A crazy new years resolution took shape over last december I was
driving around, (in dec. 05) running errands and listening to 91.5FM
WBEZ Chicago. They were talking about a band that had created One Song
a Week. They discussed the challenges and issues related to creating,
recording, and releasing a song every week.

That idea kind of sat in my mind for a couple of weeks...

I thought about raising the stakes, and mulled it over, "Could someone
write One Song Every Day?" It just seems to be an absolutely zany
thought, and it seems to be such a monumental task.

All of the songs are/will be available for download as MP3s - Download
all 365

I am up to about 140 - so far

http://www.OneSongEveryDay.com

Take Care and Please listen in - i want these songs to be heard and
passed onto friends

-best
michael droste

I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who said
they wrote every day no matter what.

--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com

"Dr. Gruv" wrote in message
ups.com...
A crazy new years resolution took shape over last december I was
driving around, (in dec. 05) running errands and listening to 91.5FM
WBEZ Chicago. They were talking about a band that had created One Song
a Week. They discussed the challenges and issues related to creating,
recording, and releasing a song every week.

That idea kind of sat in my mind for a couple of weeks...

I thought about raising the stakes, and mulled it over, "Could someone
write One Song Every Day?" It just seems to be an absolutely zany
thought, and it seems to be such a monumental task.

All of the songs are/will be available for download as MP3s - Download
all 365

I am up to about 140 - so far

http://www.OneSongEveryDay.com

Take Care and Please listen in - i want these songs to be heard and
passed onto friends

-best
michael droste

Probably Haydn.

-Karl

John L Rice wrote:
I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who said
they wrote every day no matter what.

I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who
said
they wrote every day no matter what.

All of them & many others as well. Hemingway would write every single
morning of his life, 8:00 to noon, no matter what. That's what
professional writers (& composers) do. They don't sit around & wait for
inspiration, they work.

Scott Fraser

John L Rice wrote:
I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who
said
they wrote every day no matter what.


Elvis Costello

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
John L Rice wrote:
I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who
said
they wrote every day no matter what.


Elvis Costello

just finished today's ditty

http://www.onesongeveryday.com/songs...20Together.mp3

On 19 May 2006 12:48:53 -0700, "Dr. Gruv"
wrote:

I thought about raising the stakes, and mulled it over, "Could someone
write One Song Every Day?" It just seems to be an absolutely zany
thought, and it seems to be such a monumental task.

All of the songs are/will be available for download as MP3s - Download
all 365

I am up to about 140 - so far

http://www.OneSongEveryDay.com


Just listened to a few. Where's the songs? I'm hearing lots of
instrumentals, but no songs yet?

On Sat, 20 May 2006 13:32:03 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On 19 May 2006 12:48:53 -0700, "Dr. Gruv"
wrote:

I thought about raising the stakes, and mulled it over, "Could someone
write One Song Every Day?" It just seems to be an absolutely zany
thought, and it seems to be such a monumental task.

All of the songs are/will be available for download as MP3s - Download
all 365

I am up to about 140 - so far

http://www.OneSongEveryDay.com


Just listened to a few. Where's the songs? I'm hearing lots of
instrumentals, but no songs yet?

You need to listen to Glenn Gould playing Bach.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Steve Allen???

Steve Allen wrote lots and lots of songs
Writing a song a day, does not mean you have to produce a song a day.
Unless you write with the tracks. A song is melody & lyrics, chords are
nice too. ;-) It's a great way to build chops, and then you get to pick the
best of the bunch, and produce them. So in this case, more is less.

Tom


wrote in message
ups.com...
Steve Allen???

Yeah! It's a tough world baby!

"Scott Fraser" wrote in message
oups.com...
I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who
said
they wrote every day no matter what.

All of them & many others as well. Hemingway would write every single
morning of his life, 8:00 to noon, no matter what. That's what
professional writers (& composers) do. They don't sit around & wait for
inspiration, they work.

Scott Fraser

I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies. I don't hear
much melody in these pieces, Dr. Gruv. Maybe something to work on,
rather than just going for quantity. Although you're doing an
impressive job of that! Guinness time?

Scott Fraser wrote:
...they wrote every day no matter what.
All of them & many others as well. Hemingway would write every single
morning of his life, 8:00 to noon, no matter what. That's what
professional writers (& composers) do. They don't sit around & wait for
inspiration, they work.

Well, Scott, this is one of the rare occasions where I've got to
disagree with you. I know Brian and Eddie Holland don't work like
that. Nor do I. On the other hand, we do have music constantly
playing in our heads, so in that sense you're right.
But it's when inspiration strikes that we pounce on it and
actually write the song, because we're excited about it. And it could
be weeks or months between those moments of inspiration. In the
meantime we might work on arrangements or recordings or promotion, etc
of existing songs. I think a lot of people, probably the majority,
work this way. Not that it's better or worse, just different ways to
skin the cat.
Cheers, Rick.

rickymix wrote:
I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies.

To expand on what Rick said, here's a quote from Fats Waller. If you
don't know who Fats is... well you should fill that hole in your
knowledge base immediately.

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."


-glenn

I was listening to Fats on the car radio this morning, the first thing that
got me was not the melody, but his vocal attitude and the feel of the
record.
I had an ear to ear smile!

Tom

"geezer" wrote in message
ups.com...

rickymix wrote:
I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies.

To expand on what Rick said, here's a quote from Fats Waller. If you
don't know who Fats is... well you should fill that hole in your
knowledge base immediately.

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."


-glenn

On 21 May 2006 05:36:48 -0700, "geezer" wrote:

rickymix wrote:
I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies.

To expand on what Rick said, here's a quote from Fats Waller. If you
don't know who Fats is... well you should fill that hole in your
knowledge base immediately.

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."

I have no argument with Fats assertion, but as a composer of "tunes",
I perhaps annoyingly, correct folks who call them songs. The Fiddle
Tunes I write are mostly meant for dancing, usually contra dance, or
Irish cedhli, reels, jigs, hornpipe, waltz, polka, and square dance
and although quite rhythmic they most attempt to have that
killer-diller memorable quality. I also write the odd Aire which is
generally a tribute to someone ho has passed and is meant for
listening.
I have had lyrics set to a few of these by a songwriter who liked the
tune and went on to record the song, sometimes with a new title.
My biggest hit has remained a tune and has been recorded by 9
different groups and is played all around the U.S. My second most
popular is both a tune and a kids song.
I go to a festival in Port Townsend called Fiddle Tunes and hang for a
week playing traditional and newly composed tunes from a half a dozen
or more different cultures with a 100s of other players on diverse
instruments.
This is one of many festivals where we meet and play. There is a whole
subculture of tune players.

If you have a melody and a lyric, it's a song!
Mrs Rogers & Mrs. Hammerstein were at a party, someone came up and said to
Mrs. Rogers, Did your husband write "Oh What A Beautiful Morning", to which
Mrs H. replied, no her husband wrote, Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da!
Tom

wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2006 05:36:48 -0700, "geezer" wrote:

rickymix wrote:
I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies.

To expand on what Rick said, here's a quote from Fats Waller. If you
don't know who Fats is... well you should fill that hole in your
knowledge base immediately.

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."

I have no argument with Fats assertion, but as a composer of "tunes",
I perhaps annoyingly, correct folks who call them songs. The Fiddle
Tunes I write are mostly meant for dancing, usually contra dance, or
Irish cedhli, reels, jigs, hornpipe, waltz, polka, and square dance
and although quite rhythmic they most attempt to have that
killer-diller memorable quality. I also write the odd Aire which is
generally a tribute to someone ho has passed and is meant for
listening.
I have had lyrics set to a few of these by a songwriter who liked the
tune and went on to record the song, sometimes with a new title.
My biggest hit has remained a tune and has been recorded by 9
different groups and is played all around the U.S. My second most
popular is both a tune and a kids song.
I go to a festival in Port Townsend called Fiddle Tunes and hang for a
week playing traditional and newly composed tunes from a half a dozen
or more different cultures with a 100s of other players on diverse
instruments.
This is one of many festivals where we meet and play. There is a whole
subculture of tune players.

"geezer" wrote in news:1148215008.432803.16870
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."

And that's my biggest contention with rap (not RAP) and it's 8 beat loop
that runs for 3 minutes unchanged.

nice to see the composition talk...

some days - its really hard to get something going.... others its
running around and 'fitting in' the song

for example - on sat. morning was busy writing and finishing because of
going away to my cousins wedding in iowa (i'm in IL) but then - upon
returning sunday night had to start and finish today's song

just that with today's busy life style and work too it's a hard
thing to devote time to something every day - BUT IF IT WASN'T FUN i
wouldn't do it but i am a determined fellow to finish what i started


-michael

John L Rice wrote:
I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who said
they wrote every day no matter what.


I'm pretty sure it was Vivaldi who wrote an average of 21 pages of
manuscript per day from the day he turned 18 until the day he died.

Cheers,

Stu.

There's a guy in Northern California, Marin County I believe, who
surfed every day for something like 20 years. Stood up on at least one
wave every single day, no matter how huge or tiny or stormy or awful
the surf was. Days when he had pneumonia, deaths in the family, all
types of obstacles. He wasn't a particularly good surfer, but he made
the cover of Surfer Magazine as well as some Guinness record, sheerly
on the strength of his perseverance. Still at it today too, if I'm not
mistaken. A man on a mission!
Sounds like you're on a similar quest. Good luck, Michael!
Cheers, Rick Novak.

at the end of the year - i'll be able to go through and 'weed out' the
good ideas to develop - i'm not doing this for the sake of doing the
act - i am doing this to force myself - to write no matter what to -
get better as a songwriter and musician - to complete songs and not
leave them partially completed

I've heard that Rivers Cuomo of Weezer began writing at least a song
every day sometime around when the Green album was released. He then
had hundreds of songs to choose from to develop an album.

I love writing, but I can't help but wonder if trying to do so much
volume really cheapens the ideas? I find strangely that some of my best
ideas happen after I haven't thought about anything for a week or two.
Also, I find that in order to really bring a song to where I want it to
be, it takes much more than I could ever do in one day.

It's good to see that Rivers takes his job as a songwriter seriously by
working on it every day, but personally, I felt that the songs on the
Blue album and especially Pinkerton were actually superior to anything
afterward. I have to wonder if it's due to a change in songwriting
techniques? Although many of the songs on those albums are quite
simple, there are a few that go through several key changes and one
that even uses all 11 notes as a root note to a chord at some point in
the song. Were those just his song of the day for that day? They sure
don't feel like it.

I just believe in making each song you write something special that
stands out. Many artists have trouble even creating a handfull of
songs like that. How could you possibly do it once a day?


jake

My grandfather did (post 12 tone piano music) and so does Steve Swallow.

Edwin


In article ,
"John L Rice" wrote:

I can't remember now but it was either Bach, Mozart or Beethoven who said
they wrote every day no matter what.

--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com

"Dr. Gruv" wrote in message
ups.com...
A crazy new years resolution took shape over last december I was
driving around, (in dec. 05) running errands and listening to 91.5FM
WBEZ Chicago. They were talking about a band that had created One Song
a Week. They discussed the challenges and issues related to creating,
recording, and releasing a song every week.

That idea kind of sat in my mind for a couple of weeks...

I thought about raising the stakes, and mulled it over, "Could someone
write One Song Every Day?" It just seems to be an absolutely zany
thought, and it seems to be such a monumental task.

All of the songs are/will be available for download as MP3s - Download
all 365

I am up to about 140 - so far

http://www.OneSongEveryDay.com

Take Care and Please listen in - i want these songs to be heard and
passed onto friends

-best
michael droste

Felix McTeigue has an album out called "The New Deal" (under the
moniker FDR). 50 songs in 50 days. I like it a lot.

That's what professional writers (& composers) do. They don't sit around &
..wait for inspiration, they work.

This reminds me of something Robert Heinlein said in an interview back
in the '70's:

"The writer who waits for inspiration starves."

How true.

A composer writes every day, but that does not mean they create a whole
work every day. I sure don't. I won't sacrifice quality for quantity.

While writing a song a day might seem like a fun challenge, and I'm
sure it is, one cannot expect to write a GOOD song every day.

But it is important to work at your craft every day.

--Fletch

Well, Scott, this is one of the rare occasions where I've got to
disagree with you. I know Brian and Eddie Holland don't work like
that. Nor do I. On the other hand, we do have music constantly
playing in our heads, so in that sense you're right.
But it's when inspiration strikes that we pounce on it and
actually write the song, because we're excited about it. And it could
be weeks or months between those moments of inspiration. In the
meantime we might work on arrangements or recordings or promotion, etc
of existing songs. I think a lot of people, probably the majority,
work this way. Not that it's better or worse, just different ways to
skin the cat.
Cheers, Rick.

Then again, by writing something every day, you get all the bad chord
progressions out of your system, so the likelihood of a really good one
coming along, AKA "Inspiration strikes", you're ready to recognize it.
Composer John Adams did a little audience Q & A after one of our gigs &
somebody asked if he ever ran out of ideas. Adams was a bit puzzled by
the question & replied, "I write music every single day, so I'm very
much in touch with where the ideas come from. No, they don't ever run
out."
I think it's work, like any other. The more you do it, the easier it
becomes. I do not write a piece every day.

Scott Fraser

I've heard that Rivers Cuomo of Weezer began writing at least a song
every day sometime around when the Green album was released. He then
had hundreds of songs to choose from to develop an album.

Personally, after having written some 400 songs in a mad rush, primarily it
was a way to make me combine the songs that had mostly the same ideas
expressed different ways, or telling the same story from a different point
of view. All these songs are in the can, but for all pratical purposes the
amount of "creativity" brought the number down to about 2 albums, and at
that no one cared! g

Years later, some of us are exploring the opportunity to do them correctly.

I love writing, but I can't help but wonder if trying to do so much
volume really cheapens the ideas? I find strangely that some of my best
ideas happen after I haven't thought about anything for a week or two.
Also, I find that in order to really bring a song to where I want it to
be, it takes much more than I could ever do in one day.

What I'm saying is that often, but not necessarily in any particular
person's case, what happens is that one is moving towards a consensus of
song, so the writing everyday is good, but the concept that each is an
individual song can become problematic. I normally track all my takes and
write a new song from hook to end, including all instruments and vocals,
within about 3 1/2 hours (it might take me a few hours to figure out what it
is I'm trying to write). But then the next day or the next month I'd find
myself regurgitating some of the same ideas within a new framework that had
some musical interest to me.

The songs I didn't ever screw with were the ones that I'd written in an
alterative acoustic guitar tuning because it was virtually impossible to
recreate the muse at that point.

I just believe in making each song you write something special that
stands out. Many artists have trouble even creating a handfull of
songs like that. How could you possibly do it once a day?

Still, I have hundreds of songs that have potential but haven't been
explored yet. And they were all written in a period of about 1 1/2 years.
Since then I've written 4 songs.

Go figure.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Jake Saliba" wrote in message
oups.com...



It's good to see that Rivers takes his job as a songwriter seriously by
working on it every day, but personally, I felt that the songs on the
Blue album and especially Pinkerton were actually superior to anything
afterward. I have to wonder if it's due to a change in songwriting
techniques? Although many of the songs on those albums are quite
simple, there are a few that go through several key changes and one
that even uses all 11 notes as a root note to a chord at some point in
the song. Were those just his song of the day for that day? They sure
don't feel like it.



jake

To me songwriting, like surfing or sex, is a joy and a compulsion, not
work. Every now and then, when a wonderful idea somehow pops up in my
head, I get all excited and have no choice but to flesh it out into a
complete song. The wheels spin in my head of their own accord, night
and day, whatever else I'm doing at the time, until the song forms
itself. It's almost like I'm an audience member listening to the song
creating itself out of the ether.
Once the lyrics and melody are moderately well sketched in, at
least a verse and chorus worth, THEN I'll go to an instrument and
figure out the chords. I mean, the chords already exist in the melody,
I just haven't learned them yet. As I figure out what the chords are,
there are usually countermelodies and musical hooks and fills and
groove that suggest themselves. I just have to be vigilant and catch
them as they pop up. It's strenuous, like surfing or sex, but I
wouldn't call it work; it's too delightful hearing these songs for the
first time! Pure joy.
I can and do write the other way, sitting at an instrument and
finding some chords or musical hooks that work for the intended purpose
of the music, usually for a movie scene where the director wants
something specific. Once I've figured out how the music should go,
then I have to piece together a song to go with it. It's also fun and
challenging to do it that way, but yeah, that's more like work I guess.
Cheers, Rick.

Obviously you don't work the way the guys in Nashville do. We're talking a
lot of "work" on writing songs.

Mostly I believe it should be a muse driven event, and during the 1 1/2
years I was writing all the time I'd like to think a muse stuck with me for
a while, but the downside is that once you write so many songs you come to
the realization that just because you could write the songs doesn't mean
that you should have recorded them! g And that leads to whether you
should have wasted the time to write songs that were a waste of time. And
there's the possible problem of whether, indeed, you even recognize that the
songs were a waste of time.

I'm still hoping that the muse decides to sit on my shoulders again and
allow me to have a period of time of writing new material, but I'm beginning
to think not. All the keys on the piano represent songs already played.
All the sounds I can get from the guitar are all used, and new toys are no
longer inspiring.

I'm just glad I spend most of my music time recording good bands.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"rickymix" wrote in message
oups.com...
To me songwriting, like surfing or sex, is a joy and a compulsion, not
work. Every now and then, when a wonderful idea somehow pops up in my
head, I get all excited and have no choice but to flesh it out into a
complete song. The wheels spin in my head of their own accord, night
and day, whatever else I'm doing at the time, until the song forms
itself. It's almost like I'm an audience member listening to the song
creating itself out of the ether.
Once the lyrics and melody are moderately well sketched in, at
least a verse and chorus worth, THEN I'll go to an instrument and
figure out the chords. I mean, the chords already exist in the melody,
I just haven't learned them yet. As I figure out what the chords are,
there are usually countermelodies and musical hooks and fills and
groove that suggest themselves. I just have to be vigilant and catch
them as they pop up. It's strenuous, like surfing or sex, but I
wouldn't call it work; it's too delightful hearing these songs for the
first time! Pure joy.
I can and do write the other way, sitting at an instrument and
finding some chords or musical hooks that work for the intended purpose
of the music, usually for a movie scene where the director wants
something specific. Once I've figured out how the music should go,
then I have to piece together a song to go with it. It's also fun and
challenging to do it that way, but yeah, that's more like work I guess.
Cheers, Rick.

I have no argument with Fats assertion, but as a composer of "tunes",
I perhaps annoyingly, correct folks who call them songs. The Fiddle
Tunes I write are mostly meant for dancing, usually contra dance, or
Irish cedhli, reels, jigs, hornpipe, waltz, polka, and square dance
and although quite rhythmic they most attempt to have that
killer-diller memorable quality. I also write the odd Aire which is
generally a tribute to someone ho has passed and is meant for
listening.

You bring up a point that I was going to make but deleted the post. Music,
in history, has two separate paths. One, instrumentalism, perhaps started
back as far a man figuring out he could make rhythmic noise by banging on a
log, essentially beginning rock and roll as it related to fertility rites.
Vocals were essentially the tool of minstrials to tell stories and keep
their audience interested.

They are not interminglable forms unless the inspiration for the song
intermingled both forms. We now expect "songs" to be stories told to music,
but that's not even the large part of music because on a good day, one can
hear music in everything they do. A beautiful day sings its glory to the
world. A rainy, cloudy day sings its blues just as strongly. Instruments
aren't necessary to create music, yet instruments can sing their own songs
which can't be duplicated or even replicated by the human voice.

Then again, the human voice can be the most pure of all music, needing
nothing but an audience, and even barring that, it would still be as pure.

The sun sings, the moon sings, the babbling brook sings. Or do they do
instrumentals?

If you go to a local pond during the height of summer you will hear a
symphony of the world's music. If you go to a bar, you will hear one band's
estimation.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2006 05:36:48 -0700, "geezer" wrote:

rickymix wrote:
I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies.

To expand on what Rick said, here's a quote from Fats Waller. If you
don't know who Fats is... well you should fill that hole in your
knowledge base immediately.

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."

I have had lyrics set to a few of these by a songwriter who liked the
tune and went on to record the song, sometimes with a new title.
My biggest hit has remained a tune and has been recorded by 9
different groups and is played all around the U.S. My second most
popular is both a tune and a kids song.
I go to a festival in Port Townsend called Fiddle Tunes and hang for a
week playing traditional and newly composed tunes from a half a dozen
or more different cultures with a 100s of other players on diverse
instruments.
This is one of many festivals where we meet and play. There is a whole
subculture of tune players.

If you have a melody and a lyric, it's a song!
Mrs Rogers & Mrs. Hammerstein were at a party, someone came up and said
to Mrs. Rogers, Did your husband write "Oh What A Beautiful Morning", to
which Mrs H. replied, no her husband wrote, Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da!

Essentially I agree, but riding down RT 81 to my parent's house during a
rain storm (I mean rain storm) the windshield wipers were writing their own
music and I just added lyrics. Is it a song or music? Certainly the wipers
didn't gush out a melody. Lyrics give song it's melody. Instruments lend
themselves to a melody invoked only by the instrument. It might actually
not even be present, but still the melody is there.

I think it's more problematic than just trying to define what is a song and
what is a piece of music. Each has their place, their ability to define
what they say to the listener, and neither is more appropriate than the
other.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Tommy B" wrote in message
nk.net...
Tom

wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2006 05:36:48 -0700, "geezer" wrote:

rickymix wrote:
I also think of a song as something that is sung, or could be sung.
Instrumental music, some of which is great, especially Bach, usually
has at least sections with singable, memorable melodies.

To expand on what Rick said, here's a quote from Fats Waller. If you
don't know who Fats is... well you should fill that hole in your
knowledge base immediately.

"It is my contention, and always has been, that the thing that makes a
tune click is the melody, and give the public four bars of that to dig
their teeth into, and you have a killer-diller...It's melody that gives
variety to the ear."

I have no argument with Fats assertion, but as a composer of "tunes",
I perhaps annoyingly, correct folks who call them songs. The Fiddle
Tunes I write are mostly meant for dancing, usually contra dance, or
Irish cedhli, reels, jigs, hornpipe, waltz, polka, and square dance
and although quite rhythmic they most attempt to have that
killer-diller memorable quality. I also write the odd Aire which is
generally a tribute to someone ho has passed and is meant for
listening.
I have had lyrics set to a few of these by a songwriter who liked the
tune and went on to record the song, sometimes with a new title.
My biggest hit has remained a tune and has been recorded by 9
different groups and is played all around the U.S. My second most
popular is both a tune and a kids song.
I go to a festival in Port Townsend called Fiddle Tunes and hang for a
week playing traditional and newly composed tunes from a half a dozen
or more different cultures with a 100s of other players on diverse
instruments.
This is one of many festivals where we meet and play. There is a whole
subculture of tune players.

"Dr. Gruv" wrote in message
oups.com...
at the end of the year - i'll be able to go through and 'weed out' the
good ideas to develop - i'm not doing this for the sake of doing the
act - i am doing this to force myself - to write no matter what to -
get better as a songwriter and musician - to complete songs and not
leave them partially completed


Aha, and that's a good thing to do. A lot of people believe that discipline
doesn't come into writing music, but the fact is that it can just as easily
as one might wait for the muse (like myself).

To try to accomplish something is a good quest. To HAVE accomplished that
thing is a killer.

Just hope that you never actually accomplish what you started out to do.
Reaching for the stars is much better than grabbing one and saying "Ok,
what's next?".

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

And that leads to whether you
should have wasted the time to write songs that were a waste of time.


I don't think they're ever a waste of time, even if they're not very
good. A bad song is part of the process of getting to the good song.
Presumably you learn something from each one, even if it just is what
not to do next time.

Scott Fraser

Eloquent and deep, Roger! Nicely put.
Cheers, Rick.

Scott's right Roger, it's never a waste of time. At the very least
you've learned what not to do.
I've seen Brian and Eddie get excited about a single ad-libbed
line in the end vamp and totally toss the original song and rewrite it
from scratch around that great ad-lib. And this was after the song had
been arranged and recorded. But they were right, the new song was way
better.
Cheers, Rick.

Roger Norman wrote:


You bring up a point that I was going to make but deleted the post.
Music, in history, has two separate paths. One, instrumentalism,
perhaps started back as far a man figuring out he could make rhythmic
noise by banging on a log, essentially beginning rock and roll as it
related to fertility rites. Vocals were essentially the tool of
minstrials to tell stories and keep their audience interested.

But that is exactly right.

keep their audience interested.


Back then people had a lot of time on their hands. It was easier to keep
them interested, yet they still needed the words to do it. Even more so
now.

And that leads to whether you should have wasted the time to write songs that were a waste of time.

Oh, no, no, no...!!!

You should never suppress the writing. Good, bad or ugly, you must
allow your creativity to flow. If you stifle anything because it isn't
"good enough", you will create, one piece at a time, a kind of log jam
and that will lead to writer's block and then you'll write nothing of
consequence.

I think we can all agree that writing is a process. It is an ongoing
process that takes as long as it takes. Part of the reason a song may
lay unfinished is because you haven't experienced the necessary things
in live for that part of the song to be written. Or you just haven't
sat down and applied yourself to what the song requires of you to make
it whole.

I don't wait for the Muse. But I do respond when she visits, no matter
the time of day or night. As I said in an earlier post, if you wait for
inspiration (the Muse), you will starve, creatively and literally.

If you write, write it all down. You don't have to record it or ever
actually perform it. But you do have to write it if you want to get to
the song that is worth recording and performing.

--Fletch

sorry wrong web address

http://www.MusicRowSongs.com

home of:

Mike 'n Jeff

On 22 May 2006 11:06:30 -0700, "Jake Saliba"
wrote:


I've heard that Rivers Cuomo of Weezer began writing at least a song
every day sometime around when the Green album was released. He then
had hundreds of songs to choose from to develop an album.

I love writing, but I can't help but wonder if trying to do so much
volume really cheapens the ideas? I find strangely that some of my best
ideas happen after I haven't thought about anything for a week or two.
Also, I find that in order to really bring a song to where I want it to
be, it takes much more than I could ever do in one day.

It's good to see that Rivers takes his job as a songwriter seriously by
working on it every day, but personally, I felt that the songs on the
Blue album and especially Pinkerton were actually superior to anything
afterward. I have to wonder if it's due to a change in songwriting
techniques? Although many of the songs on those albums are quite
simple, there are a few that go through several key changes and one
that even uses all 11 notes as a root note to a chord at some point in
the song. Were those just his song of the day for that day? They sure
don't feel like it.

I just believe in making each song you write something special that
stands out. Many artists have trouble even creating a handfull of
songs like that. How could you possibly do it once a day?


jake

It's the number of good songs that count unfortunately. I am 48 and
have written probably 150 in my life. I'd say around 50 are good.


Never Forget!!!
http://www.september11victims.com/se...fo.asp?ID=2654

You should never suppress the writing. Good, bad or ugly, you must
allow your creativity to flow. If you stifle anything because it isn't
"good enough", you will create, one piece at a time, a kind of log jam
and that will lead to writer's block and then you'll write nothing of
consequence.

Actually, I was saying that one shouldn't allow the act of writing to become
something that defines the songs as being good. Learning from a failure is
more immediate than learning from a song that is good, because the good song
flows the way people want to hear it, and the failure can either be seen as
the failure of the people to see the song correctly or the songwriter to
allow something he/she knows isn't worth the public's ear.

Also the problem I was trying to represent is that the process of writing
songs and the process of recording songs isn't the same, even if it is only
me doing all the parts and tracking the instruments myself. We've all heard
too much stuff that thrills the writer but does nothing for the rest of us.
We've all heard top quality recording of a product that no one should have
spent their time recording. We've also heard the worst recordings that
became killer hits, not because the song said anything to anyone (i.e.
Louie, Louie), and yet somehow the music industry has come to the point
where unacceptable is saleable.

It is our baliwick to write and record songs. It is our responsibility to
view those songs from a vantage point that allows for some personal
perspective and introspection. It is our necessity not to release another
song that doesn't cut the mustard simply because we can.

Now I've already said I've somewhat written the same song a day fifteen days
in a row, always striving to work it out even if it is subconsciencely, but
the fact is that oft times I don't realize the fact until well after the
completion of the song.

So what I'm saying is that its not a bad thing to write a song a day, its a
deadly thing to a songwriter not to notice that what you wrote on Thursday a
week ago isn't the same song you just wrote a week and a day later, and
present both of them to your public as if they are something different.

Songs represent feelings, experience, concrete responses from others, and
the effort to tell a story as no one else has told it. If you write two
songs that tell the same story, they'd better be damned good in the way they
tell it, or people will notice.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Fletch" wrote in message
oups.com...
And that leads to whether you should have wasted the time to write songs
that were a waste of time.

Oh, no, no, no...!!!


I think we can all agree that writing is a process. It is an ongoing
process that takes as long as it takes. Part of the reason a song may
lay unfinished is because you haven't experienced the necessary things
in live for that part of the song to be written. Or you just haven't
sat down and applied yourself to what the song requires of you to make
it whole.

I don't wait for the Muse. But I do respond when she visits, no matter
the time of day or night. As I said in an earlier post, if you wait for
inspiration (the Muse), you will starve, creatively and literally.

If you write, write it all down. You don't have to record it or ever
actually perform it. But you do have to write it if you want to get to
the song that is worth recording and performing.

--Fletch