Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
If You write the song do you have the power?
- Thread starter Kimpini
- Start date
I think it should be a group effort. Try having each person write their own part, and then bring them all to the table and critique/develop each part as a full band.
I suppose it would depend on what you wrote. Did you just write some lyrics, or did you flesh out the entire score? Did you have a particular vision for the song?
Sometimes when I write a song, I'll have the whole thing written out and then I let other members critique their parts and change them if they feel as though they can come up with something better. If I like what they wrote, we keep it. If not, we keep working at it.
Other times, all I have is an idea and maybe some lyrics, and then the whole band works on building the song.
The same holds true when some one else in the group writes something. If they already have a bass line, great. But if I think it could be better I make my suggestions and we go from there.
Remember, there is no I in band.
Sometimes when I write a song, I'll have the whole thing written out and then I let other members critique their parts and change them if they feel as though they can come up with something better. If I like what they wrote, we keep it. If not, we keep working at it.
Other times, all I have is an idea and maybe some lyrics, and then the whole band works on building the song.
The same holds true when some one else in the group writes something. If they already have a bass line, great. But if I think it could be better I make my suggestions and we go from there.
Remember, there is no I in band.
either or. for example, if you write a song like "some skunk funk" by randy brecker, i cant immagine another band member "doing his own thing" because of the way that kind of song is written.
however, on a song like "aint to proud to beg" by the temptations, i really dont think anyone had to give mr.jamerson and tips like "do it more like this.."
in differnt situations it works differntly.
however, on a song like "aint to proud to beg" by the temptations, i really dont think anyone had to give mr.jamerson and tips like "do it more like this.."
in differnt situations it works differntly.
Once you hand it over to the band it's best to let it go...
Unless you think you're a better drummer than the drummer, and a better guitarist than the guitarist why would you want to stop them doing their best work? Let the guys do what thye need to do to make it a great song.
Otherwise you'd be better off in your bedroom with a laptop, recording your "solo album". No one will ever want to listen to it because it will suck, but if you don't need a band, then you don't really need an audience either - your vision is too perfect to ever be performed. ;-)
(of course as the original writer you should advise the guys on what you'd like them to aim for, but let them run with it...)
Ian
Unless you think you're a better drummer than the drummer, and a better guitarist than the guitarist why would you want to stop them doing their best work? Let the guys do what thye need to do to make it a great song.
Otherwise you'd be better off in your bedroom with a laptop, recording your "solo album". No one will ever want to listen to it because it will suck, but if you don't need a band, then you don't really need an audience either - your vision is too perfect to ever be performed. ;-)
(of course as the original writer you should advise the guys on what you'd like them to aim for, but let them run with it...)
Ian
The only problem with letting the others "run with it" is that they may want to stake a claim on the writing credits. That means they get a cut of the vigorish if the song is a commercial success. In the real world if, say, the bass player makes up a line that turns out to be a hook, he may ask for a part of the writing credit. I believe Tommy Shannon got writing credit for at least one of SRV's tunes.
In copyright law they don't even have exclusive rights of reproduction etc. As soon as its recorded its the producers first and the writers second. But in a jam situation from a human view point YEAH! You should have the power to direct the song but invite other people to give their opinions.
At the end of the day it would depend how much of a song there is. If you have wrote the entire thing it would be wrong for other people to hijack it but if it just the first five notes that would be different
At the end of the day it would depend how much of a song there is. If you have wrote the entire thing it would be wrong for other people to hijack it but if it just the first five notes that would be different
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Song writing means different things to different people.
I've worked with well-educated musicians who wrote songs that included written parts for each instrument, and can explain the rhythmic and harmonic for justification for everything they've written.
I've also worked with musicians, usually guitarists, whose idea of writing a song is to come up with (sometimes written, sometimes unwritten) guitar chords, lyrics, and basic rhythmic structure for a song; what results is usually an informal "head arrangement." My worst gigs have been with guitar players who want things played a certain way, but lack the musical education or communication skills to convey their expectations to their fellow musicians; these are usually the same guys who fail to understand why horn players dislike playing tunes in "guitar keys" like E and B, and who can't explain why they want the bass to play certain notes other than to say "cuz it sounds cool that way."
Some of the best and most enjoyable music I've played has been with smaller jazz combos in which the players had huge ears, great technique, and used a "standard" as the foundation for call & response and improvization. These guys understand that collaboration beats the heck out of unilateralism, which is why I tend to shy away from "song writers" whose interest in having their way and exerting control over others outweighs their interest in the best possible musical outcome.
I've worked with well-educated musicians who wrote songs that included written parts for each instrument, and can explain the rhythmic and harmonic for justification for everything they've written.
I've also worked with musicians, usually guitarists, whose idea of writing a song is to come up with (sometimes written, sometimes unwritten) guitar chords, lyrics, and basic rhythmic structure for a song; what results is usually an informal "head arrangement." My worst gigs have been with guitar players who want things played a certain way, but lack the musical education or communication skills to convey their expectations to their fellow musicians; these are usually the same guys who fail to understand why horn players dislike playing tunes in "guitar keys" like E and B, and who can't explain why they want the bass to play certain notes other than to say "cuz it sounds cool that way."
Some of the best and most enjoyable music I've played has been with smaller jazz combos in which the players had huge ears, great technique, and used a "standard" as the foundation for call & response and improvization. These guys understand that collaboration beats the heck out of unilateralism, which is why I tend to shy away from "song writers" whose interest in having their way and exerting control over others outweighs their interest in the best possible musical outcome.
There may be no "I" in band, but there sure is one in "songwriter".
In our band, it goes a couple of different ways. Sometimes the guy who comes up with the song wants everyone to do their own thing, and just follow the basic changes and feel. Sometimes the guy has definite ideas about what type of bassline, drum parts, lead breaks, etc. Our band position is, "your song, your plan". Everybody gets the same courtesy. Of course, anytime anyone has an idea of how to improve something, that idea is expressed and considered.
So far, we haven't had problems with originals, but we haven't had that many. It might be different if we anticipated something actually being recorded, etc.
In our band, it goes a couple of different ways. Sometimes the guy who comes up with the song wants everyone to do their own thing, and just follow the basic changes and feel. Sometimes the guy has definite ideas about what type of bassline, drum parts, lead breaks, etc. Our band position is, "your song, your plan". Everybody gets the same courtesy. Of course, anytime anyone has an idea of how to improve something, that idea is expressed and considered.
So far, we haven't had problems with originals, but we haven't had that many. It might be different if we anticipated something actually being recorded, etc.
If I write a song I have a general idea of what each instruments part is.
If someone can convince me they have a better part - I'll listen. But I keep final say.
If someone comes up with better lyrics or a signature instrumental part (lick, riff), I'll negotiate.
This is for rock songs. I've never completed a jazz toon.
If someone can convince me they have a better part - I'll listen. But I keep final say.
If someone comes up with better lyrics or a signature instrumental part (lick, riff), I'll negotiate.
This is for rock songs. I've never completed a jazz toon.
In our band we usually come up with our own parts. Usually its the guitarist/singer who brings a tune to the band, then the drummer and I write our own parts. If there is something that is/isn't working, its mentioned and someone else might offer an idea as to what might work better. I've written a couple of tunes, and usually leave the others to make up their own parts, since I'm primarily a bass player, not a guitarist, singer or drummer.
I think it really depends on the writer and the band. I have a general idea of where I want a song to go, but I'm open to other suggestions too. If someone has an idea for a bass part, I have no problems with that either. Whatever sounds best. However, I don't think it's best to limit yourself (in a band situation) to say everybody has final say over their own parts as well as the writer has full control either. It has to be somewhere in between. I would tend to lean a little more towards going with the writer's vision though.
in my band we all work for the band, the band doesnt work for one individual. im fine with taking suggestions about what to play when the guitarist comes up with something but in the end im the bass player so i will play what bass lines i feel fit. if i ever have this song that i feel i know what hould be played i keep it to myself. we all share writing credit for all our songs. im in my band to make music with others not so i have people to play my songs.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I don't think there's a firm rule for all situations, it's whatever you and your bandmates agree to.
Things to consider:
a) You chose your bandmates for a reason.
b) Each respective musician ideally should have a more intimate knowledge of their instrument and its role.
c) Performing lines outside the style of your own playing often is more difficult for a musician (i.e. playing basslines that your keyboardist made up with his left hand often don't translate to ergonomic positions for your left hand).
d) It increases the other band members' feeling of involvement in a song if they've had the opportunity to contribute to it, even in a lesser way.
That being said, certainly there's no harm in trying to explain any ideas you have regarding dynamics, arrangement, feel, tempos, changes, etc.
At worst if they're listening and try and respect your goals will it be a huge negative impact in the song if an individual musician selects a few notes differently around your creation?
Things to consider:
a) You chose your bandmates for a reason.
b) Each respective musician ideally should have a more intimate knowledge of their instrument and its role.
c) Performing lines outside the style of your own playing often is more difficult for a musician (i.e. playing basslines that your keyboardist made up with his left hand often don't translate to ergonomic positions for your left hand).
d) It increases the other band members' feeling of involvement in a song if they've had the opportunity to contribute to it, even in a lesser way.
That being said, certainly there's no harm in trying to explain any ideas you have regarding dynamics, arrangement, feel, tempos, changes, etc.
At worst if they're listening and try and respect your goals will it be a huge negative impact in the song if an individual musician selects a few notes differently around your creation?
It really depends on the band situation and the structure of the writing.
It's nice for people to think that bands are democracies and everyone gets their say, but this isn't always the case and nor should it be. What is best for the music is the most important thing. If it means someone makes the executive decisions at the end of the day then that is what has to be done.
If I am the band leader and composer, I will allow people to contribute but at the end of the day if I don't think the idea works I have veto. If I am collaborating, on the other hand I will offer my ideas but I won't be precious if that idea doesn't work for the band leader or composer or producer.
If you aren't happy with what people are writing, I think you probably need to assert that you don't think certain things are working the way you envisioned them and it's time to take a new approach.
It's nice for people to think that bands are democracies and everyone gets their say, but this isn't always the case and nor should it be. What is best for the music is the most important thing. If it means someone makes the executive decisions at the end of the day then that is what has to be done.
If I am the band leader and composer, I will allow people to contribute but at the end of the day if I don't think the idea works I have veto. If I am collaborating, on the other hand I will offer my ideas but I won't be precious if that idea doesn't work for the band leader or composer or producer.
If you aren't happy with what people are writing, I think you probably need to assert that you don't think certain things are working the way you envisioned them and it's time to take a new approach.
Most bands that write their own songs shouldn't lose too much sleep worrying about this.
For every band that ever had problems splitting the revenue on their hit, there's a million bands that broke up or had bad blood because the members fought about how they'd split ownership of songs that were never destined to come anywhere near the charts.
I like to be allowed to create my own bassline. If the writer wants me to change it, and can communicate that clearly, I'll change it. That person wrote the song, and I have to respect the sound they're looking for and try to give it to them.
I once brought a song to a band (the all-female one). Its the one actually good one I wrote. The rhythm guitarist/band leader could not get it right. She refuses to use anything but a folk strum, and this was rock, with strong punk influences. The other two guitarists tried to show her how to do it, but she *refused* to learn. She just put her back to me and told the band, "Cherie has written it this way, but we are going to play it my way."
OOOOOOOOH NO, YOU DIDN'T, WOMAN!!!
She was *completely* changing the feel and sound of the song, and she didn't *care* what I wanted! She totally changed the whole rhythm of it to *suit her*, without asking, and rudely, too! So...
We never did the song. If she wouldn't do it right, I was not going to put my song out there sounding like, in my opinion, crap. And that is exactly what I told her, in front of the band.
We broke up four months later.
Cherie
I once brought a song to a band (the all-female one). Its the one actually good one I wrote. The rhythm guitarist/band leader could not get it right. She refuses to use anything but a folk strum, and this was rock, with strong punk influences. The other two guitarists tried to show her how to do it, but she *refused* to learn. She just put her back to me and told the band, "Cherie has written it this way, but we are going to play it my way."
OOOOOOOOH NO, YOU DIDN'T, WOMAN!!!
She was *completely* changing the feel and sound of the song, and she didn't *care* what I wanted! She totally changed the whole rhythm of it to *suit her*, without asking, and rudely, too! So...
We never did the song. If she wouldn't do it right, I was not going to put my song out there sounding like, in my opinion, crap. And that is exactly what I told her, in front of the band.
We broke up four months later.
Cherie
It really depends on the way your band dynamic is set up and the way your songwriter writes his songs. A lot of times I'll just write a song on acoustic guitar where the only real static things are the chords and the vocal melody. When that's the case, I figure it's the band's job to flush it out and make it something more interesting. Sometimes, though, I write something where the guitar and the bass are doing something very specific that was intended to work together in a certain way. When that's the case, I expect my guitar player to do it exactly how I tell him. It's the same compromise that I'm willing to make if he writes something similar for me. If he thinks he can one up my idea, I'm willing to hear it out, but if I write the song, I keep ultimate veto power, and I think that's fair. The trick is to surround yourself with musicians who you agree with more often than not, and then you don't have to worry so much about compromise.
There's an indie rock band called Of Montreal, and for years they wrote as a band, but on the last few records, he just holed himself up in a studio and wrote, performed, recorded, and mixed and mastered the whole thing himself before giving it back over to the band. I read an interview with the singer, and he said it's caused a lot of tension in the band, but that he does not regret his decision because he feels strongly about the songs. Given the strength of his arrangements, I tend to respect his stance.
There's an indie rock band called Of Montreal, and for years they wrote as a band, but on the last few records, he just holed himself up in a studio and wrote, performed, recorded, and mixed and mastered the whole thing himself before giving it back over to the band. I read an interview with the singer, and he said it's caused a lot of tension in the band, but that he does not regret his decision because he feels strongly about the songs. Given the strength of his arrangements, I tend to respect his stance.
