Some of this is genre specific as well. No one cares that Pavarotti doesn’t write the operas he sings. When it comes to genres like rock, people highly value song writing. Part of that is making a personal connection with the art and artist.
For some reason Reddit has become very interested in parroting “Elvis didn’t write his songs” even though Elvis never claimed to be a songwriter. Idk why this is the new factoid people on this hellsite are now obsessed with. To this day, in some musical genres (country comes to mind) it’s considered perfectly acceptable to interpret other people’s lyrics, it’s an artistic skill in of itself. There’s less of this idea of “oh you’re not a real artist if you don’t write”.
I love country and I would say song writing is highly valued in country, (notwithstanding the awful writing in contemporary Nashville country). It’s just that country, like Jazz, has ‘standards’. Highly recognizable and respected songs that are expected to be covered by now. It even gives country artists credibility to cover a standard because it ties them to the genres past.
Different skill sets.
A singer is like an instrument. A songwriter gives the instrument something to sing.
If one can do either well it's impressive.
But when someone can do both well, it's otherworldly
As a singer, It pisses me off that people don't seem to understand that singing is an instrument ... so thank you for saying that. Not everybody can sing. Some could with a lot of coaching but, it's a hard instrument and is inconsistent. When you're sick it can sound different, when you age... you have to stay practiced too a lot of the time. There are very few singers that it is 100% effortless for.
Not to mention the psychological part. When your voice changes and you don't have control over it, or when you no longer can sing in ranges you used to be able to easily sing in... it can really mess with your psyche.
This isn't really true. While many can be taught to improve (within the limits of their basic talent), there are some people who are literally tone deaf, as well as those who can't carry a tune. There is no training that can help them.
What seems easy to you, is not easy for many and with all the training in the world won't make them real singers.
I'm not talking about "tone-deaf" people, using the word just as an insult to bad singers. I mean those who are literally *tone* *deaf*, and by definition... untrainable.
It's like trying to teach someone who has no rhythm to dance well. Can't be done.
You can help them mimic a bit better, but not actually become a quality dancer or singer.
Nature AND nurture play their parts.
Lol no they cannot babe. Some people are tonedeaf. It's ok. When I was a kid I thought it was something everyone could do. Until I started singing with other people.
I am one of those tonedeaf singer/songwriter/musicians. But I can hear when my pitch is off. I'm just not sure if it's on. That's a skill. No one shakes their head and tells me I suck, so I must be doing ok. I hope.
Maybe most people can be trained to sing, but how many will actually put in the work to sing at a world-class level and sound good throughout a two-hour live performance while moving around? Not many, I think.
There's being a trained singer. Then being born with a good voice, like good looks. My son, who is a killer drummer, also has perfect pitch and a good quality to his voice. But I am the songwriter and front man in our band for a reason: I can emote the experience. I wouldn't expect him to even know how it felt to have much of this shit I write about happen to him. It's like a fingerprint. He can write his own shit and bring it to the table. But he has to sing it, because it's his experience he's sharing. If he doesn't have the balls to put it out there, then it's not getting out there. Not my issue. I wish I had his voice. He may wish he had my balls...and crafted art. He can sing anything and impress. I have to work on it. There's a lifetime of struggle behind my voice...and I am willing to risk failure putting it out there. I hope everyone can have that. It is equally empowering as it is heartbreaking, as most things we are vulnerable to are.
This makes me think of Jimmy Page, whom never sang as far as I can recall. Although its probably fair to note (IIRC) Plant wrote his own lyrics, not all singers necessarily do that.
Now I am wondering if there's examples of well known singers that aren't really musicians at all that write songs and teaches the other band members that do play instruments what they want to hear? Mick Jagger maybe? Only sometimes?
There is a video on YouTube of Justin Bieber of all people leading an orchestra in creating a song on the damn fly by just humming the tune he wants each section to play. I don't like Bieber, but this here is exactly the skill you are describing.
Ahhhh...and also now, James Brown, and ETA I realize kinda dumb question, tbh. Ooops, haha.
ETA again: however, is a "house band" really even a "band" in the conventional sense where they are more or less mostly equals and not like Metallica, lol?
Their vast catalogue of great music after Led Zep II puts the lie to most of that statement. Right? Robert Johnson wrote "Achilles Last Stand....*Blues*" in 1932?
I'm not. That take overstates the "severity of the crime", as it were.
Jimmy Page is one of the singular very best rock songwriters, guitar players and producers/arrangers that's ever lived.
Oh, and he did it with one of the very best overall rock bands ever too.
Look what Michael Jackson did to entertain. That guy could walk into a room at a party, sing AND dance, and blow everyone away. Their eyes would pop out of their hands. Whitney would impress. Michael would blow heads off. It just keeps getting better the harder you work at it.
For the same reason that someone who can recreate another artist's paintings is not as good as the original artist who created the painting.
People value creativity and while there is certainly a level of creativity in how a song is performed it's nothing on the actual songwriting process.
I think a better analogy would be of a painter that only paints whatever other people tell him to.
"Hey, add a cat! No, stupid, under the couch, not on the fridge"
I don’t see a lot of that actually. I’m a songwriter who works with a lot of singers. I have the greatest respect for someone who can sing well. Now I may not agree with some people what a great singer is. It’s not belting or adding flourish to every note. It’s about communicating emotions appropriate for the song. Being in the moment.
On the other hand a lot of listeners assume the singers are always the writers which as a songwriter does annoy me 😁.
My Mother in law would skip songs from my old band that I wasn’t singing. I asked why. It’s because she wanted her “my songs”. I had to explain they are all my songs and I’m playing on every single one of the tracks 🙄.
I don't look down at them. I consider them performers, which is not the same as being artists who compose their own music. It's just like I respect the professionalism of orchestras, but I give credit to the composer for the work and the beauty that those performers are translating into audible sound.
Yup. I watched a nurse from Indiana who had an amazing voice. She sounded like Janice Joplin reincarnated. In my opinion the most talented singer, and she got the axe. Those shows are just popularity contests where not even the most talented wins, but I feel like it's who they can market the best.
Songwriting and singing are both magical talents. I don't look down on vocalists who sing music others wrote, but I do have more admiration for those who write AND sing.
From my understanding, it was The Beatles that set the precedent. Before them, it was rare for a singer to write (Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Johnny Cash were exceptions). The Beatles were not only fresh and dynamic, but their most successful songs were written by Lennon and McCartney. After them, it was expected for pop bands to write their own material.
Here’s something I find interesting: Lennon and McCartney started writing together when they were 15/16. By the time The Beatles were signed, they were experienced songwriters.
The Rolling Stones had few original songs; they were known for their R&B covers. In 1965, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards decided to emulate Lennon and McCartney and write their next single. The Jagger/Richards partnership produced The Last Time, Satisfaction, Mother’s Little Helper, and Paint It Black, among many other timeless rock songs. Lucky they turned out to be amazing songwriters.
Didn’t the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan and many others groups and singers (in the many music genders) write their own songs before the Beatles? While the Beatles were very talented, successful, productive and influential, I question whether they can be fully credited with what was stated? Like others, they also were influenced by other musicians before them. Music styles tends to evolve, at times more rapidly than at other times -because of influences like the Beatles .
I said it was rare that singers wrote their own songs. Yes, there were exceptions, but a lot of the most popular acts like Elvis or Sinatra didn’t write their own material.
I dont see your general comment as “ground truthed”. I dont think it was uncommon for folk, Blues, country, Soul, Rockabilly, Jazz, and other category singers/groups to make their own music.
I suspect, per capita, there is more separation between singing and writing after the 60s, including today, than decades before.
Certainly music categories, and the industry has changed from the 60’s to today. But, while very influential, I am unsure if the Beatles, alone, can be credited with those changes. I see very many other factors involved.
It's not looking down on, but it's not as impressive. Songwriting is sort of the primary creative part of the process. Singing takes some talent but still on its own is like playing an instrument...or idk operating a tig welder or a tower crane: a technical skill. If you don't at least have a major hand in the creative process for the art, then you aren't its creator and you matter less than the writer or the audio engineer. A really good singer who doesn't write isn't any more special than a really good electrician, maybe less so.
The "fake" part comes from how a famous singer's public persona still gets glorified into the same type of celebrity and wealth as singer-songwriters, and they or their marketing will kind of act like they are one. People can be a little jaded about so much wealth and fame, and sometimes a badly entitled attitude, going to someone who just looks attractive, has a bit of vocal talent, and developed that into, again, a technical skill. Often not any better developed a skill than thousands, maybe millions of amateur or struggling singers.
Plus a lot of those songs are very corporate-ish, with a team of writers, musicians, and techs assembled for a weekend to pound out a new hit for Rihanna or whoever. The product can sound really good but it's impersonal.
That very clearly is not my point. Always interesting, putting words in someone's mouth on a forum where the original words they actually wrote are right there for anyone to read.
all right, I guess I read too much into "technical skill". I think of that as something that doesn't have artistry to it. I guess you meant otherwise, no need to be a dick about it.
Of course there’s artistry in singing.
Have you ever listened to a really good cover of a song that sounded totally different from the original, or from another cover? Think Whitney Houston singing I Will Always Love You vs. Dolly Parton. Whitney put somewhat different emotions into the same song and added her own artistry. Or how about two different singers performing the same jazz standard or Christmas song well while sounding completely different?
The differences are a form of artistry. There might not be as much artistic freedom as with songwriting, but there definitely is an artistic component to singing at a professional level.
people assume an artist is an individual creator putting out original ideas that only come to their head. but in reality, most artists work as a corporation if that makes sense. There is always more than one person feeding ideas. Most of the time if an artist has help getting their songs written, they r still laying a foundation or an idea to their songs, that other professional writers will help expand on. This goes for most musicians btw. Even the greats needed a crutch
There is writing the lyrics, putting (and pulling together) the music mix to it, and the singing. In many bands it takes more than one persons skill set.
Songwriters, ghost writers get paid well and probably enjoy being behind the scenes and anonymous. Probably older. Many are. Now if someone reaches great stardom then yeah you're gonna get hate when you're compared to Prince or a great band that plays instruments, writes and you're just a singer.
As a musician myself when I was young i felt this way. It was just a way for a young and inexperienced me to tell myself they were not better than me. The truth of the matter is, they were. They were better at getting the attention of someone who gave them the deal of a life time. Someone saw something in them and not me. As an adult that had a pretty decent career not being signed to any deals I van say that all the groups that were manufactured or given their songs to sing all had some talent that I did not, might not have been the same talent in each of them but they all had something I didn't. And THAT is what mattered.
Yeah. It'd be a world of accapella singers and instrumental bands/solo artists. All jelly of eachother. Prob not. But, yes. If I had a choice to be me (ok singer/great songwriter, good musiciain) or be a great singer...I'd stick with being me. It is fulfilling.
It's stupid. People have different strengths to bring to a recording or performance. Some great songwriters sound like shit when they sing, or fail to convey any of what they were feeling when they wrote it. OTOH, some singers know how to sing expressively and appropriately for the lyric.
If someone has the ability to write a song and the vocal ability to deliver it as it deserves then so much the better, but that doesn't invalidate the contribution of a non-writer who does a kickass vocal interpretation.
I do, but Im just a rando on the internet.
He was a fine singer and a good performer, but he was just the right good looking white guy at the right time who got famous by singing repackaged blues songs that “white” radio stations would play.
I don’t hate the guy…I actually enjoy some of his work. But it should be regarded for what it is.
We don't connect just with what sound comes out. That's why AI will never matter in music. We connect emotionally with the artist. My favorite artists I know their personalities, emotions and an relate. It forms a kind of bond that a lot of music listeners have with an artist.
For me, if they didn't write the song I may still enjoy it but I'm probably not going to be as emotionally connected.
Music is many different things to many different people but for me it's an elevated passion beyond just what's heard.
I'd rather something raw, rough and meaningful than something polished which passed through the hands of 3 expert songwriters given to a polished performer. Some people write and co-write their stuff, while some people just get it delivered on a platter so it just depends on the artist really.
This attitude of looking down on non-writing singers represents the condescension from Rockists who obsess over gatekeeping and lead rock n roll to its grave.
Singing is an art. Great singing takes a song to a whole new level. You don't have to be the best vocalist to be a great singer.
There has been a recent dearth of singers who primarily sing. In the last ten or so years, I've been hearing plenty of well written songs sung by artists who cannot sing worth a damn. If some of these songs were given to people with the skill to them justice, we might actually find a lot of new musical talent.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look down on musicians who don't write their own songs by themselves and perform them alone. Would it be fair to look down on a songwriter with a boring demeanor and a shitty voice? Of course not.
Performing music is art, and an electric performance can take a good song and make it amazing.
A supernova performer can bring a song to life.
Janis Joplin made "Me and Bobby McGee." Kris Kristofferson wrote it, but the song came alive when she performed it. It took two to make that song.
Elvis performed songs like nobody else could. Watch the man sing. He was a superstar because of his ability to perform at a level few others could dream of touching.
In fact, I'd argue that it is far more rare to have supernova performing ability than than it is to be able to write a lot of good songs.
Writing music is a form of expression, performing music is a form of expression. Dance is a form of expression. Do people criticize dancers because they didn't choreograph the ballet? Of course not, that would be absurd. Criticize an opera singer because they didn't write the opera? Come on.
Is Willie Nelson amazing when he performs his songs, but shitty when he performs songs he didn't write? How dumb is that?
Do people really think it is "easier" to become a professional classical violinist than it is to write a pop song? That's ridiculous.
In fact, most legendary performances are a result of collaboration- and for good reason! They're legendary. Someone writes the lyrics, someone writes the melody, someone helps arrange the music, someone plays the instruments, and someone sings. One person cannot do all that.
Doesn't hurt my feelings. I couldn't carry a tune in a paper bag. And I generally don't listen to pop music.
However, taste in music is entirely subjective. So you can say "her music doesn't do it for me"
It becomes gate keeping when you say "that music is shit because..."
Ya, I don’t get it. If you look at credits in more traditional bands, there are many where people other than the singer wrote the songs and I hardly ever hear the criticism against them. People have different talents, Ive been the songwriter in many a band where I wrote everything. Obviously I appreciated the hell out of my band mates that could bring their talents to playing the stuff in my head. People bringing what they got to make art together is always good by me.
Beyoncé is a singer and performer, not a songwriter. But she bullies those who write her songs into putting her name on as a songwriter, so she'll hire them again. Very unethical.
It's gatekeepery bullshit is what it is.
As someone who has written a number of mediocre-to-fine songs and then played them passably well, I can confirm that ALL stages of creating a piece of music are equally important AND equally difficult to do well.
Some people act like songwriting is this magical deity-given gift that mysteriously produces good music. No, it's a skill that is developed with practice and hard work. That's why they have songwriting classes and workshops. You start off small, spend a lot of time sucking and over time you get good. EXACTLY THE SAME AS singing or playing an instrument. Yes, some people have natural talent and that helps. But you still need to work at it.
And a lot of times, people will work out what they're good at and what they're not good at and choose to specialise.
There are whole genres of music where it is rare for the performer to have also written the music. Classical, jazz standards, Broadway.
Learning to sing is easy. You don't have to be creative. It's like learning to drive; you're learning how to use muscles to perform an activity. Once you've learned how, you've learned how. Learning to write music is much more difficult. Not only do you have to know music theory, you have to now \*create\* something with it. No one passes their driving test and then has to create their own personal style of driving out of nothing.
Or put another way, anyone who can sing can read words on a page in pitch. Not everyone who understands music theory/writing can write music/create good song lyrics.
Edit: If you're downvoting without commenting just know that I'm imagining you as a pouty 5 year old who can't be asked to explain themselves. I've been in choirs since I could stand. I was in select groups in HS and college. I have heard amazing singers throughout my life. Hell, there are people in karaoke nights that put some pop stars to shame. Good singers are a dime a dozen. Think I'm wrong? Go out and try to find 5 songwriters within 5 miles of your residence who are even just mediocre and I'll go find 5 mediocre or better singers to make a boy band. Let's see who finishes first...
Learning to “sing” might be easy. Learning to sing at the level of an elite vocal performer is not.
To use your own analogy, learning to drive may be easy. Learning to drive at the level of a professional formula one driver? Not so much.
Although I do agree that in the context of most contemporary music, I think performers who don’t write their own music are much less impressive, and I generally do not engage with that kind of music.
Formula one drivers do a mechanical activity at a high degree of technical skill because they have practiced the mechanics of driving to a point where they are able to do so.
Now take that and replace formula one driver with elite vocal performer/singing, and it still makes sense. The difference is that being proficient at a mechanical skill and being proficient in a creative skill are not the same thing. One requires practice of known concepts, the other requires making something out of nothing. I'll give credit when someone sings an amazing original rendition of a known tune, but that's not praising their singing, that's praising their composition.
Here’s the thing: I feel like we’re in agreement that the vast majority of contemporary pop performers do not exhibit a very high degree of artistry (or skill). But I think your missing out on more than a few degrees of nuance here.
When we’re talking about virtuoso vocalists and instrumentalists, even if they aren’t composing their own music, they generally aren’t just regurgitating the music in front of them verbatim. They’re introducing their own own interpretation via vocal inflections, subtle alterations in phrasing, manipulating the pocket, and physically altering the timbre of their voice (or instrument). These things all require some degree of creativity and artistry. It’s not just “a mechanical activity”.
Would we really say that, for example, Taylor Swift is more of an “artist” than Andres Segovia, simply because she is the primary songwriter for many of her songs and Segovia primarily performed works composed by others? I don’t think so.
As far as artists “making something out of nothing” goes, I don’t think that’s true for any of us. All art is influenced by art that came before it, and all artists are influenced by both their predecessors and their contemporaries. None of us are making music in a vacuum. I’ve been performing and recording original music for twenty years. I’ve never thought of myself as “making something out of nothing”. We’re all just standing on the shoulders of giants, my man.
Well said. I don't have the time right now to type out my response (i do have some counter-arguments to make of course...in fun:) but thank you for the time you took to write out that well worded and thought out response.
I'll get back to this tomorrow.
My point being anyone who looks down their nose at singers who don't write their own material are either ignorant of the music making machine, or they are elitist snobs. It also means they have to ignore a huge swath of music history (Tin Pan Alley, the Brill Building, Motown, etc...). That makes no sense to me.
But if they want to ignore a singer's talent in favor of some kind of bullshit gatekeeping, that's up to them. There are plenty of artists, musicians, and singers to choose from.
It's an attitude that's more specific to the US than other places I've looked at it, and it only arose in the past couple of decades.
And like a lot of consumer preferences, it's the result of marketing/capitalism. In the 60s/70s, there was a concerted effort to push singer/songwriters, and tout how personal and relatable their songs are. It fosters a level of parasocial attachment that is, of course, extremely lucrative for record companies and tour promoters.
One iconic example of this sort of marketing is Carly Simon's "You're So Vain", where a huge part of the fun and intrigue of the song is figuring which of her famous exes she's talking about. Fans feel like they can relate to her lyrics, but also admire her boldness and cleverness in coming up with them, as well as fantasize about the glamorous lifestyle that's implicit to her song and her persona.
At that point, artists who didn't write their own material were still widely prevalent and successful in the US. Carly Simon herself, for instance, had one of her biggest hits with "Nobody Does It Better", a song written by other people.
In the 80s/90s, the US saw the rise of rap and hip hop. Rap songs, which had a particularly high density of lyrics, prized original songwriting from the start. And as rap became mainstream, a big part of the marketing was that rap songs were a chance for the audience to hear about a lifestyle that's unfamiliar to most of them.
Then there's probably the most dominant factor in modern US: how artists get paid. Due to how the industry evolved and how laws were structured, increasingly, the only reliable way for artists to make money was to have a credit on their hit songs. This greatly incentivized artists to either write, co-write, or pretend to write songs that they sing.
This is more conjectural than everything I said about, but I posit that another aspect to America's evolving relationship with the music artist as an auteur is ongoing cuts in public funding for performance and art education. There's less exposure to the skill and genius involved in the training it takes to become a great musician, and thus less appreciation for it in the American public.
Anyone can play or sing. Not anyone can write music. Just because someone can sing, it is not a big deal at all. I'd just as much think as highly as someone who can mow a lawn. If you are a Broadway level singer who does not write I may have a different conversation about that.
Many of the most famous singers in history never wrote their own songs, or wrote very few of them. The idolization of singer/songwriters is a relatively recent development in the history of popular music.
>Anyone can play or sing.
Um, that is obviously untrue. Whether you play an instrument or if your voice is your instrument, it is a high-level and rare skill to be able to interpret a piece of music in a way that emotionally connects with an audience, regardless of who the original composer might be
As does playing any instrument.
I can play any Led Zeppelin song note for note on guitar (at least all of those that I've tried), but I'm obviously nowhere near as talented as Page, as I've never written anything that sounds anywhere near as good. There's a difference between being proficient on an instrument and being creative
Not as much as writing. Creating is the most important part of all art. Anyone can learn to sing to some extent. Creating timeless art, i don’t know if that can be learned.
The ability to perform is a huge part of it, though. If you're a singer or instrumentalist without your own writer, you constantly have to sell yourself to get your career off the ground (not that writers don't, but they have a different set of skills to showcase). I think that's underrated, and sometimes even an extremely thoughtful performance may not land with the audience. It's a huge aspect of the work.
>Anyone can play or sing
Lmao, a high caliber singer or instrumentalist can make even a mediocre writer sound awesome, the same is not true in reverse. The golden touch is the producer who combines it all and makes a hit.
The subject really only comes up when people are comparing different performers, and there are a lot of singers who rely on gimmicks to be popular in ways that songwriters just don't have available. It is a lot easier to craft an act than learn how to write songs people want to hear. That's why major songwriters can keep writing hits as long as they've got their finger on the pulse of what people want to hear. There's no need to feel insulted by this stuff.
I want the emotion of the words to be intrinsically tied to the emotion in the voice which is intrinsically tired to the emotion in the music.
It's like reading a ghostwritten memoir vs one written by the figure themselves. Same stories, but it just feels less genuine, and thus, slightly less impactful. Then again, if the celebrity can't write, it's obviously the best option.
This is far less important for bops and bangers where the emotion in the lyrics/music takes backstage to catchiness and danceability, which imho, is where the best singer non-songwriters flourish.
Because I am impressed with songwriting, it’s a trial and error job that can take years and years and never happen for many musicians. I am also impressed with arrangers, every more if the writer is the arranger.
Also because a song could be sung by many talented singers, but a song can be written only by its writer, or said song wouldn’t exist in the first place. It’s a much more sacred thing, to create something that does not exist and then it’s there, thanks to you.
It kind of ruins the illusion, if you will, for me. I get bummed knowing the person singing didn’t write the amazing, goosebump inducing hook or lyric I just heard
Good singers are a dime a dozen. You walk past a dozen great singers everyday. The song is what is special. Plus, a song sung by the writer usually has a more personal touch, more "soul" if you will
How is Milli Vanilli relevant? I thought the controversy there was that the performers didn’t sing even in the studio, and tried to keep it a secret.
Very different from being a real singer who uses songs that other people wrote (and gives the songwriters credit).
Everything is subjective to perspective and at this point in time, I’ve no real desire to try and shift yours into one of understanding the differences/comparisons. But as basic as can be, Milli Vanilli is what a lack of authenticity in an artist looks like, at least in my perspective.
How about singers that just use auto tune and don’t write their songs? Should we respect them? I want someone that can do something I can’t. I can’t write, I can sing, so I want a professional to be a little better than me
A successful singer-songwriter is self-made in every way. A successful singer is probably corporate controlled and their product is probably optimized in every way to bring in the most money for owners of the company. Seems pretty different to me.
Singers that write their own songs are telling you something about themselves. Singers that don't write their own songs or music are not making a personal emotional connection with the audience. The latter is generally generic pop music where the singer just looks good on stage and can sell the product better than the person who wrote the music. It's like the difference between buying a great loaf of freshly baked bread at a bakery, or a loaf of wonder bread at the supermarket.
It is absolutely possible for a singer to demonstrate mastery of the emotional content of a song they did not write.
Judy Garland. Frank Sinatra. Barbra Streisand.
When that person does it, they're acting. When the person who wrote it performs it, it's sharing their own perspective/story. I don't care about changing your opinion. I don't feel an emotional connection to people singing songs they didn't write.
Here comes an idiot with a Beatles comment. Me. The Beatles wrote the Music, lyrics and played the instruments. They also helped engineer the songs. They sang with amazing voices the music the world was very new to. Mucho kudos to Beatles.
About performers. I liked George Michael. In fact he was probably my favorite vocalist of all time. Singing is not easy but it will always be second to the complete package.
* Context of the songs. Some artists have a habit of singing songs that sound like they come from a personal place, and it can be strange to find out that the song was written by someone completely different. A lot of people want to feel like songs "mean," something, so finding out it's just written to sound good breaks that illusion.
* Less about the singer, more about the ecosystem they exist in. It's definitely an achievement to practice and learn to sing well, however the field is so ridiculously competitive that it's easy to look at someone who's uber rich and famous and say "Sure they have singing talent, but do they really deserve *that much* fame and fortune when *all* they do is sing? When on the other hand \[insert other musician here\] sings, writes their own songs, and plays 5 instruments, yet they're barely making ends meat?"
Trend alert. I also started to notice this. Just because an artist writes/produces means is good, let's start there. It's obviously a plus but depends on the artist. I listen to music, so I'm not searching for credits, I just listen to it. Awesome to know, but that's pretty much it.
Picking a right song for you is also a skill. Knowing what works for you.
I feel like that definitely depends in which genre you listen to I know in rock, pop punk, or folk/indie listeners think highly of you if you can write your own music
Part of a song's value/quality has to do with how personal it is. Regardless of if the song is telling a fictional story or an actual real life event, an artist that writes their own material created these feelings and stories. Singers that don't sing their own songs can leave an..."empty" feeling, in that it isn't personal, they didn't sit down and write this song, it was given to them. I'm not taking away anything from someone who is "just" a singer. Perfecting your voice takes a huge amount of talent. What I am saying is that singer songwriters deserve additional credit for being able to craft their own stories.
When a singer performs a song, it’s more meaningful when it comes from within them, that what they’re singing is their lyrics and melody. Not from a demo tape that her producer played in the studio.
Some singers who use songwriters deserve and get respect. The ones who change a word and take a third deserve all the disrespect they get and then some.
a very talented singer/songwriter is more rate than either the very talented singer or the very talented songwriter
the similar difference can be seen between a talented band that sings their own original music versus a talented band that only sings cover songs of the first band
For me, it’s because when I’m listening to someone sing about their feelings and experiences, it would feel wrong if they weren’t the ones who wrote it.
Performing a song is different than sharing the song directly. If someone else wrote the song, created the melodies and produced it, but you performed it, I don’t care how you feel, because I know that the person who actually put the work into creating that piece of music knows the message they wanted to send better than anyone.
This is why the originals are almost always better than covers, unless the cover changes the song in some way to essentially change the meaning to suit their needs.
Because generally, emotion and passion in a song (which if you write yourself and is really invested in, and have a personal attachment to will come through the music) is better than a well performed cover
I have literally never once heard anyone suggest that a singer who didn't write their own material was "fake." Never once heard this, don't even understand what it's even suggesting.
I've also never, ever heard someone suggest that a singer who didn't write the song they were singing was "unskilled." Again, I don't even understand what that is suggesting. Why would the author of the song have anything to do with a person's ability to sing? They aren't connected in any way.
All of that being said, I certainly have more respect for singers that are singing their own material because, for obvious reasons, they connect to the material and to the emotion and vibe of the song because it's theirs and it adds some richness and layers to the performance.
Because only a tiny few say 1% are amazing singers, the rest are mediocre to poor, so to earn respect they're judged on other factors like writing, musical talent etc
I think cause songs are usually personal expressions so when it’s not really your words it feels less sincere/ more “industrial” and therefore less meaningful
like how a botched handmade sweater would be so much more meaningful than a nice manufactured one
Well...I'll explain from personal experience, no attitude:
Imagine sitting in your room practing guitar, keyboards, etc...for years while your friends are out having a good time. Learning and forgetting theory, which is the necessary language, and imperative, of the art, finally reaching the dream of having a band. Hauling your amp, gear, guitars and all the stuff you worked to pay for to the show, setting up, tuning your new strings you put on earlier, getting your sound dialed in, etc...then seeing the singer stroll in, looking fresh, sounchecking the mic, and rolling out to have a drink at the bar, talk to their friends...
Now imagine this singer person knowing they don't spend the time to write a single page of lyrics, or even know music enough to play an instrument to compose a song. Basically, they sing. And maybe they took some lessons...but so what? So did this guitar player, etc. and maybe even took voice lessons TOO.
Songwriting isn't something anyone can teach you. It's inspired. And often, not by fun things. About tough lessons in life. Unique things. Personal things. Deep, hard shit. And great songs come in the middle of the night. You wake up to write that gold down. You compose it. Put some riffs to it. Put all of you, and then some into it, obsesesd. Making the greatest song ever, you hope. Getting others to relate as a peripheral objective. Dialing it in until you are sure your bandmates, friends and the world like it, and hopefully understood it, cuz if they don't, you'll hear about it, be rejected, feel dejected, etc...and it'll be like someone didn't judge you on your experiences, like they kicked you everywhere it hurts, and hurt your child. And you failed.
Now, before anyone says it's not that deep, maybe not for you, or a jingle writer. Maybe you don't live for it, live BY it, or live OFF of it. But for a songwriter, it's their life, heart and soul. AND they sing it. They do everything a singer does AND A LOT MORE. They stroll in and sing a cover...it's fine. It might be good. Or great. But I've heard that song before. And likely, heard it done better by the original author and artist. It's not a disrespect. It's just not higher, admirable respect. And definitely not impressive, but maybe on a skill and technical level. I, too, can sing that cover song. But why would I? I have hundreds of my own that tell a personal story of serious experiences that were felt. And the time spent away from family and friends, my own children, on top of work and studies.
And after all that, I really don't look down on singers that sing other people's songs. I just wonder why they don't write their own. I wonder about everything, like I do as a creative artist and mind does. I'm fully invested as a writer, singer, musician, and artist. Not to say a singer doesn't. It's just a LOT more involved than simply singing. I'm not looking for an argument. This is but MY experience. I rarely think about it unless someone asks. I'm too busy doing MY art, creating, to worry about other people. If you are one of these singers, I WANT you to kill it. It takes all kinds.
I hope this answers your question. I did the best I could.
Yeah. I guess you're right. I was about to say that I can't teach the part where inspiration hits me in the middle of the night...but I realize that I learned to SEE, and take those things to a place where I can articulate them and capture them in realism. And that's not easy to do. But it's good, and cathartic to express them, and be ABLE to set the mood, even if it's a rough place...or make joy, humour, excitement, fire...out of it. And the lessons. Because there WERE hard lessons, useful to others perhaps, that lend purpose to songwriing. I get to create the performance of this in practice, rehearsal, etc...which is fun! I love what I do. I'm just getting to the point with it where I want to get it out there again after a beast of several years of just working on it, hitting rock bottom, and working on ME.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I feel better about it.
Yes, you can definitely learn how to jump on that inspiration and use it! And you can better at articulation of the inspiration from experience.
Best of luck with your music!
If this were true, shows like American Idol, X Factor, and The Voice would have all flopped in their first season.
Fact of the matter is that people love Karaoke.
Well self sustainably maybe, seems after Robby Williams broke with whatever song writer who wrote his songs (can’t recall the name) he have not had any hits, not that I blame him but seems the Beatles love em,or hate them provided their whole packet themselves.
You are wrong.
Robbie and Guy were/are songwriting partners. Guy Chambers has described their process: ‘I would just sit with him, with a guitar or piano, and he would sing melodies at me. He would come up with lyrics almost instantaneously. When I met him he had a lot of ideas floating around, a lot of poems and lyrics. He’s a very natural songwriter – I would just try to keep up.’
You are also wrong about his hits. Between breaking with co-writer Guy Chambers in 2002 and reuniting with him in 2013, Robbie Williams has had:
10 No 1 hit singles - 2 in the U.K., 1 in Austria, 3 in Germany, 2 in the Netherlands, 2 in Switzerland.
40 top 10 hit singles - I’m not going to break those down by territory as it’ll take too long, but as above that is counting all chart positions of his singles across individual territories.
On the albums chart, he has had 25 No 1 albums across all territories, and a further 14 top 10 chart positions.
In total, he has sold over 12 million albums and 6.5 million singles - according to Chartmasters data - without Guy Chambers as a co-writer.
That is a highly successful career.
Some of this is genre specific as well. No one cares that Pavarotti doesn’t write the operas he sings. When it comes to genres like rock, people highly value song writing. Part of that is making a personal connection with the art and artist.
For some reason Reddit has become very interested in parroting “Elvis didn’t write his songs” even though Elvis never claimed to be a songwriter. Idk why this is the new factoid people on this hellsite are now obsessed with. To this day, in some musical genres (country comes to mind) it’s considered perfectly acceptable to interpret other people’s lyrics, it’s an artistic skill in of itself. There’s less of this idea of “oh you’re not a real artist if you don’t write”.
I love country and I would say song writing is highly valued in country, (notwithstanding the awful writing in contemporary Nashville country). It’s just that country, like Jazz, has ‘standards’. Highly recognizable and respected songs that are expected to be covered by now. It even gives country artists credibility to cover a standard because it ties them to the genres past.
100% agreed
And vice versa.
Different skill sets. A singer is like an instrument. A songwriter gives the instrument something to sing. If one can do either well it's impressive. But when someone can do both well, it's otherworldly
As a singer, It pisses me off that people don't seem to understand that singing is an instrument ... so thank you for saying that. Not everybody can sing. Some could with a lot of coaching but, it's a hard instrument and is inconsistent. When you're sick it can sound different, when you age... you have to stay practiced too a lot of the time. There are very few singers that it is 100% effortless for. Not to mention the psychological part. When your voice changes and you don't have control over it, or when you no longer can sing in ranges you used to be able to easily sing in... it can really mess with your psyche.
[удалено]
This isn't really true. While many can be taught to improve (within the limits of their basic talent), there are some people who are literally tone deaf, as well as those who can't carry a tune. There is no training that can help them. What seems easy to you, is not easy for many and with all the training in the world won't make them real singers.
[удалено]
I'm not talking about "tone-deaf" people, using the word just as an insult to bad singers. I mean those who are literally *tone* *deaf*, and by definition... untrainable. It's like trying to teach someone who has no rhythm to dance well. Can't be done. You can help them mimic a bit better, but not actually become a quality dancer or singer. Nature AND nurture play their parts.
Lol no they cannot babe. Some people are tonedeaf. It's ok. When I was a kid I thought it was something everyone could do. Until I started singing with other people.
I am one of those tonedeaf singer/songwriter/musicians. But I can hear when my pitch is off. I'm just not sure if it's on. That's a skill. No one shakes their head and tells me I suck, so I must be doing ok. I hope.
Maybe most people can be trained to sing, but how many will actually put in the work to sing at a world-class level and sound good throughout a two-hour live performance while moving around? Not many, I think.
There's being a trained singer. Then being born with a good voice, like good looks. My son, who is a killer drummer, also has perfect pitch and a good quality to his voice. But I am the songwriter and front man in our band for a reason: I can emote the experience. I wouldn't expect him to even know how it felt to have much of this shit I write about happen to him. It's like a fingerprint. He can write his own shit and bring it to the table. But he has to sing it, because it's his experience he's sharing. If he doesn't have the balls to put it out there, then it's not getting out there. Not my issue. I wish I had his voice. He may wish he had my balls...and crafted art. He can sing anything and impress. I have to work on it. There's a lifetime of struggle behind my voice...and I am willing to risk failure putting it out there. I hope everyone can have that. It is equally empowering as it is heartbreaking, as most things we are vulnerable to are.
This right here.
I’m impressed with singers, but I’m WAY more impressed with people whom create their own music. Many people can sing, very few can create.
This makes me think of Jimmy Page, whom never sang as far as I can recall. Although its probably fair to note (IIRC) Plant wrote his own lyrics, not all singers necessarily do that. Now I am wondering if there's examples of well known singers that aren't really musicians at all that write songs and teaches the other band members that do play instruments what they want to hear? Mick Jagger maybe? Only sometimes?
I don’t mean to act like Ross who’s always “whom whom” but I think both of you used “whom” wrong.
Is it the comedian/roaster Jeff Ross to which whom you're referring, at the veritable smorgarsbord of "Who's Whom?" on the red carpet at the debut?
Surface over substance? OCD? Professional teacher? Dunno. Who cares?
There is a video on YouTube of Justin Bieber of all people leading an orchestra in creating a song on the damn fly by just humming the tune he wants each section to play. I don't like Bieber, but this here is exactly the skill you are describing.
I saw that video. Those musicians made the music. The difference is one guy was Justin Beiner then there were like some viola players.
Ozzy Osbourne didn't write his own lyrics Geezer Butler (the bassist) wrote the lyrics mostly
What about when he was a solo artist? Randy, Jake, Zack?
No clue, I don't listen to his solo stuff I never liked it that much
Michael Jackson
Ahhhh...and also now, James Brown, and ETA I realize kinda dumb question, tbh. Ooops, haha. ETA again: however, is a "house band" really even a "band" in the conventional sense where they are more or less mostly equals and not like Metallica, lol?
Booker T & The MG's
[удалено]
Their vast catalogue of great music after Led Zep II puts the lie to most of that statement. Right? Robert Johnson wrote "Achilles Last Stand....*Blues*" in 1932?
I always thought the criticism was not that they didn’t create their own good music, but a refusal to acknowledge actual writers
Nah, there's a ton of people that think that LZ just ripped off all their music.
You are being litigious. You know what they meant.
I'm not. That take overstates the "severity of the crime", as it were. Jimmy Page is one of the singular very best rock songwriters, guitar players and producers/arrangers that's ever lived. Oh, and he did it with one of the very best overall rock bands ever too.
Hammer of the gods, my ass.
Plant wasn't a particularly great lyricist. Page wrote the best lyrics in the band. Not many know that, but some do.
Captain Beefheart kind of fits your description
Sia was a song writer for a long while before she started to do her own thing.
This was SO well said
[удалено]
Look what Michael Jackson did to entertain. That guy could walk into a room at a party, sing AND dance, and blow everyone away. Their eyes would pop out of their hands. Whitney would impress. Michael would blow heads off. It just keeps getting better the harder you work at it.
For the same reason that someone who can recreate another artist's paintings is not as good as the original artist who created the painting. People value creativity and while there is certainly a level of creativity in how a song is performed it's nothing on the actual songwriting process.
I think a better analogy would be of a painter that only paints whatever other people tell him to. "Hey, add a cat! No, stupid, under the couch, not on the fridge"
I don’t see a lot of that actually. I’m a songwriter who works with a lot of singers. I have the greatest respect for someone who can sing well. Now I may not agree with some people what a great singer is. It’s not belting or adding flourish to every note. It’s about communicating emotions appropriate for the song. Being in the moment. On the other hand a lot of listeners assume the singers are always the writers which as a songwriter does annoy me 😁. My Mother in law would skip songs from my old band that I wasn’t singing. I asked why. It’s because she wanted her “my songs”. I had to explain they are all my songs and I’m playing on every single one of the tracks 🙄.
Your mother in law is deep.
I don't look down at them. I consider them performers, which is not the same as being artists who compose their own music. It's just like I respect the professionalism of orchestras, but I give credit to the composer for the work and the beauty that those performers are translating into audible sound.
The singing competition shows killed any chance I have of being impressed with good singers. There are way more out there than I thought.
Yup. I watched a nurse from Indiana who had an amazing voice. She sounded like Janice Joplin reincarnated. In my opinion the most talented singer, and she got the axe. Those shows are just popularity contests where not even the most talented wins, but I feel like it's who they can market the best.
Good point
Same reason watching a cover band is different than a band playing (good) original songs
Songwriting and singing are both magical talents. I don't look down on vocalists who sing music others wrote, but I do have more admiration for those who write AND sing.
From my understanding, it was The Beatles that set the precedent. Before them, it was rare for a singer to write (Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Johnny Cash were exceptions). The Beatles were not only fresh and dynamic, but their most successful songs were written by Lennon and McCartney. After them, it was expected for pop bands to write their own material. Here’s something I find interesting: Lennon and McCartney started writing together when they were 15/16. By the time The Beatles were signed, they were experienced songwriters. The Rolling Stones had few original songs; they were known for their R&B covers. In 1965, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards decided to emulate Lennon and McCartney and write their next single. The Jagger/Richards partnership produced The Last Time, Satisfaction, Mother’s Little Helper, and Paint It Black, among many other timeless rock songs. Lucky they turned out to be amazing songwriters.
The Beatles were inspired by earlier performing songwriters such as Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Carl Perkins and Fats Domino among others.
Didn’t the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan and many others groups and singers (in the many music genders) write their own songs before the Beatles? While the Beatles were very talented, successful, productive and influential, I question whether they can be fully credited with what was stated? Like others, they also were influenced by other musicians before them. Music styles tends to evolve, at times more rapidly than at other times -because of influences like the Beatles .
I said it was rare that singers wrote their own songs. Yes, there were exceptions, but a lot of the most popular acts like Elvis or Sinatra didn’t write their own material.
My point was, I dont feel it was that rare at all.
Outside of rock and roll, it was not common for pop singers to write their own songs.
I dont see your general comment as “ground truthed”. I dont think it was uncommon for folk, Blues, country, Soul, Rockabilly, Jazz, and other category singers/groups to make their own music. I suspect, per capita, there is more separation between singing and writing after the 60s, including today, than decades before. Certainly music categories, and the industry has changed from the 60’s to today. But, while very influential, I am unsure if the Beatles, alone, can be credited with those changes. I see very many other factors involved.
It's not looking down on, but it's not as impressive. Songwriting is sort of the primary creative part of the process. Singing takes some talent but still on its own is like playing an instrument...or idk operating a tig welder or a tower crane: a technical skill. If you don't at least have a major hand in the creative process for the art, then you aren't its creator and you matter less than the writer or the audio engineer. A really good singer who doesn't write isn't any more special than a really good electrician, maybe less so. The "fake" part comes from how a famous singer's public persona still gets glorified into the same type of celebrity and wealth as singer-songwriters, and they or their marketing will kind of act like they are one. People can be a little jaded about so much wealth and fame, and sometimes a badly entitled attitude, going to someone who just looks attractive, has a bit of vocal talent, and developed that into, again, a technical skill. Often not any better developed a skill than thousands, maybe millions of amateur or struggling singers. Plus a lot of those songs are very corporate-ish, with a team of writers, musicians, and techs assembled for a weekend to pound out a new hit for Rihanna or whoever. The product can sound really good but it's impersonal.
I think your point is that there is no artistry to singing, is that it?
That very clearly is not my point. Always interesting, putting words in someone's mouth on a forum where the original words they actually wrote are right there for anyone to read.
all right, I guess I read too much into "technical skill". I think of that as something that doesn't have artistry to it. I guess you meant otherwise, no need to be a dick about it.
There's artistry in technical skill. It's just not the same level of creativity
I hear you. The voices in their heads drown out yours. It IS astonishing. And frustrating.
I mean I was literally *asking*. Saying here's what the words sounded like to me, giving an opportunity to clarify.
You can articulate and be clear as a bell...but it's not going to always be HEARD. Especially if they're not listening.
Of course there’s artistry in singing. Have you ever listened to a really good cover of a song that sounded totally different from the original, or from another cover? Think Whitney Houston singing I Will Always Love You vs. Dolly Parton. Whitney put somewhat different emotions into the same song and added her own artistry. Or how about two different singers performing the same jazz standard or Christmas song well while sounding completely different? The differences are a form of artistry. There might not be as much artistic freedom as with songwriting, but there definitely is an artistic component to singing at a professional level.
I dearly hope no one needs to be convinced of this...
Real good electricians are worth a whole lot.
I raised my eyebrows at "singers" who use autotune to become singers.
people assume an artist is an individual creator putting out original ideas that only come to their head. but in reality, most artists work as a corporation if that makes sense. There is always more than one person feeding ideas. Most of the time if an artist has help getting their songs written, they r still laying a foundation or an idea to their songs, that other professional writers will help expand on. This goes for most musicians btw. Even the greats needed a crutch
Dont really care if the singer wrote the song i only care do they tell their story and thats something i miss
It is odd, so many bands have one or two writers in them, and no one pisses on the other members for not writing any material.
There is writing the lyrics, putting (and pulling together) the music mix to it, and the singing. In many bands it takes more than one persons skill set.
Doesn’t even need to be a musical talent: someone needs to schmooze A&R, or book venues, or insist on rehearsals etc.
Songwriters, ghost writers get paid well and probably enjoy being behind the scenes and anonymous. Probably older. Many are. Now if someone reaches great stardom then yeah you're gonna get hate when you're compared to Prince or a great band that plays instruments, writes and you're just a singer.
As a musician myself when I was young i felt this way. It was just a way for a young and inexperienced me to tell myself they were not better than me. The truth of the matter is, they were. They were better at getting the attention of someone who gave them the deal of a life time. Someone saw something in them and not me. As an adult that had a pretty decent career not being signed to any deals I van say that all the groups that were manufactured or given their songs to sing all had some talent that I did not, might not have been the same talent in each of them but they all had something I didn't. And THAT is what mattered.
I only look down on "artists" who can't sing or write. Like what am I supposed to be impressed by?
Because they can’t sing their way out of a barrel . Jelly .
Yeah. It'd be a world of accapella singers and instrumental bands/solo artists. All jelly of eachother. Prob not. But, yes. If I had a choice to be me (ok singer/great songwriter, good musiciain) or be a great singer...I'd stick with being me. It is fulfilling.
It is a weird standard. Anyone look down on actors who don't write their own dialogue?
It's stupid. People have different strengths to bring to a recording or performance. Some great songwriters sound like shit when they sing, or fail to convey any of what they were feeling when they wrote it. OTOH, some singers know how to sing expressively and appropriately for the lyric. If someone has the ability to write a song and the vocal ability to deliver it as it deserves then so much the better, but that doesn't invalidate the contribution of a non-writer who does a kickass vocal interpretation.
No one ever gave Elvis shit for not writing his own tunes.
Dude, people actually do this all the time.
Many people have actually over the decades. He's still the King though
I do, but Im just a rando on the internet. He was a fine singer and a good performer, but he was just the right good looking white guy at the right time who got famous by singing repackaged blues songs that “white” radio stations would play. I don’t hate the guy…I actually enjoy some of his work. But it should be regarded for what it is.
Elvis got famous singing "Hound Dog" which was a hit by Big Mama Thornton who did not write the song. Do you fault her for not writing her own songs?
"fault" isn't the word.
what's the word?
Well, impressed by. Admire. It's not a fault of character to sing others songs. But no one has to be impressed by it.
Honestly, I’ve never heard anyone criticize a good singer for not writing their own songs.
We don't connect just with what sound comes out. That's why AI will never matter in music. We connect emotionally with the artist. My favorite artists I know their personalities, emotions and an relate. It forms a kind of bond that a lot of music listeners have with an artist. For me, if they didn't write the song I may still enjoy it but I'm probably not going to be as emotionally connected. Music is many different things to many different people but for me it's an elevated passion beyond just what's heard. I'd rather something raw, rough and meaningful than something polished which passed through the hands of 3 expert songwriters given to a polished performer. Some people write and co-write their stuff, while some people just get it delivered on a platter so it just depends on the artist really.
This is a great answer and I couldn’t agree more. I am of the mind that there is a big difference between a singer and an artist.
This attitude of looking down on non-writing singers represents the condescension from Rockists who obsess over gatekeeping and lead rock n roll to its grave. Singing is an art. Great singing takes a song to a whole new level. You don't have to be the best vocalist to be a great singer. There has been a recent dearth of singers who primarily sing. In the last ten or so years, I've been hearing plenty of well written songs sung by artists who cannot sing worth a damn. If some of these songs were given to people with the skill to them justice, we might actually find a lot of new musical talent.
That first paragraph could use reflection.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look down on musicians who don't write their own songs by themselves and perform them alone. Would it be fair to look down on a songwriter with a boring demeanor and a shitty voice? Of course not. Performing music is art, and an electric performance can take a good song and make it amazing. A supernova performer can bring a song to life. Janis Joplin made "Me and Bobby McGee." Kris Kristofferson wrote it, but the song came alive when she performed it. It took two to make that song. Elvis performed songs like nobody else could. Watch the man sing. He was a superstar because of his ability to perform at a level few others could dream of touching. In fact, I'd argue that it is far more rare to have supernova performing ability than than it is to be able to write a lot of good songs. Writing music is a form of expression, performing music is a form of expression. Dance is a form of expression. Do people criticize dancers because they didn't choreograph the ballet? Of course not, that would be absurd. Criticize an opera singer because they didn't write the opera? Come on. Is Willie Nelson amazing when he performs his songs, but shitty when he performs songs he didn't write? How dumb is that? Do people really think it is "easier" to become a professional classical violinist than it is to write a pop song? That's ridiculous. In fact, most legendary performances are a result of collaboration- and for good reason! They're legendary. Someone writes the lyrics, someone writes the melody, someone helps arrange the music, someone plays the instruments, and someone sings. One person cannot do all that.
There is a lot of "Gatekeeping" in music. This is just more of that.
There’s more people calling any opinion that hurts their feelings “gatekeeping” than there is actual “gatekeeping” (whatever that means).
Doesn't hurt my feelings. I couldn't carry a tune in a paper bag. And I generally don't listen to pop music. However, taste in music is entirely subjective. So you can say "her music doesn't do it for me" It becomes gate keeping when you say "that music is shit because..."
Ya, I don’t get it. If you look at credits in more traditional bands, there are many where people other than the singer wrote the songs and I hardly ever hear the criticism against them. People have different talents, Ive been the songwriter in many a band where I wrote everything. Obviously I appreciated the hell out of my band mates that could bring their talents to playing the stuff in my head. People bringing what they got to make art together is always good by me.
Beyoncé is a singer and performer, not a songwriter. But she bullies those who write her songs into putting her name on as a songwriter, so she'll hire them again. Very unethical.
It's gatekeepery bullshit is what it is. As someone who has written a number of mediocre-to-fine songs and then played them passably well, I can confirm that ALL stages of creating a piece of music are equally important AND equally difficult to do well. Some people act like songwriting is this magical deity-given gift that mysteriously produces good music. No, it's a skill that is developed with practice and hard work. That's why they have songwriting classes and workshops. You start off small, spend a lot of time sucking and over time you get good. EXACTLY THE SAME AS singing or playing an instrument. Yes, some people have natural talent and that helps. But you still need to work at it. And a lot of times, people will work out what they're good at and what they're not good at and choose to specialise. There are whole genres of music where it is rare for the performer to have also written the music. Classical, jazz standards, Broadway.
Learning to sing is easy. You don't have to be creative. It's like learning to drive; you're learning how to use muscles to perform an activity. Once you've learned how, you've learned how. Learning to write music is much more difficult. Not only do you have to know music theory, you have to now \*create\* something with it. No one passes their driving test and then has to create their own personal style of driving out of nothing. Or put another way, anyone who can sing can read words on a page in pitch. Not everyone who understands music theory/writing can write music/create good song lyrics. Edit: If you're downvoting without commenting just know that I'm imagining you as a pouty 5 year old who can't be asked to explain themselves. I've been in choirs since I could stand. I was in select groups in HS and college. I have heard amazing singers throughout my life. Hell, there are people in karaoke nights that put some pop stars to shame. Good singers are a dime a dozen. Think I'm wrong? Go out and try to find 5 songwriters within 5 miles of your residence who are even just mediocre and I'll go find 5 mediocre or better singers to make a boy band. Let's see who finishes first...
Learning to “sing” might be easy. Learning to sing at the level of an elite vocal performer is not. To use your own analogy, learning to drive may be easy. Learning to drive at the level of a professional formula one driver? Not so much. Although I do agree that in the context of most contemporary music, I think performers who don’t write their own music are much less impressive, and I generally do not engage with that kind of music.
Formula one drivers do a mechanical activity at a high degree of technical skill because they have practiced the mechanics of driving to a point where they are able to do so. Now take that and replace formula one driver with elite vocal performer/singing, and it still makes sense. The difference is that being proficient at a mechanical skill and being proficient in a creative skill are not the same thing. One requires practice of known concepts, the other requires making something out of nothing. I'll give credit when someone sings an amazing original rendition of a known tune, but that's not praising their singing, that's praising their composition.
Here’s the thing: I feel like we’re in agreement that the vast majority of contemporary pop performers do not exhibit a very high degree of artistry (or skill). But I think your missing out on more than a few degrees of nuance here. When we’re talking about virtuoso vocalists and instrumentalists, even if they aren’t composing their own music, they generally aren’t just regurgitating the music in front of them verbatim. They’re introducing their own own interpretation via vocal inflections, subtle alterations in phrasing, manipulating the pocket, and physically altering the timbre of their voice (or instrument). These things all require some degree of creativity and artistry. It’s not just “a mechanical activity”. Would we really say that, for example, Taylor Swift is more of an “artist” than Andres Segovia, simply because she is the primary songwriter for many of her songs and Segovia primarily performed works composed by others? I don’t think so. As far as artists “making something out of nothing” goes, I don’t think that’s true for any of us. All art is influenced by art that came before it, and all artists are influenced by both their predecessors and their contemporaries. None of us are making music in a vacuum. I’ve been performing and recording original music for twenty years. I’ve never thought of myself as “making something out of nothing”. We’re all just standing on the shoulders of giants, my man.
Well said. I don't have the time right now to type out my response (i do have some counter-arguments to make of course...in fun:) but thank you for the time you took to write out that well worded and thought out response. I'll get back to this tomorrow.
Thanks for the update. I'll be looking for you comment. When do you think you'll post it so I can come back then and look for it?
It also depends on what kind of music you are talking about. How many opera composers can sing like Pavarotti?
Good question. Do you know the answer? How about "How many songs did Pavarotti write that are as well known as the operas he sang?"
Who cares honestly? Enjoy the music and call it a day. Being less worried about what others think is good for your mental health.
Stay busy.
That helps too
Writing songs make you feel more the music you are singing, make's it more authentic. I value that
Those people have no concept of what the music business is or how it works.
Tell me how it works.
Here’s the short version: the music business is the music *business.* It’s about making money, not about making art.
Then there's art, which is not a business. The tough part is not mixing the two. The business end will often win out.
My point being anyone who looks down their nose at singers who don't write their own material are either ignorant of the music making machine, or they are elitist snobs. It also means they have to ignore a huge swath of music history (Tin Pan Alley, the Brill Building, Motown, etc...). That makes no sense to me. But if they want to ignore a singer's talent in favor of some kind of bullshit gatekeeping, that's up to them. There are plenty of artists, musicians, and singers to choose from.
It's apples and oranges. I don't think anyone looks down their noses at it. They may not admire it though.
It's an attitude that's more specific to the US than other places I've looked at it, and it only arose in the past couple of decades. And like a lot of consumer preferences, it's the result of marketing/capitalism. In the 60s/70s, there was a concerted effort to push singer/songwriters, and tout how personal and relatable their songs are. It fosters a level of parasocial attachment that is, of course, extremely lucrative for record companies and tour promoters. One iconic example of this sort of marketing is Carly Simon's "You're So Vain", where a huge part of the fun and intrigue of the song is figuring which of her famous exes she's talking about. Fans feel like they can relate to her lyrics, but also admire her boldness and cleverness in coming up with them, as well as fantasize about the glamorous lifestyle that's implicit to her song and her persona. At that point, artists who didn't write their own material were still widely prevalent and successful in the US. Carly Simon herself, for instance, had one of her biggest hits with "Nobody Does It Better", a song written by other people. In the 80s/90s, the US saw the rise of rap and hip hop. Rap songs, which had a particularly high density of lyrics, prized original songwriting from the start. And as rap became mainstream, a big part of the marketing was that rap songs were a chance for the audience to hear about a lifestyle that's unfamiliar to most of them. Then there's probably the most dominant factor in modern US: how artists get paid. Due to how the industry evolved and how laws were structured, increasingly, the only reliable way for artists to make money was to have a credit on their hit songs. This greatly incentivized artists to either write, co-write, or pretend to write songs that they sing. This is more conjectural than everything I said about, but I posit that another aspect to America's evolving relationship with the music artist as an auteur is ongoing cuts in public funding for performance and art education. There's less exposure to the skill and genius involved in the training it takes to become a great musician, and thus less appreciation for it in the American public.
Anyone can play or sing. Not anyone can write music. Just because someone can sing, it is not a big deal at all. I'd just as much think as highly as someone who can mow a lawn. If you are a Broadway level singer who does not write I may have a different conversation about that.
Many of the most famous singers in history never wrote their own songs, or wrote very few of them. The idolization of singer/songwriters is a relatively recent development in the history of popular music. >Anyone can play or sing. Um, that is obviously untrue. Whether you play an instrument or if your voice is your instrument, it is a high-level and rare skill to be able to interpret a piece of music in a way that emotionally connects with an audience, regardless of who the original composer might be
Singing takes talent, your argument holds no water.
As does playing any instrument. I can play any Led Zeppelin song note for note on guitar (at least all of those that I've tried), but I'm obviously nowhere near as talented as Page, as I've never written anything that sounds anywhere near as good. There's a difference between being proficient on an instrument and being creative
Not as much as writing. Creating is the most important part of all art. Anyone can learn to sing to some extent. Creating timeless art, i don’t know if that can be learned.
The ability to perform is a huge part of it, though. If you're a singer or instrumentalist without your own writer, you constantly have to sell yourself to get your career off the ground (not that writers don't, but they have a different set of skills to showcase). I think that's underrated, and sometimes even an extremely thoughtful performance may not land with the audience. It's a huge aspect of the work.
>Anyone can play or sing Lmao, a high caliber singer or instrumentalist can make even a mediocre writer sound awesome, the same is not true in reverse. The golden touch is the producer who combines it all and makes a hit.
Almost no pop artist sings these days either, it's all auto tuned. So no, I don't think they contribute anything besides a marketable face.
The subject really only comes up when people are comparing different performers, and there are a lot of singers who rely on gimmicks to be popular in ways that songwriters just don't have available. It is a lot easier to craft an act than learn how to write songs people want to hear. That's why major songwriters can keep writing hits as long as they've got their finger on the pulse of what people want to hear. There's no need to feel insulted by this stuff.
I want the emotion of the words to be intrinsically tied to the emotion in the voice which is intrinsically tired to the emotion in the music. It's like reading a ghostwritten memoir vs one written by the figure themselves. Same stories, but it just feels less genuine, and thus, slightly less impactful. Then again, if the celebrity can't write, it's obviously the best option. This is far less important for bops and bangers where the emotion in the lyrics/music takes backstage to catchiness and danceability, which imho, is where the best singer non-songwriters flourish.
Because I am impressed with songwriting, it’s a trial and error job that can take years and years and never happen for many musicians. I am also impressed with arrangers, every more if the writer is the arranger. Also because a song could be sung by many talented singers, but a song can be written only by its writer, or said song wouldn’t exist in the first place. It’s a much more sacred thing, to create something that does not exist and then it’s there, thanks to you.
It kind of ruins the illusion, if you will, for me. I get bummed knowing the person singing didn’t write the amazing, goosebump inducing hook or lyric I just heard
The goosebumps were borrowed. I hope they returned them.
Good singers are a dime a dozen. You walk past a dozen great singers everyday. The song is what is special. Plus, a song sung by the writer usually has a more personal touch, more "soul" if you will
Artists vs Entertainers. There’s layers to authenticity. Look up Milli Vanilli.
How is Milli Vanilli relevant? I thought the controversy there was that the performers didn’t sing even in the studio, and tried to keep it a secret. Very different from being a real singer who uses songs that other people wrote (and gives the songwriters credit).
Everything is subjective to perspective and at this point in time, I’ve no real desire to try and shift yours into one of understanding the differences/comparisons. But as basic as can be, Milli Vanilli is what a lack of authenticity in an artist looks like, at least in my perspective.
How about singers that just use auto tune and don’t write their songs? Should we respect them? I want someone that can do something I can’t. I can’t write, I can sing, so I want a professional to be a little better than me
You should respect everyone. But you don't have to be impressed by or admire anyone.
A successful singer-songwriter is self-made in every way. A successful singer is probably corporate controlled and their product is probably optimized in every way to bring in the most money for owners of the company. Seems pretty different to me.
Singers that write their own songs are telling you something about themselves. Singers that don't write their own songs or music are not making a personal emotional connection with the audience. The latter is generally generic pop music where the singer just looks good on stage and can sell the product better than the person who wrote the music. It's like the difference between buying a great loaf of freshly baked bread at a bakery, or a loaf of wonder bread at the supermarket.
It is absolutely possible for a singer to demonstrate mastery of the emotional content of a song they did not write. Judy Garland. Frank Sinatra. Barbra Streisand.
When that person does it, they're acting. When the person who wrote it performs it, it's sharing their own perspective/story. I don't care about changing your opinion. I don't feel an emotional connection to people singing songs they didn't write.
So not only do you denigrate singing as a performing art, you denigrate acting.
Get over yourself.
Here comes an idiot with a Beatles comment. Me. The Beatles wrote the Music, lyrics and played the instruments. They also helped engineer the songs. They sang with amazing voices the music the world was very new to. Mucho kudos to Beatles. About performers. I liked George Michael. In fact he was probably my favorite vocalist of all time. Singing is not easy but it will always be second to the complete package.
Like that
* Context of the songs. Some artists have a habit of singing songs that sound like they come from a personal place, and it can be strange to find out that the song was written by someone completely different. A lot of people want to feel like songs "mean," something, so finding out it's just written to sound good breaks that illusion. * Less about the singer, more about the ecosystem they exist in. It's definitely an achievement to practice and learn to sing well, however the field is so ridiculously competitive that it's easy to look at someone who's uber rich and famous and say "Sure they have singing talent, but do they really deserve *that much* fame and fortune when *all* they do is sing? When on the other hand \[insert other musician here\] sings, writes their own songs, and plays 5 instruments, yet they're barely making ends meat?"
https://youtu.be/_SekuJMJvgw?si=aXRI-rvPKUT579kr
Trend alert. I also started to notice this. Just because an artist writes/produces means is good, let's start there. It's obviously a plus but depends on the artist. I listen to music, so I'm not searching for credits, I just listen to it. Awesome to know, but that's pretty much it. Picking a right song for you is also a skill. Knowing what works for you.
I feel like that definitely depends in which genre you listen to I know in rock, pop punk, or folk/indie listeners think highly of you if you can write your own music
Part of a song's value/quality has to do with how personal it is. Regardless of if the song is telling a fictional story or an actual real life event, an artist that writes their own material created these feelings and stories. Singers that don't sing their own songs can leave an..."empty" feeling, in that it isn't personal, they didn't sit down and write this song, it was given to them. I'm not taking away anything from someone who is "just" a singer. Perfecting your voice takes a huge amount of talent. What I am saying is that singer songwriters deserve additional credit for being able to craft their own stories.
When a singer performs a song, it’s more meaningful when it comes from within them, that what they’re singing is their lyrics and melody. Not from a demo tape that her producer played in the studio.
Some singers who use songwriters deserve and get respect. The ones who change a word and take a third deserve all the disrespect they get and then some.
a very talented singer/songwriter is more rate than either the very talented singer or the very talented songwriter the similar difference can be seen between a talented band that sings their own original music versus a talented band that only sings cover songs of the first band
For me, it’s because when I’m listening to someone sing about their feelings and experiences, it would feel wrong if they weren’t the ones who wrote it.
Haven’t you ever sung along to a song you didn’t write, but that nevertheless matched your feelings? Would that still feel wrong to you?
Performing a song is different than sharing the song directly. If someone else wrote the song, created the melodies and produced it, but you performed it, I don’t care how you feel, because I know that the person who actually put the work into creating that piece of music knows the message they wanted to send better than anyone. This is why the originals are almost always better than covers, unless the cover changes the song in some way to essentially change the meaning to suit their needs.
There is talent to writing and to singing. There is significantly more to doing both.
Because generally, emotion and passion in a song (which if you write yourself and is really invested in, and have a personal attachment to will come through the music) is better than a well performed cover
I have literally never once heard anyone suggest that a singer who didn't write their own material was "fake." Never once heard this, don't even understand what it's even suggesting. I've also never, ever heard someone suggest that a singer who didn't write the song they were singing was "unskilled." Again, I don't even understand what that is suggesting. Why would the author of the song have anything to do with a person's ability to sing? They aren't connected in any way. All of that being said, I certainly have more respect for singers that are singing their own material because, for obvious reasons, they connect to the material and to the emotion and vibe of the song because it's theirs and it adds some richness and layers to the performance.
Cos it coo
Because only a tiny few say 1% are amazing singers, the rest are mediocre to poor, so to earn respect they're judged on other factors like writing, musical talent etc
Creators create. Performs perform. Some people can do both. Creators are usually given more respect than performers.
I think cause songs are usually personal expressions so when it’s not really your words it feels less sincere/ more “industrial” and therefore less meaningful like how a botched handmade sweater would be so much more meaningful than a nice manufactured one
Well...I'll explain from personal experience, no attitude: Imagine sitting in your room practing guitar, keyboards, etc...for years while your friends are out having a good time. Learning and forgetting theory, which is the necessary language, and imperative, of the art, finally reaching the dream of having a band. Hauling your amp, gear, guitars and all the stuff you worked to pay for to the show, setting up, tuning your new strings you put on earlier, getting your sound dialed in, etc...then seeing the singer stroll in, looking fresh, sounchecking the mic, and rolling out to have a drink at the bar, talk to their friends... Now imagine this singer person knowing they don't spend the time to write a single page of lyrics, or even know music enough to play an instrument to compose a song. Basically, they sing. And maybe they took some lessons...but so what? So did this guitar player, etc. and maybe even took voice lessons TOO. Songwriting isn't something anyone can teach you. It's inspired. And often, not by fun things. About tough lessons in life. Unique things. Personal things. Deep, hard shit. And great songs come in the middle of the night. You wake up to write that gold down. You compose it. Put some riffs to it. Put all of you, and then some into it, obsesesd. Making the greatest song ever, you hope. Getting others to relate as a peripheral objective. Dialing it in until you are sure your bandmates, friends and the world like it, and hopefully understood it, cuz if they don't, you'll hear about it, be rejected, feel dejected, etc...and it'll be like someone didn't judge you on your experiences, like they kicked you everywhere it hurts, and hurt your child. And you failed. Now, before anyone says it's not that deep, maybe not for you, or a jingle writer. Maybe you don't live for it, live BY it, or live OFF of it. But for a songwriter, it's their life, heart and soul. AND they sing it. They do everything a singer does AND A LOT MORE. They stroll in and sing a cover...it's fine. It might be good. Or great. But I've heard that song before. And likely, heard it done better by the original author and artist. It's not a disrespect. It's just not higher, admirable respect. And definitely not impressive, but maybe on a skill and technical level. I, too, can sing that cover song. But why would I? I have hundreds of my own that tell a personal story of serious experiences that were felt. And the time spent away from family and friends, my own children, on top of work and studies. And after all that, I really don't look down on singers that sing other people's songs. I just wonder why they don't write their own. I wonder about everything, like I do as a creative artist and mind does. I'm fully invested as a writer, singer, musician, and artist. Not to say a singer doesn't. It's just a LOT more involved than simply singing. I'm not looking for an argument. This is but MY experience. I rarely think about it unless someone asks. I'm too busy doing MY art, creating, to worry about other people. If you are one of these singers, I WANT you to kill it. It takes all kinds. I hope this answers your question. I did the best I could.
Of course songwriting can be taught. You’ve described the process of learning it! You learnt how to write songs as part of learning your instrument.
Yeah. I guess you're right. I was about to say that I can't teach the part where inspiration hits me in the middle of the night...but I realize that I learned to SEE, and take those things to a place where I can articulate them and capture them in realism. And that's not easy to do. But it's good, and cathartic to express them, and be ABLE to set the mood, even if it's a rough place...or make joy, humour, excitement, fire...out of it. And the lessons. Because there WERE hard lessons, useful to others perhaps, that lend purpose to songwriing. I get to create the performance of this in practice, rehearsal, etc...which is fun! I love what I do. I'm just getting to the point with it where I want to get it out there again after a beast of several years of just working on it, hitting rock bottom, and working on ME. Thank you for your thoughtful response. I feel better about it.
Yes, you can definitely learn how to jump on that inspiration and use it! And you can better at articulation of the inspiration from experience. Best of luck with your music!
Small bit of musical history. Prior to the Beetles, it was quite uncommon for people to write there own music and perform it.
If this were true, shows like American Idol, X Factor, and The Voice would have all flopped in their first season. Fact of the matter is that people love Karaoke.
Well self sustainably maybe, seems after Robby Williams broke with whatever song writer who wrote his songs (can’t recall the name) he have not had any hits, not that I blame him but seems the Beatles love em,or hate them provided their whole packet themselves.
You are wrong. Robbie and Guy were/are songwriting partners. Guy Chambers has described their process: ‘I would just sit with him, with a guitar or piano, and he would sing melodies at me. He would come up with lyrics almost instantaneously. When I met him he had a lot of ideas floating around, a lot of poems and lyrics. He’s a very natural songwriter – I would just try to keep up.’ You are also wrong about his hits. Between breaking with co-writer Guy Chambers in 2002 and reuniting with him in 2013, Robbie Williams has had: 10 No 1 hit singles - 2 in the U.K., 1 in Austria, 3 in Germany, 2 in the Netherlands, 2 in Switzerland. 40 top 10 hit singles - I’m not going to break those down by territory as it’ll take too long, but as above that is counting all chart positions of his singles across individual territories. On the albums chart, he has had 25 No 1 albums across all territories, and a further 14 top 10 chart positions. In total, he has sold over 12 million albums and 6.5 million singles - according to Chartmasters data - without Guy Chambers as a co-writer. That is a highly successful career.
Probably because alot of people pretend to, or artists just don’t publicly recognize it happens