PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic SONG WRITING ... thoughts from our heavy hitters

An interesting thread on song writing broke out in the user showcase, and I'm starting this thread so it can continue here without hijacking Herb's song thread.

All of you who have already posted know who you are! If you wantto save time by cutting and pasting what you've already said in the other place, wonderful!

or, if you want to say something new, that's cool too!

Hi Pat!

Here you go... just some thoughts that previous posts in the thread lead me to jot down....



Cello.

I enjoyed Charlie's posts. I commend him for going about commercial songwriting in an intelligent manner.
His analysis was detailed and accurate. And I wish him luck and look forward to hearing "how it's going"...
The one point that I think is not necessarily "right" for his plan (assuming the plan is to get some attention in the market),
is "Of top 5-6 recent country hits on the radio now, how many have a cello? NONE."
Just because you don't hear cello currently on Country radio, doesn't mean you should leave it out of YOUR songs.
When Taylor Swift started adding banjo to her stuff, you could have said "That'll never work! No one has used banjo for YEARS!"
Today, you'll hear a banjo in 50% of everything recorded.
And, as Kevin notes, the Americana market IS using cello. And a lot of things filter to Country productions from the Americana market.

Studying what is currently on the radio is a great way to improve your songwriting.
Although the topics of the current crop of (guy) songs has become cliché, the songwriting is not.
Those cliché TOPICS are presented (the song writing) in fairly original ways - a little fresh - said differently than it was the last time...
You have to be able to do that to write at that level. If all you are doing is stringing together a bunch of tired lines
and not stating them with a little bit of fresh, don't expect anyone to pay attention. Your song won't get past 20 seconds before it's turned off.
That would be 3 cliché lines. Click. And... That FIRST line needs to be something interesting. It HAS to grab attention.

Current Country is more a Sound than it is about the lyric (though the lyric does have to be well penned).
It's pop rock with a twang.
It's a flow, a rhythm. There are very few leads. You seldom hear all those licks after every lyric line the way you
did in the 80's and into the 90's. What used to be "the signature lick" is now a "signature rhythm".
Listen for a couple of hours and you'll hear it. It's a driving rhythm that carries most Country songs these days.
In between verses, you'll hear the "signature rhythm" not leads (speaking in general - there are still songs with leads).
There are virtually NO ballads anymore. And like Charlie says they are BIG and BOLD. They soar.

One thing to note... a good idea to learn to write as well as the current crop of songs on the radio.
A bad idea to present them to Nashville. They have moved on.
The songs you hear today on the radio were written at least 6 months ago - and more likely, a year ago.
The Nashville writers are writing something different right now. It might not be WILDLY different than what you
hear on the radio, but something has changed. It "gets around" - what is happening or "coming".
If you present a song to a publisher (or an artist - if you somehow have those connections) that is patterned after the current Blake Sheldon song, even if it is better written, it will be turned off and you will be asked...

"You got anything new?"

In order for an outsider to get noticed in Nashville, they have to present a game changer.
Like Swift's banjo - or, really, like her peppy, self-portrait, personal, teen-age girl writing...
Tom Douglas did it in 1993 with "Little Rock". It was very different than what was "on the radio" at the time.
(Douglas had "done the Nashville thing" earlier and had given it up. But he knew the craft).
He made an impact with something "different" and went on to big success.

Nashville doesn't need you. They don't have time for you.
If you are good enough to write in Nashville, the likelihood is you already live in Nashville. Because it is your passion and you would give up everything for that dream. It would be a HUGE waste of a publisher's time to look outside Nashville for good songs/writers.
Quality "outside" writers are few and far between. Needle in a haystack. They have a pocket full of nice, sharp needles.
They don't need the haystack.
There are 1000 staff writers in Nashville who are writing well-penned, interesting sounding songs on a weekly basis. So multiply that 1000 by 52 (weeks). Or, give those guys a break now and again.
Say half that. 25,000 songs. Good ones. Right there at their finger tips. Think of how many albums are released by the majors in a year.
200? (probably less). 12 songs per CD. 2400 slots? A percentage taken up by the artist writing with Nashville writers (not because those writers "know the right people" - They KNOW how to write hits).
You can do the math.... So, understand... they are not looking for you!

For your song to get noticed, you need to write something that will make their eyes pop out of their heads - within the first 20 seconds of hitting the play button.

It can be done. Stay true to yourself. Get better all the time. Use a cello.

There's always room for cello.

Two of my favorite bands, the lumineers and the avett brothers (they get in tune -- ha, ha) utilize cello in their work. Pretty good stuff.

On another note, all (most) "insiders" started off as "outsiders".

My reply to Floyd's post in the other thread:
I agree with Floyd's assessment and comments including his thoughts on use of a cello or other instrument. New instruments/sounds become the rage throughout the history of both rock and country. Rockers seem to have more leeway than country for the most part it seems to me. I would suggest that its use be part of the artists/writers overall image of the completed work.

I agree with Floyd that Nashville does not need us. They do have a large pool of writers/songs to draw from but I suggest that is not an entirely inclusive pool. Outsiders do get in.

A producer's familiarity with writers and their style sometimes get them off the short list. The producer knows in outline form what is going to be offered stylistically and lyrically. They are constantly seeking new styles and sounds. Other times, a producers personal stake in an artist/writer gets them included simply for the benefit the producer receives from his portion of the pie.

Producers, staff members, artists and AR rep's do look at Soundcloud, YouTube, Itunes, CD Baby and other independent outlets for breakout songs. Your chance of getting heard is increased if your songs are available on line somewhere. I think the trick here is to be sure you've placed your song in the right genre, have a catchy song title and capture the listener's interest in the first 10-20 seconds of the song. Your song needs to be strong out the gate. I agree with Floyd that what is on the radio now will be slightly different in 6 months to a year, I think you have a better chance of a producer listening to your song longer if he 'hears' a Blake Shelton, Florida Georgia, Zak Brown Band sound than if he hears Charlie Rich, Willie Nelson or Glen Campbell sound. I would also suggest there are a multitude of the 2nd tier record labels and producers trying to emulate the sound on the radio in order to ride the coat tails of a major hit by a major artist.

For clarification and not intending to get off on a rabbit trail, but my reference to the use of the cello related to Herb's request for input regarding things someone would do different to his song that was thought to possibly make it more appealing commercially and current. My input was directed toward that and not as a mis-use of the cello as an instrument. I likely would have said the same thing years ago when Marshall Tucker Band used a flute in the intro of "Can't You See" if it showed up on a forum before being released for radio.

hahahahhahahaha!
Matt, you ain't right!
(please never change)

Glad someone got the joke.

Actually, I do a lot of writing for cello. Lovely sound for classical, folk and pop.

Thanks to Floyd and Charlie for reposting their very insightful thoughts here.

Being an analytical kind of guy, I love hearing someone else's analysis of why a song does or doesn't work.

Floyd, one of the jaw-dropping observations you made was about songs that are more than 6 months to a year old. That was a wakeup call to me, because I tend to think in longer spans than that. But, now that you've said it, it makes sense... and it also makes me realize how unaware I am of the past 6 months trends in music.

(continuing with short posts to isolate each thought)

One of the take-aways from my recent trip to Merlefest was the evolution of the genre. I half-expected to hear an evolutionary progression that paid tribute to some of the ground-breaking artists like Bela Fleck... but the evolution wasn't in one direction.. it was more like an ideological explosion with every band taking the classic set of bluegrass instruments to a completely different place... and they were all making it work!

I have to wonder how many of them are tied to "the industry" and how many are forging their own path through exposure online and at music festivals

I agree. James Taylor seems to like it, and so do the audiences at his shows

this brief observation could easily start a whole new thread, but let's stir up some discussion about the elusive "breakout song" I presume by that you mean a song that broke the rules and changed genre?

What songs in the past to y'all see as having been a breakout song?

now there's an eye-opening observation!

I've noticed that a lot of current music in MANY genres has borrowed the rhythm of rap music without taking anything else.

Early rappers took beat snippets from other songs and rapped along with the beat. One of those early snippets was known as the AMEN BREAK , and you can hear it everywhere these days... new age to Contemporary Christian to Country to NewGrass etc etc

This beat is available in RealDrums as one of the hip-hop beats

its also worth noting that there are countless stories about songs that were rejected by the big dogs, but which went on to become major hits because they appealed to the public.

There is a time lag between what the public thinks is hot and what the shakers and movers think is hot.

Pat - so you are saying that you think the song you might hear on the radio are perhaps years old?

Keep in mind that I am only talking about how things work in Nashville (where there has always been an environment that treats the songwriter as an important part of the business).

And, my point was that if you are writing stuff that sounds JUST LIKE what is on the radio today, you are behind the curve. By AT LEAST 6 months - more likely a year - but in some cases it might be longer.

If someone were to pick songs for a CD that were written in the last few weeks (all "fresh"), how long would it be before you and I heard one of them on the radio. The search for material will go on for a couple of months. It takes some amount of time to record those song. Time for mixing. Time for mastering. Time for the record company to gear up for the push. Time to market and grease whatever wheels are required to get airplay... Generally 6 months for that to happen. A year, maybe?

Some songs do get recorded years after they are written. But someone has to really believe in it. A publisher has a very small window to pitch songs to an artist. A handful. A single meeting. Half hour to an hour? They have a group of writers writing all the time - let's say 15 - a small house. If the handful of their favorites that they have chosen to pitch - because they think they are hits - don't get selected for a CD, after a VERY short amount of time, they stop pitching it - they move on to the new stuff - they have to place songs to make a living. They don't spend years pushing the same songs that aren't getting chosen....

I'd be really interested in knowing where this comes from... who would have time to do that? and how? I've wasted countless hours on YouTube listen to just a handful of tunes... which is usually Don's fault!!!

Pat - correct me if I'm wrong... but it sounds like you are thinking in terms of (sort of) drum beats... The rhythm that I am referring to is a combination of everything (all instruments) going on together - particularly the chord progressions of the guitars - the rhythm of the backing tracks as a whole....It might have been better expressed as the "signature SOUND"...

you aren't wrong.. I did spin your observation into something else. More of a "stream of consciousness" thought than a direct reply to what you had said.

I realize you were talking about the whole sound, and I agree with that

not at all. I was just remarking that my awareness of changes in the genre are not calibrated at 6 month increments. I wasn't disagreeing, just expressing surprise at my own lack of awareness.

I thought that your entire essay was extremely interesting and full of keen insights into the business of making music. We are fortunate to have you on the forum.

I agree the signature country sound of today owes more to RAP than classic country. Listen to the newer vocalists, many speak the lyrics in time with the beat of the song for much or all of a song. Mixing and production values owe more to rap's "in your face" style than was common in country just a few years ago.

Part of that has to do with the artists, their relationship with music and the audience they want to attract. Luke Bryan, Florida-Georgia Line, Eric Church, The Band Perry, Jason Aldean don't care what genre their music is classified. They just want to attract the largest crowd they can to their events. Blake Shelton, Toby Keith & Josh Turner's country is old school.