Songs always fascinated me, so I paid attention to the lyrics of the songs I played. At the same time I noticed that, though some musicians listened closely to lyrics, most didn’t. Yet many of them were able to play the songs just as ‘sensitively’, with as much awareness of the song’s nuances, as I did. Often more so.

I’ve been at many rehearsals where the songwriter painstakingly explained their lyric… why, for example, the music had to get very quiet in a certain section to follow the words… Sometimes this was helpful. Often I felt it was unnecessary, for reasons I’ll go into below.

When I started my own band about 14 years ago, I was lucky enough to enlist some of New York’s finest musicians, people I had played many sessions and gigs with, to perform and record my songs with me on a regular basis. Unlike the aforementioned bandleaders, I rarely brought up the particulars of a lyric to my band. And I never felt the music suffered for it.

After having the band for a while I started to realize that most of my musicians truly had no idea what my lyrics were, other than the song title at the top of the chord chart. Even though of course I wouldn’t’ve minded hearing something from them along the lines of, “Heavy lyric, MAN!”, I not only didn’t mind their inattention to the words of my songs; overall I considered it a plus.

Why? Well, I should reiterate that these musicians have played for some of the greatest songwriters of our time… without a doubt they know how to interpret a song! I always felt that they were taking in the essence of the songs at a deep level, a level where most of the time it wasn’t necessary to ‘know’ the lyric.

On top of that, I usually prefer to not have my songs interpreted literally. To not have the tom toms roll when I’m singing about thunder, to not have the guitar ‘cry’ when I sing about heartache, to not have the organ play circus music if I sing about a carnival, etc… Hey, that’s fine with me!

To my taste it’s frequently better to have the musical arrangement provide what you might call subtext. Think of examples when music and words work well together. I believe you’ll find they frequently don’t ‘match up’ literally.

To me the literal interpretation tends to be more superficial… I think listeners take in songs in a more holistic way… and that’s how these musicians hear and play mine – in a deeper, more intuitive way. Songs themselves aren’t literal… it’s all sound. Ideally, as important as lyrics are, there’s much more to a song than can be put into words… or lyrics.

So the fact that my band members might fail miserably at a quiz about my lyrics doesn’t bother me a bit. That said, it would amuse me greatly to give them such a quiz.

Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below –

The post Why Your Musicians Don’t Know Your Lyrics appeared first on Tony Conniff.

Even going the latter route, if and when partnerships break up you’re back to the same dilemma: Our ‘demos’ are supposed to sound like masters – or at least close. And few of us have the money to go to a ‘real’ recording studio (with an engineer) every time we write a song.

So, on one hand, you do have to get comfortable with recording your songs. But there are pitfalls that often ensue, and they’re easy to fall into.

Let’s say you, like many others (including me), get into production and want to/have to make good sounding recordings of your songs. You get into a DAW – Logic, ProTools, Ableton, etc. – and start learning. There are lots of places to get help; from friends, books, on YouTube, on training sites.

It’s easy to go down that recording/production rabbit hole – in fact, as with everything, you have to go down the rabbit hole and get obsessed, at least for a while, to become any good. (As Woody Allen said about his pretty good but not great clarinet playing, “I have to practice every day just to be this bad.”)

But as hard as it is to become a good producer/arranger/recordist… it’s still not as hard as writing songs. In the former you’re usually creating something from something. In the latter you’re often creating something from nothing.

When you’re producing, you’re usually working on recording an already-written song, or creating a beat for it; that kind of thing. Whatever you do, you start with a song, a recording, a musician, a sound, a loop, and it gives you something back as you listen. You get a playback, you try different sounds, effects, balances… and those sounds, effects, etc, are already there, waiting for you to use them.

When you write a song from scratch… it’s just you and the song. Prose writers call it The Blank Page. (In a way we’re lucky because we get to make sounds as we go.) All writers have to deal with this – much of the time you start with nothing. Or very little, like a title, or a lick… or a writing prompt, if you’re in a workshop.

Look at the movie business. A lot of people start as screenwriters and then become directors. If they’re successful at that, they usually stop writing. Then they hire other writers to do the writing. Why? At least part of the answer is that writing can be a hard, solitary business. It’s easier to have meetings and lunches and talk a lot, sometimes to writers, than to grind out the writing yourself.

The same kind of problem can come up for songwriters and recording. As challenging as it is to become good with recording, sounds, arrangements… it’s still easier than sitting down by yourself or with a partner (which for some people helps a lot) and whipping up something from nothing or almost nothing.

The bottom line is twofold. It’s unquestionably important to know how to capably record your songs or get them recorded well. And it’s easy for songwriting to get sidetracked by recording.

If you want to remain a songwriter and get better at it, this is a delicate balancing act – to fall into the wonderful world of digital recording and at the same time stay faithful to the sometimes painful but highly rewarding process of songwriting and the commitment it requires. This balance, a personal one for each of us, can easily slip out of whack. Finding and maintaining that balance is a worthwhile goal.

Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post The Temptation: Produce & Record instead of Writing a Song appeared first on Tony Conniff.

Even going the latter route, if and when partnerships break up you’re back to the same dilemma: Our ‘demos’ are supposed to sound like masters – or at least close. And few have the money to go to a ‘real’ recording studio every time they write a song.

So, on one hand, you do have to get comfortable with recording your songs. But there are pitfalls on the other side too, and they’re easy to fall into.

Let’s say you, like many others (including me), get into production and want to make good sounding recordings of your songs. You get into a DAW – Logic, ProTools, Ableton, etc. – and start learning. There are lots of places to get help; such as from friends, on YouTube and training sites.

It’s easy to go down that recording/production rabbit hole – in fact, as with everything, you have to go down the rabbit hole and get obsessed, at least for a while, to become any good. (As Woody Allen said about his pretty good but not great clarinet playing, “I have to practice every day just to be this bad.”)

But as hard as it is to become a good producer/arranger/recordist… it’s still not as hard as writing songs. In the former you’re creating something from something. In the latter you’re often creating something from nothing. (Of course there’s often an overlap between the two.)

When you’re producing, you’re usually working on recording an already-written song, or creating a beat, that kind of thing. Whatever you do, you start with something (a song, a recording, a musician, a sound, a loop) and it gives you something back as you listen. You get a playback, you try different sounds, effects… and those sounds, effects, etc, are already there, waiting for you to use them.

When you write a song from scratch… it’s just you and the song. Prose writers call it The Blank Page. (In a way we’re lucky because we get to make sound as we go.) All writers have to deal with this – much of the time you start with nothing. Or very little, like a title, or a lick… or a writing prompt, if you’re in a workshop.

Look at the movie business. A lot of people start as screenwriters and then become directors. If they’re successful at that, they usually stop writing. Then they hire other writers to do the writing. Why? At least part of the answer is that writing can be a hard, solitary business. It’s easier to have meetings and lunches and talk a lot, sometimes to writers, than to grind out the writing yourself.

The same kind of problem can come up for songwriters and recording. As challenging as it is to become good with recording, sounds, arrangements… it’s still easier than sitting down by yourself or with a partner (which for some people helps a lot) and whipping up something from nothing or almost nothing.

The bottom line is twofold. It’s important to know how to capably record your songs or get them recorded well. And it’s easy to get sidetracked by recording.

It’s a delicate balancing act, if you want to remain a songwriter and get better at it, to not fall into the wonderful world of digital recording and avoid the sometimes painful but highly rewarding process of songwriting and the commitment it requires. The balance, a personal one for each of us, can easily slip out of whack. Finding and maintaining it is a worthwhile goal.

Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post The Temptations of Producing/Recording vs. Songwriting appeared first on Tony Conniff.

What grabbed me first was the lyric, combined with the intimacy of the production and vocal. JP Saxe sings the first Verse, Pre-Chorus, and Chorus.

I was distracted and in traffic
I didn’t feel it when the earthquake happened
But it really got me thinkin’, were you out drinkin’
Were you in the living room, chillin’, watchin’ television
It’s been a year now, think I’ve figured out how
How to let you go and let communication die out

I know, you know, we know you weren’t
Down for forever and it’s fine
I know, you know, we know we weren’t
Meant for each other and it’s fine

But if the world was ending, you’d come over, right
You’d come over and you’d stay the night
Would you love me for the hell of it?
All our fears would be irrelevant
If the world was ending, you’d come over, right?
The sky’d be falling and I’d hold you tight
And there wouldn’t be a reason why
We would even have to say goodbye
If the world was ending, you’d come over, right? Right?
If the world was ending, you’d come over, right? Right?

I often write and talk about – and try to practice in my own songwriting – the idea of appropriately raising the stakes in a lyric’s story or situation. How about this one for high stakes? An earthquake that feels like it could be the end of the world.

Probably part of why it appeals to me so much is that it’s a love song, but not a happy-ever-after one. And the Chorus ends with the repeated, ‘Right? Right?’. It’s a plea, a question, as well as a declaration.

It’s a great idea for a song. Who you’d want to be with if the world was ending is not necessarily someone you could live with or spend your life with.

I mentioned the production. It is once again, as was the song discussed in last week’s post, produced by Finneas O’Connell, Billie Eilish’s producer (and brother). This guy has to be recognized as a modern master of the extremely elusive art of minimalist intimacy in recording. Getting a close and confidential feeling, as he does here and on his sister’s songs, in a vocal and a recorded arrangement may sound simple… but believe me, it’s not.

The melody is all in a Db major scale. Its motion is unpredictable and has some nice twists and turns, and it fits the lyric perfectly (and vice versa). The Verse melody has the motion but the Chorus melody is repetitive, mostly just working over a few notes, but each phrase is brought to life anew by a different chord.

And those chords! It’s true that the most popular songs these days tend to have at most 4 or 5 triads in them. That’s not the case here. The harmony is careful and poignant, and takes the words and melody to another level.

Verse
||4/4 Db | Ebminor7(+2) | Gb | Ab | Db/F | Bbminor7 ||
Pre-Chorus
||4/4 Bbminor Ab | Db Fminor7 | Gb | Bbminor Ab | Db Fminor7 |6/4 Gb ||
Chorus
||4/4 Gb | Ab6 | Db/F | Bbminor | Gb | Ab6 | Db/F | Bbminor Fminor7(b5)/B ||
Tag
||4/4 Gb | Ab7 | Db/F | Bbminor(+2) Bbminor ||

Subtly beautiful touches in these harmonies. I especially like the attention that’s paid to the different flavors of the triad extensions – 6ths, 7ths – and suspended chords (Db/F, Fminor7(b5) over B).  Sometimes there’s an Ab… sometimes Ab6… then an Ab7. And the difference between these chord sounds is taken advantage of fully.

(These subtle but crucial differences in chord qualities – were they written in, or added by someone else… the pianist/producer? I wonder.)

And when’s the last time you heard a minor7(b5) chord in a hit song? It’s used very effectively here as a passing chord that adds emotional complexity to the melody (and the Title words).

Second Verse, sung by Julia Michaels (the Pre-Chorus and Chorus have the same words as before):

I tried to imagine your reaction
It didn’t scare me when the earthquake happened
But it really got me thinkin’, the night we went drinkin’
Stumbled in the house and didn’t make it past the kitchen
Ah, it’s been a year now, think I’ve figured out how
How to think about you without it rippin’ my heart out

The rhyming here is an excellent example of strong modern rhymecraft. Most of the rhyming words and phrases don’t rhyme in the traditional old-school way. But the words flow conversationally in the way most great lyrics always have, and the sounds match easily and naturally. Just, compared to what rhyming used to be, with a greatly expanded conception of what constitutes a rhyme. I’d say this song comes as close as any I’ve heard recently to defining good rhyming, 2020-style.

It’s also worth mentioning that, as modern as it is in many ways, it still has the classic ‘Chorus contradicts the Verse’ setup, adhered to rigorously. The Verses being about how they’ve gotten over each other. The Chorus then saying, ‘BUT…’. Classic.

As always, I encourage you to sing and play along (or play it by yourself). You’ll be glad you did. This is quite a song.

Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs beneath the video –

The post ‘If The World Was Ending’ – Inside A Great (and Timely) Modern Song appeared first on Tony Conniff.

No one else will write my songs if I don’t write them.

No one else will make the recordings of those songs if I don’t make them (or at least organize the sessions).

No one else but me (or me and a collaborator) will finish the songs I start.

No one else will connect with other writers and producers for me if I don’t.

No one else will find an audience for me if I don’t get it started. Etc.

This doesn’t mean I have to do everything alone. Far from it. In fact – obviously – I can’t. But I have to get the ball rolling on my own behalf. Reach out to collaborators. Ask or hire musicians to play with me. Get better at the things I do and find people to do the things I don’t do well, or at all. And finish those songs!

When I started out in music, everyone had the dream of being discovered by ‘the business’. That a manager, record company, or publisher would take you under their wing and take care of everything for you.

That was a dream even then. Few artists were lucky enough to have a mutually beneficial relationship between skilled creators and skilled business people.

And even if you had that, you still had to be responsible for your own career. Things usually didn’t go well for people who weren’t paying attention to their own business. But that big old music business structure still existed and did enable many artists get from nowhere to somewhere.

There’s still somewhat of a structure that is in some ways similar… but everyone in the remaining music business towers is now looking for artists and writers who are self-starters, who already have an audience live, who already have a following on YouTube, Soundcloud, or other social media. Preferably all of the above.

They figure – correctly, in most cases – that this is the price of admission to the modern music business. They’re not going to help you make money, and take some of it for themselves, until you’re already making money.

The responsibility for generating at least the early stages of a career of any sort has landed fully on the creators. (it was always there… but now there’s no pretending.) And from what I observe this is true in the digital age for all areas of the arts and entertainment.

There’s a lot of freedom in this; that’s why I like this setup better than the old one. You can get your music out there, you can take a shot, without having to get past the gatekeepers. Also, you don’t have to attend to their ‘feedback’ and ‘direction’, which was sometimes helpful but more often, not.

It used to be about getting noticed by those gatekeepers. And that was hard. But there were a limited amount of them, and you knew where to find them – they tended to cluster. Now it’s about getting noticed from the millions and billions of pieces of music that are floating around on computers and phones.

Look… no one said it was going to be easy. But, to quote The Godfather, part 2, “This is the business we have chosen”. And all of these journeys start with taking those early steps ourselves. And then continuing to…

Take that step… then take the next step… then the next… and don’t quit.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post Music Business 2019 – The Reality On The Ground appeared first on Tony Conniff.

Instruments like guitars and pianos are tempered (which basically means that you can play in all keys, but slightly and equally out of tune in each; as opposed to playing perfectly in tune in only one key… which is how things were before tempered tuning).

So, playing in tune is a relative thing. It’s not only always approximate to some degree, it’s also subjective to the individual ear. Most instruments have to conform to the tempered piano (or fretted instrument), and the other instrumentalists are usually trying to adjust by getting as close to that tuning as they can.

Even with, say, a string group, which doesn’t have to conform to a piano, our (and the players’ ) ears are used to tempered tuning as the sound of ‘in tune’.

When I first started to play the bass professionally and realized it was crucial to play in tune, the only electronic tuners that were available were encased in boxes the size of toasters, cost many hundreds of dollars, and were affordable only by recording and rehearsal studios that rarely let in scruffy young musicians like me.

So, like most musicians at the time, and almost all who came before us, I had to get my instrument in tune myself. This was actually a great process because, with stringed instruments, you have to learn intonate your guitar.

Intonating in this case means getting the string lengths and heights adjusted correctly, the bridge and the nut in the right place, etc. And you did this all by ear and by yourself, without automated help.

Every once in a while I’d get a session in a professional studio that had one of those big, expensive tuners available. I’d eagerly corner it and check the intonation of my bass… which actually was usually pretty close or even right on.

If you think about it though, in a larger sense this means that at that time everybody tuned their own instruments themselves… which made everyone’s tuning slightly different and individual. Yes, tuning was individual.

This could have horrible-sounding consequences for those who couldn’t or wouldn’t tune up or intonate their instruments.

On the other hand, when you wonder why records sounded different ‘back in the day’. well… this was a big part of it. Back then the band sound was a combination of individual ideas of what was ‘in tune’. When a band had compatible (not identical) conceptions, it could be glorious. When they didn’t, or didn’t care… not so much.

Now we all tune to same notes on our $12 digital tuners. We all play the same ‘A’, the same ‘C’. So pop music is much more in tune now… but it’s all the same tune!

In many ways this has made life much better and easier for musicians – and often for listeners. And overall things are more in tune. We’re dependent on these cheap-to-inexpensive digital tuners and there’s no going back.

But next time you wonder why a current recording doesn’t have the same fullness, the same body… Well, a highly functional tuner now costs about the same as a book (remember them?).

The evolution of the methods and economics of tuning are a much bigger part of why music sounds the way it does now than most people realize.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post The $12 Gadget That Changed Pop Music History appeared first on Tony Conniff.

She couldn’t have been better served by her musicians, as well as – in the production, engineering, and arranging departments – by Jerry Wexler, Tom Dowd, Arif Mardin, and Gene Paul. All in all she headed a dream team if there ever was one.

Two hits written by Aretha were released in 1968 and were written with her then-husband/manager, Ted White – ‘Think’, and ’Since You’ve Been Gone’.

Both recordings feature burning tracks recorded in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, with tremendously forceful backing from the rhythm section, The Dixie Flyers (interestingly, all Caucasians), joined and led by Aretha on piano. They were killing it (listen below).

Both songs are relatively simple (particularly ‘Think’) but they’re dynamic and powerfully energetic. She was at the top of her form and her singing and (sometimes underrated) piano playing led the charge… as it always did.

(The remaining songs mentioned here were written solo by Aretha.)

The soulful ’Spirit In The Dark’ (1970) was somewhere between gospel and blues (a sweet spot for her). This track was also cut in the South and is given a performance that really grooves (though on the original recording it’s perhaps not as precise as the others mentioned here).

It was also recorded on Aretha’s ‘Live At The Fillmore West’ album, considered one of the greatest live albums ever made. Many of her musicians at that concert also backed her up on these next two tracks.

It doesn’t get any funkier than ‘Rock Steady’ (listen below). Aretha was playing with saxophonist King Curtis’s band, New Yorkers, certainly one of the greatest rhythm sections ever assembled – Bernard Purdie (drums), Chuck Rainey (bass), Cornell Dupree (guitar), Richard Tee and Donny Hathaway (keyboards).

The song, except for the instrumental Bridge, vamps on one mighty chord, while Aretha sings:

Rock Steady
Let’s call this song exactly what it is
It’s a funky lowdown feelin’…

And it is, it is. Great example of the lyric being about what the music is about being what the track is about… you get my drift. Unified!

The final song I’m going to touch on was somewhat of a change of pace for Aretha as a songwriter – ‘Day Dreaming’ (1972). Utilizing most of the same musicians as on ‘Rock Steady’, it’s a beautiful Latin-influenced groove; in a similar vein to some of her classic Burt Bacharach/Hal David covers.

These are damn good songs, boosted by world-class performances by all concerned… especially Aretha. She was the Queen! And, as a songwriter, at least a Princess.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below the videos –

The post Aretha Franklin, Songwriter: An Appreciation appeared first on Tony Conniff.

For most of us, with tempos it’s natural to rush (speed up) or drag (slow down) – sometimes both – as we play a song. And occasionally songs do have sections that sound better when played faster or slower than the previous or following section.

But I’ve found it to be true that most songs sound best at a steady or relatively steady tempo. And it’s actually a real skill to keep a piece of music at the same tempo throughout. Musicians call it ‘having good time’.

Most successful recordings have a steady tempo and a steady groove. There’s a reason why – no matter what the genre, momentum is created, and it’s easier for the listener to ‘feel’ the song… and move their body to it as well.

The rhythm carries it, and the building up of a steady rhythm, underneath the words, melodies, and harmonies, will usually really help your song. This doesn’t mean that it has to sound ‘metronomic’.

Problems in timing are more  often exposed in live performance than in finished recordings. Most recordings these days are done in computers, using loops or metronomes, which stay at the same tempos, as guides. Not to mention that, post-performance, it’s relatively easy to fix timing issues. This makes ‘good time’ a lot easier to attain, so current recordings usually end up being pretty tempo-consistent.

When playing live, though, it’s easy to get excited and speed up, or downshift and slow down. It feels right, if feels natural. But I’ve found it’s often not what’s best. A solid tempo (and a steady groove too) can be one of your best friends in putting your song across.

Even if you understandably have no interest in sounding ’metronomic’, it’s actually still worth playing your songs a couple of times with a click track (metronome) or an appropriate loop, just to hear where you tend to rush or drag. It’s a reality check. It’s also not a bad idea to record this and listen back to diagnose your tempo tendencies… as well as other tendencies… (recording is audio CSI).

This is also useful because when you do record for real and decide to play with a click track – which isn’t easy for most people to do without practice –  you’ll be ready.

If you’re not into steady tempo, try it… you might like it. I promise you, most of the people whose writing you admire have dealt with this and made it work for them. If you haven’t already, so can you.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post An Easy Way To Do Your Song A Favor appeared first on Tony Conniff.

It’s different in every case, but maybe I can give you an idea of some of the ways this can happen.

A lot of pop songwriting has become highly specialized. In many cases, one person makes the beat (the music track), sometimes two – one who handles the drum and percussion parts, another who does the chords and other sounds. One person writes the melody, someone else writes the words – sometimes one person for the Chorus/Title lyrics, another for the Verse lyrics.

Though of course these various functions can overlap, the above collaboration can include from 2 or 3 to 5 or 6 contributors.

You also might have a song with a bunch of writers that’s then rewritten or polished by other writers, adding to the total.

Additionally, you might have a name producer supervising the whole thing, polishing a line, note, or lyric here and there. He or she – in the music business, sadly, still usually he – will naturally (and usually automatically) have to get a piece of the pie; sometimes a large one. ‘Vocal Producer’ is a specialty now too, sometimes also getting cut in.

If the artist/singer isn’t doing any of the above, they will often make their contribution too, adding their name to the copyright. Also, some songs are based on other, older, songs and/or use samples from them. The writers of that song have to agree and they too wet their beak.

These are examples of what might be called variations of the assembly-line process (I’m not using that phrase pejoratively).

All of the above scenarios don’t happen in any one song, and many songs are still written by 1-3 writers. But you can see how the writers can pile up.

This is also because who is considered a ‘songwriter’ has changed dramatically over the years.

As rhythm tracks have gotten more prominent, the people who make the beats are more likely to be considered writers – rightly so, I think. Every creative part of making a recording can now potentially be considered songwriting.

Often songs are not separated from the recording of them. The song and the recording are frequently created at the same time; the making of the melody/lyric and the recording/arrangement happen simultaneously and inextricably (although they can be teased apart later).

There’ve always been songs written on the spot, in the studio, but it’s never been nearly as common as it is now. And remember – being credited as a writer has always been about leverage. If you can negotiate your contribution to the song, whatever it might be, as ‘writing’… you’re a writer! It’s always been this way.

It’s also a generational thing. If you came up in the ‘rock’ or ‘singer/songwriter’ era, there was a songwriter or songwriters… and then there were producers, musicians, engineers… The twain rarely met in the songwriting credits.

If you came of age making Hip Hop, there was much less separation. Many more aspects of record- and song-making were considered to be part of the songwriting.

So yes, there can be an assembly-line aspect to having more than a handful of songwriters. But in many ways it’s not that different from the artist/songwriter sitting in a studio with a band and a producer. Only now, for their contributions, many more people can get a songwriting credit.

If they can negotiate it.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below –

The post Why Does It Take 7 People To Write A Song? appeared first on Tony Conniff.

However, if you mostly listen to songs from the 20th Century you might be having a hard time discovering these new elements in what may sound to you like a audio blur (but is really just the sound of contemporary pop music).

Try listening in to the songs; past the recordings (though they’re often interesting too) and inside the songs. Try looking past the chassis; check out the motor under the hood – the songwriting. You might find the sound of modern pop recordings off-putting overall. You may need to work a little to discover the songwriting wheat inside what sounds (to you) like production chaff.

What to listen for:

1) Melody. Melodies now are in almost constant motion; no pauses. Again, this may sound like a blur to you but, when it’s done well, it’s no blur.

That said… you no longer get the pauses after every phrase that were a hallmark of almost all 20th Century songwriting. It’s not like football anymore – a play (a line/2 bars) followed by instant replays (2 more bars of waiting for the next line while thinking about the last one). Now it’s like basketball or soccer – non-stop action. Get used to it!

You’ll have to train your ears to speed up (similar to how when bebop came along, it moved at a faster velocity than the jazz that had come before). You’ll have to learn to listen faster.

2) Rhyme. Rhyme is now both looser and tighter. There’s more freedom now in what’s accepted as rhyme than there has ever been. This has of course led to some laziness but it’s also led to an explosion of creativity. Lyricists are putting word sounds together that would’ve been unimaginable a decade ago. Literally things pro lyricists and publishers ’”said (it) couldn’t be done” are being done every day. This is not your father’s Songmobile!

Also, just as with melody, the velocity of rhyming has increased, mostly stemming from the influence of rap. The amount of inner rhymes and near rhymes, all rolling out nonstop, can take getting used to.

3) Form. Although most songs still adhere to the Verse/Chorus (or Verse/Pre-Chorus/Chorus) form, this has gotten much more elastic recently. Song-savvy listeners don’t need as much ‘hand-holding’ as they used to, so sometimes connective sections and repetitions that traditionally helped orient the listener are dispensed with or developed in ways that may be unfamiliar to some.

And, as I’ve written before, don’t underestimate the influence of search engines like Google or apps like Shazam in this. In the 20th Century, certain elements of a song had to be repeated a lot, especially the Title, so people knew what to ask for at the record store. Well guess what… no more record store.

If the listener likes some aspect of what they hear, they google or shazam it… it’s a completely different orientation towards taking in a song… leading to different kinds of songs. (Read here for more on this.)

4) Content. Anything goes. Like in all parts of our culture, this has led to an emphasis on sex, some of it very graphic. But just because something’s about sex doesn’t mean it’s not worth hearing – or writing. And this same freedom has allowed songwriters (including you) to explore all kinds of other topics that have previously been considered unusual or off-limits.

It’s also opened the door to a lot of bullshit, misogynistic and otherwise, that thankfully seems to be receding in recent times. But there’s always been, and will always be, a lot of stupidity out there. And not infrequently powerful art can seem offensive at the time it’s made – and sometimes it is offensive – but artists need the freedom to explore… and overdo (what at the time is considered ‘overdoing it’ is sometimes, with hindsight, considered a breakthrough). A lot of pandering and posing in the name of artistic expression will always come along with this.

So if you’re used to 20th Century songs and and are puzzled, alienated, or just plain disgusted by modern pop music, I suggest that, as a songwriter, you keep listening. Just because songs were written ‘a certain way’ (usually whatever you listened to in your teens and 20s, your formative years), and because the best stuff that you love that was written that way is great, doesn’t mean things don’t need to change. They will change.

This doesn’t take anything away from the greatness of the past… but there’s songwriting greatness in the present too. And the future.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below –

The post 4 Ways To Listen To Modern Songs… If You’re Used To Listening To 20th Century Songs appeared first on Tony Conniff.

I used to belong to a Producers’ group and the question, ‘At what point does helping someone with their song become a co-write?’ was a frequent topic of discussion. Of course there’s no one answer. It did help me figure out what my answer is, though.

Before I get to that, one interesting thing about this question is that the answer is often directly related to the genre of the music. For example, in most Rock, Country, and Singer-Songwriter recordings, there’s a very clear line between the songwriter and the people who help him or her record their song, including the artist. The producer rarely gets a writing credit, neither does the singer/artist, musicians, etc.

In Hip Hop and Rap, the Producer almost always gets a writing credit, as does the person who makes the beat (these are often often the same person), and it’s common for other people involved in making the track to get writing credit too.

In much mainstream  Contemporary Pop music, the different aspects of the song are often written by different people, at times creating co-writers numbering in the double digits. This approach includes separate individuals or teams who each create the melody, the words, the drum/rhythm track, the chords, the rap (if there is one), etc., of a single song.

Basically, here’s the deal: If you can negotiate your way into getting a writing credit for your contribution, you’re a writer on the track. If you don’t or can’t, you’re not.

These arrangements are usually made before the writing and/or recording session. Everybody knows going in if they’re a writer or not. That’s a lot easier than trying to figure out, with hindsight, who did what (human beings have a tendency to remember their own contributions as a lot more significant than that of others’).

But what happens when, as sometimes arises, the normal back and forth of working together starts to feel like it’s turning into co-writing? How does one draw that line?

Strangely enough, as a longtime producer, musician, and song wrangler, for me this has rarely come up. My job in those roles is to offer whatever good ideas I can that, under the circumstances, might improve the song/recording. So I don’t really think about it.

If I’ve worked out a prior deal as a co-writer – as discussed above – then I’m covered. Otherwise, I’m the producer, musician, or song coach/teacher and that’s that. Your song is your song and I don’t go anyplace that’ll challenge that.

There have been a few exceptions though and, for me, they’ve mostly gone like this: I’m working on a songwriter’s song with them  (as a producer or musician, not as a coach or teacher), maybe playing bass or guitar, and I suggest a chord change or pattern. That’s fine, common. They take my suggestion… and it moves them, let’s say, to change their melody… which leads me to throw in the next phrase of melody… which leads them to change another chord…

That’s when I’ll stop. If we’re going back and forth in the room like that – and it’s not just me offering suggestions – and the song is changing as we do so, then, in my book, we’re starting to co-write.

I hit the pause button. I tell the songwriter I’m fine with everything that’s gone down, and they’re welcome to use it freely. But… if we’re going to continue, I need it be as co-writers. This doesn’t mean 50/50. They’ve usually already completed much of the song, so my part would be relatively small.

(Remember, over decades, for me this has only happened a handful of times).

I do this as respectfully as I can, making clear that I’m absolutely fine (and I am) with them declining the option and continuing on their own.

But if we’re going back and forth, and the song is changing… to me we’ve crossed that line and we’re co-writing.

I know there are a lot of different approaches to this question. What are yours? What kinds of situations have come up for you and how have you dealt with them?

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post At What Point Does It Become A Co-Write? appeared first on Tony Conniff.

‘Broadcast quality’ is something that publishers, licensing companies, and ‘middlemen’ like Taxi often request. What does it mean… and how is it attained?

What it means is the simple part. Basically, they want what you want – for your stuff to sound as good as what’s out there on radio, TV, CDs, Spotify, etc. It’s the ‘quality’ of what is ‘broadcast’. That stuff usually sounds good because it was played (or at least edited), produced, mixed, and mastered by professionals.

So, assuming you don’t yet have that level of technique, what can you focus on to get there?

1) Performance. The most neglected factor.

Artists and songwriters often worry most about the audio quality, but the most common problems I hear are performances that aren’t precise enough. Making a good recording is like building a good house (or building a good anything) – it’s got to be solid all the way through… particularly the foundation.

Don’t rush through the beginning part – get the feel right, play the basic parts accurately and with good time. Getting the ‘basic track’ right will make everything else sound better. And everything else has almost no chance of sounding any good if the foundation is flimsy.

Make sure all the instruments are really in tune – with themselves and with each other. That goes for all the vocals too. And of course having your lead vocal be as strong and solid as possible is essential. That’s what’s at center stage.

Be patient. Everybody wants to record things quickly during fits of inspiration. But few of us are like Prince, who could do that and still have the quality be exceptional. Most of the greatest artists aren’t like that. Their finest recordings are usually the result of painstaking and time-intensive work (as were Prince’s – he could just move faster, and do everything himself if he wanted to, so he was just more prolific than almost anyone).

2) Recording Quality. Keep this simple; you don’t have to be a genius.

Don’t record things too soft or (especially) too loud. Watch out for distortion. If you see your fader going into the Red, back it off! Again, taking the time to get this right will pay dividends.

If you’re a singer, try a bunch of microphones in your price range. Buy the one that makes your voice sound the best. Get the best pre-amp and A to D/D to A (Analog/Digital) converter you can afford. There’s a lot of pretty good reasonably-priced equipment out there these days. Use it carefully and you’ll be fine.

3) Mixing. What usually matters most here is what you’ve recorded. That’s what you work with when you mix.

As you build your track, think about how the part you’re recording fits into the big sonic picture. Is there room… or is that space already taken?

Getting better at mixing has a lot to do with training your ears. There are a lot of good tutorials out there, both free and paid, as well as friends and teachers, that can help with this. But always pay attention to the overall sonic picture – the lows, the mids, the highs. Try for a well-balanced arrangement.

4) Mastering. The last stage.

Mastering is often best done by a pro. In fact many people who do home studio-type recordings then go out and spend money on a mastering engineer. (This goes for mixing too, but that adds another layer of expense.) Mainly they want another good pair of ears involved, as well as what is usually better equipment, at the final stage.

If you can’t afford to do this, or don’t know someone you can trust, getting acquainted (again, through tutorials and friends) with the basic functions of a Limiter – which can make your mix louder (but don’t make it so loud that it alters or distorts your mix) – is the basic element.

‘Broadcast quality’ includes having your volume be similar to everyone else’s. You don’t need to be the loudest, but if they have to turn up the volume when your song comes on, you’re in trouble.

Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post 4 Tips For Making Your Recordings ‘Broadcast Quality’ appeared first on Tony Conniff.

This is because of things like differences in the way songs are put together now, the rhyming… And, most especially, the sound of the recording. When it comes to listening to newer music, that’s the biggest obstacle. (I’m not talking about the sonics so much as the sounds and combinations of the instruments and vocals.)

Just looking at the mainstream, in the 20th century if you grew up on the Big Bands it was hard to comprehend Bebop. If you loved mid-20th century jazz and popular music, rock and roll was primitive and weird sounding (The Beatles were a shock).

If you grew up on rock, then ’70s pop and disco was repulsive… and, if you came up loving pop and disco, punk was unpleasantly strange and amateurish (though intentionally so).

If punk or glam was your music growing up, hip hop and rap – music with machines making the rhythm and containing relatively little melody – might have sounded bizarre and foreign. And now, early hip hop and rap sounds charmingly simple next to the abstraction in words, music, and sound that’s part of a lot of current pop.

Yet all of these ‘aberrations’, which sounded so strange to previous generations, eventually became part of the mainstream. A listener who hated a certain kind of music that came after their prime musical listening period might still hate it but, after hearing it enough, it didn’t sound so alien and off-putting. In some cases it became downright comforting and enjoyable.

A songwriter friend of mine recently told me that he likes a lot of what’s going on in current pop songs, but that he “can’t get past the sound”. This is probably the most common reason why people who are used to some other sound can’t get into whatever’s contemporary – the sound of it is just too weird and unfamiliar; scary (in a not-fun way) rather than reassuring.

Each generation comes up with a new definition of what sounds beautiful. And they need for it to be different from their parents’ beautiful.

So I think that if you’re interested in appreciating and being excited and inspired by whatever’s going on now – the constantly evolving now – you have to make a conscious effort to “get past the sound” and hear the heart and soul that beats beneath it.

After all, you’re going to be used to it in 10 or 20 years… You’ll hear it played at weddings and parties and restaurants… It’ll start to seem familiar… and then you’ll start to appreciate it.

Why wait?

Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post Don’t Let The SOUND Put You Off Current Pop Songs appeared first on Tony Conniff.

Think of it like a bodybuilder (which I’m not). If you do enough steady work on your arms, your abdomen, etc., you’ll see improvement; you’ll see more muscle, less fat (or whatever it is you’re going for) in that part of the body.

Similarly, if you can identify areas of your writing that need improvement, you can focus directly on them and they can get better. Really. Or you can start looking for someone else to work with who’s strong in those areas.

Your writing ‘talent’ is not something that’s fixed at birth. What you do with the talent you have, how much attention you’re willing to give it, makes a much larger difference than what you start with.

With that in mind, here are some areas, ones that will be familiar to readers of these articles, in which you can evaluate your writing (not you as a person!) and decide which are your…

Areas of Strength – Double down here. These is where you’re already good. This is your knockout punch; don’t let up, keep improving.

Areas of Weakness – This is where the challenges are, the opportunities for growth. Either put a lot of focus here on studying, learning, and getting better… or, if you feel your time is better spent in areas that are more natural strengths, focus on finding a collaborator who is strong in these areas and work with them.

I suggest making an assessment that’s as frank as possible in these five areas:

LYRICS – Ease with words; rhymes. A big vocabulary isn’t that important. What is important is having, or learning, the ability to use words to convey emotion, character, story, and information, in a musical way, within a song structure.

MELODY – Don’t underestimate the importance of this; songs don’t get very good without strong melodies. This is often considered to be the most ‘natural gift’ aspect of songwriting. There’s some truth to that, but I know that the ability to write good melodies can improve.

Take a look at your melodies, by themselves. Are they compelling, interesting, fitting with the style of music you’re writing?

CHORDS (Harmony) – There are many good songwriters with a very limited harmonic (chordal) vocabulary. But even writers with only two, three, or four chords at their command  still have to use them in a canny and effective way.

Gaining knowledge of harmony is an asset… and it happens to be very teachable and learnable. You can literally expand one chord at a time. If this is a weak spot, are you willing to put in some time to acquire some additional tools?

STRUCTURE – Are you able to take a song you like, or are writing, and ‘break it down’ structurally? As in, ‘This is the Verse, this is the Chorus, here’s the Bridge, etc.’, or ‘This is an AABA song with a Tag at the end.’, and so on. Every songwriter should have some basic knowledge of this, both to be able to speak the ‘language’ of songs with collaborators and to understand how the different genres and styles of songs are put together.

Even if you don’t follow a traditional form exactly (and most songs don’t), having a basic knowledge of common structures can create some ‘sidelines and goal lines’ (which can be moved, don’t worry) in what might otherwise be a bafflingly open field.

PRODUCTION/BEAT MAKING – This is an established part of songwriting now. If you work in contemporary Pop, Hip Hop, EDM, or related styles, you can’t write songs without becoming conversant with recording and production, or collaborating with someone who is.

If you write in more traditional styles (Singer/Songwriters, Country, Rock, Jazz), there’s more separation between the song and the production. But even if you’re mostly a performing songwriter you’ll still need to get your songs recorded at some point. Are you willing to learn or improve recording skills (which involve a related but different skill set)?

A lot of all this comes down to paying close attention to, and learning from, what’s been done by songwriters you love who came before you (and ‘came before you’ could mean 50 years ago… or last year!).

And even if you decide, for example, that you’re a music writer and not a lyricist… or that you’re a melody writer and lyricist but not a track maker/producer… or vice versa, it’s still going to help you a lot to learn a little about all the above areas… to have a basic idea of what your collaborators are dealing with and to be able to communicate with them.

So try making an honest evaluation of your songwriting strengths and weaknesses. And then make an honest evaluation of what you’re willing to do to improve your weak spots and amplify your strengths. If you’re not willing or interested enough in certain areas, then it’s great to acknowledge that… and find someone who is!

Let me know your thoughts, additions, disagreements in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking these tabs –

The post 5 Ways To Evaluate Your Songwriting appeared first on Tony Conniff.

When they work, they get the listener intrigued, involved, curious… Like with any good story, you want them thinking, ‘What’s going to happen next?’

What makes good intros is harder to define. But I can make some suggestions, based on my own experience, about how to find them.

The key is ‘find’. When I start arranging a song, I don’t worry about the Intro. Then, as the arrangement grows, I’m on the lookout for ideas that come organically out of the song’s arrangement that might work.

And when I say, ‘As the arrangement grows’ I don’t necessarily mean a full band or a full production. It can be a guitar lick or even just a chord progression from the song that catches the ear. Or even just a sound…

Some ideas of what to look for/listen for in your song:

A Counter-Melody. This can be something like ‘Baker Street’ – a hooky melody that’s as catchy as the Chorus (or more so), played over the rhythm and chords of the song.  Other unforgettable examples are Al Kooper’s organ melody that opens ‘Like A Rolling Stone’, Al Gorgoni’s guitar lick for ‘Brown-Eyed Girl’, Steve Cropper’s 6ths for ‘Soul Man’.

And why not include Chuck Berry’s immortal ‘Chuck Berry Intro’, which set the table for so many songs of his (and others)?

These licks and grooves are integrally connected to the song but aren’t replicated in other sections (unless the Intro is repeated). They add another hook to the song.

Some Intros use a specific counter-melody that’s comes from a section of the song (usually the Chorus) but also stands on its own, as with the harmonized guitars of ‘Layla’.

Using the main Instrumental riff of the song is one of the most common approaches. Often it’s a guitar riff – ‘Rolling In The Deep’, Smells Like Teen Spirit’, ‘Start Me Up’, ‘My Girl’, ‘Highway To Hell’, ‘Lose Yourself’, and yes… ‘Smoke On The Water’. Or a Bass line – ‘I Want You Back’, ‘Living On A Prayer’, ‘Papa Was A Rolling Stone’. Or Drums – ‘Billie Jean’, ‘Straight Outta Compton’. And Piano/Keyboard – ‘King Of Pain’, ‘Jump’, ‘Bennie And The Jets’, ‘Watermelon Man’.

Or just start with the unembellished rhythm track itself, if it’s grabby, like ‘Family Affair’ (MJ Blige version).

One of the most interesting ways to go is to take part of the arrangement that’s already there and develop it further, just as an Intro, to create a mood. Some examples include ‘Come Together’, ‘Vogue’, and what may be my nominee for best Intro ever, ‘Gimme Shelter’ (the mood of menace, par excellence).

The Beatles were great at Intros, as they were at most things to do with making pop music. There are outliers like ‘A Hard Day’s Night’. One chord, played once… How did they think of that?

Did I mention using a sound? How about ‘I Feel Fine’?

And sometimes No Intro is a good idea. Jump right in with the Chorus, like in ‘She Loves You’…

These categories are very broad and fluid, and they overlap. The idea is to keep one’s ears open, as the song unfolds, for something that will work. Sometimes the coolest thing in the song is not the most important in the song itself, but can be repurposed as an Intro.

What are some Intros you love and where, if anywhere, do they come from in the song? Or how have you found them in your own songs?

Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below the video –

The post How To Find Your Intro appeared first on Tony Conniff.

As Max Martin says, “I like it when a song is like a journey, building up along the way. That they start out smaller than they end. Along the trip, you add elements that make the listener less likely to tire…”

To break down the main elements:

* The Chords give the song a bit of a ‘dancehall’, almost carnival-like, vibe and are very propulsive. This is the riff that starts the song in the 2 bar Intro. Overall it’s the beginning of the same 8 bar pattern that plays through all Verses and Choruses.

* Bass plays variations on a basic pattern throughout the Verses and Choruses. The most unusual aspect is that the bass doesn’t play at all on the downbeat of each bar – the bass drum takes care of that and the bass begins each bar by bouncing on the second 16th note.

* Drums and Percussion consist of a fat bass drum (syncopated in the Verses, playing every quarter note in the Choruses), claps on beats 2 & 4, and a 16th note shaker-like sound way in the background. Finger Snaps are also used with and in place of claps.

* Lead Vocal has a pristine sound, clear and present, mostly without a lot of apparent effects (although there are quite a few that aren’t immediately apparent). The effects on the Lead Vocal change from section to section; typical in this kind of production.

Intermittent elements:

* Background Vocals and Lead Vocal ad-libs in Choruses.

* Synths in Pre-Chorus and Rap/Bridge  (different sounds for each; both are very different from the main synth/chord sound).

* Guitar – single-note – in Pre-Chorus only.

* High, swirly string sound in bars 6-8 of Verses and Choruses (You’ve got to listen closely for this!).

There’s always something new happening when a new section enters. This is a big part of the Max Martin production approach.

As he says, “If you listen to the first, second and third chorus of a song, they don’t sound the same. It’s the same melody and all that but what really happens is that the energy changes. It’s all about getting the listener to keep his or her concentration… Then, at the end, euphoria.”

Let’s walk through this song and see how this is done.

(Note that at end of every section there’s some kind of final ’build’ element to excite the transitions – almost like the way a drum fill would function in a band… either a ‘backwards cymbal’-type effect, vocal delay repeats, or some kind of fill.)

* Intro. The first 2 bars introduce the Verse instrumental elements (Chords, Bass, Drums)) but with the low end frequencies removed; a kind of ’telephone’ effect.

* Double Verse. When the Vocal enters everything kicks in full-frequency, giving the song a real jump-start. Listen for the high string line that fades in in bar 6 all the Verses and Choruses.

* Pre-Chorus. Total contrast. No Drums or Percussion at all. A new big Synth sound (joined by bass) bangs out the chord changes while a 16th note Guitar playing single notes keeps the rhythm – both new elements are very ’80s! Long delay on the Lead Vocal.

* Double Chorus. The Bass Drum switches to ‘4 on the floor’, hitting every beat. The Verse elements are joined by Perry’s doubled lead Vocal (with a short delay added), and Background Vocals (with a lot of reverb and delay, to contrast with the Lead) that emphasize words that are important both lyrically and musically – ’Turn it up’ (2x),  ‘Yeah’, ‘Mm-Hmm’, ‘Drink’, ’To the rhythm’ (3x). Then there’s an extra bar of Drums (with an overlay of vocal repeats) that transitions to –

* Verse. This is very interesting. All the elements are exactly the same as Verse 1 except… the track (not the Vocal) has a filter on it that, at the start of the Verse, removes all its high frequencies. Almost all thet’s there is the Lead Vocal. As the Verse progresses, the filter gradually sweeps the frequencies back in, until the sound is back to being full-range by the end. The claps on 2 & 4 are out for the first half and then fade back in too. Check it out; I love this.

* Pre-Chorus. This is pretty much identical to the first Pre-Chorus, except it has claps and snaps on 2 & 4.

* Double Chorus. Also almost the same as the first Choruses, with the addition of vocal ad-libs by Perry.

* Bridge/Rap. This has no drums or percussion – only a grandiose organ-type synth sound. The rhythm is carried by the rap, sometimes with doubled voices and delays, ending with vocal triplets that lead into –

* Chorus. Nothing plays on the downbeat here. The vocal comes in as usual on the ‘and’ of 1 and the track returns on the second beat… creating a ‘falling off the cliff’ effect for a second. The rest of this single Chorus continues as usual, with additional ad-libs from Perry.

* Final Chorus. The regular Chorus vocal melody and lyric go away until the end, replaced by repeats of “It goes on and on and on…”, with Perry ad-libbing, until –

* Ending. Voices only, singing the Title, “Yes we’re all Chained To The Rhythm”. Very effective; another surprise at the end.

OK… That’s all I’m going to write about this song… for now!

Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs beneath the video –

The post Under The Hood Of An Exceptional Song, part 3 (production) appeared first on Tony Conniff.

So why would you reverse that and start a Verse/Chorus song with the Chorus?

One big benefit is that you start the song, and hopefully grab the listener, with the strongest and most memorable part of your song. If they go for it, you’re in. It makes the song more of an ‘all-in’ situation – you either win them at the top or you don’t. You’re not gradually hooking them.

The downside is that if your strongest section doesn’t do the job, you’ve lost. And that doesn’t mean you have a weak Chorus. Many very good Choruses need a lead-in. Think of ‘My Girl’. Or ‘Billie Jean’. Or ‘Sugar’. Great Choruses… but would you start with them? Bad idea.

It depends on how well the Chorus works as a stand-alone the first time through, without any lead-in.

When you start with an Intro and a Verse, you have a chance to build up suspense and mystery: Where, both lyrically and musically, is this leading? The answer usually being: the Chorus.

Successful songs that begin with the Chorus also create mystery, but in a different way. The listener looks forward to an explanation, a fuller accounting, of what the Chorus lyric is about.

Think of ‘Can’t Buy Me Love’ – What (or Who) can’t buy me love? Or ‘Help’? “All About That Bass’ – What’s all about that bass?’  ‘I Shot The Sheriff’ – Who? Why? ‘Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)’ – of what? ‘Fast Car’ What’s that about?

Then there are songs where opening with the Chorus is more of a declaration of intent, a bugle call, like in ’Get The Party Started’, ‘Good Times’, and ‘She Loves You’.

It’s worth noting that starting with the Chorus or not is usually something you know when you’re writing the song – but not always. It can sometimes be more of an an arrangement/production decision.

In most cases the more common Verse/Chorus (or Verse/Pre-Chorus/Chorus) beginning is the best way to go. I find that starting with the Chorus is a feel thing – sometimes it just makes more sense, it feels correct. But if you’ve never tried it, if it’s not yet a feel thing for you, you might consider checking out what it feels like to start your song with the Chorus. Sometimes it’s just right.

Thoughts?

Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below the video –

The post When To Start Your Song With The Chorus appeared first on Tony Conniff.

Recordings that are great but not too hard to understand are good to learn from, whether you’re an experienced producer or not. The recording of ‘She Blinded Me With Science’ by Thomas Dolby (listen below… and read along) works well along these lines. It’s a very ‘80s record with an arrangement/production that still pops out of the speakers.

I want to focus on the use of Contrast in the arrangement. Contrast and variety are important elements in keeping most things interesting. In a recording it’s usually good to have a varied mix of registers and sounds (low/high, thick/thin, etc.). ‘Science’, with its use of unusual and extreme (and extremely catchy) parts  is a great example of this.

The song starts with a melodic riff… that leads right into the main groove, which consists of three elements – a drum beat, a funky bass line, and a percussive keyboard part. These primary sounds are very crisp, and the bass and drums are fat and deep, leaving plenty of room for other unexpected developments to come through clearly.

Notice how the bass line is doubled with an instrument a few octaves up, so it really cuts through.

As the vocal starts (this is the Chorus) also notice how the same thing is done with the lead vocal – it’s doubled by a very high female-sounding voice… which also adds wackiness…,. which will become a major aspect of this arrangement.

Then notice that when the Title is introduced, it’s immediately trailed by a wavy synth sound that’s unlike the others we’ve heard so far, which have been punchy (think Contrast)

Then an ‘old codger’, out of nowhere, speaks the Title (‘She blinded me with science!’) with a lot of personality… things are getting weirder…

Then the intro riff again… and back to the groove, now with a funky rhythm guitar added.

Now we’re in the Verse. After each of the Verse’s two lines, there are unusual events. First a pitched-up-with-helium-like female voice sings ‘Blinded me with science’, followed by a very low (Contrast) foghorn-like synth playing another catchy riff.

(And remember that all of the rhythm parts – drums, bass, percussive synth, guitar – are punchy and have very little sustain and no long reverbs or delays in their sound. Due to this crispness, the other sounds come through clearly – there’s room for all the crazy stuff; it doesn’t get lost in clutter.)

Then, after the ‘old codger’ pipes in with a few more repeats of ‘Science!’ it goes back to the Verse.

These are the main parts of the song – Chorus and Verse – and what I’d like you to focus on today. Each Verse and Chorus doesn’t vary much between one and the next. There is a Bridge, which is fun but mainly just a nice change of pace (Contrast).

To review, the main elements are not many, but all very hooky and well chosen:

* Drum beat
* Bass line (doubled high)
* Percussive rhythm synth
* Lead Vocal (doubled high)
* ‘Old codger’ (repeating the Title)
* Rhythm Guitar
* ‘Helium female’ (repeating the Title)
* Low ‘foghorn’ synth part

This is a record that repays some close listening. After 30 years it still sounds good and offers a lot to learn for the record-maker… as well as a lot of fun for the listener.

By the way, notice how much and in how many ways the Title gets repeated and reinforced…?

Please let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below the video –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWGXt979yg

The post Improve Your Recordings By Using Contrast appeared first on Tony Conniff.

So I’m going to start occasionally using this blog to look at the recording aspect of songwriting. It can’t be ignored. Even if you don’t become a sophisticated producer/engineer (few do), having some knowledge of what you’re listening to and why it works or doesn’t work is important… just as it is with writing.

Also, you can watch the 10 minute video to your right for some basics ->

Though there are many new and exciting things happening in songwriting right now, many of the songs that become popular, or even hits, are still quite traditional. However, they’re usually dressed up, production-wise, in ways that let the listener clearly know they’re hearing something contemporary.

Hip Hop has been doing this for a long time – originally by the DJ using old samples and the MC layering something new on top.

Sometimes I compare this to fashion. You can wear something vintage, but if it’s combined with something recent, or from a different period, it puts a different spin on it. Something that might have looked dated can, because of what’s next to it, become very contemporary.

As a simple example of this principle, I’m going to use a song I discussed last week, Duffy’s ‘Mercy’, produced by her co-writer, Steve Booker (listen below). As I said last week, the song and production have a ‘60s feel. Arrangement-wise this is created in the Intro by the ‘Stand By Me’-like bass line that starts the song (played by pizzicato strings), the classic cheesy Farfisa organ sound, the chant of ‘Yeah, Yeah, Yeah’. But…

Duffy’s quick talking at the very beginning hints that all is not as it seems (“Take it to the Verse now”). Then, about 23 seconds in, when the song hits the Vminor chord (discussed at length last week), they drop in  a sound that could never have come from the era that the rest of the instruments and parts suggest – an analog synth patch that sounds like it’s right off a Thomas Dolby record from the ‘80s.

This blows up the whole ‘authentic’ (if ironic) ’60s vibe and changes it into something else.

You don’t have to be keeping track of the eras of these sounds to sense, maybe subconsciously, the juxtaposition and to realize that the blend of eras tells you this is a contemporary recording (at least it was 8 years ago), not a ’60s one.

This is a simple and effective example of taking an element or elements that traditionally speaking don’t fit together, and between them creating a hybrid that feels neither really ‘old’ nor completely new. The recording is looking back at Then… but looking from Now. It feels ‘retro’, not ‘classic’.

I’m not suggesting one is better than the other, but sometimes it’s interesting to think about how you can take a song that’s traditional in its writing and, by blending in some arrangement elements that weren’t around in that classic period, whenever it was, create a recording that feels ‘Now’ instead of ‘Then’ – sometimes  without changing the writing at all.

Please let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below:

And please share on facebook etc. by clicking the tabs below the video –

The post How To Make A Song Written In A Classic Style Sound Contemporary appeared first on Tony Conniff.