Do people love music or do people just love timbre? The more I get
into recording the more I think about this. Consider perhaps a
universally acclaimed song like "A Day in the Life." Now think of it
entirely in soundblaster 16 quality MIDI. Same song, right? Same
chord changes, right?. Okay, it is a little hard to reproduce Lennon
as a synth, but the vocal melodies are completely there, right? But,
it's not even close. Why not? As a song writer, I need to believe
that it should be. Perhaps this question goes to the heart of
recording itself. Maybe all a Rock and Roll fan needs to hear is some
Fender amplification and a decently tight rhythm section. Maybe all a
Jazz aficionado needs to hear is that syncopated high hat. Perhaps
people are not hearing what they think they are hearing. Perhaps
people will love a guitar part that's double tracked, but think it
was horrible if it was only single tracked and placed down in the mix,
even if they don't know why.

If all people love is a good mix and some quality timbre, why place
any importance on songwriting? Is songwriting still really paramount
in this day and age? Honestly, is the musically uneducated person
really able to discern the difference between a well written guitar
part and a well recorded guitar part? I'm not so sure. This is not a
"modern recording sucks, let's go back to good songwriting" flame.
This is a philosophical question. My point is not to say that we all
should do due diligence and mix to our utmost and encourage better
arrangements, my point is really more, just what the hell do I love
about that which I hear? If someone loves a well recorded song, but
boos the general MIDI reproduction of it, it is legitimate to argue
that timbre is ALL that they liked in this first place; is it not?

(Ryan) writes:
If all people love is a good mix and some quality timbre, why place
any importance on songwriting? ... If someone loves a well recorded
song, but boos the general MIDI reproduction of it, it is legitimate
to argue that timbre is ALL that they liked in this first place; is
it not?

What a strange question. I always thought songwriting involved lyrics too.

Ryan wrote:
Do people love music or do people just love timbre? The more I get
into recording the more I think about this. Consider perhaps a
universally acclaimed song like "A Day in the Life." Now think of it
entirely in soundblaster 16 quality MIDI. Same song, right? Same

It really varies from case to case and person to person. In some songs,
timbre may play a greater role than in others. I don't think it is
possible to say "people love timbre". That is like saying people like
red. Red what?

There are plenty of cases where I like the song writing or guitar line,
but hate the timbre of the guitar playing that line. And vice versa. I
could find plenty of cases where I like a guitar tone on a recording,
but just hate what is being played.

In the case of A Day in the Life, many if not most people would still
get some enjoyment from hearing it in a poor MIDI arrangement. Mainly
because they have heard the song before and like it. If I were listening
to the bad arrangement, my mind would fill in some of the "blanks".

Eric
--
www.raw-tracks.com

"Ryan" wrote in message
om...

If all people love is a good mix and some quality timbre, why place
any importance on songwriting?

You can look it at both ways.
Nowadays you can sell millions by speaking about tits on top of a banal beat
loop and even that has been sampled from someone more talented.
Then again, how many people *really* (if the current social coolness factor
is dropped) want to listen to the same anechoic beat for an hour, when the
same untalented "artist" speaks about his latest one-night-stand?

Also, I think it's wise to think "music" and "sound" as inseparable; you
really can't have one without the other, no matter how much the classical
staff guys insist.

People also love great melody, great rhythm and harmony, coupled with great,
appropriate sounds. Do them all!

"Ryan" wrote in message
om...
Honestly, is the musically uneducated person
really able to discern the difference between a well written guitar
part and a well recorded guitar part? I'm not so sure.

Me neither. However, even though I am "musically educated", I can still like
sonically impressive guitar walls, even if the "melodic" or "harmonic"
content of them is not-so-intricate. Perhaps it'd be best to say that it's
all just frequencies, and anyone's job who makes music is just to make those
frequencies sound good, no matter if he emphasizes on the melody or the
beautiful sweeping reverb?

In article , Paul Rubin
says...
(Ryan) writes:
If all people love is a good mix and some quality timbre, why place
any importance on songwriting? ... If someone loves a well recorded
song, but boos the general MIDI reproduction of it, it is legitimate
to argue that timbre is ALL that they liked in this first place; is
it not?

What a strange question. I always thought songwriting involved lyrics too.

Indeed. Most important part in most pop IMHO.

It's not even just the meaning of the words, but how they sound against
the music. Mick Jagger and Billy Joel have talked about the critical
importance of that in crafting a pop song (esp. the sound of the
vowels).

(Ryan) wrote in message . com...

If someone loves a well recorded song, but
boos the general MIDI reproduction of it, it is legitimate to argue
that timbre is ALL that they liked in this first place; is it not?

That arguement is based on the wholly myopic notion that the *only*
difference between a "well-recorded song" and the "MIDI reproduction
of it" will be timbre.

There are so many other differences that have nothing to do with
timbre...like dynamics, articulation, temporal placement (that last
category encompassing everything from "groove" to "attitude" to
"placement" to "pocket" etc).

I think people love to hear MAGIC. And cool as MIDI can be, I have
never heard a MIDI arrangement that was magical.

"NJD" wrote in message
...
What a strange question. I always thought songwriting involved lyrics
too.

Indeed. Most important part in most pop IMHO.

It's not even just the meaning of the words, but how they sound against
the music. Mick Jagger and Billy Joel have talked about the critical
importance of that in crafting a pop song (esp. the sound of the
vowels).

One question however:
How can words be the most important thing in most pop, if foreigners who
don't understand more than a handful of meanings behind the words, still
like the exact same songs?
Nah, methinks a song with a great vocal melody is much more important than
the words decided to represent it..Sure, a great story can add to the magic
of the whole song, but it really doesn't matter very much if you change even
most of the words in the song, as long as it doesn't sound banal.

In article ,
says...

"NJD" wrote in message
...
What a strange question. I always thought songwriting involved lyrics
too.

Indeed. Most important part in most pop IMHO.

It's not even just the meaning of the words, but how they sound against
the music. Mick Jagger and Billy Joel have talked about the critical
importance of that in crafting a pop song (esp. the sound of the
vowels).

One question however:
How can words be the most important thing in most pop, if foreigners who
don't understand more than a handful of meanings behind the words, still
like the exact same songs?

The SOUND of the words is very important IMHO.

Nah, methinks a song with a great vocal melody is much more important than
the words decided to represent it..Sure, a great story can add to the magic
of the whole song, but it really doesn't matter very much if you change even
most of the words in the song, as long as it doesn't sound banal.

In my experience, most pros consider the lyric quite important.

Check out rec.music.songwriters if you don't believe me. I suspect most
of the regulars there would agree.

--Nick

if foreigners who
don't understand more than a handful of meanings behind the words, still
like the exact same songs?

Like all the Fench and Japanese langauge hits in the US? Oh right that happens
once every 20 or so years.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"Ryan" wrote in message
om...
If all people love is a good mix and some quality timbre, why place
any importance on songwriting? Is songwriting still really paramount
in this day and age? Honestly, is the musically uneducated person
really able to discern the difference between a well written guitar
part and a well recorded guitar part? I'm not so sure. This is not a
"modern recording sucks, let's go back to good songwriting" flame.
This is a philosophical question. My point is not to say that we all
should do due diligence and mix to our utmost and encourage better
arrangements, my point is really more, just what the hell do I love
about that which I hear? If someone loves a well recorded song, but
boos the general MIDI reproduction of it, it is legitimate to argue
that timbre is ALL that they liked in this first place; is it not?

It has to be some combination of all of those, I believe. Also, when you
say "love", do you mean "listen to it a lot right now, but will forget it in
less than a year", or do you actually mean "love"? Because short-lived pop
music may get a lot of attention, but if you're not still listening to it 10
years later, did you really "love" it, or was it just catchy and stuck in
your head?

There are songs that are good regardless of the performance (except for
obviously flawed performances) or arrangement, and then there are performers
who can make even crappy songs good. To me, that says that either can make a
song "good", but both are likely required for it to be "great".

Of course, none of that answers your question. I believe that what is
lacking in MIDI reproductions is the subtlety of human performers, the
nuances that make it unique. Everything from the ugliness or prettiness of a
particular person's voice to the minute variations in timing, pitch, and
timbre of an instrumentalist's performance adds to the overall *feel* of the
song, and I think that feel is what is lacking in most MIDI reproductions
I've heard.

ryanm

NJD
The SOUND of the words is very important IMHO.

Yeah. When translating lyrics from one language to another for example,
the biggest problem is because the words don't sound the same they don't evoke
the same vibe. So helping out a Norweigan freind with English lyrics I moved
lines around from one verse to another verse to get it to sound more similar to
original phonetically. Though the translation/re-lyricing wasn't line by line
a literal translation, everyone felt that it truer to the core vibe of the
song.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

NJD wrote in message t...

---snip---


In my experience, most pros consider the lyric quite important.

Check out rec.music.songwriters if you don't believe me. I suspect most
of the regulars there would agree.

--Nick

"Somewhere Over The Rainbow" works better with the lyrics but I
don't think that the same can be said for the main theme from "Gone
With The Wind", and becoming aware of the (English) lyrics for Paul
Mauriat's "Love Is Blue" positively ruined it for me.
That said, when I hear about some songwriter or songwriting team
talking about writing the melody and coming up with the lyrics later
it just strikes me as wrong. It seems to me that the combination of
the words and music should come to you as an inseparable unit, that
each should dictate the other. Perhaps this explains why I've never
written a decent song :-) As I understand it an excellent example of
a great instrumental with great lyrics added later that sounds like it
was all written at once (in other words, a great example of how wrong
I am) is "Misty". Hearing the original Errol Garner version was
almost enough to make me forget about Johnny Mathis, and JM's version
is pretty impressive.

In article ,
says...
That said, when I hear about some songwriter or songwriting team
talking about writing the melody and coming up with the lyrics later
it just strikes me as wrong. It seems to me that the combination of
the words and music should come to you as an inseparable unit, that
each should dictate the other.

Well that's the art and craft of it, eh?

Didn't Michelangelo talk about how all he did was remove the stone that
didn't belong? There's something truly amazing about art when it works.

unitron wrote:

That said, when I hear about some songwriter or songwriting team
talking about writing the melody and coming up with the lyrics later
it just strikes me as wrong. It seems to me that the combination of
the words and music should come to you as an inseparable unit, that
each should dictate the other. Perhaps this explains why I've never
written a decent song :-)

Whole songs usually come to me intact, words and melody, but sometimes
all that shows up are a few lines or a verse-worth, and I won't know
what its melody is supposed to be until some other flash further on down
the road. But I don't mind if others get it differently, words or music
first, and that inspiring the rest of it.

If just a melody shows up it usually becomes an instrumental.

Mind you, I'm not claiming my songs are any good, though I like some of
them. g

--
hya

"Ryan" wrote
Do people love music or do people just love timbre?

I think the most important element in music is emotion. The sound an
instrument makes is relevant to the extent it supports the emotion of the
song. The human voice is the most expressive instrument not only because of
its versatility but because it can convey meaning.

Anthony Gosnell

NJD wrote in message t...
In article ,
says...

"NJD" wrote in message
...
What a strange question. I always thought songwriting involved lyrics
too.

Indeed. Most important part in most pop IMHO.

It's not even just the meaning of the words, but how they sound against
the music. Mick Jagger and Billy Joel have talked about the critical
importance of that in crafting a pop song (esp. the sound of the
vowels).

One question however:
How can words be the most important thing in most pop, if foreigners who
don't understand more than a handful of meanings behind the words, still
like the exact same songs?

The SOUND of the words is very important IMHO.

Think Metallica, AC/DC, etc.

Nah, methinks a song with a great vocal melody is much more important than
the words decided to represent it..Sure, a great story can add to the magic
of the whole song, but it really doesn't matter very much if you change even
most of the words in the song, as long as it doesn't sound banal.

In my experience, most pros consider the lyric quite important.

Definitely. In many ways, more important than the vocal melody. Hooks
are one thing, but a lot of rock vocal melodys are fairly tame and
repetitive. But that DELIVERY...

Check out rec.music.songwriters if you don't believe me. I suspect most
of the regulars there would agree.


Karl Winkler
http://www.sennheiserusa.com

I often get berrated by friends because I do not listen to lyrics and
they are the least important part of my songs. The vocal lines are
important but not so much what I am saying. I simply need words to
fill out the vocal lines.
Everyone says that I am an idiot not to realize that vocals are one of
the most important aspects to pop songs but I realize I am an idiot
for many other reasons than that and rarely if ever do I listen or try
to comprehend lyrics. I'm just saying.


NJD wrote in message t...
In article ,
says...

"NJD" wrote in message
...
What a strange question. I always thought songwriting involved lyrics
too.

Indeed. Most important part in most pop IMHO.

It's not even just the meaning of the words, but how they sound against
the music. Mick Jagger and Billy Joel have talked about the critical
importance of that in crafting a pop song (esp. the sound of the
vowels).

One question however:
How can words be the most important thing in most pop, if foreigners who
don't understand more than a handful of meanings behind the words, still
like the exact same songs?

The SOUND of the words is very important IMHO.

Nah, methinks a song with a great vocal melody is much more important than
the words decided to represent it..Sure, a great story can add to the magic
of the whole song, but it really doesn't matter very much if you change even
most of the words in the song, as long as it doesn't sound banal.

In my experience, most pros consider the lyric quite important.

Check out rec.music.songwriters if you don't believe me. I suspect most
of the regulars there would agree.

--Nick

"Ryan" wrote in message

Of course, none of that answers your question. I believe that what is
lacking in MIDI reproductions is the subtlety of human performers, the
nuances that make it unique. Everything from the ugliness or prettiness of a
particular person's voice to the minute variations in timing, pitch, and
timbre of an instrumentalist's performance adds to the overall *feel* of the
song, and I think that feel is what is lacking in most MIDI reproductions
I've heard.

I agree.

Awhile back I saw a French experimental electronic music show. It was
done in Quadraphonic and very impressive but they made a point with
the concert. More and more as the show evolved they began working on
making human sounds. Even to mounting special speaker enclosures that
mounted on thier chest cavities. It was almost spooky to hear the
chest cevity resonance of the human like sounds. But then the last
half hour of the show was just a singer. No Mic, No electronics -
just a singer. For a half hour he blew away every strange sound you
could ever imagine a synth could make. This guy was unbelievable.
Even though these guys were geniuses with synthisizers, they made a
profound statement of really how miraculous the human voice is and how
feable we are of creating an instrument to even match it's abilities.

IR

In article ,
says...
I often get berrated by friends because I do not listen to lyrics and
they are the least important part of my songs. The vocal lines are
important but not so much what I am saying. I simply need words to
fill out the vocal lines.
Everyone says that I am an idiot not to realize that vocals are one of
the most important aspects to pop songs but I realize I am an idiot
for many other reasons than that and rarely if ever do I listen or try
to comprehend lyrics. I'm just saying.

Well I don't know any better than anyone else, but I'll share one
experience:

I took a series of pro-songwriting workshops back in the nineties.
During that time I met a lot of talented and not so talented song
writers.

One fellow in particular sticks in my mind as a major talent. He wrote
and played country music, which is ***NOT*** my cup of tea. But this
guy was so damned good, even I couldn't help but sit up and take notice.
He could sing the names out of the phone book and bring you tears.

Anyway, the fellow running that workshop was an experienced A&R type who
has worked with quite a few pop stars going back a long way. After
class one evening I asked him about this particular fellow, who really
seemed like star material to me. His voice was amazing, his tunes were
beautiful and memorable. His playing was beyond competent, his band was
outstanding and his recordings were all first rate.

The coordinator answered without even a moment of hesitation: "it's the
lyrics," he said. The lyrics were not up to snuff and they needed to be
to move into the major leagues.

Now that's just one pro's opinion, but FWIW.

Made an impression on me. (Not that it did me any good.)

--Nick

The vocal lines are
important but not so much what I am saying.

That is a weakness as in most cases it's the entire packages that makes the
hit. There are always exceptions.

The difference between a song anyone can write and a hit song it usually saying
something in the lyrics that the person next door can't verbalize in that
manner.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"Ryan" wrote in message
om...
Do people love music or do people just love timbre?

It depends on the person what they might key into most, but people tend to
like or dislike the whole package of elements that make up a song or a track
and most of them couldn't tell you why they have that reaction. Sometimes it
has just as much to do with when and where they hear it.

It could well be that people used to key into 'melody' more than 'sound' and
were more likely to appreciate a song itself whomever performed it. It could
be that the gradual dominance of recordings, inasmuch as they are their own
form of concrete music, changed that.

jb

The more I get
into recording the more I think about this. Consider perhaps a
universally acclaimed song like "A Day in the Life." Now think of it
entirely in soundblaster 16 quality MIDI. Same song, right? Same
chord changes, right?. Okay, it is a little hard to reproduce Lennon
as a synth, but the vocal melodies are completely there, right? But,
it's not even close. Why not? As a song writer, I need to believe
that it should be. Perhaps this question goes to the heart of
recording itself. Maybe all a Rock and Roll fan needs to hear is some
Fender amplification and a decently tight rhythm section. Maybe all a
Jazz aficionado needs to hear is that syncopated high hat. Perhaps
people are not hearing what they think they are hearing. Perhaps
people will love a guitar part that's double tracked, but think it
was horrible if it was only single tracked and placed down in the mix,
even if they don't know why.

If all people love is a good mix and some quality timbre, why place
any importance on songwriting? Is songwriting still really paramount
in this day and age? Honestly, is the musically uneducated person
really able to discern the difference between a well written guitar
part and a well recorded guitar part? I'm not so sure. This is not a
"modern recording sucks, let's go back to good songwriting" flame.
This is a philosophical question. My point is not to say that we all
should do due diligence and mix to our utmost and encourage better
arrangements, my point is really more, just what the hell do I love
about that which I hear? If someone loves a well recorded song, but
boos the general MIDI reproduction of it, it is legitimate to argue
that timbre is ALL that they liked in this first place; is it not?

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
if foreigners who
don't understand more than a handful of meanings behind the words, still
like the exact same songs?

Like all the Fench and Japanese langauge hits in the US? Oh right that
happens
once every 20 or so years.


All I can say is plenty of French and Japanese people speak English, but not
many Americans speak French or Japanese.

jb

(John Payne) writes:
I often get berrated by friends because I do not listen to lyrics and
they are the least important part of my songs. The vocal lines are
important but not so much what I am saying. I simply need words to
fill out the vocal lines.

Shrug, for some songs and songwriters, lyrics are important (Leonard
Cohen). For other types of songs, they're more or less an
afterthought except for the "hook". I never could make out most of
the words to "We Built This City On Rock And Roll". The chorus
sounded like "Tony plays the mumble", which makes no sense. I
recently got around to a Google search and it said "Marconi plays the
mamba", which makes not too much sense either. The rest of the lyrics
also don't have much function either, except to give the vocalist
something to do. And yet the song works perfectly well with the
"decorative" lyrics.

FWIW, there's a book titled "'Scuse Me While I Kiss This Guy" after
the mis-heard Jimi Hendrix lyric.

I never could make out most of
the words to "We Built This City On Rock And Roll".

It's a pretty great song. Lyrics as well.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

I never could make out most of the words to "We Built This City On Rock And
Roll".

Go back and read the lyrics with the perspective of a band that is getting
older, not considered hip at the time, hating what's on the radio and the way
the labels are run. Also one of the first bands that helped put San Fran on
the musical map. maybe it's about their label or A&R person.

It will make sense then even if every word isn't "perfect" Look at the story
as a whole.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"Iowa Recorder" wrote in message
om...

Awhile back I saw a French experimental electronic music show. It was
done in Quadraphonic and very impressive but they made a point with
the concert. More and more as the show evolved they began working on
making human sounds. Even to mounting special speaker enclosures that
mounted on thier chest cavities. It was almost spooky to hear the
chest cevity resonance of the human like sounds. But then the last
half hour of the show was just a singer. No Mic, No electronics -
just a singer. For a half hour he blew away every strange sound you
could ever imagine a synth could make. This guy was unbelievable.
Even though these guys were geniuses with synthisizers, they made a
profound statement of really how miraculous the human voice is and how
feable we are of creating an instrument to even match it's abilities.

The human voice is the original musical instrument. Obviously, many
instruments go well beyond what the human voice is capable of, but the human
voice is the original and ultimate point of reference.

ryanm

"unitron" wrote in message
om...
That said, when I hear about some songwriter or songwriting team
talking about writing the melody and coming up with the lyrics later
it just strikes me as wrong. It seems to me that the combination of
the words and music should come to you as an inseparable unit, that
each should dictate the other. Perhaps this explains why I've never
written a decent song :-) As I understand it an excellent example of
a great instrumental with great lyrics added later that sounds like it
was all written at once (in other words, a great example of how wrong
I am) is "Misty". Hearing the original Errol Garner version was
almost enough to make me forget about Johnny Mathis, and JM's version
is pretty impressive.

I "get" music all three ways. Sometimes all I get is a few lines or even
just a phrase of the lyrics. Sometimes all I get is the melody or a chord
progression. And sometimes I get all of it at once, which can be anything
from just the chorus to a complete song with breaks and bridges and
everything. Because I've always realized music this way, I put a heavy
emphasis on arrangement skills early on, and because of that I can take a
single phrase or progression and build a song around it. When I have the
inclination (read: inspiration) to, anyway. Other times, all I get is crap
no matter how much time I spend on it. Actually, now that I've stated it
that way out loud, I think I may like writing music for the same reason I
like playing craps. g

ryanm

(Ryan) wrote in message . com...
Consider perhaps a
universally acclaimed song like "A Day in the Life." Now think of it
entirely in soundblaster 16 quality MIDI. Same song, right? Same
chord changes, right?. Okay, it is a little hard to reproduce Lennon
as a synth, but the vocal melodies are completely there, right?

A better test would be to listen to a simple acoustic guitar and vocal
version of the song and see if it still moves you. Some other
relevant questions to ask: If it's about timbre why would Motown have
a #1 hit with one song and a total dud with another song performed by
the same musicians, same room, gear, producers, arrangers, etc.? Or
why was "Heard it Through the Grapevine" a hit twice in two radically
different arrangements with different performers?

"initialsBB" wrote in message
m...
A better test would be to listen to a simple acoustic guitar and vocal
version of the song and see if it still moves you.

That's it in a nutshell and is still the litmus test for me to see if it's a
good song and "ready" to push the record button.

ryanm wrote:

"Iowa Recorder" wrote in message
om...

Awhile back I saw a French experimental electronic music show. It was
done in Quadraphonic and very impressive but they made a point with
the concert. More and more as the show evolved they began working on
making human sounds. Even to mounting special speaker enclosures that
mounted on thier chest cavities. It was almost spooky to hear the
chest cevity resonance of the human like sounds. But then the last
half hour of the show was just a singer. No Mic, No electronics -
just a singer. For a half hour he blew away every strange sound you
could ever imagine a synth could make. This guy was unbelievable.
Even though these guys were geniuses with synthisizers, they made a
profound statement of really how miraculous the human voice is and how
feable we are of creating an instrument to even match it's abilities.

Was it Bobby McFerrin?

(Iowa Recorder) wrote in message . com...

But then the last
half hour of the show was just a singer. No Mic, No electronics -
just a singer. For a half hour he blew away every strange sound you
could ever imagine a synth could make. This guy was unbelievable.
Even though these guys were geniuses with synthisizers, they made a
profound statement of really how miraculous the human voice is and how
feable we are of creating an instrument to even match it's abilities.


You gotta check out Jaap Blonk. This site offers just the slightest
taste of what he's capable of:
http://www.jaapblonk.com/Organ/blonkorgan.html

but to really hear him you must listen to his full length CDs.
Mesmerizing & inspiring.

Keep in mind this is a strictly hypothetical scenario and is actually
quite implausible. Someone comes up with the perfect song, THE
perfect song. They record it crudely with cheap equipment and bad (or
lack of any) technique. They are already on a major label so they
have exposure, hype, music videos, radio play, etc. The song sinks
anyway. Later, the same song is re-recorded by the same band in a
great room with top notch engineers and an A list producer. Now the
song sells like hotcakes. With everything being equal--same notes,
same performance, same instruments, same major label push, same
musicians, even the exact same bpm; shouldn't it be fair to say that
the person(s) who recorded/mixed/produced are more responsible for the
success of the "piece of recorded sound" than the
songwriter/performers?

In article ,
Ryan wrote:
Keep in mind this is a strictly hypothetical scenario and is actually
quite implausible. Someone comes up with the perfect song, THE
perfect song. They record it crudely with cheap equipment and bad (or
lack of any) technique. They are already on a major label so they
have exposure, hype, music videos, radio play, etc. The song sinks
anyway. Later, the same song is re-recorded by the same band in a
great room with top notch engineers and an A list producer. Now the
song sells like hotcakes. With everything being equal--same notes,
same performance, same instruments, same major label push, same
musicians, even the exact same bpm; shouldn't it be fair to say that
the person(s) who recorded/mixed/produced are more responsible for the
success of the "piece of recorded sound" than the
songwriter/performers?

cf. Jimmy Durante, "I'm The Man What Found The Lost Chord."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Ryan" wrote in message
m...
With everything being equal--same notes,
same performance, same instruments, same major label push, same
musicians, even the exact same bpm; shouldn't it be fair to say that
the person(s) who recorded/mixed/produced are more responsible for the
success of the "piece of recorded sound" than the
songwriter/performers?

No.

"NJD" wrote in message
...
Nah, methinks a song with a great vocal melody is much more important
than
the words decided to represent it..Sure, a great story can add to the
magic
of the whole song, but it really doesn't matter very much if you change
even
most of the words in the song, as long as it doesn't sound banal.

In my experience, most pros consider the lyric quite important.

Well, and the other half thinks lyrics should be good, they should bring
something to the song, but still they usually come up with a song by
strumming a guitar and humming on top of it.

Check out rec.music.songwriters if you don't believe me. I suspect most
of the regulars there would agree.

Most succesful rock acts usually come up with a melody first, then the band
rehearses the song as the singer hums the melody, and the lyrics are made
afterwards. (Too often they're written at the last minute, in the studio).

Still, this is kinda like having different opinions on should you equalize a
track before or after compression; it's only the end result that matters!

In article ,
says...
Most succesful rock acts usually come up with a melody first, then the band
rehearses the song as the singer hums the melody, and the lyrics are made
afterwards. (Too often they're written at the last minute, in the studio).

Still, this is kinda like having different opinions on should you equalize a
track before or after compression; it's only the end result that matters!

Yes.

Style and target audience matter a lot. If your target audience is
female, the lyrics matter a whole lot more than if it is male (according
to record-company research I heard about from a songwriting instructor).

--Nick

(Buster Mudd) wrote in message . com...

You gotta check out Jaap Blonk. This site offers just the slightest
taste of what he's capable of:
http://www.jaapblonk.com/Organ/blonkorgan.html

WOW!!!! That was really cool! Well worth checking out. Thanks.

IR


but to really hear him you must listen to his full length CDs.
Mesmerizing & inspiring.

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...

cf. Jimmy Durante, "I'm The Man What Found The Lost Chord."
--scott

Don't know much Durante, I assume this is a song. What does cf. stand for?

"Tommi" wrote in message .. .
"Ryan" wrote in message
m...
With everything being equal--same notes,
same performance, same instruments, same major label push, same
musicians, even the exact same bpm; shouldn't it be fair to say that
the person(s) who recorded/mixed/produced are more responsible for the
success of the "piece of recorded sound" than the
songwriter/performers?

No.

Why not?