Review Criteria

[Mogosagatai]

I think it's pretty clear that he means potential to be a better song, probably (and this is reading between the lines a tiny bit) through better production, perhaps coupled with a better realization of the tune. Same songwriting (perhaps with some tweaks), better song.

The untrained masses listen for impact; the trained scouts listen for impact <i>and</i> potential for impact.

[thehipcola]

right...I think that's called production. Which I think is completely linked to songwriting. And as such should be a significant part of any review.

[edit] - aaaand that's the circle in its entirety...i'm lapping myself. some will be happy to know that i'm out of this thread now...ornery today, aren't I? sorry 'bout that.

Word.

[tonetripper]

All I have to say about it is, that there is a reason why producers exist. That reason being, that they CAN polish a finely created piece of music or song. Production also exists, as THC has already stated, because it is inextricably linked with the songwriting process. The producer is not all about the bells and whistles or sonic nature of what's behind a good song. I have more faith in people in how they interpret what constitutes a good song. I don't believe that it is about the production primarily. I also don't think that THC was trying to incite that for a song to be deemed good it NEEDS good production, although I think he does have the chops to make the difference between something that someone might pass over to something that might catch their attention.

It really is a personal concept of the songwriting process. A process that does sometimes want good production to gain more appeal. But seriously, you can't polish a turd. You can try but I think people can see through it, although I hear a lot of shit on the radio that I think sounds real good but the songwriting is for the birds and still that shit does garner mass appeal. I don't think, however, that we are speaking of one hit wonders. We are talking about the timeless nature of what constitutes a good song.

Good production will not save a badly written song (although this has been proven false). Bad production will hurt a well written song but most certainly will not kill it (although this has also been proven false). They are linked on some level because not everyone in the world can cut through the crap sound to get at the beauty that lies in pure emotion and genuine creation. A prime example of this is Devendra Banhart. Some of the worst noise floor that has ever hit record and mostly due to his recording on a 4 track, but man is the songwriting stellar. And when he got signed and was working on the follow-up I was under the understanding that the songwriting suffered in the sterility of the studio environment. Is this then about production? Or if it sounds good then it's going to get better response from the listeners at large? Probably but not unequivocally.

For me production is about getting the energy AND the sound. The energy will ALWAYS come first. There are tons of great songs that could have better production in the sense of sonic intent, but I don't feel that it stops there. Good producers are about performance and nailing the perfection that is song. That will always be my mantra as a cheerleader in the songwriting and recording process as a producer. Sometimes sacrifices have to and will be made for the sake of the song. The song is KING!!!!!

So in summation I think that good production helps a good song, but it doesn't make it per se. It just adds to the enjoyment of something that is already good. It's like touch ups on a fine painting. The painting already looks good but with a subtle few extra drops of paint here and there it sends it over the top. This ofcourse is purely subjective. As is the way music and song moves people. The beauty that is. Sometimes it's better not to f&*$ with it. I wouldn't fix a damn thing on a Devendra Banhart album. The noise floor is soothing and adds to the charm of the production.

[erik]

Production also exists, as THC has already stated, because it is inextricably linked with the songwriting process.

I'm not trying to debate anyone at all, but if anyone would like to answer these questions so I could better understand a different point of view, that would be great.

Imagine some dude who has a bunch of songs which he has written for the piano and voice, and he has all the music and lyrics transcribed out. He has never recorded these songs at all ever. Then he plays them for two producers, who record some demos of just him playing and singing. And then the producers suggest different arrangements for the songs, changes to the tempo and feel of the music, and ultimately end up recording with a four piece rock band, piano, string section and 3 different singers in a barn in Vermont to expensive-ass tape over a 4 month period. And piano dude is very happy with the outcome and makes a bajillion dollars.

Undeniably, the producer would have played a major part in the way the recordings sounded and were recieved. What things that the producer did would you consider part of the songwriting process?

[tonetripper]

Production also exists, as THC has already stated, because it is inextricably linked with the songwriting process.

Imagine some dude who has a bunch of songs which he has written for the piano and voice, and he has all the music and lyrics transcribed out. He has never recorded these songs at all ever. Then he plays them for two producers, who record some demos of just him playing and singing. And then the producers suggest different arrangements for the songs, changes to the tempo and feel of the music, and ultimately end up recording with a four piece rock band, piano, string section and 3 different singers in a barn in Vermont to expensive-ass tape over a 4 month period. And piano dude is very happy with the outcome and makes a bajillion dollars.

Undeniably, the producer would have played a major part in the way the recordings sounded and were recieved. What things that the producer did would you consider part of the songwriting process?

By virtue of the bold line above if the arrangements have been altered to accomodate the introduced musicians and have been possibly transcribed by the producer then the producer has had a hand in the songwriting process. The creation of song or copyright consists of lyric, melody and music. If the above scenario holds true and the producer makes these suggestions and the artist agrees then the producer holds some of that copyright. Lead sheets and arrangements along with tempo shifts are usually conferred by a producer. If that is the arrangement with said artist. That's why producers get points against production because they offer these alterations to make the song, perhaps, better. Therefore production has had a hand in the songwriting process.

[erik]

If you rerecord someone else's song, but change the arrangement, do you feel like it's a different song, one that you have had a hand in writing part of?

[Eric Y.]

and why do album liner notes list songwriting credit only for the people who actually composed the words and music, and list the producer(s) as "produced by ____"?

(this is a rhetorical question).

[Mogosagatai]

To answer 15-16's puzzle, I would say that the producers had <i>no</i> hand in the songwriting.

The same analogy applies to a band who covers a song that was written for a different arrangment. If I arrange a brass band to play "Moonlight Sonata" at 3/2 times the tempo, have I re-written "Moonlight Sonata"? No, it just means I produced it quite differently than the songwriter had envisioned.

So, in conclusion, everyone agrees that:

a) Production is good.

b) Songwriting is good.

c) The two should be intermingled well ("well" meaning "in a manner that creates a good, re-listenable song).

d) Canadians often have trouble saying what they mean.

[j$]

If you rerecord someone else's song, but change the arrangement, do you feel like it's a different song, one that you have had a hand in writing part of?

Erm, yes, by definition it's different if you have written something new for it????? You're not claiming it's now 'your' song. I am probably missing the point here ....

j$

[erik]

I didn't ask if it was different, I asked if it was a different song.

[j$]

Ah, OK. I think I see. I would still say 'yes', it is a different song, because there is an element present that wasn't there before, but obviously it is not an entirely different song.

Anyway, I am in agreement with your overall point as I take it, so this is off the point ...

[tonetripper]

d) Canadians often have trouble saying what they mean.

So then superstar, did Jimmy Page have a hand in the songwriting process when he produced many of Led Zepellin's records? Did George Martin have a hand in the songwriting process with Beatles records?

Just because a producer doesn't receive a credit in the songwriting credits on a particular album doesn't mean that they didn't have a hand in the process. I never in any one of my posts said that this was always the case but more that they were tied usually in that extreme. Points against production means that the mechanical copyright is owned by the artists and the producer. That's why producers can make so much money. And there are cases where the producer DOES have a hand in songwriting. A hook added here, an altered arrangement there, a lyric altered are all changes to the actual song. Another question. So if a song has been altered in arrangement by a producer and they write music in a book with that arrangement, does the artist receive all the monies from said release? There are cases for both in the world of the producer. Or maybe you could invariably have this discussion with one of my teachers at Recording Engineering and Production college. Oh, I forgot Canadians have trouble saying what they mean so might as well forget that noise.

[Mogosagatai]

So then superstar, did Jimmy Page have a hand in the songwriting process when he produced many of Led Zepellin's records? Did George Martin have a hand in the songwriting process with Beatles records?

...

Y--Yes?

But... what do you mean by asking me that?

[Leaf]

In my opinion, songwriting is the process of composing the story.

Arranging is the process of editing the story, or some such analoguous thing....

While I think they are seperate processes, with seperate objectives, the fact of the matter is, you could partition a song down to all kinds of levels. We could be having this arguement about the difference a good drummer makes to a track. Put a good or great drummer on a shit kit, and they'll often SOUND better, and breath a life into a track that a shitty drummer on a $10,000 kit just can't do.

The end result is what I 'm listening to, so I don't ever think that potential should be part of my criteria for picking a winner. I might consider it in terms of appreciating what the artist is TRYING to do, but I would never ever ever ever pick a vote based on potential. That's like giving an olympic medal to the woman who tripped over the first hurdle, because "she would have won". Well guess what? She tripped, and didn't. Potential is not a good way to gauge a song as a winner in a songfight contest. It's a subjective term, with a variety of parameters that are unknown.

And before we waste more time with the inevitable segue into the semantics of "songfight" bear in mind, cricket has very little to do with crickets. (AT least, I'm assuming so.... ) and American Idol has very little to do with music. So, let that be a lesson to us all.


I find it comforting that we have different opinions and argue about this crap. If we didn't, SF would be the stalest site on the net, and that just would not do.

[erik]

For the record, and not to respond to anyone in particular, when I vote for a song, I am casting a vote for the actual recording that I listened to, not to a hypothetical recording based on some potential that a song posesses.

A race is a very cut and dried competition, because there is exactly one quantifiable criterion to base winning upon: speed. Assuming that there were no false starts or illegal drug use or anything such as that, all you have to do to see who should win is use a machine to time their speeds and rank them.

Many other competitions are not so cut and dried. Like figure skating. Two judges can watch the exact same routine and come up with different scores, even though they are told exactly what things to judge the contestants on.

At songfight, there isn't even a consensus as to what things to judge the contestants on. Not everyone will consider the same things when judging a song. Even if we compiled a list which included any part of making a recording that someone feels is important to consider, different people would have different opinions about which things on the list are <i>more</i> important than others, and those opinions would probably change from song to song.

Different people listen for different things in music, and will have different reasons for what they actually like about an actual recording. Personally speaking, when I like a song, potential is not one of the reasons why.

[Leaf]

The figure skating analogy is perfect Erik, that basically sums it up!

I was getting worried when you talked about discrediting things based on illegal drug use though.. that would knock out ...oh, I bet a good two thirds!


[/assumptions]

[Dan-O from Five-O]

But I also think that Josh's ability as a producer / engineer clouds his reviews.

I agree, I factor production in more than most. Even though I tend to pick on production issues more in my reviews than most, the songwriting is the main thing I vote on.

This I did not know about you Josh, and it's been a bad assumption on my part. Sorry for that.

Back on topic, we're talking about how production weighs into how you review a song.

A song that was written, recorded, and mastered in a week.

That's why I think production should be considered, but only to a point. It should be a weighted consideration in this forum. I'm amazed at what some of you folks are able to do in such a short time, honestly amazed. However I do believe that there are some folks out there trying just as hard to produce something just as amazing and are falling short of the mark ONLY because they lack the tools necessary. They don't have the microphones, the effects, the recorder, the instruments, and mostly the experience to get the job done. Does that mean you simply discount the effort or try to look past the flaws? It shouldn't.

A producer can definitely make the difference in the studio, on the label's dime, fixing a song that's years old. But that's got nothing to do with original question.

[EightLeggedOedipus]

-again, just askin', "potential" for what? to be a better song? to be different?

Let's get back to the root of music, and here's one basic question and assumption:
Why do we listen to music?
In the gym; to build adrenaline and syncronize our exercise
In some places; to sleep, meditate, or hypnotize
In the club; to dance
On Songfight; to enjoy, to stimulate, to listen

When I talk about a particular song's "potential," I am referring to the difference between this posted recording and a hypothetical future recording, which may be more stimulating, enjoyable, or listenable.

Now, when we vote, we are we voting for the best "song" or the best "recording"? I vote for the recording, which includes the song's fundamentals. oh blah blah blah where's a troll when you need one? This is so boringly abstract and taxonomical.