favorite music is.)

I'm surprised at what seems to be a close minded equivocating response. I always envisioned you as open but maybe you just gravitate to exactly what you like and avoid what you believe will be dross.

Ok then....I'll move on.
Nothing to see here folks. Ignore my inquiry.

For what it's worth....I prefer my songs to ANYTHING in the top 20...that doesn't mean I judge my songs as "better"

I suppose it comes back to subjectivity, or even semantics, though I do believe a certain amount of conceit, sprinkled with a touch of perspective, goes a long way regarding any artistic output.

I hope so!!
Thanks for this! Someone has to have the courage of their convictions!!

So many opinions and no confidence. Thanks for putting that out there! I love it!

This is way better than endless complaining, equivocating and complete avoidance. Bravo!!!

Sorry to disappoint!

But I'm still not sure what you wanted to know, to be honest.

With regard to my description of what I called my "innate, immediate reaction to and appreciation" of my own and others' works, it's certainly reactive, but I'm only describing, as I wrote, an immediate reaction; my view of a given work often changes over time. And, if it doesn't, I may well lose interest. I like surface appeal as much as the next guy, but it can rub off fast.

(That said, maybe I should note that my avoidance of music with obvious tuning is not so much an aesthetic/stylistic thing -- I have no intellectual or ethical problem with the process [and I've used vocal tuning myself in composite vocals] -- as a simple, gut reaction: I simply cannot stand how most tuning affects me -- not dissimilar to my reaction to fingernails on a chalkboard.)


Addendum: I kind of feel like you want to 'pin me down' -- but what you take as equivocation is me trying to give you the most accurate, honest answer I can.

No worries.
I'm not trying to pin you down. You mentioned your decades of experience I assume to frame the conversation, perhaps heirarchially. I simply was seeking to understand if you had compared your work, as you introduced, with the current charts. You have not it seems and I believe it is because you may think there's no point to that because the charting songs are terrible.

I think believing in your art, 100%, is necessary. It appears that you either are truly confused by my question or you simply ask more questions to avoid answering.

I'm terribly sorry and apologize if this come across as rude. This is not my intent at all. I will admit it is a little frustrating that you're not sure (or won't say) if your songs are great. There are lots of words in your response but it all seems non-declarative.

Let me ask you this as it may alleviate the cloudiness:
Have you written any great songs over these decades?

First we would have to agree on what a great song is -- and I am 99% positive at this point that we would not be able to come to any sort of agreement. For one thing it is a question mired in subjectivity. So, being different people with different aesthetic values, our answers would be inevitably different and inconsistent.

It would be far easier to get me to answer the question of whether I, personally, liked the product of my writing... but I believe I already answered that. Or tried to.

[Edited.]

I believe we are talking at cross-purposes. I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to say at all -- and I don't want to say something impatient out of frustration that I would regret.