General Musical Genre
My musical tastes are broad and include hard rock, pop, jazz, fusion, jam, funk, RnB and so on, but when it comes to writing, I tend to fall into a more narrow niche - upbeat pop-ish/rock-ish/alt-ish/novelty; is such a niche exists. Groups that characterize this pop style include:
1. XTC
2. David Bowie
3. Psychedelic Furs
4. U2
5. The Jam/The Beat
6. Oingo Boingo
7. Elvis Costello
8. Devo
9. R.E.M.
Identifying Characteristics
The characteristics of these songs are made up of:
* the instrumentation and vocals and how the parts are used
* the subject matter of the songs
* the production
* the packaging or marketing.
These example groups, to me, have some very similar qualities in their songs. Being that these groups are different from each other in many ways, this is probably more of a comment on how I hear them rather then how they write. The things I hear in these groups' songs that I respond to include:
Instrumentation/Vocals
DRUMS - Simple, but intricate beats. The grooves that these groups use are not 'chock-full' of drums - but more often then not, there is a simple, fundamental drum beat that has sublte, and interesting accentuations - a really clever hi-hat; an interesting bass drum off beat; a cool tom-tom part - and so on. They also tend NOT to sound 'produced' like much of the 80's hair-band and metal sounded like. They have more of a 'room' quality and sound like the real drums, not the reverb, EQ, or other sonic maximizers.
BASS - The basslines are usually interesting. That does not necessarily mean they are too busy or complex. Again, like the drums, the basslines tend to have a cool overall sound, an interesting, simple, but not-too-common pattern, and they are also usually rather prominent, but not the main focus. They tend to sound 'middy' but not 'ultra-bright' - picked, or very tight sounding notes. Sometimes, like in Oingo Boingo, the bass can be quite 'jazz-complex' sounding, but for the most part the basslines are more 'hooky' and 'simple' but make a huge contribution to the overall song. So to me, it sounds like the writer 'appreciates' the bass and does not think of it a just another 'means to a root'.
GUITAR - The guitars are almost always interesting and rarely common sounding. They use effects, well effectively; the parts they write are not just power chords but they are also not super-heady jazz, 'add this, augment that, diminsh the other' chords. At times there is a very 'retro' quality to the guitar that is really cool. They have a simple, but distinctive sound - like a Strat or Tele through a Fender 2x12 - or a Rickenbacker 12-string.
VOCALS - Many of the groups I listed above write really great lyrics. What makes them great to me is that they are usually intelligent, clever, not too serious, visually stimulating, and relatable. They are sung with a 'personality' that communicates these traits very clearly. Many times you will hear the same artist use very different vocal approaches throughout their catalog of songs (David Bowie) - Other times, the vocalist has such a unique and distinctive quality to their voice that defines the sound of their songs for the most part (Psychedelic Furs, XTC, The Jam, Elvis Costello). But always, the vocals, lyrics and vocal treatment is, like the music, distinctive, appropriate, and focuses on it's role in the overall song.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUMENTATION - Many, if not most of the groups above include instruments like organ, piano, synthesizer, flute, mandolin, etc... to fill out the musical color spectrum. Following the themes established above - these additional instruments do the same. Have interesting qualities; are not over-done or intrusive; and serve a clear purpose in the overall song's delivery.
The Subject Matter - (or does it?)
I am personally put-off by overly serious lyrical content. Then I realize that many times, even when I think I know a song, I am not completely sure if I know what the song is about - so, take that for what it is worth. I said I am put-off by overly serious subject matter - but I guess what I mean to say is that I a put-off by groups that sound like they take themselves too seriously - like "Nickelback" or "Creed" or "Live" - When I hear these groups, I just get mad - so I don't listen to these groups - that's just me.
Now Elvis Costello's "Veronica" is really a rather serious song. However the way it is presented is so clever, hooky, and irresistible, that the seriousness of the subject matter is much more palatable. Honestly, a song about an elderly woman's decent into dimensia is pretty serious subject matter.
Same with XTC's "Dear God" - Last I checked, heretical content probably was history's first definition of serious subject matter. And yet the way Andy Partridge treats this subject lyrically and vocally is again, irresistible. It moves along with a gait that you would not normally expect a song about questioning the existence of God to have and the supporting instrumentation is so colorful and light that once again, a serious subject is rendered very listenable and consumable. It is not rammed down your throat - it is offered with interesting spices and condements to make you more interested in tasting it.
Now David Bowie and Elvis Costello each have a way with a story - fictional or non, and the intelligence of these two authors is undeniable. When you listen to the tales these two weave about things as mundane as a pair of red shoes or a trip into space, you are instantly either standing in those shoes or hurling toward the moon wondering if you will ever return. That is good stuff.
All of these groups have examples of subject matter that is really rather 'irrelevant' to much of anything other then providing a lyrical mesh to bind a song together with. The lyrics are chosen because of their rhythmic qualities and are sung more as if the singer were playing another instrument in the band as opposed to telling you some sort of story that required your full attention. They seamlessly blend the vocalists role in with that of the guitar, bass, keys and drums. This is not to say that the lyrics don't tell a story or that the story does not matter - but the point of the song is not necessarily to tell the story, but to paint the picture.
So it is safe to say that all manner of subject matter can be included, but in order for it to resonate with me it has to do much of the same thing as the instrumentation - be interesting to the ear or hooky and for me, upbeat and fun to listen to. I like my music fun. Remember, this is about how I hear music and what I respond to.
Production - what those other magicians do
The production of a song is as important as the song itself. The biggest mistake that gets made, in my opinion, is when the production overtakes the song. I feel like genres of music that rely on the production 'taking the song to the next level' include:
* Hair Metal (Poison, Bon Jovi, Ratt)
* Bubble-gum pop (Britney Spears, all that ilk)
* Heavy Metal (Metallica, Megadeath, etc.)
This is not to say that these groups or artists do not write worth while material (although I would argue they do not) - rather that the production of their final product takes the original product and alters it to a point that it really does not resemble what the artist originally created. Mostly out of necessity due to the fact that what the artist originally created needed so much help to become marketable. When I can 'hear' the production, I am automatically turned off. I don't like my drums to sound like bazookas and what is with all that compression and reverb? Come on... a little more reality, a little less 'magic', huh?
What I like about production is when you feel like you can hear the personality of each musician involved. You can tell that is is a Strat through a Fender 2x12 - you can tell that it is a Rickenbacker 4001 with a pick - you can tell that the singer is in the same room with the piano. This does not mean I want all 'acoustic, single-mic, room recordings' but I do NOT want it to sound like it was recorded on some other planet where the real sound does not exist.
Marketing
When these artists finish their products, they present it to you the way they would like you to hear it. So when they put on the retro shoes, or the make-up, or even the costumes, it tells you more about where they came from when they created their music. Was it fantasy? Was it an exotic location? Was it another point in time? I want to see it on the CD liner - read it in their notes - see it in the photographs that they choose to show us.
PART II - How I write
When I write a song I find that I consistently tend to start with a beat or groove in mind. Because I like upbeat and alt-pop/rocky stuff, when a beat runs through my head that embodies those qualities, I run with it. I can usually hear the general instrumentation right away and can begin piecing it together alone with the idea that I will be able to effectively explain to my musician friends what I hear and what I need them to do.
My intent is to get my main idea across but to let them take it to the next level because of their individual expertise. That usually means choosing the right musician for the job. I have many guitar player friends each of whom are very different then the other in style and approach. Same with drummers. I don't know many piano/keyboardists - so I usually write something using midi and let that sit until I find someone.
My process
The computer and midi. I sit down at the computer and 99% of the time start with the drums. This is because I need something solid to play over. My initial drum beats are simple and are an outline of the bigger idea that I hear in my head. Again, I plan to let the real drummers do the good stuff, so I don't try to overdo the 'robot drums'. I don't want to overly color anyone's inspiration.
After the drums go down I go for the bassline. Again, I use midi. When I say 'midi' what I mean is that I write my parts using the 'piano roll' - a grid that lets you precisely place notes, durations, velocities, etc. then assign those patterns to synthesized sounds. I do it this way because I can hear the part pretty clearly in my head - and it does tend to be 'repetitious' - and what is better for a repetitious task then 'cut and paste'. Bear in mind that I am 'drafting' the song and have no intention of this robotic, cut-and-paste product to ever be 'released' other then to help explain to my collaborators their parts.
The rest of the instrumentation gets initially laid in the same way. Sometimes I will break out my Strat and lay down some simple guitar, if it better serves my needs insofaras communicating the part to a 'real' guitar player. This usually means that I do have a specific guitar treatment that I hear and want them to emulate.
After all the piano-rolling is done, I listen to it and see if the 'idea' is getting hit. Does it make me want to move? Does it make me smile? Did I remain true to the initial idea? If so... good! Call the gang and let's get a jam session together. If not, why? Did the beat go wonky? Did the bassline miss the slot?... Fix it.
Sometimes the idea is just not as good as it sounded in my head. Sometimes it has just gone stale for me in the process. If the latter is true, then time away will usually revive the idea.
Gettin' er done!
The final phase is to present it to the gang. I pick the musicians I feel will best interpret my idea and ask them to join me in a 'gel session'. I have learned over time that I hear things in very clear detail, but not everyone does. So in order for me to best communicate my goals, I have to reference other artists and specific songs to make sure everyone is listening to my rough draft with the same 'ears'.
After we get on the same page, we reconstruct what I did midi-wise, real-wise. Drummer on drums, me on bass, guitar player(s) on guitar(s) and so on. Roll 'tape' - hopefully catch magic.
This is how I write - ok, nothing I have written has ever gotten to the final stage - yet. I have many songs in the draft stage (over 20) and some date back as far as 1990 and exist as really bad, 4-track tape recordings. I am happy to say that even the 17 year old stuff still holds up in my head and I have every intention of getting them to the 'real' stage before I sluff off this mortal coil. The biggest obstacle to my being able to get these up to that level sooner is that I get called upon by my song writing friends to participate in their projects that are a lot more 'band' oriented and take a lot of time. I am getting closer, however. I recent months many puzzle pieces have been falling together in a way that really lead me to believe I will be dusting off the 'drafts' and getting them onto tape for all to hear in the near future.
But all-in-all, this is how I go about writing the way I do.
Here is one sample of an idea that I have drafted using the method above. This is a very early draft and does not reflect a 'complete' song idea, rather it is the general approach - the groove, the voicings, the overall texture. I call it 'Popcorn' for now, because of how the xylophone part sounds.
Have a listen:
Popcorn
When I have a chance to revisit it, I will add more structure to this 'song' and it will go to the 'final' stage.
More to come...
--tz
