Steve, I disagree. If you're only maintaining that a presentation of a song or a piece of music either succeeds or fails depending upon whether or not the performers do a capable job of rendering it, then I have no quarrel. But it seems that you are saying that the formal "song" itself--i.e., the notes and/or lyrics written on a piece of paper--is not something about which a judgment is possible.

I rebut by bringing up the example of a fugue written by Bach. Its content is completely mapped out before a performer ever even tries to execute it on an organ. Now, the performer might play it poorly, or the timbre or resonance of the organ might sound off, and, in that case, the piece would be bungled. But that piece of paper exists so that a competent performer can then try his hand at it.

The song itself is capable of being detached and considered apart from the context in which it is played. Of course, your contention might hold more weight in the case of a rock 'n' roll song, which is more of an off-the-cuff, spontaneous phenomenon, capable of taking many different shapes depending upon who is covering it. But, even in this case, the formal character of the song itself remains stable even after any possible changes to its instrumentation have been made.

This whole discussion is quite interesting and reminds one of Plato's theory of the Forms. Can form exist without content?

whoops.

NerblyBear wrote:I rebut by bringing up the example of a fugue written by Bach. Its content is completely mapped out before a performer ever even tries to execute it on an organ.

I wasn't speaking of music in general, and I certainly wouldnt apply my prejudice across all kinds of music. I am addressing the common notion that there are "good songs," as the expression is commonly used with respect to artists that perform songs. Music that is wholly compositional (where the named artist is the composer, and the specific performer is often an un-credited detail) is clearly a different kettle of fish.

If you say I am splitting hairs, I agree. I do it every day.

I mean "good songs," the term bandied about constantly by music business people, journalists, producers, songwriters and such. The common understanding of the term as we have all heard it used. I don't believe such things exist. "Good songs." Hooey. There are good examples of certain songs, and bad ones, but the song -- before it is sung -- is unimportant.

Songwriter, get over yourself. You split kindling for a lovely fire.

The implication of my position with respect to copyright, "ownership" of music, etc. is not lost on me. I believe I am consistent in this thinking though.

steve wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:I rebut by bringing up the example of a fugue written by Bach. Its content is completely mapped out before a performer ever even tries to execute it on an organ.

I wasn't speaking of music in general, and I certainly wouldnt apply my prejudice across all kinds of music. I am addressing the common notion that there are "good songs," as the expression is commonly used with respect to artists that perform songs. Music that is wholly compositional (where the named artist is the composer, and the specific performer is often an un-credited detail) is clearly a different kettle of fish.

If you say I am splitting hairs, I agree. I do it every day.

I mean "good songs," the term bandied about constantly by music business people, journalists, producers, songwriters and such. The common understanding of the term as we have all heard it used. I don't believe such things exist. "Good songs." Hooey. There are good examples of certain songs, and bad ones, but the song -- before it is sung -- is unimportant.

Songwriter, get over yourself. You split kindling for a lovely fire.

The implication of my position with respect to copyright, "ownership" of music, etc. is not lost on me. I believe I am consistent in this thinking though.

I don't know, Steve. My voice is, at best, an acquired taste, and my guitar playing is patently average, yet I still somehow manage to give performances that people respond to. I have to think that this is due to my "songcraft"--that I have put words together thoughtfully and married them to melody in such a way that not even my considerable flaws can obscure the song. Even when I've played particularly badly, I can count on my best songs to stand out, and some fall short no matter how much conviction I pour into them--because they are lesser songs, not as inspired or as crafted or as polished as I like my best songs to be.

A great performance can make gibberish glorious, but a great song can also make a shitty band sound better, if not great.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:A great performance can make gibberish glorious, but a great song can also make a shitty band sound better, if not great.

Word.

Them Carpenters, for my money: more the former than the latter, alas. On the other hand, "great?" "Glorious?"

Tulsa's finest: N.O.T.A.

steve wrote:

Angus Jung wrote:The opinions expressed in this post- that "songcraft" is an illusion invented by professional songwriters for job security/justification,

Not invented, but used. It was invented by the greater music industry, when the term referred only to sheet music publisihng.

that when a bad band plays a good song it doesn't sound any better than their bad songs- these opinons are very strange.

Please listen to Winger's cover of "Purple Haze" for clarification on this point.

I would argue that the Three Dog Night were a pretty good band that couldn't write their own songs, and so relied on music publishers for most of their material.

However, the thought of Winger covering Purple Haze shakes me to the bone, and I am probably more tolerant of late eighties "lite" metal than most of you. .

steve wrote:I mean "good songs," the term bandied about constantly by music business people, journalists, producers, songwriters and such.

Isn't most everything said by music business people, journalists, producers and songwriters inane? Why should we care about their opinions on any subject? Apart from the songwriters themselves, fuck all of those people.

And I agree that much too much is made of the cut-and-dried notion of "songcraft" as a sort of blueprint for peole to follow. It leads to staid laziness (see almost all country artists, for instance). You'd have to pay me a sizeable amount of money to sit through an album made of "good songs," like a Lucinda Williams record or something. I think this whole notion is just a way to avoid coming up with new ideas. That's why I don't listen to most of that shit, anyway. My favorite rock bands--U.S. Maple, for instance--don't even write "songs".

NerblyBear wrote: My favorite rock bands--U.S. Maple, for instance--don't even write "songs".

OK, I'll take the bait... what do they "write"?

Mayfair wrote:

NerblyBear wrote: My favorite rock bands--U.S. Maple, for instance--don't even write "songs".

OK, I'll take the bait... what do they "write"?

Aural junk-sculptures, arranged with careful precision. f

Of course, the whole definition I gave earlier of a 'song"--something that can be written down on paper--dissolves entirely when it comes to Wolf Eyes or U.S. Maple, so I'm not really granting Steve his argument. Which is why I find these bands really exciting.

I'm using "song" in a pejorative sense here, to refer to verse/chorus/verse bullshit. My tastes are pretty eccentric, though.

NerblyBear wrote:

Mayfair wrote:

NerblyBear wrote: My favorite rock bands--U.S. Maple, for instance--don't even write "songs".

OK, I'll take the bait... what do they "write"?

Aural junk-sculptures, arranged with careful precision.

I'm using "song" in a pejorative sense here, to refer to verse/chorus/verse bullshit.

Hey buddy... i don't mean to interupt your waxing poetic but they are songs. Also, just so you know... the band crafted them earlier. I guess one could call that... um... oh nevermind.

Also, just so you know, the Ramones, Fugazi, The Stooges, the Beatles, Robert Johnson, Billie Holiday and probably 85% of your record collection follows that verse/chorus/verse bullshit you speak of.