So I though about the differences about songwriting and compsing and I have come up with a list. Let me know what you all think about it.

Songwriting

[list]
[*]Mostly uses simple chords.
[*]Usually is straightforward with the message of the song. There are exceptions, like Hotlel California, I am the Walrus, Strawberry fields forever, a lot of Beatles tunes, Adele, "Set Fire to the Rain"(how do you set fire to rain? Unless your Elijah from the bible),

Composing
[*]Heavy useage of chord extensions, various chord voices, arpeggios ect.
[*]May sometime have variations on a theme, and wire the listener to interprate the meaning.
[*]Compositions may feature lyrics such as an opera, aria , musicals chiors, pieces for mass, vocal jazz song.
[*]Tend to be more complex and expressive. What I mean by this is that in a typical song, not a composition, it may just one dynamic or have one feeling, soft loud, bouncy, dance feel. I don't mean that if you are a songwriter you are not expressive, I just notice that a lot of songs tend to stick to one feeling or dynamic.

I am inclined to disagree. Isn't a songwriter a composer? Was Tom Dooly composed or written? Was Take 5 composed or written?

Definition of composer

: one that composes; especially : a person who writes music

Definition of songwriter

: a person who composes words or music or both especially for popular songs

My emphasis.

Was Dave Brubeck a songwriter on the popular Take 5 and a composer for everything else he wrote.

Were classical composers just songwriters? Classical music is based on three or four chords, I, IV, V with an occasional iim, just like modern music.
See here:

http://www.secretsofsongwriting.com/2011/02/01/stealing-from-classical-music-to-write-your-next-song/

Thus to me songwriters and composers are one in the same. YMMV

These days, I don't think there's clear lines of demarcation between songwriting, composing, arranging, and producing.

Sometimes I start with the very far right end of that scale with a 'sound' and energy that I know I want; and get right at the effect chains I will use, then go looking for the right instrumentation, then think of some chords, and eventually get to lyrics if I feel a story coming in the process.

Other times, I will start at the left end and have a pile of lyrics that I sift into verses and a bridge and chorus and I'll write out all of the lyrics and then the melody comes to life.

I consider all of it to be songwriting.

This is not addressed to any forum respondent in particular, but is pointed at one resource mentioned in this thread that talked about "boring" classical progressions stuck in I, IV and V.

I own the Classical Fake Book and I see a lot more than 1, IV and V going on in there. I sometimes even see chords I have to look up.

Also, as I am trying to learn to Play Bach's Partita 3 for Violin in E Major I see there are many pages where a new chord appears every measure (I mean brand new unexpected chords that have not been used before in the song), using some chords I have never seen before, with my pinky bent backwards over my thumb just trying to play them, so I am going to have to disagree with Gary Ewer that Bach can be "boring" or "dull" or whatever he said in that post Mario referenced. (I still like his songwriting books though.)

Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring which is one of the easier pieces has about 6 times more chords than Blackbird, which has a lot. Blackbird borrowed liberally from this it seems, though Paul points to a Bach Bourree in E Minor. The famous Prelude I in C from Well Tempered Klavier? Simple Chords? Boring? Huh?

This from Ewer is flat out off target:

"It may surprise you (maybe even disappoint you?) to know that Classical composers were not usually very innovative with their choice of chords. In fact, if you strip Bach’s counterpoint down to its basic chord structures, you’re looking at something that might be considered downright dull: lots of I-chords and V-chords, with ii-chords and IV-chords thrown in for good measure. What complicated things harmonically was that he visited many keys within the same work."

Ummmmmmmm. No Gary. No can agree man.

None of Bach's music works without the intricate counterpoint and subtle chord changes and variations which means that the internal melodies and chord inversions are constantly changing. Even a simple tune (simple for Bach that is) like Jesu totally destroys the idea that his chords were "simple" and "dull." I am sorry but that is just crazy.

Back to the original question though:

I think ALL music is composing by definition--it's only a matter of complexity--and I find it fascinating to study the chord progressions of classical composers.

In Mozart's day they would throw rotten tomatoes at you if you tried to rip off someone else and couldn't come up with something more entertaining and original to please the King.

These days the only way to please the King and not get rotten tomatoes thrown at you IS to rip off everyone else and make your music as unoriginal as possible.

Aside from that very slight difference, music has not changed at all over the centuries.

An addendum. This is SO boring! If only Bach had had a good e-book book or a good .pdf download on how to write a chord progression he might have made something out of himself. What a LOSER!!!

Songwriting is a particular type of composing that emphasizes words as well as music. Sometimes I forget that the job ain't done with only words and a chord sheet.

OK, you make a good point Mario D, but I was talking about how in some songs, not musical compositions, they seem to lack dynamic range, and most use simplistic chords that anyone could learn on the internet. I do not count the beatles because they had a lot of help from George Martin and a lot of their song used horns, strings, and various other technics to give death, life, app and emotion to their songs.

This matches my understanding as well.

With Bach, the melodic movement of voices is always more important than harmonic movement. So while something could interpreted harmonically, an explanation that's closer to how Bach thought about it might be as a passing dissonance caused by melodic movement.

As for classical music in general, it's often more effective to orchestrate using simpler harmonies and focus on creating tonal color. When it comes to writing for an orchestra, most orchestration books I've seen stick with 4-part harmonies, and additional parts beyond that are referred to as non-essential "filler", which doesn't really change the essential harmony.


I've read compelling arguments against this "whole cloth" sort of understanding. Rather, classical composers would often "quote" other people's work, incorporating ideas in other popular music into their own.

So the way to please the King apparently hasn't changed that much.

David (Snyder),

When you say...


... I don't know the Classical Fake Book but it could be that "Classical" is being used in the specific sense and not the general sense.

What the public often refer to as "Classical" music is very diverse and very general and spans centuries of music from before Johann Bach (1685-1750) to beyond Aaron Copland (1900-1990).

The "Classic" period in music, on the other hand, is specific and covers the period from around 1750s to 1820s. One of the key features of the Classic period was that by comparison to the previous Baroque period, music was noticeably less complex. It was also written with more attention to vertical harmony. The incidental harmony of Baroque music arose from intersecting melodies (i.e. counterpoint) more so than consideration of vertical chords (although this was present, it was in the form of figured bass and not chords as we know them today).

After the Classic period came the Romantic period which was much more adventurous in the use of chordal harmony. The Romantic period then moved into Impressionistic and then Atonal music. These two latter periods were highly adventurous from both a harmonic and a non-harmonic perspective.

So back to my original thought... I wonder if the Classic Fake Book is more devoted to the music of the Classic period and maybe the transition periods that lead into and out of the Classic period.

Regards,
Noel

OK... I see the point of the OP and I agree. But I also see and understand the dissenting POV that composing and writing are essentially the same.

I personally tend to divide composing and songwriting along the lines of the OP.

To me songwriting is a simpler, more basic form of composing, while composing in it's own right is a bit more detailed and intensive form of songwriting. I place compositions by writers such as Bach, Mozart, Handel, firmly into the composer class while placing writers such as Lennon/McCartney, Guthrie, McDill, into the songwriter classification.

There is a huge difference between a song and one of the compositions of the masters. Structure, use of chords and extensions, and length to mention just a few things. They are different disciplines of writing and require certain skill sets to do effectively. The common thread is that they both involve music and the thought process to create something beautiful with a limited number of notes.

I think perhaps there are a few writers who can successfully cross that line. Jeff Lynn (ELO: Out Of The Blue) and Ian Anderson (JT: Thick as a Brick) are two I can think of that can get close.

Hey,

I am not going to argue this point too much 'cause that would be silly and I have songs to write, BUT...

I have actually studied under two Segovia students and as part of that training, we mapped out the chord progressions measure for measure (and sometimes beat by beat) on a lot of Bach. Categorically, without a doubt, or any questions whatsoever he was a master of and pioneer of both harmonic movement and melodic movement. There may have been accidentals but no accidents--every harmonic choice and chord inversion was purposeful in its marriage to the melody.

Even the Renaissance masters were often noted for harmonic genius, not just melody, so I was questioning an oversimplification in a column I was referred to here that is simply not accurate from a musicology standpoint.

As for the "in Mozart's day observation," he never wrote any two pieces of music that sounded the same. That is why he is still around. Sure, there may have been rip off artists back in the day, but the masters of classical (and those who tried to compete with the masters) have always been known for constantly upping the game, always raising the bar.

True, but... Are you sure you're not composing?

All songwriting that involves the music is composing.

Not all composing is songwriting.

Arranging may or may not involve composing—usually doesn't. This is subjective.

Working on the book/libretto/lyrics etc. without working with the music is none of the above.

What do you call it when studio technician tweak the process and come up with a sound that could be said to carry the day?
I think Les Paul and Mary Ford's sound was the same audio track offset a microsecond -- presto, echo.
Bob Marley and Peter Tosh on the wah pedal.
The Beatles tech sretting up this long hallway in the building and getting it just right.
Or even just a way of playing, no effects, like Louis Armstrong or Eric Clpton.
All this stuff going on. We mortals find out about it when we open our first Garage Band.

Production/engineering. It can certainly be creative but it's not composing or writing. The producer or engineer is getting paid for his/her work under a producer's contract and nothing they do or create is copyright-able by them, as a result.

That also goes for arranging unless express written permission is granted by the publisher in advance.

The exception is for works in the Public Domain.

I disagree that it is not composing or writing. If an engineer or producer comes up with the signature riff or signature sound or some other significant creative contribution they have most certainly contributed to the writing of the song!

Of course, I understand that the music business world decided long ago that that contribution does not count as a writing credit. But that is just arbitrary. I have always felt songwriting credits should be more fairly defined and shared among the participants. If The Beatles had not spent so much time together perfecting their craft as a group I would venture to guess they might not have achieved what they did. Likewise had they not had major influence from people like Epstein and Martin they almost certainly would have accomplished much less.

When I am king everyone who contributes gets partial credit!

Maybe the producers felt if they just took all the money, it was a fair exchange.
Seriously, it would really open up the Pandora's box if people started claiming effects settings as proprietary
I had an Ibanez tremolo pedal that was out of this world. I bought it.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting and enlightening responses to my question.

I think George Martin did a wee bit more than tweak some settings!

Irrespective of the nomenclature I wish I was better at it. That is all.

Bud

Yes but is George Martin on any of the Beatles' copyrights? Is he named as part of the songwriters? All I ever see is Lennon and McCarthy.

I think we're arguing writing/composing a song versus the resulting sound.

As I just recently heard, does Dwight Yoakam get songwriting credit for Prince's Purple Rain, because his, errr, effects or instrumentation were different?

So according to your theory... the guy who brings the coffee to the coffee machine and makes the coffee in the studio while the writers are there composing should be given writing credits too? How far do you want to take that theory that anyone who had any sort of influence in the process, no matter how small, should get writing credits?

It's ludicrous to claim someone who inserted an effect in a recorded track should get writing credits. Very few producers or engineers will come up with a "signature riff". That is usually the domain of the musicians. If the musician is a hired studio gun, guess what????? The guy has signed that away to the artist when he signed the work for hire contract. If however, it is a signature riff such as the sax lick on Baker Street, or the guitar lick on In-a-godda-da-vida, for example.... and the creator of said lick is a studio musician.... the artist owns it. The same rules apply. That is NOT, writing the song. As a studio musician, you know that anything you create is the property of the artist who's paying you.

The music world decided that such contributions are not considered "writing the song" because licks and fills and such are not necessary parts of the song. Even a so called signature lick isn't necessary for the song. The verse, chorus and lyrics are.

Dang it Bud, you make my brain hurt! You sir, are a bright man! You say so much by saying so little. You're like "knowledge concentrate!"

Look up George Martin and you prolly won't find "coffee bringer" on his bio!


Obviously that is how the music business works...I acknowledged as much! But just because it is legal does not mean it is right! I think anyone who would use a significant creative contribution and not share a credit is a POS!


Baloney! Where would Smoke on the Water be without its opening riff? Where would Day Tripper be without its opening? What about In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida? And thousands more songs! Of course those melodic hooks are every bit as important as anything written in words! And probably even more important because I know tons of songs that were hits when most people had no idea what the singer was mumbling!

Now you are confusing 2 things.

Riffs created by musicians in the band .......and everything else.

Oh yes, absolutely, the signature riff/lick for the songs mentioned.... are an integral part of the song no doubt. You hear the first few notes of Smoke on the water and immediately know the song. But you're missing a few things here....

All 3 examples were created by band members. These licks are not the product of an engineer with effects, nor were they the product of a hired studio player.

Next... I could do a cover of the song Smoke on the Water, that you would recognize that doesn't contain the signature riff. I could start it with chugging eighth G chords.... That riff, while we all identify the song immediately with it, isn't necessary to the functioning of the song as a song. Grab an acoustic guitar and play the song.... you don't need the signature riff..... start playing a chord and jump into the first verse. We've all heard covers of songs that sounded nothing like the original and we didn't recognize the song until the verse & lyrics started.

So no, signature licks and fills and solos are not necessarily part of the song (from a songwriting POV) especially when they are created by someone not the artist/band. The majority of signature licks are created by the band/artist and are copyrighted material. The non-artist hired guns have signed that copyright away in their contract for hire which means they can not claim ownership of that lick, only that they are playing it and created it..... but not ownership.

Eleanor Rigby.

Yeah, I know how the music biz works! It is all about the money most of the time. If a writer can cut another writer out of the credits they know they can pocket more. Likewise, a big artist may get a songwriting credit even when they did not write the song. And then there is the whole history of guys like Jimmy Page stealing music and only giving credit/money when sued later on.

It is kind of a sleazy business in many ways! My point is it should NOT be like that! Everyone who makes a significant contribution to the song should get a credit! And yes, a signature riff is part of the song. If it can be copyrighted, or deemed an infringement were it to be reused, it is obviously part of the song!

JohnJohnJohn Quote: "Everyone who makes a significant contribution to the song should get a credit!"

I found this to be an interesting statement when a person may make an 'accidental' significant contribution to writing a song.

For instance, we know that PGMusic waives any and all rights of contribution of songs written with BIAB/RB and their other products. But, what of the person here on the forum who may provide you specific instructions how to achieve a particular BIAB technique, chord progression or the exact BIAB style that may be critical to your song? A person who, without their significant contribution to you, you could not have written the song as you imagined, intended and completed.

What is the significant contribution difference between a guitar player developing a riff and a forum member providing a style and technique allowing you to create a riff with BIAB?

There.... I fixed it for you with bold above^^^^^^^^^

One of the trends has been for an artist to demand writing credits to get a song on their new project CD. Even though they aren't really a writer of the song..... so..as a writer, do you say "no, you're not getting a writer's credit and share" or do you include the artist as a co-writer to get on the CD? Money talks and everything else walks.... Of course you include the writer..... the other option is your song never gets cut and YOU don't make any money. Let's see.... keep driving that $500 beater car or pay cash for a new Lexus???? decisions, decisions.


Your point or opinion is what it is and while it's noble to think this is how the world should be, the simple fact of the matter is, it never will be the way you envision it. Yes, the music business is a rough tough place and from all appearances, it always has been and always will be. CCR, T.O.P and many other bands played grueling schedules to packed houses and made peanuts while the managers got rich. They made bad business deals when they signed. Happens all the time in every business. You just hear about it more in the music biz due to the nature of the biz.


There are many bands and artists who have listed the contributing studio musicians on the jackets giving them credit for playing in a particular song on the CD. I used to read the album covers to see who played what on which song. So according to your comment....



Let's see..... they got their name on the jacket as the player on a song.... and .... they got at least union scale and possibly more for their time in the studio..... does that qualify as getting their due credit and pay? And.... there's a pretty good chance they were hired to go on the tour to promote the new album as well. So, not only do they get paid for studio time and get their name on the record/CD, they also get the fun and glory and get paid again to play that song live on tour.

As far as sleazy..... well that's in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I've always thought the music business was a cool business to be in. It's competitive as hell in many cases and you need to get things in writing, but aside from the fact that we play music as the product of our business, it's really no different or less "sleazy" than any other kind of business.

This is the age of The Participation Trophy. The pizza guy gets a credit.



Regards,


Bob

PS - I want to be added to the credits. After all I did listen to the song

Just to muddy the water:

https://www.slideshare.net/hhession/sr-and-pa

https://www.copyright.gov/register/pa-sr.html

Me too! I read your comments about being added to the credits for the song. That's GOT to count for something!

Well played. I should have gone there with my first post in this thread.

I guess we can agree on that!